The reasons for regarding the four gospels as spurious outweigh the far-fetched justifications for trusting them.  The anonymous authors, the clear example of the story growing legs with every new gospel, the lies about the Old Testament prophecies, the lack of independent studies on them from the time they appeared, all those things point to how inappropriate it is to regard them as valid enough to present to the people for their committed and dedicated faith.

2 Peter 1 has the apostle Peter saying that himself and the other witnesses did not make up myths about the coming of Jesus for they saw his glory on the mountain when God declared Jesus to be his beloved Son who pleased him well. This implies that the apostles never knew Jesus until he started coming to them in visions. There is no reason to hold that this vision took place before the resurrection but it is more likely to have come after. This contradicts the idea that the vision took place before the resurrection which is in the gospels. The letter is saying that it was not a myth that Jesus was seen! He talks as if Jesus was only known in visions and that the gospels are false.

The gospel stories as HG Wells noted are careful about not being too specific as to where and exactly when things happened. And why is there virtually no information about any of the characters from other sources?

One bad thing about believing in the divinity and inspiration of the New Testament is that men long long ago chose the books they wanted to put in it and these men worked without the greater intelligence and methods of scientific investigation that are employed today. To reply that God chose the Bible books that compose the Bible and men only ratified it is really to put men before God because there is nothing to prove that God really chose it. Anybody could say God told them to do this or that.

Christians are not devoted to Jesus at all. They are devoted to what early Christians wrote about him. It is their word about Jesus that is trusted and not Jesus. Jesus is a victim of the Church as much as each member of the Church is. The clergy are in on the hoax too and the theologians undeniably are. What a fantastic way to get control over peoples’ lives. People will always disagree with one another even in the simplest of issues. When Christians are asked to accept all the gospels say that is a sure indication of a desire to manipulate them by getting them to suppress any critical faculties they might have. For example, when Mark said Pilate asked the centurion if Jesus was really dead for he seemed to die too soon he does not name his sources. If the gospel was really from God it would be able to for we cannot stake too much on hearsay or what might be pure invention. 

Bart Ehrman wrote, “Is it just a coincidence that none of the noncanonical writings discovered over the course of the past century embody an orthodox perspective? If orthodoxy was so widespread, why is it that only heterodox documents of the second century have been discovered? The answer to this question leads me to consider why, after all, the Gospel of Judas should be seen as so important”.  He wrote this in his The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot.  To me that is a sign that the gospels did not have great credibility or were not well known.  Or both!


No Copyright