There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Trailblazer]

In the Bible, mortal Adam was offered everlasting human life on Earth forever if he did Not break God's law found at Genesis 2:17

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That verse means they would be spiritually dead if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The verse does not say they would have lived in a physical body forever on Earth if they hadn't eaten of the tree.
NOBODY lives forever in a physical body on Earth because the human body is mortal.

Heaven was not meant to be a stepping stone for humans.

No, it wasn't. Earth is a stepping stone for humans on their way to Heaven.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

..and words have no meaning.

What ever.

 

[joelr]

Given there is a movement that appears very close to his lifetime that believes he did exist, that the Gospels and Paul's letters make more sense if he did exist,

I don't see how either of these are true. These original people and Paul appeared to be joining the Hellenistic bandwagon of dying/rising savior deities who get followers into the afterlife. Local religions were doing this and combining Greek theology with their own religion. Christianity is a combination of Judaism and Hellenism.
Some of these saviors went through their passion in the celestial realm and Paul doesn't give enough information to know if he's talking about an Earth Jesus or a Jesus who was later euhemerized.

The Gospels came several decades later and gave Jesus a story on Earth. None of that is in Paul. But the sources Mark used encompass the entire Gospel. Mark also took Paul's letters and made some of them into stories set on Earth. Like the last supper where Jesus is telling Paul a future message to give to Christians about how he is the body and blood.......Mark makes it into an actual supper with people around and so on.

There is presaedent for euhemerized Gods as well as savior demigods.

that no Jews or anti-Christians seem to doubt his existence and numerous other pieces of evidence, i'd say the most logical and parsimonious reading is that he did exist but his life was embellished for a variety of reasons.

There is a black out period where much information is lost, including naysayers. Some hints remain, in Peter he mentions people who were saying Jesus was a myth, 2 Peter 1:16
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
So someone was saying that and this was a response.

As to anti-Christians, at least 50% of all Christianity through the 2nd century was Gnosticism, showing there was no consensus but vastly different ideas about who and what Jesus was and did. So 1/2 of Christians were "heretics" by orthodox standards.

"These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

Christianity in the ante-Nicene period - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and many Jews remained Jews.

People will believe what they want though.

I guess, I am interested in believing what the evidence presents.

Well the vast majority of past and present historians of all backgrounds disagree, so I would expect that to continue into the future.

Of course this doesn't prove anything, but if we are giving odds, when the vast majority of experts of diverse backgrounds think X (and X is more parsimonious), but a small fringe of scholars with strong ideological and/or financial interests think Y (and Y is more convoluted), which is more likely to be correct in general?

The only of these scholars doing an actual Jesus historicity study since 1926 is Dr Carrier.

Since, Lataster has written a book on mythicism backing up Carrier's thesis. Many other scholars have admitted it's possible. There is a list on Carrier's blog.
The entire point of his book was to look at the evidence and just see if it holds up, which he thought it would. However it does not. There were many assumptions held for granted with historicity. Y is in fact not convoluted at all but far more straightforward. There isn't much evidence.
The Epistles that mention a Jesus on Earth are the 7 now agreed to be late forgeries.
The Josephus mention is forged and when Paul mentions "brother of the Lord" he isn't using the Greek word for biological brother, which he uses in other parts. He is using the "brother in kinship", fellow Christian word.

We cannot know but the 3 to 1 is backed up by evidence. Anyone is free to read and examine any of this. He's debated several historians and I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

Dr Kipp Davis claims Carrier makes mistakes but i cannot get him to say where or when?

 

[Alien826]

That may be true for some evangelical conservative Christian Trump supporters, but it is not true for all of them.

