The Evidence for Christianity

Blaise Pascal, writing in the middle part of the 17th century devised his famous wager in which he laid out an argument based on probabilities that demonstrated that the best possible choice a man could make was to believe in God. This seemed to make a great deal of sense to the only dominant religion of the time. At the same time it sat uneasily among many Christians who felt that belief based on a calculation of probabilities made a mockery of Christian faith.

Ultimately, Pascal's wager falls apart because it assumes only one type of God and does not account for the possibility that even if God does exist, he might not resemble the one envisioned by the majority of Pascal's readers. If God is not as the Christian Bible describes then those checking Pascal's box number one have a problem that the wager does not account for in its probabilities.

18 Reasons Why Christianity is a Manmade Concoction

Taken individually, every single challenge, every perceived contradiction, and every improbability can be explained to the satisfaction of Christians wanting to believe. Cumulatively though; they point to one clear conclusion: Christianity is an entirely manmade creation and cannot possibly be an accurate depiction of human experience on Earth.

1: The Bible exists as a single, collective unit only in its published form. Its origins are both diverse and dissimilar. Because one particular book of the Bible has a single author and supportive archeological evidence does not mean that any other of the books does likewise. Treating the Bible as a whole (New Testament and Old Testament) is entirely misplaced and Christian arguments for its inerrancy as a single unit makes absolutely no sense. That Christians have simply appropriated the evidence for the Hebrew Bible's accuracy and copyist tradition and applied it to their own scriptures demonstrates how little evidence exists for the accuracy and truthfulness of their own Christian Bible. 2: Both Jesus and Paul expected the apocalypse in their lifetime. That we are still around on a planet ruled more by injustice than the inverse demonstrates that both were simply wrong. Each made specific predictions about when the apocalyptic event would occur and both were absolutely and unequivocally wrong. Christianity as a religion began under false premises and developed as theology designed to sidestep its ill conceived origin.

3: The Apostle Paul, in expanding his religious teachings beyond its Jewish origins made an assumption that is preposterous in its very nature, rendering his entire theology false. In order to include non-Jews among those under the potential umbrella of salvation Paul had to expand the messianic message to all people. He took the God of the Israelites and made it the God of all humans. This allowed him to preach his message to non-Jews. That more than half the world's population would not and could not be aware of this "universal God" for more than a thousand years presents a problem that Paul was not even aware of. Paul was most likely unaware of the fact the Chinese even existed. If there was one universal God why would he exclude a majority of human population from the possibility of knowing of his existence?

If the God of the Bible does exist he must be what the Jews explain him as: The God of the Israelites. A single, universal God could not localize himself to one region and population center and play favoritism, excluding the majority of his creation from even knowing that he exists.

4: In spite of what Christians want to believe there is actually no evidence of the historicity of Jesus outside the New Testament; none! Any Christian that claims otherwise is lying. There is not one single contemporary reference to an historical Jesus. The few writers Christian's cite (Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonlus, Pliny) all wrote many decades after Jesus and their references were to the existence of Christians, not Jesus. Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that the references in Tacitus, and especially Josephus are merely later Christian additions.

The highlight of this lack of evidence comes with the writings of the historian Philo of Alexandria. If there was a non-Christian writer that should have mentioned Jesus, it was Philo. Philo lived during the same period as an historical Jesus, wrote extensively about all the major characters of the day including the historical characters of the Jesus drama, yet never mentions, hints, or alludes to a teacher dangerous enough to scare all the political leaders of the day. That no mention exists or is even alluded to brings into question the reliability of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life.

