Join the best catholic, messianic Jewish, and protestant newsgroup
today; moreover, Jesus on the Web is both written to and read by many
ministers and leaders of congregations both large and small as well as
by many people who are learning about Christ. The group has both
intellectual depth and strong concern for the common people all while
remaining continuously active. Anyone can join, but all posts are
filtered to remove advertisements and smut. Visit the link below today
to see and join, and if you have something to say, then be sure to
Mathew Enoch Mount
"mmount" <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote in message
: Join the best catholic, messianic Jewish, and protestant newsgroup
: today; moreover, Jesus on the Web is both written to and read by many
: ministers and leaders of congregations both large and small as well as
: by many people who are learning about Christ. The group has both
: intellectual depth and strong concern for the common people all while
: remaining continuously active. Anyone can join, but all posts are
: filtered to remove advertisements and smut. Visit the link below
: to see and join, and if you have something to say, then be sure to
: Thank you,
: Mathew Enoch Mount
Excuse me, Riain, but I do not believe this is a newsgroup exclusively
for the Jewish religion.
"Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
s.c.j to which the crap is crossposted is.
According to CindyS, soc.culture.jewish is where the white-power folks
hang out. Are you one of them?
According to CindyS, soc.culture.jewish is where the white-power folks
hang out. Are you one of them?
No, he's one of the few who is not an antisemite, but 90% of the
posters/postings are antisemitic. The other 10% (such as Riain) stay on
soc.culture.jewish for the express purpose of refuting the antisemites, who
would otherwise go unanswered. If you argue otherwise, it will be obvious
that you have never looked at soc.culture.jewish. The moderated Jewish
newsgroup was formed specifically to moderate out the antisemitism and
Your beliefs are not just inconsequential, they are wrong.
Misisonizing is a violation of the chareter for soc.culture.jewish.
Whenever I think about Jews, I think about the wonderful character that
king David had who was humble and a man who tended sheep in the small
city of Bethlehem before becoming a king. I think of David as a very
early exemplary example of a good Jew because he cared about his
people, honored those who the god of Israel ordained no matter how
wicked the people became, and loved the god of Israel with his heart.
I just see in Yeshua Messiah the promised leadership of the New
Jerusalem in the linage of David.
Now Yeshua was very much a Jew for he was born in the city of David
from the seed of David. The Davidic linage of Yeshua is thus recorded,
"Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob
the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and
Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the
father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of
Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose
mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed
the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. David was the
father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the
father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of
Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the
father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of
Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and
Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile
to Babylon. After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of
Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of
Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor
the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of
Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the
husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (NIV)
Overall, I am not against the Jews for we are told that Yeshua is the
king of the Jews, but I would believe that many people believe
themselves to be Jews but yet care nothing for the circumcision of the
Mathew Enoch Mount
"mmount" <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote in message
I just thought that I would like to show a sample of the good things
that many of you are missing. The following is just an example of the
type of studies that Jesus on the Web provides as a free service for
all those who desire to be closer to their Jewish linage.
Consecration of the Firstborn
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Consecrate to me every firstborn male.
The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me,
whether man or animal." (NIV)
We know that Jesus Christ was the firstborn male child from Marry;
moreover, we also know that Jesus was an Israelite of noble decent
because he was from the bloodline of David.
3 Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you
came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the LORD brought
you out of it with a mighty hand. Eat nothing containing yeast. (NIV)
The way that many Israelites prepared bread is by adding old fermented
dough to new dough being prepared all while saving part of the new
dough for the next batch of bread. The idea then is to recycle the
fermentation for the making of rising bread. The old fermentation then
that just keeps being recycled possibly like our old ways of sin and
unfaithfulness, so by removing all the old fermentation of the bread
the Israelites can start again with a new lump that is no longer
4 Today, in the month of Abib, you are leaving. (NIV)
5 When the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites,
Amorites, Hivites and Jebusites-the land he swore to your forefathers
to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey-you are to observe
this ceremony in this month: (NIV)
The idea of observing the ceremony of unleavened bread would then be to
not keep repeated the same old corruption but instead to be set aside
to the service of god. The attention to the other nations that had
possessed the land before Israel would suggest that Israel is not to be
like those nations as if to be a contrast to them.
6 For seven days eat bread made without yeast and on the seventh day
hold a festival to the LORD. (NIV)
The time then that is set aside for eating bread without old
fermentation would be a time for the turning away from old sins to a
new way of godliness.
7 Eat unleavened bread during those seven days; nothing with yeast in
it is to be seen among you, nor shall any yeast be seen anywhere within
your borders. (NIV)
The old fermentation then of the old way of living from the produce of
the land is to be completely removed from all the land so as to not
even be reminded of the old way of life.
8 On that day tell your son, 'I do this because of what the LORD did
for me when I came out of Egypt.' (NIV)
The point then in the festival is to show god our desires to be
cleansed from our sins by visually removing all the old leaven in order
that we may be made into a new lump; moreover, this is all to show how
gratefully and respectful we are for being lead out from the land of
captivity. The land of Egypt a land of captivity by sin, idols, and a
king with a hardened heart is a land that the children of Israel are
thus freed from not by their works or deeds but instead by the grace of
god responding to their prayers; moreover, the children of Israel thus
could not help but honor and appreciate god by removing their old way
of life or (old leaven) to be cleansed of the old way to be made into a
new lump of bread.
9 This observance will be for you like a sign on your hand and a
reminder on your forehead that the law of the LORD is to be on your
lips. For the LORD brought you out of Egypt with his mighty hand. (NIV)
The seal then on the forehead and on the hand for the observance of the
law is a reminder that the law is to be both worked by the hands and
always remembered and considered by the mind. The law is not then our
justification for our righteousness, but instead god has justified for
our sin by leading us out of the captivity of sin. Overall, we then
are sanctified by the law to be set aside by our marks of observance to
10 You must keep this ordinance at the appointed time year after year.
The children of Israel thus are always to remember every year both what
god has done for them and their appreciation for god working in their
11 "After the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites and gives
it to you, as he promised on oath to you and your forefathers, (NIV)
12 you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb.
All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD. (NIV)
The first-born males of all of the camp of Israel are to thus be
set-aside for the purposes of god as the first fruits of the camp of
Israel. Because Jesus when before us as the oldest son of the family
of god (thus beginning the vine) as well as him being the only son of
the same generation of god the father, we can see how the law applies
to the first fruit of the whom such as Christ being set aside for the
purposes of god so that the siblings may follow in the same nurturing
13 Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem
it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons. (NIV)
14 "In days to come, when your son asks you, 'What does this mean?'
say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out
of the land of slavery. (NIV)
We know that while in Egypt death passed over every home marked with
the promises and trust of god by the blood of the lamb. Those whom had
been killed by the shadow of death in Egypt had been the first male
children of those in who did not show their trust in god visibly for
the first-born is the leader among the siblings of a womb and thus a
leader that would make decisions for others and teach others; moreover,
because of such importance in the children who are first born males
such children if not submitting to the promises and trust of god would
instead be shown to resist and deny god as leaders of others in the
family to follow. Overall, the point then is that the first-born males
must be sacrificed to the service of god by being redeemed in order to
show submission to the promises of god.
15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every
firstborn in Egypt, both man and animal. This is why I sacrifice to the
LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my
firstborn sons.' (NIV)
The point then is that the firstborn male must be redeemed just as the
firstborn children of Israel had been redeemed in Egypt; moreover, this
then is submission to the promises of god to be redeemed by blood.
16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your
forehead that the LORD brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand."
The trust then in god will be marked upon the forehead and upon the
hand in order that both people will consider and work in accordance
with the redemption that had been given to those in whom trust in god.
Crossing the Sea
17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the
road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God
said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to
The point then is that the children of Israel would not trust god
enough to have him lead them into a battle, so god chose to work with
the little trust in him that the people had in order that all their
trust would not vanish.
18 So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea.
The Israelites went up out of Egypt armed for battle. (NIV)
19 Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made
the sons of Israel swear an oath. He had said, "God will surely come to
your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this
Traditionally many Jews had believed that god would remake a person's
body by their old bones; moreover, such bones had thus been stored in a
bone box for the sake of a resurrection. Joseph then the Israelite in
who brought his family into Egypt had apparently known that his finial
destination would not be Egypt but instead would be among the camp of
Israel. Overall, the act of carrying the bones of Joseph out of Egypt
thus shows early importance in the hope of the future resurrection
20 After leaving Succoth they camped at Etham on the edge of the
21 By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide
them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light,
so that they could travel by day or night. (NIV)
Just as Jesus goes ahead of us to prepare a place for us the pillar of
fire is the light of god's message to us so that we may see our way
in the darkness of the world and the cloud is the visible direction
that god moves for us to follow when we are in the light. Both pillars
then guide us on our way to the promise land of Israel and the kingdom
of Christ (the new Jerusalem).
22 Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night
left its place in front of the people. (NIV)
God's ways never leave his people, but instead people just refuse to
One thing has been prove without any doubt he was not the Messiah.
Fuck off don't even try to preach to me or tell me anything about the
truth, you idol-worshipping idiot.
WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME UNDERSTANDING OF THE SAME WORD
Whenever people get into a discussion on one subject matter it would be
more intelligent if all involved had a clear definition and
understanding of the subject. For example, if the discussion were about
a wagon, it would be imperative that we all had the same picture of this
wagon. If not, I may have a little red wagon in mind while you have a
large covered brown wagon in mind. Both are capable of carrying things,
both have four wheels; both have a yoke ? yet they are quite different.
To discuss the Bible, we have to understand whose Bible ? the SOURCE
Bible, the Original Text from God, or the Christian translated version
of the Hebrew Bible.
When Christians refer to Jesus as the Jewish messiah, what does this
mean? Are they talking about a messiah in the Original Text (OT), the
Hebrew Bible, or THE Messiah in the Christian bible? These two concepts
are as different as night and day; as the red wagon and the covered
wagon. Messiah is the English rendition of the Hebrew word, “anointed.”
In 1 Samuel 26, King Saul is referred to as God’s messiah. In Isaiah 45,
Cyrus is referred to as God’s messiah. In the Hebrew Bible, the SOURCE
DOCUMENT, the word messiah is used generically for anyone who is
anointed with oil. Kings and high priests were anointed, thereby, each
would be a messiah.
Christianity has a problem when they use the Hebrew Bible for their
authority to validate their bible when they use THE MESSIAH in reference
to Jesus. Because the Hebrew word HaMoshiach, THE Messiah, describing
the future anointed one to come, does not appear once in the Hebrew
Bible. What? If that is so, how did the Jews obtain their concept of the
Messiah? For the Jews, THE Messiah does not appear anywhere in the
Hebrew Bible, except when talking about the first priest, Aaron. The
Hebrew word for Aaron is hokohen HaMashiach (“Ha” in Hebrew means THE),
the anointed one. Mashiach by itself (without “Ha”) only means an
anointed one, as all Jewish kings and priests were anointed with oil.
So if you went back in time to Jerusalem during the first 100 years C.E.
and asked to see the messiah - you would be asked “which one.” Jesus
would never have been thought of as the Jewish messiah as he was never
anointed in oil according Jewish law, as instructed in the Torah. Even
the New Testament has no mention of him being anointed in the Jewish
custom of God’s Laws.
