Devapriyaji - True History Analaysed

Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)

Matthew 2:4-6 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Messiah should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Messiah cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

 Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

The New Testament claims that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of Micah 5:2. In order to judge the accuracy of this claim, we need to establish two facts. First, is this in fact what Micah prophesied, and secondly, was Jesus actually born in Bethlehem?

In order to answer the first question, we need to take a closer look at the context of Micah 5:2. The book of Micah claims that it was written in the days of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah (1:1), that is, about 742 to 687 BCE. This seems to fit the general tone of chapters 1-3, which speak of a coming destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem in somewhat vague terms. The style and theme of chapters 4-5, however, is markedly different, and has led many scholars to conclude that these chapters were written by a much later author. In chapters 4-5, the place of Exile is said to be Babylon (4:10). Like second Isaiah, Micah 4-5 is structured around the theme of restoration. These chapters are in fact a commentary and expansion on Isaiah 2:2-5, which is quoted almost verbatim at the start of chapter 4.

Like Isaiah, Micah looks forward to a time when the kingdom will be restored and unified. Of necessity, this will require the restoration of the Davidic line of kings (4:9). With this in mind, we can turn once again to the start of Micah 5, and see if we can figure out what Micah is trying to say.

Who is the subject of these verses? The Messianic interpretation is partly correct: Micah sees a king once more on the throne of Israel, a king, moreover, descended from the line of David. And it is this that gives us a clue to the interpretation of 5:2. The phrase "Bethlehem Ephratah" is a reference not only to the town of Bethlehem, but also to the clan of Ephratah which originated in that town. It is thus quite likely that Micah 5:2 refers backwards, to the origins of the Davidic line, which the prophet then sees stretching forward into eternity. The Bible makes it quite clear that it was David himself who was born in Bethlehem, of the clan of Ephratah.

I Samuel 17:12 Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse...

A second, but related possibility is that Micah was referring not to the town of Bethlehem, but rather to the man Bethlehem, the grandson of Caleb by his wife Ephratah.

I Chronicles 2:50-51 These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah...Salma the father of Bethlehem...

In this context, the phrase "Bethlehem Ephratah" refers to the clan from which David sprang, not specifically a geographic location. This interpretation receives support from the Septuagint, which reads "...Bethlehem, house of Ephratah...". In addition, the word translated "thousands" in the KJV rendering of Micah 5:2 is elsewhere used in the sense of "clans" (Joshua 22:30). Most modern versions translate this phrase in Micah as "...though you are little among the clans of Judah...".

Note that Matthew dropped the word "Ephratah" from his quote of Micah. It seems that not even Matthew (or the Holy spirit according to Christians) was above misquoting the Old Testament in order to support his views.

 That Micah had David in mind seems to be supported by his turn of phrase in 5:4, where the ideal King is said to "...shepherd his flock in the strength of Yahweh...". This recalls the words that Samuel spoke to David, when he was anointed King over the united Kingdom in Hebron.

If we assume that Micah was in fact referring to David as the originator of the Royal line, how are we to understand the phrase "...whose origins are from of old, from ancient times..."? This is most likely a reference to the fact that the Davidic house was established centuries in the past, from the perspective of the author. (The KJV has "from everlasting" in this verse, but the Hebrew word olam can also mean "ancient times", as in Deuteronomy 32:7, where it is translated "days of old".)

Micah may also be referring to the fact that the Jews understood the Davidic line to be the fulfillment of several promises made by God to the Patriarchs.

Genesis 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his. 

Numbers 24:17 "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the sons of Sheth.

So, it seems that Micah 5:2 is in fact a prediction of the restoration of the Royal Davidic line, the line which originated in Bethlehem, of the clan of Ephratah. If, as many claim, this is in fact a prophecy of Jesus, it has to be asked at what time Jesus was a "ruler in Israel"? Obviously, he never was a ruler in his lifetime. Christians tend to claim that this part of the verse has yet to be fulfilled, and will come to pass in the future kingdom of God, when Christ rules over all the world. The logical flaw present in this reasoning is that claiming a future fulfillment automatically invalidates the prophecy, since, obviously, it has not yet come to pass, and there is no assurance that it will. Micah 5:2 therefore remains an unfulfilled prediction, from the Christian point of view.

The same problem presents itself in 5:3, where the prophet speaks of the re-unification of Israel. The phrase "rest of his brothers" is probably a reference to the Northern tribes, who were lost in the Assyrian conquest during the eighth century BCE. Obviously, Jesus never reunited Judah with the Northern tribes, and it now seems that he never will. These tribes are long extinct, having been assimilated into the Assyrian race thousands of years ago.

The second point that needs to be established is whether Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem. This may seem a very strange question to a Christian, to whom the answer is self-evident, but it is in fact a valid concern. Of all the books of the New Testament, only two, the gospels of Matthew and Luke, record the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Paul never once refers to this fact, even though it would have strengthened his claim that Jesus was a descendant of David (Romans 1:3). The gospels of Mark and John also never record that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. 'John' even asserts that those who knew Jesus and his family knew for certain that he was born in Galilee:

John 7:41-43 Others said, "He is the Messiah." Still others asked, "How can the Messiah come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 
John 7:27-28 But we know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from." Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from..."

The people did not believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and knew that he is from Galilee. They were even divided because of this. The priests were certain that he came form Galilee:

Jn 7:52 They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee."

The priests knew for certain that Jesus came from Galilee, hence not from Bethlehem.

Christians will often counter that these people were simply mistaken in their belief that Jesus was born in Galilee. However, it seems strange that not even the author of John ever corrected their perception for the benefit of his readers. Further, Jesus himself confirmed in 7:28 that their knowledge of his origin was correct "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from...".

What about the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke? A cursory examination of these two stories will quickly reveal that they are completely different. Matthew begins with Joseph and Mary living in a house in Bethlehem, were Jesus was born (2:1 and 2:11). Following the threats of Herod, Joseph fled to Egypt with his family (2:13-14), and remained there until Herod died (2:15). Upon learning that Herod's son reigned in his place, Joseph decided not to return to Bethlehem (2:22), but instead took his family to Nazareth (2:23).

Luke, on the other hand, begins his story with Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth. In order to comply with a Roman census, Joseph takes the pregnant Mary to Bethlehem (2:4-5), where Jesus was born in a barn, as there was no room at the local inn (2:6-7). Following the birth, Joseph took his family to the Temple in Jerusalem (2:22) and then returned to his home in Nazareth (2:39).

It should be obvious that the only point that these two stories have in common is that they both claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Aside from that, all the characters and events in these two stories are completely different. They are even set ten years apart in chronology. Matthew states that Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, no later than 3 or 4 BC. Luke states that Jesus was born when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which did not take place until at least ten years after Herod's death (see proof: Date of birth of Jesus). This raises the suspicion that these birth narratives were in fact concocted simply to bolster the claim that Jesus was the promised Messiah, in accordance with the Christian understanding of Micah 5:2.

To summarize therefore, this prophecy fails on two counts: we cannot be sure that Micah intended his prediction to mean that a future king would be born in Bethlehem, and we also cannot be certain that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. We have further seen that parts of Micah 5:2 remain unfulfilled, according to the Christian interpretation. 

Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Matthew 2:14-15 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 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. 

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Matthew is the only Evangelist to use Hosea 11:1 as a Messianic prophecy, and with good reason: it is hard to find a more blatant misuse of an Old Testament passage anywhere in the Christian Bible. The very verse quoted by Matthew quickly establishes that Hosea never intended this verse as a Messianic prophecy. It is, in fact, a remembrance of the time when Israel was rescued out of Egypt by God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a coming Messiah.

It also has not been established that Jesus ever spent any time in Egypt. Matthew is the only New Testament writer to record this incident, and his chronology contradicts that of Luke, who states that Joseph took his family back to Nazareth no more than fifty days after Jesus was born, and never mentions any Egyptian sojourn. It appears that we have here one more example of Matthew making up events in Jesus' life to conform to his own perception of Old Testament prophecy.  

Time of his Coming (Daniel 9:24-26)

Daniel 9:24-26 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The seventy weeks of Daniel has long been a source of much speculation among Biblical interpreters. Sir Robert Anderson, in his book "The Coming Prince", published in 1894, gave an interpretation of this passage that is still very popular with conservative Christians.

It is generally agreed by scholars that the seventy weeks refer to seventy weeks of years, or 490 years. Thus, Daniel appears to be saying that the Messiah would come sixty-nine weeks (483 years) after the "commandment to restore and build Jerusalem". Anderson started by trying to locate this decree that Daniel referred to in verse 25. There are four such decrees recorded in the Bible - the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the Temple, given in 538 BCE (Ezra 1:1), a decree of Darius I to allow work to continue on the Temple, given in 517 BCE (Ezra 6:6-12), a decree of Artaxerxes I to allow some of the Jews in his kingdom to return to Jerusalem to assist with the rebuilding of the Temple, given in 458 BCE (Ezra 7:11-26), and finally, another decree of Artaxerxes I to allow Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city itself, given in 445 BCE (Nehemiah 2:1-8).

Of these, Anderson reasoned, only the fourth actually mentions the city itself, as required by Daniel 9:25. This then becomes the starting point of Daniel's sixty-nine weeks. From 445 BCE, 483 years takes us to about 37 CE, which seems a little late for Jesus. In order to get around this problem, Anderson noted that the Jews used a lunar calendar of twelve months by thirty days, or 360 days. This view seems to be reinforced by Revelation 11:2-3, where forty-two months is said to be 1,260 days. Using a year of 360 days, the sixty-nine weeks come out to 32 CE, which, says Anderson, corresponds to the year that Jesus was crucified.

There are several problems with this approach. To begin with, the Jews did not simply use a lunar year of 360 days. Such a calendar would quickly get out of sync with the solar year, leading to severe problems for farmers. To counter this, an extra lunar month was added every two or three years to arrive at an average year of 365 days.

Another problem relates to the choice of the decree of Artaxerxes I given in 445 BCE. A close reading of Nehemiah 2:1-8 will fail to turn up any reference to such a decree. All we find is that Artaxerxes gave Nehemiah letters of safe conduct, and permission to use lumber from the royal forests to assist in the rebuilding project that was already underway.

To what, then, does Daniel's seventy weeks actually refer? The answer to this question is not easily found, for several reasons. Among these are the fact that the Hebrew text of Daniel 9 appears to be corrupt. The Jerusalem Bible, for example, notes that one or more words seem to be missing from verse 26, making translation very difficult. To compound this problem, Daniel seems to display some confusion about the Persian period. For example, he claims in chapter 11 that there would be four Persian kings before the coming of Alexander the Great. In fact, there were nine. Since this period makes up part of Daniel's seventy weeks, it is not possible to determine how long Daniel though the Persian period was.

If we look at Daniel 9 in context, however, we can make an educated guess as to its intended meaning. We should note first of all that internal and external evidence points to a date of the late second century BCE for the book of Daniel. More specifically, the book of Daniel was written in about 164 BCE, in response to the persecutions visited upon the Jews by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The actions of the "prince that shall come" in Daniel 9:26 match the atrocities of Antiochus.

A further problem is raised by the fact that Christians tend to read this passage with a pre-conceived bias. When they see the word "Messiah", they automatically assume that Daniel must have been referring to Jesus. This is not so. The word "Messiah" simply means an anointed one, and can refer either to a king or to a priest. It should further not be assumed that Daniel was referring to the same person in verses 25 and 26. He may have been stating that seven weeks would result in "an anointed one, a prince" (9:25), and sixty-two weeks would result in "an anointed one" who shall be "cut off" (9:26). There is no reason to assume that these two Messiahs are the same person.

The KJV translation of verse 25 has further confused the issue. The word that the King James committee chose to translate "commandment" in fact simply means "word", and it is the same noun that Daniel used in 9:2 when he refers to the "word of the Lord" that came to Jeremiah. And it is this fact that gives us a clue to the meaning of the seventy weeks. Daniel says that he was reading the book of Jeremiah, specifically the part where Jeremiah predicted that the Israelites would be in bondage for seventy years (Jeremiah 25:11-12). To a Jew living at the time that the Babylonian exile ended, this might have seemed plausible. However, to a Jew living during the Hellenistic period, as the author of Daniel was, Jeremiah's prophecy seemed like a bitter irony. The decree of Cyrus to allow the captives to return to Jerusalem had not resulted in independence for the Jews. The Persians maintained a firm hold on Palestine for the next two centuries, as did the Greeks after them. How then was Daniel to understand Jeremiah's prophecy?

Daniel re-interprets the prophecy to be seventy weeks of years, or 490 years of servitude (9:24). The starting point of this period was the "word" that came to Jeremiah concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 30:17-18). The first seven weeks was the approximately forty-nine years that the Jews spent in Babylon (587 to 536 BCE). The first "anointed one" was probably Cyrus, who is called the Lord's Messiah by second Isaiah (44:28). It is not clear from verses 25 and 26 whether the next sixty-two weeks were to follow the seven, or to start at the same time as the first seven. Given Daniel's confusion about the Persian period, it is not really possible to answer this question. In any case, it appears that Daniel intended the next sixty-two weeks to end in his own time, with the murder of the high priest Onias III in 171 BCE. The final seven weeks would result in the defeat and death of Antiochus, from 171 to 164 BCE. As it happens, Daniel was almost right. Antiochus died in Persia in 163 BCE, and Judea gained a temporary period of independence under the Hasmonean dynasty until the coming of the Romans in 63 BCE.

So, to sum up, there is no good reason to assume that Daniel 9 is a prophecy of Jesus. In order to do so, one has to ignore the separation of the sixty-nine weeks into seven and sixty-two (some scholars claim that the seven weeks saw the end of prophecy with the book of Malachi, but this view is generally rejected by most commentators), and further insert a gap of unspecified duration between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week, since it is clear that the crucifixion of Jesus was not followed by the end of the world, as the Christian reading of Daniel 9 would indicate. 

Right Hand of God (Psalm 110)

Jesus said that what was written in Psalms is actually David prophesying about Jesus himself sitting at the right hand of God and judging the nations himself.

Mark 12:35-37 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "`The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' David himself calls him `Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Assuming that what Jesus claimed is true and that those were real prophecies about him, then their composers should have been genuine prophets. Although Christians concede that the composer was David, some Christians do not believe that David was a prophet. Strangely enough, they still believe that his psalms were real prophecies but he himself was not a prophet. Those psalms are actually Hebrew poetry in the form of songs. They narrate situations about practically every situation in daily life. Jesus was referring to one of those:

(Psalm 110) The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth. The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. He will drink from a brook beside the way; therefore he will lift up his head.

In order to prove the Trinity, Christians will contend that, since there are two Beings called "Lord" here, God must be a collective entity comprising at least two persons. Furthermore, they claim, that the Jesus must be God in flesh.

It should be obvious that neither claim is true. The Christian Bible always renders God's name as "LORD" in all capital letters. In Psalm 110:1, the first occurrence of "Lord" is indeed all capitals, but the second is not. This is because the word rendered "to my Lord" is "l'adoni", which really means "to my master". The Jews believe that this is a psalm enchanted every time God appoints a King as both King and Priest. God is telling the new priest (master of the singing people) to sit at His right hand. This is a figurative speech that he will be the right hand of God, that is, God will help him and through him God will accomplish and rule. It does not mean a physical sitting at Gods right. It is like saying that this man is the right hand of the President. It is only a figurative speech and nothing more.

Moreover, if the "master" referred to was indeed Jesus who is supposed to be God in flesh, then monotheism requires that they both be the same person. But then God would be talking to Himself (and needs to be put in a straitjacket). When confronted with the fact that the second occurrence of "Lord" really should be "master", who then is this other Lord? Christians often contend that the only person David could have called "master" is God Himself. But remember that while most of those Psalms were composed by common psalmists, they were meant to be played and sung by the Levites in the Temple (and in the tabernacle before the Temple was built). The Levites, of course, would have called David himself their master, since he was king over them. But also he was not their only master or Lord. The Jews had many Lords, many anointed prophets and many priests whom they called masters. The Jews believe that this is a psalm enchanted every time God appoints a King as both King and Priest. They never meant anything of what Christians believe; otherwise they wouldnt be knowing what they are composing and then singing (and they too need straitjackets!!!)

Further more, He will judge the nations which means that those events have not yet occurred and hence cannot be claimed as fulfilled prophecies.

Bones not Broken (Psalm 34:20)

John 19:33-36 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs...For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

Psalm 34:20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

The first point to note about this particular prophecy is that it does not actually fit the quotation of Psalm 34:20. At best, it can be said to be a paraphrase of this verse. The possibility exists that John was appealing to a prophecy that is not preserved in the Hebrew Bible. As strange as it sounds, this is not the first time that John did such a thing.

 Jn 7:38 as the scripture says: Rivers of living water will flow from within him

Here we find 'John' quoting a scripture which has no counterpart in the Old Testament (Although it does correctly describe the water from his pierced bladder). Nevertheless, for the purposes of this analysis, we will assume that John was indeed referring to Psalm 34:20. If this is the case, a quick look at the context will be enough to dispel any illusions of a Messianic prophecy. Psalm 34 contrasts two groups of people - the righteous (34:7) and the wicked (34:16). It is in this context that verse 20 appears, as one of the benefits of being righteous.

Psalm 34:17-20 The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

It should therefore be obvious that verse 20 is not directed to one individual, but is in fact directed to a group of people - the righteous. There is no indication at all in this Psalm that the author is talking about the Messiah, who was to come many centuries hence. If Christians insist that verse 20 is a Messianic prophecy, they must also concede that there must be many Messiahs, according to the context of this psalm. In summary then, we find no reason to believe that Psalm 34 is intended to be a Messianic prophecy. In contrast, we find that the Psalm talks about the righteous in general terms - it does not single out one particular individual.

Vinegar on Cross (Psalm 69)

Jn 19:28-29 After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I thirst." There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth.

This is found in:

Psalm 69:22 Instead they put gall in my food; for my thirst they gave me vinegar.

It sounds true. So lets read few more verses as well:

Psalm 69:23-29 Make their own table a snare for them, a trap for their friends. ²⁴Make their eyes so dim they cannot see; keep their backs ever feeble. ²⁵ Pour out your wrath upon them; let the fury of your anger overtake them. ²⁶ Make their camp desolate, with none to dwell in their tents. ²⁷ For they pursued the one you struck, added to the pain of the one you wounded. ²⁸ Add that to their crimes; let them not attain to your reward. ²⁹ Strike them from the book of the living; do not count them among the just!

He asked God to blind his enemies, to make their camp desolate, to add iniquity to their iniquity, and to blot them out of the book of life... If the psalmist was talking about a future 'Christ-figure', then how can Christians explain the difference in the attitude he displayed toward his enemies and the one that Jesus displayed to his? It seems strange indeed that God would have chosen a person as spiteful and vengeful as this man to serve as a prophetic figure of the forgiving Jesus. Everyone knows the famous spirit of forgiveness that Jesus demonstrated before and during his crucifixion; yet this 'Christ-figure', that the psalmist was referring to, was quite the opposite.

Furthermore, the plaint of this distressed psalmist included also (in the same verse that mentioned the vinegar) a reference to gall that he was given for meat when he was hungry. So if it was necessary for Jesus to be given vinegar on the cross in order to fulfill this prophecy, shouldn't they have given him gall too? How could half the verse be a prophecy and the other half not? By what logic is that?  

Marry and Virgin Birth Of Jesus Christ

If Jesus were really born of a virgin, by the Holy Spirit, everybody in such a small community would have known this and would have talked about it for the first thirty years. But this was not the case. Everybody knew that Jesus was the son of Joseph and not born from the Holy Spirit by a virgin:

(Jn 6:42) and they said, Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, I have come down from heaven?

For the first thirty years, the Jews knew that this man was born from Mary and Joseph. Even his own disciples knew that Joseph was his father and that he was from Nazareth (hence not from Bethlehem):

(Jn 1:45) Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one whom Moses wrote about in the Law, and also the prophets, Jesus son of Joseph, from Nazareth."

At the beginning, even his own disciples knew that he was the son of Joseph and from Nazareth. It was not until later when Jesus convinced his stupid disciples that those were true miracles that he was able to brainwash them with his virgin birth. The virginity story shocked the Jews when he was already thirty! Even his own brothers did not believe that their mother was a virgin nor believed his fake miracles:

(Jn 7:3-5) Jesus' brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. ⁴ No one works in secret if he wants to become a public figure. If you do these things manifest yourself to the world." ⁵ For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

Who would have known him more than his own brothers? His brothers knew him and knew their mother long enough to believe him or not. If he were really born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, they would have believed him and believed his miracles. At least they would have believed the Holy Spirit, but still they didnt believe him nor believed his Holy Spirit.

The Rabbis werent able to verify her virginity since she had already given birth to seven other earthly conceived brothers (number of angel brothers unknown). Since the Rabbis were only able to ask his earthly brothers, and since they had no reason not to believe them, the Rabbis had no choice but to discard the virginity story. If his own brothers did not believe him, why should we?But We are really fortunate to have 'John' as a witness so that we know how Jesus established his fake divinity.

As for his birth was really in Bethlehem or not, those who knew Jesus and his parents confirmed that he was born in Galilee and not in Bethlehem:

(Jn 7:41-43) Others said, "He is the Messiah." Still others asked, "How can the Messiah come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.

So the people knew that Jesus was from Galilee. Even worse, Jesus himself admits that their knowledge about him is correct:

(Jn 7:27-28) But we know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from." Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from..."

The people knew for certain that he was not from Bethlehem but that he was from Galilee. Jesus even admitted that their knowledge about him is true. Also the priests were certain that he came form Galilee:

(Jn 7:52) They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee."

Everybody knew for sure that Jesus came from Galilee, and not from Bethlehem. Jesus conceded to this and did not deny it. But what is most pathetic, is that even Saul, the founder of Christianity, never even mentioned in the NT the virgin birth, birth in Bethlehem, nor ever acknowledged Jesus do a single miracle.

Centuries before Jesus: According to Hindu literature, Krishna, the eighth incarnation of the god Vishnu, was born to the virgin Devaki in fulfillment of prophecy and was visited by wise men who had been guided to him by a star. Angels also announced the birth to herdsmen in the nearby countryside. When King Kansa heard about the miraculous birth of this child, he sent men to "kill all the infants in the neighboring places," but a "heavenly voice" whispered to the foster father of Krishna (who, incidentally, was a carpenter) and warned him to take the child and flee across the Jumna river... In this Hindu legend, we can recognize many parallels to the infancy of Jesus other than the virgin birth element.  

How did Jesus conspire with Lazarus?

How could Lazarus wait alive in the cave?

The two sisters sent word to Jesus that Lazarus was ill. Later, Jesus arrived in Bethany and found that Lazarus had been in the tomb for four days. Jesus called his name and Lazarus walked out of the tomb by himself. But where was Jesus when they sent word to him that Lazarus was ill?

(Jn 10,40) He went back across the Jordan to the place where John first baptized, and there he remained. ⁴¹ Many came to him and said, “John performed no sign, but everything John said about this man was true”. ⁴² And many there began to believe in him. (11,1) Now a man was ill, Lazarus from Bethany… '

John' was divided into chapters and verses by the church and not by the original author. We have to follow his time frame. He links the successive events by using ‘then…’ or he mentions that it happened after so many days… When locating Jesus, the author says '42 And many there began to believe in him. (11,1) Now a man was ill…' which means not several days afterward. We cannot say that it happened in any other time. We have to stick to his time frame. So Jesus remained where John first baptized. John the Baptist was baptizing throughout all of the Judean wilderness and along the Jordan River, but at the time of this particular incident where was he?

(Jn 1,26) John answered them, “I baptize with water, but there is one among you whom you do not recognize, ²⁷ the one who is coming after me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie”. 28 This happened in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Therefore, John was baptizing in Bethany. And where was Bethany?

(Jn 11,18) Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, only about two miles away.

(Mk 11:1) As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples…

Bethany is situated on the Mount of Olives facing Jerusalem. Mount of Olives is still in the same place. It doesn’t move much. Bethany should remain on the Mount of Olives facing Jerusalem and two miles away. Those who try to place Jesus away from Lazarus are literally ‘moving mountains’. (There was no ‘other’ Bethany to the east. To Christian apologists see: Bethany beyond the Jordan). John the Baptist was baptizing everywhere throughout the Judean wilderness and along the Jordan River, but at the time of this particular incident, he was at Bethany at the Mount of Olives. So, when the sisters sent word to Jesus on day zero that Lazarus was ill, Jesus was already in Bethany at a walking distance from Lazarus. Halleluiah…

(n 11,1) Now a man was ill, Lazarus from Bethany, the village of Mary, and her sister Martha. ² Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfumed oil and dried his feet with her hair; it was her brother Lazarus who was ill. ³ So the sisters sent word to him saying, “Master the one you love is ill”. ⁴ When Jesus heard this he said, “This illness is not to end in death, but it is for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it”. ⁵ Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. ⁶ So when he heard that he was ill, he remained for two days in the place where he was.

Day two, Lazarus alive, Jesus still in Bethany at a walking distance from Lazarus.

⁷ Then after this he said to his disciples, “Let us go back to Judea”. ⁸ The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just trying to stone you, and you want to go back there?”

Bethany is situated on the Mount of Olives. Mount of Olives had a small community of Bethpage and Bethany. It had a Sadducee majority (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes… are Jewish sects). The Sadducees did not persecute Jesus, so, he often found refuge at their Mount of Olives. Here he asked his disciples to leave their refuge at Bethany and go back to where the Pharisees tried to stone him.

⁹ Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in a day? If one walks during the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. ¹⁰ But if one walks at night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him”.

Blah, blah, blah… Day three, they leave Bethany towards Judea with Lazarus still alive. Bethany is two miles east of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is only half an hour walking distance from Bethany. All of Judea proper is within thirty miles radius. They should reach any point in Judea within twelve walking hours. Logic says that they should reach any point in Judea within two days maximum.

11 He said this and then told them, “Our friend Lazarus is asleep, but I am going to awaken him”. ¹² So the disciples said to him, “Master, if he is asleep, he will be saved”. ¹³ But Jesus was talking about his death, while they thought that he meant ordinary sleep. The disciples believed that Lazarus was asleep as they last saw him in Bethany and not dead. ¹⁴ So then Jesus said to them clearly, “Lazarus has died. ¹⁵ And I am glad for you that I was not there, that you may believe. Let us go to him.”

Jesus wants to make his disciples believe that he could do real miracles and ‘RAISE THE DEAD’. So he leads them out of Bethany and makes clear to them that he was away from Lazarus when he ‘DIES’ so that they may believe that he really can raise the dead. He starts heading back to Bethany, and at a maximum of twelve hours walking distance from Bethany. No matter what day it is, from any point in Judea they should arrive in Bethany within twelve walking hours, a maximum of two days.

16 So Thomas, called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go to die with him”.

‘Yes, I am stupid’.

17 When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. Jesus arrives after declaring Lazarus dead the day before maximum, but the sisters have already declared Lazarus dead and in the tomb for four days. ¹⁸ Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, only about two miles away. ¹⁹ And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them about their brother.²⁰ When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went to meet him; but Mary sat at home. ²¹ Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. ²² But even now I know that whatever you ask God, God will give you”. ²³ Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise.” ²⁴ Martha said to him, “I know he will rise, in the resurrection on the last day”. ²⁵ Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, ²⁶ and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” ²⁷ She said to him, “Yes, Lord. I have come to believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who is coming into the world.” ²⁸ When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary secretly, saying, “The teacher is here and is asking for you”. ²⁹ As soon as she heard this, she rose quickly and went to him. ³⁰ For Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still where Martha had met him. ³¹ So when the Jews who were with her in the house comforting her saw Mary get up quickly and go out, they followed her, presuming that she was going to the tomb to weep there. ³² When Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died”. ³³ When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, he became perturbed and deeply troubled,

Notice the exact words of Martha and Mary ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died’. Martha already told Jesus that Lazarus is dead, but he did not weep then because the Jews were not there. Only when the Jews are watching he weeps and shows emotions to beloved Lazarus.

34 and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Sir, come, and see”. ³⁵ And Jesus wept. ³⁶ So the Jews said, “See how he loved him.” ³⁷ But some of them said, “Could not the one who opened the eyes of the blind man have done something so that this man would not have died?” ³⁸ So Jesus perturbed again, came to the tomb. It was a CAVE, and a stone lay across it. ³⁹ Jesus said, “Take away the stone”. Martha, the dead mans’ sister, said to him, “Lord, by now there will be a stench; he has been dead for four days”. ⁴⁰ Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believe you will see the glory of God?”

Christian apologists have a very curious slogan “Who moved the stone?”; as if it were a miracle.

41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you for hearing me. ⁴² I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me.” ⁴³ And when he had said this, he cried out in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” ⁴⁴ The dead man came out, tied hand and foot with burial bands, and his face was wrapped in a cloth. So Jesus said to them, “Untie him and let him go”.

 Jesus’ body was bound with burial cloths along with the spices. But Lazarus was not prepared for burial according to the Jewish burial custom. ‘The dead man came out, tied hand and foot with burial bands, and his face was wrapped in a cloth.’ THE MYRRH AND ALOES AND THE BURIAL CLOTHS ALLOVER THE BODY WERE MISSING.

There was no stench (although, the stench of a dead rat would have corrected the ambiance and made it a more realistic ‘resurrection’).

Do not try this at home: This was a staged resurrection. The two sisters sent Jesus a word that Lazarus was ill so that he starts his plan. He remained for two days near Lazarus. Then he led his stupid disciples towards mainland Judea where the Pharisees tried to stone him. Then Jesus wasted time in order to let Lazarus do his part. Lazarus disappeared for a while and the sisters claimed that he was dead and already buried. At the planed time for his staged resurrection, Lazarus tied himself up and waited in the cave for Jesus to call him out. When Jesus returned, everybody played his part as planned, tears, even the exact words “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died”. They knew that Jesus was near Lazarus all along and lied about it in front of the Jews. Lazarus simply waited in the cave for Jesus to call him and led the Jews to believe that Jesus was the Messiah who can do real miracles and even raise the dead...

(Jn 11,5) Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.

If Jesus could really raise the dead, he would not have called his beloved disciple out of a cave. He would have led the Jews to the nearest graveyard, dug up a skeleton and brought it back to life. But of course he didn’t because he couldn’t.

Why Marry in particular?

Bethany, the village of adulteress Mary, is at the Mount of Olives and Jesus has just been there ‘(Jn 8,1)…while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives 2 But early in the mourning he arrived again in the temple area…’. This happened the very next morning. We cannot say that it happened in any other day. So Jesus was not faced with a stranger at all.Mount of Olives had a very small community of Bethany and Bethphage (Sadducee majority and practically everybody knew everybody). The Sadducees did not persecute Jesus, so he often found refuge at their Mount of Olives. Jesus spent enough time there and could have easily seen her before.

So Jesus bends down buying time and thinking how to exploit the situation. He has a doomed woman on his hands, who would owe him her life but only if he could save her now. “Bent down and began to write on the ground”??? Who bends down and writes on the ground?… A person in deep thought, plotting a scheme, in mood, or all!!! So, he bends down, buying time and thinking of a way to outsmart the Jews and save her life. Thinking…Thinking…

7 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” ⁸ Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.

Thinking again…

⁹ And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.

He outsmarts the Jews, saves the life of a doomed woman, and then gets alone with her. Now Jesus is alone with a sinful woman who owes him her life. There are no witnesses at all. Jesus can ask her anything to repay her debt to him. Jesus has the motive, opportunity to negotiate a deal with her, no witnesses, knows how to contact her later…

10 Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? 11 She replied, “No one, sir”. Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

She walks out of it, owing Jesus her life.

He did not ‘forgive’ her now, because she has yet to pay him back.

She did not thank him now, because she will surely pay him back big time.

Accordingly, the order of events becomes:

1) Jesus saves the life of sinful Mary.

2) Jesus raises the brother of sinful Mary.

3) Only now Jesus forgives the sins of Mary and preaches about people repaying debts to each other.

4) Jesus visits adulteress Mary who wants to keep the better part.

Now we have a much clearer and different picture of the whole story. It is very easy to put things together and deduce how Jesus saved the life of Mary when she was caught in adultery and was about to be stoned to death by the Jews. In return Jesus wanted her to do him a little favor. Jesus asked Mary to help him stage the death of her brother ‘Lazarus’ in order to convince his stupid disciples and the non-suspecting Jews that he is the Messiah, who can raise people from the dead… Mary conceded to the plan so that she can repay the large debt that they owed him. FOR she owed him her life. Lazarus was simply repaying Jesus for saving his sister and cleansing her filthy reputation.

Jesus Walked on Water (Jn 6:16-21)

Were the disciples disoriented? Was Jesus on Shore all along?

(Jn 6:16) When it was evening, his disciples went down to the sea, ¹⁷ embarked in a boat, and across the sea to Capernaum. It had already grown DARK, and Jesus had not yet come to them. ¹⁸ The sea was stirred up because a strong wind was blowing.¹⁹ When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and began to be afraid. ²⁰ But he said to them, ‘It is I. Do not be afraid.’ ²¹ They wanted to take him into the boat but the boat immediately arrived to the shore to which they were heading.

‘17 Embarked in a boat, and across the sea to Capernaum’ the disciples took the boat and headed to Capernaum. Their destination was Capernaum. After rowing three or four miles, they saw Jesus and then beached somewhere, which they thought was 'the shore to which they were heading' (that is Capernaum). If they were NOT disoriented then their boat should be beached at Capernaum. But this was not the case. The next day, the crowd came and saw that the boat was not beached at Capernaum at all, but beached somewhere between their departure point (where they ate the bread) and their destination (Capernaum).

(Jn 6,22) The next day, the crowd that remained across the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not gone along with his disciples in the boat, but only his disciples had left. ²³ Other boats came from Tiberias near the place where they had eaten the bread when the Lord gave thanks. ²⁴ And when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. ²⁵ And when they found him across the sea they said to him, ‘Rabbi, when did you get here?’

'The next day, the crowd that remained across the sea saw that there had been only one boat there' they saw one beached boat there. ‘and that Jesus had not gone along with his disciples in the boat, but only his disciples had left.’ which means that this was indeed the disciples' abandoned boat. Then other boats also came from the starting point where Jesus fed the 5000: 23 Other boats came from Tiberias near the place where they had eaten the bread when the Lord gave thanks. This means that now they are NOT at the starting point. 24 And when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. But the crowd still took their boats and continued to Capernaum, which means that the disciples’ boat was not beached at Capernaum after all, otherwise the crowd would not need to row anywhere further. This proves that the disciples were indeed disoriented when they thought that they arrived to Capernaum 'to the shore to which they were heading'.

So How did Jesus appear to walk on water?

Once upon a time, in a dark windy night, there were people on a boat, in the dark, strong winds and high waves (poor visibility). They were near the shore but since they were in the dark with strong winds and high waves (no reference points), they got disoriented and thought that they were in the middle of the ocean. And there was an innocent man walking on the shore towards them. As the man stepped into the shallow waters, he said ‘Hola’ (which is translated ‘Hello’). The people on the boat, who still thought that they were in the middle of the ocean, saw the man and thought that he was a ghost walking on water! Suddenly the boat jerked. They thought that they hit a whale, but when they investigated they noticed that they ran aground. One of them said, “Thank Christ, we have reached the shore to which we were heading”. The innocent man knew that he was on shore all along but it was them who were disoriented. Accordingly, the innocent man did not walk on water and surely did not do any miracle.

Similarly, they saw Jesus and beached somewhere between their departure point and their destination (Capernaum). And they were really disoriented when they thought that they arrived to their destination. Yes, they were really disoriented all along. They were disoriented and rowing near the shore when they saw Jesus walking in shallow waters. All the disciples could have walked in shallow waters too... got hit by a wave, fallen then stood up and walked in shallow waters again... This is not a miracle.    

 Some Christians say that the crowd did not see the boat there, but saw that it had been there the day before but now it is not.

If the boat were not there, then why did the crowd stop here? Did they see any traces of a beached boat? Logic says that all traces on the shore will be wiped away by the very first wave. Nothing will survive for the next day. Those Christians failed to explain what technology did the crowd use in order to see things in the past. Logic says that since the crowd had no means to look into the past, then the crowd witnessed the boat in front of them. 'John' says that the crowd ‘saw that there had been only one boat there’, not two boats, not three boats. The crowd saw one beached boat. There was no other boat, so they could not have mistaken it for any other boat. 25 And when they found him across the sea they said to him, ‘Rabbi, WHEN did you get here?’ The crowd weren’t amassed HOW he got here because they already saw the beached boat and knew that he came on foot. They asked him WHEN did he get here.

Christians claim that those were experienced fishermen, so they couldn’t have been disoriented. Those Christians seem to keep forgetting that even today’s best and most experienced aviators, with the best navigational instruments, occasionally do get disoriented, so how about simple fishermen at night, strong winds and high waves with no reference points at all…? 

Jesus Feeds 5000 Bread From Heaven (Jn 6:1-15)

Did Jesus secretly buy the food and trick the audience?

(Jn 6:5-10) When Jesus raised his eyes and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, he said to Philip, “Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?” ⁶ He said this to test them, because he himself knew what he was going to do... ⁹ There is a boy here who has five barely loaves and two fish; but what good are these for so many. ¹⁰ Jesus said, “Have the people recline.” Now there was a great deal of grass in that place. So the men reclined about five thousand in number.

'John' himself was amazed about the unusual amount of grass! Logically this was wild untrimmed grass that could grow high enough to obscure the vision of someone reclined. When the 5000 get reclined, they can’t see the ‘MIRACLE’. Jesus ‘himself knew what he was going to do’, so he told them to recline (so that they cannot see what he will do next). Jesus already chose the timing, location, scenario… They followed him to where he had already hid the pre-purchased food (amid the ‘great deal of grass’). Jesus simply tricked them that this bread that appeared amid the ‘great deal of grass’ was fresh from heaven… The innocent crowd fell for it.

All that Jesus needed is a pit or depression in the ground (naturally occurring everywhere, especially in that mountainous area). He put the food there and then covered it with the same grass. This is why he asked them to recline so that they can't see where the bread came from (even if the food wasn't covered with grass). He raised his hands to heaven, abracadabra and then uncovered the food (still hidden to them). Praise the Lord! Cheesecakes freshly backed in heaven!!! ]

The next day something happened that exposed everything. Not the entire crowd fell for it. Some of the crowd did not believe that it was a miracle and followed Jesus in disbelief. He noticed their disbelief and tried to correct the situation. To avoid confrontation, he quickly admits to the crowds that they are following him not because they had seen real miracles, but because he fed them:

²⁶ Jesus answered them and said, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled.

But they still insist to see a real miracle:

³⁰ So they said to him “What sign can you do, that we may see and to believe in you? What can you do? ³¹ Our ancestors ate manna in the desert. As it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’”

The crowds ask Jesus to show them any miracle for them to believe in him, affirming what he has just declared and asserting that they did not see him the previous day do any miracle. They didn’t see him do the ‘MIRACLE’ because they were laying amid the ‘great deal of grass’. On the contrary, they ask him to feed them by a miracle like Moses did when he fed them in the desert. If they saw the miracle the day before, they wouldn’t have asked him to show them the same miracle again. The people themselves never said that Jesus fed them by a miracle but that they are still waiting for a miracle for them to believe in him. The crowds asked him to show them the same miracle again, but of course this time he was not prepared. This time he did not have any pre-purchased food, so he tries to evade:

³² So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

Now that he is exposed, he doesn’t want the story of ‘bread from heaven’ to stop circulating, so he tries to convince this unbelieving crowd with another type of ‘bread from heaven’:

³³ For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” ³⁴ So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” ³⁵ Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst”.

“Sir, give us this bread always” referring to the ‘bread of life’. Jesus is convincing this crowd of another type of bread from heaven, the ‘bread of life’. Jesus won this crowd over with a promise, instead of a real miracle.

⁴⁹ Your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but they died; ⁵⁰ this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

This crowd circulates the story of ‘bread of life’, and the first crowd circulates the story of ‘bread form heaven’. It is easy to figure out how the five thousand fell for it. They ate pre-purchased bread while reclining amid ‘great deal of grass’ (and then were filled). Those who noticed that it was a hoax followed Jesus in disbelief. He himself admits their disbelief: ³⁶ But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe. Then they asked him to show them a true miracle or to feed them by a miracle like Moses did. Unable to do so, Jesus won them over not with physical bread from heaven, but with a promise of ‘Bread of Life’. In the end, everybody ate some sort of ‘bread from heaven’ and was filled. Till this day, Christians still eat this ‘bread from heaven’ and get filled.  

Christians claim that Jesus did not have enough money to buy all that food.

Macro Economics 101: A day’s wage should feed the worker, his wife, and three kids (three grownups +) three meals a day. This adds up to roughly 10 meals a day. But since cost of food is only 50% of the daily living cost then the cost of the 10 meals is only half of the daily wage of a worker. This means the wage of a labor day is equivalent to 20 meals. Feeding the 5000 a single meal requires 250 days wages (5000 meals divided by 20 meals/labor day). Finance 101: Jesus only needed to secure 250 days wages. Jesus was receiving donations (Judas held the money bag from which he was steeling, and Jesus who knows everything and is going to judge us, did not know this). If each believer in this god donated a single day’s wage per month Jesus could have easily collected 5000 days wages (one day's wage from each believer). Those 5000 days wages are enough money to feed 100,000 people (5000 labor days x 20 meals/labor day). Jesus could have easily fed those 5000 and still ended up with a fortune. If he can afford to anoint his feet with 300 days wages then he would surely invest another 300 to do more miracles (250 meals + 50 transportation to site). Miracles make more money and more money make more miracles… 

Jesus Heals Fever (Jn 4:46-54)

Was Jesus a doctor? All people do get fever and then recover. People who get fever can live; Everybody knows this.

(Jn 4,50) Jesus said to him “You may go; your son will live” The man believed what Jesus said to him and left. ⁵¹While he was on his way back, his slaves met him and told him that his boy will live. ⁵² He asked them when he began to recover. They told him, “The fever left him yesterday, about one in the afternoon ⁵³ The father realized that just at that time Jesus had said to him, ‘Your son will live’ and he and his whole household came to believe.

Even a nurse can tell that it was a coincidence and not a real miracle. People believed without any proof that Jesus was really doing anything.  

Cannot Prophesy

Jesus prophesied that the stars would fall and the sun would darken and that he would come in the clouds to establish his kingdom before that generation would pass:

Mark 13:24-30: The sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light. And the stars of heaven will fall and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then he shall send his angels and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven… Verily I say to you, that THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE DONE. (See also Matthew 24:29-35 and Luke 21:25-33)

What is the time limit that he gave? ‘THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE DONE’. That generation passed away almost 2000 years ago, and still no one has seen him coming back on the clouds to establish his kingdom. No one has seen the sun darken and the stars fall...

Jesus also promised that he would come with the angels before some of the crowd standing there would die:

Matthew 16:27-28 For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be SOME STANDING HERE WHICH SHALL NOT TASTE OF DEATH TILL THEY SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM. (See also Mark 9:1)

What is the time limit for this one? ‘SOME STANDING HERE WHICH SHALL NOT TASTE OF DEATH TILL THEY SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM’. According to his prophecies, he should have come with his kingdom before some of the crowd standing there die. They all died 2000 years ago and none of his prophecies came true. There is no room for blind faith here. The time limit passed and his prophecies never came true.

Also, his prophecies concerning the three days and three nights did not come true:

Matthew 12:38-40 There shall no sign be given than the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus clearly says that the only sign we should verify is him being in the grave for three days and three nights. At least he should get this one right. So we are checking: He was crucified on Friday afternoon, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42) and then he was supposedly resurrected on Sunday morning (Mark 16:9).

Between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning there is 36 hours. Can anyone fit within those 36 hours three days and three nights?

Those prophecies never came true. If he could not even prophesy correctly, how could he be a god?  

Jesus Lied (Jn7:1-10)

Jesus lied to his brothers that he was not going up to the feast, but when they left, he secretly went up there:

(Jn 7,1) After this, Jesus moved about within Galilee; but he did not wish to travel in Judea, because the Jews were trying to kill him. ² But the Jewish feast of Tabernacles was near. ³ So his brothers said to him, Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. ⁴ No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world. ⁵ For even his brothers did not believe in him. His own brothers did not believe that he was doing miracles and challenged him if he was really doing miracles let him do them publicly and not in secret. ⁶ So Jesus said to them, My time is not yet here, but the time is always right for you. ⁷ The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I testify to it that its works are evil. ⁸ You go up to the feast. I am not going up to the feast, because my time has not been fulfilled. ⁹ After he had said this, he stayed on in Galilee. 10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, he himself also went up, not openly but [as it were] in secret

Jesus lied to them that he was not going up to the feast, but when they left, he secretly went up there.

Christians quickly say that Jesus simply changed his mind. But according to scriptures, God does not lie nor change his mind:

Nu 23:19 God is not man that he should speak falsely, nor human, that he should change his mind. Is he one to speak and not act, to decree and not fulfill?

How could Jesus be God in flesh if he either lied or changed his mind?

Why Jesus was not the Messiah

The Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish court) found Jesus guilty of doing fake miracles (documented in the Talmud)... Christians claim that the Jews brought forward false witnesses to the Sanhedrin to testify against him... But from 'John' we can see that those witnesses were actually telling the truth to the Sanhedrin, that Jesus was indeed doing fake miracles Now unless the Jews falsely fabricated 'John' to implicate him (Trojan Horse), Jesus was nothing more than a con man.  

There is no such thing as a suffering Messiah in Judaism beliefs. Even Paul himself admits that this was not revealed in the Tenach (Old Testament):

(Eph 3:4) When you read this you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, ⁵ which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the spirit

Paul himself admits that this is not revealed in the Tenach (Old Testament) and admits that it is a newly revealed MYSTERY. A suffering Messiah is a Christian claim (see: Suffering Servant Isaiah 53 is nation of Israel, not the Messiah as Christians claim). But Christians twist the Tenach to prove something out of nothing, (just like they accuse us of doing with their 'New Testament').

What did the Tenach say about the Messiah?

(Habakkuk 3:13) You come forth to save your people, to save your anointed one. You crush the heads of the wicked, you lay bare their bases at the neck

According to this prophecy, God WILL save his anointed one. God should have saved Jesus if Jesus was the anointed one. Logic says that if Jesus was the Messiah, God should have saved him. Instead Jesus died the most humiliating death. Jesus even died before the other two criminals who were crucified with him (according to 'John'), which makes him an even weaker mortal.

(Ps 91:1) You who dwell in the shelter of the Most High, who abide in the shadow of the Almighty, ² say to the Lord, My refuge and fortress, my God in whom I trust. ³ God will rescue you from the fowlers snare, from the destroying plague ¹¹ For God commands the angels to guard you in all your ways. ¹² With their hands they shall support you, lest you strike your foot against a stone

God commands his angels to protect his Messiah. Surely this didnt happen to Jesus, because Jesus was not the Messiah! 

Problem: The genealogy in Matthew is too short 
Verses: Matthew 1:1-17; Status: Serious

The differences between Luke and Matthew's genealogies of Christ are well known, but another problem is that Matthew's genealogy appears to be too short. Luke goes from King David to Joseph in 41 generations, whereas Matthew takes just 26. In order for this to work, the average age of fathers in Matthew's genealogy has to be much older than normal. It's known from history that David reigned around the year 1000 BC, so to get to Joseph in 26 generations, the average age of a father in this genealogy needs to be about 37 or so, which is an extremely high average, especially two to three thousand years ago when life was short. There is no reason it should be this high.

It's clear that Matthew skips some generations. This alone might be consistent with the Bible's inerrancy, yet Matthew also claims that there are 14 generations between David and deportation to Babylon, and 14 generations between deportation and the Messiah. This is Matthew 1:17:

Since Matthew is skipping generations, he's not entitled to say that he is also giving the correct number of generations between David and Jesus. He can't possibly do both.

Probably the best defense of verse 1:17 is this, from the ESV Study Bible:

But to me, it looks like 1:17 is talking about reality itself, not merely the list.

Problem: The New Testament predicts an early apocalypse 
Verses: 1 John 2:18, Mark 13:24-30, others; Status: Serious

There are many passages in the Bible that indicate that the authors saw the apocalypse as coming in the very near future. One of the most blatant is the First Epistle of John, 1 John 2:18:

This is... difficult to reconcile with the continuing existence of the Earth and human civilisation.

Especially given that inerrantists often see the entire world (or at any rate, the human species) as about 6,000 years old, the 1,900 years or so that have elapsed since that was written can hardly be described as a mere hour. It would be almost a third of human history.

Other verses one could point to are Hebrews 1:2, James 5:8, and 1 Peter 4:7. The last of these is particularly bad:

It's really hard to see this as foretelling anything other than an imminent apocalypse. However, the ESV Study Bible suggests Peter is really saying that everything relevant to God's plan for salvation has already happened; so the end could come at any time. This reading is at least fairly plausible, and could perhaps apply to the other verses as well.

The gospels

Jesus himself seems to directly state that the end is near. Some such cases can be explained away; for example Mark 9:1 seems to say that the kingdom of God will come before the disciples are dead, but could instead mean they will witness the Transfiguration, which indeed follows directly afterwards, in Mark 9:2-8.

A more serious problem is Mark 13:24-30 in which Jesus unambiguously discusses the end times:

This generation will not pass away until all these things take place. That seems clear enough. If there is a solution at all, it's probably some alternate meaning of "this generation" (the word in the Greek text is "genea"), perhaps something like "this evil generation", meaning an entire class of people who will persist for millenia. There are a number of such readings suggested by the ESV Study Bible, perhaps none of them too plausible.

I am grateful to Tom Schaber for bringing this point to my attention.