Matthew's List [Matt 10:2-4]
1. Simon, who is called Peter
2. Andrew [Peter's brother]
3. James [the son] of Zebedee,
4. and John his brother
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew the publican or tax collector
9. James [the son] of Alphaeus
10. Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus
11. Simon from Cana
12. Judas Iscariot
Mark's List [Matt 10:2-4]
1. Simon he surnamed Peter
2. Andrew
3. James [the son] of Zebedee,
4. and John his brother
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew the publican or tax collector
9. James [the son] of Alphaeus
10. Thaddaeus
11. Simon from Cana
12. Judas Iscariot
MATTHEW AND MARK ARE THE SAME LIST
Luke's List [Luke 6:14-16]
1. Simon, who is called Peter
2. Andrew [Peter's brother]
3. James [the son] of Zebedee,
4. and John his brother
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew
9. James [the son] of Alphaeus
10. Judas, [the brother] of James
11. Simon [the zealot]
12. Judas Iscariot
The apparent apostles of John's Gospel
1. Simon, who is called Peter [John 1:40-41]
2. Andrew - Peter's brother [John 1:40-41]
3. James [the son] of Zebedee - though never
mentioned by name [John 21:2]
4. John his brother - though never mentioned by
name [John 21:2]
5. Philip [John 1:43]
6. Nathanael [John 1:45-51; 21:2]
7. Thomas called Didymus [21:2]
8. ?
9. ?
10. Judas [John 14:22]
11. ?
12. Judas Iscariot
Only seven men are actually
named by name in "John's" gospel.
Shalom my dear friends,
First and foremost, my dear readers, these pages that I put together which display the blatant and awful contradictions in the "bible" are not meant to upset you by any means, but the truth of the matter is that we must look at the facts squarely in the eye and conform our thinking to reality, instead of holding on to some lofty dream or ideal.
Whether I desire to only speak of the Jewish Bible [Genesis through Malachi] or the mainstream "Christian Bible," there are many contradictions found therein that we must come to grips with and deal with accordingly when it comes to our personal way of thinking and the way we look at the bible. When it comes to the "mainstream Christian" Bible, however, unlike the Jewish Bible, the contradictions found therein are not merely typos or slight differences in a particular story, (even though there are plenty of these types of contradictions as well;) what we have with the "New Testament" is a good number of contradictions that portray two [and sometimes more] different points of view when it comes to a certain topic of theology. Furthermore, the stories and events about someone might be so radically different from each other that "history" is literally changed or rewritten from one author's disposition to another, wherever the contradiction is found. And sometimes, an author might even contradict himself, in the same book or in a different book by the same author! To give you two non-detailed examples of what I mean [but later on, I will get into details,] here they are:
The first example is this: According to the prophets of Israel, the messiah must literally be conceived by a natural sexual union of a married man and woman coming together, coming from the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, King David and Solomon. The Gospel of John supports this; yet, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke promote a totally different idea, an idea that the messiah was conceived miraculously without the involvement of a man. Thus, according to these two accounts [Matt and Luke] history would have to literally be re-written ["and have been," because of these two gospels] and the prophecies from ages past would have to be tossed out. Thus, history was "re-written" for those that are ignorant and so Jesus was never was a "direct" descendant from David's seed, of whom was given the promise from the God of Israel Himself, that he [the messiah] would be his direct son. The messiah, according to the prophets, must strictly come from the male side of the family so that he could be heir to the throne of King David, like Solomon was, or Hezekiah and the other kings of Judah. So, if he was conceived miraculously he might very well be the "son of God," but he would not be the son of David.
The second example is this: Before Moses was called by HaShem to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, one day he came to his own people and saw an Egyptian and a Hebrew fighting with each other, Moses killed, not murdered, the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand. When Pharaoh heard what Moses had done, Pharaoh sought after him to kill him in return. Because of this Moses "feared" Pharaoh and "fled" to Midian [Exodus 2:11-15]. Whereas, according to 'The Book of Hebrews,' it says the direct opposite, for it says, "By faith he [Moses] forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king [Heb 11:27]." Non-sense! He did not "forsake" anything, he left Egypt precisely because of his fear of the king.
So, like I said, several contradictions involve doctrines that are fundamental tenents to one's faith, where one book will say one thing about a certain topic while another book will say the direct opposite. We see this in the example of the virgin birth which not only involves a basic fundamental tenent, but also changes history in the process in the minds of those who accept the false teaching. In the case of the 'virgin birth' the Gospel of John is correct, because it follows or parallels the Jewish prophecies.
