Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Bible fraud’ Category

There is not existent in the world a single original book or manuscript of Hebrew or Christian Scriptures, containing the inspired Word of Yahveh. The most ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew texts date only from the eighth century of the era of Christ; while of the Christian books, said to have been written by the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost within the first century of the era, all, all are lost, and the oldest “copies” bear the marks of the fourth century. And even in this fourth century, so gross was the corruption of text, so numberless the errors and conflicting readings, that the great St. Jerome, author of the celebrated Latin Vulgate version of the Scriptures, has left it recorded, as his reason for his great work, that the sacred texts “varied so much that there were almost as many readings as codices,” or manuscript copies of the text. And for years past, the papal authorities have been collating all known extant versions and bits of Scriptures for the purpose of trying to edit them into one approved version of the inspired Word of Yahveh Curious indeed it seems that in this inspired revelation of Yahveh, the Hebrew God, to Man, wherein the awful destinies of the human soul are said to be revealed to eternal salvation or damnation, some ten thousand different, conflicting, and disputed readings and textual corruptions and verbal slips of inspiration admittedly exist in the inspired texts, with the knowledge and sufferance of the God whose awful will it all is; while the Providence of that same God, Yahveh, by special miraculous intervention has preserved wholly “incorrupt” through all the ages of faith, the cadavers and ghastly scraps and relics of holy saints and martyrs galore, from
the very Year One on, which are yet to-day (or at last reports were-Cath. Encyc., passim) as fresh, fragrant, and wholly “encorrupt” of flesh as when alive-which, in very truth, in the case of many saints-as their lives are recorded by the monks-is not saying very much for either freshness or fragrance.

An instance-e pluribus unumis that of the pioneer Saint Pachomius, who, ambitious to outdo in bodily mortification his companions in filth,
left the pig-sty in which he dwelt, and sat himself on the ground at the entrance of a cave full of hyenas in the pious desire of entering glory via their bestial maws; but the hyenas, rushing out upon the holy saint, stopped short of a sudden, sniffed him all over, turned tail, and left him in disgust uneaten.
AND TRANSLATIONS OF TRANSLATIONS
On the title-page of Bibles in current use is the statement “translated out of the original tongues”; but this does not tell the whole or the true story. The first translation of some of the Hebrew Scriptures (for all were not yet written) was the Septuagint into Greek, undertaken at the behest of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, of Egypt, begun at Alexandria about the year 285 B.C., and completed after some three hundred years. In many places this Greek translation differed widely from the Hebrew. About 392 A.D. Jerome made his translation from the Hebrew into Latin, this being the “Vulgate” version, which only gradually made its way into acceptance and suffered so many perversions that it was pronounced by Roger Bacon to be “horribly corrupt”; but it was adopted by the
Council of Trent in 1546 as the “sole authoritative source of quotation; and it [the Council] threatened withpunishment those who presumed to interpret the Scriptures contrary to the sense given them by the Fathers”
(New Int. Encyc., Vol. ]3: p. 251 ).
This Latin Vulgate, Old and New Testaments alike, with the Apocrypha added, was in its turn translated into English in the Douai Catholic version of 1609, thus removed three steps of translation from the Hebrew and two from the Greek. The Protestant versions in English, including the King James version of 1611, are more directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts of the respective Testaments. It is reported that the Tennessee legislator who sponsored the notorious “Anti-evolution” law in that state was greatly surprised to learn, from
the eye-opening revelations of the Scopes trial, that his cherished King James version of Holy Writ, whose precious petrified “Sacred science” he sought to protect from the destroying effects of modern knowledge, was not in the original language of “revelation,” in which Yahveh and the talking snake spoke to Adam and Eve. Some further anomalies and a number of tricks of translation will appear in their due order as we proceed.
WHEN THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN
It will be of signal value to inquire, for a moment, concerning the periods of time indicated by the Bible, and the times when the principal books of it were written and by whom they were written-oather, as that is the only course possible, to show, negatively, by whom, and when, they were not written. This inquiry will be confined to the “internal evidences” of the Bible texts themselves, with a bit of reference to their marginal editorial annotations. The force of such “internal proofs” is self-evident.
To assist to an easier understanding, take this illustration:
If one picks up a book, a newspaper, a letter, or any piece of written or printed matter which bears no datemark or name of some known writer, one may not be able to ascertain exactly when or by whom it was written or printed. But one can often very readily determine, by the nature of its contents, that it was not written or published until after such or such a known time; and hence that it could not have been written by some person already dead or of one not yet born. If such a document, for instance, contains the name of Julius Caesar or of Jesus Christ, this proves at once that it was written some time within the past 1900-odd years, and not possibly before the advent of these two personages. If it mentions President Washington or some incident of his administration, it is evident that it could not have been written before Washington became President, in 1789; if it mentions Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and Coolidge, it is proof that it was written as late as the date the latter became President.
So of every factual or fanciful allusion-it can go no higher than its source. In a word, we know that no writing can speak as of a matter of fact of any event, person, or thing, until after such event has become an accomplished fact, or such person or thing has existed. No one can to-day write even the name of the President of the United States in the year A.D. 1939. With this simple thumb-rule of ascertaining or approximating the time of production of written documents by what is known as their “internal evidences” we may gather some astonishing proofs as to when, and by whom, sundry inspired records of Holy Writ were not written-contrary to some currently accepted theories.
SOME LIGHTS ON BIBLE CHRONOLOGY
According to the chronology, or time-computations worked out of the Bible narratives (principally by Bishop Usaher) and printed in the margins of all well-edited Bibles, Catholic and Protestant alike, until recent ridicule shamed the Bible editors into quietly dropping them, the world and Man were created by the fiat or by the fingers of the Hebrew God Yahveh about 4004 years before the present so-called Christian Era, not yet two thousand years old; so that the reputed first man, Adam, inhabited the new-made earth slightly less than six
thousand years before the present time. The revelation of this interesting event-which by every token of human knowledge outside the Bible is known not to have occurred just when and how there related-and of many equally accredited events, is recorded (for wonder of mankind) in the first five books of the Bible Genesis to Deuteronomy, called the Pentateuch or Five Books, or, as entitled in the Bible, “The Five Books of Moses.”
Moses is reputed to have written them at the inspiration or by the revelation of Yahveh, the God of Israel. According to the Bible chronology, Moses lived some 1500 years before Christ; the date of his exodus out of Egypt with the Israelites is laid down as the year 1491 Before Christ, or some 2500 years after the Biblical creation of the world. So, if Moses wrote the account of the creation, the fall of man, the flood, and other notable historical events recorded in Genesis, he wrote of things happening, if ever they happened, 2500 years
more or less before his earthly time, and some of them before even man was created on earth; things which Moses of course could not personally have known. But it is explained that while this is true, yet Yahveh inspired Moses with a true knowledge or “revelation” of all those things unknown to him, and so what he wrote was revealed historical fact. This is a matter which will be noticed a little later.
But the Book of Genesis, and all the Five Books of Moses, contain many matters of “revealed” fact which occurred, if ever at all many hundreds of years after the death of Moses. Moses is not technically “numbered among the Prophets,” and he does not claim for himself to have been inspired both backwards and forwards, so as to write both past and future history. It is evident therefore, by every internal and human criterion, that these “five Books of Moses,” containing not only the past events referred to, but many future events-not in form of
prophecy, but as past occurrences — could not have been written by Moses, the principal character of the alleged Exodus and of the forty years’ wandering in the Wilderness of Sin, at the end of which he died. The cardinal significance of this fact, and of others connected with it, as bearing upon the historicity of Mosaic narrative and revelation, will appear in due course.
Indeed, in the light of modern knowledge, it is quite evident that Moses and the “Hebrews” of his supposed time (1500 B.C.) could not write at all; or, if at all, on the theory of their 430 years in Egypt, only in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Not till many centuries later did the Hebrews acquire the art of writing. Professor Breasted, the distinguished Egyptologist of the University of Chicago, points out that to the nomad Hebrews writing was unknown; and that it was not until about the time of Amos (about eight hundred years after Moses) that the Hebrews were just “learning to write”; that “they were now abandoning the clay tablet, and they wrote on papyrus with Egyptian pen and ink. They borrowed their alphabet from the Phoenician and Aramean merchants.” [James H. Breasted, Ancient Times (Boston: Ginn & Co.), see. 305] These Arameans themselves
borrowed the alphabet from the Phoenicians “about 1000 B.C.”; [Op. cit., see. 205.] the Phoenicians had
themselves “devised an alphabet drawn from Egyptian hieroglyphs.” [Op. cit., see. 400; see also Andrew
Norton, The Pentateuch, p. 44.]

Read Full Post »

The purpose of this article is to outline what I consider to be the major arguments in support of a ―pure-myth‖ viewpoint or position concerning the question of the historicity of the biblical figure we know as Jesus, a.k.a. Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth. A second purpose is to provide the reader with a selected bibliography of books, generally written by highly qualified biblical scholars, which the author has either used as sources of information, and/or has directly quoted from in the preparation of this paper. The author, himself, makes no pretense of being a ―biblical scholar,‖ only an avid reader of their works.

Before I attempt to present at least ―summaries‖ of arguments in support of the pure-myth point of view, (hereafter referred to as a ―position‖) I think it would be helpful to make clear the various positions which have traditionally been listed as possible. Some scholars have listed three positions. I prefer John Remsberg‘s four different options. The positions listed below are from Remsberg‘s 1909 book, The Christ, page 327, with slight additions of mine for clarification.

1. ―Orthodox Christians believe that Christ was a historical character. [However, he was] both supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.‖ (This is generally know as the ―literalist position.‖)

 2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the super-natural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.‖ (This is usually referred to as the ―historical myth‖ position.)

3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.‖ In other words, there was most likely a historical Jesus, but virtually all of the stories about him are mythical. (This is known as the ―philosophical myth‖ position.) My added comment would be that in the intervening years between 1909 and now, this position would no longer be considered at all ―radical,‖ and the Unitarians referred to in position 2, above, have shifted almost entirely to this third perspective.

 4. ―Other [‗more radical‘ is implied here] Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an [historic] existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.‖ I would add here that a natural concomitant of this position is that the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are entirely fictional—made up stories, no parts of which have any basis in reality whatsoever. (This is the ―pure-myth‖ position.)

The Seven Major Arguments

I admit that there may very well be more than ―seven major arguments‖ for the pure-myth position, and that in some instances the arguments presented here partially overlap. Also, many of the same arguments can be used to support position three. However, I have, perhaps arbitrarily, outlined the following seven arguments for the reader‘s consideration:

(1) No one seemed to have noticed Jesus in his time.

(2) The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

(3) The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths.

(4) What we now call ―Christianity‖ existed long before Jesus‘ time. It was derived from earlier ―scripture‖ and more ancient myths.

 (5) Paul, writing earlier than the gospels, clearly spoke of a ―spiritual‖ Christ. He knew nothing of a real, live human Jesus.

(6) There is no agreement at all concerning this putative historical Jesus‘ looks, lineage, biography, character, moral worthiness, or even his central message.

(7) The ―you-can‘t-have-it-both-ways‖ argument.

