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!


The Christian religion is based on Jesus Christ being our saviour according to the word of the apostles. But the apostles and their followers twisted and lied about the Old Testament to make it seem to have predicted their saviour god. The apostles claimed that Jesus rose from the dead and formed a Church. This Church killed Jesus if he lived at all. The scriptures of this Church say that the apostles did nothing to try and save Jesus from the arrest which led to his death on the cross. The book of Acts says that the Holy Spirit came down on the apostles - Christians say this was the birthday of the Church. Even Acts doesn't say that. It is only one testimony and the Bible itself, on God's authority, says one testimony is no good. Is it too much to say that the Church killed Jesus and then used his memory to gain power and prestige and money and were willing to distort that memory in pursuit of these worldly blessings?

If we can prove that the apostles and the four gospellers, who claimed to be preserving the doctrine of the apostles, were liars we have done all we need to do to show that Christianity is just a man-made scam. The Christian religion is based on them. Jesus supposedly left the apostles to teach us and if they cannot be trusted then he failed. He was a useless Son of God if he couldn’t preserve his message.
Matthew, Mark and Luke lied when they said Jesus was the Son of God despite reporting that Jesus when accused of casting out demons by the devil’s power said that the devil cannot have a kingdom if he casts out his own demons which was ridiculous for the demons might be more useful elsewhere.
We also have the abuse of Old Testament texts which were not even intended to be prophecies twisted into prophecies of Jesus. For example, Matthew said that a prophecy about a maiden giving birth to a son she will call Emmanuel and a prophecy about Rachel weeping for her children predicted the birth of Jesus and the massacre of the innocents. Neither prophecy he quoted does that at all. Christians answer that they were prophecies in a figurative sense but where does Matthew say that? The gospels were written to defend the faith and to do that it is best to ignore figurative prophecies unless you are desperate. Anyway figurative prophecies could mean anything and are an indication that the person interpreting them is gullible.
Jesus appointed twelve apostles, that is, chief witnesses that he was the Son of God as shown by his return from the dead (Acts 1). The word apostle means one sent. In 1 Corinthians 12 we read that apostleship is the first or chief office in the Church and that not all are apostles. Because the apostles were witnesses to the faith they were the foundation that the Church was built on (Ephesians 2:20).

Justin Martyr wrote that all the apostles lied about knowing Jesus the night Peter denied knowing him. They had no need to do that. Peter for example, should have stayed away from anybody who could ask him if he was a disciple and/or disguised himself.

The gospels do not agree on the names of some of the apostles. Very important people do not change their names and confuse so there was some kind of deception going on. Lies were being told in order to make fake apostles seem authentic.

We want to see if the apostles committed fraud in religion which would mean we should not have much confidence in them when they testify to Jesus being the Son of God, risen from the dead.
James condemned gossip in his epistle but that did not stop him approving of it when the Bible did it.

The apostles dishonestly pretended they didn’t notice the many deceptions and contradictions Jesus made. They didn’t want to. But many of them were more than obvious. For example, Jesus preferred to care for sinners than for the self-righteous. The latter need his help more for he has they that were the worst of sinners.

The apostles acted like the Jews by practicing that religion. In reality, the apostles were heretics by today’s Christian standards and were supporting a system that opposed the claims of Jesus – they deceived their countrymen and women. By encouraging their Jewish devotion, Jesus showed them that he was a true son of Satan but they didn’t give a damn. Jesus and them would have set up their own brand of sectarian Judaism if they had had any integrity.

Jesus and the apostles let Judas carry their purse though Judas was regularly stealing from it (John 12:16). And then they preached honesty and condemned tempting others. They must have told that he did this if it is true proving that they expected people to listen to them telling them not to reveal the secret faults of others while they did that themselves. What frauds they were! It is more likely that they let it happen for they would not have been gullible enough to think that the money was falling out or anything.

The Book of Acts says that the apostles lived a long time after the alleged supernatural happenings in relation to Jesus that they saw. Yet their enemies are supposed to have been thirsting for their blood like men wandering through a desert pining for water. The apostles could not have survived so long without hiding and depending on people to tell lies for them. They must have commanded lies. This would prove that they did not expect God to look after them. In that case, they would have to be frauds.

