Kuepuka Radi kwa kufuga Kondoo

[2013]

nina hakikamumezaliwa pembeni yako kuna fesibuku, twiter, instagram na hujui hata kondoo ana sura gani. I can't real can't say how anapambana lakini i have seen it by my naked eyes kondoo anapambana sana na radi. Utamuona anaanza kurudi kinyumenyume kama anapigana na mwenzake na baadae utaona bonge la radi.mijini hamna radi na ndiko kwenye jf lakini kijijini kuna mambo ya ajabu na kushangaza.

mkuu maisha yangu, nimeishi nusu mjini nusu kijiji. pia nimewahi chunga ng'ombe japo haikuwa kazi bali mifugo ya wazazi, nimekata majani ya ngo'mbe, kitaaluma mimi ni daktari wa mifugo, hivyo ng'ombe, nguruwe, kuku, gees, turkey, mbuzi, si mgeni kabisa. nikiwa chuo kitengo nilichofanyia project zangu ni cha mbuzi na kondoo. naelewa aina ya funza anayedaiwa kukaa kwenye pua anayedaiwa kumpelekea mbuzi hasira.

pia nimesoma pia physics vizuri, kuhusiana na radi inawezaje kudhuru, nina uwelewa pia.kuwa radi inakuwa attracted na +ve charge na iikiwa eneo lipo juu zaidi ya pengine inakuwa rahisi ku-attract Radi. Radi ni umeme mkuu sio lazima inaposhuka uione kwa macho.
fahamu katika jamii kuna kitu wanaita myth na reality.
inahitaji imani zaidi kuamini kuwa umeme mkubwa wa radi unaweza kumwacha kondoo akiwa hai. am not sure..though i respect the notion from ITK* point of view kwani hata mimi niliwahi kusikia hizo stori japo sijaona. Hivyo siwezi kukubishia.
i'm not gonna lie, i found it really hard to masticate to this.

ITK*=indigenous technical knowledge

 

[mpingauonevu]

mkuu maisha yangu, nimeishi nusu mjini nusu kijiji. pia nimewahi chunga ng'ombe japo haikuwa kazi bali mifugo ya wazazi, nimekata majani ya ngo'mbe, kitaaluma mimi ni daktari wa mifugo, hivyo ng'ombe, nguruwe, kuku, gees, turkey, mbuzi, si mgeni kabisa. nikiwa chuo kitengo nilichofanyia project zangu ni cha mbuzi na kondoo. naelewa aina ya funza anayedaiwa kukaa kwenye pua anayedaiwa kumpelekea mbuzi hasira.

pia nimesoma pia physics vizuri, kuhusiana na radi inawezaje kudhuru, nina uwelewa pia.kuwa radi inakuwa attracted na +ve charge na iikiwa eneo lipo juu zaidi ya pengine inakuwa rahisi ku-attract Radi. Radi ni umeme mkuu sio lazima inaposhuka uione kwa macho.
fahamu katika jamii kuna kitu wanaita myth na reality.
inahitaji imani zaidi kuamini kuwa umeme mkubwa wa radi unaweza kumwacha kondoo akiwa hai. am not sure..though i respect the notion from ITK* point of view kwani hata mimi niliwahi kusikia hizo stori japo sijaona. Hivyo siwezi kukubishia.
i'm not gonna lie, i found it really hard to masticate to this.

ITK*=indigenous technical knowledge

Mkuu naheshimu mawazo na elimu yako. Mimi nikiwa kijijini kwetu wilaya ya kondoa kulikuwa na nyoka mkubwa aliyekuwa anawaka taa. akianza kuzunguka kijijini lazima mama angetuita kutuonesha. Mama yangu (R.I.P) alikuwa ni mwalimu so she was not kind of fool. Nilipokuja mjini niliingia kwenye tourguiding school na interest yangu ilikuwa kwenye reptiles na hasa nyoka. Nilikuja kushangaa nilipomuuliza mwalimu wangu wa reptiles kuhusu huyo nyoka akaniambia ni mynth. Nikarudi kijijini niulize kama huyo nyoka anapatikana bahati mbaya nikaambiwa haonekani tena.(infact ilikuwa imepita miaka 20 tangu nitoke kijiji hicho na mama alikuwa amekwisha hamishwa.). Point yangu ni kwamba kama kuna eye witnesses wa kitu halafu wewe ambaye hujaona ukaamini hakipo na unalazimisha hakipo inakuwa kitu cha ajabu. Hebu jiulize swali dogo, hao wachungaji wa sasa pamoja na majina yote wanayoitwa mara fake pastors ama nini, Je hujawahi kusikia miujiza wanayofanya? kuna sayansi gani inayothibitisha kiwete kutembea ama kipofu kuona? from there unaweza amini kwamba dunia inavitu vingi vya ajabu sana.

 

[Dr Matola PhD]

What is metaphysics got to do with a "Cockerell thunder? ?"

R u on that" Christmas drinking competition"??

Nimeifuatilia hii thread kwa makini ili nijifunze kitu lakini ulipoingia wewe umegeuza hapa kama sehemu ya muhadhara inasikitisha sana.
Invisible hili ndilo jukwaa pekee lililobakia tunapojiunza mengi, msiwaache wavuta bangi wakalinajisi jukwaa hili.

 

[kahtaan]

Nimeifuatilia hii thread kwa makini ili nijifunze kitu lakini ulipoingia wewe umegeuza hapa kama sehemu ya muhadhara inasikitisha sana.
Invisible hili ndilo jukwaa pekee lililobakia tunapojiunza mengi, msiwaache wavuta bangi wakalinajisi jukwaa hili.

wewe uwe najisi mara ngapi? Unataka kuwafundisha MODS kazi yao??