Because, of all these errors and contradictions, it would be very naive to think that all these books form a single message or some rounded universal truth. With that being said, let me add this: In the past, when each individual work or document was written, it was judged on its own regarding whether or not it was "inspired," or if it merely came "from man." Because most of the books found in the "Christian" bible contradict the very words of the Holy Prophets [who did speak in the name of YHWH] or what is taught in the Jewish bible concerning the "Jewish" messiah, most of the works found in the mainstream "Christian Bible" are NOT at all inspired. This is a very sad fact and very grievous to say or admit.
Let me stress a few historical facts though regarding the ancient Jewish people. The reason I am going to say this is because "Christians" claim that their faith is derived from the religion and faith of the Jewish prophets and the people of Israel. In reality, however, the two faiths [Judaism and mainstream Christianity] couldn't be any further from each other in their beliefs. One can easily see this by examining the one example of how the messiah must be conceived. Notice, however, that I have been saying "mainstream Christianity" all this time and not something else. The reason I say this is because before Paul came on the scene of history, the people of Judea and Israel that did acknowledge Yoshua/Joshua/Jesus as their long awaited moshiach/messiah were only seen or deemed as a sect within Judaism, not that they were a separate religion altogether as believers in Jesus of today are, whose beliefs do not reflect, nor come near the teachings of the Jewish prophets, nor Jesus for that matter. In those days, before Paul, the believers would carry on in practicing their Judaism as before, yet, they acknowledged that Yoshua was their messiah and tried to persuade their fellow countrymen through the Tanach [the Jewish Bible] that he was indeed the moshiach. These believers still practiced all of the Mosaic Law, from observing the weekly sabbath and the annual festivals, to the dietary laws, to farming laws, to sacrifices [except for sin offerings] to all the rest that the Mosaic Law dictates. However, because Jesus was seen as an apostate in the eyes of the Sanhedrin [The High Court] or those that had authority, all those that taught in his name were seen as apostates as well, especially when Yoshua's followers testified that he was the long awaited moshiach. The reason Jesus was deemed as an apostate is because he frowned upon and condemned "rabbinical Judaism" or the man-made rules and practices of the heads of Israel that the Sanhedrin [the High Court] made into binding law. Jesus taught true authentic Judaism where one must only practice the many laws and customs that the prophets gave and nothing else, not that the people should acknowledge the other teachings that came from these heads of state. Well, the heads of state considered their man-made laws to be the very rules of YHWH Himself, so when Jesus told the masses not to regard the man-made teachings, the heads of state judged that type of teaching to be apostate in nature. The heads of state thought he was trying to turn the masses from practicing the "laws of YHWH." In reality, those extra teachings were false teachings and oftentimes contradicted the customs and laws of the prophets. It was because of these reasons that Jesus was arrested, apart from being betrayed, but when he confessed he was the moshiach, yet, taught what he did, they deemed that to be very blasphemous. For how could the "Jewish messiah" not practice what the Sanhedrin taught? Therefore, when Jesus' followers started to tell the people that Jesus was the moshiach and to practice nothing but authentic Judaism, as one only sees in the written text of the Tanach, they were really going up against a hard wall and why they kept getting arrested and sometimes killed if they spoke out, like Stephan did.
It was only when a person named Paul came on the scene that the message of "salvation" became tainted as well as many other teachings from the prophets. For Paul taught a salvation apart from practicing the Torah, which Jesus never taught [Matthew 19:17, Matthew 23:1-3, Matt 23:23, Matt 24:20, and...], nor did the prophets [Psalm 119:155, Ezekiel 18:21-22, Exodus 32:31-33 and...]. Most Jewish believers in Jesus at the time deemed Paul as an apostate, for he was. The Gentiles, however, that never saw Jesus, nor grew up knowing the teachings of the prophets or the things of Judaism did not know that Paul's teaching was heretical. Because of the ease of how one obtains salvation through Paul's message vs. the way of Judaism, the prophets, Jesus and the early Jewish believers that taught how one gains salvation [by practicing the hundreds of laws of the Torah working simultaneously with his correct faith], the Pauline message was very inviting. Because of Paul's simplistic message, that heretical message became widespread and popular until they simply outnumbered the true believers. In time the Pauline believers came to power and condemned the Jewish believers and especially Jews in general. From around 80 CE/AD, through the Gentiles that knew nothing of the Jewish faith, nor were they really encouraged to look into Judaism because of Paul's teaching that the "law was nailed to the cross," the roots that eventually grew into the belief of the "Trinity" were started, because of their lack of understanding of Jewish theology.