My family is overwhelmingly evangelical conservative Christians who firmly believe that Trump is a Christian and that God sent him to reclaim America. I'm now estranged from both sides of my family because of how they treated me while I was still a Christian and refused to support and vote for Trump. I have aunts, uncles, and cousins who have turned on me and talked about me behind my back. I was intentionally left out and not invited to our annual family reunion in the summer following Trump's election. I later found out by a friend of the family that I wasn't invited to the reunion because my presence there would have upset everyone else. Unfortunately, the verbal abuse, the bullying, and the harassment increased substantially after I voted for Biden. I had to block the phone numbers of my relatives and former conservative friends, and I blocked a few of them on Facebook. But one of the worst experiences for me was having to call the police on my cousin because he threatened to physically hurt me after he found out that I voted for Biden. I've had conservative friends whom I've known for years turn their backs on me because I don't support Trump. I had to block their phone numbers and block them on Facebook.

And, lastly, I'm a former member of a Christian forum where the majority of the evangelicals genuinely believed and declared in their posts that Trump is a Christian, that God anointed him to reclaim America, and that God appointed him to purge America of liberals. When I initially voiced my objection to Trump in a response to one of these Christians, I was immediately and persistently disparaged, called derogatory names, and accused of not being a true Christian. I was called evil and godless, and I was constantly called a "demon rat." After I informed another member who was also being harassed for not supporting Trump that I had voted for Biden, the harassment intensified even more. I was accused of being demon-possessed and was told that was what caused me to vote for Biden. I was also spitefully reported by several members, which led to my being permanently banned without a warning. But when I reported the members who harassed me, I was told that I was the troublemaker, and I received a warning, not the members who degraded and harassed me. A staff member who secretly sympathized with me emailed me the day after I was banned to let me know about a thread where these members were gloating about how they got me and the other harassed user perma-banned. It was upsetting to read the scathing remarks about me and the other user.

As the old saying goes - "You can pick your friends, you can't pick your relatives". Don't worry you have lots of friends here that think you are great! C'mon guys, let's tell her so.

"Demon Rat" would be a good forum name though, don't you think?

 

[Alien826]

Maybe you should have more trust in that part of yourself you don’t understand.

I trusted it for years, then it totally let me down.

 

[Alien826]

Going through life in fear of error sounds like a pathway to nowhere, to me.

You prefer trusting vague feelings?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You prefer trusting vague feelings?

Well, it is a bit more complicated than that, as morality and useful are feelings/emotions in the end and science/evidence can't do that:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Augustus]

I don't see how either of these are true. These original people and Paul appeared to be joining the Hellenistic bandwagon of dying/rising savior deities who get followers into the afterlife. Local religions were doing this and combining Greek theology with their own religion. Christianity is a combination of Judaism and Hellenism.
Some of these saviors went through their passion in the celestial realm and Paul doesn't give enough information to know if he's talking about an Earth Jesus or a Jesus who was later euhemerized.

The Gospels came several decades later and gave Jesus a story on Earth. None of that is in Paul. But the sources Mark used encompass the entire Gospel. Mark also took Paul's letters and made some of them into stories set on Earth. Like the last supper where Jesus is telling Paul a future message to give to Christians about how he is the body and blood.......Mark makes it into an actual supper with people around and so on.

There is presaedent for euhemerized Gods as well as savior demigods.

Paul talks about Jesus having a brother, being a descendent of David etc.

The Gospels seem to be trying to backfit a narrative onto a human Jesus, which is why it is so convoluted and contradictory and doesn't make for a very good messiah.

Cults about purely mythical gods tend not to appear in real time, at around the same time as that god lived a normal human life with a few embellishments.

Purely mythical gods tend to clearly be gods, not just humans with a small number of miracles added on.

etc.

Can always say things like "but maybe it's not a real brother" and "in theory there's nothing to stop people making up human type gods in real time" and "maybe he used a cosmic sperm bank", but there are always ways of disputing ancient evidence as it is never definitive.

There is a black out period where much information is lost, including naysayers. Some hints remain, in Peter he mentions people who were saying Jesus was a myth, 2 Peter 1:16
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
So someone was saying that and this was a response.

As to anti-Christians, at least 50% of all Christianity through the 2nd century was Gnosticism, showing there was no consensus but vastly different ideas about who and what Jesus was and did. So 1/2 of Christians were "heretics" by orthodox standards.

"These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

Yet despite all of this massive division and inability to agree, some unknown agent for some unknown reason was able to turn a celestial Jesus into a real life one without anyone pushing back on this.

