Which God, If Any?

It is, in effect, a historical novel that dates back to about the 590s BCE, and picks up on something that was supposed to be said by Ezekiel during the Babylonian captivity. That's over three hundred years later.

What Ezekiel was supposed to have written about was a resurrection, or Apocalyptic (end times) writing. Daniel, being as a historical novel long after the happenings described in this book, was supposed to have seen the war that Israel was then engaged in. In other words, the writer was saying that Daniel predicted the war that they were in with Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 160s BCE.

But it was the resurrection that was revisited that took hold later on, for it was in this historical novel of Daniel where the words were first seriously spoken in Daniel, chapter 12, verse2:

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

This was the time when the Pharisees were said to take hold in Israel, for they believed in the resurrection (but the ruling party, the Saducees didn't). Paul was a Pharisee.

What this all means is that Jesus, if he was a real person doing as they say he did, at least in part, had to have picked up on the resurrection from them for before Ezekial's purported vision, there never was a Kingdom of Heaven with a resurrection.

What was promised to Abraham was said to be eternal life through his children who would succeed him and carry on his name. There is no mention in Genesis of eternal life in heaven for him, nor for those of his children. They would live through generations of their children.

Paul also believed the end of time was near. In I Corinthians, chapter 7:29 he lets them know:

"But this I say, brethren, the time is short."

Similarly, in I Thessalonians, chapter 4:15, he says:

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep."

In other words, he, as well as those like him that are yet alive, would be caught up to Jesus at his coming along with those already dead and in Christ. As I said, it didn't happen, at least not in the time frame that Jesus was quoted as saying it would happen.

This alone throws all of what is said to be as Jesus is supposed to have taught, and his purpose as savior, as untrue, but then it highlights the question of just what we are supposed to be saved from, or more specifically, why.

Paul said Jesus is our redeemer, and that from Adam's sin that was passed down to all generations from the first day of his creation, humanities creattion. Augustine made a huge thing out of it and called it Original Sin which has been the hallmark, along with redemption from it, of all of Christianity. However, there's a huge fly in that ointment, and it's the Old Testament's words of God.

The many scriptures to the contrary, there is this:

Deuteronomy, chapter 24:16: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers:every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Emphasis mine.)

And then there is:

"Jeremiah, chapter 31:30:

Butevery one shall die for his own iniquity;... (Emphasis mine.)

And inEziekiel, 18:19-20:

"When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die,The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father... (Emphasis mine.)

This not blaming the children for what their fathers did, heinous though the parental misdeeds may have been, is further shown in II Kings, chapter 14, verses 5 and 6 where we are told that Amaziah, the son of Joash avenges his father's death, but...

"And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father.

"But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which his written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying,The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Emphasis mine.)

But in Exodus, chapter 20, verse 5, God says:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them [graven images in pervious verse], or serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

This verse is repeated word for word in Deuteronomy, chapter 5, verse 9. Confusing? Yes, but much of the bible is confusing, especially if you take it too seriously.

In any event, the contradiction is inescapable. Can it really be had both ways?

ORIGINAL SIN AND SALVATION

The above brings into question the doctrine of original sin and the taint we all are supposed to bear from it, and thus the need for salvation.

According to the bible, there are two versions, though one of the versions is more spoken of than the other. Does this jibe with the "perfection" of God though, as quoted early on? More to the point, do these contradictions verify the bible as being without error, or inerrant as the Fundamentalists like to say?

They also point to the question of whether the bible is the word of a real and true God, or whether this mishmash of books are really fictional works by a variety of authors as the Catholic bible mentioned early on says they are. That Catholic Family Bible citesYahwist, Elohist, Priestly, andDeuteronomic writers or editors, either as individuals or groups, who wrote or edited at various times, the Old Testament. They also state that they "..do not conceive of him [Moses] as the author of the books in the modern sense." They dance around it much as do all the preachers, particularly the Fundamentalists.

What we all have to wonder about is why we have been fed all of these lies when the truth of them was known from the start. The answer to that question may lie in one word: Power!

The Catholic Church is a law unto itself. As the Vatican, it has "diplomats" in many countries, though they may be called by other names. This is not the only power, and it is not restricted to Catholics. Check out some of the very visible and popular Protestant, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, or even Independent preachers and what their worth is as is readily available in great part on the Internet, how they dress, where they live, and what they are paid.

Also check out the networks that produce all of these shows on television, and the worth of their owners. They are literally financial empires. Even one such as the ubiquitous Pat Robertson is more than well to do.

"God wants you to prosper" is the mantra of some of these charlatans. Oh, really? Is that why they put the words into Jesus' mouth to tell his disciples to have no care for what they will wear, or to give your cloak to one who needs it, etc.?

