Tag: Christianity

Voltaire once declared, “The Bible is filled with contradictions, follies, and horrors.” If God’s word were truly perfect, it would be universal, unchangeable, and flawless—qualities only nature itself possesses. Yet the Bible falls short on every count, riddled with human flaws that reveal it as a product of ancient minds, not divine perfection.

Neither Perfect nor Universal

The Bible is neither perfect nor universal, having been written by and for a small Middle Eastern nation over centuries, reflecting their specific cultural and tribal concerns rather than timeless truths. It brims with contradictions, historical errors, myths, and clear immorality that no divine authorship could produce. Far from unchangeable, it has endured countless edits, deliberate corruptions, mistranslations, and scribal alterations across manuscripts and languages. God did not pen a single word of it—men like Moses, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Paul did, each bringing their own biases and agendas. It’s not a single book but a disparate library of clashing perspectives from dozens of authors, none aligning into a singular divine view, proving its human origins through and through.

The Bible Contradicts Itself

Genesis exemplifies this chaos with two irreconcilable creation accounts stemming from different ancient source traditions. Genesis 1 unfolds in six precise days: light on day one, sky on day two, land and plants on day three, sun and stars on day four, birds and fish on day five, land animals and humans last on day six, male and female created together. Plants appear before humans or animals. Genesis 2 flips it entirely: man formed first from dust, then plants and garden, animals named by man afterward, woman last from his rib. No shrubs exist before man due to lack of rain; birds and animals come after him. Genesis 1 uses “Elohim” in formal, cosmic style; Genesis 2 shifts to intimate “YHWH Elohim.”

Jesus’s birth fares no better across Matthew and Luke, whose nativity stories clash irreconcilably on location details, visitors, travel, events, timing, and lineage that cannot coexist as literal history. Matthew places it in a Bethlehem house visited by Magi bearing royal gifts, guided by a star—no inn, manger, or shepherds—followed by Herod massacring infants and the family fleeing to Egypt. Luke insists on a stable manger due to no inn room, angels heralding shepherds to the newborn—no Magi or star—with a census dragging the Nazareth family to Bethlehem around 6 CE, temple rites, and direct return home, ignoring Herod who died by 4 BCE. Genealogies diverge wildly: Matthew traces 41 generations through Solomon’s royal line; Luke offers 77 via Nathan, names clashing post-David.

Judas’s death adds yet another irreconcilable clash between Matthew and Acts, Luke’s sequel, differing on method, motive, field ownership, timing, and aftermath in ways that expose incompatible traditions. Matthew depicts Judas hanging himself in remorse after confessing his sin and hurling back 30 silver pieces, which the priests then use to buy a potter’s field fulfilling prophecy. Acts claims he buys the field himself with blood money before falling headlong there, his body bursting open with guts spilling out—no repentance mentioned, just greedy acquisition and divine judgment as a Satan-possessed traitor.

The Bible is Morally Deficient

The Bible is also morally deficient, endorsing or regulating acts that offend modern conscience and conflict with any claim to perfect morality. Deuteronomy 20:16–17 and Joshua 6:21 command the annihilation of entire Canaanite cities—men, women, children, and even animals—to suppress idolatry. 1 Samuel 15:3 instructs Saul to wipe out the Amalekites completely, including infants. Numbers 31 records the slaughter of Midianite boys and non-virgin women, while virgin girls are taken as captives.

Slavery, too, is regulated rather than condemned: Exodus 21:20–21 permits the beating of slaves if they survive a day; Leviticus 25:44–46 allows permanent ownership of foreign slaves; and Ephesians 6:5 tells slaves to obey their masters as they would Christ.

Likewise, the Bible endorses patriarchy. Women are subjected to male authority: Ephesians 5:22–24 commands wives to submit to their husbands in everything, and 1 Timothy 2:11–12 forbids women to teach or hold authority over men.

Forgeries in the Bible

Forgeries are widespread throughout the New Testament. Critical scholars have identified several key texts as pseudepigraphal—works falsely attributed to apostles to secure authority amid later church controversies. Second Peter (c. 80–120Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.CE) is widely regarded as such, written decades after Peter’s death around 64Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.CE. Its polished Greek contrasts sharply with the simpler, Aramaic-influenced style of First Peter; it borrows heavily from Jude; it went uncited by early church fathers such as Irenaeus; and it contains historical anachronisms, like treating Paul’s letters as an already fixed body of “Scripture,” while also claiming eyewitness experiences that don’t align with Peter’s lifetime.

