The Genealogies of Jesus Christ.

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ

The logical reason to doubt the Gospels is that they contradict each other; the genealogies also disagree and contradict each other.

"Actually, the fact that we have four gospels lies at the very heart of our problem. Because we read particular parables or sayings or stories in several different versions, we can't miss the disagreements between them" (John Dominic Crossan, Who is Jesus? pp. 3-4) quote “Acts of Jesus”, Mark’s omission

The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke, there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did those two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might, nevertheless, be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Part Two, Section Four)

The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind. If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to these works. (Origen, Commentary on John, Book X)

“Both Matthew and Luke added birth narratives to their revisions of Mark, basing them on legends quite irreconcilable with each other” (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, 41)

Matthew records the fallacy of attributing fourteen generations from Abraham to David:

There were thus fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David until the deportation to Babylon, and fourteen from the deportation until the Messiah. (1:17)

Randal Helms elaborates this verse on page 46

“He had counted fourteen names from Abraham to David and thought he counted fourteen from Jechoniah to Jesus, and decided that this coincidence of numbers must indicate a prophetic pattern. But in fact he found not fourteen names from David to Jechoniah, but eighteen; so Matthew took the simple expedient of changing Joram into the father of Azariah (though he was, in fact, the great-great grandfather) and Josiah into the father of Jechoniah (though he was, in fact, his grandfather). But the pattern was illusory in the first place, and Matthew could have spared his trouble had he more carefully counted the names in the third group when proposing the pattern; for it contains not fourteen names but only thirteen”

The Gospel of Mark was written first, yet omits the genealogy required to prove that Jesus was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18.

“Mark, the earliest Gospel, omits everything before Jesus’ appearance as an adult at the Jordon River to be baptized by John. It contains no birth narratives, no genealogies, no traces of childhood or youth whatever. This is a strange way to begin any attempt at a “life” of a person clearly regarded as spectacular. Mark’s Gospel is so lean and spare, so lacking in details about Jesus’ life that Jesus’ ministry could only have lasted a little over one year, as we have seen. It is only from John that the case can be built for a three-year time span” (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 144)

The most striking feature of the early documents is that they do not set Jesus’ life in a specific historical situation. There is no Galilean ministry, and there are no parables, no miracles, no Passion in Jerusalem, no indication of time, place of attendant circumstances at all. The words Calvary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Galilee never appear in the early epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used there in connection with Jesus (Doherty, pp. 68, 73). Instead, Jesus figures as a basically supernatural personage who took the “likeness” of man, “emptied” then of his supernatural powers (Phil 2:7).

(G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 3)

The gospels included in the New Testament (NT) are widely agreed to have been written between A.D. 70 and 100. In these four gospels, it is claimed that Jesus taught in Galilee in the opening decades of the first century, worked miracles there, or what at an y rate were taken for miracles, and died in Jerusalem at the behest of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. And yet, as I have reiterated in The Jesus Legend (1996) and The Jesus Myth (1999), none of these things are claimed, or even mentioned, in the earliest surviving Christian documents. In other words, none of these supposed historical events are touched upon in extant Christian documents which are either earlier than the gospels or early enough to have been written independently of them (that is, before those gospels or the traditions underlying them had become generally known in Christian circles). ibid, G.A. Wells, p. 1

The reason why Mark omitted the birth of Jesus was the Gnostic influence, who contended Jesus was only spiritual, he was not physically born in the flesh, yet lived inside the phantom body of non-physical nature.

The Gnostics denied the resurrection of Jesus; they agreed that Jesus had no physical body.

The earliest Gospel could easily play into the hands of those heretical Gnostic Christians who were teaching a Christology and notion of Jesus’ sonship quite unacceptable to the orthodox tradition” (ibid, Gospel Fictions p. 41)

The book of Acts teaches that Mark was a Jew; the son of Barnabas’s sister, he did not know the language of Greek.

Barnabas took the help of Paul because he knew the language of Greece, the official spoken language of Tarsus, where Paul was born. He was a Roman citizen who plotted to destroy the Church. (see Acts)

The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek, a language foreign to Jesus and his followers. It must be noted that Mark never saw Jesus during his life. Jesus had spoken Aramaic, a dialect of Arabic which was not commonly written. Yet the book of Daniel was originally composed in Aramaic, the rest of the Jewish scriptures exist in Hebrew.

Mark was indeed a Jew, but there is no evidence to confirm that he had learned Greek to preach to the Gentiles. For this reason only, the followers of Jesus were forbidden to preach among the non-Jews:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

In comparison, Jesus was only sent for the Jews. Muhammad was sent for the whole of mankind.

