The most frustrating issue for anyone reading what another person has written is determining its

truthfulness. When most people become convinced of an author's reliability, they tend to take what the
person says as fact, even when it is not.

For instance, a scientist will demonstrate to people scientific discoveries and how this has advanced
human technological skills. The people, usually students, will marvel and then start to accept even
unproven theories as true, simply because the scientist says it is so. This applies to history as well.

Say I wanted to demonstrate to you that the Bible cannot be a reliable book because it is full of
immorality, all I would have to do is quote the many socially degrading stories of injustice, genocide,
war crimes, assassination, murder, hatred, deceit, lust, incest, drunkenness, and a host of other crimes
that would be unacceptable to society today, and point to how those who committed such things were
accepted by God and found favor in his eyes. Then to totally discredit the Bible, I would point to the
certain wordings that would imply that Mary the mother of Jesus was unfaithful to Joseph to whom she
was betrothed, so a cover-up was concocted by the author of Matthew, saying that the Holy Ghost
impregnated her, and the writer of the book of Luke thought a ghost was too unbelievable, so he said
that "an angel came in unto her" by the name of Gabriel (who was really some man staying overnight).

After I demonstrated how evil the people in the Bible were and how it was obviously a Jewish myth
that God favored Israel over other nations, I would then proceed to debunk the virgin birth and the fact
that Jesus consorted with criminals, just like Joseph Lewis has done in The Bible Unmasked.
However, if you were a thinking person, you would wonder why the Jews would include all this
degrading human behavior in their holy book, and why they seem to despise their nationality by
recording that, as a race of people, they are evil. Really, it just does not make sense. But Jews are not
Christians, so the birth of Jesus does not concern them.

The birth of Jesus concerns Christians. However, the virgin Mary was a Jew and so was Joseph and
even Jesus of Nazareth. As for Mary becoming pregnant and playing the harlot or having been raped or
seduced by another man, it would have been easy for her to prove that she was still a virgin. In fact, all
Joseph had to do was see if her hymen was intact. If a Jewish girl did not have an intact hymen at the
time of marriage, her husband could divorce her. Evidently, Joseph must have proven this for himself.
To suggest otherwise only demonstrates that a person does not really want to be true to the truth.

The prophet Mohammed had no difficulty accepting the virgin birth of Jesus. One of the reasons for
this would have to have been because of the cultural tradition of young women who are betrothed to be
married, having their hymens intact or being declared whores.

Mohammed had difficulty accepting that Jesus died for the sins of the world and rose from the dead.
This being the criteria to become a Christian and being included in the family of God, according to the
Bible. Jesus even claimed that Abraham, from whom the prophet Mohammed claims to have
descended, saw his day and was glad (that is, his death and resurrection and was filled with joy of
salvation).

But then Mohammed was a war lord and to follow Jesus, one has to become a lover of peace and
believe that the kingdom of God is not on this earth, but within each person. Jesus said that those who
do the will of God are his family, not those who willfully transgress the commandments of God and do
not love their neighbor as themselves.

www.tencommandmentstoday.com