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!

 

PAUL CONTRADICTED ALL THE GOSPEL STORY

TWO DIFFERENT JESUSES

The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which are to be found in the Bible in the New Testament, claim to present the story of Jesus. They are the only accounts we have of the life of Jesus, the only ones. If we can debunk them we have no reason to take Jesus or his existence seriously. The gospels are the centre of the Christian faith which claims that they are the word of God.
 
Paul was the first Christian writer and he had nothing to do with the gospels. In fact, he contradicted them. He was THE Christian of the first century and a top leader in the early Church. He knew what he was talking about. He worked in the land Jesus lived in and he was a leading Pharisee when Jesus was supposedly alive. He would have heard lots about Jesus had there been a Jesus for the gospels indicate that Jesus was a Pharisee himself though a rebel one.
 
As Paul wrote of Jesus before the gospellers his word comes first when there is a disagreement.
 
Paul followed the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible instead of the original. This translation had many errors and inaccuracies and was biased towards altering the Jewish faith too. If Jesus had insisted in the Sermon on the Mount that it was easier for Heaven and earth to perish than for one word to perish as the New Testament tells us meaning that we should use the Hebrew unchanged, Paul could not have done this. He would not. The widespread idea that Jesus’ teachings were known and remembered better than his life among the ordinary people is wrong when you see such an important teaching not being known in Paul’s time. Paul was an educated Jew and knew all about the failures of the Septuagint. The Hebrew Bible gave him enough ammunition for his faith without using a corrupt Bible. Paul started the tradition of Christians using the Septuagint so by the time the gospels were written it was too late to stop using it for they used it despite what they said Jesus said. They might have been honest in a lot of things but they were not honest when it came to providing religious evidence for their doctrines.

Paul said that we do not know how to pray right and even if we do, how to offer it worthily (Romans 8:26). So when we pray the Holy Spirit has to do it inside us in our place for we are too sinful to be heard. So what Christians should be doing is, “Holy Spirit I cannot pray so do it for me that God’s will alone be done.” This totally contradicts Jesus giving us the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer was something the gospels indicate would have been known to most Christians and yet here we are told it was not known. Matthew gives the long version and Luke gives a version with half the petitions missing which is further evidence for this. The Christians will have their answers for this but when all is said and done when there are too many awkward explanations for these things that shows the explanations are artificial and depend on a turning away from probability. The very fact that they have to be so complicated proves that the Bible cannot be God’s word for if it were it would not be so hard to defend it and the defending is a source of much discord and dissatisfaction. This problem badgers the entire breadth of Christian thought.

Paul would have learned all he could about the story of Jesus if his Jesus were a knowable historical person. Why? For our edification and because Jesus’ whole life manifested God. If Paul had distorted anything he would have been corrected by the apostles and certainly somebody would have corrected his epistles in case they would be preserved for future generations. So we can take Paul’s beliefs about Jesus being a stranger to his generation who was only revealed in the resurrection appearances and visions as been those of the apostles and entire early Church as well.
 
In 2 Corinthians 8 he says the Corinthians are to remember that Jesus was rich but for their sake he became poor to make them rich out of his poverty. He added that this didn’t mean that to give relief to the starving and the poor they had to make things difficult for themselves but to use their surplus! So Jesus then was clearly a totally rich man who gave it all up. This denies the gospels which have a Jesus who was born in a stable, had poor parents, had to wander about homeless and often hungry and whose invectives against the rich were harsh in the extreme. Paul means that Jesus was literally rich. There is no room for the idea that he only meant that Jesus had the supernatural power to take whatever he wanted and was rich in that sense but didn’t use it. God or the Son of God incarnate then should have the power to enjoy all the gold in the world for its theirs and their magic can get it for them. Jesus then was only acting poor but wasn’t poor at all if he was one of these. He was like a multi-trillionaire who doesn’t use his money but lives in a box with the homeless. Such a man wouldn’t be poor. In Paul’s description of Jesus as rich and then poor we see that he denied that Jesus was God or had the magical power to turn stones into bread or even bread into money. He denied the gospel Jesus who claimed supernatural powers. So Jesus was literally rich but gave it all away. This isn’t in the gospels at all and he contradicts them so they are false.
 
