I say that Christianity started out as a simple concept, just as any cult does, and expanded and changed as people thought of new ways to make it more exotic and attractive. Let me explain.
The first books of the New Testament that were written were Paul's letters (Galatians, Thessalonians, etc.) and they were written mostly in the 50's and 60's. Now take note, Paul does mention the resurrection of Jesus, but nowhere does he make any kind of mention of the virgin birth or any of Jesus' miracles. Christians will get nitpicky about this fact, and warp the meanings of vague comments to say "that's what Paul meant" but they're just grasping at straws.
Now, many Christians defend this problem by saying things like "it wasn't in Paul's plans to talk about those things, he was busy spreading the word of Jesus in other ways." Do you really expect us to believe that something as miraculous as a virgin birth and the performance of divinity-proving miracles were just "not on the menu?" That is just stupid. If my savior had done these things, damn straight I'd be telling people about them! According to Paul, Jesus just did one thing, the resurrection. Wasn't he a bit more god-like than that? Lots of people are raised from the dead in the Bible. It's not that unusual of a miracle.
Around the year 70, the first Gospel was written, the one by Mark. Funny how it makes no mention of the virgin birth, but wait! It does mention the miracles that Paul just didn't feel like revealing! Well, it looks like Christianity is getting a little spiced up! Then it gets a big boost in the 80's with the Gospel of Matthew. Now the virgin birth is added, but it is filled with factual errors (such as Herod ordering a census and infant genocide).
And so on an so on. These things weren't written until at least 20 years after Jesus' death, the Gospels waiting 40 years to come. It is more than obvious that as time went on, early Christians just kept adding to the story of Jesus. The Gospels started out portraying Jesus as a servant of man, but by the time of John's Gospel, Jesus had become God himself.
How did Jesus correctly predict the destruction of the Temple in 69 CE? Well, because the Gospels were written after that, and the prediction is just the Gospel-writers using hindsight to trick us. If you still say that Jesus made a prediction that came true, then explain why his prediction of returning to our world in the lifetimes of his disciples never came true. And he predicted that a lot.
You may say that Paul mentions the resurrection, so that is obviously true, but if it is, why are all four accounts of the resurrection different from one another? Read them. They all contradict each other on the people who first saw Jesus, and how Jesus revealed himself.
Anyways, it's just obvious to an un-biased mind that the writings suspiciously changed Christianity as time went on, and therefore, cannot be true.
The first books of the New Testament that were written were Paul's letters (Galatians, Thessalonians, etc.) and they were written mostly in the 50's and 60's. Now take note, Paul does mention the resurrection of Jesus, but nowhere does he make any kind of mention of the virgin birth or any of Jesus' miracles. Christians will get nitpicky about this fact, and warp the meanings of vague comments to say "that's what Paul meant" but they're just grasping at straws.
Now, many Christians defend this problem by saying things like "it wasn't in Paul's plans to talk about those things, he was busy spreading the word of Jesus in other ways." Do you really expect us to believe that something as miraculous as a virgin birth and the performance of divinity-proving miracles were just "not on the menu?" That is just stupid. If my savior had done these things, damn straight I'd be telling people about them! According to Paul, Jesus just did one thing, the resurrection. Wasn't he a bit more god-like than that? Lots of people are raised from the dead in the Bible. It's not that unusual of a miracle.
Around the year 70, the first Gospel was written, the one by Mark. Funny how it makes no mention of the virgin birth, but wait! It does mention the miracles that Paul just didn't feel like revealing! Well, it looks like Christianity is getting a little spiced up! Then it gets a big boost in the 80's with the Gospel of Matthew. Now the virgin birth is added, but it is filled with factual errors (such as Herod ordering a census and infant genocide).
And so on an so on. These things weren't written until at least 20 years after Jesus' death, the Gospels waiting 40 years to come. It is more than obvious that as time went on, early Christians just kept adding to the story of Jesus. The Gospels started out portraying Jesus as a servant of man, but by the time of John's Gospel, Jesus had become God himself.
How did Jesus correctly predict the destruction of the Temple in 69 CE? Well, because the Gospels were written after that, and the prediction is just the Gospel-writers using hindsight to trick us. If you still say that Jesus made a prediction that came true, then explain why his prediction of returning to our world in the lifetimes of his disciples never came true. And he predicted that a lot.
You may say that Paul mentions the resurrection, so that is obviously true, but if it is, why are all four accounts of the resurrection different from one another? Read them. They all contradict each other on the people who first saw Jesus, and how Jesus revealed himself.
Anyways, it's just obvious to an un-biased mind that the writings suspiciously changed Christianity as time went on, and therefore, cannot be true.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
- Buddha
"Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."
- Dennis McKinsey
- Buddha
"Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."
- Dennis McKinsey
