The Genealogy of Jesus
Watch now how the Christian fathers have foisted the incestuous progenies of the Old Testament upon their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament. For a man who had no genealogy, they have manufactured one for him. And what a genealogy! Six adulterers and offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God.
Men and women deserving to be stoned to death according to God’s own law, as revealed through Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for generations.
“The bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord even unto the tenth generation.” (Deut. 23:2 – AV).
The “Witnesses” have been hyper sensitive to this word. Swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat!
Why should God give a “father” (Joseph) to His “son” (Jesus)? And why such an ignoble ancestry? “This is the whole beauty of it” says the pervert. “God loved the sinners so much that he disdaineth not to give such progenitors for His ‘son’”.
Only two commissioned
Of the four Gospel writers, God “inspired” only two of them to record the genealogy of His “son.” To make it easy for you to compare the “fathers and grandfathers” of Jesus Christ in both the “inspired” lists, I have culled the names only, minus the verbiage. Between David and Jesus, God “inspired” Matthew to record only 26 ancestors for His “son.” But Luke, also “inspired,” gathered up 41 forefathers for Jesus. The only name common to these two lists between David and Jesus is Joseph and that, too, a “supposed” father according to Luke 3:23 (AV).
This one name is glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It is Joseph the carpenter. You will also easily observe that the lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists have emanated from the same source, i.e. God?
Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making David the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the “throne of his father David” (Acts 2:30).
The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father’s (David’s) throne, it was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. “Never mind,’’ says the evangelist, “if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred others beside” But with their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says – that of the fruit of his (David’s) Loins, according to the flesh” (literally, not metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the “inspired” authors trip and fall on the very first step.
Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through Solomon, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through Nathan. One need not be a gynecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.
As simple as the above logic is, the Christian is so emotionally involved that it will not penetrate his prejudiced mind. Let us give him an identical example, but one where he can afford to be objective.
We know from history that Muhammed the Prophet of Islam, was the son of Abraham through Ishmael, so if some “inspired” writer came along and tried to palm off his “revelation” to the effect that Muhammad was the son of Abraham through Isaac, we would, without any hesitation, brand such a writer as a liar, because the seed of Abraham could never reach Amina (Muhammad’s mother) through Ishmael and through Isaac at the same time! The differences of lineage between these two sons of Abraham is the difference between the Jews and the Arabs.
In the case of Muhammad, we would know then that anyone who says that Isaac is his progenitor, was a liar. But in the case of Jesus both Matthew and Luke are suspect. Until the Christians decide which line of ancestors they prefer for their “god,” both Gospels will have to be rejected. Christendom has been battling tooth and nail with these genealogies for the past 2000 years, trying to unravel the mystery. They have not given up yet. We admire their perseverance. They still believe that “time will solve the problem.” Perhaps another 2000 years?!
“There are claimed contradictions that theologians have not resolved to every atheist’s satisfaction. There are textual difficulties with which scholars are still wrestling. Only a bible illiterate would deny these and other problems” “The Plain Truth,” July 1975.
The source of Luke’s inspiration
We have already nailed 85% of Matthew and Luke to Mark or that “mysterious ‘Q’’’. Let us now allow Luke to tell us who inspired him to tell his “most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:3) the story of Jesus. He tells us plainly that he was only following in the footsteps of others who were less qualified than himself, others who had the temerity to write accounts of his hero (Jesus). As a physician, as against fishermen and tax collectors, he was no doubt better equipped to create a literary masterpiece. This he did, because “It seemed good to me also” to “put in order.” These are his prominent Justifications over his predecessors.
1. For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou has been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)
In the introduction to his translation of the “Gospel of St Luke” A Christian scholar, J. B. Phillips, has this to say – “on his own admission Luke has carefully compared and edited existing material, but it would seem that he had access to a good deal of additional material, and we can reasonably guess at some of the sources from which he drew.” And yet you call this the Word of God?!
Obtain “The Gospels in Modern English” in soft cover by ‘Fontana publications. It is a cheap edition. Get it quickly before the Christians decide to have Phillips’ invaluable notes expunged from his translation! And do not be surprised if the authors of the RSV also decide to eliminate the “Preface” from their translation. It is an old, old habit. As soon as those who have vested interests in Christianity realize that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, they quickly make amends. They make my current references “past” history overnight!
The remaining Gospel
Who is the author of The Gospel of St. John? Neither God nor St. John! See what he says about it himself on page 58 – John 19:35 and 21:24-25. Who is his “he” and “his” and “this?” A-N-D, his “we know” and “I suppose.” Could it be the fickle one who left him in the lurch in the garden, when he was most in need, or the fourteenth man at the table, at the “last Super,” the one that “Jesus loved?” Both were Johns. It was a popular name among the Jews in the times of Jesus, and among Christians even now. Neither of these two was the author of this Gospel. That it was the product of an anonymous hand, is crystal clear.
Watch the pronouns!
St. John 19:35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. Who is “he” and “his”?
St. John 21:24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. Who is “we”?
By Ahmad Deedat