The lack of evidence is generally not considered a definitive reason to dismiss a historical possibility. The evidence may have existed but is simply lost. However; this is not what Christians claim. Furthermore, the Christian descriptions of the age makes the absence of evidence even more striking. The Gospels describe Jesus as a hugely popular figure commanding audiences in the thousands and putting such fear into both the Jewish and Roman authorities that they had to have him eliminated. This walking, talking miracle maker with multitudes of followers somehow completely slips through history. Adding further weight is the fact that early Christians considered it necessary to falsify evidence to cover up for the lack of real evidence. Whether it was injecting commentary directly into the writing of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus or creating a fictitious dialog between Paul and Roman philosopher Seneca (how could the leading philosopher of the day not talk with Paul?), the pattern for Christian redaction is very evident. In fact; Christians themselves provide incontrovertible evidence that Christian writers have a penchant for invention and will usurp the name of popular characters to do it. There are numerous Gospels written by various Jesus' narrative figures that Christians themselves admit are false. Someone made up the words of Judas, Mary, Peter, Thomas, Nicodemus, Barnabas, Phillip, Andrew, and numerous others demonstrating the Christian tendency toward fabrication. While the coverup is not evidence of the crime it certainly casts a shadow on the credibility of the early Christian adherents and provides no reason to support the truth of the New Testament but ample evidence to support its refutation.

5: An important clue into the viability of the Christian message can be found in how Christian defenders handle deleterious evidence. Despite significant evidence that Josephus' Testimonium Flavius is a later Christian rewrite, Christian writers continue to cite it as truth. Some do not even acknowledge the evidence that it is a later Christian redaction. Others mention it but dismiss it without explanation. Their citations without acknowledging the contrary evidence tells a lot about what is the Christian threshold for the admission of evidence.

6: Probably the most frequently employed defense of Christianity and least persuasive defense is that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies. The argument is laughable on its face and even more ridiculous when examined closely.

As anyone that has ever attempted to write a mystery story knows, an author typically begins by envisioning the final outcome then works backward to put the pieces of the mystery together. In much the same way, anyone can create a character to fit some specific, predefined guidelines if one knows some of those guidelines and has a blank slate to work with. It is very clear that the first three Gospels have a common literately history. One Gospel came first with the other two borrowing liberally from its story line. Whoever penned the first Gospel could fulfill any prophecies he chose. The follow up writers were equally free to expand and create as they saw fit. The only thing these writers substantiate is a bit of knowledge about the Hebrew Bible and an awareness of the messianic traditions circulating throughout ancient Israel.

Did Jesus predict the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem or was the story written after the Temple's destruction in 70 AD? At this point it is impossible to know for certain and it simply depends on what someone wants to believe. However; this is not how Christians portray this writing. They cite this as actual evidence, once again turning mere conjecture into something substantial. Based on what is known about the body of Christian writing and their threshold of acceptance the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that if the literature discusses the fall of the Temple then it was written after the date of the fall.

The argument gets even more absurd when Christians begin interpreting Old Testament scriptures to read into it prophetic depictions of Christ. In essence any sentence from the Hebrew scripture can be a foretelling of the Christ story if one chooses to make it. Moses keeping his arms out stretched is interpreted as a prediction of Jesus' crucifixion. How is it that a rabbi can read his scripture and see absolutely nothing that points to Jesus as the messiah? The answer is that one must already be a believer; already accept that the Hebrew scriptures are foretelling the story of Christ, in order to find these revelations. An objective look at the scriptures without a Christian looking over ones shoulder to point out the "hidden messages" reveals nothing about Christ within the Hebrew texts. As with everything else, the idea that Christ fulfilled some prophetic landscape is entirely the invention of Christian writers trying to create a divine leader that many have existed, but only as a man.

Paradoxically, the most important elements in the messianic mission are those Jesus absolutely did not fulfill; namely the defeat of Israel's enemies and the gathering in of all the peoples of the covenant to the land of David. As a result early Christians developed a convenient means for creating their divine leader. He fulfilled the prophecies that no one can verify or negated, altered, or dismissed those that are verifiable. In both cases fulfilled prophecy provides nothing to substantiate any claims put forth by Christian apologists.

