Christianity is the only religion founded on an historical improbability. It asserts that the son of God assumed human form and lived on earth at a specific place during a specific time. This God-man was Jesus of  Nazareth² . He also claimed to be the long awaited Jewish Messiah³. His mission, according to John 3:17, was to save the world. To those who believed in him he promised everlasting life after death⁴. Following his death on the cross, he was resurrected thus demonstrating that life after death is possible. If these claims of the supernatural are true, Jesus stands as the most important person who ever lived. But if these claims are false, Christianity ranks as the most colossal fraud ever perpetrated. The purpose of this paper is to review some of the conclusions arrived at by recognized Bible scholars (see Attachment I) as they apply their considerable knowledge to the question of gospel credibility.

The term "scholarship" implies the application of the scientific method of the evaluation of evidence on the basis of objective standards divorced from any personal preferences or preconceived convictions. In modern times the application of critical scholarship to the analysis of the Bible, and to the New Testament gospels in particular, has lead to an accelerating rate of disintegration of the traditional Christian belief system. If  the gospels turn out to be nothing more than fictional fabrications, as now appears to be the case, it can be safely assumed that their central character, Jesus of Nazareth, is a mythological figure who never really existed. Therefore, it may be time to lay the Christian myth to rest and to restructure the future of Western society on the basis of a more naturalistic world view.

The original gospels, i.e. the autographs, have long been lost, and there is no record of anyone ever having seen them. In fact, no mention of any New Testament text can be found in any writings prior the the beginning of the second century^4a. The oldest authentic New Testament material thus far discovered consists of a few tiny scraps of papyrus possibly dating to the early second century⁵. They are known as the John Rylands papyrus (P-52), comprising five verses from the Gospel of John, and the Magdalen papyri (P-64) comprising three fragments of the Gospel of Matthew^5a. Both are written in Greek. The earliest listing of the canonical gospels by name, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, occurs in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon in his Against Heresies written around 180^5b. However, he quotes from an earlier source, Papias of Hierapolis, who wrote about 125^5c.Before that lies a vast and perplexing historical void in which there has been found hardly any reliable evidence of the gospels and their authors.

The earliest confirmation of the twenty-seven books comprising the New Testament as we know it today appears in a letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in the year 367^5d. The oldest manuscripts containing in tact the bulk of the New Testament, the codices Sianiticus and Vaticanus, are datable no earlier than the fourth century. However, the majority of surviving New Testament manuscripts derive from the middle ages beginning with the seventh century. It appears that all of our surviving ancient manuscripts without exception contain mistakes and omissions some of which are significant. Among all of those thousands of surviving Greek manuscripts that we now have, no two are exactly alike in all of their particulars^5e.

Just who wrote the gospels remains a mystery. However, it is known that they were written not in Hebrew or Aramaic, as some people may think, but in Greek⁶. The titles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are not the names of the authors as is widely assumed. They are in fact little more than second century guesses with no known connection to biblical characters of the same name^6a. The stories and sayings related in the gospels are for the most part hearsay based entirely on second- and third-hand evidence derived solely from intermediate sources none of which was an eyewitness to the events they described. Also, many gospel passages are known forgeries⁷. For that reason the gospel stories cannot be taken at face value.

Although their authors remain unknown, the dates of the writing of the gospels are more certain. Most scholars agree that the oldest gospel, Mark, was written between 70 and 75. Matthew, although traditionally placed first in the New Testament, was actually written after Mark and is dated at between 80 and 90 as is Luke. Mark, Matthew and Luke are referred to as the synoptic^7a gospels. John, written between 95 and 110, tells an altogether different story from the synoptic gospels. The oldest extant reference to gospel writings occurs in a letter form Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, to the Trallians. The letter dates from around 107, and in it Ignatious mentions Pontius Pilate and the virgin Mary. The earliest reference to Jesus as a teacher appears in 1st Clement, a letter dated at about 110. To find the first reference to Jesus as a miracle worker, we must move beyond Ignatius and Clement to the Epistle of Barnabas dated 115. The earliest direct reference to the gospels by name appears in a letter to the Philippians from Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, dated 130. Because these early references are all dated after the writing of the gospels, it is logical to conclude that the gospels served as their primary source. Therefore, they can not be sited as reliable historical conformation of the existence of Jesus.

The four canonical gospels are not the earliest of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament^7b, and their credibility is very effectively undermined as a result of the failure of the earlier New Testament books to confirm their claims⁸.  This discrepancy is fatal to the claims of the Christian church, yet so far few theologians have had the guts to face it and to attempt to deal with it.

The earliest Christians did not see themselves as the founders of a new religion, they were Jews who observed the laws of the Torah. They reasoned that if Jesus was indeed the long awaited Messiah he must have fulfilled the prophecies recorded in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament⁹). Therefore, the gospels were written primarily as fictional biographies deliberately skewed toward prophecy fulfillment. This is especially true of Matthew's gospel and is probably responsible for the wide discrepancies between the four canonical gospels.

The validity of the gospels were largely unchallenged as Christianity spread throughout medieval Europe. The church's power to arrest, torture and ever execute its critics went unchallenged. By the seventeenth century, however, scientific, historical, and literary evidence, coupled with the reduction in the church's power, to had grown to the extent that researchers began to openly question the authenticity of the gospels and of the Jesus they depict.

The first to seriously challenge the historical soundness of the Bible, and thus of the gospels, was the Englishman, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who, in his Leviathan (1651), denied that Moses had written the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, as is stated in Deut.31:9. Hobbes also rejected traditional Christian doctrines like the efficacy of prayer and the existence of hell. Hobbes was followed in biblical criticism by a Holland born Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677). In his Theological-Political Treatise (1670) Spinoza argues that the supernatural elements in the Bible should be rejected because everything in nature happens according to universal and natural laws. Following Spinoza, the center of criticism shifted to Germany. There the scholar and Deist¹⁰ H S. Reimarus (1694-1768) theorized in The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples that the gospels are a conscious and deliberate fraud, written to explain away the failure of the message Jesus had repeatedly proclaimed--the imminent end of the world. Thomas Paine (1737-1809), the English-born American author and revolutionary leader, continued the biblical denunciation in his epic Age of Reason. His conclusions are pretty much the same as those held by many modern biblical scholars. However, it did not end there.

Bible criticism continued relentlessly despite growing social and ecclesiastical pressure to prohibit it. In 1835 the German scholar and theologian, David F. Strauss (1808-1874) published The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Strauss claimed that in the period between his death and the composition of the gospels the legend of Jesus had replaced all historical facts but one, namely, that he thought of himself as the Jewish Messiah. In 1850 an equally devastating appraisal of gospel credibility was issued when Bruno Bauer (1809-1882), another German theologian and historian, published his Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin. Bauer regarded the gospels as pure legend, not given literary expression until the second century. Both Strauss and Bauer were later vindicated when Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) demonstrated that the nativity and resurrection stories had to be late literary additions since the earliest manuscripts of Mark, the oldest gospel, lacked both legends. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) published his famous masterpiece, The Antichrist, a devastating attack on Christianity. In 1906 the great Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) published his landmark work, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, in which he pronounced the historicity of Jesus to be inaccessible and in all probability non-existent.

The gospels emerged from this long period of critical examination not merely soiled, but totally bereft of any historical credibility. However, the tradition of critical study of the gospels continues today in the works of such contemporary scholars as George A. Wells, Michael Martin, Shmuel Golding, Randel Helms, Burton L. Mack, John Dominic Crossan, Michael Arnheim, R.J. Hoffman, Gerald A. Larue, Dan Barker, C. Dennis McKinsey, Farrell Till, Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and others.

The results of this research can be summed up in the following five deductions:
Acceptable external confirmation of Jesus does not exist.
The Apostle Paul was unaware of Jesus’ life and teachings.
The gospels are plagued with unresolved contradictions.
Many gospel quotes and stories are demonstrable forgeries.
Miracles and other unbelievable stories are unacceptable.
Now let us examine each of these deductions separately.

The gospels provide very little substantive biographical information about Jesus. For example, not one date of his life can be established with certainty. Also, there are long periods in his life about which the gospels say nothing. So we must search for any extra-Biblical sources that will confirm the truth of the gospel assertions and, hopefully, fill the gaps. But where are these sources?

Many texts in Christian apologetics include long lists of documents said to provide extra-Biblical confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. However, very little of this evidence dates from the alleged time of Jesus (6 BCE to 30). Most of the so-called "confirming citations" date from the 2nd, 3rd, and even as late as the 4th centuries and are therefore too late to be considered reliable. (See Did Jesus Ever Live? on this web site.) For that reason I will concentrate only on first century sources, meager though they may be.

