Introduction to the Subject

    This is an academic report, intended for believers and non-believers. The author explains how the Judeo-Christian beliefs originated and evolved (from 2000 BCE to 400 CE). He uses the historical and rational approach (the non-dogmatic approach). In the past eighteen years, the author studied numerous ancient writings in addition to the writings of hundreds of scholars. He published the results of his research in the book titled The Origins of Christianity and the Bible.

  To read brief samples from this book, scroll to the bottom of this page and click on the appropriate links.

Before we get into the subject of Jesus, here is some food for thought:

How to Treat a Disobedient Son

            God commanded, “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. ... Then all the men of the town shall stone him {the son} to death.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-19, 21 NRSV) This was God’s Law, and this was what the ancient Jews practiced. But since then, culture changed; and this Law became obsolete. Consequently, today, both Jews and Christians believe that God does not allow parents to kill their disobedient sons. Obviously, God has changed his will. But neither the Jews nor the Christians are willing to remove Deuteronomy 21:18-19, 21 from their Bibles. Doing so, would be an admission that the Bible is imperfect. How can these verses be the everlasting, infallible Word of God, when nobody is willing to obey them? And since God has changed his will, how can he be "the same, yesterday today and forever?" Does God evolve?

 Is the Bible free of error? Examine the following and judge for yourself:

How many sons did Abraham have?

There are hundreds more examples like this presented in the book.

******

    Here is the main subject:

                 The prophet Malachi wrote that God does not change: “For I the Lord do not change;” (Malachi 3:6 NRSV) James, too, wrote that God does not change: “… {God} the Father … with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17 NRSV) God is eternally invariable. Who, or what is God? John wrote, “God is spirit {Gr. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός}.” (John 4:24 NRSV) What is spirit? Luke explained, “... a spirit does not have flesh and bones …” (Luke 24:39 NASB) God is spirit, and therefore, he does not have flesh and bones. This is plain and simple.
            Now, what about Jesus? Is he God? Christians believe that before Jesus came on earth he was God in Heaven, then, miraculously, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary and he was born as a man, with flesh and bones. So the earthly Jesus, was both God and man. Here is the catch:  The claim that Jesus changed from being of single nature to being of dual nature disqualifies him from being God. God does not change his nature. He is eternally invariable: “For I the Lord do not change;” (Malachi 3:6 NRSV)
            The early Jews (the pre-exilic Jews) believed that God appeared with a physical body to his chosen men. But during the Babylonian exile, they changed their beliefs. They adopted (from the Zoroastrians) the belief that God is invisible and omniscient. When Christians borrowed from the Jews the belief that God is invisible, they had to reinterpret a number of Old Testament passages which state that God appeared to men: God appeared to Abraham, to Moses, to Samson’s parents, to Gideon; God wrestled with Jacob and led the Israelites through the desert of Sinai. Christians explained, that it was Jesus who appeared to those people.
            Here is an example from Genesis, which states that God wrestled with Jacob;  Christians claim that it was Jesus who wrestled Jacob: “Jacob was left alone; and a man {: Jesus} wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man {: Jesus} saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he {: Jesus} struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him {: Jesus}. Then he {: Jesus} said, ‘ Let me go, for the day is breaking.’ But Jacob said, ‘ I will not let you go, unless you bless me.’ So he {: Jesus} said to him, ‘ What is your name? ’ And he said, ‘ Jacob. ’ Then the man {: Jesus} said, ‘ You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God {: Jesus} and with humans, and have prevailed.’ ” (Genesis 32:24-28 NRSV) The Bible says that Jacob saw God's face: “So Jacob … saying, ‘For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.” ” (Genesis 32:30 NRSV) Christians say, he saw Jesus' face. According to the Christian interpretation of the above passage, it was Jesus who asked Jacob, “what is your name?” This question shows that Jesus was not omniscient. Notice also, that Jacob got a hold of Jesus and Jesus was pleading “Let me go!” implies that Jesus was not omnipotent. Notice also this: since Jesus incarnated in order to wrestle with Jacob, and incarnated again before he appeared to Moses, and incarnated again before he appeared to Samson’s parents and to Gideon, and incarnated when he was born by Mary ... then, Jesus reincarnated! Christians believe in reincarnation and don’t know it or don’t want to admit it.
            Here is an additional issue: Genesis chapter 18 says that God (Christians say it was Jesus) incarnated and appeared to Abraham. He was accompanied by two men (angels). Abraham offered those three men food. They ate it: “Then he {Abraham} took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate.” (Genesis 18:8 NRSV) the Old Testament interpreter Philo could not accept this story literally because if God had eaten, then he had to defecate. So he wrote, “God has no need for food ... he who consumes food must first of all experience need. And in the second place, he must have organs adapted for the reception of it, by means of which he can receive the food that comes in, and then discharge it from him when he has digested it. These things are not in harmony with the blessedness and happiness of the First Cause {God}. They are utterly monstrous inventions of men {? Moses} ... representing Him as having the form and passions of mankind. So we must turn to allegory, the method dear to men with open eyes.” [1] The passage in Genesis shows clearly that God, or Jesus, as the Christians believe, had a carnal body: he ate curds, milk, and beef. What did Jesus do with his carnal body after each incarnation? Did he discard it, or did he store it away so as to use it in his next incarnation? Or, what did Jesus do with that adult carnal body when he was conceived in Mary’s womb and acquired a baby’s body?
            Christians believe that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead with his carnal body. He ascended to Heaven with the flesh, which the Romans had mutilated and crucified. The gospel writers state that Jesus’ body had punctures in his hands and his feet, a spear-cut on the side of his chest, and thorn-wounds on his head, and bruises on his back (because he had been whipped by the Roman soldiers). Since Jesus’ body had been mutilated, it was imperfect. When he died, that body deteriorated and disintegrated for three days in the grave. Then, he ascended with that body to Heaven. How can one who has a mutilated body be equal to God? God is perfect, in every way. Christians claim that Jesus’ mutilated and biologically disintegrated body became immortal when he rose from the grave. They use interpretational techniques to explain away Paul’s unambiguous statement that “… flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (1 Corinthians 15:50 NRSV) Paul says that no flesh and blood will be admitted in Heaven.
            Here is another issue: Christians believe that Jesus has a human body. But God cannot be contained in a human body, because he is omnipresent. Omnipresence is an inherent quality of God. That quality is permanent. God does not relinquish his omnipresence, for many reasons, one of which is, that without his omnipresence he cannot be omniscient; (omnipresence is a prerequisite for omniscience: God has to be everywhere so that he can see and know everything). The last time that Jesus incarnated, he was locally present, in Israel. Therefore he was not omnipresent. And since he was not omnipresent he was not omniscient (he was not in position to observe and know what was going on everywhere on earth and in the universe). Therefore, Jesus was not God.

Jesus did not know all things!

 (Note: Words and phrases within large braces { } within biblical quotations are furnished by the author to explain such quotations.)     

     The Bible says that God is omniscient. The author of the Gospel of John wrote, “... God … knows all things.” (1 John 3:20 KJV) But the following verse indicates Jesus was not omniscient because he did not know which seed is the smallest. He said, “... a grain of mustard seed ... is the smallest of all seeds ...” (Matthew 13:31-32 KJV) Mustard seeds are about 2.5 mm (1/10 inch) in diameter (see pictures below).  Jesus did not know, that  poppy seeds and strawberry seeds are much smaller than mustard seeds. Look at the pictures below and compare.

The above pictures show the two varieties of mustard seed: brown and white.

Compare the size of the mustard seeds in the above picture, to the size of the poppy seeds and strawberry seeds in the pictures below:

Mustard seeds are several times larger than poppy seeds (poppy seeds are less than 1 mm in size) and strawberry seeds. Also, mustard seeds are many times larger than orchid seeds, which are the smallest of all seeds. [1]
       The editors of the NIV Study Bible are aware of Jesus' blunder. To conceal the blunder, they altered the wording of this verse in their version: “Though it is the smallest of all your seeds ...” (Matthew 13:32 NIV) They added the word “your.” This word does not exist in the Greek text. (This is one of numerous instances, where translators altered the biblical text to eliminate blunders.)
    Mark wrote that Jesus saw a fig tree at a distance and he walked up to it, to see if it had fruit: “He {Jesus} became hungry. And seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And He ... said to it, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again!’ ” (Mark 11:12-14 NASB) Jesus expected to find figs on the tree. He did not know that the tree had no figs. Furthermore, he did not know or did not think that “it was not the season for figs.” And worst of all, he cursed the tree to not bear fruit again.. Anyone who curses a tree cannot be the creator of trees.
      He who knows all things, does not ask questions. But Jesus asked questions. He wanted to know where the body of the deceased Lazarus had been placed: “He {Jesus} said, ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.’ ” (John 11:34 NRSV) Jesus asked the following questions: “What is it you want?” (Matthew 20:21 NIV) “Have you understood all these things?” (Matthew 13:51 NIV) “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” (Matthew 9:28 NIV)  “And he {Jesus} asked them, How many loaves {of bread} have you? And they said, Seven.” (Matthew 15:34 KJV) At one time, two disciples followed Jesus and he did not know what they wanted: “When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, ‘What are you looking for?’ ” (John 1:38 NRSV) He who does not know, asks questions.
  The author of Hebrews compared Jesus to angels: “Having become as much better than the angels, as he {Jesus} has inherited a more excellent name than they.” (Hebrews 1:4 NASB) The expressions “much better than” and “more excellent” suggest that Jesus is comparable to angels. In contrast, the Old Testament says that God is incomparable: “For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord {?}” (Psalm 89:6 NRSV) The obvious answer is, “No one.” This verse indicates that God is not comparable to Jesus. He is that much greater than Jesus. Likewise for the next verse. God asks, “To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, as though we were alike?" (Isaiah 46:5 NRSV) God is beyond compare.
     Jesus told his disciples, “But of that day and that hour no man knows, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son {:me}, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32 KJV) He admitted that he did not know “that day and that hour.” Also, Jesus did not know if the blind man “saw anything”: “... when he {Jesus} had spit on his eyes, and put his hand upon him, he asked him if he saw anything.” (Mark 8:23 KJV) He did not know what the teachers of the Law were arguing about: “... the teachers of the law {were} arguing with them. As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they ... ran to greet him. ‘What are you arguing with them about?’ he {Jesus} asked.” (Mark 9:14-16 NIV) “Jesus asked the boy’s father, ‘How long has he {the boy} been like this?’ From childhood he {the father} answered.” (Mark 9:21 NIV) [2] Had Jesus known the answers to his questions and pretended not to know them he would have been insincere. In other words, he would have been a dishonest person.
        In the following instance, Jesus asked God a question “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34 KJV) Jesus could not have pretended not to know. Since, according to the Bible, God knows the hearts of people, no one can fool God through false pretenses. Jesus’ question to God was sincere. Jesus was sincere in all the above instances, where he asked questions. We have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Jesus, except for one occasion where he told a lie to his brothers. Here it is: “So his brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things {miracles}, show yourself to the world.’ … Jesus said to them, ‘My time has not yet come … ... I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.’ After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went ... ” (John 7:3-11 NRSV) Jesus told his brothers “I am not going to this festival” but “then he also went.” Jesus told them one thing, but did another. He lied to his brothers because he was not able to accomplish his goal by speaking the truth. [3] That he was not able to accomplish his goal by speaking the truth, is evidence  that he was not omnipotent. He was not God. (God has no need to lie, because he is omnipotent; he can accomplish anything he wants, without the help of a lie.)
    In the following instance Jesus prayed to God and explained to him the reason he had said something to a crowd: “... And Jesus looked upward and said, ‘Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.’ ” (John 11:41-42 NRSV) Had Jesus been God, he would not have prayed, because God does not pray. God does not pray because there is no one greater to whom he can pray to. That Jesus prayed to God is an indication that God is greater that him. Notice that Jesus tried to explain to God the reason he had said something: “but I have said this for the sake of the crowd.” This phrase shows that Jesus failed to understand the concept of omniscience: “infinite knowledge.” According to the Bible, God has infinite knowledge. Therefore, God needed no explanation from Jesus. [4] This, too, is evidence that Jesus had a finite mind. (This argument, of course, is based on the presumption that the above account is historical.)
    God talked to Jesus: “And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’ ” (Mark 1:11 NRSV) Had Jesus been omniscient, God would not have talked to him. Talking is necessary when there is a need to convey information. Since an omniscient being knows everything, there is no need to talk or to pray to such a being. Two omniscient beings never have to talk to each other, because they know each other’s thoughts. Thinking is a process of engaging the mind to form and to process thoughts, so as to reach conclusions and thus, make decisions. Omniscient beings don’t use the process of thinking because they already know the "conclusion."

 Read the Bible and find out for yourself: that Jesus Did Not Bring Salvation and Eternal Life!

Christians believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was sacrificial: “… the Son of Man {= Jesus} came … to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45 NIV) Christians believe that righteousness and salvation are attained through Jesus’ blood (the blood he shed on the cross). Paul wrote, “… now that we have been justified by his {Jesus’} blood, will we be saved …” (Romans 5:9 NRSV) “... Jesus Christ … who ... freed us from our sins by his blood” (Revelation 1:5 NRSV) “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses …” (Ephesians 1:7 NRSV) The “redemption” mentioned in this verse was not viable during Jesus’ lifetime because Jesus had not yet shed his blood. Paul also wrote, “... if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9 NRSV) Such a doctrine could be taught only after Jesus’ death. Therefore, the religion that taught this doctrine (Hellenistic Christianity) came into effect after Jesus’ death. Jesus could not have taught a religion that would come into effect after his death. Jesus did not teach Hellenistic Christianity. He taught Judaism. Here is evidence:

     In his greatest sermon, the Sermon on the Mountain, Jesus preached: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17 NRSV) Jesus came not to abolish the requirements of the Law, but to fulfill the requirements of the Law. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is full of  exhortations about what to do (about the “works”); it not about what to believe; not about “faith.” (See Matthew 5–7 and Luke 6:20–40.) In the Sermon on the Mount, his greatest sermon, Jesus did not offer salvation through the shedding of his blood. Neither did he tell the Jews that he was going to rise from the dead. While Jesus was alive no one believed in such doctrines. According to Luke, even after Jesus’ death, Jesus’ disciples did not believe that he rose from the dead: “Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this {that Jesus rose from the dead} to the apostles. But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.” (Luke 24:5-11 NRSV) This account is not historical. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that three days after Jesus’ death the disciples did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. (Ironically, Jesus’ resurrection is the crux of Christianity.) That the disciples dismissed the resurrection claim and did not view the shedding of Jesus’ blood on the cross as a redemptive sacrifice, means that they did not hold the beliefs of Hellenistic Christianity. The doctrine “... who ... freed us from our sins by his blood” (Revelation 1:5) developed after Jesus’ death and away from Jerusalem. It developed in Antioch and in Damascus. The historical Jesus did not teach that his death would bring salvation. He taught salvation through obedience to the Law, which is what other Jews in Jerusalem taught. Professor Marcus J. Borg, wrote, “He {Jesus} did not seek to establish a new religion, but spoke about and sought the renewal of Judaism.”{The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, p. 806, article: Jesus (Person) (The Teaching of Jesus Christ)}
      Hellenistic Christianity is the religion that Paul preached. Such a religion could not have existed during Jesus’ lifetime because it is based on Jesus’ death and resurrection. Here is what Jesus taught:
       Centuries before Jesus was born, God made salvation available to every Jew and Jewish proselyte who obeyed the Law. Joel wrote, “Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord {Heb. Yahweh} shall be saved;” (Joel 2:32 NRSV) Every Jew who calls on the name  "Yahweh" (not on the name "Jesus") shall be saved. The Psalmist wrote, “Our God is a God of salvation, and to God, the Lord {Heb. Yahweh}, belongs escape from death.” (Psalm 68:20 NRSV) Yahweh offered salvation and “escape from death” to the Jews who feared him: “Surely his salvation is at hand for those who fear him …” (Psalm 85:9 NRSV)  Isaiah wrote, “Israel has been saved by the LORD {Heb. Yahweh} with an everlasting salvation;” (Isaiah 45:17 NASB) According to Isaiah, Yahweh established an everlasting salvation plan for Jews. Salvation was available only to those who obeyed the Law: “Salvation is far from the wicked, for they do not seek your statutes. … I hope for your salvation, O Lord, and I fulfill your commandments.” (Psalm 119:155, 166 NRSV) These verses were written centuries before Jesus.

