The Exodus: The Violent Jews

The Ten Commandments has immortalised the story of Exodus. The depictions in the movie regarding several aspects of the story has formed a sort of stereotypical image about the whole event. However, if we look beyond the movie and go back to the original text, the entire gamut of stereotypes that we have, would slowly give way. The movie depicts the a gloomy picture of the life of Israelites in Egypt and emphasizes more upon their love for peace, faith in God and almost forces us to empathise with their plight in Egypt under the oppressive pharaonic rule. Moreover, while the Israelites were fleeing Egypt, they are shown to be totally unarmed and with a little possibility of confronting the chasing army of the Pharaoh.
But was the picture so simple? Even the Book of Exodus donot have such moderate approach. Let us consider some statements in the book-- "He said to his people "These Israelites are so numerous and strong that they are a threat to us. In case of war, they might join our enemies in order to fight against us and might escape from the country" (Exodus 1:9,10)
This statement rightly suggests that the Israelites in Egypt were strong enough to challange the power of the pharaoh and that the possibility of them fighting against the pharaoh during a possible future invasion suggests Egypt might have been going thorugh a phase of civil war. The Israelites were thus armed, strong and threatend the Pharaonic government.
Moreover, there are possible clues that the Israelites already had an organised army. Often the book refers to the "Leaders of Israel in Egypt" this suggests the existence of an organised leadership who might have headed the challange against the Pharaoh.
Finally, in Exodus 13:17,18, there is a clear indication that God wants Israelites to fight the chasing Egyptian army and it clearly stated that the "Israelites were armed for battle".
If the Israelites wee renslaved by the pharaoh, why would he let them keep armaments? No statesman would dare to do that as the pharaoh was always concerned that Israelites might join the invaders against the pharaoh. If the Israelites were really subjected to extreme slavery and torture, how was it possible for them to organise an army, large enough that they would dare to confront the army of the pharaoh? My hypothesis is that, the Israelites never were slaves under the pharaonic rule. They infact were rebels, whom the pharaoh wanted to subdue. The entire depiction of slavery I think is a mere imagery through which the Israelites expressed their dislike towards the overlordship of the pharaoh. As the Indians would often refer to their lives under the British rule as "slavery", thia depiction in the Bible might have had similar implications. Finally, the pharaoh might have ousted the rebels from Egypt and might have chased them down and a fierce battle ensued.................however, the Bible is silent about the battle.

The Exodus: An Introduction

The Exodus formed the central event of the history of the Jews. The religions like Judaism, Christianity and finally Islam had looked back to this event in order to trace their history and religion. The Old Testament portrays the Exodus, as an act of deliverance of the people of Israel, from the extreme bondage of slavery from the Egyptians. The ten plagues that ravaged Egypt had ultimately made the Pharaoh give in, and liberate the Hebrews. However, the Pharaoh changes his mind, and as the Hebrews left, he persued them along with his army. Ultimately, the God of Abraham rescues the fleeing party of Moses by creating a passage through the Red sea by parting the waters. And as the Egyptians followed them, the waters returned and the entire Egyptian regiment drowned.
This story of divine intervention through the person of Moses, had impressed the humanity for centuries. The sinful humanity had often taken repose to these stories and sought divine favour and strength. Hollywood resurrected the event to the status of a classic. But were these myths hsitorical? Had they really taken place? Or are they plain and simple stories? Was there any scientific explanation behind the seemingly supernatural events that took place? All these had haunted the scholars for quite a long time. Opinions and possibilities galore. I would discuss certain possibilities and share my own opinion with you.

Anyte and the Muses

Hellenistic Epigram

"...in weaving many lilies of Anyte, and many martagons of Moero and of Sappho
Melanippides budding into clear hymns, and the fresh shoot of the
vine-blossom of Simonides; twining to mingle therewith the spice-
scented flowering iris of Nossis, on whose tablets love melted
the wax, and with her, margerain from sweet-breathed Rhianus, and
the delicious maiden-fleshed crocus of Erinna, and the
hyacinth of Alcaeus, vocal among the poets...."

From The Garland of Meleager of Gadara

The Greco-Roman poets regularly asked the immortal Muses for help in their tasks:

Happy is he whom the Muses love: sweet flows speech from his lips.
[From Homeric Hymn to the Muses and Apollo]

and credited the Muses with their poetic successes. Thus it was as high tribute to their poetry that a poet from the first century B.C., Antipater of Thessalonica, wrote a catalogue of the most respected women poets, in which he called them the nine earthly muses. They were:

• Praxilla
• Moero
• Anyte
• Sappho
• Erinna
• Telesilla
• Korinna
• Nossis and
• Myrtis.

