https://archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft

Bible Myths

AND THEIR
PARALLELS IN OTHER RELIGIONS
BEING A COMPARISON OF THE
Old and New Testament Myths and Miracles
WITH
Those of nations of antiquity
CONSIDERING ALSO
THEIR ORIGIN AND MEANING

"He who knows only one religion knows none."—PROF, MAX Muller,

“ The same thing which is now called Christian Religion existed among the Ancients. They have begun to call Christian the true religion which existed before.”—St. Augustine.

“Our love for what is old. our reverence for what our fathers used, makes us keep still in the church, and on the very altar cloths, symbols which would excite the smile of an Oriental, and lead him to wonder why we send missionaries to his land, while cherishing his faith in ours."—James Bonwick.

RT I.

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

CHAPTER I.

THE CREATION AND FALL OF MAN.

The Old Testament commences with one of its most interesting myths, that of the Creation ami Fall of Man. The story is to be found in the first three chapters of Genesis, the substance of which is as follows:

After God created the “ Heavens ” and the “ Earth,” lie said : “ Let there be light, and there was light," and after calling the light Day, and the darkness Night, the first day’s work was ended.

God then made the “ Firmament,” which completed the second day’s work.

Then God caused the dry land to appear, which he called “ Earth,” and the waters he called Seas.” After this the earth was made to bring forth grass, trees, Ac., which completed the third day’s work.

The next things God created were the “Sun,”' “Moon" ami





 



cle, thus making day and night. (Sec Knight’s Ancient Art and Mythology. p. 59. and note.i The Buddhists anciently taught that the universe is composed of limitless systems or worlds, called mkivaUts.

They are scattered throughout space, and each sakwala has a sun and moon. (See Hardy: Buddhist Legends, pp. 80 and 87.)



“Stars," and after lie had set them in the Firmament, the fourth day’s work was ended.[1]

After these, God created great “ whales,” and other creatures which inhabit the water, also “ winged fowls.” This brought the fifth day to a close.

The work of creation was finally completed on the sixth day,1 when God made “beasts” of every kind, “cattle,” “creeping things,” and lastly “ man,” whom he created “ male and female,” in his own image.3

“ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and ail the host of them. And on the sen nth 4 day God ended his work which he laid made: and he rested on tlin seventh day, from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had reded from all his work which God created and made.”

After this information, which concludes at the third verse of Genesis ii., strange though it may appear, another account of the Creation commences, which is altogether different from the one we have just related. This account commences thus :

" These arc the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (not days) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”

It then goes on to say that “ the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,”'1 which appears to be tbe first thing he made. After planting a. garden eastward in Eden,6 the Lord God put the man therein, "and out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food ; the Tree of Life' also in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of



 



4   The number seven was sacred among almost every nation of antiquity. (See ch. ii.)

5    According to Grecian Mythology, the God Prometheus created men, in the image of the gods, out of clay (see Bulfinch: The Age of Fable, p. 25; and Goldzhier: Hebrew Myths, p. 373), and the God Ilephaistos was commanded by Zeus to mold of clay the figure of a maiden, into which Athene, the dawn-goddess, breathed the breath of life. This is Pandora—the gift of all the gods—who is presented to Epimetheu9. (See Cox: Aryan Myths, vol. ii., p. 208.)

• “What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in Paradise, in Eden, like a husbandman.” (Origen : quoted in Mysteries of Adoni, p. 176.) “There is no way of preserving the literal sense of the first chapter of Genesis, without impiety, und attributing things to God unworthy of him.” (St. Augustine.)

7 “ The records about the ‘ Tree qf L\fe1 are



 



Knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.” These four rivers were called, first Pison, second Gihon, third Hiddekel, and the fourth Euphrates.’

After the “Lord God” had made the “Tree of Life,” and the “ Tree of Knowledge,” he said unto the man :

"Of every tree of the garden thou inayest 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 eatesl thereof thou shall surely die." Then the Lord God, thinking that it would not be well for man to live alone, formed—out of the ground—"every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what, he would call them, and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”

After Adam had given names to “ all cattle, and to the fowls of the air, and to every beast of the field,” “ the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, and he (the Lord God) took one of his (Adam’s) ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

" And of the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto Adam.” “ And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.”

After this everything is snpposed to have gone harmoniously, until a serpent appeared before the woman%—who was afterwards called Eve—and said to her:

“ Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden f”

The woman, answering the serpent, said :

“ 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, lest ye die."

the eublimest proofs of the unity and continuity of tradition, and of its Eastern origin. The earliest records of the most ancient Oriental tradition refer to a ‘ Tree of Life' which was guard- ' ed by spirits. The juice of the fruit of this sacred tree, like the tree itself, was called Soma in Sanscrit, and Haoina in Zend; it was revered as the life preserving essence.'’ (Bunsen: Keys of St. Peter, p. 414 )

1             “ According to the Persian account of Paradise, four great rivers came from Mount Al- borj; two are in the North, and two go towards the South. The river Arduisir nourishes the Tree of Immortality. the Holy Horn. ’ ’ (Stiefel- hagen: quoted in Mysteries of Adorn p. 149.) “ According to the Chinese myth, the waters of
 
the Garden of Paradise issue from the fountain of immortality, which divides itself into four rivers.” (Ibid., p. 150, and Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i., p. 210.) The Hindoos call their Moimt Mern the Paradise, out of which went four rivers. (Anacalypsis, vol. i., p. 357.)

2According to Persian legend, Arimanes, the EvilSpirit, by eating a certain kind of fruit, transformed himself into a serpent, and went gliding about on the earth to tempt human beings. His Devs entered the bodies of men and produced all manner of diseases. They entered into their minds, and incited them to sensuality, falsehood, slander and revenge. Into every department of the world they introduced discord and death.
 

Whereupon the serpent said to her:


“ Yc shall not surely die ” (which, according to the narrative, was the truth).

lie then told her that, upon eating the fruit, their eyes would he opened, and that they would be as gods, knowing good from evil.

The woman then looked upon the tree, and as the fruit was tempting, “she took of the fruit, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband, and he did eat.” The result was not death (as the Lord God had told them), but, as the serpent had said, “ the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked, and they 4tewed tig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

Towards evening (i. e., “ in the cool of the day ”), Adam and his wife “ heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden," and being afraid, they hid themselves among the trees of the garden. The Lord God not finding Adam and his wife, said : “ Where art thou ?” Adam answering, said : “ I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”

The “ Lord God ” then told Adam that he had eaten of the tree which he had commanded him not to eat, whereupon Adam said: “ The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat.”

When the “ Lord God ” spoke to the woman concerning her transgression, she blamed the serpent, which she said “ beguiled ’’ her. This sealed the serpent’s fate, for the " Lord God ” cursed him and said :

“Upon tliv belly shalt thou vo, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.”[2]

Unto the woman the " Lord God ” said :

“I will greatly multiply thy sorrow, and thy conception; in sorrow thou shall bring forth children, aud thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Unto Adam lie said :

“ Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake: in sorrow shall thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also, and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt cat (lie herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out of it mist thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return. ”



 



reflect unpleasantly upon the wisdom of such a God as Jehovah is claimed to be, as well as upon the ineffectualness of his first curse I



The “ Lord God ” then made coats of skin for Adam and his wife, with which he clothed them, after which he said:

“Behold, the man is become as one of us,' to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever ” (he must be sent forth from Eden).

" So he (the Lord God) drove out the man (and the woman); and ho placed at the east of the garden of Eden, Cherubinis, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the Tree of Life.”

Tims ends the narrative.

Before proceeding to show from whence this legend, or legends, had their origin, we will notice a feature which is very prominent in the narrative, and which cannot escape the eye of an observing reader, L e., the two different and contradictory accounts of the creation.

The first of these commences at the first verse of chapter first, and ends at the third verse of chapter second. The second account commences at the fourth verse of chapter second, and continues to the end of the chapter.

In speaking of these contradictory accounts of tho Creation, Dean Stanley says :

“It is now clear to diligent students of the Bible, that the first and second chapters of Genesis contain two narratives of the Creation, side by side, differing from each other in most every particular of time and place and order.”4

Bishop Colenso, in his very learned work on the Pentateuch, speaking on this subject, says :

“The following are the most noticeable points of difference between the two cosmogonies ;

“ 1. In the first, the earth emerges from the waters and is, therefore, saturated with moisture,[3] [4] [5] In the second, the 'whole face of the ground’ requires to be

moistened.1



 



their day attempted, and each hare totally and deservedly failed. One is the endeavor to wrest the words of the Bible from their natural meaning, and force it toe/wtk the language ofsc'anct” After speaking of the earliest known example, which was the interpolation of the word ''not ” in Leviticus xi. 6, he continues : “This is the earliest instance of the falsification of Scripture to meet the demands of science; and it lias been followed in later times by the various efforts which have been made to twist tbeearlierchap- tersof the book of Genesis into apparent agree inent with the last results of geology—representing days not to be days, morning and evening not to he morning aud evening, the deluge not to be the deluge, and the ark not to be the ark.”

s Gen. i. 9. 10.

* Gen. ii. b.



1  Gen. i. 20, 24, 26.

2  Gen. ii. 7, 9.

* Gen. i. 20.

4 Gen. ii. 19.

6 Gen. i. 27.

9 Gen. ii. 7: ill. 22. T Gen. i. 28.

8 Gen. ii. 8,15,

* Gen. i. 28.
 
“2. In the first, the birds and the beasts are created before man.' In the second, man is created before the birds and the beasts.*

“ 3. In the first, ‘ all fowls that fly ’ are made out of the waters,3 In the second • the fowls of the air ’ are made oat of the ground.*

“4. In the first, man is created in the image of God.6 In the second, man is made of the dust of the ground, aud merely animated with the breath of life; and it is only after his eating the forbidden fruit that ‘ the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil.’6

“5. In the first, man is made lord of the whole earth.' In the second, he is merely placed in the garden of Eden, ‘ to dress it and to keep it.’8

“6. In the first, the man and the woman are created together, as the closing and completing work of the whole creation,—created also, as is evidently implied, in the same kind of way, to be the complement of one another, and, thus created, they are blessed together.•

“ In the second, the beasts and birds are created between the man and the woman. First, the man is made of the dust of the ground; he is placed by himself in the garden, charged with si solemn command, and threatened with a curse if he breaks it; then the beasts and birds are made, and the man gives names to them, and, lastly, after all this, the woman is made out of one of his ribs, but merely as a helpmate for the man.[6] [7]

“The fact is, that the second account of the Creation," together with the story of the Fall,[8] is manifestly composed by a different writer altogether from him who wrote the first.'[9]

“ This is suggested at once by the circumstance that, throughout the first narrative, the Creator is always spoken of by the name Elohim (God), whereas, throughout the second account, as well as the story of the Fall, he is always called Jehovah Elohim (Lord God), except when the writer seems to abstain, for some reason, from placing the name Jehovah in the mouth of the serpent.[10] [11] This accounts naturally for the above contradictions. It would appear that, for some reason, the productions of two pens have been here united, without any reference to their inconsistencies.”[12]

Dr. Kaliseh, who does his utmost to maintain—as far as his knowledge of the truth will allow—the general historical veracity of this narrative, after speaking of the first account of the Creation, says:

“ But now the narrative seems not only to pause, but to go backward, The grand and powerful climax seems at once broken off, and a languid repetition appears to follow. Another cosmogony is introduced, which, to complete the perplexity, is, in many important features, in direct contradiction to the former.

“ It would be dishonesty to conceal these difficulties. It would be weakmindedness and cowardice. It would be flight instead of combat. It would be an ignoble retrea'. instead of victory. We confess there is an apparent dissonance.”"



Dr. Knappert says :[13] [14]

“ The account of the Creation from the hanil of the Priestly a\tth/>r is utterly different from the other narrative, beginning at the fourth verse of Genesis ii. Here we are told that God created Heaven and Earth in six days, and rested on the seventh day, obviously with a view to bring out the holiness of the Sabbath in a strong light.”

Now that we have seen there arc two different and contradictory accounts of the Creation, to be found in the first two chapters of Genesis, we will endeavor to learn if there is sufficient reason to believe they are copies of more ancient legends.

We have seen that, according to the first account, God divided the work of creation into six days. This idea agrees with that of the ancient Persians.

