A Sure Foundation: Answering The Charge Against Christianity

A SURE FOUNDATION: ANSWERING THE CHARGE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY by Michael Sturgulewski Copyright © 2008 by Michael Sturgulewski. First Printing: May, 2009. Published by Light and Life Graphics, Vestal, NY Light and Life Graphics is TM 2008 Michael Sturgulewski. Printed in the U.S.A. Terms of Use: This work may be reproduced, unaltered and in its entirety, and distributed freely without the author’s express permission. Any such distribution must strictly be for educational and non-profit purposes. Unless otherwise indicated, all Biblical citations are from the King James Version. Other versions cited include: The New International Version (NIV). Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society The Revised Standard Version (RSV). Copyright 1971 by National Council of Churches The New American Standard Bible (NASB). Copyright 1995 by Lockman Foundation The New Testament in Modern Speech. Public Domain Young's Literal Translation. Public Domain People's New Testament. Public Domain Book design: Michael Sturgulewski Cover: Woodcut by Gustave Doré, The Angel at the Empty Tomb. Public Domain. Corner and top center images: Christian engravings found on catacombs in Rome. Background text: The Apostles' Creed. Public Domain. All images, except where credited, are the work of the author. Noah's Ark, p 117. Copyright © 2008 Michael Sturgulewski. All Rights Reserved. ISBN: 1441402381 EAN-13: 978-1441402387 www.lightandlifegraphics.com

3

T

his book is dedicated to my parents,

Raymond and Gretchen, and my grandparents, William and Esther Boley and William and Mary Bloomer, for training a child in the way he should go.

4

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Synopsis of the video titled The Great Arcanum (i.e. The Great Knowledge) . . . . . . 18 Part 1: Gospel or Myth? I. Virgin birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 II. December 25th date of birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 III. Star in the east accompanied His birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 IV. Upon His birth, three kings came to adorn the newborn Savior . . . . . . . . . . . 47 V. His mother was named Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 VI. He was born in a manger or a cave in the “house of bread,” also translated as “Beth-lehem” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 VII. At age twelve He was known as a teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 VIII. At age thirty, He began His ministry after being baptized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 IX. He had twelve disciples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 X. He was a traveling teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 XI. He performed miracles, such as walking on water or turning water into wine 63 XII. He was known by titles such as “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega”. . 66 XIII. He held a communal last supper with His disciples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 XIV. He was crucified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 XV. Concerning the constellation Crux as being the supposed origin for the crucifixion of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 XVI. He was dead for three days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 XVII. He was resurrected from the dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 XVIII. Concerning the observance of Easter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5

XIX. Concerning Sunday as the sacred day of worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 XX. The Unusual Suspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 XXI. Jesus vs. the cookie cutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Part 2: The Origins of Paganism I. Lucifer and the sin of Adam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 II. Freethought: the philosophy of atheism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 III. Luciferianism: the philosophy of self-deification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 IV. Nimrod and the beginning of pagan religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 V. The Monomyth formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Part 3: Shattering the Mirror – Debunking the Claims of the Critics I. Concerning Zoroastrianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 II. Concerning the Luxor inscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 III. Concerning suspect confessions of prominent ancient Christian writers . . . . 200 IV. A Pope's Confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 V. Concerning the similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 VI. Concerning the claim that the account of Moses’ life in the Pentateuch is a fabrication of existing motifs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 VII. Concerning the proposed relationship between Jesus and the signs and ages of the Zodiac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 VIII. Concerning the proposed similarity between various Biblical concepts and pre-existing beliefs and icons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 IX. Concerning the claim that the life of Jesus is merely a revision of the life of Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 X. Concerning Constantine and the Nicean Creed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 XI. Concerning the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the Inquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

6

XII. Concerning the historicity of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 XIII. Concerning alternate gospels and suspect ancient texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 XIV. Concerning the “Jesus family tomb” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 Part 4: Snares of the Deceivers I. Proper use of terminology is often disregarded in claims which attempt to liken events in the life of Christ to events which occur in pagan mythology . . . . 377 II. Many of the suggested pagan parallels to the life of Christ are based on nonexistent texts or misuse or alteration of existing texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 III. Other favorite tactics used by critics of Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 IV. Logical fallacies employed by the critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 V. Parallel vs. commonality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 VI. The meme virus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 Part 5: The Supremacy of Christ I. The Son of God is one with the Father and the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 II. The Son of God possesses the essence of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 III. Two natures, one person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 IV. The Son of God bears the name of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 V. The Son of God bears the titles of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 VI. The Son of God holds the authority of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 VII. The Son of God performs the work of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471 VIII. The Son of God is pre-existent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 IX. The Son of God possesses the character of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 X. Jesus’ birth was not the product of a lustful god . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 XI. Jesus took part in bringing about His own birth, death, and resurrection . . . 501 XII. Jesus foreknew the time of His death and resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502

7

XIII. Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection were foretold long before His arrival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 XIV. Jesus' death was voluntary, sacrificial, and redemptive in nature . . . . . . . . 505 XV. Jesus' death was a victory, not a defeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 XVI. Jesus' resurrection compared to other resurrections found in the Bible . . . 506 XVII. Jesus' resurrection was a bodily resurrection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 XVIII. Jesus' resurrection is a fact of history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 XIX. Jesus' sacrifice was once for all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528 XX. Jesus is the High Priest for His people and the Mediator of the covenant God made with man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 XXI. Jesus existed as an historical figure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 XXII. The Gospel of Christ does not change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 XXIII. Concerning Jesus' state of mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 XXIV. The characteristics of the original source material regarding Jesus stands as added testimony to its reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550 Part 6: The Gospel Record I. The early date of the Gospel records testify to their historical accuracy . . . . . 552 II. Concerning the supposed silence of the remainder of the New Testament regarding Matthew and Luke’s virgin birth narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 III. Concerning the supposed silence of the New Testament letters regarding Jesus' humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 IV. Concerning the Gospels’ references to Jesus being of human descent. . . . . . 568 V. The authenticity and integrity of the Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 VI. The characteristics of the person of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, contradict popular Judaic concepts and, as such, could not have been a product of invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 VII. The characteristics of the life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, possess elements which do not bear the marks of invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581

8

VIII. The Gospels' portrayal of the person and work of Jesus does not fit Messianic concepts prevalent during the first century. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 The Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634 The Author's Creed: The Death and Life of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640 About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Online Resources for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 Photo Credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 Future books available through Light and Life Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694

9

Introduction Nothing new under the sun In June of 2008 I was introduced to a short video entitled The Great Arcanum, which, as would later be discovered, is part of a full length documentary entitled The Zeitgeist Movie. This documentary, produced by Peter Joseph, is a rejection of religion in general, and is specifically an attack on the Christian faith. The claim of the film is that deities of various faiths, including Jesus Christ, share many of the same characteristics in the accounts of their life, and that these characteristics are based in ancient beliefs concerning the sun and other celestial bodies. In so doing, Zeitgeist attributes to these faiths the same origin, making them equal with one another both in validity and merit. Christianity, among other faiths, is here under attack by making the claim that the “Jesus story,” as the narrator calls it, is merely a myth and that the Gospel accounts of His life, death, resurrection, and ascension are based purely on ancient mythological and astrological beliefs. The ramifications of such a notion, were it true, would make Jesus a false prophet rather than the Son of God and promised Messiah, the Bible would be reduced to a book of lies and deceit, and Christians would be in possession of false hope, having been deluded into having faith in a God who does not exist. The reason this is particularly an attack on Christianity, above other faiths, is that Jesus is the only of these so-called “solar messiahs” whose birth, life, death, and resurrection resulted in real (not imagined or symbolic) salvation for those who have faith in Him as their Savior. Yes, the Gospel account of the life of Christ is a story, but it is a story founded in history and truth, and what a story it is! That God was made man in the person of Jesus Christ so that He may die to take upon Himself the sins of the very same ones whom He created, and who abandoned Him to serve their own lusts. Yes, the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is a story – a story of grace and mercy, of redemption and life everlasting, of a loving King who gave His all for His people. The Zeitgeist Movie teaches Gnostic beliefs. Gnosticism is a belief system which began during pre-Christian times and is no new opponent to Christianity. According to religiostolerance.org, “Gnosticism involves the relational or experiential knowledge of God and of the divine or spiritual nature within us.” It places an emphasis on an inherent divinity within man. Gnostics believe that salvation is achieved through knowledge and the full development of the human consciousness (in short, Gnostics teach we can save ourselves). Gnosticism was virtually eradicated in the fifth century due to Catholicism, but has experienced a re-emergence since the mid-1900’s. According to gnosticteachings.org, Gnostics believe their religion is the source from which all the world's religions have their origin. The heart of Gnosticism is the Great Arcanum (hence, the title of the video under scrutiny), or the Great Knowledge; that is, the “secret knowledge” of which Gnostics pride themselves in possessing, and the knowledge which they believe results in one’s salvation. This knowledge, they believe, is the absolute knowledge of good and evil. The thrust of the film is the notion, which has existed for centuries, that the life of Jesus was merely a copy of pagan myths (hence, it is often termed the “copycat theory”), borrowing elements from fictional stories of various other “saviors.” Although this theory

10

is generally rejected by mainstream scholars, it continues to gain popularity with conspiracy theorists and Internet antagonists. The theory gained notable popularity in the modern era during the nineteenth century with the publication of the book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors written by Kersey Graves, a member of the “freethought” community. The theories contained in this book have been disproved a dozen times over since its publication, yet skeptics of Christianity continue to look to it as a source of truth. In fact, many of Graves’ sources often long post-date the Christian era, a practice which is very common among critics in their scrambling for evidence to support their claims. Jonathan Z. Smith, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, comments that the alleged “parallels” to Jesus either post-date the Apostolic Age or the “evidence” in the preChristian texts is simply lacking in solidarity. Smith states, “The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.… All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity."1 “Zeitgeist” is a German expression meaning “the spirit of the age” and is literally translated as “time (zeit) spirit (geist)." The film was first released in June 2007 and is comprised of three parts. Part one is an attempt to deconstruct Christianity by alleging it is a series of fabrications having been merged together from previously existing myths and astrological beliefs. Parts two and three engage in political conspiracy theories involving the banking system and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, purporting that the United States government itself orchestrated these attacks. According to the Zeitgeist web site (www.zeitgeistmovie.com), the project “was created as a nonprofit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are.” The producers of the movie claim that "truth is not told, it is realized," thus implying that truth is relative to one’s viewpoint (for more on this point, see the heading regarding Freethought, under Part two of this work). However, when viewing the movie, it becomes apparent that it is actually designed to indoctrinate the viewer with its own “truth” (that is, falsehood) and persuade the viewer to come to see the world from Mr. Joseph’s perspective. Checking the facts Concerning the sources used for The Zeitgeist Movie, the producers have the following to say: “Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part one and Part three, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up ‘Horus’ or ‘The Federal Reserve’ on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence.”2

11

In doing the research for this book, I discovered why “online encyclopedias or text book encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist.” The reason for that is that the information contained in Zeitgeist (at least in Part one, with which this book is concerned) is largely falsified. Not only does the movie make occasional simple errors with names of places; but also, very frequently lists “facts” which have no basis in truth or history. For instance, regarding the Egyptian deity Horus, the movie states, “These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate cultures of the world.” Research has proven the attributes in question (which will be discussed later) are in fact not at all “original” to the Horus myth; but rather, are fabricated by the movie’s producer, or another conspirator, for the purpose of creating an imagined reality based only on the movie itself rather than what is actually real. The producer makes such statements in the hopes that the viewers will not do their homework and put these claims to the test. The producers also claim they want to be “academically correct” and “factual.” As this work will show, they have catastrophically failed in these attempts, as true academic research has only served to debunk their claims. In the words of Dr. Ben Witherington III, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, “One thing you can say about Mr. Joseph's film-- he is an equal opportunity distorter of world religions in general, he is not just a prankster, but one who is simply angry with religion in general.”3 Additionally, the sources listed on the movie’s web site do not contain experts in either Biblical history or pagan mythology. Of the numerous sources cited in the movie’s transcript, less than 25% are original material, with the remainder citations coming from secondary authors, many of whom wrote decades ago and whose research is now considered outdated. An author who is Biblically illiterate is simply incapable of accurately discussing the integrity of the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ. Additionally, a good number of the sources used for the film are outdated, and have been proven to contain falsehood. The Zeitgeist Movie is guilty of employing a logical fallacy known as “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc,” a Latin phrase meaning "after this, therefore because of this." Such reasoning is based only on temporal sequence, claiming that Event B is a product of Event A simply because Event A comes before Event B. The movie is also quite fond of the use of anachronistic reasoning; that is, making the claim that “source X” is a basis on which “source Y” was formed, when in reality, “source X” post-dates “source Y.” In short, the producers of this film are nothing more than freethinking conspiracy theorists whose research is largely flawed, and The Zeitgeist Movie stands as a testimony to such shortcomings. In his documentary The God Who Wasn't There, Brian Flemming admitted his regret in relying on both Kersey Graves and D. M. Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S), both of whom were authors cited in the sources for The Zeitgeist Movie. In his documentary, which attempts to show that Jesus was not an historical figure, he included the god Beddru among deities listed in a background graphic. Beddru is mentioned in books by authors Graves and Murdock, but there is no documentation that such a deity ever existed in any culture. In an interview for the “Rational Response Squad,” Flemming said, “… [Beddru] shouldn't be in there. What I did is I cut and pasted from a list of gods that I was researching to find out were these true or were they not, and I should not have put that

12

one on the list. Kersey Graves appears to have made that up. And so people who say, you know, ‘Kersey Graves is full of crap’ and this Beddru thing is probably false, they’re actually right. And I'm going to change that in the second edition of the [documentary].”4 Sources used in Part one of The Zeitgeist Movie are as follows (notice the lack of ancient texts among their source material): Footage from The Naked Truth 1995 Audio from Revelations by Bill Hicks 1993 Audio from The Light of the World Courtesy of Jordan Maxwell 1992 Massey, Gerald The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ 1886 , Ancient Egypt-Light of the World 1907, and Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Mysteries of Amenta 1907 Acharya S/Murdock, D.M The Christ Conspiracy 1999, and Suns of God 2004, Who was Jesus?2007 Churchward, Albert The Origin and Evolution of Religion 1924 Allegro, John The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth 1979 Maxwell, Tice & Snow That Old Time Religion 2000 King James Version The Holy Bible 1611 Leedom, Tim C. The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read 1993 Remsburg, John F. The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence 1909 Irvin & Rutajit Astrotheology and Shamanism 2006 Doherty, Earl The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With A Mythical Christ? 1999 Campbell, Joseph Creative Mythology: The Masks of God 1959-1968 Doane, T.W. Bible Myths And Their Parallels In Other Religions 1882 Carpenter, Edward Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning 1920 Rolleston, Frances Mazzaroth 1862 Cumont, Franz Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans 1912 Fideler, David Jesus Christ, Sun of God 1993 Berry, Gerald Religions Of The World 1956 Frazer, Sir James The Golden Bough 1890 Wheless, Joseph Forgery in Christianity 1930 Singh, Madanjeet The Sun- Symbol of Power and Life 1993 Jackson, John G. Christianity Before Christ 1985 Why do we care? Since the advent of The Zeitgeist Movie a number of its supporters have charged Christians with getting all hyped up for no good reason. The movie, they claim, is not an attack against Christianity, but against religious beliefs which are invalid and based in falsehood. They charge Christians with blindly following a God who does not exist and placing their faith in that which is devoid of hope. They also charge Christians with seeking to deny others the right of religious freedom, attempting to push Christianity on those whose faith rests elsewhere. The supposed reason behind Christians’ opposition to the film is that of fear, arising from insecurity or an inadequate measure of faith in one’s

13

own belief system, resulting in a feeling of their religion being threatened and attacked by false accusation. Also, opponents are quick to cite the words of Christ Himself when He said, “Judge not, lest you be judged,” (Mt 7:1) and, “whosoever smites you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mt 5:39) Yes, Christians are to love their neighbors. In addition, Christians are also instructed to give reason for the faith. (I Pet 3:15) However, care must be taken in defending the truth. One cannot simply beat someone over the head with a Bible and tell him that he will go to hell if he does not believe in Christ. The facts need to be presented and the reader should decide whose doctrine to follow. But, the question is asked, Why do the facts need to be presented? Why does the record need to be set straight? Why can’t people just get along and agree to disagree? The reason is that one’s faith is of utmost importance, for it is his faith which determines his destiny. In The Zeitgeist Movie the truth is not presented; but rather, misrepresented in the form of fabricated and false evidence. When such a thing occurs, it gives people cause to avoid Christianity altogether, having been misled into believing it to be “the fraud of the age,” as the film states. Although the film attacks religion in general by stating, “Religion exists as barriers to personal and social growth,” Christianity is the one singled out as the “fraud” and the one to which special effort is extended in hopes of exposing it as a lie. Supporters of the movie claim the film never devalues religion nor does it claim religion is wrong, however, if Christianity is the “fraud of the age,” then it certainly cannot have value, and belief in it would certainly not be the product of a right mind. Such is the eventual conclusion, as well as the implication behind the film’s claims. When the truth of the Christian faith is misrepresented, then it is the duty of the Christian to set the record straight. It is not that everyone must be beaten into submission until he agrees to accept Christianity as the one, true religion. Rather, the reader must be presented with the facts in order to make an informed decision, which one cannot do simply by watching the film in question. Once the facts are presented, then the reader is capable of exercising his God-given ability to make an informed decision concerning who he will serve, whether the Creator or the creation. The fact is that the false claims and fabricated “evidence” presented in the film is the cause for which a person may become shaken in his faith, since it alleges that Christianity is something it is not – a series of themes borrowed from pagan myths and astrology. The film states the relationship between religions is a “suppressed history,” when, in fact, the relationship is not a history at all, since such a relationship simply does not exist, despite the claims of the critics. The purpose in this book is to educate those who have been duped into believing the lie of Zeitgeist, and to supply others with the means to respond when such false accusations are presented against their faith. The message here is three-fold. First, to the Christian: What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for

14

us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? . . . For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:31-39 NASB) Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, (Heb 3:12-14 NASB) ... let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. (Heb 10:22-23) The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.. . . . We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ This is the true God and eternal life.. (1 Jn 5:10-13, 19-20 NASB) Second, to the skeptic: Let no man deceive you with empty words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. (Eph 5:6-7) He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son. And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life. (I Jn 5:10-12) … if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. (Rom 10:9-11)

15

Third, to the critic: How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? And scoffers delight them in scoffing, And fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: Behold, I will pour out my spirit upon you; I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye have refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man hath regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, And would none of my reproof: I also will laugh in the day of your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as a storm, And your calamity cometh on as a whirlwind; When distress and anguish come upon you. Then will they call upon me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of Jehovah: They would none of my counsel; They despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, And be filled with their own devices. For the backsliding of the simple shall slay them, And the careless ease of fools shall destroy them. But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell securely, And shall be quiet without fear of evil. (Prov 1:22-33) But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed, railing in matters whereof they are ignorant, shall in their destroying surely be destroyed, suffering wrong as the hire of wrong-doing; men that count it pleasure to revel in the day-time, spots and blemishes, revelling in their deceivings while they feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; enticing unstedfast souls; having a heart exercised in covetousness; children of cursing; forsaking the right way, they went astray, having followed the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the hire of wrong-doing; but he was rebuked for his own transgression: a dumb ass spake with man’s voice and stayed the madness of the prophet. These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved. For, uttering great swelling words of vanity, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by lasciviousness, those who are just escaping from them that live in error; promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought into bondage. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse with them than the first. For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them. It has happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog turning to his own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire. (2 Pet 2:12-22 NASB) Outline of this book This book will concern itself with Part one of The Zeitgeist Movie, dealing with the origins of religion. I will leave a discussion and/or refutation of Parts two and three to better and more capable hands. I will begin by providing a synopsis of the first section of The Zeitgeist Movie as it is given in the shorter Great Arcanum video, following which will begin a refutation of these claims, as well as a refutation of the remaining claims made in the Zeitgeist film. In so doing, the agenda here will be to first address, in Part

16

one, the five pagan deities discussed in The Great Arcanum, along with brief considerations on other deities pertinent to the discussion. Following that, Part two will consider factors which gave rise to paganism in general, along with motifs found to be common within many religious systems. Part three will address The Zeitgeist Movie's claims apart from the five deities previously mentioned, as well as considerations regarding issues pertinent to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Part four will concern itself with the methods generally used by critics when making charges against Christianity concerning forgery and fabrications. Having addressed the reasons why pagan deities are not counterparts to Christ, Part five will then commence an in-depth consideration into why Jesus, the living incarnation of the Son of God, is unique and superior to deities found within pagan religious systems. Finally, Part six will address the primary source material for Jesus of Nazareth – the Gospels themselves – and it will be shown that this material does not bear the marks of forgery nor fabrication; but rather, serves as an authentic and historical account of the only crucified Savior the world has ever known.

17

Synopsis of the video titled The Great Arcanum (i.e. The Great Knowledge)

Below is a breakdown of The Great Arcanum’s content, followed by my rebuttal (in Part one: Gospel or Myth?). In my rebuttal, I will first examine the statements made concerning the non-Christian deities by judging the truthfulness of the statements made in the video and comparing these biographical aspects which are allegedly similar to those of Christ’s life. Following that, I will show how the person of Jesus is distinct from the other deities who are said to share like biographical characteristics. In conclusion, I will consider the superiority of the Biblical record concerning Jesus of Nazareth over those texts concerning pagan mythological deities. Introduction The narrator, who remains nameless, begins by pointing out that people have worshiped the sun for many centuries, giving to it their respect and adoration. This adoration is in recognition that the sun maintains regularity of motion and provides the earth with its life-sustaining effect. It is also pointed out that for many centuries people have looked to the stars to “recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long periods of time.” Mankind has also cataloged these stars into groups known as constellations. Early man personified both the sun and stars as personifications of elaborate myths. The sun was personified as the “unseen creator,” due to its life-giving qualities, and was known as “god’s sun, the light of the world, [and] the savior of mankind.” The twelve constellations represented those who traveled for god’s sun. The sun god Horus The narrator then discloses how ancient Egyptians applied these concepts to the god Horus (3000 B.C.). “He is the sun anthropomorphized,” the narrator says, “and his life is a series of myths,” It is then suggested the rising and setting of the sun was likened to the myth of Horus and his evil counterpart Set, the personification of darkness. Sunrise is so named for Horus’ defeat of Set at the dawn of every new day, thus ushering in light to the world; and sunset, so named for Horus’ daily banishing to the underworld at the hands of Set, thus bringing darkness upon the earth. The narrator makes the following statements concerning the god Horus: He was born of the virgin Isis, also known as Mary, on Dec. 25 His birth was accompanied by a star in the east Upon his birth, three kings came to adorn the “newborn savior” At age twelve He was known as a teacher At age 30, He began his ministry after being baptized He had twelve disciples He performed miracles, such as walking on water He was known by such titles as “the truth, the light, the lamb of god, god’s anointed son, [and] the good shepherd.” He was crucified after being betrayed, then rose from the dead after three days

18

Other Deities The narrator then states, “These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have had the same mythological structure,” and he then continues to list other deities who share some of these attributes, as follows: Attis of Greece (1200 B.C.) He was born of the virgin Nana on Dec 25 He was crucified, dead for three days, and rose again Krishna of India (900 B.C.) He was born of the virgin Devaki on Dec 25 A star in east signaled his coming He performed miracles and had disciples He was crucified and rose from the dead Dionysus of Greece (200 A.D.) He was born of a virgin on Dec 25 He was a traveling teacher He performed miracles, such as turning water into wine He was referred to by such titles as “king of kings, god's only begotten son, and the alpha and omega” He was crucified and rose from the dead Mithras of Persia (1200 B.C.) He was born of a virgin on Dec 25 He had twelve disciples He was resurrected three days after his death He was referred to by such titles as “truth” and “light” Sunday was his sacred day of worship The video then scrolls through a list of numerous deities who are said to have shared some or all of these attributes: Chrishna of Hindostan Budha Saki of India Salivahana of Bermuda Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus of Egypt Odin of the Scandinavians Crite of Chaldea Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia Baal and taut of Phoenicia Indra of Tibet Bali of Afghanistan Jao of Nepal Wittoba of the Bilingonese Thammuz of Syria Atys of Phrygia

19

Xamolxis of Thrace Zoar of the Bonzes Adad of Assyria Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam Alcides of Thebes Mikado of the Sintoos Beddru of Japan Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls Cadmus of Greece Hil and Feta of the Mandaites Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico Universal Monarch of the Sibyls Ischy of the island of Formosa Divine Teacher of Plato Holy One of Xaca Fohi and Tien of China Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece Ixion and Quirinius of Rome Prometheus of Causasus Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia The following statement is then made: "The fact of the matter is, there are dozens of virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world who fit these descriptions. The question remains: Why these attributes? To find out, let's examine the most recent of the solar messiahs." Then, after a dramatic pause ... Jesus of Nazareth He was born of the virgin Mary on Dec. 25 His birth was announced by star in east He was a child teacher at age twelve He began His ministry at 30 after being baptized He had twelve disciples who traveled with Him He performed miracles He was known by such titles as “King of Kings, Son of God, the Alpha Omega, Light of World,” and the “Lamb of God” He was crucified, dead for three days, rose again, and ascended to Heaven Suggested origin for the “Jesus story” After listing these attributes of Jesus’ life, the narrator expounds on the idea that the “story of Jesus,” as he calls it, is merely a fabrication rooted in pagan mythology. He claims Jesus’ birth sequence is “completely astrological." The “star in east” (or the star of the magi) is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which on December 24th aligns with the three brightest stars in Orion's belt. These three stars have been called, since ancient times, the "three kings,” and these stars, along with Sirius, all point to the place of the

20

sunrise on December 25th (See Figure 1, below), the date known through history as the birth of "god's sun.” This is why, he says, the three kings are mentioned in the Matthew’s Gospel account of Jesus birth: to follow the star in the east so that they may locate the rising of God’s Son.

Figure 1 The mention of the virgin Mary is representative of the constellation Virgo, also known as Virgo the Virgin (Virgo is Latin for “virgin”). The ancient glyph or letter for Virgo is M. "This is why Mary,” the narrator states, “and other virgin mothers such as Myrra and Maya (the mother of Buddha), begin with an M.” Virgo is also referred to as the “house of bread”. Bethlehem means “house of bread” in Hebrew. "Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place in the sky, not on earth,” so the video suggests. Suggested origin for the Dec. 25th date of birth The video then examines a phenomenon which occurs around December 25th of each year. The shortening of the days during the winter solstice symbolized the concept of death among the ancients, and was known as the death of the sun. During December 22-24, the sun stops moving south, at least perceivably. During this “three day pause,“ the “sun of god” resides in the vicinity of the southern cross, or Crux, constellation (see the Figure 2, next page) and on December 25th, the sun moves, or “rises,” north (see the Figure 3, next page), foreshadowing longer days, warmth, and spring.

21

Figure 2

Figure 3

Conclusion The video concludes by saying, "And thus it was said, the sun died on the cross, was dead for three days, only to be resurrected, or born again. This is why Jesus, and all the other sun gods, maintain the crucifixion, three day death, and resurrection concept: it is the sun's transition period before it shifts its direction back into the northern hemisphere, bringing spring, and thus salvation.” It is then stated, “However, [ancient civilization] did not celebrate the resurrection of the sun until the spring equinox, or Easter. This is because at the spring equinox, the sun officially overpowers the evil darkness." End of video

22

The Great Arcanum makes the following statement: "The fact of the matter is, there are dozens of virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world who fit these descriptions [i.e. virgin-birth, youthful teacher, star in the east, crucifixion, three day death, resurrection, etc.].” It’s time to put this claim to the test and see if the meat behind this statement is nothing more than bologna. Are these facts indeed factual in nature, or are they the fabrications of a deceiver? In order to answer this question, I will look at each attribute which is said to have been similar to the attributes inherent in the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ (virgin-born, star in the east, miracles performed, crucifixion, resurrection, etc.). In this section, I will begin by considering the deities primarily discussed in the film: Horus*, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithras,** and it will be shown that the Gospel accounts are not mere reflections of pagan myths, and that the claims of any such parallel or derivation is based on an alteration or gross exaggeration of the original myths and religious texts. Each socalled “parallel” attribute will be considered separately and in relation to each of these deities. Following that, the remaining deities listed*** (as well as others not listed, yet worthy of mention) will be examined in brief fashion. *Egyptian mythology names several gods by this name. The one here under discussion is the son of Osiris and Isis, identified as king of Egypt. **There are actually three versions of this deity: the Indian deity Mitra, the Iranian (Persian) deity Mithra, and the Roman deity Mithras. Following the time of Christ, the former Iranian Mithra became known by Romans as Mithras. Zeitgeist incorrectly identifies the pre-Christian Persian deity Mithra as Mithras and applies to him certain characteristics of the post-Christian Roman Mithras. For instance, the Roman Mithras was said to have been born on Dec 25th and was worshiped on Sundays, but such characteristics were never associated with the Iranian Mithra. The producers of Zeitgeist confuse the two deities either due to lack of careful research, or as an intentional attempt to apply false characteristics to a deity which pre-dates Christianity, so that they may fabricate a basis on which to claim the earlier Iranian myth was that on which were based the later Gospel accounts of Jesus (after all, a post-Christian source is of no use to the copycat theorist when attempting to prove his or her case). In this book, my attention will focus on the Roman Mithras, since this is the deity actually under discussion, as the biographical characteristics suggest, rather than the Iranian Mithra. ***As will be shown, some of the “deities” named in this list are simply alternate spellings of the five primary deities under discussion (such as Chrishna and Atys).

I. Virgin birth: said of Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithras Concerning Horus The narrator states that Horus was born of the virgin Isis on December 25th. In the original myth, Isis was not Horus’ mother, however, when Isis was merged with Hathor, another deity, she then became the wife of Osiris and the mother of Horus. The manner of Horus’ conception did not involve a virginal conception. Before his

24

birth, his father Osiris was dismembered by Set into fourteen parts, which were dispersed throughout Egypt (which is why there are so many tombs for Osiris to be found in Egypt). Osiris’ wife, Isis, gathered the parts and pieced them together, except for Osiris’ phallus, which she could not locate, for Set threw it into a river and it was eaten by a fish. Isis then fashioned a phallus for him and by drawing the seed from the body of her dead husband, she conceived Horus. A hymn within Plutarch’s account of the Horus myth contains the following description of Horus’ conception: "[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [phallus] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [sperm], and she made from them an heir [Horus]."1 That is not virginal conception, since virgin birth necessitates the lack of sexual union and clearly Horus was born from the essence, or seed, of the revived Osiris. In fact, one ancient Egyptian relief depicts Horus’ conception by showing Isis, in the Underworld and in the form of a falcon, hovering over the erect phallus of the dead Osiris. It can also not be assumed that Isis was a virgin at the time of Horus’ conception, since she had been married to Osiris prior to the moment of Horus’ conception. There is no confirmation whether the marriage was or was not consummated in the myth, but the natural and reasonable presumption is that sexual intercourse would have been inherent in the relationship. Also, the last line in the first hymn found in the Book of the Dead, an ancient Egyptian religious text believed to have been a guide for the deceased in their journey through the Underworld, states, “The Company of the gods rejoiced at the coming of Horus, the son of Osiris, whose heart was firm, the triumphant, the son of Isis, the heir of Osiris.“ In his efforts to seek the opinion of modern scholarship, Ward Gasque, President of the Pacific Association for Theological Studies, contacted twenty contemporary Egyptologists, asking them whether or not Horus was virgin-born. The ten who responded were all in agreement that there is no indication within the ancient texts that Horus was virgin-born.2 Among the ancient manuscripts, the most complete account of the Horus myth is “On Isis and Osiris” by Plutarch (c.46-120 A.D.). It reads as follows: "Of the parts of Osiris' body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honor of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival."3 Compare this to the following statements made by Egyptian scholars concerning Horus’ birth: "...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show [Isis] as a kite hovering above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife."4 "After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god [Isis] restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus."5

25

In her booklet The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist Part 1, author D. M. Murdock (otherwise known as Acharya S) states, “It is erroneously claimed that, because in one version of the myth Isis impregnates herself with Osiris’ severed phallus, she cannot be considered a ‘virgin.’”6 In such an analysis, Murdock fails to consider that although the conception of Horus was a supernatural conception, it was still conception by insemination, a means of conception which, regardless of the circumstances, does not involve virgin birth. By such logic as hers, the modern practice of artificial insemination would be considered virginal conception, which, of course, it is not. She even admits in the above statement that it was by Osiris’ “severed phallus” that Isis became pregnant. She also reiterates the conception by insemination in the next sentence when she says, (emphasis mine) “Furthermore, in his eye-opening comparison of Isis with the Virgin Mary, Budge states that in the Osirian myth it is by incantations, spells and words that Isis draws the seed into herself to conceive Horus.” The only eye opener here is the inconsistency of Murdock’s reasoning, since, even according to her own admission, it is still by Osiris’ “seed” that Isis is impregnated. Murdock attempts to further her premise concerning Isis’ so-called virgin birth by appealing to an inscription on the temple of the goddess Neith, one of Isis’ alter egos. Her claim is that the temple, which no longer remains standing, contained an inscription reading, “My garment no one has lifted up … The fruit that I have borne is the sun.” Murdock reads into this a reference to virginity, since no one is said to have “lifted up” Neith’s “garment.”7 The inscription did exist, to a certain degree, and is found in the writings of Plutarch, however, the context in which Plutarch refers to Neith’s “garment” is not in reference to her sexuality, but to the transcendent nature of the deity, who remains shrouded from the mind of men by means of the veil, as shown in the excerpt below (emphasis mine): “… he that was elected out of the military class immediately became one of the priests, and was initiated into their wisdom, which was for the most part shrouded in fables and stories giving obscure indications and glimpses of the truth … And the shrine of Minerva at Sais (whom they consider the same with Isis) bears this inscription, ‘I am all that hath been, and is, and shall be; and my veil no mortal has hitherto raised.’ … Manetho the Sebennyte is of opinion that the ‘hidden’ and ‘hiding’ is expressed by this word. Hecataeus of Abdera says that the Egyptians use this word to one another, when they are calling anyone to them; for the word is one of calling to, for which reason the Supreme God (whom they consider the same with the All) they invoke as being hidden and invisible, and exhort him to make himself visible and apparent, and therefore call him ‘Amun’: so great therefore was the piety of the Egyptians in their teaching respecting the gods.”8 The above excerpt from Plutarch is a clear reference to the mysteries of the religion, and of the deity herself, rather than a reference to any supposed virginity of the goddess. Nevertheless, Murdock then cites William Coleman as saying, “The point is this: Does the expression, ‘lifting the garment’...of Neith refer to her perpetual virginity or to her inscrutability? There is not a shadow of doubt that it

26

refers to the former, and I am confident that every Egyptologist in the world will so decide.”9 Given the above context in which the phrase was originally given by Plutarch, Coleman’s certainty in his colleagues’ agreement with his interpretation is the epitome of overconfidence in such an unwarranted premise, as evidenced by the Egyptologists who replied to Gasque’s inquiry. Murdock even hints to the true meaning of the “garment” when she cites Wallis Budge as saying (emphasis mine), “at Sais [the location of Neith’s temple] there were several chambers in which the ‘Mysteries’ of the ancient Virgin Mother-goddess Neith were celebrated.”10 By her own admission, Murdock gives her readers the true meaning of the veil: that it is a covering over of the deity’s person, thus preventing her from being known by her devotees, and the pursuit of such knowledge is the purpose for which these “chambers” existed in her temple. Murdock also appeals to the birth of Ra, the Egyptian sun god, in an attempt to link his birth with the birth of Jesus, the Son of God, by drawing attention to the identification of Neith as the Great Mother and the “begetter of the sun.” The appeal she is making is two-fold. First, she appeals to the similarity between the title of Neith and the title of Mary, both regarded, by some, as a “mother of God.” This tactic will be addressed under the heading specifically concerned with Mary herself. Second, she appeals to the phonetic similarity of Neith as the mother of the sun to that of Mary as the mother of the Son of God. This tactic will be addressed under the heading immediately forthcoming. Yet, in raising such a point, she brings to light a subtle comparison that some critics would draw between the type of births involved in the Neith myth and the Gospel nativity, claiming that both involved a birth by virginal conception, since neither birth involved male insemination. According to the Egyptian myth, Neith is one of the primeval deities and the one responsible not just for the creation of the sun, but also, the gods themselves. Neith (as Isis) is the mother of Ra, the Egyptian sun god. She is said to have conceived him while she was in the primordial watery void known as Nun. Since the sun, or Ra, rose from these waters while Isis/Neith was within them, she is said to have given birth to the sun. However, Ra’s birth was not a virgin birth; but rather, a birth through parthenogenesis, or asexual reproduction. Neith was an androgynous deity, meaning she was a mixture of masculine and feminine properties,11 and a birth by such a deity cannot be likened to a virgin birth, since it still involves the function of a particular type of sexuality. Neith, being a deity who possesses properties of both male and female genders, does not reproduce through union with a member of the opposite sex, since there is no gender to which she is opposite. Neither is there abstinence from sexual intercourse by which she could rightly be considered a virgin. In the natural world, parthenogenesis occurs in some species of plants and creatures, such as some bees and scorpions, reptiles, and, on rare occasions, birds and sharks. 12 In these instances, the subject is not regarded as haiving given birth by virginal conception, nor is the conception considered supernatural, since the process of parthenogenesis is a natural form of conception in asexual creatures. By contrast, Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus cannot be compared to parthenogenesis since parthenogenesis is not a natural means by which women conceive. Perhaps Murdock is aware that such a comparison is not reasonable, thereby compelling her to make such an analogy by merely evoking a play on words, linking Isis, the mother of the sun, to Mary, the mother of

27

the Son of God. Unfortunately, for her, it takes more than child’s play to make her analogy tenable. Finally, she states, “Nor is Neith-Isis the only pre-Christian and non-Christian virgin mother. Gautama Buddha was only one of many Oriental heroes whose mother was a virgin.”13 Buddha will be discussed later under the heading “The Unusual Suspects,” however, I will simply state here that his mother was married to the King of Shakyas at the time of Buddha’s conception and, although he was indeed said to have had a supernatural birth (a white elephant is said to have entered his mother’s side and impregnated her), such a legend concerning his birth did not arise until after the writing of the Gospels. Concerning Krishna* *Note: “Krishna” is incorrectly translated when translated as “Christ.” Krishna literally means “Black” in Sanskrit, whereas “Christ” means “Anointed One” in Hebrew. Krishna’s birth was not to a virgin. Contrary to critics’ suggestions that Krishna was born to the virgin Maia, Krishna was the eighth son of Devaki and her husband Vasudeva, according to the Hindu texts: "You have been born of the divine Devaki and Vasudeva for the protection of Brahma on earth."14 It is true that, while their previous seven sons were born through normal conceptions and births, Krishna’s birth was said to have been miraculous in that he is said to have never entered the womb of Devaki, but was already there in her mind and heart. “While carrying the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead within the core of his heart, Vasudeva bore the Lord's transcendentally illuminating effulgence, and thus he became as bright as the sun. He was therefore very difficult to see or approach through sensory perception. Indeed, he was unapproachable and unperceivable even for such formidable men as Kamsa, and not only for Kamsa but for all living entities. Thereafter, accompanied by plenary expansions, the fully opulent Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-auspicious for the entire universe, was transferred from the mind of Vasudeva to the mind of Devaki. Devaki, having thus been initiated by Vasudeva, became beautiful by carrying Lord Krishna, the original consciousness for everyone, the cause of all causes, within the core of her heart, just as the east becomes beautiful by carrying the rising moon.”15 "With our senses we can perceive some things, but not everything; for example, we can use our eyes to see, but not to taste. Consequently, You are beyond perception by the senses. Although in touch with the modes of material nature, You are unaffected by them. You are the prime factor in everything, the all-pervading, undivided Supersoul. For You, therefore, there is no external or internal. You never entered the womb of Devaki; rather, You existed there already."16

28

In the case of Krishna, it is said the personality of godhead was transferred from the mind of Vasudeva to the mind of Devaki without the intervention of male seed. Krishna did not reside within the womb of Devaki, for his presence within the core of her heart was sufficient to carry him. For this reason, Hindus are forbidden to think that Krishna was begotten by Vasudeva within the womb of Devaki and that she carried him as she carried her previous seven children. This account of Krishna, although miraculous, were it true, could not be likened to the Gospel accounts of either Jesus’ conception or Mary’s pregnancy, for the following reasons: 1. Jesus was Mary’s first child, whereas Krishna was Devaki’s eighth, thereby identifying Devaki as a non-virgin.. 2. While the conception of Jesus was supernatural and without male insemination, Mary’s pregnancy was as natural as any mother’s-to-be pregnancy could be. She carried Jesus in her womb for a full term and gave natural birth. 3. Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception, and remained so until after his birth. While she was “espoused”, or betrothed, to Joseph at the time of Jesus’ conception and they were legally considered husband and wife, they did not consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:25). The custom of the day was that betrothal lasted one year, during which time Mary and Joseph were considered legally married and were called husband and wife. After the year of betrothal, a seven day-long wedding ceremony took place, after which Joseph would bring her to the door of their new home. However, during the betrothal period, they were also bound to be faithful to one another and any infidelity was considered adultery. In such case, the relationship could be broken by one of two means: * Joseph could have her presented with a note of divorce in public court, at which time her reputation would be forever scarred and, according to Levitical law, she could be stoned for adultery, although by her day the practice of stoning as the penalty for such an offense had virtually been abandoned, due to the influence of the Pharisees. * Or, Joseph could “put her away” privately, at which time she would be presented with a note of divorce in the presence of one or two witnesses, after which she would be sent to raise her child in secret and away from the community. (emphasis mine, when added in the passages below) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the

29

Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Mt 1:18-25) And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:26-35) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger. (Luke 2: 4-7) Historian Michael Licona contacted Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University, regarding the parallels which author D. M. Murdock draws between Krishna and Jesus. Concerning Bryant’s response, Licona writes: “I emailed him regarding her 24 comparisons of Krishna to Jesus which the reader may find in The Christ Conspiracy. He stated that 14 of her 24 comparisons are wrong and a 15th is partially wrong. What about her 9 that are correct; especially Krishna’s virgin birth, the story of the tyrant who had

30

thousands of infants killed (a parallel to Herod), and Krishna’s bodily ascension? Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, ‘[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name.’ Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former ‘to be prior to the seventh century A.D. (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century A.D.’ Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation. An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early as the second century. Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires.”17 Concerning Mithras Not only was Mithras not born to a virgin, he was not born of woman at all; but rather, he emerged from a rock, and in proximity to a wild bull, which critics choose to liken to the Christian manger scene complete with lambs and oxen. In the religious texts and in the earliest reliefs depicting his origin, Mithras is seen emerging from the rock as a fully-mature being. Thus, Mithras is known in literature as the “rockborn god,” and an early inscription attributed to Mithras reads, “To the almighty God Sun invincible, generative god, born from the rock.”18 Commodianus, a Latin poet who wrote c. 250 A.D., identified Mithras as "the unconquered one … born from a rock."19 In addition, the Mithras cult did not become known in the Roman world until the second century A.D. (the latest of the four Gospels, the Gospel of John, was written in the 90’s A.D.), and therefore could not have been a source for any such fabrication of virgin birth for Jesus in the first century. The following is from the Encyclopedia Britannica: “There is little notice of the Persian god [Mithra] in the Roman world until the beginning of the 2nd century, but, from the year A.D. 136 onward, there are hundreds of dedicatory inscriptions to Mithra. This renewal of interest is not easily explained. The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation, wrought by a religious genius who may have lived as late as c. A.D. 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become acceptable to the Roman world”20 It is said that shepherds attended Mithras' birth and even offered to him the firstlings from their flock, but the source material for this aspect of the birth story dates only back to the second century and, therefore, could not have been an influence for the writer of the Gospel of Luke. Besides, according to Mithraic doctrine, Mithras emerged from the rock at a time before man, whether shepherd or non-shepherd, existed on earth.

31

In regards to the alleged similarities between Mithraism and Christianity, Manfred Clauss states, "...the entire discussion is largely unhistorical. To raise the issue of a competition between the two religions is to assume that Christians and Mithraists had the same aims. Such a view exaggerates the missionary zeal -- itself a Christian idea -- of the other mystery cults. None of them aimed to become the sole legitimate religion of the Roman empire, because they offered an entirely individual and personal salvation. The alternative 'Mithras or Christ?' is wrongly framed, because it postulates a competitive situation which, in the eyes of Mithraists, simply did not exist....We should not simply transpose Christian views and terms in this area onto other mystery cults. Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Graeco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world. The similarities do not at all suggest mutual influence....there are more substantial parallels at the ritual level, particularly the ritual meal...."21 Concerning Attis Attis was born of the nymph Nana after she was impregnated by an almond (seriously!) which was affected by the semen of Zeus, the chief of the Olympian gods. According to one version of the myth, a hermaphroditic (having both male and female parts) monster arises from the earth and gives “birth” to the river Sangarius, from which Nana is brought forth. The myth states she either became impregnated by holding an almond to her breast or by it falling into her lap while sitting beneath a tree. After the child is born, she abandons him and he is afterwards raised by a goat*.22 There is also an alternate version of the myth, in which Nana is the daughter of King Sangarius and she becomes pregnant from a pomegranate fruit. After an attempt by Liber to kill the hunter Agdistis, the fruit is produced from Agdistis’ blood, and it is by this fruit that Nana is impregnated. There is clearly no similarity here to the virgin birth of Jesus, in which the child is conceived in Mary’s womb without her being affected by an object touched with “divine” life-giving properties. Pausanias, a second century geographer, gave the following account of the belief concerning Attis’ birth: “Zeus, it is said, let fall in his sleep seed upon the ground, which in course of time sent up a demon with two sexual organs, male and female. They call the demon Agdistis. But the gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ. There grew up from it an almond tree with its fruit ripe, and a daughter of the river Sangarius, they say, took of the fruit and laid it in her bosom, when it at once disappeared, but she was with child. A boy was born and exposed, but was tended by a he-goat.”23 * In myth, the goat is linked to the god Pan, a trickster spirit. Concerning Dionysus As with Attis, there are two versions of the birth of Dionysus, and neither one involves birth from a virgin. In the first, Dionysus is conceived after his mother, Semele, a mortal woman, is impregnated by Zeus. The goddess Hera became jealous of the pregnant Semele and convinces her to ask Zeus to show her his glory, knowing

32

that any mortal who looks upon his glory would die. Semele made such a request and upon beholding Zeus’ glory, she was incinerated. After her death, Zeus sews the fetal Dionysus into his own thigh and carries him until his birth. A play by Euripides tells of the rebirth of Dionysus: “Immediately Zeus, Kronos' son, received [Dionysus] into a chamber fit for birth, and having covered him in his thigh shut him up with golden clasps, hidden from Hera. And he brought forth, when the Fates had perfected him, the bull-horned god, and he crowned him with crowns of snakes.”24 In the second version of the birth story, Dionysus is the offspring of Persephone, her having being impregnated by Zeus. This version also features a jealous Hera, who sends the Titans to kill the infant, which they do by dismemberment. Zeus remedies the situation by implanting Dionysus’ heart into the womb of Semele, from whom Dionysus is then reborn. In the case of Dionysus, both birth versions involve the god Zeus impregnating a woman to satisfy his own lust, which is in no way similar to the conception of Jesus, who was conceived not as a result of Mary being “impregnated” by the Holy Spirit; but rather, the child was formed within her without the means of insemination. Zeus was a morally corrupt god, siring numerous offspring after either deceiving or raping a woman.25 In addition, Dionysus was not born for the purpose of the child bringing salvation, as was the case with Jesus. When the angel announced to Mary she would conceive, she was told specifically the child would “save his people from their sins.” Also, Dionysus’ second “birth” is better likened to the concept of re-creation, being created a second in the same form and as the same person. In any case, no virgin birth can be attributed to Dionysus. Dionysus is said to have been the bodily incarnation of God, as was Jesus. In the Bacche Dionysus says that he “veiled his godhead in mortal shape” and was made “manifest to mortal men.” Elsewhere in the same work he says, “I have changed my immortal form and taken the likeness of men.” However, he said this merely in retaliation to Pentheus' refusal to bestow him honor, rather than making a literal claim to incarnation.

II. December 25th date of birth: said of Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithras Concerning Horus Horus' birth was actually celebrated during the month of Khoiak, which corresponds to October/November. Plutarch’s claim that Horus was born in December1 is more closely related to the sacredness which many pagan religions associated with the winter solstice, which was typical of sun gods (which Horus became through his merging with Ra).

33

Concerning Attis Nowhere in the myth is Attis said to be born in December. In fact, his birth was associated with the annual return of spring.2 Concerning Krishna Krishna's “birthday” is observed by the celebration called Krishna Janmaashtami, and is observed in the Hindu month of Bhadrapadha which corresponds to the month of August.3 Concerning Dionysus In like fashion with Attis, Dionysus’ birth is associated with the annual return of spring. It was not until the fourth century, by Epiphanius, when Dionysus’ birth was associated with a date in the winter months, and this date was January 6th, not December 25th.4 Concerning Mithras True, December 25th is associated with Mithras, but not until 274 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Aurelian instituted the Feast of Sol Invictus to be observed on that date.5 He did so with political motives due to the growing popularity of Mithraism among the Roman populace and an attempt to secure the loyalty of his soldiers. When was Jesus born? The critics who claim Jesus’ birth date is derived from pagan mythology are actually correct, since the date on which Christians observe His birth does have pagan origin, as will be shown shortly hereafter. However, these critics are apparently unaware that Jesus was not actually born on December 25th, or they intentionally manipulate the information, through omission or alteration of the facts, for the purposes of deceiving others into believing their claim to be true. No one knows the exact date of Jesus’ birth, however, we can narrow the scope of the search for His birth date by considering other factors, such as the death of Herod the Great, the Jewish rite of purification, and the date of Zechariah’s service in the temple. Establishing the year The end date - The death of Herod the Great Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great, as described in Matthew’s narrative. Historians have assigned the date of Herod’s death to a few different years: 5 B.C., 4 B.C., and 1 B.C. The best evidence leans in favor of 4 B.C. According to Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote in order to gain favor with the Roman emperor, Herod’s kingdom was divided among his sons in 4 B.C., following their father’s death. Additionally, he stated that Herod died shortly before the Passover Feast6 in the year of Rome 750 AUC* (or 4 B.C.), a feast which was held on the date corresponding to the fourth of April. Josephus also stated Herod died after a lunar eclipse which occurred earlier, on March 13th, 4 B.C. Therefore, Herod must have died between March 13th, the date of the lunar eclipse, and April 12th, the date of the Passover Feast, in 4 B.C.7

34

* AUC stands for Ab Urbe Condita, meaning "from the foundation of Rome". 1 AUC corresponds to 754 B.C., the date being chosen in 533 A.D. by Dionysus Exiguus, who chose to reckon years from the founding of Rome to what he believed was the year of Christ’s birth, although Jesus was not actually born in 1 A.D. Conclusion #1: The birth of Christ must have been no later than April 12th in 4 B.C. The beginning date - The date of the construction of the Temple Herod the Great ordered the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, an effort which began in 20 B.C. In John’s Gospel, the Jews stated that this effort continued for forty-six years (Jn 2:20), which would bring its completion to 26 A.D. The event recounted in the Gospel is the first of three annual Passovers attended by Jesus during His ministry. If the Temple was completed in 26 A.D., and Jesus’ attendance at the three annual Passover feasts was between 27-29 A.D., that would place His birth in late 5 B.C. or early 4 B.C., as He was thirtythree years of age when He was crucified. Conclusion #2: The birth of Christ must have been no earlier than the latter portion of 5 B.C. and no later than April 12th in 4 B.C. Determining the time of the year The date of Zechariah’s service in the temple In Luke’s Gospel, it is said of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist and a member of the Jewish priestly order, that the birth of John was announced to him by an angel while he was performing his priestly duties in Jerusalem. Luke also states that Zechariah was of the priestly “course of Abijah” (or Abia, as spelled in the King James Version). The priestly courses King David, in accordance with instruction he received from God (1 Chr 28:11-13), divided the Levitical priesthood into twenty-four courses, or groups (1 Chr 24:1-4). The establishment of these courses would ensure the Temple would be staffed year round by a set rotation of priests. Once the priesthood was divided, lots were drawn to determine the order in which each course would serve in the rotation (1 Chr 24: 7-19). As a result, the course of Abijah was named as the eighth course in the rotation (I Chr 24:10), a schedule which continued until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. The Jewish calendar The Jewish calendar has twelve or thirteen months, corresponding to the revolution of the earth around the sun (about 12.4 months), having twenty-nine or thirty days each, corresponding to the revolution of the moon about the earth (about 29.5 days). In order to compensate for the additional eleven days gained each year on a strictly twelve month calendar, the Hebrews added a month,

35

called Adar I, between Shebat and Adar, the eleventh and twelfth month. The Jewish months, from first to last, are: Nisan Iyar Sivan Tammuz Av Elul Tishri Cheshvan Kislev Tevet Shevat Adar I Adar

30 days 29 days 30 days 29 days 30 days 29 days 30 days 29-30 days 29-30 days 29 days 30 days 30 days 29 days

Mar-Apr Apr-May May-June June-July July-Aug Aug-Sept Sept-Oct Oct-Nov Nov-Dec Dec-Jan Jan-Feb Feb-Mar (leap years only) Feb-Mar

The rotation of courses Each course would serve for one week, from Sabbath to Sabbath, in the scheduled rotation, with the exception of the festivals of Unleavened Bread and Passover (Nisan 15-21), Pentecost (Sivan 6), and Tabernacles (Tishri 15), during which all courses were on duty in the Temple. Each year, when the rotation was completed, it began anew with the first of the courses. Thus, each course served five times during the year – two weeks for their usual rotation and three weeks for the three weekly festivals. The rotation of courses began in the Jewish month of Nissan (corresponding mid-March to mid-April), the beginning of the Jewish year (1 Chr 27:2). Nisan 30 days Mar-Apr Week 1 - course 1 Week 2 - course 2 Week 3 - all courses for the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread Week 4 - course 3 Iyar 29 days Apr-May Week 5 - course 4 Week 6 - course 5 Week 7 - course 6 Week 8 - course 7 Sivan 30 days May-June Week 9 - course 8 (Zechariah’s service during the first rotation) Week 10 - all courses for the Feast of Pentecost. Week 11 - course 9 Week 12 - course 10 Tammuz 29 days June-July Week 13 - course 11 Week 14 - course 12

36

Week 15 - course 13 Week 16 - course 14 Av 30 days July-Aug Week 17 - course 15 Week 18 - course 16 Week 19 - course 17 Week 20 - course 18 Elul 29 days Aug-Sept Week 21 - course 19 Week 22 - course 20 Week 23 - course 21 Week 24 - course 22 Tishri 30 days Sept-Oct Week 25 - course 23 Week 26 - course 24 Week 27 - all courses for the Feast of Tabernacles Week 28 – The rotation begins anew with course 1 Cheshvan 29-30 days Oct-Nov Week 29 - course 2 Week 30 - course 3 Week 31 - course 4 Week 32 - course 5 Kislev 29-30 days Nov-Dec Week 33 - course 6 Week 34 - course 7 Week 35 - course 8 (Zechariah’s service during the second rotation) Weeks 36-52 – the remainder of the courses serve in their second scheduled rotation The service of Abijah The schedule above shows that the course of Abijah would serve its regular schedule during the first week of Sivan, in the latter half of May, and the third week of Kislev, in early December. In addition to this, the same course would also serve for the three weekly feasts: 1) in early April, 2) in late May, immediately following its first scheduled appointment, and 3) in early October. The birth of John Luke tells us that “as soon as the days of [Zechariah’s] ministration were accomplished” (Lk 1:23) he returned to his home in "the hill country" of Judah (Lk 1: 39). His wife, Elizabeth, conceived shortly after his return home. Allowing a few days for the journey home, we can assume John was conceived shortly thereafter. John the Baptist would then have been born close to nine months following Zechariah’s service in the Temple.

37

The conception of Jesus According to Luke, when the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive a son, he also stated that Elizabeth was in the sixth month of her pregnancy at that time (Lk 1:26-36). Therefore, Jesus’ birth, nine months later, was fifteen months after Zechariah’s service. Determining at which appointment Zechariah served Luke does state that Zechariah performed his service “in the order of his course,” (Lk 1:8) and that as part of his service he entered “into the temple of the Lord and burn incense.” (Lk 1:9) The nature of Zechariah’s service described in the text indicates that it was during one of his two regularly-scheduled weeks that he served, rather than one of his three festival weeks of service.8 Therefore, at the time of the annunciation of John’s birth, it is likely Zechariah was in service either in late May or early October, when his course regularly served according to the regular schedule. Based on that information, we can calculate the conception and birth of John and Jesus as follows: If during Zechariah’s first service in the latter half of May: Late May/early June – John is conceived Late November/early, December – Jesus is conceived Late February/early March – birth of John Late August/early September – birth of Jesus If during Zechariah’s second service in early December: December – John is conceived June – Jesus is conceived September – John is born December/January – Jesus is born Conclusion #3: Jesus’ birth was in August/September or December of 5 B.C. The events surrounding Jesus’ birth Immediately following her giving birth to Jesus, Mary entered in to a period of time when she was deemed unfit to participate in religious ceremonies. According to Jewish law, in order to cleanse herself of this state, a woman was required to undergo the rite of purification after giving birth. In the case of a daughter, purification was to be completed eighty-one days after birth; and for a son, forty-one days. The rite required Joseph and Mary to journey from Bethlehem to Jerusalem and pay to the Temple the appropriate amount due for Mary’s purification. This means that the time between Jesus’ birth and Mary’s purification must have been at least six weeks, to allow for the forty-one day requirement. We also know that after the purification they returned to Bethlehem and were visited by the magi. After the magi departed Bethlehem, Herod sent his soldiers to Bethlehem to slaughter the male children two years and under.

38

It was said above that Herod died between March 13th to April 12th in 4 B.C. Between Jesus’ birth and the death of Herod were Mary’s forty-one day period of ceremonial impurity, the round trip to Jerusalem for the Purification rite, the visit of the Magi, and the slaughter of the children. In order to allow enough time for these events to occur, a December birth is unlikely, since it only allows for no more than four months – and that being the case only if Jesus’ birth was in early December and Herod’s death was shortly before April 12th. Finally, Luke tells us that Jesus was born during a Roman census conducted “when Quirinius was governor of Syria*.” (Lk. 2:1-2) A census was typically conducted following the harvest season, from August to October, in order to cause as little effect on the economy as possible in a largely agrarian society.9 Also, travel from one district to another would have been easier and safer before the winter storms and rain set in. For this reason, a December census would not have been likely. * Note: Critics have challenged Luke’s accuracy, since Quirinius did not begin his governorship until a few years after the supposed date of Jesus’ birth. Historian Alfred Edersheim and theologian J. Gresham Machen agree that the census began prior to Quirinius’ governorship, but was completed while he was in office, and that it was custom to name a census according to the ruler under whose governorship the census was completed.10 See Part six for a further discussion on Quirinius' enrollment. Conclusion #4: Jesus’ birth was in August/September of 5 B.C. Addendum - The argument regarding the shepherds According to Luke, on the night of Jesus' birth, there were “shepherds in the same country abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock.” (Lk 2:8) Some argue that a December birth is unlikely on the premise that shepherds would not keep watch in the fields in the winter months, while others argue that shepherds watched their flocks year round, making a December birth not impossible on this basis alone. Luke was a man who paid close attention to detail. His mention of shepherds abiding with their flocks by night was not likely just a casual reference; but rather, was probably included as an indicator of the time of the year when Jesus was born. If shepherds watched their flocks year round, then such a mention of a night-time watch would be futile. How did December 25th come to be recognized as Jesus’ birth date? As stated above, the exact birth date is not known, but we can, with a fair amount of certainty, narrow the date to within a short span of time. The celebration of Jesus’ birth date was established on December 25th by Julius I in 350 A.D. Prior to this establishment, December 25th was known as the Roman holiday Brumalia, a pagan celebration devoted to the sun. Desiring to challenge the Roman observance, Julius declared that date to be the date on which the birth of Jesus would be observed. As one Roman Catholic writer states, "… to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the pagan masses, the Church of Rome found it convenient to institute the 25th of

39

December as the feast of the birth of Christ to divert them from the pagan feast, celebrated on the same day in honor of the 'Invincible Sun' Mithras, the conqueror of darkness."11 Christians were outraged and offended at this declaration, since the birth of their Savior was being associated with a pagan celebration. However, that date remained firm as the date on which Jesus’ birth was observed. Since then, December 25th has been the date on which Jesus birth has been celebrated, despite the actual date being unknown. Concerning this date, some critics appeal to the piece of legislation known as HR 847, passed in 2007 by the U.S. House of Representatives, allegedly declaring December 25th as Jesus' birthday. The truth is that this piece of legislation does not declare December 25th as the birthday of Jesus. The legislation (the text of which may be read in full at www.govtrack.us) makes various statements concerning the population of Christians in the world, as well as statements relating to various social and political observations with respect to Christians and Christianity in general. However, concerning Christmas as the date of Jesus' birth, the bill simply states that Christmas is “a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, [and] is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world. … On December 25th of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ; … as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and … [and] as a time to serve others.” Such statements merely relate what Christians believe about Christmas, without further commenting or making declarations concerning the validity of these beliefs. The bill only names December 25th as the date on which Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, not as the date on which Jesus was actually born. Why are many pagan deities said to be born on December 25th? It is true that many pagan deities share December 25th as the date for celebration in their name. This is due to the fact that many of these deities are associated with the sun or the sky, and December 25th has been considered throughout history and by many cultures to be the birthday of the sun. Thus, a deity said to be a sky or sun god shared the “birthday” of the sun. The selection of this date is based on the symbolism surrounding the Winter Solstice (derived from the Latin words “sol” meaning “sun”, and “sistere,” meaning “to cause to stand still”), which marks the end of the darkening of the days and the beginning of the lengthening of light. On this day, because of the tilt of the earth on its axis, daylight exists in its shortest duration throughout the year, after which the daylight hours gradually increase. Many cultures saw this event as a sign of rebirth, renewal, and even salvation. During the three days prior to the Winter Solstice, between December 22nd-24th, the sun is perceived as ceasing to move either north or south, and ancient cultures considered this stillness of the sun as being symbolic of death; specifically, the death of the old sun. When, on December 25th, the sun began to move north, or “return from the dead,” this was considered symbolic of life, or the “rebirth” of the sun. So it was that December 25th became celebrated as the birth of the sun, and also became closely associated with any deity related to the sun.

40

The celebration of the Winter Solstice was not observed by ancient Egyptians. Rather, it has its basis as a Druidic or Celtic observance. The Celtic year observed the following eight annual cycles: Samhain, the beginning of the Celtic year – October 31st This was a time when men and women conducted themselves in a chaotic manner, playing various sorts of tricks and pranks and even cross-dressing amongst themselves. During these three days the World of the Ancestors was made available to the living, and many attempted to contact those in the spirit world. There were feasts held in honor of the dead, and during this time, the dead were thought of as living spirits. Yule, The Winter Solstice – December 22nd -24th Also called Midwinter or Alban Arthan (i.e., the Light of Arthur), the Winter Solstice marked a time of death and rebirth, as the sun is perceived to disappear on this day, the day of the longest night, then reappear on December 25th, the day which begins the lengthening of daylight. Imbolc – February 2nd Also called Oimelc, this date marked the beginning of the spring thaw when the winter snow began to fade. Ostara, The Spring Equinox – March 20th or 21st During this time, forces of day and night are perceived to reign in equal duration. Beltine – April 30th A time when adolescence and fertility is celebrated. The Summer Solstice – June 21st or 22nd Also called Alban Hefin, this is the day which sees the longest period of daylight. Druids held an all-night vigil on the eve of this day. A second ceremony was held beginning with the light of day, and a third ceremony at noontime. Lughnasadh – August 2nd Also known as Lammas, this day marked the beginning of the harvest season. On this day were held various contests and games. Mabon, The Autumn Equinox – September 21st Also called Alban Elfed, this final cycle marked the end of the harvest season. Day and night are again of equal duration, as during the Spring Equinox. On this day the Celts gave thanks to the Mother Goddess for the bounty of the season’s harvest. There is a vast difference between the Christian view of astronomy and the astrotheology of pagan cultures. In pagan cultures, the revolution of the seasons and the stars in the heavens are reflective of the recurring events in the lives of their deities. Thus, the annual renewal of vegetation is likened to the annual rebirth of a god. In Christian theology, the seasons are set in motion by a providential God and the stars in the heavens are His creation. In pagan religion, the sun is god. In Christian theology, the sun is a created body fashioned by the word of God. In pagan religion, the gods are subservient to the seasons. In Christian theology, the seasons were set in motion according to the design of God. The ancient Jews and Christians never

41

thought of the sun, stars, or seasons as being objects worthy of worship. In fact, God strictly forbade the worship of the stars, therefore, any suggestion that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are based on pre-existing astrological beliefs denies the fact that the writers of the Gospels belonged to a religious system which forbade such astrotheological beliefs. And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. (Deut 4:19 NASB) Additionally, the pagan deities who were “reborn” with the return of spring, were reborn on an annual basis, dying every winter then being reborn in the spring. In contrast, Jesus died once for all, having paid for sin through His death on the cross. There was no need for Him to sacrifice Himself again. Following His death and resurrection, Christ ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of His Father, having satisfied God’s wrath against sin. These are just a few of the differences between Jesus and the pagan deities. Other differences, such as the historical character of Jesus verses the mythological character of the pagan deities, and the atoning purpose for Christ’s death against the non-redemptive nature of pagan gods, will be discussed more in Part five of this work. The stars are the product of God’s creation And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (Gen 1:16) When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained. (Ps 8:3) Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name: (Amos 5:8) The seasons are set in motion by God’s design and decree Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter. (Ps 74:17) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (Gen 1:14) And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite

42

any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. (Gen 8:21-22) He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down. (Ps 104:19) Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons. (Dan 2:20-21) Son of God or “sun of God”? In their attempt to identify Jesus as just another solar deity, critics appeal to the phonetic similarity between the words “son” and “sun” in their attempt to sway others to their own perverted interpretation of the Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God. However, the association ends with vocal pronunciation and even this level of association is evident in only select languages. For example, in Hebrew, the language in which the Old Testament was written, the word for “sun” is shemesh, which bears no similarity, even phonetically, to ben, the Hebrew word for “son.” Likewise, in Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written, the word for “sun” is helios, which bears no similarity in meaning, although some phonetic similarity, to huios, the Greek word for “son.” In Aramaic, the language spoken in Palestine during the time of Christ, the word for “sun” is jämbär, while the word for “son” is wänd lj. The only appeal that the critics cling to in their attempts to identify Jesus as a solar deity is that of phonetics, at the expense of etymology. The difference in meaning of “sun” and “son,” in any language, regardless of any phonetic similarity, is enough to prove that the New Testament and early Christian writers did not regard Jesus as representative of a celestial body; but rather, as one who is in direct relation to divinity. Also, it should be noted that the identification of Jesus as the Son of God denotes His oneness with God the Father, rather than a natural or ontological begetting, and this relationship will be discussed in detail in Part five. In her attempt to validate this play on words, D. M. Murdock says, “the authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia states: The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in [the writings of Church father] Cyprian [200-258 A.D.]… ‘O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born…Christ should be born.’”12 It is interesting that the Catholic Encyclopedia suddenly becomes “authoritative” when it appears to support a claim of hers, whereas at all other times she decries the use of such reference works (especially those supporting Christian beliefs), as expressed in her blog on her personal website, where she states (in reply to an anonymous posting) that, “Skimming encyclopedias does NOT [emphasis not my own] constitute scholarship, which is why I do not simply regurgitate the mainstream perspective found in encyclopedia entries.”13 As Forrest Gump would say, “That's all I have to say about that.” It is also interesting that in the Catholic Encyclopedia, on the very same web page that contains the above citation from Murdock, says that the statement, “O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born…Christ should be born,”

43

was “written in 243 [after the Gospels had been composed] and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created.”14 Murdock also draws attention to the early church writer John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), who said, “But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December…the eight before the calends of January …, But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord…? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice.”15 She then states, “As we can see from these revealing remarks, the birth of Christ at the winter solstice has been asserted since as early as the 3rd century. Moreover, the reason for this birthdate is clearly given: This date represents ‘the birthday of the Sun!”16 It must be remembered that neither Scripture nor Apostolic tradition places the birth of Jesus in the month of December, and for reasons previously noted, the proper birthdate is likely sometime in September, when the sun is alive and well. It must also be noted that Chrysostom was born approximately only three years before December 25th was named by Julius I as the date on which Jesus was born. In stating that Jesus was born on that date, he is not appealing to empirical evidence; but rather, echoing the sentiment of the time. Furthermore, his reference to Jesus as the “Sun of Justice,” is no evidence to support the critics’ claims that Christians worshiped the sun. It is clear from Chrysostom’s writings that, despite his use of “sun” rather than “son,” he is referring to the historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians worship as Lord. Nowhere in his writings can it be inferred that his references to the Lord are references to a mere celestial body. His point in this passage was to draw attention to the superiority of the Christian faith above the beliefs held by the pagans, in that Christians worship a personal and living God, whereas pagans worship that which God created. Nevertheless, Murdock reiterates her position by stating, “The fact that this highly important solar festival was not added to the Christ myth until centuries after the purported advent of Jesus does not make it any less significant or him any less of a solar hero himself. Indeed, so common was the claim that Christians worshiped the sun that Church fathers such as Tertullian (c. 155-230) and Augustine (354- 430) were compelled to write refutations of it. In Ad Nationes (I, 13), Tertullian writes: The Charge of Worshiping the Sun Met by a Retort. …Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshiping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise?”17 Critics love to take things out of context and twist one’s words to imply they mean something they do not. The church Fathers who become victim to this scheme are among the most highly revered among the early church writers (Augustine, Justin Martyr, and, especially, the Apostles), which serves to fuel the critics’ fire until one looks beyond their claims and understands how words have been manipulated. This tactic will be addressed in detail in Part Three under the heading concerned with “suspect confessions” of prominent Christian writers. Here, I will only preview that section by making a brief comment on this passage which critics use in their attempts to convince others that Christian worship is synonymous with sun worship. The point

44

that Tertullian is making is not that both Christians and pagans worship the sun. In fact, he explicitly states that it is non-believers in Christ who “suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians.” Rather, his point is to call attention to the hypocrisy of the pagans in persecuting Christians for engaging in practices which appear similar to their own. Finally, Murdock attempts to further her claim by stating, “Adding to the suggestion of sun worship, the orientation of Christian churches towards solar alignments is well known, as explained by Sir Lockyer: ‘All our churches are more or less oriented, which is a remnant of old sun-worship. Any church that is properly built today will have its axis pointing to the rising of the sun on the Saint's Day, i.e., a church dedicated to St. John ought not to be parallel to a church dedicated to St. Peter.... Certainly in the early centuries the churches were all oriented to the sun, so the light fell on the altar through the eastern doors at sunrise.’”18 Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer (1836-1920) was a scientist and astronomer, who had a special interest in the sun. Given such a predisposition, it is not surprising that one would suggest such a thing. The truth is that mainstream Christian churches are not oriented in any special direction, and nowhere in Scripture are Christians instructed to pray towards the east. Rather, it is the Islamic faith, not the Christian faith, which instructs its devotees to pray towards the east.

III. Star in the east accompanied His birth: said of Horus and Krishna Concerning Horus The stories of Horus’ birth do not include the appearance of an eastern star, or any star for that matter. The only reference to a star in relation to Horus is the star Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky. However, this reference is merely symbolic. Horus, as a sun god, became related to this star, since Sirius, along with the three stars which make up the “belt” in the constellation Orion, point in the direction of the sun. Concerning Krishna In the myths, Krishna’s birth did not involve the appearance of a star, nor was his birth attended by wise men – or shepherds, for that matter. Krishna is said to have been born in a prison, where his parents bore him in secret. Some critics claim he was born in a manger, but the evidence for any such claim is not to be found in the religious texts. What was the star of Bethlehem? Even if a star were present in the myth stories, it would still not mirror the star found in the Christian nativity story of Jesus Christ. The star in the Gospel of Matthew is described in such a way so as to discourage the notion that it was a natural stellar phenomenon. The magi, or wise men, traveled to Jerusalem after seeing the star in the heavens. They were likely aware of the prophecy of Balaam that “there shall come a star out of Jacob” (Num 24:17-19) as foreshadowing the coming Messiah. For many years the people of Israel were in captivity in Persia. During this time, a Hebrew by the name of Daniel grew to prominence in the land and gained favor with the king. Daniel was a prophet of God and also reinforced the teachings of the prophets who came before him, including the prophecy of Balaam,

45

thus having much influence over the inhabitants of the empire. When the king allowed the Hebrews to return to their own land, many remained in Persia, intermarrying with their former captors. In addition, many Hebrews were scattered throughout the land during this period of time known as the Dispersion, and as a result Judaism, with its promise of a coming Messiah, spread across the continent. Thus, the magi, upon seeing the star, perceived it as a fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah, and so they journeyed to Jerusalem in search of this newborn King. The star appeared before their journey to Jerusalem, but the text does not say it led them there. Rather, they likely chose Jerusalem due to the prominence of the city in the religion of Israel and the assumption that the city would serve as the birthplace of the Messiah. However, after learning from Herod’s counselors that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, they then left Jerusalem and began the six mile trek to Bethlehem. After leaving Jerusalem, the same star which they had previously seen in the east now appeared again, only this time not as a mere celestial body, but as a guide. As Matthew states, the star “went before them and stood over the house where Jesus was.” (Mt 2:1-9) Also, the duration of time between the first appearance of the star, prior to the magi’s departure for Jerusalem, and the second appearance of the same star, upon their departure from Jerusalem, seems to have been a period of two years. This is inferred from the fact that Herod, after being informed by his counselors that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, asked the wise men when was the exact date of the first appearance of the star. Although their reply is not given in the text, it is implied that their response was that the star had appeared to them two years prior. This is implied by the fact that when Herod realized he would not be led to this child through an attempt to manipulate the wise men into disclosing the infant’s location, he ordered the slaughter of all male children two years and under in Bethlehem and the surrounding vicinity. Most likely, his selection of children within that age group was based on the magi’s reply to his inquiry. As far as the nature of this particular star, there have been several theories, but that discussion is outside the bounds of this work. For the purpose of this argument, it will suffice to say that a natural star does not appear and disappear at will and over long periods of time, nor does it serve as a literal guide, moving on a course of its own and to a destination foretold in a prophecy long before its appearance. The bottom line is that the star of the magi was not just another star in the sky, but was a direct fulfillment of prophecy. Critics suggest that the star of the magi, the star which led these men to Bethlehem in their search for Jesus, was the star Sirius, observable from any place on earth throughout most of the year. The magi, who were educated in astronomy, would not have taken this star, which they could have seen on any clear night, as a special occurrence, nor perceive the alignment of Sirius with Orion’s belt as nothing more than an event which occurred with regularity. Why, all of a sudden, would they consider this star to be something other than it was on any previous observance? Finally, critics neglect to point out that Jesus’ birth was not “announced” only by a star, but by hundreds of prophecies before His birth. In fact, even the star itself was the fulfillment of a prophecy announced by the prophet Balaam thousands of years before Christ. Independent research will show a myriad of pre-Christian texts which

46

foretell specific events and circumstances in the life of Christ. Below is a short list of such prophecies: Messianic prophecy

Foretold in the Old Testament

As the seed of the woman * As the seed of David

Gen 3:15 Ps 132:11, Jer 23:5

Born of a virgin Called Immanuel Born in Bethlehem Massacre of the children of Bethlehem Flight to Egypt Sold for thirty pieces silver His visage being marred Spit on and scourged Hands and feet nailed to the cross Garments being parted His death That none of His bones should be broken His being pierced His resurrection His ascension

Isa 7:14 Isa 7:14 Mic 5:2

Cross-reference with the New Testament Gal 4:4 Acts 13:23, Rom 1:3 Mt 1:22,23, Lk 2:7 Mt 1:22,23 Mt 2:1, Lk 2:4-6

Jer 31:15 Hos 11:1 Zech 11:12 Isa 52:14, 53:3 Isa 50:6 Ps 22:16 Ps 22:18 Isa 53:12

Mt 2:16-18 Mt 2:15 Mt 26:15 Jn 19:5 Mk 14:65, Jn 19:1 Jn 19:18, 20:25 Mt 27:35 Mt 27:50

Ex 12:46, Ps 34:20 Zech 12:10 Ps 16:10, Isa 26:19 Ps 68:18

Jn 19:33, 36 Jn 19:34, 37 Lk 24:6, 31, 34 Lk 24:51, Acts 1:9

* The phrase “seed of a woman” is a reference to the virgin birth of the Messiah. Everywhere else in Scripture, when referring to someone’s “seed,” the person mentioned in the passage is a man.

IV. Upon His birth, three kings came to adorn the newborn Savior:

said of Horus

In the myth of Horus, no mention is made of a visitation by three kings, despite the critics’ suggestion to the contrary. The three “kings” to which critics are referring are in fact the three stars which make up the belt of the constellation Orion, despite their apparent deception to influence one to take their words literally. These stars, named Mintaxa, Anilam, and Alitax, point directly to another star in the east: the star Sirrus, otherwise known as the star of Horus. In the myth, Horus was never visited by three figures being identified as kings. In fact, neither is there mention of three kings in the Gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew simply states that “wise men from the east” came to Bethlehem to visit the newborn King, and it is never stated they were three in number. Rather, it is said only that they presented three gifts to Mary and Joseph. It was not until centuries after the apostles left the scene that the wise men were numbered in three, and even given names which were derived from an early sixth

47

century Greek manuscript in Alexandria. In all likelihood, the magi mentioned in Matthew would have been part of a large traveling company comprised of servants and bodyguards, especially since they were unwelcome outsiders traveling in potentially hostile Roman territory and also were in possession of items of great value which would attract bandits who resided in the countryside. In addition, the “wise men” mentioned in Matthew were not kings at all, but were of the order of the magi. The magi were close to royalty, but were not royalty themselves. They served kings as counselors, philosophers, and astrologers. At times, they took part in the selection of kings, but were not made kings themselves.

V. His mother was named Mary: said of Horus The mother of Horus was the goddess Isis. Nowhere in antiquity was she ever called “Isis-Meri,” as critics suggest. In fact, when it is proposed that Isis was also known as Isis-Meri, the only source provided as evidence is a modern-era book written by an author who is seeking to make false parallels between Egyptian mythology and Christianity. There were, however, other figures who had the suffix, or prefix, “meri” or “mery,” a word meaning “beloved” or “loved by,” added to their name. Such was the case of Nefertari, the wife of Rameses II, who was also known as Mery Mut. Mut, or Mout, was an Egyptian deity who was perceived as a mother goddess, being the one who gave birth to the universe. The epithet “Mery Mut” means "Beloved of Mut,” and indicates Nefertari’s honorable position as one loved by the gods. D. M. Murdock suggests that the identification of Mut as a mother goddess, linked with the epithet “Mery,” indicates that a “‘Mother Mary,’ so to speak, [existed] long before the Christian era.”1 However, the “mother” in question, or Mut, is not the one named Mery in this depiction. Rather, the one named “Mery” is the one who is loved by the mother, but she is not the mother herself; therefore, the analogy falls apart. Likewise, the name “Merneith” (also known as “Meritnit,” “Meryet-Nit,” or “Meryt-Neith”) was given to a queen who is believed to have been the fourth pharaoh of Ancient Egypt during the first dynasty2, and an name which means “beloved by Neith.” Here, again, Murdock draws a false analogy when she states, “in consideration of the fact that Neith was a virgin mother, in this name [Merneith] we possess the concept of a ‘virgin Mery’ long prior to the Christian era.”3 In reasoning as such, she merges the two separate figures – the lover and the one “loved by” – into one entity, a conclusion which is not supported by the name itself. Her method of reasoning as such is most evident in her claim that “Ra and Amen also had the epithet meri/mery attached to their names: Ra-Meri or Meri-Ra and Amen-Meri or Meri-Amen, meaning ‘beloved of Ra’ or ‘beloved Ra’ and ‘beloved of Amen’ or ‘beloved Amen.’ The god Ptah was likewise deemed ‘beloved,’ as in ‘Ptah-Meri.’ Even Egypt itself is called Ta-Meri—‘beloved land.’”4 According to her analysis, Ra is identified as both the source and the object of love – in other words, he, as “Ra-Meri,” becomes “Ra, beloved of Ra.” Likewise, “Amen-Meri” becomes “Amen, beloved of Amen” and “Ptah-Meri” becomes “Ptah, beloved of Ptah.” Such a narcissistic form of love is not the type of affection that is denoted by the epithet “mery” or “meri.” Also, the reference to Egypt as the “beloved land” serves no purpose other than to indicate the notion that the Egyptian people were favored by the gods, a notion which is common within many societies, thus mimicking the promise made to Abraham that God would lead him to another land and from his seed will sprout a great nation (Gen ch. 12). In the final analysis, the epithet “Isis-Meri” is a

48

reference to the one who Isis, the “Mother,” loves. As such, the epithet “Isis-Meri,” as suggested by Murdock, refers neither to a “mother,” a virgin, nor to a person named “Meri,” (or any variation thereof) and Murdock’s suggestion to the contrary is the product of her own invention, in order to give credibility to an untenable parallel between Isis, the mother of Horus, and Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Great Arcanum also suggests that in the gospel narratives, the Virgin Mary is representative of the constellation Virgo, also known as Virgo the Virgin (Virgo is Latin for “virgin”), rather than representative of an historical figure: the mother of Jesus and the wife of Joseph. Since the ancient glyph or letter for Virgo is M, this is why, according to the Zeitgeist film, “Mary and other virgin mothers such as Myrra and Maya (the mother of Buddha), begin with an M.” Virgo, one of the oldest constellations in the sky, has been identified with many female deities, including Isis, the mother of Horus. She is identified as the goddess of fertility, agriculture, and the earth. Images of Virgo are of a woman holding a sickle and sheaves of grain or holding the young Horus. First of all, the other mothers, whose name begins with M, were not virgin mothers. Myrrha committed incest with her father, Cinryas.5 Maya, the mother of Buddha, is said to have conceived her son without male intervention, but she was a married woman at the time of conception, which is said to have occurred when “the most excellent of bodhisattvas” entered into her womb after having assumed the form of a white elephant. “To [the king Suddhodana] there was a queen named Mâyâ, as if free from all deceit--an effulgence from his effulgence, like the splendor of the sun when it is free from all the influence of darkness, a chief queen in the united assembly of all queens. … Then falling from the host of beings in the Tushita heaven, and illumining the three worlds, the most excellent of bodhisattvas suddenly entered at a thought into her womb, like the Nâga-king entering the cave of Nandâ. Assuming the form of a huge elephant white like Himâlaya, armed with six tusks, with his face perfumed with flowing ichor, he entered the womb of the queen of king Suddhodana to destroy the evils of the world.”6 The bottom line is that these mothers share nothing more than a common letter in their name. Secondly, the supposed significance of the glyph M is based on an assumption that all these cultures utilize the same alphabet, and one does not need to hold a doctorate in linguistics to know that this is simply not the case. Critics suggest that the paintings and images of Isis holding Horus are the foundation for the images of Mary holding the infant Jesus, as if Christians merely borrowed this icon from paganism. Have you ever seen a mother holding her child? Did you think that she did so out of anything but love for her infant? Did you think she was cradling her son merely because she saw someone else do it before her? No, of course not! Yet, this is just one example of the length to which critics will stretch in their search for anything to back up their claims. Yes, images of Isis holding Horus existed long before the birth of Jesus, but so did countless images of other women holding their son. Is this really any reason to suppose that one instance is merely a reflection of another? Such imagery is merely a depiction of a normal human experience.

49

There is also no significance in the glyph M being associated with Virgo, for the same glyph is also associated with Scorpio. Thus, it is representative of Virgo the virgin as well as Scorpio the scorpion. As far as goddess-parents having names which begin with M, there are also numerous goddess-parents which have names beginning with another letter of the alphabet besides M. No significance can logically and reasonably be attached to this claim. If an aquarium contains one hundred fish and sixty of them are goldfish, does that automatically mean the other fish in the tank must also be goldfish by virtue of association? The critic would obviously answer no, yet would persist to apply such fallacious reasoning in the formulation of their theories. In addition, the virginal state of Mary at the time of Jesus’ conception would not have been a thing of Jewish invention (Matthew and Luke, the writers of the two Gospel infancy narratives, were both Jews). For the Jew, the concept of God was so high as to condemn even the misuse of His name. When Jesus proclaimed He was God, the Jews sought to stone Him for blasphemy, and it was this charge of blasphemy which eventually led to the masses crying out, “Crucify Him!” when He stood before Pilate. For this reason, no Jew would have composed a birth story in which God Himself caused the conception, even without the means of insemination. If he had, he would certainly not have had much success in his story being accepted by the people – unless the story was true and one’s faith overpowered tradition! In addition to this concept contradicting their view of God, Jews would also not have conceived of a story where the Messiah would have been born without human parentage, as was Perseus, who was born through Zeus coupling with a woman, or any other son in pagan mythology who was born as a result of a union between the human and the divine. Jews abhorred pagan religion, especially being a people immersed in an oppressive Roman culture, and the idea of likening the Messiah to any divine-human union was not only a gross offense, it was unthinkable. As stated above, when December 25th was marked as the date for the celebration of Jesus’ birth, it resulted in an outrage that the birth of the Savior was being too closely associated with pagan religion. The Jews would certainly not have looked to the stars and pagan astrology to pick a mother for their Messiah, since such astrological veneration was forbidden by the Law of Jehovah. The role of one such as Mary in the Gospels’ account would hardly be one that would have been selected had the birth of Jesus been the work of fiction. Mary was a poor woman who lived in a town full of corruption and moral filth. As Alfred Edersheim notes, her hometown, Nazareth, was positioned along a main road which connected the port cities with Jerusalem and other inland locations.7 As such, people of all types traversed past the town, and the women of Nazareth were known to provide sexual favors to passers-by. Although the Gospels describe Mary as one who was not given to such moral corruption, she would have been despised by outsiders who generally held Nazarenes in low esteem. This would have been especially true of those in the southern region of Judea, who considered those of the northern region of Galilee as people of lower class and virtue. Had the Gospels been fabricated, certainly the writers would not have selected either a woman or location of such ill repute. As mentioned under an earlier heading, the deity known as Neith was an alter ego of Isis. Concerning this deity, Murdock states that Neith “is not only the ‘Alpha and

50

Omega,’* so to speak, but also the inviolate begetter of the sun, the Immaculate Virgin and Great Mother. The fact of her association with the Greek goddess Athena**—herself a chaste and pristine virgin, as indicated by the name of her temple at Athens, the Parthenon—confirms Neith's esteemed virginal status.”8 Murdock’s attempt here is to liken Isis with the Virgin Mary, who is known by Catholics as the “Mother of God,” and who is also regarded, again by Catholics, as being immaculately conceived – that is, conceived without sin. It should be noted that the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception did not become church dogma until 1854, when Pope Pius IX issued his Ineffabilis Deus. Such a doctrine is not only unexpressed in the New Testament; it is also directly contrary to its teaching of the sin nature of mankind, which states that every person is born in sin (Rom 3:23, 5:12). There does exist early references to the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, in the writings of Origen in the third to fourth centuries, but the New Testament clearly speaks of Jesus having younger siblings, and there is no reason to believe, nor is there any indication given (in Scripture nor in first century church tradition), that these were step-siblings. It is also believed by Catholics that Mary experienced an assumption into heaven, but this doctrine was not defined until 1950 by Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus. Murdock continues by appealing to the following titles in her attempt to link Mary to a pagan deity (it must be noted that many of these titles are not ones by which Mary is recognized by either Catholics or Protestants, especially since some of these names belong within a polytheistic belief system, whereas Christianity is monotheistic): “Divine Lady,” “Greatest of gods and goddesses,” “Queen of the gods,” “Lady of heaven,” “Holy one of heaven,” “Great goddess of the Other World,” “Mother of Horus,” “Mother of the God,” “Lady of Life,” “Lady of joy and gladness,” and “Queen of heaven.” Any comparison of Mary to a pagan deity based on these concepts is absolutely irrelevant to the claim that the Gospels are a derivation of pagan myths, for such beliefs about Mary are not expressed in Scripture; but rather, emerged within certain Christian groups centuries after the Gospels were written. It should be noted that Mary’s title as the “Mother of God,” as she is still called by Catholics, did not become dogma until 431 during the Council of Ephesus. It was not until even more recent times, with Vatican II and Pope John Paul II's Redemptoris Mater, that Mary became named as the “co-redemptrix” in the work of salvation and the “Mother of the Church.” Likewise, Murdock’s argument that “as Christians do with the Virgin Mary, Isis' female worshipers petitioned her to make them fertile and able to conceive,” is equally untenable, since such veneration of Mary (or the act of praying to any person recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church) is not expressed anywhere in the New Testament or early church writings; but rather, gradually developed over time during the Middle Ages, and it is from such development that the practice of praying the Rosary emerged. Murdock then grasps for whatever straw she can lay hold of when she states, “Isis bewailed Osiris in the shrines of Egypt, as Mary bewailed her Son at Golgotha. The seven scorpion-goddesses who attended Isis seem to have their counterpart in the seven maidens who were associated with Mary in weaving the Veil of the Temple.”9 In all fairness, Murdock does note that such depictions of Mary are not found in Scripture; but rather, in the Apocrypha. However, since Christians do not regard the Apocrypha as Scripture, and the books contained therein do not hold up to the same measure of integrity and authenticity as does the books of the New Testament, any appeal to the

51

Apocryphal books is irrelevant to the critics’ argument. Nevertheless, it should be observed that the New Testament’s description of Mary at the cross should come as no surprise whatsoever, since such is a natural reaction of a mother to her son’s impending death. Also, the notion that Mary, a young girl from the lower class of society and who resided in Nazareth, was involved in the weaving of the veil of the Temple, is simply ludicrous. Finally, it must be noted that the name Mary, or Miriam, was as common a name in ancient Palestine as are Smith and Jones today. Certainly not every Smith in my phone book is related to all the other Smiths by virtue of a common name. Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland conducted his own study to determine the commonality of names found on ossuaries (stone boxes in which the bones of the deceased were paid to rest). The following chart is the result of his research, through which 328 female subjects were used to determine the four most common among females. Column A of the chart represents the number of occurrances of the name from the total of subjects studied, while Column B represents the number of occurrances of the name on ossuaries10. As shown in the chart below, the name Mary was at the top of the list, accounting for over 21% of the total number of ossuaries studied. It is not surprising then that Jesus’ mother had the name Mary. FEMALE NAMES Rank Name 1 2 3 4

COLUMN A Total References

Mary/Mariamne 70 Salome 58 Shelamzion 24 Martha 20

COLUMN B Total Found on Ossuaries (out of 328) 42 41 19 17

Percent of Total References 21.3% 17.7% 7.3% 6.1%

* Her reference to the “Alpha and Omega” is drawn from the portion of the inscription which reads, “I am all that hath been, and is, and shall be.” She desires to parallel this with such New Testament references to Jesus as the “first and the last,” “the Aplha and Omega,” and “the one who was, who is, and who is to come.” Such a comparison will be addressed under a later heading dealing with the titles by which Christ was known. ** Athena, also known as Minerva, was indeed a virgin, but she never conceived a child in her virginity. She was simply a virgin, nothing more, and such is of no significance. (Athena and many other deities will be addressed under the later heading “The Unusual Suspects.”)

52

VI. He was born in a manger or a cave in the “house of bread,” also translated as “Beth-lehem:” said of Horus

Virgo is referred to as the “house of bread”, according to Zeitgeist. I consulted over a dozen Latin dictionaries and the result was unanimous consent: every one defined “virgo” as meaning “maiden, virgin, or young girl.” Not a single Latin dictionary identified “virgo” with a “house of bread.” I then did a search online for “virgo ‘house of bread,’” in an attempt to find a link between the two. I was met with dozens of web sites associating the constellation Virgo with the phrase “house of bread.” The interesting thing is that these sites all had at least one thing in common: they were all hosted by people or organizations who were attempting to promote the “copycat theory.” Each of these sites was trying to make the same suggestion that the birth of Jesus was merely a fabrication based on pre-existing astrological beliefs, and none of these sites provided a credible source for their claim, for the source used, on the rare occasion when a source was cited, was a book by an author who shared their motivation for making such a claim. In the Hebrew tongue, “Bethlehem” literally does means “house of bread" – at least the critics get that much right. According to Strong’s Concordance, the word “Bethlehem” is made up of two words: “bayit,” meaning “house” and carrying the connotations of one's family or immediate household, and “lehem,” meaning “bread” and is a derivation of the verb “laham,” which means “to eat,” or “to use as food.”1 The video claims that Bethlehem is “a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place in the sky, not on earth.” First of all, Horus was not born in a manger, as some suggest. Rather, he was born in a swamp and raised in seclusion in the marshes on the floating island of Chemmis, near Buto.2 His mother Isis raised him there in order to protect him from Set and preserve him until such a day when he would claim his role as king of Egypt. Second, Bethlehem was originally known as Ephratah, or Ephrath, in early Old Testament times, as shown in the following passages: Then they moved on from Bethel. While they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel began to give birth and had great difficulty. (Gen 35:16 NIV) So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). (Gen 35:19 NIV) [Note: Rachel’s Tomb, or so it is called, is located just outside of modern-day Bethlehem] The man's name was Elimelech, his wife's name Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there. (Ruth 1:2 NIV)

53

In later Old Testament times, Ephratah also became known as Bethlehem. It then became one of two towns by that name. When the prophet Micah foretold the birthplace of the Messiah, he specifically identified which Bethlehem he meant: But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2) Scholars agree that the name Ephrathah either referred to Bethlehem itself or to the district in which Bethlehem was situated. Even if the constellation Virgo were known as “Bethlehem” or “house of bread,” which it evidently was not, it would not have been known as “Bethlehem Ephrathah.” The language of the prophecy in Micah, as well as the Gospels Matthew and Luke, clearly identify Bethlehem as an earthly location. Third, because of Micah’s prophecy, the Hebrews knew the Messiah would be born in the city of Bethlehem. While they did not accept Jesus as that Messiah, they did believe that Bethlehem would be the place from where the Messiah would come. Extra-Biblical Jewish writings, such as the Talmud and various targums (Jewish paraphrases of the Old Testament), quoted below, name the city of Bethlehem as the accepted place of the Messiah’s birth. And you Bethlehem-Ephrathah who are too little to be counted among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you in My name shall come forth the Messiah who is to be ruler in Israel and whose name has been called from eternity, from the days of old.3 The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah.4 O, thou Bethlehem Ephrata ... although thou art little in the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Man, a Ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from the days of old ... that is from the Seed of David ... who was of Bethlehem Judah.5 Fourth, Jesus was not born in a cave. The Gospel narrative states Mary and Joseph laid Jesus “in a manger, because there was no room in the inn.” Bethlehem was loaded with visitors at this time, people who had come there to register for the Roman census; therefore, the local inn was full. Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim, in his book Sketches of Jewish Social Life, observed that khans, or inns, generally were built in a square, with a court in the center for carriages or beasts of burden.6 The rooms surrounding the courtyard were unfurnished and opened up to galleries all around. The innkeeper expected no payment from his guests for occupancy, but he would provide necessities, such as a house meal or linen, for a fee. Inns were not attached to a cave, but were located within a town itself and on outlying roads between towns. When Jesus was placed in a manger, He was not placed in a cave, but in a stable, of sorts - a section of the inn reserved for animals.

54

Fifth, no one can deny that Bethlehem existed as a real city in Palestine even in ancient times. Josephus mentions that Bethlehem was where King David was anointed to be the future king of Israel.7 Archaeologist J. B. Hennessy affirms Bethlehem existed as a city at the time Jesus was born. He states, “Minor excavations by the Franciscan Fathers in the grottoes beneath the basilica have produced evidence of Iron Age and first century A.D. occupation, while east of the church of St. Joseph excavation has produced several deposits of Iron Age pottery. Perhaps most important has been the isolation, in 1969, of the Iron Age tell. The limits of the Iron Age occupation, while not entirely clear, appear to be on the flat surface and the slopes immediately beneath the basilica and to the E. The work was carried out by the Israel Archaeological Society. Bethlehem appears to have been a major area of occupation from the Paleolithic period.”8

VII. At age twelve He was known as a teacher: said of Horus There is no indication that Horus was a teacher at age twelve. In fact, his mother Isis raised him in secret, according to the myth, in the marshes, until such a time as he became ready to claim his role as ruler of Egypt. Hence, his epithet Har-hery-wadj, meaning “Horus who is upon the papyrus plants.” In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is mentioned as having a discourse with the priests in the temple in Jerusalem after the Feast of the Passover, but this was in accordance with Jewish custom. Each year, families from all over Palestine traveled to Jerusalem to partake in the Passover festivities and ordinances. It was typical, when the families left the city to return to their home, for the male children twelve years of age and older to remain behind at the temple under the care of the priests for the purpose of receiving instruction. It was such an occasion which afforded Jesus the opportunity to sit in the company of the priests. The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus listened to them and asked questions. Although it is said that the priests were amazed at His knowledgeable answers to their questions, Luke does not state Jesus was the teacher in this instance. Jesus was merely an inquisitive student, whose answers amazed the priests in His company.

VIII. At age thirty, He began His ministry after being baptized: said of Horus In ancient Hebrew culture, a requirement for service as a priest, teacher, or a master was that the candidate be at least thirty years of age, and this standard was established long before Christ. In fact, it was part of Mosaic Law that such age must be reached before one could enter into service. From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that came to do the service of the ministry, and the service of the burden in the tabernacle of the congregation, Even those that were numbered of them, were eight thousand and five hundred and fourscore. (Num 4:47-48 NASB) D. M. Murdock, in her booklet The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist Part 1, makes the following claim: “The notion that Osiris [Horus’ father] was 28 when he suffered his passion is also interesting, in light of the fact that Jesus was likewise said to have been around 28-30 when he began his ministry, depending on the source. Indeed, one early

55

Christian tradition also places Christ's passion at when he was ‘only twenty eight, and one-quarter years of life,’ quite possibly in imitation of the Osiris myth.”1 The Jews recognized three age brackets once a person passed through adolescence. A man under thirty years of age was considered a young man, and unfit for certain work (such as Temple service). Between the ages of thirty and fifty, a man was considered the age of a “master,” or teacher. A man age fifty-one or higher was considered an old man. (for more on this, I refer the reader to the section regarding Iraeneus in Part three under the heading “Concerning suspect confessions of prominent ancient Christian writers”) It was in keeping with this custom that Jesus waited until close to His thirtieth birthday to begin His public ministry. None of the Egyptian texts concerning Horus includes a baptism. Critics claim that Horus is said to have been hacked in pieces and thrown into a river, but this is what happened to Osiris, not Horus. Nevertheless, if someone wants to call that a baptism, he will do so with an absolute lack of understanding as to the true nature of baptism. As far as the accusation that John the Baptist is a mere fabrication based on Anup the Baptizer, there is no such person as Anup mentioned in any of the accounts of Horus. Even if there were such a one, many religions have their own form of baptism and baptizers, therefore, it is too common of an element to claim one is based on or fabricated from another. Concerning Jesus’ baptism, Murdock states: “[Osiris] was said to have been drowned by Set, or Seth. According to a later magical papyrus, this drowning took place in the ‘water of the underworld.’ This aspect of the myth is interesting in light of the fact that in Greek mythology the sun god Helios was said to have been drowned in the river Eridanus or ‘Jordan,’ in which Jesus was likewise said to have been baptized or dunked.”2 There is speculation as to which river is named in the myth as the river Eridanos, but none of them include the Jordan River – a river in Palestine, not Greece. Rivers named as candidates for being the mythical river are the Italy’s Po River, Egypt’s Nile River, and the Danube. Murdock’s claim that “Eridanus” is synonymous with “Jordan” is simply unfounded on either a mythical basis or, as even a child hooked on phonics can attest, a phonetic basis. As a result, Murdock fails in her attempts at false association and her claims cease to be those which any reasonable scholar would classify as “interesting.” According to the Gospel accounts, the baptism of Jesus was followed by His retreat into the wilderness to be tempted of Satan for forty days, during which He fasted and prayed. The depiction of the interaction between Jesus and Satan in such a scene is one which critics delight in comparing to the age-old struggle between light and darkness, or good and evil. In such a discussion, comparison is often made between Satan and pagan figures which represent absolute evil. Concerning such a comparison, Murdock states: “Like Satan, Set rebels from his divine birth. Also like Satan, who in the Old Testament is merely ‘the Adversary,’ rather than the personification of Absolute Evil that he became in the New Testament, Seth was not always considered absolutely evil. Like Yahweh, God of the Old Testament, who was the orchestrator of both good and evil, Set is represented as the ‘twin’ of Horus and half of a dual god as a single being, Horus-Set. Yet, Set is also a separate entity who becomes locked in an eternal struggle with his alter ego and enemy, Horus, and, again, at a certain point the ‘old thunder-god’ Set became ‘the representative of all evil’ and ‘a real Satan.’ … Like Satan, Set/Seth too had his devoted followers—the ‘sons of Seth,’ possibly as recorded in the Old Testament and generally thought to refer to

56

the descendants of Adam's third son Seth. Like Adam's other son Cain, who kills his brother Abel, Seth/Set is depicted as murdering his brother Osiris. And like other characters in the Old Testament, such as Abraham and Moses, in the patriarch Seth we seem to have yet another instance of an ancient tribal god demoted to human status. As does Satan with Jesus (Rev 12:1-5), Set attempts to kill Horus. Set is the ‘god of the desert’ who battles Horus, while Jesus is tempted in the desert by Satan. Like Satan, who has a forked tail, Set too is depicted with a forked tail. In fact, Set's portrayal with bizarre ears and an anteater-like snout makes him appear creepy and demonic.”3 In such an analysis, Murdock draws a number of comparisons, which will here be examined one by one. “Like Satan, Set rebels from his divine birth.” This one is accurate, except that Satan was “created,” not “born.” “Also like Satan, who in the Old Testament is merely ‘the Adversary,’ rather than the personification of Absolute Evil that he became in the New Testament, Seth was not always considered absolutely evil.” The shift in the personage of “the Adversary” to that of “Satan” in the New Testament is typically said to be due to Persian influence on Judaism during the time when the Jews were under Persian captivity from 597-539 B.C. The argument is that the Jews borrowed from the Persian concept of a supremely evil being known as Angra Mainyu, a being who was believed to be uncreated and co-equal to Ahura Mazda, the supremely good deity recognized in Zoroastrianism, the principal religion of ancient Persia at the time of the Jewish captivity. I will reserve a fuller treatment on this topic for Part three where the tenants of Zoroastrianism will be examined and compared to Christian beliefs (See the section “Concerning Zoroastrianism” in Part three under the sub-heading “Spirits of malevolence”) I will merely point out here that the concept of a supremely evil being named Satan exists in the Old Testament as well as in the New. In fact, he appears as Satan in the book of Job, one of the oldest books of the Bible. (Job 1:6-12) “Like Yahweh, God of the Old Testament, who was the orchestrator of both good and evil, Set is represented as the ‘twin’ of Horus and half of a dual god as a single being, Horus-Set. Yet, Set is also a separate entity who becomes locked in an eternal struggle with his alter ego and enemy, Horus…” First of all, Yahweh is not the orchestrator of evil. I presume Murdock is making an allusion to such passages as those below: Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lam 3:38) I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. (Isa 45:7) Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6)

57

Since a more detailed discussion of these passages will be reserved for Part five, when addressing the sovereignty of God vs. the problem of evil, I will only here make the claim that the word “evil” in these passages is translated from a word that means “calamity” or “disaster,” and that the translation into the word “evil” is a shortcoming of the King James Version, a shortcoming which has been corrected in modern translations. Nowhere in Scripture is it said that God orchestrates evil or wickedness. Second, Murdock draws yet another false analogy in stating that Horus and Set were “twins” and two personages of a single being. In the New Testament, Jesus is not at all portrayed as a “twin” or “altar ego” of Satan, nor are He and Satan ever portrayed as two sides of a single being. Rather, Jesus is the one who created Satan, along with all the other angels. Third, the conflict between Jesus and Satan is neither a “struggle” nor is it “eternal,” as Murdock suggests. Satan was at one time among the greatest of the angels, in service to God. At some point he rebelled and has since been at enmity with God, roaming through the earth as a ravaging lion, seeking whom he may devour. However, his efforts are futile, for he has already been defeated by virtue of the work of Christ, who gave Himself for His people to ensure that they would never be “devoured,” or lost. The final defeat of Satan will occur in the last day, when the people of God will be forever free from the oppression brought upon them by demonic forces. Also, Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness was not a struggle, but a trial. He and Satan did not wrestle one another to the ground for forty days. Rather, Satan is depicted as enticing Jesus to perform acts which would be against His Father’s will, and in each instance, Satan was defeated. “Like Satan, Set/Seth too had his devoted followers—the ‘sons of Seth,’ possibly as recorded in the Old Testament and generally thought to refer to the descendants of Adam's third son Seth.” Murdock makes use of another false analogy in comparing the “sons of Set/Seth” to followers of Satan. Satan does indeed have those who are devoted to him, and even regard him as the source of knowledge and the one through whom a person’s “inner divine self” can be realized (see the section “Concerning Luciferianism” in Part Two). In the book of Genesis, Seth is said to be the third son of Adam, born after Cain killed his brother Abel. Seth is described as a godly man, and not one who followed the devil. Likewise, the lineage of Seth is also described as a godly lineage, and it is for this reason that some interpret the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis chapter six (6:2) as a reference to the mingling of Seth’s godly line with the wicked “daughters of men,” thereby giving birth to abominations. The identification of the figures named as “sons of God” in that passage is a subject of much debate. Some regard them as fallen angels who coupled with human women, resulting in a sort of superhuman offspring called “nephilim,” however, it is not my intention here to support one view above another (for such a discussion would be well outside the bounds of the subject at hand). I mention the passage here simply for the purpose of indicating that the sons of Seth were not regarded in Scripture as the followers of Satan. “Like Adam's other son Cain, who kills his brother Abel, Seth/Set is depicted as murdering his brother Osiris. And like other characters in the Old Testament, such as Abraham and Moses, in the patriarch Seth we seem to have yet another instance of an ancient tribal god demoted to human status.” Murdock’s reasoning here is

58

anachronistic, since she attempts to suggest the story of Set killing Osiris is the basis on which the account of Cain and Abel was based. The Egyptian religion did not emerge until well after the death of Abel, therefore, the account of Cain and Abel certainly could not have been a derivation of an Egyptian myth. The truth is that the Egyptian myth of Horus and Osiris is a reworking of the account of Nimrod, a wicked descendant of Noah who lived before the Pharaohs of Egypt. In the Book of Jasher, an ancient pre-Christian text (mentioned twice in Scripture - Josh 3:10 and 2 Sam 1:18), it is said that Shem, a son of Noah, dismembered Nimrod and dispersed his parts throughout the kingdoms, as a warning of the punishment which would befall those who rebelled against God. After Nimrod’s death, his wife gave birth (through union with another lover) to Ninus, who later sought revenge against Shem. In the struggle, Shem is said to have gouged out Ninus’ eye. Similarly, in the Egyptian myth of Osiris, Set dismembers Osiris and sends his parts throughout Egypt. Later, Horus seeks revenge against Set, but Set manages to gouge out Horus’ eye. So it is that the Osiris myth, rather than being the basis for any Biblical account, actually originated from a remolding of an account based on Biblical figures, in which Shem becomes Set and Nimrod becomes Osiris (for more on the development of the Nimrod legend, see Part two: “Nimrod and the beginning of pagan religion”). “As does Satan with Jesus (Rev 12:1-5), Set attempts to kill Horus.” The passage to which Murdock refers here is the twelfth chapter of the book of Revelation, cited below: And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. (Rev 12:1-5 NASB) The obvious comparison Murdock is making is that the dragon, or Satan, attempts to kill the man-child, or Christ, as was said of Set and Horus. Such an analogy is based on a false interpretation of this passage, which I will here only briefly enforce. The woman mentioned in the above text is the church, not Mary, whose persecution (which largely ended with the Edict of Constantine in 313 A.D.) is described in the passages following the one quoted above. The sun with which she is clothed is the righteousness of Christ, whose radiance is brighter than the sun. The crown on the woman's head is the doctrine delivered to her by the twelve apostles. The figure represented by the woman's child is not Christ, for the church did not “deliver” Christ; but rather, those who have been made converts, disciples, and ministers through the doctrine with which the woman is crowned, and who serve in the world as ambassadors of Christ, the King of Kings. The dragon is indeed a metaphorical depiction of Satan, but since Satan's attack here is directed against the church, not

59

Christ, Murdock's analogy fails in its primary assumption on which her faulty comparison rests. “Set is the ‘god of the desert’ who battles Horus, while Jesus is tempted in the desert by Satan.” Jesus was indeed tempted by Satan in the wilderness; however, His forty days' temptation there hearkens to the forty years of trial the people of Israel faced during their own wanderings in the wilderness following their departure from Egypt. In Scripture the wilderness setting symbolizes a place without God, that is, a place where His blessings are not abundant, where the soul feels as desolate and forsaken as the land. It was to such a place that Israel was committed during their time of wilderness wandering, as penalty for their unbelief, and the trial they endured in that barren landscape foreshadowed the trials the Messiah would face in His own wilderness temptation. As Israel left the wilderness to lay hold on that which God had prepared for them, so did Jesus leave the wilderness to embark on the mission which had been ordained for Him since before the creation of the world. If Murdock’s analogy were to stand, then why is it not said that Jesus dismembers Satan and sends his parts throughout the pagan kingdoms? Why does not one of Satan’s followers seek revenge and Gouge out the eye of Jesus? Aside from the wilderness setting, Murdock’s analogy sinks like an anvil in quicksand. “Like Satan, who has a forked tail, Set too is depicted with a forked tail. In fact, Set's portrayal with bizarre ears and an anteater-like snout makes him appear creepy and demonic.” I do not know from which story book Murdock obtained this description, but it is certainly not a description found in the Bible, which never depicts Satan as having a forked tail, and neither does her description of Set, with bizarre ears and a snout, hold any relevance. Researching children’s books for such an image of Satan is the epitome of a digression from scholarly research. Also, Set’s portrayal as “creepy and demonic” is nothing more than a laughable and pathetic attempt to lead one’s perception of Satan further towards Murdock’s very nonBiblical portrayal of Satan. Nowhere in Scripture is Satan pictures as merely “creepy.” Cemeteries are creepy, abandoned houses are creepy, The Amityville Horror is creepy (if you’re a ten year old boy with an overactive imagination), but Satan, on the other hand, is absolute evil which transcends the bounds of mere creepiness. Prior to engaging herself in the above comparisons, Murdock suggests that “if Set is Satan, then Osiris/Horus is Jesus, as has been maintained for centuries for this [the items listed above] and many other reasons.”4 The key to this statement is the simple little word “if,” and it is because of this same word that the entire premise collapses into a heap of rubbish. It has in fact not been maintained for centuries that Jesus is Horus, as this portion of the book has shown, and will continue to do so. Also, the reasons on which this premise is based have been shown above to be a failure at every turn.

60

IX. He had twelve disciples: said of Horus and Mithras Concerning Horus The Egyptian texts mention Horus had four disciples (the Heru-Shemsu – i.e., “followers of Horus”), who were essentially inferior deities.1 He did have human followers, but they numbered sixteen, not four, plus an unnumbered group of followers comprised of blacksmiths (the mesniu or mesnitu). The twelve “followers” of Horus to which the critics delight in drawing attention were actually metaphorical representations of the twelve signs of the zodiac. Since Horus was the sun god, after merging with Ra, the constellations of the zodiac are loosely viewed in modern times as being his “disciples.” Concerning Jesus, some critics claim that, as God’s Son (or “God’s sun,” as they call Him in order to better create their illusion), His disciples can also be identified with the twelve signs of the zodiac. However, the signs of the zodiac do not travel abroad preaching and teaching in the name of any master, and cannot properly and reasonably be considered “disciples” either in a literal nor symbolic sense. Additionally, in the Book of Hades there is found a mural which depicts twelve reapers, but Horus is not present in this mural.2 Concerning Mithras In similar fashion as Horus, the twelve signs of the zodiac are attributed as Mithras' disciples, based on a relief which shows Mithras surrounded by the signs of the zodiac. As stated above, this is nothing more than a stretch of the imagination, as the zodiac signs do not reflect even a close parallel to actual flesh-and-blood men who preach in the name of another. Granted, in the Iranian version of the myth, Mithras did have a companion by the name Varuna. In the Roman version of the myth, Mithras had two helpers named Cautes and Cautopatres. However, no version of the Mithras or Mithra myths contains twelve followers. The Roman Mithraic cult was a private cult and was not seeking to evangelize the world, as did Christians following the day of Pentecost, and in accordance with the Great Commission issued by Jesus prior to His ascension. Acceptance in the Mithraic cult was selective and by initiation, with membership primarily consisting of Roman soldiers and typically excluding women from the order.3 The number twelve as common throughout the Bible In her book The Christ Conspiracy, author D. M. Murdock makes the same conclusion, expecting the reader to place some sort of significance in this as evidence of fabrication in Biblical numerology. In comment on this, historian Michael Licona states, “If we want to accept her [Murdock’s] thoughts on this, we also need to accept that Dunkin Donuts is owned by an astrologer since they give a discount when you buy a dozen donuts. Grocery stores are also run by astrologers, since you buy eggs by the dozen. Even our legal system must have been influenced by astrology, since there are twelve jurors.”4 Fallacious reasoning ultimately leads to fallacious conclusions. One goes hand-in-hand with the other. Additionally, the twelve disciples of Jesus are reflective of the twelve tribes of Israel. Do the critics also intend to claim that Israel was never composed of twelve tribes? Good luck with that!

61

How many disciples did Jesus really have? Jesus had twelve core disciples with whom He traveled, but He also had many more disciples not mentioned by name in Scripture. Luke mentions an instance where Jesus sent seventy or seventy-two of His disciples on an evangelical mission. (Lk 10:1, 17) Concerning these seventy disciples, D. M. Murdock states, “... the 72 ‘co-conspirators’ in the later version of the tale likewise possess astrotheological meaning, representing the 72 dodecans, or divisions of the circle of the zodiac into 5 degrees each. Interestingly, in the gospel story Jesus is depicted with either 70 or 72 ‘disciples,’ the number 70 often symbolizing the dodecans as well. Also, the drowning of Osiris in the ‘river’ Eridanus evidently signifies the god's passage through the well-known constellation of the same name. It is likely that the Jordan River, biblical site of so many purported miracles, was named after its apparent stellar counterpart, with said ‘miracles’ also taking place not on Earth but in the heavens.”5 Murdock’s bias is evident at the outset when she names Jesus’ disciples as “co-conspirators” and the Gospels as a mere “tale.” As far as her association between the Eridanus and Jordan rivers, such an erroneous identification has already been addressed under a previous heading and found to be with fault. Also, in Acts 1:15 one hundred and twenty of Jesus disciples are mentioned. If the number of His disciples were predetermined to correspond to the seventy-two dodecans of the Zodiac, then critics must somehow account for the additional fifty disciples and find a place for these disciples within their astrotheological scheme. Also, concerning the seventy disciples in Luke, the evangelist tells us that Jesus sent these seventy out in pairs of two, an act which likewise does not fit into the critics' interpretative scheme. Furthermore, Jesus gave specific instructions to these ones concerning what to eat and drink and how to conduct themselves with the hosts who would receive them into their homes, and when they returned to Jesus following their mission, Jesus declared to them that their names were written in heaven. The text in Luke gives every indication that these were seventy literal human beings being referred to in this passage.

X. He was a traveling teacher: said of Dionysus True, Dionysus is depicted as a traveling teacher, but this is not an uncommon trait and cannot properly and logically be used in an argument in favor of any “copycat theory.” In ancient times if someone had a message to share, he certainly could not secure his own web site or buy air time. The best means of spreading one's message was by traveling and preaching to those outside his home town. Besides, Dionysus traveled far and wide, whereas Jesus’ journeys were within Palestine, nor was Dionysus a teacher of spiritual truth, as was Jesus. Dionysus taught people how to grow grapes and produce wine, all the while enticing people to worship him. Additionally, Dionysus was hardly a messiah. He was not anointed for a higher calling and his teachings and deeds were not with the intention to provide salvation. In his traveling he often disguised himself as a priest of his own order, so that he may compel people to give him worship. Those who refused his teaching were often met with aggression, for Dionysus was vindictive in character. In the Bacchae, he drives women insane, causing them to eat their own children. He also fooled King Pentheus into endangering himself to the point of death. Even if he had been a savior who traveled abroad spreading his own gospel, would his

62

evangelistic wanderings be something that should come as a surprise? Someone regarded as having special worth, and especially one regarded as deity, would be expected to spread his message, either locally or abroad. Rather than seeing this as a reason to assume one highly revered individual’s activities were merely copied from another’s, the critics should simply accept this as something to be expected due to the mission of the person in question.

XI. He performed miracles, such as walking on water or turning water into wine: said of Horus, Krishna, and Dionysus Concerning Horus Horus did perform certain feats which could be considered extraordinary, but these feats classify more as magic tricks rather than miracles, for they did not defy any law of nature, such as raising the dead or changing the constitution of an element from one thing to another. It is said that Horus successfully warned off crocodiles and serpents while living in the swamps as a child. Such feats may qualify him to be a circus entertainer, but certainly not deity. He is also said to have healed others, but this ability came through his mother Isis, who healed him from scorpion stings, and such healing ability was not inherent to Horus’ own being. It is said by critics that Horus walked on water, but the religious texts do not produce a mention of this instance. It has also been said that Horus raised El-Azarus (a.k.a., El-Osiris) from the dead, reflective of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead. The name Lazarus comes from the name Eleazer, therefore the phonetic association is superficial, at best. Furthermore, Horus did not raise Osiris from the dead, as Osiris never experienced a bodily resurrection. After his death, Osiris descended to the Underworld to reign over the dead, while Horus set out to avenge Osiris' death. Concerning Krishna Krishna is said to have performed the following miracles: At age seven, he lifted a mountain and upheld it by his hand for seven days. This is said to have been witnessed by tens of thousands of people who stood under the mountain. He multiplied his body into 16,105 separate bodies. Good for him, but this bears no similarity to anything ever performed by Jesus during the time of His incarnation. While appearing as Ram, he built a bridge between India and Sri Lanka by causing stones to float on the surface of the water. Between the islands of Mannar and the southeastern coast of India there exists a thirty mile-long chain of limestone shoals known as Rama's Bridge. This is claimed to be the remnants of the bridge constructed by Krishna, and it is said that the bridge was passable by foot until the fifteenth century when the depth of the water was increased by storms. Hindus believe the “sinking” of the bridge

63

was due to the gods fastening the shoals to the sea bed. Of course, there is no evidence to support that this limestone formation ever rested on the surface of the water, as claimed in the myth. When his mother accused him of eating dust, he opened his mouth and in it was revealed the entire cosmos. He restored the dead to life, including six of his younger brothers. He performed healing of diseases. He transformed a hunchback woman into a beautiful woman. Jesus’ miracles never involved giving someone a cause for vanity. He healed the lame, the deaf, the dumb, and the diseased, but He never gave people a cause to glory in themselves. His miracles drew people to the Father and glorified Christ, they never brought glory to man. He granted visions. He was able to see over a long distance. He fed many people with small amounts of food. He appeared numerous times in incorporeal form. The Gospels never recount an appearance of Jesus, from the time of His birth to the time of His resurrection, in anything other than a human body. There was an instance when His glory was revealed to a few of His disciples on the “mount of transfiguration,” but this did not constitute a change of form; but rather, a lifting of the veil which hid His divine glory from man. As a man, Jesus’ glory was shrouded by the limitations of His flesh, but in this instance that shroud was pulled back and His disciples beheld Him for who He is. Never during His incarnation did He appear in “ghostly” form. He destroyed demons and performed exorcisms. These “miracles” of Krishna bear the marks of myth, not legend. Some of the myths, such as the lifting of a mountain and the ability to see long distances, sound as if they belong in a Superman comic book. Legends are based on truth, but myths are based on fantasy. The deeds of Krishna which bear marks similar to those of Jesus include miracles relating to healing, resurrection of the dead, and the feeding of a multitude. It is only natural for one assumed to be divine to possess the ability to perform healing, so these come as no big surprise. The defeat and subjection of demons by Krishna was due to an act of might, not by the sheer authority held by his person. In the case of Jesus, demons left those of who they were in possession because of Jesus’ authority as the second person of the Trinity. Jesus did not wrestle the possessed individuals to the ground and pull the demons out of them. He commanded them to leave, and leave they did. Neither does the feeding of a

64

multitude serve as a reason to assume the Gospels copied from the Krishna account. If the Gospel writers did copy from the Hindus, then no doubt there would be more miracles bearing similarity to Krishna, but the fact of the matter is there are very few which do bear a similar narrative. In the Gospels, the events of the life of Jesus are not even discussed between His nativity and the beginning of His public ministry at around age thirty. The only exception is a mention of the twelve year-old Jesus in the Temple, but this instance involves nothing more than the amazement of the Temple scholars at the questions and answers posed by the young Jesus. Any description of a youthful Jesus in Apocryphal literature has been historically deemed an unauthentic account written by later writers who were neither representative of orthodox Christianity, nor eyewitness to the events they describe, nor contemporaries with those who were eyewitnesses. Concerning Dionysus Dionysus is credited with giving King Midas the ability to turn whatever he touched into gold, an ability which turned into a curse, rather than being to Midas’ benefit. He also gave the daughters of King Anius the ability to transform things into wine, oil, or corn by the touch of their hand. Considering his identity as the god of wine, this should not be a wonder to anyone, nor give reason to claim any of Jesus’ miracles are rooted in those of Dionysus. There are mentions made of Dionysus filling empty vessels with wine, but never turning water into wine, as some claim. Pausanias relates instances when, during festival times, empty vessels are placed in a shrine overnight then found the next day to be filled with wine. “Between the market-place and the Menius is an old theater and a shrine of Dionysus. The image is the work of Praxiteles. Of the gods the Eleans worship Dionysus with the greatest reverence, and they assert that the god attends their festival, the Thyia. The place where they hold the festival they name the Thyia is about eight stades from the city. Three pots are brought into the building by the priests and set down empty in the presence of the citizens and of any strangers who may chance to be in the country. The doors of the building are sealed by the priests themselves and by any others who may be so inclined. On the morrow they are allowed to examine the seals, and on going into the building they find the pots filled with wine.”1 Another tale, by Pliny the Elder, describes a spring which produced a substance having the taste of wine. “In the island of Andros, at the temple of Father Bacchus, we are assured by Mucianus, who was thrice consul, that there is a spring, which, on the nones of January, always has the flavor of wine; it is called dios theodosia.”2 These instances do not produce the parallels that the critic would like them to produce. Jesus turned water into wine, but He did not fill empty vessels with wine. Neither does Pliny’s wine-flavored spring afford any parallel to Jesus miracle at the wedding in Cana.

65

Finally, the Bacche records Dionysus as being transfigured in divine glory above Pentheus' palace, but it is not stated in what manner he was seen, other than it was “in the glory of his godhead,” and neither was his transformation witnessed by those present at the scene. As mentioned above, the concept that a figure regarded as deity should be able to perform such a feat is not evidence that another figure to whom deity is ascribed should be able to perform the same or a similar feat. The claim that any deity performed miracles is not uncommon among world religions. Rather, it is to be expected of a deity that he be able to work wonders, and such instances cannot stand as evidence that one story is copied from another.

XII. He was known by titles such as “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega:” said of Horus, Dionysus, Krishna, and Mithras

Concerning Horus None of the titles here attributed to Horus was ever used of him in the religious texts. Horus was known by such titles as “pillar of his mother,” “savior of his father,” “lord of the sky,” and “god of the east.”1 Some critics have claimed Horus was known as the “KRST,” however, “KRST” is the Egyptian word for “burial,” and does not refer to God's “anointed one,” as does the title Christ. Horus is typically depicted as a falcon, or an anthropomorphic being with the body of a man and the head of a falcon. Murdock attempts to utilize this depiction in her efforts to link Jesus to Horus. In The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist Part 1 she states, “Horus symbolizes the power aspect of the sun, and the falcon is likewise a solar symbol by virtue of how high it flies. Horus therefore represents the sun as the governor of nature, the ‘Lord of lords,’ as it were.”2 While Horus was indeed representative of the sun, Jesus was not; therefore, her analogy falls apart, since it is based on incorrect assumptions concerning the object of Christian worship (which, of course, was the person of Jesus, not the sun). Also, her attempt to link Jesus and Horus by the title “Lord of Lords,” is equally untenable, since the application of any such name to Horus is only symbolic of the nature of the sun’s life-sustaining properties. In other words, Horus, as a sun god, represents the celestial body without which no life would be sustained; therefore, he is, metaphorically speaking, the “governor of nature,” as Murdock suggests. However, her attempt to apply the title “Lord of Lords” to Horus is unsupported by the religious texts which relate the myth of Horus, for in these writings, he is never named as such. It appears that Murdock is aware of this lack of support, for she does include the disclaimer “as it were” in her identification of Horus as the “Lord of Lords,” however, in so doing, she makes use of the logical fallacy known as “false analogy” (the attempt to link two or more things by virtue of an association which does not exist in reality), since she associates Horus and Jesus by a name by which, of the two, only Jesus is known. She also attempts to liken Horus to Jesus as a creation deity in her claim that Horus, as representative of the sun, makes “all life possible.”3 The

66

appeal here is clearly to the passages which name Jesus as the one responsible for the creation of the cosmos (Jn 1:1-4 and Col 1:16), however, such responsibility can only metaphorically be applied to Horus, while Jesus is named in Scripture as the one who actually created “all things.” Also, Murdock’s identification of Osiris, Horus’ father, as the “Lord of Eternity” and “Lord of Resurrections,” two epithets by which he is named in one version of the Egyptian Book of the Dead*4, are also weak attempts to link Osiris and Jesus together. Scripture does not identify Jesus specifically as the “Lord of eternity,” although He is named the “Everlasting Father” in the book of Isaiah (9:6), and nowhere is Jesus named the “Lord of Resurrections.” Rather, Jesus is the resurrected Lord and the one because of whom all other resurrections (such as Lazarus and Jarius’ daughter) are possible. Likewise, Murdock’s mention of the title “morning star” as being attributed to both Horus and Jesus is equally of no consequence. As a sun deity, it should come to no surprise to anyone aware of Horus’ representation as a sun god that he would be identified by a title such as the “morning star..” In the book of Revelation (22:16) Jesus is called the “Morning Star,” but any astrological application of this title is based on the erroneous assumption that sun worship is not forbidden in Scripture. In Part three of this book there is an entire heading devoted to the supposed relationship between Christianity and astrology; therefore, I will reserve a full treatment of the issue until then. Here is only needs to be stated that God expressly forbids His people to worship His creation, as shown in the passages below (emphasis mine): If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (Deut 17:2-5) Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem: But did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, like unto the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down, and he reared up altars for Baalim, and made groves, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them. (2 Chr 33:2-3) And he brought me [Ezekiel] into the inner court of the LORD’s house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshiped the sun

67

toward the east. Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose. Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them. (Ez 8:16-18) Finally, Murdock attempts to link Jesus and Horus by the description of one who comes as a “thief in the night.” In this case, her application of the title is not to Horus; but rather, to Set, Horus’ enemy. She appeals to the Book of the Dead, in which Set is described as one “who steals souls, who laps up corruption, who lives on what is putrid, who is in charge of darkness, who is immersed in gloom, of whom those who are among the languid ones are afraid.” Murdock latches onto the description of Set as one who is “in charge of darkness” and the one who was believed to defeat Horus at every day’s end, thus ushering in the hours of darkness and stealing the light from the world. She concludes in saying, “Set is a thief in the night who robs Osiris/Horus of his strength and life. Set is the serpent of the night, the Prince of Darkness and other qualities in line with Satan, while Horus is the ‘sun of righteousness’ and the Prince of Light, much like Christ.”5 Murdock’s analogy fails on two counts. First, and most obvious, is the fact that Satan is not described in Scripture as a “thief in the night.” Rather, it is Jesus whose coming is described as such (1 Thess 5:2) by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Thessalonian church. Therefore, the objects of her analogy do not line up, since the Christian counterpart of Set, according to her use of terminology, is Jesus, not Satan. Second, the depiction of Set as one “who robs Osiris/Horus of his strength and life” can in no way be likened to the description of Jesus as one who will appear as “a thief in the night.” In the first place, in Murdock’s portrayal, Horus is defeated and weakened by Set. In Scripture, Jesus is never defeated nor weakened by Satan. There is an instance when a weakened Jesus is tempted by Satan, but this was during His incarnation as a man and under all the limitations placed upon a normal human body. During this period, Jesus’ weakness was for lack of food, and not because of any attack on Him by Satan. In Genesis (3:15) it is said that the seed of the serpent (that is, Satan) will bruise the head of the seed of the woman (that is, Christ). Such a depiction is metaphorical of the suffering of Christ, during which He gave His body as a Lamb to the slaughter so that His people would be redeemed from their sin. Also, such sacrifice was one Jesus made willingly, rather than having it forced upon Him by an enemy, or Satan. In the second place, Paul’s description of a “thief in the night” is not a reference to Jesus Himself; but rather, to the manner of His appearance. It is said in Scripture that He will one day appear in the clouds to gather together the resurrected bodies of believers. This coming will be both unexpected and sudden, as would be characteristic of the coming of a thief. At such time, Jesus’ appearance will not be to steal the bodies of believers, but to claim what He has rightfully purchased with His own blood. It should also be noted that titles such as “truth,” “light,” “good shepherd,” “god’s anointed son,” and “alpha and omega” are such general titles which should

68

understandably be attributed to a being regarded as deity. The commonality of the titles is no indication that one deity was ascribed a certain title simply because the same title was also attributed to another deity. Throughout many ages, man has used concepts such as light and darkness as a metaphor for good and evil, or truth and falsehood. It was true in ancient times and it is true in modern times to the point that it permeates the various cultures of the world, and in a myriad of fashions, from religion to entertainment and art. A common title is no indication that one to whom this title is applied is a victim of “monkey-see, monkey-do.” * Critics try to claim that the Book of the Dead is a piece of literature on which the Ten Commandments were based. Such claims are unfounded and will be addressed in Part three) Concerning Dionysus Dionysus was not the “king of kings,” for he was a god who stood inferior to others. If any deity in Greek mythology would have been referred to by such a title, it would have been Zeus, the chief of the gods of Olympus. Likewise, Dionysus cannot correctly be called the “god’s only begotten son,” since Zeus did sire other offspring (Hermes, Apollo, Athena, Artemis, etc), nor can he be called the “alpha and omega,” (i.e., the “beginning and the end”) since Dionysus had a definite birth and death. Although he was not called a savior, the Bacche does describe his followers as declaring, “We are saved,” however, the salvation to which they referred was deliverance from Pentheus' anger, not to eternal redemption from sin. Concerning Krishna It is said that Krishna was known as the “lion of the tribe of Saki,” “son of god,” “lord,” and “savior,”and was recognized as one who had come die for mankind. All of these claims are false. None of these titles were ever historically applied to Krishna. Neither was he the second person in a divine trinity, as some claim. Krishna was one of ten avatars for Vishnu. After the beginning of the Christian era he was known as Jezeus or Jeseus, a name meaning “pure essence,” but these names were not given to him prior to the time of Christ. Concerning Mithras The Persian Mithra was called a “warrior angel of light,” but no such title is given to the Roman Mithras in question here. Critics claim that Mithras was identified by such imagery as a lion and a lamb. True, Mithras' totem was a lion (again, a crosscultural symbol of strength and supremacy), but he was never associated with a lamb in any of the myths. In many cultures light is a common means to illustrate truth and spiritual illumination, therefore it is not unthinkable that people from different religions know the one(s) they worship as a “light” in one sense or another. Even in modern culture, the concept of a “bright idea” carries a like reference to a person experiencing a personal enlightenment. It has been said that Mithras was identified as a lion and a lamb, reflective of Jesus' depictions in the New Testament. It is true that after the advent of Christianity, Mithras' totem was a lion, but the lion did not represent Mithras himself. Furthermore, Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, which

69

was associated with a lion long before the closing of the Old Testament cannon or even the Mithraic religion, as attested by Moses in the book of Genesis. Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, thou art gone up: He stooped down, he couched as a lion, And as a lioness; who shall rouse him up? (Gen 49.9) Another title which has been attributed to Mithras was “logos,” meaning “word,” as was attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John (1:1) where it is said, “the Word was made flesh.” However, this reference post-dates Christianity and refers to Mithras' teaching, not to Mithras himself, whereas John identified Jesus as the bodily incarnation of the Word of God.

XIII. He held a communal last supper with His disciples:

said of

Mithras and Dionysus Concerning Mithras The following quote is attributed to Mithras and is found on the supposed tomb of Peter, located in the Vatican: “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.” The quote does exist, but it is not referring to Mithra or Mithras. Rather, the reference is to Zarathustra (c.650-583 B.C.), the founder of Zoroastrianism. Even so, a document linking this quote to Mithra only dates back to the middle ages, not to pre-Christian times. More will be said on the concept of a covenant meal in Part four of this work. Here, I simply wish to point out that the Mithraic communal meal does not offer a parallel to the Christian Communion observance. In the first place, the Mithraic meal was understood to provide spiritual rebirth, as Manfred Clauss comments: "The Mithraists evidently believed that they were reborn through the consumption of bread and wine. The food was of course not simply actual or literal food, but also food in the metaphorical sense, which nourished souls after death: the meal was the guarantee of their ascension into the undying light.”1 In the case of Christian Communion, salvation or spiritual rebirth does not come through partaking of the bread or the wine in Communion. Rather, the meal is a memorial or remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ. Also, only believers are instructed to share in such a meal, since it is a signification of the covenant between God and His people,with God having provided for their redemption. Secondly, in the case of the Mithraic meal, the elements do not represent, either figuratively or literally, the body and blood of Mithras. However, in the Christian Communion, the elements are represented as the body and blood of Christ. Some denominations view the elements as metaphorically representative of the body of Christ, whereas in other denominations, the elements are said to be literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, as in the case of the Eucharist. While it is the view of the

70

present writer that the elements represent Christ in a figurative sense, a discussion on this point is outside the bounds of this work. In either case, it serves here to point out the distinction between Christian Communion and the Mithraic communal meal, in which the elements do not represent Mithras' body and blood in neither a figurative nor literal sense. Concerning Dionysus Some critics claim Dionysus's devotees observed a meal in which Dionysus' body was eaten. Dionysus was in fact eaten, but it was the Titans, not his followers, who dismembered and consumed him.

XIV. He was crucified: said of Horus, Attis, Krishna, and Dionysus Concerning Horus There is no reference to a crucifixion in the Horus myth. Even in the battle with Set, Horus (according to some versions) loses an eye or sustains injuries in both eyes, but he is not killed. Horus did later become merged with the sun god Ra, in which he is said to have been sent to the Underworld by Set upon every setting of the sun, only to be reborn the next day with the rising of the sun. This “death” is more akin of a banishing to the Underworld rather than a literal death. However, the critics are wrong even in this regard, for the myth never sends Horus to the underworld in his battles with Set. It was Osiris, not Horus, who was sent to the underworld to rule as king of the dead. Horus, on the other hand, was known as the king of the living. There are two versions of the battle between Horus and Set. In one version, the battle lasts eighty years, after which time the earth god Geb awards to Horus the whole of Egypt as his inheritance. In the other version, Horus, as a falcon, soars into the cosmos and returns in a great light, thus defeating Set, the personification of darkness. Additionally, there exists no archaeological or historical evidence to support the notion that crucifixion was a means of death employed in Egypt. In the version of the myth as told by Diodorus, Horus drowns, but is given a drug which gives him immortality. In another version, he is stung by a scorpion, but it is not said that he dies. Rather, it is said that Isis placed her nose to his mouth to see if he was still breathing, but whether he was or not, is not expressed in the story. The text merely says that Horus “healed” throughout the night.1 Concerning Krishna The Hindu religious texts do not mention a crucifixion in relation to Krishna. Rather, Krishna’a death is due to being pierced in the foot with a hunter’s arrow: "A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking [Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey."2

71

Critics claim that since he was sitting under a tree when the arrow pierced his foot, that the impact resulted in him being impaled, or “crucified,” (so they say) to the tree. Such a death is far from crucifixion. Crucifixion was a means of punishment or execution by which one’s feet and arms were impaled or tied to two beams forming the shape of a “T” or an “X.” The primary means of death as a result of being in a crucified state was suffocation or loss of blood. Death by simply having one foot impaled to a tree does not constitute death by crucifixion. Concerning Attis A nice feature of the Attis myth is that if you don’t quite care for his manner of death, there are plenty other tales of his demise from which to choose. Death #1: According to Ovid, Cybele falls in love with Attis, makes him her priest, and demands chastity of him. However, Attis falls in love with a nymph, the daughter of the river-god Sangarius. Angered, Cybele inflicts madness on Attis, by which he is compelled to castrate himself under a tree. From the flow of blood flowers sprout up in the soil and Attis is turned into a pine tree.3 Death #2: Attis fled into the forest to escape the snares of a king. Attis was able to subdue the king and as the king lay dying he pronounced upon Attis the same madness inflicted in the above version, after which Attis castrates himself and dies. His body is found by Cybele’s priests and they carry him to her temple in hopes he may be brought back to life, but they failed in their efforts to do so.4 Death #3: After his bride-to-be dies, Attis is consumed with grief. In a fit of sorrow, he then castrates himself and dies while sitting under a pine tree. Agdistis, feeling guilty that he caused the death of Attis’ love, asks Zeus to bring Attis back to life. Zeus consents, but rather than restoring Attis to life, he merely preserves the body, which remains in a state of death.5 Death #4: A fourth account tells us that Attis married Cybele, the daughter of the Phrygian king Maeon. When this became known to the king, he ordered Attis killed. The story ends with Attis being buried after already being in a state of decomposition.6 Death #5: According to Hermesianax, Attis, the son of the Phrygian king Calaus, journeyed to Lydia where he caught the attraction of the goddess Cybele. Zeus, angered at the goddess’ allure, sent a wild boar to Lydia, killing many inhabitants, including Attis.7

72

Death #6: According to Herodotus, Attis’ father, king Croesus, had a dream in which Attis was killed by a spear. Shortly after, a wild boar terrorizes the Mysians, who beg Croesus for help. He sends help, but commands Attis be left behind, fearing his dream may come true. Attis begs his father to allow him to engage in the hunt. The king agrees, but sends Adrastus along to protect Attis. In his attempt to kill the boar, Adrastus throws his spear, misses, and hits Attis instead. Attis’ dead body was returned to the king and quickly buried in a tomb.8 Death #7: According to Arnobius, Attis marries the daughter of the king of Pessinus. As a result, Agdistis drives the wedding party insane, again resulting in Attis’ fatal emasculation under a tree. It is then requested of Zeus that he restore Attis to life, but he refuses, instead merely preserving Attis’ corpse from decay, his hair always in a state of growth and his little finger in a constant motion.9 It is clear none of these deaths involve a crucifixion. Yes, in some accounts he was near a tree, but he was not on the tree, nor was he crucified to the tree. It has been said that in ancient times, the annual festival in honor of Cybele included a procession in which was upheld an image of Attis fastened to a tree, but this was done merely as a means of practically depicting him under the tree, as is said of him in the myth, and the figure fastened to the image was not fastened in a crucified state. Some versions of the myth have Attis being transformed into a pine tree, but not being crucified on one. In the case of Jesus, each of the Gospel accounts provide us with the same mode of death, a death which occurred in history, was witnessed by real people, and was documented in writing by ancient historians and scholars, both Christian and pagan, as will be shown in Part two. According to one version of Attis’ death by emasculation, the flow of blood causes a patch of violets to grow and blossom. The life-giving properties resulting from his flow of blood is unlike the remission of sins through the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross. In the case of Attis, the shedding of blood gave life to a flower. In the case of Christ, the shedding of blood cleanses men from sin, makes them sons of God, affects man’s soul, and spares him from the eternal wrath of God. By Attis’ blood, a flower is born; by Jesus’ blood, the guilty are forgiven of the grossest of offenses. The growing of flowers in the Attis myth is reflective of an element common in both myth and fantasy fiction, in which flowers are often seen blooming in proximity or response to a being of special worth. Such was true in ancient times, and the story element has persisted even in modern times, as in the writings of J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis in their Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Chronicles of Narnia, respectively. Concerning Dionysus As stated under a previous heading, Dionysus’ death was due to being dismembered by the titans. Also, Dionysus' crown of ivy has been compared to Jesus' crown of thorns, however, Dionysus wore his crown at all times, whereas Jesus'

73

crown was placed upon Him in mockery of His claim to be the King of the Jews. The same can be said of the purple robes which both figures wore. There does exist an amulet (shown below) which is said to depict a crucified Dionysus, however the amulet has been dated to the fourth century A.D.10, and is widely thought to be a forgery.11

The Bacche describes Dionysus' enemy Pentheus as being “lifted up on a tree,” but the event relayed therein was not one of crucifixion. Rather, Dionysus placed Pentheus in the tree to be reprimanded by women, who throw stones at him, but are unable to throw them high enough to strike him. Therefore, the women rip out the tree and Pentheus fall to the ground and is dismembered by the women. Attention has been drawn to similarities between Jesus' and Dionysus' demeanor in the face of persecution, as both were silent before their enemies. In the case of Dionysus, he allowed himself to be taken in order to be presented before King Pentheus in hopes of being given an opportunity to humiliate the king, whereas in the case of Jesus, His silence was a reflection of His submission to the trials set before Him, as well as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy that He would be silent as a lamb taken to slaughter. Blood as a symbol of life Many cultures regard blood as symbolic of spiritual life. In the Old Testament sacrificial system, it was the blood of animals which symbolized the forgiveness of sin. Such sacrifices themselves were not regarded as actually cleansing oneself from sin; but rather, foreshadowed the shedding of the blood of Christ, by which the sin of man is actually forgiven. This concept is evident in the blood rituals found within many pagan cultures. Concerning such a concept, Wallis Budge states, “The great Codices of the Book of the Dead written under the XVIIIth dynasty prove that the blood of Isis was believed to possess great magical protective powers.” After quoting Budge, D. M. Murdock makes the claim that “Isis’ magical blood is like that of Christ.”12 Such a reduction of the sacrifice of Christ to a mere magic trick reflects a gross misunderstanding of the Biblical concept of justice, as well as of the blessings conferred by virtue of either Jesus’ or Isis’ blood. A chapter in the Theban Recension of the Book of the Dead describes the blood of Isis as that by which the deceased would be allowed to roam free in the Underworld:

74

“Let the blood of Isis, and the magical powers of Isis, and the words of power of Isis, be mighty to protect and keep safely [the deceased], and to guard him from him that would do unto him anything which he abominateth.”13 The shedding of the blood of Christ, as the spotless Lamb of God, was sufficient to satisfy the justice of God, who required the life of man for abandonment to sin. Through Isis’ blood, the dead remain dead, but through Jesus’ blood, the spiritually dead are raised to new life and are spared the torments of hell. The commonality of the element of blood in religious beliefs will be addressed in Part four, and it will be shown that the concept of bloodletting (including forms such as blood drinking and blood bathing) is a concept which transcends cultural boundaries and is therefore found in many different religious systems. The presence of the element of blood in Scripture goes back as far as the generations of Adam and Eve, who offered sacrifices to God as a form of faith in a forthcoming redemption from sin. The very first mention in Scripture of the shedding of blood was that of an animal whose skin was used as a covering for Adam and Eve (Gen 3:21), who were ashamed of their nakedness following their act of sin. It is interesting that God Himself provided the skin of the animal by which Adam and Eve were covered. The covering of Adam and Eve as such is representative of the final covering of sin which would be made effectual through the work of Christ. As God provided a covering for the first man and woman, so that their shame (or sin) would be covered, so does the righteousness of Christ provide a covering by which the former sinner can stand before God, clothed not in his own sin, but in the righteousness of the Son of God, the shedding of whose blood takes away the sin of the world. This concept of the life-giving properties of blood (be it physical life, spiritual life, or both) has since migrated into the many pagan religions, including the Egyptian myth of Isis, of whom it is said her blood is that which protects the dead after their entrance into the Underworld.

XV. Concerning the constellation Crux as being the supposed origin for the crucifixion of Jesus: The smallest of the modern constellations is Crux, a constellation which bears a resemblance of a cross (“crux” is Latin for “cross”). There are a few reasons why this constellation bears no relevance to the crucifixion account. First, Crux was not a known constellation in antiquity. In pre-Christian times, Crux was part of the constellation Centaurus, as noted by Ptolemy.1 The first known record of the signs of the zodiac date back to the fifth century B.C., but this constellation was not identified as Crux in that record. It was not until the year 1679 that this cluster of stars was given its present-day name, in reflection of the cross of Christ. As Dr. Noel Swerdlow, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, notes, “As it turns out, while the stars of the Southern Cross were just barely visible from Israel in ancient times, it wasn't distinguished as a constellation until much later. In fact, in ancient times, the second-century astronomer Ptolemy, who cataloged a number of stars in various constellations in a work called the Almagest, included these stars in the constellation Centaurus.”2 Elsewhere, Dr. Swerdlow states that the reason “Crux, the

75

Southern Cross, was not recognized as a separate constellation in antiquity is probably because, as seen from the Mediterranean, it is low on the southern horizon and is surrounded on three sides by stars of Centaurus, which is a large, prominent constellation, and the four bright stars of Crux are included as stars of Centaurus in Ptolemy's star catalog. It is only when you go farther to the south, so that Crux is higher in the southern sky, that it becomes prominent as a group of stars by itself, so its recognition had to wait until the southern voyages of the sixteenth century.”3 Since the writers of the Gospels would not have been able to clearly see the stars which would later be known as the Crux constellation, Crux could not have been the inspiration behind Jesus’ mode of death as portrayed in the Gospels. Second, the symbol of the cross was not a symbol popularly used by early Christians. Early Christendom’s symbols included such iconography as fish and bread, as seen in existing frescoes and mosaics on catacomb walls and baptismal pools, as well as early manuscripts, which have survived to this day, but such icons were rarely a cross. For the first few centuries after Christ, Christians suffered harsh persecution under the thumb of Rome. Many Christians were put to death for their faith in Jesus. For this reason, they avoided the use of symbols, such as the cross, which would conclusively identify them as believers. The most common icon among early believers was a fish, the same symbol seen on many bumper stickers (as the image shown below). It was used a means of identifying someone as a fellow Christian. One person would draw half of the fish, and if the other person knew to complete the symbol by drawing the other half, he was indicating to the first that he also was a believer in Christ.

Third, Zeitgeist’s claim that “during this three day pause, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation” is completely false. The sun never endures a three day pause at any time of the year. Also, the sun does not “reside” in even close proximity to the constellation later known as Crux at any time around December 25th. All one has to do to verify this is open any astronomy book, or just look to the sky. Also, The Zeitgeist Movie states, “Coming back to the cross of the Zodiac, the figurative life of the Sun, this was not just an artistic expression or tool to track the Sun's movements. It was also a Pagan spiritual symbol. … This is not a symbol of Christianity. It is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac. This is why Jesus in early occult art is always shown with his head on the cross, for Jesus is the Sun, the Sun of God, the Light of the World, the Risen Savior, who will ‘come again,’ as it does every morning, the Glory of God who defends against the works of darkness, as he is ‘born again’ every morning, and can be seen ‘coming in the clouds, up in Heaven,’ with his ‘Crown of Thorns,’ or, sun rays.” The film attempts to erroneously draw a correlation between the cross of the zodiac (Fig. 1), the so-called “shorthand” of which is seen below (Fig. 2), and crosses mounted on church rooftops (Fig. 3). The fact is that crosses were not used in churches until 431

76

A.D. and were not mounted on church steeples until 586 A.D. The early church did use various symbols, such as fish or bread, but, as stated above, the sign of the cross was not common among these symbols. As far as the crown of thorns being a representation of the rays of the sun, this is, yet again, a gross stretch of the critics’ imagination. The blatant truth is that the cross of the zodiac resembles the shape of a pie, not the cross of Christ, and the so-called “shorthand” version referred to by critics is simply them grasping at straws for a correlation between Christianity and astrology, a correlation which in actuality does not exist.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

XVI. He was dead for three days: said of Horus, Attis, and Mithras Concerning Horus As mentioned previously, Horus’ so-called “death” is said to be manifested by the setting of the sun, thus symbolizing Set’s banishing Horus, according to Zeitgeist, to the Underworld every day at sunset. In this “death,” there is no reference to him being enclosed in a tomb. Whether Horus’ so-called death is considered actual or symbolic, it is still not lasting for a three day duration, for the very next day after his passing, he just returns from the Underworld (at least until the sun goes down again). In other words, every morning he comes back to life and every evening he dies again. However, it must be remembered that it was Osiris who was banished to the Underworld, while Horus remained alive to avenge his father’s death. Concerning Krishna Proponents of the “copycat theory” claim that Krishna descended to the grave for three days and was seen by many witnesses, but in the myth, no evidence exists for this claim. After being pierced in the foot by the hunter’s arrow, Krishna immediately returns to life and forgives the hunter for his bad aim: "He [the hunter] touched the feet of [Krishna]. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin with splendor."1

77

Concerning Mithras In the texts and reliefs concerning the Roman Mithras (and also true of the Iranian Mithra), no death is attributed to him. Instead of dying, Mithras is said to have been taken to paradise in a chariot while yet still alive.2 If there is any borrowing here, it is on the part of the myth, having borrowed from the earlier Hebrew account of Elijah being taken to heaven alive and in a whirlwind, following the appearance of a flaming chariot. (2 Kings ch 2) Concerning Attis In the version of the myth which has Attis being transformed into a pine tree, he is carried, in his pine tree form, to the cave of the Great Mother. This cave does not become his tomb, but is actually the home of the Great Mother (more will be said on this in the next point). If Jesus was crucified on a Friday and rose on a Sunday, how can it be said He was dead for three days? Briefly stated (for the discussion would be quite lengthy), there are two views concerning on what day Jesus was crucified. Some hold the position He was crucified on a Wednesday, while others believe He was crucified on a Friday. The issue centralizes around the Jewish festive year in comparison to the narratives found in the Gospels. In short, those who hold that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, regard the three-day death to be comprised of three twenty-four hour periods from sunset to sunset, since Jews regarded sunset as the beginning of a new day. Hence, Jesus would have been in the tomb from sunset on Wednesday through sunset on Saturday, rising sometime after sunset on Saturday (i.e., early Sunday morning, according to Jewish reckoning). Those who hold to a Friday crucifixion, point out that Jewish custom regarded a portion of the day as a whole day. Thus, according to the Jewish idiom, Friday evening, all day Saturday, and Sunday morning would make up three “days,” despite these days not being literal twenty-four hour periods. For now, without engaging in a discussion concerning the Jewish calendar, it will suffice to say that according to either view, it is proper to say that Jesus was dead for three days, as stated in the Gospels. The significance of the three day death Why was Jesus in the grave for three days? The theme of an event occurring on or after the third day is repeated many times throughout Scripture. In the Genesis account of the life of Joseph, the chief butler is restored to his position after three days. Later it is sad that Joseph's brothers are set free from prison after three days. In the Exodus account, bitter waters are made sweet after three days. Concerning the prophet Jonah, it is said that he was in the belly of a great fish for three days and nights. The list goes on and on. Critics suggest that these pre-Christian references to such a three day period of trial, suffering, or death, after which there is relief, freedom, or salvation, is the formula adopted by the Apostles in their composition of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

78

A fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy While it is true that Jesus' three day burial is directly related to the Old Testament references to a three day period of time, the relation is not that of the latter borrowing from the former; but rather, the former predicting the latter. That is to say, the three day burial of Jesus is a direct fulfillment, not a borrowing, of such Old Testament references. The Old Testament relates to the burial of Jesus through both direct prophecy and typological foreshadows, or events that serve as an allusion to a future event, without actually providing a direct prediction of that event. In the book of Psalms, David said of the coming Messiah that, following His suffering and death, God would not allow Him to see corruption (Ps 16:10). The Jews recognized that after the first few days following death, the body enters into a state of putrefaction and begins to decay. Had Jesus remained in the grave, His human body would have experienced the normal progression of decay which would occur in any other body after the point of death. While Jesus was unable to be corrupted by sin, His human body was able to be corrupted by death, as His body was not subject to any law outside of nature, except that such was permitted by His divine nature, as when He performed miracles. During the three days in the tomb, Jesus' body would only remain in the initial “fresh” stage of decomposition. In this stage, the body enters algor mortis, where the temperature of the body cools to that of its surroundings. His bodily bacteria would begin to break down, a process which causes putrefaction, resulting in the bloating of the body and discoloring of the flesh, accompanied by a foul odor. Jesus' body, being in the grave for a mere three days, did not pass into the putrefying stage of death, and was therefore spared such corruption, thus fulfilling the prophecy of the Psalmist. Had Jesus risen following the third day, then such prophesy would become null and void, an effect which God has declared His Word will not have (Isa 55:11). When God says a thing will occur, that thing will occur exactly as God said it will. A validation of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah In addition to this prophecy, the Old Testament includes many other references to a three day period of suffering – references which serve as a foreshadow of a coming reality. The Hebrew Scriptures contain numerous elements which serve as a type, or foreshadow, of the coming Messiah. As Moses lifted up a brazen serpent, which gave life to those who looked upon it, so does the Messiah give life to those whose sin He paid for while He was “lifted up” on the cross. Such is just one of many examples of an Old Testament element which foreshadowed the person and work of the Messiah (others include the life of Joseph, the furniture of the tabernacle, the ark of Noah, and many others). Of these, one of the most well-known is that of Jonah’s trial, an event to which Jesus Himself made reference when speaking of His forthcoming burial. Jonah was a man God called to evangelize the people of Nineveh, a people known for their wicked ways. Jonah attempted to escape this mission by sailing away on a boat. During his voyage, a great storm swelled, making the voyagers fearful for their lives. Recognizing that the storm was a divine punishment on Jonah, his shipmates elected to throw him overboard, after which he was swallowed by a great fish (often interpreted as a whale). In the belly of

79

the fish, Jonah came to a state of repentance. Three days later, the fish spat Jonah upon dry land and he goes on to fulfill his calling to preach to the people of Nineveh. It was this particular event that Jesus spoke of when the religious leaders asked Him for a sign to show that He was indeed the Messiah. After Jesus healed many people, the Pharisees accused Him of acting in the name of God, but by acting in the power of Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus responded by pointing out the error in such reasoning and by declaring that His acting in the power of God, not Satan, was the proof that He was the Messiah: “If Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore shall they be your judges. But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.” (Mt 12:26-28) He goes on to condemn the Pharisees for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, by whom Jesus was empowered in His enacting of miracles*. The Pharisees then asked for a sign that they might know that Jesus spoke the truth concerning the source of His power. (v. 38) The sign that Jesus provided was an appeal to the historical account of Jonah: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.” (vs. 39-41) Elsewhere, in John's Gospel, Jesus is again asked for a sign, and again the sign given was that in three days following the destruction of His temple, or body, He would rise again. (Jn 2:18-22) The disciples did not understand the meaning of this sign until after the resurrection, for they thought that the “temple” of which Jesus spoke was the temple built by Herod the Great, rather than the temple of His body. However, Jesus' enemies understood clearly that He spoke of His own bodily resurrection after three days, and it was on the basis of this claim that they placed a Roman guard at Jesus’ tomb to ensure the disciples would not steal the body, thus effecting a fake resurrection on the third day. * Jesus of Nazareth was both fully God and fully man. As God and the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus had the power to perform the work of God, including healing disease and raising the dead. However, as a man, Jesus had no more ability to perform these feats than you or I, and had to be empowered, in His humanity, by the Holy Spirit, just as were the prophets of old when they performed miraculous works. More will be said on this aspect of the God-Man in Part five, dealing with the dual natures of Jesus Christ. A guarantee of Israel's national restoration In addition to Jesus' three day burial being a fulfillment of prophesy and a sign that He was indeed the Messiah, it also served as a guarantee of Israel's future restoration, as stated by the prophet Hosea that Israel's “resurrection” as a nation would occur on the “third day:”

80

Come, and let us [the people of Israel] return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. (Hosea 6:2) In this passage, it is clear that the one being raised in not the Messiah; but rather, the nation of Israel. The use of imagery involving bodily resurrection to refer to the future restoration of Israel is most evident in a famous vision had by the prophet Ezekiel, in which he saw a valley of dry bones which were restored to life, given flesh and blood, and fashioned into a mighty army. Following the vision, the Lord explained the vision to Ezekiel as follows: Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD. (Ez 37:11-14) The Hebrews have long been a people whose existence as a nation has been challenged by oppression and captivity at the hands of foreign invaders. Following the collapse of the monarchy which began with King Saul and flourished during the reign of David and his lineage, the kingdom of the Hebrews became divided into the northern and southern kingdoms, until such time as the Hebrews were taken into captivity by the Persians. Following the Persian exile, the Hebrews became a scattered people. Whereas they once were composed of a unification of twelve tribes, one for each of the sons of the patriarch Jacob, the post-exilic Hebrew state constituted only a remnant of the original twelve tribes. Still, God promised that the Hebrew nation would be restored to its former glory, and that such will occur in the end of days. In the meantime, the people of Israel travail and long for the reunification of the twelve tribes. Scripture portrays this travail as a state of death, and the future restoration as a resurrection from the dead. The duration of this travail is expressed by Hosea as being, figuratively, a three day-long death, during which the body of Israel lies in wait until the day when the stone will be rolled away from its own tomb and she, the Hebrew people, shall appear in glorious fulfillment of the promise made to her father Abraham. In his commentary on Hosea, Matthew Henry states the following concerning this three day-long period: “[The people of Israel] promise themselves that their deliverance out of their troubles should be to them as life from the dead (v. 2): After two days he will revive us (that is, in a short time, in a day or two), and the

81

third day, when it is expected that the dead body should putrefy and corrupt, and be buried out of our sight, then will he raise us up, and we shall live in his sight, we shall see his face with comfort and it shall be reviving to us. ... The people of God may not only be torn and smitten, but left for dead, and may lie so a great while; but they shall not always lie so, nor shall they long lie so; God will in a little time revive them; and the assurance given them of this should engage them to return and adhere to him. But this seems to have a further reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and the time limited is expressed by two days and the third day, that it may be a type and figure of Christ’s rising the third day, which he is said to do according to the scriptures, according to this scripture.”3 In summation, the recurring theme of restoration after three days was a foreshadow of the future resurrection of Jesus Himself, who was raised on the third day, as a sign that He was indeed the long expected Messiah and as a guarantee of Israel's future restoration as a people pure and holy.