     Long before the times of Jesus the Jews believed that those who obeyed the Law “will awake … to everlasting life.” The author of Daniel wrote, “And many of them who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life ...” (Daniel 12:2 KJV) Long before the times of Jesus God provided salvation and eternal life to the Jews. Jesus said, “... salvation is {available} from the Jews.” (John 4:22 NASB) During Jesus' lifetime (and before Jesus' times), salvation was available from the Jews to Jews and to those who became Jews through circumcision. There was no need for Jesus to die, to bring salvation with his death.
            In the second century BCE, during the Maccabean revolt, certain young Jewish men, who were being tortured by King Antiochus’ executioner, told the executioner, “... the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws. … But for you {Gentiles/sinners} there will be no resurrection to life!” (2 Maccabees 7:9, 14 RSV) At the time of King Antiochus IV, righteous Jews anticipated to rise from the dead. The mother of those young martyrs told her sons, “But doubtless the Creator of the world ... will ... give you breath and life again, as you now regard not your own selves for his laws’ sake.” (2 Maccabees 7:23 KJV) The mother of those martyrs loved Judaism because it offered eternal life: “She loved religion {Judaism} more, the religion that preserves them for eternal life according to God’s promise.” (4 Maccabees 15:3 NRSV) The above verses indicate clearly that God made salvation and eternal life available to the Jews and to proselytes to Judaism, long before Christianity came around. He promised eternal life only to those who obeyed his Law.
            Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria) was a contemporary of Jesus. He did not know Jesus or Christianity. He was an Alexandrian Jew. He wrote, “… the true everlasting life, as the law says, is to live in obedience to and worship of God;” [2] Philo believed that God promised the Jews and the proselytes to Judaism (those who practiced the Law) eternal life. He wrote, “… those who think fit to show themselves obedient to the sacred commands {of God} shall live for ever and ever as in a light which is never darkened …” [3]
            Josephus wrote that the Pharisees believed that God offered them eternal life: “They {the Pharisees} also, believe, that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards and punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but the former will have power to revive and live again.” [4] The Pharisaic sect held these beliefs long before the times of Jesus.
            The Wisdom of Solomon is an intertestamental book, which was finished in the 5^th decade of this era (before 50 CE). It was written by a Hellenistic Diaspora Jew, for Hellenistic Diaspora Jews. It explains, “The souls of the just {= those who obey the Law} are in the hands of God ... In the eyes of the fools it seemed as though they died ... but they {the just} are in peace ... it is immortality that awaits them ... they are richly rewarded.” (Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-5) According to this writer, God rewarded righteousness with eternal life. He wrote, “For righteousness is immortal.” (Wisdom of Solomon 1:15 KJV) God rewards righteousness with immortality. What is righteousness? According to Deuteronomy, righteousness is obedience to the Law: “And it will be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.” (Deuteronomy 6:25 KJV) Obedience to the Law brings immortality.
            Jews and proselytes who practiced the Law did not need Jesus’ “sacrificial” death, to earn eternal life. Eternal life was available to them before the arrival of Jesus. Jesus told his fellow Jews, “Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life.” (John 5:39 KJV) This verse shows that while Jesus was alive, the Jews believed that God had made eternal life available to them. Jesus taught what other Jews taught. He taught that to earn eternal life, one must obey the Law: “... there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what will I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him ... You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery ...” (Mark 10:17-19 KJV) Jesus told him to obey the Law.
            The reality is, Jesus’ death did not bring eternal life, neither to the Jews, nor to the proselytes, because eternal life was already available to them. Also, Jesus’ death did not bring eternal life to Gentiles. Jesus did not die on the cross for Gentiles because he did not minister to Gentiles. “But He {Jesus} answered and said, ‘I was sent {to minister} only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ ” (Matthew 15:24 NASB) He instructed his disciples to avoid ministering to Gentiles: “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ ” (Matthew 10:5-6 NRSV) Jesus ministered to Jews only: “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision.” (Romans 15:8 KJV) “The circumcision” is a metaphor for “the Jews.”

Was Jesus God?

The Short Answer:

   John wrote, “God is spirit { Gr. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός}.” (John 4:24 NRSV) Luke wrote, “... a spirit does not have flesh and bones …” (Luke 24:39 NASB)  God is spirit, and therefore, he does not have flesh and bones. The historical Jesus had flesh; therefore, he could not be God. According to modern Christian doctrine, Jesus ascended to Heaven with his  flesh and bones (with the body which the Romans crucified). Again, since Jesus has flesh and bones, he cannot qualify as God. Also, God cannot be contained in a human body, because he is omnipresent. Paul wrote, “… flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (1 Corinthians 15:50 NRSV) Jesus’ flesh and blood were perishable,  because, as the following verse says, he was made human in “every way”: “For this reason he {Jesus} had to be made like his brothers in every way…” (Hebrews 2:17 NIV) Omnipresence is an inherent quality of God which he does not divest. God does not undergo any type of transformation. God does not become man. If God changes he will cease being perfect, because perfection does not allow for variation. Finally, since Jesus was locally present, he was not God.

 The Long Answer:

Introduction to the term "god"

        If you check your dictionary you will find that the term "God" (with capital letter "G") is a name that refers to "the supreme being, the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe," and that the term "god" (with small letter "g") is a noun that refers to "one of many supernatural male beings." Today we are able to make this distinction because our way of writing allows for it. But the writers of the New Testament were not able to make such distinction because their way of writing did not allow for it. All the letters of the language in which they wrote (the Koine Greek) were the same: capital. Now they had a rather crude way available to them for denoting "God" from "a god" and that was by using the definite article "ὁ." For example,  ὁ θεός   in most instances means "God," and θεός in most instances means "a god." But this is not always true. For example, in the following case ὁ θεὸς  instead of "God," means "Satan": "... the god {Gr. ὁ θεὸς} of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 4:4 NRSV) The qualifier "of" (in the expression "the god of") qualifies the definite article "the" before the noun "god."

    Keep in mind that the New Testament was not written in Attic Greek, which was proper Greek, with proper grammar. It was written  in Koine Greek, a language which was commonly used by foreigners (non-Greeks). Foreigners did not know the grammatical rules, and therefore, they were not consistent with the use of the definite article "ὁ," and thus, sometimes it is difficult to determine their beliefs by the presence of the article "ὁ." Also, unlike the Old Testament writers who used the name "Yahweh" (Jehovah) to identify the Supreme Being, the New Testament writers did not use such a name. They used the generic terms "Lord," "Father," "Almighty," and "God," to refer to God. As a rule, the New Testament writers used the term “Lord” as a name for their God, because their Bible, the Septuagint, says that God's name is “Lord” (“Κυριος”). Here is the verse: “κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους, Κύριος ὄνομα αὐτῷ {the Lord destroys wars. Lord is his name}” (Exodus 15:3 Septuaginta)  This verse says that God's name is "LORD."

         In some instances some New Testament writers used the term "god" to refer to Jesus. Since those writers were not grammatically adept and since they had no choice between capital and small letters, the question arises,  Did they believe Jesus is "God," or "a god"?  In order to answer this question one must understand what the term "god" meant in the ancient times, and especially during the times of Paul. This is a big subject (explained in the book) but, briefly, here are a few examples, which will elucidate the meaning of this term.

         In the ancient times the term "god" meant "spirit" or "angel." Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Aristotle’s disciple, the celebrated Theophrastus of Eresus {born ca. 371 died 286 BCE}, suspects ... that God is spirit.” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, cha. V, par. 58.) Clement also wrote, “For the Stoics say that God is spirit by nature.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 5, 14.) The writer of the Gospel of John wrote, “God is spirit {Gr. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός}.” (John 4:24 NRSV) Angels were called "gods" or "spirits" because they have the same nature as God: “Are not all angels spirits ...?” (Hebrews 1:14 NRSV) Even Satan was called "a god," because Satan was a fallen angel. Paul used the term "god" to refer to Satan: "... the god {Gr. ὁ θεὸς} of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 4:4 NRSV)

     Here are some examples from the Old Testament where angels are called "gods." Psalm 82 reads, “God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods {Heb. elohim}.” (Psalms 82:1 NIV) The "gods" mentioned in this verse are the angels of God. In the following verse God says, “I said You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.” (Psalms 82:6 NASB)  In other words, God says, "I said you are angels ..."

 To further understand the meaning of the term "god" compare the following two renderings of Psalms 8:5 by two major translations of the Bible (the New American Standard Version and the King James Version):

(The proper rendering of the NASB translation should have been "gods," not "God." Caution: one should not stake his faith on the wording of a translation.)

Here are two  renderings of another verse by two different reputable translations (both renderings are valid):

“For you, O Lord, are most high over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods.” (Psalms 97:9 NRSV) In other words, "you are exalted above all spirits" or "you are exalted above all angels."

    According to 1 Peter, after Jesus died, he became a spirit: "He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit ..." (1 Peter 3:18 NRSV) Paul wrote, “... the last Adam {Jesus} became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45 NRSV) According to these and other New Testament verses, Jesus rose as a spirit, and spirits were called "gods." (Notice, some New Testament writers or editors wrote that Jesus rose physically, while others wrote that he rose spiritually. This contradiction is discussed in the book.) The writers who believed that Jesus rose spiritually called him "a god" (because the risen Christ had a spiritual body, an angelic body). There is a big difference between "a god" and "God": "a god" is a noun, whereas "God" is a name. The Christian belief "Jesus is God" is based on interpretation. In the fourth century CE such interpretation caused ecclesiastical controversies, divisions, and feuds. (The history of the ecclesiastical feuds concerning the identity and the position of Jesus is discussed in detail in the book.)

If you find this page beneficial, "spread the word": link it to another web-site or send it to a friend. Click on "File," then  click "Send,   Page by E-mail ..."

The Author of the Gospel of Mark Did not Believe Jesus is God

    Mark believed that Jesus had limited power. He wrote, “{Jesus said,} But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give.” (Mark 10:40 KJV) “He {Jesus} entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice.” (Mark 7:24 NRSV) The expressions “did not want … he could not” reveal that Jesus had limited power. Jesus did not have the power to make himself inconspicuous. He was not omnipotent. Mark would not have written this verse had he believed that Jesus was omnipotent. The same applies to the following instance: “He {Jesus} could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.” (Mark 6:5 NIV) Jesus’ power was limited because "he could not do" miracles whenever he wanted. He was not omnipotent. Only God is omnipotent. According to Matthew, God has no limitations [1]: “... but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26 KJV) Also, Mark believed that Jesus had limited knowledge. He wrote, “{Jesus said,} But of that day and that hour no man knows, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32 KJV) Jesus did not know the day of his return. Only God is omniscient (has unlimited knowledge). Therefore, Mark believed that Jesus is not God.

The Early Church Fathers Did Not Believe Jesus is Equal to God

    The Church Father Tertullian is one out of many early Church Fathers who believed the the Father is greater than the Son. Tertullian was born about 155 or 160 and died 220 to 230 CE. He wrote ca. 213 CE. The following quotation shows that Tertullian believed that God, the Father, was superior to Jesus: “... the Son differs from the Father ... it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: ‘My Father is greater than I.’ In the Psalm {Psalm 7:5} His inferiority is described as being ‘a little lower than the angels.’ Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.” [1]

  The New Testament writers and all the major, early Christian Church Fathers believed that only the Father of Jesus is God. How did today's Christians come to believe that Jesus is God? From where did they get such a belief? (This is an interesting subject, and is discussed in the book.)

What the Church Father Irenaeus Thought of Jesus

     (The view of Irenaeus is particularly important because he was the first Christian Church Father to declare the canon of the New Testament. He officially acknowledged the Gospel of John as one of the legitimate books of Christianity.)
     The Church Father Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons in Gaul, born 140 CE, died ca. 200-202 CE, wrote ca. 180 CE) considered Jesus an “improperly called god.” He taught that before Jesus came on earth he had a separate existence from God and was inferior to God. He wrote, “And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he {Paul} says: ... plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord ...” [1] Irenaeus condemned the heretics who, in his time, worshipped Jesus as a god. He wrote “... the Father Himself is alone called God ... the Scripture acknowledge Him alone God; and yet again the Lord {Jesus} confesses Him alone as His own Father, and knows no other {god}, as I shall show from His very words ... consider the terrible blasphemy [you are guilty of] against Him {against the Father} who truly is God.” [2] He also wrote, “the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all;” [3] (The view of Irenaeus carries much weight, because he was instrumental in the canonization process of the New Testament books.) Irenaeus also wrote, “Christ and His Apostles, Without Any Fraud, Deception, or Hypocrisy, Preached that One God, the Father, Was the Founder of All Things. … Neither did His disciples make mention of any other God, or term any other Lord, except Him {the Father}, who was truly the God and Lord of all …” ^[4] Irenaeus also wrote, “... if the Lord {Jesus} had known many fathers and gods, He would not have taught His disciples to know [only] one God, and to call Him alone Father? But He {Jesus} did ... distinguish those who by word merely {verbo tenus} are termed gods, from Him who is truly God.” [5] According to Irenaeus, Jesus, “verbo tenus,” that is, by word only, was called “god.” He was called “god” after his death, which, in those days was customary.

