 -::PURGE!::-
|
GIVING CHRISTIANITY A 'BLACK-EYE'
THERE IS NO SATAN
The Words "devil" and "satan" analyzed
Devil is used as the translation for two different words: "Diabolos" and "Daimonion."
DIABOLOS signifies "false accuser," "calumniator," "slanderer," etc. It has been rendered "slanderers" in I Tim. 3:11, and "false accusers" in 2 Tim. 3:3, Titus 2:3
In no place is it used of a superhuman being tempting men to sin.
It is translated "devil" in the following passages: Matt. 4:1,5,8,11, 13:19, 25:41. Luke 4:2,3,5,6,13,8:12; John 6:70, 8:44, 13:2; Acts 10:38, 13:10; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim. 3:6,7; 2 Tim. 2:26; Heb. 2:14; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8; 1 John 3:8,10; Jude 3:8,10; Rev 2:10; 12: 9,12; 20:2,10.
In all other places where the words "devil" or "devils" appear, the word in the original is "daimonion."
DIABOLOS is thus used to describe a person (John 6:70); slanderous women (1 Tim. 3:11); false accusers (2 Tim. 3:3); sin (Heb. 2:14); the flesh (Acts 13:10); the antagonistic world (Eph. 4:27) persecuting civil authorities (Eph. 6:11; Rev 2:10,12).
DAIMONION was the word used to describe certain diseases. It was so used because of the ancient superstition that diseases were attributed to the malignant influence of so-called spirits of dead heroes taking possession of a person. The Bible accommodates itself to the language of the times, without endorsing this false pagan teaching. "Casting out devils" merely signified curing a disease.
SATAN is a Hebrew word, signifying "to oppose," "to be an adversary." The word is translated "adversary," "resist," "withstand," and is also translated as "satan."
It is translated "adversary" in the following places: Num. 22:22; 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4, 11:14,23,25; Psalm 38:20; 71:13; 109:4,20,29.
It is translated "withstand" in Numbers 22:32.
It is translated "resist" in Zech. 3:1.
It is translated "satan" in 1 Chron. 21:1; Job 1:6,7,8,9,12; 2:1,2,3,4,6,7; Psalm 109:6; Zech. 3:1,2; Matt. 4:10; 12:26; 16:23; Mark 1:13; 3:23,26; 4:15, 8:33; Luke 4:8, 10:18, 11:18, 13:16, 22:3,31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3, 26:18; Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 5:5, 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11, 11:14, 12:7; 1 Thess. 2:18; 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Tim. 1:20, 5:15; Rev. 2:9,13,24, 3:9, 12:9, 20:2,7.
From the above it will be found that the term has been used to describe God when revealed as an opponent to Israel (1 Chron. 21:1), an "angel of the Lord" (Num. 22:22,32), good and evil men (1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; Ps. 38:20), an Apostle (Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33), adverse religious communities (Rev. 2:9), sickness (Luke 13:16), evil thoughts (Luke 22:3; John 13:27; Acts 5:3), the flesh (Acts 26:18), the world as adverse to God's ways ( 1 Cor. 5:5, 1 Tim. 1:20), governments (Rev. 12:9; Luke 10:18).
The Bible Devil and Satan Defined
"For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8)
The Importance of the Subject
The above quotation from the Bible, stresses the importance of a sound understanding of what constitutes the Devil and Satan. As Christ was manifested to destroy the work of such, it is obvious that we will not understand God's plan of salvation, unless we have a clear and proper comprehension of what is meant by these terms.
Unfortunately, current ideas upon the subject are astray from the Bible.
It is taught that the devil is a superhuman monster, a fallen angel, who dominates the minds of humanity, inducing mankind to sin. The teaching induces fear of the devil, and also provides an excuse for sin by blaming it on to him.
The doctrine is not only unscriptural, but is also a reflection upon God's love and omnipotence. Would a God of love allow weak, mortal man to be dominated by a powerful, depraved fallen angel if He has the strength to destroy him? And as God is omnipotent, why does He not rid Himself of the devil, if he be a fallen angel in heaven?
Thus logic would set aside the normal teaching of the devil as unsound and unscientific.
And the teaching of the bible is in conformity with this statement.
It reveals that the devil is a more familiar figure than is normally recognized: not a fallen angel, but a synonym for human nature in its various forms. It teaches that we are responsible for the sins we commit; but proclaims the means whereby sin can be forgiven, and human nature controlled. This is essential for the salvation of each one.
Obviously, therefore, it is necessary for us to know what constitutes the devil, if we are to successfully resist its power.
How the Bible Defines the Devil
The mission of Christ is expressed as follows:
"Foreasmuch then as the children (i.e. those Christ came to save) are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Jesus Christ) also himself likewise too part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:14-15)
This important declaration of Scripture teaches that:
Christ came to destroy the devil.
The devil is that which had the power of death.
Christ partook of human nature and died in order to destroy the devil.
In doing so he delivered others from the power of the devil and of death.
If we can scriptually define that which Christ came to destroy, and that which has the power of death, we shall know what constitutes the devil.
As far as the Bible is concerned, these two lines of investigation lead to one answer: SIN!
Consider the evidence:
CHRIST CAME TO DESTROY SIN, "He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26). "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3) "His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24). "He was manifested to take away our sins" (1 John 3:5).
SIN WAS THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF DEATH. "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). "By one man (not a supernatural devil) sin entered the world and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). "The sting of death is sin" (1 Cor. 15:56).
From this evidence it is obvious that Christ came to destroy sin, and also that the power of death is in sin. It logically follows, therefore, that the devil is a synonym for sin.
The fallacy of the idea that the devil is a fallen angel is clearly illustrated by the definition of the Apostle in Hebrews 2:14 above. How could the death of Jesus encompass the destruction of a powerful, superhuman fallen angel?
It would leave him more powerful than ever!
But once it is recognized that the devil related to sin, and that sin comes from within, it will be acknowledged that the atoning blood of Jesus is a powerful weapon to defeat and destroy it! It defeats the power of sin by providing the means of forgiveness; it conquers death through the promise of a resurrection to life eternal (1 Cor. 15:20-26).
What is Sin?
Primarily, sin is disobedience (transgression of the law: 1 John 3:4). The first sin was punished by man becoming related to death (Gen. 3:19), so that mortality became incidental to human nature.
But sin is also used in the Bible with a secondary meaning. Men are said to have been "made sinners" (Romans 5:19), Jesus is described as being "made sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21), as having "died unto sin" (Rom. 6:10), and as about to return "without sin" (Heb. 9:28).
This secondary use of the word "sin" implies the state of physical imperfection that resulted because of actual transgression in the first instance (Rom. 5:12). Men are not "made" transgressors of the law: they become so by actual wrong-doing. Jesus did no sin through he was born into a state of mortality, with fleshly desires that could lead to sin if he had permitted them to gain the ascendancy.
Though this state of physical imperfection has been inherited by all (Rom. 5:17), men are not held responsible for it. It is not their fault that they posses weak, sinful natures. This is an inheritance from Adam. Men are only held accountable, if they recognize what it is but reject the help of God in controlling and conquering it.
It is weak, human nature to which the Apostle refers when he declares "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23), and when he wrote that the devil is "that which has the power of death" (Hebrews 2:14). Thus human nature is styled "sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3), for servitude to it leads to sin.
It is because human nature is the cause of sin that Jesus "took part of the same," as taught by Paul, that "through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil" (Heb. 2:14). He did this by rendering perfect obedience even unto death, and his spotless righteousness ensured his resurrection unto eternal life (Phil 2:8-9; Acts 2:24). Thus both in life and in death he conquered the devil (weak, human nature), and opened the way for a similar conquest (through forgiveness of sins) on the part of those who come unto God through him.
Sin is Relation to Human Nature
That sin and human nature are closely related is clearly shown form Romans 7 where Paul discusses these matters at length. There is not the slightest hint to the existence of a supernatural devil tempting mankind: instead, he writes of:
"Sin which dwelleth in me" (v 17).
"The law of sin which is in my members" (v23).
"I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing;
I can will what is right, but how to perform it I find not" (v 18- R.V.).
Paul found himself constantly exposed to a mental conflict. He desired to perform the will of God, but this brought him into conflict with his own desires, and so strong were the latter that he found himself sometimes succumbing to them. He wrote (vs. 19):
"The good I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do."
He blamed his failings on the weakness of human nature:
"O wretched man that I am!" he exclaimed, "who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (vs. 24 -- RSV).
The Gospel supplied the answer. He thanked God that victory was assured through Jesus Christ. Through Him he could receive forgiveness of sins, the strength to overcome the flesh (Phil. 4:13), and an assurance of a resurrection to eternal life at his coming (1 Cor. 15:22,23, 53-54). No longer did he live in bondage to sin and death. The spirit of Christ in him (2 Cor. 13:5) triumphed over the devil in him (the "law of sin in his members" (Romans 7:23), and faith replaced fear. That can be our experience also.
How Sin Originated
At the epoch of Creation, God looked upon all that He had made, "and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). Even the serpent was "good" after its kind, for, at that stage, it had not tempted Eve to sin.
But if the description of "very good" applied to all that God had made, where was the devil? It was non-existent! Even human nature was then different to what it afterward became. There is no mention of the devil in the early chapters of Genesis which record how sin entered the world. They do revel, however, that man did not remain in his original "very good" state, but developed "evil" inclinations (Gen 6:21). What caused the change? The answer is, Sin. (Transgression of the Law.)
The simple story of Genesis tells how God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, taught them the principles of righteousness, placed them under the law, and set before them the hope of life eternal as the reward of obedience to Him.
But Eve, drawn away by the seductive reasoning of the serpent, broke the Divine Law and sinned (Gen. 3:1-7); and afterwards induced her husband to do likewise. Was this caused by a supernatural devil? On the contrary. When all parties were arraigned before the angel of God to answer for their crime, each blamed the other. Adam blamed his wife; Eve blamed the serpent; but the serpent had nobody to blame (vs 12-14). It was held solely responsible for the introduction of sin!
If otherwise, why did it not say so? It had a tongue; it possessed outstanding reasoning powers! It could have blamed the devil! But it had no one to blame.
Some who recognize the difficulty that this presents to their theory of a supernatural devil, claim that he was there in the form of a serpent. The fallacy of such a statement, however, is illustrated by the punishment meted out to the serpent, which proves beyond all doubt that it was only an animal:
"Because thou hast done this, thou are cursed ABOVE ALL CATTLE, and above EVERY BEAST of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life" (Gen. 3:14).
By no stretch of imagination could such language apply to a fallen angel.
Through hearkening to the voice of the serpent, the propensities were inflamed in Adam and Eve (see Gen. 3:6), and have actively worked in the flesh of man ever since, leading him to sin. Because this was caused through the teaching of the serpent, it became the symbol of sinful flesh (Matt. 23:33); and the atoning death of Jesus (through which the devil can be destroyed -- Heb 2:14) proclaimed that flesh must be controlled. It is significant that the Lord's crucifixion was symbolized by a serpent lifted on a pole (Num. 21:9; John 3:14), for it prominently displayed what is figuratively required of his followers; obedience to God's law, resulting in crucifixion of the affections and lusts of the flesh (Gal. 5:24).
Christ showed the way. His sinless life was a victory over sin's flesh (John 6:62), and His death upon the cross silenced its impulses as far as He was concerned (Rom. 8:3). In that way He put to death the devil.
Sin Arises from Within
Though originally sin was induced by temptation from without, since then its strongest impluses have been stimulated from within. The natural thoughts and inclinations of the flesh must be disciplined if we would please God. They form what Paul describes as "the law of sin in our members" (Rom. 7:23). In another place, he explains it thus:
"Christ died...that they which live SHOULD NOT HENCEFORTH LIVE UNTO THEMSELVES, but unto him which died for them and rose again" (2 Cor. 5:15).
To "live unto ourselves" is to live in sin: to be under the power of the devil! Christ taught:
"Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing come from without entereth into the man, It cannot defile him...that, which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from WITHIN, OUT OF THE HEART OF MEN, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, blasphemy, pride, foolishness; all these evil things COME FROM WITHIN and defile the man" (Mark 7:18-23).
If all these failings come from within, it leaves precious little for any external devil to do! Notice, also, that Christ taught that mankind are defiled by internal thoughts, not external influences. Obviously he did not believe in a superhuman devil, but warned His hearers against the evil propensities within. Paul likewise taught:
"The work of the flesh are hatred, variance, wrath, strife, seditions, envying, murders, drunkenness, and such like" (Gal. 5:17-21).