Hili jukwaa huru, Ndio maana mijitu kama nyie mnapiga kelele weeeee! LKN sisi wasomi tunaTUMIA UHURU ULIOPO jf kuwapiga msasa tu!

ANDIKO LIMEKUTAZA Usengenyaji, Linasema ;


Je, wamesahau kwamba watu wabaya hawataurithi Utawala wa Mungu? Msidanganyike! Watu wanaoishi maisha ya uasherati, wanaoabudu sanamu, wazinzi, au walawiti. wevi, wachoyo, walevi, wasengenyaji, wanyang'anyi, hao wote hawatashiriki Utawala wa Mungu. (Biblia Kwanza Wakorintho 6:9-10)

na pia usishau ibada ya masanamu!

SASA muulize HUYU mchungwaji Nyenyere " WAPI ALIONA RADI KAMA JOGOO?" kama SIO UONGO WA MCHANA BILA AIBU??

teh teh teh teh teh!

 

[Dr Matola PhD]

wewe uwe najisi mara ngapi? Unataka kuwafundisha MODS kazi yao??

Hili jukwaa huru, Ndio maana mijitu kama nyie mnapiga kelele weeeee! LKN sisi wasomi tunaTUMIA UHURU ULIOPO jf kuwapiga msasa tu!

ANDIKO LIMEKUTAZA Usengenyaji, Linasema ;


Je, wamesahau kwamba watu wabaya hawataurithi Utawala wa Mungu? Msidanganyike! Watu wanaoishi maisha ya uasherati, wanaoabudu sanamu, wazinzi, au walawiti. wevi, wachoyo, walevi, wasengenyaji, wanyang'anyi, hao wote hawatashiriki Utawala wa Mungu. (Biblia Kwanza Wakorintho 6:9-10)

na pia usishau ibada ya masanamu!

SASA muulize HUYU mchungwaji Nyenyere " WAPI ALIONA RADI KAMA JOGOO?" kama SIO UONGO WA MCHANA BILA AIBU??

teh teh teh teh teh!

Kuna jukwaa la dini hapa JF mbona huendi huko kuendesha mihadhara yako? Fanculo.

Eti unajiita msomi labda msomi wa madrasa. Boko Haram tafsiri yake ni nini vile?

 

[2013]

Mkuu naheshimu mawazo na elimu yako. Mimi nikiwa kijijini kwetu wilaya ya kondoa kulikuwa na nyoka mkubwa aliyekuwa anawaka taa. akianza kuzunguka kijijini lazima mama angetuita kutuonesha. Mama yangu (R.I.P) alikuwa ni mwalimu so she was not kind of fool.

nikiwa chuo mkuu nimewahi kuhadithiwa na mtu msomi tu, tena aliyeokoka, akituambia kuwa katika mlima manyara, kila saa 11asubuhi kuna joka mkubwa sana mwenye mabawa anaruka na kuingia pale kwenyekilele cha mlima. na wanakijiji wenyeji waliozungukwa na mlima huu huwa wanamwona. japo sijajua kama yupo sawa katika hili, hata hivyo nilimbana sana tena kwakuwa ni msomi na ana imani ya kilokole nilikubali kuwa anaweza kuwa hadanganyi, ila kwakuwa jambo lenyewe ni tata nilijiapiza siwezi kumwadithia mtu. pengine kama humu wanaJF wapo waliowahi kuishi manyara wanaweza kufafanua hili kwa kina.
vipi kuhusu wewe ulikuwa na umri gani ulipomwona huyo nyoka, mkuu isije ikawa mnadanganywa kwa utoto wenu?

Nilipokuja mjini niliingia kwenye tourguiding school na interest yangu ilikuwa kwenye reptiles na hasa nyoka. Nilikuja kushangaa nilipomuuliza mwalimu wangu wa reptiles kuhusu huyo nyoka akaniambia ni mynth. Nikarudi kijijini niulize kama huyo nyoka anapatikana bahati mbaya nikaambiwa haonekani tena.(infact ilikuwa imepita miaka 20 tangu nitoke kijiji hicho na mama alikuwa amekwisha hamishwa.). Point yangu ni kwamba kama kuna eye witnesses wa kitu halafu wewe ambaye hujaona ukaamini hakipo na unalazimisha hakipo inakuwa kitu cha ajabu.

nikiwa mdogo nasoma pale madenge-temeke miaka ya89/90, kuna shule ya ipo jirani, inaitwa muungano primary school sijui kama shule ile ipo mpaka leo. kuna madai yalikuwepo kuwa miti ile ilikuwa na majini yakijitokeza waziwazi.
kisayansi pia tunaambia kuna jurassic/dinosaurs, mijusi iliyokuwepo miaka mingi iliyopita na sasa haipo.lakini tunazo relics za kuthibitisha jambo hilo kutokea. Possibly kwakuwa zamani hatukuwa na wavumbuzi inawezekana, kuwepo nyoka anayewaka taa lakini yawezekana pia kile ambacho mama mzazi wako alikiona kinaweza kuwa ni nyoka kweli ama michezo ya kienyeji kwa kipindi hicho katika lengo la kuwaaminisha watu.