XVII. He was resurrected from the dead: said of Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithras Concerning Horus Reinforcing what has been previously mentioned, Horus, according to Zeitgeist, was presumed “resurrected” upon every sunrise, and this was merely symbolic of his victory over Set, the personification of darkness. Claims attributing an actual resurrection to Horus are based on the fact that ancient Egyptians believed that a Pharaoh, upon death, was thought to become Osiris, whereas the succeeding Pharaoh was considered to be living incarnation of Horus, the son of Osiris. Thus, upon each succession of Pharaohs, Horus is resurrected in the “image” of the new monarch, without experiencing an actual death. Concerning the relationship between the sun and the concept of salvation, D. M. Murdock quotes James Allen as saying, “The Sun was the original and daily source of all life: his appearance at the creation and at every sunrise thereafter made life possible in the world … The Sun's daily movement through the sky was viewed as a journey from birth to death, and his rebirth at dawn was made possible through Osiris, the force of new life … This vision of daily death and rebirth lay behind the ancient Egyptian concept of the afterlife. Like the Sun, each person's [soul] was seen as passing through the night of death before coming to life again with the sunrise.”1 Murdock then concludes by attempting to tie Allen’s analysis with the Christian concept of resurrection. She says, “Again we see how singularly significant was the sun that its own cycles were closely tied in with the salvation of the human soul, thousands of years before the Christian era.”2 In such an analysis, she confuses the concept of a symbolic, recurring resurrection to new life with a literal, once for all resurrection to new life, and loses sight altogether of the Christian concept of salvation. In the case of the ancient Egyptian, such death-to-life notions did not

82

effect a change in the person, either physically or spiritually, and are merely reflective of concepts associated with the life-giving properties of the sun, which emerged with every new day and, as was assumed, effected the daily resurrection of the soul. In the case of the Christian, the concept of death and resurrection is the means by which the guilty are set free (that is, saved from the wrath of God for their sin) and eventually enter into everlasting fellowship with God. Regeneration, for the Christian, is a change from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh, thus altering the desires to that which seeks to please God, an alteration of the will to enable one to respond properly to God, and an illumination of the mind to comprehend spiritual truth. The salvation provided for the Christian is a provision of grace and mercy, whereas the so-called “salvation” provided for the Egyptian upon the daily rising of the sun is grounded in a mere superstition concerning a celestial body created by the God of the Bible. Also, for the Egyptian, such a resurrection occurs daily, whereas for the Christian, there is only one such instance of justification, and that comes through faith alone, faith in the only begotten Son of God as the Savior of the world. Concerning Krishna Krishna’s resurrection is related in the Mahabharata, of which the earliest testimony to the complete text comes from Dion Chrysostom and dates to the first century A.D., after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, although portions date to the sixth century B.C. or earlier.3 Krishna’s resurrection is told in the following excerpt from the Mahabharata: “Having restrained all his senses, speech, and mind, Krishna laid himself down in high Yoga. A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking Krishna, who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing prey. Coming up, Jara beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself as an offender and filled with fear, he touched the feet of Krishna. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin with splendor.”4 Dating aside, the resurrection of Krishna after being struck by a hunter’s arrow is no comparison to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. 1. The only witness to Krishna’s resurrection was the hunter who shot him in the foot; Jesus appeared to his disciples and 500 witnesses. 2. Krishna ascended to a mental state (Nirvana); Jesus ascended to a metaphysical, or spiritual, location (Heaven) 3. Krishna was seen as a savior for freeing his people from the temporal reign of Kamsa; Jesus is called Savior since He freed His people from the eternal wrath of God.

83

Concerning Attis Attis is not described as a resurrected deity anywhere in the myth. In one version, his body is preserved by Zeus at the request of Agdistis, but is not brought back to life. Upon being carried to the cave after his death, he is not resurrected; rather, there is merely mourning for his passing. Neither in the Lydian nor the Phrygian version of his death is there to be found a resurrection from the dead. Some have taken Attis’ reincarnation as a pine tree to constitute a resurrection, but being reincarnated in another form is not the same as a resurrection. There are several versions of Attis’ death, as follows: Version 1: According to Ovid, Attis is turned into a pine tree, but is not resurrected. 5 Version 2: In a second account, Attis’ dead body is carried back to Cybele’s temple in hopes he may be brought back to life, but they failed in their efforts to do so.6 Version 3: In a third account, Zeus is asked to bring Attis back to life. Zeus consents, but rather than restoring Attis to life, he merely preserves the body, which remains in a state of death.7 Version 4: In a fourth account, Attis is buried after his body has already began decomposing.8 Version 5: In a fifth account, Attis is killed by a wild boar and does not return to life.9 Version 6: In a sixth version, Attis’ dead body was quickly buried in a tomb after Attis was felled by a spear.10 Version 7: Seven proves to be no lucky number for Attis, for even in this account the god still remains dead. As in a previous version, Zeus is here asked to restore Attis to life, which he again refuses to do. However, he does give Attis a bit of a break this time around by allowing Attis’ little finger to remain in a state of constant motion. 11 Still, though, there is no resurrection. Attis was not known as a savior. The only mention of salvation in relation to Attis is from Damascius (480-550 A.D.), who lived five hundred years after Jesus’ resurrection. He wrote that he had a dream in which a festival of Attis celebrated “salvation from Hades.” In so doing, he was not relating an actual belief or festival, but merely his own dream. There have been mentions made of Attis’ festivals practicing a rite called taurobolium, or bull-sacrifice. In this rite, a man was said to be “born again” when bathed in the blood of a bull. The first mention of taurobolium

84

resulting in salvation is found in the writings of Prudentius and dates to 400 A.D.,10 and that prior to that date, the rite was performed strictly for the benefit of the Emperor’s health, having no reference to a transformation from a spiritual condition. Additionally, the slaying of a bull in association with Cybele is not mentioned until the second century A.D.12 Critics have pointed to the following passage by Firmicus Maternus as an indication that Attis did experience a resurrection. Aside from the fact that this writer lived in the fourth century, well after the Gospels were written, a close look at the text in question does not express a belief in Attis’ resurrection. “In order to satisfy the angry woman, or perhaps trying to find consolation for her after she repented, [the Phrygians] advanced the claim that he whom they had buried a little while earlier had come to life again; and since the woman's heart burned unbearably with overweening love, they erected temples to the dead youth. … The earth, they maintain, loves the crops, Attis is the very thing that grows from the crops, and the punishment which he suffered is what a harvester with his sickle does to the ripened crops. His death they interpret as the storing away of the collected seeds, his resurrection as the sprouting of the scattered seeds in the annual turn of the seasons.“14 A few things stand out in this passage to show that a literal resurrection was not in view. 1. The resurrection of Attis was merely a “claim.” 2. The purpose for this claim of a resurrection was “In order to satisfy the angry woman.” 3. The temples erected to Attis were in honor of “the dead youth,” rather than to one who had risen from the dead. 4. The resurrection in view was symbolic of the annual return of spring: “His death they interpret as the storing away of the collected seeds, his resurrection [they interpret] as the sprouting of the scattered seeds in the annual turn of the seasons.” A note on the “Day of Joy:” Critics have appealed to the festival of Cybele (March 22-27) as a means to affirm Attis as a resurrected deity. The third day of this festival is known as the “Day of Blood” and the fourth day as the “Day of Joy.” They claim the Day of Joy was in celebration of Attis’ resurrection following his “Day of Blood.” However, the day following the Day of Blood was a day in honor of Cybele, not Attis, at which time, the statue of Cybele was returned to the temple. It was not until the fifth century A.D., by the philosopher Damascius, that this day was connected to Attis, when Damascius described a dream had by Isidore the Dialectician in which the Day of

85

Joy was conducted in honor of Attis.15 Unfortunately, for the critic, Isidore’s dream did not accurately reflect the true meaning of the celebration. Concerning Dionysus Dionysus was never resurrected. After the Titans consumed all but his heart, he was then “re-born” from Zeus. A pre-Christian account of Dionysus’ rebirth comes from Diodorus Siculus, a historian who wrote during the first century B.C. He states: “The fabulous writers likewise feign a third generation of Bacchus, that he was the son of Jupiter and Ceres, and that some men of the earth pulled him in pieces, and boiled his parts; and that Ceres gathered his members together again, and renewed and revived him. Which fictions the natural philosophers explain according to natural reason; for he is said (they say) to be the son of Jupiter and Ceres, because the vine is nourished by the earth and the rain from heaven, and so produces fruit; whence comes wine, by pressing of the grape. That the boiling of his members, signifies the operation of making the wine, which many boil to render it more strong and fragrant. That his members were pulled in pieces by earthly men afterwards, and joined together again, and he restored to his former state, denotes no more, but that, after the vintage and pruning of the vines at the season of the year, the earth causes them to flourish again, and to be as fruitful as they ever were before.”16 This re-birth is more of a re-creation than a resurrection, for he emerges in a new body, since his first form was destroyed. It is for this reason that Dionysus is referred to in literature as “twice-born.” When Jesus rose from the dead, He arose possessing the same body which was crucified and mutilated, yet the only remaining physical signs of His execution were the scars on His wrists and in His side. Another event in the Dionysus myth which some delight in likening to a resurrection is Dionysus' descent to the Underworld to rescue his mother. Since he descended to the Underworld without dying, it cannot be said that his re-emergence to the land of the living constituted a resurrection. Concerning Mithras As stated earlier, Mithras is not said to have died at any point in the myth. Critics point to a reference in the writings of Tertullian, a second century Christian, in citing that the Persian Mithra (not the Roman Mithras) was considered a resurrected deity. The reference is from Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics and reads as follows: "If my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan), sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection...."17 First of all, Tertullian is not citing what actually took place regarding Mithra. Rather, he is relating, to the best of his recollection, what he thought was the case. The ancient texts regarding Mithra does not support Tertullian’s recollection that Mithra’s followers celebrated a resurrection in his name. Concerning the notion that Mithras' blood gave immortality, that would be a bit of a trick, since Mithras is not said to have died. This notion originates from an inscription which reads, "And us, too, you saved by spilling the eternal blood;" however, this inscription is dated more than a hundred years after the Christian

86

Apostolic Age and refers, as agreed among scholars, to Mithras' spilling of a bull’s blood upon his emergence (i.e., birth) from a rock (cf. above section “Virgin birth”).18 According to the myth, the blood of the felled beast, not Mithras' blood, generated vegetation and all life. In conclusion of this heading on resurrected deities, I present the following quotes from two noted historians Dr. Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, notes, “Parallels between the pagan myths of dying and rising gods and the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus are now regarded as remote, to say the least. … If anyone borrowed any ideas from anyone, it seems it was the Gnostics who took up Christian ideas.”19 Author Jonathan Z. Smith comments, “..it is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or resurrection. What evidence was relied on by previous scholarship for the putative resurrection can be shown, it is claimed, to be based on a misinterpretation of the documents, or on late texts from the Christian era which reveal … a borrowing of the Christian motif, at a late stage, by the religions themselves.”20

XVIII. Concerning the observance of Easter Furthermore, Zeitgeist states, “However, [the ancients] did not celebrate the resurrection of the sun until the spring equinox, or Easter. This is because at the spring equinox, the sun officially overpowers the evil darkness." Actually, since the dawn of time the sun has overpowered the darkness every day - at sunrise, not just on Easter. The word Easter is used in the King James Version of the Bible, but its usage is the result of a mistranslation. The word “Easter” was translated from the Greek word “pascha”, meaning “Passover.” “Easter,” on the other hand, is derived from the name of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, the goddess of fertility, hence the association with bunnies and eggs. More modern English translations of the Bible have corrected the mistranslation of the word “pascha.” The meaning of Passover has no correlation with the meaning associated with celebrations of Easter, either in ancient or modern times. Passover, rather than dealing with resurrection, is related to the concept of death which results in salvation. The first mention of Passover is in the twelfth chapter of the book of Exodus. After Joseph grew to prominence in the land of Egypt, the Hebrew people became so populated that Pharaoh ordered them into slavery for fear they might overtake the kingdom. During these years of bondage, God raised up a deliverer, Moses, to lead His people to the land of promise. However, Pharaoh refused to relieve the Hebrew people from their bonds, even after God afflicted Egypt with various plagues, so God brought one last scourge upon Egypt. He told Moses that if Pharaoh would not let His people go, His angel would go from house to house and bring about the death of every firstborn son in the land of Egypt. However, God provided a way out: He said that He would “pass over” any house that had the blood of a lamb spread on the door posts, thus sparing the firstborn of that household from this plague. After their departure from Egypt, God commanded that the Hebrew people observe Passover annually, in remembrance of their deliverance from bondage. At this annual feast, an unblemished

87

lamb was sacrificed, which served both as a reminder of the past and a promise for the future. The Passover Feast, while looking back in reflection of past deliverance, also looked forward to the future promised Messiah, who would be an even greater Deliverer than Moses. The blood of the lamb was typical of the blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God, slain for man’s sin. As those covered by the blood of the lamb in Egypt were spared from death, so those covered by the blood of the Lamb of God are spared from the wrath of God against their sin. Also, the supposed relationship between the words “sun” and “son” in ancient beliefs is pure nonsense, since the beliefs in question far pre-date the English language.

XIX. Concerning Sunday as the sacred day of worship: said of Mithras Mithras' day of worship was in fact Sunday (Sunday as the day of worship is only true of the Roman Mithras, not the Iranian Mithra), but that was not so until the second century A.D., well after Jesus’ resurrection.1 Additionally, Sunday was not declared as the Christian’s sacred day until March 7th 321 A.D. by the edict of Emperor Constantine, since that is the day on which Jesus rose from the dead and, in the creation account, it is said that God rested on the seventh day.* Prior to that, the day of worship for Christians was Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Even so, a pagan deity’s day of celebration falling on Sunday should come as no surprise. Many religions used Saturday or Sunday as its “holy day” (after all, there’s only seven days in a week from which to pick a holy day). Mithras' services were conducted by men known as “fathers,” the chief of whom lived in Rome and was referred to as “Pater Patratus.” The obvious association that critics employ here is to the Catholic church and its hierarchy, however, Catholicism did not develop until hundreds of years after the time of Christ, therefore, any parallel regarding the government of the Catholic church is irrelevant, especially since none of the Apostles held the title of Pope or Holy Father, nor did they operate from Rome. Peter was the Apostle to the Jews, whereas Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. While Paul did travel to Rome, much of his time was spent elsewhere within the Roman Empire. * His rest was not from weariness of work, but was a glorifying satisfaction that all He created was good.

XX. The Unusual Suspects After its blatant misrepresentation of its five so-called pagan “christs,” The Zeitgeist Movie scrolls through a list of other deities, then claims, “The fact of the matter is, there are dozens of virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world who fit these descriptions [referring to the categories previously under discussion].” The film does not list any specifics on these deities, other than suggesting they share certain biographical characteristics with Jesus of Nazareth. Here, we will look at these, and other, remaining “saviors” in order to determine just how similar each one's story is to the Gospel of Christ. I have titled this section “The Unusual Suspects,” since many of the names on this list do not deserve to be compared with Christ any more than does the actor Kevin Spacey (no offense intended to Kevin). Also, the deceptive purpose of the mythicists will

88

become even more evident as the examination progresses. That said, we begin with suspect number one: Adad of Assyria Adad (also known as Hadad, Teshub, Resheph, and Rimmon) was the Babylonian-Assyrian storm god, usually depicted with a lightning bolt in his right hand and an axe in his left hand. Critics like to refer to his seven year disappearance in a bog as an indication of a resurrection, but in his story there is no mention of any death – just a disappearance and, seven years later, a reappearance. A resurrection cannot be said to apply to Adad any more than a resurrection can be applied to the many animals of the world who emerge from their annual post-winter hibernation. Certainly those of us in the northern states do not gaze in wonder at the miraculous annual “resurrection” of the birds who flew south for the winter. Adonis of Greece Adonis is said to have been a very attractive young man in the Greek pantheon and was recognized as a vegetation deity. Critics claim he was born of a virgin and resurrected after death. The truth is that Adonis' mother, Myrrha, the wife of the King of Assyria, conceived a child through union with her husband, who was angered with the news of her pregnancy. For the sake of her protection, she is turned into a tree by the gods. Myrrha, as the tree, later cracks open and out comes Adonis. Adonis' life came to an end when he was killed by a boar. At his death, the drops of his blood brings forth roses from the ground. After the emergence of Christianity, the Adonis myth claimed that his body was cremated and his ashes spread to the wind with the proclamation that “Adonis lives!” Aside from this account being postChristian, a scattering of one's ashes is certainly not a resurrection. Aeneas of Greece and Rome Aeneas was the son of prince Anchises and the goddess Venus. According to the Iliad, Aeneas is a lieutenant among the Dardanians, allies of the people of Troy, and one who is favored by the gods, frequently aiding him in conflict. Following Aeneas’ demise, Venus petitioned the god Jupiter to grant him immortality, which he agreed to do. Aeneas was purged of his mortality and made into a god by being anointed with Ambrosia and Nectar, the food and drink of the gods. Suggested parallels: Aeneas’ post-mortem transformation from a mortal being to a god is sometimes likened to the resurrection of Jesus, however, Aeneas’ experience involves a transformation, not a resurrection, since he is changed from a mortal man to a god. Prior to this transformation, he did not possess deity at all. In the case of Jesus, His human body did not exist prior to the incarnation, but the person of Christ existed without beginning before the foundation of the world. An in-depth treatment of the two-fold nature of Christ will be reserved for Part five. For now, I will only state that the person of Jesus, as god, possesses eternal existence, whereas the human nature which He assumed in the incarnation did not exist prior to its conception within Mary’s womb. When Jesus’ body was raised from the dead, it was the same

89

body which had been crucified and buried. Although His human body was raised in a glorified state, it was still a flesh and bone body. In other words, Jesus’ humanity was not non-divine prior to the resurrection, than made divine after the resurrection, for divinity belongs to the person of Christ, which had been divine all along. After the resurrection, His divinity remained divine and His humanity remained human. Jesus was neither divinity lowered to humanity, nor humanity elevated to divinity. Finally, eternality is intrinsic to the divine nature of God, and the human nature of Jesus did not possess such a characteristic. While His humanity is everlasting (without end), it is not eternal (without beginning and end). Thus, when Jesus said He is the “beginning and end,” He is referring to His person as the second member of the divine Trinity, rather than to His humanity – but because His humanity became inseparably linked to the person of Christ, Jesus could rightly say, “I [referring to the person which took upon humanity] am the beginning and the end.” Alcides of Greece Alcides is an alternate name for Heracles or Hercules, as he was known by the Romans. Of him, it is claimed that he was a virgin-born son of god and savior of man, whose birth was foretold and announced by music and a display in the heavens, that his birthday was on December 25th, that his life was threatened as an infant, that he was shown the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain, that he walked on water, that he died violently as his mother and friends stood by and the sky was darkened, and that he was later resurrected and ascended to heaven, conquering death. Such is the myth of Alcides, according to the mythicists. According to the myth, Alcides was born after Zeus deceived the wife of King Amphitryon, disguising himself as her husband. Believing Zeus' trickery, she slept with him and was impregnated as a result. Since she was already married, the notion that she was a virgin at the time of Zeus' appearing is untenable. Equally untenable is the idea that Zeus' coupling with a woman constitutes virgin birth. Although he was a god, his act of union with the mortal woman was in the form of man and through the normal process of insemination. By analogy, if Jesus had sired children during His time among man, although He was God incarnate, His body was still human and any offspring that He could have produced would not have been rightly said to have been virgin-born. Alcides was a son of Zeus (the critics get that much right), but he was not Zeus' only son, nor was his birth anything other than the result of Zeus' burning lust and his desire to sire a champion in the upcoming battle between the gods and the giants. As such, he was not born to be the savior of man, nor was his birth foretold by anyone. Finally, neither Alcides nor Jesus was born in December. An attempt was made on the life of the infant Alcides as his step-mother Juno, or Hera, the wife of Zeus, placed a snake in his cradle, but this does not mirror the attempt on Jesus' life by Herod, who feared the child may grow to pose a threat to the crown. Alcides does not die in the myth; but rather, is poisoned by the centaur Nessus. However, before the poison claimed his life, Zeus took Alcides up to the abode of

90

the gods in a flash of lightning. As such, Alcides cannot be thought of as conquering death; but rather, escaping it, and not by his own doing, but by the hand of Zeus. Concerning the remaining claims that Alcides was shown the kingdoms of the world, that he walked on water, and that the sky was darkened, none of these elements play a part in the Alcides myth. Amun of Egypt Prior to his being worshiped as a deity bearing form, Amun symbolized the air, or the breath of life. This eventually resulted in Amun’s promotion to a creator deity and father to the gods. After the Egyptians conquered Kush, the chief god of the Kushite pantheon was regarded as identical with Amun, and it was at this time that Amun began to be represented as a ram, since such was the representation of the Kushite equivalent. Since the Kushite deity was representative of the reproductive properties of humans, Amun at this time became a god of fertility. Later, Amun was merged with the sun god Ra and his name changed to Amun-Ra. As a result of this merger of deities, Amun, as Amun-Ra, became inseparably linked with the movement of the sun. During the day, he ruled as Ra, but at night, he was hidden as Amun. Suggested parallels: In the book of Genesis it is said that God made man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. Similarly, in the myth of Amun it is said that he gives man his breath. However, the similarity does not exist anywhere other than on the surface, for Amun was originally nothing more than a concept applied to air. As such, he was not even a god nor a person. As such, the concept of Amun had no will of its own and no ability to give man anything, for Amun itself was not even a thing and, as such, has no power, movement, or will of its own. Air does not decide itself which way to move. Rather, it is guided by external factors. Therefore, the breath man received through the concept of Amun was only due to the natural current by which the flow of air was directed. In Genesis, the creation of man and the giving of man’s breath was by a being with personality, will, emotion, and sovereign selfdetermination. God gave man his breath. It was an act involving purpose, intent, and design. When Amun was named as a deity, he became the father of the gods. Some could liken this to the title of Christ as the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Aside from what has already been said under a previous heading concerning such divine titles, it only here bears to mention that this status attributed to Amun was one which was added to the myth, rather than being an essential characteristic all along, as is the case with Jesus, and was only reflective of his newfound status as creator. After Amun became merged with Ra, the sun god, his daily “death and resurrection” was nothing more than symbolic of the daily setting and rising of the sun. Therefore, his death and resurrection was not anything which resulted from any predetermined purpose of Amun. At the end of the day, he would die – like it or not. However, he could rest assured that his death would be short lived, for the sun would

91

surely rise the next day, thus giving new “life” to the god. Such a naturalistic approach to death and resurrection does not at all characterize the manner in which such concepts are applied to Christ. Apollonius of Tyana Apollonius of Tyana lived c. 40-c.120 A.D., whereas Jesus was crucified in c.29 A.D. Any claim that Apollonius is a prototype for Jesus is as plausible as claiming the Lone Ranger is a prototype for Robin Hood. Still, critics suggest Apollonius performed miracles, such as raising the dead, was later tried, then ascended to heaven after his death. Apollonius will be addressed in Part five when discussing the historicity of Jesus, but here it will suffice to briefly state that he was not regarded as divine until Philostratus (c.170-c..247 A.D.) composed a biography of Apollonius in which he praised him for mighty deeds. Atunis Atunis is simply another name for Adonis, previously discussed. Atys of Phrygia Atys is simply an alternate spelling of the god Attis, previously addressed. Baal The tablets which provide the earliest account of Baal indicate that he may have been resurrected from the dead. A portion of the tablets is lost, and critics suggest the resurrection account they are referring to is, of course, in this lost portion. What we do know from the tablets we have is that Baal died and was buried, then re-emerges later in the account. Attention is drawn to a phrase in the tablets which is said to read that Baal is “brought to life,” but the phrase can be just as easily translated as describing Baal as one who “brings to life.” As far as his postmortem appearance, it is not said in what form this appearance takes, whether bodily, spiritual, in a dream, as an image burned into a piece of toast, or an engraving on a coffee mug. The best the critic can plausibly claim is that perhaps Baal was believed to have been resurrected from the dead, but with only circumstantial evidence available to the claimants in their attempt to prove their case without a shadow of a doubt, Baal is one contender who is hereby acquitted of all copycat charges. Balder of Scandinavia Balder, or Baldr, is a Norse deity of light and beauty, and the son of Odin. His earliest account comes from Danish composers writing in the twelfth century A.D. Nevertheless, in order to humor the critic, I will give a brief account of his myth. Balder is known as the “bleeding god,” since the focus of his story is on his death. After riding to the land of the dead, he learned of his impending demise at the hand of his own brother, Hodr. Odin's wife, Frigg, in an attempt to save Balder, obtained the guarantee of every creature and element that no harm would come to Balder. However, the god Loki learned that Frigg failed to obtain the guarantee of the mistletoe plant in her quest to secure Balder's well-being. Loki then constructed a spear from mistletoe, by which Balder was struck dead. Odin plead to the goddess of death for his son's resurrection, which she promised to give if every creature wept

92

for Balder's passing. Since Loki failed to show the required grief, Balder remained dead. Now, does someone want to explain how this is similar to the Gospel account of Jesus? Bali of Afghanistan It is uncertain to whom the mythicists are referring here, as Bali is a demon from Indian mythology. The Indian Bali was ruler of the earth and sky, but the god Vishnu succeeded in taking this honor from him. After being stripped of his exalted position, he contents himself with being the ruler of the underworld. Beddru of Japan As mentioned previously, Beddru does not exist in any mythology or religion. He was a deity invented by the late Jesus myth proponent Kersey Graves in his book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors. Graves' supporters claim he simply made a typo and had intended to write “Buddha,” however, Graves lists Buddha elsewhere in his book and attributes to him different characteristics than he does to Beddru. Bremrillah, of the Druids Bremrillah appears to be another invented deity, although the god's creator remains unknown. Druidic sources reference no such deity by this name, and any sincere mention of him on the Internet is only by those claiming Bremrillah is a candidate for “Let's Make a Jesus Parallel.” Budha Saki (or Buddha Sakia) of India The famous Siddhartha Gautama and Shakyamuni Buddha (563-483 B.C.), the founder of the religion which bears his name, was not a deity, nor did he claim to be so. His story is told in the Buddhacarita which dates to the first century A.D. A number of claims are made by mythicists concerning him. The Buddhacarita Buddha born to the King of Shakyas and his wife, Maya. His birth is not described as having a supernatural character until after the influence of Christianity, and even then it is not specified that Maya was a virgin at the time of conception (after all, she was still a married woman). The supernatural character constituted Maya being impregnated by a white elephant which entered into her side. Some critics have drawn attention to the early Christian writer Jerome (347-420 A.D.) who claimed it was said that Buddha was virgin-born. To come to the Gymnosophists of India, the opinion is authoritatively handed down that Buddha, the founder of their religion, had his birth through the side of a virgin. … Let these allusions to the virgins of the world, brief and hastily gathered from many histories, now suffice.1 Gymnosophists is the name the Greeks gave to certain Indian philosophers who took an extreme vow of asceticism. They regarded even food and clothing as a hindrance to purity. Buddhist monks do take a vow of asceticism, but not to the exclusion of such things as food and clothes. The alleged view of the Gymnosophists, as

93

described by Jerome in the late fifth century A.D., is not testified to in the Buddhacarita, the first century A.D. account of Buddha's life, not by any other Buddhist sect. Given the Gymnosophists' extreme ascetic lifestyle and contempt for even the most essential of physical needs, which is not common with mainstream Buddhism, it is not unthinkable that they adopted the existing Christian doctrine of virgin birth as their own doctrine, to rid Buddha's conception of even a hint of sexual union. Buddha's birth was not accompanied by a star or angels, although the king and father of Buddha did invite Brahmins (teachers and scholars) to the palace upon his son's birth. Such an invitation is to be expected of a son of royalty, whose arrival would be accompanied with honor and pageantry. The Brahmins prophesied that Buddha would be a world leader or a founder of a great religion, which does not bear any resemblance to the account of the wise men in Matthew's narrative, in which no statement whatsoever is attributed to them. It is simply said they worshiped Jesus and presented Him with gifts. However, prior to their visit, Jesus' mission was prophesied by angels, both to Joseph and Mary, to whom it was announced that Jesus would save His people from their sin, and this was in conjunction with the prophecies made by the Old Testament prophets long before Jesus' birth. Finally, Buddha's birthday is traditionally observed on May eighth and never in December. To come to the Gymnosophists of India, the opinion is authoritatively handed down that Buddha, the founder of their religion, had his birth through the side of a virgin. … Let these allusions to the virgins of the world, brief and hastily gathered from many histories, now suffice.1 According to a rare and unofficial account of Buddha's story, after his birth, his life was threatened by king Bimbasara who advised to kill the child for fear that he would grow to be an usurper of the throne. The king's advice was not heeded and the child's life was spared. This does not compare to Herod's scheme to kill male children two years and under in Bethlehem and the surrounding vicinity, which he did in fact do, and not at the advice of his counselors. Jesus and Buddha were both of royal lineage, but the character of Jesus' lineage was not like that of Buddha's. Buddha was the son of a ruling king, whereas Jesus was the adopted son of a poor carpenter from Nazareth and was Joseph's son according to law, not by blood. While Joseph was a descendant of King David, his relation to a sitting king was removed by hundreds of years. The throne of David came to an end with King Jehoiachin whose reign was overthrown by Babylonian invaders in 597 B.C. Buddha is said to have taught in a temple at age fifteen, however, in Matthew's account of the boy Jesus in the Jerusalem temple, Jesus was twelve, not fifteen, nor did he teach there. Rather, he engaged in a question and answer session with the rabbis.

94

Buddha endured temptation and is said to have killed a serpent, which some critics claim he did so by crushing its head, reminiscent of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen 3:14-15) However, the serpent's head is not said to have been crushed anywhere in the Buddha story. Also, the prophecy in Genesis (composed long before Buddha was even born) figuratively portrays Jesus' victory over sin, death, and the forces of evil – which is not a literal snake whose head will be crushed by Jesus' foot. As far as Buddha's temptation by a demon named Mara, Mara is not likened to Satan, since he is not the representation of a supremely evil being. The only real similarity between the two accounts is that both Jesus and Buddha were fasting at the time of temptation, and it is not an uncommon practice to attack an enemy when he is at a weak point. In addition, the setting and manner of the temptation of Buddha was different from that of Jesus. Some critics claim that Buddha was baptized in water as the spirit of god looked down, but such an event is not found in the myth. It is said that Buddha abolished idolatry, which is not true. Buddha encouraged such a practice. Likewise, neither did Jesus abolish idolatry, since the Jews were not an idolatrous people; but rather, strictly a monotheistic who were divinely forbidden from worshiping any idol, even one representing Jehovah. In addition, Jesus' preaching did not mirror that of Buddha, who was not a “preacher of righteousness,” nor taught the coming of a kingdom. Neither did Buddha claim to fulfill any divine law, as did Jesus. Buddha's followers were required to renounce the world and take a vow of poverty, but poverty is not required of Jesus' followers. Christians are to be non-materialistic, but material wealth is not forbidden in the Gospels. Jesus' command to a wealthy young man to renounce his riches was only to point out the man's love for material things over and above spiritual things. Buddha was known as “Lord,” but not, as some suggest, “Master,” “Light of the World,” “God of Gods,” “Father of the World,” “Almighty and All-knowing Ruler,” “Redeemer of All,” “Holy One,” the “Author of Happiness,” “Possessor of All,” the “Omnipotent,” the “Supreme Being,” the “Eternal One,” the “Sin Bearer,” the “Good Shepherd,” the “Infinite and Everlasting,” or the “Alpha and Omega.” Concerning miracles, he is said to have healed the sick, but he did not miraculously feed a multitude, calm a storm, raise the dead, or perform any other miracle described in the Gospels. In some post-Christian accounts, one of his devotees is said to have walked on water, but such is not said of Buddha himself.

95

Buddha was not transfigured, as some say; but rather, attained a level of consciousness which is said to have effected an outward change in him. In contrast, Jesus' transfiguration was not an elevation to a higher state of being. Rather, it was a revelation of His true nature, hidden by means of His mortal flesh, which He possessed since before creation. Any attempt to claim that Buddha died on a cross is in error. In truth, he died after consuming poisoned mushrooms at age eighty. Following his death, his body was cremated and never experienced a resurrection. As far as an ascension to heaven, the Buddhist concept of Nirvana is not like the Christian concept of Paradise. In Nirvana, the soul is freed from its bodily prison to enjoy a higher form of existence, but not in the form of fellowship with a deity who shed His own blood so that such fellowship could be provided to the believer. Buddhist eschatology does not involve Gautama Buddha returning in the end times as a judge of the dead, as some mythicists claim. A Buddha, not the Buddha, is believed to be born and will usher in world peace, but no such image of an international “buddy Jesus” appears in the Gospels. Rather, when Jesus returns, His coming will be accompanied with terror and the final destruction of those who live in unbelief. Cadmus of Greece Cadmus was the son of Agenor, king of Tyre. Bearing only one superficial similarity to Jesus, Cadmus' story involves his following a cow, at the instruction of the oracle at Delphi, to the place where it rested and there establish a city, which became known as the city of Thebes. Cadmus' men was attacked by a serpent of the god Ares, which he then slew. In the book of Genesis, after the serpent had deceived Eve and she and Adam had both sinned against God, God pronounced the following curse on the serpent:(Gen 3:14-15; see above) The bruising of the serpent, prophesied in Genesis, bears only one similarity to the Cadmus myth: the presence of a serpent. The significance of the Genesis prophecy is that it is a reference to the future victory of Christ (the “seed of the woman”) in overcoming death and delivering God's people from the ultimate curse of sin. The redemptive work of Christ did not actually involve stepping on a serpent's head, despite the symbolic scene from the movie The Passion of the Christ. As such, the Cadmus myth and the prophecies of the Messiah, aside from the mutual inclusion of a serpent, do not run a close parallel one to the other, as Cadmus' slaying of the serpent was merely an attempt to deliver some individual from an impending threat on their life by a creature sent by the god Ares. Chrishna of Hindostan Crishna is simply an alternate spelling of the god Krishna. Cronus of Greece Cronus (also spelled as Kronos) represented the harvest and time. The son of Gaia and Ouranos, (representing the earth and sky, respectively), he was the father of such gods as Zeus, Hades, and Poseiden. Gaia became angered with Ouranos when he

96

committed her youngest children to Tartarus. With a thirst for revenge, she tried to persuade her other children to kill Ouranos. Cronus, out of envy of Ouranos’ power, agreed to perform the task. In an ambush, Cronus severed Ouranos’ genitals and cast them in the sea. From his spilled blood were born the Giants, Erinyes (or Furies, according to the Romans), and Meliae (nymphs), and from his severed genitals was born the goddess Aphrodite. Cronus later defeated the serpent Ophion, thereby freeing the world from the serpent’s grasp and earning for himself the role as ruler of the world. After defeating Ouranos, Cronus became fearful for his life after a prophecy foretold he would be overcome by his son. In an effort to thwart the prophecy, Cronus swallowed his children, Demeter, Hera, Hades, Hestia, and Poseidon, each upon their birth. When Cronus’ wife, Rhea, became pregnant with Zeus, she gave birth to him in secret on the isle of Crete and hid him within the shelter of a cave where he was later raised by a goat (or a nymph or Gaia herself, according to another version of the myth). In order to protect her son, she presented Cronus with a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes. Thinking the stone to be his son, Cronus swallowed it whole. Later, and by one of various means (again, according to which version of the myth is being considered), Zeus caused Cronus to regurgitate the remaining five offspring, as well as the stone which Cronus thought to be Zeus. Afterwards, a war ensured between the gods and the Titans, which resulted in some of the Titans being banished to Tartarus, the underworld. In some versions of the myth, Cronus is among those banished Titans, while in other versions he is imprisoned in a cave for all eternity. The Titans’ fate after the war enraged Gaia and she gave birth to the creature Typhon (half man, half serpent) to exact revenge against the gods, but the creature was defeated by Zeus. In some versions of the myth, Cronus is freed from Tartarus and crowned King of Elysium, while in other versions he is named as king over the Cyclopes. Suggested parallels: In Genesis it is prophesied the Messiah would wound the head of the serpent, while in the Cronus myth it is said the god defeated the serpent Ophion. Since this so-called “parallel” has already been addressed, it bears no repetition here. Cuchulainn of Ireland The stories involving Cuchulainn emerged in Irish mythology during the Ulster Cycle, one of the four cycles of Irish mythology. While the composition of the stories date to the middle ages, the events within the stories are said to have taken place around or during the time of Christ, when Conchobar mac Nessa, Cuchulainn's uncle, ruled as king. The characters found within the myth are believed to be historical by some, while others regard them as wholly mythological fabrications. The earliest record of the events and characters of the Ulster Cycle dates to poems from the seventh century A.D.2 Critics attempt to draw a parallel by stating Cuchulainn was born of a virgin. One version3 of his birth has his mother Deichtine adopting Cuchulainn, who later dies of illness. She is then visited by the god Lugh who tells her he has placed the child within her womb, a pregnancy which is scandalous since she is betrothed to marry Sualtam mac Róich. When her father is suspected of being the child's father,

97

Deichtine choses to abort the fetus. She later conceived through normal means. A later version4 has Deichtine, along with her fifty maidens, turning into birds and enticing the men of Uster, including Sualtam mac Róich, who in this account is already married to Deichtine. They are then transformed back into their human forms and the next day Deichtine is found to be with child, who is later named as “Setanta [whose name was changed to Cuchulainn], son of Sualtim." In the first account, a virgin conception can properly be applied to the narrative, but not a virgin birth, since the child was aborted prior to delivery. Even so, this cannot stand as a story which inspired the Gospel writers to have included a virgin birth narrative in their own accounts. First, the Cuchulainn myth did not take shape until well after the beginning of the Christian era. Second, the Jews would not have merged a pagan myth with the prophecies of the Messiah (more on this point will be said in Part six), for so doing would be in contrast with the Jews' own method of thought. Critics also claim Cuchulainn was born on December 25th, but as has already been shown, any such claim is irrelevant to the Gospel story. Finally, critics claim he was resurrected from the dead, but the myth does not provide Cuchulainn with any such benefit. Crite of Chaldea No historical reference could be found to a so-called crucified savior named Crite (perhaps the name is intended to be a play on the title “Christ”). He is said, only according to the mythicists, to have been known as "the redeemer," "the ever-blessed Son of God,,”"the savior of the race," and "the atoning offering for an angry God." They also claim that when he was crucified, the heavens and the earth were shaken. The main element the mythicist needs to now provide is a pantheon to which this deity exists and a credible reference to his existence apart from references found on unreliable cookie-cutter mythicist web sites. Dazhbog of the Slavs Dazhbog (also known as Dabog and Dazbog) is the Slavic sun god. He is said to have been reborn every morning, only to turn into an old man in the evening. He was never regarded as an historical person who experienced death and a one-time bodily resurrection. Rather, his daily regeneration was merely due to an association with the rising of the sun at every new dawn. Deva Tat Deva Tat is another name for Buddha, and just another attempt to lengthen the names on this list of would-be Jesus clones. The Divine Teacher of Plato Plato's teacher or mentor was Socrates, not a deity. Socrates did have an imaginary friend he called his “divine teacher,” who he believed could set him on the right path in the quest for wisdom and keep him focused on a manner of proper living.5 However, by Socrates' own admission, this teacher did not possess wisdom himself, but only knew in which direction to point in order to obtain wisdom.

98

Fohi of China Fohi, or Fu Xi, was a mythological Chinese emperor, said to have ruled from 2900-2700 B.C., and who is credited for certain advancements in Chinese civilization, such as writing and fishing. He is said to have been miraculously conceived without male intervention. Of course, critics jump on this as an opportunity to gleefully shout, “Jesus myth!” from their rooftops. First, while it is said he was conceived of a woman and having no father, it is not said that his mother was a virgin at the time, having had no sexual relations prior to her miraculous conception. Second, and more importantly, there is some speculation that a matriarchal society once existed in ancient China, and that during this time, pregnancy was considered miraculous and children a gift from a god, due to ignorance or misunderstanding regarding the process of insemination. In addition, children were thought not to have been acquainted with their father, but only with the mother.6 Were that the case, then Fohi's supernatural birth was no more than a byproduct of the culture and development of the time. Even if Fohi was truly believed to be virgin-born in a manner distinct from what may have been understood of any other child in such a society, the characteristics of Jesus' birth still serve to separate Him from standing parallel to Fohi in regards to his entrance into this world. The ways in which Jesus' birth cannot be likened to any other birth which may rightfully be classified as virginal will be addressed in detail in Part five. Gentaut of Mexico The burden of proof remains in the hands of the critic as to which pantheon Gentaut belongs, for no research into the Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayas, or other ancient civilizations of Mexico turned up a deity by this name. Gullveig of Scandinavia Gullveig is an obscure figure in Norse mythology and is widely believed to be among one of the two warring divisions of Norse deities, the Æsir and the Vanir. Her story is told briefly in the poem Völuspá and is set during the war between the gods. Gullveig is described in the poem as thrice dying and thrice returning from the dead, as shown in stanza twenty one of the poem, then later returning as a witch who performs dark magic. When the gods with spears had smitten Gullveig, And in the hall of Hár had burned her, Three times burned, and three times born, Oft and again, yet ever she lives. Heid they named her when she came to the house, The wide-seeing witch, in magic wise; She performed seið where she could

99

worked seið in a trance, To evil women she was always a joy.7 Suggested parallels: Little is known of this deity. Whatever was the purpose of her death, it is not explicitly stated in the poem, however the poem gives no indication that her threefold rebirth was viewed as being redemptive in purpose. Hesus of the Druids It is said that Hesus, also known as Esus, of Gaul was born of a virgin and crucified between a lamb and an elephant. Interestingly, I don't recall ever seeing such animals in a passion play! Hesus was a god of war, usually depicted as a woodcutter with a large axe, and took pleasure in human sacrifice, as testified by the Roman Lucan. The Hesus myth does not mention any virgin birth, and the suggestion that he was crucified is a twist on the manner of sacrifices offered in his name. As a sacrifice to Hesus, men were tied to or hung from a tree and flayed alive. Since being “hung on a tree” was a common reference to crucifixion, some suggest that crucifixion is an element found within the Hesus myth. First, it was not Hesus who was hung from a tree; but rather, humans offered in sacrifice to him. Second, although being “hung on a tree” was a common reference to crucifixion, simply being “hung” or tied to a tree did not constitute death by crucifixion. The most common association critics attempt to employ when linking Hesus to Jesus is the similarity of the name, an association rejected by scholarship. The name Jesus is the English translation of the name Yeshua, meaning “savior.” The name can also be translated as Joshua. The name Hesus, however, is from the Indo-European language and bears no similarity to the Hebrew Yeshua, either phonetically or etymologically. Any attempt to liken Jesus and Hesus by virtue of the names is the product of an uninformed premise. The Holy One of Xaca It is uncertain exactly who the critics are referring to here, since the “holy one” of Xaca, although popular among the standard mythicist web sites, is not referenced as a deity by a reputable source of information. Even the mythicist sites do not specify how this holy one is supposed to be a parallel to Jesus. Some claim that Xaca is the name of a god, others claim it is the name given to worshipers of a particular deity. Outside of mythicist sites, Xaca is said to be an alternate name for Buddha and also an acronym for Xbox Anti Cheat Alliance. Inanna and Tammuz of Sumer Inanna, a Sumerian goddess also known as Ishtar, has been worshiped since preChristian times. Inscriptions dating to 1500 B.C. are believed to indicate she was crucified and resurrected following her descent to the underworld. She descends to the underworld, supposedly to either attend her brother-in-law’s funeral or use this as an excuse to eventually conquer the underworld. The myth says, "After she had crouched down [before her sister] and had her clothes removed, they were carried away. Then she made her sister Erec-ki-gala rise from her throne, and instead she sat

100

on her throne. The Anna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook."8 After Inanna hung there for three days, Nincurba went to Enlil (god of air), Nanna (god of the moon), and Enki's (god of wisdom and water) temples and demanded they save Inanna. Of the three, Enki agreed to come to Inanna’s aid. He formed two creatures, gala-tura and kur-jara, and ordered them to sprinkle her corpse with food and life-giving water. Following their orders, they revived Inanna successfully. The demons of the underworld refused to let Inanna go and demanded a replacement be left in her stead. They found Inanna’s husband Dumuzi enjoying the festive life, despite his wife’s disappearance in the underworld. This angered Inanna and she agreed to let the demons claim her husband so she could go free. The resurrection in the myth of Inanna bears no resemblance to the resurrection of Jesus. First, there was no precognition that the death would occur, whereas Jesus foretold His own death. Second, the manner of death bears very little resemblance to way Jesus died. Inanna was hung on a hook, whereas Jesus was crucified on a cross. The only commonality is that they were both suspended above the ground, no reason to link the two together. Third, Inanna’s resurrection was brought about by a god’s whim; Jesus’ resurrection was planned within the ageless eternity past. Fourth, Inanna’s resurrection was temporal – she could be killed again; Jesus was resurrected to an eternal glorified state. Fifth, Inanna’s resurrection resulted in nothing; Jesus’ resurrection bridged the gap between God and man. Sixth, Inanna was resurrected by the gods, whereas Jesus raised His own body from the grave. Seventh, Inanna’s resurrection did not conquer death, for another being had to take her place among the dead in order for her to be rise from death. In contrast, Jesus’ resurrection resulted in life for those who believe in Him. Following Inanna’s resurrection, another was consigned to the underworld in her place. Following Jesus’ resurrection, a multitude is freed from death. Tammuz is the Akkadian name for Dumuzi, the consort of Inanna, or Ishtar. Following Inanna’s return from the underworld, Dumuzi was consigned to the underworld in her stead. It was originally thought he remained there, never to make a return to the land of the living. It was as such that he was mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh*, in which Ishtar is rebuked for bringing about the death of per past lovers, among whom is named Tammuz. However, a Sumerian tablet uncovered in 1963 reveled Dumuzi as a deity who was consigned to the underworld only to reappear among the living,9 and this he did on an annual basis. Following his original consignment to the underworld, Inanna mourns for the loss of her husband and arranges for his release. The arrangement allowed Dumuzi to be consigned to the underworld for six months of every year, with his sister Geshtinana taking his place for the remaining six months. The tablet reads: "You [Dumuzi], half the year. Your sister [Geštinanna], half the year!" Dumuzi was not a vegetation god, since his underworld consignment was annually from July to December, during which time he “died,” then returned to “life” from January to June. No vegetation deity was believed to die during a time when vegetation was in a state of renewal. Rather, their

101

death was likened with the return of winter, and their resurrection, with the return of spring. The cult which bore Tammuz’ name was largely a funereal cult, celebrating his death rather than a resurrection or return to the land of the living. Tammuz’ mourning ceremonies were widely practiced, even in Jerusalem, as witnessed by the prophet Ezekiel: Then he brought me [Ezekiel] to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD [the Temple in Jerusalem], and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz. He said to me, Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this. (Ezekiel 8:14-15 NIV) * This poem is discussed in detail later in this book under the heading concerning Noah’s Flood. The resurrection of Tammuz is distinct from the resurrection of Jesus for the following reasons: 1. Tammuz died and rose on an annual basis. His resurrection was not “once for all,” as was Jesus’ resurrection. Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. (Heb 7:27) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb 9:11-12) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:10) 2. Although Tammuz’ consignment to the underworld was to secure Inanna’s release, Tammuz was not considered a savior by his followers. 3. Tammuz’ death and resurrection were not foreordained or prophesied beforehand, as was many circumstances and events in the life of Jesus. 4. His resurrection was only due to his place in the underworld being filled by his sister, during the time he returned to the land of the living. When Jesus rose from the dead, there was no need for His tomb to be occupied by another, since in His resurrection from the dead, He conquered death itself. Tammuz’ resurrection necessitated the death of His sister. Jesus’ resurrection necessitated everlasting life for those who place their faith in Him as Savior.

102

5. Celebrations in Tammuz’ name was in observance of His death; Christians celebrate Jesus resurrection. 6. Tammuz’ resurrection did not result in salvation. It was his death, not his resurrection, which secured Inanna’s release from the underworld. Tammuz’ resurrection in fact resulted in death, for every year when he made his return from the underworld, his sister entered the underworld to take his place among the dead. Other reported similarities between Tammuz and Jesus include the following: “He wore a crown of thorns at his passion in Jerusalem and was called god's 'only begotten son' and 'son of the blood.'” The truth is that none of these elements are found in the myth. “He was known as a healer, savior, shepherd, and anointed one.” Of these, only roles of a healer and shepherd can properly be applied to Tammuz, but not in the same sense that it can be applied to Jesus. Tammuz was a healer and a shepherd in the literal sense, as it was his by profession, whereas Jesus is the Great Shepherd and the Great Healer, come to save His sheep and restore them to fellowship with God. “He was born in the very cave in Bethlehem now considered to be the birthplace of Jesus.” The only mention of Tammuz being born in a cave comes to us from the early Christian writer Jerome, who states: “From the time of Hadrian to the reign of Constantine — a period of about one hundred and eighty years — the spot which had witnessed the resurrection was occupied by a figure of Jupiter; while on the rock where the cross had stood, a marble statue of Venus was set up by the heathen and became an object of worship. The original persecutors, indeed, supposed that by polluting our holy places they would deprive us of our faith in the passion and in the resurrection. Even my own Bethlehem, as it now is, that most venerable spot in the whole world of which the psalmist sings: “the truth hath sprung out of the earth,” was overshadowed by a grove of Tammuz.”10 As testified by Jerome, the association of Tammuz' birthplace as the cave regarded as the birthplace of Jesus was a post-Christian invention of Rome, in an attempt to “deprive” Christians of their faith. The cave was not regarded as the actual birthplace of Tammuz. Indra of Tibet Indra was formerly the chief of the gods in India and Tibet, is a war and storm god. At his birth, he burst from his mother's side, thus killing her. Riding through the heavens in a chariot, and carrying a lightning bolt in his hand, he travels about slaying his enemies and reviving warriors killed in battle. His primary association is as a demon-slayer, having killed the serpent Vritra, and in so doing, generated life and caused the sun to rise. In one instance he is known as a redeemer, but those whom he redeemed were cows which had been stolen from the gods. As the bringer

103

of light and rain, he eventually became known as a fertility god. Indra is depicted as a heavy drinker, having a large belly, and his followers partook of the intoxication drink Soma during their rituals. According to the Hindi epic Ramayana, Indra became infatuated with the wife of Gautama, disguised himself, and won her over as his lover. In a fit of rage, Gautama cursed Indra, causing his genitals to fall off; however, the gods later replaced them with the genitals of a ram. Now, apart from the notion that his followers consumed a beverage (which holds no relevance to the sober character of the Lord's Supper) where exactly does anything described in the Gospels fit in with this story? Ischy of the island of Formosa All attempts to uncover a deity known as Ischy proved to be futile. It appears this is the critics' attempt to suggest that the Christian fish symbol (as seen on many bumper stickers), also known as Ichthys, was based on this apparently non-existent deity. Ixion of Rome Ixion was a Thessalian king of Larissa and, in some accounts, the son of the god Ares. He fell in love with a woman named Dia, and in order to avoid paying the required price to her father for his daughter's hand in marriage, Ixion caused him to fall into a pit, whereby he was killed in the fall. Later, Ixion's attraction fell upon Hera, the wife of the god Zeus, for which he was bound to a wheel (not crucified to it) and sentenced to an eternity in the underworld. Why critics choose to list Ixion as a Jesus parallel remains to be seen. Izanagi of Japan Izanagi was the husband of Izanami and the two figures were regarded as the ones from whom emerged the deities and forefathers of Japan, and even the land of earth itself. Their act of creating land was through the use of a spear, given to them by the primordial gods Kunitokotachi and Amenominakanushi, with which they churned the waters of earth and caused the first land to appear. After creating land, they descended to earth and made their abode therein. After his wife died in childbirth, Izanagi was so consumed with rage over her passing that he killed the child born to him by her. He then attempted to bring her back from the Yomi, the underworld, but his efforts were unsuccessful, since she had already eaten the food of the underworld, thereby committing herself as a permanent resident among the dead. He drew the anger of his dead wife after he caught a glimpse of her now-horrid form in the underworld. Terrified by the sight of her, Izanagi turned and ran like a bat out of hell (or, in this case, Yomi), thus abandoning his wife as one of the dead. Angered by her husband’s abandon, she pursues him in an attempt to slay him, but fails to do so and instead vows to kill one thousand of his people daily. Suggested parallels: The book of Genesis opens with the account of creation, beginning as follows:

104

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2 NASB) Such description bears a likeness to the myth here in question, but given the late dating of the Japanese myth, if there was any borrowing of one creation account to another, it is no wonder who borrowed from whom. Izanagi’s return from the underworld cannot be likened to the resurrection account of the Gospels. In the Japanese myth, Izanagi returns from the land of the dead without ever having died in the first place and, upon his return, not even his wife emerged with him to the land of the living. Jao of Nepal This deity appears to be, yet again, an invention of the mythicists. Jarilo of the Slavs Jarilo was a god of fertility, vegetation, and the harvest, and was the son of Perun, the chief of the gods. By some accounts, on the night Jarilo was born he was stolen from Perun by Veles, the lord of the dead, and taken to the underworld, there to be raised by Veles himself. In Slavic mythology, the underworld was not your typical run-of-the-mill land of the dead. Rather than being a place filled with stench, decay, and things creepy and kooky, mysterious and spooky, and altogether ooky (if I may borrow a line from the theme to The Addams Family), the underworld was a fertile land which lay across a sea and was filled with grassy plains where Jarilo watched over cattle. Every spring, Jarilo would traverse the sea and travel from the land of the dead to the living, ushering in the spring season. Jarilo then caught the eye of Morana, a nature goddess, and the love between the two figures resulted in a time of fertility for the earth, thus guaranteeing a bountiful harvest later in the year. At the end of the harvest, Jarilo was thought to have been killed by Morana as retribution for infidelity, and with his death came the death of the crops. Later, before year’s end, Morana also meets her demise. Such is the myth of Jarilo, a myth which recycles itself from year to year, with both he and Morana being reborn at the dawn of the new year and dying before the year’s end. Suggested parallels: The annual death and resurrection of Jarilo is just another mythic interpretation of the natural changing of the seasons and, as such, does not mirror the redemptive value of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Karna of India The pre-Christian Hindu epic Mahabharata describes Karna’s birth to Queen Kunti prior to her marriage to King Pandu. The conception of Karna was effected by the god Sunya, who was summoned by Kunti after using a mantra given to her, when she was a youth, by the sage Durvasa, as a form of gratitude for her year of service to him. Through the deity’s intervention, Kunti became pregnant and gave birth to Karna, who was born in full armor and wearing a pair of earrings. Following her marriage to the king, Pandu was told that he would be cursed if he embraced Kunti

105

or his other wife. Through the use of the mantra, Kunti again summoned the god, that he might cause to cause her and her husband’s other wife to bear children to their Pandu. Thus, Karna, as well as his five brothers (the Pandavas) were said to have been born without male seed. After Karna’s birth, Kunti set him adrift in the river Ganga, where he was later found and adopted by a chariot driver, who lovingly raised Karna as his own son. Later, Karna was trained to be a mighty warrior and skilled archer. One day, after killing a cow with an arrow, he was cursed by a Brahmin who said Karna would be killed in a moment of weakness as consequence for slaying a helpless animal. Karna developed a strong friendship with prince Duryodhana after Duryodhana made Karna eligible to participate in a tournament with the royal guru Drona. Karna later ascended to the throne of Anga and gained widespread popularity as a benevolent ruler. Karna then secured the allegiance of other ruler to his friend Duryodhana, by using military might to bring them under Duryodhana’s subjection, thus establishing Duryodhana as Emperor of the World. The god Indra, knowing that Karna would be indestructible as long as he wore the armor and earrings with which he was born, approached Karna while in disguise and persuaded Karna to hand over the armor and earrings. Indra was humbled by Karna’s generosity and responded by permitting Karna to make use of the Vasavi shakti, Indra’s most powerful weapon, with the stipulation that he be allowed to use it on only one occasion. On the seventeenth day of The Great War, after battle with the Pandavas, Karna faced Arjuna, the third of the five Pandavas, in a confrontation concerning which it was prophesied that only one would survive. Karna attempted to deal a fatal blow to Arjuna but was foiled due to the intervention of Krishna. Karna then dismounts from his chariot after the wheels become stuck in the ground. He then requests that Arjuna hold from further assault until he is able to mount his chariot again. Arjuna, at the instigation of Krishna, disregards Karna’s request and delivers to him a fatal blow. The only characteristic of the Karna myth which is similar, superficially, to the Gospels’ account of Jesus, is the virgin birth. However, Karna’s birth served no preordained purpose and was merely brought about through a maiden’s “wishing upon a star,” as it were. Mikado of the Sintoos The word “Mikado” is indeed Japanese, but does not refer to any deity. There are two usages of the word: first, as a former title to the emperor of Japan11, and second, as the title of a comic opera (The Mikado) by Gilbert and Sullivan. Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia Mahomet is an alternate spelling of Mohammed (c.570-632 A.D.), or Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and is also the title of a play written by Voltaire and was first performed on April 25, 1741, as a biography of Mohammed.

106

Odin of Scandinavia The similarity between Odin and Jesus centers on Odin's voluntarily act of hanging himself upon Yggdrasil, the cosmic tree. After his death, which came by him being eaten by a wolf, not by his attachment to the tree, he was resurrected by magic and proven to be wiser than he was before his death. This similarity becomes deadly to the critics' cause when one considers that the earliest account known of this myth dates to 950 A.D. If there was any borrowing here, it was on the part of the Norse myth, which perhaps borrowed from the Christian account of God being “hung on a tree” and His subsequent resurrection. Orpheus of Greece Orpheus, the son of the Thracian king Oeagrus and the muse Calliope, was a Greek hero who was a skilled poet and musician, so much so that his music could enchant beasts, fish, and fowl, and cause trees to dance and rivers to divert their course. He married Eurydice who was fatally bitten after running into a nest of snakes. In his grief for his wife’s demise, Orpheus played songs of mourning so skillfully that it caused even the gods to grieve. The gods instructed Orpheus to journey to the underworld and, through his music, persuade Hades to permit Eurydice to return to the land of the living. With music from his lyre, Orpheus charmed Charon, the ferryman which carried deceased souls across the River Styx to the underworld, into granting him passage to the land of the dead. Once there, and after enchanting Cerberus, the three-headed guard dog of the underworld, Orpheus petitioned Hades to free Calliope and allow her to return to the living. Hades consented to his request on the condition that Orpheus escort his wife from the underworld by going before her and not looking back until they had both exited the land of the dead. Orpheus failed to heed Hades’ instructions and upon turning back to look at his wife, she vanished from his sight, never to return to the living. Orpheus later met his own demise when he went to worship the sun god Apollo, but was dismembered by Thracian Maenads (followers of the god Dionysus) for not paying homage to Dionysus instead. Orpheus’ severed head, singing songs of mourning all the while, floated down the Hebrus River to the shores of Lesbos. His head was placed in a shrine constructed there, while his lyre was placed as a star in the heavens. Orpheus was then reunited, in spirit, with his wife in the underworld. Suggested parallels: The myth of Orpheus is similar to the myth of Izanagi due to the common story element of each figure’s journey to the underworld to retrieve his dead wife. As in the case of Izanagi, Orpheus descends to the underworld without having died in the first place, and in his return he is not accompanied by anyone who had previously died. Some believe Orpheus was crucified based on an amulet (shown on next page) which is believed to depict him in a crucified state. This amulet is the same one which others believe to depict a crucified Dionysus. The fallacy of this claim has already been discussed in this work (see the section regarding Dionysus under the previous heading “He was crucified”).

107

Orus of Egypt Orus is just an alternate spelling of the Greek god Horus, as well as the name of a village in south-western France. Osiris of Egypt Osiris is an Egyptian deity who critics of Christianity claim was a savior deity, born of a virgin, and was resurrected after his death. The most complete version of the Osiris myth comes from the Greek historian Plutarch (c.34-125 A.D.) in his work Isis and Osiris, and goes as follows: “Set, Osiris’ brother, killed Osiris by tricking Osiris to lie in a chest, which was then shut up and tossed in the Nile River. Isis, Osiris’ wife, learned the chest had drifted out to sea and come to rest on the coast of Byblos. She journeyed there, found Osiris’ body, and mourned her dead husband. She hid the body in a secret location, but Set found the body and cut the corpse into fourteen pieces, which he then scattered throughout Egypt. Isis, recovered the pieces and assembled them. She was unable to find Osiris’ phallus, so she fashioned one for him and hovered over his body, thus reviving her husband. In some versions, he returns to life; in other versions, he simply journeys to the underworld and becomes king of the dead.”12 Karl Widemann, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Bonn, states, “Above all, the conceptions regarding the most important episode in the god’s existence, namely his resurrection, differed very widely, especially in the later texts.”13 Suggested parallels: Three kings visited him upon his birth: The notion that Osiris was visited by three wise men upon his birth is a purely astrological association, referring to an inner belt of three stars, named Mintaka, Anilam, and Alniak, located within the constellation of Osiris.

108

His followers observed a communal mean in which Osiris' body was eaten The myth mentions nothing of a communal meal, much less one in which Osiris was represented by elements consumed by the participants. He was referred to as “King of Kings,” “the resurrection and the life,” and “the good shepherd.” None of these titles were ever applied in antiquity to Osiris, although he has been depicted as holding a shepherd's rod. Such an icon was also held by the Pharaoh's of Egypt as a symbol of their authority. Since Osiris was closely associated with Egyptian Pharaoh's, it is not unreasonable that the Egyptians attributed the same symbol to Osiris. The Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 are copied of earlier Egyptian texts relating to Osiris It is said that an ancient text describes Osiris as one who leads the dead to green pastures and still waters, restores one's soul, and protects those in the valley of death. Another purported ancient Egyptian text is said to begin with “O Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven.” Still, the critics have yet to provide evidence for these so-called ancient texts. Besides, amen is a Hebrew word and was used as an affirmation for that which had already been said, rather than as a greeting or invocation. Did Osiris experience a bodily resurrection? Osiris was a vegetation god. His death symbolized the annual drought, while his rebirth symbolized the annual flooding of the Nile and renewal of crops. As Bruce Metzger observes, “such myths are the expression of ancient nature-symbolism; the spirit of vegetation dies every year and rises every year.”14 Osiris’ resurrection was nothing more than a descent to the underworld. He was never resurrected to continue his previous manner of existence. Consider the following remarks on this point: According to author J. Smith, “The pieces of his body were recovered and rejoined, and the god was rejuvenated. However, he did not return to his former mode of existence but rather journeyed to the underworld, where he became the powerful lord of the dead. In no sense can Osiris be said to have ‘risen’ in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern….In no sense can the dramatic myth of his death and reanimation be harmonized to the pattern of dying and rising gods.”15 Archaeologist Roland de Vaux in his book The Bible and the Ancient Near East has this to say: "What is meant of Osiris being 'raised to life'? Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly

109

existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead...This revived god is in reality a 'mummy' god."16 From The Encyclopedia Mythica, on Osiris’ fate after he was revived by Isis: “He [Osiris] was not allowed to stay in the land of the living, and was sent to the underworld to serve as king, and to judge the souls of the dead.”17 From Plutarch's de Iside et Osiride: “it was the pious desire of devotees to be buried in the same ground where, according to local tradition, the body of Osiris was still lying.”18 However, critics disagree, saying that Osiris’ resurrection was a return to earth, not just a descent to the underworld. According to Farrell Till, “the myth requires that conclusion. … The bodily resurrection of Osiris may have been brief, but it was nevertheless a resurrection back to earth long enough for Osiris to instruct his son Horus in the art of war and to urge him to avenge the death of his father on Set. Whether this was for one minute, one day, five days, or whatever, is immaterial. ... After this, Osiris descended into the world of the dead to become their judge and the hope of resurrection to those who still lived on earth.”19 The Facts On File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend has this to say regarding the nature of Osiris’ return to earth when instructing Horus: “After some time Osiris’ spirit returned from the dead and appeared to his son Horus, encouraging Horus to avenge his father’s death.”20 Note that here it is said Osiris’ spirit, not his body, returned to earth. That certainly does not mimic the resurrection of Jesus, whose return from the grave was not a mere ghost story. When Farrell Till was asked to produce his sources (consisting of Plutarch, Diodorus, and the Book of the Dead) to back up his claim that Osiris returned in bodily form, his reply was that it “would take some time,” but that he was “personally confident enough in the accuracy of the notes that [he] took from these works.” 21 Does the sources cited by Mr. Till back up his claim? Let’s take a look at the sources in which he has so much confidence: Source #1: Plutarch In ancient literature, Plutarch provides us with the most complete account of Osiris in his work De Iside Et Osiride (Isis and Osiris). Plutarch does not give an account of a bodily resurrection in the case of Osiris. Rather, he mentions the following: "Furthermore, the tales regarding the Titans and the rites celebrated by night agree with the accounts of the dismemberment of Osiris

110

and his revivification and regenesis. Similar agreement is found too in the tales about their sepulchers."22 Here, Plutarch merely alludes to Osiris’ resurrection, without stating in what form he was resurrected. Also, he only associates the resurrection with celebrations in Osiris’ name. He mentions the “revivification” and “regenesis” of Osiris as being beliefs held by Osiris’ worshipers, rather than being elements of the actual myth. Moreover, nowhere in his writing does Plutarch indicate in what manner Osiris’ was revived. He does not mention a bodily resurrection, either as an element of the myth or as a belief held by Osiris’ worshippers, which is what Mr. Till claimed he found in Plutarch’s writings. Plutarch’s silence concerning a bodily resurrection for Osiris is confirmed by Egyptologist Wallis Budge, a staunch critic of Christianity, in his book Osiris And The Egyptian Resurrection: "[Plutarch] does not say whether Osiris came in the form of a spirit, or in his natural body, which he had raised from the dead..."23 In fact, all indications are that Plutarch considered Osiris’ return to earth to be in the form of a spirit. He says, “Osiris came to Horus from the other world (i.e., as a spirit) and exercised and trained him for the battle."24 Source #2: Diodorus Diodorus, the second source cited by Mr. Till as evidence in belief in Osiris’ bodily resurrection, never said Osiris was resurrected in bodily form. Rather, he described Osiris’ return as a reincarnation in the form of a bull or a wolf. "Some explain the origin of the honor accorded this bull in this way, saying at the death of Osiris his soul passed into this animal (Apis, the bull)."25 Plutarch sheds some light on this concept: in Egyptian mythology, Apis the bull is identified as “the bodily image of the soul of Osiris."26 Diodorus further explains Osiris’ return in the following passage: "… when Isis, aided by her son Horus, was about to commence her struggle with Tryphon, Osiris came from Hades to help his son and his wife, having taken on the guise of a wolf; and so, upon the death of Tryphon, his conquerors commanded men to honor the animal upon whose appearance the victory followed."27 Source #3: The Book of the Dead Concerning the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Mr. Till’s third source in favor of his bodily resurrection claim, we see the goddess Isis, as she hovered over the body of the dead Osiris, saying, “I have come that I may be your protection. I fan air at your nostrils for you, I fan the north wind which comes forth from Atum for your nose. I clear your

111

windpipe for you. I cause you to be a god with your enemies fallen under you sandals. May you be vindicated in the sky and may your flesh be powerful among the gods."28 In this passage, Isis does nothing to bring about Osiris’ resurrection. Rather, she merely wished that, through her actions, a resurrection might occur. Afterwards, Osiris was revived, but not in bodily form. His revival was only a descent to the underworld to rule as king of the dead. Additionally, bodily resurrection was a belief not held by ancient Egyptians. Dr. Ogden Goelet writes, “Egyptians neither believed in the transmigration of the soul on earth in the Hindu or Pythagorean manner, nor hoped for a resurrection in this world. Rather, they believed in a transfiguration into the next world. Except in dreams or visions, the dead did not reappear on earth."29 The same author further explains that Egyptian mortuary literature did contain references to the rising of the dead; however, this is due to the Egyptian practice of referring to the dead as those being in a deep sleep, rather than actually deceased.30 Critics have referenced the following inscriptions as an indication that Osiris was resurrected in bodily form: "O flesh of Teta, rot not, decay not, stink not."31 "Pepi [Osiris] goeth forth with his flesh."32 "thy [Osiris’} bones shall not be destroyed, and thy flesh shall not perish."33 (ibid., p 55) However, ancient Egyptians considered the afterlife to be a continuation of mortal life, as indicated in the mortuary inscriptions where the deceased are said to merely be asleep. As such, their belief system did not include a resurrection of the mortal body, but merely a continued existence in the afterlife. As Wallis Budge states: “… while we have this evidence of the Egyptian belief in eternal life, we are nowhere told that man's corruptible body will rise again; indeed, the following extracts show that the idea prevailed that the body lay in the earth while the soul or spirit lived in heaven.”34 The extracts to which Budge refers are listed below: “Soul to heaven, body to earth.”35 “Thy essence is in heaven, thy body to earth.”36 “Heaven hath thy soul, earth hath thy body.”37

112

Prometheus of Greece Prometheus was the Greek Titan who gave fire to man and acted as man's protector and benefactor. Concerning Prometheus it is said that he was virgin-born on December 25th as god incarnate and mankind's savior, that he was known as the “Word,” that he had a friend named Petraeus, or Peter, who later denied him, that on the day he was crucified the sky was darkened, and that he rose from the dead. As far as Prometheus' incarnation as mankind's savior, it must be remembered that he was not a god, but rather, was one of the Titans. In Greek mythology, the Titans were no more friendly with the gods than was Sylvester with Tweety. The claim that he was acting on behalf of the gods displays a lack of understanding regarding the Greek pantheon of mythology. The notion that Prometheus was called the “Word” or “Logos” is derived from a line in the writings of Plutarch in which he referred to Prometheus as “reason.” Plutarch never believed that his “reason” was god incarnated into flesh and blood. Since Prometheus was not speaking the mind of the gods, he was not the “word of god;” therefore, Plutarch's application of such a term to Prometheus is unlike the application of the title “Word” to Jesus, who did indeed reveal God the Father to mankind. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (Jn 1:14) Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. (Jn 15:15) Prometheus was not born as a result of a union between a god and a mortal, as his parents were the Titans Iapetos and his wife Klymene. The myth does not reference a December birthday for Prometheus, not that it would matter if it did, for neither does the Bible reference a December birthday for Jesus. The claim that Prometheus had a friend named Petraeus or Peter is based on the claim that the name Petraeus is interchangeable with the name Oceanus, who has a short conversation with Prometheus, than takes his leave. The two did not have a mutually beneficial relationship which suffered any form of betrayal by Oceanus' departure. As far as the claim for the interchangeableness of the names, no explanation is given by the critics as to exactly how this is believed to be the case. Certainly, the language does not support such mix-and-match. Prometheus was not crucified as the critics claim. In fact, as an immortal, he would not die. However, he did suffer when Zeus sentenced him to be shacked to the side of a crag where an eagle or vulture (depending on which account one reads) rips at his flesh and devours his liver, only to have his body regenerate to satisfy the bird's craving the very next day. The sufferings of Prometheus was only to satisfy the anger of Zeus, who was by no means a moral or just deity. In contrast, Jesus'

113

suffering was to satisfy the righteous wrath of God for man's sin, so that man would be made acceptable before God. The darkening of the sky which occurred as Prometheus was chained to the crag was caused by Io, who visited Prometheus and brought with her a swarm of gadflies which darkened the sky. The swarm was the result of a curse placed upon her by Zeus, who made the swarm to accompany her wherever she went, not too unlike the puff of dust which encircled Pig-Pen, of Peanuts fame, only on a much larger scale. Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs Quetzalcoatl is the Aztec creator and god of the sky, typically represented as a feathered serpent. In one version of the myth, Quetzalcoatl set himself on a raft of snakes and was sent into exile, promising to return one day. He was said to have descended into the land of the dead, gathered bones, returned them to the land of the living, and sprinkled them with his own blood, thus restoring their flesh and giving them life. This led to his eventual recognition as a dying and rising deity. His descent to the underworld, and his subsequent return from the same, is not like Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Quetzalcoatl boarded the raft willingly, however, his exile was caused by Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl's antithesis. Jesus' execution, on the other hand, was ordained from the foundation of the world by the Holy Trinity, to whom Jesus Himself belongs. Quetzalcoatl's exile was neither self-orchestrated nor sacrificial, and as far as his blood which gave life to dead bones, this cannot be attributed to anything more than the universal regard for blood as the source of life, an understanding which has long been held by cultures throughout the world and is also manifest in cannibalistic practices and beliefs regarding vampire lore. Quetzalcoatl, along with the gods Tezcatlipoca and Tlaloc, was known as “Ipalnemohuani,” meaning “by whom we live,” reminiscent of that which was said of Jesus. ... yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (1 Cor 8:6) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:28) There is some speculation that these three gods were regarded as one and the same, a belief which critics claim was later transformed into the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. There is no ancient Aztec source which verifies the speculation concerning a singular nature for these three gods. In contrast, the Old Testament confirms the preChristian Jewish belief in a plurality within the Godhead (the doctrine of the Trinity will be further addressed in Part five). Concerning Quetzalcoatl's title as “Ipalnemohuani,” this was not attributed to him until he was regarded as a god of creation, and refers to such life-giving ability which was than applied to him, rather than being a reference to a will by which all things are continuously sustained and held together. The apostle Paul recognized that referring to a creative deity as one

114

“by whom we live” was a common sentiment among pagan religions. In the passage above, he even quotes Aratus, who said of the god Jupiter, “we are his offspring.” Paul was aware of the similarity in terminology, yet recognized the difference in the way which it was applied to pagan gods as opposed to Christ. In his embodiment of the planet Venus, Quetzalcoatl became known as the “morning star,” and the "lord of the star of the dawn," echoing that which was said of Jesus. I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star. (Rev 22:16 NIV) For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. (Lk 2:30-32) The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. (Isa 9:2 NIV) Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. (Isa 60:1-2 NIV) Venus' identification as the Morning Star is due to the planet reaching its maximum brightness shortly before sunrise. The recognition of Quetzalcoatl as the “morning star” is purely of astronomical significance, whereas the light given by Jesus is the light by which the eyes of the spiritually blind are opened to the salvation of God and those dead to Him are made alive by the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross. Quetzalcoatl, along with his twin brother Xolotl, was said to have been born of the virgin Coatlicue (known by titles such as "Mother Goddess of the Earth who gives birth to all celestial things" and "Goddess of Fire and Fertility") after she was impregnated by a ball of feathers that fell to her side as she was sweeping a temple. Quetzalcoatl and Xolotl later decapitated their mother. As with other supernatural births in pagan mythology, Quetzalcoatl's birth, nor his brother Xolotl's birth, did not hold any significance in a divinely-appointed plan for mankind. Critics also cite Quetzalcoatl's temptation in their efforts to liken him to Jesus, however, in the Aztec myth Quetzalcoatl succumbs to his temptation, gets drunk and commits incest. The temptations between Quetzalcoatl and Jesus cannot in any way be likened by virtue of the circumstances found within the two accounts, and the idea that a god merely undergoes a form of temptation is no reason to suppose any borrowing occurred, since temptation is such a universally recognized means of trial. Concerning these similarities to Jesus, the Latter-day Saint John Taylor wrote, "The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that

115

Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being."38 However, these insignificant similarities between Quetzalcoatl and Jesus are found to be a dead horse when one considers that the earliest mention of Quetzalcoatl dates only to the tenth century A.D. Quirinius of Rome Quirinus, often considered to the Sabine god of war, was transformed by the Romans into the god Romulus by the end of the first century A.D. An annual festival, the Quirinalia, was held in his honor on February seventeenth. The twins Romulus (c.771-c.717 B.C.) and Remus (c.771–c.753 B.C.) are the traditional founders of Rome. After founding the city, Romulus formed the Roman Legions and the Senate. He also took as his citizens women from the neighboring Sabine people, a mixture which served to unite the two peoples into one entity. Romulus was considered one of Rome’s greatest conquerers, having even slew his own brother Remus. Romulus’ death occurred in the thirty-eighth year of his reign with an unexplainable disappearance. During a great storm, the sky became so dark that the people fled in fear. Having returned after the storm passed, the people discovered that Romulus was nowhere to be found. A senator conveyed to the people that Romulus was carried up to heaven, saying that he was going to live with the gods and wished his people to worship him as the god Quirinius. Romulus' body was never found, thus leading to a belief in his ascension to the abode of the gods. When narrating Romulus' disappearance, Plutarch states: “It was the thirty-seventh year, counted from the foundation of Rome, when Romulus, then reigning, did, on the fifth day of the month of July, called the Caprotine Nones, offer a public sacrifice at the Goat's Marsh, in presence of the senate and people of Rome. Suddenly the sky was darkened, a thick cloud of storm and rain settled on the earth; the common people fled in affright, and were dispersed; and in this whirlwind Romulus disappeared, his body being never found either living or dead. A foul suspicion presently attached to the patricians, and rumors were current among the people as if that they, weary of kingly government, and exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them, had plotted against his life and made him away, so that they might assume the authority and government into their own hands. This suspicion they sought to turn aside by decreeing divine honors to Romulus, as to one not dead, but translated to a higher condition. And Proculus, a man of note, took oath that he saw Romulus caught up into heaven in his arms and vestments, and heard him, as he ascended, cry out that they should hereafter style him by the name of Quirinus.”39 Romulus' supposed ascension to the gods was never confirmed, but by the word of politicians who had an agenda of their own to fulfill. In contrast, Jesus was seen by many after His resurrection by “many infallible proofs.” (Acts 1:3) There are numerous considerations which validate the resurrection of Jesus, and these will be discussed fully in Part five.

116

Salivahana of India Critics claim Salivahana was virgin-born, the son of a carpenter, and whose name means “salvation” or “cross-borne.” It is also said that a king attempted to kill Salivahana when he was five years old. Salivahana's mother, while still an infant, is said to have been impregnated after a snake glided across her while she slept in her cradle, however, this story dates after the beginning of the Christian era. These claims relating to Salivahana come from Kersey Graves' much-criticized book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors and an entry by nineteenth century writer F. Wilford titled Origin and Decline of the Christian Religion in India. Wilford dates the Salivahana story to 676 A.D.40, whereas Graves claims that Wilford dates Salivahana to pre-Christian times.41 Salivahana was said to be a carpenter's son, a classification which holds no significance in and of itself in any copycat theory, and the accounts of his attempted murder and crucifixion, according to Wilford, post-dates Christianity. Besides, the five year-old Salivahana's slaying of the king and his men is vastly dissimilar to Herod's attempt on Jesus' life as told by the evangelist Matthew. Sammonocadam of Siam This is an alternate spelling of an alternate name (Sommona-Codom) for Buddha. Thor of the Gauls Thor was the god of thunder and the son of Odin. He is married to the fertility goddess Sif and had two sons, Magni and Modi. The Thor family live in Asgard in the great hall Bilskirnir, containing 540 rooms. His death came after doing battle with the sea serpent Jörmungandr, whose venom felled the warrior after he slew the monster. Critics' attempts to liken Thor to Jesus is in part due to Thor's great hammer, Mjolnir, which, in one statue of the god, is depicted as an inverted cross-shaped item (shown below), however, this statue dates to around 1000 A.D. There is also speculation that, due to the influence of Christianity, the newly-designed hammer was worn as a pendant in defiance of the cross of Christ.

Another element of the Thor myth which critics are very fond of is Thor's restoration of two goats. His mode of travel was a chariot pulled by the aforementioned goats, whom he would devour in times of hunger. However, after eating the animals, he would touch their carcasses and restore them to life – at least until he got hungry again. Aside from the notion that something was restored to life,

117

the resurrection of Thor's “snack” in order replenish his supply of food bears no similarity to the resurrection of Jesus. Tien of China “Tien” is a Chinese word having numerous meanings, as indicated by the Chinese dictionary Hanyu dazidian, and can be used to refer to any one of the following:42 Human forehead; head, cranium A branding on the forehead as a kind of punishment The heavens, the sky, the firmament Celestial bodies; celestial phenomena, meteorological phenomena. A general reference to objective inevitability beyond human will The natural character or quality of a person or thing; natural instinct, inborn nature, disposition A reference to the sky or space Season of the year Weather; climate Day, time of one day and night, or especially the time from sunrise to sunset God, heaven, or celestial spirits Heaven or the world of the gods The king, monarch, or sovereign An object upon which one depends or relies A measure of land A family name, surname While the word can be used to refer to a god, it is not the name of a god, and therefore is not associated with any particular set of biographical characteristics. The Hindu Trimurti The Trimutri (also known as the Hindu triad or the Great Trinity) is the name given to the unification of three Hindu deities into one supreme being. These deities are Brahma (the creator, or earth), Visnu (the preserver, or water), and Shiva (the destroyer, or fire). These deities were regarded as three facets of one being, which was usually portrayed as having three heads or three faces on the same head. The Trimurti was not established as Hindu doctrine until such was expressed in the Puranas, or ancient Hindu texts, the earliest written form of which dates no earlier than the third century A.D., although oral forms of the Puranas are believed to have existed around 500 B.C.43 The Padma-Purana describes the merger of these three deities into one being: “In order to form this world, the supreme spirit produced from his right side Brahma. In order to maintain the world, he created from his left side Vishnu. To destroy it he gave rise to Shiva from his middle. Some men worship Brahma, others Vishnu, and yet others Shiva. Since these three are one, the devout should draw no distinction between them.”44

118

The above citation is the earliest extant reference to the Hindu belief in a trinitarian being. It should be noted that not all branches of Hinduism accept the doctrine of the Trimurti. For instance, the Dvaita school of Hindu philosophy recognizes Vishnu to be the one supreme god, while Shiva is regarded as subordinate. However, the school known as Shaivism recognizes Shiva as the supreme deity who works alone to create, preserve, and destroy – functions which are otherwise distributed among the three deities of the Trimutri. There are also schools of thought which recognize a merger of the two deities. Such is the case with the deity Hatihara, as indicated in the Mahabharata. Today, only the deities Vishnu and Shiva are worshipped by Hindus, whereas Brahma is largely unrecognized as a deity. Despite the commonality of a three-in-one being, the Hindu Trimurti is very different from the Christian Trinity. As early as the books of Moses there is expressed a duality of persons within the Godhead (see the discussion on the Trinity in Part five) and various portions of the Psalms describe the coming Messiah as the Son of God. Nevertheless, it is not until the New Testament times when there is found in Scripture a distinct tri-fold declaration of the Godhead as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Such a revelation into the nature of the Godhead came directly through the teaching of Jesus Himself, and is not the result of any borrowing from Hindu trinitarianism. As the noted historian and Indologist Arthur Llewellyn Basham explains, “Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really ‘caught on.’ All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kālidāsa's hymn to the Trimurti is really addressed to Brahma, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence.”45 Also, Hindus do not worship the Trimurti as a single entity; but rather, worship each person as a separate deity, whereas Christians worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a single being comprised of three coexistent persons. The same can be said of the Egyptian Triad of Heliopolis, among whom are Osiris, Isis and Horus. It was not until the ninth century A.D. when Hindu trinitarianism became more closely aligned with Christian trinitarianism, through the teachings of the Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara (788-820 A.D.), who was accused by his Hindu brethren of practicing Buddhism under the guise of Hinduism.46 Having addressed the distinction between Hindu and Christian trinitarian beliefs, I will now consider each of the three deities named within the Trimurti: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Vishnu Vishnu is the supreme deity of Hinduism and is often depicted as having blue skin, four arms, and riding on an eagle. All things are believed to have their essence in Vishnu, who sustains all things within the universe. Vishnu has ten avatars, one of whom has yet to appear in history, whose purpose is to vanquish evil and to bring man to a higher form of knowledge. Hindus worship Vishnu by either directly by name or through one of his avatars, among whom is named Krishna. His incarnation into each of these avatars is believed to be for the purpose of combating evil and restoring order to the

119

universe. The times between these incarnations were spent in sleep, during which he developed into the next incarnation. These incarnations also follow an evolutionary progression from lesser to greater. For instance, the first incarnations begin with Vishnu manifesting himself as a fish or reptile, then to man and deity. The ten avatars (the number varies within the Hindu texts, and even Buddha was later said to be one of Vishnu’s avatars) of Vishnu are as follows: Matsya, the fish. Matsya was a fish who was rescued by Manu, just before Matsya was about to be eaten by another fish. In gratitude for his salvation, Matsya warned Manu of a catastrophic flood which would cover the world. Matsya then instructed Manu to build a boat which would protect him during the flood. Manu was also instructed to fill the boat with seeds and animals in order to repopulate the earth after the flood waters receded. When the flood came, Manu’s boat was pulled by Matsya. Obviously, this story has elements in common with the flood account of the book of Genesis. Myths of a worldwide flood abound throughout world civilizations. The myth most used in comparison to Noah’s flood is the flood account of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and this comparison will be addressed in Part three. Kurma, the turtle. When the Hindu deities known as the Devas lost their glory, it was the turtle Kurma who aided them in restoring their glory, by helping them obtain the nectar which would restore what they had lost. Varaha, the boar. When the demon Hiranyaksha threw the world into a cosmic ocean, it was Varaha who dove into the waters and fought the demon for a thousand years. After succeeding in defeating the demon, Varaha brought the world, which appeared to him in the form of a beautiful woman, out of the depths. After rescuing her from the waters, Varaha and the woman unite in marriage. Narasimha, the Man-Lion. Narasimha was a creature with the body of a man and the head and hands of a lion. In this incarnation, which begins the evolution from beast to man, Vishnu disemboweled the demon Hiranyakashipu, after the demon dethroned the god Indra and set himself up as king of the cosmos. Vamana, the Dwarf. As the dwarf Vamana, Vishnu defeated the demon Bali, who held the world in his grip. Vamana requested that he be allowed to abide in whatever land he could cover during the course of three strides. Bali agreed to his request and Vamana transformed into a giant, taking three steps by which he walked across the whole world.

120

Parashurama. the warrior. In the form of a great warrior wielding an axe, Vishnu, as Parashurama, performed many acts of violence. He slew Sahasrarjuna and his sons after Sahasrarjuna’s sons killed Jamadagni, Parashurama’s father. Parashurama also eradicated the Haihaya-kshatriya warrior caste and instructed their widows to mate with Brahmin priests in order to produce a purer sort of warriors. Later in his life, Parashurama retreated to the Mahendra Mountains where he practices penance and led a life of asceticism. Rama, the prince. As Rama, Vishnu was the eldest son of King Dasharatha of Ayodhya. Rama was also the husband of Sita. Together, Rama and his wife agreed to serve a fourteen year exile in an effort to preserve the honor of Rama’s father, the king. Sita is then kidnapped by Ravana, king of Lanka, after which Rama wages a personal war against Ravana. Rama is victorious in the conflict and succeeds in reclaiming his wife. After the fourteen years of exile expired, Rama returns to Ayodhya to claim his position as rightful heir to the throne, becoming king and, eventually, Emperor of the World, a reign which lasts eleven thousand years and is characterized by peace and prosperity. Balarama. Balarama was the son of Vasudeva and Devaki, and was an elder brother to Krishna. Devaki’s brother, Kamsa, imprisoned Vasudeva and Devaki in order to protect them from a prophecy that she would be killed by her eighth son. Kamsa then proceeded to slay Devaki’s other children. When she became pregnant with her seventh son, Balarama, the unborn child was miraculously transferred from Devaki’s womb to the womb of Devaki to the womb of Rohini, who birthed and raised him. In his adult life, Balarama played a role in the conflict which resulted in the destruction of the Yahu dynasty. Balarama’s existence came to an end when he sat in meditation and departed from this world. Krishna. Since this avatar has already been addressed, nothing further concerning him needs to be mentioned herein. Kalki, the creator. Kalki is the final avatar of Vishnu, whose appearance is yet to come. It is said he will appear at the end of the present age which, according to Hindu reckoning, began in 3102 B.C. and will last for 432,000 years. Near the end of this age, human depravity will be in excess and Kalki will appear riding a white horse and whose appearance will mark the end of evil and the dawn of a new era. Such a description closely mirrors the description of Jesus in the book of Revelation, as He is also depicted as appearing on a white horse at the end of the world. However, the figure of Kalki is a late addition to the Hindu myth,

121

dating to the seventh century, well after the Apostle John penned the book of Revelation.47 Aside from being absolutely sovereign, Vishnu is regarded as possessing five other primary qualities: immateriality, omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), self-sustenance, and self-sufficiency. Vishnu is said to have had three wives and that, due to bickering between the three, only the consort Lakshmi remained united with him, while his other two wives were given to Brahma. Lakshmi also married two of Vishnu’s avatars, Rama and Krishna. Shiva The three-eyed Shiva is typically depicted with matted hair and his body smeared with ashes. His neck is tinted blue, symbolic of his act of swallowing the poisonous venom of the serpent Vasuki, whose venom posed a threat to all existence. Around his neck he wears a snake as a garland and he is often seen sitting on tiger skin, symbolic of his victory over these two creatures which were once sent to kill him. Shiva, who is said to reside in Mount Kailash in the Himalayas, is regarded as either a yogin (a practitioner of yoga) or as the head of his household, in which are Parvati, his wife, and Ganesha and Skanda, his two sons. As a yogin, he is typically seen in seated fashion and in a state of meditation. Shiva is also known as “Lord of the Dance,” due to his dancing during the act of creating the universe. It is said that when he becomes weary of the dance, that in his times of respite the universe is thrown into chaos. Shiva possesses a two-fold character in that he is dreadful and destructive, but also benevolent and honorable. He is the “victor over death,” as suggested by his alternate name Mrutyunjaya and signified by his defeat of the serpent Yama, the Lord of Death. Shiva vanquished Yama with a flash of radiance from his third eye in his effort to prevent the death of the sage Markandeya, a loyal devotee of Shiva and of whom it was prophesied that death would come at age sixteen. Shiva’s body consists of five forms (sometimes depicted as five faces), representing the five natural elements as recognized by Hindus: earth, fire, water, air, and ether. These forms also serve as representations of the five human senses and the five organs of perception and action. It is in these representations that Shiva embodies all that exists.48 The five forms of Shiva are as follows: Sadyojata. Sadyojata faces west and represents the creating aspect of Shiva and the god’s association with the earth and creation. Vamadeva. Vamadeva faces north and represents the healing and preserving aspect of Shiva and the god’s association with water.

122

Aghora. Aghora faces south and represents the destructive aspect of Shiva and the god’s association with fire. Tatpurusa. Tatpurusa faces east and represents the governing or controlling aspect of Shiva and the god’s association with air. Isana. Isana faces upwards and represents the transcending soul, or self (“purusha” in Sanskrit), of Shiva and the god’s association with ether or space. In his five forms, Shiva is said be the one in whom all things consist. Likewise, in the New Testament letters, Paul said of Jesus that “in him all things consist” (Col 1:17) and “in him we live, and move, and have our being.”( Acts 17:28) It is not unthinkable that a god, such as Shiva, who was revered, by some camps of theology, as a being of supreme authority, should be regarded as encompassing all that is. After all, Shaivites regard Shiva as the supreme being of Hinduism. As such, Shiva becomes the deity solely responsible for creation, as well as the governing of the universe and the fate of man. A being held in such high esteem as that should be expected to be thought of as encompassing all that is; otherwise, a belief in such a one would be likened to deism, or a belief that Shiva created the cosmos, but does not execute any divine plan by which the course of man is directed. The god of the deist is a very apathetic deity, to say the least, who does not intervene in human affairs; but rather, sits back on his holy couch and watches reruns of whatever television show such a being would take interest in. The Apostle Paul was aware that pagan gods were regarded in the same capacity as Shaivites regard Shiva – as a being absolutely sovereign and directive in the unraveling of human history. The Apostle Peter, in the book of Acts, records a sermon by Paul in which Paul draws attention to doctrines which were held by Christians and pagans alike. For in [Christ] we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:28) In his apologetic method, Paul would at times cite pagan authors. Such is the case in 1 Cor 15:33, where he cites the Greek poet Menander, and Titus 1:12, where he cites Epimenides. Paul, rather than seeing these parallels as a means for throwing in the Apostolic towel and returning to his former occupation of tent making, utilizes such commonalities as a means by which to appeal to pagans. In the passage in question, Paul refers first, most likely, to the poem Phaenomena by the poet Aratus, in which it is said: With Jove [that is, Jupiter] we must begin; nor from him rove; Him always praise, for all is full of Jove! He fills all places where mankind resort,

123

The wide-spread sea, with every shelt’ring port. Jove’s presence fills all space, upholds this ball; All need his aid; his power sustains us all. For we his offspring are; and he in love Points out to man his labor from above: Where signs unerring show when best the soil, By well-timed culture, shall repay our toil.49 Paul then refers to Cleanthus' Hymn to Jupiter, which contains the declaration, “Jupiter, who dost cherish and nourish the race of man; by whom we live, and with whom is the hope of the life of all men.”50 The sense in which it is said that mankind “lives” and “moves” in Christ is reflective of God's sovereign and providential governorship over the world. The reason we draw our daily breath is because it is God's will that we do so, and the day that any body ceases to function marks the day so appointed by God that, that one's breath should cease. It is by God's will that we live, but it is according to the self-imposed curse of sin that we die; however, the day in which that death occurs is appointed by God alone. In other words, God is not the cause of death. Rather, it is the by the withholding of His grace that men die, for the giving of man's breath is an act of grace. However, the inevitability of the death of man is a destiny brought upon by man's own abandon to sin, after which man brought upon himself the predetermined penalty for such an abandon, for God Himself said to Adam, “in the day you eat [of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil], you shall surely die,” (Gen 2:17) referring to the penalty for disobedience to the first recorded mandate given to man. Likewise, the unified working of the members of the human body is solely attributed to the divine will, for apart from God there would be no motor ability given to anything which presently moves. Attention must also be drawn to the fact that pagan religious systems are largely polytheistic, that is to say, that pagans place their faith in numerous gods, not just one, as does the Christian. In the case of Shiva, he shares a place of divinity with Vishnu and Brahma. Only in the Hindu school of thought known as Shaivism is Shiva upheld as the supremely divine being, whereas other Hindu schools of thought regard one of the other two deities as holding the monopoly on divine sovereignty. This is in stark contrast with Christianity, which has always regarded a single being as supremely sovereign. Shiva is called the “victor over death,” due to his victory over the serpent Yama, the Hindu Lord of the Dead. Similarly, the New Testament makes the following declarations concerning Jesus: … Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over Him. (Rom 6:9 NASB) O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: but thanks be

124

to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 15:55-57 NASB) … our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. (2 Tim 1:10 NASB) I [Jesus] am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Rev 1:17-18 KJV) The victory of Shiva over Yama, the Lord of the Dead, bears little resemblance to the victory of Christ Jesus over the power of death. In the Hindu myth, Shiva physically overpowered and defeated the Lord of Death, in order to prevent the prophesied premature death of a loyal devotee. In the New Testament, Jesus defeated the law of death. Man, as a sinful race, brought himself into a place of condemnation before God. Because of man's guilt of sin, God could have no fellowship with man. Consequently, man placed himself in a position as a recipient of God's justice by which guilty men are condemned for eternity. However, in His substitutionary sacrifice for sin, Jesus bore the wrath of God, the just for the unjust, so that the elect of God would be set free of the guilt by which they would otherwise be condemned. It is in this sense that Jesus conquered death. He did not wrestle the devil to the ground and by brute force compel him to hand over the “keys” of death.* The elect of God still suffer physical death. The sacrifice of Jesus did not free man from the grave, but it did free him from the terrible wrath of God and what Scripture refers to as the “second death.” Also, Shiva's defeat of Yama did not actually prevent the death of the devotee; but rather, prolonged it. The person would still die, not just by the age foretold in the prophecy. Nor did the victory over Yama hold any significance for Shiva's future devotees. Finally, it must be noted that when a scientist discovers a cure for a terminal illness, he has not “conquered” death; but rather, has only discovered a means to prevent people from dying in a certain fashion. Such a biographical characteristic does not make one a god nor liken him to Jesus Christ. * Keys symbolize authority. He who holds the keys of death, likewise holds authority over death. Brahma As indicated above, Brahma is the deity responsible for creation, although he is not an eternal being, for he had a definite beginning. Brahma was born, according to one myth, in a flower which grew from Vishnu’s navel or, from another version, from a seed which Vishnu planted in water. This seed developed into an egg and from this egg Brahma, as well as the universe, was born. Since he was born by Vishnu, the Hindu supreme being, Brahma is called the son of god.

125

Such an identification is unlike the one Christianity gives to Jesus, since Jesus is not the Son of God in an ontological sense. Jesus’ humanity had a definite beginning when the embryonic Jesus was placed inside Mary’s womb, but His deity existed, without beginning, prior to His incarnation as man. Jews used the designation “son of” to refer not only to familial relation, but also to equality of being, purpose, or function. Thus, a person could be named the “son of” another by virtue of work performed or an office held, such as when Scripture names a man as being of “the sons of the prophets,” despite a lack of prophetic lineage in his genealogy (1 Kings 20:35). More will be said on this in Part five under the heading “The Son of God is one with the Father and Spirit.” The Universal Monarch of the Sibyls The critic D. M. Murdock (a.k.a, Acharya S) cites Joseph Wheless' book Forgery In Christianity, which refers to oracles reading as follows: “With five loaves at the same time, and with two fishes, he shall satisfy five thousand men in the wilderness; And afterwards taking all the fragments that remain, he shall fill twelve baskets to the hope of many. . . .He shall still the winds by His word, and calm the sea as it rages, treading with feet of peace and faith. . . . He shall walk on the waves, he shall release men from disease. He shall raise the dead, and drive away many pains. . ."51 However, shortly after quoting these oracles, Wheless states that these oracles were “forged by pious Christians in proof of their Christ” then goes on to claim the Gospels were similar forgeries. Obviously, since Murdock did not mention Wheless' admission of forgery, she is only interested in quoting what information she can find and manipulate in order to give credibility to her otherwise fallacious claim. Veles of the Slavs Veles is a serpentine god identified as the lord of the dead, and is the enemy of the god Perun, the lord of the living. Veles stirred the wrath of Perun by one of several types of theft, as the accounts of the myth vary: either Veles kidnapped Perun’s wife or son, or stole his cattle. The Slavs perceived the world as a great tree, with the roots thereof representing the underworld, where dwelt Veles, and the top representing heavenly abode, or the dwelling of Perun. Veles’ thievery involved him leaving the underworld and slithering up the great tree to Perun’s dwelling. A battle ensues between the two gods and Veles eventually retreats under cover, but is eventually slain by Perun. After Veles’ death, that which he stole from Perun was returned to him in the form of falling rain. Such a story symbolized the changing seasons, with the battle being manifested as storms, the dry periods as the result of Veles’ treachery, and rainy periods as the defeat of Veles by Perun.52 Such naturalistic symbolism resulted in the continuing death and rebirth of Veles. Suggested parallels: As with many deities discussed in this section, Veles was just another deity whose death and resurrection was symbolic of the changing of seasons.

126

Wittoba of the Bilingonese Wittoba (or Vithoba) is another name for Krishna. Xipe Totec of the Aztecs Xipe Totec was the Aboriginal god of agriculture, nature, disease, and spring. It was believed that the god would engage in self-flagellation in order to provide food for the Aztecs, hence the name Xipe Totec, meaning, “our lord the flayed one.” Every spring, the festival of Tlacaxipehualiztli was held in his honor. Human sacrifice was a primary element in this festival, in which the victim would have his heart cut out and his skin meticulously flayed so as to create a garment which would be worn by priests for twenty days. Such sacrifice was viewed as symbolic of the annual death of crops. During this time, the priests covered by the victims’ skin served to represent the deity himself who awaited the coming of spring, at which time he would emerge and restore life. Thus, after the twenty days expired, the priests’ shedding of the flayed skin symbolized the renewal of vegetation. The skins were than placed in containers located beneath the temple. However, Xipe Totec was not entirely benevolent. As the god of disease, he would afflict men with various forms of pestilence, but the flayed skin used in the festival was thought to have curative properties and therefore became widely employed in efforts to heal ailments. Suggested parallels: The myth of Xipe Totec is merely reflective of the changing of seasons; therefore, it bears no similarity to the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. Zalmoxis of Thrace The Thracian man Zalmoxis is said to have buried himself alive after telling his followers he would rise again three years following his death. His so-called resurrection led to his deification and to a religion revolving around him. In the first place, his death was never confirmed. No grave was exhumed and no body identified as Zalmoxis. Secondly, No one witnessed his supposed resurrection from the grave. It was later determined he simply withdrew to a secret location for the duration of his three year-long “burial:” “... he made himself a hall, where he entertained and feasted the chief among his countrymen, and taught them that neither he nor his guests nor any of their descendants should ever die, but that they should go to a place where they would live for ever and have all good things. While he was doing as I have said and teaching this doctrine, he was all the while making him an underground chamber. When this was finished, he vanished from the sight of the Thracians, and descended into the underground chamber, where he lived for three years, the Thracians wishing him back and mourning him for dead; then in the fourth year he appeared to the Thracians, and thus they came to believe what Salmoxis had told them.”53 After his supposed resurrection, he displayed no supernatural characteristics and eventually died and was buried as is any other man. In the case of Jesus, there were witnesses to His death, his body underwent the customary burial ritual of being

127

perfumed and wrapped in linen, and his tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers who faced penalty of death for abandoning their post or failing in their charge to guard Jesus’ tomb from grave robbers attempting to fake a resurrection. After His resurrection, He appeared and disappeared at will in a glorified body and later ascended to heaven in the sight of many witnesses. No such things can be said of Zalmoxis. Zoar of the Bonzes Critics list Zoar among their Jesus parallel candidates. While the Bonzes do indeed exist (as a group of Asian monks), the god in question remains among those the critics obtained from Build-a-Deity. Zoar does not exist outside the critics' own inner-circle of Lego-land evidence. Zulis (or Zhule), of Egypt Zulis is seemingly another name for Thulis, which is an alternate name for the Egyptian bull god Apis. He is said to have lived to the age of twenty-eight when he died violently on a cross in c.1700 B.C., then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Following that, he is said to have descended from heaven “full of grace and truth,” as was said of Jesus in the opening portion of John's Gospel. Apis eventually was merged with the god Osiris, the lord of the dead in the underworld, thus becoming Osorapis. Apis thus became known as the “living deceased one,” due to his identification with the lord of the dead. Some see in this a symbol of resurrection, but it will be shown in the Part three that Osiris was not thought to have bodily risen from the dead. Rather, he only appeared in spirit form to his son Horus, but maintained his postmortem “life” in the land of the dead, as its ruler. When the bull reached its twenty-eights year it was put to death, since that was the age when Osiris was killed by Set. It is said that the bull's body was eaten by the Pharaoh and the priests, which some liken to the Christian observance of the Lord's Supper. However, the eating of the bull's flesh was to absorb its life force, or strength, by consuming the physical property of the animal. In contrast, believers who partake in the Lord's Supper consume elements which symbolically represent the body and blood of Christ, and the consumption of such elements is not to obtain the salvation given through the blood of Jesus; but rather, is because the ones partaking of the elements have already had that salvation applied to them. The Lord's Supper is a sacrament of remembrance, whereby the sacrifice of Christ is memorialized; it is not an act whereby the gift if salvation is transferred to the participants. During the reign of Ptolemy I Soter (c.367-c..283 B.C.) Egyptian religion was merged with that of Greece, in order to appeal to a broader group of people. In so doing, the representation of Apis was changed from that of a bull to a human form and his name from Osorapis to Aser-hapi, which eventually became Serapis. Centuries later, an alleged letter by Emperor Hadrian reads as follows (italics, mine):

128

“From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt. I granted it every favour, I restored to it all its ancient rights and bestowed on it new ones besides, so that the people gave thanks to me while I was present among them. Then, no sooner had I departed thence than they said many things against my son Verus, and what they said about Antinous I believe you have learned. I can only wish for them that they may live on their own chickens, which they breed in a fashion I am ashamed to describe. I am sending you over some cups, changing colour and variegated, presented to me by the priest of a temple and now dedicated particularly to you and my sister. I should like you to use them at banquets on feast-days. Take good care, however, that our dear Africanus does not use them too freely.”54 The letter is found in Augustan History, a collection of biographies of Roman Emperors and their colleagues and usurpers from 117-284 A.D. However, the authenticity of many documents found in this work is regarded by many to be figments of the author's imagination.55 In this letter, dated to 134 A.D. (several decades after the New Testament cannon had been written), Hadrian is speaking of Serapis' worshipers as presently worshiping Christ and Serapis without any distinction between the two deities, and that Serapis' worshipers were also referred to as Christians. However, in the letter, Hadrian also mentions his adopted son, an adoption which did not occur until 136 A.D., two years after the date he allegedly wrote this letter.

129

Justin Martyr's parallels to Jesus: In his First Apology, the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr drew similarities between Jesus and pagan gods in order to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the pagans in their condemnation of Christians for holding to what Justin regarded as like beliefs. While his apologetic methodology will be addressed in Part Three, it will suffice here to simply present his argument, then consider the gods he names as parallels to Jesus. Justin states the following: “And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. ... Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? ... Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide ...”56 “And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter ... And if we even affirm that [Christ] was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.”57 The Roman god Jupiter, known as Zeus by the Greeks, sired many sons and daughters, among the most famous are Bacchus, Mercury, Venus, Heracles, Diana, Apollo, Minerva, Vulcan, and Mars. Bacchus (Dionysus, by the Greeks) Bacchus, the god of wine, was the son of Jupiter and Semele. Since this figure has been dealt with in depth already, I will here only remind the reader that he was neither virgin-born, known as a savior, suffered death by crucifixion, nor rose from the dead, as critics claim.

130

Phoebus (Apollo, by the Greeks) Phoebus, the son of Jupiter and Leto, was a sun god, and also the god of prophecy, medicine and healing, poetry, and music. One of his duties was to act as choirmaster for the Muses, spirits responsible for giving inspiration to musicians, artists, and poets. When Jupiter's wife, Juno, discovered he had impregnated Leto, she forbade Leto from giving birth on earth to her husband's bastard son, so Leto searched for a place apart from earth where she would give birth to little Phoebus. She found Delos, a floating island, and it is there where Phoebus was born. Juno further complicated the matter, or attempted to do so, by kidnapping the goddess of childbirth so that Leto would be unable to enter into labor, but such effort was in vain. After Phoebus' birth, Juno sent the serpent Python to hunt Leto, but the serpent was killed by Phoebus' arrow, when Phoebus was only four years of age. For this act, Phoebus was punished by being forced to serve a year of hard labor as a shepherd. Phoebus also had the ability to heal, and was known by titles such as as “healer,” “he who averts evil,” “the Physician,” “god of the bow,” and “director of the fountain.” He drove a golden chariot and became known for his fierceness in battle, having shot plague infested arrows at the Greeks during the Trojan War. He was known for his astonishing good looks and engaged himself in sexual relations with both men and women. Suggested parallels: Phoebus’ identification as a sun god: All fine and dandy, since Jesus is not a sun god; but rather, the Son of God. This is just another attempt of the critics to play their favorite phonics game, trying to draw a correlation between “sun” and “son” by virtue of a similar pronunciation (See the earlier heading regarding the December 25th birth date), with absolute disregard for the meaning of either word. The attempt to avert Phoebus’ birth: This comparison is, of course, based on Herod’s attempt to kill the infant Messiah just after His birth. Such a similarity is very superficial. In the pagan myth, the attempt is to prevent the child’s birth, while in the Gospel, it is to kill the infant after he had been born. In the myth, the perpetrator’s motive was jealousy arising from Jupiter’s unfaithfulness to his wife, whereas Herod sought to kill the Messiah out of fear that He would rise to usurp the throne. Additionally, it is not uncommon for a pagan god to perform an act out of jealousy, and pagan mythology abounds with such instances. The battle with the serpent: Phoebus’ battle with the serpent was a literal battle, whereas Jesus crushing the head of the

131

serpent (Gen 3:15) is figurative of His victory over sin and death. In the myth, the serpent was sent by Juno, again from a jealous motive, to kill the woman with whom her husband had a fling. His ability to heal and his title of “Physician” and “one who averts evil:” It is not surprising that one sired by Jupiter, the chief of the gods, would possess such an ability to heal. Phoebus’ identification as a deliverer is due to his fierceness in battle, rather than a power inherent within the nature of his person, as is the case with Jesus. Jesus’ victory is due to His sovereign control over all, and the guarantee that His will is one which none can challenge. Jesus conquered sin and death for His people, not just because of what He did, but because it was He, God in the flesh, who performed the work of salvation, and so it was said by Jesus’ Apostles that there is no other name under heaven whereby men are saved. His role as a shepherd: Phoebus’ role as a shepherd was due to his literal occupation as such, as penance for his slaying of the serpent. Jesus’ is the Great Shepherd, not in a literal sense, but in a metaphorical sense, over the sheep, or elect, of God. Also, the shepherd aspect was present in messianic expectations long before the coming of Jesus, as evidenced in the twenty-third psalm. Mercury (Hermes, by the Greeks) Mercury, the son of Jupiter and Maia, was a messenger god with a winged helmet and sandals. In his role as messenger, he was known as the interpreter of the word of god. Mercury was also a god of trade and commerce, and it is after his name that the words “merchant” and “merchandise” were fashioned. His main center of worship was situated between the Aventine and Palatine hills of Rome, or between the elite higher class and the general populace of Rome. As such, he was regarded as a mediator between these two social classes and was regarded as one who brings peace. Suggested parallels: His association with the word of god: Mercury was a messenger for the gods. He delivered the words of god to man. However, he was not the embodiment of the word of the gods. Jesus, on the other hand, revealed the mind of God to man, in that He is God Himself. He not only spoke the Word – He was the Word (Jn 1:1-14). In short, Mercury carried the word of the gods, while Jesus personified the Word of God.

132

His role as mediator and bringer of peace: Mercury’s role as a mediator was merely figurative of the situation of his temple between two different classes of Roman society. The god accomplished no actual mediation between the two classes, whereas Jesus performs an actual mediation between the God the Father and those for whom Jesus’ sacrifice secured salvation. Venus (Aphrodite, by the Greeks) Venus was a goddess born from the sea when Cronos threw the severed genitals of Uranus, his father, into the sea. A foam formed in the sea and out sprang the fully-grown Venus, which is why she is pictured in art as standing amidst a large clamshell. Venus was the goddess of beauty, fertility, and love. She had the keen ability to cause anyone to fall in love with her, as well as causing others to fall in love with each other. It was this ability that she was said to have used on Paris, causing him to fall in love with Helen of Troy, thus sparking the famed Trojan War. Venus became the wife of Hephaestus, but was often unfaithful to him. Her great beauty was the cause of much vanity, and so it was that she sought to curse Psyche, a mortal women of whose beauty she became envious. Worship of Venus was largely sensual in nature, with intercourse playing a large part in religious rituals performed in her honor. She was known by such titles as “the prostitute,” “she who postpones old age,” and goddess of lust.” Suggested parallels: None. Hercules (Heracles, by the Greeks) Hercules was the son of Jupiter and the mortal woman Alcmene, with whom Zeus had one of his many affairs. His seduction of her followed his usual deceptive pattern of disguising himself as her husband. Jupiter's wife, Juno, attempted to slow Hercules' birth by blocking his exit from his mother's womb, but she ceased such effort after being tricked by Galanthis. Following after the myth of Phoebus, Juno once again sent a serpent to aid her in her thirst for revenge, although this time she sent two serpents to kill baby Hercules as he lay in his cot. However, Hercules, strong as he was even as a child, succeeded in killing the serpents and enjoyed a bit of a playtime with their bodies. Hercules grew to be a great warrior with extraordinary strength and courage. Hercules engaged in an active sex life, with both women and men, and became husband to four wives. In his adulthood, he remained the object of Juno's thirst for revenge, and it was to this end that she caused him to go mad and kill the children born to him by his wife Megara. In order to make amends for his vile act, he served King Eurystheus for ten years, during which the king ordered Hercules to perform his famous “Twelve Labors,” as follows:

133

Kill the Nemean Lion Destroy the Lernaean Hydra Capture the Ceryneian Hind Capture the Erymanthian Boar Clean the Augean Stables Kill the Stymphalian Birds Capture the Cretan Bull Round up the Mares of Diomedes Steal the Girdle of Hippolyte Herd the Cattle of Geryon Fetch the Apples of Hesperides Capture the dog Cerberus Hercules was advised that if he succeeded he would be cleansed of his sin and given immortality. Having accomplished these great feats, he became known as a deliverer and one who makes the world safe for mankind, although his methods of achieving victory sometimes made use of trickery and deceit. Hercules impending death came as the result of coming in contact with a shirt stained with the poisoned blood of the Hydra. Knowing his end is nigh, Hercules builds for himself a funeral pyre. As he climbs onto the burning pyre, he is caught up in a flash of light and taken in ascent to the abode of the gods. Suggested parallels: Attack on the infant Hercules: As with Phoebus, the attempt on little Hercules’ life was due to Juno’s jealousy over Jupiter’s infidelity, and is no more than just another example of the corrupt ways of the pagan gods. His slaying the serpents: Again, Hercules’ victory was over a literal serpent (two, in this case), and was a matter of selfpreservation – unlike the figurative victory of Jesus over the devil, accomplished for the preservation of God’s people. Hercules’ act was a matter of might and strength; Jesus’ victory over sin and death is due to the infinite worth of His sacrifice on the cross (see Part five under the heading concerned with Jesus’ role as mediator) and His absolute authority of His will. His role as deliverer: As with Hercules’ slaying of the serpents, his acts of deliverance was due to an exertion of physical might, or brute force, rather than an inherent divine authority, as possessed by Jesus as the second Person of the Trinity.

134

His ascension to the dwelling of his divine father: Hercules’ ascension to the abode of the gods was an act of mercy on the part of the gods, in sparing Hercules from being utterly consumed by the flames of his funeral pyre. In contrast, Jesus ascended to the Father following the completion of the work which He came to do, namely, accomplishing the salvation of God’s people. Additionally, Hercules’ ascent to the abode of the gods was an elevation to a position among beings superior to him and to an abode which was not his rightful habitation, whereas Jesus’ ascension to the Father was claiming a position rightfully His, as He is one with the Godhead. Diana (Artemis, by the Greeks) Diana was the twin sister of Phoebus (see above) and daughter of Jupiter and Leto. She was known as a great huntress and the goddess of the moon. Diana, along with her brother Phoebus, slew the children of the mortal women Niobe, who claimed to have given birth to more children than Leto, thus bringing superiority to herself and disgrace to Leto. In an attempt to restore the honor of their mother, the twins killed Niobe's children with their arrows. As the hunter, Diana became an animal advocate, punishing those who killed them without good reason. Her skills as a huntress gave her cause for much vanity and pride, and it was such pride that she caused Actaeon to be eaten by dogs because he claimed to be a more skilled hunter than she. Likewise, she attempted to slay her own brother for similar claims. In another version of the myth, Diana kills Phoebus in an act of vengeance against Aphrodite, who favored Phoebus and who was responsible for the death of Hippolytus, whom Diana loved. Diana was known as one of three deities within a trinity which included Egeria the water nymph, and Virbius, the woodland god. Suggested parallels: The trinity comprised of Diana, Egeria, and Virbius: The union these figures shared was polytheistic in nature – it was not a union of three persons co-existing as one being, as is the case with the Christian Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share in one another’s nature, being, purpose, and work. Proserpina (Persephone, by the Greeks) Proserpina was the daughter of Jupiter and Ceres. One day while collecting flowers she was abducted by her uncle Pluto, ruler of the Underworld, to be his bride and reside with him in the Underworld as his queen. Jupiter sent Mercury, the messenger of the gods (see above) to free his daughter from Pluto's grip. In order to secure his hold on her, Pluto caused her to eat six pomegranate seeds, the food of the dead, thus barring her from returning to the land of the living. As a result, she would be required to spend six months a year, one for each seed, with

135

Pluto in the land of the dead. Thus, she alternates between the lands of the living and the dead, spending equal time annually in each. Suggested parallels: Proserpina’s resurrection from the dead: As a figure who annually alternates between the lands of the living (in the spring) and the dead (in the winter), Proserpina is merely figurative of the changing of seasons, and her “resurrection” bears no similarity to the literal and once-for-all resurrection of Jesus, raised from the dead in His final victory over death and as a guarantee of the future resurrection of God’s people. Minerva (Athena, by the Greeks) Minerva, the goddess of wisdom and war, was the daughter of Metis, a Titan who personified wisdom. Jupiter impregnated Metis then later learned that the child born by her would be greater than he. In order to preserve his superiority, he swallowed the pregnant Metis whole, hoping to avert the birth of the child. While inside Jupiter, Metis gave birth to Minerva and nurtured her inside his body. Later, it is said that Jupiter experienced a great pain in his head. Promethius (or Hermes, Hephaestus, or Palaemon – the story varies) split open Jupiter's head with an axe and Minerva sprung forth, fully grown and in full amour. As a warrior goddess, Minerva came to the aid of many other deities. She was known as the patron deity of warriors, poets, philosophers, doctors (as the goddess of medicine), merchants, musicians, and artists. Having never married or given herself to a man, she was known as Athena Parthenos, or "Virgin Athena,” a name from which her temple, the Parthenon, derives its name. Suggested Parallels: Her identity as the virgin: This is of no significance, since Minerva, as a virgin, is never said to have given birth to a child. She was simply a virgin – nothing more, and the status of virginity, in and of itself, is of no consequence. Vulcan (Hephaestus, by the Greeks) Vulcan, the god of fire, was the son of Jupiter and Juno. He eventually was regarded as the deity who provided armor, weapons, and jewelry for the many gods and heroes within the mythic pantheon. Vulcan was born an ugly child and for his lack of comeliness his mother threw him from Mt. Olympus. After a day and night of freefalling from Olympus, he fell into the sea, breaking a leg upon impact, leaving him permanently lame. He was then found by the sea nymph Thetis, who took him in and raised him as her own. One day while on the beach, he came upon a gathering of hot coals from a fire which had been started by fishermen, and so began his fascination with fire. Three days later, from the cooled metal, he began making various items such as jewelry and weapons. He also made a silver chariot which would serve as his method of transportation, thanks to some

136

seahorses which be bridled to the chariot, as well as some golden slave girls for his pleasure. In contemplating the Vulcan myth, I cannot help but picture a ragged-looking Tom Hanks on a deserted island jumping up and down yelling, "I have made fire!" Of course, this analogy would only make sense for those readers who have seen the movie Cast Away; otherwise, one may be left scratching his or her head trying to figure out how Tom Hanks suddenly fit into the picture. At any rate, Thetis later left her grotto to attend a dinner party on Mt. Olympus. In dressing for the occasion, she chose to adorn himself with a necklace of Vulcan’s own fashion, which he made as a gift for her. Upon attending the party, Juno, Vulcan’s birth mother, asked where she may obtain such a grand piece of jewelry for herself. She then learned that the son she abandoned had grown into a talented metalworker. Juno demanded Vulcan return to Olympus, but he refused to comply with her wishes. Rather, he made a beautiful chair for Juno, which was presented to her as a gift. Upon sitting in on chair, she became trapped upon it for three days. Jupiter, Vulcan’s father and Juno’s husband, agreed to provide Vulcan with a wife if he set Juno free from her bond. Vulcan agreed and Jupiter in turn gave him Venus, the goddess of beauty and love, as his wife. Such is the myth of Vulcan. Worship of the deity was celebrated with the festival Vulcanilia, held annually on August 23rd. A ritual of the festival was that animals were thrown into large bonfires as an attempt to persuade the god to not bring down fiery calamities upon the people. Suggested parallels: The only common element between the Vulcan myth and the Gospel account of Jesus is the occurrence of certain events after a three day period of time; however, the recurring “three day” theme of Scripture pre-dates the Vulcan myth. The Old Testament contains many references, dating back to the writings of Moses, of certain events occurring after three days. For a more in-depth treatment of the “three day” theme of Scripture, I will here simply refer the reader back to Part one, under the heading “He was dead for three days.” Mars (Ares, by the Greeks) Mars was the god of war, born to Jupiter and Juno. His birth was different from other sons of these deities in that his conception occurred without the intervention of Jupiter’s seed. Juno conceived through a flower blessed with fertile properties by the goddess Flora. Mars became known as a protector and even became held in an honor greater than that of Jupiter himself. His Greek counterpart, as a god of vegetation and fertility, was originally a guardian of cattle, crops, and land. Later, in Roman culture, Mars became identified as man’s militant defender. His sign, shown on the following page, eventually became synonymously identified as the sign for masculinity. He married Bellona, but was also the lover of Venus, Vulcan’s wife. The month of

137

the year given to his honor was Martius, known today as March, the month which marked the annual re-growth of crops. Mars was regarded by the Romans as the father of Romulus, the founder of Rome, and it was further believed that all Roman citizens were descended from Mars.

Suggested parallels: Supernatural birth: Mars’ birth, although supernatural, was not a virgin birth, since he was born to Juno, the wife of Jupiter. The manner of his conception is more like that of Attis than Jesus, as Attis’ mother conceived him after coming in contact with an almond. His birth was not foretold long before its happening, and, although he did perform mighty acts of deliverance, he was never seen as a long-expected deliverer, as was Jesus. Both Jesus and Mars defended those under their care. In the case of Mars, he defended the Romans, while Jesus is the Defender and Protector of God’s elect. However, as with Vulcan, the concept of God as a Defender is one which dates back to the earliest of Biblical writings. In addition, it is not uncommon for a deity to use his power and skill for the benefit of mankind. Juventas (Hebe, by the Greeks) There is not much to say about Juventas. She was the daughter of Jupiter and Juno, and the goddess of youth. She was the cupbearer for the gods, serving nectar at their table. Later in life she was married to Hercules. Suggested parallels: None. Castor and Pollux Castor and Pollux were the twin sons of Jupiter and Leda, and together they are known as the Dioskouroi or Dioscuri, the "sons of Zeus," and also as Gemini, the twin constellation. Although both are named among the sons of Jupiter, only Pollux was fathered by the god, whereas Castor was the product of Leda’s union with a mortal man. Castor and Pollux found themselves at the center of a family feud. The dispute arose over their choice of mates. The twins desired to marry

138

Phoebe and Hilaeira, the daughters of their uncle Leucippus. However, both women were already engaged to the sons of Aphareus. This did not prevent the twins from pursuing their heart’s desire, and they carried both women off to Sparta, where sons were born to them. As a result of the ensuing feud, Castor received a fatal wound from Idas, one of the men to whom the women were betrothed. Upon Castor’s death, Jupiter allowed Pollux to share his immortality with his deceased mortal brother, by permitting the twins to alternate between the abode of the gods and the abode of the dead. This resulted in the twins being merged into the constellation Gemini. Suggested Parallels: Castor’s return from the dead: As with Proserpina, he and his brother’s revolving door lifestyle back and forth from the land of the dead is merely a common figurative expression of the annual changing of seasons. Aesculapius Aesculapius was a grandson of Jupiter, being born to his son Phoebus and wife Coronis. He was cut from the womb of his dying mother as she lay on a funeral pyre to pay the penalty for infidelity to her husband. He was a god of medicine and was believed to have healed many diseased and infirmities, such as paralysis and blindness. Concerning Aesculapius, Justin states the following: “... though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.” Aesculapius' death came at the hand of Jupiter himself when he accepted financial compensation for raising the dead. In another version of his death, Hades, the lord of the Underworld, requested that Aesculapius be slain for reducing the population of his domain. After Aesculapius was slain, he was immortalized by Jupiter as the constellation Ophiuchus. Suggested parallels: His role as healer: As a god of medicine, it should be expected that Aesculapius possessed the ability to heal. However, his ability was not without limit, for even he was subject to the laws of death. There is no mention in the myth that Aesculapius ever raised himself from the dead, as did Jesus. Also, the scope of the healing performed by both Aesculapius and Jesus is vastly different. Aesculapius healed from physical diseases and handicaps, as did Jesus, but Jesus’ role as the Great Physician reflects the more broad aspect of His healing ability in His power to free from sin and death.

139

Perseus As a prefatory note, I have to say that Perseus is my favorite of all the mythological characters, thanks to the portrayal by actor Harry Hamlin and the work of special effects genius Ray Harryhausen in the cinematic masterpiece Clash of the Titans. The film captured my attention as a child and continues to capture my attention as an adult. Tribute being given, let's proceed to the myth: Perseus was the son of Jupiter and Danaë. His birth is different from many of the gods found within the Greek pantheon, who are often the product of sexual union, forced or otherwise, between a god and goddess or mortal woman. Concerning Perseus’ birth, Justin states the following: “And if we even affirm that [Jesus] was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.” According to the myth, King Acrisius, Danaë’s father, was warned by the oracle at Delphi that he would be killed by his grandson. In an attempt to prevent the fulfillment of this prophecy, he imprisoned Danaë, while still a virgin, in a chamber within his palace. While imprisoned, Danaë was visited by Jupiter who came to her in the form of a shower of gold, and shortly after she conceived Perseus. Acrisius knew full well the fate which would befall him if he slew a son of the god, and so he chose to seal both mother and son in a wooden chest and set the chest off to sea. The chest washed up on the island of Seriphos and the child was then raised to manhood by the fishermen of Dictys. Danaë later attracted the love of Polydectes, who then fashioned a plot to get Perseus out of the picture altogether. Polydectes held a banquet in which each guest was to bring him a horse. Having no horse to bring, Perseus promised an alternate gift. As a result, Polydectes demanded that Perseus bring him the head of Medusa the gorgon, a being half woman, half serpent, whose gaze would turn one to stone. In his quest for her head, Perseus was given gifts from the gods: a sword, a shield, and a helmet of invisibility. Perseus found the abode of the gorgons and succeeded in severing Medusa’s head, while viewing her reflection in his shield. Medusa’s spilled blood gave birth to the flying steed Pegasus. After killing the gorgon, Perseus was pursued by Medusa’s sisters, but he escaped under invisibility, thanks to his godgiven helmet. En route back to Seriphos, Perseus encountered the Ethiopian Queen Cassiopeia, wife of King Cepheus. Cassiopeia had incurred the wrath of the sea god Poseidon for boasting herself to be more beautiful than the sea Nereids. As punishment for her vanity, Poseidon sent the seamonster Ceto, or Cetea, who slew much of the population. It was

140

announced by the oracle of Ammon that the only way to stay the beast was for the king and queen to offer their daughter, Andromeda, to the beast as a sacrifice. However, as she was chained to the rocky shore and faced immanent death, Perseus saved the day by flying in on his winged sandals (later myths replace the sandals with the flying horse Pegasus) and killing Ceto, thus earning the hand of Andromeda in marriage. He and Andromeda later became parents to seven sons and two daughters. Perseus also became known as the founder of Mycenae and the Perseid dynasty. The prophecy that Perseus would kill Acrisius was fulfilled when Perseus accidentally struck the king in the head with a discus as he participated in games held in Larissa. Suggested parallels: Virgin birth: According to the myth, Perseus was indeed born of a virgin, but the circumstances of his birth were unlike those of Christ’s birth. Perseus’ birth, although supernatural, bore no spiritual significance. Although Perseus did deliver Andromeda from certain death at the hands of Ceto, he was not born to be a savior. Also, Perseus, unlike Jesus, took no part in bringing about his birth, nor did he exist before his conception. Birth prophesied beforehand: Perseus’ birth was prophesied before his arrival, and it was said that he would kill king Acrisius. While prophecy did come true, it came about by happenstance, rather than by design. In contrast, the prophesies concerning Christ, which concern themselves with much more than the events surrounding his birth, were foretold by numerous prophets over a long span of time, and made specific references to events which would occur in His lifetime. Also, while the prophecy concerning Perseus got the facts correct concerning Acrisius’s demise, the fulfillment of the prophesy held no meaning for anyone other than Perseus and Acrisius. In his attempt to draw parallels between the worship of pagans and Christians, and apart from his mention of the sons and daughters of Jupiter/Zeus, Justin also makes reference to Bellerophon, Ariadne, and the common practice of emperor worship during the time of the Roman Empire. So, we begin with ... Bellerophon, Bellerophon was the son of King Glaucus of Corinth. After taking the life of another (in some versions of the myth the “other” is Bellerophon’s brother, while in other versions it is a mysterious enemy), Bellerophon appeared before King Proetus, king of Tiryns, who absolved Bellerophon of his crime. Bellerophon then gained the

141

attraction of the king’s wife, but he rejected her advancements. Angered by his rejection, she accused him of forcing himself upon her, an accusation which again brought Bellerophon before the king to answer to the charge. The king was angry at Bellerophon for the presumed violation of his wife and, rather than incurring the wrath of the gods for killing a guest, sent Bellerophon to King Iobates, Proetus’ father-in-law, with a secret message which read, “Pray remove the bearer from this world: he attempted to violate my wife, your daughter.” Iobates shared Proetus’ fear of divine retribution for lack of hospitality and likewise did not order Bellerophon’s death; but rather, sent him on a mission to slay the fire-breathing Chimera, a monstrous beast which would surely bring about Bellerophon’s demise. After taming Pegasus, Bellerophon flew off on the horse to meet the Chimera. Upon encountering the beast, he succeeded in killing it by lodging a lead-tipped spear in the mouth of the Chimera. The breath of the beast melted the lead on the spear, blocking the Chimera’s air passage, thus causing it to die of suffocation. Upon his return to King Iobates, Bellerophon was given the hand of Philonoe in marriage. After his victory over the Chimera, Bellerophon mounted Pegasus and flew to Mt. Olympus under the belief that he earned for himself a position among the gods. For this arrogance, a fly was sent to sting Pegasus, dislodging Bellerophon and causing him to fall back to earth. He lived out the remainder of his life as a man both blind and lame. Suggested parallels: His ascension to the gods: It is true that Bellerophon began an ascent to the abode of the gods, but he was not allowed to finish his journey. Prior to his arrival, he was dismounted from his steed, causing him to fall to earth in disgrace. Additionally, had he made it to his destination, he would have been elevated (and that according to his own pride and arrogance) to the place of the gods, in which, as a mortal, he had no right to dwell. Ariadne, Ariadne was the daughter of King Minos of Crete. Following the death of his son in Athens, King Minos attacked the Athenians and required them to sacrifice seven young men and seven maidens to the Minotaur every nine years. When it came time for Theseus to be sacrificed, the would-be victim gained the love of Ariadne, who provided him with a sword and a ball of fleece so that he may slay the Minotaur and successfully escape the beast’s lair. After Theseus escaped his fate, Ariadne and Theseus ran away together. Ariadne was also the wife of the god Bacchus (Dionysus, by the Greeks), and there is debate as to whether her marriage to him occurred before or after her affair with Theseus. Theseus later abandoned her and she was discovered (or rediscovered, as the case may be) by Bacchus. Following her fling with Theseus, she remained faithful to Bacchus

142

until her death at the hands of Perseus at Argos (or death by hanging, according to another version of the myth). Consumed with grief over his wife’s death, Bacchus causes her wedding diadem, adorned with nine gems, to be set in the heavens as the nine stars which make up the constellation Corona. For this reason, Justin states, “…and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars?” Bacchus then descended into the Underworld to bring her back from the land of the dead. Following her emergence from the Underworld, both she and Bacchus dwelt in the abode of the gods. Suggested parallels: A star in the heavens: The star of Bethlehem was a phenomenon which guided the magi, or wise men, to the place of Jesus’ birth. As such, the star did not serve as a memorial for the child; but rather, as a beacon guiding seekers of truth. Also, the star which guided the magi was foretold long before its arrival, whereas the stars of Ariadne were positioned on a whim to memorialize her passing. Her return from the dead: Ariadne’s resurrection was merely the result of Bacchus’ overwhelming grief over his loss. He was so consumed with sorrow, that he snatched her from the land of the dead. Her emergence to the land of the living served no purpose other than the consolation of her lover. Unlike Jesus, Ariadne had no power within herself to conquer death on her own. The deified Emperors of Rome In his argument for parallels to Jesus, Justin makes reference to the common practice of emperor worship, stating, “And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?” In ancient Rome, certain emperors, following their death, were declared to be gods. Such practice endured until Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century A.D. It was not common for such deification to occur during the life of the emperor. Exceptions to that standard include Nero, who declared that he experienced a miraculous birth, and went so far as to erect the Colossus of Sol Invictus, a statue of the sun god, although bearing Nero’s own features. The emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius permitted a single temple in their honor to be built during their lifetime. Caligula, displaying more vanity than his two predecessors, ordered the construction of several temples and statues in his name, but such were destroyed following his death. The emperor

143

Domitian declared himself to be divine, but such claim was not well received by the populace. Vespasian, just prior to his death, stated his belief that he was becoming divine. Julius Caesar, in his speech at the funeral for his aunt, declared himself to be descended from the gods. He was later worshiped as a god and savior after his victories in the civil war. Following his death, a cult survived which worshiped him as a deity, but the cult did not endure for long, despite the declaration by Mark Antony at Caesar’s funeral that Caesar was a god. However, in 44 B.C., during the ludi Victoriae Caesaris, games held in Caesar’s honor, a comet appeared in the daytime sky, which Octavian, Caesar’s nephew, declared to be a manifestation of Caesar himself. Such was the practice of emperor worship in ancient Rome. Deified status was either self imposed by the emperor himself or conferred upon him, usually after his passing, due to his accomplishments and victories, or by virtue of a relation to a deified predecessor. It is this type of worship to which Justin makes allusion Suggested parallels: The elevation of a man to divine status by devoted followers: Here it will merely serve to state that the emperors who claimed divine status for themselves, or had such conferred upon them after death, did nothing which served as proof of his assumed deity. Caesar never walked on water, Tiberius never healed a leper, Claudius never calmed a raging storm, and none of the emperors ever raised themselves or anyone else from the dead. Jesus, on the other hand, performed works which supported His claims to deity. Justin’s argument, which will be addressed in more detail in Part three, was not that pagan myths and emperor worship constituted ax exact parallel of the Gospel of Christ; but rather, that they bore some superficial similarities to Christian doctrine. His purpose in drawing attention to such similarities (which at times were a stretch of Justin’s imagination in an earnest effort to make his point) was to point out the hypocrisy of the pagans in condemning Christians for believing in certain beliefs which bore some surface similarity to Christian doctrine. For instance, pagans condemned Christians, who regard Jesus to have been born of a virgin, yet the pagans, in similar fashion, believed that Perseus was born without the intervention of Jupiter’s seed. The focus of Justin’s dialogue is not comparisons between pagan myths and Christian beliefs; but rather, on the hypocritical accusations made by the pagans against the Christians. He brings his argument to a close in chapter 23 of his First Apology, in which he distinguishes pagan myths from Christian doctrine by stating that the latter is “alone true,” and that the pagan myths were the product of the “demons” misinterpreting Jewish prophesies concerning the coming Messiah, and influencing the pagans to fashion their own mythologies based on these

144

misinterpretations. Below is his conclusion, taken from chapter 23 (emphasis mine, when added): “And that this may now become evident to you — (firstly) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and (thirdly) that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions …”58 Conclusion After reviewing numerous deities throughout this portion of this book, and having shown none to be truly comparable to Jesus, it seems very fitting to reiterate the words of Peter when he said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life,” (Jn 6:68) and again in the book of Acts, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NASB)

Jesus vs. the cookie cutter In 1934 Lord Raglan wrote a book entitled The Hero: A Study in Tradition, Myth, and Dreams, in which he proposed twenty-four characteristics1 which he claimed would be applied to many heroes found in mythology. This list has been applied to many figures, both historical and mythological, including, but not limited to, the following: Male personages Krishna, Moses, Romulus, King Arthur, Perseus, Jesus, Watu Gunung of Java, Heracles, Mohammad, Beowulf, Buddha, Zeus, Nyikang (a cult-hero of the Shiluk tribe of the Upper Nile), Samson, Sunjata (the Lion-King of Ancient Mali), Achilles, Odysseus, Harry Potter, and Czar Nicholas II. Female personages Penelope, Helen of Troy, Guinivere, Joan of Arc, Hero in Shakespeare's Much Ado about Nothing, Princess Diana, Princess Leia (Star Wars), Tori Amos, Nefertiti, Nefertiti, Cleopatra, Irene of Athens, Susan B. Anthony, Helen Keller, Harriet Tubman, Sacagawea, Semiramis (Queen of Assyria), Antigone, and Jane Addams.

145

Critics of Christianity delight in making use of his list, with only a few characteristics being exempted, in their attempt to put forth “evidence” that Jesus was merely another one of these cookie-cutter deities. Therefore, it serves to examine each of these points suggested by Raglan in order to determine just how closely Jesus fits into his mold. Hero’s mother is a royal virgin, ... Mary was definitely a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception, and she remained so until after His birth. As far as her being a royal virgin, there is some speculation that she was descended from the royal lineage of David, as was Joseph, but such is not stated in the Gospel accounts. Even if she was of Davidic descent, her “royalty” could not be likened to the royalty referred to by Raglan, since her relationship to a sitting king would have been removed by hundreds of years. Moreover, royal ancestry was passed on through a son, not a daughter; therefore, even if Mary's father had been a sitting king of Israel, Mary would not inherit his throne upon his passing. Also, as has been shown in Part one, many deities who critics claim are virgin-born cannot rightfully be said to be born in such a fashion, since many of them were either non-virgins at the time of conception or whose “virginal” conception came about after sexual union with a god. ... his father is a king, ... Jesus had no biological father; however, even if Joseph, a descendant of King David, had been related by blood to Jesus, it would still not be said that Jesus' father was a king. Joseph's link to a sitting king was far removed by the same span of time just stated; therefore, it cannot be said that Joseph was a king – a title which was held by Herod the Great at the time of Jesus' birth. Joseph's right to the throne was no greater than those of any other descendant of David, since the reign of King Jehoiachin. Following Jehoiachin's reign, God pronounced a curse on the lineage of David which prevented any of his descendants from claiming the throne which once rightfully belonged to them (Jer 22:30, 23:5-6). The curse was that David's seed would not sit on his throne; therefore, Jesus' right to the throne of David was due to the fact that He was not of the biological seed of David, through Joseph. However, since Jesus was related to Joseph legally, by the official recognition of Joseph as Jesus' father, but not biologically, this made Jesus the first rightful heir, since Jehoiachin, to the throne of David. ... and [His father] is often a near relative of his mother, ... Jesus' “father” was “God the Father, but the fatherhood of God in relation to Jesus was not the same fatherhood which can be applied to mythic heroes. As will be shown in Part five, all three Persons of the Trinity took part in Jesus' birth. The Father prepared the body, the Son took on a human nature, and the Holy Spirit formed the fetus of Jesus within the womb of Mary. Since the Sonship of Jesus will be discussed later, it only needs to be stated here that the Sonship of Jesus to the Father does not denote a biological or ontological relationship; but rather, denotes a sameness of being. Jesus is the Son of God, not because He was “born” of God. Jesus is the Son of God because He is God. Also, there is some speculation that both Joseph and Mary were of Davidic descent, but this would classify as a tribal relation, not familial relation.

146

... but, the circumstances of his conception are unusual, ... The circumstances of Jesus conception were more than unusual – they were distinctly unique. The supernatural conceptions found in pagan mythology do not compare to that of Jesus. This will also be discussed in depth in Part five. It only needs to be stated here, in brief, that pagan deities often sired a son through ravaging or deceiving a woman in order to satisfy the god's burning lust. Also, the offspring had no divine purpose and was not born to be the savior of mankind or to satisfy his father's righteous anger for man's sin. ... and, he is also reputed to be the son of a god. Jesus was not reputed by anyone to be God's Son. His followers declared Him to be so, whereas His opponents condemned Him for claiming such a relationship to deity. The ruling Jewish religious authority attempted to stone Jesus for blasphemy when He claimed such oneness with deity. Moreover, it was absolutely contrary to the Jewish beliefs to think of God as having a son. The Jews placed too high a regard on God's being to even think of Him becoming flesh and taking on such a lowly form as human nature. Moreover, Jesus' Sonship is unique from pagan sons of a god. As stated above, Jesus' Sonship to God the Father is due to the fact that Jesus possesses the same nature as the Father, not because He was physically begotten of God (the New Testament does refer to Jesus as the “only begotten of the Father,” and this expression will be addressed in Part five as well). At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather to kill him ... The attempt on Jesus' life was by King Herod, who sought to squash this newborn infant purported to be the new king. Aside from the fact that there was an attempt made on Jesus' life, this association falls short of becoming valid. It is reasonable to assume that if a king, especially one as cruel as Herod the Great, learned there arose a possible threat to his throne, that he would seek to put an end to this threat, and, unless one has cyborg killing machines at his disposal that he can send back in time to kill the infant's mother prior to his conception, what better way to stop this potential uprising than to nip it in the bud while the child is still an infant. Therefore, this characteristic can be classified under that which is to be expected, given the circumstances. ... but, he is spirited away, ... Jesus was “spirited,” or taken, away to Egypt. This came at the behest of an angel who warned Joseph of Herod's impending threat and who instructed he and Mary to flee with Jesus to Egypt, in order to escape the threat of Herod. However, this was foretold by the prophet Hosea hundreds of years before the Gospels were written: When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. (Hosea 11:1)

147

... and reared by foster parents in a far country. The only country Jesus lived in, apart from Palestine, was Egypt. His sojourn in Egypt was for a very short time, until the death of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C., less than a year after Jesus was born. Following that, Joseph and Mary intended to return to Bethlehem, but returned to their hometown of Nazareth, which lies seventy miles from Bethlehem, or about a six day journey in ancient times, and it was in Nazareth where Jesus' rearing took place. As far as foster parents are concerned, Jesus had a foster father, but a natural mother. The adoptive relationship between Jesus and Joseph was not a thing of common knowledge, except possibly in Nazareth, where the premarital conception of Jesus would have been known by the residents of the town. We are told nothing of his childhood, ... Aside from one instance at age twelve, the only account of Jesus' childhood is found in the apocryphal books, but these stories do not reflect the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels, neither are these books recognized by the church as an accurate account of Jesus' childhood. The Gospels' lack of mention of events in Jesus' childhood is in line with the style of ancient biographies, the purpose of which was not to give a comprehensive account of the events of one's life; but rather, to account for the events relating to the person's significance. For this reason, only two of the four Gospels relate Jesus' birth, whereas the remaining two begin with Jesus' baptism, which marked the beginning of His public enactment of that for which He was sent to accomplish. Even in the preaching of the Apostles, the subject of their message was Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than His birth. This emphasis is not due to an unawareness of Jesus' virgin birth, nor to a denial of its occurrence or importance; but rather, because the manner of His conception is not a element required in sermons intended for the spreading of the Gospel. The thrust of the Apostles' preaching was evangelism, not instruction in systematic theology. ... but, on reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom. Jesus began His public ministry at around age thirty, which is in accordance to Jewish custom that a man needed to be at least thirty to be regarded as a master, or teacher, or act in religious service. Following Jesus' three year ministry and death on the cross, He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, thus inaugurating His kingdom. The kingdom to which Jesus referred was not an earthly kingdom, but a reign in which He triumphs over sin and death. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast, … Jesus became victorious over sin and the devil, who is depicted figuratively as a dragon or serpent and the “prince of the power of the air,” but Jesus was not a dragon slayer or monster killer. ... he marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor … This characteristic bears no similarity to the life of Jesus.

148

... and becomes king. Jesus is the King of Kings, and He presently reigns at His Father's side. His kingship is not a reference to royalty as would be understood of an earthly king; but rather, denotes His supremacy over all things in heaven and in earth. For a time he reigns uneventfully ... Jesus has already conquered sin and death. Since all of His enemies have been made His footstool, there is no more conquest remaining for Him that He has not already secured by virtue of His death and resurrection. ... and prescribes laws, ... As God and the Judge of all men, Jesus requires His people to be holy, or separated unto Him, and not only does He have the right to require such a standard of living, He deserves such oblation. His laws are never arbitrary and are always a reflection of the righteous manner in which He judges all things. ... but, later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, ... Jesus was “despised and rejected of men,” as told by the prophets and the Gospel writers. However, those who called for Jesus' crucifixion were not the same ones who followed Him during His ministry. The only disciple of whom this could be said was Judas Iscariot, but even he was regarded as a sheep-in-wolves clothing, and not a true follower of Jesus. The disciple Peter denied Jesus during His trial, but later became the greatest Apostle to the Jews. ... and is driven from the throne and city, … Jesus is not the King of Kings on a part-time basis. His reign is forever. He will never be stripped of the honor due to Him. During His time on earth, He did not possess a literal throne and the only crown He ever wore was the crown of thorns made in mockery of His claim to deity and royalty, so his execution cannot be said to have been a deposition. ... after which he meets with a mysterious death, … Jesus' crucifixion no doubt perplexed His disciples, who were so distraught by His arrest and trial that they abandoned and denied Him. However, His death cannot be classified as mysterious. In fact, after the disciples' understanding was opened to Jesus' true mission, it became evident to them that such was the fulfillment of prophesies told long before His coming. Jesus' death was perfectly in line with Old Testament Messianic prophecy, as shown in the chart on the following page. Messianic prophecy

Foretold in the Old Testament

Sold for thirty pieces silver His visage being marred His being spit on and scourged Hands and feet being nailed to the cross

Zech 11:12 Isa 52:14, 53:3 Isa 50:6

Cross-reference with the New Testament Mt 26:15 Jn 19:5 Mk 14:65, Jn 19:1

Ps 22:16

Jn 19:18, 20:25

149

Messianic prophecy He was crucified with thieves Garments being parted His Death That none of His bones should be broken His being pierced His resurrection His ascension

Foretold in the Old Testament

Cross-reference with the New Testament

Isa 53:12 Ps 22:18 Isa 53:12

Mt 23:32-33 Mt 27:35 Mt 27:50

Ex 12:46, Ps 34:20 Zech 12:10 Ps 16:10, Isa 26:19 Ps 68:18

Jn 19:33, 36 Jn 19:34, 37 Lk 24:6,31, 34 Lk 24:51, Acts 1:9

... often at the top of a hill, ... Crucifixion was customarily done outside the city. Since Jerusalem is surrounded by hills, this can be merely chalked up as a matter of geography. Additionally, His execution outside the city is likened to the slaughter of sacrificial lambs, who were killed outside the Temple gates. As the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, it was fitting that Jesus' death took place outside Temple walls. ... his children, if any, do not succeed him. Jesus sired no children. His body is not buried, … Jesus was buried and remained in the tomb for three days. ... but nevertheless he has one or more holy sepulchers. There are a few points in Jerusalem regarded today as the location of the original garden tomb, but this is simply due to the fact that the span of time has made it impossible to conclusively name a specific place as the definitive location. It is recognized that only one of these can be the actual location of the resurrection. In conclusion, Raglan's “cookie cutter” hero figure is a mold into which Jesus does not fit. It can be said of each element in his formula that it either does not apply to Jesus as all or does not apply in the sense that it would apply to heroes in pagan mythology. Jesus is not just another “crucified Savior,” as Kersey Graves (author of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors) would like for us to believe. There are many considerations that make Jesus unique from every figure found in pagan mythology, and these distinctions will be addressed in full throughout Part five of this book.

150

At this point, I could close this work, having correctly refuted the claim that the life of Jesus was a remodeling of pagan mythologies and having shown such a claim to posses no foundation in truth. However, The Zeitgeist Movie does not limit its attacks on the Gospels themselves. Other related attacks against the truth of the Christianity remain to be addressed – attacks which extend beyond the Gospel narratives to the writings of the church fathers and as far back as the book of Genesis. Therefore, I have thought it necessary to here address these claims, and give to them a proper response. This section will address several preliminary considerations in relation to mythology in general, while the next section will deal with the claims themselves.

I. Lucifer and the sin of Adam In the following passages, the Bible records the revolt and fall of Lucifer (Satan) from the Paradise. Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me [Ezekiel], saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou [Lucifer] hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. (Ez 28:11-19) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (Isa 14:12-14)

152

Here, we see that: Lucifer was a created being. He was a cherub (the highest order of the angels). He existed in perfection, but later became vain and corrupt. He gloried in his own beauty and sought to reign as the Most High God. Because of Lucifer's iniquity, he was cast from Paradise to Earth. The Bible also gives an account of Lucifer’s first recorded activity following his exile from Paradise. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen 2:16-17, 3:1-6) Here, it is recorded that: God commanded Adam and Eve to not touch or eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He told them the penalty for disobedience was certain death. The serpent (Lucifer) caused Eve to doubt the Word of God. He told her she would be as God if she ate from the tree. Eve fell for his trickery and, out of a desire for the wisdom of God, she ate from the tree Adam, likewise, ate from the forbidden tree. According to the Genesis account, the first sin of man was disobedience to God, distrust of His word, and a desire to elevate the human condition to Godlike status. Adam and Eve desired, as did Lucifer, to be like God, and it was for this that both were cast out of their original habitation and state of existence.

153

II. Freethought: the philosophy of atheism The philosophy of freethought dictates that one’s beliefs should not be based on blind faith; but rather, on facts and reason. It teaches that ideas should be accepted purely on what one perceives, through the natural senses or scientific methods. Such ideas, if determined to be real, are to be accepted regardless of who or what says otherwise, for anyone or anything found to deny or contradict that idea is thought to be prejudiced or fallacious. Once a freethinker accepts an idea as reality, any contradiction to that idea is considered a hindrance and a limitation on one’s own intellect. In short, freethought dictates that everyone has the right and ability to construct his or her own truth based on what is good, true, and right in one’s own eyes. Is truth relative? Freethought declares that truth is relative and there are no absolutes. If one is to believe such a thing to be true, then he must of necessity also believe the following: There is at least one absolute: the absolute that there are absolutely no absolutes. Such is a clear contradiction in terms. If there are no absolutes, then the value which anything or anyone has is subject to one’s own perception. Thus, the sanctity of life is only a reality if one believes life to be sacred. By this logic, those who deny the sanctity of life should have every right to commit whatever terrible acts they wish against humanity. Such actions would merely be “acts” against humanity, rather than “crimes” against humanity, since there would be nothing criminal in harming a life which is not really sacred to begin with. Murder and genocide would be justifiable without an absolute by which acts are judged to be such. If there are no absolutes, then the meaning of a thing is subject to one’s own perception. Thus, every aspect of society would possess a meaning which varies from person to person. This would extend to all aspects of culture, including language (for words would have no set meaning or connotation), science (since science would be based on opinion, not observation), politics (anarchy would be the only true form of government, since democracy, communism, etc. would be systems based on absolutes which do not really exist), religion (God exists only if you want Him to exist), and society (racism, discrimination, and harassment would be acceptable forms of conduct, since the value of anyone is only dependent on whether one perceives value in a particular person, class, race, or gender). If there are no absolutes, there are no laws by which men should be expected to abide, no goodness according to which men should act, no charity which would be of any value, no tyrant who would be inhumane, and no morality by which one should live. All law would be futile and all lawmakers would be dictators, imposing upon others their own perceived reality. There would be no reason for obedience except fear of consequence or punishment.

154

The exclusivity of truth Freethinkers decry any religion which claims to be the only true religion. However, to deny that there is such a thing as a one true religion or one true God is to deny the very nature of truth itself. All paths do not lead to God. All gods are not God. In his book Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias explains, “All religions are not the same. All religions do not point to God. All religions do not say that all religions are the same. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God or is not and accordingly, of defining life’s purpose…. Every religion at its core is exclusive. … All-inclusive philosophies can only come at the cost of truth.”1 For one thing to be ultimately true, it must be so in contrast to anything which states otherwise or stands as an opposite or contrary idea. That is the very essence of truth. For one to be “open-minded” is to be closed-minded to truth. For example, the truth about apples is that they grow on trees. If someone claims apples are grown by any other means, then that claim is untrue, since it claims apples are not grown in the true way in which apples are grown. Whether or not one considers apples good to the taste is irrelevant to the true nature of apples. The same principle applies to God. If indeed Jesus is the only way to God and the only name by which men are saved, then how can it be that someone can be granted salvation in the name of Allah or Krishna or any other god? If Jesus is the only way to God, then He remains such regardless of who or how many people do not agree with that truth, and it is still according to this truth that all men will be judged, regardless of whether or not one believes Jesus is the Savior of man. For a thing to be true, it must be singularly true, and any notion or concept which contradicts that truth must of necessity be untrue. This is the nature of Christian dogma – “sola fide, sola gratia, sola Christus, sola scriptura:” the truth is that salvation is through faith alone, by grace alone, because of Christ alone, and according to the Scriptures alone. Any belief which claims otherwise stands contrary to that which is true. The objectivity of truth The Oxford Dictionary defines the adjective “true” as that which is “in accordance to face or reality.” Likewise, it is commonly said, “truth is that which corresponds to reality.”2 That which is true is identical on that which is real. In a court of law, when a person swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” he is committing himself to “tell it like it is,” to declare what is real. In simple terms, if the grass is really green, then the grass is truly green. But, if the grass of not green, then the grass is truly some other color. If a colorblind individual says the green grass is not green, his perception of the color of the grass does not really or truly change the grass’ color. The color of the grass is dependent on what the color really or truly is, not on an individual’s perception or opinion of color. Joe Anybody can say the grass is pink until he’s blue in the face, but no matter how blue Mr. Anybody gets, the grass will still be green in the final analysis. So it is with every aspect of life. If one thing is true, then there must be an absolute by which that truth is determined, or judged to be true, rather than the truth being rooted in one’s own perception or belief. Man’s perception of what is real, true, and meaningful can change from person to person, but what is really true remains true despite the varied opinions and perceptions. If you ask fifty people what is the meaning of life, you

155

may get fifty different meanings for life. Yet, life truly has a definite meaning, rather than many meanings, some of which contradict one another. Such objectivity must apply to all truth, for truth, by definition, cannot be anything but objective. The source of truth The bottom line is that everyone embraces absolute truth in the face of danger. As Dr. R. C. Sproul notes, that which is the most danger to anyone is the justice of God, for it is no light matter to face a God who, by nature of His own inherent righteousness, must punish those who are unrighteous.3 This became most evident to a congregation in the eighteenth century as a preacher by the name of Jonathan Edwards delivered his famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Below is an excerpt from his sermon: “How awful are those words, Isa 63:3, which are the words of the great God. ‘I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.’ It is perhaps impossible to conceive of words that carry in them greater manifestations of these three things, viz. contempt, and hatred, and fierceness of indignation. If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or favour, that instead of that, he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets.”4 Edwards brought to light the awful wrath of God, and those who heard his words were instilled with the same fear which struck the prophet Isaiah when God gave him a vision of His glory. In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. (Isa 6:1-5) The word “undone” here means to come unraveled, to be reduced to utter helplessness. When one comes to a true realization of the holiness and righteousness of God, he is inevitably faced with his own unseemliness and helplessness over his own fate, and with his utterly sinful and unworthy state of being. The truth about God is that He exists, regardless of what one believes concerning His existence.

