d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Christianity Is Obviously Fake
Prev1305306307
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 17,606
Joined: Mar 13 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jun 30 2026 12:07am
You are right when history claims magic it's usually discarded outright, but lets make an exception for your very specific magic story.

I treat the bible same way I treat Kitab’i-Aqdas or the Avesta or the Egyptian book of the dead. All magical claims are treated equally as absurd and unreliable. Much like you treat any other religious claims. You make exceptions for christianity while dismissing everything the competition claims.

The culminative evidence is lacking greatly when it comes to the bible.

There are no reliable firsthand eye witnesses, no independent contemporary testimonies, no records of all the major events that the bible purports outside the biblical text by any civilization, no archeological evidence for global flood, no evidence for most of the figures within the bible themselves, no evidence for any magical creatures that are described in the bible, no heaven, no hell to see, and most of all there is no sign of god anywhere its like he only existed some 2000 years in the bible and then never showed up ever again. As if he never existed in the first place.

Bible makes a number falsifiable claims yet no one has been able to prove them. Some claims are unknowable unless you have a time machine but the claims we can verify don't produce evidence required.

When you say you accept resurrection because "the cumulative historical case is stronger than competing explanations"
What do you mean by that? Do you accept that Liu Kang is real because he has the more credible fireball technique than Ryu?


The Liu Kang analogy doesn't fit because we already know Mortal Kombat is a fictional work created by identifiable authors who intended it to be fiction.

The question with Christianity is different. It's whether the historical evidence is sufficient to conclude that something extraordinary happened.

When I say "the cumulative historical case," I don't mean one piece of evidence proves the resurrection.

I mean several facts that most historians, including many who are not Christians, generally accept:

* Jesus was a real historical person.
* He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
* His followers very early proclaimed that He had risen.
* The Christian movement began and spread rapidly despite persecution.
* The earliest Christian sources, such as Paul's letters, are much closer to the events than is true for many ancient figures.

None of those facts, individually, prove the resurrection.

The question is: what explanation best accounts for all of them together?

You conclude the best explanation is that the resurrection didn't happen and the sources are mistaken or legendary.

I conclude the resurrection is the better explanation.

We disagree on the conclusion, but that's different from saying there is no evidence at all.

Also, I don't give Christianity a free pass. If the historical evidence for Christianity were no stronger than the evidence for Mortal Kombat or Spider-Man, I wouldn't believe it either.

The reason I don't accept every religion is because I evaluate each one on its own historical, philosophical, and evidential merits rather than assuming they're all equally supported or equally unsupported.

Quote
Just take one aspect in this entire story which doesn't make sense the Tabernacle which the bible constructed used 29 gold talents and 730 shekels, which converts to approximately 2,175 to 2,200 pounds of gold. Thats roughly 1 metric tonne of solid gold they would need a dump truck to carry that much
Where did the jewish slaves get their hands on that much gold lol? Not only that they had more gold as they also supposedly built a golden calf statue made out of gold. And thats not counting all the jewlery they had which the bible mentions

That doesn't sound like they were slaves at all sounds like they were very wealthy OR a made up nonsense story


Exodus 12:31-36 ESV

31 During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Up! Leave my people, you and the Israelites! Go, worship the Lord as you have requested. 32 Take your flocks and herds, as you have said, and go. And also bless me.”

33 The Egyptians urged the people to hurry and leave the country. “For otherwise,” they said, “we will all die!” 34 So the people took their dough before the yeast was added, and carried it on their shoulders in kneading troughs wrapped in clothing. 35 The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. 36 The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.
Member
Posts: 47,123
Joined: Sep 5 2016
Gold: 100.00
Jun 30 2026 12:22am
This says nothing of wealth all it just says they were eating bread, you can maybe extrapolate they were well fed. It doesn't even say when they were slaves under egyptian rule or after they broke free and wandered the desert.

Try again


you said the bible said
Quote
the bible clearly insists they were highly oppressed slaves it doesn't make sense.

and i showed you what the bible really said
Quote
...in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full...
Member
Posts: 16,170
Joined: Dec 27 2019
Gold: 69.69
Jun 30 2026 01:17am
The Liu Kang analogy doesn't fit because we already know Mortal Kombat is a fictional work created by identifiable authors who intended it to be fiction.

The question with Christianity is different. It's whether the historical evidence is sufficient to conclude that something extraordinary happened.

When I say "the cumulative historical case," I don't mean one piece of evidence proves the resurrection.