Hebu jiulize swali dogo, hao wachungaji wa sasa pamoja na majina yote wanayoitwa mara fake pastors ama nini, Je hujawahi kusikia miujiza wanayofanya? kuna sayansi gani inayothibitisha kiwete kutembea ama kipofu kuona? from there unaweza amini kwamba dunia inavitu vingi vya ajabu sana.[/B]

kuhusu pastors ni kuwa bibilia ina-eleza wazi uwepo wa miujiza na uponyaji(Marko 16: 17) hasa katika matendo ya mitume, na jinsi mitume walivyochukiwa na kutendwa pamoja na kuwa walikuwa watu wema, kama yesu kristo, paulo, petro, na stefano na wengineo wengi. yesu kristo mwenyewe aliambiwa anaponya kwa nguvu za belzebubu, akasema makosa yote watasamehewa wanadamu isipokuwa kumkashifu roho mtakatifu. Hivyo kuwafuatisha wanaowatusi hawa ma-pastor ni kunaweza kuwa ni blasphemy mbele za mungu.
"Nao wakatoka katika ile baraza, wakifurahi kwa sababu wamehesabiwa kuwa wamestahili kuaibishwa kwa ajili ya Jina hilo" (Matendo 5:41)

 

[kahtaan]

Kuna jukwaa la dini hapa JF mbona huendi huko kuendesha mihadhara yako? Fanculo.

Eti unajiita msomi labda msomi wa madrasa. Boko Haram tafsiri yake ni nini vile?

Jamaa kanambia kuwa hilo j Fankulo ni jina la mama Matola! Hukuwa na haja ya kuliweka hapa!
Huko.ni kuvunja heshima ya mzazi!

Jukwaa la dini halizuii mimi kuandika ninachokiona appropriate popote pale!

Nimeshakwambi huko nyuma JF sio ya matola mtoto wa fankulo!

JF ni jukwaa huru na wewe kama una cha maana Andika!

Hizo nyimbo za mchiriku kaimbe huko manzese
Na ukitaka maana ya maneno magumu TAFUTA KAMUSI!
Au kusoma pia hujui!

Basi makhanatha tu asubuhi mpaka asubuhi?

 

[Hukumuzuku]

Mkuu mimi kwani nalikataa hilo?

Huyu Nyenyere anatudanganya hapa!
Halafu uongo wake wa kizamaaani kiasi kwamba nimeshindwa kuvumilia inabidi nicheke tu.

Jaribu kutoa jibu la kisayansi basi, kama wewe "msomi" kweli, siyo unaleta maneno mengi na Uswahili tu.

 

[Jerrymsigwa]

Jamaa kanambia kuwa hilo j Fankulo ni jina la mama Matola! Hukuwa na haja ya kuliweka hapa!
Huko.ni kuvunja heshima ya mzazi!

Jukwaa la dini halizuii mimi kuandika ninachokiona appropriate popote pale!

Nimeshakwambi huko nyuma JF sio ya matola mtoto wa fankulo!

JF ni jukwaa huru na wewe kama una cha maana Andika!

Hizo nyimbo za mchiriku kaimbe huko manzese
Na ukitaka maana ya maneno magumu TAFUTA KAMUSI!
Au kusoma pia hujui!

Basi makhanatha tu asubuhi mpaka asubuhi?

@Khataan wewe ni mpuuzi tu huna arguments critical, unakaa kulalamika tu km kawaida ya magaidi

 

[kahtaan]

@Khataan wewe ni mpuuzi tu huna arguments critical, unakaa kulalamika tu km kawaida ya magaidi

Sasa wewe ndio mwenye busara kutuandikia utumbo hapa!
Hivi nyie wala vitimoto mbona akili zenu zinafanana sana!

Watu wanajenga hoja!.we unapayuka kama muimba taarabu!
Sura ka jiko!

 

[kahtaan]

Jaribu kutoa jibu la kisayansi basi, kama wewe "msomi" kweli, siyo unaleta maneno mengi na Uswahili tu.

UKITAKA JIBU LA KISAYANSI , Basi ni sharti ULETE SWALI LINALO HUSIANA NA SAYANSI!

Sio kuja hapa kutuambia watu wazima kuwa huyo @nyenyere KAONA RADI INA UMBO LA JOGOO!!

Jamaa kala bangi zake halafu anaona mauzauza!! we unataka nimjibu kisayansi!! we kiumbe wa ajabu sana.

 

[Kisima]

Teh teh teh teh! Hapo mkuu umenichekesha sana tu!
Hivi nikuulize wewe mfugaji!
Lini ulishawahi kuona kondoo akapigana na radi??
Acheni hizo mila potofu msije mkafa kabla ya siku zenu!
Kuna baadhi ya maeneo north America ni guarantee kupiga radi chungu mzima!
Tena hilo sio la kujiuliza!
Na sehemu hizo wanyama wengi wanafugwa wakiwemo kondoo.
Na radi zinauwa kondoo na wanyama wengine kila siku!
Halafu unasema wazee wako wamekwambia zikianza radi ulale chini nyuma ya kondoo!
Sasa kondoo akiamua kuondoka je!?
Kwa imani yako si ndio kifo tena!!

Achana na yule mnafiki Nyenyere!

Huyu ni mparoko muongo sana!

Na ni mwenye madhambi mengi sana ya udanganyifu!!

Kahtaan we ni mgumu wa kuelewa halafu unaubishi wa kidwanzi sana!
wapi kwenye uzi wangu nimeandika kuwa kondoo anapambana na radi? nimesema amepewa kipawa chakusense/detect ujio wa radi, so anachofanya ni kujiepusha na uelekeo wa radi i.e magnetic fields.
hili ndo tatzo la elmu ya madrasa

 

[kahtaan]

Kahtaan we ni mgumu wa kuelewa halafu unaubishi wa kidwanzi sana!
wapi kwenye uzi wangu nimeandika kuwa kondoo anapambana na radi? nimesema amepewa kipawa chakusense/detect ujio wa radi, so anachofanya ni kujiepusha na uelekeo wa radi i.e magnetic fields.
hili ndo tatzo la elmu ya madrasa

We unaejiita msomi na mdomo wako mchafu!