156

Even if no one believed in God, He would still exist, for His existence is not subject to belief. He is not conjured or summoned as a genie in a bottle at the behest of the will of man. God has being (for He is self-existent), and it is this Being which determines what is true in the cosmos. Therefore, if something is true, it is true because God made it so. Again, Sproul states, “truth is reality from the perspective of God.” Truth, more-so than being rooted in God, is God Himself. Jesus said He alone is the Truth. Jesus did not merely speak the truth, He is the truth. He is truth personified, truth in the flesh. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Jn 14:6) Skeptics of Christianity declare Jesus to be merely a great teacher, but what greatness does one see in Jesus if he does not believe Jesus’ claim to be the truth? Christian apologetics has historically stated that one must regard Jesus to be a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. If He is not the truth, then he is a liar or a lunatic, in which case there would be nothing great at all about Him. For those who believe Jesus’ claims, then He is regarded to be not only the source of truth, but truth itself, and it is this truth, the only begotten Son of God, who redeems man and makes His people free. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (Jn 8:31-32 NASB) True freethought Additionally, freethought is not synonymous with intelligence. Even the most uneducated person may be a freethinker. Rather than being a measure of one’s intelligence, freethought merely is a way to define how one formulates conclusions and why one holds to his or her beliefs. The freethinker claims his “freedom” lay in his self-liberation from tradition and his own passions, when formulating his conclusions. The truth is that no one is completely free from his passions. Every thought and action, whether positive or negative, is a product of one’s desire. As Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologia, every action is the result of a desire to act in such a way.5 Perhaps the action itself is not desirable, but it is more favorable when compared to the consequence which would result by inaction. True freedom of thought lay not in liberating oneself from the accepted norm or existing preconceptions. Rather, true freedom lies in the self-assurance that one achieves knowing his beliefs are grounded in rationalism and logic. Someone who believes the Bible is God’s Word because his pastor says it is God’s Word, is not free in his thought processes, since he is accepting an idea without further investigation. However, one who believes the Bible is God’s Word because of the integrity of the work has arrived at such a conclusion through a truly free thought process. Likewise, if one denies God’s existence because he was told there is no God, then he is not a freethinker, since his belief concerning God was implanted rather than formed as a result of personal investigation. An atheist can only be called a freethinker if his denial of God’s existence is drawn from conclusions based on personal investigation.

157

How does truth apply to God? Everyone has faith concerning God Applied to theology, freethought denies the existence of God or anything supernatural, since we cannot see God or visibly look into the spiritual realm. The very first freethinker was Lucifer, who began to think outside the bounds of what was required and expected of him. He became vain in his imaginings and lusted after a position greater than that of God Himself. Following Lucifer, Adam and Eve were enticed to engage in the same type of reasoning. While they certainly believed in God (for they beheld Him with their own eyes and walked by His side), they doubted His word. Doubt in God’s truth is the seed which leads to doubt in God’s existence. Thus, freethought is the soil which cultivates atheism. In the words of one writer on infidels.org, “atheism is not a belief. It is the ‘lack of belief’ in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith.” On the contrary, even atheists, although they have no religion, do indeed have faith. Faith and religion are not one and the same. Religion is a system of beliefs and practices relating to a higher power. It refers to a theological structure, not merely a belief in God. For example, the deist believes that God exists and that He created the universe, but does not believe that God maintains the universe or is actively involved in the lives of His creatures. Thus, the deist has faith in God, but does not hold to a system of worship or conduct relating to any personal relationship to God. The deist has faith, but does not hold to a religious structure. Likewise, the atheist holds to a belief regarding God, and does so in faith that God simply does not exist. He believes God does not exist despite his ability to prove God does not exist; therefore, in faith, he holds to his denial of God. Atheism is not a lack of faith; rather, it is a lack of faith in God. Both the Christian and the atheist have faith – the former places his faith in one greater than he, whereas the latter places his faith in his own finite perceptions. The necessity of God Freethinkers claim there is no God because there is no evidence that God exists. In the words of those who maintain the Freethougtht Zone freethinkers “do not see any valid reason for holding such a belief. In order to rationally believe any claim, one must first have credible evidence. There is, however, no credible evidence for the existence of a god.”6 Yet, outside my window, I see the sky, a tree, some grass, and a bird flying about. None of these things have the ability to bring themselves into being. Every seed, every egg, every thing must of necessity come from something else, since no one and no thing has the inherent ability to create life. People speak of the universe coming into being by chance, but chance is not a thing, not a person – it has no will or purpose. Chance is simply a way to define an occurrence in mathematical terms, or odds. The “chance” or “possibility” of a particular occurrence does not cause that event to occur. Chance is an idea, it is not an object. It does not and cannot move any one thing to act. On the other hand, it is right and proper to say that a thing happened by design, for design indicates will and purpose. The clouds in the sky, the grass in the field, the fish in the sea, all were set in place in accordance to a design and a will of a being greater than they, and this being must have the

158

ability not only to cause another thing to move and act, but it must have inherent self-existence. Everything, having a beginning, must have been brought into being by something or someone which has no beginning, by that which was never caused by another. The Scriptures say that God created the universe “ex nihilo;” that is, “out of nothing.” Evolutionists claim that the universe was created as a result of a cosmic event. The main difference between the two beliefs is that the latter does not provide a cause which set all else in motion. Nothingness cannot cause itself to act, for it has no will, no motion, no energy, and no capacity for activity of any sort. A stack of building blocks properly stacked and balanced cannot topple over unless the blocks are affected by some external factor, such as a breeze or slight turbulence in the surface on which they stand. The blocks have no means or capacity to topple on their own and in their own ability, for they have no ability – they are not able to move on their own. In order for the building blocks to topple on their own, they must have selfexistence, giving themselves the ability to act one way or another. The same principle applies to any form of matter, object, or being. That which is nothing – that which has no ability – cannot cause something to come about. Bertrand Russell, in his famous lecture Why I Am Not A Christian (delivered on March 6, 1927, National Secular Society, Battersea Town Hall, London, England), argued that “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause …There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed.”7 In denying the necessity of a self-existent Being, Russell has negated the law of causality – that every material effect must have an adequate or antecedent cause. He allows for the possibility that a thing can occur on its own without that thing being able to produce any effect, however such a hypothesis is devoid of reason and logic altogether. Anything that exists must exist either because of or by something else, and that “something” must exist in and of itself in order to cause another thing to come in to being. If the world itself is uncaused and has always existed, as Russell suggested, then the world would possess self-existence, in which case there would be no decay or death in the world of nature, since a self existent thing is able to continuously maintain its own existence simply by virtue of its inherent ability to exist. As Dr. R. C. Sproul makes note, every effect must have a cause, something which possesses self-existence.8 A thing which does not exist in and of itself needs to have its origin in that which does exist in and of itself. Every effect must have a cause, something which is self-existent. Furthermore, in order for something to be self-existent, having no cause by which itself was caused, this thing must have inherent being, for if something cannot be, then it cannot cause something else to be. If that thing has not always been, then there must have been a time when it came to be and was given being by another who has always possessed self-existence, or self-being. Only God may rightly be spoken of in such a fashion. God’s existence is necessary to all other existence, as He is the Source or First Cause by which all other causes exist. He is the Being in which all other beings have their existence. Such a Being cannot merely exist as a possibility, but must exist as a necessity. Likewise, something that is necessary cannot be just a possibility; otherwise, that thing was never necessary to begin with. God cannot exist both as a

159

possibility and a necessity. Anselm’s Ontological Argument There are four ways to argue in favor of God’s existence: 1) the Cosmological argument – that there must be a cause for the cosmos, for that which we see; 2) the Teleological argument – that there is order and design in what we see; therefore, that order necessities a Designer; 3) the Psychological argument – that all people has an innate consciousness of God, that every culture has religion, and that there is a universal understanding of what is right and wrong, is evidence of a higher power involved in man’s constitution; and 4) the Ontological argument – the argument from being. The eleventh century philosopher Anselm is most known for his work Prostlogian, in which he postulates his ontological argument for God’s existence. Ontology is the study of being or existence. Applying this study to God, Anselm stated God is that which no greater can be conceive – that is, that God is the greatest conceivable being. If God exists, He must exist not only in one’s mind, but in reality. If God exists, He exists whether or not a thought regarding God has ever entered in the mind of even a single person. Even if no one has ever thought of God, God is still real, because God still has being. Since God has being, any thought of God must of necessity must involve conceiving of Him as a being, not as an abstract force. If one is conceiving of God as anything other than a being, then that one is not thinking of God at all, since he is conceiving of God as being that which He is not. If God does not exist as a being, then He does not exist at all; but rather, would merely constitute an idea, and ideas have neither being nor existence. “Non-existent being” is a contradiction in terms, since existence and being go hand-in-hand. A non-existent God cannot be any more of a possibility as a nonexistent cat. A cat either is, or is not, and such is the case with God. If a cat exists, it exists because it has being, not because someone simply believes in the cat’s existence. As Anselm pointed out, God cannot both be and not be, for nonbeing is the very opposite of being.9 As one side of a magnet cannot be both positive and negative, as black cannot be both black and white, so can any one thing not be both itself as well as its opposite. No evidence that God exists, you say? No hard, visible, tangible, logical, reasonable proof that God exists? Look out the window. Look in the mirror. Look at the cat sitting next to you on the couch, the dog lying at your feet, or the children playing outside. There’s your evidence. Think about it. Look beyond your prideful, vain imaginings and just think. That’s where true freedom of thought begins – with an eye raised to the heavens and an acceptance that there is more going on than what you can perceive with your senses. Knowledge vs. wisdom No matter how free one’s thought processes are, and no matter how much knowledge of which one is in possession, he or she may ultimately lack wisdom. Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge. The wisest among men may possess little knowledge, while the most knowledgeable among men may possess little wisdom. Knowing that God exists is a knowledge which can come from observing

160

the world around us and coming to a rational conclusion that there is a God behind it all. However, one who simply believes in God’s existence possesses knowledge, but does not necessarily possess wisdom. As James states, “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (Jas 2:19) Wisdom goes beyond one’s conception of God, and extends to one’s response to God. There is a God, and everyone has a responsibility in relation to Him. Whether one chooses to accept that responsibility or not, does not negate the truth that the responsibility exists, and everyone will be judged according to how one responds in relation to that responsibility. True knowledge consists of a man’s responsibility to God and lies in his acceptance of God as a Higher Being by whom he is judged and held accountable. Wisdom is a belief in the truth set forth in God’s Word, seeing one’s unrighteous condition in relation to a righteous God, and responding to that condition in faith that only God can effect a change in nature. But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding? And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding. (Job 28:12, 28) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. (Ps 111:10) The knowability of God God is transcendent beyond all understanding and comprehension. Yet, God is not a God who remains completely concealed behind a veil. He makes Himself known to His people, and this He does not because he should make Himself known, but because He delights in so doing. Through Christ, the veil of the Godhead was partially lifted and mankind was able to behold the glory of Christ, God in the flesh. It is this glory, this glimpse into the heart of God through the appearance of Christ, which brings joy to those most sorrowful, hope to those most hopeless, help to those most helpless, freedom to those in bondage, and strength to those most weak. The knowledge of God is the source of man’s glory and in it is contained wealth beyond any material riches. Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. (Jer 9:23-24) And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (Jn 8:32) God has made Himself known through His Word, through the person of Jesus the Christ, through the laws and majesty of nature, and through the human conscience. He is a person to be understood and those who come into this understanding are brought to their knees, some in humility and reverence, others in fear and dread, but all in a state of helplessness and dependence on this One in whom all things live,

161

move, and have their being. Those who seek God will find Him, and those who find Him are rewarded with the depth of the riches contained in who He is and how sure are His promises. Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding: In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he will direct thy paths.” (Prov 3:5-6) For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds), casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:3-5 NASB) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (Ps 14:1)

III. Luciferianism: the philosophy of self-deification Whereas freethinkers deny the existence of God, Luciferians consider themselves god. “I am god. Period,” is the claim of the Luciferian. Luciferianism is a philosophy, a way of thinking. According The Luciferian Manifest, the official creed of the Church of Lucifer, “Luciferianism is a living philosophy that values and honors the dynamic principles essential to the characteristics of Lucifer…. As Lucifer is the embodiment of knowledge, he represents that which brings light to the mind of humanity to advance the intellectual evolution of our species.”1 Luciferians are not Satanists, nor do all Luciferians worship Lucifer or even recognize him as a god. In fact, they consider themselves superior to Satanists, since “Satanism and its carnality does not satisfy the hunger for true knowledge.”2 They do not offer animal sacrifices, drink blood, or sit in a pentagram and recite a chant. One does not need to belong to the Church of Lucifer in order to be a Luciferian. Rather, one simply needs to be of the same mind as Lucifer, denying the authority, supremacy, and sovereignty of God and applying such characteristics to his or her self. Concerning Satan’s temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Manifest says, “he [Lucifer] tempted Eve, to eat of the fruit of knowledge, thus awakening in her a realization, a revelation that placed her outside of and above the animal kingdom which was the Garden of Eden. She thereby entered a higher reality, which lead to higher knowledge.”3 This “higher knowledge” is considered to consist of whatever one chooses to be the truth by “picking the fruit of knowledge from here and there, and developing their own working system of thought and magick designed for their own Selves.”4 The knowledge gained through such a buffet-style of knowledge gathering is considered to be the knowledge of Lucifer, who alone, they believe, can illuminate the mind to its highest potential, for he is considered to be the embodiment of the highest form of knowledge. It is this downward spiral which has set the stage for the formulation and development of the many mythological systems found in pagan religion. First, men doubt the truth of God’s word. Second, they “freely” seek their own truth and deny even the existence of

162

God. Finally, they deify themselves and other men and women, formulating their own truths and doctrines. They place faith in themselves and the paths which they have fashioned. Yet, one day even these will bow the knee to Jesus, the Son of the one, true God, and this they will do not because of the very mention of His name, but because of the sheer authority of His person. “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:10-11) Whether they confess His deity in worship or in fear and trembling is dependent on whether they continue to trust in their own path or place their trust in the One who alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

IV. Nimrod and the beginning of pagan religion Nimrod in the Bible Many of the myths formed throughout the post-dilluvian history of civilization have their root in the legends regarding Nimrod. Following the Flood, the family of Noah settled in the plain of Shinar, widely considered to be ancient Sumer. Over many years (keep in mind that, at this time, the number of years in a single lifespan numbered in the hundreds) Noah’s family grew into large populations, forming their own towns. Nimrod was born approximately 250 years after the Flood, and was the son of Cush, the grandson of Ham, and the great-grandson of Noah. He is mentioned only a few times in the Bible, the first being the tenth chapter of the book of Genesis. “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah: wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Jehovah. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city). And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (whence went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim. (Gen 10:8-13) Nimrod the King Nimrod was the first ruler of the second dynasty of Chaldea.1 There is speculation whether Nimrod was the name given to him at birth or was a title given to him in later times, based on his deeds, for the name Nimrod means “rebel” in Hebrew. The phrase used in Genesis, “before the face of Jehovah,” is thought to indicate such rebellion, being more correctly translated “in the face of Jehovah,” and denoting his tyranny over men. Josephus wrote that Nimrod caused the people to rebel against God. “Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength

163

of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power… Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them diverse languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion…”2 According to the Book of Jasher (an ancient text referred to twice in Scripture, in Josh 10:13 and 2 Sam 1:18), Nimrod became king at age forty after winning a battle between the sons of Ham and the sons of Japeth.3 Following his rise to power, he erected twelve wooden idols, and ordered one of each to be worshiped during a given month. Nimrod is commonly believed to have been the architect behind the construction of the Tower of Babel. Josephus also relates that the tower of Babel, sometimes named Entemenanki,4 was built in defiance against God, and high enough to not be covered in the event God chose to send another flood.5 Following the confusion of the languages at Babel, the tower became a place of worship, on top of which was constructed a temple, used for the worship of false gods or for hosting orgies in the name of a god.6 At this time, ancestor worship began to take hold among the ancient Sumerians. Noah became known as Ziusudra in Sumer, Utanapishtim (see the later section regarding the Epic of Gilgamesh) and Atra-Hasis in Akkad, Abzu in Sumer, and Xisouthros in Greece, his wife became known as Tiamat,7 his son Ham became Ea, and his grandson Cush became Anu.8 The death of Nimrod There are several accounts regarding Nimrod’s death. One account says he was beheaded by Esau, the grandson of the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, while another said he was killed by Shem, a son of Noah. According to the latter account, Shem, a man who remained true to the worship of Jehovah, caught Nimrod and executed him by dismemberment, sending his parts throughout the land as a warning against worshiping false gods. Even Nimrod himself became known as the god Marduk and the god of the sun.

164

The birth of Ninus and the deification of Nimrod Following Nimrod’s death, Semiramus, Nimrod’s lover (in some accounts she is his mother, while in other accounts she is the former wife of an officer in Nimrod’s army) furthered the religion established by her deceased husband. Nimrod himself became known as the god Marduk, the god of the sun. Later, she became pregnant and gave birth to Ninus, whom she declared to be the reincarnation of Nimrod. She also claimed that his conception was the result of being impregnated by the sun. Following his birth, Ninus became worshiped as the sun god Nabu. Semiramus married Ninus once he grew to manhood, which perhaps originated the “Nimrod married his mother” motif. Angered that Shem had killed his father, Nimrod, Ninus set out for revenge. A fierce battle ensued, during which Shem gouged out the eye of Ninus.9 Semiramus later had Ninus killed, not because of his wickedness, but because he was no longer useful to her. The migration of Nimrod’s story into myth and culture Nimrod was the founder of pagan religion, and, as such, the motifs found in his accounts, whether truth or legend, has found their way into the myths of various cultures, as in the case of the Egyptian deities Osiris and Horus. According to the Egyptian myth, Seth killed Osiris, cut him into fourteen pieces, and scattered them throughout Egypt. Osiris’ wife then gave birth to Horus, whom she declared to be Osiris reborn. Later, Horus, seeking revenge for Osiris’ death, fought against Seth in a battle during which Horus’ eye was gouged out. In addition to inspiring many myths, the political system set up by Nimrod had equal influence. Nimrod set up a means of rule by which laws were strictly enforced upon the people, although the ruler himself was exempt from such laws. Nimrod was a law unto himself, and a god to his people. This same formula influenced the culture of ancient Egypt, as well as Accad, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, and, ultimately, Greece and Rome, in which Pharaohs, kings, emperors, and other leaders were regarded as deity.

V. The Monomyth Formula Many of the stories in world mythology, regardless of their cultural origin, share a similar structure, which Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung termed “archetypes.” In his efforts to understand and interpret the dreams of the mentally ill, he came to the conclusion that there are common principles and ideas which are present in the psychology of men from all cultures, and it is these commonalities, or “archetypes,” which serve to guide and influence the various myths, legends, and religions of the world. In other words, according to Jung, there exists inside every man, regardless of social, religious, or educational influences, an innate concept of what it means to be a “hero” or to embark on a “quest,” and it is these unconscious formulas which have given rise to the many heroes and stories found in world mythology. Likewise, German anthropologist Adolph Bastian suggested that such myths contain the same or similar “elementary ideas.” In modern times, this idea has gained wide notoriety with the publication of Joseph Campbell’s book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, published in 1949. Campbell, widely recognized as one of the world’s foremost scholars on world mythology, further developed this concept

165

of a fundamental cross-cultural structure in his formulation of what he called the “monomyth.” Campbell recognized common elements in many world myths, elements such as 1) a call to adventure, 2) a journey through a path of trials, 3) the achievement of a goal, 4) the hero being granted a great gift, 5) a return to the ordinary world, and 6) the application of the gift. A myth may contain all, a few, or just one of these elements. In the preface to his book, he states, “A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.” Campbell’s monomyth structure, suggests the following formula which he believes is common to every culture and has found its ways into the various world mythology. Campbell’s monomyth formula is as follows: 1. Departure (or Separation) The Call to Adventure The hero leaves his normal world after being called, usually by a herald, and is directed to embark on a journey into the unknown. Refusal of the Call After being called, the hero either refuses the call in disobedience or lack of confidence in his ability to make the journey. Supernatural Aid Eventually, the hero agrees to embark on the journey. This is usually due to the influence or intervention of an item, possessing supernatural properties, which the hero is given to aid him in his journey. He is often guided or advised by a mentor, usually elderly. The Crossing of the First Threshold The hero enters the world of the unfamiliar, usually through a portal and usually after facing a being who acts as a “gatekeeper” or guardian of that world. Rebirth His emergence into the unknown world is seen as a rebirth or transformation, having “died” to one world only to begin an existence in the world of the unknown. 2. Initiation The Road of Trials The hero then faces a test or series of trials by which be realizes his potential and ability to complete his journey. Marriage Along his journey, the hero may meet one who possesses royalty or divinity, typically symbolic of the source of life. Through his union with her, the hero achieves mastery over life itself.

166

Woman as Temptress The hero may also meet a temptress, who is able to preoccupy the hero and set his feet off his destined path. It then becomes the hero’s challenge to rise above this distraction. Atonement with the Father The hero is typically guided by a mentor or father figure, with whom he falls out of favor and must seek reconciliation. Apotheosis The hero comes to realize his ultimate purpose, sometimes through vanquishing an enemy or gaining special abilities. The Ultimate Boon The hero is granted a gift or blessing, which he is then instructed or inclined to share with others. 3. Return Refusal of the Return The hero may be reluctant to return to the world from which he came. At times this reluctance is owed to a love for the new world or a person in that world. The Magic Flight The hero returns home, sometimes on a magical journey and sometimes while being pursued by an opposing force. Rescue from Without While on his journey home, the hero may need to be rescued by someone from the world from which he came. Alternatively, he may desire not to return, and may then be given a new motivation to finish the return home. The Crossing of the Return Threshold While on the journey home, circumstances may cause the hero to lose his ego or drive, which is then regained upon or shortly after his return home. Master of Two Worlds Having existed in the world of the known and the unknown, the hero is now able to comprehend the bigger picture and sometimes realizes the unknown world is a mere extension of the known world. Having finished his journey and returned to the known world, he imparts to others the knowledge gained on his journey. Freedom to Live The hero bestows his gift to his fellow man.

167

A modern-day example of the monomyth formula: Popular modern-day applications of Campbell’s monomyth formula include Disney’s The Lion King and George Lucas’ original Star Wars trilogy (released theatrically from 1977-1983). In a 1988 PBS broadcast entitled The Power of Myth, Lucas admitted Campbell’s book served as a key influence when composing his story, as illustrated below. Campbell I: Departure The call to adventure

Lucas

Refusal of the call Supernatural aid Crossing the first threshold The belly of the whale II: Initiation The road of trials The meeting with royalty or a goddess Temptation away from the true path Atonement with the Father Apotheosis The ultimate boon III: Return Refusal of the return The magic flight Rescue from without Crossing the return threshold Master of the two worlds Freedom to live

Obi-wan tries to enlist Luke’s aid in the Rebellion Luke insists he must help his uncle with the harvest Luke becomes aware he is strong in the Force Escape from Tatooine The Death Star’s trash compactor Lightsaber practice Luke rescues Princess Leia Luke is tempted to give in to his anger Darth Vader and Luke reconcile Luke achieves status of Jedi Knight Luke ushers in a new Jedi order Luke‘s hesitance to leave his dying father The Millennium Falcon’s flight through the asteroid field Ewoks save the day The Millennium Falcon destroys pursuing TIE fighters Victory ceremony Rebellion is victorious over the Empire

Campbell’s monomyth formula illustrates how many of the various religions and myths of mankind are the product of concepts inherent in the human psyche.

168

I. Concerning Zoroastrianism Critics have claimed that the figures and concepts inherent in Christianity were borrowed from the Zoroastrian religion. Zoroastrianism. Origin of the religion Zoroastrianism is a pre-Christian religion founded by the prophet Zarathushtra, commonly known as Zoroaster (the Greek alteration of his name), who lived, according to popular consensus among historians, sometime around c.650-583 B.C. in Persia (present-day Iran). One day, at age thirty, while performing a purification rite on the bank of a river, Zarathustra claimed to have a vision in which Vohu Manah (i.e., the “Good Mind”) appeared to him as a “shining being.” Zarathushtra was taken to the god Ahura Mazda who charged him with the task of guiding men to him, the “one true god.” Through a series of succeeding visions, Zarathushtra claimed to receive words of wisdom from the supreme deity Ahura Mazda and the lesser deities which make up the Amesha Spentas. These words of wisdom make up the core beliefs of ancient Zoroastrianism. Monotheistic or polytheistic? Zoroastrianism is typically recognized, along with Judaism, as being unique among the ancient religions due to its so-called monotheistic character. Zoroastrians worship one supreme god, named Ahura Mazda; however, they also revere six other lesser deities, thus making Zoroastrianism a truly polytheistic, not monotheistic, belief system. The scriptures of Zoroastrianism The sacred text of Zoroastrianism is the Avesta, or "Book of the Law," containing a series of five hymns, called the Gathas, providing generalized instruction on worship, social justice, and personal morality. The oldest section of the Avesta dates to a few centuries after Christ, being composed between 346-360 A.D.1 Oral tradition on which the Avesta is based has been dated, in part, prior to the time of Christ. The five hymns which make up the Gathas are likely the closest resemblance therein to such ancient oral tradition, and primarily contain praise for Ahura Mazda, the highest of the Zoroastrian deities, as well as instructions for proper living. Zoroastrianism is a religion strongly concerned with good works and morality. The maxim of Zoroastrianism is “Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds,” as expressed in their scriptures. “I profess myself a Mazda-worshiper, a Zoroastrian, having vowed it and professed it. I pledge myself to the well-thought thought, I pledge myself to the well-spoken word, I pledge myself to the well-done action. “2 Suggested influence on the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ Zoroastrianism was the official religion of the Persian Empire and it is on this ground that some accuse Christianity of being the result of a merger between Judaism and Zoroastrianism. This merger is thought to have occurred during the

170

period of time prior to Christ when the Hebrews were under captivity by the Persian Empire. D. M. Murdock, a hostile critic of Christianity, suggested the following similarities between Zarathushtra and Jesus Christ. While a few of her claims are true, most are, not surprisingly, either embellished or falsified in order to provide a fabricated relationship between the two religions, making Christianity a derivative of Zoroastrianism. Zarathushtra was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason." Zarathushtra’s virgin birth is presumed from a passage in the Avesta which states that his mother was filled with “kingly glory.” First, his mother was not a virgin, being the wife of Pourushaspa.3 Even if she was filled with glory of some sort, Zarathushtra was still conceived through normal human means. Second, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, not Jesus, and the doctrine states that she was born without sin, thereby enabling her to give birth to the Son of God. Not only is such a doctrine not taught in Scripture, but is wholly against it. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a later fabrication of the Catholic Church, emerging as church dogma under Pope Pius IX in 1854. Protestants and orthodox Christianity reject the doctrine on the grounds that it violates the doctrine of original sin, which states that every person is born in a state of sin (Rom 5:12). Third, the source for the idea of Zarathushtra’s virgin birth is the Avesta, which dates to several centuries following Christ. If one religion borrowed the idea of virgin birth from another, the borrowing was on the part of Zoroastrianism, not Christianity – to say otherwise is place events out of their historical order. He was baptized in a river. The only identification of Zarathushtra with a river is that it was on the bank of a river where he claimed to have received his divine enlightenment. He was practicing a pagan purification rite at the time, but baptism is not a rite of purification. Rather, baptism is a seal of the covenant God made with man. Purification, or justification, comes through faith and by the grace of God, not by baptism. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. Zarathushtra did have an effect on certain wise men, but not as the claim suggests. King Vishtapsa believed Zarathushtra’s claims of divine revelation. According to tradition, the king’s magi, or “wise men,” conspired against Zarathushtra after he made them the subject of ridicule. As a result of their conspiracy, Zarathushtra was imprisoned, only to later be released when he supposedly healed the king’s horse.4 He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. Following Jesus’ baptism, and before He began His public ministry, Jesus was tempted of Satan after withdrawing to the wilderness for a period of forty days, during which time He engaged in a fasting and prayer. In the

171

case of Zarathushtra, although he was tempted by a demon, the circumstances are different in several ways – in the location, the time and duration, the tempter, and the manner of temptation. Zarathushtra’s temptation came after ten years, did not last forty days, and no wilderness setting is described for the event. He was not tempted by Angra Mainyu, the primary force of evil and the polar opposite of the god Ahura Mazda, but by a lesser demon.5 In Jesus’ temptation, Satan tempted Him to satisfy His hunger by turning bread into stones, by inviting His to cast Himself from a pinnacle of the Temple in order to invoke angels to come to His rescue, and by offering Jesus an earthly kingdom if He were to bow before Satan. In the case of Zarathushtra, the temptation constituted the demon attempting to compel him to renounce his faith. He began his ministry at age thirty. Zarathushtra was said to be age thirty when he claimed to have received his first vision, although the source for this information, Pahlavi literature, dates after the time of Christ. Additionally, as stated under an earlier heading, the age at which Jesus began His public ministry was due to a Jewish regulation, established during the days of Moses (long before Zarathushtra), which states a man needed to be thirty years of age in order to serve as a “master.” In so doing, Jesus was acting in obedience to the Mosaic Law, not mimicking a prior religious icon. Zarathushtra baptized with water, fire, and "holy wind." Zarathushtra did not baptize his converts, with water, fire, wind, or any other element. Fire is a sacred element in Zoroastrianism, but Zoroastrians certainly do not baptize one another with fire, else their congregation would quickly dwindle in number. Zoroastrians have been known to pray before a flame, but baptism is not a practice of the religion. Besides, Jesus is never said to have performed baptisms. He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. The Avesta does not record Zarathushtra casting a demon from a body possessed by it. He did (supposedly) rid people of pestilence and drive out sorcerers, but this was not done by any form of exorcism. The account of Zarathushtra giving sight to a blind man dates to the tenth century A.D.6 and more closely resembles an herbal remedy than it does a miracle, for the blind man received sight after Zarathushtra dropped juice from a plant into his eye. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. Since this claim involves theological, rather than biographical, considerations, these so-called similarities will be addressed in the section below dealing with doctrinal comparisons.

172

He had a sacred cup or grail. Zarathushtra did not possess a sacred cup, and despite claims made by D. M. Murdock, Arthurian legend, and Indiana Jones, neither did Jesus possess a Holy Grail. The cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper was just an ordinary cup, no different from the cup used by others in the same room. The legend of the Holy Grail, or the cup of Christ, is a medieval legend, not Gospel record. He was slain. The circumstances of Zarathushtra’s death are uncertain, and some of the versions do not involve a slaughter. The most accepted version of his demise is that he was killed at age seventy-seven while in a temple.7 Nevertheless, the claim here is that Zarathushtra was “slain,” not that he was crucified, or wore a crown of thorns, or was scourged – simply that he was killed. Such an end to one’s life is absolutely no reason to presume influence by the slaying of a past religious leader. Rather, it is merely an attempt to allude to a comparison which does not even exist in the first place – and it is likely done because the conspiracy theorist is aware of the lack of such comparison and is therefore grabbing at whatever information may be manipulated in favor of his or her argument. The death of the Messiah was foretold long before Zarathushtra was killed (assuming that he did in fact pass in such a fashion), being foretold by prophets and poets writing before the Hebrew captivity at the hands of the Persians. Also, regardless of the manner of Zarathushtra’s death, his passing served no redemptive purpose. Whether Zarathushtra was killed, died of old age, or choked on a pretzel, his death bore no significance for those after him, and certainly was not foretold by anyone or foreknown by Zarathushtra himself before the event, as was the case with Jesus. His religion had a Eucharist. This aspect will be dealt with in the section below, regarding religious observations. He was the "Word made flesh." Zarathushtra was never referred to as such, and neither were the three prophet-saviors recognized by Zoroastrianism. Zarathushtra’s followers expect a "second coming" in the virgin-born savior, who is to come in 2341 A.D. and begin his ministry at age thirty, ushering in a golden age. This aspect will be dealt with in the section below, regarding messianic considerations. Suggested theological influence on Christianity The basis for arguing that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism and, subsequently, Christianity, is the premise that the Hebrews, while under captivity in Persia, became tainted with Zoroastrian beliefs which were not part of Judaism prior to the captivity.

173

These beliefs include a formal angelology with an established hierarchy, the doctrine of immortality and bodily resurrection, a virgin-born Savior having supernatural abilities, a concept of a final judgment, and the idea of a supreme evil being such as Satan. Before taking a look at these concepts which are supposed to be exclusively post-exilic in nature, it first serves to examine the nature of the Babylonian exile and its effect on the Hebrews. The national effect of the exile on the Hebrew population The Hebrew captivity did not occur overnight. According to Jeremiah, the Babylonian captivity of the Hebrews took place over three deportations (Jer 52:28-30). The first deportation occurred in 597 B.C. (2 Kings 24:10-16), the second in 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25:1-21), and the third in 581 B.C. (Jer 52:30). The captivity ended in 539 B.C. when Cyrus the Great permitted the Hebrews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple, which was razed during the second deportation. Thus, the total period of time during which the Hebrews were under captivity in Persia was fifty-eight years. The estimated population of the kingdom of Judah at the time of the exile was at least 120,000,8 but the number of people taken captive through all three deportations is believed to have been 48,000, about one-third of the total population. Upon Cyrus’ decree, approximately 1,800 men, or 6,000 people in all, returned to Jerusalem (Ezra ch 8) under Ezra’s leadership. The social effect of the exile on the Hebrew people The Babylonian captivity of the Hebrews was not such that the captives were held under lock and key in rat-infested dungeons or made to serve their Persian captors at the behest of a whip. Rather, they lived a more pleasurable lifestyle than did those who were not taken into captivity. The captives were allowed to engage in family life, work the ground, and even accrue wealth (Jer 29:5-7). With some exceptions under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule, the Hebrews were even allowed to continue certain aspects of their religion. Although they were unable to observe the annual Hebrew feasts, they were permitted to engage in undisturbed practice of such things as circumcision, fasting and prayer, and the keeping of the Sabbath day (Hosea 9:3-5). Because of such favorable conditions, some of the captive Hebrews grew comfortable in their newfound state and gradually lost their devotion to their former homeland. For this reason, the Hebrews who returned to Jerusalem following the exile were but a portion of the original lot. In fact, some even remained behind in Persia, having given themselves to inter-cultural marriages, a thing which was forbidden in Mosaic Law. Consequently, some of the Hebrews forsook their beliefs and embraced the religion of the pagans, thus causing a rift among the Hebrew captives, between those who remained faithful to their religion and those who abandoned it in favor of another. Of those who remained true to Judaism, their devotion to Judaism grew even stronger, in response to the apostasy of their brethren. The true pain of the captivity was the national humiliation felt by the Hebrew people, being subject, although not oppressively so, to their Persian captors. It is

174

this humiliation which the Hebrew prophets lamented, being removed from the land promised to the Hebrews as part of the covenant God made with Abraham. The Hebrews also suffered harsh ridicule by their captors for their pious religion. The ruined state of their nation was perceived by the Persians as weakness on the part of Jehovah for His inability to preserve His people as a nation, rather than recognizing, as did the prophets, their captive state as a consequence of national sin. These prophets became the object of ridicule even by their own people – those who had embraced Babylonian religion and culture. The spirit of the post-exile Hebrews Upon the decree of Cyrus, those who remained devoted to the faith of their father Abraham returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, re-establish their former system of ceremonies and observances, and maintain the devotion to Judaism, a devotion which they upheld during their time in captivity. Those who lost such devotion remained behind or left for lands elsewhere. Rather than engaging in festive celebrations, those who returned from captivity spent their days in penance and prayer (Zech 7:3 and 8:19). Since the return of the exiles occurred only fifty-eight years after the captivity began, many of those who were alive at the beginning of the exile, and observant of the strict and rigid Mosaic Law and monotheistic religion, were among those to return to Jerusalem to reinstate their former religious system. Had the return of the exiles been a generation or two later than it was, the remnant of the pre-exilic Hebrews would be drastically reduced, if not altogether non-present, among the population, thereby giving way for the possibility of a drastic revision of Judaism from its original character, being revived by those who knew nothing of what it was to experience firsthand the sacrificial system of the Temple. However, since the post-exilic Hebrews had among them an elderly generation who knew firsthand and by experience what was the original structure and style of Judaism, that original character and performance of their religion was able to be revived in post-exilic Palestine. Those who, young and old, remained true to Judaism during the exile saw to it that, that system of religion was revived without the blemish of pagan influence or perversion, the younger generation taking its cue and direction from the elder generation, under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah. Dating the book of Daniel The book of Daniel contains references to beliefs which are said to have emerged among the Hebrews as a result of a merger between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, references such as the naming of certain angels (Michael and Gabriel) and a day of judgment. Therefore, it is important to determine when the book was written, for the further removed it is from the captivity, then greater is the possibility of the book containing reflections of pagan influence. As stated above, the Babylonian captivity was from 597-539 B.C. There are two general dates for the book of Daniel. The first suggested date is c.165 B.C. and those who hold to this date generally view the book as fiction. The second suggested date is during the first half of the exile, or between 597-565 B.C. Those who hold this view regard the book to be historical in nature. The

175

majority of scholars agree that the book was written during the exile, since the later date is unreasonable, as linguistic evidence strongly suggests. It is widely recognized that the books which make up the canon of the Old Testament Scriptures were all written prior to 400 B.C., and for this reason the 400 year period between the closing of the Old Testament canon and the time of Christ is referred to as the “silent years.” The real influence There are two main reasons for assuming that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. The first assumption is the belief that the last written books of the Old Testament hold a date later than that which is traditionally agreed upon by majority consensus among scholarship. As stated above, these books were all composed prior to 400 B.C., only within a century and a half of the Babylonian exile which ended in 539 B.C. Other books, such as Job (written c.1300 B.C.) and the books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy, c.1400 B.C.), are incorrectly dated in order to conform to the assumption based on a late dating of certain books. Evidence for an early writing of Job will be discussed shortly hereafter. The second assumption is that the Old Testament books written prior to the exile do not contain references to certain beliefs expressed in exilic and post-exilic prophecy, such as bodily resurrection, a supremely evil being, a final judgment, a meta-human savior, etc. This assumption will be proven false in the following section. When the books of the Old Testament are dated with accuracy, and the theology of later pre-Christian Judaism is shown to be consistent with early preChristian Judaism, it becomes obvious that if there was indeed any borrowing of concepts, it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Judaism, not vice-versa. It must also be remembered that Zoroastrianism is a religion which emerged, according to popular consensus, just within a hundred years prior to the beginning of the exile. The idea that an ancient religion such as Judaism would be influenced by a new religion (or, more properly named a cult) is simply untenable. It may be asked: what about the mythical character of the books of the Apocrypha? It is true the Apocryphal books, dating closer to the Christian era, contain elements (such as a more elaborate angelic hierarchy) not found in the books recognized among the Old Testament canon, and it is for this reason they are not considered among the books of Scripture.

176

Main beliefs of Zoroastrianism, in comparison with Christianity 1. The supreme God The Zoroastrian belief Zoroastrianism recognizes a supreme triad of deities, the greatest of which is Ahura Mazda. The Avesta, the scripture of Zoroastrianism, describes him as eternal, all-seeing, all-knowing, mighty and great, just and righteous, transcendent, unchanging, the creator of all things, and the source of goodness and happiness. He is commonly represented by fire, and for this reason fire is a sacred element to Zoroastrians. The other two supreme beings in this triad is Mitra, or Mithra, and Varuna, but it is Ahura Mazda who reigns supreme over the other two and to whom Zoroastrians offer their worship. Evaluation Christianity also recognizes a Divine Trinity*, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Each person of the Trinity is equal in nature, essence, and being. Neither person is separate from the other, but the three form a single unified Godhead. The Godhead is eternal, holy, sovereign, immutable, transcendent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, just, pure, and good. The plurality within the Christian Godhead is recognized in the Old Testament and was believed by the Hebrew people long before their Babylonian exile. The Old Testament recognizes a figure named the Angel of the Lord. This Angel is distinct from other angels in Scripture, for He is recognized as a physical manifestation God Himself. What more, this Angel is seen conversing with God (for a fuller treatment of the Angel of the Lord, see Part five). Also, the name Elohim (used numerous times in preexilic Hebrew Scripture) denotes a plurality of being, rather than a single Person within the Godhead. It is this name used in the creation account when it is said that God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). Also, in the creation account, and elsewhere in Scripture, God is said to speak amongst Himself in the plural tense, as when, in the Genesis creation account, “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image.’” The idea of a plurality in the Godhead did not arise from the Zoroastrian religion; but rather, existed as an element in Judaism long before the captivity. The god of Zoroastrianism is not a god who is zealous to preserve a people unto himself, as is the God of the Bible. Ahura Mazda leaves the work of redemption to man himself, rather than providing a way to redeem people who are unable to provide their own redemption. While it is said he created man, he seems more content to leave man to his own devices , then sit back and hope for the best, rather than sovereignly governing man in accordance with his own will. On the contrary, the God of Israel provided for them a legal code, given through Moses, by which they were instructed in the proper way of life and conduct. He is a God Who is both loved and feared by His devotees. In contrast, Ahura Mazda is more of a buddy god, rather than a holy god at whose word people tremble. * The person and nature of God will be addressed further in Part five of this work.

177

2. Polytheistic beliefs The Zoroastrian belief In addition to the triad of deities made up of Ahura Mazda, Mithra, and Varuna, Zoroastrianism also recognizes six lesser deities known as the Amesha Spentas (“Bountiful Immortals”), each being the embodiment of one of Ahura Mazda’s attributes, as listed below: Vohu Mano – The spirit of the good purpose Asha – The spirit of righteousness Khshatra – The spirit of sovereignty or dominion Armaiti – The spirit of devotion and love Haurvatat – The spirit of perfection and wholeness Ameretat – The spirit of immortality. Although the Amesha Spentas are believed to be representative of certain aspects of god’s being, they are not considered as being equal to the supreme god Ahura Mazda. Nevertheless, they do participate in activities strictly assigned to god, such as taking part in creating the cosmos. In addition, these ones are worshiped as god, as stated in the Zoroastrian scriptures: “We worship the good, strong, beneficent Fravashis [ancestral spirits] of the Amesha Spentas...who are all seven of one thought, who are all seven of one speech, who are all seven of one deed..."9 These deities were not part of Zarathushtra’s original vision, but were added later as a result of prince Vishtaspa’s conversion to the religion. These six spirits serve as an aid to Ahura Mazda in his divine efforts in protecting good and containing evil, tasks which he has in fact turned over to man. Evaluation In contrast, Judaism has its angels, but these ones are not revered as deity. In fact, in the Old Testament, when a man is said to bow before an angel, the angel responds with words of rebuke. In addition, when the Hebrew people forsook their religion to worship a god other than Yahweh, they suffered harsh consequences, such as pestilence, famine, captivity, and death, among other forms of judgment. The Old Testament expressly describes the God of Israel as “one God,” and that, apart from Him, there is “no other.” (for more on the oneness of God, see Part five) In Judaic and Christian doctrine, angels are created spiritual beings who serve God, not as ones possessing the attributes of God, but as God’s messengers to man (the word “angel” is derived from “angelos,” meaning “messenger”). In Scripture, only two angels are mentioned by name: Michael and Gabriel. A further identification of angels was provided in the apocryphal book Enoch I in which angels are identified by the names Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Zerachiel and Remiel, but this book is outside the books recognized as Scripture since the earliest days of the church. The New Testament ambiguously lists types of spiritual beings in Ephesians 1:21 (named as “rule, authority, power, and dominion”) and Colossians 1:16 (named as “thrones, dominions,

178

principalities, and powers”), but does not provide a definite angelic hierarchy as does apocryphal literature. It was not until centuries after Christ that a formal angelic hierarchy developed, which appeared in Pseudo-Dionysius’ Celestial Hierarchy (fourth or fifth century A.D.) and Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (c.1250 A.D.). In these writings, the authors took it upon themselves to expand upon Paul’s letters to Ephesus and Colosse. 3. Spirits of malevolence The Zoroastrian belief Zoroastrianism teaches there is a force known as the Druj (that is, the 'Lie'), which is at war with Ahura Mazda. The principal being in service to the Druj is Angra Mainyu (meaning “destructive spirit”), the archenemy of Ahura Mazda. As Ahura Mazda is the supreme good, so is Angra Mainyu the supreme evil. Angra Mainyu is the source of all evil, as Ahura Mazda is the source of all good. It is from this evil spirit that such things as sickness, disaster, disease, death, and hardship comes to man. As Zoroastrianism developed and elaborated on its doctrine, Angra Mainyu was given seven Amesha-stentas, each corresponding to one of his attributes, as the Amesha Spentas correspond to Ahura Mazda’s attributes and stand as their opposite. The Amesha-stentas are named as follows (in contrast to the seven good spirits): Amesha Spentas Asha (The spirit of righteousness) Vbhu monah (The spirit of good purpose) Kshathra (The spirit of sovereignty or dominion) Armaiti (The spirit of devotion and love) Haurvatat (The spirit of perfection and wholeness) Ameretat (The spirit of immortality)

Amesha-stentas Drui (The spirit of falsehood) Akem (The spirit of evil mind) Dush-kshathra (The spirit of cowardice) Taromaiti (The spirit of false pretense) Avetat (The spirit of misery) Merethyn (The spirit of annihilation)

Zoroastrianism also recognizes six beings, known as the Daevas, on a lower rung of the demonic ladder, beneath the Amesha-stentas. The Zoroastrian Daevas are described as neutral spirits, although they do promote chaos and engage in deceitful activities. The Daevas are named as follows: Akoman (the evil mind) Indra-vayu (death) Saurva (disease) Nanhaithya (a daeva related to the Vedic god Nasatya)

179

Tauru (identification of this daeva is ambiguous) Zairi (the daeva of the sacred narcotic drink Haoma, used in some Zoroastrian rituals) Evaluation Angra Mainyu, the archenemy of Ahura Mazda, is not one which can be likened to Satan, since Angra Mainyu is described as being as eternal, uncreated, and powerful as Ahura Mazda. In fact, he and Ahura Mazda are referred to as the “Twin Spirits.”10 In contrast, the Christian concept of Satan is that he is a being created by God, cast from God’s presence for his disobedience, seeks to corrupt God’s creation, and will one day be cast into everlasting damnation. Such is unlike the description of Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda is not a being who reigns supremely, else Angra Mainyu would not be described as being equal with deity. In Scripture, it is stated that the demons’ belief in God causes them to tremble (Jas 2:19), whereas the Zoroastrian devil is one who is capable of vying with god himself. Critics charge Judaism and Christianity with borrowing the idea of a supreme evil being, such as Satan or Lucifer, from Zoroastrian beliefs. The fact is that Judaism held to a belief in Satan, or the devil, long before the Babylonian captivity. One of the oldest books of the Old Testament is the book of Job, in which it is said: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:6-12) Scholarship holds the date of writing of the book of Job to be prior to the Hebrews’ bondage to Egypt and subsequent deliverance under Moses’ leadership. Thus, Job was written during the days of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph). Such is the view of the Talmud, a view which is expressed in the social, political, and religious structure described in Job. The patriarchal family-clan organization described in Job mirrors the pre-Exodus period described in the latter portions of the book of Genesis. Also, in Job, the sacrificial offerings are presented to the Lord by the head of a family, as it was before the Egyptian bondage, rather than by an officiating priest, as it has been

180

since the days of Moses. Finally, the lifestyle and lifespan of those mentioned in Job more closely resembles a composition during the age of the Patriarchs, rather than a later era. In addition to Job, the book of Psalms, also written prior to the exile, mentions Satan by name in Psalm 109:6 “Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.” The status of Angra Mainyu does not resemble that of Satan, for Satan, while he does oppose God and seeks to destroy His creation, is not one who is opposite to God in being, for he is neither all-powerful nor eternal in nature. In at least one passage of the Avesta (Yasna 57.17) Angra Mainyu is said to have created the world along with Ahura Mazda, despite Ahura Mazda being described elsewhere as the “sole creator.” This is in stark contrast to the prophet Ezekiel’s declaration concerning Satan: "You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." (Ez 28:15, NASB) The census of David: The Old Testament contains a pair of verses which give a parallel account of an event during the life of King David when he conducted a census of the people of his kingdom, yet the two verses also contain a striking contrast in that God and Satan are described as instructing David to order the task. And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2 Sam 24:1 NASB) And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (I Ch 21:1 NASB) This parallel account is believed by some to serve as proof that Judaism borrowed the idea of Satan from the Zoroastrian concept of Angra Mainyu, especially since the books of the Chronicles are believed to have been written, as scholarship agrees, around 450-400 B.C., after the Babylonian exile. This is in contrast to the writing of the books of Samuel, which majority rule dates somewhere between 913-722 B.C. As previously stated, pre-exilic Hebrew poetry contains mention of the person of Satan in the book of Job and in the Psalms. How then can the above discrepancy be explained if it was not due to a revision of concepts? First of all, it must be noted that the capitalization of “he” in the KJV translation of Second Samuel is an error on the part of the translators of that version, an error which is corrected in later English translations. Second, the numbering of the people was a thing forbidden in the Mosaic Law (Ex 30:12, below); therefore, God could not be the one who ordered

181

David to conduct the census, since God cannot sin nor break His own Law. As a result of the census, God brought a pestilence against Israel which killed 70,000 men. When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to those that are numbered of them, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto Jehovah, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. (Ex 30:12) Third, David’s counselor, Joab, was aware that the numbering of the people was an act reserved for God, not man, and so he challenged David’s order. And Joab said unto the king, Now Jehovah thy God add unto the people, how many soever they may be, a hundredfold; and may the eyes of my lord the king see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? (2 Sam 24:3) Fourth, David himself became aware that his act was an act of iniquity and a cause for punishment. Had the order come from God, David would not have been in the wrong in numbering the people, for “for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man.” (Jas 1:13) And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto Jehovah, I have sinned greatly in that which I have done: but now, O Jehovah, put away, I beseech thee, the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. (2 Sam 24:10) As Matthew Henry explains, “We are sure that God is not the author of sin— he tempts no man; and therefore, when it is said that he moved David to do it, it must be explained by what is intimated here, that, for wise and holy ends, he permitted the devil to do it.”11 4. The duality of good and evil The Zoroastrian belief Zoroastrianism believes in a duality of good (“asha,” i.e., truth and order).and evil (“druj,” i.e. chaos), which will come to an end in a future time when Ahura Mazda will triumph over evil. This duality of good and evil is seen in various fashions: in the opposing forces within the cosmos, the inner conflict on man to choose either good or evil, and the battle between the two supreme beings, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. The duality is believed to have originated when the two “Twin Spirits,” Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, chose opposing directions. The former chose good thoughts, words, and deeds, whereas his twin, Angra Mainyu, chose the evil counterpart of these. “Now at the dawn of life the Twin Spirits, which were dormant at first, did unfold themselves In their thoughts, in their words, and in their deeds they

182

are of two kinds -- on the one hand Better and on the other hand Worse. And between these two, the Wise discriminate rightly; not so the Unwise.”12 Following in Angra Mainyu’s path, the daevas chose to align themselves with him and has since been the bane of mankind.13 Evaluation According to Judaism and Christianity, God is infinitely good. Evil is nowhere expressed in Scripture as possessing the same infinite quality as goodness. Satan is not God’s “twin,” striving against Him as His equal. In order for something to be good, there must be an opposite standard against which it is judged. God is good, not only because if what He is; but also, because of what He is not. God is infinitely good, but Satan is not infinitely evil, else God’s sovereignty would be of no effect. Were there a second “sovereign” force in the universe, apart from God, then no one would be sovereign at all, for to be such requires the right and possession of authority and power over all others. 5. The nature of man The Zoroastrian belief According to Zoroastrianism, man was created “like god.” According to their doctrine, divinity is inherent in man’s constitution, and as such, man has the ability not to sin; but rather, to perform “good thoughts, good words, and good deeds” all day, every day. Zoroastrians believe that man is born sinless and that he becomes guilty of sin by making wrong choices in life, choices for which he is nonetheless responsible. When man does make wrong choices, they say, he does not become sinful either in thought, word, or deed, although he has committed a wrongdoing. This inherent divinity within man prevents him from becoming evil himself – only his thoughts, words, or deeds become evil, while the man himself remains sinless and divine. As the creation of Ahura Mazda, man is also responsible to maintain creation and preserve it from evil as much as possible. This act of preservation on the part of man is made a reality due to the inherent divinity within man. Because he is “like god,” he is capable of overthrowing evil and “assisting god.” It is thorough man’s good choices that evil will eventually be eradicated, when every man on earth has chosen good rather than evil, and “heaven on earth” will be a reality. Evaluation In the Zoroastrian creation account, Ahura Mazda creates the first man and woman, Mashye and Mashyane, created from earthen matter and made to be like the gods. The Hebrew account of creation, while it does describe the first man as created from earthen matter (the first woman was created from a rib taken from Adam), neither Adam nor Eve was created to be like God. They were created in God’s image (Gen chs 1-2), but they were not created to be divine beings. Such a concept of likeness with deity was a lie of the serpent which deceived Eve (Gen 3:4-5). According to Zoroastrian doctrine, man possesses inherent divinity. According to Biblical doctrine, man is born in sin, has no inherent divinity, and is in no way likened to God.

183

The Zoroastrian view of man is so drastically different from both the Judaic and Christian view of man that any supposed Babylonian influence on either system of doctrine is absolutely preposterous. First, man is not “like God.” Man was created in a state of innocence, but not in a state of perfection. He was able not to sin, but he was also able to sin. After committing sin, man became sin in and of himself, for his very nature was changed from that of innocence to that of corruption. Following that transformation of nature, the state of being in sin comes not the result of what a man does; but rather, what he is. Zoroastrianism teaches that man is neither fallen (from his original state of sinlessness), depraved, nor sinful. The truth is that man’s thoughts, words, and deeds of man are a reflection of his heart, and it is that which makes man guilty of sin. If it were only man’s thoughts, words, and deeds which were sinful, while the man himself remained sinless, then Ahura Mazda would be unjust in passing negative judgment on anyone, for the man himself would remain sinless and divine, although he had committed sin. Thus, Ahura Mazda himself would become guilty of sin, for he would be condemning the innocent to a punishment for a sin he did not commit in and of himself. In other words, he would be condemning man for the appearance of sin, although the man actually still remained sinless. Such a belief implies an impossible division within the makeup of man, a division which separates his being from his thoughts, words, and deeds. In a court of law, if the defense attorney made his case on the grounds that his client’s actions were guilty of the alleged crime, but his client himself is innocent of the charge, his logic, as well as his capability to practice law, would no doubt come into question. So it is here, that the actions, words, or thoughts of man cannot be separated from the man himself, a feat which Zoroastrianism attempts to accomplish. Second, the Zoroastrian view of man makes God man's partner in the perfection of mankind, for it is by the choices of man that evil will be eradicated. Some so-called “Christian” bumper stickers claim that “God is my co-pilot.” Such an expression reflects the sad state of the contemporary church, which tends to attribute more sovereignty to man than it does to God, as if God has resigned His sovereignty to man and is sitting on His great white throne with His fingers crossed, hoping for the best. The Biblical view of God’s sovereignty is that which perceives Him in the following regard: As wholly authoritative, He possesses the legal right to do what He pleases. As wholly powerful, He possesses the means to do as He pleases. As wholly transcendent, He holds the surety that these means will not be challenged. As wholly righteous, He provides the guarantee that His purpose is good.

184

Such a god-like view of man as seen in the Zoroastrian religion does not at all bear a resemblance to the intrinsically corrupt view of man as portrayed in the Bible, nor does it bear a resemblance to the infinitely sovereign God of the Bible who directs all things according to His purpose and who will be the one and only Victor over evil. Third, Zoroastrians believe they earn favor with God by fulfilling the maxim “Good thoughts, good words, good deeds.” As such, it is a religion of works, not of grace. It follows then that any benevolent response by Ahura Mazda to a faithful and true devotee is simply the god’s obligation to reward that for which he would be unjust in pronouncing negative judgment. According to Judaic and Christian doctrine, man is absolutely incapable of gaining the favor of God, and for this reason Christ agreed to submit to the Father’s will and offer Himself as a sacrifice by which such favor would be assuredly granted to those for whom the sacrifice was made. Nowhere in the Avesta will there be found passages such as those below: As it is written, There is none righteous, not even one. (Rom 3:10, NASB) For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23, NASB) 6. The path of redemption The Zoroastrian belief The way of salvation for the Zoroastrian is to adhere to the central maxim of the religion: “Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds.” In so doing the devotee remains sinless (which he should already be, by virtue of his supposed divinity), pure, and free from evil. Aside from the three-fold maxim, Ahura Mazda provides little further instruction for a code of conduct. Zarathushtra never received a book of the law, written in stone or otherwise. However, by studying the teaching of Zarathushtra, man may receive generalized guidance on how he should live. The more severe the sin, the more severe is the punishment, up to and including death. Evil thoughts, evil words, and evil deeds may be involve the obvious sins, such as theft, murder, adultery, deceit, and the like; but also, equally forbidden is pollution, abstaining from prayer and religious ceremonies, not wearing the sacred Zoroastrian garments (the kusti and the kadre) as prescribed, improper business practices, marrying in a manner other than that described in the scriptures, improper burial practices, and touching dead matter. Evaluation In contrast, the way of redemption for the Christian is anything but by the keeping of good works. The apostle James describes works as a fruit of one’s faith. Jesus said He is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” and that “no man comes to the Father except through [Him].” (Jn 14:6) Elsewhere, it is said that “there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.”

185

(Acts 4:12) The only good work by which any man is redeemed is the work of Christ, in His giving of Himself as a sacrifice for sin. Through His offering of Himself, man is forgiven and justified in the sight of God. This is the teaching of the New Testament writers and it was the preaching of the Old Testament prophets. The Hebrew code of Law also forbade certain marriage practices, ethical business practices, and an abstinence from coming into contact with certain things deemed unclean, either physically or spiritually. However, such a code of Law was established in the days of Moses, approximately eight hundred years before the advent of Zoroastrianism. If the Zoroastrian mode of salvation was an influence on the post-exilic Hebrews and the composers of the Gospels and letters of the New Testament, then we would have a completely different version of the life of Christ and apostolic teaching than is expressed in the Christian Bible. Gone would be the inability of man to redeem himself, for his inner divinity would certainly shine through as a beacon guiding a ship lost at sea. Gone would be the cross and the resurrection, for such would be unnecessary for man’s redemption. Gone would be the exhortations to be like Christ, for man’s inner divinity would supply him with such lofty status. The fact is, the Zoroastrian way of salvation is no salvation at all, for it leaves man to his own devices, and the end thereof is the way of death. As Josh McDowell explains, "Zoroastrianism believes that a person earns favor with God by his good works. There is no answer to the sin problem of mankind, for the difference between a good man and a bad man is considered to be only relative. According to the Bible, there is no one who is good enough on his own to make it to heaven. This is why Jesus Christ had to die on the cross, to solve the problem of sin."14 7. Religious observances The Zoroastrian belief Zoroastrians have several means of pleasing the gods. Yasnas are purifying rituals, performed in a temple and officiated by a priest, by which channels of communication are said to be opened between the participants and a deity or spiritual being recognized by Zoroastrians. Devotees are to offer five prayers at set times daily. The chanting of Manthras (by which the devotees and the world around them are purified), verses from the Avesta, and participating in religious festivals are also a means of gaining favor with the gods. Through the Manthras, devotees are believed to be performing the three-fold maxim of the religion. Children of devotees are inducted into the religion through Naujote, an initiatory ceremony. None of the above mentioned ceremonies resemble any observance held by Christians. Zoroastrians do observe the Jashan ceremony, which some have hailed as a close resemblance to the remembrance of the Lord's Supper. The Jashan (a word meaning “important occasion”) is performed for two purposes: 1) in conjunction with certain religious festivals or to honor birthdays or memorialize historical events, or 2) as a mourning ceremony to memorialize tragic events or the death of loved ones.15 The Lord's Supper, while being a ceremony of remembrance of

186

the sacrifice of Christ, is a solemn communal meal serving to recognize the covenant God made with His people that by His blood shall they forever be free of the guilt of sin and be named as sons of God. The Jashan ceremony bears no such significance. Additionally, the elements used in the Jashan ceremony are fruits, nuts, and malido (wheat pudding), each placed in metallic trays and laid out on a white cloth on the floor, upon which are placed a minimum of twentyfour flower petals, laid on the cloth in a set order. In the center of the cloth is placed a Divo (oil-lamp) and an Afarganyu (Fire-vase) with a burning flame, fed and tended to by the priest during the ritual. A beaker of water, a pot of milk, and a glass of wine are also used in the ceremony. None of the elements used serve as a representation of the body and blood of a savior. Rather, the elements of the ritual serve as symbols of the seven Bounteous Immortals, the guardians of the seven creations of Ahura Mazda. The representation is as follows: Bounteous Immortals Khshathra Vairya Hauravatat Spenta Armaiti Ameretat Vohu Manoh Spenta Mainyu Asha

Represented by metallic implements (used to feed the flame) water place of ceremony flowers and fruits the milk in the pot the performers fire

Created element Sky Water Earth Planets Cattle Man Fire

After the elements are laid out, a series of prayers are recited, along with a reading of Yasna 35. During the ceremony, the priest invokes a deity and gives honor to the dead through a complex and rigid series of movements of, and interaction with, the elements. As Dr. Jivanji Modi explains, “this process symbolizes that a soul has to come down to this physical world, move about in this world and then pass away to the next spiritual world with the triad of good thoughts, words, and deeds.”16 The ceremony closes with the recital of the Doa Tan Doroshti, a benediction for the health, happiness, and prosperity of the participants of the ceremony, as well as for the well-being of the community and mankind. Evaluation In a typical church service, the observance of the Lords Supper begins with the pastor explaining the meaning of the observance, along with a reading of the following passage: For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the

187

Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor 11:23-30 NASB) Then, either the bread (or wafer) or wine (or grape juice) is distributed, which, following a prayer, is consumed by the congregation. The second element is then distributed in the same manner. Following the consumption of the two elements, another prayer is given, typically in thanks for the sacrifice made by Christ in the offering of His own body and blood. Clearly, the Lord's Supper and the Jashan ceremonies bear no resemblance in the character of the ceremony, the conduct of the participants, the elements involved, and, most importantly, the meaning behind the ceremony. A typical communal meal is not the same as the communal meal observed by Christians when they partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The differences between the Christian sacrament and pagan communal meals will be discussed in Part four, but here it will suffice to say that pagan communal meals do not involve a symbolic representation of the body and blood of a person in the elements which are consumed by the participants, as does the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper. The significance of the Lord's Supper sacrament is that it is in remembrance Christ's offering of His body and blood as atonement for sin, thus reconciling God and man. If that aspect is removed from the sacrament, then the sacrament itself becomes meaningless and any such comparison to the Jashan becomes null and void. Also, the Eucharist is a practice which was a later addition to certain schools of thought within Christianity, and does not have actual basis in Scripture. In the Eucharist, the elements are said to undergo Transubstantiation, in which they are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ while yet retaining the characteristics by which the elements are perceived by the senses. Such a revision of the Lord’s Supper was not contrived until centuries after Jesus met with His disciples in the upper room on the night of His betrayal. Additionally, Zoroastrianism also observes a ritual involving the hallucinogenic haoma plant, from which juice is extracted and consumed by the participants as a means of attaining immortality. The plant itself is so named after Haoma, a chief priest who Zarathushtra believed to be the son of Ahura Mazda and perpetually present among man in the incarnation of the haoma plant. Such a rite bears no significance to the Lord’s Supper, for it involves no remembrance of an atonement, nor does participation in the Lord’s Supper ceremony bestow salvation – rather, it is because one has been redeemed that he or she may participate in the observance.

188

Finally, the rituals of Zoroastrianism involve occult practices such as channeling (communication with spirit beings) and necromancy (communication with the dead), and such practices are strictly forbidden in Scripture. In the Old Testament, the punishment for engaging in such practices was severe. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts out a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, NASB). 8. The commission of prophets and the savior of man The Zoroastrian belief Zarathushtra is the first prophet through whom Ahura Mazda revealed truth to man, and it is through his teaching that man can be instructed in the way of righteousness. Zoroastrian devotees believe Zarathushtra’s birth marked the beginning the current cycle of creation, a cycle which would last for three thousand years. Following Zarathushtra, a prophet would appear to man every one thousand years. The first to appear would be Hushedar; the second, Hushedarmah; and the third, Saoshyant, or “savior,” who will appear in 2341 A.D. to usher in the Judgment Day and the destruction of evil. These three prophets would all come into the world in the same fashion: by being born of a virgin after she conceived as a result of bathing in a river in which was contained the preserved seed of Zarathushtra. The third prophet, the Saoshyant, will appear at the end of time to be the final judge of man and eradicate evil once for all. The Saoshyant’s conception and early life is described in Dēnkard 7: “Thirty years before the decisive final battle, a maiden named Eredat-fedhri [i.e. "Victorious Helper"] and whose nickname is "Body-maker" will enter a lake [believed to be present-day Lake Helmand, in Seistan, Iran]. Sitting in the water, the girl, who has not associated with men will receive victorious knowledge. Her son, when born, will not know nourishment from his mother, his body will be sun-like, and the royal glory of Khwarenah will be with him. Then, for the next fifty-seven years he will subsist on only vegetables [for 17 years], then only water [for 30 years] and for then [for the final 10 years] only on spiritual food.”17 Evaluation The Dēnkard, from which the above passage was quoted, was not written until the ninth or tenth century. Prior to that time, the Zoroastrian scriptures only briefly mentioned the coming of a savior, in Yasht 19. “That will cleave unto the victorious Saoshyant and his helpers, when he shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never

189

die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish; … Astvat-ereta [‘he who embodies truth’] shall rise up from Lake Kasava [Kasaoya], a friend of Ahura Mazda, a son of Vispataurvairi [‘she who conquers all’], knowing the victorious knowledge.” The role of the Saoshyant in Zoroastrian eschatology did not fully develop until after the composition of the Dēnkard. Prior to that time, it was believed that either Zarathushtra himself or a future son would return to the world at the end of time to eradicate evil. The expansion of the savior idea from one to three persons did not develop until after the ninth century A.D. Also, it was not until this time that the notion of a virgin birth was added to the belief, a notion which was likely borrowed from the Christian account of the birth of Christ. Any attempt to claim that Christianity borrowed the idea of a virgin birth from Zoroastrianism is to date the Zoroastrianism belief in virgin birth prior to its actual emergence within the religion. Dating aside, the Zoroastrian savior differs greatly from the person of Jesus Christ. First, the Saoshyant, although said to be born of a virgin, was not conceived through virginal conception, but by the preserved human seed of Zarathushtra. In the case of Jesus, the fetus was formed in the womb of Mary without male seed. As mentioned previously, the Saoshyant's mother is to become impregnated after bathing in the river containing Zarathushtra's preserved seed. Thus, the true method of the Saoshyant's conception is by artificial insemination, not virginal conception. Today, when a woman utilizes a sperm bank and is injected with the frozen sperm of a donor, her child is certainly, and rightfully, not recognized as being the product of a virgin birth. Whether the seed is preserved supernaturally in a river or scientifically through a sperm bank, it is still human seed by which the subject is artificially inseminated; therefore, no virgin birth can be attributed to either scenario. Second, the Saoshyant does not save people from evil by making them guilt-free, nor does his saving work resemble that of Christ. The Saoshyant does not take upon himself the wrongdoings of man. He is said to be a judge, but, as will be seen shortly, his judgment is not just, for, in the end, everyone, both the “good” and the wicked, is blessed with eternal happiness, regardless of what deeds were performed in life. Third, the details of the life of Christ fulfilled prophecy which was announced prior to the emergence of the Zoroastrian religion in the sixth or seventh century. In addition to the earlier books of Scripture, such as the Psalms, the prophet Isaiah (740-680 B.C.) foretold the Messiah would be virgin-born, although such was not recognized as a Messianic prophecy until after the birth of Christ. Micah (eighth century B.C.) foretold that Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah. Jeremiah (627-586

190

B.C.), a contemporary of Zarathushtra, foretold Herod’s slaughter of the children. Hosea (790-686 BC) foretold Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt, which occurred prior to Herod’s slaughter. Fourth, the Saoshyant was only as divine as any other man, as regarded by Zoroastrian beliefs concerning the previously mentioned inherent divinity assumed to be within all men. According to the religion, Saoshyant will be a son of Zarathushtra, not directly descended from Ahura Mazda, but born from the preserved seed of Zarathushtra. He will be fully human, as Jesus was fully human (although not conceived by means of human seed), but will be no more divine than Bob the car salesman, or Jane the housewife, or any other person throughout history, since divinity is believed to be a part of man’s inherent constitution. Prior to the emergence of Zoroastrianism, Isaiah prophesied concerning the nature of the coming Messiah. In so doing, he identified the Messiah as God Himself by attributing to Him names which can only be attributed to God, such as “Mighty God, everlasting Father (a term denoting eternality – see Part four),” and “Immanuel” (meaning, “God with us”). Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa 7:14) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isa 9:9-7) The passage above also identifies the Messiah as one who will sit on the throne of David, a position which no man could claim following the reign of King Jehoiachin, the last descendant of King David to ever sit on the throne. God’s covenant to David was that He would maintain the throne of David forever, but after Jehoiachin’s reign a curse was pronounced on David’s lineage that no “man of his seed” will ever again sit on David’s throne. The pronouncement of this curse on the royal lineage was due to the sin of Jehoiachin’s father, Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim was a vile king and his reign was marked with pagan idol worship and human sacrifice. Because of Jehoiakim’s sin, the royal lineage of David came to an end with the reign of Jehoiachin. The passages below state that God’s covenant with David is for an everlasting kingdom: Although my [David’s] house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and

191

sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow. (2 Sam. 23:5) The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. (Ps. 132:11) I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. (Ps. 89:3-4) My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. (Ps. 89:34) The pronouncement of the curse on David’s lineage: Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. … Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Jer 22:30, 23:5-6) The curse resulting from Jehoiakim’s sin prevented any man in David’s lineage from reigning as king, yet David’s kingdom was to be an everlasting kingdom. The fulfillment of the covenant made with David was through the birth of Jesus Christ. As God, born of a woman, Jesus was removed from being of David’s physical seed, and therefore separated from the curse placed upon David’s lineage. However, as the legal son of Joseph, a descendant of David, Jesus became the legal heir to David’s throne. It is through this that Jesus met the qualifications for Davidic kingship that such a king shall not be of the seed of man (which Jesus was not by virtue of virginal conception), but shall still be of the seed of David (which Jesus legally became through Joseph’s parentage). At His birth, Jesus not only received the right to be man’s Redeemer; but also, the legal right to depose Roman rule and establish His physical throne in Jerusalem, and in that sense He truly was “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” as mockingly written on a superscription placed above His head as He hung on the cross. Presently, the throne of David is in heaven, where Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, until the day when His throne will be physically established among man and He will reign as the Most High King. In relation to this, the Hebrews would not have fabricated a Messiah Who was God in the flesh, for such a concept was abhorrent to the Hebrews

192

and contrary to the high elevation they placed on God, as opposed to the lowly estate held by man. More on this point will be stated in Part six. Fifth, since the Zoroastrian savior is a man conceived by human seed, although supernaturally so, his existence did not precede his conception, as was the case with Jesus. A fuller treatment of Jesus’ pre-existence will be presented in Part five. None of the three prophet-saviors recognized by Zoroastrianism, existing as men living among men, are beings who possess more worth than any other man. As Peter Clark explains, "...The saoshyants are not considered to be divine beings, and nor are they of the spiritual] realm. Despite the fact that they are born miraculously, they are still creatures of the material creation. The co-operation of humanity has always been a fundamental tenet of the Zoroastrian teaching concerning the frashokereti [the final purging of man by which all men emerge justified and free from evil]."19 Sixth, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth did not fit the messianic expectations of the Hebrews, and therefore does not fit the description of any Messiah originating in Hebrew invention. The Messiah was believed to come as one who would be a national Savior who would depose the ruling oppressors and restore the nation of Israel, ruling as their King in Jerusalem. Jesus, on the other hand, was a man with no home of His own. He did not carry a sword. He sat with publicans and sinners, those with whom it would be unthinkable for Messiah to keep company. Had the Gospel writers fabricated a Messiah of their own, the Gospels which we now have would be drastically different and would certainly not include a crucifixion account. If indeed a crucifixion account did appear in such a version of the Gospel, it would be Jesus ordering Pilate to be crucified, rather than Jesus Himself hanging on the cross. Mention must be made concerning a passage from the Apocrypha relating the coming of a deliverer. The book of Second Esdras (ch 13), written after the Babylonian exile, states that “in the last days” (v 17) a deliverer, identified as the son of God (v 37), shall come “from the sea,” (v 3) an appearance reminiscent of the coming of the Saoshyant, of whom it is said he will be conceived while his mother is bathing in a river, in which has been preserved the seed of Zarathushtra. After seven days I dreamed a dream in the night. And lo, a wind arose from the sea and stirred up all its waves. As I kept looking the wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea. And I saw that this man flew with the clouds of heaven; and wherever he turned his face to look, everything under his gaze trembled, and whenever his voice issued from his mouth, all who heard his voice melted as wax melts when it feels the fire. (vs 1-4 RSV)

193

Following the dream, the writer of the book asks the Lord to reveal the reason that this deliverer came from the sea (v 51 RSV). [The Lord] said to me, Just as no one can explore or know what is in the depths of the sea, so no one on earth can see my Son or those who are with him, except in the time of his day. (v 52 RSV) This passage, although written after the exile, is not among those books recognized as Scripture, and is therefore irrelevant when considering allegations of Zoroastrian influence on the New Testament writers. Nowhere in Scripture is there a prophecy that a Deliverer will come from the sea and even if the writers of Apocryphal book were influenced by the Babylonian myth, no such influence is evident in the books of the New Testament. 9. The afterlife The Zoroastrian belief In Zoroastrian belief, at death a person's spirit leaves the body, but resides near it for three days thereafter. Following the third day, the spirit, led by Daena, the guardian spirit, leaves the physical realm and enters the spiritual realm, ascending past the stars, the moon, and the sun, each representing the good thoughts (the stars), words (the moon), and deeds (the sun) performed in life. When the spirit arrives at the Chinawad bridge (the “Bridge of the Requiter”), before Mithra and his two companions, Sraosha and Rashnu, it is judged according to its works, then its destiny is determined, whether it be led by Vohu Manah, the “Good Mind,” to the House of Song, or heaven, or topple off the bridge into the House of Lies, or hell (which awaits in the deep chasm beneath the bridge), a cold, dark place of torment at the hands of evil spirits. As the soul is judged, it must cross the bridge, a journey which is difficult for the sinner, but pleasant for the good soul. If it is determined the good deeds balanced the evil deeds, then the spirit is sent to an intermediate state, a Purgatory-like domain. The spirit is there consigned, either to joy and happiness, or to torment, to await the final judgment. "0 Mazda Ahura, whosoever, man or woman, gives me those things which you know are the best of existence: reward for truth and power through good thought, and whom I stimulate to glorify those such as you, with all those I will cross over the Account-keeper's Bridge." (Yasna 46.10) The following passage describes the work of the Saoshyant in the Last Day. “We sacrifice unto the awful kingly Glory, made by Mazda .... That will cleave unto the victorious Saoshyant and his helpers, when he shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish; When the creation will grow deathless, - the prosperous creation of the Good Spirit, - and the Druj shall

194

perish, though she may rush on every side to kill the holy beings; she and her hundredfold brood shall perish, as it is the will of the Lord.”20 Evaluation Early Zoroastrianism does not contain a definite “end times” doctrine. The passage mentioned above affirms the belief in everlasting life and the abolishment of evil, but such is to be expected in a religion which holds, along with Christianity, to the immortality of the soul, and should therefore come as no striking correlation. It has been alleged that Judaism did not hold to a doctrine of immortality prior to the exile, but that the development of such a doctrine is the result of a merger between the Judaic and Babylonian religions. Genesis, written long before the Babylonian exile, states that man was made in God’s image (Gen 1:27), which in itself implies some sort of undying existence. When God placed Adam in Eden, He commanded that Adam not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, for "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:17) Had Adam not sinned, he would not have died, since death came as a consequence of his sin. The life that he would have lived would have been a life in the flesh, not just a continuance of his spirit after the death of the body. The spirit of man, unlike his body, is not regarded by Jews to ever suffer death. Even in ancient pre-exile times, the Jews believed that at death the spirit leaves the body to enter Sheol, the abode of the dead, a place void of joy and from where deliverance is only possible by the hand of God. The hope of the Patriarchs and poets on ancient Israel was that God would deliver their souls from this awful place. Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom. (Job 33:24 NASB) Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol, That thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, That thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! (Job 14:13) But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. (Ps 49:15 NASB) The following passage is concerning David’s anguish after the death of his infant son. But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. (2 Sam 12:23 NASB) In addition to the hope that the soul would be delivered from Sheol following the death of the body, ancient Judaism also held to a belief in the eventual resurrection of the body itself. The book of Proverbs states, “In the way of righteousness is life, and in its pathway there is no death"(12:28 NASB).

195

The word translated “death” here is “maveth,” a word which has specific reference to bodily death. Additionally, one of the Psalms of David contrasts the material pleasures of this world with beholding the form of God, a thing which no man can do while still in mortal flesh. From men by thy hand, O Jehovah, From men of the world, whose portion is in this life, And whose belly thou fillest with thy treasure: They are satisfied with children, And leave the rest of their substance to their babes. As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy form. (Ps 17:14-15) I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end He will stand upon the earth. Even after my skin is destroyed, yet from my flesh I shall see God (Job 19:25-26 NASB) The New Testament account of the resurrection of Christ is hardly the result of any borrowing of ideas from Zoroastrianism. The fact is that the Hebrews, prior to any supposed Babylonian influence, adhered to a belief in the immortality of the soul as well as bodily resurrection. Additionally, modern man has no solid early Zoroastrian expression which gives him insight as to exactly what the early devotees of that religion did or did not believe concerning the afterlife. Much of the Zoroastrian eschatological doctrine that is known today came as a later development during the Middle Ages. As R. C. Zaetner states, "…we have no evidence as to what eschatological ideas the Zoroastrians had in the last four centuries before Christ. The eschatologies of the Pahlavi books, though agreeing in their broad outlines, differ very considerably in detail and emphasis; they do not correspond at all closely to the eschatological writings of the intertestimentary period nor to those of St. Paul and the apocalypse of St. John."21 Critics’ allegations which refer to the concept of purgatory are completely unfounded, since such a concept does not appear in either Zoroastrian or Christian doctrine until centuries after Christ. Scripture itself does not teach a doctrine of Purgatory. Such a doctrine was an element the Catholic Church took upon itself to add to their theological framework. 10. The final judgment The Zoroastrian belief At the Last Day, three thousand years from the time of Zarathushtra, the bodies of the dead will be resurrected and reunited with their spirits for a second and final judgment. At this time there will be a great and final conflict in which the forces of good will fight and kill the forces of evil, thus restoring peace to the cosmos. Once the battle is over, the metal in the mountains of the earth will melt and flow through the earth as a river of fire. Mankind, both the good and the wicked, will be required to pass through the river. For those who have been previously judged as living the good life, the passage through the burning river

196

will be as warm milk, but for those who have not lived a good life, the passage will be agony, yet for only three days. Following the three days passage through the fire, all mankind, those who lived a good life as well as those who lived a wicked life, having been purged from all wrongdoing, will live together in peace and joy on earth, having endured the frashokereti (from Avestan, meaning "to make wonderful"), being newly refined and refreshed by fire. Ahura Mazda's evil twin, Angra Mainyu, will have either been defeated or rendered powerless, so that all of man's thoughts, words, and deeds will forever remain good. Evaluation Elements common to both Christian and Zoroastrian eschatology include: 1) reward or punishment after death, 2) a second judgment or purging, 3) bodily resurrection in the last days, 4) a final battle between good and evil, with the forces of good being the victors, 5) and a catastrophic renovation of the earth. It can be said with certainty that such concepts were present within Christianity during the apostolic age, for such is found in the New Testament. However, as stated above, the same cannot be said of Zoroastrianism, since much of its known end-times doctrine was added after the beginning of the Christian era. The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology offers the following statement concerning the real copycat culprit: “The Persians no doubt received from the Semites the notion of a last judgment and related ideas: [such as] world salvation prepared by a Messiah.”22 The vivid contrasting element between the Zoroastrian and Christian eschatological models is the concept of justice present therein. The Christian concept of divine justice will be further examined in Part five, but will be stated here in summation. According to Christian doctrine, those who do not believe in Christ as their Savior will face everlasting torment, while those whose sins are covered by the sacrifice of Christ will enjoy the everlasting peace and presence of God. According to Zoroastrian doctrine, the good and the wicked will both be blessed with everlasting peace and joy, after a final purging of all – in short, everyone wins. Ahura Mazda, in rewarding the wicked with the same benefits as the good, becomes deprived of justice and rewards even those who have most violated the three-fold maxim of “good thoughts, good words, good deeds.” Zoroastrians would say that since he is good, he does not punish the wicked, but in so doing, he goes so far as to take part in their wickedness.

II. Concerning the Luxor inscription An Egyptian temple in the city of Luxor contains a number of inscriptions which, according to critics, are said to portray Horus’ birth as occurring in a manner very similar to Jesus’ birth. The inscriptions and accompanying panels on the walls of the temple have been dated to be over 3,500 years old. They are said to depict Amun announcing to a virgin woman that she will conceive Horus, after which she is impregnated by the spirit Kneph, the “holy ghost,” and gives birth to Horus, who is then adored by three kings. Critics of Christianity claim this is an “exact” depiction of the birth of Jesus and is proof

197

that the Gospels are mere fabrications of motifs already in existence for centuries prior to Christ. Egyptologists have determined that the series of inscriptions in question refers to Amenhotep III, a pharaoh during Egypt’s eighteenth Dynasty. The woman in the inscriptions is not Isis; but rather, Tiye, Amenhotep’s wife (by virtue of being a queen of Egypt, she became an arch-type of the goddess Isis). The infant is not Horus, but Ra, a deity with whom Horus became merged in later times.1 The sequence of events as depicted in the inscriptions is as follows:

Annunciation

Conception

Birth

Adoration

Historian Richard Carrier, a professed atheist, has made the following observations in commenting objectively on the temple inscriptions.2 In panel four of the series the god Amun is seen getting into bed with Amenhotep’s wife on the night of her wedding before she and her husband consummate the marriage. The god appears to her in the guise of Amenhotep and “enters her,” according to the inscription. As she mates with the god, Thoth stands by and watches them as Amun has his way with the queen. According to the inscription, Amun “does everything he wished with her.” The ensuing language of the inscription is wildly erotic as it depicts the sexual union between the two. After they finish mating, Amun tells the queen that he has impregnated her and she will give birth to his son. She then confesses her love for Amun, after which the child is named Amenophis (or "Amun is loved [or satisfied]"). The panel ends with Kneph entering the womb of the queen to form the fetus out of clay. In panel eight, the birth is announced and Kneph imparts the soul of Amun to the fetus by touching the queen with the ankh. In panel nine, the infant is born Panel ten and onward depicts the infant being adored by persons of importance.

198

A closer look at the alleged parallels: Does the annunciation mirror Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary? In the inscription, the annunciation is made by Amun after he impregnates the queen, whereas Mary was told beforehand that she would conceive through virginal conception. Amun does not tell the queen her son will be a savior. He simply says she will bear him a son. Mr. Carrier notes, “… the cycle depicted at Luxor does not match up in the same sequence with the Christian narrative. The annunciation follows the conception in the Egyptian cycle, though Brunner explains that, for technical reasons in Egyptian morality and law, the girl could not know she was having sex with a god, rather than her real husband, until it was too late, and so it was necessary to have the annunciation follow the conception in order to maintain propriety, i.e. the Queen did nothing immoral. Thus, the difference here reflects the difference in culture.” Does the conception in the Luxor inscriptions mirror the conception of Jesus? The queen is not impregnated until after she loses here virginity to the god Amun. Mary does not lose her virginity until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:25). The pregnancy is announced after, not before, Amun mates with the queen. She is impregnated through insemination, not through the working of the spirit Kneph. Kneph’s work in the queen is not to place the fetus within her womb, but to impart the existing fetus with the soul of the god. When Kneph touches the queen with the ankh, it is not for the purpose of impregnating her, for she was already pregnant at the time. Kneph enters the queen to form the fetus and unite him with the soul of Amun, but this occurs after Amun announced she was pregnant, not before. In the Luxor inscription, the annunciation comes after the queen is impregnated; however, in the Gospels, the annunciation precedes the conception.

199

Does the adoration mirror the magi’s adoration of Jesus? In the Luxor inscriptions, the ones seen in adoration of the infant are not clearly identified. Historians have determined they represent either statesmen or lesser deities.4 In any case, they were not equivalent to the order of the magi. Magi were not statesmen, but were counselors, scientists, and astronomers. Egypt had no equivalent to the magi. Egyptians did have sorcerers, however, the figures in the inscription are not depicted as sorcerers.

III. Concerning suspect confessions of prominent ancient Christian writers

The witness of the apostle Paul Some critics use the verse below as a confession by the apostle Paul that the Gospel of Christ is derived from pre-existing myths and beliefs. The reason for the claim is that at the time of Paul’s writing, the Gospel had not yet been spread throughout the whole world, yet Paul speaks of it as being preached to every creature under heaven. If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister. (Col. 1:23) As critic Craig M. Lyons comments, “Paul was preaching a God manifest in the flesh, who had been believed on in the world before the commencement of his ministry. Dear one, this could not have been Jesus of Nazareth, who had certainly not been preached at that time, nor generally believed on in the world till ages after. ... it is not comforting to a Christian to learn the truth about 'the Gospel' which Paul taught.”1 The fact is that Mr. Lyons did not do his homework on this passage. First, Paul is employing a Jewish idiom by his use of universal language to refer to that which is not as universal as may be indicated on the surface. In making reference to “every creature which is under heaven,” Paul is not speaking of every living person on the face of the earth. The Greek word translated “every” is the word pas, which may be used in two ways: either 1) individually, as a reference to an object as comprising part of a whole (“everyone, everything, all, every, all things”), or 2) collectively, as a reference to a whole being comprised of some of all types, or every sort, within that whole.2 The Gospel was preached to everyone, regardless of race, class, age, gender, or background. The same expression is used in Acts 2:5 where it is said that "...there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." Taken literally, this would be impossible, for certainly there was no one from the Americas present in the Jerusalem populace. Also, by Paul's own admission, there were areas where he preached where Christ was not named (Rom. 15:20). In like fashion, in John 12:19, the Pharisees state that “the

200

world” had become followers of Jesus, and the evangelist Luke makes use of the same idiom when he says that Mary and Joseph journeyed to Bethlehem because “all the world” was under Roman taxation (Lk 2:1). It was common in that time to refer to the Roman Empire as the “world,” and certainly every nation on earth was not under obligation to respond to Roman laws and regulations. Second, it is to be observed that Paul, in stating that the Gospel “was preached to every creature which is under heaven,” is making reference to the wide-spread success of the early Christians' evangelistic effort, which is duly noted in surviving texts from ancient secular historians such as Pliny the Younger and Suetonius. The “Gospel” in question is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and, as Mr. Lyons is correct in stating, such a Gospel could not have possibly existed before Jesus' incarnation. The span of time to which Paul is referring does not pre-date the public ministry of Christ; but rather, entails that period of time from the beginning of His preaching to the time of Paul's writing his letter to the Colossian church. The witness of Irenaeus Irenaeus was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul during the second century A.D. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. The following quote is attributed to Irenaeus: “The thirty aeons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in His thirtieth year: He did not suffer in the twelfth month after His baptism, but was more than fifty years old when He died.”3 The quote is from the heading to the twenty-second chapter of Book II of his work Against Heresies, however, the work was not divided by Irenaeus into its present form. Irenaeus divided the work into five books, but he never divided these books into chapters. Historian Philip Schaff and the editors under his direction supplied the titles or headers for each chapter when compiling the works of the early church fathers into their current thirty-eight volume collection. However, the chapter is question does deal with the age of Jesus, and it is to this chapter which we now turn our attention. Against Heresies was written in response to Gnostics who attempted to pervert Scripture in order to apply their own interpretations to certain passages. Their point was that Jesus died only one year after His baptism, thus fulfilling the "sufferings of the twelfth Aeon." Concerning their beliefs, Irenaeus writes: "They endeavor, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say, happened in the case of the twelfth Aeon, from this fact, that the passion of the Savior was brought about by the twelfth apostle, and happened in the twelfth month. For they hold that He preached [only] for one year after His baptism…. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavor to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, ‘To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution’), being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which

201

includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months.”4 This brings us to the chapter in question. In arguing against these heresies, Irenaeus points out that, following His baptism, Jesus journeyed to Jerusalem on more than one occasion in order to observe the annual Passover.5 In the fourth section of this chapter Irenaeus addresses the docetic belief that Jesus only appeared human, but was not really flesh and blood. In so doing, Irenaeus discusses Jesus’ progression through every stage of human development and maturity, from infancy to old age. “Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.” Then, in section five, he states: “They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only

202

one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia* with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?” * The term “Asia” likely refers to the Roman province of Asia, of which the city of Ephesus was the capital. Some critics believe Irenaeus was saying that Jesus was in Asia until the time of Trajan, but Irenaeus is in fact referring to the apostle John, not Jesus, as he states elsewhere: “The church at Ephesus was founded by Paul, and John remained there till Trajan’s time; so she is a true witness of what the apostles taught.”6 In the above passage, Irenaeus makes reference to the stages of life as recognized by the ancient Jews, who reckoned old age to begin at the fiftieth year. From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that came to do the service of the ministry, and the service of the burden in the tabernacle of the congregation, Even those that were numbered of them, were eight thousand and five hundred and fourscore. (Num 4:47-48) From this passage, the Jews reckoned that a man reached the “age of a master,” or the age at which he may enter into service as a rabbi, or priest, at age thirty, and that following age fifty, he entered into “old age.” Irenaeus refers to someone under thirty as a “young man,” and that ages thirty to forty are the “first stage of life,” and between forty-one and fifty a man begins to "decline towards old age." It is this final stage of life, “old age,” which Irenaeus says Jesus “possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a teacher." He then says that those "who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord,… conveyed to them” that Jesus reached the age of fifty, the stage of old age. Then, in section six of the same chapter, Irenaeus appeals to Scripture as a basis on which to establish his claim concerning the age of Jesus. Below is the passage to which he refers, followed by his comments from section six. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died? … Jesus answered, …Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old*, and hast thou seen Abraham? (Jn 8:53-54, 56-57)

203

* Some commentators claim that the Jews were mistaken on Jesus’ age, claiming that he possibly looked older than He actually was. Rather, it is more likely they were stating He was under the age of fifty, the age reckoned to be the beginning of one’s elder years, without specifying His actual age at the time. They merely placed Him in the age bracket of thirty to fifty. As commentator Matthew Henry paraphrases, the Jews were saying, “Thou art not yet reckoned to be an old man; many of us are much thy seniors, and yet pretend to have seen Abraham.”7 “But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year….”8 The oral tradition to which Irenaeus refers, when stating Jesus reached the age of fifty, exists nowhere in any ancient text. In fact, among ancient literature, all other references to Jesus’ age at the time of His death corroborate the Gospels that Jesus was thirty-three when He died. So what was Irenaeus saying? Was he just using faulty reason in his effort to refute the Gnostic claims, or was he really trying to make the claim that Jesus was just under fifty when He died? By his own admission, Irenaeus does accept events as they are accounted for in the Gospels, and he affirms the Gospel account of the ascension and the day of Pentecost “This Spirit did David ask for the human race, saying, ‘And stablish me with Thine all-governing Spirit;’ who also, as Luke says, descended at the day of Pentecost upon the disciples after the Lord's ascension, having power to admit all nations to the entrance of life, and to the opening of the new covenant; from whence also, with one accord in all languages, they uttered praise to God, the

204

Spirit bringing distant tribes to unity, and offering to the Father the first-fruits of all nations.”9 In holding to the Gospels’ chronology, he accepted that Jesus suffered under Pilate, who was governor of Judea from 26-36 A.D. Jesus could not have suffered under Pilate when he was age fifty. Since Jesus “about thirty” in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign (Luke ch 3), He would not have reached age fifty until 45 or 46 A.D. Since He appears to present an elderly (that is, fifty – according to Jewish reckoning) Jesus, yet adheres to the Gospel chronology in other sections of his works, it is unclear as to his original intentions. Without the benefit of being able to interview him personally, there are several interpretations one can make relating to his statements. 1. The majority of scholars named as experts in the writings of the church fathers conclude that in stating Jesus was fifty, Irenaeus may have forced a faulty Christo-centric time line in his zeal to counter the claims of the Gnostics that Jesus died at age thirty, after preaching for only one year. In other words, he perhaps ignored or overlooked certain facts in order to reach conclusions which both the Gospels and Irenaeus himself, elsewhere, clearly refute. Irenaeus was a man of faith who believed the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ, and he stated that Jesus observed three annual Passovers following His debut as a public preacher at age thirty, which corresponds to a death at age thirty-three, as the Gospels record. “But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after his baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the Passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year, that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the Passover. … Now, that these three occasions of the Passover are not included within one year, every person whatever must acknowledge.“10 Simply put, he knew better – yet, in his zeal, he engaged in faulty reasoning. 2. Irenaeus may be arguing in light of the Jewish reckoning of stages of human maturity. The point behind Irenaeus’ argument is that Jesus did not die after only one year of ministry, while He was still a “young man,” according to the Jewish reckoning that a young man was under age thirty. According to this view, he is merely saying Jesus was older than thirty at the time of His death – “as the Gospel [of John] testifies,” he says. Thus, he is placing Jesus within the next stage of maturity, which is, according to the same reckoning, between the ages of thirty-one to fifty, an age during which a man begins to pass from “youth” to “old age.” He begins by stating Jesus was twenty-nine when He was baptized: “For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age.” He then makes the point that

205

Jews considered the age bracket of thirty-one to forty as approaching old age, but not yet in old age: “Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit.” Then, he states that from ages forty to fifty, one begins to grow nearer to old age and farther from being a young man: “from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age.” This is the point where his reasoning departs from the Gospel account. His conclusion was that Jesus “possessed” this latter stage, ages forty to fifty, “while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher,” and that this is according to what “the Gospel and all the elders testify.” However, the “testimony” that the Gospels affirm is that Jesus died at age thirty-three, following a three year-long public ministry, and while He was reckoned as a “master,” one between the ages of thirty-one to fifty, He did not live to age fifty. Irenaeus’ conclusion is not that Jesus lived to age fifty, but that He was somewhere between the ages of forty and fifty when He died, and was nearing age fifty: “though "not want[ing] much of being fifty years old." Of course, whether he stated Jesus died at age thirty-four or at age fifty is comparing apples to apples, since both ages, and every age in between, differ from the Gospels’ testimony, as well as the testimony of the “elders” (church fathers). 3. What of the “tradition” to which Irenaeus refers claiming Jesus reached age fifty? As said above, there is no such church tradition which claims Jesus was fifty years old when He died. Here, we have an individual making a statement, then attempting to validate that statement by appealing to dubious “traditions” which he believed were true, despite the contrary claims of the New Testament writers and earlier church fathers. As one apologist states, “There is no evidence whatever that Irenaeus was actually giving testimony to an actual and explicit Church tradition; rather, it seems he was using the data of tradition and subverting it to a theological motif for polemical purposes contra heretics. In other words, tradition itself is absolutely unscathed by Irenaeus claims here; rather, what we have is evidence of Irenaeus himself making a few marginal wrong turns in his attempt to ‘connect the dots.’”11 The witness of Eusebius The following two quotes by the Christian historian Eusebius have been presented as evidence that the person of Jesus, as well as Christianity itself, is based on preChristian concepts. "... the names of Jesus and Christ were both known and honored by the ancients."12 "... that which is called the Christian religion is neither new nor strange, but-if it be lawful to testify the truth-was known to the ancients."13 In book one, section two of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius discusses the preexistence of Christ, as the second person of the Trinity and as Creator of the Universe. He alludes to Paul’s confession in his letter to the Colossian church (1:15-16) that Christ existed before all things, as well to John’s declaration (Jn 1:1) that in the beginning, Christ, as the Word of God, was not only “with God,” but “was

206

God.” He then discusses the Old Testament appearances of Christ to men such as Abraham (Gen 18), Jacob (Gen 32), and Joshua (Josh 5), then concludes with a mention of Christ as the subject of Old Testament prophecy. In book one, section three, Eusebius explains how “the names of Jesus and Christ were both known and honored from the first." He explains that the name Christ was proclaimed by Moses in his referring to the high priest as “anointed” (it must be remembered that “Christ” means “Anointed One”) in the fourth chapter of Leviticus (vs 5 and 16) and how he conferred the name “Jesus” upon Hoshea, his future successor, when he gave him the name Joshua (“Jesus” is the Greco-Latin transliteration of “Joshua”) in Numbers 13:16. Eusebius then declares that Joshua “bore the image of our Savior,” which is in agreement with the recognition of Joshua as a type, or foreshadow, of Christ. As Eusebius states, “Moses thus bestows on [the high priest and Joshua] … the name of our Savior Jesus Christ as a signal of honor.”14 He draws attention to the writings of Jeremiah (Lam 4:20) and David (Ps 1-2) when they referred to “Christ the Lord” and “His [God’s] Christ,” and also to the coming incarnation of the Christ (Ps 2:7-8). Concerning the prophets as a type of Christ, he states, “…certain of the prophets themselves became, by the act of anointing, Christs in type, so that all these have reference to the true Christ, the divinely inspired and heavenly Word, …. [But] no one of those who were of old symbolically anointed, whether priests, or kings, or prophets, possessed so great a power of inspired virtue as was exhibited by our Savior and Lord Jesus, the true and only Christ.”15 He then discusses the differences between these Old Testament types of Christ and the one who is the true Christ: that they who were His type did not receive worship, did not receive the same devotion to their persons following their deaths, nor had the same widespread effect as did Jesus. Eusebius declares that there is “nothing new or strange in the religion preached by [Jesus]” and that the religious principles of Christianity were not invented by the early Christians, but were known “from almost the beginnings of man.”16 He states, "All those [referring to the Old Testament saints] who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth. …[since] they also clearly knew the very Christ of God; for it has already been shown that he appeared unto [Abraham, Isaac, and Moses]. … So that it is clearly necessary to consider that religion, which has lately been preached to all nations through the teaching of Christ, the first and most ancient of all religions,"17 He then points out that men in the Old Testament were justified by faith, not the Law, as are those in the New Testament, since Abraham was counted as righteous because he believed on God (Gen 15:6, cf Rom 4:3). These sections from the work of Eusebius, rather than casting suspicion on the integrity of the New Testament writers, serve to unite the Old with the New Testament of Scripture. In the Old, Christ was seen as a shadow in those who prefigured Him by virtue of their mission and office. As Old Testament types of the coming Messiah, they may rightly be called “Christs” or ones who have received a divine anointing. In the New Testament, the person of Jesus is not based on any person who existed prior to His incarnation, since only He was virgin born, only He

207

was crucified for the sins of man, only He was begotten of God, and only He shares in the divine nature – none of which may be said of any of the Old Testament types of Christ. As God Himself, the person of Jesus existed prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb, and this is that to which Eusebius is drawing attention. He existed in reality as the second person of the Trinity, as Creator, as the Angel of the Lord, and as the Word, and He existed in type in those people and objects which served as a foreshadow of the Messiah promised to the Jews. Also, as Eusebius points out, the doctrines inherent in Christianity were not the product of New Testament invention, but were proclaimed in ages past, although in a veiled fashion. The saints prior to the Christian era knew only what was revealed to them in prophecy and in promise. The content of Old Testament prophecy is that of New Testament doctrine. That which was revealed in part to Abraham, Moses, and David was revealed in full to John, Peter, and Paul. That which was foretold in the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New, yet the message remained the same: that it is through faith in God and the work of God’s Christ, Jesus the Messiah, that men are counted as righteous before the face of God. While the saints in the Old Testament looked forward to a coming Messiah and the saints in the New Testament looked backwards to the work of Jesus, the person in view was always the same Christ, who would save His people from their sins. Yes, Christianity existed prior to Christ, not in name, but in substance, and that is the message of Eusebius here in this passage. The witness of Augustine The following statements are attributed to Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354–430 A.D.), among the most prominent of the early church writers. The first statement is a quote generally used as an admission that Christianity is based on beliefs pre-dating the time of Christ. The second statement is used as an admission that the God of the Bible and deities worshiped by pagans are one and the same. Statement #1: “That which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist from the planting of the human race until Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion which already existed began to be called Christianity.”18 The above statement is said to be from Augustine’s Retractations, a work answering the pagan Celsus, who claimed God did not exercise providential care for His people in past ages. The actual quote from the work in question reads as follows: "This very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, nor was it lacking from the beginning of the human race, until Christ Himself came in the flesh, when the true religion, that already existed, began to be called Christian."19 What Augustine is not saying: Augustine is not making the statement that Christian beliefs existed before Christianity. The fact is that prior to the first century A.D. there does not exist any reference in ancient literature to either “Christians” or “Christianity.” The earliest reference to “Christians” in ancient literature is from Scripture itself.

208

They therefore that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to none save only to Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number that believed turned unto the Lord. And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch: who, when he was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord: for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. And he went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:19-26 NASB) The term “Christian” was first coined in Antioch, seemingly as a result of the events described here by Luke, events which would have taken place between 40-44 A.D. Prior to this occurrence, believers in the Gospel of Christ were known as followers of the Way. And [Paul] entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. (Acts 19:8-9 NASB) I [Paul] persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons. (Acts 22:4 NASB) But this I [Paul] admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets. (Acts 24:14 NASB) As far as Christian beliefs themselves, any so-called similarity to preexisting religious beliefs has already been refuted in this work. The fact is that prior to Christ’s preaching, there was no person living who was in fact, or could even rightly be, called Christian or said to hold to beliefs which mirrored those of the Christian faith. What Augustine is saying: In making the statement that “the Christian religion existed among the ancients,” Augustine is making reference to the fact that the Old Testament Hebrews looked forward in time to a coming Messiah, whose arrival would not come “until Christ Himself came in the flesh,” and that, upon His arrival, “the true religion (that is, the religion of the Hebrews), that already existed, [would begin] to be called Christian.” In Genesis chapter fifteen God made a covenant

209

with Abraham that He would make his descendants as numerous as the stars of the heavens. And [God] brought [Abraham] forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness. (Gen 15:5-6) The prophecy had a two-fold fulfillment. First, it was fulfilled in a generational sense, in that through Abraham’s descendants came the twelve tribes which would make up the nation of Israel. Second, the prophecy had a spiritual fulfillment in that those who believed in God would be reckoned as “children of Abraham” by faith. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham. (Gal 3:6-9) For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. … How then was it reckoned? when he was [circumcised], or [uncircumcised]? Not [when circumcised], but [when uncircumcised]: … that [Abraham] might be the father of all them that believe (Jews and Gentiles), though they be [uncircumcised], that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; … Now it was not [promised] for [Abraham’s] sake alone, that it (righteousness) was reckoned unto him; but for our (Gentiles’) sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification. (Rom 4:3, 10-11, 23-25) Those in ancient times who believed in God, following in the same vein of faith as Abraham, held to the prophecy of the coming of the same Messiah who Christians believe was Jesus of Nazareth. Although many biographical aspects of Jesus’ life were foretold in Old Testament times, many people did not recognize Him as the Messiah, even after John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.” The Jews expected someone who would appear as a mighty figure, not the son (as was supposed) of a poor carpenter who lived in Nazareth, a small town widely known for its corruption and vices. Had the Jews expected a Messiah such as Jesus, certainly the religious authority in Jerusalem would have placed upon Him the highest of reverence. The fact is that Jesus was rejected by his own people. Rather than recognizing Him as the Promised Messiah, they shouted, “Crucify him!” and brought upon Him the cruelty of Rome. They anticipated a faceless Messiah,

210

and when His face was revealed in Jesus, they rejected Him as the Messiah. Nevertheless, the faith of Abraham and the faith of Christians is the same faith in the one, true God and Savior of man, by whom man is redeemed by grace through faith, in generations both ancient and present. This is the point Augustine is making – that the Judaism of ancient times was the forerunner or precursor to modern Christianity, going all the way back to the first man, Adam, and the promise made to him of a coming Savior. And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed*: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen 3:14-15) * Scripture only here refers to the “seed of the woman,” a reference to Jesus, as the virgin-born son of Mary. The focus of ancient Judaism was that of a coming Messiah (in the offering of sacrificial lambs for the purpose of cleansing of sin), whereas the focus of Christianity is that of a Messiah whose work is finished (in that Jesus is the Lamb of God, slain once for the sins of many), but the substance of both Judaism and Christianity is identical. Augustine further explains this in his letter to Deogratias, when responding to the question, “If Christ ... declares Himself to be the Way of salvation, the Grace and the Truth, and affirms that in Him alone, and only to souls believing in Him, is the way of return to God, what has become of men who lived in the many centuries before Christ came?” In his response, he states the following: “Before He [Christ] gave being to the Hebrew nation, by which He was pleased … to prefigure the manifestation of Himself in His advent, … and thenceforward even to our day, in which He is fulfilling all which He predicted of old by the prophets, … in all these successive ages He is the same Son of God, co-eternal with the Father. … Therefore, from the beginning of the human race, whosoever believed in Him, … was undoubtedly saved by Him, in whatever time and place he may have lived. For as we believe in Him both as dwelling with the Father and as having come in the flesh, so the men of the former ages believed in Him both as dwelling with the Father and as destined to come in the flesh. And the nature of faith is not changed, nor is the salvation made different, … that which was then foretold as future is now proclaimed as past. … And yet, from the beginning of the human race, were there ever wanting men who believed in Him, from Adam to Moses. … And from the beginning of the human family, even to the end of time, it is preached.”20 Statement #2: Rather than quoting from Augustine's works, critics independently make the claim that “St. Augustine even stated that the priests of Mithra worshiped the same God as he did.”

211

The fact is that this so-called “admission,” usually expressed in this same above verbatim fashion on numerous web sites, is not found in any writing attributed to Augustine. In The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, collected by historian Phillip Schaff, Augustine only once mentions Mithra, in the following excerpt: “There was in the West at this time, and had been for centuries, a hankering after Oriental theosophy, the more extravagant the better. The wide-spread worship of Mithra was an excellent preparation for the more complete system of Mani. Manichaeism and Neo-Platonism antagonized the Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries from opposite sides, and those minds for whom Platonism had no charms were almost sure to be attracted by the philosophy of Mani.”21 Nowhere in the writings of Augustine did he claim the priests of Mithra worship the same God as he. In fact, nowhere is his writings does he mention the “priests of Mithra.” The vast majority of critics who make the claim to the contrary do so without providing an original source for the quote, and the reason for the lack of a source is because a source does not exist. Regarding those who do attempt to validate this claim by providing a source, the source provided is not the writings of Augustine; but rather, modern-day authors who lack scholarship. The witness of Tertullian The early church father Tertullian (160-220 A.D.), Bishop of Carthage, is quoted as saying, "You [pagans] say we worship the sun; so do you." The source cited for the quote is Joseph Wheless' book Forgery in Christianity.22 However, Wheless does not quote directly from Tertullian's work. Rather, he quotes from the heading labeled “Tertullian” in The Catholic Encyclopedia by Charles George Herbermann, in which Herbermann provides the above quote as a paraphrase of Tertullian's argument found in his work Ad Nationes (To the Nations). The chapter in question from Tertullian's original text is provided below in its entirety: “Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshiping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day, in preference to the preceding day as the most suitable in the week for either an entire abstinence from the bath, or for its postponement until the evening, or for taking rest and for banqueting. By resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from your own religious rites to those of strangers. For the Jewish feasts on the Sabbath and "the Purification," and Jewish also are the ceremonies of the lamps, and the fasts of unleavened bread, and the "littoral prayers," all which institutions and practices are of course foreign from your gods. Wherefore, that I

212

may return from this digression, you who reproach us with the sun and Sunday should consider your proximity to us. We are not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest.” 23 In this chapter, he is merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the pagans in accusing Christians of worshiping the sun, since these very same pagans worshiped the sun themselves. In so doing, Tertullian did not identify the worship of Jesus as the worship of the sun. He only stated what the pagans “supposed” was the object of Christian worship. Hence, Herbermann's paraphrase of Tertullian is correct, since Tertullian is essentially saying, “You say we worship the sun; so do you." What Tertullian is not saying is that, “We worship the sun; so do you.” There is a vast difference between the two statements concerning what is the true object of Christian worship. Tertullian is also quoted as saying: “The Devil, whose business it is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments in the Mysteries of Mithras. He himself baptizes some, that is to say, his believers and followers; he promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras; … he brings in the symbol of the Resurrection, and wins the crown with the sword.” The quote comes from chapter forty of Prescriptions Against Heresies and its broader context is as follows: “The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some — that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a laver (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. ... He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. ... is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the wellknown moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ’s sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints — his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables.” Mythicists claim that this passage shows that Tertullian believed the Gospel of Christ was copied from the Mithraic religion. Aside from the obvious dating problem (Mithraism was not adopted by the Romans until the second century), it should be observed that Tertullian's objective was not to counter an argument that the Gospels'

213

account of Jesus' life was one borrowed from pagan myths. Rather, his intention was to illustrate how the devil influenced pagans into adopting beliefs which bore a similarity to Christianity. This influence was not due to the devil peering into some crystal ball and seeing how the prophesies would later be fulfilled; but rather, by perverting existing interpretations (with regards to virgin birth, baptism, the sacraments, and – if Tertullian's memory is correct – resurrection) and causing these perversions to be manifest within the religion of the pagans. In short, it was Jewish laws and beliefs, not the teachings of the Christians, which were copied by the pagans. In addition, these copies bore only a similarity to Christian beliefs, rather than being perceived as identical reproductions of Christian doctrine. The witness of Justin Martyr Justin Martyr, a second century historian and one of the earliest Christian apologists, is often accused by critics that he believed the Gospels were revisions of pagan myths. The claim is based on the following quotes, both taken from his First Apology: "When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into Heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those who you esteem sons of Jupiter."24 "He [Jesus] was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus."25 Justin was a converted pagan. He was very familiar with the various myths which existed in his day and were held by his contemporaries. He was a man of great understanding and is regarded as one of the greatest writers of the early Christian era. However, his work is not gospel. His writings were not inspired by God as were the Scriptures. As such, they may contain errors. These above quotations, however, would not fall under that category, for Justin is not confessing an association between Jesus and mythological figures. For one, he lived during a time when oral and written tradition regarding Jesus was fresh and relatively new. Time had not corrupted the elements which orthodox Christianity held to be true. There were heretical sects who claimed to be Christians, such as the Gnostics and the Marcions, but these and others like them were rejected by mainstream Christians for believing in truths which stood in contradiction to Scripture. If Justin had written with the intention of suggesting that the Gospels were borrowed from paganism, certainly other of the church fathers would have condemned his words in their own writings, and you will find no such condemnation by any of the other early Christian writers. What Justin was doing here was appealing to the pagan conscience. Christians, including Justin, were under attack by Rome and pagan Greeks. Rome had set in place the death penalty for professing faith in Christ. Below is the thrust of Justin’s argument here: “In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and

214

though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners. … And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savor of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices.”26 In paraphrase, what he was saying was this: “Christians are being put to death for believing in a man who was the Son of God, born of a virgin. Yet you [pagans] who believe in myths like Perseus and Jupiter and hold to like beliefs, deem us worthy of death.” In short, he was inviting he who is without sin to cast the first stone. He was calling attention to their hypocrisy in condemning others for holding to the types of beliefs to which they held themselves. The argument he was using was a legal one: that if Christians held to beliefs which made them worthy of the death penalty, then pagans who hold to similar beliefs are equally worthy of the same. Justin was appealing to what he knew was fiction and myth in his process of defending that which he knew was the truth. Granted, his choice of wording would have been better. He could have used classifications other than “nothing different” and “in common” when discussing any relationship between Jesus and Perseus or Jupiter. These statements, when taken by themselves, which is what the critic always does, could indicate exactly what the critic wants us to believe: that the Gospel was a rip-off of pagan myths. However, if we read further and look at the broader context, it becomes clear that Justin is not making any such claim. Consider the following statements made by Justin in this same work (when added, emphasis mine). They certainly do not sound like the ramblings of a man who believes the core tenants of his faith to be mere copies of existing myths. “wicked devils perpetrated these things [referring to pagan myths]”27 “whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who receded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed [an obvious reference that Jesus was the fulfillment of the many prophecies concerning the coming Messiah]; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God.”28 “… before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us”29 Another quote from Justin which has drawn the attention of critics is found in his work Dialogue with Trypho: “'And when I hear, Trypho, said I, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.'”30

215

In saying that devils perpetrated the pagan myths, Justin is not saying that the devil had foreknowledge of God’s plan for redemption, knowing beforehand that the Word of God would be made flesh and be born of a virgin, having then inspired pagan religion based on forthcoming Christian beliefs. Rather, he is saying that the devils inspired pagan myths based on pre-Christian Jewish beliefs, dating back to the time of Moses– beliefs which were later fulfilled in the person of Jesus. “From what has been already said, you can understand how the devils, in imitation of what was said by Moses, asserted that Proserpine was the daughter of Jupiter, and instigated the people to set up an image of her under the name of Kore [Cora, i.e., the maiden or daughter] at the springheads. For, as we wrote above, Moses said, ‘In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and unfurnished: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ In imitation, therefore, of what is here said of the Spirit of God moving on the waters, they said that Proserpine [or Cora] was the daughter of Jupiter. And in like manner also they craftily feigned that Minerva was the daughter of Jupiter, not by sexual union, but, knowing that God conceived and made the world by the Word, they say that Minerva is the first conception; which we consider to be very absurd, bringing forward the form of the conception in a female shape. And in like manner the actions of those others who are called sons of Jupiter sufficiently condemn them.”31 Justin's intention in mentioning supposed parallels between the Gospels and pagan mythology was not for the purpose of explaining them or proving they did not exist; but rather, to draw attention to them so that he may show how the devil had imitated the ancient prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah. Such intention is evident in the sixty-ninth chapter of his Dialogue with Trypho: “I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah’s days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? … And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? Here, it is clear that Justin's intention was to show that in imitating the Old Testament prophecies, not the Gospel accounts of Jesus, the devil had successfully created such parallels (which are very remote, at best). This he did in order to show the hypocrisy of the pagans in accusing Christians of believing in that which Justin thought to be similar to Christian beliefs.

216

Also, Justin’s comments regarding pagan deities do not correctly reflect the myths themselves. Neither Perseus nor Jupiter shared biographical characteristics similar to Jesus. Neither of these pagan deities were said, or believed, to be virginborn, crucified, or resurrected from the dead. In his book The Virgin Birth of Christ J. Gresham Machen, comments, “When Justin…refers to the birth of Perseus as a birth from (or through) a virgin, he is going beyond what the pagan sources contained. There seems to be no clear evidence that pagan sources used the word ‘virgin’ as referring to mothers of heroes, mythical or historical, who were represented as being begotten by the gods.”32. Justin Martyr is also quoted as saying, “Christ — if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere — is unknown. ... And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves.” The quote is taken from chapter eight of his Dialogue with Trypho, in which he debates with the non-Christian Jew named in the title of the work. The line in question is a line attributed to Trypho, who can hardly be considered as an advocate for Christianity, The context in which the line is placed can be seen in the following elongated section: “I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. ... Christ — if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere — is unknown. ... And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves ...” Trypho’s accusation here against the Christians is not that they believe in a Christ who did not exist. Rather, he is accusing them of applying to the man Jesus, whose historical existence Trypho never calls into question, a false Messiahship. Trypho’s perspective is that the Christians misapplied Messianic prophecies to the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who Trypho regarded as a mere man, not God incarnate. Critics also claim that Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History) quotes Justin as saying, "There exists not a people, civilized or semi-civilized, who have not offered up prayers in the name of a crucified Savior to the Father and Creator of all things." This statement reduces Jesus to one of any number of unidentified crucified saviors. They cite a passage in Eusebius' history (Hist. Eccl, Book 1, ch 4) in which they say the historian provides the above quote from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, however, the fact is that the quote, in this form, does not exist. First of all, the quote, in any form, is not found in the work of Eusebius. Pick up a copy of Eusebius' History, read it from cover to cover, and you will find no such statement in the text. Second, the quote, in this form, is found nowhere in Justin's Dialogue. What is found in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is the following statement: “For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus.”33

217

The statement, rather than standing as a confession that Christianity is merely a rehash of other religions, stands as a testament to the enduring character of the Gospel of Christ. That Jesus was worshiped and prayers were offered in His name by peoples of every race and class speaks to the victory of the one who is not just a crucified Savior, but the crucified Savior of man. The above misquote is yet another example of the critics' fabricated “evidence” in an attempt to cast a shadow on the validity of the Christian faith. Justin was a devout Christian, as reflected in his writings, despite the baseless accusations of the critics who delight in intentionally taking his words out of context. Justin Martyr stands as a staple in the writings of the early church. Below is the section of the work here in question. Read it for yourself and you will see a man who had a heart for God and a commitment to the truth. Justin’s works may also be read at the following web site: www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm FIRST APOLOGY by Justin Martyr CHAPTER 21: Analogies to the History of Christ And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. … This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honorable thing to imitate the gods … But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. CHAPTER 22: Analogies to the Sonship of Christ And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius. CHAPTER 23: The Argument And that this may now become evident to you — (firstly) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and firstbegotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and (thirdly) that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither witness nor proof — we shall bring forward the following proof.

218

CHAPTER 24: Varieties of Heathen Worship In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners. … And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savor of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices. CHAPTER 25: False Gods Abandoned by Christians And, secondly, because we — who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or Aesculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods — have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impassible God

IV. A Pope's Confession The following quote is attributed to Pope Leo X, alleging that he claimed the Gospel story of Christ was but a useless fable. "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"1 Most sources who cite this alleged comment by Leo rarely provide a source for the quote. When a source is provided it is the fourteenth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, where the quote is said to be on page 217. In reality, no mention of the quote, nor Leo, is found on that page. Rather, page 217 is concerned with “Respiration.” The section concerned with Pope Leo is pages 926-927 of volume thirteen. Still, no mention of Leo's purported claim can be found within the section concerning him. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a web-based volume, the person cited as the source for the quote is John Bale, a playwright and Catholic-turnedapostate. In his animosity with the Catholic Church, Bale lashed out at church authorities in the form of satirical depictions found in his plays. In one such depiction, The Pageant of Popes, Bale portrays Pope Leo X as saying, “All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie.”1 However, had Pope Leo X actually made such a claim as to the historicity of Jesus, his testimony would stand against more than a millennium and a half of testimony to the contrary. The testimony of one man, whether he be Pope or the Vatican's janitor, is hardly enough to eradicate such a long-standing historical precedent.

219

V. Concerning the similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Flood

From the Zeitgeist movie: “The story of Noah and Noah’s Ark is taken directly from tradition. The concept of a Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the ancient world, with over two hundred different cited claims in different periods and times. However, one needs look no further for a pre-Christian source than the Epic of Gilgamesh written in 2600 B.C.” The Gilgamesh Epic Background The Epic of Gilgamesh was discovered in 1853 during an excavation in the ancient city of Nineveh. The finding consisted of twelve tablets on which were inscribed a poem about a great flood. The tablets were dated to only 650 B.C., but the poem is much older, since fragments of the same story are found on other fragments dated about 2,000 B.C. Both oral and written forms of the poem are thought to have existed well before the discovery of these fragments. The main figure of the poem is Gilgamesh, who was a Sumerian king during the first dynasty of Uruk. In the poem, it was not Gilgamesh who experienced the flood; but rather, Utnapishtim, an immortal, who relates his tale of the flood to Gilgamesh. After his friend was struck down and killed by the gods, Gilgamesh became fearful for his own life and sought a way to avert possibility of divine judgment. He soon learned of Utnapishtim, a man who has become immortal, and sets out on a quest to find this one and learn his secret to eternal life. When they do meet, Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh a tale of a great flood and his subsequent acquisition of immortality. After telling his story, Utnapishtim tests Gilgamesh to see if he is worthy of immortality. Gilgamesh failed the test, but, in pity, Utnapishtim told him where he could find the plant which grants immortality. Gilgamesh successfully located and retrieved the plant, but the plant was later carried off by a serpent while Gilgamesh was bathing in a spring, causing Gilgamesh much sorrow. Utnapishtim’s story of a great flood (The Epic of Gilgamesh, tablet XI) The gods decided to flood the earth to destroy mankind. The god Ea, the same god who fashioned man, came to Utnapishtim in a dream to warn him of the impending cataclysm. Ea instructed Utnapishtim to build a great vessel by which he would survive the flood. The shape of the vessel was to be a large cube, having equal dimensions both in height and width. Utnapishtim built the vessel as instructed, sealed it with pitch, and gathered all kinds of animals. Then, he, along with his family and other select few, entered the vessel. Once inside, water began to flood the earth, so much that “the gods were frightened by the flood.” For six days and seven nights the waters continued with great ferocity.

220

The poem reads: “Six days and seven nights came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land. When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding, the flood was a war—struggling with itself like a woman writhing [in labor].” When the deluge came to an end, Utnapishtim‘s ark came to rest on Mt. Nisir. Utnapishtim sent out birds to see if the waters had receded enough for them to leave the ark. He sent a dove, then a swallow, but both returned to the ark, finding no land on which to rest. He then sent a raven. When the raven did not return, he released the animals from the ark and offered a sheep in sacrifice to the gods. “The gods smelled the savor, and collected like flies over a [sheep] sacrifice.” The god Enlil was outraged when he saw that some humans survived the flood. Ea rebuked Enlil for destroying mankind (save a few) by causing the flood. Enlil, in remorse, granted immortality to Utnapishtim and his wife, after which they retired in seclusion. Here, its entirety, is the portion of the Epic which recounts Utnapishtim’s tale of the flood: (This translation is taken from www.ancienttexts.org and is based on the standard Akkadian version) Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying: "I will reveal to you, Gilgamesh, a thing that is hidden, a secret of the gods I will tell you! Shuruppak, a city that you surely know, situated on the banks of the Euphrates, that city was very old, and there were gods inside it. The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood. Their Father Anu uttered the oath (of secrecy), Valiant Enlil was their Adviser, Ninurta was their Chamberlain, Ennugi was their Minister of Canals. Ea, the Clever Prince(?), was under oath with them so he repeated their talk to the reed house: 'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall! O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu: Tear down the house and build a boat! Abandon wealth and seek living beings! Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings! Make all living beings go up into the boat.

221

The boat which you are to build, its dimensions must measure equal to each other: its length must correspond to its width. Roof it over like the Apsu. I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea: 'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered I will heed and will do it. But what shall I answer the city, the populace, and the Elders!' Ea spoke, commanding me, his servant: 'You, well then, this is what you must say to them: "It appears that Enlil is rejecting me so I cannot reside in your city (?), nor set foot on Enlil's earth. I will go down to the Apsu to live with my lord, Ea, and upon you he will rain down abundance, a profusion of fowl, myriad(!) fishes. He will bring to you a harvest of wealth, in the morning he will let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat!"' Just as dawn began to glow the land assembled around methe carpenter carried his hatchet, the reed worker carried his (flattening) stone, ... the men ... The child carried the pitch, the weak brought whatever else was needed. On the fifth day I laid out her exterior. It was a field in area, its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height, the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times It cubits each. I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?). I provided it with six decks, thus dividing it into seven (levels). The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments). I drove plugs (to keep out) water in its middle part. I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessary. Three times 3,600 (units) of raw bitumen I poured into the bitumen kiln, three times 3,600 (units of) pitch ...into it, there were three times 3,600 porters of casks who carried (vegetable) oil, apart from the 3,600 (units of) oil which they consumed (!) and two times 3,600 (units of) oil which the boatman stored away. I butchered oxen for the meat(!), and day upon day I slaughtered sheep. I gave the workmen(?) ale, beer, oil, and wine, as if it were river water, so they could make a party like the New Year's Festival.

222

... and I set my hand to the oiling(!). The boat was finished by sunset. The launching was very difficult. They had to keep carrying a runway of poles front to back, until two-thirds of it had gone into the water(?). Whatever I had I loaded on it: whatever silver I had I loaded on it, whatever gold I had I loaded on it. All the living beings that I had I loaded on it, I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat, all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up. Shamash had set a stated time: 'In the morning I will let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat! Go inside the boat, seal the entry!' That stated time had arrived. In the morning he let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat. I watched the appearance of the weather-the weather was frightful to behold! I went into the boat and sealed the entry. For the caulking of the boat, to Puzuramurri, the boatman, I gave the palace together with its contents. Just as dawn began to glow there arose from the horizon a black cloud. Adad rumbled inside of it, before him went Shullat and Hanish, heralds going over mountain and land. Erragal pulled out the mooring poles, forth went Ninurta and made the dikes overflow. The Anunnaki lifted up the torches, setting the land ablaze with their flare. Stunned shock over Adad's deeds overtook the heavens, and turned to blackness all that had been light. The... land shattered like a... pot. All day long the South Wind blew ..., blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water, overwhelming the people like an attack. No one could see his fellow, they could not recognize each other in the torrent. The gods were frightened by the Flood, and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall. Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth, the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed: 'The olden days have alas turned to clay, because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods!

223

How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods, ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!! No sooner have I given birth to my dear people than they fill the sea like so many fish!' The gods--those of the Anunnaki--were weeping with her, the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief(?), their lips burning, parched with thirst. Six days and seven nights came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land. When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding, the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman writhing (in labor). The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up. I looked around all day long--quiet had set in and all the human beings had turned to clay! The terrain was as flat as a roof. I opened a vent and fresh air (daylight!) fell upon the side of my nose. I fell to my knees and sat weeping, tears streaming down the side of my nose. I looked around for coastlines in the expanse of the sea, and at twelve leagues there emerged a region (of land). On Mt. Nimush the boat lodged firm, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway. One day and a second Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway. A third day, a fourth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway. A fifth day, a sixth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway. When a seventh day arrived I sent forth a dove and released it. The dove went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a swallow and released it. The swallow went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a raven and released it. The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back. It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me. Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed (a sheep). I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat. Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place, and (into the fire) underneath (or: into their bowls) I poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle. The gods smelled the savor, the gods smelled the sweet savor, and collected like flies over a (sheep) sacrifice. Just then Beletili arrived. She lifted up the large flies (beads) which Anu had made for his enjoyment(!):

224

'You gods, as surely as I shall not forget this lapis lazuli around my neck, may I be mindful of these days, and never forget them! The gods may come to the incense offering, but Enlil may not come to the incense offering, because without considering he brought about the Flood and consigned my people to annihilation.' Just then Enlil arrived. He saw the boat and became furious, he was filled with rage at the Igigi gods: 'Where did a living being escape? No man was to survive the annihilation!' Ninurta spoke to Valiant Enlil, saying: 'Who else but Ea could devise such a thing? It is Ea who knows every machination!' La spoke to Valiant Enlil, saying: 'It is yours, O Valiant One, who is the Sage of the Gods. How, how could you bring about a Flood without consideration Charge the violation to the violator, charge the offense to the offender, but be compassionate lest (mankind) be cut off, be patient lest they be killed. Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a lion had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a wolf had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that famine had occurred to slay the land! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that (Pestilent) Erra had appeared to ravage the land! It was not I who revealed the secret of the Great Gods, I (only) made a dream appear to Atrahasis, and (thus) he heard the secret of the gods. Now then! The deliberation should be about him!' Enlil went up inside the boat and, grasping my hand, made me go up. He had my wife go up and kneel by my side. He touched our forehead and, standing between us, he blessed us: 'Previously Utanapishtim was a human being. But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us, the gods! Let Utanapishtim reside far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.' They took us far away and settled us at the Mouth of the Rivers." Noah’s Flood (Genesis chapters 6-9) During the days of Noah, mankind reached a level of wickedness which exceeded any that had existed before or since. God determined to punish mankind by bringing a universal flood upon them. However, there was one righteous man, Noah, whom

225

God chose to spare from this calamity. He spoke to Noah and instructed him to build a great vessel, seal it with pitch, and place two of every kind of animal in the ark. He was also instructed to take additional animals for sacrifice. Once completed, God told Noah to take his family in the ark, after which God shut the door and the waters began to flood the earth. The waters pounded the earth for forty days and nights. In the seventh month of the flood, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. In the tenth month, the tops of the mountains were seen. Noah sent a raven and a dove, but neither found land. Seven days later, he sent a second dove, which returned with an olive branch. Seven days later, he sent a third dove, which did not return. After releasing the animals from the ark, he and his family again set foot on land, at which time God commanded Noah to go forth and multiply on the earth. Noah built an alter and offered burnt offerings to God, after which God blessed him and promised He would never again destroy the world with a flood, giving the rainbow as the sign of His promise. Which came first? The oldest written account we have of Noah’s flood was written by Moses, who lived in approximately 1400-1500 B.C. The account of the flood likely existed in oral and written tradition long before Moses, having been handed down through Noah and his descendants. The real question is not whether the Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the book of Genesis; but rather, does the account of Gilgamesh pre-date Noah? The question of when Noah lived depends on one’s chronological view of Biblical history. The chronology of Usher and Lightfoot A widely-used and accepted version of Biblical chronology is the timetable set forth in 1642 by Archbishops Usher and Lightfoot (usually referred to, unfortunately for Lightfoot, as “Usher’s chronology”), using the genealogical records found in Scripture. According to this timetable, the flood is placed between 2300-2400 B.C., approximately three thousand years earlier than geological data suggests (c.5400 B.C.). The history of the world according to Usher: 4004 B.C.- Creation 2348 B.C.- Noah's Flood 1921 B.C.- God's call to Abraham 1491 B.C.- The Exodus from Egypt 1012 B.C.- The founding of the Temple in Jerusalem 586 B.C.- The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity 4 B.C.- The birth of Jesus There is no way to date the age of the earth, even by using the genealogies found in Scripture. Taken literally, the Biblical data suggests Usher’s chronology to be fairly accurate. However, such accuracy is dependent on Usher and Lightfoot correctly translating and evaluating the data, with a proper

226

understanding of Hebrew idioms regarding relationships between fathers and sons. At times, a man mentioned to be another’s “father” may actually be a grandfather or even much later descendant, thus making the genealogy stretch over a longer period of time than is suggested on the surface. Scientific dating According to the best scientific research, using methods such as radiocarbon dating, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. But, as author R. Christopher explains, “… scientists are aware that C-14's half life (5,700 years) quantifies carbon based material to approximately 3692 B.C. They are also aware earlier dates must be obtained in unison with a preconceived, evolutionary, geological stratigraphy that only exists in carefully edited secular textbooks and are never quite so obvious when working within the actual geological column. … Science also posits a universe that is some 14-18 billion years old. It quantifies these estimates by way of extrapolating measured results of background radiation, etc., back to a theoretical, protracted point in time. But the premise on which these theories are constructed may be wrong—at least to some degree. Recent astronomical observations attest to a universe that is anything but homogeneous and isotropic as Big Bang proponents hypothesize. Science is also aware that we cannot precisely measure astronomical phenomena beyond a few hundred or thousand light years from earth without a series of assumptions being added to the equation. Anything further is no more than an estimated guess at distance or age.”1 Internal characteristics of the narratives However old both accounts are in their written form, they are most assuredly older in their oral form. The bottom line is that the age of both flood accounts cannot be determined through either the best genealogical or scientific data; therefore, other factors must be considered when determining which account came first. 1. Both flood accounts must have a basis in an actual historical event, since the story of a universal flood exists in practically every culture, and so it has been since before world travel was possible. The Australian Aborigines even have their own flood legend. Linguist Dr. Alexandra Aikhenvald stated, “… without their language and its structure, people are rootless. In recording it you are also getting down the stories and folklore. If those are lost a huge part of a people’s history goes. These stories often have a common root that speaks of a real event, not just a myth. For example, every Amazonian society ever studied has a legend about a great flood.”2 2. The comparison between the two accounts, while bearing some similarities, are strikingly different, both in content and character (for more on this point, see the following section “Comparison of the two accounts”). The elements contained in the Gilgamesh record stand out as elements of myth and fiction, rather than historical data.

227

3. Historians generally view the book of Genesis as an historical record, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is considered to be an ancient myth, with basis in an actual historical event. However one regards the book of Genesis, it must be considered either legend or history. Given certain characteristics of the Gilgamesh account, as noted above, the Genesis record comes out on top as being the one which is historical. As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati notes, “it is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends.”3 4. In the epic of Gilgamesh, it appears that Utnapishtim is the only person on earth who remembers or is even aware that there was a great flood. If the Gilgamesh epic were an historical record, then why did Gilgamesh not already know that there was a flood before Utnapishtim related the tale to him? If mankind knew of Utnapishtim’s immortality, how did they not also know of the flood? If such a flood was a reality, it would have surely been known and reflected in cultures throughout the world, as is the Noahic account. Comparison of the two accounts4 Similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh Characteristic

Noah

Utnapishtim

Extent of flood …………………….Global…………………...Global As stated above, if the Gilgamesh legend were true, then there would have been widespread knowledge of such an event, yet the only one in the story who possesses such knowledge is Utnapishtim. Also, apart from the tablets on which the poem is inscribed, there exists no written account which corroborates the flood of Utnapishtim. However, there is evidence in ancient literature which supports the Genesis account. Warned by ………………………...Yahweh (God) …………...Ea How else would either Noah or Utnapishtim know of a coming global flood unless he was so informed by a deity? Again, we have here an element which is necessary in both accounts. Ordered to build an ark?…………..Yes…………………….....Yes How else is one going to survive a global flood? Outside coating ……………………Pitch …………………....Pitch Pitch, or bitumen, was a common resin is ancient times. According to the Dictionary of Archeology, “Also known as asphalt or tar, bitumen was mixed with other materials throughout prehistory and throughout the world for use as a sealant [and] adhesive. … The material was also useful in waterproofing canoes and other water transport.”5 The Bible gives two instances of the use of pitch in the construction of a waterproof vessel.

228

Noah used pitch when building an ark, and Moses’ mother used pitch when waterproofing a basket in which to place her son. It is not unthinkable that both accounts of a flood would list such a common, readily available substance used in the building of an ark. Rather than serving as a cause for raised eyebrows, the element of pitch in both accounts should come as an expectation. Similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued) Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim Doors……………………………….One………………….....One Why would there need to be more than one door? Only one entrance and exit would have been needed in a vessel intended for such a purpose. Also, a vessel built to survive for an extended period of time in tumultuous waters (to say the least!) would need to be as watertight as possible, with only as many doors as would be required for entering the ark. Windows ………………………....At least one …………...... At least one Test to find land ………………......Release of birds ……...... Release of birds Again, this element should come as no surprise. In a world covered with water, a bird would be the most logical choice. Boat rests on mountain……………Yes …………………...... Yes Given that both flood accounts were global, covering even the mountains themselves, it is only logical that when the waters recede, that each ark comes to rest on a mountain, being the first portions of land to re-emerge. Mountain in the Middle East…...…Yes …………………..... Yes The Middle East was the hub for human existence in ancient times. Genesis describes the first humans living in the Fertile Crescent, or Mesopotamia, a notation which is supported by archaeology. An account of a global flood occurring in very ancient times should be expected to come out of this region. Sacrificed after flood? ..…………. Yes, by Noah ………...... Yes, by Utnapishtim Yes, both accounts mention an offering being made following the flood, but this exists as an element standing in stark contrast between the two accounts, since the offerings differed greatly in both type and characteristics. More will be said on this below, but here the only item of interest is that there is an offering of some sort mentioned in both accounts. Offerings were common practice in ancient times, and are even used today in less civilized cultures. Offerings serve many purposes, including giving thanks or acknowledging one’s dependence on or servitude to a higher power. After surviving a global flood, it would be commonplace, especially in ancient times when offerings were more widely practiced, to give an

229

offering to the deity on whom one’s survival was dependent. Today, when surviving a near-death experience, it would be a common thing for the survivor to attribute his/her survival to a deity in whom he/she has faith, and to do so in accordance with his/her belief system, whether it involves saying a prayer, crossing oneself, or making a particular vow to that deity. As in the case of the offering mentioned in both flood accounts, it would come as a natural response from anyone who has faith in a higher power. Similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued) Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim Blessed after flood? ..………….....Yes ……………………. Yes The blessing on Noah (From Genesis 9:8-17) And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. The blessing on Utnapishtim (From The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI) “Previously Utanapishtim was a human being. But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us, the gods! Let Utanapishtim reside far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.” These two blessings differ greatly. The gods confer a blessing on Utnapishtim, whereas God established a covenant with Noah. In ancient

230

times, there was a vast difference between a blessing and a covenant. A blessing could merely signify a once-and-done- deal, and did not necessarily involve a binding contract. However, a covenant was an oath which was binding to the death. The substance of that which was conferred upon Noah was that God made an oath which He alone would keep. It was an oath made with the whole of future mankind. Ancient covenants typically included some sort of sign, or seal, as an evidence of the binding nature of the contract. It served as a signature on a legal document that the person(s) making the covenant would keep their end of the deal. God’s sign of the covenant made with mankind was the rainbow, a sign which remains to this day, signifying the permanent nature of the oath God made to Noah. Noah – Covenant made with Noah and all forthcoming generations of man God promised never again to destroy the world with a flood The Noahic covenant stands in succession with other redemptive covenants found in Scripture (namely, Abraham, Moses, David, and the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ). No one is granted “god-like” qualities Utnapishtim – The blessing is given only with Utnapishtim and his wife The gods never say they will not cause another global flood The blessing stands alone and is not a part of a greater promise Utnapishtim and his wife are granted “god-like” status as immortals Similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued) Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim Reason for flood ……… human wickedness …...... excessive human noisiness (extreme violence) Sender ………………… Yahweh ………………… Assembly of "gods" The Epic of Gilgamesh relates a polytheistic belief system, whereas the Genesis account relates a monotheistic system. The Bible describes man as originally monotheistic, a description which is supported by archeology. Polytheism originated during the days of Nimrod, following the flood of Noah. Response of deity ……… Lord was sorry He …....... The gods could not sleep made man because of his wickedness Since when does a god need sleep? The gods of the Gilgamesh Epic are selfish deities who destroyed mankind because they were merely annoyed with man. It was not due to righteous anger in response to man’s wickedness. The Bible describes God as just and good. The justice of God

231

requires not only that He view wickedness with righteous hatred; but also, that He respond to such wickedness by bringing judgment upon the wicked. Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued) Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim Means of announcement ..Direct from God …………………in a dream Main character …………. Noah (name means "rest")…….....Utnapishtim (name means "finder of life") Why character chosen … . a righteous man …………………no reason given The God of the Bible does not act on a whim. Nothing happens by chance. Did the hero complain? ....No ………………………………..Yes Intended for …………… All humans except Noah and …... all humans except his family Utnapishtim, his family, and some craftsmen Decision to send flood … Yahweh (God) …………………… council of the gods (primarily Enlil) Builders………………… Noah and family ………………… Utnapishtim, his family, and many craftsmen from the city Character's response …… Noah warned his neighbors …...... Told by Ea to lie of upcoming judgment as to neighbors so "Preacher of righteousness" that they would help him build the boat Who wants a god who lies? The Christian has the security of knowing a God who does not go back on His word. The God of the Bible is faithful and true, unlike the gods described in the account of Utnapishtim. Building time ………… 100 years …………………………7 days A vessel the size of Utnapishtim’s ark being built in ancient times within seven days? Does this really sound like anything more than a legend? Ark size ………………

450x75x45 feet ………………… 200x200x200 feet

232

Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued) Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim Shape of ark …………

Rectangular ………………………Square

The ark of Noah:

The ark built in the Genesis record would be a vessel capable of sustaining tumultuous waters. The shape of the vessel was such that it would not have capsized even in such violent conditions. Physicist Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati has determined that even if the ark was topped over 60°, it would still return to an upright position.6 Scientists and naval architects at the Korea Association of Creation Research have confirmed that “a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m. Compare this with a tsunami, which is typically only about 10 m high.”7 The ark of Utnapishtim:

233

Utnapishtim’s ark was cubical in shape. Such a design is not at all seaworthy, even under normal nautical conditions, as it would be prone to tip on any one of its sides. Such a vessel would certainly not have prevented the extinction of the human race in the event of a global flood. Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued) Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim Ark roof ……………… wood ………………………………slate Reiterating what was said above, a vessel in the shape of a square, with its top portion covered with slate, would be top-heavy and not at all seaworthy. Number of Decks ……… 3 ……………………………………12 Passengers ………………Noah and his family ……………....Utnapishtim, his family, and craftsmen from the city Cargo ……………………All species of animals and food …All species of animals, food, gold, jewels, and other valuables The inclusion of animals on the ark, in both accounts, is an element merely to be expected, in order to prevent the extinction of all animal life on earth in the event of a global flood. Ark launched by ………the floodwaters ……………………..pushed to the river According to the Gilgamesh Epic, the ark was launched by men “carrying a runway of poles front to back, until two-thirds of [the ark] had gone into the water.” A vessel this size, filled with every kind of animal (the poem indicates the animals were loaded onto the ark prior to the launch), could not be pushed by mortal means. Even if such a feat were possible, who would have aided in the great shove? Certainly Utnapishtim’s contemporaries would have only helped him if they took him seriously and believed that such a catastrophic event as the flood was about to occur. If this were the case, then why did they not board the ark with Utnapishtim? Door closed by ………… Yahweh (God) ……………………Utnapishtim

234

Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued) Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim Sign of coming flood ……none ………………………………extremely bright light sent by the god Annanuki Waters sent by ………… Yahweh (God) ……………………the gods Nergal and Ninurta Means of flood ………… Ground water & heavy rain ………Heavy rain Reaction of deity ............. God controlled the waters ………..the gods scrambled to get away from the water like "whipped dogs" In the Gilgamesh account, we have gods who are fearful of their own judgments and capable of being harmed. Moreover, we see in this account, gods who are not sovereign – and therefore not supreme beings. In the whole of Scripture, God is portrayed as a sovereign Deity. When we say that God is sovereign, we admit the following: 1) that God has the right to do as He pleases, 2) that God has the ability to do as He pleases, 3) that God’s actions are never thwarted, and 4) that all which God does is in accordance with who God is – that is, He acts according to His nature. As God’s person is good and just, so are His ways and purpose. If the will of God could be challenged by another being or force, then there would be another entity as powerful as God. If that were true, neither being would be sovereign, for neither would possess full authority, both in heaven and in earth. Duration of rain ……… 40 days ………………………………7 days Would heavy rains, even to this extent, really cover the earth in only seven days? The repetitive use of the number seven in the Gilgamesh Epic bears the characteristic of a legend. Duration of flood ……… 60 days ………………………………14 days Would the flood waters recede from the earth in only fourteen days? Ark landing …………… Mt. Ararat ……………………………Mt. Nisir almost 500 km (300 miles) from Mt Ararat The close proximity of the mountains mentioned in both accounts was previously discussed.

235

Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued) Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim Deity's reaction to human deaths…………… no regret mentioned ………………regretted that they had killed all the humans Birds sent out …………...Raven & three doves ……………. dove, swallow, and a raven Offering after flood …… every clean animal and bird ………wines and a sheep Aftermath ……………… God promises not to destroy ......... gods quarrel humanity by flood again among themselves, Ea lies to Enlil. Utnapishtim and his wife given immortality like the gods If the Gilgamesh account is the historical account, then a global flood can occur at any time when the gods get up on the wrong side of their beds. Anyone who considers the Gilgamesh account to be historical may want to begin building an ark of his own – you never know what mood the gods may be in tomorrow. Re-population ……………Noah and family told .................... Ea and Mami to multiply and repopulate created 14 the earth human beings to help repopulate the earth Mythic elements in the Epic of Gilgamesh Gilgamesh is described as two-thirds god and one-third human (Tablet I) Gilgamesh’s confrontation with the demon Humbaba (Tablet V) Ishtar’s father sending the "Bull of Heaven" to avenge sexual advances rejected by Gilgamesh (Tablet VI) Gilgamesh’s confrontation with the "Bull of Heaven" (Tablet VI) Gilgamesh confronted by two scorpion-beings and stone-giants en route to see Utnapishtim (Tablet IX) The untouchable Waters of Death (Tablet X) The immortality of Utnapishtim (Tablet XI) The durability of the square ark (Tablet XI describes the dimensions of the ark, common sense does the rest) The plant at the bottom of the ocean which will grant immortality (Tablet XI) Gilgamesh’s journey to the bottom of the sea (Tablet XI)

236

Gilgamesh and Nimrod The story of Gilgamesh is the result of uniting the account of Noah's Flood with the accounts of Nimrod. Gilgamesh mirrors both the character and personage of Nimrod. As Nimrod is said to have erected the Babel tower in defiance against the God who sent the great flood, Gilgamesh sets out in like defiance, in an attempt to kill the god Huwawa, derived from the name Yahweh, the God of Israel. Also, the names Kish and Uruk in the Gilgamesh record mirrors the names Cush and Erech in the Biblical record. The Epic of Gilgamesh is just one example in which the accounts of Nimrod have influenced culture and myth. Conclusion As stated at the outset, critics claim that the Genesis account is so close in comparison to the Epic of Gilgamesh, that it serves as proof the Genesis account is a mere fabrication of a previous story. As shown above, the similarities are few in comparison to the differences. Additionally, the similarities which are present exist as necessary elements given the nature of each account. These considerations, along with the obvious mythical elements present in the Gilgamesh account, attest to the Genesis account being the one which stands as the historical record.

VI. Concerning the claim that the account of Moses’ life in the Pentateuch is a fabrication of existing motifs Comparisons between Moses and Sargon From The Zeitgeist Movie: “And then there is the plagiarized story of Moses. Upon Moses' birth, it is said that he was placed in a reed basket and set adrift in a river in order to avoid infanticide. He was later rescued by a daughter of royalty and raised by her as a Prince. This baby-in-a-basket story was lifted directly from the myth of Sargon of Akkad of around 2250 B.C. Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide, and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal mid-wife.” Regarding Moses Below is the text describing his birth, taken from Exodus 2:1-10: And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink. And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him. And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river's side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it. And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had

237

compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews' children. Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee? And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother. And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it. And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. Regarding Sargon Sargon was born in the city of Azupiranu on the banks of the Euphrates River. He was the son of a high priestess and an unknown father. His mother bore him in secret, placed him in a reed basket, and set the basket adrift in the river. He was found by Aqqi, a gardener, as he drew water from the river. Aqqi adopted Sargon, then Sargon later ruled as king. The text regarding Sargon reads as follows: “Sargon, strong king, king of Agade, am I. My mother was a high priestess, my father I do not know. My paternal kin inhabit the mountain region. My [birthplace] is Azupiranu, which lies on the bank of the Euphrates. My mother, a high priestess, conceived me, in secret she bore me. She placed me in a reed basket, with bitumen she caulked my hatch. She abandoned me to the river from which I could not escape. The river carried me along: to Aqqi, the water drawer, it brought me. Aqqi, the water drawer, when immersing his bucket lifted me up. Aqqi, the water drawer, raised me as his adopted son. Aqqi, the water drawer, set me to his garden work. During my garden work, Istar loved me [so that] 55 years I ruled as king.”1 Who came first? Moses lived in approximately 1400-1500 B.C. This date is calculated based on data given in the Biblical account, using information such as Israel’s four hundred and thirty year sojourn, beginning with Abraham’s arrival in Canaan and continuing through the bondage in Egypt (Ex 12:41-42, Gal 3:16-19, cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 2.15.2), and also the date when Solomon began the building of his temple. According to the first book of Kings (6:1), Solomon began construction in the 480th year of the Exodus. Working backwards, the majority of Biblical scholars arrive at the date 1012 B.C. for the commencement of the Temple’s construction, and at 1491 B.C. for the date of the Exodus from Egypt.2 Using other historical and archaeological data, other scholars arrive at the date of 1200 B.C. as the date for the Exodus, but the majority vote among scholars favors the earlier dating method. It is generally believed that Sargon of Akkad lived in approximately 2300 B.C., however, there is no way to conclusively date the story of Sargon. Some historians date it as late as 627 B.C. Immanuel Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos presents a timeline in which Moses predates Sargon. Historians who argue for a later dating of the

238

Sargon legend make note that his account contains elements (such as idiomatic expressions and the use of bronze or copper picks in the cutting of roads) which would not be present were the account of an early era. However, proponents of an early Sargon legend have argued that there are ways in which such elements may be accounted for. Therefore, for the sake of argument, I will accept the earlier dating and assume the account of Sargon pre-dates the account of Moses. Evaluation of the common elements in the Moses and Sargon accounts The secrecy surrounding their births Sargon’s mother was a priestess who was forbidden by virtue of her office to engage in sexual relations. Moses was born during a time when the Hebrew people were being persecuted by the Egyptians. In order to control the Hebrew population, the Pharaoh ordered the death of male Hebrew children. For this reason, the birth of Moses was shrouded in secrecy. The only commonality here is that both infants were born in secret: Sargon, from a selfish mother who carelessly abandoned her son in order to cover her own sin; Moses, from a woman of virtue who protected her son from certain death (more will be said on this below). Both infants were placed in a reed basket covered with pitch and set in a river The use of pitch as a form of resin was a common practice, and is therefore no reason to conclude that this is a fabricated element within the book of Exodus. Also, the waterproof quality of the resin would make it an obvious choice for both mothers, having the intention to set the basket in water. The use of a basket in the account of Moses is a logical element. W.H. Gispen, in his commentary on Exodus, tells us that idols were placed in such baskets, which were attached to Egyptian ships.3 Moses’ mother, having placed him in a basket in the river, was likely in the hopes that the basket would not draw the attention of thieves or scoundrels who would be wary to snatch a basket thought to have drifted from a ship, and containing a sacred idol. The suspicion that the basket may contain an idol would be a deterrent to theft, lest the thief bring down the wrath of a god upon him for not respecting that which is sacred. The placement of the basket in the river takes on different characteristics in the two accounts. In the case of Sargon, the basket was set adrift in the river and left to whatever fate the current of the water had in store for the infant lying inside. Although the basket was fashioned to sustain water for a time, Sargon’s mother took no precaution in guaranteeing her son would be found alive and in good health. In the case of Moses, the basket was placed carefully among the

239

reeds along the bank of the river, where it lay until found by a bather frequenting that spot in the river. Whereas Sargon’s mother acted with no care for the well-being of her infant, Moses’ mother had her son’s well-being in the forefront of her mind, as indicated by her actions. Both infants were recovered and adopted. In the ancient world, adoption was a common practice. Aside from being a humanitarian cause, it was a means to continue the family line, as well as fulfill labor needs or secure a caregiver during one’s elder years. Also, Moses was found when the daughter of Pharaoh was taking a dip in the river. This was an ancient rite of fertility, and it may be for such a reason that Pharaoh’s daughter entered the river, in which case the infant could be seen as a god-send. Again, this emphasizes Moses’ mother’s wisdom in selecting a location in which to place the basket containing her infant son. Brian Lewis, in his book The Sargon Legend, mentions that there are at least seventy-two cases in both ancient and recent lore which have similarities to both Sargon and Moses. These cases range in date from before Christ to the eighteenth century A.D. and are found in various cultures (Lewis lists Assyria, Greece, Persia , Rome, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, China, Turkey and Albania.) The similarities he lists are as follows: Abandonment of the infant Infant of noble birth Preparations for exposure The exposure itself Infant protected in an unusual manner Discovery and adoption Accomplishments of the hero Lewis also noted “in thirty-two of seventy-two stories the child is placed in a box or basket or chest; in twenty-one of these it is prior to exposure on water; eight of these add the precaution of the vessel being caulked, though four of these come from the Hebrew tradition; on the other hand, many containers were watertight enough already or would not take, and the caulking would not be used anyway if the intent was to kill the child. In only six stories does anyone watch the infant after it is left; in one case, to be sure it dies.”4 Yes, the account of Sargon does bear some surface similarities to that of Moses, as well as other accounts, as noted by Lewis. Are we to assume that either Sargon or Moses is a fictitious character? Are we to accept one as being a mere imitation of another by virtue of these similarities? Certainly not – especially when the similarities are looked at a bit more closely than the critic would prefer.

240

Comparisons between Moses and other lawgivers From The Zeitgeist Movie: “Furthermore, Moses is known as the Law Giver, the giver of the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law. However, the idea of a Law being passed from God to a prophet on a mountain is also a very old motif. Moses is just a law giver in a long line of law givers in mythological history. In India, Manou [misspelled by Zeitgeist; correctly spelled Manu] was the great law giver. In Crete, Minos ascended Mount Dicta [misspelled in the Zeitgeist transcript, correct spelling: Dikti], where Zeus gave him the sacred laws. While in Egypt there was Mises, who carried stone tablets and upon them the laws of god were written.” Moses and Manu Tradition holds that Manu wrote the Manusmriti, the sacred Hindu law. Historians have dated this law anywhere between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D.,5 therefore Zeitgeist’s statement regarding Manu may be discarded without further mention, since the figure in question post-dates the Ten Commandments by over a thousand years. Apparently, the Zeitgeist creators “forgot” to mention that fact, or simply did not do the research. Moses and Minos Minos was a son of Zeus, the chief of the Olympian gods, and Europa, a Phonecian princess. In life, he was the king of the island of Crete, and in death, he was a judge in the underworld. Does the myth of Minos pre-date the life of Moses? As king of Crete, he ruled for three generations prior to the Trojan War. Ancient Greeks considered the Trojan War to be an historical event, having occurred between the thirteenth and eleventh century B.C. The historicity of the war is in debate in modern times, although an excavation in 1870 revealed what many scholars believe to be the remains of the city of Troy. Eratosthenes, a Greek scholar of the third century B.C., claimed the legend was based on an historical event occurring between 1194 and 1184 B.C.,6 and this date has often been accepted by historians who believe the legend to have a basis in history. As stated above, Moses lived in approximately 1400-1500 B.C. If the dates accepted for the Trojan War are accurate, then the account of Moses pre-dates that of the war. However, since the dates cannot be firmly established for the war, which is said to occur three generations after Minos ruled Crete, I will assume the story of the Minos is earlier than that of Moses and argue on that assumption. Was Minos a lawgiver? Minos lived at Knossos, located on the island of Crete, for nine years, after which he entered a cave and was instructed by Zeus in legislation which he was to pass on to the inhabitants of the island. The cave in question exists today as a tourist site and is located fifteen kilometers east of Malia on the slope of the Kastellos mountain. The law Minos received

241

formed the constitution for Crete and also concerned a means to control the population by encouraging men to engage in sexual relations with adolescent males outside of their immediate family.7 Minos was considered a cruel tyrant. In order to reconcile his cruelty with his more benevolent traits, later poets developed a second king Minos (the bad Minos), a grandson of the first Minos (the good Minos). This good king Minos was so highly favored by the gods of Olympus that after his death he was made a judge of the underworld, along with his brothers Rhadamanthys and Aiakos (or Aeacus). Rhadamanthys became the lord of Elysion, Aiakos was entrusted with the keys of Hades, and Minos ruled as supreme justice, casting the final vote when Rhadamanthys and Aiakos were at odds in their judgment. Critics are correct that Josephus, the most famous of the Jewish Historians during the first century, has admitted that Minos is the only figure who deserves to be compared to Moses,8 however, this admission does not constitute a belief that Moses was a derivative of Minos. On the contrary, by this admission, Josephus is naming Moses as a precursor to Minos, and one who was an even greater lawgiver than Minos. Does Minos’ role as a giver-of-law mimic the role of Moses? There have been many lawgivers throughout history and mythology. Zeitgeist can only name one who received the law on a mountain. This is certainly not a reason to assume Moses is a fabrication based on Minos. Also, the law of Minos was unlike the law given to Moses in the following regards: 1. The Mosaic Law was a code which governed every aspect of life: family and social values, health and cleanliness requirements, politics, and, of course, religion. 2. It contained elements which had been in existence prior to its establishment, such as blood sacrifice. 3. The Mosaic Law pointed towards the Messiah in its sacrificial system, whereas the law of Minos had no far-reaching significance. 4. The Law of Moses was a moral law, whereas the law of Minos was immoral. If the Mosaic account was a fabrication, would the Jews, In selecting a “source” on which to base their own giver-of-the-law, have chosen a lawgiver such as Minos, who instructed his people to engage in immoral practices? One can only reasonably answer in the negative. 5. Minos was a lawgiver by virtue as king of Crete. It is part of the role of a monarch to institute legislation. This should come as no striking surprise to those who seek in Minos a basis for Moses.

