High Stakes (5 page)

In the first few years of Christianity, the Christians in Rome (Pauline Christians) were persecuted severely, while the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were allowed to build a church. Gnostic Christians basically kept to themselves or went underground. Over the next several hundred years, Pauline Christians, while still being persecuted, were starting to cooperate more with the ruling Romans. Jewish Christians, however, due to several Jewish rebellions, were almost completely wiped out by the Romans and had their church and Temple destroyed. Gnostic Christians were making some headway, with Egyptian Coptic Churches being formed as their philosophy of gnosis spread, but were too few in number to have any impact otherwise.

Finally, at the Council of Nicaea in 325
A.D
., the Roman emperor Constantine made Pauline Christianity the state religion of Rome and it became the Roman Catholic Church. This act was highly important and significant, because it paved the way for Christianity as we know it today and also the Bible as we know it today.

Each faction of the early Christians had their favorite writings or what they considered to be canonical texts on the life of Jesus Christ. By winning the war, so to speak, the Pauline Christians were able to formulate and adopt their favorite writings and then put them together by editing, adding, deleting and omitting any texts that were favored by the other factions. The Bible is certainly without numerous texts that deserve to be in it. Early Pauline Christians edited it for their own purposes and agendas. Later on in history, the formation of the Anglican Church in En gland caused the Bible to be edited even more and the result was the “King James” version of the Bible.

Almost every serious biblical scholar acknowledges the fact that the Bible has been edited, copied, deleted from and added to by early Christians. How can we then trust the New Testament of the Bible as a legitimate source of truth about Jesus Christ? The answer is that we really can't trust it; but at this time it is one of our main sources of information about Christ because there are so few other sources available. Yes, we have some information from Gnostic texts that were discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, the recent Gospel of Judas discovery, and some other texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls; but the information is limited and also is fighting for recognition against almost seventeen hundred years of traditional belief in the Bible.

With that in mind, as we delve more into Christ's life and works you will find me questioning certain aspects related about him in the Bible. I do this not to criticize the Bible so much as to point out discrepancies and possible errors in the four accepted gospels that don't give an accurate picture of Christ or his life. My writer's responsibility to give out truth far outweighs any consideration for “traditional beliefs” or historical untruths that have been perpetuated by religion for their own expedient reasons. For those who want to delve more into the history of how the Christian Bible was put together, I recommend the essay by Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon.” You can find it on the fairly controversial Web site—www.infidels.org. I really am just trying to give as clear and precise a picture as I can about Jesus Christ, his works, his mission and his life to my readers. It is then the readers' choice to do what they want to do with that information.

J
ESUS STUDIED WITH
the Essenes for almost two years and related to them his travels and experiences in the Far East. He shared much of what he had learned in healing, meditation and Eastern philosophy. Being a secular sect, the Essenes did not travel extensively and much of the information and knowledge he gave them was new and exciting to most of them. The Essenes were Gnostic in many ways. They constantly debated new philosophies and ideas and were very adept at writing. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in caves just outside of Qumran in 1947 and have been attributed to the Essenes.

Fifteen years of study was a lot of time to delve into how others believed and worshipped. This, I am sure, is also what gave him his caring and knowledge of the poor and downtrodden. Six months before his thirtieth birthday, Jesus made his way back to Nazareth. The time for his public life in Israel had come.

There was a great homecoming celebration for Jesus. He had been gone for so many years and had become such a wise and caring man. His mother, Mary, was there, as were all his brothers and sisters, and the guests included Mary Magdalene as well as many cousins that included Martha and aunts that included Mary Cleophas and Mary Salome. The Bible speaks of these relatives having Christ over for dinner and having long talks together. They really formed a close-knit family and community of friends and relatives who were always around Jesus. Many scholars think that up to five of his apostles were related to him. Jesus would relate many stories about his travels and experiences to them and they were always a rapt audience.

As an aside, I'm sure that many of the original books of the Bible contained much of this material. The reason we don't find it is because it was edited out by the early Church. They wanted to control the minds of the people who read the Bible and wanted them to only read what they “deemed” was best for them. Anything that seemed to make Jesus more human or a seeker of knowledge must have made them feel he wasn't completely infused by God. How ignorant for one not to know that everything from every sector is infused by God. The early Church didn't want the populace to become scholars; they wanted followers who would blindly follow what they said. We never hear Christ say you have to follow any particular religion such as Judaism, Christianity or Hinduism. He was just a seeker of truth. His words of wisdom, “Seek and you shall find” and “Knock and it shall be opened to you,” are very strong indications that his words were always a product of his learning and Gnostic philosophy. If he didn't want us to be free thinkers, he would have said so.