Antipater compared one of the nine mortal muses, Anyte of Tegea (fl. 300 B.C.), to Homer. She was also the first poet mentioned in Meleager of Gadara's "Garland" of the best Greek poets.

Anyte was one of the first Greek poets to make use of the epigram. She wrote memorial epitaphs about grieving men and women, evincing pity and paying attention to the specifics of the death -- sometimes described as a feminine perspective. Anyte may have been the first to write animal memorials. In these she commemorated such beloved animals as a war horse and a child's pet grasshopper.

Anyte may also have created the poetic landscape for pastoral poems. In The Women and the Lyre, Jane McIntosh Snyder describes the pastoral world of Anyte of Tegea as:

"a peaceful world of hot, blazing sun and cool refreshing fountains; a world inhabited by goatherds, travelers, children, and pasturing flocks, graced by the presence of Pan, Hermes, and other rustic deities. It is a place of delightful refreshment and of escape from the mundane realities of work, war or death...."

We have more of the complete poems of Anyte than of any other ancient Greek woman writer. Between twenty and twenty-four of the epigrams of Anyte are included in the Greek Anthology. Even so, and even though her approach to poetry was personal, we know next to nothing about Anyte's life.

But unfortunately, though we would have loved it to be otherwise, but this has to end in a mystery as well... like so many others.. a great loss..

101 Clear Contradictions In The Bible

Contradiction #1
Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24:1)
(b) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1).

Contradiction #2
In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9).
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5).

Contradiction #3
How many fighting men were found in Judah?
(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9).
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5).

Contradiction #4
God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13).
(b) Three (1 Chronicles 21:12).

Contradiction #5
How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

Contradiction #6
How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8).
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).

Contradiction #7
How long did he rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Three months (2 Kings 24:8).
(b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9).

Contradiction #8
The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?
(a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8).
(b) Three hundred (1 Chronicles 11:11).

Contradiction #9
When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
(a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6).
(b) Before (1 Chronicles 13 and 14).

Contradiction #10
How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
(a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20).
(b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8, 9).

Contradiction #11
When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
(b) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

Contradiction #12
How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
(a) Forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26).
(b) Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25).

Contradiction #13
In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
(a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:8).
(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Contradiction #14
How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?
(a) Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)
(b) Three thousand three hundred (1 Kings 5:16).

Contradiction #15
Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?
(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26).
(b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5).

Contradiction #16
Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab? (a) Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6).
(b) Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11).

Contradiction #17
How many were the children of Zattu?
(a) Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)
(b) Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13).

Contradiction #18
How many were the children of Azgad?
(a) One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12).
(b) Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17).

Contradiction #19
How many were the children of Adin?
(a) Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15).
(b) Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20).

Contradiction #20
How many were the children of Hashum?
(a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19).
(b) Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22).

Contradiction #21
How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?
(a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28).
(b) One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32).

Contradiction #22
Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:
(a) 29,818 (Ezra).
(b) 31, 089 (Nehemiah).

Contradiction #23
How many singers accompanied the assembly?
(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65).
(b) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67).

Contradiction #24
What was the name of King Abijah's mother?
(a) Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2).
(b) Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20).
But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27).

Contradiction #25
Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?
(a) Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40).
(b) No (Joshua 15:63).

Contradiction #26
Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16).
(b) Heli (Luke 3:23).

Contradiction #27
Jesus descended from which son of David?
(a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6).
(b) Nathan (Luke 3:31).

Contradiction #28
Who was the father of Shealtiel
(a) Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12).
(b) Neri (Luke 3:27).

Contradiction #29
Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?
(a) Abiud (Matthew 1:13).
(b) Rhesa (Luke 3:27).
But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: I. Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v. Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (1 Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anywhere.

Contradiction #30
Who was the father of Uzziah?
(a) Joram (Matthew 1:8).
(b) Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1).

Contradiction #31
Who as the father of Jechoniah?
(a) Josiah (Matthew 1:11).
(b) Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16).

Contradiction #32
How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?
(a) Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17).
(b) But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1:12-16).

Contradiction #33
Who was the father of Shelah?
(a) Cainan (Luke 3:35-36).
(b) Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12).

Contradiction #34
Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?
(a) Yes (Matthew 11:14, 17:10-13).
(b) No (John 1:19-21).

Contradiction #35
Would Jesus inherit David's throne?
(a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32).
(b) No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1:11, 1 Chronicles 3:16).
And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David's throne (Jeremiah 36:30).