The Christians scoff at the miracles in non-Christian scriptures but don’t complain about the writer of 2 Peter being credulous when he declared that a donkey spoke like a human according to the Old Testament but they use the writer to defend their claims about Jesus. It is tragic that history and reason and fairness have to be sacrificed so that Christians can compliment themselves on the great Jesus they follow for in following him they follow what they want him to be so it is all about themselves. It’s selfish in the horrible sense of the word.

The Bible says that Jesus’ followers and admirers were accused of fraud and wickedness by the Jews. If so then there are far better grounds for disbelieving the Bible tale of Jesus than for accepting it. There were hundreds of negative and hostile testimonies from the critics and only five from believers. These are the gospels and the book of Acts. Jesus’ followers were mainly interested in his faith healing and we know too little about the apostles to hold that they were all agreed about the story of Jesus. Still, you have crazy clergy saying the apostles must have been telling the truth when nobody debunked them!
The Christian religion is unable to give adequate verification of any of its claims. For example, we know we have to accept the simplest explanation we can find. If the gospels are convincing (they are not - an empty tomb and apparitions afterwards of the person who had been in the tomb still does not prove a resurrection) in relation to their claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead it is easier to believe that the miracle is in the credibility of the records and not in the miracle of resurrection. The plausibility of the records only means that the records are plausible not that they are correct. Something rather different from an actual resurrection could have been what really happened. Then some forces set to work to guide writers to tell a story that supported a resurrection story and was believable. The lesser miracle of psychic guidance of the writers is what should be accepted not the huge miracle of resurrection.

Christians argue that the gospels must be historically true when they teach that such a stupid and untrustworthy bunch of people bore witness to the resurrection and to Jesus. They think that nobody would have invented the stuff about them. But maybe the authors did not realise the folly of doing this or saw the advantages it brings. In the nineteenth century, Joseph Smith claimed that he tried to deceive the angel Moroni and get the Golden Bible off him to sell it and his visions were certainly hoaxes regardless. He told this lie to make his story more believable to the stupid. When a religion thrives regardless of the failings of the founders which has happened all the time why not admit or invent those failings? Admitting or inventing the failings actually can help!

