Contradictions

[tannah]

Never pondered what this guy is saying, but it suggests a pretty big contradiction between the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and the date 6 CE, when Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to register, and the fact that King Herod died 4 BCE. This raises the question of how Herod could order the killing of first born male babies, when Jesus wasn't anywhere near born.
Is this guy's dates correct? There's also other contradictions between these two gospels.

The best contradiction against Christians - YouTube

[billycourty]

It is believed that all the gospels are translated from a single source document. The names, Matthew, Luke and John etc are nothing to do with who wrote them, they are coined names.

Scholars believe that the gospels come from a single document because of key sentence structures that match throughout.

The Gospels are the soul written evidence of Jesus' existance and they are in fact one not 4.

So any discrepencies between them are translation,i wont say mistakes but, flair.

Jay

[dedicate]

Irregardless of when Herod died, -- Would an old, aged and dying king actually set out to kill a successor this way?

This seems an incredible thing to me. That someone would be so much against, or anti-, the natural order of the Universe and in attempt to subjegate his domain to his way, his rule, his order, he would be so concerned about someone not even in grade school. Herod would be long gone by the time Jesus was in his 20's.

Was it ambition? Because when you are in your latter years, that type of ambition seems contrary to all reason. Was he so locked into the dreamwold, that he believed in some importance of people honoring him after he was dead?

Or did he just want to destroy something good? Was it that Herod could not stand the idea of God winning? and would do anything to prevent it?


So,, maybe it is both things here? Herod the Tyrant.. Herod the megalomaniac.. Herod the Anti-Christ. And what does that say about our leaders today? Are our leaders today as ruthless? Like Castro, holding on to his iron fisted power over the people even when his life hangs by a thread?


P.S. There is an interesting fact about the Gospel of Matt. that is hardly ever mentioned by Christians. And this is the fact that the Gospels do not put the Three Wise Men at the manger where Jesus was born. All Christiandom, during the Christmas time, though, honor the Wise Men as visiting the new born Jesus. This probably never happened.

Just to point out how often the Christians get their book wrong and usually don't know what it is they speak of. It's easier -- much easier -- to find the Contradiction in the Christian then in the Bible.

[tannah]

It is believed that all the gospels are translated from a single source document. The names, Matthew, Luke and John etc are nothing to do with who wrote them, they are coined names.

Scholars believe that the gospels come from a single document because of key sentence structures that match throughout.

The Gospels are the soul written evidence of Jesus' existance and they are in fact one not 4.

So any discrepencies between them are translation,i wont say mistakes but, flair.

Jay

Really? Do you mean Mark was the source document?

There's discrepencies due to translation, and downright contradictions.

[tannah]

Irregardless of when Herod died, -- Would an old, aged and dying king actually set out to kill a successor this way?

This seems an incredible thing to me. That someone would be so much against, or anti-, the natural order of the Universe and in attempt to subjegate his domain to his way, his rule, his order, he would be so concerned about someone not even in grade school. Herod would be long gone by the time Jesus was in his 20's.

Was it ambition? Because when you are in your latter years, that type of ambition seems contrary to all reason. Was he so locked into the dreamwold, that he believed in some importance of people honoring him after he was dead?

Or did he just want to destroy something good? Was it that Herod could not stand the idea of God winning? and would do anything to prevent it?


So,, maybe it is both things here? Herod the Tyrant.. Herod the megalomaniac.. Herod the Anti-Christ. And what does that say about our leaders today? Are our leaders today as ruthless? Like Castro, holding on to his iron fisted power over the people even when his life hangs by a thread?


P.S. There is an interesting fact about the Gospel of Matt. that is hardly ever mentioned by Christians. And this is the fact that the Gospels do not put the Three Wise Men at the manger where Jesus was born. All Christiandom, during the Christmas time, though, honor the Wise Men as visiting the new born Jesus. This probably never happened.

Just to point out how often the Christians get their book wrong and usually don't know what it is they speak of. It's easier -- much easier -- to find the Contradiction in the Christian then in the Bible.

Yes very true (last paragraph). Contradiction does resonate with contradiction, but the source is in the human first, then the book. Although we are sometimes guilty of corrupting innocence.

[tannah]

One star, yet contradiction remains
Does an evasive action in your brains
As if God is in as much denial as you "chosen few"
Like IT would do what you'd like IT to.

:cool:

[billycourty]

Tannah: What i mean is the original source document is unknown but researchers have concluded that the four gospels are translated from the same exact source. Any errors, either accidental or poetic licence are mistranslation of the source document.