We have evidence of all kinds of factionalism, but not mythicist sects

I guess, I am interested in believing what the evidence presents.

As am I. I just don't find the convoluted narratives necessary to make mythicism probable to be persuasive.

It's not impossible that a compounding series of improbable thing are all true, but for me at least, it's not probable.

We cannot know but the 3 to 1 is backed up by evidence.

The vast majority of people who lived an embellished human life and were written about in near contemporary sources actually existed.

The vast majority of leaders of movements that emerged concurrent with their purported lifetimes and were believed to have existed actually existed.

Etc.

Many other scholars have admitted it's possible.

Like most things in ancient history, we can't ever be 100% confident. A lot of things are possible, folk have to make their own minds up.

Given the evidence is pretty easily explainable around a human preacher of the kind that would be unremarkable, and this matches better with numerous other bits of evidence, that seems far more parsimonious to me.

 

[F1fan]

True Christians support the only one that can change humanity for the better, and that is Jesus Christ, who did not teach his disciples to pray for any political candidate, considering his life course anyway, aside from the "Lord's Prayer," "Let your kingdom come..." If he thought the kingdom of God was on the earth at that time, he would not have offered that prayer to his disciples.

Who are 'true Christians" and how do they differ from the rest?

What evidence is there that Jesus Christ has changed humanity for the better?

What have Christians done in the recent ast done to improve humanity? Remember Christian explorers wiped out civilizations in South America, North America, and Africa, killing millions in the process. Christians owned slaves and defended the Confederacy in the USA Civil War. Christians were the people who made the Holocaust happen. Christians promote the fraud of creationism. So were all these Christians fake?

 

[F1fan]

LoL! You have a leader, his rebellion against the rule of the Father began long ago.

Who told you atheists have a leader, and who do you think it is? And did they tell you that "the Father" created a world that allowed a rebellion against himself?

 

[Alien826]

Well, it is a bit more complicated than that, as morality and useful are feelings/emotions in the end and science/evidence can't do that:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Science/evidence can definitely test the results of making decisions based on feelings. Like that time I bought a bridge from a guy because he seemed to be reliable .....

 

[SkepticThinker]

And Jesus said "Beware of false prophets, they come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.

Lots of people don't believe things that are true.

Nice sidestepping of the point. And I see you've thrown in a No True Scotsman fallacy to boot. Which also doesn't address the point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science/evidence can definitely test the results of making decisions based on feelings. Like that time I bought a bridge from a guy because he seemed to be reliable .....

Well, yes in one sense. And no, in another for good and bad, as what matters, since they are not objective and thus evidence can't be used on them.

Science can be used to better kill humans or save them, but it can't test which one is better. It can only tell how to do what you want better, but not if it is better.

 

[Colt]

Nice sidestepping of the point. And I see you've thrown in a No True Scotsman fallacy to boot. Which also doesn't address the point.

You don't acknowledge points, so why waste time talking to you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't acknowledge points, so why waste time talking to you?

The point is that I am right and you are wrong, so why don't you acknowledge that? As with The Truth if you don't acknowledge my points, you will end up burning in Hell. Your points are of the Devil and mine are of The Truth.

See, that is so easy. Now you just do it as you and in effect it is the opposite. Such fun.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's so foreign to I conclude you don't seem sure you are Christian, and here is why.
Sounds more like preaching to atheists.


Is that your true experience?
If we tested it, would your claim prove true, that many atheists "have a similar moral and loving character that is consistent with what Jesus taught"?

I have seen and heard different.
Since I made clear the distinction between Christians, and "Christians", please be aware that, I will always make that distinction when using the term.
Christians refrain from cursing a neighbor, or stranger, whose actions may be irritating.
For example, it's not the Christian you see doing this.

So who would that be?
It's not the Christian you see doing this.

So who would that be?
It's not the Christian doing these things.
That's why signs like these exists.

