The truth and errors in the New Testament

Before I start this thesis let me make this very clear .I assure you that I still believe that the historical
Yahushua existed and walked the earth doing many great exploits for Yah over 2000 year’s ago. I believe
he is the son of Yah but not Yah himself .I believe he is and was ha-mashiach. But I believe the way we
see things and understand the Bible through westernized eyes is not the same as the ancient Hebrews. And
for this reason we have been in error and disconnected from these ancient truths of who Yahushua really
was. The Jesus created by Rome is not the Yahushua son of Yah that was sent to help his people. This is
one of the grandest scales of identity theft in the history of man. Yahushua was a Hebrew Rabbi, Prophet,
Apostle, Miricle worker etc. He taught and practiced the laws and custom of our forefathers Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.

"Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people. Yet the term by no means
carries the idea of physical descent from, and essential unity with, God the Father. The Hebrew idiom
conveys nothing further than a simple expression of godlikeness (see Godliness).
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13912-son-of-god

More reference to who were called the sons of God:

davelivingston.com/sonsofgod.htm

HA-MASHIACH:
In Jewish eschatology, the term came to refer to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who will be
"anointed" with holy anointing oil, to be king of God's kingdom, and rule the Jewish people during the
Messianic Age. In Judaism, the Messiah is not considered to be God or a pre-existent divine Son of God.
He is considered to be a great political leader that has descended from King David. That is why he is
referred to as Messiah ben David, which means "Messiah, son of David".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

I also believe that the story’s surrounding his life is not accurately depicted in the four gospels. I believe
that the gospels have been tampered with for the furtherance of different agendas. I believe that what
some call the new testament of the Bible is filled with great truths but also lots of contradictions. I believe
we must live by the principles of the so called New Testament that are in line with Torah. We should not
take every word literal or as if it has been spoken directly from the mouth of Yah. Some of the
contradictions are subtle or just mistakes made by ancient copyist but some changes I believe were made
deliberately to push a specific doctrine or belief.

After over 20 plus years I have come to the conclusion that the so called New Testament is not the
infallible word or the breath of the Most High. It is not without error and was written by men, some with
good intentions and some with not so good intentions. I believe it was inspired by Yah but later corrupted,
edited and tampered with by Rome and the elites at some point in time. I do not believe that the four
gospels were written by the original apostles. I believe that they are ascribed to them but written by some
3rd party maybe disciples who got their info from some who had heard and repeated the verbal tradition
of the original apostles. I believe that the so called New Testament was created to moot the
Hebrew/Jewish wars and up risings that continued to take place time and time again in what we now call
Palestine/ Judea. I believe that these up risings were a serious threat to the rulers of the Roman Empire.
Therefore the whole creation that we now call Christianity was a political move by Constantine and the
bishops of Rome to calm and silence the Jews/Hebrews.

The First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), sometimes called the Great Revolt (Hebrew: ‫ המרד הגדול‬ha-
Mered Ha-Gadol), was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews against the Roman Empire, fought
in the Eastern Mediterranean. The First Jewish–Roman War took place mainly in the province
of Judea (Iudaea); the second was the Kitos War in 115–117, which took place mainly in the diaspora (in
Cyprus, Egypt, Mesopotamia and only marginally in Judea), and the third was Bar Kokhba's revolt of
132–136 CE, concentrating in Judea province.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War

See also:
A Chronology of the the
First Jewish Revolt against Rome according to Josephus
http://www.josephus.org/warChronologyIntro.htm

The Jewish Revolts against Rome (sometimes called the Jewish Wars) were a series of small and large-
scale armed conflicts between the Jews and the Romans that spanned almost two centuries. These wars
provide the overall historical background for the understanding of New Testament texts.
The kingdom of Israel was situated along a major trade route to Egypt and Africa and throughout its
history was dominated by a number of larger nations.