God told His Prophets what would happen in the messianic era. God said;
“there must be global peace, when the lamb will lay with the wolf and
the swords will be turned into plow-shares as Isaiah prophesized. “And
they shall beat their swords into plough-shares and their spears into
pruning hooks - nation shall not lift up; sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more.” Plus, there will be the universal
knowledge of the one God of Israel, and the building of the 3rd Temple.
Jews have always believed that the “Savior of Israel” would be a man of
flesh and blood like themselves that would deliver them out of
oppression, pain and suffering.”]
One of the major themes of prophecy is the future age of perfection–the
perfect world–Utopia. Of all of the many prophecies there are several
passages that speak of an individual who will be a descendent of King
David, through his son Solomon, who will the ruler of Israel during this
age of perfection–the Messianic Age, as God told Ezekiel in Chapter 37.
Ezekiel 37:24 (KJV)
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have
one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my
statutes, and do them.
Notice that God said this person will be the ruler over Israel and will
execute justice and righteous. Also notice that God said the world will
have one shepherd and walk in His ordinances and in His statues and do
them. This clearly means that God’s Torah will be observed even at the
End of Days! Not Paul’s New Testament! Standing in stark opposition to
God’s word is Paul: You cannot follow the Law anymore (Romans 3:20-23;
4:14; 5:520; 8:3; 10:4).
Ezekiel 37:23 (KJV)
And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my
sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
Isn’t that what other prophets wrote? Yes it is!
Zechariah 8:23 (KJV)
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that
ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall
take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with
you: for we have heard that God is with you.
Jeremiah 16:19 (KJV)
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of
affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the
earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity,
and things wherein there is no profit.
So, who does one believe and follow?God or Paul? Even Jeremiah
prophesied that Paul’s followers had inherited lies.
How will we know that HaMoshiach has come? We will look outside and will
see this Utopia because all the media will be mentioning this. (Isaiah
2:4; 11:6-8; 11:9; 26:19; 43:5-6 Jeremiah 31:33 Zechariah 14:9 Daniel
12:2 Ezekiel 37:12-13; 37:26-28 and Malachi 3:23-24 (4:5-6).
The word for savior in Hebrew is “Moshee’a’ah” which means “deliverer.”
The word for “anointed” in Hebrew is “Mash’akh” which means “smeared”
(with oil). The Greek Septuagint combined both meanings and came up
with the Greek word, Messiah, as they are similar in sound. Therefore,
to be a Jewish messiah, one should be a deliverer, a Savior from
oppression, and one has to be anointed with oil. King David comes to my
mind as messiah.
There have been “saviors” and “deliverers” throughout the history of
Israel and many were even crucified on the cross. So, by having
Christians say that the messiah died on the cross for all mankind, to
the Jew it doesn’t mean anything. The Jewish Messiah will not be the
instrument of this utopia of world bliss; God is the only one who can do
that. The Jewish Messiah will rule at this time, acting as a king, not a
savior. Only God is Ha’savior.
The words, “The Messiah,” even though never mentioned in the Hebrew
Bible, are talked about in tradition. And the entire concept of The
Messiah can be summed up in one sentence. He will be a deliverer, a
savior who will end all oppression for the Jews forever. The key word
here is “forever!” Throughout history, we’ve had many delivers and
saviors and we also had peace and harmony, but it did not last. Jews
were once again the oppressed victims. Therefore, none of them has been
HaMoshiach. We are still looking, still waiting.
To the Jew, the phrase, “to end all oppression forever” is the key
phrase. Four prophets tell us this will happen at the End of Days, when
certain things fall into place. At that time, there will be a ruler over
Israel from the direct line of David. He will be called HaMashiach.
If Christians want to call Jesus the messiah, that’s okay. But he is not
the Jewish messiah. The conflict between the two religions is when
Christians try to tell the Jewish people that Jesus is the Jewish
messiah and that Jews are too stiff necked and blind to see. To see
what? You just saw what the Jewish messiah would be like, according to
God, not the [unknown] authors of the Christian bible. To the Jews,
Jesus does not fit the bill. During Roman occupation of Judea, Jews
would have loved to have had Jesus be their messiah because then they
would have known that their oppression would be lifted; they could live
in peace forever. Logically, they would have greeted him with open arms.
When Jesus died and no prophecy came true, the New Testament writers had
to make up some excuse why the Jews rejected Jesus. So they told
everyone the Jews were blinded to see the truth. Does this sound
logical? That period in time would have been perfect for God to show the
world His message.
But nothing changed. Today’s Christians do not know it, but after Jesus’
death many of his Jewish followers left his movement disappointed. After
the Fourth Century, the remaining Jewish-Christians were pushed out of
the Church by the Gentile-Christians and Paul’s Christianity was born.
If Christians want to call Jesus god, that too is okay. But for the Jew,
he knows that there is but one God, the God of Israel, the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our Father in Heaven.
No, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. From the words in the New
Testament, Jesus qualifies as a Roman/Greek messiah, with gods and
angles mating with humans and eventually dying and being
resurrected?true to pagan religions of the that day and hundreds of
In conclusion, there are two different religions. Jews have the SOURCE
DOCUMENT, Torah, and God’s definition of HaMoshiach. Whereas, Christians
have their later invention of The messiah. Neither the twain shall meet!
Jews will take care of their lives and souls and Christians should take
care of theirs, but Christians don’t. Christians say that their religion
is the right and true religion, and that all other beliefs are wrong.
One final point, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible does it tell us to worship
CRITERIA OF HA MOSHIACH ACCORDING TO GOD IN THE HEBREW SCRIPUTURE:
Must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10)
Must be a direct descendent of both King David and King Solomon - son of
David (2 Chronicles 13:5, 2 Chronicles 21:7, Psalm 89:3-4, Psalm
132:10 –12, Jeremiah 33:21) Son of Solomon (NOT NATHAN) 2 Samuel 7:13,
1 Chronicles 22:9-10, 1 Kings 9:2 – 7
Must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel
Must rebuild the Jewish Temple (the 3rd Temple)
Must bring in “world peace”
Must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve the One God of
All of these criteria for the Messiah are best stated in the book of
Ezekiel, Chapters 37:24-28. If an individual fails to fulfill even ONE
of these conditions, he cannot be the Jewish Messiah!
The Jewish Scriptures clearly state that a person’s genealogy and tribal
membership is transmitted exclusively through one’s PHYSICAL father
(Numbers 1:18 Jeremiah 33:17)
Torah reveals the Messiah to be a human being with no connotation of
deity or divinity. And repeating, nowhere in Jewish Scripture does it
say to worship this messiah as a deity. He will be a King from the Royal
line of David.
Now, who do you believe – the word of God Himself – or the man who told
you God was a man and God inspired the authors, something that cannot be
proven or seen?
MESSIAH: THE CRITERIA 1
Judge for yourself:
Did Jesus fulfill ALL these criteria?
The Jewish tradition of “The Messiah” has its foundation in numerous
biblical references, and understands “The Messiah” to be a human being –
without any overtone of deity or divinity – who will bring about certain
changes in the world and fulfill certain criteria before he can be
acknowledged as “The Messiah.”
First of all, he must be Jewish – “...you may appoint a king over you,
whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall
you set as king over you.” (Deuteronomy 17:15)
He must be a member of the tribe of Judah – “The staff shall not depart
from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet...” (Genesis 49:10)
To be a member of the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological
father who is a member of the tribe of Judah.
He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his
son – “And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep
with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue
from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a
house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom
forever...” (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)
The genealogy of the New Testament is inconsistent. While it gives two
accounts of the genealogy of Joseph, it states clearly that he is not
the biological father of Jesus. One of the genealogies is through Nathan
and not Solomon altogether!
He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to
Israel – ”And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall
assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of
Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (Isaiah 11:12)
Are all Jews living in Israel? Have all Jews EVER lived in Israel since
the time of Jesus?
He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem – “...and I will set my
sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them..”
(Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
At last check, there is NO Temple in Jerusalem. And worse, it was
shortly after Jesus died that the Temple was DESTROYED! Just the
opposite of this prophecy!
He will rule at a time of world-wide peace – “...they shall beat their
swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
anymore.” (Micah 4:3)
Have you seen a newspaper lately? Are we living in a state of complete
world peace? Has there ever been peace since the time of Jesus?
He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's
commandments – “My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall
all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to
observe My statutes.” (Ezekiel 37:24)
The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones
referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments?
Christianity, in fact, often discourages observance of the commandments
in Torah, in complete opposition to this prophecy.
He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and
serve one G-d – “And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to
another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship
before Me, says the L-rd” (Isaiah 66:23)
There are still millions, if not billions of people who practice
Hinduism, Buddhism, Satanism and many other forms of pagan and
polythesitic religions. It is clear that we have not yet seen this
period of human history unfold.
All of these criteria are best stated in the book of Ezekiel Chapter 37
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have
one shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My
statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have
given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they
shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's
children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever.
Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an
everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will
multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them
forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their
G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am
the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst
of them forevermore.
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he
cannot be “The Messiah.” A careful analysis of these criteria shows us
that to date; no one has fulfilled every condition.
Certainly NOT Jesus!
SAVIOURS AND ANOINTED
The word for savior in Hebrew is “Moshee’a’ah” which means “deliverer.”
The word for “anointed” in Hebrew is “Mash’akh” which means “smeared”
(with oil). The Greek Septuagint combined both meanings and came up
with the Greek word, Messiah. Therefore, to be the Jewish Messiah, one
has to be a DELIVERER (Savior), and one has to be ANOINTED with oil, and
one major event must happen during the messiah's time on earth – there
must be peace in Israel. Jews have always believed that the “Savior of
Israel” would be a man of flesh and blood like themselves that would
deliver them out of oppression, pain and suffering. There have been
“saviors and “deliverers” throughout the history of Israel and many were
even crucified on the cross.
Moses could be called the Savior as he delivered the Hebrews out of
bondage. Aaron may have even anointed him. Moses fits the role of the
King David and King Hezekiah could also be called the Savior as they
both were anointed and there was peace in the land. Hezekiah also saved
Judah from its enemies when Jerusalem was in peril of being destroyed.
They were both called “the King of the Jews.” They also fit being
called the Jewish messiah.
Cyrus, the King of Persia, a non-Jew was called the “mash'aka” by God,
according to Isaiah when he wrote: “Thus said the Lord to his 'mash'aka
(anointed), to Cyrus” (Isaiah 45:1). Jeremiah also told that Cyrus was
commissioned by God to go to Jerusalem and build the Second Temple.
Cyrus + anointed = messiah.
Judah Maccabee delivered his people from oppression by leading a
successful revolt against Greek/Syria. The Maccabee families ruled over
Israel for over two hundred and fifty years and there was peace in the
land. And Maccabee priests were all anointed. Judah Maccabee also
qualifies to be the Jewish messiah.
Theudas considered himself a prophet like Moses and a would-be Messiah.
He is mentioned in Acts 5:36 and Josephus ( Antiquities, 20:97) In the
year 44 C.E., his rebel army was defeated by Rome and he too died on the
Judas of Galilee led a Jewish uprising against Rome in 6 C.E. Mentioned
in Acts 5:37 and Josephus (Wars, 2:118 -rebel patriarch) He tried to
deliver the Jewish people out of harsh Roman rule, and he and his
followers called Judas of Galilee the Savior, the Messiah whom they
needed so badly. He died on the cross.