The grim reality is that only a handful of writings of the Jewish prophets endure to this day, writings like Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah and the others that are found in the Tanach [the Jewish Bible], though there were hundreds of prophets [1 Sam 10:5, 1 Kings 18:13, 2 Kings 2:3 & 2:5 and...] and hundreds of their writings [the two tablets, the real law of Moses, Num 21:14, Jos 10:13, 1 Sam 10:25, 2 Sam 1:18, 1 Kings 11:41, 1 Chron 29:29, 2 Chron 9:29, 12:15, 13:22, 20:24 and 21:12 and...] Now, even though these prophets pre-date Yoshua/Jesus by hundreds of years and that they prophecied about "the messiah," a person that would be the best of all prophets or the "prophet of prophets," we, amazingly enough, don't have a single shred of papyrus or parchment from Jesus himself, though we do have writings by these other prophets. Besides this problem, the four gospels were not even written by his followers, but by Gentiles that never saw him, nor heard him, but based their biographies on "hear-say," even as "Luke" testifies to at the beginning of his gospel. This would then clearly explain the reason behind the hundreds of contradictions between the four gospels and some contradictions that are found by the same author in his own book. This also explains why there are several anti-Jewish, anti-biblical, anti-Tanach teachings in the four gospels [which I will point out] and why Jesus is even found to be a genuine "sinner" in Luke's gospel in one particular event - OY!! The true messiah must have perfect integrity concerning Torah observance; therefore, this sin could never have occurred if Jesus were the true moshiach of Israel, not that he is divine, but all prophets must have integrity in keeping the Torah. Most non-Torah observant people will never "see" this transgression, because they either refuse to do the Torah - like those of Reform Judaism and would not know the laws he "broke," or the reader is a Pauline disciple and thinks that the law has been "nailed to the cross," and therefore, has no need to understand its regulations, thus never seeing the so-called "sin" of Jesus.
In ancient days, during the days of the kings of Judah and of Israel, only the words of the prophets themselves, or their writings, were considered to be "inspired" or "scripture." Every other work or writing merely came from our theocratic culture and is, therefore, open to mistakes and errors, of which there are hundreds [of which I will point out many] in our Tanach. With that being said, only the writings of Isaiah to Malachi are "scripture" along with the psalms. All else are mere writings that came from our ancient theocratic culture. The Torah [Genesis though Deuteronomy] is not the true "Law of Moses," rather these writings are called this because of the many laws found in them. Genesis through Deuteronomy was written during the days of the kings of Judah, hundreds of years after Moses' death. We know this by the fact that certain words are mentioned in the "Torah" which only came into use many years after Moses' death. Taking all that I just said into consideration, mankind is really in a fix, because we know longer have the true "Mosaic Law," the ark, the Temple, the many writings of the prophets, nor anything of Jesus himself, nor anything from Jesus' apostles about Jesus' life or about his biography. Of all things important, we either have nothing at all or nothing definite.
Not to despair too much though, in true reality one does not "need" any of the "post-crucifixion" manuscripts - "the new testament," in order to understand who the true "Jewish" moshiach is and what he must be like. This is because the prophets were very clear about these matters. Please read HERE concerning "who" the foretold "Jewish" messiah is and what he must be like.
I would like to say one more thing before I display these contradictions, it is this: It's not that the writings about Jesus are inerrant [which would be nice if they were, but they are not], rather it is the man himself that was without error and without sin. Please keep this in mind, because the prophets of Israel prophecied that the Jewish messiah had to be far greater than themselves.
Because the four Gospels were written by Gentiles that never heard or eyewitnessed a single thing or event surrounding Jesus, they inadvertently wrote down certain things concerning him that simply are not true. To go along with this, even though certain things about Jesus are entirely false in these four gospels, and these false things were written accidentally (i.e., like that there is no virgin birth, and other things I'll point out...) versus them being made deliberately, they, nonetheless, became the very roots of how one sees Jesus in modern times for those that don't know Judaism. I say "modern times" because when the early believers lived the "sifting" was still in the works and it took time for the truth about Jesus to change over to that which is false. When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in 70 AD/CE and when the Jewish people, as a whole, were banned from the city, this only accelerated the spreading of these false reports, even more so when the original believers eventually died off. After these things took place, however, a new religion emerged, founded on the Pauline teachings and the accidental anti-Judaic teachings of the Gentiles. These new era believers were the first "Catholics" and the so-called "orthodoxy." In reality, however, they were still pagans and lost. It is these "Catholics" that formed the modern mainstream "Christian Bible" we see today, based on what they deemed the truth to be. Any other viewpoint from their own was deemed heretical, even though it was these folks that were the true heretics or were heretics along with the ones they condemned [depending on who they deemed as a heretic]. Likewise, most modern "Christian" denominations and so-called "non-denominational" sects [who still accept the early "Catholic" tenents as "orthodox"] are offshoots from these original Catholics.
