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



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.
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible - Times OnlineWorld view
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent


THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible. “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture. The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US. Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began. But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”. The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible. In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”. The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.” They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach. “Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.” Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.” As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing. Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb. The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context. They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true. The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.” A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly. That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”
Exodus iii, 14
God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”
Leviticus xxvi,12
“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Mark viii,29
Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection

If the Bible is unreliable so are the gospels. The Church is simply picking and choosing what it wants to believe out of the Bible.
As they are the only accounts of Jesus’ life the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are the only places to look for evidence for believing Christianity. Christians contend that Jesus is supposed to have been the saviour and Son of God and God himself because he was sinless and so would not lie and did miracles as a sign that God approved of him. But on what do the Christians depend on for evidence that he was sinless and had miracle powers?


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 Magi’s 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 Joseph’s 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 Jesus’ 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 didn’t 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. Mark’s 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 Sanhedrin’s false witnesses at Jesus’ 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 didn’t 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 – himself – 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.


Jude complains about heretics who condemned the angels. He means the Gnostics who held that angels made and or ruled the world and were bad. Clearly Jude agreed with them that angels did make or rule the world. Christianity has conveniently forgotten that doctrine. Jude said that rather than condemn the angels we should follow the example of Michael the Archangel who refused to rebuke Satan in a dispute over who should have the body of Moses. Michael just said, "May the Lord punish you". So Michael is being held up as an example! So it is better to wish punishment on Satan than to rebuke him! Big difference! What Michael said was as much a judgement of Satan as bad as rebuke would be. If nobody can rebuke Satan then how come Christians in the Bible and ever since feel entitled to tell Satan to go away and rebuke him in the exorcisms they attempt? How could Jesus justify rebuking Satan? Christians say it was different for Jesus for Jesus was not an angel like Michael but God himself. But that would imply the stupid idea that nobody has the right to rebuke except God. Also Jesus had only a minority who believed he was God so his example was a bad one. There is no doubt that Jude rejected anybody who dared to say that Jesus rebuked demons or anybody. This implies that a large part of the gospels is lies.


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 peoples’ 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 Ain’t 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



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 Today’s 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 – God the Son or Son of God? Fred Pearce Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham, undated
Jesus – 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
Let’s 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 Parker’s Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, London, 1876
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Kittel Gerhard and Friedrich Gerhard, Eerdman’s 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


Who is GA Wells? Rev Dr Gregory S. Neal

The Silent Jesus

Apollonius the Nazarene, The Historical Apollonius versus the Historical Jesus

Why Did the Apostles Die? Dave Matson,
The “Historical” Jesus by Acharya S

How Did the Apostles Die?

History’s Troubling Silence About Jesus, Lee Salisbury

Steven Carr discusses the Christian and apostolic martyrs

Challenging the Verdict
A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ

The Martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, Peter Kirby

The Martyrdoms: A Response, Peter Kirby

A Sacrifice in Heaven,

The Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth

The Jesus of History, a Reply to Josh McDowell by Gordon Stein

Josh McDowell’s Evidence for Jesus – Is It Reliable?, by Jeffrey J Lowder

A Reply to JP Holding’s “Shattering” of My Views on Jesus

Robert M Price, Christ a Fiction

Earliest Christianity G A Wells

The Second Century Apologists

Existence of Jesus Controversy, Rae West

Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier

Jesus Conference,
Jesus Conference,
The Testament of Levi Concerning the Priesthood and Arrogance

Sherlock Holmes Style Search for the Historical Jesus
The Ascension of Isaiah

Apollonius of Tyana: The Monkey of Christ? The Church Patriarchs, Robertino Solarion

What About the Discovery of Q? Brad Bromling
Wells without Water, Psychological Buffoonry from the Master of the Christ-Myth, James Patrick Holding

Critique: Scott Bidstrp [sic] on The Case for Christ by James Patrick Holding

GA Wells Replies to Criticism of his Books on Jesus

The Ossuary Scam: A Critical Analysis of the “James” Ossuary

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Acharya S