If we are to believe the gospel accounts, Jesus and the events surrounding his ministry were well known throughout the land. He attracted huge crowds as he went through Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and disease among the people. His fame even spread throughout all of Syria where they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were "possessed with devils," and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond the Jordan river (Matthew 4:23-25). King Herod heard of him (Mark 6:14). In Matthew 21:46 we are told that upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem the authorities were afraid to arrest him because of the great multitude in attendance. Luke 23:27 tells us that there was a huge crowd at his crucifixion. On the road to Emmaus following his alleged resurrection we learn that everyone in Jerusalem knew about Jesus (Luke 24:18-19).

Given these pronouncements one would naturally expect to see frequent references to him in contemporary histories as well as in other official documents and writings of that time. However, no such references can be found. Two Jewish historians, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberius, lived during Jesus' alleged lifetime and wrote histories of the Jewish people covering this period. Although the work of Justus of Tiberius is now lost, a 9th century Christian scholar, Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, (no inferior position) had read it and wrote: "He (Justus of Tiberius) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." (Bibliotheca, code 33.) This is indeed interesting because Tiberius was a native of Galilee from whence Jesus allegedly came.

The work of Philo Judaeus is still available. It contains not a single reference to Jesus nor to any of the astounding events so vividly described throughout the gospels. This is strange indeed considering that he lived and worked in Jerusalem when, according to scripture, Jesus had his triumphant procession, drove the moneychangers out of the temple, was tried and crucified, and rose from the dead. Also, Philo Judaeus makes no mention of an earthquake, unnatural darkness from noon to 3 pm nor the resurrection of the long dead saints (Matthew 27:52.)

Thallus, a Greek chronologer/historian who flourished in the period from the middle of the1st century to the late 2nd century, is occasionally mentioned in the works of early Christian writers. The 9th century Christian chronologer George Syncellus cites Julius Africanus as writing in reference to the darkness mentioned in the synoptic gospels as occurring at the death of Jesus: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the Sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me" Africanus then goes on to point out that an eclipse cannot occur at Passover when the moon is full and therefore diametrically opposite the Sun. (See Wikipedia free encyclopedia.)

Pliny the Elder (23 - 79,) a Roman scientist of great renown, wrote volumes not just of natural phenomenon such as astronomy and earthquakes but also on legends and cultic beliefs, makes no mention of Jesus nor any of the events with which he is associated throughout the gospels.

Flavius Josephus, a prominent first century Jewish historian and military leader, deserves special consideration. Researchers put his dates at from 37 to around 100^10a.  In his autobiography, The Life of Flavius Josephus, he claimed to be the son of a Jerusalem priest "of great reputation" named Matthias. During the Judao/Roman war of 67-70 he defected to the Romans and went on to curry great favor with them. Though not a contemporary of Jesus, Josephus lived and wrote in the generation following Jesus and therefore would have been aware of these phenomenal events had they actually happened. His Antiquities of the Jews, written around 94^10b, contains two brief passages in which there are references to Jesus. The first and longer of the two passages (Book 18, Sections 63-64,) is referred to by Bible scholars as the Testimonium Flavianum hereinafter referred to as TF. It reads as follows:

Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful
to call him a man, for he was a doer of wondrous works--a teacher
of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him
both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ.
When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did
not forsake him, and he appeared to them alive again on the third
day. As the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. The tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day

At first glance this seems to fulfill the quest for an extra-Biblical confirmation of Jesus. Some Christian apologists, throwing caution to the wind, seize on this simple statement with glee and tout it as proof positive of the existence of Jesus and the validity of the gospels. However, most Bible scholars agree that this passage is a forgery - a late Christian interpolation and therefore cannot be taken seriously. What are the reasons for labeling this passage to be a forgery? G. A. Wells¹¹ sums it up as follows:

1. TF breaks the thread of the narrative at the point where it occurs. When TF (Sections 63 and 64) is removed, Section 62, the one  immediately prior to TF leads directly into Section 65 which immediately follows it. The removal of TF leaves a text which reads coherently and in proper context.

2. TF affirms Jesus as the Christ, the long awaited Jewish Messiah. However, Josephus was an orthodox Jew and remained so throughout his entire life. Had he really believed what is written here he would most certainly have converted to Christianity.

3. Another quite puzzling aspect of TF is its brevity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet Jesus, this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets allegedly foretold, is dismissed with only a few lines.

4. There exists an ancient table of contents of the Antiquities in which TF is not included.

5. One of the undeniable marks by which a forgery can be detected is the failure of later writers to mention it when such reference is both appropriate and expected. For example, Origen, one of the most influential Christian scholars of the third century, was familiar with the writings of Jesephus yet he never mentions the TF which he most certainly would have done had it been there. Justin Martyr, in his defense of Christianity (Dialogue with Trypho,) dated around 135 never mentions the Jusephus passage nor do Tertulianus and Ploycarp, Bishop of Smerna. The first mention of TF by a recognized Christian scholar occurs in the writings of the Roman historian Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century^. It is widely held among Bible scholars that he is in fact the forger^11a. After Eusebius, however, a century passes before TF is again mentioned thereby suggesting that some time elapsed before TF was finally included in all copies of the Antiquities.

6. In The Jewish Wars, another well known work by Josephus, there is a lengthy discourse on Pilate in which there is nothing comparable to TF and no mention of Jesus whatsoever.

Also, a sure indication of forgery is the mistaken use of the word "Gentile". Josephus did not use this word in any of his writings. He consistently refers to non-Jews of Palestine as Greeks or Syrians regardless of their actual ethnicity^11b.

In summation it might be pointed out that TF is too accommodating to have come from a Jew and too modest to have come from a Christian.

In the second reference to Jesus in Antiquities (20:200) he is referred to as the "Christ" a title Josephus, a Jew, would never have bestowed upon him,. Also, it must be recognized that if TF is a forgery, which certainly seems to be the case, that means that the second passage must also be a forgery.

Some Christian apologists such as Josh McDowell (Evidence for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?) maintain that the original text contained an authentic reference to Jesus but that reference was later embellished by Christian copyist. The passage is repeated below (a) highlighting the alleged interpolations in bold, italicized print. But, if the alleged interpolations are removed (b), it becomes quite easy to explain why the passage, although it was present, was not widely quoted by the early Christian leaders. In its unadulterated form, the passage would have only proved that a radical religio/political leader named Jesus actually existed, not that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. Since there is no evidence that anyone in the first few centuries actually doubted the existence of Jesus, there is no reason we should expect to find quotations of the Testimonium Flavianum in early literature. So, perhaps the "b" version is authentic. But if so, it not only provides no proof of the gospel claims of a supernatural Jesus, it actually throws serious doubt on such claims.

a. Now about this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

b. Now about this time there was Jesus, a wise man, for he was a teacher. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Another reference to Jesus occurs in Josephus writings (Antiquities, book 20, page 9) in the form of a short statement that in 62 the Jewish high priest, Ananius, executed “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ”. This is cited three times by Origen and may be genuine. The only objection to it is that it would be odd if Josephus referred to Jesus here and nowhere else. In that regard, it must be remembered that the works of Josephus have come down to us through Christian hands which, as we have seen, were not beyond interpolating. Thus, the historicity of Jesus cannot be confirmed by any reliable extra-Biblical source.

We presuppose the existence of such diverse historical figures as Aristotle, Copernicus, Mohammed, George Washington, and John F. Kennedy because we are in possession of consistent testimony from a variety of contemporary sources. The existence of the historical figure is the only reasonable hypothesis that will account for such consistency. With Jesus this is not the case as many New Testament researchers have so convincingly demonstrated. Although the argument from silence is usually not deemed acceptable, the silence of the first century historians cannot be ignored. They neither lacked interest in religion and the occult, nor were they aiming at extreme brevity. These historians had numerous occasions to mention Jesus had he actually existed. Therefore, their silence compounds the Christian apologetic dilemma.

Let us consider the question of Paul's ignorance, perhaps the most perplexing problem confronting the defenders of the historical Jesus. The Apostle Paul, often referred to as the founder of Christianity, seems to have been totally unaware of any details of Jesus' life and teachings as they are presented in the New Testament gospels. Nowhere does Paul equate his hero, Jesus Christ, with a miracle worker from Nazareth recently put to death in Judea. Why?

