

### Disharmony of the Gospels

By Doyle E. Duke

Smashwords Edition

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. Please do not participate in or encourage piracy of copyrighted materials in violation of the author's rights. Purchase only authorized editions.

Discover these other titles by Doyle E. Duke at Smashwords and other retailers:

The Amazing Deception: a Critical Analysis of Christianity

Extended Vacation

Adult Bible Studies

In Search of Camelot

Line of Ascent

### Disharmony of the Gospels

Prologue

For centuries Christians have struggled to fit the jig saw like pieces of the gospels into one harmonious story of Jesus Christ and his ministry. Hundreds of thousands of books and articles have been published endeavoring to present a complete, harmonious picture. Most good Bibles even include a 'Harmony of the Gospels' section in the appendix. Almost all churches have Bible studies that concentrate upon stubborn passages, and ministers devote entire sermons to hammering at odd shaped pieces. What is the end result? Ask any Christian and he'll open his Bible and assume a defensive crouch as he assures you that the gospels do, indeed, harmonize—there are just some pieces that are 'hard to understand.' Others will claim there only appear to be contradictions because the authors have reported the story from different points of view. And a few might even admit to small, insignificant, translation errors.

One obstacle, the Gospel of John, is not so much a gaping hole as a stack of extra pieces, for while the other three gospels appear to present a similar picture, John is nothing more than Church propaganda. Although it does refer to tales included in the other gospels the writer's main intent was to establish the deity of Jesus. It wasn't written until at least 100 AD and wasn't accepted by the Church until the third century. For this reason the theological world has separated Matthew, Mark, and Luke into what they refer to as the synoptic gospels. Some scholars will even admit that John doesn't harmonize.

Despite Christians' assertions that the gospels present the same story it simply isn't true. The only way one harmonious picture can be completed is by tossing the extra pieces aside and filling in the holes with faith. In others words, to paint the picture the Church presents of Jesus one must turn a blind eye and deaf ear to reason and logic.

Mark was the first gospel written, followed by Matthew, Luke, and much later, John. None were written by the author for whom they were named. How can we be sure? There are a number of reasons, for instance: (1) they were written late, at least thirty years after Jesus's death; (2) all are translated from the Septuagint, the Greek version of scripture used by the Hellenistic Jews, rather than the Aramaic used by nationalistic Jews; (3) all were written for a Gentile readership. One reason we know this is because Mark fails to mention a number of not only important but crucial events concerning Jesus; such as his miraculous birth, his genealogy, childhood, and even the tale of his resurrection is an acknowledged late addition. This not only establishes it as the earliest gospel but also identifies all the added tales as just that—tales. For who would write a biography of George Washington and fail to mention he was President of the United States? Or, by the same token, exclude the information that the Son of God was born of a virgin? And how could a writer conclude such a story without including the miraculous resurrection at the ending?

Of the four gospels, Matthew and Luke were copied extensively from Mark. Matthew covers ninety percent of Mark; they have two hundred and fifty verses in common with many containing the same words and phrases. Matthew is the most Jewish of the gospels, but as mentioned, quotes from the Septuagint. It doesn't explain Jewish customs and words as Mark does, and in this sense seems to appeal to a more Jewish readership. The book wasn't completed until around 100 AD.

But for our study, let's start with Luke's story since it has the earliest chronological beginning.

Luke, Chapter 1 & 2

The writer of Luke, addressing a Theophilus, affirms there were "many" who recorded the stories of the Christian beliefs—two were surely Mark and Matthew. He also tells his readers he "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first" then, immediately launches into a series of fantastic tales: the miraculous conception of Jesus and John the Baptist, a prophecy of Jesus as the Son of God, the story of the census and a trip to Bethlehem, an expanded nativity narrative with the appearance of angels, the confirmation of Jesus as the Christ by Simeon and Anna, and finally, the child Jesus astounding the doctors. All these wonderful and fascinating stories of Jesus's early life, never before recorded, suddenly revealed by Luke—decades after their alleged occurrences. Stories, which Mark or Matthew apparently didn't think important enough to mention—or had never heard. But are they true? Of course not. We know they're spurious because the concept of Jesus as the Son of God was not accepted until after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The idea of Jesus as the Son of God was a Hellenistic concept the Apostles and true followers of Jesus never accepted. For proof see Acts 21:20-26 where thousands of believing Jews were still keeping the Law and worshipping in the temple. If they had proclaimed Jesus the Son of God the orthodox Jews would have stoned them as they did Stephen. For this fact alone, any references inferring the Apostles viewed Jesus as the Son of God can only be a figure of speech such as many Christians use today when they refer to one another as a "child of God" or "son of God". Otherwise such passages have to be late interpolations (See Matthew 14:33 & 16:16).

And there is an even simpler reason that marks them false. Popular myths tend to grow, not shrink. Unimportant events might be dropped or omitted from tales, but never the exciting, sensational, and more informative parts. Had the writers of Mark and Matthew known of the events Luke recorded they most certainly would have been included in their works. Also the author of Luke practically told us his intention when he stated that "eyewitnesses" had already told the stories, but he was going to give Theophilus something that would make it more certain. What? What was different about his gospel? New stories. Where did they come from? Had Luke been secretly harboring unknown tales of Jesus? Or did he just invent some? Today falsification of stories or events is considered lying and in most cases is illegal, but such was not the case when the New Testament books were being written. Students often viewed their ideas and deductions as extensions of their master and believed that what they spoke (or wrote) were actually the values of their teacher. Adding to another writer's works or even signing a prominent author's name to one's own writings was a common practice.

The events depicting the life of Jesus in the gospels are fabricated history, written years after Christianity came upon the scene. Written expressly to fortify and strengthen a doctrinal position or fulfill a fancied prophecy. As we have seen, the birth story of Luke is a prime example; in it we find a passage written to establish the preeminence of Jesus's ministry over that of John, (v. 1:5-17, 41-45); another to introduce the Immaculate Conception and virgin birth, (v. 1:26-35); one which identifies Jesus as the Son of God, (v. 1:35); the Davidic line of birth is proclaimed, (v. 1:27, 32, & 2:4); it establishes Bethlehem as the birthplace that one prophecy might be fulfilled, (v. 2:4-7); and a return to Nazareth to fulfill the requirements that he be a Nazarene, (v. 2:39); Jesus's divinity is reinforced by the declarations of Simeon & Anna, (v. 2:25-38); Jesus is shown confounding the doctors in the Jerusalem temple to display his supernatural abilities, (v. 2:41-47); and lastly, there is the cryptic verse in which Jesus practically admits his divinity (v. 2:49).

All these items gathered from only two chapters—truly a comprehensive endeavor. Someone really had to work to package and market all that without the benefits of our electronic age. Of course, he had a lot of help since the virgin birth stories are on the order of mythical fiction, and the incident of Jesus confounding the doctors is plagiarized from the autobiography of Josephus, the noted Jewish historian. The Bethlehem birth, which makes Jesus of the family of David, is founded on nothing but arbitrary interpretation of prophecy and is full of contradictions; for while Luke has his characters living in Nazareth and places the birth in Bethlehem, Matthew identifies Bethlehem as their home city and stages a flight into Egypt with a return to Nazareth to fulfill prophecy. Further, it's unclear why Joseph, as a descendant of David, should have to report to a place that was vacated by his ancestors a thousand years earlier. This public relations guru also goofed by dating the birth of Jesus under the reign of Herod, who died in 4 AD— **and** in the year of the census that took place after the deposition of Herod's son, Archilaus, ten years later.

Matthew Chapter 1 & Luke 3

Matthew begins with the genealogy of Jesus, establishing Joseph as his father, while Luke inserts his genealogy in the third chapter, after Jesus is baptized by John. Here we find an enormous conflict because while both lines allegedly trace the linage of Joseph, they are different. Joseph doesn't even have the same father or grandfather! Now I've heard a number of different excuses to explain the contradictions: the Jews reckon descent differently, not all descendants were included, Luke added extra names to have a major character appear on the scene every seven years, or one line of descent is related to Mary. The simplest reason I can think of is that the writers just didn't agree. However, it really isn't important, because both uphold Joseph as Jesus's father and therefore make the virgin birth story simply a folktale. In Luke 3:23, in referring to Joseph as Jesus's father the author, or someone, tried to correct the oversight by slipping in the phrase "as was supposed" to cast doubt upon Joseph's paternity. But Paul, writing about twenty years before Mark, makes no reference to a virgin birth. He stated Jesus was made of woman (Galatians 4:4) and of the seed of David (Romans 1:3). The virgin birth isn't mentioned in Revelations or any of the epistles. In fact, it spoils attempts to trace Jesus's lineage to the Davidic line by making him divine through a virgin birth. In Luke 2:22-38 Mary and Joseph are described as his parents when they go to the temple for Mary's purification ritual (a tale obviously concocted before the invention of the virgin birth story). And why should we give credence to such a story? Where did it originate? How do we know Mary and Joseph's story is true? We can't suppose that a physical examination established her virginity, because it took the assurance of an angel to convince Joseph. And why should we believe an angel spoke to them? What validation do we have? None—only the word of an unknown author who said Mary said thus and so. Were a pregnant teenager today to claim she had been impregnated by a spirit would we believe her? Of course not! Who would be so gullible? Why then should we be expected to believe some unknown, unidentifiable, writer who lived two thousand years ago?

Matthew Chapter 2

From the first sentence we're bombarded with questions. Immediately, I wonder what Mary and Joseph were doing in Bethlehem. Did they live there or, as Luke tells us, were they there to report for a census? Luke goes into great detail concerning the genealogy and birth of Jesus while Matthew concentrates on events after the birth, that is, Herod's alleged massacre of the infants, and Mary and Joseph's flight into Egypt. We might assume that Luke, writing after Matthew, just didn't wish to repeat stories already told. However, if that were the case he would have known of the flight to Egypt tale and would not have contradicted it with the casual mention of a peaceful return to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).

My Thompson Chain Reference Bible identifies the keyword of Matthew as "fulfilled" and the "Emphatic Thought" as: "Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy." So intent was the writer on fulfilling those prophecies that he wasn't above inventing stories, as is the case with Herod's slaughter of the male infants. It is easy to see that another purpose was to establish doctrinal dominance. "Fulfilled" might also apply to the writer's efforts to anticipate and answer every doctrinal question that ever arose, or might ever arise. He is reaching, straining, grasping with every syllable, to show Jesus as the fulfillment of every messianic prophecy he can conjure up from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Almost from the beginning he tries to establish Jesus's divinity. In 1:23 we read:

Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

This is the pivotal scripture used to prove the miraculous virgin birth of the Son of God. On this scripture along hangs the deity of Jesus—and it falls flat. The passage is almost a direct quotation of Isaiah 7:14, where it is a sign to King Ahab, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus's conception or birth. The Hebrew word for virgin used in Isaiah, "almah," means a young woman which may or may not have had prior sexual experience. It does not mandate she be a virgin. Anytime the Bible wants to make a distinction between a virgin and non-virgin for legal reasons (in a court of Law as in matters of divorce) the term "betulah" is used and never "almah."

Isaiah tells Ahab that a young woman (with prior sexual experience since he used "almah") shall conceive and bear a child, and before that child (verse 16) shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good the land that he feared (Assyrian invaders) will be forsaken by both her kings. A child learns right from wrong usually by the age of 2-3 years. If you keep reading the passage you will find that within about 2-3 years (before the child learns good from bad) God will bring His Presence (Immanuel-God with Israel) upon Israel and destroy the attacking Assyrian army. The young woman's pregnancy was a 'good sign' that something good was going to happen to Israel—within the near future! The child was a sign of the soon coming delivering Presence of God as He liberates His people from Assyrian aggression. God's Presence (not Jesus's) would come and destroy Israel's enemy. The child was not to destroy them—God was to destroy them. Thus we see that to adhere to a virgin birth in front of such solid evidence is foolishness, and to believe that this child is Jesus is utterly ridiculous, because Jesus would not be born for seven hundred more years!

Matthew is anxious to show Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. His approach is to interpret current events as prophesied by the scriptures; called the _pesher_ method and used by the Qumran community (the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls). He records five scriptural references in the birth narrative to show that prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus. And his quotations are seldom precise. He does just what the sectarians of Qumran did—changed the quotations just enough to suit his purpose.

He also used another type of rabbinic biblical interpretation known as _midrash_ (referring to multiple scriptures) and employed a principle called _gezerah shawah_ , meaning 'similar category'. This method allowed that when similar or identical words occurred in different parts of the Law, no matter how different the context, they were identical in application. This was a common practice, used repeatedly by New Testament writers.

Regarding the story of Herod's slaughter of the infants, both Luke and Matthew state that Herod was the ruler at the time of Jesus's birth. And, as already mentioned, Luke further enlightens us with the census taking ordered by Emperor Augustus at the time that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was Roman governor of Syria. The only problem is that Herod was dead long before Quirinius ruled Syria. This conflict either puts the lie to Luke's tale or Matthew's story of Herod's atrocities.

