4 comments/ 3854 views/ 4 favorites Jesus, Resurrection, and Rapture By: wistfall1 PREFACE Please note: There will be no voting—this is for information only; as well, comments are welcome, as are PMs and email with any questions about this essay. However, any comment which is simply "testimony" otherwise known as witnessing by churchy people, argumentative, or preachy, will be deleted immediately. This is not a forum for debating—most of the facts are from the bible itself and speak for themselves, or from verifiable and known history. The King James Version of the bible is principally used unless noted otherwise As well, I've used Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible which gives the usage of every word in the KJV of the bible as well as where to find them. Other bibles say essentially the same basic things. This essay deals with the much preached idea of Jesus offering eternal life, whether the bible proves he was Resurrected, and the promise of the elect being resurrected otherwise known as being Raptured, which is a part of the promise to those who are said to be faithful in their belief that Jesus is the Messiah—the Christ—who is said to bring said salvation and eternal life to those who "believe" and are "saved". It is in sections for your reading convenience. My writings were originally intended for lesbians who have been intimidated from birth, shamed, humiliated, pushed to feel guilty, and made to believe that they are an abomination in the sight of the god of the bible. They have been made to feel a need to hide their true sense of who and what they are in body and mind. Many have given in and attempted to conform to that "accepted normal" life that society, culture, and especially religion, say that it is how they should live. However, lesbians are not the only ones to be hounded by these erroneous beliefs. Gays, Transgenders, Transsexuals, Intersex, and Transvestites also have been subjected to these same religious and cultural errors. Therefore all are welcome to read these writings, and more, to take heart. Culture is the hidden, indeed, invisible, set of genes that no microscope can see, but they surely rule the lives of most. Equal rights in all respects is sought by everyone though too many feel that the right to marriage should only be as dictated by religious beliefs, and that being between a man and a woman only. Love and which person you are to share your life with is not something that should be dictated by church or state, but by consenting individuals. At the present, many states have passed laws restricting who may marry. In all cases, where challenged, these laws have been overturned by either state of federal courts. There are now about twenty states and Washington DC where same-sex marriage is now permitted by law. Still, states such as Utah, are now moving to challenge same-sex marriages by appealing to the US Supreme Court. All of this is basically driven by religious beliefs, and those beliefs originating in their interpretation of what they believe the bible teaches—in essence, what the god of the bible has decreed and should be followed by one and all without exception. Many even believe that the bible should rule one and all, and if they could, they'd make our country a Theocracy—a country run according to Judeo-Christian biblical beliefs. Fundamentalists are particularly egregious in their push to have us all believe that the word of the god of the bible is the word of the one true god, and creator of all as in Genesis, and that that the bible is without error. Many of them have gone so far as to take it as literal that the earth is only six thousand years old, or perhaps ten thousand at the most. As stated, all of this culminates in the bible believers saying that it is saving your soul and thereby earning you eternal life after death when the resurrection and the rapture come at the end times. But where did these beliefs come from? The questions we'll look at here are: What is the origin of the resurrection? What does the bible say about it, and when did it start? Who was Jesus? The idea of salvation and eternal life will reveal itself with the answer to these questions. Of course, all will come from the bible itself as well as objective and verifiable history as well, in some cases, of known and proven science. As I said in my last essay ("Which God, If Any"): Early on, I always heard that there were many paths to truth. That sounded as if it was logical. That was then. Since that time, I have learned that the path to any truth had to be laden with verifiable facts that are germane to the subject. Since this is for information for those in need of the truth of the lies we've been fed for two thousand years (from at least the time of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, if you wish to go back further),as stated earlier, there will be no voting. Warning: Any comments that are argumentative, or preachy, will be immediately deleted. This is not a forum for "witnessing" or debating religious beliefs. Please take your time reading it to get the full effects of the facts I'm presenting, and definitely, please don't take my word for anything, rather check out what I've written, especially where the bible is quoted, or known history is cited. Unlike the churches of old (and many in the present) I encourage readers to check out what is presented in order to verify for yourself whether my facts are as stated. Not beliefs, but facts. The bible is voluminous and that has made it easy for religions and preachers to cherry pick what they would tell us, and often out of context as originally intended thereby "guiding" you in what they would have you to believe. On occasion the bible has something very good to say, and one is: "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." (KJV, I Thessalonians, chapter 5, verse 21.) However, in this case I would say: Hold fast that which is objectively verified as fact. Once again, as I said in my previous essay ("Which God, If Any"): Lies are not to be found on any path to truth. Suppositions by men who are thought to be learned are subject to scrutiny and verification by facts, and not conjecture called beliefs. Going to the source of their "facts" and verifying them is a must if one is to stay on the path to any truth. If you are after seeking the truth, that is, and in particular, about the God of the bible. Some History First Some may say that the resurrection and rapture first came from Ezekiel, said to be a prophet in Babylon during the Babylonian Exile of the 590s BCE. This is from the famous chapter 37 which speaks of the Valley of Bones that were raised up and brought back to life. This is not meant to indicate a real resurrection of any individuals. A reading of that whole chapter will tell you that it was a metaphor for God's supposed promise to make Israel a nation again as in verse 21: "...Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heather, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:" The "bones" with the revived flesh are symbols of Israel once again becoming a nation. So where did this idea of a resurrection really come from? Once more, the one place where you wouldn't expect to find any real truth, we find a bit of it in a Catholic bible, "The Catholic Family Connections Bible" (© Saint Mary's Press, 2010). It is there that before the book of Daniel in the Old Testament that we are given some not so surprising information about it in their "In Depth" portion which says in part: "Inspired Author: unknown, writing around 164 BC, during the persecution of Israel by Antiochus IV Epiphanes." After the death of Alexander the Great, his kingdom was divided up by his generals, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the successor at the time of the Maccabean revolt during the revolt in the 160s or so BCE, that brought about the book of Daniel—Daniel is a story told as if historical, which it is not as you'll see later on. It continues: "Scholars question whether Daniel was an actual person. If he was, he lived in the sixth century BC—but the Book of Daniel was written four hundred years later, during the reign of an evil Greek-Syrian king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This was also the time of the Maccabean revolt, told about in First and Second Maccabees..." [which tells of the Jewish revolt and finally, the entrance of the Romans—The books of I and II Maccabees are included in the Catholic bibles as non-canonical books]. "King Antiochus desecrated the Temple and attempted to erase many of Israel's religious practices. To many in Israel, this seemed like the end of the world." The revolt is historical fact! "The author of the Book of Daniel writes about the great hero [and prophet] Daniel to give the people hope during this persecution [by Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the revolt]." It is here that the idea of the resurrection and the rapture first began, as well as the time when the Pharisees began—they believed in the resurrection promised in Daniel, but others such as the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. A part of the books of Maccabees is truly historical—the Jews did revolt against Antiochus and set the temple worship back as it was before he desecrated it, and elected their own priest, but there was a falling out among the Jews. Somewhere along the line thereabouts the Romans were called in, and they stayed as history knows. It was in this time that what we know are called Zealots, began along with the purist Pharisees. The Catholic bible used in this essay also has an information box—"Did You Know?"