ABRAHAMIC HOUSE OF BONDAGE

 

The Harmony of the Gospels?

If a church choir were to sing its hymns in the so-called harmony of the Gospels, the congregation would flee for the doors with their fingers in their ears. The only reason that the Gospels are said to have any harmony at all is that the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, have more in common with one another than they do with the Gospel of John. For John's Gospel is a contradiction of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

No original writings in the Bible are known to exist. The oldest writings in the New Testament known to exist are the writings of Paul, and they are but copies of copies. Is it not strange that at the time nobody seemed to think that the very words claimed to be directly inspired of God were not worthy of being preserved in their original written form? Isn't this stretching credulity to the extreme?

It is absurd to think that simply because the Bible contains some correct historical facts that what it says of God must also be true. Only a fool would knowingly impart false facts in known historical matters that can be easily disproved; for the freedom to fabricate exists only in matters that can not be disproved. It is with good reason that the self-called insist that it is by faith that the claims of the Gospels are to be accepted, for when tested they can not stand upon their own merit. Let the scholars continue to try to dazzle one another with their lofty works over every jot and tittle in the Bible, for when it comes to communicating their works with the masses, their loftiness makes them utterly useless. For when it comes to belief in God, the only issue that really matters is truth. And common sense alone should tell you that neither God nor truth contradict themselves, nor do they contradict one another.

The Law and Test of Truth

"At the base of all human knowledge and judgment there are three simple rules known as the "three primary laws of thought." Of these the third in order is this simple proposition, on which all valid judgment depends: "Of two contradictories, one must be false." Both of the contradictories may be false; but one must be false inevitably. If one person says of an object: "It is white," and another says: "It is black," one or the other statement must of necessity be false. Of course both may be false, as the object may be red or blue or vari-colored; but in any event, one or the other statement must be false, for it cannot be both. This is a fundamental law of thought or correct judgment or of truth.

The other principle, somewhat complementary, is a rule of law. Every judge declares it to his juries as the law of every jury case on trial, for this ancient maxim is the law in every court today.

As a Latin maxim it is: "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"-that is, "false in one thing, false in all things." Not necessarily so as to the whole; for one part of the testimony of a witness, or of anything said or written, may be false or mistaken while the remainder may be quite true and correct. The maxim means, as the court always explains to the jury, merely that if the jury believes that a witness "knowingly or wilfully has testified falsely as to any material fact" in his testimony, they are at liberty to disbelieve him entirely and to reject all of his testimony as false. The reason is evident; for if a person orally or in his document or book says one thing which is detected as false; everything else which he says or writes is at once thrown into doubt, and unless otherwise corroborated, may well be considered to be all erroneous or false. Often it is impossible to know with certainty what things, if any, may possibly be true; all are tainted and discredited by the parts shown to be false. This is peculiarly true with respect to the Scriptures, said to be in totality inspired and true: if some parts are proved false, the whole is discredited."

"If we find that the "Word of God" tells the same story in two or more totally different and contradictory ways, or that one inspired writer is "moved by the Holy Ghost" of Yahveh to tell his tale one way, and another inspired writer is moved to tell it in another way, totally different and contradictory in the essence of the alleged facts of the same event, we are forced to know and confess that one or the other record at least is wanting in God's inspiration of truth and is inevitably false. This being so, and there being no possible way of determining which version is the false and which may not be, both must be rejected as equally false, or equally uninspired and incredible; and in either event, the theory of inerrant inspiration and of the revealed truth of the "Word of God" is irreparably destroyed." From: Is It God's Word? By Joseph Wheless

Paddy Cake Birth Narratives

The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are good examples of the so-called harmony of the Gospels. Matthew 1:17 claims that there were 28 generations from David to Jesus, whereas Luke 3:23-31 claims there were 43 generations.

Matthew 1:16 claims the father of Joseph was Jacob, whereas Luke 3:23 says the father of Joseph was Heli. To try and rationalize this contradiction away, apologists use the ploy of an imaginary adoption, claiming Joseph became the adopted son of Heli through his marriage to Mary. This allows them to claim that the ancestry recorded in Mathew's Gospel is that of Joseph's father, Jacob, and in Luke's Gospel is that of Mary's father, Heli.

