Christianity is "wrong" and therefore not divinely inspired.

Based on its many contradictions, one must conclude that Christianity is not divinely inspired; that is to say that it is a false religion and was not created by God. The religion of Christianity holds that both the Old and New Testament are divinely inspired, and therefore that its religious beliefs are compatible with that of the Old Testament. Whether the Old Testament is divinely inspired of not, if it contradicts the New Testament, we are forced to concede that the New Testament is not divinely inspired. The New Testament is teeming with trivial contradictions against the Old Testament that are simply irreconcilable. Though this is not what I intend to focus on, they are too numerous to ignore. For instance, John 3:13 says that nobody had ascended into heaven before Jesus, while Kings 2 2:11 states unequivocally that Elijah ascended into heaven. Genesis 11:12 says that Shelah was Arphaxad's son, and the genealogy listed in Luke 3:35-36 goes directly against it by saying that Shelah was his grandson. Leviticus 20:9 condemns those who curse their parents and sentences them to death. On the other hand, Jesus declares in Luke 14:26 that no man can become his disciple unless they hate their parents, along with their wives and children, and brothers and sisters. Jesus' role as Messiah is a foundation of the Christian faith. One prerequisite for Messiah-ship is Davidic descent - the messiah must come from the lineage of King David. Based on information provided by the New Testament itself, Jesus cannot be of Davidic descent as he is described in Romans 1:1- 3. If Jesus was indeed virgin born, Joseph had nothing to do with the conception, and thus the only human genealogy must be through Mary. Luke 1:36 says Mary was related to Elizabeth who was of the Aaronic line (Luke 1:5). Still on the subject of Messiah, it is evident throughout writings of the Old Testament that the Messiah's role is to gather the Jews of the world back into the Holy Land, reconstruct the Temple, bring world peace, bring universal awareness of God, and restore the laws and commandments of Judaism as they once were. (See Maimonidies laws of Kings Chapters 11 and 12. See also Isaiah 2:4, 11:9 and 35:5-6. See Micha 5:2 and Amos 9:11.) Ask yourself - Have any of those objectives been accomplished as of yet? The answer should be quite clear. No, they have not, and Jesus lived over two thousand years ago. Even if you misquote to me the seemingly endless amount of Old Testament verses that Christians think "foretell" of Jesus' life as Messiah, God, or whatever it may be, they are all irrelevant. Whether they even depict Jesus or not is a different story (they don't.) because Jesus does not qualify for the necessary jobs of the Messiah. Furthermore, Isaiah 42:4 says that the Messiah will accomplish these tasks during his lifetime. It says he will not "falter or be discouraged" until he accomplishes the justice that he is supposed to bring to the world. Christian theology has come up with the excuse of a "Second Coming" when Jesus will finally fulfill the Messianic prophecies. But there is no reference to such a delayed second coming of the same Messiah anywhere in the Old Testament. In fact, the Apostles believed that Jesus would come back to institute the "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth" during their lifetime. Another staple Christian belief is that of the "Original Sin." If Jesus were alive today, he would be disgusted at how grossly misinterpreted his message has become. This proclamation is utter theological nonsense. The implication of the Original Sin doctrine is that we have excuses for anything we do wrong because it is our nature, therefore our "sins" are not our fault. It gives people permission to ignore all responsibility. I do hope you recognize just how bad that is. Opinion aside, this belief obviously contradicts the Old Testament. That is an objective fact. For example, "House of Israel, I will judge each of you according to your own ways … Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit" (Ezek. 18:30-31). But wait, there is more. "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them." — (Ezek. 18:19-20) Can your own "god" more specifically reject the concept of Original Sin? I am not sure that he could, aside from saying "There is no such thing as the Original Sin." Now, let's inspect this doctrine of Original Sin. What even was the sin that Jesus was sent to purge us of in the first place? I am no Christian theologian, (I'm only 15 years old), but I know that it is the sin of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge despite God telling them not to. The following may be a little subjective, but - Firstly, in order to accept the concept of Original Sin, we must accept that Adam and Eve were set up in a situation destined to fail by an omniscient God (a god who knows everything, even before it happens). Secondly, in order to accept the concept of Original Sin, we must accept that God damned the entire man kind for two people eating an apple. Thirdly, in order to accept the concept of Original Sin, we must accept that God damned the entire man kind but decided to continue their species anyway only to end up destroying it in a fit of rage, and then re-start again it even though they were already damned. I must say that if none of those three things bother any intellectually honest person even in the slightest, there is something wrong with them. If God knows exactly what is going to happen to his creations before it happens, and he doesn't want these things to happen, yet he still proceeds to create them and blames them for it - Then there are two possibilities. Either he cannot control the situation, in which case he is not powerful enough to stop suffering. Or, he won't, in which case he has the power to stop suffering but decides not to. Being the fact that the previous paragraph is subject to opinion and not entirely objective truth, I'm sure you have the Christian theology prepared to answer it. It is precisely for this reason that I did not explore the topic of Biblical morality - and why I did not bother making the case that the God of the Old Testament is an evil, hypocritical, crazy, sadistic, genocidal maniac. Perhaps you would respond with something along the lines of me using my own personal judgment of morality and not having an objective moral standard to refer to. But, since I have a litte over 1000 characters that I can type, I figure that I might as well explore that a little, too. Plato once wondered if actions are good because God commands them, or if God commands them because they are good. If the latter is true, actions are good regardless of whether God says so and therefore God is not needed for somethng to be moral. If the former is true, then in actuality everything is permitted because God creates morality and can make anything he wants moral. One theistic response is that since God is necessarily good, he would never command something morally incorrect and the previous argument is not a problem. But, in very very short, God is not necessarily good so the previous argument is a problem. I do not have time to explore that now, though. I have clearly demonstrated that the New Testament is not compatible with the Old Testament and is therefore not divinely inspired. I think if you look from a purely unbiased point of view, that statement is obviously the truth.