These are the "works of the flesh," not the influence of a fallenangel. They can be aligned with the "works of the devil" that Christ came to destroy (1 John 3:8).
"Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust (not by a fallen angel) and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin..." (James 1:14-15).
This being the state of man, why blame sin on the temptations of a supernatural devil? And that this is the state of man each one can test for himself by a little sober heart-searching. Why do we sin? To gratify self! That is the cause of the world's ills today. Men do evil things because they want to do them, and not because of the influence of a superhuman monster.
On the other hand, the truth in Christ is designed to transform believers mentally and morally in preparation for the physical change that will take place at Christ's return, and which will perpetuate those characters in a nature of imperishable glory (Phil. 3:21). Thus victory will be won over human nature with its "law of sin and death," and the devil will be destroyed. Paul taught:
"If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye, through the spirit (the truth -- 1 John 5:7) do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live." (Romans 8:13).
What the Words "Devil" and "Satan" Signify
The word "devil" has been used as a translation for two entirely different Greek words diabolos and daimonion.
The first word is found in those verses used to prove the existence of a superhuman devil. As a word, it signifies "adversary," "traducer," "false accuser," "slanderer." Though it has been generally translated "devil," it has also been rendered "slanderers" (I Timothy 3:11), and "false accusers" (2 Tim. 3:3; Titus 2:3).
In no instance does it relate to a fallen angel, as a careful consideration of the evidence will show. Daimonion is likewise translated "devil" but signifies "demon." It is an entirely different word to diabolos, and is used to describe a person possessed with a disease, as we shall show.
On the otherhand, satan is a Hebrew word, transliterated into the English language, and meaning "adversary." The word is often properly translated in that way, in certain Bible passages, but belief in a supernatural devil caused biased translators to render it as Satan in other parts of the Bible.
An example of this bias is found in Psalms 109:6 which reads: "Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand." The bias even extended to turning Satan into a proper noun with a capital initial.
Yet the same Hebrew word is rendered "adversaries" in verses 4, 20 and 29 of the same chapter! It should be so rendered in verse 6. In fact, in the Revised Standard Version the verse reads: "Appoint a wicked man against him; let an accuser bring him to trial." In that version, "Satan" becomes "accuser," a word that conforms to the English meaning of the Hebrew expression.
Bible usage of the word "satan" shows that it is used of both good and evil adversaries, though the translators have only rendered it as "Satan" where the adversary is obviously a wicked one.
For example, the word appears in Numbers 22:22, 32 in relation to the angel sent to rebuke the wicked prophet Balaam, but there it is rendered "adversary" and "withstand." In 1 Samuel 29:4 and 2 Samuel 19:22 it is translated adversaries. In 1 Kings 5:4, it occurs in the statement: "There is neither adversary (Hebrew 'satan') nor evil occurrent."
The Hebrew word Satan should be rendered consistently as adversary wherever it occurs; in no instance does it relate to a fallen angel.
When God Was Satan
In one event recorded in the Old Testament, even God appeared in the role of satan, or adversary. The incident is described in two places: 2 Sam. 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. The former place states:
"The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."
However, the parallel account in the latter place (1 Chron. 21:1) records:
"Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."
In the first quotation, the action is attributed to God; in the second, to satan! Which is correct?
Those who teach that the word satan signifies a fallen angel tempting mankind to sin are faced with a contradiction, or the expediency of teaching that God worked through His archenemy!
Both explanations are quite unsatisfactory; and also quite unnecessary. Let it be understood that the word "satan" means "adversary," and let it be acknowledged that God was adverse to Israel at that time, and the difficulty is removed.
As an adversary to Israel, God overruled events to bring about circumstances that made David fear opposition against his regime. This caused him to set about numbering his fighting men, which resulted in him placing confidence in them rather than in God. So he fell into sin.
As this incident shows, the word "satan" means "adversary" and the context of each reference determines whether the adversary in question was good or bad, or whether the term related to a person, a government, the lust of the flesh, or an adverse experience. All are represented in the Bible as Satan, but in no instance does it teach that the term defines a superhuman monster tempting men to sin.
The difference between "devil" and "satan" can be summed up by recognizing that whereas the former relates invariably to an evil adversary, the latter signifies merely adversary, the context determining whether it is good or bad. Manifestations of the Devil and Satan.
Though the devil basically relates to human nature, or the lusts of the flesh, it is manifested in various forms. For instances, a government can become a political manifestation of the flesh, if it stands in opposition to the ways of God. Thus Peter wrote:
"Be sobor, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8).
In this verse, "devil" is diabolos in the Greek, and signifies "false accuser," and the word "adversary" is antidikos, meaning "an opponent at law." The "opponent at law," a "false accuser" of the Christians was not a supernatural devil, but the persecuting civil authorities of the day. They are likened to "a roaring lion" (2 Tim. 4:17). In other words, he escaped the imprisonment that was threatened against him.
Christ also referred to civil authorities as "the devil." He told His followers:
"The devil shall cast some of you into prison; be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life" (Rev. 2:10).
Certainly this "devil" was not a fallen angel, but those civil authorities who opposed the spread of Christianity.
Concerning the same false-accusing opponents, Paul wrote:
"We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities (or governments), against powers (or authorities), against the rulers of the darkness of this world (Gr. ages), against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph. 6:12).
This statement is frequently used to prove the existence of the devil as a fallen angel, but the greatest adversary and false accuser of the Christians in those days were the Jewish and Pagan authorities. They bitterly persecuted believers, leading Paul to warn them to be on their guard against the "wiles of the devil" (vs.11) or false accusers. He had in mind the unscrupulous stratagems of men in authority who were prepared to use any means to obtain a conviction against them. "We are not ignorant of his devices," he declared (2 Cor. 2:11). He could well write thus, for he, himself, once held such a position, falsely accusing followers of the Lord, "entering into every house, and hailing men and women committing them to prison" (Acts 8:3). However, his conversion to Christ changed all that.
The pagan world often slandered, or falsely accused the followers of Christ, and therefore is identified in Scripture as the devil. The unscrupulous opposition believers received from their pagan neighbors could easily have incited them to actions that would not have reflected credit on the Lord whom they attempted to follow. The Apostles recognized the danger, and exhorted them not to succumb to the hostile environment in which they lived. They urged them to walk circumspectly towards those that "are without," and to use discretion even in the appointment of officials in their congregations. They drew attention to the dangers of setting up a novice in a position of importance in the community: "lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:6-7).
Would the devil of theology "condemn" one lifted up with pride? By no means. Such a monster would rather induce him to "stand on his dignity," and would seek to increase his pride. On the otherhand, would not "outsiders" be disposed to condemn followers of the Lord for acts of inconsistency? Of course they would, and do. They slander and calumniate those who attempt to maintain a right course of action, and yet momentarily fail. And because this gives occasion 'to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme" (see 2 Sam. 12:14), Paul warned believers to be on their guard.
The "devil" against which he warned them constituted the pagan, social and political world which was ruled by the flesh.
The term "devil" has also been applied to individuals. Christ called Judas Iscariot a devil (John 6:70), and described Peter as "satan" because "he savoured not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matt 16:23, Mark 8:33). According to this statement, to savour the things of men (the flesh) is equivalent to being a "satan."
When the flesh dominates a person to the exclusion of the things of God, he will show opposition to all that Christ stands for. He will be like Judas: a devil, a bitter opponent to ways of righteousness and truth. He will be justly termed "a child of the devil" (a product of the flesh -- see Acts 13:10). The Jewish leaders in the days of the Lord, provided an example of this. They claimed to be the sons of faithful Abraham and to worship God in truth, but Christ declared:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do" (John 8:44).
They were men of flesh, being dominated by its lusts, and therefore the progeny of the devil.
When John wrote:
"He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning" (1 John 3:8), he taught the same truth. It has been the lusts of the flesh that have driven men to sin from the beginning. Christ came to "destroy the works of the devil."
He came to destroy sin; and did so by opening a way for forgiveness and salvation. John's comment should be aligned with the teaching of the Lord Jesus: "From within, out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts," etc. The sacrifice of Christ is designed to reveal that the flesh must be figuratively crucified if mankind would serve God acceptably. Thus Paul taught:
"They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts" (Gal. 5:24)
Such deny themselves that they might serve Christ. In so doing, the devil is defeated, for it constitutes the unlawful lusts of the flesh, which war against the requirements of God (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 John 2:15-16). The world without is identified as Satan. In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul wrote of two heretics: "I have delivered them unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." Would the "devil" of popular concept teach on not to blaspheme? Would Paul deliver anybody up to such? By no means; rather the contrary. Paul was refering to the discipline of excommunication that he hoped might teach them a lesson, so that they would learn "not to blaspheme."
Paul's objectives in excommunication were to correct and restore the erring parties, as well as to protect others from their false teaching. He hoped that this action would cause them to review and revise their theories, so that again embracing Truth in its fulness, they might be restored to the congregation (1 Cor. 5:1-5, 13; 2 Cor. 5:5-7; 7:8-12).
Again, to believers in Pergamos, Asia, Christ declared:
"I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is...where Satan dwelleth." (Rev. 2:13)
Satan's seat! Satan's dwelling place! In Pergamous? So Christ taught! How was that possible? Read the context. Notice how strong were the forces of error in that city (Rev. 2:14-16). It contained the headquarters of those who were adverse to the Truth through their errors. Another city, Smyrna, was noted for the "synagogue of Satan" found therein (Rev. 2:9). The term defines a religious community opposed to the truth; but if it is taught that Satan is a superhuman monster, such expressions would mean that he lived in Pergamous. (Rev. 2:13), conducted a religious meeting in Smyrna, and also had charge of the prison (verse 8-13).
Job's Satan
"Surely the Satan of the book of Job was a superhuman being!" we are often told. HE is represented as "going up and down in the earth," or presenting himself before the Lord, and being in company with other "sons of God."
"How could he present himself before the Lord if he were not in heaven?" it is sometimes asked. Or, "Does not the term 'sons of God' relate to immortal angels?"
In reply, we stress that the book of Job clearly shows that Satan had no power to afflict Job; his sufferings were inflicted by God. God declared: "Thou movest Me against him, to destroy him without cause" (Job 2:3). Job himself, recognized that "the hand of God had touched him" (Job 19:21). The record clearly states that "the Lord brought this evil upon him" (Job 42:11).
In fact, there is nothing superhuman associated with the Satan described in the Book of Job. This conclusion will be reinforced, when it is recognized that the term "sons of God" does not relate to angels, but is frequently used for mortal believers:
"As many as received him (Christ), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name" (John 1:12). "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God...Now are we the sons of God" (1 John 3:2).
These references (and others could be cited) clearly reveal that the term "sons of God" relates to mortal believers.
Further, a person is described as presenting himself before God when he engages in worship. An example is provided in Deut. 19:17 where such is said to "stand before the Lord" when he came before the appointed priests and judges set up in Israel.
Now, when these facts are combined together and considered in the light of the term Satan as meaning "adversary," the first chapter of Job presents a picture of an unnamed adversary of Job, joining with others in worship before God, and accusing Job of hypocrisy. He appears to have been a much travelled man (see Job 1:7) with an inferiority complex! A small-minded, jealous associate of the righteous job, maliciously slandering his name.
The drama of Job has been frequently enacted since then. Even among the company of the Lord's apostles, called "the sons of God" (1 John 3:2), there was found Satan in the person of Judas Iscariot. The Lord described him as "a devil" (John 6:71), because of his impending betrayal of the Lord.
We have carefully examined personally every argument advanced from the Bible to prove the existence of a super-human devil, and have found none of them conclusive. Such passages as Ezekiel 28:13-15; Isaiah 14:12-15; Revelations 12:7-9, are constantly advanced, but fail to support the theory when the facts are considered. Ezekiel 28 is "a lamentation upon the king of Tyre" (verse 12); Isaah 14 is a "proverb against the king of Babylon" (verse 4); Revelation 12 is a prophecy against Rome.
It is true that Revelation 12 describes a "war in heaven" (verse 7) but the same chapter also speaks of a birth of a manchild "in heaven" (vs. 1-2), so that the language is obviously symbolic. The devil (false accuser) and satan (adversary) is described as "a dragon" (verse 9), "having seven heads and ten horns" (verse 3), whose tail drew the third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth!