Paul in 1 Corinthians said that he had a right to marry as did the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Peter (9:5). He didn't say he had a right to marry because Jesus had done it. An anti erotic tendency was in the Church from the start and even influenced official Church teaching. These considerations lead believers to hold that Jesus Christ was not married. But the gospels speak of Jesus being alone with loose women and allowing and protecting marriage. They don't mention Jesus being married but a man of his age would have had to have been married. People would not take to an unmarried man any more than they would a homosexual for marriage was considered to be of extreme importance.
 
So Jesus had to have been married if the gospels are even basically true in what they say about him. But he wasn't when we consider the reasons against his being a married man. Paul is again contradicting the gospels.
 
Jesus made no effort to convert non-Jews and indeed told a pagan woman she was a dog. He lived as a Jew and we know the Jewish faith believed that Jews were the chosen race and salvation was only for them. This contradicts Romans 2:11 where Paul says God does not mete out special treatment. In saying that, he repudiated the idea of Jesus being a typical Jew. He repudiated the entire gospels.
 
Paul said that the Christian life is in vain if Jesus has not risen again from the dead. This contradicts Christ's teaching in the gospels that people loving God with all their hearts is the most important commandment. The Law of Moses was the centre of Jesus' spirituality. It never mentioned a life after death at all but urged people to keep their focus on obeying God and loving him with all their being. Thus even if death were the end, the life that was spent loving God totally was all that mattered. People will see that Paul put more emphasis on agreeing with him that Jesus rose than on love.

Paul in Ephesians 5:18 forbids people to get drunk with wine. Yet Jesus provided wine for a drunk party in John 2. He produced at a stage where the gospel says it was usual to serve bad wine for the revellers would have been too intoxicated to notice that they were not getting the good wine any more.
 
Paul forbade name-calling (Ephesians 4:31) which he would not have done if he had known that Jesus had indulged in it quite a bit (Matthew 23). Even being God could not give Jesus the right to fan the flames of the Pharisees wrath who he called bastards among other hideous names to sin and sanctimonious hatred. It was not necessary. They could only resent it coming from a man who commanded, “Turn the other cheek”. And insulting the smug Pharisees would only have made them worse. Jesus told us to judge fairly. Nobody can say we cannot judge and he can so he can call names if he wants to.
 
For Paul, Jesus atoned for our sins and did it all for us. God has chosen who will be saved and if we are saved we will believe because God will make sure we will. So the greatest commandment for Paul would be to accept the salvation Jesus won for you. For Jesus the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart and soul and mind. Jesus according to the gospels was saving people before he died and when he was teaching this – he was applying the future atonement to them. It does not help to point to 1 Corinthians 13:13 where Paul says there is faith and hope and love and the greatest of these is love. He is still not saying we need to try and love God with all our hearts. He is saying that faith saves us and produces hope and love and love is the best in so far as doing good is concerned. Faith is at the root of love but this does not mean that faith is better than it in the practical sense. But in the value sense, and for what it does and leads to, namely hope and charity, faith is better.
 
Paul said that we must desire the higher gifts and he will show us a still more excellent way (1 Corinthians 15:31) meaning the way of love for love is the greatest gift. Paul said that there are three gifts from God that never perish and which will last forever and they are faith, hope and charity and that the greatest of these is charity (1 Corinthians 13:13). So we will believe in God, trust in God and love God and one another forever. He says that the time will come when we won’t see in shadows but see God face to face and will know him as well as he knows us. This shows that he did not believe in the Jesus of the gospels who presented himself as knowing God and making others know God. If Paul had facts about Jesus he would have considered him to be an example of Christian living but he couldn’t if the gospels were right that Jesus claimed to know God for faith and trust cannot exist if you know God. A Jesus who knows could not be much of an example. This is a big contradiction in the gospels.
 