Please don’t argue that when such a bunch of apostles had so many holes in their brand of religious testimony that it must be true for that would mean that the liar is more reliable than the honest person.
The apostles were capable of religious fraud.
There have been instances where people have founded new religions and Churches out of a desire to get revenge on the religion they have been born into. Anti-religionist atheists are thought by Christians to be motivated not out of a love for truth or goodness but out of spite against the religion they left.
The hatred the New Testament spews towards the Jews can lead one to surmise that the witnesses of the risen Jesus might have been lying because they wished to see the formation of a new faith that would destroy and undermine Judaism. They had a motive. Perhaps initially they told the lie and it got them followers and relations were good with Judaism. Later things turned sour. Their devotion to the lie grew and grew because of their increasing hatred for the Jews. They hated the Jews so much that they were willing to take beatings and traipse around the world to spread their evil gospel.
The gospels continually claim that there was no love lost between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. He portrayed them as being completely evil while he hadn't a bad word to say about the evil Roman occupation or prostitutes or tax collectors. So it was better to be a prostitute and kill your clients by passing on syphilis to them than to be a minister of the Jewish faith! The apostles were Jews themselves and their following such a religious bigot would certainly mean that they harboured a lot of hatred for their religion.
The gospels blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Matthew says the Jews said that the responsibility for the blood of Jesus must rest on themselves and their children. Some of the gospels actually say the Jews crucified Jesus. John says it. Crucifixion was not a Jewish method of punishment.
The gospels present Jesus as calling the Jewish leaders hypocrites, bastards, evil and children of the Devil. The gospel of John deployed a lot of ink on recording Jesus' disagreements with and attacks on the Jews when it could have focused on more edifying stuff. In John 6 Jesus tells the Jews that unless they accept him they have no life in them - life means life with God. So they are dead to God unless they believe.
Matthew accuses the Jews of lying about the tomb of Jesus being raided by his disciples who took the body. He says very little about the apparitions of the risen Jesus but devotes time to accusing the Jews of lying about how Jesus vanished from the tomb. Even if Jesus had been stolen it didn't stop him rising from the dead bodily. So the point of it all was to insult and malign the Jews.
Paul complains all the time about the Jews and the Jewish Christians and says he wishes the knife would slip when they practiced circumcision.
Acts portrays the Jews in a very bad light. It lies that the Jew Gamaliel told the Jews to leave the Jesus believers alone for if their movement was not from God it would disappear naturally. Gamaliel would not have uttered such a ridiculous statement. It was silly in itself. Paganism was stronger than Judaism an that was not considered a sign that it had God's approval. And no Jew would have regarded Jesus as having any chance of being from God when he was so hostile to the Jews and made the Jews fear that the Romans would turn on them all over him. The lie about Gamaliel can only be explained by Christians inventing the story to make Jewish antagonism to Christianity seem more unreasonable. They were made to seem to be ignoring the voice of reason in Gamaliel.
The early Christians eagerly hoped that Christ would soon come to overthrow the Jews in Jerusalem. They pined for the cataclysms allegedly prophesied by Jesus. All scholars agree that the early Church thought the return of Jesus was imminent.
With all that sectarian hatred, the temptation to lie about apparitions of Jesus would have been too great. Hatred can make many people seem virtuous - they do good because they want everybody to dance to their tune. They can be better at "good" than the truly virtuous. Secular sources and sources outside the New Testament show that the Judaism of the time was far from being as rotten as the New Testament would make out. Indeed it suffered nobly under the Romans and produced some of the best and most appealing ethical codes and wisdom that the world had ever seen.
The gospels let it slip that Peter told lies in matters of religion. Thus he cannot be regarded as an authority for saying that Jesus rose from the dead.
Jesus called Peter Satan and spoke to him sharply for saying that Jesus must not die on the cross. So Peter must have been trying to delude him into following the Devil (Matthew 16). Then Peter and the rest claimed that they did not know Jesus would die and rise later on when they gave up on Jesus.
Peter told Jesus that he would die for him. Jesus questioned this and informed him that he would deny him three times. Peter did just what Jesus said between the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus. He was lying against the doctrines that Jesus is of God and must be preached and is worthy of trust. And don’t blame weakness for this for he could have denied it the once the first time he was asked about his association with Jesus and then gone away or better still walked away and said nothing. But he hung around for another couple of helpings! He lied under oath for the gospel says he called a curse on himself if he was not telling the truth (Matthew 26:72). In Acts 2:32 he subsequently appears and his supposed testimony to the resurrection is recorded and presented as evidence by Luke. Luke gave no proof that Peter really said all this which marks Luke out as dishonest and unprofessional. Peter is treated in many places as the chief witness and it is possible that if Jesus made Peter the rock the Church was built on that Jesus meant for him to be the chief witness to the resurrection. Peter’s lying under oath that he had no need for doing would prove that he could not be a decent witness and actually useless and would show that Christ was a false prophet for having chosen him as witness on any level. When the chief witness was so bad what were the others like? Worse!