Hebu nipe scientific evidence inayoonyesha kuwa kondoo ana uwezo wa kuyafanya hayo ya ku detect radi!

Basi kuropoka tu!!

Yule mwenzako Nyenyere ndio aliyeweka statement hio ya kusema ALIONA KWA MACHO YAKE kuwa RADI YENYE UMBO LA JOGOO IKIPIGANA NA KONDOO!

Sasa kama unalikataa hilo usiniijie mimi!
Mtafute yule mbukula kama wewe ukamuulize. Hio bangi aliovuta siku hio ni ya tabora au shinyanga??

 

[Gavana]

Kuna jukwaa la dini hapa JF mbona huendi huko kuendesha mihadhara yako? Fanculo.

Eti unajiita msomi labda msomi wa madrasa. Boko Haram tafsiri yake ni nini vile?

TAFSIRI YA BOKO HARAM HII HAPA ISOME VIZURI TENA KWA FURAHA

The resurrection of Jesus is a hoax because Mark, the earliest gospel, never contained the story.

The "resurrection" passages were later added to Mark, and his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous.

It was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own understanding, they also relied upon the Q source.

Regarding the Gospel of John, it's completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark!


Mark is the first gospel to be written:

A central working hypothesis of this book and one of the most widely held findings in modem New Testament study is that Mark was the first canonical Gospel to be composed and that the authors of Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) used Mark's Gospel as a written source. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 23)

Mark was the first writer to record the crucifixion, yet he was NOT an eye-witness!

"The author of Mark, the earliest of the narrative gospels, was not an eyewitness: he is reporting information conveyed to him by a third person or persons, who themselves were quite possible not eye-witnesses" (Robert Walter Funk, The Jesus Seminar: The Acts of Jesus, p. 4)



Here is what Christian scholar Mack Burton says:


"There is no reference to Jesus' death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material" (Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 87)

This means the Gospel writers fabricated the resurrection story.

The legend of Jesus' "resurrection" developed over a period of time.

This explains why Paul, the earliest Christian writer, never records the Gospel version.

Paul only says Jesus was "crucified for the sins of mankind" and he "rose from the dead", which does not explain anything.


Paul asserts that Jesus was crucified, yet he fails to mention any details which would later be recorded in the gospels.

We must keep in mind that Paul knew nothing of an event called the ascension that was separate or different from Jesus' resurrection.

Paul's writings contain no hint of the two-stage process that would develop later, where resurrection brought Jesus from the grave back to life and ascension then took Jesus from earth to heaven.

Paul's proclamation was that God had raised Jesus into God's very life. That was Easter for Paul. For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time.

None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality, p. 241)

The most striking feature of the early documents is that they do not set Jesus' life in a specific historical situation. There is no Galilean ministry, and there are no parables, no miracles, no Passion in Jerusalem, no indication of time, place of attendant circumstances at all. The words Calvary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Galilee never appear in the early epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used there in connection with Jesus (Doherty, pp. 68, 73).

Instead, Jesus figures as a basically supernatural personage who took the "likeness" of man, "emptied" then of his supernatural powers Phil 2:7. (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 3)


Paul's account of Jesus' resurrection contradicts the Gospels:

The first thing we need to force into our minds is that when Paul wrote these words, there were no such things as written Gospels. This means that the accounts of Jesus' resurrection so familiar to us, as told by these Gospel writers, were by and large unknown to Pauland to Paul's readers (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, p. 48)

For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (ibid, p. 241)


What does this mean? The resurrection accounts in the four Gospels contradict the testimony of Paul. Hence, Paul contradicts the Gospels on a simple event which is supposed to be the foundation of Christian religion.


If Paul is the first writer, then he must be relaying the earliest tradition, yet the Gospels, written many decades later, record an entirely different story. This certainly proves that the resurrection was fabricated in the oral tradition, because there's not a single reference to the resurrection by historians like Philo Judaeus, and the testimony of Josephus is wholly agreed to be a forgery.

Paul contradicts the Gospels:

'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.' 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

There are several problems with this passage.

(1). There was no "third day" prophecy in the Old Testament. [1]

(2). There is no evidence that five-hundred people saw Jesus [2]

(3). Paul says Jesus first appeared to Peter, yet the Gospels say Jesus first appeared to women! (Matt 28:1)

(4). Peter disbelieved that Jesus was alive (resurrected).

(5). Paul implies that Judas did not hang himself, he was still alive (contradicts Matt. 27:5).


(6). Paul describes the body of Jesus to be spiritual (1Cor 15:42). Yet the Gospels say Jesus was physical.

Mark does not have the resurrection:

All things considered, then, Mark does not begin his story of Jesus very satisfactorily. Indeed, within two or three decades of Mark's completion, there were at least two, and perhaps three, different writers (or Christian groups) who felt the need to produce an expanded and corrected version. Viewed from their perspective, the Gospel of Mark has some major shortcomings: It contains no birth narrative; it implies that Jesus,a repentant sinner, became the Son of God only at his baptism; it recounts no resurrection appearances; and it ends with the very unsatisfactory notion that the women who found the Empty Tomb were too afraid to speak to anyone about it. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 34)

Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending.


The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not record the resurrection:


Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f., John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23. Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians. [2]

The ‘Longer Ending' of Mark is preserved in the Byzantine texts, which are interpolated. The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort discredited the Byzantine (KJV) text. Yet, the oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the longer ending. The Alexandrian (NIV) omits the longer ending (Aleph and B). The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort attest the Byzantine text was conflated in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century.


There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian of Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine or Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and unconsequential.


In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it the text of Lucian.


Hort characterized the Byzantine text as 'late, conflated, heavily edited and revised', whereas Hort extolled the Alexandrian text as 'pure, primitive, carefully corrected, and neutral'.


The Gospels are clear that no one witnessed Jesus' resurrection. It was seen by NO ONE.


Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14)


It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. (Luke 24:10-11)


The Greek and Roman historians

Very few Christians know that Gentile historians NEVER mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish philosopher Philo (50 CE) absolutely makes no reference to Jesus' crucifixion. The Christians are embarrassed that Philo lived during Jesus' lifetime and never mentioned his resurrection.

After the departure of Jesus, his teachings spread to North Africa and Egypt, but he was not popular or widely known.
The following writers do not mention Jesus' resurrection:

Philo-Judaeus

Martial

Arrian

Appian

Theon of Smyrna

Lucanus

Aulus Gellius

Seneca

Plutarch

Apollonius

Epictetus

Silius Italicus

Ptolemy



We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection. None of these writers mentioned
Jesus' resurrection.


watch these documentaries for EVIDENCES


Jesus the evidence ( Episode One - 1 of 3 ) - YouTube


Who Wrote the Bible? - YouTube

 

[124 Ali]

Hapana, usimkatalie. Vitu spiritual mara nyingi nimekuja kugundua kuwa havikubaliani na sayansi ya kawaida na mara nyingi vinakuwa havina logic!

Sasa radi na spiritual wapi na wapi,ina maana jogoo hamumjui? ,kondoo hamumjui? na radi hamuijui?
Kwa hadithi yenu ni kwamba radi inajibadilisha na kuwa kama jogoo amabye ni kondoo tu anayeweza kumwona ,kupigana nae na kumshinda! inaingia akilini hiyo!endelea tu kutovaa nguo nyekundu siku ya mvua ili usinyukwe na radi!

 

[Dr Matola PhD]

TAFSIRI YA BOKO HARAM HII HAPA ISOME VIZURI TENA KWA FURAHA

The resurrection of Jesus is a hoax because Mark, the earliest gospel, never contained the story.

The “resurrection” passages were later added to Mark, and his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous.

It was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own understanding, they also relied upon the Q source.

Regarding the Gospel of John, it’s completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark!


Mark is the first gospel to be written:

A central working hypothesis of this book and one of the most widely held findings in modem New Testament study is that Mark was the first canonical Gospel to be composed and that the authors of Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) used Mark's Gospel as a written source. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 23)

Mark was the first writer to record the crucifixion, yet he was NOT an eye-witness!

“The author of Mark, the earliest of the narrative gospels, was not an eyewitness: he is reporting information conveyed to him by a third person or persons, who themselves were quite possible not eye-witnesses” (Robert Walter Funk, The Jesus Seminar: The Acts of Jesus, p. 4)



Here is what Christian scholar Mack Burton says:


“There is no reference to Jesus’ death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material” (Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 87)

This means the Gospel writers fabricated the resurrection story.

The legend of Jesus’ “resurrection” developed over a period of time.

This explains why Paul, the earliest Christian writer, never records the Gospel version.

Paul only says Jesus was “crucified for the sins of mankind” and he “rose from the dead”, which does not explain anything.


Paul asserts that Jesus was crucified, yet he fails to mention any details which would later be recorded in the gospels.

We must keep in mind that Paul knew nothing of an event called the ascension that was separate or different from Jesus' resurrection.

Paul's writings contain no hint of the two-stage process that would develop later, where resurrection brought Jesus from the grave back to life and ascension then took Jesus from earth to heaven.

Paul's proclamation was that God had raised Jesus into God's very life. That was Easter for Paul. For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time.

None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality, p. 241)

The most striking feature of the early documents is that they do not set Jesus’ life in a specific historical situation. There is no Galilean ministry, and there are no parables, no miracles, no Passion in Jerusalem, no indication of time, place of attendant circumstances at all. The words Calvary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Galilee never appear in the early epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used there in connection with Jesus (Doherty, pp. 68, 73).

Instead, Jesus figures as a basically supernatural personage who took the “likeness” of man, “emptied” then of his supernatural powers Phil 2:7. (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 3)


Paul’s account of Jesus’ resurrection contradicts the Gospels:

The first thing we need to force into our minds is that when Paul wrote these words, there were no such things as written Gospels. This means that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection so familiar to us, as told by these Gospel writers, were by and large unknown to Pauland to Paul’s readers (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, p. 48)

For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (ibid, p. 241)


What does this mean? The resurrection accounts in the four Gospels contradict the testimony of Paul. Hence, Paul contradicts the Gospels on a simple event which is supposed to be the foundation of Christian religion.


If Paul is the first writer, then he must be relaying the earliest tradition, yet the Gospels, written many decades later, record an entirely different story. This certainly proves that the resurrection was fabricated in the oral tradition, because there’s not a single reference to the resurrection by historians like Philo Judaeus, and the testimony of Josephus is wholly agreed to be a forgery.

Paul contradicts the Gospels:

'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.' 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

There are several problems with this passage.

(1). There was no “third day” prophecy in the Old Testament. [1]

(2). There is no evidence that five-hundred people saw Jesus [2]

(3). Paul says Jesus first appeared to Peter, yet the Gospels say Jesus first appeared to women! (Matt 28:1)

(4). Peter disbelieved that Jesus was alive (resurrected).

(5). Paul implies that Judas did not hang himself, he was still alive (contradicts Matt. 27:5).


(6). Paul describes the body of Jesus to be spiritual (1Cor 15:42). Yet the Gospels say Jesus was physical.

