The series of excerpts am about to post are from the book, The Christ Conspiracy( The greatest story ever sold) by DM Murdock.
This book is so shockingly revealing that it has continued to generate an uproar amongst christian scholars and "crazed Jesus fairy believers."
This books raises a lot of questions that many a christian have never asked before or thought of asking, it will blow your mind and question the folly of your beliefs.
What if what you were born into and have been taught to you all your life was one big fat lie?
What will you do or say if it was demonstrated to you with well documented citations and references from respected sources, historians, history books, commentaries from experts in egyptology, astrotheology, Roman and Greek Pagan mythologies, that Jesus Christ the centre piece of your faith in a "God" was a piously created fabled hogwash Myth created by early Church fathers and christian historians drawing copiously from the works of other Godmen myths like Krishna, Horus, Mithra and so on, he was no different, he belongs in thesame category as other myths before him; unprovable hogwash.
I shall be releasing excerpts from the book as we go on.
Please read with an open mind and comment without throwing any childish temper tantrums.
Feel free to place a request for the book if you want it, I have the PDF book in my fone.
Disclaimers to die hard Jesus robots; reading this book could shake your beliefs and cost you your faith in your favourite past time religious morphine. . .laughing in horse voice.
Enjoy!

HISTORY AND POSITIONS OF THE DEBATE
The debate as to whether or not Jesus Christ is a historical character may not be apparent from publications readily found in popular bookstores; however, beginning over two centuries ago, a significant group of scholars started springing up to challenge long-held beliefs.

In more recent times, this controversy erupted when GA Wells published Did Jesus Exist? and The Historical Evidence for Jesus, among others, which sought to prove that Jesus is a non-historical character. An attempt to repudiate Wells was made in Jesus: The Evidence, an entire (slim) volume written to establish that Jesus did exist.
It should be noted that no such book would be needed if the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure were a proven fact accepted by all. In addition, it is not uncommon to hear in a discussion about Jesus something to the effect, “Don’t get me wrong—I believe he existed,” a strange declaration, since, according to popular belief, “Everybody knows he existed.” Were the last assertion true, this type of doubtful “don’t get me wrong” comment would not be necessary.
No one discussing Abraham Lincoln, for example, needs to clarify her/his position by expressing the belief that Lincoln existed.
Indeed, it is such doubt, which has existed since the beginning of the Christian era, that has led many seekers of truth over the centuries to research thoroughly this important subject from an independent perspective and to produce an impressive volume of literature that, while hidden, suppressed or ignored, nevertheless has demonstrated logically and intelligently that Jesus Christ is a mythological character along the same lines as the gods of Egypt, England, Greece, India, Phoenicia, Rome, Sumeria and elsewhere, entities presently acknowledged by mainstream scholars and the masses alike as myths rather than historical figures.

Delving deeply into this large body of work, one uncovers evidence that the Jesus character is in fact based upon these much older myths and heroes.
One discovers that the gospel story is not, therefore, a historical representation of a Jewish rebel carpenter who had physical incarnation in the Levant 2,000 years ago.
In other words, it has been demonstrated continually for centuries that the story of Jesus Christ was invented and did not depict a real person who was either a superhuman “son of God” or a man who was “evemeristically” built up into a superhuman fairytale by enthusiastic followers. Within this debate regarding the nature and character of Jesus Christ, then, there have been three main schools of thought: the believers and the evemerists, both of which are historicizers, and the mythicists.

Seun and the Nairaland moderators must be very pleased with this trend.

Anyone can come here and bash Christianity but not vice versa.

We are special people - praise God !!

rhymz: The series of excerpts am about to post are from the book, The Christ Conspiracy( The greatest story ever sold) by DM Murdock.
This book is so shockingly revealing that it has continued to generate an uproar amongst christian scholars and "crazed Jesus fairy believers."
This books raises a lot of questions that many a christian have never asked before or thought of asking, it will blow your mind and question the folly of your beliefs.
What if what you were born into and have been taught to you all your life was one big fat lie?
What will you do or say if it was demonstrated to you with well documented citations and references from respected sources, historians, history books, commentaries from experts in egyptology, astrotheology, Roman and Greek Pagan mythologies, that Jesus Christ the centre piece of your faith in a "God" was a piously created fabled hogwash Myth created by early Church fathers and christian historians drawing copiously from the works of other Godmen myths like Krishna, Horus, Mithra and so on, he was no different, he belongs in thesame category as other myths before him; unprovable hogwash.
I shall be releasing excerpts from the book as we go on.
Please read with an open mind and comment without throwing any childish temper tantrums.
Feel free to place a request for the book if you want it, I have the PDF book in my fone.
Disclaimers to die hard Jesus robots; reading this book could shake your beliefs and cost you your faith in your favourite past time religious morphine. . .laughing in horse voice.
Enjoy!

FAIL. HOW CAN THE ORIGINATOR COPY THE IMITATOR ? HOW CAN THE FATHER COPY THE SON ? WHO CAME FIRST INTO THE WORLD ? THE HEBREWS. SO ANY god that the rest of the heathens concocted is a spinoff of the real deal. those egyptians and greeks and romans are what are called heathens. they were only created after the flood due to mutations and adaptations and incestry and whatnot. these heathens were godless to start with. however they got spiritually civilized by the hebrew israelites. some of them decided to scoff and form their own religions which are basically delusions placed on them by God for their rellious nature.
2 thessalonians 2 vs 11 and 12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness

THE BIBLE PROPHECY
Many people believe that the biblical tale of Jesus must be true because the Bible
itself predicted his advent and because so many other Old Testament “prophecies” had come true, demonstrating that the book was indeed “God’s word.”

First of all, much of the biblical
“prophecy” was written after the fact, with merely an appearance of prophecy.

Secondly, the book has served as a blueprint, such that rulers have deliberately followed to some degree its so-called prophecies, thus appearing to bring them to fulfillment.

Thirdly, very few if any “prophecies,”
particularly of the supernatural kind, have indeed come true.

Fourthly, biblical interpreters claim that records of events centuries in the past somehow refer to the future.
As concerns purported prophetic references to Jesus in the OT, Wells says:
"Nearly all New Testament authors twist and torture the most unhelpful Old
Testament passages into prophecies concerning Christianity".
Who, ignorant of Mt. 2:16-9, could suppose that Jeremiah 31:15 (Rachel weeping for her children) referred
to Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents?
To demonstrate that their Messiah was predicted, Christians have also grabbed
onto the brief reference made at Psalms 2 to “the Lord and his Anointed,” a word
that in the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, the Septuagint, is “Christos.”
In fact, the Septuagint, allegedly translated and redacted during the second and third centuries BCE at Alexandria, Egypt, contains the word “Christos” at least 40 times. This title “Christos” or “anointed,” however, referred only to an Israelite king or
priest, not a superhuman savior.

This Christian defense, in fact, proves that there were other Christs long before Jesus, including David, Zadok and Cyrus. The title “Christ” or “Anointed” (“Mashiah”) was in reality held by all kings of Israel, as well as being “so commonly assumed by all sorts of impostors, conjurers, and pretenders to
supernatural communications, that the very claim to it is in the gospel itself
considered as an indication of imposture .

As to the reliability of both Old and New Testaments, Hilton Hotema declared,
“Not one line of the Bible has a known author, and but few incidents of it are
corroborated by other testimony.
Thus, Christianity is based upon a false
proposition, and, without the inspired authorship of apostles under an infallible god, the Church is left with little upon which to base its claims. Regarding this state of affairs, Wheless declared:
The Gentile Church of Christ has therefore no divine sanction; was never
contemplated nor created by Jesus Christ.
The Christian Church is thus founded on a forgery of pretended words of the pretended Christ.

JESUS is REAL.
End of Story.

buzeegi
I am not going to start any argument yet, I am still editing and posting excerpts from the book. Unfortunately, I am not in a place I can use my laptop to do so thus the use of my phone for the posting.
However, you will get answers from subsequent posts just don't rush yeat into releasing your arsenals.
Again please, I will like everyone here to be civil in response and argument especially the Christian brothers.
Thank you!

@OP, I will love to have the book

@OP,
I will advice that you ignore any attempt by anyone to derail the thread. Stay focused until you have been able to do justice to this discussion/submisssion before you respond to any one.

Pleeeeaaaaaseeee!!!!!