Again, the combination of all the arguments and opinions outlined in support of the above points will not absolutely ―prove‖ that there was no historical Jesus. Logicians tell us it is impossible to absolutely prove a negative. It might be possible that there was a ―real‖ William Tell who served as the inspiration for, and may have even engaged in some of the activities ascribed to the legendary Swiss folk hero. However, the great preponderance of the evidence we have at this time argues very strongly against this possibility. I believe that position four, described above, is an exact parallel to the pure myth claim for William Tell. The same claim might also be made about any of the long list of crucified saviors that have ―visited‖ earth long before the beginning of the first century of this era. My claim is, in other words, that applying ―Ockham‘s razor,‖ (e.g. the simplest, most logical explanation that comports with all the known facts), and considering the tremendous dearth of evidence to the contrary, the most rational conclusion is that there never was an historical Jesus. Further, I contend that he, and consequently all that is said about him, are entirely fictional.

Now that I‘ve made that exceedingly clear, let‘s get on with the arguments, one by one.

No one noticed Jesus in “his day.”

As most of the readers of this article know, Christian apologists, world-wide, have ―pointed with pride‖ to a handful of early extra-biblical writings which directly mention Jesus, John the Baptist, and/or James the Just, a.k.a. James the Brother of the Lord as a real first-century historical persons. ―Ah ha,‖ they say. ―Since you skeptics erroneously believe that the four Gospels are works of fiction, how can you account for these writings of reliable, unbiased historians who wrote about or referred to Jesus at or very near the time when he was alive?‖

Just to mention the one ―main gun‖ that Christian apologist have been firing at us skeptics for the past 1,800 years, (The difficulty of defending the Gospels has been a well-recognized problem for the church since they first where apparently ―noticed‘ by anyone around the middle of the second century.), I will briefly discuss the famous ―Testimonium Flavium.‖ This Latin phrase refers to a single paragraph of about twelve sentences which appears to most critics to have been inserted awkwardly between two paragraphs which make perfectly good sense without the insertion. The reference is in a book by the well-known first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus [37 – c95 CE]. The reference is contained in his book, The Antiquities of the Jews. This book is—appropriately enough for the reference to be contained in—a book about the early history of the Jews in the area where Jesus is supposed to have preached, and in the time when he was supposedly alive.

As Frank R. Zindler says, ―Although Flavius Josephus was born too late to be an eyewitness of the lives of Jesus or John the Baptist nevertheless he was a contemporary of the evangelists [assuming they existed] who wrote of these characters. He should have heard of Paul [if he existed, whom he never mentions]. Furthermore, from his priest-craft father, Matthias [b 6 CE] he should have known about the religious ferment supposedly stirred up by the doings of Jesus.‖ (Zindler, Frank R., The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 35). Yet this well-respected historian mentions none of this with the single exception of the paragraph referred to above. In that paragraph only, he names a man called Jesus. ―He was the Christ,‖ Josephus is made to say. He was a ―doer of wonderful works‖ and that ―Pilate condemned him to the cross.‖ The paragraph concludes that, ―The tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.‖ ―This day‖ would be about the year 90 CE, approximately when Josephus wrote his history book. This phrase, at the very least, is an obvious later interpolation as there was no ―tribe of Christians‖ during Josephus‘s time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

It is also interesting that the mention of this particular Jesus, ―Jesus the Christ,‖ is divulged by Josephus with no more emphasis than he gives to the other 20 Jesuses he speaks of in his writings. (See Leidner, Harold, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, p. 19 – 20). In summary, let me just say that the single paragraph referred to above has been one of the most thoroughly researched and debated topics in all of biblical criticism. Those that want a more detailed analysis can refer to Zindler‘s entire chapter on it in the above cited book, (―Faking Flavius‖, p. 31 to 73.) Additionally, Earl Doherty‘s book supporting the mythical Christ theory, The Jesus Puzzle discusses this and other early likely Christian interpolations in chapter 21, ―Flavius Josephus‖ p. 205 to 222. Referring to another oft-quoted reference to Jesus in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitas [c55CE-c120 CE], Doherty says, ―If the silence on Jesus in the earlier works of both Tacitus and Josephus casts doubt on the authenticity of their later references, then we truly have lost every clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human being [emphasis added] before the latter half of the second century.‖ (p. 222)

Think about that sentence for a minute. Dozens of books of Christian apologists will offer long lists of citations about Jesus from early writings. However, most of these citations refer to either clearly awkwardly done interpolations, whereas others were written by authors who lived anywhere from a century and a half up to several centuries past the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived. These quotations referring to Jesus and other Gospel characters simply repeat stories that the writer has heard from other Jesus cult enthusiasts. As such, they are of no value whatsoever. In addition to the above noted refutation of the most important references to a supposed historical Jesus written near Jesus‘ time, I should also mention at least two ―deafening silences‖ by highly regarded writers of the same time period. I am referring to the writings of Philo, an eminent Jewish philosopher and historian who lived during the early first century, and Justus of Tiberias, a native of Galilee who wrote a history covering the period in which Jesus is said to have lived. Neither one of them ever mentioned a ―Jesus.‖

The works of Justus have all perished now. However, we have the writings of a ninth century Christian Bishop and scholar of Constantinople, Photius, who says that he had read Justus‘ works. He reports, in utter amazement one might imagine, that, ―He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works he did.‖ (Jackson, J. G., Pagan Origins of the Jesus Myth, p. 8.) Personally, I find that quote absolutely jaw-dropping.

The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses

Whether one believes that the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) are partly fictional elaborations of some core of truth, or whether you believe they are entirely fictional is not the issue at this point. (What I see as a separate issue of their fictional or non-fictional status will be taken up in the next point.) The question here is simply, were the gospels written by human witnesses to the ―life and times‖ of the putative Jesus? This point can be handled quite briefly. The answer is a resounding ―No!‖ There is virtual unanimity of opinion by all un-brainwashed, rational biblical scholars—even so-called Christian scholars (perhaps an oxymoron)—that the gospels were written by now unknown writers anytime between 40 years after Jesus‘ time up to about 185 years after his supposed death, depending on what scholar one consults. Most scholars place Mark, the generally recognized first written gospel, at about the year 70 CE, just after the destruction of the Jewish temple of Yahweh. However, Earl Doherty has advanced some closely reasoned arguments that support a time ―around the years 85 to 90 CE.‖ (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 3).

 Famed Jesus scholar, Dr. G. A Wells summarizes in his 1988 book, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, ―The gospels are usually put between 70 and 110, with Mark at about 70, Matthew and Luke a little later, and John, the latest, at about 100. Acts (written as we shall see, by the author of Luke) and some of the pseudo-Pauline epistles are assigned to the turn of the century. I find all this convincing enough, except in the case of Mark, which I date at about 90 rather than 70. If this is correct, then all four gospels were written soon after 90 and drew some of their material from earlier documents which have not survived and from oral tradition, much of which must have been available from about 80, although it would have taken time for them to have become generally disseminated.‖ (Wells, op. cit. p. 10 & 11).

There is near unanimous agreement that the very first mention of the existence of what we now call the gospels was by Justin Martyr, in the 150s. Doherty says, however, that he may only have known of Matthew and Luke. ―Even at that, he does not refer to them by name, calling the documents he is quoting from ‗memoirs of the Apostles.‘ Moreover, his quotations for the most part do not agree with our present texts.‖ (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 259)

So, it seems that the ―eyewitness testimony‖ of the so-called ―apostles‖ was still being sort of ―worked out‖ a century and a half after J.C.‘s supposed birth.

The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths

Many large tomes have been entirely devoted to supporting the point that great sections, if not all, of the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament, are simply a retelling of fabulous tales based on older Jewish, Roman, Greek, Persian, and even more ancient Egyptian stories. Substantiating this point does not advance this paper‘s major thesis, except as it applies to the only supposed biblical ―evidence‖ in support of a historic Jesus—that is, that testimony provided by the four gospels. For those readers who might be interested in the spurious origins of not only the gospels, but also the entire bible, the names several entire books devoted to this subject can be found in the bibliography of this paper. It is interesting to me that a great many freethinkers and rationalists—people who might be reading this article—are very quick to agree that pretty much the entire bible is chock full of misinformation, forgeries, bad history and just plain lies. Not only that, but most rationalists are quite willing to accept the proposition that this mish-mash of prevarication was not simply a naive passing along of old legends, but were written for the express purpose of convincing (i.e. ―converting‖) the gullible reader into subscribing to the particular fanciful dogma the ancient writers were trying to peddle. However, for some reason or another that entirely escapes me—perhaps just early brainwashing imbedded as deeply as potty training—these same rationalists are reluctant to imagine that the four gospels are completely fictional.

Surely, they say, there must have been some sort of demythologized, even perhaps anonymous nobody who was arrested, tried by Roman authorities, then crucified. We can‘t be sure of any more details than that, they say. I simply ask, why must this be so? What more tangible evidence can anyone present that the whole story is not simply what it appears to be—a retelling of one or more of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of ancient sun-god or sky-god‘s traditional, descending then ascending god myths, generally consisting of elements such as of first some tribulations (a trial), conviction, crucifixion, and finally resurrection? One could go on for several paragraphs pointing out the many details of the ―passion story‖ that have parallels not only in more ancient myths, but also in earlier Jewish writings including the Old Testament. See, for example, Zechariah 9: 9, which foreshadows Jesus‘ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem on an ass; actually ―on an ass and the foal of an ass‖—a neat trick, eh?), and the foreshadowing of the whole ―passion story‖ in Psalms 22, the virgin birth in Isaiah 7: 14, his birth in Bethlehem in Micah 5: 2. All of this has been well noted for centuries. Why in the world would any rational person imagine that any of these fables were in any sense true? It is interesting to speculate on the source material for the first written gospel, the Gospel according to Mark. Perhaps Mark—probably a well educated Greek-speaking member of the Jewish Diaspora—had read the works of ―Philo Judaeus, the Jewish philosopher-theologian of Alexandria in Egypt.‖ (A speculation of Alvar Ellegard, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, p. 5) Or, perhaps he had heard the stories of the so-called ―Teacher of Righteousness‖ of the Essenes who may have lived (mythological or real—who knows?) sometime in the first century BCE. (Ellegard, op. cit., p. 258). Maybe Mark wrote in the second century as scholar Ellegard holds, and had read Flavius Philostratus‘s Life of Apollonius, whose life almost exactly paralleled the life of the mythical Jesus and who reportedly died in 98 CE. (See Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 9) Surely, he had read of the so-called ―Suffering Servant of the Lord‖ described in Isaiah 52: 13 – 53: 12. (See Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle, p. 80). Certainly Mark, and later the other gospel writers, had no shortage of inspiration. What they didn‘t have is anyone who was in any sense ―real.‖ It is important to remain focused on the primary reason why these gospels were written, or perhaps ―compiled‖ would be a better word. They were written for the express purpose of convincing the uneducated and gullible masses that they no longer needed to believe in a sort of mystical, unseen, spiritual Christ—a somewhat difficult concept for the unsophisticated to grasp even though it was familiar to them as I will discuss later. Here, in the gospels, the new Jesus cult offers a ―real‖, flesh and blood incarnation of god to believe in. (In truth, there was a terrific argument early on between the Gnostic Christians and the main line, later to become the Catholic Christians as to this ―flesh and blood‖ issue.) This savior figure spoke real words (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount, etc.), ate food, performed miracles, visited real places, and spoke to ―multitudes.‖ He was truly crucified, not allegorically crucified in a heavenly realm. Remember ―doubting Thomas‖? He wanted to stick his fingers into Jesus‘ wounds, just to be sure. (John 20: 26-27) I thought that was a “nice touch‖ for the last gospel fiction writer to add; don‘t you? For those of you that might still be unconvinced of the absolute untrustworthiness of the gospels in particular, I offer just one more powerful quotation for your consideration: ―Nearly every thing written concerning the gospels to the year 325, and all the copies of the gospels themselves to the same period, are lost or destroyed. The truth is that very few early Christian texts exist because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the Council of Nicea and the ―retouching‖ of 506 CE under Emperor Anastasius, which included ―revision‖ of the Church fathers‘ works—catastrophic acts that would be inconceivable if these ‗documents‘ were truly the precious testaments of the very Apostles themselves regarding the ‗Lord and Savior,‘ whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound fanaticism and endless wars. Repeating what would seem to be utter blasphemy, in the 11th and 12th centuries the ‗infallible Word of God‘ was ‗corrected‘ again by a variety of church officials. In addition to these major ‗revisions‘ have been many others, including copying and translation mistakes and deliberate mutilation and obfuscation of meaning.‖ (Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy, p. 26).