Paul's dates are not definitely known, but he is believed to have lived from somewhere around 5 to around 67¹². Although these dates may not be exact, the traditional dates of Jesus’ ministry (27-30) fall well within them. When Jesus was supposed to have been active in his ministry, Paul was a grown man in his early to mid twenties living and working in Jerusalem. He claims to have studied under the famous rabbinical teacher, Gamaliel, and to have been closely associated with the political and religious leaders of that day (Acts 22:3-5). During that time Jerusalem was a city of 120,000 population¹³, not significantly large. He surely must have heard of the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus. How could he have missed Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem which, according to Matthew 21:1-10, attracted great multitudes. How could he not have heard about Jesus’ cleansing of the temple which incurred the wrath of the chief priest (Matthew 21:12-16)? As an enforcer of the law, how could Paul not have known of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas Iscariot, the trial before Pontius Pilate, or the crucifixion with its attendant anomalies such as darkness at noon and earthquakes? Why didn't he mention the resurrection of the saints (Matthew 27:52-53) or the amputation by Peter of the right ear of Malchus, the chief priest's slave (John 18:10,) and its miraculous reattachment by Jesus (Luke 22:51)? Surely Paul would have encountered Jesus sometime during those years so crucial to what was later to become the Christian religion. In Luke 24:18 Cleopas, one of the two travelers the resurrected Jesus encountered on the road to Emmaus, says that everybody in Jerusalem knew about Jesus. Yet, not a single reference to these important events appears anywhere in those writings of Paul judged to be authentic^13a. As far as we know, the only encounter Paul ever had with Jesus was that famous incident which allegedly occurred on the road to Damascus.

The Book of Acts records three separate accounts of Paul’s conversion to Christianity. (See Attachment II) None of these accounts agrees fully with the other two. For example, in Acts 9:7 Paul says that the men with him "heard the voice." But in Acts 22:9 he says they "did not hear the voice." The other contradiction lies in the manner in which Paul claims to have received his instructions. According to the first two accounts, Jesus didn't say very much. He told Paul to go into the city where he would be told what he must do (Acts 9:6 and 22:10). However, in his defense before King Agrippa (Acts 26:12-18) Paul tells a different story. Here he says that Jesus instructed him in great detail right there on the spot. So, what are we to believe?

Paul tells in II Cor. 11:32-33 how he made a daring escape from the agents of King Aretas who were out to arrest him. On what charges we do not know. However, Aretas, a historically documented figure, is known to have died in the year 40¹⁴ thus putting Paul’s conversion and the beginning of his career as an evangelist sometime in the late 30s, less than ten years after the alleged crucifixion. Therefore, he should have been personally acquainted with many people who had had direct contact with Jesus. For example, he went to Jerusalem where he spent fifteen days with Peter (Galatians 1:18), whom Jesus had personally selected to be his earthly successor (Matthew 16:18-19). What was there for them to discuss if not Jesus, his life and his teachings? Yet Paul says nothing about this.

Those Pauline epistles considered to be genuine (see Attachment III) were written between 50 and 60. They predate the gospels and are among the earliest extant Christian writings. Therefore, one would expect them to contain a wealth of details about Jesus' life and teachings, details confirming the gospel accounts. But this is far from the case. Concerning the alleged virgin birth Paul never mentions Mary. He says only that, Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law (Galatians 4:4). In Romans 1:3 Paul tells us that Jesus was a direct descendant of King David. Paul, a contemporary of Jesus, obviously never heard of the virgin birth touted as one of Christianity's most important miracles.

The time, place and circumstances of Jesus’ alleged miraculous conception and birth, recorded in such great detail in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, are never mentioned. Paul says not one word about Joseph, Jesus’ surrogate father who figures so prominently in the birth narratives. Also, Paul apparently never heard of John the Baptist who not only baptized Jesus, but who is said to have been instrumental in the fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies allegedly confirming Jesus as the long awaited messiah.

In Matthew 23 Jesus bitterly denounces the scribes and the Pharisees, accusing them of being nothing more than a bunch of worthless hypocrites out to get him. Apparently Paul was unaware of this because when testifying before the chief priest and the Council he proudly proclaims, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6).

First Corinthians 15:45¹⁵ begins with the familiar words, “So it is written" and goes on to say, "the first man, Adam, was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." Here Paul claims to quote scripture that is nonexistent. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible of a second Adam. This second Adam, according to Paul, is none other than Jesus who, according to 1 Cor. 15:47¹⁶, came directly from heaven. This Pauline passage contradicts the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke as well as Galatians 4:4.

In Philippians 3:10-11 Paul declares with great emotion, "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." Yet when he returns to Jerusalem it is merely to visit Peter, as mentioned above. He never expresses the slightest desire to see Bethlehem, Jesus’ birthplace, Nazareth, his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he is supposed to have held the fabled Last Supper, nor Calvary where the ultimate sacrifice was allegedly made. Most astonishing of all, however, is that there is not one hint of a pilgrimage to the tomb in which the resurrection, the center piece of Paul’s theology, is supposed to have taken place.

Paul makes no references to Jesus' ethical and moral teachings in situations where it would have been in his best interest to have done so. He, in fact, contradicts some of them. For example, Paul held that gentile Christians need not obey Jewish law to be saved (Gal. 3:8-9 and 5:6). Evidently he was unaware that this was a direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus on this matter (Matthew 5:17-19). Furthermore when Paul does make such ethical pronouncements as "Bless those who persecute you" (Romans 12:14), he does not cite the authority of Jesus (Matthew 5:10-12). We can only conclude that he never heard of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ prescription for Christian living.

When Paul, in Romans 8:26, says “we do not know how to pray as we should,” does this mean he was unaware that Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer to his disciples (Matthew 6:9, Luke 11:2)? Did Paul not know of Jesus’ prayer against temptation (Mark 14:35-36 and parallels) or the famous farewell prayer (John 17:1-16)? In 2 Cor. 12:12 Paul states, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you . . . by signs and wonders and miracles." Surely Paul would have cited Jesus' miracles at this point, had he been aware of them. We can only surmise that Paul had no knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus as they are presented in the gospels. Considering his temporal proximity to these events this makes absolutely no sense.

The first paragraph of this section ends with a question - Why? Why was the Apostle Paul ignorant of some very pertinent aspects of the earthly life of Jesus? Well, the answer is obvious. It had not been invented when Paul lived and wrote. The New Testament gospels are nothing more than inspirational fiction.

Nothing destroys the credibility of a story more effectively than do contradictions. In that regard, the gospels are riddled with them, but I will not produce a long list of biblical contradictions. I will instead concentrate on three of Christianity’s most essential doctrines, the crucifixion, the resurrection and how one qualifies for salvation. First, however, let us briefly review a prophesy made by Jesus and then contradicted by him.

In Matthew 12:40 Jesus prophesies, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” According to the synoptic gospels Jesus died late Friday afternoon. When the women arrived at the tomb sometime around dawn the following Sunday, the resurrection had already occurred. The time between the crucifixion and the resurrection could not have exceeded a day and a half thereby contradicting the prophecy. This prophecy is again contradicted in Luke 23:43 when Jesus says to the thief, “Truly I say unto you, today you shall be with me in Paradise.” Paradise, as I understand it, is not located in the heart of the earth. So, Jesus, this God-man, couldn't even correctly predict his own resurrection.

Perhaps the most blatant of the many New Testament contradictions occurs in the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. Both authors tried to tie Jesus' birth to actual historical events of that time, and therein lies the problem. The author of Matthew (2:1) maintains that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who is known to have died in 4 BCE.  So based on what the author of Matthew tells us Jesus had to have been born prior to that date. In Luke, however, we are told something quite different. In Luke (2:2) we are told that Jesus was born when Quirinius was prefect of Judea. So, according to Luke the birth of Jesus had to have taken place sometime after the year 6. There is a ten year difference here. So, what are we to believe? Also, the often cited "flight to Egypt," so crucial to Matthew's story, is nowhere mentioned in Luke's birth narrative.

The Crucifixion:

When was Jesus crucified? Was it on the first day of Passover? The writers of Mark, Matthew and Luke say yes. However, the writer(s) of the Gospel of John say that it took place on the day before. Can this contradiction be successfully resolved? Stay tuned!

In Jewish culture a day is calculated from sundown to sundown, not from midnight to midnight as in the west. Passover, one of Judaism's most important religious observances, officially begins at sundown on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Nissan (March or April). It commences with a special meal called Seder and continues for seven days.

Mark tells us in 14:12 that it was on the first day of Passover that the events leading to the crucifixion of Jesus began to unfold. Verses 16 through 18 of chapter 14 confirm that Jesus met with his apostles in the evening to eat the Seder meal thus marking the beginning of Passover. After the meal they all went off together to pray and meditate. During this time Jesus was arrested. Apparently he spent the rest of the night in jail because in Mark 15:1 it says, "And straightway in the morning" Jesus was taken before Pontius Pilate who, in turn, handed him over to the Jews. He was crucified at 9am and died at 3pm. Thus, according to Mark, it took place on the first day of Passover, Nissan 15. While Matthew and Luke may disagree with some of the details of Mark's story, they do agree with his timing. (See Matthew 27:62-63 and Luke 23:53-54.)

