Why do the Gospels not count? Part 1

Now how do you verify that that the gospels are accurate without having alternative sources? As for a fact that both of the gospels of Matthew and Luke as within them they each tell the story of Jesus (even if he should be called Immanuel) But then both of the two tales are not the same they in actual fact are contradictory and the story that we have been told at school or Church is a hybrid tale of the two, read my below abridged versions of the two tales you can read them both for yourself to disprove them if you so wished; But this is my proof that the gospels don’t count; as they can’t,

The book of Matthew: Joseph already lives in Bethlehem, Angel came down to Joseph and they tell him to call the baby Jesus, 3 Magi (Wise men) that followed a star in the east, another angel comes to Joseph and warns him of Herod and tells Joseph to get into Egypt, king Herod dies Jesus goes to Nazareth to become the Nazareth,

The book of Luke: Mary lives in Nazareth, Angel came down to Mary tells her to call it Jesus, Caesar Augustus declared a census so all men had to go back to their ancestral homes which was the reason for Joseph going to Bethlehem, but no room in the inn so they had to get lodge in the stable, the Angel goes to shepherds and tells them about the baby, then the shepherds go to Mary, a week later the baby is called Jesus, they took him from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, then they returned to Nazareth.

Above this text you probably have read my two abridged versions of the bible tale of how, potentially, your Lord Jesus was born, so in this paragraph I shall go into how they taught me it at a Church of England school, when I was younger. They said that within the year that would run up towards the 25th of December of the year of 1 AD, there's at least one fabrication towards the story which was the date as where in the 2 books of the bible does it mention the date? Before that point they said at my school that an angel came down to Mary and then Joseph which is like a Frankenstein version of the two separate versions and then the tale that the emperor of Rome did decree that their was to be an empire wide census with all of the citizens of Rome having to go back to the places of their birth, which was mentioned in Luke but not in Matthew was there even a census for the complete Roman empire with Caesar Augustus at the helm of it? I am not sure about it but if it was true then only Joseph would have to go to back to his ancestral home not Mary, so she could just stay at home while Joseph was on the road to Bethlehem within Luke I am not asking you to abandon your faith, I am just asking you to verify the facts before you start spouting off and defending a position that is indefensible, by the very books that people preach from, and they just go on about how it must be taken on faith.

Caesar Augustus reigned as emperor of the Roman empire from 27 BC to 14 AD which means that the authors of these book had got the correct Roman empire for the time that this supposedly took place, but Herod the Great died 4 BC so he couldn't have ordered the execution of all of the babies in Bethlehem, 

That isn't all that I could state to prove my point that the Gospels don't count but it's a start but I am planning to complete this at some other time.

So a Time Lord has 13 lives...

So a Time Lord has 13 lives and the Doctor is on his eleventh regeneration by the time of Matt Smith so their is only two regenerations left at the time that he melded himself with the ten regenerations that River Song had left over, so does that get The Doctor twenty one or twenty three.

Well how many regenerations did River Song actually have I thought she was on her third, so then ten given to the Doctor, as the first regeneration was after she was shot by Amy, River Song as a young child/the one below that has got a crack in her helmet. Then she regenerates into her second form which is the one to the right hand side of the previously mentioned  picture but then her next regeneration is triggered by the gun that is shot by Hitler but their wasn't any contact between the bullets and River; was their? As I can't see how the bullets hit her didn't Hitler shoot all of the bullets at the Teselecta unless he was a terrible shot which it didn't look like  as the Teselecta seemed to take the brunt of impact of the bullets that were being shot at him by Hitler, so how and why did she actually regenerate into the one that is River Song from the day of the Tenth Doctor and from all of the after episodes.

But then within River Song short on screen life it looks like a Time Lord can influence their future regenerations by thinking, and they don't age at the same rate as us they each seem to have a personally independent growth rates, as River number 2 Says she's focusing on a dress size and then she goes and transforms into Alex; the top one on the the picture. But from the first generation of River Song as she was a young girl in her first form 1969 (the year of the moon) but then we see at the end of that episode we see her regenerating but we don't know what year that regeneration place in all we know is that it was in-between 1969 and Amy Pond's/her mothers birth but then she'd be having to live in that time stream for 24 years until She can go to school with her mother, and then she'd have to re-engage her growth hormones to get her to act as if she was the same age as Amy, then.

Conclusions I have gathered from the above case study are that Time Lords can control their regenerations to a certain extent and they can also control the speed at witch they each age, or was that just River Song that can do all of those things?

Is Dr Zakir Naik a liar?