Putting aside the difference of some15 generations between Matthew and Luke's genealogies, if Luke has reckoned his genealogy according to the supposed ancestry of Mary, then he has most conveniently avoided saying that that's what he did. For in the days of Jesus one's ancestry was not reckoned according to the mother's ancestry, but according to the father's ancestry.

"For women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg being discovered in 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children." Paul Carlson

And Paul clearly states that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). The word Paul used for seed is "sperma", which literally means sperm. Thus, the Messiah had to be conceived through the sperm of a male whose lineage was of David's. This is why there are no virgin birth myths found in the writing of Paul.

To view the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, go here.

The 'O' Virgin Birth Motif

In ancient times there was nothing unique in claiming that a hero or a demigod was sired of a god, or was born of a virgin. Figures predating the Roman Christ such as Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus were all said to have been sired of a god and born of a virgin as well. So how was Jesus morphed into becoming the new demigod of the Rome Empire? It was done through the mutations of Hebrew words and terms in the Septuagint (LXX) that the author of Matthew's Gospel used. And is simply the invention of Roman priests.

Most people waste their time bickering over the meaning of the Hebrew word "ha-almah" in Isaiah 7:14, when the focus should be on the term "harah". The term "harah" in Isaiah 7:14 means conceived, it is the Hebrew perfect tense, which, as in English, represents past and completed action, there is not the remotest hint of future tense or time. "No doctor of divinity or scholar in Hebrew can or will deny this." Joseph Wheless

The Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14 reads:

Isaiah 7:14 "laken yittan adonai hu lakem oth hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel."

Translated into English, it reads:

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore shall-give my-lord he [himself] to you sign behold the-maid conceived [is pregnant] and-beareth son and- calleth name-his immanuel."

Whereas the author of Matthew's Gospel has altered the meaning of Hebrew words and terms in Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.

Matthew's translation of Isaiah 7:14 is no longer past tense, but now becomes future tense. And the Hebrew generic term for a maiden has now become the Greek term for a virgin. In the second century B.C., the Jews pointed out these errors in the Septuagint to the Roman priests, but to no avail.

(Chapter 2: Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless) "Being criticized by many for this falsification, St. Jerome thus replies to one of his critics, Juvianus: "I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah"! (Jerome, Adv. Javianum I, 32; N&PNF, vi, 370.) So insistent was the criticism, that he was driven to write a book on the subject, in which he makes a very notable confession of the inherent incredibility of the Holy Ghost paternity-story "For who at that time would have believed the Virgin's word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? and would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? For at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue, that when Isaiah says, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,' the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is ALMAH, not BETHULAH"! (Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, N&PNF, vi, 336.)

To see a more complete account of the mutilation of Isaiah 7:14, go here.

The see other virgin births myths go here.

 Reading Things In

Eisegesis: "the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas," Merriam-Webster's Internet Dictionary.

Problems with the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke aren't just with the claim of Mary's virginity, or with the number of generations from David to Jesus, and who was the father of Joseph, they go on and on. It is because of these conflicts in the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke that Christian apologists will claim that the differences between the birth narratives is that they are concerned with different periods in Jesus' childhood. That Matthew's account is primarily concerned with what took place when Jesus was around two years old. And that Luke's is giving greater details of what occurred before Jesus was two years old. To justify this rationalization they point to a few words in a single phrase in Matthew 2:16, "two years old".

Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old AND UNDER, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

This they claim proves that Matthew 2:1 through 2: 14 occurs when Jesus was around two years old. In order to swallow that camel one has to overlook a lot of conflicting details in both Gospels regarding the birth of Jesus. For example, where did Mary and Joseph live before the birth of Jesus? Was it in Bethlehem or Nazareth? When did King Herod die? When was Cyrenius made governor of Syria? And etc.

To compare the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, go here.

To see a comprehensive article by Richard Carrier about the date of the nativity in Luke's Gospel, go here.

Twinkle-Twinkle Little Twink

According to Matthew's Gospel, after having fled to Egypt, an angel warns Joseph that it was not safe for them to return to their home in Bethlehem, which was in Judaea. And Matthew clumsily moves them to Nazareth, claiming that it fulfills a prophecy that can not be found? For other than Matthew's claim, there are no "scriptures" saying the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. And according to Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary were not living in Bethlehem before the birth of Jesus, but were living in Nazareth. That they had only gone to Bethlehem to be counted in some imaginary worldwide census. In Luke's Gospel they do not dash off to Egypt after the birth of Jesus, but go to the Temple in Jerusalem, and from there they return to their home in Nazareth. And other than attending the yearly feast at the Temple in Jerusalem, they continued to live in Nazareth until Jesus grew to be a man.