Contradiction #36
Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?
(a) One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it."
(b) Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon."

Contradiction #37
How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
(a) By a revelation from heaven (Matthew16:17).
(b) His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41).

Contradiction #38
Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?
(a) By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22).
(b) On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43).

Contradiction #39
When Jesus met Jairus was Jairus' daughter already dead?
(a) Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, "My daughter has just died."
(b) No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death."

Contradiction #40
Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?
(a) Yes (Mark 6:8).
(b) No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3).

Contradiction #41
Did Herod think that Jesus was John the baptist?
(a) Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16).
(b) No (Luke 9:9)

Contradiction #42
Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?
(a) Yes (Matthew 3:13-14).
(b) No (John 1:32, 33).

Contradiction #43
Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus after his baptism?
(a) Yes (John 1:32, 33).
(b) No (Matthew 11:2).

Contradiction #44
According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?
(a) "If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true"(John 5:31).
(b) "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true" (John 8:14).

Contradiction #45
When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?
(a) Yes (Matthew 21:12).
(b) No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark 11:1-17).

Contradiction #46
The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?
(a) Yes. (Matthew 21:19).
(b) No. It withered overnight (Mark 11:20).

Contradiction #47
Did Judas kiss Jesus?
(a) Yes (Matthew 26:48-50).
(b) No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12).

Contradiction #48
What did Jesus say about Peter's denial?
(a) "The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times" (John 13:38).
(b) "Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times" (Mark 14:30). When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72).
Therefore prediction (a) failed.

Contradiction #49
Did Jesus bear his own cross?
(a) Yes (John 19:17).
(b) No (Matthew 27:31-32).

Contradiction #50
Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?
(a) Yes (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38).
(b) No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46).

Contradiction #51
Did Jesus say anything secretly?
(a) No. "I have said nothing secretly" (John 18:20).
(b) Yes. "He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything" (Mark 4:34). The disciples asked him "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" (Matthew 13:10-11).

Contradiction #52
Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?
(a) On the cross (Mark 15:23).
(b) In Pilate's court (John 19:14).

Contradiction #53
The gospels say that two thieves were crucified along with Jesus. Did both thieves mock Jesus?
(a) Yes (Mark 15:32).
(b) No. One of them mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus (Luke 23:43).

Contradiction #54
Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?
(a) Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).
(b) No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, "I have not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17).

Contradiction #55
When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?
(a) Yes (Acts 9:7).
(b) No (Acts 22:9).

Contradiction #56
When Paul saw the light he fell to the ground. Did his traveling companions also fall to the ground?
(a) Yes (Acts 26:14).
(b) No (Acts 9:7).

Contradiction #57
Did the voice spell out on the spot what Paul's duties were to be? (a) Yes (Acts 26:16-18). (b) No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts 9:7; 22:10).

Contradiction #58
When the Israelites dwelt in Shittin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died in that plague?
(a) Twenty-four thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9).
(b) Twenty-three thousand (1 Corinthians 10:8).

Contradiction #59
How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt?
(a) Seventy souls (Genesis 46:27).
(b) Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14).

Contradiction #60
What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?
(a) He bought a field (Acts 1:18).
(b) He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5).

Contradiction #61
How did Judas die?
(a) After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5).
(b) After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18).

Contradiction #62
Why is the field called "Field of Blood"?
(a) Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8).
(b) Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19).

Contradiction #63
Who is a ransom for whom?
(a) "The Son of Man came . . . to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). " . . . Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all . . . " (1 Timothy 2:5-6).
(b) "The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the faithless for the upright" (Proverbs 21:18).

Contradiction #64
Is the law of Moses useful?
(a) Yes. "All scripture is . . . profitable . . ." (2 Timothy 3:16).
(b) No. ". . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness . . . " (Hebrews 7:18).

Contradiction #65
What was the exact wording on the cross?
(a) "This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matthew 27:37).
(b) "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26)
(c) "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke 23:38).
(d) "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" (John 19:19).

Contradiction #66
Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?
(a) Yes (Matthew 14:5).
(b) No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20).

Contradiction #67
Who was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve?
(a) Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19).
(b) Judas son of James is the corresponding name in Luke's gospel (Luke 6:12-16).

Contradiction #68
Jesus saw a man sitting at the tax collector's office and called him to be his disciple. What was his name?
(a) Matthew (Matthew 9:9).
(b) Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27).