Still think the gospels are about real events? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I‘d like to talk to you about.

What we now call “Christianity” existed long before Jesus’ time

As with point two above, there is little or no debate among serious scholars that what we now call ―Christianity‖ has so heavily plagiarized from prior existing Christ and risen sun-god myths as to be virtually indistinguishable from many of them. Of course, first of all there is simply Judaism, which had long talked about and predicted a soon-to-arrive ―Christ.‖ Ironically, according to them, he still hasn‘t come. The documentation of this claim is the subject of literally hundreds of books. A small number of these books are quoted in this paper. Just to present a quick summation, I would like to quote a well-recognized scholar of the early 20th century. ―The Pagans had their holy days (from which the Christians plagiarized their Christmas, Easter, Rogation Days, etc.); their monks, nuns, religious processions carrying images of idols, incense, holy water, holy oil, chants, hymns, liturgies, confessions of sins to priests, revelations by gods to priests, prophecies, sacred writings of ‗holy bibles,‘ Pontiffs, Holy Fathers, holy crafty priesthoods. All these sacrosanct things of Christian ‗Revealed Religion,‘ were age-old pre-Christian Pagan myths and superstitions.‖ (Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless, p. 17 and 18) All of this is not even ―controversial‖ among knowledgeable secular biblical scholars. I will quote one more source, a small pamphlet published by The Freedom From Religion Foundation which ―zeroes in‖ on the mythical antecedents of the Jesus Christ figure. The pamphlet—really, a tract—is entitled, ―Cookie Cutter Christs.‖ The sun-god Mithra, who was very popular in the Roman Empire around 2000 years ago was ―born of a virgin about 600 BC, was celebrated on December 25. Magi brought gifts to his birth. His first worshipers were shepherds and he was followed in his travels by twelve companions. Mithra was slain upon a cross in Persia to make atonement for humankind and take away the sins of the world. His ascension to heaven was celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter).‖ Additionally, the pamphlet continues, ―Mithra celebrated a ‗Last Supper‘ with his 12 disciples. The Mythraists observed weekly sabbath days and celebrated the Eucharist by eating wafers marked with a cross.‖ Does any of this sound familiar? The same pamphlet notes that, ―Attis was born of a virgin mother named Nana, in Phrygia sometime before 200 BC. He was hanged on a tree, died, rose again, and was called ‗Father God‘.‖ ―Horus was born of the virgin Isis in Egypt around 1550 BC. Horus as an infant received gifts from three kings, and was crucified on a cross. There are about 200 close parallels of the careers of Horus and Jesus Christ.‖ ―Adonis (Tammuz) was born of a virgin mother called Ishtar (Easter), depicted like the Virgin Mary with her divine child in her arms. Adonis was regarded as both the son and husband of his mother Ishtar, as God the Father and God the Son.‖ We could go on and on. Any of the above named books will give the interested reader much more information about ancient gods along this same line. The mythology doesn‘t change much, just the name of the current sun-god de jure. Indeed, the parallels in the cult of Mithraism—perhaps Christianity‘s major contemporary and most competitive religion of the first century CE—most especially, are so striking that I have often reflected that had Emperor Constantine not mandated that Christianity be the Empire‘s only religion in 325 CE, and had that decree not been brutally enforced by the ―firebrand and the sword‖ for the next 1,700 years by the Catholic Church, then we might see steepled little Mithric Churches dotting the landscape throughout Europe and the United States especially. As part of this same fantasy, I have often wondered if there would now be heated debates as to whether or not the now recognized as mythic Mithra was somehow based on a historic, real flesh-and-blood, human being named Mithra. If the Catholic Mithraist myth enforcers had been equally as successful as have been the Catholic Jesus myth enforcers, I suppose the answer of the masses—and even of some atheists—throughout most of the world would clearly be, ―Yes, most likely there was a historic Mithra.‖ Incredible! What a brainwashing we have all been subjected to! Most well informed Christian apologists—even back to the early ―Church Fathers‖—admit that the above parallels are true. Their standard response is that just because there are all of these parallels doesn‘t necessarily prove that Jesus wasn‘t a real human figure who may have been just doing his best to ―fulfill‖ all the ancient prophesies, and to ―fit in‖ to the familiar legends about him. This counter-point can‘t be denied. I only ask the reader which of the two possible explanations seems the most likely?

Paul clearly spoke only of a “spiritual Christ,” not a human one.

 It is well recognized by all but the most fanatical fundamentalist bible scholars that Paul, writing between approximately 54 C. E. an 65 C.E., was not a ―witness to Jesus.‖ By his own admission, he saw Jesus ―in a vision‖ while on the road to Damascus. This Jesus was a purely mythical, ―spiritual Christ,‖ not in any sense a human being Christ. Paul ―received‖ this Jesus through a kind of divine revelation. I believe that Doherty explains this sort of ―Jesus‖ best when he says that the message Paul received, ―…was about a heavenly Son of God who was both an intermediary between God and the world, and a Savior figure. He was variously called Jesus, or Yeshua (meaning ‗Yahweh Saves‘ in Hebrew), the Christ (Greek for the Hebrew ―Mashiach,‖ or Messiah, meaning ‗Anointed One‘), and the Son. Some looked upon this new Son of God as a Reveler who bestowed saving knowledge of God, others as one who had undergone a sacrificial death and a resurrection. [In another heavenly realm] All manner of apostles like Paul were going about preaching this divine being and often not agreeing among themselves about him; indeed, they could be at each others‘ throats, as certain passages in Paul‘s letters revealed. This Son and Savior was not identified with a recent human man or placed in an earthly setting, much less given a ministry of teaching and miracle-working in Galilee. [Paul knew no details of the yet to be written, gospel ‗historical‘ Jesus.] Instead, he was a heavenly deity who had done his redeeming work in the supernatural dimension.‖ (The Jesus Puzzle p. 5.) This kind of thinking is very difficult for the modern mind. Remember that since every reader of this paper was born he or she has been constantly bombarded—well, except when you were in your church, synagogue, or mosque—with cause and effect, logical, scientific thinking. For the residents of Galilee two thousand years ago, however, nothing could have been more natural. The whole culture and the entire ―civilized world‖ was saturated with this way of thinking. It was, as Doherty explains, ―The view shared by a whole range of pagan salvation cults, each of which had its own savior god who had performed deeds in the mythical world. Like Paul‘s Christ, savior gods such as Attis and Osiris had been killed; like Paul‘s Christ, Osiris had been buried (after being dismembered); like Christ on the third day, Adonis and Dionysos had been resurrected from death. All these things were not regarded as historical; they had taken place in the world of myth and higher reality.‖ (Doherty, op cit. p. 16.) In summary, all of the parts of the New Testament attributed to a probably historical Paul are of no help at all in establishing a ―historical‖ Jesus, since they never speak of such a person.

There is no agreement on any information about this supposedly historical Jesus

By way of amplifying the above point, what I mean is that, normally, a very well-known historical person—even one existing as long as two thousand years ago—would certainly be much better known to historians than is Jesus. For example, we know much more about Alexander the Great, who lived 200 years before the Jesus character is said to have lived. Let‘s examine just a few points of reference that one might reasonably be expected to know about a person whose influence was so great that it literally change the course of history over the next two millenium. (1) Looks? No one in the entire bible gives any definitive description of Jesus whatsoever. He is depicted in artistic works, ranging from the ninth century up to modern times, as everything from being rather short with a ―male pattern baldness problem‖ to the tall, handsome Nordic Jesus with the neatly trimmed beard we all met in Sunday School. Secular scholar, Dr. William Harwood, an advocate of a ―historical nobody‖ who served as a basis of the mythical Jesus, believes that Jesus was, ―an odd looking man, balding, stooped, with joined eyebrows, and approximately 4 ft 6 in tall‖ (Mythology’s Last Gods, p. 63). Enough said. (2) Birth date? Biblical scholars of all stripes disagree as to the date of the mythical Jesus‘ birth. Dates range from about 4 BCE (the one most often quoted) to about 7 CA. (3) Birthplace? The bible says Bethlehem. However, Jesus is constantly referred to as ―Jesus of Nazareth.‖ Scholars now understand that this was probably a linguistic confusion and perhaps an early mistranslation. Jesus was a ―Nazarene,‖ the title of a sect, not a name having geographical associations. Thus, as G. A. Wells explains, ―‗Jesus the Nazarene‘ is equivalent to, say, ‗Henry the Quaker‘ or ‗George the Methodist.‘‖ (Wells, Did Jesus Exist, p. 147.) Furthermore, modern archeology has established that there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century. Dr. Harwood, mentioned above, argue strongly for the city of Capurnaum as a probable birth city. (4) Personal character and/or moral worthiness? Although we heard all about the loving, compassionate Jesus in church, and how we ought to ―turn the other cheek,‖ we were not given the quotations that urged his followers to bring those that would not have me for their leader and ―slay them before me.‖ (Luke 19: 27.) We were told not to lie. However, we read about how Jesus lied when it suited him. (See Mattill, A. J. Sweet Jesus, p. 103) We remember the part about not stealing, but we heard nothing about Jesus‘ habit of stealing pigs, wheat, donkeys, cash, cows, olive oil, and figs. (op. cit. p. 31-33.) Perhaps more critical than all of the above inconsistencies and silences is the confusion about what, exactly, was J.C.‘s central message? The problem of discerning a ―central message‖ is confounded not because there isn‘t one, but because there are too many. If one asks the average Christian what was Jesus‘ essential message to us, they look at you as if you must be the stupidest person they have ever met. Then, they explain patiently that, ―God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to die for us so as to atone for our sins, and that if you would simply believe in him, you could have a sort of second life, ever-lasting, in a place called heaven.‖ Now, at first you must try to ignore the sheer imbecility of what you just heard, and ask a few follow-up questions. You may ask something like, ―Well, how can I ‗believe on him‘ as the bible phrases it, when I am not clear about his full message and his teachings?‖ The Christian has a ready answer. ―You can read the bible and there you will learn all about his wonderful message to us.‖ ―I already did that,‖ you might say, ― but then I became even more confused.‖ As mentioned above, there seems to be hundreds of messages, often with conflicting ideas and pronouncements. You might also add that you were a bit confused as to whether you should pay more attention to Peter‘s Jewish ‗works-based‘ Christianity, or to Paul‘s Gentile ‗faith-based‘ Christianity. You confess further confusion when you read about the early Gnostic Christian‘s ‗knowledge‘ (Gnosis) based Christianity. Despite all your reading, you say, you are still ―unclear on the concept.‖ At this point the Christian will generally say something like, ―Jesus loves you anyway‖ and walk away. The summary point here is that because of the great amount of hopelessly conflicting information and the lack of any definitive information on everything about Jesus—his looks, lineage, biography, nature (three in one; one in three?), character, moral worthiness, message, etc.—it is clear, at least to this writer, that there is simply no one underneath this great pile of b.s. to see.

