Article from

[{Comments by IN BLUE FONT}]



[{This outrageous statement demands evidence which is never forthcoming in this entire article which must be specifically from Scripture because the author of the article is critiquing the Bible and it must be done via a normative reading which must be faithful to the normative rules of language, context and logic in order to be fair, i.e., how you were supposed to learn to read when you were schooled . Furthermore, it must be directly applicable to the 14 apostles - there were 14 after all. Besides that the author of this article used the words of what the apostles wrote often as if those words were reliable when he has already determined they all were liars - INCREDIBLE!!! - bad logic, poor reasoning}]

The Christian religion 

[{Wrong!! The bible does not teach so called Christian religions which are in accordance with any of the many, many churches, denominations, and unbiblical points of view which people define as their "Christian religion" which this writer evidently means by this term in this article. But most of these do not follow the proper means by which the Bible is to be read either , evidence of which is the innumerable denominations of "Christianity" that differ so radically from one another. And he has in view especially, the Catholic Church which is not Christian at all}]

The Christian religion is based on Jesus Christ being our saviour according to the word of the apostles. 

[{Wait a minute, I thought you entitled this article with a statement that the apostles were all liars. On the other hand the statement above is not always true. It depends upon which "Christian religion" of the innumerable Christian religions are out there and the definition specifically applied to the word "saviour." How about simply reading the Bible properly - one of the many good translations. Get some resources and start being honest by diligently using the normative rules of language, context and logic and leave everyone else's opinions behind }]

Jesus appointed 12 and one went astray and was replaced. Then Paul the most dedicated Christian preacher claimed to be an apostle and to be accepted by the others.

[{Note that not all of the writers of the New Testament were apostles - who wrote Hebrews; who wrote Luke and Acts. Furthermore, much of the New Testament is corroborated without error by the Old Testament, especially prophetic statements as well as the character and actions of the God of the Bible - all of this without any contradiction properly interpreted in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic . Also there is a lot of information that is claimed to be of the so called "Christian religion" by this article and many points that are not in the Bible and thus cannot be critiqued as to being representative of what the Bible says - especially points made in the extra biblical writings of the Roman Catholic Church, or other churches,  which in and of themselves are NOT Christian in the sense of accurately reflecting what the Bible says. The Bible properly interpreted says what it says and must be interpreted properly and examined properly on only what it says in order to provide a legitimate / plausible critique . One cannot impose upon the Bible points arrived at outside the confines of the Bible and then find fault with what is clearly not in the Bible!!! That includes anything extra biblical from the Roman Catholic Church or any church or person regardless of whether or not they are a so called Christian}]


[{On the contrary: THE BIBLE IS WHOLLY RELIABLE!!! when a relatively accurate translation of the Bible is properly read in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic  & & without imposing upon it points that are not even in the Bible or points that are arrived at it by altering or misinterpreting the words]

The apostles and their followers twisted and lied about the Old Testament to make it seem to have predicted their saviour god.

Chapter and verse please with detailed proof / evidence for each and every purported lie. The authors of the so called Old Testament / Hebrew Bible who were not apostles did predict Who their saviour God would be precisely with hundreds of specific predictions. And the writers of the so called New Testament / Greek Bible corroborated these predictions without a single error . Note that most translations capitalize the g in "God" when the Creator God is being referred to. Why not be fair minded and do that so that you are accurately reflecting what the translators intended to convey, regardless of your personal point of view? 

Click on the button which follows and you will have a detailed chart of Old Testament predictions of the Savior God, Jesus Christ and the New Testament fulfillment in astonishing corroborative detail when each New Testament passage is compared to it's Old Testament counterpart. Examine the points and provide evidence that the predictions do or do not point to Jesus Christ whether or not you believe they do . But you must do a thorough unbiased job of observing and reporting. NO EDITING, NO OPINIONS. JUST OBSERVE AND REPORT. Now all you have to do is determine if Jesus actually did do what the Bible says as reported by the New Testament Bible He did do without listening to what someone tells you the bible says READ IT FOR YOURSELF AND DECIDE!!! OBSERVE AND REPORT DON'T EDITORIALIZE!!! There is a vast amount of evidence that the Bible is reliable & }]

The apostles claimed that Jesus rose from the dead and formed a Church. This Church killed Jesus if he lived at all.

[{Jesus indeed lived and died on the cross as testified to in the Bible properly interpreted; and He formed a Church via the work of the Holy Spirit as testified to by a proper reading
of a wholly reliable / non-contradictory Bible. Just pick your favorite translation, most are very trustworthy - even examine a number of translations to assure a better interpretation. So Jesus was crucified / killed before the real church existed - those who trusted alone in Christ alone for salvation unto eternal life to become a part of the Body of Christ the real Church came into being - and hundreds of years before the Catholic Church even began .

There is much testimony that Jesus indeed did live and did rise from the dead throughout the Old and New Testaments as well as in extra biblical accounts . Nothing in the Bible is contradictory, and every verse, every passage, every word properly interpreted corroborates every other word, passage, verse - that's amazing and supernatural. No other book like it! :


****** TABLE OF CONTENTS ******

[click on links below}]





a) CORNELIUS TACITUS (born A. D. 52-54)


c) FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (born A. D. 37)







****** END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS ******}]

The scriptures of this Church say that the apostles did nothing to try and save Jesus from the arrest which led to his death on the cross.