Dr Zakir Naik is someone that is a defender of the Islamic faith now I searched for him on the request of a friend of mine, so I did and this was the first result that I clicked on:




When he answered the question: if a person that was born a Muslim (how absurd you can't be born to believe a certain way, but I think what she is meaning is that if a person that was born of a Muslim family) Should be punished by death.

Then Dr Zakir said that he doesn't know of any verse in the Qur'an which is understandable as all of us are only human you can't have memorised the whole book, it's a long book and he asks her to point out in the Qur'an where is it? If she could have answered his question with the answer of Surat An-Nisā' 4:89 as in that  passage of the Qur'an goes exactly like this

"They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."

Which states quite clearly not to take their lives from them until they emigrate from the cause of Allah which I'm assuming is Islam. So that means you lied Dr Zakir Naik, not about the part where you said that you had never read a verse in the Qur'an. But then later on in the video he said that we all are born a Muslim so then by his own logic every person that doesn't state that they believe in Allah is going to Jahannam/Hell.

So I'm attempting to understand how...

So I'm attempting to understand how a book which I thought was the foundational building blocks of any modern-day religion can openly state that if you believe in their type of superstitious nonsense you are going to have to be willing to fight for it, sounds a little bit like a passage from the old testament, and all those that don't believe the way that you do you should fight the the case of the false leader, and then it goes onto state that you should fight against the allies of Satan, so that passage immediately means it can't be out of the old testament, as there was no Satan in that book, anyway what is Satan if not a made up personification of our darker sides which we all  have.
I shall now reveille the actual statement and it was from the Qur'an, Surat An-Nisa (The Women) 4:76-

Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah , and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.
How can any religion that openly holds that oppionion within the pages of a "sacred" text be considered the religion of peace I don't know.

Is Disney ready?

This is a serious question for the biggest joke that's in the film making industry, and I mean that seriously 

As Disney it is one of the biggest film making companies, if not the biggest, and I meant joke as in why has it decided to pay over 4 billion pounds for a film franchise that the initial creator of it has already said that no more film shall be made out of the series, so now you've probably got about half of those die hard fans really peeved about now by Disney announcing that a new star wars trilogy is going to put into production which is only logical as they just paid a total of $4.05 billion for Lucas films which is a lot of money, as George Lucas, the founder of Lucas films, is set to retire/has already retired. 

^{You suppose it's going to do better for the franchise as it will get the series more fans?} 

^{That as good as it sounds I don’t think more fans is what Star Wars needs, it didn’t really need anything else to go down as one of the greatest film series in history. But some of my other friends that were Star Wars fans with me when we were in infants/juniors school, if those terms are alien to you they were the two sections that were reformed into primary I know what I have written before may look a little condescending but it isn't intended to be that way.}

Anyway I do not think that the Disney princesses are ready for princess Leia as I’m unsure if you know what Princess Leia was wearing during the begging of episode VI; The Return of the Jedi, that hyper skimpy outfit. As I get it that Disney is attempting to change the definition of a Disney princess from Snow White, Cinderella types of people, basically the Damsel in Distress routine as that was the old basic tenant of basically all Disney Princess films but I have seen Brave/the newest Disney Princess film and the princess Merida who seemed to have a sincerely toned down version of Leia. But she stays fully dressed aka not in a skimpy bikini type thing for all of her film (and the fact that she was an animated character).

I'm just lucky that I'm not one of those hard-core fans that aren't waiting to slate Disney when it doesn't meet their expectations another proportion nor am I one of those equally hard-core fans that enjoyed the original trilogy so much that the prequel trilogy didn't do the original series justice, I may have to warn you that my two favourite Star Wars films are episode VI the Return of the Jedi and episode II the Attack of the Clones. 

Which brings me onto the question that I started off with which is “is Disney ready to have this tremendous gauntlet passed on to them?” Well I am unsure if it should had taken up this certain gauntlet especially with the Disney Princess issue as mentioned earlier in this article, but Disney has also bought the rights to some of Marvels films and the one that has been seen by me, the Avengers, it was pretty fantastic, so I don’t want to be disappointed by any of the future trilogies of Star Wars by those people at Disney. So Disney do not whatever you do put princess Leia in the damsel in distress role.

What in Obama's Name was Mr Obi-Man talking about

Mr Obi-Man I mean Mr Obama and I be typing about the epic fail that he made in the below video clip.

I am saying that he made an epic fail because he did, enacting two separate Sci-Fi epics and combining them the first of which was the Jedi of Star wars fame and the second was the Vulcan mind meld but he spoke of Jedi Mind melds when every one should know that there is no such thing as a Jedi Mind Meld in any of the current 6 Star Wars films it's Mind Tricks that the Jedi use.

Oh how you disappoint me Mr Obi-Man, I'm so glad that it's not you that is running the country that I am living in..