This belief has been a source of contention with many people, even Christians, in the past. But the more I research, the more I find it to be the case that Christianity is the only viable worldview that is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith.
Think about it: The believer in the Islamic faith has to trust in a private encounter Muhammad had, and this encounter is unable to be tested historically. We have no way to truly investigate the claims of Joseph Smith (and when we do, they are found wanting). Buddhism and Hinduism are not historic faiths, meaning they don’t have central claims of events in time and space which believers are called upon to investigate. You either adopt their philosophy or you don’t. There is no objective way to test them. Run through every religion that you know of and you will find this to be the case: Either it does not give historic details to the central event, the event does not carry any worldview-changing significance, or there are no historic events which form the foundation of the faith.
This is what it looks like:
A few months ago, I was emceeing an apologetics event in Dallas hosted by the Christian Renaissance Apologia Conference. The scholars present were Dan Wallace, Darrel Bock, Gary Habermas, and Craig Evans. Each of these are men that I admire and trust, as I believe they are seeking truth and not a confirmation of their prejudice. I asked them during the conference if there are any other religions or worldviews that they knew of that had apologetics conferences the way Christianity does. In other words, can other religions pull together enough objective intellectual backing to form a solid defense for their faith? Each of them responded with the same: no. They went on to express the same sentiments of my present argument. “Even atheists,” Habermas said, “have nothing but ‘negative apologetics’.” In other words, Christianity has a significant amount of historically verifiable data which forms the bedrock of the faith. This is “positive apologetics.” An atheist conference, for example, does nothing but belittle the claims of other religions (primarily Christianity). “There is no positive defense that one can give for naturalism,” Habermas concluded. Therefore, the only thing available to the atheist is an attempt to overturn the massive amount of evidence that Christianity has.
This makes a lot of sense. If I decided to start a religion, deceptively or not, I would not make false claims to recent historic events that did not happen. Why? Because I know those claims could be tested. Also, I would not give details about the time, place, and people involved. More than that, I would not invite contemporaries to investigate these claims. For example, if I were to say today that in 1965 there was a man named Titus who was born in Guthrie, OK and traveled about Oklahoma City doing many miracles and gaining a significant following, this could easily be falsified. I would not say that Mary Fallin, the governor of Oklahoma, along with Tom Coburn, US Senator from Oklahoma, had Titus electrocuted. I would not detail that the electrocution was in Bricktown on January 13, 1968 at 9am. I wouldn’t claim that Titus rose from the dead and gained a significant following throughout Oklahoma City which has spread across America. Why wouldn’t I make these claims as the foundation of my new religion? Because they can be easily tested and falsified. This religion could not possibly get off the ground. If I were to make up a religion, all the events which support the religion (if any) would be private and beyond testing.
This is why you don’t have religions based on historic events. They are all, with the exception of Christianity, based on private encounters which cannot be falsified or subjective ideas which are beyond inquiry. The amazing thing about Christianity is that there is so much historic data to be tested. Christianity is, by far, the most falsifiable worldview there is. Yet, despite this, Christianity flourished in the first century among the very people who could test its claims. And even today, it calls on us to “come and see” if the claims are true.
The only reason why I can say Christianity survived in the midst of such historic volatility is because it is true. And this is exactly what I would expect if there were an all-powerful God who created and loves this world. When he intervenes, he makes a significant enough footprint that historic inquiry is demanded. Think about that next time you are critiquing the Christian faith. The only reason you can is because it is the only religion that has opened itself up to such critique. Simply put, Christianity is the most falsifiable religion there is and yet it has survived. Why?
151 replies to "Christianity, the World’s Most Falsifiable Religion"
[…] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/07/christianity-the-worlds-most-falsifiable-religion/ […]
[…] on your point about falsifiability, I thought you might find this article of interest:http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/07/christianity-the-worlds-most-falsifiable-religion/ I disagree with it’s authors in that I do see some atheists trying to make a case for naturalism, […]
[…] Michael Patton points out that there is a huge difference between the evidence for Christianity and the evidence for other world […]
I think you can EASILY applying the criticism of David Hume to this, and come up with any kind of excuse.
