One major point of contention that will affect our study is the role that Jesus played in the birth of Christianity. To a Christian, this may appear to be an irrelevant question but to draw from the parable of the candle under the bushel you can't see in the darkest corner without moving the candle. If a student listens to one professor, his knowledge will be limited to what that one teacher knows. To learn, one must have an inquiring mind. As a Christian, it isn't enough to simply believe traditions, nor to blindly accept the word of your friend, pastor, or parents. It isn't enough to believe scriptures because they are ascribed to Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark or Luke; you must prove the identity of those authors and question the soundness of their doctrines. You must consider the things you have been told and ask hard questions, such as; "Do I really know when Jesus became the Christ? When did he cease to be the Jewish Messiah and take on the persona of Paul's Christ? Did he truly appear to the disciples and institute a new gospel? Did he empower his followers with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost? Did he even exist?"

To establish some basis of authenticity, it should be recognized that the only stories of the man Jesus are found in the Gospels, and the only Biblical records of Paul and the disciples' missionary efforts are found in the Acts of the Apostles. The Epistles and Pastorals contain more admonitions and instructions to congregations rather than history. Many Christians believe that all the writings of the New Testament are divinely inspired and without error. They also believe the Gospels give the earliest accounts of Jesus so they accept those accounts as the true stories of his life. However, after much research and study during the past few decades, most theologians and scholars agree that the Gospels were written near, or at the beginning of the second century; decades after the existence of Jesus. And it should also be noted that they were most likely folktales collected and recorded by Gentile Christians outside Palestine.

In Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, the noted British novelist and biographer, A. N. Wilson, sketches a very different picture of Jesus:

 

…When we have looked at the evidence, it will seem at the very least highly unlikely that Jesus, a Galilean exorcist executed in circa the year 30, probably for sedition, had any ambitions to found a world religion. All the indications are that this charismatic healer and preacher limited his sphere of activities to rural and exclusively Jewish regions. For example, though he was probably born, and certainly operated, near the great Hellenistic city of Sepphoris in Galilee, we hear no mention of this city in the Gospels. We read only of a Jesus who chose to move about among the fishing-towns and agricultural communities of Galilee—hotbeds of political dissent against Rome, according to Josephus. The Gospels were written to make us suppose that Jesus did indeed reach out to all mankind as some Saviour-figure who would embrace Gentiles as well as Jews, so it is all the more remarkable that these books should clumsily have recorded sayings, which on balance would seem to be authentic, in which Jesus is quoted as saying that his mission is to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel'; that he has no desire to throw the pearls of his wisdom before the Gentile pigs. In another place he is quoted as saying that the Gentiles were dogs.

 

Jesus would seem to have shared the views of many Jewish contemporaries that the world was about to come to an end and that God would redeem Israel and bring to pass a new era in which the rule of the Gentiles would be smitten and driven away. Since the end of ages was at hand, and the Gospels record Jesus as predicting as much, it is hard to imagine why Jesus would have entertained the quite incompatible belief that several thousand years of human history stretched ahead in which a new 'religion' would be necessary. As far as the historical Jesus was concerned, it seems overwhelmingly likely that he did not think there was any future for the human race at all; that is, in so far as we can deduce any interest in the 'human race', as opposed to the fate of the Jews or more narrowly of his own followers, in the recorded saying of Jesus (Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, chap. 1, pp. 17-18).

 

We have already shown the corruptions of the New Testament, but has the story of Jesus been affected? Without a doubt. The simplest way to see this is to compare the Jesus who began the chronicle with the one preached by the Church and we need only one point of comparison to illustrate the difference. Jesus enters the scene as a Jew: the Church presents an apostate Jew—a Christian. For Jesus to have risen from the grave and begun instituting the Christian doctrines, he would have had to deny almost everything he taught his disciples. But what of the gospel stories? If they weren’t true, wouldn’t there be other stories? Wouldn’t there have been witnesses to record contradictory tales? Not necessarily. We have specific tales for other gods and mythological characters such as Jupiter, Dionysus, Odysseus, and Isis; but no proof they ever existed.