The Roman Empire controlled Israel’s territories from 63 BC into the fourth century AD. Apart from the
Greco-Roman dominance, this period of Israel’s history was characterized by substantial internal
divisions: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Qumranites, Hellenists, Herodians, Samaritans, Proselytes,
Galilean and Diaspora Jews (Josephus, Antiquities XVIII 1.2-6; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV 22.7;
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80.

Roman rule precipitated the emergence of newly-organized nationalistic revolutionary groups. According
to osephus, a radical ewish movement of ealots ) believed that political and religious
freedom for Israel should be achieved by any means necessary (Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. 1.6).

Zealots, and among them the Sicarii σικάριοι), were known for violent opposition to Rome.Unmoved
even by death they were responsible for much of the unrest. https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-
studies/jewish-revolts-rome-peter-shirokov-dr-eli-lizorkin-eyzenberg/

More on these up risings below:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War

https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/the-jewish-world-of-jesus-an-overview/

The New Testament is not the infallible word of the Most High. It is not the literal breath of Yah! The
Most High can’t lie and to say that 100 % of the words written by men in the New Testament is directly
from Yah with all of it contradictions is to say that Yah is a contradicting Elohim. If all four gospel where
eyewitness accounts why do most of the accounts differ? If the 13 letters attributed to Paul was ordained
by Yah why do some contradict the Most High everlasting perpetual covenant?

The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"

Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of
Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear
picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born,
and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate.

About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of
Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the
other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three
sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it
was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p.
598).

In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of
Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,
"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures
who understood nothing"
(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen.

Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in
Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796
reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised
reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at
the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the
lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.).

It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the
theological creation of Jesus Christ.

The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the
canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them.
However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor
and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v,
pp. 619-620).

There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops"
represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History,
ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa,Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of
Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests,
deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system
that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of
"wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters
and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:
Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo,
Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis,
Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes
(God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).
Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods -
Apollo and Zeus- but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the
Romanized version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death
(15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius".

The word "Savior" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he
was a phallic god.
Julius Caesar was hailed as, "God made manifest and universal Savior of human life", and his
successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Savior of the whole human race"
(Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952).
Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was
immortalized on his coins as the "Savior of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Savior and
"Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was
the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all
religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would
be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings
that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were
immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.
"As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter...
For one year and five months the balloting lasted..."
(God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36,
41).
At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not
agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects:
i Caesar
ii Krishna
iii Mithra
iv Horus
v Zeus
(Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).
Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To
involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern
Savior-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit forChrist), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name
of the new Roman god.

A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became
one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman
apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was
proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act
of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual
composite.

That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and
because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved
into "Jesus Christ".

How the Gospels were created

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings
developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.

His instructions were:

"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away.
What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus
brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I
will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)
"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).
Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one",
using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively
joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.).
Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing
religious factions under one representative story.

Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,

"fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable
form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art"
(ibid.).

"These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent
him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).
They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the
historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be
called the "word of the Roman Savior God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all
presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the
records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken
off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the
Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old
documents say thatthe First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle
to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in
June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and
violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the
assembly by the Church in the 18th century.

Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,
"a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains"
(History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871).
If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted
bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely
an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious
system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity"
which he gave,
"legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire"
(Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86).
Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A
Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until
the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille
Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).

Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were
added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci
ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the
writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New
Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).

The Latinized name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle,
Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's
personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547),
secretary to Pope Leo X(d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,
"put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the
scene later by a sly voice from heaven"
(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying,
"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).
Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament,
was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45,
vol. v, p. 445).

The shock discovery of an ancient Bible

The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church
claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular
discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the
Christian texts, themselves only an "assemblage of legendary tales" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759).

On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine's
monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other
old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the
monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in
time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380.

It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical
scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who
devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient
Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine's Monastery.

During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as
the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so
named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49).
Today it is displayed alongside the world's oldest known Bible,the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in
London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be
the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr
Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library).
It was locked away in the Vatican's inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes,
but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote
comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails ("Are Our Gospels
Genuine or Not?", Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).

Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries,
examples being theSyriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.

A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when
English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information
that disputes Christianity's claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of
willful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible's New Testament
from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that
challenged its very existence.

In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of
Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story
of Jesus Christ, saying that,
"...without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt ... exhibiting the most shamefully
mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the
depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of
the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God".
Dean Burgon's concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved
to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm

Also see Bart D Ehrman book Jesus interrupted below.

http://www.usislam.org/pdf/Jesus-interrupted-Bart-D-ehrman.pdf

Also Dr. Robert Schiermeyer book ,The Inerrancy of The New Testament below.
http://aharonhasini.tripod.com/htm/inerrancy.pdf

Christian Churches have generally been successful in fostering the impression that the New Testament
represents a divinely inspired, consistent, authoritative, factual account of historical events, dating from
the earliest days of the Church and written by those most closely connected with the life of Jesus. In the
following sections we shall look at how well these ideas match up with modern scholarship. We shall also
look at the books of the New Testament. Has the present selection of books (the "canon") always been
accepted? Alternatively, is the idea of a canon a later and arbitrary concept? Does the canon include
questionable material? Does it exclude material that has a better claim to inclusion? Does it contain
errors, contradictions or inconsistencies? Does it contain additions or amendments to the original text?
Does it contain errors of translation?

The New Testament consists of 27 books: four gospels, The Acts of the Apostles (which is really a sequel
to the Gospel of Luke), 21 letters, and the book of Revelation. This much is agreed by all. Hardly
anything else is. The following attempts to present the views of the majority of Christian scholars.
For the first century AD there was no New Testament. Authority rested solely in the Greek version of the
Old Testament (the Septuagint) and in oral tradition about Jesus. When early Christians referred to
scripture they were talking about the Jewish scriptures, not to the writings that we now know as the New
Testament. The earliest known fragments of New Testament books date from the second century AD,
although these are scraps. The earliest substantial texts are fourth century copies. The originals were
probably written towards the end of the first century AD. All of the books were written in Greek, not the
everyday language of Jesus and his immediate followers, which would have been Aramaic. The quality of
the Greek is frequently poor.

None of the New Testament gospels is believed by modern scholars to have been written by the man to
whom it was traditionally ascribed and whose name it bears. Neither is it likely that any of the authors
were eyewitnesses to the events described. Modern scholars are agreed that the gospels were written at
different times, in different places and for different audiences, and that they are not attempts at an
historically true record, but vehicles for impressing potential converts. They are propaganda to assist in
proselytising, often citing supernatural events in an attempt to vindicate their claims. Some of the
differences between the gospels may be attributed to the Jewish tradition of free interpretation, others to a
simple marketing strategy, tailoring the product to look like what potential converts might want to hear.
The John gospel in particular is drama rather than reporting.
Not a single original manuscript of any book of the New Testament survives. In the various copies that
exist there are numerous disagreements, and later copies have new chunks of text added by editors. Of the
5,000 or so early manuscripts now known, no two agree exactly. They can however be arranged into
families since each copy naturally incorporates all of the changes made to the version from which it was
itself copied, as well as the new changes peculiar to itself. Changes can thus be traced through all later
copying of the first manuscript to be tampered with. Modern translations are not translations of a single
reliable manuscript but composites of a number of different manuscripts, enabling translators to select
variant readings (which, cynics claim, frequently happen to agree with the translator's own theology). As
the preface to the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible says:

The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient
literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament.
As another authority says1:Reconstructing Christian origins from the New Testament depends on
establishing a reliable text. None of the original documents is extant, and the oldest existing copies, made
by hand before the invention of printing, differ at some points. We know from apocryphal gospels, as well
as from statements of orthodox and heretical Christians, that in the second century gospel texts were
altered and combined. This was particularly likely to occur in those early days, when the documents were
not regarded as authoritative and definitive, and when there was no central organisation to secure and
enforce uniformity.
Until the nineteenth century the textus receptus (received or accepted authoritative text) was in essence a
Byzantine text based on manuscripts whose origins probably date from the third century. Two other
families of manuscripts, the Alexandrian and the Western, are earlier than the Byzantine and arguably
therefore more authoritative.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ab0_nt.htm