Mark does not have the resurrection:

All things considered, then, Mark does not begin his story of Jesus very satisfactorily. Indeed, within two or three decades of Mark's completion, there were at least two, and perhaps three, different writers (or Christian groups) who felt the need to produce an expanded and corrected version. Viewed from their perspective, the Gospel of Mark has some major shortcomings: It contains no birth narrative; it implies that Jesus,a repentant sinner, became the Son of God only at his baptism; it recounts no resurrection appearances; and it ends with the very unsatisfactory notion that the women who found the Empty Tomb were too afraid to speak to anyone about it. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 34)

Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark’s Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending.


The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not record the resurrection:


Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f., John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23. Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians. [2]

The ‘Longer Ending’ of Mark is preserved in the Byzantine texts, which are interpolated. The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort discredited the Byzantine (KJV) text. Yet, the oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the longer ending. The Alexandrian (NIV) omits the longer ending (Aleph and B). The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort attest the Byzantine text was conflated in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century.


There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian of Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine or Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and unconsequential.


In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it the text of Lucian.


Hort characterized the Byzantine text as 'late, conflated, heavily edited and revised', whereas Hort extolled the Alexandrian text as 'pure, primitive, carefully corrected, and neutral’.


The Gospels are clear that no one witnessed Jesus’ resurrection. It was seen by NO ONE.


Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14)


It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. (Luke 24:10-11)


The Greek and Roman historians

Very few Christians know that Gentile historians NEVER mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish philosopher Philo (50 CE) absolutely makes no reference to Jesus’ crucifixion. The Christians are embarrassed that Philo lived during Jesus’ lifetime and never mentioned his resurrection.

After the departure of Jesus, his teachings spread to North Africa and Egypt, but he was not popular or widely known.
The following writers do not mention Jesus’ resurrection:

Philo-Judaeus

Martial

Arrian

Appian

Theon of Smyrna

Lucanus

Aulus Gellius

Seneca

Plutarch

Apollonius

Epictetus

Silius Italicus

Ptolemy



We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection. None of these writers mentioned
Jesus’ resurrection.


watch these documentaries for EVIDENCES


Jesus the evidence ( Episode One - 1 of 3 ) - YouTube


Who Wrote the Bible? - YouTube

Weee ni mpumbavvu kabisa.

 

[Gavana]

Weee ni mpumbavvu kabisa.

Wewe mwerevu msikilize Bwana yesu anakuambia nini



In Matthew 5:22, Jesus says, "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


au ndio una uchu wa kugeuzwa kauzu ????? Mark 9:49 Everyone will be salted in fire

 

[2013]

TAFSIRI YA BOKO HARAM HII HAPA ISOME VIZURI TENA KWA FURAHA

The resurrection of Jesus is a hoax because Mark, the earliest gospel, never contained the story.

The "resurrection" passages were later added to Mark, and his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous.

It was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own understanding, they also relied upon the Q source.

Regarding the Gospel of John, it's completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark!


Mark is the first gospel to be written:

A central working hypothesis of this book and one of the most widely held findings in modem New Testament study is that Mark was the first canonical Gospel to be composed and that the authors of Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) used Mark's Gospel as a written source. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 23)

Mark was the first writer to record the crucifixion, yet he was NOT an eye-witness!

"The author of Mark, the earliest of the narrative gospels, was not an eyewitness: he is reporting information conveyed to him by a third person or persons, who themselves were quite possible not eye-witnesses" (Robert Walter Funk, The Jesus Seminar: The Acts of Jesus, p. 4)



Here is what Christian scholar Mack Burton says:


"There is no reference to Jesus' death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material" (Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 87)

This means the Gospel writers fabricated the resurrection story.

The legend of Jesus' "resurrection" developed over a period of time.

This explains why Paul, the earliest Christian writer, never records the Gospel version.

Paul only says Jesus was "crucified for the sins of mankind" and he "rose from the dead", which does not explain anything.


Paul asserts that Jesus was crucified, yet he fails to mention any details which would later be recorded in the gospels.

We must keep in mind that Paul knew nothing of an event called the ascension that was separate or different from Jesus' resurrection.

Paul's writings contain no hint of the two-stage process that would develop later, where resurrection brought Jesus from the grave back to life and ascension then took Jesus from earth to heaven.

Paul's proclamation was that God had raised Jesus into God's very life. That was Easter for Paul. For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time.

None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality, p. 241)

The most striking feature of the early documents is that they do not set Jesus' life in a specific historical situation. There is no Galilean ministry, and there are no parables, no miracles, no Passion in Jerusalem, no indication of time, place of attendant circumstances at all. The words Calvary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Galilee never appear in the early epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used there in connection with Jesus (Doherty, pp. 68, 73).

Instead, Jesus figures as a basically supernatural personage who took the "likeness" of man, "emptied" then of his supernatural powers Phil 2:7. (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 3)


Paul's account of Jesus' resurrection contradicts the Gospels:

The first thing we need to force into our minds is that when Paul wrote these words, there were no such things as written Gospels. This means that the accounts of Jesus' resurrection so familiar to us, as told by these Gospel writers, were by and large unknown to Pauland to Paul's readers (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, p. 48)

For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (ibid, p. 241)


What does this mean? The resurrection accounts in the four Gospels contradict the testimony of Paul. Hence, Paul contradicts the Gospels on a simple event which is supposed to be the foundation of Christian religion.


If Paul is the first writer, then he must be relaying the earliest tradition, yet the Gospels, written many decades later, record an entirely different story. This certainly proves that the resurrection was fabricated in the oral tradition, because there's not a single reference to the resurrection by historians like Philo Judaeus, and the testimony of Josephus is wholly agreed to be a forgery.

