El blog d'En Joan Quetgles

Un bloc de filosofia i societat. Recomano la lectura del meu llibre titulat La filosofia i la religió sense caretes, editat a la Xarxa com a post.

The Gospels, impossible histories

quetgles | 03 Agost, 2008 11:23

 This writing is a version in English of a text in Catalan language made automatically. We pray you that you forgive the linguistic insufficiencies. 

The explained Bible, of Voltaire, particularly object of destruction was one of the works on the part of the Catholic Church. Instigator of the pro-Franco reaction, The Spanish Catholic Church, from 1936, hurried to initiating the ideological purges into great scale in the way of the new Inquisition. The libraries were some of the preferential goals of her exterminating zeal. At present, in 2008, it can be ascertained that the effects of the cream of books still last; it can be checked out, for example, that the mentioned work of Voltaire can not be in the libraries Spanish, nor in the Catalans. Nor to the Cultural Association of Barcelona is there present.
The Christian theologians and thousands of experts lead an effort sustained in their subject envelopes lucubrations related with the books of the New Will. More that investigators are Christian combattants who participate in the ideological War. More that to investigate the truth, that that they intend him to bring efficiency in the war. On a part, they try to occupy the senior number of spaces in all those areas where ideological confrontation is given: books, magazines, newspapers, bookshops and also schools, Universities and every kind of means that serve as transport of ideas; at the last times, how it was from foreseeing, their efforts to the construction of their command have poured on the Net, while attempting to impose their hegemony to the Spanish Universe - and to the Universes Italian and portugal. For another side, these Catholic experts attempt to be impressive on the wide masses making an exhibition of their extraordinary knowledge. The Catholic theologians make permanent campaign to convince to the people of God, that is, in those who are not either theologians or experts, to convince that it is necessary to follow the teaching of the Church for a dogmatic reading of the books of the Bible; without this teaching, they think, the Catholic puts on rather Lutheran in an attitude. Not of daydream, the Catholic Church forbade in every time the publication of the Bible in another language that was not the Latin.
Here you are some of the nonsense or more remarkable implausibility that they find in the Gospels:

In the Gospel according to Luke, 3.23, without preamble, a genealogy of Jesus, a listing of sons of father names who goes of Jesus until Adam, making a total of 71 generations, is given. According to this, the existence of the man about the Earth would not overcome 2000 years. Without comments.

In the Gospel according to Luke, 2.4, it is said textually: "Also Joseph rose himself of Galilea, of the city of Natzaret, in Judea in the city of David that is called Bethlehem... to register with Maria, his wife, who was pregnant. And it happened that, they being there, were fulfilled the days that she had to give birth to. She gave birth to her first-born, wrapped him and leaned him against a trough, because there was not place for them in the inn".
   In principle, it does not have meaning not even him credible that a pregnant woman ready of breaking waters puts in journey to loins of a she-ass for motive of fulfilling an administrative formality. It seems farfetched that Joseph decided, despite everything, to travel of Natzaret in Bethlehem to register himself, that more own, what had made a marriage of the period, it had been to prepare the stay in Bethlehem with anticipation, if of case. With the advanced state of gravidity of Maria it is not understood in no way that they took away precautions with attention from the imminence of the delivery, as for example to count the assistance of a goodmother or, to the less, of a woman with experience (By the way, the other gospels do not say anything of this matter).

