The history of Jesus shrouds his only mission on earth.
The accounts of particularly Mathew, Mark, Luke and John written in the best way they could give critics room to challenge who the man Jesus is.
The dissimilarity in Jesus' ancestry as stipulated makes others think these writers of the gospel are writing about different individuals.
Now, his looks.
None of them really has an image of what Jesus looks like yet there are countless paintings of Jesus.
Paintings of a handsome man.
Even after torture by the Roman soldiers, he is still painted as a handsome man.
Good work by Mel Gibson in ''Passion Of The Christ'' that merited an Oscar.
It posted what is true.
Jesus was disfigured by torture.
Those who venture in Jesus' personality like Alfred Reynolds look at it as a matter of portraying Jesus in the likeness of an attractive model in the times of the painters.
Good looks have aesthetic advantage.
Such adventurers think the painters adopted that style because an ugly Jesus would be inimical.
Whatever they think or say ends with a question mark.
John The Baptist was not someone beauty would be attributed to yet he came to be feared and respected.
Whatever Jesus looked like or whatever way he was portrayed, it has nothing to do with the gospel.
His ancestry was not left out.
About his ancestry, apologist state equivocally that it still sums up the point that he was born by Jewish parents.
Critics will point out that contradictions are toxic to truth.
Whatever, there are elements that will deny truths just because it is something they do not want.
Contradictions in true matters will be a veritable springboard.
Whether Mathew's version of the gospel carries the inscription on the cross of Jesus as ''This is Jesus The King Of The Jews'', Mark in his version, ''The King Of The Jews'', Luke presented his, ''This Is The King Of The Jews'' and John writing that Pilate himself inscribed ''Jesus Of Nazareth, King Of The Jews'' do we have to go back to languages and translations or interpretations? All of these inscriptions are in English and no one is challenging the grammar.
Yet critics find it ample.
The dissimilarity in his anguish after he was nailed on the cross is another baseless straw they would like to hold on.
If there is anything that continued to tell the story of Jesus, it is the Bible.
Pauline Christians possibly never met Jesus in person so the Bible became what through which they would know about Jesus.
Christ centric adventurers come up with matters about Jesus not found in the Bible.
Is it because the Bible stated particularly on miracles that not everything Jesus did was recorded in the Bible, which could be because of time and space.
There are Christians who will be surprised to hear that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had two children.
Why it is not written in the Bible, such adventurers cannot say.
Whether Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had two children or not, what has it got to do with the gospel? Nothing.
The gospel Jesus brought to humanity was straight and never doubted.
From the human perspective, it sounds queer -love your enemy? Huh.
God cannot oblige humanity to an unbearable task.
If people cannot love their enemies, they will not believe in he that propagated such love.
It is the unique thing about Jesus that puts him apart in the universe and creation.
Whatever way anyone tries to look at Jesus, the gospel is clear.
The Good News.