Peter risked his life by angering people by lying to them. Interesting. He would die for his lies then. Yet the Church says that Peter’s alleged crucifixion for Jesus proves he was telling the truth about Jesus appearing to him to tell him he rose from the dead! It is only legend that speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. And many gods and saints in what Christianity considers to be false also boast of their failings and yet Christianity claims that they were frauds.
Peter lied unnecessarily in the courtyard while Jesus was on trial. In front of people who recognised him he denied that he was a follower of Jesus a few times. He swore that he was telling the truth (Matthew 26:72). Peter did this between the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus. He was lying against the doctrines that Jesus is of God and must be preached and is worthy of trust and could rise again. He had no need to be there and could have hidden his head better and even admitted that he was a follower. Strange that a man who lied under oath should be considered a reliable witness to the resurrection of Jesus. And especially when we have only what amounts to hearsay that he was a witness and what he witnessed to. Even if he did witness to the resurrection of Jesus we don’t know what he meant by that. For example, a mystic who has a strange experience could get a strong impression of a spirit like presence and take it to be an experience of someone raised from the dead who is now in a very different kind of existence than before. There is no need for tangible appearances of a risen Jesus or even audible voices to start off a resurrection report. Since Christian theology says Jesus was supposed to be very different when he rose and full of spiritual power and able to pass through walls, a witness report without them would bear more weight than reports about apparitions and voices.
In Acts 2:32 Peter subsequently appears and his supposed testimony to the resurrection is recorded and presented as evidence by Luke. Luke gave no proof that Peter really said all this which marks Luke out as dishonest and unprofessional if not in history then certainly in spiritual matters. Peter is treated in many places as the chief witness and it is possible that if Jesus made Peter the rock the Church was built on that Jesus meant for him to be the chief witness to the resurrection. Peter’s lying under oath that he had no need for doing would prove that he could not be a decent witness and actually useless and would show that Christ was a false prophet for having chosen him as witness on any level. When the chief witness was so bad what were the others like? Worse!
In the Bible according to Acts 2, Peter said that a few lines from Psalm 16 predicted Jesus’ resurrection from death though the Psalm does not even mention anybody dying (Acts 2). It only says that someone will be saved from death. It is too vague to read a resurrection into it and there is no need to. Remember, stick to the simplest interpretation. Peter's sermon converted a huge crowd which shows they were as bad as him in deceit or self-deceit or both. Peter was definitely showing great powers of self-deceit when he was willing to use the psalm in public. Self-deceit means you know what the truth is but you put it out of your mind and keep a lie in your mind instead. The note on the Psalm on page 550 of the New American Bible states that some commentators render the words in the psalm, "to endure corruption" as to see the grave. This is because the word translated grave or corruption is shahath in the Hebrew original and can be translated either way. The Greek translation of the psalm used the word for corruption and so inspired the apostles to assume the psalm meant corruption. Thus they held that it predicted Jesus' being dead not not corrupting for he rose again. Now the apostles were not Greek speakers. They knew from their Hebrew that the Greek translation was often a paraphrase than an accurate translation from the Hebrew. They were basing a doctrine on an inaccurate translation they knew was wrong. Even if the translation was right and the psalm was about Jesus' corpse it might only mean that he would never decay. Simply saying that he will not corrupt does not mean Jesus would rise again. Nor does it say when Jesus will rise again. The Jews would have thought that if the psalm referred to Jesus' resurrection it could mean the resurrection at the end of the world. The Psalm says that the Lord will not let his faithful one be abandoned to the nether world or his faithful one to suffer corruption or the grave. The netherworld was a place where the spirits of the dead were thought to go and it was a terrible place where they were only shadows of themselves. Can you imagine Jesus going there? He didn't believe in the nether world! And Jesus must have corrupted a bit if he was in the grave three days anyway especially with all the wounds and beatings and scourgings he is supposed to have had!
Paul in Acts 13 refers to the psalm and gives it the same outlandish interpretation as Peter did. Paul argued that the line from the Old Testament, you are my son and this day I have begotten you referred to the resurrection of Jesus. It says nothing of the sort. He argued from the line, "I will give you the benefits assured to David under the covenant", that the risen Jesus could never again suffer the decay of death. Again it doesn't help him at all. Also Paul took Psalm 16 to be denying Jesus would corrupt and then later he speaks of Jesus never again enduring the decay of death - a contradiction.
Peter commented that when God said in the Psalm that he wanted his anointed to sit at his right hand that it means that he wanted to take this mysterious anointed or king up to Heaven. Sit at my right hand just means be the second in charge and you don’t need to be in Heaven for that. Peter even argued on the basis of the text that since King David who wrote it did not ascend into Heaven that it must be about Jesus who was supposedly a king too. A most fanatical suggestion not to mention fanciful! Then he added that this shows that without any doubt that God made Jesus the Messiah and the Lord, right-hand man (Acts 4). Peter certainly told many lies here. A man like that is not a reliable witness. He’s no good. The apostles did not censure him so they incriminated themselves as well. The lies are reported in the Book of Acts whose author wrote the third gospel so that says a lot about him as well.

When Peter quoted the psalm he admitted that David could have meant himself and then he said that it could not have been himself he meant for he never rose again and his tomb is among them. But Matthew said that many saints had risen from the dead before Jesus did so how did Peter know that David was still in his grave? Either Peter was lying and pretending to know or Matthew made up the yarn about the saints and God knows what else. But we know that David’s tomb and body have never been found and that Peter had no right to say what he said. It was a lie to make it seem that David had meant Jesus would rise for maybe David did rise. David could have been alive and well for the previous two hundred years for all Peter knew.