In modern days, "Christianity" is a separate religion altogether because of how opposite they are from the tenents and teachings of Judaism. In the early days, however, there was no religion called "Christianity." In reality, a certain amount of people in Judea and of Israel continued to practice their ancient ancestral religion called Judaism, yet, at the same time they acknowledged that Jesus was their long awaited messiah. Proof of this can be seen in Acts 21:17-24 where we can even see Jesus' own blood brother [James] and those with him are fully practicing Judaism. There are several other passages to prove this case in the writings of the early "church [i.e. Catholics]."
Let's finally get started with these awful contradictions that will prove over and over again that many of the books of the "Bible" are NOT inerrant or flawless, nor are they the inspired "word of God," instead of being mere attempts to jot down historical events, narratives and stories years after such events transpired in order to preserve the things that these authors believed in, even though some of things mentioned never occurred at all.
HERE WE GO:
1. Was Jesus conceived in a virgin girl apart from Joseph's involvement? Or, was Jesus
conceived naturally by Joseph and Miriam [Mary] having intercourse?
a. According to Matthew, Jesus was clearly conceived miraculously in a virgin girl.
b. According to Luke, Jesus was clearly conceived miraculously in a virgin girl as well.
c. According to John 6:42 and John 7, Jesus was conceived naturally
d. According to the prophecies of the prophets, Jesus would have had to have been
conceived naturally if he were the foretold 'Jewish' messiah.
e. Even according to Paul, who was considered an apostate because of his teachings
against the practice of the Torah and other things, Jesus was conceived
naturally as we can see in "Romans 1:3, "...concerning His son Jesus the christ our lord,
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."
This contradiction against the prophets is one of the major fundamental tenents of "mainstream Christianity." In fact, if one were to deny this particular tenent in so-called "Christian" thought that very same person is rendered a heretic or someone belonging to some "cult." However, the "virgin" birth is nothing close to what the prophets prophecied. The whole point behind the circumcision was to point out the fact that the messiah would come from that particular body member of Abraham that was circumcised. Meaning, the messiah would be of Abraham's actual semen, being his physical son; or grandson; or great grandson; or whichever descendant it would be in a line of descendants that would eventually arise and be blessed by the God of Abraham. This messiah or blessed one would promote nothing but Judaism, the faith of Abraham. He would display equality, justice, speak of great things and have outstanding wisdom. Eventually, however, he would set out to conquer the world for the God of Abraham would be with him, slaying all those that did not convert and become circumcised. During and after the time that this particular descendant would conquer the world, his state sponsored religion would still be the faith of Abraham - Judaism. Thus, my friends, every time an Israelite or the convert to Judaism, would look upon his circumcised flesh he would be reminded of the covenant that the God of Heaven made with Abraham and it was through this particular body member that the messiah would come, not just that the children of Abraham would grow in number like the "stars of the sky."
"Matthew" quotes a passage from Isaiah 7 that is totally out of its context AND from an ill-translation on top of that. Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with the moshiach, but the fact that the "God of Heaven would be with the Kingdom of Judah [i.e. Emanuel/Immanuel]" and not with the Kingdoms of Israel or of Aram [Syria]. Somewhere around 738 BCE the two kings, the king of Israel and the king of Aram, were bothering Ahaz, the king of Judah. Because of this, YHWH had Isaiah go down to meet Ahaz and tell him not to fear these two kings for He would be with him and his kingdom and He would deal with these two other kings. Isaiah then gives him a sign to prove that the God of Heaven was going to protect Judah from these two other kings, the sign was that Isaiah's wife would bear a child and name him "Emanuel." Then Isaiah tells him the hard hitting part of the sign, in that before the child "Emanuel" would know the difference between right from wrong, around 3-6 years old, the two kings would be dead. This was a prophecy and a sign that was fulfilled long before Jesus was ever born, and one that has nothing to do with the messiah. Yes, my friends, it was fulfilled while Ahaz was still king so that he could see the sign actually take place. "Matthew," however, uses this particular chapter of Isaiah, namely verse 14, but quotes from the Greek Septuagint and not from the Hebrew writings. I say this because the Hebrew writings, the real scripture, say that the "young woman" shall conceive and bear a child, not that a "virgin" girl shall conceive, as found in the Greek translation. However, Luke on the other hand, unlike "Matthew" does not mention any particular scriptural proof as to why he believes the virgin birth story. Rather, he only states that these stories or things were the commonly held beliefs of his particular group [Luke 1:1].
Now let's move on...