The four Gospels are anti-Jewish. The Gospels and Acts were penned during a period of intense racism and religious turmoil. This is something that New Testament scholars are aware of, but seem to disregard. The Gospels were written to separate Jesus from the Jewish cause at a time when most citizens of Rome hated the Jews. Yet, because their beliefs were based on Jewish tradition, elements of racism still smolder within the confusion of the New Testament.

The Gospels have two main purposes: first, to disassociate Christianity from its Jewish origins; second, to cover up any anti-Roman segments. The first step in this process was to depict Jesus and his followers as harmless healers and preachers. Since the Gospels were completed and widely circulated only after the Jewish War, the purpose of the whitewashing is clear. Jewish nationalists were unpopular. The result is the fantastic story of the passion, in which Pilate is portrayed as a sympathetic angel and all Jewish sects are grouped together as Christ-killers. Mark wrote the first and most factual Gospel, with the above-mentioned objectives in mind, to provide a new authority after the destruction of the Jerusalem Church.

The events depicting the life of Jesus in the Gospels are fabricated history, written years after Christianity came on the scene. They are either fables, written expressly to flesh-out the missing events in the life of Jesus, or personal doctrines attributed to Jesus, to fortify and strengthen doctrinal positions or fulfill fancied prophecies.

The birth story in Luke is a prime example. In it, we find a passage written to establish the pre-eminence of Jesus' ministry over that of John (1:5-17, 41-45). Other passages introduce the Immaculate Conception and virgin birth (1:26-35), identify Jesus as the son of God (1:35), proclaim the Davidic line of birth (1:27, 32; 2:4), establish Bethlehem as the birthplace that one prophecy might be fulfilled (2:4-7), depict a return to Nazareth to fulfill the requirements that he be a Nazarene (2:39), reinforce Jesus’ divinity by the declarations of Simeon and Anna (2:25-38), show Jesus confounding the doctors in the Jerusalem temple, displaying his supernatural abilities (2:41-47), and lastly, there's a cryptic verse in which Jesus practically admits his divinity (2:49). What is presented is nothing short of a shopping list of desired doctrines.

All these items gathered from only two chapters—truly a comprehensive endeavor. Of course, the author had a lot of help, since the virgin birth stories are on the order of mythical fiction. You have only to compare the incident of Jesus confounding the doctors with the story of Josephus instructing the high priests and principal men on the Law to realize it was plagiarized from Josephus’ autobiography.¹

The Bethlehem birth, which links Jesus with the family of David, is founded on an arbitrary interpretation of prophecy and is full of contradictions. While Luke has his characters living in Nazareth, and places the birth in Bethlehem, Matthew identifies Bethlehem as their home city and stages a flight into Egypt, with a return to Nazareth to fulfill prophecy. Further, it would be impossible for Joseph, and all the other Jews, to report to a place that had been vacated by their ancestors six hundred years earlier. Such an act would be the equivalent of all African-Americans “returning” to their ancestral homes in Africa. This public relations guru also goofed by dating the birth of Jesus under the reign of Herod, who died in 4 AD—and in the year of the census that took place after the deposition of Archilaus, ten years later.

The virgin birth isn’t mentioned in Revelation, or any of the Epistles. In fact, it spoils attempts to trace Jesus’ lineage to the Davidic line by making him divine through a virgin birth. In Luke 2:22-38, Mary and Joseph are described as his parents when they go to the temple for Mary’s purification ritual in a passage obviously written before the invention of the virgin birth story.

In Mark 1:2-8, John is depicted as the Elijah of Malachi 4:5, the forerunner of Jesus who would, in turn, precede judgment day. The purpose was to show Jesus as John’s superior, because many Jews believed that John the Baptist was the Messiah. However, in the fourth Gospel, John denies he is Elijah—a necessity because, by the time the book of John was written, the Church realized the judgment day wasn’t imminent. Unable to explain the delay of Paul's "day of the Lord," early Christians conveniently decided that the end of the age was going to be a full length feature instead of a thirty second commercial.