That this is highly symbolic language, relating to the political order of Rome, is proven beyond all doubt by the explanation given in Revelation 17:9-10, which identifies the system with "that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18). The city that ruled the world in the days when the Revelation was recorded was the city of Rome.
Obviously, the devil and satan of Revelation 12 relate to the politico-religious system of Rome.
What About the Demons?
We pointed out previously that there are two Greek words translated "devil," the second of which is the word diamonion. Parkhurst, in his Greek Lexicon, states that this word signifies:
"A lessor god, the spirit of departed human beings who had power to possess a person and so afflict him."
The word was born of superstition, a superstition still current among ignorant people. Some backward people still believe that certain kinds of illnesses are due to the malignant influence of the spirit of a departed human being, taking possession of the afflicted person.
In some eastern countries, the same idea persists, and doctors find that their use of modern scientific methods is often useless unless the hypothetical "devil," the creation of imagination and superstition, is first "destroyed" or "cast out." It is not unusual for modern medical men in the East to thus speak, in all seriousness, of "casting out a devil" when referring to the healing of such an afflicted person. They accommodate their description to an expression which conveys something to the mind of the natives. (Norman Lewis in a book on Burma entitled "Golden Earth" records that such ideas are common among the Burmese.)
Hippocrates, the physician of ancient Greece, wrote an essay on epilepsy, which was called the "sacred disease" because people believed the priests' teaching, that epileptics were possessed, and priests, magicians, and imposters derived considerable revenue from attempting to cure the disease by expiation and charms. The essay was written to expose this delusion, he was seeking to prove that this disease was neither more divine nor sacred than any other.
The Bible, therefore, in using such terms as "casting out devils," merely accommodated its expressions to the current vernacular. To "cast out a devil" was to cure an illness. Thus, such expressions occur as: "Jesus rebuked the devil...and the child was cured" (Matt. 17:18).
Usually, the term to be "possessed of a devil" has relation to mental diseases. For example, when Jesus asked the Jews: "Why go about to kill me?" They replied: "You have a devil (daimonion), who goes about to kill you!" The statement, "You have a devil," is equivalent to the modern expression: "You are mad!"
Though the disciples used the term 'daimonion', it does not mean that they endorsed the pagan idea of the spirits of departed men inhabiting those on earth, any more than we endorse the literal meanings of words that have a colloquial significance. For example, the word "lunatic" signifies "affected by the moon," but when we use it we do not have that meaning in mind. We speak of Pandemonium reigning when any disorder takes place, but we do not endorse the literal meaning of the word which signifies that the disorder is due to the malignant influence of demons. We talk of somebody being "bewitched," without believe in witches. We make reference to "St. Vitus' Dance," without heeding the actual meaning of the term.
So with the use of the word 'daimonion.' It is used colloquially by the Jews to describe one "possessed" by a disease.
Christ used the language of His day, without necessarily accepting the superstitions involved. He made reference to Beelzebub, the god of the flies worshipped by the Philistines of Ekron, as though this god had a living personality (Matt. 12:27), merely to turn a point of discussion back upon his opponents. He certainly did not endorse belief in a god as a living being.
How to Conquer the Devil
We have shown that the devil relates to the sinful tendencies of the flesh. Such are only active in a living body, so that when Christ died on the cross, this died also. When he rose to life eternal, sin in the flesh had no place in the incorruptible nature to which he was changed (Rom. 6:4, 7; 1 Cor. 15:54).
His sacrifice illustrates the way in which we can conquer the devil. We sin and are in need of forgiveness, and this is obtainable in Christ Jesus. Thus Peter exhorted when preaching the gospel:
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:38).
By making contact with he Lord Jesus through belief, repentance, confession and baptism, we take the first steps in defeating the devil; for in Christ only can we receive forgiveness of sins. John wrote:
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).
The forgiveness of sins establishes the basis whereby we can build a life modelled upon that of Lord Jesus. Through the strength derived from him, we can, in measure, conquer the flesh (Phil. 4:13). Paul taught:
"Christ died for all, that they which live (i.e. in newness of life through baptism --Rom. 6:5) should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again" (2 Cor. 5:15).
Again:
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." (Gal. 2:20).
By following the example set by Christ we are led to a higher way of life, one that is dominated by Divine principles and not the desires of the flesh. In that way, we build into our lives Divine characteristics such as were manifested by the Lord Jesus, and are enabled to live in hope that, at His coming, we will be granted the Divine nature that He now possesses (2 Peter 1:4).
Paul wrote:
"We look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ (from heaven); who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil. 3:20).
Immortal life in the Kingdom of God to be set up on earth (Dan. 2:44) is the hope set before us. To attain it we must conquer the devil, or sin in the flesh. This is accomplished only through baptism:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Mark 16:16
"Jesus answered, 'verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
The first step to that end is an understanding of the purpose of God in Christ, including his conquest of the devil (sin) which was accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection. (Heb. 2:14-15; 9:26) Therefore:
"Beware lest any many spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh(the devil) by the circumcision of Christ; BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses (sins)." (Col 2:8-13 KJV)
I POSTED THE ABOVE ARTICLE AND A FEW OTHERS I WROTE FOR THIS WEB-SITE -ON A CHRISTIAN FORUM-,,,JUST TO HAVE SOME 'FUN'.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE ACTUAL SCREEN CAPTURE PHOTOS OF SOME ANSWERS BY XIANS.
POSTED ON THAT FORUM WAS MY ARTICLE "THERE IS NO SATAN" WHICH IS ON TOP OF THIS PAGE.
END OF CONVERSATION.
I TOLD YA, XIANS DO NOT KNOW THEIR BIBLE AT ALL!THEY ARE BRAINWASHED, PROGRAMMED, MARCHING MORONS!
BWAHAHAHA!
-THE "TRUE" HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY-
Much concern has been expressed in the Jewish media regarding the activity
of "Jews for Jesus" and other missionary organizations who go out of their
way to convert Jews to Christianity. Unfortunately, many Jews are
ill-equipped to deal with Christian missionaries and their arguments.
Hopefully this article will contribute to remedying this situation.
When countering Christian missionaries it is important to base one's
arguments on correct facts. Arguments based on incorrect facts can easily
backfire and end up strengthening the arguments of the missionaries.
It is rather unfortunate that many well meaning Jewish Studies teachers have
unwittingly aided missionaries by teaching Jewish pupils incorrect
information about the origins of Christianity. I can recall being taught the
following story about Jesus at the Jewish day school which I attended:
"Jesus was a famous first century rabbi whose Hebrew name was Rabbi
Yehoshua. His father was a carpenter named Joseph and his mother's name was
Mary. Mary became pregnant before she married Joseph. Jesus was born in a
stable in Bethlehem during a Roman census. Jesus grew up in Nazareth and
became a learned rabbi. He travelled all over Israel preaching that people
should love one another. Some people thought that he was the Messiah and he
did not deny this which made the other rabbis very angry. He caused so much
controversy that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate had him crucified. He was
buried in a tomb and later his body was found to be missing since it had
probably been stolen by his disciples."
A few years after being taught this seemingly innocent story, I became
interested in the origins of Christianity and decided to do some further
reading on the "famous Rabbi Yehoshua." Much to my dismay, I discovered that
there was no historical evidence of this Rabbi Yehoshua. The claim that
Jesus was a rabbi named Yehoshua and the claim that his body was probably
stolen both turned out to be pure conjecture. The rest of the story was
nothing more than a watered down version of the story which Christians
believe as part of the Christian religion but which is not supported by any
legitimate historical source. There was absolutely no historical evidence
that Jesus, Joseph or Mary ever existed, let alone that Joseph was a
carpenter or that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.
Despite the lack of evidence for Jesus's existence many Jews have made the
tragic mistake of assuming that the New Testament story is largely correct
and have tried to refute Christianity by attempting to rationalize the
various miracles that allegedly occured during Jesus's life and after his
death. Numerous books have been written which take this approach to
Christianity. This approach however is hopelessly flawed and is in fact
dangerous since it encourages belief in the New Testament.
When the Israelites were confronted with the worship of Baal they did not
blindly accept the ancient West Semitic myths as history. When the Maccabees
were confronted with Greek religion they did not blindly accept Greek
mythology as history. Why do so many modern Jews blindly accept Christian
mythology? The answer to this question seems to be that many Christians do
not know themselves where the distinction between established history and
Christian belief lies and they have passed their confusion on to the Jewish
community. Browsing through the religion section of a local bookshop, I
recently came across a book which claimed to be an objective biography of
Jesus. It turned out to be nothing more than a summary of the usual New
Testament story. It even included claims that Jesus's miracles had been
witnessed but that rational explanations for them might exist. Many history
books written by Christians take a similar approach. Some Christian authors
will suggest that perhaps the miracles are not completely historical but
they nevertheless follow the general New Testament story. The idea that
there was a real historical Jesus has thus become entrenched in Christian
society and Jews living in the Christian world have come to blindly accept
this belief because they have never seen it seriously challenged.
Despite the widespread belief in Jesus the fact remains that there is no
historical Jesus. In order to understand what is meant by an "historical
Jesus," consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas
turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this
we know that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his
tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told the story of Midas
and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real
Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is
about a person whose existence is known as a fact - the "historical Midas."
In the case of Jesus, their is however, no single person whose existence is
known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus
stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.
When confronted by a Christian missionary, one should immediately point out
that *the very existence of Jesus has not been proven*. When missionaries
argue they usually appeal to emotions rather than to reason and they will
attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus.
The usual response is something like "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus
just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen
Elizabeth?". A popular variation of this response used especially against
Jews is "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus like denying the Holocaust?"
One should then point out that there are ample historical sources confirming
the existence of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else is named,
while there is no corresponding evidence for Jesus.
To be perfectly thorough you should take time to do some research on the
historical personalities mentioned by the missionaries and present hard
evidence of their existence. At the same time you should challenge the
missionaries to provide similar evidence of Jesus's existence. You should
point out that although the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth
etc, is accepted worldwide, the same is not true of Jesus. In the Far East
where the major religions are Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism and Confucism,
Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious
mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe
in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the
Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New
Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of
Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he was ever crucified.
To sum up, there is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide.
It is this fact which puts Jesus on a different level to established
historical personalities. If the missionaries use the "Holocaust reply," you
should point out that the Holocaust is well-documented and that there are
numerous eyewitness reports. It should be pointed out that most of the
people who deny the Holocaust have turned out to be antisemitic hate-mongers
with fraudulent credentials. On the other hand, millions of honest people in
Asia, who make up the majority of the world's population, have failed to be
convinced by the Christian story of Jesus since there is no compelling
evidence for its authenticity. The missionaries will insist that the story
of Jesus is a well-established fact and will argue that there is "plenty of
evidence supporting it". One should then insist on seeing this evidence and
refuse to listen any further until they produce it.
If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament
story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has
always been Notzrim. This name is derived from the Hebrew word neitzer which
means a shoot or sprout - an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already
people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100
B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in
the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in
Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement
which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the the most
notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri.
Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with
Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for
"Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is
a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is important to note
that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity
denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the
Jesus myth are based on other historical people besides Yeishu.
We know very little about Yeishu ha-Notzri. All modern works that mention
him are based on information taken from the Tosefta and the Baraitas -
writings made at the same time as the Mishna but not contained in it.
Because the historical information concerning Yeishu is so damaging to
Christianity, most Christian authors (and even some Jewish ones) have tried
to discredit this information and have invented many ingenious arguments to
explain it away. Many of their arguments are based on misunderstandings and
misquotations of the Baraitas and in order to get an accurate picture of
Yeishu one should ignore Christian authors and examine the Baraitas
directly.
The skimpy information contained in the Baraitas is as follows: Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Perachyah once repelled Yeishu with both hands. People believed
that Yeishu was a sorcerer and they considered him to be a person who had
led the Jews astray. As a result of charges brought against him (the details
of which are not known, but which probably involved high treason) Yeishu was
stoned and his body hung up on the eve of Passover. Before this he was
paraded around for forty days with a herald going in front of him announcing
that he would be stoned and calling for people to come forward to plead for
him. Nothing was brought forward in his favour however. Yeishu had five
disciples: Mattai, Naqai, Neitzer, Buni, and Todah.