In the Gospel according to Matthew a series of stories about the birth of Jesus are explained, how it is that of the adoration of the magicians, the escape in Egypt and the death of the innocents. They are stories that do not appear in the other gospels. These stories not for being very known stop being particularly farfetched; they go beyond that extraordinary; they describe situations that can in no way be reconstructed ideally, which the behavior of the protagonists can not be understood. The police superintendent and the judge would not accept the reconstruction of the facts. That more surprising it is that in a page alone they can crowd such mess of implausibility and of decompositions of the structure of the language.
In the Gospel of  Matthew, 2.1, it is said textually: "Once born Jesus in Betlem de Judea, in time of the king Herod, and then some magicians come of Orient arrived to Jerusalem, while asking: Is it the king of the Jews that where he has been born? It is that we have seen the his star in the Orient, and we have come to adore him. In hearing it, the king Herod was upset and with him all Jerusalem... Then Herod made to call the magicians of being hidden, the time of the appearance of the star was informed completely for them... and, see!, the star that they had seen in Orient went them in front, until she stopped on where there was the boy... and, fall on knees, they adored him".
   We see the heap of troubles linguístics uses that the brief text contains. In first place, with respect to the question of the magicians "Where it is the king of the Jews that he has been born?", it is not a matter of making a comment or a criticism about a prodigious fact; to make a question is not a prodigy; the one that I point out is that the question is impossible, it does not have meaning, it is a type of question that can never be given, that it is unimaginable. If with that expression it was wanted to mean the arrival of the Messiah, of the son of God, then the answer of an ordinary citizen of Jerusalem while saying a thing can be imagined as well as we do not know anything of the arrival of the Messiah. That own it had been that Herod and the big priests showed their strangeness for that what the magicians said. A ruined sentence connects with another that is still it more. They say these kings or characters: It is that we have seen its|
his star in the Orient. This expression of language decomposition alone, she alone closes a continued disorder of the language. They are some characters who it seems suppose that a concrete star acts as indicator, of semaphore; it is a star that, according to them, she indicates the birth of the king of the Jews. They say that they have seen the star in the Orient. To see the star in the Orient is a sample of language decomposition again. It applied to a star is a bad use of the language again. Even if it was supposed that the star was a kind of luminous meteor ex profeso, it does not change the generation of disorders of the linguistic uses. Like this it occurs when the supposed one you Matthew evangelist he puts in mouth of the denominated magicians the expression we have seen the star. There is not way to compose a correct linguistic use. If in a given moment a little ordinary luminous weather phenomenon happens, piece of news has all the population of the affected geographical area. It was a star or a meteor, journey following the star does not explain that these magicians undertook a length. The star went to them in front them is again a corruption of the linguistic use: the stars do not go in front nor behind; nobody makes these types of ruined constructions. You still Matthew he increases the linguistic abuse with the expression "until she stopped above where there was the boy". The uses of the a language they are in the way that it is correct to say the man he stopped| or the clock stopped, but the expression does not tolerate the star she stopped; the stars do not stop; because of that the language does not accept the expression the star she stopped. The doctors has to be made see in theology that to halt a star in the language of the astronomers would be called the explosion of one new or the disintegration of a solar system.
   We put that it was a meteor that it caused the magicians these optic illusions. It| would be the question: and the inhabitants of Jerusalem? AND of it Herod? And the big priests? And the scribes of the people? And the roman governor, Poncius Pilatus? It seems that it should be understood that everybody would have seen the meteor extraordinary and that, like a man alone, everybody, in too much, they would have gone to Bethlehem.
The magicians, if they were not kings, were one big characters who went in delegation. It is farfetched that they arrived to Jerusalem in an unforeseen way and they surprised to the king Herod – "Herod was upset"-.
The text says it "... we have come to adore him". The kings do not adore themselves. This  Matthew he wraps the story until the apotheosis; it says the text (2.11) "... and, fall on knees, they adored him"; according to the text, it has to be supposed that those magicians were not amazed about that so farfetched place for a king or a God. If they adored that boy, it has to be deduced that they believed that that boy was a God; it will have to be concluded that those magicians of Orient were the first Christian believers "avant la lettre"; it would be a kind of Christianity a priori.
Herod has a behavior unbecoming to a king. It is farfetched that those characters arrived to Jerusalem like this, as to by surprise. That own, majority, is that the kings or the embassies agree previously on the visits abroad. That own it had been that Herod and the big priests and the Romans had also seen the star of Orient. That completely improper it is that the king Herod makes the magicians call of being hidden and says them some sentences of impossible linguistic use: " You go and brief completely about the boy, and, once you have found him, make me it know so that also I go to adore him". Or, it is, on the one hand the place indicates to the magicians where the boy has been born, and, for the other one, he however asks that they brief him them. That own - and that it can not happen in another way - it had been that Herod briefed himself of the matter personally; if he had wanted, their agents had arrived to Bethlehem before that the magicians. That own it had been to send their agents in advance; it had also been own that ihe offered some agents for that they went them and indicated them the way to Bethlehem. If Herod wanted to kill the baby of Bethlehem, had it perfectly within the reach: sending an assassin sufficed. It  says the evangelic story that Herod...envià to kill all the children of Bethlehem and of the surrounding, of two years in down. This writing gives testimony of a killing that is not confirmed by any other historical story; the other gospels do not say anything of this killing of children (Either they do not say anything of the magicians). Herod had not been able to carry out a so scandalous crime; he was a king with some very limited powers; Palestina was under the power of Rome. That first that they had found those magicians or kings had been the controls of the roman army.
Insisting about the bad use of the language of the evangelic story: it has to be supposed that the disorder of Herod is owed to the birth of a boy who might be a threat on his throne. However, according to the uses of the language, the kings or the princes are not born in improvised way, as to by surprise, in an unknown place. No, the princes are the sons of a king and are born in a royal palace. That waited for it is that Herod had told the magicians who were wrong, that  the queen had not given birth nor waited for child. So that also " I go to adore him": then, it understand that the magicians and Herod they accept the possibility of a God having been born in the form of human baby, in the form of child. To the language of the Jews God and not no other thing were only allowed to speak about adoring. A Jew who had said that a baby was God or son of God had been considerate mad person or blasphemer.

The return in Israel. When I produced the death of the king Herod, it has to be supposed that the piece of news stretche all over. Unlike the majority of the population, Joseph was informed of the death of Herod through an angel of the Man. This use of the angel seems spare.