THE BELIEVERS
The believers take the Judeo-Christian bible as the literal “Word of God,”
accepting “on faith” that everything contained within it is historical fact infallibly written by scribes “inspired by God.”
As we shall see, this position is absolutely untenable, and requires blind and unscientific devotion, since, even if we discount the countless mistakes committed over the centuries by scribes copying the texts, the so-called infallible
“Word of God” is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, errors and yarns that stretch the credulity to the point of non-existence.

In order to accept the alleged factuality of the Christian tale, i.e., that a male God came down from the heavens as his own son through the womb of a Jewish virgin, worked astonishing miracles, was killed, resurrected and ascended to heaven, we are not only to suspend critical thinking and integrity, but we must be prepared to tolerate a rather repulsive and generally false portrayal of the ancient world and peoples.
In particular, we must be willing to believe fervently that the “gentle Jesus”—who was allegedly the all-powerful God—was mercilessly scourged, tortured and murdered by Romans and Jews, the latter of whom possess the ignominy and stigma of being considered for eternity as “vipers,” “serpents,” “spawn of Satan” and “Christkillers” guilty of deicide who gleefully shouted “Crucify him!” and “Let his blood be upon us and our children!”

In addition to this hideous notion, we are also expected to believe that the
omnipotent and perfect God could only fix the world, which he created badly in the
first place, by the act of blood-atonement, specifically with his own blood; yet, we
know that such blood-atonement is rooted in the ancient custom of sacrificing
humans and animals, serving basically as a barbaric, scapegoat ritual.
Indeed, the sacrifice of God seems far worse than that of either animals or humans, yet this deicide is supposed to be one of the highest “religious” concepts.
In fact, it is “God’s plan!”
As Kersey Graves says in The World’s 16 Crucified Saviors: And hereafter, when they laugh at the Jewish superstition of a scape-goat, let them bear in mind that the more sensible and intelligent people may laugh in turn at their superstitious doctrine of a scape-God. . . .

The blood of God must atone for the sins of the whole human family, as rams, goats, bullocks and other animals had atoned for the sins of families and nations under older systems. . . .

Somebody must pay the penalty in blood, somebody must be slaughtered for every little foible or peccadillo or moral blunder into which erring man may chance to stumble while upon the
pilgrimage of life, while journeying through the wilderness of time, even if a God has to be dragged from his throne in heaven, and murdered to accomplish it. . . Whose soul—possessing the slightest moral sensibility—does not inwardly and instinctively revolt at such a doctrine? . . . We hold the doctrine to be a high-handed insult to the All-Loving Father—who, were are told, is “long suffering in mercy,” and “plentiful in forgiveness”—to charge Him with sanctioning such a doctrine, much less originating it.

In embracing Christianity as reality, we are also required to assume that, in
order to get “his” important message across, “God” came to Earth in a remote area of the ancient world and spoke the increasingly obscure language of Aramaic, as opposed to the more universally spoken Greek or Latin. We must also be prepared to believe that there is now an invisible man of a particular ethnicity omnipresently floating about in the sky.
In addition, we are asked to ridicule and dismiss as fiction the nearly identical legends and tales of many other cultures, while happily receiving the Christian fable as fact.
This dogmatic stance in effect represents cultural bigotry and prejudice.
All in all, in blindly believing we are faced with what can only appear to be an abhorrent and ludicrous plan on the part of “God.”

dekung: @OP,
I will advice that you ignore any attempt by anyone to derail the thread. Stay focused until you have been able to do justice to this discussion/submisssion before you respond to any one.

Pleeeeaaaaaseeee!!!!!

Thank You dekung for your advice, I shall do just that.
As for the book, I shall post a downloadlink to the book cos right now I am posting from a mere phone, please bear with me.
Here is the link:
http://ebookbrowse.com/acharya-the-christ-conspiracy-the-greatest-story-ever-sold-pdf-d180172742

frosbel: Seun and the Nairaland moderators must be very pleased with this trend.

Anyone can come here and bash Christianity but not vice versa.

We are special people - praise God !!

i have noticed it 2 and watch out it wil make front page. They are always in a hurry 2 bring topics lyk dis 2 frontpage bt anytin relatin 2 islam is hidden. Nt fair at al

THE EVEMERISTS
It is because of such irrational beliefs and prejudicial demands that many people have rejected Christian claims as being incredible and unappealing.
Nevertheless, numerous such dissidents have maintained that behind the fabulous fairytales found in the gospels there was a historical Jesus Christ somewhere, an opinion usually based on the fact that it is commonly held, not because its proponents have
studied the matter or seen clear evidence to that effect. This “meme” or mental programming of a historical Jesus has been pounded into the heads of billions of people for nearly 2,000 years, such that it is assumed a priori by many, including “scholars” who have put forth an array of clearly speculative hypotheses hung on highly tenuous threads regarding the “life of Jesus.”
Such speculators often claim
that a historical Jewish master named Jesus was deified or “evemerized” by his zealous followers, who added to his mundane “history” a plethora of supernatural qualities and aspects widely found in more ancient myths and mystery religions.
This school of thought called “
Evemerism” or “Euhemerism,” is named after Evemeras, or Euhemeros, a Greek philosopher of the 4th century BCE who developed the idea that, rather than being mythical creatures, as was accepted by the reigning intellectuals, the gods of old were in fact historical characters, kings, emperors and heroes whose exploits were later deified.
Of these various evemerist “biographies,” the most popular are that Jesus was a compassionate teacher who irritated the Romans with his goodness, or a political rebel who annoyed the Romans with his incitement of discord, for which he was executed.
Wells omments upon the theory du jour: As political activism is today à la mode, it is widely felt that a revolutionary Jesus is more “relevant” than the Jesus of the nineteenth century liberal theologians who “went about doing good” (Acts, 10:38).
Both these Jesuses simply reflect what in each case the commentators value most highly rather than the burden of the texts.
If Jesus had been politically troublesome, his supporters would have been arrested with him.
But there is no suggestion of this in any of the gospels.
He further states: There are . . . three obvious difficulties against the supposition that a historical Jesus was actually executed as a
rebel:
(i) All Christian documents earlier than the gospels portray him in a way hardly compatible with the view that he was a political agitator. . .
(ii) If his activities had been primarily political, and the evangelists were not interested in—or deemed it inexpedient to
mention—his politics, then what was the motive for their strong interest in him?
How did they come to suppose that a rebel, whose revolutionary views they tried to suppress in
their gospels, was the universal saviour?
(iii) If such an episode as the cleansing of the temple was not a religious act (as the gospels allege) but an armed attempt to capture the building and to precipitate a general insurrection, then why does Josephus say nothing of it?
As Trocmé has observed . . . a
military attack on the temple would not have been ignored by this writer who was so concerned to show the dangers of revolt and violence.
Josephus’ silence is corroborated by the positive affirmation of Tacitus that there was no disturbance in Palestine under Tiberius (AD 14-37), whereas the preceding and following reigns were characterized by rebellion and
unrest there . . .
Of these various “lives of Jesus,” Wells also says: It is now customary to dismiss with contempt many nineteenth-century lives of Jesus on the grounds that their authors simply found in him all the qualities which they themselves considered estimable.
But the wide circulation today of books which portray him as a rebel seems yet another illustration of the same phenomenon.
Evemerist scholar Shaye Cohen, professor of Judaic and Religion Studies at Brown University, admits the desperate situation of trying to find this “historical” reformer/rebel under the accreted layers of miracles: Modern scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or have routinely rediscovered in
Jesus that which they want to find, be it rationalist, liberal Christianity of the 19th century, be it apocalyptic miracle workers in the 20th, be it revolutionaries, or be it
whatever it is that they’re looking for, scholars have been able to find in Jesus almost anything that they want to find.
Even in our own age scholars are still doing this. People are still trying to figure out the authentic sayings of Jesus. . ., all our middle class liberal Protestant scholars. . . will take a vote and decide what Jesus should have said, or might have said.
And no doubt their votes reflect their own deep-seated, very sincere, very authentic Christian values, which I don’t gainsay for a moment.
But their product is, of course, bedeviled by the problem that we are unable to have any secure criteria by which to distinguish the real from the mythic or what we want to be so from what actually was so. . . .
These various theories in the end constitute wheel-spinning in a futile effort to rescue historicity, any historicity, in the gospel tale. Because of the dearth of personality in the gospels and the irrationality of the tale, historicizers must imbue the character with their own personalities and interpretations of reality, such as: “When Jesus said, ‘Blessed are the poor,’ he surely didn’t mean that poverty is a blessing but that those who lived with poverty are good, because they are not resorting to robbery.
And in order to pad out the “real” Jesus after most of his “life” is removed, scholars must resort to reasoning of the most tortured kind: While the miracles of Jesus could easily be created and multiplied by the credulity of
His followers, [the followers] could never have devised ethical, speculative, or soteriological doctrines, which, although in no instance original, presented new combinations of established religious concepts and ethical principles.
Thus, we have an admission that Jesus brought nothing new, but an insistence nevertheless that Jesus deserved merit because he novelly combined his unoriginal concepts. In reality, this type of eclecticism also was not new but quite common long before the Christ character arose.
In The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, Gerald Massey says of these scholars’ efforts: It is pitiful to track the poor faithful gleaners who picked up every fallen fragment or scattered waif and stray of the mythos, and to watch how they treasured every trait and tint of the ideal Christ to make up the personal portrait of their own supposed real one.
In Ancient History of the God Jesus, Edouard Dujardin remarks of
Evemerism: This doctrine is nowadays discredited except in the case of Jesus.
No scholar believes that Osiris or Jupiter or Dionysus was an historical person promoted to the rank of a god, but exception is made only in favour of Jesus. . . . It is impossible to rest the colossal work of Christianity on Jesus, if he was a man.
Indeed, evemerist scholars will admit that this humanized Jesus stripped of all miracles would not have “made a blip on Pilate’s radar screen,” being insignificant as
one of the innumerable rabblerousers running about Palestine during this time.
If we were to take away all the miraculous events surrounding the story of Jesus to reveal a human, we would certainly find no one who could have garnered huge crowds around him because of his preaching.
And the fact is that this crowd-drawing preacher finds his place in “history” only in the New Testament, completely overlooked by the dozens of historians of his day, an era considered one of the best documented in history. Such an invisible character, then, could never have become a god worshipped by millions.
In fact, the standard Christian response to the evemerists has been that no such Jesus, stripped of his miracles and other supernatural attributes, could ever “have been adored as a god or even been saluted as the Messiah of Israel.” This response is quite accurate: No mere man could have caused such a hullabaloo and hellish
fanaticism, the product of which has been the unending spilling of blood and the enslavement of the spirit.
The crazed “inspiration” that has kept the Church afloat merely confirms the mythological origins of this tale. Furthermore, the theory of Evemerism has served the Catholic Church, as Higgins remarks:. . . that the gods of the ancients were nothing but the heroes or benefactors of
mankind, living in very illiterate and remote ages, to whom a grateful posterity paid divine honors . . . appears at first sight to be probable; and as it has served the purpose of the Christian priests, to enable them to run down the religion of the ancients, and, in exposing its absurdities, to contrast it disadvantageously with their own, [Evemerism] has been, and continues to be, sedulously inculcated, in every public and private seminary. . . . Although the pretended worship of Heroes appears at first sight plausible, very little depth of thought or learning is requisite to discover
that it has not much foundation in truth. . . .
In Pagan Christs, JM Robertson states of Evemerism: It is not the ascription of prodigies to some remarkable man that leads us to doubt his reality.
Each case must be considered on its merits when we apply the tests of historical evidence. We must distinguish between what the imagination has added to a meager biography, and those cases in which the biography itself has been added to what has grown out of a ritual or doctrine.
The bottom line is that when one removes all the elements of those preceding myths that contributed to the formation of the Jewish godman, there remains no one
and nothing historical left to which to point. As Walker says, “Scholars’ efforts to eliminate paganism from the Gospels in order to find a historical Jesus have proved
as hopeless as searching for a core in an onion.” Massey remarks, “. . . a composite likeness of twenty different persons merged in one . . . is not anybody.”
And, it is clear that in their desperate attempts, evemerist scholars have added their own
likenesses to the composite.