The Zend-Avesta—the sacred writings of the Parsecs—states that the Supremo being Ahuramazda (Onriuzd), created the universe and man in six successive periods of time, in the following order: First, the Heavens; second, the Waters; third, the Earth ; fourth, the Trees and Plants ; fifth, Animals ; and sixth, Man. After the Creator had linished his work, he rested.[15]

The A vesta account of the Creation is limited to this announcement, but we find a more detailed history of the origin of the human species in the book entitled Bundehesh, dedicated to the exposition of a complete cosmogony. This book states that Ahuramazda created the first man and women joined together at the back. After dividing them, he endowed them with motion and activity, placed within them an intelligent soul, and bade them “ to be humble of heart; to observe the law ; to be pure in their thoughts, pure in their speech, pure in their actions.” Thus were born Mashya and Mashydna, the pair from which all human beings arc descended.3

The idea brought out in this story of the first human pair having originally formed a single androgynous being with two faces, separated later into two personalities by the Creator, is to be found in the Genesis account (v. 2). “Male and female created he them, and blessed them, and named their name Adam.” Jewish tradition in the Targum and Talmud, as well as among learned rabbis, allege that Adain was created man and woman at the same time, having two faces turned in two opposite directions, and that the Creator separated the feminine half from him, in order to make of her a distinct person.*

The ancient Etruscan legend, according to Delitzsch, is almost the same as the Persian. They relate that God created the world in six thousand years. In the first thousand he created the Heaven and Earth ; in the second, the Firmament; in the third, the Waters of the Earth ; in the fourth, the Sun, Moon and Stars ; in the fifth, the Animals belonging to air, water and land ; and in the sixth, Man alone.[16]

Dr. Delitzsch, who maintains to the utmost the historical truth of the Scripture story in Genesis, yet says:

“ Whence comes the surprising agreement of the Etruscan and Persian legends with this section ? How comes it that the Babylonian cosmogony in Berosus, and thePhamician in Sanchoniathon, in spite of their fantastical oddity, come in contact with it in remarkable details ?”

After showing some of the similarities in the legends of these different nations, he continues :

“ These are only instances of that which they have in common, tor such an account outside of Israel, we must, however, conclude, that the author of Genesis i. has no vision before him, but a tradition,”[17]

Yon Bolden tells us that the old Chaldcean cosmogony is also the same.[18] [19]

To continue the Persian legend; we will now show that according to it, after the Creation man was tempted, and fell. Kalisch ‘ and Bishop Colenso[20] tell us of the Persian legend that the first couple lived originally in purity and innocence. Perpetual happiness was promised them by the Creator if they persevered in their virtue. But an evil demon came to them in the form of a serpent, sent by Ahriman, the prince of devils, and gave them fruit of a wonderful tree, which imparted immortality. Evil inclinations then entered their hearts, and all their moral excellence was destroyed. Consequently they fell, and forfeited the eternal happiness for which they were destined. They killed beasts, and clothed themselves in their skins. The evil demon obtained still more perfect power over their minds, and called forth envy, hatred, discord, and rebellion, which raged in the bosom of the families.

Since the above was written, Mr. George Smith, of the British Musenm, lias discovered cuneiform inscriptions, which show conclusively that the Babylonians had this legend of the Creation and


Fall of Man, some 1,500 years or more before the Hebrews heard of it.[21] The cuneiform inscriptions relating to the Babylonian legend of the Creation and Fall of Man, which have been discovered by English archaeologists, are not, however, complete. The portions which relate to the Tree and Serpent have not been found, but Babylonian gem engravings show that these incidents were evidently a part of the original legend.'1 The Tree of Life ill the Genesis account appears to correspond with the sacred grove of Anu, which was guarded by a sword turning to all the four points of the compass.[22] [23] [24] A representation of this Sacred Tree, with “ attendant     cherubimf

copied from an As Syrian cylinder, may be seen in Mr. George Smith’s “ Chaldean

Account of Genesis.'”

Figure Iso. 1, which we have taken from the same work,[25] shows the tree of knowledge, fruit, and the serpent. Mr. Smith says of it:

“ One striking and important specimen of early type in the British Museum collection, has two figures sitting one on each side of a tree, holding out their hands to the fruit, while at the back of one (the woman) is scratched a serpent. AVe know well that in these early sculptures none of these figures were chance devices, but all represented events, or supposed events, and figures in their legends; thus it is evident that a form of the story of the Fall, similar to that of Genesis, was known in early times in Babylonia.”[26]

This illustration might be used to illustrate the narrative of Genesis, and as Friedrich Delitzsch has remarked (G. Smith’s Chaldaisehe Genesis) is capable of no other explanation.

M. Renan does not hesitate to join forces with the ancient commentators, in seeking to recover a trace of the same tradition among the Fhenieians in the fragments of Snnchoniathon, translated into Greek by Philo of Byblos. In fact, it is there said, in speaking of the first human pair, and of ^Eori, which seems to be the translation of Ilavvdh (in Pheniciiin





 



evil, the fall of the angels, the wickedness of the serpent, &c. Such points as these are included in the cuneiform narrative.'’ (Smith: Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 18, 14.)

8 Smith: Chaldean Account of Genesis, p. 88.

4     Ibid. p. 89.

8 Ibid. p. 91.



llavath) and stands in her relation to the other members of tlie pair, that this personage “ has found out how to obtain nourishment from the fruits of the tree.”

The, idea of the Edenie happiness of the first human beings constitutes one of the universal traditions. Among the Egyptians, the terrestial reign of tiie god Ha, who inaugurated the existence of the world and of human life, was a golden age to which they continually looked back with regret and envy. Its “ like has never been seen since.”

The ancient Greeks boasted of their “ Golden Age,” when sorrow and trouble were not known. Hesiod, an ancient Grecian poet, describes it tints:

“Men lived like Gods, without vices or passions, vexation or toil. In happy companionship with divine beings, they passed their days in tranquillity and joy, living together iu perfect equality, united by mutual confidence and love. The earth was more beautiful titan now, and spontaneously yielded an abundant variety of fruits. Human beings and animals spoke the same language and conversed with each other. Men were considered mere boys at a hundred years old. They had none of the infirmities of age to trouble them, and when they passed to regions of superior life, it was in a gentle slumber.”

In the course of time, however, all the sorrows and troubles came to man. They were cttttsed by inquisitiveness. The story is as follows : Epimetheus received a gift from Zeus (God), in the form of a beautiful woman (Pandora).

“ She brought with her a vase, the lid of which was (by the command of God), to remain closed. The curiosity of her husband, however, tempted him to open it, and suddenly there escaped from it troubles, weariness and illness from which mankind was never afterwards free. All that remained was hope.” [27]

Among the Thibetans, the paradisiacal condition was more complete and spiritual. The desire to eat of a certain sweet herb deprived men of their spiritual life. There arose a sense of shame, and the need to clothe themselves. Necessity compelled them to agriculture; the virtues disappeared, and murder, adultery and other vices, stepped into their place."

The idea tlmt the Eall of the human race is connected with agriculture is found to be also often represented in the legends of the East African negroes, especially in the Calabar legend of the Creation, which presents many interesting points of comparison with the biblical story of the Fall. The first human pair arc called by a bell at meal-times to Abasi (the Calabar God), in heaven; and in place of the forbidden tree of Genesis are put agriculture



 



a Kalisch’s Com. vol. i. p. 64.



 



and propagation, which Abasi strictly denies to the first pair. The Fall is denoted by the transgression of both these commands, especially through tin; use of implements of tillage, to which the woman is tempted hv a female friend wlm is given to her. From that moment man fell am! Iwrame mortal, so that, as the I!ihle story has it, lie can eat bread only in the sweat of his face. There agriculture is a curse, a fall from a more perfect stage to a lower and imperfect one.'

J)r. Kalisch, writing of the Garden of Kden, says:

“ The Paradise is no exclusive feature of the early history of the Hebrews. Must of the ancient nations hare similar nnrrutirts atm at a Int/ipy abtnh. irtiich care dues nut approach, and which re-echots with the sounds of the panst bliss.'"[28] [29]

The Persians supposed that a region of bliss and delight called lledm, more beautiful than all the rest of the world, traru'set n,j a mighty rirer, was the original abode of the first men, before they were tempted by the evil spirit in the form of a serjnmt, to partake of the fruit of the forbidden tree Horn,[30]

Dr. Dulitzscli, writing of the Persian legend, observes:

" Innumerable iittonrtniits of the Holy One keep watch against the attempts of Ahriman, over the tree Hunt, which contains in itself the power of the resurrection.[31]

The ancient Greeks had a tradition concerning the “Islands of the Blessed,” the ‘‘ Elysium,” on the borders of the earth, abounding in every charm of life, and the “Garden of the Jlesperidcs,” the Paradise, in which grew a tree bearing the golden tipples of Immortality. It was guarded by three nymphs, and a Serpent, or I >rngon, the over-watchful Ltidon. It was one of the labors of Hercules to gather some of these apples of life. "When lie arrived there lie found the garden protected by a J)ra<jon. Ancient medallions represent a tree with a serpent twined around it. Hercules has gathered an apple, and near him stand the three nymphs, called Hespcrides.* This is simply a parallel of the Eden myth.

The Rev. JUr. Falter, speaking of Jhrrnhs, says:

“On tlio Sphere he is represented in the act of contending with the Serpent, the head of which is placed under his foot : and this Serpent, we are told, is that which guarded the tree with golden fruit in the midst of the garden of the 1 lesper- ides. But the garden of the Hespcrides mis none >>tlu r than, the garth u of Pum- disc; consequently the serpent of that warden. the head of which is crushed beneath the heed of Hercules, and which itself is described as eneirelimr with its folds the trunk of the mysterious true, must necessarily be a transcript of that (serpent whose form was assumed by'the tempter of our first parents. We may observe the same ancient tradition in the Phoenician fable representing Ophion or Ophioneus.

And Professor Fergusson says :

?" Jl-rculex’ adventures in the garden of the Ilesperides, is the Pagan form of the myth that most resembles the precious Serpent-guarded fruit of the Garden of Eden, though the moral of the fable is so widely different.”8

The ancient Egyptians also had the legend of the “ Tree of Life." It is mentioned it) their sacred hooks that Osiris ordered the names of some souls to be written on this “ Tree of Life,” the fruit of which made those who ate it to become as gods.[32] [33] [34] [35]

Among tlie most ancient traditions of the Hindoos, is that of the ‘ Tree of Life ”—called Sdm.a in Sanskrit—tlie juice of which imparted immortality. This most wonderful tree was guarded by spirits.*

Still more striking is the Hindoo legend of the “Elysium” or “ Paradise,” which is as follows :

“ In the sacred mountain Meru, which is perpetually' clothed in the golden rays of the Sun, and w hose lofty' summit reaches into heaven, no sinful man

can exist, It is guarded by a dreadful dragon. It is adorned with many' celestial plants and trees, and is watered by four rivers, w hich thence separate and flow to the four chief directions.”5

Tlie Hindoos, like the philosophers of tlie Ionic school (Thales, for instance), held water to be the first existing and all-pervading principle, at the same time allowing tlie co-operation and influence of an immaterial intelligence in the work of creation.8 A Yedic poet, meditating on the Creation, uses the following expressions :

“ Nothing that is was then, even w’hat is not, did not exist then." “There was no space, no life, and lastly there was no time, no difference between day and night, no solar torch by'which morning might have been told from evening.” “ Darkness there was, and all at first was veiled in gloom profound, as ocean without light.”’

The Hindoo legend approaches very nearly to that preserved in the Hebrew' Scriptures. Thus, it is said that Siva, as the Supremt Being, desired to tempt Brahma (who had taken human form, and was called Swayambhura—son of the self-existent), and for this object he dropped from heaven a blossom of the sacred Jig tree.



 



5Colcnso: The Pentateuch Examined, vol. iv. p. 153.

“Buckley: Cities of the Ancient World, p 148.

7 Muller: Hist. Sanskrit Literature, p. 559.



Swayambhnra, instigated by liis wife, Satarupa, endeavors to obtain this blossom, thinking its possession will render him immortal and divine; but when he lias sueceeded in doing so, he is cursed by Siva, and doomed to misery and degradation.[36] [37] The sacred Indian tig is endowed by the Brahmins and the Buddhists with mysterious significance, as the ‘‘ Tree of Knowledge ” or “ Intelligence.'”

There is no Hindoo legend of the Creation similar to the I’er- sian and Hebrew accounts, and Ceylon was never believed to have been the Paradise or home of our first parents, although such stories arc in circulation.[38] The Hindoo religion states—as we have alrea<ly seen—Mount Meru to be the Paradise, out of which went four nee ns.

We have noticed that the “Gardens of Paradise" are said to have been guarded by Dragons, and that, according to the Genesis account, it was Cherubim that protected Eden. This apparent difference in the legends is owing to the fact that we have come in our modern times to speak of Cherub as though it were an other name for an Angel. But the Cherub of the writer of Genesis, the Cherub of Assyria, the Cherub of Babylon, the Cherub of the entire Orient, at the time the Eden story was written, was not at all an Angel, but an animal, and a mythological one at that. The Cherub had, in some eases, the body of a lion, with the bead of an other animal, or a man, and the wings of a bird. In Ezekiel they have the body of a man, whose head, besides a human countenance, has also that of a Lion, an Ox and an Eagle. They are provided with four wings, and the whole body is spangled with innumerable eyes. In Assyria and Babylon they appear as winged bulls with human faces, and are placed at the gateways of palaces and temples as guardian genii who watch over the dwelling, as the Cherubim in Genesis watch the “ Tree of Life.”

