Jesus couldn’t be God and the Messiah both.
According to bible prophecy, the Messiah Jesus had to be a descendant of not only King David but also King Solomon. Joseph, the father of Jesus was a descendant to Solomon. Mary was not. If Jesus were sired by the “holy ghost” and not the biological son of Joseph as is stated in Matthew, he couldn’t have been the Messiah.
1Ch 28:5 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
1Ch 28:7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever
The genealogies in both Matthew and Luke are Joseph’s, yet they are both completely different. The church has this theory that the lineage in Luke was Mary’s so that Jesus could get his royal lineage through her. If Jesus were of the lineage in Luke, he would have still had royal lineage, but not the lineage of the Messiah. Therefore, it makes no difference whether the lineage in Luke was of Mary or not, it is not the lineage of the Messiah.
The prophecy in 2 Samuel is a prophecy about the Messiah. This prophecy says that the forerunner of the Messiah will build the temple — it was King Solomon who built the temple.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
1Ch 17:11 And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.
1Ch 17:12 He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.
1Ch 17:13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:
1Ch 17:14 But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.
1Ch 28:6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father
Jesus wasn’t the Messiah through the lineage of Mary
Contrary to the theory that Mary’s lineage was that in Luke, Jesus’ relatives tell a different story. Mary could not have been of the lineage that is listed in Luke since Eli died childless. Joseph was the son of Eli’s widow who she begot in the union with Eli’s brother Jacob — that made Eli Joseph’s father-in-law, so to speak. This explains why both genealogies are different and yet are both Joseph’s. Eusebius the great church historian writes:
In any case the Gospel states the truth. And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words:
“Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiae, 1:7:11, 1:7:13-14)
James, the brother of Jesus tells us that Mary’s father was a priest, which would make him a Levite. Priests traditionally were of the house of Levi.
Mary herself was not of the tribe of Judah but of the tribe of Levi; her father being a priest of the name of Joachim. (http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/mary.htm)
The bible itself gives us evidence that Mary was of the house of Levi. Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, was a Levite as was also Zachariah being a priest.
Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Jesus couldn’t have gotten the Messianic heritage though Mary since she wasn’t of the house of Judah, much less the lineage of the Messiah. What’s more is kingship was always passed down through the father’s side, never the mother’s.
Jesus was a high priest having his lineage through Mary
If Mary were not of the tribe of Levi, Jesus would not have been able to be a high priest. We know he was a high priest because the bible tells us this, Furthermore, if Jesus had not had a biological father he wouldn’t even have been able to enter the temple, much less be a high priest.
Zec 6:13 …shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest (as was Aaron); but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
So Jesus got his kingship heritage through Joseph, his biological father, and his priesthood through his mother Mary.
Was the virgin birth kept a secret throughout all the first century?
Joseph the father of Jesus
If Jesus didn’t have a biological father, then he and his parents had always kept this a secret from all his relatives, his disciples and all of the Jews his whole life — letting the whole world believe an untruth. In fact, it appears that no one knew of this fact for the most part first century since the only place that the virgin birth appears is in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
This secret would have had to have been kept especially from his enemies the Jews since this would have been the number one arm that they would have used against him to destroy him in the eyes of his followers and get him rejected, which was their greatest aim. But the scribes and Pharisees said not a word about this in any of the four gospels nor is a word even mentioned by any of the disciples in the rest of the New Testament.
If these gospels were written in the first century at all, they would have had to be written near the end of the century since a rumor of this magnitude would have created quite an uproar — but not a thing was written about the virgin birth outside those two gospels.
Matthew didn’t write about the virgin birth
The conical gospel of Matthew couldn’t have possibly been written by the disciple Matthew whom the gospel was named after in the bible since it was written in Greek. We know from church history that Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic. What’s more is that we know from church history that Matthew’s gospel started off with the baptism of Jesus as does the gospels of Mark and John. IF this WERE Matthew’s gospel, the story of the Nativity of Jesus was added on at a later date, by someone other than Matthew.
But the Gospel that Matthew wrote in Aramaic and the Greek manuscripts of the gospel by the same name that is found in the bible are of a completely different style and much different content. The truth is that no one really knows who wrote the gospel called Matthew found in the bible or when it was written, but it certainly wasn’t written by the disciple Matthew. Therefore the stories that Jesus was fathered by the holy ghost, Mary was a virgin and Jesus was a god-man are purely fictitious, invented by men who were not original disciples of Jesus.
The Holy Trinity doctrine is a forgery
It takes three to make a Trinity
So the fact that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and not the Holy Ghost as we are told in the gospels of Matthew and Luke in the bible, that blows a big hole in the theory of the Trinity. It leaves only two persons and a trinity needs three. In the gospel of Matthew itself (that can easily be proven wasn’t written by the disciple Matthew), exists a verse that supporters of the trinity theory use to back their dogma — Mat 28:19. The problem is that it is highly likely that this verse is a forgery.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics declares Matthew 28:19 doctrinal corruption where it reads:
“It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism”.
Mat 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”.
This verse was obviously corrupted by Trinitarians in an effort to prove their doctrine on grounds of biblical evidence.
Eusebius, a great church historian, quotes Mat 28:19 thus:
“Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”
This was obviously the original form.
Another passage that was corrupted for the same purpose is 1 John 5:7, 8. It was changed from this:
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jn 5:8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
to this:
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The Adam Clarke Commentary questions its validity:
“But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every manuscript of this letter written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. It is missing in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Aethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin”.
Contradiction in the doctrine of salvation
Paul’s doctrine on salvation, as is the majority of modern Christian churches, is centered around salvation by grace and not works. On the contrary, Jesus and his disciples taught that salvation was by works, as did his disciples and the rest of the Jews. It appears that Paul built a totally new religion built on top of the philosophy of life that Jesus brought and it was that religion that took hold and is in force until this day.
There has always been the same argument all down the centuries on whether salvation is by grace or by works. And both of these doctrines can be proven by the holy bible. Both proponents of this issue can prove their point and have all the actual verses to back up their claims. This is not imaginary, it’s real and is not difficult to see. At one of the most central points at the heart of Christianity there is great contradiction!
So we find that:
- Jesus was not God
- Jesus had a biological father
- The story of the virgin birth is a fable
- The doctrine of the Trinity is a forgery
- The central biblical doctrine of salvation is a contradiction
The major, most basic principles that are at the very heart and foundation of Christianity are falsehoods. But one of the most incredible things about Christianity is, that despite all the falsehoods, contradictions and forgeries that exist in that religion, they still insist that there is no religion outside of Christianity where men can be saved!