@rhymz

please send the pdf to horusluminati at yahoo.com

THE MYTHISCIST
This missing core to the onion has been recognized by many individuals over the
centuries who have thus been unable to accept the historical nature of Jesus Christ,
because not only is there no proof of his existence but virtually all evidence points to him being a mythological character.
As stated, this “Mythicist School” began to flourish starting a few hundred years ago, propelled by archaeological and linguistical discoveries and studies, as well as by the reduction of the Church’s power
and vicious persecution of its critics.
This group has consisted of a number of erudite and daring individuals who have overcome the conditioning of their culture to peer closely and with clear eyes into the murky origins of the Christian faith. Massey
elucidates the mythicists’ perspective:
The general assumption concerning the canonical gospels is that the historic element was the kernel of the whole, and that the fables accreted round it; whereas the mythos, being pre-extant, proves the core of the matter was mythical, and it follows that the history is incremental. . . . It was the human history that accreted round the divinity, and not a human being who became divine.
While the mythicist school has only made real inroads in the past couple of centuries, and even though its brilliant work and insight have been ignored by mainstream “experts” in both the believing and evemerist camps, the mythicist arguments have been built upon a long line of Bible criticism.
Indeed, this controversy has existed from the very beginning as is evidenced by the writings of the Church fathers themselves, i.e., those who founded the Christian Church, who revealed that they were constantly forced by the “Pagan” intelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other Christians (“heretics”) alike saw as a preposterous
and fabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever having taken place in
history.
As Rev. Robert Taylor says in The Diegesis, “And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied.” In fact, as Taylor also states: Those who denied the humanity of Christ were the first class of professing Christians, and not only first in order of time, but in dignity of character, in intelligence, and in moral influence. . . .
The deniers of the humanity of Christ, or,in a word, professing Christians, who denied that any such man as Jesus Christ ever existed at all, but who took the name Jesus Christ to signify only an abstraction, or prosopopoeia, the principle of Reason personified; and who understood the whole gospel story to be a sublime allegory . . . these were the first, and (it is not dishonour to Christianity to pronounce them) the best and most rational Christians.
Again, this denial of Christ in the flesh is found numerous times in the writings
of the day, including the New Testament itself, yet it is ignored by historicizers,
believers and evemerists alike.
Indeed, in their “exhaustive” research into this all-important subject, historicizers have either wilfully and unreasonably ignored the great minds of the mythicist school or have never come across them.
If we assume that the historicizers’ disregard of these scholars is deliberate, we can onlyconclude that it is because the mythicists’

rhymz: The series of excerpts am about to post are from the book, The Christ Conspiracy( The greatest story ever sold) by DM Murdock.
This book is so shockingly revealing that it has continued to generate an uproar amongst christian scholars and "crazed Jesus fairy believers."
This books raises a lot of questions that many a christian have never asked before or thought of asking, it will blow your mind and question the folly of your beliefs.
What if what you were born into and have been taught to you all your life was one big fat lie?
What will you do or say if it was demonstrated to you with well documented citations and references from respected sources, historians, history books, commentaries from experts in egyptology, astrotheology, Roman and Greek Pagan mythologies, that Jesus Christ the centre piece of your faith in a "God" was a piously created fabled hogwash Myth created by early Church fathers and christian historians drawing copiously from the works of other Godmen myths like Krishna, Horus, Mithra and so on, he was no different, he belongs in thesame category as other myths before him; unprovable hogwash.
I shall be releasing excerpts from the book as we go on.
Please read with an open mind and comment without throwing any childish temper tantrums.
Feel free to place a request for the book if you want it, I have the PDF book in my fone.
Disclaimers to die hard Jesus robots; reading this book could shake your beliefs and cost you your faith in your favourite past time religious morphine. . .laughing in horse voice.
Enjoy!

ha ha lol finish reading, and i will send you Lee Strobel pdf on the case for the real Jesus. Shaking my belief. . . Lol

