The Verdict & Resurrection

That there was animosity and dissension between Jesus and the Sadducees and Pharisees is evident in the fact that Jesus was brought to trial before the high priest. Mark has him on trial before the Sanhedrin, but even many Christian commentators think that story is fictional. Obviously he did something, but what? The generally accepted story is that the Jews engineered his death because he claimed to be God, or the son of God. Is that what happened, or was this a story concocted by the Church to malign the Jews? Without a doubt, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians wanted to see Jesus out of the picture. And why not? He was vilifying them and cursing the temple.

First, it should be noted that a distinction was made between claiming to be a spiritual son of God, as with the Essenes, and professing physical descent.¹ One was simply a confession of servitude while the other was an attempt to elevate oneself to the godhead—which would constitute blasphemy. If we give credence to this story concerning Jesus, we find some interesting arguments. It should first be noted that the only Scriptural record where Jesus claims to be the son of God is in the Gospel of John (10:36), but in verse 34, Jesus references Psalms 82:6 to declare that all Israelites are the sons of God—proclaiming a spiritual relationship. However, there are numerous incidents in which others, allegedly, acknowledge him as a physical son. This might explain why the Jews turned to the Roman court. After bringing the witnesses in to testify against Jesus there was still insufficient evidence to convict him, and when they couldn't induce a confession from him they turned to the civil law to rid themselves of an undesirable.²

Matthew 21 gives an account of Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem on what has become known as Palm Sunday. Prior to his entrance, he makes specific arrangements in an apparent effort to fulfill a prophecy recorded in Zechariah 9:9 that purportedly foretold of the Messiah entering Jerusalem riding upon an ass.

 

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Reimarus’ reference to Jesus being Barabbas is something that I leave to your discernment. The word Barabbas comes from the Aramaic, Bar-abba, meaning, son of my father. Jesus always called God, “my father,” using the Aramaic term Abba. Therefore, Jesus’ title, “Son of God,” could be interpreted as Barabbas. According to Origen, an early Church writer, some old manuscripts of Matthew reveal the full name of the criminal as Jesus Barabbas.³

In Matthew 10:34, Jesus tells his followers that he has not come to send peace on the earth but a sword—plainly meaning the coming struggle to rout the Romans and usher in the kingdom of God. In Luke 12:49, he says he will cast fire on the earth and in Matthew 11:12, he says that the kingdom has to be entered violently. In Luke 22:36, he urges his followers to buy swords, on credit if necessary, or even by selling their clothes. Luke tries to make it appear that Jesus wanted the weapons to deliberately break the Law to fulfill prophecy (see Isaiah 53:12), but since he’d already broken the Law such reasoning is senseless.

In Luke 13:1-5, some come to Jesus telling him of Pilate (meaning his soldiers) mingling the blood of Galileans with their sacrifice. This might refer to a Sabbath attack by the Romans against rebels within the temple. Jesus answers by mentioning eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell. He then uses both cases to urge repentance lest his listeners perish likewise. Why? How would repentance preserve them from the Romans—unless that repentance was, like the Essenes’ teachings, a commitment to arms?

It was a capital offense to act against the Empire or Caesar. It was a capital offense to assume the actions of an official without authority and to join an armed group in capturing a public place or indeed, to simply carry arms. The Gospels are clear that Jesus was guilty of each of these offenses. Pilate’s statement in Matthew that he found no fault with Jesus is pure propaganda. Under the laws of Rome, Jesus was guilty of treason. Simply being acclaimed a king without an insurrection was sufficient for the Roman authorities to find him guilty. There is no argument about this! The prescribed punishment for these crimes was crucifixion.

In the last few chapters, we’ve revealed more than sufficient evidence to ascertain that Jesus was a leader in a rebellion to drive the Romans from his country. Of course, the idea of Jesus with a sword in his hand is abhorrent to Christians today but it shouldn’t be unbelievable. A warrior in the mold of Joshua, Gideon, or David was the Hebrews' expectation. And why should it be so hard to envision Jesus fighting the Gentiles to preserve Judaism and the Law of God, when the Catholic Church exterminated millions of heretics and Jews in God's name to preserve the power of their dogma? The Catholic Encyclopedia cites Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles as authority for their atrocities. And they do not err in their interpretation.

 

The Apostles acted upon their Master's directions. All the weight of their own Divine faith and mission is brought to bear upon innovators. "If any one", says St. Paul, "preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema " (Galatians 1:9). To St. John the heretic is a seducer, an antichrist, a man who dissolves Christ (1 John 4:3 ; 2 John 7); "receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you" (2 John 10). St. Peter, true to his office and to his impetuous nature, assails them as with a two-edged sword: " . . . lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction . . . These are fountains without water, and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved" (2 Peter 2:1, 17). St. Jude speaks in a similar strain throughout his whole epistle. St. Paul admonishes the disturbers of the unity of faith at Corinth that "the weapons of our warfare. . . are mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God. . . and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience" (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5, 6 ). (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view. php?id=5695).

 

Christianity teaches that Christ died for all mankind. No one is forced to serve God; man is a free agent. However, during the Middle Ages, if you chose not to believe the Church, you were a heretic, an antichrist, and were to be exterminated! It was a case of bow the knee or offer the neck. Though the Church might speak of love and forgiveness, their affections were the same as those of the Old Testament God—reserved only for those who submitted to their God. The Church even claimed a divine blessing from God to stamp out all opposition. It was a matter of natural survival!