The source document wasnt even written until around 60 years after Jesus' death, the person who wrote it never knew Jesus personally. In fact none of the texts comtempory to Jesus speak of him, things like local council documents and state undertakings from the areas where Jesus was suposed to have been rabble rowsing never mention any self proclaimed messiah or dissident.

"The idea that the Gospel's authors used of a single source is today generally accepted by researchers.
(Below- a painting depicting The four authors of the Gospels studying the Holy Book they took as their source. Jacob Jordaens, 1625, Louvre Museum, Paris.)"

This quote from:
http://bojiatprorokisus.com/EN/ic_s7.html

Jay

[rapunzel]

Tannah: What i mean is the original source document is unknown but researchers have concluded that the four gospels are translated from the same exact source. Any errors, either accidental or poetic licence are mistranslation of the source document.

The source document wasnt even written until around 60 years after Jesus' death, the person who wrote it never knew Jesus personally. In fact none of the texts comtempory to Jesus speak of him, things like local council documents and state undertakings from the areas where Jesus was suposed to have been rabble rowsing never mention any self proclaimed messiah or dissident.

"The idea that the Gospel's authors used of a single source is today generally accepted by researchers.
(Below- a painting depicting The four authors of the Gospels studying the Holy Book they took as their source. Jacob Jordaens, 1625, Louvre Museum, Paris.)"

This quote from:
http://bojiatprorokisus.com/EN/ic_s7.htmlJay

I think you mean the document called "Q" as the original source document. It certainly influenced the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke but the Gospel of John is entirely different, on a different plane. It was written by someone who was not Jewish as it constantly denigrates the Jews and tries to exonerate the Romans from responsibility for the Crucifixion.

It is far more spiritual than the other Gospels and was obviously written much later when Christian dogma was more developed.

[billycourty]

I don't really mean anything, mostly i am just high lighting the fact that the gospels differences have a historical reason that has been researched i:e Some people believe that the 4 gospels were once one gospel.

Also some people don't believe this.

When the Q document is spoken of it seems to count the Gospel of Mark + the Q as the TWO source documents that the gospels are based upon.

But the researches i am talking about believe there is only one source document. Maybe neither mark nor the Q.

But honestly i don't have indept knowledge of this and i am time poor at this moment so can't research my argument.

The OP however seems to be wanting to know if the descrepenices between the four gospels make the gospels unreliable.

We all know that the bible being the word of God and not a translation of man that this is an area that is often picked up by disenters of the bible.

If it is truely God's words how can it contractdict itself. I feel this is a lazy attack though as we all know human hands translated the bible so the inconsitancies should be reflected upon and understood as being a wick for the spirit of God to ignite you.

I don't read the bible myself very often but i do respect it and try and let the meaning behind the words touch my spirit when i do read it.

Jay

[herushura]

The time period around Year 1 BC and 1AD is corrupted with marginal error, this was caused when the Egyptian-Hebrew-Greek Calenders merged into the julian, then onto the Gregorian.

Jesus could have being born anywere, is not 1ad too much of a round number, for jesus to be born.

Infact the Herod in the bible could be anyone of these herods
including, Herod the Great, Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Herod Agrippa I, Herod Philip I - II.

Its seam that around the age of 30, there was a caeser and a jesus alive at one point, (caeser is to caeser passage), there are a notable number of "Caeser Kings" around 1AD ere.

[rapunzel]

I don't really mean anything, mostly i am just high lighting the fact that the gospels differences have a historical reason that has been researched i:e Some people believe that the 4 gospels were once one gospel.

Also some people don't believe this.

When the Q document is spoken of it seems to count the Gospel of Mark + the Q as the TWO source documents that the gospels are based upon.

But the researches i am talking about believe there is only one source document. Maybe neither mark nor the Q.

But honestly i don't have indept knowledge of this and i am time poor at this moment so can't research my argument.

The OP however seems to be wanting to know if the descrepenices between the four gospels make the gospels unreliable.

We all know that the bible being the word of God and not a translation of man that this is an area that is often picked up by disenters of the bible.

If it is truely God's words how can it contractdict itself. I feel this is a lazy attack though as we all know human hands translated the bible so the inconsitancies should be reflected upon and understood as being a wick for the spirit of God to ignite you.

I don't read the bible myself very often but i do respect it and try and let the meaning behind the words touch my spirit when i do read it.