Benjamin the Egyptian appeared mysteriously between the year 55-60 C.E.
as a Messiah-warrior. He is mentioned in Acts 21 (An Unnamed Egyptian
Jew) and in Josephus (War 2.261263 Ant. 20.171). He sparked once more
the fire of revolt against Rome and proclaimed himself the Messiah –”the
anointed of the Lord.” He too was crucified and died on the Cross.
Menachem, the grandson of Judas the Galilean appeared in the year 67
C.E. when another war with Rome broke out. He was a fiery zealot leader
who proclaimed himself the “Messiah,” and died on the cross.
Simeon Bar Kochba was still another would-be Messiah. By this time, it
seems that the classic pattern for being the Messiah had become that he
had to be a prophet-warrior. Simeon led the Second Jewish Revolt
against Rome in 132 C.E.
That too failed and he was crucified like the rest of the so-called
Messiahs. It was Akiba ben Joseph, the most influential of all
rabbinical sages, who hailed Simeon Bar Kochba as the “Messiah.” Simeon
Bar Kochba had many thousands of followers who believed in him.
Rabbi Akiba ben Josheph based his recognition of him on the Scriptural
verse; “There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall
rise out of Israel, and shall smite through the corner of Moab.” The
name, Simeon Bar Kochba means “the son of a Star.”
Sabbatai Nevi (1626-1676 C.E.) was a recent so-called messiah when he
announced himself as the “messiah ben David.” Everywhere he went; great
crowds of hysterical people called him the “Mashiach,” the Lord's
Anointed.” He had hundreds of thousands of Jews believing in him and
even though his very name is now used as a swear word in Yiddish, there
are present-day descendants of Zevi in Turkey.
However, this brings up another important point. How do you or we know
that Shabbatai Zvi or Bar Kochva or any of the other Messianic claimants
in history aren't going to be brought back by God in a Second Coming to
fulfill the prophecies this time around? Why not accept one of those as
If you allow for the possibility of a second coming, hence allowing for
the possibility that someone who didn't fulfill the Messianic prophecies
could still be the Messiah, then you open the field up so much that
anyone could be the Messiah.
HA MOSHIACH HAS NOT COME YET
Christians claim that their religion was founded on Judaism and that the
New Testament (NT) replaces the OT (the Original Text). And that none of
G-d’s laws, which He stated to be in effect for all time and eternity,
are relevant any longer.
Without doing any individual research in original sources to discover
the truth, people have been brainwashed into thinking that Jesus of
Nazareth is the messiah who was promised in the so-called Old Testament,
and is now claimed by their NT. What they do not realize is the fraud
perpetrated upon them by early Christian church fathers. These men
misquoted the texts and thus changed the rules that G-d had sent forth
through His prophets. By making their own rules, they knew that they
could get people to believe anything!
In other words, nicely put, those who have translated the Torah to
reflect these Christian teachings have in a great many cases, not been
faithful to the original Hebrew and thus have given false impressions of
what the Torah originally stated.
It is very common for Christians to point out hundreds of prophecies
that they claim clearly “prove”, according to their translations of
their Old Testament , that Jesus was the Messiah. However, when the NT
is compared with the authentic ancient base, the Hebrew Bible, and not
the Christian altered Old Testament, one can readily see many
inconsistencies. When these findings are subjected to intensive research
by rabbis, scholars and honest theologians, "christological proofs"
disappear like sand castles on the beach after a high tide.
Whether we see ten, or a hundred, or even three hundred very weak
so-called prophecies, we must realize that they are not accurate. If we
multiply each one by zero, the result still equals zero. Even if by the
widest stretch of imagination a few prophecies may be seen as messianic,
the criteria for HaMoshiach were not, and have not been met by the
Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible, the SOURCE DOCTRINE does it say we have to
believe in the moshiach (messiah). Throughout the Hebrew Bible it does
tell of people who are called moshiachs, which means that they were
kings and judges who were anointed. The actual translation of Hebrew
word moshiach is ‘the anointed one.’ These people were smeared with
special consecrating oils that were prepared specifically for these
occasions in as outlined in G-d’s Torah.
Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible, except in one verse, does it mention the
word HaMoshiach, (THE Messiah). That was when it spoke of Aaron, the
first High Priest, the Kohen Gadol.
Yes, our prophets speak that the Messiah will come during the Messianic
era, because he will be the anointed king. As rabbis teach, there are
many presidents – president of the singing group – the chess club – the
bridge club – president of the bank – but if you would say “The
President said this in the media,” you would know who was being spoken
of – the President of the United States. In other words, even though it
is not explicitly written, in Jewish tradition it is known that
HaMoshiach will come when certain events fall into place at the start of
the Messianic age.
Once the Messianic Age begins, Jews will know when THE REAL MESSIAH
comes, as there are certain conditions that must be fulfilled. The real
HaMoshiach, will not be placed as a criminal on a Roman cross as
happened to the man the Christians refer to as their messiah. The
prophets in the Torah tell us that the Messiah will come at the
beginning of the Messianic era. A direct descendant of King David, he
will become the anointed king of the world and everyone will know that
he has been sent by G-d.
At that time peace will fill the world and truly the Messianic Age will
have arrived. May we be blessed to see it soon.
DO YOU KNOW JESUS?
Hugh Fogelman and John Stone
Do not fall into the subtle trap set by Christian clergy or missionaries
when they want to discuss Jesus. They love to start questioning you
right off with; “Do you know Jesus?” For you to answer this ridiculous
question requires that you accept their premise ? that Jesus actually
lived. REJECT that premise right at the start, for it is false!
Instead, demand that the Christian “prove that Jesus ever existed!” Then
follow-up with; ”if he did exist, prove that he was more than a simple
If they cannot prove that he existed AND with super human powers, then
you have no reason to discuss Christianity any farther. Don’t ask them –
instead tell them: The Ancient Historians Are Silent About Jesus! John
F. Remsburg (1848-1919) wrote 1 that at least 41 writers/historians who
lived during the time or within a century after the time that Jesus is
supposed to have lived were silent about Jesus, his disciples,
crucifixion or resurrection. 2
R. Joseph Hoffman, a senior research fellow of Westminster College,
maintained that “the gospels are simply ‘reinforcing tales’ written
after a specific doctrine about Jesus had been formulated.” Hoffman
demonstrated 3 that "There was no collaborative literature about Jesus
outside the gospels."
Although there is a large amount of written material from the 0-100 CE
period there is only one reference to Jesus the Christ and that is in
the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37- 101 CE).
Historians have concluded this reference to be a forgery as it only
occurs in later translations of the work and the wording is inconsistent
with the original. This is surprising as Josephus mentions large numbers
of minor historical figures. His failure to mention Jesus suggests
either that he did not exist or alternately he was not thought
important. In a similar way there is no mention of events such as the
massacre of the innocents or the natural events which were have meant to
have taken place at the crucifixion. Even if one accepts this forged
insert, Jesus is only mentioned as an isolated passing remark. Josephus
silence of Jesus’ miracles, crucifixion or resurrections is deafening.
Aside from FORGED passages there isn't ANY mention of Jesus the Christ
anywhere in any non-Christian work in this world ? none at all. There is
NOTHING about Jesus’ life or the events in which he was supposedly
involved. No miracles, no crucifixion, no resurrection, no virgin birth,
no wise men, no Herod’s slaughter of innocent babies and on and on and
on. NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, NIL!
Jesus is a fictitious character set in a fictitious tale – the New
Testament. It is no different that the “adventurers of Harry Potter,” or
the “Memoirs of the Tooth Fairy.”
If someone came up to you and asked “Do you know Harry Potter” or “Do
you know the Tooth Fairy,” you would think they were at best loony, at
worst certifiably insane. So REJECT the premise of the clergy and the
missionary; they are trying to sell you fiction, pure and simple.
THINK for yourselves. Logic would demand that if the so-called miracles
which Jesus performed or surrounded him, such as:
1. Jesus being born of a virgin mother;
2. Three Magi following the brightest star ever to see the demigod;
3. Herod’s slaying innocent children under the age of three;
4. Jesus raising the dead, healing the blind and lame;
5. The sky turning to blackness when Jesus died;
6. Earthquakes in the region;
7. The dead Jewish saints coming out of their graves AND going to
8. The crucifixion;
9. The Resurrection, which Paul wrote IF it never happened, Jesus
then died in vain;
10. And many more claimed miracles, events and actions by Jesus;
that at least one of these world headline news events would have at
least merited a small mention by at least one of the contemporary
writers/historians. But, NO, they are totally silent!
Why is it ONLY Christian writers wrote about this stuff?
Do you think they were biased?
Were the stories true or did Christian writers just continue their brand
of pagan mythology?
Were they trying to promote a new religion acceptable to the Gentiles?
Christians, when confronted with the fiction of the Jesus story, will
almost always change the subject by trying to quote from Hebrew
Scriptures that he existed. However, when asked to show those verses in
the SOURCE Bible ? the Original Text in Hebrew ? they can not. Why is
this? Because there is absolutely no/zip/zero/nada/nil reference to
Jesus in the SOURCE document. The Christian “old testament” is just
another example of Christian creative editing, inserting and
mistranslations [see analyses under the menu: CHRISTIAN ].
With nothing left to stand on, Christians will resort to other
camouflages of the truth. They may bring up this childish response;
“well, can you prove Abraham or Moses existed?” That does not have to be
proven; Christianity has accepted it as a fact. What you ask? Yes,
Christians carry their version of the Hebrew Bible in the very front of
“their bible” for authority, validation, and substance.
So, the next time you are asked “Do you know Jesus;” ? REJECT THAT
PREMISE! Who knows, maybe you will get a Christian to use his/her “head
for something besides a hat rack?”
1. John E. Remsberg, The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the
Evidence of His Existence, Prometheus Books (October 1, 1994)
2. Josephus; Philo-Jud??us; Seneca; Pliny the Elder; Arrian; Petronius;
Dion Pruseus; Paterculus; Suetonius; Juvenal; Martial; Persius;
Plutarch; Pliny the Younger; Tacitus; Justus of Tiberius; Apollonius;
Quintilian; Lucanus; Epictetus; Hermogones Silius Italicus; Statius;
Ptolemy; Appian; Phlegon; Ph??drus; Valerius Maximus; Lucian; Pausanias;
Florus Lucius; Quintius Curtius; Aulus Gellius; Dio Chrysostom;
Columella; Valerius Flaccus; Damis; Favorinus; Lysias; Pomponius Mela;
Appion of Alexandria; and Theon of Smyrna.
3. R. Joseph Hoffmann, Jesus Outside the Gospels, Prometheus Books
What is the Name of God's son?
"There is an interesting verse found in Proverbs, "...and what is His
son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Proverbs 30:4)
The Fundamentalists who are Trinitarians say that this together with
Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 2:12, state that God has a son and they, the
Christians, know His son's name to be Jesus.
"When we read the text from Proverbs in its entirety, we find that Agur
Ben Yake is describing the weariness of man. Man is philosophizing, he
realizes that he is brutish and without understanding, he lacks wisdom
and desires to have knowledge of God (verse 1-2). But who has been to
heaven and back?in other words, who has seen God? Then he realizes in
his reasoning that there must be a God, for he goes on to say; "Who
gathered the winds in his fists?"
