Proof How Your Religion Could Be Made Up

[sealybobo]

They are not eyewitness accounts.

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

If you really investigate it you'll see the bibles are hearsay. All of it. Do you know what hearsay is? I hope you refute 1 & 2 on whynogod. Read it. Or would that be blasphemous?

I am afraid you have lost your bible.....

Oh no! This blog’s domain whynogod.com expired 36 days ago!

Somehow I got in yesterday? I saw that a couple days ago too.

Thanks for making the effort to go look though.

I've read your bullshit source before....it contained nothing but some idiot atheist's complaints about what he imagined Christians were arguing.....to call his lame-brained arguments "evidence" just shows how far from reality you atheists roam.......

Funny I'm getting in???

Why there is no god

1. There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
   
   The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
   
   The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] andcontradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and ispoorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
   
   See also: Visualisation of Bible Contradictions (must read), Argument from the Bible,Criticisms of the Bible, Consistency of the Bible, A Compendium of Disbelief,Deconversion: The Bible and A History of God (both must watch), BBC The History of God.
   
   Origins of the Bible: PBS Buried Secrets, CH4 Who wrote the Bible? (a must watch).
   
   “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” – Isaac Asimov
   
   
2. Biblical Jesus was real.
   There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
   
   All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
   
   The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and isfactually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
   
   The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
   
   Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
   

 

[sealybobo]

They are not eyewitness accounts.

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

If you really investigate it you'll see the bibles are hearsay. All of it. Do you know what hearsay is? I hope you refute 1 & 2 on whynogod. Read it. Or would that be blasphemous?

I am afraid you have lost your bible.....

Oh no! This blog’s domain whynogod.com expired 36 days ago!

Somehow I got in yesterday? I saw that a couple days ago too.

Thanks for making the effort to go look though.

I've read your bullshit source before....it contained nothing but some idiot atheist's complaints about what he imagined Christians were arguing.....to call his lame-brained arguments "evidence" just shows how far from reality you atheists roam.......

Zero contemporary evidence of Jesus. All hearsay.

Did Jesus exist

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

 

[sealybobo]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

 

[sealybobo]

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, one can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel simply accepted the story of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Historians tell us of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and provided the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

 

[sealybobo]

The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.

 

[sealybobo]

The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a Hellenized Jew. Some scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke came from the Mark gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source"). [Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship. Moreover, other scholars challenge its existence and those who do think Q existed have problems explaining it. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.

 

[sealybobo]

Even in antiquity people like Origen and Eusebius raised doubts about the authenticity of other books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, James, John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude, and Revelation. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James calling it worthless and an "epistle of straw" and questioned Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. Nevertheless, all New Testament writings came well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors (with the possible exception of Paul, although still after the alleged death).

 

[sealybobo]

They are not eyewitness accounts.

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

If you really investigate it you'll see the bibles are hearsay. All of it. Do you know what hearsay is? I hope you refute 1 & 2 on whynogod. Read it. Or would that be blasphemous?

I am afraid you have lost your bible.....

Oh no! This blog’s domain whynogod.com expired 36 days ago!

Somehow I got in yesterday? I saw that a couple days ago too.

Thanks for making the effort to go look though.

I've read your bullshit source before....it contained nothing but some idiot atheist's complaints about what he imagined Christians were arguing.....to call his lame-brained arguments "evidence" just shows how far from reality you atheists roam.......

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

 

[sealybobo]

Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from a historical account.

 

[sealybobo]

Scholars tell us the epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author. Some suggest that these writings of John come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name). No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts.

 

[sealybobo]

Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985). The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay.

 

[sealybobo]

Epistle of Jude: Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek.

 

[sealybobo]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

 

[sealybobo]

They are not eyewitness accounts.

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

Because the people who wrote the bible in 1600 didn't see it happen. Look and fucking read 1 & 2 on whynogod.com or just fucking google "who wrote the bible" and see peter Paul john and Luke did not write the bibles. They didn't even tell the authors what happened while they wrote it down. If you think they did you're delusional. Look at what most experts believe who and when the bibles were written and get back to me. And don't go to your christian sites. They are the ones lying to you lady not me. Why would I lie? You dont put money in my collection plate and I promise I'm not the devil. Your priest is. Run!

Wow, you really don't know the slightest bit of history do you? The Bible is made up of two books, the Old and the New Testaments. The Old testament was written approximately 1400 BCE. The oldest surviving manuscript is I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, of 200 BCE but I could be wrong on that. The New Testament was written in approximately 45-95 AD. The oldest known surviving example is around 125 AD and contains a small portion of the book of John IIRC, it is written on papyrus.