—that sets forth that "Most of the Old Testament contains no indication of a belief in life after death. ... The understanding of personal resurrection developed quite late in Israel's existence. " (Daniel, chapter 12, verses 1 & 2) [Bold mine.] This, then, is said to be where the idea of the resurrection came from, and was propagated principally by the Pharisees. The apostle Paul was a Pharisee, and many say that Jesus was too, which would be in keeping with what are said to be his words, as he alluded to the writings in the book of Daniel. As you can see already, the resurrection had over one hundred years to take hold in the consciousness of many Jews by the time of Jesus' birth. Resurrection Oddly enough, it is true—the word resurrection is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. The first use of the word is in the gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 22, verse 23, and is said to be spoken by one of the Sadducees (who are usually a member of Judah's ruling class as well as the Sanhedrin, that can act as a court of law—Jewish law). The word rapture is no where to be found in the bible. What is a fact, and verifiable, is that the idea of a resurrection and rapture are something that was never originally envisioned in the Old Testament until the time of Daniel—if there ever was a Daniel. Was there a Daniel? Is Daniel a fictive as is much of the bible so far? This is important, so let's look at the book titled Daniel. The Book of Daniel This book must be dissected in detail to show how it is said to be written by an unknown person or persons. If read as a believer, all of these things will be missed. I know this for a fact for I had read Daniel several times and never noticed these telltale items that signaled this book as a fictive pure and simple. Yes, I was at one time a "willfully blind" believer, but no more. There are several things that become apparent when one reads it with an objective and critical eye. It starts off in narrative form telling of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, taking some young Jewish children said to be "...well favored, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had the ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans." These children are then identified as Daniel, who was given the new name of Belteshazzar (as opposed to the later supposed king Belshazzar); Hananiah renamed Shadrach; Mishael renamed Meshach, and Azariah, renamed Abednego. In chapter 2 we are told of Nebuchadnezzar's first dream, and Daniel's eventual interpretation of that dream. In chapter 3 we're told, still in narrative form, of Nebuchadnezzar's image of gold, and the famed fiery furnace into which Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were cast into for not bowing to the idol, and their miraculous survival of that furnace. In chapter 4, we suddenly have the change from narrative to first person with Nebuchadnezzar speaking of another dream. After saying that his usual wise men had no interpretation, we're told that he says that "...at last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god..." Here we see two things, the first being the narrative form being changed to first person, which the writer obviously had to make up in great part, and second, why would Nebuchadnezzar find a need to let us know the original name of Daniel as well as his new name. These are indicative of a story being told by an unnamed person, and possibly more than one person who edited a part of it "for clarity" as it were, for his proposed readers. Further, in that same chapter 4, in verse 19, we have a sudden shift back to narrative form, another tell-tale marker of an unknown writer. Another example of the possibility of several writers comes up in this chapter—in verse 34, Nebuchadnezzar is again speaking in first person form until the end of the chapter. * * * * Before going on in chapter 5, we need to have in mind a list of the kings of Babylon beginning with Nebuchadnezzar, who took the Jews captive to Babylon. This is necessary in order to make a goodly portion of the rest of the book of Daniel make sense to you, and to refer back to as needed. The kings are: Nebuchadnezzar 604 ---- 562 BC Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) 562 ---- 560 BC Neriglissar 560 ---- 556 BC Labashi-Marduk 556 BC Nabonidus 556 ---- 539 BC, the last Mesopotamian king of Babylon, who often left rule to his son Belshazzar. Note here that Nabonidus is the last king of Babylon and is the father of Belshazzar. Now one can see that suddenly, in chapter 5, verse 1 says: "Belshazzar the king made a great banquet..." First off, as noted above in the list of kings of Babylon, Belshazzar was not the king of Babylon, but the crown prince who acted in behalf of his father, the king, Nabonidus. However, this is the chapter of Daniel that has become a staple of our culture for the saying: "The handwriting is on the wall," or " Read the handwriting on the wall" which will be seen momentarily. That said, we can see that there is an obvious error on the part of the writer in skipping from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar. The other error is in saying that Belshazzar was the last king as will also be seen in a moment, and for that matter, that he was a king at all instead of as acting king. More errors will also become obvious. The writer, or writers, of the book of Daniel obviously knew their history of the time in general, but not in detail. These errors are proofs that this is not a book inspired by any god, and certainly not the god of the bible. No god would have made these gross errors, much less those that follow in this chapter and beyond. For any wishing to verify the kings of Babylon, it can easily be done on the Internet or in any history book detailing with that time. I hope you do if you have any questions on Babylonian kingship. Literotica does not permit any links to be included in any submissions else I would give them here, but as I said, it's easy to verify this. Further proof that the writer, or writers, of the book of Daniel did not know the specifics of the history of this time is seen in verse 2 which has him ordering the vessels taken from Jerusalem to drink from. In one salient part, is says: "...commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem..." Nebuchadnezzar was not his father; his father, was Nabonidus. Verse 11 continues this error of parentage when the handwriting on the wall appears out of nowhere and none can interpret what it says when his queen tells him that Daniel can interpret it. It says: "There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;" The queen makes the same error not once, but twice in the same sentence, that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar's father. Even worse, they have Daniel make the same error when he says in verse 18: "O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom..." And again, this error by Daniel is repeated in verse 22: "And thou his son, O Belshazzar..." Error upon error is made. The interpretation is in verses 23 through 28 as: "...God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. Thou art found weighed in the balances, and are found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." Sloppily, the last two verses of the chapter, 30 and 31 are in total error! They say: "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old. Darius was not the king of the Persians who took over Babylon as further indicated by chapter 6 continuing as if Darius was that king. It was not Darius, but Cyrus the Great who defeated the Babylonians in the battle of Opis, then entered Babylon later and arrested Nabonidus, the real king of Babylon after defeating the Babylonian army. This is objectively historical and proven by history as well as The Nabonidus Chronicle found in the Middle East in a single clay tablet and bought by The British Museum in 1879. Continuing their sloppy history, they start chapter 6 off as if it was Darius who conquered