As I say, check it out and see the scam for what it is, and most of all, compare it to the facts given here.

IRREVOCABLY TYING JESUS TO THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Deuteronomy, chapter 6, verse 5 says, says:

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

Deuteronomy, chapter 8, verse 3 says, in part:

"...that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."

Jesus is quoted in Matthew, chapter 4, verse 4 as saying:

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." A mildly paraphrasing of Deuteronomy, chapter 8, verse 3.

Also, in Matthew, chapter 8, verse 4, Jesus is quoted as saying:

"And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them."

One can look up and see where Jesus is often said to refer to Moses.

More, in Matthew, chapter 6, verse 26, Jesus is quoted as saying:

"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

The above to show God as caring.

All of this is to tie Jesus to the God of the Jews in the Old Testament. Yes, just about everyone knows this, but in case there are any that don't, this ties Jesus to that God, the heavenly Father to Yahweh, Jehovah, the Lord, the god who commands through Moses, Joshua, etc., the genocidal destruction of many people.

How, pray tell, was the god of the Old Testament changed from a blood thirsty, vengeful, genocidal, dissociated (multiple personalities) god to a loving and forgiving heavenly Father? Unfortunately, there are places in the New Testament where this mixture is repeated.

Make no mistake, by the facts from the bible itself, it is a dysfunctional, dissociated deity that we are presented with. The bible itself does show this god who is said to be a deity that is supposed to be loving and caring in the many words of Jesus, to originally be a god that is homicidal, genocidal, spiteful, and capricious. There is no foundation for these two versions as being one and the same as we can see by all of the lack of facts that fill the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament.

Thus the bible is as the house built on sand that cannot stand. It must, as in Jesus' own words indicate, be false, in grave error, and just plain wrong. This original deity must be a deity that is manufactured by men, and embellished by other men long before Jesus, as well as after Jesus. Why they presented him as they do can only be for their own selfish purposes.

OTHER MISTAKES

We are regularly told and led to believe that the land of Jewish inheritance was basically in the land of Canaan. There are maps that show where each tribe was assigned territory. However, consider this in Genesis, chapter 15 where God first makes himself known to Abram and tells him in verse 18 what will be given to his seed:

"In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:"

That never happened. The river in Egypt is presumably the river Nile and the river Euphrates is in modern Iraq far to the east.

In Deuteronomy, chapter 1, verses 4 through 8:

"After he had slain Sihon the king of the Amorites, which dwelt in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, which dwelt at Astaroth in Edrei:

"On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses to declare this law, saying,

"The Lord our God spake unto us in Horeb saying, Ye have dwelt long enough in this mount:

"Turn you, and take your journey, and go to the mount of the Amorites and unto all the places nigh thereunto, in the plain, in the hills, and in the vale, and in the south, and by the sea side, to the land of the Canaanites, and unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates.

"Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the lord sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them and to their seed after them."

There can be no mistaking that the land now supposedly being given to the Jews was all the way to the Euphrates river which is far to the east of where we commonly think of the land that was promised to the Jews. To verify that this is so, see Deuteronomy, chapter 11, verse 24, which says:

"Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours; from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be."

The above verse is also word for word in Joshua, chapter 1, verse 4.

Another error in Deuteronomy, chapter 2, verse 7 is another commonly held belief that the Jews wandered in the wilderness for forty years. Yet before they were condemned to wander those forty years, the book of Numbers, preceding Deuteronomy, says in the very first chapter and the very first verse:

"And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,"

Confirming this is Deuteronomy, chapter 29, verse 5 where Moses is said to say:

"And I have led you forty years in the wilderness:..."

It is not until chapter 14 of the book of Numbers (verse 23) that God condemns them to wander for forty more years due to their not believing that God would deliver the land to them for fear that they would lose the battles.

This makes it over forty-one years that they wandered in opposition to what we commonly believe, and contrary to what Deuteronomy says. It also makes this an obvious error in the bible that is undeniable.

More to consider

The original question, of which God do we mean when we say God, or Creator of all, is just about always known as the God mentioned in the Holy Bible of Christians and the God of the Jews as in the Old Testament of the bible. This self same God is also known in Middle Eastern countries in the religion of Islam as Allah.

But are there other gods? The Jews apparently thought so by the verses at the start of this essay. Others in the West may have other gods, but they are few and far between. For us though, the question we should be asking, according to the path of facts, or lack thereof, itemized above, is whether or not the God of the bible is as stated. By the facts, the answer is emphatically no. If that is so, and the resurrection truly began with Daniel and the Pharisees, then the resurrection is also not true, nor is original sin.

We should keep in mind the irrefutable huge facts listed herein:

Firstly, no one knows who wrote any of the books of the Old Testament called the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the bible.