THE HOLY FORGERY MILL Ho
From the very beginning of our quest to unravel the Christ conspiracy, we
encounter suspicious territory, as we look back in time and discover that the real foundation of Christianity appears nothing like the image provided by the clergy and mainstream authorities.
Indeed, far more rosy and cheerful than the reality is the picture painted by the vested interests as to the origins of the Christian religion: To wit, a miracle-making founder and pious, inspired apostles who faithfully and infallibly recorded his words and deeds shortly after his advent, and then went about promulgating the faith with great gusto and success in “saving souls.” Contrary to this popular delusion, the reality is that, in addition to the enormous amount of bloodshed which accompanied its foundation, Christianity’s history is rife with forgery and fraud.
So rampant is this treachery and chicanery that any serious researcher must immediately begin to wonder about the story itself.
In truth, the Christian tale has always been as difficult to swallow as the myths and fables of other cultures; yet countless people have been able to overlook the rational mind and to willingly believe it, even though they may equally as easily dismiss the nearly identical stories of these other cultures.
Indeed, the story of Jesus as presented in the gospels, mass of impossibilities
and contradictions that it is, has been so difficult to believe that even the fanatic
Christian “doctor” and saint, Augustine (354-430), admitted, “I should not believe in the truth of the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church forced me to do so.
Nevertheless, the “monumentally superstitious and credulous Child of Faith”
Augustine must not have been too resistant, because he already accepted “as historic truth the fabulous founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus, their virgin-birth by the god Mars, and their nursing by the she-wolf . . .”
Apparently unable to convince himself rationally of the validity of his faith, early
Church father Tertullian (c. 160-200) made the notorious statement, “Credo quia
incredibilis est—I believe because it is unbelievable.” An “ex-Pagan,” Tertullian
vehemently and irrationally defended his new faith, considered fabricated by other
Pagans, by acknowledging that Christianity was “a shameful thing” and “monstrously
absurd”: . . . I maintain that the Son of God was born; why am I not ashamed of maintaining such a thing? Why! but because it is itself a shameful thing. I maintain that the Son of God died: well, that is wholly credible because it is monstrously absurd.
I maintain that after having been buried, he rose again: and that I take to be absolutely true, because it was manifestly impossible.
In addition to confessions of incredulity by Pagans and Christians alike, we also
encounter repeated accusations and admissions of forgery and fraud.
While the masses are led to believe that the Christian religion was founded by a historical wonderworker and his devoted eyewitnesses who accurately wrote down the events of his life and ministry in marvelous books that became “God’s Word,” the reality is that none of the gospels was written by its purported author and, indeed, no mention of any New Testament text can be found in writings prior to the beginning of the second century of the Common Era (“CE”), long after the purported events.
These “holy” books, then, so revered by devotees, turn out to be spurious, and since it is in them that we find the story of Christ, we must be doubtful as to its validity as well.
Regarding the canonical gospels, Wheless states: The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates. . . . As said by the great critic, Salomon Reinach, “With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Jesus, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 A.D.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors.”
Bronson Keeler, in A Short History of the Bible, concurs: They are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them.
In The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read, John Remsburg elucidates:
The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the
most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His
writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, had
they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the
Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New
Testament; but none from the four Gospels. Rev. Giles says: “The very names of the
Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him
(Justin)¾do not occur once in all his writings.”
And Waite says: At the very threshold of the subject, we are met by the fact, that nowhere in all the writings of Justin, does he once so much as mention any of these gospels. Nor does he mention either of their supposed authors, except John. Once his name occurs; not, however, as the author of a gospel, but in such a connection as raises a very strong presumption that Justin knew of no gospel of John the Apostle. Waite further states:
No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the New Testament. . . .
No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting, or engraving, no
sculpture, or other relic of antiquity, which may be looked upon as furnishing
additional evidence of the existence of those gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century.
Even the exploration of the Christian
catacombs failed to bring to light any evidence of that character. . . . The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was no translation of them into other languages, earlier than the third century.
In The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Barbara Walker relates:
The discovery that the Gospels were forged, centuries later than the events they
described, is still not widely known even though the Catholic Encyclopedia admits,
“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the
beginning . . . has no foundation in history.” No extant manuscript can be dated
earlier than the 4th century A.D.; most were written even later.
The oldest manuscripts contradict one another, as also do even the present canon of synoptic Gospels.
In fact, as Waite says, “Nearly every thing written concerning the gospels to the
year 325, and all the copies of the gospels themselves to the same period, are lost or
destroyed.
”The truth is that very few early Christian texts exist because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the Council of Nicea and the “retouching” of 506 CE under Emperor Anastasius, which included “revision” of the Church fathers’ works,l catastrophic acts that would be inconceivable if these “documents” were truly the precious testaments of the very Apostles themselves regarding the “Lord and Savior,” whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound fanaticism and endless wars. Repeating what would appear to be utter blasphemy, in the 11th and 12th centuries the “infallible Word of God” was “corrected” again by a variety of church officials.
In addition to these major “revisions” have been many others, including copying and translation mistakes and deliberate mutilation and obfuscation of meaning.
It has never been only nonbelieving detractors who have made such allegations of falsification and deceit by the biblical writers. Indeed, those individuals who
concocted some of the hundreds of “alternative” gospels and epistles being circulated during the first several centuries even admitted that they forged the texts. Of these numerous manuscripts, the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges, as quoted
by Wheless: Enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended gospels full of romantic fables, and fantastic and striking details; their fabrications were eagerly read and accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity.
Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no motive other than that of a PIOUS FRAUD.
Forgery during the first centuries of the Church’s existence was thus admittedly
rampant, so common in fact that this phrase, “pious fraud,” was coined to describe it.
Furthermore, while admitting that the Catholics were engaged in fraud, the Catholic Encyclopedia is also implying that the Gnostics were truthful in regard to the
fictitious and allegorical nature of their texts.
Regarding this Catholic habit of fraud,
Mangasarian states in The Truth about Jesus: The church historian, Mosheim, writes that, “The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act to employ deception and fraud.” . . . Again, he says: “The greatest and most pious teachers were nearly all of them infected with this leprosy.” Will not some believer tell us why forgery and fraud were necessary to prove the historicity of Jesus. . . . Another historian, Milman, writes that, “Pious fraud was admitted and avowed by the early missionaries of Jesus.” “It was an age of literary frauds,” writes Bishop Ellicott, speaking of the times immediately following the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Dr. Giles declares that, “There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were written with no other purpose than to deceive.”
And it is the opinion of Dr. Robertson Smith that, “There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views.”
So fundamental to “the faith” was fraud that Wheless remarked: The clerical confessions of lies and frauds in the ponderous volumes of the Catholic
Encyclopedia alone suffice . . . to wreck the Church and to destroy utterly the
Christian religion. . . . The Church exists mostly for wealth and self-aggrandizement; to quit paying money to the priests would kill the whole scheme in a couple of years.
This is the sovereign remedy.
According to Christian father and Church historian Eusebius (260?-340?),
Bishop of Corinth Dionysius lashed out against forgers who had mutilated not only
his letters but the gospels themselves:
When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so.
These the devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. . . . Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.
These statements by Dionysius imply that the letters and gospels were mutilated
by his “fellow-Christians” themselves, as the letters were presumably in their
possession, unless they were hijacked along the way by some other “devil’s apostles,”
and as the “the word of the Lord” certainly was in the possession of Christians and no
others.
In addition, a number of the fathers, such as Eusebius himself, were determined by their own peers to be unbelievable liars who regularly wrote their own fictions of
what “the Lord” said and did during “his” alleged sojourn upon the earth. In one of
his works, Eusebius provides a handy chapter entitled: “How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived.” Of Eusebius, Waite writes, “Not only the most unblushing falsehoods, but
literary forgeries of the vilest character, darken the pages of his apologetic and
historical writings.”
Wheless also calls Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Eusebius “three luminous liars.”
Keeler states, “The early Christian fathers were extremely ignorant and superstitious; and they were singularly incompetent to deal with the supernatural.”
Larson concludes that many early bishops “like Jerome, Antony, and St. Martin,
were definitely psychotic.
In fact, there was scarcely a single Father in the ancient Church who was not tainted with heresy, mental aberration, or moral enormity.” Thus, deceiving, mentally ill individuals basically constitute the genesis
Christianity. Of their products, Wheless further remarks: If the pious Christians, confessedly, committed so many and so extensive forgeries and frauds to adapt these popular Jewish fairy-tales of their God and holy Worthies to the new Christian Jesus and his Apostles, we need feel no surprise when we discover these same Christians forging outright new wonder-tales of their Christ under the fiction of the most noted Christian names and in the guise of inspired Gospels, Epistles, Acts and Apocalypses. . . .
He continues: Half a hundred of false and forged Apostolic “Gospels of Jesus Christ,” together with more numerous other “Scripture” forgeries, was the output, so far as known now, of the lying pens of the pious Christians of the first two centuries of the Christian “Age of Apocryphal Literature” Wheless also reports the Protestant Encyclopedia Biblica as stating, “Almost
every one of the Apostles had a Gospel fathered upon him by one early sect or
another.”
Doane relates the words of Dr. Conyers Middleton on the subject of biblical
forgery: There never was any period of time in all ecclesiastical history, in which so many rank heresies were publicly professed, nor in which so many spurious books were forged and published by the Christians, under the names of Christ, and the Apostles, and the Apostolic writers, as in those primitive ages.
Several of these forged books are
frequently cited and applied to the defense of Christianity, by the most eminent
fathers of the same ages, as true and genuine pieces.
Wheless demonstrates how low the fathers and doctors of texts were willing to
stoop: . . . If the Gospel tales were true, why should God need pious lies to give them credit?
Lies and forgeries are only needed to bolster up falsehood: “Nothing stands in need of lying but a lie.” But Jesus Christ must needs be propagated by lies upon lies; and what better proof of his actuality than to exhibit letters written by him in his own
handwriting?
The “Little Liars of the Lord” were equal to the forgery of the signature of their God—false letters in his name, as above cited from that exhaustless mine of
clerical falsities, the Catholic Encyclopedia [CE].
Indeed, Christian tradition pretends that Christ was extremely renowned evenduring his own time, having exchanged correspondence with King Abgar of Syria, who was most pleased to have the Christian savior take refuge in his country.