Babylon. Additionally, Darius being the conqueror of Babylon is contradicted by the book of Isaiah in chapters 44, verse 38 and chapter 45 verse 1 which point to Cyrus as "...my shepherd" and "...to his anointed, Cyrus,..." The errors and contradictions pile up, and this is important for considering whether or not this book is factual, or even vaguely inspired by any god. After chapter 6 which repeats Darius, and then tells how Daniel was thrown into the lion's den and came out alive, chapter 7 reverts again to the "...first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon...", and visions during Belshazzar's third year in chapter 8. In chapter 9, it's back to Darius, then in chapter 10 it is "...the third year of Cyrus and another vision, then back to Darius in chapter 11. The sequencing is maddeningly confusing and without rationale again indicating several sloppy writers or editors. As I said, all of these errors, large and small, but mostly large, are important for in the final chapter, 12. we have in verses 1 and 2 the basis for the resurrection and rapture. These verses are: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Those two verses in the final chapter amidst all of the errors mentioned in earlier chapters, and some not mentioned, are what the Pharisees of the New Testament and Jesus based their claim for an afterlife and the rapture. Jesus, Resurrection, and Rapture There is no doubt that the book of Daniel is a fictive, most likely written, as said earlier [The Catholic Family Connection Bible] to give hope to the Jews in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and his attempt to change the Jewish religious rites. These rites were set forth by Ezra were to germinate in their culture over a period of two to three hundred years as stated in the book of Nehemiah, where Ezra is said to read the book of the law to the ignorant Jews after the return to Judea and Jerusalem per the Persian king of the time. The Jews of the mid second century did indeed need hope in order to remain a coherent and viable people, a stable society where everyone knew their place and drew comfort from it. There was no comfort in the exploding world of "great" powers. They had been used to Egypt, but suddenly there was Assyria, then they saw Israel, the Kingdom of the North, destroyed by Assyria. The Jews of Jerusalem saw their population swell with immigrants from Israel, but then came Babylon. Where Assyria threatened Jerusalem, Babylon destroyed their now holy city. All of the intelligentsia were taken captive, but they had longed to keep their fledgling nation alive. When the Persian empire came into power they were gratefully, treated well by them for two hundred years. However, Ezra came along and forced those who were prosperous but had taken foreign wives, to send those wives away and forged a new consciousness into the people. They may have prospered somewhat for a time, and with their new law and belief instilled in them, the idea of a nation grew. Was this the time of Ruth and Boaz? Perhaps, but they were back to the reality of having to live with super powers, and a new one came along in Alexander the Great. Like a whirlwind, he blew past all nations including Persia, but quickly died, and his kingdom was divided among his generals. Seleucus expanded his new kingdom quickly and grew his territory. The Jews would never know peace again. Wars raged, and Rome was growing in power. When Antiocus IV Epiphanes came to power in the Selucid line of kings, he decided to make the Jews change their religious habits. Why? Idiocy and ego most likely! The Jews had a religion instilled in them, and they looked to it hopefully—hope was all they could do in the face of the mighty military powers. The exploits of the god of their law were no where to be found for they were a fictive, but they didn't know that yet. Still, their religion was all that they had, all that they knew other than the subservience they had to endure. What is so important about Daniel is that the book, though written about 163 BCE, was about that god they had learned to rely on, and it now promised a resurrection and life everlasting when their then present times of tribulation were over. That gave them hope! Since they didn't know how to read or write, they couldn't question the veracity of their religion. Like all peasants of the early days of civilization, they were very illiterate and ignorant, and generally always did as their leaders said to do. They had no idea that Abraham—who was said by their religion to be the founder of their nation almost two thousand years before then—had never been told to expect a resurrection or life everlasting—only that when his existence was over, he would have many children and then sleep with his fathers. The need for hope in their religion made them fanatical to preserve their way of life and not permit anyone to desecrate the temple of their god. So they fought. Those were the wars of the Maccabees who refused to do obeisance to the foreign statue of a god that Antiochus IV Epiphanes said they had to bow to. And they won, but not fully. They got their own High Priest, cleansed their temple, and Hanukkah began as a celebration, but it soon went to their heads and they had an internal falling out. Eventually, in came the Romans. There was no peace, but the cult of a Messiah came into being, and it all took on a life of its own. Resurrection, a Messiah who was a warrior king, and a High Priest. They would come and the promises of Daniel, etc., would come to pass. The Jews would be god's people. It would all eventually morph into Christianity. Jesus would be said by many Jews to be the Messiah, and the strife was ongoing, but Jewish history has others also proclaiming to be the Messiah. Daniel is important because before him, there was no mention of a resurrection. That they were God's people and their God would do "exploits" as in the past as a mighty warrior was never in question, but it never happened as Jesus said it might—at least in part. Now let's look at Jesus, what he is supposed to have said, and how it never came to pass as they said that he said it would. The bible testifies to this as fact! Jesus How nice it would have been had the so-called authors of the various books of the bible—Old and New Testament alike—actually been the authors of those works, and more, had they not been edited to conform to what the powers in place wanted us to believe. That was not so though. None of the gospels were written by the authors whose names are used; in fact, half the letters of Paul are forgeries. Yes, other writers who tried—and for a long time succeeded—in passing off their work as being Paul's. In fact, much of Christianity to this day thinks all of the letters bearing Paul's name were written by him. Fundamentalists definitely think so, and thus continue to try to keep women in subservience to their husbands. Shades of the Taliban. In the gospel according to Luke, in chapter 6, verse 49, it quotes Jesus as saying: "But he that heareth and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great." [Bold mine.] Let's consider some of the foundations of the story of Jesus, or lack thereof. As in my previous essay, "Which God, If Any", I wrote: "...the path to any truth had to be laden with verifiable facts that are germane to the subject." We need to look for the facts of Jesus even at the cost of revealing the falseness of cherished ideas of culture in order to learn the truth of the lies that may be hidden, or not so hidden. There must be hidden lies that are passed as truths in order to have a viable religion that all can cling to for their hope in a world of terror for the poor and unlearned. The known world had not changed save to grow in population, and religion seeks to control as many as possible, and stories made up to appeal to their illiteracy and fears, as well as hope, work superbly. Shortly we'll see some of those lies, but first we need to know that there was a fight for the hearts of the populace to fill the religious sects for without adherents, there can be no religion. The early church was Jewish, and not too many to begin with. It was Paul who extended Christianity to the gentiles, but not without a fight, or so we're told in the book of Acts of the Apostles, as well as known history. Paul was apparently the first to write about Jesus. He was a Pharisee, and, some believe, so was Jesus, but that's speculation though he believed, we're told, as the Pharisees did, in the resurrection. After Paul's personal efforts which couldn't have reached many for he had to travel, and travel was slow, but he wrote some letters about his belief in Jesus who he termed Christ, the anointed Messiah, the savior of us all. Not all of the letters that bear Paul's name were written by him, only about half