            In the following quotation Irenaeus clarifies the doctrine of the mainstream late 2^nd century Christians: “The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God,” [6]

The Irrationality of the Trinity Doctrine

The author of the Letter of James believed that God remains constant (invariable, never changing): “… the Father {God} … with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17 NRSV) If God is eternally invariable and if God is three persons united into one, then the bond that unites those three persons must be likewise: eternally invariable. But Mark indicated that the bond between the Father and the Son was severed during Jesus’ crucifixion: “… Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ ” (Mark 15:34 NRSV) When Jesus said this, there was no Trinity. This verse debunks the claim that God is an eternal union of three persons.
       James indicated that God remains constant (invariable, never changing). But Jesus was not constant. He was confident and strong when he pursued the money changers at the Temple with a whip, but he became weak and melted down before his crucifixion. He told God, “ ‘Father, if you are willing, remove this cup {the crucifixion} from me; …’ Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength. In his anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground.” (Luke 22:42-44 NRSV) These verses debunk the belief that Jesus is God because with God “there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17 NRSV) Jesus became weak, whereas God (according to James) cannot become weak.
    God’s title is “the Father”: “I {God} will be a Father {to the righteous men} and they shall be my sons. And they all shall be called sons of the living God, and every angel and every spirit shall know ... that these are my sons, and that I {God} am their Father ...” (Jubilees 1:24-25) All righteous men are sons of God. No one is “son of Jesus.” Paul wrote to the Galatians, “You are all sons of God ...” (Galatians 3:26 NIV) Jesus was a righteous man, and therefore, he was though to be a son of God. Like the rest of the Jews, Jesus claimed that God is his “Father.” The appellation “Father” is a title of superiority. A father is greater than his son. Jesus said, “My Father ... is greater than all.” (John 10:29 NASB) The word “all” includes Jesus. He also said, “... the Father is greater than I. … I do as the Father has commanded me.” (John 14:28, 31 NRSV) God commanded Jesus. There is no verse in the New Testament stating or hinting that Jesus ever commanded God. Had Jesus been equal to God, he would have called God his “Brother.” He would have said, “… Brother, forgive them as I forgave them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)
            Today’s Christians believe that before Jesus incarnated he was a spirit in Heaven; he was “fully God.” When he came down on earth he “incarnated”: he united his spirit with flesh. He acquired a second nature. He added to his spiritual nature the carnal nature and thus from “fully God” he became “fully God and fully man” … (whatever that means!). “He became” means “he changed.” The point is that Jesus was transformed: he changed. Nonetheless, the writer of Hebrews wrote, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8 NIV) But God does not change. Malachi says that God does not change: “For I the Lord do not change;” (Malachi 3:6 NRSV) James wrote that God does not change: “… {God} the Father … with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17 NRSV)
   Jesus told John (the one who wrote the book of Revelation), “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! ...” (Revelation 1:17-18 NRSV) Jesus experienced death. He died. The Father revived him. The Father is eternally alive. He is "everlasting."
          Today’s Christians believe that before Jesus incarnated (before he was born by Mary) he was a spirit in Heaven; he was “fully God.” When he came down on earth and “incarnated” his spirit united with flesh.. He acquired a second nature. He added to his spiritual nature the carnal nature and thus from “fully God” he became “fully God and fully man” … (whatever that means). The bottom line is, Jesus changed. He cannot be God, because God does not change. Malachi says, “For I the Lord do not change;” (Malachi 3:6 NRSV) James, too, wrote that God does not change: “… {God} the Father … with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17 NRSV) He who changes is not God.
    Christians claim that Jesus was simultaneously fully human and fully God. This is illogical because the word “fully” excludes additional characteristics. (When a container is “full” you cannot add anything else in it.) The synonyms of “fully” are: completely, entirely, wholly, totally, altogether. If Jesus is “completely” or “entirely” human, he cannot be God.
           Here is the Christian belief in algebraic terms: God + man = Jesus or Jesus = God + man. Another way to express this equation is, God = Jesus – man. (You have to subtract “man” from “Jesus” to end up with “God.” Ironically, these equations show that Jesus is greater than God. He is greater that God because he has more qualities than God. In other words, God lesser than Jesus because he lacks the human qualities of Jesus. ... ... Go figure.)
            Logically speaking, Jesus could not have been a “hybrid” (a fusion of two natures: human and divine) because the human nature would have prompted him to do one thing and the divine nature would have prompted him to do another, and thus he would have been double-minded. The Bible condemns double-mindedness: “ {God says} I hate the double-minded …” (Psalm 119:113 NRSV) “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” (James 1:8 KJV) Divine thinking is unlike mortal thinking. In the Old Testament, God said to mankind, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.” (Isaiah 55:8 NRSV) The thoughts and the ways of man are unlike and even contrary to the thoughts and the ways of God. The thoughts and the ways of man are evil: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5 KJV) The inclinations of God are good, while the inclinations of man are evil. Ecclesiastes wrote, “Follow the inclination of your heart … but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment.” (Ecclesiastes 11:9 NRSV) It is impossible for Jesus’ mind to have had the inclinations of God and the inclinations of man.
            According to Christians, Jesus has a body of flesh, a body which is visible to earthly eyes (the “eyes of the flesh”), whereas, the Father is invisible spirit: he has a spiritual body, which is not visible to the eyes of the flesh; it is visible only through the “eyes of the soul” (this is a Christian expression). So they inadvertently admit that the Son is different from the Father. However, perfection does not allow for variation (only one nature can be perfect). The Father is greater because he has a body which is superior to Jesus’ body. Finally, since the Father and Jesus are dissimilar, they can’t be one. No matter which way we examine the idea of Trinity, we end up with the same result: it is an impossible idea.
            Christians fail to realize that God cannot incarnate into a man because the book of Ecclesiastes says that man is a beast: “So I decided, as regards to men, to dissociate them from the divine beings and to face the fact that they are beasts.” (Ecclesiastes 3:18 TANAKH) God cannot become a beast. The book of Ecclesiastes says that man amounts to nothing: “Man has no superiority over the beast, since both amount to nothing.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19b TANAKH) God cannot become nothing. Paul wrote that man's nature is earthly: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.” (Colossians 3:5 NIV) Earthly nature is sinful nature. “What is man, that he should be clean? and he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” (Job 15:14 KJV) God cannot incarnate into a man because man’s nature is unclean, inferior, and sinful. Besides, God does not change: “For I the Lord do not change;” (Malachi 3:6 NRSV) If God changes his nature he will cease being perfect, because perfection does not allow for variation. Justin Martyr, the 2^nd century Christian Church Father and leading theologian (ca. 150 CE) wrote, “ ‘But what do you call God?’ said he. ‘{And I answered} That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things--that, indeed, is God.’ ” ^[1] (Justin Martyr did not believe Jesus is God.) Since Jesus added a second nature to his original one, he cannot qualify as God, because God “maintains the same nature and in the same manner.”
            The Mormons recognized this problem, so they attempted to resolve it as follows: Joseph Smith  wrote, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” [2] James Talmage, another leading Mormon, wrote, “Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body, infinitely pure and perfect . . . a body of flesh and bones.” [3] In trying to solve the problem, the Mormons made it worse. Here is the problem with the Mormon solution: if “the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men,” they have sexual organs and sex hormones. And if they do have sexual organs and sex hormones, then they have carnal desires: “passions of flesh.” And Paul wrote, “… the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and {therefore} we were by nature children of wrath …” (Ephesians 2:2 NRSV) Since the Father and the Son cannot be “children of wrath,” they cannot have “a body of flesh and bones.” Furthermore, the nature of the flesh is contrary to the nature of spirit. Paul wrote, “For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other …” (Galatians 5:17 NRSV) God cannot have flesh, because “flesh is contrary to the nature of spirit.” Also, a human body does not have an “infinitely pure and perfect” shape (as James Talmage proposed) because it has a limited presence (its presence is limited to a specific location). In order for God to be omniscient (to know everything that is going on everywhere in the universe) he has to be omnipresent. And in order to be omnipresent, he has to be spirit (power). Therefore, perfection exists only in spirit. And since perfection does not allow for variation, God cannot be anything but spirit: a universal power that permeates the universe.
            The Mormons forgot something else: Jesus’ body saw corruption. It was mortally wounded and it decomposed for “three days” in the grave. Since Jesus died, his soul separated from his decomposed body. (Tertullian wrote, “death is defined to be nothing else than the separation of body and soul.” [4]) Jesus cannot be equal to the Father, because his soul separated from his carnal body, and his carnal body changed: it decomposed for three days. On the other hand, the Father’s soul has never separated from his carnal body (the Mormons believe God has such a body), and his carnal body has never decomposed. James wrote that God is invariable: “… {God} the Father … with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17 NRSV) (In other words, the universal power, which permeates the universe, is not subject to change.)
            Let us re-examine the Mormon belief, that the Father and the Son are equal because they both have carnal bodies. If both Father and Son have carnal bodies, does the Holy Spirit have a carnal body too? Luke wrote, “… and the Holy Spirit descended upon him {upon Jesus} in bodily form [5] like a dove {Gr. σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν}.” (Luke 3:22 NRSV) The phrase “in bodily form” indicates that the Holy Spirit, too, appeared with a carnal body. The Church Father Tertullian confirms this: “… the Gospel of John ... declares that the Spirit descended in the body of a dove, and sat upon the Lord. When the said Spirit was in this condition, He was as truly a dove as He was also a spirit; nor did He destroy His own proper substance by the assumption of an extraneous substance {: the substance of animal flesh}. But you ask what becomes of the dove’s body, after the return of the Spirit back to heaven ... ?” [6] The Church Father Tertullian raised a valid theological question: what became of the dove’s body, after the Spirit returned to Heaven? Did it discard its body? Does God discard his body? Is the Holy Spirit, today, in the form of a dove, sitting (along with Jesus) at the side of the Father?

Above picture: Greek Orthodox fresco of the Trinity. The Father is painted as a white-bearded old man with a triangular nimbus. The Son is painted as a brown-bearded an adult man. (Obviously, the artist believed that there are differences between the Father and the Son.) The Holy Spirit is shown as a white dove with a halo. How do the Trinity members compare? An adult man is in better shape than an old man. And a dove is not equal to an adult man or to an old man. “Two men and a dove” cannot constitute a Trinity with three equal members.
            The Mormons did not take into consideration the following problem: “And the Word became flesh …” (John 1:14 NRSV) This verse implies that before Jesus incarnated, he was a spirit. Therefore, he could not have been equal to the Father because the Father had a carnal body (the Father is eternally invariable). Also before the Holy Spirit incarnated it could not have been equal to the Father, because it was a spirit. The Mormon solution fails to show that Jesus and the Holy Spirit can be equal to the Father, because the Father never changed, while Jesus incarnated into a man, and the Holy Spirit incarnated into a dove..
            Saint Augustine (born 354, died 430 CE) used a different approach. He explained that Jesus is equal to the Father “... according to substance; therefore the substance of both is the same.” He wrote, “… confess the Son Homo’ousios, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ ” [7] But Saint Augustine forgot that the Father has no “substance,” because he is spirit (a soul). Substance is “a kind of matter, a physical reality that can be touched and felt.” God cannot be touched or felt with our hands because he is spirit (: power).
    In order for three persons to be absolutely equal they must be absolutely identical. However, had the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit been absolutely identical they would not have been identifiable. We are able to identify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by their differences: different names, different functions, and different ranks. For example, the Father ranks higher because he dispatches the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father ranks higher because he is unapproachable by man, whereas the Son is approachable by man. The Son is the mediator to the Father, but not the mediator to the Holy Spirit. This indicates that the Father is superior to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. Also, one can be forgiven for blaspheming the Father or Jesus, but will not be forgiven for blaspheming the Holy Spirit (see Mark 3:28–29). Therefore the Holy Spirit is different from the Father and Jesus. Since God is prefect, then he cannot have three different qualities, because perfection does not allow for variation: “… {God} the Father … with whom there is no variation …” (James 1:17 NRSV) Anything that is different from perfect is imperfect. Jesus is different from the Father. Therefore he is not perfect. The Father is superior because he knows things that Jesus does not know: “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32 NRSV) When two persons are different, they are not equal. In some way, one is superior to the other. There is no way of getting around this rule.
    The Trinity without the Holy Spirit is incomplete. Or, the Trinity without the Son is incomplete. Or the Trinity without the Father is incomplete. The fact that it takes three persons to make the Trinity complete, means that each person of the Trinity is incomplete. In other words, the Trinity is greater than any of its members because the sum is greater than its parts.
            People learn in school that 1+1+1= 3. But in Trinitarian churches they are told 1+1+1= 1. How can three distinct persons be one being? Some Christians admit that the "Trinity" does not make sense. M. R. DeHaan, a renowned Christian apologist, wrote, “The Trinity, that is, three persons in one, is a mystery which is revealed in the Bible, but cannot be understood by the human mind. Since man is finite, and God infinite, this is one of those things which must be accepted by faith, even though it cannot be reasoned out. The Trinity cannot be explained, but it must be believed ...” [8] Saint Augustine says that one must believe before he can understand: “… believe and understand, for the Prophet says, ‘Unless ye believe ye shall not understand’ Do ye not comprehend? Be enlarged. Hear the Apostle: ‘Be ye, enlarged, bear not the yoke with unbelievers.’ They who will not believe this before they comprehend {it} are unbelievers. And because they have determined to be unbelievers, they will remain in their ignorance. Let them believe then that they may understand.” [9] Believers are told to submit to the judgment of their spiritual leaders without questioning a doctrine, which their leaders themselves do not understand and cannot explain. And this doctrine was established by shedding the blood of those who questioned it and refused to accept it.
            Christians justify the concept of Trinity by saying that human beings are finite and liable both to sin and err. And for this reason, the finite mind of man cannot understand the concept of Trinity. The reality is, when one believes in things he does not understand, he believes in superstition.

God's Nature Cannot Blend with Man's Nature

 
          Christians claim that Jesus was simultaneously fully human and fully God. Is this possible? Certainly Jesus could not have had a mind with two qualities: human and divine. The human quality would have prompted him to do one thing and the divine quality would have prompted him to do another, and thus he would have been double-minded. The Bible condemns double-mindedness: “I hate the double-minded …” (Psalm 119:113 NRSV) “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” (James 1:8 KJV) In the Old Testament, God said to mankind, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord." (Isaiah 55:8 NRSV) The thoughts and the ways of man are unlike and even contrary to the thoughts and the ways of God. The thoughts of God are good, whereas the thoughts of man are evil: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5 KJV) Ecclesiastes wrote, “Follow the inclination of your heart … but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment.” (Ecclesiastes 11:9 NRSV) Therefore, the thoughts and the inclinations of God cannot mix with the evil thoughts and inclinations of man. The inclinations of God are good whereas the inclinations of man are evil. It is impossible for Jesus’ mind to have had contrary qualities.

    In what way, then, Jesus was simultaneously human and God? Was he, then, the mind of God clothed with a human body? Is it possible for God's mind to unite with human flesh? Human flesh has natural passions and desires (sex hormones), just like animal flesh. Justin Martyr said, “He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body …” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, cha. 48.) As Justin Martyr explains, Jesus had a beastly flesh. Ecclesiastes explains, “So I decided, as regards to men, to dissociate them from the divine beings and to face the fact that they are beasts. … Man has no superiority over the beast, since both amount to nothing.” (Ecclesiastes 3:18-19b TANAKH) God’s infinite and perfect mind cannot unite with the body of a beast, which amounts to nothing. God cannot be clothed with human flesh, which has glands which produce testosterone, which stirs up passions and desires. Such flesh prompts evil: "... flesh and blood devise evil." (Sirach 17:31 NRSV) Human flesh is lustful. Lust sometimes begins in the flesh. For example, sometimes men experience involuntary sexual arousals. Such arousals prompt their mind to lust. Paul explains how this works: "... nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me." (Romans 7:18-20, NRSV) As Paul wrote, "nothing good dwells" in the flesh. "Sin dwells within" the flesh. Flesh has carnal desires and passions, which, according to the Bible, induce a person to sin. "... fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul." (1 Peter 2:11 NASB) Paul explains, "For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh;" (Galatians 5:17 NRSV) Flesh is sinful.  It is impossible to live in the flesh without sinning.  It is impossible to live in the flesh without sinning because, “… flesh and blood devise evil.” (Sirach 17:31 NRSV) In other words, in order for God to become fully a man and live as a real man, he has to sin. The Old Testament says that all men, without exception, sin: “... there is no man who does not sin ...” (1 Kings 8:46 NRSV) Since God cannot sin, he cannot become man. The scriptures state clearly “... there is no man who does not sin ...” and, according to the Bible, Christians cannot annul this scripture, because Jesus said, "... the scripture cannot be annulled ..." (John 10:35 NRSV)

The author of Hebrews explains, that Jesus became a man in every way: “For this reason he {Jesus} had to be made like his brothers in every way…” (Hebrews 2:17 NIV) Jesus had a beastly flesh. He had a penis and he had erections just like any other man. Since Jesus was a man in every way, he sinned. And for this reason he was baptized by John the Baptist. The historical Jesus (the real Jesus, not the fictional Jesus) was baptized for the remission of his sins.