For example, Maybe they were convinced by an apocalyptic prophet that he would be coming back soon, so they made up more and more crazy stories fulfilling ‘prophecy’ to convert people as quickly as possible, including a ‘resurrection’ that paralleled the beliefs of the pharisees in a resurrection of the dead at final judgement.
Skeptics are empiricists, so they’d require Jesus to come in modern times, be interviewed before and after crucifixion on camera, run medical tests by medical doctors, put him under surveillance, test the water into wine miracles blah blah.
I think Christianity is the most likely religion, but it still comes down to faith at some point.
[…] “Christianity, the World’s Most Falsifiable Religion” by C. Michael Patton: “Christianity is the only viable worldview that is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith.” […]
[…] CHRISTIANITY — ROOTED IN REAL HISTORY — C. Michael Patton writes about how Christianity is based on events that happened in history in a way that other religions, such as Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and even atheism, are not. Read about it on Parchment & Pen Blog: Christianity, the World’s Most Falsifiable Religion. […]
[…] by C Michael Patton July 8th, 2013 119 Comments […]
[…] Speaking of other faiths, did you know that Christianity is the ONLY one based on true historical events? Don’t misunderstand, there are historical figures who are part of the other faith’s found (such as Mohammed) but everything the faith teaches is based on an INDIVIDUAL REVELATION to that person, not historical facts. Read the difference here. […]
[…] The point that Jesus is announcing something that has happened should not be missed. Christianity is a worldview based on events that occurred in history. The claims it makes can and should be examined. That is why Wright encourages Christians (and others) to dig into the historical Jesus and examine the evidence. C. Michael Patton at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries writes: […]
Something that I have found curious for some time now is the fact that Christian apologists and evangelists constantly appeal to things like Big Bang (or kalam) cosmology, history from 2000 years ago, and tenuous chains of reasoning about what “must” be true. None of this is _empirically_ verifiable in the here-and-now, certainly not by me.
But wait! We can find examples of scientific reasoning in the Bible. There is Gideon’s fleece (Judges 6:36-40) and Elijah v. the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18:18-40). Good, falsifiable scientific experiments. They may be questionable in terms of Deut 6:16, but that issue is not raised in the text. God delivers.
More to the point, we have the promise of John 14:12-14, that believers will do the works that Jesus did, and greater besides. For what works is Jesus known? Healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, raising from the dead. There’s falsifiability for you.
Claims of such miracles abound, of course, but I’m not aware of any that have been verified to any scientific standard. Why is that?
Tell you what. I have a relative who will die unpleasantly in the next few years of a condition they did _not_ bring upon themselves. Heal them. I will even take their condition on myself and die in their place if that makes it easier. Do that and I will believe anything else you say and do whatever you ask.
I am sure that one or more theologians have good explanations for why the plain words of your scriptures don’t really mean what they say but are still completely true. Whatever. Just quit throwing words around as though they demonstrate something. Talk is cheap. (1 Cor 4:20)
No one saw Jesus rise from the tomb. Christianity is nothing but a faith just like the rest of the religions, that’s not necessarily a bad thing but you can’t apply fact to it.
? What do you mean no one saw him? After he conquered death he even proved himself to be alive to a number of people before he went to heaven. So please you saying no one saw him? So dont say no one saw him when it clearly states in the bible that he did show witness to a number people after. And you can try to fault the bible but you wont be able to because its all truth and you live your life however u want and dis regard this message but
seriously if your saying when you die on earth thats it?
So if babies that die from miscarriages its pretty much over? There is a heaven and the lord jesus christ loves you so much he died for u so please go and ask questions on how to be saved. So you know you wont spend eternity with the devil in torment and in hell.
Watch the first 1/3 of the zeitgeist movie silly sun worshipers. Humanity… Jeez. End religion. End the weak excuses for the world problems.
Why do people like Anthony above say that Jesus didn’t come to start a religion? Have they not read James 1, the last few verses! Good grief. Let’s not throw out the religion of Jesus Christ with the bath water. It’s like people aren’t reading the Bible.