BIBLICAL SOURCES
The story of Jesus Christ can be found only in the forged books of the New Testament, an assortment of gospels and epistles that required many centuries and hands to create. As Dr. Lardner said, “. . . even so late as the middle of the sixth century, the canon of the New Testament had not been settled by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged. . .” Mead describes the confused
compilation of the “infallible Word of God”: The New Testament is not a single book but a collection of groups of books and single
volumes, which were at first and even long afterwards circulated separately. . . .
the Gospels are found in any and every order. . . . Egyptian tradition places Jn. first among the Gospels.
In fact, it took well over a thousand years to canonize the New Testament, and the Old Testament canon remains different to this day in the Catholic and Protestant versions.
This canonization also required many councils to decide which books were to be considered “inspired” and which “spurious.”
Contrary to the impression given, these councils were not peaceful gatherings of the “good shepherds of Christ” but raucous free-for-alls between bands of thugs and their arrogant and insane bishops. As Keeler says: The reader would err greatly did he suppose that in these assemblies one or two hundred gentlemen sat down to discuss quietly and dignifiedly the questions which had come before them for settlement.
On the contrary, many of the bishops were ignorant ruffians, and were followed by crowds of vicious supporters who stood ready on the slightest excuse to maim and kill their opponents.
In fact, at the Council of Ephesus in 431 mobs consisting of the dregs of society and representing the warring factions of Antioch and Alexandria broke out in riots
and killed many of each other. This melee was merely one of many, and this shedding of blood by Christian followers was only the beginning of a hideous centuries-long legacy.
Church historian Eusebius admits the chaotic atmosphere of the Christian foundation: But increasing freedom transformed our character to arrogance and sloth; we began envying and abusing each other, cutting our own throats, as occasion offered, with weapons of sharp-edged words; rulers hurled themselves at rulers and laymen waged
party fights against laymen, and unspeakable hypocrisy and dissimulation were carried to the limit of wickedness. . . . Those of us who were supposed to be pastors cast off the restraining influence of the fear of God and quarrelled heatedly with each other, engaged solely in swelling the disputes, threats, envy, and mutual hostility and hate, frantically demanding the despotic power they coveted.
Such were the means by which the New Testament was finally canonized.
Concerning the NT as it stands today,Wheless says: The 27 New Testament booklets, attributed to eight individual “Apostolic” writers, and culled from some 200 admitted forgeries called Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, constitute the present “canonical” or acceptedly inspired compendium of the primitive history of Christianity.
The various gospels, of which only four are now accepted as
“canonical” or “genuine,” are in actuality not the earliest Christian texts.
The earliest canonical texts
are demonstrably the Epistles of Paul, so it is to them that we must first turn in our investigation.

The Epistles
The various Pauline epistles contained in the New Testament form an important
part of Christianity, yet these “earliest” of Christian texts never discuss a historical
background of Jesus, even though Paul purportedly lived during and after Jesus’s
advent and surely would have known about his master’s miraculous life.

Instead, these letters deal with a spiritual construct found in various religions, sects, cults and mystery schools for hundreds to thousands of years prior to the Christian era. As Dujardin points out, the Pauline literature “does not refer to Pilate or the Romans, or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin, or Herod or Judas, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the Passion, and that it also never makes any allusion to them; lastly, that it mentions absolutely none of the events of the Passion, either directly or by way of allusion."

Mangasarian notes that Paul also never quotes from Jesus’s purported sermons
and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus’s supernatural birth
or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all of which would presumably be very
important to Jesus’s followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to
Paul. Mangasarian then understandably asks: Is it conceivable that a preacher of Jesus could go throughout the world to convert people to the teachings of Jesus, as Paul did, without ever quoting a single one of his sayings?
Had Paul known that Jesus had preached a sermon, or formulated a prayer, or said many inspired things about the here and the hereafter, he could not have helped quoting, now and then, from the words of his master.
If Christianity could have been established without a knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, why then, did Jesus come to teach, and why were his teachings preserved by divine inspiration?. . .
If Paul knew of a miracle-working Jesus, one who could feed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes, who could command the grave to open, who could cast out devils, and cleanse the land of the foulest disease of leprosy, who could, and did, perform many other wonderful works to convince the unbelieving generation of his divinity—is it conceivable that either intentionally or inadvertently he would have never once referred to them in all his preaching?. . .

The position, then, that there is not a single saying of Jesus in the gospels which is quoted by Paul in his many epistles is
unassailable, and certainly fatal to the historicity of the gospel Jesus.

In fact, even though the “Lord’s Prayer” is clearly spelled out in the gospels as
being given directly from Jesus’s mouth, Paul expresses that he does not know how
to pray. Paul’s Jesus is also very different from that of the gospels.
As Wells says: . . . these epistles are not merely astoundingly silent about the historical Jesus, but also that the Jesus of Paul’s letters (the earliest of the NT epistles and hence the earliest extant Christian documents) is in some respects incompatible with the Jesus of the gospels; that neither Paul, nor those of his Christian predecessors whose views he assimilates into his letters, nor the Christian teachers he attacks in them, are concerned with such a person. . .

So it appears that Paul, even though he speaks of “the gospel,” had never heard
of the canonical gospels or even an orally transmitted life of Christ. The few “historical” references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the epistles are demonstrably interpolations and forgeries, as are the epistles themselves, not having been written by the Pharisee/Roman “Paul” at all, as related by Wheless: The entire “Pauline group” is the same forged class . . . says E.B. [Encyclopedia Biblica] . . . “With respect to the canonical Pauline Epistles, . . . . there are none of them by Paul; neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or eight, nor yet even the four so long ‘universally’ regarded as unassailable.

They are all, without distinction,
pseudographia (false-writings, forgeries). They are thus all uninspired anonymous church forgeries for Christ’s sweet sake!

In The Myth of the Historical Jesus, Hayyim ben Yehoshua evinces that the orthodox dates of the Pauline epistles (c. 49-70) cannot be maintained, also introducing one of the most important individuals in the formation of Christianity, the Gnostic-Christian “heretic” Marcion of Pontus (c. 100-160), a well-educated “man of letters” who entered the brotherhood and basically took the reins of the fledgling Gnostic-Christian movement: We now turn to the epistles supposedly written by Paul.

The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy warns against the Marcionist work known as the Antithesis.
Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome in c. 144 C.E. and the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy was written shortly afterwards. Thus we again have a clear case of pseudepigraphy.

The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and the Epistle of Paul to Titus were written by the same author and date to about the same period. These three epistles are known as the “pastoral epistles.”
The ten remaining “non-pastoral”
epistles written in the name of Paul, were known to Marcion by c. 140 C.E. Some of
them were not written in Paul’s name alone but are in the form of letters written by Paul in collaboration with various friends such as Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas. . . .

The non-canonical First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (written c. 125 C.E.)
uses the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians as a source and so we can narrow down the date for that epistle to c. 100-125 C.E.
However, we are left with the conclusion that all the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic. (The semi-mythical Paul
was supposed to have died during the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 CE.)
Some of the Pauline epistles appear to have been altered and edited numerous
times before reaching their modern forms. . We may thus conclude that they provide no historical evidence of Jesus.
It is clear that the epistles do not demonstrate a historical Jesus and are not as early as they are pretended to be, written or edited by a number of hands over several decades during the second century, such that the “historical” Jesus apparently was not even known at that late point. As is also evidenced, these texts were further mutilated over the centuries.