242

Moses and Mises I could find no mention of a figure named Mises anywhere in encyclopedias of mythology or in online sources (except those web sites attempting to claim Moses was copied from Mises). The Zeitgeist Movie mentions Mises as an Egyptian deity, however, the book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, which was one of the sources for The Zeitgeist Movie, names Mises as a Syrian deity. In that work, the author’s only cited source for Mises was another book titled Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, written by Lloyd Graham in 1991. Since research in both Egyptian and Syrian mythology unearthed no source from which to give any credit to this claim, and since the critics are not even decided to which pantheon of mythology Mises belongs, the burden of proof remains in the hands of the critic. Concerning inscription on stone as the mode of transmission The Ten Commandments were written on stone tablets (after all, Moses was on a mountain). The Book of the Dead was written on Papyrus or leather scrolls, or carved in the tombs of officials. The earliest known versions of the Book of the Dead are on burial shrouds. Critics say that the Ten Commandments were engraved in stone because ancient Egyptians inscribed their laws in stone as well, and the Hebrews simply borrowed this practice when “writing” the Ten Commandments. While they are correct in relating the Egyptian practice of inscribing laws on stone, they are in error when they assume this is the origin of the mode in which the Ten Commandments was transmitted to the wandering Hebrews. In revealing truth to man, God often uses what is familiar to and understandable by man. For example, Scripture makes reference to the hands, face, and arms of God, but also speaks of Him as being in spirit form and everywhere present. Such mentions of God’s physical form are anthropomorphisms, the application of bodily characteristics to that which has no body or form. It is the same manner that the Ten Commandments were written on stone – to impress their legal character onto the people. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions, and the penalty for breaking a commandment was at times severe, to the point of making one worthy of the death penalty. The Hebrew people needed to see the importance of keeping the Law, and the inscription of this Law onto stone was one such manner in which that was accomplished. Comparisons between the Ten Commandments and the Egyptian Book of the Dead From The Zeitgeist Movie: “And as far as the Ten Commandments, they are taken outright from Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. What the Book of the Dead phrased ‘I have not stolen’ became ‘Thou shall not steal,’ ‘I have not killed’ became ‘Thou shall not kill,’ ‘I have not told lies’ became ‘Thou shall not bear false witness,’ and so forth.” The Book of the Dead was written c.1800 B.C., some three hundred years before God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. The main teaching of the Book of the Dead was that the deceased had to undergo trials after death as they proceeded

243

towards the underworld. One of these trials was the confession that certain deeds were not committed in life. This confession took the following form9 (emphasis mine, when added, to indicate similarity to the Ten Commandments): "Hail, Usekh-nemmt, who comest forth from Anu, I have not committed sin. Hail, Hept-khet, who comest forth from Kher-aha, I have not committed robbery with violence. Hail, Fenti, who comest forth from Khemenu, I have not stolen. Hail, Am-khaibit, who comest forth from Qernet, I have not slain men and women. Hail, Neha-her, who comest forth from Rasta, I have not stolen grain. Hail, Ruruti, who comest forth from heaven, I have not purloined offerings. Hail, Arfi-em-khet, who comest forth from Suat, I have not stolen the property of God. Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, I have not uttered lies. Hail, Set-qesu, who comest forth from Hensu, I have not carried away food. Hail, Utu-nesert, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have not uttered curses. Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men. Hail, Her-f-ha-f, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have made none to weep. Hail, Basti, who comest forth from Bast, I have not eaten the heart. Hail, Ta-retiu, who comest forth from the night, I have not attacked any man. Hail, Unem-snef, who comest forth from the execution chamber, I am not a man of deceit. Hail, Unem-besek, who comest forth from Mabit, I have not stolen cultivated land. Hail, Neb-Maat, who comest forth from Maati, I have not been an eavesdropper. Hail, Tenemiu, who comest forth from Bast, I have not slandered [no man]. Hail, Sertiu, who comest forth from Anu, I have not been angry without just cause. Hail, Tutu, who comest forth from Ati (the Busirite Nome), I have not debauched the wife of any man. Hail, Uamenti, who comest forth from the Khebt chamber, I have not debauched the wife of [any] man. Hail, Maa-antuf, who comest forth from Per-Menu, I have not polluted myself. Hail, Her-uru, who comest forth from Nehatu, I have terrorized none. Hail, Khemiu, who comest forth from Kaui, I have not transgressed [the law]. Hail, Shet-kheru, who comest forth from Urit, I have not been wroth. Hail, Nekhenu, who comest forth from Heqat, I have not shut my ears to the words of truth. Hail, Kenemti, who comest forth from Kenmet, I have not blasphemed. Hail, An-hetep-f, who comest forth from Sau, I am not a man of violence.

244

Hail, Sera-kheru, who comest forth from Unaset, I have not been a stirrer up of strife. Hail, Neb-heru, who comest forth from Netchfet, I have not acted with undue haste. Hail, Sekhriu, who comest forth from Uten, I have not pried into matters. Hail, Neb-abui, who comest forth from Sauti, I have not multiplied my words in speaking. Hail, Nefer-Tem, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have wronged none, I have done no evil. Hail, Tem-Sepu, who comest forth from Tetu, I have not worked witchcraft against the king. Hail, Ari-em-ab-f, who comest forth from Tebu, I have never stopped [the flow of] water. Hail, Ahi, who comest forth from Nu, I have never raised my voice. Hail, Uatch-rekhit, who comest forth from Sau, I have not cursed God. Hail, Neheb-ka, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not acted with arrogance. Hail, Neheb-nefert, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not stolen the bread of the gods. Hail, Tcheser-tep, who comest forth from the shrine, I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the Spirits of the dead. Hail, An-af, who comest forth from Maati, I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city. Hail, Hetch-abhu, who comest forth from Ta-she (the Fayyum), I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.” (From the Papyrus of Nu, Brit. Mus. No. 10477, Sheet 22) The following is from twentieth chapter of Exodus, which recounts Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai: 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long. 6. Thou shalt not kill. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

245

Consideration of the two texts together: The Ten Commandments Monotheistic in nature:

Thou shalt have . . . . . . . . . . no other gods before me

The Book of the Dead Polytheistic in nature, referencing many deities

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God . . . . . .

“I have not in vain blasphemed” and “I have not cursed God” Redundancy occurs in the Egyptian text, as in the mention of various types of theft. No such redundancy occurs in the Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image idols. . .

No such mandate is given Egyptian culture was loaded with idols and visual representations of deities, whereas the Hebrew Law forbade the creation and worship of idols.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. . . . . . . . . . . .

No such mention of a holy day exists in the Book of the Dead

Honor thy father and thy mother. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Book of the Dead lists no sin relating to the dishonor of parents.

Thou shalt not kill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“I have not slain men and women”

Thou shalt not commit adultery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“I have not committed adultery”

Thou shalt not steal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“I have not stolen” (mentioned several times in different forms)

Thou shalt not bear false witness against . . . . . . . . . . . . . thy neighbor

“I have not slandered” (misquoted by Zeitgeist as "I have not told lies")

Thou shalt not covet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Covetousness is not mentioned

246

Conclusion: There are five sins which these texts have in common – blasphemy, theft, murder, slander, and adultery. The Zeitgeist Movie mentions three of these sins (theft, murder, and slander or “lies”) as commonalities between the two texts, thereby expecting the reader to assume that the remaining five sins of the Ten Commandments are found in the Book of the Dead, when in fact such is true of only two other sins (blasphemy and adultery). Additionally, the five sins which the texts have in common are so universally understood as wrongdoings, any moral code should be expected to contain them. As the apostle Paul makes note: “When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness…” (Romans 2:14-15, NRSV) That a pagan moral code should contain similar commandments found in the Ten Commandments of Exodus is no great surprise. Such commonality is due to the God-given conscience of man which “bears witness” to what is good and right. One does not need to read a Bible or be raised from a Christian background to know that such things as murder, theft, and adultery are wrong. If mankind did not possess such inherent knowledge, then the judicial system commits a heinous injustice every time it convicts a man of murder, even after the evidence has proven conclusive that the defendant has willfully and intentionally committed the act. The concept of an inherent conscience is illustrated even in cartoons, when someone is shown with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, each attempting to persuade the person to good or evil action. Such depiction is reflective of the inner sense of right and wrong which exists in every person. A concept of morality is something which is not taught; rather, it is something contained in the hearts and minds of men, placed there by his Creator. As such, the commonality between the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Dead, or any other legal code, serves as evidence to God’s existence, rather than a reason to conclude the Ten Commandments is a code borrowed from a similar pagan code of law. Three of the five sins exclusive to the Ten Commandments relate to the concept of worship: idolatry, monotheism, and the keeping of a Sabbath, or a holy day. These are exclusive to the Ten Commandments for a reason. The Hebrew people were the only people whose religion was monotheistic at the time. Pagan cultures worshiped many gods, but the Hebrew people were strictly forbidden to do so. They were also forbidden to worship an idol, even one made in the name of Yahweh, the singular God of the Hebrew people. As far as the commandment relating to the holy day, other cultures did have such a day, but they were not called a Sabbath, nor did any pagan holy day have the same significance as the Hebrew holy day. The existing text of the Book of the Dead is no indication that the same body of work existed in such form prior to the time of Moses. The text may have been altered significantly over time.

247

The nature of the confession found in the Book of the Dead and the nature of the Ten Commandments are significantly different. The former is a confession by a deceased individual regarding deeds from which he abstained in life, whereas the latter is a code of conduct to be followed by living persons.

VII. Concerning the proposed relationship between Jesus and the signs and ages of the Zodiac The Zeitgeist Movie suggests that the Christian faith is based on beliefs which have their origin in astrology rather than history. The theory states that the Jews looked to the stars and formed their religious history and doctrine on deductions formed from the figures of the Zodiac. From The Zeitgeist Movie: “Now, of the many astrological-astronomical metaphors in the Bible, one of the most important has to do with the ages. Throughout the scripture there are numerous references to the ‘Age.’ In order to understand this, we need to be familiar with the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. The ancient Egyptians, along with cultures long before, them recognized that approximately every 2150 years the sunrise on the morning of the spring equinox would occur at a different sign of the Zodiac. … [Ancient cultures] referred to each 2150 year period as an ‘age.’ From 4300 B.C. to 2150 B.C., it was the Age of Taurus, the Bull. From 2150 B.C. to 1 A.D., it was the Age of Aries, the Ram, and from 1 A.D. to 2150 A.D. it is the Age of Pisces, the age we are still in to this day, and in and around 2150, we will enter the new age: the Age of Aquarius.” What is astrology? Astrology is not to be confused with astronomy. Astronomy is a study of the stars and space, and is a study based on observation and scientific methods. Astrology, although it is a study of the stars, is a study based on deduction and interpretation, and concerns the application of the heavenly bodies to the human experience and history. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines astrology as “a type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, and the planets.” Astrologers look to the heavens for insight into personality traits and human affairs, past, present, and future. “As above, so below,” is the basic philosophy of the astrologer. The astrological ages of the earth Astrology recognizes what is known as the Great Year, a period encompassing twelve successive astrological ages, or World Ages, each age being represented by a sign of the zodiac. The passage from one age to the next is believed to occur when the north pole shifts, due to a slight backward shift in the earth's axis, toward a new constellation, or zodiac sign, approximately every two thousand years. Since the shift of the axis is a backward shift, the earth passes through the signs of the zodiac in a backward succession. Thus, rather than moving from the Age of Gemini to the Age of Cancer (see the succession below), the earth would move from the Age of Gemini to the Age of Taurus, the sign preceding Gemini. Since each age entails a little more

248

than two thousand years, each Great Year takes about 26,000 years to complete. As stated in The Zeitgeist Movie, “[Ancient man] referred to each 2150 year period as an 'age.' From 4300 B.C. to 2150 B.C., it was the Age of Taurus, the Bull. From 2150 B.C. to 1 A.D., it was the Age of Aries, the Ram, and from 1 A.D. to 2150 A.D. it is the Age of Pisces, the age we are still in to this day, and in and around 2150, we will enter the new age: the Age of Aquarius.” The successive signs of the zodiac: Aries, the Ram: March 21 - April 20 Taurus, the Bull: April 21 - May 20 Gemini, the Twins: May 21 - June 20 Cancer, the Crab: June 21 - July 20 Leo, the Lion: July 21 - August 20 Virgo, the Virgin: August 21 - September 20 Libra, the Balance: September 21 - October 20 Scorpio, the Scorpion: October 21 - November 20 Sagittarius, the Archer (a centaur - half man, half horse): November 21 December 20 Capricorn, the Sea-goat (often depicted as an animal with the body of a goat and the tail of a fish): December 21 - January 19 Aquarius, the Water-bearer: January 20 - February 18 Pisces, the Fish: February 19 - March 20 Concerning the sign of Pisces, the fish Qualities inherent in Pisces The sign of Pisces is commonly associated with the following traits: gentleness, compassion, sympathy, sensitivity, spirituality, and selflessness. Jesus as the avatar of the Age of Pisces The Age of Pisces is said to entail the period of time from 1 A.D. to 2150 A.D. Jesus lived from approximately 5 B.C. to 29 A.D. Critics claim He ushered in a new age, the Piscean Age, which will conclude at 2150 A.D. According to this view, Jesus becomes the avatar, or incarnation, of the Age of Pisces, thus making Him the “alpha and omega,” the “beginning and the end” of this age. “I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” (Rev. 22:13) The word “Pisces” comes from the Latin word for “fish,” and the sign for the Pisces constellation is a pair of fish shown swimming in opposite directions. In an attempt to strengthen their argument, critics note the references to and use of fish in the Gospels, such as certain of Jesus’ miracles (the feeding of the five thousand, the great drought of fish, etc), fishermen (some of His disciples were fishermen, He described His disciples as “fishers of men,” etc.), and water (walking on water, calming the storm, water baptism, etc), as well as the symbol

249

of the fish used by the early church and found today on many bumper stickers (below).

Also, they note that the constellation Pisces is a symbol for the kingdom of the sun, and that Jesus is named in Scripture as the Son of God and Light of the World. The teachings and works of Jesus are then believed to entail the highest, most noble aspects of Pisces, such as universal love. “Christ” as a higher consciousness, not a promised Messiah Astrologers view Jesus as a normal man who merely came to a greater realization, or higher consciousness, which they term “Christ Consciousness,” a state of mind said to be a type of divinity inherent, but not fully realized, in every person. The Christ of astrology is not identified as the Messiah promised in Scripture, as the “Anointed one” (the literal translation of the word “Christ”) who would save man from sin. Rather, the Christ of astrology is a deep-seated awareness or potential which anyone can awaken at will. It is the inborn potential for divinity: to be our own god. Rather than man being made in the image of God, God is fashioned into the image of man. “I am god” is the awareness that this Christ Consciousness gives to anyone who chooses to think and act according to his or her fullest potential. Thus, as Jesus became the Christ in His awareness of man's highest potential, so can anyone become the Christ by the realization of the same potential. The Christ of astrology lies within every person, hidden in the sub-conscious until a person somehow finds or awakens his inner divine self. As Luke Skywalker became strong in the Force when he realized his full potential as a Jedi, so can anyone become the Christ when he realizes his full potential for divinity. As Jesus claimed to be one with God, His Father (“I and the Father are one,” He said), so can anyone make the same claim once he becomes aware of this oneness with divinity. The above illustrates how astrologers attempt to link Jesus with the ages of the Zodiac. His message of love and compassion, as well as His ultimate sacrifice on the cross, is seen to fit very nicely with the qualities embodied in the sign of Pisces. The Bible and astrology Astrology is explicitly condemned in Scripture. The practice of divination and worshiping or “observing” (for the purpose of spiritual guidance) the stars is a sin (Scripture likens it to an “evil” or an “abomination”) for which God punished the people of Israel and eventually caused them to fall into Babylonian captivity. The sin was so abhorrent that the punishment for such practice was death by stoning.

250

And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. (Deut 4:19) If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (Deut 17:2-5) When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (Deut 18:9-11) Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem: But did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, like unto the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down, and he reared up altars for Baalim, and made groves, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them. (2 Chr 33:2-3) And [the people of Israel] left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. ... Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. (2 Kings 17:16-18) And [you – Jeremiah] shalt say unto [Israel], Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again: ... because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods. (Jer 19:11-13)

251

And he brought me [Ezekiel] into the inner court of the LORD’s house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshiped the sun toward the east. Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose. Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them. (Ez 8:16-18) Critics suggest that the Hebrew prophet Daniel was an astrologer and that his religion was the religion of astrology. Daniel’s influence on the pagan magi, or “wise men,” has been addressed in a previous section of this work. Here, it needs to merely be further stated that Daniel himself was not of the same theological persuasion as pagan astrologers and soothsayers. Despite being made head of the king's “wise men,” or astrologers, Daniel himself was not an astrologer. In fact, he attributed his wisdom and interpretation of dreams to the God of the Bible, not to any insight gleaned from observing a constellation or celestial body. Additionally, Daniel called out the failures of the astrologers as compared to knowledge given by the one, true God. As for these four children [Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego – of fiery furnace fame] , God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. (Dan 1:17) Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king; But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. (Dan 2:27-28) Any suggestion that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are based on pre-existing astrological beliefs denies the fact that the writers of the Gospels belonged to a religious system which forbade such astro-theological beliefs (as shown in the above passages). In fact, the apostle Paul was among those most educated in, and practicing of, Jewish law and traditions, as the passages below describe. He was a student of Gamaliel, a Pharisee noted in the book of Acts (5:34) as “a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people,” and also named in numerous extra-Biblical sources as one of the top leading Hebrew scholars in antiquity. For Paul to have studied Judaism under Gamaliel's tutelage is akin to an artist studying under Rembrandt or a scientist studying under Sir Isaac Newton. Paul possessed a level of understanding of Judaic laws and traditions which rivaled the understanding of many of his peers, and the zeal with which

252

he lived according to the law was his undying compulsion. Such a man would not have been a proponent of the astro-theology which critics care to apply to his writings. I [Paul] am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. (Acts 22:3-5) Though I [Paul] might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Phil 3:4-6) For ye have heard of my [Paul's] conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. (Gal. 1:13-14) Astrology is a form of idolatry in that it seeks to grant divine attributes to the sun, moon, and stars. In contrast, Scripture declares the stars are the product of God’s creation and the seasons are set in motion by God’s design and decree. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (Gen 1:16) When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained. (Ps 8:3) Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. (Amos 5:8) Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter. (Ps 74:17)

253

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs*, and for seasons, and for days, and years. (Gen 1:14) * The “signs” which the stars provide are those by which man determines the natural (as opposed to astrological) progress and divisions of time, or uses as maps and guides to course their travels, sail the seas, and till the ground with proper direction. And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. (Gen 8:21-22) He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down. (Ps 104:19) Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: (Dan 2:20-21) Man as “divine” According to astrology, every man has the potential for divinity through the awakening of his inner Christ Consciousness. The person who is awakened to such potential becomes one with the Godhead. However, astrology does not define of what this Godhead consists. Astrology declares man to be god, rather than recognizing a Supreme Being. If there is no Supreme Being, then there is no Godhead. If there is no Godhead, then there is no God with whom to unite in oneness. If divinity is inherent, although unrealized, within every man, then there is no standard by which divinity is measured. If there no such standard for divinity, then anyone can be divine based on his own merit and disposition. Thus, Charles Manson or David Koresh may say, “I am god. I am divine,” and no one would have the right to deny either of them their divinity. After all, according to the astrologer, it is man himself who is divine based on his own intrinsic nature, rather than being recognized as divine in accordance with an absolute, pre-existing standard for divinity or deity. According to this view, any concept of deity or divinity becomes meaningless, since there is no absolute ideal of what it is to be divine. Astrologers point to the following passages in which they claim Scripture ascribes deity to man. … your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (Gen 3:5 NASB)

254

[Jesus said] I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? [quoted from Ps 82:6] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (Jn 10:30-38) And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Ex 7:1) In the first passage, the words were spoken by Lucifer as he tempted Eve. In the first place, one can hardly attribute truth to the words of the great deceiver. Second, Adam and Eve did not become “like God” when they ate the fruit of the forbidden tree. They did not suddenly become aware of any inherent divinity. Rather, they became sinners, and they immediately became aware of their newfound shameful state of being. The second set of passages is an example of a couple instances in Scripture where man is likened to deity. The word translated “gods” in this passage is the same word translated “God” in Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”). In the original text, the word used is the Hebrew word Elohim, the plural form of deity, and the same word is translated as “gods” in Psalm 82:1 (“God presides in the great assembly; He gives judgment among the ‘gods’.”) Here, the reference is not concerning ones who possess divinity; but rather, ones who have been granted positions of authority, as ones whose authority is given by God Himself, and as ones who serve as a type of the Great Judge. This same word (Elohim) is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28. In the case of Moses, God sent him before Pharaoh as his representative, delivering the word of God to the monarch of Egypt, thus becoming “as God” to Pharaoh. Although Moses was God’s representative, he was neither God himself, nor had the potential to become God. Jesus quoted the passage from Psalms after declaring oneness with God and consequently being accused of blasphemy. In so doing, He was criticizing the hypocrisy of the ruling religious authority by using an argument a minori ad majis – from the less to the greater. He reminded the Jews that the “gods” referred to in the Law, the Old Testament Scriptures, were mere men placed in God-ordained positions of authority. He was arguing that if these men can be referred to, in their own written code, as “gods,” then how much more so can Jesus be called the Son of God and the one promised Messiah?

255

Also, in this passage, Jesus identifies Himself as being one with His Father. Such a reference does not denote a sudden awakening of the “Christ” within Him, but is a reference to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine which will be discussed in Part five of this work. Here, it will suffice to say that Jesus identified His Father (or the “Christ Consciousness,” as the astrologer would declare) as a being separate from Himself, not inherent and awakened within His humanity. The effect of the Christ Consciousness vs. the effect of the work of Christ The Christ Consciousness of astrology provides no salvation from sin, whereas the Christ of Scripture, Jesus the Christ, provided salvation from sin through His shed blood. It is by the name of Jesus, and no other, that men are redeemed from sin. Additionally, if the Christ Consciousness of astrology is inherent divinity believed to be in every man, then man is in no need for a savior, for he would possess all that is needed to redeem himself. Moreover, there would even be no need for redemption, for true divinity is without guilt by virtue of its own nature. The Christ of astrology is merely an ideal, not a savior. If man is sinful as well as in possession of divinity, then it is by his own working and of his own merit that salvation is attained. In contrast, Scripture describes man’s inherent righteousness as filthy rags, not able to cleanse even the slightest blemish of sin. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isa 64:6 NASB) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Rom 3:10-12) Additionally, salvation is through faith alone and by the grace of God. The benefits of the Christ of astrology come by one’s own realization of inner potential, not at all by a gracious act, bestowing upon man that of which he is the least deserving. Neither does the Christ of astrology provide eternal benefit. The Christ Consciousness dies with man, whereas the benefit imparted by the work of the Biblical Christ continues throughout all eternity. According to Scripture, man, through faith in Jesus, is clothed with the righteousness of Christ, thus making him spotless and one with Christ, through identification with His nature. Jesus, in becoming man, took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, so that He may die for the sin of those who could not redeem themselves. In the same fashion, it is His likeness – His righteousness – which covers those who believe in His saving work, so that when they are presented before God the Father, they stand clothed not in their own righteousness, which merits condemnation, but they stand clothed in the righteousness of Christ, by which they are adopted as sons of God by virtue of identification with the only begotten Son of God.

256

The standard of truth The Christ Consciousness of astrology is that level of consciousness which embraces the qualities of the sign Pisces: gentleness, compassion, sympathy, sensitivity, spirituality, and selflessness. However, if the ultimate expression of such qualities is inherent in every person, then by what standard is anything considered gentile, or compassionate, or sensitive? For an act, thought, or word to be truly described as gentle or compassionate, it must be compared to the absolute ideal of such quality. If that absolute ideal rests in every man, then the ideal of these qualities is relative to the individual, rather than to what is truly gentle or compassionate. Thus, what is gentle is based on what is relative, rather than on what is real. In other words, for the astrologer, what is gentle is based on what one recognizes as gentle, thus making truth relative. For the Christian, true gentleness finds its definition in the gentleness displayed by Christ. Scripture declares “God is love.” In order for something to truly be termed love, it must be in accordance with the love of God, not some universal form of love which has no absolute standard. True love is the love of Christ, and all forms of expression recognized as “love” is only as loving as it is in conformance to the love of Christ. To the astrologer, the “Christ” is the awakening within oneself of the highest form of love, but without the Christ of Scripture, any concept of love is stripped of that which defines what love really is. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. (I Jn 3:1) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 Jn 4:10) The Christ of astrology vs. the Christ of Scripture The Christ of Scripture is identified as the person of Jesus, not as some abstract inner knowledge hidden in the deep recesses of the human mind. The prophecies of the Old Testament foretold the coming of a Deliverer, not a higher consciousness. In Scripture, the Christ, which is said to be indwelling the Christian, is the person of Jesus Himself. As shown in the following examples from the apostle Paul, the Christ of Scripture is identified as a tangible person (by the designations “Jesus” and “Whom”), not merely an ideal. Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? (2 Cor 13:5) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man,

257

and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. (Col 1:25-28) The writers of the New Testament were clearly aware that the knowledge and understanding they have been given came through the person of Jesus the Christ. The word “Christ” means “Anointed One.” The apostles were aware that the Christ was the “Anointed One” whose coming had been foretold in ages past. The writers of the Old Testament foretold many events which characterized the life of Jesus (more on this in Part five), such as His birthplace, His sojourn in Egypt, and His manner of death. If the Christ is not the Messiah foretold before His coming; but rather, a form of higher consciousness, then in what sense if this consciousness “anointed,” and who is it who performs the anointing? The very meaning of the word “Christ” becomes void when separated from the person of Jesus. Jesus is the Christ, not just one of many Christs, or “anointed ones.” The Old Testament foretold one Messiah, not one who merely ushered in an age filled with anyone who realized an inherent capacity to be one of many Messiahs. The biographical characteristics of Jesus’ life cannot be attributed to a mere awakening of a higher consciousness. Such characteristics include the following: He was without sin. He performed miracles. He raised the dead. He foreknew the time of His death. He knew the thoughts of others. He fulfilled many prophecies found in the Old Testament. The list goes on and on. If the Christ is a consciousness which lies hidden in every man, then once that consciousness is realized, anyone would have the ability to raise the dead, walk on water, or perform any other feat attributed to Jesus in the Gospel accounts. The Christ of Scripture was not a higher consciousness which was awakened within Jesus. Rather, it was His identification and oneness with a divine mission. The Christ, or Messiah, was one who would redeem God’s people. More than being their Redeemer, Jesus the Christ was also their God. He was the incarnation of God Himself, not the incarnation of the sign of Pisces. Jesus is described in Scripture as the only begotten Son of God, not as one who possessed a potential equal to the potential of anyone else in the “Age of Pisces.” The Christ of astrology knows no resurrection. As stated above, this presumed higher consciousness perishes with man. The Christ of Scripture experienced a bodily resurrection from the dead (see Part five for evidences concerning Jesus’ resurrection), not just an elevation into a higher form of awareness. If Jesus was a mere man and His arrival ushered in the Age of Pisces, then in what way could He be said to complete the Age? If He is indeed the avatar, or incarnation, of Pisces, then He would have had to continue, in some sense, the spirit of Pisces throughout the span of the present Age of the Zodiac, believed to expire in 2150 A.D. Jesus died in approximately 29 A.D., so He cannot be said

258

to represent the present age in a physical or tangible sense, and if not tangible, then His representation must be believed to assume a spiritual sense. However, if Jesus was a mere man, as astrologers believe, then He could in no way guarantee that the consciousness which He is said to embody would continue throughout the duration of the Age, nor could He guarantee the awakening of the Christ Consciousness in anyone but Himself. The astrologer may consider the coming of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost as the continuation of the Christ Consciousness, but this Spirit is described in Scripture as proceeding from the person of Jesus Christ, and no mere man can rightly be thought of as responsible for sending the Holy Spirit. The “age” referred to in the New Testament is not the Age of Pisces The Zeitgeist Movie makes note of the following New Testament references to the “age,” however, as a comparative reading of Bible versions reveals, “age” does not hold the same meaning that the producers of Zeitgeist would like. "Either in this age or the age to come." (Mt 12:32 KJV) (Also translated as “neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.” NASB) "The harvest is the end of the age." (Mt 13:39 KJV) (Also translated as “the harvest is the end of the world.” NASB) "Sign of your coming and the end of the age." (Mt 24:3 KJV) (Also translated as “the end of the world?” NASB) "I am with you always to the very end of the age." (Mt 28:20 KJV) (Also translated as “the end of the world.” NASB) "In this age and the age to come" (Lk 18:30 KJV) (Also translated as “in the world to come eternal life.” NASB) "Wise by the standards of this age" (1 Cor 3:18 KJV) (Also translated as “If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise.” NASB) The context of the passage attributes wisdom not as being associated with a particular period of time, but with a pattern of thought. "On whom the fulfillment of the ages has come." (1 Cor 10:11 NASB) (Also translated as “upon whom the ends of the world are come.” KJV) "Not only in the present age but the age to come" (Eph 1:21 KJV) (Also translated as “not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” NASB) "And the powers of the coming age" (Heb 6:5 NASB) (Also translated as “and the powers of the world to come.” KJV)

259

"He has appeared once and for all at the end of the ages" (Heb 9: 26 KJV) Comparative readings of Bible versions render this passage as “ages.” However, the broader context is a reference to the work of Christ, of whom it says: “but now once at the end of the ages hath [Christ] been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (NASB). The passage describes the work of Christ as “once for all,” which, unfortunately for astrologers, does not fit into the pattern of the procession of the equinoxes, which denotes a shift from one age to the next approximately every two thousand years. Nowhere in astrology is an age believed to continue indefinitely. "King of the ages" (Rev 15:3 NIV) (Also translated as “King of the saints.” KJV, with a note in the margin indicating an alternate translation as “King of the nations,” a possible reference to Jer 10:7) The word “age” in Scripture has various meanings, and each passage must be read in context. However, none of the meanings of the word refers to the procession of the equinoxes. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words lists the following Greek words that have been translated as “age” in the New Testament: “Aion” The word aion means "an age,” or “era." Vines connects this word with the Greek word aei, which means "ever," indicating “a period of indefinite duration, or time viewed in relation to what takes place in the period.” It is further explained that “the force attaching to the word is not so much that of the actual length of a period, but that of a period marked by spiritual or moral characteristics. The phrases containing this word should not be rendered literally, but consistently with its sense of indefinite duration.” As the Ages of the Zodiac are each defined as a definite period of time, any translation of “age” from “aion” cannot properly be likened to the procession of the equinoxes. “Genea” The word genea means "to become," and signifies "a begetting, or birth." As such, the word describes successive generations in one’s ancestry. The word may be used to describe an “age,” but only within the limits of genealogy, thus making an “age” constituting a period of time spanning thirty to forty years. Thus, in Colossians 1:26 the word is translated as both “generations” and “ages.” While this word does denote a period of definite duration, the duration to which it refers is no more than about forty years, rather than the two thousand years contained in each of the Ages of the Zodiac.

260

“Helikia” Helikia refers to "a certain length of life,” or “a particular time of life," and is synonymous with such expressions as “prime of life” or “age of maturity.” The connotation is a reference to a certain period of time in one’s lifespan, be it infancy, the various stages of adolescence and adulthood, or maturity. The word refers to the “ages” through which an individual passes during his or her lifetime, not to the “ages” through which astrologers believe the earth passes every two thousand years. The remaining three words refer to the elder years of a person’s lifetime, thus bearing no reference to the Ages of the Zodiac. “Hemera” Hemera literally means "a day." Its use in Luke 2:36 denotes someone being "of a great age," or "advanced in many days." “Huperakmos” Huperakmos refers to the elder years of one’s life, as in 1 Corinthians 7:36 where it is rendered "past the flower of her age." The literal translation of this word is "beyond the bloom or flower of life." “Teleios” Teleios means to "complete,” or make “perfect." The word carries the idea of a person coming to “an end,” and is literally translated as being "of full age.” In addition, the concept of the Ages of the Zodiac, or procession of the equinoxes, was not known in ancient times, and therefore cannot possibly be linked to Christianity. The procession of the equinoxes was discovered in the second century A.D. by Hipparchus.1 Dr. Noel Swerdlow, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, comments that "In antiquity, … within which group of stars the vernal equinox was located, was of no astrological significance at all. The modern ideas about the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius are based upon the location of the vernal equinox in the regions of the stars of those constellations. But the regions, the borders between, those constellations are a completely modern convention of the International Astronomical Union for the purpose of mapping . . . and never had any astrological significance. … It is simply anachronistic to believe that what is important to twentieth century astrology was of importance to ancient astrology. … The modern astrological beliefs are not identical to the ancient astrological beliefs.”2 D. M. Murdock, a staunch critic of Christianity, claims that “while the procession of the equinoxes was only ‘discovered’ during the second century [B.C.] by the Greek scientist Hipparchus; nevertheless, it is quite evident that the precession was well known, by the ruling elite and priestly faction, for millennia prior to its purported ‘discovery.’ That the ancients followed processional ages is revealed abundantly in the archaeological record.”3 As much as she would like her assertion to be true, the fact is that

261

there is no ancient evidence to support her claims. Even Aristotle declares that such beliefs were not known prior to Hipparchus’ discovery.4 Her socalled “ruling elite and priestly faction” remains unidentified and therefore serves as no form of evidence to back her claim. She attempts to back her claim by likening the instance of Moses’ reaction to the Hebrews’ golden calf to the shift of the ages of Taurus and Ares, and such an interpretation of that event will be refuted later in this book. Astrologers sometimes refer to the Model Prayer (often called the “Lord’s Prayer”) as a means to tie Scripture in with astrology. As stated before, the basic principle of astrology is “as above, so below.” In the Model Prayer, where Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, He used the expression “as in heaven, so on earth.” (Mt 6:10) Critics jump at the chance to use this passage to claim that Jesus was teaching astrological principles, however, the reference in the prayer of Christ refers to in what manner the will of God is to be accomplished: as it is in heaven; that is, without challenge or hesitation. The passage does not at all refer to a means of predicting or interpreting human affairs or events by looking to the stars or planets. Observations regarding the “Piscean” symbolism in Scripture and church history Critics claim that Jesus’ miracles (i.e., the feeding of the five thousand with bread and fish), His disciples’ occupations (two of His disciples were fishermen), and His orations (He said His disciples were fishers of men) are also fabrications which have their origin in the sign of Pisces. First, Jesus had many disciples from various lines of work, and the number of His disciples who engaged in the occupation of fishing numbered more than two (remember, there are only two fish in the sign of Pisces). Also, it is not unthinkable that some of His disciples would be engaged in the occupation of fishing, a commonplace occupation in that region. Many events related in the Gospels take place in the region of the Sea of Galilee. This was an area where fishing was a primary occupation and fish was widely used as food. Throughout the Bible, God uses what is common to man in order to relate spiritual truth, and it is as such that Jesus called His disciples “fishers of men.” Second, the miracle of feeding the five thousand with bread and fish (Jn. 21.25) was just one of His many miracles, not all of which are recorded in Scripture. In the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus did use two fish (the same number of fish found in the Pisces constellation), but He also used five loaves of bread (not found in any constellation), and the number of each was greatly multiplied to feed all those present to hear His teaching. Of all the miracles He performed, only some involved fish. Below is an example of the various types of miracles recorded in Scripture and performed by Jesus.

262

1 Changing water into wine Jn 2:1-11 2 Healing of the nobleman's son Jn 4:46-54 3 Healing of demoniacs Mt 8:16-17, Lk 4:40-41 4 Healing of Peter's mother-in-law Mt 8:14 5 Catching a large number of fish Lk 5:1-11 6 Healing a leper Mt 8:1-4 7 Healing a centurion's servant Lk 7:1-10 8 Healing a paralytic Mk 2:1-12 9 Healing a withered hand Lk 6:6-11 10 Raising the dead Lk 7:11-16, Mt 9:18-19, Jn 11:1-54 11 Calming the stormy sea Mt 8:23-27 12 Healing the Gerasene demoniac Mk 5:1-20 13 Healing a woman with internal bleeding Mt 9:20-22 14 Raising Jairus' daughter Mk 5:35-43 15 Healing blind Mk 8:22-36 16 Healing a mute demoniac Mt 9:27-31 17 Healing a 38 year invalid Jn 5:5-17 18 Feeding 5,000 men and their families Mt 14:15-21 19 Walking on water Jn 6:16-21 20 Healing a demoniac girl Mt 15:21-28 21 Healing a deaf man with a speech impediment Mk 7:31-37 22 Feeding the 4,000 men and their families Mk 8:1-9 23 Healing a blind man Mk 8:22-26 24 Healing a man born blind Jn 9:1-41 25 Healing a demoniac boy Mt 17:14-20 26 Catching a fish with a coin in its mouth Mt 17:24-27 27 Healing a blind and mute demoniac Mt 12:22-45 28 Healing a woman with an 18 year infirmity Lk 13:10-17 29 Healing a man with dropsy Lk 14:1-6 30 Healing ten lepers Lk 17:11-19 31 Raising of Lazarus from the dead Jn 11:43-46 32 Healing Bartimaeus of blindness Mk 10:46-52 33 Restoring a severed ear Lk 22:49-51 34 Catching a great number of fish Jn 21:6 Third, Jesus related many truths orally and gave many sermons. It is absolutely reasonable that some of these would relate to the occupation of fishing, for reasons stated above. Critics’ claims that fish and fishing metaphors are “abundant” in the account of Jesus, simply need to read a Bible. If they took the time to do so, they would see the truth that Jesus’ speech and action took on many characteristics and the elements He used in both were also widely varied in nature. When they say that “fish symbolism is very abundant in the New Testament,” they are merely relying on the hope that those unfamiliar with the New Testament will read the Scriptures in order to see just how “abundant” the imagery really is.

263

Early Christians’ selection of the fish as a symbol of faith was not due to a belief that Jesus ushered in a particular age of the zodiac. Rather, they did so because the fish symbol did not readily identify them in public as followers of Christ, as would, say, a cross. It is for this reason that we see the fish icon engraved in or marked on ancient relics. Another significance early Christians attributed to this symbol is that the Greek word for “fish” was “ichthys.” Christians used this word as an acronym for the phrase “Iesous Christos, Theou Uios, Soter,” translated "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." The fish symbol also served to identify places where ancient believers would gather in secrecy from Rome. Finally, while it is true that the Gospels make references to fish, water, and other “Piscean” characteristics, the Gospels also makes reference to other nonPiscean elements. For example, Jesus is identified as the Lion of Judah, so why not identify Him as the avatar of the sign Leo, the Lion? Since He was born of a virgin, why not name Him the avatar of Virgo, the Virgin? The New Testament also mentions camels, donkeys, and other animals, but to which Zodiacal sign to we attribute these references? While He did exemplify characteristics of love and compassion, characterized by the sign Pisces, He also displayed righteous anger because of the money-changers in the Temple, and it is He who will judge everyone according to his deeds (so why not name Him as the avatar of Libra, the balance). The apostle John, while in exile on the Isle of Patmos, was granted a vision of the wrath of Christ, as described below. I invite the astrologer to read this description and indicate which Piscean qualities are being exemplified in this image of Christ – gentleness? Hardly. What about sympathy or sensitivity? Certainly such a person does not fit the image of one who would usher in an age such as the Age of Pisces. And I [John] turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead. (Rev 1:12-18 NASB) And I {John] saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven

264

followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Rev. 19:11-16 NASB) Regarding the other signs of the Zodiac, the following hypotheses are suggested Taurus, the bull From The Zeitgeist Movie: “Now, the Bible reflects, broadly speaking, a symbolic movement through three ages, while foreshadowing a fourth. In the Old Testament when Moses comes down Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments, he is very upset to see his people worshiping a golden bull calf. In fact, he shattered the stone tablets and instructed his people to kill each other in order to purify themselves. Most Biblical scholars would attribute this anger to the fact that the Israelites were worshiping a false idol, or something to that effect. The reality is that the golden bull is Taurus the Bull, and Moses represents the new Age of Aries the Ram. This is why Jews even today still blow the Ram's horn. Moses represents the new Age of Aries, and upon the new age, everyone must shed the old age. Other deities mark these transitions as well, a pre-Christian god who kills the bull, in the same symbology.” When Moses descended from Mt. Sinai following his reception of the Ten Commandments, he observed the Hebrew people worshiping an idol of gold fashioned in the image of a calf. The Hebrews constructed this idol in the belief that Moses may have died while on the mountain. Their faith grew dim and they turned to pagan practices as a result. Upon Moses’ return, he became angry at the paganism he observed and broke the tablets of the Law, being indignant because of their sin. Critics suggest that this event signifies the transition from one age to the next, and that the golden calf represents the age of Taurus, the bull, whereas Moses represents the next age – the age of Ares, the ram. The event is recorded in Exodus chapter thirty-two, and some believe the golden calf was fashioned as a representation of the Egyptian god Apis, a deity represented by a bull. The inspiration for the image did indeed come from the religion of Egypt, as indicated in the following two passages written by the prophet Ezekiel: But they [the Hebrew people] rebelled against me [the Lord], and would not hearken unto me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. (Ez 20:8) Neither left she [the Hebrew people] her whoredoms brought from Egypt: (Ez 23:8)

265

While the words of Ezekiel indicates the calf was fashioned as a representation of an Egyptian idol, the passage in Exodus identifies the calf as being a physical representation of Jehovah, not an Egyptian deity. ... and they said, “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, “To morrow is a feast to the LORD.” (Ex 32:4-5) Therefore, the worship of the golden calf was not condemned as a sin of apostasy, for the calf was fashioned with the intention of it being a physical representation of the one true God, Jehovah. Rather, the sin committed by the Hebrews was that of idolatry, for it was forbidden that any graven image should be fashioned after Jehovah. They were using a pagan form of worship to honor the true God. This was the cause of Moses' anger – not that the Hebrews forsook Jehovah, but that they were likening Him to a pagan deity and employing pagan practices as their mode of worship. The procession of the equinoxes had nothing to do with Moses' actions, especially since such a belief was not yet fashioned by mankind. Finally, the use of the ram's horn signifies nothing more than the use of a common type of instrument. In antiquity, rams' horns were often used as trumpets. It should also be noted that Moses himself is never portrayed as blowing a ram’s horn, which is key in the critics’ identification of Moses as Ares the ram. Finally, even as admitted by Zeitgeist, the Age of Ares did not begin until 2150 B.C., whereas Moses, who Zeitgeist claims ushered in the Age of Ares, is regarded to have lived between 1400-1500 B.C. It therefore remains to be seen exactly how someone can be said to have inaugurated an age which began 650-750 years before his birth. Such a chronology provides an insurmountable obstacle in the critics' “Moses was Ares” thesis. Sagittarius and Capricorn, the archer and sea goat The following three propositions are made concerning these two astrological signs – 1. As stated in the film, “According to legend, Jesus was born in a stable between a horse and a goat, symbols of Sagittarius and Capricorn.” The Gospel narratives of Jesus do not mention what animals, if any, were present in the manger when Jesus was born. The inclusion of animals in any manger scene is the result of a later addition resulting from church tradition. While there would have likely been animals present in the manger, they are simply not mentioned in the Gospel nativity. 2. Also stated in the film, “The sun is 'crucified' between the two thieves of Sagittarius and Capricorn.” The association between the sun and the solstices, as well as the assumed relationship between the Crux constellation and crucifixion, has been previously discussed in this work, and I refer the reader to those sections in response to the “crucifixion” of the sun (see Part one). Here, it only needs to be said that the signs of Sagittarius and

266

Capricorn are a centaur (half man, half horse) archer and sea goat (half goat, half fish), respectively, not thieves. 3. The film continues, “In Sagittarius, Jesus was wounded in the side by the Centaur, or centurion.” In the Gospel account, the body of Jesus is pierced in the side by a Roman centurion in order to confirm that He was dead. A centaur is a mythological figure with the body of a horse and the torso of a man. The centurion in the Gospel narratives is a Roman soldier, with the body of a man and the torso of a man. The images of a centaur and a centurion bear no resemblance, either physically or figuratively. Also, the zodiacal sign Sagittarius is not depicted as being wounded in the side, nor does he cause another figure of the zodiac to be wounded in such a fashion. On the wheel of the zodiac, Sagittarius (the one Zeitgeist claims is pierced in the side) is positioned between Scorpio, the scorpion, and Capricorn, the sea goat, neither of which holds any figurative correlation to a Roman centurion and neither of which is depicted as wounding Sagittarius. Ares, the ram From The Zeitgeist Movie: “[Jesus] became the Good Shepherd and the Lamb in Aries, the Ram.” First, even according to Zeitgeist’s own admission, the Zodiacal sign Ares is neither a shepherd nor a lamb; but rather, is a ram. Second, Jesus identified Himself as a shepherd in order to illustrate that He is the Guide for the people of God. The subject of His illustrations and parables were things familiar to His audience, including common occupations such as shepherding or fishing (as previously mentioned). Also, in saying He is the Great Shepherd, Jesus alluded to the Old Testament references of God being a shepherd, and those who place their faith in Him, being His sheep. Cancer, the crab From The Zeitgeist Movie: “In Cancer, ‘the celestial Sea of Galilee,’ he calmed the storm and waters, spoke of backsliders, and rode the ass and foal in triumph into the City of Peace, Jerusalem.” The sign of Cancer is never referred to in antiquity as “the Sea of Galilee.” Even in modern times, the only references to the sign as “the Sea of Galilee” are by those who attempt to erroneously and illogically tie Christianity’s roots to the signs of the Zodiac. As far as the “calming of the storm,” this is likely derived from the description of someone born under the sign of Cancer, whose horoscope (for those who believe in such things) describes such a person as gentle and desirous of safety and stability, not seeking to cause conflict or stir trouble. As far as the reference to riding of an ass in a triumphal entry into the “City of Peace,” no such thing was ever associated with Cancer.

267

Libra, the balance From The Zeitgeist Movie: “In Libra, Christ was the true vine in the Garden of Gethsemane, the 'wine press,' as this is the time of the grape harvest.” The symbol for Libra is scales, not vines, grapes, wine, wine presses, gardens, or harvest. The association simply does not exist. Scorpio, the scorpion From The Zeitgeist Movie: “Jesus was betrayed by Judas, the 'backbiter,' or Scorpio.” The sting of a scorpion bears no similarity to any illustration or allusion to the act of “backbiting.” Also, Judas did not “backbite” Jesus. Rather, Judas betrayed Jesus and became an accomplice to murder – and this He did with Jesus’ full knowledge of the act before it even occurred. In the upper room the night on which Jesus was delivered into the hands of the Romans at the kiss of Judas, Jesus told his disciples that one would betray Him, and that he would hand the sop to the betrayer. He then handed the sop to Judas and told him, “What you do, do quickly.” (Jn 13:26) Jesus was in full knowledge and awareness of Judas’ intention and attempt to conspire against Him. As a side note, some critics have claimed that the figure of Judas was based on the figure of Typhon in the Egyptian myth of Horus. Typhon (the Greek name for Set), they say, betrayed Horus, and it is this myth which made its way into the Jesus “myth” when Jesus is said to have been betrayed by Judas. In the Gospels, Judas was a follower of Jesus, one of His inner circle of twelve disciples. He acted as Jesus’ friend until his greed set in and he determined to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. In the Horus legend, Typhon was neither a follower nor friend of Horus; but rather, was Horus’ enemy. As such, Typhon’s actions cannot properly be viewed as a betrayal, any more than can Lee Harvey Oswald’s actions be viewed as a betrayal of John F. Kennedy. Aquarius, the water bearer From The Zeitgeist Movie: “The water bearer mentioned in Luke 22:10 was really an allusion to the constellation Aquarius.” Below is the passage in question: Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. (Lk 22:7-13)

268

I will give Zeitgeist credit for getting one thing right: the man bearing a pitcher of water was intended as a sign, but the significance of the intended sign was not of an astrological nature. Rather, the man bearing the pitcher signified in whose lodging the disciples would observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. During times of festivity, Jerusalem was a bustling city. Josephus describes nearly two and a half million people converging on the city for the Passover feast.5 In such a time, the residents of Jerusalem would invite strangers into their guest rooms, generally located on the roof, in what was known as the “upper room,” so that guests may come and go as they please via a separate entrance, so as not to disturb the residents of the household.6 The custom of the day was to hang a curtain in front of the door of one's residence, in order to indicate there was still a vacancy in the upper room of the residence. This was the purpose the water bearer served – not to point to a forthcoming astrological age; but rather, to merely lead the disciples to the man who would be their host for the upcoming feast.7 The apparent reference in Luke’s Gospel is to a living human being carrying an actual pitcher filled with actual water, not a metaphorical water bearer. The church, as early as the first century A.D., acknowledged Jesus and the disciples as historical figures. For example, Clement of Rome, writing around 95 A.D., said concerning Peter and Paul, widely considered as those primary among the apostles, “Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”8Other extra-Biblical writers testify to the historicity of Jesus, speaking of Him as a real flesh-andblood man, not a personified representation of any zodiacal sign. More on this will be said in a later section relating to the historicity of Jesus. As an endnote to this section, the images of Jesus in the Zodiac depicted in the film all post-date the Apostolic Age, dating (as even the film itself admits) to the eleventh century A.D.

269

VIII. Concerning the proposed similarity between various Biblical concepts and pre-existing beliefs and icons

From The Zeitgeist Movie: “In fact, the Egyptian religion is likely the primary foundational basis for the Judeo-Christian theology. Baptism, afterlife, final judgment, virgin birth, resurrection, crucifixion, the ark of the covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy communion, the great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover, and many, many more, are all attributes of Egyptian ideas, long predating Christianity and Judaism.” O.k., here we go … Baptism – see Part four of this work Afterlife and final judgment The concept of an afterlife and a final judgment permeates cultures throughout the world and is an integral of any religious system. The fact that one system of belief holds to some form of afterlife or judgment should surprise no one. Rather, such a concept should stand as a necessity to that system, not a parallel “linking” that system to another. For example: Ancient Egyptians bathed in water. Early Christians bathed in water too – maybe they got that idea from the early Egyptians. Sound ridiculous? Sure. Yet, this is the same type of logic which critics employ in their arguments. Virgin birth – previously discussed Resurrection – see Part four of this work Crucifixion – previously discussed The Ark of the Covenant An ark, aside from being a vessel (as was the case with the ark of Noah), may also be a chest or a box, and as such is not identified strictly with a particular culture or belief. Ancient Egyptians did have boxes which contained engravings or inscriptions and were used in ritual practices and ceremonies, such as the chest used in the Festival of Apet. Therefore, such items may correctly be called an ark. Ancient Egyptian rulers did have a chest-like throne which was portable and could be carried from one place to another, in similar fashion as the Hebrews’ Ark of the Covenant. However, neither the ritual chests nor the Egyptian “ark-thrones” mirror the Hebrew Ark of the Covenant in appearance (as shown at the top of next page) or significance, nor were they called an “Ark of the Covenant, Ark of God,” or “Ark of the Testimony,” as was the Hebrew ark. While some Old Testament texts do suggest the imagery of the ark being a throne (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15), more so it was a sign of God’s presence among His people. As such, the ark became sacred, to the extent that it was not even allowed to be touched by man or looked upon (when transporting the ark,

270

the ark was covered with a veil). Additionally, the Ark of the Covenant did not sit out in the open; but rather, sat in solitude, behind a large veil, within the Holy of Holies, the room within the Tabernacle where only the High Priest could enter and only when so required for presenting an offering to God. When being transported, the ark was covered with a veil, so it could not be looked upon. The passage in which God instructs Moses to build the Ark of the Covenant is found in Exodus 25: 10-22. The specifications for the ark, as given by God, are as follows: It was to be made of shittim wood Length: two cubits and a half Width: a cubit and a half Height: a cubit and a half It was to be overlaid with pure gold, within and without They were to fashion a crown of gold round about the throne It was to have four rings of gold on each of the four corners (posts, by which the ark was carried, were inserted through these rings) A golden cherubim with outstretched wings was to be placed on either side Inside the ark was to be placed the stone tablets of the Law God then said to Moses, “I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony. “ Such is the description of the Ark of the Covenant. The following is a visual comparison between a typical Egyptian ark-throne and the Hebrew ark. You will see they differ drastically in appearance. Also, the winged creatures on either side of any Egyptian throne were never cherubs (a strictly Hebrew concept), but were rather depictions of Egyptian winged deities.

The Hebrew Ark of the Covenant

271

Typical Egyptian “ark-thrones”

Cave painting depicting the throne of Rameses III

Circumcision Ancient Egyptians did practice circumcision, as evidenced in temple reliefs and on the bodies of unwrapped mummies. Their reason for circumcising males is unknown. It was most certainly not for moral purification, since sex was not recognized as a sin within their religion. Based on Egyptian reliefs, most scholars agree that circumcision was merely a sign of fertility in the circumcised male, having no religious attachment whatsoever in ancient Egypt. In fact, the practice first gained spiritual significance with the Hebrews, and was a means of making them distinct from the heathen people and separated unto God. It is also true that Egyptian priests were said to have been circumcised in accordance with their office, but such practice does not exist until after the time of Moses. According to Alan B. Lloyd, in his work Ancient Egypt: A Social History, “Thanks to Herodotus we are well informed on the priests’ mode of life during the mid fifth century B.C., and we need not doubt that his comments held true for the entire period under discussion [i.e., The Late Period, 664 – 323 B.C.] Not surprisingly, he lays great stress on their obligation to maintain a high level of ritual purity: they shaved their bodies every other day, had to be circumcised, wore only linen garments and sandals of papyrus, and washed twice a day and twice a night.”1 Savior – see Part four of this work Holy communion – see Part four of this work The great flood – previously discussed Easter – previously discussed Christmas – previously discussed It is absolutely absurd to think that the ancient kings and queens of Egypt celebrated anything bearing even a close resemblance to Christmas or

272

Easter – especially since neither observance existed in any form until thousands of years after ancient Egyptians passed off the scene. Passover – previously discussed It is equally absurd to believe that a strictly Hebrew observance was practiced by Egyptians, or any other culture for that matter. How can a Judaic observance pre-date Judaism? Also, given the account in Exodus chapters eleven and twelve describing the event which the Passover Feast signifies, one can only imagine how “festive” an Egyptian Passover Feast would be! “... and many, many more.” – Bring it on!

IX. Concerning the claim that the life of Jesus is merely a revision of the life of Joseph

From the Zeitgeist movie: “The Bible is nothing more than an astro-theological literary fold hybrid, just like nearly all religious myths before it. In fact, the aspect of transference, of one character's attributes applied to a new character, can be found within the [Bible] itself. In the Old Testament there's the story of Joseph. Joseph was a prototype for Jesus. Joseph was born of a miracle birth, Jesus was born of a miracle birth. Joseph was of 12 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples. Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver. Brother "Judah" suggests the sale of Joseph, disciple "Judas" suggests the sale of Jesus. Joseph began his work at the age of 30, Jesus began his work at the age of 30. The parallels go on and on.” The supposed parallels between Jesus and Joseph are not as evident as the critic would prefer. The film in question mentions the following common elements: A miracle birth The birth of Joseph is told in the book of Genesis (30:22-24). Joseph’s birth was the result of God’s response to Rachel’s longing, but no supernatural character is assigned to the birth. The text only reads that God “opened her womb,” but the same is said of Leah in a previous section (Gen 29:31) describing the birth of Reuben, and does not imply anything other than a natural birth. Twelve brothers, twelve disciples By Zeitgeist’s own admission, Joseph did not have twelve brothers; but rather, was one of twelve brothers. Rather than this likening Joseph to Jesus, the comparison (if one was to be made) should be that of Jacob and Jesus, since Jacob, Joseph’s father, had twelve sons. Sold for 20-30 pieces of silver Given the use of silver as a common form of currency, and a form which has been used throughout many ages, this element becomes a moot point.

273

Brother Judah, disciple Judas These names were the fourth most commonly used names among the Hebrew people.1 Also, were the critic to actually read the Bible, he would find the actions of Judah in the Genesis account and the actions of Judas in the Gospels do not bear as close a connection. Genesis chapter thirty-seven tells the story of Joseph’s betrayal by his brethren at the age of seventeen. According to the text, all of Joseph’s eleven brothers, not just Judah, conspired against him. Their original intent was to kill him, but it was Judah who suggested that Jospeh’s life be spared in favor of selling him into slavery. Judah acted out of compassion for his brother, whereas Judas acted without regard for Jesus’ well-being. Also, Judah’s actions were not pre-meditated; but rather, was a spontaneous notion which arose as he saw a band of Ishmaelites pass by while he and his brothers sat down to eat bread. Each began his work at the age thirty The reason for Jesus beginning His ministry at age thirty has already been addressed (refer to Part one). The Old Testament contains many “types,” or foreshadows, of the promised Messiah. Types have the following characteristics: 1. Both the type and its fulfillment must be rooted in history, referring to an historical person, place, object, or event in both ages. 2. Types must be prophetic, in anticipation of a future fulfillment. 3. Types are Christ-centered, all pointing towards the Messiah to a greater or lesser degree. Of these Old Testament types, Joseph is widely recognized by Christian scholars as one of the most prominent. Torrey's Topical Index lists the following Old Testament types of Christ (the list is not all-inclusive, but serves to illustrate the point): Adam - Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:45 Abel - Gen 4:8,10; Heb 12:24 Abraham - Gen 17:5; Eph 3:15 Aaron - Ex 28:1; Heb 5:4,5; Lev 16:15; Heb 9:7,24 Ark - Gen 7:16; 1 Pet 3:20,21 Ark of the Covenant - Ex 25:16; Ps 40:8; Isa 42:6 Atonement, sacrifices offered on the day of - Lev 16:15,16; Heb 9:12,24 Brazen serpent - Num 21:9; Jn 3:14,15 Brazen altar - Ex 27:1,2; Heb 13:10 Burnt offering - Lev 1:2,4; Heb 10:10 Cities of refuge - Num 35:6; cf. Heb 6:18 David – 2 Sam 8:15; Ez 37:24; Ps 89:19,20; cf. Ph 2:9 Eliakim - Isa 22:20-22; cf. Rev 3:7 First-fruits - Ex 22:29; cf. 1 Cor 15:20

274

Golden candlestick - Ex 25:31; cf. Jn 8:12 Golden altar - Ex 40:5,26,27; cf. Rev 8:3; Heb 13:15 Isaac - Gen 22:1,2; cf. Heb 11:17-19 Jacob - Gen 32:28; cf. Jn 11:42; Heb 7:25 Jacob's ladder - Gen 28:12; cf. Jn 1:51 Joseph - Gen 50:19,20 Joshua - Josh 1:5,6; cf. Heb 4:8,9; Josh 11:23; cf. Acts 20:32 Jonah - Jonah 1:17; cf. Mt 12:40 Laver of brass - Ex 30:18-20; Zech 13:1; cf. Eph 5:26,27 Leper's offering - Lev 14:4-7; cf. Rom 4:25 Man - Ex 16:11-15; cf. Jn 6:32-35 Melchizedek - Gen 14:18-20; cf. Heb 7:1-17 Mercy-seat - Ex 25:17-22; cf. Rom 3:25; Heb 4:16 Morning and evening sacrifices - Ex 29:38-41; cf. Jn 1:29,36 Moses - Num 12:7; Heb 3:2; Deut 18:15; cf. Acts 3:20-22 Noah - Gen 5:29; cf. 2 Cor 1:5 Paschal lamb - Ex 12:3-6,46; cf. Jn 19:36; 1 Cor 5:7 Peace offerings - Lev 3:1; cf. Eph 2:14,16 Red heifer - Num 19:2-6; cf. Heb 9:13,14 Rock of Horeb - Ex 17:6; cf. 1 Cor 10:4 Samson - Judges 16:30; cf. Col 2:14,15 Scape goat - Lev 16:20-22; Isa 53:6,12 Sin offering - Lev 4:2,3,12; cf. Heb 13:11,12 Solomon – 2 Sam 7:12,13; cf. Lk 1:32,33; I Pet 2:5 Tabernacle - Ex 40:2,34; cf. Heb 9:11; Col 2:9 Table and show bread - Ex 25:23-30; cf. Jn 1:16; 6:48 Temple – 1 Kings 6:1,38; cf. Jn 2:19,21 Tree of life - Gen 2:9; cf. Jn 1:4; Rev 22:2 Trespass offering - Lev 6:1-7; Isa 53:10 Veil of the tabernacle and temple - Ex 40:21; cf. 2 Chr 3:14; Heb 10:20 Zerubbabel - Zech 4:7-9; cf. Heb 12:2,3 The many types of Christ found in the Old Testament are a source of blessing and comfort for the Christian. They display God’s progressive revelation of His redemptive purpose and stand as a witness to the consistency and surety of the message of the Bible as a whole. The Old Testament types give the Christian greater understanding of New Testament teaching regarding the person and work of the Messiah (such is expressed in Hebrews chapter 9, and will be further addressed in a later section). For those who have faith in God’s truth, there is blessing and joy beyond measure; for those who have no faith and are left to their own vain imaginings, may it be that one day God will delight in removing the scales from their eyes and give them the faith to believe in someone greater than themselves. Concerning the number of strikingly similar characteristics between Joseph and Jesus, historian Michael Licona points out that characteristics equally similar exist between Jesus and John F. Kennedy2, as follows:

275

Both had followers who adored them. Both were leaders of a kingdom. Both were opposed. Both were killed publicly Both deaths were in a dramatic fashion Both died at the pinnacle of their careers Both died in the presence of the woman closest to them. Both received head wounds. A crown of thorns was placed on the head of Jesus. JFK suffered a fatal bullet wound to the head. Both were pronounced dead by authorities (soldier, physician). Both were mourned Both were buried in a tomb Both had names beginning with the letter “J” Both were interested in freedom Both had a father named Joseph Both fathers were self-employed Both Jesus and JFK had brothers who were murdered Based on these characteristics, no one would dare claim that JFK never existed and was merely a fictional figure based on the Gospel accounts of Jesus. In similar fashion, compare the following similarities between JFK and Abraham Lincoln (below is a short list – for more, refer to the citation):3 Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846 John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946 Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960 The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters Both of their wives lost their children while living in the White House Both Presidents were shot on a Friday Both were shot in the head Both were assassinated by Southerners Both were succeeded by Southerners Both successors were named Johnson Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808 Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908 John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839 Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939 Both assassins were known by their three names Both names are comprised of fifteen letters Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials Before Lincoln was assassinated, he visited Monroe, Maryland Before Kennedy was assassinated, he visited Marilyn Monroe

276

As shown in the two examples above, one cannot reasonably and accurately claim that the historicity of one figure is based not on history itself but on that fact that both figures share like biographical characteristics. The fact that such similarities exist between two figures neither proves causal connection or dependence of one on the other. As Bruce Metzger states, "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction."4

X. Concerning Constantine and the Nicean Creed The Zeitgeist Movie claims that the doctrines of Christianity were established by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. True, it was by Constantine’s edict that Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire, but the doctrines of the Christian faith existed centuries before his time.* It was during the time of Constantine that the Council of Nicea was convened and the famous Nicean Creed was formed as a result. Prior to the Nicean Creed, the divinity of Christ, among other doctrines, was already affirmed in the mind of early writers. The purpose of the Council of Nicea was not to determine if Jesus was divine, but in what way He was divine, whether He was as divine as the Father or just shared a portion of the Father's deity. Regarding the claim that Constantine played a part in the fashioning of Christian doctrine, Dr. Ben Witherington III writes: “…most theological issues, including those about Christ’s nature, had taken a rather definite shape and trajectory before Constantine had anything to do with them…At the Council of Nicea, Constantine seems to have favored Christ’s true divinity, but he was no theologian, and it certainly wasn’t he who wrote the Creed of Nicea. Constantine mainly pronounced the benediction on the deliberations that had already been formulated.”1 As Constantine played no part in the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine, he likewise played no role in the formation of the canon of Scripture. It is said by some critics that Constantine suppressed the canonical Gospels in favor of the apocryphal gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip, among others. First, the canonical Gospels predate the apocryphal gospels, as will be shown under a later heading, and were already regarded as authoritative. Second, there is no historical evidence for any such manipulation on the part of Constantine. The early church historian, Eusebius, wrote that Constantine did commission copies of the Scriptures to be produced, but there is no mention of any revision or omission which was to be made to what was already regarded as the authoritative Scriptures, which did not include the apocryphal gospels. In a letter to Eusebius, Constantine gave his instructions for such a task to be done as follows: “I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. The catholicus of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things

277

necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible.”2 Prior to Constantine becoming Emperor, the canon of Scripture was already close to becoming a settled matter (which happened in 397 A.D.), thereby confirming the contents of the New Testament, as we know it today, had already been established as the authoritative source for Christian doctrine. The official canon of Scripture simply affirmed that which was upheld in the first few centuries. This early affirmation of Scripture is attested to by the writings of the church in the first three centuries. Moreover, even during the writing of the letters which now form the greater part of the books of the New Testament, the Apostle Peter recognized that Paul’s own writings were divinely inspired, as shown in the passage below (emphasis mine): And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Pet 3:15-16 NASB) It is clear from Peter’s letter that he was equating the writings of Paul with “other Scriptures.” Although the word translated “scriptures” in that passage is a word which could just as easily be translated, in a more general sense, as “writings,” Peter is clearly using the word within the context of divinely-inspired writings, such as is indicated by his admission that Paul wrote “according to the wisdom given to him” by divine revelation (compare the following passage below in which Paul mentions the source of his inspiration). For I [Paul] make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12 NASB) The document known as the Muratorian fragment also testifies to early acceptance of the authoritative character of many of the books which would later be named within the official canon. Although the fragment itself dates to the seventh century, characteristics of the fragment suggest that it is copied from a text dating to c.170 A.D.3 The fragment contains a list of books which were regarded as divinely inspired. Among the books listed were four Gospels (the Gospels of Luke and John, as well as two unidentified Gospels), the book of Acts, thirteen of Paul’s letters now contained in the New Testament, the book of Jude, and two other books attributed to John. Likewise, when the Diatessaron, the first harmony of the Gospels, was created by Tatian between 160-175 A.D., the only works which were included therein were the four now-canonical Gospels. Finally, Constantine was not as devout a Christian as some may think, as he still paid tribute to pagan deities even after his conversion. Had he been so devoted to the Apostolic doctrines to the point where he would have formed a creed affirming such doctrines, he would likely have conducted himself without any regard for false gods.

278

* Constantine ruled from 313-337 A.D., but did not assume full control of the Empire until 324 A.D.

XI. Concerning the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the Inquisition

Christianity, like any religion, has had its share of black eyes. There have been many zealots and sheep-in-wolves’-clothing within the body of the church. These ones have taken it upon themselves to disregard the teachings of Jesus and act according to their own passions and judgment, rather than looking to the Scriptures as their code of conduct. Such was true in ages past, as in the case of the Inquisition, such was true in more recent eras, during the time of the Salem witch trials, and such is true in more modern times, such as the hostilities between Irish Protestants and Catholics. Jesus referred to the church as His flock and His sheep, but, as with every fold, there are those sheep which go astray. Such straying does not negate the true nature of the fold nor does it discredit the shepherd. One cannot claim that because evils have been done in the name of Christ, that the whole of Christianity is a violent religion whose aim is to crush its opposition. Such efforts do not reflect the commission Jesus gave to His disciples, and to His followers throughout all ages, as shown below: And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen. (Mt 28:18-20, NIV) All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. (Mt 7:1, NIV) “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Mt 22:37-40, NIV) A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also. (Jn 13:34, NIV) You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Mt. 5:38-42, NIV) But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes

279

you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Lk. 6:27-31. NIV) In addition, when one of Jesus’ disciples acted violently, Jesus responded with compassion, as in the passage below. The scene was the garden of Gethsemane and Judas had just betrayed Jesus. What followed was an act of violence by Peter, followed by Jesus’ rebuke and compassion. While [Jesus] yet spake, behold, a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them; and he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said unto him, ‘Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?’ And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, ‘Lord, shall we smite with the sword?’ And a certain one of them [Peter] smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, ‘Suffer ye them thus far.’ And he touched his ear, and healed him. (Lk. 22:47-51) Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant’s name was Malchus. Jesus therefore said unto Peter, ‘Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?’ So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him. (Jn 18: 10-12 NASB) These teachings of Christ reflect the conduct which is expected of a Christian. Anyone who acts in contrast does so apart from the Biblical mandate and is not reflective of the true spirit of the Christian faith.

XII. Concerning the historicity of Jesus The following claim is made in The Zeitgeist Movie: “Furthermore, is there any nonBiblical historical evidence of any person, living with the name Jesus, the Son of Mary, who traveled about with 12 followers, healing people and the like? There are numerous historians who lived around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed life of Jesus. How many historians document this figure? Not one. However, to be fair, that doesn’t mean defenders of the Historical Jesus haven’t claimed the contrary. Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus’ existence. Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus are the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name, but a title, meaning ‘Anointed one.’ The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still sited as truth.” In the spirit of fairness, I will grant Zeitgeist this much: the works of Pliny the Younger and Suetonius are said to include a reference of Jesus, but these serve more as a reference to Christianity in general, rather than the historical Jesus.

280

The Negative Evidence Principle Critics appeal to what is known as the Negative Evidence Principle in their attempt to discredit the Gospels as being the account of an historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth. The Negative Evidence Principle is the principle that a claim should be regarded as false if it does not meet three basic criteria. The first criterion is that the supporting evidence for the claim has been proven unreliable. In attempting to use the Negative Evidence Principle to disprove the historicity of Jesus, critics point to the lack of reliable references to Jesus found in ancient writings. At the top of the list are the writings of Josephus, in which are found two references to Jesus of Nazareth. While the Josephan references will be addressed hereafter, I will here briefly preview that address by stating that the first of these references displays characteristics which prove the reference is only partially unauthentic to the hand of Josephus himself. Still, while not serving as the stalwart reference to Jesus that Christian apologists would prefer, it does stand as a reference to an historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, and any attempt to regard the whole of this passage as a Christian forgery is unsupported by the evidence contained within the passage itself. The second Josephan passage, in which both Jesus and His brother James are referenced, is rarely contested by critics to be a forgery. Also, there exist references to Jesus in the writings of Tacitus and Lucian, as well as the writings of the church fathers and men regarded as heretics by the church. The silence of other writers concerning Jesus is easily accounted for when one considers that the qualities characterizing the life of Jesus were such that would not have appealed to pagan writers, nor would have been in line with the subjects with which their writings were concerned. The fact that there exists the number of ancient references, as modern man has available to him, concerning Jesus, is more than what should likely exist, in all truthfulness. Critics also point to the New Testament itself as an unreliable source of information concerning Jesus. For instance, the letters of the New Testament (Romans through Revelation) are largely silent (or so the argument goes) concerning the biographical aspects of the Son of God. For instance, Paul, so they say, never mentions the virgin birth of Jesus, yet the virgin birth is at the core of Paul’s view of Jesus’ sinlessness. Also, the letters were not intended to be biographical sketches of Jesus; but rather, were written to address certain problems or issues facing the churches to whom the letters were addressed. The lack of mention of any of Jesus’ miracles or discourses is absolutely in line with the purpose for which the letters were composed. The second criterion is the lack of evidence which should exist to support the claim, were the claim true. “Why are there so few ancient references to Jesus?” is the cry of the critic. Such a cry is grounded in the supposition that ancient writings should abound with mentions of Jesus, but such an expectation is absolutely unfounded based on the intentions of ancient writers. Again, these writers, and their purposes for

281

writing, will be discussed hereafter; therefore, only prefatory remarks are required here. Many of the writings of ancient times have been either lost or destroyed, yet the references to Jesus within the writings still extant are more than substantial to validate Him as a person of history. The third criterion is that an exhaustive attempt has been made to uncover supporting evidence, wherever such evidence should be found. Among ancient non-Christian historians, there exist a few references to Jesus of Nazareth. Critics delight in pointing to the lack of abundance of such mentions of Jesus, not taking into account the reasons for such silence, and begging the question, “How much water does a glass need to contain before the glass can be said to contain water?” In disregarding the evidence which does exist, critics employ a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalpost,” a form of argumentation which constantly raises the bar on the amount of evidence one needs to present before a claim is to be considered valid. The references to Jesus which does exist within ancient writings are certainly sufficient evidence to conclude the Gospels’ account of Jesus is an account of an historical person from Nazareth and who was crucified in Jerusalem, and it is to these references that our attention will now turn. Ancient non-Christian references to Jesus As stated above, the references by Pliny the Younger and Suetonius are often appealed to by sincere yet overeager apologists who search for references to Jesus among ancient writings. Notable references to Jesus as an historical figure are provided by the historians Tacitus and Josephus The testimony of Tacitus The Roman historian Tacitus spoke of Jesus, referring to Him by His title Christus (the Latinized form of “Christ”) rather than His name, then goes on to describe the persecution suffered by His followers under the thumb of Rome. “Christus, from whom the name [Christianity] 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment,

282

there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”1 Although Tacitus refers to the “Christ,” rather than to the name Jesus, it is clear by the references which follow (and the fact that “Messiah,” or “Christ” was not a title commonly assigned to a person by the Jews) that he is referring to Jesus, rather than another “Christ.” In fact, no one else was referred to as “Christ” until c.132 A.D, fifteen years after Tacitus' death in 117 A.D.. Even so, the only one ever referred to by Christians as the Christ was Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified by Pilate, as Tacitus noted in his record. Attention has been drawn to a letter from Hadrian claiming that the followers of Serapis were also referred to as Christians and that the “Chrestus” or “Christus” to whom Tacitus is referring is Serapis rather than Jesus of Nazareth. The authenticity of the letter has already been addressed (see Part one, “The Unusual Suspects:” Zulis) and the letter shown to be a forgery. Still, were the letter authentic to the hand of Hadrian,it would still post-date the death of Tacitus by seventeen years, since the letter has been dated to 134 A.D. In addition, the context of the letter (even were it not a fake) is in the present tense, rather than serving as a claim that Serapis' followers were called Christians during the time of Tacitus. Finally, the biographical aspects of Tacitus' “Christ” match those of Jesus, not Serapis. Concerning “Christus,” Tacitus makes the following notations: The Christ to whom Tacitus referred is the one from whom Christianity received its name. Believers in Christ were first called Christians in Antioch during the time when the Apostles of Jesus were still alive. The designation the citizens of Antioch gave to the followers of Christ was in mockery of their belief in the poor carpenter from Nazareth, not in a deity who was a merger of Greek and Egyptian mythology, as was Serapis. Tacitus confirms that the Christ to whom he referred suffered the “extreme penalty,” as crucifixion was regarded, during the reign of Tiberius and at the hand of “Pontius Pilatus,” as the Gospels confirm regarding Jesus (cf. Lk 2:1) Tacitus confirms that the Christianity first originated in Judaea, which is true of Jesus, but not Serapis, since belief in the deity Serapis (then known as Osirapis, a merger of the deities Apis and Osiris) originated in ancient Egypt. Also, his use of the title Christus was to indicate the name which resulted in the designation of Jesus’ followers as Christians. In this context, it makes more sense than if he had said, “Jesus, from whom the name [Christianity] had its origin …,” since the title “Christian” comes from the title “Christ,” not the name Jesus. Tacitus researched his subject thoroughly, through the use of personal interviews, the written record, and carefully-guarded Roman archives, which he was privileged to have access. His reputation relied on his adherence to accuracy, and had he written a report concerning a man who did not exist, that reputation would be scarred as a result. Thus, his mention of Jesus as an historical figure testifies to his belief that

283

Jesus did in fact exist, a belief which he would have subjected to the same evidential criteria as his other subjects. In other words, he considered the evidence for Jesus’ existence as a valid reason to accept Jesus as an historical personage. Furthermore, had Tacitus regarded the evidence concerning Jesus to be in error, he would have noted such error in his own testimony regarding Jesus. If the critic wishes to consider Tacitus’ testimony to Jesus’ historicity as being contrary to the truth, then all of Tacitus’ historical writing should be regarded as false information, for the same care was given to each subject to which he devoted research. Finally, the tone of the text does not suggest that a Christian copyist inserted this passage at a later date. The text lacks the glosses which would be present if such a passage had been written by one who was devoted to Jesus. Such glosses are evident in the writing of Josephus, which will be discussed immediately hereafter, but in Tacitus’ testimony there is no effort to praise Jesus, nor to decry His execution and offer a defense of the Christian cause. The testimony of Josephus The Jewish historian Josephus wrote twice concerning Jesus: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”2 “And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”3

284

In the above two quotations from the writings of Josephus, the first, often known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” has long been the subject of criticism. Critics believe, with varying conviction, that this particular passage is a forgery, not having been penned by Josephus himself; but rather, is falsely attributed to him. While some believe (most often in an attempt to discredit Christianity) the passage in its entirety is a forgery, others believe that Josephus did write this passage concerning Jesus, but the form in which this passage exists today is an alteration from its original form, having been added to or changed by later copyists. Among reputable historians and Josephan scholars, the major consensus is that the work does contain a few minor alterations, but that the work as a whole is authentic and does stand as a testimony from Josephus to the historicity of Christ. Louis Feldman, a leading Josephan scholar, states, “We must start with the assumption that the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic until proven otherwise, inasmuch as the manuscript tradition, late though it be, is unanimous in including it.”4 Some obvious Christian revisions include the phrases, “if it be lawful to call him a man,” “He was [the] Christ,” and “He appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” Josephus did not regard Jesus as the Christ, and would have offered no praise or acknowledgment to that effect. Still, other marks of the passage refute the theory that the text was composed by a Christian copyist. The reference to Jesus as a “wise man” does not befit the tone of an early Christian writer. Jesus was considered the personification of wisdom (a concept to be addressed later in Part five of this book), not just one who was merely wise in reputation. In fact, human wisdom is portrayed in Scripture in lowly terms and in sharp contrast to the wisdom of God. Additionally, a Christian copyist would not have referred to Jesus as a man, without further addressing His deity. Jesus was not just a man, he was the God-Man, fully human and fully divine. Even the very presence of the phrase “if it be lawful to call him a man” is out of tone with the term “wise man.” If the writer considered Jesus to be more than a man, then why did he make mention of Him as a man in the first place? While the term “wise man” accurately describes Josephus’ view of Christ, the subsequent phrase bears the mark of one other than Josephus. Had a Christian copyist forged this passage entirely, there would not remain mentions of Jesus which correctly reflects Josephus' views, for the whole purpose of forging a document such as this is to make the author say something which he would not have said in the original work. Also, the description of Jesus’ teaching as “pleasing” greatly diminishes the importance of His message and as such does not bear the mark of a Christian writer. Nor is Christ's crucifixion mentioned in terms of its redemptive value; but rather, is merely a passing notation. Had a Christian copyist forged this passage, he would have likely elaborated on the cross as the saving work of Christ, so as not to portray his Lord as a failed Messiah and a convicted criminal Finally, it is unlikely that a Christian copyist would draw attention to the disciples' abandon of Jesus in His hour of trial. Not only would such a statement be embarrassing, but also could possibly serve to diminish Apostolic authority. The earliest extant copy of the Testimonium Flavianum dates to the ninth century, however, early writers, such as Eusebius, Jerome, and Origen, testified to its

285

existence. It has been asked why more early writers did not refer to Josephus’ mention of Jesus. The answer to that question is also a question itself: Why would they feel the need to make use of such a reference? The historicity of Jesus was not in debate in the first few centuries. Other than a testament to the historicity of Jesus, Josephus’ reference holds little to no significance. However, among the early references to Josephus’ testimony, of particular note is the mention of this passage in the writings of the third century church father Origen: “For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless — being, although against his will, not far from the truth — that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ), — the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been converted from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.”5 The second passage quoted above does not bear the weight of criticism as does the first quoted passage. This second quote is commonly recognized by scholars as authentic to the hand of Josephus. Those who reject its authenticity are among those who propose that the Gospel of Christ is nothing more than a copycat of earlier religions. A noteworthy mark of this passage is the mention of James, Jesus’ brother (Matthew 13:55), as well as the identification of this Jesus as the Christ, the "Anointed One.” As with the Tacitus passage, the lack of Christian glosses account stands against the supposition that a Christian composed this passage. In contrast with the first passage attributed to Josephus, in which it is said, “[Jesus] was [the] Christ,” here it is said that He was “called the Christ,” a statement which does not mimic the language of early Christian writers.

286

The earliest non-canonical Christian records The following passages show an early belief not only in the resurrection of Christ, but also in the bodily resurrection of Christ, in stating He was raised from the dead. Barnabus (first century convert) Barnabas, mentioned throughout the book of Acts, was an early Christian, and the first of the Jerusalem Christians to accept the apostle Paul in their congregation (c.35 A.D.), following his transformation as one who persecuted the church to one to preached the Gospel of Christ (Acts 9:27). He accompanied Paul on numerous missionary journeys and participated in the Council of Jerusalem in c.50 A.D. Some believe it was Barnabus who authored the book of Hebrews, a belief held by the Church Father Tertullian. Concerning the historical Jesus, Barnabus states the following: “Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.”6 Clement (died c.99 A.D.) While the date of his death is fairly certain, the date of his birth is unknown. Clement, also known by Catholics as Pope Clement I, was a Bishop of Rome and is the earliest of the Church Fathers. His succession as Bishop of Rome is believed to have occurred in 88 or 92 A.D. His letter to the Corinthian church is one of the oldest Christian documents still in existence, outside of the cannon of Scripture. He was martyred by drowning in the sea. “Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. “Wherefore, girding up your loins,” “serve the Lord in fear” and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and “believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory,” and a throne at His right hand. To Him all things” in heaven and on earth are subject. Him every spirit serves. He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him. But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also...”7 Ignatius (c.35-110 A.D.) Ignatius was the third Bishop of the church in Antioch and a disciple of the apostle John, as was Polycarp. A good number of his letters have survived to the present day.

287

“Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not after the same manner. … He truly assumed a body; for “the Word was made flesh,” and lived upon earth without sin. … He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. … He also rose again in three days, the Father raising Him up; and after spending forty days with the apostles, He was received up to the Father, and “sat down at His right hand, expecting till His enemies are placed under His feet. … At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, ‘As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’”8 “And I know that He was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that He was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, ‘Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.’ And He says to Thomas, ‘Reach hither thy finger into the print of the nails, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side;’ and immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to Him, ‘My Lord, and my God.’ And on this account also did they despise death, for it were too little to say, indignities and stripes. Nor was this all; but also after He had shown Himself to them, that He had risen indeed, and not in appearance only, He both ate and drank with them during forty entire days. And thus was He, with the flesh, received up in their sight unto Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, accompanied by glory and power. … But if they say that He will come at the end of the world without a body, how shall those ‘see Him that pierced Him,’ and when they recognize Him, ‘mourn for themselves?’ For incorporeal beings have neither form nor figure, nor the aspect of an animal possessed of shape, because their nature is in itself simple.”9 “… may I be perfected through your prayers, and become a partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and have fellowship with Him in His death, His resurrection from the dead, and His everlasting life.”10

288

Polycarp (c.69-c.155 A.D.) Polycarp was the second Bishop of the church in Smyrna and a disciple of the apostle John. He, along with Clement and Ignatius, is recognized as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. The only of his writings still extant is his letter to the church in Philippi. He was martyred by stabbing, following a failed attempt to burn him at the stake. “I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.”11 Papias (early second century A.D.) Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis (modern day Pamukkale, Turkey) in c.130 A.D. None of his writings exist in their complete form, although fragments have remained extant. These fragments serve as a testimony to early acceptance of the accuracy, integrity, and apostolic authorship of the books of the New Testament, as well as the events and doctrines contained therein as that which was traditionally believed within the early church. “But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.”12 “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he

289

neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”13 Justin Martyr (c.100-165 A.D.) Justin Martyr is recognized as one of the earliest Christian apologists. His Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew is a discourse with a non-believer concerning the truths of the Christian faith. Whether this dialogue is a transcript of an actual conversation or a contrived discourse with a fictional character, Trypho, remains in dispute. Many of Justin’s writings have survived to this day. “… after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass.”14 “But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation.”15 Profession of the presbyters at Smyrna (c.180 A.D.) The church in Smyrna confronted an early heretic named Noetus (c.130-c.200 A.D.) who denied the Trinity and held to a form of doctrine known as patripassianism, which states there is one God who manifests Himself not in three persons, but as one performing three functions. According to this view, the Father, Son, and the Spirit are all the same person, and when the Son died on the cross, the Father and Spirit died with Him. Noetus was summoned before the presbyters of the Smyrna and was questioned concerning his beliefs. During this examination, he denied ever professing such doctrine. Later, after

290

converting others according to his manner of faith, he was summoned again by the presbyters, who then excommunicated him from the church. It was during this examination that the presbyters in Smyrna formulated a profession of faith in their condemnation of Noetus’ heresy. “We also know in truth one God, we know Christ, we know the Son, suffering as He suffered, dying as He died, and risen on the third day, and abiding at the right hand of the Father, and coming to judge the living and the dead. And in saying this we say what has been handed down to us.”16 Irenaeus (died c.202 A.D.) Irenaeus was Bishop of the church in Lugdunum, Gaul (modern day Lyons, France). As was Justin, Irenaeus is named among the early Christian apologists. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who, as stated above, was a disciple of the apostle John. The passage below is evidence not only of his belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ, but also that the church accepted the accounts of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. “For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them. … Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”17 If Jesus was so great, why is not first century literature filled with mention of His words and deeds? The above heading represents a legitimate question. One would naturally think that if Jesus really performed the miracles He did and really rose from the dead, then early written documentation attesting to such deeds should exist in abundance. Since the death of men like Abraham Lincoln, Henry VIII of England, and even Houdini, the written record of their words and deeds is quite extensive. Why should it not be so for Jesus if He did indeed do the work the Gospel writers attribute to Him? In answer to this question, the following factors must be considered: 1. Much of what was written during the time of Christ is now lost, be it due to intentional or accidental destruction or natural decay. For this reason, there exists no official government document relating to Jesus’ execution.

291

2. The Biblical books are historical books. They contain the record of real people existing in real places. In fact, the Bible contains record of people and places which were believed to have never existed (such as the town of Nazareth), which later archaeological excavations and discoveries have revealed as people and locations which really did exist. The Bible does not invent its own history. Rather, history validates the Bible. As historical books, the books of the New Testament contain the writings of at least eight first century authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews (which most scholars believe to be Paul or Barnabus). There is no reason why these authors’ works should be discredited as valid historical documents. The historical character of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life is not subject to the reader’s faith. The Gospels stand as historical records despite any effort to debunk their integrity. Historian Michael Grant states, “But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”18 The critic may ask: How can one hold as historical documents writings which contain such a supernatural flavor? This relates to the integrity of the Biblical books themselves, and this issue will addressed in a later section of this book. 3. Since the Bible is an historical book, there is no need for non-Biblical written evidence concerning the life of Jesus. If one is looking for an early first century historical record, then the books of the New Testament provide the seeker with more than ample evidence. Even if no other early written work supported the Biblical record, the Gospel account of Jesus would still stand, by virtue of its character and integrity, as a record of an historical person. 4. If Jesus did not exist, then opponents to Christianity would surely have supplied us with documentation to that effect, in efforts to counteract this new religion. Granted, much of what was written during and shortly following the time of Christ has been lost; however, many writings have survived the passage of time, and none of these deny the historicity of Christ. In fact, every early non-Christian text which does mention Jesus addresses Him as an historical figure, not a mythical character, and any attack on Him in such texts is an attack on His deity, not his humanity. The lack of such documents denying His existence stands as further evidence that Jesus was an historical person. Also, would the lack of any extra-Biblical documents serve as evidence that Jesus did not exist? For instance, there are more ancient texts regarding Jesus as an actual person than there are regarding Socrates.19 Do we hear anyone claiming that Socrates was a fictitious figure? 5. The fact that that early literature contains any references at all to Jesus is astounding in the least. In the eyes of the non-believer, He was a poor carpenter from a lowly region who gained notoriety as a great teacher, only to be executed as a criminal at the hands of His enemies prior to the establishment of His kingdom. Early historians would observe that Jesus raised no army in His effort to overtake Rome and establish Himself as King of the Jews. For the early pagan historian, Jesus

292

story was an insignificant biography, a biography which would simply not have been on the “bestseller list” among early books. Historians preferred to write concerning heroes or men considered to be nobler or of more import than was Jesus. He was a Jewish Messiah in a Roman Empire. In the mind of the historian of antiquity, Jesus just did not fit among those on a list of people who stood out above others as deserving of literary attention. In order for such a historian to make mention of Jesus, there needed to have been something about this “failed” Messiah which would warrant literary attention, but the fact is that Jesus was despised and rejected by men, and even by the Jews to whom He preached His message of salvation. Additionally, inclusion of Jesus in an early historical writing may have caused the writer to fall out of favor with the populace or, worse, the authority of Rome. It is no secret of history that the Roman Empire, for the first few centuries of the church, was violently opposed to Christianity. The floor of Roman arenas flowed red with the blood of those put to death in the name of Christ. As the early Christian Tertullian wrote, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”20 6. Critics are so eager to regard the number of early literary references to Jesus as a testament against His existence, yet the silence of early authorship speaking out against the historicity of Jesus stands as even greater evidence to His existence than does the written testimony that does exist. If Jesus is a figment of imagination, then His enemies would have spoken out against any claim to the contrary, but the fact is that no such denial exists. Early writers rejected His message, but did not deny His existence. Concerning the so-called “lack” of early literature mentioning Jesus, Dr. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona respond: “What we have concerning Jesus actually is impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. … Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross. Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within the 150 years: Josephus, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; and probably the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion. In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death.”21 Concerning the small number of early texts as “conclusive evidence” that Jesus did not exist, the above authors apply the same factors to another figure – Tiberius Caesar, whom no critic would suggest did not exist as an historical figure: “…Let’s look at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus’ ministry and execution. Tiberius is mentioned by ten sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke. Compare that to Jesus’ forty-two total sources in the same length of time (the nine New Testament writers, twenty early Christian writers, four heretical writers, and nine secular writers). That’s more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor during roughly the same period. If we only considered the number of secular nonChristian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we arrive at a tie of nine each.”22

293

First and second century writers who did not mention Jesus, and why The Zeitgeist Movie lists the following first century writers who lived in proximity to the Mediterranean, yet make no mention of Jesus in their writings. This list is based on a list created by John E Remsberg (1848-1912) and published in his book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence. In that work, the author stated, "The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works ... Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library [when considering the actual works produced by these authors, some of which only have one extant title attributed to his name, one must wonder what size library Mr. Remsberg had in mind]. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author [Josephus], and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers [Tacitus and Pliny the Younger], there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."23 A brief look at each of these individuals (some writing prior to Jesus' public ministry) will shed some light as to why the subject of a Jewish teacher would not have relevance to their topics of interest. One could not expect these writers to make mention of Jesus any more than one could expect Stephen King to write a biography of Gandhi, since the subject matter and genre is simply out of his normal sphere of writing. Additionally, many of these men not only neglect to mention Jesus, but also neglect to mention Christianity in general, yet their silence regarding Christianity is not regarded a testimony against the existence of early Christians. Still, this is the type of inconsistent reasoning that the critics use in order to validate a premise that is in error from the start. Appion of Alexandria (wrote during the second century A.D.) Appion was a Roman historian who chronicled Rome's conquests through the time of Emperor Trajan. Appolonius Remsberg does not specify to which “Appolonius” he was referring when compiling his list. After eliminating those by this name who lived prior to Jesus' ministry, the following individuals remain for consideration. Apollonius Dyscolus (second century A.D.), a grammarian who wrote prolifically on the parts of speech. Only four of his writings are extant, works concerning themselves with syntax, adverbs, conjunctions, and pronouns. Apollonius (writing between 180-210 A.D.), Bishop of Ephesus. His work has been lost; however it has received praise by the early church writer Jerome. Certainly Remsberg did not have this writer in view, for if his writings were extant, they would surely be found to contain mention of Jesus, and perhaps at great length. Apollonius of Tyana (c. 40-c.120 A.D.), Greek philosopher and teacher. Most of his writings are lost to this day, and those which do exist remain so as fragments, the authenticity of which is in dispute.

294

Philostratus, who wrote a biography of Apollonius, describes him as a traveling teacher of Hellenistic philosophy, and also attributed to him miracles and a postmortem assumption to heaven (perhaps in mimic of the growing spread if Christianity and the popularity of Jesus' postresurrection ascension to His Father). Due to the god-like praise Apollonius received by Philostratus, he was afterwards worshiped by some as a deity. The subject of Apollonius' teaching was that God does not seek prayer or the worship of man, but rather desires to be reached through contemplations of the mind. As such, a Jewish miracle-worker did not fit into his agenda. It serves to note that Philostratus is the only ancient source regarding Apollonius, and, interestingly, among ancient writers, less mention is made of Apollonius than Jesus of Nazareth, yet “Jesus myth” proponents cite Apollonius' lack of mention of Jesus as further evidence that Jesus did not exist. By their own logic, it should be argued that Apollonius did not exist, yet Remsberg and those following in his footsteps delight in naming Apollonius* among early writers who did not mention Jesus, a practice which for the reason just noted does not serve to further their cause. * It seems likely that this is the same Apollonius whom Remsberg had in view- after all, what “Jesus myth” proponent can resist a good biography in which he or she can unjustly see a reason to cry, “Jesus parallel!” Apollonius the Sophist of Alexandria, a famous grammarian who probably lived towards the end of the 1st century A.D. Apollonius (died c.186 A.D.), an early Christian martyr mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome. It is said of him that he was executed after delivering before the Roman Senate an argument for the Christian faith, for which he was sentenced to death. Arrian (c.86-c.146 A.D.) Lucius Flavius Arrianus, also known as Arrian a Roman military historian who focused the subject of his writing on Alexander the Great. Aulus Gellius (c.125-c.180 A.D.) Aulus Gellius was a Latin grammarian, philosopher, and lawyer. A single work, Attic Nights, is attributed to him. This work is a collection of his gleanings from conversation or literature, and involves a wide variety of subjects, such as grammar, philosophy, law, history, and many others. Gellius also included in this work numerous excerpts from authors whose writings are now lost. Of the twenty books contained in this volume, only the eights remains lost. The context of his memoirs was limited to the society in which he lived; therefore, the topic of a Jewish Messiah who lived nearly one hundred years before him was out of his scope of interest.

295

Aulus Persius (34-62 A.D) Aulus Persius Flaccus was a Roman poet and satirist. His first satire is a criticism that the literary habits of his contemporaries were a reflection of their own moral inadequacies. Additional satires deal with one’s relation to the gods, the value of one’s “life’s goal,” liberty, and financial prudence. Caecilius Statius (writing during the first century A.D., according to The Zeitgeist Movie) The truth is that Caecilius Statius died in 166 or 168 B.C. It is certainly no wonder why he didn't mention Jesus. Columella (4-c. 70 A.D.) Lucius Moderatus Columella devoted his later life to farming, following a stint in the military. He wrote De Re Rustica, a twelve volume work on agriculture, in which he discusses fruits, trees, livestock, and the management of one’s personal affairs. A smaller work bearing his name, De Arboribus, was a work strictly devoted to trees. Damis (early second century figure) Damis is said to have been a lifelong student of the philosopher Apollonius of Tyana (see above). The only written work attributed to him is a diary, not extant, of Apollonius' words and deeds. All that is known of Damis is due to Philostratus, an early third century writer, who penned a biography of Apollonius (Life of Apollonius of Tyana). Due to Philostratus' reputation for inaccuracy and his tendency to fictionalize and embellish his accounts, many scholars today believe Damis was merely a figment of Philostratus' imagination. Concerning Damis' diary, scholarship varies in opinion, but the general consensus is that it is a forgery.12 Some scholars believe the work to be Philostratus' creation, while others believe it was written by an earlier author (not Damis) and used by Philostratus in his biography. Dio Chrysostom (40-112 A.D.) Dio Cocceianus, whose surname was Chrysostom (meaning “goldenmouthed”) was a Greek orator, philosopher, writer, and historian. He composed eighty orations on such subjects as the virtues of sovereignty (as regards to Emperor Trajan), slavery and freedom, and advice to fellow or prospective orators. He also wrote political essays addressing the virtues and vices of particular towns, essays on ethics and the application of philosophy, and various mythological subjects. While he did compose works of an historical character, none of these writings have survived to this day. Dion Pruseus Dion Pruseus is an enigma, for I could find no source of information except by Jesus myth proponents, that he was an historical figure. Until a

296

reliable source surfaces, this so-called early writer will remain in the minds of the mythicists. Epictetus (55-135 A.D.) Epictetus was a Greek philosopher who emphasized the practical aspects of philosophy, teaching it as a way of life. He taught that the events which occur happen by fate and that both prosperity and calamity should be accepted with equal resign. Attempting to fix that which is beyond an individual's control, he said, was the cause of personal distress. No writings are attributed to him, however a pupil by the name of Arrian is said to have preserved Epictetus's teachings in his Discourses of Epictetus, which is believed to have been compiled from lecture notes taken by Arrian while under Epictetus' tutelage. Favorinus (c.80-160 A.D.) Favorinus of Arelata was an early philosopher and a prolific writer, although his writings exist today as only a few fragments. A member of the skeptical school of philosophy, his most recognized work was the Pyrrhonean Tropes, ten books devoted to showing how the philosophy of Pyrrho applied to legal matters. Gaius Valerius Flaccus (died c.90 A.D.) Gaius Valerius Flaccus was a Roman poet. Only one of his works survives today – The Argonautica, an epic poem recounting Jason's quest fort the golden fleece. Hermogones As with Apollonius, it is unclear to whom the critics are referring when listing him as an early writer. Using the same process of elimination as before, the following two candidates remain: Hermogenes of Tarsus (writing during the latter half of the second century A.D.), was a Greek rhetorician. He is known for writing on such topics as legal issues, effective speaking, styles of argumentation, and rhetorical exercises. Hermogenes, a first century heretic, mentioned by Paul in his second letter to Timothy (1:15). Aside from Paul's mention, no further information is given about Hermogenes, and no writing is ever attributed to him. Gaius Valerius Flaccus (died c.90 A.D.) Gaius Valerius Flaccus was a Roman poet who wrote during the reign of Vespasian and Titus. Only one of his works is extant, the Argonautica, a poem narrating Jason's (of Argonaut fame) quest for the Golden Fleece.

297

Justus of Tiberius (lived during the second half of the first century A.D.) Justus was a Jewish historian and rival of Josephus. He wrote a history of the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 A.D.), in which he blamed Agrippa and Josephus for national calamities, as well as for his own personal troubles during the war. He also wrote A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews, a history of the Jews from Moses to the time of Agrippa II. Today, both of these works exist only in fragments. Although Jesus was called King of the Jews, this was done in mockery by His accusers. No early historian regarded Jesus among those regarded as kingly rank, and therefore would not name Him in a work devoted to Hebrew royalty. Juvenal (wrote during the late first and early second century A.D.) Juvenal was the author of the Satires, a collection of sixteen poems divided into five books, written to the Roman elite, focusing on threats to their social well-being. Since Jesus did not pose a threat to the social structure of Rome's upper class, there was no place for Him in Juvenal's satires. The content of the Satires are as follows: Book I Satire I: It is Hard not to Write Satire Satire II: Hypocrites are Intolerable Satire III: There is no Room in Roma for a Roman Satire IV: The Emperor’s Fish Satire V: Patronizing Patronage Book II Satire VI: Death is Better than Marriage Book III Satire VII: Fortuna is the Best Patron Satire VIII: True Nobility Satire IX: Flattering your Patron is Hard Work Book IV Satire X: Wrong Desire is the Source of Suffering Satire XI: Dinner and a Moral Satire XII: True Friendship Book V Satire XIII: Don’t Obsess over Liars and Crooks Satire XIV: Avarice is not a Family Value Satire XV: People without Compassion are Worse than Animals Satire XVI: Soldiers are above the Law Livy (59 B.C.-17 A.D.) Zeitgeist is correct is saying that Livy was a contemporary of Jesus Christ; however, Livy did not live after Jesus nor during His public ministry. When Livy died, Jesus was only about twenty-two years of age and still just an obscure carpenter, not one recognized as the Jewish Messiah. Since Livy died prior to Christ’s public ministry, the content of his

298

writing is irrelevant. Jesus was not heralded publicly as the Messiah until after His baptism just prior to age thirty, in 25 or 26 A.D. Lucius Florus (c.70-c.140 A.D.) Lucius Florus was a Roman historian. His history of Rome concerned the time from Rome’s foundation to the closing of the temple of Janus by Augustus in 25 B.C. He also composed a poem dedicated to the Emperor Hadrian. His Epitome of the Histories of Titus was an historical work with a focus on military and warfare. Marcus Annaeus Lucanus (Nov 3, 39 A.D. – Apr 30, 65 A.D.) Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, also known as Lucan, was a poet whose only surviving work is Bellum Civile, also called Pharsalia, a poem concerning the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. Other writings known to have been composed by him are De Incendio Urbis, concerning the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Catachthonion, concerning the underworld, Iliacon, concerning the legend of Troy, Medea, an unfinished play, Laudes Neronis, written in praise of Nero, Saturnalia, Medea, Orpheus, Letters from Campanalia, and Silvae, a ten volume poetic work. Jewish history and society were simply not his area of interest. Martial (born c.38-41 A.D., died c.102-104 A.D.) Marcus Valerius Martialis, also known as Martial, was a Latin poet, known for his Epigrams, twelve books satirizing everyday life in the city of Rome. He was not concerned with the goings-on outside of his own city. Paterculus (wrote in 30 A.D.) Paterculus was a historian who concerned himself with the history of Rome. The time of his writing was just after Jesus' resurrection and before Christianity became a force to be reckoned with in regions north of Palestine. Pausanias (second century A.D.) Pausanias was a Greek geographer. He is known for his Description of Greece, a collection of observations gleaned during his travels throughout Greece. At times he engages himself in reflections on the mythology and history which shaped a certain region as he traveled throughout Greece (as previously referenced in Part one under the heading of “Virgin birth” Attis). His travels did not take him to Palestine, so it is no wonder why we find no mention of Jesus in his contemplations on Greek religion. Petronius (c.27 A.D.-c. 66 A.D.) Petronius was a novelist; therefore, his works were that of fiction. He was not concerned with writing histories or biographies. His principal work was Satyricon, describing the antics of a pair of homosexuals, Encolpius and Giton.

299

Phaedrus (15 B.C.-50 A.D.) Phaedrus is widely known as the first writer to translate Greek fables into Latin. The fables he translated were not his own invention, but were merely translations of fables already in existence. His writings were neither historical nor original in nature. Philo Judeaus (died c.45-50 A.D.) Philo was a contemporary of Christ and was greatly concerned with the Hebrew religion as well as Greek philosophy. He wrote numerous expositions on the Hebrew Scriptures, writing on topics such as creation, Moses and the Law, anthropology, cosmology, theology, and ethics. He considered the Hebrew Scriptures the source of truth, although his acceptance of Greek philosophy did not gain him favor with mainstream Judaism. Given his literary attention to Judaism, it may seem likely that he would have written about someone who was heralded as the Jewish Messiah promised by the prophets of old. However, there is no mention of Jesus in the writings of Philo, much of which has been preserved thanks to the early Christian Church Fathers. However, Jesus is not the only first century person left out of Philo's cast of characters. In addition to Jesus, there is no mention in Philo’s writings of Gamaliel, a prominent scholarly figure in Judaism during the time of Christ, nor does he mention the apostles Peter or Paul, yet the historicity of these men is not in dispute, even by those who deny the historicity of Christ based on the same so-called evidence from silence. Also, Philo died sometime between 45-50 A.D., prior to the time Christianity became major influence throughout the Mediterranean region. The public ministry of Christ did not begin until about 26 A.D., when Jesus was near His thirtieth birthday. The resurrection occurred three years later around 29 A.D., which only gives fifteen to twenty years for the spread of the Gospel before Philo’s death. In its infancy, the Christian church was located in Palestine, whereas Philo resided in Alexandria, Egypt. The apostle Paul did not embark on his first missionary journey until around 46 A.D., and this journey took him to points north of Palestine, not south towards Egypt. By the time Christianity was well-known in Alexandria, Philo had already passed off the scene. Some have claimed Philo’s philosophy was the forerunner of Christianity and that the apostles borrowed from his school of thought when composing the letters which now make up the books of the New Testament. Particular attention is drawn to Philo’s doctrine of the Logos and his personification of wisdom. The Greek word “logos” is translated as “Word” in John’s Gospel where it is said “the Word [Logos] became flesh,” (Jn 1:1) a reference to the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The Logos, according to Philo, was the sum of the divine attributes. This Logos he terms the “word of the eternal God” and the “high priest,” which some have likened to Jesus’ position as the High Priest, as described in the book

300

of Hebrews. Philo regarded the Logos as the one through whom sins are forgiven and who serves as a mediator on the behalf of mankind (again, bearing a strong similarity to the language of Hebrews). He also believed wisdom was a form higher than the Logos and that the latter proceeds from the former. The personification of wisdom is not a new concept in Hebrew thought. In ancient Hebrew poetry, Proverbs especially, wisdom is often referred to by the use of personal pronouns. In the Gospel of John, the apostle states the “Word” (or “Logos”) became flesh and dwelt among man. The difference between the Logos of Philo and John is that Philo never conceived the Logos as being incarnated into literal human flesh and blood. In fact, the very idea of such an incarnation of the divine attributes would have been blasphemous to someone such as Philo, as it was to the ruling Judaic religious authorities who sought to have Jesus executed for blasphemy when He claimed equality with God. Phlegon (lived during the second century A.D.) Phlegon was a Greek historian. His primary work was the Olympiads, composed of sixteen books chronicling the first to the 229th Olympiad, spanning the time between 776 B.C. to 137 A.D. He also wrote On Marvels, concerning stories of ghosts, human deformities and abnormalities, and On Long-lived Persons, concerning individuals who had lived past the age of one hundred. In addition, he composed works on Roman festivals, Sicily, and the topography of Rome. However, contrary to critics' claim that Phlegon did not mention Jesus, we do have secondary sources, in the form of quotations by other early writers, that indicate Phlegon did in fact mention Jesus, and these quotations will be addressed shortly hereafter. Pliny the Elder (c.23-79 A.D.) Gaius or Caius Plinius Secundus, also known as Pliny the Elder, was a historian and philosopher. His historical works include History of the German Wars, composed of twenty books, and History of His Times, composed of thirty-one books and chronicling the time between the emperors Nero and Vespasian. He also wrote Studiosus, a work on rhetoric, and Dubii sermonis, a work not extant to this day, as are many of his writings. His magnum opus, Naturalis Historia, or Natural History, was an encyclopedic work in which he draws on much of the knowledge of his day with regards to such topics as cosmology, astronomy, meteorology, geography, anthropology, mammals, fish, fowl, insects, botany, agriculture, horticulture, medicine, diseases, and precious minerals. In his later life, he turned his attention from natural history to literature. It was in this interest that he composed three books: The Scholar, a training manual (of sorts) for orators, Problems in Grammar, and A Continuation of the History of Aufidius.

301

Plutarch (46-c.122 A.D.) Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus was a Greek historian, biographer, and philosopher. He is best known for his Moralia, or Customs and Mores, and Parallel Lives, containing biographies of well-known Greeks and Romans. The former work varies in scope and contains essays on ethics, politics, literature, and consolation. Moralia is a philosophical work, written for the purpose of providing moral education to his readers. Essays contained within this volume include: On Fraternal Affection - a discourse against sibling rivalry On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great On the Worship of Isis and Osiris On Peace of Mind Odysseus and Gryllus - a conversation between Odysseus and one of Circe's pigs. The latter work, containing the biographies of prominent historical figures, was also written as a moral treatise. While the subject concerns that of history, the focus and purpose of the biographies was to illustrate both good and bad moral character through the lives of the people he portrayed in his work, such as Solon, Themistocles, Aristides, Pericles, Alcibiades, Nicias, Demosthenes, Philopoemen, Timoleon, Dion of Syracuse, Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Gaius Marius, Sulla, Romulus, Pompey, Mark Antony, Marcus Junius Brutus, Julius Caesar, and Cicero. Plutarch’s modus operandi in this work was to pair a Greek and Roman who shared like biographical characteristics or qualities, write separate biographies for each, then compare one against the other to examine the virtues and vices to be learned from each. Biographies of at least twelve other figures (such as Heracles and Philip II of Macedon) were written, but are no longer extant. The biographies which have survived, have not survived without alteration by later writers. Since Jesus was neither Greek nor Roman, He was of no interest to Plutarch when he composed his biographies. Pomponius Mela (wrote c.43 A.D.) Pomponius Mela was the earliest Roman geographer. He is known for a single work, De situ orbis libri III, less than one hundred pages long devoted strictly to geography. Ptolemy (c.83-c.168 A.D.) Claudius Ptolemaeus, commonly known as Ptolemy, was a mathematician, astronomer, geographer and astrologer. He was not engaged in historical writings. It has been asked why he did not mention the star of Bethlehem or the geological and astronomical occurrences on the day of Jesus' death. It must be remembered that Ptolmey was not witness to either of these events. By his time, any mention of such was considered the babbling of Christians.

302

Publius Papinius Statius (c.45-96 A.D.) Statius was a Roman poet known for his epic poems The Thebaid, recounting the tale of Thebes, and the Achilleid, devoted to Achilles. Statius also wrote the Silvae, a collection of poems ranging in subject matter, including flattery for the Emperor, reflections on death, consolation for the grieving, and congratulatory remarks to his friends, along with descriptions of his their villas and gardens. Quintus Curtius Rufus (wrote during 41-54 A.D.) Quintus Curtius Rufus was a Roman historian with only one extant work, Historiae Alexandri Magni, a Latin biography of Alexander the Great. Quintilian (35-100 A.D.) Marcus Fabius Quintilianus was a Roman rhetorician. His only extant work is Institutio Oratoria, a textbook on rhetoric. He is believed to have written an earlier book, written as a preface to Institutio Oratoria, delineating views later expressed in work still extant. Institutio Oratoria deals with various topics strictly relating to rhetoric, such as emotion, language, delivery, expression, and forms of argumentation. Seneca the Younger (4 B.C.-65 A.D.) Lucius Annaeus Seneca was a Roman philosopher, dramatist, and statesman. In addition to twelve philosophical essays and one hundred twenty-four letters addressing moral issues, he composed nine tragedies, a satire, and an essay in meteorology. Some have asked why Seneca would not have mentioned the star that guided the magi to Bethlehem, or unnatural the darkness that occurred during the day Jesus died on the cross. Seneca was concerned with addressing observable natural phenomena, not with cataloging supernatural occurrences. Seneca’s Tragedies: Hercules Furens (The Madness of Hercules) Troades (The Trojan Women) Phoenissae (The Phoenician Women) Phaedra Medea Thyestes Agamemnon Oedipus Hercules Oetaeus (Hercules on Oeta) Dialogues Ad Marciam, De consolatione (To Marcia, On consolation) De Ira (On anger) Ad Helviam matrem, De consolatione (To Helvia, On consolation) De Consolatione ad Polybium (To Polybius, On consolation)

303

De Brevitate Vitae (On the shortness of life) De Otio (On leisure) De Tranquillitate Animi (On tranquillity of mind) De Providentia (On providence) De Constantia Sapientiis (On the Firmness of the Wise Person) De Vita Beata (On the happy life) Other Works Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii (The Pumpkinification of the Divine Claudius) De Clementia (On Clemency) De Beneficiis (On Benefits) Naturales quaestiones (concerning ancient theories of cosmology, meteorology, and like subjects) Epistulae morales ad Lucilium - collection of one hundred twenty-four letters addressing moral issues Silius Italicus (c.25-101 A.D.) Tiberius Catius Silius Italicus is known for his epic poetry. The single extant poem bearing his name is Punica, concerning the Second Punic War, which may or may not have been scribed by Silius Italicus himself, although the oral form of the poem is attributed to him. Theon of Smyrna (c.70-c.135 A.D.) Theon of Smyrna was a Greek philosopher and mathematician. Of his three works on Platonic philosophy, only On Mathematics Useful for the Understanding of Plato remains today. This work is comprised of three parts: the first, devoted to numerology; the second, devoted to music; the third, devoted to the “music of the cosmos.” Another work known to have been attributed to him was a book devoted to astronomy. Valerius Maximus (20 A.D.) As with Livy, the early date associated with Valerius Maximus makes his writings irrelevant to any discussion of Jesus’ influence. Known early manuscripts verifying Jesus was an historical person The early church fathers: Tertullian, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Martyr, Origen, etc. Inscriptions in the Roman Catacombs The writers of the Apocrypha The Jewish Talmud “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu [the Hebrew spelling of Jesus’ name] was hanged*. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and

304

enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.”24 “R. Shimeon ben Azzai said: ‘I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard** of an adulteress’”25 “[Mary] who was the descendant of princes and governors***, played the harlot with carpenters.”26 “[Jesus’] mother was Miriam, a women's hairdresser. As they say, ... ‘this one strayed from her husband.’”27 * Hanging was a term used in reference to crucifixion. (cf Jn 19.14, Acts 5:30, Gal 3:13) ** The reference to Jesus as a “bastard” is an attempt to refute the church’s claim that He was virgin-born. *** Such a mention corresponds with the New Testament’s claim that Jesus was a descendant of King David. The Acts of Pilate, a book of the New Testament Pseudepigrapha. It is not regarded as an official document from Pilate himself, but is believed to be derived from official documents preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem. The oldest section is titled The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, and is dated to the second century A.D. The text is as follows: “There befell of late a matter which I myself brought to light (or, made trial of): for the Jews through envy have punished themselves and their posterity with fearful judgments of their own fault; for whereas their fathers had promises (al. had announced unto them) that their God would send them out of heaven his holy one who should of right be called their king, and did promise that he would send him upon earth by a virgin; he then (or this God of the Hebrews, then) came when I was governor of Judea, and they beheld him enlightening the blind, cleansing lepers, healing the palsied, driving devils out of men, raising the dead, rebuking the winds, walking upon the waves of the sea dry-shod, and doing many other wonders, and all the people of the Jews calling him the Son of God: the chief priests therefore, moved with envy against him, took him and delivered him unto me and brought against him one false accusation after another, saying that he was a sorcerer and did things contrary to law. But I, believing that these things were so, having scourged him, delivered him unto their will: and they crucified him, and when he was buried they set guards upon him. But while my soldiers watched him he rose again on the third day: yet so much was the malice of the Jews kindled that they gave money to the

305

soldiers, saying: Say ye that his disciples stole away his body. But they, though they took the money, were not able to keep silence concerning that which had come to pass, for they also have testified that they saw him arisen and that they received money from the Jews. And these things have I reported (unto thy mightiness) for this cause, lest some other should lie unto thee (Lat. lest any lie otherwise) and though shouldest deem right to believe the false tales of the Jews.”28 The Didache (c.80-120 A.D.) Works by Gnostic authors: (The Gospel of Thomas, Treatise on Resurrection and, Apocryphon of John) Dead Sea Scrolls, containing over one thousand manuscripts dating prior to 68 A.D. (“Crucified Messiah” Scroll, “Son of God” Scroll, 4Q246 Scroll, Cave 7 Scroll, 7Q5 Scroll). The Qur'an, the scriptures of Islam. Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius of Caesarea, an early church historian The Gospel of Marcion, written by an early second century heretic who was expelled from the Christian church Celsus, a second century opponent of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard and a “mere man.”29 Lucian, a Roman historian who was very concerned with accuracy, made the following mention of Jesus: “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary selfdevotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”30 Although Lucian did not mention Jesus by name, it is evident he is referring to Jesus of Nazareth, since no other crucified individual was worshiped by Christians. If he did not believe that Jesus was an historical figure, then he would not have mentioned Jesus’ crucifixion as an historical fact. Also, if he regarded the person of Jesus as a nonhistorical personage, he would have called attention to the Christians’ misguided belief in a person who he believed did not exist, as he did with the Christians “misguided” belief system.

306

Mara Bar-Seraphon, in a letter to his son (73 A.D.), wrote, “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given." Some critics challenge this claim since it does not mention which “king” it was who was executed, but in so doing, they are unable to suggest a person, aside from Jesus, who could be called a “king” and who was executed by his own people. Only Jesus fits this description. Phlegon, a first century slave born c.80 A.D. His writings exist today only as quotes found in other ancient texts, as in the following citations: “Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.”31 “And with regard to the eclipse in time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.”32 “Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.”33 “He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defense, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Savior suffered. And he goes on to say, that “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.”34 Thallus, a Samaritan historian, writing c.52 A.D. While none of his writings have survived to this day, excerpts have been found quoted in the writings of other ancient authors. Julius Africanus (c.221 A.D.) quoted Thallus’ contemplation concerning the darkness which occurred when Jesus hung on the cross, and the subsequent earthquake, as stated in the Gospel accounts. And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun’s light failing: and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost. (Lk 23:44-46 NASB) Concerning this darkness as described in the Gospels, Julius quotes Thallus as saying: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown

307

down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse from the sun.”35

XIII. Concerning alternate gospels and suspect ancient texts Welcome to the world of alternate reality, where black is white and up is down, where the Road Runner chases Wile E. Coyote, where Kilngons are a peaceful race who smell flowers and pet kittens, and Lex Luthor is the embodiment of “truth, justice, and the American way.” The word “gospel” means “good news” and is a term which was in use even before the time of Christ. Pagans used the term to refer to the “good deeds” of heroes, be it a mythological hero or the heroics of a living person. The victories accomplished by a military hero, for instance, were his gospel, or the “good news” about that one. Gospels, therefore, focused on the deeds of an individual, rather than his teaching or writing. The accounts of the life Jesus in the Bible, being told in narrative form and describing many of His deeds, as well as His teaching, are rightly named Gospels. In contrast, the writings of Paul, being doctrinal, philosophical, and practical in character, are not Gospels, for their purpose is not to give an account of the life, or deeds, of Paul. Likewise, some of the alternate gospels considered in this section are not gospels by definition, since some are a collection of sayings or teachings and are not written in a narrative format. After the composition of the writings now known as the New Testament there arose a number of these alternate versions of the life or teachings of Jesus, none of which were recognized by the church as authentic Apostolic writings. Although the official New Testament canon was not finalized until 397 A.D. at the Third Council of Carthage, the only written accounts of Jesus’ life which were recognized by the church were the four canonical Gospels, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and are now included in the New Testament. Likewise, when the Diatessaron, the first harmony of the Gospels, was created by Tatian between 160-175 A.D., the only works which were included therein were the four canonical Gospels. Concerning the early acceptance of books now included in the New Testament, the late Bruce Metzger, a former professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and board member of the American Bible Society, stated, “Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world, but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia.”1 While these alternate versions of the life of Jesus do not represent authentic accounts of the life of our Lord while among us, they do serve as a testament to certain unorthodox beliefs held by various Christian sects of the first few centuries of the church, and for that they are of value to historians and apologists.

308

Gabriel's Revelation

In the year 2000 a stone tablet, three feet tall and bearing eighty-seven lines of Hebrew text, appeared mysteriously in the Jewish antiquity market. The tablet was supposed to have originated in Jordan and was dated, based on the style of the letters and the ink-on-stone technique, between the late first century B.C. and the early first century A.D.2 However, a conclusive date cannot be determined since doing so would involve methods of ink testing which would destroy the letters, thus damaging the already fragile artifact. It was also believed that those responsible for scribing the Dead Sea Scrolls were likewise responsible for the inscriptions found on this tablet. The tablet was named Gabriel's Revelation, based on the fact that the prophecy inscribed on the tablet is attributed to the angel Gabriel, who, in line eighty, is said to command a man to rise again on the third day. Israel Knohl, an expert in Biblical languages at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, believes the man to whom the command was directed was one named Simon of Perea, a royal servant who embarked on an arson spree against the ruling political power in Judea, an act for which he was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C. Knohl translates the famous eightieth line as follows (brackets indicate missing portions of the test which have been replaced by the translators): “In three days, live, I Gabriel com[mand] yo[u]”3 Based on this inscription, Knohl concluded that the concept of a resurrection following a three day burial was later adopted by the Gospel writers, as an alteration of this earlier “messiah story.”4 However, professor Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary, expresses doubts as to Knohl's accuracy in translation: "The problem here is that there's not enough text to be able to be really confident about what the passage itself is reading in order to build a theory around it. … The text deals with some type of angelic communication, but beyond that it's very hard to tell what all is going on. ...The connection to messiah is virtually absent."5 In like fashion, Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary posits that the word translated “rise" by Knohl could rather be translated "show up," as describing one

309

merely making an ordinary appearance.6 Any interpretation of the text is problematic since the letters themselves are smudged and difficult to decipher. However, what is clearly absent in the text is a reference to a messiah or, specifically, to resurrection, either in body or in spirit. While the concept of bodily resurrection is a concept which was present in Judaic beliefs long before the time of Christ, as has been shown elsewhere in this volume, the concept of a dying and rising Messiah figure was understood by only a small percentage of the populace. In Part six of this book, the pre-Christian Messianic expectations will be addressed in detail. Here, it merely needs to be said that first century Jews largely regarded the Messiah as one who would conquer and reign forever as the king over a restored nation of Israel. The Old Testament taught that the Messiah would suffer and die, but such prophecies were greatly misunderstood until after the coming of Jesus, the true Messiah. The prophets Isaiah and Hosea, among others, proclaimed a future suffering Messiah. In Hosea 6:1-2 there is a reference to a resurrection occurring on the “third day:” Come, and let us [the people of Israel] return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. In this passage, it is clear that the one being raised in not the Messiah; but rather, the nation of Israel. The use of imagery involving bodily resurrection to refer to the future restoration of Israel is most evident in a famous vision had by the prophet Ezekiel, in which he saw a valley in which a multitude of dry bones were restored to life, given flesh and blood, and fashioned into a mighty army. Following the vision, the Lord explained the vision to Ezekiel as follows: Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD. (Ez 37:11-14) The concept of blessing or salvation being granted after the “third day” is expressed throughout the Old Testament. In the Genesis account of the life of Joseph, the chief butler is restored to his position after three days. Later it is sad that Joseph's brothers are set free from prison after three days. In the Exodus account, bitter waters are made sweet after three days. The list could go on and on, as such numerous references abound to such a three day period of trial, suffering, or death, after which there is relief, freedom, or salvation. In his commentary on Hosea,

310

Matthew Henry states the following concerning this three day-long period (emphasis mine): “[The people of Israel] promise themselves that their deliverance out of their troubles should be to them as life from the dead (v. 2): After two days he will revive us (that is, in a short time, in a day or two), and the third day, when it is expected that the dead body should putrefy and corrupt, and be buried out of our sight, then will he raise us up, and we shall live in his sight, we shall see his face with comfort and it shall be reviving to us. ... The people of God may not only be torn and smitten, but left for dead, and may lie so a great while; but they shall not always lie so, nor shall they long lie so; God will in a little time revive them; and the assurance given them of this should engage them to return and adhere to him. But this seems to have a further reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and the time limited is expressed by two days and the third day, that it may be a type and figure of Christ’s rising the third day, which he is said to do according to the scriptures, according to this scripture.”7 The recurring theme of restoration after three days was a foreshadow of the future resurrection of Jesus Himself, who was raised on the third day, before the putrefying stage of death took place, as it was said of the Messiah in the Psalms, then later referenced in the book of Acts: For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (Ps 16:10) For David speaketh concerning him [Jesus], I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (Acts 2:25-27) Additionally, the context of the Hosea passage bears a striking similarity to the lines of prophecy found on the Gabriel tablet, in which the nation of Israel is being warned by a prophet of God's impending judgment upon them, followed by a national restoration. If Knohl is correct in his translation and the reference is indeed to a resurrection, there is still no reason to suspect that such resurrection is to be understood in other than a nationalistic context relating to the nation of Israel as a whole. However, even if the reference is to a man, as Knohl suggests, the question must be asked, what does this really prove other than that there were those in preChristian times who did expect a resurrection of the dead. Since bodily resurrection is something that every Jew anticipated for himself in the end of days, and since the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament do indeed predict a dying and rising Messiah, it is not unthinkable that an extra-Biblical reference would exist to such a messianic expectation. However, what it does not prove is that such expectation was widespread enough to persuade the Gospel writers to fabricate a resurrection story in

311

relation to Jesus of Nazareth. Certain rabbis in pre-Christian times did expect a dying Messiah, but the evidence in ancient rabbinic writings strongly suggest that those who held to such a belief were in the vast minority, which is why many Jews rejected the Apostles' preaching that the Messiah was crucified then rose from the dead – they expected a “King Messiah,” as He is often referenced in the Talmud (Talmudic references to the Messiah will be addressed in Part six), rather than a crucified Savior. Still, the belief in a dying and rising Messiah did exist, and therefore could be synonymous with the purported reference to resurrection contained in the Gabriel tablet. The problem with interpreting such a reference in a messianic sense is that the tablet makes no reference to a messianic figure. In other words, the tablet mentions a resurrection without referencing such a resurrection to a person of interest. Finally, it must be noted, as further evidence that the Gabriel tablet was not the source of the Gospels' resurrection account, that if the resurrection of Jesus was a hoax, then why did Jesus' enemies not produce a body to put an end to the Christian uprising? Why did the Apostles die for their faith if they knew it to be a lie? Why would the disciples portray themselves in Scripture as ones not expecting Jesus' crucifixion, then later even disbelieving that He has risen until they saw tangible evidence supporting He was no longer in the tomb? These and other considerations regarding the historicity of Jesus' resurrection will be considered in detail in Part five. In conclusion, the tablet known as Gabriel's Revelation, at best, serves to confirm a pre-Christian minority belief in a dying and rising Messiah, as foretold on the Hebrew Scriptures. However, any interpretation regarding its inscription is a matter of speculation. In the final analysis, despite Knohl's suggestion, the tablet does not stand as a basis on which was forged the Gospel account of Jesus' resurrection. The Secret Gospel of Mark In the summer of 1958 Morton Smith, professor of ancient history at Columbia University, made an astonishing discovery while visiting the Greek Orthodox monastery at Mar Saba, overlooking the Kidron Valley, east of Bethlehem. In the library there he found three pages of Greek manuscript bound within Isaac Voss' 1646 collected edition of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (first century Bishop of Antioch, c.35-110 A.D.). Morton photographed the pages and left the originals in the care of the monastery. The pages contained a previously unknown letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria (died c.99 A.D.) in which Clement is writing concerning a “secret Gospel of Mark,” a longer, more “spiritual” (or Gnostic) version of the Gospel of Mark included in the New Testament cannon. in which is contained an allusion to a homo-erotic initiation practice of one of Jesus' disciples.8 Following his publication of the letter in 1973, fifteen years after its discovery, other scholars journeyed to the Mar Saba library to verify the document's existence, and found it there in accordance with Morton's claim. The letter, if authentic (authenticity will be discussed shortly hereafter), is a letter by Clement to one Theodore, in response to Theodore's inquiry regarding claims made by a sect known as the Carpocratians, who claimed to be the recipients of a

312

more esoteric version of the Gospel of Christ. The Carpocratians were so named for their founder Carpocrates, a second century philosopher who, according to Irenaeus, believed that Jesus was a naturally-conceived man upon whom the divine Son of God descended.9 His followers were also charged with holding “love feasts” involving acts of promiscuity.10 The Carpocratians appealed to a “secret gospel” attributed to the evangelist Mark (the writer of the second of the Synoptic Gospels – Matthew through Luke) in their attempt to validate their beliefs. This gospel, they claimed, taught that Jesus preached a secret and more mystical doctrine in secret, as opposed to the doctrine He preached in public. Clement, in his response to Theodore, admits to a knowledge of the secret gospel, but disagrees that the Carpocratians' interpretation of the gospel is accurate. According to Clement, Carpocrates secured a copy of the gospel, then perverted it to suit his own doctrine. The letter contains two excerpts from the work Clement from Mark's purported “secret” gospel, and apart from these references, no other text offers support for the gospel's existence. The two excerpts are as follows: “And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.”11 (Clement states this passage belongs between verses 34 and 35 of the tenth chapter of the canonical Gospel of Mark) “And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them.”12 (Clement states this passage belongs within 10:46 of the canonical Gospel of Mark) Of these two excerpts, the first has drawn attention for what some believe to be evidence of homosexual practices between Jesus and His disciples (in this case, the disciple is a young man whom Jesus had just raised from the dead), as well as for its more gnostic, or mystical, portrayal of Jesus' teaching. The authenticity of “Secret Mark,” as it is often called, and also the Clementine letter in which exists the only extant reference to the gospel, is widely recognized as not being authentic to the hand of Mark (with regards to the gospel) nor Clement (with regards to the letter). Although, since 1980, the letter has been published in volumes containing the writings of Clement of Alexandria, the authenticity of the

313

Clement letter is doubtful on both physical and contextual evidence. Based on a detailed analysis of Morton's photographs, paleographers dated the letter to the late seventeenth to the early nineteenth centuries.13 According to German historian H. von Campenhausen, “Not only the manner of the transmission speaks against [Clementine authenticity], … [the letter] contradict[s] everything that we know from Clement.”14 As Edgar Hennecke notes, “... everything points to the view that the 'secret gospel' is an apocryphon resting on the foundation of the canonical Gospels. On this ground alone any conclusions relating to the historical Jesus are not possible.”15 Scholar F. F. Bruce, in a lecture delivered at the University of London on February 11, 1974, made numerous observations between events described in the canonical Gospels and the Secret Mark excerpts contained in Clement's letter. His comments deserve to be quoted at length (emphasis mine): “The story of Jesus’ raising of the young man of Bethany from the tomb at his sister’s entreaty is superficially similar to the incident of the raising of Lazarus in John 11: 17-44; ... The young man’s sister makes her plea to Jesus after the example of the Syrophoenician woman who fell at Jesus’ feet (Mark 7: 25), ... Jesus’ anger is matched by his reaction to the leper’s plea in the Western text of Mark 1: 41, and by his indignation at the tomb of Lazarus (John 11: 33, 38) ‘The garden where the tomb was’ is a detail borrowed from John’s account of the burial of Jesus (John 19: 41). Jesus’ action in taking the young man by the hand and raising him up comes not from the account of the raising of Lazarus but from the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5: 41) or, even more closely, from the healing of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1: 31). The statement that ‘the young man looked on him and loved him’ reverses that of Mark 10: 21, where Jesus looked on the rich man and loved him. The young man who is here raised from the tomb was also rich. When he began to beseech Jesus that he might be with him, he followed the example of the cured Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5: 18). The time-note ‘after six days’ was the interval between the Caesarea Philippi incident and the transfiguration (Mark 9: 2). The linen robe thrown over the young man’s naked body reminds us of the young man similarly attired at the scene of Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14: 51). The statement that ‘he stayed with him that night’ may recall John 1: 39, ‘they stayed with him that day’. … The fact that the expansion is such an obvious pastiche, with its internal contradiction and confusion, indicates that it is a thoroughly artificial composition, quite out of keeping with Mark’s quality as a story-teller.”16 Some who accept the letter as genuine do not regard it as belonging to the hand of Clement of Alexandria, but to the Clement named in the Decretum Gelasianum of Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome from 492–496 A.D. However, as Hennecke notes, if the letter is authentic to Clement of Alexandria, it would testify to nothing more than a late second century existence of an alternate version of Mark's Gospel, and would not serve to prove that such a version existed during the time of the Apostles, much less one belonging to the hand of Mark himself. He goes on to say, “When [Morton] Smith seeks to go back to the last years of the first century for the

314

composition of the expanded Mark, that rests on pure speculations."17 Clement himself, in the letter attributed to him, admits that the writer of the canonical Gospel of Mark is the same author who penned Secret Mark. It would seem that, if the letter is genuine to Clement, then it must certainly be determined that Secret Mark was written by the original disciple-turned-evangelist. However, Clement is known for his “uncritical” acceptance18 of apocryphal gospels as authentic to the person to whom the work is alleged to belong, as when he accepts the Apocalypse of Peter as belonging to the Apostle Peter himself.19 The fact that Secret Mark is not mentioned in any ancient source, apart from the alleged letter of Clement, testifies to the likelihood that the Clementine letter itself is a late forgery. Stephen Carlson, in his book The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark states, “... the letter ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, and the physical manuscript itself—are twentieth-century imitations. The manuscript was written in what may appear to be handwriting of the eighteenth century, but the hesitation and shakiness of its strokes and the retouching of its letters, coupled with twentieth-century letter forms, indicate that the handwriting is actually a drawn imitation of an eighteenth-century style.”20 Accusations of forgery have even named Morton Smith himself as the culprit and his work as the “forgery of the century,” as it was described by Jacob Neusner, who had a close relationship with Smith.21 The Secret Mark excerpts contained within the letter accurately reflect Smith's own views regarding the historicity of Jesus. Additionally, some have noted a similarity between Morton's discovery and the plot of a 1940 novel by J.H. Hunter, The Mystery of Mar Saba, in which a fictional character named Sir William Bracebridge discovers a fabricated account, in the Mar Saba monastery no less, that purported the body of Jesus was secretly removed from His tomb, this effecting belief in His resurrection from the dead. Of course, any such allegation of forgery based on Hunter's novel as its source is a matter of speculation based on circumstantial evidence, and is presented here purely for the reader's consideration. Having addressed the suspect authenticity of the letter, I now turn the attention to the alleged homo-erotic overtones of the Secret Mark excerpts, an interpretation which requires a very broad stretch of the imagination. The narrative focuses on Jesus' resurrection of a young man from the dead (although it appears from the text that the man was not dead to begin with, since he called out to Jesus from inside the tomb, before Jesus “raised” him): And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. Following his emergence from the tomb, the youth is said to have “loved” Jesus after “looking upon Him.” Jesus is then said to accompany the youth to his house, where the youth comes into Him “wearing a linen cloth over his naked body,” and he “remained with Him that night:”

315

But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan. With regards to the youth loving and looking upon Jesus, such cannot be understood in an erotic sense, as the very same thing is said of individuals mentioned in passages in the Gospels which clearly do not suggest anything but feelings of devotion or reverence. Concerning Jesus accompanying the youth to his house and remaining with him there, it must be noted that Jesus' disciples were present with Him at the time. The two did not depart alone. Besides this, it was common, as described in the Gospel accounts, for Jesus and His disciples to seek lodging in another's home. Concerning the description of the youth coming to Jesus “wearing a linen cloth over his naked body,”since the youth was in the privacy of his own home, he would have had no need to wear his outer garment. Nowhere in the text is the youth said to be naked in the presence of Jesus. Apparently, the Carpocratians alleged that Secret Mark makes use of the phrase “naked to naked” in this text; however, such phraseology is denounced by Clement who claimed no such phrase existed in the version of the gospel known to him. Also, if the Carpocratians had attempted to interpret Secret Mark in a fashion so as to validate their own promiscuity, such an appeal would have been made in a heterosexual, rather than homosexual, context, since the Carpocratians were not known to have engaged in same-sex sensual relations.. In the body of Clement's letter, he is described as seemingly declaring, even if the Carpocratians' interpretation of the text was accurate, that such interpretation should be denied by he and Theodore, thus lying and suppressing the truth for the greater good. The following is an excerpt from the letter, as translated by F. F. Bruce (emphasis mine): “These people must be opposed in every way. Even if they were to say something true, not even so would the lover of truth agree with them; ... But of the matters under dispute concerning the divinely-inspired Gospel of Mark, some are utterly false and some, even if they contain certain things that are true are corrupted by those that are fictitious ... these people, then, as I have said already, one must never yield, nor must one make any concession to them when they pretend that their tissue of falsehoods is the mystical Gospel of Mark, but rather deny it with an oath. It is not necessary to speak all the truth to everyone.”22 Here, the thrust of Clement's appeal is not the denial of truth for the sake of advancing the Christian agenda; but rather, that the Carpocratians were mixing truth with falsehood, and that the result was the overall corruption of doctrine. While he regarded their beliefs as containing elements of truth, he rejected such doctrine,

316

because of the cloud of heresy which permeated their overall sentiment. It was the Carpocratians' blend of truth and error that Clement was seeking to deny, not the elements of truth on which their perverted doctrines were based. In conclusion, Secret Mark offers no evidence that the canonical Gospels suppressed any practices not described by the New Testament writers. The notion that Jesus or His disciples engaged in homosexuality is utterly absurd. Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses, not engage in that which was forbidden therein, and named in the Old Testament as an abomination – a declaration made by Christ Himself, being one of the three members of the Godhead from whom the Law was given to Moses. Ultimately, with questionable dating and authenticity, as well as lack of scholarly support for its credibility, Secret Mark is of little importance, and absurd interpretations of the only two short excerpts in existence from this purported gospel stand as a testimony only to the depraved mind of man. Gregory Boyd sums it up nicely in his book Cynic Sage or Son of God? When he says, “The conclusions that Smith drew from Secret Mark regarding the historical Jesus as a homosexual 'magician' are so bizarre as to hardly warrant mention. The scholarly consensus-even among those who are sympathetic to the document--has strongly rejected this sort of interpretation."23 That said, it is time to close the book on Secret Mark. The Gnostic Gospels of Judas and Thomas: Gnosticism, a system of thought which will be expounded upon shortly hereafter, is a system of thought which divides reality into two spheres of existence: the material world (including the body) which is evil, and the spiritual or immaterial world, which is good. Thus, it is only by the awakening of the soul, the person's true spiritual self, that one's potential and essence is realized and true freedom is attained. As a result, Gnosticism emphasizes an inherent divinity within man. This divinity, Gnostics say, is unrealized by hindrances placed upon the spirit, or that which is immaterial, by virtue of the body, or that which is material. Many of the apocryphal gospels contain Gnostic teaching. Of these, the two most prominent are the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Judas In 1978, near Beni Masah, Egypt an apparently ancient Coptic document, written on papyrus, was discovered in a burial cave by peasants. The text was discovered to give an account of Jesus’ last evening spent with His disciples, describing Jesus’ betrayal from Judas’ point of view, portraying Judas as a hero rather than a traitor. Rather than telling the story of Jesus’ betrayal in narrative form, as does the Gospels, this text gives its account in the form of dialogues between Jesus and His disciples. The text, which would become known as the Gospel of Judas, became the subject of controversy and remains so to this day. Following its discovery, and its significance overlooked, the document was sold to a Cairo antiquities dealer, a sale which would mark the beginning of a long journey and exchange of unsuspecting hands, until the year 2000 when the text was purchased in Long Island, New York by antiquities dealer Frieda Nissberger-Tchacos. At her behest, the document was then examined by a scholar at Yale. By this time, due to

317

negligence and mishandling by previous owners, the document was in a state of severe deterioration, with eighteen of its original thirty-one pages missing; nevertheless, it was there that the document was first identified as the Gospel of Judas. The text does not name Judas as the author, nor is Judas assumed by scholars to be the individual who penned the text. Rather, the text was written by later Gnostic authors who were not among orthodox Christians. The sect named as the authors of this particular gospel are a group of men known as Cainites,24 who regarded the “villains” of Scripture, beginning with Cain, as a sort of hall of heroes. This they did from of a belief that the negative portrayal and persecution of such individuals indicated they performed a higher purpose, acting in service to the “God of Light” rather than the “god of this world,” a god who attempted to hinder their divine mission by destroying and twisting their otherwise moral and righteous intention into that which is perceived as actions performed against the will of the God of Light. Such a sect was in existence early in church history and was mentioned by the second century Christian writer Irenaeus, who states the following: “Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury … They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.”25 The authenticity of the gospel as an ancient document is not in question, as the work itself was known and referenced by Irenaeus as shown in the passage above. The copy of the gospel which is extant today was discovered in the 1970s and was dated to the third or fourth century (289 A.D., + or – fifty years), according to the University of Arizona's Timothy Jull, a radiocarbon dating specialist who was commissioned to run a series of tests on five fragments of the gospel.26 The gospel is also presumed by Dr. Marvin Meyer, a Coptic expert from Chapman University, to be an Egyptian translation of an earlier Greek manuscript27 dating as early as 130 A.D.28 It is his view that the gospel was originally written in Greek, brought to Egypt by members of a Christian sect, then translated into Coptic, the ancient language of the Pharaohs.29 Meyer also expressed conviction that the same individuals who composed the documents of the Nag Hammadi library, among which was found the Dead Sea Scrolls, also composed the Gospel of Judas.30 Various other tests, commissioned by The National Geographic Society, concluded the present copy of the gospel dates between 220-340 A.D.31 Dr. Stephen Emmel of the University of Münster, Germany, a top expert in

318

ancient handwriting concluded the document is an authentic ancient document, rather than a modern forgery.32 Simon Gathercole of Aberdeen University agreed that the document is authentic, but did not regard it as significant. “It is certainly an ancient text,” he says, “but not ancient enough to tell us anything new [concerning Jesus or His disciples]. It contains themes which are alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but which became popular later.”33 The Gospel of Judas conveys themes peculiar to Gnosticism, an early heresy which proposed that mankind possesses an inherent divinity which is hindered by its entrapment within a material body. While the Gospel of Judas is not the only non-canonical gospel to reflect Gnostic thought, it does so to a greater extreme than the others mentioned within this section. For the Gnostic, the material world represented a prison in which his true spiritual, divine self was held. In the gospel, Jesus is presented as saying to His disciples that God is “within you” and He encourages them to “bring out the perfect human and stand before [His] face.”34 (Brackets indicate word or lines missing from the text which have been replaced by the translators.) They taught that awareness of this inner divinity is only realized through the possession of a knowledge which remains hidden, or secret, to most men. Gnosticism differs from Christianity in that the Christian looks outward and upward to discover God, whereas the Gnostic looks within himself. For the Christian, the knowledge of God is that revelation which has been graciously given to him by the King of the universe. For the Gnostic, knowledge of God is the realization of his own presumably divine potential. In the Gospel of Judas, Judas is portrayed as helping Jesus release His inner divinity through the shedding of His mortal skin. This he does by Jesus allowing Judas to turn Him in to the authorities, thus setting in motion events leading to His death. In His death on the cross, they say, Jesus was freed from His mortal hindrances and came into His full spiritual potential. One of the key lines in the Gospel of Judas is spoken by Jesus, who in the gospel says to Judas, “… you will exceed all of the [disciples]. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”35 In the canonical Gospels, Judas’ portrayal is that of traitor, but in the Gospel of Judas, he is seen as the disciple specially chosen for a purpose higher than that of the other disciples. Judas’ acts in the Gospel of Judas are that of obedience to his Master’s instruction, a twist on the words found in the John’s Gospel where the following interaction between Jesus and Judas is recorded: Jesus therefore answereth, He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him. So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And after the sop, then entered Satan into him. Jesus therefore saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. (Jn 13:26-28 NASB)

319

In acting thus, Judas becomes the catalyst by which Jesus is eventually freed from His bodily prison, according to the Gnostic. As a result, Judas became the object of reverence to the early Gnostics, for in aiding Jesus in fulfilling the purpose for which He was sent, Judas indirectly aids mankind in its own finding of the “truth” of man’s inner divinity. In such an interpretation, Judas' act turns from betrayal to self-sacrifice. In the third act of the gospel, Judas tells Jesus of a vision in which he was being stoned and severely persecuted by the other disciples. Knowing that turning Jesus over to the authorities will bring him revile and scorn, Judas nevertheless fulfills his Master's request to conduct himself in a manner which would be seen by less-enlightened disciples as an act of betrayal. Out of his love for his Master and his devotion to the higher knowledge of which he has come into possession, Judas' willingly sacrifices Jesus' life so that Jesus can then be liberated from His body, gain immortality, and fulfill His ultimate mission: to enable mankind to attain its true, hidden potential. The “salvation” offered by the Gnostic Jesus is merely a deeper understanding of “true” human potential, rather than a forgiveness of sins. After all, how can man be sinful if he is inherently divine? If there's no sin, there's no need for forgiveness and no need for a savior. The opening line of the Gospel of Judas summarizes the theme of the entire gospel by introducing the text as “The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot”36 The gospel attributes to Judas a depth of revelation that was not given to the other disciples, for only Judas understood Jesus’ true mission and teaching, a “truth” which was hidden from the other eleven disciples. In the text, Jesus is depicted as saying to Judas, “Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal. For someone else will replace you, in order that the twelve disciples may again come to completion with their God … You shall be cursed for generations [yet] you will come to rule over them [and] you will exceed all of them, for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”37 The details of the actual betrayal remain the same in the Gospel of Judas as they do in the canonical Gospels: there is still the arrest (albeit not in the garden of Gethsemene) and the exchange of money (the amount is only specified in the canonical Gospels) which the religious officials agreed to pay Judas for his betrayal of Jesus. However, the Gospel of Judas does not contain a record of any events after Jesus’ betrayal, including the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, nor the suicide of Judas, as recorded in the canonical Gospels. The gospel conveys the relationship between Jesus and His disciples as one which is characterized by a certain measure of alienation. Jesus is often depicted as laughing at His disciples' questions and actions, since such reflect their lack of understanding concerning Jesus' true nature and mission. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus responds to His disciples' ignorance and adherence to seemingly useless beliefs in a sort of ridicule fashion. When

320

Jesus tells them that no one of their generation will know Him, the disciples respond with anger, to which Jesus then replies, “Why has this agitation led you to anger? Your god who is within you and [the word(s) immediately following are here missing from the text] have provoked you to anger [within] your souls. [Let] any one of you who is [strong enough] among human beings bring out the perfect human and stand before my face.”38 The only disciple who finds such strength is (drumroll, please) Judas Iscariot, who then says to Jesus, “I know who you are and from where you have come. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo.”*39 Jesus, knowing that Judas has stumbled into a deeper revelation, pulls him aside and proceeds to instruct him in the secret knowledge mentioned above: “Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom.”40 What follows in the text is a lengthy discourse concerning Gnostic cosmology, a discussion of which would be a long-winded rabbit trail at this point and would do little more than expand on what has already been said concerning the Gnostic character of this gospel. The Gospel of Judas ends quite abruptly and in narrative fashion with the arrest of Jesus, as follows: “Their high priests murmured because [Jesus] had gone into the guest room for his prayer. But some scribes were there watching carefully in order to arrest him during the prayer, for they were afraid of the people, since he was regarded by all as a prophet. They approached Judas and said to him, 'What are you doing here? You are Jesus’ disciple.' Judas answered them as they wished. And he received some money and handed him over to them.”41 The Gospel of Judas expresses doctrine which is in direct conflict with doctrine expressed in the New Testament. According to Scripture, Jesus gave His life as a sacrifice for sin, a sacrifice which was made voluntarily and according to a covenant established before the creation of the world. The Gospel of Judas does not make reference to the work of Jesus being redemptive in nature. Rather, the gospel portrays Jesus as one who is simply brought into a higher level of consciousness, which is irrespective of any plan of divine forgiveness for any transgression of man. The gospel reflects themes similar to that of astrology, which declares an assumed inherent divinity within man (see the previous heading concerning astrology for a refutation that Christian doctrine contains astrotheological themes). Also, Jesus came to bear witness to God, not just to a select few, but to all men (Jn 1:6-7). Such a mission does not fit into the description of Jesus in the Gospel of Judas, who pulls Judas aside in order to reveal to him truth that has been withheld from Jesus' other twelve core disciples. The Jesus of the Gospel of Judas does not match up to the Jesus of the New Testament, who does not scoff at the depravity of His disciples; but rather, responds with compassion and love. Finally, the Gospel of Judas denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Since Gnosticism considers the material world evil, a resurrection in bodily

321

form does not constitute a victory within their theological framework. It is only by the shedding of the body that the spirit is made free (The resurrection of Jesus in bodily form will be addressed further in part five). In the final analysis, the Gospel of Judas, at best, preserves the belief of an early Christian sect, but does not reflect the sayings of the historical Jesus. * One might guess that Barbelo refers to a locale, as the name of the realm mentioned by Judas. In actuality, Barbelo refers to a concept or, more precisely, a goddess. In Gnostic theology, Barbelo is the first “emanation” of God, by which the cosmos is created. Barbelo first came into being when the One (or “God the Father”) viewed himself in the “waters of the aeon.”42 The reflection of his image became the second figure in the Gnostic trinity, or “God the Mother.” Irenaeus described the origin of Barbelo as follows: “Some of them [referring to the Gnostic sect known as Sethians], then, set forth a certain Aeon who never grows old, and exists in a virgin spirit: him they style Barbelos. They declare that somewhere or other there exists a certain father who cannot be named, and that he was desirous to reveal himself to this Barbelos … They declare that this was the beginning both of light and of the generation of all things; and that the Father, beholding this light, anointed it with his own benignity, that it might be rendered perfect.”43 The two beings together, Father and Mother, being viewed as one, result in the androgynous (including both male and female qualities) nature of the Gnostic godhead. In the Apocryphon of John, another ancient Gnostic text (the content of which is outside the bounds of the present work), Barbelo is identified as “the first thought, [God's] image; she became the womb of everything, for it is she who is prior to them all, the Mother-Father, the first man, the holy Spirit, the thrice-male, the thrice-powerful, the thrice-named androgynous one, and the eternal aeon among the invisible ones, and the first to come forth."44 The androgynous nature of the godhead resulted in a third entity, the “son.” This son was created as a result of the masculine and feminine properties of the One consenting one to the other to unite and create the third member of the Gnostic trinity, as described in the Gnostic Gospel of the Egyptians: “Three powers came forth from [the One]; they are the Father, the Mother, and the Son ... The second ogdoad-power, the Mother, the virginal Barbelon ... came forth; she agreed with the Father.”45 Hence, the purported virgin birth of the Gnostic son of god is merely an event which occurs in the realm of the godhead, rather than an actual virgin birth occurring within humanity, since the Gnostic Jesus is not said to have had a literal physical body in the first place. Also, the Gnostic son of god is not an eternal being, but was fashioned through a union of the first two members of the trinity. Although Gnostics regard these three as one entity, the fact is that two of these three had a definite point of origin, unlike the Christian Trinity, whose members are equal and eternally co-existent. The Gnostic trinity began as a single being, which developed into a second, then

322

a third being, as described in the Three Steles of Seth: “Thou [the FatherMother] didst continue being one; yet becoming numerable in division, thou art three-fold.”46 The Gospel of Thomas Between 1897 and 1905 several fragments of the Gospel of Thomas, written in Greek, were discovered in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. Later, in 1945, a complete Coptic version of the gospel was found, along with the Gospel of Philip, as part of the Nag Hammadi library. The Coptic text, which was believed to have been a translation of the earlier Greek version, was dated to c.340 A.D.,47 while the Greek version dated c.140 A.D.48 Early testimony serves to corroborate the fact that the gospel existed at least around the middle of the third century, since the work is mentioned by Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236 A.D.): “And concerning this (nature) they hand down an explicit passage, occurring in the Gospel inscribed according to Thomas, expressing themselves thus: 'He who seeks me, will find, me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest.'”49 Early testimony, coming to us from Cyril of Jerusalem (c.313–386 A.D.), also serves to confirm that the early church regarded the Gospel of Thomas as a heretical document and not authentic to the Apostle's hand (emphasis mine): “Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank … Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas: for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes*.”50 There are those who argue for a dating earlier than 140 A.D. in an attempt to claim that the Gospel of Thomas was written prior to the canonical Gospels. Much of the evidence presented in their defense is merely circumstantial and based on an assumed relationship between one text to another. For instance, they claim that John's account of Thomas touching the risen body of Jesus is an Apostolic rebuttal of the Gnostic denial of a bodily resurrection. Also, in Galatians 2:9 where Paul says, “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the

323

grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision,” it is claimed that since he did not mention Peter as among the leaders of the church, that such exclusion is reflective of the twelfth saying of the Gospel of Thomas which states, “The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, 'No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.'”51 It is argued that the exclusion of Peter and the inclusion of James suggests a church government which, they say, existed prior to 70 A.D.52 However, Paul does mention Cephas, which is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic name CephaÕ53, a name by which the Apostle Peter was also known: One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. (Jn 1:40-42; cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5) Another argument the critic uses for an early date is the citation given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:9, where he says, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” It is claimed Paul is citing the seventeenth saying of the Gospel of Thomas, which states, “Jesus said, 'I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart.'”54 However, the text which Paul quoted (in typical Pauline style when citing the Old Testament, by prefacing the citation with, “as it is written, ...”) was the book of Isaiah, not the Gospel of Thomas: For from days of old they have not heard or perceived by ear, Nor has the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him. (Isa 64:4) The format of the gospel is similar to that of Philip in that it contains a collection of sayings which are presented outside of any sort of narrative context. These sayings (114 in number), attributed to Jesus, only at times bear similarities to anything attributed to Him in the canonical Gospels. Proponents of the Jesus myth theory claim that the similarities between the Gospel of Thomas and the canonical Gospels demonstrate that the latter was based on the former; however, as shown above, the Gospel of Thomas bears marks which demonstrate that the text postdates the Gospels. The similarities between the two represent a borrowing of content from the author of the Gospel of Thomas, rather than the authors of the canonical Gospels. As stated, characteristics of the Gospel of Thomas identify the text

324

as one which was composed after the completion of the four canonical Gospels. Although the Gospel of Thomas contains sayings found in three of the four Gospels, the order in which the saying appear is different from the order they appear throughout Scripture, and the Gospel of Mark is excluded altogether, as shown in the chart below.55 Such a characteristic would not likely be present if the author of the Gospel of Thomas were following the life of Jesus as portrayed in the canonical Gospels. Canonical Gospel Mt 5:10 Mt 5:14 Mt 6:2-4 Mt 6:3 Mt 7:6 Mt 10:16 Mt 11:30 Mt 13:24-30 Mt 13:44 Mt 13:45-46 Mt 13:47-50 Mt 15:13 Mt 18:20 Mt 23:13

Gospel of Thomas Saying 69 Saying 32 Sayings 6 and 14 Saying 62 Saying 93 Saying 39 Saying 90 Saying 57 Saying 109 Saying 76 Saying 8 Saying 40 Saying 30 Sayings 39 and 102

Lk 11:27-28; 23:29 Lk 12:13-14 Lk 12:16-21 Lk 12:49 Lk 17:20-21

Saying 79 Saying 72 Saying 63 Saying 10 Sayings 3 and 113

Jn 1:9 Jn 1:14 Jn 4:13-15 Jn 7:32-36 Jn 8:12; 9.5

Saying 24 Saying 28 Saying 13 Saying 38 Saying 77

When a saying in the Gospel of Thomas is reminiscent of another work containing the same or similar saying, most often the other work in question is the Gospel of Matthew, Luke, or John. Such consistency serves to testify in favor of the proposition that the canonical Gospels were regarded as the sole authoritative source for the life of Jesus of Nazareth. As Harry Y. Gamble states, “[The Gospel of Thomas] demonstrates that the Fourfold gospel was accepted as the only authoritative source for teaching--by the very fact that its citations were predominantly from those gospels! And the fact that the four gospels were available to a single redactor at that time confirms the rather rapid and frequent distribution and exchange of Christian literature in the period.”56

325

The simple fact of the matter is that none of the first or second century Christian writers, none of whom were shy when it came to exposing heresies, mention the Gospel of Thomas, as would be expected if such a text existed during their lifetime. Prior to Hippolytus' comments above, there is no mention of the gospel in any surviving written record. The dependence the Gospel of Thomas apparently has on the canonical Gospels serves to post-date the writing of this apocryphal work in relation to the otherwise canonical accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The consensus of scholars is that the Gospel of Thomas is not a first century document; but rather, is one which dates at around the mid-second century. As Craig Blomberg, a leading scholar and professor of religion at Colorado's Denver Seminary, states, “the [Gospel of Thomas] may have first been written as early as about A.D. 150, but no actual evidence permits us to push that date a century earlier.”57 Likewise, H.J.W. Drijvers suggests the Gospel of Thomas was based not on the canonical Gospels, but on Taitian's Diatessaron (the first harmony of the Gospels, written c. 150 A.D.)58 The author of the gospel is named, within the first lines of the text, as “Didymos Judas Thomas:” “These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.”59 The words “didymos” and “thomas” mean “twin” in Greek and Arabic, respectively (“thomas” is a Greek derivative of the Aramic word “T'oma,” which means “twin”). Therefore, since “thomas” is not thought to refer to a name, the author is identified as Judas (or Jude or Judah, the Greek version of the Hebrew name Yedudah). However, such a name was very common among the early centuries of Christianity and there is no way to know exactly to which Judas this was in reference. The Gospel of John names Jesus’ disciple Thomas as “Thomas, which is called Didymus” (Jn 11:16; 20:24; and 21:2), or “Thomas, the twin.” It is in this sense that the identification “Judas thomas” is used in the Gospel of Thomas to name its author, as if “thomas” is his title, rather than part of his name. In contrast, the disciple Judas is never mentioned in Scripture as “Judas thomas.” The Gospel of Thomas is another Gnostic gospel, for which reason it was not included among the canon of the New Testament. The gospel teaches the inherent divinity of mankind, the realization of which is causes man to see the “kingdom of God,” which is embodied in the world around him. Also, the image of God is not one in which man naturally bears a resemblance to God in his essence, but is one which is realized by the awakening of a greater knowledge. The knowledge contained in the gospel is said to be a “secret” knowledge, as stated in the opening line of the text and is reflective of the same secrecy which is said of the knowledge described in other Gnostic gospels such as Mary and Judas. This knowledge is said to come from the teachings of the “living Jesus.” Christians regard Jesus as alive and well, being bodily risen from the dead, and sing songs to Him as the risen Lord. However, this is not the same sense in which the Gnostic regards Jesus

326

as “living.” According to the Gnostic, when Jesus walked among us in the flesh, His inner, spiritual self (that is, His true self which existed before being born of Mary) was imprisoned within His flesh and was later freed when His body died. Such a view is expressive of a conflicting dualism which did not exist within the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was fully man and fully God. Each nature coexisted harmoniously, without either His deity being hindered or His humanity being superhuman. The belief expressed in the Gospel of Thomas reflects the Gnostic belief in two realms of existence: the material and the spiritual. The spiritual realm consists of all that is good, bright, cheery, and full of life, whereas the material realm is wicked, dark, gloomy, and where death is inevitable. The majority of people those residing in the material realm are unenlightened individuals who simply have no clue as to what they are missing out on in the spiritual realm. However, there are a select few in the material realm who are blessings in disguise – eternal spirits who have been incarnated in the flesh but are unaware of their transcendent nature, being hindered by their material form. Such is the type of person Jesus of Nazareth is to the Gnostic. He is not believed to be God, since God (or rather a lesser god) is considered to be an evil being, having created the material realm. This is in stark contrast to Scripture, which proclaims, “The heavens declare the glory of God,” (Ps 19:1) and affirms that even from the very beginning “God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” (Gen 1:31) According to the Gnostic, Jesus, being awakened to His true self, causes others, by the truth of His teaching, to be awakened to their true selves and embrace their higher nature by the shedding of their material form, as did Jesus when His material form died on the cross. The Apostle Peter declared of Jesus that salvation is in His name alone. The Gospel of Thomas, however, declares just the opposite, saying, “If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring it forth, what you do not have within you will kill you. … the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.”60 As one encyclopedia states, “The teaching of salvation (i.e., entering the Kingdom of Heaven) that is found in The Gospel of Thomas is neither that of ‘works’ nor of ‘grace’ as the dicotomy is found in the canonical gospels, but what might be called a third way, that of insight. The overriding concern of The Gospel of Thomas is to find the light within in order to be a light unto the world.”61 For the adherent to Gnosticism salvation does not come through the work of Christ on the cross, or even through the work of Christ at all; but rather, through the awakening of knowledge within oneself, leading the individual to look within for his hope of salvation, rather than looking to the cross and reaching out to the only one who is mighty to save. For the Gnostic, truth is subjective, since his “truth” is that which lies within one's soul and is discovered through personal introspection. Such a notion denies the existence of absolute truth, which is naturally and necessarily objective (see the discussion in Part two concerning Freethought

327

and the objectivity of truth). The problem the Gnostic must overcome, in his inner search for whatever he finds therein and chooses to call truth, is the uncertainly that the conclusions he draws based on his own personal experiences and understanding are indeed reflective of that which is true. There is no guarantee that the truth discovered by Gnostic Bob will be the same truth discovered by Gnostic Phil, and who is to say which truth is correct unless there is some standard by which to judge each one's conclusions? While personal experience is one evidence for a person's faith (as millions of Christians would testify), experience and understanding should never be the basis for one's faith. Experience is only as valid as the proofs by which it is accompanied, and without such other proof religious ideas based on personal impressions can potentially lead to notions as absurd as those held by Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, or the Heaven's Gate crowd. The confidence the Christian has been graciously given is that belief in the Gospel of Christ is not only reasonable and logical, but also accompanied by “many infallible proofs,” as stated by the evangelist Luke (Acts 1:3) and expounded upon throughout this present work. It is by grace through faith alone that people come to Christ, but it is not by faith alone that we live in Christ. As Christians, we do not live by a faith so blind that we cling to the cross as one lost at sea clinging to a raft and hoping for a ship which will never come, for God is both faithful and true, and He has mercifully provided us with evidence which, as Josh McDowell stated, demands a verdict. * Mani of Persia (c. 210-276 A.D.) was the founder of the Gnostic religion known as Manichaeism, a religion to which Augustine of Hippo belonged before his conversion to Christianity. The Docetic gospel: the Gospel of Peter The Gospel of Peter presently exists in the form of three fragments. The first, an eighth century fragment, was discovered in 1886 by French archaeologist Urbain Bouriant, and was discovered along with other manuscripts which were found in a monk’s burial chamber in the city of Akhmim, Egypt. The third and final fragment is a sixth century papyri, the discovery of which was published in 1972. Although the fragments in which the text presently exists dates no earlier than the eighth century, the Gospel of Peter itself is referenced in the writings of the early church. The early church historian Eusebius references the gospel in his address concerning Serapion, who is said to have written a letter “on the so-called Gospel of Peter, [in order] to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions..”62 Eusebius’ mention of the Gospel of Peter lends to the popular consensus of dating the gospel to the latter half of the second century.63 Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown proposes the political organization described in the gospel attests that it was not written in Palestine within the first century, since an author writing at that time would not have confused the roles of Pilate and Herod as the supreme ruler in Jerusalem.64 He further suggests a second century date of composition since the Gospel of Peter contains an

328

amalgam of elements found in each of the four canonical Gospels (with the author's embellishments inserted throughout the narrative), the fourth of which was not composed until near the end of the first century. Also, certain theological elements of the gospel, which will be discussed shortly, are not known to have existed prior to the second century, but are a late modification of Christian doctrine as expressed in heresies which surfaced later. The Gospel of Peter purports to be written by none other than the Apostle Peter himself, as clearly stated in the text: “But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea.” (Gospel of Peter 14.3) Although the work claims it is the work of the Apostle, it is likely and generally agreed upon by scholars, that the actual creation of the text did not occur until after Peter’s martyrdom. Brown also suggested the work was composed by an author who had compiled what he received by oral tradition as well as what that particular author recalled concerning the contents of the canonical Gospels, with his own embellishments inserted in the text.65 The Gospel of Peter differs from the aforementioned Gospel of Judas in its style. Whereas Judas contained dialogues not framed within any narrative context, Peter is largely narrative in style. The fragments which exist today contain narratives of events which occurred within the last week of Jesus. It is not known if the lost fragments covered the same span of time in Jesus’ life or contained accounts of what had transpired before His triumphal entry in Jerusalem, marking the beginning of His last week prior to His crucifixion. Whereas the Gospel of Judas was largely Gnostic in its teaching, the Gospel of Peter reflects docetic themes. Docetism (from the Greek word “dokeo,” meaning “to seem”) is a belief that arose in the early church age and which was condemned as heresy by orthodox Christianity. Docetism teaches that Jesus only appeared to be a man without having actually taken upon Himself literal flesh and blood. According to this view, the flesh of Jesus was only illusion, whereas His true form was purely spiritual and, as such, could not suffer physical death or feel physical pain. It is in this line of thought that the Gospel of Peter alleges that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was “taken up” into heaven before He died (Gospel of Peter 5.5). Adherents to docetism believe that Jesus, as a spiritual manifestation of human form, felt no pain during His trials (Gospel of Peter 4.1). Also, in the same passage by Eusebius as cited above, it is indicated that Serapion declared the Gospel of Peter was used by adherents to docetism. Additionally, the gospel never once refers to Christ by the name Jesus nor the title Christ. Rather, the Savior is identified, even by His enemies, as “Lord” or Son of God,” thereby diluting His humanity in favor of His divinity, or spirituality, which falls right in line with docetic thought. The Gospel of Peter begins with Jesus’ trial before Pilate, but in this version of events, Pilate is acquitted of charges of villainy, and Herod, the king of the Jews, is named as the one according to whose word Jesus is finally sentenced to death (Gospel of Peter 2.3). The declaration of Jesus, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46) is replaced with, “My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me.” (Gospel of Peter 5.5) In the canonical Gospels the disciples are depicted as fleeing the scene and, in one case, even denying any association with

329

Jesus, however, in the Gospel of Peter, the disciples remain in hiding for fear of their lives, after hearing charges against them of plotting to burn the Temple (Gospel of Peter 7.2). In the Gospel of Peter the Roman centurion does not break Jesus’ legs, as described in Scripture (Jn 19:31-33), in order that His death would be more painful and prolonged (Gospel of Peter 4.5). Following the death of Christ, the Gospel of Peter records the resurrection and ascension as happening on the same day, whereas the New Testament accounts for a span of time of forty days (Acts 1:3) between the two events. Also, the Gospel of Peter records more guards and watchmen at the tomb than does the canonical Gospels (Gospel of Peter 10.1). The majority of the Gospel of Peter concerns itself with events after Jesus’ burial. The account given of the resurrection is as follows: “But during the night before the Lord's day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the sky, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend shining with a great light, and they drew near to the tomb. The stone which had been set on the door rolled away by itself and moved to one side, and the tomb was opened and both of the young men went in. Now when these soldiers saw that, they woke up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch). While they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw three men come out of the tomb, two of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them. The heads of the two they saw had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by them wen beyond heaven. And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying, ‘Have you preached unto them that sleep?’ The answer that was heard from the cross was, ‘Yes!’”66 The Gospels do not give an account of the actual resurrection of Jesus. In each Gospel, the tomb is found already empty. Even in Matthew’s account, which records an angel descending from heaven and rolling away the stone, it is apparent from the text that Jesus had already risen prior to the stone being rolled away. The Gospel of Peter describes, as shown in the passage above, two angels, with their height reaching to the heavens, emerging from Jesus’ tomb “sustaining” a third unidentified person, perhaps Jesus Himself, and behind them emerges the cross, floating in a sort of suspended animation. Following their emergence from the tomb, a voice from heaven asks, “Have you preached unto them that sleep?” to which the cross replies, “Yes!” Following the account of Jesus’ resurrection, the Gospel of Peter indicates the reason for the hurried burial was due to fear of retaliation by an angry Jewish mob (Gospel of Peter 12.1), whereas the canonical Gospels describe it as being done in order to finish the burial before the beginning of the Passover. The extant fragment of the Gospel of Peter ends abruptly and in mid-sentence after stating the disciples continued to grieve over the death of Jesus.