You can’t have it both ways

This last point can be briefly explained. Despite its simplicity, I think it is a very powerful argument for a completely fictional Jesus. It has been said ―many times in many ways,‖ as the song lyric goes, but Frank Zindler recently stated it quite succinctly. Zindler notes that many liberal Christian apologists will readily agree that, ―While the gospels cannot be taken literally, they are at least evidence of somebody [emphasis in original] extraordinary. But these same apologists miss the irony of Jesus being so obscure that no secular record of him survives. (It is ironic also that despite being a well-known public figure and rabble-rouser, Jesus nevertheless is so colorless and forgettable that the authorities have to bribe Judas to point him out!)‖ (The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 5) This last point Zindler puts in parenthesis because it assumes that the reader might think that at least some part of the gospel fables might be true. I believe, as does Zindler, that this is extraordinarily unlikely, to the point of a vanishing possibility. In conclusion, I believe that in this article I have at least ―hit the highlights‖ of the arguments for a purely fictional Jesus with his purely fictional ―gospel.‖ Clarence Darrow may have summarized the pure-myth position most succinctly when he said, ―I don‘t believe in Jesus because I don‘t believe in Mother Goose.‖ No, Virginia, I‘m afraid that it is time now to grow up. There really isn‘t any Santa Claus. And even though there may have been a Christian bishop, born in 270 CE, who was rumored to have secretly shared his inherited wealth with the poor, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the myth of the fat guy in a red suit who, on December 25th, drops down the chimney‘s of every world-wide Christian family who has one or more children to deliver presents, with the aide of a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. Additionally, there is also no Tooth Fairy, no Mother Goose, and Jesus never was!

———–

By Don Havis (havis@att.net)

Bibliography

Note: Some of the books listed here support a historical myth, or a philosophical myth position (positions 2 or 3, described earlier). Some, like Burton Mack, Robert Price and others seem to adopt an agnostic stance on the historicity matter, although they have often done some of the best research which has lead to a nearly complete destruction of any chance for such a historical Jesus. All the books in this bibliography are highly recommended. I have undoubtedly left out others that by chance I have not read or just didn‘t consider for inclusion. For those readers who wish to ―zero in‖ on the pure myth (position 4) supporters, I have indicated these books with an asterisk. *Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Conspiracy Ever Sold, Klempton, IL, Adventures Unlimited, 1999. Anonymous, ―Cookie Cutter Christs, nontract # 8‖, Madison, WI, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. No date. *Barker, Dan, Losing Faith in Faith, (See Chapter 51, ―Jesus: History or Myth‖), Madison, WI, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 1992. *Doherty, Earl, Challenging the Verdict, Ottawa Canada, Age of Reason Publications, 2001. *_______ , The Jesus Puzzle, Ottawa Canada, Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999. Ellegard, Alvar, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Woodstock, NY, The Overlook Press, 1999. *Freke, Timothy & Gandy, Peter, The Jesus Mysteries, NY, Harmony Books, 2000. Harwood, William, Mythology’s Last Gods, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1992. Helms, Randel, Gospel Fictions, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1988. Jackson, John G., Christianity Before Christ, Austin, TX, American Atheist Press, 1985. _______ , ―Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth,‖ (a pamphlet), Austin, TX, American Atheist Press, no date given. Leidner, Harold, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, Tampa, FL, Survey Books, 1999. Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote The New Testament? San Francisco, CA, HarperSanFrancisco, 1995. Mattill Jr., A. J., Sweet Jesus, Gordo, AL, The Flatwoods Free Press, 2002. McCabe, Joseph, The Forgery of the Old Testament and other essays, Buffalo, NY, Prometheus Books, 1993. Price, Robert M., Deconstructing Jesus, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 2000. Smith, Homer W., Man And His Gods, Boston, Little Brown & Co., 1956. *Wells, G. A., Did Jesus Exist? London, Elek Books, Ltd., 1975. *_______ , The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1988. Wheless, Joseph, Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of The Christian Religion, New York, Knopf, 1930. *Zindler, Frank R., The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, Cranford, NJ, American Atheist Press, 2003.

Read Full Post »

The “Gospel”, is it the inspired word of God or a clumsy compilation of the later forged documents by the Greek priests in order to revive their dying religion or to incorporate this new Christian cult into the new world order? I have read the Bible countless times and been a hardcore Catholic, Born again, evangelist and so forth and so on, but the discrepancies of the Bible had always amused me and put a big question mark on the authenticity of the Gospels. The church has claimed that the Gospel is apostolic and divine work, directly from “God”. I will discuss the New Testament gospel, which is of main relevance and core of Christianity. The here & there story of Jesus Christ as written down by Mathew, Mark, Luke & John is the prima fascia of Christian faith, or I rather call it a blind faith.

 However, the affirmation of the Gospel being an inspiration only happened twice by the sacred Vatican council in 1546 AD & 1870 AD.

 “These books are sacred and canonical because they contain revelation without error, and because, written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their Author.”(CE. fi, 543.)

 

 More recently, Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Prov. Deus. (1893), thus reaffirms the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Writ: “It will never be lawful to restrict inspiration merely to certain portions of the Holy Scriptures, or to grant that the sacred writers could have made a mistake. … They render in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded, and nothing else”.! (Ib.)

 ( “In 1546 the sacred council of Trent put Curse of God on any further tinkering with the inerrant Bible “Divine inspiration got amended under Leo XIII, known as the Pontifical Biblical Commission”. – CE. Ii,557 ).

It’s extremely difficult and impossible to trust that the Gospel is inspired by divinity, with all its forgeries and contradictions which can be noted by any scholar or a person who is a free thinker. Jesus Christ or his so-called apostles might or might not be the founders of Christianity, but it is sure that Emperor Constantine has great hand in making Christianity a state religion and to mould it in its current form. The entire credit of setting up the Christian faith rests solely in the hands of Emperor Constantine. In this posting, we are not going to discuss more on Constantine or other parts of Bible, but on the core and base of Christian foundation the Gospels according to Mark, Mathew, Luke and John.

Therefore lets go in the olden days when writing such fables for pleasure was in vogue among the scribes and writers to keep people busy in religious and mythological ideas, so that they would not have time to rebel against the rulers and the state. But in these Gospels the Hebrew God has been used apart from other Gods of Romans or Greeks or Egyptians. The possibility is the Hebrew God being used in creating the new Christian faith could be that the Hebrews had very strict codes in levels of authority and discipline in their faith as compared to other Gods in competition, which was loosely based and indiscipline. This ancient clerical trick of tempering with “Word of God” and amending its plenary divine inspiration and inerrancy, goes apace today, even to the extent of putting a veneer of civilization on the barbarian Hebrew God, and warping his own barbarian words so as to make a semblance of a “God of Mercy” out of the self-styled “Jealous God” of Holy Writ.

Associated Press dispatches published to the world today, relate that “the Vaticans International Commission on the revision of the Bible is taking steps to correct one of the most famous Biblical passages, Exodus XX,5, now believed to have been mistranslated” ! – N.Y.Times. May 18, 1930.

The actual text and “what the Vatican Commission THINKS it should read”, are here quoted so that all may judge of the immense farce and fraud of this Capital falsification;- Exodus XX,5 – as is … “For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me”;……

Ditto – as falsified …. “For I, the Lord thy God , am a God of loving-kindness and mercy, considering the errors of the fathers as mitigating circumstances in judging the children unto the third and fourth generation”!

Barbarian Yahweh of the Holy Writ gets white washed into a “White sepulcher” of civilized society!

The four Gospels of NT, Mark, Mathew, Luke & John were not known until the second half of the 2nd century. No other Pope, Bishop or Christian priest ( except Papias and until Irenaeus ), for nearly a century after Pope Clement ( died 98 AD ) mentions or quotes a Gospel, names Mathew, Mark, Luke or John. Therefore, after a century until the books bobbed up in the hands of Bishop St. Irenaeus and were tagged “Gospels according to Mark, Mathew, Luke and John”. It is humanly and divinely impossible to trust these Gospels are true and not a word being heard, written or quoted by early Churches in the first one and half century.

“It was not until about the middle of the second century that under the rubric of scripture the NT writings were assimilated to the old”! – CE.iii,275 – that is, became regarded as apostolic, sacred, inspired and canonical, – or “SCRIPTURES”.

If these four books of Gospels were intended to be the inspired word of God and the basics of Christian teaching then Peter himself would have authorized it to be read and preached on it in the churches or at least instructed to the Church that these books are divinely inspired and the basics of Christian faith as we have it today in the 21st century. From 1st Pope Peter and even till the end of 1st century St. Clement-I the pope ( died 98 AD ) do not endorse these four Gospels. That means these Gospels were not in existence during their times!!!

The sudden appearance at a certain late date of a previous unknown document, which is then attributed to an earlier age and long since dead writers, is one of the surest earmarks of FORGERY. If the NT writers were Jews, then how come the earlier versions of the Gospels were in Greek language ?

The OT was mostly in Hebrew and only the priests read and understood its clear meaning of Hebrew, and they always translated the Hebrew to Aramaic dialect for the Jewish people to understand, as Hebrew was almost a dead language. The NT Gospels were not written by Jews, but I assume it should be written by Greek priests. None of the illiterate 12 apostles wrote the Gospels this is a plausible understanding, as none of the Gospels were in circulation for almost 150 years after the so called existence of the apostles around that time. Every Church in the first two centuries had their own gospel and narrations about Jesus Christ and each vaguely different then another. Even the claim of Jesus being crucified at 30 years of age and his resurrection is absurd is among the early Church fathers. It is a very strange and fatal confession, in view of the insistent false pretense of the Church for centuries of the patent Divinity of the Four Gospels, and of its fallible inspiration and divine guidance against all doubt & error, Why these Four were chosen out of the hundred or perhaps even thousands of the Jesus stories in circulation nobody knows as CE confesses. Today these four Gospels are of divine utterance and sanction, WHY? One may well wonder!!!

