Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H
Gormley


THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE UNRELIABLE

 

Up until today, everybody thought witches could cause storms through using incantations and that mice can appear from nowhere in straw as if straw somehow makes them!  It was easy for the past not to question the resurrection for the stone of Jesus' tomb could have moved like the storm through magic and he could easily rise when straw turns into mice!

 

Christianity claims to be the only religion that has the power to save from sin.  If Christianity is really good, and if Jesus really is saviour from sin as it says, then why did so many forgers and so on lie for it in the early days?  The New Testament itself complains about forged letters allegedly from the apostles whose word is final for Jesus made them his spokesmen.  After that there are loads of fake gospels and epistles and Acts.  The lies go on and on and the Donation of Constantine, a forgery, is the biggest reason for the power of the Roman Catholic Church today.  A religion that lies like that and depends on lies and was empowered by lies is sectarian against historians.  Whose rights come first then?  The historians!  This page is not merely about debate but about respect.


Christians argue that the four gospels have no proven major contradictions between themselves and fit what is known from other sources about the times Jesus lived in.  They say the gospels are reliable.  But the fact remains that many beg to differ.  The gospels do make huge blunders.  And a lot of what they say cannot be checked out.  Nazareth for example has never been located.  And the gospels were copied by hand so alterations could have been made at an early stage.  There is no proof for alternation and no proof against it either.  But that does not matter.  For some things you cannot expect evidence. For example, if the gospels were tampered with it is possible that it was done carefully.  The doctrine of gospel reliability is just an assumption.


The Roman Catholic Church has been forced to confess that the Bible is unreliable and contains stories that are not true.


 

The four gospellers and the rest of the New Testament works. They must have been the best experts on theology and ethics there ever was when they could be sure that Jesus always did right. Brighter people than them cannot agree on what is right and wrong so why should we listen to a few tax-collectors and fishermen that Jesus was sinless? They never ensured that the other side would be given a hearing and that is a sure sign of unjust bias towards making a superstar of Jesus. They did not want people to make up their own minds.

It cannot be true what Matthew says about all Jerusalem being disturbed by and interested in the Magiís claim that the Messiah had been born. The citizens would have thought the Magi were cranks and how could they have been disturbed for they wanted the Messiah to come and throw the Romans out. The gospels says they went to Herod to ask him if he knew where the Christ child was. We cannot believe that Herod desperately wanted the child dead and instead of sending spies after the Magi depended on them to come back and tell him where the child was! The Magi would have known that he was a jealous fanatic from gossip so what did they go to Herod for in the first place?

It was also a scandal that Matthew said that everybody believed the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem for Micah predicted that when he did not actually say the Messiah would be born there only that he would come from there.

If Matthew believed that Josephís dream about an angel was a real vision and not just a dream that happened to be right (2) Matthew was commanding us to be credulous and so he cannot be trusted with his other miracle stories, the greater ones such as the resurrection. Jesus was the one who said that if you cannot trust anyone in small you cannot trust them in big things either.

It is said that there is no conflict between the records which give different numbers and accounts of the appearances of the risen Jesus for they do not mention them all. That would be true if the gospels were not written to function as evidence for the divine authority of Jesus Christ. They say that miracles were to be signs for the world and then they deny it by leaving out most of Jesusí post-resurrection miracles. A complete contradiction.

Mark expects us to believe that Jesus wanted nobody to know that he cured the daughter of Jairus. If he didnít then he would have cured her in secret from a distance for he had to know the people at the house would gossip far and wide about his healing prowess. Markís Jesus was a deceiver when he behaved like that. He was capable of faking miracles.

When the oldest gospel, Mark, has claims like the chief priests and the scribes trying to arrest Jesus by trickery to avoid a disturbance among the people at festival time though the people were told about it as soon as it happened and has Jesus himself wondering why the Jews never arrested him in the temple when they had the chance it shows a lot of lies were being told. The Jewish leaders knew that if there would be trouble it would be guaranteed if they tried to eliminate Jesus at the festival time for that would be worse than arresting him. Lots of people with huge fan bases were arrested at festival times so Mark is lying when he says the Jews were reluctant to do the same to Jesus.

Matthew, Mark and Luke want us to believe that the Sanhedrinís false witnesses at Jesusí trial contradicted each other left right and centre when they would have been better coached than that. Besides there was no need for them because Jesus claimed to be the Messiah which was illegal under Roman law and the gospels themselves say making this claim meant a death sentence. The Sanhedrin would have questioned Jesus first instead of trying to incriminate him with false witnesses.