John's gospel tells it differently. John makes it very clear in verses 14, 31 and 42 of chapter 19 that the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus took place on the day of preparation for Passover. That would be Nissan 14. This is confirmed in John 18:28 where it tells how the Jews escorting Jesus to Pilate's hall of judgment refused to enter because in doing so they would have been (ritually) defiled and thereby disqualified from partaking of Passover Seder scheduled for that evening.

It should be noted that all four gospels refer to "the day of preparation." However, they are not all referring to the same day. The synoptic gospels are referring to Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath. The Sabbath is always on a Saturday with Friday being its day of preparation. However, the first day of Passover, Nissan 15, could fall on any day of the week, but in this case it just happened to fall on Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath.

The Gospel of John is also correct when it says that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation, but it was the day of preparation for Passover which, in this case, was Thursday, Nissan 14. By the same token the synoptic gospels are correct when they refer to the day of preparation because, again in this case, Friday Nissan 15 was the day of preparation for the Sabbath in addition to being the first day of Passover. This is a coincidence of timing which has led to a great deal of confusion.

So, the question remains, was Jesus crucified on Thursday, Nissan 14, as the writer(s) of John say, or was it on Friday, Nissan 15, as the writers of the synoptic gospels say? This amounts to a most serious contradiction for which there is no acceptable resolution. It provides strong evidence that these stories, so revered by Christians, are not based on the evidence of history but are the products of their author's imaginations.

The Resurrection

In 1 Corinthians 15:14 Paul proclaims that ." . . if Christ be not raised then our preaching is vain; your faith is also vain." Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus has to be the core element of the Christian belief system. But is it possible to determine what really happen at this most important event? Let us first consider the accounts as reported in the synoptic gospels.

There were no eyewitnesses to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. In fact, there is no record of exactly when it occurred. However, the gospel writers report the statements of several people who are said to have encountered Jesus shortly after the resurrection. In all fairness it must be noted that these reports are at best second-hand and vary widely from gospel to gospel. So, let us review the resurrection accounts by dividing them into two parts, what happened at the tomb and what happened in the days that followed.

At the tomb: The synoptic gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover. He died late that afternoon and was placed in a tomb the entrance to which was blocked by a large stone. They also agree that some women arrived at the tomb early the following Sunday morning ostensibly to anoint the body. But who were they, and who removed the large stone for them? According to Mark the women were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (16:1). But according to Matthew they were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1). Luke says they included Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other unidentified women (24:10).

Who rolled back the stone? In Mark, when the women arrive at the tomb the large stone had already been rolled back (16:4). How it got rolled back is not explained. Luke (24:2) agrees with Mark, but Matthew tells it differently. According to Matthew 28:2 when the women arrived at the tomb there was a violent earthquake and an angel descended from heaven rolled back the stone and sat on it.

The gospels agree that Jesus was not in the tomb. But from there their account varies widely. In Mark an unidentified youth was sitting inside the tomb (16:5). He told the women to go tell Peter and the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee. They ran out of the tomb amid fear and amazement saying nothing to anyone (16:8). In the oldest extant manuscripts¹⁷ Mark ends there. This is know as the "short ending." In Matthew we learn that the angel sitting on the stone told the women that the resurrection has already taken place and that Jesus had gone on to Galilee and would meet them there. In Luke, although the tomb was empty when the women went in, two men suddenly appeared out of nowhere. They said to the women , " Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen." (24:5).

Who first encountered the resurrected Jesus? The short ending of Mark never says. However, in the "long ending" (Mark 16:9-20) recognized as a later addition, we are told in verse 9 that he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. According to Matthew 28:8-9, while the two women were running to tell the disciples the resurrected Jesus suddenly appeared to them. In Luke 24:15 the resurrected Jesus first appeared to two travelers on the road to Emmaus.

Given these differing accounts, can the Gospel of John help decide what to believe? Unfortunately, this gospel contradicts almost everything in the synoptic gospels. First, as noted above, in the Gospel of John the crucifixion takes place not on the first day of Passover, as in the synoptic gospels, but on the day before, known as the day of preparation (John 19:31). In John 20:1 only Mary Magdalene came to the tomb. The stone was already moved. She did not go in the tomb but rushed to tell Simon Peter and the other disciples. They came, but finding the tomb empty they went back home to think it over. Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene remained at the tomb weeping. Sometime later she happened to looked into the tomb and much to her amazement two angels had materialized out of thin air (John 20:12). But apparently these angels had not heard about the crucifixion because they asked quizzically, "Woman, why are you weeping?" Whereupon she informed them that Jesus had been taken away, and she didn't know where to find him. At that point the resurrected Jesus suddenly appeared. But he apparently experienced a moment of amnesia because he asked Mary, “Woman, why are you weeping, and who are you looking for?” Mistaking him for the gardener, she replied, "Sir, if you happen to know where they have taken the body of Jesus, please show me." Jesus suddenly regained his memory and exclaimed, “Mary!” She suddenly recognized him and cried, “Teacher!” She then went and told the disciples about it.

In summary, the gospel accounts of what happened at the tomb are contradictory, convoluted, inconsistent and ridiculous. They can only be made to agree with the aid of bizarre and often outlandish scenarios amounting to little more than theological chicanery and double talk.

The days after: The accounts of what happened during the days following the resurrection also differ from gospel to gospel. In the original version of Mark the resurrected Jesus never appeared, but the young man in the tomb instructed the women to go tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee (16:7). In the long ending of Mark, the resurrected Jesus met with his disciples, presumably in Galilee, and told them to go and preach the gospel. He was then taken directly up into heaven. According to Matthew the resurrected Jesus met the disciples on a mountain somewhere in Galilee. There he instructed them to go spread his teachings throughout the world. Matthew ends without saying what happened to Jesus after that. In Luke’s account the resurrected Jesus first appeared to two travelers on the road to Emmaus, but they did not recognize him. Only later when he ate with them did they realize who he was. He then mysteriously vanished and the travelers returned to Jerusalem to inform the disciples that Jesus was alive. While they were talking Jesus suddenly appeared¹⁸. He informed them that they were to go forth and preach the gospel but to remain in Jerusalem until they had received the power from on high. He accompanied them as far as Bethany where he blessed them and was then taken up directly into heaven.

In the Gospel of John it is not clear exactly what happened following the resurrection. According to recognized Bible scholars, John originally ended at 20:31¹⁹. Chapter 21, a later addition referred to as the “Johnine appendix,” was added apparently in a transparent scheme to explain why the Parousia (second coming) did not occur as promised²⁰. In John, the resurrection story covers both chapters. The following are some of the unique elements of John’s version. In 20:19 the resurrected Jesus first appeared to his disciples “in the house where they were staying”. The location of the house is never given. In 20:23 Jesus bestows upon his disciples the authority to forgive sins or to withhold forgiveness as they saw fit. Although barely mentioned in Mark, Matthew and Luke, the disciple Thomas (Didymus) played an important roll in John’s recounting of the encounter between the resurrected Jesus and his disciples (John 20:24-29), he demanded proof. In John 21:20 mention is made of an anonyms disciple “whom Jesus loved” who in verse 24 is identified as the otherwise unknown author of John.

In summary, the gospel accounts of what happened during the days after the discovery of the empty tomb are also contradictory and beyond reconciliation. As Willi Marxsen says in his book, The Resurrection of Jesus, "A synchronizing harmony of the gospel accounts of the resurrection proves to be impossible."

Paul’s brief rendition of the resurrection contradicts that of the gospels. In I Cor. 15:5-6 Paul says, “First he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (no mention of Mary Magdalene). After that he appeared to more than five hundred at once.” This claim has been questioned by many, the earliest of which there is any record is that of the Deist, Thomas Paine. In his great work, The Age of Reason Paine points out that, "It is only Paul who says that (the resurrected) Jesus was seen by five hundred at once. It is not the five hundred who say it for themselves. Who were they? Could their testimony be relied upon? It is, therefore, the testimony of only one man, Paul." Paine goes on to reminds us that Paul did not believe one word of the matter at the time it allegedly happened. “Paul’s evidence,” Paine points out, “is like that of a men who comes into a court of law today to swear that everything he swore to yesterday was a lie.”

For a more in depth analysis of the resurrection see Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? on this web site. See also Crucifixion Contradictions.