[{Chapter and verse please with detailed proof / evidence. Actually Peter took out his sword and cut some guy's ear off. Jesus stopped him from going further and dying by a Roman sword, (Jn 18:10). Did not Jesus' action set a precedent to the other disciples to let Jesus go to the cross, for it was God's will that He did go. Remember when Jesus prayed about His Father's will be done relative to this matter of dying on the cross for the sins of the whole world? [Lk 22:42]. Could the disciples have done something that might have resulted in Jesus not being crucified for the sins of the whole world, thus destroying God's sovereign mission for the world to have all mankind's sins paid for? Was not this God's decree to have His one and only Son pay the price for the sins of the whole world so that anyone of accountable age might believe and have eternal life? (Jn 3:16 )? Besides this not being part of the disciples' job - to prevent Jesus from being killed; the disciples were afraid and for good reason. Would you have stood up to the Roman authorities and face certain death for something that was not even the disciples' job? Their job was not to prevent Jesus from dying on the cross. Was this not what Jesus predicted would happen even if they had tried to do something about it anyway? Were many of them not martyred for their faith afterward when they were doing their job of presenting the gospel to everyone they had an opportunity to do that to?}]

The book of Acts says that the Holy Spirit came down on the apostles - Christians say this was the birthday of the Church. Even Acts doesn't say that. 

[{If you read more carefully the Bible does indicate that the church began when the Holy Spirit came upon believers beginning about the time of Acts chapters 2 & 3. It does not give you the precise second that it occurred. But not having this precise second does not raise an eyebrow as to the authenticity / reliability of the Bible or the beginning of the Church }]

It is only one testimony and the Bible itself, on God's authority, says one testimony is no good.

[{More than one testimony of the reliability of the Bible is contained within and outside of God's Word. There are 66 books each of which was written by a particular author within the confines of his own independent mindset yet under the inspiration of God often years even generations even hundreds of years apart from the other authors / books which testify / corroborate one another - without a single contradiction or error, which has predicted the future flawlessly thousands of times, all of which indicates that they were all inspired by God. That alone is more than one reliable testimony. There is no book like it in existence especially relative to its reliability and preservation. Besides that there are numerous examples of extra biblical corroboration of the reliability of the Bible! . So get busy reading and doing your own homework instead of letting someone else do your own thinking for you which you evidently have memorized considering the lack of proof of any of your assumptions with not a single verse quoted / examined / explained  }]

Is it too much to say that the Church killed Jesus and then used his memory to gain power and prestige and money and were willing to distort that memory in pursuit of these worldly blessings?

[{The Church did not exist when Jesus was crucified, so it could not have killed Jesus. The true Church, i.e., those who trusted alone in Christ alone for eternal life began after Jesus ascended . Hundreds of years later the Catholic Church, which does not teach the gospel accurately and thereby is not part of the Church at all, not part of the body of Christ, came into existence . And then the Roman Catholic Church did indeed kill many who refused to join it and used anything and everything to gain power and prestige and money and were willing to distort that memory in pursuit of worldly blessings . But that it is NOT the real church as presented in the Bible which the latter comprise all individuals who express a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else for His payment for your sins and for the sins of the whole world, (cf. 1 Jn 2:2) - . In addition to this, no member of the Church is declared in Scripture as blamelesss / perfect. So don't expect perfection from anyone in this life, Christian or non-Christian except Jesus Christ. The best guard against being misled is to study God's Word carefully via a good translation from the original text of God's Word which God the Holy Spirit inspired. }].

The early Church used fear to get money off its convertsThis is admitted by the book of Acts when Peter’s magic murdered Annas and Sapphira. It is theft to scare people into paying.

[{Chapter and verse and explanation please. There was no magic from Peter, nor did he murder anyone. Read what the passage says. Ananias and Sapphira lied to God the Holy Spirit about how much they did voluntarily give and they paid for it with their lives by virtue of the Holy Spirit's action .}] 

St Paul in Romans 2:22 speaks of a Jewish sin of robbing temples. He does not mean pagan temples for any Jewish robberies of temples were too few to even think about. Given the hatred the Jew had for pagan idols the Jew would not go near the temple of a false god anyway.  Robbing temples refers to stealing from donors to the Temple in Jerusalem. 

[{Chapter and verse and explanation please.

Below is an excerpt from Romans chapter 2 study: 


(v. 2:17) Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the Law and brag about your relationship to God; (v. 2:18) if you know His will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the Law." (v. 2:19) if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, (v. 2:20) an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (v. 2:21) you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? (v. 2:22) You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? (v. 2:23) You who brag about the Law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law? (v. 2:24) As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'" =

Verses 2:17 through 24 imply that Jews have a special responsibility to represent God and His righteousness to the world, especially through obedience to the Law which was given to them as God's chosen people which they have largely failed to live up to.

