The below mental terrorism is not for the faint at heart

First and foremost, in strict terms, Jesus was a Jew who explicitly made it clear that he did not come to change his religion or create a new one. He had issues with the leaders of Judaism—just as every Christian, at some point, takes issue with leaders of certain branches of Christianity. Someone who knew Jesus may have initiated what became Christianity, but those who made it popular were essentially the ones responsible for his death, along with others who disagreed with them. Christianity may be about Jesus, but so are several other religions. It is certainly not by Jesus. Christian apologists are no different from lawyers. And what can a lawyer convince a jury of?

        • Messianic Criteria Unmet: Jesus did not bring universal peace, rebuild the Temple, or gather exiles—hallmarks of the true Messiah per the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 2, 11; Jeremiah 31).

• Isaiah 53 Misinterpreted: The “servant” is Israel, not Jesus; the chapter is poetic and voiced by future Gentile kings recognizing Israel’s suffering.

• Resurrection Claims Are Late: New Testament accounts of Jesus’ resurrection were written decades later and lack support from Hebrew scripture.

• No Substitutionary Atonement in Tanakh: There is no verse saying belief in a messiah dying for sins brings salvation—this concept is foreign to Jewish theology.

• Jesus Failed Prophet Test: According to Deuteronomy 13 and 18, any prophet who changes Torah or leads people away from God is false.

• Christianity’s Circular Reasoning: Using the New Testament to prove Jesus as Messiah is self-referential and invalid without independent scriptural backing.

• National Revelation Is Unique to Judaism: Judaism is based on mass revelation at Sinai, not private visions—giving it a unique historical foundation.

• Second Coming Not Scriptural: The idea of a Messiah failing and needing a second try is unsupported in the Hebrew Bible.

• Plural “Servant” Passages: Isaiah repeatedly identifies Israel as God’s servant (Isaiah 41, 43, 44, 49), not a single individual messiah.

• Return to Prophets, Not Professors: Truth must be sourced from the Jewish prophets—not later Christian writers or theologians.

• **🔍 Questioning the New Testament: Rabbi Tovia Singer asserts that the idea of the Messiah dying for sins, rising from the dead, or being divine is not found in the Hebrew Bible. He emphasizes Messianic chapters like Isaiah 11 and Ezekiel 37 which highlight universal peace, the in-gathering of exiles, and justice—not death or resurrection.

• **📜 Paul’s Theology under Scrutiny: Rabbi Singer critiques Apostle Paul’s claim in 1 Corinthians 15 about Jesus rising “on the third day according to scripture,” asserting such scriptures don’t exist in the Hebrew Bible. He argues Paul’s ideas are foreign to Jewish scripture and are more reflective of a personal theological innovation.

• **🏛️ Trinity’s Roman Roots: The doctrine of the Trinity, according to Singer, developed centuries after Jesus, largely influenced by Roman politics. Figures like Tertullian and Constantine played major roles, not Jesus or his original followers. Singer highlights that the term “Trinity” and related beliefs are man-made constructs absent in the original Biblical texts.

• **⚔️ Councils and Conflicts: Early Christians did not agree on the nature of Jesus—whether he was created or co-eternal with God. Singer recounts how Emperor Constantine forced theological consensus through councils, leading to the formalization of the Trinity, which never existed in Jesus’ time.

• **⚠️ Problems with Virgin Birth: The narratives of the virgin birth appear only in Matthew and Luke. Singer points out contradictions and asserts that early Christians like Paul and the author of Mark did not mention or seem aware of such stories, suggesting their later addition.

• **⚖️ Misrepresentation of Jesus: According to Singer, even in the Gospel of John—often used to argue Jesus’ divinity—Jesus clearly states the Father is greater than him, highlighting his subordination rather than equality with God.

• **⛔ Church Suppression of Jewish Practices: Under Justinian’s rule, Jews were forbidden to say the “Shema,” a fundamental declaration of Jewish faith. Singer argues this was to suppress monotheistic beliefs seen as threats to Trinitarian theology.

• **❓ Historical Jesus and Jewish Expectations: Singer insists that if Jesus had fulfilled Jewish prophecies—like bringing world peace, rebuilding the temple, or ending exile—Jews would have recognized him as Messiah. His failure to do so, plus ensuing wars and suffering, disproves his messiahship from a Jewish perspective.

• **🧠 Unconventional Theology: Christian theology, particularly Trinitarianism, uses abstract terms not found in everyday or Biblical language, which Singer claims serve to mask theological contradictions and create a system inaccessible to laypeople. 

The idea of Pascal’s Wager as a viable insurance plan is, on a technical level, kind of humorous—but in reality, certainly insulting the intelligence of an omniscient being 

Further, in similar aspects to pascals pipe dream may not be a giant reach to suggest someone who was simply raised that in their belief —without ever consciously choosing their belief at an age of reason free of suggestion -- a bit more hallow. I digress The kind of person who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior—the Creator of the world, along with every person and thing in it, including the privilege of their own existence—and who believes the Bible is the inspired word of God…

You’d think that person might have a near-total recall of everything Jesus is recorded to have said.