Contradiction #69
Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal or the daytime after?
(a) After (Mark 14:12-17)
(b) Before. Before the feast of the Passover (John 13:1) Judas went out at night (John 13:30). The other disciples thought he was going out to buy supplies to prepare for the Passover meal (John 13:29). When Jesus was arrested, the Jews did not enter Pilate's judgement hall because they wanted to stay clean to eat the Passover (John 18:28). When the judgement was pronounced against Jesus, it was about the sixth hour on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14).

Contradiction #70
Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?
(a) Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42).
(b) No. (John 12:27).

Contradiction #71
In the gospels which say that Jesus prayed to avoid the cross, how many times did he move away from his disciples to pray?
(a) Three (Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42).
(b) One. No opening is left for another two times. (Luke 22:39-46).

Contradiction #72
Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus went away and prayed three times. What were the words of the second prayer?
(a) Mark does not give the words but he says that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:39).
(b) Matthew gives us the words, and we can see that they are not the same as in the first (Matthew 26:42).

Contradiction #73
What did the centurion say when Jesus dies?
(a) "Certainly this man was innocent" (Luke 23:47).
(b) "Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mark 15:39).

Contradiction #74
When Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" in what language did he speak?
(a) Hebrew: the words are "Eli, Eli . . . " (Matthew 27:46).
(b) Aramaic: the words are "Eloi, Eloi . . . " (Mark 15:34).

Contradiction #75
According to the gospels, what were the last words of Jesus before he died?
(a) "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 23:46).
(b) "It is finished" (John 19:30).

Contradiction #76
When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this?
(a) Yes (Matthew 8:5).
(b) No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3, 6).

Contradiction #77
(a) Adam was told that if and when he eats the forbidden fruit he would die the same day (Genesis 2:17).
(b) Adam ate the fruit and went on to live to a ripe old age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5).

Contradiction #78
(a) God decided that the life-span of humans will be limited to 120 years (Genesis 6:3).
(b) Many people born after that lived longer than 120. Arpachshad lived 438 years. His son Shelah lived 433 years. His son Eber lived 464 years, etc. (Genesis 11:12-16).

Contradiction #79
Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven?
(a) No (John 3:13).
(b) Yes. "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11).

Contradiction #80
Who was high priest when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?
(a) Abiathar (Mark 2:26).
(b) Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20).

Contradiction #81
Was Jesus' body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs?
(a) Yes and his female disciples witnessed his burial (John 19:39-40).
(b) No. Jesus was simply wrapped in a linen shroud. Then the women bought and prepared spices "so that they may go and anoint him [Jesus]" (Mark 16:1).

Contradiction #82
When did the women buy the spices?
(a) After "the sabbath was past" (Mark 16:1).
(b) Before the sabbath. The women "prepared spices and ointments." Then, "on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55 to 24:1).

Contradiction #83
At what time of day did the women visit the tomb?
(a) "Toward the dawn" (Matthew 28:1).
(b) "When the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2).

Contradiction #84
What was the purpose for which the women went to the tomb?
(a) To anoint Jesus' body with spices (Mark 16:1;Luke 23:55 to 24:1).
(b) To see the tomb. Nothing about spices here (Matthew 28:1). For no specified reason. In this gospel the wrapping with spices had been done before the sabbath (John 20:1).

Contradiction #85
A large stone was placed at the entrance of the tomb. Where was the stone when the women arrived?
(a) They saw that the stone was "Rolled back" (Mark 16:4). They found the stone "rolled away from the tomb" (Luke 24:2). They saw that "the stone had been taken away from the tomb" (John 20:1)
(b) As the women approached, an angel descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and conversed with the women. Matthew made the women witness the spectacular rolling away of the stone (Matthew 28:1-6).

Contradiction #86
Did anyone tell the women what happened to Jesus' body?
(a) Yes. "A young man in a white robe" (Mark 16:5). "Two men . . . in dazzling apparel" later described as angels (Luke 24:4 and 24:23). An angel - the one who rolled back the stone (Matthew 16:2). In each case the women were told that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5 footnote).
(b) No. Mary met no one and returned saying, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him" (John 20:2).

Contradiction #87
When did Mary Magdalene first meet the resurrected Jesus? And how did she react?
(a) Mary and the other women met Jesus on their way back from their first and only visit to the tomb. They took hold of his feet and worshiped him (Matthew 28:9).
(b) On her second visit to the tomb Mary met Jesus just outside the tomb. When she saw Jesus she did not recognize him. She mistook him for the gardener. She still thinks that Jesus' body is laid to rest somewhere and she demands to know where. But when Jesus said her name she at once recognized him and called him "Teacher." Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me . . . " (John 20:11 to 17).