Luke said that Jesus was very famous and the Jews complained to Pilate the Roman Procurator that Jesus was inflaming people all over Judea and Galilee. Pilate had just met Jesus and was told then by the Jews that Jesus was a Galilean and so was under King Herod's jurisdiction and upon learning that he sent Jesus to Herod.

 

All that is nonsense. Pilate would have known that already if Jesus were really that famous.


Luke says that the Jews accused Jesus to Pilate of claiming to be a king. Jesus then admits it to Pilate and Pilate then says the man has committed no crime. This is a contradiction. The Jews knew it was a crime and here we are asked to believe that it wasn't. History testifies that Rome did not tolerate alleged kings in Israel. It was a crime to claim to be a king.

It is undeniable that Jesus could have got a donkey without having one stolen. He told his disciples to take a donkey and if anybody objected just to say the Master had need of it. They could not be expected to believe it really was for the Master. The donkey was stolen for Jesus told them to say this only if anybody asked them what they were doing. So he had no problem with them just taking the donkey and telling nobody. Then why did the owners let them take it? Perhaps they believed with Jesus that the world was about to end soon so you could let people steal off you. Jesus advised letting people steal off you in the Sermon on the Mount. With all the followers Jesus had he should have been able to get a donkey without this bizarre set-up and certainly without stealing one. If he walked about as much as the gospels say it is extraordinary that he didnít have one already.

John has Magdalene not knowing Jesus rose after her first visit to the tomb while Matthew has her and her companions being told and persuaded by an angel that Jesus rose on the first visit.

In Matthew, the angel sends a message for the apostles to go to Galilee to see Jesus risen from the dead while in John they see him that same day in Jerusalem. Christians deny that the angel meant that they were to see him for the first time in Galilee. But what else could the angel have meant? He said they had to go to Galilee to see Jesus. When the gospels could not get the most important appearance right why trust them in the other religious claims they make? Jesus is even presented as telling the disciples they will be scattered when they lose their shepherd Ė himself Ė but that when he rises he will go before them to Galilee which clearly means that is where they will see him again for the first time, contradicting John which places the meetings in Jerusalem.

Christians say the differences - and some would admit that there are contradictions - tell us that if the gospels agreed it would be a sign that the stories were being made up. We must realise and help Christians to realise that the accounts of two or more witnesses being identical are not contrived just because they are identical. If the witnesses could have met after the event they are testifying to and before they gave their testimony then and only then could the accounts be fabricated. It is totally ridiculous to argue that because the gospels differ that they are sincere for they could have looked up what the reports about Jesus were saying. They contradicted each other because they thought each other was wrong or each gospel was hoping to become the scripture of the Church and exclude the other gospels so the contradicting could have been on purpose. So if the gospels are true they have to agree on everything. So you can be sure that when the Gospel of John reports almost entirely things that Jesus did that do not match the other gospels and when John decrees that two witnesses are necessary it follows that John is telling us to scrap his gospel if he has no support. And there is nothing but his own word.

 

2 Peter 1 has the apostle Peter saying that himself and the other witnesses did not make up myths about the coming of Jesus for they saw his glory on the mountain when God declared Jesus to be his beloved Son who pleased him well. This implies that the apostles never knew Jesus until he started coming to them in visions. There is no reason to hold that this vision took place before the resurrection but it is more likely to have come after. This contradicts the idea that the vision took place before the resurrection which is in the gospels. The letter is saying that it was not a myth that Jesus was seen! He talks as if Jesus was only known in visions and that the gospels are false.


The gospel stories as HG Wells noted are careful about not being too specific as to where and exactly when things happened. And why is there virtually no information about any of the characters from other sources?

One bad thing about believing in the divinity and inspiration of the New Testament is that men long long ago chose the books they wanted to put in it and these men worked without the greater intelligence and methods of scientific investigation that are employed today. To reply that God chose the Bible books that compose the Bible and men only ratified it is really to put men before God because there is nothing to prove that God really chose it. Anybody could say God told them to do this or that.

Christians are not devoted to Jesus at all. They are devoted to what early Christians wrote about him. It is their word about Jesus that is trusted and not Jesus. Jesus is a victim of the Church as much as each member of the Church is. The clergy are in on the hoax too and the theologians undeniably are. What a fantastic way to get control over peoplesí lives. People will always disagree with one another even in the simplest of issues. When Christians are asked to accept all the gospels say that is a sure indication of a desire to manipulate them by getting them to suppress any critical faculties they might have. For example, when Mark said Pilate asked the centurion if Jesus was really dead for he seemed to die too soon he does not name his sources. If the gospel was really from God it would be able to for we cannot stake too much on hearsay or what might be pure invention.