Paul tells his followers to strive for the gift of charity and tells them that if they give their lives for God and don’t have this gift it profits nothing. He talks to them as if they haven’t the gift properly yet. He would have believed a person could seem to be heroically good and still have no charity which raises the question of how he knew that Jesus was heroically good. The stress on the gift even over knowledge about religious doctrine shows that we are to find out what Jesus was like by tying ourselves to him in love and not by looking for historical facts. Paul is indicating that there was no Jesus that a history could be created for for he wanted people to pay no attention to even trying to create a history.
 
Those who hold that Paul thought that charity was more important than faith will have to say, “Paul stressed that charity was better than any of the other gifts which means it has all the good they have in them and surpasses them. Charity then is better than knowing things about God and Jesus. Charity is what reveals them. Charity then is how Jesus reveals himself and is a better way to know him than having visions of the resurrection appearances. This shows that the early Church was not interested in tangible evidence and that the gospels in trying to provide it are heretical.”
 
Paul said that if you have faith that can move mountains and don’t have charity the faith is no good (1 Corinthians 13:2). In Mark 11:23, Jesus says that if anybody believes without doubting that a mountain will move and asks it to move it will move. Paul would see more value in charity so he contradicted Jesus. It is interesting that whoever made up the quote for Jesus seems to have been inspired by Paul!
 
Jesus said that we must call no man on earth our Father (Matthew 23:9). Proof that he meant this literally comes from the fact that he always called his mother Woman and never Mother. Mary then is the bearer of God if Jesus is God but not the mother of God for mother implies a relationship of mother and son not just the mother having had given birth to the son. A better proof is in the fact that the gospels never give titles such as Father to anybody so we have nothing disputing the literal interpretation. Another good proof is that Jesus was speaking to people who could only take him literally. He also specifically forbade the titles Teacher and Master or Rabbi at the same time.
 
FF Bruce in the excellent Hard Sayings tells us that when Jesus made this ban he meant that nobody is to get a designation that belongs to God (page 219). Your own father is not so much your father as God so that logically implies nobody should be called father. Bruce wouldn’t go that far but he does hold that Jesus opposed honorific titles such as father or master or rabbi in affairs of religion.  But Paul contradicts Jesus by having himself called Father (1 Corinthians 4:15). Bruce says Paul was only using an analogy for Paul wrote that he became their father through the gospel. But for that Paul would have to say he became like their father. He didn’t.
 
Jesus said there was an eternal sin, a sin against the Holy Spirit that couldn’t be forgiven in this world or in the world to come (Mark 3:28,29). He said this of the Pharisees for they refused to believe the Holy Spirit was behind his ministry. This has been interpreted as meaning that you can be so stubbornly anti-God that you will never repent and so you cannot be forgiven. St Paul was a Pharisee and worse than the ones Jesus said had committed this sin. They didn’t persecute Jesus the way Paul persecuted Christians. Paul murdered them brutally and he even got them to blaspheme (Acts 26:11) and blasphemed himself. If anybody committed the eternal sin it was Paul. Yet Paul claimed he had an experience of the risen Jesus and repented and was forgiven. In 1 Timothy 1:13 his excuse was that he acted in unbelief and ignorance so it wasn’t really malicious! He said it was because of his ignorance that God forgave him. Now, if he needed mercy he must have sinned deliberately. And it is stupid and boastful to say God forgives you because of ignorance as if God wouldn’t forgive you if it was malice! Now, nobody who believes in religious murder and fanatical doctrine and in blasphemy can say that they didn’t really mean anything by it. The gospel Jesus as good as tells us that Paul was a fake and had committed the eternal sin. Whatever appeared to him it was not Jesus. Satan maybe trying to make him feel good about his evil? Take Paul’s word for it, he never really repented. He just changed his ways but inside he was still the same man. We must remember that when Jesus appeared to Paul at Paul’s conversion Paul called him Lord without knowing who he was and he was told the Lord he saw was Jesus (Acts 9). Obviously Paul already knew but had to have it confirmed. He had known Jesus was Lord all along! And yet he blasphemed and hated everything to do with Christ and the Church says he didn’t commit the eternal sin! Who knows, maybe the gospels in reporting the teaching about the eternal sin really had Paul in mind! Jesus in Matthew 23 said that the Pharisees were in total opposition to God despite appearances and kept people away from God and said they were the children of Hell and couldn’t escape from this fate. He said in verse 28 that they looked good but inside they were evil so they concealed their evil. Jesus meant all Pharisees by this for if they are hiding their black hearts under good works then how can anybody tell who was not meant? He never said he meant some of them so he meant all of them. Paul therefore was damned. He was a false apostle. Paul speaks so well of the Pharisees that it is impossible to reconcile this with Jesus’ attitude. And the gospels are full of accounts of the verbal battles and animosity between Jesus and the Pharisees. For Paul to disagree with the gospels on something so foundational shows to how great an extent the Church was making up stories about Jesus. The Church made up the stories out of hatred for the Jews. They used Jesus as a propaganda mouthpiece when he could no longer speak for himself!
 