Below is a list of the many contradictions in the so called New Testament. And this is just a drop in the
bucket of many other problems with the New Testament. (Click on this link)
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

Truth should not diminish your faith. You should take these truths and use them to empower yourselves
to serve Yah in spirit. Yah is not a man that he should lie, but the sad thing is that men lie in the name of
Yah.He is not a human being with hidden agendas but man will use Yah to push their hidden agendas. He
is not forgetful to the point where as his testimony of the same event changes several times .But men will
change and edit thing forgetting and contradicting what they said first. Yah is our Elohim and Yahushua
is his mashiach. Everything in the New Testament should not always be taken literally but yet take the
principle and grow.

I. THE BIRTH OF JESUS

A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH

1. Matthew and Luke disagree

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38).
They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this
discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly
that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies
since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a "Church Father," wrote in his The
History of the Church, "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages."

2. Why genealogies of Joseph?

Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But
if Joseph is not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and
one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels. The answer, of course, is that
the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic
requirement of being a direct descendant of King David.

Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely borrowed from
the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth. Although the virgin birth could be accommodated
by inserting a few words into the genealogies to break the physical link between Joseph and Jesus, those
same insertions also broke the physical link between David and Jesus.

The church had now created two major problems: 1) to explain away the existence of two genealogies of
Joseph, now rendered meaningless, and 2) to explain how Jesus was a descendant of David.

The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is
literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or
"offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male
line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted
Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of
a virgin - seed from the line of David was required.

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.

This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female
genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the
"seed of David" through Mary.
[Editor's note: As one reader has pointed out, "Genesis 3:15 says 'And I will put enmity between you and
the woman, and between your seed and her Seed.' So women can pass on 'seed' according to the bible."]

3. Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something
as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at
least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments
in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of
David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

4. Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy?

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.

a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).

b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).

c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent
the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).

d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).

To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are
guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these,
and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit,
impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that
because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is
in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose
women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?"

B. THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE

In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people
from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the
Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all
generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her.

If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. Instead, we read in
Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind.
And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his
own household.

C. THE DATE
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to
Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2).
This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about
10 years after Herod's death.

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor
and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is
"this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become
governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.

D. THE PLACE

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that
this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew
2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have
great significance later in his gospel.

Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for
the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of
Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea
(Matthew 2:21-23).

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to
register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of
the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and
worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing
thousands of people to travel).

E. THE PROPHECIES

Matthew says that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament
prophecies. These prophecies include:

1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings
threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a
"young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young
woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have
been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

2. The "slaughter of the innocents" (Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years
old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.
This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the
murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who
delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It
simply didn't happen.

The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into
exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus
from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second
half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the
Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need
only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus' birth and the
family's arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born,
his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this
same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of
the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action
must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the
slaughter of the innocents.

F. THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES - MATTHEW'S BIG BLUNDER

Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew
include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:

1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was
keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.

2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages
(sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified
events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies."

Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his
gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves
what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or
John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned
in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding
on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat."

Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah
9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage
does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which is used in many translations)
for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis,
but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also
very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old
Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled
prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any
phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!

G. CONCLUSIONS REACHED SO FAR

From looking at just the birth accounts several conclusions can be reached, all of which will be further
reinforced by examining other parts of the New Testament:

1. The gospel writers contradict each other.

2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.

3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.

4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

From the birth accounts alone, it is obvious that in no way can the New Testament be considered "the
inerrant Word of God," or even "the Word of God, inerrant regarding matters important to faith and
practice."

II. JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST

A. WHAT DID JOHN THE BAPTIST KNOW ABOUT JESUS AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

John's first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers' wombs, at which time
John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy (Luke 1:44). Much later, while John is baptizing,
he refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", and "the Son of God" (John
1:29,36). Later still, John is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive. John's definite
knowledge of Jesus as the son of God and saviour of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke 7:18-23
in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is coming, or
do we look for someone else?"

B. WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to
repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The
gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew
3:14-15 "to fulfill all righteousness." Other passages, which indicate that Jesus did not consider himself
sinless, are also an embarrassment to the church (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19).

Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the impression that John did not baptize
Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' baptism occurs after the account of John's imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).

C. WHY DIDN'T JOHN THE BAPTIST BECOME A FOLLOWER OF JESUS?

If John knew that Jesus was the son of God, why didn't he become a disciple of Jesus? And why didn't all,
or even most, of John's disciples become Jesus' disciples? Most of John's disciples remained loyal to him,
even after his death, and a sect of his followers persisted for centuries.

The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus' baptism in their gospels so that they could play it down.
They could not ignore it because John's followers and other Jews who knew of Jesus' baptism were using
the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus was the sinless son of God. The gospel writers went
to great pains to invent events that showed John as being subordinate to Jesus.

III. THE LAST SUPPER

A. WHEN - BEFORE OR DURING PASSOVER?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17,
Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day
of the Passover (John 19:14).

B. THE LORD'S SUPPER - INSTITUTED BY JESUS OR PAUL?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal (in John's gospel
the Lord's Supper is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the Passover meal).

In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered
to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread..." Here Paul claims that he
got the instructions for the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus (evidently from one of his many
revelations). Paul writes these words about twenty years after Jesus' death, and had the church already
been celebrating the Lord's Supper he certainly would have been aware of it and would have had no need
to receive it from the Lord. Some apologists try to play games with the text to make it seem like Paul
actually received the instructions from the other apostles, but one thing Paul stresses is that what he
teaches he receives from no man (Galatians 1:11-12).

The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery
religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of
Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind
and was resurrected. Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic
communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that
he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."[*].

The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian tried to say that Mithraism copied the Lord's
Supper from Christianity, but they were forced to say that demons had copied it since only demons could
copy an event in advance of its happening! They could not say that the followers of Mithras had copied it
- it was a known fact that Mithraism had included the ritual a long time before Christ was born.

Where did Mithraism come from? The ancient historian Plutarch mentioned Mithraism in connection with
the pirates of Cilicia in Asia Minor encountering the Roman general Pompey in 67 BC. More recently, in
1989 Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote a book, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, in which he
convincingly shows that Mithraism originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. That this is also the home
town of the apostle Paul cannot be a coincidence.
Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. He also says that his gospel was not taught
to him by any man (Galatians 1:11-12). All of Paul's theology is based on his own revelations, or visions.
Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person's
subconscious. It is very likely that the source of most of Paul's visions, and therefore most of his theology,
is to be found in Mithraism. That we find Jesus at the Last Supper saying more or less the same thing Paul
said to the Corinthians many years later is another example of the church modifying the gospels to
incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out over the theology of Jesus' original disciples.

C. JUDAS ISCARIOT

It is very unclear in the gospels just what Judas Iscariot's betrayal consisted of, probably because there
was absolutely no need for a betrayal. Jesus could have been arrested any number of times without the
general populace knowing about it. It would have been simple to keep tabs on his whereabouts. The
religious authorities did not need a betrayal - only the gospel writers needed a betrayal, so that a few more
"prophecies" could be fulfilled. The whole episode is pure fiction - and, as might be expected, it is riddled
with contradictions.

1. The prophecy

Matthew says that Judas' payment and death were prophesied by Jeremiah, and then he quotes Zechariah
11:12-13 as proof!

2. Thirty pieces of silver

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There
are two things wrong with this:

a. There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about
300 years before.

b. In Jesus' time, minted coins were used - currency was not "weighed out."

By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives
away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.

3. Who bought the Field of Blood?

a. In Matthew 27:7 the chief priests buy the field.

b. In Acts 1:18 Judas buys the field.