Jay

But there are some very bad contradictions in the Gospels. The Birth narratives, the date of the Crucifixion and the events after the Resurrection. These are not just translation errors but serious discrepancies.

[thelucifer]

But there are some very bad contradictions in the Gospels. The Birth narratives, the date of the Crucifixion and the events after the Resurrection. These are not just translation errors but serious discrepancies.

Now that is an understatement. ;)





Its just bleepin amazing (in a most sad way) that people refuse to see/admit the obvious.

[rapunzel]

Now that is an understatement. ;)





Its just bleepin amazing (in a most sad way) that people refuse to see/admit the obvious.

I think the reason many people cannot see these dicrepancies is becuase they read each Gospels one at a time (if they read them at all!). By the time they read the next one the've forgottten the actual details of the stories so the contradictions aren't apparant.

They only become apparant if you read the Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke and see how the stories simply don't fit, similarly with the Crucifixion and Resurrection stories. But even then I have come across people who just refuse to see the contradictions, even when you shove them under their noses.

[tannah]

Well here's a site that says there's no contradictions in the bible. Check out the chart that accompanies this section:





Are the gospel accounts of Jesus reliable?

Secular historians recorded the general facts of Jesus' life, but his close associates made more detailed reports based on direct eyewitness testimony. These are called the four gospels, the first four books of the New Testament. How can we be sure these biographies of Jesus are accurate?

When historians try to determine if a biography is reliable, they ask, "How many other sources report the same details about this person?" Here's how this works. Imagine you are collecting biographies of President John F. Kennedy. You find many describing his family, his presidency, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and almost all of the biographies report similar facts. But what if you found one biography reporting that JFK lived ten years as a priest in South Africa? The other biographies had him in the U.S. at the time; a sensible historian would go with the accounts that agree with one another.

Regarding Jesus of Nazareth, do we find multiple biographies reporting similar facts about his life? Yes. While they don't redundantly cover all of the same information, the four gospels tell essentially the same story:

(CHART)

Two of the gospels were written by the apostles Matthew and John, men who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him for over three years. The other two books were written by Mark and Luke, close associates of the apostles. These writers had direct access to the facts they were recording. The early church accepted the four gospels because they agreed with what was already common knowledge about Jesus' life.

Each of the four gospel writers made a very detailed account. As you would expect from multiple biographies of a real person, there is variation in the style but agreement in the facts. We know the authors were not simply making things up, because the gospels give specific geographical names and cultural details that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists.

Jesus' recorded words leave out many topics the early church would have liked a statement on. This indicates that the biographers were honest, not putting words in Jesus' mouth to suit their own interests.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html


Hmmmmmm, the chart says he was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth. Anyone know where Nazareth was at this time?

I've heard of Nazarenes, but were they not a Essene sect?

And wasn't John written years after the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus?

This site seems to deny contradictions:


Are there contradictions in the Bible?

While some claim that the Bible is full of contradictions, this simply isn't true. The number of apparent contradictions is actually remarkably small for a book of the Bible's size and scope. What apparent discrepancies do exist are more curiosity than calamity. They do not touch on any major event or article of faith.

Here is an example of a so-called contradiction. Pilate ordered that a sign be posted on the cross where Jesus hung. Three of the Gospels record what was written on that sign:
In Matthew: "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews."
In Mark: "The king of the Jews."
In John: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews."

The wording is different, hence the apparent contradiction. The remarkable thing, though, is that all thee writers describe the same event in such detail -- Jesus was crucified. On this they all agree. They even record that a sign was posted on the cross, and the meaning of the sign is the same in all three accounts!

What about the exact wording? In the original Greek of the Gospels, they didn't use a quotation symbol as we do today to indicate a direct quote. The Gospel authors were making an indirect quote, which would account for the subtle differences in the passages.

Here is another example of an apparent contradiction. Was Jesus two nights in the tomb or three nights in the tomb before His resurrection? Jesus said, prior to his crucifixion, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Mark records another statement that Jesus made, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." (Mark 10:33,34)

Jesus was killed on Friday and the resurrection was discovered on Sunday. How can that be three days and nights in the tomb? It was a Jewish figure of speech in Jesus' time to count any part of a day or night as a full day and night. So Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would be called three days and three nights in Jesus' culture. We speak in similar ways today -- if a person were to say, "I spent all day shopping," we understand that the person didn't mean 24 hours.

This is typical of apparent contradictions in the New Testament. Most are resolved by a closer examination of the text itself or through studying the historical background.

I know this site is the type Orli would post, but is there any references anywhere else that lists the contradictions?