But the mystery?"what is his name, and what is his son's name, if you
can tell it?" And so we see that the weary man desires to know God, what
is his name, etc. The man who seeks understanding in these things can be
answered by Exodus 4:22, where it states, "Israel is my son, My
"Thou art My son, this day have I begotten you." (Psalm 2:7) is nothing
to do with Jesus as the fundamentalists claim, but this Psalm clearly
states in verse 6 that I (God) have set My king upon Mount Zion, My holy
hill. Then, in verse, 7 the king is speaking, "The Lord has said to me
(David), thou art My son."
Looking at Psalm 2:12, the KJV has erroneously mistranslated the verse
to read, "Kiss the son" and Trinitarians believe that this is referring
to Jesus. However such a phrase is not to be found in the Hebrew Bible.
All one reads in Hebrew are the words, "nash-ku-bar." The meaning of the
Hebrew word, "bar" is "pure" or "clear"?therefore, the correct
translation is, "embrace purity."
It is of no use arguing that "bar" is an Aramaic word for son?it is not.
Bar is only used as a construct "son of" as in Bar Mitzvah, son of the
commandments. The Aramaic word for son is "ber'a." Also why should a
Psalm that is in Hebrew need to use one Aramaic word?
Aramaic is not the language in which David wrote his psalms, and what is
more, the word, "ben," meaning "son" is rendered correctly in verse 7,
so why should it not be used in verse 12, if, as the Christians claim,
it means "son"?
Why are they playing with our Bible?
"Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind
in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name and the
name of his son? Tell me if you know!"
We CAN tell the name of God's son! His son's name is Israel!
The Light of Reason, Shmuel Golding, page 199.
by Marshall J. Gauvin
Scientific inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins to-day with
the question: "Did Jesus Christ really live?" Was there a man named
Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in Palestine nineteen centuries
ago, of whose life and teachings we have a correct account in the New
Testament? The orthodox idea that Christ was the son of God -- God
himself in human form -- that he was the creator of the countless
millions of glowing suns and wheeling worlds that strew the infinite
expanse of the universe; that the forces of nature were the servants of
his will and changed their courses at his command -- such an idea has
been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world -- by every
thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith -- by
every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the
challenge of ancient religious tales.
Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as
a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest
scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding
literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and
profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries,
and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth. The question is one
of tremendous importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the
Christian, it is of the weightiest significance. The Christian religion
has been and is a mighty fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has
absorbed for many centuries the best energies of mankind. It has stayed
the march of civilization, and made martyrs of some of the noblest men
and women of the race: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge,
of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine
brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war
with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the
triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus
Christ Really Live?" goes to the very root of the conflict between
reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree,
the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.
Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what
the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of
evidence. It is a question of science. The question is -- what does
history say? And that question must be settled in the court of
historical criticism. If the thinking world is to hold to the position
that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to
warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; if
history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her
scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity,
like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place
with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up
the mythology of the world.
What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a
man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the
four Gospels of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These
Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know
absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is
said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not
claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel
of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to
Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to
Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who
wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when
they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the
fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief
reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler,
and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The
Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the
Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed
life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.
But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the
same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the
Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is
called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early
age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written,
nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be
an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of
Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and
spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that
it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The
Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic
Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand
at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between
the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that
every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he
could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first
three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different
Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark,
Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while
John insists that he was God himself.
There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that
any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier
than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have
died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the
date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their
calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at
are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that
Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew
about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you
that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as
possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark
and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year
190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by
Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only
sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until
a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe.
Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of
the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says:
"After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the
point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels
during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can
Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after
Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any
trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he
really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on
living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a
supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any
historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would
not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it
could be relied upon.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to
have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his
followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of
Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one
of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every
leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has
maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that
they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early
Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign
tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to
have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that
But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of
authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not
preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer
exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have
are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those
Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they
were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the
earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New
Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is,
therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.
There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a
large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of
Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the
"Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the
"Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a
collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament."
Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian
characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works
were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of
Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to
deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard
Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The
Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of
books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor
Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious
literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded
with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our
Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God.
Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were
not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it
necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever
think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was
really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a
tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.
Spurious or genuine, let us see what the Gospels can tell us about the
life of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. How
do they agree? Matthew says there were forty-one generations from
Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. Yet both pretend to
give the genealogy of Joseph, and both count the generations! Nor is
this all. The Evangelists disagree on all but two names between David
and Christ. These worthless genealogies show how much the New Testament
writers knew about the ancestors of their hero.
If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says
he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when
Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the
administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C.,
and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become
Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are
separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew
and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as
to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had
absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia
Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary
opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah
appeared on earth." Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three
different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which
Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty!
Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned
Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been
assigned to every month in the year, at one time or another.
Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually
called "Jesus of Nazareth." The New Testament writers have endeavored to
leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The
Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent
there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in
Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the
prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies
the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew's
application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that
his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth
occurred at Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to
make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census
mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a
census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was
that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the
family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent,
required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke
declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces
to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had
to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming
a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ
was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him
the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be
born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a
roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his
birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious.
His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he
is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the
question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia
Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference
work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert
positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No
certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed
facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and
youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of
mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man!
Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the
time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said
to have been born, a matter of grave question!
After his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with
the exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely
nothing of him until he has reached the age of thirty years. The account
of his being found discussing with the doctors in the Temple at
Jerusalem when he was but twelve years old, is told by Luke alone. The
other Gospels are utterly ignorant of this discussion; and, this single
incident excepted, the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with
regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of
this silence? If the writers of the Gospels knew the facts of the life
of Christ, why is it that they tell us absolutely nothing of thirty
years of that life? What historical character can be named whose life
for thirty years is an absolute blank to the world? If Christ was the
incarnation of God, if he was the greatest teacher the world has known,
if he came to cave mankind from everlasting pain -- was there nothing
worth remembering in the first thirty years of his existence among men?
The fact is that the Evangelists knew nothing of the life of Jesus,
before his ministry; and they refrained from inventing a childhood,
youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their
Luke, however, deviated from the rule of silence long enough to write
the Temple incident. The story of the discussion with the doctors in the
Temple is proved to be mythical by all the circumstances that surround
it. The statement that his mother and father left Jerusalem, believing
that he was with them; that they went a day's journey before discovering
that he was not in their company; and that after searching for three
days, they found him in the Temple asking and answering questions of the
learned Doctors, involves a series of tremendous improbabilities. Add to
this the fact that the incident stands alone in Luke, surrounded by a
period of silence covering thirty years; add further that none of the
other writers have said a word of the child Jesus discussing with the
scholars of their nation; and add again the unlikelihood that a child
would appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual
champion and the fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly
The Gospels know nothing of thirty years of Christ's life. What do they
know of the last years of that life? How long did the ministry, the
public career of Christ, continue? According to Matthew, Mark and Luke,
the public life of Christ lasted about a year. If John's Gospel is to be
believed, his ministry covered about three years. The Synoptics teach
that Christ's public work was confined almost entirely to Galilee, and
that he went to Jerusalem only once, not long before his death. John is
in hopeless disagreement with the other Evangelists as to the scene of
Christ's labors. He maintains that most of the public life of Christ was
spent in Judea, and that Christ was many times in Jerusalem. Now,
between Galilee and Judea there was the province of Samaria. If all but
the last few weeks of Christ's ministry was carried on in his native
province of Galilee, it is certain that the greater part of that
ministry was not spent in Judea, two provinces away.
John tells us that the driving of the money-changers from the Temple
occurred at the beginning of Christ's ministry; and nothing is said of
any serious consequences following it. But Matthew, Mark and Luke
declare that the purification of the Temple took place at the close of
his career, and that this act brought upon him the wrath of the priests,
who sought to destroy him. Because of these facts, the Encyclopedia
Biblica assures us that the order of events in the life of Christ, as
given by the Evangelists, is contradictory and untrustworthy; that the
chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless; and that the facts
"show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical
precision the Evangelists write." In other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John wrote, not what they knew, but what they imagined.
Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he
preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples,
and by multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the
people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged
him in discussion and sought to take his life. All this shows that he
must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been
one of the best known men in Jerusalem. Why, then, was it necessary for
the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure
man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would
need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who
preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the
public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would
not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the
accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, all the declarations about his
public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.
Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion.
The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were
the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models
of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was
not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are
asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court,
where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been
brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that
the mob shouted, "Crucify him; crucify him!" and that to please the
rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he
had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the
executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman
court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and
declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him
of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be
nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then
crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to
which the world owes its laws? In reading the story of the Crucifixion,
are we reading history or religious fiction? Surely not history.
On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact
that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity,
Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the
cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the
Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure
on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a
lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross.
Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms,
holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming
the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close
of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the
sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a
man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity
eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For
eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ
was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped
by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on
the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?
And let us ask, if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament
describes, if he gave sight to blind men's eyes, if his magic touch
brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at
his command returned to life and love again -- why did the people want
him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews
of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards
a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached
forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they
could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of
mankind? Again I ask -- is this history, or is it fiction?
From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the
Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from
the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are
historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the
unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in
them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that
we certainly know to be false.
The accounts of the virgin birth of Christ, of his feeding five thousand
people with five loaves and two fishes, of his cleansing the leprous, of
his walking on the water, of his raising the dead, and of his own
resurrection after his life had been destroyed, are as untrue as any
stories that were ever told in this world. The miraculous element in the
Gospels is proof that they were written by men, who did not know how to
write history, or who were not particular as to the truth of what they
wrote. The miracles of the Gospels were invented by credulity or
cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we know that the
whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the
imagination? Dr. Paul W. Schmiedel, Professor of New Testament Exegesis
at Zurich, Switzerland, one of the foremost theologians of Europe, tells
us in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, that there are only nine passages in
the Gospels that we can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus; and
Professor Arthur Drews, Germany's greatest exponent of the doctrine that
Christ is a myth, analyses these passages and shows that there is
nothing in them that could not easily have been invented. That these
passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also the contention of John
M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that Jesus never
Let me make a startling disclosure. Let me tell you that the New
Testament itself contains the strongest possible proof that the Christ
of the Gospels was not a real character. The testimony of the Epistles
of Paul demonstrates that the life story of Jesus is an invention. Of
course, there is no certainty that Paul really lived. Let me quote a
passage from the Encyclopaedia Biblica, relative to Paul: "It is true
that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or
fewer of its details from the original. Legend has made itself master of
his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has
become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed
Christians." Thus Christian authority admits that invention has done its
work in manufacturing at least in part, the life of Paul. In truth, the
ablest Christian scholars reject all but our of the Pauline Epistles as
spurious. Some maintain that Paul was not the author of any of them. The
very existence of Paul is questionable.
But for the purpose of my argument, I am going to admit that Paul really
lived; that he was a zealous apostle; and that all the Epistles are from
his pen. There are thirteen of these Epistles. Some of them are lengthy;
and they are acknowledged to be the oldest Christian writings. They were
written long before the Gospels. If Paul really wrote them, they were
written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have
been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known
in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should
have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus;
and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works,
or his teachings.
