Free Jesus Lied - He Was Only Human: Debunking the New Testament by C.J. Werleman Page A

Joseph; he is irrelevant in Luke’s account. Whereas Matthew writes that Joseph became consumed with anger because his supposed virgin bride had informed him she was pregnant. Why not, it’s only natural to presume wrongdoing in such a circumstance. But later that night as he considered his options, knowing that Mosaic law demanded he stone her to death on the city outskirts, an angel came to him:
    “ 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. She will give birth to a son and you shall name in Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:20-21 NIV)
     
    This may seem like a petty observation on the surface but it illustrates the emergence of a pattern that features many irreconcilable discrepancies, and implausibility’s. If we examine the actual birth (delivery) of Jesus, we read conflicting accounts that demonstrate that Matthew and Luke cannot both be right, given their respective conflicting narratives.
Wise Men or Shepherds
     
    Matthew says that the Wise Men (Magi) are led to Jerusalem by a star from the east. The star hovers above the city momentarily and the men ask some locals where the King of the Jews is to be born. King Herod learns of these star following strangers and enquires who they are and why are they looking for such a newborn. Matthew, reverting to his Hebrew Bible for a clue, gives the reason from prophecy, Micah 5:2:
    “ But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.”
     
    To take a side step from this narrative for a moment, the Gospels completely trip over themselves. Matthew in particular, attempts to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, the city of David, which again is nothing short of a vain plea to sway Jewish sensibilities. The fabrication of this story telling between Matthew and Luke is utterly soiled in John’s Gospel, as he suggests that Jesus was neither born in Bethlehem nor descended from King David. As we can see once more, it is not possible for all Gospels to be right. At least one of them is telling a lie, but which one, and to what end?
    This embellishment stems again from the fact that the Greek speaking Gospels failed to fully comprehend Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament (Torah in the Hebrew/Jewish tradition).
    A Hebrew that should know is Hayyim ben Yehoshu, ‘ The Historical Basis of the Jesus Legend’ writes:
    “ Since the early Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, they automatically believed that he was born in Bethlehem. But why did the Christians believe that he lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple. The early Greek speaking Christians did not know what the word “Nazarene” meant. The earliest Greek form of this word is “Nazoraios,” which is derived from “Natzoriya,” the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew “Notzri.” (Recall that “Yeishu ha-Notzri” is the original Hebrew for “Jesus the Nazarene.”) The early Christians conjectured that “Nazarene” meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today, Christians blithely confuse the Hebrew words “Notzri” (_Nazarene_, _Christian_), “Natzrati” _Nazarethite_) and “nazir” (_nazarite_), all of which have completely different meanings.”
     
    Anyway, the Star fires up its engines once again and points the men to the exact house in Nazareth… shit, Bethlehem where baby Jesus and his parents reside. A house is specified. In other words, there’s no mention of a manger or stable. AN Wilson, in his book ‘ Jesus’ comments:
    “ The story of the baby being born in a stable at Bethlehem because there was no room for him at the inn is one of the most powerful myths ever given to the human race. A myth, however, is what it is. Even if we insist on taking every word of the Bible as literally true, we