# Mark Chapter 1, Matthew Chapter 3, Luke Chapter 3

#

As stated earlier, Mark was the first of the gospels written. The book opens with the baptism of Jesus at the beginning of his ministry and makes no mention of his birth, childhood, or earlier life. This is the first incident covered by all four gospels. Unlike the previous events we've just discussed in Matthew and Luke, this story is quite possibly based on more than a zealous writer's imagination. However, it has been Hellenized to the point where the original Judaic interpretations are barely discernable. All three gospels have been written or rewritten to exalt Jesus as the Son of God—not the Messiah. Old Testament prophecies are taken out of context in an effort to show Jesus as their fulfillment. The language is Hellenistic Christian in that the mindset is of Jesus as the Son of God who comes with judgment and the out-pouring of the Holy Ghost. To see through all the window dressing we must remember a couple of facts: First, the Jews were looking for a messiah in the mold of David, a warrior who would drive the Romans from the land and usher in the Kingdom of God on earth. The idea of a Son of God incarnate in a man who taught escape to an inner spiritual kingdom was not only unheard of it was unacceptable to the Jews then, as it is today. Any Jew attempting such a role would have been stoned—it was blasphemy to equate one's self with God. Secondly, both John and Jesus came preaching repentance for entrance into the coming Kingdom of God—not the Hellenistic Gospel of Christ. Any statement that contradicts these facts should be regarded as false. When Jesus began preaching he didn't bring a new message, his was the same as John the Baptist's:

Now after John was handed over, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" ['good news'--not the Gospels] (Mk. 1:14&15).

When he said, "The time is fulfilled ..." he was implying that whoever was judging time had reason to believe that something important was about to happen. The Essenes, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, were the ones studying times, watching current events, and trying to foresee God's intentions. What was Jesus's message? The kingdom is coming. The kingdom is near, doesn't sound very imperative to us. After all, Christians have been waiting two thousand years for that promise. But to the Jews, who were living for and expecting God's retribution upon the Gentiles, it was a call to arms. This was Jesus's message, this is what he taught, not some form of spiritual escapism. Jesus was preaching the coming kingdom in a matter that set him apart from the other insurrectionist who had marched against Jerusalem in armed rebellion. According to the Essenes, an army without the backing of a repentant Israel could not oust the Romans. But a repentant Israel would bring God's holy army, and God would overthrow the wicked. That was Jesus's message: "Repent ... the kingdom of God is at hand."

The first three verses of Mark were undoubtedly a late addition since it refers to the gospel of Jesus Christ instead of the gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus preached. Also, Jesus is quickly identified as the Son of God; a Hellenistic concept that developed early in the second century and was made concrete in the fourth when Constantine proclaimed Jesus of the same substance as God. In these verses we also have one of the first of many hybrid prophecies. Here two prophecies have been combined to try and make them identify John the Baptist as the forerunner of Jesus. You see, even after John's death he still had his own followers who believed he was the promised messiah. The whole scenario of John baptizing Jesus was written, along with a number of other incidents, to show John as subservient to Jesus. The prophecies referred to are in Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1, but they are not speaking of John nor the Son of God. Both are judgment prophecies referring to the coming of God and the establishment of his kingdom on earth. In the quote from Malachi there has been a subtle change. The writer of Mark wants the messenger to precede the messiah (Jesus) so he writes, "before thy face" but in Malachi God wanted the messenger to appear before His face. The "messenger" was the expected messiah, not a forerunner to Jesus, and it was God who was to come with judgment upon Israel, not a redeemer. Careful reading of Malachi 3 with the last sentence of chapter 2 reveals that the messenger is the long awaited messiah, the one to come is God, and the event is the Day of Judgment.

And we find another twist of words in the statement:

...Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

The gospels pretend that the Mosaic Law has been revoked by Jesus, so the writer here tries to present salvation through Jesus when the original is speaking of the spreading of the Law.

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

In the _Community Rule_ , from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes quoted this passage exactly when referring to themselves:

...they shall be separated from the midst of the gatherings of the men of wrongs to go to the wilderness to prepare there the way of the Lord, as it is written: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord: make straight in the desert a highway for God." [And they unmistakably identify the highway as the Law] This is the study of the Law, as he commanded them through Moses to do all that has been revealed from age to age, and, by his holy spirit, as the prophets revealed.

The "wilderness" spoken of in verse 3 does not refer to John's physical environment. In Isaiah it is a metaphor likening a chastised and beaten Jerusalem (Israel) to a landscape: the people are grass (see Isaiah 40:6&7), the valleys are the poor and oppressed, the mountains are the rich and powerful, etc. The crier is, again, the messenger expounding the Law, warning of the coming of God and the Day of Judgment. Verse 5 states that "all flesh," meaning all people, shall see the glory of the Lord "together". This cannot be a reference to Jesus because only a few people saw him and the reign of God on earth has yet to occur (See Isaiah 40: 9-11).

Truly both John and Jesus did preach repentance and baptism, but as a Jewish purification ritual. Such a rite was special to the Jews and was often used by soldiers before going into battle; it was an oath of allegiance and a holy sacrament. The Essenes' Community Rule prescribed washing in water for those who had repented. Here also, is a logical explanation as to why the "Son of God" was in need of baptism. Everyone who transgressed God's word was unclean and everyone, all Israel, had transgressed by allowing the foreigners to rule. Even a potential messiah, to the Jews a man with supernatural powers, had to be washed clean of sin by baptism.

Look at how expanded additions have exploited the events. In Mark's accounts of Jesus's baptism we have a short, concise tale. Jesus came to John, was baptized, the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove and a voice from heaven proclaimed: "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Luke tells a like story, but Matthew includes the additional information that John recognized Jesus and protested his unworthiness whereupon Jesus reassured him. And the Gospel of John, if you can put any faith in it, has John announcing the "Lamb of God, which taken away the sins of the world" before Jesus even arrives on the scene. According to this Gospel, John had already been proclaiming Jesus as his replacement. However, according to John 1:33, he didn't know Jesus; only that the redeemer would be revealed unto him because that was the reason he had been called to baptize. God (the one who sent him to baptize) told him, "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John stated that he saw those things and bare record that Jesus was the Son of God.

Now, let's look at Matthew 11:2-6 & Luke 7:18-23, John is in prison and sends two of his disciples to reaffirm Jesus's identity. Why? Allegedly, John baptized him, touched him, saw the fulfillment of a commandment that placed him in the position of a prophet, saw the Holy Ghost descending upon Jesus, and actually heard the voice of God proclaiming his Son! What more powerful assurance could his disciples possibly bring him? None—all references to the event were written or rewritten specifically to depict John as subservient to Jesus. Another point to consider: the mothers of Jesus and John were cousins (Luke 1:36-41): they knew each other, visited one another, both knew their pregnancies were divine, both knew the roles their children were to play, and John even recognized Jesus in the womb. Does it seem likely that the two children would grow up without John knowing that Jesus was the Son of God—the one he was to baptize?

Under careful examination the truth of this passage becomes apparent. Both John and Jesus preached the same message: repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 3:2, 4:23 & Mark 1:15). Notice, this was not a new message. It was not the introduction of an indwelling kingdom. This was the same message the Jews had dreamed of and looked forward to for hundreds of years—the promise of God's kingdom upon earth. Look closely, John does not mean Jesus when he speaks of someone coming whose shoes he's not worthy to unloose (Mark 1:7). If this was originally a true story of Jesus's ministry then we have already established the purpose of that ministry—the messenger was to be a leader molded after the great prophets of ancient Israel. The message was the coming of the Kingdom of God and freedom from oppression. This is what the prophecies in Malachi and Isaiah promised and it's what John described! Look at Matthew 3: 9-12. Who is able to raise up children unto Abraham—God or Jesus? Who was to bring judgment and cast those found lacking into a fire—God or Jesus? Who was the giver of the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:27, Zechariah 12:10, & Numbers 11:25)? Who was to judge the world? Here, as in Mark and Luke, Christianity has transformed the story of Jesus as the expected deliver of Israel into an avenging/loving Son of God. Ask yourself, does the Christian Jesus fit the role of a judgmental god who was to fulfill metaphors such as "chopping down" the wicked and casting them into the fire, or "purging the thrashing floor" (again the wicked) with unquenchable fire? If so, at what point in his ministry did it occur? Look at Luke 3:15-17, the people were wondering if John was the messiah. Did John deny it? No, he delivered his message just as a capable messenger should. And what was that message? God was coming in judgment—not Jesus. The conclusion should be obvious, what we have is a Hebrew story corrupted with Christian fables.

# Mark 1:14-6:6, Matthew 4:12-13:58 & Luke 4:14-30

In Mark we have the introduction of Jesus's early ministry:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

Really, hardly more than a simple admonition, but Matthew saw the opportunity to throw in another _fulfilled_ prophecy.

Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light sprung up." From that time Jesus began to preach, and say, "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

There is no such prophecy recorded by Esaias or anywhere in the Old Testament. The only place it is found is in the gospel of Matthew. Esaias does speak of the Gentiles coming to the light, but passages such as Isaiah 50:10-11, 51:4-7, and 60:1-5 make it obvious that 'light' meant an understanding of God's Law—not Jesus Christ.

In this passage Matthew has Jesus going to Capernaum and then back to Nazareth before he begins calling his disciples, an incident Mark omitted (See Matthew 4:18 & Mark 1:14-16). Since the author didn't quote from Isaiah, just where did he get his information? Was it a miraculous revelation from God? Was he privy to information unknown to Mark? Or, perhaps he simply saw an opportunity to slip in another _prophecy_ in order to lend credence to the idea of Jesus's divinity. Note how the prophetic reference is inserted neatly between the two verses from Mark, copied almost word for word. But it is in Luke where we find an inspired writer. He provides so much additional information we can't help but wonder where it originated, since Mark and Matthew fail to mention it.

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."

And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, "Is not this Joseph's

son?"

And he said unto them, "Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country." And he said, "Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a Woman that was a widow. And many leper were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian."

And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way...

Please notice that Luke didn't use Matthew's Isaiah quote; instead he turned to another Isaiah scripture. Is it possible he knew Matthew's passage was a misquote?

One type of error commonly committed in Bible interpretation is when intelligent and learned men, attempting to psycho-analyze a passage; take it out of context to support their supposition. A good example is found in Professor Peter J. Gomes, _The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus_ , Chap. 2, p. 37. In referring to Jesus's rejection in his home town, Nazareth, as recorded in the above passage, Professor Gomes disagrees with the more conventional interpretation that the people became angry with Jesus because he made the presumptuous claim that he was the messenger referenced by the prophet Esaias. Professor Gomes contents that the people were angry because Jesus offended their sensibilities by saying God was interested in people other than Jews when he referred to the non-Jewish widow in Sarepta, and Naaman, the Syrian.

Professor Gomes builds on this passage, and takes special note of Jesus's youth and presumed inexperience, the peoples' recognition of his linage, and their attempt to cast him from a cliff. He presents a great argument, but fails to check the foundation.

When one studies the occasion of Jesus's homecoming as recorded in Mark and Matthew, and compares the incidents preceding and following the event, some startling differences become evident.

All three accounts record Satan's temptation of Jesus in the wilderness and his journey to Galilee, prior to his return to Nazareth. In Luke, the mission to Galilee is summed up in two verses: Jesus went to Galilee, became famous, taught in their synagogues and went to Nazareth. However, Luke, as noted above, has much to say concerning Jesus's homecoming. He mentions the name of the city along with the information that it was where Jesus was reared. It also states that he went into the synagogue, as was his custom, and stood up to read. The book of Esaias was given to him and he read the first verse of chapter sixty-one and the first part of the second verse—stopping short of proclaiming God's day of vengeance.

The account goes into great detail, even to stating that he closed the book, handed it to the minister and sat down. Then, with all eyes upon him, he stated: "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Notice the tension built by the writer. It's almost like a screen play.

At this point the people bare him witness, wondered at his words, and acknowledged him as the son of Joseph. There is no inference of anger. This was one reason Professor Gomes rejected the notion that the people became angry because of his presuming to be the messenger of the Isaiah scripture. They become angry after his next speech in which he lauds the Gentiles over the Jews. It was at that point the crowd rose up and carried him out of the city and attempted to toss him over a cliff.

Using only this passage Professor Gomes' interpretation appears to be correct. But let's walk around this vehicle and kick all the tires.

In the Mark version, we learn that the two Luke verses covering Jesus sojourn in Galilee has been condensed from over four and a half chapters in Mark which goes into great detail about Jesus's ministry in that country and the message he preached—repentance and the coming kingdom of God. He called his disciples, worked miracles and disputed with the Pharisees and scribes. It isn't until the sixth chapter that Jesus returns to Nazareth. Only the incident is so insignificant that the city isn't even mentioned, it's only stated that he "...came into his own country." The entire Nazareth incident is covered in six verses. He preached in the synagogue and astounded everyone with his wisdom. He was acknowledged as the son of Mary, and the people were offended by this realization. Notice that here it is stated emphatically why the people were offended. Jesus then made the famous remark that a prophet is without honor in his own country. He could do no mighty works, so he healed a few sick folks and left, marveling because of their unbelief.

Here we have an entirely different picture. There's no reference to or quotation from the book of Esaias. And notice the conflict with Professor Gomes' position. The main passage upon which he builds his argument, the one in which Jesus praises the Gentiles, isn't even mentioned!