In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ's virgin
birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvellous manner in
which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there
can be only one honest explanation -- the story of the virgin birth had
not yet been invented when Paul wrote. A large portion of the Gospels is
devoted to accounts of the miracles Christ is said to have wrought. But
you will look in vain through the thirteen Epistles of Paul for the
slightest hint that Christ ever performed any miracles. Is it
conceivable that Paul was acquainted with the miracles of Christ -- that
he knew that Christ had cleansed the leprous, cast out devils that could
talk, restored sight to the blind and speech to the dumb, and even
raised the dead -- is it conceivable that Paul was aware of these
wonderful things and yet failed to write a single line about them?
Again, the only solution is that the accounts of the miracles wrought by
Jesus had not yet been invented when Paul's Epistles were written.
Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of
Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus.
The Christ of the Gospels preached a famous sermon on a mountain: Paul
knows nothing of it. Christ delivered a prayer now recited by the
Christian world: Paul never heard of it. Christ taught in parables: Paul
is utterly unacquainted with any of them. Is not this astonishing? Paul,
the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any
other to establish the Christian religion in the world -- that is, if
the Epistles may be trusted -- is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of
Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single
saying of Jesus.
Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if
the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made
use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian
missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to
the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount,
never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of
one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the
precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout
the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches
of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles,
the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And o not these features
constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these
things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one
answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown
to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been
The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely
different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has
no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no
miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he
was in a vision while on his way to Damascus -- an apparition, a
phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men.
This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the
earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a
father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform
astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise
in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ
of the New Testament -- first a spirit, and later a miraculously born,
miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot
A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of
Christ's physical existence. In his "History of Christianity," Dean
Milman writes: "The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or
that he died," and Mosheim, Germany's great ecclesiastical historian,
says: "The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an
"appearance," an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality -- a
Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore,
documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed
facts, are untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element
might easily have invented the part that was natural. Men are common;
Gods are rare; therefore, it is at least as easy to invent the biography
of a man as the history of a God. For this reason, the whole story of
Christ -- the human element as well as the divine -- is without valid
claim to be regarded as true. If miracles are fictions, Christ is a
myth. Said Dean Farrar: "If miracles be incredible, Christianity is
false." Bishop Westcott wrote: "The essence of Christianity lies in a
miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or
incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is
superfluous." Not only are miracles incredible, but the uniformity of
nature declares them to be impossible. Miracles have gone: the
miraculous Christ cannot remain.
If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works
that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict
with the authorities and was crucified -- how shall we explain the fact
that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said
to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and
Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists
and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and
inquiring minds. Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has
produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period,
there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus. Great
writers wrote extensively of events of minor importance, but not one of
them wrote a word about the mightiest character who had ever appeared on
earth -- a man at whose command the leprous were made clean, a man who
fed five thousand people with a satchel full of bread, a man whose word
defied the grave and gave life to the dead.
John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a
list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within
a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.
Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced,
was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many
years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home
was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have
performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the
dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly
contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have
been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the
preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who
wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the
very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never
once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed
Savior of the world.
In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated
Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the
Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for
two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did
not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days.
Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to
or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus
ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In
the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in
which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a
wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of
wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with
pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the
Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the
principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that
loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them
alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and
ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen
forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the
Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew
nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus
which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of
Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in
their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew
his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not
acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the
Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in
the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius,
who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is
know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several
other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical
Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the
attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be
sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make
use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."
Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is
written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus.
Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of
minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore,
a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the
narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it;
and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been
separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew -- a
priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the
divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ -- that is to
say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus
could not possibly have written these words without being logically
compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of
reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing
For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an
interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many
additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now
stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a
rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says:
"The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an
In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short
passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party
called Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their
crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome.
The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the
passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the
fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of
the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made
in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The
"Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after
Jesus' time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything
as to Jesus.
The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George
with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of
Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious
band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose
followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a
monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe,
woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered
no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of
The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah,"
was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."
The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who
would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of
many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the
people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons.
One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed
under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that
Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.
These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of
Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have
lived was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many
political leaders assumed the title of "Christ." All the materials
necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that
age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have
been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed
miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind,
and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that
Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In
the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown
in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson
in his "Pagan Christs."
"But," says the Christian, "Christ is so perfect a character that he
could not have been invented." This is a mistake. The Gospels do not
portray a perfect character. The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be
artificial by the numerous contradictions in his character and
teachings. He was in favor of the sword, and he was not; he told men to
love their enemies, and advised them to hate their friends; he preached
the doctrine of forgiveness, and called men a generation of vipers; he
announced himself as the judge of the world, and declared that he would
judge no man; he taught that he was possessed of all power, but was
unable to work miracles where the people did not believe; he was
represented as God and did not shrink from avowing, "I and my Father are
one," but in the pain and gloom of the cross, he is made to cry out in
his anguish: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" And how
singular it is that these words, reputed as the dying utterance of the
disillusioned Christ, should be not only contradicted by two
Evangelists, but should be a quotation from the twenty-second Psalm!
If there is a moment when a man's speech is original, it is when, amid
agony and despair, while his heart is breaking beneath its burden of
defeat and disappointment, he utters a cry of grief from the depth of
his wounded soul with the last breath that remains before the chill
waves of death engulf his wasted life forever. But on the lips of the
expiring Christ are placed, not the heart-felt words of a dying man, but
a quotation from the literature of his race!
A being with these contradictions, these transparent unrealities in his
character, could scarcely have been real.
And if Christ, with all that is miraculous and impossible in his nature,
could not have been in vented, what shall we say of Othello, of Hamlet,
of Romeo? Do not Shakespeare's wondrous characters live upon the stage?
Does not their naturalness, their consistency, their human grandeur,
challenge our admiration? And is it not with difficulty that we believe
them to be children of the imagination? Laying aside the miraculous, in
the story of the Jewish hero, is not the character of Jean Valjean as
deep, as lofty, as broad, as rich in its humanity, as tender in its
pathos, as sublime in its heroism, and as touchingly resigned to the
cruelties of fate as the character of Jesus? Who has read the story of
that marvelous man without being thrilled? And who has followed him
through his last days with dry eyes? And yet Jean Valjean never lived
and never died; he was not a real man, but the personification of
suffering virtue born in the effulgent brain of Victor Hugo. Have you
not wept when you have seen Sydney Carton disguise himself and lay his
neck beneath the blood-stained knife of the guillotine, to save the life
of Evremonde? But Sydney Carton was not an actual human being; he is the
heroic, self-sacrificing spirit of humanity clothed in human form by the
genius of Charles Dickens.
Yes, the character of Christ could have been invented! The literature of
the world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of
the splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest
of the mind and hold the heart enthralled. But how account for
Christianity if Christ did not live? Let me ask another question. How
account for the Renaissance, for the Reformation, for the French
Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these movements was created by
an individual. They grew. Christianity grew. The Christian church is
older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the
church. The church produced the story of Christ.
The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real
person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived
in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who
went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who
in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line
was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of
to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and
if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in
every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the
Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will
turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital
problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of
the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought
to help and love.
JESUS FULFILLED MESSIANIC PROPHECIES?
Words from a Pastor; Edited by Hugh Fogelman
Were the messianic prophecies attributed to Jesus fulfilled by him or
has textual corruption made them look as if they were?
If there is any topic upon which Christian apologists love to use for
their defense of Christianity in general and Jesus in particular, are
the alleged messianic prophecies. Christians constantly refer to the
alleged applicability of numerous Hebrew Bible prophecies to Jesus of
Nazareth and contend that no one in all of history fulfills these
prophecies to the degree that Jesus does. Almost any Christian will tell
you that Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament (OT) prophecies that are
mentioned in their bible, and because of this he is “the” Messiah.
Such statements are made by those who never once in their life ever
compared the Hebrew Scriptures as taken from the Hebrew Bible with the
supposed faithful translations of them as found in their Christian
Bibles [both the Old and New Testaments in the Christian Bible]. Even
Christian commentators say the same things in the books they write;
assuring the Christian community that Jesus “fulfilled” Messianic
prophecy when, sadly, they have also failed to make the needed
Pastor Craig Lyons writes;
“Without these comparisons, Christians always supposed that there were
no differences; until they dig deeper into the purposeful forgery of the
Christian Bible and Christian texts. While I was in Seminary, there was
no such thing as comparing the New Testament to the Original Hebrew
Bible, that is, until my study after graduating Seminary took me in that
direction. Over the years in my Pastorate in Dallas, Texas, the heart of
the Bible belt, I was in study on the average 5 hours a day, and it was
in this deep study that I began to become aware of the lack of true
Biblical knowledge held by those who claim to be “spiritual authorities”
in the church. I would be astonished that often these men would be on
television purporting to be leaders of the flock of G-d but to those who
knew different their lack of Biblical knowledge was so apparent. It was
no better on the staff of the church where I Pastored. You only needed
to attend one staff meeting for a few hours at our “mega-church” to be
convinced of such facts. It seems if we can preach and speak loudly and
have 10-15 scriptures memorized then the consensus is that one must be a
Biblical authority and worthy to lead the people of G-d. Let me say up
front this is one of the most tragic fallacies I have even encountered
in my whole life.”
Take for example what Josh McDowell wrote on page 141 in Evidence that
Demands a Verdict. He says “The apostles throughout the NT appealed to
two areas of the life of Jesus of Nazareth to establish His Messiahship.
One was the resurrection and the other was fulfilled messianic prophecy.
The OT, written over a 1,000 year period, contains several hundred
references to the coming Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Jesus
Christ, and they establish a solid confirmation of His credentials as
the Messiah”. In essence, the argument is that Jesus must be the messiah
because only Jesus fulfilled so many of the messianic prophecies.
Opposing this understanding is over 3,000 years of Jewish interpretation
of their own Hebrew Scriptures which testify that neither Jesus nor
anyone has fulfilled the Messianic Scriptures. To say that Jesus or
anyone else “is” or “was” the Messiah is a claim that is made without
Scriptural support, but rather finds its momentum based upon emotion
What is the truth of the matter? Is the Christian Bibles and associated
religious texts faithful in translation to the Hebrew Bible or could it
be remotely possible that the Christian Bibles and texts have been
purposefully altered, purposefully mistranslated, misquoted and
purposefully taken out of context or even invented to make it appear as
if Jesus is the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures?
Lost in the abundance of apologetic assurances that Jesus of Nazareth is
the Messiah are two central facts:
· For almost two thousand years the Jews, who were given the
Hebrew Scriptures and the ability to interpret it correctly as a light
to the non-Jews, have not found a single fulfilled prophecy by Jesus or
anyone else for that matter.
· Once one is well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures?not the
Christian scriptures which were purposefully corrupted and translated
into the Greek and all later English versions of them?then nothing in
the entire Hebrew Bible, the original texts, can be applied to Jesus.
Pastor Craig Lyons wrote; “I know, you are probably bewildered at the
second fact stated above and shaking your head and beginning to think
that such a statement comes from one “demon possessed.” Let me assure
you that as an ordained Pastor I have dedicated over 20 years, I said
years, of in-depth study of the Christian Old Testament and the Hebrew
Scriptures and manuscript evidences. I continually had to bow my knee to
such truths because the Messianic prophecy of the Old Testament and its
depiction being “fulfilled” by Jesus in the New Testament, when properly
understood as taken from the Hebrew Bible, does not support such claims
made Christianity. You may have yet to see of what I speak, but when you
undertake a serious investigation of this major problem as I did?day
after day, year after year?then you will have no recourse but to see
what I did; for it is there! If you are “fully clothed and in your
right mind” then you will see what I and everyone else uncovers when you
examine for yourself this textual deception given Christians and all
followers of Jesus by Rome in the Bibles we inherited from them.”