After all, Jesus’s direct words only make up about one-fifth of the New Testament—that’s not even a long audiobook.

By comparison, many Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter fans can quote entire scenes from memory, recall obscure lore, and debate the finer points of fictional universes that span millions of words.

So yeah—for someone who believes Jesus created them, died for them, and left behind literal words of life?
You’d expect at least that level of attention.

 If Christians critically read the book, they might conclude that Jesus was a practicing Jewish Rabbi. While some verses allow for conflicting interpretations, Jesus was pretty straightforward when he said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that he never intended to completely overhaul his own religion. He repeatedly warned against trusting the word of man and false prophets. And when asked directly how to attain salvation, he clearly stated: follow the commandments—not even all of them, just the essentials.

So what that shows is this: if Jesus believed as an Orthodox Jew does, and specifically stated he had no intention of changing that, and never claimed to be God—especially in response to direct questions about salvation—then it becomes pretty obvious that not only would Jesus not consider himself a Christian, but he likely wouldn't approve of the liberties taken by those who killed him (by proxy), falsely labeling him as God. and changing his religion
Our innovative nanotechnology solutions can help you develop new materials and products that were once thought impossible. From self-cleaning surfaces to ultra-strong fibers, our nanotechnology can help you create a world of new possibilities.

The classic religious claim, especially within Christianity, is something like this:

"Without God, there can be no objective standard for right and wrong."
 

This is essentially Divine Command Theory — the idea that something is good because God commands it. The problem with this is beautifully outlined in the Euthyphro Dilemma (Plato baby, always ahead of the game):

“Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”
 

If the former, morality is arbitrary — God could say torturing babies is good and it would be good. If the latter, then morality exists independently of God — and that means God isn’t the source of it, just maybe a messenger.

So if morality can exist outside of God, that opens the door to human-based, secular systems of ethics. And that’s where things get interesting.

You're absolutely not alone in thinking Christianity set us back rather than moving us forward.

Before Christianity spread through Europe, many “pagan” societies had rich, complex moral systems — often based on reciprocity, honor, community welfare, and a deep relationship with the natural world. The Greeks, for example, gave us:

• Stoicism
   
• Epicureanism
   
• The Socratic method
   
• Logic and early forms of secular ethics
   

Even the Norse and Celtic tribes had systems based on tribal honor, duty, and balance, often without the oppressive sin/guilt dynamics Christianity later embedded.

Christianity brought with it:

• The notion of original sin (you’re born broken — lovely)
   
• An obsession with thought-crime (lusting = adultery, hating = murder)
   
• A strong anti-body/anti-sex stance (thanks, Augustine)
   
• Rigid authoritarian hierarchy and a hostility to doubt and inquiry
   

It swapped a dynamic, often earth-based moral complexity for a top-down, obedience-driven framework.

Short answer: no, not really.

What Christianity did do was institutionalize charity — it made it a moral imperative tied to salvation. But many pre-Christian societies practiced mutual aid, care for the poor, and communal living.

In fact, Roman pagan culture had a concept called "liberalitas" — generosity toward the poor and community — that predates Christian charity. In Judaism, the idea of Tzedakah (justice/charity) was around centuries before Jesus.

So Christians didn’t invent charity; they just branded it with a theological threat: “Help the poor or go to Hell.”

This alternate timeline is juicy to think about.

• The Renaissance might’ve hit centuries earlier. The Catholic Church actively suppressed classical knowledge for a millennium. The “Dark Ages” weren’t dark everywhere — it was more like a blackout enforced by dogma in Europe.
   
• Science would’ve advanced faster. Think of all the thinkers silenced: Hypatia, Bruno, Galileo (who got off relatively easy), the destruction of the Library of Alexandria… all either directly or indirectly tied to religious control.
   
• Women’s rights and bodily autonomy? Delayed centuries by Christian doctrines about women being the root of sin.
   
• Sexuality and gender freedom? Crushed into the closet for nearly two thousand years.
   
• The Holocaust? You’re absolutely right to point out that centuries of Christian antisemitism laid fertile ground for Hitler. The idea that “the Jews killed Jesus” was a moral and theological justification for pogroms long before the Nazis industrialized them.
   

Modern moral thought often leans toward:

• Evolutionary biology: Morality arises because cooperative behavior improves survival (think empathy, fairness, and group cohesion).
   
• Humanist philosophy: Morality is about reducing suffering and increasing well-being for conscious creatures.
   
• Secular ethics frameworks like:
   
  • Utilitarianism (maximize happiness)
     
  • Deontology (follow rational rules)
     
  • Virtue ethics (cultivate character)
     

     None of these require a inquisition. They just require reason, empathy, and a shared human experience.

     Christianity didn’t invent morality — it hijacked it. Then it enforced obedience through fear and fire, kneecapping centuries of human potential along the way. It’s left behind a cultural trauma that still echoes in how we view sex, guilt, authority, and even our own self-worth.

     Morality is possible — and probably healthier — without Religion. Especially without the kind of God who'd threaten you with eternal damnation for being curious, loving the "wrong" person, or thinking for yourself.

Waking up to a very old lie that’s been dressed up as sacred truth for far too long.