Note that this does not say - represent - those few Jews who were chosen by God to become Jesus' disciples and moreso many Jews, albeit not all Jews who believed in Jesus as the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world would be part of the church along with the Gentiles that believed in order to have forgiveness of sins and eternal life in the Eternal Kingdom of God throughout the years!!! Few men, Jew or non-Jew will choose to believe and even fewer will choose to be faithful. The overall failure of Jews and Gentiles throughout the ages to live up to God's standards as stipulated in the Law of Moses, or at least live up to ones conscience should have led all of them to believe in God's One and only Son in order to receive that gift of eternal life as a gift. But this failure for most men should not be used to condemn the few that do believe so much the more the fewer still who are faithful; nor condemn the Bible which provides the means by which one might be saved. So the purpose of Romans chapter two is not to debunk the Bible but to provide the means by which anyone of accountable age may have eternal life, i.e., residence in the Eternal Kingdom of God through a moment of faith alone in Christ alone}]  

Even today we might speak of robbing Vaticans though there is only one Vatican so the plural means nothing.

[The Vatican / the Catholic Church is not Christian, neither is it mentioned in the Bible and neither is it accurate as to what the Bible teaches especially about what it takes to go to heaven]

Josephus wrote of how Jewish religious leaders stole money given by a rich woman to the Jerusalem Temple. Jesus called the temple a den of thieves. Maybe the apostles as Jews were robbing the temple too in some way! 

[Irrelevant to what the Bible teaches. Jesus was calling the leaders of the Temple a den of thieves, not the apostles or all Jews. And He was not condemning the Temple itself!!! That Temple is God's Temple. It does not belong to the Jews. Your statement "Maybe the apostles as Jews were robbing the temple too in some way!" is irrelevant. It's guesswork. The Bible does not even hint at the apostles being thieves except Judas Isacariot. By dint of your thinking God and Jesus are guilty by association with the Temple and the ruling authority of the Temple who were Jews and who did abuse their authority!!! . For was not the Temple God's House? Did He not have the people of Israel build it? Did not Jesus participate in services in the Temple?? Did not Jesus call the Temple, "My Father's house?" (Jn 2:16)

Paul compares the sin to worshipping idols for that is stealing the worship due to God and giving it to something else.

[Amen. But where are the verses that you use to determine this?]

The apostles used the resurrection of Jesus to present themselves as witnesses of God and his gospel. 

[Were not their words accurate about Jesus' resurrection as fully corroborated with one another in Scripture and elsewhere without one single contradiction? Was not their job to "use" in the sense of sharing with others what they knew about the resurrection because they were indeed witnesses of God and His gospel. So what is your point? Many who were not apostles such as Luke also shared their testimony about Who Jesus was, that He died on the cross for all mankind and that trusting in Him for that will provide eternal life including me! ]

But Jesus himself said that the Law and the Prophets were so convincing that even a messenger of God rising from the dead would not be as good (Luke 16). They all knew fine well that these books were not that convincing.

[Wow. Where did you learn to read? It says the opposite!! The Scriptures are verv very clear on this issue. And if one cannot get the message from them, then even if one were to be raised up from the dead to tell them, they still would not believe the message!!! 

(Lk 16:16 NKJV) "The law and the prophets were [proclaimed] until John [the Baptist]. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

(Lk 16:17 NKJV) And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail."

Where in these verses do you get that the Law and the Prophets were so convincing that people could keep the Law perfectly and be qualified to go to heaven??? The Law and the Jewish rulers were demanding that every one had to keep the Law perfectly or you would not get into the Kingdom of God. But to perfectly keep the Law is impossible for any man. That's what the next verse says!!!!! So verse 16 simply says that the [Mosaic] Law and the Prophets were proclaimed in the sense of preached as the standard by which one might enter the kingdom of God if they kept it perfectly; because in the next verse the issue is that one cannot fail one small thing in the Law or you will not attend that kingdom. Now that is not very convincing to me, for I must be perfect or be eternally condemned! But there is another way to heaven. The Law and the Prophets do provide another means by which one might be saved: a moment of faith alone in Christ alone. Ever heard of Abraham, Adam & Eve? They were given the alternative way in which one might have eternal life in the Eternal Kingdom of God: a moment of faith alone in the Seed of the Woman / the Seed of Abraham, Who is Jesus Christ .

(Lk 16:27 NKJV) "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 

(Lk 16:28 NKJV) for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'

(Lk 16:29 NKJV) Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'

(Lk 16:30 NKJV) And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'

(Lk 16:31 NKJV) But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "

So Abraham is telling the man who is in Torments and destined for the Lake of Fire that the Scriptures are so clear that the only way to heaven is through a moment of faith alone in Christ alone - the Seed of the woman, the descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jesus Christ which is clearly and repeatedly presented in the Old Testament, i.e., Moses and the prophets (especially Isaiah), that if one were not persuaded by reading the Old Testament, one would not be persuaded through one risen from the dead. His stubborness sealing his eternal fate in condemnation.}]

How could the apostles be witnesses when we have only their word for it that Jesus said they were?