7: The Gospels are assumed to be eyewitness accounts of Jesus life and death. At least this is the way they are interpreted by Christians. However; there is absolutely no way this can be true. Two Gospels (Matthew and Luke) each detail stories about Jesus birth. No disciples were present at these or any of the subsequent events. There was no such thing as a disciple in the year Jesus was purported to be born. Hypothetically Mary or even Joseph could have recanted the stories at some later date but even they would have no knowledge of any secret meeting between Herod and the magi. Furthermore, the only possible legitimate witness to Jesus as the son of God, Mary, is particularly ridiculous. At one point in the Gospel of Mark Mary believed Jesus had lost his mind. Did Mary forget that Jesus was implanted in her miraculously by God? Why would Mary have even been surprised when Jesus was conversing with rabbis at the age of 12? This was, after all, the son of God and she would have been the only person on the planet to know this as a fact.

This demonstrates the Gospels to be exactly what the critics claim them to be: engaging stories of cobbled together myths and legends around a character that may (or may not) have existed as some form of religious teacher.

8: In his 1972 book "In Search of the Twelve Disciples", author William McBirnie details the lives and ghastly deaths of Jesus' earliest followers. According to McBirnie this becomes evidence for the truth of Christianity because these followers were the only people to actually know the real Jesus so why would they sacrifice they're own lives for something they knew not to be true?

Christians frequently find this message both inspiring and supportive of their "faith." What it really demonstrates is that Christians will grasp at anything that helps strengthen their beliefs without for a moment questioning anything beyond the most superficial.

There are, in fact, numerous examples of people dying for something they believe to be true which actually was not. Christians frequently deride the Mormon faithful as following false teaching yet hundreds of Latter Day Saints died believing theirs was the true faith. The Heaven's Gate cult group committed mass suicide believing they were to be rescued by a passing comet. Many fundamentalist Muslims go to their death believing they are acting out God's wishes. Since they cannot all be right someone is dying for a false belief. Clearly, dying for one's religious beliefs does not make those beliefs true. The message that should stand out is that Christians will believe just about anything as long as it fits their pre-defined view of the world. Their level of scrutiny is so minimal and their gullibility so high that any credibility one might want to assign to this group is probably too generous.

9: When examining the credibility of Christian theology one need look no further than their description of God to come to the obvious conclusion that it is a manmade religion. The early Christians needed to put their leader on par with other religious leaders so Jesus the man became Jesus the divine. Of course, they already had a divine, the Hebrew God (we won't drift into Gnosticism or Marcionism here). Jesus himself also supposedly referred to the divine in the form of a spirit, giving Christians three divine beings. Of course, they are monotheistic so the three are actually one in the form of the Holy Trinity. Strangely, the only Biblical reference to a trinity did not exist and was not referred to or acknowledged in any of the earliest writings. The concept did not creep into their theology until a few centuries later and really became accepted theology only in the late fourth century. It then got inserted into the Bible, known today as the Johannine Comma.

Three divines equals one divine is so crazy a notion that even the most sophisticated Christian theologians cannot explain it. "It is a mystery." The reason it is an unexplainable mystery is because the whole concept is so patently ridiculous it can be no more than a mystery. Only men, desperate to make incompatible concepts fit together could devise this idea. It is simply one more preposterous principle that must be accepted by checking one's intellect at the door. One can simply add this to the pile of absurdities that form the core of belief for both Catholics and most Protestants.

10: Throughout the two millennia that Christians have been writing defenses of their religion they have had to rely on bait and switch arguments, arguing points that describe a perspective different from Christianity, then taking its conclusions and misapplying them to Christian concepts. The best example of this are the various arguments for the existence of God. The problem for all of these arguments is not so much that they do not establish anything close to proof of God's existence. Rather; they establish the possibility of a God that need have no resemblance to the God described by Christians. Even establishing that a divine creator exists implies nothing about the Christian God. The argument for a creator does not rule out numerous gods, nor does it say anything about that God being personal and interactive. In fact, no argument for the existence of God contains any provision for that creator interacting with humans. This has always been the creation of man's imagination and his need to explain what he cannot explain on his own. Apologists cannot seem to comprehend that their arguments for the existence of God say nothing about Christianity.

11: In order to believe in the Christianity that became the version accepted by Catholics and most Protestant faiths, it is absolutely essential to believe the Earth is no more than a few thousand years old. Any evidence to the contrary negates this version of Christianity. Strangely, only fundamentalist Protestants seem to understand this reality.