It Ainít Necessarily So, Investigating the Truth of the Biblical Past, Matthew Sturgis, Headline Books, London, 2001
Conspiracies and the Cross, Timothy Paul Jones, Front Line, A Strang Company, Florida, 2008
The Jesus Inquest, Charles Foster, Monarch Books, Oxford, 2006

 


 
WORKS CONSULTED

A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Thomas Bokenkotter, Image Books, New York, 1979
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
Asking them Questions, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
Belief and Make-Believe, GA Wells, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1991
Concise Guide to Todayís Religions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press, Bucks, 1983
Conspiracies and the Cross, Timothy Paul Jones, Front Line, A Strang Company, Florida, 2008
Decoding Mark, John Dart, Trinity Press, Harrisburg, PA, 2003
Did Jesus Exist? GA Wells, Pemberton, London, 1988
Did Jesus Exist? John Redford, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1986
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979
Early Christian Writings, Maxwell Staniforth Editor, Penguin, London, 1988
Encyclopaedia of Heresies and Heretics, Leonard George, Robson Books, London, 1995
Encyclopaedia of Unbelief, Volume 1, Ed Gordon Stein, (Ed) Prometheus Books, New York, 1985
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Handbook to the Controversy With Rome, Volume 1, Karl Von Hase, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906
He Walked Among Us, Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, Alpha Cumbria, 2000
In Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
Introduction to the New Testament, Roderick A F MacKenzie, SJ, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1965
Jesus, AN Wilson, Flamingo, London, 1993
Jesus and Early Christianity in the Gospels, Daniel J Grolin, George Ronald, Oxford, 2002
Jesus and the Goddess, The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Thorsons, London, 2001
Jesus Ė God the Son or Son of God? Fred Pearce Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham, undated
Jesus Ė One Hundred Years Before Christ, Professor Alvar Ellegard Century, London, 1999
Jesus and the Four Gospels, John Drane, Lion, Herts, 1984
Jesus Hypotheses, V Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
Jesus Lived in India by Holger Kersten, Element, Dorset, 1994
Jesus, Qumran and the Vatican, Otto Betz and Rainer Riesner, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1994
Jesus the Evidence, Ian Wilson, Pan, London, 1985
Jesus the Magician, Morton Smith, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1978
Jesus under Fire, Edited by Michael F Wilkins and JP Moreland, Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1995
Lectures and Replies, Thomas Carr, Archbishop of Melbourne, Melbourne, 1907
Letís Weigh the Evidence, Barry Burton, Chick Publications, Chino, CA, 1983
Miracles in Dispute, Ernst and Marie-Luise Keller, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1969
Nag Hammadi Library, Ed James M Robinson HarperCollins New York 1990
On the True Doctrine, Celsus, Translated by R Joseph Hoffmann, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987
Putting Away Childish Things, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1994
Runaway World, Michael Green, IVP, London, 1974
St Paul versus St Peter, A Tale of Two Missions, Michael Goulder, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1994
St Peter and Rome, JBS, Irish Church Missions, Dublin, undated
Saint Saul, Donald Harman Akenson, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000
The Bible Fact or Fantasy, John Drane, Lion, Oxford, 1989
The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone Books, New York, 2002.
The Call to Heresy, Robert Van Weyer, Lamp Books, London, 1989
The Case For Christ, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins and Zondervan, Michigan, 1998
The Case for Jesus the Messiah, John Ankerberg Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1989
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1967
The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics, Leonard George, Robson Books, London, 1995
The First Christian, Karen Armstrong, Pan, London, 1983
The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels, Penguin, London, 1990
The Gnostic Paul, Elaine Pagels, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1975
The History of Christianity, Lion, Herts 1982
The History of the Church, Eusebius, Penguin, London, 1989
The House of the Messiah, Ahmed Osman, Grafton, London, 1993
The Jesus Event and Our Response, Martin R Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
The Jesus Hoax, Phyllis Graham, Leslie Frewin, London, 1974
The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Thorsons, London, 1999
The MythMaker, St Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Hyam Maccoby, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1986
The Reason for God, Belief in an Age of Scepticism, Timothy Keller, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 2008
The Reconstruction of Belief, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
The Search for the Twelve Apostles, William Steuart McBirnie, Tyndale House, 1997
The Secret Gospel Morton Smith Aquarian Press, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1985
The Truth of Christianity, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1973
Theodore Parkerís Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, London, 1876
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Kittel Gerhard and Friedrich Gerhard, Eerdmanís Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976
Those Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield, Hutchinson, London, 1968
Who Was Jesus? A Conspiracy in Jerusalem, by Kamal Salabi, I.B. Taurus and Co Ltd., London, 1992
Who Was Jesus? NT Wright, SPCK, London, 1993
Why I Believe Jesus Lived, C G Colly Caldwell, Guardian of Truth, Kentucky