The problem for most Christians, Christian Clergy, and many Christian
writers, is that they fail to adhere to the strict laws of Biblical
hermeneutics or “interpretation” of the texts when developing their
religious belief system. Besides not knowing that many of their passages
and Scriptures in their Christian Bibles are forgeries when compared
with the Hebrew, more often than not, religious concepts from years of
preaching and sermonizing are read into these passages, either
consciously or unconsciously, when the original writer of passage had no
such intention when he wrote these passages or taught them to others.
More often than not, Christians end up continually reading into various
passages what they want them to say; failing to draw out from the
passage the intended meaning of the writer as he originally wrote the
passage. Because they have, in effect, been brainwashed most of their
lives, they do not even know they are doing this.
In The Real Messiah (page 37), Aryeh Kaplan summarized the situation in
a manner that can only be described as exemplary by saying,
“The early Christians tried to justify their contention by finding hints
of it in the Jewish Scriptures. They went over the entire Bible with a
fine tooth comb, looking for any evidence however flimsy, to prove that
Yeshua was the Messiah, and that their entire logical structure was in
accord with ancient Jewish teachings. In many cases, they were not
· Using Old Testament verses out of context;
· Changing Old Testament texts to suit their desired theology;
· Even mistranslating them on purpose for theological purposes…
to prove their point. One needs no further evidence than the fact that
most modern Christian Bible scholars totally reject almost all the
“proofs” of the early Christians. Indeed, some of the best refutations
of these “proofs” may be found in contemporary Christian Bible
In The Jew and the Christian Missionary (page 186), Gerald Sigal stated
in the same vein, “The evangelists are endeavoring, time and again, to
link their claim to passages in the Hebrew Bible to find support for
their contention that Yeshua is the Messiah and the fulfillment of what
the prophets had to say about the Messiah. Yet details large and small
abound which show that this is impossibility.”
Just how well do Christians know the Hebrew Scripture prophecies
concerning the coming of THE Messiah? How many Christians can point out
where in the SOURCE Bible, the Tanakh, is a Second Coming of THE Messiah
This is where the typical Christian today, because of his personal
failure to know the Hebrew Bible thoroughly, is set up for religious
deception from the pulpit of his church. If one were to know
authoritatively the “Tanakh” prophecies about the coming of THE Messiah
and know them within their historical context then he would easily spot
lies and deceptions from the pulpit by those who literally brainwash
their flocks with perversions of these Biblical truths. Besides
twisting, perverting, and distorting Old Testament verses in the
Christian bible in an attempt to apply them to Jesus, apologists devised
a devious mechanism to account for the fact that Jesus obviously did not
fulfill the prophecies relating to the Messianic era. The Second Coming
concept was born! Jesus will take care of these pesky prophecy problems
when he comes back.
This problem is tremendous and said in a simpler manner is this:
Christians needed to be Old Testament Christians before they were New
Testament Christians. They could then have spotted every time a Hebrew
Scripture was purposefully taken out of context, misquoted,
mistranslated, or even creatively invented to present a picture for
later fulfillment as applied to Jesus or anyone for that matter.
Those numerous predictions that Jesus failed to complete during his
sojourn on planet earth will, they allege, be fulfilled when he returns
a second time. In other words, what Jesus didn't complete during his
first appearance will be accomplished the second time around. For utter
deception this ploy has no equal. Using that subterfuge, anyone could
claim to be the messiah. All they need do is allege that whatever they
did not accomplish while on earth this time would be carried out when
they return at some indeterminate time in the future. Besides, all this
points out is the fact that Jesus failed his first time around! Hmmm,
could the “son of God” or God incarnate, as some claim, FAIL to
accomplish his goals, his purpose? You know the answer to that! Just be
honest with yourself!
Anyone who has read the Hebrew Bible with any degree of objectivity
knows that there is only one messiah and that is all, and he is going to
come once, and that is it.
The Second Coming concept is nothing more than a Christian ruse to
conceal blatant shortcomings on the part of Jesus.
The authors of the New Testament had Jesus himself lie to his generation
that many would not die before the Messiah comes; yet it never happened
and they all died.
Sadly, Christians are betting their souls on this lie.
As someone once told me,” As G-d created our minds, He expects us to use
our reasoning together with our faith. Faith is not a substitute for
reason, but a development from it and alongside it.”
THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY
JESUS, THE MAN
Jesus, the New Testament; who cares??? Zombies clawing their way out of
the graves, Herod's fictitious slaughter, bad history and just the total
fiction of the xian bible render it meaningless anyway! And then for
good measure, into the mix someone threw in a human as a god. This all
adds up to be just another tale of pagan fiction!
Jesus was recorded as saying to follow the Law; Paul was to have said
NO! So, there you have it Mr. or Mrs. Christian; so what? Two thousand
years from now someone may find a book describing Harry Potter using a
"willow" stick as a magic wand. Yet another long held "version" may have
the stick as a "maple." So what?
When all is said and done; the Christian bible is still fiction! It is
still a virulent anti-Semitic document. It is still worthless trash for
one to bet his eternity upon! Its essence, its core, its whole is still
about ONE THING, and one thing only – a dead ”man-god” who:
· Crawled out from a womb;
· Cried for food;
· Suckled teats;
· Sprayed Mary & Joseph with yellow "holy water ;"
· Crapped his pants;
· Had to learn how to walk and run;
· Had to be taught to read and write;
· Grew up; and
That is the essence of the Christian fiction recorded in the Christian
bible ? all else is merely commentary!
Christians, if you accept that Jesus was a man-god, you HAVE TO ACCEPT
THE ABOVE. It is not optional ? it is mandatory! Every one on this
planet has goes through mandatory development stages; there are no
exceptions. The Christian Bible does not exempt Jesus from them either.
Unfortunately, bible-intoxicated Christians reading this essence of a
man-god–instead of now knowing what it really mandates–will get mad.
They will blindly refuse to see what swallowing the Christian pagan myth
actually requires one to accept. Yes, to be a “faithful” Christian, you
must check you brain when you enter a church door.
And these Christians who are now “mad as hell” that I exposed the
essence of Jesus; are the same ones who told their children to believe
in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Eventually they
said, “Kids, we lied to you about Santa etc,” but they still have not
had the courage to tell their children the truth about the dead-man god,
They will continue to brainwash their children. Starting at a young and
tender age, they make little children sing one of their brainwashing
“Jesus loves me, this I know
For the bible tells me so...”1
Jesus and Christianity: this is simply sick, perverted pagan mythology;
all based on damn lies!
1. "Jesus Loves Me" was written by Anna Bartlett Warner in 1860
(William B. Bradbury developed the music in 1862). In 3rd world nations,
because of its simple and direct message, "Jesus Loves Me" was one of
the first hymns missionaries would teach to gain new converts.
JESUS AND KRISHNA
John P. Lundy, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:
“If we may believe so good an authority as Edward Moor (author of Moor's
"Hindu Pantheon" and "Oriental Fragments"), both the name of Crishna,
and the general outline of his history, were long anterior to the birth
of our Savior, as very certain things, and probably extended to the time
of Homer, nearly nine hundred years before Christ, or more than one
hundred years before Isaiah lived and prophesied.” 16
J. B. S. Carwithen, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:
“Both the name of Crishna [sic] and the general outline of his story are
long anterior to the birth of our Savior; and this we know, not on the
presumed antiquity of the Hindoo records alone. Both Arrian and Strabo
assert that the god Crishna was anciently worshipped at Mathura, on the
river Jumna, where he is worshipped at this day. But the emblems and
attributes essential to this deity are also transplanted into the
mythology of the west.”17
T. W. Doane, Nineteenth Century:
“In the Sanskrit Dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago,
we have the whole story of Crishna, the incarnate deity, born of a
virgin, and miraculously escaping in his infancy from Kansa, the
reigning monarch of the country.” 18
Monier Williams, Nineteenth--Century Professor:
“...the religious creeds, rites, customs, and habits of thought of the
Hindus generally have altered little since the days of Manu [in] 500
George W. Cox, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:
“...Practically, the myths of Crishna seems to have been fully developed
in the days of Megasthenes [fourth century B.C.], who identifies him
with the Greek Hercules. 20
1) Both were preceded by a ‘forerunner’ born a short time before them.21
2) Each was born in a city away from home where his father was on tax
3) Krishna was born in a cave.23
Jesus was born in a stable (Luke 2:7). However, Quintus Tertullian
(third century), St. Jerome (fourth century), and other Church fathers
claimed that Jesus, too, was born in a cave.”24
Frederick W. Farrar, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:
“That the actual place of Christ's birth was a cave is a very ancient
tradition, and this cave used to be shown as the scene of the event even
so early as the time of Justin Martyr (A.D. 150).” 25
4) “In infancy, both Krishna and Jesus were sentenced to death by kings
who viewed them as pretenders to the throne. Due to this threat:
Krishna's father was warned by a heavenly voice "to fly with the child
to Gacool, across the river Jumna.26
”Jesus' father was warned in a dream, ‘...rise and take the child and
his mother, and flee to Egypt...’” (Matthew 2:13).
5) One of these kings then ordered "the massacre in all his states of
all the children of the male sex during the night of the birth of
The other, Herod, ‘.sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem,
and in all that region, who were two years old or under...’ (Matthew
6) “One of both Krishna and Jesus' first ’miracles’ performed as adults
was the curing of a leper.” 28
7) “Urged by Krishna to make a request, a man replied: ‘Above all
things, I desire to have my two dead sons restored to life.’ Immediately
they were brought to life and came to their father."29
"While [Jesus] was thus speaking to them, behold, a ruler came in and
knelt before him, saying: `My daughter has just died; but come and lay
your hand on her, and she will live....' But when the crowd had been put
aside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose" (Matthew
8) Either a poor cripple or a lame woman came with "a vessel filled with
spices, sweet scented oils, sandalwood, saffron, civet, and other
perfumes, and made a certain sign on [Krishna's] forehead, casting the
rest upon his head."30
"Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman
came up to him with an alabaster box of very expensive ointment, and she
poured it on his head, as he sat at the table" (Matthew 26:6--7).
9) Both washed the feet of their disciples.31
10) Both had a beloved disciple.32
11) Krishna said: "Let him, if seeking God by deep abstraction, abandon
his possessions and his hopes, betake himself to some secluded spot, and
fix his heart and thoughts on God alone."33
Jesus said: "But when you pray, go into your room and close the door and
pray to your Father Who is in secret; and your Father Who sees in secret
will reward you" (Matthew 6:6).
12) Krishna said: "I am the light in the sun and the moon, far, far
beyond the darkness. I am the brilliancy in flame, the radiance in all
that's radiant, and the light of lights."34
Jesus said: "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not
walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12).
13) Krishna said: "I am the sustainer of the world, its friend and Lord.
I am its way and refuge."35
Jesus said: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to
the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).
14) Krishna said: "I am the Goodness of the good; I am Beginning,
Middle, End, Eternal Time, the Birth, the Death of all."36
Jesus said: "Fear not, I am the first, and the last, and the living one;
I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death
and Hades" (Revelations 1:17--18).