Such blatant forgeries are the rule rather than the exception. What every reader, every Christian, should realize is that the Gospels evolved from an oral tradition over a period of a hundred years or so.² In that time, it should only be expected that there would be different versions of the same stories.  Once written, parts from each story would be copied and interchanged, additions made, or corrections penned. No one at that time would think any more of copying and intermixing favorite verses or quotations, than people today think of copying music or computer software. Today, we have copyright laws to deter such actions but in Jesus’ time, copying was the norm, and writing under another’s name might even be deemed an act of honor or humility.

There are some who take the total absence of any reference to the man Jesus in the works of Paul, and other early Christian writers, as proof that he was only a minor insurrectionist, who wasn’t on the scene long enough to even become known. Others contend that the man never actually existed. While the former assertion may be true, I disagree with the latter simply because we find too much Essene doctrine and customs interlaced within the teachings and parables of Jesus. This leads me to believe that the stories originated around a hoped-for Jewish messiah. But what is the real story?

Following the end of the Jewish War with the fall of the last Jewish stronghold, Masada, in 73 AD, all Palestine was practically emptied of human life. At the beginning of the war, the Jews attacked the Gentile cities and slaughtered the inhabitants. In retaliation, the Roman armies did likewise to the Jewish cities. As a result, both populations were decimated. It appears that either no one was left capable of recording the ensuing history or else no one cared. The Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us of the horrific events of the war, but only makes a couple of vague references to Christians, and both are to be viewed with skepticism. 

It would be wonderful if we had a reliable history—but we don't. For that reason, this research is not presented as an indisputably true history. Like all histories of the Church during that period, it is speculative. It is speculative because Christian history goes into an eclipse from about 63 AD, with the conclusion of the New Testament stories, until about 130 AD. There are no records of the Christian Church during that period. There was no New Testament—those tales had not been recorded. There was no Acts of the Apostles, no Gospels, no Revelation of Saint John the Divine—only the writings of Paul. And Paul's Jesus was a spirit—a ghost that spoke to him in dreams. At that time, there was only a prophet preaching strange, new doctrines that contradicted Judaic teachings. What emerged from the other side of the eclipse in history were the fleshed out Gospels of Jesus the Christ, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, the Pastorals and numerous written and oral tales that were never canonized—even though many were revered as divine and taught in the churches for centuries. There were no records of what happened to the Sadducees, the Zealots, the Essenes, or the Apostolic Church. There are records that introduced a new religion, but nothing to tell us how that religion developed. There were no reliable texts to tell us when, or how, devout Jewish apostles converted to Christianity. There was nothing to tell us when those apostles stopped observing the Mosaic Law of circumcision and sacrifices and began preaching Jesus as the Christ. What we do find are many different sects claiming to be Christians, yet teaching differing doctrines. Some even professed to be Christians but knew nothing of Jesus Christ or his role as the central figure of that religion.³ In fact, the earliest original works found, the Codex Sinaiticus, are dated from the fourth century, so we can’t even be sure Paul’s writings haven’t been edited.

It should be understood that we are not dealing with a period in which there were no Christian writings. This is a period in which no records of the Church's development exist—other than what the writer of Acts recorded and the little we can glean from Paul's writings. Having said that, let's see if we can piece together a harmonious story.

The first records concerning the development of the Christian Church are found in the Acts of the Apostles. Because they were written decades after the events, they depict a Nazarene Church teaching Pauline doctrines that, by Paul's own words, were not introduced until later. It also appears that the author, Luke, had his own agenda, because we find many incidents that conflict with Paul's writings.⁴ We will consider these issues later in this chapter.

We have already established the setting when the book of Acts was written. Jews and Gentiles were at each others throats, and yet, the Christian Gentiles had adopted a Jewish savior—a Jewish savior they knew little about. Where was he born? If he was the son of God—what of his parents? Did he have parents? Certainly there had to be a mother! What type of child was he? What about his disciples? What were their names and occupations? How were they called to the ministry? What of the disciples' lives and stories? What did they do following the death of their master?

