Was Christianity Exposed?

One apologetic argument I found for the truth of the NT is that no one came forward and said they were false.At the following website Questions Skeptics ask about Messianic Prophecy the following excerpt sparked a memory. The bolding is mine and the point of my post.

quote:

---

But again the skeptics ask, "How do we know that Matthew didn't just make up the Bethlehem connection to make it look like Jesus fulfilled Micah's prediction?" Several factors weigh against this fabrication theory First, it is now widely recognized that all of the Gospel writers wrote within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries. So any controversial claims could be checked out.

​

"But," someone asks, "who would remember such an insignificant event?" A better question might be, "If the account of the events surrounding Jesus' birth were true, who could forget?" The Gospel writers went on to tell how Herod the King heard about the birth of Messiah and ordered the death of all the male babies of Bethlehem. What contemporary Bethlehem family would not have heard about Herod's terrible massacre of innocents and the circumstances that prompted it? (Mt. 2:16-18). On the other hand, if no one of the first century had heard about the massacre, the "Bethlehem connection" could easily have been exposed as a baseless rumor.

---

I had read a similar comment about the gospels in the book written by Lee Strobel entitled The Case For Christ.

quote:

---

If critics could have attacked it on the basis that it was full of falsehoods or distortions, they would have.

---

The impression from apologetics is that no one came forward to disagree with what the apostles were preaching. (Who would first century people complain to anyway?) After I thought about it, I looked through the NT and found:Acts 14:2 But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.The word for refused to believe is Apeitheo and the meaning in Strong’s Concordance is: 1. not to allow one’s self to be persuaded and 2. not to comply with.Doesn’t that say that those Jews did not trust what Paul was saying?Also found Acts 19:9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. ..Again, isn’t this disagreeing with Paul’s message? This one said they publicly maligned. So it appears that they did speak out.In the book The History of the Jews by Paul Johnson and the book The History of Christianity by Kenneth Scott Latourette, it is stated that after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70CE the Jews no longer accepted the Christians as a Jewish sect. They were rejected. Doesn’t that say that they didn’t believe what Christianity was selling?So one apologetic argument for the truth of the NT is that no one came forward and said they were false. This implies to me that if people had claimed anything was false, they feel that the religion would not have continued.I am curious to know if anyone argued that the claims of John Smith (Mormon) were false at the time his religion began in the early 1800’s. If they did, then obviously disclosing that a religion is false from the beginning doesn’t seem to stop it from continuing even in this country.Has anyone seen examples outside of the NT of Christian claims being exposed as false in its early years?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Everything in the Bible did happen. It was quite a big deal that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And it did measure to the Old Testament prophecy therefore it was widely accepted by all as an historical account. Besides hundreds of Jesus prophecies were fullfilled. Are you saying they were all invented or made up.

Well, obviously the point of the thread is that it wasn't accepted by all, and continues to not be accepted by all.

1) The only evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem are the Nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke, both written more than 50 years after the event. There are significant discrepencies between them. At least one element of Matthew - the so-called "Massacre of the Innocents" is very likely a legendary addition since there is no independant record of it and it is precisely the sort of thing that we would expect to be added.
It is entirely possible that these stories are inventions - by the Gospel authors or their sources - and that the belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem came from assuming that the prophecy was fulfilled.2) Many of the other "prophecies" do not seem to be prophecies at all or are easily fulfilled.I suggest if you have a good example of a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus that you start a new subject to discuss it. I would apply the following criteria:A) There must be good grounds - by the standards of history, not religious faith, - to believe that the prophecy was actually fulfilled (for instance it is quite possible that Jesus was not of the House of David at all - we've really nothing to settle the matter)B) The prophecy must be hard enough to fulfil that we can take some significance from it.C) It must be clear that the alleged prophecy is a prophecy. You can pretty much forget about anything in Psalms on this criterion alone.D) The alleged prophecy must be taken in context. If you have to ignore relevant text to make your case you are simply twisting the Bible.I suggest that you actually try applying just criteria B,C and D to any list of examples that you have and see how many remain.