Secondly, no one knows who wrote the book of Daniel, but it is known to have been written as if a historical novel by an author unknown at the time long after the death of Alexander the Great.

Thirdly, no one knows who wrote any of the gospels, as well as the error filled book of Acts, nor half of the letters of Paul that truly got Christianity rolling—along with the Roman Emperor Cosntantine and the newly established Catholic Church. As well, various other books of the bible, both Old and New Testament, are of unknown author.

Historically, where the book of Genesis very often speaks of the land of the Philistines in Abraham's time, as well as the time of his so-called sons, there was no land of the Philistines. The Philistines were a sea-going people identified in history in the time of Pharaoh Rameses III about 1183 when they tried to invade Egypt and were said to be defeated. Also in Genesis, chapter 47:11:

And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded."

That is impossible as there was no Rameses at the time stated.

All of these facts also point out that Genesis is as a historical novel of pure fiction with much liberty taken with supposed facts.

Again, is there really a God?

No one knows, but many believe in the god of the bible, but cannot prove that there is such a god, and will fight to the last breath if they have to regardless of the false biblical facts presented herein as well as many other false facts not mentioned.

Is it possible that there is a God somewhere? Yes, it's possible, but if there is, it's not the one of the bible. The bible has too many holes in it to be true. Just about every church that has a bible study, has a preprinted book with a selected group of topics for "study" to "guide" the discussion.

In these classes, they cherry pick and chose what to "discuss", but more importantly, they have no follow up, and they do not tell you any of the contradictory passages in the bible. In other words, they don't guide you into knowledge, they steer you in the direction that they want you to go by instilling fear in you and keep you coming back for more to be "saved".

AND AGAINST WOMEN

An excerpt from the book, The Riddle of Gender, by Deborah Rudacille (Anchor Books, a division of Random House, Inc, 2005, 2006), which shows the continuing way of considering how women were, and are, viewed, by Judaism and Jews, as well as subtly by Christians, especially Fundamentalists:

"There's a phrase in the early-morning prayers that the Orthodox still say: 'Blessed art Thou, Lord our God, King of the Universe, for not making me a woman.' Somebody said once, I don't remember who, that having to repeat that on a daily basis was like swallowing crusthed glass. And here I am, top of my class, and I know all the rituals and routines, and I'm being forced to say this but I know that I'm living a lie. But I couldn't talk to anyone about it. They would have totally freaked out. You just didn't discuss these things." (From the chapter, Childhood, Interrupted quoted by a man transitioning from male to female (MTF).

Women are still being debased by men, society, culture, and religion, as well as those who are said to be not "normal" as to gender as we commonly think they should be, and not just female. However, in the beginning of the bible's history, there is quite a bit written debasing women; setting them as if at naught, property only. Here are a few of those instances:

In Genesis, chapter 12, verse 16, we are told of how Pharaoh (unnamed, naturally), treated with Abram (later to be called Abraham) for Sarai (later to be called Sarah), for he took her into his house (previous verse). There is no mistaking how Sarai was to be treated by Pharaoh, as a concubine, no doubt, or perhaps a wife for it says:

"And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses and camels."

In other words, Pharaoh paid Abram for his wife Sarai whom Pharaoh was given to think was Abram's sister (which she was in part, but also his wife). That's not the first time women are characterized in similar manner in the bible. Exodus, chapter 20, verse 10, speaking of the Sabbath day and the thou-shalt-nots itemized, it says:

"thou shalt not do any work","

and goes on the itemize others included such as son, daughter, manservant, maidservant, plus cattle and strangers within their midst, but what about their wives? If you're going to itemize even cattle and strangers, why not wives? It can only be because they aren't valued and it was made up by men and not God. Remember: God is perfect!

In Genesis, chapter 16, we are told the story of how Sarai can have no children, so gives Abram her handmaid, Hagar, to have a child by (how Ishmael came to be). When she has a child, Sarai is characterized as becoming jealous (unable to not be unaware of the fact that she had a child for Abram and Sarai couldn't). Said to be bitching to Abram, man of the house that he is, he tells Sarai to do with her as she pleases, whereupon Sarai treats her meanly enough so that she runs off into the wilderness alone other than with her child.

End of story as far as Abram is concerned—but it doesn't say that he's concerned. Marvelous way to treat a woman whom you've taken sexually and made to have your child.

Then there is the story of Lot, his daughters, and his wife.

I'd often wondered how Lot hadn't been sought after when he and his family arrived as the heretofore unknown angels were sought out by the men of the town who were so quickly horny to have these strange "men". Or had he? We'll never know what the story teller intended, for this is a pure story, at least the human part of it.