THE GOSPELS
Although they are held up by true believers to be the “inspired” works of the apostles, the canonical gospels were forged at the end of the 2nd century, all four of them probably between 170-180, a date that just happens to correspond with the establishment of the orthodoxy and supremacy of the Roman Church.
Despite the claims of apostolic authorship, the gospels were not mere translations of manuscripts written in Hebrew or Aramaic by Jewish apostles, because they were
originally written in Greek. As Waite relates: It is noticeable that in every place in the gospels but one (and the total number is
nearly a hundred) where Peter is mentioned, the Greek name “Petros” is given, which
is supposed to be used by Jews as well as others.
This would indicate that all the canonical gospels, Matthew included, are original Greek productions. Of these Greek texts and their pretended apostolic attribution, Wells states: a Galilean fisherman could not have written what Kümmel calls such “cultivated
Greek,” with “many rhetorical devices,” and with all the Old Testament quotations
and allusions deriving from the Greek version of these scriptures, not from the Hebrew original.
Furthermore, as stated and as is also admitted by the writer of Luke when he says that there were many versions of “the narrative,” there were numerous gospels
in circulation prior to the composition of his gospel.
In fact, of the dozens of gospels
that existed during the first centuries of the Christian era, several once considered canonical or genuine were later rejected as “apocryphal” or spurious, and vice versa.
Out of these numerous gospels the canonical gospels were chosen by Church father and bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus (c. 120-c. 200), who claimed that the number four was based on the “four corners of the world.” In reality, this comment is
Masonic, and these texts represent the four books of magic of the Egyptian Ritual, facts that provide hints as to where our quest is heading.
According to some early Christians, the gospel of Matthew is the earliest, which is why it appears first in the canon.
However, as noted, the gospels have been arranged in virtually every order, and scholars of the past few centuries have considered Mark to be the earliest, used by the writers/compilers of Matthew and Luke.
Going against this trend, Waite evinced that Luke was first followed by Mark, John and Matthew. In fact, these gospels were written not from each other but from common source material, including the narrative, or Diegesis, as it is in the original Greek.
The first gospel of the “narrative” type, in actuality, appears to have been the proto-Lukan text, the “Gospel of the Lord,” published in Rome by the Gnostic-Christian Marcion, as part of his “New Testament.”
As Waite relates: The first New Testament that ever appeared, was compiled and published by
Marcion. It was in the Greek language. It consisted of “The Gospel,” and “The Apostolicon.”
No acts—no Revelation, and but one gospel. The Apostolicon comprised ten of Paul’s Epistles, as follows: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans, except the 15th and 16th chapters, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, Ephesians,
Colossians, Philemon and Philippians; arranged in the order as here named.
This canon of the New Testament was prepared and published shortly after his arrival in Rome; probably about 145 A.D. Baring-Gould thinks he brought the gospel from Sinope. . . . [Marcion’s] gospel resembles the Gospel of Luke, but is much shorter.
It is interesting to note that the two missing chapters of Romans are historicizing, whereas the rest of the epistle is not. Furthermore, the gospel referred to by Paul in this epistle and others has been termed the “Gospel of Paul,” presumed lost but in reality claimed by Marcion to be a book he found at Antioch, along with 10
“Pauline” epistles, and then edited, bringing it around 139-142 to Rome, where he translated it into both Greek and Latin.

THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD
Originally in the Syro-Chaldee or Samaritan language, Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord, which predated the canonical gospels by decades, represents the basic gospel
narrative, minus key elements that demonstrate the conspiracy. Although much the same as the later Gospel of Luke, Marcion’s gospel was Gnostic, non-historical, and did not make Jesus a Jewish man, i.e., he was not born in Bethlehem and was not from Nazareth, which did not even exist at the time.
In Marcion’s gospel there is no
childhood history, as Marcion’s Jesus was not born but “came down at Capernaum,” i.e., appeared, in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” the very sentence used in Luke to “prove” Jesus’s historicity. Marcion’s original, nonhistoricizing
and non-Judaizing New Testament was a thorn in the side of the
carnalizing conspirators, who were compelled to put a spin on the facts by claiming that the “heretic” had expurgated the gospel of Luke, removing the genealogies and
other “historical”and “biographical” details, for example. Thus, Marcion was accused of “purging the letters of Paul and Luke of ‘Jewish traits,’” an allegation that served
as a subterfuge to hide the fact that Marcion’s Jesus was indeed not a Jewish man who had incarnated a century before. However, as demonstrated by Waite and others, Marcion’s gospel was first, and Luke was created from it. Thus, it was not Marcion who had mutilated the texts but the historicizers who followed and added to his.

The Gospel of Luke (170 CE)
The Gospel of Luke is acknowledged by early church fathers to be of a late date.
As Waite states:. . Jerome admits that not only the Gospel of Basilides, composed about A.D. 125,
and other gospels, admitted to have been first published in the second century, were written before that of Luke, but even the Gospel of Apelles also, which was written not earlier than A.D. 160.
Like the rest of the gospels Luke fits into the timeframe of having been written between 170-180, as admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia:. . . according to the Catholic Encyclopedia the book of Luke was not written till nearly two hundred years after this event [of Jesus’s departure].
The proof offered is that the Theophilus to whom Luke addressed it was bishop of Antioch from 169-177 A.D.
The Gospel of Luke is a compilation of dozens of older manuscripts, 33 by one count, including the Gospel of the Lord. In using Marcion’s gospel, the Lukan writer(s) interpolated and removed textual matter in order both to historicize the story and to Judaize Marcion’s Jesus.
In addition to lacking the childhood or genealogy found in the first two chapters of Luke, Marcion also was missing nearly
all of the third chapter, save the bit about Capernaum, all of which were interpolated into Luke to give Jesus a historical background and Jewish heritage.
Also, where
Marcion’s gospel speaks of Jesus coming to Nazareth, Luke adds, “where he had been brought up,” a phrase missing from Marcion that is a further attempt on Luke’s
part to make Jesus Jewish.
Another example of the historicizing and Judaizing interpolation of the compiler(s) of Luke into Marcion can be found in the portrayal of Christ’s passion,
which is represented in Marcion thus: Saying, the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be put to death, and after three
days rise again.
At Luke 9:22, the passage is rendered thus: Saying, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and
the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” The inclusion of “elders and the chief priests and scribes” represents an attempt to make the story seem as if it happened one time in history, as opposed to the
recurring theme in a savior-god cult and mystery school indicated by Marcion.
Of this Lukan creation, Massey says: It can be proved how passage after passage has been added to the earlier gospel, in the course of manufacturing the later history. For example, the mourning over
Jerusalem (Luke. 29-35) is taken verbatim from the 2nd Esdras (i. 28-33) without acknowledgement, and the words previously uttered by the “Almighty Lord” are here
assigned to Jesus as the original speaker.

The Gospel of Mark (175 CE)
After the final destruction of Jerusalem and Judea by the Romans in 135, the Jerusalem church was taken over by non-Jews.
Of this destruction and appropriation, Eusebius says:
When in this way the city was closed to the Jewish race and suffered the total destruction of its former inhabitants, it was colonized by an alien race, and the
Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name, so that now, in honour of
the emperor then reigning, Aelius Hadrianus, it is known as Aelia. Furthermore, as
the church in the city was now composed of Gentiles, the first after the bishops of the
Circumcision to be put in charge of the Christians there was Mark.
This devastation and changeover occurred in the 18th year of Hadrian’s rule, i.e., 135 CE; thus, we see that this Mark of whom Eusebius speaks could not have been the disciple Mark.
The date is, however, perfect for the Gnostic Marcion. Eusebius
provides confirmation of this association of Mark with Marcion when he immediately follows his comment about Mark with a discussion of “Leaders at that
time of Knowledge falsely so called,” i.e., Gnostics and Gnosis. Indeed, legend held
that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome and brought it to Alexandria, where he established churches, while Marcion purportedly published his gospel in Rome and
no doubt went to Alexandria at some point.
Like Waite, Mead also does not put Mark first: “It is very evident that Mt. and Lk. do not use our Mk., though they use most the material contained in our Mk. . .”In fact, all three manuscripts used Marcion as one of their sources.
Like Marcion, Mark has no genealogy; unlike Marcion, he begins his story with John the Baptist, the hero of the Nazarenes/Mandaeans, added to incorporate that faction.
The Gospel of Mark was admittedly tampered with, as is noted in the New Testament, with several verses (16:9-20) regarding the resurrected apparition and
ascension added to the end.
Here we have absolute proof of the gospels being changed to fit the circumstances, rather than recording “history.”
Mark also provides an example of how interpolation was used to set the story in a particular place:
For instance, Mk. 1:16 reads: “And passing along by the sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew . . .” Almost all commentators agree that the words “by the sea of
Galilee” were added by Mark.
They are placed quite ungrammatically in the Greek
syntax . . . Mark, then, has interpolated a reference to place into a report which lacked it . . .
As to the authorship of Mark, ben Yehoshua says, “. . . the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.” It
would seem, then, that the compiler of Mark used the Latin version of Marcion’s
gospel, while Luke and Matthew used the Greek version, accounting for the variances between them. Indeed, the author of Mark was clearly not a Palestinian Jew, as Wells points out that Mark “betrays in 7:31 an ignorance of Palestinian geography.”