    Luke did not believe Jesus is God, because he indicated that Jesus' strength was limited. He wrote, “An angel from heaven appeared to him {Jesus} and strengthened him.” (Luke 22:43 NIV) God does not need strength. He has unlimited strength. Since Jesus lacked in strength, he was not God.

     Jesus was born of a woman, and he was born under the Law: "... God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law," (Galatians 4:4 NRSV) The phrase “under the law” means, that Jesus was subject to the Law of the Old Testament. And the Old Testament says, “How can one born of woman be pure?” (Job 25:4 NRSV) Therefore, at the time of his birth, Jesus was impure. In the birth account of Jesus, Luke wrote, “When the time came for their purification {the purification of Mary and Jesus} according to the law of Moses, they brought him {baby Jesus} up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.” (Luke 2:22 NRSV) Mary and the new-born Jesus were impure until the purification ritual was performed on their behalf at the Temple. Since Jesus was born impure, he cannot be God, because God does not need to be purified; he is eternally pure.  There is no way of getting around Job 25:4, 1 Kings 8:46, Isaiah 55:8, and Ecclesiastes 3:18-19. These (and other) verses preclude Jesus from having been pure and sinless. (This is one reason that the Jews, who believe in the Old Testament, cannot accept Jesus as God.)  

He who's Presence is Limited is not God

    According to certain verses of the Bible, God is omnipresent. God is eternally omnipresent, because he does not change.  In the Gospel of John,  Jesus said, “I ... came down out of heaven.” (John 6:51 NASB) Before Jesus "came down out of heaven," he was not on earth. And when he was on earth, he was not in Heaven. In the Gospel of John, Jesus said, “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ ” (John 14:28 NRSV) He who is omnipresent does not "go away" or "come to" anyone, because he is everywhere. Since the author of the Gospel of John did not believe that Jesus is omnipresent, he did not believe Jesus is God. (Muslims, Jews, and Jehovah's Witnesses understand this concept. The Christians don't. And this misunderstanding has caused the Christians to persecute the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Jews and it has stirred the Christians repeatedly to go to war against the Muslims. For this reason, such political problems must be resolved first on the religious field.) Here is another example.“Now if He {Jesus} were on earth, He would not be a priest at all … ” (Hebrews 8:4-6 NASB) The expression “if he were on earth” indicates that the writer of Hebrews believed that Jesus was not omnipresent. (For a continued discussion of the subject Who Was Jesus? Was He God?  click here.) 

About the Concept of Omnipresence

 Jews and Christians claim that God is spirit (intangible, insubstantial), and that God never changes, and that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. This definition is fine. But they fall into a fallacy when they add that God is a person and therefore he has a body. If God has a body then he cannot be omnipresent because his presence is limited by the shape of his body. If God wears a body like a garment from time to time (to appear to humans), then he cannot be unchanging, because he alters himself from omnipresent to locally present.
    Some believe that God has a “spiritual body.” A “spiritual body” is an oxymoron. “Spiritual” means “insubstantial,” and “body” implies “substance.” God cannot be an “insubstantial substance.” In order for God to be omnipresent and unchanging he cannot have or can never acquire a body. A body has substance. And all substance has shape. It has the shape of atoms, or the shape of subatomic particles. Shape limits presence. Notice that the New Testament writers visualized God with a shape: “… Jesus standing at the right hand of God. … the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’ ” (Acts 7:55 NIV) “… he {Jesus} sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Hebrews 1:3 NIV) “… who sat down {i.e. on a seat} at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven …” (Hebrews 8:1 NIV) “... a throne was set in heaven, and one {God} sat on the throne.” (Revelation 4:2 KJV) These descriptions depict God with a local presence. The following verse says that God “will dwell with” his people: “... Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them ...” (Revelation 21:3 KJV) This verse tells us that God is locally present. So do the following expressions: “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus ...” (2 Timothy 4:1 NRSV) “And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD ...” (Genesis 4:16 KJV) The expressions “in the presence” or “out of the presence” indicate that the god of Judaism, exists in a specific place. As for the god of Christianity he is three distinct persons (the Trinity): the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Trinity occupies his own space; otherwise he would not be distinct from the other two persons. Three locally present persons (the three persons of the Trinity) cannot constitute an omnipresent entity. (This is why there can only be one God and he cannot be a person. As we will examine further on, God can only be a power.)
    The following passage says that God forbade the unclean from coming into his presence. God commanded, “… while he is in a state of uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from my presence: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 22:3 NRSV) The idea that God does not dwell in the realm of sin and in the realm of sinful persons is incompatible with the idea that God is omnipresent.
    Some people claim that they feel the presence of God when they walk into a holy place (i.e. a temple or a church) or when they enter the company of spirited worshippers, believers. What they feel is the result of their thinking. The “presence of God” is a figure of speech which describes one’s feelings.

If you find this page beneficial, "spread the word": link it to another web-site or send it to a friend. Click on "File," then  click "Send,   Page by E-mail ..."

A brief historical introduction to Jesus' political and cultural setting  

    At 63 BCE the Roman general Pompeii conquered Palestine. From that point on, the Romans appointed various local kings (such as the Herodian family) and governors to govern various territories of Palestine. Those kings and governors inevitably and unavoidably interfered with the religious customs of the Jews. For example, the kings and governors  of Judea took the prerogative of appointing the high priests of Judaism. The Jews were offended by the actions of those officials and consequently they rioted several times. Sometimes they rioted because the Romans stationed Gentiles (governors, military leaders, and soldiers) in Jerusalem (the holy city). Josephus mentions an incident, in Jerusalem, where a Roman soldier exposed his genitals to a crowd of Jews and made an obscene gesture. The Jews became furious and threw stones at the cohort of Roman soldiers. The soldiers responded swiftly. Consequently, there was Jewish blood shed on account of this incident. The "uncircumcised and the unclean" Roman soldiers defiled the holy city of God.  Jerusalem was the holy city of the Jews. Isaiah wrote, “O Jerusalem, the holy city; for the uncircumcised and the unclean shall enter you no more.” (Isaiah 52:1 NRSV)  The zealous Jews were offended by the presence of uncircumcised Gentiles, who trampled the sacred grounds of Jerusalem. They wanted to expel all Gentiles from Jerusalem and thus fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 52:1.

     Another matter which stirred the Jews to riot was that the Romans obliged the Jews to honor Caesar. The Jewish high priests (the Sadducees, who were pro-Roman) offered sacrifices to God, at the Temple, on behalf of Caesar. This offended the zealous Jews, because Caesar himself was worshipped as a god in various cities of the Roman Empire. The zealous Jews (= the Zealots, the Sicarii, the Essenes, the zealous Pharisees, and the Jewish Christians) wanted to preserve the sanctity of the Temple and to honor God. They did not want to honor Caesar because their Bible read: “… you shall have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3 NRSV) So they revolted against the kingdom of Caesar (and against the Sadducee priests) and sought to establish the Kingdom of God.

     Form about 6 CE to 66 CE, the Jews rioted in numerous occasions in Jerusalem and in various locations of Palestine, especially in Galilee. Josephus wrote, “... the Galileans are accustomed to war from their infancy.” In retaliation, the Romans crucified thousands of zealous Jews (one of them was Jesus). This chronic turmoil led to the Great War of the Jews, which resulted in the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, in 70 CE. When the Romans conquered Jerusalem, they dismantled and outlawed the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Zealots (and the Jewish Christians). After the War, the Jews stopped calling themselves “Pharisees.” Two decades later, the Pharisees renamed themselves "Rabbinic Jews."
        Before the Great War, the political government of Israel was run by the Sadducees, the priestly sect. The Sadducees were puppets of the Romans and enemies of the Zealots (and enemies of Jesus: the Sadducees were the ones who arrested Jesus). Josephus reported that towards the end of the War the rebels slaughtered the Sadducees: “The Idumeans also strove with these men {the rebels} ... they ... cut the throats of the high priests, ... they thence proceeded to destroy utterly the least remains of a political government ...” (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, book 7, cha. 8 par.1, (267)). This was the end of the Sadducee sect. (The Sadducees did not blend with the rest of the Jewish sects because they did not believe in eternal life. Notice, that the Jews who believed in eternal life cut the throats of the Jews, who did not believe in eternal life. Those who did not believe in eternal life opposed Jesus. The Sadducees opposed Jesus.) Towards the end of the rebellion, the rebels managed to wipe out the sect of the Sadducees. But a short time later, the city fell in the hands of the Romans, who wiped out the rebels. Those whom the Romans did not kill, they sold as slaves to slave owners around the Roman Empire.
    Those were the days when the Jews, more than ever, expected the establishment of the Kingdom of God. They expected God to send his angels to save them from the Romans. The historical Jesus was part of that intense milieu. He was a zealous Jewish rabbi, who preached about the Kingdom of God and sanctioned with his teachings the Jewish resistance against the Romans and against the Sadducees. Jesus condemned the Sadducees and the Herodians (the friends of Herod), who served the Roman interests. John the Baptist (he baptized Jesus) condemned Herod and faced a similar fate as Jesus. The historical Jesus was a product of his environment. He did not establish a new religion. (Scholars, preachers, and laypersons must understand the following: No religion other than Judaism could have existed in Jerusalem. There was no such thing as "freedom of religion" in those days in Jerusalem. This is a very important subject, and is explained in detail, with historical documentation, in this book.) 

    Christians claim that Jesus established Christianity, and by that they mean Hellenistic Christianity not Jewish Christianity. The New Testament was not written by Jewish Christians. It was written by Hellenistic Christians (Hellenistic Jews - like Paul). Historical evidence shows that Jesus was not a Hellenist. He did not converse or preach in Greek. He did not travel (like Paul) around the Roman empire to spread his doctrines. Jesus did not use the Septuagint: the version that Paul used as his Bible. Jesus was a Jewish nationalist, the leader of a small Jewish sect in Jerusalem. He was not persecuted by the Jews for his religion. He was turned into the Romans by the Jewish authorities, the Sadducees and the Herodians, for stirring  the people against the Romans and against  the Sadducees and against the Herodians and claiming to be the awaited Messiah: the King of the Jews. Mark wrote, "The inscription of the charge against him read, 'The King of the Jews.' " (Mark 15:26 NRSV) He was "charged" for claiming to be the King of the Jews. His designation "king of the Jews" is the true reason he was crucified. The Romans executed anyone who claimed to be the King of the Jews, that is, the Messiah of the Jews. The following verse indicates that Jesus was known as “the Messiah”: “Pilate said to them {the Jews}, ‘ Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?’ ” (Matthew 27:22 NRSV) The Jews who called Jesus “the Messiah,” did not, in any way, view him as the savior of souls or the savior of mankind, and certainly not a god. The Messiah whom the Jews awaited was to be their  king. The following verse explains the title Messiah: “... saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.” (Luke 23:2 NRSV) The robber on the cross acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah: “One of the criminals who were hanged there {on the cross} kept deriding him {Jesus} and saying, ‘Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!’ ” (Luke 23:39 NRSV) Jesus claimed he was the Messiah, and by that, he claimed he was the awaited King of the Jews. Pilate, too, acknowledged Jesus as the King of the Jews: “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” (Mark 15:9 NASB) He ordered the superscription: “And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” (Luke 23:38 KJV) Jesus was crucified as "King of the Jews." Again, this designation explains the reason he was crucified. (The interpretation that Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world is a Hellenistic Christian interpretation, which developed in the Diaspora, several years after Jesus' death. (Mr. Benson explains this subject in his book, and provides historical evidence, which elucidates this point.)

    Any Jew who opposed the Sadducees, opposed the Romans, because the Romans authorized the Sadducees to govern the Jews on internal matters. The Pharisees, generally, opposed the Sadducees and the Romans. The gospel writers (who were Hellenistic Jews, and lived in the Diaspora - this point is explained and documented in the book) did not portray in their gospels the real Jesus: a friend of the Pharisees and an opponent of the Sadducees and of the Romans. Had they presented the real Jesus, the Romans would have persecuted them and outlawed their religion: Hellenistic Christianity. (The Romans did not persecute Paul for his beliefs. Nero did not throw Hellenistic Christians to the lions. He threw Jews and Jewish Christians to the lions. He threw revolutionaries to the lions. There was a Jewish revolution going on in Palestine, and the activities of the revolutionaries spread in other Roman cities, like Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. The author explains this subject in detail and with historical documentation.) To avoid Roman persecution the Hellenistic Christians assigned a new meaning to the title "Messiah." Paul preached about the Messiah of God, not about the Messiah of Israel. Notice that Paul, in his letters, denounced Pharisaism. The Romans persecuted and dismantled the Pharisees. He wrote, “{I am} a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee. ... But what things were gain to me {Pharisaism}, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I ... do count them but dung ...” (Philippians 3:5, 8 KJV) Paul did not preach about the historical Jesus, because the historical Jesus opposed the Romans and the Roman representatives. Paul preached about the "Christ," the celestial mediator of God.

    As mentioned earlier, at the end of the Great Jewish War, the Romans outlawed the Pharisees (and the rest of the Jewish sects, which revolted and fought against them). Consequently, for about 20 years after the War there was no Pharisee sect. When the surviving Pharisees reorganized themselves, at about 90 CE, in Jamnia, they renamed themselves "Rabbinic Jews." This shows that the Romans were the ones who dismantled the Pharisees. Jesus was crucified by the same power that dismantled the Pharisees.

    Jesus was not just a religious figure. One cannot separate him from the politics of his time. Religion and politics have always been united in Jewish history, from the times of Moses and up to today. Moses was not just a religious figure. He was a political and military leader. He conducted wars, to conquer the areas of Palestine east of the Jordan river. The prophets of the Old Testament advised the kings and the military leaders of Israel on military matters. The prophets provided the Jewish leaders with revelations and divine guidance on how to fight the enemies of Israel. The prophets judged the kings. Thus, they were involved in politics. Jeremiah, supposedly, predicted that Nebuchadnezzar will conquer Jerusalem. (Even today, religious leaders, like Pat Robertson, speak on how the American presidents should conduct the wars of America and how to conduct the Middle-eastern policy. The function of religion has been the same ever since the times of Moses.) Jesus was not much different from Moses and the prophets. The picture of Jesus in the gospels is incomplete and in some instances misleading. The part that has been ommited from the gospels or even misrepresented is the political aspect of Jesus' preaching. And this aspect becomes evident when one studies the Jewish history during Jesus' turbulent times. Understanding why the Romans crucified the Zealots, leads to understanding why the Romans crucified Jesus. (This is a very important subject. It is explained and documented in detail in the book.)

    The religion of Paul was Hellenistic Christianity, which was an aberrant form of Hellenistic Judaism. Paul never called himself a Christian. Paul's religion was vehemently rejected in Jerusalem. (See, Hellenistic Christians could not have possibly existed in Jerusalem before 70 CE.) (During Jesus' and Paul's times  there was a strong sentiment  against Hellenism in Jerusalem. Anti-Hellenism fueled the revolts against the Romans, against the Sadducees, and against the Samaritans, all of whom were Hellenists. The architecture of Rome is Hellenistic, and the Roman writers of the 1st century were reading the writings of the Greek philosophers.) Jesus' religion was zealous Judaism (a mix of Pharisaism and Essenism). It is called Jewish Christianity (a modern term), only as a matter of identification. Also, Jesus did not introduce salvation and eternal life. These statements sound strange, only because the facts about early Christianity are not commonly known. They are not taught in churches (where the vast majority of people learn about Christianity). Andrew Benson explains the religious/political history of Palestine during the first century, and provides copious documentation.