In Matthew we find similar occurrences: Jesus went to Galilee after hearing that John had been cast into prison, preached repentance and the coming kingdom of God, and delivered his Sermon on the Mount—which covers three chapters. He worked miracles and cast out demons. Then, in chapter 13, he "came into his own country" and again, there's no mention of the name of the city, which may be significant in more than one way. This account is truly interesting. There is hardly anything mentioned within it that relates to the other two tales: no Isaias, no prophecy fulfillment, no raging mob—nothing. Jesus isn't even acknowledged as a citizen of that city! The error that Professor Gomes made is a common one among those who never question the validity of their study material. They get so focused on developing a premise until they fail to see they're nit-picking a folktale or a counterfeit interpolation.

In defense, you might point out that many events were often omitted from one gospel or another, but it should be recognized that many events were added to all the gospels! Here, we have a prime example. Notice the context and what was happening. The writer of Luke's main agendas was to Christianize Jesus. As I mentioned earlier, Jesus and his Apostles were Jews and observed the Law. Anywhere you find them behaving contrary to that Law you can rest assured that it's a forged or altered passage.

Here the writer of Luke depicts Jesus as a rising star much in demand in the synagogues. And while there's nothing unusual about three people describing the same event from different perspectives I see the trend referred to in my earlier commentary on Luke, whereby tales tend to grow with age, repeated again and again throughout the gospels. And they are added with such tactless regularity as to resemble a Church shopping list of doctrinal issues in need of Jesus's endorsement. Almost all the additions are introduced to strengthen or enforce a controversial Church issue, or promote the supernatural power of Jesus.

The next few chapters of all three synoptic gospels record short, exaggerated, incidents of Jesus's ministry: healings, casting out demons, and discourses on various topics. The stories give every indication of someone recording condensed versions of oral traditions. To illustrate, I have never read the journals of Lewis and Clark, but I have heard stories and read references of their travels. Today I could take a copy of those journals and record precise accounts of what happened, when and where, on specific dates. And in many cases I could even accurately convey the author's reasoning and thoughts. However, if I had to rely on my own knowledge I could only relate vague tales.

Even though I've seen pictures of the two main characters I could only describe them as one having dark hair the other being redheaded. I have no idea of the Indian maiden's appearance, what she wore or her physical stature. I can't even spell or pronounce her name. Obviously, the writers of the gospels had the same problems. We have only a vague description of Jesus's appearance, and none of the disciples are described. There are hardly any references to any daily activities that might give us insight into the character and lives of these founders of a new religion. Why? Was it because the writers simply felt it unimportant, or because those memories were lost with the passing of time? The fact that the writers following Mark include additional miracles and tales indicate that perhaps the stories only came into being with the passage of time. And the blatant fabrications of John make it certain.

It is surmised that John was written early in the second century (but most likely much later), about one hundred years after the incidents it records. At that time the divinity of Jesus was one of the most contented issues among the many Christian sects. And that one topic introduced countless other questions: if he was God, when did he become God; was he God from birth, if so how could he also be man? These and numerous other questions split the Christian world into camps that often resorted to physical combat. The Book of John was written explicitly to substantiate the deity of Jesus and for that reason will find no credence in these writings.

# Mark 3:13-19, Matthew 10:1-42 & Luke 6:12-16

The events described in these passages tell us Jesus selected his twelve apostles and sent them to preach, to heal the sick, and cast out demons. At least that is the statement we find in Mark and Luke. However, Matthew, always the opportunist, saw a chance to insert a sermon by Jesus. He practically quotes the passage from Mark then launches into detailed instructions for the apostles' commission: where they were to go, what they were to carry, and who they were to see. Then he launches into dire warnings of the end time judgment and the persecutions of not just the apostles, but all believers. In the end he extends vague, undefined rewards for the faithful. The entire passage appears to be nothing more than a tirade of prevailing beliefs.

Just a cursory glance might lead one to think the writer simply inserted his own sermon and attributed it to Jesus, as was the common practice of the early Church writers, but closer scrutiny reveals a number of statements that indicate an oral Judaic tradition. The first is in verse five through seven where the twelve are to go only to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and preach the gospel of the kingdom. The second is a reference to Gentiles in verse 18 that reinforces the first statement. Then in 34, Jesus warns of violence and unrest. These were Jewish ideas taught by Jesus. The first two teach explicitly that the message of the kingdom was only for the Jews. This is also substantiated in Matthew 15:21-24 where Jesus declared his ministry was only for Israel, and referred to the Gentiles as "dogs"—abominable, unclean, flesh eaters. These teachings put the lie to the 'great commission,' found in Matthew 28:18-20, because Jesus never taught of an indwelling, spiritual kingdom available to all. Throughout his entire ministry, even to the end, Jesus expected a literal, earthly kingdom led by a revitalized Israel. It is what he taught and also what his disciples believed and preached after his death. We know this because the Apostles kept the Law and refused to mix with the Gentiles. See Acts 10:28 where Peter said it was unlawful for Jews to keep company with a Gentile; and in 21:17-26, the Apostles and thousands of believers were still keeping apart from the Gentiles and worshipping with the Jews. The passages such as Acts chapters 10 & 11 where the Apostles supposedly received the Holy Ghost and accepted the conversion of the Gentiles are Church fabrications. Because after the Apostles called Paul onto the carpet in Galatians 2 and Acts 15:1-21 they still recognized the believing Gentiles as only being under the Law of Noah, the divine Law considered to have been in operation prior to the Covenant of Moses (Acts 15:19-20), and inferred that they still needed to accept the Law of Moses (v. 21).

This also proves false the story in Luke 7:1-10 of the centurion's ill servant. Jesus would never have associated with a Gentile, especially a Roman soldier. To do so would have conflicted with his teachings. We have already mentioned the incident in which he referred to the Gentile woman as a "dog." Association with Gentiles was a violation of the Jewish Law because the Gentiles touched and ate the unclean, and if a Jew touched a contaminated object, even unknowingly, he was unclean and had to make offerings and undergo a cleansing process. The Jews were fanatical about the subject, so much so, rabbis have been know to sit around for days and weeks pondering such puzzles as to when an object becomes contaminated. For instance: if holy water is poured into an unclean cup when does it become unclean; after all enters the cup, or does the contamination run up the stream and contaminate the clean cup? This was one reason Jesus condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees so harshly; they were not only flaunting the Law, but were fraternizing with the enemy—the Gentiles. And Luke's explanation that the Jewish elders vouched for the centurion because he built a synagogue for them further contradicts the story. The elders were members of the council, Sadducees and Pharisee, the same people Jesus called "hypocrites" and "whited sepulchers," what influence would they have had with Jesus?

# Matthew Chapters 5-7 & Luke 6:20-49

The beautiful and stirring 'Sermon on the Mount,' attributed to Jesus, is absent from Mark, which of course, indicates another late addition. While Matthew's version covers three chapters, Luke's is short and condensed with subjects such as the discourse on the Law omitted. Since we know the writer of Luke had access to Matthew the question as to why it wasn't copied more fully is raised. Also the fact that Luke had access to Matthew eliminates the possibility that he was working from memory or oral tradition. Could it be that additions and interpolations expanded the discourse in Matthew after Luke was written? There is one passage in this section that raises another question concerning the date of its origin. In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus strongly endorses the Law and even condemns any who might break one commandment.

Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For very 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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

But which Law was Jesus referring to? There was no Christianity, no writings or a New Testament. Obviously, Jesus was referring to the Law of Moses (the Torah) because he mentioned it in conjunction with the prophets showing that he meant all the teachings of the Old Testament. Of the Jewish sects it was the Essenes and Pharisees who counted the prophets as equal to the Law of Moses. In fact, the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible consisting of three parts, the Law (Torah), the Prophets, and the Writings was the only Law recognized by Jesus and the Jews. Pauline Christianity teaches that the Law was abolished by the death of Christ and that the believer keeps, or fulfills, the Law spiritually. Paul declared a salvation achieved by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ apart from deeds. But Jesus taught just the opposite—that the Law would be in force until "heaven and earth" passed away. The last time I noticed, the earth was still spinning along.

Some might point to Luke 16:16:

The Law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Does this not say the Law ended with John? No, it says the Law and prophets were taught, or preached until John came preaching the kingdom of God. What was both John and Jesus's message? Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand! Still in doubt? Look at verse 17:

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fail.

This is the same message as in Matthew. Notice that the second part of Jesus's statement in Matthew was a promise:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:19)

This is the same Law referred to in Deuteronomy 4:2:

You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

It is the same Law of which Jesus was speaking. Given for the Jews, you say, and not meant for the Gentiles. Look at Micah 4:1&2:

But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the Law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Of course Christianity teaches that Jesus did away with the literal observance of the Law and expanded upon it by requiring a spiritual observance as noted in the following verses of Matthew. No longer was murder limited to the taking of a life, violent anger might also condemn a man. Offerings alone would not be sufficient. Lust and adultery might be committed within the heart. An eye for an eye was to be replaced by submission. Love of ones enemies was commanded. This world was to be held in distain while a desire for the coming kingdom was encouraged. Although Jesus seems to be instituting a new approach to observing the Law it conflicts with the Jewish teachings to which he strictly adhered and raises some unanswered questions. First, of course, is that of his Apostles' doctrines. We must assume that they were present and heard Jesus's new instructions, and we should also assume that they were as intelligent as the average listener, therefore, capable of understanding these new teachings. Why then, were they continuing to observe the Law years later when they confronted Paul? The excuse that the new salvation was only revealed later by a risen Jesus won't stand if we accept this passage, because according to it, Jesus was already introducing new doctrines. Secondly, in Matthew 15:11, Jesus said:

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defilith a man.

Jesus goes on to explain this statement, making sure his disciples understand, and yet years later, before Peter's visit to Cornilius, a Gentile, he needs a vision from God to clear his confused mind. If Jesus did speak the verse above, and thereby introduce a spiritual observance of the Law, then he fail to get that point across to his disciples, and all the time and effort he spent in choosing and training them was wasted because they never ceased to keep the letter of the Law. In fact, they contented with Paul throughout his entire ministry on such issues as circumcision and cleanliness. It was Paul who introduced the idea of a spiritual kingdom and salvation through a risen Jesus Christ. He said he learned nothing from men and received his enlightenment from Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Galatians 1:11&12). Read Paul's writings. His are the only works we can date with any degree of accuracy (during the 50's AD) and at that time he was preaching the changes and claiming them as his own. If they had been given by Jesus earlier why weren't the Apostles teaching them?

The Sermon on the Mount is a beautiful discourse, powerful, direct, and concise; one that any theologian would be proud to have authored. The instructions in righteousness, piety, tolerance, self-sacrifice, trust, and meekness are admirable, but stressed to the point of foolishness. They are fine moral values when used with common sense and moderation, but as instructed here they become a steel rod for a controlling and dictating Church: a Church that demanded utter control and booked no dissentions, a Church that brainwashed and enslaved its members and, in latter years, tortured or slaughtered those it labeled heretics.

These instructions deny man his dignity, pride, and initiative while stripping him of his ability to reason. In short he is reduced to a zombie-like being that is to accept and obey what he is told. Church history reveals that the common man was deprived education and kept in the darkness of ignorance. Let's dissect some of these directives:

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that askth thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (Matt. 5:41&42)

Where is the logic of this statement? Are we to teach out children to go willingly with anyone who approaches them in the mall and takes their hand? If I loan my neighbor my lawn mower and he never returns it, wouldn't I be a fool to lend him my weed-eater? What the Church wanted at that time was a large number of fools who would obey blindly and pay their tithes. For proof:

Therefore I say unto you. Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not life more than meat, and the body than raiment: Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? (Matt. 6:25&26)

Therefore take no thought, saying, "What shall we eat?" or, "What shall we drink?" or "Wherewithal shall we be clothed?" (Matt. 6:31)

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (Matt. 6:34)

I'm aware that the Church today doesn't interpret these passages literally—that the intent is to contrast the things of this world to the kingdom to come. But that wasn't the original purpose of these teachings. These ideas most assuredly originated through oral tradition when the early believers were expecting the immediate coming kingdom on earth (See Acts 5 where Peter pronounced a curse of death on Ananias and Sapphira). Later, when the kingdom tarried and the Church became more powerful they were used as a rod to control the masses. Don't worry. Don't ask questions. Just do as you're told, pay your tithes and we'll pray God's blessing upon you. A message of dependency that sounded good in a theocratic society expecting the end of the age, but a recipe for financial disaster and enslavement in the real world.

## Matthew 12:14&24, Mark 3:6-22 & Luke 11:14

Of the synoptic gospels, Matthew is the most Jewish in that the writer keeps trying to depict Jesus as the fulfillment of Hebrew scripture and makes references to Jewish Law and customs. In this passage we have another futile attempt to find a reference to Jesus in Isaiah. Jesus had just perceived that the Pharisees were plotting to destroy him and a great multitude followed as he was leaving. He healed them all and charges them not to make him known.

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgement to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

Matthew 12:14-21 is supposed to be a fulfillment of this prophecy. It's hard to understand just how the writer came to such a conclusion, none of the depicted events relate to the prophecy. The Gentiles aren't even mentioned in the incident. Also, Jesus had nothing to do with the Gentiles; it was Paul who carried the 'gospel' to them. What part of the prophecy was fulfilled? The only possible connection I can discern is the fact that Mark states that the crowd came from several distance places, Jordan, Idumaea, Tyre, and Sidon. Did the writer of Matthew see them as Gentiles? If this was the case there is no reason to believe so, all the places are within approximately a hundred miles of Capernaum where Jesus was speaking. And all were heavily populated by Jews. Or was it just a convenient spot for the writer to plug Jesus as the Christ?