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (178 CE)
The Gospel of John is thought by most authorities to be the latest of the four, but
Waite provides a compelling argument to place it third and reveals its purpose not
only in refuting the Gnostics but also in establishing the primacy of the Roman
Church: So strong is the evidence of a late date to this gospel, that its apostolic origin is being abandoned by the ablest evangelical writers. . . . Both Irenaeus and Jerome assert that John wrote against Cerinthus.
Cerinthus thus flourished about A.D. 145.
[T]here is evidence that in the construction of this gospel, as in that of Matthew, the author had in view the building up of the Roman hierarchy, the foundations of which were then (about A.D. 177-89) being laid. . . . There is a reason to believe that both [John
and Matthew] were written in the interest of the supremacy of the Church of
Rome.
The tone of this gospel is anti-Jewish, revealing that it was written/compiled by a non-Jew, possibly a “Gentile” or an “exiled” Israelite of a different tribe, such as a Samaritan, who not only spoke of “the Jews” as separate and apart from him but also was not familiar with the geography of Palestine. As Waite also says: There are also many errors in reference to the geography of the country.
The author speaks of Aenon, near to Salim, in Judea; also of Bethany, beyond Jordan, and of a “city of Samaria, called Sychar.” If there were any such places, they were strangely unknown to other writers.
The learned Dr. Bretschneider points out such mistakes and errors of geography, chronology, history and statistics of Judea, as no person who had ever resided in that country, or had been by birth a Jew, could possibly have committed.
In addition, as Keeler states:
The Gospel of John says that Bethsaida was in Galilee.
There is no such town in that
district, and there never was. Bethsaida was on the east side of the sea of Tiberias,
whereas Galilee was on the west side. St. John was born at Bethsaida, and the
probability is that he would know the geographical location of his own birthplace.
Furthermore, the writer of John relates several events at which the apostle John
was not depicted as having appeared and does not record others at which he is said
to have been present. Moreover, John is the only gospel containing the story of the
raising of Lazarus from the dead, which is an Egyptian myth.
That the Gospel of John served as a refutation of the Gnostics, or an attempt to usurp their authority and to bring them into the “fold,” is obvious from its Gnostic style.
In fact, it has been suggested that the author of John used Cerinthus’s own
gospel to refute the “heretic.” As Waite relates: The history as well as the writings of Cerinthus are strangely blended with those of John the presbyter, and even with John the apostle. . . . A sect called the Alogi attributed to him [Cerinthus] (so says Epiphanius), the gospel, as well as the other writings of John.

The Gospel of Matthew (180 CE)
Although it was claimed by later Christian writers to be a “translation” of a
manuscript written in Hebrew by the apostle Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew
did not exist prior to the end of the second century and was originally written in Greek. As Waite says:
The Greek Gospel of Matthew was a subsequent production, and either originally appeared in the Greek language, or was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, with extensive changes and additions. There is reason to believe it to have been an original compilation, based upon the Oracles of Christ, but containing, in whole, or in part, a number of other manuscripts.

The gospel of Matthew is particularly noteworthy in that it contains the
interpolation at 16:17-19 not found in either Mark or Luke that gives authority to the Roman Church: To wit, the statement by Jesus that Peter is the rock upon which the
church is to be built and the keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The
appearance of this gospel determining Roman dominance corresponds to the
violent schism of 180-190 between the branches of the Church over the celebration of Easter.

It is clear that the canonical gospels are of a late date, forged long after the
alleged time of their purported authors. Such they are, and, as Doane says, “In these four spurious Gospels . . . we have the only history of Jesus of Nazareth.”

The Narrative
Even knowing this fact of falsity, some believers will claim the gospels are nonetheless inspired by the omnipotent God and represent an infallible
representation of the life of “the Lord.” Far from being “infallible,” these spurious gospels contradict each other in numerous places.
As noted by Otto Schmiedel,
considered one of the greatest authorities on the “life of Jesus”: “If John possesses the genuine tradition about the life of Jesus, that of the first three Evangelists (the Synoptists) is untenable.
If the Synoptists are right, the Fourth Gospel must be rejected as a historical source."
In fact, as Wheless says:
The so-called “canonical” books of the New Testament, as of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusions of text, to the present estimate of 150,000 and more
“variant readings,” as is well known and admitted.