****************

  Evidence that Christians Believe in Reincarnation

            Christians believe that God, the Father, is invisible. “No man has seen God {the Father} at any time.” (John 1:18 KJV) “{God}... who ... dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.” (1 Timothy 6:16 NASB) Since God is invisible, they claim that he who appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai was not God. Who was it then? To answer this question, Christians borrowed the Trinity doctrine of the pagan religions. They explained that it was the second god of the Trinity, Jesus, who talked to Moses out of the burning bush: “There the angel of the LORD appeared to him {Moses} in a flame of fire out of a bush;” (Exodus 3:2 NRSV) Christians claim that Jesus is “the angel of the LORD.”

            Jacob wrestled in his tent with a man. That man told Jacob  "you have striven with God," and thus he identified himself as God: “Then the man said {to Jacob}, ‘You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and … have prevailed.’ ” (Genesis 32:28 NRSV) But Christians claim that the god mentioned in the above verse is not the god of the Jews (Yahweh); it is Jesus. They also claim that Jesus was the one who appeared to Gideon: “The angel of the Lord appeared to him {Gideon} and said to him, ‘ The Lord is with you, you mighty warrior.’ … and the angel of the Lord vanished from his sight.” (Judges 6:12, 21 NRSV) Notice that Jesus appeared with a body of flesh out of nowhere and disappeared in the same manner.

    Christians believe that since Jesus emanated from God (before the creation of the world), and God is an invisible spirit, Jesus was originally an invisible spirit. Then, in order to become visible to Gideon and to wrestle with Jacob, Jesus incarnated: he acquired human flesh. Centuries later, according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus acquired another carnal body when Mary gave birth to him. Here is the catch: since, when he was born from Mary, he took on a different flesh from the flesh he wore when he wrestled with Jacob, then Jesus reincarnated. According to the Encarta Dictionary, reincarnation is “the cyclic return of a soul to live another life in a new body.” According to Christian doctrine, Jesus did exactly that. At first, he acquired a carnal body, with which he appeared to Jacob, to Gideon, to Moses, to Abraham and to others. (The Bible does not say whether Jesus appeared to all these people with the same body. It could be that he acquired a different carnal body for each occasion and then discarded that body.)  Then, somehow, he gave up that body and his soul entered in the womb of Mary. And through the flesh of Mary he acquired another carnal body. This fits exactly the definition of reincarnation. Therefore, Christians unwittingly advocate Jesus’ reincarnation.

            Not only Jesus, but the Holy Spirit, too, incarnated. It incarnated as a dove during his baptism: “{Gr. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν [αὐτῷ] οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδεν [τὸ] πνεῦμα [τοῦ] θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν [καὶ] ἐρχόμενον ἐπʼ αὐτόν} and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and coming to him” (Matthew 3:16 Transl. by the author) Jesus had human eyes and with those eyes he saw the Holy Spirit coming down. The Holy Spirit was visible to human eyes. It had a body and looked like a dove. Mark wrote, “Immediately coming up out of the water, He {Jesus} saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him;” (Mark 1:10 NASB) John the Baptist, too, saw the Holy Spirit: “Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.’ ” (John 1:32 NIV) Luke wrote, “… and the Holy Spirit descended upon him {upon Jesus} in bodily form [1] like a dove {Gr. σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν}.” (Luke 3:22 NRSV) The phrase “in bodily form” indicates that the Holy Spirit, too, incarnated. The Church Father Tertullian wrote, “… the Gospel of John ... declares that the Spirit descended in the body of a dove, and sat upon the Lord. When the said Spirit was in this condition, He was as truly a dove as He was also a spirit; nor did He destroy His own proper substance by the assumption of an extraneous substance {animal flesh}. But you ask what becomes of the dove’s body, after the return of the Spirit back to heaven ... ?” [2] Did the Holy Spirit discard its carnal body? Did worms eat that body? What happened to it?

Why everyone should study the Bible with a critical mindset:

    "Separation of religion and state" was impossible during biblical times and it remains impossible today. Moses was a religious leader. He also led the Jews to war, to conquer the Promised Land (east of the Jordan river).  He combined religious leadership with political leadership. King David was a prophet and a political leader. He prophesied for God and conducted wars. He, too, combined religious leadership with political leadership. In our times, President George Bush Jr., proclaimed his religious convictions and oftentimes quoted phrases from the Bible in his speeches. At the same time, he was the leader of the American armed forces. He was "a man of God" and "a man of war." He directed two wars: one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. The president of Iran, Mahmud Ahmedinejad, is also a "man of God." He openly proclaimed his commitment to Islam. He quoted the Koran in his speeches to the United nations.

    In many nations around the world there is no "separation of religion and state." A number of peoples and nations have fought because of their religious convictions. For decades, in Ireland the Protestants fought the Catholics. Less than a decade ago, in Yugoslavia, the Muslims fought the Orthodox Christians.   

    Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are religions that clash. These religions categorically condemn and reject all religious beliefs that do not conform to their own beliefs. Since ancient times, these religions have divided the world and fueled wars. Here is the latest incident, that was fueled by a clash between these religions. In November 6, 2009, in Fort Hood, Texas, Major Hasan shot many American soldiers (and two or three civilians). Major Malik Nadal Hasan is a military psychiatrist and US citizen, of Palestinian descent, who is a devout Muslim. He killed 13 soldiers and wounded about 30. Most of those soldiers were expecting to be re-deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, to fight against the so called "Muslim terrorists." Major Hasan vehemently opposed the killing of Muslims by American soldiers. To prevent additional killings Major Hasan gunned down the soldiers who were planning to go to Iraq and to Afghanistan, because they were going to gun down Muslims. Allegedly, when Major Hasan opened fire on his fellow American soldiers, he shouted "Allahu Akbar," which means, "God is greatest." On his private business cards, which he obtained over the internet and kept in a box at his apartment, Major Hasan  identified himself as "SoA (SWT)." "SoA" is an acronym for "Soldier of Allah." "SWT" is an acronym for "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala," which means, "Glory to God." As this evidence demonstrates, this violent incident was inspired by religion. It is the latest development in the ongoing religious conflict between Islam and Christianity.

     To understand why Christians clashes with Muslims and with followers of other religions, one must study the Bible. Here is a brief historical review of Christianity's conflicts with other religions.

        During the past 400 years Christians conducted persecutions in Mexico and south America. The Spanish Conquistadores demolished  a number of American Indian temples and worship places, they slaughtered Indian priests or shamans, in their attempt to extinguish the American Indian religions. During the past 1700 years Christians conducted religious persecutions in Europe. Some of the persecutions were directed towards other Christians: other denominations which believed differently. The feuds between European Christian denominations escalated into the Thirty Year War (1618–1648 CE), which was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history. That war was between Catholics and Protestants. In the Middle ages Christians persecuted Muslims and Jews who resided in Spain and Italy. From the 10th century to the 13th century (on and off), European Christians carried out military expeditions (known as the Crusades) against Muslims who resided in Palestine and in adjacent countries (such as, Jordan and Syria). A few centuries later, the Muslims retaliated: they conquered the Byzantine Empire (an Orthodox nation, which spread around the coastal areas of the Mediterranean Sea) and pressured the people of the Byzantine Empire to become Muslims or pay a special tax. The animosity between Christians and Muslims has continued from those times until the present. It has resulted into the Middle-Eastern conflict, which is a series of wars between Christians and Jews on one side, and Muslims on the other side. The Middle-Eastern conflict originated from the religious belief that God gave the land of Palestine to the Jews.

    Here is a concise historical review of this conflict. Since the 9th or 10th century, Palestine was a Muslim territory. There were very few native Jews living there; they lived in peace with the Muslims. This status changed in the 20th century when thousands of foreign Jews (European and American Jews) immigrated to Palestine (with the support of British and American Protestants) and carried out a campaign against the local Palestinians. Their goal was to displace the Palestinians and turn Palestine into a Jewish nation. After decades of struggles with the local Palestinian population and after a war against several Arab nations, in 1948, the Jews established in Palestine a Jewish nation, with the help of America. (Notice that Major Malik Nadal Hasan is of Palestinian descend. Major Hasan believes that Americans are responsible for the plight of today's Palestinians. This was part of his motivation in killing his fellow soldiers.) Jews and Christians claim that God promised Palestine to Abraham, and therefore Palestine belongs to the Jews. They base their claim on the following biblical verse: “Then the Lord appeared to Abram {Abraham}, and said, ‘To your offspring I will give this land.’ ” (Genesis 12:7 NRSV) This verse is the root of the Middle-eastern problem. 

     Who is the "offspring" of Abraham? Ironically, 80 to 90% of Abraham's offspring are Arabs, not Jews. The Jews descended from Abraham, through Abraham's son Isaac. But Abraham had seven sons besides Isaac. He had Ishmael from Hagar. He also had six sons from his second wife Keturah (see Genesis 25:1-2). Those children were his "offspring," just as Ishmael was his offspring. The verse says, ‘To your offspring I will give this land.’ ” (Genesis 12:7 NRSV) If one had to use this verse to determine the ownership of the land of Palestine, he would say that only one eight of that land could belong to Jews. But here is a complication, which makes this verse impossible to apply to this case. Most present day Jews, are not Abraham's descendants. The term "Jew" is not a genetic term. The definition of a Jew is: "someone whose religion is Judaism"; not someone who is Abraham's descendant. Like the vast majority of the people in this world, the Jews are not genetically "purebred." In order for a nation to be purebred, its people must live in isolation, so as not to marry foreigners. But since Abraham's times Jews married Gentiles. “And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites. And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons …” (Judges 3:5-6 KJV) By intermarrying with the above peoples, the Jews imported into their culture the beliefs of those people. They also imported many foreign bloodlines. So they became ethnically mixed. Furthermore, after the Jews went in exile in Babylon (in 586 BCE) they mixed with the Babylonians and the Persians. Ezra and Nehemiah condemned mixed marriages publicly. Nehemiah gathered the Jews and commanded: “…do his {God’s} will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from your foreign wives.” (1 Esdras 9:9 NRSV) To make the story short, today's Jews are ethnically mixed, mainly because for the past 2,500 years, they have lived among Gentiles (in many countries around the world) and have assimilated genetically. Jews assimilate genetically but not religiously. (Today a considerable number of people of Jewish descent are Atheists. Atheists of Jewish descent cannot really be called "Jews." "An atheist Jew" is an oxymoron.  Atheists of Jewish descent call themselves "Israelis." But in order to truly be an Israeli, one must be a citizen of Israel.)

    Most Muslims in the Middle-east have opposed the establishment of Israel. Since 1948, Muslim nations (such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Beirut, Saudi Arabia) fought several wars against Israel and lost. Since they failed to liberate Palestine by force, most Muslim governments resorted to diplomacy. However, Al-Qaida, an underground Muslim organization, (with which Major Malik Nadal Hasan has, allegedly, communicated), which is made up by citizens of the above mentioned nations, vowed to continue the military campaign against the Jews and their allies. Al-Qaida declared a "Jihad" (a religious war) against the Jews and against those Christian nations that support Israel. The military pursuits of Al-Qaida brought about the demise of the Twin Towers in New York (which caused the American stock market to crash) and the war in Afghanistan, which led to the war in Iraq, which led to military expeditions (against Al-Qaida) in Pakistan. The expense of those  wars have caused the further deterioration of the American stock market and economy. (Religion effects economy, and many more things. For this reason, the study of religion is imperative.)

    Religion plays a major role in the ongoing wars of the Middle-east. Christian pastors, Islamic imams, and Jewish rabbis preach and teach militantism in the name of their god. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are religiously motivated to fight each other. All parties to the war have committed atrocities and have justified themselves either by the Bible or by the Koran. Both Muslims and Christians insist that the world should abide by their holy books.

    Here are some additional problems which have been brought about by certain Christian beliefs: in America, American Christians oppose abortion, equality of the genders, homosexuality, stem cell research, and more. American Christians have managed to enact laws, which are based on biblical teachings (just as Muslims in the Islamic countries have enacted the Islamic Law, which is based on the teachings of the Koran). Christian believers  impose, or aim to impose on non-believers their morality. For example, in the early 20th century Christian believers procured the alcohol Prohibition.

    To resolve problems we must first understand their cause. To resolve the problems that have arisen from religious beliefs, we must learn about those beliefs. Religious education, from an academic perspective, is for  everyone. Everyone must learn the facts (the truth) concerning Christianity, because Christian beliefs impact everyone's life.

If you find this page beneficial, "spread the word": link it to another web-site or send it to a friend. Click on "File," then  click "Send,   Page by E-mail ..."

*****************

The historical approach to understanding the Bible

    Here is a brief historical overview of how the Judaic beliefs evolved. (This subject is discussed in detail in the book.)

    Abraham is called "the Father of the Jews," because he established the fundamental ritual of Judaism: circumcision. Judaism originated with circumcision. This tells us that before Abraham, Judaism did not exist. Abraham was a religious reformer: he reformed the religion of his ancestors (the Sumerians) and thus he established Judaism. Abraham did not believe in the Ten Commandments. He did not observe the Sabbath. Several hundred years after him, Moses reformed the religion of Abraham by introducing most of the Ten Commandments (such as observing the Sabbath) and a few other laws. Moses did not teach about Heaven (about life in Paradise), Hell, or Satan, because he did not believe in such concepts. Such concepts were introduced to Judaism during the exilic era (597 to 538 BCE) and the post-exilic era. Obviously, the religion of Judaism evolved.

    Here is something of interest and of importance. During the era of the judges (before King Saul) God accepted human sacrifices:
Notice the story of Abraham. Abraham attempted to sacrifice his son Isaac to God. This is a clue that in early Judaism the Hebrews and later the Israelites offered human sacrifices to their god. Jephthah lived after Moses, in the period of the judges, perhaps about a century before King Saul. Jephthah was a man of God: “Then the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah … ” (Judges 11:29 NRSV) He promised to God a human sacrifice, if God would grant him victory. “And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering.’ ” (Judges 11:30-31 NRSV) God accepted Jephthah’s vow and granted him victory: “So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the LORD gave them into his hand.” (Judges 11:32 NRSV) God willed for Jephthah’s daughter (his firstborn) to come out of the house to meet Jephthah: “And Jephthah came to Mizpeh to his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tumbrels and with dances: and she was his only child {i.e. firstborn}; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.” (Judges 11:34 KJV) So Jephthah sacrificed (burned on an altar) his firstborn to God: “{he} did with her according to the vow he had made.” (Judges 11:39 NRSV) God accepted a human sacrifice. This is a clue, that during the times of Jephthah (a little more than a century before Solomon) the Israelites, on special occasions, offered their children as sacrifice to God. And since they ate the sacrifices, they practiced cannibalism. As the writer of Baruch explains, “Under the whole heaven there has not been done the like of what he has done in Jerusalem … Some of us ate the flesh of their sons and others the flesh of their daughters.” (Baruch 2:2-3 NRSV) This is evidence that  during the time of Jephthah the following verses of Leviticus, which prohibit human sacrifice, did not exist: “You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God:” (Leviticus 18:21 NRSV) “Say further to the people of Israel: Any of the people of Israel, or of the aliens who reside in Israel, who give any of their offspring to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone them to death.” (Leviticus 20:2 NRSV) Jephthah would not have offered his daughter as sacrifice to God, had these verses been part of his Bible. Also, Moses did not write these verses because the phrases “Say … to the people of Israel … aliens who reside in Israel” refer to a situation which existed in Canaan after the lifetime of Moses. (Scholars believe that a considerable part of Leviticus was written between the 7th and the 5th centuries BCE.) Also, Moses did not write the above verse because during his time the Israelites did not worship Molech. The worship of Molech (scholars are not sure about the term “Molech,” whether it refers to a god or to a cultic practice or it is a dysphemism) appears to have been established among the Israelites by Solomon, who lived more than two centuries after Moses: “Then Solomon built a high place for … Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem.” (1 Kings 11:7 NRSV) The fact that a century after Moses’ time Jephthah sacrificed his daughter and God approved of such sacrifice, raises big questions about Moses and the type of religion he established. Micah wrote, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” (Micah 6:7 NRSV) It appears that some Israelites sacrificed their children, intermittently, from the times of Jephthah to the times of King Josiah. Josiah abolished the human sacrifices to Molech: “He {King Josiah} defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, so that no one would make a son or a daughter pass through fire as an offering to Molech.” (2 Kings 23:10 NRSV)
    After the times of Moses, the Law was augmented. That is, Judaism continued to evolve. Here are some examples (these are just samples of what is presented in the book). In the 8th century BCE, King Hezekiah revised the Mosaic law, which commanded the Israelites to eat the Passover at home:

 Later on, in the 7th century BCE, at the time of King Josiah, there was another reformation of Judaism: the high priest Hilkiah introduced the book of Deuteronomy, which contains additional reforms (click for more). As Judaism evolved, prophets or scribes wrote new books to accommodate the new beliefs. A few decades after the end of the Babylonian exile the high priest and scribe, Ezra (click for more)  edited the books of the Law. Here is one change he introduced:

Notice that Ezra ignored the fact that the statute, which prohibited the eating of fat was a "perpetual statute."   This goes to show that no belief is perpetual (everlasting). 

