The real religion?

[SteveII]

The point is that simply because something is written down doesn't mean it's true, especially when it comes to increasing one's political power (which is what religion is... it's a political apparatus).  

Attempting to turn the tables by saying "Well, do you know it's false?" is ridiculous.  Just because I cannot demonstrate something is, in actuality, false does not lend truth to the thing in question.  Without corroborating evidence (of which there is none... no, a religion's popularity isn't evidence of its truthfulness, and neither are assumed documents that were the foundation of the NT documents, which, for the nth time, IS THE CLAIM), assuming that they're true is simply ridiculous.

So, nothing to support your 'start a religion of power and money' theory. 

No, the NT is not the claim. It catalogs and explains a belief about events that predates it. So, the claim would be that Jesus lived, taught, died and rose again. Paul wrote his letters to churches that very obviously believed the claims prior to his writing them (as did the other epistle authors). Later, the 4 gospel editors used eyewitness accounts and previous documents to try to give a thorough account of the claim. 

So stop with the nonsense mantra that the NT is the claim. It is not.