Most Jewish writers and Christian Fathers conceived the Cherubim as Angels. Most theologians also considered them as Angels, until Miehaeiis showed them to be a mythological animal, a poetical creation.*



 



“bridge of Adima” which he speaks, of as connecting the island of Ceylon with the mainland, is called •* Rama’s bridge : ” and the “Adam’s footprints” are called “Buddha's footprints.” The Portuguese, who called the mountain Pico d'Adania (Adam’s Peak), evidently invented these other uanies. (See Maurice’s Hist. Hindustan, vol. i. pp. 361, 3C2, and vol. ii. p. 242).

* See Smith’s Bible Die. An. “ Cherubim.” and Lenonuant's Beginning of History, ch. Hi.



We see then, that our Cherub is simply a Dragon.

To continue our inquiry regarding the prevalence of the Eden- myth among nations of antiquity.

The Chinese have their Age of Virtue, when nature furnished abundant food, and man lived peacefully, surrounded by all the beasts. In their sacred books there is a story concerning a mysterious garden, where grew a tree bearing “ apples of immortality,'’ guarded by a winged serpent, called a Dragon. They describe a primitive age of the world, when the earth yielded abundance of delicious fruits without cultivation, and the seasons were untroubled by wind and storms. There was no calamity, sickness, or death. Men wore then good without effort; for the human heart was in harmony with the peacefulness and beauty of nature.

The Golden Age ” of the past is much dwelt upon by their ancient, commentators. One of them says :

“All places were (hen equally the native county of every man. Flocks wandered in the Helds without any guide; Birds tilled the air with their melodious voices; and the fruits grew of their own accord. .Men lived pleasantly with the animals, and all creatures were members of the .same family. Ignorant of evil, man lived in simplicity and perfect innocence."

Another commentator says:

“In the first age of perfect purity, all was in harmony, and the passions did not occasion the slightest, murmur. Man, united to sovereign reason within, conformed lii.s outward actions to sovereign justice. Far from all duplicity and falsehood, his soul received marvelous felicity from heaven, and the purest delights from earth.”

Another says:

“ A delicious garden refreshed with zephyrs, and planted with odoriferous trees, was situated in the middle of a mountain, which was the avenue of heaven. Tiie waters that moistened it flowed from a source called the ‘ Fountain of Immortality.’ lie who drinks of it never dies. Thence flowed four rivers. A Golden lliver, betwixt the South aud East, a lied Hirer, between the Xorth and East, the, lliver of the Lamb between the .North and West.”

The animal Maiming guards the entrance.

Partly by an undue thirst for knowledge, and partly by increasing sensuality, and the seduction of woman, man fell. Then passion and lust ruled in the human mind, and war with the animals began. In one of the Chinese sacred volumes, called the Chi-King, it is said that:

“All was subject to man at first, but a woman threw us into slavery. The wise husband raised up a bulwark of walls, but the woman, by an ambitious desire of knowledge, demolished them. Our misery did not come from heaven, but from, a woman. She lost the human race. Ah, unhappy Poo See ! thou kindled (he fire that consumes ns, smd which is every ilay augmenting. Our misery lias lasted many ages. Thc tcorldislo.il. Vice ovcrtlows all things like a mortal poison.”[39] [40]

Thus wo see that the Chinese are no strangers to the doctrine of original sin. It is their invariable belief that mail is a fallen being; admitted by them from time immemorial.

The inhabitants of JLvhujascar had a legend similar to the Eden story, which is related as follows:

“ The first man was created of the dust of the earth, and was placed in a Harden, when-he was subject to none of the ills which now alfcct mortality; he was also free from all bodily appetites, and though surrounded by delicious fruit and limpid streams yet felt no desire to taste of the fruit or to quail the water 'I'he Creator, had, moreover, strirth) forbid him either to eat or to drink. The great enemy, however, came to him. and painted to him, in glowing colors, the sweetness of the apple, and the lusciousness of the date, and the succulence of the orange.”

After resisting the temptations for a while, he at last ate of the fruit, and consequently fell?

A legend of the Creation. similar to the Hebrew, was found by Mr. Ellis among the Tahitians, and appeared in his “ Polynesian Researches." It is as follows :

After Tnarao had formed the world, he created man out of artea, red earth, which was also the food of man until bread was made. Taarao one day called for the man by name. 'When he came, lie caused him to fall asleep, and while he slept, lie took out one of his ivi, or bones, and with it made a woman, whom he gave to the man as his wife, and they became the progenitors of mankind. The woman's name was which signifies a bone.[41] [42]

The prose Edda. of the ancient -Scanitinacians, speaks of the “Golden Ago" when all was pure and harmonious. This age lasted until the arrival of woman out of Jotunheim—the region of the giants, a sort of “ land of Rod "—who corrupted it.*

In the annals of the Me-rirans, the first woman, whose name was translated by the old Spanish writers, “ the woman of our flesh,'’ is always represented as accompanied by a great male serpent, who seems to be talking to her. Some writers believe this to be the temjtter speaking to the primeval mother, and others that it is intended to represent the father of the human race. This .Mexican Eve is represented on their monuments as the mother of twins.5



 



* See Mallet's Northern Antiquities, p. 409.

5   See Barin»i Gould's Legends of the Patriarchs: Squire’s Serpent Symbol, p. 161. and Wake’s Phallisui in Ancient Religion-, p. 41.



 



Mr. Franklin, in his “ Buddhists and Jeyncs,” says :

“A striking instance is recorded by the very intelligent traveler (Wilson), regarding a representation of the Fall of onr first parents, sculptured in the magnificent temple of Ipsambul, in Nubia. lie says that a very exact representation of Adam ami Eve in the garden of Eden is to be seen in that cave, and that the K-rpent climbing round the tree is especially delineated, and the rvhole subject of the tempting of our first parents most accurately exhibited.”1

Nearly the same thing was found by Colonel Coombs in the {?south of India. Colonel Tod, in bis ‘‘Hist. Rajapout-ana, ” says:

"A drawing, brought by Colonel Coombs from a sculptured column in a cave- temple in the South of India, represents the first pair at the foot of the ambrosial tree, and a serpent entwined among the heavily-laden houghs, presenting to them some of the fruit from his mouth. The tempter appears to be at that part of his discourse, when

‘-------- hie words, replete with guile,

Into tier heart, too easy entrance won:

Fixed on the fruit she gazed.’

“ This is a curious subject to he engraved on an ancient Pagan temple.’”1

So the Colonel thought, no doubt, but it is not so very curious

work of Mont- faucon,3 repre-
 
after all. It is
the same myth
which we have
found—with but
such small vari-
ations only as
time and circum-
stances may be
expected to pro-
duce — among
different nations,
in both the Old
and New "Worlds.

Fig. No. 2,
taken from the
feet being, and
what he once
 
is now only
 
sents one of
these ancient
Pagan sculp-
tures. Can any
one doubt that it
is allusive to the
myth of which
we have been
treating in this
chapter ?

That man
was originally
created a per-
broken remnant
piece of mythol-
 
a fallen and
was, we have seen to be a
ogy, not only unfounded in fact, but, beyond intelligent question,
proved untrue. What, then, is the significance of the exposure
of this myth ? What does its loss as a scientific fact, and as a por-
tion of Christian dogma, imply ? It implies that with it—although
many Christian divines who admit this to be a legend, do not,
 
of
 
1 Quoted by Higgins : Anacalypsis, vol. i. 3 Tod's Hist. Kaj., p. 581, quoted by Hig-
P* 403.                                                  gins: Anacalypsis, vol. i. p. 404.

8 L’Antiquite Expliquco, vol. i.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




or do not profess, to see it—must fall the whole Orthodox scheme, for upon this myth the theology of Christendom is built. The doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Fall of man, his total depravity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the devil, hell, in fact, the entire theology of the Christian church, falls to pieces with the historical inaccuracy of this story, for upon it is it built; 'tis the foundation of the whole structure.[43]

According to Christian dogma, the Incarnation of Christ Jesus had become necessary, merely because he had to redeem the evil introduced into the world by the Fall of man. These two dogmas cannot be separated from each other. If there was no Fall, there is no need of an atonement, and no Redeemer is required. Those, then, who consent in recognizing in Christ Jesus a God and Redeemer, and who, notwithstanding, cannot resolve upon admitting the story of the Fallot man to bo historical, should exculpate themselves from the reproach of inconsistency. There are a great number, however, in this position at the present day.

Although, as we have said, many Christian divines do not, or do not profess to, see the force of the above argument, there are many who do ; and they, regardless of their scientific learning, cling to these old myths, professing to believe them, well knowing what must follow with their fall. The following, though written some years ago, will serve to illustrate this style of reasoning.

The Bishop of Manchester (England) writing in the “ Manchester Examiner and Times,” said :

“ The very foundation of our faith, the very basis of our hopes, the very nearest and dearest of our consolations are taken from us, when one line of that sacred volume, on which we base everything, is declared to be untruthful and untrustworthy."

The “ English Churchman,” speaking of clergymen who have “ doubts,” said, that any who are not throughly persuaded “ that the Scriptures cannot in any particular be untrue,” should leave the Church.

The Rev. E. Garbett, M. A., in a sermon preached before the University of Oxford, speaking of the historical truth'' of the Bible, said:



 



learned Thomas Maurice, for he says: “If the Mosaic History he indeed a fable, the whole fabric of the national religion is false, since the main pillar of Christianity rests upon that important original promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent/' (Hist. Hindostan, vol. i. p. 29.)



“ It is the clear teaching of those doctrinal formularies, to which we of the ( hurch of England have expressed our solemn assent, and no honed interpretation. <>f her language can get. rid of it

Ami that:

“In all consistent reason, we mud accept the whole of the inspired autographs, or reject the whale. ”

Dr. IJaylce, Principal of a theological university—St. Aiden's College—at Birkenhead, England, and author of a “Manual,” called llaylee's “Verbal Tnsjn-ratumwritten “ chiefly for the youths of St. Aiden's Collegemakes use of the following words, in that work:

"The whale Jiiblc, as a revelation, is a declaration of the mind of God towards his creatures on all the subjects of which the Bible treats.'’

“ The Jld/leis God's ward, in the same sense as if he had made use of no human agent, hut had Himself spoken it.”

“ The Bible cannot be less limn verbally inspired. Kerry word, every syllable, i rery letter, is just what it would he, had God spoken from heaven without any human intervention.”

“Every scientific statement is infallibly correct, ail its history and narrations of every kind, are without any inaccuracy."[44]

A whole volume might be Idled with such quotations, not only from religions works and journals published in England, but from those published in the United States of America.[45]



 



regard to the geological antiquity of the world, evolution, atheism, pantheism. &c. lie believes—and rightly too—that, “ if the account of Creation in GeneMs falls, Christ and the apostles follow: if the hook of Genesis is erroneous^ so also are the Gospels

#IAMNOTAFRAIDTOSAYIT - Religious patriarchy source of all (DOMESTIC) VIOLENCE - all religions are plagerism from Sumeria

mirror(most up to date)
https://www.reddit.com/r/russiawarinukraine/comments/4ronrg/iamnotafraidtosayit_ukrainian_social_media_users

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'
Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on
 the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.

http://www.covertmessiah.com/
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

http://www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-existed/
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paulkovich.html
http://www.inquisitr.com/988571/jesus-covert-messiah-bible-scholar-romans-made-up-jesus/

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.htm

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/10/joseph-atwill-has-not-proven-that-jesus-was-made-up-by-the-romans/
http://endthelie.com/2013/10/12/joseph-atwills-caesars-messiah-debunked/

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT





At http://home.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html
 
A well researched paper on the various inconsistencies when comparing the various books of the New Testament.
 
SOME FAMOUS NEW TESTAMENT FORGERIES1
Louis W. Cable


There is something feeble and contemptible about a person who cannot face life without the help of comfortable myths and cherished illusions.

 Bertrand Russell


The fraudulent nature of the New Testament is readily apparent to anyone who studies it objectively. The gospels have been shown to be fiction pure and simple while many of the so-called epistles of Paul are obvious counterfeits as are those of Peter and John. (See Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton L. Mack.) In fact, forgery was so rampant throughout the early Christian establishment that Paul taught his followers to recognize his handwriting in an attempt to insure authenticity2. So to point out a few forgeries in this book of forgeries is like prosecuting a serial rapist for jay walking. However, the following stories are among those deserving special attention because they are often presented as factual history, particularly to the young.

In the following I deal almost exclusively with the gospels. Forgeries are rampant, however, throughout the entire New Testament, especially among the so-called epistles of Paul. For more information on this subject see, "The Pauline Epistles," "The First Bible" and "Are the Gospels True?".

The Virgin Birth - With the development in the last half of the twentieth century of the twin medical techniques, in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination, it became possible for a "virgin," a woman who had never had sexual intercourse with a man, to conceive and bear a child. But, could such a thing have happened two thousand years ago? No way!