Whom do you think put them up?
So I think you have the wrong idea of what Jesus taught, and I know why.
People think that helping an old lady carry her goods, or stopping their car to let some ducks across, makes them saint. They feel that makes them 'okay'
They don't consider smoking on the street to be doing their neighbors harm. Nor blasting their music - rubbish in many cases - filled with profanity, violence, or sexual obscenities.
In fact, flirting is cool to them, not harmful... when it actually is. ...and the list goes on.

Thus, they declare themselves morally upright. They declare themselves.
Then compare themselves in order to convince themselves.

This is not to say that some - not most - atheists... who remember their 'Christian' upbringing, or values their religious grandparent tried to instill in them, don't try.
Nor is it to say that some 'Christians' are not involved in these things, but by far, most "Christians" don't. Why?
They are restrained by a number of things - one being what the Bible teaches. Another, is wht others will think about them and their religion.
We aren't talking about hypocrites here.


That's a good question.
I wonder about some here, especially when they attack the only thing that provides a basis for what they claim to believe.
They attack the Bible, for example, which is where we get teachings about God and Christ.


This is a fair observation, and consideration.
It's not complicated, but because people quickly dismiss things which cannot be proven, they will always keep wondering, and come up with their own answers, which doesn't correctly answer the question.
Jesus gave the answer at Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43
You don't believe there are wicked spirit beings who influence and manipulate humans though.

Some people think they must see an invisible spirit, in order to believe in them.
I'm not referring to spirits of dead people... which people do believe in, but don't exist.


I agree. Even giving you guys nasty nudges, as I do, is not in harmony with being peaceable with all men.
Only, recently, I attended the "Friends of Peace" Assembly, where we were reminded against giving in to the temptation, to respond in kind, or use sarcastic remarks or subtle jabs.
We do get good reminders on how to imitate God and Christ, but we sometimes are a bit delinquent.
I think we take a little too much rope sometimes.
Gotta stop before that rope hangs us though.


Maybe you need to get to know Jesus better.
You see, people mistake kindness for tolerance.
So people sing this "sweet Jesus" song, because it make them feel comfortable to live their life however they want. Jesus will overlook that... they tell themselves.
That wasn't Jesus. You need to read the gospels, and forget what your priest told you, to tickle your ears.
If you really want the picture of who Jesus is, I'll be happy to paint it for you... from the Bible, of course.

Being kind does not mean accepting anything people want to do.
Didn't you notice how many times Jesus used the words "hypocrites", "offspring of vipers"?
Remember how he described one who would not be childlike, or the ones who say, but do not do?

People mix up things for their own desires.
Paul said... For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. (2 Timothy 4:3)
Yes, many many pastors water down God's word in order to keep people in their pews, and their collection plates filled.
They don't genuinely care if the people do what Jesus taught, or what the Bible actually says.

Not all do this, but yes, many do.


Many religions fit that bill. True Christianity is different. You would know if you found it.
Jesus said, You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free... if you remain in his word.
He also said, all will know his disciples by the love they have for one another.
I know where money I give goes. It doesn't go to any pastor, or priest.


No. Christians are not frauds, but yes, many "Christians" are like most politicians.


Frauds know they are frauds.
I'm not referring to sincere people who really want to know and serve God, but are misled by the money grabbing priests.
There are many sincere people in false religion, and JWs are searching for those friends of peace... finding many of them too, and they respond as peace lovers.
Most of them are sincerely wrong, that's all.
Jesus showed kindness to such ones.
(Matthew 9:36) On seeing the crowds, he felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd.


I'm a little hard on them, yes. It doesn't go against Jesus teachings though.
Wait till the judgment message starts. You haven't seen anything yet.
The only thing I am not doing right, is responding in kind, when atheist pull their stunts at ridicule and belittling.
I try to remind myself of the way I ought to respond, but being in the actual pit of the lions, the urge to growl is strong at times.
I'm working on it. It's my training ground.
I'm not like this offline.


I follow the teachings of the Bible, which is good for all - not just me, because it's God's word - the truth.
To be continued...

If you seriously think that Christians don't do all of those things on a daily basis, I've got a bridge to sell ya.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't acknowledge points, so why waste time talking to you?

Now you're projecting. I mean, this is literally what you just did.

I'd prefer you address the point I made against yours.