In regard to these “variant readings,” Waite states: Of the 150,000 variant readings which Griesbach found in the manuscripts of the New Testament, probably 149,500 were additions and interpolations.
In this mess, the gospels’ pretended authors, the apostles, give conflicting histories and genealogies.
The birthdate of Jesus is depicted as having occurred at different times, in Matthew about two years before and in Luke more than nine years after Herod’s death.
Jesus’s birth and childhood are not mentioned in Mark, and although he is claimed in Matthew and Luke to have been “born of a virgin,” his lineage is also traced through Joseph to the house of David, so that he may “fulfill
prophecy.” Furthermore, the genealogies presented in Luke and Matthew are irreconcilable.
In fact, as Wheless says, “Both genealogies are false and forged lists of mostly fictitious names.”
A number of the names, in reality, are not “patriarchs” but older gods.
Regarding the contradictory chronology found in the NT, ben Yehoshua states: The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus’s birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the
innocents.
However, Herod died before 12 April 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus to 6-4 B.C.E.
However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod’s death. Jesus was supposed to have been
baptised by John soon after John had started baptising and preaching in the fifteenth
year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e., 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea, i.e., 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests.
But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E. until he was executed in 36 B.C.E. by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the
supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests; in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office
of high priest in 15 C.E. after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E., about three years after Annas. . . . Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus’s book Jewish Antiquities which was used as reference by the author of
Luke and Acts.
Thus, the few incidents useful for dating are found mainly in Luke and turn out to be false.
Doane states: Luke . 1, shows that the writer (whoever he may have been) lived long after the
events related. His dates, about the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and the government of Cyrenius (the only indications of time in the New Testament), are manifestly false.
The general ignorance of the four Evangelists, not merely of the geography and statistics of Judea, but even of its language—their egregious blunders, which no
writers who had lived in that age could be conceived of as making—prove that they were not only no such persons as those who have been willing to be deceived have
taken them to be, but that they were not Jews, had never been in Palestine, and neither lived at, or at anywhere near the times to which their narratives seem to
refer.
As concerns Jesus’s birthplace, while the synoptics place it in Bethlehem, such that he is from David’s village, John says he is from Galilee and that the Jews rejected him because was not from Bethlehem, whence the Messiah must come to “fulfill scripture” (Jn. 7:41-42).
Also, in the conflicting and illogical gospel account, Jesus’s birth is heralded by a star, angels, and three Magi or wise men travelling
from afar, and represents such a danger to Herod that he takes the heinous and desperate act of slaughtering the male infants in Bethlehem.
Yet, when Jesus finally appears in his hometown, he is barely acknowledged, as if the inhabitants had never heard of his miraculous birth with all the fanfare, or of Herod’s dreadful deed, or of any of Jesus’s “wisdom” and “mighty works,” not even the purportedly astounding temple-teaching at age 12.
Even his own family, who obviously knew of his
miraculous birth and exploits, rejects him.
In addition, in the Christian tale, the three wise men are represented as following the star until they arrive near Herod’s
house, whereupon he tells them to continue following the star until they reach the place where the baby Jesus lies.
The wise men then go off and find the baby, but Herod cannot, so he must put to death the firstborn male of every family.
One must ask, how is it that the “wise men” needed Herod’s help to know that the star would
lead them to the babe, when they were already following it in the first place?
And why wouldn’t Herod simply have followed the star himself and killed only Jesus, rather than all the boys?
In reality, the terrible story of Herod killing the infants as
portrayed only in Matthew is based on ancient mythology, not found in any histories of the day, including Josephus, who does otherwise chronicle Herod’s real abuses.
In the gospel story, practically nothing is revealed of Jesus’s childhood, and he disappears completely from the age of 12 to about 30, when he suddenly reappears to begin his ministry. After this dramatic and unhistorical appearance out of nowhere, Jesus is said in the synoptics to have taught for one year before he died, while in
John the number is around three years. Furthermore, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus’s advent takes place in Galilee, except for the end in Jerusalem, while John
places the story for the most part in Jerusalem and other sites in Judea, discrepancies that reveal two important forces at work in the gospels, i.e., the
northern kingdom of Israel and the southern of Judah.
ben Yehoshua continues the critique as to the purported “history” of the New
Testament: The story of Jesus’s trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to placate the
Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic.
He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself
from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask
Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is, of course, a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year.
According to the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas.
The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by antisemites).
Walker points out other errors of fact and perception about the part of the world in question during the era of Jesus’s alleged advent:
The most “historical” figure in the Gospels was Pontius Pilate, to whom Jesus was presented as “king” of the Jews and simultaneously as a criminal deserving the death penalty for “blasphemy” because he called himself Christ, Son of the Blessed. . . This alleged crime was no real crime. Eastern provinces swarmed with self-styled Christs and Messiahs, calling themselves Sons of God and announcing the end of the world.
None of them was executed for “blasphemy.”
Mangasarian concurs that the story is implausible: A Roman judge, while admitting that he finds no guilt in Jesus deserving of death, is
nevertheless represented as handing him over to the mob to be killed, after he has himself scourged him. No Roman judge could have behaved as this Pilate is reported to have behaved toward an accused person on trial for his life.
And Massey states: The account of Pilate’s shedding the blood the Galileans and mingling it with their
sacrifices (Luke. 1) has been added by some one so ignorant of the Hebrew history, that he has ascribed to Pilate an act which was committed when Quirinius
was governor, twenty-four years earlier than the alleged appearance of Jesus.
In order to shore up their fallacious claims of Christ being crucified under Pilate, Christian forgers even went so far as to produce the “Acts of Pilate,” which at one point was considered
“canonical.” After the canon was formalized, the book was deemed “spurious,” thus demonstrating that it was merely an opinion as to what was
“inspired” and what was “forged.” The Acts of Pilate purports to relate the trial of Jesus before Pilate, in accordance with the canonical gospel accounts but in greater
detail. Some of the scenes of this book were lifted from The Iliad:
. . . Pilate has been turned into Achilles, . . . Joseph is the good old Priam, begging the body of Hector, and the whole story is based upon the dramatic passages of the
twenty-fourth book of the Iliad.
The Acts of Pilate, also called the Gospel of Nicodemus, even goes so far as to purport to be a record of the actual conversations of the astonished faithful and
prophets of old, such as David and Enoch, who have been resurrected from the dead after Jesus’s own resurrection and ascension! This “true” gospel also contains a
ludicrous conversation between Satan and his “prince” in Hell.
The fictitious nature of such writings is obvious, as is, ultimately, that of the gospels.
Furthermore, the gospel accounts of Jesus’s passion and resurrection differ utterly from each other, and none states how old he was when he died.
In fact, the early Church fathers were constantly bickering over how old “the Lord” was when he
died, with Irenaeus—who was widely respected by his peers as a highly educated establisher of doctrine—fervently insisting that Jesus was at least 50 years old, rather than the 30 or 33 held by other traditions, including the four gospels he helped canonize. Indeed, Irenaeus “flatly den[ied] as ‘heresy’ the Gospel stories as to his crucifixion at about thirty years of age.”
If the gospel narrative as found in the canon had existed earlier than 170-80, and if it constituted a true story, there would be no accounting for the widely differing
traditions of “the Savior’s” death: To wit, “By the third century A.D., there were no fewer than 25 versions of Jesus’ death and resurrection!
Some have him not being
put to death at all, some have him revived back to life, and some have Jesus living on to an old age and dying in Egypt."
These various details of the lives of Christ and his apostles should have been “set in stone,” had the story been true and these books
been written by the apostles, or even had an orally transmitted “life of Christ” been widespread during the decades that followed.
Various other aspects of the gospel accounts reveal their non-historical nature, including faulty geography, as mentioned, and incidents such as Jesus’s preaching in Galilee, which allegedly occurred precisely during the time Herod was building the city of Tiberias. Of this incident, Dujardin says: We should here note the total lack of historic verity as to facts and places in the gospels. With the methods then
available a town was not built rapidly, and the work would not have been completed in A.D. 27 or even 30.
The gospel writers were therefore unaware that they were placing in a countryside overturned by demolition and rebuilding the larger part of the teaching of Jesus.
If the stories are historical, it is in the middle of timber-yards that one must picture the divine precepts delivered, with the accompaniment of the noise of pikes and mattocks, the grinding of saws, and the cries of
the workers.
Furthermore, in the gospels Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions concerning some of his most important teachings.
First he states that he is sent only
“to the lost sheep of Israel” and forbids his disciples to preach to the Gentiles.
Then he is made to say, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations . . .”
Next, Jesus claims that the end of the world is imminent and warns his disciples to be prepared at a moment’s notice.
He also tells them to build a church from which to preach his message, an act that would not be necessary if the end was near.
This doomsday “prophecy” in fact did not happen; nor has Jesus returned “soon,” as was his promise.
Even if he had been real, his value as a prophet would have been very
little, as his most important
“prophecies” have not occurred, thus proving that he was no more prophetic or divine than the average newspaper astrologer or
palmreader.
In reality, the contradictions in the gospels are overwhelming and irreconcilable by the rational mind. In fact, the Gospel was not designed to be rational, as the true
meaning of the word “gospel” is “God’s Spell,” as in magic, hypnosis and delusion.
As Mack says: The narrative gospels can no longer be viewed as the trustworthy accounts of unique
and stupendous historical events at the foundation of the Christian faith.
The gospels must now be seen as the result of early Christian mythmaking.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES (177 CE)
In addition to the hundreds of epistles and gospels written during the first
centuries were many “Acts” of this apostle or that.
The canonical Acts of the Apostles
cannot be dated earlier than the end of the second century, long after the purported events.
Acts purports to relate the early years of the Christian church, yet in it we
find a well-established community that could not have existed at the time this book was alleged to have been written,
i.e., not long after the death of Christ.
In Acts we read that the first “Christians” are found at Antioch, even though there was no canonical gospel there until after 200 CE.
Taylor calls Acts “a broken narrative,” and
Higgins states that it was fabricated by monks, “devil-drivers” and popes, who
wished to form an alliance by writing the book, “the Latin character of which is
visible in every page . . .”
According to Wheless, even the Protestant Encyclopedia Biblica admits Acts to be “untrustworthy.”
The purpose of Acts was not, in fact, to record the history of the early Church but
to bridge the considerable gap between the gospels and the epistles.
Like Matthew and John, it was also designed to empower the Roman hierarchy.
As Waite says: It is plain that the Acts of the Apostles was written in the interest of the Roman Catholic Church, and in support of the tradition that the Church of Rome was founded by the joint labors of Peter and Paul.
The author(s) of Acts used text from Josephus and, evidently, from the writings
of Aristides, a Sophist of the latter part of the second century, to name a couple of its sources, which also purportedly included the life of Apollonius of Tyana, the quasimythical Cappadocian/Samaritan/Greek miracle-worker of the first century CE.

@OP,
Please kindly send the pdf document to me on t_rafters@yahoo.co.uk. The PDF link you provided is not accessible

Thank you

ok, I will later on...expect it

Whaaaooooo if this lies is working for me I will rather stick to the lies rather than the truth told by a liar that hasnt worked.

Jesus a lie ! I believe you are the liar.

Uyi Iredia: Jesus a lie ! I believe you are the liar.

Seriously, you make your claims even harder with such a weak dismissive resignation.
If I were you, I will rather strife to prove the writer wrong than give such a mentally weak and lazy, straw clutching rebuttal that gives more credence to the facts stated.