In the Tosefta and the Baraitas, Yeishu's father is named Pandeira or
Panteiri. These are Hebrew-Aramaic forms of a Greek name. In Hebrew the
third consonant of the name is written either with a dalet or a tet.
Comparison with other Greek words transliterated into Hebrew shows that the
original Greek must have had a delta as its third consonant and so the only
possibilty for the father's Greek name is Panderos. Since Greek names were
common among Jews during Hashmonean times it is not necessary to assume that
he was Greek, as some authors have done.
The connection between Yeishu and Jesus is corroborated by the the fact that
Mattai and Todah, the names of two of Yeishu's disciples, are the original
Hebrew forms of Matthew and Thaddaeus, the names of two of Jesus's disciples
in Christian mythology.
The early Christians were also aware of the name "ben Pandeira" for Jesus.
The pagan philosopher Celsus, who was famous for his arguments against
Christianity, claimed in 178 C.E. that he had heard from a Jew that Jesus's
mother, Mary, had been divorced by her husband, a carpenter, after it had
been proved that she was an adultress. She wandered about in shame and bore
Jesus in secret. His real father was a soldier named Pantheras. According to
the Christian writer Epiphanius (c. 320 - 403 C.E.), the Christian apologist
Origen (c.185 - 254 C.E.) had claimed that "Panther" was the nickname for
Jacob the father of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus. It should be noted that
Origen's claim is not based on any historical information. It is purely a
conjecture aimed at explaining away the Pantheras story of Celsus. That
story is also not historical. The claim that the name of Jesus's mother was
Mary and the claim that her husband was a carpenter is taken directly from
Christian belief. The claim that Jesus's real father was named Pantheras is
based on an incorrect attempt at reconstructing the original form of
Pandeira. This incorrect reconstruction was probably influenced by the fact
that the name Pantheras was found among Roman soldiers.
Why did people believe that Jesus's mother was named Mary and her husband
named Joseph? Why did non-Christians accuse Mary of being an adultress while
Christians believed she was a virgin? To answer these questions one must
examine some of the legends surrounding Yeishu. We cannot hope to obtain the
absolute truth concerning the origins of the Jesus myth but we can show that
reasonable alternatives exist to blindly accepting the New Testament.
The name Joseph for Jesus's stepfather is easy to explain. The Notzri
movement was particulary popular with the Samaritan Jews. While the
Pharisees were waiting for a Messiah who would be a descendant of David, the
Samaritans wanted a Messiah who would restore the northern kingdom of
Israel. The Samaritans emphasized their partial descent from the tribes of
Ephraim and Manasseh, who were descended from the Joseph of the Torah. The
Samaritans considered themselves to be "Bnei Yoseph" i.e. "sons of Joseph,"
and since they believed that Jesus had been their Messiah, they would have
assumed that he was a "son of Joseph." The Greek speaking population, who
had little knowledge of Hebrew and true Jewish traditions could have easily
misunderstood this term and assumed that Joseph was the actual name of
Jesus's father. This conjecture is corroborated by the fact that according
to the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph's father is named Jacob, just like the
Torah Joseph. Later, other Christians, who followed the idea that the
Messiah was to be descended from David, tried to trace Joseph back to David.
They came up with two contradictory genealogies for him, one recorded in
Matthew and the other in Luke. When the idea that Mary was a virgin
developed, the mythical Joseph was relegated to the position of simply being
her husband and the stepfather of Jesus.
To understand where the Mary story came from we have to turn to another
historical character who contributed to the Jesus myth, namely ben Stada.
All the information we have on ben Stada again comes from the Tosefta and
the Baraitas. There is even less information about him than about Yeishu:
Some people believed that he had brought spells out of Egypt in a cut in his
flesh, others thought that he was a madman. He was a beguiler and was caught
by the method of concealed witnesses. He was stoned in Lod
In the Tosefta, ben Stada is called ben Sotera or ben Sitera. Sotera seems
to be the Hebrew-Aramaic form of the Greek name Soteros. The forms "Sitera"
and "Stada" seem have arisen as misreadings and spelling mistakes (yod
replacing vav and dalet replacing reish).
Since there was so little information concerning ben Stada, many conjectures
arose as to who he was. It is known from the Gemara that he was confused
with Yeishu. This probably resulted from the fact that both were executed
for treasonous teachings and were associated with sorcery. People who
confused ben Stada with Yeishu had to explain why he was also called ben
Pandeira. Since the name "Stada" resembles the Aramaic expression "stat da,"
meaning "she went astray" it was thought that "Stada" referred to the mother
of Yeishu and that she was an adultress. Consequently, people began to think
that Yeishu was the illegitimate son of Pandeira. These ideas are in fact
mentioned in the Gemara and are probably much older. Since ben Stada lived
in Roman times and the name Pandeira resembled the name Pantheras found
among Roman soldiers, it was assumed that Pandeira had been a Roman soldier
stationed in Israel. This certainly explains the story mentioned by Celsus.
The Tosefta mentions a famous case of a woman named Miriam bat Bilgah
marrying a Roman soldier. The idea that Yeishu had been born to a Jewish
woman who had had an affair with a Roman soldier probably resulted in
Yeishu's mother being confused with this Miriam. The name "Miriam" is of
course the original form of the name "Mary." It is in fact known from the
Gemara that some of the people who confused Yeishu with ben Stada believed
that Yeishu's mother was "Miriam the women's hairdresser."
The story that Mary (Miriam) the mother of Jesus was an adultress was
certainly not acceptable to the early Christians. The virgin birth story was
probably invented to clear Mary's name. The early Christians did not suck
this story out of their thumbs. Virgin birth stories were farely common in
pagan myths. The following mythological characters were all believed to be
have been born to divinely impregnated virgins: Romulus and Remus, Perseus,
Zoroaster, Mithras, Osiris-Aion, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas,
Dionysus. The pagan belief in unions between gods and women, regardless of
whether they were virgins or not, is even more common. Many characters in
pagan mythology were believed to be sons of divine fathers and human
females. The Christian belief that Jesus was the son of G-d born to a
virgin, is typical of Greco-Roman superstition. The Jewish philosopher,
Philo of Alexandria (c. 30 B.C.E - 45 C.E.), warned against the widespread
superstitious belief in unions between male gods and human females which
returned women to a state of virginity.
The god Tammuz, worshipped by pagans in northern Israel, was said to have
been born to the virgin Myrrha. The name "Myrrha" superficially resembles
"Mary/Miriam" and it is possible that this particular virgin birth story
influenced the Mary story more than the others. Like Jesus, Tammuz was
always called Adon, meaning "Lord." (The character Adonis in Greek mythology
is based on Tammuz.) As we will see later, the connection between Jesus and
Tammuz goes much further than this.
The idea that Mary had been an adultress never completely disappeared in
Christian mythology. Instead, the character of Mary was split into two: Mary
the mother of Jesus, believed to be a virgin, and Mary Magdalene, believed
to be a woman of ill repute. The idea that the character of Mary Magdalene
is also derived from Miriam the mythical mother of Yeishu, is corroborated
by the fact that the strange name "Magdalene" clearly resembles the Aramaic
term "mgadla nshaya" meaning "womens' hairdresser." As mentioned before,
there was a belief that Yeishu's mother was "Miriam the women's
hairdresser." Because the Christians did not know what the name "Magdalene"
meant, they later conjectured that it meant that she had come from a place
called Magdala on the west of Lake Kinneret. The idea of the two Marys
fitted in well with the pagan way of thinking. The image of Jesus being
followed by the two Marys is strongly reminiscent of Dionysus being followed
by Demeter and Persephone.
The Gemara contains an interesting legend concerning Yeishu which attempts
to elucidate the Beraita which says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah
repelled Yeishu with both hands. The legend claims that when the Hashmonean
king Yannai was killing the Pharisees, Rabbi Yehoshua and Yeishu fled to
Egypt. When returning they came upon an inn. The Aramaic word "aksanya"
means both "inn" or "innkeeper." Rabbi Yehoshua remarked how beautiful the
"aksanya" was (meaning the inn). Yeishu (meaning the innkeeper) replied that
her eyes were too narrow. Rabbi Yehoshua was very angry with Yeishu and
excommunicated him. Yeishu asked many times for forgiveness but Rabbi
Yehoshua would not forgive him. Once when Rabbi Yehoshua was reciting the
Shema, Yeishu came up to him. He made a sign to him that he should wait.
Yeishu misunderstood and thought that he was being rejected again. He mocked
Rabbi Yehoshua by setting up a brick and worshipping it. Rabbi Yehoshua told
him to repent but he refused to, saying that he had learned from him that
anyone who sins and causes many to sin, is not given the opportunity to
repent.
The above story, up to the events at the inn, closely resembles another
legend in which the protagonist is not Rabbi Yehoshua but his disciple
Yehuda ben Tabbai. In this legend, Yeishu is not named. One may thus
question whether Yeishu really went to Egypt or not. It is possible that
Yeishu was confused with some other disciple of either Rabbi Yehoshua or
Rabbi Yehuda. The confusion might have resulted from the fact that Yeishu
was confused with ben Stada who had returned from Egypt. On the other hand,
Yeishu might have really fled to Egypt and returned, and this in turn could
have contributed to the confusion between Yeishu and ben Stada. Whatever the
case, the belief that Yeishu fled to Egypt to escape being killed by a cruel
king, appears to be the origin of the Christian belief that Jesus and his
family fled to Egypt to escape King Herod.
Since the early Christians believed that Jesus had lived in Roman times it
is natural that they would have confused the evil king who wanted to kill
Jesus with Herod, since there were no other suitable evil kings during the
Roman period. Yeishu was an adult at the time that the rabbis fled from
Yannai; why did the Christians believe that Jesus and his family had fled to
Egypt when Jesus was an infant? Why did the Christians believe that Herod
had ordered all baby boys born in Bethlehem to be killed, when there is no
historical evidence of this? To answer these questions we again have to look
at pagan mythology.
The theme of a divine or semi-divine child who is feared by an evil king is
very common in pagan mythology. The usual story is that the evil king
receives a prophecy that a certain child will be born who will usurp the
throne. In some stories the child is born to a virgin and usually he is son
of a god. The mother of the child tries to hide him. The king usually orders
the slaying of all babies who might be the prophecied king. Examples of
myths which follow this plot are the birth stories of Romulus and Remus,
Perseus, Krishna, Zeus, and Oedipus. Although Torah literalists will not
like to admit it, the story of Moses's birth also resembles these myths
(some of which claim that the mother put the child in a basket and placed
him in a river). There were probably several such stories circulating in the
Levant which have been lost. The Christian myth of the slaughter of the
innocents by Herod is simply a Christain version of this theme. The plot was
so well known that one Midrashic scholar could not resist using it for an
apocryphal account of Abraham's birth.
The early Christians believed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.
This belief is based on a misunderstanding of Micah 5.2 which simply names
Bethlehem as the town where the Davidic lineage began. Since the early
Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, they automatically believed
that he was born in Bethlehem. But why did the Christians believe that he
lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple. The early Greek speaking
Christians did not know what the word "Nazarene" meant. The earliest Greek
form of this word is "Nazoraios," which is derived from "Natzoriya," the
Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "Notzri." (Recall that "Yeishu ha-Notzri"
is the original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene.") The early Christians
conjectured that "Nazarene" meant a person from Nazareth and so it was
assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today, Christians blithely
confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" (Nazarene, Christian), "Natzrati"
Nazarethite) and "nazir" (nazarite), all of which have completely different
meanings.
The information in the Talmud (which contains the Baraitas and the Gemara),
concerning Yeishu and ben Stada, is so damaging to Christianity that
Christians have always taken drastic measures against it. When the
Christians first discovered the information they immediately tried to wipe
it out by censoring the Talmud. The Basle edition of the Talmud (c. 1578 -
1580) had all the passages relating to Yeishu and ben Stada deleted by the
Christians. Even today, editions of the Talmud used by Christian scholars
lack these passages!
During the first few decades of this century, fierce academic battles raged
between atheist and Christian scholars over the true origins of
Christianity. The Christians were forced to face up to the Talmudic
evidence. They could no longer ignore it and so they decided to attack it
instead. They claimed that the Talmudic Yeishu was a distortion of the
"historical Jesus." They claimed that the name "Pandeira" was simply a
Hebrew attempt at pronouncing the Greek word for virgin - "parthenos."