Contradiction #88
What was Jesus' instruction for his disciples?
(a) "Tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me" (Matthew 28:10).
(b) "Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17).

Contradiction #89
When did the disciples return to Galilee?
(a) Immediately, because when they saw Jesus in Galilee "some doubted" (Matthew 28:17). This period of uncertainty should not persist.
(b) After at least 40 days. That evening the disciples were still in Jerusalem (Luke 24:33). Jesus appeared to them there and told them, "stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). He was appearing to them "during forty days" (Acts 1:3), and "charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise . . . "(Acts 1:4).

Contradiction #90
To whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?
(a) "To the Ishmaelites" (Genesis 37:28).
(b) "To Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah" (Genesis 37:36).

Contradiction #91
Who brought Joseph to Egypt?
(a) The Ishmaelites bought Joseph and then "took Joseph to Egypt" (Genesis 37:28).
(b) "The Midianites had sold him in Egypt" (Genesis 37:36). Joseph said to his brothers "I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt" (Genesis 45:4).

Contradiction #92
Does God change his mind?
(a) Yes. The word of the Lord came to Samuel: "I repent that I have made Saul King . . ." (1 Samuel 15:10 to 11). (b) No. God "will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent" (1 Samuel 15:29). (c) Yes. "And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel" (1 Samuel 15:35). Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions: I. The Lord was sorry that he made man" (Genesis 6:6). " I am sorry that I have made them" (Genesis 6:7) ii."And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people" (Exodus 32:14) iii.(Lots of other such references).

Contradiction #93
The Bible says that for each miracle Moses and Aaron demonstrated the same by their secret arts. Then comes the following feat:
(a) Moses and Aaron converted all the available water into blood (Exodus 7:20-21).
(b) The magicians did the same (Exodus 7:22). This is impossible, since there would have been no water left to convert into blood.

Contradiction #94
Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).

Contradiction #95
Who killed Saul?
(a) "Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. . . . Thus Saul died... (1 Samuel 31:4-6).
(b) An Amalekite slew him (2 Samuel 1:1-16).

Contradiction #96
Does every man sin?
(a) Yes. "There is no man who does not sin" (1 Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and 1 John 1:8-10).
(b) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God.
Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God . . (1 John 5:1). "We should be called children of God; and so we are" (1 John 3:1). "He who loves is born of God" (1 John 4:7). "No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8).

Contradiction #97
Who will bear whose burden?
(a) "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2).
(b) "Each man will have to bear his own load" (Galatians 6:5).

Contradiction #98
How many disciples did Jesus appear to after his resurrection?
(a) Twelve (1 Corinthians 15:5).
(b) Eleven (Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:9-26, see also Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14 footnote; Luke 24:9; Luke 24:33).

Contradiction #99
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
(a) After his baptism, "the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days . . . (Mark 1:12-13).
(b) Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee — two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11).

Contradiction #100
Was baby Jesus's life threatened in Jerusalem?
(a) Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 - 23).
(b) No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40).

Contradiction #101
When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?
(a) They worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33).
(b) "They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened" (Mark 6:51-52).

i can't take the credit for compiling this article, i found this interesting piece and wanted to share it with you all...

May God in his infinite mercy guide us all to the truth.

Alexander the Defeated

Alexander the Great invaded India after the conquest of Persia. In the battle of Jhelum, he defeated Porus and in a dramatic interaction between the victorious and the defeated, Porus impresses Alexander by his boldness and gets back his kingdom as a reward.

This is the most popular story that commemorated Alexander’s invasion in India. It depicts a victorious and brave Alexander. But what if all these tales about a victorious invader were a myth? What if history presents a completely different and gloomy picture of Alexander’s invasion in India? What if the actual history and modern research topples the well groomed representation of a victorious Alexander and reveals a sad, devastated and defeated Alexander?

Well, that is what the true history has to say. Quite astonishingly, all the chronicles and writings about Alexander’s Indian adventure that we have today were actually composed two to three centuries after the death of the Macedonian hero. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake. Often the ancient Greek writers, who wrote about Alexander’s Indian campaign, had exaggerated the facts to a greater extent. What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. Most important was the work of Kautilya. As a shrewd politician, Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. Further, since the illuminated days of Buddha, the pali and Sanskrit literature had recorded Indian politics, economy, society in a great detail. They left distinct records about Bimbisara and Ajatsatru. They spoke about the Magadhan kings, the Mauryas and so on. But why did the keen observers of Indian politics miss out the invasion of Alexander? All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. It was perhaps the earliest European scholars who nurtured with the Indian ancient, found Alexander's invasion an important tool to legitimize the European presence and interests in the Indian subcontinent. Thus they portrayed the stereotypical image of a victorious Alexander in the Indian context.

Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. In the first encounter, Alexander fought for four days against the Swat people. Massaga was the stronghold of the warlike and prosperous Swat tribe. On the first day of this four day battle, Alexander was forced to retreat. The same fate awaited him on the second and third days. When Alexander lost men and was on the verge of defeat, he called for a truce. However, Alexander treacherously slaughtered the unaware and unarmed Swat population as they slept in the night of the fourth day believing that the battle was over.

In the second and third battles at Bazaira and Aornus, Alexander faced similar fate and ultimately resorted to pure and simple cheating to win those places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army. With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. The ancient chroniclers mentions of a huge army of Porus and gave some figures of his strength. But what was the strength of Alexander’s troop? The greek and roman chroniclers preferred to keep silent. However, the flow of events since Alexander invaded India suggests Alexander led a weak and small Macedonian army in the build up to the battle of Jhelum. Though the numerical majority might not be the x-factor in winning battles after the coming of gunpowder, in the days of Alexander, numerical majority decided a battle fought on land. Moreover, a large regiment of elephants that constituted the first row of Porus’ phalanx was a decisive factor also. In any case, the Macedonian horses would be frightened and the infantry would be trampled by the advancing elephants. Where Alexander’s troops failed against the petty regional tribal chiefdoms, how could they have crushed the huge and increasingly powerful army of Porus?

Ancient texts reveals that Alexander was seriously wounded and his horse Bucephala and his trusted general Nicaea died in the first charge of Porus. And yet, quite illogically, the ancient writers concluded the battle in favour of Alexander. The most popular version speaks of Alexander being the winner and that Alexander orders porus to surrender and thus follows the well known myth.

The events that followed the battle speak against Alexander’s victory. Those were:

Firstly, in his next two campaigns at Sangala and Malli, Alexander’s cavalry was totally destroyed and Alexander himself had to leave the troops on foot!!!

Secondly, whatever land that was gained was added to Porus’ kingdom. Alexander fought battles as if he was the general of Porus and especially in Sangala campaign where Alexander lost hundreds of soldiers. But the gains were not for him, but for Porus.

Thirdly, king Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.

Fourthly, when Alexander was fighting on the battlefield, Porus’ army rested in the garrison both at Sangala and Malli. If Alexander would have defeated Porus at helum, the opposite would have happened. It is quite illogical that the victor would engage his weakened force in battle in order to conquer new territories for the conquered and subdued. Alexander was mortally wounded in these campaigns also.

All these evidences and suspicious silence of the Greek and the Roman chroniclers suggests Alexander’s total defeat at Jhelum. It is also obvious that he signed a sort of subsidiary alliance with Porus. If the myth that I mentioned at the beginning had really taken place, then Alexander and Porus must have interchanged their positions. And that was history.

Alexander’s Indian campaign was a great blunder on his part and it certainly scripted the fall of this much celebrated conqueror.

What was the real cause of Alexander’s death?

Alexander the Great, also known as Alexander III, king of Macedonia, as we all know was one of the most successful military commanders in the history of Ancient Greece. He was born in the year 356 BC to King Phillip II and Queen Olympias. By the time of his death in 323 BC, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks. However twelve years of constant military campaigning finally took a toll on his health and he succumbed to a curious “illness”, leaving behind no clear successor. But did he really die of natural causes? The purpose of this article is to examine the causes of his premature demise.

For 12 years Alexander had personally led his men from the rugged highlands of Macedonia, in the north of the Greek peninsula, first destroying the rebellious Thebes, then crossing the Hellespont—today's Dardanelles—to begin his revenge on Persia. His troops fought their way across Anatolia, subjugating the great Persian Empire, defeating even the Bactrian armored cavalry, and winning onward, undefeated, as far as the Beas River in India. Alexander had been wounded many times, but nothing, it seemed, could overcome his boundless energy, his iron constitution, and his capacity for quick recovery. And now struck this curious ‘fever’, which modern doctors believe was typhoid, "complicated by bowel perforation and ascending paralysis."

There are various theories on the actual cause of Alexander’s death. Modern historians are generally divided on this issue. On the afternoon of June 10-11, 323 BC Alexander died in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon. Many ancient historians, like Plutarch and Arrian, believe that it was caused by the relapse of malaria which he contracted some 12 years ago. However a startling new theory has come to light which suggests that he was poisoned. Yes poisoned.