Despite the fact that the "virgin birth" was not even prophecied, nor did it ever occur, and that according to the early 'church' [the Gentiles - i.e. the early Catholics] apologists, the Jewish believers did not acknowledge the virgin birth, the narrative of Matthew and Luke are totally different "historical" backdrops and narratives. Thus, making a slew of contradictions between them. Not that we should care to look into these contradictions, because the "virgin" birth never even occurred, but we will do so for fun's sake and for the sake of this paper.
Before I start though, the only common things between the two contradictory accounts are these:
1. Mary became pregnant without Joseph's involvement.
2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, though not according to the Gospel of John.
3. The main characters are Joseph, Mary and Jesus. (I point this out because when in comes
to other stories or things in the New Testament, and one case in the Tanach that I can think
of, the characters are not the same. Namely I am speaking of who are the 12
apostles of Jesus, and who killed Goliath, the giant [David (1 Sam 17) or Abishai (2 Sam
21:17)] ?
4. The birth of Jesus took place while King Herod was still alive, thus sometime before 4 BCE.
So let's get started:
1. What town was Mary in when she became impregnated?
a. Was this in Bethlehem?
b. Or, was this in Nazareth?
2. When Jesus was born in Bethlehem - in these two accounts -
a. Was he born at home? [Matt
b. Or, was he born on a farm ?[Luke
3. Why was Jesus born in Bethlehem - according to these two accounts -
a. ...because this is where Joseph and Mary's home was?
b. Or, because of a census that they had to travel down to Bethlehem to register at and
while there, Mary went into labor?
4. When Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary were actually
a. Married? [Matt
b. Or, just betrothed? [Luke
5. After Jesus was born, where did the family go?
a. Back home to Nazareth?
b. Or, to Egypt in fear of Herod, then after a long period of time went back to
Bethlehem, but saw that Herod's son reigned in Herod's place and so wound up in
Nazareth instead?
6. Did John the Baptist know that Jesus was the messiah long before Jesus was baptized?
a. Yes, because they were cousins, and John's mother knew, so John would have to know
too? [Luke
b. No, not until the dove actually rested upon Jesus, after his baptism?
7. Again, if Mary was pregnant for 9 months and not married, but only betrothed, according to
Luke, why don't the people of Nazareth know that "God" impregnated her, seeing that her
belly was huge from her pregnancy? For they would have asked, who made you pregnant?
Then she would have said something of blasphemy like, "El Shaddai did." Yet, in John 6:42
the people of Nazareth know nothing of the matter.
8. Why is it that everyone knows Jesus at his birth in two gospels [Matt and Luke [Mark and
John are silent about his life before his baptism]]; yet, thirty years later at his baptism in
these same Gospels of Matthew and Luke, no one knows who he is, especially the people
of his home town of Nazareth where he has been all this time, for 30 plus years? Likewise,
if Jesus is the so-called long awaited 'Jewish' messiah and many people know this from his
birth why isn't anyone following him before Jesus was actually baptized by John the Baptist?
The fact of the matter is that these two early accounts of Jesus' life found in Matt and Luke
are total fabrications. This is why there is such a huge time gap of people who did not know
who Jesus was from the time he was just a few days old until he was about 33 years old, if
we were to use the times given in Matthew and Luke. NOTE: Luke said he was baptized in
the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar's reign [Luke 3:1], being 29 CE, yet born sometime before
Herod died in 4 BCE, thus 29 + 4 - 1 [for year 0] = 33 years old.
Again, why is it that all these people know who Jesus is right from his birth in the gospels
of Matthew and Luke, from the magi, to the shepherds in the field, to the male and female
prophets in the Temple and so forth; but in John's gospel, John the Baptist [the very prophet
of the LORD] does not know him? And, when in comes to all the gospels, why doesn't
Jesus have any followers before his baptism? And to ask a third question on top of the
others, why didn't Jesus' very own brothers believe that Jesus, their brother, was the
messiah since they would have grown up hearing the miraculous story of how Jesus was
conceived, without Joseph's involvement, every year on Jesus' birthday and they would have
heard Jesus' wonderful words of wisdom while growing up? Again, this is because the
majority of the things said about Jesus' life before his baptism are entirely false. What the
prophets said is that the messiah would be "raised up [Deut 18]" like they were. Meaning:
as David was a righteous man minding his own business - tending the flock of Jesse, then
all of a sudden the prophet Samuel anointed him and the Spirit - Yehowah - came upon him
in power and so he was His chosen one; Or when Amos was doing the same thing and
being very holy because of his Torah observance, all of a sudden Yehowah called him out
and gave him a message; Elisha was minding his own business, tilling his field, when all of
a sudden Elijah came up to him and threw his mantle upon him. Because of these facts, we
know that the messiah would grow up a common man, yet, be very Torah observant before
he would be anointed with the Spirit - Yehowah. For Yehowah is a spirit. If Jesus were not
Torah observant, Yehowah would not have picked him. Before every prophet became a
prophet, they were Torah observant and holy, for Yehowah will never make a disobedient
person His representative. This is why Jesus even quotes from Isaiah 61, "The Spirit -
Yehowah - is upon me to preach...." If Jesus were "God in the Flesh" why in the world would
he of all people need to be "anointed" in order to preach. This is why I say mainstream
Christianity is nothing but paganism, false doctrines and false godliness, or they have a very
limited amount of godliness and truth.