Salvation

I recently saw a bumper sticker asking in bold letters, "Where Will You Spend Eternity?" This refers, of course, to the Christian belief that the sole purpose of this life lies in the attainment of salvation thereby insuring a blissful existence in the life to come. In fact, the often repeated Oath of Conformity, required of every candidate for ordination in the Episcopal/Anglican church^20a, states, "I do believe the holy scripture of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God and to contain all things necessary for salvation." Salvation, then, rather than happiness and contentment, is, according to the Christian plan, the real purpose for which humans were placed on this little planet. The question then becomes: "How does one qualify for salvation?" Surely the directions are clearly stated somewhere in the gospels. Let us see if we can locate them.

According to John 14:6 ("I am the way the truth and the life: no one comes to the father but by me") and Acts 4:12 ("Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"), Jesus holds the only key to salvation, that most important of all Christian goals. However, Jesus' message is not at all clear as to just how salvation is to be attained. At times it sounds as if he were just making it up as he went along. For example, in Matthew 19:17 when a man asked him what one must do to be saved, Jesus answered, "Keep the commandments". Later (Matthew 19:21) he adds a second requirement, ." . . . go and sell your possessions and give (the money) to the poor, and you shall have treasures in heaven". Is this distressing requirement meant only for this individual or are we all expected to comply?

In the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3) Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". In Matthew 5:10, again in the Beatitudes, we learn that those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness will go to heaven. In Matthew 18:3 Jesus says, Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven". In John 3:3 Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven". In Mark 16:16 Jesus says, “He who believeth and has been baptized shall be saved”. In Acts 2:38 Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". In I Peter 3:21 we are told that baptism will save us.

Paul and the writer(s) of the Gospel of John maintain that salvation can only be attained through faith in Jesus. (See John 3:15-16; 14:6 Acts 4:12, 16:30-31, Gal. 3:24-26). But according to James 2:17-26 one is saved by works not by faith. In other words without works faith is meaningless. In Titus 3:5 we are told that  "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior."

In the parable of the householder and the vineyard workers (Matthew 20:1-16), Jesus seems to be confirming that there is more than one way to be saved. Just as the vineyard laborers who have worked all day get no more pay than those who have worked only part of the day; people who have led exemplary lives and obeyed the commandments receive no greater heavenly reward than do those who accept Jesus in a "jailhouse conversion" just before being executed regardless of prior lifestyle. For example, one of the two criminals being crucified with him admitted to his life of crime and debauchery but asked Jesus to intercede on his behalf when he arrived in heaven. Jesus replied (Luke 23:43), "Truly I say unto you, today you shall be with me in Paradise." There is no record of this person ever having been baptized; he certainly did not obey the commandments. Yet he was saved.

Salvation apparently comes as the result of the forgiveness of sin. In 1 John 1:7 we are assured that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. However, in Matthew 12:32  Jesus himself warns, "But whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, neither in the world to come". In Mark 3:29 this dire warning is repeated when Jesus says, "To blaspheme the Holy Ghost is to place oneself in danger of eternal damnation". Since according to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are of one essence, to speak against one is to in effect speak against all three. So, blasphemy ranks as unforgivable sin number one. Unforgivable sin number two, apostasy, is revealed in Hebrews 6:4-6 where we are told that it is impossible for those who were once saved but later rejected God to ever be reinstated. 

To muddy the waters even farther, salvation apparently can be achieved without any assistance from Jesus whatsoever. In Matthew 3:5-6, we learn that many people came to be baptized by John the Baptist as they confessed their sins. By these acts the people found forgiveness. Again in Matthew 21:31-32 we read that even harlots and tax collectors entered the Kingdom of Heaven because they believed John the Baptist. In Ezekiel 18:27 we learn that to be saved all one has to do is to turn away from  wickedness. Since this took place before the crucifixion, doesn't that render Jesus irrelevant to salvation?

But there are other problems. Bible verses such as Acts 13:47-48, Romans 9:16-18 and Ephesians 1:3-5 imply that both salvation and damnation are preordained and there is nothing we can do to change it. In Ephesians 2:8-9 we learn that through faith one can be saved by grace, a gift of God. Here we are told that works, good or otherwise, have nothing to do with it. Passages such as Psalm 65:4, John 6:44, and Acts 22:14 suggests that God arbitrarily selects candidates for salvation regardless of faith, works, lifestyle or anything else. According to Jude 4 this includes some Christians who thought they had obtained salvation but were long ago assigned to damnation. This is known as the doctrine of predestination or election which says, "Before the foundations of the world were laid, God decided to deliver from damnation those whom he has chosen in Christ out of mankind^20b". Therefore, salvation is gratuitous in that it depends solely on God's whim regardless of lifestyle. In that regard, the election of some implies the rejection of others regardless of lifestyle. If this was all decided before the world was created doesn't that make God out to be a liar as well as an arch deceiver?

There are other passages in the Bible revealing God’s petty partiality. In Genesis 4 he accepts Abel’s gifts with gratitude while for some unexplained reason disdainfully spurning those of Cane who, in a fit of anger and resentment, murders Abel. Isn’t God ultimately responsible for this atrocious act of fratricide? The Apostle Paul reminds us (Romans 9:9-13) that, of the two sons of Issac, God, for some unexplained reason, hated the elder but loved the younger and determined “when they were not yet born” and “neither had done anything wrong,” that the elder should serve the younger. This is the act of an irresponsible tyrant!

All of the above clearly show that even if we were to surrender ourselves completely to Christian teachings, we still wouldn't know how to be saved. If baptism is the way, be baptized and then go and do as you choose. If works is the key, then we had better do good deeds; if we are saved by faith, then we must choose the right church; if salvation is the result of a Godly act of arbitrary selection, then we can only hope to be among the chosen, and if salvation is predetermined, we can ignore the entire matte . The Christian doctrine of salvation is irretrievably undermined by these confusing and conflicting contradictions.

For more complete listing of Bible contradictions see The Sermon on the Mount, Crucifixion Contradictions, Did Jesus rise from the Dead, Scrutinizing the Scripture and The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance on this web site.

In the first and second centuries there was very little authors and institutions could do to protect their work. Such things as copyright laws were nonexistent. As a result, forgery was rampant. This is nowhere more evident than in the writings of the early Christian church^20c. As far back as the time of Paul in the mid-first century forgery was so widespread that he taught his followers to recognize his handwriting in an attempt to insure authenticity²¹. Throughout the second century, church leaders were dogged by the problem of forgery. The situation confronting them was not only text alterations, but entire church documents were also being forged with impunity²². Although efforts were made to identify and eliminate them, many forgeries remain in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. In fact, the authenticity of many well known gospel stories is highly suspect²³. The following is a selection of four of the most famous gospel passages considered to be forgeries. Although not a complete listing, they provide good examples. For a more comprehensive review see New Testament Forgeries in this web site²⁴.

The Sermon on the Mount: The Sermon on the Mount (SotM) is viewed by many as the authoritative statement of the Christian belief system. It is said to be a prescription for Christian living. The sermon consists of 107 consecutive verses covering chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Gospel of Matthew, thus making it the longest continuous monologue of the New Testament. Only a small part of the speech, the Beatitudes, is recorded in Luke 6:20-38. Some other SotM verses do appear in Luke, but they are widely scattered throughout the gospel. The writers of the Gospels of Mark and John ignore this important sermon altogether as does the Apostle** Paul. So what is the source of SotM, and how did it get recorded in Matthew in such detail more than fifty years after Jesus allegedly gave it?

The writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, although working independently, drew rather heavily from the same two sources, the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document called “Q”²⁵ (Quella, German for source). Although it was lost, Q has been reconstructed by way of a careful literary analysis of Matthew and Luke²⁶. Q, thought to have been written soon after Jesus’ death²⁷ appears to have been the primary source for SotM²⁸. But Q was apparently without narrative form. It was composed of a series of disconnected sayings thought to be from or about Jesus. However, most of the Q sayings are nothing more than reformulations of Old Testament passages. For example, Thou shalt love thy neighbor (5:43), a Q saying, actually comes from Leviticus 19:18. Because they were writing their gospels as narratives, the writers of Matthew and Luke were compelled to invent a setting for the delivery of the sermon. Each did so within the purview of his own theology. In Matthew 5:1 Jesus goes up the mountain to deliver the sermon in the tradition of Moses on Mt. Sinai. The writer of Luke, on the other hand, has Jesus come down the mountain (6:17) to show him to be a true proletarian - a man of the people. Although SotM was derived primarily from Q, the gospel settings are obviously fictional.

The Slaughter of the Innocents - In the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew we read the heart-rending account of the killing of babies. This story is known throughout Christendom as "The Slaughter of the Innocents." King Herod, the writer says, was jealous of Jesus and plotted to get rid of him. But Jesus’ parents were forewarned “in a dream” and fled to Egypt. Meanwhile Herod, unable to locate Jesus and unaware of his departure, ordered his army to slay all male children two years old and under in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof (2:16).