This theory derives from the story of Justin and Curtius. The original story states that Cassander, son of Antipater, the viceroy of Greece and his brother Iollas together conspired to bring about the downfall of the young monarch. Many around Alexander, including his most trusted generals, had powerful motivations for seeing Alexander gone. The poison that finished him off is commonly believed to be strychnine, a curious poison which is mainly used for killing small vertebrates like rodents. It causes muscular convulsions and effectively paralyses the spinal cord and the brain. According to the story, it was Iollas who actually administered the poison after Cassander had mixed it in his wine. However according to R. Lane Fox, the strongest argument against the poisoning theory is the fact that twelve days had passed between the start of his illness and his death and in the ancient world, such long-acting poisons were not available. But even then the poison theory is quite a plausible one.
The Diadochi, were supposedly the rival successors of Alexander’s huge empire. It is believed that it was actually the Diadochi, and not the sons of Antipater, who had a hand in Alexander’s “natural” death. Alexander had no natural heir and many close to him wanted to take advantage of that fact. According to T. Peter Limber, Alexander, on his deathbed, assembled his closest companions, to hear his answer to the inevitable question: to whom would he leave the then Macedonian empire? His answer is still debated. Arrian quotes it as, “Hoti to kratisto” – which means “to the strongest” or “most able”. If Alexander meant “to the strongest of my generals”, then he was almost certainly predicting a series of succession wars (which actually happened). Yet he had already handed his royal ring to Perdiccas, his second-in-command, thus appointing him regent. A final ambiguity is that instead of “Hoti to Kratisto”, the dying man may simply have said “Krater’oi”, referring to arguably his greatest and most trusted general, Craterus, whom he had already appointed as the regent of Macedonia! And shortly after Alexander’s death, Craterus was assassinated. By whom it is not known. What is known is that his empire was split between the Diadochi.

However most modern historians scoff at the poison theory and call it an attempt to “further romanticize the fanciful legend of Alexander”. According to John S. Marr of the Virginia Department of Health, Richmond and Charles H. Calisher of the Colorado State University, it was a disease, which was a combination of the recently-discovered West Nile Fever and Encephalitis, which actually felled the young king. In the 3rd century BC, a disease caused by West Nile virus arrived in Mesopotamia for the first time in recorded history, killing indigenous birds and an occasional human and causing only incidental febrile illnesses in many others. Over subsequent centuries the virus may have devolved, becoming less pathogenic for indigenous birds, while retaining its potential as a dangerous human pathogen. We now know that unexplained bird die-offs can foretell human cases of disease caused by West Nile virus. In 323 BC, a similar event might have been considered an omen of Alexander the Great’s death. Greek historian C.N. Sbarounis supports the natural cause theory but says that it was actually acute pancreatitis, which is usually caused by heavy alcohol consumption that vanquished the unconquerable king.

Many historians, like Plutarch and Aristobulus, back the “Typhoid Fever” theory. Historian Niel Roffe Chamberlain as well as a medical team headed by Dr. David W. Oldach and others from the University of Maryland laid out the case of typhoid fever in the 1998 June issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. An important clue is that he suffered from severe abdominal pain. This could have been the result of a perforated bowel caused by untreated typhoid fever.
However a new theory has come to light which suggests that Alexander might actually have been done to death by his beloved wife Roxana. She was the daughter of a Bactrian named Oxyartes of Balkh in Bactria (then eastern Persia, now northern Afghanistan), and married Alexander in 327 BC after he visited the fortress of Sogdian Rock. Historian Graham Philip and jounalist Steve Connor support the theory that it was actually Rozana who murdered the young monarch out of sheer jealously after Alexander professed his love for Hephaestion, son of Amyntor and a Macedonian aristocrat (this further backs claims that Alexander might actually have been bisexual). Another theory has been put forward by University of Otago poisons expert Dr. Leo Schep, who may actually hold the key to the mystery that has baffled historians for nearly two and a half thousand years. His theory is one of the leads in a documentary, Alexander the Great's Mysterious Death offering a plausible explanation for Alexander's untimely death, based on scientific and forensic research on information that has come down through history. Dr Schep had his theory on the murder weapon taken up as the lead case scenario, after fielding a call from a researcher with UK film company Atlantic Production's researcher late last year. He supports the poison theory completely but has withheld the identity of the supposed murderer, which will be disclosed later this year at a press conference after all the evidence pointing to this theory has been thoroughly confirmed. However many historians remain skeptical and unconvinced.