of them, or so. Some words from one letter are different from the words of another thereby showing a different author. One huge example of this is in the letter of 1 Timothy, chapter 2, verses 11 and 12 where he is said to command: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to learn in silence." The two letters to Timothy are considered spurious by many textual critics. This due to comparisons with what are considered original letters of Paul. In the case cited above, there is this from 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 5: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head:..." For a woman to prophesy she needs an audience, and generally does as all who prophesied, in church, or synagogue, or even in public, but she is definitely not silent. The reason for saying these things about Paul is to point out that though the following of Jesus was at first a thing of the Jews, Paul helped to spread it to gentiles by his personal teachings and the popularization of his letters. How his letters were made known to others is not known or expressed by anyone to my knowledge, and parts may well thus have been mildly edited. Textual critics are searching these questions out. In time, however, even the Jews were seeking converts among the gentiles, but to Judaism. This was against the laws of Moses as given to be known to the Jews by Ezra (mentioned earlier). Judaism was popular among many gentiles for its uniqueness, and one-god theme. In short order, however, there were competing sects seeking followers to believe in their version of what Jesus really taught. They weren't too popular though, most likely due to their need of much thought and study, and to the strange ideas of what they said Jesus' religion was all about; these were commonly called gnostics. One of charismatic appeal to the public also espoused what were thought to be the teachings of Jesus, was a fellow named Marcion, who was well to do. Marcion was the first to establish a bible consisting, we are told, of ten of Paul's letters and the gospel of Luke. Worth mentioning just to point out a part of the many differences in the beliefs of Jesus, as well as a rejection of Jesus and a belief in John the Baptist, is a group called the Mandaeans, some of which are said to still exist in or near modern day Iraq. They are also said to reject Abraham and Moses, and consider the god of the Old Testament as a different god from the god of the New Testament, and revered John the Baptist as opposed to Jesus. This is a curious thing to most of us, but we'll see this again momentarily. Most of the various groups with their different beliefs are mostly gone. The big survivor turned out to be what became known as the Catholic Church. Along the way, humans being humans, there were many intelligent people who became famous and gave direction to the new faith. Some of these people had huge egos, and were sure that they were right. One of the largest of egos belonged to the bishop of Rome, Stephen 1, who somewhere between 254 and 257 decided that the Roman bishopric had primacy over all of Christianity since Peter was, they thought, the first bishop of Rome and held the "keys" to the kingdom according to scripture. Stop here and consider that at this time it was over two hundred years since Jesus was said to have been crucified. That is a long time, and the Christian church still wasn't unified, and still had many different versions of just who and what Jesus was. To put it in perspective, that's longer than the United States as a nation. It took the Emperor Constantine to make Catholicism the main church in 313 CE, and there were still differing ideas of who Jesus was and wasn't. In fact, we still don't know. There is only belief, but no real proof. He is believed to be mentioned vaguely in history by Tacitus and Josephus, however, Josephus' writings as we have them now are not original and are thought to possibly have been edited in the 1800s, so that leaves us with Jesus' biographies, namely the gospels. There are said to be four gospels that are well known and testifying of Jesus and his mission, but—they were all written thirty plus years after Jesus' death, and after Paul's letters. More, all of those gospels are prefaced with "According to" before their name. Of a truth, it seems that no one can verify that any of the people who are said to have written them: Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, really wrote them. No one knows who actually did the writing of them, and they all differ significantly in some very important telling of events that are very salient. What the Catholic Church has admitted to: The Catholic bible admits to many things about the individual books of the bible. Here are some of the things they say about the individual gospels: * * * * MATTHEW: Jesus "leaves [Galilee] for Judea only in [chapter] 19:1, and his ministry in Jerusalem, the goal of his journey, is limited to a few days (21:1—25:46)." This will be important when we consider inerrancy—whether the bible is the error free word of god. It goes on: "The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew...is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association [Mark] rather than rely on his own memories." [Bold mine.] "The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material called 'Q' (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning 'source'), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke." "The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by [chapter] 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem." [Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD so "Matthew" was doing as the author of Daniel and writing a novel based on some facts, just not as long after Daniel was written, but about 45 plus years after Jesus is thought to have been crucified.] "Date written: approximately AD 85" * * * * MARK: For Mark's gospel, the Catholic bible gives this information: "The Gospel of Mark ends in the most ancient manuscripts with an abrupt scene at Jesus' tomb, which the women find empty (16:1-8). His own prophecy of 14:28 is reiterated, that Jesus goes before the disciples into Galilee; 'there you will see him.' " In other words, the final ending of the gospel was added at a later time as opposed to what an earlier manuscript says. "Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading..., it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark." In other words, they have no earthly idea who actually wrote it. "Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome..." "Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70." In other words, chapter 13, verse 2 that says in part: "...there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." gives credence to the fact that the writer already knew what had happened, and wrote it in just as Matthew did, thus making this at the very least a partially historical novel. * * * * LUKE: As for Luke, the Catholic bible gives us this as information: "Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament in Col [Colossians]... The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (1:2)." In other words, he retells what he thinks he heard, and naturally embellishes it. "Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel...were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q...)..and other 'special traditions' that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers." Translation: Luke was passing on what he'd heard, but had no knowledge as to anything Jesus did or said. Then there's this mysterious "Q"—who is this "Q", and when were his sayings of Jesus written; more, did he even know Jesus? Nobody knows anything about who "Q" was. As to his "special traditions", it can so very easily be called "embellishments". More on that later. At any rate, they admit that they only think this "Luke" was the author, and set his gospel at somewhere between 80-90 AD. * * * * JOHN: The information given for the gospel of John is interesting: "The author's purpose is clearly expressed in what must have been the original ending of the gospel at the end of ch. 20: 'Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may [come to] believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you have life in his name.' " In other words, plain and simple, where something looks out of place, it probably is due to editing, and this was edited. Read on in what the Catholic bible says: "Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. Chapter 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed: it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work." [Bold mine.] Doesn't it make you wonder what all else is added, deleted, changed, that they don't own up to? And what is anyone suppose to believe in, the changed, or added? One of the