• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

sooda

Veteran Member
I find this passage from Irenaeus 3.3.3 to be a particularly fascinating look into the early church, with references to actual apostles, & showing a theological line & continuity of the faith.. in the context of growing heresy & false doctrines that were corrupting influences on the original message.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.


I find the history & scholarship of the early Christians to be founded in accurate necessity. Lies and heresies abounded, then as now, and a credible, factual record of the life of Christ and the early Apostles was necessary, to preserve, inviolate, the message of salvation. Deceivers and corruptors of the message were (and are), Legion.

This phrase is particularly relevant, even now:

"since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood,"

It is absurd to give more credence to some Johnny come lately, with an agenda to destroy Christianity and promote their competing worldview. The history and scholarship of Christianity is above reproach, and has set the standards for history and scholarship for millennia. The audacity of some anti-christian propagandist to claim more credibility than the millennia of careful scholarship, research, archaeology, and textual criticism boggles the mind.

Ironically, while my mind is boggled by the audacity of anti-christian propagandists, bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in obeisance.

Boggled or bobbled.. that is the response to propagandists.. ;)

1st and 2nd Timothy were written between 100 and 150 AD.

 

sooda

Veteran Member
Just because someone wants an accurate history of Christianity does not mean that he wants to destroy Christianity. Now your false beliefs may be "destroyed" but if your religion has any truth to it it should survive that.

By the way, you end up contradicting yourself when you try to claim that there are both plenty of "manuscripts" supporting Christianity and if you reject the work of those that study and understand those manuscripts. You can't have it both ways.

If learning stops at the level of 7th grade Sunday school, any research may be a threat.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You should read "
"Misquotes in MISQUOTING JESUS: Why You Can Still Believe," by Dillon Burroughs Then your liberal Bart Ehrman won't seem so smart, LOL!
No thank you.

Instead of ignoring my point, perhaps you could consider it, and perhaps respond to it. Telling me to read another book is to completely miss my point.

I want to know what the evidence is. Do you have any evidence to offer? And no, books aren't evidence, though they may contain evidence.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Early historians did not have a proper approach to the topic. You should learn why modern methods are more reliable. And please, as a Christian you are breaking the Ninth Commandment when you call the works of those that you disagree with smears. Also, just because a site corrects your errant beliefs does not make it anti-Christian. When you make such claims you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself that you do not appear to be able to justify.
:facepalm:
Right. They were defending the faith, not attacking it with the intent to destroy it. ..that's not the 'proper approach!', is it?

Modern 'revisionism' is much more credible, than those closest to the events, words, and persons described.. :rolleyes:

I'll repeat Irenaeus' view here:
..John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.

Now, i will point out that i am much more patient and tolerant with those who promote the anti-christian agenda. I point out errors and fallacies, and present the truth. I don't dismiss them with, 'you first born of Satan!', kinds of remarks, but try to steer the discussion into an evidence based, historical and scholarly debate, as that is my preference.

But i can see the reason why the early defenders and apologists took this route. Battling anti-christian hordes and bigots is very frustrating, as they twist everything said toward their agenda. Understanding and knowledge is not the goal, but perpetuating propaganda and false narratives, and they do it well.
 
Last edited:

Spartan

Well-Known Member
No thank you.

Instead of ignoring my point, perhaps you could consider it, and perhaps respond to it. Telling me to read another book is to completely miss my point.

I want to know what the evidence is. Do you have any evidence to offer? And no, books aren't evidence, though they may contain evidence.

It would take many, many months to lay out the evidences for the historical Jesus. If you don't know what they are then you should read the books I cited. Do your homework.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
You’re arguing from conjecture (which breaks one of the conditions you set for the debate). You must present evidence that one is going to turn up — not just say “nuh-uh!” for your “argument” here to conform to your rules.

I'll do that right after you guys back up your theories with some evidence, instead of hollow claims and conjecture.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
It would take many, many months to lay out the evidences for the historical Jesus. If you don't know what they are then you should read the books I cited. Do your homework.
Like I said before, I've read many such books and have yet to find any of them compelling. If I had, then I would be a believer now. Sorry, but I'm not going to go read 5 or 6 more books in order to understand what you're getting at. You should be able to get that across here on the forum.

And as I also asked before, then give me your best piece(s) of evidence.
For instance, what evidence convinced you to believe in a God and/or to believe that Jesus is in any way divine? You are making claims. Can you back them up, or not?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
:facepalm:
Right. They were defending the faith, not attacking it with the intent to destroy it. ..that's not the 'proper approach!', is it?

Modern 'revisionism' is much more credible, than those closest to the events, words, and persons described.. :rolleyes:

I'll repeat Irenaeus' view here:
..John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.

Now, i will point out that i am much more patient and tolerant with those who promote the anti-christian agenda. I point out errors and fallacies, and present the truth. I don't dismiss them with, 'you first born of Satan!', kinds of remarks, but try to steer the discussion into an evidence based, historical and scholarly debate, as that is my preference.

