HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

ADDITIONS WERE MADE TO THE NEW TESTAMENT BY FRAUDSTERS
  
The Christians are accused by many of having added fabrications to their scriptures. Christians think that some in fact in the early Church did invent new scriptures and get them palmed off as the real thing. The Gospel of Peter is one example. It is a ridiculous forgery.
 
The Christians admit that the Gospel of Peter was popular among the believers of the early Church (page 64, Conspiracies and the Cross). They say that there are more fragments of this Gospel than the Gospel of Mark which was put into the New Testament (page 64, Conspiracies and the Cross). In 199 AD, Serapion the bishop of Antioch went to Rhossus to refute the Gospel of Peter to the Church there which had taken it seriously. He wrote a letter to the Church in Rhossus. The Church there was reading the Gospel at its Church services. Serapion declared in his letter that he took it for granted they were believing correct doctrine and when he heard about their devotion to the Gospel of Peter he decided without reading the gospel that they may use it. Later he said he discovered that the gospel was heretical and contained some additions to the teaching of Christ. He then warned them to have nothing to do with it.
 
Clearly, Serapion was open to the idea that previously unknown writings by the apostles might turn up. If he had been closed to the idea, he would have declared right away that the Gospel of Peter should be discarded. (Incidentally, if there had really been a papacy in those days, he could have checked it out by writing to the pope - the supposed successor of Peter - but he didn't.) The only reason Serapion rejected the gospel of Peter was because he thought it added to and altered the message of the four gospels he had. He rejected it simply because it didn't match the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John too well. He did not care where the gospel came from or if it had eyewitness support.
 
Why should we think that the negative opinion of one man, Serapion, towards the gospel of Peter should be taken as important? Perhaps the Church at Rhossus was right to think the gospel was Peter's! Plus Peter had been at Antioch which was near Rhossus. Maybe he wrote the gospel during this sojourn.
 
The Christians claim that there is no evidence that the Gospel of Peter was treated as canonical anywhere other than at the Church at Rhossus. But then there is the problem of the fragments. It was usually the Churches that kept books and scrolls of scriptures. They had them so that they could be used for worship and that literate people could come in and read them. Books and scrolls were difficult and expensive to produce. It could not have been any other way. The fragments show that the Gospel of Peter was widely considered to be canonical.
 
Christians boast today that what we have left of the Gospel of Peter does not contradict the gospels we have. They say that the account of the resurrection of Jesus in the gospel has different details from the accounts in the four gospels but nothing actually contradicts them (page 65, Conspiracies and the Cross). But Peter says there really were soldiers sleeping at the tomb of Jesus though some were awake. Matthew says the soldiers claimed that Jesus had been stolen when they were asleep. It never says the soldiers really were asleep. If they were, the tomb could have been robbed and the body stolen. It looks bad for Christians if the guardians of the tomb were so careless. They want to believe that the body of Jesus was in the tomb and vanished because it rose from the dead and not because it was stolen.
 
Peter has the soldiers actually seeing the resurrection. For the New Testament, nobody saw the resurrection happen. They only saw Jesus after he was resurrected. The gospel is inferring the soldiers were reliable witnesses which contradicts the gospel of Matthew which says they were bribe takers and liars. The gospel is also inferring that the accounts in the four gospels which state that though Jesus was seen after his death nobody had seen him rise from the dead are defective.
 
Peter says the stone at the tomb of Jesus rolled away by itself. But the New Testament says that an angel came down and moved it.
 
The treatment of the Gospel of Peter shows that the early Church was not as careful as modern Christians would have you believe. It even cast aside gospels that it didn't like just because it didn't like them.
 
We have a story in John 8 that was added to the gospels. It presents Jesus as saving an adulterous woman from a lynch mob that wanted to put her to death by stoning her. The story affects doctrine for it has Jesus doing strange things like writing on the ground. His saying to the mob that they could throw a stone if they were without sin is fine. But the report that they all went away one by one reaches far beyond credibility. It adds to the difficulty in believing the gospels. The story affects doctrine then in the sense that when it cannot be reasonably shown to be apostolic in origin it opens the door to adding new stories to the gospels. It contradicts the promise of Christ that the word of God would be preserved reliably and intact.
 
Mark 16 has a whole chunk added in. Christians say the chunk creates no problems for it says Jesus appeared and told the apostles to preach the gospel and that its promises to the believers about lifting snakes and drinking poison without harm are spoken of in the Old Testament anyway. So they say that whether the addition is God's word or not doesn't affect anything Christians believe about Jesus. They say that it does not add to the faith. It does. The Old Testament never said that the Christian believers would have such powers. Mark 16 says that these powers were given then whereas the Old Testament is not specific on when exactly. The time is a new doctrine. And there is no evidence that the power to lift snakes and drink poison without harm ever worked! It is a matter of doctrine if a text is the word of God or not. A text being regarded as correct or factual does not make it divinely inspired. If bits could be missing from God's word then it follows that we cannot depend on the Bible.
 
The Catholic Church added in a chunk into John 1 to make it say that there were three persons in one God. The Church at the time had trouble from Christians who didn't believe this doctrine for they didn't find it in the Bible and some of these believers used a different list of Bible books from the Church. The Cathars used the New Testament but gave special status to the gospel of John as if it were the only really reliable New Testament book.
 
Books and chunks were left out of the Bible. Alterations and chunks were entered in at the hands of religious frauds. To believe that the Bible is the word of God is really just to believe in the word of unreliable man.
 