The mystery of Alexander’s death, as we can see, is a multi-layered and rather complex one. No clinching evidence has been found till date to support either the “natural causes” theory or the “poisoning” theory. What we have before us is a theory which is extremely hypothetical and not very substantial. Alexander’s death till now has been one of History’s great mysteries and one which has been widely debated in academic circles. Whether there is any truth in Dr. Schep’s claims remains to be seen. Whether any evidence will be found regarding the death of the enigmatic king only time will tell. From a purely personal point of view, I feel that Alexander’s death might not have been due to natural causes and there’s certainly more to it than meets the eye.

The pyramid is highlighted in red, and its two diagonals are extended beyond the end of the pyramid to the north-east and north-west. The mass of squiggly lines above the pyramid is the Delta of the Nile River, and, as you can see the two diagonals encase the Nile neatly and entirely. As we can well understand it needs a lot of technological advancement to actually make something of this magnitude.Did the Egyptians have someone walk hundreds of miles to the end of the delta and hold a really, really long piece of string while someone walked all the way back to the site of the pyramid. Then, those two people stood there while two more people repeated the process on the other side of the Pyramid. Just so that they could build a big building in such a way that its diagonals lie on those two lines??..Astonishing isn't it?

The big dark shape on the upper left of this diagram is the great pyramid. If you look at the compass rose in the bottom right, you can see that the pyramid is lined up exactly with the magnetic North Pole, a difference of only 16 minutes, or some absurdly small number like that (there are 60 minutes in one degree). How could the Egyptians possibly have built their pyramid facing the exact magnetic North Pole without even having a compass? a compass was not invented for a few thousand years after the ancient Egyptians were long gone? IS THAT LIKELY????






This is a photograph of the Great Pyramid of Giza, and its neighbor, as seen from the Sphinx, on the evening of the summer solstice. As you can see, the sun is setting in the exact center of the two pyramids. COINCIDENCE??? For the Egyptians to be able to do this, they must have known the day of the summer solstice, and they therefore, must have known the exact length of the year, or 365.25; once again, a fact not discovered until long after the Egyptians were gone.


This image is a diagram of the stars of the Belt of Orion. Now look at the diagram of the pyramids below.

Though this fact is not as remarkable, the positioning of the three Pyramids of Giza are exactly aligned with the position of the three stars in the belt of Orion, both in position and in size. While it is possible, it would create many difficulties for the Egyptians in terms of measuring huge distances. Not only this, but in fact, at the time that the pyramids were supposedly built (about 3000 BC), the stars that make up the Belt of Orion were not exactly at the correct angle to match up with the pyramids. If the location of the stars is traced back over thousands of years, the time at which the belt is exactly aligned with the pyramids is in fact 10,500 BC.

A time when there were supposedly no civilized humans living on the earth. Another fact to support this is, if you consider the Sphinx, a lion with a human head and then look at the size of the body, you can see that the body is perfectly proportioned for the head of a lion, not the human head. This human head looks tiny and silly sitting on top of the body. This is because the Sphinx was actually built in 10,500 BC, around the same time as the pyramids, with a real head of a lion. Evidence to support this is that there are signs of water erosion all over the Sphinx. The last time that there was any water nearby, aside from the Nile is around 10,000 BC. Also, the constellation of Leo the Lion (thus closely related to the Sphinx), was in fact rising directly behind the sun in 10,500 BC.

Are Egyptologists then saying that the Egyptians built their pyramids to be in the exact shape of Orion's Belt, but purposely aligned them differently from what was actually in the sky? That after they built the Sphinx, they purposely made the head look small and funny? Then, they broke their backs carrying water from the Nile just so that they could put water erosion lines all over the body????.. sounds silly doesn't it?
This is a photograph taken on the day of the winter solstice from the entrance of the Great Pyramid. The Big shape silhouetted in the middle of the photograph is the Sphinx. Since this is only a photograph, and not a movie, you can't get the full effect. But even in the photo, you can see that the sun is tracing around the Sphinx's head. In actuality, the sun rises exactly at the left side of the base of the Sphinx's head. Then it traces it all the way around until it sets on the right side of the Sphinx's head. COINCIDENCE???

Had the Egyptians done this, since this occurs only on the day of the winter solstice, they would have had to have known the exact length of a year.
IS THAT LIKELY???

I purposely put all these pictures and explained them as i wanted to make sure that everyone faces the similar strong impact that i experienced when i came across these facts..what do you have to say to these pieces of evidences?