The epistle, 2 Peter, chapter 1, has Peter saying he is far surer of the Old Testament scriptures being the word of God and infallible than the message from God delivered during the transfiguration that he heard saying that Jesus was God’s Son. So ancient old books have more authority than a miracle you see and hear yourself. This is illogical and fanatical. But it is an admission that Peter may have been deluded which casts the other testimonies he supposedly made – particularly that he saw or experienced the risen Jesus – into doubt.
It is an admission that the Old Testament has to testify to Jesus with complete clarity. This clarity does not exist because each prophecy about Jesus in it is capable of many different interpretations. The early Church abused the Old Testament to fake evidence for Jesus for it is obvious the clarity is not there.
After the alleged resurrection, Peter told Jesus to go away for he was a sinner. Peter practically called Jesus a charlatan to his face for Jesus had said he liked to be friendly with sinners and he was denying that. He was being spiteful for he had already met the “risen” Lord and didn’t run away from him then.

Peter betrayed the gospel according to Paul himself in Galatians 2 by snubbing non-Jews to pander to Jewish racism. This was religious deception and Paul said as much. Peter was not ashamed to do it in public and though he knew that Paul would gnaw his head off for it for expressing approval for bigotry that way. Peter liked to deceive and let people know he did it for he knew Paul would broadcast it to all and sundry or could embarrass him in public by protesting there and then. An idiosyncrasy? Some would think that maybe he thought Paul being as big a liar as himself would say nothing. But Paul had to get involved for people would be asking him for his reaction to what Peter did. Peter just cared so little for truth that he couldn’t stand by it even when it was in his best interests to. Nevertheless, it reflects badly on Paul that he would consider Peter an apostle.

The Christian answer to this is that I am calling everybody liars and then believing them when they call each other liars which cannot be relied upon if they really are liars. Is that supposed to prove that they must not be liars?

Peter declared that anybody who does not listen to Jesus shall be ruthlessly cut off from the people (Acts 3:23). Yet he and the apostles continued to lick the boots of rebels. For example, they praised sinners though they said that everybody is sinful and nobody does good with sin in them for one sin defiles all.

Peter accused Simon Magus of sin for thinking he could buy the power to give the Holy Spirit (Acts 8). He said he could see into Simon’s soul that this was a sin and told Simon that he wished he and his money would rot. This was slandering a man for being sincerely wrong for Simon knew that the Holy Spirit would not come if he was invited to be exploited. If all are sinners then it is worse to take the Spirit in that state than to pay for it. At least then you are making some sacrifice for it. Peter just hated sinners, that’s all.
Paul is the most important witness to the resurrection we have for he is the only one who spoke of having visions to verify the resurrection first hand. So if we eliminate him as unreliable then we have nothing but gossip to base our belief in the resurrection on. How could the New Testament be infallible when it contains the writings of Paul who furnished us with zero evidence that he had prophetic ability and could write scripture? No proof of his sincerity was given either.
2 Corinthians chapter 13 is where Paul quotes with approval the Old Testament Law of God that in the mouths of two or three witnesses all things must be established. He threatens then to discipline wrongdoers when he comes. Why did he quote the law? Was it because of the wrongdoers and to let the people know that its God's will that they refuse to let them get away with it? No he was not asking for two or three witnesses for everything the recalcitrant did. That would be absurd. He said then that the people in Corinth wanted evidence that Jesus was really speaking through Paul. This was what the quoting of the law was about. He was applying it to himself. He was saying that he had nothing to fear from the law in terms of his own claims. Then he explained that the proof was how God and Jesus were working in the people. So they were his two witnesses. God and Jesus working in Paul's converts was supposed to prove that Paul was authentic - God was one witness and Jesus the other. The people weren't denying that they felt God and Jesus were working in them. They were denying Paul's claim to have the right to govern them in the name of God and Jesus. That he couldn't mention any affidavits from the apostles in Jerusalem or any testimony from them is significant. It proves that they were saying, "We feel that Jesus rose therefore he did." They could not appeal to evidence. The lack of evidence shows that he was understandably regarded with suspicion by them if not outright opposition. He was using a very subjective proof, "I feel that God and Jesus are working in me and therefore Paul speaks with Jesus' authority and Jesus speaks through him." Such proofs are dangerous and lead only to chaos for any religious teacher could use similar logic. Its no incentive for implementing effectual discipline.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul defends the doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead. Many of the Corinthian Christians had come to believe that the doctrine was not true. Paul argues that Jesus must have been raised for the dead would be lost forever if he did not – that is dishonest logic. It would only mean that someone else would have to rise and save.
According to Acts 21, Paul pretended to be a real devoted Jew to hoodwink his Jewish critics. He had to be deceiving for he taught doctrines that the Jews considered to be idolatrous, blasphemous and heretical. And Acts gives the story of his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus no less than three times as if it were of supreme importance. How could it be, coming from a religious trickster?