Questions, questions—endless questions—but how were they to find the answers? They couldn't ask Paul; he was dead and his successors were, most likely, chosen from local members. They certainly couldn't ask the Jews because they were too busy persecuting them. So, what did they do? They collected or invented stories. Burton L. Mack, John Wesley Professor (now emeritus) in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology, believes those stories were first stylized by the author of Mark:

 

For the history of Christianity, the most important shift in postwar thinking took place in the Markan community. It was there that a dramatic change took place in the memory and imagination of Jesus, one that laid the mythic foundation for the Christian religion. The change is documented in the Gospel of Mark, a literary achievement of incomparable historical significance. Before Mark there was no such story of the life of Jesus. Neither the earlier Jesus movements nor the congregations of the Christ had imagined such a portrayal of Jesus' life (Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? – chap. 6, p.151).

 

Foreign rulers had relentlessly humiliated the Jews for centuries. Submission had got them no where. Their only hope of deliverance seemed to lie in the appearance of a redeemer. A wandering pacifist, preaching goodwill to all men, including the Roman oppressors, was not the Jews’ best idea of a leader to free them from their enemies. Even so, the Gospels would have us believe that into the midst of this turmoil, God sent, as the Messiah, a gentle, wandering holy man who was maliciously picked on by jealous priests, unfairly turned over to the Romans as a pretender to the throne of Judea, and unjustly tortured to death on a cross. Was this the real Jesus?

In The Annals, Book XV, when referring to the Christians at Rome in 64 AD, Tacitus wrote:

 

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

 

Note the year, the name “Christus” (Christ), the reference to “abominable and shameful things,” and the fact that the “evil” had spread to Rome. The date, 64 AD, coincides with the end of Paul’s ministry after he had spread his gospel from Judea to Rome. “Christ” was the title Paul's Gentile followers gave to Jesus. The Hellenistic Gentiles viewed the Christian rituals as abominable and shameful. It certainly appears as if Tacitus was referring to our Jesus doesn’t it? But was this the real Jesus?

Josephus made references to a number of not-so-noted people of his era including Jewish false messiahs and cult leaders such as Theudas, who recruited thousands of followers and brought them to the banks of the Jordan in the belief that the river would open to facilitate their triumphal march on Jerusalem.⁵ He also referred to the Egyptian, mentioned in Acts 21:38, who led a body of partisans as far as the Mount of Olives, convinced that the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.⁶ Yet Josephus had very little to say regarding Jesus. In fact, the secular world, including Rome, seems to have scarcely heard of him, other than through the highly lauded tales produced by Christians. This oddity should at least raise a warning flag. If he had been an insurrectionist and, as some claim, took control of the temple, then surely Josephus would have included him in his list of rebels. Conversely, if he was the miracle working, resurrected son of God, as claimed, why are there no historical records outside the Gospels? The only logical explanation seems to be that his ministry, arrest, and crucifixion were either a short-lived nuisance to Roman authority, or the subject of a massive cover-up.

If, as Christianity would have us believe, Jesus was to open the door of salvation for the Gentiles by his death and resurrection, he knew nothing of it. To the Canaanite woman, in Mark 7:25-30, Jesus makes his views of Gentiles perfectly clear: "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it unto the dogs.” Dogs were unclean flesh eaters, banned from the temple. The Essenes called Gentiles, “dogs,” another name for their enemies. Jesus also used the bread metaphor. It is the staff of life and therefore the symbol of the kingdom to come. But only the children of Israel could partake of it, because it is too precious to cast to the “dogs”—Gentiles. With the use of the word “first," he insinuates that the door would be opened for the Gentiles, but this isn’t a contradiction. The Jewish messianic belief, mentioned repeatedly in the Old Testament, foretold a messiah who would re-establish the throne of David and bring all the Gentile nations together under the Law (Genesis 18:18; Isaiah 2:2-3; Zechariah 2:11, 9:9-10).

Elsewhere, on the same theme, he told his Apostles (Matthew 10:5): "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." That these commands go against the Church’s later teaching suggests that they are genuine.

In Acts 11:19, even the Grecian faction of the Nazarenes had no intention of preaching to the Gentiles:

 

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

 

This proves that Jesus could never have directed his message to Gentiles (see also Acts 6:1-5). The Church has tried to make it appear that it was the orthodox Jews who tried to forbid the preaching of the Christian message to Gentiles but here in Acts, we have proof that in the beginning, even the converted Gentile Nazarenes preached only to Jews.