Although there is a superficial resemblence between the words, one should
note that in order for "Pandeira" to be derived from "parthenos," the "n"
and "r" have to be interchanged. However, the Jews did not suffer from any
speech impediment which would cause this to happen! The Christian response
is that possibly the Jews purposefully altered the word "parthenos" to
either the name "Pantheras" (found in Celsus's story) or to "pantheros"
meaning a panther, and "Pandeira" is derived from the deliberately altered
word. This argument also fails since the third consonent of both the altered
and unaltered "parthenos" is theta. This letter is always transliterated by
the Hebrew letter tav, whose pronunciation during classical times most
closely resembled that of the Greek letter. However, the name "Pandeira" is
never spelled with a tav but with either a dalet or a tet which show that
the original Greek form had a delta as its third consonant, not a theta. The
Christian argument can also be turned on its head: maybe the Christians
deliberately altered "Pantheras" to "parthenos" when they invented the
virgin birth story. It should also be noted that the resemblence between
"Pantheras" (or "pantheros") and "parthenos" is actually much less when
written in Greek since in the original Greek spelling their second vowels
are completely different.
The Christians also did not accept that Mary Magdalene was connected to
Miriam the alleged mother of Yeishu in the Talmud. They argued that the name
"Magdalene" does mean a person from Magdala and that the Jews evented
"Miriam the womens hairdresser mgadla nshaya)" either to mock the
Christians, or out of their own misunderstanding of the name "Magdalene."
This argument is also false. Firstly, it ignores Greek grammar: the correct
Greek for "of Magdala" is "Magdales" and the correct Greek for a person from
Magdala is "Magdalaios." The original Greek root of "Magdalene" is
"Magdalen-" with a conspicuous "n" showing that the word has nothing to do
with Magdala. Secondly, Magdala only got its name after the Gospels were
written. Before that it was called Magadan or Dalmanutha. (Although
"Magadan" has an "n," it lacks an "l" and so it cannot be the derivation of
"Magdalene.") In fact, the ruins of this area were renamed Magdala by the
Christian community because they believed that Mary Magdalene had come from
there.
The Christians also claimed that the word "Notzri" means a person from
Nazareth. This is of course false since the original Hebrew for Nazareth is
"Natzrat" and a person from Nazareth is a "Natzrati." The name "Notzri"
lacks the letter tav from "Natzrat" as so it cannot be derived from it. The
Christians argue that perhaps the Aramaic name for Nazareth was "Natzarah"
or "Natzirah" (like the modern Arabic name) which explains the missing tav
in "Notzri." This is also nonsense since the Aramaic word for a person from
Nazareth would then be "Natzaratiya" or "Natziratiya" (with a tav since the
feminine ending "-ah" would become "-at-" when the suffix "-iya" is added),
and besides, the Aramaic form would not be used in Hebrew. The Christians
also came up with various other arguments which can be dismissed since they
confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" and "nazir" or ignore the fact that
"Notzri" is the earliest form of the word "Nazarene."
To sum up, all the Christian arguments were based on impossible phonetic
changes and grammatical forms, and were consequently dismissed. Moreover,
although the legends in the Gemara cannot be taken as fact, the evidence in
the Baraitas and Tosefta concerning Yeishu can be traced back directly to
Yehoshua ben Perachyah, Shimon ben Shetach and Yehuda ben Tabbai and their
disciples who were contemporaries of Yeishu, while the evidence in the
Baraitas and Tosefta concerning ben Stada can be traced to Rabbi Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus and his disciples who were ben Stada's contempories. Consequently
the evidence can be regarded as historically accurate. Therefore modern
Christians no longer attack the Talmud but instead deny any connection
between Jesus and Yeishu or ben Stada. They dismiss the similarities as pure
coincidence. However, one must still be aware of the false attacks on the
Talmud since many Christian books still mention them and they can and do
resurface from time to time.
Many parts of the Jesus story are not based on Yeishu or ben Stada. Most
Christian denominations claim that Jesus was born on 25 December. Originally
the eastern Christains believed that he was born on 6 January. The Armenian
Christians still follow this early belief while most Christians consider it
to be the date of the visit of the Magi. As pointed out already, Jesus was
probably confused with Tammuz born of the virgin Myrrha. We know that in
Roman times, the gods Tammuz, Aion and Osiris were identified. Osiris-Aion
was said to be born of the virgin Isis on the 6 January and this explains
the earlier date for Christmas. Isis was sometimes represented as a sacred
cow and her temple as a stable which is probably the origin of the Christian
belief that Jesus was born in a stable. Although some might find this claim
to be farfetched, it is known as a fact that certain early Christian sects
identified Jesus and Osiris in their writings. The date of 25 December for
Christmas was originally the pagan birthday of the sun god, whose day of the
week is still known as Sun-day. The halo of light which is usually shown
surrounding the face of Jesus and Christian saints, is another concept taken
from the sun god.
The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was also found in pagan
mythology. In particular the story of Jesus's temptation by Satan resembles
the temptation of Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology.
We have already hinted that there was also a connection between Jesus and
the pagan god Dionysus. Like Dionysus, the infant Jesus was wrapped in
swaddling clothes and placed in a manger; like Dionysus, Jesus could turn
water into wine; like Dionysus, Jesus rode on an ass and fed a multitude in
the wilderness; like Dionysus, Jesus suffered and was mocked. Some early
Christians claimed that Jesus had in fact been born, not in a stable, but in
a cave - just like Dionysus.
Where did the story that Jesus was crucified come from? It appears to have
resulted from a number of sources. Firstly there were three historical
characters during the Roman period who people thought were Messiahs and who
were crucified by the Romans, namely. Yehuda of Galilee (6 C.E.), Theudas
(44 C.E.) and Benjamin the Egyptian (60 C.E.). Since these three people were
all thought to be the Messiah, they were naturally confused with Yeishu and
ben Stada. Yehuda of Galilee had preached in Galilee and had collected many
followers before being crucified by the Romans. The story of Jesus's
ministry in Galilee appears to be based on the life of Yehuda of Galilee.
This story and the belief that Jesus lived in Nazareth in Galilee,
reinforced each other. The belief that some of Jesus's disciples were killed
in c. 44 C.E. by Agrippa appears to be based the fate of Theudas's
disciples. Since ben Stada had come from Egypt it is natural that he would
have been confused with Benjamin the Egyptian. They were probably also
contempories. Even some modern authors have suggested that they were the
same person, although this is not possible since the stories of their deaths
are completely different. In the New Testament book of Acts, which uses
Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities (93 - 94 C.E.) as a reference, it is made
clear that the author considered Jesus, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and
Benjamin the Egyptian, to be four different people. However, by that time it
was too late to undo the confusions which had already taken place before the
New Testament was written, and the idea of Jesus's crucifixion had become an
integral part of the myth.
Secondly, the idea arose that Jesus had been executed on the eve of
Passover. This belief is apparently based on Yeishu's execution. Passover
occurs at the time of the Vernal Equinox, an event considered important by
astrologers during the Roman Empire. The astrologers thought of this time as
the time of the crossing of two astrological celestial circles, and this
event was symbolized by a cross. Thus there was a belief that Jesus had died
on "the cross." The misunderstanding of this term by those who were not
initiated into the astrological cults, was another factor contributing to
the belief that Jesus was crucified. In one of the earliest Christian
documents (the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) there is no mention of Jesus
being crucified yet the sign of a cross in the sky is used to represent
Jesus's coming. It should be noted that the centre of astrological
superstition in the Roman Empire was the city of Tarsus in Asia Minor - the
place where the legendary missionary Paul came from. The idea that a special
star had heralded the birth of Jesus, and that a solar eclipse occured at
his death, is typical of Tarsian astrological superstition.
The third factor contributing to the crucifixion story is again pagan
mythology. The theme of a divine or semi-divine being sacrificed against a
tree, pole or cross, and then being resurrected, is very common in pagan
mythology. It was found in the mythologies of all western civilizations
stretching from as far west as Ireland and as far east as India. In
particular it is found in the mythologies of Osiris and Attis, both of whom
were often identified with Tammuz. Osiris landed up with his arms stretched
out on a tree like Jesus on the cross. This tree was sometimes shown as a
pole with outstretched arms - the same shape as the Christian cross. In the
worship of Serapis (a composite of Osiris and Apis) the cross was a
religious symbol. Indeed, the Christian "Latin cross" symbol seems to be
based directly on the cross symbol of Osiris and Serapis. The Romans never
used this traditional Christian cross for crucifixions, they used crosses
shaped either like an X or a T. The hieroglyph of a cross on a hill was
associated with Osiris. This heiroglyph stood for the "Good One," in Greek
"Chrestos," a name applied to Osiris and other pagan gods. The confusion of
this name with "Christos (= Messiah, Christ)" strengthened the confusion
between Jesus and the pagan gods.
At the Vernal Equinox, pagans in northern Israel would celebrate the death
and resurrection of the virgin born Tammuz-Osiris. In Asia Minor (where the
earliest Christian churches were established) a similar celebration was held
for the virgin born Attis. Attis was shown as dying against a tree, being
buried in a cave and then being resurrected on the third day. We thus see
where the Christian story of Jesus's resurrection comes from. In the worship
of Baal, it was believed that Baal cheated Mavet (the god of death) at the
time of the Vernal Equinox. He pretended to be dead but later appeared
alive. He accomplished this ruse by giving his only son as a sacrifice.
The occurence of Passover at the same time of year as the pagan "Easter"
festivals is not coincidental. Many of the Pessach customs were designed as
Jewish alternatives to pagan customs. The pagans believed that when their
nature god (such as Tammuz, Osiris or Attis) died and was resurrected, his
life went into the plants used by man as food. The matza made from the
spring harvest was his new body and the wine from the grapes was his new
blood. In Judaism, matza, was not used to represent the body of a god but
the poor man's bread which the Jews ate before leaving Egypt. The pagans
used the paschal sacrifice to represent the sacrifice of a god or his only
son, but Judaism used it to represent the meal eaten before leaving Egypt.
Instead of telling stories about Baal sacrificing his first born son to
Mavet, the Jews told how mal'ach ha-mavet (the angel of death) slew the
first born sons of the Egyptians. The pagans ate eggs to represent the
resurrection and rebirth of their nature god, but the egg on the seder plate
represents the rebirth of the Jewish people escaping captivity in Egypt.
When the early Christians noticed the similarities between Pessach customs
and pagan customs, they came full circle and converted the Pessach customs
back to their old pagan interpretations. The seder became the last supper of
Jesus, similar to the last supper of Osiris commemorated at the Vernal
Equinox. The matza and wine once again became the body and blood of a false
god, this time Jesus. Easter eggs are again eaten to commemorate the
resurrection of a "god" and also the "rebirth" obtained by accepting his
sacrifice on the cross.
The Last Supper myth is particularly interesting. As mentioned, the basic
idea of last supper occuring at the Vernal Equinox comes from the story of
the last supper of Osiris. In the Christian story, Jesus is present with
twelve apostles. Where did the story of the twelve apostles come from? It
appears that in its earliest version, the story was understood to be an
allegory. The first time that twelve apostles are mentioned is in the
document known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. This document
apparently originated as a sectarian Jewish document written in the first
century C.E., but it was adopted by Christians who altered it substantially
and added Christian ideas to it. In the earliest versions it is clear that
the "twelve apostles" are the twelve sons of Jacob representing the twelve
tribes of Israel. The Christians later considered the "twelve apostles" to
be allegorical disciples of Jesus.
In Egyptian mythology, Osiris was betrayed at his last supper by the evil
god Set, whom the Greeks identified with Typhon. This seems to be the origin
of the idea that Jesus's betrayer was present at his last supper. The idea
that this betrayer was named "Judas" goes back to the time when the twelve
apostles were still understood to be the sons of Jacob. The idea of Judas (=
Judah, Yehuda) betraying Jesus (the "son" of Joseph) is strongly reminiscent
of the story of the Torah Joseph being betrayed by his brothers with Yehuda
as the ringleader. This allegory would have been particulary appealing to
the Samaritan Notzrim who considered themselves to be sons of Joseph
betrayed by mainstream Jews (represented by Judas/Yehuda).