The betrayal of Judas. It is the type of story of a situation that can not be given to the real life.  Robertson he explained the chronicles  of Jesus in the vegetable garden of Getsemaní corresponds with an play of popular theater of Babilònia; that this kind of starters were very abundant to the period in all the Mesopotàmia; with these starters representations that could be improvised in any place were made.
In  Matthew, 26.14, he narrates the betrayal with these words: "do you want for me what to give, and will I make him for you in tame?"; afterwards he explains that the big priests assigned him thirty sicles. In the 26.47, the one that would be the representation of the dam of Jesus, with this text, is narrated: "...  arrived Judas...amb a group with swords and garrottes... The betrayer he gave them this signal: he is, that who I will kiss".
The experts and the theologians do not say anything, but the inconsistency of the story comes off in view of a person of critical spirit. It is easy to see that the story can not square with the reality. It is unimaginable that one one he offers to the police what the police already have. The big priests and all Jerusalem knew well enough who was a Jesus. How is it possible that Judas dares to offering what it is to the reach of the big priests?
The scene where Judas probably makes the delivery of Jesus must be very emotional, but hers degree of inconsistency is unbearable. A filtrate in a secret organization under no circumstances goes of group with the police. In any moment, the police of the big priests they could stop Jesus. Or it is, what can in no way be recomposed is that a public character is given as if he were a secret agent.

The Christian churches make propaganda of the Christianity as the religion of the love, and, at all times, exalt The Gospels like the doctrine of the charity; and they present Jesucrist like the big champion of the doctrine of the love. But the reactionary speech typical of the Catholic Church is already present to the texts of the Gospels. I mean with this that the idea about a Jesus that he is in favor of the poor people and of the needy ones is erroneous. The last and main reelaboration of the Gospels, in the 4th century, that one that was part of the the said Bible the Vulgata, body of writing that picked up the interests of the Power, the ideological interests of the Empire and of the Catholic Church, was a fruit of some.
To the Gospels, certainly, Jesus him shown|presented like the big preacher of the love and of the charity to the poor people. But, at the same time, the words of Jesus are clear and abundant in a Catholic and reactionary meaning. Always and at all times, Jesus leaves enough clear that his offer is for the other life; it is that of the happiness: Lucky the ones pursued by the justice, because of them it is the kingdom of the Sky. To Matthew, 5.17, it is said that Jesus has come to perfect the Law - the Judaic law - and advises to his own disciples that if your justice does not surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees you will not enter at all into the Kingdom of the sky. The Judaic law says you will not commit adultery; For showing the degree of repression that has to be imposed to the sexuality, Jesus exhibits all a tremendous oratorical piece, while saying: "Everything that who looks at a woman coveting her, has already adulterated with them in his heart. If your right eye is an occasion of sin for you, pull it and launch it". It does not stop surprising villages of Judea where they had been made the majority of miracles, but that had not been converted that the champion of the charity becomes infuriated with several. And like this he launches the curse against the city of Cafarnaüm while saying that the luck of the land of Sodoma will be more bearable than yours. He had made miracles and had not become, he said. This is an aberrant linguistic deconstruction again. If the inhabitants of Cafarnaüm were entailed in a way similar to that of the inhabitants of other cities of Israel, to which place takes out the wrath of Jesus? It is the thing: in which way it can be distinguished if some inhabitants have converted themselves or not? Here, in this text, the word to convert sowing the absurd. We put the case of a family of Cafarnaüm that fulfills the law and has not been converted; according to Jesus they should end up to the gehenna, which creates confusion and is contradictory.
Jesus says that he has not come to abolish the Law, but to take to accomplishment (Matthew, 5.17). Jesus proposes that has to be more demanding, that has to go beyond the law, until the point of saying: "you will love to your enemy". And he closes it (Mateu,5.48) "with You, then, you are perfect how your celestial Father is perfect".
Conversion? Which conversion? If plenum of zeal is shown like a Jewish prophet. Besides, he preaches in the synagogues. He preaches according to the Law, but he finally puts an addition that is a scandal and a great sin there; he says that he is the Messiah, who is a God in person.



hello | 17/10/2008, 02:49

wedding dresses wedding dresses
wedding gowns wedding gowns
bridal gowns bridal gowns
lace front wigs lace wigs
wedding invitations invitations
lace wigs wigs

Z326 U12447 X1638

Feexiadib | 19/12/2013, 08:32


l12677 C13580 p990

excenuansic | 19/12/2013, 09:53


p7021 v18093 l15040

IncangeCinc | 19/12/2013, 12:18


g6503 w11938 Y16040

Feexiadib | 19/12/2013, 12:49


o8949 g18124 d3715

Erygiessicy | 19/12/2013, 14:56


n7708 n19943 N4088

Erygiessicy | 19/12/2013, 18:05


O6426 T17479 c5739

IncangeCinc | 20/12/2013, 03:29


Afegeix un comentari
Accessible and Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS
Powered by LifeType - Design by BalearWeb