Read Full Post »

The significant character of the Christian faith, Jesus, to assume him as a historical personage, was a Jew, as were, by tradition, his disciples and followers. As is, of course, well known: .Christianity took its rise in Judaism; its Founder and His disciples were orthodox Jews, and the latter maintained their Jewish practices, at least for a time, after the day of Pentecost.

The Jews themselves looked upon the followers of Christ as a mere Israelites sect, … .the sect of the Nazarenes. (Acts xxiv, 15),…the believers in the Promised Messiah. (CE. iii, 713.) In this they were grievously deceived and disappointed, as, too the world knows; Christ’s humble and obscure life, ending in the ignominious death on the cross, was the very opposite of what the Jews expected of their Christ.. (CE. i, 620.) Jesus was a native of Galilee, .his own country. (Mt. ii, 23; xiii, 54-55), or of Judaea, .his own country. (.John iv, 43-44). He was born .in the days of Herod the King. (Mt. ii, 1), about 6 B.C., or .when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. (Luke ii, 1-7), about 7 A.D., or some 13 years later. (CE. viii, 377; EB. i, 307-8.) The destructive contradictions as to his lineage and parentage, and other essential particulars, are reserved for opportune notice. Jesus became a Jewish sectarian religious teacher of the zealot reformer type; so zealous that his own family thought him insane and sent out to apprehend him (Mark iii, 31); many of the people said of him, .He hath a devil, and is mad. (John x, 20); his own disciples, seeing his raid into the Temple after the money-changers, shook their heads and muttered the proverb: .The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. (John ii, 17).

 His ministry, of about one year, according to the first three Gospels, of some three years according to the fourth, was, by his own repeated assertion, limited exclusively to his own Jewish people: .I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mt. xv, 24; ef. Acts iii, 25-26; xiii, 46; Rom. xv, 8); and he straightly enjoined on his Twelve Apostles: .Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mt. X, 5-6); to the woman of Canaan who pleaded with him to have mercy on her daughter, .grievously vexed with a devil,. he retorted: .It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it to dogs. (Mt. xv, 22-28; vii, 6). His own announcement, and his command to the Twelve, was .Preach, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. (Mt. x, 7),..the exclusively Hebraic Kingdom of the Baptist (Mt. iii, 2), as of the Jewish Messianic apocrypha which we have noticed. Jesus lived at the height of the .age of apocryphal literature,. and in due time got into it, voluminously.

Before his death, time and again he made and repeated the assurance..the most positive and iterated of all the sayings attributed to him..of the immediate end of the world, and of his quick triumphant return to establish the Kingdom of God in the new earth and reign on the re-established throne of David forever. Time and again he said and repeated: .Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom. (Mt. xvi, 28; Mk. ix, I; Lk. ix, 27);

This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Mk. xiii, 30)…So quickly would this .second coming. be, that when the Twelve were sent out on their first preaching tour in little Palestine, their Master assured them: .Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come. (Mt. x, 23). Caiapha, the high priest before whom Jesus was led after his capture in the Garden, solemnly conjured him .By the living God. for the truth; and Jesus replied: .Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man … coming in the clouds of heaven.. (Mt. xxvi, 63, 64; Mk. xiv, 61, 62.) Some people are expecting him yet. Of course, there were, could be, none but Jews in heaven, or in this new Kingdom of Heaven on the new earth: .Salvation is of the Jews.. (John iv, 22.) It was 144,000 Jews, the .scaled. saints, who alone constituted the original Jewish .Kingdom of God. (Rev. vii).

With these explicit data we arrive at the first obvious and positive conclusion: With the expectation of a quick and sudden end of the world and of all things human, no books were written on the subject in that generation or, for a little leeway, the next or so, after the death of the expected returning King. The scant, number of credulous Jews who accepted this preachment as .Gospel truth. and lived in this expectation, were nourished with neighborhood gossip and oral traditions of the .good news,. and needed and had no written books of inspired record of these things. Thus many years passed. Only as the dread consummation was delayed, and the hope deferred sickened the hearts of the expectant Jews and they waned in faith, and as accused by Paul and Barnabas, .put it from you,. did the defeated propagandists of the .Faith that failed at the Cross,. give the shoulder to the Jews and .turn to the Gentiles. (Acts xiii, 46), and begin to expand the failing new Jewish faith among the superstitious Pagans of the countries round about. But this was still by the spoken word; on all the supposititious .missionary tours. the Word was spread by word of mouth written gospel books were not yet. When at last, the .coming. being still unrealized..these books began to be written, we can accurately determine something of the order of their writing, and finally, though negatively, the approximate times when they were written, by ascertaining when they were not yet written. We have seen that for a century and more the only .

Scriptures. used by the Jewish propagandists of the Christ were the Greek Septuagint translations of the old Hebrew sacred writings, .the Law and the Prophets. (CE. v, 702; i, 635); supplemented by sundry Jewish apocrypha and the Pagan Sibylline Oracles; these were the only .authorities. appealed to by the early .Fathers. for the propaganda of the new faith. Indubitably, if the wonderful .histories. of their Christ and the inspired pretended writings of his first, Apostles, forming now the New Testament, had then existed, even in scraps of writing, they would have been the most precious and potent documents of propaganda, would have been snatched at and quoted and appealed to with infinite zeal and ardor, as they have been through the centuries since. But, for some 150 years, as we shall see, little or nothing besides Old Testament and Pagan Oracles were known or quoted. As said by the great critic, Solomon Reinach, .With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Jesus, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 A.D.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors.. (Reinach, Orpheus, p. 218.) So, patently, as yet no .Gospels. and but few if any .Epistles. of our .canon. had as yet been written. Again, we read the 23 booklets from and including Acts to Revelation: there is not a solitary reference to a word of quotation from, any of our four Gospels; scarce a trace of the wonderful career and miracles of Jesus the Christ; not a word of his .gospel. or teachings mentioned or quoted. These Epistles, indeed, .preach Christ Crucified. (from oral tradition), as the basis of the propagandists. own .gospel.. But the written .Gospel of Jesus Christ. (his life and words and deeds), was unknown: indeed, jealous of the so called Petrine preaching which .perverts the gospel of Christ. as preached by him, the soi-disant Apostle Paul fulminates: .But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let, him be accursed. (Gal. i, 7, 8);..so early did priestly intolerance and priestly curses on opponents come into holy vogue. Therefore the conclusion is inevitable that when those 23 Acts and Epistles were written, none of the four .Gospel. biographies of Jesus the Christ had yet seen the light. .Written Gospels are neither mentioned nor implied in the NT epistles, nor in that, of Clemens Romanus, nor, probably, in that of Barnabas, nor in the Didache. Luke (i, 1-4) implies that .many gospels. Were current. (EB. ii, 1809), at the time that Gospel was written. The Acts and Epistles, therefore, with Revelation, were written before any of the Gospel biographies.

 If these Christ-histories had existed, how eagerly would they have been seized upon to garnish and glorify the preachment of the early propagandists of the Faith that failed at the Cross,..and would have perished wholly but for the all believing Pagan Gentiles, who, when they heard it, .were glad, and glorified the word of the lord. (Acts xiii, 48), as orally delivered. he significant character of the Christian faith, Jesus, to assume him as a historical personage, was a Jew, as were, by tradition, his disciples and followers. As is, of course, well known: .Christianity took its rise in Judaism; its Founder and His disciples were orthodox Jews, and the latter maintained their Jewish practices, at least for a time, after the day of Pentecost. The Jews themselves looked upon the followers of Christ as a mere Israelites sect, … .the sect of the Nazarenes. (Acts xxiv, 15),…the believers in the Promised Messiah. (CE. iii, 713.) In this they were grievously deceived and disappointed, as, too the world knows; .Christ’s humble and obscure life, ending in the ignominious death on the cross, was the very opposite of what the Jews expected of their Christ.. (CE. i, 620.) Jesus was a native of Galilee, .his own country. (Mt. ii, 23; xiii, 54-55), or of Judaea, .his own country. (.John iv, 43-44). He was born .in the days of Herod the King. (Mt. ii, 1), about 6 B.C., or .when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. (Luke ii, 1-7), about 7 A.D., or some 13 years later. (CE. viii, 377; EB. i, 307-8.) The destructive contradictions as to his lineage and parentage, and other essential particulars, are reserved for opportune notice. Jesus became a Jewish sectarian religious teacher of the zealot reformer type; so zealous that his own family thought him insane and sent out to apprehend him (Mark iii, 31); many of the people said of him, .He hath a devil, and is mad. (John x, 20); his own disciples, seeing his raid into the Temple after the money-changers, shook their heads and muttered the proverb: .The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. (John ii, 17). His ministry, of about one year, according to the first three Gospels, of some three years according to the fourth, was, by his own repeated assertion, limited exclusively to his own Jewish people: .I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mt. xv, 24; ef. Acts iii, 25-26; xiii, 46; Rom. xv, 8); and he straightly enjoined on his Twelve Apostles: .Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mt. X, 5-6); to the woman of Canaan who pleaded with him to have mercy on her daughter, .grievously vexed with a devil,. he retorted: .It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it to dogs. (Mt. xv, 22-28; vii, 6). His own announcement, and his command to the Twelve, was .Preach, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. (Mt. x, 7),..the exclusively Hebraic Kingdom of the Baptist (Mt. iii, 2), as of the Jewish Messianic apocrypha which we have noticed. Jesus lived at the height of the .age of apocryphal literature,. and in due time got into it, voluminously. Before his death, time and again he made and repeated the assurance..the most positive and iterated of all the sayings attributed to him..of the immediate end of the world, and of his quick triumphant return to establish the Kingdom of God in the new earth and reign on the re-established throne of David forever. Time and again he said and repeated: .Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom. (Mt. xvi, 28; Mk. ix, I; Lk. ix, 27); .This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Mk. xiii, 30)…So quickly would this .second coming. be, that when the Twelve were sent out on their first preaching tour in little Palestine, their Master assured them: .Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come. (Mt. x, 23). Caiapha, the high priest before whom Jesus was led after his capture in the Garden, solemnly conjured him .By the living God. for the truth; and Jesus replied: .Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man … coming in the clouds of heaven.. (Mt. xxvi, 63, 64; Mk. xiv, 61, 62.) Some people are expecting him yet. Of course, there were, could be, none but Jews in heaven, or in this new Kingdom of Heaven on the new earth: .Salvation is of the Jews.. (John iv, 22.) It was 144,000 Jews, the .scaled. saints, who alone constituted the original Jewish .Kingdom of God. (Rev. vii). With these explicit data we arrive at the first obvious and positive conclusion: With the expectation of a quick and sudden end of the world and of all things human, no books were written on the subject in that generation or, for a little leeway, the next or so, after the death of the expected returning King. The scant, number of credulous Jews who accepted this preachment as .Gospel truth. and lived in this expectation, were nourished with neighborhood gossip and oral traditions of the .good news,. and needed and had no written books of inspired record of these things. Thus many years passed. Only as the dread consummation was delayed, and the hope deferred sickened the hearts of the expectant Jews and they waned in faith, and as accused by Paul and Barnabas, .put it from you,. did the defeated propagandists of the .Faith that failed at the Cross,. give the shoulder to the Jews and .turn to the Gentiles. (Acts xiii, 46), and begin to expand the failing new Jewish faith among the superstitious Pagans of the countries round about. But this was still by the spoken word; on all the supposititious .missionary tours. the Word was spread by word of mouth written gospel books were not yet. When at last, the .coming. being still unrealized..these books began to be written, we can accurately determine something of the order of their writing, and finally, though negatively, the approximate times when they were written, by ascertaining when they were not yet written. We have seen that for a century and more the only .Scriptures. used by the Jewish propagandists of the Christ were the Greek Septuagint translations of the old Hebrew sacred writings, .the Law and the Prophets. (CE. v, 702; i, 635); supplemented by sundry Jewish apocrypha and the Pagan Sibylline Oracles; these were the only .authorities. appealed to by the early .Fathers. for the propaganda of the new faith. Indubitably, if the wonderful .histories. of their Christ and the inspired pretended writings of his first, Apostles, forming now the New Testament, had then existed, even in scraps of writing, they would have been the most precious and potent documents of propaganda, would have been snatched at and quoted and appealed to with infinite zeal and ardor, as they have been through the centuries since. But, for some 150 years, as we shall see, little or nothing besides Old Testament and Pagan Oracles were known or quoted. As said by the great critic, Solomon Reinach, .With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Jesus, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 A.D.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors.. (Reinach, Orpheus, p. 218.) So, patently, as yet no .Gospels. and but few if any .Epistles. of our .canon. had as yet been written. Again, we read the 23 booklets from and including Acts to Revelation: there is not a solitary reference to a word of quotation from, any of our four Gospels; scarce a trace of the wonderful career and miracles of Jesus the Christ; not a word of his .gospel. or teachings mentioned or quoted.