However, the story of the twelve apostles lost its original allegorical
interpretation and the Christians began to think that the "twelve apostles"
were twelve real people who followed Jesus. The Christians attempted to find
names for these twelve apostles. Matthew and Thaddaeus were based on Mattai
and Todah, two of Yeishu's disciples. One or both of the apostles named
Jacobus (James) is possibly based on Jacob of Kfar Sekanya, an early
Christian known to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, but this is just a guess. As
we have seen, the character of Judas is mostly based on the Judah of the
Torah but there might also be a connection with Yeishu's contemporary,
Yehuda ben Tabbai the disciple of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah. As already
mentioned, the idea of the betrayer at the last supper is derived from the
mythology of Osiris who was betrayed by Set-Typhon. Set-Typhon had red hair
and this is probably the origin of the claim that Judas had red hair. This
idea has led to the Christian stereotypical portrayel of Jews as having red
hair, despite the fact that in reality, red hair is far more common among
Aryans than among Jews.
Judas is often given the nickname "Iscariot." In some places where English
New Testaments have "Iscariot," the Greek text actually has "apo Kariotou"
which means "from Karyot." Karyot was the name of a town in Israel, probably
the modern site known in Arabic as Karyatein. We thus see that the name
Iscariot is derived from the Hebrew "ish Karyot" meaning "man from Karyot."
This is in fact the accepted modern Christian understanding of the name.
However, in the past, the Christians misunderstood this name and legends
arose that Judas was from the town of Sychar, that he was a member of the
extremist party known as the Sicarii and that he was from the tribe of
Issacher. The most interesting misunderstanding of the name is its early
confusion with the word scortea meaning a leather money bag. This led to the
New Testament myth that Judas carried such a bag, which in turn led to the
belief that he was the treasurer of the apostles.
The apostle Peter appears to be a largely fictitious character. According to
Christian mythology, Jesus chose him to be the "keeper of the keys to the
kingdom of heaven." This is clearly based on the Egyptian pagan deity,
Petra, who was the door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife ruled over by
Osiris. We must also doubt the story of Luke "the good healer" who was
supposed to be a friend of Paul. The original Greek for "Luke" is "Lykos"
which was another name for Apollo, the god of healing.
John the Baptist is largely based on an historical person who practised
ritual immersion in water as a physical symbol for repentence. He did not
perform Christian style sacramental baptisms to cleanse people's souls -
such an idea was totally foreign to Judaism. He was put to death by Herod
Antipas who feared that he was about to start a rebellion. John's name in
Greek was "Ioannes" and in Latin "Johannes." Although these names were
usually used for the Hebrew name Yochanan, it is unlikely that this was
John's actual Hebrew name. "Ioannes" closely resembles "Oannes" the Greek
name for the pagan god Ea. Oannes was the "God of the House of Water."
Sacramental baptism for magically cleansing souls, was a practice which
apparently originated in the worship of Oannes. The most likely explanation
of John's name and its connection with Oannes is that John probably bore the
nickname "Oannes" since he practised baptism which he had adapted from the
worship of Oannes. The name "Oannes" was later confused with "Ioannes." (In
fact, the New Testament legend concerning John provides a clue that his real
name might have been Zacharia.) It is known from Josephus's writings that
the historical John rejected the pagan "soul-cleansing" interpretation of
baptism. The Christians, however, returned to this original pagan
interpretation.
The god Oannes was associated with the constellation Capricorn. Both Oannes
and the constellation Capricorn were associated with water. (The
constellation is supposed to depict a mythical sea-creature with the body of
a fish and the foreparts of a goat.) We have already seen that Jesus was
given the same birthday as the sun god (25 December), when the sun is in the
constellation of Capricorn. The pagans thought of this period as one where
the sun god is immersed in the waters of Oannes and emerges reborn. (The
Winter Solstice, when days start getting longer, occurs near 25 December.)
This astrological myth is apparently the origin of the story that Jesus was
baptised by John. It probably started as an allegorical astrological story,
but it appears that the god Oannes later became confused with the historical
person nicknamed Oannes (John).
The belief that Jesus had met John contributed to the belief that Jesus's
ministry and crucifixion occured when Pontius Pilate was procurator of
Judaea. It should be noted that most dates for Jesus quoted by Christians
are completely nonsense. Jesus was partly based on Yeishu and ben Stada who
probably lived more than a century apart. He was also based on the three
false Messiahs, Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, who were crucified by the
Romans at various different times. Another fact that contributed to confused
dating of Jesus was that Jacob of Kfar Sekanya and probably other Notzrim as
well, used expressions like "thus was I taught by Yeishu ha-Notzri," even
though he had not been taught by Yeishu in person. We know from the Gemara
that Jacob's statement led Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus to incorrectly
conclude that Jacob was a disciple of Yeishu. This suggests that there were
rabbis who were unaware of the fact that Yeishu had lived in Hashmonean
times. Even after Christians placed Jesus in the first century C.E.,
confusion continued among non-Christians. There was a contempory of Rabbi
Akiva named Pappus ben Yehuda who used to lock up his unfaithful wife. We
know from the Gemara that some people who confused Yeishu and ben Stada,
confused the wife of Pappus with Miriam the unfaithful mother of Yeishu.
This would place Yeishu more than two centuries after he actually lived!
The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no
way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is
1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod
ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before 12 April
4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4
B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of
Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten
years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptised by John
soon after John had started baptising and preaching in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Tiberias i.e. 28 - 29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governer of
Judaea i.e. 26 - 36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened
when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high
priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed
in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and
about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never
two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest
with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E
after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest
in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about
eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius
Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents
Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it
incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it
correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of
these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and
misunderstandings of Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities which was used as
reference by the author of Luke and Acts.
The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to
placate the Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate
was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any
authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a
concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and
who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian
mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one
criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a
custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the
year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus
the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have
enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic
lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by
antisemites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is
that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that
the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The name "Barabbas" is
simply the Greek form of the Aramaic "bar Abba" which means "son of the
Father." Thus "Jesus Barabbas" originally meant "Jesus the son of the
Father," in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story
claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring
to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus
Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman
and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name "Barabbas."
Lastly, the claim that the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples is
also based on pagan superstition. In Roman mythology, the virgin born
Romulus appeared to his friend on the road before he was taken up to heaven.
(The theme of being taken up to heaven is found in scores of pagan myths and
legends and even in Jewish stories.) It was claimed that Apollonius of Tyana
had also appeared to his disciples after having been resurrected. It is
interesting to note that the historical Apollonius was born more or less at
the same time as the mythical Jesus was supposed to have been born. In
legends people claimed that he had performed many miracles which were
identical to those also ascribed to Jesus, such as exorcisms of demons and
the raising to life of a dead girl.
When confronted with Christian missionaries one should point out as much
information as possible about the origins of Christianity and the Jesus
myth. You will almost never succeed in convincing them that Christianity is
a false religion. You will not be able to prove beyond all doubt that the
story of Jesus arose in the way we have claimed it has, since most of the
evidence is circumstancial. Indeed we cannot be certain about the precise
origin of many particular points in the story of Jesus. This does not
matter. What is important is that you yourself realize that logical
alternatives exist to blind belief in Christian myths and that reasonable
doubt can be cast on the New Testament narrative.
The usual Christian response to those who question the historicity of Jesus
is to palm off various documents as "historical evidence" for the existence
of Jesus. They usually start with the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John. The usual claim is that these are " eyewitness accounts of
the life of Jesus made by his disciples." The reply to this argument can be
summed up in one word - *pseudepigraphic*. This term refers to works of
writing whose authors conceal their true identities behind the names of
legendary characters from the past. Pseudepigraphic writing was particularly
popular among the Jews during Hashmonean and Roman periods and this style of
writing was adopted by the early Christians.
The canonical gospels are not the only gospels. For example, there are also
gospels of Mary, Peter, Thomas and Philip. These four gospels are recognized
as being pseudepigraphic by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. They
provide no legitimate historical information since they were based on
rumours and belief. The existence of these obviously pseudepigraphic gospels
makes it quite reasonable to suspect that the canonical gospels might also
be pseudepigraphic. The very fact that early Christians wrote
pseudepigraphic gospels suggests that this was in fact the norm. It is thus
the missionaries' claim that the canonical gospels are *not* pseudepigraphic
which requires proof.
The Gospel of Mark is written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the
mythical Peter. (Peter is largely based on the pagan god Petra, who was
door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife in Egyptian religion.) Even in
Christian mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul
and Luke. Mark was written before Matthew and Luke (c. 100 C.E.) but after
the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. which it mentions. Most Christians
believe it was written in c. 75 C.E. This date is not based on history but
on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old age. This
is not possible since the style of language used in Mark shows that it was
written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first
language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Indeed, since all the
other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters from the past,
Mark was probably written long after any historical Mark (if there was one)
had died. The contents of Mark is a collection of myths and legends put
together to form a continuous narrative. There is no evidence that it was
based on any reliable historical sources. Mark was altered and edited many
times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E. Clement of
Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. - c. 215 C.E.) complained about the alternative
versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his lifetime. (The
Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered paederasty to be a virtue
and Clement complained about their versions of Mark which told of Jesus's
homosexual exploits with young boys!)
The Gospel of Matthew was certainly not written by the apostle Matthew. The
character of Matthew is based on the historical person named Mattai who was
a disciple of Yeishu ben Pandeira. (Yeishu, who lived in Hashmonean times,
was one of several historical people upon whom the character Jesus is
based.) The Gospel of Matthew was originally anonymous and was only assigned
the name Matthew some time during the first half of the second century C.E.
The earliest form was probably written at more or less the same time as the
Gospel of Luke (c. 100 C.E.) since neither seems to know of the other. It
was altered and edited until about 150 C.E. The first two chapters, dealing
with the virgin birth, were not in the original version and the Christians
in Israel of Jewish descent prefered this earlier version. For its sources
it used Mark and a collection of teachings referred to as the Second Source
(or the Q Document). The Second Source has not survived as a separate
document, but its full contents are found in Matthew and Luke. All the
teachings contained in it can be found in Judaism. The more reasonable
teachings can be found in mainstream Judaism, while the less reasonable ones
can be found in sectarian Judaism. There is nothing in it which would
require us to suppose the existence of a real historical Jesus. Although
Matthew and Luke attribute the teachings in it to Jesus, the Epistle of
James attributes them to James. Thus Matthew provides no historical evidence
for Jesus.
The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (which were two parts of a single
work) were written in the name of the Christian mythological character Luke
the healer (who was probably not an historical person but a Christian
adaptation of the Greek healer god Lykos). Even in Christian mythology, Luke
was not a disciple of Jesus but a friend of Paul. Luke and Acts use
Josephus's Jewish Antiquities as a reference, and so they could not have
been written before 93 C.E. At this time, any friend of Paul would be either
dead or well into senility. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian
scholars agree that the earliest versions of the two books were written by
an anonymous Christian in c. 100 C.E and were altered and edited until c.
150 - 175 C.E. Besides Josephus's book, Luke and Acts also use the Gospel of
Mark, and the Second Source as references. Although Josephus is considered
to be more or less reliable, the anonymous author often misread and
misunderstood Josephus and moreover, none of the information about Jesus in
Luke and Acts comes from Josephus. Thus Luke and Acts is of no historical
value.
The John was written in the name of the apostle John the brother of James,
son of Zebedee. The author of Luke used as many sources as he could get hold
of but hewas unaware of John. Thus John could not have been written before
Luke (c. 100 C.E.) Consequently John could not have been written by the
semi-mythical character John the Apostle who was supposed to have been
killed by Herod Agrippa shortly before his own death in 44 C.E. (John the
Apostle is apparently based on an historical disciple of the false Messiah
Theudas who was crucified by the Romans in 44 C.E. and whose disciples were
murdered.) The real author of the John was in fact an anonymous Christian
from Ephesus in Asia Minor. The oldest surviving fragment of John dates to
c. 125 C.E. and so we can date the gospel to c. 100 - 125 C.E. Based on
stylistic considerations many scholars narrow down the date to c. 110 - 120
C.E. The earliest version of John did not contain the last chapter which
deals with Jesus appearing to his disciples. Like the other gospels, John
probably only attained its present form around 150 - 175 C.E. The author of
John used Mark sparingly and so one suspects that he did not trust it. He
either had not read Matthew and Luke or he did not trust them since he does
not use any information from them which was not found in Mark. Most of John
consists of legends with obvious underlying allegorical interpretations and
one suspects that the author never intended them to be history. John does
not contain any information from reliable historical sources.