The founders and heads of modern Christianity are prone to dishonesty. They don’t treat their own Bible as the word of God. They were and are no better than Mormon leaders who change and lie about their scriptures the Book of Mormon.
 
FURTHER READING

 
A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
A Test of Time, David Rohl, Century, London, 1995
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, Undated
An Act of God, Graham Philips, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1998
Answers to Tough Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press Bucks, 1988
Attack on the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1965
Belief and Make-Believe, GA Wells, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1991
Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1985
But the Bible Does Not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book Room Press, London, 1966
Catholicism and Christianity, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
Conspiracies and the Cross, Timothy Paul Jones, FrontLine, Florida, 2008
Creation and Evolution, Dr Alan Hayward, Triangle, London, 1994
Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
Essentials, David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1990
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Free Inquiry, Fall 1998, Vol 18, No 4, Council for Secular Humanism, Amherst, New York
God and the Human Condition, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London, 1967
God Cannot Lie, David Alsobrook, Diasozo Trust, Kent, 1989
God, Science and Evolution, Prof E H Andrews, Evangelical Press, Herts, 1985
God’s Word, Final Infallible and Forever, Floyd C McElveen, Gospel Truth Ministries, Grand Rapids, 1985
Hard Sayings, Derek Kidner, InterVarsity Press, London, 1972
How and Why Catholic and Protestant Bibles Differ, Carolyn Osiek, RSCJ and Donald Senior, CP, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1983
How to Interpret the Bible, Fergus Cleary SJ, Ligouri Publications, Missouri, 1981
In Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
Inspiration in the Bible, Fr Karl Rahner, Herder and Herder, New York, 1966
Jehovah of the Watch-tower, Walter Martin and Norman Klann, Bethany House Publishers, Minnesota, 1974
Jesus and Early Christianity in the Gospels, Daniel J Grolin, George Ronald, Oxford, 2002
Let’s Weigh the Evidence, Which Bible is the Real Word of God? Barry Burton, Chick Publications, Chino, California, 1983
Know What You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1973
Know Why You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1971
New Age Bible Versions, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Foundation, Tennessee, 1993
New Evangelicalism An Enemy of Fundamentalism, Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1984
None of These Diseases, SI McMillen MD, Lakeland, London 1966
Our Perfect Book the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1958
Proof the Bible is True, Rev JMA Willans BD, Dip.Theol. Vermont Press, Larne, 1982
Radio Replies Vol 3, Radio Replies Press, Minnesota, 1942
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
Remarks on the New King James Version and Revised Authorised Version, DK Madden, 35 Regent Street, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, 7005, 1991
Return to Sodom and Gomorrah, Charles Pellegrino, The Softback Preview, New York, 1995
The Bible, The Biography, Karen Armstrong, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
Science and the Bible, Henry Morris, Moody Press, Bucks, 1988
Science Held Hostage What’s Wrong With Creation Science and Evolutionism, Howard J Van Till/Davis A.Young/Clarence Menninga, IVP, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, 1988
Science Speaks, Peter W Stoner and Robert C Newman, Moody Press, Chicago, 1976
Set My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967
Testament, The Bible and History, John Romer, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988
The Authority of the Bible, Ambassador College, Pasadena, California, 1980
The Bible Fact or Fantasy, John Drane, Lion, Oxford, 1989
The Bible is the Word of God, Jimmy Thomas, Guardian of Truth, Kentucky
The Bible or Evolution? William Jennings Bryan, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee
The Bible, Questions People Ask, A Redemptorist Pastoral Publication, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1980
The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone Books, New York, 2002
The Canon of Scripture, FF Bruce, Chapter House, Glasgow, 1988
The Church of Rome and the Word of God, Rev Eric C Last, Protestant Truth Society, London, Undated
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
The Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guilford, Surrey, 1994
The History of Christianity, Lion, Herts, 1982
The King James Version Defended, Edward F Hills, The Christian Research Press, Iowa, 1973
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E Brown, Joseph A Fitzmyer, Roland E Murphy, Geoffrey Chapman, New York 1990
The Theology of Inspiration, John Scullion SJ, Mercier, Cork, 1970
The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, John R Rice Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1943
What is the Bible? Henri Daniel-Rops, Angelus Books, Guild Press, New York, 1958
Which Version Now? Bob Sheehan, Carey Publications, 5 Fairford Close, Haywards Heath, Sussex RH16 3EF
Who is a Fundamentalist? Dr Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1982
Why Does God..? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls , Bucks, 1970
Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, Freeman, New York, 1997
 
BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:
The Amplified Bible

WEB

Final Response by Steven Carr to Dr Wilkinson
www.bowness.demon.co.uk/wilkin6.htm

Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious?
www.christiantruth.com/canon.html

In Response to William Webster’s: The Canon, Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious
www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/Webster.html

Science in the Bible? Dr M Magee
www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/440BibleScience.html

Why It’s a Load of Old Cobblers, Adrian Barnett
www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
Exposes the utter absurdity of the Noah’s Ark story in the Bible

Steven Carr, Critique of Josh McDowells Non_Messianic Prophecies This Site cannot be overly recommended. It is superb.
www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_carr/non-messianic.html

New Testament Contradictions, Paul Carlson
www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

Rabbits do not chew their cud, Alleged Bible Contradictions
http://unhindered.com/apolo/contradictions/index.html

The Bible as History Flunks New Archaeological Tests
www.10.nytimes.com/library/arts/072900david-bible.html