******

By the way, the following verse of Second-Isaiah (the latter section of Isaiah) alludes to the Exile as a punishment that has already taken place: “Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that she has served her term {in exile}, that her penalty is paid, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” (Isaiah 40:2 NRSV) Isaiah lived long before the exile. He lived from about 740 to 681 BCE. The exile began in 597 BCE. This verse was written (inserted by scribes in the books of Isaiah) after the exile.(Dating the books of the Bible is critical in understanding how and when the Judeo-Christian beliefs evolved.)

*******

     During the Greek-Roman era, Judaism went through further reformations (the Judaic beliefs changed again). In 323 BCE the Greeks (through the conquests of Alexander the Great) occupied Israel. In the following 150 years the Greeks influenced the Jews. The Jews fell in love with the Hellenistic culture. Judaism became to some degree Hellenized. At about 167 BCE the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes abolished Judaism in Palestine and imposed Hellenism and the worship of the Greek god Zeus. The Samaritans complied eagerly, but the Maccabees (who were Judean Jews) with the help of the Hasidim (those who were zealous for the Law) revolted. After a successful revolt and liberation from the Greeks they established Maccabean Judaism (pious/conservative, anti-Hellenistic, zealous Judaism) in Judea. 

   Here is another example of how the Law (Judaism) evolved. Before the times of Antiochus IV Epiphanes the Jews did not fight on the Sabbath because God commanded: “Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day {on the Sabbath}.” (Exodus 16:29 NASB) This law was modified during the times of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, to allow fighting on the Sabbath: “And all {the Jewish soldiers of Mattathias} said to their neighbors: ‘If we all do as our kindred {our fellow Jews} have done {i.e. rest on the Sabbath} and refuse to fight {on the Sabbath} with the Gentiles for our lives and for our ordinances, they will quickly destroy us from the earth.’ So they made this decision that day: ‘Let us fight against anyone who comes to attack us on the Sabbath day; let us not all die as our kindred died in their hiding places.’ ” (1 Maccabees 2:40-41 NRSV) Mattathias, the father of the Maccabees, is the hero of Judaism. Yet, he broke God's Law. This shows that the laws of God are flexible. One can break them in exceptional situations. Jesus walked in the footsteps of the Maccabees. Like the Maccabees, in some exceptional, justifiable, situations Jesus broke the Sabbath. When the Jews questioned him, "He {Jesus} said to them, 'Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.' " (Matthew 12:11-12 NRSV) Here is an alternative version of that incident: "Then he said to them, 'If one of you has a child or an ox that has fallen into a well, will you not immediately pull it out on a Sabbath day?' " (Luke 14:5 NRSV) 

        In 63 BCE, the Romans (under General Pompeii) conquered and occupied Israel and granted religious freedom to the Jews. The Romans assimilated the Hellenistic culture and promoted it in the nations they conquered. The pious/zealous Jews of Judea, Galilee, and Qumran (the Hasidim) loathed Hellenism. Towards the turn of the century (about the time Jesus was born)  the Judean, Galilean, and Qumran Jews (Qumran is in Judea) yearned for total religious freedom and aspired to eliminate Hellenism from Palestine, which was promoted by the Romans. (Even though the conservative Jews were anti-Hellenistic, they were not able to truly eliminate Hellenism, because Hellenism had been embedded in their culture since the times of Alexander the Great.) The Romans had given the Jews a certain amount of religious freedom. But the zealous Jews stretched the limits of that freedom. Through protests and minor rebellions the Jewish rebels pressured the Romans, who repeatedly, for about six decades (during the 1st century CE), cracked down on the rebels, but with some restrain. (The chief priests, most of whom were wealthy Sadducees and some Pharisees, collaborated with the Romans. They disapproved of the revolts of the zealous Jews.) In 66 CE the zealous Jews resorted to an all out rebellion (which lasted seven years: until 73 CE) against the Romans and against the wealthy Hellenistic chief priests (mostly Sadducees and a few wealthy Pharisees), and attempted to establish their dream: "the Kingdom of God" (about which, Jesus preached). The Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem (in 70 CE) and "shut down" zealous Judaism. Except for a few city walls, they razed the city of Jerusalem to the ground. Zealous Judaism ceased to exist. (Zealous Judaism was the Judaism, first, of the Maccabees, and later, (in the 1 century CE), of the Zealots, the Essenes, the common Pharisees, of John the Baptist, of Jesus and the Jewish Christians.) After the Great War of the Jews, new forms of Judaism (such as, Rabbinic Judaism) took the place of zealous Judaism (the Judaism of Jesus).

The types of Judaism in the times of Jesus and Paul

    To understand the historical Jesus it is important to distinguish the main types of Judaism in the times of Jesus and Paul. (The following table is a sketchy illustration, which needs explanations and qualifications. The data of this table are explained in the book.)

    Some scholars use the term "Palestinian Judaism." This term, is correct when applied to Judaism prior to the Hellenistic era. During the Hellenistic Era Palestine included Judea, Galilee, Decapolis, Philistia, Nabataea, and Samaria. The Judaism of those areas cannot be placed in one category. Even though the Samaritans used the Pentateuch, Samaritan Judaism was Hellenistic. It was similar to Diaspora Judaism. It was unlike Judean Judaism (the Judaism of the Pharisees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Jewish Christians). The Judean Jews had excommunicated the Samaritans, and considered them Gentiles. The Maccabees (who were Judeans) destroyed the Samaritan temple, at Gerizim, which had been dedicated to Zeus. The Samaritans belong to the category of Diaspora Judaism. It is from Diaspora Judaism that Hellenistic Christianity evolved. Today's Christianity evolved from Hellenistic Christianity.  

(These subjects are discussed in detail in the book and documented with numerous ancient quotations.)

Some differences between the followers of Jesus and the followers of Paul

   There is much to be said about the Jewish Christians. They are obscure and greatly misunderstood by today's Christians. (The book presents several pieces of historical evidence -quotations from ancient writings- which elucidate the Jewish Christians.) Briefly, they were Jesus' original followers in Jerusalem. They were part of Second Temple Judaism. They were against Paul. They are the "Judaizers" (mentioned by Paul in Galatians) who opposed Paul in the synagogue/church of Galatia. (The subject of the "Judaizers" is examined in depth in the book.) They were "zealous for the Law." They practiced the Law almost "to the letter," and blended with the Zealots, the common Pharisees, and the Essenes (the lower economic class of Jews: the "poor," about whom Jesus preached in the Sermon of the Mountain). The following passage of Philo illustrates the mindset of the zealous Jews: “But the single nation of the Jews … was suspected by him {the Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula 37-41 CE} of wishing to counteract his desires, since it {the nation of Jews} was accustomed to embrace voluntary death as an entrance to immortality, for the sake of not permitting any of their national or hereditary customs {the Law} to be destroyed, even if it were of the most trivial character (click for more), because, as is the case in a house, it often happens that by the removal of one small part, even those parts which appeared to be solidly established fall down, being relaxed and brought to decay by the removal of that one {trivial} thing .” [Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, par. XVI, (117)]  Such Jews were the Essenes, the Pharisees, the Zealots, the followers of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Jewish Christians: strict adherents to the Law: conservative Jews. (They were the lower economic class of Jews.) During the Great War of 66 to 73 CE, they fought against the Romans to establish the Kingdom of God: “… the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed ... It will crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it will stand forever.” (Daniel 2:44 NRSV) Some of them fought the Romans after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) until 73 CE.

    Up to 52 CE James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the Jewish Christians. He was a priest at the Temple of Jerusalem. The Jewish Christians prayed directly to God (not through Jesus). They used the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They spoke Aramaic. They wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews (in Aramaic), which did not survive.  (The following table Christianity in the times of Paul, is a sketchy illustration, which needs explanations. The data of this table are explained in detail in the book.)

Christianity in the times of Paul

Paul's Teaching Contradicts the Teaching of the Old Testament

If righteousness cannot be gained through the Law, then all the Jews who worship God and practice the Law will go to Hell.

The author of Hebrews was probably Apollos, a co-worker of Paul. His teachings were similar to Paul’s. He wrote,

If you find this page beneficial, "spread the word": link it to another web-site or send it to a friend. Click on "File," then  click "Send,   Page by E-mail ..."

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Did Jesus Exist?

    Now, Jesus is as historical as Socrates. People are not debating the historicity of Socrates because no blood has been shed and no wars have been fought in the name of Socrates. But, in the past two millennia scores of Christians have fought, tortured, and killed others in the name of Jesus. (Keep in mind, the Crusaders, the Spanish Conquistadors who persecuted the American Indians, the Spanish Inquisition who the persecuted unorthodox believers, the persecutions of the Jews and Muslims by the Christians, etc.) Christians and non-Christians have debated over Josephus' "Testimonium" for Jesus. It has been shown that it was a Christian insertion. Any person who has no vested interest in Jesus can readily see that the Testimonium is false evidence for Jesus' existence. The numerous myths and exaggerations that were attached to Jesus' story in the Gospels,  shed a cloud on the historicity of Jesus. I cannot go into detail, describing and explaining those myths and exaggerations. But here are some samples:
The Gospels claim that Jesus was famous: “This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country.” (Luke 7:17 NIV) “King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known.” (Mark 6:14 NIV) “And when the men of that place recognized Jesus, they sent word to all the surrounding country.” (Mathew 14:35 NIV) “Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom …” (Matthew 4:23 NIV) These quotations suggest that Jesus was a famous person in Judea and the surrounding country are legends. Had Jesus been famous in Judea and had thousands of people followed him in Jerusalem, at least one of the following 1st century authors would have known about him or about his followers and would have mentioned him or his followers.
    Lucius Annaeus Seneca (born ca. 4BCE died 65 CE, he went by the name Seneca  the Younger) was qualified or in position to know about Jesus. He was a prominent Roman writer, philosopher, statesman, orator, and tragedian. Between 54 to 62 CE he was Rome’s leading intellectual figure. He traveled from Rome to Egypt, and tutored Nero, before Nero became the Emperor of Rome. Being the tutor of Nero, Seneca was informed about the current events around the Roman Empire; and Judea was part of it. He would have known about the new religion, Christianity, which was allegedly spreading across the Roman Empire. Seneca’s older brother was Gallio, the governor of Achaea, to whom the Jews of Corinth brought Paul, in 52 CE, and accused him as follows: “… This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.” (Acts 18:13 NASB) Had Paul been well known, Seneca would have found about him, and this would have led Seneca to find out about Jesus. The bottom line is, Seneca did not write anything about Jesus or Hellenistic Christianity. Of course, Seneca  was not a historian, but being a philosopher (and philosophy was intimately linked to religion) one would expect that he would have written a passing statement about Jesus or about his alleged 13,120 followers in Jerusalem. Not only Jesus, but even Paul was not important enough so as Seneca  to have heard of them and to have mentioned them, even in passing.
    Plutarch was born at 46 CE and died ca. 120 CE. He lived, at one time in Athens and at other times in Chaeronea, which is close to Athens. He was initiated into the mysteries of Dionysus. He served at Delphi for many years as priest of Apollo. He is an important source for our knowledge of Egyptian religion. He traveled to Rome and to Alexandria and wrote The Moralia (on morals and ethics) and On Isis and Osiris (on the religion of Isis). He also wrote fifty biographies of famous people of the ancient times and the following books which discussed religion, De Genio Socratis (“On the Sign of Socrates”), De Sera Numinis Vindicta (“On the Slowness of Divine Punishment”), De Animae Procreatione in Timaeo (“On the Creation of the Soul in Timaeus”). In all his works, which discussed religion, morals, ethics, and famous personalities, he did not make one mention about Jesus, Paul, or Hellenistic Christianity, even though Paul started a church in Athens. Plutarch would not have known of the Christians church in Athens because that church probably consisted of less than a dozen believers who worshipped in a home of a believer.
    Little is known about the life of Philo of Alexandria (Philo Judaeus born ca. 20-15 BCE died ca. 45-50 CE) the Jewish theologian-philosopher (interpreter of the Old Testament). Although he wrote mostly about religion, he also wrote a little bit of history. Philo belonged to a very wealthy Jewish family, which was involved in the politics of Judea (and Alexandria). Through his relatives, he had access to information about events in Judea. Philo knew about the conflicts in Judea between Pilate and the zealous Jews. He described some of those incidents in his book On the Embassy to Gaius, par. 38, (299) – par. 39, (310). He did not mention that Pilate crucified Jesus. Philo went (once in his lifetime) on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, sometime before or after Jesus’ death. Nobody in Jerusalem told him about Jesus (that he fed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish, or that he walked upon the water, or that the sun disappeared for a few hours during his crucifixion), or else he would have written about him.
    The writings of Philo are so similar, theologically, to the New Testament writings, that some Christians claimed that Philo met Peter in Rome, and thus Philo learned from Peter the theology of Hellenistic Christianity. The prominent Church Father Eusebius wrote, “It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius {ruled from 41 to 54 CE} became acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. Nor is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and which was composed by him {Philo} some years later, clearly contains those rules of the Church which are even to this day observed among us.” [1] Eusebius made a mistake: Philo went to Rome on an embassy to Gaius Caligula at about 39 CE, not during the “reign of Claudius,” whose reign began in 41 CE. Had Philo known Peter he would have written about Jesus.
    Philo’s brother, Alexander Lysimachus, was a wealthy man and, according to Josephus, a chief of customs (an alabarch: an ethnarch). [2] Alexander Lysimachus loaned money to the Jewish king Agrippa I (he ruled in Judea from 37-44 CE), [3] and financed the gold and silver plating of the gates of the Temple. [4] Several years after Philo’s death Alexander Lysimachus assisted Titus to conquer Jerusalem. [5] Philo’s nephew Marcus (the son of Philo’s brother: Alexander Lysimachus) married Bernice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I. Josephus wrote, “… Alexander Lysimachus, the alabarch  … whose son [Marcus] married Bernice, the daughter of Agrippa. But when Marcus, Alexander’s son, was dead, who had married her when she was a virgin …” [6] This is the Bernice mentioned in Acts 25:13, 23; 26:30. Philo’s brother Alexander and his nephew Marcus availed him contact with Judea. Such contact did not result in hearing about Jesus and his miracles, or about  the 13,000 followers of Jesus in Jerusalem.
    The other son of Alexander Lysimachus, the apostate Tiberius Iulius (Julius) Alexander, was born ca. 15 CE. Tiberius Alexander served as Roman governor of Judea from 46 to 48 CE [7] (Philo died 45-50 CE). That Philo was the uncle of Tiberius Alexander, who governed Judea, did not result in any information about Jesus or about the allegedly humongous Christian church in Jerusalem, which is described in the book of Acts. Perhaps Philo died or ceased writing by the time his nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander was appointed as governor of Judea, or soon thereafter.
    Sometime after 39 or 40 CE Philo wrote the following: “… but because of himself {Gaius Caligula} and his great desire to be declared a god, in which desire he considered that the Jews were the only people who did not acquiesce, and who were unable to subscribe to it …” [8] Philo did not mention the Christians. They, too, did not worship the emperor. So, it is not only that Philo never heard of Jesus, but also that he never heard of Christians.
    Josephus, too, wrote about the above incident: “… all who were subject to the Roman Empire built altars and temples to Gaius {Caligula}, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name.” [9] He too, failed to mention that the Christians, too, did not honor Gaius. As late as 90 CE, when Josephus wrote The Antiquities of the Jews, he had did not know about the Hellenistic Christians. He did not hear about their writings (the Gospels and the letters of Paul, which, allegedly, circulated around the Roman Empire). Critics of Christianity claim that Jesus did not exist. Even Trypho, a Jew about whom Justin Martyr wrote in the mid-second century, questioned the existence of Jesus. Justin Martyr wrote that Trypho the Jew told him, “... But Christ—if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere—is unknown ... And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.” [10]
    The historicity of Jesus is somewhat debatable. One could argue in favor of his existence by explaining that the reports of his fame in the gospels are legends, and that Jesus existed as an insignificant person. He was only significant to those few (perhaps less than 120 followers), who believed in him. In the 1^st century, the Jewish Christians blended with the rest of the Judean Jews, and the Hellenistic Christians blended with the Hellenistic Diaspora Jews. Also, because the Hellenistic Christians were not distinct from the Hellenistic Diaspora Jews, Philo and Josephus failed to notice them. In the first century, Hellenistic Christians, Gnostic Christians (and their affiliated sect, the Docetists), Simonians, Nicolaitans, God-fearers and Hellenistic Diaspora Jews blended in Diaspora synagogues. During the 1^st century the numbers of Hellenistic Christians were very small.
    Christian apologists claim that the early 2^nd century writings of Suetonius and Tacitus (he wrote between 110 and 120 CE) contain evidence which indirectly supports the existence of Jesus. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (born ca. 69 died 140 CE) wrote, “Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma {Claudius} expulit.” [11] Literally translated, “Jews instigation Chresto assiduous made disturbance Rome {Claudius} expelled.” Liberally translated, “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chresto, he {Claudius} expelled them from Rome.” He wrote this in 112 CE as part of the biography of Emperor Claudius and it refers to incidents that took place in 49 CE. The name “Chresto” was a common name in Rome. [12] It meant “benevolent” or “easy going.” But it is also possible that by “Chresto” Suetonius referred to Jesus. Then those whom Jesus inspired to riot would have been Jewish Christians and other Jews. Suetonius calls them “Jews.” Before Paul went to Rome, in 60 CE, there were no Hellenistic Christians there. Therefore, we must interpret Suetonius’ statement as: some Jews in Rome, were inspired by the crucifixion of Christ to cause disturbances in Rome. Such Jews were Jewish Christians and their affiliates.
               Tacitus (born ca. 56, died ca. 155 CE) wrote at about 110 CE, The Annals (the history of the Roman Emperors from 14 CE to 68 CE). He wrote, “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the Procurator {precisely, “prefect”: governor [13]} Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital {Rome} itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find vogue. … an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.” [14] Undoubtedly, the “Christus” of Tacitus is Jesus. [15] The Christians mentioned by Tacitus were Jewish Christians because: 1. They hated mankind, whereas, the Hellenistic Christians “loved everyone” and were abiding with the Roman Law. 2. The phrase “an immense multitude” applies to Jews and not to Hellenistic Christians. In 64 CE, when those events took place, the Hellenistic Christians of Rome were but a handful (perhaps two to four dozen), mainly those whom Paul converted at his rented house, while he was under house arrest in 60-62 CE. 3. The phrase, “not merely in Judea, the home of the disease” does not fit the Hellenistic Christians. They never developed a home in Judea; they developed an insignificant church in the coastal city of Joppa (a coastal city in Judea).
            Tacitus did not know the differences between Jewish Christians, Essenes, Zealots, and Pharisees. At the time he wrote (110 CE) those people did not exist (they had practically disappeared forty years earlier with the destruction of Jerusalem). To him, they were all Jews. He wrote those Christians were “an immense multitude”; this is an exaggeration: a figure of speech. And so, Tacitus called them all Christians. Tacitus’ quotation is weak evidence in establishing the historicity of Jesus and the Jewish Christians because it was written in the second century, when the legend of Jesus began to flourish.