By the way was Joseph of Arimathea an exception to Jesus' scathing condemnation of the Pharisees? Maybe Joseph joined the Pharisees after this condemnation in the hope of reforming them. But though he is called a secret disciple of Jesus the fact remains he was a hypocrite and had joined the Pharisees under false pretences and was presumably silent whenever Jesus was condemned by them. He was perhaps a disciple but not a good one. With a deceiver like that handling the body of Jesus anything could have happened.
 
If Paul believed that Jesus really was a normal man (even if Jesus was God the Church teaches he was fully or normally man at the same time) then why did he describe private parts as dishonourable? He said we cloth the inferior parts of our bodies and treat them with great care which means they are equal to the better and nicer parts which we don’t do this to (1 Corinthians 12:22-25). So the parts are inferior but treated like they are important. But they are still inferior. Paul hated sexuality so his Jesus could not have been the sexual being of the gospels who cuddled men and let women touch him and who seems to have been affectionate. Paul’s teaching that the inferior members of the Church must get special care like private parts do indicates clearly that there shouldn’t be apostles in the Church for they would be entitled to this pampering care instead. His own teaching proves the apostles had no right to claim to represent the truth of Christ.

Paul said that even clever lies to get a person to convert and save their soul were immoral (Romans 3:7,8). Jesus was a wanted man from early in his ministry according to the gospels and many believed he was the Christ and he did not go public and say they were right until close to his death. so he must have denied being the Christ before that time. If he was the Christ then this was lying. But Paul is condemning all lies which he would not have done had the gospels not been making all that stuff they said about Jesus up.
 
Paul tells us not to eat meat sacrificed to idols when others will be outraged at it though they should not be (Romans 14). He is censuring Jesus who never worried about what other people thought and who claimed to be the Son of God though it upset many of his own admirers.
 
If the gospels are to be believed, Jesus openly poured scorn on Jewish taboos about food and drink that were not in the Law. Paul quoted Isaiah in 2 Corinthians 6 in which God said not to go near anything unclean. Paul knew from the context of the times that this meant no unclean food. So Paul is declaring the Jewish food laws to be still in force. If you believe that Jesus made all foods clean then Paul is denying that.

Jesus sought to call Jews to a deeper commitment to their religion (Matthew 17:24; 9:13). He made friends with prostitutes and other outcasts which Paul knew nothing of because he ordered his Church to refuse to associate with or talk to people like that (1 Corinthians 5). Christians may say that Jesus befriended outsiders while Paul is against backslidden Christians. But the people Jesus befriended were backslidden Jews - members of what was then, according to him, the true faith, so the same would go for Christianity now.

Paul complained against Christians having their legal battles seen to by the wicked and he forbade it. This was in contradiction to Jesus who called the Sanhedrin evil and then wanted anybody who treated another with complete contempt dragged before them!

Paul’s teaching that God does not care if one is a Jew or a Greek (Colossians 3:11) is the opposite of Jesus’ own attitude. In the gospels, Jesus made racist remarks to a pagan woman who wanted him to deliver her daughter from a demon. He should have said nothing and the gospels would say if he was joking and it only took half a second to cure the girl. He didn’t have to speak to the woman at all and especially when he ignored her when she first spoke to him. He said salvation is from the Jews. The Christian has to be a Jew in a sense to be saved.