This is confirmed in the Acts of the Apostles (chapter 10), in the case of Peter's vision and visit to the home of Cornelius, a Roman centurion. Cornelius was a Gentile believer who sought an audience with Peter. Peter replied that as a believer, Cornelius knew it was against the Law of Moses for a Jew to mix with Gentiles. According to the story, Peter did visit Cornelius and while he was speaking the Holy Ghost fell upon those in the audience and they began speaking in tongues.

Afterwards Peter stated his conclusion, starting in verse 34:

 

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34-35).

 

Apparently Peter didn't visit Cornelius alone. Acts 10:45 tells us those of the circumcision,—Jews—observed the Gentiles speaking in tongues and couldn't believe what they saw. But notice the conclusion they reached. Again, Peter is the speaker:

 

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:47).

 

And as Peter continued speaking, he revealed some interesting information. He stated that God sent Jesus Christ unto Israel, preaching peace, after the baptism that John preached.

 

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the judge of the quick and the dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:38-43).

 

Notice that the main emphasis placed on Jesus' ministry is concentrated upon, "…doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil". It was only after his resurrection that he allegedly instructed his Apostles to go to the Gentiles. But look at the incongruity of the statement. Peter was a chosen witness to Jesus' resurrection and saw him "openly". He ate and drank with the resurrected Jesus and personally received his command to preach and testify to the people. And yet, Peter is completely ignorant of that commission—he wouldn't even go near a Gentile. It required a vision from God to show him that salvation was meant for all people; and still, later he refused to eat with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14). In addition, the Apostles knew nothing of a commission to the Gentiles; otherwise the confrontation with Paul about circumcision would have never occurred (Acts 15). It is ludicrous to believe they were carrying the gospel of Jesus Christ to all the world when they wouldn't even associate with Gentiles! And it is ludicrous to think they would believe in a shared godhead when they were willing to die rather than disobey the first commandment of their God which declared, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me!"

Notice how astounded the Jews accompanying Peter were. Obviously, they had never seen the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in an uncircumcised Gentile. The Jerusalem Church, the Apostles, knew nothing of it. They even upbraided Peter for visiting Cornelius. These facts leave no doubt that Peter's Pentecostal sermon, his ministry with John (Acts chapters 3&4), and the story of Cornelius were all fabricated to Christianize the Apostles. Later, we'll view other instances in which efforts were made to depict the Apostles as Christians and we'll see proof that Christianity was born from the genius of Paul—not Jesus.

This conclusion also casts doubt upon the outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles. In the New Testament, the introduction of tongues is found in the story of the Pentecostal miracle. There has been much debate, even among different Christian denominations, as to how much (if any), of the story should be regarded as true. Was the tongues phenomena glossolalia, the utterance of an unknown language, or the interpretation of languages? Was it really the Holy Spirit that possessed the disciples, or, as some claim, the spirit of Satan? Many of today's theologians argue the latter because similar occurrences have been recorded among various sects, or religious cults, down through history—including shamanism and Voodoo. I spent a number of years as a member of a Holiness Church, so I'm well acquainted with the subject and its practice. I can state unequivocally that it is not of the Devil—neither is it of God. It is the expression of a very human emotion. By way of explanation let me use an illustration.

Imagine you're standing before a closed door. When the door opens you see a dark, bare room with a cold, concrete floor. In the middle of that floor you see a naked and hungry crying infant, barely able to move. What is your first reaction? To pick it up—of course! Your first instinct would be to hurry to the child and gather it into your arms.

Now, let's change the scene. The door is a closed warehouse entrance. Outside, two hundred people stand poised. This time, when the door opens it reveals an enormous room with the same concrete floor, but instead of one infant there are two hundred. How long will it be before every baby is cuddled in someone's arms? And what common emotions would be exhibited within that adult group? Outrage, anger, pity, compassion, love? And most certainly, sympathy. That is the unity of human emotionalism. There are certain things that activate communal emotions within the human animal and draw us together into a common unit.