Whatever the reason, it makes little difference because Isaiah wasn't referring to Jesus, or even a Jewish messiah. There are four passages in Isaiah chapters 42-53 commonly referred to as 'servant songs.' Today, many Christian writers admit that the servant in this passage refers to Cyrus the Persian who overthrew the Babylonians and freed the Israelites.

Isaiah 42:2 says "he shall not cry, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets." This appears to mean the servant would be a man of actions instead of words. This doesn't apply to Jesus because he was certainly making his voice heard; to such an extent the Pharisees were seeking means to destroy him.

What follows is a confusion of tales and parables. After Jesus is accused of casting out devils by Beelzebub he delivers his kingdom divided sermon then everything becomes pandemonium. Again, Mark is simple and straightforward, the statement is short. It points out that a house, kingdom, or even Satan cannot stand if divided. It states that blasphemies will be forgiven except those against the Holy Ghost. Then Jesus's brothers and mother come calling for him, and he identifies those who follow him as his mother and brothers. Chapter three ends and chapter four opens with a scene change to the seaside.

Apparently the writer of Matthew was the fore-runner of some of the ministers I've heard in my time who could read one verse and build it up into a novel. He tosses in a metaphor of a corrupt tree bearing corrupt fruit; then launches into a diatribe about a generation of vipers speaking evil, and warns that they will be judged by every word spoken. The scribes and Pharisees sought a sign which gave the writer a chance to slip in a post-dated prophecy that referred to Jonah's three days in the fish's belly and was suppose to be symbolic of Jesus spending three days and nights in the grave. Next the writer throws in an end time prophecy about a queen of the south and an unclean spirit searching for roommates. Then he comes back to the thread of events described by Mark.

In Luke it's hard to follow the events. Apparently the writer wanted to insert a tale he'd heard, or invented, of a female listener blessing Jesus's mother, so he slipped the Pharisee's request for a sign in prior to the discourse. Afterwards he followed Matthew's outline until he came to the reference to Jonah. Here the writer doesn't mention the three days and nights, he merrily compares Jesus's preaching to that of Jonah. He also omits the queen of the south and the wicked spirits. Instead he introduces the metaphors of the candle under a bushel and the light of the eye.

It has been determined that the gospels are simply collections of orally repeated stories and parables which the writers tried to arrange in a coherent and logical series of events. They fail miserably. Originally the events were told or recorded as separate stories before being collected and grouped in book form. The events described are bridged by contrived comments or leading questions such as those of the Pharisees and the woman just mentioned. The result is a series of disjointed tales, with little continuity, that are impossible to follow. And where one gospel writer records the events in one manner, another places them in another order. Also, as can be seen, one writer would discount certain statements while adding others he considered more favorable or pertinent. For example: in Matthew and Mark the series of events following these passages in question, follow a similar thread, but Luke seems to have little regard for continuity. There, the same events revert back to chapter eight where they occur before the events just described.

Matthew 16:13-19, Mark 8:27-29 & Luke 9:18-21

When we look at these passages we should remember that the word _Christ_ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word, _messiah_. Paul is the first writer to teach the doctrine of a risen Christ as opposed to a messiah, about two to three years after Jesus's ministry, and he claimed it originated with him (Galatians 1:11&12). So, if Peter recognized Jesus as the _Christ_ (Matthew 16:16), he was, in actuality, saying Jesus was the _Messiah_. We have also shown that the doctrine of a personal savior would have been in direct opposition to Jesus's explicit teaching on the Law and salvation. Jesus did perceive himself as the Messiah, but he did not teach that he was the Son of God!

If we compare Jesus's teachings with those of the Essenes it becomes obvious that they are very similar. The Essenes waited expectantly for the kingdom of God. When the signs were right they were to send forth prophets to warn the people of Israel, calling them to repentance. That this point was reached is made evident by the message of the Kingdom, preached by John the Baptist and Jesus. What they taught along with that message had been lost or distorted until the revelation of the Dead Sea scrolls. Those scrolls give us a great understanding of their doctrines and expectations.

Though the Essenes sought perfection they did not believed that it could be obtained on earth in their mortal forms. Their philosophy was that if it was of this world it was subject to error. That included their predictions. They could discern the times and signs, but there was no guarantee their predictions would be right. Therefore, when the diviners of the signs considered the end time was near, a nasi, a leader or ruler, was sent out into the community to test the attitude of the people. He would tell them of the coming kingdom and call them to repentance. This safeguarded the Essenes as a whole while allowing God to show whether the signs were correct or not. John the Baptist was one such leader; Jesus was his heir—the nasi, the prince, the leader of a vanguard whose duty was to mobilize the rank and file. Accordingly, his converts were called Nazarenes—followers of the nasi. This explains why the followers of John the Baptist were also called Nazarenes. The nasi might or might not be the messiah; that depended upon God. He was simply the leader of the congregation of Israel in the last days, but the Semitic root nsr, meaning protector or savior, suggests that by God's will he would become the messiah.

In the Essenes' _Commentary on Nahum_ it explains that the ranks of the believers would be expanded, prior to the battle with the sons of darkness, by the conversion of the wayward Jews. As the kingdom drew nigh the numbers of such converts were expected to mushroom as the new covenant attracted the lost sheep of the house of Israel back to the fold. The phrase, all the congregation of Israel, implies that many Jews were expected to return to the fold by the end time. So, when Jesus asked his disciples: "Whom do men say that I am?" he was most likely trying to ascertain if God had chosen him as the Messiah. The people only viewed him as a prophet, but it was Peter who spoke the words he obviously longed to hear. "Thou art the Messiah."

This also explains why Jesus instructed them to "tell no man of him." If the people were to recognize Jesus as the Messiah it was to be a revelation of God—not one instilled by his followers. This is substantiated by the remark he made to Peter. "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." The same revelation had to be made to all who would believe. It had to come from God, not man. And what of the play upon _Peter_ , the rock, the foundation of the church, meaning the congregation? Peter was obviously the first one to speak the words Jesus waited to hear. The foundation of Jesus's ministry would have been his acceptance as the Messiah.

It was probably then, that Jesus first believed he was the Messiah, for from that time he began to promote himself as that _savior_ with remarks such as:

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Then he speaks of the Son of man's return in glory and promises the kingdom within the lifetime of some of those present. The Essenes believed that when the times were right God would change the nasi into the messiah, and when the kingdom appeared men would be transformed into angels. The first would be the nasi who would become the archangel Michael. This would explain the Nazarenes' expectation of Jesus's return—he was the first transformed. Or as Paul later phrased it, "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept" (I Corinthians 15:20).

Matthew 17:1-23, Mark 9:2-10, 31-32 & Luke 9:28-36, 44-45

Here we have three accounts of the transfiguration and Jesus's prediction of his death and resurrection. As usual, Matthew has the most detailed description. The incident has to be regarded as either a mystical hoax or popular fable for three reasons: First, Jesus is referred to as the Son of God which, as we have seen, contradicts indisputable scriptures. Secondly, Jesus allegedly taught of his death, an event which the disciples were ignorant of later (John 20:9). And thirdly, the entire story is simply ridiculous. However we do find one small grain of truth where Jesus refers to his resurrection on the third day. According to Essene belief the righteous would be raised up (with incorruptible bodies) in the kingdom of God on the third day of the kingdom in accordance with Hosea 6:2. Here can be seen the root of the Christian belief of Jesus's resurrection on the third day, and the spiritual resurrection of the soul in heaven. More than likely this was what Jesus was teaching before it was Christianized.

Matt. 19:16-24, Mk. 10:17-25 & Lu. 18:18-25

We have already read in Galatians, where Paul takes credit for the doctrine of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. In these passages we find Jesus teaching just the opposite. A wealthy young man came to Jesus and asked what he must do to have eternal life. It is very important to note that the question was the requirements for obtaining eternal life. Did Jesus tell the young man he must believe in his coming death and resurrection; that he must be baptized, attend a certain synagogue or church, offer burnt offerings or blood sacrifices, fast, or believe any religious dogma? No! All three gospels depict Jesus as telling the young man he must keep the commandments. Jesus even listed a number of commandments so there could be no misunderstanding as to which law he referred. He did the same thing on another occasion when a lawyer tempted him with the same question (Luke 10:25-28).

If there was ever a time in Jesus's ministry when it should have been evident that he was teaching salvation through his death and resurrection, surely this was it. If Jesus was teaching observance of the law right up until his death, imagine the situation. Imagine all the 'multitudes' that believed Jesus and were keeping the law, confident that their salvation was assured by doing so. Then, 'slam, bam'! All of a sudden Jesus is gone and his disciples are telling everyone that if they are to be saved they must believe Jesus rose from the grave.

Yet this is what many Christians teach. To explain the obvious contradiction they claim Jesus taught two plans of salvation: that of repentance, as John the Baptist taught, and a personal salvation through belief in Jesus's resurrection. If you study the three synoptic gospels you will find Jesus taught that eternal life came through observance of the law. It is only in the Gospel of John that salvation through Jesus's death and resurrection is lauded. In fact it is one of the main themes of the book. John introduces it on at least eight different occasions (see John 3:15, 4:36, 5:39, 6:54, 6:68, 10:28, 12:25 and 17:2-3). The late introduction of the Gospel of John gave the author ample opportunity to 'address' many timely issues that were not 'clarified' in the earlier Gospels.

We also have two points in these passages that enforce the idea that Jesus was connected with the Essenes. One is Jesus's distain for riches. When Jesus told the rich, young man he must give away all his wealth he was unable to part with it. The Essene believers equated wealth with sin, and hated the rich. Wealth was one of the three major sins of Belial. It was the rich who deceived the people and led them from the precepts of God. In contrast, they called themselves the Poor. In their _War Scroll_ , following a prophecy of the kingdom, is written:

by the hand of the Poor whom you have redeemed by Your Power and the peace of Your Mighty Wonders... by the hand of the Poor and those bent in the dust, You will deliver the enemies of all the lands and humble the mighty of the peoples to bring upon their heads the reward of the Wicked and justify the Judgment of Your Truth on all the sons of men.

In James 2:3 the author fired off an angry salvo against the rich, condemning them forthright without regard to personal merit. Why? Remember the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 when the 'Christians' were awaiting the return of Jesus? Those believers were, in actuality, the Nazarenes (Jewish followers of Jesus) awaiting the return of their Messiah. God had chosen the poor and promised the kingdom to them. The rich oppressed the poor and brought them before the judgment seat. This is a teaching that Christians today want to deny. In the passage above we have the story of a rich young man who wanted eternal life. Jesus told him he must keep the commandments, the Law of Moses, to which the young man affirmed that he had. For the orthodox Jew, this would have been sufficient, but Jesus required more. According to Essene belief eternal life was gained upon entry into the soon coming kingdom of God. To enter it the young man must denounce the rich and give his wealth to the poor—the Essenes. Matthew 18:21 makes it even more explicit: "If thou wouldst be perfect, go, sell that thou hast." We see this in practice by Jesus's followers in Acts 4:32-5:11. The Essenes also called themselves The Perfect.

And the second point: Of the four prevalent religious philosophies identified by Josephus, the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots the gospels make it obvious that Jesus could not have been of the first two persuasions. When Mark writes in 1:22 that Jesus was teaching not as the scribes he is virtually admitting that he was an Essene or a Zealot. The scribes were mainly Pharisees. Most of the priests were Sadducees who had little philosophy other than the atoning sacrifices of temple worship, and they would never have spoken against the status quo with which they were entirely satisfied. Of Josephus's four philosophies, only the Essenes and the Zealots are left. From the Qumran literature it is evident that the Essenes were fanatics for the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. From Josephus we find that the Zealots also were fanatics for the kingdom of God on earth, and actually fought for it. The gospels tell us that Jesus opposed scribes, Pharisees, priests and Sadducees but taught of the imminence of God's kingdom. In all likelihood Jesus was an Essene, if not, he was well acquainted with, and taught, their doctrines.

Matthew 22:1-46, Mark 11:1-12:12, Luke 19:1-48

All three synoptic gospels convey the story of Jesus's triumphant entry into Jerusalem, and all three agree emphatically that Jesus was viewed as the Messiah, not a spiritual, personal, redeemer. That Jesus considered himself the Messiah is evident by the fact he endeavored to fulfill the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, which states explicitly that the king would ride into Jerusalem on a foal. By doing so Jesus was stating— _I am the king!_ In Luke 19:10 Jesus says, "...the Son of man is come to seek and save that which was lost." When the people heard this, and because Jesus was near Jerusalem, they thought the Kingdom of God was imminent. And they welcomed him as the King (Luke 19:38). What occurred should be obvious. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday he was viewed as the Messiah. And it doesn't matter whether he was at the head of an army or not, the people rose up and by sheer numbers took the temple.

At the head of that army of citizens Jesus stormed into the temple and turned over the tables of the money changers, ran the buyers and sellers out, and controlled passage through. It's impossible to determine if he expected the holy army of God to descend at that time or not, but that action sealed his fate. Jesus obviously had control because the High Priests normally had absolute power over the temple, and there were guards who would have thrown Jesus out or arrested him under normal conditions. Instead the priests simply asked him by whose authority he acted—eliminating the possibility that he was acting under Roman authority. If we assume they were only allowing him to incriminate himself, they would still have arrested him at some point. Instead he occupied the temple and taught daily, which implies he had control for a number of days. Mark 11:17-18 and Matthew 26:3-5 state that the scribes and priests desired to kill him but feared the people.

