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.

well,Old Son,regardless,no matter where you turn in Christianity,you'll run into Catholic Doctrine!
They wrote the BOOK!
The translated Bible you're perusing harks back to Scriptures approved by the Church!

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).

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!

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.

This is even more damaging if you is believe that John was Elijah

As I haven just noticed that this thread has been viewed over 500 times, I feel the need to clarify the POVs which are being actually expressed, so if you would, please read the last sentence in the conclusion several times.





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.

That's stretching a bit. A "young" woman and a "virgin" could very well be the same thing. Just cause one decided to use the term young woman and the other virgin is entirely moot.

"Immanuel" and "Jesus" are the same persons. Immanuel means "God with us". So with what you're claiming here taking the verses word for word instead of what is necassarily being said, there will be very few selected names to us in Heaven. You won't be called TBRich any longer in Heaven but you'll be called Great, just as everyone else in Heaven. How would that make sense?

Matthew 5:19

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And also more on the Immanuel reference. He is also named Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

When it says "his name shall be" or anything along those lines, it's not meaning that is his name persay. It's not saying that Wonderful, Counsellor, or any other IS his name in that exact context. It's a descriptive word, just as Immanuel as again it means God with us.

So what you are saying is that the bible needs to be taken literally when it says what you want it to say and it should be stretched, mistranslated or wildly and illogically intrepreted when it doesn't. As a virgin birth is a wholly pagan idea, I doubt a pious jew or even a holy ghost inspired jew would not use the word virgin if he meant a virgin; esp when the messiah must draw his lineage to David via a father, which he would no longer have. Isaiah 9:6 also reinforces the jewish concept of messiah, which jesus does not fulfil in his lifetime, ie- head of government.

Jesus is the head of the government. Just his kingdom isn't here yet.

No not saying that at all. Show me how I am wrong, reveal this error to me. Not by plainly saying it's wrong, but logical explanation on showing what I have said is wrong. I've shown other verses to support and show as I say, more can be found I'm sure.

And to explain how he is the "son" of David. Never in the scriptures does it ever say "biological" son or anything of such. Must again keep the culture in context and how things were expressed.

Matthew 1

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus fits that perfectly.

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

How does he not fit into that? The government is upon his shoulders, but again his kingdom has not come to the face of the Earth yet, it is still in the process of being made. He is the might God, and everlasting Father, for again looking back into Genesis it was LORD God that made everything eg., Jesus, thus he is our Father.

Because: 1. Joseph did not begat Jesus, ergo no lineage; it is not transfered by adoption; 2. The Messiah is supposed to head the government within his lifetime, like Bar Kochba. You can't not take the original Jewish concept and definition of a messiah and change it around to fit your needs- you need a messiah of your own. Thus one finds the "prophetic" mistakes, misquotes and mistranslations that riddle the new testament in an effort to make everything fit. Clearly, Jesus is an Xian g-d and not a jewish one.

Not changing anything and no Joseph didn't begat Jesus, nobody said he did. Again nobody said biological dad.

That's awesome, because Jesus never "lost" his life. His life or "lifetime" continues on even to this day. But please elaborate on anything specifically saying in his lifetime or anything of that such.

For example, almost everything Jesus is quoted as saying in the Bible is in the Didache (in many cases word for word) Now the "Xian" version is from around 125 CE; but the original Jewish text is what Naomi taught Ruth from and is much older.

'

Or even "dad" for that matter.

Point being? And it might quite possibly be in the Didache

Didache wikipedia -
The Didache (/ˈdɪdəkiː/; Koine Greek: Διδαχή) or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didachē means "Teaching"[1]) is a brief early Christian treatise, dated by most scholars to the late first or early 2nd century.

And what do you mean the "Christian" version? lol who do you think the twelve apostles are?

See, you prove the point- by claiming the book is solely a Xian text and pretending the original does not exist, you set the table for error. The point is everything he said was already written down centuries before (ex- turn the other cheek) and clearly the orientation is Jewish and not Xian. Once this is understood, the exgetes becomes clearer.

What in the world are you on about my friend? It's not a "Christian" thing. God doesn't see Christian, Catholic, or any other "label" you wish to place on it. People are people that have made different choices, we are all made by God white, black, Christian, other beliefs, ect. The things written in the bible were not written "for" the bible. They are different books and or epistles to certain people for certain specific reasoning that were all gathered into the cannon we call the bible.