Paul, or his editor, predicted that there would be a mass falling away from the gospel when the antichrist comes before Christ returns and therefore not to listen to anybody saying that Jesus was about to come back or already had (2 Thessalonians 2). Yet the synoptic gospels, that is Mark, Matthew and Luke which are the ones that have the most in common, with John the fourth gospel being the odd one out, strongly emphasised that Jesus could return any minute which was why people were counselled to be ready at all times. Even 1 Thessalonians 5 stresses that Jesus’ coming will be sudden and it will be like a thief in the night and there will be peace and then instant destruction before anybody has a chance to escape. Christians say that there will be great calamities after this peace and the calamities will be sudden and destroy and be over fast and then Jesus will manifest himself. But this is wrong because the thief comes at night when all is quiet and peaceful. The destruction will accompany the appearance. Everywhere else the picture is of a destruction that is not all that sudden so there should be time to escape. The contradiction plus the evidence for Pauline authorship suggests that somebody revised this letter after Paul wrote it. It was so easy for anybody to do something like that for first there would have been one copy and then somebody would write another copy and somebody would copy that copy and so on especially when there is no evidence that Paul took measures to safeguard the authenticity and preservation of the text or even cared if the letters were preserved. 2 Thessalonians warns against anybody forging letters in Paul’s name but that only means letters that said that Jesus was coming back on such a such a date or is already here. The obvious lie about Jesus would prove that the letter is a fake. It does not imply that they made sure that the text of existing letters would escape interference like the Jews did with their scriptures. Paul would not have been so vague at times if they had because that would be an invitation to people to interfere. Christians say there is no evidence of interference. Even if that’s true, who is going to alter a document and make it obvious and obvious all the time?

Paul said that we must not go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). He was speaking of the need for people not to puff themselves up and quoted a bit from the Jewish Bible (1 Corinthians 3:20) as a backup. The earliest Church did not use scriptures apart from the Old Testament. In their interpretation its alleged Messianic prophecies spoke of the deeds, death and resurrection and message and salvation of Jesus. What Paul wrote suggests that the early Church had no interest in a Jesus story that went further than the Old Testament. Stories like the healings and miracles of Jesus were condemned. It was enough to know he had such powers and may have used them after his death.

Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount that far from ever telling a lie we must not even swear that we are telling the truth for we must not need to so oaths are wrong. Paul swore in Galatians 1:20. And he had no need to either because he could have got affidavits to support the assertions he was making. A man who swears without need is definitely one to keep an eye on. He even had to swear in Romans 9:1 that he felt terrible all the time and was really depressed over the Jews not accepting the Christian faith. That was totally unnecessary. At least it shows that if you are a real Christian the joy you experience will be of little benefit to you for you should be depressed over the terrible things that happen to those who reject God. The fact that Paul’s conflicts with the gospel Jesus were not eradicated from the text shows that the Church would have agreed with him that the gospel Jesus was a myth, a fiction, and a myth that would not emerge and be accepted until the second century.

Paul stressed Jesus being the Christ. G A Wells, the best debunker of Jesus’ existence ever, wrote that the word Messiah or anointed one appeared in the Psalms and when the Jews read the Psalms after anointed ones had ceased to exist they came to believe that the Psalms were still relevant to them for the anointed one was in Heaven waiting to come down (many Jews still believe that today) or had already come long ago and would return (page 366, The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief, Vol 1, Edited by Gordon Stein, Prometheus Books, New York, 1985). I would add that anointed one meant more than just a king but one that whose consecration was sanctified and accepted and approved by God. The king needed to go through some ceremony for this for any prince could make this claim. He would probably have to be anointed by a recognised prophet and take over the land. The writers of the Psalms meant a political king by the term Messiah and for Christians to say they meant a spiritual king is bluntly dishonest. Wells feels that the Jesus stories started off with the belief in a Heavenly Messiah that were elaborated on and eventually became fairy-tales about a Messiah having come to earth. Given that nobody, not even Jesus, fitted the biblical criteria I have given for being an earthly Messiah this had to happen.
 