Paul cynically taught that the whole world was capable of nothing only sin and that saved Christians alone could do genuine and good works. This slander, repeated by pathetic frauds like Martin Luther and John Calvin and their followers, denies that when we, the unsaved, sincerely do what we believe is good it is good. It accuses us of knowing that we are sinning. Anybody who has lived to ten years of age knows that we are not always sinful and that we deserve to be rescued from sin by God for doing good if we are free agents. Paul was able to lie as he and his audience pleased. Jesus said that you cannot get good fruit off a bad tree meaning the fruits look good. Jesus of course was not thinking of real fruit but of people. Fruit can look good and be bad inside. Jesus was denying that good works necessarily made one a good person. The other apostles were as wicked as Paul when they made him a brother. Paul even went on to command good works even though if there is sin in you they are not good.

Paul said that he worked harder than the twelve apostles (1 Corinthians 15:9,10). When the others who lived and worked with Jesus were less interested, it either suggests that they were lying and liars are often not that determined to advance their lies – though some are for it makes them feel big - or that they had never lived and worked with Jesus at all. The Christians reply that the Jerusalem apostles concentrated on Jews and Paul took on the world which was a bigger project. But that is no excuse for the former not working harder.

The original Greek of 2 Corinthians 12:14-20 has Paul admitting that he lived off the Corinthians by craftiness and guile. Christians say that Paul only said that they were saying that about him. But this is not in the original Greek and makes no sense anyway in the context. Paul simply says that when he goes back to them he will not take anything from them though he had been crafty with them before. He says that he did not burden them in what he did or take advantage of them in a burdensome way and neither did his friends. Plus when these people were accusing them of burdening them and when Paul gives no evidence but only denials it implies what they were saying is right for he should be able to defend himself if he is innocent (Something’s Fishy: Deception, Secrecy and the Gospel on the www).

Everybody in Asia fell away from the gospel according to Paul (2 Timothy 1:15). But the Book of Revelation praises the Churches there implying that the Jesus of the Book of Revelation did not approve of Paul. They had another kind of Christianity.