more famous entries in this gospel, aside from "John 3:16" fame, is the opening. It just doesn't fit with the writing in the rest of the gospel, compellingly written though it is. Here's how the Catholic Church puts it: "The prologue (1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel." [Bold mine.] Translation: It was added by who knows who, but not the same "who knows who" that wrote most of this gospel. Another admitted error is: "Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus' discourses in the upper room (14:31; 18:1. ... most [scholars] have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies are probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original." [Bold mine.] So there it is: it was edited—had to be edited—for it makes no sense otherwise, as is true of other places in the bible. "The final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present form probably dates from between A.D. 90 and 100." [Bold mine.] "The final editing of the gospel and arrangement" it says. Again, how many edits and rearrangements were made? My congratulations to the Catholic Church for having owned up to what they have here, difficult though it is for them. However, as I said in my previous essay (Which God, If Any), they don't shout these admissions of theirs from the rooftops. It's like the fine print of many contracts of today when buying some product—the fine print is small to tiny, and quite voluminous. What really gets to me is how they joined with radical Fundamentalists in declaring that "the word of God" is final in declaring that lesbianism is an abomination in God's sight, and going all out to pass Prop. 8 in California. There is nothing inerrant about the bible. In fact, instead of "Holy Bible", it should be "Bible full of holes with regards to truth of deities," or the holely bible. I'll make this abundantly clear soon (if I haven't done so in my last essay or my other essays and stories). Jesus, Resurrection, and Rapture That's what the Catholic Church as admitted. Now lets look at some specific things that the bible says, and contradicts itself on, within the gospels, as well as embellishes. * * * * THE QUESTION OF WHO THE APOSTLES WERE: It may seem silly to wonder who Jesus' apostles were, but a close reading of the bible makes this a valid question. If the writer of Mark was the first writer, and the writers of Matthew and Luke took much of their information from him, how could there be mistakes? We are given that Matthew and Levi are one and the same person, the former being his Greek name, the latter his Hebrew name, but what about Bartholomew and Nathanael. There is no Greek/Hebrew correlation for them. What there is, apparently, is tradition and that being that when Philip is named in the list of apostles in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke for their similarity), Bartholomew always follows; in Matthew (10:3), in Mark (3:18), and Luke (6:14). However, in John there is no Bartholomew; instead we have Nathanael. For Bartholomew and Nathanael, though they are said by most Christians, that they are one and the same person since Philip brought Nathanael to see Jesus, the name Bartholomew is Hebrew meaning Son of Tolmay (or furrows as in a planter, or worker of the soil), and Nathanael means Given of God. We are left with accepting tradition to resolve this difference, or to look for logic, namely that John was not written by the apostle John (as is readily admitted to now), and consider that the one—Bartholomew—is not Nathanael, and therefore someone is in error. This latter seems the more likely since the gospel of John was written so late, and is so very different from the other three gospels. This logical solution renders the thought that the gospels, all of their authors unknown, are relating stories and not facts as Fundamentalists would have it. There is no backing away from this name dilemma/discrepancy, yet preachers of today still preach sermons on many of these spurious stories as if they were indeed factual. Though there are other discrepancies, to not nit-pick, there is the problem of who is whose son; as in: Matthew (10:3), there is a James, the son of Alphaeus, but in Mark (2:14), we have Levi, the son of Alphaeus. To make matters worse, and muddy things up more, Mark also names James as the son of Alphaeus (3:18) as well as no Levi, but instead a Matthew. This is convoluted to say the least. Luke (5:27) says Levi and in 6:15, calls him Matthew. However, James is the son of Alphaeus in that same verse. The Matthew mixup is not so bad, but who is Alphaeus' son? In John is where we find Nathanael, a friend of Philip (1:45, et.al.) There seems to be no list of the apostles as a group in John. If it seems like small stuff, consider that the bible as a whole (Old and New Testaments) are considered to be error free by Fundamentalists who use this so-called error free word of God as a cudgel to hammer homosexuality, but isn't it more likely that the unknown writers of the gospels simply wrote stories to appeal to the ignorant, as well as frighten them? Here's one more disciple error: Matthew in chapter 4, verse 18, and Mark in 1:16 are pretty much mirrors of each other, as almost is Luke in 5:3, in describing how the first disciples were picked, though he omits Andrew until 6:14, yet mentions Levi in 5:27. Jesus is said to be by the Sea of Galilee in these cases. Now we go to the gospel of John. In chapter 1, verse 40, it is Andrew who hears Jesus speak, along with another (presumably Philip) who goes to find his brother Simon (Peter), to tell him that "We have found the Messias..." Quite a difference in stories. What is even more amazing is that John is the much ballyhooed gospel for it's "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." opening, along with the popularly famous 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,...", as well as the immensely popular story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Just how many "differences" does one allow for before seriously wondering at the veracity of the stories? * * * * THOU ART... All Christians know the verses in Matthew, chapter 16, verses 15 and 16: "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." Then we have verse 17, which says: "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona (Bar indicating "son of", in this case, son of Jona): for flesh and blood hath no revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." All Christians have heard this verse cherry-picked for the great revelation it was supposed to be, but... In two chapters before that, 14, Jesus walks on the waters of the sea (verse 26), and gets Peter to walk on the water (verse 29), which we may have heard about too, or not. What we don't hear about is a great confession from verse 33: "Then they worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." Only the Catholic Church could have so popularized Peter saying it two chapters later as shown above. Why? The claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome (not historically proven), and thus the first Pope, for chapter 16, verse 18 continues with Jesus speaking and saying: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The gospel of Mark (8:29) doesn't have this added "church" bit, nor does Luke (9:20) and neither does John (9:69). This would tend to make one wonder if this was something that was inserted at a later date to justify the Catholic Church's claim that the bishop of Rome is the supreme Pontiff of the Christian Church. Peculiarly, the gospels of Mark and John have Jesus walking on water (Mark 6:48; John 6:19), but neither have the disciples worshiping Jesus and calling him the Son of God. Luke, conversely, does not mention the walking on water sequence. * * * * CLEANSING THE TEMPLE: We are used to hearing of Jesus going into Jerusalem as in Matthew, chapter 21 beginning with the first verse. I'll come back to this shortly, but with regard to the temple, in verse 12, we're told: "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves," This is the only time Jesus is said to go to Jerusalem which was just before he was to be crucified. Mark, 11:1, and Luke, chapter 19, verse 45, say pretty much the same thing. But what about John, that maverick of a different story teller? In chapter 2, verse 13 (just after he changed wine into water at Cana), he is said to be in Jerusalem and cleansing the temple. More, this is not the only time he goes to Jerusalem. Again, in chapter 5, there is a "feast of the Jews" as in verse 1, and he goes there and performs a miracle on the Sabbath day (verses 7-10). Once more, in chapter 7, we're told of the feast of Tabernacles where Jesus sent his disciples alone (verse 8), but then surreptitiously goes as in verse 10 and then went into the temple and taught, after which many said