Judaism & Christianity

The Catholic Church has historically zealously guarded what it has forced upon us for two thousand years; they have always been loathe to change anything in their doctrine, yet now they are slowly admitting what many textual critics have been saying, though as I've said before, if you're waiting for them to shout from the rooftops that they've changed their minds about anything, don't hold your breath. Still, in their bible, The Catholic Family Connections Bible, they have quietly admitted what I have just written, if not openly in each case, then tacitly.

If you're familiar with history in that time, you're most likely aware that Christianity was embraced by Constantine, then later declared the religion of the empire by Theodusious. Up until then, there had been many different sects of Christians. Constantine wanted one belief, and that was strongly begun at the Council of Nicene (from which we get the Nicene Creed). This one Christian belief came to be called Catholicism for Catholic, or Universal.

Whereas all were previously felt forced to be Pagan, suddenly all began to feel forced to be Catholic. With Constantine's backing, the church, now becoming centered in Rome, felt egotistically strong enough to physically begin to enforce their beliefs upon others. They now became the persecutors, particularly of those they deemed heretical in the independent Christian beliefs. In a little more than fifty years after the Nicene Council, Priscillian, Catholic bishop of Avila in Spain, was executed for heresy.

Research reveals that the emperors of Rome were used in the process. That was to become the usual save that in due time, the Pope was emboldened to begin to dictate to the emperors rather than seek their assistance.

In the next millennium, the Popes would also call for the Crusades which lasted for about two hundred years. During all of these centuries, Paganism was mostly unknown, though surreptitiously practiced as the Catholic Church had co-opted Pagan rites and had the people believe that they were Christian rites. Christmas in December was originally a Pagan rite called the Saturnalia. As previously noted, Literotica doesn't permit the posting of any Internet sites, but an independent search will validate this.

Remember that it doesn't take too many generations for something to become as if it always has been. What had originally been going on for two hundred years in small groups as a belief in Jesus was suddenly thought to have always been. Soon the old tales were of Christianity, and Paganism was something to be shunned. There were still no books, and literacy had not grown—ignorance and illiteracy were still the norm for most people. Only the priests read the bible to the public, but ritually in the mass that has come down to us through the ages.

The biggest "feel good" books of the New Testament are Matthews gospel, as well as Luke's gospel, and the Book of Acts of the Apostles. However, the so-called resurrection of Lazarus as in the gospel of John took hold as did the so-called virgin birth of Jesus as mainly told in Matthew's goslpel. Again, see my essay on Jesus, Resurrection and the Rapture for more about this. However, here I can point out some of what is wrong in the book of Acts.

Incubating for almost three hundred years, the Catholic church had quietly bridged the Old Testament to their new beliefs with the more than great help of Paul's letters, as well as his forged letters.

The belief in a Trinity as more than suggested by the church father, Tertullian, was a part of the new package of dogma that had to be adhered to. Then the idea of Original Sin as stated by Augustine entered into the dogma, and thus we were all deemed to be born filled with sin. More was added as they thought it proper to do so regardless of a lack of proper foundation—stretching the truth, in other words.

* * * *

However, since Christmas, aka, the Saturnalia, is upon us, this is a good place to bring up a couple of major discrepancies that are always overlooked, or purposely not mentioned.

Noted researcher, Geza Vermes in his book, The Nativity: History and Legend, points out something that always seemed too time consuming to look into. Fortunately he did take the time. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are the only two that give us any information on the birth of Jesus. In the gospel of Matthew, it begins with an itemization of the generations that show Jesus' pedigree, principally as being of the root of Jesse and the house of Jesse's son, David the second king of Judah united with Israel. In chapter 1, verse 6, it says:

"And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias..."; [Uriah as it is otherwise spelled].

Whereas in Luke's gospel he begins with Jesus and works his genealogy backward so that going from Jesus' father in Chapter 3, verse 23 and then in verse 31, he cites:

"...being (as he was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David."

Nathan? What does that mean, and where is Solomon?

In II Samuel, chapter 5, verse 14, it itemizes some of David's children:

And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobah, and Nathan, and Solomon,

There are other children named in succeeding verses, but no mother is identified.

In I Chronicles, chapter 3, the children of David are itemized; in verse 5, he is said to have:

"And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobah, and Nathan, and Solomon, four of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:"

Bahshua is another spelling of Bathsheba from what I understand, but there is no question that Solomon and Nathan are mentioned as brothers from her. These two are the only mentions I could find of Nathan other than in Luke's gospel, but that begs the question of what is the line of Jesus from the time of David, and why aren't the two gospel writers in agreement as to who is who, and how can this discrepancy be if the bible is inerrant?

More insofar as the nativity story goes, there is the point that Vermes brought up, which again is never mentioned from the pulpit on the differences of the later occurrences.