[{Not all of the authors of the Bible are apostles. It is not the title or office of the author but the actual words each author wrote that testify to the reliability of the Bible. There can be found no contradictions and much corroboration without error and perfect fulfillment of prophecy so far. If you take the time to read the bible properly you will find this to be true. So the author's claims to represent Christ and God are trustworthy.


Upon careful examination of the Bible it becomes evident that the authors who wrote every word exclusively utilized the normative rules of language, context and logic. In the absence of evidence anywhere in the Bible or elsewhere that it is to be interpreted with a specialized set of rules outside of what man - to whom the Bible was written - would normally expect; and in view of the evidence that a strict adherence to the normative rules of language, context and logic produces the most trustworthy, non-contradictory, immutable, consistent interpretation; we must thereupon follow the writers' plan of how to interpret their work of the Bible.


Had the apostles been sincere they would have done their utmost to provide character references and affidavits to support their claims and would have written as much as they could and ensured that their material would be preserved. They did not. They acted as if they didn’t care if the Church survived them long or not and that is a clue about their insincerity. God could not tell them how to guarantee that their papers would be with us forever so they were not in touch with the Holy Spirit at all. Jesus said that anybody who cannot be trusted in little things cannot be trusted in greater. And yet his apostles did not prove themselves worthy of trust.

[The authors - all of them by careful and proper examination of their words were indeed sincere. They do not need character references from anyone but God the Holy Spirit. Their words speak for themselves. Their references and affadavits from ancient peoples who might not even be believers today would be so old as not to be of any value in this age EXCEPT FOR ONE - the evidence that they indeed were led by / inspired by God the Holy Spirit because of the supernatural quality of their writings which have no contradictions, no errors within their work(s) nor as compared with any of the other books of the Bible. Furthermore, what was preserved was by far the greatest of any writings on the face of the planet  .

The gospel of John says that Thomas and the apostles went with Jesus to the place where Lazarus was buried believing that they would die with Jesus for their enemies were going crackers. This is plain fanaticism for we read later that Thomas and the others were unable to believe that Jesus really rose from the dead. And we are expected to be impressed by the fact that the apostles allegedly died for their faith in Jesus’ resurrection.

[I didn't know they had crackers in those days??? Your claims are absurd and irrational. All Christians are not perfect and often immature and rash especially at the beginning of their faith. So Thomas gets a vote for immaturity and rashness. Yet later when faced with imminent death he was martyred. 

John 11:14-17 (NKJV)
14  Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead.
15  And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe. Nevertheless let us go to him."
16  Then Thomas, who is called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with Him."

Or would you become the hypocrite? No believer is perfect. BTW Thomas was martyred - and for a good and godly cause, wouldn't you say - if the Bible properly read is indeed trustworthy. We are not yet transformed into perfect beings. By they way, if your cause is a good one, or a great one, why not become a fanatic? Is there anything wrong with putting yourself on the line for you fellow soldiers in battle??? Audey Murphy comes to mind.]


If we can prove that the apostles and the four gospellers, who claimed to be preserving the doctrine of the apostles, were liars we have done all we need to do to show that Christianity is just a man-made scam. The Christian religion is based on them. Jesus supposedly left the apostles to teach us and if they cannot be trusted then he failed. He was a useless Son of God if he couldn’t preserve his message.


Upon careful examination of the Bible it becomes evident that the authors who wrote every word exclusively utilized the normative rules of language, context and logic. In the absence of evidence anywhere in the Bible or elsewhere that it is to be interpreted with a specialized set of rules outside of what man - to whom the Bible was written - would normally expect; and in view of the evidence that a strict adherence to the normative rules of language, context and logic produces the most trustworthy, non-contradictory, immutable, consistent interpretation; we must thereupon follow the writers' plan of how to interpret their work of the Bible.


Furthermore the preservation of the bible is superior to all writings by far: [ ]

Matthew, Mark and Luke lied when they said Jesus was the Son of God despite reporting that Jesus when accused of casting out demons by the devil’s power said that the devil cannot have a kingdom if he casts out his own demons which was ridiculous for the demons might be more useful elsewhere.

 [Luke 11:17-20 (NKJV)
17  But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls.
18  If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? Because you say I cast out demons by Beelzebub.
19  And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.
20  But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Jesus gave a twofold response. First, He said it would be ridiculous for Satan to drive out his own demons, for then he would be weakening his position and kingdom. Second, Jesus pointed out the double standard of those who were accusing Him. If their followers drove out demons, they claimed it was done by the power of God. Thus since Jesus cast out demons, it too must be by God's finger, that is, His power. Therefore the kingdom of God has come to you]

 We also have the abuse of Old Testament texts which were not even intended to be prophecies twisted into prophecies of Jesus. For example, Matthew said that a prophecy about a maiden giving birth to a son she will call Emmanuel and a prophecy about Rachel weeping for her children predicted the birth of Jesus and the massacre of the innocents. Neither prophecy he quoted does that at all. 

[Here is a study done of a number of alleged contradictions in the bible 

(Isa 7:14 YLT) "Therefore the Lord Himself [is giving] to you [plural, i.e., Judah] a sign, [behold], the Virgin [the pregnant one] [the one giving birth to] a son, And she [has called] his name Immanuel.