Matthew 24- 26:1-5, Mark 13-14:1-2, Luke 21-22:1-2

As the days passed, Jesus taught and debated within the temple while he awaited the army of God. But crowds are ruled by emotions, not reason, and as the days passed and the kingdom tarried it appears the people drifted away to attend the business of daily life. Eventually, Jesus left the temple and the priests were waiting.

As Jesus and his disciples left the temple, they were admiring the structure, at that time Jesus revealed he still believed in the coming kingdom, "...the days will come in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." This was one of the Essenes central beliefs, that the temple was defiled and must be destroyed. But later writers have inserted an end time revelation depicting the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans. Or, as some end time evangelical sects preach, an end of the world scenario. The fact that none of the gospels were written until after Jerusalem fell made it easy to post-date history.

The chief priest and scribes still saw Jesus as a threat and sought to destroy him, but they had to do it in a manner that would not discredit them in the eyes of the people. The story of Judas' betrayal is suspect. Why his aid would be necessary is unclear. Since Jesus taught openly in the temple his identity should not have been in question. Luke 22:6 says they sought an opportunity when the multitude was absent. However, if such were the case why would they put him on trial and make a huge public spectacle of the situation? Because he had to be discredited openly and publicly.

Matthew 26:47-27:61, Mark 14:43-15:41, Luke 22:47-23:56

Little, if any, of the tales surrounding Jesus's trial and crucifixion can be accounted creditable because they contradict the Judaic Law and teachings that Jesus advocated so strongly. For instance, in Matthew 26:31-32 & Mark 14:27-28, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection, and tells the disciples he will meet them in Galilee. Yet in the resurrection events the disciples couldn't believe such a tale even after the women reminded them. And the tales of the high priests pleading with Pilate to kill Jesus, and Pilate's reluctance, doesn't conform to reality. Josephus made references to a number of not so well-known people of his era including Jewish false messiahs and cult leaders such as Theudas, who recruited some thousands of followers and brought them to the banks of the Jordan in the belief the river would open to facilitate their triumphal march on Jerusalem; or the Egyptian, mentioned in Acts 21:38, who led a body of partisans as far as the Mount of Olives, convinced the walls of Jerusalem would fall down. Yet, Josephus had very little to say regarding Jesus. In fact the secular world, including Rome, seems to have scarcely heard of him other than through the highly lauded tales produced by Christianity. Surely, if all the excitement surrounding Jesus's trial, crucifixion, the resurrection of a God, and the founding of a new religion had occurred wouldn't it have had a prominent place in Josephus' writings? This indicates that Jesus's ministry, apprehension, and crucifixion was either a short-lived nuisance to Roman authority, has been the subject of a massive cover-up, or never occurred.

That there was animosity and dissension by the Sadducees toward Jesus is evident in the fact that Jesus was brought to trial before the High Priest. (Mark has him on trial before the Sanhedrin, but even many Christian commentators think that story is fictional.) Obviously he did something, but what? The Sadducees were irate because he took control of the temple and disrupted traffic, but was that a criminal offense that befitted death? Yes: but by Roman law! According to it, by assuming the power of civic authorities and controlling passage through the temple he had committed the crime of Laesae Majestatis. Of this he was definitely guilty because he overthrew the tables and refused to allow anyone to carry anything through.

But was Jesus guilty? Was he an insurrectionist? In Matthew 10:34 Jesus told his followers that he had not come to send peace on the earth, but a sword. Plainly meaning the coming struggle to route the Romans and usher in the kingdom of God. In Luke he said he would cast fire on the earth and the kingdom had to be entered violently. In Luke 22:36 he urges his followers to buy swords; on credit if possible or, if necessary, by selling their clothes. Luke tries to make it appear that Jesus wanted the weapons to deliberately break the Law to fulfill prophecy (Isaiah 53:12) but since he'd already broken the Law such reasoning is senseless.

In Luke 13:1-5 some come to Jesus telling him of Pilate (meaning his soldiers) mingling the blood of Galileans with their sacrifice, which might refer to a Sabbath attack, by the Romans, against rebels within the temple. Jesus answered by mentioning eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell. He then used both cases to urge repentance less his listeners perish likewise. Why? How would repentance preserve them from the Romans—unless that repentance was, like the Essenes' teachings, a commitment to arms?

The strongest evidence that Jesus was an insurrectionist is the fact that he was crucified as one, and the proof of that fact is recorded in the gospels. Herman Samuel Reimarus, a Hamburg language professor writing two hundred years ago pointed out there was one Jesus, a freedom fighter leading a revolution against the Romans. He listed gospel evidence as this:

  * He gathered large crowds which the authorities considered potentially subversive

  * He was described as a Galilaean, llike Judas the Galilaean, a rebel.

  * The nicknames of many of his followers sounded more like men of violence than men of peace. (That is: Petra, meaning Rocky, the tempestuous brothers and the Sons of Thunder.)

  * He deliberately depicted himself as a king as he entered Jerusalem and his supporters greeted him as such openly.

  * He had committed the crime in Roman Law of Laesae Majestatis by assuming the power of civic authorities to permit passage through the temple

  * An insurrection had occurred in which men had died and Jesus's supporters had been armed and resisted arrest with violence, cutting off a man's ear.

  * When Jesus was charged as a rival to Caesar's rule in Palestine, claiming to be the king of the Jews, he chose not to deny it unequivocally at his trial.

  * Jesus was Barabbas, the nasi, one of the holy ones of God but a failed rebel.

Reimarus' reference to Jesus being Barabbas comes from the Aramaic meaning of Barabbas, which is Son of my Father. Jesus always called God, my father, using the Aramaic term Abba. Therefore Jesus's title, Son of God, could be interpreted Barabbas. According to Origin, an early Church writer, some old manuscripts of Matthew reveal the full name of the criminal as Jesus Barabbas.

I believe we've revealed more than sufficient evidence to ascertain that Jesus was a leader in a rebellion to drive the Romans from his country. And I know that the idea of Jesus with a sword in his hand is abhorrent to Christians today. But it shouldn't be. Why is it so hard to envision Jesus fighting the Gentiles to preserve Judaism and the Law of God when the Christian Church exterminated millions of 'heretics' in his name to preserve the power of their dogma? In the Catholic Encyclopedia they cite Jesus, Paul and the Apostles as authority for their atrocities. And there can be no mistaking their intent.

The Apostles acted upon their Master's directions. All the weight of their own Divine faith and mission is brought to bear upon innovators. "If any one," says St. Paul, "preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:9). To St. John the heretic is a seducer, an antichrist, a man who dissolves Christ (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7); "receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you" (II John, 10). St. Peter, true to his office and to his impetuous nature, assails them as with a two-edged sword: " . . . lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction . . . These are fountains without water, and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved" (2 Peter 2:1, 17). St. Jude speaks in a similar strain throughout his whole epistle. St. Paul admonishes the disturbers of the unity of faith at Corinth that "the weapons of our warfare . . . are mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God . . . and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience" (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5, 6). (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - www.newadvent. org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_VI)

Christianity teaches that Christ died for all mankind. No one is forced to serve God; man is a free agent. However, in the past, if you chose not to believe the Church, you were a heretic, an antichrist, and were to be exterminated! It was a case of bow the knee or offer the neck. But the poor wretch shouldn't be concerned; either way, God loved him! Though the Church spoke of love and forgiveness, their affections were the same as those of the Old Testament God. They were reserved only for those who submitted to their God. The Church even claimed a divine blessing from God to stamp out all opposition. It was a matter of natural survival!

The first Law of life, be it the life of plant or animal, of man or of a society of men, is self-preservation... The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts. For faith supplies the means of mending moral delinquencies as one of its ordinary functions, whereas the loss of faith, cutting at the root of spiritual life, is usually fatal to the soul... The jealousy with which the Church guards and defends her deposit of faith is therefore identical with the instinctive duty of self-preservation and the desire to live...In the Catholic Church this natural Law has received the sanction of Divine promulgation, as appears from the teaching of Christ and the Apostles quoted above... (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_VI) (Emphasis added).

Considering the bloodlust and hatred of the early Christians toward heretics, and their zeal in stamping out any conflicting doctrines, why should it be so hard to believe that Jesus was a religious freedom fighter? But whether such is so or not, Jesus was certainly guilty under the civil law of Rome. How the crucifixion was carried out is of little importance. So many tales have been spun about the event that there's no way the truth could ever be revealed. It is enough to know that Pilate found him guilty of insurrection and passed the only sentence possible under the conditions. It is almost a certainty he was crucified, what happened to his body afterwards is impossible to ascertain.

But if his crime was only against the Romans, why was he brought to trial before the Jewish court? First we have to understand the social situation. Jesus and the excited masses controlled the temple. Outside the city the Romans were probably readying a force to assault the temple and capture him. Of course the Sadducees, who operated the temple and were collaborating with the Romans, wanted him out. The Pharisees were more concerned with the welfare of the populace. But whatever their motives and political leanings, all the Jewish leaders knew how the Romans would react. On previous occasions they had put down rebellions by slaughtering thousands of Jewish citizens. With this in mind let's look at a comment made by the high priest, Caiaphas, in John 18:14.

"Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that is was expedient that one man should die for the people."

This explains a great deal. The Jewish leaders, either through disbelief in Jesus as the Messiah or common sense, realized God's army of holy angels was not going to appear. So, to avert a massacre of the people they believed it best to surrender Jesus. This also provides an answer to why they were so anxious to find fault with him. They were afraid to pass sentence upon an innocent man because the people were still agitated. And for the same reason they were reluctant to turn him over to the Romans. They needed to find him guilty of breaking the Jewish Law! It would also explain why we find Jesus's disciples worshiping with the Jews years later. They held no malice toward the Jews because they did what was necessary.

Matthew 27:62-28:20, Mark 16, Luke 24:1-53

Any sensible man should judge resurrection stories as ludicrous based simply on their subject, but in Christian circles such will not suffice. So we must look at evidence or, in this case, lack of evidence. To do so we must turn to the differing resurrection stories. As mentioned previously, Mark's final chapter concerning the resurrection was a late addition not found in the earliest manuscripts and should be labeled false. Another indication that chapter sixteen is at least out of sequence is the second mention of the two Mary's after just referring to them at the end of chapter fifteen (Note: the original texts were not divided into chapters.). Other inconsistencies and contradictions identify the tales as nothing more than fables. In Mark the stone is already rolled away and a man in white garment is awaiting the women when they arrive at the sepulcher. In Matthew there are two women, an earthquake and an angel to roll back the stone. In Luke there is a group of women and two men in white with a reminder that Jesus had already told them of his crucifixion and resurrection. An obvious Church addition for we've already learned the Apostles knew nothing of it.

Again we see the growth and exaggeration from the early to later gospels. Mark records only a man in the empty tomb. The resurrection tale is added later. In Matthew there is an earthquake and the man has become an angel. To prove the body wasn't simply stolen guards are set and a cover-up is hatched. And to sanction the ministry to the Gentiles both Mark and Matthew have a resurrected Jesus sending the disciples to all the world. The incident in Mark is in the falsified last chapter which attests to it credibility. In Mark and Matthew the women are instructed to tell the disciples to go to Galilee where they will see Jesus, yet before they can even pass the word, Jesus is already making appearances. From there through the Gospel of John the stories of Christ appearances pop-up like UFO sightings. And with almost every occurrence Jesus institutes or endorses a controversial Gentile Christian teaching. The impression one gets is that Jesus died a Jew and was resurrected a Gentile preaching newly discovered Christian doctrines. The obvious is that these passages were inserted years later to give credence to contested Church doctrines.

All these convenient tidbits of truth are at variance with other scripture. As already pointed out, Peter certainly knew nothing about going to all nations. When the Apostles questioned Paul's ministry to the Gentiles they obviously had no intentions of accepting his converts under the Law as long as they remained outside Judaism. And in Acts 1:6 the Apostles ask the risen Jesus: "...Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" When that line was penned they were still looking for a literal kingdom of God. In Acts 15:16 James, quoting from Amos 9:11, makes their position clear. The Davidic tabernacle would soon be rebuilt, and then all men would seek the Lord. Notice verses 19&20, the Gentiles were still not accepted under the Mosaic Law.

The only logical explanation is that the body was stolen from the tomb, but by whom? The man, or men, in white give us the strongest clue. The followers of John the Baptist and the Nazarenes, wore white and the Qumran Nasrani (Nazarenes) were called the people in white. Even modern Christianity pictures Jesus as dressed in white. Doesn't it stand to reason that the Essenes removed the body of one of their own for an honorable and proper burial? One even waited to inform Jesus's followers as to the actions taken with his body. Perhaps the confused message about him going before them to Galilee was simply directions to his final resting place.

The Essenes and the followers of Jesus believed the righteous would be raised from the dead on God's day of vengeance. When rumors of the empty tomb began circulating they came to the conclusion that Jesus had been resurrected as the first fruits of righteousness (See Revelation 1:5 and I Corinthians 15:20). Both scriptures show that his followers thought the general resurrection had begun. More than likely, some thought they had seen Jesus.