In the gospels of Matthew and Luke, whose authors remain unknown, we are told at the beginning of the birth narratives that a young Jewish woman who had never had normal sex relations with a man did in fact become pregnant and after term she delivered a healthy baby boy. It is known euphemistically as "The Virgin Birth." Many Christians take it literally. Ask them why and they will in all probability say it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, Isaiah 7:14 to be exact. Is their interpretation of the prophecy in question valid, or is it not? What follows is derived in part from the writings of Samuel Golding of the Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, Jerusalem, Israel.

Throughout all of Christendom the New Testament is considered to be the divinely inspired word of God. Therefore, its message is accepted without question. Messianic Jews have been taught by Christian missionaries that it is the fulfillment of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible). In short, the Old Testament prophets are supposed to have spoken about Jesus thus confirming his claim to be the long awaited Jewish messiah. One of the many "proofs" of this astounding claim comes from a misinterpretation of Isaiah 7.14 (KJV) which reads, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel.

The verse which mentions a virgin can only be found in the KJV which is incorrectly translated. Other Bibles such as the NEB, RSV and the Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Version) do not give credence to the belief in a virgin birth. There are a few points worth noting as we compare the original Hebrew with the English translation of the KJV.

     a] In Hebrew the verse reads in the present tense, "is with child" and not the future tense as recorded in Christian Bibles (KJV.) In Hebrew it states she is pregnant, not will become pregnant. In fact, the Catholic Bible, Isaiah 7.14 reads as follows: "The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son." Jesus was not born until seven hundred years after this sign was given, which certainly could not be described as "soon." The text reads 'is with child', therefore how could this woman be kept pregnant for seven hundred years until Jesus arrived?

    b] This is not a prophecy for some future date, it is a 'ot' (sign ). Whenever 'ot' is used in Hebrew it means something which will come to pass immediately. 'Ot' is used elsewhere in the Bible: This shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord (Isaiah 38.7-8), and "If they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign" (Ex 4.8-9). In each case the sign comes to pass immediately, not seven hundred years later.

    c] The name of the child was Emmanuel. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find that Jesus is called Emmanuel. The angel informs Joseph in a dream that Mary will give birth to a son and that he should be called Jesus (Matt. 1:20-21, Luke 2;21.) All the evidence indicates that we are dealing with two different individuals here, Emmanuel and Jesus.

     d] The text specifically says, 'the young woman' -'alma' whereas KJV changes the translation to 'a virgin '. The definite article is changed to the indefinite article, whereas the original text is evidently referring to the young woman known to both Isaiah and Ahaz, and not to some unknown person living far in the future. Here the prophet Isaiah is simply relating to the fact that the young woman is having a baby and that will be a sign to king Ahaz.

     e] The "sign" was given to King Ahaz and not to the people of Jesus’ day. It concerned the military situation of the time. The meaning is clear if the message is read in context and in its own historical setting (See 2 Kings 16.1-10).

      f] If Christian interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is difficult to swallow, it's nothing compared to what we are expected to take seriously in the New Testament. For example, in Matthew 1:20 we are told that Joseph, who was betrothed to Mary, was "told in a dream" all about the situation. In Luke 1 we are told that Mary was informed of the coming virgin birth in a private conversation with an angel. How can such ludicrous claims be historically verified?

       g] Skepticism of the virgin birth claim is further confirmed by the fact that extant early Christian writings neither mention it nor shows any awareness of it prior to the writing of the Gospel of Matthew sometime after 80 C. E. It appears nowhere in the authentic epistles of Paul nor in Q.

        h] The writer of Mark, the earliest of the canonical gospels, apparently had no knowledge of a virgin birth for the following reasons: 1) no birth narrative, 2) Mark's Jesus only became aware of his divine status when he was baptism, 3) when in Mark 10:17-18 a follower addressed him as "Good Teacher" Jesus replied, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." thereby not only denying the virgin birth and the incarnation, but also the doctrine of the holy trinity, 4) in Mark 3:19-21 (NRSV) when Jesus arrived back in his home town people were saying that he had lost his mind - gone insane. Upon hearing this, his family became concerned and came to restrain him. So, here again is undeniable proof that the writer of Mark was unaware of a virgin birth because if such a thing had actually happened the last thing anyone, especially his mother, would have suspected was that her divine, virgin-born son was insane. The writers of Matthew and Luke, although they drew heavily from Mark, wisely omitted this revealing little detail. (See Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-20.)   

The truth of the matter is that Christians have been misled by the clergy to believe that the child of the young woman in Isaiah 7.14 was no ordinary child but was none other than God himself clothed in a body of flesh, and that it was referring to none other than Jesus of Nazareth who was allegedly born some 700 years later. It's nothing short of absurd.

For more information on Old Testament prophecy and their alleged fulfillment see Examining the Christian Claim of Prophecy Fulfillment on this web page.

The Birth of Jesus - The birth of Jesus, as crucial as it is to the Christian belief system, is described in only two places in the entire Bible, the first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew and the second chapter of the Gospel according to Luke. The miraculous virgin birth and the circumstances surrounding it were apparently not deemed worthy of mention by the writers of the Gospels of Mark and John nor by Paul who said simply that, "Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4). Why? Could it be that they never heard of it?

A key question is, "If Jesus lived, when was he born?" The accounts recorded in Matthew and Luke could hardly differ more drastically from each other in practically every detail. According to Matthew 2:1 Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great who is known to have died in the year  4 BCE 3. Also, Herod issued that infamous order to "Slay all children in Bethlehem and in all the costs thereof, from two years old and under." So, that puts the birth of Matthew's Jesus at between 6 and 4 BCE. Luke, like Matthew, gives no definite date for Jesus’ birth saying only that it occurred when Quirinius was the governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-2). Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 CE4. Therefore, if Luke is to be believed, Jesus could have been born no earlier than that date. So, there is an eight to ten year discrepancy between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in regard to the date of Jesus' birth. Neither of them, it should be pointed out, support the conventional concept of the BC/AD dating boundary. So, what are we to believe concerning this most significant event other than that it is an element of a larger fiction concocted by the gospel writer's themselves?

In regard to Mary and Joseph, Jesus earthly parents, one would expect that they would be venerated throughout the New Testament, especially Mary since out of all of Israel she was the one selected by none other than God himself to be the mother of his son, or so we are told. However, this is far from the case. Outside of the two birth narratives, Jesus’ parents are practically ignored. Joseph is mentioned only three times, once in Luke 3:23 and twice in the Gospel of John, 1:45 and 6:42. In these passages Joseph is referred to as "the father" of Jesus. Mary, his mother, is also mentioned only three times outside the birth narratives, Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55 (obviously copied from Mark) and Acts 1:14. In none of them is she referred to as a “virgin.”

In a book called the Wisdom of Solomon, Israel's most opulent king is quoted as having said, "When I was born I was carefully swaddled for that is the only way a king can come to his people." This line clearly shaped Luke's birth story of how the infant Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothe (2:7).

The only two accounts we have of Jesus’ birth are hopelessly contradictory and cannot be historically verified. They show all of the attributes of myth and fiction and therefore cannot be taken seriously. See also Scrutinizing the Scripture on this web site.

 Jesus' Genealogies - Of all the glaring absurdities, obvious fabrications and irresolvable contradictions plaguing the New Testament gospels the genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38) outdo them all. The authors of Mark and John wisely chose to ignore this subject. Having said that, I point out that the objective of the genealogies, to establish a direct family linkage from Jesus to King David, is an important one since Jewish prophetic writings makes it clear that the Messiah must be a direct descendant of King David (2 Samuel 7:16, Psalms 89:3-4 and 132:11-12,) although this requirement is brought into question by Jesus himself (Mark 12:35-37).4a  That, along with the Old Testament prophecy in Micah 5:2, is the reason the birth narratives of Matthew has Jesus born in Bethlehem, the city of David. In his epistle to the Romans (1:3) Paul tells us without proof that Jesus was in fact a descendant of King David. Because they were determined to fit Jesus into the Jewish messianic scriptural mold, the writers of Matthew and Luke separately concocted detailed genealogies each giving Jesus an elaborate, but phony, family tree directly linking him not only to King David but far beyond. The writer of Matthew starts with Abraham, the first of the Jewish patriarchs, and works forward through David to Joseph thence to Jesus while the writer of Luke outdoes him by going backward all the way to God.

Eddy4b tells us that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are believed to have been compiled in late first century Antioch, which at that time had a large population of extremely wealthy Jews to whom the matter of family ties were very important. The genealogies were included as a means of appealing to this particular population in an effort to convert them to Christianity which was at that time a Jewish sect. Because their writers neglected to include a birth narrative, the Gospels of Mark and John, managed to circumvent the genealogy problem. In addition, John was obviously written for a gentile audience where the trappings of a genealogy and a Jewish messianic birth were not that important.

There are, however, big problems with these genealogies raising a number of legitimate questions. As pointed out by Arnheim4c, there is a huge difference between the two genealogies, especially in the number of generations separating Jesus from King David. Matthew specifically tells us that there were twenty-eight generations, fourteen from David to the Babylonian Exile and another fourteen from the Exile to the birth of Jesus. The writer of Luke gives no figures, but a count of the number of names he mentions as Jesus' ancestors yields a total of no fewer than forty-one generations for the same period represented by Matthew's twenty-eight. For the thousand-odd-year period Luke's forty-one generations average out at just over twenty-four years apiece. Matthew's fourteen generations from David to the Exile average out to about twenty-eight and a half years each, but his last fourteen generations have a mean span of a whopping forty-one and a half years thereby rendering it totally unacceptable.

When the genealogies are compared, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical up to David. However, from David onward there is little similarity. For example, the writer of Matthew tells us (1:16) that Jacob is Joseph’s father where as in Luke 3:23 we are told that Heli is Joseph’s father. The major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David's son, Nathan, while the one in Matthew traces it through Solomon. This would easily account for the wide divergence in names following David but raises a couple of crucial questions: (1) How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals, Joseph and Jesus? And (2) how could Jesus, or for that matter anyone else, have two contradictory genealogies4d?

The writers of Matthew and Luke are determined to bring Jesus' genealogy into line with Old Testament prophecy at the expense of rational credibility. In so doing they rely at length on the use of the mystical number seven or its multiples in order to invest Jesus' alleged ancestry with a false aura of divine destiny.

Only one conclusion can be drawn from the discrepancies between these two so-called genealogies of Jesus. Because they were both writing fiction, the authors of Matthew and Luke simply invented a lineage linking him with King David thereby fulfilling the requirement of Old-Testament prophecy. What they apparently failed to understand, however, is that by establishing Jesus blood tie to King David through Joseph they undermined the claim of a virgin birth4e, establishing Jesus as the true Son of God.  The twin claims that Jesus was born of a virgin and also descended directly from king David, both of which represent basic Christian doctrine, are by their very nature mutually exclusive.

Christian apologists, however, were not to take such a convincing argument lying down. So determined were they to find some means by which to counter such a devastating disclosure that they resorted, obviously out of sheer desperation, to the claim that the two genealogies were, in reality, not meant to be the same. Matthew's genealogy, they maintained, is that of Joseph while Luke's is that of Mary4f. Unfortunately for them, Luke's genealogy never mentions Mary. In fact, Luke’s author makes it quite clear that this is Joseph's lineage (3:23) and no one else’s. Joseph's name is mentioned in Luke's genealogy and Luke 1:21 and 2:4 show he was from the house of David. So one can reasonably conclude that it is his lineage, not that of Mary. The point is, in fact, moot because as a woman Mary could never have been qualified to be heir to the throne of David, so she couldn't pass on what she could never possess, even if she was of Davidic descent which she obviously was not.
In Numbers 1:18 it states that family pedigrees are declared by the house of their father’s. In the Hebrew culture genealogies were traced through males only. But, this creates an even bigger problem for Bible believers. According to the claim of the virgin birth, Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. Mary was made pregnant with Jesus by none other than the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20, Luke1:35). So, the Bible believer finds himself or herself squarely on the horns of a baffling dilemma. If Jesus is not the biological offspring of Joseph, he has no link to David and is thus disqualified as the long awaited Jewish messiah. But, if Joseph is Jesus’ true biological father, the claim of Davidic ancestry is established but that of the virgin birth is shown to be an out-and-out scam.
The Three Wise Men - The story of the three wise men (a.k.a., the Magi) is one of the most enduring elements of traditional Christmas pageantry. But just how true is it? It appears only in the Gospel of Matthew (2:1-12) and the account leaves many unanswered questions. The writer of Matthew refers to them as “wise men” not as "kings" and neglects to tell us how many there were. The earliest designation of three appears in the writings of the church father, Origen (c.185 - c.254.) Why the number was settled at three is not known for sure, but it was in all probability due to there bring three gifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh. As to their origin, we are told only that they came from “the east.” Where in the east? In verse 12 it says, "they departed unto their own country" implying that they all came from the same place. Was it Babylon, Persia, India, China? Early speculation had it that they came from Sheba in southern Arabia because that city was an important source of frankincense, and also because of the prophecy in Isaiah 60:6 (NRSV) which reads:

           A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah;
           all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and
           shall proclaim the praise of the Lord.

But Sheba lies not to the east but to the south of Bethlehem. Therefore it was rejected..