But i can see the reason why the early defenders and apologists took this route. Battling anti-christian hordes and bigots is very frustrating, as they twist everything said toward their agenda. Understanding and knowledge is not the goal, but perpetuating propaganda and false narratives, and they do it well.

You keep posting false dichotomies. Trying to find out the true story of Christianity is not "attacking the faith". If your belief is based upon errors would you not want to correct them? You continually demonstrate an inability to reason logically when your faith is threatened.

What makes you think that Irenaeus was such an authority? He had disagreements with other early Christians. He would not even have begun his serious writings until over 120 years after Jesus's death. He could not have talked to any witnesses. All he could rely on were the writings of the time and worse yet oral tradition.

And you have never pointed out fallacies. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of logical fallacies as several have pointed out. Correcting your false beliefs does not make them anti-Christian. If anything I could claim that your adherence to refuted claims makes you anti-Christian. How about you just drop that term for now until you prove that that is the case?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
It would take many, many months to lay out the evidences for the historical Jesus. If you don't know what they are then you should read the books I cited. Do your homework.
Its not nearly as complicated as the critics contend.

1. The historicity of Jesus, the accuracy of the NT manuscripts, and the historical, archaeological, and scholarly work that has been going on for MILLENNIA, all confirm the validity of Christianity, as based in real persons, events, and words.
2. It is only revisionism, 2k yrs removed, that claim 'New! Improved!' knowledge on something they do not have.
3. Simple skepticism and critical thinking is all that is needed to see through the propaganda and smears from a competing worldview.
4. Indoctrination, not knowledge, is the basis for the anti-christian revisionism. History, facts, and true knowledge all affirm the persons, words, and accounts in historical, apostolic Christianity.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It would take many, many months to lay out the evidences for the historical Jesus. If you don't know what they are then you should read the books I cited. Do your homework.
Do you realize that the historical Jesus and the mythical Jesus are not exactly the same person. Just as the historical Abraham Lincoln and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter are not the same person. The later was based upon the former.

Yes, there probably was a historical Jesus. That does not really help your beliefs all that much.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Its not nearly as complicated as the critics contend.

1. The historicity of Jesus, the accuracy of the NT manuscripts, and the historical, archaeological, and scholarly work that has been going on for MILLENNIA, all confirm the validity of Christianity, as based in real persons, events, and words.
2. It is only revisionism, 2k yrs removed, that claim 'New! Improved!' knowledge on something they do not have.
3. Simple skepticism and critical thinking is all that is needed to see through the propaganda and smears from a competing worldview.
4. Indoctrination, not knowledge, is the basis for the anti-christian revisionism. History, facts, and true knowledge all affirm the persons, words, and accounts in historical, apostolic Christianity.
The problem is that there are noted flaws in the "NT manuscripts" For example Luke's nativity is almost certainly mythical, as is Matthews which does not agree with it. But let's go over Luke's first. He has Jesus born over a ten year period.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
What makes you think that Irenaeus was such an authority?
Right. Dawkins is a much more reliable authority, right? :rolleyes:
And you have never pointed out fallacies. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding
Ironic!! Denying fallacies while making them!!
How about you just drop that term for now
if the shoe fits... :shrug:

I can only expose the agenda, and the narratives. If demeaning and ridiculing Christianity is your goal, embrace it! Why pussyfoot around it? ;)
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
The problem is that there are noted flaws in the "NT manuscripts" For example Luke's nativity is almost certainly mythical, as is Matthews which does not agree with it. But let's go over Luke's first. He has Jesus born over a ten year period.
Asserted. No quotes of passages, no claim of specific errors, no evidence to support the claim.

And you want me to 'debate!' this vague innuendo?

/shakes head/

Ok, I'll do the same as you:

No. This is false.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Right. Dawkins is a much more reliable authority, right? :rolleyes:

Let's try to be honest. Has anyone quoted Dawkins when it came to the Bible?

Ironic!! Denying fallacies while making them!!
if the shoe fits... :shrug:

No, you do not understand logical fallacies. That has been shown by several posters here. I supported my claims with links and quotes. You only could use another logical fallacy to defend yourself. Face the facts, logical fallacies are a tool that you are not able to apply properly yet. You still do not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. Would you like to go over that again?

I can only expose the agenda, and the narratives. If demeaning and ridiculing Christianity is your goal, embrace it! Why pussyfoot around it? ;)

The only "agenda" out there is to get an accurate picture of how Christianity started as a religion. Your version appears to be the equivalent of a "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" approach to the Civil War. You should be trying to learn why scholars do not accept the traditional authors of the Gospels. If you read and understood the Gospels one fact would stand out. They are all anonymous. None of them have "Written by" anywhere in them
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Asserted. No quotes of passages, no claim of specific errors, no evidence to support the claim.

And you want me to 'debate!' this vague innuendo?