Matthew tells of the Three Wise Men, how Herod was fooled by them, and subsequently we're told in chapter 2, verses 12, 13 and 16:

"And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

"And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."

"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."

In Luke's version, there are no wise men, but shepherds and angels at his birth in chapter 2, but from verses 21 and 22, we're told:

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

Circumcision is on the eighth day. In Leviticus, chapter 12, verses 2, 3 and 4, it says:

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days: she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

From there, we are given the story of Simeon who had the Holy Ghost reveal to him who Jesus truly was, and another tale of Anna, but then it all wraps up in verse 39:

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Note that there is no flight to Egypt. Note also that Matthew doesn't leave time, or mention, any circumcision or purification, as well as other differences as mentioned, and some not mentioned.

Why? Because the actual writers didn't know what happened, if anything according as they try to tell us; they made it all up in great part like a historical novel. We can't trust anything they say for a truth.

* * * *

Now going continuing in the book of Acts.

The most famous and quoted story of Paul's change of heart while on the road to Damascus is told in the book of Acts, chapter 9. In particular, verses 19 and 20 say:

And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were in Damascus.

And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

Of the books of Paul that textual critics readily attribute as being actually written by Paul, one is is Galatians. Any who will look at chapter 1, verses 15 through 18, you will find this:

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again into Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Paul got some things wrong, but he was the first person in the New Testament to write anything about Jesus.

Again, Paul himself says that he did not go to Damascus. Instead he specifically states that "immediately" he didn't confer with flesh and blood, but went into Arabia, which is south and slightly east of Jerusalem. I'm also now noting that there's no mention of his being blinded, and especially not going to Ananias and having his sight restored.

Again, in the book of Acts, in the first chapter, speaking of Judas, verse 18 says:

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

However, the gospel of Matthew, chapter 27, verse 5, contradicts this, saying:

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

As is often the case, there is a vast difference; which all are asked to believe without question, and more, if these are "inspired" writings as the Catholic Bible I've been quoting from says—and as Fundamentalists insist is an inerrant and inspired work of God—why are they telling us two different stories (as is often the case as noted in my previous essays, Which God, If Any, and Jesus, Resurrection and Rapture)?

Christianity was claimed to be started from the teachings of Jesus said to be of Nazareth. We are told of him supposedly personally, by the four gospels "According to" Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. None of these actually wrote anything that we know of, and neither did Thomas or Judas who are said to have gospels of their own about Jesus, as does Phillip, and several others.

Everything written about Jesus was by those who had heard of him, but never knew him personally.

The first known writing of Jesus was by Paul (Saul of Tarsus), who never met Jesus while he lived. There are thirteen letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament. Only seven of those letters are accepted as originally written by Paul. Those accepted as truly written by Paul are: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon (from Bart D. Ehrman's book, Forged, 2011, Harper Collins), page 93). I have seen this list in other books too, as well as the reasoning for considering the others forged.

Others that are believed to be forged are 1 and 2 Peter. He was supposed to be an Apostle of Jesus, and therefore knew of him firsthand. However, Ehrman, in his above mentioned book, says that the book of Acts of the Apostles, chapter 4, verse 13, calling Peter and John "...unlearned and ignorant...", and says that the word used in Greek is "agrammatoi", meaning literally "unlettered, that is, illiterate."

This agrammatoi (designation) is attested to in the book, Life In Year One, What the World Was Like in First Century Palestine, by Scott Korb (Riverhead Books, 2010), in which he writes:

"Capernaum, on the other hand, that very modest fishing town, had no sewage system at all, and waste of any kind—seepages, ashes, wastewater, whatever—would have been collected have been collected by families and poured out into the alleyways between the houses. With streets of packed dirt—dusty in the dry months, muddy in the rain—who could tell the difference between what was there to begin with and what had accumulated over years of waste disposal unaided by any inner public works? It's no wonder that during construction homebuilders situated their windows as far from the ground as possible." (page 95).

Quoting John Crossan from his book, Jesus, page 25, he notes:"Literacy in general at the start of the first century is estimated at between 3 and 5 percent. That would not be in dispute for a town like Capernaum whose population was thought to be between 600 to 1,500." (Korb, page 30).

Notice that John was mentioned in the same vein as Peter. Is he the same John of the three epistles right after Peter's? The Catholic Family Connections Bible says of all of these letters—Peter's and John's—that the author is unknown.

And that's it—other than a few of Paul's letters, they're all unknown writers. Paul's letters that we have are all believed to have been written at the earliest, 51 CE, at least fifteen or more years after the crucifixion of Jesus (which date is also in question).