330

The docetic Jesus is a Jesus whose shedding of blood did not bring the remission of sin. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments the shedding of blood is an integral element in God's plan of salvation for man (Heb 9:22). The Old Testament sacrificial system, in which the blood of animals was offered to God in sacrifice, was in anticipation of the coming Messiah, whose blood would be shed for the sin of the world (Jn 1:29). If Jesus did not possess a physical body, then He would not have been able to fulfill that which was required to satisfy divine justice, which required blood for the sin of man. Therefore, the docetic Jesus does not fulfill the prophecies stated of the Messiah in the Old Testament, of whose death the shedding of the blood of animals was a foreshadow. According to the Gnostic view, the flesh of Jesus was only illusion, whereas His true form was purely spiritual and, as such, could not suffer physical death or feel physical pain. It is in this line of thought that the Gospel of Peter alleges that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was “taken up” into heaven before He died (Gospel of Peter 5.5). In order to die, Jesus had to possess a body, not just the illusion of a body. Finally, the notion that the Son of God manifested Himself in a body which only appeared human, but did not possess actual material human form nor felt pain is contradictory to characteristics which are applied to the incarnated Son of God in the Gospels. Jesus took upon Himself literal flesh and blood, part of a two-fold nature which will be discussed in detail in Part five. The “Bloodline” Gospels of Mary and Phillip: These two gospels contain elements which are widely used to suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and could possibly have sired a secret bloodline still in existence today. The view gained widespread popularity with the 1982 publication of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail and by Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, with its subsequent theatrical adaptation starring Tom Hanks. In his book, Brown makes more than a few critical errors in judgment, suggesting ideas about Jesus which he frames within the context of a fictional novel. While novel is fiction, the ideas presented therein are not, as admitted by Brown himself: “... the secret I reveal is one that has been whispered for centuries. It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new.”67 It is by this clever deceit that Brown has led many down a false path laden with misconceptions and misunderstandings, and at the end of which is a depiction of Jesus that does not line up with who Jesus really was. The errors of the book, which range to minor misconceptions to attempted deicide, are as follows: 1. That the gnostic gospels predate the canonical Gospels and are therefore the most accurate accounts and depictions of the life and teachings of Jesus. Since this notion is among those under scrutiny in the present heading, no further discussion is here needed. 2. That Constantine suppressed the gnostic gospels and, in their stead, imposed the canonical Gospels on the church. Also, that the deity of Christ was not a doctrine of the church until the Council of Nicea. Quite to the contrary, the New Testament, comprised of first century writings, do indeed affirm the deity of Christ, which will be shown in Part five. As far as

331

Brown's false assertions concerning doctrine put forth at the Council of Nicea and the role of Constantine, such an error has already been addressed under a previous heading. 3. That the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi documents, rather than the books included in the New Testament, represent the earliest Christian writings. The truth is, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not Christian writings. They represent Jewish, not Christian thought. As far as the Nag Hammadi documents, The Gospels of Mary and Philip were among those found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. and discussions on each of these works are immediately forthcoming. 4. That Jesus had to have been married (since Brown claims that all first century Jewish men were married), that His wife was Mary Magdalene, and that the two sired offspring whose bloodline, the true “Holy Grail,” (as Brown hypothesizes) are presently alive and well. These claims will be addressed at the close of this heading. Here, I will briefly comment on Brown's analysis of Leonardo Da Vinci's painting The Last Supper, the original of which is seen on the following page (Figure 1):

Figure 1 Brown postulates that the figure sitting to the left of Jesus (center figure, obviously), and leaning to the left of the painting, is Mary Magdalene. However, if that is so, then why are there only eleven disciples portrayed, when the Gospels depict all twelve present at the table? Historically, Brown's “mystery figure” in question has been regarded as the disciple John, who many believe is the “beloved disciple” mentioned in John's Gospel. It was common practice for classical painters to depict that disciple with pale skin and red hair, as the questionable figure above is seen. Also, as far as the argument that this figure is painted with feminine features, the same can be said of Jesus Himself, as Da Vinci depicts Him (see Figure 2).

332

Figure 2 Brown then engages in a bit of creative revision of Da Vinci's original composition by repositioning the presumed “Mary Magdalene” figure to the right of Jesus, rather than to the left (see Figure 3), and pointing out how nicely “she” fits on Jesus' shoulder:

Figure 3 In so doing, he sets forth the notion that the repositioning of the “Mary” figure suggests a coded message within Da Vinci's painting that indicates an intimate relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, a relationship which has been suppressed by the church in order to protect its doctrine of Christ's divinity. However, this repositioning leaves some irregularities concerning the positioning of the two figures to the immediate left of “Mary” in the original composition, thus throwing off balance the actions of the other figures. Furthermore, the repositioning of “Mary” counteracts the positioning of Jesus' left hand, resting on the table with its palm face up, rather than embracing His beloved “bride.” The reader may ask why I make an issue of this in the first place, and the answer is two-fold: 1) as an artist and painter myself, I recognize the tragedy of mutilating one of history's great works of art simply for the sake of presenting a fabricated agenda, and 2) the reason behind Brown's hypothesis that Jesus was married and fathered a bloodline is so that he may strip Jesus of His divinity, at least in the mind of his readers. Indeed, in The Da Vinci Code the notion is presented that if Jesus married and had a child, such a lifestyle would indicate that He was not divine.68 The validity of that claim will also be addressed at the close of this heading.

333

My purpose in this heading is not to focus on Brown's book or the film, regardless of whatever intent or ulterior motive the author may have had in view when writing the book. Concerning The Da Vinci Code, I have said above all that needs to be said. Rather, this section will address these two “bloodline” gospels directly without reference to Brown's novel, as his theories are, by his own admission, ones that have been “whispered for centuries.” Also, the forthcoming discussion concerning the supposed roles of Jesus as both a husband and father will be addressed without reference to any hypothesis presented strictly in Brown's novel. Gospel of Mary In 1986, in Cairo, Egypt, two fragmentary portions of a lost gospel, later known as the Gospel of Mary, were found in which it was suggested that Mary Magdalene had a more intimate relationship with Jesus than is described in the Gospel accounts. A third fragment was found in the Egyptian Nag Hammadi library in 1945. The first two fragments, written in Greek (believed to be the original language in which the text was written), were dated to the early third century, while the third, written in Coptic, dated to the fifth century.69 The gospel is generally dated between 130-180 A.D.,70 but even this date post-dates the writing of the canonical Gospels and the existence of anyone who was a contemporary of Jesus. The author of the Gospel of Mary is unidentified in the text and it is not implied within that the work was written by an author writing as if he were one of Jesus’ disciples (which, given the late date, would be a futile attempt). It is assumed by the title the gospel is written by Mary, but which Mary is a subject for debate, which is again a moot point since Jesus’ mother, Mary Magdalene, or any other Mary named in Scripture would have passed from the scene prior to the appearance of this text. The author of the text, whoever he, she, or they may be, seems to be writing from the perspective of Mary Magdalene, as is the traditional view, and reflecting sentiments found elsewhere in the Gospel of Phillip, a discussion of which is immediately forthcoming. In each of these gospels, Mary Magdalene is portrayed as being especially loved by Jesus, above all others, thereby suggesting the two were husband and wife. The extant version of Gospel of Mary begins with a dialogue, the setting of which is missing from the text, although it appears the scene takes place after Jesus’ resurrection, for the disciples make mention of Jesus not being “spared,” suggesting that He had already been crucified. In the opening portion of the text, Jesus is instructing His disciples concerning the nature of sin. He says (brackets indicate words or portions which are missing from the original text and have been replaced by translators), “There is no such thing as sin; rather you yourselves are what produces sin when you act in accordance with the nature of adultery, which is called 'sin.' … This is why you get si[c]k and die: because [you love] what de[c]ei[ve]s [you]. [Anyone who] thinks should consider [these matters]! … Go then, preac[h] the good news about the Realm.”71 After Jesus leaves the scene, the disciples expressed their upset over the words spoken by Jesus, saying, “How are we going to go out to the rest of the world to announce the good news about the

334

Realm of the child of true Humanity? … If they did not spare him, how will they spare us?” Mary then offers words of comfort to the disciples, to which Peter replies, “Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than all other women. Tell us the words of the Savior that you remember, the things which you know that we don't because we haven't heard them.” Mary then says she will teach them “about what is hidden from [them].” Shortly after Mary begins her instruction, the dialogue is cut short due to four missing pages from the text. The text picks up with Mary relating a vision in which her soul ascends through four material “Powers” which attempt to prevent the soul from reaching its final resting point. The following excerpt is from her description of the vision she relates to the disciples: “When the soul had brought the third Power to naught, it went upward and saw the fourth Power. It had seven forms. The first form is darkness; the second is desire; the third is ignorance; the fourth is zeal for death; the fifth is the realm of the flesh; the sixth is the foolish wisdom of the flesh; the seventh is the wisdom of the wrathful person. These are the seven Powers of Wrath … The soul replied, saying, 'What binds me has been slain, and what surrounds me has been destroyed, and my desire has been brought to an end, and ignorance has died. In a [wor]ld, I was set loose from a world [an]d in a type, from a type which is above, and (from) the chain of forgetfulness which exists in time. From this hour on, for the time of the due season of the aeon, I will receive rest i[n] silence.'” Following Mary’s recounting of her vision, Andrew expresses doubt that Jesus told Mary the things she had claimed he did. Peter responds with jealousy over the prospect that Jesus revealed special knowledge to Mary, while withholding the same knowledge from them. Levi, also known as Matthew, rebuked Peter for his contention with Mary: “For if the Savior made her worthy, who are you then for your part to reject her? Assuredly the Savior's knowledge of her is completely reliable. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather we should be ashamed. We should clothe ourselves with the perfect Human, acquire it for ourselves as he commanded us, and announce the good news, not laying down any other rule or law that differs from what the Savior said.” The gospel concludes with the line, “After [he had said these] things, they started going out [to] teach and to preach.” The Gnostic character of the Gospel is most vividly expressed in Mary’s line, “The soul replied, saying, 'What binds me has been slain, and what surrounds me has been destroyed, and my desire has been brought to an end, and ignorance has died.” Thus, the body is seen as that which “binds” the soul and, upon death, the soul is no longer hindered by the “ignorance” it possessed while still in the body – a view which echoes the theology within the Gnostic gospels previously discussed under this heading. However, that which sets this Gnostic work apart from the Gospel of Judas or Thomas is the claim that Jesus loved Mary more than His other disciples (this notion

335

will be addressed further when considering the Gospel of Phillip) and that, as some read into the text, an intimate relationship existed between the two. Mary is seen as not only more enlightened, but also more receptive to the words of Jesus, since the disciples’ seem more interested in engaging in a sort of power play, debating who is greatest among them. The gospel may also reflect a debate in the early church over the role of women. In the New Testament, women are clearly prohibited from holding leadership positions such as a bishop or elder. In fact, in one passage, women are even instructed not to speak in the church. It may be that the author of the Gospel of Mary intended to defend a matriarchal leadership within the church by presenting Mary in such a light as does this text. Indeed, she held authority comparable to that of the Apostles, for she was an eyewitness to Jesus, being a close companion of His. It was Mary Magdalene who first saw the risen Jesus, a fact which makes her the first Christian to ever spread the Gospel of the risen Lord. Whatever was the author’s intention, the text is used today as an engine to promote the notion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were husband and wife, a notion which will be addressed shortly hereafter. Gospel of Philip In 1945 the Gospel of Phillip was first discovered as part of a library found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The text dates to the latter half of the third century A.D., according to Wesley W. Isenberg, who translated the Coptic text,72 although others suggest a date of composition as early as 180 A.D.73 The title of the text does not identify Phillip as the author (were that the case, the document would have had to been composed by him in the first century). Rather, the title refers to the fact that Phillip is the only disciple mentioned within the text. The Gospel of Philip is not a narrative work, as are each of the four canonical Gospels. In style, the book more closely resembles the book of Proverbs, since the Gospel of Philip contains random sayings and follows no organizational formula, with changes in subjects often occurring suddenly. It is believed the sayings found in the gospel are collected from various lost writings, with some sayings being found in the canonical Gospels. The overall topic with which the gospel is concerned is the value of ordinances such as baptism and, in particular, marriage. In the Gospel of Philip, the unity between husband and wife is seen as typical of spiritual unity, which echoes the New Testament’s teaching that the marriage relationship is reflective of the relationship Christ has with His church. However, the sayings of the gospel are flavored with Gnosticism, and convey various notions which are diametrically opposed to doctrines taught in Scripture. For instance, in Genesis, mankind is created in God’s image, however, in the Gospel of Philip, men and women, when considered separately, do not bear the image of God. Rather, it is only through the institution of marriage and the unity they achieve therein that they reflect God’s image. According to the Gospel of Philip, the sin of Adam and Eve broke the unity they shared and the coming of Jesus was for the purpose of restoring this broken unity between men and

336

women.74 Likewise, the Genesis account of creation is not at all like the description of creation which is stated in the Gospel of Philip, which states, “the world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world.”75 Here, not only is the sovereignty of God undermined by the “failure” of His creation, but also His eternal nature is denied when the text claims God is not “imperishable.” The gospel also lashes out at the Old Testament sacrificial system by saying, "God is a man-eater. For this reason, men are sacrificed to him. Before men were sacrificed, animals were being sacrificed, since those to whom they were sacrificed were not gods.”76 Nowhere in Scripture are men sacrificed to God in accordance with any divine mandate. There are accounts of human sacrifices by leaders of Israel in the Old Testament, but such actions were condemned by God and, as a result, the guilty parties were met with punishment and/or curse. In fact, it was such a sin for which a curse was brought upon the Davidic lineage of Jehoiakim, who instituted pagan idol worship and human sacrifice as part of the religion of Israel. As a result, it was foretold that no one of his lineage, after the short reign of his son Jehoiachin would ever sit on his throne. Thus, it was during Jehoiachin’s reign that the Jews were led into Persian captivity, thereby marking an end to the Davidic royal line (Jer 22:30, 23:5-6). As far as animal sacrifices, if anyone were to be guilty of charges of animal cruelty, it would be man himself, whose sin was the cause of the institution of the sacrificial system. It was by grace alone that God even provided a means of salvation, and the sacrifices offered in Old Testament times were foreshadowing the coming redemption provided by the offering of Jesus’ body and blood on the cross. Finally, the Gospel of Philip denies that Jesus was born of a virgin, saying, “Some said, Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? … And the Lord would not have said ‘My Father who is in heaven’ unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply ‘my father.’”77 I will not dive into a discussion on the virgin birth here, but will merely point out that both the Gospel writers and the Apostle Paul affirmed Jesus’ virgin birth (a discussion of which is forthcoming in Part five). As far as Jesus’ statement about His Father being in heaven, such was not a clarification of which father He was referring to; but rather, was a direct claim to deity. Had Jesus simply said, “Father,” without adding, “who is in heaven,” such would not have been an admission that He was the natural born son of Joseph (who actually was Jesus’ father in a legal, but not biological, sense). However, in saying, “My Father who is in heaven,” Jesus is directly claiming to be the Son of God (the Hebrew concept of sonship will also be addressed in Part five, as such a term was also used to refer to oneness to another in essence or purpose, rather than strictly an ontological begetting of person). The Gospel of Philip is best known for allegedly implying that a marriage relationship existed between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Although such a relationship is not blatantly stated in the gospel, it does describe Mary as His

337

“companion” and the one who is “loved more than all” and who Jesus “used to kiss often.” In some translations, Mary is even named as Jesus’ “lover.” The suspicion of marriage is derived from two passages from the text, quoted below (brackets indicate missing words which have been restored by the translator): “There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and his sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.” “And the companion of [the saviour was] Mary Magdalene. [Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples, [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [the word here is missing from the text, although many translations insert “mouth”]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.”78 As shown above, the identification of Jesus as the one who loved Mary more than the disciples is based on the translator’s assumption rather than anything that is explicitly stated in the text. The jealously of the disciples at Jesus' affection for Mary suggests that the relationship between Jesus and Mary, as presented in this text, was not that of husband and wife, else why would such a form of love be that of which the disciples would become jealous. Certainly, there are no homosexual undertones contained within this gospel, yet the disciples desire that Jesus love them with the same kind of love He had for Mary. After Jesus is asked why He loves Mary more than the others, the reply He gives makes no reference to His love for her being grounded in a matrimonial relationship. Rather, He states His reason through the giving of a parable, thereby indicating that Mary has come into a greater spiritual understanding than the others, and it is this understanding which has earned her His great affection. Also, the word translated “companion” in the above passage is the word koinonos, which is neither a synonym for “wife” nor “spouse; but rather, simply means “a partner, associate, comrade, or companion in anything.”79 As such, the same word could have been used of any one of Jesus' disciples. Paul uses the same word when speaking of his friend and fellow believer Philemon in the following passage, when writing to his friend on behalf of a former slave (Onesimus) of Philemon, with whom Paul has since come in contact, that Philemon would receive Onesimus back into his fellowship, despite any past transgression:

338

If thou [Philemon] count me therefore a partner, receive him [Onesimus] as myself. (Philemon 1:17) As far as Jesus kissing Mary, such does not denote a marriage relationship. The fact that Jesus is said to have kissed Mary “often” likewise does not denote an intimacy set within the bounds of marriage. It is widely known that in ancient times a kiss was a form of greeting, rather than strictly an expression of devotion. In various passages in the New Testament, believers are admonished to greet one another with a “holy kiss.” (see 1 Sam 20:41; Prov 24:26; Rom 16:16; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:25; 1 Pet 5:14). The New Manners and Customs of the Bible explains that the custom was practiced by “the laying on of hands on each other’s shoulders then a pulling together and the giving of a kiss, first on the right cheek and then on the left.”80 A kiss served as an outward expression of love, hospitality, and brotherhood, not unlike the common handshake today.81 The kiss of hospitality was practiced among members of the same sex as well as those of opposite sex, at least until the third century when the two genders were separated with respect to such a practice.82 The practice of kiss-giving continued beyond the Apostolic era, as the early apologist Justin Martyr testified that kisses were exchanged among Christians prior to engaging in the Lords Supper.83 Aside from the kiss on the cheek, a mouth-to-mouth kiss was also used to show brotherly love and, like the kiss on the cheek, was not restricted to being between those of opposite sex. It is believed that this was the type of kiss by which Judas betrayed Jesus in the garden of Gethsemene. (Lk 22:48) Such a kiss was not practiced by the giving of a single kiss, but by repeating the kiss several times in a single instance,84 thus hearkening back to the Gospel of Thomas when it states that Jesus kissed Mary “often.” The Coptic word translated “kiss” in the Gospel of Thomas is the word “aspaze,”85 which is equivalent to the Greek word “philema,” translated seven times in the New Testament as “kiss” (Lk 7:45; 22:48, Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14) and denotes “a sign of fraternal affection.”86 Furthermore, in each of the above passages where the word appears in the New Testament, it is referring to a kiss of hospitality, not within the context of sensuality or by people in a marital or otherwise sensual relationship. In fact, elsewhere in the same gospel, the text makes reference to such a fraternal form of kissing: “The perfect are conceived thru a kiss and they are born. Therefore we also are motivated to kiss one another— to receive conception from within our mutual grace.”87 Ian Wilson, in his book Jesus: the Evidence, provides a nice short, yet accurate, analysis by stating, “[the Gospel of Philip] has no special claim to an early date, and seems to be merely a Mills and Boon-style fantasy of a type not uncommon among Christian apocryphal literature of the third and fourth centuries.”88

339

Addendum: Could Jesus have been married and had a child? Consideration one: As a first century Jew, was Jesus required by law to marry? One of the reasons that some claim Jesus had to have been married is the claim that celibacy was forbidden for first century Jews. Nowhere in the Mosaic Law were Jews commanded to remain celibate. In fact, some of the greatest prophets of the Old Testament, such as Jeremiah and Elijah, were never said to have been married. Likewise, in the first century there were Jews who remained unmarried, and did so without violating any religious ordinance. It is true that the religious authorities presiding in Palestine in the first century imposed their own form of law on the people, as many liberties were made when it came to applying the Law of Moses to areas of social and religious practices. As a result, Temple worship became flavored with commercialism and laws regulating society were made to conform to the wishes of the priesthood and the Sanhedrin, the judicial authority in Jerusalem, next to King Herod. However, celibacy was not a requirement imposed upon Jews by those in authority in the first century. In fact, both Josephus and Philo, two first century Jews, testified in their writings to the celibate lifestyle had by some within their ethnic group. Their testimonies are as follows, the first two by Josephus and the third by Philo: “These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners.”89 “There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives.”90 “Again, perceiving with more than ordinary acuteness and accuracy, what is alone or at least above all other things calculated to dissolve such associations, they repudiate marriage; and at the same time they practise continence in an eminent degree; for no one of the Essenes ever marries a wife.”91 Consideration two: Why might Jesus have remained celibate? In Jesus' time, it was customary for Jewish males to marry by around age sixteen. Jewish boys did not choose their own bride. Rather, the marriage was arranged by the parents. At times, marriage was postponed to a later age, or neglected altogether, if one's circumstances or obligations warranted a single life. Such may have been the reason

340

why Jesus would have chosen to remain single. Jesus and, presumably, His mother and foster father (that is, Joseph) knew of the mission for which He was sent. As the Messiah, Jesus was not destined to live a life of a king in a fashionable palace, in victory over His enemies, and as one who united the twelve scattered tribes of Israel, as many of His time thought regarding the Messiah's purpose. Rather, He was sent to die for sin. His purpose as the Lamb of God who would be sacrificed according to the Father's predetermined plan to redeem man is one which Jesus was fully aware of. Even at age twelve, in the only reliable account we have of any event during Jesus' childhood, Jesus was aware that He was sent by God, whom Jesus named, even in His youth, as His Father. Later, during His public ministry Jesus spoke to His disciples concerning both the time and manner of His death in Jerusalem during His coming visit to the city during Passover week. Knowing that His life would end at the early age of thirty-three (Jews were legally considered “young men” until age thirty – see the heading in Part one concerning Jesus' baptism at age thirty), thereby preventing Him from fulfilling familial obligations as either a husband or father, the life of celibacy may have been a lifestyle according to which He felt obligated to abide. Jesus was not the only child of Joseph's household. The Gospels speak of Jesus as having brothers and sisters. Yet, Jesus regarded His role as Messiah as that which superseded all such relationships. This frame of mind is particular evident in the following account where Jesus names His mother and brethren as those who do His Father's will, rather than those with whom He shared a blood relation. While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Mt 12:46-50) Also, the Gospel of Matthew records an instance when the Pharisees questioned Jesus concerning divorce, to which Jesus replied that divorce was permissible in the case of infidelity. Following His reply to the inquiry, Jesus makes the following statement to His disciples: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Mt 19:12)

341

Many scholars perceive in this passage Jesus' defense to His disciples for not taking for Himself a wife, since He says that some men remain celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, that is to say, for the sake of a divine calling to a particular ministry. In remaining single, these ones so called devote their lives and their time to what is perceived as a special and, perhaps, more noble purpose – one which would be hindered by virtue of spousal obligation. However, Jesus recognizes this type of celibacy is uncommon and difficult to understand, although not unreasonable and condemned within His society as immoral or illegal. Jesus' marital status is not expressly stated in Scripture, although it is strongly implied (and not for doctrinal reasons) that He was unmarried during His ministry. Aside from the indication above, another indication that Jesus was not married is the lack of mention of a spouse when referring to Jesus' relatives. His mother, foster father, brothers and sisters are mentioned, as well as are Salome, Jesus' aunt and Mary's younger sister, and His cousins Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John (the Apostle John and son of Salome). However, even at the time of His death, there is no mention of any spouse present. In fact, the only woman present at the crucifixion to whom Jesus expresses any type of familial obligation is His mother Mary,* whom He places in the care of the “beloved disciple,” who is widely considered to be the disciple John. Of course, it is possible that one could argue Jesus had been married but that His wife died prematurely prior to the beginning of His public ministry. Were that the case, there would have been no reason to mention His status as widow in the Gospels, since the purpose of ancient biographies was to present an account of the deeds which made one worthy of being the subject of a biographer. However, the proposition that Jesus was a widow is based on nothing other than a theory unfounded on even circumstantial evidence. It is also suggested that the wedding at Cana, where Jesus performed His first recorded miracle by turning water into wine, was actually the wedding of Jesus. However, the context of the passage, as commented upon below, does not present Jesus in the role of bridegroom. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage [if Jesus was the groom, He would not have been among those on the “guest list”]. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They [that is, the wedding party] have no wine [had Mary and Jesus been among the wedding party, she would not have spoken in the third person]. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

342

And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom [this clearly refers to a person other than Jesus], And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples [notice the lack of mention of a spouse among His traveling companions]: and they continued there not many days. (Jn 2:1-12) * Some critics claim that Mary Magdalene, who was present at the crucifixion, was Jesus' spouse and the one whom Jesus entrusts to John, but this notion is refuted merely by the context of the passage. Such a theory will be addressed later. Consideration three: Could Jesus have been married and still fulfill His roles as the divine Son of God and Messiah? There are two reasons why some Christians believe, rather adamantly, that Jesus absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt could have never been married. The first reason is the casting of a negative light on sensual pleasure, even when had within the context of marriage. While it is clear in Scripture that Jesus could not have engaged in sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage (for such is forbidden in the Mosaic Law, and Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not break it), it is nowhere stated that such pleasures within the bonds of matrimony is a transgression of the Law. In fact, quite the contrary is stated and sexuality within marriage has the benefit of being blessed by God, regardless of whether the husband in question is an utter social and moral degenerate or the virgin-born Son of God. Any claim to the contrary echoes too closely the sentiment of Gnosticism, which places a stigma on material and physical pleasure, a stigma which is not supported by Scripture. The second reason why some Christians believe it an impossibility for Jesus to have been married is the notion that in so doing, His deity would be compromised by the marriage relationship. It is the critic's intention, when presenting this argument, to brings forth whatever notion he or she can present in order to foster doubt, regardless of how unfounded, on Jesus' deity. After all, as the critic

343

claims, if Jesus was married, then such would affirm He lived a life common to men of His time, in which case there was nothing special about Him and He most certainly was not the Son of God. Jesus' deity and equality with God the Father is clearly stated numerous times in both the Old and New Testament, in a prophetic and historical context, respectively. However, Jesus was not only divine; He was also human. I will reserve an in-depth treatment of Jesus' two natures for Part five. Here, I will contain the treatment to the claim that Jesus was fully God and fully man, not half God and half man or two-thirds God and onethird man, and also that these two natures co-existed within the person of the Messiah in a harmonious relationship. At no time could Jesus do anything as a man that would counteract anything He could do as God, or vice-versa. Therefore, as a man Jesus could have been married, and such a relationship with another human being would not have stripped Him of His deity, since marriage is a perfectly natural and Godordained type of relationship between one man and one woman. I agree, for reasons stated in the previous paragraphs, that it is likely that Jesus was not married; however, it is simply not correct to say that He definitely could not have been married, as such a premise is based on false assumptions regarding His dual natures. As the Messiah, it was necessary for Jesus to be conceived of a virgin, but it was not necessary that Jesus live a virgin life. The attempt to undermine the New Testament's many claims to Jesus' deity in order to reduce Him to just your average Joe is purely based on false ideas and, consequently, inevitably false conclusions. As the saying goes, “Garbage in, garbage out.” Some critics claim that the reason Jesus is not portrayed in Scripture as being married is that the Gospel writers suppressed an actual marriage, a suppression which was continued by the church, in order to protect Jesus' deity. Aside from what has been said above (and will be expounded upon later in this book) concerning the harmony between Jesus' humanity and deity, a harmony which would not be interrupted by a marriage relationship, it only needs to be further noted that nowhere in Scripture nor in any doctrinal creed formed by the church (and there many been many formed in the last two thousand years, including the one by myself in the postscript of this book) is the perpetual virginity of Jesus named as an article on which the church stands. The Catholic church and several other groups regard Mary as living a life of perpetual virginity, a notion which is implied in the second century text The Nativity of Mary and later made Catholic dogma in 1950, however such an idea is outside the bounds of this discussion. In conclusion, it must be asked: if it is true that the church did suppress Jesus' marital status in order to protect a false notion that He was divine, when all along He did not possess one ounce of divinity, then why did the writers of the New Testament die for their adherence to a false doctrine? If Jesus was 100% man and 0% God, then why did

344

the Apostles, when faced with the choice to renounce their faith or perish, not simply sign on the dotted line that they renounce their belief in something they knew was a falsehood in the first place? Granted, the Apostles' steadfastness to their professed faith does not testify to the validity of those beliefs which they professed (no more than a terrorist's cause is validated simply because he believes in his cause), but it does testify they believed that what they professed was the truth and not a falsehood that was intentionally suppressed by their own hand. The simple truth is, the theory that the Gospel writers suppressed anything in order to present a false Gospel simply contradicts the testimony of history. Consideration four: If Jesus was married, could Mary Magdalene have been His wife? Having answered the question of whether or not Jesus could have been married, I will now address the issue concerning Mary Magdalene as the most likely candidate for “Mrs. Jesus,” as the suggestion goes among the various camps of critics and the less informed. Mary is called Magdalene because she was from the fishing village of Magdala. Some believe she is the same person identified as either Mary of Bethany or as the unnamed prostitute in Luke chapter seven (a suggestion that gained momentum after such was stated in a sermon by Pope Gregory the Great in 591 A.D.), however no contextual support for either of these notions is provided by Scripture. The first mention of Mary Magdalene is from Luke's eighth chapter, in which it is said that she had formerly been possessed by seven demons. And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto Him of their substance. (Lk 8:2-3 NASB) The short passage above not only mentions the reason for Mary's love, but also the manner in which that love took expression. Each of these three women, Mary, Joanna, and Susanna, experienced some sort of deliverance from physical bondage, be it infirmity or possession by demons. Their devotion to Jesus was the result of the redemption, both spiritual and physical, which He had granted to them, rather than the devotion of any one of these women being due to a bond of matrimony. Also, the expression of Mary's devotion for Jesus is not described as being any different from the other two women, each of whom gave to Jesus “of their substance,” or their time, their belongings, and, most importantly, their unwavering devotion. The only relationship that the Gospels portray between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is that of Master and devoted follower. Mary's devotion to Jesus, rather than being a reason to suspect a marital relationship, should serve as a model for all

345

who have been likewise washed by the blood of the Lamb. Prior to Luke chapter eight there is no indication that Jesus even knew Mary Magdalene. Of course, it is possible that He was acquainted with her and that her relationship to Him prior to her cleansing was that of an unbeliever, however, any such assumption is not supported by the Gospels. As far as we know, prior to Mary's cleansing, she and Jesus had not even met, much less were betrothed. After Luke's initial mention of Mary there is no further mention of her in the Gospels' accounts until the crucifixion (Mk 15:40) where she remains by the side of her Lord, along with Jesus' mother and other of His female disciples. Thus, the mention of Mary in the Gospel of Philip as Jesus' “companion” fits right in line with the Gospel's description of Mary as one of Jesus' female traveling companions. The very fact that Mary Magdalene is named in accordance with her place of origin is a strong indication that she was unmarried. It was customary for first century Jewish women to be named by their hometown if they were not united in marriage; otherwise, their designation would be after their husband's name,92 as is the case of Joanna, who is identified as “the wife of Chuza (Lk 8:3), or another Mary, identified as “the wife of Cleophas.” (Jn 19:25) Concerning the use of geographic designations Dr. Ben Witherington III states, “This was done because it was believed that a person's origin said something definitive about (and perhaps even determined) who that person was or could be, hence Nathaniel's question about whether anything good could come out of Nazareth (Jn 1:46).”93 Before closing this portion I feel I must address a documentary that was released on DVD in 2008 and has since received much attention. The documentary Bloodline was produced by Rene Barnett and written, directed, and narrated by Bruce Burgess. The film investigates the theory that not only is there a bloodline alive today which is made up of the descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but also that the bodies of Jesus and Mary are entombed in France and guarded by a secret society (which chose to go public in 1956) known as the Priory of Sion, a society founded in 1099 and to whom belonged such notable figures as Sir Issac Newton, Botticello, Victor Hugo, and even Da Vinci himself, according to parchments discovered in 1975. As the filmmakers pursue various clues left for them by a deceased priest who desired to reveal the “truth,” Bloodline plays itself out like an Indiana Jones movie, although without all the action and thrills that are characteristic of Indy's adventures. Likewise, in Da Vinci Code fashion, the suggestion is made in the film that within certain pieces of art there exist clues which indicate that a marriage existed between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. One such work presented as evidence is a stained glass window in Kilmore Church on the Isle of Mull in Scotland, in which Jesus and Mary, whose image is perceived by some as a pregnant

346

woman, are depicted with their right hands in embrace (see Figure 4). Another work presented is a scene depicting Jesus’ burial, in which a moon has been painted in the top left corner of the image (see Figure 5), suggesting the burial was at night. Speculation put forth in Bloodline is that such a scene indicates Jesus was not dead at the time of burial, since Jews were forbidden to touch a dead body at night.

Figure 4

Figure 5

Priory of Sion member Nicholas Haywood, who is interviewed in the film, claims there is evidence of a bloodline, saying that “the mainstay of evidence are a series of items which are kept together … and attests wholeheartedly” that such a bloodline exists. This“body of evidence,” which the filmmakers believe is a literal reference to a corpse, is said to exist in the area around Rennes-le-Chateau in southwest France. It is also said that a priest by the name of Jacques Saunière found a crypt under his church in which this evidence once existed. Attempts to excavate the tomb, now sealed, is prohibited by the French government. The evidence Saunière is said to have found, parchments which proved Jesus was alive in 45 A.D., are now believed to be sealed in the Vatican’s archives. Yet, copies of these parchments are provided by an anonymous source during the filming of Bloodline. Upon analysis, the copies were dated to the time of the French Revolution and found to make the claim that Jesus, along with His wife and kids, were smuggled to France, where they now are said to be entombed. Also on the parchment is a coded map of the area in which the supposed holy family is buried in an underground temple near Rennes-le-Chateau and still remain in a mummified state, according to Haywood (who was careful not to affirm the existence of these bodies, but to merely comment on their state of being if they did exist). What follows next is the pursuit of a series of clues said to have been left by Saunière concerning the location of the actual tomb. While it can be proven that Saunière did once walk the area in which the clues were discovered, no proof exists that they were indeed left by him, rather

347

than by a hoaxer. The clues, which were handwritten notes bottled up and dug into nooks and crannies or hidden under rocks, were found and followed in a scavenger hunt-like fashion. According to one note, Saunière is claimed to write, “...the resurrection of Jesus was a trick … it was Mary Magdalene who took his body from his tomb... the Disciples were fooled ... Later ... the body of Jesus was discovered by the Templars and then hidden three times ... Rome knows all about this, but they can not afford to let the secret be known ... they threatened to kill ... if the location of the tomb was revealed....” Another note led the filmmakers to a cave in which a shoebox-size chest was dug up. Inside the chest were found various artifacts which were later examined by Israeli archaeologist Dr. Gabriel Barkey. The contents of the box included a ceramic cup, a small scroll dating between 1440-1620 A.D., a first century Judean ointment jar, and coins dating between the first and sixth centuries. On the scroll was a handwritten map of the Rennesle-Chateau church and the following challenge: “Here you begin to undertake a search for the secret tomb and treasure which I have guarded. And by the act of finding it you become its guardian.” Also on the map was an arrow pointing to a crypt within the church. In the end, the adventurers were led to a cave in which was discovered a partially mummified corpse laid beneath a shroud decorated with a red Crusaderstyle cross. Close examination of the corpse was not possible due to lack of accessibility to the body (which was filmed by lowering a camera through a small opening above), however several hair strands were able to be retrieved through the use of precision tools. Analysts who examined the strands were unable to determine the age or gender of the corpse, but stated they believed the body was of middle-eastern origin. The film closes with a clip of a recorded phone call from an anonymous high-ranking Vatican insider who is heard saying, “Clearly, the fact that Christ had children, that it wasn't a story of resurrection … the truth is different. But there is no point in revealing truth to people until they are ready. People sometimes, they want to buy a lie more readily than the truth. … The Catholic Church is the Priory of Sion, if you like.” Plans to further excavate the tomb is presently underway. The best evidence presented in Bloodline that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and are now buried in France is the discovery of a corpse of unknown age or gender in the area where their bodies are supposed to be located. Aside from the corpse, no items were presented which stands as empirical evidence or as evidence which can provide a direct link to Jesus of Nazareth. What more, there is no answer given to the evidence which does exist concerning the resurrection of Jesus (see Part five concerning the historical resurrection of Jesus). Rather, the theories proposed in the film are pursued with a rather tunnel vision sort of investigation, to the exclusion of evidence to the contrary or with an attempt to explain just how it was that Mary Magdalene stole a body from a tomb which was under Roman guard. The artwork

348

presented in the film is of late origin and is not accompanied by early testimony to any belief that Jesus and Mary were married. Even in the image of Jesus and Mary holding hands, the idea that she is depicted as pregnant is subjected to one’s own visual interpretation. In fact, as noted above, neither the Gospel of Mary nor Thomas suggests that such a union existed, and the very notion is against the Gnostic teachings which permeate the texts. The scrolls and notes found during the scavenger hunt for the tomb are highly suspect, as the authenticity of none of these papers can be proven and it is unlikely that someone in charge of guarding such a “holy grail” would leave clues which could place the guardianship of these items in the hands of someone who would not be guaranteed to be a worthy sentry. In conclusion to this fourth consideration, I will remind the reader that although the Gospel of Philip mentions Mary as Jesus' “companion” and the one whom He loved “more than all” and “kissed often,” none of these statements denote a marriage relationship, for contextual and linguistic reasons previously stated. Consideration five: If Jesus was married, could He have fathered a child, thus beginning a bloodline of Jesus which could still be alive today? In the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus it is suggested that the anonymous “beloved disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (Jn 20:2) is actually a reference to a son born to Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It was also the “beloved disciple” to whom Jesus charged with the care of His mother following His crucifixion (Jn 19:25-27). Even if Jesus did have a son, it is clear that the Gospels present a chronology of events which does not support the notion that the “beloved disciple” is Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s son, and such evidence will be presented under the following heading dealing with the supposed “Jesus family tomb.” Here, I will address the question of whether or not Jesus could have had a son without compromising the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus. The Gospels do not mention any child born to Jesus, however, some see this lack of mention as an attempt to conceal Jesus’ son, in order to protect his identity and spare him persecution. It is in the spirit of such speculation that critics interpret the obscure reference to the “beloved disciple” as a reference to Jesus’ son. However, if Jesus did have a son who was at least an adolescent by the end of Jesus’ ministry, the identity of this son would have already been a thing of public knowledge, since Jesus would have had no reason to conceal His son's identity prior to His public recognition as the Messiah. Secondly, Nazareth, where Jesus lived, had a population of about five hundred, and everyone there would have known of any children born to Him. Thirdly, this supposed son was present at the crucifixion and the one to

349

whom Jesus committed the care of His mother. There was no effort to conceal the son’s identity during Jesus’ lifetime, and therefore no need to conceal his identity in the Gospels. Fourthly, the theory that the son’s identity was concealed in order to provide for his safety is untenable on the grounds that Jesus never told His disciples they would be free from persecution. Rather, He foretold they would be persecuted, as shown in the passages below: So ye are witnesses and consent unto the works of your fathers: for they killed them, and ye build their tombs. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary: yea, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation. (Lk 12:48-51 NASB) But before all these things, they shall lay their hands on you, and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name’s sake. It shall turn out unto you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to gainsay. But ye shall be delivered up even by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. Lk 21:12-17 NASB Jesus instructed His disciples not to flee persecution; but rather, to embrace it: Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Mt 5: 10-11 NASB) Such a sentiment is echoed in the letters of the New Testament when Paul declares that he took joy in his persecution, knowing that it was for the glory of God. What glory is there is hiding a disciple from such persecution? Jesus did not encourage His disciples to hide behind masks, but to embrace persecution, knowing that they would be blessed in so doing. Fifthly, if Jesus had a son, such a tradition would have existed within the church, for the identity of this child would have been

350

known to Jesus’ disciples. After this child would die, and even if the Apostles had concealed the identity of this child during his lifetime, the need for concealment would die with him. The fact is that in the writings of the early church there is not found any reference to a child born to Jesus. Still, is it possible that Jesus, as the Son of God, could have had a son? Until this point, I have only addressed the notion that Jesus did have a son, but that such a relationship was shrouded in secrecy. The issue now under consideration will be whether or not Jesus’ siring of an offspring would have violated His divinity or made Him unfit to die for the sin of others. It is evident that His humanity would not have been compromised by becoming a father, no more than the humanity of any other male is compromised by fatherhood, but what about Jesus’ deity? Could the Son of God, as God in the flesh, become a father to another human being through the normal process of regeneration and still be divine? While the notion of fatherhood is not contrary to any physiological consideration relating to Jesus of Nazareth, there remain theological concerns which must be addressed in such speculation. As God, Jesus of Nazareth was without sin. It was Jesus’ sinlessness which made His death a worthy sacrifice for sin and a sacrifice acceptable to the Father; otherwise, Jesus would have only died as a man paying the penalty for His own sin, as a sinner being under the same curse of death as anyone else (this point will be discussed in detail in Part five regarding Jesus’ role as Mediator between God and man). The sinless state of Jesus was one that was inherent to His nature. As God, Jesus could not sin, for acting in sin is against the divine nature. Although the qualities of Jesus’ human nature were distinct from His divine nature (for instance, as a man, Jesus needed to eat, but as God, He is selfsustained), both natures – the divine and the human – were possessed by the single person of Christ. Therefore, had Christ, in His humanity, committed sin, the person of the Son of God would have also committed sin. Since God cannot be something that is contrary to His nature and since God cannot break His own decree, then no sin could enter into Him by any act committed by Jesus’ humanity. Some may argue that if Jesus was unable to sin, then He was not fully human, since every person is born with a sinful nature. However, it must be remembered that man was not created with a sinful nature. Rather, Adam became sinful by a choice to sin. Jesus was fully human, regardless of the lack of a sinful nature, but His humanity was reflective of the humanity of man as it was before sin entered into the matrix. In saying Jesus' humanity was reflective of man prior to the fall into sin, I am not saying that Jesus' humanity was identical to Adam's state prior to the fall. Adam was created with the ability to sin or not to sin, and he chose the former. Jesus, on the other hand, was only able not to sin. The difference between Adam's original state and Jesus' humanity is that the former was innocent, whereas Jesus was perfect. I say that to say this:

351

since Jesus was without even the ability to sin, then what sort of moral nature would a son of Jesus possess? If Jesus had a son, would that son likewise be sinless, or would he possess the same moral guilt as any other member of the human race? If “Jesus Jr”. (who, strictly for the sake of argument, I will name Theo) would also be sinless, then a fourth member would be introduced into the Holy Trinity, as only God can be without the ability to sin. Still, if Theo would have been created as a divine being, then his divinity would have been violated by the very fact of his creation, for God is without beginning or end. Also, if Theo was without original sin (that is, a sinful nature inherent from birth), then he, like Jesus, would have been suitable to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, as John the Baptist declared of Jesus at the moment of Jesus’ baptism. However, Jesus alone is said in Scripture to be worthy of such a position. Only in Jesus’ name is there salvation. Only by His shed blood is sin forgiven and blemished men are cleansed of the filth of sin, having their soul washed white as snow. Therefore, since only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are inherently sinless, Theo would have needed to be in possession of a sinful nature, inherent from birth, just the same as any other person. So, while one question has perhaps been answered (ultimately, only God knows the answer to such speculations), another issue raises its head and asks the question, “If a son of Jesus was born with a sinful nature, then from where did such a nature come?” Scripture states that sin is passed on through the man, not genetically, but by representation (Rom 5:12). Theologians speak of the “federal headship of Adam,” meaning that Adam was the representative head of the human race, on a corporate scale, as the male is the representative head of his family. The book of Hebrews speaks of two types of humanity: one sinful line represented by Adam’s sin and worthy of divine wrath, while the other is represented by Christ’s righteousness and worthy of adoption as sons of God (further discussion on this will be reserved to the aforementioned section regarding Christ’s mediatory work). As men inherit sin by virtue of a spiritual relationship with Adam, so do men receive redemption by virtue of a spiritual relationship with Christ. If Jesus did have a son, it is not likely that His son would have been miraculously fashioned from a lump of clay. Although Jesus did have the power to create life in such fashion, His miracles were for the purpose of directing people to the Father and as evidence for Jesus’ own deity, rather then merely for show or self-service. Therefore, Theo would likely have been born through the normal reproductive process. Still, the question remains: to what or whom would Theo’s sinful nature be attributed? One may argue that since Theo came into being through normal human regeneration, then he would have inherited the sin nature passed on through Adam, despite Theo’s biological father being without a sinful nature. One may also argue that Jesus is the representative head of a new creation, as Hebrews states, and that anyone generated from Him stands in Christ’s righteousness and is not in possession of the

352

guilt brought on by a sinful nature. However, that argument brings us back to problem number one; that is, not how Theo would become sinful; but rather, was Theo sinful. Therefore, I must conclude that while it was humanly possible that Jesus produced an offspring through the normal interaction of the sexes, it would have been neither practical nor necessary for Him to do so, and the notion that Theo would have existed at all presents theological problems that cannot absolutely be resolved by a finite mind (which does not mean that resolutions to such problems do not exist). I have presented arguments here which seem logical according to the measure of revelation given to man in Scripture, but I have done so with tongue-in-cheek and the feeling that perhaps I have been writing the synopsis for an episode of The Twilight Zone. In the final analysis, I will state that it is not likely that Jesus fathered a child, not only for the reasons listed above, but also because the purpose of Jesus’ coming was to seek and save those who are lost (Mt 18:11), not to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:27-28). Conclusion In a court of law a verdict is given after it has been shown that the charges against a defendant cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If farmer Bob is accused of stealing farmer Joe’s chicken, the goal of the defense attorney is not to prove farmer Bob’s innocence, but rather to disprove his guilt. In other words, if it can be shown that the defendant is likely not to have been the culprit in the crime, then the jury cannot reasonably render a guilty verdict, even though it may still be conceivably possible that farmer Bob did in fact steal the chicken. The argument concerned with any supposed bloodline of Christ is not too unlike such a scenario. Yes, it is possible that Jesus was married. Yes, is it possible that He was married and had a son. However, the likelihood of either of these being true is very low; therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that neither proposition is true. Also, the idea that either or both of these notions could conceivably be true does not constitute a heretical view. Rather, the true heresy behind the bloodline theory is that Jesus survived the crucifixion, lived a normal life, died a natural death, and remained in His tomb. The tragedy of adhering to this view is that attention is given to the relationship between Jesus and Mary, without considering the relationship between Jesus and sinners. Even if Jesus was married, He still died for sin, and it is this which marks the relationship which is of utmost importance – the relationship between Jesus and a sinner, by which the sinner is forgiven and adopted as a child of God. In the New Testament, only the church itself is named as the bride of Christ, as shown in the passages below (emphasis mine): For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having

353

cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of his body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband. (Eph 5:23-33 NASB) And [Christ] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Col 1:18 NASB) For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. (Isa 62:5 NASB) I will greatly rejoice in Jehovah, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with a garland, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. (Isa 61:10 NASB) Then come to [Jesus] the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast. (Mt 9:14-15 NASB) For I [Paul] am jealous over you [the Corinthian church] with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ. (2 Cor 11:2 NASB) Again, I ask, was Jesus married? The answer is definitely, conclusively, resoundingly YES!. He was married, not to an earthly bride, but to the church itself, for whom He gave His own body and blood and with whom He is united in an everlasting union. This is the relationship which matters – not that Jesus may have been married to Mary Magdalene or any other woman, but that He is married to the believer. Any earthly marriage in which Jesus may have had a part is irrespective of the power of the blood of Christ by which the bonds of sin are shattered forever. However, the marriage of Jesus to the church (that is, believers in Old Testament times, New Testament times, and into the modern era) is the only relationship by which men have

354

hope for salvation, peace with God, and the promise of absolute deliverance from sin.

XIV. Concerning the “Jesus family tomb:” The tomb and its discovery On March 28, 1980, while excavating three miles south of Jerusalem, in the East Talpiot neighborhood, a team of construction workers unearthed a tomb, carved within limestone bedrock, as they were laying the foundation for an apartment building in the area. The tomb was dated to the Second Temple period1 (c.538 B.C to 70 A.D.) and contained six shafts in which would have been placed a corpse, and two shelves, on which a corpse would be laid out. On the walls of the tomb were carvings, which included several chevron symbols, a symbol shaped after an inverted “V.” A chevron symbol, accompanied with a circle, also adorned the stone above the entrance to the tomb. (see Figure 1) Speculation concerning the meaning of this image centers on a similar symbol on the facade above the Nicanor gate of the Jerusalem Temple2. It was through this gate Jewish men left the Temple’s Court of Women and entered into the Court of Israel where male Jews offered sacrifices to God. The belief is that the symbol marks the end of a pilgrimage, as many Jews made their way from points throughout Palestine to Jerusalem, in order to participate in the various feasts and ceremonies. Likewise, as evidenced in Scripture, it was common among Jews to regard their life as merely a pilgrimage to the hereafter (cf. Gen 47:8-9), thus making one’s death the end of their earthly pilgrimage. On the floor of the tomb were found three skulls, a find which suggests that the tomb had been vandalized at some point in antiquity, since Jews took care when depositing one’s bones in a tomb. The tomb also contained ten ossuaries (one of which later disappeared, believed stolen), or stone chests in which were laid to rest the bones of a deceased person. In ancient Israel, it was common practice to revisit the tomb of a loved one about a year after his or her passing and after the flesh had decayed from the bones. At this time, the bones were cleaned and placed in an ossuary as their final resting place and in expectation of a bodily resurrection in the end times. In the case of men executed as convicted criminals, the bodies were commonly deposited in a shallow ditch or laid to rest in a tomb reserved for criminals, as it was unlawful for a criminal to be buried in his family tomb until a year after his death, at which time his bones were permitted to be recovered and placed in an ossuary within the family’s tomb. What was so striking about the Talpiot tomb was that six of the ossuaries found therein contained inscriptions, one of which read, “Jesus, son of Joseph,”(see Figure 2) while names found in the other inscriptions included the names of other figures mentioned in the Gospel account of the life of Jesus. It was therefore believed by many skeptics of Christianity that the tomb of Jesus had in fact been discovered, thus confirming the lack of credibility in any claim that He had risen from the dead. Human remains, severely deteriorated, were found in each of the ten ossuaries. Investigators suspect this indicates the tomb had been used by more than one generation of a family, although no analysis was done to confirm such suspicion, nor was it determined exactly how many individuals were represented by the bones contained within the ossuaries. Shortly after the discovery of the tomb, the bones which were found inside the ossuaries were removed from their limestone boxes

355

and buried in an unknown location. The ossuaries were then shelved in the Israeli Antiquities Authority warehouse, where they sat for over twenty years. As far as the tomb itself, the entrance was sealed due to safety concerns after local children made their way into inside to play. The tomb remained sealed until 2005 when investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici began his investigation of the tomb. However, since Jacobovici did not obtain permission from the Israeli Antiques Authority to excavate the tomb, it was again resealed. In 2007 a documentary titled The Lost Tomb of Jesus, produced by Hollywood film great James Cameron (Titanic and The Terminator) and Jacobovici, aired on The Discovery Channel, in conjunction with the release of Jacobovici’s book The Jesus Family Tomb.

Figure 1

Figure 2

The inscriptions Of the ten ossuaries found within the stone, six bore names inscribed within the outer wall of the stone box. The names were identified as follows: “Yeshua bar Yosef” This inscription, written in Aramaic, the language used in Jesus’ time, reads, “Jesus, son of Joseph.” “Mariamne, also known as Mara” This inscription was written in Greek and was presumed to be on the ossuary once containing the bones of Mary Magdalene, based on a passage in the Gnostic Gospel of Phillip (c.180-350 A.D.) in which she is said to be named Mariamne. “Maria” The name “Maria,” a Latin form of the name Miriam, or Mary, was inscribed using Hebrew letters.

356

“Yosa” The name inscribed as “Yosa” was believed to be Joses, or Joseph, the brother of Jesus identified in Mark’s Gospel (Mk 6:3). “Yehuda bar Yeshua” This inscription, in Aramaic, translates as “Judah, son of Jesus.” The book The Jesus Family Tomb speculates that the person identified by this inscription was indeed a son of Jesus of Nazareth and (presumably) Mary Magdalene, but was named in the Gospels as Jesus’ brother, named Thomas or Jude, in order to spare him from possible persecution as the son of one who claimed oneness with God. “Matiah” The name “Matiah” is the Hebrew form of the name Matthias or Matthew, the name belonging to one of Jesus’ disciples. Since the ossuary bearing this name was found in the tomb along with other ossuaries, it is believed this person was a relative of Jesus or a person named on another ossuary. The filmmakers behind The Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had “many” relatives named Matthew, despite any evidence for this in ancient writings. DNA testing of the remains Dr. Stephen Pfann, a paleographer at the University of the Holy Land, and Steven Cox, a forensic archaeologist from New York, analyzed remains adhering to the interior walls of the “Yeshua” and “Mariamne” ossuaries. DNA tests on the remains found in the ossuaries concluded that the individuals represented by the inscriptions were not related on their mother’s side. In the film, Dr. Pfann is recorded as saying, “…if they were unrelated, [they] would most likely be husband and wife.” In short, it was determined the two individuals were not mother and son or brother and sister (at least not genetically, since a step-sibling relationship could still be possible). Paternal relation was not able to be determined by means of DNA tests.3 No further testing was done to determine if Yeshua and Mariamne’s remains belonged to the same time period, nor to determine if there was any relation to the remains of other individuals found within the tomb. Still, Jacobovici suggested, from Pfann’s analysis, that the couple was married, despite evidence to substantiate such a claim, and that Yehuda, or Judah, was their son. Dr. Pfann later went on record denouncing any marital relation between Yeshua and Mariamne.4 DNA tests were not done on the remains in the Yehuda ossuary to determine if Mariamne was indeed his mother. When questioned on such lack of research, Jacobovici replied that the other ossuaries had been vacuumed clean, but admitted that more sophisticated testing could be performed to salvage genetic material from the interior walls of the ossuary, although such testing was not pursued by the analysis. Without further analysis of the other ossuaries, it would be equally plausible to suggest that Mariamne was the wife of Matiah, Yehuda, or Yose. In response to such criticism, Jacobovici replied, “We're not scientists. At the end of the day we can't wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA. We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, I've done my job as a journalist.”5

357

Analysis of the evidence Problems with the tomb Although Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He was from Nazareth. His presence in the city of Jerusalem, or the surrounding vicinity was only ever as a visitor or, at the end of His life, convicted criminal. Palestine was divided into two general areas, the northern area of Galilee, in which Nazareth was situated, and the southern area of Judea, where Jerusalem was located. After His death, Jesus was buried near Golgotha, just outside the walls of Jerusalem. The selection of the tomb near Jerusalem was due to the necessity for a speedy burial, which needed to be accomplished before the Passover, in keeping with Jewish Law. We know nothing of the tomb in which Jesus was buried other than it was situated in a garden and purchased by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin and likely a believer in Christ. It is possible the tomb was purchased so that Jesus would not be buried in a tomb reserved for criminals, as was the custom of the day. One year after His burial, the family of Jesus would remove his bones from the Jerusalem tomb and place them in an ossuary in a family tomb, which would have been either in Nazareth or Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. Of course, His resurrection effected a change of such a plan. Christian tradition does not identify Talpiot as the location of Jesus’ tomb. The spot presently known as the burial site of Jesus is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in Jerusalem. Tradition holds that this church was built on the same spot where Emperor Hadrian erected a temple to Aphrodite in the second century A.D. The temple is said to have been erected on the very spot where Jesus was buried, as an expression of contempt for Christianity, by violating a place for which Christians felt great reverence. Also, in early Christian writings, such reverence is never expressed concerning a tomb in the area southwest of Jerusalem now known as Talpiot. The chevron and circle symbol is not a known Christian symbol. Were it so, such a symbol would have likely adorned the sites associated with early Christianity. If the symbol is to be associated with a façade of the Temple, as suggested previously, then the use of the symbol may represent devotion to the rites of Judaism or, specifically, to the Temple itself, as the “house of God,” since the Temple once contained the Ark of the Covenant, a sacred Hebrew chest which symbolized the physical presence of God among the Jewish people. It is in this vein of thought that Dr. R. Kirk, Associate Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at the Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, states, “Such an architectural feature [as the chevron] points to temple worship; and this means that those buried in the tomb [featured] on [The Lost Tomb of Jesus] ‘documentary’ were more likely observant Jews. Though it is not impossible that they were Jewish Christians (who met for a while in ‘Solomon's porch’), given the numbers of Jews to Christians over the amount of time ossuaries were in use... I don't think it would take a statistician to figure out that the odds are much better that this is simply a Jewish tomb … Perhaps this was a

358

priestly family. Or perhaps this was a family related to the restoration of temple worship. Or, perhaps this was just a very observant family that loved to worship at the temple. Certainly the verse comes to mind from David's Psalm 23, ‘...and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.’”6 Asbury Theological Seminary’s Dr. Ben Witherington agrees that the chevron symbol found on the tomb “suggests that … we are dealing with a priestly family's private tomb.”7 With this view in mind, it is interesting that, in Jerusalem, the façade of the first century Tomb of the Sanhedrin (the Jews’ legal authority which convened within the the Temple’s Hall of Hewn Stones) is also decorated with such a chevron symbol.

The Tomb of the Sanhedrin The same symbol is also represented as carved on many ossuary boxes and lids, as shown below, although some have suggested such a carving on the triangular lid merely served as handles with which the lid could be easily lifted from the box.

Jesus came from a poor family, and it is unlikely that His relatives would have been able to afford such a tomb. In ancient Jewish society, the poor would bury their dead in individual trench graves dug into the earth, and the tomb

359

identified with a stone marker, much like modern burial practices. In this type of burial, the remains were never placed in an ossuary a year after the initial burial.8 While it is possible that the purchase of a costly rock-hewn tomb could have been afforded by means of gifts from Jesus’ followers, the very existence of such a tomb fails to account for other points delineated in this list. The tomb contained multiple remains, aside from those found in ossuaries, and was much larger than was needed to hold the remains of a single family, suggesting to some that it was a communal burial chamber rather than a family tomb. Problems concerning the inscriptions The problem of multilingual inscriptions The Talpiot ossuaries contained languages in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Were the tomb a single-generation family tomb, it is less likely that the inscriptions would be inscribed in more than one language. The filmmakers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus suggest that Migdal, the village that Mary Magdalene called home, was a Greek trading center, thereby accounting for the Greek inscription on her ossuary. Concerning the presence of multiple languages on the inscriptions and the type of city in which Mary lived, Dr. Ben Witherington III, Professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, writes, “This suggests a multigeneration tomb, not a single generation tomb, and indeed a tomb that comes from after 70 A.D. after the Romans had destroyed the temple mount and Jewish Christians fled the city. … The earliest Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, including members of Jesus’ family and Mary Magdalene, did not speak Greek. They spoke Aramaic. We have absolutely no historical evidence to suggest Mary Magdalene would have been called by a Greek name before 70 A.D.. She grew up in a Jewish fishing village called Migdal, not a Greek city at all … It makes no sense that her ossuary would have a Greek inscription and that her alleged husband an Aramaic inscription.”9 Statistical analysis A major point by which many were convinced that this was indeed the “Jesus family tomb” was such a specific grouping of ossuaries bearing names contained in the Gospels, and the unlikelihood that such a grouping could be attributed to a mere commonality of such names in ancient Palestine. Concerning the name Yeshua, Professor Paul Maier states, “There are 21 Yeshuas cited by Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, who were important enough to be recorded by him, with many thousands of others that never made history.”10 Likewise, Newsweek magazine reported, “Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary says he has a first-century letter written by someone named Jesus, addressed to someone else named Jesus and witnessed by a third party named Jesus.”11 In defense of such a supposition, Jacobovici appealed to a study done by Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of

360

Toronto. Feuerverger determined the odds that such a grouping of names would be found in a single tomb were 600 to 1, since, while these individual names were not uncommon, the grouping of these specific names becomes rare, and therefore makes the claim that the Talpiot tomb belongs to the family of Jesus of Nazareth one which “needs to be taken seriously.”. Later, after becoming less confident in the results of his study as he was when making his initial conclusion, Feuerverger stated, “I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the New Testament family12 … The results of any such computations are highly dependent on the assumptions that enter into it. Should even one of these assumptions not be satisfied then the results will not be statistically meaningful”13 The “assumptions” to which Feuerverger referred are the beliefs concerning the identities of the individuals named on the ossuaries; therefore, his calculations are only as valid as the premises on which they are based, rather than on hard data. Following Feuerverger’s retraction of the initial findings, The Discovery Channel removed from its website all mention of Feuerverger and his original study.14 Additionally, Stephan Pfann, president of Jerusalem's University of the Holy Land, notes that the common usage of the names found in the Talpiot tomb greatly diminishes the claim that the tomb belonged to Jesus’ family: “Remarkably, a mere 16 of the 72 personal names [found on ossuaries] account for 75% of the inscribed names.”15 He furthermore noted that the names Mary, Joseph, Jesus, Matthew, and Judas were found to be among the “top sixteen” names discovered on ossuaries.16 Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland conducted his own study to determine the commonality of the names found on the Talpiot ossuaries. The chart on the following page is the result of his research, through which 2,625 male subjects and 328 female subjects (Bauckham noted that the significantly less number of female subjects was due to the fact that female names were not recorded as often as male names) were used to determine the ten most common Jewish names among males and the four most common among females. Column A of the chart represents the number of occurrances of the name from the total of subjects studied, while Column B represents the number of occurrances of the name on ossuaries.17

361

MALE NAMES Rank Name

COLUMN A Total References

COLUMN B Total Found on Ossuaries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

243 218 166 164 122 99 82 71 62 42

59 45 29 44 25 22 18 14 17 4

FEMALE NAMES Rank Name

COLUMN A Total References

COLUMN B Total Found on Ossuaries

1 2 3 4

70 58 24 20

42 41 19 17

Simon/Simeon Joseph Eleazar Judah John/Yohanan Jesus Hananiah Jonathan Matthew Manaen/Menahem

Mary/Mariamne Salome Shelamzion Martha

Percent of Total References (out of 2625) 9.3% 8.3% 6.3% 6.2% 4.6% 3.8% 3.1% 2.7% 2.4% 1.6%

Percent of Total References (out of 328) 21.3% 17.7% 7.3% 6.1%

From his study, Bauckham concluded the odds that names on the Talpiot ossuaries belonged to the same Jesus and Mary Magdalene mentioned in the Gospels were "very small indeed,”18 since Jesus was the sixth most common name among males, and the name Mary being found at the top of the list on female names, as shown in the above charts. Other scholars are in agreement with Bauckham’s findings. William Dever, who has worked forty years in the field of archaeology and was named by The Washington Post as the “dean of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars,”19 stated the following concerning the claim that the names found in the Talpiot tomb belonged to Jesus’ family: “It's a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated [since] all of the names [on the Talpiot ossuaries] are common. … It's a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don't know enough to separate fact from fiction.”20 Dever also stated that such claims go “far beyond any reasonable interpretation [of the facts].”21 Likewise, Jacobovici’s claims were denounced by Joe Zias, formerly the curator of archaeology at the Israeli Antiquities Authority, and Amos Kloner, the original excavator of the tomb, saying that such

362

claims were “nonsense.”22 Zias was particularly critical of the claims in his statement that The Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary was a “hyped up film which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest.”23 David Mavorah, a curator of Jerusalem’s Israel museum, also commented that the claims made by the filmmakers were “far-fetched,” since the names Joseph, Jesus and Mariamne were “among the most common names of the period.”24 Finally, archaeologists who first excavated the tomb in 1980 saw no significance to the names, further testifying to the commonality of these names, even when grouped together in such a fashion. They apparently saw no evidence, based on the names, that this tomb belonged to Jesus’ family. Even if they wished to exploit the tomb in an attempt to discredit Christianity, or even just to make a buck from a publicity stunt, the commonality of the names would serve as no evidence with which to present such an argument. The speculations by the filmmakers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus are based on assumptions made by them, and these assumptions do not hold up against professional archaeological research. Such is expressed by Joe Zias, anthropologist and former curator (1972-1997) for archaeology and anthropology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, who served in the team who originally excavated the tomb when it was first discovered, and who personally numbered the ossuaries, stated, “Simcha [Jacobovici] has no credibility whatsoever. He’s got this guy Cameron, who made Titanic … what does this guy know about archaeology? I am an archaeologist, but if I were to write a book about brain surgery, you would say, ‘Who is this guy?’ … Projects like these make a mockery of the archaeological profession.”25 Who’s who? Before presenting the arguments below, I must comment that one objection that the tomb did not belong to Jesus’ family is that the tomb contained no ossuaries for His other brothers and sisters mentioned in the Gospels, however, in all fairness, I must regard this objection as inconclusive. As stated above, the Talpiot tomb contained bones scattered in disarray, which suggests the tomb had been vandalized at one point. Were that the case, then the missing ossuaries could be easily explained away. That objection aside, there remain numerous others which stand as valid reasons to disregard the tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family The “Yeshua” (Jesus) ossuary Had Jesus not risen, His tomb and ossuary would have been adorned with such things befitting God’s anointed Messiah, yet the “Yeshua” ossuary in the Talpiot tomb was no different, in style, than the others found therein. Furthermore, the inscription would not have read “Jesus, son of Joseph,” since His family and Apostles regarded Him as being virgin born.

363

Rather, it would likely have read, “Jesus, son of God,” or “Jesus, son of Mary.” In fact, Dr. Pfann, who examined DNA evidence from the Yeshua and Mariamne ossuaries, doubts that “Jesus” is the correct translation of the inscription. It is his contention, after viewing hi-resolution images of the inscription, that the reading could more accurately be translated as “Hanun.”26 It was also known by some who were associated with Jesus prior to His ministry that He was not the natural-born son of Joseph. This is evident in a passage in Mark (6:2-3) where Jesus is referred to as the “son of Mary.” Ancient Jewish society was largely patriarchal, in which a man was known by his relationship to his father, not to his mother. Any reference to a man according to his maternal relation was considered an insult. It would have been known by those familiar with Jesus’ family that Mary became pregnant with Jesus prior to her marriage with Joseph. As such, Jesus was regarded as her illegitimate child, and any address to Jesus as the “son of Mary” was an attack on His supposedly dishonorable conception. Palestine was divided between the northern region of Galilee and the southern region of Judea. The inscriptions on the ossuaries found in the Judean Talpiot tomb generally follow the same formula (“[son’s first name], son of [father’s first name]”), which was typical of epithets made by Judeans, who identified individuals according to their parentage. However, it was typical of Galileans to identify individuals according to their hometown,27 and so it is that Jesus was identified as “Jesus of Nazareth,” (Jn 1.45) rather than “Jesus, son of Joseph.” In the instances where the crowd refers to Him as the “son of Joseph” or “son of the carpenter,” (Mt 13:54-56, Lk 4:21-22, Jn 1:45, 6:41-42) their mention of Him as such is an expression of their disbelief in Jesus as the Son of God, for He possessed the same physical characteristics as did those who doubted His messianic claims. There is no instance in the Gospels, or other early Christian writings, in which Jesus is named as the natural-born “son of Joseph.” While there are references to Joseph’s parentage of Jesus, such is not the same as a reference to blood relation. These references will be discussed further in Part six. If the “Yeshua” Talpiot ossuary was intended to belong to Jesus of Nazareth, then it must be asked who would bury such an item, and for what motive? There are really only a few options to consider in answer to this question: The family and/or followers of Jesus: If the family of Jesus believed that He had risen from the dead, since they saw Him with their own eyes, why would they place an ossuary, bearing His name, in a tomb, thereby counteracting their evangelistic efforts? By contrast, if they believed that He remained dead after the third day following His crucifixion, why then would

364

they proclaim that He had risen, thereby jeopardizing their own lives. All but one of the Apostles were executed for their faith. While their martyrdom does not speak to the truthfulness of their faith, it does speak to the fact that they believed in the resurrection to the point they were willing to give their own lives for their faith in such an event. Furthermore, if they knew Jesus was not resurrected; but rather, stole His body, then later intended to bury His bones to hide evidence that would counteract any claim of His resurrection, then why would they plant evidence to the contrary by inscribing an ossuary that essentially read “Here lies Jesus”? Also, why place such an ossuary in a tomb belonging to Jesus’ family and alongside ossuaries inscribed with the names of His relatives? The “Jesus family tomb” would certainly not be the wisest choice of location in which to hide evidence that could be used to debunk Jesus’ resurrection. Finally, one of the Apostles was James, Jesus’ brother and the writer of the New Testament book bearing his name. If James knew his brother was not risen from the dead, he surely would not have been as unwavering in his faith as he was, and would not have been a “pillar” of the church, as Paul described him to be. An unorthodox Christian sect: By “unorthodox Christian sect” I am referring to groups such as the Gnostics or Marcions, who professed faith in Christ, but held to beliefs other than those taught by the Apostles. Many of these groups regarded Jesus to be risen from the dead, although in a spiritual, rather than bodily, sense. There are a number of problems with this theory, and I will reserve such comments for Part five. Here, I will merely point out that even a casual reading of the Gospels reveal that the tomb of Jesus was found devoid of a corpse. The women arrived at the tomb to prepare the body for a proper burial, since Jesus’ burial was rushed the day He died in order to have Him buried before the Sabbath, but rather than being able to accomplish their intended purpose for the visit to the tomb, they found that the body was not there. Also, if a member of such a sect, who regarded Jesus as only spiritually risen, knew of an ossuary containing Jesus’ remains, then the bones of Jesus would have provided him with the best apologetic tool available by which to prove his belief valid in the eyes of those who believed in Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Jesus’ opponents or unbelievers: If the Romans, Pharisees, members of the Sanhedrin, or other opponents of Jesus obtained His bones, had He remained in the grave, why would they have motive to bury such remains in a tomb with Jesus’ relatives? There were many who would have gladly exposed Christianity as a fraud, had they possessed the evidence to

365

do so. If the bones of Jesus were obtained by such a one, then the ossuary bearing Jesus’ remains would have been on display for all to see, not buried in a tomb, thereby covering up evidence that would contradict the claims of Christianity. The fact of the matter is that no such evidence has been presented by even the harshest critic of Christianity. The “Mariamne” ossuary: In The Lost Tomb of Jesus Feuerverger is cited as concluding “that there is only one chance in six hundred the Talpiot tomb is not the Jesus family tomb, if Mariamne can be linked to Mary Magdalene.” Once this premise, that Mariamne is a reference to Mary Maglalene, falls apart, then the entire “Jesus’ tomb” theory crumbles faster than one can say, “Humpty Dumpty.” On March 4, 2007, Ted Koppel, former news anchor for Nightline and managing editor for The Discovery Channel, aired a prime time special titled The Lost Tomb of Jesus—a Critical Look, in which he presented a written statement from Feuerverger who said, “I must work from the assumptions given to me, and the strength of the calculations are based on those assumptions … If for some reason one were to read it as just a regular form of the name Maria, in that case the calculation produced is not that impressive, and the statistical significance would wash out completely.” The woman represented by the inscription “Mariamne” is supposed to be Mary Magdalene, based on a reference in the Gospel of Philip, which, the filmmakers say, identifies her as “Mariamne.” With little repetition of what has been stated previously concerning the Gospel of Philip, the references to Mary in that text cannot reasonably be held as authentic to the time when Mary Magdalene would have died, since the oldest extant copy of the Gospel of Philip dates to the fourteenth century, is merely a copy of a fourth century text, and contains Gnostic beliefs which were not known to have existed in the first century. Also, in the New Testament itself, as well as early church literature, Mary Magdalene is never identified as “Mariamne.” As Richard Bauckham notes, the names “Mariamenou” and “Mara” are inscribed as “MARIAMENOUMARA,” with no space in between, thus lessening the possibility that the ossuary contained the remains of two separate women, as some have speculated. The name Mariamenou, he goes on to say, is in the genitive case, thereby indicating possession (that is, “’belonging to’ Mary”). The name “Mara” is believed to be a shortened version of Mariamne or Martha, and this is exactly how Amos Kloner, the original excavator of the tomb, cataloged the Mariamne ossuary in his original report. Bauckham postulated that the person named on this ossuary possessed two names: Mariamne and Mara. If this is the case, then it is plausible, by appealing to the practice common at the time of an individual having both a Greek and a Semitic name, that Mariamne was her Greek name and Mara was her Aramaic name, or that Mara was an abbreviated

366

form of Mariamne.28 Were this the case, the ossuary could be translated as, “Mariamne, [the name] belonging to Mara.” There exists no first century evidence that the name Mariamne was in use at that time in Judea. The earliest usage of the name Mariamne dates to the late second or early third century.29 Also, nowhere in the Gospels is Mary Magdalene referred to as Mariamne. Some investigators associated the name “Mara” with the Aramaic word for “master,” but such association is ruled out based on the contextual usage of the word as inscribed on the ossuary. As stated above, the name Mariamne is in the genitive case, indicating possession. Thus, if the word “master” is applied to the name “Mariamne,” the proper reading would be, “The master belonging to Mara,” “The master of Mara,” or, “Mara’s master.” Adherents to the Jesus tomb theory propose that Mary is called “Master” in the Gospel of Phillip, however, the genitive use of Mariamne on the ossuary does not support a reading of, “The Master, Mary.” The “Maria” ossuary The name Mary, as shown in the statistical analysis above, was certainly not uncommon in ancient Judaic society. The name itself, even grouped together with the names inscribed on other ossuaries, does not indicate that the ossuary belonged to the mother named in the Gospels’ Nativity account. It is also likely that, had this ossuary been the one containing the Gospels’ Mary’s remains, it would have been inscribed with something to the effect of “Mary, mother of Jesus,” or, “Mary, mother of the Lord.” The “Yosa” ossuary The identification of Yosa as Yeshua’s brother is an improbable conclusion, since Yosa’s ossuary does not identify him as a “son of Yosef,” whereas Yeshua’s ossuary does include such identification. Also, since “Yosa” is a form of “Yosef,” it is possible that the “Yosa” ossuary once contained the bones of Yeshua’s father, rather his brother. Such a supposition does not indicate that this Yosa was indeed the same “Joseph” named in the Gospels’ nativity narratives, for the many other reasons delineated under this heading as to why this tomb did not belong to Jesus’ family in the first place. The “Yehuda” (Judah) ossuary: The filmmakers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus describe one of the ossuaries as being that of a child, whose ossuary reads “Yehuda bar Yeshua,” or “Judah, son of Jesus.” The proposition brought forth in the film is that the person to whom this inscription refers is the son of Jesus of Nazareth, born to Him by His wife, Mary Magdalene, and that this son is not named in the Gospels in order to obscure his identity and spare him from the persecution that later befell the disciples of Jesus. Further speculation is made in the film to link this person to the disciple known in the Gospels as the “beloved

367

disciple” (Jn 20:2) and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 19:26; 21:20). Whether or not Jesus could have had a son has already been addressed under the previous heading. Here, considerations relating to any supposed son of Jesus will be restricted to the claims made in the documentary, which are: 1) that the “beloved disciple” of John's Gospel may have been Jesus' son and 2) that the “Yehuda” ossuary belongs to the son of Jesus of Nazareth. John, the only Gospel writer who identified one of Jesus’ disciples in such terms, states it was the “beloved disciple” who leaned on Jesus’ breast in the upper room during the final observance of the Passover and asked who it was who would betray Jesus (Jn 20:2). John also describes an instance during the crucifixion when Jesus looks down at His mother and the “beloved” disciple, He charges this disciple with the care of His mother. The film suggests that this was Jesus addressing His son, or the “beloved disciple,” and His son’s mother, presumably Mary Magdalene, who is indeed listed by John as those present at the crucifixion. Jesus, they say, charged His son with the care of His wife, Mary Magdalene, as the theory goes; however, the context of the passage clearly indicates otherwise, as seen below (emphasis mine). But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His [Jesus’] mother [Mary, the husband of Joseph], and his mother’s sister [Jesus’ aunt], Mary the wife of Clopas [“Clopas” perhaps refers to Joseph’s brother and Jesus’ uncle, according to a passage in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History30], and Mary Magdalene [who is not identified in this passage as being of any relation to Jesus]. When Jesus therefore saw His [Jesus’] mother [Joseph’s wife], and the disciple standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His [Jesus’] mother, Woman, behold thy son! [a reference to the relationship which the beloved disciple would now assume, rather than a reference to a pre-existing mother/son relationship] Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home. (Jn 19:25-27) According to tradition, the “beloved disciple” is none other than the Apostle John himself, a belief which is supported by John’s Gospel. Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also leaned back on his breast at the supper, and said, Lord, who is he that betrayeth thee? … This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true. (Jn 21:20-24) Also, the Apostle John is widely recognized by Christian scholars as the same John who is named as the son of Salome, the younger sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mk 15:40; cf. Mt 27:56). If such identification of John

368

is accurate, then John and Jesus were in fact cousins, thus shedding light on why John, of all Jesus' twelve core disciples, was called “beloved” of Him. The proposition that the “beloved disciple” mentioned in the Gospels is Jesus’ son is dependent on a chronology that does not exist in the Gospels. The evangelist Luke states in his Gospel that Mary Magdalene was a woman from whom had been cast seven demons (8:1-3). Following that, she became a loyal disciple of Jesus, accompanying Him on His journeys as He went from city to city preaching the good news of the kingdom of God. It is not stated whether or not Jesus knew Mary before her cleansing, but it is certain that, even if they were acquainted, there was no marriage relationship between them, given Mary’s state prior to her cleansing. Therefore, if Jesus had married Mary Magdalene, the marriage would have taken place after this event described by Luke. Luke also states that Jesus began His ministry about age thirty (3:1), and it was at some point during the first year of this ministry that Mary was purged of her demons. Jesus’ ministry lasted only three years, the end of which was marked by His crucifixion. Even if the marriage between them occurred shortly after her cleansing, she could not have given birth to Jesus’ son until early during Jesus’ second year of ministry, to allow time for the pregnancy. If Jesus had a son born to Him at the beginning of His second year of ministry, then the child would have only been two years old at the time of Jesus’ last supper with His disciples. The “beloved disciple” of John’s Gospel is clearly described as being older that a toddler, given his interaction with Jesus at the table and Jesus’ charge to this one for the care of another human being. As far as the filmmakers' claim that the obscure reference to the “beloved disciple” is an attempt to conceal the identity of Jesus’ son in order to secure his safety, such a notion has been refuted in the previous heading and does not require repetition at this juncture. Concerning that theory in relation to the “Yehuda” ossuary, it only further needs to be stated that if the Apostles were clever enough to conceal Jesus' son's identity in the writing of the Gospels, the same cleverness was obviously not exercised in the burial of the bones in an ossuary inscribed with “Judah, son of Jesus.” The “Matia” (Matthew) ossuary: a relative of Jesus? The Talpiot tomb contains an ossuary naming Matthew, who was not named as a relative of Jesus; but rather, a disciple. If a disciple of Jesus would have been buried in His family tomb, it would more likely have been John, the “beloved disciple” and the one to whom Jesus entrusted with the care of His mother, or Peter, the head of the Apostolic church in Jerusalem in the time following Jesus’ ascension. The Lost Tomb of Jesus appeals to Luke 3:23-24, in which, assuming the genealogy is that of Mary, “Matthat” is named as Mary's grandfather. There is no reason for Mary's grandfather to be buried with her in Jerusalem, rather than in his own family tomb, unless Mary's tomb was multi-generational. Still, the presence of the name Matthew on an ossuary, given the popularity of the name, is no reason to assume the man buried inside was a relative of the Virgin Mary. The

369

filmmakers' argument largely rests on the fact that all the names on the Talpiot ossuaries are “Gospel related,” however such a claim fails to consider the widespread commonality of the names found in the Gospels. The “James” ossuary: is it the missing tenth ossuary? As stated above, one of the ten ossuaries found in the tomb in 1980 was lost and presumed stolen. In October 2002 a press conference was held to announce the discovery of an ossuary bearing the inscription “Yaakov bar Yoseph Achui de Yeshua,” translated "James son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus.” (see Figure 3) The Geological Survey of Israel dated the chest to the first century A.D. It was later claimed to be the missing ossuary of the Talpiot tomb and declared as further evidence which validated the notion that the tomb belonged to Jesus and His family. The “James ossuary,” as it is called, belonged to one Oded Golan, an antiquities collector residing in Tel Aviv, who claimed to have obtained the chest in the antiquities market in Jerusalem’s Old City a decade prior, but did not realize the significance of the inscription and therefore did not come forward with the find.

Figure 3 Following the discovery of the announcement of the James ossuary, Golan’s own integrity came into question with the discovery of yet another fraudulent find to which he was linked. In January 2003 a tablet, named the “Jehoash Inscription,” was brought forward by an individual who wished to remain anonymous. The tablet appeared to describe repairs made to the Temple by Jehoash, as described in the twelfth chapter of the second book of Kings. After detailed analysis of the tablet, it was declared a forgery and the Israeli Antiquities Authority began an investigation into the source of the tablet. A false business card and telephone number was traced to a Tel Aviv man who claimed Golan as his client, although Golan denied the charge. A search warrant was issued for Golan’s premises and office, which produced photos of him with the tablet, thereby

370

furthering the charges against him. Later, it was discovered that a rented storage space belonged to Golan, although such was not disclosed to the police by Golan himself. There, authorities discovered numerous forged artifacts in varying stages of production, along with the tools necessary for creating such forgeries. This find resulted in the authorities aggressively questioning Golan, during which he confessed to the forgery accusations against him and revealed the location of the Jehoash tablet. On June 18, 2003 both the Jehoash tablet and the James ossuary were declared by the Israeli Antiquities Authority to be modern forgeries. In the case of the ossuary, while the Geological Survey of Israel dated the chest to the first century A.D., the inscription on the ossuary was proven to be a modern modification to the ancient chest, since the type of chalk used on the ossuary did not match chalk found on other ancient ossuaries. Analysts at the Geological Survey of Israel found the ossuary contained three outer coatings, the outermost of which had been cut through to form the inscription, then covered with artificial coating to give the appearance of antiquity. In her report on the James ossuary, Dr. Rochelle I. Altman noted the inscription on the ossuary is comprised of two parts: the first reading, “James, son of Joseph,” and the second reading, “brother of Jesus.” The placement of the first portion of the inscription was “carefully calculated” and “in proportion to the overall size of the box,”31 whereas the second portion of the inscription offsets such proportion. The first portion, she observes, is composed of a more formally executed script with precise angles and wedges, indicating the writer was fully literate and very competent with the process of carving on stone, whereas the second is executed without the same measure of precision, indicating the writer was not as familiar with the ancient script as was the writer of the first portion of the inscription, but was perhaps copying the script from what he observed on other ossuaries. Also, the letters of the first portion of the inscription are straight, possibly having been inscribed with the use of a frame to maintain alignment of the letters, but the letters of the second portion are misaligned and written in a sloppy fashion. Altman also commented that the trapezoidal shape of the ossuary, being longer on one end than the other, is such that suggests it was intended for a one-person tomb, rather than being stacked with other ossuaries in tomb intended for multiple boxes, since the shape of the James ossuary is such that is “not convenient for either stacking or side-by-side storage.” On December 29, 2004, over a year after the announcement that both the ossuary and tablet were forgeries, the Israeli justice ministry officially charged Golan with forgery, along with his three associates, Robert Deutsch, Shlomo Cohen, and Faiz al-Amaleh. As of January 2009, the four conspirators’ trial remains ongoing. In the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus, the James ossuary is purported to be the original lost ossuary from the Talpiot tomb, despite evidence that the inscription is a forgery. The basis for their claim is the result of an analysis of the chest, the results of which stated the outer coating on the James ossuary contains the same minerals as the outer coating on the other nine ossuaries which remain from the Talpiot tomb. However, according to the report of the antiquities dealer from whom Golan obtained the ossuary, the ossuary originated in Silwan, rather than Talpiot, and the soil contained within the ossuary matched the soil of that area, whereas the soil in the other nine ossuaries matched that of the Talpiot area. Also, the early Christian historian Eusebius reported that James’ grave marker was “by the Sanctuary,” 32 or near the Temple mount in Jerusalem, not in the

371

Talpiot area. Additionally, the missing Talpiot ossuary was not said to have contained an inscription on its outer wall.33 Finally, a photo presented during Golan’s trial by former FBI agent Gerald Richard revealed the ossuary present in Golan’s home in the 1970s, prior to the 1980 discovery of the Talpiot tomb.34 On a final note concerning the James ossuary, if the bones of James (regardless of the family to which this James belonged) were found in a tomb which belonged to a particular family, rather than being a communal burial chamber, there would have been no need to further identify James by his sibling relation. All that would need to be inscribed on his ossuary is the standard formula “James, son of Joseph.” James’ family would be aware enough of who his brother was, without having to inscribe his name on James’ ossuary. The presence of the brother’s name, along with the characteristics described above, strongly suggests that the latter portion of the inscription, “brother of Jesus,” is a later forgery to an otherwise authentic inscription. Concerning the “Simon bar Jonah” ossuary In a second tomb, not far from the presumed “Jesus tomb,” there was found an ossuary bearing the inscription “Simon bar Jonah.” Also on the ossuary was inscribed the same chevron and circle symbol carved above the entrance to the “Jesus tomb.” Since Simon was the Hebrew name of the Apostle Peter, the filmmakers suggest that this is in fact the ossuary of the disciple, and further their supposition by drawing attention to the chevron and circle symbol found on both the “Simon” ossuary and on the entrance to the “Jesus tomb.” While the exact meaning of the symbol is uncertain, as stated previously, the predominant speculative view is that the symbol is a reference to the end of one’s earthly “pilgrimage,” an end brought about by the death of the body. As such, the meaning does not have any significance that would be specific to Jesus or any of His relatives or followers. Also, the symbol is not found in any early Christian inscription or work of art, as would likely be the case if such a symbol adorned the tomb of the Savior. Finally, since Simon was the most common name, according to Bauckham’s study, there is no logical or statistical reason to link this ossuary with the Apostle named Simon Peter. The filmmakers' manipulation of information On more than one occasion in The Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary, information and statements made by experts were used in such a fashion to suit the filmmakers’ intended purpose, rather than correctly reflecting the material being presented. Professor Francois Bovon of Harvard University, when interviewed for the documentary, was led to believe he was being interviewed on questions concerning the gnostic Gospel of Phillip. In a letter to the Society of Biblical Literature, he said, “As I was interviewed for the Discovery Channel's program The Lost Tomb of Jesus, … the questions were directed toward the Acts of Philip and the role of Mariamne in this text. I was not informed of the whole program and the orientation of the script.”35 Bovon’s frustration is shared by others who were cited in the film. Robert Genna, Laboratory Director at New York’s Suffolk County Crime Lab, was cited as stating that the patina, or outer covering of materials or sediment which accumulates over time, of the James ossuary matched the patina of the Talpiot ossuaries, and both he and Amos Kloner, who excavated the tomb in 1980, were cited as saying that the James ossuary was the lost tenth ossuary of the Talpiot tomb. In Ted Koppel’s special, The Lost Tomb of Jesus—a Critical Look, he presented a written

372

denial from Genna that he never stated the patina on the James ossuary matched those of Talpiot ossuaries, and that further research needed to be conducted in order to substantiate such a claim. He said, “The elemental composition of some of the samples we tested from the ossuaries are consistent with each other. But I would never say they're a match … No scientist would ever say definitively that one ossuary came from the same tomb as another.”36 Likewise, Amos Kloner, denied ever stating the James ossuary was the missing Talpiot ossuary. Quite to the contrary, he stated the James ossuary was conclusively not the missing ossuary, since the original tenth ossuary from Talpiot, which he observed with his own eyes during the 1980 excavation, and consequently cataloged with a detailed description, did not bear an inscription as does the James ossuary.37 In a press conference, Jacobovici cited an unnamed forensic archaeologist who was said to have made the claim that the individuals represented by the Yeshua and Mariamne inscriptions “must be” husband and wife, since the DNA of the two did not match. For Koppel’s special, he obtained a written denial from Dr. Carney Matheson, the forensic archaeologist who examined the DNA, that such a conclusion was not drawn through the analysis of the DNA, since analysts “cannot genetically test for marriage.” Matheson also stated that the claim that Yeshua and Mariamne were husband and wife “has been taken out of context … While marriage is a possibility, other relationships like father and daughter, paternal cousins, sister-in-law or indeed two unrelated individuals [are also possible].”38 Other critical errors of the “Jesus tomb” hypothesis The opening of The Lost Tomb of Jesus lays down the premise on which the entire documentary is based. After briefly recounting the death, burial, and resurrection account described in each of the Gospels, the filmmakers state, “... according to the Gospel of Matthew, there was another story circulating after Jesus' death, and thought the Gospel calls it a lie, it was rumored that Jesus’ disciples secretly took their Master's body, presumably to give Him a permanent burial. If this is true, according to first century burial practices, Jesus’ body would have been taken to a rock-hewn family tomb. Given that He was crucified for insurrection, the reburial would have been done in secret, by His closest disciples. Jesus’ body would have been shrouded and left to decompose. One year later, His disciples would have returned, this time joined by His family for the final burial ceremony, … placing [His bones] in a limestone coffin, called an ossuary. Jesus' name would have been inscribed on the side, then [the ossuary] … sealed away forever, deep inside His family tomb.” The whole of the “Jesus tomb” argument rests on the notion that the body of Jesus was removed from its original burial site and relocated to another tomb at some point prior to when the original tomb was found empty. This particular premise is flawed on more than one level. First, the theory fails to consider that the reason for the rumor (that the disciples stole Jesus’ body) is that the tomb was found empty in the first place. The Romans began the spread of such a rumor in their attempt to account for the missing body of Jesus, which had been reported as gone from its burial place. The claim that such a rumor preceded the empty tomb is a reversal of the chronological order of events as they occurred in the Gospel. Second, the filmmakers fail to account for the Roman guard which was placed at Jesus’ tomb, in order to prevent the disciples from doing the very thing the filmmakers accuse them of. Third, if the disciples stole the body, they would certainly not have inscribed an ossuary with Jesus’ name and placed it in the tomb belonging to His family, for such would have been uncovered by

373

those who would have gladly presented evidence to Christianity’s discredit, were they able to do so. Furthermore, if one is to discredit the Gospels as an historical record, and claim they are replete with error and inconsistency, then not only must he regard the resurrection account as a severe embellishment of what actually occurred after Jesus’ burial, but he also must regard the “disciples-stole-the-body” rumor as non-existent as well, since it is by the Gospels themselves that we are told that such a rumor existed after Jesus’ resurrection. The filmmakers state that in order to be “historical and realistic,” one must believe that the body of Jesus was placed in a family tomb, rather than risen from the dead, for such was in accordance with the custom of the day. First of all, there is no historical record which states the body of Jesus was buried in a family tomb. The historical records which do exist, namely the Gospels themselves and the writings of the early church fathers, plainly state that Jesus arose from the dead. Second, the only realistic explanation for the removal of Jesus’ body from its original tomb is that He did in fact rise from the dead, as the historical records claim. Skeptics have presented a number of alternate explanations to account for the resurrection (see Part five under the heading “Jesus’ resurrection is a fact of history”), but each of the explanations presented fail to account for one or more factor which must likewise be considered in order for the explanation to be valid and realistic. Supporters of the “Jesus tomb” theory regard the Gospels as “historical and realistic” only so far as they support, or are made to support, such a theory. In so doing, they base their propositions on the belief that the family of Jesus was named correctly in the Gospels, but then reject the same Gospel accounts when not doing so would support the belief that Jesus’ body did not remain in His tomb for more than three days following His resurrection. Consequently, their conclusions are based on a “pick and choose” form of evidence selection. Also, they place equal value on the Gospel of Phillip that they do on the Gospels, despite that the Gospel of Phillip dates centuries after Christ, whereas the Gospels were written by those who were alive during, and witnesses to, the life of Christ. The early dating of the Gospel records (see Part six for more on the integrity of these records based on the dating) gives to them a level of credibility that no other gospel, Gnostic or otherwise, could possess. By analogy, in Cameron’s film Titanic (a cinematic masterpiece, by the way), the story is told through the eyes of a character named Rose Dawson, who, in the story, was a survivor of the disaster. The character of her testimony, being a firsthand account, lends the viewer to become absorbed in the story by virtue of the credibility of the witness through whose eyes the story is told. Likewise, in a jury trial where an eyewitness can testify against the defendant, the prosecution would certainly not send the defendant home in favor of calling in someone who heard her story through the “grapevine.” Supporters of the purported “Jesus family tomb” base the identity of Jesus' family members solely on the Gospel record, since they are the primary source material for Jesus of Nazareth. However, they reject the account of the resurrection, which is described in each of these Gospels. The obvious basis for such rejection is due to the supernatural and miraculous character of such events, but if these characteristics of the Gospels are the basis on which such records are considered embellished, then there is no reasonable ground on which to assume the Gospels are historically accurate in other respects, such as the names of Jesus' relatives. Such inconsistent reasoning results in

374

circumstantial evidence (that is, the ossuaries' inscriptions) being the basis on which the Gospels are understood and interpreted, rather than vice-versa. According to this method of deduction, the Gospel accounts are determined to be historical and accurate only so far as they go to support assumptions based on the ossuaries themselves, rather than on the integrity of the primary source material (which will be considered in detail in Part six). Again, in the case of a jury trial, where there are eyewitnesses to the crime, the validity of any circumstantial evidence presented must be rendered inconclusive if the eyewitness accounts tell a different story. Yet, in the case of the Jesus family tomb, conclusions are drawn based on a preconceived view of the Gospels, rather than what the Gospels actually state about Jesus. In addition, no effort is made by the filmmakers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus to account for the integrity of the Gospel record. Throughout the whole of the film, claims are made based on the assumption that the Gospel account of the resurrection is a tale of a non-historical event, and no effort whatsoever is made to validate these assumptions on other than circumstantial evidence found in the Talpiot tomb. The only solid evidence either for or against the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus' family is against such a belief, for the evidence (that is, the Gospels) state clearly that Jesus experienced a bodily resurrection from the grave. On the other hand, the only support for the notion that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of Jesus' family are the theories of the filmmakers themselves, and those theories are based solely on an uneducated approach to the primary evidence itself and on assumptions (which are presented as fact in the film) concerning the circumstantial evidence as found in the inscriptions. It is no wonder that professional archaeologists regard the claims made regarding the Talpiot tomb as that which is an embarrassment to the profession and an abandonment of true scientific methods. Conclusion In conclusion, if I may employ a play on words, James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici's so-called “evidence” that Jesus' tomb has been discovered is a failure of titanic proportions and it will take more than skilled filmmaking to raise this sunken ship. The only reasonable conclusion concerning the “Jesus family tomb” is that the tomb in fact did not belong to Jesus’ family.

375

The Zeitgeist Movie states the following: “The fact of the matter is, there are dozens of virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world who fit these descriptions.” As I have shown, these claims are false or misconstrued, to say the least. My suggestion to the critics: go examine your sources. You will see they are not accurate. However, knowing their sources are inaccurate, many of the proponents of the copycat theory intentionally misrepresent the truth with the intent to deceive or sway others who they know will not put their claims to the test. In this section, I will examine some of the practices often employed by these self-proclaimed scholars.

I. Proper use of terminology is often disregarded in claims which attempt to liken events in the life of Christ to events which occur in pagan mythology

Many of the attacks which claim Christian beliefs are fabrications, having their origin in pagan myth, often use terms out of context in an attempt to suggest that one practice is merely a mirrored rip-off of another. Critics use terms such as “resurrection” and “baptism” loosely and in an attempt to strengthen their argument and apply the concepts to events which do not reflect the true meaning of either term. They do so in order to establish a false relationship between one thing and another, thereby leading their audience to consider the critic’s theory is true based on such a fabricated relationship. They deliberately use terminology heard in Christian churches in order to strengthen their argument and establish a foundation for their claim, a claim which has no foundation in truth whatsoever – except in the minds of those who blindly accept their teaching. For example, the word “resurrection,” or even the concept thereof, may not exist within a particular myth, yet critics will insert it in their own exposition of the same myth in order to formulate the correlation they need to back up their words. Virgin birth Quite often, as shown in this book, a critic will attempt to liken the birth of Jesus to the birth of a pagan god by virtue of a virgin birth. In so doing, they loose sight of the concept of virginity altogether, for the mothers of pagan deities are often married to a mortal man at the time of insemination, or are women of promiscuity, and therefore not virgins. In order for a birth to be considered truly virginal, two qualifications must first be met: first, the mother must not have had any sexual interaction at any time prior to the birth, and, second, the child’s conception must have occurred without any male seed, preserved or otherwise. Also, the nature by which these women are impregnated is quite unlike the placing of the fetal Jesus in the womb of Mary. Pagan deities impregnate their subjects through sexual intercourse, which quite often involves some form of deception or rape. In all of pagan mythology, only a small few deities are said to have been born of a virgin, and all such attempts at magnifying such a claim of virginal conception is the result of one’s lack of research in the field or an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. Also, what many critics claim to be a virgin birth is nothing more than a miraculous birth, for, while the circumstances of a conception may be considered extraordinary, the conception itself may have occurred by some form of insemination. Such is the

377

case with the sons of Zeus, who were born as a result of Zeus’ sexual interaction with women. In other words, a truly virginal birth constitutes a supernatural birth, but a supernatural birth does not constitute virgin birth. For instance, in the Horus myth Isis conceives Horus after fashioning a custom-made phallus for her dead husband Osiris (therefore supernatural birth), then drawing seed (therefore non-virginal birth) from the dead body, by which she became impregnated. Thus, Horus' conception, although supernatural, was not a virgin birth since it still involved an interaction of male seed, the natural agent of insemination. By analogy, in fertility clinics a sample of male seed may be used to impregnate a woman, regardless of whether the donor is still living. Also, such modern use of male seed to impregnate a woman constitutes neither supernatural birth nor virginal birth, since the acquisition of the donor's seed was through natural, not miraculous, methods and the very presence of male seed in insemination, artificial or not, is not within the realm of virginal birth. Baptism In the New Testament there are three types of baptism mentioned: Baptism by fire Baptism by the Holy Ghost Baptism by water In the case of the first two mentioned, the baptism is symbolic and without a material element, such as fire. The baptism we are concerned with here in this work is the latter, water baptism. The first mention in the New Testament of someone baptizing with water was John the Baptist. Following the ascension of Christ into heaven, Christians began baptizing with water, as mentioned in the book of Acts where entire families, including infants, were baptized with water. The mode of baptism employed, whether sprinkling or immersion, is outside the bounds of this discussion, except to state the element of water was present. Concerning the symbolic meaning behind the ritual, for now it will suffice to say that in the New Testament, baptism replaced the Old Testament rite of circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and His people. The meaning of baptism was consecration and a giving of oneself to the will of God. My purpose here is to simply draw attention to the fact that baptism is not merely contact with water, as many of the proponents of the “copycat theory” seem to believe. Baptism cannot be equated with stepping into a bath. Although a cleansing does occur in both instances, the cleansing achieved through baptism has spiritual symbolism as its root, not physical cleansing. Many critics of Christianity make feeble and far-reaching claims that contact with water can be considered parallel to baptism, and so it is that they liken Christian baptism to a pagan ritual bath. While water has long been a cross-cultural element used for cleansing and purification, participation in ritual baths cannot correctly be called baptism. Communion Many religions have some form of communal meal, but such is different from the observance of communion in the Christian church. For the Christian, communion is a remembrance of the sacrifice Christ made on the cross, with the bread being

378

symbolic of the body of Christ which was bruised for our iniquities, and the wine symbolic of His blood, shed for the remission of sin. It is, in essence, a covenant meal. In the Old Testament when two parties entered into covenant with each other, they often shared in a meal as a symbolic memorial of the contract. In Jerusalem, the night before Jesus was executed, he shared in a meal with his disciples and in that room He instituted the ordinance of communion. For I [the apostle Paul] have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Cor 11:23-26 NASB) At the meal Jesus shared with His disciples, He stated He was making a new covenant with them. The wine represented the blood of the covenant, blood which He shed on the cross. Thus, Jesus instituted the observance of communion as a memorial of His redemptive work. Such communal meals were common among various cultures. In Biblical times it was common for parties having made a covenant between themselves to sit down for a meal or feast afterwards, as a means of signifying the covenant between them. In the case of Abimelech and Isaac, the two sat down for a feast after making a covenant between themselves (Gen 26:26-31). In the New Testament, the “Last Supper” Jesus had with His disciples was a covenant meal, signifying the new life He gave to mankind through His death and resurrection (2 Cor 11:23-25). Such ritual meals were common in cultures throughout the world, as H. Clay Trumbull notes in his book The Blood Covenant: “Among the Araucanian, of South America, the custom of making brothers, or brothers-friends, is called Lacu. It includes the killing of a lamb and dividing it — ‘cutting’ it — between the two covenanting parties; and each party must eat his half of the lamb — either by himself or by such assistance as he chooses to call in. … if they exchanged names, there would be a covenant meal. Usually in this covenant meal they would feed each other bread, saying, ‘You are eating me.’ Then they would drink from the same cup and say, ‘You are drinking me.’ Sometimes the drink in the cup was mingled with blood.”1 Manfred Clauss also testifies to the universality of the communal meal: “The offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures, and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a feature common to many religions. It represented one of the

379

oldest means of manifesting unification with the spiritual, and the appropriation of spiritual qualities.”2 Even in modern times, many people, regardless of faith, have shared in such a communal meal, even if they have never sat through a church service. When a man and woman are married, they enter into a covenant, complete with oaths and vows. In some ceremonies the bride and groom sip from a single chalice or cup as they stand before the crowd of witnesses. Following the ceremony, they host a reception for the wedding party and guests. During this reception, a meal and beverages of some sort are provided. Such a gathering reflects a memorializing of the covenant which just took place between the bride and groom, and it is this same fashion that covenant makers in many cultures share a ritual meal following the binding of their covenant. Such traditions testify to the universality of the practice of communal meals and it should come to no surprise to find such a practice in the Bible and among a people who placed high regard and importance of the binding of a covenant. Finally, the significance of the Christian communion service (or Eucharist, in some denominations), is that the elements represent the body and blood of Jesus, who, by the giving of His life, made atonement, or reconciliation and reparation between God and man, for the guilt of sin. The communal meals of pagan religion and culture hold no such significance, and without that aspect any such practice becomes devoid of comparison with the Christian communion service. Savior Many deities are called savior, but not in the same sense in which the title is ascribed to Christ. Proponents of the copycat theory often use the word “salvation” when referring to the benefit provided as a result of the actions of a pagan deity, however, they use the term in a very loose sense. While there are pagan deities who do provide salvation from oppression, from darkness, or from some form of pestilence, they do not provide salvation from sin by the offering of themselves as a sacrifice for sin. In the case of Christianity, the salvation afforded to believers on account of Christ is eternal rather than temporal. Neither the annual renewal of vegetation (which is commonly referred to as the “saving” work of a pagan deity) nor freedom from tyranny can be considered “salvation” in any theological sense. Jesus was the Christ, the Anointed One of God. He alone saves from sin and damnation. He alone provides a kind of salvation unlike that provided by any deity in world mythology. He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Salvation Oftentimes, when critics claim that Jesus can be paralleled with a pagan deity who is said to provide salvation, the term “salvation” is applied to any act which results in another's rescue, preservation, protection, or deliverance. While salvation, broadly speaking, is a term which denotes such concepts, simply claiming that one manner of salvation is capable to be likened to another, regardless of the style or type of salvation offered, is to draw a parallel based on an improper analysis of the facts. The “salvation” typically provided by pagan deities is reflective of the annual regrowth of crops, since many pagan deities are representative of the rotation of the

380

seasons. Other times, the salvation provided is said to be deliverance from an earthly king or tyrant, or from a form of natural disaster. Does this rightly constitute a parallel to Jesus? Of course not! When a mother feeds her child, it can be properly said that she is saving her child from starvation, but can the mother of the child be thought of as a parallel to the Son of God, by virtue of the provision she provides to her infant? Again, the answer is in the negative. Still, critics attempt to create a parallel between Jesus and pagan deities based on such loose association of terms. The salvation provided by Jesus is an eternal salvation, guaranteeing a restored relationship with God, the eventual resurrection of the body, the final glorification of the believer, and the enjoyment of everlasting and unhindered communion with God. None of the pagan deities can be said to offer an equivalent form of salvation. In order for a parallel to be drawn between one deity and another, it is not enough to merely say that each provided salvation. If such a parallel is to exist, the comparison must lie in the manner and effect on each deity's salvation, not in their mutual recognition as a “savior.” Resurrection Many of the deities who are said to be resurrected did not undergo an experience which can be likened to the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of many pagan deities, especially the various sun and sky gods, is merely a metaphor for the changing of seasons and the renewal of vegetation. The resurrection stories of pagan deities reflected the changing of the seasons and the regenerative powers of nature, in regards to the continuance of human generation and the annual renewal of the natural world through the changing of seasons. Devotees of these deities took comfort in the myths of resurrection, knowing that they could rely on the deity to continue his work in bringing relief from annual drought and the dying of crops. Their faith in these deities gave them strength and confidence in future prosperity and the continuance of life. A resurrection in pagan mythology often refers not to a bodily resurrection from the dead; but rather, merely to one of the following scenarios: 1. The deity enters the Underworld without ever having died in the first place, then leaves the Underworld as alive and well as he was when he first entered therein. 2. The deity experiences a postmortem existence in a non-bodily form, such as reigning in spirit as lord of the dead. 3. The deity is reincarnated or re-created as a different person and/or in a different body. 4. The deity is raised to life, only to die again at a later time. 5. The deity undergoes a change or experience which was only “likened unto” death, then is awakened or revived from a suspended state.

381

As shown above, what the critic typically refers to as a resurrection is, in truth, not a resurrection at all. For instance, Dionysus is torn apart by the Titans then later reborn from the side of Zeus. Such an experience does not constitute a resurrection, since his original body was not restored; but rather, remained in the bellies of the Titans. Thus, his experience is a re-birth in a new body, not a resurrection of his original constitution. Turning to Egyptian mythology, Osiris was dismembered by Set, following which he descended, in spirit, to the underworld as lord of the dead – an experience which speaks to the immortality of the soul, but not to the resurrection of the body. Concerning Orpheus, he descended to the land of the dead in order to persuade Hades to allow his dead wife to return to the land of the living. Since Orpheus entered the underworld without having died in the first place, his descent and subsequent return from the underworld is nothing more than a round trip journey, rather than a resurrection. These are just a few of the many examples, as shown in Part one, where a critic labels a particular deity’s experience as a resurrection, when in fact the experience in question is nothing more than a reincarnation, re-birth, or a journey not involving the death of the traveler. Also, the so-called “resurrections” in pagan mythology did not result in anyone’s salvation, nor did they exist within history or were witnessed by hundreds of the deity's followers, whereas each of these qualities characterizes Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead.

II. Many of the suggested pagan parallels to the life of Christ are based on non-existent texts or misuse or alteration of existing texts

Many proponents of the “copycat theory” make their claims on secondary sources rather than referring to the religious texts. When pressed for the source text on which they make their claim, they are unable to produce evidence, simply because the evidence does not exist. The sources on which they do base their statements are versions of the original source material which have been altered over time. In fact, many of their sources postdate the time of Christ. When the original sources are examined, their claims are found wanting for validity. Their case against Christianity is merely a house built on sand, and when the foundation is easily washed away, the house is reduced to rubble as a result. As in the case of Horus, the deity to whom critics give much attention, characteristics which are said to have been true of Horus and copied to Christ simply do not exist in the ancient texts relating to Horus. These ancient texts are not without abundance, and they are of varying types: hymns, mortuary texts, ritual texts, Old Coptic texts … the list goes on. Nowhere in these texts, nor even in Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris, (c. 46-120 A.D.) the most complete account of the Horus myth to be found in ancient literature, is it said that he was born of a virgin, announced by a star, visited by wise men, etc. Such is an example of a favorite tactic used by critics – to fabricate or alter a myth in order to establish a false correlation to the account of Christ, then to make absolute statements based on these lies.

382

III. Other favorite tactics used by critics of Christianity Failure to distinguish opinions and theories from what the sources and evidence used actually state Omission of important sources and evidence Misuse of the sources employed in backing up their claims The use of suspect sources Forming conclusions and theories which often far exceed what the evidence justifies Speculations and sound theories are treated as having equal value Statements grounded solely in the critics’ imagination and their distortions of the truth are declared on a matter-of-fact basis. They accuse Christians of distorting truth, all the while acting in that very same fashion. They draw conclusions which cannot logically be drawn from the cited sources. The conclusions they form are the result of interpreting the source material based on what they want others to believe, rather than what the source actually states. Rather than drawing from the source, they input their own subjective ideas into the material and claim that the source contains ideas not actually found in the material. They often preface statements with the condition of them being spoken in an “exact,” “broad,” or “general” sense. For example, they will say, “Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows,” then go on to list things such as virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection as being elements of his story, when, in truth, none of these elements apply to the subject in question, neither in a broad nor exact sense. When they say “broad sense,” they are really saying “no sense,” in the hopes that their readers will believe them blindly rather than searching for the truth themselves.

IV. Logical fallacies employed by the critics Critics of Christianity employ numerous fallacious forms of logic in their efforts to persuade others that their claims are valid. In this section, I will briefly list the many ways in which their arguments take shape, and provide examples in which these erroneous forms of persuasion are employed by the ever-so-earnest critic. Ad hominem: An ad hominem (Latin, “to the man”) argument is an attack not on the claim itself, but on the person making the claim. By attacking the claimant’s character or level of expertise, the attempt is made to make his or her claim invalid, without presenting evidence against the validity of the claim itself. An ad hominem argument is most evident when the claimant’s opponent is unable to present evidence

383

against the claim and, consequently, must resort to less respectful means of argumentation in an attempt to render the claim invalid. An example of this is to attack an opponent’s claims based on a lack of credentials to his name. For instance, when Christians (to turn the tables for a moment) denounce the documentary concerning the “lost tomb of Jesus” and bring to light the fact that the film was produced by a Hollywood movie director and a journalist, neither of whom have credentials in the field of archaeology, history, or Biblical studies, such information is irrelevant to the claims of the film. An opponent’s claims must be answered in light of the evidence itself, not on the level of expertise of the claimant. By contrast, the claims of one who has doctorate degrees in archaeology or history cannot be regarded as valid based on the claimant’s credentials. While his credentials speak to the formal training and education the claimant has received, it said nothing about the claimant’s application of such knowledge. If the claimant’s application does not stand up against solid evidence, then his claims must be abandoned, despite the credentials the claimant has to his name. Credentials are not the same as credibility. One’s credentials cannot give credibility to his claims, unless his claims are valid. If his claims are found to be in want of supporting evidence, then all the credentials in the world will not give credibility to his claims. It must be noted there are instances when the claimant’s character may be brought into question for valid reasons, such as making known one’s propensity for manipulating information to suit his or her own purposes, however, this should not be done to the exclusion of the evidence against the claim itself. Likewise, when responding to an opponent’s claims, appealing to the claimant’s bias is appropriate only so far as it is evident that such bias is affecting his claims, otherwise such an appeal is an attack on the claimant himself rather than on the claim made by him. Ad populum: An ad populum (Latin, “to the majority”) argument is an attempt to validate or invalidate a claim based on the number of people who believe it to be true or false, respectively. This form of argumentation, as with the argumentum ad hominem, bypasses the evidence for the claim itself in order to appeal to secondary or circumstantial evidence, which, in this case, is the number of individuals who hold either to the truth or falsity of the claim. Critics employ this fallacy when discussing early written evidence for the historicity of Jesus, being hasty to claim that Josephus’ mention of Jesus is “widely” considered among “scholars” to be a forgery. The truth is that the majority of scholars regard portions of such reference to be a later addition to Josephus’ original penmanship, but do not regard the whole of the text to be a forgery. However, regardless of how many do believe the text to be entirely forged, the textual and contextual evidence speaks to the contrary (as has already been discussed), making such a view invalid, and thereby making any appeal to majority no more solid than a house built on sand. An ad populum argument is only valid when the majority view is accompanied with solid evidence to back its substance. Finally, validating a proposition on the claim that “many” scholars hold a proposition to be true, without naming who those “many” ones are, does not lend to the credibility of the proposition itself. Such an appeal is only valid as a statistic, rather than as supporting evidence by a given authority. A statistic, as such, should not be presented as a form of proof, but rather as a notation to support a premise which is just as solid without the statistic being presented. For instance, claiming that

384

“everyone” loves mom’s cooking speaks only to the quality of the meals prepared by mom, rather than to “everyone’s” judgment or good taste. Whether or not anyone outside of mom’s household tastes her food, the quality of her cooking is not affected by the number of guests who have ever sat at her table. Appeal to authority: An appeal to authority is an argument which also bypasses the evidence available and instead attempts to validate a claim based in the authority of the claimant. The higher the claimant is held in esteem or authority, the more valid is his claim. One of the critics’ heroes and champions for their cause is Kersey Graves, who wrote the controversial book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors. Graves’ book is praised by critics (although not universally) as be a source of truth and reflective of an accurate and scholarly expression of comparative religion. The fact is that Graves draws conclusions based on an improper analysis of evidence and draws parallels where no parallels exist. An appeal to any authority, regardless of the credentials of such an authority, is only as good as the substance of the evidence presented by such a one. If the evidence presented by a scholar, when examined further, is found contrary to what really is the case, then no matter how many degrees one has in his name or the level of experience or field work that he can claim, his conclusions must be regarded as unsubstantiated by evidence to the contrary. As a final note, critics make an appeal to individuals such as Kersey Graves, Gerald Massey, and D. M. Murdock, none of whom have the credibility to support their claims, since such individuals' conclusions are not based on accurate research and deduction. Any appeal to authority should carefully consider the authority to whom the appeal is made (for not all authorities are authoritative), prior to making such an appeal, and should not regard such an appeal as conclusive in and of itself (for any authority is still subject to human error or predisposition which threatens his or her analysis). Appeal to consequences: Appeal to consequences is an attempt to invalidate a claim based on undesirable consequences which would occur if the claim were proven true. It is a type of appeal to emotion, which will be discusses immediately hereafter. Critics use this claim when discussing the justice of God, by making Him out to be a deity who is unjustly harsh and who dispenses punishment beyond what is required for the offense. The argument is often made, “How can a loving God condemn people to an eternity of torment?” The substance of this argument will be addressed in Part five, when discussing the character of God. Here it serves to merely state that such an objection is based on a finitely human understanding of God’s person, which considers His justice apart from other facets of His being, such as holiness and righteousness. It is because God is just that He must dispense eternal punishment to some and eternal blessing to others. If God did not punish the guilty, then His lack of justice would violate His righteousness, for God cannot reward guilt. Nevertheless, the appeal is made to influence one to draw a conclusion on a premise, based on a negative consequence that such a premise brings, without pausing to consider whether or not the cause and purpose for such consequence is just or unjust. In the end, through use of this fallacy, a conclusion is made regarding a claim, without considering the specifics of the claim itself.

385

Appeal to emotion: Appeal to emotion is a manipulative form of argumentation which attempts to invoke either positive or negative emotion concerning the validity of a claim, thereby clouding one’s judgment when considering the evidence for the claim itself. Such a fallacy is very similar to an appeal to consequence, in that the conclusion made regarding a claim is based on how one is led to feel about the claim itself. For instance, when questioning the sovereignty of God, critics ask, “How could an all-powerful and loving God allow evil, or permit the occurrence of tragedies or calamities?” These questions will be addressed further in Part five, when discussing the sovereignty of God, and I will simply point out here that the presence of evil (be it evil caused by the wickedness of man, or by natural disaster) is due to man’s own sin. Additionally, the critic, in being quick to accuse God of causing evil, fails to consider the alternative to his theory. If God removed wickedness from the heart of man, then man would lack responsibility and individuality, being made into an organic automaton and living a life characterized by programmed responses, rather than by choices made through an inclination either to the good or the bad. Man’s ability to choose between the moral and immoral is part of that which constitutes the image of God, in which all men were created. Rather than accepting a claim based on whether or not the claim causes sugarplums to dance within one’s head and evokes a warm, pleasant feeling, the substance of the claim itself must be considered and conclusions drawn based on what is seen beyond one’s initial feeling regarding the claim. Appeal to motive: Appeal to motive is a form of the ad hominem argument, where an attempt is made to render a claim invalid based on the suspect motives of the claimant. Again, this form of argumentation can have a certain measure of validity, when used accurately, and without excluding solid evidence. For instance, if a claimant is known for presenting a biased and manipulative argument in order to persuade others to his way of thought, then such a motive should be considered. However, at all times, the suspect motive of the claimant himself must not constitute the primary substance of the argument against his claim, otherwise his opponents would be employing an ad hominem argument, in which the claimant himself is attacked without respect to the claims made by him. Critics employ an appeal to motive when making the claim that the writers of the Gospels fabricated their own story of a messiah and intentionally misled their congregations to believe in what was really a false Gospel (an address on the evidence concerning the integrity of the Gospels is forthcoming in Part six). If one’s motive cannot be determined on circumstantial or solid evidence, such as would be indicated by a pattern of presenting false information to further a claim, then any appeal to the claimant’s assumed motive is purely speculative and is no basis on which to form an argument. Appeal to novelty: An appeal to novelty is an attempt to validate a claim based on the newness of a concept. This is most often employed when the critic appeals to “ground-breaking” or “innovative” means of research that has been used to test their theories. While there is truth in the notion that new technology lends itself to more detailed research, the results of such research is only valid if it is accompanied by supporting evidence. Such was the case with the purported Jesus family tomb. DNA analysis was done on two of the remains, supposed to be Jesus and Mary Magdalene,

386

and, as a result, it was determined the two were not blood related, a fact which is in agreement with the proposition that they were husband and wife. However, such scientific analysis does not validate the claim that the remains did in fact belong to Jesus and Mary, nor the notion that the relationship between the two, whoever they were, was that of husband and wife. If a proposition is faulty at the outset, then no research, regardless of how new and innovative, will serve to substantiate that proposition. Appeal to ridicule: A critic employs appeal to ridicule when he attempts to present his opponent’s views in a nonsensical fashion. A prime example of this is the opening segment of The Zeitgeist Movie, which makes use of a commentary by the late comedian George Carlin, and is even accompanied with a laugh track, when presenting Biblical truth. Later in the film, when mentioning Justin Martyr’s explanation for pagan parallels to the Gospels, it is said that his answer was “the devil made them do it.” While it is true that Justin blamed “wicked devils” for influencing pagans towards fashioning myths which may bear some resemblance to the Gospel, the segment on Justin includes a cartoon Satan appearing on the screen, thereby leading one to regard his explanation as nonsense. Also, in the same film, the horrors contained in the book of Revelation are described as “cartoonish depictions.” Such is the tactic: to present views in such a way that the uninformed target audience is led astray to the biased views of the one making use of the tactic known as Appeal to Ridicule. Association fallacy: An association fallacy, also known as “false analogy,” is one which asserts a claim is either valid or invalid based on its resemblance or association with another claim. When this form of argument is used to render a claim invalid, the goal is to do so by making the claim guilty by association, as when critics discredit Christianity as a whole based on such negative history as the inquisition or the Salem witch trials. While those involved in these events did act in the name of Christ, their conduct is not representative of the type of conduct delineated in Scripture, and such figures and events should not be used as a means of evaluating Christianity as a whole. The problem with the association fallacy is that two things may appear similar, but, upon further analysis, are seen to be quite distinct one from the other. For instance, the Egyptian deity Osiris is described to have been “revived” after being dismembered, but his revivification was not a bodily resurrection to the existence he possessed before being chopped into pieces; but rather, was his elevation to the position of ruler of the dead. In the case of Jesus, He rose from the dead in the same flesh-and-bone body which died on the cross. In similar fashion, concepts such as virgin birth are applied to births that have a supernatural character, but cannot rightly be called virgin births. This is done in order to draw a false association between a non-virginal birth of a pagan deity and the virgin birth of Jesus, thereby leading others to believe that one is merely a derivative of the other, when in fact the two are clearly distinct. Also, when critic D. M. Murdock states, “If the myths of Osiris, Isis, Horus and Set, etc., are largely astronomical in nature; and if Christianity is highly influenced by—and is a fulfillment of—the Egyptian religion in significant part; then Christianity too must

387

represent astronomical myth or astrotheology.”1 Such a claim is fallacious since it is based on a premise which is unsupported – nay, even contradicted – by evidence. Cherry picking: Cherry picking occurs when a person attempting to validate or invalidate a claim draws only on the evidence which suits his or her position, while excluding evidence to the contrary. A prime example of this fallacy is the claim that the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr stated that certain Christian doctrines were identical to doctrines believed by the pagans. While Justin did draw comparisons between certain doctrines, a further reading of his apology reveals he regarded such similarity as merely superficial, and the thrust of his argument was not that the pagan doctrines themselves were parallel to Christian doctrine; but rather, was an accusation against the hypocrisy of the pagans in condemning Christians for believing in things similar, but not identical, to pagan deities. For instance, Justin claims that Perseus was born of a virgin, as was Jesus, but he later states that Jesus is the only true son of God and that Christian doctrine is ”alone true,” as opposed to the pagan doctrines which were a misinterpretation, by “wicked devils,” of Hebrew messianic prophecy. In “picking” out single statements from Justin’s overall argument, critics mislead others into believing Justin regarded Christianity as identical to pagan religions, when a reading of the same statement within its surrounding context reveals nothing of the like. A pristine example of this fallacy in action is the claim by D. M. Murdock that “the authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia states: The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in [the writings of Church father] Cyprian [200-258 A.D.]…’O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born…Christ should be born.’”2 Her attempt is to show that the early church fathers regarded Christ as representative of the sun, rather than an actual historical person. In such an attempt, she makes an appeal to the online Catholic Encyclopedia, which also states, on the very same page as the above quote,3 that the statement was “written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian.” Rather than presenting evidence that the early church practiced sun worship, Murdock has successfully refuted her own claim by appealing to a source which states her claim is invalid. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin , “with this, therefore because of this”), also known as “correlation proves causation,” attempts to link two related things to each other in a cause-and-effect relationship, and is similar to the association fallacy. The Egyptian sun god Horus is said, according to the critics, to have risen from the dead. Horus’ so-called “resurrection” merely refers to the reemergence of the sun upon every new dawn. The argument is then made that Jesus is also a solar deity, being the “sun of God,” whose resurrection bears astrological, rather than redemptive, meaning. False analogies and associations are drawn in order to portray Jesus as nothing more than one of the many solar deities named throughout pagan religions and mythology, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Critics attempt to frame the Gospel accounts of Jesus into a pattern which fits a certain astrological scheme, all the while distorting the true meaning of the Gospel texts, and claim that because Jesus fits into a pattern reflective of solar deities, or so their misinterpretation goes, then the historical character of the Gospels

388

should rather be perceived as a metaphorical account of a messiah who did not physically exist. Equivocation: Equivocation occurs when a word, having multiple meanings, is used ambiguously or in a misleading fashion in order to emphasize one’s intended meaning for the word. Such is the case when critics claim that Attis was crucified to a tree, when in fact the Attis myth contains no crucifixion account. Likewise, the term “salvation” is used flippantly to liken any form of deliverance by a pagan deity to the redemption provided by Christ’s sacrifice. A myth containing an account of a deity ridding a people of a tyrannical king cannot rightly be compared to the eternal salvation provided by the shedding of Jesus’ own blood and consequent death on the cross in order to justify those who, in and of themselves, do not deserve such justification. Nevertheless, such terms are used in order to draw parallels between two very distinct types of salvation, being distinct by means of such factors as the work of the savior, the scope of the salvation provided, and the benefits and longevity secured by such salvation. False attribution: The fallacy of false attribution is an attempt to validate a claim by appealing to a source which is unqualified in the field of study or which is unidentified by name. This is not to say that a claim such as “ancient Egyptians worshiped the sun” is invalid because no “ancient Egyptian” is identified by name, since substantial evidence exists to back such a claim. The fallacy of false attribution is used when a claim is made based purely on an unidentified or unqualified source. For instance, when critic D. M. Murdock states, concerning the procession of the equinoxes, that a “ruling elite and priestly faction” knew of such things before its discovery by Hipparchus during the second century B.C., she is making such a claim which is unsupported by historical evidence. She goes to no length to identify just who these individuals were, nor does she provide support for her claim. The point she was attempting to make is that the Ages of the Zodiac were known prior to their reported discovery, thereby making plausible the claim that ancient Egyptians fashioned their mythology after such concepts, setting the stage for an adoption of such concepts by the Gospel writers in composing their account of Jesus of Nazareth. An “appeal to motive” could correctly be employed in responding to her claim, since there is no evidence to support her statement, which ever-so-conveniently makes valid her otherwise implausible argument. In short, such a use of the fallacy of false attribution is nothing more than pulling a magical name out of a hat and claiming that such person(s) give credibility to a particular claim, reducing the evidence to nothing more than a “because he said so” argument. False dilemma: The fallacy of a false dilemma arises when only two possible options are considered when there are indeed other alternatives. For instance, the claim that there is either no God or that God is harsh and overly judgmental, based on passages in Scripture in which divine punishment is carried out, fails to consider other passages in Scripture which portray God as loving and full of mercy. Likewise, the claim that either there is no God or God is the cause of evil, since He if the First Cause of all things, fails to consider that evil is not a “thing” and does not take into account the true origin of evil. Since both of these topics will be addressed in Part

389

five, I only present them here to illustrate this type of fallacy. A false dilemma also arises when derived conclusions creates a negative situation that does not actually exist. A prime example of this is Scott Bidstrup’s “meme virus,” discussed previously. In his hypothesis, the Christian is one under a sort of cultic and secret persuasion or influence, being brainwashed into believing the things he does – or else!. Since such does not describe the real disposition of the Christian, Bidstrup’s theory is a colossal failure which is grounded in his creation of a false dilemma. Hasty generalization: Hasty generalization is an attempt to validate or invalidate a claim without reviewing or considering the full evidence for or against the matter. In this form of fallacious logic, conclusions are reached on a he-said-so basis. Regardless of the validity or accuracy of the information provided by the entrusted source, if no further evidence is reviewed then the conclusions are reached hastily and on an uninformed basis. A perfect example of this fallacy is the suggestion that since Jesus’ birthday is celebrated on December 25th, the date that many ancient cultures held celebrations in honor of a solar deity, that such is further evidence Jesus is nothing more than another sun god. However, when one researches this claim further (and one would not need to search for long), it would be discovered that the attribution of December 25th to the date of Jesus’ birth is a later addition to Christianity and is not reflective of the date, nor likely even the season, when Jesus was really born. Incomplete comparison: An incomplete comparison is drawn when something is affirmed about a thing, in comparison with another, without providing reasons for that which is being affirmed. Such a fallacy is evident when a critic suggests that the Christian observance of the Lord’s Supper is a practice adopted from pagan communal rituals, without further exploring the meaning and significance of each observance. Upon further investigation, it would be discovered that the pagan ritual in view bears characteristics which make it distinct from the Lord’s Supper. It would further be observed that the Lord’s Supper is a continuation of the covenant meals described in the Old Testament. Many cultures memorialized a covenant with a meal shared between the participants, and such is the practice of the Lord’s Supper. Still, the Lord’s Supper, while being a communal meal by definition, does not possess the same religious or spiritual characteristics as pagan communal meals. The Lord’s Supper can only be compared to pagan communal meals in a very superficial sense, for beneath the appearance of a gathering of participants to observe a ritual with respect to their deity, the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the sacrifice that God made in the giving of His own body and blood for the lives of the participants, and such is not characterized by communal meals observed by pagan religions. Judgmental language: An argument using judgmental language is that which attempts to invoke a biased conclusion in others by rendering a claim invalid based on how one is made to feel about the claim, based on the prejudicial comments being made with regard to the claim itself. This is similar to the fallacy known as appeal to emotion. This fallacy is employed in The Zeitgeist Movie when, after presenting falsified evidence in favor of the filmmakers’ claims, Christianity is declared to be “the fraud of the age.” Such invokes a conclusion by the viewer, without the viewer

390

feeling persuaded to put such claim to the test, or to do so after being manipulated to a predisposed mindset that Christianity is likely a fraud. Moving the goalpost: Moving the goalpost, also known as “raising the bar,” is a type of argumentation in which the opponent of a claim requires evidence greater than what which was already presented, and following the presentation of the greater evidence, the opponent challenges the claimant to present even further evidence to validate the claim, thus constantly “raising the bar” on the level of evidence which must be presented, or changing the “goal” which must be achieved, before the claim is considered valid. In so doing, the evidence already presented in favor of a claim is regarded as insufficient and further evidence is demanded, so beginning a neverending cycle of burden of proof. This argument is used by critics who deny the historicity of Jesus and continue to demand evidence that He did in fact exist, despite the hard data which does exist within ancient writings. If the honest critic is in search of an ancient text referencing Jesus as an historical figure, then one needs to look no further than the Gospels themselves. Yet, the critic dismisses such solid evidence and seeks further texts, which, when presented, are again dismissed by a biased judgment. While references to Jesus are not abundant among ancient writers, critics fail to consider the reasons why Jesus would not have been a hot topic among such writers. Rather than seeking the reasons for the silence, they claim that such silence is evidence that Jesus did not exist, all the while dismissing, on false grounds, the documentation that does exist within ancient texts. Negative proof: The Negative Proof fallacy is the assertion that a claim is false because it cannot be proven true, or proven true because it cannot be proven false. This often takes the form of an argument from silence, in which the lack of references to an event is perceived as an indication that such an event never took place. An example of the critics’ use of this argument is the claim that Herod’s massacre of the children in and around Bethlehem is a fictitious event described in Matthew’s Gospel. Since the event is only recorded by Matthew, and no other ancient writer, it is assumed that Matthew must have simply made it up. However, the critic, in employing this fallacy, fails to ask the question why should there be an extra-Biblical mention of this occurrence? The event was in line with Herod’s character, and likely was regarded as being of such little significance in antiquity, it is not likely it would have merited a place in a history or commentary of the time. Also, the critic fails to regard the Biblical books as historical books, thus clouding his or her judgment in the search for historical data. Poisoning the well: Poisoning the well, similar to the fallacy known as “appeal to ridicule,” is an attempt to discredit a claim by poking fun at, or by discrediting, either the claim or the claimant, or to present such in a negative light, thereby clouding the minds of those to whom the argument is being presented. Such a form of argumentation is employed when a critic accuses Christianity of being a prejudicial and condemning religion, based on events or people throughout church history who have acted in a less-than-favorable manner in the name of Christ. So it is that such things as the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, or hypocrisy among modern day believers fuel the fire for such an argument. The fallacy in presenting such an

391

argument is not the drawing of attention to such things, for indeed there have been, since the days of the early church, those who have performed truly wicked acts in the name of Christ, all the while waving the banner of the Lord or clinging a Bible to their chest. Rather, the fallacy is in recognizing such as a true expression of the Christian spirit, and to present it as typical of the Gospel of Christ. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin, “after this, therefore because of this”) is an attempt to render a claim invalid by attributing to it a causeand-effect relationship to an earlier claim, making the latter merely the result of the former, by virtue of temporal sequence and without regard to evidence to the contrary. The distinction of this argument from a “cum hoc ergo propter hoc” argument is the placement of events within a temporal sequence. So it is that the religion known as Zoroastrianism, which flourished among the Persians in the centuries before Christ, and to which the Jews were exposed during their Persian captivity, is perceived as the precursor to Christianity, and the spring from which many Christian doctrines emerged centuries after the Jews returned from their captivity. The doctrinal differences between the two religions have been discussed in detail in Part three and will not be reiterated here, as there is a plethora of reasons to consider such a claim invalid. Quoting out of context: Quoting out of context, also known as “contextomy,” is a fallacy in which words are isolated from their surroundings and used on a standalone basis, in which they appear to state something other than what was stated in their broader form. By using this form of argumentation, a claimant can manipulate evidence, such as the words of a person of authority in the matter, to suit his or her purposes. This fallacy is similar to “cherry picking” in that a statement is isolated or misapplied to serve a purpose for which, in truth, it does not serve. Such is the case in the supposed declaration of Pope Leo X who is said to have declared the Gospel of Christ to be nothing more than a “fable,” however, such a statement was only attributed to him in a work of fiction, and not actually said by Leo himself. Another example is the attempt to claim that the Apostle Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection, rather than a bodily resurrection, based on a passage in his letter to the Corinthian church (2 Cor 15: 35-58 For an analysis of this passage, see Part five under the heading “Jesus’ resurrection was a bodily resurrection”). Straw man argument: A straw man argument is one in which an opposing claimant’s argument is intentionally misrepresented in order to better refute the argument. This is done by devising an argument similar, on the surface, to the claimant’s position, but bearing major differences underneath its surface resemblance. This fabricated argument is then erected, as a “straw man” or scarecrow, and presented as the claimant’s actual position, while in fact bearing only an insignificant resemblance to that which he or she believes to be true. The purpose for such a device is to formulate an argument which lacks the persuading force of the claimant’s original position, and is then easier to refute. In the end, the claimant’s original argument remains uncontested, as the “straw man,” or fabricated claim, is not identical to the claimant’s original position. This is yet another fallacy critics employ when appealing to statements by Justin Martyr that Christian and pagan

392

doctrines are virtually identical (see above under “Cherry picking”). In to doing, the critic presents Justin as making an argument which, in truth, is not being made by him. It is essentially “putting words in his mouth” by presenting him in such a light so as to support the critics’ claim that Christianity is a derivation of pagan religions, thereby providing the critic with an advocate (in this case, Justin) among those otherwise regarded as being on the opposite side of the argument. Style over substance: The fallacy known as “style over substance” concerns itself with the presentation of the claim, rather than the claim itself. Thus, a claim presented in a sloppy fashion is regarded to have little validity, despite the solidity of the claim’s content. This form of argumentation can sometimes be an “ad hominem” form of argumentation, in which the one presenting the claim is presented as one unqualified to do so. An example of this fallacy in action is the attack critics make against Christian apologist Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ. In his book, he conducts interviews with leading apologists and scholars in his presentation of evidence to the historicity of Jesus. The critic, rather than considering the validity of the evidence presented, disregards such evidence and asks, “Why did he not interview a skeptic?” In so doing, the substance of Strobel’s argument is set aside and the focus of the critic’s argument is instead concentrated on the manner by which Strobel presented his case. Wrong direction: A wrong direction fallacy is one in which the cause of a thing is said to be its effect, thereby reversing the sequence of temporal events. This fallacy attempts to argue using the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” method, but rather than referencing an earlier event (Event A) and suggesting it is the cause of a later event (Event B), this fallacy borrows a later Event B and displaces it in time to a point prior to Event A. Such reasoning is called anachronistic, for its reversal of the natural chronological order of events. This fallacy is evident in the critics’ suggestion that the Roman Mithraic religion was an inspiration for the Gospel writers, despite the fact that Mithra was not introduced to Roman religion until after the Gospels had been composed. If anything was borrowed one from the other it would have been the Mithraists borrowing doctrine from the Christians.

V. Parallel vs. commonality In their attempts to prove that the Gospel is a reworking of pre-Christian pagan myths, critics muddle the definition of the word “parallel” in their claims that so-called “counterpart” pagan deities were the inspiration for the Gospel writers. In order for a thing to be parallel to another, the two must share elements which are nearly identical in their very essence. By contrast, a commonality or similarity between one thing and another is based on elements which place the two in a relationship which may seen as similar, but not so far as would cause those elements to be considered analogous to each other. For instance, critics claim that the Christian theme of a resurrected Savior is merely a reworking of such pagan myths as Osiris and Tammuz, both of whom, they say, rose from the dead, however, an examination of the myths themselves reveal that Osiris’ resurrection is just an expression of his postmortem life as ruler of the Underworld, and Tammuz’ resurrection is merely reflective of the changing of the seasons, as has been

393

shown in Part three of this book. Likewise, as explained under a previous heading, critics apply terms such as “savior,” “baptism,” and “virgin birth” to figures or things to which such terms do not rightly apply. In so doing, they are comparing the proverbial “apples to oranges.” In order for two concepts to truly form a parallel, the parallel must exist beneath the surface, or beyond what merely appears to be the case to someone not welleducated in such concepts. Such is a snare of critics whose intent it is to deceive the public by drawing parallels between things or concepts which do not share the same essential qualities or attributes. The truth is that the parallels which critics make between Jesus and pagan deities lack the characteristics of a true parallel. While the myth concerning a pagan deity may contain an aspect or trait which is similar, in a superficial sense, to the Gospel account of Jesus, it requires much more resemblance between the two before one can truly be considered a parallel to the other. Additionally, the traits of pagan myths (such as virgin birth, for instance) which are perceived to be similar to the Gospels, when examined further, bear very little resemblance at all to what Scripture says concerning Jesus (since many so-called “virgin-born” pagan deities were in fact not born of a virgin), reducing to a minimum the degree of comparison between the two.