 

[F1fan]

That's so foreign to I conclude you don't seem sure you are Christian, and here is why.
Sounds more like preaching to atheists.

None of this responds to my observation that the more fervent a Christian is the less they follow Jesus as a teacher.

Is that your true experience?
If we tested it, would your claim prove true, that many atheists "have a similar moral and loving character that is consistent with what Jesus taught"?

I have seen and heard different.
Since I made clear the distinction between Christians, and "Christians", please be aware that, I will always make that distinction when using the term.
Christians refrain from cursing a neighbor, or stranger, whose actions may be irritating.
For example, it's not the Christian you see doing this.

So who would that be?
It's not the Christian you see doing this.

So who would that be?
It's not the Christian doing these things.
That's why signs like these exists.

Whom do you think put them up?
So I think you have the wrong idea of what Jesus taught, and I know why.
People think that helping an old lady carry her goods, or stopping their car to let some ducks across, makes them saint. They feel that makes them 'okay'
They don't consider smoking on the street to be doing their neighbors harm. Nor blasting their music - rubbish in many cases - filled with profanity, violence, or sexual obscenities.
In fact, flirting is cool to them, not harmful... when it actually is. ...and the list goes on.

Thus, they declare themselves morally upright. They declare themselves.
Then compare themselves in order to convince themselves.

This is not to say that some - not most - atheists... who remember their 'Christian' upbringing, or values their religious grandparent tried to instill in them, don't try.
Nor is it to say that some 'Christians' are not involved in these things, but by far, most "Christians" don't. Why?
They are restrained by a number of things - one being what the Bible teaches. Another, is wht others will think about them and their religion.
We aren't talking about hypocrites here.

I'm not sure why you think these words are relevant. I made the point that many atheists behave as if the follow Jesus' example, while we observe many Christians who behjave as if they use Jesus as an example of who NOT to follow.

That's a good question.
I wonder about some here, especially when they attack the only thing that provides a basis for what they claim to believe.
They attack the Bible, for example, which is where we get teachings about God and Christ.

Wow your concern is that some Christians "attack the Bible"? I'm talking about being decent to other people and your concern is a book? See, that's what I mean when Christians don't understand what Jesus taught.

This is a fair observation, and consideration.
It's not complicated, but because people quickly dismiss things which cannot be proven, they will always keep wondering, and come up with their own answers, which doesn't correctly answer the question.
Jesus gave the answer at Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43
You don't believe there are wicked spirit beings who influence and manipulate humans though.

Some people think they must see an invisible spirit, in order to believe in them.
I'm not referring to spirits of dead people... which people do believe in, but don't exist.

Again. my point was about how Christians are not decent and moral to other people, like gays and trans kids, and your only reply is about dogma? You cite these sayings but not a single word about your obligation to other human beings. Can you understand my concern? You are more interested in dogma than what the dogma is supposed to mean.

I agree. Even giving you guys nasty nudges, as I do, is not in harmony with being peaceable with all men.
Only, recently, I attended the "Friends of Peace" Assembly, where we were reminded against giving in to the temptation, to respond in kind, or use sarcastic remarks or subtle jabs.
We do get good reminders on how to imitate God and Christ, but we sometimes are a bit delinquent.
I think we take a little too much rope sometimes.
Gotta stop before that rope hangs us though.

Good for you tryng to learn, but it seems to me what you learned was how to act, not how to live. I'm talking about living what Jesus taught, not acting like you are an ideal Christian. Don't they explain how to be authentic and find inner peace? No one exvects perfection, but being authentic is important for all of us.

Maybe you need to get to know Jesus better.

Jesus is a character in a book.

You see, people mistake kindness for tolerance.

How's that?

So people sing this "sweet Jesus" song, because it make them feel comfortable to live their life however they want. Jesus will overlook that... they tell themselves.
That wasn't Jesus. You need to read the gospels, and forget what your priest told you, to tickle your ears.
If you really want the picture of who Jesus is, I'll be happy to paint it for you... from the Bible, of course.