Their purpose was simply to pay their respects to the child "who has been born king of the Jews." How did they become aware of such an awesome destiny? Well, they saw "his (natal) star at its rising." No explanation is given as to just what this means or why no one else reported seeing it, not even King Herod. The gospel writer goes on to tell us that this same star hung around long enough to guide the Magi to the Jesus. Such a claim qualifies as nonsensical at best because stars, essentially huge globs of burning hydrogen some of which are many times larger than the earth and thousands of light years away, are not known to perform such accommodating maneuvers.

The idea of a bright star miraculously appearing in conjunction with the birth of a great leader did not originate with this story. Ancient religions, especially Zoroastrianism, often chose to associate the coming of their godlike figures with such a device4g. The idea was to provide a mysterious accompaniment to their birth thus suggesting that Heaven itself had announced the coming of a future leader. The star said to have heralded the coming of Jesus appears to have followed this ancient tradition.

News of the birth of Jesus and his kingly destiny apparently came as a rude shock to King Herod who had big plans for a dynasty of his own. In an attempt to put an end to this threat, which he apparently took very seriously, Herod assembled all of the chief priests and scribes and asked them what amounts to an astonishing question, “Where is this future king to be born?” They said in Bethlehem, the city of David, as any one of that day, especially the king, should have already known. To back it up they quoted a confirming prophecy - Micah 5:2. This, in all probability, is the real reason for including this little tale, since the writer of Matthew was obviously obsessed with Old Testament prophecy fulfillment and has Jesus fulfilling them in practically every verse. Anyway, King Herod tried to entice the Magi into revealing Jesus’ location, but they had been forewarned "in a dream" of Herod’s dastardly plan and outwitted him by departing by another road. Following this brief and puzzling little episode the Magi, the first converts to Christianity, disappear from scripture never to be mentioned again. But there remains a question of timing.

Herod's infamous order included the slaughter of all boy babies "two years old and under." Why two years? Does that mean that Jesus was already two years old by the time the Magi got there and located him? Did their trip take that long?  Also, what about that accommodating star? Did it hang around Jerusalem for two years? If so, shouldn't there be some mention of it other than in the Gospel of Matthew?

Regardless of its origin the story of the Magi caught on and spread throughout Christendom. Along the way it was greatly exaggerated, embellished and altered so as to fit numerous ceremonial occasions. The earliest known artist's depiction of the Magi is in a 3rd century wall painting in Rome. In a 6th century Greek chronicle they are named Balthazar, Gaspar and Melchior. In modern Iran and Iraq, where the Persian civilization once ruled, practically every town has its legend in which it claims to be the place from whence the Magi came. One such legend was encountered by the 13th century explorer Marco Polo in the city of Sava in modern day Iran. He was assured by the local residents that the Magi not only came from Sava, but were originally buried there. According to legend they were unearthed by the dowager empress, Helena, in the 4th century and taken to Byzantium (Istanbul, Turkey). Helena also claimed to have located the original cross upon which Jesus die so here credibility in these matters is questionable. Centuries later , however, a box of bones said to be those of the Magi appeared in Milan, Italy. During the12th century Frederick Barbarossa sacked Milan and took the box of bones to Cologne, Germany where a Cathedral was built to house them. They remain there to this day. But the question is, “Whose bones are they, really?”

The Matthian account of the birth of Jesus and the events following, including the Magi, stands in direct contradiction to that recorded in the Gospel of Luke (2:8-20). Jesus' birth, according to the writer of Luke, was anything but a secret. An angel appeared to shepherds in the field announcing to them, "I bring you glad tidings of great joy which shall be to all people." In addition, an angelic choir appeared in the night sky singing praises to God which probably woke up everybody in Bethlehem. The first people to pay homage to the new-born Jesus, according to the writer of Luke, were not the Magi but a bunch of shepherds from the surrounding fields.

What it all comes down to is that the endearing account of worshiping, gift giving Magi and their deep devotion to the new-born “King,” Jesus, is nothing more than an obvious hoax.

The Slaughter of the Innocents - In the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew we read the heart-rending account of the killing of babies. This story is known throughout Christendom as “The Slaughter of the Innocents.” King Herod, the writer says, was jealous of Jesus and plotted to get rid of him. But Jesus’ parents were forewarned “in a dream” and fled to Egypt. Meanwhile, Herod, unable to locate Jesus and unaware of his departure, ordered his army to "slay all male children in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under".

This brutal tale of infanticide is parroted regularly in pulpits and Sunday school classes amid much tearful sorrow and lamentation. But just how true is it? First, none of the other gospel writers ever refer to it. Second, it is not mentioned in any extant official documents of that day. Third, why was John the Baptist not killed since he was the same age as Jesus and living in that region? Fourth, Flauvius Josephus, an important first-century Jewish historian, chronicled the reign of Herod the Great in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews. In doing so he did not attempt to whitewash Herod’s character. He said nothing about a massacre of children which he most certainly would have had such a heinous crime actually taken place.

The writer of the Gospel of Luke tells a very different story. In Luke 2:39 it says that: "When they (Joseph and family) had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned unto Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth". This would include circumcision on the eighth day, the redemption of the first born on the 30th day and Mary’s purification on the 40th day. After that they returned to Nazareth. Apparently they did not feel threatened by Herod or anyone else, and no mention is made of a flight to Egypt.

The story of the slaughter of the innocents was obviously invented by the writer of Matthew. It was part of a fictional literary construct by which he could justify his claim that Jesus fulfilled certain Old Testament prophecies. But in doing so he had to stretch his imagination to the limit. First, in order to fulfill Micah 5:2 4h he had to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. Then he had to get him to Egypt and set the stage for his return thus legitimizing his claiming fulfillment of Hosea 1:115. So what did he do? Well, he conveniently put all the blame on old King Herod who is probably spinning in his grave right now. But the baby-killing story, although untrue, provided an additional dividend. Through it the writer of Matthew could lay claim to the fulfillment of yet another Old Testament prophecy, Jeremiah 31:156. The writer of Luke apparently felt no obligation to accommodate these prophecies. Therefore, he had no need to embellish his birth narrative with a sordid tale of baby killing.

Nazareth - Did Nazareth of Galilee, said in Mark 1:6 to be Jesus’ hometown and the place where he grew up, actually exist at that time or is it just another figment of the writer's imagination? No such place appears on ancient Roman maps of the era. The territory of Zebulun, which included Galilee, is defined in Joshua 19:10-16. Although several towns, including Bethlehem, are cited, no mentioned is made of Nazareth. This is strange indeed considering that Nazareth was destined to play such an important roll in the predicted coming of the long-awaited Jewish messiah.. Flavius Josephus, an important first century Jewish historian, gives the names of 45 towns in Galilee in the first century, yet Nazareth is not among them. The Jewish Talmud gives the names of 63 first century Galilean towns and again no Nazareth is listed. Scanning across 1500 years of Jewish and Roman texts and other sources we see no mention of a Nazareth. In fact, the first reference to such a place appears in Mark 1:9 where we are told that, "In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John (the Baptist) in the Jordan River." Mark, the oldest of the New Testament gospels, is recognized by many Bible scholars as pure fiction. So, is Nazareth just another factitious element of the Christian myth with no basis in fact?

Some Christian apologists have tried to claim Nazareth existed citing archaeological digs at one place or another on or near the alleged site, but they fail to understand that going back some 5000 years practically every spot of that land had a settlement on it at one time or another. Another apologetic claim is that Nazareth was too small to be listed. This defies logic in view of the fact that of the 63 towns and settlements listed for that relatively small area by three different accounts they all missed it.

Nazareth did not exist as a part of the Christian story until in the fourth century when the dowager empress, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, journeyed through the Holy Land establishing the various holy Christian sites now visited by millions of awestruck tourists. According to the story, Helena was so dismayed not to find Nazareth that she selected a pile of ruins in the general area and decreed it to be the missing town. In evaluating Helena’s whimsical contributions to Christianity’s holy geography we must consider some of her other remarkable discoveries as well. For example, she dug a hole in the ground, and lo and behold, there she recovered the original three crosses, the ones actually used in the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and the two other lawbreakers. The one identified as the cross of Jesus was eventually brought back to Rome where it was carried into battle. The presence of this holy icon would, it was firmly believed, render the Roman army invincible. But unfortunately they forgot to tell the enemy because the Roman army was over ran and defeated, and the cross was taken and burned. So, no credibility can be placed in Helena's "discoveries."

It is also apparently of no concern to believers that Jerusalem was utterly destroyed at the last revolt and no structure was left standing much less anything specific to the Jewish religion. In that regard, the Jerusalem streets upon which the faithful now piously trod are claimed by professional tour guides to be the actual paths of Jesus. What the tour guides fail to tell them, however, is that they are now about 30 feet higher than the streets were in the alleged time of Jesus because they sit atop piles of ancient ruins.

The Baptism of Jesus - Mark, the oldest of the canonical gospels, begins with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. This ritual marks the beginning of Jesus' public ministry as well as his brief career as the long awaited Jewish Messiah. It also raises some embarrassing questions. Since the sole purpose of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4), why was it necessary to baptize Jesus? Does it mean that Jesus, the virgin born son of God and child prodigy, was in reality just an ordinary sinner seeking redemption? Also, by subordinating Jesus to John the Baptist doesn’t it contradict the doctrine of the holy trinity.

The next question might be, “What did Jesus know and when did he know it?” According to Mark it is at the baptism that the adult Jesus, and presumably his family, learn for the first time that he is no ordinary mortal but is in fact the designated son of God. But in Matthew, Jesus’ divine son-ship was known even before he was born. A careful comparison of the events immediately following Jesus' baptism as described by Mark and as described by Matthew reveal a subtle but illuminating contradiction.

According to Mark (1:11) when Jesus was baptized a heavenly voice declares to him, "Thou art my beloved son.” Note that the voice addresses Jesus directly as if it were announcing something to him that he and his family were heretofore unaware of. In Mark there is no virgin birth of Jesus the result of the impregnation of his mother, Mary, by the Holy Ghost. The writer of Mark never disputes the obvious fact that Joseph is Jesus' biological father.

The writer of Matthew, writing some 10 to 15 years later, tells a very different story. In Matthew the divine son-ship is recognized well before the baptism in chapters one & two where Jesus' unique conception, virgin birth and exceptional childhood are revealed. So following the baptism the writer of Matthew (3:17) has the voice say something slightly different, “This is my beloved son.” Here the voice address others present since Jesus’ divinity is already well known by him and his family. According to Matthew, Joseph, the cuckolded husband of Mary, was not Jesus' real father after all. It is interesting to note that according to Paul who never mentions a virgin birth, Jesus was a legitimate descended from David according to the flesh (through Joseph) but was not officially recognized as the Son of God until after the resurrection (Romans 1:3-4.)

The point is that according to the writer of Mark there was no "virgin birth" of Jesus. God simply looked down and liked what he saw in this young man, Jesus, so following his baptism God "adopted" him right there on the spot, and that's where it all begins. The virgin birth theory was manufactured later by the writers of Matthew and Luke as a way of embellishing what is obviously a myth and nothing more.

Jesus in the temple -The only reference of Jesus life between his birth and his baptism as an adult occurs in Luke 2:41-51. When Jesus was 12 years old he went with his parents to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. While there, his parents lost track of him and did not find him for three days. As it turned out he wasn’t lost. Had been in the temple all that time questioning the elders, who incidentally were astonished at his depth of understanding. Upon locating him his mother rebuked him saying, "Your father and I have been looking all over for you.” Note that Mary refers to Joseph as his father. Had she forgotten all about her insemination by the Holy Ghost, or was that her way of admitting that Joseph was his real father after all? Jesus further confuses things by replying, “Why were you looking for me? Don’t you know that I must be about my father’s business?” So, the old question arises, “Who was the real father, Joseph or the Holy Ghost?” Anyway, the writer of Luke goes on to say that Mary and Joseph didn’t know what he was talking about. Now that is indeed strange. Had they forgotten all about the virgin birth and the angel Gabriel informing Mary that Jesus was the son of God?

The Adulteress - John 8:1-11, the story of the adulterous woman, is intriguing. Some Christians are quick to declare it to be a testimonial to Jesus’ compassion toward women. But is that true? First, it appears only in the Gospel of John. However, the oldest manuscripts do not contain it.7a  Second, it breaks the natural sequence of the narrative. Third, it does not appear in any New Testament manuscript prior to the fifth century7. Fourth, this story was long considered a forgery until the Council of Trent declared it "divine truth" in 15467b. For those reasons this story is considered by most New Testament scholars to be a late Christian forgery8. But let us set that bit of historical fact aside for the moment and consider the story itself and its implications.

To quickly review, it seems that one day while Jesus was teaching in the temple the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman before him who had been “caught in the very act” of committing adultery9. After reminding him that the Law decreed that she be put to death (Leviticus 20:10 and Deut. 22:22), they asked him, “What do you say?” After giving it some serious thought Jesus replied, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.” As a result, no one cast a stone indicating that they were all sinners. Later Jesus tells the woman that although she's guilty of breaking the law he will not condemn her. With that he tells her to go and sin no more. On the surface this story does appear to confirm Jesus’ compassion for women. Upon more rational reflection, however, it reveals a glaring contradiction.