The reason that his virgin birth, crucifixation and resurrection all correlate is because these were the myths and symbolism they wanted to achieve.

[shankers]

Interesting thread.

There is remarkable consistency in the big picture of the four canonical gospels: Jesus lived, worked and died in the near east. His ministry was relatively short. He was essentially a Jewish teacher. He was crucified, and he rose from the dead.

I'm not saying this is 'gospel' (excuse the pun), I'm just talking about consistency.

As for the fine details, there are contradictions (rather than simply differences). These do count when we try to make sense of Jesus' message.

Take the so-called 'beatitudes'. In Matthew's 'Sermon on the Mount' we find Jesus saying 'Blessed are the poor in spirit'. In Luke's 'Sermon on the Plain' we find Jesus saying 'Blessed are the poor'. A big difference. It's almost the difference between validating Liberation Theology (Luke) to validating monasticism (Matthew).

As for sources, we cannot sodding know. Mark's is generally regarded as being the earliest c. AD 65-70, a few years after the death of St. Paul (the earliest known 'Christian' writer). Matthew and Luke are said to have written around AD 80. John, around AD 100. John's style is very different, more 'Hellenic' (especially the astonishing Prologue with its Logos theology).

More interesting are the gospels which didn't end up in the canon, e.g., the Gospel of Thomas. These are more 'gnostic' in character (Thomas being almost a bridge between the canonical gospels and the really far out shit of the out-and-out gnostics of the second century).

[tannah]

So here's a little bit of Matthew:


18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

This reminds me of those school sick notes I'd pretend my parents wrote for me.:D How was being pregnant through the holy spirit discerned? And if Joseph was a righteous man shouldn't he have exposed her and had her stoned? Maybe he was protecting his own integrity. And he hadn't had that dream yet, from Gabriel.

If I stood up in a court and said my wife to be was pregnant through the holy spirit, perhaps they'd think I was trying to avoid child maintenance payments.

What the above paragraph is really about is the dressing up of another deity-saviour with the first requirement, a virgin birth. Next, a few old "prophecies" need to be fulfilled:

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, "God with us."

Well that would be the jackpot then.

Had this kind of info been found in other religions or non-canonize books, bible adherents would get out their skepticism and try to shred it to pieces. But wait, other religions and old myths do try and tell the same story. So the biggest contradiction is the bible adherent's denial of these other stories as fake, but theirs as true.

What's going on in Matthew chapter 2 is the attempt to make Jesus the Son of God. Why this is so may be revealed in the history surrounding the Roman empire at the time. Were their own gods failing them? Did they need another focal point to unite the different countries they'd conquered? Did they become familiar wih Jewish propecies?

[tannah]

Interesting thread.

There is remarkable consistency in the big picture of the four canonical gospels: Jesus lived, worked and died in the near east. His ministry was relatively short. He was essentially a Jewish teacher. He was crucified, and he rose from the dead.

I'm not saying this is 'gospel' (excuse the pun), I'm just talking about consistency.

As for the fine details, there are contradictions (rather than simply differences). These do count when we try to make sense of Jesus' message.

Take the so-called 'beatitudes'. In Matthew's 'Sermon on the Mount' we find Jesus saying 'Blessed are the poor in spirit'. In Luke's 'Sermon on the Plain' we find Jesus saying 'Blessed are the poor'. A big difference. It's almost the difference between validating Liberation Theology (Luke) to validating monasticism (Matthew).

As for sources, we cannot sodding know. Mark's is generally regarded as being the earliest c. AD 65-70, a few years after the death of St. Paul (the earliest known 'Christian' writer). Matthew and Luke are said to have written around AD 80. John, around AD 100. John's style is very different, more 'Hellenic' (especially the astonishing Prologue with its Logos theology).

More interesting are the gospels which didn't end up in the canon, e.g., the Gospel of Thomas. These are more 'gnostic' in character (Thomas being almost a bridge between the canonical gospels and the really far out shit of the out-and-out gnostics of the second century).

I've aways managed to find good meaningful bits in most everything I've read, watched or thought/heard about. Every sentence can be weighed up on its own merits. This allows me to find pearls wherever they appear. Thomas contains one of the most meaningful paragraphs I've read. It's verse 22. It shouldn't matter who said it.

Wasn't the Essene Teacher of Righteousness also said to be Jesus?

[rapunzel]

Well here's a site that says there's no contradictions in the bible. Check out the chart that accompanies this section:

Hmmmmmm, the chart says he was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth. Anyone know where Nazareth was at this time?