To see Matthew's imaginary prophecy go here.

Unlike Matthew's Mary, who after the birth of Jesus traipses off to Egypt, Luke's Mary goes to Jerusalem and completes the rite of purification. And where Mary's baby Jesus in Matthew's Gospel receives gold and treasures form some "wise men" following a bouncing star, Luke's Mary is so dirt poor that she has to fulfill the requirements of her purification by having two birds killed as sacrifices; one is a burnt offering and the other a "sin" offering. This she does to appease God of the awful "sin" of having conceived and giving birth to a male-child - Jesus!

At least up to this point Mary is spared the awful indignity of giving birth to a girl-child. According to the supposedly "divinely" inspired laws of Leviticus, a girl-child is one nasty little critter. It claims that conceiving and birthing a girl-child causes the mother to be twice as unclean than does a male-child and takes twice as long for the mother's purification. To obscure this primitive and ungodly view of females, some modern translations have altered Luke 2: 22 from "her purification" to "their purification". Either way it remains nothing more than primitive gobbledygook.

To see these so-called "divinely" inspired laws go here, Leviticus 12:1-8

Some of these differences between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are due to their authors serving two different agendas. Matthew's Gospel is trying to sell Jesus to the Jews and thus uses a Moses motif, portraying Jesus to the Jews as a Moses-like figure, while Luke is trying to sell Jesus to the Gentiles.

The 'O' Dual Prophecy

In spite of their having more than a thousands years to hone crafty arguments to uphold their claims of Biblical infallibility and that God is its author, Christian apologists still must rely upon one's gullibility in accepting that silly claim. It does not take a genius to recognize that the gospel writers have taken many Old Testament scriptures out of context to support what they claim of Jesus. It is because of this, that Christian apologists had to invent a ploy called a "duel prophecy" to address this deceitfulness of the Gospel writers, especially that of Matthew. For when it comes to being obviously clumsy with perverting the original meaning of Old Testament scriptures, Matthew 's Gospel is by far the worst offender.

Matthew 1:18-23 and Isaiah, Chapter 7

To uphold his claim that Jesus is the Messiah, the author of Matthew willy-nilly expropriates verse 14 from Isaiah, chapter seven, and completely misinterprets its context. Any truthful person, who reads chapter seven in Isaiah, will see that verse14 has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, but is given to Ahaz as a sign concerning two kings that are troubling Judah. He is told that before the child that is referred to knows to refuse evil and to choose good, the land of the two kings troubling Judah will be laid to waste.

Isaiah 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. 17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. 18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. 20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard. 21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; 22 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land. 23 And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns. 24 With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns. 25 And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.

Whereas the sign that was given to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:14, Matthew fraudulently uses this to fabricate his paddy-cake birth narrative.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew 2:14 and Hosea 11:1

Matthew 2:14 claims that these words of Hosea, "out of Egypt I called my son," were fulfilled with Joseph and Mary coming out of Egypt with Jesus (Moses motif); which is a complete mutilation of what Hosea is saying. For the son that Hosea is referring to is not Jesus, but symbolic Israel. Only the most intellectually dishonest would say it is referring to Jesus.

Hosea 11:1-2 When Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (2) The more I called "them," the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to Baals, and burning incense to idols.

Matthew 2:14 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Matthew 2:16-18 and Jeremiah 31:15-17

Matthew 2:16-18 claims Jeremiah 31:15-17 was fulfilled when the children of Bethlehem were slaughtered. Yet if one reads Jeremiah 31:15-17 it is self-evident that the voice heard crying in Ramah has nothing to do with Matthew's fabricated account of Herod's men slaughtering the children of Bethlehem. For Jeremiah 31:15-17 says Rachel was weeping for her children, who had been carried off by an enemy and is told to cease her weeping, for her children shall again return to their own land.

Jeremiah 31:15 Thus saith Jehovah: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she refuseth to be comforted for her children, because they are not. (16) Thus saith Jehovah: Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith Jehovah; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. (17) And there is hope for thy latter end, saith Jehovah; and thy children shall come again to their own border.

Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, 18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Matthew 2:23

Because the author of Matthew has dutifully copied from a version of Zechariah that is known to be flawed, there is an absurd scene in Matthew's Gospel of Jesus entering Jerusalem riding straddled across both a donkey and its colt at the same time.

Matthew 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

Matthew 27:3-10

Matthew 27:5-10 contradicts Acts 1:18-20 concerning the death of Judas and the purchase of the potter's field.

Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; 10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

On top of that, Matthew 27:9 is erroneously attributing the words of Zechariah 11:12-13 to Jeremy (Jeremiah), and is using them out of context.

Zechariah 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Heck, they're all doing it!

Acts 1:20 is doing much the same as Matthew does. It is a combination of Psalm 69:25 and 109:8, taken willy-nilly out of context and spliced together to make them fit a desired design.

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Psalm 69:25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

The Gospel of Mark does likewise, Mark 1:2-3 is a combination of verses taken out of context from Malachi 3 and Isaiah 40 and spliced together. This dishonest pattern of taking Old Testament verses out of context and manipulating them to make them conform to a design runs throughout the Gospels. They are but fabrications trying to promote the belief that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophecies. It is upon these fallacies, fables and myths that their claim of Jesus' deity rests.

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 40:1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. 2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins. 3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:

How quickly they forget

Matthew and Luke both claim that before Jesus was born Joseph and Mary were informed by angels of the holiness of Jesus. Yet Mark has Jesus saying that he was not honored nether by his relatives or even in his own house!

Mark 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. :21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

The Synoptic Gospels & John

Although Matthew, Mark, and Luke contradict one another's details of the baptism of Jesus, they all say John baptized Jesus. Whereas, the Gospel of John logically does not say John baptized Jesus; only that when John saw Jesus, he "...saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him". After all, John's baptism was for "repentance for the remission of sins." Thus to have John baptize Jesus it would be an admission that Jesus was not without sin.

John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? 26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; 27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. 28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

In the Synoptic Gospels after John baptizes Jesus, Jesus runs off into the bushes to be tempted by the devil. Whereas in John's Gospel, Jesus doesn't go running off into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil after John had seen a dove sitting on his head, but goes about stealing John's disciples.

Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 12 And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. 13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

John 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? 39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

There is also a conflict between the Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel over the length of time of Jesus' ministry. According to John it lasted three years, whereas the Synoptic Gospels all say it was only a year.

The Crucifixion & Resurrection

At some point it becomes over kill pointing out the many absurdities and contradictions that are in the Gospels. I'm going to forgo listing the befuddled accounts of their calling of the disciples, the betrayal, arrest and trial of Jesus, and focus on their contradictory resurrection accounts, which are as inconsistent with one another as are the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke.

A link is provided to the crucifixion and resurrection account in each Gospel so that you can verify that my examples are not taken out of context. There are so many contradictions in their accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection that it would be redundant to point all of them out.

Whom to believe? For each Gospel writer weaves his own tale of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Earthquakes, darkness, dead walking the streets and other bizarre happenings, all depending upon which Gospel you read. If the authors of the Gospels had to testify in a court of law today as to the truthfulness of their account of the resurrection, they would be in jeopardy of being charged with perjury.

Here is an example of a crucifixion contradiction, in Matthew it is claimed that the two who were crucified with Jesus both mocked him, whereas Luke claims that one of them praised Jesus and the other mocked him.

Matthew 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Some Christian apologists acknowledge that there are differences between the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus; after all, they are self-evident. However, they claim that these differences only add to the credibility of the Gospels; that their authors were independent of one another, rather than copies of what the other has said, and give different perspectives of the same events. The following is an example of their loony reasoning:

"We often find that different people see or notice different things given the same situation. Five people walk into a department store, they all notice something different, but the one thing they all notice is the check-out register. This affect is increased when several different people hear the same report. For example, we all watch the evening news, yet we all notice different things. Every thing reported has significance, but we focus on the items that appeal to us."

While it is true that some might notice different details that others do not while witnessing the same thing; if each truthfully report what they did see, any differences in their details would not contradict what the others saw, but would simply add more information to what occurred. Which is not the case with the conflicting details in the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection in the Gospels. Their differing details are major discrepancies that even the most casual observer could not have over looked. Such as, was there an earthquake, was the tomb guarded or not, when was the stone removed from the tomb, how many angels were floating about, and etc. It is naive at best to think that in spite of the glaring conflicts in the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, that what the writers of the Gospels have claimed of it should be accepted without question as divinely inspired truth.