If Jesus was anything, he was a stickler where Mosaic Law was concerned. In Matthew 5:17-18 he says, “Do not think that I come to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say unto you, that until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished.” In Matthew 5:19 he warns that, “Whosoever breaks one of God’s laws will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.” In Luke 16:17 he says, “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.” In John 10:35 he says, “Scripture cannot be broken.” Also, we must remember that according to the doctrine of the trinity, Jesus actually wrote these dastardly laws.

To be consistent, shouldn’t Jesus have recommended that the woman be put to death in accordance with the law? He could have effectively demonstrated his often professed dedication to the law by casting the first stone at her himself thereby putting his money where his mouth was. But maybe there is another explanation. Perhaps Jesus was not without sin.

When considered objectively, this little story presents some truly formidable problems for those Christian advocates of female compassion. First of all, it is not so much about compassion as it is about Jesus' credibility. As Elizabeth Cady Stanton points out in The Woman's Bible, it was conceived by the scribes and the Pharisees as a way to trap Jesus thereby expose him as a fraud. So, Jesus had to be very careful how he handled this situation. When asked what he would do with her had Jesus said the woman should either be killed or set free; he would have been assuming the power of the state. Had he refused to offer an opinion his credibility as "the son of God" would have been ruined. So, in a flash of political insight he took a chance. In order to save his own skin, he literally gambled with the woman's life. That, my friends, is immoral. 

The Cleansing of the Temple - All four gospels give an account of an indignant Jesus striding boldly into the temple for the purpose of forcefully cleaning out what he referred to as “a den of thieves.” Once there he proceeded to literally wreck the place. But this much repeated story has problems, big problems. First, none of the gospel accounts agrees with the others as to exactly what took place. According to Mark 11:15-18 he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple. Matthew 21:12-16 repeats Mark but adds, “The blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them.” Luke 19:45, tells us only that he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought. In John 2:14-15 not only did he drive out the dove sellers and the moneychangers; he also drove out all those selling sheep and oxen. Then the writer of John tells us that he “Then made a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and the oxen, out of the temple and proceeded to pour out the coins of the money-changers and overturn their tables.”

The second problem is one of timing. When exactly did the temple cleansing take place? According to the synoptic gospels it was at the end of Jesus’ ministry shortly before his death. In John, however, it took place three years earlier at the beginning of his minister. Were there two cleansings?

A third problem surfaces when we realize that the gospel writers obviously had no concept of the true size of the temple. It was huge by the standards of those days covering in excess of thirty-five acres, enough space to accommodate thirty-four football field10. In order, therefore, to actually carry out the acts as described in the gospels Jesus would had to have been accompanied by a large group of armed followers since armed guards were always stationed in the temple for the purpose of keeping things moving smoothly10a. Yet, according to the gospel accounts Jesus acted alone.

The animal sellers and moneychangers, referred to by Jesus as thieves and robbers, were in fact operating legitimate business providing much needed services10b. First, they offered pre-approved sacrificial animals so the worshipers, some of whom had walked for long distances, would not have to bring their own. Second, for the purchase of these animals and other temple items only Jewish money could be used because Roman money, then if general circulation, was stamped with “adulterous” images of Caesar. So, there was a real need for the moneychangers as well as the animal sellers.

This story has to be pure fiction.

Divorce - Biblical pronouncements on divorce are so convoluted, contradictory, impractical and gender biased as to be downright nonsensical. Let us examine them beginning with Mark 10:11-12, where Jesus says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." This passage clearly states that both the husband and the wife have the right of divorcement. Once divorced, however, neither can remarry without committing adultery, a capital crime. No exception is made even in case of the death of a spouse. So, according to Mark both parties in the divorce must remain unmarried for the rest of their lives.

Jesus again speaks to the subject of divorce in Matthew 5:31-32, but here he says something entirely different, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." First, notice that in contrast to Mark, the right of a woman to divorce her husband is not acknowledged in Matthew. But, the man who is unwary enough to marry a divorced woman, joins her in committing adultery. The original husband, oddly enough, is held responsible for the whole thing. The clause, saving for the cause of fornication, is indeed puzzling because in this case to fornicate is to also commit adultery. Because adultery is a capital crime, the fornicating woman would automatically be put to death thereby making divorce unnecessary. Apparently the husband is free to fornicate to his heart's content.

The writers of Luke and John wisely avoid the problem by never mentioning divorce.

Paul gives his rules of divorce in Romans 7:2-3. In this short passages he says, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law." According to these rules, which show, among other things, Paul's contempt for women, only men have the right of divorcement. A divorced woman can not remarry until her ex-husband dies because to do so would be to commit adultery. If she does, it clearly says that she will be called an adulteress. Again, I remind you that adultery carries the death penalty. The men involved are not held responsible for anything. However, Paul does make an exception for women in I Cor. 7:15 where he says that unbelief is grounds for divorce by either party. Paul was obviously unaware of Jesus' pronouncements on divorce as set forth in the gospels of  Mark and Matthew.

What does God have to say about divorce? Well, as usual he contradicts himself. In Malachi 2:16 God makes this uncompromising statement, "I hate divorce." However, in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 he shows a degree of toleration. Here it states, "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." Note that wives are not granted the same right. In contrast to Mark, Matthew and Paul a divorced woman is free to remarry right away without being labeled an adulteress. But, in agreement with Paul and Matthew, the right of divorce is granted to men only. This raises a question regarding Mark 10:12 in which women have the right of divorcement. Why would the writer of Mark have said such a thing? One possible explanation is that who ever wrote the Gospel of Mark was unfamiliar with Jewish law and customs. The passage reflects the Hellenistic culture where women have always had the right to divorce their husbands. 

The biblical divorce laws obviously reflect the whims of a changing culture. They have no practical relevance in today's world11.

A Fish Story - In Mark 6:30-44 we are treated to the story of the loaves and the fishes, one of Jesus’ awesome "miracles." The author of Mark was so impressed with this story that he deemed it worthy of repeating, albeit with a few alterations, in 8:1-10. This story appears again in Matthew 14:13-21 and 15:32-38; Luke 9:12-17, and John 6:9-13. Since standard scholarship recognizes Mark to be the oldest of the canonicals, let us proceed from there.

It seems that one-day Jesus and his disciples found themselves out in the desert at sundown hosting a great multitude of followers. According to the Mark's chapter 6 version, the crowd numbered about five thousand. However, in chapter 8 the crowd has shrunk to about four thousand. With only five loaves of bread and two fishes (seven loaves of bread and a few small fishes in the chapter 8 version) Jesus succeeds not only in feeding the multitude, but there were twelve baskets full of leftovers (only seven baskets of leftovers in the Chapter 8 account.) But apparently his rather slow witted disciples forgot all about these two mind boggling performances because a few days later Jesus has to remind them of it (8:18-21.)

This story is often cited by Bible believers as a convincing testimonial to Jesus' awesome supernatural power. But, did it really happen or is this story just another tall tale inspired by certain Old Testament renderings? In that regard, a strong echo of this "miracle" occurs in 2 Kings 4:42-44 where we read: "And there came a man from Baal-shalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat. And his servitor said, “What, should I set this before an hundred men?”  He said again, “Give the people, that they may eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof. So he set it before them, and they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord."

The famous story of the loaves and fishes and the so-called miracle related thereto is an obvious forgery.

The Triumphal Entry - Jesus’ much celebrated triumphal entry into Jerusalem, also known as Palm Sunday, took place five days before the Jewish celebration of Passover (Mark 11:1-11, Matthew 21:1-11, Luke 19:28-40). Passover begins on the 14th and 15th of the month of Nisan (late March or early April in the Christian calendar). Therefore, the triumphal entry had to have taken place somewhere between mid-March and the first of April. Mark, the oldest of the four canonical gospels, tells us in 11:8 that this event was accompanied by the spreading of “leafy branches that they cut from the fields” (NSRV). This poses a serious problem, “Where did the people get those leafy branches?” It’s much too early in the year for them. Is this a hint that the so-called triumphal entry, as important as it is to the Jesus story, is in reality something less than historical?

The writer of Matthew, who drew liberally from Mark, makes a small but important change. Recognizing Mark’s goof, Matthew’s writer simply omits any reference to leaves. This means that the people cut and waved bare branches (21:. A branch without leaves might better be called a stick, and sticks are not normally thought of as instruments that can be spread or waved. It is the leaves that provide the cover on the ground on which the procession can move. It is the leaves that flutter when the branches are waved. So, we become more skeptical.

Turning next to Luke, whose writer also had Mark before him as he composed his gospel, we discover another interesting clue. Luke’s rendition of this story omits any reference whatsoever to the waving of the branches leafy or otherwise. According the writer of Luke the people only lay down their clothes (v. 36). Was the writer of Luke, like that of Matthew, suggesting that Mark's version didn’t add up?

In the version given in the Gospel of John (12:12-19) we are dealing with a different situation altogether. The writer(s) of John tells us that the people were not waving tree branches. They were waving Palm fronds. Since Palms are evergreen the season problem is solved. However, this version does present a serious contradiction with Mark’s and Matthew’s versions leaving us to wonder just which, if any, is correct.

In the fall of the year, the Jews celebrated the harvest festival, Sukkoth, also called the Feast of the Tabernacles or Booths. It drew pilgrims from far and wide who proceeded to march in procession round the Temple waving something called a "lulab," a bundle of leafy branches bound together and made up of myrtle, willow and palm. As they marched they recited Psalm 118 and cried out “Hosanna” (Lord, save us). There is little question that the Palm Sunday story is based largely on Sukkoth, the traditional Israelite harvest festival.

Add to this the fact that the apostle Paul appears to have been totally unaware of any “triumphal entry” as were the important first century Jewish historians, Philo Judaeus and Flavius Josephus, and there is ample reason to question the validity of this entire story.

Jesus, a rodeo trick rider? ~ The account of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem is recorded in all four canonical gospels and is recognized as one of the principal accomplishments of his short ministry. But, there’s a problem!

The source of this story is Zechariah 9:9: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh upon thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass. (KJV) According to this prophecy, the king will come riding on a young donkey, i.e. a foal. The gospel writers claim that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by way of his alleged triumphal entry into Jerusalem where, according to Mark, Luke and John, he does indeed come riding in on a young donkey. But, the writer of Matthew, apparently in his overzealous determination to prove prophecy fulfillment, apparently misread Zechariah 9:9 and in so doing creates what can only be seen as a huge embarrassment.

From Young’s Literal Translation of the New Testament. Mt. 21:2 ". . . you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me." 3 ". . . ‘The Lord had need of them and immediately he will send them." If there was only one animal, why didn’t Jesus say "it" instead of the plural, "them?" And all of this came to pass so that it might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet saying, (here Matthew repeats Zechariah 9:9.) Verse 7: and brought the donkey and the colt and laid upon them their garments and sat him thereon.

So according to the writer of Matthew, Jesus road triumphantly into Jerusalem astride two mounts, an ass and her colt. That must have been quite a sight. Maybe Jesus was an early forerunner of the rodeo trick rider.

The Accursed Fig Tree - Mark (11:12-14) tells us that on his way home after cleansing of the Temple, Jesus spied a fig tree in the distance and went to it seeking figs. This is strange indeed since fig trees do not bear fruit in late March when this is supposed to have taken place. Upon finding no figs Jesus became irate and proceeded to curse the fig tree. Now to curse a fig tree for not bearing fruit in March is not unlike kicking a dog because it cannot speak English thereby punishing it for the inability to do the impossible. Mark concludes this story by telling us that due to Jesus' curse the fig tree withered and died. By destroying a fruit tree Jesus broke God’s law (Deut. 20:19). The writer of Matthew (21-18-20) repeats this story but says that the unfortunate tree withered and died instantly. Although he mentions fig trees in a couple of places (13:6, 21:29) the writer of Luke wisely skips this story, as does the writer(s) of John. The concluding point emphasized in Mark and Matthew is that with enough faith one can literally move mountains. But, it’s indeed hard to get the connection.

The Son of Man - The term "Son of Man" appears often in the Old Testament as a synonym for man or humankind11a. In fact, outside of the second chapter of Ezekiel, where it is used to refer to the prophet, and the seventh chapter of Daniel where it is used as a reference to the coming of God’s avenger (7:13-14,) the Old Testament writers always used it in that way. In the New Testament the term appears often throughout the gospels. Otherwise it appears only four times (Acts7:56; Heb. 2:6; Rev. 1:3, 14:14.) It is noticeably absent from Paul's writings.