4. How did Judas die?

a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.

b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.

c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve"
after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.
In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne,
they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

5. How did the Field of Blood get its name?

a. Matthew says because it was purchased with blood money (Matthew 27:6-8).

b. Acts says because of the bloody mess caused by Judas' bursting open (Acts 1:18-19).

IV. JESUS' TRIALS, DEATH AND RESURRECTION

A. THE TRIALS

Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is
quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief
priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish
festivals.

1. Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?

a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark
14:53 and Luke 22:54).

b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who,
after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).

2. When did the priests and scribes gather together to question Jesus?

a. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together
prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.

b. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was
brought to the high priest.

c. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.

d. John mentions only the high priest - no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus.

3. Was Jesus questioned by Herod?

a. Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to
Pilate (Luke 23:7-11).

b. Matthew, Mark and John make no mention of Herod. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about
another contradiction later.

4. Who was responsible for Jesus' death, Pilate or the Jews?

The gospel writers go to every conceivable length to absolve the Romans in general, and Pilate in
particular, of Jesus' crucifixion and to blame it on the Jews. The reason, of course, was that Christianity
was going to have to exist under Roman rule for many years, which is why the New Testament contains
nothing critical of the Romans, even though they were hated for their heavy taxation, and Pilate was hated
for his brutality.

For the church, the Jews made an appropriate scapegoat because the Jews were a thorn in side of the early
church. The Jews, of course, had far greater knowledge of Jewish laws and traditions than the largely
gentile church, and were able to call attention to some of the errors being taught by the church.

The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is
pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

a. What had Barabbas done?

1. Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder.

2. John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a robber.

b. Pilate's "custom" of releasing a prisoner at Passover.

This is pure invention - the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in situations like this was
postponement of execution until after the religious festival. Release was out of the question. It is included
in the gospels for the sole purpose of further removing blame for Jesus' death from Pilate and placing it on
the Jews.

c. Pilate gives in to the mob.

The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob. This is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and
subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into
the mob and beat them (often killing them) into submission. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome
because of his brutality.

5. Who put the robe on Jesus?

a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to
his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of
thorns.

b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much
earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

B. THE CRUCIFIXION

1. Crucified between two robbers

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them
criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers.
Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
2. Peter and Mary near the cross

When the gospel writers mention Jesus talking to his mother and to Peter from the cross, they run afoul of
another historical fact - the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places of execution, and nobody was
allowed near (least of all friends and family who might attempt to help the condemned person).

3. The opened tombs

According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs
and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus
was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.

Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and were seen by
many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet
Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening - historians of that time certainly know
nothing of it - neither do the other gospel writers.

C. THE RESURRECTION

1. Who found the empty tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."

b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among
these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse
24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find
Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

2. Who did they find at the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the
stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way
back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or
outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb.
Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple
leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels,
Mary turns around to find Jesus.

3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?

a. According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."

b. According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."

c. According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.

V. THE ASCENSION

According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

A. THE UNCHANGEABLE LAW

According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in
Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.

The church tries to get around this obvious contradiction by artificially separating the Mosaic Law into
the "ceremonial" law and the "moral" law, a separation which would have abhorred the Jews of Jesus'
time. The Mark passage and similar ones like Acts 10:9-16 were added to accommodate the teaching of
Paul regarding the Law (which was diametrically opposed to the teaching of Jesus on the Law) and to
make the gospel palatable to the Gentiles.

B. NO SIGNS, ONE SIGN, OR MANY SIGNS?

At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign.

1. In Mark 8:12 Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation."

2. In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that only one sign would be given - the sign of
Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will
spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he
only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

3. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:

a. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning (or first) of the
signs that Jesus did (John 2:11).

b. The healing at Capernaum is the "second sign" (John 4:54).

c. Many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing" (John 6:2).

C. SON OF DAVID?
Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain passages which have Jesus quoting Psalm 110:1 to argue that the
Messiah does not need to be a son of David (Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44).