Christians will claim that the Gospel of John itself states that it is an
historical document written by John. This claim is based on the verses John
19.34 - 35 and John 21.20 - 24. John 19.34 - 35 does not claim that the
gospel was written by John. It claims that the events described in the
immediately preceding verses were accurately reported by a witness. The
passage is ambiguous and it is not clear whether the witness is supposed to
be the same person as the author. Many scholars are of the opinion that the
ambiguity is deliberate and that the author of John is trying to tease his
readers in this passage as well as in the passages which tell miraculous
stories with allegorical interpretations. John 21.20 - 24 also does not
claim that the author is John. It claims that the disciple mentioned in the
passage is the one who witnessed the events described. It is again notably
ambiguous as regards the question of whether the disciple is the same person
as the author. It should be noted that this passage is in the last chapter
of John which was not part of the original gospel but was added on as an
epilogue by an anonymous redactor. One should beware the fact that many
"easy to understand" translations of the New Testament distort the passages
mentioned so as to remove the ambiguity found in the original Greek.
(Ideally one needs to be familiar with the original Greek text of the New
Testament in order to avoid biased and distorted translations used by
fundamentalist Christians and missionaries.)
In order to back up their claims that the gospels of Mark and Matthew were
written by the "real" apostles Mark and Matthew and that Jesus is an
historical person, missionaries often point to the so-called "testimony of
Papias." Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis(near Ephesus) during the middle
of the second century C.E. None of his writings have survived but the
Christian historian Eusebius (c. 260 - 339 C.E.) in his book, Ecclesiastical
History (written c. 311 - 324 C.E.) paraphrased certain passages from
Papias's book Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord (written c. 140 - 160
C.E.). In these passages, Papias claimed that he had known the daughters of
the apostle Philip and also reported several stories which he claimed came
from people named Aristion and John the Elder, who had still been alive
during his own lifetime. Eusebius appears to have thought that Aristion and
John the Elder were disciples of Jesus. Papias claimed that John the Elder
had said that Mark had been Peter's interpreter and had written down
accurately everything that Peter had to tell about Jesus. Papias also
claimed that Matthew had compiled all the "oracles" in Hebrew and everyone
had interpreted them as best they could. None of this, however, provides any
legitimate historical evidence of Jesus nor does it back up the belief that
Mark and Matthew were really written by apostles bearing those names. Papias
was a name dropper and it is by no means certain that he was honest when he
claimed that he had met Philip's daughters. Even if he had, this would at
most prove that the apostle Philip in Christian mythology was based on an
historical person. Papias never explicitly claimed that he had met Aristion
and John the Elder. Moreover, just because Eusebius in the 4th century
believed that they were disciples of Jesus does not mean that they were.
Nothing at all is known about who on earth Aristion actually was. He is
certainly not one of the disciples in the usual Christian tradition. I have
seen books in which certain fundamentalist Christians claim that John the
Elder was the apostle John the son of Zebedee and that he was still alive
when Papias was young. They also claim that Papias lived in c. 60 - 130 C.E.
and that he wrote his book in c. 120 C.E. These dates are not based on any
legitimate evidence and are complete nonsense: Papias was bishop of
Hierapolis in c. 150 C.E and as already mentioned his book was written
sometime in the period c. 140 - 160 C.E. Pushing the date for Papias back to
60 C.E. still does not place him during the lifetime of the apostle John who
according to standard Christian legends was killed in 44 C.E. Besides, it is
unlikely that John the Elder had anything to do with John the Apostle.
According to Epiphanius (c. 320 - 403 C.E.), an early Christian named John
the Elder had died in 117 C.E. We will have more to say about him when we
discuss the three epistles named after John. Whatever the case, the stories
which Papias collected were being told at least a decade after the gospels
and Acts had been written and reflect unfounded rumours and superstition
about the origins of these books. In particular, the story about Mark
obtained from John the Elder, is nothing more than a slight elaboration of
the legend about Mark found in Acts and so it tells us nothing about the
true origins of the Gospel of Mark. The story about Matthew writing the
"oracles" is simply a rumour, and besides, it does nothave anything to do
with the Gospel of Matthew. The term "oracles" can only be understood as a
reference to the collection of writings known as the Oracles of the Lord
which is referred to in the title of Papias's book and which in all
likelyhood is the same thing as the Second Source, not the Gospel of
Matthew.
Besides the the canonical gospels and Acts , missionaries also try to use
the various Christian epistles as proof of the Jesus story. They claim that
the epistles are letters written by Jesus's disciples and followers.
However, epistles (from the Greek epistol q e, meaning message or order) are
books, written in the form of letters (usually from legendary characters
from the past), which expound religious doctrines and instructions. This
form of religious writing was used by the Jews in Greco-Roman times. (The
most famous Jewish epistle is the Epistle of Jeremiah , which is a lengthy
condemnation of idolatry written during the Hellinistic period in the form
of a letter from the prophet Jeremiah to the people of Jerusalem just before
they were exiled to Babylon.) As in the case of the gospels, there are
Christian epistles not contained in the New Testament which both Christian
and non-Christian scholars agree are pseudepigraphic and of no historical
value since they expound beliefs and not history. The existence of
pseudepigraphic epistles and indeed the whole concept of an epistle,
suggests that epistles were normally pseudepigraphic. Thus again it is the
claims by missionaries and Christian fundamentalists, that the canonical
epistles are genuine letters, which requires proof.
The Epistle of Jude is written in the name of Jude (Judas) the brother of
James. According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus had brothers named Judas and
James. Comparison with other writings shows that the Epistle of Jude was
written in c. 130 C.E. and so it is obviously pseudepigraphic. There is no
evidence however that its author used any legitimate historical sources as
regards Jesus.
Two of the canonical epistles are written in the name of Peter. Since Peter
is a mythical Christian adaptation of the Egyptian pagan deity Petra, these
epistles were certainly not written by him. The style and character of the
First Epistle of Peter alone shows that it could not have been written
earlier than c. 80 C.E. Even according to Christian legend, Peter was
supposed to have died following the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64
C.E. and so he could not have written the epistle. The author of Luke and
Acts used all written sources he could get hold of and tended to use them
indiscriminately, however he did not mention any epistles by Peter. This
shows that the First Epistle of Peter was probably written after Luke and
Acts (c. 100 C.E.). No references to Jesus in the First Epistle of Peter are
taken from historical sources but instead reflect beliefs and superstition.
The Second Epistle of Peter speaks out against the Marcionists and so it
must have been written c. 150 C.E. It is thus clearly pseudepigraphic. The
Second Epistle of Peter uses as sources: the story of Jesus's
transfiguration found in Mark, Matthew and Luke , the Apocalypse of Peter
and the Epistle of Jude. The non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter (written some
time in the first quarter of the second century C.E.) is recognized as being
non-historical even by fundamentalist Christians. Thus the Second Epistle of
Peter also does not use any legitimate historical sources.
We now turn to the epistles supposedly written by Paul. The First Epistle of
Paul to Timothy warns against the Marcionist work known as the Antithesis.
Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome in c. 144 C.E. and the First
Epistle of Paul to Timothy was written shortly afterwards. Thus we again
have a clear case of pseudepigraphy. The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
and the Epistle of Paul to Titus were written by the same author and date to
about the same period. These three epistles are known as the "pastoral
epistles." The ten remaining "non-pastoral" epistles written in the name of
Paul, were known to Marcion by c. 140 C.E. Some of them were not written in
Paul's name alone but are in the form of letters written by Paul in
collaboration with various friends such as Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas.
The author of Luke and Acts, went out of his way to obtain all sources
available and tended to use them indiscriminately, but he used nothing from
the Pauline epistles. We can thus conclude that the non-pastoral epistles
were written after Luke and Acts in the period c. 100 - 140 C.E. The
non-canonical First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (written c. 125
C.E.) uses the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians as a source and so
we can narrow down the date for that epistle to c. 100 - 125 C.E. However,
we are left with the conclusion that that all the Pauline epistles are
pseudepigraphic. (The semi-mythical Paul was supposed to have died during
the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E.) Some of the Pauline
epistles appear to be have been altered and edited numerous times before
reaching their modern forms. As sources they use each other, Acts, the
gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the First Epistle of Peter . We may
thus conclude that they provide no historical evidence of Jesus.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is a particularly interesting epistle since it is
not pseudepigraphic but completely anonymous. Its author neither reveals his
own name nor does he write in the name of a Christian mythological
character. Fundamentalist Christians claim that it is another epistle by
Paul and in fact call it the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. This idea,
apparently dating to the late fourth century C.E., is not accepted by all
Christians however. As a source for its information on Jesus it uses
material common to Mark , Matthew and Luke , but no legitimate sources. The
author of the First Epistle of Clement used it as a source and so it must
have been written before that epistle (c. 125 C.E.) but after at least the
Gospel of Mark (c. 75 - 100 C.E.).
The Epistle of James is written in the name of a servant of Jesus called
James(or Jacobus). However, in Christian mythology there were two apostles
named James and Jesus also had a brother named James. It is not clear which
James is intended and there is no agreement among Christians themselves. It
quotes sayings from the Second Source but unlike Matthew and Luke it does
not attribute these sayings to Jesus but presents them as sayings of James.
It contains an important argument against the doctrine of "salvation through
faith" expounded in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. We can thus conclude
that it was written during the first half of the second century C.E., after
Romans but before the time that Matthew and Luke were accepted by all
Christians. Thus regardless of which James is intended, the Epistle of James
is pseudepigraphic. It says almost nothing about Jesus and there is no
evidence that the author had any historical sources for him.
There are three epistles named after the apostle John. None of them are in
fact written in the name of John and were probably only ascribed to him some
time after they had been written. The First Epistle of John, like the
Epistle to the Hebrews, is completely anonymous. The idea that it was
written by John arises from the fact that it used the John as a source. The
other two epistles named after John are written by a single author who
instead of writing in the name of an apostle, chose simply to call himself
"the Elder." The idea that these two epistles were written by John arose
from the beliefs that "the Elder" referred to John the Elder and that he was
the same person as the apostle John. In the case of the Second Epistle of
John this belief was reinforced by the fact that that epistle also uses the
Gospel of John as a source. We can thus conclude that the first two epistles
ascribed to John were written after the John (c. 110 - 120 C.E.).
Consequently none of the three epistles could have been written by the
apostle John. It should be pointed out that it is quite possible that the
pseudonym "the Elder" does refer to the person named John the Elder, but if
this is so, he is certainly not the apostle John. The first two John
epistles use only the Gospel of John as a source for Jesus; they do not use
any legitimate sources. The Third Epistle of John barely mentions "Christ"
and there is no evidence that it used any historical sources for him.
Besides the epistles named after John, the New Testament also contains a
book known as the Revelation to John . This book combines two forms of
religious writing, that of the epistle and that of the apocalypse.
(Apocalypses are religious works which are written in the form of
revelations about the future made by a famous character from the past. These
revelations usually describe unfortunate events occurring at the time of
writing and also offer some hope to the reader that things will improve.) It
is not certain how much editing the Revelation to John underwent and so it
is difficult to date it precisely. Since it mentions the persecutions
instigated by Nero we can say with certainty that it was not written earlier
than 64 C.E. Thus it cannot have been written by the "real John." Thefirst
few verses form an introduction which is clearly not intended to be by John
and which provides a vague admission that the book is pseudepigraphic even
though the author feels that his message is inspired by G-d. The style of
writing and the references to the practice of kriobolium (baptism in sheeps
blood) suggests that the author was one of those people of Jewish descent
who mixed Judaism with pagan practices. There were many such "pagan Jews"
during Roman times and it was these people who become the first converts to
Christianity, established the first churches, and who were probably also
responsible for introducing pagan myths into the story of Jesus. (They are
also remembered for their rediculous belief that "Adonai Tzevaot" was the
same as the pagan god "Sebazios") The references to Jesus in the book are
few and their is no evidence that they are based on anything but belief.