Can we not let this thread end up in another visit to the circular world of biblical prophecy. There are already threads about prophecies, or another one could be started off.The topic is asking if there were any people/sources, that challenged the Christian version of Jesus' life and surrounding narratives.The most famous challenge to the Christian claims were from Celcus, and his arguments can be found summarised in the book 'Contra Celsum' written by Origen. Do a google for 'Contra Celsum', there are some on-line copies available.AdminBrian.

Greetings almeyda,almeyda: "Everything in the Bible did happen. "Really?
Few people would agree with that :-)Do you believe the flood really happened?
Do you believe an ass talked?
Or a snake?
Do you believe the sun was darkened durinf the crucifixion?
Do you believe the dead people all rose and walked about Jerusalem?
These are fairy tales, not history, and its obvious except to fundametalists.almeyda: "It was quite a big deal that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. "Really?
Then why did the first Gospel, G.Mark, mention nothing directly about it, but implies he was born in Nazareth?Why does G.John similarly imply he was born in Nazareth?
And why are G.Luke and G.Matthew's stories so different ?G.Matthew assumes Jesus was born in Joseph and Mary's home in Bethlehem, then relocated to Nazareth after leaving for Egypt to avoid Herod.G.Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Galilee, but happen to be in Bethlehem for a census at the birth.A classic example of how the gospel authors crafted their versions of the stories according to their theological slant - but not based on historical events.almeyda: "And it did measure to the Old Testament prophecy..." But the NT stories were largely derived from the OT - Psalms e.g. - they were written specifically to show fulfillment. This is no more miraculous than Lord of the Rings resolving issues from The Hobbit.almeyda: "...therefore it was widely accepted by all as an historical account."Really?
The Jews actually wrote the OT - they did NOT agree did they?
2 John warns of Christians who did not "acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh". Many other early critics argued Jesus was not a physical being.The Gospels and their events, were UNKNOWN even to Christians, until early-mid 2nd century - about a century after the alleged events. And when the Gospels did become widespread, they were criticised by Celsus as follows :"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"That is clear, contemporary evidence that the Gospels were based on MYTHS, not history.Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.
"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" Here is a 2nd century father who states that the crucifixion, and the incarnation, are NOT Christian beliefs. (His words are rather obtuse, which is probably why they escaped the censors.)
Other 2nd century fathers show no mention of a historical Jesus either - e.g. Athenagoras, Theophilus.Later, Porphyry wrote in Against the Christians : " the evangelists were inventors - not historians"Another clear example of the Gospels being specifically criticised as fiction.almeyda: "Besides hundreds of Jesus prophecies were fullfilled. Are you saying they were all invented or made up."No,
the Gospels were derived largely from the OT, and episodes were written so as to seemingly fulfill OT passages. (And many of the prophesies are based on misunderstandings - e.g. "Bethlehem" is a CLAN, not a place.)The so-called "prophesies" that fundamentalist Christians are so fond of, are no more miraculous than the new Harry Potter book resolving loose ends from the first book.Iasion

Perhaps the most significant fact here is that early challenges to Christianity survive only in the rebuttals made by Christians. It is entirely possible that arguments which made which the Christians could not answer - and that those were misrepresented or even ignored. This view can be supported from the web page referenced in the original post. It fails to deal with or even mention the argument used to support the view that Micah refers to a family or lineage rather than the birth location of the Messiah. If modern Christians act in this way we certanly cannot be sure that earlier Christians did not.

Greetings purpledawn,The basic claims are not well founded -

quote:

---

"So any controversial claims could be checked out."

---

Paul's claims were spiritual in nature - what is to check out?
The GOSPELS are a different story - but they were not known until early mid 2nd century - a full CENTURY or so after the alleged events, and a generation after Jerusalem was razed from the map.

quote:

---

the "Bethlehem connection" could easily have been exposed as a baseless rumor.