Oh, by the way, great article here! Thank you.
“Tell you what. I have a relative who will die unpleasantly in the next few years of a condition they did _not_ bring upon themselves. Heal them. I will even take their condition on myself and die in their place if that makes it easier. Do that and I will believe anything else you say and do whatever you ask.”
Where do you live?
I’m up for the challenge, if you are near where I live or travel (I can’t be irresponsible with my money or my family in chasing an online offer). Or if your travels will bring you and your relative my way.
HERE is the deal though: LOADS of people SAY they will believe (“seeing is believing”) and still walk away with their selfishness and doubt intact. But I’ll uphold my part of the deal….within reason.
Where?
“Tell you what. I have a relative who will die unpleasantly in the next few years of a condition they did _not_ bring upon themselves. Heal them. I will even take their condition on myself and die in their place if that makes it easier. Do that and I will believe anything else you say and do whatever you ask.”
Where do you live?
I’m up for the challenge, if you are near where I live or travel (I can’t be irresponsible with my money or my family in chasing an online offer). Or if your travels will bring you and your relative my way.
HERE is the deal though: LOADS of people SAY they will believe (“seeing is believing”) and still walk away with their selfishness and doubt intact. But I’ll uphold my part of the deal….within (geographical) reason.
Where?
Just saw this post. Magnificent! Thank you!
I’m baffled by the entire premise of this article. Let’s focus just on the New testament:
The biblical accounts of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus not only are falsifiable, they falsify one another again and again.
According to one of the 3 accounts of the birth of Jesus, one mentions that Herod murdered ALL the males in the region under 2. Show one extra-biblical account of that. (We of course know that Herod and Quirinius did not live and rule anywhere near the same time.) One account says the family went to Egypt directly after his birth, another says they went to Nazareth, another hints they stayed in Bethlehem.
Many of the “Public” miracles of Jesus would have had at least some passing mention Somewhere. None do. You don’t raise the dead child of a centurion and it not get noticed.
None of the gospels support one another on most of the miracles; different numbers of possessed or blind men, or pigs, for example.
The accounts of his resurrection contradict one another on many counts. Again, if the sky turned black, the ground shook, the veil rent in twain, AND Many DEAD rose from the graves and went arount talking about Jesus, SOMEONE would have made a note of it. (This is problem all the way through the bible, not just NT.)
We are talking about a book, which is filled with things that, at the time could not be known, but now ARE known, to be just flat wrong. The “heavens” is not a solid dome. It does not hold back the ‘waters above’. Stars cannot smash down into places on the earth because they are STARS. Bats are not Birds. Rabbits do not chew the cud. The Earth is not flat, does not have ‘corners’. These were not metaphors. The Earth MOVES. The Sun does not rise, nor set, nor go round the earth, could not have stood still or gone backwards. There was no global flood. There was no multi-century slavery in Egypt, nor any exodus as told in the bible.
cont: In contrast, there IS some substantial backup for their captivity in Mesopotamia, etc.. Moses did not write about his own death and burial. The Universe is not 6000-1000 years old. Human’s evolved over time, like all life; so there could be no actual Adam or Eve.
The O.T. claims “God will protect you, no harm can come to you… etc. Let’s look at that:
Psalms: 32:7 You are my hiding place; you will protect me from trouble and surround me with songs of deliverance. 37:28 For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off; 41:1-3 Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes. The LORD will sustain him on his sickbed
Is 43:2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.
2 Thes3:2-4 And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men,
The point is, in Many places the bible explicitly promises to protect us… This is verifiably false.
My Favorite, saved for last: Mk 16: 17-18: these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 They will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” This entire passage gets proven wrong daily.
This particular one regularly gets disproven in the south by preachers and members who get bit, loose limbs, and die from snake bites. Oddly, I never hear of them downing a bottle of bleach to try THAT theory.