Some ignorant so-called "apologists" will try to persuade their audiences that Matthew is
speaking of the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke is giving the genealogies of Mary. The fact
of the matter is that Luke is very clear about which person he is referring to, he is clearly
speaking of Joseph, not Mary. For Luke writes, "When he [Jesus] began his ministry, Jesus
himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son
of Heli...." It does not say, "Joseph was married to Mary, who was the supposed daughter of
Heli..." In fact, "Mary" is not even mentioned once in all of chapter 3 of Luke!! Again, Luke is
speaking of Joseph's family line, not Mary's; thus, don't let these foul apologists deceive you
with their non-sense.
9. If Jesus was truly born from a virgin girl and conceived without Joseph's involvement, then why
do Matthew and Luke proceed to give their readers a genealogy from Joseph's family history
as if Jesus were in fact his physical son? What would be the point?
10. Speaking of these two genealogies found in Matthew and Luke, who is the true parent of
Joseph?
a. Matthan [Matt 1:15]
b. or Heli [Luke 3:23]
11. Was the Joseph the son of David through...
a. Solomon [Matt 1:6]
b. Or Nathan [Luke 3:31 & 2 Sam 5:14]
Now let's move on to other contradictions:
12. Who are the 12 apostles of Jesus?
By Maregaal Ben Yaakov
Are there discrepancies in the Bible?
In fact, there are many errors, myths and falsehoods within the Gospels, the Epistles and the others texts of the post-crucifixion manuscripts [i.e. the "New Testament"] of which I will bring to light. Likewise, I will show several inconsistencies in the Jewish Tanach [Bible], which is erroneously called the "Old Testament." This is an honest and non-biased look into these matters by a Jewish believing man that acknowledges Yoshua
is the messiah.
A sad, yet overwhelming YES.
![(1.) This website tells the truth about the Jewish messiah (moshiach). (2.) That holiness comes through the observance of the full torah and condemns the trinity doctrine, as well as the 'saved by grace' notion taught by Paul [ the FALSE apostle]. (3.) It PROVES that the messiah in NOT God - yet, Yehoshua, is the moshiach, the only begotten son of the only God, the God of Israel !!!](link1.gif){kind=small}
13. In the "Gospel of Matthew," when Jesus was transfigured on the Mount, "Matthew" writes that Moses was
there. Yet, this flies in the face of the doctrine of death, or the facts regarding death. Which is, when a man
dies, the man is dead, as well as his spirit, not nonexistent, but just asleep. Then, when the resurrection
takes place, both will come alive; unless one is righteous, and is beheaded. For a man's judgment does not
take place at death, but rather on the day of Judgment, click here to see. "Matthew" puts Moses at the Mt.of
Transfiguration when he is dead, and his spirit sleeps. Furthermore, it was the Lord himself that ended
Moses' life, and he also buried him. This also means that the account that 'Jude' gives is also false, (in
regards to Michael and Satan fighting over Moses' body), because the Lord is the one that buried him.
Furthermore, the actual eyewitness to the whole story, Peter, never mentions this in his letter when he does
recite that day in 2 Peter 1:16-18.
14. The "Gospel of Matthew" proclaims that Joseph, the step-parent of Jesus, was a righteous man. This was
because he wanted to put Mary away secretly, versus putting her to death, after he found out that she was
with child by someone other than himself. This is regardless of them actually being married or not, because
Joseph had already betrothed her. For if a man defiles a betrothed lady, it carries the same penalty as the
lady that is married; ie, adultery. Read the Torah here to see. Her being pregnant was the apparent 'proof,' of
her adultery, regardless if there were any witnesses who "caught her in any act." For this is the same outcome
of Judah's daughter-in-law when she was found to be with child by someone other than her dead husband's
brother; as the law requires, and so this is how Judah judged her. Thus, if Joseph was a righteous man, he
would have done things in the same manner as Judah did. Though, we know the accusations were different.