This brutal tale of violence is parroted regularly in pulpits and Sunday school classes amid much tearful emotion and anguish. But just how true is it? First, none of the other gospel writers refer to it. Second, it is not mentioned in any extant official documents of that day. Third, why was John the Baptist not killed since he was the same age as Jesus and living in that region? Fourth, Flauvius Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, chronicled the reign of Herod the Great in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews. He said nothing about a massacre of children which he most certainly would have had such a heinous massacre actually taken place.

The birth narrative in Luke tells a very different story. In Luke 2:39-40 it says, "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to their own city, Nazareth, where the child grew and waxed strong in spirit." The family obviously did not feel threatened, and no mention is made of a flight to Egypt.

The story of the slaughter of the innocents was obviously invented by the writer of Matthew. It was part of a fictional literary construct by which he could justify his claim that Jesus fulfilled certain Old Testament prophecies. But in doing so he had to stretch his imagination to the limit. First, he had to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. Then he had to get him to Egypt and set the stage for his return in order to legitimize Matthew 2:15 claiming fulfillment of Hosea 1:11²⁹. So what did he do? Well, he conveniently put all the blame on old King Herod who is probably spinning in his grave right now. But the baby-killing story provided an additional dividend. Through it the writer of Matthew could lay claim to the fulfillment of yet another prophecy, Jeremiah 31:15³⁰. The writer of Luke apparently felt no obligation to accommodate these prophecies. Therefore, he had no need to embellish his birth narrative with a sordid tale of baby killing.

The Adulteress - John 8:1-11, the story of the adulterous woman, is intriguing. Some Christians are quick to declare it to be a testimonial to Jesus’ compassion toward women. But is that true? First, it appears only in the Gospel of John. However, the oldest manuscripts do not contain it^30a  Second, it breaks the natural sequence of the narrative. Third, it does not appear in any New Testament manuscript prior to the fifth century⁷. fourth, this story was long considered a forgery until the Council of Trent declared it "divine truth" in 1546^30b. For those reasons this story is considered by most New Testament scholars to be a late Christian forgery^30c. But let us set that bit of historical fact aside for the moment and consider the story itself and its implications.

To quickly review, it seems that one day while Jesus was teaching in the temple the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman before him who had been “caught in the very act” of committing adultery^30d. After reminding him that the Law decreed that she be put to death (Leviticus 20:10 and Deut. 22:22), they asked him, “What do you say?” After giving it some serious thought Jesus replied, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.” As a result, no one cast a stone indicating that they were all sinners. Later Jesus tells the woman that although she's guilty of breaking the law he will not condemn her. With that he tells her to go and sin no more. On the surface this story does appear to confirm Jesus’ compassion for women. Upon more rational reflection, however, it reveals a glaring contradiction.

If Jesus was anything, he was a stickler where Mosaic law was concerned. In Matthew 5:17-18 he says, “Do not think that I come to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say unto you, that until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished.” In Matthew 5:19 he warns that, “Whosoever breaks one of God’s laws will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.” In Luke 16:17 he says, “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.” In John 10:35 he says, “Scripture cannot be broken.” Also, we must remember that according to the doctrine of the trinity, Jesus actually wrote these dastardly laws.

To be consistent, shouldn’t Jesus have recommended that the woman be put to death in accordance with the law? He could have effectively demonstrated his often professed dedication to the law by casting the first stone at her himself thereby putting his money where his mouth was. But maybe there is another explanation. Perhaps Jesus was not without sin.

When considered objectively, this little story presents some truly formidable problems for those Christian advocates of female compassion. First of all, it is not so much about compassion as it is about Jesus' credibility. As Elizabeth Cady Stanton points out in The Woman's Bible, it was conceived by the scribes and the Pharisees as a way to trap Jesus thereby expose him as a fraud. So, Jesus had to be very careful how he handled this situation. When asked what he would do with her had Jesus said the woman should either be killed or set free, he would have been assuming the power of the state. Had he refused to offer an opinion his credibility as "the son of God" would have been ruined. So, in a flash of political insight he took a chance. In order to save his own skin, he literally gambled with the woman's life. That, my friends, is immoral.  

The Betrayal of Jesus - Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, ranks as the most hated and despised character in the Bible with the possible exception of Satan. Is such intense loathing justified, or is Judas the victim of biased reporting? Interestingly enough the sole source of information on Judas is the New Testament gospels and the Book of Acts all of which were written long after the events allegedly took place. He receives not a single mention mention in the writings of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, the reconstructed document, Quelle (Q) or the Didache.

Judas first appears in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Mark, the oldest of the canonical gospels, where he is appointed by Jesus as one of the twelve apostles. In this passage we are tipped off in advance of Judas’ treachery. The authors of Matthew and Luke, recognizing a good thing, repeat Mark’s version almost verbatim. The author of John does likewise but embellishes the story. In John 6:70-71 Jesus announces that one of the twelve, Judas, is a devil. In John 12:4-6 we learn Judas was also a thief.

As was predicted, Judas went to the chief priests and offered to identify Jesus. They accepted his offer and agreed to pay him thirty pieces of silver which brings up another perplexing question. Why would the authorities pay to have someone pointed out to them whom they already knew? In Matthew 26:55 Jesus says to those who came to arrest him, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, yet ye laid no hold on me."

Judas proceeds to identify Jesus by way of that treacherous kiss, and that’s the last we hear of him in the gospels of Mark, Luke and John. However, the author of Matthew doesn’t let it drop there. Apparently Judas’ conscience got the better of him because according to Matthew 27:3-5 he made a sincere attempt to repent but was denied forgiveness. In a gesture of frustration he returned the money and went and hanged himself. Matthew goes on to say that the chief priests and the elders used the money to buy a piece of land. Because it was bought with blood money, the land became known as "The Field of Blood."

In Matthew 18:21-22 when Peter came to him, and asked, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?” Jesus replied, "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven." Wasn’t Jesus obligated by his own words to forgive Judas? But instead of forgiving him, Jesus openly cursed Judas when during Passover Seder (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born". Contrary to Peter, Judas never denied Jesus. While his action may not have been all together ethical, Judas, unlike Peter, committed neither apostasy nor blasphemy, the two unforgivable sins.

Had the Judas story ended with the betrayal followed by the suicide everything might have been hunky-dory, but the writer of Acts couldn't leave well enough alone. In 1:15-19 he tells us that Judas didn't give the money back; he invested it in real estate. We also learn that Judas didn’t commit suicide; his death was accidental. Because of the messiness of this accident, the property became known as (you guessed it) "The Field of Blood." So, did Judas commit suicide as the writer of Matthew claims or was his death an accident as we are told in Acts? Also, was this the same land that the priests bought, or were there two fields of blood? But, it gets worse.

Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 state that following his resurrection Jesus appeared to "the eleven." Who was missing? After all that had transpired one would just naturally think it was Judas. Apparently not, because in John 20:24 we learn that the missing apostle was Thomas. Therefore the eleven had to include Judas. To further confound the reader, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5 that following his resurrection Jesus was seen by “the twelve.” This had to include Judas because it wasn't until after the ascension, some forty days after the resurrection, that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). So, apparently Judas neither committed suicide nor died by accident. In Acts 1:25 we are told that Judas "turned aside to go to his own place."

Another clue confirming the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30. Here Jesus tells his apostles that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending act of betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses is Q (QS 62). Q predates the gospels and is considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents. It was obviously written before Judas and the betrayal story were invented by the writer of Mark.

For centuries Judas Iscariot has been held up as the archetypical traitor, the exemplar of treachery, the quintessential turncoat. This is strange indeed when one considers Acts 1:16. Here the apostle Peter tells us, "This scripture (Psalm 69:25) must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." So according to Peter, Judas' betrayal was a part of God's grand plan all along. Not only did Judas serve as a vehicle through which key Old Testament prophecy might be fulfilled, it was by way of his betrayal that Jesus was able to complete his earthly mission. One might say that it was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. Judas was in reality an enabler. Instead of hating and reviling him, Christians should appreciate Judas’ contribution.

The tale of Judas Iscariot, although obvious fiction, has lead to some tragic consequences. Judas (Jew) is deliberately portrayed as a caricature intended to confirm the very worst misconceptions about the Jewish people. Jews have served as convenient scapegoats blamed, wrongly of course, for plagues, pestilence, poverty, famines, as well as the source of other supposed manifestations of divine revenge. As a result, for almost two thousand years the Jews have been unjustly vilified and persecuted because their forefathers were accused of slaying Jesus, a mythical god-man whose very existence remains highly questionable.

