Let us look at the start - his virgin birth. According to the bible, Jesus was born of a young virgin named Mary. According to the bible, god impregnated Mary who conceived a son - god’s son. Now, in addition the fact that god’s own existence cannot be proven, how could god impregnate anybody? Mary is (or was) supposed to be flesh and blood. The Christian god is supposed to have been a spirit. How can a spirit sperm fertilize a flesh egg?

However, this is not my main objection to this virgin birth nonsense. The founders of Christianity were at their wits end to come up with something to validate their then struggling new religion. Jesus could not be what they claimed him to be - god’s son (or even god), if he had mere humans like Mary and Joseph for parents - that could not work. Being residents of the Roman Empire they would have been well aware of the many virgin birth legends floating around. Alexander the Great and several of the Roman emperors were thought of as being born of virgins. These early Christian leaders would surely have been influenced by these legends in their quest to strengthen their own struggling sect. So - what did they do? They incorporated this virgin birth myth into the life of their new god - Jesus.

Then we have the claim of him being a model child. This claim is being made by today’s Christians from one single event recorded in the bible - his talk at the temple when he was about twelve years old. Now, seeing that the gospels were supposed to have been written by people who did not know Jesus when he was that young, they could not have been absolutely sure that Jesus was a saintly little child. This is even more so for us today not to know for sure - two thousand years later. We know for sure that no child is perfect. We have never heard of the perfect child. Jesus may have been perfect, but we don’t know this for sure so we should not accept this claim as fact.

One of the main reasons why Christians claim that Jesus was truly the Messiah is the claim that he performed miracles. According to the gospels - Jesus was famous throughout the land on account of his miracles. He even raised the dead and calmed storms. Now, it should be crystal clear to all that these claims simply could not be true.

The most important reason of all is the fact that history is just too silent. How often do we see people bringing back the dead to life? If Jesus were really doing all of those miracles as claimed by Christians - historians would surely have had a lot to say. Yet, historians have absolutely nothing to say about the miracle working Jesus! Indeed, historians say virtually nothing of the man - much more the man and his miracles. Jesus would be the talk of people everywhere who were not Christians. The Romans, Greeks, non-Christian Jews (who, by the way were the vast majority) and others would not have ignored these miracles if they really occurred. History would be replete with references to the miracle working Jesus - but it is not.

Also, it is interesting to note the people who are telling us that Jesus was a miracle worker - Christians who have one ultimate agenda. That agenda is the conversion of as much people as possible to the new faith. The founders of Christianity must have asked themselves - who would want to worship a mere man who preached good sermons? Not very many people - they would have realized. If Jesus was to be the son of god and saviour of mankind he could not be a mere man - he had to be at least a miracle worker.

None of these miracle claims have ever been confirmed by history. Therefore, based on the historical evidence - Jesus did not perform miracles. However, the founders of Christianity had to make Jesus into a miracle worker because they needed something more convincing. They were not interested in making people new Christians by telling only the truth. They realized that that would not have worked. They were determined to make new Christians by whatever means possible - even by lying.

Finally, we have the Christian claim that Jesus, as a mark of his divinity, came back to life after being killed. Again, like the other miracle claims, this is not true. There are many reasons why one can rest assured of this. First, there were no reliable witnesses, except people who wanted others to believe. Second, history says nothing. Third, the gospel accounts of his trial, execution and resurrection do not add up and conflict with what was expected at that time. Fourth, the bible accounts themselves contradict each other. Fifth, we don’t even know for sure who wrote the gospels. Sixth, the bible accounts of the resurrection were added to the gospels long after they were first written. Seventh, the people who were supposed to be witnesses and should most likely believe, first century Jews, thought that the first disciples were nutcases. I could go on and on. The facts are very clear - Jesus did not rise from the dead.

I still cannot see why a person who thinks logically, or even at all, would want to accept Jesus as the son of god or even god. If he existed at all (and there is much doubt that he even did), he clearly could not be the messiah that Christians make him out to be. One should look at the issue this way - if the Jews who were there two thousand years ago did not believe that Jesus was the son of god, why should I, two thousand years later and thousands of miles away believe?

[Back to Main Page]

This Word Of God claims to be inerrant - that is, without error in all its parts when it speaks on any subject whether, doctrine, history, or science - homosexuality included. In 1977, the International Council On Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) was formed by some of the leading theologians in the World, with the objective, to "Take a united stand in elucidating, vindicating and applying the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy as an essential element for the health of the Church of God..." - James Boice, chairman of the ICBI, said.

The council didn’t discover or invent the inerrancy of Scripture; it only took a stand for it. The objective of the Council, further laid out in the preface of its book the Foundation Of Biblical Authority, said it is to "create a clear statement on inerrancy endorsed by a united coalition of prominent evangelical scholars, declaring therein that the Bible is true not only in matters of faith and practice, but also in such matters of science and history".

One proof of the inerrancy of Scripture is the manuscript evidence. There are more manuscripts, copies of the original Scriptures, than any others works of antiquity, and except in minor details they agree in totality.

"There are over 5000 Greek New Testament manuscripts that range from the whole testament to scraps of papyri which contain as little as part of one verse. A few existing fragments date to within 25-50 years of the original writing", says John Mac Arthur, Pastor and Professor of Pastoral Studies, and Head of The masters Seminary, California. Concerning this manuscript evidence, Scholars have concluded that except for slight variants the manuscripts say the same thing.

Also Archeologists continue to unearth many of the places mentioned in Scripture, hitherto thought fictional, and with them reveal the existence of the cultures referred to in the Bible.

For over 3000 years the Bible has been right about God, man, heaven hell, life, death, nature, history, the future and so much more.

When such a book states categorically that homosexuality is an abomination, we Christians can’t accept homosexuality, however persuasive the arguments for accepting it may seem to be.

The Bible says clearly homosexuality is wrong - it is against nature and the design of God. In Leviticus 18, God says clearly, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" - v22 (New King James version). There is no ambiguity about this; homosexuality is forbidden by God. Yet Homosexuals and their supporters say this was so for that time, but now it is outdated. But in the very chapter, Leviticus 18, there are prohibitions, which we accept as being moral and necessary for good order. Lev. 18 forbids: having sex with your father, mother, their spouses, your siblings, daughter in law, son in law, auntie, uncle or with an animal - all of which we observe today and we punish or abhor those who practice them. Why not say these prohibitions are outdated as we say that against homosexuality is?

To show his abhorrence of homosexuality God says in Lev. 20: 13 "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them". Surely the death penalty is no longer in force for homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean that it is right; in the same Scripture the death penalty is prescribed for a man and a woman committing adultery; that is no longer in force, but is God in agreement with me sleeping with my neighbors wife because he no longer dictates that I be killed for so doing?

The divine opprobrium on homosexuality hasn’t disappeared. Some fifteen hundred years after Leviticus was written the Apostle Paul wrote to Christians in Rome. Rome then was a hotbed of Homosexuality; men lived openly with other men; there were public bathhouses where men could openly retire to enjoy each other. Indeed wealthy Roman men kept young male slaves for their own pleasure. Did Paul say that since homosexuality was so widespread in the most advanced culture, and largely done between consenting adults, it was right? No. In Rom. 1: 27 he says, "Likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty for their error which was due) v 25. So we Christians will continue to oppose homosexuality, for we have the highest authority- God’s word to do so.

[Back to Main Page]