(Isa 7:14 Hebrew) "lkn ..........ithn ................adni ............eua .l-km ..........auth .ene

..............................."therefore he-shall-give he .......sign .behold

e-olme.................... ere ..................u-ildth ..u-grath ................shm-u

the-maiden/virgin .pregnant-one and-one-giving-birth .son and-she-has called .name-of-him



Note that the Child in the prophecy of Isa 7:14-16 is stipulated as having been given birth to by "the Virgin" with the definite article - the pregnant one, (noun), the one giving birth (participle for noun) to a Son. And she [has called] His name Immanuel, [lit., Immanu~El or God is with us]." The LXX, (Septuagint = Greek version of the Hebrew Text] translators used the unambiguous word 'parthenos' ('virgin') to translate 'almAh' rendered "virgin" in the NKJV. This Hebrew word transliterated "almAh" refers to a young woman of marriagable age implying virginity. It evidently comes from the concept of a young maiden / woman being closely guarded and kept from men's gaze in their parents' custody in the East - which implies virginity. So the verse points to the unique, one of a kind maiden / virgin the pregnant one who gives birth to the Child Whom she would call Immanuel meaning God is with us which excludes sexual intercourse, otherwise she could not be stipulated as the maiden / virgin. There is no clear OT example of the use of 'almAh' for a married woman.}]

and a prophecy about Rachel weeping for her children predicted the birth of Jesus and the massacre of the innocents. Neither prophecy he quoted does that at all. 

[{Now let's carefully consider Rachel:

(Jer 31:15 NASB) "Thus says the LORD, 'A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more."

Rachel, the wife of Jacob, was Joseph and Benjamin's mother, hence she is the ancestress of the three tribes Ephraim, Manasseh, (these two tribes through Joseph), and the tribe of Benjamin, (Gen 37:1-50:26). She had so desired children that while she had not yet conceived, she considered herself dead without them, (Gen 30:1). So the loss of her son Joseph (thought to have been killed by a wild animal) was a highly mournful experience for her and Jacob, (Gen 37:33-35). Before she could arrive in Egypt to be reunited with her son, Joseph, she died on the way with Jacob at Ephrat, (Bethlehem), (Gen 48:7). Joseph was the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, who became the two major tribes in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Rachel's other son, Benjamin also left for Egypt to join his brothers. So Jeremiah wrote in Jer 31:15 that Rachel was weeping, in a figurative sense, because of the loss of her descendant / children through her immediate two sons, who were killed or taken into captivity over the years. For the two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh via Joseph, more than the rest of the nation, suffered exile at the hands of the Assyrians in the aftermath of the defeat of 721 B.C. So Rachel lost her children more than did Leah, Bilhah or Zilpah (cf. Gen. 29-30). Hence Jeremiah was portraying the weeping of Rachel to be symbolic of the women of the Northern Kingdom as they watched their children being carried off into exile in 722 B.C. Much of the rest of the nation already had been separated off from Israel before that final defeat and deportation. Nevertheless, Jeremiah might also have had the 586 B.C. deportation of Judah in view because Ramah was the staging point for Nebuchadnezzar's deportation which Jeremiah himself was in that camp for exiles in Ramah (Jer 40:1). Since Rachel was also the mother of Benjamin, then the Babylonian captivity would also be in view because those in Ramah were Benjamites, descendants of her son, Benjamin. For Ramah of Judah was on the border of the terrritory of Benjamin with Ephraim, of the Northern Kingdom, Israel; and Rachel had passed near Ramah; she herself died not far away, at Ephrat (Bethlehem). So Jeremiah figuratively referred to Rachel's voice in Ramah weeping for all of her descendant children killed or taken into captivity throughout the centuries due to Israel's unfaithfulness.

Finally, Rachel will figuratively weep all the more in view of Israel's future and unparalleled losses at the time of Jacob's Trouble, (Jer 30:7 ). Now let's relate this to Mt 2:17-18}

Matthew 2:17-18 (NASB)
17  Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:


and a prophecy about Rachel weeping for her children predicted the birth of Jesus and the massacre of the innocents. Neither prophecy he quoted does that at all.

Christians answer that they were prophecies in a figurative sense but where does Matthew say that? The gospels were written to defend the faith and to do that it is best to ignore figurative prophecies unless you are desperate. Anyway figurative prophecies could mean anything and are an indication that the person interpreting them is gullible.