1. This contradicts many Old Testament passages that indicate that the Messiah will be a descendant of
David. It also contradicts official church doctrine.

2. In Acts 2:30-36 Peter, in what is regarded as the first Christian sermon, quotes Psalm 110:1 in arguing
that Jesus was the Messiah, a descendant of David.

D. THE FIG TREE

After Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem a sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none
on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21).

1. Since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on
the tree.

2. Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered.

a. In Matthew, the tree withers at once and the disciples comment on this fact (Matthew 21:19-20).

b. In Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-21).

E. THE GREAT COMMISSION

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:

a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the
trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have
been no fighting.

b. In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5).
Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

2. This contradicts Jesus' earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6,
15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction
remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul's
version) to the gentiles.

F. ENOCH IN THE BOOK OF JUDE

Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God, then the writings of
"Enoch" from which Jude quotes, are also the Word of God. The Book of Enoch was used in the early
church until at least the third century - Clement, Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with it. However,
as church doctrine began to solidify, the Book of Enoch became an embarrassment to the church and in a
short period of time it became the Lost Book of Enoch. A complete manuscript of the Book of Enoch was
discovered in Ethiopia in 1768. Since then, portions of at least eight separate copies have been found
among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is easy to see why the church had to get rid of Enoch - not only does it
contain fantastic imagery (some of which was borrowed by the Book of Revelation), but it also
contradicts church doctrine on several points (and, since it is obviously the work of several writers, it also
contradicts itself).

G. THE APOSTLE PAUL'S CONVERSION

The Book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. All of three
accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul's fellow travelers.

1. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice..."

2. Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice..."

3. Acts 26:14 says "when we had all fallen to the ground..."

Some translations of the Bible (the New International Version and the New American Standard, for
example) try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase quoted above as "did not
understand the voice..." However, the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the New Testament
as "hear," "hears," "hearing" or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understand." In fact, it is
the same word that is translated as "hearing" in Acts 9:7, quoted above. The word "understand" occurs 52
times in the New Testament, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo."

This is an example of Bible translators sacrificing intellectual honesty in an attempt to reconcile

conflicting passages in the New Testament.

H. JESUS CALLS THE DISCIPLES

1. In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea. Jesus calls out
to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a little further and sees James and
John mending their nets with their father. He calls to them and they leave their father and follow him.

2. In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter's boat so Jesus can preach to the multitude.
James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells Peter how to catch a great
quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post- resurrection appearance). After Peter
catches the fish, he and James and John are so impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they
leave everything and follow Jesus.

3. In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew then stays with
Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter and brings him to meet Jesus.

I. SHOULD THE TWELVE DISCIPLES TAKE STAFFS?

When Jesus summons the twelve disciples to send them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, he lists the
things the disciples should not take with them.

1. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take.
2. In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception - the disciples may take a
staff.

J. THE APOSTLE PAUL GETS CONFUSED

In Romans 7:1-6 the apostle Paul tries to compare a Christian's "dying to the Law" to a woman who
marries again after her husband has died. In doing so, Paul gets hopelessly confused about whether the
Christian corresponds to the wife (by being released from the Law), or corresponds to the husband (by
having died). One scholar has referred to the passage as "remarkably muddle-headed." This just goes to
show that, although a brilliant man, Paul did have his bad days.

K. THE SECOND COMING

1. During the disciples' lifetime

There are several passages in the gospels where Jesus says he will return in the disciples' lifetime (Mark
13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.).

The same expectation held during the period the apostle Paul wrote his letters. In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31
Paul says that the time is so short that believers should drastically change the way that they live. But Paul
had a problem - some believers had died, so what would happen to them when Jesus returned?

Paul's answer in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 shows that Paul expected that at least some of those he was
writing to would be alive when Jesus returned - "we who are alive, and remain..." The same passage also
indicates that Paul believed that those believers who had died remained "asleep in Jesus" until he
returned. However, as the delay in Jesus' return grew longer, the location of Jesus' kingdom shifted from
earth to heaven and we later find Paul indicating that when believers die they will immediately "depart
and be with Christ" (Philippians 1:23).