Tamar was accused of being pregnant by harlotry, whereas, Mary would or should have been accused of
adultery. Both crimes result in death, even though how they are put to death is different. Tamar was supposed
to be burned alive, whereas, Mary would have just been stoned. I am just pointing out the discrepancy of "if
Joseph were righteous," not anything else with this #5 in this list.
15. In the "Gospel of John," Jesus tells someone to pick up a cot/mat on the Sabbath. This seems to be the
only flaw in the Gospel of John. It also seems you can write off this error as a mere mistake,
not because of his insertion of this situation, but because he apparently was not an eyewitness to this event,
but rather he was told of it. Click here to read the story.
16. Jesus is accredited of telling a totally false parable in order to make the point that one must fully keep all of the
law of Moses and the other prophets. The story is concerning a poor man named Lazareth and a rich man and
that the both of them die and find themselves on the other side. "Life after death" contradicts the theology of
the prophets, for the prophets taught that there is only "life" after the resurrection, not that one goes to heaven
or "Abraham's bosom," nor to hell, but that their spirit sleeps in the grave with their decaying body. Click here
to see why Jesus never said this parable.
17. In the book of Matthew after Jesus died on the cross, the tombs were opened by an earthquake
and the dead walked among the town. Something so great and miraculous as this is recorded in no other
gospel, and Flavius Josephus makes no mention of so great a miracle in any of his writings of those days.
18.. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke only, Jesus' last supper was the Passover meal, thus
making him out to be a sinner when he tells his disciples to buy a sword since that night is a
special Sabbath; that is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Also, the priests were not allowed
to put him to death on a Sabbath.
19. They have Jesus asking the Father to take the cup away while praying in the garden, so that he
does not have to go through with his death on the cross. This contradicts his own statements of why he
came and that he yearns to drink of the cup given to him by the God of Israel.
20. Did you know that according to the gospel of Matthew 27:5, Judas hanged himself after he betrayed Jesus?
Yet, in Acts 1, Peter gives an entirely different account of how Judas died. Peter says that he took the money
that he received in his betrayal of Jesus and went and bought a field with it vs. throwing it back in the Temple.
Yet, while he was walking in his own field his stomach burst open out of the blue and his guts spilled out; and
thus, he died as a result.
21. According to Exodus 6 where it says, "And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] Yehowah:
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name, Yehowah, was
I not known to them," the narrator got this wrong. I say this because in Genesis 14 we see Yehowah himself,
telling his name to Abram. This is what it says in Genesis 14, "And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift
up mine hand unto Yehowah, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not [take] from
a thread even to a shoe latchet, and that I will not take any thing that [is] thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have
made Abram rich: Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with
me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion."
Here are other places where the holy name of Yehowah is mentioned before the time Moses came to
Mount Sinai, in regards to the people of the past actually saying His name in a quote versus the narrator of
Genesis placing His name in the narrative:
In Genesis 1 through Exodus 3:15 the holy and beautiful name of Yehowah is listed 145 times; out of those
145 occasions we see that this holy name is quoted 51 times before and counting Exodus 3:15.
Here is a short list of the people that say this holy NAME directly:
1. Yehowah himself (4) Gen 15:7, 18:14, 28:13, Ex 3:15
2. Eve (1) Gen 4:1
3. Lamech (1) Gen 5:29
4. Noah (1) Gen 9:26
5. Abraham (8) Gen 12:8, 13:4, 13:18, 14:22, (Two times in 22:14, 1 normally, another time in
the name = Jehovah-Jirah), 24:3, 24:7
6. Sarah (2) Gen 16:2, Gen 16:5
7. Angel of YHWH (2) Gen 16:11, 19:13
8. Lot (1) Gen 19:14
9. Abraham's servant (10) Gen 24:12, 24:27 (2), 24:35, 24:40, 24:42, 24:44, 24:48 (2), 24:36
10. Laban (5) 24:31, 24:50, 24:51, 30:27, 31:49
11. Isaac (3) 26:22, 27:7, 27:27
12. Abimelech (2) Gen 26;28, 26:29
13. Jacob (6) Gen 27:20, 28:16, 28:16, 30:30, 32:9, 49:18
14. Leah (3) Gen 29:32, 29:33, 29:35
15. Rachel (1) 30:24
16. About Nimrod (1) Gen 10:9
Even if one wants to debate these things as inserts on the part of the narrator by means of being excited, or
being on the other side of the Sinai story and thus knowing the name of the Holy One, we can still prove the
Exodus 3:15 statement to be false, by the mere names of our ancestors. Remember that the surrounding
cultures inserted the names of their gods within the names of their children as we can see with Nebo in the
case of Nebuchadnezzar, or Bel in the case with Belshazzar, or Baal in the case with Jezebel (Jeze-baal), or
Asherah as in the case with Tiglathpileser (Tig-lath--pil-eser). The few people that only believed in monotheism,
that being Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their wives (except for Rachel for awhile) - starting with Jacob - did
the same thing as the cultures around them. Thus we have:Yeho-dah or Yehu-dah = Judah; and Yeho-seph
(Ps 81:5) or Yo-sef = Joseph. As time went on and the children of Jacob increased in number you can also see
the increase of the names of the children of Israel having the name of Yehowah within their personal names.