Now, one more illustration: imagine our group standing before their church pews while the organ plays a mournful hymn. As the choir sings softly, two hundred emotionally charged humans wave their arms and plead with God for the Holy Ghost. That is concentrated and powerful emotionalism, demonstrated weekly in many Holiness or Pentecostal churches around the world.

Today, in many Holiness churches, those desiring the Holy Ghost are instructed to close their minds to all outside influences and "shut out the world" to "concentrate totally" upon Jesus Christ and the great sacrifice he made for them. They are told to pray, to "humble" themselves, "to plead" for the Holy Spirit. And lastly, they should repeat a word or phrase over and over saying it faster and faster; until the Holy Spirit takes control of their speech. At times, if the seeker is unsuccessful, and has, perhaps, made many pilgrimages to the altar, someone else may hear him speak in tongues unaware. I know—I experienced such an occurrence. Finally, if all else fails, the blessing may be claimed if the supplicant can but stammer:

 

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people (Isaiah 28:11).

 

Now, imagine the supplicant bowing at the altar with a dozen brothers and sisters clustered about, praying and laying hands upon him, while the entire congregation sings or mumbles prayers. What better recipe for a self-induced hypnotic trance?

Is it possible that such an event occurred at the Feast of Pentecost? We know Paul's ministry was spiritual. Jesus came to him in visions, lived within him as the Holy Ghost, and revealed the things he recognized as truth. This is what we term an allegory, as opposed to a literal, real life and blood occurrence. We know his was a tongues ministry, but did it originate with him, or did it begin earlier, on the Feast of Pentecost?

When the Catholic Church gained power, they endeavored to stamp out all forms of worship that conflicted with their doctrines, especially anything suspected of witchcraft or Satanism such as Paul's allegorical concept of worship. Although the practice of speaking in tongues was observed in other cultures and forms of worship, it was suppressed by the Catholic Church until it reappeared in Topeka, Kansas in the year 1900. A student of Charles Fox Parham, a holiness preacher, spoke an unintelligible utterance. Parham and other students also had the experience later, and it began to spread rapidly across the country. In 1906, the phenomena exploded in Los Angles at what became known as the Azusa Street Revival, conducted by a black minister named William J. Seymour. Reports of the amazing events were picked up by newspapers and wire services, and people came from all points of the globe. Before it ended in 1915, it had become the world olympics of carnivals.

If such an event could erupt so suddenly and spread so rapidly, in the twentieth century, why should we doubt the possibility that it occurred in Jerusalem, in the first century?  The ingredients were there: repentance, ignorance, superstition, sorrow, and perhaps, an overwhelming gratitude and love for a suspected redeemer. And yet, I'm not convinced. Allegorical interpretations lean more toward Paul's philosophy and conflict with the literalism of the Jewish Law. I'm more inclined to believe the event originated later and was written into the Pentecost story, but let's suppose the event did occur as described. Let's suppose that the Apostles did receive the Holy Spirit, did speak "with other tongues," were endued with the knowledge of Jesus' gospel of salvation, and did preach that gospel. How then do we explain Paul's assertion that the gospel originated with him? And how do we reconcile Paul's gospel with the fact that the Apostles continued to observe the Law?

Here are contradictions that can only be harmonized by faith. On the one hand we find the Apostles admitting a commission to the Gentiles. On the other, they are not fulfilling that mission, and apparently know nothing of it.

I have no trouble visualizing the effects that these tongues incidents, as depicted on the day of Pentecost, would have had on hopeless and poverty-stricken believers. They would not have been able to recognize the bizarre occurrences as emotional fanaticism and no doubt they never associated their Holy Ghost with the spirit that possessed adherents of pagan religions. They were attuned and receptive to miracles such as healings, magic tricks, and divinations. The actuality of such magic was not questioned, only the power, whether it be good or evil; of god or the devil. The truthfulness of a prophet's message wasn't judged so much by reason and logic as by the power of the prophet. This is a truth that may be traced back throughout secular history and the annals of Israel. Consider the stories of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Daniel. Even Paul referenced "…signs, in wonders, and mighty deeds" as proof of his ministry (II Corinthians 12:12). There were specific reasons for this evaluation method. The main culprit was ignorance, fostered by a lack of education and readily available information. Reason was tossed aside in favor of human emotionalism.