The Apostle Paul and more directly the author of the Gospel of John, taught that Jesus provides salvation for the original sin of man. This original sin came from Adam's disobedience of God in the Garden of Eden. If one accepts the Genesis story as allegory, myth, or anything else short of absolute truth then the concept of salvation falls away. If factually there was no Adam and Eve story then there was no original sin. There is nothing to be saved from and consequently nothing the Christian version of Christ can provide. Quite simply, if the Earth is more than a few thousand years old then Christianity is a false religion.

On the flip side, an older Earth does not necessarily rule out Jesus as a philosopher and does not rule out the Jewish version of Messiah. It may not even rule out the existence of God as a creator. It just makes salvation from sin a promise that cannot be fulfilled and rules out the Christian version of creation.

12: In recent centuries Christians have bristled at the notion that their canon of scripture was voted on and accepted by men trying to put forth one of many competing versions of Christianity. While it is true there was no vote and the canon was not selected by any one person or group, it is equally true that there was no complete consensus either. The famous Roman theologian Jerome (translator of the famous Latin Vulgate version of the Bible) fought very hard to keep the book of Revelation out of the Bible. Jerome also believed that the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible aside from the Pentateuch were poor translations of the original. This was directly against the message being put forth by other church leaders arguing for the purity of the Greek translations because these were the only ones they could read.

There was tremendous disagreement about the Book of Hebrews, as well as about its authorship. Many thought the Gospel of Peter deserved inclusion as well as one or more of the additional apocalypses, including Peter's Apocalypse. Some ancient manuscripts included the apocalypic Shepherd of Hermes and thought it was scriptural. Various Christian churches throughout the Empire relied upon Gospels that told very different messages from those told in the four canonical Gospels. Were they Christians?

The Bible that did make its way through history has thousands of errors, omissions, and additions that most Christians simply ignore. No early version has Jesus asking anyone without sin to cast the first stone. This was added many centuries later. No early version has anything to say about a so called "Holy Trinity." No early version has a post resurrected Jesus calling upon his followers to spread his message or to handle serpents. There is, in fact, no validity to the claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Anyone that argues this point does not know the history of the Bible. In order to accept Christianity as taught by fundamental believers one must be entirely ignorant of the basic facts of their Bible's development.

13: If there is any event that should be agreeable to all accounts of the story of Jesus, it should be his death and resurrection. Unfortunately, the four Gospels directly contradict each other about the day in such a striking manner that they cannot all be right. In one Gospel he died on the day of Passover. In another he died on the day of preparation for the Passover. In another he died the day after eating the Passover meal. One could be true but all cannot therefore all four Gospels are not telling the same story in any historical fashion. If one holds the four Gospels side by side it is plainly clear that their differences are significant enough to rule out the inerrancy claims made by fundamentalists. If the single most important event in the history of Christianity was not reported accurately, was any?

14: The Book of Revelation demonstrates all of the problems that make accepting the Christian version of their Bible impossible. It is known as the Apocalypse of John but only the most ignorant believe this is the same John that wrote the Gospel according to John although this encompasses most everyday Christians. The manuscripts are vastly different in style and quality of language. One was written by someone very literate in Greek. The other is written in very poor Greek. They are obviously not penned by the same author.

There was a great number of debates whether the Apocalypse of John (Revelation) should be included in the Bible. Ironically, the argument made for its inclusion was that it was authored by the same person who wrote the Gospel of John (even though this Gospel is not actually claimed to have been written by a man named John). If it had been determined that the Book of Revelation had not been written by the same author as the Gospel, there is little chance it would have made it into the biblical canon. Since we now know with as much certainty as one can know about an ancient writing that the two books have different authors, we also know the Christians that chose to include this book based on this reason, were wrong.

Amazingly, Christians today continue to insist that the two books share the same author. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. While Revelation is clearly written by someone named John (stated up front), the Gospel of John makes no such claim. Some faction of Christians are obviously wrong although there is a much greater chance both are wrong. That Christians simply choose to ignore even the most blatant examples demonstrates once more how low their standard of acceptance actually is and how willing they are to accept as facts things that bare no resemblance to the truth.