For more on this subject see New Testament Forgeries and The Pauline Epistles on this web site.

In the past, some philosophers and theologians have urged us to consider the supposed order, regularity, and harmony of the universe as evidence of the existence of a benign and omnipotent god. But if order, regularity, and harmony constitute evidence for God, then miracles cannot also be accepted as evidence for his existence, for they are, to follow the metaphor, dissonances in the harmony, holes in the patterned fabric of the universe. Hence, a Christian believer cannot have it both ways. Although they  comprise an integral part of all religions, especially Christianity, a miracle, a violation of natural law or a permanently inexplicable event, is a moment of chaos, a gap in the spatio-temporal structure. If one were to occur, it would therefore have to constitute evidence against the existence of a supreme being.

The New Testament contains accounts of many miracles allegedly performed by Jesus. According to the following passages miracles are, in fact, necessary in order to justify Christian belief³¹.

John 4:48 - Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

John 2:23 - Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 7:31 - And many of the people believed on him, and said, when Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

John 11:47 - Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, This man doeth many miracles.

Acts 2:22 - Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you.

According to the New Testament it was through these miracles that Jesus attracted his following. Later the disciples were able to perform similar tricks and through them establish the church. The Catholic saints continued in the same tradition, just as they do today. Thus Christianity became, and remains, a religion based exclusively on the supernatural.

We have to accept that miracles, signs and wonders were part and parcel of contemporary belief during the pre-scientific age. At that time men’s minds were attuned to the reception of such reports as being accurate. In accordance with their understanding of the order of things, everyone believed in miracles, and anyone claiming to possess supernatural power was expected to perform them.

Fundamentalist Christians are notably skeptical when questioned about miracles credited to men of other faiths such as those of Mohamed and Joseph Smith. Their skepticism is revealing. First, if unbelievers can perform miracles, the authority of Jesus is undermined. Additionally, and perhaps the most devastating, is that their skepticism derives from the fact that subconsciously they do not genuinely believe in their own. They know that much of the healing, devil chasing, sightings of the virgin Mary, speaking in tongues. etc is brought about not through supernatural intervention but through emotionalism, mental illness, mass hysteria and/or auto suggestion. They are fully aware that the testimonies of miraculous success achieved by Christian faith healers are for the most part bogus. Therefore, they vent their pent up doubts and frustrations by ridiculing the beliefs of others.

A miracle is defined as any suspension or overriding of natural law. Therefore, if a true miracle did occur the very basis of the historical and scientific methods would be violated. In order for history and science to have any credibility they must follow the assumption that natural law is regular and inviolable over time with no exceptions. Without this assumption history and science are meaningless.

In the past, some philosophers and theologians have urged us to consider the supposed order, regularity, and harmony of the universe as evidence of the existence of God. But if order, regularity, and harmony constitute evidence for God, then miracles cannot also be accepted as evidence for his existence, for they are, to follow the metaphor, dissonances in the harmony, holes in the patterned fabric of the universe. Hence, a Christian believer cannot have it both ways. A miracle, a violation of natural law or a permanently inexplicable event, is a moment of chaos, a gap in the spatio-temporal structure. If one were to occur, it would therefore have to constitute evidence against existence of God^31a.

Before leaving this subject let us consider what is perhaps Jesus' most impressive miracle, the resurrection of Lazarus. In summary, by the time Jesus arrived in Bethany, Lazarus had been dead for four days and was, in fact, beginning to stink up the place. With the simple command by Jesus to "come fourth" Lazarus was resuscitated. He walked out of his tomb unaided with all of his faculties in tact and resumed his normal life. When word of this astounding event got around, so many people joined Jesus that the chief priests became alarmed and plotted to assassinate Lazarus. Obviously, there are some very big problems with this little tale. First, it is found only in the gospel of John. No other gospel writer nor the apostle Paul mention it. Surely they had heard of  it, had it really happened. Second, the resurrection of Lazarus trumps the resurrection Jesus, the center piece of Christianity. Lazarus was dead for four days while Jesus was dead for less than three days. The story of the resurrection of Lazarus is an obvious hoax.  It, in fact, originated in Egypt long before the alleged time of Christ^34a.

Belief in miracles disregards man's capacity for good and evil thereby denying the doctrine of free will, one of the guiding principles of fundamentalist Christianity. Also, miracles ignore mankind's resilience and creativity, and dismiss human heroics. To rely on miracles is to look beyond our own best attributes.

Many stories in the New Testament are not only unbelievable, they are flat-out wrong. Most of them are understandably ignored by professional religionists. However, they are a part of the Bible, a book claimed by many Christians to be perfect in all that it says. Let us examine a few of these stories beginning with what is without doubt a most devastating miscalculation, the eschatology of Jesus.

Jesus assured his followers that he would return shortly to establish
the Kingdom of God, i.e. an independent Israel free of Roman occupation. He went so far as to prophesy that most of them would live to see it³⁵. The following Bible quotes confirm that he promised to return in glory during the lifetime of his generation, a hollow promise indeed.

Matthew 10:23 - When giving instructions to his disciples as to just how they are to go about spreading his message, Jesus says, ." . . for truly I say unto you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes."

Matthew 24:33-34 - After prophesying a wide assortment of events including the second coming, Jesus says, "This generation shall not pass till these things be fulfilled." He was obviously referring to the contemporary generation.

Matthew 26:64 - When brought before Caiaphas, the Chief Priest, Jesus said to him, "I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man . . . coming on the clouds of heaven." According to this the second coming was to happen during Caiaphas' lifetime.

Matthew 16:28 - Jesus says to his disciples, "There are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Luke 21:36 - While prophesying his second coming, Jesus warns his disciples, "Keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man."

I Thessalonians 4:15-17 - In his first Epistle to the Thessalonians Paul assures the congregation that the second coming of Jesus is very near. ." . . we who are alive, . . . shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven . . . and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together . . ."

For the gospels it’s a no-win situation. If they are correct in their reporting of Jesus' eschatological claims, doesn’t his obvious error seriously undermine his credibility and authority, as well as his claim to divinity? Does this not also equally undermine the authority of the Church? On the other hand, if it is argued that the gospels are incorrect, doesn’t this seriously undermine their credibility as well as that of the entire New Testament? Even if one were to presume that God willfully inspired the contradictions, errors and broken promises in order to test the faith of believers, why should anyone believe any of it if it could be false?

Another incredulous story occurs in Matthew 27: 52-53 where it is reported that at the moment of Jesus’ death ." . . the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy city (Jerusalem) and appeared unto many."

Just exactly when and under what circumstances this astounding event occurred is clearly stated. It appears in the narrative immediately following Jesus’ death. That means the saints were resurrected late Friday afternoon. However, they did not go into Jerusalem until after Jesus was resurrected sometime early Sunday morning. Therefore, we are to believe that the resurrected saints were content to just sit in their open graves from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning. Be that as it may, however, if true, this event ranks as the most electrifying miracle ever recorded. By rights it should consume whole chapters of contemporary history. Had it really happened it would be reviewed at length in official government documents and in religious scriptures. It would have been the chosen theme of all New Testament writers because it would have proven their doctrine, their cause and their apostleship. Yet we find that it is mentioned only in an offhanded manner by a single gospel writer and totally ignored by everyone else. What is most revealing, however, is that both Mark and Luke contain in sequence the passages immediately preceding and following Matthew 27:52-53 practically verbatim.

The writer of Matthew did not bother to tell us just exactly who those resurrected saints were. Nor did he deem it important to tell us what happened to them afterwards. Did they return to their graves where they remain to this very day? If they did not, where are they now? According to the passage they appeared to many. But where are the eyewitness accounts? Did they go to claim their wives and property which they had owned at the time of their death? If so, how were they received? It is strange indeed that not another word was ever written about what undoubtedly ranks as the most amazing event in all of history. But why was such an outlandish statement included?

In Zechariah 14:4-6 it prophecies that when Israel is under attack God will come to the rescue and the saints will come with him. Because the writer of Matthew was obsessed with the need to have Jesus appear to fulfill Old Testament prophesy, he was compelled to somehow include saints. Because there were apparently no recognized saints living at that time, his only alternative was to resurrect some. So out of sheer desperation he simply inserted verses 52 and 53 at the appropriate place in chapter 27. His clumsy attempt to deceive is obvious. This so-called miracle never happened.

In the so-called Temptation of Jesus by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13) it is recorded that ." . . Satan took Jesus up on a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world." First, this presupposes a flat earth, a condition known since the time of Pythagoras (circa 500 BCE) not to be the case. This statement further insults our intelligence by positing the existence of Satan, another wholly mythological figure. This story is obviously fiction.