Paul wrote that when he does something he does it and it is not a yes with him and then a no. This led him to express a thought about Jesus. Paul wrote that the Son of God the Christ Jesus that we proclaimed I mean myself and Silvanus and Timothy (2 Corinthians 1) was not yes and no but was always yes. He then wrote that no matter how many promises God made the yes to them all is in Christ which is why we praise God through Christ. Why does he say who he means here? Certainly it was to indicate that the Christs of other preachers might be a caricature and only those three had the right Christ and the right view of him. It is a hint that there were lots of self-styled apostles in those days. No doubt their Christs were all yes to the promises of God as well so why does Paul indicate that they couldn’t have been? The promises refer to the Christ allegedly promised in the Old Testament by prophets to whom God revealed the future. Paul is plainly stating that there were many different versions of Christ being preached but only his version fitted the prophecies. The Christ then is not learned about by delving into history but through prophecy. This can be only true if the story that Jesus lived in Paul’s time is false and he lived aeons before. The other versions indicate that everybody was making up his own Christ in the absence of any history. That is what happens when the subject is unreal or lived long ago.
 
The Gospel Jesus was not always yes. He refused to help a pagan woman and called her a dog. Then he changed his mind when she told him that dogs deserve scraps off the table. This contradicted Paul's teaching that there was no Jew or Gentile but only equality with Jesus.

Paul said that his disciples should follow him even as he follows Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) meaning that he mirrors Christ in his actions and words. He said too immediately after that about how thankful he was that the people didn’t let him leave their minds and remembered the traditions he taught. So there was no other source about Jesus but himself and the apostles proves the point that Jesus could not have lived in the first century. Paul warned against following men acting in the name of God and Jesus for you could end up serving men when you think it is God you are serving so when he talked this way he had no alternative. If he had he would have directed the Corinthians to it and helped them to it instead of setting himself up as the expert on the Son of God.
 
Despite the fact that his disciples were living in a turbulent country and needed money to make a new life somewhere else if war broke out the Luke Jesus demanded that they surrender all their possessions. He said in Luke 14 that no king going to war sends his men out without making sure that they can stand up to the enemy so in the same way nobody can be his disciple without giving up all his possessions. In other words, you have to go to war against what is around you to follow Christ. Note the violent imagery: it shows that the battle is going to be just as tough as real war. You have to give up your possessions to prepare for the war so that you might win it. There can be no doubt that he is not just referring to detachment from possessions here, having them but them not meaning much or anything to you. He is saying they must physically be abandoned to prepare for the battle. Detachment is what you are fighting for, it’s the goal of the war so that you will be attached only to Jesus. You must painfully and agonisingly part with everything so that you have a chance of really being detached for giving up possessions does not mean you don’t love them any more. You give them up so that you can stop loving them. That is what Jesus is saying. Jesus is also saying that nearly the whole of Christianity is a fake for they ignore his directions. He said that nobody is a disciple of his unless he gives up everything. Jesus said that he who was not for him was against him and you need to be a disciple of his to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Obviously then there is no salvation for anybody who does not abandon all he has. Jesus did ask his disciples to do that – they were called just to drop everything and follow him. He told Matthew just to leave his job and follow him for example. So all must be forsaken for Jesus Christ. A wife can be more dangerous than material things for all materialists are unhappy and it is easier to prefer your wife to Jesus than your money so by implication Jesus is advocating celibacy as well. This kind of morality indicates an extreme fanaticism in this version of Jesus, his followers and his fans. Like many fanatics they might have been able to hide it well just like somebody acting normally doesn’t mean they are sane.
 
The Luke Gospel causes problems for the stupid idea some scholars have that the more difficult to believe parts of the gospels must be true for they are embarrassing. It is embarrassing to have a Jesus who rails against property and sexuality. The Luke Jesus does just that even though Paul long before the gospel was dreamed of did have property, worked and said he had the right to these things and the right to a wife! St Paul didn’t forsake all for Jesus. Though Luke’s gospel is influenced by Paul’s thinking it certainly makes no effort to stick to his version of Jesus. But Paul came before the gospel so his Jesus who did not make the demand’s Luke’s did is the one that should be taken most seriously. The Luke Jesus is fantasy, perhaps based on a life-story stolen from some Jewish saint but fantasy all the same.
 