15: That the authorship of the Book of Revelation is in question is only one of the issues surrounding the most controversial book in the Christian Bible. For centuries Christians have used the Book of Revelation as a prognostication of the end time that they believed they were living in. Today the Book is used in exactly this same manner by many on the fundamentalist side of Christianity. Oddly, the actual author was making no claim about events long in the future. He believed his apocalypse was very shortly to come and the places and people he described were very much of his own time. According to the legends John was a bitter old man expelled to a desolate island where he wrote with a venomous pen detailing how his persecutors would shortly regret their transgression. The whore of Babylon was John's code for this wicked personage. As the seals are opened one after another God pours forth his wrath on the wicked. The author is actually very specific about who and where these wicked reside. The whore is adorned in purple garments, the garments of the Roman ruling class. The author further explains that the woman is a great city that rules over the kings of the Earth. She is sitting on a beast whose seven heads represents seven hills. There was only one city known to be the city of seven hills. It is the same city that adorned its leaders in purple and was the ruler of their known world.

That the Book of Revelation was detailing punishment for the City of Rome should be painfully obvious. Despite this Christians through the ages have read this book as a description, not of Rome, but of their own time. At the turn of the millennium (1000 AD) chronicler Raoul Glaber wrote that Satan would shortly be unleashed because the thousand years since Jesus was about to pass. When nothing occurred they pushed the date to 1033 (allowing for Jesus 33 years of life). In 1200 Joachim of Fiore began detailing the coming of a new age that overturned the new Whore of Babylon, which seems to have been the Church in Rome.

In the middle part of the 19th century preacher William Miller taught that the second coming of Christ would occur in April 1843 and that on October 23, 1844 all his worthy followers would ascend to heaven. On October 24, 1844 Millerism began to dissolve. One can imagine the sadness that must have permeated through this community of believers. In spite of this, Miller would go on to help found the Adventist Church and keep many of his followers, demonstrating that a powerful message trumps empirical truth.

The apocalypse was supposed to occur in 1988 (40 years after the founding of the modern state of Israel) and again in 2000 (if the first millennium wasn't accurate, maybe the second would be). What every prediction has in common is that they have all been wrong. Since the author of the book that everyone bases their predictions on was detailing a very specific place and time that made no claim about some point in the future, it is easy to see how every Christian interpretation since would be wrong. Ironically, even the author's own predictions proved wrong demonstrating that not only are Bible interpreters mistaken but so too were the Bible authors.

The only people truly being left behind are the believers in an apocalyptic future. They become a hinderance to progress and opponents of cooperation, tolerance, and scientific advancement. They are becoming less educated, less respected, and ultimately less relevant. For the apocalypticists the future is becoming an all or nothing gamble. They'd better get their rapture pretty soon or their relevancy as a societal force will drift toward obscurity as those looking toward the future simply pass them by.

16. At various times in Christian history the followers of Jesus' teaching have tortured and murdered people because their conversion to Christianity may or may not have been sincere enough (the basis for the Spanish Inquisition), because they thought Jews or Gypsies were intentionally spreading pestilence, or because they thought some women were demon possessed. Approximately 50-80,000 women were executed as witches in Europe between 1500 to 1660. This is post-renaissance.

Christians claim to abhor relativistic morality yet the absolutists stand is fraught with the contradictions that come from holding to a Levitical moral code drawn up is a radically different civilization from today. Noted American atheist Ruth Hurmence Green stated the atheists case as well as anyone: "There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages." The world has seen what society looks like when Christianity runs unchecked and their morality is allowed to dictate right and wrong. Since Christian absolutist morality has not changed anyone dealing with Christians should know what to expect.

