The light of reason shines over the winter snow in a Derbyshire village  
 

Questions for Christians

  • We know of at least fourteen gospels but only four appear in the New Testament.

    Who decided which ones to include and which ones to exclude - and why and when?

  • Who were the authors of the gospels of "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and John"?
  • When were the four gospels written?
  • Jesus was a miracle worker, he even raised people from the dead, why is there no mention of him in any Roman or Jewish records?
  • Why do only two of the gospels, Matthew and Luke, describe the birth of Jesus?
  • Why does only one gospel, Matthew, mention the Magi? How do we know there were three? When did they become "kings" rather than wise men? When were they given names?
  • Matthew 2.17 says that King Herod, Herod the Great, ordered the death of all boys under two years old in the Bethlehem area. Why is there no historical record for this?

    King Herod died soon after an eclipse of the moon which can be dated to 12-13th March, 4BC - four years before the alleged birth of Jesus.

  • Luke 2:1-3 says "Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (That this was the first census to take place while Quirinus was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register."

    Quirinus took over direct Roman rule of Syria, including Judea, in 6AD - six years after the alleged birth of Jesus.

    Before Quirinus took over direct rule it was not possible for the Romans to issue a decree relating to a census or taxation since they ruled through subject kings who would have been responsible for decrees and taxation.

    Quirinus did indeed carry out a local census in 6AD

    A Roman census was concerned about property ownership - the common basis for taxation. The Romans were not interested in where someone's family originally came from (after all, they could not define "originally") so they wanted to know who lived where and what they owned. Joseph would be registered in Nazareth not Bethlehem and, then as now, only the head of the household would provide the census information - Mary would not have been involved.

    Roman and Chinese records show that a bright comet (Halley's comet) was seen in the sky in 12BC.

    If Jesus was born when a comet was in the sky (12BC) he would have been 48 when he died.

    If Jesus was born in the rein of Herod the Great (6BC) he would have been at least 42 when he died.

    If Jesus was born at the time of the census of Quirinus (6AD) he would have been 30 when he died.

    Why do we not know when Jesus was born?

  • Matthew assumes that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but he and his parents fled to Egypt to avoid the massacre of the innocents, avoided Bethlehem on their return and decided to settle in Nazareth.

    Luke assumes that Joseph and Mary came from Nazareth but, for whatever reason, were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born.

    The need for a Messiah to be born in Bethlehem, the City of David, was part of a prophesy in Micah 5.2.

    Matthew and Luke cannot both be right so did one or both of them twist the facts to fit the prophesy?

  • Jesus started preaching after John the Baptist was arrested because he objected to the marriage of Antipas, ruler of Galilee, to Herodias, his sister-in-law, following the death of Antipas' brother, Philip, in 33/34AD.

    Luke mentions three passovers during the time Jesus was preaching - he was arrested on the third. His alleged crucifixion therefore took place on Friday 30th March, 36AD.

    The stories in the gospels therefore relate to the last two or three years of the life of Jesus - apart from Luke's mention of Jesus in the temple at the age of 12.

    Why do we have no records or stories relating to over 30 years of the life of Jesus?

  • Jesus is supposed to have had 12 disciples. Why did none of them write about their experiences?
  • Why do we have nothing written by anyone who was an eye witness to the preaching and miracles of Jesus?
  • At the time of Jesus the local language was Aramaic, not Hebrew. Why do we have nothing written in Aramaic that describes the ministry of Jesus?
  • Why do Matthew and Luke give completely different family trees for Jesus?
  • Mark and Matthew name the disciples: Simon (called Peter), Andrew, James (son of Zebedee), John, Philip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Thadeus, Simon (the zealot), and Judas Iscariot.

    Luke names the disciples: Simon (called Peter), Andrew, James (son of Zebedee), John, Philip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon (the zealot), Judas son of James and Judas Iscariot.

    Why does Luke have "Judas son of James" while Mark and Matthew have "Thadeus"?

    John does not name all the disciples but adds a new one: "Nathaniel".

    Who were the 12 disciples?

An assessment of Paul of Tarsus

By Michel Onfray, a French Philosopher

In AD 33, on the road to Damascus, Paul fell to the ground, was blinded by an intense light, heard the voice of Jesus and remained sightless for three days, neither eating nor drinking throughout that time.

The medical diagnosis seems clear His fall, his blindness, his deafness, his three-day loss of the sense of small and of appetite, his tendency to hear voices .. it all reads unmistakably like a passage from a manual of psychiatry filed under Neuroses, sub-section Hysteria.

Paul was a small, thin man who provided no details on the illness he describes except to say that Satan gave him "a thorn in the flesh." There has been endless speculation on what this might be - in fact every illness knows to man has been suggested except one - a weakening of the libido - a problem with sex - Paul was probably impotent.

Paul's pen drips with hatred, contempt and a permanent mistrust of the things of the body. His loathing of sexuality, his praise of chastity, his worship of abstinence, his approval of the widowed condition, his passion for celibacy, his appeal to his listeners to conduct themselves as he did, his reluctance to consent to marriage but only as the best of bad choices (the best being to renounce all things associated with the body) - these are all obvious symptoms of hysteria.

These conclusions are borne out of a number of undeniable facts, the foremost being Paul's failure to acknowledge any kind of deep-seated pathology whatsoever. We can quite easily admit to abdominal pain or arthritic joints. It is less easy to admit to sexual impotence, which can, however, be very obliquely hinted at under the cover of a metaphor "a thorn in the flesh."

So, life inflicts sexual impotence or a problematic libido on Paul. His response? He gave himself the illusion of freedom by believing that he had freed himself from what defined him. Celibacy was not imposed upon him; is was a choice, a decision he had made. Unable to lead a sex life worthy of the name, Paul declares null and void all forms of sexuality for himself but also for the rest of the world. A desire to be like everyone else by demanding that everyone else emulate him, whence his determination to make all mankind bow to the rule of his own constraints.

 

He affirms, "for the sake of Christ I am content with weaknesses, hardships, insults, persecutions and calamities, for when I am weak, then am I strong."

His masochistic hatred of self turned into a vigorous hatred of the world and all its concerns: life, love, desire, pleasure, sensations, body, flesh, joy, freedom, independence, autonomy. There is no mystery to Paul's masochism - he saw life through the prism of his own sexual difficulties.

Paul transformed this hatred of self into hatred of the world - and the need to live with it, partly to dispel it but to keep it at a distance.

He confesses "I pummel my body and I subdue it" and he asks other men "pummel your body to subdue it. Do as I do."

This is praise for celibacy, chastity and abstinence and for over 2,000 years, millions of people all over the world have been told to deny themselves pleasure, to suffer and to live in fear of their own bodies as a direct result of the weakness and psychological problems of one man - Paul.

Unable to have women, Paul loathes them, he despises them. This provides an excellent chance to recycle the misogyny of Jewish monotheism, later bequeathed to Christianity and Islam. Genesis condemns woman as the first sinner, the source of all the world's evil - and Paul embraced this disastrous idea as his own.

Hence prohibition against women rain down in Paul's writings - fragile and evil beyond repair, women are destined to obey men is silence and submission. Eve's descendants must hold their husbands in awe and refrain from teaching or from trying to control the supposedly stronger sex. As temptresses and seductresses they may of course hope for salvation but only through being a wife and a mother.

Two thousand years of punishments visited on women simply to exorcise the neuroses of a sexually impotent weakling!

 
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript    www.SecularDerby.org - web site design by Derbyshire Secularists and Humanists.    DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript