In another article, I drew up parallels between the main features of Jesus Christ story and the sun. You can read up the article here
To proof that Jesus Christ story in the Bible was wholly fabricated, one may need to check out the observed abnormality in the details provided in the Scripture.
No best way to start than to look at the prophecies that seemed to have predicted the possible birth of a messiah king among the Jews in the first century. I had debunked the use of Isaiah chapter seven to promote the virgin birth in the article mentioned above. The use of that story to promote the coming of a messiah is unwarranted, unlawful and fraudulent for the simple fact that if Syria and Israel were annihilated at about 722 BCE according to history, the child that was promised to King Ahaz at about a decade earlier must have been born and the King must have been very happy that God fulfilled His promise to him.
The next point of call is the book of Daniel. I took time to explain how Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks had been used to support the supposed prediction of the birth of a “messiah the prince” in my book THEY LIED TO US. Three Kings were said to have been involved in the release of the Jews from Babylonian Captivity (see Ezra 6:14, 15; 1:1-4; 5:13-15 & 6:3). These were Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes. The seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes was 458 BCE when he issued the last order that Jerusalem should be rebuilt. 69 years of weeks or 483 years was to usher in the messiah’s ministry at about the age of 30. Therefore, Jesus started his ministry circa 26 CE. And for Jesus to be 30 years old at 26 CE, he must have been born circa 3 BCE.
1st Inference: According to history, King Herod died in March 4 BCE. However, from the reference to the prophecy of Daniel above, Jesus Christ was expected to be born a year after King Herod died. This is not in agreement with the other portions of the New Testament which stipulates that when Jesus Christ was born King Herod was on the throne. Here is the first contradiction; the birth of Jesus Christ did not fulfil the prophecy in the book of Daniel because he was purportedly born outside the year of prophecy according to Daniel chapter 9. When exactly was Jesus Christ born?
According to Matthew (2:16), King Herod ordered that children from two years and below must be slaughtered when it became clear to him that the wise men from the East had deceived him. Thus, it can be presumed, based on the way the portion of Matthew mentioned above was constructed, that Jesus Christ was born two years before King Herod died, 6 BCE.
However, there is a further twist to this fabulous story. Luke linked the birth of Jesus Christ to a census ordered by Emperor Augustus (Luke 2: 1 – 7). In particular, the census was linked to the appointment of Cyrenius as the governor of the Province of Syria. Reading through the work of Josephus, the presumed first-century Jewish historian, in Antiquities of the Jews 17:13:5; 18:1:1; & 18:2:1, Cyrenius became the governor in 6 C.E. and the census took place in the second year of his reign, that is, 7 C.E.
2nd Inference: Between the date of birth of Jesus Christ as set down in the Gospel according to “Matthew” and “Luke” there is thirteen (13) years separation. This can never be historically possible. A child cannot be born 6 BCE and at the same time be born in 7 CE (AD). The speculated dates of birth are now three, that is 3 BCE according to the prophecy of Daniel, 6 BCE according to Matthew and 7 CE according to Luke.
Taking our probe further, in the six century, the Vatican ordered for the revised of the then existing calendar. The monk who worked on the project picked a date we now know as 1 AD (CE) as the date of birth for Jesus Christ. How did the monk arrive on this date? Having discovered the disparity in the promoted dates of birth in Matthew and Luke, there is no need for a soothsayer to identify that the monk cleverly picked the middle point between the dates in dispute as found the in Matthew and Luke. Hence, one can conclude that the two dates found in Matthew and Luke were secret codes put in place to guide the monk in picking the appropriate startup date for the calendar that was eventually designed in the sixth century.
3rd Inference: The cleverer the Church try to become, the worse they open themselves up to ridicule. By putting in place in the sixth century a calendar that recognised human calendar “in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ” the Church has further compounded the already complicated date of birth of Jesus Christ. From three (3) dates as mentioned earlier, there are now four (4) dates proposed as the possible year of birth of Jesus Christ. These are 6 BCE, 3 BCE, 1 CE & 7 CE! If Daniel, Matthew and Luke were written at about the year assigned to them, it is surprising how errors could have crept into the making of the New Testament when it did. The crux of the matter is that these dates are no errors at all, they were purposely put in place for specific reasons.
I dedicated a chapter to the 2300 days prophecy in the Book of Daniel in my book THEY LIED TO US – Unveiling How Christianity and Islam Religions Were Forged. Had I not make the extraordinary connection between the 1 CE date of birth of Jesus Christ and the 2300 days of Daniel, the theologians would have made lame excuses about why the apparent multiple dates of birth for Jesus Christ is unimportant and a possible slip of the pen by Luke and others.
From the look of things, those who wrote the story attributed to “Matthew” and “Luke,” if they were aware of the prophecy in the book of Daniel, they chose to disregard it. Also, the two different dates penned down in Matthew and Luke are no mistakes at all, they are secret codes put in place to guide the likes of Denis the Little, the monk at the Vatican in the 6th century to put the “birth” of Jesus at 1 CE. Can the multiple dates of birth be ascribed to a person called Jesus Christ the Son of God? The answer is a NO! This can only happen for a fictitious character. To the writers of the Gospels, the true meaning of the 2300 days in the Book of Daniel was more important than the story they peddled about a Jesus Christ the saviour of the world. In other words, the 2300 days of Daniel is more real to the New Testament composers than the virgin birth. For these reasons one is forced to ask if Jesus was the Son of God or a rebrand of the ancient Sun-gods. The latter is more plausible than the former, hence, the Bible writers and the Church bastardised the historical references to the birth of a Jesus Christ at the expense of the establishment of the end of the astrological Age of Pisces which is what the prophecy of the 2300 days of Daniel pointed to.
I am the author of the two books:
- THEY LIED TO US – Unveiling How Christianity and Islam Were Forged
- THE VATICAN’S SNAKEHEAD AUDITORIUM – The Old Warlord Is Back To Power!