We have not sent you (Muhammad) except as a mercy to mankind

(Al-Quran 21:107)

"He must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much-needed peace and happiness".

(George Bernard Shaw, The Genuine Islam, Singapore, Vol. 1, No.8, 1936)

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." (Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, p. 33)

The reader must note that Matthew 28:20 was a later addition, a complete interpolation to justify the Pauline cause. This forgery was inserted by a Gentile convert.

It was Paul who corrupted the Gospel of Jesus and invented a new religion called “Christianity” which offended the Nazarenes, the original followers of Jesus.

The book of Acts, written decades after the events which it records, teaches how the Pharisee rabbi Gamaliel supported the followers of Jesus while Paul was breathing out insults.

Paul did not know anything about Jesus except that he described him very mythically, indeed a personal experience, and not a real person. Paul fails to provide any significant details about Jesus, his life and teachings are omitted, he rejected the teachings of Jesus in favor of his own (Hebrews 5:17, Galatians 3:13)

Paul the anti-Christ was obviously seeking worldly power in his hatred against the Jews and the Mosaic Law.

"If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" (Romans 3:7)

Amazingly, the Church bishop Eusebius of Caesarea took this verse seriously:

“It is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the Church might be promoted”. (Eusebius of Caesarea, History of the Church)

The interpretation of this verse is clear and simple; it parallels other verses which speak about the Bible’s corruption. For example, the Bible was corrupted during the reign of Jeremiah.

'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

(Jeremiah 8:8)

This may explain why Ezra had to re-write the Torah in 458 BC after the Babylon Captivity.

A remarkable apocryphal tale relating to the Hebrew Scriptures is enshrined by pseudo-inspiration in chapter 14 of this 
Fourth of Esdras, regarding the miraculous restoration of Hebrew Holy Writ after its total perishment. In the calamity of the 
capture and destruction of the Holy City by Nebuchadnezzar, 586 B.C., the Temple of Solomon was destroyed, together 
with the entire collection of the sacred Rolls of Scriptures, so that not a scratch of inspired pen remained to tell the 
tale of theocratic Hebrew history and its "revealed" religion. This inconsolable and apparently irreparable loss affected the 
holy People all the time of the of the Babylonian captivity. But upon their return to the restored City of God, and over a 
century after their loss, God, we are told in Fourth Esdras, inspired Ezra and commissioned him to

reproduce the sacred lost Books, which, judging from the result, of his inspired labors, were many more than the supposed 
twenty and five scribes, dictated to them (from inspired memory) the textual contents of the lost sacred books, and in just 
forty days and nights reproduced a total of 94 sacred books, of which he designated 24 as the sacred canon, the remaining
70 being termed esoteric and reserved fir the use of only the wisest. (Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity)

We have damning confessions to support our allegation of widespread corruption and fabrication in the early Church.

The 27 New Testament booklets, attributed to eight individual"Apostolic" writers, and culled from some 200 admitted 
forgeries called Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, constitute the present "Canonical" or acceptably inspired compendium of the 
primitive history of Christianity. (Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity)

Before looking into the forgery of the New Testament Books, we shall first draw, from their own words, cameo 
pen-sketches of those great men of God and of Holy Church, who under the fond name of Fathers, but with the minds and 
devious ways of little children, forged the sacred documents of the Faith, and by their pious labors

of fraud and forgery founded what is credulously called the Church of Christ and the Most Holy Christian Faith. (ibid, 
Joseph Wheless)

In addition, the theme of future judgment is inherent in many of Jesus’ most significant parables; see, for example, the adversary (Matt. 5:25-26; Luke 12:57-59), the two houses (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49), the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26-29), the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16), the friend at midnight (Luke 11:5-8), the rich fool (Luke 12:16-21), the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), and the importunate widow (Luke 18:1-6). While it may be the case that all or part of some of these parables were created in the light of conditions in the early church—and such judgments can never achieve certainty—methodologically, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that such ‘inauthentic’ materials often represent some degree of continuity with the teaching and situation of Jesus. (http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/Jesus.htm)

The Church acknowledged the forgeries that were circulating in the 2^nd century.

Tertullian notes that a Christian sect of his day "does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of it[s] own purpose; and such as it does receive, it receives not in their entirety; but even when it does receive any up to a certain point as entire, it nevertheless perverts even these by the contrivance of diverse Interpretations." Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum 17, in Ante-Nicean Fathers, 3:251.