Did Paul Exist?

    Lately, some critics of Christianity have claimed that no historian of the 1st century mentioned Paul, and that Paul’s letters were written by Marcion, who flourished ca. 135-155 CE, and therefore, Paul is a fictional character, like Jesus. The critics of Christianity have a point, but here is what can be said in defense of the historicity of Paul.
    First, about the claim the Marcion wrote Paul’s letters. Had Marcion written Paul’s letters, he would have drawn his information about Jesus from the Gospels and the book of Acts, which by his time were circulating widely. But Paul’s letters, contain an inordinate number of contradictions to the book of Acts, and even some contradictions to the Gospels. Had Marcion written Paul’s letters, he would have avoided the vast majority of those contradictions.
    That no historian of the 1^st century mentioned Paul, is probably due to the following reasons. With a few exceptions, Paul preached in Hellenistic Diaspora synagogues. His teaching differed a little from other teachings of those synagogues. Those Jews and proselytes had abandoned the dietary Law. So did Paul. The main difference was that Paul preached about the Christ, the intercessor to God. Paul’s god was the god of the Jews. Paul and those Jews used the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and some Greek Apocryphal books, they read the books of Greek philosophers, they met on the Sabbath [1] in homes. The early Hellenistic Christians were difficult to distinguish from Hellenistic Diaspora Jews. Paul was “camouflaged” within the Diaspora Jewish synagogues, and thus, first century Roman historians did not notice him. Up to 80 CE (or thereabouts) the majority of the Hellenistic Christians were Jews by birth (at least from one Jewish parent), who mingled with other sects (a variety of Gnostics) in the Jewish synagogues. Also, there were very few Hellenistic Christians. In the time of Paul there were an estimated two or three dozen Hellenistic Christian communities around the Roman Empire, with perhaps a dozen or more members each. The following verse was written at about 80-85 CE (almost 20 years after Paul’s carrier). It suggests that the Hellenistic Christians were very few: “And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8 NRSV)
    Did Paul exist? Had Paul been a fictional character, some early critics of Christianity would have pointed this out. No early critic of Christianity disputed the existence of Paul.
[1] Early in the second century CE the Church father Ignatius proposed to the Hellenistic Christians not to keep the Sabbath: “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness;” Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 9, 2.

Evidence Supporting the Existence of Jesus

            Critics of Christianity claim that Jesus did not exist because, 1. No contemporary historian wrote about him. 2. Many accounts in the gospels are fictional or contain fictional details. 3. It is almost certain that no eyewitnesses wrote the existing gospels. Evidence presented in this book confirms the validity of these arguments. However, such arguments are not conclusive. They do not prove that Jesus did not exist. For example, here is the response to the argument that no contemporary historian wrote about Jesus: first century historians did not mention Jesus because Jesus was obscure and his followers were very few. The claims in the gospels, that Jesus was famous and that he preached to thousands of Jews are gross exaggerations. One has to pierce through the layers of Jesus’ legend to find the historical Jesus. In other words, to determine whether or not Jesus existed, one has to separate the non-historical Jesus (the Jesus of wonders and miracles, who came from Heaven and returned to Heaven) from the historical Jesus (the man who advocated the Kingdom of God and the overthrow of the Romans).
            As for the argument that the gospels contain some fictional accounts and fictional details, here is the response: it is true that the gospels contain such things, but they also contain historical truth, which is of value in establishing the historicity of Jesus. The gospels are not different from other ancient writings. In the ancient times, mixing history with fiction was a common and an accepted literary practice. All ancient religious writings and numerous historical writings contain some fiction. The Old Testament accounts about King Josiah, King Hezekiah, and other Israelite kings, contain fictional details, yet no one doubts the historicity of those kings. Herodotus (484 to 425 BCE) “the father of history” embellished some of his accounts with hearsay and legends, which are fiction. The Greek historian Thucydides (born ca. 460 BCE, died after 404 BCE) admitted that he put words in a speaker’s mouth whenever he was not able to attend his speech. He reconstructed that speech by collecting information from others. Josephus added fictional details to his accounts of Alexander the Great, and presented them as history. Roman historians added legends and hearsay to the histories of Roman political and military leaders, but we do not dismiss those histories as myths. Modern historians recognize that ancient practice and thus, they put effort to separate myth from reality, to find the historical value in those writings. They do not “throw away the baby with the dirty bathwater.”
    Legends about ancient heroes or gods, in many cases, have their roots to distant historical persons. For example, the legend of Asclepius, the god who heals the sick and raises the dead, evolved from a historical person who lived long before the times of Homer. Asclepius was a skilled physician mentioned by Homer in The Iliad XE "Iliad" . We know more about the immediate historical and cultural background of Jesus than the immediate historical and cultural background of Asclepius. In other words, we have less pieces of Asclepius’ puzzle than of Jesus’ puzzle. Yet, historians accept Asclepius as a historical person. In determining the historicity of Jesus we need to use the same standards that we use to determine the historicity of Asclepius or Socrates.
            Josephus is our main source for the history of Palestine during the times of Jesus. He was born in 37 CE (a couple of year after Jesus’ crucifixion) and wrote The Antiquities of the Jews [1] at about 93-95 CE (and died ca. 100 CE). He is the first writer to mention Jesus. And he mentioned Jesus in passing (which strengthens the authenticity of such mention): “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he {the high priest Ananus  } assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned;” [2] Most scholars consider this passage authentic. [3] It is valuable in establishing Jesus’ historicity. Note that Josephus did not consider Jesus “the Christ.” He did not make a statement of faith: “Jesus who was Christ.” He reported that others called him Christ: “… Jesus, who was called Christ.” The term “Christ” in the vocabulary of Josephus (which was the vocabulary of the Jews) meant “the anointed one”: a mere human being. There is nothing unusual or supernatural in this passage. There have been several so called “Christs” in Jewish history. Josephus did not write anything more about Jesus. He did not know any more about Jesus, because Jesus was unknown outside the Hellenistic Diaspora synagogues, which the Hellenistic Christians attended.
    The earliest document supporting the existence of Jesus is the Pseudepigraphal book the Wisdom of Solomon. It was written in Greek by an unknown Hellenistic Jew, probably in Alexandria. [4] There are clues which suggest that the Wisdom of Solomon was written between 40 and 50 CE. [5] This book contains allusions to the persecution and crucifixion of Jesus by the Sadducees. (Such allusions are presented in this book in the subchapter “Wisdom of Solomon.”) In this respect, Wisdom of Solomon is the oldest Christian document in existence (Wisdom of Solomon was part of early Hellenistic Christianity – it is an Apocryphal book today).
            The existence of James, the brother of Jesus, [6] suggests that Jesus existed. After his conversion in 35 CE Paul went to Arabia and returned to Damascus, where he lived three years. After that (in 38 CE) Paul went to Jerusalem and met James, the brother of Jesus. He wrote, “then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to enquire about Peter, and remained with him fifteen days, and other of the apostles I did not see, except James, the brother of the Lord {Gr. “ton adeljon tou kuriou”}.” (Galatians 1:18-19 YLT) Josephus and the book of Acts mention James. The Church Fathers wrote about the early Jewish Christians (a.k.a. Ebionites), who acknowledged James as their leader. The Ebionites’ veneration of their patron James the Just is reflected in the Gospel of Thomas, an Egyptian compilation, evidently dependent in part on a Jewish Christian (Ebionite) testimony. According to saying 12 of that gospel, “The disciples said to Jesus, ‘We know that you are going to leave us: Who will be chief over us?’ Jesus said to them, ‘… betake yourselves to James the Just, on whose behalf heaven and earth alike were made’.” James’ existence is evidence, which supports the historicity of Jesus.

Paul Believed that Jesus Was Born Naturally: Not Virgin-Born

Even though Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus, his letters contain mentions of Jesus, which are useful in establishing Jesus’ historicity. From a general evaluation of his writings, one can deduce that Paul believed that the Spirit of Jesus, the Christ, pre-existed in Heaven. He believed that this spirit, which he called “the Christ,” came from Heaven and entered the physical body of the historical Jesus at the time of his birth (Paul believed in incarnation), and that when Jesus died, the Christ went back to Heaven. Had Paul believed that Jesus was virgin born and that that he rose physically from the grave he would have mentioned such things. These are too important features to ignore or neglect writing about.
    Paul’s nonsensical belief that the Spirit of Jesus pre-existed does not render Jesus non-historical. Pre-existence of the soul and incarnation were common beliefs during that era. Today, Buddhists believe that Dalai Lama pre-existed. He is the incarnation or the physical manifestation of the compassionate bodhisattva, that is, “Buddha-to-be,” Avalokitesvara. The belief that Dalai Lama pre-existed does not render him non-historical, or mythical. He is real. President George Bush Jr. shook his hand. Two thousand years from now, Dalai Lama will be a person who had existed. So is the case of Jesus. Hellenistic Christians have attached to the historical Jesus a spiritual dimension. They attached myths. But those myths do not render Jesus non-historical.
            Like the Buddhists, Paul believed in incarnation. He wrote that Jesus in his prior life was a divine being (a spirit) and that he “emptied himself” to become a human being (he incarnated): “... emptied himself {gave up his angelic form: “emptied” his divine nature}, taking the form of a servant, {by} being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient {to God} to the point of death-- even death on a cross ...” (Philippians 2:7-8 RSV) Paul believed that Jesus lived in this world in the flesh: “... God ... {by} sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh ...” (Romans 8:3 NASB) “They are Israelites … and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah …” (Romans 9:4-5 NRSV) “… the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ …” (Romans 5:15 NASB) Paul believed that the historical Jesus was the incarnation of the spirit of the Archangel of God (the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe likewise today). He believed that the historical Jesus was born of a mortal woman: “... God sent his Son, born of a woman ...” (Galatians 4:4 NRSV) The flesh of Jesus descended from the seed of David: “... {Jesus is} of the seed of David {Gr. ek spermatoV Dabid} according to the flesh ...” (Romans 1:3 KJV) He also descended from the seed of Abraham: “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; … to one person, who is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16 NRSV) Paul believed that the physical body of Jesus was Jewish: “... and from them {from the Israelites} is traced the human ancestry of Christ ...” (Romans 9:5 NIV)

****************************************************************************************************************************************

If you find this page beneficial, "spread the word": link it to another web-site or send it to a friend. Click on "File," then  click "Send,   Page by E-mail ..."