I've heard of Nazarenes, but were they not a Essene sect?

And wasn't John written years after the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus?

This site seems to deny contradictions:

I know this site is the type Orli would post, but is there any references anywhere else that lists the contradictions?

The reason that his virgin birth, crucifixation and resurrection all correlate is because these were the myths and symbolism they wanted to achieve.

The chart you posted is typical of Chritian apologetics, full of half truths and misrepresentation. As for Nazareth, which was in Galilee, there is much dispute as to whether it actually existed at the time of Jesus but the jury is stlll out on this.

Of course they deny contradictions; they have no option but to do so. The contradictions they "solve" are the minor ones that don't really matter but they rarely touch the real contradictions such as the fact that the Synoptic Gospels say Jesus ate the Passover meal at the proper time and was crucified the following day, whereas John has the Last Supper on the day before the Passover meal and has Jesus crucified at the time the Passover lambs were being slaughtered for eating later on at the Passover.

After the resurrection did the Disciples go straight to Galilee or did they stay in Jerusalem? Matthew has them go straight to Galilee where Jesus appeared to them for the first time and gave them the Great Commission.

Mark mentions the instruction to go to Galilee but then in the disputed ending of Mark they don’t go, but Jesus appear to the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus (just outside Jerusalem) and later to the eleven while they were eating in Jerusalem where he gives them the Great Commission and then later ascends. No mention of Galilee here.

Luke there is no mention of Galilee but Jesus appears to the 2 at Emmaus and later to them while they were eating in Jerusalem. And in fact tells them all to stay in Jerusalem until the HS is given to them later at Pentecost. This is repeated in Acts. There is no trace of the Great Commission here but after he had finished speaking Jesus led them to Bethany where he ascended. The disciples then went back to Jerusalem. The same story is told in Acts.

In John again there is no mention of Galilee after the Resurrection but Jesus appears twice to the disciples in Jerusalem after an interval of 8 days. The last chapter must take place sometime later because the disciples are back in Galilee fishing when Jesus appears again but they don’t recognize him. There is no mention of the Great Commission and no mention of the ascension.

Also notice how in the disputed ending of Mark the women at the tomb are too frightened at what they have seen and they go away and don’t tell anyone what has happened. In Luke 24:9 they do tell the disciples what they have seen.

There are numerous small contradictions in the stories which I won’t go into here but anyone who reads the Resurrection story with an open mind can clearly see the contradictions which Christians seem unable to resolve honestly.

[tannah]

The chart you posted is typical of Chritian apologetics, full of half truths and misrepresentation. As for Nazareth, which was in Galilee, there is much dispute as to whether it actually existed at the time of Jesus but the jury is stlll out on this.

Of course they deny contradictions; they have no option but to do so. The contradictions they "solve" are the minor ones that don't really matter but they rarely touch the real contradictions such as the fact that the Synoptic Gospels say Jesus ate the Passover meal at the proper time and was crucified the following day, whereas John has the Last Supper on the day before the Passover meal and has Jesus crucified at the time the Passover lambs were being slaughtered for eating later on at the Passover.

After the resurrection did the Disciples go straight to Galilee or did they stay in Jerusalem? Matthew has them go straight to Galilee where Jesus appeared to them for the first time and gave them the Great Commission.

Mark mentions the instruction to go to Galilee but then in the disputed ending of Mark they don’t go, but Jesus appear to the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus (just outside Jerusalem) and later to the eleven while they were eating in Jerusalem where he gives them the Great Commission and then later ascends. No mention of Galilee here.

Luke there is no mention of Galilee but Jesus appears to the 2 at Emmaus and later to them while they were eating in Jerusalem. And in fact tells them all to stay in Jerusalem until the HS is given to them later at Pentecost. This is repeated in Acts. There is no trace of the Great Commission here but after he had finished speaking Jesus led them to Bethany where he ascended. The disciples then went back to Jerusalem. The same story is told in Acts.

In John again there is no mention of Galilee after the Resurrection but Jesus appears twice to the disciples in Jerusalem after an interval of 8 days. The last chapter must take place sometime later because the disciples are back in Galilee fishing when Jesus appears again but they don’t recognize him. There is no mention of the Great Commission and no mention of the ascension.

Also notice how in the disputed ending of Mark the women at the tomb are too frightened at what they have seen and they go away and don’t tell anyone what has happened. In Luke 24:9 they do tell the disciples what they have seen.