These Epistles, indeed, .preach Christ Crucified. (from oral tradition), as the basis of the propagandists. own .gospel.. But the written .Gospel of Jesus Christ. (his life and words and deeds), was unknown: indeed, jealous of the so called Petrine preaching which .perverts the gospel of Christ. as preached by him, the soi-disant Apostle Paul fulminates: .But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let, him be accursed. (Gal. i, 7, 8);..so early did priestly intolerance and priestly curses on opponents come into holy vogue. Therefore the conclusion is inevitable that when those 23 Acts and Epistles were written, none of the four .Gospel. biographies of Jesus the Christ had yet seen the light. .Written Gospels are neither mentioned nor implied in the NT epistles, nor in that, of Clemens Romanus, nor, probably, in that of Barnabas, nor in the Didache. Luke (i, 1-4) implies that .many gospels. Were current. (EB. ii, 1809), at the time that Gospel was written. The Acts and Epistles, therefore, with Revelation, were written before any of the Gospel biographies.

If these Christ-histories had existed, how eagerly would they have been seized upon to garnish and glorify the preachment of the early propagandists of the Faith that failed at the Cross,..and would have perished wholly but for the all believing Pagan Gentiles, who, when they heard it, .were glad, and glorified the word of the lord. (Acts xiii, 48), as orally delivered.

Read Full Post »

It’s a truism that those who come out on top in the course of time tend to be the ones who write the history. This is certainly true of the Christian Church. For by the time the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion (325 CE) the Church had already eliminated all its main rivals in the contest for “correct” or orthodox theology.

In the centuries leading up to that point, there had been no shortage of rival doctrines. Many of these involved re-writing or revising the slowly emerging canon (or standard) of what we now know as the New Testament.

A good example of this sort of heresy (from a Greek word for “choice” or “opinion” in contrast to the “givens” of revealed doctrine) is the person of Marcion. He and his followers were a significant danger to the orthodox Church in the latter part of the second century. Marcion held that the entire Hebrew Bible and much of the New Testament should be scrapped.

If Marcion went too far, there were others who went even further and forged documents. Bart Ehrman notes that

Almost all of the “lost” Scriptures of the early Christians were forgeries. On this, scholars of every stripe agree, liberal and conservative, fundamentalist and atheist … The same holds true for nearly all of the Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Apocalypses that came to be excluded from the canon: [they were] forgeries in the names of the most famous apostles and their companions. [1]

What few people know is that even parts of the New Testament which made it into the canon are forgeries (though many  Christian writers don’t like the term, preferring to call them “pseudonymous”).

  1. The Letter to Titus made it into the New Testament even though it was written by someone other than Paul. Another letter, now labelled “Pseudo-Titus” but just as convincing, did not.
  2. Scholars are not confident that Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians was written by him – even though the letter warns explicitly against forged letters (2.2), perhaps in an attempt to throw readers off the scent of the fraudulent author’s own deception.
  3. The author of 2 Peter claims to be Simon Peter, the disciple of Jesus. Few scholars think that this attribution is true.
  4. The same applies to 1 and 2 Timothy.
  5. If the letter of Paul to the Ephesians is a forgery, it is so cleverly done that scholars don’t universally agree on the question. Having said that, few will deny that there are many clues pointing to the distinct possibility that someone other than Paul wrote the letter.
  6. There are many short passages in the canonical gospels and letters which scholars conclude have been inserted over the centuries and should therefore be classed as forged.

It is open to doubt that these documents should be accorded quite the same condemnation that we give forgers today. We’re used to striving for objectivity, recognising that we’re subject to all sorts of errors of judgement. So anyone who deliberately makes up “what really happened” comes in for criticism (notwithstanding the lies so frequently produced by gutter journalists) and might even face jail. Writers in the ancient world had a considerably looser idea of what might usefully be “made up”.

Having said that, it’s wrong to maintain, as do some, that early Christians and others did not worry too much about forgeries. Not only were many people concerned about forgeries, but they also did everything they could to expose and condemn them. A story is told about the famous Roman physician Galen (129-199 CE) who one day heard two men arguing whether or not a book they saw was truly written by him. One of the men was maintaining that it was a forgery because it did not reflect Galen’s distinctive style. Galen was so pleased at his fame that he dashed off a booklet describing how to distinguish his writings from forgeries. The booklet survives to this day [1].

Some of the most important guidelines to revealing a forgery are:

  • If a writing refers to an event which occurred after the death of its supposed author, then we must conclude that it’s a forgery.
  • Similarly, if a work refers to ideas of which we have no record until after the attributed author died, we must strongly suspect its provenance.
  • Another clue to forgery would be if the style and vocabulary of a writing differs substantially from that of a document we know for sure was written by the attributed author.
  • A much more recent way of testing a piece of writing is to subject it to computer analysis, the speed and accuracy of which can reveal inconsistencies not traceable by any other method.

A question remains: Why bother to forge a document?

One reason suggested by Ehrman is profit. Rich people in the ancient world often competed with each other to have the best library. In those days, long before the advent of printing, manuscripts were hand-copied and therefore comparatively expensive. Original documents were even more pricey. A really convincing forgery of an original work by Aristotle, for example, might fetch a substantial price.

Another possible reason might be to destroy someone’s reputation. In World War II, for example, the Allies made an art out of circulating forged documents which sought to undermine the trust between Nazis in authority. Anaximenes in the fourth century BCE did the same thing when he circulated anti-Greek propaganda apparently written by his arch-enemy, Theopompus. The latter quickly found that he was persona non grata wherever he wanted to go.

We can easily understand such reasons. Less easy to get a grip on are more honorable reasons such as the motivation of neo-Pythagoreans in the second century CE. They argued that their forgeries in the name of Pythagoras (570-495 BCE) were legitimate because they were merely valid extensions of the master’s work. To sign such work in their own names would, they thought, have been insufferably presumptuous.

Even less understandable was the practice of signing one’s own work in the name of a famous person. In some cases this was done because the person had agreed to be a sponsor of the writing. In others, an author merely hoped that a famous person might become a sponsor. More usually, however, the forgery was produced to give a writer’s views enough credibility to be read. So if a Christian bishop had problems in a local church, he might write a letter to them and sign it “Paul of Tarsus” in order to give his teaching some extra weight.

The vast majority of non-canonical Christian writings are what we today call forgeries. They include gospels purporting to have been written by James, Mary, and Peter. There are the gospels of the Hebrews, the Ebionites and the Nazoreans, to name but a few. The Gospel of Thomas, although it contains some passages which match or reflect the canonical gospels, was probably not written by the Thomas of the New Testament.

It’s worth reflecting that the gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are all in fact anonymous, the authors having been attributed by tradition. 

St John’s Gospel has few parallels to the other gospels. Indeed, it contains very little good history at all [2]. It turns out to be a long theological reflection on Jesus of Nazareth – a reflection which gripped the imagination of early Christians (it was written probably between 100 and 120 CE) and which is the basis of much orthodox teaching to this day. But it nevertheless comes perilously close to being open to charges of being a forgery in modern terms. It was certainly not written by the John of the gospels, and it attributes to Jesus long monologues which he certainly did not deliver.

The consequences of forgery on Christian thought and practice have not been insignificant. As a simple example, for much of the Church’s history, it has been taught that women should obey their husbands, shut up in church, and cover their heads. As Ehrman puts it:

… women earn salvation by keeping quiet and pregnant: it is men who have the authority to teach.

Two passages are usually quoted to support this view: 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 and 1 Timothy 2.12-15. The Timothy passage is a known forgery – but what about Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians? No reputable scholar says that Paul did not write this letter. But there are good reasons for thinking that this passage has at some point been inserted into the original text.

  1. In Chapter 11 of this letter, Paul (though insisting that women cover their heads) encourages women to pray and prophesy – both of which were done aloud. Why this contradiction?
  2. The passage is intrusively out of place. It comes baldly in the middle of a section about prophets in the church.
  3. In our best manuscripts of Paul’s letter, this short passage appears in a number of other places. It’s possible, if not likely, that it was originally a marginal note and then inserted by different copyists in different places.

Lest one thinks this issue of marginal importance today, it should be noted that these and other passages are fundamentally the basis of the objection by many Christians of women as priests and bishops. The matter has caused, and is causing, much angst in the worldwide Church.