VI. The meme virus In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme” in his attempt to apply the principles of evolution to the spreading of ideas and beliefs from one person to the next within a culture. His theory was that evolution depended on the existence and transmission of a gene which was able to replicate itself autonomously, or without any external motivational factor. In his article The Mind Virus1, critic Scott Bidstrup applies Dawkins’ theory to the survival and transmission of Christian doctrine, from one age to the next. He contends that these doctrines spread, as a virus, through the behavior of Christians in their response such doctrines. He argues that Christianity was fashioned as a remodeling of Judaism in order to make it more acceptable to Gentiles, and therefore causing it to spread beyond traditional geographic and cultural boundaries. The factor to which he attributes the success of the disease, as he identifies it, known as Christianity, is the synergy in which the individual elements of the Christian faith work together in unison to create a pathogen which spreads throughout and “infects” mankind by means of a series of seven mind games. The subtleness by which these mind games infect, along with the keen interaction of one game with the other, ensures their success, as a whole, as an effective meme complex, or as a means by which ideas survive from one transmission to the next. These mind games, or the genes of the pathogen, which are integral to the spread of the disease, are as follows: The first mind game Bidstrup identifies is the “fantasies that accompany indoctrination.” By this he is referring to the appeal of certain Christian doctrines and the blessings which are said to be bestowed upon the believer, by which a person is emotionally compelled to accept such doctrines as spiritual truth. According to Scripture, men are born blind to spiritual truth and, in effect, dead to God, being unable and unwilling to lift even lift a single finger in a work that is done with the intention of bringing glory to God. Such a state of being is then graciously reversed upon the call of the Holy Spirit, by which blind eyes are opened to the light of truth and the spiritually dead are raised to new life in an everlasting relationship

394

of communion with God, being then made free of the guilt of sin which once held him in slavery to sin. Bidstrup reduces the call of the Spirit to what he calls a mere “warm and fuzzy” feeling by which people are compelled to accept certain concepts as absolute truth, and the conversion of a man from spiritual death to new life is regarded as nothing more than “the result of stimulation of the temporal lobes of the brain.” Bidstrup’s failure in such an analysis is that he regards these warm and fuzzy feelings to be such as would sustain the new believer throughout his entire Christian life. The truth is that the Christian life has its ups and downs. There are moments of triumph and failure, moments of exaltation and persecution. While the end-all result is that of indescribable blessing, the road on which one travels to that point is marked with moments which are characterized by feelings not so warm and fuzzy. The Apostle Paul regarded his own persecution as a cause for joy, being persecuted for Christ’s sake; however, during the many beatings, floggings, and stonings he experienced, the emotion he felt was not likely marked with the warmth and fuzziness that entail Bidstrup’s Christian experience. If one’s conversion experience is marked with feelings of exhilaration, once such feelings fade and the convert is again faced with the tasks and trials of everyday life, it is not the initial emotion which carries his faith; but rather, his hope and trust in a God who sacrificed His all so that man would be spared from condemnation. This is the source of the enduring character of the Christian faith: not that such faith is borne on the wings of physiological responses or electrons stimulating neural reaction; but rather, an enduring hope, a prevailing comfort, and a peace which passes all understanding. It is no wonder that one who has not come into a personal relationship with God is unable to comprehend the depth of spiritual blessings found in the person of Jesus, the Son of God, for they are spiritually discerned. Also, if the promises of God were mere fantasies, as Bidstrup attributes them to be, then there would be no evidence to stand to the veracity of such things. The truth is, there are numerous reasons to believe, not only in a Creator God, but also in a personal Redeemer God. The design of the world around us, the inherent conscience of man, the integrity and reliability of Scripture, and the necessity for a First Cause from which all other causes are caused, are just some of the evidences available to man that the God of the Bible, and the Gospel of Christ, is not a figment of man’s imagination. Bidstrup’s second mind game is the discredit which is attributed by the Christian to anything that is in contradiction to that which he believes. Thus, such concepts as evolution, the fallibility of Scripture, and a fictional Gospel are all regarded to be concepts which are the offspring of sinful men. In so doing, the Christian isolates his beliefs from that which would cause them to fall short of reason or be found lacking in solidarity. The chief means by which this mind game is played out, Bidstrup says, is giving discredit to the world, or to the system of thought which is contrary to the doctrines of Christianity. It is by this method that such things as humanism, atheism, deism, and skepticism are regarded as ways of thinking that are not only in error, but more so are wicked and destructive in and of themselves. For instance, when a nonChristian presents supposed evidence that Jesus was not an historical figure, such evidence is disregarded as being valid, in favor of adherence to the Gospel account of Jesus. Bidstrup goes on to say, “This mind game, of course, short-circuits the intellectual life-cycle of learning that is an important part of mental health. The

395

meme complex deals with this by allowing subsequent learning modification with only approved doctrines and dogma.” In short, Bidstrup’s mentally deficient Christian is pre-programmed, through the meme complex, to accept only that which is in line with Christian doctrine. The truth of the matter is that the doctrines of the Christian faith form a logical and coherent whole. The problem is not that the contemporary church is composed of programmed droids who simply respond to others according to set criteria; but rather, the problem, generally speaking, is a lethargic response by the church to its faith. When a Christian is faced with a world view contrary to his own, he all too often merely looks the other way and continues on his own path, rather than giving a response to the hope that is within him, or else he responds with harsh judgment to those who are speaking from a carnal mind or are, as the catch-phrase goes, “living in sin.” Also, the evangelistic mandate of Christ by which Christians are to be a light in the darkness and a witness to the truth is often replaced by a tendency to remain in a box and separate oneself from those whose lifestyle may not measure up to what he or she considers to be a life that is right with God. All too often, a heathen or a “backslidden” Christian is given an ever-so-righteous slap in the face by fellow believers who judge them according to their words or deeds, rather than reaching to them in sincerity and a genuine attempt to give them aid or respond in kindness. The Christian life must be lived outside the walls of the church, and the modern-day Christian-in-the-box must “work out his salvation,” as the Apostle James states. This working is not the work by which the man is made just in the sight of God, for such work is only accomplished by the shed blood of Christ on the cross. Rather, this work of the Christian is the outpouring or outward manifestation of the change that has already been effected within him by the power of the Holy Spirit. In other words, it is because the Christian is justified before God that he is commanded to walk in truth, as a testament to that which has been granted him. In the Old Testament believers were instructed to offer blood sacrifice to God, and so it was that many an animal was slain on an altar, as an expression of the coming salvation which would be provided by the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, slain for the sin of the world. Now that the sacrifice for sin has been paid once for all by the blood of Christ, believers no longer need offer blood sacrifice to God, but rather are to be a sacrifice themselves – not as a sacrifice slain on an altar, but as a living sacrifice, separated unto God and from the world that Bidstrup describes. However, separation is not equated with isolation, and Christians are to be in the world, but not of the world. Even Jesus associated and socialized with those regarded to be among the worst of the bunch, and for this even He was accused of guilt-by-association by religious leaders who should have instead bowed the knee to Him in reverence. So it is with the Christian life – it is to be lived with respect to non-believers, not in contempt of them; with humility, not prideful selfrighteousness (for it is only by the grace of God that the most noble of Christian does not engage himself in less-than-honorable activities); and considering contrary views, rather than shunning them without first giving them a proper evaluation. The third mind game of which the meme virus makes use is the so-called “distortion” of word meanings so that certain words or concepts assume a meaning to the Christian, different from the meaning that is generally understood by nonChristians. Bidstrup claims this special meaning, as understood by the Christian,

396

reinforces the Christian experience, and leads the person to believe that such an understanding was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit. Bidstrup presents the following words as examples of his premise: Meaning to the non-Christian A state of non-death; being aware

Meaning to the Christian Being in a state of spiritual sensitivity arising out of the state of belief; being saved; being in a state of salvation

Death

A state of not being alive; the endpoint of living

Not being spiritually sensitive; not being saved; not being in a state of salvation

Truth

That which is real and verifiable That which is revealed by the Spirit

Life

Wisdom Understanding that is shown to be correct

The doctrines of the Gospel as revealed by the Spirit

The manner to which Bidstrup attributes strength to this particular mind game is the special understanding that has been imparted to the Christian by virtue of his communion with God, thereby influencing his behavior to fall more in line with what is expected of a Christian, and reinforcing the doctrines and mandates as described in Scripture. The error in such an analysis is two-fold. First, the existential use of these words is not limited to the Christian sphere. Even for the non-Christian, when he experiences a change or event which invigorates him or inspires him to a great degree (such as marriage, the birth of a child, or embarking on an attractive career opportunity), the resulting effect on the person is often described as a new life, not in an ontological sense (as one literally re-created as a new being), but in an experiential sense (as a feeling of renewal or of “starting life over”). Thus, the word “life,” regardless of one’s religious position, can also be used to describe a form of “liveliness” or energy which one feels after a positive turn of life events or circumstances. Both Christians and non-Christians alike use the word to describe the way one feels or reacts to a thing, rather than using the word to refer strictly to the coursing of blood through the veins or the beating of one’s heart. Likewise, the word “death” is commonly used to refer to the lack of invigoration which accompanies times of severe depression, such as that which follows the loss of a loved one, the dissolution of a marriage, or a prolonged state of unemployment. When a person embraces a form of religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or any other form of religion, it is only natural that such words would be applied to the system of thought to which one has turned his perspective. However, in so doing, the convert does not change the meaning of the words; but rather, such meaning is applied to the newly adopted beliefs. For instance, the Christian concept of being “born again” does not entail the invention of a new meaning; but rather, is the application of the term “life” to the change that is effected in the Christian upon his conversion, by which he is spiritually invigorated and able to experience fellowship with God, both in his present existence and in the afterlife. Likewise, the concept of the second

397

death is the application of physical death to the punishment which the non-Christian experiences following the expiration of the body. While the term death is applied to a postmortem existence, such application does not involve an alteration of the meaning of the word itself. Furthermore, “truth” is used by both Christians and non-Christians to describe that which is real (for more on this, I will refer the reader to the discussion concerning Freethought, in Part two). While the perception of reality is different from one system of thought to the next (for instance, Christianity and Islam), the term “truth” is still used to define that which is perceived to be real (of course, what is real is not dependent on one’s perception of reality). Therefore, Bidstrup’s third mind game, which he terms “verbicide,” is clearly no game at all. The only manipulative game here is Bidstrup’s own attempt to create an illusion with which to give credence to his theory that Christianity’s use of words and phrases is a carefully constructed means by which its converts are brainwashed into believing and acting a certain way. Mind game number four of Bidstrup’s meme virus is identified as “an assault on ethical and moral integrity,” by persuading the Christian to hate those who stand as a potential threat to his Christian world view. In so doing, the Christian fails to respond with compassion and understanding to those who find themselves in a moral dilemma or are engaged in destructive behavior. The consequence of such an attitude is that, rather than the person in need receiving a helping hand from the Christian churchgoer, he is booted out the door as one less worthy than he who sits in a pew from one Sunday to the next. Bidstrup furthers his illusion by claiming that Christians conceal such a mindset through a series of code words, thus making use of the previous mind game, replacing the word “hate” with “righteous anger,” or, when the word “hate” is used, it is used to refer to the sin, rather than the sinner, thereby permitting the Christian to feed his animosity by disguising it as an attempt to reinforce certain values. For example, the Christian is encouraged to love a man who beats his wife, but hate his manner of conduct, thereby separating the sin from the sinner and covering one’s actual hatred for the sinner by his claim to merely hate the sin. Bidstrup goes on to portray the Christian as a person who is wrought with an inward struggle to both embrace and deny his hatred for sinners, and is embattled with doubts and attempts to justify such feelings, but to hide such attempts, lest they hinder the faith of other believers or prospective converts. Credit is then given to the “rare” Christian who is able to transcend such a struggle by dissociating himself from Bidstrup's so-called “obvious contradictions” which exist within the mandate which is to govern the Christian's social interaction. It is true that Christians are instructed to reject that which is named in Scripture as sin. It is also true that Christians are to love their neighbor and treat others as they would have others treat them. When asked what is the greatest of the commandments, Jesus replied that the greatest commandment is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul.” He then added that the second commandment, “like unto” the first, is to “love your neighbor as yourself.” “On these two commandments,” He said, “hangs all the law and the prophets.” (paraphrased from Mt 22:35-40 NASB) By referring to the law and prophets, Jesus was referring to the whole of Scripture, for the Jews divided the books known, by Christians, as the Old Testament into these two divisions. In other words, love for God and fellow man is the underlying principle by which the

398

Scripture is to be obeyed and cherished. The mandate to “love your neighbor” is challenged by the inward tendency to do exactly what Bidstrup describes, that is, to regard the sinner as a dreg of society. However, such a struggle is not due to a deficiency in the mandate itself, or a coded instruction to regard the sinner as such; but rather, is due to the natural tendency of man to take pride in oneself. It is all too natural to respond to someone in the depths of a certain behavior which is considered to be a sin as one who is beneath the Christian and to regard his behavior as that in which the Christian would never desire to engage himself. Such an attitude is the result of a failure to keep one’s sight on the grace by which a Christian’s redemption had been secured. Were it not for the grace of God, no one would be considered righteous in God's sight, and every man would have reason to cry, as did Elijah before the presence of the glory of God, “Woe is me, for I am undone!” When a Christian is declared righteous and the sacrifice of Christ, made on his account, is applied to him, the inward transformation that occurs within enables him to transcend the tendency to despise others who represent that which is abhorrent to Christian values, and to regard such a one as a fellow human being created in God’s image, to whom the Christian is to respond with compassion, gentleness, and meekness. This is a challenge which faced even the Apostles, as described in the book of Acts. Peter, regarded as the Apostle to the Jews, was rebuked by Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, for not welcoming Gentile Christians into their congregation and for imposing upon them Jewish practices such as circumcision or not eating meat offered to pagan idols. Paul’s response was that the work of Christ superseded the Law and transcended traditional Jewish expectations. No longer was it required for one to be circumcised, or to adhere to certain Jewish ceremonial practices, in order to be named among the people of God. The legalistic expression of faith, as expressed in the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, was replaced with a freedom by which men and women of all races are now able to enter into an eternal relationship with the King of the Universe, Jesus Christ Himself. However, legalism is the very problem facing many churches today, in that certain expectations are placed upon how another is to lead his or her life. This is the root by which judgmental frames of mind cast a shadow on those who do not meet up to a certain level of expectation. While certain activities are indeed forbidden in Scripture, others are not so much so, yet some Christians turn their own personal application of Scripture into Biblical mandates which they then impose upon others in their estimation of whether or nor someone else is either “right with God” or “backslidden.” The term “backslidden” is a term often used in fundamentalist churches operating from a legalistic frame of mind in which a proper relationship with God, or being “right with God,” is the product of living a good life in obedience to His Word. The result of such a mindset is the tendency to become prideful in one’s own behavior and to regard his or her adherence to a fabricated set of guidelines as a measure of spirituality. This further results in isolation from “the world” and enclosing oneself in a box filled with peers of like mind, thereby more closely resembling a sect rather than a body of orthodox Christians. When a person removes himself from a true expression of Christianity and instead embraces a form of pious spirituality based on self-imposed “Biblical mandates,” it is no wonder that such a one would be embattled by an inward struggle of emotion, and by doubts concerning the veracity of his faith, and even of Scripture itself. The bottom line is that the

399

commission Christ gave to Christians does not end with “go into all the world and preach the Gospel,” but also includes teaching them, admonishing them, encouraging them, forgiving them, and, most of all, loving them. True, Christians are commanded to observe the ordinances of their Heavenly Father and this obedience furthers one's fellowship with God and other believers within his or her community. However, such a disciplined manner of life is not that which makes one “right with God” or justified in His sight, for such a pardon from sin is granted once-for-all by the sacrifice of Christ, whose blood paid the penalty for the sinner's state of transgression. If the Christian's relationship with God is based on one's actions or reactions, then it must be asked how many good deeds or thoughts does one need to commit before one becomes right with God? Or, how many sins, great or small, does a pious believer need to commit before he loses his favorable status with God? The truth is that no one is absolutely right with God in experiential terms, that is to say, in one's manner of conduct. Every Christian, from the one caught in the dregs of addiction to the one who strives so hard to always do the right thing, is one who walks through this life with desires not in accordance with God's statutes, yet despite these desires and the sins into which they lead at times, the blessed truth is that nothing can ever sever the relationship formed by God, not by the believer, between the Great Shepherd and His sheep. Regardless of how distant the fellowship is between the believer and His Savior, the prodigal son will always be called back home and embraced with love by His Father. Bidstrup’s fifth mind game is that by which the Christian dissociates himself from the reality around him and becomes utterly shrouded within a cocoon in which he is able to live according to the fantasy that is provided for him by the doctrines which he or she holds so dear. This is closely related to Bidstrup’s previous mind game, in that scientific evidence and rational conclusions are rejected (or so he claims) in order to better cling to the illusion that is the Christian experience. This illusion, he says, denies that which is real in favor of that which is described in Scripture concerning the world in which he lives. Consequently, so-called scientific evidence for evolution is rejected in favor of a creationist view, and logic, reason, and openmindedness is replaced with blind submission to Jesus and with a world view characterized by tunnel vision, in that everything is viewed through the lens of Scripture. Bidstrup’s analysis then assumes an even more ludicrous character when he suggests that the human libido is that which “drives one on to ‘higher states’ of ‘love’ of the gospel and one's understanding of God, even to the extent that one does not even have sexual temptation of a more earthly kind. This kind of tension requires almost constant mind control, a state few are able to achieve. But achieving it is considered necessary by many evangelicals for complete ‘submission’ to Jesus.” Concerning the relation between truth and reality, I will again refer the reader to the section concerning Freethought in Part two, and will here merely address the relationship between faith and reason, a relationship which, in Bidstrup’s analysis, is reduced to a fabricated means of giving validity to a faith which is nothing more than a human contrivance. There are many evidences for the Christian faith – evidences concerned with the integrity of Scripture, the historicity of Jesus, the existence of God, the rationality of miracles, the deity of Christ … just to name some of the areas of apologetics. Christianity is, first and foremost, a form of faith. Yet, it

400

is not a faith which is held to blindly and without reason. It is through faith alone that Christians are saved, but is not through faith alone that Christians live. Christians are called to reason together amongst themselves and to give an answer for the hope that is within them. (1 Pet 3:15) Following Jesus’ resurrection, when He appeared to Thomas, He did not merely stand before Thomas and tell him to “believe it or not.” Rather, He compelled Thomas to touch the wound in His side, pierced by a spear, and the nail prints in His hands, and to conclude, based on empirical evidence, that Thomas’ Master had indeed risen from the dead. (Jn 20:27) Likewise, the Apostles, when preaching the Gospel, did not merely deliver an evangelistic message then walk away if the prospective converts did not heed their words. Rather, they opened the Scriptures and reasoned from them that Jesus was in fact the Messiah sent from God. (Acts 17:2) The logic and reason by which Christianity is held as a valid system of belief and a proper world view is not the product of the mind control or brainwashing described by Bidstrup. The Christian, rather than walling himself up in a cocoon, in denial of so-called evidence contrary to his faith, is well-equipped with many infallible proofs, as were the disciples of Jesus following His resurrection, (Acts 1:3) concerning the veracity of his faith. I will not repeat myself here by discussing evidences discussed elsewhere throughout this book, but will simply make the claim, based on the evidences described herein (and others which space will not permit me to address at this juncture) that true Christianity represents a perspective on the world as it is, rather than a faulty interpretation of reality, and it is such solid proof which establishes the Christian faith as the one, true expression of the relationship between God and man. The sixth mind game of the meme virus is the “burning of bridges,” or the working by which the Christian is brought to the point of no return. Thus, even second thoughts and regrets prevent the Christian from abandoning his newfound faith. Bidstrup paints a biased picture of a Christian who cleverly lures converts to his way of thinking, through the putting on of a friendly and caring persona, and by pretending to listen to objections with an open ear, all the while carefully filtering out any idea presented by the convert which is in opposition to the evangelistic message. In so doing, Bidstrup explains, the Christian evangelist engages himself in a dishonest act, by pretending to be open-minded to objections, while really devising responses by which such objections will be overcome, thereby “lying for Jesus” in favor of “the higher good of ‘bringing in the harvest.’” Once the subject is converted to the Christian faith, Bidstrup says, “... the tool of fear is imposed to make the believer fear that if he should reject the doctrine, he would have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, and in so doing would be consigned to hell forever and ever.” Likewise, the convert is admonished to stay away from false prophets, or those who would preach that which is contrary to the Gospel. In so doing, the convert is carefully guarded and kept inside the circle of trust, in which his faith is fueled by Christian mentors and elders to whom the Spirit of God has imparted better understanding of the Scriptures, thus keeping the convert from becoming a sheepgone-astray. Bidstrup’s portrayal of the dumbed-down Christian is exactly opposite of the frame of mind that Scripture instructs Christians to adopt. Christians are not to sit idly by in a pew as a sponge which absorbs whatever is propounded from behind the pulpit. It is these ones who are most prone to radical fundamentalism or apostasy,

401

forsaking their faith in favor of another system of belief in God, even going to far as to embrace atheism. The Apostle Paul admonished fellow believers against this very mindset, when he instructed them not to be as babes, seeking mere milk, but to be diligent in their faith, seeking the “meat” of the Word (1 Cor 3:1-3, Heb 5:12-13). Christians are to be separate from the world, but not isolated from it. Non-Christian world views are not to be judgmentally cast aside; but rather, discussed and evaluated according to what the Christian knows to be true. For the critic, such a frame of mind is considered close-minded, when it is simply an evaluation of a theory against a standard of truth, a standard which is different from the opposing standard by which the critic draws his own conclusions. A person, regardless of his faith, must come to understand why it is he believes the things he does, because if he fails to do so, it is all too easy to distance himself from such a belief system and come to regard his faith as invalid. This can further lead to the individual becoming beset by apathy and living a life characterized by hypocrisy, in which he acts properly in front of fellow believers, but in secret engages himself in practices which are contrary to the values propounded by his faith. The final mind game of Bidstrup’s meme virus is, quite simply, fear. The Christian is taught that if he steps off the path set for him, by engaging in worldly practices, that he will be met with negative consequences. It is true that God demands His people to walk in righteousness, and it is also true that God chastises His people, not as an unloving tyrant, but as a father seeking to return a prodigal son to the safety of the home, or as a shepherd seeking to bring a wandering sheep back into the fold. Also, the motivation behind true Christian behavior is not fear; but rather, is love. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” (Jn 14:15). Christians are not divinely-appointed drones, sent to merely do God's bidding – or else! Rather, Christians are the adopted children of God, and it is this father-child relationship which characterizes the relationship between God and His people. Such is the working of Bidstrup’s meme virus. These seven mind games work together, according to his theorizing, to further the success of Christianity as one of the world’s most widely-accepted religions. The proposed results of such a meme virus in action is that the Christian is so assured in his faith that he sees no need to examine the tenants further in order to determine the veracity of his beliefs. However, as stated above, such a lethargic approach by a Christian to his faith is not at all what is expressed in Scripture. Bidstrup concludes by claiming Christianity was “accidentally” created by Jews who sought to protect their religion from Roman oppression, but such an analysis fails to consider that the person of Jesus of Nazareth is not the type of Messiah the Jews would have invented (for more on this point, see Part five), nor does it account for the success of Christianity, especially amidst severe persecution during its infant stage. Of course, Bidtsrup would appeal to his meme virus as the “clear” means of this success, but the tenants of his formula have been deconstructed point-by-point above and have been shown to fall under scrutiny. Scott Bidstrup has creatively fabricated a religious experience that is far from describing what it is to be a Christian. His cleverly-fashioned meme virus is based, through and through, on a misunderstanding of Biblical concepts. In short, he gets points for creativity, but his analysis leaves much to be desired.

402

Note: Many of the references in this section will have emphasis added, and all such emphasis is added by the present writer. “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” ~ The Westminster Shorter Catechism How is Jesus distinct from these other so-called “virgin-born, resurrected saviors?” This section will discuss the superiority of Christ over pagan deities. In his book The Knowledge of the Holy, A. W. Tozer opens his first chapter by saying, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”1 Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher, once said, “… let me seek thee in longing, let me long for thee in seeking; let me find thee in love, and love thee in finding.”2 The pursuit of God is a journey which rewards everyone who embarks on such a quest, provided that the seeker sets sail with a heart longing for the truth. Ravi Zacharias, reflecting on his conversion to Christianity, states, “I came to Him because I did not know which way to turn. I have remained with Him because there is no other way I wish to turn. I came to Him longing for something I did not have. I remain with Him because I have something I will not trade. I came to Him as a stranger. I remain with Him in the most intimate of friendships. I came to Him unsure about the future. I remain with Him certain about my destiny.”3

I. The Son of God is one with the Father and the Spirit A proper discussion on the person of Jesus the Messiah must address the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly stated, the Trinity refers to the three-fold nature of God, as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three exist not as three separate beings, but as one being with three persons. Each person is as much God as the others, each possessing the fullness of all the attributes, or inherent qualities, of God. The Trinity does not refer to a hierarchy of deities, although the Son is said to have been “begotten” of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is said to be “sent” by the Son. Such descriptions refer to a purpose (that is, their role in God’s work of redemption) rather than denoting a state of inferiority either in essence or being. There is one God Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Isa 43:10) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (Jas 2:19) God is a spirit God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Jn 4:24) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2 Cor 3:17)

404

There are passages in Scripture which refer to God as having physical characteristics, such as hands or a face. Such depictions are known as anthropomorphisms, the application of human qualities to a non-human thing or being, as in Isaiah 31:3, where it is stated, “…the LORD shall stretch out his hand.” God is a being whose nature is so far above human understanding, that He uses such language in order to make Himself known to the finite human mind in ways which we would not otherwise be able to comprehend. God is a person and performs functions in accordance with personality He thinks and possesses knowledge O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. (Ps 139:1) I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer 17:10) He formulates plans So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isa 55:11) And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Rom 8:28) He has emotions The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee. (Jer 31:3) Thus shall mine anger be accomplished, and I will cause my fury to rest upon them, and I will be comforted: and they shall know that I the LORD have spoken it in my zeal, when I have accomplished my fury in them. (Ez 5:13) Nevertheless for thy great mercies’ sake thou didst not utterly consume them, nor forsake them; for thou art a gracious and merciful God. (Neh 9:31) He interacts with others And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey. (Ex 3:7-8) Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. (Ps 91:14)

405

He is actively working O LORD, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. (Ps 104:24) For the LORD thy God hath blessed thee in all the works of thy hand: he knoweth thy walking through this great wilderness: these forty years the LORD thy God hath been with thee; thou hast lacked nothing. (Deut 2:7) And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: (Dan 2:21) God is more than one person And God said, Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26) Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. (Gen 11:7) The word translated “God” in the above two passages is the Hebrew word “Elohim,” which is the plural form of the word El and is the name of God as the Creator and Judge of the universe. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Ps 110:1) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [meaning “God with us”]. (Isa 7:14) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6) Here, a prophecy foretelling the birth of Christ, the Son of God, identifies Him as God. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Jer 23:5-6) Again, here is a prophecy concerning Christ, in which the Lord (God the Father) declares that Christ (God the Son) is “Lord.” God is identified as three persons Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Mt 28:19) Note that the three designations (Father, Son, and Spirit) are identified as having one name, not three different names.

406

And Jesus [the Son of God], when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice [God the Father] from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Mt 3:16) And the angel answered and said unto [Mary], The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest [God the Father] shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Lk 1:35) But when the Comforter {the Spirit of God] is come, whom I [Jesus, the Son of God] will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. (Jn 15:26} The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. (2 Cor 13:14) The mention of the three persons of the Trinity was a common salutation among the early Christians, as shown in many of the letters comprising the New Testament books. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word [identified as Jesus; cf. Jn 1:1], and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.(1 Jn 5:7) Each of the three persons of the Godhead does the work of God Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Pet 1:2) If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (Jn 14.15-23) Each person of the Godhead was involved in the creation of the universe Concerning the Father And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7)

407

I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. (Ps 102:24-25) Concerning the Son All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (Jn 1.3) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. (Col 1.16) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. (Heb 1.2) Concerning the Holy Spirit And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2) The Hebrew word used here for “moved” means to “to brood” and carries the connotation of a nurturing hen warming the eggs from which her offspring would come forth. The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. (Job 33:4) None of the divine persons are inferior to another, but are each equal in essence and authority The Son is not inferior to the Father But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. … For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. … For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent him. (Jn 5:17-18, 20, 22-23) I [Christ] and my Father are one. (Jn 10:30) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom 9:5) For in [Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col 2:9)

408

The totality of the essence of the Godhead was contained in the human body fashioned for Jesus Question: How are the following two passages reconciled if the Son is not inferior to the Father? I [Christ] and my Father are one. (Jn 10:30) Ye have heard how I [Christ] said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (Jn 14.28) Christianity has historically recognized a distinction between the relationships of the divine persons of the Trinity, in differentiating between their essence and their work. In regards to the essence of God, His persons are ontologically equal; that is, each is equal in His being or equal with regards to who each one is in essence or nature. However, the persons of the Godhead may be subordinate one to another in relation to their work or modes of operation, thus making the Son economically subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit, economically subordinate to the Son, while each remains ontologically equal to the other persons. Thus, the Son is sent by the Father, who is equal in essence to the Son, and the Spirit is sent by the Son, who is equal in essence to the Spirit. While there does not exist a hierarchy within the Godhead, there does exist an order of authority by which the works of each person are accomplished. The Spirit is not inferior to the Son And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man [Christ], it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Mt 12:32) Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Pet 1:2) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Pet 3:18) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (Jn 15:26)

409

Some special considerations What is meant by “person?” These three persons of the Godhead are not merely three facets of one personality. Christians speak of God as being three persons, but personality, when attributed to God, is not like the personality attributed to a human being. A “person” is defined as an individual, and individuality cannot properly be attributed to the persons within the Godhead, for not one of the three divine persons exist separately from the others. God is not three separate persons, but three distinctions within one being. The description of God as three persons is the result of an attempt by the human mind to understand that which a finite mind cannot understand. God is so above even our highest of thoughts; therefore, in understanding who God is, we need to think of Him in ways which we can comprehend, yet in ways which cannot fully and most properly describe His essence. Each member of the Godhead possesses qualities inherent in personality, such as mind, emotion, and will, and while each are referred to by the use of individual pronouns (I, You, He), each member is not to be thought of as an separate individual. The illness known as schizophrenia is described as the presence of more than one personality within a single human mind, in which more than one personality exists within one person, and each personality has its own interests, passions, temperament, and will – which may or may not be in harmony with those of another personality within the same mind. Any understanding of the Trinity must not be likened to such a condition. In the case of the illness, the personalities do not act or think in concurrence with one another, nor do they often converse with one another. When conversation does occur, the personalities in conversation shift in and out of existence depending on which personality is speaking at the time. Typically, each personality is unaware of the presence of the other personalities contained within the same mind. However, the persons of the Godhead are aware of each other, converse with one another, and work with one another, and this they do in perfect unison, one never opposing or challenging the other. Additionally, the conversation among the Godhead is very much unlike the dialogue which occurs between humans. As A. W. Tozer explains, “the persons of the Godhead do not speak in time, but in immediate communion which knows not sound, effect, or motion.”4 It is proper to say that the members of the Godhead are both separate and inseparable; that each is self-existent, yet inherently united in being with the others; that each operate in a personal manner, yet in unison and conjunction with the whole of the Godhead. Ultimately, man cannot understand who God is, but he can try to come to an understanding, and in the trying he comes to find that the divine union is so much greater than he will ever comprehend, and it is this vast gulf between divinity and humanity which is most impressive and compulsive to the seeker of truth. That is the mystery of the Godhead: that such a one would not only be concerned with and interested in such lowly a creature as man, but that He would pour all of His love and affection on man, take on such a lowly form as man, and shed His own blood so that those who would otherwise surely perish would be blessed with everlasting life.

410

Is Christianity to be considered monotheistic or polytheistic? Monotheistic religion is a religion which recognizes one deity, whereas polytheistic religion recognizes more than one deity. Many world mythologies, such as Rome and Greece, contain a pantheon of gods and goddesses, and these deities sire offspring who become deities themselves. Christianity is a strictly monotheistic religion, despite its recognition of a three-fold Godhead, since the persons of the Trinity comprise a single supreme being. The Father is God, not a god; the Son is God, not a god; and the Spirit is God, not a god. How can a father and a son be one and the same? In answering this question, it must first be considered what is meant by sonship, in relation to Christ. For the ancient Hebrew, to be a “son of” another meant to be “of the order of” that one. Thus, in the first book of Kings (20:35) it is said that “a certain man of the sons of the prophets [denoting similarity of office, not lineage or biological relation] said unto his fellow by the word of Jehovah, Smite me, I pray thee.” The term “son of God” is used in Scripture as a reference to both men and angels. Both sonship and fatherhood carried more than a genealogical meaning to the ancient mind, for it also denoted similarity or sameness in nature or being. In Isaiah, the coming Messiah, the Son of God, is also named as the “Everlasting Father,” denoting His eternal nature – that He is one with eternity; that He is the Eternal Father; that He and eternity are inseparable. Christ, as the only “Son of God,” is one who shares the nature of God, in a full and complete sense, unlike men, who merely bear God's image or likeness in a greatly diminished sense. In the same fashion, Christ is also named as the “Son of Man,” in that He “took on the likeness of sinful flesh” and “was tempted in all points as are we,” as stated by the apostle Paul. If the terms Son of God and Son of Man referred to a relationship consisting of actual physical and ontological, or real, generation or procession, then one relationship would of necessity negate the other, since no person physically born of one being can rightly be said to have been born of another being in addition. In the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, sonship does not denote inferiority to fatherhood, but oneness with fatherhood, since the Son shares in the essence and being of His Father. In referring to Jesus as the Son of God, Scripture is not identifying Him as one sired of God, as Perseus was sired of Zeus. His sonship with the Father does not make Christ the Father's offspring, since sonship is not a quality the second Person of the Trinity assumed when He was conceived in Mary's womb. Christ never became the Son of God; rather, He always was the Son of God, by virtue of His eternal, unchanging nature and oneness with the Father. When He was sent to this world and assumed mortal flesh, He was sent as one who had always been God's Son. Likewise, since He has eternally been the Son of God, or one who shared in the divine nature, the Father has eternally been Christ's Father. Eternal sonship is eternally united with eternal fatherhood.

411

If Christ's sonship to the Father is eternal, why is He referred to as firstborn and begotten? Christ is referred to as God's “only begotten Son” in the following passages: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (Jn 1:14) No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn 3:16-18) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (I Jn 4:9) In Word Meanings in the New Testament, Ralph Earle states that the oldest Greek manuscripts of John 1:14 read monogenes theos, literally “only begotten God,”5 a clear reference to Christ's deity. The book of Hebrews also uses the word monogenes (“only begotten”) in reference to Isaac, the son of Abraham. By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son. (Heb 11:17) Abraham was the father of both Isaac and Ishmael, so Isaac was not literally his “only begotten” son. Isaac was also the younger of the two sons. Thus, Isaac was neither the “only begotten” nor “firstborn” of Abraham. The significance of Isaac is that he was the child of promise. Isaac was the son through whom God's promise was fulfilled to Abraham. As such, Isaac became Abraham's heir, not because he was the oldest of Abraham's sons, but because he was the son selected to be heir. Christ is the only begotten of God in that He was the promised Messiah, and through Him alone does salvation come to God's elect. In the following passages, Christ is said to be “Firstborn”: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. (Col 1:15) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Col 1:18)

412

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Heb 1:5-6) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead. (Rev 1:5) In ancient times, the identification of a child being “firstborn” was not strictly a reference to birth order; but rather, to the child's position as heir to his father's inheritance. Even if a son was an only child, he was still referred to as firstborn, since he was his father's heir. At times, when there were two or more sons born in a family, the oldest son would not be considered “firstborn” if he was not the one to whom was granted the father's inheritance. The “firstborn” was the father's heir by virtue of His father's selection, not by virtue of an earlier date of birth. Ralph Earle, in the work cited above, states that the word translated “firstborn” in Colossians (1:15) is prototokos, which “suggests both priority and supremacy,”6 rather than a temporal point of origin. In naming Christ as the firstborn of every creature, Scripture is not saying that Christ was the first created being, created before anything else. The apostle Paul stated that Christ possessed the fullness of the Godhead, which includes eternality, and thereby negates any notion of a point of origin for such a being. Rather, the point is that Christ existed before creation, not existing as one who had previously been created, but as one who had always existed, as the uncreated Creator of all things. However, although the Son is equal with the Father in nature, it has pleased the Father to grant supremacy to the Son, and in this sense, the Son is the heir, as a firstborn, of all creation. Later in Colossians (1:18) and in Revelation, Christ is named as “firstborn” and “first begotten” of the dead. This does not mean that He was the first person to ever have experienced a resurrection, for others had been resurrected before Him, by the prophet Elijah and also by Christ Himself, in the case of Lazarus. These resurrections were unlike that of Christ, and the distinctions will be discussed later in this work. Here, it only need be said that the references to Christ as “firstborn of the dead” is a reference to His preeminence over all things. He is “firstborn” (KJV) in order that he “might have supremacy” (NIV) or “have first place” (NASB). The references to Christ being firstborn of creation, of angels, or of the dead are declarations that He is supreme and that to Him has been granted the highest position of all. The broader context of the passage in Hebrews, below, illustrates that Christ's identification as “firstborn” and “first begotten” is directly related to His inheritance and elevation as the Son of God. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

413

when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Heb 1:1-6) It is because of this supremacy, or His status as firstborn or heir of all things, that it can be said that the Father “hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:9-11) A note on Horus and Osiris In her booklet The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist Part 1, D. M. Murdock states, “As we explore the original Egyptian mythos and ritual upon which much of Christianity was evidently founded, it needs to be kept in mind that the gods Osiris and Horus in particular were frequently interchangeable and combined, as in 'I and the Father are one.' (Jn 10:30) In fact, as part of the mythos, Osiris was "re-born under the form of Horus," as we have seen.”7 In the Egyptian myth, Horus and Osiris are father and son, but they are not one being. Horus was born by Isis after she was impregnated by the post-mortem Osiris, as detailed in Part one of this book. Prior to this birth, Horus did not exist, and he was born as a figure who was separate from Osiris. A mere perusal of the Horus myth will denounce any suggested correlation between the relationship of Horus to his father and the relationship of Jesus to His Father. In addition, the phrase “I and my father are one,” or any alternate form thereof, is not stated in the Horus myth. In later mythology, Horus and Osiris were indeed merged, but this was a common practice to merge one deity with another as religious beliefs evolved. At times, a deity from one pantheon, such as Egyptian, would be merged with a deity belonging to another pantheon altogether, such as Grecian. Such a merger was not due to any pre-existing relationship between the two figures; but rather, to a change in the deities' personages or representations. Within pagan mythology, Egyptian or otherwise, a deity commonly undergoes alterations. Sometimes this constitutes a change in form, a change in symbolism and representation, a change in worship, and a change in name. No such alteration can be said of Jesus of Nazareth, since the Gospel of Christ does not change. What was taught by Jesus and His disciples is still taught today by those who believe in Him. Whereas a pagan deity may change from one age to the next, Jesus has always been, and will forever be, the eternal Son of God the Father.

414

II. The Son of God possesses the essence of God The essence or nature of God is that which completely separates God from man. It is those qualities of being which find no reflection or similarity in human nature or in the image of God placed within mankind. As distinguished from other characteristics describing how He is (such as faithfulness, justice, mercy, wisdom, etc), His essential qualities define what He is, and what He is alone, for it is these qualities of being which can be said of none other but the persons of the Godhead. As the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God is in possession of all that is essential to the nature of God; therefore, all that can be said of God the Father can also be said of the Son and the Spirit. God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb 1:1-3) Infinitude To say that God is infinite is to say that He is without limit. This limitless nature of God refers not just to space or His all-encompassing presence. He is without limit not only in terms of where He is, but also who He is. Since He is merciful, His mercy is without limit; since He is just, His justice is without limit; since He is love, His love is without limit. The infinitude of God is a trait which marks every facet of His being. It may be asked, if God's mercy is infinite, then why is anyone condemned? Why does God, in His infinite mercy, not grant His mercy to every sinner? When God gives mercy, He gives it infinitely, but the giving of His mercy does not extend to everyone – nor should it, since mercy, by definition, is given without obligation. Only God is infinite. In our own experience, we speak of things as being of an infinite nature, or without measure or limit – such as referring to the most wealthy as having “infinite wealth” or the most charitable as possessing “infinite compassion.” There is a difference between declaring a thing to be infinite as opposed to a thing merely possessing that which is great or large in measure. We speak of the universe as being without measure, yet even the cosmos cannot extend infinitely, for then the cosmos would be as infinite as God. Space itself is within God, rather than being that which God occupies. Mathematics speaks of numbers as continuing on for infinity, but numerology is merely a way of calculating or measuring that which is of a finite nature. The idea that anything other than God can be unlimited is to deny the fact that everything in the material world can have something more added to its measure. Christian churches sing songs of worship to the greatness of God, and it is this greatness which characterizes everything about God. He never was any less and will never be any more God than He is now. He is infinite in His knowledge, in His power, in every aspect of His Being, and so it has always been and forever more will be.

415

But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built! (2 Chr 6:18) Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable. (Ps 145:3) For in him we live, and move, and have our being. (Acts 17:28) Immutability The immutability of God refers to the unchanging character of His being. As He was in ages past, so will He be in the ages to come. Growth and development can in no sense be attributed to God. He cannot be any better than He always has been, for any betterment of God would be His elevation to a standard higher than Himself. According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, change can be transitive (that being, a shift or exchange in movement, position, or direction) or intransitive (to become different or transformed either inwardly or outwardly). Since God is present everywhere, He cannot change in position, since His purpose and determination is sure, He cannot change in direction or desire; and since nothing can be added to or detracted from God, He cannot change in essence or being. As A. W. Tozer states, “Only a being composed of parts can change, for change is basically a shift in the relation of the parts to the whole or the admission of some foreign element into the original composition. Since God is self-existent, He is not composed.”1 Additionally, the Christian philosopher Anselm explains, “Whatever is composed of parts is not altogether one, but is in some sort plural. And diverse from itself; and either in fact or in concept is capable of dissolution. But these things are alien to Thee, than whom nothing better can be conceived of. Hence, there are no parts in Thee Lord, nor art Thou more than one. But Thou art so truly a unitary Being, and so identical with Thyself, that in no respect art Thou unlike Thyself; rather Thou art unity itself, indivisible by any conception.”2 Even the redemptive process of God did not change from the Old to the New Testaments. Men are justified in both ages by grace through faith alone, not through any keeping of Old Testament Law. The revelation of God's redemptive plan was increased over time, but the plan itself remained constant. The God known by Abraham is as gracious, as just, as loving as the God known today. God operates within a world full of change and history, but He has been and always will remain unchanged in being and purpose. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (Heb 1:17) Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil. (Heb 6:17-19)

416

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Heb 13:8) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (Jas 1:17) It is the immutability, or unchangeableness, of God, which secures His covenant with man. As God does not change in His being, neither does He change in His purpose; therefore, He will never renege on or alter His covenant. God’s covenant is between God and man, but the covenant is not with man. The covenant that God made was between Himself, in the Father sending the Son to pay the penalty for the sin of man. The book of Hebrews recounts the instance described in Genesis chapter fifteen where God establishes His covenant with He and Abraham. The writer of Hebrews describes God as swearing, or covenanting, by Himself, not by, or between, Abraham. Since God’s oath to redeem His people is carried out by God Himself, the fulfillment of that covenant is solely dependent on God’s working. Men change and break promises daily, yet God’s word is sure, as He never changes in His purpose and never speaks a word that is untrue. For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he swore by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil. (Heb 6:13-19) Transcendence: The transcendence of God is that quality of His Being which exalts Him above all else. He is above everything, not in terms of place or location (for His presence is infinite), but in His quality of being. Since He is infinitely transcendent, He is as exalted above man as He is above even the lowest, most unintelligent of creatures, since the essence of His being is infinitely above any thing which is not God, be it man, beast, insect, or plant. Since God is transcendent above all, He is incomprehensible by any other being. Man cannot understand or comprehend God, however, God delights in making Himself known to the extent that man can understand Him. Hence, God has revealed Himself to man through nature, through the human conscience, through His written Word, and through the person of Christ, in whom resides the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. God cannot be understood, but He can be known to the extent that He is knowable by a finite mind

417

and by those whose existence is shaped by boundaries and limits which have no application to the Godhead. Any attempt to know God is a true attempt at “thinking outside the box” and contemplating that of which we have no points of reference. As stated earlier, those who seek God will find Him, but any discovery of God is an awakening to how much there is yet to know about Him. God will make Himself known to the seeker, and in the knowing will the seeker discover just how awesome our God really is. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. (Eph 1:19-23) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:6) Self-existence The self-existence of God declares that He exists of His own power. He exists because He desires and enables Himself to exist. This is not to say that God created Himself, for if He had a point of beginning, then He would not be eternal. Likewise, He cannot cause His existence to cease. His existence is not conditioned on anything outside of Himself. God desires man's devotion, but He has no need for such, and the devotion of His elect is guaranteed by the irresistible call of His Spirit and the change of affection the Spirit brings about in those whom God redeems. God has no want that He has not willed upon Himself and that He has not of His own power guaranteed will be fulfilled. Even if the universe would disappear into nothingness, God would still exist in the same capacity as He always has existed, since His relationship to creation is due to His desire to have such a relationship, not a need for such a relationship. He does not need man's belief in Him, either as Creator or Redeemer, and the disbelief of the atheist does not detract from God being. As Tozer states, “God exists for Himself, and man for the glory of God. He alone trusts in Himself.”3 As each Member of the Godhead is self-existent, this means that Christ existed before His human birth (His pre-existence will be dealt with later). For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. (Jn 5:26) As the Creator, He must be uncreated. He is the uncaused First Cause. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. (Jn 1:3)

418

for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him. (Col 1:16) hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (Heb 1:2) For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself: (Jn 5:26) Eternality God is eternal, without beginning or end. He always existed and He always will exist. He operates in time – in human history, but exists outside of time, for even time itself was created by God. Genesis declares that God created the heavens and the earth “in the beginning.” It is this beginning which set time in motion. Prior to this beginning there was nothing apart from God Himself, for only He is self-existent and without origin. Prior to the beginning of creation, there was no such thing as “once upon a time,” for there was not yet any time upon which a thing could rest, nor was there any thing which could exist outside of time, having no beginning in and of itself. All things apart from God have a beginning, for all things apart from God is eternal, and the beginning of any thing is owed to the one in whom all things began in the past, begins in the present, and will originate in the future. A popular image of God, even in Christian literature and art, is that of an elderly being with long white hair and a long white beard, but such image bears no relation at all to the true God, for He is a spirit being, who knows neither age nor maturation. God exists outside of time, not in the past, not in the present, and not in the future, for such an existence would place that which is eternal and unchanging into that which is temporal and successive. God exists in eternity, that which has no beginning and end. Since He is eternal, existing apart from time, none of His actions can properly be said to be done before or after another. God created time as a means by which the movements, activity, and processes of the created universe are measured, but God Himself did not enter into time and bind Himself within such an existence. As Tozer states, “God dwells in eternity, but time dwells in God.”4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who

419

were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. (Jn 1:1-14) He is before all things, and in him all things consist. (Col 1:17) … Who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal. (2 Tim 1:9) ... but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands: They shall perish; but thou continuest: And they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up, As a garment, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail. (Heb 1:8-12) Omnipresent (everywhere present) Since God is infinitely present, the presence of God is that which cannot be contained by any boundary or pinpointed to any location. God is “above” man, but He is transcendently above, not presently above. Such terms refer to His elevation of being, not to a place of being, such as in heaven. God is everywhere. As Hildebert of Lavardin (c.1055–1133 A.D.), Archbishop of Tours, declared, “God is over all things, under all things; outside all; within but not enclosed; without but not excluded; above but not raised up; below but not depressed, wholly above, presiding; wholly beneath, sustaining; wholly within, filling.”5 Although Scripture speaks of God as being near and distant to one thing or another, God cannot be properly thought of as being near to or distant from any thing, for His presence fills all things. Such depictions are ways in which God communicates Himself to man, in a similar fashion as someone may say that a distant loved-one is ”near” to them, in thought and devotion. God fills all space, but all space does not fill God, for space itself cannot be infinite. Space, by definition, must have boundaries, and God's presence is without any such bounds. He occupies all space, but extends infinitely beyond all space. Also, in saying that God is in all things or that He fills all things, is not to attribute deity to anything other than God. And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven. (Jn 3:13) Here, Jesus declares that He, the Son of Man, was in heaven at the same time that He was walking in bodily form on earth. ... and he [the Father] put all things in subjection under his [Christ's] feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. (Eph 1:22-23)

420

He [Christ] that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. (Eph 4:10) Omniscient (all-knowing) God knows all things. The knowledge which He has of all things is infinitely perfect and complete, and this knowledge has been His throughout all eternity, for there is not a thing which He does not know that He has not always known. God does not gain knowledge; but rather, it is His by virtue of His being. A thought has never entered into the divine mind, for each thought has been there throughout eternally. As there is no thought which exists outside His mind, and which has not eternally existed within His mind. God is not a being who is capable of learning. If God could learn or gain a new thought, He would not be God, as His knowledge would not be infinite. There is not a thing which God knows that is known by Him any better than He knows another thing, since His knowledge of all things is infinite. He knows every thing to the fullest extent that it can be known. Scripture speaks of the foreknowledge of God, but this is not to say that His knowledge is acquired or based on observation. He has no heavenly crystal ball through which He observes the goings-on of mankind, and His determinations are not a result of what He “foreknew” man would do, for no one can do anything that has not first been ordained by God. Mankind is not an autonomous body of creatures–we cannot function on our own apart from the person of Christ, in whom all things “live, move, and have their being.” (Acts 17:28) The foreknowledge of God is the eternal knowledge of God as understood by the finite mind. He knows what I will do tomorrow, not because He has foreseen tomorrow, but because He exists within tomorrow, and within the day after, and the day after that. He is eternal, His knowledge is eternal, and His knowledge is infinite, yet the happenings of history occur outside of eternity and within the succession of time as it was set in motion by God “in the beginning.” There are also instances in Scripture where God is described as asking questions to people, as in the Garden of Eden when God inquires concerning Adam's whereabouts following his sin. Such questions are not for lack of knowledge on the part of God – He knew exactly where Adam was and why he was hiding from God; but rather, are presented for the purpose of calling man to action. The questions asked by God in Scripture are not for want of knowledge, but are merely the manner in which He chose to conduct Himself in His dealings with man. He knows the thoughts of man And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? (Mt 9:4) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. (Jn 6:64) And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? (Mk 2:8)

421

Nathaniel saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. (Jn 1:48) But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man. (Jn 2:24-25) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen. (Acts 1:24) Wherefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall each man have his praise from God. (1 Cor 4:5) And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like a flame of fire, and his feet are like unto burnished brass: I know thy works, and thy love and faith and ministry and patience, and that thy last works are more than the first. But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of her fornication. Behold, I cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of her works. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto each one of you according to your works. (Rev 2:18-23) He knows things a finite mind cannot know And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house whereinto he goeth. (Lk 22:10) The woman answered and said unto him, I have no husband. Jesus saith unto her, Thou saidst well, I have no husband: for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: this hast thou said truly. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. (Jn 4:17-19) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. (Jn 6:64) And when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Put out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. And Simon answered and said, Master, we toiled all night, and took nothing: but at thy word I will let down the nets. And when they had done this, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes; and their nets were breaking. (Lk 5:4-6)

422

And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his coat about him (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from the land, but about two hundred cubits off), dragging the net full of fishes. So when they got out upon the land, they see a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now taken. (Jn 21:6-10) But, lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. (Mt 17:27) These things spake he: and after this he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. (Jn 11:11) Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon him, went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye? (Jn 18:4) And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and came unto Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. (Mt 21:1-2) He possessed an intimate knowledge of the Godhead All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. (Mt 11:27) I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me. (Jn 7:29) Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God; and ye have not known him: but I know him; and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his word. (Jn 8:54-55) I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep (Jn 10:14-15) O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me. (Jn 17:25) He knows all things Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. (Jn 16:30)

423

He saith unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. (Jn 21:17) For I would have you know how greatly I strive for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; that their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, that they may know the mystery of God, even Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden. (Col 2:1-3) Question: What of the mention in Scripture that the incarnate Son of God grew in wisdom? When Jesus was but a youth, Scripture describes Him as advancing in wisdom. Luke also gives an account of the twelve year-old Jesus asking questions of the teachers in the Temple in Jerusalem. In His adulthood, it is recorded that He asked questions because He lacked the answer. And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (Lk 2:52) And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. (Lk 2:46-47) He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat? He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes. (Mk 6:37-38) And said, Where have ye laid him [Lazarus]? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. (Jn 11:34) If Jesus is the Son of God and second Person of the Godhead, then how can it be said that He gained or sought after knowledge? Scripture speaks of the incarnate Christ as being fully divine, yet fully human (The relationship between His two natures will be addressed under a later heading). The aspect of His natures with which we are here concerned is the knowledge possessed by the God-Man. In His divine nature, He knows all there is to know, since His knowledge is the knowledge of God. As the Son of God, He bears in His person the mind of God, but as the human son of Mary, born of a natural birth (only His conception was supernatural), who experienced a normal human development from infancy into adulthood, He needed to learn as any other boy. He had to learn to walk, talk, and work in the same manner as one born without a divine nature. It is to this end He asked questions and gained knowledge when His natural human mind was in want of such knowledge.

424

Omnipotent (all-powerful) God possesses infinite power and ability, and this quality of His being characterizes each and every of His works. One working of God is not done with more or less might than another, since all are done with infinite ability. Only God is all-powerful, for if another being or force were all powerful, then “all” power would not belong to God. His works are done without effort, since effort, by nature, expels might, and the mighty ability of God can neither increase nor diminish. When God “rested” following His creation of heaven and earth, His rest was not from a need for replenishment or a respite due to weariness of strength or energy; but rather, was a glorifying enjoyment and satisfaction that all He created was good. While God's ability is infinite, it is proper to say that He cannot do that which would detract from or be in contrary to His being. Thus, God cannot sin (for He is holy), God cannot forget (for He is all-knowing), God cannot leave (for He occupies all things), He cannot cease to be (for He is eternal), He cannot create a being equal to Himself or bring something into existence which He cannot control or move (for He is transcendent and sovereign over all), He cannot change (for He is unchangeable), and He cannot diminish in any way (for He is infinite).These things which God cannot accomplish, rather than placing upon Him a limit or boundary, serve as a surety that He is who He is. If God could do those things which He cannot do, then He could not be God, and nothing, either in heaven or earth, could have its being. Power over demons And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness. (Mt 10:1) Power over His fate Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. (Jn 2:19-21) Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (Jn 10:17-18) Power over nature And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. And he awoke, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm. And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And being afraid they marveled, saying one to another, Who then is this, that he commandeth even the winds and the water, and they obey him? (Lk 8:24-25) Power over sickness And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway his leprosy was cleansed. (Mt 8:3)

425

And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever; and straightway they tell him of her: and he came and took her by the hand, and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were sick, and them that were possessed with demons. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many demons; and he suffered not the demons to speak, because they knew him. (Mk 1:29-31) Power over life and death So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the multitude that standeth around I said it, that they may believe that thou didst send me. And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. He that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes; and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. (Jn 11:41-44) Power over all things And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. (Mt 28:18) All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. (Jn 1:3) [God] at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; (Heb 1:2) ... and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. (Col 1:17) ... who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself. (Phil 3:21) ... who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb 1:3) These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. (Jn 17:1-2)

426

Sovereignty Sovereignty refers to the supreme, absolute authority over which a ruler governs a territory. Within that territory, there exists no other authority which is legally able to challenge the ruling might. When applied of God, sovereignty also entails the idea of omnipotence. God cannot be truly sovereign if He is not all powerful. Whereas an earthly monarch's sovereign rule is temporal and able to be ended by invasion, uprising, or assassination, God's sovereignty is eternal and guarantees His every determination will surely come to pass without deterrence, hesitation, or challenge, not having to contend with any power equal to or all-encompassing as His, thus effectually accomplishing every initiation and succeeding means toward His perfect intended end for all things. God's sovereignty encompasses the following four characteristics: As wholly authoritative, He possesses the judicial right to do what He pleases As wholly powerful, He possesses the means to do as He pleases As wholly transcendent, He holds the surety that these means will not be challenged As wholly righteous, He provides the guarantee that His purpose is good The legal right to do what He pleases Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. (Job 41:11) The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. (Ps 24:1) Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. (Isa 44:24) The means to do as He pleases For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Lk 1:37) The surety that these means will not be challenged I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. (Job 42:2) The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? (Isa 14:24-27)

427

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. (Isa 46:10) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. (Eph 1:11) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. (Rom 14:11) The guarantee that His purpose is good And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant: (2 Sam 7:28) For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. (Ps 33:4) But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. (Jer 9:24) The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. (Zeph 3:5) Question: If God is sovereign, how can man have a free will? In the Garden of Eden, Adam freely made his choice to commit sin. He was not deceived, as was Eve, or coerced into the act. Although Adam was created innocent, he was not perfect. He was able to both sin and not sin, and in the end, he chose the former. As a result of Adam’s transgression, he became, by nature, spiritually dead, a death which passed upon all men through Adam. The unregenerate man, he who has not placed his faith in Christ, is enslaved to this sinful nature which is at enmity with God. As a result of being spiritually dead, men are naturally closed to spiritual truth. Their minds are darkened by sin; their hearts are corrupt and evil. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:17) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. (Rom 5:12) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)

428

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Eph 4:17-18) Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. (Titus 1:15) The unregenerate man’s thoughts of God do not arise from a sincere desire to unite with Him and embrace the virtues in which God’s people are to delight. The thoughts which such a man does have of God are so clouded that his understanding of the divine majesty is severely distorted. Scripture portrays the natural man as being incapable of comprehending God or His ways, or of even possessing a desire for fellowship with Him, since such a relationship stands contrary to the fleshly nature in which the natural man takes pleasure. Being unable to rid themselves of their natural sinful condition, men are slaves to sin; all men are under its power; consequently, none is righteous–not even one. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. (Jn 8:34) For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. (Eccl 7:20) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isa 64:6) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Rom 3:10-12) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (I Jn 1:8) Men, being unrighteous by nature, are unable to repent, believe the Gospel of Christ, or come to Christ in faith. They have no power within themselves to change their nature or to prepare themselves to salvation. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Job 14:4) Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. (Jer 13:23)

429

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (Mt 7:17-18) No man can [denoting ability, as opposed to may, denoting permission] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:44) Therefore, the desire for fellowship with God is placed within unregenerate men by the Holy Spirit. Men come to God by faith, but even that faith is given as a gift of God. It is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. (Phil 2:13) Although that desire is not inherent within the unregenerate individual, once it is placed there by God, it is nonetheless a desire to which the individual does choose to respond in the positive. Therefore, the absolute sovereignty of God is maintained, while also recognizing that men come to God freely and from a desire within them to act in such a way. The fact that the desire itself was placed there is an act of grace and mercy. When a man makes a choice towards a certain direction, he does so out of a desire to go in that direction. Every decision made by man is a product of a desire to make such a decision - a decision which is based on his strongest inclination at the time. As Thomas Aquinas stated in his massive work Summa Theologica: “Now two things concur in choice: one on the part of the cognitive power, the other on the part of the appetitive power. On the part of the cognitive power, counsel is required, by which we judge one thing to be preferred to another: and on the part of the appetitive power, it is required that the appetite should accept the judgment of counsel. … choice is principally an act of the appetitive power. And thus free-will is an appetitive power.”6 What does it mean for the human will to be free? The freedom of the will is the ability to choose what it desires – the ability to decide on that which is most desirable. A choice is an action proceeding from a desire. The choice to accept Christ as Savior is the product of a desire to have the atonement by Christ applied to one’s account for remission of sin. Yes, that desire is placed in the heart by God, but it is, nonetheless, a desire from which men willingly respond. They do not come under lock and key, nor are they blindly led or mechanically controlled to partake in the blessings of Christ. They come because they want so very much to come, driven by the compulsion that God has graciously placed it in their hearts to do so. Thus, whosoever will may come to Christ, but whosoever will, wills because God has delighted in enabling him to will. Some may ask, “Why should God impose such a desire on man? Is that not a violation of man’s affection?” The placement of such desire by God is an act of

430

mercy, for without that desire, no one would come to Him, and all would perish in their sin, condemned to an eternal damnation. The error in such a question is in perceiving an act of mercy and grace as an invasion of the human affection. In placing right desires in man, God enables man to choose beyond what he would be able to choose from on his own, thereby providing man with true freedom and liberty. Whereas before, man was only able to choose that from which he would receive no eternal benefit, now he is able to make a choice in favor of either his doom or delight. The following passage has been used as proof that any man, whether or not has been so moved by God, has the inherent ability to come to God within his own means. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Rev 3:20) This passage is not to be understood as a plea for evangelism; but rather, is addressed to Christians in the church of Laodicea, to those who already have come to Christ in faith. The church here was guilty of apathy and indifference in their faith. The call is not for repentance unto salvation, or a call to the unregenerate man to come to Christ for the cleansing of sin; but rather, is a call to “lukewarm” Christians for repentance unto zealous service in their exercise of faith. Question: If God is sovereign, why is there evil? What is evil? Why does God allow bad things to happen? Why do hurricanes and tsunamis rise up and claim both life and property? Why are planes flown into buildings for the sake of religious zeal? Why do unborn human beings die due to either slaughter or miscarriage? Is God just standing by as an impartial observer? Does He even have the power to prevent such tragedy – and, if so, then why does He not intervene for the sake of the good? Throughout human history, the “problem of evil” has been a stumbling block to faith. Before addressing the issue, it must be stated that by “evil” we do not refer exclusively to acts of malicious intent. Rather, that which is evil extends beyond that which is morally wicked to include that which is depraved, destructive, horrible, or foul. In short, evil entails anything which displays a lack of that which is good and that which “should be.” Hence, evil may constitute murder, being the absence of life; blindness, being the absence of sight; sickness, the absence of health, etc. Also, what meaning is not intended, either expressly or implied, is that the form of evil made manifest in any one individual is not a divine punishment for one’s sin. In some cases, however, such evil may come as a direct result of sin. For instance, a person who engages in certain sexual sin or substance abuse may contract disease as a result of his or her actions. However, generally speaking, one’s personal affliction, be it handicap, deformity, or personal distress, is not a

431

reflection of his or her moral character. Orthodox Christianity recognizes two kinds of evil: natural evil (such as being struck by lightning) and moral evil (such as being harmed by another person). Statement of the case Essentially, the problem is how Adam, who was not created with an inclination to evil, could in fact sin. How can a man, created in such a fashion, posses sinful desires? Where did these desires come from? Were they part of the constituent elements of his original makeup or did they originate elsewhere? Since God is the one who fashioned the constituent elements which made up the first man, did He then place the desire for sin within that constitution? How can a created being act in a way that is seemingly contrary to the nature with which he was created except that his Creator first instilled within him the necessary prerequisites for such an action? Would this not make God the Author of sin? However one approaches this problem, if he is to acknowledge that God is sovereign, must acknowledge that 1) God and sin are not equal entities at opposite ends of a seesaw with the balance being weighted in favor of the stronger side, and 2) sin was not a renegade entity in the universe which rose up against God’s original intent and caused it to fall to ruin, so as to reduce God’s plan of redemption to “Plan B.” The problem of translation The following passages have commonly been misunderstood by a casual reading of Scripture. In the passages below, the “problem of evil” is easily resolved with an understanding of the problem of translation. Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lam 3:38) I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. (Isa 45:7) Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6) The Hebrew word translated “evil” in these passages is a word which means “calamity” or “distress,” rather than, say, moral corruption. The use of the word “evil” here is an example of the sometimes archaic nature of the Old English used in the King James Version of the Bible. The original Hebrew has been more accurately translated in modern versions, as shown below: Lam 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth? (NASB) Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (NIV)

432

Isa 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (NASB) I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (NIV) Amos 3:6 If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? (NASB) When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (NIV) This mistranslation into the word “evil” is particularly evident in the Isaiah passage, in which opposites are brought into contrast. The first part of the verse contrasts light and darkness, then peace and evil. Darkness is no doubt the opposite of light, but wickedness is not the opposite of peace. Here, evil refers to that which not peaceful, such as war, natural disaster, and distress. As “light” is seen as a parallel to “peace,” so should “evil,” be seen as a parallel to “darkness.” In Scripture, darkness is often used as an allusion to that which is lacking peace or order, as illustrated below. ... and they shall look unto the earth, and behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and into thick darkness they shall be driven away. (Isa 8.22) It must also be recognized that calamities and disasters do not constitute that which is morally wicked. Calamities, disasters, tragedies, and the like are a part of the curse mankind brought upon itself by rebelling against God and entering into a state of sin. At times, God uses these events as His judgment in direct response to sin on either a personal or national scale. God is a just God, and by virtue of His justice, He must deliver blessings and cursing according to one’s merit, and so “from God” comes both times of prosperity and blessing as well as times of hardship and grief. God is not just a good God – He is goodness itself. As such, His goodness is judged according to His own being, rather than according to a standard separate from Himself. Thus, all that is good comes from Him. His judgments are equally good in that they are delivered according to – not against – merit, and are delivered non-arbitrarily. The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he. (Deut 32:4) For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: Evil shall not sojourn with thee. (Ps 5:4) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. (Jas 1:13)

433

The cause of evil This still leaves the question: If God created all things, then did He not create evil? The truth is, that neither God nor man “creates” moral evil, since moral evil does not exist as a created thing, but exists as a consequence of the choices of a created being – specifically, man. Man, not animal, bird, or fish, is the only created being which can bring into reality a thought, word, or deed which is morally wicked. As stated previously, evil, rather than being a thing, exists as the absence of a thing. As a void is not a thing, since it is the absence of matter, evil is not a thing, since it is the absence of that which is good. A light bulb does not create darkness, but when the bulb ceases to give light, darkness is the inevitable result. Likewise, moral evil results when God withholds His goodness from man, thus leaving exposed, as an open wound, the wickedness of man. God cannot cause moral evil to occur, but He does allow it to occur. The cause of evil is the choice of man. In his choice to disobey God, man caused moral evil to enter the world. God created the possibility for evil, in giving man free choice. Man, by making the wrong choice, turned that possibility into a reality. As Thomas Aquinas explains, “God is the cause of all effects and acts. Evil comes from the condition of secondary causes, which themselves may be defective, it is obvious that evil actions, understood as defective, do not originate from God but from their defective proximate causes.”7 In other words, God is not the author of sin, but is “the author of the author of sin.”8 God does not desire evil, but He does desire to permit evil by giving man freedom of choice. God created all things good, but not perfect; therefore, Adam was created as a good being, yet with the ability to cease that goodness through a wrong desire and choice. It is commonly stated that Adam was created with the ability to sin and not to sin. Once he did sin, he destroyed his ability not to sin. When Isaiah states that God “creates” calamity, he is asserting the sovereign right of God to execute judgment upon man. The necessity of ultimate good What is evil? Evil is that which is devoid of all things good. Thus, evil, moral or otherwise, has a direct relationship to goodness. Without goodness, there can be no standard by which things are judged to be evil. Without goodness, evil has no meaning. In human history, events happen which are said to be ultimately evil in nature; however, ultimate evil cannot exist without ultimate good. On the other hand, ultimate good can exist without ultimate evil, since the only being who is ultimately good is God, who exists self-sufficiently. Prior to the creation of the cosmos, ultimate good was all that existed, in the person of the Godhead. Whereas the atheist may claim that the presence of evil is an argument against the existence of God, the fact is that the very presence of evil logically proves the existence of God, the personification and source of absolute good and the standard by which things are judged to be evil. Without such a standard, absolute evil cannot be explained. As Dr. R. C. Sproul states, “You are [then] left either with the reality of God or the denial of ultimate evil.”9

434

A look at suggested alternatives God does not cause evil, but why then does He allow evil? Why would He not just rid the world of evil? Epicurus, a Greek philosopher writing during the early part of the third century B.C. stated the problem of evil as follows: “Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to, or he cannot and does not want to, or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent; If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent; If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, how does evil exist?”10 In his effort to resolve the problem of evil, man has asked why God does not govern the world under one of the following conditions: Why did God not create man with the incapacity for evil? If God made man in a state such that he was only able not to sin, rather than being able to sin or not to sin, then man would be a creature with no will of his own. If Adam could only choose the good, then any devotion to God would have been a result of a love forced upon him by his Creator, since all man could do is love God. The very nature of free will is the ability to choose between good or evil. If the ability to choose evil is removed, then so is removed the ability to choose at all. Thus, a life of morality would be a life which man could not live freely, but forcedly. Why does God not intervene and prevent evil from occurring? The previous question dealt with the removal of moral evil (that is, the removal of man’s capacity for evil), whereas this question deals with the removal of natural evil (that is, calamities which occur in nature, not from the workings of man). Why does God allow natural disasters to occur, claiming human life? This question presupposes that good cannot arise from evil. Natural evil is a means by which God shows His grace and mercy. God also uses natural evil to chastise or judge man. The greatest example of natural evil was the flood of Noah, which claimed all but eight human lives. Yet, even in the account of Noah, the grace of God was displayed in a very powerful manner. Regardless of the type or severity of natural evil which one may endure, there is always an ark, a shelter in the time of trouble, in which grace, mercy, and peace may be evident. This peace may not come in the form of deliverance from trouble, but may rather come in the form of grace which enables the sufferer to endure and persevere, despite seemingly overwhelming odds. That is peace – not peace as man can give, but the peace of God which transcends understanding and reason, the peace which comes not because of deliverance, but in spite of deliverance. Why does God not remove all evildoers from the world? If God were to rid the earth of anyone who is capable of evil thoughts, words, or deeds, the earth would be barren of human life. As Paul states in his letter to the Roman Christians, “There is none righteous, no, not one; … for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:10, 23)

435

Why does God not limit the amount of evil which occurs in the world? If I were to fill a jar with mud, how much mud would I need to remove from the jar before it would be considered clean? Likewise, how much evil would God need to remove from the world before the amount of evil would be reduced to an acceptable level? How many fewer murders would there need to be each day, how many fewer unborn humans killed in the womb, how many fewer children abused by those who should rather love and nurture them, how many fewer deaths by natural disasters? Since the first man and woman sinned in Eden, evil has been a part of human existence, yet even the earliest man attributed his existence to a Creator. God reveals Himself in pain and suffering, even during the worst of times and events, and such evil is only seen as a stumbling block to faith to the person who has already determined in his heart that there is no God. For those who look beyond the evil and suffering, there is in view an all-powerful, gracious God whose ways and thoughts are infinitely higher than those of man. C.S. Lewis once said, “If the universe is so bad … how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator?”11 God’s response to evil God uses evil, both moral and natural, when judging or chastising man for sin. If God ceased to allow such evil upon man, then He would make void the consequences for sin. If sin had no negative consequence, then man’s sense of responsibility would be greatly diminished, and reward for good behavior would become meaningless. Besides, the present state of man is one which man has imposed upon himself. We chose to sin. Sin was not placed upon us. Even when bad things happen to seemingly good people, it may not be the result of a personal act of sin. Rather, such is part of the universal curse for sin, a curse which all mankind is under. Why doesn’t God prevent evil, you ask? The answer is: Why should He? God is a just God. If He did not punish sin, He would be devoid of such justice. The truth of the matter is that God did respond to evil. He established law and government as a provision by which man is restrained from absolute evil continually. What more, He responded to evil by taking upon Himself the penalty for sin, so that those who place their faith in His sacrifice would never need endure the final judgment on man for sin. When Jesus died on the cross, He bore His own wrath against sin, the just being punished for the unjust, so that the unjust may be found not guilty in the sight of God. In His death, He endured the penalty for sin, and in His resurrection, He overcame the ultimate curse of sin, the curse of death itself. It is this victory which passes onto everyone who places his or her trust in the one who shattered the chains of death in an everlasting triumph over the grave.

436

III. Two natures, one person Jesus Christ is God. As God, He, along with the Father and the Spirit, shares in the divine nature and possesses the fullness of attributes essential to that nature. When He became born of Mary and took upon Himself a fully human nature, what happened to those attributes essential to divinity, yet contrary to human nature? Did the Son of God shed His divine nature when He became man? An entire volume could be written on this subject, and even after the final word was placed on the final page, there would still be so much more the author could say on the subject. My intention here is not to provide the final word or the best understanding of the issue at hand; but rather, to present the issue in accordance with the highest measure of wisdom granted to me by God and with the utmost humility and confidence that the final word and the solution to the “mystery,” as the apostle Paul phrased it, lies well beyond these pages. What I present here is, I believe, a reasonable understanding of the union of the divine and human natures in the person of the Son of God, and it is my hope that the reader utilizes this presentation as a springboard for further and, perhaps, a more reasonable understanding of the subject matter. However, in the final analysis, God's ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. As a toddler cannot solve an algebra problem, so can man not fully comprehend the ways of God. Yet, we are to pursue such knowledge knowing that the fullness of that knowledge lies beyond our grasp and will never be comprehended, but that in the pursuit, we, as Christians, may come into a more intimate and loving relationship with the God who purchased us by His own blood. The true mystery is not that God became man, but why did He ever condescend to such humiliation on our behalf and to His shame? Why did the King of the universe descend from His throne and give His own life so that the peasants of His kingdom would become His sons and daughters? That is the love which mankind cannot comprehend, and it is because of that love that those named among the sons and daughters of God will never be plucked from His tender care. Statement of the case The apostle Paul states that the incarnate Christ possessed “the fullness of Godhead in bodily form.” (Col 2.9) By “fullness” is meant the totality of the divine essence and character; that is, all that is essential to God’s being was included in the person of Jesus while He walked among man and was in possession of mortal human flesh and blood. Even as the son of Mary, the person of Christ retained all that is essential, or natural, to His deity. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. (Jn 1:14) God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb 1:1-3)

437

Yet, elsewhere in Scripture, Paul states that Christ “emptied” Himself when He took on a human nature. [Christ], existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. (Phil 2:6-8) Theologians refer to Christ’s taking on a human nature as the “kenosis” of Christ, from on the Greek word translated as “emptied” in Paul’s letter. Here is the central point of debate concerning the incarnation of Christ – of what did He empty Himself when God became man? Setting boundaries When discussing the union of the two natures in Christ, there are points of consideration within which the discussion must be framed in order to come to a conclusion which is reasonable and logical. Defining ontological terms - What is meant by nature, being, and person? The Hypostatic Union is the term used by theologians to refer to the union of the human and divine natures in Christ. The word hypostasis refers to one’s substance or that which is essential to the nature of an individual. Thus, the Hypostatic Union is the union of the human and the divine natures within the person of Christ, with each nature retaining the qualities essential to that nature. Nature, when used of living things, denotes the sum of the unchangeable characteristics which make up a person or creature. If one aspect of a thing’s nature is stripped away or added onto, then that thing would cease to be the thing that it was before the transformation, as in the case of a larva's transformation into a butterfly. A man’s nature also involves that which he is capable of doing, either actually or potentially. For instance, the strength of a child is potentially capable of maturing into the strength of a grown man, provided that he undergoes normal development; however, he will always be incapable of leaping tall buildings with a single bound, as such is beyond what a man is even potentially capable of accomplishing. Applying the definition of nature to the person of Christ, having two natures, the term refers to that which characterizes and constitutes each nature, with each nature being distinct from the other. Thus, the nature of His humanity involves all that which is essential to mankind, while the nature of His divinity involves all that which is essential to deity. For example, a man’s nature is his need for nourishment, rest, relationship, and desire, yet none of these are essential, and therefore not natural, to deity. On the other hand, that which is essential to the divine nature includes such characteristics as

438

its eternality, self-existence, sovereignty, supremacy, and infinite knowledge and power, all of which cannot be said of the nature of man. The word “being” is a word which is used to denote a real existence, occurring in the present time and continuing until such existence can no longer be a functional reality. Applying the definition to Christ’s humanity, being involves that which is common in any human individual – that a man has being for as long as he is alive; that is, until such a time as he is no longer able to perform or function. Applying the definition to Christ’s divinity, being involves that which is true only of God – that His being is eternal, having neither beginning nor end. The term “person” denotes individuality, whereas “personality” involves the various traits and characteristics (such as reason, emotion, and choice) that are inherent within each person, yet specifically tailored to the individual. Merging the above definitions, a human being is a real, living person who shares a nature universal with all people, and possessing common traits, called personality, which manifest themselves in ways unique to the individual. What is meant by “emptied?” The word translated “emptied” in the English Bible is the Greek word “kenosis,” derived from “keno,” and is used to refer to that which has been made “vain, void, of no reputation, or of no effect.”1 Briefly stated, when used in the context of Christ’s “emptying” of Himself, the concept involves the pouring one content into another form, yet without changing the original constituent. The idea involved not a surrender of one thing for another, but a veiling or suppression of a thing. God is immutable – He never changes. In taking upon Himself a human form, the second person of the Trinity could not change at all in His divine nature, being, or person. Not one aspect of His deity could have been removed from His person when He became man. In order for Christ to possess a human nature, His humanity could not be in possession of any attribute uncommon to man. Therefore, His human nature could not know the things that only God could know. His human nature could not be eternal or infinitely present. His human nature could not be self-existent. His human nature could not be sovereign. Likewise, His divinity could not be limited in knowledge or power, or be subject to any being or law outside of itself. In the incarnation, for Christ’s humanity to be truly human, such humanity necessarily could not include anything uncommon to human nature. Likewise, His divinity necessarily could not include anything which would detract from it in any fashion.

439

Such is the problem at hand. How is it that the two natures can be merged without one or the other, or both, ceasing to be what it is in essence, thereby becoming something it is not? Although any contemplation of Christ’s two natures involves considering that for which we have no point of reference apart from Christ, if the above definitions and guidelines are kept in view during such consideration, then reasonable conclusions may be drawn as a result. Christ possessed a fully human nature Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham. (Heb 2.14-16) As God, Christ is eternally self-sufficient, but as a man, He had human needs. As God, Christ is present everywhere, but as a man, He was localized to wherever His human body was present at the time. As God, Christ is infinite, but as a man, He had human limitations. As God, Christ is all-knowing, but as a man, His knowledge was limited. Although more will be said later on this merging of natures within Christ, it should be at least stated at the outset that when Christ became man, divinity did not become human, neither did humanity become divine. The human nature that Christ assumed was a perfect and obedient human nature, but not a divine human nature. While the person of Jesus was divine, the human nature which He added to His preexistent divine nature was as human a nature as is that which belongs to any man. Trees did not bow to Him, nor did flowers bloom as He passed by. Scriptures that show Jesus had needs and emotions which were distinctly human. The need for food – Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he hungered. (Mt 21:18) The need for drink – There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (Jn 4:7) The need for rest – Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour. (Jn 4:6) He experienced distress – Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour. (Jn 12:27) He experienced loneliness – Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: abide ye here, and watch with me. (Mt 26:38)

440

He experienced surprise and astonishment – And when Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. (Mt 8:10) He learned – And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking them questions: and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. … And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (Lk 2:46-47, 52) The perceptions of those around Jesus reveal that there was not anything different about Him prior to the performance of His first miracle as an adult. Although He was virgin-born, that fact would not be common knowledge, for Mary kept such things secret (Lk 2:19). Mary may have told those closest to her – her parents and her cousin Elizabeth (the mother of John the Baptist), but for Jesus’ safety they would not have shared this information with anyone. In fact, as Matthew indicates, either Mary did not tell Joseph of her virginal conception or he did not believe her (Mt 1:19-20). The natural assumption of Jesus’ contemporaries would be, as the Gospels indicate, that Jesus was the natural-born son of Joseph and Mary. Even the shepherds, magi, and the inhabitants of Bethlehem would not have known Jesus was conceived prior to Joseph taking Mary as his wife, for upon their arrival at the inn, they were already married and she already pregnant. They had no reason to believe His conception was supernatural and that He was nothing more than a baby destined for a divinely-appointed purpose. Concerning the residents of Nazareth, the hometown of Joseph and Mary, Mary’s premarital conception would have been a thing of public knowledge, but they would have known nothing of the manner of Jesus’ conception, except that such a thing were specifically made known to them. The implication in the Gospels is that Joseph and Mary had a pure and respectable reputation; therefore, it is likely that the natural assumption of those who personally knew her was that she was raped, possibly by a Roman soldier. Luke states that the shepherds spread the news of the arrival of the Messiah (Lk 2:17-18), but does not indicate that the identity of the child was made known. Even after Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth, perhaps news arrived of a Messiah born in Bethlehem, but none would know that this Messiah was a young boy living right in their midst, especially given the prevailing prejudice that nothing good can come from Nazareth (Jn 1:46), a town known for its vices and corruption. And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mt 13:54-56) For even his brethren did not believe on him. (Jn 7:5)

441

As man, He possessed all the limitations of a man. The Father prepared a body for the Son (Heb 10:5), the Son agreed to take on the nature of that body (Phil 2:5-7), and the Spirit caused Mary to conceive the embryonic Jesus without human seed (Mt 1:20, Lk 2:35). The body prepared for Christ was a normal human body. Although His conception was supernatural, the body formed as a result of the divine intervention within the womb of Mary was a normal human embryo. Scripture neither states nor implies that Mary had an otherwise normal pregnancy and delivery, complete with the pains of giving birth. Jesus was born one hundred percent human, not “X” percent human and “Y” percent superhuman. He had a human body The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe. For these things came to pass, that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. (Jn 19:32-36) [Following His resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples, saying,] See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. (Lk 23:39) Peter affirmed Jesus’ humanity Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay. (Acts 2:22-23) Paul affirmed Jesus’ humanity For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus. (I Tim 2:5) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Heb 2:14) Jesus did not just walk among men as the appearance of a man, as He did to Abraham and others in ages past. Rather, Jesus had a real human body, with flesh, blood, bones, and all its internal parts. In John’s Gospel, he stated that the eternal Word of God “was made” flesh. As observed by Robert G. Gromacki, the meaning is that He “came to be” flesh, and not just in reference to the body, but that He became all that man is, with all his limitations and vulnerabilities.2 In his letter to the Roman church, Paul states that Jesus was made in the “likeness of

442

sinful flesh.” (Rom 8.3) The likeness which He assumed was that of sinful flesh, while still becoming real human flesh. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Rom 8:3-4) When commenting on this passage, the early church father John Chrysostom stated the following: … when [Paul] says, “In the likeness of sinful flesh,” he says not that He had not flesh, but that that flesh sinned not, but was like to sinful flesh. Like in what? in nature, not in sin, therefore was His like a sinful soul. As then in the former case the term similarity was used, because He was not equal in everything, so here also there is similarity, because He is not equal in everything, as His not being born of wedlock, His being without sin, His being not a mere man. And he well said “as a man,” for He was not one of the many, but “as” one of the many. The Word who was God did not degenerate into man, nor was His substance changed, but he appeared as a man; not to delude us with a phantom, but to instruct us in humility.3 Jesus had the same needs as any other person, such as the need for food, drink, and rest. He had a normal immune system which gave into viruses and illness just as it would for any other person. He was able to stub His toe or get a splinter while working as a carpenter. He experienced all the growing pains of childhood. He was prone to frostbite in cold weather and heatstroke in hot weather. When He got a cut or a burn, it hurt as it would anyone else. Were He not capable of succumbing to these vulnerabilities, He would not have had a normal human experience. Any harm could come to Him that would not prevent His pending crucifixion. As a man, He was capable of suffering any type of fatal blow, but as God, He was incapable of allowing any such thing to occur, for such would be against that accomplishment which He promised the Father. He had a human mind The knowledge of God has already been addressed and will here only be summed up by stating that, simply put, God infinitely knows everything. But, the human mind of Jesus knew only that which was observed, learned, or revealed, as is the case with any man. As a baby, Jesus’ human mind would not have known of His divine identity unless it was revealed to Him by His divine knowledge. Scripture does not indicate at what age the boy Jesus became aware of His union with deity, but it was at some point prior to His twelfth year (Lk 2:42-49), and likely at a young age, for it is said that as a child He was “filled with wisdom.” (Lk 2:40) Yet, as a child, He needed to learn to walk, talk, read, and conceptualize as a normal child would do, for such is the normal human development that Jesus came to live. Even at age twelve, when He was aware of His relation to deity, He still asked questions of the teachers in the Temple in

443

Jerusalem. While the teachers marveled at His understanding and responses, it is clear He was still a boy who was not in possession of infinite knowledge, as is the divine mind. As Gromacki surmises, Jesus’ expert use of the Scriptures stemmed from His growth in wisdom as He studied them while growing up (ibid p 103). His knowledge and application of the Old Testament texts to real situations stemmed not from His divine omniscience but from His keen intellect and desire to learn. He was not born wise. He had to grow in wisdom. It was in His humanity that He became strong, grew, and was filled with wisdom. During the Middle Ages, theologians viewed three levels in the human knowledge of Christ: 1) the acquired knowledge which every man possesses, 2) the knowledge which the angels and the elect in heaven possess, and 3) the “beatific vision,” being able to see the face of God (Jn 6:46,8:38).4 The knowledge of Christ’s human mind was an infused type of that revelation which was made known to the prophets through angels, the Word of God, dreams, visions, and theophanies (physical manifestations of the pre-incarnate Christ). That which the prophets knew by revelation became inherent in the human mind of Jesus, through the revelation of His own divine knowledge. It was this fusion of the human and divine mind which was the source of the wisdom in which Jesus’ grew as a child. Even as an adult the human mind of Christ did not possess infinite knowledge, for He asked questions in order to obtain knowledge of that which He did not know (see the passages below). He also expressed amazement or surprise at the faith had by a certain man with whom He came in contact (Mt 8.10, above). And a woman, who had an issue of blood twelve years, and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole. And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her plague. And straightway Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power proceeding from him had gone forth, turned him about in the crowd, and said, Who touched my garments? (Mk 5:25-30) [Jesus] said, Where have ye laid [Lazarus]? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. (Jn 11:34) Paul provides some insight into the merging of the human and divine knowledge in the God-Man when he exhorts believers to have the same mind as Christ. Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. (Phil 2:5) The implication is that we are not to have a divine mind, with the infinite character of the divine mind, but to have the mind of Jesus of Nazareth, which was a human mind fully subject and obedient to God.

444

He had human emotions and a human will Jesus experienced all the disappointments and let-downs offered by those around Him, and all the sorrows and joys which accompany human relationships. He felt joy, peace, grief, loneliness, anxiety, and friendship. The anxiety He felt in the garden of Gethsemane was His natural human response to the knowledge that He was about to endure torture at the hands of the Romans. Yet, being perfectly obedient to all that God ordained, His human will submitted to the will of the Father and endured the cross, as His divine will agreed to do in eternity past. As voluntariness is essential to both deity and humanity, Jesus had both a human and a divine will, the former always being obedient and subservient to the latter, and it is in that frame of mind that He walked the Via Dolorosa, the way to the cross. His humanity did not seek to avoid the cross only to be driven to it by His divinity. Rather, His humanity acted in voluntary surrender to that which His person agreed to do before He took on His human nature. Thus, with anxiety expected of any man knowing he would soon suffer inexplicable agony, He “fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from Him. And He said, ’Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me,’“ but, being perfectly obedient to the Father’s will, He then prayed, “not what I will, but what thou will.” (Mk 14:35-36) Again, later He prayed, “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee.” (Jn 17:1) The union of the human and divine wills in Christ can be likened to the two natures present within a Christian, which Paul describes in his letter to the Roman church. (Rom 7:15-25) When a person is declared just in the sight of God, He is given a new nature, one which desires to please God (hence, it is said, “by their fruits you shall know them.” Mt 7:16), yet still present in his person is his old, sinful nature which wars with the new infused nature to desire and choose that which is contrary to the commandments of God. The acquisition of this second righteous nature within the believer does not make him a second person; rather, is a will added to that sinful nature with which he was born. In the incarnation, the human nature of Jesus possessed a human will, and this nature, with its human will, was that which the person of Christ “took upon” His person, which already existed having a divine will. As Gromacki explains, “[Jesus] never had this conflict of wills [as present in the Christian]. They were in perfect harmony. One will submits and co-acts with the one first enacting. If the human will acts, the divine co-acts. … He performed divine and human actions, as the case may be, although each action is wrought with the distinctive qualities of the will that corresponds with it, and takes the lead in it. Thus, although there are two wills concerned, there is but one resulting action. He always willed to do the Father’s will.”5 He had a truly moral human conscience Jesus was fully human, but not fully human in the present state in which humanity exist, that being, a state if sin and enmity against God. The Son of God took upon a human nature, but not a sinful human nature. The state of man is commonly expressed as follows: Man was originally able to sin and able not to

445

sin; after he sinned, man was only able to sin. Jesus, being God in the flesh, was not able to sin. Adam was created in a state of innocence, not perfection; otherwise, he would not have been able to sin. Jesus, in His humanity, was created in a state of perfection, not mere innocence, in that He could not sin. Adam was created sinless, but his continuing sinlessness was dependent on a continued obedience to God’s will, which, if course, he did not keep – he was sinless because of what he did or did not do. Jesus’ sinlessness, on the other hand, was grounded in His person – He was sinless because of who He is. Adam had the potential to act as a perfect man, whereas Jesus was the perfect man, yet both Adam and Christ were fully human. Christ’s lack of a sinful nature does not make Him less than fully human; rather, it makes Him uniquely human. The moral character of Jesus must be considered in light on His single will and person, rather than His two natures. His person is divine, His person is the holy and unchanging second person of the Godhead who desires to do the will of the Father and, as such cannot do anything which would violate His holiness nor effect a change in His essence, as would occur if such a person committed sin. His moral character was guided by His divine nature, and His human nature lived a life of obedience to the decrees of His divine nature. Although fully human, Christ made use of His divine abilities The Gospels mention numerous times when Jesus performed acts which defied the laws of nature, such as walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, and many other such things. He also expressed knowledge which no human mind would be able to acquire, as shown in passages such as those below. But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man. (Jn 2:24- 25) And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? (Mt 9:4) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. (Jn 6:64) All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. (Mt 11:27) And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. (Mk 8:31) Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles: (Mk 10:33)

446

Any such supernatural performance or knowledge of Christ was due to the intervention of His divine nature in the direction of His human action and the level of His human knowledge. Christ, in His humanity, could not feed a multitude of people nor turn water into wine. Additionally, any expression of knowledge not gained according to a normal mode of understanding or learning was due to a revelation of the divine mind to the human mind of that which the human mind could otherwise not know. In any such instance, Jesus was not acting in and of His humanity; rather, He was acting in His humanity but of His divinity. The union of the two natures Jesus acted within two spheres of activity (His human and His divine natures), but all of His actions were the actions of one person, not two separate and distinct people. The body of man is part of the nature of man, and it is this nature which Christ put upon Himself. In taking on a human body, Christ did not take on a separate person, since a body is part of human nature (as opposed to Christ's Divine nature, which is spirit), but not essential to a divine nature. Christ did take on a separate person, but a separate nature, which included a physical body. The human and the divine natures of Christ were more than intimate and related – they were inseparable both in being and purpose. The eternal Son of God and the virgin-born son of Mary always acted in perfect harmony, not as two people, but as two natures united in one person. The humanity of Christ did not will what the divinity of Christ did not will, nor could the humanity of Christ do that which would violate His divinity, such as commit sin. During His life, Jesus acted in the power of either of His two natures; however, at select times, these two natures interacted with each other in Jesus’ thoughts or actions. For instance, at times Jesus acted in His humanity and expressed knowledge common to the level of normal human comprehension, while at other times He knew that which is impossible to know in the normal human experience. As Ron Rhodes states, “[Jesus] operated at different times under the influence of one or the other nature. He operated in the human sphere to the extent that it was necessary for him to accomplish His earthly purpose as determined in the eternal plan of salvation. At the same time, He operated in the divine sphere to the extent it was possible in the period of his humiliation.”6 Since Christ is one person having two natures, anything He did or said could rightly be attributed to the person of Christ, being both the eternal Son of God and the virgin-born son of Mary, rather than His words or deeds being solely attributed to one of His two natures. Therefore, when He walked on water, it is right to say that the human Jesus walked on water as well as the Son of God. When He died on the cross, it is right to say that the eternal Son of God, as well as the human body of Jesus, died and shed His blood without His being ever ceasing to exist. The human nature of the person of Christ died, while the divine nature of the same person did not die (for it is eternal), yet He who died was still the second person of the divine Trinity, rather than a separate being, and such is expressed by Paul in his second letter to the church at Corinth.

447

But we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: Which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory: (1 Cor 2:7-8) As it is right to say that the divine Son of God died on the cross, it is likewise right to say that the human son of Mary secured the redemption of God’s people, since both the human and divine natures belong to the same person. As Gromacki notes, “it is proper to say Jesus is the Redeemer, even though Jesus was His human name. It is also correct to say the Son of God suffered … [since] human attributes were attributed to Him under Divine titles.”7 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he [the human incarnation of the eternal Son of God] that shall save his people from their sins. (Mt 1:21) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. (Lk 1:35) Additionally, there were times in which the union of the human and the divine were evident within a single instance in the life of Jesus. Such dual manifestation is seen in the instance of the cursing of the fig tree, in which Jesus displayed hunger and power over nature (Mt 21:19), and also in Jesus’ reference to Himself being present in heaven, while on earth and in a localized human body (Jn 3:11-13). Likewise, in the account of Lazarus’ resurrection, Jesus knew Lazarus had died, despite being informed of such, yet when He arrived at the scene, He inquired concerning the location of the tomb (Jn 11:11, 34). Jesus also professed lack of knowledge concerning the Father’s future timetable (Mk 13:30-32). As the Son of God, He would certainly know such things, but He chose, in His humanity, to limit the use of His divine abilities. This choice was not made by His human nature, but by His divine nature, for a human being cannot chose to be anything more or less than human. Although born as God incarnate, Jesus was born as a normal human being with all the natural limitations imposed upon such a being. Yet, these limitations are ones which He agreed to assume prior to His becoming human. Therefore, while the person of Christ chose a limited human nature, the human nature which He took upon was not limited so by its own choosing; but rather, by the choosing of the divine nature which existed prior to the addition of the human nature to the person of Christ. In other words, the choice was made by the pre-existent divine Son, that the human nature which He took on would be a nature equal to the nature of other men, with all the limitations natural to humanity. And seeing a fig tree by the way side, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only; and he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And immediately the fig tree withered away. (Mt 21:19)

448

And after this [Jesus] saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. … and [Jesus] said, Where have ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. (Jn 11:11, 34) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mk 13:30-32) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven. (Jn 3:11-13) The belief of the early church concerning Christ’s dual natures Ignatius defended the dual nature of Christ against the Docetists, who denied that Jesus had a real human body. According to Docetic doctrine, Jesus only appeared as a man, but not really as flesh and blood. Aristides defended the dual nature of Christ in his apology the Roman emperor. Other early church writers who defended Christ's two natures include Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew and Apology), Tatian (Diatessaron), Melito of Sardis (Discourses on the Cross, Discourses on the on Soul and Body), Iraeneus (Against Heresies), Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus (Refutation on All Heresies, Treaties on Christ and Anti-Christ, On Proverbs 24, and Against Beron and Helix), Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ, Prescription Against Heretics, Against Praxeas, and Against Marcion) and Origen (Against Celsus). In addition, the early baptismal confession of Hippolytus and the Apostles' Creed contain statements of faith in Christ's dual nature. The controversy surrounding the merging of the human and the divine in the person of Christ culminated in the fifth century with the Definition of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), also known as the "Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union" or the "TwoNature Doctrine,” a creed resulting from a controversy between the western and eastern churches concerning the incarnation of the Son of God in the flesh. Below is the creed which arose out of that controversy: “Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these last days, for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness. We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-

449

Son, Lord, only-begotten — in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the properties of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one person and in one reality. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and onlybegotten Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers has handed down to us.”8 The self-emptying of the Son of God in taking on a human nature In his letter to the church at Philippi, Paul discusses the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity in human flesh and blood. [Christ], existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. (Phil 2:6-8 NASB) Parallel translations He stripped Himself of His glory, and took on Him the nature of a bondservant by becoming a man like other men. (The New Testament in Modern Speech) but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made. (Young's Literal Translation) But made himself of no reputation and emptied himself of the divine form and glory, and took the form of a servant, of our own race, a race whose duty it is to serve God. The divine glory was exchanged for human lowliness. (People's New Testament) Exegesis of Philippians 2:6-8 In understanding the emptying of Christ, a look at the original Greek language in the text serves to elaborate on the English meaning (Greek references taken from Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon). The context of the passage is an exhortation to believers to have the mind of Christ (v 5). Paul then gives the following example of the character of Christ’s mind. The passage may be divided into two parts, each a reference to one of Christ’s two natures.

450

Part one – referencing the Deity of Christ “Who, existing in the form of God” morphē - that which contains the appearance, essence, and the nature of a thing. Elsewhere, Paul states Christ exists as the “express image” or “exact representation” of God. (Heb 1:3) As Rhodes notes, “the phrase 'exact representation' was used among the ancients of an engraving tool or stamp, often in ref to the minting of coins. In common usage, however, it came to refer to the actual mark engraved or the impression made by the tool itself. The word thus indicates an 'exact expression'. … Christ is the 'exact representation' of God’s real being, and all the essential characteristics of God are brought into clear focus in Him.”9 As John wrote in his Gospel, “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” The “who” of this passage refers to the pre-incarnate Christ, who was and will always be God. Part two – referencing the humanity of Christ “counted not “ hegeomai - to consider or deem “the being on an equality with God” isos - equal, in quantity or quality “a thing to be grasped” harpagmos - to seize upon and retain a prize Here, the passage switches from referring to the pre-incarnate Christ, who was already equal with God, to the incarnate Christ – the man Jesus, who was unequal with God in His humanity. The KJV translates this portion as “[Christ] thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” His equality with deity was His by right and by nature. It was not a thing which he seized as if it were a thing which He did not earn or deserve. His equality with God belonged to Him and was so essential to His person that it was not something of which He could rid Himself. Rodney Decker adds that “there is an idiom involved … The ‘-mo’ ending [of the Greek word harpagmos] is a rare form (not used in LXX [the Septuagint] and only here in NT); ‘-ma’ is the more common form … [this factor results] in the following idiomatic translation of Phil. 2:6, ‘he did not regard being equal with God as something to use for his own advantage.’”10 “but emptied himself” kenoō - to empty, to make void, deprive of force, render vain or useless, of no effect. From the root word kenos – denotes empty-handedness, without a gift, destitute, of no effect or purpose. Translated as “vain” in 2 Cor 15:14 “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain,” and also Eph 5:6 “Let no

451

man deceive you with vain words.” Other uses - Gal 2:2, Phl 2:16, Col 2:8, I Thess 2:1, I Thess 3:5, and Jas 2:20. Still referring to Christ’s humanity, Paul states the human nature of Christ was empty, or void of deity (otherwise, His human nature would not be fully human, but more akin to the titans of Greek myth). Decker observes the two ways which the word kenoō is be used in Scripture: 1) to empty or pour out (as a glass of water would be poured out, making the glass empty). This is used in the following passages in Scripture: Gen 24:20 … she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough 2 Chr 24:11 … and when they saw that there was much money, the king’s scribe and the chief priest’s officer came and emptied the chest, and took it 2) to make ineffectual or useless (as a flashlight with no battery). Rom 4:14 … For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect 1 Cor 1:17 … For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. 1 Cor 9:15 … But I have used none of these things: and I write not these things that it may be so done in my case; for it were good for me rather to die, than that any man should make my glorifying void. 2 Cor 9:3 … But I have sent the brethren, that our glorying on your behalf may not be made void in this respect. The passages in the latter usage are all from Pauline letters; therefore, it follows that he would be using the word in the same sense in the Philippian text – that his meaning is Christ, in His human nature, made Himself of no effect, rather than “pouring” His deity into humanity, thereby ceasing to be fully divine. “taking“ lambanō - to lay hold of a thing in order to use it; to take upon or appropriate to one's self, to make one's own. ”the form of “ (as above) morphē - that which contains the appearance and the nature of a thing. “a servant” doulos - one in a state of servitude, one who gives himself up to another's will to the disregard of his own interests. John Chrysostom comments that the form of a servant does not constitute a manner of service, as when Jesus washed His disciples’ feet, for such is the work, not the form, of a servant. The form of the servant which Christ assumed is that body with which he performed His service.11 “being made in” ginomai - to become, to begin to be; to appear in history, to come upon the stage

452

Paul uses a different Greek verb to describe the births of Isaac and Ishmael in Galatians 4:23, 29. Paul saw a difference between the births of these two and the birth of Jesus. “the likeness of men” homoiōma - the image, resemblance, or representation of a thing, in near equality or identity Paul states that “God [sent] his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom 8.3) The word “likeness” describes the state of the flesh, not the flesh itself. Jesus possessed real human flesh, rather than merely the appearance of such. As one commentator explained, “He took 'the form of a servant,' and in order to explain how He took 'the form of a servant,' there is added, by 'being made in the likeness of men.' His subjection to the law (Lk 2:21; Gal 4:4) and to His parents (Lk 2:51), His low state as a carpenter, and carpenter's reputed son (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3), His betrayal for the price of a bond-servant (Ex 21:32), and slave-like death to relieve us from the slavery of sin and death, finally and chiefly, His servant-like dependence as man on God, while His divinity was not outwardly manifested (Isa 49:3, 7), are all marks of His 'form as a servant.' This proves: (1) He was in the form of a servant as soon as He was made man. (2) He was “in the form of God” before He was “in the form of a servant.” (3) He did as really subsist in the divine nature, as in the form of a servant, or in the nature of man. For He was as much 'in the form of God' as 'in the form of a servant,' and was so in the form of God as 'to be on an equality with God,' ... His emptying Himself presupposes His previous plenitude of Godhead (Jn 1:14; Col 1:19; 2:9). He remained full of this; yet He bore Himself as if He were empty.”12 “And being found” heuriskō - to be seen, discovered, recognized, or detected; to present one's self out; one's state of being as perceived by others. There was nothing about His appearance which would cause anyone to assume He was not the natural-born son of Joseph. “in fashion” schēma - that which comprises everything in a person which strikes the senses. In commenting on this verse, John Wesley wrote, “The form of a servant - the form, the likeness, the fashion, though not exactly the same, are yet nearly related to each other. The form expresses something absolute; the likeness refers to other things of the same kind; the fashion respects what appears to sight and sense. Being made in the likeness of men - A real man, like other men.”13 “as “ hos - in like manner Christ possessed a physical, but not morally corrupt, nature common to all men.

453

“a man“ anthropos - a human being, whether male or female, with reference to the two-fold nature of man: body and soul “he humbled himself” tapeinoō - to make low or reduce to meaner circumstances; to assign a lower rank or place to; to abase or humble Christ's humiliation was the Son of God taking on the form of one in service to God. Given the above meanings, the passage may be paraphrased as follows: “Who, being in possession of the very essence of God, and not vain in such nature, took upon (or in addition to) Himself a form void of that nature, acting as one in self-sacrificing service to another, and began to be equal to man in all respects, save sin. And in so doing, presenting Himself as one recognized by men as a man, He abased Himself to their lowly estate.” Of what did Christ empty Himself? Below is a brief overview of various ways in which theologians have interpreted and explained the incarnation of Christ. Theory 1: He emptied Himself of His divinity Some believe that when God became man, He laid aside His deity in order to become fully human, then He later regained that deity when He ascended to the Father. The problem with this view is that if Christ laid aside His deity, even for a moment, then He would no longer be God, for God cannot change or be anything less than God. Were that the case, there would be no difference between Jesus and any other man. If Christ laid aside His deity, then He would be laying aside that which is essential to the nature of God. He could not have existed as God without His deity any more than He could have existed as a man without a human body. For that reason, some have dubbed this view as "incarnation by divine suicide." If the Son of God emptied Himself of His divinity during the incarnation, then Jesus died as a man and His death would serve no greater purpose. It is because the person who was crucified was not only the virgin-born son of Mary, but also, the second person of the Trinity, that His death has infinite value. If His divinity was removed from His person, then the man who died on the cross was just an innocent man who died for a worthless cause. As John states, the Word became flesh, but He was still the Word, the eternal Son of God, who took on a human nature. The incarnation did not involve a detraction of deity; but rather, the addition of humanity.

454

Theory 2: He emptied Himself of His glory Being similar to that above, this view claims that Jesus retained His deity, but laid aside His glory, the outward manifestation on His deity. In support of this view, the following passage from John’s Gospel has been employed: These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee. (Jn 17:1) It has been asked, “If Christ retained His glory during the incarnation, why did He pray to the Father that He might be glorified?” The Gospels give only one account in the pre-resurrection life of Christ where Jesus revealed His glory (Mt 17:1-6, Mk 9:1-8, and Lk 9:28-36), an event referred to as the Transfiguration. At all other times, He walked among men having no physical distinction from them. He did not have a halo floating above His head, nor did he shine like the sun as He preached to the multitudes. In His flesh He possessed no glory, which is the reason for His prayer above. As shown above, there were times when Jesus spoke as a man, while at other times He spoke as directed by His divine nature. As a man, Jesus needed to be glorified, but, as God, He already was glorified, for God does not change in His essence, to which glory is essential. Also, Jesus stated that while He walked among man as God veiled in the flesh, He was also in heaven in His divine nature (Jn 3:11-13). In the Old Testament, Jesus appeared to man on numerous occasions as the Angel of the Lord and various other theophanies, or physical manifestations of God. In each of these instances, as was true during the incarnation, His glory was hidden from man, for no man can see God and live – yet the angels in heaven still beheld Him in full glory even as He walked among man with a fully human nature. The book of Hebrews describes the flesh of Jesus as a veil (Heb 10:20), and it was under this veil that the glory of God shone in all its brilliance. However, the glory was still present, for a veil placed over a thing does not eradicate that which it covers, but merely hides it from view, as a pearl lay concealed within the shell of a mollusk, yet still present within the shell despite its lack of visibility. Theory 3: He emptied Himself of some of His divine attributes Another view of the incarnation concerns a partial eradication of divine properties in the person of Jesus during the incarnation. According to this view, Jesus retained His divinity and glory, although veiled to man, but emptied Himself of qualities such as His infinite knowledge, power, and presence in order to walk among men as their brother, not their God. This view is no more plausible than is the first view mentioned above. It is equally impossible for God to rid Himself of one or a few of His attributes as it is for Him to rid Himself of them all. In the words of T.D. Shedd, “Each nature [the human and divine], in order to be whole and entire, must have all its essential elements.”14 Also, as shown previously, there were

455

times when Jesus displayed such divine knowledge and power, for He knew things that no man could know (such as the time and manner of His death and resurrection) and displayed power over nature, power which no man could display (such as calming the storm). The title Son of God, a title by which Jesus was known, denotes oneness or sameness with God, rather than generational descent. In the ancient Jewish mind, to be the “son of” another was to possess the very essence of another, as is said of the “sons of the prophets.” His sonship is not due to His birth, but to His inseparable participation in the Godhead. Thus, the Son of God has always been God’s Son, even prior to Jesus being born of Mary. As F.F. Bruce stated, “In becoming human, the Word [of God] did not cease to be what it was, rather it became what it was not.”15 The apostle John states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,” (Jn 1:1, 14) but the Word, in becoming flesh, did not cease to be the Word of God. Paul states that Jesus was the “fullness of the Godhead, bodily,” (Col 2:9) which could not be true if He did not possess the fullness of divine attributes. If Christ was limited in His possession of divine qualities, then He was not sovereign. If He was not sovereign, He was not God. If He was not God, then the Word of God never “became flesh and dwelt among us.” Were that the case, then the great I AM, who spoke to Moses from the burning bush, became the I WAS, in the incarnation of Christ. Gromacki explains, “Christ is one person; therefore, a discussion on the incarnation of Christ must be in reference to the modification of Him as a single person, not a split of one person into a second person. That being the case, either He exchanged one nature for another, or the two were co-existent within His person.”16 Finally, if Christ emptied Himself of some of His attributes, then such would effect a change of nature within the Godhead, and the immutability of God is part of that which is essential to His being. As the author of Hebrews said, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yea and for ever.” (Heb 13:8) Theory 4: He limited the use of His divine attributes Some say that Christ retained the fullness of His deity, including all that which is essential to God’s divine nature, but chose to act as if He were just a man, limiting Himself to the voluntary non-use of His divine attributes. Anselm expressed that Jesus, for the most part, acted as if He did not possess abilities exclusive to His divine nature, while at times drawing upon these abilities to perform that which a human nature could not perform. While this view bears closeness to the truth, it must be borne in mind with the following consideration: the human nature of Jesus was just that – human. The humanity of Jesus was not human plus that-which-is-nothuman. As a man, He was capable of no feat which could not be performed by another man. The incarnation of God was that the Word became flesh, not that flesh became the Word. The Son of God took upon Himself a human nature, but did not impart divinity to that nature. That which was divine remained divine and that which was made human did not have divinity imparted to it. When Jesus performed miracles and exercised

456

abilities exclusive to His divine nature, it was a result of the divine nature of Christ working within the human nature of Christ to effect that which the human nature could not do in and of itself. In other words, rather than speaking of His divine attributes being limited within His humanity (as if the ability was there, but the use of that ability was self-restricted), it is proper to say that His divine nature worked through His human nature to manifest wondrous works within that nature. Such was the case when God worked through the prophets and apostles to perform miracles, including raising the dead. These ones performed marvelous acts, but such was not done in their own power; but rather, by the power of God working through them. The difference between God working through these men and His working through Jesus is that God and Elijah, for instance, were not one and the same. The person of God worked through the person of Elijah to work wonders through him. In the case of Jesus, the divine nature of the person of Christ worked through His human nature to do that which He, in His humanity, could not perform by virtue of its human limitations. The limitations of His human nature were such as were required for true humanity. These limitations were not self-imposed by His human nature; but rather, were placed upon that nature when it was first conceived within Mary’s womb. When Jesus was hungry, His human nature did not have the ability to turn stones into bread, for such a thing would only have been possible of His divine nature. Yet, His divine nature did not cater to His human nature in order to provide for Jesus a life of luxury. The manifestations of His divine abilities were never used for Jesus’ own benefit. Such manifestations were done so that His people would believe that He is the Son of God, who alone has the words of life. Theory 5: He emptied Himself of the independent use of His divine attributes This position on the incarnation states that Christ retained His divine attributes, but surrendered the independent exercise of these attributes to the Father. In so doing, He submitted to the Father and looked to the Spirit to empower Him in carrying out the Father's will. By analogy, the bulb was still in the socket, but it was the Father, not the Son, who turned on the switch. In looking at this position, it must be remembered in what sense the Son is subject to the Father. As stated earlier, all three persons of the Godhead are equal in being and nature. The Father is not any more God than is the Son. The Son’s subordination to the Father rests not in who He is; but rather, what He does. The Son subjected Himself to the will of the Father in agreeing to take on a human nature by which He would suffer for the sin of God’s elect. As a man, Christ’s human nature was subject to the same divine authority as any other man. As a Jew born under the Law, He would have been required to perform all that which the Law requires, including sacrifices and offerings. Such was the nature of His duty as a man, that He keep the Law of God in perfect obedience, as only He could, so that the blood He shed was not blood shed as atonement for His own disobedience; but rather, for the disobedience of others. (Rom 5:19) Jesus'

457

human nature was not a deified human nature and did not possess equality with God. Rather, the human nature of Jesus was equal to that of any other man, and in this nature was Jesus subject to God – to Himself, or to His divine nature. The human nature of Jesus was a created entity, fashioned in the image of God and subject to the Law of God. However, His divine nature, being uncreated and equal with the Father, is a divine nature to whom His human nature was subject, by virtue of the human nature's inferiority as a created thing. As a man, Jesus was unable to work miracles, and His human nature relied on the power of the Spirit of God, as did the apostles when they raised the dead and healed the sick. It is in this human dependence upon God that Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,” yet it was in the power of His own divine nature that He healed the brokenhearted, gave sight to the blind, and set at liberty those who were in spiritual bondage. (Lk 4:18; cf Isa 61:1) During the incarnation, it was still the Son of God who was upholding all things, and by whom all things consist. (Col 1:17) The person of Christ, in taking on a human nature, did not become devoid of His deity or any ability to do the work of God. Self-sufficiency is essential to the Godhood – and not to the Father alone, but also to the Son and the Spirit. If Jesus had relinquished His ability to do the work of God in and of Himself, then He relinquished a portion of that which makes Him God. During the incarnation, the Son of God did not become God-minussomething. Were that the case, a rift would have been created within the Trinity, for one of the three Divine Persons would then be unequal with the others, and what was once triune would then be transformed into a duality of deity: the Father and Spirit being equal, with the Son in possession of a lesser form of deity. Theory 6: The Christ was a spirit imparted to the human Jesus This view, not held among orthodox Christianity, states that Jesus had a human soul, and that, at His baptism, the eternal Word of God “descended upon” (as it is translated in the King James Version of the English Bible), or was imparted to, that soul. The theory goes that prior to His baptism, Jesus was fully human, but was not God in the flesh. Rather, such divinity was imparted to Him when the Spirit of God descended like a dove upon him at His baptism. (Mt 3:16) Such a view is all too similar to the reasoning of secular philosophy, which claims that Jesus was a man who achieved a higher state of consciousness, which they term the Christ Consciousness. As the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher stated, Jesus was a man who came into an awareness of what he called a “supreme God consciousness.”17 The truth is that no such view is expressed in Scripture. Jesus was not just a man living in the deepest of communion with God. Jesus knew His divine status prior to His baptism, as revealed when He said at age twelve that He was about His Father's business. (Lk 2:49)

458

The incarnation of God was neither a diminishing of deity into humanity, nor was it an elevation of a normal human being to divine status. Jesus was not a deified form of humanity, nor was He a human god. As a man, Jesus did not possess infinite knowledge, but as God, no thought was hidden from Him. As a man, Jesus' power was equal to power common to humanity, but as God, He held the cosmos together. Jesus was fully human and incapable of divine action in its own power as a man, but as God, no power could hold Him down, not even death. As a man, Jesus was still the Word made flesh and His human nature was as much a part of the person of Christ as was His divine nature. Since the moment Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb, He became the God-Man, and so was that the angel Gabriel said to Mary, “... that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God.” (Lk 1:35) Even in the womb, the person of Christ was holy. It was not to His human nature that holiness belonged; but rather, such holiness belongs to the Son of God, of whom that human nature became a part. Neither did Jesus become God's Son at the moment of conception. His divine Sonship is due to His oneness with the Father, rather than to an ontological procession (or a coming into existence) from the Father. The Spirit of God descending on Jesus as His baptism was a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. (Isa 11:2) The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. (Isa 61:1) The descent of the Spirit is likened to the anointing by which a Levite was inaugurated as a priest in the sight of God and the people of Israel. “Then [Moses] shall take the anointing oil, and pour it on [Aaron's] head and anoint him. (Ex 29:7) As the High Priest for God's people, it is fitting that He should receive an anointing, not with oil, as were the priests of old, but with a better anointing – the anointing of the Spirit, of which the anointing by oil was but a foreshadow. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:17)

459

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Heb 8:1-6) Also, the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus as His baptism was not the source of His sinlessness. Jesus did not become sinless. Rather, He was conceived without sin. His sinlessness rested in His identity as the Son of God. His human nature, being one with His divine nature, was free from sin. As stated previously, Jesus had a fully human nature; however, Scripture repeatedly states that humanity is sinful by nature, not by experience. The human nature which Christ assumed was not the fallen human nature which all men now inherit from Adam. Rather, Jesus' human nature was the sinless nature of Adam, the nature with which humanity was created and later lost due to disobedience. Why, then, was Jesus baptized? Even John the Baptist was confounded by Jesus' submission to baptism, as expressed when he asked, “I have need to be baptized of you, and you come to me?” (Mt 3:14) The life of Jesus is a life which was lived in perfect obedience and submission to the Law and will of God. It was in this spirit of obedience that Jesus submitted himself to John's baptism, not that He needed cleansing from sin; but rather, that He should “fulfill all righteousness,” as was His reply to John, so that by Jesus' obedience many shall be made righteous, as it was by Adam's disobedience many were made sinners. (Rom 5:19) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor 5:21) As Matthew Henry states, “Therefore, this act of baptism was a necessary part of the righteousness He secured for sinners. His was a perfect righteousness in that He fulfilled all the requirements of the Law which we, for whose sin He would exchange His righteousness, are not capable of fulfilling. He is our perfect substitute.”18 Christ is one Person having two natures While the Son of God had two natures, divine and human, He still remained one person. The incarnation did not result in a split of persons, one divine and one human, nor did He live two separate lives during the incarnation: one life as the eternal Son of God, and the other as the virgin-born son of Mary. If one

460

looks closely, the “kenosis” passage which describes the emptying of Christ in the incarnation contains a strong indication of what Christ emptied Himself of when He took upon Himself a human nature. [Christ], existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Phil 2:6-8 (NASB) That of which Christ emptied Himself was His equality with God. It is this equality which he disregarded, or did not reckon a thing to be grasped or held onto; however, such disregard does not involve a surrender of such equality. As a man, He could not be equal to God, and it was to this end that His human nature did not retain that deity which was retained by His divinity in the incarnation. When Christ took upon a human nature, He added to that which He already was, without detracting from His deity, for God cannot ever be any less God than He always has been. Augustine stated that the incarnation involved Christ “taking [upon Himself] that which He was not, not by losing that which He had.”19 Therefore, His relinquishment of equality with the Godhead was not due to a change in His divine nature, but in adding to His person a human nature. During the incarnation, He continued to be the second person of the Trinity, and as such He maintained His equality with God; however, as man, He became lower than the angels (Heb 2:6), being made in fashion as a man and in the likeness of sinful flesh. It was in His humanity that He was humbled in the sight of God, or in His own sight. As John Wesley stated, “Though he remained full, yet he appeared as if he had been empty; for he veiled his fullness from the sight of men and angels.”20 When the Son of God took on a human nature, He took on a human body, according to the nature of man. However, when He took on a human body, He did not become a separate person. Prior to the incarnation, the Son of God already possessed being and was already a person. The conception of Jesus, although being a natural birth (through supernatural conception), did not bring into existence a new being, as is the case with any other person. Prior to being conceived, a man does not have being; but rather, is brought into existence through sexual union between a man and a woman. His conception gives him his being, since pre-existence is not an element of human nature. However, the Son of God, being eternal, did not receive His being at the moment the human body was placed in Mary’s womb. At Jesus’ conception He added to His preexistent person a human nature, of which a human body is a part. Without flesh and blood, He would have been devoid of humanity and the incarnation would have been merely a theophany – an appearance of God as a man, as He was when He appeared to Abraham, without appearing in actual flesh and blood. Jesus always referred to Himself through the use of singular personal pronouns: “I, my, me,” etc. The union of the divine and the human in the person

461

of Christ is not likened to the union of the divine persons within the Trinity. The Triune God is three separate persons, having one being and sharing in the same nature, and, at times, refers to His Triune self through the use of plural pronouns, as in Genesis when He said, “Let us make man in our image.” (Gen 1:26) In contrast, the incarnation of God as man was the union of two different natures within one person, therefore, Jesus never refers to Himself in the plural sense. In His humanity, He did not live a life separate from His deity; but rather, functioned as a single person within two spheres: the physical and the spiritual. By analogy, when a man dies, his body is placed in the grave, whereas his spirit is separated from his body. In so doing, his spirit does not become a person separate from the body; but rather, continues his personal existence in a different sphere of reality. At that point, the man exists as one person within two spheres, with his body lying dead in the grave, and his spirit existing in the spiritual realm, either as one redeemed from sin or as one condemned for his trespasses. Ron Rhodes states, “… the eternal God - Who, prior to the incarnation, was one in person and nature (wholly divine) – became, in the incarnation, two in nature (divine and human) while remaining one person. The Son, who had already been a person in all eternity past, joined Himself not with a human person but with a human nature at the incarnation.”21 Furthermore, the Creed of Athenasius reads, “As a rational soul and flesh are one man, so God and man are one Christ.”22 As God, the person of Christ held all things together, while, as a man, He would at times be asleep, being unaware of the goings-on around Him. As a man, the person of Christ could hunger, while as God, He is the Bread of Life. When He said, “I and my Father are one,” (Jn 10:3) He was not referring to His divine nature alone, but that His person, having both a divine and a human nature, is one with the Father. Since Christ remained a single person throughout the incarnation, His work either as a man or as God must be attributed to His person, rather than to one of His two natures. Therefore, when He walked on water, He did it in His body, or in His human nature, but did so through the power of His divine nature. When He suffered on the cross, His human body died, but His person suffered for the sins of God’s people. In His human nature, He bled and died, but the person of Christ, consisting of both natures, bore the fullness of the penalty for sin. Had He only suffered in His human nature, then His suffering would have had no eternal value, for the suffering of a man, even an obedient man, is not sufficient as atonement for the sin of others. It was because the person of Christ retained His deity that such suffering was sufficient to redeem His sheep. Therefore, it is proper to say that the Son of God suffered for sin, not just that the man Jesus bore such suffering as one separate from the Son of God. In his first letter to the church at Corinth, Paul states the ”Lord of glory” was crucified (1 Cor 2:8), not just that Jesus, the name given to Christ’s human nature (Lk 1:31), suffered for sin. Likewise, it is proper to attribute divine titles to Jesus’ humanity, and to refer to Him by such a title as “Jesus Christ, our Lord,” as Paul does on numerous occasions and in various fashion throughout his letters. Although He was Jesus, the son of Mary, He is also the Lord, the Son of God. It is in this spirit that Paul states Jesus was “born of the seed of David according to the

462

flesh,” while still being “declared [as] the Son of God with power.” (Rom 1:3-4) Gromacki explains, “Christ is one person; therefore, a discussion on the incarnation of Christ must be in reference to the modification of Him as a single person, not a split of one person into a second person. That being the case, either He exchanged one nature for another, or the two were co-existent within His person.”23 A union of two full and distinct natures The incarnation resulted in the person of the Son of God being fully God and fully man at the same time. When the Word was made flesh, nothing was detracted from His divinity, nor was anything added to what is typical of humanity, for, if either had been true, then He would have been neither divine nor human. Prior to the incarnation, the person of Christ was wholly divine. When He became flesh, His divinity was not imparted to a human nature, nor was humanity imparted to His divinity. Rather, the person of Christ took part in the two distinct natures, assuming for Himself a second temporal nature separate from His eternal nature, and adding that second nature to His person, who has previously existed with a divine nature throughout all eternity. When He took part in His human nature, that nature became one with God, not by virtue of being equal in nature with God, but because the one to whom that nature belonged was the Son of God, who is equal, in His divine nature, with God. In His human nature, He was flesh and blood, but in His divine nature, His existence constituted a spiritual nature, yet both natures belonged to the same person, with each nature retaining the properties essential to that nature. Such a union of the two natures, each in its fullness, within the person of Christ is referred to as the Hypostatic Union, which states that when the Word was made flesh, the Son of God came into possession of two natures, yet remained one in substance or being. As the incarnation did not result in an exchange of natures, nor did it result in the creation of a third nature, being a hybrid of the two, consisting of parts of each nature. At the moment the body of Jesus was conceived, the Son of God, who already existed with the fullness of deity, became fully man. As Paul states, Christ “took on” the form of man, but in so doing did not put off the form of God. The Son of God gained human attributes without setting aside any of those attributes which belongs to His deity. In other words, He did not cease to be God; but rather, He began to also be a man. Even today, the Son of God works in both natures. In His human nature, He prays for man, and in His divine nature, He reconciles man to God. It was in His human nature that He prayed for man (Jn 17), as the one and only Mediator between God and man, yet it is in His divine nature, having been slain before the foundation of the world, that He ever lives to make intercession for man. In the incarnation, the divine remained divine, and the human was made human. Conclusion John Gill expertly summed up the union of the human and Divine within the Person of Christ when he said it was necessary that the Redeemer of man be one

463

in person, but two in nature, so that “the human nature should be taken up, and united to, and subsist in the person of the Son of God; for the human nature, as it has no personality of itself, it adds none to the Son of God; it is no constituent part of his person; he was a divine person before his assumption of human nature; and what he assumed was not a person, but a nature, and is called a ‘thing, nature, seed,’ (Luke 1:35; Heb. 2:16) had it been a person, there would be two persons in Christ.”24 Addendum one: What happened to the union of the two natures when the body of Christ died and was later resurrected? The body of Jesus experienced a normal state of death for three days As stated above, the Son of God took upon Himself a nature which was fully human and subject to entering a state of death. Prior to his crucifixion, He also said that He would lie in the grave for three days before His resurrection. Had Jesus remained in the grave, His human body would have experienced the normal progression of decay which would occur in any other body after the point of death. While Jesus was unable to be corrupted by sin, His human body was able to be corrupted by death, as His body was not subject to any law outside of nature, except that such was permitted by His divine nature, as when He performed miracles. During the three days in the tomb, Jesus' body would only remain in the initial “fresh” stage of decomposition. In this stage, the body enters algor mortis, where the temperature of the body cools to that of its surroundings. His bodily bacteria would begin to break down, a process which causes putrefaction, resulting in the bloating of the body and discoloring of the flesh, accompanied by a foul odor. Jesus' body, being in the grave for a mere three days, did not pass into the putrefying stage of death, as stated in Scripture. He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This [the body which was dead in the grave] Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:31-32) Additionally, being the voluntary sacrifice for sin, and agreeing to partake in the nature of man, death was a necessity, since death is the natural consequence of the curse of sin. However, as God, who is self-existent, the person of Christ did not cease to exist while His human body lay in the tomb – only His human body lay dead in the grave. Upon His resurrection, it was this same body which was raised from the dead, not as one bearing the marks of a corpse, but in a glorified, yet physical, body. Some skeptics have proposed that Jesus only rose from the dead in a spiritual sense, while His body remained dead in the tomb, however such a premise violates both Scripture and reason, as will be shown under a later heading. Jesus' human soul was separated from His body during death Scripture teaches that upon death, the soul of man leaves the body (2 Cor 5:1-10), and so it was with Christ, having not only a human body, but a human

464

spirit. At that point, the human spirit of Jesus was separated from His body, but was not separated from His divine nature. When the divine nature of Christ raised His human body from death to life, both the divine and human spirit of Jesus were reunited with the body of Jesus. As Gromacki explains, “what occurred was the separation of the divine person with His divine nature and His human immaterial nature (soul and spirit) from the human body. There was no separation of the divine nature from the human nature at the crucifixion. He was no less human after His death than any human is after death. Although His body was in the ground, His human person awaited resurrection elsewhere. At the resurrection, His real self, including His divine nature and His immaterial human nature, were forever joined to a new immortal, incorruptible body. At this time, His human nature did not gain the attributes of the divine nature. Just as we will not gain divine qualities after death, neither did the attributes of His divine nature transfer to His human nature at His resurrection.”25 Jesus effected the resurrection of His own body Jesus' resurrection was done in His own power. He did not sit idly by while the Father raised His body for Him. Puritan theologian John Gill (1697 – 1771) describes the relationship between the human and divine natures of Christ in His resurrection from the dead: “In the act of laying down his life for men, both natures appear; the human nature, which is passive in it, and is the life laid down; the divine nature, or the divine Person of Christ, who is active in it, and laid down his life of himself, he having such a power over his life as man, and that at his dispose, as no mere creature ever had; and both are to be observed in his taking of it up again; his human nature, in his body being raised from the dead; his divine nature or person, in raising it up of himself, whereby he was declared to be the Son of God with power: He was put to death in the flesh, in human nature, and quickened in the Spirit, or by his divine nature; the sacrifice of himself, was his own act, as Mediator; what was offered up were his soul and body, his whole human nature; this was offered by his eternal Spirit, or divine nature, which gave virtue to it, and made it a proper atoning sacrifice for sin.”26 Christ's human nature is everlasting The spirit of man continues to exist following the death of the body. After death, the man is judged and received either blessing or curse in accordance with His words and deeds. Likewise, the human nature of Christ was not abandoned or obliterated following His securing the salvation of God's people. If Christ's human nature is not everlasting, then it would be a nature not fully human. The union of His two natures is a relationship which will continue throughout all eternity. A while after His bodily resurrection, Jesus ascended to the Father in bodily form, where He remains today and forevermore, in possession of His dual natures.

465

Addendum two: The result of the incarnation Christ revealed the glory of God In the incarnation, Jesus became the visible revelation of the glory of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (Jn 1:14 NASB) The glory of Christ was a glory inherent within Him (Heb 1:3). It was not a glory placed on Him by the Father. Christ became the High Priest and Mediator for man Now having in His Person both the nature of God and man, Christ assumes His role as High Priest and Mediator between the two parties in that He lives to make intercession for man and forever reconcile man to God, in an eternal relationship, made possible by His redemptive sacrifice of Himself. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor 5:21) Christ's role as High Priest and Mediator will be further discussed later in this book. Here it only needs be stated that in order to perform such a role, He needed to become man, so that He might first die, then stand as man's representative in their salvation, as a kinsman-redeemer served as a representative in the buying back of one sold to slavery. And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family: After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him. (Lev 25.47-48) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Heb 2:14-16) Such a representative also needed to be God Himself, so that the sacrifice made was of a manner and worth so as to provide an acceptable sacrifice for sin and appeasement of God's own justice. Christ fulfilled the Old Testament ceremonial and sacrificial system The apostle John states that Jesus “made His dwelling among us.” (Jn 1:1) The literal translation is that Jesus “pitched His tent” or “tabernacled” among man. In the days of Moses, God instituted a set of laws and rituals by which

466

sacrifices for sin and other purposes were performed by priests on behalf of the people. He commanded a tabernacle, a large tent-like structure, to be built, in which would be placed the Ark of the Covenant, the physical representation of the presence of Yahweh. When the Son of God became flesh, He made the former symbol of God's presence a reality. No longer did the people of God need to present their sacrifices and offerings in a Temple, for the true glory of God resided within the person of Jesus, the only true sacrificial Lamb of God. Although His glory was veiled by His flesh, as the Ark in the Temple rested behind a veil, Jesus possessed within Him the fullness of deity.

IV. The Son of God bears the name of God These next few headings will look at some of the names, titles, and offices of God in the Old Testament and show how they were attributed to Christ in the New Testament. Yahweh; I AM Old Testament And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Ex 3.14) New Testament Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. (Jn 8:58-59) Yahweh is the vocalized form of the name “YHVH,” the divine name of God, a name which means “to be.” Thus, it is the name God used to identify Himself to Moses when He told Moses to tell Pharaoh that “I AM” sent him. The name identifies God as a real being, distinct from the derived deities of the pagans. Jesus’ declaration that, “Before Abraham was born, I am,” was a declaration of His deity. He was identifying Himself as YHVH, the I AM of the Old Testament. The Jews’ response to His confession displays their recognition of this statement as a declaration of His deity, as they prepared to exact upon Him the legal penalty for blasphemy: death by stoning (a penalty prescribed in Lev 24.16).

V. The Son of God bears the titles of God God Old Testament Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah: and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deut 6:4-5) New Testament In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Jn 1:1, 14)

467

Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (Jn 20.28) Alpha and Omega Old Testament Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he. (Isa 41:4) New Testament And when I [John] saw him [Jesus], I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. (Rev 1:17-18) Light Old Testament I, Jehovah, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles. (Isa 42:6) New Testament For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples; A light for revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of thy people Israel. (Lk 3:30-32) Spoken by Simeon, as he looked upon the infant Christ. Rock Old Testament For who is God, save Jehovah? And who is a rock, save our God? (2 Sam 22:32) New Testament even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence: And he that believeth on him [Christ; the “stone” and “rock”] shall not be put to shame. (Rom 9:33) Shepherd Old Testament Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want. (Ps 23:1) New Testament I [Jesus] am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. (Jn 10:11)

468

VI. The Son of God holds the authority of God “Thus saith the Lord” was the commonly-used prefatory statement of the prophets. They declared their oracles not of their own authority, but as a representative of the Lord and ones under His authority. In contrast, Jesus referred to no earthly authority higher than Himself. Even the greatest of the scholars and rabbis fell back on the authority of Scripture when teaching the masses, however, Jesus often made declarations on His own authority, rather than the authority of Scripture. Whereas the highest of earthly authorities delivered the word of the Lord by saying, “as it is written,” Jesus, by virtue of His deity, was able to deliver the word of the Lord by declaring, “I say unto you.” The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why did ye not bring him? The officers answered, Never man so spake. (Jn 7:45-46) And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. (Mt 28.18) Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2.9-11) Authority over disease And behold, there came to him a leper and worshiped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway his leprosy was cleansed (Mt 8.2-3) Authority over men and angels For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. (Mt 16 27) Authority over demons And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness (Mt 10.1) 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. (Mk 1:27) Authority over the Law Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Mt 5:43-44)

469

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (Jn 13:34) For this man [Jesus] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house. (Heb 3:3) Moses was considered the greatest legal authority in Judaism, for it was through Moses that God gave the Law to Israel. During the life of Christ, there was a moment when several of His disciples saw Him, with His divine glory revealed, conversing with Moses and Elijah. As Moses was the greatest legal authority for the Jews, Elijah was considered the greatest of the Old Testament prophets. Together, Moses and Elijah represented the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures. The Jews did not divide the Old Testament in the same manner in which they are divided in the English Bible (books of history, poetry, and major and minor prophets). The Jews only recognized two divisions: the Law and the Prophets. In their giving honor to the glorified Christ, Moses and Elijah were declaring the God-Man as one greater than they, who were considered greatest among all men. Authority over the Temple The Temple was referred to in Scripture as the house of Jehovah. even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. (Isa 56:7) Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts. (Mal 3:1) Jesus claimed the Temple was His house. And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. (Mt 21:12-13) Authority over the destiny of man Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. (Mt 10:32)

470

VII. The Son of God performs the work of God As Redeemer Old Testament For thy Maker is thy husband; Jehovah of hosts is his name: and the Holy One of Israel is thy Redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall he be called. (Isa 54:5) New Testament in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace. (Eph 1:7) As Creator Old Testament In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1) The Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty giveth me life. (Job 33:4) New Testament In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (Jn 1:1-3, 14-15) for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him. (Col 1:16-18) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. (Heb 1:1-2) Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power: for thou didst create all things, and because of thy will they were, and were created. (Rev 4:11) As Savior Old Testament For he said, Surely, they are my people, children that will not deal falsely: so he was their Savior. (Isa 63:8)

471

New Testament for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (Lk 2:11) And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. (Acts 4:12) As Judge Old Testament Before Jehovah; For he cometh, For he cometh to judge the earth: He will judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with his truth. (Ps 96:13) New Testament in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ. (Rom 2:16) But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. (Rom 14:10) For we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor 5:10) As Forgiver of Sin And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that even forgiveth sins? And he said unto the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. (Lk 7:48-50) Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. (Acts 5:31) As Healer And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people. And the report of him went forth into all Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them. (Mt 4:23-24) And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. (Lk 5:12-13)

472

And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean. And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out, and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter. (Mk 1:40-45) And there came unto him great multitudes, having with them the lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and they cast them down at this feet; and he healed them. (Mt 15:30) And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis. And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to lay his hand upon him. And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain. And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it. And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well; he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak. (Mk 7:31-37) And it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him. And behold, there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not? But they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go. And he said unto them, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day? And they could not answer again unto these things. (Lk 14:1-6) And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye them thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. (Lk 22:49-51) As Giver of Life Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that

473

bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. (Lk 7:12-15) Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. (Jn 11:41-44) As Giver of Knowledge Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. (Lk 24:45) And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Lk 1:76-79)

VIII. The Son of God is pre-existent In pagan mythology, anyone who is said to be a son of a god always had a definite beginning. Pagan mythology does not contain mention of any sons of god who existed prior to conception. Such is not the case with Jesus, the Son of the one, true God. As the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus existed before being born to Mary The testimony of prophets concerning the coming Messiah The testimony of Isaiah For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6) “Everlasting Father” is a phrase which literally means “Father of Eternity.” It has been asked, if Jesus is the Son of God, how can He be referred to as a Father? It was a Hebrew idiom to use the position of fatherhood to denote ownership, in addition to a relationship with another person. Thus, to be the father of a thing is to be the owner of that thing. It is an expression somewhat similar to the concept of Father Time, in that “Father Time” is a personage who is said to own and control time itself. In referring to the Messiah as the Father of Eternity, Isaiah is literally identifying Him as “He who possesses eternity,”

474

something which can only be said of God, the only eternal being. In the Jewish targums, Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, the expression “Father of Eternity” is translated as “he who lives forever.” The testimony of Micah But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2) The phrase ”from of old” literally means “days of immeasurable time”1 The testimony of John the Baptist On the morrow [John] seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is come before me: for he was before me. (Jn 1:29-30) It must be remembered that John was six months older than his cousin Jesus (see Lk ch 1), yet here he declares that Jesus came “before” him. The testimony of Jesus Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my [Jesus’] day; and he saw it, and was glad. The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. (Jn 8:56-59) [Jesus said,] And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (Jn 17:5) As Creator Jesus – the Word, the only begotten of the Father – was present “in the beginning,” at creation. In Genesis (1:1) it is said “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew word translated “God” there is the word “Elohim,” which is a plural name, a reference to the Trinity. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. (Jn 1:1-2, 14) for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or

475

principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him. (Col 1:16) God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands. (Heb 1:1-2, 10) As the Word In the Old Testament, the Logos, or Word of God, is used metaphorically, but in John’s Gospel, the Logos is identified as the second person of the Trinity. The Word was with God before time began, since He was with God in the beginning, when time began. As words convey the mind of a man, so does the Word of God reveal the mind and purpose of God. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. … And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. (Jn 1:1-2, 14) And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteous he doth judge and make war. And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself. And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Rev 19:11-13) All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. (Lk 10:22) No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father, I have made known unto you. (Jn 15:15) As the Angel of the Lord A theophany is a physical manifestation of God. Such a manifestation may be an appearance in physical form, either human form or an element known to man, such as smoke or fire. The instances in Scripture when God appeared as a man, it was just that – as a man, not taking on actual flesh and bone (as was the case when Jesus was born of Mary). Some Old Testament examples of theophanies are: the cloud and the pillar of fire which guided the Hebrew people through the

476

wilderness after their exodus from Egypt, the burning bush, and the lamp which appeared to Abraham (Gen ch 15). In the Old Testament, the principal theophany is the Angel of the Lord, also known as the Angel of Yahweh. It was in this form which God appeared most often. Also, it is important to distinguish an angel of the Lord from the Angel of the Lord. No mere angel is referred to as the Angel of the Lord or the Angel of Yahweh. An angel, in the commonly-understood sense of the word, is a created being; therefore, God cannot be properly called an angel according to the most common understanding of the word. However, the word “angel” refers to an office, not a state of being. The English word “angel” comes from a Hebrew word meaning “messenger.” Angels, by definition, are messengers of God, which was the precise function of the Angel of the Lord. What distinguishes the Angel from other angels is that the Angel of the Lord is God Himself, or, to be more precise, the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. No mere angel is referred to as the Angel of the Lord or the Angel of Yahweh. The Angel of Yahweh is identified as God The Angel identifies Himself using the very name of God – I AM (YHWH) Now Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the back of the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb. And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. … And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Ex 3:1-2, 13-14) Withholding Isaac from the Angel of Jehovah is the same as withholding him from God And the angel of Jehovah called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here I am. And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him. For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen 22.11-12) Being in the presence of the angel of the Lord is the same as being in the presence of God But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Jehovah. And

477

Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. (Judg 13:21-22) The Angel of the Lord made promises on His own authority, promises which only God could cause to be fulfilled And the angel of Jehovah said unto her, I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. (Gen 16.10) The Angel of the Lord forgave sin, which only God can do Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. (Ex 23.21) The Angel of the Lord received worship, which angels do not receive The Angel of the Lord (identified here as the Prince of Jehovah’s host) received worship from Joshua, whereas ordinary angels rebuked man when he responded in worship. Also, the Angel echoed the same words spoken to Moses, at the burning bush, concerning the ground on which Joshua stood as being holy ground. And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of Jehovah am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? And the prince of Jehovah’s host said unto Joshua, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so. (Josh 5:13-15; cf. Ex 3:5) The Angel of Yahweh is identified as a being other than God The passages above identified the Angel as God. Yet, elsewhere the Angel is described as a Person distinct from God in that the Angel interacts with Jehovah. Such passages illustrate Old Testament allusions to the divine Trinity – that God is one being consisting of three distinct persons. The angel of Yahweh intercedes to Yahweh for Israel. Then the angel of Jehovah answered and said, O Jehovah of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years? (Zech 1:12)

478

Both the Angel and Jesus have an intercessory ministry The angel of Yahweh intercedes to Yahweh for Israel. Then the angel of Jehovah answered and said, O Jehovah of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years? (Zech 1:12) For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus. (I Tim 2:5) These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: … And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are. (Jn 17:1, 11) Wherefore also [Christ] is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:25) My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (I Jn 2:1) The Angel of the Lord is not mentioned in Scripture following Christ’s incarnation The Angel no longer appears after the incarnation of Christ. After His incarnation in human flesh, Jesus continued His activity as the incarnate Son of God. The New Testament makes references to ordinary angels sent by God, but never refers to the Angel of the Lord. The description of the Angel of the Lord mirrors the description of the risen Christ Description of the Angel of the Lord – I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with pure gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as flaming torches, and his arms and his feet like unto burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude. (Dan 10:5-6) And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone; and upon the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man upon it above. And I saw as it were glowing metal, as the appearance of fire within it round about,

479

from the appearance of his loins and upward; and from the appearance of his loins and downward I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about him. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Jehovah. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. (Ez 1:26-28) Description of Christ – And his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and his voice as the voice of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth proceeded a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. (Rev 1:14-16) The titles of the Angel of the Lord mirror the titles of Christ Both called God – And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth: for she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me? (Gen 16:7,13) Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (Jn 20:28) Both called I AM – And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Ex 3:2-14) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I AM. (Jn 8:58) Both identified as Redeemer – In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. (Isa 63:9)

480

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it. (Eph 5:25) Both named as Commander of Lord’s Army – And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of Jehovah am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? (Josh 5:13-14) And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteous he doth judge and make war. And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself. And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure. (Rev 19:11-14)

IX. The Son of God possesses the character of God The character of God manifests how He relates to His creation. These expressions of His character are governed by His nature; therefore, it is not enough to merely state that God is good, faithful, just, etc., as if to say that any of these qualities are to be understood in the same manner in which they would be understood regarding mankind. For instance, since God is infinite by nature, the qualities which make up the character of God are likewise found to be without limit – He is infinitely good, infinitely just, etc. Since God is unchangeable by nature, He cannot be anything but good, faithful, or just. Since God is transcendent by nature, the qualities which make up the character of God are infinitely higher than any mortal expression of similar qualities. God is good The goodness of God is the kind and generous manner in which He expresses Himself to creation. He is good to both man and beast. He is good to those who love Him and those who despise Him. Since every good expression of God is infinitely good, there is no expression of God that can be any better or more generous than it is already. The goodness of God which extends to all creation is that benevolent governing by which life and the cosmos is maintained. It is according to His good will and pleasure that God keeps the earth rotating on its axis, gives man his breath, causes change in the seasons, gives nature and instinct to the beasts of the earth, and provides blessing and joy of innumerable sort.

481

In His goodness, God not only provides for His elect, but provides for both the just and the unjust. While every expression of God is infinitely good, the goodness which He extends to His elect goes beyond that which He extends to all mankind. The goodness which extends to all creation is a providential goodness by which all things are maintained and kept in order. The goodness which extends to God’s elect is a redemptive grace, or unmerited favor, by which guilt for sin is removed. Both the providential and redemptive goodness of God are infinite in that each provides the ultimate expression of goodness toward its intended end. Not everyone receives His redemptive goodness, but those who do, receive it infinitely. God’s goodness, whether providential or redemptive, is never extended to its object by virtue of any obligation or need on the part of God. God is good because it pleases Him to act in such manner, and the good manner in which He relates to His creation is not dependent on any act of man. When God gives a thing, He gives it to those undeserving, for none can merit the goodness of God. Even those whom God redeems from the guilt of sin receive such redemption through faith, but it is always by grace. Faith is the means, not the reason, by which such grace is applied to one’s account. The reason for such application of grace is the good pleasure of God, who chose His elect before the foundation of the world. Even faith itself is of the goodness of God, for were it not for the grace of God in removing the scales from the eyes and softening a hardened heart, the grace of God would be rejected at every turn by those whom He calls to be His children. The goodness of God is seen in all His works, whether such work is applying the righteousness of Christ to a sinner by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice for his sins or condemning the guilty to everlasting doom. In the case of the former, the goodness of God is evident without further discussion. In the case of the latter, the goodness of God is evident in that He has properly responded to that which He must condemn, being a just, righteous, and holy God. God cannot reward sin. God cannot permit the guilty to enter into His holy sanctuary. In His judgment of the guilty, He is doing that which is good by condemning that which is evil. If He did otherwise, He would not only be doing that which is not infinitely good, He would be doing that which is not good at all. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. (Mt 5:45) God is wise The knowledge of God has been previously discussed, but knowledge and wisdom are not one and the same. Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. One can be most knowledgeable, yet lack wisdom if he does not use that knowledge properly. On the other hand, one can be most wise, yet lack much knowledge, if he makes right use of the measure knowledge of which he is in possession. The wisdom of God is that which characterizes God’s purpose for all things. As He is infinitely wise, there is no greater plan or purpose than that which He has not already set in motion. He could create no greater world for man in which to live. He could provide no

482

greater means by which men are saved from sin. He chooses the best means by which the best end is achieved. He does not merely choose the best possible means or the best possible end, for if there were possible alternatives, then that which He set in motion would not certainly be executed with infinite wisdom. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! (Rom 11:33) For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col 2:1-3) Jesus is wisdom personified in the writings of Paul when he identified the person of Christ as the “Wisdom of God.” but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor 1:24) Also, there is a parallel passage in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels concerning one of Jesus’ statements, in which His identification as Wisdom is evident. In the Matthean passage the words are attributed to Jesus, but in the Lucan passage, the words are attributed to Wisdom. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, “... Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. (Mt 23:1, 34) Therefore also said the wisdom of God, “I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute.” (Lk 11:49) Scripture declares all things were created by Wisdom, who is Christ. Jehovah by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding he established the heavens. (Prov 3:19) For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col 1:16-17)

483

The early Christian apologist Justin Martyr serves as a testament to the belief in the early church that Jesus is Wisdom personified, when he declares, “[Christ] is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom.”1 The eighth chapter of Proverbs is a chapter devoted to the praise of wisdom, in which wisdom is personified in ways which foreshadow Christ. Since the early days of the church, this chapter of Proverbs has been understood as a personified description of the coming Messiah. Such interpretation is particularly evident in the following sections: I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogance, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honor are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. (Prov 8:12-21) Following this section of the chapter, Wisdom is described as existing prior to creation, when there was ever only God Himself. While the passage does speak of Wisdom as being “brought forth,” as Christ was “begotten” of God and “firstborn” of creation (the meanings of which having been previously discussed), it does not denote a time when Wisdom, the Son of God, did not exist. Wisdom is said to have been “from everlasting,” before creation, as one “by” and “with” God, as it was also said of John that the Word was not only “with God,” but “was God,” and later “became flesh.” (Jn 1:1-14). Moreover, Wisdom is here said to have been God's “daily delight, rejoicing always before him” before anything was created. The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him. (Prov 8:22-30) Finally, Scripture declares that it is through Wisdom, the Son of God, that men are loved by God and given spiritual life and salvation from sin.

484

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. (Prov 8:35-36) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (Jn 3:16-18) For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. (Jn 16:27) God is just The rule of God’s justice In the judicial system, judgment is pronounced and sentence is delivered according to a set code of legal principles, which we call law. Likewise, when God executes justice He does so according to law. Since there is no authority higher than God, the law by which He judges is His own. Since God is infinitely wise and good, His judgments are always executed in righteousness; that is, when He pronounces judgment, His judgment is always the right judgment. As there is no higher authority than God, His judgments cannot be subject to appeal. His rule is final. As the Great Judge of all, He is bound by His own nature to reward that which is good and punish that which is evil. The determination of what is good and what is evil is done according to how a thing conforms to the moral principles God has established, and these principles are established in accordance with His being. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deut 32:4) Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face. (Ps 89:14) Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. (Ps 119:142) The longsuffering of God God’s judgments are not always swift. At times, He chooses to delay judgment when doing so is suited to His purpose, such as when God endures the wickedness of man in order to bring him to repentance. In the end, however, justice will be satisfied. Any such delay of God’s judgment is due to the outpouring of His goodness in spite of the wickedness of man, as it was in the

485

days of Jonah when God endured the wickedness of Nineveh so that He might send His prophet Jonah to call the people of Nineveh to repentance. By what are men judged? As stated above, God judges mankind according to His own law, but what exactly is that which is brought into evidence either for or against man? Scripture teaches that man is judged according to his works. These works will be judged according to their nature, whether or not they are in conformity with God’s law, and according to the truth which has been revealed to man. All men have some awareness of a Higher Being, even if only by virtue of creation and the contemplation of the origin of all things. Beyond such a natural revelation of God, truth has also been revealed to mankind in varying degrees, from person to person. One’s judgment will be according to not only whether his works conform to God’s law, but also according to how much of God’s law was made known to the man. In short, the verdict is pronounced according to works, while the severity of the sentence is according to the amount of truth made known to the accused. In the final analysis, all men get what they deserve, for God rewards and punishes not arbitrarily, but according to the merit of individuals as evidenced by their conduct, a reflection of that which is in the heart. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Mt 12.36-37) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor 5.10) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20.11-15) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Cor 3.12-15)

486

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (Jn 5.24) But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Lk 12.48) God’s righteous anger The apostle John states that “God is love,” yet in so doing, he is not defining what God is entirely. Yes, God is love, but He is not only love, for He is also full of wrath in His stance against sin. It must be remembered that John’s letter was written to Christians – those whom God has called into a loving relationship with Him; therefore, to John’s readership, love is that emotion which governed God’s relationship to them. However, concerning the remainder of humanity, God responds with vehement hatred – and so should He, for the nature of these ones is contrary to the very nature of God’s being. Anyone whose sins have not been paid for by the blood of Christ remains at enmity with God, as adversaries hostile to a king. Such hostility may not be readily evident in their thoughts, words, or deeds, but the state of the heart reveals their true disposition. Scripture speaks of the unregenerate man as a “natural man,” (1 Cor 2:14) with a heart of “stone,” (Ez 36:26) and, as such, is “dead” to God (Eph 2:1) and in “bondage to sin.” (Rom 6:6) It is this state of being which God despises, not because the “natural man” has committed heinous, gross sins, but because he is sin himself. In other words, he is sinful because of what he is, not because of what he does. It is this state of being which God must hate, being a holy God who loves righteousness. Scripture is not gentle when describing God’s wrath against the sinner. Since God is eternal, His wrath can go on forever – it is an eternal, inescapable consuming rage. God delivers a harsh blow in His response to sin, yet His hand never delivers punishment which is “cruel and unusual.” The recipients of His wrath is deserving of their affliction. Neither God’s love nor His wrath is universal or arbitrary. He gives to each man according to what he deserves, and in so doing, God remains just in every judgment which He pronounces. God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth. The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. The LORD is good, a strong

487

hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him. But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies. (Nahum 1.2-8) Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity. (Heb 1:9) Jesus is the Judge The apostle John identifies Jesus, not the Father or Spirit, as the great Judge of all man. This is not because of any inadequacy in either the Father or Spirit to pronounce judgments that are right and good; but rather, the Father pleases to relinquish all judgment to the Son, whom the Father has appointed to a position above all things. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. (Jn 5.22-23) The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, … raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. (Eph 1:17, 20-23) who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. (I Pet 3:22) For he hath been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by so much as he that built the house hath more honor than the house. (Heb 3:3) Justice and Mercy In order for God to be truly just, His justice must always be satisfied and sin must always be punished. So how is it that guilty men can be redeemed? Does not the mercy of God negate the justice of God if the guilty are proclaimed righteous? When God forgives a sinner, He does so not because the sinner’s guilt has been abolished without the penalty for sin being satisfied; but rather, because the penalty for sin has been satisfied by the one who has no guilt – Jesus Christ. The work of Christ provided atonement for sin; that is to say, through His sacrifice He took upon Himself the penalty for sin, so that by virtue of His sacrifice those who would otherwise be punished can now be adopted by God as sons. In His acceptance of the penalty for sin, Christ did not intrinsically take upon Himself the guilt of sin, for there could be no sin in Him. Had sin entered into His being, He would have been inadequate of providing atonement for the sin of others, since He would then become a sinner in need of a savior of His own. In Christ’s acceptance of the penalty for sin, the just was punished unjustly,

488

yet willingly, so that God Himself did not become unjust in placing upon Himself the penalty of sin. On the cross, God the Son took upon Himself His own wrath for sin, so that the guilty would be spared from such terrible a fate. In so doing, He was charged with man’s guilt – He received what His people deserved to that they would never pay the ultimate penalty for their offense. The eleventh century philosopher Anselm asked how a just God can spare the wicked. In conclusion, he stated, “God’s being is unitary; it is not composed of a number of parts working harmoniously, but simply one. There is nothing in His justice which forbids the exercise of his mercy. … God is never at crosspurposes with Himself. No attribute of God is in conflict with another. God’s compassion flows out of His goodness, and goodness without justice is not goodness. God spares us because He is good, but He could not be good if He were not just. When God punishes the wicked, … it is just because it is consistent with their deserts; and when He spares the wicked it is just because it is compatible with His goodness; so God does what becomes Him as the supremely good God.”2 There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. (Rom 8.1) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (I Jn 1.9) So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. (Gal 4:3-7) God is truthful and faithful The truthfulness of God guarantees that all He has said and revealed can be trusted implicitly. The faithfulness of God guarantees that His promises are sure because He will forever remain true to them. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (I Pet 1:5) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Num 23:19) Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. (I Thess 5:24)

489

When God instituted His covenant with Abraham, that through his seed, the future Messiah, shall people of all nations be blessed, Abraham asked for a sign of the surety of the covenant, a sign which God gave by making use of a custom familiar to Abraham. In antiquity, when two parties made an oath, or “cut” a covenant, it was common practice to slay an animal, divide it in half, and lay the two pieces of flesh on the ground, with a space separating the two. Then, those who were to make the covenant together would walk between the pieces in a solemn oath that neither would break the bonds of the covenant. In so doing, they were signifying the solemnity of the oath in stating that the life of one would be forfeit were he to break the covenant. In essence, they were saying, “As it was for this animal, so be it done to me if I break this covenant.”3 In His vision to Abraham, God manifested Himself in visual form passing alone through the pieces of flesh. In providing such a sign to Abraham, was stating the absolute veracity of His covenant by stating that it is He alone who keeps His covenant. Only God, not God and Abraham, passed through the pieces of flesh. The keeping of God’s promise is not dependent on the will or working of anyone other than Himself. Since God is unchanging, He will never renege on that which He has promised, thus, those whom He redeems are redeemed forever – no one will ever be plucked out of His hand. Those who have been forgiven will surely remain forgiven; those who remain guilty will surely be judged and condemned for their sin. And he said unto him, I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, O Lord Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? And he said unto him, Take me a heifer three years old, and a she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon. And he took him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half over against the other: but the birds divided he not. … And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces. In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land. … And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. (Gen 15: 7-10, 17-18, 17:7) For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he swore by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil. (Heb 6:13-19) God not only speaks the truth, He is the source of truth. Apart from Christ, there is no other true path to God. All religions do not lead to God, for each religion states

490

something different about who or what God is. Speaking of Christ, Peter preached, “in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) Elsewhere, the same disciple confessed to Christ, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (Jn 6:68) Peter recognized the reality of Christ – the truth that it is in His name alone and by His sacrifice alone that men receive the redemptive blessing of the Father. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Jn 14:6) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Num 23:19) If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13) Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promised. (Heb 10.23) God is loving The apostle John states, “God is love.” (I Jn 4:8) Here, the apostle is making distinctions between those who teach truth and those who teach falsehood. In so doing, he declares, “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” John is not defining what is God – that is, he is not stating “love is God,” for in so doing he would be robbing God of His being and reducing the concept of God to a mere abstract, such as the emotion of love. In fact, the very same writer, and in the same letter, states, “love is of God.” (v 7) Were God a mere abstract emotion, He would not have the ability to cause any flow of love into or from another being. Also, to reiterate what has been previously mentioned, in stating “God is love,” John is not defining what God is entirely, for God also delivers terrible judgments and punishment for sin. The nature of God’s love God’s love is specific J.I. Packer stated, “God's love is an exercise of His goodness toward individual sinners whereby, having identified Himself with their welfare, He has given His Son to be their Savior, and now brings them to know Him and enjoy Him in a covenant relation.”4 God loves individuals. Prior to creation, He chose certain ones from the pool of humanity, as yet uncreated, whom He would redeem and call to Him in an everlasting relationship. The objects of His choice were those ones to whom He would reveal the truth of the Gospel. The reason for His selection of these individuals is simply that it pleased Him to do so, for nothing within any of these ones urged or compelled God to love them. The result of His choice was that these ones would receive salvation from sin. God is infinite in His grace, but His

491

saving grace is infinitely given only to those whom He has chosen; therefore, the recipients of such grace receive it without measure. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Mt 11:27) For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Thess 5:9) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. (Eph. 1:5) The subject of election and predestination has been a topic of heated debate within Christian circles since the days of the apostles. While a full treatment of God’s election is outside the bounds of this work, a brief address is in order when discussing the character of God. The common question posed usually assumes the following form: “How can a loving, good, and just God choose not to redeem everyone, when He certainly has the ability to do so?” This sort of objection involves two presuppositions: 1) that God should save everyone, as if He is under obligation to do so, and 2) that man is in some sense deserving of such salvation. Neither of the two presuppositions is correct. God’s salvation is by grace, which is given unworthily (otherwise the giving of salvation would not be of grace, but of reward). If God chose no one for salvation, He would still be a just God, since in so doing, He would be dealing to every man the right consequence for his sin. Rather than the Christian asking, “Why does God not redeem everyone,” he should really ask, “Why does He redeem anyone at all,” or fall in humble reverence at the feet of the Savior and ask, “Why did You redeem me?” The fact that anyone receives salvation is the cause for awe and wonder. The object of God’s choice is individuals. The result of God’s choice is that these ones receive salvation and are adopted as sons. The cause of God’s choice was solely His good pleasure, not foreseen faith or good works. God’s love is voluntary and according to His good pleasure God does not need to love anyone, yet, in His grace and goodness, He chooses to love sinners. His love for sinners is not due to anything in the sinner that is worthy of His love, nor is His choice a response to the call of man. Man does come to God freely, but, all the while, it is God doing the calling. Even the ability to come to Him in faith is an act of God’s grace, for without the moving of the Spirit of God, no one would possess the ability to even have the faith to come, for faith itself is a gift of God (Eph 2:8). Faith and good works are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Rather, sinners are only worthy of His wrath. If every man got what he deserved, no one would be loved by God, for all are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). God loves whom He will. Likewise, He abhors whom he will. Man, in

492

his natural sinful state of being, is an abomination to God, being so far removed from that which is in conformity to the divine nature. These ones, being worthy of God’s contempt, receive their just recompense for their sin. God’s hatred for the sinner is not an unjust hatred, for by His nature, He must abhor sinners – anything else would be a violation of His justice. The reason that the redeemed can be loved by God is because He took upon Himself the consequence for their sin. Therefore, there is no injustice in either His love for the saints or His hatred for the sinner. In both cases, justice is satisfied. Concerning the sinner, justice is satisfied by their condemnation, according to God’s wrath. Concerning the saint, justice is satisfied by God taking upon Himself, and on their behalf and in their stead, His own wrath for sin. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Ex 33:19) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Rom 9:11-13) Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity (Heb 1:9) God’s love is eternal and unchanging Those whom God loves have the benefit of that love for all eternity. . The love He has for His elect is an eternal love. He chose the object of His love before that object was even created. He loved them before the beginning of the world, He loves them now, and He will love them forever. Because He is true and faithful, He can never turn from love to wrath in His disposition to these ones. He does chastise and punish, but such does not negate the Father-son relationship that God has fashioned between He and His people. Man, by nature, is at war with God. God, by grace, has made peace with those whom He has chosen. As His wrath is an eternal wrath, so is His peace an eternal peace. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. (Eph 1:4) But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. (2 Thess 2:13)

493

Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee. (Jer 31:3) God’s love is infinite and transcendent In declaring His love for His elect, God is announcing a love towards them which pales in comparison to the love given by any other person. The love of God is infinite and given without condition or respect to merit. His love is self-sacrificial, given at the cost of His own life in the person of Jesus, and this life He gave so that He could love His elect, for without the ridding of guilt, the fatherly love of God could extend to no one. The love of God for His people is infinite; that is, the love which He has for His people is a love which knows no end. All that He does in the lives of those whom He has redeemed is done because of His infinite love for these ones. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38-39) The testimony of the apostle Paul The following passage is Paul’s classic treatise on election (verse divisions have been included for further discussion). 10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac — 11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, 12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth. 18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? 21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? 22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: 23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which

494

he afore prepared unto glory, 24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:10-24) Some things worthy of note in this passage: God loved Jacob (Isaac’s son) before he was born. (v 10) God’s love for Jacob was according to His purpose of election, not according to any work of Jacob. (v 10) God did not love Esau (Jacob’s brother). (v 13) In choosing to love one and hate another, God is not acting unrighteously. (v 14) God extends mercy to those He chooses according to His will. (v 15) God raised Pharaoh and hardened his heart according to His purpose. (v 17-18) Man cannot resist the will of God, as clay cannot resist the will of the potter. (v 20-21) Every man is chosen to be either a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy. (v 21) Those chosen as vessels of mercy were chosen as such before they came into being. (v 23) The jealousy of God His relationship with His people is of supreme value to Him, and this He has secured with the most costly of all means – the shed blood of His own Son, who is the very essence of God Himself. Man could not save himself, for he could not perform any work which would rid himself of his guilt. No man becomes sinful due to actions committed in his lifetime. Likewise, no man becomes righteous by performing good actions. Scripture is very clear that man is born into a state of sin (Rom ch 3). Man is sinful not because of what he does, but because of what he is. As a leopard cannot change his spots, so can a man not change his nature. He cannot make himself free of sin. Therefore, his redemption must of necessity come from without, the work of redemption being done by another who does not share the same guilt of sin. This relationship God has with His people is one which He is very earnest to protect, and He does so by guaranteeing that the keeping of His covenant is dependent solely on His own doing, rather than man having to do a part in the keeping thereof. It is this earnest zeal that Scripture refers to when speaking of the jealousy of God – not a jealousy that is envious or covetous of another thing, but a jealousy which cherishes that of which one is already in possession. As a husband, faithful and true to his wife, cherishes his marital bond and will act in earnest to safeguard it, so is God earnest to safeguard the covenant He made between Himself and man. It is in this spirit of jealousy that God chastises His people when they go astray, as a shepherd returns wandering sheep to the fold. And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy. And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes,

495

and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare. They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords. And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more. So will I make my fury toward thee to rest, and my jealousy shall depart from thee, and I will be quiet, and will be no more angry. (Ez 16.38-42) And he spake unto them this parable, saying, What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost. (Mk 15:3-6) Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin: and ye have forgotten the exhortation which reasoneth with you as with sons, My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord, Nor faint when thou art reproved of him; For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not? (Heb 12:4-7) The greatest love Self-sacrifice is the greatest expression of love. Such love places the welfare of another above one’s own, regardless of cost. It is this love with which God loves His elect. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (Jn 15:13) Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. (1 Jn 3:16) God is gracious and merciful Grace is that unmerited favor which God extends to all mankind, although grace does not always have a redemptive purpose in view. Because God is a good God, He extends a common grace to all men by which they live and breathe, and by which all life and order is maintained and governed. Beyond this common grace, He also extends a redemptive grace by which men are freed from the guilt of sin. Thus, men are redeemed by grace because of the mercy of God. The following excerpt from the apostle Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus richly describes the blessings which God has bestowed on His people.