TBC: One short one left. 🙂
Cont. Last part:
Many try to weasel out of this by saying it is just about spiritual protection and not physical. Well, the Israelites didn’t apply it that way when they went into battle based on it. Paul got bit by a snake (according to legend) and did not die. Some Could be taken either way, and some specifically mention spiritual protection and some specifically mention physical protection. I maintain, that given the high rates of immorality, and abuse in the church (it SHOULD be lower than the unchurched but it is not), and the fact that all churches have lightning rods and insurance, and the sickness/death rates in disasters and epidemics is the same for the religious as the non-religious, or other religions, God Does NOT protect us from anything.
I think the focus should be, rather, Here is this claim; or set of claims; concerning a jew, who may have lived about 2000 years ago. Let’s go see if we can find evidence to back this story up! Rather than, “Let’s believe it and let others disprove it.”.
(Note: there is only a ‘like’ button, no dislike.)
I can say the same about Loch Ness Monsters and mermaids…
C Michael Patton, you state that Christianity must be the truth because multiple people claimed to see Jesus come back to life, and other religions are pure fiction because only one person saw a divine event occur. Look, it might sound reasonable, at first, but that makes no sense. What if one person said a group of people saw it? You weren’t there. You don’t know that that’s not the case. Besides, a multiple people can agree to spread rumors and lies. A group of liars is no more trustworthy than one.
You might as well read the bible again and please read it more carefully this time. If you have ever read the chapters of Mark, Luke, John and Matthew, which I assume you haven’t (based on what you have written), you will find that many times they will present different or contradicting facts. I truly hope that you are not one of the people with ‘blind faiths’ that you yourself condemned.
Articulated brilliantly. For those in this thread arguing Judaism is more logical, you haven’t been taught that Jeshua fulfilled the signs foretold by the prophets. He was crucified because he responded to the Jews as I AM.
I thought it would be interesting to look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from the orthodox/conservative/evangelical Christian stand point, excluding, however, baseless assumptions. I am excluding fundamentalists in this discussion because fundamentalist Christian views are so extreme that it would be hopeless to try and reconcile them with the actual evidence. Some fundamentalists would probably believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sat down and wrote their gospels within ten minutes of the Ascension.
A. The Gospel of Mark
So, let’s start with the first gospel written, as almost all scholars agree: the gospel of Mark. Most scholars believe that it was written sometime between 65-75 AD. So let’s accept an earlier date for the writing of this gospel: mid 60’s, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
1. Who wrote Mark: the gospel itself does not tell us. No clear assignment of authorship is given until Irenaeus in the late second century. Yes, Papias in the early second century mentions that someone told him that John Mark had written a gospel, but Papias does not identify the gospel.
2. Where was Mark written? We don’t know. Most scholars do not believe that Mark was written in Palestine, but let’s just say that it was. So the gospel is written 30-35 years after Jesus’ death in 30-33 AD. Historians tell us that the average life span of people in the first century was age 45. How many people would still be alive in 65 AD who had been old enough to witness the crucifixion of Jesus? If you were fifteen in the year 30 AD, you would now be fifty in 65 AD, above the average first century life span. And I would bet that even most fundamentalist Christians would believe that the disciples were older than fifteen at the time of the crucifixion. So let’s say that the disciples of Jesus were between twenty and thirty years old in 30 AD. That would make them fifty-five to sixty-five years old in 65 AD, if they were still alive! We have no proof that any of the disciples were still alive in 65 AD.
3. Even if Mark were written in Palestine, 30 years after the death of Jesus, and there were still people alive who witnessed the resurrection, how soon was the gospel put into public circulation? Maybe the author wrote it for just one wealthy benefactor. Maybe he wrote it just for his small group of Christians, none of whom were old enough to remember the crucifixion. Maybe the gospel was not put into public circulation until after 70 AD. If true, the entire city of Jerusalem has been destroyed, most of its inhabitants are dead or carried off. If there had been a tomb of Jesus, who would now be alive to point out where it was. Remember, all this is assuming that the gospel was written in Palestine or at least circulated in Palestine in the 60’s or 70’s. For all we know, the gospel of Mark was written in Rome and copies of it did not arrive in Palestine until after 100 AD or later! Who would still be alive to say, “Hey, that’s not what happened!”?
4. Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple.
Even if Jesus did prophesy/predict the destruction of the Temple, is this proof that he is God? If someone living in Europe in the mid 1930’s had predicted that Europe would be devastated by a second world war, that Germany would lose, and that Germany would be partitioned as punishment for starting the war, would we believe that this person was God? Just because someone predicts something that comes true is not proof that they are divine.
5. Was the author of Mark an eyewitness to the Resurrection?
The author of Mark never claims to be an eyewitness. He even writes in the third person. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the author was not an eyewitness but to say he was is simply a guess.
B. The Gospel of Matthew
1. Who wrote Matthew? The author does not tell us. The assignment of the apostle Matthew as author of this gospel is not mentioned until the late second century by Irenaeus.
2. Most scholars believe that Matthew was written after Mark and that one can find 70% of the content of Mark within Matthew, often word for word.
3. Where was Matthew written? We have no idea. Again, for all we know, it could have been written in a foreign country, far away from any eyewitnesses to the crucifixion. We have no idea when it was first circulated in Palestine for any elderly eyewitness to say, “Hey. That isn’t what happened!”
4. Was Matthew an eyewitness to the Resurrection?
The author of Matthew never claims to be an eyewitness. He writes in the third person. Again, not proof that he was not an eyewitness but to say he was is no better than a guess. The author of Matthew could simply have been writing a story he had heard third, fourth, or twentieth hand.
C. The Gospel of Luke
1. Who wrote Luke? The author of Luke does not say. No clear assignment of authorship of this gospel is given until the late second century by Ireneaus.
2. Where was Luke written? We have no idea.
3. The author of the Gospel of Luke also borrows heavily from the Gospel of Mark. Approximately 50-55% of the content of Mark can be found in Luke, frequently, word of word.
4. Was the author of Luke an eyewitness?
Luke very clearly states in the first few verses of chapter one that he is not an eyewitness. He states that he carefully investigated the writings of others (Mark and “Q”?) which he didn’t seem to find satisfactory, and that his sources had given him eyewitnesses testimony. However, he does not identify his sources. Were his sources eyewitnesses themselves or were his sources associates of eyewitnesses giving him “eyewitness” testimony from their source or sources, which would make Luke’s information, at best, second hand information.
D. The Gospel of John
Many conservative Christians believe that the author of John infers that he is John, the son of Zebedee, by using the term “the beloved disciple”. I personally (and many scholars) do not think that the author of John is referring to himself as the beloved disciple but is claiming to be recounting the story of the beloved disciple. But let’s assume that the author of the Gospel of John does claim to be John, the beloved disciple. What evidence do we have to determine if his claim is true? Do we have any contemporary Christian or non-Christian testimony that states that John, the son of Zebedee, wrote the Gospel of John? No. We do not. The assignment of authorship of this gospel is not made until the end of the second century, again, by Ireneaus. Papias makes no mention of this gospel.
So just because someone claimed to be John, the beloved disciple, recounting an eyewitness account of the life, death, and supernatural resurrection of Jesus, should we take him at his word?? Many, many “gospels” were floating around the Mediterranean world in the late first and second centuries. The non-canonical Gospel of Peter may have been written even earlier than Mark! Yet, no one, including fundamentalists, believes that the apostle Peter wrote the Gospel of Peter. So, how do we know that the author of the Gospel of John, if he really was claiming to be John, was really John, the beloved disciple, son of Zebedee?? The fact is, that we have no more evidence that John wrote the Gospel of John than we do that Peter wrote the Gospel of Peter, other than Irenaeus’ declaration in 180 AD, in France, one hundred and fifty years after the crucifixion, that the four gospels we have today were written by the persons that he asserts, based upon evidence, that he never gives!
E. What Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus do we have so far?
We have four first century books describing the alleged facts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but only one, (maybe), claims to be an eyewitness testimony.
Dozens of Romans senators claimed that the first Roman king, Romulus, was snatched up into heaven right in front of their eyes…but no Christian believes this eyewitness testimony.