That people listen to this being read in the Catholic liturgy and then take religious leaders seriously is astonishing for it makes it plain that the leaders only pick and choose what they like out of Jesus’ teaching and then claim to be his honest representatives!
 
The Jesus of Paul is a lot less exciting than the one in the gospels and is the true one if any is near real. The gospels are drunk on myths and lies. Remember, the simplest portrait is the most believable one.

Paul’s contradictions of the gospels prove that their Jesus never existed though he may have been based on a suitable historical victim which is not the same as saying there was a Jesus. And his silence speaks just as loudly. That is another study.
 
Conclusion
 
The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of the gospels which came later are two different people. The gospels are lies. What Paul says takes precedence over legends that came together later for he was the first Christian writer and wrote closer to the alleged time of Christ.
 
 
WORKS CONSULTED

A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Thomas Bokenkotter, Image Books, New York, 1979
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
Asking them Questions, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
Belief and Make-Believe, GA Wells, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1991
Concise Guide to Today’s Religions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press, Bucks, 1983
Did Jesus Exist? GA Wells, Pemberton, London, 1988
Did Jesus Exist? John Redford, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1986
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979
Early Christian Writings, Maxwell Staniforth Editor, Penguin, London, 1988  
Encyclopaedia of Heresies and Heretics, Leonard George, Robson Books, London, 1995
Encyclopaedia of Unbelief, Volume 1, Ed Gordon Stein, (Ed) Prometheus Books, New York, 1985
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Handbook to the Controversy With Rome, Volume 1, Karl Von Hase, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906
Hard Sayings, FF Bruce, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1983
He Walked Among Us, Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, Alpha Cumbria, 2000
In Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
Introduction to the New Testament, Roderick A F MacKenzie, SJ, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1965
Jesus, AN Wilson, Flamingo, London, 1993
Jesus and the Goddess, The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Thorsons, London, 2001
Jesus – God the Son or Son of God? Fred Pearce Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham, undated
Jesus – One Hundred Years Before Christ, Professor Alvar Ellegard Century, London, 1999
Jesus and the Four Gospels, John Drane, Lion, Herts, 1984
Jesus Hypotheses, V Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
Jesus Lived in India by Holger Kersten, Element, Dorset, 1994
Jesus, Qumran and the Vatican, Otto Betz and Rainer Riesner, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1994
Jesus the Evidence, Ian Wilson, Pan, London, 1985
Jesus the Magician, Morton Smith, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1978
Jesus under Fire, Edited by Michael F Wilkins and JP Moreland, Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1995
Lectures and Replies, Thomas Carr, Archbishop of Melbourne, Melbourne, 1907
Let’s Weigh the Evidence, Barry Burton, Chick Publications, Chino, CA, 1983
Miracles in Dispute, Ernst and Marie-Luise Keller, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1969
Nag Hammadi Library, Ed James M Robinson HarperCollins New York 1990
On the True Doctrine, Celsus, Translated by R Joseph Hoffmann, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987
Putting Away Childish Things, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1994
Runaway World, Michael Green, IVP, London, 1974
St Paul versus St Peter, A Tale of Two Missions, Michael Goulder, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1994
St Peter and Rome, JBS, Irish Church Missions, Dublin, undated
Saint Saul, Donald Harman Akenson, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000
The Bible Fact or Fantasy, John Drane, Lion, Oxford, 1989
The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone Books, New York, 2002.
The Call to Heresy, Robert Van Weyer, Lamp Books, London, 1989
The Case For Christ, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins and Zondervan, Michigan, 1998
The Case for Jesus the Messiah, John Ankerberg Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1989
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1967
The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics, Leonard George, Robson Books, London, 1995
The First Christian, Karen Armstrong, Pan, London, 1983
The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels, Penguin, London, 1990
The Gnostic Paul, Elaine Pagels, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1975
The History of Christianity, Lion, Herts 1982
The History of the Church, Eusebius, Penguin, London, 1989
The House of the Messiah, Ahmed Osman, Grafton, London, 1993
The Jesus Event and Our Response, Martin R Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
The Jesus Hoax, Phyllis Graham, Leslie Frewin, London, 1974
The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Thorsons, London, 1999
The MythMaker, St Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Hyam Maccoby, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1986
The Reconstruction of Belief, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
The Search for the Twelve Apostles, William Steuart McBirnie, Tyndale House, 1997
The Secret Gospel Morton Smith Aquarian Press, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1985
The Truth of Christianity, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1973
Theodore Parker’s Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, London, 1876
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Kittel Gerhard and Friedrich Gerhard, Eerdman’s Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976
Those Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield, Hutchinson, London, 1968
Who Was Jesus? A Conspiracy in Jerusalem, by Kamal Salabi, I.B. Taurus and Co Ltd., London, 1992
Who Was Jesus? NT Wright, SPCK, London, 1993
Why I Believe Jesus Lived, C G Colly Caldwell, Guardian of Truth, Kentucky
 