[{Study to show yourself approved. Do it properly :

Matthew 2:16-18 (NASB)
16  Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.
17  Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:

In what sense was Herod's slaughter of the babies (Matt. 2:17-18) a "fulfillment" of Jeremiah 31:15? Jeremiah pointed to an Old Testament deportation of children from a town north of Jerusalem; Matthew used the passage [figuratively] to explain the New Testament slaughter of children in a village south of Jerusalem. The answer to the problem hinges on Matthew's use of the word "fulfilled" (plēroō). Though Matthew did use the word to record an actual fulfillment of an Old Testament prediction (cf., e.g., Matt. 21:4-5 with Zech. 9:9), he also used the word to indicate something comparable in the Old Testament had been realized (cf. Matt. 3:15; 5:17). In these latter instances there is no prophetic significance to the word "fulfill," which is how Matthew used the word to associate the slaughter in Bethlehem with the comparable sadness in Ramah. Matthew used Jeremiah 31:15 in his book (Matt. 2:17-18) to explain the sadness of the mothers of Bethlehem. The pain of those mothers in Ramah who watched their sons being carried into exile was comparable with the cries of the mothers of Bethlehem who cradled their sons' lifeless bodies in their arms.}]


[The question is not if the apostles were capable of religious fraud, because all men in the mortal bodies are flawed. The question is, based on a proper interpretation of the Bible, did any one of them actually commit fraud?]

Jesus appointed twelve apostles, that is, chief witnesses that he was the Son of God as shown by his return from the dead (Acts 1). The word apostle means one sent. In 1 Corinthians 12 we read that apostleship is the first or chief office in the Church and that not all are apostles. Because the apostles were witnesses to the faith they were the foundation that the Church was built on (Ephesians 2:20).

[{Please provide a careful examination of these passages to prove out your points so that your readers don't have to take your word for it. Don't be a bad example of how you learned by trusting in others unsubstantiated points of view}]

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

[{Justin Martyr was not an apostle, nor one who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write one of the books of God's Word. Why not simply post what the Bible says on this issue? And why do you say that the apostles had no need to lie about knowing Jesus? They did what they did whether or not you think they needed to do this or not. How many times have you failed in your life before God? Did their denial destroy His - Christ's - mission? Did their denial completely destroy their mission after that? or Christ's mission to be a proptiation for the sins of the whole world, (1 Jn 2:2)}]

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

[{My name is Robert, also my name is Bob. Am I deceptive?? I am also known as Berto or formally "Roberto" when I am with my Hispanic friends. Am I a liar???? Try living in the Middle East where languages are quite different from one another like Greek vs Hebrew vs Aramaic, and many more, etc. People often go by several names due to differences in language, and personal choices. That is not deceptive at all. Jesus was called a number of things, the Word, the Light, the Way, the Truth, the Life, Savior, Mastor, the Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God. Were those names deceptive, or lies????}]

According to Making Life Count Ministries P.O. Box 680174 Prattville, Alabama 36068

So why do the Lists of Disciples Have Different Names? The disciples are also known as “the twelve” (Matt. 26:14, John 6:67, 20:24, 1 Cor. 15:5). Some lists have the proper name while others use the surname. Jude and Thaddaeus are the same individual. Matthew was also known as Levi. Peter was also Simon, Cephas, and Bar-jona (Son of Jonah). Nathanael and Bartholomew are the same person. Nathanael is his proper name and Bartholomew is his surname. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all list Philip and Bartholomew as disciples, while John mentions Philip and Nathanael. 

The Twelve / Other name(s)

1. Simon Peter / Cephas, Bar-jona 

2. Andrew 

3. John 

4. Philip 

5. James, son of Zebedee 

6. Nathanael / Bartholomew 

7. Thomas Didymus, which means “the twin” 

8. Matthew / Levi 

9. Simon the Zealot 

10. Jude / Thaddaeus / Lebbaeus (Matt.10:3 KJV) 

11. James, son of Alpheus 

12. Judas Iscariot}]

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

[{Explain. The New Testament Bible was written in the latter half of the 1st century, James around 62 AD. He couldn't find gossip in the NT until it was written, could he? Where in the NT do you find gossip. Prove your case.}]

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

[Chapter and verse and evidence please. BTW all are sinners. Albeit the context implies that Jesus was more negative toward those sinners who claimed to be righteous on their own accord. He cared for all mankind because He died for all mankind. To chastize someone for thinking they are righteous is not to say you care less for them. Someone has to knock self-righteous people off their perch so they can humble themselves and believe in Christ's payment for their sins and be saved. How about you? Do you think you don't need a Savior? There seems to be a bit of self-righteousness in you. You evidently think you don't have any problem with your behavior before God??? This does not mean that I have more compassion for others who admit they need a Savior. But you don't need compassion at this time, you need to be knocked down off your high horse - it won't jump you into heavenly places. Faith in Christ's payment for your shortcomings will]

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

[{Chapter and verse please. Prove your case. Where does Scripture say that the apostles practiced Judiasm in order to gain eternal life? Was their message that one must keep the Law as the Pharisees preached in order to gain eternal life or was it, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that salvation is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works - not by any rules of behavior like the Mosaic Law - so that no one can boast [about their own righteousness such as keeping the Law], (cf. Eph 2:8-9). What book are you reading??? Not the Bible. What passage says that Jesus encouraged Jewish devotion??? What passage indicates that Jesus showed that He was a true son of Satan, or tried to set up His own brand of sectarian Judaism? You are talking nonsense. Chapter and verse please. His message was Who He is and what He did on the cross - believe in the Son of God and His sacrifice for the sins of the world and you have eternal life, (Jn 3:16). That is not a sect of Judaism, it is the gospel of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, even the gospel of Adam and Eve from the beginning of when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. Jesus was killed because He claimed to be God and He is, (Jn 10:33)}]

Jesus and the apostles let Judas carry their purse though Judas was regularly stealing from it (John 12:16). And then they preached honesty and condemned tempting others.                              