In the gospels, references to the Son of Man occur in two entirely different contexts. All but one, John 12:34, are direct Jesus quotes. At times, Jesus uses Son of Man as a clear reference to himself as in the following selected citations: Mark 2:10; Matthew 8:20; 12:8; 20:28; 26:2, Luke 6:22; 7:34; 9:56;19:10, John 6:53; 6:62; 13:31. In Matthew 16:13-17 Jesus asked the disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!" Strangely enough in John 12:34 this very same question is asked, but there it goes unanswered.

In other references to the Son of Man , however, Jesus is clearly not referring a himself but to the coming from heaven of a cosmic judge whose mission it will be to destroy the wicked and take the righteous up into heaven. The obvious source is Daniel 7 describing a vision in which four kingdoms appear that are represented as beasts coming up out of the sea each of which wreaks great havoc on the Earth. After the appearance of the fourth beast the visionary sees the Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven, coming to the rescue, so to speak. Other such references, again selected, include Mark 8:38; 13:26, Matthew 24:27; 25:31, John 3:13. Of the four non-gospel references noted above none identifies Jesus as the Son of Man. Now the question arises, “Why the contradiction?”

It appears likely that Jesus' words, or at least some of them, were later changed to make it appear that when he's talking about the Son of Man, he’s talking about himself. To the early Christians, Jesus was their rescuer, i.e., the long awaited Jewish Messiah. His triumphant return was expected at any moment. Therefore, to them he qualified as the Son of Man referred to in the book of Daniel. What about the sayings in which Jesus clearly is not referring to himself as the Son of Man? Those are not the kinds of sayings that Christians would in all probability have invented because it would go against their belief.. The obvious conclusion is that those sayings go back directly to Jesus. For that reason, many scholars think that they are statements that the real Jesus might have actually made. In the original he wasn't referring to himself, but later writers and copyists added words so as to give that impression.

The Resurrection of Jesus - The resurrection of Jesus stands as the central tenet of Christianity and, if true, the most important event in history. But there is a problem, “When exactly did the resurrection take place?” Surely such a significant historical marker is accurately documented. Or is it?

In the earliest reference we have to the resurrection (I Cor. 15:3-4) written between 55 and 60 CE, the Apostle Paul says that Jesus rose on the third day “in accordance with the scriptures." The problem here is that Paul refers to Old Testament scripture that is non-existent. No one has yet been able to locate it. Also, since Paul does not give the details of Jesus’ death, this information is of no use in fixing the exact day and time of the resurrection.

All three synoptic gospels assure us that Jesus will rise from the dead after three days or on the third day. In Mark the resurrection is predicted on three separate occasions (8:31, 9:31 and 10:34).  The writer of Matthew assures us Jesus will rise on the third day (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, and 20:19). The writer of Luke tells us in 9:22 and 18:31-33 that Jesus will rise after three days. Jesus died on Friday according to these gospels. In Acts 10:40 it says, “Him God raised up the third day.” So, if we count the days literally that would put the resurrection on the following Sunday.

In Matthew 12:40, however, the writer makes what amounts to an important change. Here he has Jesus say, "As Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the midst of the earth." That puts it in a more definite time frame. Because Jesus died at 3 pm on Friday, three days and three nights would move the resurrection to 3 pm on the following Monday.

In all probability the symbol of three days as the time between death and life came originally from the primitive concept of the "death and resurrection" of the moon that all ancient people observed. The moon disappears into darkness on day one, remains in darkness during the second day and then emerges anew as a glimmering sign of new life on day three.

The writer(s) of the Gospel of John contradicts the synoptic gospels by having Jesus die not on Friday, but on Thursday. Jesus was buried before sundown that same afternoon (19:42). In John there are no predictive statements as to how long it will be after his death before Jesus is resurrected as there are in the synoptic gospels. However, John does agree that the empty tomb was discovered early the following Sunday morning (20:1). Therefore, according the Gospel of John, the resurrection took place sometime after 3 pm on Thursday and before the following Sunday.

Let us check the gospel accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb to see if an accurate resurrection time can be established. In all four gospels when the women arrived at the tomb early (call it 6 am) on that fateful Sunday morning they discovered it to be empty. The resurrection had already happened. What is so confusing is that from his death at 3 pm on Friday to 6 am the following Sunday amounts to only 36 hours, a day and a half. According to the account in John, Jesus died at 3 pm on Thursday. From there to Sunday morning at 6 am amounts to 60 hours or two and a half days. In all four cases they are far short of the promised three days.

The obvious conclusion is that Christians are unable to come up with an accurate answer to the question, “When did the resurrection of Jesus, the “crown jewel” of the Christian belief system, actually take place?”

Peter’s Denial - Of all of the New Testament stories that of Peter’s denial (Mark 14:66-72 and parallels) is one of the most well known. In summary it says that following Jesus’ arrest by agents of the chief priest Peter is identified by three people as being one of Jesus’ followers. Peter vehemently denies this accusation rejecting Jesus in the process. After the third denial a cock crows, and Peter suddenly remembers Jesus predicting that he would deny him err the cockcrows. Peter wept. This story has provided the text for many sermons and Sunday school lessons, but did it really happen?

One of the main problems with the denial story lies with Jesus' prophecy. It's indeed hard to take this account seriously when different versions of it appear in all four gospels as follows:

Mark 14:30, "Truly I say to you, that you yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice, shall three times deny me."

Matt. 26:34, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a cock crows, you shall deny me three times."

Luke 22:34, "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know me."

John 13:38, "Truly, truly, I say to you, a cock shall not crow, until you deny me three times."

As one can see, Jesus allegedly says four different things, yet these are given as direct quotes. Why, for example, did the author of Mark, the oldest gospel, omit Peter's name while the writer of Luke, who obviously plagiarized Mark, includes it? Also, the writer of Luke assures Theophilus (1:4) that what he is about to tell him is the unvarnished truth yet when compared to the other versions he leaves out some very important details. The whole thing is obviously bogus.

Paul’s position as leader of the Christian community at Antioch was challenged by Peter. Paul discusses this dispute at length in the second chapter of Galatians considered by most Bible scholars to be one of the few Pauline epistle judged to be authentic. In Galatians 2:11-13 Paul openly accuses Peter of hypocrisy but fails to mention the denial. This is highly significant because it would have been a powerful weapon Paul could have used against Peter. Peter’s denial coupled with Jesus’ stern warning in Matthew 10:3312, would have easily won the day for Paul. So, we can only conclude that the denial story is a late Christian invention.

The Ordination of Peter - In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus blesses Peter pronouncing him the "rock" upon which he will build his church while giving him the "keys to the kingdom." Peter, therefore, stands as Jesus' undisputed successor. In fact, Peter's recognition by the Roman Catholic Church as the first pope is based primarily on this passage. However, the evidence of forgery is undeniable. First, although it constitutes an essential element of the Christian religion, the ordination of Peter is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament, not even in First and Second Peter, the epistles allegedly written by the great apostle. Second, excluding this passage, Jesus never attempted to establish a "church." Such a project would have been absurd in view of the fact that he assured his followers that the world would end and he would return in glory during their lifetime to establish the kingdom of God. In fact, the use of the word "church" suggests a level of organization not acquired until long after the event allegedly occurred. In that regard, it is interesting to note that throughout the four gospels the word "chur

In 2015 besides moving all youtubes to our youtube channel,
we are starting to form a new Library of Alexandria,
but of the aeongodess..so you can check and study our findings..

All our  1000's  e-books gathered since 1996 when we started online,
will become available for members...for
non-members only lists :-)

Like the texts of Ptolomeus, the Tetrabiblios, the works of Tacticus, Joseph Flavius, books with claytablets

and also busy on a neat yearcalender/24 hour clock titled Time of (your)life, to be used on a msgboard with pins and notes.....(40x60cm)

AN EXPLANATION OF THE FABLE, IN WHICH THE SUN IS WORSHIPPED UNDER THE NAME OF CHRIST.

It is a fact that at the hour of midnight on the 25th of December, in the
centuries when Christianity made its appearance, the celestial sign, which rose
at the horizon, and the ascendant of which presided at the opening of the new
solar revolution, was the Virgin of the constellations. It is another fact,
that the God Sun, born at the winter solstice, is re-united with her and
surrounds her with his lustre at the time of our feast of the Assumption, or
the re-union of mother and son. And still another fact is, that, when she comes
out heliacally from the solar rays at that moment, we celebrate her appearance
in the World, or her Nativity. It is but natural to suppose that those who
personified the Sun, and who made it pass through the various ages of the human
life, who imagined for it a series of wonderful adventures, sung either in
poems or narrated in legends, did not fail to draw its horoscopes, the same
as horoscopes were drawn for other children at the precise moment of their
birth. This was especially the custom of the Chaldeans and of the Magi.
Afterwards this feast was celebrated under the name of dies natalis, or feast
of the birthday. Now, the celestial Virgin, who presided at the birth of the
god Day personified, was presumed to be his mother, and thus fulfil the
prophecy of the astrologer who had said, " A virgin shall conceive and bring
forth" ; in other words, that she shall give birth to the God Sun, like the
Virgin of Sais. From this idea are derived the pictures, which are delineated
in the sphere of the Magi, of which Abulmazar has given us a description, and
of which Kirker, Seldon, the famous Pic, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, Blaen,
Stoffler, and a great many others have spoken. We are extracting here the
passage from Abulmazar. " We see," says Abulmazar, " in the first decan, or in
the first ten degrees of the sign of the Virgin, according to the traditions of
the ancient Persians, Chaldeans, Egyptians, of Hermes and of ^sculapius, a
young maiden, called in the Persian language Seclenidos de Darzama, a name when
translated into Arabian by that of Aderenedesa, signifies a chaste, pure, and
immaculate virgin, of a handsome figure, agreeable countenance, long hair, and
modest mien. She holds in her hand two ears of corn ; she sits on a throne ;
she nourishes and suckles a babe, which some call Jesus, and the Greeks call
Christ." The Persian sphere published by Scaliger as a sequel of his notes on
Manilius, gives about the same description of the celestial Virgin ; but there
is no mention made of the child which she suckles. It places alongside of her a
man, which can only be Bootes, called the foster-father of the son of the
Virgin Isis, or of Horus.

The Sun is neither born nor does it die; but, in the relation which the days
engendered by it have with the nights, there is in this world a progressive
gradation of increase and decrease, which has originated some very ingenious
fictions amongst the ancient theologians. They have assimilated this
generation, this periodical increase and decrease of the day, to that of man,
who, after having been born, grown up, and reached manhood, degenerates and
decreases until he has finally arrived at the term of the career allotted to
him by Nature to travel over. The God of Day, personified in the sacred
allegories, had therefore to submit to the whole destiny of man : he had his
cradle and his tomb. He was a child at the winter solstice, at the moment when
the days begin to grow. Under this form they exposed his image in the ancient
temples, in order to receive the homage of his worshippers; "because," says
Macrobius, ** the day being then the shortest, this god seems to be yet a
feeble child." This is the child of the mysteries, he whose image was brought
out from the recesses of their sanctuaries by the Egyptians every year on a
certain day.

This is the child of which the goddess of Sais claimed to be the mother, in
that famous inscription, where these words could be read : " The fruit which I
have brought forth is the Sun." This is the feeble child, born in the midst of
the darkest night, of which this Virgin of Sais was delivered about the winter
solstice, according to Plutarch.

In an ancient Christian work, called the Chronicle of Alexandria, occurs the
following: "Watch how Egypt has constructed the child birth of a virgin, and
the birth of her son, who was exposed in a crib to the adoration of her
people." (See Bonwick's Egyptian Belief, p. 143.)

The Sun being the only redeemer of the evils which winter produces, and
presumed in the sacerdotal fictions to be born at the solstice, must remain yet
three months more in the inferior regions, in the regions affected by evil and
darkness, and there be subject to their ruler before it makes the famous
passage of the vernal equinox, which assures its triumph over night, and which
renews the face of the earth. They must, therefore, make him live during all
that time exposed to all the infirmities of mortal life, until he has resumed
the rights of divinity in his triumph. (See Origin of All Religions, pp. 232,
238.)

In the national library there is an Arabian manuscript containing the twelve
signs, delineated and colored, in which is a young child alongside of the
Virgin, being represented in about the same style as our Virgins, and like an
Egyptian Isis and her son.

" In the first decade of the Virgin rises a maid, called in Arabic
'Aderenedesa'  that is, pure, immaculate virgin,  graceful in person,
charming in countenance, modest in habit, with loosened hair, holding in her
hand two ears of wheat, sitting upon an embroidered throne, nursing a boy, and
rightly feeding him in the place called Hebraea. A boy I say, named lessus by
certain nations, which signifies Issa, whom they also call Christ in Greek."
(Kircher, CEdipiis yEgypticus.')

** The celestial Virgin was represented in the Indian zodiac of Sir William
Jones with ears of corn in one hand and the lotus in the other. In Kircher's
zodiac of Hermes she has corn in both hands. In other planispheres of the
Egyptian priests she carries ears of corn in one hand, and the infant Horus in
the other. In Roman Catholic countries she is generally represented with the
child in one hand and the lotus, or lily, in the other. In Montfaucon's work
(vol. ii.) she is represented as a female nursing a child, with ears of corn in
her hand and the legend Iao. She is seated on clouds. A star is at her head.
The reading of the Greek letters from right to left show this to be very
ancient." {Bible Myths, pp. 474, 475.)