After reuniting with his mother and Mary Magdalene, he commenced his public life. The wedding feast at Cana was actually his wedding to Magdalene. The wedding, when read in the Bible (John 2:1–11), just seems to stick out, with no explanation except that this was supposedly his first miracle. When his mother comes to him and says that the guests have no wine, he is reluctant to do anything. Mary, however, knowing Jewish custom, just orders the servants to do what ever Jesus tells them to do without saying another word to Jesus. He then evidently tells the servants to bring six large jars of water, which he then turns into wine, and instructs them to give it to the chief guest (best man) of the feast.

We then read about the chief guest, after tasting the wine, calling the bridegroom aside and saying (John 2:10),
“Every man at first brings the best wine; and when they have drunk, then that which is weak; but
you
have kept the best wine until now.”
Now, what is so significant about this? Mary knew that the Jewish custom at weddings was that the bridegroom was responsible for supplying the wine. So who made the wine that was supplied to the guests? Christ did, and it was he whom the best man called forth! I cannot understand why others have not seen this, other than to ignore it because they didn't want anyone to think that Jesus was married. That also explains why Mary was so even-tempered about the situation and didn't bother to say anything more to Jesus other than to notify him that wine was needed. She knew that as the bridegroom, Jesus had to supply the wine! To further substantiate this, Jesus from that time onward was called Rabbi, which can mean “teacher” but was a title almost always conferred on a married man per Jewish custom.

Timelines in the Bible can be confusing, because the four gospels don't always agree to incidents happening at the same time (more inconsistency). For instance, right after Christ's wedding at Cana, the Gospel of John has Jesus going to Jerusalem and driving money changers out of the Temple. This incident is also mentioned in the other three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, but they put this incident forth as happening later on in Christ's life. Francine says that the incident regarding the money changers did happen later on, so the Gospel of John is incorrect as to the time it occurred in Christ's life. Now, this may seem fairly insignificant to many, but if you are going to use the Bible as a factual text for proof, then you have to live with the consequences when it is shown to be blatantly incorrect as well. This also again shows that the Bible contains errors and cannot always be relied on as an absolute text.

The interesting thing about the Gospel of John is that it doesn't always follow the lead of the other three gospels. Much of the Gospel of John relates incidents in Christ's life that the other three gospels don't mention, and conversely the Gospel of John doesn't mention many of the incidents in the other three gospels. Such seems to be the case in the next major incidents of Christ's life—his baptism and temptation in the wilderness.

The four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all mention that Christ was baptized by John the Baptist and that John proclaimed the coming of the Messiah. John was Christ's cousin; however, it is only in the Gospel of Matthew that we even get a small clue to the fact that they knew each other. In Matthew 3:13–15 we read:
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. But John tried to stop him, saying, I need to be baptized by you, and yet have you come to me? But Jesus answered and said to him, Permit it now, for this is necessary for us so that all righteousness may be fulfilled; and then he permitted him.
There definitely is an implication of intimacy here in the brief conversation between John and Jesus. The gospels of Mark and Luke just basically relate that John baptized Jesus. The Gospel of John does relate that John baptized Jesus, but also implies that John didn't know Christ. We read in John 1:29–34 the following:
The next day John saw Jesus coming to him, and he said, Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one of whom I said, The man who comes after me is yet ahead of me, because he was before me. And I did not know him; but that he might be made known to Israel, I came to baptize with water. And John testified, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it rested upon him. And yet I did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, The one upon whom you see the Spirit descending and resting, he is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. And I saw and testified that this is the Son of God.

This might seem to be another contradiction since John was Christ's cousin and boyhood playmate, but Francine gives a very good explanation. She says that Christ had not seen John for more than fifteen years and that John didn't recognize him as a man because he had last seen him as a boy. I also feel that this is very plausible, but in addition, I feel that the Gospel of John is also saying that even though John knew Jesus as his cousin, he didn't know he was the actual Messiah that both he and other prophets had foretold was coming. It was only when the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descended on Jesus that John recognized that Jesus was indeed the chosen one of God. When he says, “I didn't know him,” it is meant only in the aspect that he didn't know his cousin was the Messiah and seems somewhat shocked, which would bring out the second “I did not know him” in an almost incredulous manner.

Before we get into Christ's time in the wilderness, which is the next incident in his life as portrayed by most of the gospels, I want to relate what happened to John the Baptist. John was somewhat of a rabble-rouser. He spoke what he believed to be the truth and didn't care much about whom he offended. In my research, I've found that John the Baptist was also an Essene like Christ. It was the Jewish sect of Essenes that put forth the concept of baptism. They believed that baptism was to cleanse one of traumas and bad actions from past lives and not of original sin (but we'll get into that in a little bit). Unlike Christ, John subcribed to the strict and ascetic teachings of the Essenes. Francine says this is because John had spent his whole life in Roman-occupied Israel and, like a lot of Judaic men, resented the Romans. He was a revolutionist in his own thinking. While Jesus had been subjected to more passive and loving teachings, John had not. Following the strict asceticism of the Essenes, he preached to all who would listen and baptized thousands. It was his strict interpretation of Jewish law that eventually got him into trouble with Herod. Before that time, Herod and the hierarchy of the Temple viewed John as a dangerous nuisance because of his preaching against the hypocrisies of both of them.