I mean several facts that most historians, including many who are not Christians, generally accept:

* Jesus was a real historical person.
* He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
* His followers very early proclaimed that He had risen.
* The Christian movement began and spread rapidly despite persecution.
* The earliest Christian sources, such as Paul's letters, are much closer to the events than is true for many ancient figures.

None of those facts, individually, prove the resurrection.

The question is: what explanation best accounts for all of them together?

You conclude the best explanation is that the resurrection didn't happen and the sources are mistaken or legendary.

I conclude the resurrection is the better explanation.

We disagree on the conclusion, but that's different from saying there is no evidence at all.

Also, I don't give Christianity a free pass. If the historical evidence for Christianity were no stronger than the evidence for Mortal Kombat or Spider-Man, I wouldn't believe it either.

The reason I don't accept every religion is because I evaluate each one on its own historical, philosophical, and evidential merits rather than assuming they're all equally supported or equally unsupported.



Exodus 12:31-36 ESV

31 During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Up! Leave my people, you and the Israelites! Go, worship the Lord as you have requested. 32 Take your flocks and herds, as you have said, and go. And also bless me.”

33 The Egyptians urged the people to hurry and leave the country. “For otherwise,” they said, “we will all die!” 34 So the people took their dough before the yeast was added, and carried it on their shoulders in kneading troughs wrapped in clothing. 35 The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. 36 The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.


The analogy works because it is testing your logic not the intention of the authors.
If the authors of mortal kombat and street fighter intended the story to be real your logic would dictate that Liu Kang is real because he has more credible fireball technique than Ryu. In same way you assume Jesus is real because he has a better resurrection story than Osiris.

That is erroneous thinking.

The culmination of your "evidence" comes from very questionable second hand sources, which are mostly rumors/personal anecdotes.
I would say a large portion of your so called evidence rests on Tacitus accounts who very briefly mentions there were christians and "cristus" who was prosecuted. It speaks nothing of resurrection or any mention of a god.

The rest of your evidence is circular and very obscure. Meaning you are using the bible to prove the bible and if you go down that road then you lose. So no you can't use Paul's letters as credible independent source.

The rapid spread of christianity says nothing of its truth. I can point to Islam or Mormonism etc who had even faster spread at certain periods than Christianity so that argument doesn't work either.

Followers of jesus who saw resurrection is you using the bible to prove the bible. The bible doesn't even disclose who those anonymous 500 followers were. Thats like saying 500 people saw me bench press 2000 lb trust me bro. Since no human has ever been able to lift that much weight you would need to see proof. Just like no one has ever resurrected in the history I am going to need more than a second hand rumors from 2000 years ago.

Resurrection isn't a better explanation the better explanation is it never happened because magic has never been demonstrated to be real. So why should we start believing it did 2000 years ago to this one guy who also claimed to walk on water, multiply fish and bread, cure any cancer etc?
Member
Posts: 16,170
Joined: Dec 27 2019
Gold: 69.69
Jun 30 2026 01:31am
you said the bible said
and i showed you what the bible really said


Because thats what the bible insists.

Exodus 1:11-14
So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.
But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites
and worked them ruthlessly.
They made their lives bitter with harsh labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their harsh labor the Egyptians worked them ruthlessly.

Exodus 1:16
“When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.”


What you posted the jews ate bread till they were full it didn't mention anything else regarding egyptian masters treating them.
Member
Posts: 47,123
Joined: Sep 5 2016
Gold: 100.00
Jun 30 2026 01:44am
Because thats what the bible insists.

Exodus 1:11-14
So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.
But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites
and worked them ruthlessly.
They made their lives bitter with harsh labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their harsh labor the Egyptians worked them ruthlessly.

Exodus 1:16
“When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.”


What you posted the jews ate bread till they were full it didn't mention anything else regarding egyptian masters treating them.


i didnt read anything about they couldnt have gold and other such trinkets?
Member
Posts: 16,170
Joined: Dec 27 2019
Gold: 69.69
Jun 30 2026 02:49am
i didnt read anything about they couldnt have gold and other such trinkets?


That was a quote regarding how the slaves were treated not about gold :bonk:

This is a quote they couldn't pay them

Exodus 21:2
“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

If they didn't pay them where did the gold and trinkets come from?

Did you imagine slaves owned property and were flush with tonnes of gold LOL. A slave = property like a piece of furniture. Is a chair allowed to own gold or a house?

In the Bible, indentured servitude for Jews (specifically the eved Ivri or Hebrew servant) was a temporary arrangement primarily for those in extreme poverty or convicted of theft who lacked funds for restitution
So how did they get all that gold? It doesn't add up.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1305306307
Add Reply New Topic New Poll