Being kind does not mean accepting anything people want to do.
Didn't you notice how many times Jesus used the words "hypocrites", "offspring of vipers"?
Remember how he described one who would not be childlike, or the ones who say, but do not do?

People mix up things for their own desires.
Paul said... For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. (2 Timothy 4:3)
Yes, many many pastors water down God's word in order to keep people in their pews, and their collection plates filled.
They don't genuinely care if the people do what Jesus taught, or what the Bible actually says.

Not all do this, but yes, many do.

More words from you that explain the self-service of your faith. I dont notice any words about how you treat others as a Christian. This illustrates a critique I have for many Christians in that they use the religion for self-service and ignore others. This indifference to others seems to open the door to condemntation and prejudice, like against gays and trans kids. Repunblican politicans have been using prejudice against gays and trans kids to gain favor with concervative Christians, and this just makes their failure to follow Jesus'teachings worse. This is why I said Christians should be liberals, because the hostility by crepublicans to marginalized groups is getting worse and less Christ-like.

Many religions fit that bill. True Christianity is different. You would know if you found it.
Jesus said, You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free... if you remain in his word.
He also said, all will know his disciples by the love they have for one another.
I know where money I give goes. It doesn't go to any pastor, or priest.

I don't see any "true Christians" who focus on what Jesus taught. I think you like using this phrase as if it puts you in a different category as the superficial Christian. As I have noted I think you use this phrase to fool yourself about the truth of your devotion, that it is self-serving and typically shallow.

No. Christians are not frauds, but yes, many "Christians" are like most politicians.

Christians that live by Jesus' example are authentic. I don't see many authentic Christians on the forum. I see most use Christianity as an identity as if applying dogma to self-image fools critical thinkers.

Frauds know they are frauds.

Not always. Many frauds fool themselves about what they are doing. This is how they "tell the truth" to others. The dilemma of self-deception is not knowning what the truth is. This is why honesty, humility, and self-reflection is important. The rejection of dogma indictaes a person has control and agency over their lives. Those who subjmit to dogma and live as agents to dogma are little more than obedient ghosts.

I'm not referring to sincere people who really want to know and serve God, but are misled by the money grabbing priests.
There are many sincere people in false religion, and JWs are searching for those friends of peace... finding many of them too, and they respond as peace lovers.
Most of them are sincerely wrong, that's all.
Jesus showed kindness to such ones.
(Matthew 9:36) On seeing the crowds, he felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd.

You can point fingers, can you see yourself?

I'm a little hard on them, yes. It doesn't go against Jesus teachings though.
Wait till the judgment message starts. You haven't seen anything yet.
The only thing I am not doing right, is responding in kind, when atheist pull their stunts at ridicule and belittling.
I try to remind myself of the way I ought to respond, but being in the actual pit of the lions, the urge to growl is strong at times.
I'm working on it. It's my training ground.
I'm not like this offline.

If you feel like you are being attacked why are you on a forum where you know your religious beliefs are questioned? If you actually had the truth you would be able to answer any challenge. What I notice is how many believers think they have the truth, and often over-confident, and then face hard rational questions that they never asked themselves. Of course the cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, and critique feels like an attack. The ego tends to feel attacked. But we humans aren't our beliefs. When you feel discomfort that indictaes your ego is being stung. That isn't living authentically, it's living as an agent for dogma. That is a sort of fraud.

I don't blame most believers. They are taught bad habits of belief by religious culture and get trapved by the dogma they become dependent on for personal significance.

I follow the teachings of the Bible, which is good for all - not just me, because it's God's word - the truth.
To be continued...

I don't see that you do. I'm not sure which teachings you are following, but it doesn't seem consistent with what Jesus taught.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, many many pastors water down God's word in order to keep people in their pews, and their collection plates filled.
They don't genuinely care if the people do what Jesus taught, or what the Bible actually says.

Is this the approach you prefer?

 

[RestlessSoul]

You prefer trusting vague feelings?

I would say the head can lead us astray every bit as much as the heart can. People convince themselves of all sorts of useless nonsense by way of what they consider reasoned argument.

By and large, I have learned to trust my intuition though not without reservations.