15) Both "descended" to hell.37
16) Both "ascended" to heaven before witnesses.38
17) Both are said to have been God incarnate:
"Crishna is the very Supreme Brahma, though it be a mystery how the
Supreme should assume the form of a man."39
"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion; He manifested
in the flesh." (I Timothy 3:16).
18) Before death, Krishna was pierced with an arrow 40 and Jesus with a
spear (John 19:34).
19) Both were crucified:
John P. Lundy, Nineteenth--Century Reverend: I object to the crucifix
because it is an image, and liable to gross abuse, just as the old
Hindoo crucifix was an idol.41
Dr. Thomas Inman, Nineteenth--Century: Crishna [sic], whose history so
closely resembles our Lord's, was also like him in his being
20) When Krishna died, it is said that a black circle surrounded the
moon, the sun was darkened at noon, the sky rained fire and ashes, and
spirits were seen everywhere.43
When Jesus died, the sun was darkened from the sixth to the ninth hour,
graves were opened, and saints rose and entered the city (Matthew 27:45,
21) Both were "resurrected."44
22) "Krishna will return in the end days as an armed warrior, riding on
a winged white horse. He will destroy the wicked then living. The sun
and the moon will be darkened, the earth will tremble, and the stars
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days [following Jesus'
"return"] the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its
light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the
heavens will be shaken" (Matthew 24:29).
16. John P. Lundy, Monumental Christianity (New York, 1876), p. 151.
17. Ibid, pp. 151--152.
18. T. W. Doane, Bible Myths (New York, 1882), p. 286.
19. Williams, Indian Wisdom, or Examples of the Religious, Philosphical,
Ethical Doctrines of the Hindoos (London, 1875), p. iv.
20. Cox, The Myths of the Aryan Nations (London, 1870), vol. 2, p. 138.
21. Maurice, Hindostan, vol. 2, p. 316; Luke 1:57.
22. H. H. Wilson, trans., The Vishnu Purana, A System of Hindoo
and Tradition (London, 1840), book 5, chap. 3; Luke 2:1--7.
23. Cox, vol. 2, p. 107.
24. Godfred Higgins, Anacalypsis: An Enquiry into the Origin of
Nations and Religions (London, 1836), vol. 2, pp. 98--99.
25. Farrar, The Life of Christ (New York, 1876), p. 38.
26. Mons Dupuis, trans., The Origin of All Religious Worship (New
Orleans, 1872), p. 134.
27. Swain, vol. 1, p. 259.
28. Thomas Maurice, History of Hindostan (London, 1798), vol. 2, p. 319;
29. Maria L. Child, The Progress of Religious Ideas through Successive
(New York, 1855), vol. 1, p. 68.
30. Maurice, Hindostan, vol 2, p. 320.
31. Maurice, Indian Antiquities (London, 1794), vol. 3, p. 46; John
32. Charles Wilkes, trans., The Bhagavat Gita, or Dialogues of Crishna
Arjoon, in Eighteen Lectures With Notes, (London, 1785), p. 51; John
33. Williams, Hinduism (London, 1877), p. 211.
34. Ibid., p. 213.
35. Ibid., p. 213.
36. Ibid., p. 213.
37. Swain, vol. 1, p. 237; I Peter 3:19.
38. Higgins, p. 131; Acts 1:9
39. Wilson, p. 492.
40. Higgins, vol. 1, p. 144.
41. Lundy, p. 128.
42. Inman, Ancient Faiths and Modern (London, 1868), vol. 1, p. 411.
43. Child, vol. 1, p. 71.
44. Dupuis, p. 240; Matthew 28:6.
45. Child, vol. 1, p. 75; Williams, Hinduism, p. 108.
JESUS – CHRISNA – KRISHNA
Chrisna (Krishna) was the Indian Apollo, born in 1200 BCE. He is
represented as Avatar often, or the incarnation of the divinity. At his
birth, choirs of Devitas (this is the name of, or for, angels) sang
hymns of praise while shepherds surrounded his cradle. It was necessary
to conceal his birth from the tyrant ruler, Canso, to whom it had been
foretold that an infant savior would destroy him. 1 Astute Christians
should be able to see that the Christian tyrant King Herod is merely a
retelling of the old pagan tyrant ruler, Canso. The Christian Herod
story is strikingly similar to the pagan Chrisna/Canso mythology in
nearly every feature.
In the first place there is the angel warning. In the Christian story we
are not specifically informed how the tyrant Herod first became apprised
of the birth of the Judean Savior. The Hindu story is fuller, and
indicates that the angel was not only sufficiently thoughtful to warn
the parents to flee from a danger which threatened to dispossess them of
a divine child, and the world of a savior, but was condescending enough
to apprise the tyrant ruler (Cansa) of his danger likewise?as we are
told he heard an angel’s voice announcing that a rival ruler was born in
And hence, like Herod, he set about devising measures to destroy him.
Why either of them should have taken such a circuitous or roundabout way
of killing an infant, when the life of the strongest man, and every man
in their kingdoms, was at their instant disposal, "divine inspiration"
does not inform us. The child (Krishna) escaped with his parents beyond
the coast of Lamouna.
For a time he lived in obscurity, and then he commenced a public life
distinguished for prowess and beneficence. He washed the feet of the
Brahmins, the holy men of India, and then he preached the most excellent
doctrines, but at length the power of his enemies prevailed. Before his
untimely death he foretold the miseries: which would take place in the
Caliyuga or wicked (Dark?) ages of the world.
Krishna (Chrisna) taught his followers that they alone were the true
believers of the saving faith. He threw down the barriers of caste. He
elevated the dogmas of the faith above the sacerdotal class. He admitted
everyone who felt an inward desire to the ministry to preach the
religion. We know quite a bit about Chrisna. For instance, at the very
moment of his conception a god left heaven to enter the womb of his
mother, who was a virgin. Immediately after his birth he was recognized
as a divine personage and it was predicted that he would surpass all
previous divine in carnations in holiness. Everyone adored him. Everyone
saluted him and called him "god of gods."
When he was twenty years old he went into the desert and lived there in
retirement. He lived in simplicity and virtue and spent his time in
religious contemplation. He was tempted in the desert in several ways.
But, through his self-denial, he resisted all the seductive approaches
of sin. He declared, "Religion is my essence." He experienced a lively
opposition from the priests attached to the ancient creeds. But he
triumphed over his enemies after holding a discussion with them in the
temples. He revised the existing code of morals and social laws.
It had been prophesied in "olden times" in Indian religion that a person
would arise and redeem Hindustan from the "yoke of bondage." We know
this: "At midnight, when the birth of Chrisna was taking place, the
clouds emitted low music and poured down a rain of flowers. The
celestial child was greeted with hymns by the attending spirits. The
room was illuminated by his light, the light coming from Chrisna, and
the countenances of his father and mother emitted rays of glory and they
both bowed in worship." The people believed he was god. At his birth a
marvelous light illumined the earth.
Chrisna’s followers baptized and performed miraculous cures. When he was
a child he attracted attention by his miracles. His life was devoted to
mercy and charity. Chrisna left paradise from pure compassion, to die
for suffering sinners. He sought to lead men to better paths and lives
of virtue and rectitude. He suffered to atone for the sins of the entire
world. But the sinner, through faith in him, could be saved. Chrisna
proclaimed the equality of man in the sight of god.
There was a problem with Chrisna. He undertook and counseled a constant
struggle against the body. In his eyes the body was the enemy of man's
soul. He aimed to subdue the body and the passions, which came to that
body. To follow him required humility, the disregard to worldly wealth,
patience and resignation to adversity, love of enemies, religious
tolerance, non-resistance to evil, confession of sins, and conversion.
Chrina received as disciples the outcasts of Hindu society. Chrisna died
at last between two thieves. He led a pure and holy life, and was a
meek, tender and benevolent being.
The birthplace of Chrinsa was Mathura. If you remember your Bible you
will know that this is similar to Maturea, between Nazareth and Egypt.
There are many small tales of Chrisna. One day a woman came to him and
anointed his hair with oil, and in return he healed her maladies. One of
his first miracles was the healing of a leper. Chrisna was crucified. He
descended into Hades. He rose form the dead and ascended ot Voicontah
Chrisna's mother was Maia. Mary? Let's look at Maia, his mother. She was
pure and chaste. No animal food ever touched her lips. Honey and milk
were her only sustenance. One evening, as she was praying, she was
overshadowed by the spirit of god and she conceived god Chrisna in her
womb then and there.
Chrisna's full name was Chrisna Zeus, or Zeus Chrisna. Notice the
similarity between Zeus and the name Jesus. Notice the similarity
between Chrisna and Christ.
Chrisna chose twelve disciples to aid him in propagating his doctrines.
He spent most of his time working miracles, resuscitating the dead,
healing lepers, restoring the deaf and blind, defending the weak against
the strong, and in proclaiming his divine mission to redeem man from
original sin. He wanted to banish evil and restore the reign of good. He
came to Earth because Brahma sent his son Chrisna upon the earth to die
for salvation of man. The title of Jesus was given to him because it
means "pure". He was called the "Promised of god" and "Messiah." When he
spoke it was often from a mount. He also spoke in parables.
One of his parables is quite famous in India. A fisherman was much
persecuted by his neighbors, but in a time of a sever famine when his
neighbors were suffering and dying for the want of food, he carried food
to these same persecuting neighbors, because he was so noble as to
return good for evil, and he thus saved them from starvation. When
Chrisna told his parable, he concluded it by saying, "Therefore, do good
to all, both and evil and the good, even to your enemies."
Once, when he entered the city of Madura, the people came out in flocks
and strewed branches for him to walk on as he entered the city. Chrisna
had a favorite disciple, Adjourna, and he had another disciple by the
name of Angada, who followed him to the Ganges River and there betrayed
him. When Chrisna's last hours came, at the bank of the Ganges he
performed three ablutions, and looking up at the heavens, prayed to
Brahma. He was nailed then to the cross, but the wood on which he was
suspended became suddenly covered with great red flowers that diffused
their fragrance all around him.
Who was Chrisna? We are told that he was born in the year 1200 BCE in
India. He was born on December 25th (that is the Indian month of
Savarana) at midnight.
Chrisna descended into hell to preach to the inmates of that dark and
dreary prison when he died.
Now honestly, just between the two of us, don't you think it is possible
that somewhere along the line of the development of the Christna
religions, there was a savior needed, and that Chrinsa sounded too good
to be true?
Don't you now have an idea whence the idea of Jesus came?
1 Cansa's decree ran thus: "Let active search be made for whatever young
children there may be upon earth, and let every boy in whom there may be
found signs of unusual greatness be slain without remorse."
Now, let it be specially noticed that there is to this day in the cave
temple at Elephants, in India, the sculptured likeness of a king
represented with a drawn sword, and surrounded with slaughtered
infants -- admitted by all writers to be much much older than
Christianity. Mr Forbes, in his Oriental Memories, vol. iii. p. 447,
says, "The figures of the slaughtered infants in the cave of Elephanta
represent them as being all boys, who are surrounded by groups of
figures of men and women in the act, apparently, of supplicating for
And Mr. Higgins, in his Anacalypsis, testifies relative to the case,
that Chrishna was carried away by night, and concealed in a region
remote from his natal place, for fear of a tyrant whose destroyer it had
been foretold he would become, who, for that reason, had ordered all the
male children born at that time to be slain. Sculptures in Elephanta
attest the story where the tyrant is represented as destroying the
children. The date of this sculpture is of the most remote antiquity.