John the Baptist would most probably have survived if he hadn't gone against Herodias, the wife of Herod. He called Herod and Herodias adulterers and Herodias a harlot because Herodias had divorced Herod's brother and married Herod while he was still alive. John's accusation angered Herodias and she used Herod's attraction for his stepdaughter Salome (fathered by Herod's brother previously) to gain her revenge. We all know the story about Herod becoming drunk and asking Salome to dance for him. She refuses and he begs her to dance and even promises anything up to half his kingdom to her for her dance. She asks her mother what she should demand and her mother says, “The head of John the Baptist.” Salome then asks for his head and Herod, afraid to go back on his word, reluctantly has John executed and his head brought forth on a platter. Francine says when Jesus heard about his cousin John's death, he immediately sat down and cried in tremendous grief.

While the Essenes saw baptism as a washing-away of all past life traumas, Christianity made it into a cleansing of the sins of Adam and Eve (original sin). This, I feel, is a really bad interpretation. Most scholars believe that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis of the Old Testament is symbolic in nature. The story of Adam and Eve reads like mythology and is meant to be symbolic. If read literally it doesn't make any sense, especially when it comes to the part about the sons of Adam and Eve marrying women and having wives and children. When Cain went to the land of Nod he got married, but where did his wife and the wife of his brother Seth come from? If it is read as a symbolic tale, however, the presence of these other people is only part of the symbolism and can be considered a valid extension of the story. The Tree of Knowledge is a tree whose fruit bears the knowledge of all good and evil. It is the symbol of knowledge, but it is also the symbol of temptation; and God tells both Adam and Eve that they can eat anything but the fruit of that tree.

Then there is the symbolism of the snake telling Eve it's all right to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The use of the snake was in rebuttal to all the fertility gods in the various pagan religions that surrounded Israel. When Solomon built the first Temple for Israel, its main columns were fashioned to represent snakes and fertility, as there was a lot of influence of other religions in ancient Israel. The snake thus represents symbolically these other religions tempting the people of Israel, who are represented symbolically by Adam and Eve—their supposed parents. Eve eats the fruit and also persuades Adam to eat the fruit. Women (represented by Eve) are forever branded as temptresses to men (represented by Adam)—even to this day. I've always said Adam got what he deserved—what kind of wimp was Adam that he went along with it? Adam and Eve then put on clothes to hide their nakedness. God looks for Adam, finds him, and Adam says he had hidden because he was naked. Then God asks, “Who told you that you were naked?”

This particular area of Genesis also brings up another inconsistency in the Bible, for it portrays God as not knowing everything when we all know he does. We find him asking, “Where are you, Adam?” as well as the question about his nakedness. God would know where Adam was and He would also know who tempted Eve, who tempted Adam, etc. Whenever you have the hand of man doing the writing, you will always find error and inconsistency.

The whole story of Adam and Eve is the symbolic story of humankind leaving paradise (the Other Side) and coming down to incarnate on the negative plane of Earth. Evil does not exist on the Other Side (or paradise), so Adam and Eve were banished to the Earth “to till the fields for their food” and “to bear their children in pain.” This is pure symbolism at its finest and does teach that the Earth plane is negative and full of temptation and evil. Think of this, how do you learn unless you go to a negative plane where evil and temptation exist to test the mettle of your soul? You can't learn about evil in a perfect environment, but as evil is part of knowledge you must learn about it so that you know what good is. To learn about evil does not make you evil, it just gives you the knowledge to avoid becoming evil.

Thus, the concept of “original sin” was born in the symbolism of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree that God told them not to eat. We can thereby deduce that if the story about original sin is symbolic, then so is the concept. “Original Sin” is just symbolic of the fact that although God is perfect, His/Her creations are not and are always in the state of being tempted on this plane we call Earth.

We then have three of the gospels—Matthew, Mark and Luke—relating how Christ was taken into the wilderness. John is silent on this incident. According to the gospels that relate it, Jesus was “taken” by the Holy Spirit to the wilderness after the heavens opened and a voice said, “You are my beloved son; with you I am pleased.” They go on to relate how Christ fasted for forty days and nights and how the “adversary” (edited in as Satan) tempted Jesus by promising him riches and fame. Mark is very short on this, while both Matthew and Luke go into dialogues between Jesus and the adversary.