he was the "very Christ" (verse 26, and "This is the Christ", (verse 41). Suddenly, in chapter 10, verse 22, we're told it "...was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter." In verse 40, he goes beyond Jordan until called to Jerusalem again for Lazarus, he of the famed raising of the dead as preached in churches and made much of in movies. After this, he goes into the wilderness (11:54), and just before Passover, goes to Bethany just south of Jerusalem back to where Lazarus and his sisters, Mary and Martha live. The big question here is just when did Jesus cleanse the temple: early on as in John, or just before his crucifixion as in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? And why such a difference? The Catholic bible, in its introduction to John's supposed gospel, does not address any of these issues, but dances around it all as euphemistically as it could by starting out saying: "The Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels. It is highly literary and symbolic." Yes, it is "quite different". Make that vastly different as shown above. More like quite a story with all of the dramatic effects to appeal to hopes and emotions, as well as fear as we'll soon see. There are just too many holes and too much editing in John's so-called gospel to be believable. * * * * REINCARNATION? It certainly seems like that's what's being proposed by the disciples, and more, that idea per se is not contested by Jesus. We find this in John's gospel immediately in chapter 9, verses 1-3: "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. "And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Of immediate note is that the disciples actually wondered if he had sinned before he was born, but how could he have sinned if he wasn't yet born? Only reincarnation answers that. Note also that Jesus doesn't deny reincarnation, but simply says: "Neither hath this man sinned..." How is it that this was inserted here? How is it that it is not explained anywhere, or by anyone, or preached in any pulpit? If any did, and someone questioned it logically, it would prove a quagmire for the preacher. More though, what did this author of John really believe? * * * * Jesus entering Jerusalem to meet his fate. Here's another that would prove a quagmire if they told the truth about the origin of this. Read on. In Matthew, chapter 21, verses 5 and 9, we are told of Jesus entering Jerusalem "...sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." This is also in Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; and John 12:14. All of these gospels say it is in fulfillment of Zechariah, chapter 9, verse 9. That's true, but there's only one problem. That problem is admitted to by the Catholic bible in its introduction to the book of Zechariah. It says: "Zechariah's initial prophecy is dated to 520 B..C. ... The first eight chapters of the Book of Zechariah contain oracles which certainly belong to him while the last six (sometimes called 'Deutero-Zechariah') represent the work of one or more unknown authors." [Bold mine.] "Deutero" meaning two or more. It goes on: "The second part of Zechariah is divided into two sections, each with its own introductory title. The first (9—11) [verses] consists of oracles whose historical background, date and authorship are extremely difficult to determine. With 9:9 begins the messianic vision of the coming of the Prince of Peace. The verses describing the triumphant appearance of the humble king are taken up by the four Evangelists to describe the entry of Christ into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday." [Bold mine.] Note two things: the first of which is that this book is like Isaiah, and has several different authors lumped together as if one author, and secondly, note the admission of the verses in question being "extremely difficult to determine" as to authorship and historical background. Again, this, the entry into Jerusalem, looks very manufactured, but who did the editing and inserting is unknown, but it is not to be taken as a sacred writing. Once more, there are too many holes in the bible to take it seriously. * * * * JESUS TAKEN—WHAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN KNOWN In all of the gospels, the writers all give information that they couldn't have possibly known, but they give it freely anyway just as if they were eye witnesses to what went on, and with all involved; the bible is laden with such writing. There are so many of these occurrences, but I never gave them much thought until now. When I think about it now, I realize just how this emphasizes the fictive nature the writing of the gospels is. The churches continue to simply let the gospel titles say what they don't openly admit to otherwise: that the gospels are not written by the name associated with them. They simply let you read on in ignorance, and when a preacher from the pulpit quotes from one of these books, that preacher says: "In the gospel of...(fill in the blank), we find that Jesus says..." This is a more than tacit admission that the name on that gospel is not the gospel writer. To me, as I consider it, I think that this is shameful, like a lack of truth in advertising that so many companies engage in to fool you. To show this, I'll emphasize a few places where it is obvious that there was no way for the author to actually know what he wrote (I don't think any woman wrote any of the gospels, what with the way women were subjected to men). The first will be when Jesus was taken to be tried and crucified, and presented in the gospels as if fact. In the gospel given as Matthew, in chapter 17, we're told of Jesus being taken. In verse 11, it says he stood before the governor [Pilate], and was questioned. We're told he asked a specific question: "Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest." Think about it a moment. At the end of the previous chapter (26, verse 75), we're told that Peter went out and wept bitterly. That the writer could have known, but would a writer/follower of Jesus be allowed into the presence of Pilate while he "questioned" Jesus? Not likely! What the writer is doing is "guiding" you to believe what he wants you to believe. It's just like the bible Sunday school lesson being presented (in Protestant and Independent churches) cherry-picked verses to help you "understand" the bible and Jesus better. They're leading you to believe what they want you to believe, and without question. A much more egregious example of this sort of writing in the gospels is found in the one attributed to Luke. Amazingly, this writer has Luke admitting that what he says is from hearsay, meaning he didn't know any of it for a fact, but rather believed what he heard. This is made clear in the opening verses. However, what he presents thereafter is a pretty comprehensive account of things said, by whom they're said, and what was thought, as well as all the circumstances surrounding it. In verse 13 of the first chapter, he has an angel specifically saying things to Zecharias, and in pretty much detail, detail that he couldn't possibly have known of since he wasn't there, and nobody else was. In other words, it's all a fiction. This charade continues on in the "heart-warming" tale of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, being told in like manner as that which was told of her husband, Zecharias (just mentioned), and again, in great detail. This is followed by Mary, the mother of Jesus, being told of her own pregnancy by an angel, then, incredulously thereafter, visiting Elizabeth and Elizabeth's baby jumping in her womb at this occurrence. This all occurs in the first chapter of Luke's supposed gospel. Remember, it is admitted that Luke was not a part of the "first generation" of believers, and relies on "special traditions" in the writing of this gospel, as well as not actually being the writer of this gospel. There are many writings of "special traditions", including the Proto-Gospel of James (from "Lost Christianities" bt Bart D. Ehrman, 2003, Oxford University Press), which purports, in part, that a midwife actually proved Mary was still a virgin by physical examination of Mary by sticking her finger in Mary to see if she is still intact. Maybe "Luke" felt this one to be too intrusive and crude and preferred the fables he did write about since they were emotionally much like today's modern soap operas on TV. Yet we are told to consider this as sacred writing because it is believed to be "inspired" by God. It is men who tell us to believe this though written by an unknown author, men who have special agendas, and as it turned out, desired to rule over all of Christianity with all power and all available privileges. Our emotions and hopes for eternal life without the hassles of this existence, without the pains and struggles we go