If we accept the accounts of the Holy Ghost mentioned in Acts as valid, then we may assume that the Apostles were lured into believing it was a gift from God. That is the only point of contention made that can be harmonized with the teachings of the Judaic Law which the Apostles observed. When faced with obvious contradictions, plain statements that support the Law and teachings of Jesus should not be compromised, and yet we obviously have an accumulating list of contradictions.

Another question we should address is the origin of the term Jesus Christ. The practice of calling Jesus, Christ, is found throughout all the books of the New Testament. It is important to note that the word Christ is Greek for the Hebrew word messiah (mashiyach), or messias (yitshar), meaning anointed or anointing. We have already discovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls and early writers such as Josephus, Clement, and Origen that messianic expectations were widespread in Palestine during the first century. In fact, messianic fanaticism was one of the factors that fueled the Jewish War. The Jews were looking for an anointed deliverer, a messiah, and many believed Jesus was that Messiah. And yet, the word messiah isn't recorded in the New Testament! The reason it wasn't recorded is not because it was never used but because it was translated into the Greek, Christ—which is recorded five hundred and sixty-two times. The reason can be traced back to the use of the Septuagint translation of the Jewish Scriptures by the early Christians. In that translation, the word messiah is used thirty-nine times and in every case it is rendered Christos—Christ.⁷ No wonder that the identity of the Jewish messiah should be transformed into a Hellenistic god. This makes it almost certain that the changes were adopted from the Septuagint and that the authors were Grecian Gentiles, rather than Jews. Either way, the writers, or translators, of the New Testament have effectively destroyed the identity of a Jewish messiah and replaced it with a Greek god/man by the simple act of distorting the meaning of one word.

Following the death of Jesus, the Nazarenes were forced to reassess their concept of their leader. If we accept Christian tradition there can be no doubt Jesus taught them that he was the Messiah. As it is stated in the Gospel of John, speaking of the newly converted Andrew:

 

He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ (John 1:41).

 

In John 4:25-26 Jesus claims that messiahship:

 

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

 

Notice the awkward phrases; "being interpreted, the Christ" and "which is called Christ;" if we concede that the Gospels are of Hebraic origin then this passage is obviously a Grecian insertion intended to identify the Messiah as Christ to Gentile readers. Such identifying statements would not have been necessary if the readers had been Jews. Imagine a Hebraic Jew making such senseless statements as; "We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Messiah" or "I know that Messias cometh, which is called Messiah." Here is scriptural proof that Jesus was viewed as the Messiah and more importantly, Jesus claimed to be that Messiah in John 4:26.

Many Christians make reference to Jesus' 'new doctrines' as proof that he introduced a new gospel and was the founder of Christianity. The general reference is to Mark 1:27:

 

And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? What new doctrine is this? For with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.

 

When we look at this passage closely, we find that it appears to refer more to supernatural abilities rather than doctrines. And if we look at other Scriptures describing Jesus’ ministry, such as Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 4:43 and 12:49 we find no references to new doctrines. In reality, Jesus introduced none. Careful study will reveal that all his teachings can be found in then present or earlier cultures.

For example, Socrates taught many of the same teachings and values ascribed to Jesus, four hundred years before Jesus was born. He believed that his god had called him to teach the men of Athens the value of wisdom, to shun evil, and live righteously. He decried greed and lust for power. He taught that men should seek wisdom and truth, instead of worldly desires. His belief and devotion to his god puts the efforts of most Christians to shame. Most of his life was spent trying to persuade others not to waste their time or energy in caring about their bodies, riches, or worldly concerns but rather, to make their souls as good as possible. He believed in the immortality of the soul, a life after death with rewards for the righteous and punishment for the evil. The righteous, he believed, would journey to Hades, land of the dead, where they would dwell in perfect harmony with the gods. The souls of the wicked, because of their affinity for material things, would be doomed to roam the earth until they found another body. Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens, and although he had opportunities to circumvent the law and escape the death penalty, he refused to do so. Rather than compromise his beliefs and integrity, he chose death.