Matthew

Matthew 27:62-66 claims Pilate ordered the tomb of Jesus guarded, so that his disciples could not steal his body. It should be noted that only the Gospel of Matthew claims that the tomb was guarded. In the other Gospels, Pilate was just a good o' boy that was caught in the middle and he simply hands off the body of Jesus to a disciple of Jesus named Joseph of Arimathaea.

Matthew 28:1-11 claims two women, Mary Magdalene and another Mary went to the guarded tomb of Jesus, that a great earthquake occurred and that an angel descended from Heaven and rolled the stone away that was sealing the tomb and sat upon it. That Pilate's guards were frozen with fear as the angel tells the two women that the body of Jesus is not in the tomb, that he has risen from the dead, and instructs them to tell the disciples that Jesus will see them in Galilee.

Mark

Mark16: 1-8, unlike Matthew's account of two women going to a guarded tomb, has three women going to an unguarded tomb: Mary Magdalene, Jesus' mother and Salome. In Mark's account there is no earthquake, nor is an angel seen descending from Heaven to roll the stone away and sit upon, nor are guards frozen in fear as an angel speaks to the woman. For when the women arrive at the unguarded tomb, the stone has already been removed and they wonder who has removed it? They look inside the tomb and see a man dressed in white, he tells them Jesus is resurrected, to go tell the disciples that they will see Jesus in Galilee. The oldest authoritative copy of Mark ends with verse 8 in Chapter 16; that other loony stuff from verse 9 onward, picking up serpents and drinking poison, was added by another nut at a later date.

The only thing Matthew and Mark seem to agree on is that some women were told to tell the disciples that Jesus would see them in Galilee. Which conflicts with what Luke and John claim, for in their accounts the disciples are not told to go Galilee to see Jesus, they see him in Jerusalem.

Luke

Luke 24:1-53 has a gaggle of women tagging along with Mary Magdalene to an unguarded tomb. And like Mark's version there is neither earthquake, nor angel descending from Heaven to roll the stone away and sit on it, nor are guards frozen in fear. The stone has already been removed. But unlike Mark's account of the women seeing but one man when they entered the tomb, Luke's women see two men dressed in dazzling cloth. And rather than telling the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, like Matthew and Mark have claimed, the two men in dazzling clothing simply tell the women what they should have already known.

John

John 20:1-19 disputes the claim of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb with other women. In his version she went alone, while it was still dark, rather than in the morning light that is claimed by Matthew and Mark. In John, the tomb is not guarded and there is no earthquake when Mary goes there. When John's Mary sees that there is no one inside the tomb, she runs and tells Peter that someone has stolen the body. Whereas Luke claims Mary and the other women had told Peter and the other apostles that the two men in dazzling clothing in the tomb had said that Jesus was resurrected.

In John's tale, Mary tells Peter that someone has taken the body of Jesus and it is missing, and Peter and that mysterious nameless one run to the tomb to see for themselves. Upon seeing that the tomb is empty, Peter and that nameless one leave the tomb thinking the body had been stolen. Yet Mary remains weeping at the tomb and takes another little peek inside the tomb and sees two angels sitting where Jesus had been laid. Mary thinks nothing of carrying on a conversation with angels that materialize out of thin air, but is profoundly confused when Jesus appears and thinks he is the gardener. In John, the risen Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem, rather than Galilee, as it is claimed in Matthew and by an interloper in Mark. (Also see Acts 1:3-4)


It only takes one contradiction or an absurdity in the Bible to prove that it is not inerrant; so I'll not belabor the point by pointing out every contradiction and absurdity that's in the Bible. Others more capable than I, such as Joseph Wheless, have already done that tedious task. If one wants to read his comprehensive study of the absurdities and contradictions in the Bible, or his comprehensive study of the history of the Church, use the link on my site to the writings of Joseph Wheless and read: Is It God's Word? & Forgery in Christianity.

Return to the writings of Wayne Lamar Harrington:

In Defense of the Goodness of God

  

Return to: HARRINGTON SITES

Revealing the Spiritual duality of the Bible. For it serves neither God nor truth to try and rationalize irrational things the Bible has said of God.

Email: ©Servant