To sum up: Forgeries were much more common in the ancient world than they are today [3], if only because it was so much harder to detect them and to spread the news of their existence. When they were detected, there were those who cared enough to take action as far as they were able to do so. Christianity has not been impervious to the activities of forgers; but modern scholars have been able to expose most pseudo-Christian forgeries. Despite that, some clear forgeries remain part of the canon of the New Testament.
______________________________________________
[1] Bart D Ehrman, Lost Christianities, OUP, 2003
[2] See John’s Gospel
[3] Having said that, a fascinating case in modern times is the 1903 book titled The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which, despite having been clearly and repeatedly shown to be a forgery, is still on sale in Russian bookshops and elsewhere

Read Full Post »

( Dear readers kindly note  – that after years of research and personal investigations into Judeo-Christianity in Northern Africa, Middle East & Europe, today I am finally publishing an article and a great eye opener on Christianity. This is my first step to de-conversion from the most atrocious religion of all time called Christianity.I will no longer write pro-Christian articles on this website anymore, but at the same time I am not deleting any of my earlier articles on Christianity. Readers are advised to kindly read this and the forthcoming articles with an open mind, you are free to comment or to ask me questions, or debate with me on this topic and all your comments will be posted. At no time do I intend to take away my readers from their faith or to leave Christianity and after this exposition of Christianity I have become more closer to the nature God, whose creation and existence can be felt by everyone . Its difficult to perceive God as male or trinity or closed in a temple or church. The very books of scriptures coming out of middle east always keeps the followers bounded in blind faith in the wrathful God and a damnation to Hell. I accept that Gods greatest gift to us is our knowledge and our free wil, which we should exercise with great responsibility and not through religious dogmas. I had enough of this Church lies and fables that has stopped the growth of human beings for last 2000 years and due to which we have been destroying nature, hating everyone around and killing in the name of religion Alarmingly my in-depth studies in Egyptology and Astronomy lead to to discover that the Bible stories are nothing but fables from ancient Egypt, Greek,Rome, Babylon reproduced as a historic fact. Although this Biblical historic fact doe not sreve any reasoning outside the scriptures and one can only render it back to the ancient Egyptian mythologies. We have so strongly led to believe that out of some many religions in world only ours is true. Its time to really get closer to natural God and stop this insane religious madness

. I received a good response for my earlier article on THE BOOK OF REVELATION FRAUD, therefore I am going to post more evidences and arguments on the MYTH OF CHRISTIANITY and the existence of JESUS CHRIST. This post is just the start of my age of realisation and away from blind faith, ignorance of Christian belief and all the unnecessary Christian preachings.)

x-x-x-x–x-x-x-x-x–x-x-x-x-x-x–x-x-x-x-x-x-x–x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

The most important character of the Bible, Jesus Christ has been regarded with high  esteem. He has been a moral teacher, prophet, God, holy spirit, alpha, omega, son of God, healer, exorcist, etc for last 2000 years. Even many non-Christians think that he gave an admirable example of moral living. Although his historic existence is unavailable outside the canonical gospels and there is not even single notable historian of his time that ever mentioned about Jesus Christ in their writings. I wonder why such a charismatic leader or son of God didn’t find himself in substantial history books. Even the authors of the four gospels, namely Mark, Mathew, Luke & John cannot give an account of Jesus Christ as their eye witnesses. Regardless of Jesus Christ existed or not, I felt it compelling to examine his wisdom and morality of his nature from the Bible. I have been in the Bible studies last three decades and over a decade preached the word of God , as its described to be the word of the Biblical God. I was always caught up off-guard when the young ones or teenagers asked me certain questions referring to the Bible and how I was unable to reply them, eventually dodged them with my own interpretations. I am sure many other preachers, pastors, priests do the same when they are asked conflicting sentences from the Bible. However, when I raised these questions to several other experienced pasters, Catholic priests, Bishops, preachers they have all given me answers which were their own interpretations and contradictory from each other. Today I am free from this idiotic Christian dogma and this freedom has opened my eyes from this blind faith of ignorant people. Biblical scholarship in last hundred years has not yet reached the common people and thus millions of people around the world do not realise the inconsistencies & contradictions of the Bible. Basically the billion Christians around the world , I wonder if even a million have ever fully read and understood the Bible. Most Christians are living a Christian life just because of damnation that they will go to hell if not believed in Jesus or plainly because they were born to Christian parents. Politicians, businessmen and tyrants throughout history have misused Bible for their own interests and the Christians have on their hand more bloodshed than any other religion throughout history. Offcourse I will cover that in-depth in my next articles , but today lets examine if we should really admire Jesus Christ, Son of God or God.

The Gospels of the New Testament portray Jesus as vengeful, demeaning, intolerant, and hypocritical. In one section Jesus calls for love of enemies, yet in another to slay them. He tells others to not use hurtful names, yet he called others fools, dogs, and vipers. He calls for honoring parents in one verse, yet demands hate toward family members in another. Some of Jesus’ words against his adversaries depict what some would call anti-Semitism. Indeed, the verses of the New Testament have fueled the flames of anti-Jewishness for centuries.

The following gives a brief look at the Biblical evidence about the claims of Jesus with quotes from the King James bible (the most used bible in the world). If the reader utilizes self-honesty, the realization will come that the deeds and questionable wisdom of this Biblical character does not merit the admiration that so many have bestowed upon him.

For I am come to SET A MAN AT VARIANCE AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND THE DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW. And a MAN’S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.

Matthew 10:35-36

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

-Luke 14:26

Note: A few desperate apologists attempt to dismiss the verse above claiming that the word ‘hate’ here really doesn’t mean what it says. The problem with this approach boarders on complete deception and the ironic dismissal of the Bible and Biblical scholarship. The word ‘hate’ here comes from the ancient Greek word ‘miseo’ which means hate (from the primary ‘misos’ [hatred]). If any synonym could substitute for this word, it would come from a word like ‘detest,’ ‘loath,’ or ‘despise.’ Moreover, virtually all Bibles translate the term as hate. To deny this intent means to deny the Bible and the alleged word.

Christians in last century have been speaking so much of family values, but there is so much to say from Jesus Christ that he is going to bring each other against within their families. What kind of moral teacher would say something like this in a sane world. Jesus referred his mother by ‘woman’, not as mom, mother or anything that a mother was called by her son in that period in Israel. He never got married, we don’t hear that he ever had friends , only after the age of 30 he had disciples, he never feel in love with a woman, neither we read about his relationship with his siblings.  What instructions of family values can a person of such character give to others, on the other hand we have clear-cut supposedly words of Jesus in Bible which doesn’t display anything positive on family values. Although there is nothing mentioned about his personal life in the Bible, but yes, the gospel writers do know what communication Jesus was having with God in private. I wonder how would someone know that. For the matter of fact the gospel writer even go to mention Jesus’ thoughts. How can someone , if Jesus existed write exactly what Jesus was thinking in his mind. All these sentences in the new testament only lead us to a concept known as ‘Mythological writings”.

I can hardly take any example on family values from this so-called Prince of Peace. He speaks only about divisions within the family and to leave the family to join him in his heaven in second life.

What would you think of a Christian boss who rebuked a worker for wishing to bury his recently deceased father and instead, insisted that the worker follow him? According to the Bible, Jesus responded to a request from a disciple who wished to attend to his father’s funeral:

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury the dead.-Matthew 8:22

When a man decided to follow Jesus, he wanted to say goodbye to his family (Luke 9:61), but instead of leniency, Jesus replied to him:

…No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.-Luke 9:62

Jesus appears rude to his mother when he says:

Woman, what have I do to with thee?-John 2:4

You won’t see anti-abortionists citing this verse. It applies to Judas; note how the last part plays right into abortion:

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.-Matthew 26:24 [bold characters, mine]

The so-called morality of Jesus teaches hate, and abstinence against members of the family and advises against marriage. Indeed, if everyone on earth followed the virgin Jesus’ life to a tree, not only would we have no families, but the entire human species would become extinct within a generation. Anyone who wishes to hold the concept of a family as a moral imperative must abandon Jesus’ example.

Many Christians and non-believers alike extol the virtues of living peacefully, yet the Biblical Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he did not hold to this concept:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.-Matthew 10:34

So much for the peace on earth stuff we keep hearing about from uninformed Christians.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.-Luke 22:36

Although an all-powerful God could stop violence of man against man, Jesus accepted the concept of war with these admissions:

And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.-Matthew. 24:6-7 [also see Mark 13:7-8]

During his “trial,” Jesus explained to Pilate that if his kingdom came from this world, his servants (followers) would fight to prevent him from being delivered to the Jews:

If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.-John 18:36

Jesus offers no advice for disarmament or how to achieve peaceful coexistence. Instead, throughout history one can find a plethora of examples of the Church using Biblical verses to justify wars, inquisitions, and violence against man. Anyone who comes with the intent of a “sword” instead of peace can hardly give an example of living peacefully on Earth. Jesus tells us not to feel troubled and that war must occur. Belief in these words virtually allow wars to occur. Although many extremists, racist groups, and terrorists may admire Jesus for his call for armament, the majority of people do not realize the influence that Jesus’ words have on believers who accept violence after having studied the Bible. Jesus does not deserve the title of Prince of Peace* or our admiration for his war-like views.

* Note: The title, “Prince of Peace” does not appear anywhere in the New Testament and only appears once in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6). In spite of Christians who like to believe the Isaiah verse refers to a prophetic statement about Jesus, the Hebrew scholars tell us the Hebrew verbs in Isaiah 9:6 appear in the past tense. The title refers to the prophecy, not necessarily the man as it could refer to any number of kings, past or future (many other ancients also commonly referred to favored kings as the ‘Prince of Peace’). It also bears importance that the title directly contradicts the Gospels own account of the alleged Jesus who claimed he did not come for peace (see the verses above), which would have made the alleged prophecy an outright falsehood. Moreover, nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus ever get referred to as Counsellor, or everlasting Father (Jesus represents the Son, not the Father), nor did he set up a government of peace (Isaiah 9:7). On the contrary, only intolerance and wars resulted from belief in Jesus. If you wish to see Jesus as a prince, perhaps Prince of Darkness describes him better.

Many Christians believe that Jesus represents God, or God sent to earth in human form, or as a component of the Trinity. If people believe this, how many of them realize that the Old Testament gives many examples of God ordering or personally murdering innocent men, women, and children, along with the destruction of cities, buildings, and other religions? The following gives just a few examples:

…the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt…-Exodus 12:29

Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.-God in Deuteronomy 12:2-3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

-God in I Samuel 15:3

Therefore, if you believe that Jesus equals God in the flesh, then Christ must hold responsibility for the death, destruction, and intolerance practiced throughout the Old Testament.

However, some Christians do not believe in the Trinity or that Jesus equals God but rather that he lived as a flesh and blood man created and sent from God. Unfortunately, this does not dismiss Jesus from his admission towards killing. According to the New Testament, Jesus upholds all the laws of the Old Testament:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.-Matthew: 5:17-18

To fulfill all the laws of the prophets means that Jesus must have approved of all the “lawful” atrocities, including Deuteronomy 12:2-3 or the killing of all unbelievers (Deuteronomy 13-5-9), and all the other intolerant laws of the prophets.

Killing appears quite acceptable to Jesus, not only for himself, but as ordered by him (as the nobleman) in this parable:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.-Luke 19:27

The red letter edition of the King James Bible has Jesus making a remarkable statement towards the killing of children:

And I will kill her children with death…-Revelation 2:23

Not only does the Biblical Jesus make the claim to kill children but supposedly it serves to punish the mother (the prophetess as the metaphorical Jezebel) for committing adultery. Few people hold to the concept of punishing innocent children for the wrongful acts of their parents. This sickening performance by Jesus hardly gives us a reason for admiration. On the contrary, it appears loathsome and thoughtless.

Note: Some interpret Rev. 2:23 as a metaphor for the “children” (people) who followed the “heathen” religion (especially in Asia Minor). However, this would imply an even worse and deplorable atrocity. This would involve Jesus in the murder of hundreds, if not millions, of deaths of people who followed non-Christian beliefs, and of course would include children as well as adults.


Jesus, Satan, or both?