Here are a few:
Eli-Yahu = Elijah
Yeho-shaphat = Jehoshaphat
Yeho-shua = Joshua / Jesus
Yeho-ram = Joram or Jehoram
Avi-Yahu = Abijah
Yeho-addan = Jehoaddan
Yirme-Yahu = Jeremiah
Yesha-Yahu = Isaiah
Yechiz-ki-Yahu = Hezekiah
-----------------------------------------
QUICK NOTES BEFORE I FORGET - I will put the references in later.
1. Ezra 6:14 says that Zechariah is the son of Iddo, but Zechariah himself says that he is the son of Berechiah,
the grandson of Iddo the Prophet in Zech 1:1. This, however, may not be a contradiction when it comes to
the Hebrew language, because the same word used for "son" is also used for "male descendant."
2. Stephen, before he was stoned, mentioned that 75 souls entered into Egypt with Jacob [Acts 7:14]. Yet,
Genesis 46:27 says that 70 people of the house of Jacob were in the land of Egypt when he entered,
which included Jacob himself,
3. Who really sold Joseph into Egypt, According to one verse in Genesis, it seems as if Joseph's brothers
did not get a chance to sell him at all, because while they were still thinking about doing it the Midianites came
and took him out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, Gen 37:28. Yet, later in the same chapter it
contradicts itself, by then saying the Midianites sold him to Potiphar, Gen 37:36. Then if you keep reading, it
contradicts itself again in chapter 39:1 by saying that is was the Ishmaelites that sold him to Potiphar.
Whatever the case is, he was sold. For according Joseph's own words in Gen 45:4-5, his brothers did in
fact sell him off. There may not be to many contradictions here, because the original ancient Hebrew version,
[which was lost] does not have the same grammar rules as we use today. Thus, it is much harder
to distinguish, sometimes, where one segment of a story ends and another one starts. In Chapter 37, it seems
very clear that Reuben did not see Joseph get pulled out of the pit and by the reaction of his brothers, it seems
as though they also know nothing of the taking of Joseph.
4. Jesus did not say, "Eli Eli....." on the cross, because he was NEVER separated from his God, and he
never had sinned, rather he died for those that have sinned. For sin only exists with those that rebel. The
people that promote that Jesus was separated from the God of Israel while Jesus was on the cross, teach this
only because they are trying to justify this false account. There is no "scriptural proof" to this apologetic belief.
In fact, the reason I am pointing this out is because John's Gospel is the only gospel that does not follow this
sort of "end of life" experience. Rather, Jesus says "the Father is always with me." Therefore, you cannot have
it both ways - that is to be "forsaken" and to always have the "Father."
5. The tale of the veil in the Temple ripping in half contradicts the fact that Jesus said that the Torah is forever and
must always be kept and that the "myriads" of Jewish believers, including James the brother of Jesus himself,
continued to keep the Torah long after Jesus resurrection [Acts 21:17-24].
6. The whole magi story is false, because the whole "virgin birth" is false.
7. The whole story about Herod slaying the infants is false, because no one knew Jesus until his actual baptism.
8. The whole story about Jesus going down into Egypt as an infant is entirely false.
9. The whole conversation with John the Baptist, about John needing to be baptized by him, is false. Because
John claims in the book of John that he does not know who the moshiach is until the Spirit of the Father
should rest upon him.
10. The author of the "Book of Hebrews" is plain ignorant - for he says that Melchizedek did not have any parents,
Yet, he was either a Jebusite or Amorite
There is a lot more but I am sleepy right now, I will get back to it later, remember I am just dealing with the four gospels, not the rest of the New Testament. It would be righteous to throw away all of Paul's letters, by the way, since most of all that he wrote is false. Click here to see my paper on the errors and wickedness of Paul. This paper about Paul does not point out typos that would not effect the core of someone or a person's core beliefs,
because those things would simply be accidental mistakes, and can be fixed. Rather, it points out that what he taught and practiced contradicted the teachings of Yehoshua and the prophets that came before Yehoshua, thus proving, and not just accusing, that Paul was and is a false apostle and a heretic.
Maregaal
THIS IS PAGE 1 of 3