through, are being appealed to, and little, if any, reliable fact is given to us. They simply ask one to believe that what they tell and present to one is true, and to take it on faith. Read with a critical eye and wondering just how the author could have known what was said by persons in the detail they report them in, and you'll find many places where this is not possibly a true account of what was said, if indeed anything was said at all. Keep in mind that what they pass for truth must be laden with facts, and stories are not facts! * * * * THE RESURRECTION AND WHEN: Aside from Daniel in the Old Testament, the words that the writers of the gospels put in Jesus' mouth must be factual. Words from Jesus are the same as "Thus saith the Lord" when spoken by a true prophet of God in the Old Testament for he is considered one with God, or God incarnate. No true god could make a mistake. The test of a true prophet is whether or not what he said that God would do comes to pass. If it does not, that person is not a prophet. It has already been said that there is nothing in the Old Testament that speaks of a resurrection save in Daniel, but Daniel has been proven a fiction written about 160 BCE as if a historical novel dealing in the age of Babylon in the 500s BCE. We are told that Jesus himself predicts a resurrection. That is true if we can take the words put in his mouth by the gospel writers. The first definitive statement as to when this resurrection will occur is found in Matthew, chapter 16, verse 28 which says: "Verily I say unto you, There will be some standing here, which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." One bible expositor tries to say that this means Jesus transfigured as is said to happen in the next verse, but that does not seem to be the case when other gospels are considered. In Mark, for instance, chapter 9, verse 1, Jesus is said to say: "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." "Come with power" is the operative phrase here. What Matthew puts in Jesus' mouth is in his chapter 24, verse 34, that is identical to Mark 9:1 above says: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." What things need to be fulfilled is itemized in all of the previous verses of Matthew chapter 24, including verse 30 which says: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power [there's that power mentioned in Mark above in chapter 9, verse 1] and great glory." [Bold mine.] And when does he supposedly say this will happen? Verse 34 tells it (as said earlier in Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; and Luke 9:27. It is reiterated in verse 30 of Matthew as above) where he again says: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled." Mark, chapter 13, verse 30 says the same thing with regard to "this generation shall not pass till all these things be done." Luke, chapter 21, verse 32 says almost the identical thing: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled." Almost identical. All three say virtually the same thing, and it is a repetition of the same thing said previously by all three gospels. Jesus, Resurrection, and Rapture Paul, in I Thessalonians, chapter 4, verses 16 and 17 said similar: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: "Then we which are alive [and notice that he says including him in the "we"] and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." A writer I read not too long ago said that Paul must have died with great regret and disappointment, and also confusion since Jesus hadn't come as yet. Jesus' generation came and went, and no resurrection of the believers. Two thousand years later, he still hasn't come. Remember: a prophet is known to be for real if when he says "Thus saith the Lord", what he said comes true, otherwise he is not a true prophet for God would be God, and errorless if we are told he is God, and Jesus and God are one, so they say Jesus said. * * * * WHO WAS AT THE CRUCIFIXION? There's no question that who was at the cross is jumbled up and varies fairly badly. One of the problems is that Jesus has brothers named James and Joses (Matthew, 13:55). It is odd therefore, that Matthew 27:56 identifies Mary Magdalene before Mary the mother of James and Joses. If this is not the same Mary, Jesus' mother, why don't they say so since she has children of that name? Anyway, he also mentions that the mother of Zebedee's children [James and John] is there too. Mark 15:40, identifies Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and Joses maybe identifying this Mary as Matthew didn't, and Salome. Luke doesn't say if there were any women as he was crucified. John, 19:25, however, says that Jesus' mother was there, as was his aunt, his mother's sister, another Mary, and a third Mary, the wife of Cleophus, and finally, a fourth Mary, the Magdalene, and in verse 26, "the disciple...whom he loved..." Okay, who was at the cross? There's no way of factually knowing with a certainty, save for Mary Magdalene, if this isn't all a story anyway, which they make it seem that it is. Certainly there is no real knowledge here, but then all of these authors, we must remember, are anonymous and not the one's cited at the start of any of the gospels. One thing that is never mentioned as a possibility though: In John, 19:26 mentioned above, as the disciple [Jesus] loved—it has always been speculated that it was John (the son of Zebedee perhaps?), but might it not have been the "...young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body...And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked" (Mark, chapter14, verses51 and 52). It would certainly seem that there is a plausible connection there, though none may like holding that thought as a possibility. Still, why was that in Mark's gospel? * * * * WHO GOES TO THE TOMB AND DISCOVERS...? Who goes to the tomb after Jesus in laid within is a mishmash, a complete set of errors which leave only one to be correct, if any. Looked at objectively, they probably all made it up according to what they heard, and what they heard couldn't have been inspired, it's so mixed up. Here's the sequence, or lack thereof: Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary went to the tomb (28:1). An angel says Jesus is gone and goes before them into Galilee. They go to tell the disciples (verse 9), but Jesus meets them and they worship him holding his feet. In verse 10 he tells them to tell his disciples to go to Galilee to see him. Aside from the creative writing of the author, he interpolates what he could not have known—if indeed it did happen—that the "watch" went into the city and "showed" the chief priests all the things that were done, and were given money to be silent (verses11-15). This is more than obvious fiction, an embellishment that was not known, as I say, if it did happen, which is doubtful. In Mark (16:1), he has Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (Jesus' mother or the wife of Zebedee?), and Salome too. Note that Salome was omitted in Matthew's account. What they see is a young man who tells them Jesus goes to Galilee where they will see him so tell the disciples(16:5&7). That's what Matthew said too, but: In verse 12, we're told he was seen of two others in another form; when told of that, it's reported (verse 14) that he appeared to the eleven, but it doesn't say where. In Luke, 24:1, we're told "...they..." came to the tomb and saw "two men" (verse 4). We're told in verses 10 that Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women who told of this to the apostles. Then Peter goes to the tomb in verse 12, and sees nothing. In verse 13, we're told of two going to Emmaus, and one of them is Cleophus, and Jesus appears to them, but doesn't let them know it is he. In verse 30, he stays with them at "meat, and in the next verse their eyes are opened and see him as Jesus, but then he vanishes. In verse 33, they go to Jerusalem (not Galilee as in Matthew and Mark), then Jesus appears in their midst. He shows them his hands and feet and tells them to "handle me". In verses 42 and 43, he eats broiled fish and honeycomb, then in verse 49, he tells them to "tarry in Jerusalem to be "endued with power from on high". All very different from the two previous accounts. In John, we have another different story of what happened, and the only thread that is the same is Mary Magdalene. In chapter 20, verse 1, she finds the stone removed and in verse 2 runs to tell Peter, who in verse 3, goes with "that other [unnamed] disciple to see. They find only clothes and nothing else and leave. However, in verse 11, Mary stays (apparently having gone back with Peter and the "other"), and in verse 12, she sees two angels. After telling them that she knows not where Jesus has been taken, in verse 14, sees Jesus. In verse 15, he identifies himself. Now here's