 

The first law of life, be it the life of plant or animal, of man or of a society of men, is self-preservation.… The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts. For faith supplies the means of mending moral delinquencies as one of its ordinary functions, whereas the loss of faith, cutting at the root of spiritual life, is usually fatal to the soul. In fact the long list of heresiarchs contains the name of only one who came to resipiscence: Berengarius. The jealousy with which the Church guards and defends her deposit of faith is therefore identical with the instinctive duty of self-preservation and the desire to live. This instinct is by no means peculiar to the Catholic Church ; being natural it is universal. All sects, denominations, confessions, schools of thought, and associations of any kind have a more or less comprehensive set of tenets on the acceptance of which membership depends. In the Catholic Church this natural law has received the sanction of Divine promulgation, as appears from the teaching of Christ and the Apostles quoted above

(http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5695).

 

Considering the bloodlust and hatred of the early Christians toward “heretics,” and their zeal in stamping out any conflicting doctrines, why should it be so hard to believe that Jesus was a religious freedom fighter? But whether such is the case or not, Jesus was certainly guilty under the civil law of Rome. How the crucifixion was carried out is of little importance. The story has been told and retold, written and rewritten so many times, there’s no way the truth could ever be revealed. It is enough to know that Pilate found him guilty of insurrection and passed the only sentence possible under the conditions. It is almost a certainty that he was crucified. What happened to his body afterwards is impossible to ascertain.

This leads us to the resurrection story, or I should say, stories, since there are so many conflicting accounts. We have already pointed out the late addition to Mark’s final chapter concerning the resurrection, which labels it as false. Another indication that Mark Chapter 16 is at least out of sequence is the second mention of the two Marys after just referring to them at the end of Mark 15. Other inconsistencies and contradictions identify the tales as nothing more than fables. In Mark there are three women. The stone has already been rolled away, and a man in a white garment awaits the women when they arrive. In Matthew, there are two women, an earthquake, and an angel to roll back the stone. In Luke, there is a group of women and two men in white with a reminder that Jesus had already told them of his crucifixion and resurrection—an obvious Church addition, since the Apostles knew nothing of it. In John 20:9, we are told that "they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” Of course they didn’t know the Scripture; the resurrection stories had not yet been concocted.

Again, we see the growth and exaggeration from the early to later Gospels. Mark records only a man in the empty tomb. The resurrection tale is added later. In Matthew, there is an earthquake, and the man has become an angel. To prove the body wasn’t simply stolen, the story of guards is invented and a cover-up is hatched. And to sanction the ministry to the Gentiles, both Mark and Matthew have a resurrected Jesus sending the disciples throughout the world. This incident in Mark is in the falsified last chapter, which attests to its incredulity. In Mark and Matthew, the women are instructed to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, where they will see Jesus. Before they can even pass the word, Jesus is already making appearances. From there through the Gospel of John, the stories of Christ appearances pop up like UFO sightings. And with almost every occurrence, Jesus institutes or endorses a controversial, Gentile Christian teaching. A reasonable person must conclude that Jesus died a Jew and was resurrected a Gentile, preaching newly discovered Christian doctrines. It's obvious, that either these folktales came to light after Mark and were then incorporated into the other three Gospels, or they were inserted years later to give credence to contested Church doctrines.

All of these convenient tidbits of truth are at variance with other Scripture. In Acts 1:6, the Apostles ask the risen Jesus, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" When that line was penned, they were still looking for a literal kingdom of God. In Acts 15:16, James, referencing Amos 9:11, makes their position clear. The Davidic tabernacle would soon be rebuilt, and then all men would seek the Lord. Notice verses 19 and 20. The Gentiles were still not accepted under the Mosaic Law.

The only logical explanation is that the body was stolen from the tomb, but by whom? The man (or men), in white gives us the strongest clue. The followers of John the Baptist and the Nazarenes wore white, and the Qumran Essenes were called the people in white. Even modern Christianity pictures Jesus dressed in white. Doesn’t it stand to reason that the Essenes removed the body of one of their own for an honorable and proper burial? Perhaps, one even waited to inform Jesus’ followers of the actions taken with his body. Could the confused message about him going before them to Galilee simply be directions to his final resting place?

The Essenes and the followers of Jesus believed the righteous would be raised from the dead on God’s day of vengeance. When rumors of the empty tomb began circulating, some came to the conclusion that Jesus had been resurrected as the first fruits of righteousness (See Revelation 1:5 and I Corinthians 15:20). Both Scriptures show that his followers thought the general resurrection had begun. More than likely, some thought they had seen Jesus.

But if the resurrection stories were merely rumors, how could the universal acceptance of a risen savior have spread so rapidly throughout the world? And what of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Surely there must have been some miraculous occurrence to transform the quaking and hiding Apostles into fearless, roaring orators. Where did the new gospel come from, if not from a risen Christ? The Catholic Church, and indeed almost all Christendom, teaches the line of apostolic succession, which contends that Paul and the Apostles preached the inspired message of Jesus Christ to the entire world. Such a commission has even been inserted into Matthew:

 

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you… (28:19-20).

 

According to Acts 2:38, Peter preached salvation through a resurrected Jesus Christ.

 

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

Do you see the conflict? The Apostles were to teach and baptize "all nations," which would include the Gentiles. It appears the Apostles knew nothing of that commission because they taught only the Jews. Here, Peter is speaking to "Jews, devout men, out of every nation" (Acts 2:5). And, as we have already learned, years later he would still need a vision from God to tell him that Gentiles were no longer unclean (Acts chapter 10).