We have to remember that the new testament was not only a translation, but also a rewriting of copies that were copies of copies… of the original texts. There are absolutely no original texts, that we know of, in existence — they have all been lost, destroyed or perhaps even hidden. The many of the men who had the translations/corrections made by men who they hired to do the job (not the original writers of the gospels) were self-confessed liars and deceivers.

Disciples didn’t hand over all Jesus teachings to the Roman church because of corruption

The original followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, especially the main leaders of the church, James and Peter, were strongly against what the church leaders of Rome were doing to the manuscripts that they were sending them and did not send all of the teachings of Jesus, knowing that these would be corrupted also. These teachings were hidden away from the roman church so that at the time that the world was ready to receive the pure truth, it would be in its original form, without the corruptions of the Roman church. The churchmen in Rome were changing the gospels and corrupting them, taking things out and adding things that were not originally there. We know this because of a letter that was written in the Epistle of Peter And James:

“Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. If we should give the books to all indiscriminately, and they should be corrupted by any daring men, or be perverted by interpretations, as you have heard that some have already done, it will remain even for those who really seek the truth, always to wander in error. Wherefore it is better that they should be with us, and that we should communicate them with all the fore-mentioned care to those who wish to live piously, and to save others.”

Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic not Greek

Scholars have told us that the original manuscripts were first written in tne language of the Greeks. However, Jesus and his disciples spoke mainly Hebrew or Aramaic. There is concrete proof that one of the oldest gospels, the gospel of the Hebrews, written by Matthew, was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters. This we know, despite the fact that the original gospel, called the gospel of the Hebrews, has been lost, because Origen and some of the other church fathers quote from this gospel and affirm that it was written in Aramaic. Therefore it is extremely likely that the original manuscripts were also written in that language.

These are the facts about our bible:

• There are no original manuscripts with which to compare the canonical gospels which we have that are dated at the earliest 5th century.
• We only have copies of copies of translations – no original writings.
• Translations were made from Aramaic to Greek by men not familiar with Hebrew traditions, thus made many mistakes in the translations, not to mention the purposeful mistranslations made.
• It is not known who actually wrote down the canonical gospels, which where pieced together from other documents, hearsay, oral tradition, perhaps even Greek mythology and worst of all dogmas created by the roman church patched in over the space of 5 centuries.
• They were copied by men who were familiar with Greek and not the disciples of Jesus.
• The men who had the copies/translation made or perhaps actually did it themselves were self-confessed liars and deceivers — there is documented proof of this. (see Famous Church Fathers)
• It is not known when they were copied. There were certainly hundereds copies of translations made during the first 5 centuries, different from one another.
• It is not known where they were copied. They were certainly not done by the Jewish Christians around Jerusalem.

These facts alone are enough to shed serious doubt as to the legitimacy of much of the New Testament writing. There are many verses that seem to have been inserted at a later date and just their existece creates contradiction with other passages and inconsistencies. There are passages that seem to have been inserted in an attempt to strengthen the belief of or win over new converts, most of whom were pagans.

Anaysis of the supposed prophecies of the Messiah

Wolves in sheep's clothing

With this in mind, the following are an honest analysis of so-called propecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah. Mind you, the analysis of these prophecies has no bearing on the fact that Jesus actually was the Messiah. This analysis is not in any way an attempt to show that Jesus was not the Messiah, but to show how the new testament was corrupted by the church fathers of the roman church. What they have done here in the majority of the cases is to take the verses completly out of context and ignore the surrounding verses that are related to the supposed prophecy and they often purposely mistranslate or misinterpret the old testament scriptures in order to make it look like a prophecy relating to Jesus. And this, as already said was to convert the people, who were mainly pagan.

An in-depth, and comprehensive analysis would be extremely long. The goal of this analysis is to be as brief and to the point as possible in order to prove the point without getting into too much detail.

Prophecy: “the virgin birth“

Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

1. Isaiah gave this prophecy to king Ahaz as a confirmation that God was with him and he need not fear his enemies who lived 700 years before Jesus. Can not refer to Jesus.
2. There is a limited time for the accomplisment of the sign: “before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chose the good”. Can not refer to Jesus.
3. Isaiah was speaking of his own child, not about Jesus.
4. The mother of Isaiah’s son was not a virgin. Therefore the translation is wrong and should be “young woman“, therefore the woman could not refer to Mary mother of Jesus.
5. The correct translation of the expression is in the present tense not in the future tense, “Behold a young woman is with child and beareth a son“. A prophecy would refer to a future event. Can not refer to Jesus.
6. The scripture was purposely mistranslated into the future tense to make it look like a prophecy about Jesus.
7. Neither Isaiah’s son nor Jesus was named “Emmanuel”.

Prophecy: “Out of Egypt have I called my son”

Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Mat 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
Mat 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Hos 11:2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

1. Passage refers to the children of Israel coming out of Egypt, not about Jesus. “My son” is referring to Israel as is very commonly done in the Old Testament.
2. The person called out of Egypt “sacrificed unto Baalim and burnt incense to graven images”.
3. The Israelites coming out of Egypt were idolators, the bible tells us this.
4. “My son” is referring to the children of Israel. All throughout the old testament Israel is referred to collectively as “my servant”, “my son”, etc. “My son” is a nation, not Jesus.