496

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved: in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace. (Eph 1:3-7) And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, … and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: — but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. (Eph 2:1, 4-9) By the grace of God, believers are: Chosen before creation Declared holy and blameless Predestined unto adoption Redeemed from sin Forgiven of trespasses Raised from spiritual death to spiritual life Changed from children of wrath to sons of God Loved by God Saved by the grace of God, not by the works of man There has only ever been one means by which men are saved from sin, and that is by grace. Even in the days of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets of old, with such an emphasis on law and the observance of a sacrificial system, it was still by grace that anyone was redeemed. The laws and ceremonies were a mere shadow of a redemption which would be accomplished in the future with the sacrifice of Christ. The blood sacrifices of the Old Testament times were not the means by which atonement for sin was made, but were merely an expression or foreshadow of the redemption decreed before creation and fulfilled in a later time in human history with the shed blood of Jesus Christ. God’s grace and mercy are always given unworthily. If anyone ever deserved such benefit, then the application of such benefit would be God’s response to man’s worth, and grace would be a reward, not a gift. Grace is never given because it is deserved. Rather, grace is given to those who are blind to the light of truth and deaf to the words of God. It is by grace that the scales are removed from the eyes, and by grace that the ears are opened to the word of truth. Likewise, mercy can only be shown to those in need of mercy. However, while man, steeped in sin, is in dire need

497

of the grace and mercy of God, God does not need to move as such toward anyone, but because He is good, He delights in being gracious and merciful to those whom He will. God is holy What does it mean to be holy? Holiness involves purity and separation – thus, to be holy is to be set apart from that which is impure. The holiness of God is that which guarantees His eternal sinlessness and incorruptibility. He is holy not because He has separated Himself unto purity, but because He is purity itself. His holiness is not imparted due to any action or inaction on the part of God. Rather, God is holy because of who He is. His holiness is original, intrinsic holiness – that which is essential and natural to His existence. Since God is holy, His holiness characterizes all that He does. He loves with a holy love and He judges with a holy justice. And the angel answered and said unto her [Mary, the mother of Jesus], The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. (Lk 1:35) For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; (Heb 7:26) But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One [Jesus], and asked for a murderer [Barabbas] to be granted unto you. (Acts 3:14; cf. Mt 27:17-22) The power of God’s holiness It is the holiness of God which moves men to repentance and reveals to them their sin. When faced with the reality of God’s holiness, man cannot but be brought trembling to his knees. Those who despise God will bow the knee in fear and dread, as ones unworthy and unable to stand on holy ground, while those whom God has called according to His grace will bow in awe and reverence, as ones made worthy and able to stand in the presence of the divine majesty. The holiness of the saints In Scripture, believers are often referred to as saints. Today, sainthood has taken an entirely new and heretical meaning in that men and women are declared saints who are able to receive the prayers of believers, yet no such concept is found in Scripture. The word “saint” simply means “holy one;” that is, one who is separated unto God. God calls Christians to “be holy, as [He] is holy.” (I Pet 1:16) and “to present [their] bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.” (Rom 12:1) The Old Testament saints lived under a rigid sacrificial system in which the flesh and blood of animals was offered to God. When Christ came, the sacrificial system became obsolete, as the true sacrificial Lamb of God, of whom all previous sacrificial lambs were but a foreshadow, gave His own blood for the sin of God’s people. Since then, the saints of God are not required to offer animal sacrifices, but to be the sacrifice themselves, not as ones placed on the altar of sacrifice, but as ones living a life of sacrifice, consecrated and separated unto God. This living

498

sacrifice is not the sacrifice by which sin is forgiven (even in Old Testament times, salvation came by faith in God, not through the sacrificial system itself), but is a sacrifice of thanks, offered to the one who gave Himself for their sins. The righteousness of the saints of God is the righteousness of Christ, which is bestowed upon them. As He took on our flesh, His righteousness is placed upon them. Christians share in His nature and are able to stand in God’s presence not because of any righteousness of their own, but because they stand clothed in the righteousness of Christ Himself. Moreover, the saints of God are not just seen as if they are righteous in God’s sight, as if righteousness is merely reckoned to their account; but rather, saints are seen as righteous in His sight. It is a transfer of the righteousness of Christ onto their persons. The tri-fold declaration In John’s vision, the following anthem is declared of Christ: Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come. (Rev 4:8) The use of repetition was a Hebrew expression to denote emphasis, much like modern writers would use bold or italic type. Jesus used the same expression in many of His discourses when he prefaced His teaching by saying, “Truly, truly, I say until you.” (the KJV renders it as “verily, verily”) When the Jews heard this, they would recognize that His words were of such import that they should be heard with attentive ears. Likewise, John makes use of the same expression to draw attention to a particular aspect of deity – the holiness of God. The expression was typically employed by use of a two-fold repetition, such as that which Christ employed in His teaching. Yet, John placed an even greater emphasis on holiness by using not merely a two-fold repetition, but a three-fold repetition. In essence, John was stating not just what was best about God, but what was the best of the best.

X. Jesus' birth was not the product of a lustful god In pagan mythology, any son of a god was born through the god’s sexual union, in some fashion, with a mortal woman. In these cases, the union was often spontaneous and due to the god’s burning lust for a woman. Often, the god would satisfy his lust by taking the woman against her will or, once seducing her, treating her in a less-than-friendly manner. At times, the union between the god and the mortal would take the form of incest or rape. Nothing of this like can be said of the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary. The birth of Jesus was not the result of God’s whim or lust; but rather, was part of His redemptive plan, a plan established before creation itself. ... but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Gal 4:4-5)

499

And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain. (Rev 13:8) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. (Eph 1:3-5) ... knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake. (I Pet 1:18-20) The selection of Mary was not due to her beauty or position. She “found favor” with God, but not due to any outward appearance (for God looks not on outward beauty, but on the heart) or place of high nobility. God formed the fetus of Jesus in her womb, not through forceful intrusion, but with her consent to submit herself to the will of God. Mary was humbled by her selection as the one who would bear the infant Messiah, and as such, she was, as her cousin Elizabeth proclaimed, “blessed among women.” Also, the birth of Jesus was for the salvation of man, unlike the births of pagan sons of god, whose births either served the selfish desires of the god or served no specific purpose at all. In contrast, Jesus was formed in Mary so that He would “save His people from their sins.” (Mt 1:21) Jesus never forced people to worship Him. He never used His divine abilities to turn his enemies into less-than-human creatures. Any anger He displayed was motivated by righteous indignation, not simply because someone rubbed him the wrong way. Finally, In the Jewish mind, any thought of God producing an offspring, via sexual union or otherwise, was utter blasphemy. No Jew in his right mind would fashion such a tale and expect it to be accepted by the populace, were it not true. Rather than his tale being upheld as a great truth, it would spell his certain death, the legal penalty for blasphemy. … for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (Lk 2.11) For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples; A light for revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of thy people Israel. (Lk 2:30-32) The thief cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy: I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly. (Jn 10:10) I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness. And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. (Jn 12:46-47)

500

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. (Jn 18:37) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Rom 8:3-4) … but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Gal 4:4-5) And ye know that He was manifested to take away sins; and in Him is no sin. (1 Jn 3:5) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (I Jn 4:10)

XI. Jesus took part in bringing about His own birth, death, and resurrection Pagan sons of deity were birthed solely through the interaction of the god with a woman. None of the resulting offspring had anything to do with his conception. Jesus, on the other hand, chose to become man. Human flesh and blood was a form which He took upon Himself – it was not a form into which He was placed through workings not of His own doing. So it was with His death and resurrection. He gave His life away, it was not taken from Him. When He “gave up His spirit” (Jn 19:30) and his human body died, it was a willing surrender of His life, rather than a natural expiration of His body. He intentionally remained alive on the cross until the moment His work was “finished,” (Jn 19:30) at which time He voluntarily “commended” His spirit to His Father (Lk 23:46), having completed the work of redemption. He was not suddenly caught off guard as was Krishna, Attis, Osiris, or any other pagan deity who is said to have suffered death. His death, as well as every event of His life, was self-orchestrated. Jesus took part in bringing about His own birth Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men (Phil 2:5-7) Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same [flesh and blood]; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Heb 2:14)

501

Jesus took part in bringing about His own death and resurrection And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost. (Lk 23:46) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit. (Jn 19:30) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. (Jn 2:19-21) Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father. (Jn 10:17-18)

XII. Jesus foreknew the time of His death and resurrection Krishna did not foresee he would be hit with an arrow. Dionysus had no prior knowledge he would be rent limb from limb. The fact is, none of the pagan gods had any prior knowledge of the time, place, or manner of his death. For them, death came as a shocking surprise. Jesus, on the other hand, knew He would be executed in Jerusalem after arriving at the city for the last Passover Feast that He would attend with His disciples. He knew the manner of His death – He would be “lifted up” (a reference to crucifixion) If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. (Jn 3:12-15) He knew the time of His death Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified. (Mt 26:2) He knew the place of His death Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles. (Mk 10:33)

502

He knew the circumstances surrounding His coming trial And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. (Mk 8:31) He knew the time of His resurrection For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again. (Mk 9:31) The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. (Lk 9:22)

XIII. Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection were foretold long before His arrival Jesus claimed to be the theme of the entire Old Testament. Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. (Mt 5:17) And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. … And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. (Lk 24:27, 44) Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these [the prophets of old] are they which bear witness of me. (Jn 5:39) Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God. (Heb 10:7) The Jews divided what Christians call the Old Testament into only two sections: the Law and the Prophets. In saying He is the sum of each, Jesus is saying He is the sum of the entire Old Testament. But does His claim really hold up? The Old Testament contains numerous prophecies concerning events or characteristics which would be a part of the life of Christ. The list below is not all-inclusive by any means, but it serves as an example of just some of the ways in which Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of ancient times. No such impressive list of prophecies precede the lives of any pagan deity. Some critics have claimed Jesus’ fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic prophecies was merely a coincidence. Statistically, the odds that He would fulfill all of the prophecies are so great against such fulfillment, that such a feat would be impossible by human standards. Mathematicians have stated that the odds are astronomically against Jesus fulfilling even a dozen of the stated Messianic prophecies, much less all.1 Another attempt of the critic is to claim that the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled intentionally, as if a naturally-

503

conceived Jesus could control the circumstances and events which led to his crucifixion, among other things. How could an ordinary man take such matters into his own hands? Who was it who placed the star in position and drew the magi to Bethlehem in search of a Messiah? What did Mary and Joseph do to cause the massacre of the infants at the behest of Herod? How did Jesus control the circumstances and events on the night of His betrayal and the following day on which He was executed? What more – why would a normal man, even if he could cause such things to happen, willingly subject himself to such torture merely for the purpose of deceiving others into believing himself to be the promised Messiah? If Jesus knew He was not the Messiah, then He certainly would not have endured the pains which He endured under Roman law. It is absolutely unreasonable to suggest that a normal man could bring about the necessary circumstances in his life so as to fulfill each and every Messianic prophecy written in the Old Testament, yet the fact of the matter is these very prophecies were fulfilled intentionally – not through human manipulation and direction, but through divine providence. Yes, Jesus did fulfill all these prophecies intentionally. He formed the star which guided the magi. He directed the Roman taxation which brought Mary to Bethlehem. He decreed the sufferings which He endured. He did all these things according to the will of the Father and for the love of those whom He would die to redeem – those who deserved no redemption whatsoever. As said above, by human standards it is impossible that one man could fulfill all the ancient prophecies – but with God, nothing is impossible.

As the seed of the woman As the seed of David Born of a virgin Called Immanuel Born in Bethlehem of Judea Notable people coming to adore him Massacre of the children of Bethlehem Sojourn in Egypt Sold for thirty pieces silver His visage being marred His being spit on and scourged Hands and feet being nailed to the cross He was crucified with thieves Garments being parted His Death That none of His bones should be broken His being pierced His resurrection His ascension

Foretold in the Old Testament Gen 3:15 Ps 132:11, Jer 23:5 Isa 7:14 Isa 7:14 Mic 5:2

Cross-reference with the New Testament Gal 4:4 Acts 13:23, Rom 1:3 Mt 1:22-23, Lk 2:7 Mt 1:22-23 Mt 2:1, Lk 2:4-6

Ps 72:10

Mt 2:1-11

Jer 31:15 Hos 11:1 Zech 11:12 Isa 52:14, 53:3 Isa 50:6

Mt 2:16-18 Mt 2:15 Mt 26:15 Jn 19:5 Mk 14:65, Jn 19:1

Ps 22:16 Isa 53:12 Ps 22:18 Isa 53:12

Jn 19:18, 20:25 Mt 23:32-33 Mt 27:35 Mt 27:50

Ex 12:46, Ps 34:20 Zech 12:10 Ps 16:10, Isa 26:19 Ps 68:18

Jn 19:33, 36 Jn 19:34, 37 Lk 24:6,31, 34 Lk 24:51, Acts 1:9

504

XIV. Jesus' death was voluntary, sacrificial, and redemptive in nature

Whether one is discussing Osiris, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, or any of the other pagan deities who are said to have died, he cannot accurately make the claim that any of these pagan gods willingly gave his life for the benefit of others. Contrary to Gerald Massey’s book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Jesus is, in fact, the only crucified Savior the world has ever known. Only by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ can anyone be said to gain eternal blessing and salvation from sin. Jesus was not murdered, as were the gods of the pagans – He gave His life of His own accord and did so that those who turned their back on their Creator would receive forgiveness for their transgression. I [Jesus] am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. … I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father. (Jn 10:11-18) And it came to pass, when the days were well-nigh come that he should be received up, [Jesus] steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem. (Lk 9:51) [Christ] humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. (Phil 2:8)

XV. Jesus' death was a victory, not a defeat Unlike the pagan deities, Jesus was not murdered, nor did His death come unexpectedly. Through His death and resurrection, Jesus made void the curse of death with respect to those He redeemed. Because of His victory, the people of God need not fear death, for in passing from this earthly existence, they enter into the presence of the one who gave His all so that they would never be condemned to an eternity of condemnation. But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord. (1 Cor 15:54-58) And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross; having

505

despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (Col 2:13-15) Be not ashamed therefore of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but suffer hardship with the gospel according to the power of God; who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal, but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. (2 Tim 1:8-10) For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Phil 1:21)

XVI. Jesus' resurrection compared to other resurrections found in the Bible

The Bible contains several other resurrections besides that of Jesus Christ. These accounts are cited in the passages below: Elijah raises a woman’s son And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son? And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. And he cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth. And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth. (1 Kings 17:17-24) Elisha raises a woman’s son And the woman conceived, and bare a son at that season that Elisha had said unto her, according to the time of life. And when the child was grown, it fell on a day, that he went out to his father to the reapers. And he said unto his father, My head, my head. And he said to a lad, Carry him to his mother. And when he had taken him, and brought him to his mother, he sat on her knees till noon, and then died. … And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD. And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. Then he returned, and walked in the

506

house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. So he called her. And when she was come in unto him, he said, Take up thy son. Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out. (2 Kings 4:17-36) Jesus raises a woman’s son Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. (Luke 7:12-15) Jesus raises Lazarus Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. (John 11:41-44) Each of these accounts is unlike the resurrection of Jesus in that these ones were raised to their previous state of existence and still subject to the eventual law of death, whereas Jesus was raised in the same body, but in a glorified state which would never again see death. Additionally, there is a distinction relating to the power by which these individuals were brought back to life. In the cases of Elijah and Elisha, the prophets called on the power of the Lord to raise the dead, whereas in the accounts in which Jesus raised the dead, He did so in His own power. In other words, Elijah and Elisha had to pray for the power of God to act. Jesus simply commanded the dead to “arise” and “come forth.” In both cases involving Jesus, the dead did not rise because He prayed to God, but because He said, “I say unto thee, Arise.” He raised the dead on His own authority, not on a power greater than His own.

XVII. Jesus' resurrection was a bodily resurrection Jesus physically arose from the dead. He did not merely enter into a new spiritual existence, as did Osiris when he descended into the underworld after being rent into pieces. Still, some critics claim that the apostle Paul preached Jesus was resurrected only in a meta-physical or spiritual sense, while His physical body remained dead in the tomb. They claim the belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection was a later doctrine which evolved from a misunderstanding of a belief in an exclusively spiritual resurrection. In support for their argument, they turn to the very words of Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church: “it [the body] is sown [that is, buried] a natural [physical] body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” (1 Cor 15:44)

507

Paul's belief in the bodily resurrection In this passage Paul addresses the resurrection of the dead; that is, the belief that the bodies of believers will one day be resurrected from the grave, as Christ was resurrected from His tomb. He begins the chapter by laying the foundation for his argument – that the resurrection of Christ was a certainty. He then answers those who claim there will be no such resurrection for believers. Following that, Paul addresses the principal questions concerning belief in the resurrection of believers: “How [or, by what power] are the dead raised?” and, “With what manner of body do they come [that is, “in what form are they raised”]?” (v. 35) In his response to the first of these two questions (by what power are they raised), Paul provides a word of rebuke by pointing out their hypocrisy in believing that God has the power to maintain the annual death and rebirth of crops, but is lacking in such power concerning the raising of the dead. The very same power which brings dead grain to life, holds the same power to raise human beings from death to life (vs 36-37). Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die: and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind. (vs 36-37) In his answer to the second question (in what form will they be raised), he elaborates by discussing the change which will be manifest in the bodies of the believers, once resurrected. Paul alludes to the varieties of forms found in the physical world, that not all humans are alike, not all animals are alike, nor birds, fish, and even the various celestial bodies – each one possesses qualities and distinctions all its own (vs 38-42). But God giveth it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. (vs 38-42). Paul then likens the burying of a body to sowing, that it may be brought forth in a more glorious form – an incorruptible form – than that which was buried – a corruptible form (vs 43-44). As he states elsewhere: “[Christ] shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” (Phil 3:21) That which was corruptible, weak, and vile, shall be remade into that which is incorruptible and glorious. As a caterpillar enters a cocoon to re-emerge as a more glorious creature, yet in the same body, so shall Christians be raised from a

508

mortal, earthly form to a more glorious, immortal form, yet in the same body. The change is in form, not being. That which was material does not become immaterial. Rather, that which was material, yet mortal, shall become immortal, yet remain material. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (vs 43-44) He then contrasts Adam and Christ (vs. 45-49). From Adam, the first man, everyone in successive generations gained a mortal, corrupted body, destined for the grave. However, it is from Christ, the second Adam, those who have faith are given the promise of a glorified, immortal body. As Adam was of earth, he passed on to those after him a sort of bondage to the earth, in that all men must eventually die, but as Christ was raised from the dead, He passed on to those after Him (those who have faith in Him) the surety that they, too, will one day be raised from the fate set for them by virtue of their connection with the first Adam. So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. (vs 45-49) Following that, Paul offers a concluding statement in his answer: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (v.50) That is the reason for the transformation – that nothing corruptible, as mortal flesh, shall enter into the presence of God. The body which was once a dying, fading being shall now become a glorious, everlasting being, yet the body itself never ceases to be. What was once lying dead in the grave is now raised to new life, never again to see death. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (v 50) Having responded to the question regarding in what form the believer will be raised, Paul provides the Corinthian Christians with a summation of what has just been said, along with an exhortation in relation to the resurrection: He reminds them of the surety of the resurrection: Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed. (v 51)

509

He specifies the manner of the resurrection: In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (v 52) He restates the reason for the resurrection: For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (v 53) He elaborates on the effect of the resurrection: But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law. (vs 54-56) He gives thanks to the One Who will bring about the resurrection: But thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (v 57) He gives charge concerning proper living in view of the promise of resurrection: Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord. (v 58) The Greek phrase translated “spiritual body” is “soma pneumatikon.” In Scripture, the use of the word soma is almost always a reference to the physical body. The context of this passage is the contrast between the physical and the spiritual bodies of man. Greeks referred to the natural body, the flesh and bones, as soma psuchikon, literally translated as “soulish body.” It is this body which is “sown,” or buried, in the earth when the life of the body expires. It is this body, the physical “soulish body,” which is resurrected and transformed from that which was natural to that which is supernatural – yet, still physical. Body which was “sown” is the same body which is experiences resurrection, rather than resurrection resulting in a new spiritual body. Despite the resurrected body still being physical, it is able to transcend the bounds of that which is material and therefore able to make its entrance and exit in ways which the natural body (the body which man possesses before death) cannot. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (Jn 20:19) The two bodies to which Paul is here referring, the natural and the spiritual bodies, are the same body, but with different characteristics or states of being. The “spiritual body” is a physical or natural body which is able to transcend the laws of the natural world.

510

Bodily death and resurrection go hand-in-hand In Scripture, the death of the body is the necessary prerequisite for resurrection. If one does not physically die, then there is no state from which one can be resurrected. As mentioned in the previous section, the other resurrections of Scripture were resurrections from bodily death. In each case, the person raised had died physically, and so it was with the Son of God. The Gospels clearly describe Jesus as suffering physical death on the cross, following which time His body underwent the customary burial preparations, and was then was placed in a sealed tomb. It was after this death, the death of His body, that Jesus arose from the dead. And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councilor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate marveled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph. And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus beheld where he was laid. (Mk 15:42-47) He [Joseph of Arimathaea] came therefore, and took away his body. And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb wherein was never man yet laid. There then because of the Jews’ Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus. (Jn 19:38-42) and [Christ] died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again. (2 Cor 5:15) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (1 Thess 4:14) The spirit of man does not die and is in no need of any sort of resurrection Christian doctrine holds that the spirit of man does not die following the expiration of the body. At death, the spirit is removed from the body to receive either blessing or curse, depending on the object of one’s faith. There is no need for a spirit to be resurrected, since the spirit itself does not die. Therefore, any truly Christian concept of resurrection must of necessity refer to the resurrection of the body, the only part of man which really suffers death. It is this type of resurrection which Jesus brought about on Himself following His death and burial. For the Christian, death is a relocation of the spirit, moving from this earthly existence to being in the very presence of God.

511

Being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by sight); we are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with the Lord. (2 Cor 5:6-8) Oxford’s Dictionary defines resurrection as “resurrection from the dead” and “revival after disuse, inactivity, or decay.” Following the death of His body, Jesus’ spirit remained alive and active. As Peter states, Jesus’ death was “in the flesh,” not a spiritual death. Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison. (1 Pet 4:18-19) Jesus demonstrated He was not raised as a spirit Once He was resurrected, Jesus appeared in a physical body. He had real flesh and bones, not just the appearance of such. He could be held and touched by others. He ate fish with His disciples. The resurrected body was the same one which had previously been embalmed and laid to rest in the tomb, but in His resurrected body the corruption brought about by death was no more. In His resurrected form, His body did not bear the decay or stink of death. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Lk 24:39-43) And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him. (Mt 28:9) The resurrection of believers in the last days will mirror the resurrection of Christ Scripture teaches that the bodies of believers will one day be raised from the dead to a state of everlasting glorification. For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Phil 3:20-21) Here, the word translated change is the Greek word metaschema which means “to change the figure of, transform,” or “transfer.” The idea here is not a total transformation from one being into another, from body to spirit; rather, it is the transformation of a mortal body to a glorified body, yet the body itself is the same

512

flesh-and-bone body which previously existed as mortal. It is a transformation of the same body, not an exchange of bodies or reconstruction of one body from another. What is the “second death” referred to in Scripture? Scripture speaks of a second or spiritual death which the unredeemed man will endure. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works. … and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:12-15) Here, “death” does not refer to an expiration of either the body or spirit; but rather, to the utter abandonment of both by God. This death is God’s final judgment on sin, in which the guilty are permanently and completely removed from the grace of God to which He extends to all men, Christian and pagan. Christian doctrine refers to this grace as “common grace” – the grace by which God grants man breath day by day and governs the regularity of the seasons and all that is required for the maintenance of life. This is the final death of the whole of fallen man, body and spirit. Belief in bodily resurrection is essential to the Christian faith That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Rom 10:9) And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. ... And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. (1 Cor 15:14, 17)

XVIII. Jesus' resurrection is a fact of history The character of the Gospels’ narrative of the resurrection, and events following, account for nothing less than a bodily resurrection. These aspects of the narratives make anything other than a bodily resurrection unreasonable and illogical, yet skeptics have proposed the following theories in order to account for the resurrection of Jesus as stated in the Gospels. The disciples stole the body of Jesus in order to fake a resurrection Following the death of Jesus, the chief priests and the Pharisees requested that Pilate seal the tomb and place a Roman guard there, for fear that the disciples would attempt such a feat as to steal the body of Christ. In order for the disciples to steal the body, their first task would be to deal with the Roman guard. Given the fear the disciples, even Peter (who certainly was not lacking in zeal), displayed the night of Jesus’ trial, it would be a wonder where they would muster enough courage to

513

overtake trained, armed Roman centurions. Some have said the guards fell asleep and this gave the disciples the opportunity to act, but any Roman soldier knew he would face harsh penalty, even death, for abandoning his post or falling asleep during his watch. The fate the disciples met later in life refutes any theory that they stole the body of Jesus. The early Christian historian Eusebius describes the violent deaths which met the disciples of Jesus. If the disciples intentionally faked a resurrection of Christ in order to establish a religion which they knew was based on falsehood, they would surely not have given their lives for something they knew was a lie. Foxes Book of Martyrs describes the fate which met the apostles and other writers of the New Testament*: James – death by the sword Phillip – crucified Matthew – beaten to death Andrew – crucified Peter – crucified Bartholomew – crucified Thomas – death by a spear James – stoned Jude – crucified Mark – dismembered Paul – beheaded Luke – hanged * John was boiled in oil, but survived. He is believed to have died of old age while residing in Ephesus. It may correctly be argued that just because a man gives his life for his faith does not make his faith valid. The terrorists who executed the 9/11 attacks were certainly not justified in their actions based on the assumption that they believed they were acting for a just and righteous cause. Simply because they gave their lives for a religious cause does not justify and validate that cause. However, their martyrdom does testify to their belief that their cause was a true cause. They died believing that their actions reflected the desire of god. Likewise, the martyrdom of the New Testament writers is evidence that they did not invent the Gospel accounts. They believed that what they wrote was the truth, and it is for this reason that they gave their lives. If they stole the body, they would have obviously known their Gospel to be false, and would have recanted their faith when faced with death. Also, had the disciples felt the need to fabricate evidence that Jesus arose from the dead, an empty tomb would not have served their purpose, as evidenced by their lack of faith following Jesus’ resurrection. The faith of the apostles was such that an empty tomb would not serve to solidify public recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. Both James and Thomas needed to see the risen Christ even after hearing and seeing the tomb was empty. Likewise, Paul was a persecutor of Christians prior to his

514

conversion. He was present at the stoning of Stephen, whose clothes were laid at Paul’s feet after Stephen lie dead. Following Paul’s conversion, the Christians in Jerusalem at first feared to have him among their congregation, believing his supposed conversion to be a trick by which they would be arrested and convicted of blasphemy. The empty tomb did not convince Paul that Jesus was the Messiah. It was not until Paul saw the risen Christ that he came to realize the truth of Christianity. The lack of faith the disciples displayed following news of the resurrection is such that does not bear the mark of fabrication, for such lack of faith stands to their discredit and embarrassment. Had they invented the Gospel story, surely the events after the resurrection would not involve the element of unbelief on the part of Jesus’ disciples. As it is implausible to claim the disciples stole the body, it is even more implausible to claim the Romans or religious leaders stole the body of Christ, for in so doing, they would create the primary evidence of the validity of the Christian faith – the evidence of the empty tomb. Only Jesus’ disciples and followers would benefit from the empty tomb, for such would make their faith sure. However, the enemies of Christ desired that Jesus’ body remain in the grave (hence, the reason for the Roman guard at the tomb), knowing that an empty tomb would serve to strengthen this new “Jesus movement” which they so desired to quench. This theory is not new. In fact, it’s been around since the day Christ rose from the dead. It was the very first attempt to discredit Christianity. Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day. (Mt 28:11-15) Theory 1: The women and disciples went to the wrong tomb When the women arrived at the tomb at dawn, the stone was rolled away, leaving the tomb unsealed. They were not looking for an unsealed tomb, but a sealed tomb. Besides, they had been there only three days before. It is not likely they would have forgotten the place where their Lord lay buried. When they arrived at the tomb, seeing it unsealed, an angel made known to them that Jesus had rose from the dead, confirming they had arrived at the right tomb. Had they gone to the wrong tomb, opponents of Christianity, either Pilate or the Jewish religious authority, would have taken swift action to announce the correct tomb, in which the body of Jesus would still remain, and present His corpse as evidence that He was still dead. Rather, since they knew the actual tomb of Jesus was now empty, they fabricated their “disciples stole the body” story as a way to explain the absence of any body in Jesus’ tomb.

515

Also, it should be noted that the women and disciples who saw Jesus following His resurrection did not recognize Him until He made Himself known. As with the disciples’ unbelief following the news of the resurrection, such a detail stands to their embarrassment and does not bear the mark of a fabricated story. Theory 2: Those who saw the risen Jesus experienced a hallucination Jesus appeared not only to His core disciples and followers, but also to over five hundred others as well. After that, [Jesus] was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (1 Cor 15:6) Hallucinations vary from one person to another and the form they assume are based on one’s own experience. A hallucination is merely a perceived reality, it not visually setting one’s sight on what really is; therefore, no two people can imagine the same hallucination under the same circumstances. What more, it is a medical impossibility for a multitude of people, ranging in age and experience, to have the very same hallucination. Neither did Jesus' contemporaries see what they merely thought was Jesus – they saw Him, risen in the flesh, not as a cloud formation that “sort of” looked like Jesus, or a shadow out of the corner of their eye, or an image on a piece of toast that resembled the shape of a bearded male. Also, it must be noted that the women who first arrived at the tomb, as well as Jesus’ disciples, did not expect a resurrection. The religious leaders understood His teaching that He would rise on the third day following His death, but the disciples missed this meaning until after the fact. Their journey to the tomb the morning Jesus arose was so that they may tend to the body, having rushed the burial in order to finish the task before the Sabbath. Their reaction does not describe individuals who arrived at a scene which met their expectations. Later, when the women told the disciples that Jesus was risen, they went to the tomb to see for themselves, since they disbelieved their story. And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid. Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them. (Mk 16:8-13)

516

Theory 3: Jesus only collapsed on the cross, falling in a state of supposed death, only to revive three days later The Roman guards inspected the bodies of Jesus and the thieves with whom He was crucified while they were still on the cross. The practice was if the condemned man did not perish after a time of being in a crucified state, his legs would be broken so that he would be unable to lift his torso in order to breathe, thus resulting in suffocation. When they came to Jesus, they saw He was already dead, but, just to be sure, they pierced His side with a spear, and out flowed blood and water. Medical knowledge states that the flow of blood and water from such a wound would only occur if the sac around the heart were punctured and if the body was already in a state of death.1 Such medical knowledge would not have been known to the early Gospel writers and an inclusion of such a detail would not have been included were it not factual. The wounds Jesus received were severe. In recent cinema the movie The Passion of the Christ depicted the last hours of Jesus. The film received much attention and criticism for its graphic portrayal of the crucifixion, yet, even as bloody and violent as Mel Gibson’s depiction was, it still does not quite meet up to the vision of Isaiah, who prophesied the Messiah’s visage would be marred beyond recognition. Behold, my servant shall deal wisely, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. Like as many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men). (Isa 54:13-14) When Jesus rose from the dead He was not recognized by the women at first. He looked as a normal man, not one who had endured Roman torture and crucifixion only three days earlier. In His resurrected body, the only visible signs of His sufferings were the scars in His hands* and His side. Had He been an ordinary man, buried alive, it would have been impossible for Him to roll away the stone from inside the tomb once He revived to consciousness. Even a man in no such weakened and mutilated condition as was Jesus would have been unable to move the stone on his own, the stone being too heavy for one man to move independently, as was typical in ancient times of a stone covering the entrance to a tomb. * The scars did not remain due to an inability to fully heal His body. Rather, they remain as a mark of the covenant God made with man. In ancient times, when two men “cut a covenant” with one another, they often made an incision in the wrists and joined hands, the commingling of their blood being a sign of unity between covenant partners – they now shared one another’s nature, or essence, in the sharing of blood. Following the rite, the scars remained as a visible sign, or reminder, of the oath made between the two. As such, the scars in the hands of Jesus serve as a sign to His redeemed that the sacrifice made on their behalf would never be forgotten or revoked. The covenant God made in the presence of Abraham, and to men and

517

women of faith throughout every generation, will endue for all eternity, being upheld and maintained by the power of God alone. Theory 4: The resurrection of Jesus was a story which arose as a legend Legends develop over long periods of time, not over the course of a mere decade or two, and have their basis in history, as opposed to myths, which have their basis in fantasy. While the basis for a legend is historical, the elements of the legend itself may be exaggerated, such as the legend of Johnny Appleseed, based on an actual pioneer named John Chapman (Sept 26, 1774- Feb 18, 1845). It may be said that Jesus was a “legend in His own time,” as were Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and Mother Teresa, but such a characterization is based on verifiable evidence regarding one’s words, deeds, influence, or effect. Any legendary status attributed to a person within or shortly after his or her life is due to what that person really accomplished, rather than being exaggerated versions of the truth. In that sense, Jesus was a legend in His own time, since He really did rise from the dead and remained among man for a period of time. Also, legends do not have the advantage of eyewitness testimony to the truth. When the Gospels were written, there were still many eyewitnesses who would have been able to testify to the truth of the Gospels, as well as many opponents who would have surely exposed the Gospels for lies, were they not historically accurate. The apostles were the authoritative leaders of the early church. During their lifetime, nothing that was not true of Christ would have been accepted by the church. In fact, the early church rejected those who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ, as it was the resurrection which was at the heart of apostolic preaching. Written evidence for belief in Christ's resurrection can be dated to within only twenty years following the fact Jesus was born in 4 or 5 BC, which places the resurrection at 28 or 29 A.D. Written evidence for belief in Christ's resurrection can be dated to within a short time following the fact. The earliest of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection is the Gospel of Mark, written between 64-69 A.D., approximately forty years after the resurrection. The letters of Paul can be dated even earlier than the Gospels, since Paul was martyred in 62 A.D. The book of Acts was written around 64 A.D., and Luke, the author of Acts, wrote that book after composing the Gospel which bears his name, placing the writing of his Gospel around 60 A.D. Concerning the letters of Paul, It is generally agreed among scholars that the earliest of them is Galatians, written in the late 40's A.D., only twenty years after the resurrection.2 Oral evidence for belief in Christ's resurrection can be dated to within only a few years following the fact While the earliest written evidence dates twenty years after the time of Christ, oral tradition can be dated even earlier. In his letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Corinthians, it is believed that Paul utilizes existing church creeds in his writing.

518

The Philippian creed (c.61 A.D.) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:5-11) The Colossian creed (c.58-62 A.D.) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens. (Col 1:15-20) The Corinthian creed (c.55 A.D.) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. (1 Cor 15:3-7) The testimony of John (c 85-95 A.D.) That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)

519

The testimony of Luke In Luke’s Gospel (c.60 A.D.) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed. (Lk 1:1-4) In Luke’s account of the Acts of the Apostles (c.64 A.D.) The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God: and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me. (Acts 1:1-4) This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:32) And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. (Acts 10:39-41) The testimony of Paul (c.35 A.D.) In the passage just quoted, Paul states, “I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received.” (1 Cor 15:3) What he received was the doctrine that “Christ died for our sins … was buried, and that he rose again the third day.” The question then is when did he receive this doctrine, and from whom? Concerning the latter question, Paul gives his answer is his letter to the church in Galatia: For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)

520

Concerning the latter question regarding the time of the revelation, the book of Galatians states that Paul journeyed to Arabia “straightway” (that is, immediately) following his conversion, where he “conferred not with flesh and blood.” But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. (Gal 1:15-18) The indication in the passage above is that Paul likely received the revelation of doctrine during this time in Arabia. He then returned to Damascus and “straightway” began preaching the Gospel (Acts 9:19-20). While the duration of his stay in Arabia is not specified, it is certain that his preaching in and around Damascus occurred within three years following his conversion (Gal 1:18), after which time he escaped to Jerusalem upon threat of his life (Acts 9:23-26). Assuming 29 A.D. as the date of the resurrection, Paul would have been converted about 32 A.D. His arrival in Jerusalem would have been around 35 A.D., therefore his early preaching ministry occurred between 32-35 A.D. The testimony of Peter (c.29 A.D.) For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Pet 1:16) The following passage is an extract from the first recorded public sermon by Peter following the ascension of Christ, and well before the conversion of Paul. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to

521

see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:22-32) The earliest non-canonical records The following passages show an early belief not only in the resurrection of Christ, but also in the bodily resurrection of Christ, in stating He was raised from the dead. Barnabus (first century convert) Barnabas, mentioned throughout the book of Acts, was an early Christian, and the first of the Jerusalem Christians to accept the apostle Paul (c.35 A.D.), following his transformation as one who persecuted the church to one to preached the Gospel of Christ (Acts 9:27). He accompanied Paul on numerous missionary journeys and participated in the Council of Jerusalem in c.50 A.D. Some believe it was Barnabus who authored the book of Hebrews, a belief held by the Church Father Tertullian. “Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.”3 Clement (died c.99 A.D.) While the date of his death is fairly certain, the date of his birth is unknown. Clement, also known by Catholics as Pope Clement I, was a Bishop of Rome and is the earliest of the Church Fathers. His succession as Bishop of Rome is believed to have occurred in 88 or 92 A.D. His letter to the Corinthian church is one of the oldest Christian documents still in existence, outside of the cannon of Scripture. He was martyred by drowning in the sea. “Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. “Wherefore, girding up your loins,” “serve the Lord in fear” and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and “believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory,” and a throne at His right hand. To Him all things” in heaven and on earth are subject.

522

Him every spirit serves. He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him. But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also...”4 Ignatius (c.35-110 A.D.) Ignatius was the third Bishop of the church in Antioch and a disciple of the apostle John, as was Polycarp. A good number of his letters have survived to the present day. “Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not after the same manner. … He truly assumed a body; for “the Word was made flesh,” and lived upon earth without sin. … He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. … He also rose again in three days, the Father raising Him up; and after spending forty days with the apostles, He was received up to the Father, and “sat down at His right hand, expecting till His enemies are placed under His feet. … At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, ‘As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’”5 “And I know that He was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that He was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, ‘Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.’ And He says to Thomas, ‘Reach hither thy finger into the print of the nails, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side;’ and immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to Him, ‘My Lord, and my God.’ And on this account also did they despise death, for it were too little to say, indignities and stripes. Nor was this all; but also after He had shown Himself to them, that He had risen indeed, and not in appearance only, He both ate and drank with them during forty entire days. And thus was He, with the flesh, received up in their sight unto Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, accompanied by glory and power. … But if they say that He will come at the end of the world without a body, how shall those ‘see Him that pierced Him,’ and when they recognize Him, ‘mourn for themselves?’ For incorporeal beings have neither form nor figure, nor the aspect of

523

an animal possessed of shape, because their nature is in itself simple.”6 “… may I be perfected through your prayers, and become a partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and have fellowship with Him in His death, His resurrection from the dead, and His everlasting life.”7 Polycarp (c.69-c.155 A.D.) Polycarp was the second Bishop of the church in Smyrna and a disciple of the apostle John. He, along with Clement and Ignatius, is recognized as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. The only of his writings still extant is his letter to the church in Philippi. He was martyred by stabbing, following a failed attempt to burn him at the stake. “I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.”8 Papias (early second century A.D.) Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis (modern day Pamukkale, Turkey) in c.130 A.D. None of his writings exist in their complete form, although fragments have remained extant. These fragments serve as a testimony to early acceptance of the accuracy, integrity, and apostolic authorship of the books of the New Testament, as well as the events and doctrines contained therein as that which was traditionally believed within the early church. “But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by

524

Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.”9 “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”10 Justin Martyr (c.100-165 A.D.) Justin Martyr is recognized as one of the earliest Christian apologists. His Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew is a discourse with a non-believer concerning the truths of the Christian faith. Whether this dialogue is a transcript of an actual conversation or a contrived discourse with a fictional character, Trypho, remains in dispute. Many of Justin’s writings have survived to this day. “… after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass.”11 “But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation.”12

525

Profession of the presbyters at Smyrna (c.180 A.D.) The church in Smyrna confronted an early heretic named Noetus (c.130-c.200 A.D.) who denied the Trinity and held to a form of doctrine known as patripassianism, which states there is one God who manifests Himself not in three persons, but as one performing three functions. According to this view, the Father, Son, and the Spirit are all the same person, and when the Son died on the cross, the Father and Spirit died with Him. Noetus was summoned before the presbyters of the Smyrna and was questioned concerning his beliefs. During this examination, he denied ever professing such doctrine. Later, after converting others according to his manner of faith, he was summoned again by the presbyters, who then excommunicated him from the church. It was during this examination that the presbyters in Smyrna formulated a profession of faith in their condemnation of Noetus’ heresy. “We also know in truth one God, we know Christ, we know the Son, suffering as He suffered, dying as He died, and risen on the third day, and abiding at the right hand of the Father, and coming to judge the living and the dead. And in saying this we say what has been handed down to us.”13 Irenaeus (died c.202 A.D.) Irenaeus was Bishop of the church in Lugdunum, Gaul (modern day Lyons, France). As was Justin, Irenaeus is named among the early Christian apologists. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who, as stated above, was a disciple of the apostle John. The passage below is evidence not only of his belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ, but also that the church accepted the accounts of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. “For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them. … Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”14

526

The Apostles’ Creed and the creed of Hippolytus The earliest Christian statement of faith, outside of Scripture, is the Apostles’ Creed, an early extra-Biblical Christian article of faith, expressing belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The present form of the creed is as follows: I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic [universal] Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. The above form of the creed dates back to the sixth or seventh century.15 Tradition states the original form of the creed was formed by the apostles themselves during the first century, on the tenth day following the ascension of Christ, but no evidence exists to support that claim. The substance of the creed does reflect theological formulas found in the writings of the early church during the first two centuries of Christianity. The creed has its foundation in the Interogatory Creed of Hippolytus, a baptismal confession used by the Hippolytus (c.170c.236 A.D.), a Bishop of Rome around the end of the second century. He is believed to have been a disciple of Irenaeus. Under his ministration, a candidate for baptism would be asked to reply to a series of questions concerning specific tenants of his faith. Hippolytus’ creed dates to c.215 A.D. This creed was submitted by Marcellus to Julius I c.340 A.D., then was later adopted c.404 AD by Rufinus, who used the creed in his own church.16 It is from Rufinus that the present form of the Apostles’ Creed bears its closest resemblance. Hippolytus' account of his baptismal confession is as follows: When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say: "Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?" And the person being baptized shall say: "I believe." Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: "Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was

527

crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?" And when he says: "I believe," he is baptized again. And again he shall say: "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?" The person being baptized shall say: "I believe," and then he is baptized a third time.17

XIX. Jesus' sacrifice was once for all Pagan deities who are said to have been resurrected are merely personifying the annual cycle of vegetation, thus these deities are said to be killed and resurrected on an annual basis. The Christian faith is vastly different from this type of reoccurring naturalist symbolism. The nature of Jesus’ work was that it satisfied the justice of God on a once-for-all basis. Never again will there need to be a sacrifice for sin, for the one and only Lamb of God was slain once for sin, the just being sacrificed for the unjust, so that they shall forever be rid of the guilt of sin. A Tale of Two Adams The New Testament contrasts Adam and Christ as the head of mankind. Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification. For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offense of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5:12-19) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. … And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Cor 15:21-22, 45) Adam, the first man, became corrupted by sin and passed that corruption, along with its accompanying curse of death, onto all men. Christ is referred to as the second Adam, in that through Him man receives salvation from the sin passed on

528

through the first Adam. So it is said that in Adam all die, but in Christ all shall be made alive. The relationship of Adam and Christ to mankind is one of representation. Those who are “in” Adam are represented by him and therefore inherit the same curse which he received for his transgression. Likewise, those who are “in” Christ are represented by Him and therefore inherit the same reward which He receives by virtue of His righteousness. Those represented by Adam stand as those guilty of offense, whereas those represented by Christ stand as those who are justified from all offense. In Adam, man stands as disobedient and sinful; in Christ, man stands as obedient and righteous. Also, as the curse came through Adam by one act of disobedience, so does salvation come through Christ by His one sacrificial act. The question then becomes: If all men are represented by Adam, in what way are “all” men represented by Christ, since not all mankind is justified in the sight of God? The answer to this question is understood through the following syllogism: 1. Adam is the representative of his seed (his seed being those who are born according to the flesh) and every member of his seed inevitably receives the judgment due to Adam: death and condemnation. Thus, in Adam all those who are represented by him, perish. 2. Christ is the representative of His seed (His seed being those who are born according to the Spirit) and every member of His seed inevitably receives the judgment due to Christ: righteousness and blessing. Thus, in Christ all those who are represented by Him, live. 3. Therefore, all who are represented by Adam (any member of the human race), suffer death, but all who are represented by Christ (any member of God’s elect race), shall receive the the righteousness of Christ. The doctrine of limited atonement is that Christ died for God’s elect, not for the whole of humanity. He gave His blood to save “those whom the Father had given Him,” His “sheep,” none of whom “would be lost.” These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. … I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. (Jn 17:1-2, 6-9) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and

529

without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. (Eph 1:3-5) The fact of the matter is that every Christian believes in the doctrine of limited atonement. One either believes the atonement is limited in who it redeems, or it is limited in how it provides redemption. The former relates to the object of the redemption – God’s elect; the latter, to the effect of redemption – whether or not the work on the cross actually redeems sinners. Christ did not just provide a way that man might be redeemed. Rather, He effectually secured the redemption of those whom who He did redeem. When He cried, “It is finished,” He declared that those for whose sins He paid were actually justified and free from their former guilt. Those who believe that Christ did not secure redemption for God’s elect; but rather, made a way for all men to be redeemed, should they place their faith in Christ. The truth is that Christ said, “It is finished,” not, “It is possible.”

XX. Jesus is the High Priest for His people and the Mediator of the covenant God made with man The writer of the book of Hebrews, using language rich in flavor and description, lays out the work of Christ as the Mediator of a new covenant made with God and man. Christ was made flesh so that He might partake in our nature and trials In the incarnation, Christ took upon Himself mortal flesh and blood. In His humanity, He experienced a normal human development and felt man’s ailments and pain. When the sinner is declared just in the sight of God, upon him is placed the righteousness of Christ, so that he may now and forever experience the favor of God and partake in the blessings rightfully belonging to the one eternal Son of God. Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; … Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. (Heb 2:14, 17-18) Christ was made High Priest by virtue of having shared in our nature It is in His sharing of man’s nature and experience, and by virtue of the blood He shed for sin, that the Father has made Christ a High Priest for His people. As Christ took upon Himself our position, so do believers share in His position as justified before God. As He was clothed in our flesh, so now are Christians clothed in His righteousness in an everlasting sharing of position. In ancient times when two men formed a covenant between themselves, they would often exchange some of their possessions, including their robes, as a token that they became inseparably united as one entity under the terms of the covenant. Such an instance is found in the first book

530

of Samuel where it is said that Jonathan, Saul’s son, gave his robe to David as a token of the covenant between them (I Sam 18:3-4). We see a modern-day reflection of this in the institution of marriage where the bride takes for herself the family name of her groom, and the two become one. In so doing, they were essentially saying, “I am putting you onto myself. We now become one.” When the Word of God became flesh and took His dwelling among man, He “took upon” Himself human flesh (Phil 2:5) and was made in the “likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom 8:3) Likewise, those who have been justified through the shed blood of Christ are described in Scripture as ones who have been clothed with righteousness, as well as ones who have “put on Christ.” (Gal 3:27) A person who has “put on” Christ is one who is then represented by Christ; henceforth, he no longer stands before God in his own righteousness, which is as filthy rags, but in the righteousness of Christ, who is eternally without blemish. To the ancient mind, one’s robe symbolized his status and value. Such is illustrated in the life of Joseph, the youngest male child of Jacob, yet it was this child, not the eldest, to whom was given the coat of many colors, an article of clothing which conveyed a great honor upon the wearer. So it is with the righteousness of Christ, put onto every believer. The Christian, clothed in Christ’s righteousness, stands before God not as a sinner worthy of condemnation, but as a son, beloved by God throughout all eternity. Having then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need. (Heb 4:14-16) Christ is not a Priest who needs to offer sacrifice for His own sin During the time of Moses God established a priesthood within the Hebrew people. From then until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., priests offered sacrifices for the sins of the people, as well as for their own sin. Christ, having no sin in Him and being shameless and pure in His humanity, did not need to make sacrifice for any iniquity of His own. Unlike earthly priests, the priesthood of Christ is performed solely with the iniquity of others in view. For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who can bear gently with the ignorant and erring, for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity; and by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. (Heb 5:1-3) The surety of God’s covenant between Himself and man When God established His covenant to Abraham in Genesis chapter fifteen, He required nothing of Abraham in the keeping of this covenant. The covenant rite was performed by God alone, with Abraham present as a witness, not a participant. Since God is unchanging in His determination or purpose, His promises will forever

531

remain true, and since the covenant is maintained by the power and word of God alone, those who benefit from it have the surety it will never be broken. For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he swore by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast. (Heb 6:13-19) The surety of the new covenant is greater than the old covenant, having a High Priest who presides forever Christ, being the eternal Son of God, will forever serve as a High Priest for His people. His office will never cease, as does any office held by man. Neither will Christ ever become apathetic nor lethargic in His priestly duty, and this function will He forever perform with the utmost zeal and devotion to those for whom He makes intercession. By so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant. And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:22-25) The superiority of Christ’s priesthood Christ’s priesthood is superior than its prefigurements in that His priesthood is conducted by one who is greater than those before Him, and also that the sacrifice made by Christ is effectual, rather than typical, as were the sacrifices of old, of a greater sacrifice. Whereas earthly priests offered sacrifices regularly, the sacrifice offered by Christ was once for all. The sacrifices of man must of necessity be continual, as these sacrifices are offered by those who themselves were in need of redemption. Christ, having no guilt in Him, needed not to make a continual sacrifice. Also, the sacrifices which earthly priests offered were but foreshadows of the sacrifice of Christ in that the earthly sacrifices prefigured the cleansing of sin, whereas the sacrifice of Christ made such cleansing a reality. For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself. For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore. (Heb 7:26-28)

532

Christ’s priesthood is a fulfillment of the old priesthood Here, the writer of Hebrews arrives at his “chief point:” that the priesthood established with Moses was but a shadow of a much greater reality which was realized in the priesthood of Christ. Christ, the great High Priest, is described as having “sat down” by the Father, thereby signifying His sacrificial act was done for all eternity. On the cross, Christ satisfied once for all the wrath of God against the sin of His people. Therefore, having declared, “It is finished,” He sat down at the Father’s side, His work done and His people redeemed by virtue of His having paid the penalty for their sin. Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this: We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses is warned of God when he is about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount. (Heb 8:1-5) Having finished the work of redemption, Christ became the Mediator of the new covenant Christ as the Prince of Peace A mediator serves as a middle person between two disagreeing parties. Christ’s work as Mediator is two-fold in that He both reconciles man to God as well as makes intercession to the Father on man’s behalf. Adam, the first man, was created in a state of innocence, but upon choosing to sin, that innocence was shattered and the friendship with God broken. It is this broken friendship that Christ reconciles in His role as Mediator, and He does so through the blood He shed in order to satisfy His own wrath against sin. Without such sacrifice, God’s people would still be at enmity with God and still be sentenced to pay the just price for such enmity. It is for this reason that Isaiah referred to the coming Messiah as the Prince of Peace, having brought together in loving union two parties who would otherwise forever remain in opposition to one another. In His role as Mediator, Christ directs His attention to the Father in that He presented Himself a living sacrifice for sin and henceforth lives to nurture and forever maintain the peace secured by His sacrifice. He also directs His attention toward man in that through Him was revealed the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form, and following His departure from this world, He sent the Spirit of God to move man according to the Father’s will. His fitness as the one and only Mediator between God and man As “a mediator is not of one,” (Gal 3:20) that is to say, not of one of the two divided parties, so is Christ’s role a Mediator performed as one who is a bridge between both God and man, a function which He assumed when He took on a human nature. At the incarnation, the humanity of Jesus was neither deity nor sinful flesh. As the God-Man, He retained His divine nature, yet added to that a

533

human nature which knew no sin; therefore, making Him, in His humanity, the perfect man, capable of experiencing an unbroken fellowship with His Creator. That is why He can serve as Mediator, in that He, as the created, virgin-born son of Mary, lived the life that man would live were it not for sin – a life of perfect obedience to all that God has decreed. For that reason, He kept the Law of Moses during His time on earth, with all its ceremonies and practices. As the God-Man, Christ became neither the sinner nor the one who was offended by virtue of man’s sin. Therefore, He can act as a Mediator between these two parties, reconciling that which no one else can. For this reason, He said, “No one can [not “may” – as denoting permission, rather than ability] come to the Father but by Me.” (Jn 14:4) And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. (Acts 4:12; cf Jn 6:68) The Mediator between God and man must be a man Christ’s role as Mediator is likened to the role of the kinsman-redeemer, a role established during Israel’s exodus from Egypt. And if a stranger or sojourner with thee be waxed rich, and thy brother be waxed poor beside him, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner with thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family; after that he is sold he may be redeemed: one of his brethren may redeem him; or his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be waxed rich, he may redeem himself. (Lev 25:47-49) According the Levitical law, a slave could be redeemed, or bought back, from bondage if one of his kin paid the required ransom. The New Testament speaks of man as being a slave and in bondage to sin. Since man is unable to redeem himself, Christ became like him, sharing in his nature so that man could be redeemed by one among his own kin. In taking human nature, Christ claimed the legal right, according to Levitical Law, to redeem His own, being one in possession of the likeness of that very same nature which transgressed the Law of God, yet being the only one with that nature now capable of keeping the Law. Since the ransom for man required the shedding of blood, the Messiah needed to take upon Himself a human nature, with all the limitations of that nature, including the capability to bleed and to die. This is the superiority of the sacrifice over and against the sacrifices of the Old Testament, in that He, being made into a perfectly obedient man, offered His body itself as the sacrifice for sin. The Mediator between God and man must also be God No man can stand in the presence of God, until the end of days when all sin will be wiped away and God’s people will see Him face to face. For that reason, the Mediator between God and man needed to be one from among the Holy Trinity, one who can be in the presence of the Father, able to present to Him the

534

sacrifice necessary for man’s salvation, and also make intercession to the Father in the keeping of that salvation. The kinsman-redeemers of old presented the required ransom, thereby freeing their brothers, for only family could free family. So does the Messiah offer a sacrifice worthy of man’s redemption, by virtue of His supremacy as the Son of God. The Messiah needed to be more than man in order to avoid the curse of sin placed upon all humanity. Were He an ordinary man – fully human, but without a second divine nature, the shedding of His blood would pay only for His sin. His death, as such, would have no value to anyone. “… if the human nature was a person, as it must be a finite one, what was done and suffered by it, must be finite also, and of no use but to that person, and could have no sufficient virtue and value in them to justify men, and atone for sin; but these two natures being in personal union, the works and actions of either, though distinct and peculiar to each, yet belong to the whole Person, and are predicated of it; and so those of the human nature have virtue and efficacy in them, from the personal union, to make them effectual to the purposes for which they were designed, without which they would be ineffectual. … The advantage of this personal union is, that the divine nature has an influence upon, and gives virtue and dignity to whatsoever is done or suffered in the human nature.”1 However, as God, holy and blameless, He is capable of saving, to the uttermost, those who come to Him. The Mediator, in taking on a human nature, became one having two natures, human and divine, yet He remains one person. It was this person, the God-Man, who died on the cross for sin, and it the value of His blood, the blood of the God-Man, that is a sufficient ransom for sin. Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28) Because the Mediator between God and man is the God-Man Himself, those for whom He has made reconciliation, and for whom He ever lives to make intercession, can rest assured that such reconciliation will never be broken and that the Father will always heed the Son’s intercession. But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my

535

laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people: For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And their sins will I remember no more. (Heb 8:6-12) A recapitulation of the first priesthood From the time of Moses until the time when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, the Jews had in their presence the Ark of the Covenant, the sacred chest housed within the Holy of Holies, the innermost room of the Temple. It was in this room where the physical representation of God’s presence, the ark itself, rested behind a thick veil, and where only the high priest would enter once a year to make the most solemn of sacrifices, made for the sin of the people. This he did by sprinkling blood on the mercy seat, the golden covering on the Ark of the Covenant.

Now even a first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the first, wherein were the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the Holy place. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of holies; having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and above it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; of which things we cannot now speak severally. Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services; but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the errors of the people. (Heb 9:1-7) The inferiority of the first priesthood The presence of the veil separating the Holy of Holies, the most sacred of the Temple rooms, from the rest of the Temple symbolized that access to God had not yet been made a possibility. When Christ died for sin, He made such access a reality.

536

Although the sacrificial work of Christ was accomplished before creation (in that He was slain “from the foundation of the world”), the fulfillment of that accomplishment was not realized, or “made manifest,” in history until Jesus died on the cross. Since the sacrifices made in the earthly Temple did not actually pay for sin, the way into the innermost room remained closed to all but the high priest, and even he exempted just once a year. The Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle is yet standing; which is a figure for the time present; according to which are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshiper perfect, being only (with meats and drinks and divers washings) carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation. (Heb 9:8-10) The effectualness of Christ’s priesthood The earthly sacrifices, made with the hands of those who were in need of forgiveness themselves, did not effect forgiveness of sin, but merely typified the actual forgiveness given by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice, mankind remained in need of a greater sacrifice by which he would actually be cleansed from sin. By virtue of the earthly sacrifices, men were legally cleansed; however, by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice, man is effectually cleansed of sin. But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb 9:11-14) The new covenant is sealed with the blood of Christ, the Testator The writer then states, “for this cause [Christ] is the Mediator of a new covenant.” The “cause” to which he refers is the superiority and effectualness of Christ’s sacrifice, made with His own blood, over and against the sacrifices made by man with the blood of beasts. In other words, because of the effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice, He is now the Mediator of that covenant which was sealed by His own blood. And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth. Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood. For when every commandment had been

537

spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward. Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood. And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission. (Heb 9:15-22) A covenant, or testament, is a declaration of what is to be done after the death of the testator, the one whose wishes are delineated in the will, as is the case when household head dies and leaves a “last will and testament” detailing how his assets are distributed to those named in his will. It is a document stating his final wishes, testifying to what the deceased testator is unable to testify himself. The formation of the testament is due to the testator’s good will and love for his benefactors. The testator has the right to bequeath his possessions to those whom he chooses, declaring who is to benefit from his death. These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. (Jn 17:1-2) It is the testator’s death which seals the will and makes real the stipulations by which others receive such benefit, for the benefits of the will are not received by the beneficiaries and the blessings of the will not conferred as long as the testator is living. Upon the death of Christ, the blessings of God’s covenant are imparted to those for whom He died – to those were chosen before creation, whose names are written in the Book of Life (Rev 20:15). Scripture testifies that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. (Lev 17:11) When Adam sinned, he brought upon himself the curse of death, a disposition which passes to all men. The curse of sin requires the life, or blood, of man. In Scripture, the shedding of blood symbolized cleansing from sin, as the writer of Hebrews states, “according to the law, … all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission [of sin].” In order for God’s people to be redeemed, it was necessary for blood to be shed. By the shedding of His blood, the blood of the covenant, Christ sealed His will, through which others are named beneficiaries and receive the blessing of being called sons of God by adoption. And as they were eating [in the upper room, prior to Jesus’ betrayal], Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them,

538

saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mt 26:26-28) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (1 Cor 11:23-25) In the shedding of Christ’s blood, the covenant is made effectual, the promises of the old covenant are fulfilled in the new covenant, as the stipulations of an earthly testament stand only as promises until the testator is deceased and the benefactors receive the promised blessings. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved: in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, (Eph 1:3-7) Christ’s sacrifice was once for all, unlike the sacrifices made by the priests before Him The sacrifices of the Old Testament were made with the blood of animals, but the sacrifice made in the New Testament was made with the blood of Christ Himself, thus giving infinite and eternal worth and value to His sacrifice, in contrast to the value of the animal sacrifices made prior to His being offered as the final sacrifice for sin. In order for the new covenant to be sealed and the blessings conferred thereby, blood needed to be shed by one who had no sin of His own; otherwise, the shedding of His blood would only pay for His sin, rather than the sin of others. Also, if Christ had sin of His own, the shedding of His blood would be a requirement, rather than an act done voluntarily. The value of Christ’s sacrifice is that which requires no more sacrifice on His part. In a single sacrifice, He paid the penalty for sin once and for all. The author of Hebrews then draws a parallel between the death of man and the death of Christ, in that both need die only once, and after death to appear before God to be judged by God according to their merit. All men shall die or undergo a change likened to death, as did Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). For the believer in Christ, death is a cause for joy and a means of blessing, but for the remainder of humanity, death is a cause for utmost dread and terror. At death, the soul returns to God to be judged according to his deeds, which are a product of one’s faith, as Jesus said, “by their works you will know them,” (Mt 7:16) and elsewhere Paul advises that the reprobates “profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him,

539

being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work.” (Titus 1:16) In like fashion, Christ died once for sin, and in so doing was presented before the Father, on behalf of sinful man, as one bearing the likeness of sinful flesh and the image of corrupted humanity. Then, the wrath of God being satisfied and Christ being justly cleared of all such blemish (for sin was placed upon Him, not found in Him), He is then presented before the Father, again on behalf of the same, as one without sin, and one able to abide in the presence of God the Father. In His first appearance before the Father, while He hung upon the cross, Christ stood charged with the sin of many, in His second appearance; He stands as one having all such likeness of sin being discharged against His account and on the behalf of the account of those for whom He died. He first appeared before the Father, as if one with sin, so that all those whose sin He bore would have the penalty paid for their sin. He appeared a second time before the Father, as one without sin, so that those same ones could also appear, as if without sin. Sin still abides in man, yet one day God will eradicate even the very presence of sin, so that those who now are reckoned as if they have no sin will one day stand before God without sin being even a reality in their being – and this shall be so not because they made themselves sinless, but because they stand before God through identification with Christ; that is to say, they stand as ones represented by one in whom sin has never been a reality in His being. It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place year by year with blood not his own; else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. (Heb 9:23-28) Christ offered His body as a better sacrifice than the sacrifices offered under the old covenant The sacrifice offered annually before Christ did not make sinners “perfect” before God; that is, the penalty for their sin remained unpaid, despite the sacrifice for sin being made annually in the sight of God. These sacrifices were not effectual because they were a mere shadow of the sacrifice which would prove effective in satisfying God’s justice. It was to this end that the Father prepared a body for the Son, through which the Son would, agreeably so, assume real flesh and blood, yet not assuming the sin of the flesh. Having offered His own body, a sacrifice greater than any which had before been presented, as the final sacrifice for sin, He sat down at His Father’s side, His work being finished and the justice and wrath of God being satisfied with regards to the sin of His elect.

540

For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshipers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God. Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. (Heb 10:1-13) The blessings conferred by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice Presently, Christ serves as the one and only Mediator between God and man, ever appeasing the wrath of God which would otherwise come down upon those covered by His sacrifice. Yet, there comes a day when God will not merely reckon believers guilt-free; moreover, He will erase even the reality of sin, making His people really free of all guilt. Following that day, there will be no further need for Christ to reconcile man to God, for the parties will then abide in an everlasting fellowship, unhindered by any present blemish standing as an obstacle to such fellowship. From thenceforth, God’s people will stand in His presence, without a Mediator, able to see God face to face, as He is, in all His divine glory. As the veil of the Temple separated the Ark of the Covenant, the physical representation of God’s presence, from the people of Israel, so does sin separate God’s people from His presence. When Christ died, the veil of the Temple was torn in half. And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom. (Lk 27:50-51) The rending of the veil bears a two-fold significance. First, as the death of Christ paid the penalty for the sin of God’s people, making any further sacrifice unnecessary, there was no longer a need for the Judaic sacrificial system, and therefore no need for the Temple itself. Second, by the work of Christ, the way to God was laid bare for those represented by Christ’s sacrifice. Previously, the veil stood as a symbol of the division between God and man, as a broken bridge separating two sides of a chasm, but now with that division mended and access to God once again, and forevermore, a reality, any such symbol of that former division

541

now became obsolete. The flesh of Jesus, being subjected to various Roman cruelties, was torn and mutilated, and it was through this surrender of His flesh and blood that there is restoration made to the former division between God and man. While presently this access to the Father is through the mediation of Christ, and by His virtue, the day will come when saints will stand before Him in boldness and without a Mediator. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said, This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart, And upon their mind also will I write them; then saith he, And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a great priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water. (Heb 10:14-22) Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is. (I Jn 3:2) And there shall be no curse any more: and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be therein: and his servants shall serve him; 4and they shall see his face; and his name shall be on their foreheads. (Rev 22:3-4) The supposed similarity to Mithraism Mithraism, as with Christianity, professes that there exists a mediator between God and man, and it has been charged, even in early times, that Christians borrowed such a Mithraic concept when formulating their body of doctrine. Ancient Mithraism referred to Mithra as a mesites, or mediator; however, the type of Mithraism which is compared to Christianity is Roman Mithraism, a variation of an earlier Persian religion. Following that, it serves to note that Mithra was not introduced to Roman religion (as Mithras) until a century following Jesus' life.2 If there was any borrowing to be done, it was on the part of the Mithraists, as Justin Martyr stated, “...wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithra, commanding the same thing to be done.”3 Additionally, as stated previously, the Jews' religious pride and disdain for pagan religion would have prevented any such borrowing from pagan mythology. Presently, knowledge regarding ancient Mithraism is very casual and fragmented, due to the lack of texts which bear his name. It is impossible to truly understand the intricacies of Mithraic doctrine at the time following Christ and, therefore, any accusation against Christianity on this ground is rooted in speculation rather than evidence. Regardless, that one deity is named a mediator is no ground for arguments against the originality of another who refer to its deity by the same title. As stated in a previous heading, similarity in titles among deities is nothing which should come as a surprise to any student of religion. Also, the essence of Christ’s priestly role is at

542

the heart of His role as Mediator. In contrast, Mithra's role as mediator is derived from his position in the cosmos, as being the god of light who hovers at the midpoint between heaven and earth, rather than serving as a mediator in a preordained plan for man's redemption. Mithra never sacrificed himself at all, whereas, Christ gave His own life. The only sacrifice in Mithraism is that of Mithra slaying a bull. These differences between Mithra and Christ, along with the differences mentioned under previous headings, serve to discredit any such similarity between the two religions concerning the mediating activity of the two figures. Those who claim otherwise simply need to check their sources and do more research.

XXI. Jesus existed as an historical figure Without restating what has already been addressed concerning the historicity of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, it will merely serve here to remind the reader that Jesus was a person who lived a real life, walked among real men and women, and did so during a definite time in history. Pagan deities, on the other hand, are said to have existed in an ageless past, with no relation to a specific time in history, and their names are not addressed in any ancient writing as historical persons possessing actual flesh and blood. If a pagan deity is stripped of the mythology concerning him, the deity is then reduced to nothingness. In the case of Jesus, were He not the incarnate Son of God, and even if the supernatural character of the Gospels were removed and the writings proven to be falsified accounts (the refutation of such a notion will be the focus of Part six), Jesus of Nazareth would still remain as a human being who really walked this earth over two thousand years ago.

XXII. The Gospel of Christ does not change Pagan deities commonly have more than one version of their story, as there are often varying accounts of one’s birth or death. Attis, for example, has numerous ways in which it is said he died, but such is not the case with Christ. In the case of Jesus there exists four four accounts which do not differ in content one from another. In each Gospel, He is virgin-born (although Mark and John do not provide a birth narrative, such a manner of birth is implied in their Gospels), performed the same type of miracles, preached the same doctrine, and died and rose in the same fashion. Throughout the past two-thousand years, this Gospel of Christ has not changed, and this serves as yet another characteristic in which Jesus of Nazareth stands apart from deities recognized by pagan religions.

XXIII. Concerning Jesus' state of mind The Gospels record that Jesus made many fantastic claims about Himself. Jesus' portrayal as such in this record is either true or false – either He did make such claims or He did not. If He did not, then one of two conclusions must be reached: that the record is a legend regarding an actual man known as Jesus of Nazareth, or that the record is a myth about a man who never existed in the first place. Both of these propositions has been refuted throughout this book; therefore, there is no need to repeat the evidences here to their contrary. However, if Jesus did in fact make the claims attributed to Him in the Gospels, then one of three conclusions must be reached: that He was a liar, that He was

543

insane, or that He was exactly who He claimed to be, that us, God in the flesh. This trilemma (“Lord, liar, or lunatic”) was made popular by the late apologist C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, in which he states: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.”1 The use of such a trilemma as an argument for Jesus' deity is based on assumptions made concerning His frame of mind at the time when these statements were made. Since it is impossible to conduct an analysis on a person who lived two thousand years ago based on observation or interviews conducted with the subject himself, then conclusions must be reached based on an analysis of the written record and what is known of the culture in which that person lived. In this case, the written record is, of course, the Gospels themselves, and considerations based on that record are grounded in the belief that such a record is historically accurate. Since the integrity and accuracy of the Gospel accounts are the focus of Part six of this book, I will reserve such comments for inclusion therein and proceed here on the premise that the Gospels record the events of Jesus' life as they actually occurred. Some of the claims Jesus made about Himself: Oneness with God: I and the Father are one. (Jn 10:30) Eternal glory with God: And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (Jn 17:5) Omnipotence: All power in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me. (Mt 28:18). That He was a King: Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” (Jn 18:36-37 NIV)

544

That He was without sin: Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God. (Jn 8:46-47 NIV) That He was sent by God: If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but He sent me. (Jn 8:42 NIV) That he would return again to judge the world When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, He will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep and the goats. (Mt 25:31-32) That He has the authority to forgive sin: And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My sons, your sins are forgiven.” (Mk 2:1-12 NIV) That He was not of this world: He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." (Jn 8:23 NIV) That He was the promised Messiah, whom the prophets foretold: The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when He comes, He will show us all things.” Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He." (Jn 4:25-26 NIV) That He was Lord of the Sabbath: For the Son of Man is master even of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8) The only means of access to God: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. ( John 14:6-7 NIV) He is the only source of knowledge of God: All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Lk 10:22 NIV) That He would be executed, then rise from the dead on the third day: The Son of Man is going to be handed over to the power of men, and they will kill Him. And on the third day He will be raised to life again. (Mt 1 7.~22-23 NIV)

545

That He is the source of eternal life: Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" ( John 11:25-26 NIV) Consideration one: was Jesus a liar? If Jesus was not divine, and if He was aware of His lack of divinity, then His preaching and teaching constituted nothing more than a successful deception. However, if He knew that He was not the Son of God, and if He knew that His death would have no redemptive power, then He would have lacked the motivation necessary for desiring to give His life for the sin of His people. When one is aware of his utter inability to perform a certain feat, then he consequently lacks the motivation needed to accomplish that feat. For instance, a person who knows he cannot fly like Superman will have no motivation for saying, “Up, up, and away,” then jumping off of a roof. Additionally, the lifestyle of Jesus was not marked by characteristics that would portray Him as one benefiting from such a deception. Although Jesus was revered and worshipped by His disciples, His claims to deity did not bring him fortune or material glory. Rather, such claims were met with scorn, hatred, and, eventually, execution. At some point, were He preaching deceptive lies, He would have concluded that enough was enough, then likely retreated elsewhere, where He would be free from such a negative reputation. Also, His personality also does not fit the profile of a man whose intent it was to deceive loyal followers. Jesus’ lifestyle was marked with poverty, ridicule, and suffering, yet through it all He remained loving and full of compassion. Humanly speaking, He had nothing to gain by propounding the things He did concerning His person and His mission. . The only crown He was ever given was a crown of thorns, not a crown studded with finely polished jewels. Finally, if Jesus were lying about His deity, then His hopes for success would be the things of delusion, for the Jews were the last people on earth who would have naturally accepted the notion that God would lower Himself to mere humanity, and any claim of oneness with God would be met with accusations of blasphemy and death by stoning. The Jewish concept of God’s person was too high to favor such a belief, unless it was evidentially true. Since Jesus’ claims to deity were backed by His actions (that is, His miracles), and His eventual resurrection, which He foretold beforehand, then His followers were supplied with proofs that both verified His claims and transcended traditional Jewish beliefs. Consideration two: was Jesus a lunatic? If Jesus was not God, but was unaware of His lack of divinity, then He could rightly be classified as a person suffering from the psychosis known as delusion, marked by a cognitive separation from reality. A delusional disorder does not have to be accompanied by hallucinations, schizophrenia, or any other form of mental illness. According to psychologist Karl Jaspers, the only diagnosis that is needed to determine if a person is delusional is the determination that the patient unwaveringly holds to one or more non-realistic beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary.2 Such a person does not need to display behavioral disorders that would prevent him from being fully functional in society, or being successful both at home and at work. Jaspers identified two types of delusions, which he termed primary and secondary.

546

Primary delusions, he said, sprout up suddenly and do not consist of beliefs which can be reckoned with on a rational basis, whereas secondary delusions develop over time and emerge from one’s response to circumstances in his life, be it conditions relating to his childhood or to certain traumas or stress in one’s life. Jesus began His public ministry near the age of thirty, the age when a Hebrew male could legally hold a position as rabbi or teacher. This ministry effected a drastic change in the public’s perception on Him, so much so that the people of Nazareth did rejected him on the basis of His humanity. They could not make the leap of faith required to elevate a common neighbor to divine status. Perhaps a critic could say that Jesus’ belief in His identity as the promised Messiah was a belief that had been spoon-fed into Him since He was a child, then later in adulthood evolved into a belief in which He was persuaded so far as to claim to actually be the Messiah that His parents said He would be. After all, He was born in Bethlehem and was of the lineage of David. Biographically speaking, Jesus fit all the requirements of the job description. Still, there remain many events in Jesus’ life that transcend such a simplistic explanation. What about the star that guided the magi, or Herod’s act of killing children in and around Bethlehem, or the many healings and miracles Jesus performed? Furthermore, such an explanation does not account for the circumstances surrounding His execution – that He would be sold for thirty pieces of silver, or be crucified and given gall and vinegar to drink, or that the Romans would cast lots for His garments, or that in His execution He would be accompanied by criminals, or that His bones would remain unbroken, or that He would be pierced by a spear, or, most importantly, that He would rise from the dead? A reduction of Jesus’ messianic claims to such a psychological profile does not take into account these factors. Furthermore, If Jesus’ parents had spoon-fed messianic expectations into Him as a child – expectations by which He would become convinced that He was indeed the promised Messiah, then the characteristics of His work as the Messiah would have taken on a much different tone than that which is described in the Gospels. Jesus’ portrayal of the Jewish Messiah, while fitting perfectly in line with what was prophesied in the Old Testament, did not line up with prevailing messianic expectations of the time. The Jews did indeed expect the coming of the Messiah promised by the prophets of old, but their understanding of such prophetic utterances lent them to believe in a type of Messiah other than who is described in the Hebrew Scriptures. Such predominant messianic expectations will be addressed in Part six of this book, so I will not address them here, but will merely make the claim that had Jesus’ messianic role been pre-programmed into His psyche, then His ministry would have taken on a more militaristic character, not as a Messiah who brought spiritual deliverance from sin; but rather, as a Messiah who brought about the national restoration of Israel and the gathering together of its twelve tribes. In his book Delusional Disorder, psychologist Alistair Munro named nine indicators of a delusion.3 A short look at these indicators will serve to separate Jesus from someone merely suffering from a mental delusion. The patent holds to his delusion with the absolute conviction that it is true. The patent’s adherence to his delusion will effect a change in his lifestyle.

547

When questioned about his delusion, the patent is often secretive about his beliefs. The patent is typically serious in demeanor and exhibits oversensitivity of emotion. The patent accepts whatever his delusion leads him to believe. In the face of opposition to his delusion, the patient often reacts with irritability and hostility. The patent’s delusion consists of beliefs which are unlikely to be or become reality. The patent is so consumed with his delusion that it affects other elements of his psyche. When acting out his delusion, the patent exhibits behavior which is abnormal, but understandable in light of his delusion. Those who are familiar with the patient will notice uncharacteristic changes in his behavior. Jesus believed He was the Son of God, and His belief in such an identity was one to which He held with utmost conviction, and one which brought about a drastic change in His life. However, Jesus, as described in the Gospels, does not exhibit the erratic behavior that Munro associated with a delusional patient. Jesus, when questioned, rather than running away like a dog with his tail between his legs, gave rational answers which were so profound that they confounded the inquisitors. He made no attempt to hide His beliefs, but rather preached the Gospel to all who would listen. Neither is Jesus described as a person wrought with emotion. There are only a few instances when Jesus’ emotion is described in the Gospels, most notably His weeping at the tomb of Lazarus and upon seeing Jerusalem, and His anger at the merchants who had set up tables in the Temple. When opposed, Jesus responded calmly and coherently, not with the rantings of a madman. Even during His trial and execution, He did not fight tooth and nail with His accusers; but rather, remained silent before them. Consideration three: was Jesus exactly who He claimed to be? Neither of the above two profiles of Jesus can explain the proofs by which He made His identity known – namely, the miracles He performed. His miraculous work served to support His claims to deity. But, some would say (as did Jesus’ opposition) that Jesus did no miracles at all; but rather, was a mere illusionist. In modern times, the illusionist known as Criss Angel has dazzled audiences with feats such as mind reading, levitation, surviving various certain deaths, and even walking on water. Why then could not Jesus’ miracles have been the same substance as Angel’s illusions? First of all, it must be remembered that Jesus not only performed feats that were visually astounding, such as walking on water, transfiguration, and turning water into wine, but also performed miracles of healing and resurrection. Those who were cured of blindness, lameness, and diseases were not just made to believe that they had been cured, but instead evidenced the lack of infirmities that had once oppressed them. Jesus’ miracles, more often than not, took on this sort of nature, by which a real change was effected in a person, a change which was evident to others not present at the time the change occurred. Besides, if Jesus had merely been a

548

skilled illusionist, then He would also be a liar, which, as stated above, is a theory that is wrought with fallacies all its own. Finally, Jesus resurrection was no illusion and is not a thing that Jesus could have effected if He was a mere magician (for a refutation of critics’ attempts to explain Jesus’ resurrection, I refer the reader the previous heading concerning the historical character of Jesus’ resurrection). The need for a verdict The evidence for the historicity and nature of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the Gospels, is, as Josh McDowell has said, evidence which “demands” a verdict. Many nonChristians deny Jesus’ deity, yet regard Him as a moral man and a great teacher. If one does not consider Jesus to be who He claimed to be; but rather, a mere liar or lunatic, then by what estimation could His teaching be considered great, or on what grounds could He be considered a moral man, since He was not, as the critic would claim, who He said He was? The truth is, the only proper reason for lifting Jesus up on a pedestal is because He was, and is, God. During Jesus ministry, there existed various opinions concerning who He really was, whether He was an incarnation of an Old Testament prophet or a false messianic claimant. On one occasion, Jesus asked His disciples who they considered Him to be: When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Mt 16:13-16) The disciple Peter, when asked who he considered Jesus to be, expressed with absolute conviction that Jesus was the very Son of God. This same question has been posed to every person: who do you say Jesus is? It is a question which everyone will answer, but for those who do place their trust in Christ as Savior, the answer will come too late, for the judgment of God will have already been passed upon him. Of the many Old Testament types, or foreshadows, of Christ, one of the most striking concerning Jesus’ redemptive work is the type of the brazen serpent: Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a [brazen] serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. (Num 21:7-9) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God

549

sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (Jn 3:14-17) Those who looked upon the brazen serpent, lifted up on a pole, were spared from certain death. Likewise, those who look upon the Christ, lifted up on a cross, for the sin of many, will be spared from certain judgment and instead receive spiritual everlasting life. This is the choice everyone much make: to regard Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, or as a man consumed with a Messiah complex. For those whose verdict is the former, there is blessing and life everlasting, but for those of the latter persuasion, there awaits judgment for their sin.

XXIV. The characteristics of the original source material

regarding Jesus stands as added testimony to its reliability The primary source of information concerning Jesus is the Bible itself. How can we trust it as a reliable source? In the next section, we will turn our attention to the source itself.

550

Are the Gospel accounts accurate in their depiction of the life of Jesus, both in their relation to each other and to the rest of Scripture, and also in their historical accuracy? Regardless of one's view of the truthfulness of Christianity, it must be admitted that Christians, since the days of the New Testament writers and the early church, believe Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, performed miracles, was crucified, as both He and the prophets foretold, and was later resurrected as the Redeemer of man, for whom He now acts as Mediator between man and God the Father. Since this is so, then why are these beliefs held with such firmness? Is it the result of the life of Christ being “the greatest story ever sold,” as the critic D. M. Murdock claims, or is it believed because it is the truth? Does the account of Jesus’ life, as portrayed in the Gospels, describe the actual events of His life? In answering this question, we must consider the earliest source material from which we have record: the Bible itself and the documents of the early church.

I. The early date of the Gospel records testify to their historical accuracy

What has been said previously on this matter needs only be stated here in summation. The earliest written record of Jesus' life is the Gospel of Mark, written about forty years after Jesus' death and resurrection. While the date of the remaining three Gospels have been in debate, it is certain that all were completed no later than the mid 80s A.D. (see previous discussion on canonical dating), or no later than sixty years after Christ. Such a length of time is not sufficient for one's biography to become tainted by myth or legend. The supernatural elements of the narrative were either a work of fiction or historical fact. If fiction, such a record would not have survived without early refutation, of which no such response exists within early literature. At the time of the writing of the Gospels, eyewitnesses, including disciples, skeptics, and opponents of Jesus, were still living and able (and certainly willing) to decry such a record of Jesus' life as false, had the Gospel writers embellished their accounts. If the apostles had made use of embellishment, then certainly the ruling political or religious powers would have exposed the Gospels as nonhistorical writings, in order to quench the rise of Christianity. Finally, the writings the early church fathers testify to the authenticity of the Gospels' authorship. Of particular note if the writing of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in the second century. “But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew,

552

or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.”1 “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”2

II. Concerning the supposed silence of the remainder of the New Testament regarding Matthew and Luke’s virgin birth narratives

Of the four Gospels, only Matthew and Luke contain an account of Jesus' birth. Given the unique manner of His conception, and His resulting two-fold nature, why did not Mark and John include the account in their Gospels as well? Furthermore, some have asked, why does the remainder of the New Testament seem to remain silent concerning the manner of Jesus’ conception? Does the remainder of the New Testament discredit Matthew and Luke's narratives by virtue of such silence? First, the critic must admit that silence, if such silence exists, is not ample evidence for an admission of denial. Second, indirect affirmations of the virgin birth are found in the writings of the other New Testament books. Concerning Mark Mark's purpose in writing his Gospel was not to give an account of the life of Jesus, but to give an account of His public ministry, as noted in the outset of his Gospel: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (1:1) For that reason, Mark begins his account with Jesus' baptism, the event which officially marked the beginning of His public ministry. Additionally, two passages in Mark make reference to Jesus' parentage. Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mk 6:3) Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mk 13:55-56)

553

In the first instance, Mark refers to the actual parentage of Jesus, when he speaks of Jesus as the “son of Mary,” but not the son of Joseph. In the second, he refers to Jesus’ assumed parentage as “the carpenter’s son,” as Jesus’ virginal conception was not a thing of public knowledge during His ministry. Had Jesus been conceived naturally by Joseph and Mary, there would be no need for the distinctly different references concerning whose son Jesus really was. Concerning John There are several reasons why John would not have included an account of Jesus’ conception and birth. First, Matthew and Luke had already composed their Gospels at the time of John's writing; therefore, there already existed two separate witnesses to the truth, and there was no need for a third. In the Makkot (the fifth volume in the Nezikin, the code used by the Sanhedrin), the testimony of two witnesses was considered sufficient testimony to the truth, so long as their testimonies were in agreement.1 It is this judicial standard which Paul makes reference to in his letter to the Corinthian church. This is the third time I am coming to you. At the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every word established. (2 Cor 13:1) The fact of the matter is, even if all four Gospels included an account of the birth of Christ, those hostile to Christianity would still be blind to the truth, for it is their lack of faith, rather than a lack of evidence, which serves as their condemnation. Second, John was devoted to the truth, and had he believed the two previous records contained false information, he would have surely written to their correction. In fact, Polycarp (a disciple of Ignatius, who was a disciple of John) testifies that when Cerinthus of Ephesus began teaching that Jesus was not virgin-born (he taught that Jesus was a normal man upon whom the Divine Christ descended at His baptism), John publicly opposed him, so far as to not even be in Cerinthius' presence.2 Additionally, while Jesus hung on the cross, He committed his mother Mary to John's care (Jn 19:26), therefore, John had close ties with Jesus' mother and would certainly have known the truth concerning the manner of Jesus' conception. If Mary knew the accounts in Matthew and Luke’s Gospel to be an embellishment of the true manner of Jesus’ conception, John would have been aware of this embellishment and would have written to their correction. An early church tradition holds that Mary resided with John in Ephesus in her latter years. Third, the opening of John's Gospel assumes that Jesus' origin was supernatural. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. he same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (Jn 1:1-3) John clearly believed in Jesus’ pre-existence and oneness with deity. In accordance with such a belief, the incarnation of God as a human being conceived through

554

normal means becomes a thing which must be denied, so as not to elevate am ordinary man to divine status. Fourth, John makes no reference to Jesus' conception at all, whether natural or supernatural. If his silence is presumed as evidence that John did not believe Jesus was virgin-born, so may it be presumed that John did not believe Jesus was born at all, but was just a manifestation of God as a man; however, a reading of John's Gospel clearly indicates he believed Jesus to be a real man having flesh and blood. Fifth, John's Gospel is the most theological of all four Gospels, with an emphasis on Jesus' work as man's Redeemer. John explicitly stated the purpose for his Gospel in the passage quoted below: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.(Jn 20:30-31) Having an emphasis on Jesus' teaching rather than His actions, John's Gospel contains lengthy discourses not found in the other Gospels. With such an emphasis on Christ's deity, although not with lack of recognition of His humanity, the birth of Jesus was simply outside the scope of John's purpose. Sixth, a large portion of John's Gospel (chapter twelve onward) takes place during the week prior to Jesus' death. With such an emphasis on a short period of time, John excludes details, in addition to Jesus' birth, that the other Gospel writers chose to include in their work. As John's silence concerning certain miracles or discourses is not a denial of the historicity of those events, so is true of his silence concerning the virgin birth. Seventh, John records Jesus' teaching on the state of natural-born man. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (Jn 3:6-7) If John truly believed the words of his Lord, then he recognized that a man born of normal human conception was not suited as one who could redeem other men, for he would be in need of redemption himself. Also, John would have also been aware of Paul’s letters which state the human sinful condition is one passed through the seed of Adam. Paul was martyred in c.62 A.D., twenty to thirty years before the writing of John’s Gospel. Had Paul made an error in his view of the doctrine of original sin, John would have discussed the correct doctrine in his Gospel, being a Gospel greatly concerned with theological issues. Concerning the book of Acts The author of the book of Acts was the evangelist Luke, the same one who wrote the Gospel of Luke and gave an account of Jesus' birth. Luke wrote the book of Acts

555

following his Gospel. Since he already gave an account of the birth in his previous work, there was no need to repeat it in his second work (see Acts 1:1). Whereas Luke's first work was concerned with the activity of Jesus during His time on earth, Acts is concerned with the activity of the early days of the church, with particular attention to apostolic preaching and the spread of Christianity. While the doctrine of the virgin birth is a doctrine essential to the Christian faith, it is not essential to one's understanding of the Gospel message, and therefore was not a topic of apostolic preaching. Even Peter's sermon in Acts chapter two makes no mention of Christ's conception. Rather, the focal point of apostolic preaching found in Acts is Christ's resurrection – not that it is the only essential doctrine, but that it is the doctrine essential to the message of salvation. Salvation comes by faith in the fact that Jesus died for the sin of man. Jesus' virgin birth is essential to His role as Savior, Mediator, and High Priest, in that it made Him suited for such roles, but it is not essential to one's initial act of faith in Christ. Concerning the writings of Paul Paul does not give an account of Jesus birth in any of his letters, nor is the virgin birth a topic to which he focuses his attention. However, the writings of Paul are in accordance with a belief that Jesus was born through virginal conception. . First, Paul makes no specific mention of the virgin birth; however, neither does he make mention of a natural conception of Jesus. Some of Paul's letters were written after Matthew and Luke composed their birth narratives, yet, as is the case with John, Paul makes no effort to state either of the two evangelists was in error in their account. Furthermore, the language Paul uses in his creedal formulas display a belief in the virgin birth. The Galatian creed But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law. (Gal 4:4) The phrase “made of a woman” is an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ, although not an express reference to it, since John the Baptist is also referred to as being born “of a woman.” (Mt 11:11) In this statement, the key word is “made,” in contrast with the word “born” used in Matthew's Gospel. According to Strong’s Lexicon, the meaning of the word “born” (Greek: gennētos) in the Matthean text is “to be born or begotten,” denoting normal human generation. However, in the Pauline text, he uses “made,” (Greek: ginomai) which means “to become, to begin to be; to appear in history, to come upon the stage,” a reference to one's being or existence, rather than to the manner in which that existence began. The same word is used in Paul's letter to the Romans when he said Christ was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Rom 1:3) In other words, in the case of Jesus, He who had previously existed was then “made of a woman.”

556

The Philippian creed But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. (Phil 2:7) The word here translated “made” is the same word used in the Galatian text (Greek: ginomai), meaning “to become, to begin to be; to appear in history, to come upon the stage.” Elsewhere, the same writer speaks of the birth of Abraham's sons Isaac and Ishmael, yet uses different terms in reference to their births. For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. ... Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (Gal 4:22-23, 28-29) Both Isaac and Jesus were children of promise. God promised Abraham that through Isaac would Abraham’s seed be blessed. God also promised Israel that through the Messiah would He provide salvation for His people. Yet, Paul uses different language when speaking of the manner in which these ones came into being. In the case of Isaac and Ishmael, he uses gennaō (a derivative of ginomai, above), meaning “to be born or begotten,” but when referencing the conception of Jesus, Paul uses a word which denotes pre-existence rather than an origin due to normal human conception. In the above passages, John the Baptist, Isaac, and Ishmael are said to have been born as human beings, but Jesus is said to have become a man. The distinction is that in the case of Jesus, He, Who already existed as the Son of God, took on a human nature, thus becoming man. Had Paul not believed in the supernatural origin of the man Jesus, such a distinction in his terminology would be needless. Second, Paul did not write biographical narratives, as did the Gospel writers. Rather, his focus was on doctrine and, as stated previously, the focal point of early Christian preaching was Christ's death and resurrection. Third, the evangelist Luke accompanied Paul on many of his travels (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5—21:18; 27:1—28:16). Paul would have also come in contact with Matthew in his association with the disciples at Jerusalem. It is unlikely that neither of them would have not discussed with Paul the manner of Jesus' conception. James Orr, professor of apologetics and systematic theology at the United Free Church College of Glasgow, Scotland, notes similarities in terminology between Luke and Paul when discussing the Person of Jesus Christ.3

557

Parallels between Luke and Paul Luke And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: … The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 2:31-32, 35) Paul concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness. (Rom 1:3-4) Fourth, Paul's theology requires that he believe Jesus was not conceived by normal means. Paul's teaching on sin was that it was a state into which every man is born. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. ... For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5.12, 17-19 NASB) Paul taught that sin was passed onto everyone by virtue of normal human generation, everyone having their ultimate ancestry in Adam, being the first man. If Jesus was born of natural generation, then he would not have been “obedient” or “righteous” and one through whom justification comes to “all men” (that is, all men who are united with Christ through faith). Paul had to have believed that Jesus' conception was supernatural; otherwise, his own theology would be self-contradictory in nature.

III. Concerning the supposed silence of the New Testament letters regarding Jesus' humanity

Critics have pointed to the lack of biographical information concerning Jesus found in the New Testament outside of the Gospel record. Whereas the Gospels concern themselves with accounts of Jesus' life, the remaining books of the New Testament appear to be silent on a great number of such events, such as Jesus' nativity, the miracles He performed, the speeches He delivered, His acts of healing and compassion, and His arrest, trial, execution, and burial. The Christ of the New Testament letters (Romans through Revelation), they say, is a being who did not exist as an historical figure, but as a

558

spiritual or mystical being who interacted in a metaphysical fashion with man. However, New Testament letters' silence regarding an historical Jesus is not as sparse as the critics would have us believe. Before considering just how silent these letters are regarding Jesus' life, a few considerations are first in order. The recipients of the letters The recipients of the New Testament letters were Christian churches or individual believers. The letters of Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians were written to churches in each of the cities referenced in the letter's title (that is, Romans was written to the church at Rome; Ephesians, to the church at Ephesus, etc.). Likewise, the letters of Timothy, Titus, and Philemon were written to individual Christians from whom each letter eventually received its title. The letters of Hebrews and James were addressed to an unidentified group of Jewish Christians. The letters of Peter were addressed to churches in Asia Minor. The first, second, and third books of John were addressed, respectively, to the churches in Asia Minor, an unidentified body of believers, and to Gaius, believed to be one of John's converts. The book of Jude was written to an unidentified group of believers, presumably of Jewish heritage. Finally, the book of Revelation was addressed to the seven Christian churches mentioned in the second and third chapter divisions of the book, with the remainder of the book intended for the church at large. As letters addressed to a Christian or group of Christians who knew and believed the account of Jesus' life, it was not necessary to elaborate on history familiar to them. By analogy, a lecturer at a gathering of Edgar Rice Burroughs' fans, speaking on the influence of the Tarzan character and believing that his audience is familiar with the character, may not feel the need to discuss how it was that Tarzan came to raised by apes in the jungle, yet that does not mean the lecturer is unfamiliar with Tarzan's origin story or finds it insignificant. However, if he compares Tarzan with other pulp fiction characters, such as Solomon Kane or Kull, a little elaboration on the character's history may be in order, since fans of Edgar Rice Burroughs may not be as familiar with the characters of Robert E. Howard. The entire argument from silence is based on the notion that the apostles needed to include such information about Jesus, and such was not the case. The scope of Apostolic preaching In the book of Acts, the Apostles' preaching was evangelical in nature, not for the purpose of instructing unconverted Jews and pagans in systematic theology. As such, they did not preach He was virgin-born, since belief in the virgin birth is not essential to one's initial act of faith leading to repentance. In Acts, the history of Jesus is briefly recounted in sermons given by the Apostles, and this history largely focuses on Jesus' resurrection. It was the resurrection, not Jesus' birth, miracles, or sermons, which was at the center of Apostolic preaching; therefore, the exclusion of such in the Apostles' preaching is in line with their message at hand. In fact, Peter's sermon in Acts chapter two does reference Jesus' working of miracles, but does not refer to a specific instance. The focus in the New Testament books following the book of Acts is on the deity of Jesus, not His humanity. When the humanity of Jesus is mentioned in the New Testament letters, it is mentioned in the context of His redemptive work, in the

559

shedding of His blood on the cross. In order to make it clear that Jesus did in fact suffer, bleed, and die, it needed to be said that He was a man, possessing literal flesh and blood. Still, even when Jesus' humanity is mentioned in these letters, it is within the framework of His divine nature, which He possessed before taking on flesh and blood. The purpose of the letters Second, the purpose of the letters of the New Testament were to address doctrinal and practical matters, not to supply historical narratives. Outside of the Gospels, the only New Testament book which bears an historical character is the book of Acts, which is largely concerned with the history of the early church during the years immediately after Jesus' ascension. Since the author of Acts was Luke, the same evangelist who penned the third Gospel, there was no need to repeat the history given in his previous work. Concerning the remainder of the New Testament (Romans through Revelation), these letters were intended to address specific issues faced by the recipients, and none of these issues involved a dispute over the historicity of Jesus. The purpose of these letters is as follows: Romans – In preparation for his upcoming first trip to Rome, Paul sends this letter before him to outline his doctrine, to separate true doctrine from the doctrine of false teachers. After Clausius exiled the Jews from Rome in 49 A.D., the leadership of the Roman church transitioned from Jewish to Gentile, resulting in some conflict and errors within the church with respect to their conduct. 1 Corinthians – Paul wrote this letter in response to errors he observed within the church at Corinth. The church there had become divided into sects, each following the teaching of an erred believer in Christ. Paul then wrote this letter as an exhortation to unity and to correct false doctrine which had arisen within them. 2 Corinthians – After the reception of his first letter, Paul saw the need to write this second letter to further defend his apostleship and affirm his love for the Corinthians. Galatians – Paul wrote this letter to counter a false gospel which had been adopted by the church in Galatia, which concerned itself with salvation through the keeping of the law, rather than by grace alone. Ephesians – The church at Ephesus was composed of a multicultural body of believers, and Paul send this letter as an exhortation to unity. Philippians – The church at Philippi sent Epaphroditus, one of their own, to minister to the needs if Paul. In response, Paul replies with this letter of gladness over their love for him, and his purpose is to instill like joy in them also.

560

Colossians – Paul had received from Epaphras a report that the church at Colosse had fallen prey to false teachers, and he admonishes them to cling to Christ, as the head of all things. 1 Thessalonians – Timothy had reported to Paul that the church at Thessalonica had misunderstood certain aspects of Paul's teaching, specifically regarding the afterlife and the promised resurrection of the dead, while he was in their company. Paul then writes this letter to correct these errors and exhort them in right living. 2 Thessalonians – After it was reported that the Thessalonians misunderstood Paul's teaching, and after he sent a letter to clarify what he meant, it was reported that the Thessalonians then misunderstood Paul's letter. Therefore, he sent this second reply to further clarify his teaching on the second coming of Christ 1 Timothy – Timothy was the bishop or pastor of the church at Ephesus. Paul sends this letter to admonish him to continue his good work there. Special attention is given in this letter to church organization. 2 Timothy – Nearing the end of his life, Paul sends this letter to Timothy as some final exhortations to remain diligent in his ministry, abstain from false teachers, and be patient in persecution. Titus – Titus was placed sole charge of the churches on the island of Crete. Paul send him this letter to provide counsel and encourage him to perform his duty in the spirit of an apostle. Philemon – Philemon was a runaway slave of Onesimus, a fellow Christian, and had been converted to Christianity after coming in contact with Paul. This letter is sent to Onesimus on Philemon's behalf in the hopes of effecting reconciliation between the two believers. Hebrews – Hebrews was written to an unidentified group of Christians who were persecuted to the point of facing execution if they did not renounce their faith. The author of this letter (widely thought to be Paul or his companion Barnabus) wrote to encourage them to endure whatever persecution they face and not renounce the cross of Christ. James – James, the brother of Jesus, sent this letter to an unidentified group of believers, believed to be facing persecution, in order to address a variety of issues relating to the standard of conduct befitting a believer, and to admonish them to remain patient in the face of persecution. 1 Peter – After receiving a report of persecution which faced the churches in Asia Minor, Peter sends this letter as words of comfort and strength, along with exhortations to be faithful, patient, and live in purity.

561

2 Peter – Peter composed this letter to correct doctrinal errors within the church at large. 1-2 John – John (the same John who penned the fourth Gospel) writes to correct errors concerning the incarnation of Christ. False teachers had arisen proclaiming that Christ did not come literally in the flesh, but had only appeared in the likeness of flesh. If any of the letters of the New Testament could conceivably digress into an historical narrative of Jesus' life, it would perhaps be the letters of John. However, the appearance of Christ as a man was not in debate; but rather, the manner in which He walked among man was the subject in question. False teachers did not deny the events as told and witnessed by the Apostles. Rather, they denied that Christ performed these deeds in a physical body, proposing that He remained a spiritual being who only appeared human. In response to this, John writes to exalt the bodily incarnation of Jesus (without the need to appeal to specific events in Jesus' life) and to proclaim the imitation of Christ's love as the mark of a true believer. 3 John – John writes this letter to Encourage Gaius, a fellow believer, and to warn him against the followers of a false teacher named Diotrephes. Jude – Jude, believed to be Judah, also known as Judas (not Iscariot, the betrayer), a brother of James and Jesus, writes this letter to warn of false teachers and exhort Christians in general to be steadfast in their faith. Revelation – John wrote this letter after receiving a revelation from the Lord. The first two chapters concern itself with specific issues facing seven local churches, many of which had fallen into one error or another. The remainder of the letter details the revelation he received from the Lord. The church at large was experiencing a violent persecution, and the vision John received was to strengthen the church during its persecution, provide hope in the eventual glorification of believers, and ensure the church of Christ's final victory over their enemies. As seen above, the events concerning Jesus' life were not of immediate relevance to the point at hand. As letters addressed to a Christian or group of Christians who knew and believed the account of Jesus' life, it was not necessary to include within these letters a biographical sketch of Jesus, any more than it would befit the paragraphs here to elaborate on specific events in Jesus' life, for such a digression would stray from the issues under discussion. Since the focus of the letters above are doctrinal and/or practical in nature, the focus on Jesus throughout these letters is on His deity, rather than His humanity. When His humanity is referenced, it is done so only in terms of His redemptive work. For instance, His role as Mediator and High Priest, as discussed in the book of Hebrews, is as much dependent on His humanity as it is on His divinity (refer to Part five for a discussion on Jesus' suitability in His role as such). Also, His shedding of blood and death on the cross required that He possess a human nature (refer to Part five concerning Christ's two-fold nature).

562

Having examined the occasion and purpose of the New Testament letters, is is now time to turn the attention to the supposed silence itself concerning the biographical aspects of Jesus' life. The writers of these letters are seven in number (or six, if Paul is indeed the author of Hebrews), two of whom also penned two of the four Gospels: Luke, Paul, James, Peter, John, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews. Here, the writings of each of these writers will be considered separately in order to determine just how silent each one was concerning Jesus' historicity (emphasis, when added, is mine). Luke He referred to Jesus as a man from Nazareth who lived and experienced bodily death and resurrection. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. (Acts 2:22) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:31) He identified Jesus as having flesh and blood relatives These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (Acts 1:14 ) Paul He referred to Jesus as a man and mentions him with Adam, the first man, in a comparison/contrast. The contrast was between Adam's disobedience and Jesus' obedience, while the comparison was concerning the human nature possessed by these two men. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one [Adam] many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5:15, 19) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Cor 15:21-22) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man*, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Phil 2:7-8) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Tim 2:5)

563

*See Part five on the dual natures of Jesus for a discussion on the meaning and use of the words “likeness” and “fashion.” He identified Jesus as a literal flesh and blood man who experienced physical death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness* of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (Rom 8:3) And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight. (Col 1:22) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Col 2:9) *See Part five on the dual natures of Jesus for a discussion on the meaning and use of the word “likeness.” He identifies James as Jesus' earthly sibling. It has been argued that the brotherhood Paul was referring to when speaking of James was the brotherhood shared among believers of the same faith, however, immediately before his reference to “James, the Lord's brother,” he makes reference to Peter and the apostles, yet neglects to mention them as sharing in the brotherhood that he associates with James. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. (Gal 1:18-19) He makes reference to Jesus' final meal with His disciples and His betrayal by Judas. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. (1 Cor 11:23-24; cf. Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:19) He makes reference to Jesus' death by crucifixion, His burial, His three days in the tomb, and His appearances after His resurrection. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Phil 2:7-8) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day [cf. Mk 9:31, Lk 9:22] according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas [Peter; cf. Jn 21:1-14], then of the twelve [cf. Mt 28:9, Mk 16:14, Jn 20:19, 26]: After that, he was seen of

564

above five hundred brethren at once*; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. (1 Cor 15:3-7) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. ... But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. (1 Cor 15:12-14, 20-21) *This instance is not mentioned in the Gospels, however, in Jn 21:25 and Acts 1:3, Johna and Luke, two of the Gospel writers, confirm that many of Jesus' acts, including those post-resurrection, were not recorded in the Gospels. Peter He confirms Jesus' bodily death by crucifixion. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree*, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Pet 2:24) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. (1 Pet 3:18) *A common reference to crucifixion. He confirms Jesus' demeanor during His trial. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously. (1 Pet 2:21-23; cf. Mt 27.12, Lk 23:9) The writer of Hebrews He makes reference to Jesus' human nature. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his

565

brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:14-17) Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: ... Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:5, 9-10) John He refers to Jesus as a literal human being. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 Jn 1:1-2) Some have argued this passage does not reference a physical Jesus; but rather, could just as easily refer to His appearing in spiritual form as a man, as He did to the Old Testament patriarchs, kings, and prophets. However, this passage bears a striking resemblance to another passage penned by the same author, in which he specifically makes reference to the incarnation of the Word into literal human flesh. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (Jn 1:1, 14) When considering the two passages together, along with other passages in 1 John, it is clear that the author had a bodily appearance in view when speaking of Jesus' manifestation. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin. (1 Jn 1:7) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 Jn 4:2) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 Jn v.7) It is clear from these last two passages what import John places on the belief in Jesus' human nature, going so far as to identify the denial of Jesus' bodily incarnation as a mark of an unbeliever. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;

566

not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 Jn 5:5-6) James and Jude It is true that neither James nor Jude, the brothers of Jesus (by majority scholarship consensus), does not make reference to the human nature of Jesus, nor to any events of Jesus' life, in their writings. Then again, it must be asked, why should they make such a reference? The purpose of neither apostle was to provide a biographical sketch of his brother, nor to write an apologetic work defending Jesus' historicity. Both authors had a similar purpose in view, and neither one requires an historical narrative, or even mention of events in their brother's life. In the case of James, his purpose was to emphasize a lifestyle proper to a man of faith. His focus is not on faith, but on works as a byproduct of one's faith. Even still, contextual similarities exist between James' letter the Jesus' sermon on the mount, with James echoing the words spoken by the Lord during public ministry (1:2, 4-5, 9, 20; 2:13-14; 3:17-18; 4:4, 10-11; 5:2, 10-11; cf. Mt 5:3-7:27)1. In a similar fashion, Jude's purpose for writing is specifically stated in v.3-4: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. While Jude had intended to write concerning the salvation he shared with his recipients, he thought it necessary instead to write of false teachers which had crept into the church. These teachers were attempting to convince believers that since the guilt for their sin had been borne by Christ, thereby making them forever righteous in the sight of God, that a manner of living separate from sinful pleasures was not needful for them. It was in response to this false doctrine that James wrote this letter, so that he might exhort his readers to continue steadfast in their proper manner of conduct. Some have pointed to Jude's identifying himself as “the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James” (v.1) as his denial that Jesus possessed a human nature. If Jude and Jesus were half-brothers by blood, why would Jude neglect to identify himself as Jesus' brother, especially when, immediately after, he took care to identify James as his brother? Likewise, why did James identify himself as Jesus' servant, rather than His brother, a relationship which, it would seem, would be held with honor among believers? In both cases, their apostleship rested not on a blood relation with the Lord, but on their service to Him. It was because they were faithful servants of Jesus, not simply because they could cry “brother,” that they were recognized as pillars (Gal 2:9) within the early church and given apostolic authority. Additionally, their acceptance of Jesus as God incarnate served to minimize their blood relation to Him. Jesus' relationship to them as their Lord served to override His relationship to them as their brother. While both James and Jude remained Jesus' brethren, they became, first and foremost, His servant, through their faith in Him as their Lord.

567

In conclusion, it has been shown that five of the seven writers (again, six, if Paul wrote Hebrews) of the New Testament books outside of the Gospels made reference to Jesus' existence as an historical flesh and blood figure. It has also been shown that, while these references are not in abundance compared to the whole of the books beyond the Gospel record, the writers' occasions for composing their works did not require the inclusion of such biographical data regarding Jesus. However, when such information does appear in their letters, it appears in corroboration with the Gospel record, as a doctrine essential to the faith, and, at times, as a very mark of a true believer. Therefore, it is absolutely untenable to suggest that these writers not only did not believe Jesus was made manifest in the flesh, but also did not regard His bodily incarnation as absolute truth. Finally, it has been shown that the two New Testament writers who did not include mention of Jesus' earthly existence (each of whom wrote very little when compared to Luke, John, and Paul – five chapters attributed to James; one chapter to Jude) did so because it was outside the scope of their purpose for writing. Yet, the critics persist to declare, futilely so, that these writers remain silent regarding Jesus as an historical figure. The truth is, the Gospels are silent on one thing: the idea that Jesus never existed or existed only as a spiritual manifestation as a man. However, when it comes to their recognition of Jesus as an historical figure, the truth is loud and clear: that Jesus of Nazareth was the virgin-born, God-incarnate son of Mary, who lived a sinless life, who was crucified, and who rose from the dead in absolute accomplishment of the redemption of God's people.

IV. Concerning the Gospels’ references to Jesus being of human descent

The Gospels contain references to Joseph being the biological father of Jesus. Some of these references are by the same writers who penned Jesus’ virgin birth narratives. How can the two views on Jesus’ conception be reconciled? And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mt 13:54-56) And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth: and they said, Is not this Joseph’s son? (Lk 4:21-22) Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (Jn 1:45)

568

The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, I am the bread which came down out of heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I am come down out of heaven? (Jn 6:41-42) And he came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law, … And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up after the custom of the feast; and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. (Lk 2:27,41-43) Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know. (Acts 2:22) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Rom 1:3) First, the virgin birth of Jesus was not known publicly during His lifetime. For all we know, while Jesus was living, the only two who knew of the manner of His conception were Mary and Joseph. It is likely Mary told Elizabeth, but such is not explicitly stated in Luke’s account. She may have confided in those closest to her, being her parents, some relatives, some of Jesus' female followers, and certain of Jesus’ twelve core disciples, however, who or how many people knew of it during Jesus’ lifetime is a thing that cannot be known today. All that we can be certain of is that the perception of Jesus’ contemporaries was that Joseph was Jesus’ natural father, a perception expressed by those in the majority of the above passages. However, in the second chapter of Luke’s Gospel, Luke refers to Joseph and Mary as the parents of Jesus, and such description is apparently stated as Luke’s own view, rather than the view of those who simply did not know any different. It must be remembered that Joseph, although not the biological father of Jesus, was His legal father, which made him as much Jesus’ father as it would had he actually sired the boy, and so it was proper for Luke to refer to he and Mary as Jesus’ parents. While Joseph’s paternity to Jesus was by adoption, the adoption was only known to Joseph and Mary when Jesus was presented in the Temple as an infant, for the natural assumption of the officiating priests would have been that Joseph was Jesus' natural father. In a physical sense, it could not be said that Joseph was Jesus’ father any more than could be said of another man. However, in a legal sense, Joseph was Jesus’ father as if he were related to Him by blood. The same is true even today concerning the relationship between a man and his adopted son. The adoptive parent is referred to as the child’s father, and upon him is conferred parental rights equal to those of a biological father. As stated before, the adoption was only known by a select few, if any at all, other than Joseph and Mary, but by the time of the writing of Luke’s Gospel, such had been made known, at least among those named within the church.

569

Second, even in Nazareth the assumption would have been that Jesus was naturally conceived. The Nazarenes would have known Mary’s conception was premarital, but the circumstances surrounding that conception would remain a mystery to them. Third, the mention of “Jesus of Nazareth” in the book of Acts does not negate Bethlehem as Jesus’ birthplace. Remember, Acts was written by Luke after he had penned Jesus’ birth narrative; therefore, the author of Acts certainly knew Jesus’ birthplace to be Bethlehem. Here, he is merely making reference to where Jesus was raised and had spent most of His life. Also, Luke is here relating a sermon by Peter, given shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. Peter also knew Jesus was born in Bethlehem; otherwise, Jesus would not have met the qualifications for the Messiah, whose birthplace in Bethlehem was foretold by the prophet Micah (Micah 5:2) Fourth, Paul's mention in his letter to the Roman church of Jesus being of the “seed of David” is not an admission to belief in a natural human conception for Jesus. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was betrothed to Joseph at the time of Jesus' conception (Lk 1:27) and the two later became husband and wife prior to Jesus' birth (Mt 1:25). Luke records that Joseph was of the lineage of David (Lk 1:27), which was also the reason they needed to travel to Bethlehem, the city of David, to register according to their ancestry (Lk ch 2). When Joseph and Mary presented the infant Jesus in the Temple for circumcision and naming, Joseph became the legal, and presumed, father to Jesus. Therefore, Jesus, although virgin-born through Mary, was legally of the seed of David through Joseph. It is speculated by many that Mary was also of Davidic descent and that their marriage was inter-tribal, both spouses being of the same ancestry. Were that the case, Jesus would also be genetically of the seed of David. Since legal Davidic ancestry is all that was needed to fulfill God's covenant to David that the Messiah would come from his lineage, and since genetic lineage is not in view in Paul's writings, the ancestry of Mary is not relevant in proving Paul did not believe Jesus to be of normal human generation. Even if Mary was not of Davidic descent, Jesus would still be “of the seed of David,” through Joseph's legal paternity, as well as being born “according to the flesh,” through Mary's human paternity.

570

V. The authenticity and integrity of the Gospels Some critics have argued that the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke were later additions to the Gospels and are not the original writing of the apostles. However, early belief in the virgin birth is a matter beyond dispute. It has already been shown that the remainder of the New Testament supports the birth narratives. It has also been shown that early church writings support not only the virgin birth, but also the authorship of the Gospels. Early church testimony Justin Martyr (c.100-165 A.D.) attests to original apostolic authorship when he states that the Gospels were “memoirs of the apostles.” “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, ‘This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;’ and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, ‘This is My blood;’ and gave it to them alone.”1 “And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.”2 “For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear. For [Christ] called one of His disciples — previously known by the name of Simon — Peter; since he recognized Him to be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God.”3 “For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, ‘Worship me;’ and Christ answered him, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”4 Papias (early second century A.D.) also testified to the early acceptance of the accuracy, integrity, and apostolic authorship of the books of the New Testament. “But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth.

571

For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.”5 “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”6 Origen (185–c.254 A.D.) rebuked the second century Epicurean heathen Celsus for his attacks against the integrity of Scripture. “After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Savior at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. Having completely disposed, as he imagined, of the story of our Lord’s birth from a virgin, he does not proceed to deal in an orderly manner with the accounts that follow it; since passion and hatred observe no order, but angry and vindictive men slander those whom they hate, as the feeling comes upon them, being prevented by their passion from arranging their accusations on a careful and orderly plan. For if he had observed a proper arrangement, he would have taken up the Gospel, and, with the view of assailing it, would. have objected to the first narrative, then passed on to the second, and so on to the others.”7 “For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skillful manner against the credibility of Scripture.”8

572

Manuscript evidence The earliest extant copy of a portion of the New Testament is the John Ryland’s Papyri, containing a portion of John chapter eighteen, and dated to c.125 A.D., approximately twenty-five to thirty years after the original writing of the Gospel. Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 A.D.) – containing most of John’s Gospel Chester Beatty Papyri (200 A.D.) – containing major portions of the New Testament Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) – containing almost the entire Bible Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.) – containing all of the New Testament and half of the Old Testament Codex Alexandrinus (400 A.D.) – containing almost the entire Bible Codex Ephraemi (400s A.D.) – containing most of the New Testament Codex Bezae (450 A.D.) – containing the four Gospels and the book of Acts The early date of these manuscripts provides evidence that the New Testament in its present form is the same, in meaning, as the original. As shown above, numerous copies of the Bible, in whole or in part, can be dated to within the first five hundred years of Christianity. In contrast, the earliest extant copy of Homer’s Illiad dates to five hundred years after Homer penned his epic poem,9 yet the authorship of the Illiad is not questioned by critics, as is the authorship of the New Testament books. Below is a comparison of the survival of the New Testament compared to the writings of other ancient works10: Author/ Historian Plato (Tetralogies) Pliny (History) Suetonius Demosthenes Caesar Tacitus Aristotle Sophocles The New Testament

Date 427-347 BC

Earliest Copy from Original 900 AD

1,200

# of extant Copies 7

61-113 AD 75-160 AD 383-322 BC 100-44 BC 100 AD 384-322 BC 496-406 BC 64-85 AD

850 AD 950 AD 1100 AD 900 AD 1100 AD 1100 AD 1000 AD 120-150 AD

750 yrs 800 yrs 1,300 yrs 1,000 yrs 1,000 yrs 1,400 yrs 1,400 yrs 56 - 65 yrs

7 8 8 10 20 49 193 over 20,000

573

Time Span

Version evidence The virgin birth narratives are contained in the following early translations of the Gospels. All the Latin versions Jerome’s Vulgate The Old Latin versions dating as far as the days of Tertullian (c.160 – c.220 A.D.) All the Syriac versions All the Egyptian (Coptic) versions The Diatessaron, an early harmony of the Gospels completed by Tatian in 160 or 170 A.D. Tatian eliminates the genealogies, leaving the remainder of the Gospels intact. Textual evidence The birth narratives penned by Matthew and Luke are found in the first two chapters of each book. Beyond these two opening chapters, each book contains internal evidence that the birth narratives were original to these works. Evidence in the Gospel of Matthew The third chapter of Matthew begins with “in those days,” a reference to a preceding portion of the Gospel. The authorship of the third chapter is not disputed by the same ones who dispute the birth narrative in the first two chapters of Matthew’s Gospel, yet this third chapter contains a clear reference to a preceding portion of the book. The fourth chapter of Matthew makes reference to Jesus leaving Nazareth, yet the only previous of Nazareth in the Gospel is in 2:23, where Joseph and Mary are said to return to Nazareth after their return from Egypt. Now when he heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum. Mt (Mt 4:12-13) The language of the birth narrative of the first two chapters mirrors the language of the remainder of the Gospel, particularly with respect to Matthew’s use of the writings of the prophets. Matthew chapters one and two contain quotes from the Old Testament Scriptures, each quoted in the same formulaic manner. Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, … (Mt 1:22 NASB)

574

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, … (Mt 2:15 NASB) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, … (Mt 2:17 NASB) The Old Testament quotes in other portions of the Gospel are presented in the same Matthean formula That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying … (Mt 3:3 NASB) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying … (Mt 8.17 NASB) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying … (Mt 13.35 NASB) Evidence in the Gospel of Luke In attempting to discredit Luke’s account of Jesus’ virgin birth, critics have directed their attacks to two verses in particular, claiming that they were not original to the Gospel. And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. (Lk 1:34-35) Not only are these verses included in almost all early manuscripts and versions, but, as Orr notes, other passages in the text indicate that the verses 34-35 were original to the Gospel (James Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, p 54), as shown below: Luke 2:5 states that Mary was “betrothed” to Joseph. If she had conceived within the bonds of matrimony, then “betrothed” in 2:5 would need to be changed to “wife.” Also, were these verses removed, then Luke 1.27 would also need to be removed, since there Mary is declared to be “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph.” If these verses were added to the original Gospel text, Luke’s apostolic contemporaries would have challenged him and the early church writers would have corrected the addition. Yet, the remainder of the New Testament supports Luke’s virgin birth and the early church fathers are silent about any alleged addition to the original narrative.

575

The virgin birth narratives are historical accounts Unlike the rest of the New Testament, the Gospels are largely historical in nature; however, allegations have been made that the Gospels’ contain historical inaccuracies. The enrollment of Quirinius Luke mentions that Jesus was born during a Roman census conducted by Quirinius, the governor of Syria. Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (Lk 2:1-2 NASB) According to Josephus, Quirinius’ enrollment occurred in 6 A.D.11, yet Jesus was born in 4 or 5 B.C. However, Luke also stated that the enrollment was the “first” enrollment. According to Orr, the German scholar A. W. Zimpt discovered that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, with his first governorship being between 1 A.D. and 4 A.D.12, yet this is still too late to give accuracy to Luke’s statement. Historians have learned, from census papers found in Egypt, that a Roman enrollment was attributed to the governor under whose rule the census was finished, even if the census had begun under a previous governorship.13 Varus was Quirinius’ predecessor, and it is likely that the census mentioned in Luke began under Varus, at the time when Christ was born, but was then later completed by Quirinius several years later under Quirinius’ first government. The massacre of the innocents Matthew mentions that in order to kill the infant Jewish Messiah, Herod sent his soldiers to slaughter all make children two years and under in Bethlehem and the surrounding vicinity. This event is not recorded in any other historical record, with the possible exception of an allusion made by the Roman grammarian Macrobius, writing in the firth or fifth century A.D.14 First, lack of mention does not discredit the event as an historical account. There are many events in history which have a single historical mention, yet the historicity of these events is still without question. However, it seems odd to some that such a crime against humanity would go unnoticed by ancient secular historians. Even the noted historian Josephus does not mention the massacre, nor does Philo, although as noted previously, Philo’s histories were biographies of Greeks and Romans. Philo’s writing concerning Judaism was of theological, rather than historical, interest. Herod was a vile man. His cruelty was a thing widely known. Many people were murdered at his behest, including his own wife and children. Herod knew the Jews despised him, therefore, shortly before his death, he ordered that some of the most noble and respected Jews in Judea were to be killed upon his passing, so that the people of Judea would have cause for mourning, rather than joyfulness (fortunately, his order was not carried out, for fear of uprising).

576

Among the many atrocities committed by Herod, the slaughter of the children in Bethlehem, tragic as it was, pales in comparison, for the victims of this atrocity may not have been as large in number as some may think. Bethlehem did not have a large population, and among those residing therein (including the surrounding area), there may have been only a few dozen male children two years and under who were murdered at Herod’s decree. Even if news of the event traveled far and wide, which is unlikely due to the scope of the slaughter, it may have been regarded as just one of his many cruelties, and not worthy of great notation in comparison to other of his atrocities. In a recent comparison, there were many evil acts done against the Jews by Adolph Hitler, and no doubt there are stories of his cruelty which have never been told, not because these stories are any less wicked, but because they are simply considered as having less historical import. The existence of Nazareth Until the mid-twentieth century there was no extant record that Nazareth existed as a settlement prior to the sixth century A.D. That changed in 1962 when the ruins of a synagogue in Caesarea was discovered and in it was found a marble fragment, dating to the third or fourth century, naming Nazareth as a town which was the residence of Happizzez, one of the twenty-four priestly divisions.15 Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, or in any of Josephus’ writings, however, so are many other ancient Palestinian cities and towns. The status of Nazareth was not one which would merit the attention of any ancient author. It was a small town, having less than five hundred residents.16 Nazareth was also a town generally regarded as a place of ill repute, being known for the lack of moral virtue of its inhabitants. Additionally, the Anchor Bible Dictionary states that archaeological excavations in Nazareth have uncovered Herodian tombs dating to the time of Jesus,17 thus serving as evidence that Nazareth was a settlement prior to Christ being born.

VI. The characteristics of the person of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, contradict popular Judaic concepts and, as such, could not have been a product of invention

It has been argued that the incarnation of the Son of God in human flesh is a doctrine which later emerged as a mythological element in the biography of Christ. First, it must be reiterated that myths do not develop over a mere thirty or forty years – the time between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. Second, the character of the incarnation is contrary to any Messiah that the Jews would devise of their accord, as will be shown below. Had the Jews fabricated the idea of the incarnation on Christ, they would have done so by one of two means: either 1) according to their own religious preconceptions of how the Messiah should be born, or 2) by borrowing the idea from pagan mythology and applying such concepts to the promised Messiah.

577

Jewish origin The incarnation of God did not arise from pre-existing Judaic beliefs concerning who the Messiah would be or how He should be born. The concept of the incarnation was a natural offense to the Jewish way of thinking about God Some have argued that the incarnation of Christ is a doctrine which grew out of Paul’s theology. Paul stated that anyone born of man is born in sin; therefore, the Messiah could not have been born of man. A problem which this theory cannot overcome is the fact that at the time of the alleged “conception” of the virgin birth doctrine, there were still plenty of individuals who would have been able to refute such a claim, were it untrue. That aside, the concept of the incarnation is not a concept the Jews would have accepted or devised on their own, for it stands in contrast with other Judaic concepts. First, the Jews abhorred the very notion of reducing God to a human level. It was for that reason they sought to kill Jesus for blasphemy when He declared oneness with God (Jn 9:53-59) The Judaic concept of God was so high that they even feared to speak His name, lest they speak it in vain. That God would be born of a woman, with or without human seed, was a concept not only foreign to their pre-conception of the person of the Messiah, but more-so contrary to their entire theological framework. A devout Jew would believe such a thing as the incarnation if only it were true. Second, Jews upheld the institution of marriage and did not regard virginity as a thing to be favored. Had the incarnation been a fabricated element of the Gospels, then Christ would have been conceived not only in a natural fashion, but to a woman bound in marriage. They would not have made the Messiah a figure who could be likened to a bastard conceived outside the bonds of marriage. Also, such a thing would have been a shame to Mary. Although she is blessed among women as the mother of the human nature of Jesus, her premarital conception would serve to her shame, even if it had been the result of sexual abuse. The virgin birth lacks precedent in Judaism There is no precedent for the Jews fabricating the incarnation. In the Old Testament, Isaac, Samuel, and Samson were all children of promise whose birth was foretold, yet each was conceived naturally and within wedlock. If the Jews decided to give supernatural origin to the birth of the Messiah, it would have taken the same form as previous children of promise. Also, following that same pattern, the Messiah would have been born an ordinary human being, not a merger of both divine and human natures. None of these promised children were regarded as God in the flesh. Even in the case of Samson, his great strength was due to the power of God being given to a normal human being. In all likelihood, Samson’s form did not resemble that of Arnold Schwarzenegger; but rather, that of a man of ordinary build. Samson was not mighty because he was God, but because he was chosen by God. The fact of the matter is that in all of Judaic

578

literature, historical or otherwise, the only mention of a virgin birth prior to Christ is by the prophet Isaiah when he prophesied concerning the coming of the Messiah. Although the prophet Isaiah foretold of Christ’s virgin birth, the true meaning of the prophecy was not understood until after Christ. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa 9:14 NASB) In the original Hebrew, the word translated “virgin” literally means a “marriageable young woman.” As such, the person in view may or may not be a virgin. However, the word is used to refer to virgins elsewhere in Scripture (Gen 24:43, Ex 2:8, Song of Sol 1:3, 6:8, Prov 30:19). Likewise, Isaiah’s use of the word specifically refers to a virgin; otherwise, the “sign” mentioned by Isaiah would not be a sign at all, for there is nothing significant about a non-virgin birth. In Talmudic literature, this verse did not have Messianic import, and while many Old Testament passages were considered in pre-Christian times as a reference to the coming Messiah, the passage in Isaiah was not among them. Gentile origin As the incarnation did not have Jewish origin, neither did it have pagan origin. Jews had no liking for pagans, especially given their prior captivity and their later Roman occupation. The Romans, with their deeply mythological religion and their pagan ceremonies, did not cease to exercise their religious influence even in Palestine, and the Jews held deep resentment for them because of it. It was due to such contempt that Herod erected a Roman amphitheater in Jerusalem and hung a golden eagle, a Roman symbol, on the Temple as a sign of Roman supremacy. The religion of Rome was a thing absolutely contrary to anything that a devout Jew would believe, with its polytheistic framework, immoral gods, and emperor and idol worship. Even German theologian and church historian Adolf von Harnack (1851– 1930), who was no friend of the doctrine of the virgin birth, said, “The unreasonable method of collecting from the mythology of all peoples parallels for original church traditions, whether historical reports or legends, is valueless.”1 The apostles were men steeped in Judaism, and would not have adopted a concept abhorrent to such a system of belief. Had the biographical elements of Jesus’ life been a product of imagination, it would certainly bear no resemblance to pagan myth. Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8 NASB) Greek and roman origin The gods of the Greeks and Romans, with their self-satisfying passions, abuse of women, and vile tempers are nothing like the God of Israel who is a just Judge, dealing to men and women as they deserve, and has a people whom He cherishes and gave His own blood to protect.

579

First, in pagan mythology, whenever a human is born of the result of a union between god and man, it often is the result of the god suddenly finding himself burning with lust for a mortal woman, then doing with her as he pleases (with or without her consent), with no divine purpose in view for the offspring. Sometimes the god deceives the woman into mating with him, by taking the form of her husband or another being. It would be an insult to God and blasphemy for a Jew to compare the virgin birth to such an immoral and selfish union. Second, the women who give birth to these god-men are nowhere found to be virgins; but rather, married women. Third, the stories of supernatural births in Greek and Roman mythology are stories that do not have any reference to history. They take place in the past, in a time unknown, and often involve people or places which did not exist. In all of their mythology, there is not a single instance where the event occurs in a time and place where real people are able to testify as eyewitnesses. How contrary this is to the Gospels, which were written shortly after Jesus’ resurrection and during a time when a multitude of people were able to testify to their historical accuracy, or denounce them as fiction. Interestingly enough, no such denunciation exists. Fables of heroes Many heathen cultures claim their kings or heroes were men of divine origin or position, as was the case with men such as Alexander the Great and Plato. It was claimed that Alexander was a son of Zeus, and Plato, a son of Apollo, but these legends formed over a lengthy period of time, not shortly after their passing and certainly not when any of their contemporaries were still alive. In each such legend, the mother was not a virgin, and the divine paternity was regarded as a blessing. Jesus, on the other hand, was ridiculed and eventually executed for claiming oneness with God. The legend of Buddha Buddha lived from c.563 B.C. to 483 B.C., according to most historians. His birth took on a legendary character two to three hundred years after his death, when it was said that his mother, who was not a virgin, became pregnant after having a dream that a white elephant entered into her through her side. Apart from having no similarity whatsoever to the virginal conception of Jesus, this story would not have been known in the region occupied by the apostles during the time when they composed their Gospels. Egyptian origin Egyptians believed their Pharaohs were the sons of Ra, the sun god, however, there was no elaboration on just how these men became related, in a paternal sense, to deity – they were simply god’s son, and that’s all there was to know. There was no effort to alter the normal circumstances of their birth in order to

580

raise them to a son-of-god status, and therefore no virgin birth stories exist in ancient Egyptian mythology. Babylonian origin The Jews were in Babylonian captivity for a fifty-eight year period prior to Christ. Some have alleged that during this captivity, Persian myth and concepts crept into Judaic thought and later found its way into the accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus. It is true that during this captivity, influence was greatly exerted, but not on the part of the Babylonians. Rather, Judaism crept in to Babylonian thought, largely due to the high ranking status of the Hebrew prophet Daniel. It was due to such influence that magi from the east came to worship the Jewish Messiah after following a sign in the heavens, a sign which they believed was foretold in the books of Moses (Numbers 24:17-19). Still, the primary religion of Babylon was Zoroastrianism, which does include a virgin-born Messiah, although the manner of his birth and the character of his work are strikingly different from Christ. The messiah of Zoroastrianism is a Saoshyant, one of three messiahs, each appearing after a set interval. It is believed he will be a direct son of Zarathushtra, since his mother will become impregnated after entering a lake in which has been preserved the seed of Zoroaster (Denkard 7.10.15ff). Although his mother is virgin-born, the Saoshyant is not a son of god, since his mother is impregnated not by Ahura Mazda, the highest of the Zoroastrian deities, but by the seed of Zarathushtra himself, who was purely human. In addition, it is said that Saoshyant’s body will shine like the sun, unlike the veil of flesh which covered, in a sense, Christ’s divine glory.

VII. The characteristics of the life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, possess elements which do not bear the marks of invention

Had the Gospel writers invented invented their account of Jesus' life, certain elements which exist in the narratives would surely have been omitted. Some of these items have already been touched upon elsewhere in this volume, therefore, it will suffice to list these items here in summation. The hometown of Nazareth The town of Nazareth was a lowly town, known for its corruption, and is not a likely first choice for the town in which to raise the promised Messiah. Also, the prophet Micah foretold Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, which is in accordance with both birth narratives; however, this leaves us without an explanation as to why Jesus was said to have relocated from Bethlehem to Nazareth, unless the evangelists Luke and Matthew were reporting events as they actually occurred. We know why Joseph and Mary left Bethlehem (at the behest of the angel), but no explanation is given as to why they chose not to return to Bethlehem, which was their intention, after the death of Herod, and instead choosing to return to Nazareth. Were the Gospels fabricated, any

581

relocation from Bethlehem would have likely been to Jerusalem, the holy city and religious center of Judaism. Jesus' baptism Why would the Messiah subject Himself to baptism? Although Jesus gave an answer to John to that very question, it seems unlikely that the Gospel writers would have placed John in a position above Jesus in this one instance. Jesus' mission in Galilee Jesus was from Galilee, the northern portion of Palestine, and such was generally regarded as uneducated and of a much lower estate than those of the southern region of Judea, as a result of the prevailing prejudice in the land at the time, not too unlike the hostility between the north and south during the American Civil War. Jesus' journey through Samaria It was not common for a Jew to take the road which led through Samaria. Although this road was the most direct route between Jerusalem and certain points north, the common practice of the day was to travel the longer route, thus avoiding the Samaritans, for fear of hostility or rebuke. The unbelief of Jesus' family and His disciples Jesus' own siblings at first rejected Him as the Messiah. Their rejection is understandable, if the account is historically accurate. I can only imagine what my own brother and sister-in-law would say if it was suddenly proclaimed to them that I was God incarnate, came to save the world. I can picture a smirk, a, “yeah, right,” and eventually some words of rebuke if I persisted in my Messianic claim. However, I cannot picture them on bended knee, and so it was with Jesus' siblings and fellow Nazarenes. Two of His brothers, James and Jude, were later writers of two of the books of the New Testament. Had their attitude been falsely represented in the Gospels, they would likely have written to their correction. Also, the disciples did not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead until after they saw the physical proof, in His appearance to them. It is not likely that a historian would distort events, and in so doing make himself look bad in the public eye. The Gospels lack certain elements found in the remainder of the New Testament, and vice-versa The New Testament, following the Gospels, mentions the disciples speaking in tongues, which is not found in the Gospels. Likewise, the Gospels include Jesus' teaching on the “kingdom” and His referring to Himself by titles which do not appear in the rest of the New Testament. Were the Gospels fabricated, one would expect to see more conformity on the whole in these regards.

582

Jesus' prayer in Gethsemene In His prayer in the garden, Jesus prayed to the Father that His “cup,” or the manner in which He would bear man's sin, would pass from Him. While His request was a product of His human nature, it is completely untenable that the Gospel writers would have their Messiah praying such a thing, unless He actually uttered those words. Judas' betrayal The idea that Jesus was betrayed by one within His own inner circle of disciples does not do much to account for the other disciples' ability to judge another's character. If the Gospel accounts were fabricated, it is not likely that the writers would have portrayed themselves, and their Messiah (as some would suspect), as so easily duped by one of their own. The disciples' abandonment of Jesus in His hour of trial Similar to the argument relating to their unbelief, the disciples would not have portrayed themselves as cowards and deserters after Jesus' arrest. The crucifixion Crucifixion was the punishment of slaves and criminals. The worst of the worst and the most lowly were given a place of ill repute on the cross. If the Gospels were fabricated, not only is Jesus' execution unlikely, but more so His manner of death. Also, why did He remain silent before His accusers, rather than give a long sermon about His mission? Why did the disciples not seem to expect that Jesus' death was the ultimate act of the Messiah? Why did He not take over the Temple priesthood and claim Himself as the object of the sacrificial system? Jesus' burial Jesus was buried, not in a family tomb, as was the custom, but in a tomb purchased by a member of the Sanhedrin, most of whom who were regarded as Jesus' enemies. Also, Jesus was buried not in the town of His birth, or even in Nazareth, but in the city in which He was only ever a visitor. The account of Jesus’ resurrection Nowhere in the four Gospels is Jesus’ actual resurrection depicted. After His burial, the next event portrayed is the discovery of the empty tomb. The Gospel writers were not afraid to portray the life of Jesus in a supernatural fashion, as attested by the many miracles depicted in their writings. It seems unlikely that they would have left out how the actual resurrection took place, since that event is the most important event in the New Testament. Surely, if the Gospel writers were nothing more than writers of fiction, such an event would have found its way into their account. The testimony of the women Ancient Palestine was a patriarchal society in which women were held in lower esteem than men. Even in a court of law, the testimony of a woman was often inadmissible simply because those of the feminine gender were regarded

583

as less credible. Nevertheless, in the Gospel accounts, it is the female disciples of Jesus who first bear witness to the empty tomb.

VIII. The Gospels' portrayal of the person and work of

Jesus does not fit Messianic concepts prevalent during the first century: An argument similar to what has been discussed in the section immediately beforehand, is that the person and work of Jesus did not fit into any of the prevailing molds regarding the person and work of the Messiah; therefore, had the Gospels been works of fiction, the depiction of Jesus therein would be very different from the portrait of Jesus actually provided by the writers of the New Testament. Whereas the previous section concerned itself with details concerning various elements and biographical aspects of Jesus' life, the present section will focus more on the character of the Gospels in their portrayal of Jesus as a Messianic figure – a portrayal which, as the evidence will show, does not reflect Jewish expectation during the time of Jesus. The evidence to be presented will be in the form of citations from the following pre-Christian Jewish texts: The Septuagint, also known as the LXX, so named after the seventy Alexandrian scribes who are believed to have composed the volume during the third and first centuries before the time of Christ, is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The significance of the Septuagint for the present discussion is that the scribes occasionally inserted their own Messianic interpretations into passages regarded, at least by some, as Messianic in nature. The Jewish Apocrypha, non-canonical Jewish writings composed during the first two centuries before the time of Christ. The Jewish Pseudepigrapha, a collection of non-canonical Jewish writings, each ascribed to a figure from Israel's past, such as Enoch, but each regarded not to have been actually written by the person to whom the ascription belongs. Rather, the books of the Pseudepigrapha are regarded to have been composed between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D., and are considered useful in determining beliefs held by Jews at the beginning of the Christian era. The Talmud, the authoritative body of Jewish law. There are two Talmuds, Jerusalem and Babylonian, written between c.200 B.C. and c.500 A.D. The Talmud contains the Mishnah (early oral interpretations and commentaries of the Hebrew Bible) and the Gemara (a commentary and analysis of the Mishnah). The Jewish Targums. Aramaic translations of the Old Testament. Here, only the earliest of the Targums will be considered, as they were composed between 516 B.C. and up until the Middle Ages.

584

The writings of Josephus, Jewish historian, written during the first half of the first century A.D. The writings of Philo, Jewish historian and philosopher, written during the latter half of the first century A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls, written prior to or during the writing of the New Testament and entailing nine hundred texts, including copies of nearly every book of the Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated between 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. Citations from these texts will show that Messianic expectations during the time of Christ took on more than one character, with some regarding the Messiah to be a political leader (who was sometimes not even regarded to be of Davidic descent1), while others considered him to be a supernatural or superhuman being. The central focus of Messianic expectation during the time of Christ was that of nationalistic anticipation, that is, the future restoration of the nation of Israel2, a monarchy that was eradicated in 597 B.C. with the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. Following a look at Messianic characteristics as expressed in these texts, it will suffice to list pre-Christian men to whom the title of Messiah was applied, and how the character and activity of these “messiahs” differ from Jesus, the one, true Messiah. Characteristics of the Messiah as expressed in ancient Jewish texts (emphasis mine, when added) He will from the town of Bethlehem and from the line of David, or the tribe of Judah, and He a ruler or prince, being without sin. And you, O Bethlehem Ephrath, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before Me the Messiah, to exercise dominion over Israel, he whose name was mentioned from before, from the days of creation. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan Micah 5:3) ... as for the lion whom you saw rousing up out of the forest and roaring and speaking up to the eagle and reproving him for his unrighteousness, and as for all his words that you have heard, this is the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the offspring of David, and will come and speak with them. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 12.31-32) A ruler shall not fail from Judah, or a prince from his loins, until there come the things stored up for him; and he is the expectation of the nations. (The Septuagint translation of Gen 49.10)

585

And after this there shall arise for you a Star from Jacob in peace: And a man shall arise from my [Judah's] posterity like the Sun of Righteousness, walking with the sons of men in gentleness and righteousness, and in him will be found no sin*. (Pseudepigrapha, Testament of Judah 4:20-23) * The sinlessness of the Messiah, in the mind of the ancient rabbis, was not due to his closeness with deity. Rather, Jewish thought did not hold to the a doctrine equivalent to the Christian doctrine of original sin. Man was regarded as being born with an inclination to evil, but gradually develops an inclination to do good, an inclination which can overcome the evil, through the keeping of the Law, thus attaining favor with God.3 He will be a prophet and priest of God, who will reveal the words of the Lord and be called the Angel, or Messenger, of the Great Council. The twelve tribes shall be gathered there and all the nations, until such time as the Most High shall send forth his salvation through the ministration of the unique prophet. (Pseudepigrapha, Testament of Benjamin 9:2) For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger/Angel* of the Great Council. (The Septuagint translation of Isa 9:6) The Prophet announced to the house of David that: 'A boy has been born unto us, a son has been given unto us, who has taken the Torah upon himself to guard it; and his name has been called by the One** who gives wonderful counsel, the Mighty God, He who lives forever; 'Messiah', in whose day peace shall abound for us. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Isa 9:5-6) And then the Lord will raise up a new priest to whom all the words of the Lord will be revealed. (Pseudepigrapha, Testament of Levi 18:2) * The word “angel” in Hebrew is angelos, lit. “messenger,” or one who makes known the will of another. ** In the Targum passage, the Messiah is called “by the One” who gives wonderful counsel, who is the Mighty God, and who lives forever, whereas in the Bible, it is Messiah Himself to whom is ascribed such attributes: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his [Messiah's] name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (KJV)

586

He will be a man who becomes king, who sits in a glorious throne and rules forever over many nations. They are destined to make peace at the end, in the days of King Messiah*. (Targum, Fragments Ex 12:42) As soon as the date of the End when the King Messiah would arrive was revealed to him. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan Gen 49:1) Behold, days are coming,' says the Lord, 'when I will raise up for David a righteous Messiah, and he shall reign as king. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan Jer 23:5) And my servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one leader; and they shall walk in My laws and shall keep my statutes and observe them...and David my servant shall be their king forever. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan Ezek 37:24-25) There shall come a man out of his [David's] seed, and he shall rule over many nations; and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall be increased. (The Septuagint translation of Num 24.7) There shall come forth from you one day a man, and he shall rule over many nations and his kingdom spreading every day shall be exalted on high. (Philo, The Life of Moses I:289-290) there shall come forth a man, says the oracle (Num 24.7 LXX), and leading his host to war he will subdue great and populous nations. (Philo, On Rewards and Punishments 95) And he shall continue as long as the sun, and before the moon forever. (The Septuagint translation of Ps 72:5) ...and pain shall seize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory (Pseudepigrapha, I Enoch 62.5) * The title “King Messiah” is used numerous times in the Targums. Expectation of a kingly Messiah who would overthrow Israel's enemies and restore the Jewish nation became latent after the Jews' return to Jerusalem at the end of the Babylonian captivity. However, with the rise of the Maccabees in the late second to early first centuries B.C., expectation in such a “King Messiah” again became the hope and expectation of the people of Israel.4

587

His work will have nationalistic ramifications, in destroying heathen nations and gathering together the twelve scattered tribes of Israel, thus restoring the nation of God. Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David, At the time in the which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy servant. And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers, And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample her down to destruction. Wisely, righteously he shall thrust out sinners from the inheritance, He shall destroy the pride of the sinner as a potter's vessel. With a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance, He shall destroy the godless nations with the word of his mouth; At his rebuke nations shall flee before him, And he shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their heart. ... And he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall lead in righteousness, ... And he shall divide them according to their tribes upon the land, And neither sojourner nor alien shall sojourn with them any more. He shall judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness. And he shall have the heathen nations to serve him under his yoke; And he shall glorify the Lord in a place to be seen of all the earth; And he shall purge Jerusalem, making it holy as of old: ... For all shall be holy and their king the anointed of the Lord. ... In the assemblies he will judge the peoples, the tribes of the sanctified. (Pseudepigrapha, Psalms of Solomon 17:32ff) There shall come forth from you one day a man, and he shall rule over many nations and his kingdom spreading every day shall be exalted on high. (Philo, The Life of Moses I:289-290) There shall come forth a man, says the oracle (Num 24.7 LXX), and leading his host to war he will subdue great and populous nations. (Philo, On Rewards and Punishments 95) There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them. (Josephus, Jewish War 2.258-60; Here, Josephus was speaking of a man who was recognized as a Messiah for his aspirations concerning political "innovations.") The transmission of dominion shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his children's children, forever, until the Messiah comes, to

588

whom the Kingdom belongs, and whom nations will obey. (Targum, Onqelos on Gen 49:10-12) Moses shall go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah from Rome. (Targum, Onqelos Gen 49:10-12) They [the scattered tribes of Israel] shall be gathered in from their Dispersion, shall live in the shade of the Messiah. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan Hos 14:7) The twelve tribes shall be gathered there and all the nations, until such time as the Most High shall send forth his salvation through the ministration of the unique prophet. (Pseudepigrapha, Testament of Benjamin 9:2) He will be a king sent from God, who will stand on Mt. Zion, judge and destroy the wicked with fire and blood, then set free a remnant of His people and build a new Temple. But he shall stand on the top of Mount Zion. And Zion shall come and be made manifest to all people. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 13.36) He will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will display before them their contemptuous dealings. For first he will bring them alive before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them. But in mercy he will set free the remnant of my people, those who have been saved. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 12.33-34) And then the heavenly God will send a king and will judge each man in blood and the gleam of fire. There is a certain royal tribe whose race will never stumble. This too, as time pursues its cyclic course, will reign, and it will begin to raise up a new temple of God. (Pseudepigrapha, Sibylline Oracles 3.285) He will be God's Son who will be called Son of the Most High, whose kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, but who will die after four hundred years*, ushering in an apocalypse. When these things take place and the signs occur that I showed you before, then my Son will be revealed, whom you saw as a man coming up from the sea. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 13.32) For indeed the time will come, when the signs that I have foretold to you will come to pass, that the city that now is not seen shall appear, and the land that now is hidden shall be disclosed. Everyone who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders. For my son the

589

Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. Then the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings, so that no one shall be left**. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 7.26-30) He will be called the Son of God***, and they will call him the son of the Most High...His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom. (The Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q246, col. II) * The discrepancy between the dying Messiah and the eternal kingdom reflects the varied Messianic expectations present during the pre-Christan era. As one author writes, “... messianism was neither widespread nor prominent during this period [the first two centuries before Christ] and that there was no one 'orthodox' notion of 'the Messiah.... The presence or absence of messianism was primarily determined by the political attitudes and circumstances of the different groups within Judaism. Those who placed their hopes in the institutions and leaders of their day, whether the High Priests, the Ptolemies, or the Maccabees, had little interest in messianism. Apocalyptic groups developed the idea of a transcendent savior figure, either as an alternative or as a complement to earthly messianism. ”5 ** Such an apocalypse following a four hundred year-long reign of the Messiah, as expressed in apocryphal literature, is not reflective of prophecies found in the Old Testament. *** As stated in Part five, the identification of Jesus as the Son of God was due to His oneness, in nature and essence, with deity, rather than an act of being begotten or created by the Father. However, in Jewish thought, the title of Messiah as the Son of God did not entail such a concept. The Jews perceived themselves, as a nation, as both a son and servant of God. Since the Messiah, or the “Anointed one” of God, did the work of God, he was therefore regarded to be a servant of God, in an even greater sense than was the nation of Israel. Likewise, the Messiah was also bonded with Israel by virtue of his heritage, coming from the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David. Thus, as Israel was God's son, so was the Messiah – not because he shared in divinity; but rather, because he was to be a true son of the royal Jewish line. The titles Son of God and servant of God were each rightly applied to both the nation Israel and the coming Messiah.6 He is separate from God, and He will be subject to God Himself. Nor shall he gather confidence from a multitude for the day of battle. The Lord Himself is his king, the hope of him that is mighty through his hope in God. He will rebuke rulers, and remove sinners by the might of his word; And relying upon his God, throughout his days he will not stumble. ... His

590

hope will be in the Lord: who then can prevail against him? He will, be mighty in his works, and strong in the fear of God, (Pseudepigrapha, Psalms of Solomon 17:33ff) He will be given wisdom, power, and righteousness, and His reign will bring peace and righteousness. For God will make him mighty* by means of His holy spirit, And wise by means of the spirit of understanding, with strength and righteousness. (Pseudepigrapha, Psalms of Solomon 17:37) In his days shall righteousness spring up; and abundance of peace till the moon be removed. (The Septuagint translation of Ps 72:7) * Note that the strength and wisdom of the Messiah is that which is given by God, rather than being possessed intrinsically. He has an angelic countenance and will be called the Son of Man, with whom righteousness dwells, and He will depose kings At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the time before time. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels*...'Who is this?'...And he answered me and said, 'This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells**.... this Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their thrones. (Pseudepigrapha, I Enoch 46.1-3) * The Messiah is seen as distinct from the eternal God, and possesses a human form with an angelic (as opposed to divine) countenance. It is clear from ancient rabbinic literature that the Jews, although not entirely, thought of the Messiah as being someone superhuman. He certainly possesses certain divine characteristics, such as being present before creation, however exactly how close he was thought to be to deity is uncertain. As Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim states, “The Jewish expectation of the Messiah was so bordering on the divine that it is almost impossible to distinguish between the two.“7 However, he goes on to infer two notions found in ancient Jewish literature: 1) that the idea of the union of the twp natures, human and divine, seems foreign to the concept of the Messiah, and 2) that the Messiah was regarded as not only being above humanity, but also above the angels. Thus, the Messiah was regarded as being so Godlike, that the line between the Messiah and God Himself was a vary narrow one. For some, Messianic expectation was concerned with a superhuman

591

being, either angelic or divine, while for others a fully human deliverer, who may or may not be of the lineage of David.8 ** Note that righteousness dwells “with” the Messiah, not “in” him. He existed before creation, He will be a light to the Gentiles, and all will worship Him on bended knee. At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of [the Lord of the Spirits] prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. (Pseudepigrapha, I Enoch 48.2-8) There will be more than one Messiah. They should not depart from any counsel of the law in order to walk in complete stubbornness of their heart, but instead shall be ruled by the first directives which the men of the Community began to be taught until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. (The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QS, col 9, vs 9b-11) Your two deliverers* who are destined to deliver you, the Messiah the son of David and the Messiah the son of Ephraim. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan Song of Sol 7:4) * The notion of two Messiahs, sons of David and Ephraim, is a late manifestation in Jewish Messianic expectations, and is not expressed in literature prior to the post-exilic period (the last 400 years B.C.). While such a dualistic Messianic belief is evident in some writings from that era, the widespread acceptance of such belief remains a subject of debate among scholars. Such were the expectations, in the first few centuries B.C. concerning the coming of the Messiah. Author S. H. Levey sums it up quite nicely in saying, “The Messiah will be the symbol and/or the active agent of the deliverance of Israel. He will be of Davidic lineage, though he may have a non-Davidic predecessor, the Ephraimite Messiah, who will die in battle. Elijah will herald his coming and will serve as His High Priest. A world conflict will rage between Rome, variously identified with Gog, Amalek, Edom, and

592

Armilus, on the one hand, and Assyria or Eber, on the other, indicating that to the Targumist, Assyria and not Babylon was the real enemy of Israel, and this will result in the annihilation of both at the time of the Messianic advent; the enemies of Israel will be shattered either by divine or Messianic intervention. The Messiah will bring an end to the wandering of Israel, and the Jewish people will be gathered in from their Dispersion to their own land; The Northern Kingdom will be re-united with Judah. The drama of the Exodus from Egypt will be re-enacted; in this drama Moses may participate, made possible by a resurrection of the dead. The Messiah will live eternally. He will restore the Temple and rebuild Jerusalem, which will enjoy divine protection for itself and its inhabitants. He will have sovereignty over all the world and make the Torah the universal law of mankind, with the ideal of education being realized to the full. The Messiah will have the gift of prophecy, and may have intercessory power to seek forgiveness of sin, but he will punish the unrepentant wickedness of his people, as well as of the nations, and have the power to cast them into Gehenna. There will be a moral regeneration of Israel and of mankind. The Messiah will be a righteous judge, dispensing justice and equity, the champion of the poor and the oppressed, the personification of social justice. He will reward the righteous, who will surround him and eternally enjoy the divine effulgence. The essence of the Messiah will be faith in God; and he will vindicate that faith, and the faithfulness of Israel, in the eyes of all the world.”9 Characteristics of pre-second century men who were perceived to fit the mold of Messianic expectation and laid claim to the title “Messiah.” Ancient Judaism had its share of Messianic claimants, or men who have been considered by some to fit the Messiah mold. Here, it will serve to briefly look at these men in order to perceive just how it was they were considered candidates for the position of Messiah and if any of them stand as someone who would have inspired the Gospel writers to apply their own Messianic expectations on the person of Jesus of Nazareth. To that end, I will not only look at such claimants who lived prior to Christ, but also those who lived after Him, but before the final Gospel was written. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 B.C.) After the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., his son Archelaus was named king over Judea. Judas, a robber, organized an assault on the palace, successfully making off with weapons and money. According to Josephus, he attempted to gain political power by becoming “terrible to all men,” and “by tearing and rending those that came near him.” Josephus then states that he did “all this in order to raise himself, and out of an ambitious desire of the royal dignity, for he hoped to obtain that as the reward not of his virtuous skill in war, but of his extravagance in doing injuries.” Information regarding Judas' fate is not provided by Josephus.10 Comparison to Jesus: None, since Jesus was not a terrorist.