Conclusion:

I know if you are a true blue, dyed-in-the-wool, believing Christian, with unlimited faith, you are capable of tearing the arguments presented here to shreds; I could when I was a believing Christian. The pivotal point is faith. The Bible has a lot to say about faith. Or, perhaps I should say the New Testament has a lot to say about faith, it's only mentioned twice in the Old Testament. The word faithful is used repeatedly in the Old Testament in the sense of a duty; a faithful God, person, servant, witness, or messenger, all based on deeds or works where by one might judge or be judged. For instance, a faithful servant would be one who served his master well, a faithful person speaks truthfully, and a faithful god keeps his word.

However, in the New Testament, and the Christian's concept of faith, it denotes an unsubstantiated belief. One is first asked to believe the person who introduces the Word—the messenger. Then he/she is asked to believe the message—the Bible (or for the most part, the New Testament). They are then asked to believe the storytellers, recorders, scribes and compilers of that Bible. And lastly they must believe that an unknowable supernatural deity who cannot be evaluated, has miraculously preserved the integrity of His message. Only when we evaluate the enormity of this task can we perceive the priceless value of faith. First the messenger, a parent, friend, minister or perhaps a stranger: can we judge his integrity? In most cases, yes; if so, then the question of faith switches to the message. Where did the messenger get it? From a book or perhaps someone told him. Has he ascertained its truthfulness? Did he check its validity? No, it must be accepted upon faith. Obviously, he only believed the one who told him. And what was he told?—that the book was written by holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit. Did he prove that statement? No, but it's in the Bible, therefore it is true. But how can we be sure errors in selection or copying haven't been made? Because the Holy Mother Church compiled the writings and the Church is infallible in such matters. But what of God, how can we know he is real? Because He said it and God cannot lie. Really, how do we know that? Because the Bible says God cannot lie.

In the end the believer isn't really asked to believe the Bible, that there is a supreme deity, or in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What the believer is asked to believe is the words of man. At some point all these suppositions and thousands of equally preposterous teachings originated or have passed through the hands of some unknown narrator or writer. While there is evidence that a man named Jesus may have existed there is no proof to substantiate those ludicrous teachings. The only way to form a clear picture of the puzzle is to fill in the holes with generous amounts of faith.

If you liked _Disharmony of the Gospels_ you may enjoy _The Amazing Deception: A Critical Analysis of Christianity_. The former has a number of exerts from the latter.

_The Amazing Deception_ covers a rather comprehensive history of Christianity; beginning with the current events and social conditions in Palestine during the last century B.C., and extending to the canonization of the Bible. Unlike the _Disharmony of the Gospels_ , it is well documented with references and citations, but only in the print version.

Below is an excerpt from _The Amazing Deception: A Critical Analysis of Christianity._

# Chapter 9 – The Teachings of Paul

Today, the Christian world marches blindly forward, espousing Paul's counterfeit plan of salvation with total confidence that it was introduced, endorsed, and fostered upon the world by Jesus Christ.! For some reason, the average Christian ignores the obvious fact that Paul and the Apostles differed on almost all of their doctrines. For instance, they had different concepts of Jesus's nature. To the Apostles, he was the Messiah; to Paul, Jesus was the son of God. In the Apostles' view, Jesus would return to bring judgment upon the wicked and usher in a literal kingdom of God on earth. Paul's concept was of a spiritual kingdom. Even their perception of salvation was different. The Apostles believed that salvation came through obedience to the Law, while Paul taught that Jesus fulfilled the Law.

Paul's intelligence and intent were so masterful that, even today, Christians simply refuse to believe the truth. Although it is openly displayed in every New Testament people still desire the story concocted and perpetrated by the Catholic Church. By way of explanation, let me try to explain the elements involved and how they were manipulated.

The Scriptures of the Essenes/Nazarenes and orthodox Jews were rigid, unyielding, bound tightly within the Law of Moses and required literal interpretation. This appealed to the heritage of the Nazarenes. While they might use allegories and mysteries to conceal their teachings from the profane, the Law was written in stone, and had to be observed to the letter. The opposite was true for the Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews. Their philosophies and religions were built upon mysteries and magic, so Paul was able to translate all that he had learned during his early life at Tarsus, his studies as a Pharisee and, possibly, as a sojourner with the Essenes into the type of religious philosophy for which the Gentiles were clamoring. Let's see how he accomplished this, step-by-step.

The first step was to establish an authority for his teachings. As we observed earlier, for the Essenes that authority was the Zaddik, the Teacher of Righteousness. He was one Perfect Teacher who spoke for all the people, a community _pillar_ —such as Noah, David and James who were "called from the womb." Such an authoritative figure wasn't limited to only the Essenes; the idea of a protecting and nurturing leader originated with Adam, the First Man, and was a common tenet of the Jewish tradition. Therefore, all Jews understood the import of Paul's declaration when he claimed that authority for himself:

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen... (Galatians 1:15-16).

His credentials, Zaddik of a new priesthood, called by God, answerable to no man:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (Galatians 1:1).

With one verbal claim, Paul established unquestionable (in that it could not be disproved) authority which immediately placed him on equal footing with James, the Zaddik and Righteous Teacher of the Jerusalem Church. And in the same breath, Paul validated the resurrection of Jesus. For years, stories of Jesus rising from the grave and speaking with his disciples and loved ones had been passed among the believers, but he had ascended to heaven, leaving everyone suspended in a state of expectation. Now, Paul was telling them Jesus had returned. And, he had no trouble selling a salvation to those desperate to believe.

Professor Burton L. Mack, author of _Who Wrote the New Testament_ _?_ is referencing Galatians 1:16 when he claims that God only "made his son known" to Paul (p. 102 ibid). Mack further states that there was no "personal, private experience of encounter with God's son." Nevertheless, the author of Acts describes Saul's conversion as a personal, private, spiritual encounter with Jesus twice, in Acts chapters 9 and 22. Obviously, these passages were intended to establish such authority for Paul's ministry.

This is a perfect example of one problem that is presented in New Testament studies. As noted earlier (chapter three), it is readily acknowledged by most theologians and Bible scholars that the New Testament does have errors, corrections, and additions. Thus, our problem: how do you differentiate between the truth and spurious statements? And how can you refer to one passage as proof, while denying the validity of another?

In addition, I'm sure many of my readers are wondering: "How can he claim the Scriptures are corrupt and unreliable and still turn to them as proof?" I do so, based upon Christianity's valuation of the Scriptures. Christians turn to the Bible for divine, final proof. What choice do I have, but to let the Scriptures witness to their own fallacies?

Understand the situation in which these passages were written. Paul was writing to the churches in Galatia, probably two or three years after his confrontation with James and the Jerusalem Church council. According to Paul's account, either fourteen or seventeen years, depending upon chronological reckoning, had passed since his _call_ from God. Three of those years had, presumably, been spent within the Qumran Community; the balance had been dedicated to formulating his theology and building his ministry, almost exclusively among the Gentiles in other nations. Now, he was explaining to the Galatians what had transpired at the Jerusalem Council. He was confident, even a bit defiant and, perhaps, angry. At the time of the meeting, he had made one successful missionary journey and had already established a number of churches; he would not be intimidated.

# Attack on the Law

Paul lost no time in attacking the Jews' central tenet of belief—the Law of Moses—by insisting that Gentiles were not bound by the Abrahamic Covenant, and were, therefore, free from the bondage of the Law.

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham (Galatians 3:6-9).

As we noted before, there is no indication that Paul made assertions such as this to the Jerusalem Church when he was defending his teachings. Do you suppose he informed them that their belief in Abraham was only a stepping stone to his ministry? If so, imagine the shock that would have reverberated throughout the ranks of the Nazarenes and the Jewish community! The audacity that one man could not only elevate himself above the high priest and religious leaders of the land, but also presume to condemn God's Law! The Jews in the cities where he preached were so upset they tried to kill him, and yet, we find no indication of similar outrage among the members of the Jerusalem Church. This reinforces the idea that his teachings were not publicized in Jerusalem after he was forced to flee the city at the beginning of his ministry.

The Abraham reference must refer to Genesis 22:18, even though the "seed" promise is made to Abraham in 12:2-3, 18:18, and repeatedly in chapter 17. However, in every instance "seed" is used in the plural tense.

It is impossible to ascertain whether or not James, the brother of Jesus, was truly the author of the book of James. Nor can we know if the writer was responding to Paul's charge, but there is certainly a countercharge in the epistle of James:

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the alter? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God (James 2:20-23).

Notice that both Paul and James turn to Genesis 22:18 for their authorization. James interpreted the passage in context by including Abraham's "works"; Paul only wanted to reinforce the idea that faith equals righteousness. The passage in Genesis speaks of Abram's "seed." To James, the reference was to Isaac's descendents but Paul had discovered the power of allegorical interpretation, and saw his definition as one seed—Christ.

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ (Galatians 3:16).

Paul's interpretation is simply a play on the Hebrew word, _Zera_ , meaning: _fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity—carnally, child, fruitful_. The word is used in the plural form extensively throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Time and again, Paul uses this method of reasoning as he casts doubt upon the validity of the Law. To those familiar with Christian doctrines, such statements sound more sensible and pleasing than the harsh demands of the Mosaic Law, but the reader should place all partiality aside, and concentrate on the historicity of the events taking place. The point is not whether Paul was performing a service or disservice, or if he was introducing a better religion or philosophy. Instead, focus on the mechanics of how he did it. Were his interpretations of Scriptures accurate? Did they truly support his claims?

In Galatians 3:14, we find Paul reiterating God's alleged promise to Abraham of a savior to the Gentiles, in which Paul again distinguishes "seed" from "seeds." And here, once again, we must point out the fact that Paul's interpretation is incorrect. Paul was a master at making assumptions based on Hebrew Scripture taken out of context. His hypothesis was plausible to pagan Gentiles who probably had no access to the Jewish Scriptures, but were familiar with the idea of a dying and resurrected god from their own culture. And, despite his claims to the contrary, Paul had the ability, charisma, and eloquence to weave an appealing story from the Scriptures, credible even to some of his more intellectual listeners.

In this passage, Paul's idea of a promised seed is described as a covenant that was given before Moses introduced the Law to Israel. Why then, Paul asks, was the Law given? It was given, he said, because of the transgressions of the Israelites. The Law was a schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24), a training aid, until Jesus came; but the Law couldn't give eternal life. By some mysterious logic, the blood of bulls and goats could only cover man's sins—not eradicate them (Hebrews 10:4). Eternal life could only be acquired by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23). However, when we consult the Hebrew Scriptures, we find that Paul's concepts of forgiveness of sin, faith, and eternal life are in stark contrast with God's principles. Leviticus and Numbers are dedicated to instructions for sin offerings, and forgiveness of sin is promised in Leviticus 4:20, II Chronicles 6:25 & 7:14, Psalm 32:1, 51:2 & 85:2, Ezekiel 33:13-16—and repeatedly throughout the Scriptures.

Paul makes vague references to the Hebrew Scriptures but when we refer to the verses, we find they don't exactly fit Paul's context. One of his main points of contention in the following passage refers to God justifying the heathen and preaching the gospel to Abraham. Paul's reference to Genesis 22:18: "In thee shall all nations be blessed," teaches that God came to Abraham and allegedly promised that his "seed," Jesus, would open the door for salvation to the heathen, or Gentiles. Let's see what was actually stated.

...because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies (Genesis 22:16&17).

The first rule of Bible study is to consider context. In context, what God tells Abraham is a simple and clear promise. Paraphrased; God is saying: "Abraham, I'm going to make a great nation of you. I'll bless those that bless you, and curse those that curse you. If any other nations wish to receive my blessings they'd better treat you well." That is it. Abraham committed to an act (sacrifice of Issac), performed a work, and God made the promise. The only seed inferred is Abraham's son, Isaac; the promise is a multiplicity of seed—seeds.

When Paul returns to his attack upon the Law, he does present a scripturally true statement. He just packages it in a unique manner.

For as many as are under the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith (Galatians 3:10&11).

To find this referenced curse, we must go to Deuteronomy 27:26, where the commandments were given to the Israelites, and the
Levites were pronouncing curses upon all those who chose not to
obey the Law.

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

At this event, the people had heard the commandments, or Law, and were basically confirming their desire to either continue as Israelites, or reject the commandments and join those outside the Law—the cursed. It's a decision that today might be referred to as a "no-brainer." The God of the Hebrew Scriptures dealt very directly with the ones He chose. He blessed or cursed them, whether the person (or nation, as in the case of Israel) obeyed or disobeyed the Law. In that sense, Paul's assertion that no man was justified by the Law was correct, but his idea that there was a salvation apart from the Law just isn't scriptural—at least it's not in the Hebrew Scriptures. The idea that no man is justified by the Law might be evident to Christians today, but that has never been a Jewish concept.

The concept of salvation in the form of eternal life wasn't Jewish either. Look at the promises God made to Abraham, his son Isaac, and grandson Jacob (Genesis 13:14-16; 26:3-4; 35:11-12): land, wealth, fertility, power over their enemies and longevity—nothing about eternal life. The same promises were relayed through Joseph, Moses, Joshua and other descendants, until the nation Israel evolved into city-dwellers out of nomadic tribes, and David consolidated the empire. At that time, the emphasis of God's promises seemed to shift more toward maintaining the mighty and wealthy nation of Israel, and protecting the empire from its many enemies—still nothing about eternal life.1 There is only one reference to eternal, or everlasting, life in the Old Testament, prior to the book of Daniel (12:2), where it is mentioned in an eschatological prophecy. But that reference makes it obvious eternal life for man was not in God's plans.

