An Analysis of the Primary Proofs of Christianity

Using logical analysis, let us examine the primary proofs used for Christianity:

1) The religion was started by a group of Jews -- is this proof? This is offered as proof astoundingly often, despite how weak this is. I could just as easily start a cult that worships the great red oak tree, and justify it by saying I’m a Jew. Would you follow me? Who were these Jews who began early Christianity? These Jews were the dregs of society, considered criminals by most. To add insult to injury, these societal rejects claim that the great Sanhedrin carried out a disgusting miscarriage of justice, the only such recorded claim made against the Sanhedrin in its entire history, and people believe it without asking any questions. Is there proof? No.

2) The Word of G-d -- Jews and Christians both maintain that the Torah, Prophets, and Writings are of Divinely inspired origin. With the New Testament, we have a divergence. Does the New Testament offer proof of Divine inspiration? It does not in any substantial amount. Jesus did supposedly predict the destruction of the Second Temple, but the prophet Daniel did that some five hundred years prior to Jesus, so there’s really no proof there. Three hundred years after Jesus lived and died, the quality of different pieces of Christian religious literature came to a vote, and by majority vote Christian religious doctrine was hashed out, and certain books were deemed not the word of G-d, and certain books were decided to be the word of G-d. So, what we have here in essence is religious doctrine by means of democracy.

3) Fulfillment of prophecy -- the Christian claim is that Jesus (Yeshu, as he is called in Jewish sources such as the Talmud) was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy dating back five hundred years and more prior to his birth. There are several logical arguments against this contention.

a) The only proof of these fulfillments is contained within the New Testament itself. All outside mention of Jesus (such as passages supposedly written by Flavius Josephus) is not considered reliable. As long as disagreements exist in outside texts, they cannot be used as proof. Thus, we must limit ourselves to the veracity of the New Testament itself. In an age where Jewish literacy and literature was not a limited activity, we find no contemporaneous writings about this man Jesus. While arguments from silence aren’t quite as cogent, one must wonder why a figure allegedly recognized as the Messiah and then put to death by those same people who had apparently accepted him wouldn’t receive mention in contemporary writings.

b) Most quotes aren’t even the fulfillments of Messianic prophecy. For the sake of brevity we shall use the following example:

Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called My son. (KJV)

Compare to:

Hosea 11:1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt. (KJV)

Taking a verse that’s not even about the Messiah and saying it’s the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy isn’t proof that the New Testament is true. It’s proof that the New Testament is dishonest. To those that say that one verse quote doesn’t mean anything, they should be reminded that the New Testament is supposedly the revealed word of G-d. It should not have any such fallacies staring you so blatantly in the face. Other quotes are of such small events involving taking Jewish Bible verses out of context in such a manner that they are on par with trying to prove that Mohammed was illiterate prior to his supposed revelation.

4) The "Revelation" of Paul -- In the Acts of the Apostles, we are told of the supposed revelation experienced by Paul, going from being a persecutor of Jews who chose to ignore the Sanhedrin ruling, to being the biggest advocate of the belief system that became Christianity. Is this reason to believe him? If it is, we must be fair and follow everyone whose story rings similar. With this logic, all Christians should jump onto the Joseph Smith train and become Mormons. After all, Smith had a "revelation" that nobody else experienced, and suddenly we’re left with the fastest growing religion in the United States of America.

5) Other personal revelations -- So, if we are to follow Christianity’s story, we should believe there is no line between kosher and unkosher food because the apostle Peter had a dream that told him so. The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, Jesus gave them a sign (at least, he did in the Gospel of Matthew. In Mark he told them there would be no sign), which would be his resurrection after being dead for three days. Once he is supposedly resurrected, he doesn’t bother to appear to the Pharisees, who specifically asked him for the sign. Instead, Jesus’ followers come to the Pharisees, claiming that the sign had transpired. Not much of a sign, is it? Jesus (assuming the resurrection took place) had the perfect opportunity to come back and prove that he was telling the truth. Numerous Christians claim to have had a personal revelation that Jesus spoke to them. Does this do us any good? If it’s not something that you can see or verify, it is completely useless.

So, when we examine these proofs with even a superficial eye, we see that they do not hold water. Even more so if we were to examine them under greater scrutiny.