Paul contradicts the Gospels:

'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.' 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

There are several problems with this passage.

(1). There was no "third day" prophecy in the Old Testament. [1]

(2). There is no evidence that five-hundred people saw Jesus [2]

(3). Paul says Jesus first appeared to Peter, yet the Gospels say Jesus first appeared to women! (Matt 28:1)

(4). Peter disbelieved that Jesus was alive (resurrected).

(5). Paul implies that Judas did not hang himself, he was still alive (contradicts Matt. 27:5).


(6). Paul describes the body of Jesus to be spiritual (1Cor 15:42). Yet the Gospels say Jesus was physical.

Mark does not have the resurrection:

All things considered, then, Mark does not begin his story of Jesus very satisfactorily. Indeed, within two or three decades of Mark's completion, there were at least two, and perhaps three, different writers (or Christian groups) who felt the need to produce an expanded and corrected version. Viewed from their perspective, the Gospel of Mark has some major shortcomings: It contains no birth narrative; it implies that Jesus,a repentant sinner, became the Son of God only at his baptism; it recounts no resurrection appearances; and it ends with the very unsatisfactory notion that the women who found the Empty Tomb were too afraid to speak to anyone about it. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 34)

Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending.


The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not record the resurrection:


Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f., John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23. Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians. [2]

The ‘Longer Ending' of Mark is preserved in the Byzantine texts, which are interpolated. The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort discredited the Byzantine (KJV) text. Yet, the oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the longer ending. The Alexandrian (NIV) omits the longer ending (Aleph and B). The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort attest the Byzantine text was conflated in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century.


There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian of Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine or Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and unconsequential.


In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it the text of Lucian.


Hort characterized the Byzantine text as 'late, conflated, heavily edited and revised', whereas Hort extolled the Alexandrian text as 'pure, primitive, carefully corrected, and neutral'.


The Gospels are clear that no one witnessed Jesus' resurrection. It was seen by NO ONE.


Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14)


It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. (Luke 24:10-11)


The Greek and Roman historians

Very few Christians know that Gentile historians NEVER mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish philosopher Philo (50 CE) absolutely makes no reference to Jesus' crucifixion. The Christians are embarrassed that Philo lived during Jesus' lifetime and never mentioned his resurrection.

After the departure of Jesus, his teachings spread to North Africa and Egypt, but he was not popular or widely known.
The following writers do not mention Jesus' resurrection:

Philo-Judaeus

Martial

Arrian

Appian

Theon of Smyrna

Lucanus

Aulus Gellius

Seneca

Plutarch

Apollonius

Epictetus

Silius Italicus

Ptolemy



We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection. None of these writers mentioned
Jesus' resurrection.


watch these documentaries for EVIDENCES


Jesus the evidence ( Episode One - 1 of 3 ) - YouTube


Who Wrote the Bible? - YouTube

gavana nimesoma hiyo ya hapo juu hizi nyingine sijasoma, kwakuwa ziko kinyume sana na imani ya ukristo. Kwa ukristo kiini kikuu cha wokovu ni kifo cha yesu kwenye msalaba na kufufuka katika wafu, kulikataa hili ni kumkataa yesu kristo na kukataa wokovu wake ulioletwa duniani bure kwa upendo wa mungu. kwa maana hatukupewa jina jingine lipasalo kuokolewa wanadamu ila jina la yesuray:. if your a real christian you must confess this like this one did.
"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."- Barack Obama 25.November.2008

link:
Obama: "I Believe In The Redemptive Death And Resurrection Of Christ"

 

[Gavana]

gavana nimesoma hiyo ya hapo juu hizi nyingine sijasoma, kwakuwa ziko kinyume sana na imani ya ukristo. Kwa ukristo kiini kikuu cha wokovu ni kifo cha yesu kwenye msalaba na kufufuka katika wafu, kulikataa hili ni kumkataa yesu kristo na kukataa wokovu wake ulioletwa duniani bure kwa upendo wa mungu. kwa maana hatukupewa jina jingine lipasalo kuokolewa wanadamu ila jina la yesuray:. if your a real christian you must confess this like this one did.
"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."- Barack Obama 25.November.2008View attachment 129812

link:
Obama: "I Believe In The Redemptive Death And Resurrection Of Christ"

wewe unaamini anachoamini Obama ???


Ikiwa huyo Obama anao ushahidi wa Yesu kufufuka si muulize utuwekee hapa

Nategemea akili yako itakuwa wazi na kusoma tena hichi nilicholeta ukipata ushahidi kinyume na maneno haya tuwekee


The resurrection of Jesus is a hoax because Mark, the earliest gospel, never contained the story.

The "resurrection" passages were later added to Mark, and his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous.

It was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own understanding, they also relied upon the Q source.

Regarding the Gospel of John, it's completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark!


Mark is the first gospel to be written:

A central working hypothesis of this book and one of the most widely held findings in modem New Testament study is that Mark was the first canonical Gospel to be composed and that the authors of Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) used Mark's Gospel as a written source. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 23)

Mark was the first writer to record the crucifixion, yet he was NOT an eye-witness!

"The author of Mark, the earliest of the narrative gospels, was not an eyewitness: he is reporting information conveyed to him by a third person or persons, who themselves were quite possible not eye-witnesses" (Robert Walter Funk, The Jesus Seminar: The Acts of Jesus, p. 4)



Here is what Christian scholar Mack Burton says:


"There is no reference to Jesus' death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material" (Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 87)

This means the Gospel writers fabricated the resurrection story.

The legend of Jesus' "resurrection" developed over a period of time.

This explains why Paul, the earliest Christian writer, never records the Gospel version.