In fact, there are only three historical references to Jesus; two by Roman writers, and only as if in passing and nothing of any depth or knowledge of any facts other than that he was crucified. Josephus is the only other one mentioning Jesus, but nothing in any depth either. It must be said, however, that one author has stated that the books of Josephus that we have now were published in the 1800s; no originals are said to be extant.

We do have the book of Acts of the Apostles, but it is also by an unknown author, and highly unreliable.

However, it was Paul who singlehandedly convinced many gentiles to believe in the Jesus resurrected and soon to return in power, and in Paul's own time (1 Thessalonians, chapter 4, verses 15-17).

Those who have read my essay, Jesus, Resurrection, and Rapture, may recall, as stated here too, that the idea of a resurrection only began with the book of Daniel, which the Catholic Family Connections Bible admits was not written by Daniel, but by an unknown author in approximately the 160s BCE to bolster any Jews who might be disheartened due to the difficulties with Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Bart Ehrman, in his book, Forgeries, says of this book:

"The book of Daniel claims to be written, in part, by the prophet Daniel during the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century [500s BCE] BCE. But there is no way it was written then. Scholars for over a hundred years have shown clear and compelling reasons for thinking that it was written four hundred years later, in the second century BCE, by someone falsely claiming to be Daniel." (Page 117)

Once again, the lies were perpetuated by many, though Paul may have truly believed what he was saying since he was a Pharisee and Pharisees believed in the resurrection as spoken of by (pseudo)Daniel. The problem with him is that he must have died knowing he was wrong for Jesus did not return in his lifetime as he expected as he wrote in 1 Thessalonians (chapter 4, verses16 and 17).

Not only the fact that there was little written that was true, but Bart Ehrman, in his book, Lost Christianities (Oxford University Press, Inc, 2003) itemizes forty-four (44) additional gospels and letters that are known of. More, other gospels have been discovered also From this, you can see how difficult it must have been to come up with the one basic Christian faith that ensued and has lasted lo these many centuries.

However, the gullibility of many, especially highly intelligent men who were very educated, bought into the Jesus story. The on-god theme and the dedication/obstinacy of the Jews did it for them. Any way some wrote voluminously in defense of how and what they believed about Jesus, especially Iraneus in about the 180s, and Origen, the boy genius who wrote the most (and in a fit of making himself worthy and temptation free, castrated himself). Of course, much of what they wrote about was the heresy of others who were Christians.

Another was Tertullian (about whom I wrote in my story, The Devil's Gateway), and of course, Augustine, the one who invented Original Sin that was bought by the Catholic Church (with the help of Paul's writings). Tertullian and Augustine had problems with women, especially Tertullian. Their "women" problem can easily be verified on the Internet.

Then there were the Gnostics, of which there were several varieties, some believing that Jesus just used an available body and took it over, then left it to die on the cross when his mission was finished. There were also those who believed that other gods had created our world, and Jesus was sent to set us free from their lies and domination. Gnosis: knowledge of the truth, would set us free, but it took a lot of mental work to acquire the knowledge they proclaimed. An early Gnostic was Marcion, a rich man who was reported going to Rome to preach his version of Jesus. He is said to have been in Rome about the 140s CE.

According to Ehrman in his book, Forgeries, Marcion preached that the god of the Old Testament who gave the Jewish Law was not the god of Jesus and Paul; that the Jewish god created this world. Jesus' god sent Jesus into the world in order to die for the sins of others, to save people from the wrathful God of the Old Testament though Paul believed in Moses. (Page 85)

Marcion was the first to come up with a canon, a bible, that is, and it contained some of Paul's letters, and a version of Luke's gospel (said to have been altered).

Perhaps it was the lack of authentic information about Jesus that was verifiable that left many to come up with their own versions of who he really was, and why, as well as how, and what he truly preached. Perhaps too, the one god of the Jews enticed many for something else to believe in for there were many gods in the pantheon of the pagans, and none seemed to be of benefit to the many. There were many gentiles who were known by the title of God-fearers, who readily attended the synagoges but did not convert to Judaism.

Manicheans, Valentinians, and quite a few more, preached their own versions of Jesus. There were even splits among those who believed similarly, but had varying ideas on some points such as the Trinity. After the apostles, and after the gospels and Paul's letters were written, the new Christianity had many faces such as itemized by Ehrman above, but they tried to put what was what together and answer all the questions that many had.

Marshall D. Johnson wrote The Evolution of Christianity (The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005) wherein he itemized many of the multitude of questions unanswered in the gospels. The Trinity was one of the questions; it came about principally through one of church fathers, so called for their erudition and education, and their turning to Christianity. That church father was Tertullian (mentioned above) in the 200s CE, but others had opposing views of just what divinity Jesus had, if any, and what was his place in the hierarchy, if there was an hierarchy.