The Historical Jesus versus the Spiritual Jesus

  Biblical historians have deciphered the historical Jesus from the New Testament and from various pieces of evidence which appear in various ancient writings. (This book explains, with documentation -with quotations from ancient writings- the differences between the historical Jesus and the spiritual Jesus.) It is important to understand that the historical Jesus was a Jew: a person of Hebrew descent whose religion was zealous Judaism: a mixture of Pharisaism and Essenism. Jesus was not a Christian, because he was circumcised, he was  dedicated at the Temple, he performed the Bar Mitzvah at the age of twelve, and he observed the rituals of the Law. He did not break the Law or abolish it. His disagreements with the Pharisees (mentioned in the gospels) were nothing out of the ordinary in the contemporary Judaic milieu. (After the destruction of the Temple - 70 CE- Judaism changed tremendously -the sacrifices ceased-, yet no one can say that after 70 CE the Jews did not uphold the Law. Ezra instructed the Jews to eat fat, yet no one claimed the Ezra abolished the Law.) Just like Ezra, Jesus did not abolish the Law. According to the writer of Acts, Stephen prophesied, “Jesus of Nazareth … will change the customs which Moses delivered us …” (Acts 6:14 KJV) The verb "will change" signifies an action in the future. Stephen did not say "Jesus has changed the customs which Moses delivered us." Also, Stephen said this after the death of the historical Jesus. This verse shows that the historical Jesus did not change the customs of Moses.

    Jesus worshipped God with the Jews of Judea, and taught Judaism at the Temple and in Jewish synagogues. He did not teach Christianity. No one was allowed to teach Hellenistic Christianity in Jerusalem. When Stephen and, later, Paul attempted to preach something other than conservative Judaism, Stephen was stoned by the Jews, and Paul was about to be stoned, when the Romans saved him. The Jews did not crucify Jesus. The public supported Jesus. The Sadducees (who were Hellenists) turned Jesus over to the Romans, because he led a messianic uprising against the Romans and was not qualified as the Messiah of the Jews. The Sadducees were collaborators with the Romans, and desired to forestall the wrath of the Romans. So, they turned Jesus over to the Romans, who crucified him.

    The story of Jesus was turned into a legend among the Diaspora Jews. The historical Jesus was turned into the spiritual Jesus. The Judean Jews persecuted the followers of the spiritual Jesus. The historical Jesus was part of the late Second Temple Judaism of Judea. His religion, zealous Judaism, disappeared after the destruction of the Temple, and his sect (the Jewish Christians) disappeared from history after the Bar Kokhba revolt ca. 132-135 CE.

    Paul was a Hellenistic Diaspora Jew, who, according to the book of Acts and his letters, preached, as a rule, in liberal Diaspora synagogues: he preached to Hellenistic Diaspora Jews, proselytes, and God-fearers (Gentiles who attended liberal Diaspora synagogues). Understanding the two opposing types of Christianity and the different types of Judaism in the early first century, is crucial in understanding the origins and the evolution of the Judaic and Christian beliefs.

Did the New Testament Writers Believe Jesus Is God?

Today, the fundamental issue which divides Christians and Jews is the Christian claim that God is three persons (a Trinity). This division did not exist in the first century. Jews and Hellenistic Christians believed in the same god. They both believed that the Holy Spirit was merely the Power of God, not a person. The Old Testament Jews believed that the Holy Spirit was the Power of God. The Holy Spirit entered into Samson and gave him strength: “The Spirit of the LORD came upon him {Samson} mightily …” (Judges 14:6 NASB) Also, the Holy Spirit entered King David and caused him to prophesy.

Here are some facts one must know concerning the Trinity Doctrine:

1. Moses did not believe that God is three persons, because he did not teach this.

2. The Jewish prophets did not believe that God is three persons, because they did not teach this.

3. Jesus taught what Moses and the prophets taught. He was not accused of preaching that God is three persons (click for more)  or of preaching that he was a god (click for more).

3. Paul was persecuted by the Jews many times. He was not accused nor stoned by the Jews for preaching that God is three persons.

4. None of New Testament writers wrote that God is three persons and the verses which mention the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7-8) in the King James version were inserted in the New Testament text by Latin manuscript editors. The New Revised Standard Version reads: "There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree." (1 John 5:7-8 NRSV)

5. There is no historical or biblical record, where a first century Jew accused a Christian of preaching that God is three persons.

How did the division over the identity of God between Jews and Christians arise? There are many historical and biblical facts to consider, but here are just a few to start with (this is an abbreviated discussion; a full discussion is presented in the book):  

The Invisible God versus the Visible Jesus

    Jesus lived for about 41 years (not 33, as commonly thought) in Israel, and thousands of Israelites saw him. The writer of Acts wrote, “God ... granted that He {Jesus} become visible ...” (Acts 10:40 NASB) This is a biblical fact; Jesus became visible. Compare this biblical fact to the following New Testament claims: “No one has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18 NIV) “No one has ever seen God.” (1 John 4:12 NIV) “...{God} who ... dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.” (1 Timothy 6:16 NASB) The New Testament writers believed that Jesus became visible, whereas God (the Father) is eternally invisible.

    The Christian Church Father, Tertullian wrote, “We {Christians} in like manner say that the Father of Christ is invisible, for we know that it was the Son who was seen {became visible} in ancient times (whenever any appearance {in the Old Testament} was vouchsafed to men in the name of God) as the image of (the Father) Himself.” Tertullian, The Five Books Against Marcion, book 5, cha. 19. Tertullian believed that the appearances of God in Old Testament, were appearances of Jesus, who represented God.

    Since the New Testament writers believed that God is eternally invisible and that Jesus became visible, this indicates that they did not believe Jesus is God.

    But what about the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit God? Christians believe that God is a trinity, which consists of three equal persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Did the New Testament writers believe the Holy Spirit is God? Here is what Matthew wrote about the Holy Spirit: “After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he {Jesus} saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him.” (Matthew 3:16 NIV) Jesus had human eyes and with those eyes he saw the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was visible to human eyes and it looked like a dove: “Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him;” (Mark 1:10 NASB) John the Baptist, too, saw the Holy Spirit: “Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.’ ” (John 1:32 NIV) According to Mark and John the Holy Spirit became visible, whereas, according to New Testament thology, God is eternally invisible.

Let's sort things out:

God is invisible: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18 KJV)

The Father is invisible: “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God;” (John 6:46 NASB)

The Son became visible: “God ... granted that He {Jesus} become visible ...” (Acts 10:40 NASB)

The Holy Spirit became visible: “... I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove ...” (John 1:32 NIV)

Here is the formula: Since only God is invisible and only the Father is invisible, then only the Father is God. This is what the New Testament writers believed.

   People learn in school that 1+1+1= 3. But in church they are told 1+1+1= 1. How can three distinct beings (persons) be one being? Some Christians admit that the Trinity does not make sense. M. R. DeHaan, a renowned Christian apologist, wrote, “The Trinity, that is, three persons in one, is a mystery which is revealed in the Bible, but cannot be understood by the human mind. Since man is finite, and God infinite, this is one of those things which must be accepted by faith, even though it cannot be reasoned out. The Trinity cannot be explained, but it must be believed ...”(DeHaan, M. R., Five Hundred Eight Answers to Bible Questions, p. 168.)

    Saint Augustine says that one must believe before he can understand: “… believe and understand, for the Prophet says, “Unless ye believe ye shall not understand” Do ye not comprehend? Be enlarged. Hear the Apostle: “Be ye, enlarged, bear not the yoke with unbelievers.” They who will not believe this before they comprehend {it} are unbelievers. And because they have determined to be unbelievers, they will remain in their ignorance. Let them believe then that they may understand.”(St. Aurelius Augustine, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon XC. [CXL Ben.].)  Believers are told to submit to the judgment of their spiritual leaders without questioning a doctrine, which their leaders themselves do not understand and cannot explain. And this doctrine was established by shedding the blood of those who questioned it and refused to accept it. Christians justify the concept of Trinity by saying that human beings are finite and liable both to sin and err.  And for this reason, the finite mind of man cannot understand the concept of Trinity. The reality is, when one believes in things he does not understand, he believes superstition.

    Paul wrote to the Colossians "He {Jesus} is the image of the invisible God ..." (Colossians 1:15 NRSV) The expression “in the image of God” conveys  resemblance not equality. Man, too, is "in the image of God": “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; ” (Genesis 1:27 NASB) Man resembles God. Man is not God. Resemblance does not confer equality.

 Consider also this: Diaspora Jews referred to God as "the Father." They believed God is one person. They believed only the Father is God. Had Paul preached Jesus is God, he would have been forbidden from preaching in Diaspora synagogues. “… he {Paul} began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’ … But Saul {Paul} kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.” (Acts 9:20, 22 NASB) Paul proved that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not God. The terms “Son of God,” “Messiah” and “Christ” were synonymous terms, which were commonly used in Israel in those days. The Jews used the terms “Son of God” and “Christ” to refer to their awaited Messiah, whom they expected to be a mere man. (About the meaning of "Son of God" and "Christ" click on the link higher up on this page, to read the chapter explaining these terms.) The Jews held this belief (the the Messiah will be a mere man) long before the times of Jesus, and still do. Apollos, the co-worker of Paul, vigorously proved, in public debate with Jews, that Jesus was the Christ, the one they had been waiting for: “For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:24 NASB) Paul and Apollos tried to convince the Diaspora Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, the man, they had been waiting for. Had they attempted to prove to them that Jesus is God those Jews would not have debated with them. They would have stoned them.

    The Diaspora Jews were not debating with the early Hellenistic Christians  whether Jesus is God or not. This was not an issue. They debated only whether Jesus was the Christ, the man they had been waiting for. The second century Church Father Justin Martyr wrote,  “And this the Jews who possessed the books of the prophets did not understand, and therefore did not recognize Christ even when He came, but even hate us who say that He has come, and who prove that, as was predicted, He was crucified by them.” Justin Marty, First Apology, Cha. XXXVI. Justin's expression "but even hate us who say that He has come" suggests that Christians and Jews of the second century (at least, the ones that Justin Martyr knew) argued whether the Messiah had come. Justin Martyr did not write that the Jews were persecuting the Christians because the latter claimed that Jesus was God.

    The Hellenistic Christian idea, that the Messiah was to suffer and die, completely contradicted Jewish expectation. The Diaspora Jews rejected Jesus as their awaited Messiah because he had been hanged (crucified). Paul and Apollos defended Jesus as the Messiah against the Jewish objection that “… he that is hanged is accursed of God.” (Deuteronomy 21:23 NRSV) Those Jews could not accept a Messiah who had been “accursed of God.”  Paul acknowledged that Jesus was accursed: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us …” (Galatians 3:13 NASB) Since Paul believed that Jesus “became a curse” he did not believe that Jesus was God because it is impossible for God to become a curse (God is eternally perfect, never diminishing, never changing, that means, never becoming anything else, such as a man - perfection does not allow variation- and man varies from God).

Here is a sample of critical thinking applied to the Bible:

How Truthful Were Matthew and Luke?

            In the following account Matthew wrote that the centurion came to Jesus while Luke wrote that the centurion sent elders and friends to Jesus. Which one of them is telling the truth?

If the centurion did not come to Jesus, as Luke reported, then the conversation reported by Matthew between Jesus and the centurion is fictitious. In any way, both Matthew and Luke cannot be telling the truth.

(For more information, click on the links listed below. This is a great subject, which cannot be explained without going into details.)

To read some sample-chapters go to How Judaism Evolved into Christianity

Note: The book contains over 2,500 footnotes (quotations and references), which explain or document the facts presented. Those footnotes are not included in the excerpts presented in this web site.

Recommended and parallel web sites:
1. A Gateway to the Research of the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar Forum is an introduction to the research of the Jesus Seminar of  the Westar Institute & a bridge to Jesus scholarship on line. The ultimate goal of this website is that of the Jesus Seminar itself: to bring the quest of the historical Jesus of Nazareth to the center of a global forum.
2. The Fathers of the Church This web site presents online the writings of various Christian Church fathers. Those writings are very important in learning how the Christian beliefs originated and how they developed.
3. WIKIPEDIA the Free Encyclopedia (Article: New Testament.) This page contains introductory information on the New Testament, covering subjects such as, Authorship, Date of composition, Canonization, Views on New Testament authority, etc. These subjects are covered in the book "The Origins of Christianity and the Bible," in the same manner but in greater depth.
4. Top 25 Things to Research Concerning Christianity.  This page provides a large number of links to books and pages that discuss historical and archeological facts pertaining to the Bible and Christianity.

If you find this page beneficial, "spread the word": link it to another web-site or send it to a friend. Click on "File," then  click "Send,   Page by E-mail ..."

 Abridged Table of Contents

 I. The Origins of the Old Testament

            1.  The Development of the Early Text
            2. The Importance of Dating the Old Testament Books
            3. The Origins and Development Moses' Law
            4.  Literary Sources of the Old Testament
            5. The Miracles of Exodus Explained

            6. The Links between the  Greeks and the Israelites

            7. Greek Stories and Their Parallels in the Old Testament

            8. The Jewish Calendar from Adam to Moses

II. The History of God

            9. The History of God From Abraham to Moses
            10. The History of God from Moses to 586 BCE

            11. Similarities between God and Other Ancient Near Eastern Gods

            12. The Body of God, according to the Old Testament

            13. The Mind of God, according to the Old Testament

III. The Development of the Judeo-Christian Doctrines after 586 BCE

            14. Zoroaster: The Man who Changed the Course of Judeo-Christianity
            15. The Origins of Satan and Predestination
            16. The Origins of the Belief in Eternal Life
            17. How Zoroaster Influenced the Greeks and the Essenes

IV. The Melting Pot that Brewed Christianity

            18.The Cultural Background of Christianity
            19. Alexandrian Judaism: the Precursor of Christianity

            20. How the Intertestamental Books Influenced the New Testament Writers
            21.  Zoroaster's Influence on the New Testament Writers

            22. The Essene Influence on the New Testament Writers

            23. Plato's Influence on the New Testament Writers

            24. The Greek Mystery Religions and Their Influence on Christianity
            25. How Philo Laid the Foundations of Christianity
            26. How Philo Fashioned the Word of God
            27. Pre-Christian Stories that Molded the Story of Jesus

V. The Birth of Christianity

            28. The Jewish Christians: the Original Followers of Jesus

            29. Dissension between the Jewish and Hellenist Christians
            30. How the Hellenist Christians Separated from the Jewish Christians
            31. How the Hellenist Christians Misquoted the Old Testament
            32. How the Hellenist Christians Evolved into Gentile Christians

VI. Concerning the Historical Jesus

    Jesus' Teachings Compared to Those of His Contemporary Jewish Rabbis

            35. What Kind of Messiah Did Jesus Claim to Be?

                35.1 What Did “Son of God” Mean in Those Days?
                               King of the Jews = Son of God.
                35.2 Why Did the Romans Crucify Jesus?

            36. While Jesus Was Alive, Did His Family and His Disciples Believe He Was God?

            37. After Jesus Died, Did His Disciples Believe He Was God?

            38. Did Mark Believe Jesus Was God?

            39. How Jesus' Beliefs Reveal His Nature

VII. How Jesus Was Turned into God

            40. How Men Were Turned into Gods
            41. How the Image of Jesus Evolved in the Synoptic Gospels
            42. The Jesus of Paul
             43. The Jesus of John
            44. How the Early Church Fathers Viewed Jesus

            45. The Origins of the Trinity Doctrine
            46. How the 4th Century Church Fathers Declared Jesus Equal to God

VIII. An Inquiry in the Testimony for Jesus
IX. Various Biblical Discrepancies
X. The Unfulfilled Prophecies                                                    

    To see the complete Table of Contents click here:  Complete Table of Contents

   To see the complete Bibliography click here: Bibliography

(Return to top)

© Copyright Prudential Publishing Co. All rights reserved

Home: To Description of the book