another strange difference: In verse 17, Jesus says to her not to touch him for he is not yet ascended, quite contradictory to Luke where he invited them to "handle" him, and eats with them (as above in L, 33 and 42-43), or Matthew 28:9 where they held his feet. The author of John has Jesus predict that Jerusalem will fall (but that had already happened and the writer knows that). In verse 19, again Jesus is in their midst that "same evening", but Thomas Didymus is not there, and doesn't believe. In verse 26, it is eight days later, and Jesus returns, and in verse 27, he invites Thomas to "...reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side..." unlike telling Mary not to touch him. Again, this is not in Galilee. In chapter 21, he does go to Galilee where the disciples are. As said before, preached about piece meal, that is, cherry picked verses, it sounds very good and uplifting, but when looked at as a whole, we can easily see the fairy tale aspects of it all. They never give you the whole, never show you in one setting the differences, and when a different side is presented, it is not in succession to where one can see that it is different. No one tells you about any other than the few "chosen" verses, that there are conflicting verses which render it all as just plain stories that have been created by "unknown" writers. Conclusion As in my previous essay, Which God, If Any?, there is still no foundation to this house of cards that has been built on sand that is an illusion that disappears when looked at objectively, and as a whole. It is then that we find that the bible does indeed have many holes in its tale. Keep in mind not only of the lack of factual foundation, but the ignorance of the masses that in time had this religion forced on them. Forced because even before Constantine's telling them to have only one religion that is Christianity, they had tried to do this by declaring the bishop of Rome to be the supreme pontiff of all of Christianity. Constantine made it a reality though there were still many other Christian sects. How they made the one religion out of Christianity was by force, by terror, as in having one bishop murdered for presumed heresy. That became the norm, and with ignorant preachers going about pushing it through the centuries, it soon became a cultural imperative to be Christian as the Catholic Church dictated it. There was no "bible" as we now have for over three hundred years, and that not officially so for another two hundred years. It mattered not, the people couldn't read anyway, and more, there was nothing to read publicly if they could read. The cultural imperative to do as the church commanded evolved into Cultural Genes that had us all automatically being "Christians" even after Martin Luther. Indeed, Martin Luther's canon had no books that weren't in the Catholic canon—his main concern was the corruption of the clergy, and the taking of "indulgences" which "remitted" the sins of those who "donated" money to the church. The public saw the same rituals until the Protestantism of other preachers came into being, and like Luther, they too kept the same books without question, and many of the rituals like Christmas and Easter. To question the scriptures was blasphemy, and to offer other than what each new group preached in their location was heresy subject to burning at the stake, which they liberally did thus further ingraining the Cultural Genes already in us through terror of the church of the time and place. No one was safe! Now it is the same, or as much as it can be the same. Our cultural genes are still appealed to, and in being other than what they deem "correct" living, they would still burn people at the stake, or pen them in in an electrified fence as on preacher recommended, if not outright killed as one Mississippi official hoped to be able to do, as do many others (see my previous stories and essays). Once more, told piece meal (cherry picking verses as they do), they make it all sound marvelous, and true, but they never give you all the facts, all the contradictions, all the untruths. What was once intended for the Jews was morphed into something that got out of hand with them during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and then was coopted by others after Jesus' death. Stories, like legends, are hard to not believe especially when you do not know how to read, are not allowed to ask questions, and are threatened with death. Ignorance is an invite to let the lies run wild, and they have. None of these writings like this one would have been necessary had people not tried to push their way of living, their belief of how all should live—realistic or not—and not tried to force all as best they could with more lies such as things like Defense of Marriage, etc. They made all of this an issue that has been screamed from the pulpits to the extreme, and from there, used their still extant cultural gene imperative to intimidate, shame, humiliate, dominate, force, and in every way cause any woman who even begins to feel "different", decide that they shouldn't listen to their own inner imperative to live as she feels she has to, love whom she will. They rip apart the fabric of the personal being that one was born with, and all due to a fabrication that has no foundation as has been shown by these writings which mostly use the bible itself to expose their falsity, their fiction. There is no solid foundation for the New Testament when the Old Testament is used; the Old Testament has been proven to be full or errors and contradictions by my previous essay, Which God, If Any, as well as my other essays and stories, particularly The Devil's Gateway which reveals the lack of foundation for the bible's fictional stories. No foundation, a vengeful, psychopathic, genocidal god who demands strict obedience, even unto death for picking up sticks on the wrong day; who deceives his own prophet intentionally even after he has done what he was sent to do, and rationally believes another prophet who says he speaks truly in god's name and tells all that God had told him so he'll believe, then God kills him. (see my essay, Which God, If Any?). Sorry, Fundamentalists, your story is shameful and untrue, and frankly, sick when one considers all the knowledge that is ours in this day. Jesus, whoever he really was, has a story put in his mouth that had its inception about the year 160 BCE, meaning it was a relatively new story—a fiction based loosely on history that was bastardized—Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar's son, nor was he the last king of Babylon, but the son of the last king, Nabonidus, and between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus, there were several kings of Babylon. Jesus was given to tell the tale of a fiction created by an unknown author, thus all the words to that effect had to be fictions. The cultural genes started to reach for their heights. "Prove all things," saith the main creator of Christianity, Paul, but I add "keep that which you verify as factual". The path to truth must be laden with nothing but facts. Don't accept cherry picked verses unless you don't mind being misled. If you mind being used and misled, then verify all that I have given you here—just about all of it is from the bible they tout as "God's inerrant word". It is not true. Prove it and set yourself free. To be humiliated, or made to feel fear, shame or guilt over being as you know within you that you are, is something that truly needs to be addressed, and corrected. As I have said, the best path to truth is to follow the path of verifiable facts. Herein are facts and their sources which you can easily check out for yourself to help you decide if there is any reason to believe in the bible and its condemnation with regards to your lesbianism, gayness, or other difference. If it is possible, you should live and love as is in you to live with those who welcome you as you are, as you were born to be, or as you have chosen to be. If it is possible! Some may feel that it is not possible. For those who feel trapped and unable to confront it, I wish you as much peace as you can find within yourself. However, by no means should anyone be allowed to make you feel shame or guilt, or to humiliate you for being as you know within you that you are, nor push you into a church where you will find your redemption for your erroneous way of wanting to live. That's BS! For those lesbians who have special circumstances that fairly prohibit them from liberating themselves openly, it is understandable; this is a harsh culture that has been set in place—do the best you comfortably can. To one and all, I wish you the best, much peace, the knowledge of the facts, and much love in your lives. * This is an original essay by the author, wistfall1, protected by copyright ©.