Not only did he presume the earth to be flat, the writer of Matthew apparently perceived the universe to be a simple three-layered affair with heaven above and hell below: 24:29 ." . . the stars will fall from the sky . . .,” and 11:23 “And you, Capernaum, . . . shall descend into Hell.” The naive concept of a simple three-layered universe is also reflected in Mark 16:19 when the writer tells us that Jesus was "taken up" into heaven. The writer of Luke also tells us in 24:51 that Jesus was "carried up" into heaven. In the face of modern astronomy, this is absolutely ridiculous.

The gospels, although they may be perceived by many Christians to be true historical biographies, are in reality nothing more than fictional narratives written to promote a cause. The propaganda motive is openly admitted when in the Gospel of John (20:31) we are told, "These things are written so that you might believe Jesus is the Christ . . ."

Christian fundamentalists preachers invoke the word "truth" ad nauseam. They never tire of repeating John 8:32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," or John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life . . ." Their primary aim, I believe, is not to teach but to intimidate, indoctrinate and brainwash their congregations, including little children, into believing the outlandish assertion that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. In that regard, here is a quotation from a letter I received from a local Church of God minister, "It is my firm conviction, based on testimony from the Bible itself, that God's word is the only infallible source of truth." Such a patently absurd statement by someone with a better than average education is nothing short of appalling. The truth, if that's what they really want, is simply that objective scholarly research had shown the gospels to be historically spurious.  

Their real purpose of the evangelists is not so much to reveal the truth as it is to protect their turf. What other motive could there be in ignoring the results of years of honest, objective scholarly Bible research? Why else are many members of the clergy so intent on forcing their ridiculous doctrine of superstition and fear into the public schools, as well as into local, state and national governments? That is why such ludicrous nonsense as Creation Science and Christian Reconstructionism are taken seriously by so many and threaten to intrude upon our public and private lives. That is why slick, Bible spouting charlatans are able to gain such wealth, prominence and political clout. The truth, if it can be determined at all, can only be determined through impartial, objective, dispassionate research conducted without regard for personal bias or in favor of a preconceived outcome.

Beginning in the sixteenth century and continuing to this day, scientific, literary, and historical research has succeeded in demolishing the credibility of the Bible. However, this fact remains largely unappreciated by the laity. They remain oblivious to the fact that most, if not all, of the key features of the Bible have been discredited or flatly refuted. This, perhaps, is understandable because we live in a society that is enlarging the boundaries of knowledge at an unprecedented rate. We cannot keep up with much more than a fraction of all that is made available to us. However, to continue to cloud our perception of reality with childish notions of magic and make believe is to adulterate our world view in a most debilitating and dangerous way.

At the risk of being unbearably realistic, I must tell you that Hitler is not alive and living in Argentina, Elvis is really dead, AIDS is not God's retribution, and Jesus of the gospels never exist

ATTACHMENT I

ATTACHMENT II

ATTACHMENT III

_______________________________________________________

* Seen together. They tell essentially the same story.  

** The word "apostle" comes from the Greek word which means one who is sent as opposed to "disciple" which means follower.

1 All dates are Christian Era (CE) unless otherwise indicated.

2 Mark 1:11, Matthew 3:17, John 10:36. The title “Son of God” was first used as the official title of the Roman Emperor, Augustus (63 BCE-14).

3 John 4:25-26

4 John 6:40.

4a Acharya S., The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited, 1999, pg. 25.

5 Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament: Part2, page 204.

5a Hanson, K. C., Catalogue of New Testament Papyri & Codices, 2nd - 10th Centuries. Fortress Press.

5b Doherty, Earl; The Jesus Puzzle, Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999; pg 260

5c Price, Robert M., "Judas Gets his Say" in Secular Nation, Second Quarter 2006

5d Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament: Part I, page 7.

5e Ibid, The New Testament, Part 2, page 205.

6  Ibid., The New Testament: Part I, page 12.

6a Helms, Randel M., Who Wrote the Gospels?, Millennium Press, 1997 pg 3.

7 Cable, L. W., New Testament Forgeries on this web site.

7a Synoptic implies that because these gospels have so much
material in common they can be viewed together.

7b Wells, G. A.., The Jesus Legend, Open Court Press, 1997, pg. xxi.

8 Wells, G. A., Can We Trust the New Testament?,  Open Court Press, 2004, page vii.

9 The books of the "Old Testament" were not finally collected together in a single volume and made authoritative for Jewish faith until the Council of Jamnia, which convened in 90 CE, some 60 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Therefore, if Jesus actually lived, he knew nothing of  what later became known as the Old Testament. The twenty-seven books comprising the "New Testament" did not come together as official Christian dogma until the middle of the 4th century CE. Very early in the 5th century the translation by St. Jerome called the Vulgate brought the Old Testament and the New Testament together into the Bible we now have. For more detail see Delos B. McKown, The Mythmaker's Magic, chapter 4, The Fiction That Saves.

10 Edwards, Paul, God and the Philosophers, Part 1, Free Inquiry
magazine, September, 1998, pg.39.

10a Webster's II, Biographical entries, page1392.

10b Josephus says in Antiquities that it was completed in the thirteenth year of the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian who reigned from 81 to 96.

11 Wells, G. A., 1998, The Jesus. Myth,  pgs. 200-221.

11a Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited, 1999, page 50.

11b Fitzgerald, David, "The 10,000 Christs and the Evaporating Jesus" in American Atheist, vol. 44, issue 3 - May/June 2006.

12 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, under
Biographical Entries.

13 Encyclopedia Judaica - population and area of Jerusalem during the time of Pontius Pilate (26-36).

13a Cable, Louis W., See "The Pauline Epistles" on this web site.

14 Brownrigg, Ronald - Who’s Who in the New Testament - Holt, Rinehart and Wenston, 1971 - page 34.

15 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

16 The first man is of the earth; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

17 Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both date to the mid fourth century.

18 The Matthew/Luke location contradiction is so blatant as to merit a special citation. Galilee lies approximately 80 miles north of
Jerusalem. In a three-mile-an-hour world that amounts to a significant discrepancy.

19 Teeple, Howard M., The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, Religion and Ethics Institute, Inc., Evinston, Illinois, 1974, pg. 160.

20 Helms, Randel M., Who Wrote the Gospels?, Millennium Press, pg. 152.

20a Spong, John S., The Sins of Scripture, Harper San Francisco, 2005, pg. 16.

20b Wells, G. A. , Belief and Make Believe, Open Court Press, 1991, pg. 158.

20c Larson, Martin A., The Story of Christian Origins; Village Press, pg 307.

21 I Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:17.

22 Eddy, P. G., Who Tempered with the Bible?, Winston-Derek & Co., pg. 9.

23 Cable, L. W., Some Famous Forgeries in the New Testament.

24 Ibid, The Sermon of the Mount.

25 Funk, Robert W. And Roy W. Hoover, The Five Gospels, p. 14.

26 Mack, Burton L., The Lost Gospel, The Book of Q, p. 4.

27 Ibid, Appendix A, Early Christian Literature.

28 Funk, Robert W. and Roy W. Hoover, The Five Gospels, pages 139-159

29 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

30 A voice was heard in Ramah, lamenting and bitter weeping; Rachel, weeping for her children, refused to be comforted because her children were no not.

30a Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament, Part 2, The Teaching Company, Ltd., 2000, page 209

30b Gaylor, Annie L., Woe To The Women, revised edition, 2004, page 101.

30c Wells, G. A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Promethus Press, pg. 225.

30d It is interesting to note that the man with whom the woman was committing adultery is never mentioned. This is indeed strange because the Law states that they shall both be put to death. So, here is another indication that this story as a hoax.

31 Teeple, H. M., The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, page 197.

31a Overall, Christine in "The Impossibility of God" by Martin & Monnier, pg. 150.

32 Wells, G. A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Promethus Press, pg. 225.

33 It is interesting to note that the man with whom the woman
was committing adultery is never mentioned. This is indeed strange because the Law states that they shall both be put to death. So, here is another indication that this story as a hoax.

34 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, "I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

34a Jackson, John G., Christianity Before Christ, American Atheist, 1985, pgs 116-118.

35 Cable, L. W., On the Horns of an Eschatological Dilemma, The Freethought Exchange #13, page 19.

36 Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote the New Testament?

37 Martin, Michael, The Case Against Christianity.

38 Robertson, Archibald; The Origins of Christianity.

39 Eddy, Patricia G., Who Tampered With the Bible?

40 Remsberg, John E., The Christ.

41 Wells, G. A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus.

42 Teeple, Howard M., personal correspondence.