The Pastoral Epistles (1–2Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.Timothy and Titus, c.Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.90–110Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.CE) show similar signs of later authorship: their vocabulary is unusually advanced, they describe formal bishop-led church structures unknown in authentic Pauline letters, and they reflect theological concerns—especially anti-Gnostic polemics—that arose only after Paul’s era. They also assume a settled New Testament canon and lack strong early attestation.

The Ebionites

The Ebionites were likely the original followers of Jesus—Jewish Christians who strictly observed the Torah and saw themselves as preserving his authentic message. They rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. Accepting only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, they rejected the other gospels and epistles that promoted Paul’s grace-over-law theology. Their existence suggests that early, Torah-faithful Christianity was gradually displaced as the proto-orthodox movement gained power by marginalizing these original Jewish followers of Jesus.

The Gnostics

By now everybody has heard about the Gnostic Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and others from Nag Hammadi, which offer alternative visions of Jesus emphasizing secret knowledge (gnosis), spiritual enlightenment over blind faith, and a divine spark trapped in matter—texts that early church fathers like Irenaeus condemned as heretical yet which rival the canonical gospels in antiquity and provide diverse insights into Jesus’s teachings suppressed by the winners of Christianity’s canon wars.

The Canon

Marcion, labeled a heretic, birthed the first known canon around 140 CE: a truncated Luke and ten Pauline epistles, rejecting the Old Testament entirely as the work of an inferior Demiurge creator god distinct from Jesus’s loving Father. This highlights early Christianity’s profound diversity, with the 27 New Testament books chosen not universally but by one victorious branch called proto-orthodox amid rival groups. Athanasius first listed those exact 27 in his 367 CE Easter Letter, ratified regionally at Hippo (393 CE) and Carthage (397 CE) under Augustine, yet disagreements lingered. Even today, Protestant Bibles contain 66 books, Catholic Bibles have 73 with deuterocanonicals, Eastern Orthodox include 76-79 varying by jurisdiction, and the Ethiopian Orthodox totals 81—which one truly represents God’s authorized word?

Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

Bart Ehrman documents numerous orthodox corruptions of Scripture to combat “heresies,” with a standout example in Luke 3:22 at Jesus’ baptism: older Latin manuscripts and patristic quotes from Irenaeus read “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” (echoing Psalm 2:7, supporting Adoptionist views of Jesus becoming divine at baptism), found in the Gospel of the Ebionites, Western Greek text-types, Old Latin manuscripts, and quoted by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and even Augustine. This widespread early attestation from Rome to Palestine suggests it dominated 2nd-4th centuries before scribes deliberately changed it to the orthodox-friendly “in you I am well pleased” across the Greek tradition to enforce Trinitarian Christology from the start.

Textual Criticism

Textual criticism reveals massive instability: fewer than 10 Greek New Testament manuscripts from the first four centuries contain any complete books, and those that do show no two agreeing fully, with fragments riddled by variants. By the 16th century, when Christianity dominated, approximately 5,800 Greek manuscripts survive, but multiplying copies only multiplies errors through scribal mistakes, intentional changes, and harmonizations. As Bart Ehrman notes, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” Defenders claim no major doctrines change, yet examples abound: 1 Timothy 3:16 shifts from “God was manifest in the flesh” (KJV, supporting deity of Christ) to “He appeared in the flesh” (NIV); 1 John 5:7 drops the explicit Trinity formula “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJV) for “For there are three that testify” (NIV).

Translation

Over 900 English translations and paraphrases exist, from Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament to modern versions like NIV, ESV, and NLT, all differing in wording, phrasing, or interpretation—even on core doctrines like salvation, hell, and Jesus’s nature—proving even expert translators and scholars can’t agree on what the Bible means, as each version tweaks thousands of verses to fit theological biases or linguistic updates.

Greatest Communicator?

If a truly supreme intelligence personally inspired the Bible as its greatest communicator, wouldn’t it guarantee crystal-clear, unambiguous communication immune to 2,000 years of fatal misinterpretation, bloody wars like the Crusades and Inquisitions, and endless doctrinal schisms over baptism, predestination, and the eucharist? Instead, we face irreconcilable contradictions, moral horrors, forgeries, plus over 900 mutually divergent English translations alone, each altering key verses—this isn’t divine perfection but the messy fingerprint of human authors, editors, scribes, and agendas across cultures and eras, proving the Bible bears the unmistakable mark of man, not God.

Conclusion

Adding up all this evidence—contradictions, immorality, forgeries, corruptions, textual variants, translation chaos—one can only conclude that the Bible is not God’s word. The truth is that God gave us reason, not revelation. The sooner we ditch these bronze-age ideas, the sooner we can embrace the path of enlightenment expressed by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Voltaire.

Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night… For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (Luke 2:8, 11 NKJV).

Jesus is widely regarded by historians as a historical figure, though details of his life and the circumstances of his birth remain subjects of scholarly discussion. What is generally agreed upon, however, is that the Bible does not provide evidence that Jesus was born on December 25.

For example, the Gospel of Luke describes shepherds near Bethlehem “living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.” Many historians note that this practice was more common in the warmer months, making a midwinter birth less likely.

The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church,” indicating that the celebration of Jesus’ birth on December 25 developed later in Christian tradition.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica:

“The reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 remains uncertain, but most probably the reason is that early Christians wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the ‘birthday of the unconquered sun’ (natalis solis invicti); this festival celebrated the winter solstice, when the days again begin to lengthen and the sun begins to climb higher in the sky. The traditional customs connected with Christmas have accordingly developed from several sources as a result of the coincidence of the celebration of the birth of Christ with the pagan agricultural and solar observances at midwinter.

So whose birthday was it? Tradition holds that it was Mithras’ birthday. Mithra was an ancient Persian deity associated with the sun, contracts, and cosmic order. Mithraism, or the Mithraic Mysteries, became a Roman mystery religion (1st–4th century CE) centered on Mithras and was especially popular among soldiers. Some scholars suggest that elements of Mithraic ritual may have influenced aspects of early Pauline theology, including practices related to the eucharist.

From Catholic Answers Magazine:

Mithras was born on December 25. He was considered a great teacher and had twelve disciples.

Author James Rollins (summarizing scholarly parallels between Mithraism and Christianity):

Mithraism predated Christianity yet bore uncanny similarities. Mithra’s birthday was celebrated on December 25.

Antiquitatem (historical commentary on Mithraism and Christianity):

Mithra, god of the sun, was born on December 25, day of the winter solstice… That invincible sun is the god Mithra, whose worship and devotion competed with Christianity.

Interestingly, while December 25 may not mark the actual birth of Jesus, it does coincide with the birthday of Isaac Newton, the English physicist, mathematician, and astronomer, who was born in 1642 in Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, England.

So today, alongside Christmas traditions, one might also reflect on Newton’s contributions to science and the Enlightenment.

Here I want to address the false dilemma created by C.S. Lewis’s famous “Trilemma” argument—often summed up as: Jesus is either a Liar, a Lunatic, or the Lord.4.

It’s a false dilemma because there are more possibilities than just those three. One obvious option Lewis overlooks is that the New Testament may be, in large part, legendary.

Lewis challenges the popular notion that Jesus was merely a great moral teacher. He argues that, based on the radical claims Jesus made—especially about being divine (assuming the New Testament is accurate)—there are only three logical possibilities:

– Liar: If Jesus knowingly made false claims about being God, then he was deliberately deceiving people. That would make him morally corrupt, not a great teacher.
– Lunatic: If Jesus truly believed he was God but was mistaken, then he was delusional—on par with someone who thinks they’re a poached egg, as Lewis colorfully puts it.
– Lord: If Jesus’s claims were true, then he is who he said he was—the Son of God—and deserves worship.

Lewis concludes: “He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

While compelling to many, critics argue that Lewis’s trilemma is a false dilemma—it oversimplifies the possibilities. For example:

– Most scholars doubt whether the historical Jesus explicitly claimed divinity in the way Lewis assumes.
– Others suggest alternative interpretations: Jesus could have been misunderstood, mythologized, or misrepresented by later followers.

Once you’ve engaged in textual and historical criticism—and examined the contradictions within the gospels—it becomes difficult to accept a univocal account. In other words, there are competing ideas about what Jesus might have said, should have said, and actually said.

As Thomas Moore rightly points out, “As scholars have pointed out for over a century, the four Gospels are riddled with the interpretations, biases and agendas of their editors.” In other words, they should be read as propaganda, not history.

The challenge is that it’s hard to disentangle which parts are authentic and which are later additions. But if you follow the chronological development of the gospels, it appears that the portrayal of Jesus’s divinity evolved over time. Initially, he may have claimed to be no more than the Messiah. Over the decades, his status was elevated—culminating in the Council of Nicaea, where he was officially declared divine.

My view is that the Jesus of the gospels is largely legendary. That makes Lewis’s three choices a false dilemma. Jesus may have been revered as a spiritual master, but not as God incarnate. Which means the original followers of Jesus were the Ebionites, who traced their origins to the Jerusalem Church led by James, the brother of Jesus.