Read Jesus Lied - He Was Only Human: Debunking the New Testament Online
Authors: CJ Werleman
Ultimately, you must make a decision; do you believe this event with the adulterous woman, given the above information, ever really took place? We know that whoever wrote John was most certainly not present at this event, as he wrote nearly 70 years after Jesus’ death. We also know that it is inconsistent with Jesus’ philosophy or theology as told by the other Synoptic Gospels. And we know this story to be added centuries later by some random dudes with their own motives. As such, the only conclusion we can draw is that this event simply never occurred.
“
So whatever you wish that people would do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31)
Oh the Golden Rule, and oh how Christians, for the most, believe this ethic for the promotion of human solidarity originated with their man, Jesus. Wrong!
“
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” – Buddha
“
What stirs your anger when done to you by others, that do not to others.” – Socrates
As you can see, the Golden Rule is far from unique to Jesus. In fact, Buddha and Socrates preceded Jesus by nearly 600 years. So not only is it fair to convict Jesus of false representation but it is evident that he had the artistic integrity of the fake 80’s pop duo Milli Vanilli, who were dethroned when the tape player playing their music backstage in a concert malfunctioned… and as it turns out, they couldn’t sing for so much so as a free supper!
Jesus is also credited with having been the originator of
“Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27)
even though this was, in fact, taken from the Old Testament, Leviticus 19:18. In fact, the original Hebrew writing of Leviticus 19:18 is
“Love your fellow countrymen as yourself.”
If you require further proof of God’s xenophobic, racist philosophies - philosophies endorsed by Jesus - the commandment
“Thou shall not kill”
actually means
“Thou shall not kill a fellow Israelite, but slaughter away all others in your path.”
Despite all of the above, Jesus often strayed from his own god-damned rules. While he taught people should ‘love their enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek’, he acted with a great deal of contempt towards those who disagreed with him. He displayed barely concealed hostility for his foreign neighbors, equating them to
“dogs”
and once instructing his disciples to
“go nowhere among the Gentiles”
. And as we reviewed in chapter one he even refused to heal a non-Jewish child, even though it was completely within his power and discretion, because he declared that he was here only to heal the
“lost sheep of Israel”.
Furthermore, Jesus spoke out specifically against anger. Specifically in Matthew:
“
Anyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment” (Matthew 5:22)
Compare that, however, to this passage in Luke:
“
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26 NIV)
Either, Jesus was completely bi-polar (not a gay bear) or he was the poster boy for the astrological sign Gemini. The duality of personality portrayed by these writers could not be starker.
The Triumphant Return to Jerusalem:
This narrative is the doozy of doozies, and one that I’d bet Matthew is still rolling in his grave over, having made such a glaring balls-up of interpreting the Hebrew language, as written in the Old Testament. Remember that Mark was the first of the Gospels to write of Jesus, and Matthew, and Luke copied much of Mark’s work some 15-20 years later.
Mark writes:
“
When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it.” (11:7)
Luke writes:
“
They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it.” (14:26)
What does Matthew write? Well, Matthew with his determination to link everything about Jesus back to the Old Testament prophets, writes:
“
Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (Matthew 21:5)
Matthew quotes the above passage directly from the prophet Zechariah verse 9:9 so as to further match the events of Jesus’ life to the Hebrew Bible. What Matthew doesn’t seem to realize though, is that the verse in question from Zechariah is a Hebrew poem, and the word
‘and’
was used to give emphasis, in what is termed ‘synonymous parallelism’. Matthew’s Greek mother tongue misses that poetry all together and we have the comical scene of imagining Jesus riding simultaneously on a horse and a donkey. I ask you this, how triumphant can any man look, including John Wayne, riding into town with one leg draped over an ass and the other over a horse? “Whoa there horsey, whoa there donkey. I am the Son of Man whoa wait a minute folks, sit donkey. Stay horsey!”
Meek and mild or short-tempered and foul mouthed? Well, once again, it depends which of the Gospel accounts you’re reading from. That said, since Mark forms the basis for Matthew, and Luke and John is completely bloody well made up, we can argue, most certainly, that Jesus got around with a short wick. [Insert your own joke here]
Mark had the disadvantage of not having his writing checked for theological flaws, whereas Matthew and Luke had the benefit of ironing out the chinks. Jesus’ short temper was indeed a problematic concern for the latter writers. A terrific example of this is when we examine the story of the old man being healed by Jesus inside the synagogue on the Sabbath. Mark writes:
“
He looked around at them
in anger
and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.” (Mark 3:5 NIV)
Now compare Mark’s passage with Luke’s:
“
He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored.” (Luke 6:10 NIV)
Not once does Matthew or Luke write of Jesus being angry. There are many examples whereby Matthew or Luke tells of the same narrative word for word, except for the removal of any word that displayed Jesus as an angry man.
