Of the four Gospel writers, God "inspired" only two of them to record the genealogy
of His "son." To make it easy for you to compare the "fathers and grandfathers" of
Jesus Christ in both the "inspired" lists, I have culled the names only, minus the
verbiage. Between David and Jesus, God "inspired" Matthew to record only 26
ancestors for His "son." But Luke, also "inspired," gathered up 41 forefathers for
Jesus. The only name common to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH
and that, too, a "supposed" father according to Luke 3:23 (AV). This one name is
glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It is Joseph the carpenter. You
will also easily observe that the lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists
have emanated from the same source, i.e. God?
Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King, the prime ancestor
of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the "THRONE OF HIS
FATHER DAVID" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that
instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it was Pontius Pilate, a
Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful
(?) heir (Jesus) to death. "Never mind,'' says the evangelist, "if not in his first coming,
then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three
hundred others beside" But with their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry
of Jesus physically to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says — THAT OF THE
FRUIT OF HIS (David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (literally, not
metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the "inspired" authors trip and fall on the very first
step.
Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31
says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. One need not be a
gynecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David
reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We
know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived
miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry
through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.
So it is clear that the authors of the Gospels were not ‘inspired’ as they claimed. No
son of God would have ancestry who were adulterers.
Exalted is Allah from what the Christians attribute to Him.
The Bible and the lost Gospels.
From the previously mentioned points we see that the book the Christians hold
sacred cannot be considered as the work of God and we shall see how this manifests
itself in this chapter.