---

The Bethlehem connection was unknown, even to Christians, until mid 2nd century with Justin (or the Epistle of the Apostles) - thats 150 YEARS after the alleged birth events - with a war intervening.
In fact it would be almost impossible to check, even if anyone cared to.Iasion

Hi, Yes, Celcus' arguments only survive in Origen's work, and it makes sense that he would only rebutt those arguments that he could. Origen himself wasn't a literalist either, he reinterpreted a lot of the Old testament.There is also the added fact that early Christianity was virtually ignored by its contemporaries, hardly anyone noticed this cult. Also, the stories they were peddling were not that extraordinary in the societies that they evolved in.We both know how selective some Christians are in their research, and most do not realise that they constantly use the Bible to support the Bible. I think an analysis of Matthew's Gospel supports your final point very well indeed, it is crystal clear that Matthew not only just made up some prophecies, he totally ripped many others out of context. But at the time of composition, who cared?Brian.

One of the claims made to show that the NT is true is that no one declared it was untrue at the time of presentation, whether in oral form or written.I'm not arguing whether the NT is true or not, but I am arguing that the claims made by apologetics that no one declared the claims of the apostles or the writers as untrue, is incorrect. I think the skeptics did make themselves known.From the statements made in Acts, it sounds as though complaints were made by the Jews. Plus the whole rejection thing after 70 CE.So I'm curious if anything outside of the NT has been found that also shows that Jews didn't agree with the claims of Paul or the Apostles.The Mormons claim that everything John Smith said is absolutely true.If his claims are also absolutely true, then the next logical step for Christians would have been to follow him, but some did and some didn't.Did people declare his visions untrue at the time his religion started? His should be easier to prove or disprove than the NT. We are still within a reasonble timeframe to check any physical claims he made. (Anybody in New York lookup old newspapers?)Example from a former Mormon:

quote:

---

Numerous leaders of the Mormon Church have taught since the earliest days of the Church that the Hill Cumorah in New York (the very same Hill Cumorah that Joseph Smith claimed he retrieved the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated from) is the very same Hill Cumorah which is mentioned in the Book of Mormon in Mormon 6:2 ( And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah , and there we could give them battle. ) where (if you do the math) at least 230,000 men died in battle using steel weapons and armor.

​

However, this battle was about one tenth the size of the battle which took place at the same exact location approximately 1,000 years earlier when, according to Ether 15:2 "nearly two millions " of the Jaredites had their last great battle, also using steel weapons and armor.

---

The paragraphs from the book of Mormon are correct.So here is a man in my own country claiming great battles that could be checked out. Did anyone check out his claims and if yes, what was found. If his claims are totally false, why did the religion continue. Did the local Christians go against John Smith?
(LA Time Article on DNA) This article runs along those lines.Because quite frankly, if this John Smith got away with it in the early 1800s, then why wouldn't it be possible for first century writers to get away with it.History repeats itself!

quote:

---

Paul's claims were spiritual in nature - what is to check out?

---

But his claims about the messiah should not contradict the Jewish teachings.Did the Jews feel that his teachings contradicted theirs?

Thank you, I really didn't want this to drift. I am very curious to see what ancient skeptics said about Christianity in its youth.I did a search as you suggested. I found it very enlightening. I had not run across their names before.I look forward to researching it more.Thanks again!

One problem is the Christianity is a moving target. In fact, until the Coucil of Nicea there was no real broad agreement what books should be in the Bible or even about what the key elements of the faith were to be. So for a stretch of almost 400 years, Christianity was pretty much what the local leaders wanted it to be.Not that that has changed even today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Porphyry wrote in Against the Christians

---

I did a search on the internet and found some interesting info on Porphyry (280CE). I also did some reading concerning Celsus (178CE).On the surface those two men seemed to have had the same concerns that skeptics have today.Same old battles I guess.
Thanks