Thirteen men living in the early nineteenth century signed legal affidavits, swearing under oath, that they personally had seen the Golden Tablets delivered to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni with their own two eyes, and three of these men signed affidavits that they had seen the angel Moroni himself with their own two eyes…but yet no Christian believes this eyewitness testimony.
Thousands upon thousands of devout, pious Roman Catholics have claimed to have seen the Virgin Mary, alive, often many hundreds or even thousands together in the same location, at the same time…but no Protestant or evangelical Christian denomination believes this eyewitness testimony to be true.
Yet, Protestant/evangelical Christians will believe as absolute fact, that a first century dead man walked out of his tomb after three days of decomposing, ate a broiled fish lunch with his friends, and then levitated into outer space based on the testimony of…one…,possible, eyewitness’ testimony!
F. But what about the Apostle Paul?
The testimony of Saul/Paul of Tarsus is used by Christians as secondary proof of the Resurrection of Jesus. Christians do not allege that Paul saw a resurrected Jesus prior to his Ascension into Heaven. In I Corinthians Paul makes this statement, “Have I not seen the Christ?”
But when Paul says he has “seen” the Christ, what did he see actually? Well, Acts chapter 26 tells us exactly what Paul saw, in his own words: Paul saw a talking, bright light that told him that it (the talking, bright light) was Jesus. And, Paul very specifically states, that he saw this talking, bright light…”in a heavenly vision”.
Talking bright lights are not resurrected bodies and visions are not reality.
Yes, Paul came to believe that Jesus had been bodily resurrected, but there is no evidence that Paul believed this due to seeing a resurrected body. Paul was a Pharisee, and Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection, so if Paul believed that the talking, bright light speaking to him on the Damascus Road was the executed Jesus, then he would of course believe that he had seen the (bodily) resurrected Jesus, even if he had actually not seen a body, but only a bright light!
Conclusion:
The belief that a first century dead man, named Jesus, walked out of his tomb with a new, superman-like body that could teleport between cities (Emmaus and Jerusalem), could walk through locked doors (the Upper Room), and could teleport into outer space (the Ascension) is based on one alleged eyewitness who wrote a book 40-60 years after the alleged event, whose authorship was not mentioned by any Christian or non-Christian until 150 years later, at the end of the second century, when it was finally called the Gospel of John…and…on the “heavenly vision” of a vision prone Jewish rabbi, Saul/Paul of Tarsus (who also said that he was teleported to the “third heaven”. What other writer of the Bible refers to the concept of multiple heavens?)
And we are asked to believe that based on this “evidence”, Jesus of Nazareth now sits on a throne in the far reaches of outer space, ruling as our Almighty Lord and King of the Universe??
The Romans and Mormons have better evidence for their supernatural tall tales than this tale! It is an ancient legend, folks. A fantastic, supernatural superstition. The chances that it is true are infintisimal.
There’s a lot of talk about evidence, but what exactly is it you think it proves?
I find it interesting that biasing Truth within the realm of publicly acclaimed roots of Faith are results found here by what “man” says and claims. Facts are facts, yes, but you cannot encounter Truth without something relational. Yahweh created men and women for “Relationship” and for His purposes. Argue all day long…….try and substantiate facts and claims about other gods but the Truth is and was and will always be HIM! You can’t know this until you call upon Him and ask for relationship with Him through Truth which is His Son, Yeshua, who died, spilt His blood, defeated satan and all his dominion (hell) and rose to the Throne room to be with Whom all have been looking for THE WHOLE TIME. Yahweh is His name and HE loves you………just ask Him and for Him to reveal Himself and His Truth 🙂
Your argument has one huge hole in it. Christianity springs directly from Judaism. Without Judaism, there is no Christianity. Judaism started off like every other religion you mentioned. One persons private encounter with a so called god. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses… all of them are completely unable to be substantiated. And so it takes blind faith to believe it. Consequently making blind faith the core tenet of Christianity. To dismiss Judaism is to dismiss anything that remotely validates Jesus as a Messiah.