Besides the epistles accepted in the New Testament and besides the epistles
which are unanimously recognized as being of no value (such as the Epistle
of Barnabas), there are also several epistles which although not accepted in
the New Testament, are considered of value by some Christians. Firstly there
are the epistles named after Clement. In Christian legend, Clement was the
third in succession of Peter as bishop of Rome. The First Epistle of Clement
to the Corinthians is not in fact written in the name of Clement but in the
name of the "Church of God which sojourns in Rome." It refers to a
persecution which is generally thought to have occured in 95 C.E. under
Domitian, and it refers to the dismissal of the elders of the Church of
Corinth in c. 96 C.E. Christians believe that Clement was bishop of Rome
during this time and this is apparently the reason why the epistle was later
named after him. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the epistle was in
fact written in c. 96 C.E. This date is not possible since the epistle
refers to bishops and priests as separate groups; a division which had not
taken place yet. Stylistic considerations show that it was written in c. 125
C.E. As references it used the Epistle to the Hebrews and The First Epistle
of Paul to the Corinthians but no legitimate historical sources. The Second
Epistle of Clement is by a different author to the first and was written
later. We may thus conclude that it was also not written by Clement. (There
is no evidence that either of these epistles were named after Clement before
their incorporation into the collection of books known as the Codex
Alexandrinus , in the fifth century C.E.) As sources for Jesus, the Second
Epistle of Clement uses the Gospel of the Egyptians, a document which is
rejected by even the most fundamentalist Christians, and also the New
Testament books which we have shown to be valueless. Thus again we have no
legitimate evidence of Jesus.
Next we have the epistles written in the name of Ignatius. According to
legend, Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch who was killed under Trajan's
rule c. 110 C.E. (Although he is probably based on a real historical person
the legends about hismartyrdom are largely fictional.) There are fifteen
epistles written in his name. Of these, eight are unanimously recognized as
being pseudepigraphic and of no value as regards Jesus. The remaining seven
each have two forms, a longer and a shorter. The longer forms are clearly
altered and edited versions of the shorter forms. Fundamentalist Christians
claim that the shorter forms are genuine letters written by Ignatius. The
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans mentions the threefold ordering of
bishops, priests and deacons which had not yet taken place by Ignatius's
death which occurred no later than 117 C.E. and which probably took place c.
110 C.E. All seven shorter epistles attack various Christian beliefs, now
considered heretical, which only became prevalent c. 140 - 150 C.E. The
shorter Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans contains a quote from the writings
of Irenaeus, written after 170 C.E. and published c. 185 C.E. We can thus
conclude that the seven shorter epistles are also pseudepigraphic. The
shorter Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans was certainly written after 170
C.E. (In fact, if it was not written by Irenaeus then it was probably
written after c. 185 C.E.) and the other six were written no earlier than
the period c. 140 - 150 C.E. if not later. There are no sources for Jesus in
the Ignatian epistles other than the New Testament books and the writings of
Irenaeus which only use the New Testament. Thus they contain no legitimate
evidence of Jesus.
There are two more epistles which Christians claim are genuine letters,
namely the Epistle of Polycarp and the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The Ignatian
epistles and the epistles concerning Polycarp have always been closely
associated. It is quite possible that they were all written by the Christian
writer Irenaeus and his disciples. There certainly was a real historical
early Christian named Polycarp. He was bishop of Smyrna and was killed by
the Romans sometime in the period 155 - 165 C.E. When Irenaeus was a boy he
knew Polycarp. Fundamentalist Christians claim that Polycarp was the
disciple of the apostle John. However, even if we accept the legend that
Polycarp lived to the age of 86, he could not have been born earlier than 67
C.E and therefore could not have been a disciple of John. (It is possible
that he was a disciple of the enigmatic John the Elder.) Since Irenaeus had
known Polycarp they also assume that Irenaeus was in fact his disciple, a
claim for which there is no evidence. The Epistle of Polycarp uses most New
Testament books and the Ignatian epistles as references but it uses no
legitimate sources for Jesus. Those Christians who reject the Ignatian
epistles but believe the Epistle of Polycarp is a genuine letter, claim that
the references to the Ignatian epistles are a later interpolation. This idea
is based on personal bias not on any genuine evidence. Based on the blind
belief that this epistle is a genuine letter, some Christians date it to
around the middle of the second century C.E. shortly before Polycarp's
death. However, the references to the Ignatian epistles suggest that it was
in fact written some time in the last few decades of the secondcentury C.E.,
at least about a decade after Polycarp's death if not later.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written in the name of "the Church of G-d that
sojourns in Smyrna." It starts off in the form of a letter but its main body
is written in the form of an ordinary story. It tells the tale of Polycarp's
martyrdom. Like the Epistle of Polycarp, it was written some time during the
last few decades of the second century C.E. Unfortunately, there is no
evidence that it used any reliable sources for its story, only rumours and
hearsay. The story in fact appears to be highly fictionalized. The
references to Jesus are not taken from any reliable source.
We have thus seen that the epistles used by missionaries as "evidence" are
just as spurious as the gospels. Again, the reader should beware "easy to
understand" translations of the New Testament since they call the epistles,
"letters," thereby incorrectly implying that they are really letters written
by the people after whom they are named.
Now, besides the books of the New Testament, and besides the epistles
relating to Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, there is only one more Christian
religious work which Christians claim as historical evidence of Jesus,
namely the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles also known as the Didache. All
other early Christian religious works are either wholly rejected by modern
Christians or are least recognized as not being primary sources as regards
Jesus. The Didache began as a sectarian Jewish document, probably written
during the period of turmoil in c. 70 C.E. Its earliest form consisted of
moral teachings and predictions of the destruction of the current world
order. This earliest version, which obviously did not mention Jesus, was
taken over by Christians who heavily edited and altered it, adding a story
of Jesus and rules of worship for early Christian communities. Scholars
estimate that the earliest Christian version of the Didache could not have
been written much later than 95 C.E. It probably only reached its final form
around c. 120 C.E. It appears to have served an isolated Christian community
in Syria as a "Church Order" during the period c. 100 - 130 C.E. However,
there is no evidence that its story of Jesus was based on any reliable
sources, and as we have mentioned, the earliest Jewish version had nothing
to do with Jesus. In fact, this document provides evidence that the myth of
Jesus grew gradually. Like the Gospel of Mark and the early versions of
Gospel of Matthew , the Jesus story in the Didache makes no mention of a
virgin birth. It makes no mention of the fantastic miracles which were later
attributed to Jesus. Although Jesus is referred to as a "son" of G-d, it
appears that this term is being used figurativly. The evidence we have
concerning the origin of the crucifixion myth suggests that one of the
things leading to this myth was the fact that the cross was the astrological
symbol of the Vernal Equinox which occurs near Passover, when Jesus was
believed to have been killed. It is thus not surprising to find that the
story in the Didache makes no mention of Jesus being crucified, although
itmentions a cross in the sky as a sign of Jesus. The twelve apostles
mentioned in the full title of the Didache do not appear as twelve real
disciples of Jesus and the term clearly refers to the twelve sons of Jacob
representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus the Didache provides vital
clues concerning the growth of the Jesus myth, but it certainly does not
provide any evidence of an historical Jesus.
Since none of the Christian religious texts provide any acceptable evidence
of Jesus, missionaries turn next to non-Christian texts. Christians claim
that several reliable historians recorded information about Jesus. Although
some of these historians are more or less accepted, we shall see that they
do not provide any information about Jesus.
Firstly, Christians claim that the Jewish historian Josephus recorded
information about Jesus in his book Jewish Antiquities (published c. 93 - 94
C.E.) It is true that this book contains information about the three false
Messiahs, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Benjamin the Egyptian, and it is
true that the character of Jesus appears to be based on all of them in part,
but none of them can be regarded as the historical Jesus. Moreover, in the
book of Acts, these people are mentioned as being different people to Jesus
and so modern Christianity actually rejects any connection between them and
Jesus. In the Christian edited versions of the Jewish Antiquities there are
two passages dealing with Jesus as portrayed in Christian religious works.
Neither of these passages are found in the original version of the Jewish
Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII,3,3)
was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E. and so we can conclude that it
was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish
Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX,9,1)
was added in. Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is
fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that
they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors
and were based purely on Christian belief.
Next the Christians will point to the Annals by Tacitus. In the Annals
XV,44, Tacitus describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome
in 64 C.E. He mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person
named Christus who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of
Tiberias. It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from
Christ or Christus (=Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by
Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made
by the Christians themselves and appearing in the gospels of Mark, Matthew
and Luke which had already been widely circulated when the Annals were being
written. (The Annals were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly not
written before 110 C.E.) Thus, although the Annals contains a sentence in
which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based
purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value.It
is quite ironic that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs
since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred
of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus"
he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of
Middle East history in his book the Histories is so distorted as to be
laughable. We may conclude that his single mention of Christus cannot be
taken as reliable evidence of an historical Jesus.
Once Tacitus is dismissed, the Christians will claim that one of the younger
Pliny's letters to the emperor Trajan provides evidence of an historical
Jesus. (Letters X,96.) This is nonsense. The letter in question simply
mentions that certain Christians had cursed "Christ" to avoid being
punished. It does not claim that this Christ really existed. The letter in
question was written before Pliny's death in c. 114 C.E. but after he was
sent to Bithynia in 111 C.E., probably in the year 112 C.E. Thus it provides
nothing more than a confirmation of the trivial fact that around the
beginning of the twelfth decade C.E. Christians did not normally curse
something called "Christ" although some had done it to avoid punishment. It
provides no evidence of an historical Jesus.
Christians will also claim that Suetonius recorded evidence of Jesus in his
book Lives of the Caesars (also known as The Twelve Caesars). The passage in
question is Claudius 25, where he mentions that the emperor Claudius
expelled the Jews from Rome (apparently in 49 C.E.) because they caused
continual disturbances at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. If one
blindly assumes that "Chrestus" refers to Jesus then, if anything, this
passage contradicts the Christian story of Jesus since Jesus was supposed
have been crucified when Pontius Pilate was procurator (26 - 36 C.E.) during
the reign of Tiberias and moreover, he was never supposed to have been in
Rome! Suetonius lived during the period (c. 75 - 150 C.E.) and his book,
Lives of the Caesars, was published during the period 119 - 120 C.E. having
been written some time after Domitian's death in 96 C.E. Thus the event he
describes occurred at least 45 years before he was writing about it and so
we cannot be certain of its accuracy. The name Chrestus is derived from the
Greek Chrestos meaning "good one" and it is not the same as Christ or
Christus which are derived from the Greek Christos meaning "anointed
one/Messiah." If we take the passage at face value it refers to a person
named Chrestus who was in Rome and who had nothing to do with Jesus or any
other "Christ." The term Chrestos was often applied to pagan gods and many
of the people in Rome called "Jews" were actually people who mixed Jewish
beliefs with pagan beliefs and who were not necessarily of Jewish descent.
Thus it is also possible that the passage refers to conflicts involving
these pagan "Jews" who worshipped a pagan god (such as Sebazios) titled
Chrestos. On the other hand, the words Chrestos and Chr istos were often
confused and so the passage might even be referring to some conflict
involving Jews who believed that some person was the Messiah, but this
person may or may not have actually been in Rome and for all we know, he may
not have been a real historical person. One should bear in mind that the
described event took place just several years after the crucifixion of the
false Messiah Theudas in 44 C.E. and the passage may be referring to his
followers in Rome. Christians claim that the passage refers to Jesus and
conflicts arising after Paul brought news of him to Rome and that Suetonius
was only mistaken about Jesus himself being in Rome. However, this
interpretation is based on blind belief in Jesus and the myths about Paul
and there is nothing to suggest that it is the correct interpretation. Thus
we may conclude that Suetonius also fails to provide any reliable evidence
of an historical Jesus.
All other writers who mention Jesus, from Justin Martyr in the second
century C.E. to the latest expounders of Christian myth in the twentieth
century, have all based their references to Jesus on the sources we have
discredited above. Consequently their claims are worthless as historical
evidence. We are thus left with the conclusion that there is absolutely no
reliable and acceptable historical evidence of Jesus. All references to
Jesus are derived from the superstitious beliefs and myths of the early
Christian community. The majority of these beliefs only came into existence
after the persecution by Nero and the tragedy of 70 C.E. Many of these
beliefs are based on the pagan legends about the gods Tammuz, Osiris, Attis,
Dionysus and the sun god Mithras. Other myths about Jesus appear to be based
on various different historical people such as the convicted criminals
Yeishu ben Pandeira and ben Stada, and the crucified false Messiahs Yehuda,
Theudas and Benjamin, but none of these people can be regarded as an
historical Jesus.by Rabbi JuDaddy ben Yehoshua
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS WELCOMED
 COPYRIGHT 2002 MIKE
-FRATER O0-
 |