[How does Judas stealing lead to Jesus and the apostles preaching dishonesty and tempting others? Wasn't Judas responsible for his own wrong doing???]

They must have told that he did this if it is true proving that they expected people to listen to them telling them not to reveal the secret faults of others while they did that themselves. What frauds they were! It is more likely that they let it happen for they would not have been gullible enough to think that the money was falling out or anything.

[Can you subtantiate any of this? Judas was a thief. Where is anyone else responsible for Judas' wrong doing? Where does it say one should not reveal that Judas was stealing? Where does it say that Jesus and the apostles were responsible for Judas' wrong doing? Why not step up the crime to murder? And how is it more likely that Jesus and the apostles let it happen because they were not so gullible enough to think that the money was falling out of the money box?

What does John 12:16 (NASB) have to do with Judas stealing money from the disciples' purse???? I think you meant John 12:6

John 12:3-6 (NASB)
3  Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4  But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, *said,
5  "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?"
6  Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.

12:6. John with the hindsight of history was able to state why Judas said this. Judas, evidently the group's treasurer (cf. 13:29), would pocket some of the benevolence money for himself. Whereas Mary gave openly and sacrificially, Judas wanted to hoard money for himself secretly and selfishly. He even betrayed Jesus for money—30 pieces of silver (the price of a gored slave; cf. Ex. 21:32; Zech. 11:12-13).

The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty}].

The Christians scoff at the miracles in non-Christian scriptures but don’t complain about the writer of 2 Peter being credulous when he declared that a donkey spoke like a human according to the Old Testament but they use the writer to defend their claims about Jesus. 

[{Christians do a lot of wrong things and right things. Some who claim to be Christians are not. What does that matter. No believer can claim to lead a perfect, sinless life.}]

It is tragic that history and reason and fairness have to be sacrificed so that Christians can compliment themselves on the great Jesus they follow for in following him they follow what they want him to be so it is all about themselves. It’s selfish in the horrible sense of the word.

[{You don't evidently know what the Bible says that entails following Jesus. First and foremost it means to focus on the welfare of others as He did. That's called agape / self-sacrificial love. Although believers / Christians cannot follow His example by dying on the cross in order to pay for the penalty of the sins of all mankind which includes you - only He can do that and He did ; there are multiple commands throughout the "New Testament" letters that believers are to endeavor to obey through studying God's Word and following the leading of God the Holy Spirit within them in order that others may benefit; especially in order that they might hear what one must do to have a glorious eternal life in eternity by simply believing in His payment for your sins, . What is selfish about that?? Might I suggest you begin reading carefully studying the letters in the New Testament to see what God would have you do in order to follow Jesus}]

The Bible says that Jesus’ followers and admirers were accused of fraud and wickedness by the Jews. 

[{Chapter and verse please. Accusing someone of something does not make it true, does it? You need to present evidence from a properly interpreted passage in God's Word. Jesus Himself was falsely accused by the Jews.}]

If so then there are far better grounds for disbelieving the Bible tale of Jesus than for accepting it. 

[{So stipulate the passage(s), quote them out, examine them properly and make your case}]

There were hundreds of negative and hostile testimonies from the critics 

[{Name some of these critics. Making negative and hostile testimonies does not make what those testimonies say true. Define negative and hostile testimony. Evidence needs to be properly provided. Make your case}]

and only five from believers. 

These are the gospels and the book of Acts. 

[{Why leave out the rest of the New Testament. There is nothing throughout the New Testiment that is negative and hostile to what the Bible says.}]

Jesus’ followers were mainly interested in his faith healing and we know too little about the apostles to hold that they were all agreed about the story of Jesus. 

{[Who are you referring to when you write "Jesus' followers." It could mean people who were interested in Him for reasons that were not to become a disciple. For example, some that wanted to be healed, fed, know more about Him, wondering if He was the Messiah / Savior to come; or to be a disciple, etc., etc. This phrase is too vague to mean anything definitive. So many people who followed Jesus around as He performed healings did so so that they might themselves be healed of some ailment. BTW it was not predominately faith healing, just a supernatural healing often whether or not one believed. We can know what the four gospel writers believed about Jesus by carefully studying their writings. In addition we can know what the epistle writers believed about Jesus by carefully studying their writings. By virtue of detailed study of these writings comparing them carefully - all 27 of them - we find that there is not a single point at which they contradicted one another about Who Jesus is and what He did when they came to a "final" understanding of Jesus when He appeared to them in His resurrection body. 

Still, you have crazy clergy saying the apostles must have been telling the truth when nobody debunked them!