Another example of Jesus’ petulance is in comparing Mark and Matthew on the story of Jesus’ anger with his disciples for not allowing the children to be brought to him to be blessed:
“
When Jesus saw this, he was
indignant
. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” (Mark 10:14 NIV)
Matthew makes the omission of the entire uncomplimentary first sentence, one that obviously caused him some embarrassment:
“
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14 NIV)
Christians are often quick to call me ‘petty’ for such citations, but we have such slim pickings to read over in attempting to paint a proper picture of Jesus, that these small points all add up. They do not add up in favor for those who think he was the softly spoken fisher of men.
Would it be possible for someone truly meek and mild mannered to run through the Temple grounds yelling and tossing merchant and moneychanger’s tables over, as Jesus did? Of course not, one must have a fiery disposition to do such a thing. I consider myself mild mannered, and while I’ve felt some distress strolling past GOP volunteers handing out ‘How to Vote for Sarah Palin’ cards, I’ve never run into their headquarters to toss their furniture all about the place, as such I respect their right to free speech to do such a thing. But that doesn’t stop me fantasizing about doing just that. Every. Goddamn. Day.
This leads to the question - was Jesus a great moral teacher, a role model for moral perfection? This is ultimately a difficult standard for any human to attain, but we are led to believe, by our church leaders, that Jesus absolutely was a fantastic example of moral perfection.
Philosophers contend that “great ethical or moral teachers” commonly develop full and coherent ethical systems that provide a comprehensive basis for illuminating ethical attitudes and behavior. Does this definition marry up with Jesus’ teachings? Well, a read of the Bible leaves us with no such blue print. Instead we find a mish-mash of homilies and pronouncements, indecipherable parables, double entendres, cryptic prophecies - some of which are unclear and others of which are outright contradictory or hypocritical. With his love for babbling on and the fact he was only about 4’7” – I am sure this is the origin of the phrase “small talk”.
Surprisingly though, even non-Christians also choose to believe he was a great moral teacher. I presume this to be the case because they’ve either not read the New Testament, or they’ve just read it with an uncritical eye. In fact, I have friends that don’t believe Jesus was God, or the Son of God, but still consider themselves Christians due to what they believe were His great moral philosophies. This cut and paste perspective is obviously contrary to the Gospels message, however. Faith is a tremendous beta-blocker for rationality.
The New Testament demands that you believe unequivocally that Jesus died for our sins; that He rose from death on the third day; and you must accept him as your Savior. Therein lays the durability of religion though; people can pick and choose what they want to believe – even if their beliefs are counter to the pivotal character’s message. I believe that attitude is purely borne out of ignorance of what is written in the text. But many brilliant men and women have argued for the affirmative, including the greatest of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, who published the Jefferson Bible in the early 1800s.
Jefferson wasn’t a big fan of all the hocus-pocus nonsense that was created by the Christian church, so he stripped away all the supernatural references contained in the New Testament. Out went the virgin birth. Gone were the miracles; the walking on water, the feeding of the 5,000, and the raising from the dead. Jefferson kept only Jesus’ moral teachings, which he called “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” As a figure of historical importance I rate Jefferson extremely high, but this was one of his lowest moments, in my honest opinion. Let’s now examine the evidence.
A careful read of the New Testament reveals that, in fact, his actual behavior and philosophies fall terribly short of the idolized and glorified image that our Pastors, Priests, Elders, Deacons, Reverends, Evangelicals, Ministers, and even Thomas Jefferson spew forth. For example, he made it known in no uncertain terms that anyone that didn’t embrace his teachings would be subject to the most heinous of punishments, eternal torture in Hell.
Socrates and Buddha taught almost identical fundamental values, but neither of Jesus’ theological rivals said, “You better listen to me or your anus will be reamed with a white hot rod of steel for the next trillion gazillion years.” This is far from a message of love, mercy, compassion, and solidarity, isn’t it? Yes, it is!
Jesus repeatedly prophesized doom, division, and destruction to anyone, or any nation, that rejects his ministry. Here Jesus gives is orders to his disciples:
“
But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.” (Luke 10:10-12 NIV)
In the event that the message is not loud and clear, Jesus adds a little more fire and brimstone:
“
Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.” (Luke 10:13-15 NIV)
Does all of this give you the slightest impression that Jesus was a nice guy? If that doesn’t convince you then possibly you need to consider that it was Jesus who introduced us to the concepts of eternal damnation and torture in perpetuity. A doctrine that demands infinite punishment for a finite sin i.e. you sin for forty years but you’re tortured for eternity.
Close your eyes and picture how long eternity it is. It’s forever. Go out a trillion years, and then add another trillion years, and another, and so on and so on. It is impossible to ponder such infinity with our finite little minds, complex and evolved as they are.
Prior to Jesus entering the scene, and prior to the arrival of the New Testament, man had a pretty rudimentary life. He was born, he’d work his fields, tend to his flock in a hot, dusty, dry desert climate, without SPF 50+ or lip balm, only to return to his non-air-conditioned mud hut each evening for a sit down course of manna bread. It is, without a doubt, certainly a miserable standard of living by our twenty-first century standards, but at least at the end of this hard slog somewhere on the Arabian Peninsula, your suffering ended the moment death descended upon you.