There are numerous small contradictions in the stories which I won’t go into here but anyone who reads the Resurrection story with an open mind can clearly see the contradictions which Christians seem unable to resolve honestly.

Yes, while the RC had the ownership of their bible, which was in Latin, it didn't matter about the contradictions and the charachter of God this book portrayed. Now that we can all read for ourselves, all that seems to be left for a bible clone is a fair dose of denial. But then all of us practice denial here and there. The ego needs at least one deceitful belief (attachment) in order to exist, or else only the Spirit of God would emanate through humans.

[nickos]

i know theat specualtion on the time of jesus' birth if rife,tosay the least, but,judging from my own experiences of being 'anointed' i would say that Jesus was around the age of 18 at 0bc! i understand if readers of this post aren't sure of the times themselves, but if you'd like to know more about my OWN 'messiah beliefs'(inluding just WHAT the 'star of wonder' actually was,i.e. the same occurence as was described by the ancient greeks as "zeus's lightning bolt",and, in the case of perseus, 'a shower of gold')then pleease go to my site which i started about 6 months ago. i decided that i should set up a site with information on what i genuinely believe made me the MILLENIAL messiah because of the sheer ignorance that i was confronted with when speaking to members of the UK clergy! i'm a simple man, but i believe that, with my so-called 'psychosis' i developed a 'divine understanding' of not only jesus, but EVERY messiah.
for instance, i believe abel was a predecessor to jesus and that cain was abel's judas.why do ibelieve this? because i had a 'friend'(i use the term loosely because the guy was 'odd'!)at college when i was 17 who was called ali g mcdonald. when i became 'ill' at the age of 18/19 i found i could find several links with his name and the 'old nicknames' for the devil.e.g. the nursery rhyme 'old mcdonald', the comedian sasha cohen's character 'ali g' etc..i had already 'chosen' the band Ash as my three wise men(for reason s you will discover on my site)and 'sasha' is 'ash' with an 'evil S' before it!e.g.shark,snake,spider,SATAN!they all begin with an 's'! the strange thing about ali g was that he was always 'testing' the faith of other guys in my class-he would ask on a regular basis "which is right,evolution or creation?", he had a clipart picture on his bedroom wall of jesus with the words underneath saying 'ggroovy jesus'. he actually tried to 'sabotage' my chance on the course(music related)and, once i had left college, in my flat i heard his voice saying 'keep the faith'!he also 'argued' with me in 'voiceland' and it wasn't until i 'told' him that "i've already won,becasue the world actually WANTS a messiah.when did they or would they want the judas figure(son of satan)?" you see, the two 'sons' compete for the most coveted position in history, every century!
by the way, ONE of the voices 'from god' that i heard simply said "whats in a name?"(as i approached a pub called 'uncle henrys'(another old name for satan!)
check my website!please!

[ben87]

Irregardless of when Herod died, -- Would an old, aged and dying king actually set out to kill a successor this way?

This seems an incredible thing to me. That someone would be so much against, or anti-, the natural order of the Universe and in attempt to subjegate his domain to his way, his rule, his order, he would be so concerned about someone not even in grade school. Herod would be long gone by the time Jesus was in his 20's.

Was it ambition? Because when you are in your latter years, that type of ambition seems contrary to all reason. Was he so locked into the dreamwold, that he believed in some importance of people honoring him after he was dead?

Or did he just want to destroy something good? Was it that Herod could not stand the idea of God winning? and would do anything to prevent it?


So,, maybe it is both things here? Herod the Tyrant.. Herod the megalomaniac.. Herod the Anti-Christ. And what does that say about our leaders today? Are our leaders today as ruthless? Like Castro, holding on to his iron fisted power over the people even when his life hangs by a thread?


P.S. There is an interesting fact about the Gospel of Matt. that is hardly ever mentioned by Christians. And this is the fact that the Gospels do not put the Three Wise Men at the manger where Jesus was born. All Christiandom, during the Christmas time, though, honor the Wise Men as visiting the new born Jesus. This probably never happened.

Just to point out how often the Christians get their book wrong and usually don't know what it is they speak of. It's easier -- much easier -- to find the Contradiction in the Christian then in the Bible.

Just a theory, But what if Salome-Mary was his real mother, his father was John the baptist king of assyria, and herod did not want his step daughter to bear a assyrian royal who might end up claiming the throne?

[ben87]

Look up holophernes a salome.

salome was the one who cut of john the baptists head, she seduced him first and concieved.

after john died she claimed to be virgin and the rest is history.