 
The WWW

Who is GA Wells? Rev Dr Gregory S. Neal
www.errantskeptics.org/G_A_Wells.htm

The Silent Jesus
www.askwhy.co.uk/awcnotes/cn4/0325SilentJesus.html#Justin

Apollonius the Nazarene, The Historical Apollonius versus the Historical Jesus
www.apollonius.net/bernard1e.html

Why Did the Apostles Die? Dave Matson,
 www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4Why97.html
 
The “Historical” Jesus by Acharya S
www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm

How Did the Apostles Die?
www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4front97.html

History’s Troubling Silence About Jesus, Lee Salisbury
www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=102

Steven Carr discusses the Christian and apostolic martyrs
www.bowness.demon.co.uk/martyrs.htm  
www.bowness.demon.co.uk/martyrs2.htm

Challenging the Verdict
A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ
http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/CTVExcerptsOne.htm
http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/CTVExcerptsTwo.htm
http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/CTVExcerptsThree.htm#Twelve

The Martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/

The Martyrdoms: A Response, Peter Kirby
www.bowness.demon.co.uk/martyrs3.htm

A Sacrifice in Heaven,
http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/supp09.htm

The Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth
http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/partthre.htm

The Jesus of History, a Reply to Josh McDowell by Gordon Stein
 www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/Jesus.html

Josh McDowell’s Evidence for Jesus – Is It Reliable?, by Jeffrey J Lowder www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

A Reply to JP Holding’s “Shattering” of My Views on Jesus
www.infidels.org/secular_web/new/2000/march.html

Robert M Price, Christ a Fiction
www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html

Earliest Christianity G A Wells
www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/earliest.html

The Second Century Apologists
http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/century.htm

Existence of Jesus Controversy, Rae West
www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/littleton/gm1_jesu.htm

Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml

Jesus Conference,
www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_sd/jconf_hall.html
 
Jesus Conference,
www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/jconf_stuckenbruck.html
 
The Testament of Levi Concerning the Priesthood and Arrogance
www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-07.htm#P378_53868.
  
Sherlock Holmes Style Search for the Historical Jesus
www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/890/history.html
 
The Ascension of Isaiah
www.earth-history.com/sacred-ascension-Isaiah.htm

Apollonius of Tyana: The Monkey of Christ? The Church Patriarchs, Robertino Solarion www.apollonius.net/patriarchs.html

What About the Discovery of Q? Brad Bromling
www.ApologeticsPress.org
 
Wells without Water, Psychological Buffoonry from the Master of the Christ-Myth, James Patrick Holding
www.tektonics.org/JPH_WW.html

Critique: Scott Bidstrp [sic] on The Case for Christ by James Patrick Holding
www.tektonics.org/bidstrup02.html

GA Wells Replies to Criticism of his Books on Jesus
www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/errant.html

The Ossuary Scam: A Critical Analysis of the “James” Ossuary
http://www.atrueword.com/index.php/article/articleprint/15/-1/1/

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Acharya S
www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

BIBLE VERSION USED
 
The Amplified Bible
The King James Version