[{So stipulate the passage(s), quote them out, examine them properly and make your case in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic. If you can't or won't then you are like a passing wind who needs to represent a worthy cause properly and not make a fool out of yourself. Who cares about crazy clergy saying anything. What does Scripture say???? People like yourself have been debunking the Bible, Jesus Christ, God, gods of all religions, etc., etc. for ages. What do you care what some crazy person says. Read it for yourself. What does Scripture say. Isn't it interesting that the Bible does not contradict itself on any issue including perfectly fulfilled prophecy without one error so far ; and is wholly plausible when it comes to the provable / reliable events that can be verified by objective examination }]

The Christian religion is unable to give adequate verification of any of its claims. 

[{Yes it does - perfectly. Start reading / studying like you learned in grammar school: }]

For example, we know we have to accept the simplest explanation we can find. 

[{Some things are simple and some things are complicated. It's all about context, context context. Do you remember when you learned to read in elementary school??? Try going to the moon in a weather balloon}]

If the gospels are convincing (they are not - an empty tomb and apparitions afterwards of the person who had been in the tomb still does not prove a resurrection) in relation to their claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead it is easier to believe that the miracle is in the credibility of the records and not in the miracle of resurrection. 

[{You evidently have not studied the gospels very well; if at all. Start at the beginning and work your way through a gospel verse by verse, explaining what you observe point by point by point. Don't skip around or impose you own understanding. Simply read the words in the sentences and context they are contained in and report what you observe - add nothing, omit nothing. Then determine once your work of reporting what you observe is plausible / believable. You have not quoted a single verse's words in this entire article, much less explain what you observe the verse saying }]

The plausibility of the records only means that the records are plausible not that they are correct. 

[{That which is plausible is more likely to be true than that which is not plausible. There are one time events that are not repeatable. Hence one must do an examination on the basis of the normative rules of language, context and logic which will prove out which interpretation of the facts is most plausible and then how that explanation matches up with those events which preceed and follow it. We go on plausibility value every day. Very little is certain in this life. The bible properly interpreted has a supernatural quality because it never contradicts itself properly interpreted especially relative to prophecy and doctrinal / teachings which corroborate themselves perfectly old and new testaments.}]

Something rather different from an actual resurrection could have been what really happened. Then some forces set to work to guide writers to tell a story that supported a resurrection story and was believable. The lesser miracle of psychic guidance of the writers is what should be accepted not the huge miracle of resurrection.

[{ Not so. There is overwhelming evidence that supports the resurrection from the dead of Jesus - from eyewitness reports to corroborated testimony of the Bible writers:  }]

Christians argue that the gospels must be historically true when they teach that such a stupid and untrustworthy bunch of people bore witness to the resurrection and to Jesus. They think that nobody would have invented the stuff about them. But maybe the authors did not realise the folly of doing this or saw the advantages it brings. 

[{We don't care what Christians say; but what does Scripture say. Prove that "a stupid and untrustworthy bunch of people bore witness to the resurrection and to Jesus," whatever that means? They reported what they reported. Not one point contradicted another. People throughout this nearly 2,000 year old Church Age period have had ample opportunity to find testimony, witnesses, corroborating written evidence that Jesus was never resurrected to no avail . The Bible has far more evidence / testimony corroborating it then any other event in history.

In the nineteenth century, Joseph Smith claimed that he tried to deceive the angel Moroni and get the Golden Bible off him to sell it and his visions were certainly hoaxes regardless. He told this lie to make his story more believable to the stupid. When a religion thrives regardless of the failings of the founders which has happened all the time why not admit or invent those failings? Admitting or inventing the failings actually can help!

[{True Biblical Christianity has barely survived. Only a remnant number of believers has survived throughout the ages beginning with Adam and Eve. Just compare the doctrinal statements of the many denominations. Hardly any of them stipulate that salvation unto eternal life, i.e., becoming a Christian is solely via a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else}]

Please don’t argue that when such a bunch of apostles had so many holes in their brand of religious testimony that it must be true for that would mean that the liar is more reliable than the honest person.

[{ Chapters and verses please. Stipulate a number of these "holes" / "brands of religious testimony" that are located IN THE BIBLE not in your own opinion.}]

The apostles were capable of religious fraud. 
I could write for a month on the lies of the apostles but they told plenty and certainly were not fit to be witnesses of the so-called Christ or anybody else for that matter.

 [{Apostles are flawed and capable of sin. Where in the bible can you find where an apostle committed religious fraud?}]

Only a fool would trust in apostolic teaching. The Christians claim to be the apostolic Church. They thereby call themselves liars.

[{Only a fool would trust what someone tells them the Bible says without studying it themselves and then write articles like this one which magnifies how ignorant you are of what the Bible actually says. You don't have to believe in the Bible but at least be honest and read / no study it especially if you call people pjorative names for believing what it actually says because they actually read the Bible properly and don't agree with your interpretation. Do your own homework and study it for yourself. You did not quote / explain a single word from the bible in this study!!!! There is a plethora of evidence that the Bible is wholly trustworthy   &   when properly read . By the way the Bible was not only written by apostles but also by the authors of Hebrews, Luke and Acts in the New Testament which fully corroborates the writers of the Old Testament who were not all apostles or prophets. The testimony of the Bible lies in its inerrancy and fulfilled prophecy and it's reliability   &   }]