26 Mar 2008 |
|
"Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many
more believers than thinkers." --Bruce Calvert
I assumed the author enclosed the word ‘SCIENTIFIC’ to underscore the reality of the existence of Jesus in relation to his death. This is to say that the author might have done an investigation according to rules laid down in exact science for performing observations and testing the soundness of conclusions. Otherwise, it does not make sense to insert in a bracket the word ‘SCIENTIFIC’ if the author has not performed any observation premised on exact science. If it should be the case that the author has not performed any observation premised on exact science, but to beguile the reading publics; it is nothing other than a fraudulent claim in the name of science.
Before proceeding to the main subject of this essay, it is necessary and pertinent to present the historically verifiable sources of the formation of the word ‘bible’ and the development of its meaning. In other word the root meaning of the word ‘bible’. The Christian sect presented to the whole world a collection of different manuscripts by different writers at different time as their sacred scripture and named it “The Bible”. The foundation belief of most Christian fundamentalists is in the inerrancy of their scripture, the Bible. After all, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” according to 2 TIMOTHY 3: 16. In addition this is corroborated in 2 PETER 1: 20-21; 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. At a period in time animal skin, namely goatskin was use for writing scroll. The Ancient Egyptians (Black people) developed the use of papyrus for writing and the place of its location was the Phoenician port Byblos (in the present day Lebanon) from which Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece. Among the Greeks and in Latin the word ‘biblia’ is used denoting collection of scripts (books), which is derived from the original word of ‘biblos or bublos papyrus’, as a reference to the source of papyrus, which was Byblos. When the sacred Hebrew scripts (Talmud and Torah) were translated into Greek, in what is known as the Septuagint, Version, the collective name in Greek is Ta Biblia or "The Books". Today, all together that is called The Bible is the scriptures consisting of the Hebrew scriptures (Old) and Christian scriptures (New) Testaments, and the direct interpretation of Ta Biblia into English is The Bible. Thus, the historically verifiable sources of the formation of the word ‘The Bible’ is Ta biblia, which derived from Byblos. That being said, we shall now commence our journey to answer the question: WAS JESUS BORN, CRUCIFIED AND RESURRECTED? This is going to be a three parts essay. The first part will be about the birth of Jesus; the second part will be about his supposed crucifixion and the third part about his resurrection. Word of advice to the
adherents and non-adherents of Christianity, is to get hold of their Bible and
be like the people of Berea in the Acts 17: 10-11; 10 And the brethren
immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither
went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble (fair-minded)
than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness
of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. This
is to prove if my essay has
the RING OF TRUTH or the gospels accounts was an INVENTION IN GODLIKE BIOGRAPHY
FOR JESUS.
In all the life of the Christian faith, the Church have subjected their Scripture of which no one can say there was an original copy of the Bible, from which subsequent manuscripts were copied into differ versions. I am using the English-language Bible, the King James Version of 1611 as my source to answer the question: WAS JESUS BORN, CRUCIFIED AND RESURRECTED? The birth of Jesus as related in the books of Matthew and Luke contradicted and negated one another. The contradictions leave a dispassionate examiner with objectivity that Matthew and Luke accounts, which contradicted one another cannot be accepted as the true evidence of historical Jesus. The accounts of Matthew and Luke were deriving from hearsay. The two writings describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. An eyewitness will write in the first person, not in the third person. In Luke 1:1-4, we can infer the author of Luke admitting to be an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness. The accounts of Matthew and Luke portrayed Jesus as the offspring of a god and a mortal (MT 1:18-21 and LK 1:26-31). If these accounts were true, this made Jesus a demigod. Matthew wrote that the Annunciation has occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus. Luke wrote that it occurred before conception. It is obvious both of them cannot be saying the truths contradicting each other. If both Matthew and Luke writings are given by the inspiration of Christian God, and the Christian God is omniscient (all-knowing), how could both of them receiving from the same source given contradicting accounts of the most important event about the conception of Jesus? The prerequisite, which is required of one claiming the Messiah-ship is fore told in Jer. 23:5; 2 Sam. 7:12-13; Psalms 89:3-4, and 132:11. The theme of all the verses is that David's descent according to the flesh will be the Messiah. To establish the link between David and Jesus, Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). The father of Joseph is Jacob in Matthew 1:16, but Joseph’s father is Heli in Luke 3:23. A table is created from the accounts of Matthew and Luke relating to the genealogy of Jesus. The table is named as Table 1. Matthew started stating his own accounts of the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham and ended it at Jacob begat Joseph. As for Luke, he began the genealogy of Jesus from Joseph and ended it at Adam that was the son of God. The genealogy accounts of that of Matthew is transformed to start from Joseph and ended it at Abraham begat Isaac. The purpose of the transformation is to make comparison, inference and the reading intelligible. Table 1: The
comparison of Matthew and Luke Accounts of the Genealogy of Jesus.