"He who hath ears to hear, let him hear," and deduce the pregnant
inference, Joseph and Mary fled with the young Judean God into Egypt;
Chrishna's parents likewise fled with the young Hindoo Savior to Gokul.
JESUS AND BUDDHA
Both Buddha and Jesus were baptized in the presence of the
"spirit" of God. 54
Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to
have astonished all with their wisdom.55
Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for
forty--seven days and Jesus for forty.56
Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts 57
Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:
"When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm,
tranquil, self--possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined
to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the
time he was twenty--nine years of age...".58
"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age."
Both were tempted by the "devil" at the beginning of their ministry: To
Buddha, he said: "Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to
your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world,
riding over the four continents."59
To Jesus, he said: "All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you,
if you fall down and worship me" (Matthew 4:9).
Buddha answered the "devil": "Get you away from me."60
Jesus responded: "...begone, Satan!" (Matthew 4:10).
Both experienced the "supernatural" after the "devil" left:
For Buddha: "The skies rained flowers, and delicious odors prevailed
[in] the air."61
For Jesus: ".angels came and ministered to him" (Matthew 4:11).
The multitudes required a sign from both in order that they might
Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth.63
Buddha "represented himself as a mere link in a long chain of
Jesus said: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law, and the
prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew
According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic's
eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away.65
Jesus said: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and
throw it away;." (Matthew 5:29).
"Buddha taught that the motive of all our actions should be pity or love
of our neighbor."66
Jesus taught: "...love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you." (Matthew 5:44).
Buddha said: "Hide your good deeds, and confess before the world the
sins you have committed."67
Jesus said: "Beware of practicing your piety before men to be seen by
them;." (Matthew 6:1) and "Therefore confess your sins one to another,
and pray one for another, that you may be healed..." (James 5:16).
Both are said to have known the thoughts of others:
"By directing his mind to the thoughts of others, [Buddha] can know the
thoughts of all beings."68
"Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: `Why do you think evil in your
hearts?' " (Matthew 9:4).
T.W.Rhys Davids, Nineteenth-Century Professor:
There is every reason to believe that the Pitakas [sacred books
containing the legends of Buddha] now extant in Ceylon are substantially
identical with the books of the Southern Canon, as settled at the
Council of Patna about the year 250 B.C. As no works would have been
received into the Canon which were not then believed to be very old, the
Pitakas may be approximately placed in the fourth century B.C., and
parts of them possibly reach back very nearly, if not quite, to the time
of Gautama (Buddha) himself.46
Samuel Beal, Nineteenth-Century Professor:
We know that the Fo-pen-hing [legends of Buddha] was -translated into
Chinese from Sanskrit (the ancient language of Hindostan) so early as
the eleventh year of the reign of -Wing-ping (Ming-ti) of the Hans
Dynasty, i.e., 69 or 70 A.D. We may, therefore, safely suppose that the
original work was in circulation in India for some time previous to this
These points of agreement with the Gospel narrative arouse curiosity and
require explanation. If we could prove that they [the legends of Buddha]
were unknown in the East for some centuries after Christ, the
explanation would be easy. But all the evidence we have goes to prove
Ernest de Bunsen, Nineteenth Century:
“With the remarkable exception of the death of Jesus on the cross, and
of the doctrine of atonement by vicarious suffering, which is absolutely
excluded by Buddhism, the most ancient of the Buddhistic records known
to us contain statements about the life and the doctrines of Gautama
Buddha which -correspond in a remarkable manner, and impossibly by mere
chance, with the traditions recorded in the Gospels about the life and
doctrines of Jesus Christ....” 49
Max Muller, Nineteenth--Century Professor:
“Between the language of Buddha and his disciples, and the language of
Christ and his apostles, there are strange coincidences. Even some of
the Buddhist legends and parables sound as if taken from the New
Testament, though we know that many of them existed before the beginning
of the Christian era.” 50
Kenneth Scott Latourette, Twentieth Century:
“Approximately five centuries older than Christianity, by the time of
the birth of Christ, Buddhism had already spread through much of India
and Ceylon and had penetrated into Central Asia and China.”51
M. L'Abbe Huc, Nineteenth--Century Missionary Apostolic:
“The miraculous birth of Buddha, his life and instructions, contain a
great number of the moral and dogmatic truths professed in
T. W. Doane, Nineteenth Century:
“...nothing now remains for the honest man to do but acknowledge the
truth, which is that the history of Jesus of Nazareth[,] as related in
the books of the New Testament, is simply a copy of that of Buddha, with
a mixture of mythology borrowed from other nations.” 53
46. Rhys Davids, Buddhism: Being a Sketch of the Life and Teachings of
Gautama, the Buddha (London,1894), p. 10
47 Beal, The Roamantic Legends of Sakya Buddha fron the Chinese Sanskrit
(London, 1875), p. vi..
48. Ibid,pp. viii-ix.
49. De Bunsen, The Angel Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes and Christians
(London, 1880), p. 50.
50. Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion (London, 1873), p.
51. Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York, 1975), p. 274.
52. Huc, Christianity in China, Tartary, and Thibet (London, 1857), p.
53. Doane, p. 302.
54. De Bunsen, p. 45; Matthew 3:16.
55. Ibid, p. 37; Luke 2:41--48.
56. Arthur Lillie, Buddha and Early Buddhism (London, 1881), p. 100,
57. Hans Joachim Schoeps, An Intelligent Person's Guide to the Religions
of Mankind (London, 1967), p. 167; Matthew 21:18--19.
58. Encyclopedia Americana (New York: Rand McNally and Co., 1963), vol.
4, p. 672.59. Moncure D. Conway, The Sacred Anthology (London, 1874), p.
60. De Bunsen, p. 38.
62. Muller, Science, p. 27; Matthew 16:1.
63. Beal, p. x; Matthew 4:17.64. Muller, Science, p. 140.
65. Ibid., p. 245.
66. Ibid., p. 249.
67. Ibid., p. 28.
68. R. Spence Hardy, The Legends and Theories of the Buddhists Compared
with History and Science (London, 1866), p. 81.
JESUS BORN “UNDER THE LAW?”
By Hugh Fogelman
What are the implications in the New Testament that Paul claimed Jesus
was "born under law?" There are two uses of this phrase.
In Galatians 4:4 Paul claims that "God sent forth His Son, born of a
woman, born under law."
What did Paul mean by this statement? One understanding is; nothing,
except Jesus was born according to the rules of nature, i.e. God’s Laws.
God’s law is the normal process of child bearing. A human man plants his
sperm in a woman and if it fertilizes the woman’s seed, a baby is
produced. This means that Paul was talking about a normal childbirth.
Is there any other way of producing a baby “under the Law?”
Matthew claims Jesus was sired by an angel or Holy Ghost, or spirit from
God. However, if we presume a birth without a human man's assistance, we
still have the problem that Jesus was not born in accordance with the
Law as Paul wrote.
Jesus birth, according to the New Testament, violates the laws of the
Torah, which specify what constitutes adultery. Mary, according to the
New Testament, did not conceive by her betrothed, Joseph. Therefore, she
committed adultery "under the law" (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). As a result,
the Christian claim that Jesus was born of a woman engaged to a man, yet
had God as his father, must be considered to refer to an adulterous
God's law does not allow for God to seduce a maiden, even through the
medium of the Holy Spirit. What would be the worth of a moral code that
is violated by God Himself? The seduction of a female by a god fits, at
best, in the realm of pagan mythology. Virgin women mating with
mythologies gods produced demigods.
Was Jesus a demigod? From the way the New Testament describes his
“virgin birth,” it surely seems that way. A demigod, by any stretch of
the imagination, is not anything like the real God of Israel.
Christians calling Jesus God, or the God of Israel, is an abomination ?
it is pure BLASPHEMY!
However some scholars say that “born under the law,” when used by Paul,
means Jesus was subject to and required to keep the Commandments in the
Torah. This observation is based on previous study or use of that verse
in arguments etc., and understanding what this term actually means.
Protestants’ standard understanding is that Jesus was indeed required to
keep the mitzvot (Commandments) all of his life. It wasn’t until after
his death did Paul changed the rules.
Many have accused me of having a different set of scriptures because
very frankly I have more in my set of scriptures then some people. I
have thus decided to show some of the blessing that many are missing
for my writings tell me about the very origin of Jewish blessings
conferred by the Sanhedrin to the apostles by the following reference,
"They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered
them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles
left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of
suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts
and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming
the good news that Jesus is the Christ." (NIV) Overall, this same
type of blessing was conferred to many of the profits of Jerusalem that
are mentioned in the scriptures because very frankly the profits had
not been sent to entertain people but instead to tell people the very
words that most people would not have wanted to hear.
My larger set of scriptures really helps me understand the informal
Jewish rituals used for blessings. After all my scripture says the
following, "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and
falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be
glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they
persecuted the prophets who were before you." (NIV) I must thus
confess how much I rejoice in my heart that I have found this news
group for you are all such a blessing to me.
I especially enjoy the following reference. "Give blessing to those
who give you curses, say prayers for those who are cruel to you."
(BBE) I thus would like to show a good gesture of faith between us by
saying, "god bless you all."
Mathew Enoch Mount
Let me show you what G-d says to do to someone trying to do you harm:
> Join the best catholic, messianic Jewish, and protestant newsgroup
> today; moreover, Jesus on the Web is both written to and read by many
> ministers and leaders of congregations both large and small as well as
> by many people who are learning about Christ. The group has both
> intellectual depth and strong concern for the common people all while
> remaining continuously active. Anyone can join, but all posts are
> filtered to remove advertisements and smut. Visit the link below today
> to see and join, and if you have something to say, then be sure to
Just because you chose to abandon your Covenant with God and worship a
faker and a fruad doesn't give you the right to spam a Jewish newsgroup
with his name.
Some people indicate that I am not Jewish or that the god of Israel is
not present in Jesus, so I would like to share with you a strong
passage that shows how Jesus was chosen to administer the law. The
following is thus written, "They say unto him, Master, this woman was
taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us,
that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said,
tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped
down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them
not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone
at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they
which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one
by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left
alone, and the woman standing in the midst." As can be seen Jesus
was not with the Jews to make a new religion, but instead Jesus held
everyone accountable to the god of Israel by the law.
Jesus never thus taught lawlessness, but rather Jesus taught how every
tong would be silenced and every person held accountable to the god of
Israel. You see if I accuse a person guilty of sin and render a
verdict against that person, then the god of Israel would not overlook
what I did and would have the same done to me that I would do to them.
Overall, because if anyone has ever looked at a woman lustfully he has
already committed adultery with her in his heart, I would be condemning
myself if I condemned someone for adultery for the scripture teaches
the circumcision of both the heart and the flesh.
The point that I am making is that I am very much a Jew and that Jesus
is very much a Jew too. I just believe that Jesus is my wisdom and my
righteousness because he is my sacrificial lamb whose blood atones for
my sin when death passes over. Overall, I am thus not against the
Passover for only in Jesus is their ever a Passover and only in Jesus
is their freedom from the captivity of sin just as Moses represents
Jesus freeing the children of the true king (Christ) from Egypt (sin).
You have a scriptural cite for this, of course.