Among those who seek power and gain from their religion, there will never be wanting an inclination to forge and lie for it. Lucius Coelius Firmianes Lactantius, Third--Century Church Father

"Enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended gospels full of romantic fables, and fantastic and striking details; their fabrications were eagerly read and accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity. Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no motive other than that of a PIOUS FRAUD." (www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm)

"The canonical gospels can be shown to be a collection of sayings from the Egyptian Mythos and Eschatology." (The Origin and Evolution of Religion by Albert Churchward)

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself. But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name, we as experienced persons reject, knowing that no such writings have been handed down to us. (St.Serapion,bishop of Antioch, 190-211)

"There's hardly a word of Jesus that is not to be found in a parallel saying of the rabbis." (Mark Tully, Lives of Jesus, p80)

The kind of exploration we have taken so far has shown that there is no question that the four Gospels contain material derived originally from ancient Egyptian sources. We have already seen plenty of evidence for this in the chapters on Horus and the Lazarus “miracle”. But we must not think the borrowing was direct. Much of the material had undoubtedly been used and reused in the dramas and plays of the Greco-Roman Mystery Religions, and a great deal comes by way of what Christians call the Old Testament. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 138)

"Most of his [Jesus'] teachings, most of the words ascribed to him, conform to the tenets of Pharisaic thinking. Indeed, some of his most famous pronouncements are paraphrases, even on occasion almost direct quotations, from Hillel."
(Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy)

"Orthodox theologians were tempted, by the assurance of impunity, to compose fictions, which must be stigmatized with the epithets of fraud and forgery. They ascribed their own polemical works to the most venerable names of Christian antiquity." (Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, p. 598)

When, therefore, enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity. Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no other motive than that of a pious fraud. . . . But the heretical apocryphists, while gratifying curiosity, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself.

The Church and the Fathers were hostile even towards the narratives of orthodox authorship. It was not until the Middle Ages, when their true origin was forgotten even by most of the learned, that these apocryphal stories began to enter largely into sacred legends, such as the "Aurea Sacra," into miracle plays, Christian art, and poetry. A comparison of the least extravagant of these productions with the real [sic] Gospels reveals the chasm separating them. Though worthless historically, the apocryphal Gospels help us to better understand the religious conditions of the second and third centuries, and they are also of no little value as early witnesses of the canonicity of the writings of the four Evangelists. (www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm)

Now, let us now examine the genealogies of Jesus.

The first two chapters of Matthew and the first three chapters of Luke were added in the second century by Hellenizers who would accept only a divinely born savior-god like those of the pagan mystery-cults. . . ." (Dr. Martin A. Larson, The Essene-Christian Faith, p. 175)

“Both Matthew and Luke added birth narratives to their revisions of Mark, basing them on legends quite irreconcilable with each other” (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 41)

The order of development is betrayed in part by the fact that agreement among the synoptic Gospels ceases with the end of the Gospel of Mark. When Mark is no longer the common source for Matthew and Luke, they go their separate ways in reporting appearances. Similarly, Mark’s lack of birth and infancy story is the primary reason for the widely diverging accounts in Matthew and Luke. Furthermore, some early editions of Matthew and Luke may have existed without those tales of Jesus’ conception. (The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, p. 39)

The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke, there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did those two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might, nevertheless, be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Part Two, Section Four)

It is certain that the New Testament (as the Gospels) was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with…” (Reverend Taylor, Diegesis, Boston, 1872, p. 114)

According to modern scholarship, Matthew was written ten years before Luke, but the exact date of composition is not known. In fact, the New Testament events cannot be ascertained!

“It is impossible to give definite dates for all the events of the New Testament” (The World Book Encyclopedia, by World Book editors, p. 235)

It is universally agreed that the Sayings of Jesus passed orally from generation to generation before they were written down. But the problem is that there is no historical evidence for ‘M’ and ‘L’, the independent sources for Matthew and Luke, or the material that is not recorded by Mark.

The Organization called the Jesus Seminar doubts the sayings of Jesus.

"Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him." (The Five Gospels, p. 3)

There was little hesitation in reshaping materials to exclude whatever did not suit the particular editor’s point of view, or in substituting other formulae of his own composition and expanding or abridging after his own pleasure. The proof of this, for contemporary New Testament scholars and even the attentive lay student, can be seen in the somewhat cavalier way in which both Matthew and Luke treat the Gospel of Mark (which both, quite obviously, had before them as they compiled their own); they leave material out, make changes, and add to it at will. Elaine Pagels, author of Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, reminds us that “what survived as orthodox Christianity did so by suppressing and forcibly eliminating a lot of other material”. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 142)

"The concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient world. Authors freely copied from predecessors without acknowledgment. Sages became the repository of free-floating proverbs and witticisms. For the first Christians, Jesus was a legendary sage: it was proper to attribute the world’s wisdom to him. The proverb in Mark 2:17, for example, is attested in secular sources (Plutarch and Diogenes for example)...in the parallel to the Markan passage, Matthew adds a sentence taken from the prophet Hosea (Matt 9:13)." ("The Five Gospels)

The ‘oral tradition’ lasted until the 3^rd century. It was too late for the Gospels to rely upon it. Luke himself admits that he used written material to forge his Gospel (Luke 1:3) John admits that he wrote his Gospel ‘for the faith’ (John 20:31) giving the implication that his work is not based on historical events, but he was only writing to embellish the beliefs of the Christian community.

"Most of the material in our Gospels existed for a considerable time in an oral stage before it was given the written form with which we are familiar." (New Bible Dictionary - Second Edition, p.436. Inter-Varsity Press: 1982)

The four Gospels were composed decades after Jesus’ departure. There is no reference to the Gospels in the writings of the Church Fathers.

Clement of Rome (d. 97) fails to mention the Gospels by name; he makes not a single reference to them:

"The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. (John Remsburg, The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read)

John is acknowledged to be the most unreliable Gospel because it attempts to depict Jesus as “divine”, he was obviously writing for the Hellenistic community.

Matthew and Luke borrowed extensively from Mark, who himself was not an eye-witness. Papias testifies that Mark was not an eye-witness:

For he neither heard the Lord nor had been a follower of His. . .(Expositions of Oracles of the Lord)

Mark accompanied Barnabas on missionary trips. Barnabas is believed to be the first Christian missionary, but he was a strict follower of the Jewish Law whereas the missionaries today reject the Law

Nevertheless, Mark did not write Mark, nor did Matthew and Luke or John write their gospels. The four Gospels are anonymous documents; the names attached to them were inserted in the late 2^nd century.

In fact, the Church bishop Irenaeus of Lyons was the first to mention Luke by name! Whoever composed the Gospels were not eye-witnesses, since they were all dead by that time!

The early Christians did not write a ‘gospel’ about Jesus because they assumed his return would be in their lifetimes. They remembered the saying of Jesus in Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 where Jesus allegedly promises that he would return during the first generation of his people. (Revelations 3:11, 22:7, 12).

This may explain why the four Gospels were written so late; modern research in scholarship has shown they were composed in the 2^nd century.

The ruin of the Temple was thus interpreted as the beginning of the end-of-days; other signs, these to occur in the heavens, would appear (Mark 13.24-26, pars.), and the descent of the glorified Jesus in his capacity as judge of the unbelievers, the unrepentant, and the persecutors would immediately ensue.

Jesus did not come, at least not in the way or at the time expected. Not surprisingly, therefore, the early opponents of the Christian cultus, doubtless beginning even before the expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues, teased and finally harangued the believers for what was originally the cardinal tenet of the new religion: Jesus had been the Son of Man; unrecognized by his foes and misunderstood, now and again, by his closest associates…” (Celsus, on True Doctrine: a Discourse against the Christians, pp. 8-9, translated by Joseph Hoffman)

In reality, the four gospels selected for inclusion in the New Testament do not make any appearance in the literary and archaeological record until the last quarter of the 2^nd century, between 170 and 180 C.E., and even then they are not much mentioned for a couple of decades. In this regard, Church Fathers and archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) stated that the names traditionally attached to the canonical gospels were first designated at the end of the second century” (The Suns of God, Acharya S.)

The first substantial physical evidence for the four Gospels comes from near the end of the second century C.E., about 170 years after Jesus’ demise.” (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 139)

The scriptures became translations of what the Prophets may have said; the original copies were lost.

The followers of Moses and Jesus made no considerable efforts to preserve these Revelations during the life of their Prophets”. (Islam at a Glance, By World Assembly of Muslim Youth, p. 22)

The Church Father Tertullian of Carthage (d. 220) demonstrated:

"proof of the Gospel having become meanwhile adulterated."

(Tertullian, Contra Marcionem IV.2, in Ante-Nicean Fathers, 3:347)

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16).

"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors" [Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633] quote Mawdudi, originals lost

The early Christian sects altered the Gospels to suit their own purposes; they changed the scriptures to make them conform to their doctrines, thus fabricating the genealogy of Jesus to establish a point.