The oldest known complete Bible with both Old and New Testaments is a codex dated around 300-359 AD. The 1400ish Bible is the first one PRINTED on a printing machine, it's also called the Gutenberg Bible and was printed in latin. The 1600's Bible was the first one printed in English and is called the King James Bible because of that. The book has been around a real, real long time.

Before you start trying to teach others, you had better learn the very basics.

The first five books of the bible in Judaism are called the Torah are attributed to having have been written between the 16th century and the 12th century BCE by Moses, but scholars now believe that they were actually written by four main sources known as JEDP. This modern explanation of authorship is justified by variations in writing styles, differences in language choice especially in reference to God, tones in writing, contradictory and repetitious segments, and that the books refer to Moses in third person as well as describing his death. Followers of the Copenhagen School place its origins in 5th century. So you said 1400 and scholars believe it was 500 bc. Big fucking difference. Pretty sketchy wouldn't you say?

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time?

 

[sealybobo]

They are not eyewitness accounts.

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

Because the people who wrote the bible in 1600 didn't see it happen. Look and fucking read 1 & 2 on whynogod.com or just fucking google "who wrote the bible" and see peter Paul john and Luke did not write the bibles. They didn't even tell the authors what happened while they wrote it down. If you think they did you're delusional. Look at what most experts believe who and when the bibles were written and get back to me. And don't go to your christian sites. They are the ones lying to you lady not me. Why would I lie? You dont put money in my collection plate and I promise I'm not the devil. Your priest is. Run!

Wow, you really don't know the slightest bit of history do you? The Bible is made up of two books, the Old and the New Testaments. The Old testament was written approximately 1400 BCE. The oldest surviving manuscript is I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, of 200 BCE but I could be wrong on that. The New Testament was written in approximately 45-95 AD. The oldest known surviving example is around 125 AD and contains a small portion of the book of John IIRC, it is written on papyrus.

The oldest known complete Bible with both Old and New Testaments is a codex dated around 300-359 AD. The 1400ish Bible is the first one PRINTED on a printing machine, it's also called the Gutenberg Bible and was printed in latin. The 1600's Bible was the first one printed in English and is called the King James Bible because of that. The book has been around a real, real long time.

Before you start trying to teach others, you had better learn the very basics.

In the period extending roughly from AD 50 to 150, a number of documents began to circulate among the churches, including epistles, gospel accounts, memoirs, prophecies, homilies, and collections of teachings.

So 50 to 150 years after the cult started to organize, they started writing their NEW Testament. If you're gonna have a religion you got to have a book.

 

[sealybobo]

Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle,[71] most scholars today consider this passage to be an interpolation

John 21:24 identifies the author of the Gospel of John as "the beloved disciple," and from the late 2nd century this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified with John the son of Zebedee.[91] Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30–31.[92] The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95,[70][93] and propose that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.

Sorry if MOST SCHOLARS today don't believe John wrote John or Paul wrote Paul. Because they didn't. Yet for 1600 years Christians have been fooled into believing this.

Though 2 Peter states its author as "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ", most scholars today regard as pseudonymous, and many hold the same opinion of James, 1 Peter and Jude

 

[Muslim75]

Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985). The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay.

Since there are so many religions, then God Almighty must exist. People are not as coward as to invent a God just so they can feel secure.

Since there are all these religions, then any given religion is most likely to be made up. This is so because only one religion can ultimately be true. It can not be Christianity just because Jesus supposedly said he was God, while Abraham, Moses, Noah, David, etc, did not. If Jesus said he was God, yet a human being, he is keeping other humans in immense slavery because he did not say anything about this universe. He is keeping all to himself while we are humans, same as he, and he could tell us about those matters. In brief, Christianity makes no sense.

One senses that the truth must be in one of the 3 great monotheistic religions. The only one that makes sense is Islam because it puts together all the pieces of the puzzle. It teaches about Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah, David, Solomon, etc, and Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). It teaches that they all came with the same message, but as time advanced the message needed to be reformed; and also people corrupted the messages. Jesus warned about a false prophet. Muhammad also did. This false prophet comes in the end times. All this wrong things you see that did not exist in previous times and bring disasters on mankind, that's the false prophet. Islam is the religion that puts together all the pieces of the puzzle. Islam can never be a religion made up. As such, all other religions are made up. This is only common sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

 

[sealybobo]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

 

[sealybobo]

One was written first and the others plagerized