17. The one area where many Christians share a concern with non-Christians is with the conduct of fellow Christians. In their vernacular Christians are supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit causing them to act differently (better) than those not possessing the Spirit. The reality, of course, is that Christians behave themselves no better than any other group. Christians are not unique in condemning or condoning mass murder. As many Christians have died in genocides as have committed them. The number of Christians within the United States' prison system are greater than any other group. Approximately 0.8% of the American population have entered the criminal justice system because of a sexual abuse charge. The number for U.S. ordained priests is approximately 1.8%. On the flip side the most Christian of all nations, the United States provides less foreign assistance than any other developed nation less one and the last modern nation to preserve legalized slavery was the most Christian of all nations, and more specifically, the most Christian region of the most Christian nation. It is not that Christians are worse than anyone else. It is that they are no better. This makes them indistinguishable from every other component of humanity. If the Holy Spirit is at work, he is not working very hard.

18. One of strangest phenomena surrounding Christian theology is what happens in the afterlife. Torment in Hell is actually very easy to both conceive and imagine. Since torture and suffering is something any human can understand wanting to avoid Hell is not particularly difficult to comprehend. Heaven, on the other hand, is much more complex. No one can really describe what permanent paradise could be. All physical pleasures, whether they be a desire for chocolate, a good massage, sexual intercourse, or simply relaxation, wear out over time. Even if Heaven takes away the nature of having pleasure wear off, boredom would seem the primary component.

Sunday school children have been asking questions about Heaven for decades that have a larger implication for the afterlife. Will my body go with me? What if I lose a leg? Do I get it back? Will I feel hunger? Will all my friends be there? What about my dog? In reality, Sunday school children are onto the crux of he afterlife problem. It is impossible to know, impossible to imagine, and impossible detail and provide a description. So why do Christians provide such descriptions? The answer, of course, is that if humans are to be saved they should know what the results of this salvation will be. Unfortunately, because this is impossible Christians have simply made things up. Church leadership has not only made everything up but they have committed it to theology. One needs to believe in their definition of Heaven and Hell with the same level of conviction one believes in the Doctrine of Grace, the Holy Trinity, or that Jesus is the Savior.

Humans can be absolutely positive that Christianity has invented its descriptions of the afterlife. While there are a number of accounts of "miraculous" journeys to the underworld we do not have any verifiable accounts of reporters journeying to Heaven and coming back to report what it is like. And since these views are to be held with the same conviction as the other components of Christian theology an obvious conclusion can be drawn about that theology as well. -- All this and it was not even necessary to discuss Purgatory.

The above 18 points all have one thing in common (with one minor exception). They have not relied upon the best evidence that exists to refute the claims of Christianity. They have not relied upon science and the mountains of actual evidence that refute the Christian view of nature. The scientific method actually provides everything necessary to negate this manmade construct. While it is clear that science is no where close to fully explaining all natural phenomena and many holes still exist; it is also true that not a single piece of evidence discovered since the birth of the method has given more weight to the Christian perspective as opposed to less weight. Absolutely nothing known today better supports Christianity than what was known three hundred years ago. Science happily admits many holes in their understanding of the world and universe. If there were no holes there would be no jobs for scientists. As scientific history has shown, not one hole is ever filled with evidence leading to a more likely possibility for the Christian divine.

Returning to Pascal's wager we see that his probability matrix is incomplete. Simply believing in God requires an extremely dangerous assumption that Pascal omitted; namely that there is only one universal God. The problem for wagerers is that there is no reason why this assumption should be held. The concept of monotheism evolved over time. For the better part of ancient Israel's history their God was the God of Israel. Commanded to have "no other Gods before me" certainly implies the existence of others. It was only after many centuries had past that the concept of only one God came into fashion and the principles were re-evaluated to fit the new paradigm. Basic logic points away from monotheism because within monotheism it is impossible to address where one God would came from. A civilization of supernatural beings at least provides an explanation for this issue.

The implausibility of Christianity puts an additional burden on Pascal's wagerer. His best outcome in the rudimentary matrix is to believe in God with the best possibility that God actually exists. Unfortunately, the wagerer has additional factors to consider; namely that if God does exist is he the one worshiped by the wagerer? Since the Christian version of God is one entirely manmade, one would do much better checking any other box than the one that depends on the Christian view of God in a mysterious three parts.