Paul only says Jesus was "crucified for the sins of mankind" and he "rose from the dead", which does not explain anything.


Paul asserts that Jesus was crucified, yet he fails to mention any details which would later be recorded in the gospels.

We must keep in mind that Paul knew nothing of an event called the ascension that was separate or different from Jesus' resurrection.

Paul's writings contain no hint of the two-stage process that would develop later, where resurrection brought Jesus from the grave back to life and ascension then took Jesus from earth to heaven.

Paul's proclamation was that God had raised Jesus into God's very life. That was Easter for Paul. For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time.

None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality, p. 241)

The most striking feature of the early documents is that they do not set Jesus' life in a specific historical situation. There is no Galilean ministry, and there are no parables, no miracles, no Passion in Jerusalem, no indication of time, place of attendant circumstances at all. The words Calvary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Galilee never appear in the early epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used there in connection with Jesus (Doherty, pp. 68, 73).

Instead, Jesus figures as a basically supernatural personage who took the "likeness" of man, "emptied" then of his supernatural powers Phil 2:7. (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 3)


Paul's account of Jesus' resurrection contradicts the Gospels:

The first thing we need to force into our minds is that when Paul wrote these words, there were no such things as written Gospels. This means that the accounts of Jesus' resurrection so familiar to us, as told by these Gospel writers, were by and large unknown to Pauland to Paul's readers (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, p. 48)

For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (ibid, p. 241)


What does this mean? The resurrection accounts in the four Gospels contradict the testimony of Paul. Hence, Paul contradicts the Gospels on a simple event which is supposed to be the foundation of Christian religion.


If Paul is the first writer, then he must be relaying the earliest tradition, yet the Gospels, written many decades later, record an entirely different story. This certainly proves that the resurrection was fabricated in the oral tradition, because there's not a single reference to the resurrection by historians like Philo Judaeus, and the testimony of Josephus is wholly agreed to be a forgery.

Paul contradicts the Gospels:

'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.' 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

There are several problems with this passage.

(1). There was no "third day" prophecy in the Old Testament. [1]

(2). There is no evidence that five-hundred people saw Jesus [2]

(3). Paul says Jesus first appeared to Peter, yet the Gospels say Jesus first appeared to women! (Matt 28:1)

(4). Peter disbelieved that Jesus was alive (resurrected).

(5). Paul implies that Judas did not hang himself, he was still alive (contradicts Matt. 27:5).


(6). Paul describes the body of Jesus to be spiritual (1Cor 15:42). Yet the Gospels say Jesus was physical.

Mark does not have the resurrection:

All things considered, then, Mark does not begin his story of Jesus very satisfactorily. Indeed, within two or three decades of Mark's completion, there were at least two, and perhaps three, different writers (or Christian groups) who felt the need to produce an expanded and corrected version. Viewed from their perspective, the Gospel of Mark has some major shortcomings: It contains no birth narrative; it implies that Jesus,a repentant sinner, became the Son of God only at his baptism; it recounts no resurrection appearances; and it ends with the very unsatisfactory notion that the women who found the Empty Tomb were too afraid to speak to anyone about it. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 34)

Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending.


The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not record the resurrection:


Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f., John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23. Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians. [2]

The ‘Longer Ending' of Mark is preserved in the Byzantine texts, which are interpolated. The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort discredited the Byzantine (KJV) text. Yet, the oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the longer ending. The Alexandrian (NIV) omits the longer ending (Aleph and B). The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort attest the Byzantine text was conflated in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century.


There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian of Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine or Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and unconsequential.


In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it the text of Lucian.


Hort characterized the Byzantine text as 'late, conflated, heavily edited and revised', whereas Hort extolled the Alexandrian text as 'pure, primitive, carefully corrected, and neutral'.


The Gospels are clear that no one witnessed Jesus' resurrection. It was seen by NO ONE.


Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14)


It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. (Luke 24:10-11)


The Greek and Roman historians

Very few Christians know that Gentile historians NEVER mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish philosopher Philo (50 CE) absolutely makes no reference to Jesus' crucifixion. The Christians are embarrassed that Philo lived during Jesus' lifetime and never mentioned his resurrection.

After the departure of Jesus, his teachings spread to North Africa and Egypt, but he was not popular or widely known.
The following writers do not mention Jesus' resurrection:

Philo-Judaeus

Martial

Arrian

Appian

Theon of Smyrna

Lucanus

Aulus Gellius

Seneca

Plutarch

Apollonius

Epictetus

Silius Italicus

Ptolemy



We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection. None of these writers mentioned
Jesus' resurrection.


watch these documentaries for EVIDENCES


Jesus the evidence ( Episode One - 1 of 3 ) - YouTube


Who Wrote the Bible? - YouTube

 

[Gavana]

Blood Redemption

• Do Christians have redemption through Jesus' blood or his broken body? This is only Paul's theology.
• Was Jesus sacrificed and suffered for us or just suffered and killed?
• Why did the writers of KJV emphasize that Jesus was sacrificed and suffered for us?

The Islamic tradition rejects the concept of blood redemption.



Also the Islamic tradition holds that Bible was changed and now this is another proof.

Scripture	RCV	KJV	NRSV	ETRV
1 Corinthians 11:24	my body, which shall be delivered for you.	my body, which is broken for you	my body that is for you (Footnote)	my body; it is for you
1 Corinthians 5:7	sacrificed	sacrificed, for us	sacrificed	killed
Colossians 1:14	through his blood	through his blood	Deleted (footnote)	Deleted
Hebrews 1:3	making purgation of sins	he had by himself purged our sins	he had made purification for sins	The Son made people clean from their sins
1 Peter 4:1	suffered	suffered for us	suffered	suffered