The following will no doubt upset many naive Christians, but if anyone wishes to indulge in Christian lore, the image of Jesus and God has an amazing twist that few Christians realize or want to think about. It begins from two incredible verses from the Old Testament :

AND Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.-I Chronicles 21:1AND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

-II Samuel 24:1

Either the above examples give evidence for a grand error (or fiction) in the Bible or else we have Satan and the Lord as the same entity! Also from the Old Testament we have the revelation of the creator of evil:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.-God in Isaiah 45:7

How many Christians realize God as the creator of evil? And if you believe that Jesus equals God in the flesh, then Jesus must also hold responsibility for the creation of evil. (See also evil and good from God: Lamentations 3:38-39)

Now here comes an even more shocking Bible realization: the name “Lucifer” (another name for Satan) means light bearer, or morning star.

On the very last page of the Bible Jesus reveals himself and provides the amazing kicker ending of the entire “Holy” Bible:

I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.-Revelation 22:16

And the very last words of Jesus in the Bible, makes it the greatest and longest lived lie of all time (something only a devil would say):

  Surely, I come quickly.-Revelation 22:20

Perhaps the reader will now understand why some Satanist cults use the same Bible as the Christians.

Note: The idea of the name Lucifer as synonymous with Satan goes back for centuries. In Isaiah 14:12, St. Jerome, translated the Hebrew word for “morning star” into the Latin term “Lucifer” (light bearer), a name commonly ascribed to Satan by Christians, and represents the fallen star, an ancient symbol for the fallen or evil one. In the NRSV Bible version, Isaiah 14:12 describes the fallen as “O Day Star, son of Dawn!” The Day Star, or morning star actually refers to the planet Venus, although, of course, the ancients did not know about planets. Venus always appears low on the horizon and the ancients thought of it as a star fallen from heaven (fallen angel). Venus also appears as the brightest “star” in the sky, thus the reference to the “bright and morning star” in Rev. 22:16. Although the Isaiah verse describes the fallen king of Babylon, Christians have, for centuries, ascribed Satan as taking many forms (for example the serpent). Thus, a conclusion, based on Christian beliefs of Satan, and the belief in the “inerrancy” of the Bible, one must conclude that Jesus has revealed himself as Satan!

Although a believer might find comfort in some of Jesus’ words, it should serve as a reminder that just because a man appears righteous does not necessarily mean he always practices it. Imagine observing a man who tells the truth most of the time but occasionally tells a hurtful lie. Should we not feel wary of such a person? Or if someone breaks his promise, should we not feel cheated? Especially if that person calls himself the Son of Man, we should expect him to act perfectly all the time, not just some of the time. His saying should reflect consistency, giving no hint of hypocrisy. However, the main character of the gospels, Jesus “Christ,” gave no hint of consistency. The performances of Jesus describe the actions of a con-artist, gives obvious half-truths and then promises them salvation for their sacrifice. Moreover, the Biblical Jesus gives wrongful information, breaks promises, lies, calls people unsavory names, orders killings, and threatens to kill children. He gave questionable advice about income, marriage, and future plans and he ended his short life in tragic suicidal death. As David Hume wrote, “A man delirious, or noted for falsehood and villainy, has no manner of authority with us.”

Many Christians object to any criticism of their religion where they see only the bad without the good. But imagine that I saw a friend about to drink a poisoned glass of milk, even if the poison represented only a small percentage of the whole. Should I include the nutritious aspects of the milk in my warning? Of course not. And although I might replace my friend’s poisoned milk with a glass of pure milk, this cannot be done with the Bible without acting dishonestly or ignorantly to the alleged infallibility of its words. And mind you, the problems do not come from a small percentage of the whole, but the majority. One obvious solution exists: reject the Bible as an honest attempt to get at the truth. It must come with an honest and brave look at the flaws of its central protagonists, Yahweh and Jesus.

Jesus claimed to have performed miraculous cures, turned water into wine, raising Lazarus to life, etc., but even a mediocre magician could perform the same “miracles.” The education and world knowledge of Jesus does not remotely compare with that of an average high-school graduate of today. Although the peasant Jesus supposedly read and spoke Aramaic as well as Hebrew and possibly Greek, no writings from the alleged Jesus exist. He originated no new information, no new morality or solutions to the world. His most original aspect, perhaps, went towards expanding the horrific idea of the damnation of Hell, a dubious honor to behold. He had only rudimentary knowledge of his world and certainly no scientific sophistication. In short, nothing about Jesus appears extraordinary and the words of the Bible give no reason for any special esteem.

Belief and faith can have such a powerful hold on many Christians that it sometimes resembles an addiction to a powerful drug. In such cases, nothing can shake the addiction to their belief in Jesus, regardless of the teeth of Biblical evidence against him. But remember that just a few decades ago, a man named Hitler also held a fascination by faithful followers. Although, Hitler fought against Jews and created war, many followers dismissed these things for what they saw in him as “good.” Hitler himself said “I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (Mein Kampf). He held a love for the German people and brought them out of poverty, acted kindly towards pet dogs, and ate as a vegetarian. Should we ignore the atrocities from Hitler and honor him? Of course not. And neither should we do the same from a character from any book, including the Bible.

The problems of belief do not come from Bibles, Jesus, or Satan but rather from human gullibility. We have a tendency to believe that ideas and words equal great truths. But words cannot convey ultimate truths anymore than a map can serve as the territory. All words, written or spoken, represent abstractions. Beliefs play out a dangerous aspect of humanity and the responsibility for them must lie with those who believe. Megalomaniacs like Hitler could not have gotten into power without the faith of millions of people. So also, the beliefs in the Biblical Jesus can influence the trigger of the greatest destruction of all: the self-fulfilling prophesy of the end of the world. Let us hope that we gain the ability to use our reasoning ability instead of naive unexamined belief for such a flawed character in a book.

Readers should note that I do not want to take them away from God, I still and will always believe in God as creator, as the elements of life, as mother nature and I can see God everywhere around through the magnificient works. This article is just a short narration of my detailed study and research which comes basically from the Christian churches, monasteries, schools of Theology around Europe and Middle East. The research is not at all derived from non-Christian sources or Satanists. Remarkably the top guys in vatican, schools of Theology , they all know about this fraud. My research comes directly from these guys ( who are adored a best Christians by the world ) . This is not a research from internet, but on evidences and substantial truth.

Read Full Post »

Revelation Chapter One

The divine book of Revelation attributed to John, is no where arriving to scriptural fact historically, then to make the ancient wisdom of the Egyptians as true Biblical history. The subject matter is purely Egyptian astronomical mythology that was conceived thousands of years in pre-Judeo-Christian era, later interpolated as the prophecy to be fulfilled in Christian age. The book of Revelation is nothing more than a drama of mysteries and mythical catastrophe of the end of the world. This book has no intrinsic value of its own standing and is totally meaningless, until the fragments of the lore have been collated, read, and compared with the original mythos and eschatology of Egypt. I discovered that the ancient astronomy was made to look nonsense and the wisdom hidden to look like prophecy and considered as Christian divine work, Alias – “The Word of God”.

If someone knew some hundreds of years ago how to cheat, manipulate, lie, interpolate ancient works to look like word of God, then it were the early writers & founders of Judeo-Christianity, who escalated the religious madness in the world.

The word made flesh concept of the Christians in the bible is just to strengthen the canalization of Egypto-gnostic “KRIST” or “CHRIST”. The original revelation of Egyptians lost its flavor, as to intended, or what is to be revealed when we read Johns book of revelation. The reader is left in fear and confusion, he /she might take it literally without questioning it genuinely  , just because it was told to them when they were kids that it’s the word of God. Johns book of revelation is nothing but an additional supplement to add the hype in the Christian world, the author tries hard to establish the historic personality of the Biblical Jesus Christ. Apparently , in ancient mythology the second coming had always been connected with the end times drama. So I guess the book of revelation had to be written ( or copied ) to establish that Christianity is the true religion of the world. Even the early Christians mistaken these mysteries as Christian history , which is presently endorsed and sealed as the divine word of avenging God.

After reading the original works of Egypt, I discovered and was able to identify the wisdom in the book of revelation, and to make sense of the apocalyptic visions assumingly unveiled to John. The scenes and characters filled with mysteries described in apocalypse of John can be completely attributed to “TAHT-AAN”, a sacred scribe of Egypt, in short THAT-AAN is original version of Christian John. I know Christians will be disappointed or even disagree with me on this, but if anyone in the world has evidence and can prove me wrong then I am open to raise a debate, with historical evidence, with proofs and not with some vain babblings of the scriptures ( I will not attest even your Christian hallucinations which you term as visions for my debate ).

THAT-AAN = Sacred scribe to whom 36000 papyrus rolls attributed by tradition.

JOHN = AAN ( Literally means Aan in ancient Egyptian ).

 

The name AANI signifies saluter.

This is the character personalized in John.

The position of AAN in relation to Horus, the only begotten son of God, is repeated of John in the Gospel referring to Jesus Christ.

Taht-Aan testifies that Horus is the true light of the world ( just as John came for the witness of the light )

The Trinity concept in Bible about God the father, only begotten son Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit, was traditionally in the cult of Ra in Egypt , Ra being the supreme deity and Horus his only begotten son and the holy spirit. However , I am not going to write about that but will do about that in my next articles, let me concentrate on Revelation.

In reality judgment day is only periodic , like the deluge. Its nothing but an end of a certain period, time, period, an age, or aeon, which is remarkably narrated in Johns revelation as end of the real world. People ignorant of ancient sign or symbolic language will lag behind in understanding the astronomical myth concealed in the book of revelation. The drama appears to have taken another dimension in the book of revelation, the last great day of judgment is well-known to genuine books of wisdom commonly called Apocrypha. Whereas Johns book of revelation and Enoch’s book of visions have both preserved only fragmentary versions of drams, as originally ascribed to TAHT-AAN in his mysteries of AMENTA.

The cult of lamb, the bride is at least as old as the astronomical mythological at the time when the vernal equinox entered the sign of Aries, and the lamb of SEBEK succeeded the calf of Horus on the mount  as the type of sacrifice in the cult of SEBEK-HETEPS in Egypt. The mystery of the dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, the mystery of seven stars, the mystery of the first-born from the dead who rose again as the faithful and true witness on behalf of God the father, is completely from the rituals in the Egyptian Book of Dead. ( And from Jesus Christ , who is faithful witness , and first begotten of the dead….Rev. 1 : 5 ).

( The mystery of seven stars….Rev. 1 : 20 ).

Christian priest, pastors, preachers, theologians in the world will never be able to explain the book of revelation to its entirely every one that I have encountered on this subject matter have always given me contradictory & confusing explanations. I have read the book of revelation several times over and then when I read the book of Enoch , I found many similarities with each others works. However, I was amazed to find the answers in the ancient Egyptian books, which was nothing more than mythology, astronomy and hidden wisdom. It was disgrace to know that the entire book of Johns revelation is copied from the earlier Egyptian works and especially from the Book of Dead, which historically proves its existence , but the works of John is not a historical document and even the real author in unknown and highly debated in Christian world. Once a person reads the original works , only then will he/she understand clearly what the book of revelation means. I can understand that the early Christians had to complete their holy book by  adding the final book of revelation or else Christianity will not have its meaning without the end times drama , salvation and judgment day.

Therefore, it’s quite evident that the subject of the Revelation was not derived from canonical gospels, the fundamental matter existed ages on ages earlier. Conclusively the book of revelation by John is not a historic fact, but a myth copied from the Egyptians and biblical fraud.

 

Read Full Post »