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken (Genesis 3:22-23).

Why was it introduced in Daniel? It wasn't mentioned earlier because it wasn't an original Jewish concept but was adopted from the pagan worship of their captors, the Persians.2

The passage in Hebrews 10:4 (referring to Isaiah 1:11 and Micah 6:6), condemns blood offerings. Does that mean God abolished them? We must keep everything in context. The question in these instances wasn't the efficacy of the sacrifice but the attitude of the worshippers. They performed the rituals of sacrifice, but their intentions were evil—therefore, their offerings were an abomination.

Jesus recognized offerings and sacrifices as part of the Law for he commanded those he healed to go to the priest and offer the gift commanded by Moses (Matthew 8:4). The main concern should not be whether or not offerings were abolished, but the fact that Paul was teaching something contrary to the Law. No matter how vehemently he denied that his intent was to negate the Law, that is exactly what his actions and teachings did.

As for his message of the just living by faith, the word _faith_ is used just twice in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first instance of use is found in Deuteronomy 32:20, where God accused the children of Israel of lacking faith. The second is Paul's reference to Habakkuk 2:4:

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Here we have to make a distinction between Paul's faith and the faith demanded by the God of Israel. In this regard, the key definition in the Hebrew Scriptures was obedience; faith was simply a measurement of obedience. What was Paul's faith? How was it measured? We know it wasn't faith in the Law—Paul was negating the Law. It couldn't have been faith in Yahweh—the harsh, vindictive God of the Old Testament—because He had taken a backseat to Paul's idea of a son of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. What we do know is that Paul's faith evolved into the "miraculous" filling of the Holy Ghost. Notice in his rhetoric to the Galatians how he is able to present inferences and insinuations as truth, and simply sweep Hebrew teachings aside. In 3:1-3&5 he belittles his readers:

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?...He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law; or by the hearing of faith?

"Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" Paul delivered his message, and the manifestation of the Holy Ghost testified to the truth of that message in the form of bodily possession and ecstatic jabbering. Understand; the idea of a person being filled with the power of God was not a new concept. Similar incidents are recorded throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Exodus 31:3; Numbers 24:2; I Samuel 10:10; and Isaiah 61:1, to name only a few).

Paul's faith was not faith in God's word; it was simply belief in what he was teaching—eternal life through belief in the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. To Paul this was truth. And even as he undermined the tenets of the Law, he did not see his actions as destructive. No amount of blood or slain animals could make a man righteous; righteousness must come from the heart. This is a truism. Paul saw its higher value and knew he had found a better way, but it did contradict the legalistic interpretation of the Judaic Law!

Apparently, the Galatians had received the Holy Ghost, which was Paul's proof that his message of an indwelling spirit was truth. However, he had left and their initial euphoric high of an emotional experience had faded. Doubts had led some Galatians to question Paul's stance against the Law. Basically, Paul asks: "Who has bewitched you, so that you can't see the truth that has been presented plainly before your eyes—the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified? Tell me, did you receive the Holy Ghost by keeping the Law, or by faith?"

Notice, Paul had established his gospel as "truth," but by what criteria? Galatians 3:5 tells us it was by the working of miracles and the giving of the spirit. Paul preached his message, worked a few "miracles" and, with fervent oratory and laying on hands, gave his listeners the gift of the Holy Spirit. And why shouldn't one believe such power was derived from God? Let's face it, not everyone can walk into a strange town and heal the sick, chase demons away, impart the Holy Ghost, and have people jabbering in unknown tongues! There have been a few such hypnotists or charismatic evangelists in our age. Ernest Angley, Jimmy Swaggart, or Oral Roberts were capable of such crowd manipulations. But consider Paul's message! Where are the facts? "Jesus died for your sins" is the central tenet of Christian belief. But why should one believe such a statement? We are expected to believe because Jesus arose from the grave. His resurrection is our proof. Still, that is just another assertion. Where is the proof?

We are told it is true because he was seen by many after his resurrection. He even gave the new gospel to his disciples and instructed them to carry it to the whole world. That does sound like something a little more solid. At least, it is something we can check. When we do, the first hurdle we must overcome is the integrity of the New Testament. We can't even find out who wrote it. And even if we accept its authenticity, we still have to explain how the disciples knew nothing of Jesus's commission. Instances in which they refused to associate with Gentiles are found in Acts 2:5, 10:34-43, 11:3 and Galatians 2:9. If they wouldn't even go near a Gentile, how could they convert them? And if they couldn't touch them, how could they lay hands on them to impart the Holy Ghost? Should we believe that Jesus's trained Apostles ate with their resurrected master, received his commission of salvation to any who would believe, understood that this message was to overshadow all racial barriers and transcend the Judaic Law, and yet they continued to observe that Law and even opposed Paul's ministry? No. The facts don't support that story. On the contrary, the story presents no facts worthy of consideration!

In Galatians 2:16, Paul leaves no doubt that it is either the Law—or faith.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

And it wasn't just the saving grace of the Law that came under Paul's condemnation. His teaching of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost conflicted with another facet of the Law—the dwelling place of God's Holy Spirit.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (I Corinthians 3:16).

What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (I Corinthians 6:19).

Imagine how someone who had just _received_ the Spirit and spoken in tongues would comprehend a statement such as this. I was saved in a Baptist church and later joined a Church of God, but never spoke in tongues; even so, my conversion was a spiritual experience—one that I'll never forget. I was filled—filled is the only word for it—with a buoyant sense of excitement, and simultaneously, the most relaxing peace imaginable. And I had no doubt as to who the author of that spiritual blessing was. Therefore, it is easy for me to understand just how Paul's listeners would have felt upon hearing that their body was the temple of the Holy Spirit. Any of Paul's listeners who experienced that exhilarating feeling and heard unintelligible, unbidden speech coming from their own mouth would almost certainly have believed they were possessed of the spirit of God. Most holiness churches today still do.

The concept of eternal life is also tied to the doctrine of the indwelling Holy Spirit:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God: neither doth corruption inherit incorruption....For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory (I Corinthians 15:50, 53&54).

Paul was able to conjure up secrets from the Hebrew Scriptures never before imagined, in this world or in the world to come.

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, then shall we ever be with the Lord (I. Thessalonians 4:15-17).

Since Paul's teachings have no support in the Hebrew Scriptures, how did he come to this synthesis of ideas? How could he sanction his statements as "the word of the Lord?" Remember, Paul was the first author of the New Testament. The gospels hadn't been written, so he wasn't parroting words that had been put into Jesus's mouth. And he certainly wasn't expressing the teachings of Jesus. Otherwise, he and the Apostles would not have been in council discussing conflicting doctrines. They would have been in agreement and would all have been teaching the same thing. Where did Paul get his knowledge? As I said before—he knew the mind of God. God told him. God revealed to him what no other man since Adam, including Jesus, God's own Son, had been able to discern.

For by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:17-19).

So, here we have the genesis of salvation through Jesus Christ. It's defined as an allegory, which is, according to Webster: "The veiled presentation, in a figurative story, of a meaning metaphorically implied but not expressly stated." In other words, God never said this; it's just something Paul figured out. Here we see the genius of Paul's interpretation of Scripture.

But even geniuses err. The error in Paul's reasoning is found in his assurance that the death of Jesus Christ provided a "free gift" of justification to all men. Under Adam, all came under sin and all died, even those who knew nothing of Yahweh. Therefore, reason demands that under Christ, all should receive the "free gift" regardless of whether they know God or not. However, under Paul's message, only those who believe his gospel will be saved. That means it wasn't a free gift; the price was that most priceless of commodities—freedom! But Paul was even able to present such bondage as freedom! He pressed his attack:

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage... For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace (Galatians 5:1, 3-4).

Here Paul is calling for a _separation_ or _setting apart_ , terms emphasized in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and practiced by the Essenes, except that, as in most of Paul's teachings, he is reversing the Judaic rationale. Instead of separating from the unclean world in order to preserve the Law, Paul is advocating a separation from the Law and implying nothing is unclean. He even contradicts James' edict to the Gentile believers against eating things offered to idols.

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one... But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge:... But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak (I Corinthians 8:1-4, 8-9).

Since most people today do not believe in pollution of idols it is easy to become sidetracked by sympathizing with Paul's logic, but we should focus on the issue—Paul's masterful emasculation of the Law. And that is the thrust of almost every attack, whether the subject concerns faith, circumcision, diet, freedom, or whatever; the negation of the Law of Moses is the intended goal.

Notice the not-to-subtle attacks upon James and the Apostles: "If any man think that he knoweth anything." That's a wicked jab at James and those who upheld the Law, those "weak" men who were foolish enough to believe in idols. Paul is basically giving the same answer to all of James' directives; "all things are Lawful for me." He is making his position clear on bondage to, or freedom from, the Law.

Paul used another trick to conceal his intent. Repeatedly, he offered assurance that the Law was good and holy (Romans 7:12), and that his teachings were not voiding it (Romans 3:31). Apparently, Paul was able to keep up the charade until he was mobbed by the Jews (Acts 21). At that time, he was ejected from the country, and it is assumed, he never returned. Yet, even as he called the Law holy, just, and good, he was declaring it abolished (II Corinthians 3:9-16).

Although Christians claim he was only voiding the ceremonial rituals, from the Jews' perspective he was flat-out lying. He was apparently accused of this, because on numerous occasions he assured his readers that he did not lie (Romans 9:1; II Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:20).

To be fair, we should attempt to understand Paul's point of view. His assertion was understandable on the basis that he truly believed the Law was to be observed spiritually. The social and religious upheaval taking place at that time in Palestine must also be considered. Grecian Hellenist concepts had been weakening Jewish culture for centuries. Judaism had reached a major impasse. The Roman occupation had disrupted the temple services and was making it impossible for the Jews to observe the Law as they were commanded by God. The Jewish and Roman rulers were corrupt. The priesthood and the people were divided in their loyalties. And, because of the wickedness of the people, they couldn't even cling to the hope of deliverance by God.

The future promised only a rebellion that would end in total suppression of the people and their religion. Many of the people, such as the Essenes and Zealots, who held messianic expectations, were blind to the hopelessness of their faith. The more orthodox and moderate intellectuals, including Paul, realized changes and compromises had to be made in order to preserve their heritage. Was Paul a realist in that sense? Did he allow those compromises to corrupt his religion and faith in God? Was he, as the Ebionites charged, a charlatan intent upon promoting his own agenda? Was he pursuing some clandestine or vengeful effort to destroy the Law? After reading of the love, concern, and dedication he expressed to all his followers in his epistles, I have to say, no, to that accusation.

Did Paul truly have a one-on-one relationship with a spiritual Jesus? I don't believe in gods or miracles, but I do believe in dreams. And I do believe many physical, natural phenomena occur that have no present-day explanations. I have witnessed such occurrences; for example, in the form of a hopeless alcoholic, or drug addict, who dedicated his life to God and immediately kicked his habit. And I've heard of numerous near-death experiences that produced like results. Why, then, should I not believe Paul experienced a similar event?

Do I believe God miraculously filled him with the knowledge of a new religious concept? No. Paul was a student of the Law, and no doubt well-acquainted with the Scriptures. Adapting that knowledge to a new concept would have required some time and study, but most likely only months, instead of years. Once an idea occurred to him, say, his principle of faith, he would only have had to research familiar Scriptures to solidify his thesis.

The temple was already desecrated. Any man trained in the Law and politics, as Paul was, would have been able to foresee the inevitable collapse of Palestine under then-present conditions. As a Pharisee, Paul's political and religious values were most likely aligned with the Herodian regime, as demonstrated by his persecution of the Nazarenes. No doubt, prior to his conversion, he didn't believe in the return of a messiah. Like many Jews, he probably believed Israel's best chance for survival was cooperation with the Romans. We will never know why, but for some reason, Paul envisioned a masterful transition from a failing form of worship to a new avenue of salvation.

Christians today are able to understand that by introducing a spiritual interpretation of the Law, Paul was offering freedom from the rigid adherence to obsolete and useless rituals. But we must not forget the mindset of the orthodox Jews and Nazarenes, who had dedicated every waking minute of their adult lives to pleasing their God. For them, those physical observances of the Law, such as circumcision, sacrifice, and separation, were just as important as the spiritual acts. Under Paul's teachings, those observances would definitely have to go. Paul presented an escape from a failing form of worship, but for it to succeed he had to discredit the Law. And, to do so, he had to undermine James' authority, while establishing his own.

Do we begin again to commend ourselves, or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistles of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God: not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart (II Corinthians 3:1-3).

Paul's reasoning is beautiful, superb, and undeniable. Letters of authority from the Church were issued to the Apostles, of course Paul had none. In effect, he is saying, "Here are my works, my letters of recommendation, my converts and believers—all alive, well, and happy—blessed by God!" Then he attacks the Mosaic Law by comparing his "letters," which have made them ministers of the New Testament, to the Commandments.

...for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away... Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart (II Corinthians 3:6-7;12-15).

