Jesus: Sinner of God not Son of God

According to the Christian Church, we have a duty to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ because he was the Son of God and never knew sin. The Church says it finds this doctrine of Jesus’ sinless life in the Bible.  The Bible refers to Lot as righteous though he wanted to give the men of Sodom his daughters to rape them.  The First Letter of John writes as if Christians are sinless.   3 Kings 14:8 has David as sinless.  Texts like this would seem to mean the person is without sin.  They are not taken literally just because we have data on those figures in the Bible that does accuse them of sin.  We have to accept that the texts saying Jesus had no sin might not be literal.  And the New Testament does indicate wrongdoing by Jesus.




The baptism of John was not about gaining forgiveness but about cleaning yourself of sin and then getting baptised to indicate that.  It was between John, God and the individual - not the Jewish community. Baptism was not required by the Jewish faith.  Jesus comes and gets baptised thus indicating repentance for sin.  It is interesting how the Mark gospel says Jesus did that but does not try to explain it away.  The baptism is rightly taken to embarrass Christian claims that Jesus was sinless all his life and claimed to be.  The reader of Mark having only this gospel and Mark had no reason to think there would be any new gospels would have learned from it that Jesus was baptised for repentance for his personal sin.




A legend is put in the John gospel where a mob brings a woman to Jesus and says she needs stoning to death for she was caught having an adulterous affair.


The story does not show Jesus abolished the law of God demanding her murder by stoning for no trial had taken place so it was legally invalid.  And Rome did not allow executions.


He told them if they had no sin to stone her.  In real life that would have got him in trouble with the Roman authorities.  It didn't which shows the story is a lie.


Instead of ignoring them which would have been the sensible thing to do he evilly dragged it out and made her sweat. 

Jesus didn’t consider himself without sin when he didn’t cast the first stone. Why did nobody ask him if he was going to lift a stone?  Maybe they did.  He told her then she was guilty which he had no right to do for it was going to expose her to future danger.


Jesus did not save us by his teaching for we don’t have much of it and can prove he was a liar. And it was not infallible either. Or original! And few have ever known what he was on about for he was as vague as they come.

Jesus did not save us by his death on the cross for that death was unnecessary and he refused to avoid it though he could have. It was suicide and an offering to the Devil for he as an evil man offering an evil life in sacrifice. If God needed somebody to atone by death but could get nobody then he would have to do without it and save all.

Jesus said his life would be given as a ransom for sinners. That insults the man who dies doing a good work for the man is trying to offer the best good possible and that man’s death should be taken as atonement if God rewards effort not success. The atonement implies that God rewards success not effort or sincerity.

The Old Testament cannot prove that Jesus was the saviour for the prophecies in it are obscure and were twisted by the New Testament. And most of Jesus’ miracles can be given a natural interpretation and there is evidence of trickery.




Nathan gave God’s words to King David in response to David seducing Bathsheba so evilly. “I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife” (2 Samuel 12:7–10). The promise is that David’s house or line will be cursed.  Would David really have cared about descendants apart from those with progenitor rights?  So the direct line was punished. It will suffer violence because of what David has done. God is decreeing and causing this punishment and it is not a natural course he is predicting.  How could what David did necessarily lead to the sword hanging over those who have his inheritance? God punishes the fathers in the sons for the reason that the sons at some level will have sympathy for what the father did so the implication is that David’s line is cursed and Jesus who belonged to that line was killed for sharing in David’s sin. In fact Jesus’ fate was so demeaning that he must have been worse than his predecessors.


If Jesus was a real Messiah he was not a real spiritual Messiah.


Jesus said that Christians must show their good works to the world (Matthew 5:16) which contradicts his commands later on in the Sermon on the Mount which demand that they must hide them for it shows they were selfless (Matthew 6:3). Christians say they can reconcile this by teaching that you must do good in public when you have no choice but try to do them in private otherwise. Jesus did not tell his followers to wear bags over their heads so that nobody knew who was helping them so the contradiction remains. How would other people know if you really had no choice? You could make it seem that you just walked into a situation that needed your attention.