It is quite obvious that Jesus never intended to start any type of church structure since he believed he
would return very shortly to rule his kingdom in person. It is also quite obvious that Jesus was wrong
about when he was coming back.

2. The earth in the Book of Revelation

Revelation 1:7 says that when Jesus comes with the clouds, everybody on earth will see him. Some
Christians have said that this will be literally fulfilled because the event will be broadcast by satellite over
all the world's TV stations (We interrupt this broadcast...). Actually, the passage reflects the flat-earth
cosmology of the time, as does also "the four corners of the earth" in Revelation 7:1 and 20:8.

Here, and in many gospel passages, Jesus is spoken of as coming with or on the clouds. This is because
the Bible's view of heaven is "up" and Jesus has to pass through the clouds to get back, just as in Acts 1:9
Jesus ascended up through a cloud.

3. The Book of Daniel

The Book of Daniel is included here because, after the Book of Revelation, Daniel is the book most
studied with regard to the second coming. Christians are very impressed with the detailed prophecies in
Daniel that have been fulfilled. Anybody would be, if they believed that Daniel was written during the
Babylonian exile, as the book of Daniel says.

However, the book itself makes it possible to pinpoint the date of its writing as 167 BC. How? Because
up to that year all of Daniel's detailed prophecies came true. After that year none of them did. But how
was Daniel to know that shortly after he wrote his book one of the greatest events in Israel's history, the
Maccabean revolution that defeated Antiochus Epiphanes, would occur?

VII. THE CAUSES OF THE CONTRADICTIONS

There are four primary causes for most of the contradictions listed above:

A. THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

The gospel writers (especially Matthew) tried to show that Jesus was the Messiah by having him fulfill
Old Testament "prophecies," sometimes with absurd results (as in the case of the "two donkeys" and the
"thirty pieces of silver").

B. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS' AND PAUL'S GOSPELS

The gospel that Jesus and his disciples proclaimed to the Jews was in accordance with what the Old
Testament predicted about a human Messiah reigning over a restored kingdom of Israel, a kingdom of
peace and righteousness. The people of Israel were to repent as personal righteousness was necessary to
become a member of the kingdom.

In contrast to Jesus' gospel was the gospel preached to the Jews and gentiles by the apostle Paul, which
Paul refers to as "my gospel" and "the gospel that I preach" to differentiate it from what was being
proclaimed by the disciples. In Paul's gospel the human Jewish Messiah became a divine saviour of all
nations, the restored kingdom of Israel became a heavenly kingdom, and admittance to the kingdom was
based on faith rather than personal righteousness.

The two gospels caused great animosity between Paul and the original apostles, an animosity that is
played down in the books of Acts and Galatians, but which still shows through in several places. When
Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were scattered or
killed, and the opposition to the gospel of Paul was largely eliminated. The gospel of Paul was
incorporated into the gospel of Jesus, in many cases supplanting it.

C. THE DELAY IN JESUS' RETURN

As time went by without Jesus returning, the apostle Paul was forced to rethink things he had written
about earlier, including the state of dead believers and the nature of the kingdom.

D. CREATING A HISTORY FIT FOR A GOD

When Jesus was changed from a Jewish "son of David" sitting on David's throne to a divine "son of God"
sitting on a heavenly throne, it became necessary to invent a godlike biography for him. Thus the
troublesome virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.
The list of contradictions in this paper is by no means complete, the examples being chosen primarily
from the gospels. The examples given above, however, more than prove the point that the Bible is most
definitely not, in any sense, the Word of God. The church has made imaginative (and often absurd)
attempts to reconcile these contradictions. None of these attempts have the ring of truth - instead they
have the ring of desperation.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

http://www.johncharlot.me/BOOKS/NTDisunityHighest%20Resolution.pdf