These guys could have made up everything they said about Jesus.
In Romans 14, Paul hypocritically forbade eating certain foods when it offends other Christians who do not know that God lets his people eat whatever they like. Yet he said that it is wrong to commit certain acts even if not doing them scandalises others like adultery or theft. He wanted people to be gullible.
If God really spoke through the prophets of Corinth as Paul maintained, Paul would not have needed to lay down rules for order (v14). He thought that God was well organised when he declared that God doesn’t confuse. Paul’s thinking is incoherent and childish or he wanted ours to be.
Paul said that unbelievers know fine well there is a God (Romans 1). A statement like that coming from a man who had to have had doubts about God himself for he was only human shows what a shameless slanderer he was. If you are an atheist then you know that the Bible is wrong to say everybody knows there is a God no matter how much they try to deny him. When this slander is sanctioned by the apostles and prophets of Jesus against us why then would they have no right to go further and persecute us? If there is a God then it is his business what we do or think for we are his creation and his property. We have no right to think anything other than what he decrees we should think. God and the idea that God has made one true religion are intrinsically bigoted and dangerous. There are literally millions of different forms of faith in this world so the concept of God will put us at the mercy of men who claim to represent God and who tell us what to think in God’s name and since they stand in the place of God it is their business what we think and do.
In Romans 3 and 7, Paul said that we are all totally depraved and as bad as each other. He knew from his own heart that this was not true.
Paul sees symbolism in a Genesis story (Galatians 4:21-31) that is not in the original. The Church says he was not claiming that it was in it but that he could see a parable for what he wanted to say in it. That is a lie for all he had to do was just say what he wanted to say without the fancy interpretation. It would have been handier and he never gave any hint that the Church was right. This proved that when he said in the book of Acts that he never undermined the Law of Moses he was lying for this allegorical interpretation indicates that he wanted it to be possible to make it mean whatever you like.
He declared that our faith must not depend on philosophy or wisdom but on God’s power (1 Corinthians 1,2). He commanded blind faith. The Church says he is only against false wisdom. But he said that the death of Jesus proved that the wisdom of philosophers though they were all intelligent and respected men is wrong and we cannot make sense of the death of Jesus. He is saying that when reason contradicts God reason must be ignored. These are the anti-intellectual hints. But Paul went straight for the jugular and forbade thinking when it was not his thinking.
The early Church used fear to get money off its converts. This is admitted by the book of Acts when Peter’s magic murdered Annas and Sapphira. It is theft to scare people into paying.
The apostles used the resurrection of Jesus to present themselves as witnesses of God and his gospel. But Jesus himself said that the Law and the Prophets were so convincing that even a messenger of God rising from the dead would not be as good (Luke 16). They all knew fine well that these books were not that convincing.
How could the apostles be witnesses when we have only their word for it that Jesus said they were?
Had the apostles been sincere they would have done their utmost to provide character references and affidavits to support their claims and would have written as much as they could and ensured that their material would be preserved. They did not. They acted as if they didn’t care if the Church survived them long or not and that is a clue about their insincerity. God could not tell them how to guarantee that their papers would be with us forever so they were not in touch with the Holy Spirit at all. Jesus said that anybody who cannot be trusted in little things cannot be trusted in greater. And yet his apostles did not prove themselves worthy of trust.
The gospel of John says that Thomas and the apostles went with Jesus to the place where Lazarus was buried believing that they would die with Jesus for their enemies were going crackers. This is plain fanaticism for we read later that Thomas and the others were unable to believe that Jesus really rose from the dead. And we are expected to be impressed by the fact that the apostles allegedly died for their faith in Jesus’ resurrection.
The Bible says that Jesus’ followers and admirers were accused of fraud and wickedness by the Jews. If so then there are far better grounds for disbelieving the Bible tale of Jesus than for accepting it for there are hundreds of testimonies from the former and only five from believers. These are the gospels and the book of Acts. Jesus’ followers were mainly interested in his faith healing and we know too little about the apostles to hold that they were all agreed about the story of Jesus. Still, you have crazy clergy saying the apostles must have been telling the truth when nobody debunked them! Lies like that are sickening.
Paul in Romans 3:7,8 condemns people who lie to glorify God though it means making sure they will be saved by lying to them when one can get away with it. It says that we can’t do evil so that good may come. If it is wrong to save people from eternal damnation with a lie then it must be wrong to disguise your pockmarks with makeup for that is deception too. It must be wrong to use clothes to make your body look better than what it is. Those are action lies. Life would be impossible if the apostle was right. But he didn't care. He was only lying to his gullible and stupid audience and getting away with it.
The Book of Acts says that the apostles lived a long time after the alleged supernatural happenings they saw. Yet their enemies are supposed to have been thirsting for their blood like men wandering through a desert. The apostles could not have survived so long without hiding and depending on people to tell lies for them. They must have commanded lies. This would prove that they did not expect God to look after them. In that case, they would have to be frauds.
The early Church had a policy of giving its devotees the milk of the gospel and only the solid food when they were ready (Hebrews 5:13-14). This is totally deceitful. The nasty and hard to believe doctrines were kept away from them to gain their membership. The Church still does this today. Most Catholics for example do not know or understand the more nasty tenets of the Catholic faith. From the apostles to today’s pastors, it has all been deceit and stealing money off the people to spread something they would not support if they knew the truth.
I could write for a month on the lies of the apostles but they told plenty and certainly were not fit to be witnesses of the so-called Christ or anybody else for that matter.

Only a fool would trust in apostolic teaching. The Christians claim to be the apostolic Church. They thereby call themselves liars.
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1985
CHRIST AND PROTEST, Harry Tennant, Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham, undated
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED, Editor John Warwick Montgomery, Bethany Fellowship, Minnesota, 1973
Conspiracies and the Cross, Timothy Paul Jones, Front Line, A Strang Company, Florida, 2008
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
JESUS AND THE FOUR GOSPELS, John Drane, Lion Books, Herts, 1984
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Foundation, Tennessee, 1993
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone Books, New York, 2002
THE CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins and Zondervan, Michigan, 1998
THE HOLY BIBLE NEW AMERICAN VERSION, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington DC, 1970
THE JESUS EVENT, Martin R Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Kittel Gerhard and Friedrich Gerhard, Eerdman’s Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976
THE PASSOVER PLOT, Hugh Schonfield, Element Books, Dorset, 1996
THE UNAUTHORISED VERSION. Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992