593

Simon of Perea, a former royal servant (4 B.C.) Simon was another who attempted a revolt against Herod's son Archelaus. Although Simon was a royal slave, he claimed a right to be king. Of him, Josephus states, “This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things, and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head, while a certain number of the people stood by him, and by them he was declared to be a king, and he thought himself more worthy of that dignity than any one else.” Simon then embarked on an arson spree, burning royal houses and palaces, including the palace at Jericho. Herod's army responded quickly and engaged them in battle, but since Simon's men were more “bold” than “skillful,” they were defeated. Simon fled the battle, but was soon seized by the commander of Herod's infantry and was beheaded for his rebellion.11 Comparison to Jesus: None, since Jesus had a legal and divine right to be king, nor did He attempt to usher in His kingdom by force. Also, in Jesus’ hour of trial, He did not flee; but rather, went with His accusers peacefully and willingly. Athronges, the shepherd of Judea (4 B.C.) Athronges was a shepherd, being of the most lowly of classes in ancient Judea, nevertheless, he was hailed as king by some as a king, due to his notoriety for boldness, strength, and stature. His four brothers likewise became leaders, each overseeing a band of men who had rallied to their cause. Athronges' devotees placed a diadem on his head and enjoyed a time of success (about two years) in his new role as “monarch.” Athronges and his followers killed many Romans and as time progressed, their actions became more cruel, killing, at times, for mere gain. Aside from being a severe thorn in Rome's flesh, they also caused much mischief for their Jewish countrymen. After a long, successful, and bloody campaign, the brothers and their army were subdued by the forces of Rome. The eldest brother was taken prisoner, while the youngest surrendered to Herod Archelaus with the understanding that his life would be spared. The final fate of Athronges in not provided by Josephus in his account.12 Comparison to Jesus: Very superficial, at best. Both men wore a sort of crown, but the crown worn by Athronges was to his honor, whereas the crown worn by Jesus was in mockery by the Roman soldiers. Athronges was a shepherd by trade and his role as such bore no figurative significance to the command he held over his men; therefore, the identification of Jesus as the Great Shepherd bears no similarity. Judas of Gamala (6 A.D.; mentioned in Acts 5:37; was called “Messiah” by the Jews) After the rise of Coponius, Archelaus' successor, a man named Judas organized a revolt in response to taxes levied by the new ruler, then, along with the Pharisee Zadok, founded the sect known as the zealots. Josephus says that Judas and Zadok claimed that “this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure

594

them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same. So men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.” These men appealed to the notion that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. Josephus does not tell us what happened to Judas, but he does relate that Judas' sons were arrested and crucified by governor Tiberius in 46 A.D.13 Comparison to Jesus: Judas was called a Messiah due to his nationalist zeal. Jesus' promised a future restoration of Israel and the coming of the kingdom of heaven, but he referred to a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly kingdom; therefore, Jesus' preaching cannot be considered nationalistic in the sense that was Judas' The Samaritan prophet (36 A.D.) Josephus mentions an unidentified Samaritan prophet who persuaded a crowd of people to ascend Mt. Gerizin with him so that he may show them the :secret vessels” of Moses, which he claimed Moses had buried on the mount. Before they began their ascent up the mountain, Pilate, the man who had Jesus condemned, blocked they way with a detachment of his soldiers. In a resulting conflict, the soldiers slew some of the prophet's followers and reprimanded others to prison. Later, Pilate executed the Samaritans responsible for the instigation.14 Comparison to Jesus: None, especially since Jesus was a Jew, not a Samaritan. Jews and Samaritans did not hold like messianic beliefs. Theudas (45 A.D.; was called “Messiah” by the Jews) Theudas, mentioned in Acts 5.36, claiming to be a prophet, persuaded about four hundred people to gather their belongings and follow him to the river Jordan. He said he would divide the waters, thus permitting the people to cross on dry land. Fadus, the Judean procurator at the time, sent men to stop the would-be miracle A conflict ensued, and some of Theudas' were killed, while others, including Theudas himself, was imprisoned. Later, Theudas was beheaded for his attempted feat.15 Comparison to Jesus: Jesus was baptized in Jordan and performed miracles in which water was involved, but that's the extent of the comparison. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 A.D.) Josephus mentions an Egyptian prophet whom he calls a “cheat” and a “pretend[er],” who gathered a large crowd (by one account, 30,000; by another, 400) men on the Mount of Olives with the intention to command the walls of the city to fall down at his command. Roman soldiers came upon them and killed

595

half of the party. The remaining half were taken prisoner, although the Egyptian prophet escaped and was not heard from again.16 Comparison to Jesus: Other than the fact that both men once stood on the Mount of Olives, none. An anonymous prophet (59 A.D.) Josephus names an unidentified prophet who promised deliverance to anyone who would follow him into the wilderness. Festus, the Roman governor, ordered them to be overtaken by his troops, who in turn killed the prophet and his followers.17 Comparison to Jesus: None whatsoever. Menahem, grandson of Judas the Galilean (66 A.D.) Menahem, grandson of the same Judas mentioned above, and a “barbarously cruel” man, formed a small army of men and armed them with weapons he had stoled from Herod's fortress at Masada. He then succeeded in capturing the governor's palace at Jerusalem and ordered the execution of the high priest. Eleasar, the high priest's son, led a counterstrike against Menahem. Being unable to overtake Eleasar's men, Menahem and his forces scattered, but were eventually killed, except Menahem, who escaped to Masadaa. However, he was later drawn out, tortured, and killed.18 Comparison to Jesus:Menahem fits the expectation of a leader who had political aspirations and was at odds with the religious leadership, so in some regards he may fit into the mold of what some Jews believed the Messiah would be, however, that mold does not align with Old Testament messianic prophecies, nor with the mission of Jesus. John of Gischala, son of Levi (67-70 A.D.) John was the commander of a Jewish army in Galilee, but after failing to drive the Romans out, he relocated to southern Judea, where he gained control of Jerusalem and appointed a high priest. His presence in Jerusalem drew the anger of the Zealots, but John had them killed in turn. He held his position until Titus seized Jerusalem in 70 A.D., after which John was sentenced to life in prison.19 Comparison to Jesus: None. Jesus did not gain political power, did not seek to appoint or otherwise better the priesthood, and did not raise a sword against His enemies. Also, Josephus states that John did not observe the Law of Moses, for he ate unlawful food and engaged in impure practices. Simon bar Giora of Gerasa (69-70 A.D.) Simon was a Jewish General who banded together forty thousand men. He promised freedom to slaves and reward to the free. He was invited to Jerusalem by a portion of the population who feared John of Gischala, and ruled them as their king from 69-70 A.D. when he was forced to surrender to Titus.20

596

Comparison to Jesus: Other than Jesus' promise to set the captive free, none. The freedom offered by Jesus is freedom from sin, not political or social oppression. Jonathan the weaver (73 A.D.) A man named Jonathan, a weaver by trade, persuaded a large number of people to follow him into the desert where he would show then signs and wonders. Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, sent armed men after them. Many of Jonathan's followers were killed, while the rest were brought back to Catullus alive. Jonathan escaped the attack, but was later captured and burned alive.21 Comparison to Jesus: Jesus performed “signs and wonders;” otherwise, none. Yeshu ha Notzri (c.90 B.C.) Here, I will break the chronological order of this list of names so that I may save the best for last, as events of this figure’s story very closely resemble numerous events which are found in the Gospels' account of the life of Jesus. Yeshu ha Notzri (or Yeshua ha Notzri, as he is also called) is the name given to a man who is said to have lived about one hundred years before Jesus, and who traveled around Palestine practicing magic. Some scholars regard him to be the “teacher of righteousness” mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the library belonging to a Jewish religious sect known as the Essenes. The Essenes were a group of Jews who lived an ascetic lifestyle in poverty and in denial of “worldly pleasures.” They lived among other Jews, but gathered in selected communal areas for worship and brotherhood. The followers of Yeshu ha Notzri were known as the Notzrim, a title by which, according to the Talmud, Christians were also known (this point will be addressed further shortly hereafter). According to the primary texts in which his account is given, Yeshu was born of a young girl named Mary shortly after she was raped by a neighbor. In his adulthood, Yeshu displayed supernatural abilities and worked miracles, which he was enabled to do after learning the secret name of God. He was regarded as a heretic by Jewish religious authorities, placed on trial for his actions, and hung from a tree on the eve of Passover, a death which some liken to Jesus' crucifixion. In the sections which follow it will be shown whether the account of Yeshu ha Notzri is a revision of the Gospels or an account which predates the Christian era and one that contains elements which were later incorporated into the Gospel writers' account of Jesus of Nazareth. The Toledoth Yeshu The account of Yeshu is provided in the Toledoth Yeshu, or “Generations of Yeshu,” and a slightly abridged version reads as follows. “In the year 3671[or 90 B.C] … there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He

597

lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. Joseph Pandera … betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will. Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu. On the eighth day he was circumcised. … After [Yeshu’s illegitimate birth] became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee. … In the [Jerusalem] Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraven the letters of God's Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. … Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. … He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, ‘I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”’ He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, ‘David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: “The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.”’ The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest. … He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah. The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene*, with the accusation: ‘This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone.’ Yeshu replied, ‘The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,” and I am he.' … A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: ‘This is a true sign.’ She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. …

598

Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done. When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: ‘It is spoken of me, “I will ascend into heaven.”’ He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone. The elders asked Iskarioto to do likewise. He did, and flew toward heaven. Iskarioto attempted to force Yeshu down to earth but neither one of the two could prevail against the other for both had the use of the Ineffable Name. However, Iskarioto defiled Yeshu, so that they both lost their power and fell down to the earth, and in their condition of defilement the letters of the Ineffable Name escaped from them. Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves … Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch [or Egypt, according to some versions of the tale]; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover. Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. … On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. … Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carobstalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, ‘His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.’ They buried him outside the city. On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the

599

grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden. … the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu's followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen. … Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.”22 * Helena was the wife of Monobaz I, king of Adiabene (modernday Iraq). She converted to Judaism in 30 A.D. and relocated to Jerusalem for a time. Helena was known for her benevolence toward the Jewish people. Common biographical characteristics of Yeshu ha Notzri and Jesus of Nazareth, as told in the Toledoth Yeshu and the Gospels, respectively Both were born in Bethlehem. The place of birth alone is insignificant. Besides, as stated previously in this book, Bethlehem was named as the Messiah's birthplace long before Yeshu was born. Both had a mother named Mary who was betrothed to a man named Joseph of the tribe of David. In the case of Yeshu, there is no mention of Pandera being of the house of David. The only person in that account listed among the lineage of David is the espoused husband of Mary, who abandoned her and did not claim Yeshu as his legal heir, as did Joseph, the person named as the espoused husband of May in the Gospel accounts. Therefore, of the two persons under consideration, Yeshu ha Notzrri and Jesus of Nazareth, only Jesus is named as among the legal lineage of David, which was a requirement of the prophesied Messiah. Although both were born in Judea, both later relocated to Galilee. Mary and Joseph intended to return to Bethlehem after Herod's death, however, after hearing news of who was Herod's successor, they chose to return to Nazareth, the town which Mary and Joseph called home. Yeshu's relocation to the region of Galilee was to escape persecution in lower Palestine. Both were said to have traveled to Egypt. Jesus' sojourn there was to escape the wrath of Herod the Great, whereas Yeshu's sojourn was to flee persecution in Palestine and learn magic from sages in Egypt.

600

Both were circumcised on the eighth day. This was according to Mosaic law, which decreed every male Jew be circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. Likewise, prior to the giving of the Law on Sinai, God decreed to Abraham that every male be circumcised on the eighth day, as a physical mark, or sign, of the covenant between God and Israel (Gen 17:11-12). Each claimed to be the Messiah and applied to himself various messianic prophecies, such as those spoken by Isaiah and David. However, the life of Yeshu only fell in line with some Old Testament messianic prophecies, to the exclusion of others, whereas the life of Jesus fulfilled every single prophecy. Both were worshiped as the son of God, although Yeshu never claimed that he was pre-existent, as did Jesus. Jesus had twelve core disciples. Likewise, in one version of Yeshu’s story he is said to have had twelve disciples, but this is a late addition to the tale. In the earliest versions, his disciples were five in number. Both performed miracles such as healing the lame and giving life to the dead, although Yeshu did so from acquired supernatural abilities, whereas Jesus did so n His own power. Each was beaten, given vinegar to drink, and had a crown of thorns placed on his head. In the case of Jesus, He was twice offered drink while being executed by the Romans. The first drink He refused, while the second drink He accepted. The offering of vinegar as a drink was a common practice. First, it was given as a mixture of vinegar and herb, producing anesthetic results, which was commonly used during executions either as an act of mercy or to prolong the suffering. A second use of vinegar was the drink known as posca, a mixture of vinegar, water and eggs, and was widely used by Roman soldiers. Both Yeshu's and Jesus' execution would have been authorized by the Roman empire; therefore, the presence in each account of such a liquid mixture is not unthinkable. Each was betrayed by a disciple (Jesus, by Judas Iscariot; Yeshu, by Judah Iskarioto). In one version of the Toledoth Yeshu, Judah Iskarioto also learns the name of God and gains the same abilities as Yeshu, after which the two engage in aerial combat, with Judah victorious over Yeshu, resulting in Yeshu's arrest. Each was hung from a tree on the eve of Passover. In the case of Yeshu, it was a literal hanging, not a crucifixion.

601

Each was buried in a garden tomb. Both were said to have risen from the dead, although Yeshu's body was discovered shortly thereafter and he was denounced as a false prophet. Differing biographical characteristics of Yeshu ha Notzri and Jesus of Nazareth Yeshu was named by Mary, whereas Jesus’ name was given to Mary and Joseph by an angel. Also, Yeshu’s name did not bear any spiritual significance, since Mary simply named him after her brother, whereas Jesus was given His name because He would save His people from their sin. (Mt 1:21) The source of Yeshu’s power was not inherent to his being, whereas Jesus performed miracles in accordance with His own divine nature. In the case of Yeshu, he received his power by writing the name of God on a parchment, which he then placed inside an open wound in his thigh, closing the wound over the parchment. It was this parchment that gave Yeshu his supernatural abilities. Such a source of power is not all that different from the source by which various characters of fiction obtain their own abilities – abilities which are obtained through the acquisition of a boon, whether it be a power ring, a magical item, or a bite from a radioactive spider, just to name a few examples. In other words, Yeshu gained the ability to perform miracles, whereas Jesus’ miraculous abilities were inherent to his being. Unlike Jesus, Yeshu did not promise redemption to any of his followers. Yeshu made false messianic claims. His life does not bear the biographical requirements which were necessary in order to fulfill Old Testament messianic prophecies. For instance, there was no forerunner who could be likened to John the Baptist, no star announcing his birth, no killing of infants after his birth, no cleansing of the Temple, no conduct in the offices of High Priest or King of God’s people, no virgin birth, no crucifixion and piercing of the hands and feet, no execution with criminals, and no resurrection. Also, continuing in the vein of the above comment, Yeshu was not of Davidic descent, which was a requirement for the Messiah according to prophecy. True, Yeshu’s stepfather Joseph was of the lineage of David, as was the Joseph of the Gospels, but in the Toledoth Yeshu, Joseph leaves Mary, thereby not claiming Yeshu as his legal heir and providing for him a link to the line of David. In

602

the Gospels, although Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, Jesus still legally gained Davidic lineage through Joseph’s claiming the infant Christ as his own and raising Him as his own son. It is also believed that Jesus gained a genetic link to the line of David through the lineage of Mary. Variations of the text The Toledoth Yeshu exists in more than one version. The oldest references to Yehsu can be found in the Talmud, where he is referred to as a sorcerer who enticed others to apostasy. Since then, the various versions of the account of Yeshu differ on key elements of the story. In the earliest references, in Sanhedrin 43a (of the Talmud), Yeshu is sentenced to death, but given hope for release. After his sentence, a crier was told to walk before him asking anyone who believed Yeshu should be pardoned come forth in his defense. When no one stepped forward, his execution was carried out as decreed. In one version of the story he is stoned, while in another he is hung from a tree. In the version above a second miracle worker, Judah Iskarioto, defeats Yeshu in a comic book style aerial contest where both figures struggle in midair, whereas in other versions Judah Iskarioto is one of Yeshu’s disciples who betrays him while in the Temple. The later the version, the more details are added or elaborated upon, such as the number of Yeshu’s disciples from five, in the earlier versions, to twelve, in the later versions. Other later texts go beyond giving an account of Yeshu himself and proceed to relate tales of his followers as well. In the Tosefta, a compilation of Jewish law and dating to c.200 A.D., one passage (Chullin 2:22-23) tells how one Rabbi Eleazar ben Damma was bitten by a snake and was offered aide by a man who came to heal him in the name of Yeshu. Immediately following that account (in Chullin 2:24) is mention made of Rabbi Eliezer who was charged for heresy when he accepted some sort of benediction, or other type of verbal communication, in the name of Yeshu. In each of these accounts, Yeshu is mentioned not as the son of God, but as “Yeshu ben Pandera,” or “Yeshu, son of Pandera,” a moniker which will be addressed shortly hereafter. In contrast to the varying accounts of Yeshu, the Gospels portray a harmonious account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. While there are elements of the Gospels which appear contradictory on the surface, studies concerned with translation errors or Jewish idioms and customs of the day serve to clarify such supposed contradictions. Such a discussion and treatment of individual so-called contradictions is beyond our discussion at this juncture. For now, it will serve my purpose simply to state the Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth have not changed since they were first composed in the first century, while

603

the accounts of Yeshu ha Notzri present an ever-changing and mutative portrayal of their hero. Authorship and dating of the Toledoth Yeshu The question of authorship of the Toledoth Yeshu is a simple question to address: no one knows who wrote it. Scholarship consensus agrees that the variations in the accounts indicate that each version was penned by a different hand. As far as dating the text, the version listed above is a translation of a fourteenth century manuscript.23 The earliest extant evidence of its existence is in the form of six seventh century fragments discovered in Cairo, Egypt,24 however the Toledoth Yeshu itself is believed to date as early as the fourth century25 and is believed to be based on an oral tradition dating no earlier than the second century,26 after the completion of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Character and purpose The Toledoth Yeshu is generally regarded to be a derogatory commentary, in parody form, on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The various authors are thought to have drawn on the mentions of Yeshu in the Talmud, then merging such references with the Gospel accounts of Jesus, as well as the Greek myth of Pandareus* and the account of Simon Magus** in the apocryphal work the Acts of Peter. Morris Goldstein, whose translation of the Toledoth Yeshu is given above, comments on the character of the text by saying, “… we have a conglomeration of a parody on the Gospels, with the full play of the imagination which is characteristic of [sixth century authors] in this type of literature in the Near East, plus misinterpretation of Talmud and Midrash [Jewish literature written between 200 and 700 A.D.] passages, plus excerpts from non-Canonical and Patristic writings, plus vestigial remains of sectaries, plus items from the Yosippon [a tenth century chronicle of Jewish history], plus unwritten folk legend.”27 * In Greek mythology Pandareus was the son of Clymene and Merops. Like Yeshu, he too stole an item of value from a temple – not from the Temple of Yahweh, but from the temple of Zeus located on the isle of Crete. The object of Pandareus’ thievery, rather than being a piece of parchment on which was written the secret name of God, was a golden dog. As a consequence for his theft he was either stoned or fled to Sicily, depending on which version of the myth one is reading. ** Simon Magnus, also known as Simon the Sorcerer, was a first century sage who was hailed as the Great Power of God. Concerning him, the aspect of the account which is of interest here is that, like Yeshu, Simon was also said to have possessed the ability to fly or levitate.

604

Jesus, son of ... Pandera? The Toledoth Yeshu is, in part, based on a claim made by the second century Greek philosopher Celsus who said that Jesus was the illegitimate child of Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. Likewise, in the Talmud, Jesus is portrayed in the same light, only in that account the soldier is identified as Pandera and Jesus is identified as Yeshu ben Pandera, meaning “Jesus, son of Pandera.” The claim by Celsus exists today in the extant writings of the early Christian apologist Origen (c.185-254). Origen’s relating of Celsus’ claim is as follows: “[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having ‘invented his birth from a virgin,’ and upbraids Him with being ‘born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God. … when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera.’”28 The above passage contains several elements which were later incorporated into the Toledoth Yeshu, such as the name of the father (Pantheras, according to Celsus, and Pandera, according to the Toledoth Yeshu), Joseph’s abandonment of Mary, and Yeshu’s journey to Egypt and subsequent acquisition of supernatural abilities, after which he returns to Palestine and claims divinity for himself. Whereas minor revisions have been made (such as the identification of the father from a Roman soldier to a neighbor of Mary) and the base elements of the story being elaborated upon (such as the inclusion of specific miracles done by Yeshu, as well as his betrayal, arrest, execution, and supposed resurrection from the dead), the formula of the story remains generally intact from the time of Celsus to the composition of the Toledoth Yeshu. In borrowing from the Gospel account of Jesus, medieval opponents to Christianity merged the Gospel narratives with the later claim of Celsus, resulting in the conflated text presently under discussion. It is uncertain who Celsus had in mind when naming Panthera as the father of Jesus, although speculation has arisen that he was referring to Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera (c.22 B.C.- 40 A.D), a Roman soldier whose unit was stationed in Judea until 9 B.C.29 That, combined with

605

the fact that a Roman presence was in Sepphoris, near Mary’s hometown of Nazareth, around the time of Jesus’ birth in order to suppress a revolt there, may have given rise to Celsus’ version of Jesus’ birth. If this were the case, the morphing of Pantera’s name into Panthera may have been a play on the word “parthenos,” the Greek word for “virgin,” and it is assumed by some scholars that Greek Christians may have referred to Jesus as Yeshua ben Parthenos, or “Jesus, son of the Virgin.”30 Still, Pantera is a known Roman name from the first century, as attested by gravestone inscriptions. The earliest known suggestion that Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera was the Panthera of Celsus’ account does not come until the 1966 publication of Marcello Craveri's book La vita di Gesu.31 No ancient claim exists to substantiate Celsus’ proposition, nor does there exist any biographical information on Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera other than what is listed on his gravestone, which merely mentions his age and place and manner of service in the Empire of Rome.32 The fourth century Christian writer Epiphanius (c.320-403 A.D.) suggested that the name Panther was a nickname for Joseph based on his parentage, since his father was said to have been known as “Panther.”33 Likewise, in the seventh century text The Teaching of Jacob it is said that Mary’s grandfather was named Panther. According to Jewish historian Robert Eisler, the Toledoth Yeshu’s use of the name Panthera, or Pandera, may be an Aramaic modification of the Greek name Pandaros, a figure from Homer’s Illiad, whose actions served to betray the Greeks and bring calamity upon them.34 As a result, Pandaros’ name became synonymous with betrayal and was applied to individuals in order to portray them in a negative light. Consequently, the name “ben Pandera,” or “son of Pandera,” may be a means of derogatory identification for Jesus, naming him as the “son of the betrayer.” It should be remembered, as mentioned previously in this book, that sonship, in Judaic thought, was also used to refer to oneness of nature or character. So it was that Jesus was called the Son of God, since He possessed the essence of God. Likewise, men were called “sons of the prophets” not because they bore genealogical relation to the prophets, but simply because they held the same office and function as the prophets. Such an expression is not unlike an expression used in modern times when an ill-tempered child may be jokingly referred to as the “son of Satan.” It may have been in this same spirit that Jesus was called Yeshu ben Pandera, or son of the betrayer, since Jesus’ preaching was thought by the religious authorities of His day to be heretical. As such, Jesus could have been thought of as one who betrayed the religious system into which He was born, then establishing His own system of religion in its place. However, any such theorizing relating to the origin of the name Panthera, as used by Celsus, is purely speculative, as there is no conclusive way to determine exactly who he had in view or even if his reference was to an actual person or a figment of Celsus’ imagination. Celsus’ version of Jesus’ birth is not substantiated by any other early account. The Talmud

606

and Tosefta (a collection of Jewish law composed between the first and second centuries) mention a Yeshu ben Pandera, but the specifics of his birth is not given, other than that it was illegitimate. Self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey, who is often cited by Jesus myth proponents, professed that the identification of Pandera as Jesus’ real father “can be established beyond a doubt.”35 While the name of Pandera was an actual name in circulation in the time of Jesus, there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of a man named Pandera. Quite to the contrary, and for reasons cited previously in this work, the reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was the virgin-born son of Mary, as the Gospels declare. Jesus, son of ... Stadia? The Talmud also makes reference to a figure named Yeshu ben Stadia.36 Like Yeshu ben Pandera, Yeshu ben Stadia was said to have been the illegitimate son of a woman named Miriam who had an adulterous relationship with a Roman soldier. Since the name “Stadia” originates from the Aramaic phrase “satat da,” meaning “gone astray” or “to deviate,” many scholars perceive “Yeshu ben Stadia” as simply a reference to the son of a deviant and adulterous woman, without specific reference to the name of the child’s father. Such a belief is also expressed in the Gemara,37 an addition to the Talmud which was composed between 350-500 A.D. Unlike the name Pandera, there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that Stadia was a known name in circulation during the time of Jesus. Some scholars speculate that the identification “ben Stadia,” or “son of a deviant,” may have been used in a derogatory fashion similar to how the name “pen Pandera” may have been used to portray one in a negative light. As with Yeshu ha Notzri, the central figure in the Toledoth Yeshu, Yeshu ben Stadia was said to have learned magic in Egypt, then later stoned in Lod or crucified on the eve of Passover in Judea, ideas which later migrated into the Toledoth Yeshu. Is the name Yeshu interchangeable with the name Jesus? Aside from any considerations regarding dating or content, a key factor in determining whether or not the Toledoth Yeshu is an account which was used by the Gospel writers in their composition of the life of Jesus is the etymology of the name Yeshu. In other words, is the name Yeshu one which is synonymous with the Greek name Iesous, from which is derived the English name Jesus? Or, does Yeshu serve as a derogatory moniker or pseudonym rather than a person's given name? One position is that Yeshu is an acronym for a derogatory Rabbincal phrase used in reference to a heretic and which was employed in the Toledoth Yeshu as a means of providing a negative commentary on the person and work of Jesus, whose teachings were indeed regarded as heresy by the Jewish religious authorities of His day. Another factor to consider is the etymology of the title Notzri, and whether or not Notzri

607

is synonymous with the name Nazareth. Furthermore, can the Jesus of the Gospels be linked to a pre-Christian sect known as the Notzrim, of whom it is said that Yeshu, the central figure of the Toledoth Yeshu, belonged? These are some considerations which will be addressed in the paragraphs which follow. “Yeshu” or “Yeshua”? As stated above, the name Jesus is rendered as Iesous in the original Greek in which the New Testament was written. The name “Iesous” was not rendered as “Jesus” until the mid to late Middle Ages when Anglo influence affected the spelling of the name. The name Iesous itself is a Hellenized, or Grecian-influenced, version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Yehoshua literally means “to save” or “to deliver.” It is rendered in the King James and modern English versions of the Old Testament as “Joshua.” In the book of Numbers (13:16), Hoshea, Moses' successor as the leader of the Jewish people, was renamed Yehoshua, or “Joshua” in English, because of his role as the one who would bring an and end to the Hebrews’ forty years of wilderness wandering after their exodus from Egypt and lead them into the land promised to them since the days of the Hebrew patriarch Abraham (Gen 12:1-7). In Aramaic, the language spoken in Palestine during the first century, Yehoshua becomes Yeshua. In modern times, both names, Yeshua and Yeshu, are used as Hebrew names for Jesus. Because of the modern usage of the name Yeshu, as well as the phonetic similarity of the names Yeshua and Yeshu, Yeshu is considered today to be interchangeable with the name Jesus. However, within ancient texts, no concrete evidence exists to substantiate the name Yeshu as one which is interchangeable with the Aramaic name Yeshua. Although the name Yeshua is rendered as Yeshu in some manuscripts of the Tosefta (c.200 A.D.), such a rendering of the name may be due to the silence of the final consonant in the Hebrew Yehoshua and does not serve to testify to early usage of the name Yeshu as a name applied instead of Yehoshua. Furthermore, the Tosefta’s rendering of the name Yehoshua as Yeshu is not an exclusive rendering, since elsewhere in the text Yehoshua is also rendered as Yeshua. Also, it is the view of David Rokeah, Professor Emeritus at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, that the original rendering was Yeshua, rather than Yeshu.38 There has also been found a first century ossuary inscribed with the name Yeshu, however, it is believed the that such a rendering was due to lack of space where that particular name was inscribed on the box, since elsewhere on the same ossuary the name is inscribed as Yeshua.39 Finally, Elieser benYehuda, the father of Ivrit (the modern Hebrew language), in his introduction to Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis, the name of Jesus is mentioned eight times and in each instance the name is rendered as Yeshua, not Yeshu.40 So, how then, in modern times, did the name

608

Yeshua become synonymoous with Yeshu, if there is no solid evidence in antiquity to substantiate such an association? The most widely accepted explanation is based on the dialect of Galilee and comes from David Flusser, professor of Early Christianity and Judaism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in his book Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, in which he writes, “Jesus was a Galilean, and therefore the a at the end of his name, Yeshua, was not pronounced. His full name was thus Yeshua.”41 “Yeshu” as an acronym, not a name Aside from its modern usage as a name, Yeshu is also believed to be an ancient acronym for the Hebrew expression “yimmach shemo vezikhro,” literally translated as “may his name and memory be blotted out.”42 The phrase was used for heretics and enemies of the nation of Israel and is based on a divine mandate passed on through Moses. After receiving the Ten Commandments, Moses continues to receive further instruction from God which he would then pass on to the Jewish people. In the Law which Moses received, God commanded Israel as follows: “... make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.” (Ex 23:13) When Jesus claimed oneness with God He became a heretc, at least in the mind of the religious authority of the day. As a result, ancient Jews may have been forbidden to mention the name of Jesus, or Yeshua, since doing so would be speaking the name of one who was considered by non-Christians to be a false God. Rather, ancient Jews may have been requred to substiute the name Yeshua, or Jesus, for a more derogatory and defaming moniker such as Yeshu, in reference to above mentioned divine mandate. Such was the view of the seventeenth century German author Johann Andreas Eisenmenger (1654-1794) who also proposed that since Jesus did not prevent His own execution, He did not deserve to be called Yeshua, a name specifically referencing salvation or deliverance.43 It was also his belief that the Toledoth Yeshu utilizes the name Yeshu, rather than Yeshua, in the spirit of such a negative connotation. Is the title Notzrim interchangeable with the name Nazareth or the title Nazarene? As stated previously, in order to determine any association between the Gospels and the Toledoth Yeshu, another factor to consider is the etymology of the title Notzri. Yeshu is mentioned as “Yeshu ha Notzri” in several late medieval manuscripts of the Talmud, such as Sanhedrin 43a, 103a, 107b, Sotah 47a, Berachot 17b, and Avodah Zarah 16b-17a. The attachment of “ha Notzri” to the name Yeshu has given further rise to the association of Yeshu ha Notzri with the titles “Jesus of Nazareth” and “Jesus the Nazarene,” since Notzri is considered by some as a reference to Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown. It is also assumed by some

609

that Yeshu ha Notzri belonged to a pre-Christian Jewish religious sect known as the Notzrim. Those who regard the Toledoth Yeshu as a text on which the Gospels were based regard early Christians as adherents to this sect, thereby making Christianity a belief system which is not grounded in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth; but rather, in the Yeshu of the text presently under discussion, a figure who was neither God incarnate nor a redeemer. Therefore, it is important to consider whether or not the title Notzri is one which translates into the Gospels’ account of Jesus as a “Nazarene.” Does the title simply refer to the town to which Jesus’ family relocated after His birth, or does it serve to associate Him with a pre-Christian way of life and set of beliefs held by a particular sect? Or, are there yet other ideas which are signified by the term Notzri? The question which will be dealt with here is whether or not “Notzri” does in fact refer to a person from Nazareth, but I will first address various other theories concerning the meaning of the word “Notzri.” Following that, I will then address the sect of the Notzrim and any alleged relationship between that sect and Christianity. Theory one: “Notzri” as “netzir” – a reference to a branch In the Old Testament the Hebrew words “netzir” is translated as “branch” and is used as a title for the coming Messiah. In the Old Testament, the word is used to describe the Messiah as the “Branch of Yahweh” (Isa 4:2), the “Branch” (Isa 11:1) and “Root” (Isa 11:10) of Jesse (the father of David, who would become King of Israel), and a “Righteous Branch” (Jer 23:5). The word “netzir” literally means “offshoot,” and is used by Isaiah with a particular messianic connotation to the branches of an oak tree. An oak tree, after being cut down, still contains a stock from which the tree may regrow and sprout new branches, a fact which is also referenced in the book of Job: For there is hope of a tree, If it be cut down, that it will sprout again, And that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, And the stock thereof die in the ground; Yet through the scent of water it will bud, And put forth boughs like a plant. Job 14:7-9 In Isaiah, the imagery of the felled oak tree is used to communicate a promise to Israel that, although it be fallen (as the royal lineage of David was brought to an end and the Jewish people led into Babylonian captivity), a sprout – that is, the Messiah – shall come from within the fallen people, bringing restoration and new life.

610

And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him [cf. Mk 1:10], the spirit of wisdom and understanding [cf. Lk 2:46-47, 52]. (Isa 11:1-2 NASB) As Joseph, the youngest of Jacob’s children, became great in Egypt, and as David, a lowly shepherd, became a great king of Israel, so it was prophesied that the Messiah shall arise from a lowly estate bringing salvation and eternal fellowship with God. Although Jesus was of the legal lineage of David, He was not born to a wealthy king. Although He is worshiped in heaven and crowns cast at His feet, during His incarnation He was spat upon, mutilated, and executed as a criminal by both Jews and Gentiles. From His birth in a manger to His lowly rearing in Nazareth and His rejection by the Jews, Jesus truly arose from one low and despised to one crowned as the King of Kings and Prince of Peace. Jesus’ earthly humiliation may be that to which Matthew refers when he says that it was “spoken through the prophets, that [the Messiah] should be called a Nazarene.” (Mt 2:23) While the usage in the text clearly refers to Jesus’ place of rearing, there lies a secondary reference to the Messiah’s humiliation by His being referred to as a Nazarene (which shall be discussed shortly hereafter), as prophesied before His appearance among men. As the term “notzri” was used to refer to the Messiah as sprouting from within Israel, so could the term be correctly applied to Christians as an “offshoot” of Jesus of Nazareth, the True Vine (Jn 15:1-6), or to Christianity as an “offshoot” of Judaism itself. Theory two: “Notzri” as “Nazir” – a reference to a Nazarite or “holy one” A second meaning applied to the word “Notzrim” is that of a reference to one who has taken a Nazarite vow or has been separated from birth in service to God. The Hebrew word “nazir” is rendered in the Greek New Testament as both “hagios,” meaning “holy,” and “Naziraios,” meaning “Nazarene,” used in reference to one who has taken the Nazarite vow rather than one who is from the town of Nazareth. Likewise, “nazur,” the Aramaic equivalent of “nazir,” means to be “separate.” To be a Nazarite was to be “nazir,” or “holy,” and to be holy is to be separated from someone or something and unto another. The concept of holiness in Scripture, when used in reference to men, refers not to a divine nature, but to the quality of service that a

611

person renders to God and to the exclusion of any service which would be to the contrary. Holiness, therefore, is a type of service which is rendered to God alone, excluding any other master. Such is the subject of Jesus’ preaching in Matthew chapter six where He commands His followers to follow after the things of God rather than the things of the world, since service to one master (that is, the world) renders the subject incapable of service to another master (that is, God). Jesus said, “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Mt 6:24 NASB). Christians are called to be holy, or separate unto God, (2 Cor 6:17; 1 Pet 1:15-16) and to present themselves to God as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to Him (Rom 12:1). In the Old Testament, certain men, such as Samson (Judg 16:17) and Samuel (1 Sam 1:11), were called Nazarites because they were separated unto God (Num 6:1-21). In Samson’s case, he was separated unto God from birth, while others became Nazarites later in life. Likewise, in the New Testament, John the Baptist, before he was born, was separated unto God, since he would act in service to God, preparing the way for the coming Messiah (Lk 1:15). When the angel Gabriel announced Jesus’ birth to the virgin Mary, the angel declares that “the holy thing which is begotten [of Mary] shall be called the Son of God.” (Lk 1:35) Jesus of Nazareth was holy, not only because His humanity was inseparably linked to His divine nature as God, but also because He was born for the work of God – specifically for accomplishing the redemption of God’s people (Mt 1:21) and to reveal God the Father to man (Jn 1:14, 14:9). While Jesus did not live the life of a Nazarite as described in the book of Numbers (6:1-21), since He did not abstain from wine and contact with the dead, He was holy, or separate, in that He lived His life in obedience to the Law and in service to God. Theory three: “Notzri” as “nasi” – a reference to a royalty A third meaning applied to “Notzrim” is a reference to royalty – specifically, to that of a Prince – and is derived from the Hebrew “nasi,” a word also used in reference to royalty. In the second century the term was applied to one Rabbi Judah ha Nasi, or Judah the Prince. He was a religious leader in Judea and was of David’s royal lineage, thereby earning for himself the moniker of Prince, although neither he nor his father held any crown. The word “nasi” was also used as a title for presidents of the Sanhedrin, the judicial order of the Jews. Likewise, Jesus was of Davidic lineage and was prophetically referred to by Isaiah as the Prince of Peace. Therefore, it is

612

conceivable that such a title could have been used of Jesus by first century Jews. Theory four: “Notzri” as “Nazarat” – a reference to a person from the town of Nazareth The word “Nazarat” is a Hebrew word used to identity the town of Nazareth. It is believed by some that “Notzri,” or the plural “Notzrim,” is a reference to residents of the town of Nazareth. The New Testament is clear regarding Nazareth as Jesus’ place of rearing. [Joseph and Mary] came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that [Jesus] should be called a Nazarene. (Mt 2:23) After the death of Herod, Jesus' parents returned to Palestine and established their residence in Nazareth; therefore, throughout Jesus’ ministry He was referred to as a Nazarene (Mk 1:23; 11:47; 14:67; 16:6; Lk 4:34; 24:19; cf. Acts 24:5). The word translated as Nazarene in the above text is the Greek word “Nazorean,” which is a word used to refer to a resident of the town of Nazareth (it should also be noted that the second chapter of Matthew is largely concerned with geography and makes numerous references to locations in relation to the nativity of Jesus). Still, it is suggested by some that the term “Nazarene,” as used by Matthew, denotes something other than a reference to Jesus’ hometown and instead identifies Him as one associated with a pre-Christian Judaic sect known as the Notzrim, thereby furthering the argument that the Gospels’ account of Jesus of Nazareth is based on the Toledoth Yeshu’s account of Yeshu ha Notzri. A valid point which is made in the course of such a suggestion is that nowhere in the Old Testament is the Messiah prophesied to come from the town of Nazareth. Quite to the contrary, the only town mentioned in prophecy as the Messiah’s place of origin is the town of Bethlehem, as foretold by the prophet Micah (5:2). Some scholars believe Matthew was making reference to a prophecy not written in the canonical Scriptures. Still other scholars believe Matthew was referring to a “spoken” or oral tradition regarding Nazareth as the Messiah's hometown. However, elsewhere in his Gospel when making reference to prophecies in Scripture Matthew likewise describes the prophecies as being “spoken,” despite such prophecies being preserved in the writings of the prophets. It is also worthy to note that Matthew here strays from his usual formula when making reference to the prophets before him.

613

Throughout his Gospel he quotes from the Jewish Scriptures by referencing a particular text and prefacing his reference with variations of the phrase, “which was spoken by the prophet, saying ...” The formula is found here in his account of Jesus' nativity on no less then three previous occasions, as in the passages below: … that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying ... (1:22-23, referencing Isa 7:14) ... which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying … (2:14-15, referencing Hosea 1:11) ... that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying ... (2:17-18, referencing Jer 31:17) Departing from his usual formula of making reference to the prophets in the singular tense, Matthew here refers to the “prophets” - not to one prophet in particular, but to a general description of the Messiah found in the writings of prophets. It is likely that Matthew had in view the humiliation which the Messiah was foretold to endure, rather than a moniker by which the Messiah was foretold to be called. It was prophesied that the Messiah would be mocked and sneered at (Psalm 22:7), hated (Psalm 35:19, 69:4), cut off (Dan 9:26), and rejected (Isa 53:3). Still, Matthew states that it was prophesied Jesus would be “called” a Nazarene. In the first century to be called a Nazarene was to be in a place of disposition. Palestine was divided into the southern region of Judea and the northern region of Galilee. Judeans generally considered Galileans to be a lowly sort, a prejudice which is evidenced even in Scripture (Jn 7:52). The more rural life of Galileans and their less formal manner of speech marked them as an inferior form of Jew, at least in the mind of the inhabitants of Judea. Nazareth was situated in the region of Galilee and the town had for itself a particular negative reputation which exceeded the more general contempt that Judeans had for the northern Jews. A Roman garrison was stationed in Nazareth, which served to represent Nazarenes as ones who were sympathetic to the Roman oppressorsr, rather than as pure Jews.47 Even among Galileans, Nazarenes were looked down upon. So it was that Nathaniel, a fellow Galilean, doubted Jesus' identification as the Messiah simply because Jesus came from Nazareth (Jn 1:46). Likewise, in the United States there are cities and suburbs which bear the mark of a bad reputation, so much so that someone from such a place may at first perceived by outsiders as representative of the character of his or her

614

hometown, and so it was in the case of Nazareth. Such a negative image of the residents of Nazareth became so common that the title “Nazarene” was used as a word with which to express one's contempt for another, not unlike a wealthy Wall Street executive may look down upon a homeless “bum.” To be a “Nazarene” was to be rejected and despised, qualities which the prophets attributed to the Jews' reception of the Messiah, and it is in such spirit that Jesus was called a Nazarene. Even on the inscription placed above Jesus on the cross, the town of Nazareth was named, as a form of further humiliation and scorn. Although Jesus was not “called” a Nazarene in prophetic utterances, the fact that he was called a Nazarene during His lifetime served to further fulfill that which was spoken by the prophets, that He would be despised and rejected of men, without the town of Nazareth specifically being mentioned by prophets. Aside from the Greek word “Nazorean,” translated as “Nazarene” by Matthew, another word used in the Gospels to describe Jesus is the Greek word “Nazoraios,” which may be used in reference to a sect, such as in Acts 24:5 where Paul is referred to as a ringleader of the “sect of the Nazarenes.” Some have taken that passage to indicate that Christians were also referred to as Nazarenes, but the reference actually relates to a previous passage (Acts 21:23-26) in which Paul is instructed to accompany to the Temple four men who have taken the Nazarite vow upon them. Later, in the twenty-fourth chapter, Paul is then brought to trial for having supposedly profaned the Temple (Acts 24:6) by virtue of the activities of these Nazarites mentioned in the narrative. However, while the passage does not serve as a means to conclude that Christians in general were referred to as Nazarenes, the passage does testify that the term Nazoraios, or Nazarene, was used not only as a geographic identification, but also as a reference to a person or group of people without respect to their town of origin. So it was that those who had taken a Nazarite vow, as the four men mentioned above, were called Nazarenes. Still, later texts, post-dating the era of the Apostles, testify that “Nazarene” was eventually used to refer to Christians. So it is in the Canons of the Church of Alexandria (second to third century) where, in the tenth canon, it speaks of “those who wish to become Nazarenes (Christians).”44 Also, in the fourth century, Jerome defines a Nazarene as ones “who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law [referring to the ordinances and sacrifices established in the Old Testament].”45 The Catholic scholar Raymond Brown agrees that “‘Nazoraios’ is quite defensible as a

615

derivation form ‘Nazareth,’ … [but such a meaning] does not exclude a secondary messianic association of the term.”46 The above discussion served to bring to light that, while the term “Notzrm” can be linked to more than one meaning, with each meaning conceivably being applicable to Christianity, the meaning which is intended to be conveyed in the Gospels is that of a geographic designation. Simply, Jesus is called a Nazarene because He came from the town of Nazareth. Moreover, His rejection by men was, in part, due to His association with that very town. It was in this spirit that Matthew states Jesus was a Nazarene. Although Jesus was the “Netzir,” or Branch of Jesse, and although He was a “Natzir,” or Nazarite (holy one), and although He was a “Nasi,” or the Prince of Peace, the meaning which Matthew (as well as the other Gospel writers) is conveying is that Jesus was a Nazorean (Nazarene) from the town of Nazarat (Nazareth), and it is that town which He called home that served to further add to His humiliation, as prophesied long before His birth. What relation, if any, does the pre-Christian sect known as the Notzrim have to Christianity? The Notzrim were a Jewish Gnostic sect formed during the reign of Salome Alexandra (139-67 B.C.) and were geographically consolodated to Galilee, the narthern region of Palestine. As explained under a previous heading, Gnostics regarded themselves as possessors of a secret knowledge regarding a supposed “inner light” or spark of divinity which lies hidden in mankind. It is through the awareness of this spark that men achieve their true potential and find true spiritual freedom from the body, which Gnostics regard as a prison house for the soul. For the Gnostic, the material world and everything in it, including the body, represents corruption and death, whereas the world of the spirit is where truth and liberty reside. The word Notzrim comes from a Hebrew word “nosri,” which means “sentry,” “watcher,” or “watchman,” as it is translated in Jeremiah 31:6. So it is that adherents to Gnosticism regard themselves as keepers or guardians of a type of special knowledge of which only the enlightened come into possession. Although the Notzrim consisted of Jews, the members of this sect did not hold to the teachings and sacrifices of orthodox Judaism. They rejected the Hebrew Scriptures as the word of God and they did not take part in Temple worship and sacrifices. Additionally, they rejected the Law of Moses, believing that he had come into posession of a type of knowledge other than what is contained in the Penteteuch (the books of Moses, or Genesis throuigh Deuteronomy, in the English Bible). The Notzri movement was particularly popular among Samaritan Jews, who were generally held in contempt by non-Samaritans, so much so that Jews from the northern regions of Palestine would avoid traveling on roads passing through Samaria even though such an averted route

616

would usually take longer to travel and would, at times, be a more difficult route to take. The messianic expectations of the Samaritan Jews were unlike those of orthodox Judaism, being focused on a restoration of the northern kingdom of Israel,* whereas orhtodox messianic expectations were concerned with a re-unification of the scattered twelve tribes of the Hebrews and the restoration of the Hebrews as a national entity free from oppression, occupation, and captivity. The Notzrim regarded themselves as descendents of Joseph, Jacob’s youngest son who was sold by his brothers into slavery and later rose to power in the land of Egypt. As such, they prouded themselves as the “sons of Joseph,” which some have understood as the root of elements found in the nativity of Jesus, in which Joseph, the husband of Mary, claims the virgin-born Christ as his legal heir. Furthermore, in Matthew’s Gospel, the father of Joseph, Jesus’ step-father, is named as Jacob. Despite the commonality of the name Jacob, such a mention in Joseph’s geneaology is used as a means to further the proposition that the Gospels were a revision of beliefs held by the Notzri sect. However, the title “son of Joseph” was applied by the Notzrim to all within their sect, not just their presumed messiah. If all Notzrim were sons of Joseph, then there would be no significance in naming Mary’s husband Joseph since Jesus would already be a “son of Joseph” by virtue of His association with the Notzri sect. The central figure of the Toledoth Yeshu is based on the figure recognized by the Notzrim as the Messiah. However since factors which differentiate Yeshu ha Notzri from Jesus of Nazareth have already been considered, it does not bear to repeat them here, other than mentioning that Jesus preached salvation to all Jews, regardless of from which region of Palestine they belonged. Also, Jesus commanded His disciples to carry His Gospel beyond those of Jewish nationality and extended His disciples’ mission to those of Gentile origin, which does not at all fall in line with the Notzrim belief concerning the extent of the Messiah’s restorative work. Therefore, it is in error when one refers to a Noztri sect as a “Jesus movement,” since a true Notzri would reject the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the Gospel accounts. As a final note concerning any supposed relationship between the Notzrim sect and early Christianity, it is claimed by some that John the Baptist was actually a leader of the Notzri sect. This claim is made by the Mandaeans, who regard themselves as a continuation of the Notzri sect and list John the Baptist among their ancient teachers. The Mandaeans, also a Gnostic sect, include such a mention of John in the Haran Gawaita, in which it is said that John was initiated into their sect and became a keeper of the secret knowledge which Gnostics held in such high regard. However, according to Dr. E. S. Drower, a specialist on the Notzri movement, such mention of John is a late Arabic

617

inclusion to the original Aramaic text and does not reflect beliefs held during the first century.48 * After the reign of Solomon, David’s son, the unified kingdom of the Hebrew people was divided into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. As shown above, the accounts of the various individuals who came before Jesus and were considered candidates for Messiah, either in antiquity or in modern times, do not bear characteristics which would serve to inspire the Gospel writers to fabricate a Messiah based on one or more of the above men. Neither does any of these men fit the expectations listed in the previous section, where the Messiah is described as one who is superhuman, who acts with righteousness, and whose kingdom will remain forever, among other things. Josephus nicely sums up the character of these Messianic wishful thinkers in saying that they “deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were in fact for procuring innovations and changes of the government. These men prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.”49 Jewish Messianic expectations compared to the person and work of Jesus Having listed what expectations a typical pre-Christian Jew had for the promised Messiah, it will now serve to apply such expectations to Jesus, doing so not in terms of their intended Old Testament context; but rather, within the context of pre-Christian Messianic expectations. It will be shown that the Gospels' account of Jesus the Messiah is one that does not fit such prevailing pre-Christian messianic expectations. Had the Gospel writers pieced together their own Messiah, based on such expectations, in a Frankenstein-like fashion, the end result would have been a much different Gospel that that which has been handed down since the first century A.D. Each of the expectations listed above will here be considered individually, and their components applied to Jesus of Nazareth. Expectation 1: “He will from the town of Bethlehem and from the line of David, or the tribe of Judah, and be a ruler or prince, being without sin.” He will from the town of Bethlehem ... Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem, as indicated in the Gospels. However, there is no indication that He ever made that town a residence of His. On the contrary, Jesus spent His childhood in the northern town of Nazareth. Had the Gospels been fabricated, the portrait of the Messiah would likely have been a figure who made Bethlehem His central dwelling, given His Davidic lineage, the prophecy of Micah that the Messiah would come from there, and also Bethlehem’s close proximity to Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish religious structure. In contrast, Nazareth was a town of ill repute, and it is unlikely that the Gospel writers would have taken a fancy to such a hedonistic town as the location where they would place a Messiah of their own making.

618

… and from the line of David, or the tribe of Judah, … Jesus was of Davidic descent and of the tribe of Judah, so this one is dead on. … and be a ruler or prince, … The prophet Isaiah named the coming Messiah the Prince of Peace, and many times in Scripture He is identified as the Monarch over a spiritual Kingdom, however, since the expectation was that the Messiah would be an earthly ruler, this expectation would therefore not apply to Jesus. Jesus held no seat of earthly power, He bore no arms, and He overthrew no political power during His time among men. … being without sin. On the surface, it would seem evident that an expectation such as this would be correctly applied to Jesus, however, the reason for Jesus’ sinlessness is not synonymous with he reason ancient Jews believed the coming Messiah would be without sin. In the case of Jesus, His sinlessness was due to His deity, for God cannot have sin in Him, else His very nature and essence would be violated. However, in the mind of ancient rabbis, the sinlessness of the coming Messiah was not due to a oneness with deity, in whom no sin can dwell; but rather, due to a lack of belief in the doctrine of original sin, which states that every person is born with a sinful nature that prevents proper communion and relationship with God. Rather, it was believed that man was born merely with an inclination to evil, but that the nature of the man was not sinful in and of itself. Every person, they believed, had the potential within them to overcome this tendency to evil through the keeping of the Law, thus making a proper relationship with God something that is attained by merit rather than grace, thus earning God’s favor by virtue of his or her adherence to God’s Law. The New Testament makes it clear, on numerous occasions, that no one is justified by the Law; but rather, by grace, and Paul makes it very clear that no one is righteous until he is made righteous by God. (Rom chapters 1-6) Therefore, while the sinless state here under consideration does apply to Jesus, in that He was in fact without sin, this expectation cannot be properly applied to Jesus when taking into consideration the way in which ancient Jews applied a sinless state to the coming Messiah, for their reasons for doing so were other than the reason that Jesus was indeed without sin. Expectation 2: “He will be a prophet and priest of God, who will reveal the words of the Lord and be called the Angel, or Messenger, of the Great Council.” He will be a prophet and priest of God, … Jesus foretold things yet to come, not the least of which was His own crucifixion and resurrection, so He could rightly be said to have been recognized as a prophet during His earthly ministry. Concerning

619

His role as priest, this is a role which He performs in the heavenly tabernacle, of which the earthly tabernacle and Temple were a mere foreshadow. During His ministry, Jesus did teach in synagogues, but such was not uncommon for a man near, or over, thirty years of age, the age when a Hebrew male was considered fit for ministry or to be called a rabbi, or a teacher. However, Jesus did not hold the office of a priest. He never officiated a Temple sacrifice. He never entered into the Holy Place of the Temple built in Jerusalem by Herod the Great. In fact, during His ministry, He challenged the priests of the Temple, and even overturned the tables where money changers sold items for profit within the Temple. Therefore, of these two roles, prophet and priest, Jesus would have only been recognized by the public as a prophet during His ministry, and not a priest. … who will reveal the words of the Lord … Jesus did in fact make known the Word of God, as He is the personification of the Word. As Paul says, in Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily, therefore, He was not only one who made known the will of God, but, more so, He revealed the very person of God, being the second person of the Trinity. … and be called the Angel, or Messenger, of the Great Council. An examination of the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament, which was done in Part five, reveals the Angel and Christ to be one and the same, however, this was not revealed until after the resurrection, when Jesus made known to His disciples all that the Old Testament prophets said of Him. During His ministry, Jesus was referred to by numerous titles, but never as Angel or Messenger of the Great Council. To the public, He was most commonly called by the titles “rabbi,” or “teacher.” Expectation 3: “He will be a man who becomes king, who sits in a glorious throne and rules forever over many nations.” He will be a man … Jesus was indeed a flesh and blood human being, born to the virgin Mary. He did not merely appear to be a man – He was a man. … who becomes king, … The “king” here refers to one holding political power, which Jesus never did. While He is the King of Kings, His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly kingdom, as was the expectation of ancient Jews. … who sits in a glorious throne … Again, Jesus’ “throne” is in heaven, and was not an earthly throne, as the Messiah was expected to claim.

620

… and rules forever … Jesus’ crucifixion no doubt became a hindrance to many who believed Him to be the Messiah. Rather than overthrowing the might of Rome, Jesus was convicted as a criminal and executed by the very same political power that the Messiah was expected to overthrow. … over many nations. Jesus’ ministry was to the Jews. Following His resurrection He commanded His disciples to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles as well, but during His earthly ministry, Jesus is never said to have left Palestine. During His earthly life, Jesus never became king, He never claimed a throne, and He never ruled over nations, although in the end of days, every person of every nation will declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, and every knee shall bow before Him, either in reverent worship, or in fear and dread. Expectation 4: “His work will have nationalistic ramifications, in destroying heathen nations and gathering together the twelve scattered tribes of Israel, thus restoring the nation of God.” His work will have nationalistic ramifications, … Jesus’ ministry was known throughout Palestine, and following His resurrection, Christianity became a force to be reckoned with, not just in Palestine, but throughout the Roman Empire. However, after Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, the political arena remained in force – Pilate was still procurator of Judea, Herod was still king, Caesar was still Emperor, and the Jews were still under Roman oppression. … in destroying heathen nations … In the end times, Jesus, as the Great Judge, will judge every person from every nation, but as a man in the early first century, He never lifted a sword against His opponents. … and gathering together the twelve scattered tribes of Israel, … To this day, the twelve tribes of Israel are still scattered, and some are lost altogether. … thus restoring the nation of God. Until modern times, the Jewish people have not existed as a unified nation since the division of the Davidic monarchy into the northern and southern kingdoms centuries before Christ. Since then, Jews have been an oppressed people, whose national unity has been hindered by civil disrupt, exile, captivity, and foreign occupation. Even after Jesus passed from the scene, the Romans still occupied Palestine, and Israel’s restoration remained nothing more than a hope of things yet to come.

621

Expectation 5: “He will be a king sent from God, who will stand on Mt. Zion, judge and destroy the wicked with fire and blood, then set free a remnant of His people and build a new Temple.” He will be a king … As stated above, and kingship attributed to the coming Messiah by ancient Jews was a reference to an earthly kingship, which Jesus did not hold. … sent from God, … Jesus was indeed sent from God, but He was also God Himself. Still, as the Father’s Anointed One, this expectation rightly applies to Jesus. … who will stand on Mt. Zion, judge and destroy the wicked with fire and blood, … No such thing is described in the Gospels. This image was not attributed to Jesus until the latter part of the second century, when John penned his apocalypse. During His earthly life, Jesus did not judge and destroy His enemies with fire or blood. … then set free a remnant of his people … Jesus came to set the sinner free from the bonds of sin, but He accomplished no kind of deliverance for anyone from political oppression or bondage. … and build a new Temple. Such a thing is not described in the Gospels. Expectation 6: “He will be God's Son who will be called Son of the Most High, whose kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, but who will die after four hundred years, ushering in an apocalypse.” He will be God's Son … As stated in Part five, the identification of Jesus as the Son of God was due to His oneness, in nature and essence, with deity, rather than an act of being begotten or created by the Father. However, in Jewish thought, the title of Messiah as the Son of God did not entail such a concept. The Jews perceived themselves, as a nation, as both a son and servant of God. Since the Messiah, or the “Anointed one” of God, did the work of God, he was therefore regarded to be a servant of God, in an even greater sense than was the nation of Israel. Likewise, the Messiah was also bonded with Israel by virtue of his heritage, coming from the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David. Thus, as Israel was God's son, so was the Messiah – not because he shared in divinity; but rather, because he was to be a true son of the royal Jewish line. The

622

titles Son of God and servant of God were each rightly applied to both the nation Israel and the coming Messiah. … who will be called Son of the Most High, … Jesus was known as God’s Son, so this one matches up with the person of Jesus of Nazareth. … whose kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, … Jesus is Monarch over an eternal spiritual kingdom, but not over an earthly kingdom. … but who will die … Jesus did die on the cross. … after four hundred years, … Jesus lives to about the age of thirty-three. … ushering in an apocalypse. No apocalyptic event occurred when Jesus died. There were significant events which accompanied His death, events such as the rending of the veil, the darkening of the sun, and an earthquake, but nothing occurred that could rightly be called an apocalypse. Expectation 7: “He is separate from God, and He will be subject to God Himself.” He is separate from God, … Jesus, the Son of God, is one with God the Father. Both the Father and the Son share the same essence and nature, and are, along with the Spirit of God, together one being. … and he will be subject to God Himself. Jesus was subject to the Father in terms of the work of redemption, in that He gave Himself as the sacrifice for God’s people, as was the will of the Father. He also subjected Himself, as a man (not as God), to the power of the Holy Spirit, through whom Jesus of Nazareth performed many miracles. Still, the expectation among the ancient rabbis was that the Messiah would be inferior (to varying degrees, depending on which ancient rabbi to whom you would be speaking) to God in his person, not just in his work or office, therefore this expectation cannot be properly applied to Jesus, as one who possesses equality of being with the Godhead.

623

Expectation 8: “He will be given wisdom, power, and righteousness, and His reign will bring peace and righteousness.” He will be given wisdom, power, and righteousness, … Here it must be noted that the strength and wisdom of the Messiah, as expected by ancient rabbis, is that which is given by God, rather than being possessed intrinsically. Jesus, on the other hand, possesses the wisdom and power of God because He is God, not because such was imparted to Him. Also, the righteousness of Christ is an inherent aspect of His being – He has ever been, and will ever be, the one in whom righteous dwells. … and His reign will bring peace and righteousness. The peace provided by the work of Christ was a restoration of the union between God and sinful man. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross effectually formed an eternal treaty between these two opposing sides, but the work of Christ effected no peace between any two warring nations. While the work of Christ brought the Gentiles into covenant with God, thus forming a new, spiritual Israel of both Jews and Gentiles, it cannot be said that the union of these two ethnic groups ushered in an age of peace, for Jews and Gentiles remained at odds with one another, generally speaking. Even after the decades following Jesus’ giving of the Great Commission, whereby the Jews were commanded to preach to the Gentiles, there was dispute over the inclusion of Gentile believers within the body of Jewish Christians. Expectation 9: “He has an angelic countenance and will be called the Son of Man, with whom righteousness dwells, and he will depose kings.” He has an angelic countenance … Aside from His transfiguration where three of His disciples saw Jesus in His original glory, His countenance was of a poor carpenter, and with as much of a normal human countenance as anyone else. … and will be called the Son of Man, … The Gospels do indeed record Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man on numerous occasions during His ministry. … with whom righteousness dwells, … Ancient rabbis expected that righteousness would dwell “with” the Messiah, not “in” him. The righteousness of Jesus was an intrinsic righteousness, the righteousness of God Himself. … and he will depose kings. Jesus of Nazareth deposed no earthly king.

624

Expectation 10: “He existed before creation, He will be a light to the Gentiles, and all will worship Him on bended knee.” He existed before creation, … Jesus, as the second person of the Godhead, did take part in the creation of the cosmos, and did exist before creation. … he will be a light to the Gentiles, … Jesus was declared to be a Light to the Gentiles. … and all will worship him on bended knee. Many Jews worshiped Him on bended knee, but certainly not those who cried out for His crucifixion, so this expectation does not apply to Jesus. Expectation 11: “There will be more than one Messiah.” The notion of more than one Messiah is absolutely contrary to the Gospel accounts, as expressed in the words of the Apostle Peter when he declared that, “in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NASB) The above exercise considered a total of thirty-nine various characteristics which ancient Jews expected to be embodied in the Messiah of God. Of these, only ten rightfully line up, without any question, with the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus: That He would be from the line of David, or the tribe of Judah That He would be prophet of God That He would reveal the words of the Lord That He would be a man That He would be sent from God That He would be called Son of the Most High That He would die That He would be called the Son of Man That He existed before creation That He would be a light to the Gentiles Concerning the remaining twenty-nine pre-Christian messianic expectations, only three apply to Jesus, but when analyzed further, as explained above, do not apply to Him in the way that was expected by ancient Jews. That He would be from the town of Bethlehem That He would be without sin That He would be God's Son

625

In the final analysis, it would seem that the Gospel writers, had they sought to fashion a fictional Messiah, would have made him more in line with what was expected by the people at that time. The great differences between pre-Christian messianic expectations and Jesus the Messiah serve to further validate the historicity of the Gospel account of Jesus of Nazareth. Addendum: Concerning the coming of “Messiah ben Joseph” In the Babylonian Talmud there exists a reference to the coming of a Messiah so identified as “Messiah ben Joseph,” or Messiah, son of Joseph. This name appears three times in the ancient Talmudic text. Of these three reference, the earliest is found in Sukkah52a, b, which reads as follows: “And the land shall mourn family by family apart. The family of the house of David apart and their women apart” (Zech. 12:12). They said: Is not this an a fortiori conclusion? In the age to come, when they are busy mourning and no evil inclination rules them, the Torah says, 'the men apart and the women apart.' How much more so now when they are busy rejoicing and the evil inclination rules them. What is the cause of this mourning? Rabbi Dosa and the rabbis differ. One says: 'For Messiah ben Joseph who is slain'; and the other says: 'For the evil inclination which is slain.' It is well according to him who says, 'For Messiah ben Joseph who is slain,' for this is what is written, 'And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him like the mourning for an only son' (Zech. 12.10); but according to him who says. 'The evil inclination which is slain': Is this an occasion for mourning? Is it not an occasion for rejoicing rather than weeping?”50 Here, a Temple dialogue is recounted in which one Rabbi Dosa identifies the coming Messiah as the son of a man named Joseph and who will suffer and die, as foretold by Isaiah. No doubt this would strike the fancy of the mythicist who would gladly declare this text as proof that the Gospel account was nothing more than a fictional mix and match of various Old Testament prophecies and ancient Rabbinic literature. However, the dating of this text is post-Christian, being dated to c.250 A.D. and could therefore not have served as inspiration for the Gospel writers.

626

Conclusion Spiritual blindness: the true stumbling block According to The Zeitgeist Movie, "The fact of the matter is, there are dozens of virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world.” The present work has shown this supposed “fact” to be anything but factual, and contrary to Kersey Graves’ imagination, the world has not known “sixteen crucified saviors.” The true fact of the matter is that the evidence surrounding Jesus of Nazareth reveals that the account of His life as presented in the Gospels reflects an historical account of the incarnation of God in human flesh, born of a virgin, crucified, dead for three days, then rose from the dead, ascending to heaven where He presently serves as High Priest and Mediator in God’s everlasting covenant which He made for His elect. The length to which a person will go in an attempt to expose Christianity as a fraud is a testament to his or her spiritual blindness. Salvation comes through faith. If one has no faith, then regardless of how clear the truth is presented or how many evidences are shown to validate the Christian faith, the understanding of that one will remain darkened and the heart hardened against the truth. As one apologist stated, truth cannot penetrate their hearts and minds any more than a dart can penetrate a brick wall, simply because the surface of the wall is such that it is unable to receive the dart1 So it is true with the critic so steadfast in and devoted to his prejudice against Christianity. He is unable to see the light of truth because he does not want to see it, for in the seeing does his own shortcoming become evident. When faced with the reality of who God is, the natural result is the opening of the eyes to one’s own sin and need for a Savior. Yet, because of the grace of God, the story does not end with the sinner on his face before God, crying, “Woe is me, for I am undone,” as did Isaiah upon his vision of God’s glory. Rather, the nail-scarred hands of Christ extends to the sinner and raises him to new life in which all the former trespasses are forgiven and he who formerly stood as one guilty of the most reckless of abandon now stands as one named among the children of God. “The evidence is already there. The denial of Christ has less to do with facts and more to do with the bent of what a person is prejudiced to conclude.”2 The inevitable triumph of truth The fact that Jesus Christ is the world’s only crucified Savior is a fact in which everyone will eventually come to believe, but, for some, this belief will come past the point of no return. One day, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Even the critic most hostile to Christianity will one day face the very God he denies, but for him, when that day comes, there will be no hope – and he will have only himself to blame, having chosen in life to wallow in his own vomit and abandon the only hope he has for a blessed eternity. For now, those hostile to the Christian faith prefer to stand as archers with the points of their arrows aimed at the heart of the Christian faith. Yet, in the end, it will be truth, not the inventions of deceivers, which will conquer all.

627

“Who do you say that I am?” During Jesus’ ministry, He questioned His disciples concerning the various opinions circulating as to His identity, for some believed Him to be the prophet Elijah. He then asked His disciples who they believed Him to be, as narrated in Matthew’s Gospel, below: Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Mt 16:13-16) The most important question that everyone will need to answer is, “Who do you say Jesus is?” The answer to that question is of cosmic importance, for in the answering one either condemns his soul or receives grace and freedom from the guilt of sin. For this reason, the Biblically illiterate need to check everything carefully when making outlandish claims that the Gospel of Christ is nothing more than a myth, for the so-called facts on which their argument is based is nothing more than quicksand into which they will drown. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and the Gospel of Christ is logical, coherent, and reasonable. The critic would take heed to consider the truth of Christianity, lest he perish in his own misconceptions. The awful wrath of God There are three kinds of people: those who hold to the truth, those who seek the truth, and those who despise the truth. The first class need not fear death, for in dying are they raised to everlasting blessedness. The second class, if sincere in their quest for truth, will find the truth by which they will be set free. The third class, being so darkened in their understanding and deluded in their reasoning, should tremble in terror at the thought of death, for in dying they will face terrible wrath of God, by which they will be justly condemned for their own unbelief. As J.I. Packer stated, “As Judge, [Christ] is the law, but as Savior He is the Gospel. Run from Him now and you will meet Him as Judge then – and without hope. Seek Him now, and you will find Him, and you will then discover that you are looking forward to that future meeting with joy.”3 The nonsense of grace Why would God redeem man? Even more, why would He create man, only for man to turn his back on his Creator? To the human mind, this makes no sense, and yet, God has mercifully decreed it to be so. I am really not surprised at the fact that God knows everything, or is everywhere, or is all-powerful. God should be those things. That only makes sense. Someone who is so supremely sovereign and free and limitless should have those attributes. I don't know all the implications involved with saying that God knows everything, or that he is everywhere-present, or that he is all-powerful, but I do understand that He is and that He should be these things. If He was any less, that would be a cause for surprise. What does leave me stumped is His grace. Unlike grace, God's justice in condemning a covenant breaker makes perfect sense. He should punish those who break His covenant, which we all have done. The thing about Scripture that is absolutely nonsense to my mind is also that which is at the core of Scripture: grace. It is

628

not a wonder that unregenerate people do not believe the Gospel – it infinitely transcends that which understandable by a finite mind. What logic is there in condemning Jesus – the only one who has ever perfectly kept the Law in full obedience? What justice is there in giving the innocent plaintiff the death penalty and allowing the convicted defendant to go free, especially when you consider the depth and severity of the crime? Only God understands why He became man, bled and died, so that sinners would be set free. Grace is the one thing about God and His Word that is senseless. But, in being senseless, His grace truly does become the most amazing truth in the universe. I do not know why God redeems man, but if there’s one thing I do know, it’s that God is good and His promises are sure. The awesomeness of God Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe. (Heb 12:28 NASB) Christian churches sing, “Our God is an awesome God, ” but I cannot help but wonder how often those words grasp the mind of the worshiper. What does it mean to be truly awesome? The word is used so flippantly today. Many things are called awesome – a good movie, a book, a fun roller coaster ride, grandma’s home cooking, the list goes on. But, how often do these things, and others, really fill a person with awe? Do they paralyze the tongue and swell the eyes with tears? Scripture describes men who truly realized that God is an awesome God, and the effect that realization had upon them. When Isaiah saw a vision of God, he cried, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.” (Isa. 6.1-6 NASB) Likewise, the apostle John, when he received a revelation of the risen, glorified Son of God, he “fell at His feet as one dead.” (Rev 1:12-17 NASB) God is awesome, in the truest sense of the word. His grace is that which is beyond comprehension. His love is greater than any love man has ever known, and for this reason believers can proclaim His amazing grace, which can save the most wretched of sinners. When a person is confronted with the greatness of God, it is evident just how awesome He is, and it is this realization which brings one to lay himself bare before God and in utter helplessness. All of Grace Although man is unable to help himself, he is not without hope, for he is not left to lie with his face on the ground, but is changed and so completely transformed, so that he who was formerly clothed in his own righteousness, which is as filthy rags, is now clothed with the righteousness of Christ. He who was once ridden with sin is now made clean and spotless in the sight of God. He who was formerly found guilty and sentenced to everlasting damnation is now acquitted of all charges against him, freed from the sin which once held him chained and in slavery to sin, being then made as one worthy to abide in the presence of God. This worth by which he stands before God is not his own worth, but is the worth of the one who gave His life so that those unworthy can live in peace and joy with Him. This is what gives man cause to gaze in wonder at the grace of God, and stand in awe that such a one, infinitely holy, infinitely pure, and infinitely just would humble Himself as He did and bear the brunt of His own wrath against sin, so that

629

those whom He loves will never need endure such agony. That is the power of God unto salvation, the power which can cleanse the vilest of sinner, forgive the most wicked and repetitious sin, and give such a one a place of honor at His table. The second book of Samuel narrates an instance during the reign of King David when he took in Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, with whom David made a covenant. And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake? And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba, … and Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son, who is lame of his feet. And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, in Lo-debar. Then king David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, from Lodebar. And Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came unto David, and fell on his face, and did obeisance. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he answered, Behold, thy servant! And David said unto him, Fear not; for I will surely show thee kindness for Jonathan thy father’s sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father; and thou shalt eat bread at my table continually. And he did obeisance, and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am? Then the king called to Ziba, Saul’s servant, and said unto him, All that pertained to Saul and to all his house have I given unto thy master’s son. And thou shalt till the land for him, thou, and thy sons, and thy servants; and thou shalt bring in the fruits, that thy master’s son may have bread to eat: but Mephibosheth thy master’s son shall eat bread alway at my table. Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants. Then said Ziba unto the king, According to all that my lord the king commandeth his servant, so shall thy servant do. As for Mephibosheth, said the king, he shall eat at my table, as one of the king’s sons. And Mephibosheth had a young son, whose name was Mica. And all that dwelt in the house of Ziba were servants unto Mephibosheth. So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem; for he did eat continually at the king’s table. And he was lame in both his feet. (2 Sam 9:1-13) As David took in the lame, lowly son of Jonathan and gave to him all that was due to Jonathan, so does the God the Father take in all those whom His Son has redeemed, to make whole their infirmities and grant unto them the honor and blessings due to the Son, in whose name they stand before the Father, just and free. One preacher tells a story of a reporter speaking to a Christian, a Muslim, and an orthodox Jew and inquiring each concerning his eternal destiny. The reporter comes up to the orthodox Jew and says, “Sir, if you died right now, where would you go?” The orthodox Jew says, “Well, I’d go to paradise.” Reporter: “Why?” Jew: “Well, I love the law of God. I study the law of God. I meditate on the law of God. I’m obedient to the law of God.”

630

Reporter: “Okay. Makes sense.” [He] comes to the Muslim. “Sir, if you died right now, where would you go?” Muslim: “I’d go to heaven.” Reporter: “Why?” Muslim: “Well, I love the Koran. I obey the Koran, and I am a righteous man, and I’ve made the pilgrimages, and I’ve given alms to the poor, and I’ve done this and that. I am a righteous man.” The reporter goes, “Okay. Makes sense to me.” [He] comes to the Christian. “Sir, if you died right now, where would you go?” Christian: “To heaven, to paradise.” Reporter: “Well, why.” Christian: “In sin did my mother conceive me and in sin was I brought forth. I have broken every law that God has ever given. I deserve the every depths of …” Right there, the reporter stops and says, “Sir, you’re confusing me. The other two guys I understand. I asked them where they are going and they said they're going to heaven and they’re right with God. And I asked them why. Because they’re righteous men in themselves. They have virtue. They have merit. So, they’re going to heaven. Sir, I come to you and you declare with a smile on your face you’re going to heaven. And yet, you claim to have no virtue or personal merit before God. How are you going to heaven?” And the Christian says, “I am going to heaven based upon the virtue and the merit of another, Jesus Christ, my Lord. Nothing in my hands I bring.” The grace of God is free to all who come to Him. All one needs to do is come. A final word to the Christian Until the end of time, critics will present their arguments against Christianity. They will devise their arguments and craft them in such a way to appeal to the common layman. As Christians, it is our all-too-natural tendency to shun such arguments and regard them as simply the product of a darkened mind, thereby blindly clinging onto our own understanding and textbook answers to such objections. When the critic presents what he or she claims to be evidence against Christian beliefs, it is not enough to merely reply, “the Bible tells me otherwise.” How do you know that what you believe is true? Do you know whether or not you are understanding the Bible in its historical context? Or, are you settling for being spoon-fed from behind a pulpit? When seemingly solid evidence is presented by the critic, how is such evidence answered only by an appeal to faith? The evidence presented by the critic must be examined – not for your sake only, but also for the sake of your neighbor. When the critic claims, “Hey, I found Jesus' tomb!” it is not

631

enough to reply with a “Bah humbug” and say, “That can't be, because the Bible says Jesus rose from the dead!” As believers in Christ, it is our duty to meet these arguments face to face. If the evidence is indisputably solid, then pack up your Bible and become an atheist. If the evidence is faulty, then your faith will be made stronger. If the Gospel of Christ is true, then what have we to fear by considering the claims to the contrary? If fear keeps you from diving into such an investigation, then perhaps it is time to examine your measure of faith and determine if you believe what you do because it is what you were told or raised to believe, or because you have studied the Scriptures, sought out the proofs for Christianity, and know in your heart and mind that it is the truth. Too many Christians today suffer from a dumbed-down measure of faith that does not exceed much beyond a Sunday School level of understanding. Such a measure of faith is suited for children, but not for teens and adults capable of conducting an in-depth analysis of a topic. We should properly respond to critics by being open-minded in listening to their claims. However, do not confuse open-mindedness with naivety. In examining the critics' claims, it is sometimes best to approach the issue from a non-Christian point of view and play devil's advocate with your own faith. If the claims of the critic are invalid, then the evidence against them will surface and you will emerge with your feet more firmly planted on the solid rock of Christ. It is by faith alone that we are saved, but it is not by faith alone that we live. The Gospel of Christ is a rational and logical system of belief, and in the working out of one's faith, logic should not be shunned as a humanistic philosophy. Logic is based in truth, and truth comes from God. When Jesus appeared to Thomas, Jesus did not stand from across the room and say, “Believe it or not.” Rather, he called Thomas to touch His hands and see the nail prints in His hands, and He did this so that Thomas would believe. When Paul preached to the Greeks, he did not recite the words of Christ and simply hoped for the an affirmative response. Rather, he held dialogues with the Greeks, using reason and philosophy, and showed them from the Scriptures why he made the claims he did. Likewise, the Bereans, mentioned in Acts chapter seventeen, accepted the message of the Apostles with all “readiness of mind” and consequently searched the Scriptures daily to verify if what they believed was true. So should it be today. Claims against the faith should not be met with fear, discouragement, apathy, or predetermined resolve. Rather, such claims should be seen as an opportunity to put your faith to the test, for in so doing, not only may your faith be strengthened, but you may find that doors will open to present the truth to others, which is exactly what we, as Christians, are to do. Simply put, the church has fallen asleep, and it is time to awaken. If God be for us, who can be against us? A final word to skeptics and critics For those who are uncertain what to believe, or have already made up your mind that Christianity is a bunch of malarkey, then perhaps you have already fallen prey to one or more tactics used by those who denounce Christianity. The critic most hostile against the Christian faith is equipped with a utility belt full of snares, deceptions, and agendas. If you have determined that Christianity is false because of what you have heard in a documentary or have read in a book or magazine, then you have likely chosen the easy route to atheism or some other form of religion. As has been shown throughout this book, much of what has been said against Christianity and the authority of Scripture bears the character of deception or faulty research and assumptions, which ultimately lead to faulty conclusions. Just as the Christian should not settle for a dumbed-down version of his

632

faith, so should the skeptic or critic not settle for an uneducated form of atheism. Consider this: what if you are wrong? If so, when do you intend to validate your beliefs? As it is said in Scripture, there is a way that seems right to man, but the end thereof is the way of death. Contrary to prevailing notions, eternity is no laughing matter, and there is only one life in which to say yea or nay to Christ. If you have examined the evidence for yourself and, after thorough and honest research, you remain convinced that Christianity is a fraud, then nothing more can be said. Some people simply will not believe the Gospel, no matter what. If you fit that description, and if the reasons for your conviction do not constitute the same deceptions of critics as those delineated in this book, then it can only be urged of you to tread cautiously, lest you become ensnared further by such deception. Be sure that your convictions are not based on what has been inferred; but rather, what is indisputable. Do not be so devoted to your convictions that you fail to consider the alternative when new revelation is presented to you. Do not become disillusioned with Christianity based on the state of the church of the modern age, or by the televangelist who seeks to empty the pockets of his congregation rather than further the church of Christ, or by the Christian who wields a Bible as if it were a baseball bat. The Gospel of Christ is based on faith, but it is a personal faith. Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do men say that I am,” but the question did not stop after He received the answer, for He then asked, “Who do you say that I am?” One's verdict concerning Christ must not be based on either the Bible-thumping, over-eager Christian nor the critic claiming the Gospels are nothing more than fables. What does the Bible and the evidence say about Christ? Furthermore, what does it say about you and the world you live in? That is the Gospel of Christ, that “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believes on Him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (Jn 3:16-18)

633

The Journey Pilgrims in a foreign land Throughout the Bible believers have expressed their journey through life as a pilgrimage, and men of faith as strangers and pilgrims traveling in a foreign land. And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How many are the days of the years of thy life? And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years: few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage. (Gen 47:8-9) …and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things make it manifest that they are seeking after a country of their own. And if indeed they had been mindful of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city. (Heb 11:14-16) In The Christian Pilgrim, Jonathan Edwards states, “In confessing that they were strangers, they plainly declared that this is not their country; that this is not the place where they are at home. And in confessing themselves to be pilgrims, they declared plainly that this is not their settled abode, but that they have respect to some other country, which they seek, and to which they are traveling.”1 The concept of the Christian life as a pilgrimage is most vividly expressed in John Bunyan’s allegorical book The Pilgrim's Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come, first printed in 1678, and has since been translated into more than two hundred languages. Pilgrim’s Progress chronicles the travels of Christian, a man from the City of Destruction, who finds himself under the weight sin, depicted as a heavy burden borne upon Christian’s back. Christian is advised by Evangelist to journey to the Wicket Gate, where Good Will (later revealed to be Jesus) directs him to the “place of deliverance,” or the cross, where the straps which holds his heavy burden break, causing the burden to fall off his back. Upon being freed from his burden, Christian is given a passport to the Celestial City, or heaven, and his journey thereunto is chronicled in the remaining first part of Bunyan’s book. However, his journey is not without trials and anguish, as he must contend with such villains as Giant Despair and Apollyon, yet he is given companions, such as Faithful and Hopeful, to aid him in his journey to the Celestial City, a place where he arrives at the end of his story. The question remains: Why is it that the Christian life is depicted as a pilgrimage from a foreign land to a land more suited to his habitation? The answer lies in the transformation which a person undergoes upon placing his or her faith in Christ. When the Spirit of God calls a person and bestows faith upon him, by which he is awakened to his own corrupt condition, along with the desire to turn to God, his only hope of deliverance from such a condition, the man is changed to the uttermost. He is changed

634

from a child of wrath into a child of God, a transformation which Scripture speaks of as a remaking or rebirth into a new creature. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. (2 Cor 5:17 NASB) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10 NASB) This new identity in which the believer is fashioned connects him with Christ in an everlasting union, and results in the believer sharing in Christ’s possessions. It is said in Scripture that Christians are remade in the likeness of Christ’s righteousness, and share in the inheritance given to Him. We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4) The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him. (Rom 8:16-17) It is because of this union with Christ that the believer’s allegiance is altered and he is given a newfound citizenship in heaven. Whereas he was once bound to sin, in a natural state of condemnation, and alienated from heaven, he is now bound to God, reborn into a state of grace and blessing. What was once his natural habitation now becomes a land foreign to him, for his new home is the abode of God, a home from which he was formerly alienated, but now exists as his promised rightful inheritance. Until the day when that inheritance is made reality, the Christian lives as a pilgrim in his present land, awaiting the day when he will awaken to new life and see God face to face. In Scripture, this pilgrimage of the Christian is expressed in nationalistic terms, as when the believer is said to be a member of a holy nation, and an ambassador in his present world, an office which, by nature, requires the one holding that office to abide in a foreign land, as one representing the ruler of his true home. But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: who in time past were no people, but now are the people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. Beloved, I beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lust, which war against the soul. (1 Pet 2:9-11) So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners [with God], but ye are fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone. (Eph 2:19-20)

635

For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Phil 3:20) We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. (1 Cor 5:20) Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are. For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is. (1 Jn 3:1-2) The pursuit of God As pilgrims in a foreign land, Christians are to spend their effort and time in earnest pursuit of God, a pursuit which, once embarked upon, rewards the seeker with the abiding presence of God. Long ago, the Jews were once strangers in the land of Egypt and in bondage to an earthly master, only later to be called out of that land and into a land of promise, given them by virtue of their inheritance as the seed of Abraham. Likewise, the Christian pilgrim has been called out from his land of captivity and into a land of promise. Yet, his journey is not without challenge. As the Hebrew people left Egypt to spend forty years wondering in the wilderness, so does the Christian wander through this earthly realm, but he does not wander alone, for the Creator of the cosmos and the Redeemer of man guides his steps and gives strength in times of weakness. In the end, the seeking pilgrim will surely reach the land of his inheritance and dwell in the house of the Lord forever. If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth. (Col 3:1-2) As the hart panteth after the water brooks, So panteth my soul after thee, O God. (Ps 42:1) O God, thou art my God; earnestly will I seek thee: My soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee, In a dry and weary land, where no water is. (Ps 63:1) And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. (Jer 29:13) One thing have I asked of Jehovah, that will I seek after; That I may dwell in the house of Jehovah all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of Jehovah, And to inquire in his temple. (Ps 27:4) Such is the journey upon which the Christian embarks, but what it is that sets his feet upon such a path? As Bunyan’s Christian was given a passport to the Celestial City, so does the believer in Christ receive the Spirit of God as the guarantee by which he is assured that there is an everlasting rest at the end of his journey. Still, what is it that sets

636

his sight on such a pursuit and urges him to fervently engage himself in matters respecting this quest? The story of the Christian pilgrim is a story of grace and love, of freedom from bondage, of death and new life, and of an everlasting habitation before the face of God. It is the greatest story ever told, for it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. “In the beginning . . .” In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). As the culmination of His creation, He fashioned man in His image, and man lived in perfect fellowship with God, enjoying unhindered union and communion, free of all shame (Gen 1-2). God gave one ordinance: that man should not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So long as man lived in obedience to the law of God, his relationship with God remained unbroken. This is the fellowship that God desires of His people, that they live free of guilt, shame, and death. A people in exile Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, succumbed to temptation and broke the law of God (Gen 3:6). In so doing, they became so alienated from God that all former union and communion was completely eradicated, replaced with shame and guilt. Their very nature became corrupt, thus meriting the righteous anger of God for their sin, the consequence of which was certain death (Gen 2:17). The sin of man requires his blood and, consequently, his life.(Heb 9.22) Following their sin, a curse was placed on man and his every succeeding generation, (Romans 5:12-14) so that they shall live a life foreign to God, as ones in exile from their former state of fellowship with God, only to suffer death in the end. It is because of this curse that every person is born in a state of sin, (Ps 51.5) spiritually dead to God, but “alive unto sin.”(Rom 6.11) The vanity of fallen man is most expressed in his contentment with his present state of being, in living a life foreign to that which he was created to lead – a life without the abiding presence of God. Man’s inability to embark on the journey Having set himself on a path of destruction, man then became unable to right his wrongs, to regain his footing on the path of righteousness. Still, he tries his best to set his path straight. This he does by attempting to perform good deeds, think proper thoughts, and have proper desires, however, only blood can provide the required payment as the penalty for iniquity, and so man remained sinful, despite his most earnest effort to restore communion with God. (Rom 3:23) In an act of grace, it was promised to man that one day God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, would right the wrongs done from the heart of man, (Jn 1:29) since the righteousness gained by man, through good deeds, is righteousness in man’s eyes only, but to God, is as filthy rags. (Isa 64:6) With respect to the promise of a coming Deliverer, God instituted a sacrificial system, in which man offered the blood of animals as a sacrifice for sin. (Lev 4:27-31) These sacrifices served only as a shadow of the coming reality, for the blood of lambs was not sufficient to eradicate man’s guilt. Rather, they served to make man aware of his sin and to give him hope in the one future sacrifice by which man’s guilt would be completely wiped clean. So it was that man continued for many of his generations, living under the shame brought by sin, but in faith and hope in the coming Messiah who would save them.

637

The way to the Promised Land One day, in a small village named Bethlehem, God took on human flesh and was born of a girl named Mary. He grew as would any other boy, yet with the knowledge that He was sent to be the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. As the GodMan, he gained many disciples and performed miraculous works. Still, He was rejected, for He did not meet the Jews' preconception of what the Messiah should be like, since Jesus was a man with no home of his own and from a poor family. The life Jesus lived was a life of perfect obedience to the Law, (Mt 5.17) a life which man became unable to live after his fall into sin. It is often said that Jesus was “born to die,” and it was in His eventual crucifixion that He was offered as the spotless Lamb, not shedding His blood for sin of His own, but for the sin of whose whom He came to save. (Lk 24.45) Having shed His innocent blood for the sin of others, He cried, “It is finished,” and with that declaration, the work of man’s redemption was accomplished. The salvation that man could not earn for himself was then earned for Him, by the only one who did not share in man’s guilt. This is why God became man, that He could shed His own blood and provide a sacrifice which held enough value to cleanse man’s sin. (Heb 9.13-14) However, the story does not end with the cross, for three days later, He arose from His grave in complete victory over the curse of death, (Jn 20-21) and not for Him only, but for all those whom He came to redeem. In His death, He guaranteed salvation for His people, and in His resurrection, He provided the surety of His claim to be the Lamb of God, for if Christ were not risen, then Christians would be without hope entirely. Journeying down a better road Having provided the perfect and effectual sacrifice for man’s sin, man is now drawn to God upon the leading of the Spirit of God. Man no longer needs to strive to perform works unto the attainment of salvation, for Jesus performed the work Himself. All that now remains is to trust in His work and cling to Him by faith. Salvation has been provided for man, and by man’s faith is that salvation applied to man’s account. Once this salvation is applied, the man becomes a new creature, no longer a slave to sin, but free unto God, and made a citizen of heaven. This is where man embarks on his pilgrimage, from this world to a better world, a world where God and man can once again speak face to face and walk side by side, man being able to see God as He is. It is this goal which the Christian pursues, for such a life is so much greater than even the life of the wealthiest of earthly kings. As Edwards stated, “Therefore it becomes us to spend this life only as a journey towards heaven, as it becomes us to make the seeking of our highest end and proper good, the whole work of our lives, to which we should subordinate all other concerns of life.” The contentment that man once had for the land in which he had his former citizenship is now replaced with a longing for his new home, a home for which his journey is now set. Along this journey, and having his hope set on that which is to come, all earthly pleasures should become as that which passes with the blowing of the wind, for in them rests not the hope of eternity with God. The pilgrim is then equipped with all that is necessary for the journey, being equipped with the armor of God and a heart turned from stone to flesh. Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let

638

us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb 12:1-2) Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore take up the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; withal taking up the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Eph 6:10-17 NASB) As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby. (1 Pet. 2:2) Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:31) Journey’s end As Bunyan’s pilgrim finished his journey and entered into the Celestial City, so shall the Christian enter into everlasting, either as a good and faithful servant or as one who has never entered into a personal relationship with the King of the universe. The work of Christ was a perfect sacrifice; therefore, the Christian has the surety that the blessing conferred by virtue of that sacrifice is his everlasting possession. “They shall hunger no more nor thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne, shall feed them and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” (Rev. 7:16-17) All that it takes to begin this pilgrimage to heaven is to place your trust in the sacrifice of Christ as the perfect sacrifice for sin. Confess yourself as a sinner before God and believe that Jesus is the only hope for your salvation. Such a confession does not involve praying in “thee’s” and “thou’s,” as expressed in the old English versions of the Bible. All that is takes is faith, for by grace are you saved, through faith, not of yourselves. It is the gift of God. Confess –Believe – Trust – Hope. That’s the simple truth. Salvation is free to all those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that there is salvation in no other name but His. For questions or more information on what it is to become a Christian, please write to [email protected]

639

The Author's Creed: The Death and Life of Man Part I - Considerations preliminary to the study of grace Article One; On Divine revelation and the authority of Scripture God, out of his eternal purpose1 and gracious pleasure2, chose to communicate Himself to man through two means. The first, by instilling within all men a general revelation of the reality of God3. This revelation consists of a sense of providence throughout history4, a sense of morality within man's conscience5, and a sense of Divine intention for the created order6. Through this revelation, mankind may perceive a First Cause by which the universe originated and remains governed7. The second, by extending to His elect8 those whom He would redeem9, a special revelation of the Divine nature10. This revelation is passed through the entertainment of angels unaware11, through the emotions and mental faculties endowed to man12, through miracles and other alterations of the laws of nature and reason13, through personal experience wrought in the lives of men14, and through His eternal15, innerent16, inspired17, and all-sufficient Word18. Through this special revelation, those individuals whom He has chosen19 to draw towards His saving grace20 will surely receive21 the means necessary22 by which they are brought into covenant with God23. Article Two; On attributes peculiar to the Divine nature The triune24 and eternal25 God, existing and consisting in and of Himself26, in whom all His faculties and attributes form a unified and perfect whole27, foreordained all things, events, causes, and effects both physical and spiritual28, good and evil29, throughout all of history30, doing so without afterthought or change of will31, so that all things work together for His good purpose32. Through this fore-ordination33, God exercises sovereign control over all, so that His every determination will surely come to pass without deterrence, hesitation34, or challenge35, not having to contend with any power equal to or all-encompassing as His36, thus effectually accomplishing every initiation and succeeding means toward His perfect intended end for all things37. Article Three; On the nature of man God, the Creator of all things, at the predetermined time and for His glory and pleasure38, formed the heavens and the earth and all that is within them, in a state of maturity and perfection39, out of nothingness40 in six literal days41. He has since then directed all things and events through His providential determination and control42, being transcendent43, yet immanent44, to His creation. As the consummation of this creation, He formed man45 through a union of things both material and immaterial46, into whom was placed the image of his Creator47, that is: the endowment of communicable attributes of the Divine nature into the faculties of the spirit48, the intellect49, the affections50, the conscience51, and the will52. Article Four; On the depravity of man From his germination within fallen Adam53, every man has inherited upon conception54 a nature that is absolutely removed from its original state of communion

640

with his Creator55 and is now bound by this deformed sinful nature56 to seek after what is against that original communion57. The resulting corrupted state changed man into being no longer able to employ the faculties of the intellect58, desire59, or will60 toward the direction of spiritual good, thereby condemning man61 to receive the just consequence62 of such an abandon, that being the eventual physical death of the body63, the functional death of the soul and spirit in relation to true communion with God64, and, ultimately, the casting of the whole of fallen man into a state of eternal damnation65. Part II: The means of grace Article Five; On the election by the Father God the Father66, before the foundation of the world67, chose out of the corrupted pool of humanity68, as yet uncreated69, a specific number of people70 towards whom He would direct His love71 and adopt as His own72. This adoption comes through their justification from73 and forgiveness of sin74. This forgiveness comes not based on their own merit of faith75 or works76, but based solely on the purpose and pleasure of His will77, thus granting His elect a gracious pardon from the damnation78 for which they should have been justly sentenced79. Consequently, God would pass over the remainder of humanity80, recompensing to them the just measure of Divine wrath for their sins81, thus leaving the reprobate on the course for destruction on which they have been set82. Article Six; On the atonement by the Son God the Son83, in humble submission84 to the will of the Father85, took upon Himself86 the form of sinless humanity87 being born through virgin birth88, while yet retaining His deity89. In taking on the image of corrupted humanity, He gave Himself90 as the substitute91 for the Father's elect92, assuming for Himself the wrath of God which had been merited by fallen man93. Through His sacrifice as the unblemished Lamb of God94, the elect of God would surely95 be redeemed96, cleansed97, and purified98 wholly99, and once for all100 by His atonement101, through the shedding of His blood on the cross102. The work of providing salvation for the Father's elect was finished by their crucifixion for their sin through union with Him on the cross103 and by their resurrection to new life through union with His resurrection from the dead104, thus securing salvation and all the benefits procured by it105, for those whom the Father pleased to redeem through the Son's atonement. Whereas the elect of God was once represented by fallen Adam through their union with him in his sin and condemnation106, they are now represented by the sinless Son of God through their union with him in his paying of the penalty for sin and in his final glorification107. Thus, all those for whose sins the Son had provided atonement will one day be presented before the Father108, as sons109, in everlasting glorification110, while the remainder of humanity will be presented before the Father, as workers of iniquity111, to receive the just damnation for their sin112. Article Seven; On the call by the Spirit God the Spirit113, in perfect agreement with the will of the Father114 and in obedience to the Son's atonement115, moves toward each of the Father's elect to bring about predetermined events and actions in each of their lives116, thereby leading them to their appointed time of regeneration117. Upon regeneration, the elect individual is given the gifts of faith118 and repentance119, thereby altering his desires120 unto that which is proper

641

towards communion with God121, giving him a true knowledge and understanding of God122, and enabling his now regenerated will to freely123 in submission and agreement to that which the Father has chosen to bestow on him124. Consequently, the individual now desires nothing but to accept the grace given to him125 and the salvation secured for him126, thus ensuring that none of those will be lost for whom the Son made atonement127. Upon the acceptance of this grace, the Spirit baptizes the individual128 into the Son's death129, burial130, and resurrection131, thus appropriating the work of the Son on his behalf132 and forever sealing the redemption obtained for him133. Part III: The preservation of grace Article Eight; On covenant blessings God, through succeeding and progressive stages134, brought Himself135 into an eternal covenant with His elect136, instituting the sacrament of baptism as the sign of the covenant137 and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper as the memorial of the covenant138. In the keeping of His covenant with man, God bestows upon His elect all the benefits and blessings encompassed within the bounds of that covenant139; those being: the eternal preservation of His people140; progressive freedom from sin141; restored communion with God through the indwelling Spirit of God142, along with the gifts143, and the fruit144 the Spirit brings with Him; identification and union with Christ in His death145, burial146, resurrection147, and glorification148; the blessing of God's power and strength149; an enlightened revelation of the Divine nature and purpose150; access to God151 and all the treasures embodied within Him152; freedom from ceremonial laws and practices regulating communion with God153; and unity among fellow covenant partners154. Article Nine; On the regenerate nature of man The renewed man155, having been called into covenant with God156, and his intellect, will, and desires now being free from the bonds of sin157, is able to comprehend that which is spiritual158, choose that which is proper to communion with God159, and desire that which is good and attaining to such communion160. In his renewed nature, man then evidences fruitfulness resulting from the Spirit's call unto salvation161, such fruitfulness being: a proper relationship with nature162, the relinquishment of the faculties of the whole of man to communion163, comprehension164, affection165, pursuit166, and submission167 with respect to God168, and the acceptance of responsibility in regards fellow man169, along with the diligent pursuit of virtues proper to that responsibility170. Should any of God's elect abandon such pursuits in accordance to his regenerate nature171, God brings to light his abandonment through diligent chastising, as a loving Father to a son172, all along never abandoning His own promise to one day bring him into renewed fellowship, nor ever releasing his elect from the saving grace bestowed upon him173. Article Ten; On the kingdom of Heaven Upon His ascension to Heaven174, having secured the salvation of the Father's elect175 and fulfilling the condition of the covenant God made with His elect176, the Son claimed Lordship177 over His kingdom, that is, His church178, bringing into it, through the predetermined means of prayer179 and the spreading of His word to all nations180, those who were included within that covenant181. Upon the completion of this covenant and at the predetermined time182 He will return to gather unto Himself the bodies of all God's

642

elect, both living and dead183, and present them before the Father184, who will distribute unto them rewards and blessings185, according to the measure of individual thoughts186, words187, and deeds188 directed toward the glory of God189, while distributing to the remainder of humanity the justice of Divine wrath190 as retribution for their sin191, thus attaining them to the torments of Hell192. As the final act of redemption God will initiate the final cleansing and purging of the earth193 and the consummation of His kingdom194, bringing the world to its intended end195, that being: the renovation into a new creation196 and the institution of eternal197 unhindered198 union and communion between God and His people199.

643

About the Author Michael holds a bachelor's degree in commercial art and has been a lay student in theological studies for more than twenty years. Presently, Michael is a candidate for a Master of Divinity degree. He has spent the past decade working on various book projects with friend and fellow artist Jonathan Myers. He is also the graphic designer for a card game based on Tom Kidd’s masterwork Gnemo. In the year 2000 Jonathan and he founded Ambition Studios, through which they published the black and white graphic novel Swamp Fox: Birth of a Legend, a Disneyesque revision of the adventures of Revolutionary War hero Francis Marion. The project received critical acclaim through local media and industry reviewers, and is currently being remodeled into a full color book. In November 2008, Michael formed Light and Life Graphics, through which he published his first book A Sure Foundation: Answering the Charge Against Christianity. A proficient oil painter, he continues to work on projects of his own making, as well as in conjunction with other studios. Formerly a Pittsburgh, PA native, Michael currently resides in upstate New York with his five cats: Toby, Pippin, Merry, Mooch (the stray), and Nikki, and is the proud uncle of two nieces, Emily and Sara, and a nephew, Matthew.

644

Notes Introduction 1. Smith , Jonathan Z The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mircea Eliade, Article titled "Dying and Rising Gods", volume 4, New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986. pp. 521-522. 2. <www.zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm> Accessed August 10, 2008. 3. Accessed August 10, 2008. 4. <www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm> Accessed August 11, 2008. Part 1: Gospel or Myth? Virgin birth 1. Plutarch. A Hymn to Osiris and a Legend of the Origin of Horus. <www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg22.htm> July 16, 2008. 2. Article from History News Network, Accessed July 16, 2008. 3. Plutarch. On Isis and Osiris, Moralia V, 18. 4. Lesko, Barbara S. Great Goddesses of Egypt. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999. p. 162. 5. Dunand / Zivie-Coche. Gods and Men in Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. p. 39. 6. Acharya S, The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist Part 1. Seattle: Stellar House Publishing, 2008. p. 41. 7. ibid., p. 39. 8. Plutarch, op. cit., ch. 9. 9. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 40. 10. ibid., p. 39.

645

11. < egyptianmyths.net/neith.htm> Accessed December 30, 2008. 12. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis> Accessed January 1, 2009. 13. Acharya S, op. cit., p.42. 14. Mahabharata, 12.68. 15. Srimad Bhagavatam, 10.2.17-18. 16. ibid., 10.3.15 17. 17. <www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/arefutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1> Accessed July 13, 2008. 18. Clauss, Manfred. The Roman Cult of Mithras. New York: Routledge, 2001. pp. 62-63. 19. Commodianus, Instructions 13. 20. Encyclopedia Britannica. Article entry: “Mithraism” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2004. 21. Clauss, op. cit., p. 168-169. 22. Pausanias, Description of Greece 7.17.8. 23. ibid., 7.17.10-12. 24. Euripides, The Bacchae. 25. Encyclopedia Mythica, Article titled “Zeus”, <www.pantheon.org/articles/z/zeus.html> Accessed December 8, 2008. December 25th date of birth 1. Plutarch, op. cit., ch 65. 2. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/attis.html> July 23, 2008. 3. <www.experiencefestival.com/a/Krishna_Janmaashtami_-_Date/id/593952> Accessed July 23, 2008. 4. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html> Accessed July 25, 2008. 5. The New Catholic Encyclopaedia Vol. III, 1967 edition, p. 656.

646

6. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2.1.3. 7. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 17.8.1. 8. Brown, William. The Tabernacle: Its Priests and Its Services. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. p. 129. 9. Ramsay, Sir William. Was Christ Born at Bethlehem. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. p. 193. 10. Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1930. pp. 240-243. 11. Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67. 12. Acharya S, op. cit., p.24. 13. Accessed January 12, 2009. 14. Accessed January 12, 2009. 15. Acharya S, op. cit., p.25. 16. ibid. 17. ibid., p. 33. 18. ibid. His mother was named Mary 1. <www.touregypt.net/featurestories/mut.htm> Accessed December 12, 2008. 2. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneith> Accessed December 12, 2008. 3. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 36 4. ibid. 5. Ovid, Metamorphoses, 10.298-518. 6. Buddha-karita, 1.9, 15, 19-20.

647

7. Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993. p. 104. 8. Acharya S, op. cit., p.40. 9. ibid., p. 44. 10. <www.ankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/the-Jesus-family-tomb/theJesus-family-tomb-9-facts-that-disprove-discovery-channel-lost-tomb-ofjesus.htm> Accessed December 12, 2008. He was born in a manger or a cave in the “house of bread,” also translated as “Bethlehem” 1. Strong, James, S.T.D. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007. 2. <www.egyptianmyths.net/horus.htm> Accessed July 21, 2008. 3. Targum Jonathan on Micah 5:2 in the Tanakh. 4. Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth. 5. Abarbanel, Mashmiah Jeshua, fol. 62, c. 2. 6. Edersheim, Alfred. Sketches of Jewish Social Life. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. p. 49. 7. Josephus, op. cit., 8.1. 8. Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962. p.97. At age thirty, He began His ministry after being baptized 1. Acharya S, op. cit., p.19. 2. ibid., p. 18. 3. ibid., p. 22. 4. ibid.

648

He had twelve disciples 1. Encyclopedia Mythica, Article titled “Horus”, <www.pantheon.org/articles/h/ horus.html> Accessed July 13, 2008. 2. <www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message436598/pg1> Accessed July 13, 2008. 3. Accessed July 13, 2008. 4. <www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/arefutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1.html> Accessed July 14, 2008. 5. Acharya S, op. cit., p.19. He performed miracles, such as walking on water or turning water into wine 1. Pausanias, op. cit., 6.26.1-2. 2. Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 2.106. He was known by titles such as “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega” 1. <www.touregypt.net/featurestories/horus.htm> Accessed August 2, 2008. 2. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 12. 3. ibid., p. 13. 4. ibid., p. 14 5. ibid., p. 23 He held a communal last supper with His disciples 1. Clauss, op. cit., p. 109. He was crucified 1. <www.earth-history.com/Egypt/Legends/gods-30isis.htm> Accessed July 23, 2008. 2. Mahabharata, 16. 4. 3. Ovid, Fasti, 4.221.

649

4. <www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/A/Atys.html> Accessed July 23, 2008. 5. Pausanias, op. cit., 7.19.9-12. 6. <www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/A/Atys.html> Accessed July 23, 2008. 7. Pausanias, op. cit., 7.17.9-10. 8. Herodotus, Histories 1.34-45. 9. Arnobius, Adversus Gentes, 5.5-7. 10. <www.tektonics.org/books/jesmystrvw.html> Accessed July 24, 2008. 11. Guthrie, W.K.C. Orpheus and Greek Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. p. 265. 12. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 43. 13. Accessed August 4, 2008. Concerning the constellation Crux as being the supposed origin for the crucifixion of Jesus 1. Ptolemy, Amalgest, 8.1.H161-162. 2. <www.xanga.com/JB_Fidei_Defensor/638110989/zeitgeist-rebuttalspeech.html (cf. Ptolemy, Amalgest, 8.1.H161-1622) > Accessed Aug 14, 2008. 3. <www.preventingtruthdecay.org/> Accessed August 15, 2008. He was dead for three days 1. Mahabharata, Book 16.4. 2. Accessed August 18, 2008. 3. Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers; 1st edition , 1991. p. 1475. He was resurrected from the dead 1. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 14.

650

2. ibid. 3. <www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Krishna> Accessed August 23, 2008. 4. Mahabharata, 16.4. 5. Ovid, op. cit., 4.221. 6. <www.theoi.com/Phrygios/Attis.html> Accessed August 23, 2008. 7. Pausanias, op. cit., 7.19.9-12. 8. <www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/A/Atys.html> Accessed August 25, 2008. 9. Pausanias, op. cit., 7.17.9-10. 10. Herodotus, op. cit., 1.34-45. 11. Arnobius, op. cit., 5.5-7. 12. Gasparro, G. Sfameni. Soteriology: Mystic Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and Attis. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1997. p. 198. 13. ibid., p. 198. 14. Firmicus Maternus, Error of the Pagan Religions, 3.1-2. 15. <www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm> Accessed August 28, 2008. 16. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, p. 203. 17. Schaff, Philip, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, ch 40. AGES Software. 18. Spiedel, Michael P. Mithras-Orion, Greek Hero and Roman Army God. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1997. p 172. 19. McGrath, Alister. Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993. p. 121. 20. Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1994. p. 101.

651

Concerning Sunday as the sacred day of worship 1. Rosen, Ralph Mark, ed. Time and Temporality in the Ancient World, University of Pennsylvania Press. 2004 pp.192-207. The Unusual Suspects 1. Schaff, Philip, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol.63. Jerome, Against Jovanius, ch 42-43. AGES Software. ag jovanius 1.42-43 2. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Cycle> Accessed October 12, 2008. 3. Graves, Robert. New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. Louisville: Crescent Books, 1968. 4. ibid. 5. Cocker, Benjamin Franklin. Christianity and Greek Philosophy, New York: Harper & brothers, 1872. p. 317. 6. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuxi> Accessed October 12, 2008. 7. <www.voluspa.org> Accessed October 12, 2008. 8. <www.earth-history.com/Sumer/inana-descent-netherworld.htm> Accessed August 21, 2008. 9. Yamauchi, Edwin M. Article titled "Tammuz and the Bible." Journal of Biblical Literature, 1965. 10. Schaff, Philip, ed., op. cit., Epistle to Paulinus. ch. 58:3. 11. <www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mikado> Accessed October 12, 2008. 12. Plutarch, op. cit. 13. Hastings, James. Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 5. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989. p. 194. 14. Metzger, Bruce. Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968. p. 23. 15. Jones, Lindsay, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: MacMillan Reference Books, 1987. Article titled “Dying and Rising Gods” by Jonathan Z. Smith, pp. 524-525.

652

16. De Vaux, Roland. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1971. p. 236. 17. <www.pantheon.org/articles/o/osiris.html> Accessed July 26, 2008. 18. Plutarch, op. cit., 359B. 19. <www.theskepticalreview.com/TSRmag/016osir.html#17> Accessed July 27, 2008. 20. ibid. 21. ibid. 22. Plutarch, op. cit., 365A. 23. Budge, Wallis. Osiris And The Egyptian Resurrection. University Books, 1961. p. 17. 24. Plutarch, op. cit., 358B. 25. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, Book 1, Ch 85. 26. Plutarch, op. cit., 362D, 368B, D. 27. Diodorus Siculus, op. cit., Ch 88. 28. Book of the Dead, Plate 33. 29. Goelet, Ogden. A Commentary on the Corpus of Literature and Tradition which Constitutes the Book of Going Forth by Day. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. p. 151. 30. ibid., p. 150. 31. Recueil de Travaux, t. v., p. 55. 32. ibid., p. 185. 33. ibid., p. 55. 34. <www.theskepticalreview.com/TSRmag/016osir.html> Accessed July 30, 2008. 35. Recueil de Travaux, t. iv., p. 71. 36. ibid, t. v., p. 170.

653

37. Book of the Dead, Chapter 175. 38. Taylor, John. Mediation and Atonement, New York: Steven and Wallis, Inc.,1950. p. 194. 39. Plutarch, Parallel Lives. 40. Wilford, F. Origin and Decline of the Christian Religion in India. Asiatic Researches; or, Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal, for Inquiring into the History and Antiquities; the Arts, Sciences, and Literature, of Asia: Volume 10, Charleston: BookSurge Publishing, 2001. p. 97. 41. Graves, Robert. New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. Louisville: Crescent Books, 1968. p. 87 42. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian> Accessed October 12, 2008. 43. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puranas> Accessed October 12, 2008. 44. Accessed October 12, 2008. 45. Basham, A. L. The Wonder That Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent Before The Coming of the Muslims. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1956. pp. 310-311 46. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara#Philosophy_and_religious_thought> Accessed October 12, 2008. 47. Wilson, Horace. Vishnu Purana. London: Ganesha Publishing, 2001. p. 72. 48. Kramrisch, Stella. The Presence of Śiva. Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 1981. p.184 49. <www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=017> Accessed October 12, 2008. 50. Accessed October 12, 2008. 51. <www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/ chapter_1.html> Accessed October 12, 2008. 52. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veles> Accessed October 12, 2008. 53. Herodotus, op. cit., Book IV, 93-6 54. Augustan History, Firmus et al.

654

55.<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta#Bogus_documents_and_authoritie s> Accessed October 12, 2008. 56. Schaff, op. cit., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 21. 57. ibid., ch. 22. 58. ibid., ch. 23. Jesus vs. the cookie cutter 1. <department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/ default.htm> Accessed October 30, 2008. Part 2: The Origins of Paganism Freethought: The Philosophy of Atheism 1. Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2002. p. 7. 2. Sproul, R. C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World, audio series. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries. 3. Sproul, R. C. What Is Truth?, from The Classic Collection audio series. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries. 4. <www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html> Accessed September 1, 2008. 5. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Vol 2, AGES Software, Q77. 6. Accessed September 1, 2008. 7. <users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html > Accessed September 2, 2008. 8. Sproul, R. C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World, audio series. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries. 9. ibid. Luciferianism: The Philosophy of Self-deification 1. Black, Lucian. The Luciferian Manifest, p.1; <www.ordoluciferi.org/files/Luciferian_Manifest.pdf> Accessed September 3, 2008.

655

2. ibid., p. 1. 3. ibid., p. 1. 4. ibid., p. 2. Nimrod and the beginning of pagan religion 1. <www.earth-history.com/Various/Compendium/hhc1ch11.htm> Accessed September 20, 2008. 2. Josephus, op. cit., 1.4.2. 3. The Book of Jasher, ch 11. 4. <www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/193872/Etemenanki> Accessed September 20, 2008. 5. Josephus, op. cit., 1.4.2. 6. <www.livius.org/es-ez/etemenanki/etemenanki.html> Accessed September 20, 2008. 7. <www.geocities.com/anderson_chapel/pagan.htm> Accessed September 20, 2008. 8. ibid. 9. ibid. Part 3: Shattering the Mirror – Debunking the Claims of the Critics Concerning Zoroastrianism 1. <www.sullivan-county.com/z/zor4.htm> Accessed September 20, 2008. 2. Yasna 12. 3. Herzfeld, Ernst. Zoroaster and His World. Octagon Books, 1974. pp. 18, 24. 4. ibid., pp. 29, 31, 61-61. 5. ibid., p. 51. 6. ibid., p. 94. 7. Shahnama (“The Book of Kings”), 5.92

656

8. <www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp? artid=135&letter=C&search=Babylonian+exile> Accessed September 23, 2008. 9. Yasht 19:82-3. 10. Yasna 30.3. 11. Henry, op. cit., p. 574. 12. Ahunavaiti Gatha 30.3. 13. Settegast, Mary. Plato Prehistorian. Herndon: Lindisfarne Books, 2000. p. 216. 14. McDowell, Josh. Handbook of Today’s Religions. Thomas Nelson, 1996. 15. <www3.sympatico.ca/zoroastrian/jashan.htm> Accessed September 23, 2008. 16. ibid. 17. Denkard 710.15ff. 18. Yasht 19.89, 92. 19. Clark, Peter. Zoroastrianism, An Introduction to an Ancient Faith. East Sussex: Sussex Academic Press, 1999. p. 74. 20. Yasht 19:88-90. 21. Zaehner, R. C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. New Haven: Phoenix Press, 2003. p. 57. 22. Graves, op. cit., p. 322. Concerning the Luxor inscription 1. Accessed July 6, 2008. 2. <www.frontline-apologetics.com/Luxor_Inscription.html> Accessed July 6, 2008. 3. ibid. 4. ibid.

657

Concerning suspect confessions of prominent ancient Christian writers 1. <paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/disturbing_quotes.htm> Accessed September 16, 2008. 2. <www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html> Accessed September 16, 2008. 3. Schaff, op.cit., Vol. 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies. 2.22. 4. ibid., ch 20, 22. 5. ibid., ch 22. 6. Schaff, Philip, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.23. AGES Software. 7. Henry, op. cit., p. 1974. 8. Schaff, Philip, ed., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.6. AGES Software. 9. ibid., 3.17.2. 10. ibid., 2:22:3. 11. <www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html> Accessed September 17, 2008. 12. Schaff, Philip, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 1.4. AGES Software. 13. ibid., ch. 5. 14. ibid., 1.3. 15. ibid. 16. ibid., 1.4. 17. ibid. 18. Kuhn, Alvin Boyd. Shadow of the Third Century. Quezon City: Theosophical Publishing House, 1949 p. 3. 19. <www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT> Accessed September 19, 2008.

658

20. Schaff, op. Cit., Series I, Vol 1. The Letters of St. Augustine; Letter 102 . 11-15. AGES Software. 21. ibid., Vol 4. Anti- Manichaen & Anti- Donatist Writings, The Manichaean Heresy, ch 8. 22. Wheless, Joseph. Forgery in Christianity. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1930. p. 147. 23. Philip Schaff, ed., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Tertullian. Ad nationes, 1.13. AGES Software. 24. ibid., Vol. 3. Justin Martyr. First Apology, ch 21. 25. ibid., ch 22. 26. ibid., ch 24. 27. ibid., ch 21. 28. ibid., ch 23. 29. ibid. 30. ibid., Vol. 3. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70. 31. ibid., First Apology, ch 64. 32. Machen, op. cit., p. 336. 33. Schaff, op. cit., ch 117. A Pope's Confession 1. <www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm> Accessed October 29, 2008. Concerning the similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Flood 1. <www.zeitgeistresponse.info/index.html> Accessed September 16, 2008. 2. <www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp> Accessed September 16, 2008. 3. ibid. 4. <www.godandscience.org> Accessed September 16, 2008.

659

5. <www.archaeology.about.com/od/bcthroughbl/qt/bitumen> Accessed September 16, 2008. 6. <www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp> Accessed September 17, 2008. 7. ibid. Concerning the claim that the account of Moses’ life in the Pentateuch is a fabrication of existing motifs 1. <www.preventingtruthdecay.org/nopaganot.shtml> Accessed October 2, 2008. 2. <johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/exodus.html> Accessed October 2, 2008. 3. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/sargon.html> Accessed October 2, 2008. 4. ibid. 5. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Smriti#cite_note-7> Accessed October 2, 2008. 6. <www.wn.com/s/ancientgreece/index24.html> Accessed October 3, 2008. 7. <www.reference.com/browse/Minos?jss=1> Accessed October 3, 2008. 8. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 2. Theophilus to Autolycus, 3.23. 9. <www.touregypt.net/bod122.h> Accessed October 3, 2008. Concerning the proposed relationship between Jesus and the signs and ages of the Zodiac 1. Ulansey, David. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. p. 76. 2. <www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/arefutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1.html> Accessed October 8, 2008. 3. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html> Accessed October 8, 2008. 4. Ulansey, op. cit., p. 79. 5. Josephus, Wars of the Jews. 4.9.3; 2.14.3.

660

6. Edersheim, Alfred. Sketches of Jewish Social Life. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. p. 92. 7. Edersheim, op cit., p. 47. 8. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 1. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, ch 5. Concerning the proposed similarity between various Biblical concepts and preexisting beliefs and icons 1. Lloyd, Alan B. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. ch 4. Concerning the claim that the life of Jesus is merely a revision of the life of Joseph 1. <www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/others/a-review-of-brianflemmings-dvd-the-god-who-wasnt-there.html> Accessed September 30, 2008. 2. <www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation08.html> Accessed September 30, 2008. 3. Nash, Ronald. Article titled "Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions," Christian Research Journal, Winter, 1994. Concerning Constantine and the Nicean Creed 1. Witherington, Ben, III. The Gospel Code: Novel Claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. pp. 63-64. 2. Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1. The Writings of Eusebius, Tertullian. Life of Constantine, 4.36. AGES Software. 3. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment> Accessed October 5, 2008. Concerning the historicity of Jesus 1. Tacitus, Annals 15.44. 2. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64. 3. ibid., 20.200. 4. Feldman, Louis. Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, Inc., 1984. p. 690. 5. Schaff, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 1.47.

661

6. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 1. The Epistle of Barnabus. 7. ibid., The First Epistle of Clement, chapter 24. 8. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, ch 9. 9. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, ch 3. 10. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, ch 9. 11. ibid., The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ch 9. 12. ibid., Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, Fragment 1. 13. ibid., Fragment 6. 14. ibid., Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 50. 15. ibid., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, ch 32.5. 16. Leith, op. cit., p. 18. 17. Schaff, op. cit., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1. 18. Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1977. pp. 199-200. 19. Accessed October 4, 2008. 20. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 3. Tertullian, Apologeticus, Ch 50. 21. <www.preventingtruthdecay.org/dje.shtml> Accessed October 4, 2008. 22. ibid. 23. <jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html> Accessed October 6, 2008. 24. The Jewish Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a. 25. The Babylonian Talmud; b.Yebamoth 49a; m Yebam. 4:13. 26. ibid.; b. Sanh. 106a. 27. ibid.; b. Sabb. 104b.

662

28.<en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_of_Pilate_to_the_Emperor_Claudius_(M._R ._James_ translation)> Accessed October 6, 2008. 29. Anthropoetics - The Electronic Journal of Generative Anthropology, Vol III, No 1. 30. <www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm> Accessed October 7, 2008. 31. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 2.14. 32. ibid., 2.33. 33. ibid., Vol. 6. Julius Africanus, Extant Fragments, 18.1. 34. ibid., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 2.59. 35. ibid., Vol. 6. Julius Africanus, Extant Fragments, 18.1. Concerning alternate gospels and suspect ancient texts 1. Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. p. 76. 2. Yardeni, Ada. "A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?". Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 2008. p. 34. 3. Accessed January 10, 2009. 4. Accessed January 10, 2009. 5. Accessed January 11, 2009. 6. <webmunism.com/vids/of/1st+century+births> Accessed January 11, 2009. 7. Henry, op. cit., p. 1475. 8. Smith, Morton. The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark. Harper & Row: New York, 1974. 9. Schaff, op.cit., Vol. 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies. 1.25.1. 10. ibid., 1.25.3.

663

11. Smith, op. cit. 12. ibid. 13. <www.tertullian.org/rpearse/reviews/carlson_gospel_hoax.htm> Accessed January 15, 2009. 14. <moorscode.blogspot.com/2008/03/miller-on-secret-gospel-of-mark.html> Accessed January 15, 2009. 15. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm (ed) and Wilson, R. McL. (trans.). New Testament Apocrypha, Westminster/John Knox:Louisville, 1991. p. 107f. 16. Bruce, F.F. The ‘Secret’ Gospel of Mark. The Ethel M. Wood Lecture delivered before the University of London on February 111, 974. London: The Athlone Press, 1974. pp. 11-12. 17. Schneeme lcher and Wilson. op. cit. 18. Bruce, op. cit., p. 20. 19. Schaff, Philip, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.1. AGES Software. 20. Carlson, Stephen. The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark, Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005. p. 74f. 21. Chilton, Bruce and Evans, Craig (eds.). Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1994. pp. 526-527. 22. Bruce, op. cit., 23. Boyd, Gregory. Cynic Sage or Son of God? Bridgepoint: Baker Book House, 1995. p. 333. 24. <www.crosswalk.com/1388856> Accessed January 15, 2009. 25. Schaff, op.cit., Vol. 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies. 1.31. 26. The Gospel of Judas. Barrat, James. DVD. National Geographic, 2006 27. ibid 28. <juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/gospel_of_judas.html> Accessed January 15, 2009.

664

29. Barrat. op. cit. 30. ibid. 31. <www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.aspc=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784449&ct =2162351> Accessed January 18, 2009. 32. Barrat, op. cit. 33. <www.crosswalk.com/1388856/> Accessed January 18, 2009. 34. <www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GspelofJudas.pdf> Accessed January 18, 2009. 35. ibid 36. ibid 37. ibid 38. ibid 39. ibid 40. ibid 41. ibid 42. <wwwgnosticq.com/az.text/glos.af.html#Anchor-BARBELO-49425> Accessed January 20, 2009. 43. Schaff, op.cit., 1.29.1. 44. <www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html> Accessed January 20, 2009. 45. <www.gnosticq.com/az.text/glos.af.html#Anchor-BARBELO-49425> Accessed January 20, 2009. 46. ibid 47. <www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospel_of_Thomas> Accessed January 20, 2009. 48. ibid 49. Schaff, op.cit., Vol. 5, Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies. 5.7.20.

665

50. Schaff, Philip, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 5. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis, 4.36 and 6.31. AGES Software. 51. <www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospel_of_Thomas> Accessed January 20, 2009. 52. Hogeterp, Albert L A. Paul and God's Temple. Dudley: Peeters Publishers, 2006. pp. 137. 53 <www.bibletexts.com/glossary/peter.htm> Accessed January 20, 2009. 54. <www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospel_of_Thomas> Accessed January 21, 2009. 55. Accessed January 21, 2009. 56. ibid. 57. Wilkins, Michael J. and Moreland, J. P. (eds.) Jesus Under Fire--Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. p. 23. 58. <www.christian-thinktank.com/gthomas.html> Accessed January 21, 2009. 59. <www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospel_of_Thomas> Accessed January 21, 2009. 60. ibid. 61. Accessed January 21, 2009. 62. Schaff. op. cit., Vol. 1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.12. AGES Software. 63. Foster, P. “The Gospel of Peter”. The Expository.Times, Vol.118, No.7, pp. 318-325. 64. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: Commentary on the Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels. New Haven: Anchor Bible Press, 1999. p. 1341. 65. <www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter.html> Accessed January 23, 2009.

666

66. <www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Gospel_of_Peter> Accessed January 23, 2009. 67. <www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/davinciopportunity.htm#faq2> Accessed January 23, 2009. 68. Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday, 2003. p. 254. 69. <www.americanbible.org/brcpages/theGospelofMary> Accessed January 24, 2009. 70. <www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/gospel_of_mary?blog=7> Accessed January 24, 2009. 71. <www.maryofmagdala.com/GMary_Text/gmary_text.html> Accessed January 24, 2009. 72. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip> Accessed January 27, 2009. 73. <www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelphilip.html> Accessed January 27, 2009. 74. <www.theologywebsite.com/etext/naghammadi/ philip.shtml> Accessed January 27, 2009. 75. ibid 76. ibid 77. ibid 78. ibid 79. Accessed January 27, 2009. 80. The New Manners and Customs of the Bible. QuickVerse 2008 Platinum CDROM, FindEx, Inc., 2007. 81. Bible Knowledge Commentary. QuickVerse 2008 Platinum CD-ROM, FindEx, Inc., 2007. 82. ibid. 83. Schaff, Philip, ed., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 1.65.2. AGES Software.

667

84. The New Manners and Customs of the Bible. QuickVerse 2008 Platinum CDROM, FindEx, Inc., 2007. 85. <www.metalog.org/files/ph_interlin/ph059.html> Accessed January 27, 2009. 86. <www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=5370&t=KJV> Accessed January 27, 2009. 87. <www.theologywebsite.com/etext/naghammadi/ philip.shtml> Accessed January 27, 2009. 88 Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2000. p. 88. 89. Josephus, Wars of the Jews. 2.8.2 90. Josephus, Antiquities. 18.1.5. 91. Philo, Hypothetica .11.14-17. 92. Witherington, Ben, III. op. cit., p. 17 93 ibid Concerning the “Jesus family tomb:” 1 <www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Talpiot_Tomb> Accessed February 3, 2009. 2 <www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=105> Accessed February 3, 2009. 3. <www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=649> Accessed February 3, 2009. 4. Accessed February 3, 2009. 5. <www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=2978> Accessed February 3, 2009. 6. Accessed February 3, 2009. 7. Ibid.

668

8. <www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=640> Accessed February 3, 2009. 9. Accessed February 3, 2009. 10. Miller, L., and Chen, J., Have researchers found Jesus Christ’s tomb?, Newsweek March 5, 2007. 11. ibid. 12. <www.leaderu.com/focus/jesusfamilytomb.html> Accessed February 5, 2009. 13. <www.tektonics.org/tombbomb.html> Accessed February 5, 2009. 14. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus> Accessed February 5, 2009. 15. <www.uhl.ac/JudeanTombsAndOssuaries.html> Accessed February 5, 2009. 16. ibid. 17. Accessed February 5, 2009. 18. <www.leaderu.com/jesus/jesustomb_benw.html> Accessed February 5, 2009. 19. Accessed February 5, 2009. 20. <archaeologynewsreport.blogspot.com/2007/03/archaeologists-lost-tomb-ofjesus.html> Accessed February 5, 2009. 21. <www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus > Accessed February 6, 2009. 22. <www.apologeticsindex.org/488-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus> Accessed February 6, 2009. 23. <www.realtruth.org/070306-001-jesus.html> Accessed February 6, 2009. 24. <www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/religion.israel> Accessed February 6, 2009.

669

25. Accessed February 6, 2009. 26. <www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html> Accessed February 7, 2009. 27. <archaeologynewsreport.blogspot.com/2007/03/archaeologists-lost-tomb-ofjesus.html> Accessed February 7, 2009. 28. <www.christilling.de/blog/2007/03/guest-post-by-richard-bauckham.html> Accessed February 9, 2009. 29. Accessed February 9, 2009. 30. Eusebius, op. cit., 3.11. 31. <www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.shtml> Accessed February 9, 2009. 32. Eusebius, op. cit., 2.23.18 33. <www.curtisvillechristian.org/TombOne.html> Accessed February 9, 2009. 34. <www.thelosttombofjesus.com/index.html> Accessed February 9, 2009. 35. <www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=656> Accessed February 9, 2009. 36. <www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/CracksInTheFoundation.html> Accessed February 9, 2009. 37. <www.bib-arch.org/debates/jesus-tomb-12.asp> Accessed February 9, 2009. 38. Ibid Part 4: Snares of the Deceivers Proper use of terminology is often disregarded in claims which attempt to liken events in the life of Christ to events which occur in pagan mythology. 1. <www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_oneness_notes.htm> Accessed August 18, 2008. 2. Clauss, op. cit., p. 112.

670

Logical fallacies employed by the critics 1. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 8. 2. ibid p24 3. <www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm> Accessed September 5, 2008. The meme virus 1. <www.bidstrup.com/virus.htm> Accessed December 20, 2008. Part 5: The Supremacy of Christ The Son of God is one with the Father and the Spirit 1. Tozer, A. W. The Knowledge of the Holy. London: Harper Collins, 1992. p. 1. 2. Geary, Patrick J. Readings in Medieval History. Ontario: Broadview Press, 1998. p. 11. 3. Zacharias, op. cit., p. 6. 4. Tozer, op. cit., p. 22. 5. Earle, Ralph. Word Meanings in the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986. p. 82. 6. ibid., p. 349. 7. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 17. The Son of God possesses the essence of God 1. Tozer, op. cit., p. 50. 2. Novation, On the Trinity, pp. 26-27. 3. ibid., p. 35. 4. ibid., p .39. 5. ibid., p. 74. 6. Aquinas, op. cit., P 1-Q 83-A 3-RO 2.

671

7. Thomas Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, 3.71.6; www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.vi.lviii.html 8. Carnell, E.J. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1997. p. 302. 9. Sproul, R. C. Christian Evidences, audio series. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries. 10. Accessed October 11, 2008. 11. <www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0032.html> Accessed October 11, 2008. Two natures, one person 1. <www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html> Accessed October 11, 2008. 2. Gromacki, Robert G. The Virgin Birth: Doctrine of Deity. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981. p. 101. 3. Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Philippians, Colossians, & Thessalonians. Homily 7, Philippians 2:5-11. 4. Dreyfus, Frencois. Did Jesus Know He Was God? Black Rock: The Mercier Press Ltd., 1989. p. 22. 5. Gromacki, op. cit., p. 111. 6. Rhodes, Ron. Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992. p. 204. 7. Gromacki, op. cit, p. 113. 8. <www.reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html> Accessed October 12, 2008. 9. Rhodes, op. cit., p. 51. 10. Accessed October 13, 2008. 11. Chrysostom, op. cit. 12. Collins, Owen, ed. The Classic Bible Commentary: An Essential Collection of History's Finest Commentaries in One Volume. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1999. p. 1340.

672

13. Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. Lane & Scott. p. 509. 14. Gromacki, op. cit, p. 131. 15. Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. p. 40. 16. Gromacki, op. cit, p. 113. 17. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. p. 316. 18. Henry, op. cit., p. 1621. 19. Schaff, Philip, ed. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 6. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 73. AGES Software. 20. Kimbrough, S. T. Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice. New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2006. p. 322. 21. Rhodes, op. cit., p. 199. 22. Leith, op. cit. 23. Gromacki, op. cit., p. 108. 24. Gill, John. A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 2, Chapter 11. AGES Software. 25. Gromacki, op. cit., p. 113. 26. Gill, op. cit., AGES Software. The Son of God is pre-existent 1. Rhodes, op. cit., p. 39. The Son of God possesses the character of God 1. Schaff, Philip, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, ch 100. AGES Software. 2. Tozer, op. cit., p. 88.

673

3. <www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_a_walk_into_death.htm> Accessed October 15, 2008. 4. Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973. p. 123. Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection were foretold long before His arrival 1. <www.messianic-prophecy.net/> Accessed October 15, 2008. Jesus' resurrection is a fact of history 1. Accessed October 17, 2008. 2. Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998. p. 33. 3. Schaff, op. cit., The Epistle of Barnabus. 4. ibid., The First Epistle of Clement, chapter 24. 5. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, ch 9. 6. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, ch 3. 7. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, ch 9. 8. ibid.,, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ch 9. 9. ibid., Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, Fragment 1. 10. ibid., Fragment 6. 11. ibid., Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 50. 12. ibid., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, ch 32. 13. Leith, op. cit., p. 18. 14. Schaff, op. cit., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1. 15. Leith, op. cit. 16. ibid. 17. ibid., pp. 22-24.

674

Jesus is the High Priest for His people and the Mediator of the covenant God made with man 1. Gill, op. cit. 2. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html> Accessed October 18, 2008. 3. Schaff, op. cit., Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 66. Concerning Jesus' state of mind 1. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. London: Collins, 1952. pp. 54-56. 2. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Jaspers> Accessed January 10, 2009. 3. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder> Accessed January 10, 2009. Part 6: The Gospel Record The early date of the gospel records testify to their historical accuracy 1. ibid., Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, Fragment 1. 2. ibid., Fragment 6. Concerning the supposed silence of the remainder of the New Testament regarding Matthew and Luke’s virgin birth narratives 1. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_in_Jewish_law> Accessed October 9, 2008. 2. Schaff, op. cit., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4. 3. Orr, James. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1907. p. 121. Concerning the supposed silence of the New Testament letters regarding Jesus' humanity 1. Bagster's Bible Handbook. New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1983. p. 78. The authenticity and integrity of the Gospels 1. Schaff, op. cit., Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 66.

675

2. ibid., ch 67. 3. ibid., Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, ch 100. 4. ibid., ch 103. 5. ibid., Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, Fragment 1. 6. ibid., Fragment 6. 7. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus, Book 1, ch 40. 8. ibid., Book 2, ch 32. 9. <www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/new_testament_reliability.htm#7> Accessed October 10, 2008. 10. <www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/02/intro.html> Accessed October 10, 2008. 11. Josephus, op. cit., 18. 12. Orr, op. cit., p 70. 13. <www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.iv.iii.html> Accessed October 10, 2008. 14. Ramsay, op. cit., p. 219. 15. <www.jerusalemperspective.org/%5Cdefault.aspxtabid=27&ArticleID= 1847> Accessed October 10, 2008. 16. Kesich, Veselin, Kesich, Lydia W. Treasures of the Holy Land. New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997. p. 27. 17. Freedman, David Noel. Anchor Bible Dictionary, K-N: Vol. 4. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. The characteristics of the person of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, contradict popular Judaic concepts and, as such, could not have been a product of invention 1. Quoted by J. Gresham Machen, Princeton Theological Review, Jan., 1906, p. 74.

676

The Gospels' portrayal of the person and work of Jesus does not fit Messianic concepts prevalent during the first century 1. Evans, Craig. Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992. p. 239. 2. ibid. 3. Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993. p. 116. 4. Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star--The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. New York:Doubleday, 1995. p. 47. 5. Neusner, Green, Frerichs (eds.). Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1987. p.101. 6. Edersheim. op. cit., p. 113. 7. ibid., p. 126. 8. ibid., p. 121. 9. Levey, S.H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, Monograph of the Hebrew. Cincinnati: Union College, 1974. p. 142. 10. Josephus, op. Cit., 17.271-272. 11. ibid., 17.273-276. 12. ibid., 17.278-284. 13. ibid., 18.23; 20.100-103. 14. ibid., 18.85-87. 15. ibid., 20.97-98. 16. Josephus. Wars of the Jews. 2.261-262; Antiquities. 20.169-171. 17. Josephus. Antiquities. 20.188. 18. Josephus, Wars of the Jews. 2.433-434; 2.442-448. 19. ibid., 7.264. 20. ibid., 7.26-32. 21. ibid., 7.437-441. 22. Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, New York: Macmillan Company, 1950. pp. 148-154.

677

23. Accessed January 30, 2009. 24. Accessed January 30, 2009. 25. Accessed January 30, 2009. 26. Maas, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p. 406. 27. Goldstein, op. cit., p. 163. 28. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 1.28, 32. 29. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera#cite_note-2> Accessed January 30, 2009. 30. Accessed January 30, 2009. 31. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera#cite_note-2> Accessed January 30, 2009. 32. ibid. 33. Accessed January 30, 2009. 34. Accessed January 30, 2009. 35. Accessed January 30, 2009. 36. Shabbat 104b and Sanhedrin 67a 37. <mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html> Accessed January 30, 2009. 38. Tarbiz, 1969-70. p. 11. 39. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#cite_note-0> Accessed January 30, 2009. 40. Elieser ben-Yehuda. Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis. Jerusalem: Thomas Yoseloff, 1959. pp. 215-216. 41. Flusser, David. Jewish Sources in Early Christianity. Tel-Aviv: Mod Books, 1989. p. 15. 42. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu> Accessed January 30, 2009.

678

43. Eisenmenger, Johann Andreas. Entdecktes Judenthum. Vol. I, Frankfurt: Konigsberg, 1711. pp. 64-67. 44. Accessed January 30, 2009. 45. Schaff, Philip, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol.6. Jerome, Letter 79. AGES Software. 46. Brown, Raymond. The Birth of the Messiah. New Haven: Anchor Bible Press, 1999. p. 210. 47. Moore, Mark E. Life of Christ Vol. 1, From Glory to Galilee. Quickverse 2008. 48. <medbib.com/Nasoraeans> Accessed January 30, 2009. 49. ibid., 2.259. 50 Accessed February 12, 2009. Conclusion 1. <www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html> Accessed October 21, 2008. 2. Zacharias, op. cit., p. 50. 3. Packer, op. cit., p. 147. The Journey 1. <www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/pilgrim.htm> Accessed October 21, 2008. The Author's Creed: The Death and Life of Man 1. Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11; 2 Tim 1:9. 2. Lk 12:32. 3. Rom 1:20. 4. Micah 6:4; 1 Cor 10:1-11. 5. Rom 2:14-15. 6. Ps 8:1-4, 19:1-6; Acts 14:15-17, Rom 1:18-20. 7. Gen 1:1, Jn 1:3-4; Heb 1:3. 8. Eph 1.4-5; 2 Thess 2.13; 1 Pet 1:1, 2:9.

679

9. Mt 1:21; 2 Tim 2:10; Heb 9:15. 10. 2 Cor 2:10-13. 11. Heb 13:2. 12. Deut 30:14; 1 Kings 3:5; Dan 2:4; Mt 1:20; Acts 10:34. 13. Ex 4:2-8; Mt 11:2-6; Jn 2:11, 10:25-26, 37-38, 20:30-31. 14. Jn 3:21, 4:4-26; Acts 9:1-19; Rom 8:13-17. 15. Ps 119:89; Mt 24:35. 16. Ps 19:7; 2 Sam 7:28, 22:31. 17. Neh 9:13; Acts 1:15; 1 Cor 14:36-37; Gal 1:11-12; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21. 18. Deut 8:3; Jn 5:46-47. 19. 1 Thess 1:4. 20. Eph 1:4-5. 21. Rom 11:29; 1Thess 5:24. 22. Mt 16:16-17; 1 Cor 2:4-5; Eph 2:8. 23. Acts 13:48; Rom 8:15; 2 Cor 1:21-22; Heb 8:10-12. 24. Mt 3:16-17, 28:19; Lk 1:35; Jn 3:34-35; 2 Cor 13:14; Gal 4:4-6; Eph 4:4-5; Jude 20-21. 25. 1 Chron 16:36; Ps 48:14, 93:2, 102:25-27; 1 Tim 1:17; Rev 1:8. 26. Ex 3:14; Isa 43:10; Jn 5:26; Acts 17:24-25; Rom 11:36; Col 1:16. 27. Deut 32:4; 2 Sam 22:31; Mt 5:48. 28. Job 42:2; Isa 14:24-27, 46:10. 29. Lam 3:38; Isa 45:7; Amos 3:6. 30. Job 10:8-12; Ps 104:19; Isa 40:23; Jer 27:5; Dan 2:21; Rom 13:1. 31. Ps 33:11; Eph 3:11; Heb 6:17; Jas 1:17.

680

32. Rom 8:28; Phil 2:13. 33. Acts 4:26-28; Rom 8:29-30; Eph 1:5-11. 34. Num 23:19. 35. Lam 3:37; Isa 46:10, 55:11. 36. Job 42:2; Isa 14:24; Jer 32:17-23. 37. Prov 19:21; Rom 12:2; Eph 3:10-11; Rev 4.11. 38. Gen 1:26-31; Col 1:16. 39. Gen 1:1; Neh 9:6; Ps 33:6; Jer 10:12; Jn 1:3. 40. Gen 1:1-26. 41. Gen 1:31; Ex 20:11. 42. Gen 1:14-16, 8:21-22; Ps 74:17, 104:19; Dan 2:20-21. 43. Deut 4:39; 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; Isa 33:5, 55:8-9; Acts 17:24-25. 44. Deut 4:7; Job 33:4; Ps 139:1-10; Mt 6:25-30; Eph 4:6. 45. Gen 1:26; Isa 64:8; Jas 3:9. 46. Gen 2:7; Job 33:4. 47. Gen 1:26. 48. Isa 26:9; Acts 7:59; Rom 8:16; 1 Thess 5:23. 49. Rom 7:23, 12:2, 14:5; Eph 4:17. 50. Ps 6:3, 35:9; Isa 61:10. 51. Acts 24:16; Rom 2:15, 9:1; 1 Cor 8:7-13; 1 Tim 1:5. 52. Jn 1:13; 1 Cor 7:37; 2 Pet 1:21. 53. Gen 3:1-7; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22; Heb 5:19. 54. Ps 51:5, 58:3. 55. Ps 5.4-5: Isa 59:2; Rom 8:7; Eph 2:1-3, 5:5; Jas 4:4; Rev 21:23-27.

681

56. Jer 13:23; Jn 8:34-36; Rom 6:16-18. 57. Ps 10:2-11; Prov 10:23; Isa 32:6-7; Jer 18:12; Hos 5:4; Acts 7:51. 58. Ex 5:2; Ps 14:1; Jer 4:.22. 59. Lk 6:22; Rom 1:28-29; Titus 3:3. 60. Isa 1:4, 63:10; Ez 3:7. 61. Ecc 12:14; Mt 12:36-37; 1 Cor 3:12-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12-13. 62. Lk 12:48; Deut 32:4; Ps 119:142. 63. Gen 2:16-17, 3:19; Num 27:3; Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:22; Titus 9:27. 64. Job 35:12; Ps 11:5; Isa 32:8; Dan 9:13; Hab 1:13; Mt 7:23. 65. Mt 25:41; 2 Thess 1:9; Rev 20:14-15. 66. Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 12:31; Gal 1:1. 67. Mk 25:34; Eph 1:3-4; Rev 13:8, 17:8. 68. Jn 6:37-39, 15:16-19, 17:6; Rom 5:8, 8:30; Eph 1:4-5; Col 3:12. 69. Rom 9:10-13; 2 Thess 2:13. 70. 1 Kings 19:8, Jn 5:21; Acts 13:48; Rom 11:5. 71. Deut 10:15; Ps 59:17; Jer 31:3; Titus 3:4-5; 1 Jn 4:10. 72. Prov 3:11-12; Isa 63:16; Jn 1:12; Gal 4:4-7; 1 Jn 3:1. 73. Isa 50:8-9, 61:10; Rom 5:9, 8:1-2; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9-10. 74. Mt 26:28; Acts 13:8; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14, 2:13. 75. Mt 16:17; Jn 1:12; Rom 12:3; 1 Cor 2:4-5; Eph 2:8; Phil 1:29; Titus 3:4-6. 76. Rom 3:28, 4:1-25, 9:30-33; Gal 2:16, 21; Eph 2:8-9; Phil 3:9. 77. Deut 7:7-8; Jn 3:16; Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:3-4; Eph 3:10-11; 2 Thess 2:16; Titus 3:4-5. 78. Dan 2:2; Mal 4:1; Mt 25:41; 2 Thess 1:8-9; Rev 14:9-11, 20:11-15.

682

79. Ex 34:6-7; Deut 32:4; Ps 119:142; 1 Jn 1:9; Rev 16:5. 80. Mal 1:2; Mt 13:11-16; Jn 12:40, 17:1-9. 81. Ex 32:9; Josh 7:1; 2 Chron 30:8; Ps 90:11; Nah 1:2-6; Rom 1:18, 2.5; Jas 4:4. 82. Ex 7:3-4; Deut 2:30; Josh 11:20; Jer 26:3; Rom 9:17-18, 22. 83. Mt 3:16, 28:19; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:1-3, 8.3; 2 Cor 1:18. 84. Gal 4:4; Phil 2:6-9; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 2:7, 14. 85. Jn 10:17-18; Rom 8:32; Gal 1:4; Heb 10:5. 86. Phil 2:5-7; Heb 2:14. 87. Mt 27:3-4; Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15, 5:17-21, 7:26-28; 1 Pet 1:19; 2 Pet 2:22-23; 1 Jn 3:5. 88. Isa 7:14; Mt 1:22,23; Lk 2:7; Gal 1:4. 89. Mt 8:3, 10:1, 28:18; Mk 1:29-31; Lk 1:35, 8:24-25; Jn 2:19-21, 3:11-13, 11:41-44. 90. Lk 23:46; Jn 2:19-21, 10:17-18, 19:30. 91. Isa 53:3-12; Mt 20:28, 26:28; Rom 5:8; 1 Cor 11:23-25; 1 Thess 5:9-10; Heb 9:11-22, 10:1-22; 1 Pet 2:24, 3:18. 92. Jn 17:2, 9; Eph. 5:25; 2 Tim 2:10. 93. Rom 5:9, 1 Thess 1:10, 5:9. 94. Jn 1:29; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 12:6. 95. Jn 6:39-40, 17:2-4, 18:9; Heb 7:24-25, 10:14. 96. Hos 13:14; Mk 10:45; 1 Tim 2:5. 97. Isa 53:5-6; Mt 1:21; Jn 1:29; Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 1:3. 98. Ez 36:25; 1 Cor 1:2, 6.11; 1 Pet 4:12-19; Heb 10:22; 1 Jn 1:7. 99. Jn 6:47; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:3-5, 2:6. 100. Rom 6:10; Heb 7:27, 9:28; 1 Pet 3:18.

683

101. Isa 53:5; Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10. 102. Mt 26:28; Rom 5:9; Eph 1:5; Col 1:20; Heb 9:12-22, 13:20; 1 Pet 1:18-19. 103. Rom 6:6-7; Gal 2:20. 104. 2 Cor 4:14; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12, 3:1. 105. Rom 5:1-2; Eph 1:3; Col 1:27, 2:2-3. 106. Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22. 107. Rom 5:15-19; 1 Cor 15:45. 108. Col 3:4; Rev 14:4. 109. Jn 1:12-13; Rom 8:14-16, 29; Gal 4:6; Eph 1:4-5. 110. 1 Cor 1:8, 15:50; Phil 3:20-21; Col 3:4. 111. Lk 13:27; Rom 2:8; Rev 20:12-13. 112. Ex 32:9; Josh 7:1; 2 Chron 30:8; Ps 90:11; Nah 1:2-6; Rom 1.18, 2.5; Jas 4:4. 113. Mt 28:19; Lk 1:35; 2 Cor 13:14. 114. Ps.104:30; Jn 15:26; 1Cor 2:12. 115. Jn 16:7-11; Rom 1:4, 8:11; Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 3:18. 116. Acts 9:15, 15:7; Eph 1:11. 117. Prov 16:9; Acts 17:26; 2 Cor 6:2. 118. Mt 16:16-17; Rom 12:3; Eph 2:8; Phil 1:29; Heb 12:2. 119. Jer 24:7; Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25. 120. Deut 30:6; Jer 24:7, 31:33, 32:39-41; Ez 11:19, 36:25-27; Rom 6:17, 22, 8:1-11. 121. Ps 42:1-11; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 1 Jn 1:6, 3:24. 122. Jn 15:15: Acts 22:14; 1 Cor 1:14; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 1:17; Col 1:9; 1 Jn 5:20. 123. Jn 3:16, 5:24; Rom 3:22; Rev 22:17.

684

124. Rom 5:1, 8:38-39; 2 Cor 12:9; Eph 1:3, 2:14, 3:12; Col 1:27, 2:2. 125. Ps 32:8, 51:2-7. 126. Rom 11:29; 1 Thess 5:24; 1 Pet 2:9. 127. Jn 10:27-29; Rom 5:9-10, 8:15-17, 33-39, 11:29; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23-24; 2 Tim 1:12; Heb 7:24-25, 10:14, 1 Pet 1:3-5. 128. Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12. 129. Rom 6:6-7; Gal 2:20. 130. Rom 6:4; Col 2:11-12. 131. 2 Cor 4:14; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12, 3:1. 132. Rom 5:5, 8:2; 1 Cor 2:12; Gal 4:6; Eph 2:18; 1 Thess 1:4-5; 1 Pet 3:18-21. 133. 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13-14, 4:30; 1 Jn 4:13. 134. Lk 24:7; Rom 16:25-27; Eph 2:19-20, 3.4-5; Heb 1:1; 1 Pet 1:10; Rev 22:6. 135. Heb 6:13-19. 136. Gen 15:7-20; Mt 26:28; Lk 1:68-73; Gal 3:14; Heb 7:22, 8:6-10, 13:20. 137. Acts 22:16; Col 2:13; 1 Pet 3:21. 138. Mt 26:17-30; 1 Cor 10:16-17, 11:23-26. 139. Heb 8:10. 140. Jn 10:27-29; Rom 5:9-10, 8:15-17, 33-39, 11:29; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23-24; 2 Tim 1:12; Heb 7:24-25, 10:14; 1 Pet 1:3-5. 141. Acts 13:38; Rom 5:9, 6:14, 8:2-4; Eph 1:7; Col 1:13-14, 2:13; 1 Pet 2:24. 142. Jn 4:17; Rom 8:9-11; 1 Cor 3:16; Gal 4:6; 1 Jn 3:24. 143. Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:4-10, 28-29; Eph 4:11; Heb 2:4. 144. Gal 5:22-23. 145. Rom 6:6-7; Gal 2:20. 146. Rom 6:4; Col 2:11-12.

685

147. 2 Cor 4:14; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12, 3:1. 148. Rom 8:17; Eph 2:6; Phil 3:20; Col 3:4. 149. 1 Cor 1:8, 5:4; 2 Cor 2:14, 12:9. 150. 1 Cor 1;24; Eph 1:9; Col 2:2-3. 151. Rom 5:1-2; Eph 2:18, 3:12. 152. Eph 1:3, 2:7, 3:8, 17-19; Phil 4.19; Col 2:2-3. 153. Heb 9:11-28, 10:1-13. 154. Jn 11:51-52; Gal 3:26-28; Eph 3:6; Col 3:11. 155. 2 Cor 2:17; Eph 2:10; Col 3:9; Jn 3:3; Jas 1:18. 156. Rom 8:30; 1 Pet 2:9. 157. Rom 3:14, 3:17, 6:1-11; Eph 4:22-24. 158. Ps 51:3; Jn 15:15; 1 Cor 2:16; Col 1:9; 2 Tim 2:25; 1 Jn 3:24, 5:20. 159. Ps 27:4, 63:1; Jer 32:39; Lk 15:18-21; Rom 6:16-17; Phil 2:13; 1 Jn 5:2-3; Jas 2:14-25. 160. Ps 1:1-2, 16:11, 51:1-10, 62:1-2, 103:2-5; Isa 61:10; Jer 24:7; Ez 11:19-20; 2 Cor 7:9. 161. Mt 7:16-18; Jas 1:22-25, 2:14, 18-26; 2 Pet 1:5-6. 162. Gen 1:28; Ps 8:5-7, 19:1-6; Rom 8:19-25. 163. Ps 19:14, 63:1-5; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 13:14; Phil 4:6-7; Heb 4:14-16; 1 Jn 1:3. 164. Jn 17:25-16; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 4:20-24; 1 Jn 5:20, 16:15. 165. Mt 22:36-38; Jn 14:15; 1 Jn 5:2-3. 166. Ps 27:4, 8, 40:16, 73:28; Isa 26:9; Jer 29:13; Heb 10:22. 167. Josh 1:7; Ps 40:8, 119:11, 33-37, 105, 112; Mt 6:24; Phil 2:12; 1 Pet 1:14-15. 168. Ex 20:1-11; Heb 12:28.

686

169. Ex 20:12-17; Prov 6:20-23, 19:17, 22.8, 23:22-25; Mt 6:2-4,18:21, 28:19-20; Lk 6:37, 10:27; Rom 12:10, 14, 17-21, 13:1-10, 14:19; 2 Cor 1:3-7; Eph 4:2, 32, 5:22-29, 6:1, 4, 9; 1 Tim 2:1-2, 5:3-16, 6:18; Heb 12:14, 13:2, 17; Jas 1:27; 1 Pet 2:13-16, 3:8, 15, 4:9-11. 170. Ps 15:1-4, 51:17, 97:10; Mt 5:3-12; Rom 5:3-4, 13.13-14, 1 Cor 3:18, 16:13; Gal 2:20, 5:22-23; Phil 2:3, 4:4, 8; Eph 6:10-17; Col 4:2; 1 Tim 6:6-8, 2 Thess 2:15; Heb 5:12, 10:22; Jas 3:13-17, 4:7; 1 Pet 1.15, 3:8; 2 Pet 1:5-7. 171. Gal 3:1-5 4.9-11; 1 Tim 1:19. 172. 1 Thess 4:3; Heb 12:5-11. 173. Jer 32:40; Jn 6:37; Phil 1:6. 174. Mk 16:19; Lk 24:30. 175. Ps 111:9; Isa 53:5; Acts 20:28; Rom 3:25; Gal 4:4-5; Eph 5:25; Rev 5:9. 176. Gal 3:6-14, 29; Heb 6:13-20. 177. 1 Cor 15:27; Phil 2:9-11; Eph 1:19-22; Rev 1:5. 178. Eph 2:19; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6. 179. 2 Chron 7:14; Rom 8:26; Phil 4:6; Heb 4:16. 180. Mt 28:19-20; Jn 15:16; Acts 1:8. 181. Jn 6:37; Eph 1:4-5. 182. Mt 24:36-39; Acts 1:6-7; 1 Tim 6:14-15. 183. Mt 24:31; Mk 13:27; 1 Cor 15:50-57; 1 Thess 4:16-17. 184. Col 3:4; Jude 24; Rev 3:5, 14:4. 185. Mt 25:31-34; 2 Tim 4:8; Jas 1:12. 186. Jer 17:10; 1 Cor 4:5; Rev 2:23. 187. Mt 12:36-37. 188. Mt 16:27; Rom 2:7; Eph 6:7-8; Heb 6:10-11. 189. 1 Cor 10:23-33; Jas 1:25; 1 Pet 1:14-16.

687

190. Isa 66:15-16; Zeph 1:14-18; 2 Pet 3:3; Rom 1:18, 2:5. 191. Jn 5:28-29; Col 3:25. 192. Ps 21:8-9; Isa 33:14; Mk 9:47-48; Rev 21:8. 193. Mt 19:28; Rev 21:1-8. 194. Zech 14:9; Micah 4:1; Mt 25:34; Eph 1:9-10. 195. Eph 1:9-10; Phil 3:20-21. 196. Isa 65:17; Rev 21:1-8. 197. Rom 6:22-23; 2 Cor 4:17, 5.1; Titus 3:7; 1 Jn 5:11-13. 198. 1 Cor 13:12; Eph 1:9-10; 1 Jn 3:2; Rev 21:4, 22:3. 199. Isa 60:19-20; Rev 19:6-9.

688

Online resources for further study Dare 2 Share; www.dare2share.org Training Teenagers to transform their world. Also excellent for adults, providing information on various ways to share your faith with others. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry; www.carm.org From the site: CARM offers a concise, comprehensive explanation of the Christian faith along with logical analysis of errors in popular beliefs, both secular and sacred. It is easy to use, written for the layman, and covers a huge range of topics. Tekton Apologetics Ministries; www.tektonics.org Featuring the latest in Christian apologetics. Hall of Church History; www.spurgeon.org An impressive archive of some of the best in Christian reading, both ancient and contemporary. Christian Classics Ethereal Library; www.ccel.org A massive collection of writings covering numerous theological, historical, and church related topics. The Ligonier Study Center; www.ligonier.org The home of Dr. R. C. Sproul, featuring archives of streaming audio and video from his Renewing the Mind radio broadcast. Top notch material. Project Gutenberg; www.gutenberg.org A literary hub featuring hundreds of titles in the public domain, Christian and secular. Providence Baptist Ministries; www.pbministries.org A collection of writings from classic theologians such as John Gill, A. W. Pink, and R. L. Dabney The Calvinist Corner; www.calvinistcorner.com A good starting point for those who wish to learn more about Reformed theology or Calvinism. Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics; www.reformed.org Containing a wealth of information, this site could not be any more highly recommended. The Ultimate Christian Apologetics Website; www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/page2.htm A wealth of articles concerned with the defense of the fChristian aith.

689

Internet Sacred Text Archive; www.sacred-texts.com/chr/index.htm A massive literary hub of both Christian and non-Christian writings, sacred and non-sacred.. Christian Answers; www.christiananswers.net From the site: Our primary goal is to provide accurate, biblical answers on a wide variety of questions asked by Christians and non-Christians. Academy of Christian Apologetics; www.hisdefense.org From the site: The Academy is a ministry to the body of Christ whose goal is to provide each and every Christian with the materials needed to learn how to articulate and defend their faith in a way that stands up to intellectual criticism. Lion of Judah Christian Apologetics; www.lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com An excellent site to equip the Christian with answers for his faith. Rational Christianity Christian Apologetics; www.rationalchristianity.net A good site to dive into when combating skepticism. Sermonaudio.com; www.sermonaudio.com From the site: Some of our broadcasters include R. C. Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson, Bob Jones University, Ian Paisley, Alan Cairns, Albert Martin, Clarence Sexton, Joel Beeke, John Barnett, Eric J. Alexander, Ken Ham, Jay Adams, Jeff Noblit, and a host of "classic" sermons by Spurgeon, A. W. Tozer, Jonathan Edwards, and many more.. Rich's Hone Page for Reformed Theology; www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/ An excellent site with archives of Christian literature and links to various areas of study in theology. Gospel.com; www.gospel.com A community of online ministries.

Recommended resources for children A Kid's Heart; akidsheart.com/bible/bible.htm Featuring Bible studies, games, activities, and helpful resources for parents and teachers. His Kids Radio; hiskidsradio.gospelcom.net From the site: HisKids.net is an alliance of ministries whose cornerstone is Jesus Christ and whose passion is reaching kids with Biblical truth through excellent media resources. We've gathered the best in children's Christian programming and put it in one place so you can easily find safe, entertaining, and enriching content just for kids! Our alliance of broadcasters and partners work hard to make HisKids.net a place you and your child want to be.

690

Photo Credits Page 68 and 100 - Amulet depicting crucified Dionysus: <user.tninet.se/~npt994z/jesus_parallels.htm> Page 71 - The cross of the Zodiac: <www.labyrinth13.com> Page 183 - Luxor nativity scene: Page 250 - The Ark of the Covenant: <www.virginmedia.com> Page 251 - Egyptian ark thrones: <www.kingsolomonsastonishingtemplesecrets.org> Page 251 - Cave painting of the throne of Rameses III: <www.gutenberg.org> Page 285 - Gabriel's Revelation tablet: <www.vialogue.wordpress.com > Page 306 - The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci: Page 319 - Stained glass window from Kilmore Church: <margaretstarbird.net> Page 319 - La station 14 du chemin de croix (Station 14): <www.rennes-le-chateauarchive.com/index.htm?id=eglise_mm_statuaire.htm> Page 330 - Tomb of the Sanhedrin: <www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=105> Page 330 - Jewish Ossuary: <www.joezias.com/tomb.html>

691

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to: Jonathan Myers and Tim Spanjer

For your contributions, your devoted friendship, and the enrichment you bring to my life.

692

M M M

ay the Lord bless you and keep you;

ay He make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you;

ay He turn His face toward you and give you peace.

Numbers 6:24-26

693