Mr. Cox tells us {Aryan Myths, vol. i., p. 228), that with scarcely an
exception, all the names by which the Virgin goddess of the Akropolis was
known, point to the mythology of the Dawn. In Grecian mythology Theseus was
said to have been born of Aithra, "the pure air"; CEdipus of lokaste, " the
violet light of morning." Perseus was born of the Virgin Danae, and was called
the " Son of the bright morning." In lo, the mother of the *' sacred bull," the
mother also of Hercules, we see the "violettinted morning." We read in the
Vishjiu Purana that "The Sun of Achyuta (God, the Imperishable) rose in the
dawn of Devaki, to cause the lotus petal of the universe (Crishna) to expand.
On the day of his birth the quarters of the horizon were irradiate with joy,"
etc.

As the hour of the Sun's birth draws near, the mother becomes more beautiful,
her form more brilliant, while the dungeon is filled with a heavenly light, as
when Zeus came to Danae in a golden shower. We read in the Protovangelion
Apocrypha (ch. xiv.) that when Christ was born, on a sudden there was a great
light in the cave, so that their eyes could not bear it. Nearly all of the Sun-
gods are represented as having been born in a cave or a dungeon. This is the
dark abode from which the wandering Sun starts in the morning. At his birth a
halo of serene light encircles his cradle as the Sun appears at early dawn in
the East, in all its splendor. In the words of the Veda : 

Will the powers of darkness be conquered by the god of light ?

And when the Sun rose, they wondered how, just born, he was so mighty, and they
said : 

Let us worship again the Child of Heaven, the Son of Strength, Arusha, the
Bright Light of the Sacrifice. He rises as a mighty flame, he stretches out his
wide arms, he is even like the wind. His light is powerful, and his mother, the
Dawn, gives him the best share, the first worship among men.

In the Rig-Veda he is spoken of as ** stretching out his arms " in the heavens
" to bless the world, and to rescue it from the terror of darkness." All of the
Sun-gods forsake their homes and Virgin mothers, and wander through different
countries doing marvellous things. Finally, at the end of their career, the
mother, from whom they were parted long before, is by their side to cheer them
in their last hours. Also the tender maidens are there, the beautiful lights
which flush the Eastern sky as the sun sinks in the West. The Sun is frequently
spoken of as having been born of the dusky mother, the early dawn being dark or
dusky.

The Mexican Virgin goddess, Sochiquetzal  the Holding up of Roses  is
represented by Lord Kingsborough as receiving a bunch of flowers from the
embassador in the picture of the annunciation. This brings to mind a curious
tradition of the Mahometans respecting the birth of Christ. They say that he
was the last of the prophets who was sent by God to prepare the way for
Mahomet, and that he was born of the Virgin by the smelling of a rose.
{Antiquities of Mexico, vol. vi., pp. 175, 176.)

When the temple of Serapis, at Alexandria, Egypt, was demolished by one of the
Christian Emperors, there was found underneath the foundation a stone on which
was engraven hieroglyphics in the form of a cross. They were said, by some of
the Greeks who had been converted to Christianity, to signify " the Life to
come." ^

Clement of Alexandria assures us in his Siromatis that all those who entered
into the temple of Serapis w'ere obliged to wear on their persons, in a conspic-
uous situation, the name of I-ha-ho or I-ha-hou^ which signifies the God
Eternal, The learned Abbe Bazin tells us that the name esteemed the most sacred
by the Egyptians was that which the Hebrews adopted,

Y-HA-HO

It is said that when the vain Thulis appealed to Serapis, the god replied : "
First God, afterward the Word, and with them the Holy Spirit" ^

Rufinus tells us that the Egyptians are said to have the sign of the Lord's
cross among those letters which are called sacerdotal,  the interpretation
being, "the Life to come."^ They certainly adored the cross with profound
veneration. This sacred symbol is to be found on many of their ancient
monuments, some of which may be seen at the British Museum. In the London
University a cross upon a Calvary is to be seen upon the breast of one of the
Egyptian mummies. Many of the Egyptian images hold a cross in their hand.
There is one now extant of the Egyptian Saviour, Horus, holding a cross in his
hand, and he is represented as an infant on his mother's knee, with a cross on
the back of the seat they occupy.^

The commonest of all the Egyptian crosses, tKe crux ansata^ was adopted by the
Christians. When the Saviour Osiris is represented holding out the crux ansata
to a mortal, it signifies that the person to whom he presents it has put off
mortality and entered on the life to come.^

The Greek cross and the cross of Saint Anthony are also found on Egyptian
monuments. A figure of a Shari from Sir Gardner Wilkinson's book (fig. 14) has
a necklace round his throat, from which depends a pectoral cross. Another
Egyptian cross which is apparently intended for a Latin cross rising out of a
heart, like the mediaeval emblem of cor in cruce^ crux in corde, is the
hieroglyph of goodness.*


The' ancient Egyptians were in the habit of putting a cross on their sacred
cakes, just as Christians of the present day on Good Friday. The plan of the
chamber of some Egyptian sepulchres has the form of a cross. The cross was worn
by Egyptian women as an ornament as it is worn to-day by Christians.

The ensigns and standards carried by the Persians during their wars with
Alexander the Great (b. c. 335) made in the form of a cross.

Sir Robert Ker Porter, in his very valuable work entitled Travels in Georgia^
Persia^ Armenia^ and Ancient Babylonia, gives a representation of a basrelief
of very ancient antiquity, which he found at Nashi-Roustam, or the Mountain of
Sepulchres. It represents a combat between two horsemen  Baharam-Gour, one
of the old Persian kings, and a Tartar prince. Baharam-Gour is in the act of
charging his opponent with a spear, and behind him, scarcely visible, appears
an almost effaced form which must have been his standard-bearer, as the ensign
is very plainly to be seen. This ensign is a cross. There is another
representation of the same subject to be seen in a bas-relief, which shows the
standard-bearer and his cross-ensign very plainly. This bas-relief belongs to a
period when the Arsacedian kings governed Persia, which was within a century
after the time of Alexander, and consequently more than two centuries b. c.^


Sir Robert also found at this place sculptures cut in the solid rock which are
in the form of crosses. These belong to the early race of Persian monarchs,
whose dynasty terminated under the sword of Alexander the Great.^ At the foot
of Mount NakshiRajab he also found bas-reliefs, among which were two figures
carrying a cross-standard. It is coeval with the sculptures found at Nashi-
Roustam, and therefore belongs to a period before Alexander's invasion.

The ancient Babylonians honored the cross as a religious symbol. It is found on
their oldest monuments. Anu, a deity who stood at the head of Babylonian
mythology, had a cross for his sign or symbol. It is also the symbol of the
Babylonian god Bal.^ A cross hangs on the breast of Tiglath Pileser, in the
colossal tablet from Nimrood, now in the British Museum. Another king from the
ruins of Nineveh wears a Maltese cross on his bosom ; and another from the hall
of Nisroch carries an emblematic necklace to which a Maltese cross is
attached.^ The crux ansata was also a sacred symbol among the Babylonians. It
occurs repeatedly on their cylinders, bricks, and gems.

The cross has been honored in India from time immemorial, and was a symbol of
mysterious significance in Brahminical iconography. It was the symbol of the
Hindoo god Agni, the Light of the World.

It is placed by Miiller in his Glauben, Wissen, und Kunst der alien Hindus, in
the hands of Siva, Brahma, Vishnu, Yavashtri, and Jarma. Fra Paolino tells us
it was used by the ancient kings of India as a sceptre.^

Two of the principal pagodas of India  Benares and Mathura  were erected in
the forms of vast crosses.^

In the Jamalgiri remains and other sculptures brought to light by General
Cunningham, near Peshawur, it is stated that a complete set of illustmtions
of the New Testament might be made, such as Mary laying her child in a manger,
near which stands a mare with its foal ; the young Christ disputing with the
doctors in the Temple ; the Saviour healing the man with a withered limb ; the
woman taken in adultery kneeling before Christ, whilst in the background men
hold up stones menacingly. Mr. Fergusson fixes the date of the Jamalgiri
monastery as somewhere between the fifth and seventh centuries, A.D.

In the cave of Elephanta, over the head of the figure represented as destroying
the infants, may be seen the mitre, the crosier, and the cross.'^



Mr. Doane, in his Bible Myths (p. i86, fig. 7), gives a representation of a pre-
Christian crucifix of Asiatic origin, which is evidently intended to rep
resent the Hindoo crucified Saviour, Crishna, the "Pardoner of Sins" and
"Liberator from the Serpent of Death." ^ Plate number viii., same page, is with-
out doubt Crishna crucified. Instead of the crown of thorns usually put on the
head of the Christian Saviour it has the turreted coronet of the Ephesian
Diana.

In the earlier copies of Moor's Hindu Pantheon are to be seen representations
of Crishna (as Wittoba) with marks of holes in both feet, and in others of
holes in the hands. Figure vi. has a round hole in the side. To the collar
hangs the emblem of a heart.

The monk Georgius, in his Tibetinum Alphabetum (p. 203), has given plates of a
crucified god worshipped at Nepal. These crucifixes were to be seen at the
corners of roads and on eminences. He calls it the god Indra.

No sooner is Indra born than he speaks to his mother. Like Apollo and all other
sun-gods, he has golden locks, and, like them, he is possessed of an in
scrutable wisdom. He is also born of a virgin,  the Dawn. Crishna and Indra
are one.^


The sun-gods were generally said to speak to their mothers as soon as they were
born. This myth was woven into the. life of Buddha, and the Apocryphal New
Testament makes the same statement in regard to Christ.^

P. Andrada la Crozius, one of the first Europeans who went to Nepal and Thibet,
in speaking of the god whom they worshipped there, Indra, tells us that they
said he spilt his blood for the salvation of the human race, and that he was
pierced through the body with nails. He further says that, although they do not
say he suffered the penalty of the cross, yet they find, nevertheless, figures
of it in their books.^

Monsieur Guigniaut, in his Religion de VAntiquite, tells us that the death of
Crishna is very differently related. One tradition makes him perish on a tree,
to which he was nailed by the stroke of an arrow.^

Dr. Inman says : " Crishna, whose history so closely resembles our Lord's, was
also like him in his being crucified." ^

On the promontory of India, in the South at Tanjore, and in the North at Oude
or Ayoudia, was found the worship of the crucified god Ballaji or Wittoba. This
god, who was beheved to have been an incarnation of Vishnu, was represented
with holes in his hands and side.^

The cross has been an object of profound veneration among the Buddhists from
the earliest times. One is the sacred swastica. It is seen on Buddhist zodiacs,
and is one of the symbols in the Asoka inscriptions.^ It is the sectarian
mark of the Jains, and the distinctive badge of the sect of Xaca Japonieus. The
Vaishnaves of India have also the same sacred sign.^ According to Arthur
Lillie, the only Christian cross in the Catacombs is this Buddhist swastica.^

The cross is adored by the followers of the Lama of Thibet. The Buddhists, and
indeed all of the sects of India, marked their followers on the head with the
sign of the cross. This ceremony was undoubtedly practiced by almost all
heathen nations. The resemblance between the ancient religion of Thibet and
that of the Christians has been noticed by many European travellers and
missionaries, among whom may be mentioned Pere Grebillon, Pere Grueber,
Horace de la Paon, D'Orville, and M. I'Abb^ Hue.

Mr. Doane gives us a representation of the Crucified Dove worshipped by the
ancients,*  the sun of noonday crucified in the heavens, who, in the words of
Pindar (522 B.C.), " is seen writhing on his winged wheel in the highest
heaven."^

Says the author of a learned work, entitled Nimrod:

We read in Pindar of the venerable bird lynx bound to the wheel, and of the
pretended punishment of Ixion. But this rotation was really no punishment,
being, as Pindar saith, voluntary, and prepared by hhnself, and for himself ;
or if it was, it was appointed in derision of his false pretension, whereby
he gave himself out as the crucified spirit of the world. The four spokes
represent Saint Andrew's cross, adapted to the four limbs extended, and
furnish perhaps the oldest profane allusion to the crucifixion. The same
cross of Saint Andrew was the Taw which Ezekiel commands them to mark upon the
foreheads of the faithful, as appears from all Israelitish coins whereon that
letter is engraved. The same idea was familiar to Lucian, who calls T the
letter of crucifixion. Certainly the veneration for the cross is very ancient.
lynx, the bird of Maustic inspiration, bound to the four-legged wheel, gives
the idea of Divine Love crucified. The wheel denotes the world, of which she is
the spirit, and the cross the sacrifice made for that world. ^

The " Divine Love," of whom Nimrod speaks, was " The First-begotten Son " of
the Platonists. Plato (429 B. c), in his Timceus, in philosophizing about the
Son of God, says : " The next power to the Supreme God was decussated or
figured in the shape of a cross on the universe."