Some Christians say that the solution is that good works done for God should not be hidden for they win him praise and that good works done to impress others and not God should not be seen. But that is absurd for nobody can see your motives. And if you do your good for God you will get praised too. So it is better to step over a dying person when you cannot help her for the right reason. It is best to help her for it is giving good example to those who don’t know what your true motives are and for her own sake. When Jesus told us to pray and do good in secret how could he have meant when they are done for our own benefit? There is no difference in showing off in front of people and in doing it in front of God in private. Jesus certainly condemned the Pharisees for showing off their love for God and then told his gullible slaves to copy them!

Jesus said that if you do good secretly your father will openly reward you meaning in public (v 4). He did not mean in Heaven for he was speaking to simple people and would have made that clear for them. And anyway, if you are not supposed to do good openly unless you can help it and you are going to get a reward for it on earth that makes people think you are great what difference does it make of it is in Heaven not earth? What virtue can there be in it on Jesus’ standards? Jesus was incoherent here.

Jesus did some of his miracles in secret presumably to practice what he preached. And then he did some in public to do the opposite. If he wanted his cures of lepers kept secret as he said then why didn’t he get God to cure them before they set out to meet him so that he would not get the credit?
In Matthew 26:50, Jesus asks Judas who had arrived with a band to arrest him, “What are you doing here, friend?” The Hard Sayings of Jesus, page 243) tells us that the correct translation is “Friend, do what you came here to do”. Jesus is encouraging Judas to do what is wrong. And what worsens it is that Judas was going to do it anyway so giving more encouragement when it was unnecessary is disgusting.

It would be a problem if Jesus asked Judas why he came when it was so obvious.

The story says that Judas was not Jesus’ friend. If Jesus called him a friend then he was saying that Judas was a good man though he was doing evil. Jesus is being contrary here. He will not admit the truth.

The gospel is telling us that Jesus was like that. It is a sin to lie to cover up wrongdoing that cannot be hidden.

If Jesus was being sarcastic then he was still a sinner and tried to lead the crowd into sin by speaking that way.

It is certain that Jesus wanted to encourage immorality. Peter once asked Jesus how many times he should forgive his brother if he sins a lot against him. He asked if seven times would do. Jesus said not seven times but seventy times seven (Matthew 18). That this was meant to be taken literally is shown by Luke 17:4 which commands that if one is sinned against seven times a day one should forgive when the person says sorry after each time. Jesus said one person was as good as another meaning nobody had the right to act superior and say, “I will not forgive you”. So Jesus would have agreed with the Church forgiving pervert priests and moving them around. Or it could be that Jesus expected the end of the world to be nigh enough that there would be no time for his rules to be seriously taken advantage of by those who prove their lack of sorrow by re-offending. But the Church cannot admit he erred so it has to accept the former interpretation and it would have been just like Jesus to have meant the rule to be kept whether the world was to end soon or not.
Jesus if he existed was far from sinless. To make him out to be sinless, the Christians look at the bad things he did such as his rudeness to the pagan woman who he told was a dog and pretend they are not sins.  It leads to them making wrong and sin totally separate!  Those who say he was sinless are unduly biased and have little concern for the truth. They are not being fair to the women and men who did more good than Jesus.
The Amplified Bible
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas. Dublin, 1995
Christ and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press, Scottdale, Ontario, 1979
Miracles in Dispute, Ernst and Marie-Luise Keller, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1969
Moral Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stoneyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
Objections to Christian Belief, DM Mackinnon, HA Williams, AR Vidler and JS Bezzant, Constable, London, 1963
Putting Away Childish Things, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1994
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1974
Robert Schuller, Satellite Saint or High Flying Heretic, Cecil Andrews, Take Heed Publications, Belfast
The Hard Sayings of Jesus, FF Bruce Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1983
The Resurrection Factor, Josh McDowell, Alpha Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1993
The Truth of Christianity, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
Why I am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell, Touchstone Books, Simon and Schuster, New York, undated 

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire by Richard Carrier


No Copyright