The most striking aspects of Paul's attacks are the bold, vicious assaults. No insinuations, subtle suggestions or reasoning, and not an iota of compromise. Each attack—there can be no other word—is sure and direct, without a trace of indecision. Here is a master swordsman, lunging, thrusting, and skewing a lead-footed, stumbling foe. In this passage, with a single strike, he tarnishes one of the Nazarenes most sacred traditions. By implying that Moses covered his face, not for the brilliance, but so the people would not realize the light had been extinguished, Paul was implying that Moses was a con-artist, deceiving the people. And how else can we interpret the phrase, "the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished," other than the abolishment of the Law?

Notice the continual usage of allegories, and how smoothly Paul negates the Law by simply insinuating that its end was hidden from them. And still, probably one of his greatest allegories is yet to come—one reflecting his opposition to separation from the Gentiles, the one of the olive tree and the grafting in of the "wild" limbs. Speaking of Israel, he begins:

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy... For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy and it the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree: (Romans 11:11, 15-17).

The "branch" and "root" imagery, as used extensively throughout the Old Testament, and Qumran documents made reference to the Messiah. Here, as usual, Paul reverses it in what was probably the most horrendous method possible for the Nazarenes—applying it to the Gentile converts. Understand, this would include the Jews' oppressors, the Romans, if they should believe. This follows after Paul's reference to the "seed of Abraham" in chapter nine.

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac... It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger (Romans 9:6-10,12).

However, Paul's interpretations were bound to anger and insult. God's "children of the promise" were alluded to as "the children of the flesh," obviously referring to Paul's new Gentile community. And with a master stroke the "children of Sarah" were transformed into "the children of Hagar;" thereby reversing the Jews' own genealogical claims against them because, of course, Hagar's son, Ishmael, was born before Isaac.

Paul bases his allegory upon Hebrew genealogy, and declares that God, in his infinite wisdom, will show mercy upon whosoever He will. Then, in verse 24, according to Paul's conjecture, He pours that mercy onto the Gentiles.

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in O'see, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved... And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha (Romans 9:24-27, 29).

One often hears Christians speak of "rightly dividing the Word of God." And, for the Christian, the denominator is always faith. They believe God is, by faith; that Jesus is the son of God, by faith; that Jesus died for their sins, by faith; and that the Bible is the Word of God, by faith. This is the greatest fallacy of their reasoning; with faith as the denominator, there are no tangible values to establish truth.

Paul employs this practice in his interpretation of this Scripture. He takes a literal passage from the Hebrew Scriptures (in this case, four passages), changes them just a bit and, by giving them an allegorical interpretation, applies them to his purpose. He is using faith in what he perceives to be God's will as the determining factor to define truth.

Understand that Paul was not practicing deception. Again, he was using the _gezerah shawah_ principle, an accepted use of interpretation in that era. He had no qualms about collecting and reshuffling Scriptures to conform them to his interpretation. In this case, he took snippets from Hosea (1:10 and 2:23), and two sections of Isaiah (10:22 and 1:9), then used them out of context to refer to his allegorical "Israel"—his Gentile converts.

In the original context of both passages, God is speaking to Israel and Judah, warning them of the captivity he will bring upon them, and promising he will bring a remnant out of captivity. In Hosea, God addresses Israel as an adulterous wife, and although the quote provided by Paul is far from exact, it is basically accurate. However, the prophecy is for the people of Israel, the Jews, not Paul's converts. It does not make any reference to Paul's Gentiles; faith must be used to reach that conclusion. Faith, I might add, in Paul's interpretation of Scriptures—not the author's.

In the quote from Isaiah 10:22, Paul **tells us** the reference is to Israel. He only had to change one word to fit his purpose. God speaks of a remnant returning, Paul's Gentiles weren't returning, so he used "saved." He did the same thing in his quote of Isaiah 1:9. That passage said God left "a very small remnant." Paul, again playing upon the word "seed," alluded to his Christ. In both of these cases, it was the numerator that was changed, but the denominator must still be faith. Today, Christians still use these passages to _prove_ God rejected the Jews.

When we connect all of these conflicting teachings with Paul's assertion in I Corinthians that his Gentiles are the temple of God, it becomes obvious that he was attempting to Hellenize, not just the Jews, but their own God! This feat has been established in Christianity.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (I Corinthians 3:16).

Again and again, Paul makes it obvious that his intention is to build a community where Greeks and Jews can live in harmony. Today, that might seem socially desirable and an admirable goal for strife-torn Jerusalem in the first century, but it must be remembered that the Jews had no concept of our pluralistic values. Their whole world centered upon their God and his Law. The audacity of Paul's teachings would have been blasphemous to any orthodox Jew. One of God's first commissions for the Israelites, when they were to enter Canaan, was to drive all the people out. God warned them that the Gentiles would be pricks in their eyes (Numbers 33:55). For fifteen hundred years their ancestors had been taught the laws defining the unclean and regulating its avoidance. And now, Paul was teaching that not only were the Jews unclean, but that which had been unclean to them for 1500 years, the Gentiles, was now clean. And even more horrendous, that the Holy Spirit which dwelt in the temple, had now shifted into the unclean body of Gentiles. Paul's source had to be from Isaiah:

Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord (Isaiah 52:11).

Paul's interpretation of this passage still lives today within Christian theology. The descriptive title at the head of this chapter in my Thompson Bible reads thusly:

The church roused with God's promise of free redemption. 7 Tidings of the gospel. 3 Prophecy of the glory of Christ after his sufferings.

There is no sense in debating such reasoning, I'll only remind you of Paul's formula for interpreting Scripture and ask: do you truly believe God would desert his chosen people, when they were obeying his command by resisting the pollution of the Romans, even unto death?

Engraved stones had been placed over the Jerusalem temple doors, warning foreigners, on pain of death, to stay out. The whole city was embroiled in a messianic madness that would lead to the slaughter of Gentile sympathizers, the expulsion of the Herodian rulers, and the torching of their palaces and residences. The main parties behind that insurrection were the followers of a Messianic Jesus! There is no way they would have accepted Paul's doctrines. In fact, they were the same parties who would have torn him limb from limb, had the Roman guards not rescued him (Acts 21:32). The main point of contention was resistance to Paul's teachings. Yes, Paul introduced and established Christianity—but it was never accepted by the Jews!

Regularly, ministers _expound_ upon the Word of God from church podiums, radios, and televisions throughout the world. And just what does _expound_ mean in this sense? That is when a minister reads a five-second verse from the Bible, then talks about it for an hour. What is he doing? He is adding his thoughts, his reasoning, and his understanding to the Bible verse! Do all of his listeners believe his presentation? In most cases, yes, they do. Does the speaker believe it? Obviously he does, but generally only as a reasoned discernment; not in the divine sense. The same would be true of his listeners, but that was not the sense in which Paul's listeners believed him. Without a doubt, he and his followers believed he was speaking the word of God. There are even occasions in his writings where he informed his listeners otherwise (I Corinthians 7:6 and 12; II Corinthians 8:7 and 11:17). Here was a man of God who could heal the believer, cast out demons, impart the Holy Spirit, and open the door to paradise—yes, they believed him. And even more importantly, Paul believed himself. All he had to do was turn to the Scriptures to confirm that the concepts he believed came from a spiritual Jesus.

Whether Paul's assumptions were drawn from Hebrew Scriptures, or whether he concocted the concept and then searched the Scriptures for support, is impossible to say. But by the time he began teaching of the indwelling Spirit and stating that the believer's body was the temple of God, he was confident enough to write God's own script. In Philippians, he reveals what could only be first-hand knowledge:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

Here, apparently, Paul actually discerns the thoughts of Jesus Christ! He pretends to knowledge that is revealed nowhere else in earlier Hebrew Scriptures. And his knowledge seems limitless. He can expound upon the reasons why Jesus gave his life and the freedom from sin ransomed by that death (Romans 5:6-10). He knows all about death, resurrection, and the freedom from sin (Romans 6:1-7) and, of course, he knows all about the indwelling of the spirit:

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (II Corinthians 6:16-18).

Although Paul attributes this quote to God, it cannot be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, it is a composite of Scripture phrases and verses. Nowhere does God even imply that He will dwell in a person; that would contradict his greatness. How could a mere mortal survive the indwelling of an infinite God so powerful one cannot even look upon him, or so unapproachable that a mediator between Him and man was necessary? The only Scripture that might be so mistakenly interpreted is Ezekial 43:9, which states: "... I will dwell in the **midst** of them forever"—a reference to Israel. The next phrase, "and walk in them," is equally ridiculous. Even the phrasing is awkward; how could God "walk" inside a person? God makes no such promise. However, the origin is clear. God repeatedly adjures Israel to "walk in my statutes," or "walk in my law" (Exodus 16:4; Leviticus 26:3; I Kings 6:12; and Jeremiah 26:4), but Paul couldn't say that because he was attempting to void the Law. The next phrase, "I will be their God, and they shall be my people," is stated seven times in the Old Testament, though sometimes in a different order, but in each case the declaration addresses the nation of Israel and is never used in reference to other people.

Mosaic Law forbade touching the unclean, but nothing can be found similar to: "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you." The reference most similar to this commands Abram to leave his country and kindred (Genesis 12:1). There are numerous allusions to the Israelites coming out of Egypt. Ezra 6:21, 8:35 and Nehemiah 8:17 speak of the Israelites coming out of captivity, but all of these statements are promises made to Israel—not to Paul's new church. When God issued these proclamations, He was speaking of the Law of cleanliness and was calling for obedience to his Law. Notice that the statement actually contradicts Pauline doctrines, as it sanctions the Law of cleanliness: "touch not the unclean thing." One might argue that this call was a separation from sin and the worldly. However, Paul's teachings called for a breaking down of the barriers between peoples and races. If the believers huddled in isolation, how could such harmony be accomplished?

These are the most outrageous assertions Paul has made so far. He isn't quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures, so we can only assume one of two things: one, God is speaking exclusively to him; or two, he presumes to speak for God. In either case, we have no validation for his teachings—only the words of a very eloquent and persuasive man who claimed to be the prophet of a new salvation.

One method Paul used repeatedly involved concocting allegories from Scripture and just assuming they had to be true. For example, it occurred to him that "as by one man sin entered into the world," then grace must come by one man; namely—Jesus Christ (Romans 5:12 and 15). In that same chapter, Paul expounds upon an entirely new philosophy of sin and redemption, all based upon nothing more than his vision and new _revelations_ of Hebrew Scripture. Not only did Paul have nothing more substantial to build his case upon, but it would have been impossible to suggest anything more reliable than those Scriptures, at that time.

Faith was the kernel and shell of Paul's philosophy. All that anyone needed for salvation was total faith in Jesus Christ—the Jesus Christ who spoke to Paul. But it wasn't that simple. Questions arose, and Paul found himself writing exhortations and entreaties to the various churches he had established. Had it not been for their needs and Paul's literary abilities, we might not have his works today. And Christianity, as we now know it, might never have originated.

Paul was called upon to extinguish one fire after another. Questions of circumcision, sacrifices, and the clean and unclean issue arose. Paul even found it necessary to establish some domestic guidelines (I Corinthians 7). It is here that another weakness of Paul's personal doctrine becomes apparent. Understand that Paul was a charismatic leader and an eloquent speaker, with the ability to formulate information and facts into intriguing assumptions. And since he was elaborating upon his own gospel (Galatians 1:11-15 and 2:1-2), he could pretty much mold it on the fly. For example in Romans 2:16, Paul claims God will judge men by "my gospel."

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

And in Romans 16:25-26, he not only claims the gospel but declares it was a mysterious gospel, hidden since the world began.

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began. But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.

The greatest problem with this assertion is that Paul refutes it himself.

This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established (II Corinthians 13:1).

Here we have Paul's own admonition that the test of God's word is a multiplicity of witnesses, but his doctrines stand alone. There is simply nothing to substantiate the Pauline form of salvation in the New Testament, or in the Hebrew Scriptures. The two or three required witnesses cannot be found. In fact, the opposite is true for almost all of Paul's teachings.

Paul is saying that all of this mysterious knowledge had been hidden within the writings of the prophets. Of course, we have already seen how God revealed it to Paul, and how he was able to discern things withheld even from Jesus. Here is further evidence that Jesus did not teach Paul's doctrines. Paul believed his gospel was unique. It was revealed to him by God. It was his gospel, because God gave it to him and not because it originated with him. However, according to the Catholic Church and the majority of Christianity, it was necessary that Paul receive his teachings from the Apostles of Jesus.

# Apostolic Succession

I have given only a few instances in which Paul introduced the main tenets of Christianity—only a few of many. For readers who are still unconvinced, it is an easy matter to compare Paul's other writings against the Law, as we have done in these cases, and see the contradictions. Hopefully, I've been able to present a pattern and a methodology which leaves no doubt that Paul was the author and originator of the Christian religion. We saw that Paul claimed he was called by God for that purpose—to that end. Paul received that calling and his office from God, via Jesus Christ. We saw that he was taught by no man—not Peter or the Apostles. He even claimed his ministry was to preach to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:16). From where does he receive his authority? He said that it all came from God, but that is just Paul's word. Where is the proof? He learned from no man, and yet the line of apostolic succession decrees that Jesus taught the Apostles, and they should have been the ones to teach Paul. To find the answers we must now shift the emphasis of our study to the non-canonical records of the Church.