If we count from Abraham, that is making Abraham to be first generation in the genealogy of Jesus to Joseph where Matthew’s account terminated, we will be having forty generations. If we count from Joseph, that is making Joseph to be first generation in the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham according to Luke’s accounts, we will be having fifty-four generations. Matthew and Luke’s accounts have the differences of fourteen generations. This is to say that Matthew’s accounts have fourteen generations unaccounted for when compared with Luke’s account, and that of Luke have more generations accounted for by fourteen generations when compared with that of Matthew. As a result, reading the two accounts from Joseph to Abraham, the accounts of Luke is not analogous to the accounts of Matthew, with the exemption of the third generation; which is Matthat (Lk3: 24) and Matthan (Matt1: 15) and this is under the probability that there’s error in spelling. Matthew has Joseph to be the son of Jacob (Matt1: 16) against Luke’s Joseph’s father to be Heli (Lk3: 23). Luke in the ninth generation has Amos to be the son of Naum (Lk3: 25), while Matthew have Eliakim to be the son of Abiud (Matt1: 13). Luke has Eliakim to be the son of Melea in the thirty-eighth generation (Lk3: 30-31), and made no mention of Abiud in his accounts. It is obvious that the two genealogies are at variance with each other, and not that alone, they are as well not consistent with each other and genealogies given in the Old Testament (Lk3: 35-36 against Gen11: 12) and (Matt1: 7-9, and 17 against 1 Chro3: 10-13). Albeit, of the contradictories within the two genealogies, the prerequisite, which is required of one claiming the Messiah-ship as foretold in (Jer. 23:5; 2 Sam. 7:12-13; Psalms 89:3-4, and 132:11), is not fulfilled. In addition, the claim of virgin birth by Matthew and Luke contradicted Apostle Paul that Jesus " was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3) and was " made of a woman, made under the law," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4). Even Paul’s words “under the law” contradicted Luke in (Lk2: 5) that Joseph and Mary were engaged, not married. Rounding-up the virgin birth scenario, it is pertinent to say that Mark and John did not talk about virgin birth. Matthew, in order to substantiate his virgin birth scenario, he claimed that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament prophecies. Thus, he wrote, “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” (Matt1: 23), in reference to Isaiah 7:14. According to the King James Version the verse says: "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and call his name Immanuel." The actual Hebrew words, read from right to left is this and
transliterated "laken yittan adonai hu lakem oth hinneh ha-almah harah
ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel." Literally translated by
Hebraic scholars into English, in the exact order of the Hebrew words, it
reads: "Therefore shall-give my-lord he [himself] to you sign behold
the-maid conceived [is pregnant] and-beareth son and- calleth name-his
immanuel." Here the word “harah” (conceived) 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.
When the sacred Hebrew scripts were translated into Greek, in what is known as the Septuagint, the Hebrew word “almah” is falsely translated to be “virgin” by the "false pen of the scribes" who translated Isaiah 7:14. Hebraic scholars say "almah" means a "young woman" or “maid”, not a virgin. They further contend that the real Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah". To back up there arguments, reference is made to Gen. 24: 43 “Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin (the word "bethulah" was used in Hebrew scripts) cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;” and Ex. 2: 8 “And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid (the word “almah” was used in Hebrew scripts) went and called the child’s mother”. In addition, the Hebrew says in their Masoretic text that "almah" should be translated as the young woman, not virgin. Who knows Hebrew better, the Hebrews or the Gentiles? Additional evidence that Isaiah 7:14 does not pertain to Jesus lies in the fact that Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel in the New Testament, is never called Immanuel except by those who do so in order to fulfil the prophecy, and, according to Luke 1:31, was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel. If the prophecy of Isaiah is applicable he should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus. The second prophecy that Matthew used to claim that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament prophecies is in Jer 31:15. It is clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, the coming captivity of Judah. Matthew says in Matt 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”. If this were true, John the Baptist, Jesus cousin that was six months old in Elisabeth’s womb (Lk1: 24-36) when angel Gabriel was delivering his message to Mary, would have been among the infants ordered to be slew by Herod. Thus, John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, though under two is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt. Another fact deduced from the genealogy according to Matthew’s accounts is that Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. However, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah in Jer 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a Descendant of King Jeconiah. Had Joseph be the father of Jesus, Jesus could not have inherit the throne of David by right, since he was a relative of the cursed line. Apart from the writings of Matthew and Luke relating to the birth of Jesus, which according to Mark, Jesus was a man and John maintained that he was God himself; there was no historian either of Hebrew race or gentile that mention the miraculous birth of Jesus. Philo a historian of high repute was born before the Christian era. He wrote about Jews during the whole span of history that Jesus is said to have lived on earth. He was a resident of Jerusalem’s vicinity when Jesus miraculous birth and Herod ordered infants to be slew occurred. Yet, he did not mention these events. Hard to believe and highly unthinkable that Philo would have failed to write about Jesus if all what Matthew and Luke wrote relating to the birth of Jesus were true and real. To be continuing in part two
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I received in my email
box in the twenty-ninth day of the month of February in the year 2008 one of
those FW, FW etc an email with an attachment of Microsoft PowerPoint. Which
titled is ‘Death of Jesus’. I downloaded the attachment and saved it to my
memory stick for reading or viewing when I am on my bed. The downloaded
PowerPoint was opened and the slides played. The opening page depicted the
following image of a lean man carrying a log on his back, fastened to the
joints between the forearms and the upper arms of the man. Of course, this lean
man is meant and to represent dramatically to be Jesus the God of the
Christians. Above the head of the man, this is what’s written in capital
letters: THE (SCIENTIFIC) DEATH OF JESUS.
The second image that is
pasted to the second slide on the second page is a complete different man
depicted, as shown here. It is obvious to the naked eyes that here are two
different men, which are meant to represent dramatically to be Jesus. If the
lean man carrying a log on his back is Jesus, then the well-fed muscular man
that is nailed to the cross must be an impostor. On the other way round, if the
well-fed muscular man that is nailed to the cross is Jesus, the lean man
carrying a log on his back by natural law of identification must be fake Jesus.
I am fully aware that there are thousand plus one different images being
circulated by Christians, purporting to be Jesus, right from the time it was
first produced in the work of art. The point is that, no one, right from the
day of the Fathers of the Church ever say with certainty, this or that one
image is the very true representative of what the Christians’ God look like.
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.