/shakes head/

Ok, I'll do the same as you:

No. This is false.
That is because you are still Gishing all over the place. This also demonstrates that you are not a student of the Bible since you would immediately know how the author of Luke screwed the pooch. Would you like to learn?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I'll do that right after you guys back up your theories with some evidence, instead of hollow claims and conjecture.
Why do you think that the dramatic events described in the Gospels failed to be recorded anywhere else?
For example, according to the NT there was a Passover around 30CE that was marked by some hugely portentous events.
Both a solar event resembling an eclipse and a simultaneous earthquake strong enough to damage The Temple.
In the superstitious culture of the 1st century, these would be huge. Especially coming on the day before Passover, everyone from the Romans to neighboring nations would have experienced them.

But there's no record of it happening. Even people who had never heard of Jesus had to know about it. But there is no reason to think that they did.

The most plausible explanation for this fact is that the Gospel authors made up stuff to add drama to an otherwise uninspiring story, from decades or more earlier. Once it had been long enough for the target audience to be unfamiliar with what really happened "back then", and were gullible enough believe implausible stories.

Like the Resurrection.
Tom
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If you want to discuss Luke here is an extremely thorough treatment of how the Nativity in Luke fails:

The Date of the Nativity in Luke

Though you will try to claim that Richard Carrier tries to "smear Christianity" he is a serious scholar that understands the history and language of the time. He explains why Luke puts Jesus's birth at 6 CE, ten years after Matthew's date.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Why do you think that the dramatic events described in the Gospels failed to be recorded anywhere else?
For example, according to the NT there was a Passover around 30CE that was marked by some hugely portentous events.
Both a solar event resembling an eclipse and a simultaneous earthquake strong enough to damage The Temple.
In the superstitious culture of the 1st century, these would be huge. Especially coming on the day before Passover, everyone from the Romans to neighboring nations would have experienced them.

But there's no record of it happening. Even people who had never heard of Jesus had to know about it. But there is no reason to think that they did.

The most plausible explanation for this fact is that the Gospel authors made up stuff to add drama to an otherwise uninspiring story, from decades or more earlier. Once it had been long enough for the target audience to be unfamiliar with what really happened "back then", and were gullible enough believe implausible stories.

Like the Resurrection.
Tom

Here's extra-biblical evidence for the strange darkness that occurred during the crucifixion: Documenting A Miracle

The rest of your post is nothing more than unfounded conjecture. It is countered by the multiple, independent, historical Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament.

By the skeptic's common practice of discarding or attempting to marginalize ALL historical references to Jesus, you unwittingly would have people believe in a massive and complicated conspiracy by mostly common, uneducated fishermen, etc., to advance a false narrative about Christ. Let's review who would probably have to be in this unwitting conspiracy and be labeled as liars, charlatans, etc.

1. Most or all of the disciples, including early unbelievers such as James and Thomas. Skeptics would, in effect, be assigning acts of deception to these men in spite of there being no narrative or history of dishonesty on their part.

2. The women at the tomb. First-century testimony of any kind that a resurrection never occurred is absent in history.

3. Luke, the physician and author of his Gospel. He wasn't a disciple. He wrote that he carefully investigated "everything" from the beginning. There's no evidence he just focused on the words and accounts of the apostles alone. What's more, he continues his narrative with the Book of Acts, with additional miracles and people (including Paul, a person initially hostile to Christianity) claiming to have had experiences with Christ. Plus, Paul's companions on the road to Damascus "heard the sound" of Paul's experience with Jesus. So Luke would have to be a liar, fool, or charlatan also.

4. Eusebius and Josephus and others who wrote about Jesus had to be lying, mistaken, or also in on the conspiracy to defraud the populace. We do know of at least forty-two authors, nine of whom were secular, who mentioned Jesus within 150 years of his death. Scholar Gary Habermas, in his Book "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" (p.233), listed the following: 9 authors from the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. 21 early Christian writers outside the NT - Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophious of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. 4 heretical writings - Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection. And 9 secular non-Christian sources, including Josephus, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celcus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonius, and Thallus.

5. We need to add Paul to the conspiracy, since he wrote of the resurrection of Jesus in his epistles, and since he wrote most of the New Testament. According to Luke, Paul had an experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus.

6. Let's also add in all the other eyewitnesses of miracles and/or authors of the New Testament, since they must also be liars, madmen, or charlatans.

I can probably dredge up some more, but the list of people who would have to be liars, charlatans, etc., is now too long (and unsupported by any credible evidence on the part of skeptics) to be believable.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Let's try to be honest. Has anyone quoted Dawkins when it came to the Bible?
no, just mysterious, alleged experts. I've been alone in quoting actual historical figures, iirc..

You still do not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. Would you like to go over that again?
i have to embrace your personal, revised definition? Why cannot the classic, common, and historical usage be in effect?

If you read and understood the Gospels one fact would stand out. They are all anonymous. None of them have "Written by" anywhere in them
That is absurd. That does not make them anonymous. That is a prejudicial belief, not an historical view.. with some ad hom spice! ;)
you want to discuss Luke here is an extremely thorough treatment of how the Nativity in Luke fails:
Oh good. A link.
I don't debate links. If you have a claim or accusation, make it. Support it. Relying on someone else to make your arguments by proxy is fallacious.
 
Top