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."

The early Christians were charged with being a sect of sun-worshippers.^ The
Emperor Hadrian could see no difference between them and the followers of the
ancient Egyptian god Serapis, who was the Sun. In a letter to the Consul
Servianus, the Emperor says : ^' There are there [in Egypt] Christians who
worship Serapis and devoted to Serapis are those who call themselves ' Bishops
of Christ.' " ^

Mr. King, in speaking of Serapis and his worshippers, says : " There is very
good reason to believe that in the East the worship of Serapis was at first
combined with Christianity, and gradually merged into it, with an entire change
of name, no^ substancey carrying with it many of its ancient notions and
rites." ^

Again he says : *' In the second century the syncretistic sects that had
sprung up in Alexandria, the very hotbed of Gnosticism, found out in Serapis a
prophetic type of Christ, or the Lord and Creator of all." *


In regard to the charge of sun-worship, Mr. Bonwick observes: "There were
many circumstances that gave color to the accusation, since in the second
century they had left the simple teaching of Jesus for a host of assimilations
with surrounding Pagan myths and symbols. Still, the defence made by Ter
tuUian, one of the Fathers of the Church, was, to say the least of it, rather
obscure. ' Others,' wrote he, * believe the sun to be our god. If this be so,
we must not be ranked with the Persians; though we worship not the sun
painted on a piece of linen, because in truth we have him in our own
hemisphere. Lastly, this suspicion arises from hence because it is well known
that we pray toward the quarter of the east.' " ^

The Essenes always turned to the east to pray. They met once a week, and spent
the night in singing hymns, etc., until the rising of the sun. They then
retired to their cells, after saluting one another. Pliny says the Christians
of Bithynia met before it was light, and sang hymns to Christ, as to a God.
After their service they saluted one another. It is just what the Persian Magi,
who were sun-worshippers, were in the habit of doing.

There are not many circumstances more striking than that of Christ being
originally worshipped under the form of a lamb. The worship of the constella
tion Aries was the worship of the sun in his passage through that sign.^ This
constellation was called by the ancients the Lamb, or the Ram. It was also
called '* the Saviour," and was said to save mankind from their sins. It was
always honored with the appellation of DominuSy or " Lord." It was called by
the ancients " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world." The
devotees addressed it in their litany, constantly repeating the words, " O Lamb
of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us ; grant us
thy peace."

On an ancient medal of the Phoenicians, brought by Dr. Clark from Citium (and
described in his " Travels," vol. ii. ch. xi.), this " Lamb of God " is
described with the cross and rosary.

Yearly the sun-god, as the zodiacal horse (Aries), was supposed by the Vedic
Aryans to die to save all flesh. Hence the practice of sacrificing horses. The
" guardian spirits " of the Prince Sakya Buddha sing the following hymn : 

Once, when thou wast the white horse,

In pity for the sufferings of man,

Thou didst fly across heaven to the region of the evil demons,

To serve the happiness of mankind.

Persecutions without end,

Revilings and many prisons,

Death and murder, 

These hast thou suffered with love and patience,

Forgiving thine executioners.^

Although Buddha is said to have expired peacefully at the foot of a tree, he is
nevertheless described a suffering Saviour, who, when his mind was moved with
pity, gave his life for the sake of others.

The oldest representation of Jesus Christ is a figure of a lamb,'-^ to which
sometimes a vase was added, into which the blood of the lamb flowed. A simple
cross, which was the symbol of eternal life among the ancients, was sometimes
placed alongside of the lamb. In the course of time the lamb was put on the
cross, as the ancient Israelites had put the Paschal lamb centuries before.
Jesus was also represented in early art as the "Good Shepherd,"  that is, as
a young man with a lamb on his shoulders, just as the Pagan Apollo, Mercury,
and others were represented centuries before.

Early Christian art, such as the bas-reliefs on sarcophagi, gave but one
solitary incident from the story of Our Lord's Passion, and that utterly
divested of all circumstances of suffering. Our Lord is represented as young
and beautiful, free from bonds, with no " accursed tree " on his shoulders.^

The crucifixion is not one of the subjects of early Christianity. The death of
our Lord was represented by various types, but never in its actual form. The
earliest instances of the crucifixion are found in illustrated manuscripts of
various countries, and in ivory and enamelled images. Some of these are
ascertained, by historical or by internal evidence, to have been executed in
the ninth century. There is one also, of an extraordinarily rude and fantastic
character, in a manuscript in the ancient library of St. Galle, which is
ascertained to be of the eighth century. At all events, there seems to be no
just ground at present for assigning an earlier date.^

Not until the pontificate of Agathon (a. d. 608) was Christ represented as a
man on a cross. During the reign of Constantine Pogonatus, by the Sixth Synod
of Constantinople (Canon 82) it was ordained that instead of the ancient
symbol, which had been the lamb, the figure of a man nailed to a cross should
be represented. All this was confirmed by Pope Adrian I.^

Rev. J. P. Lundy, in speaking of the fact that there are no early
representations of Jesus suffering on the cross, says : " Why should a fact so
well known to the heathen as the crucifixion be concealed ? And yet its actual
realistic representation never once occurs in the monuments of Christianity
for more than six or seven centuries." *

The holy Father Minucius Felix, in his Octavius, written as late as a. d. 211,
indignantly resents the supposition that the sign of the cross should be con
sidered exclusively a Christian symbol ; and represents his advocate of the
Christian argument as retorting on an infidel opponent thus : " As for the
adoration of crosses which you [Pagans] object to against us [Christians], I
must tell you that we neither adore crosses nor desire them ; you it is, ye
Pagans, who worship wooden gods, who are the most likely people to adore wooden
crosses, as being parts of the same substance as your deities. For what else
are your ensigns, flags, and standards, but crosses, gilt and beautified ? Your
victorious trophies not only represent a cross, but a cross with a man upon
it." ^

Tertullian, a Christian Father of the second and third centuries, in writing to
the Pagans, says : 

The origin of your gods is derived from figures moulded on a cross. All those
rows of images on your standards are the appendages of crosses ; those hangings
on your standards and banners are the robes of crosses.^

It would appear that the crucifixion was not commonly believed in among early
Christians. It is contradicted three times in the Acts of the Apostles. ''Whom
ye slew and hanged on a tree" (Acts v. 30), says Peter of Jesus. He states
again (x. 39) *• Whom they slew and hanged on a tree ; " and repeats (xiii.
29), "They took him down from the tree and laid him in a sepulchre." There is
no crucifixion, as commonly understood, in these statements.


Outside of the New Testament, there is no evidence whatever in book,
inscription, or monument, that Jesus was either scourged or crucified under
Pontius Pilate. Josephus, Tacitus, Plinius, Philo, nor any of their
contemporaries, have referred to the fact of this crucifixion, or express any
belief thereon. In the Jewish Talmud, Jesus is not referred to as the crucified
one, but as the "hanged one."^ Elsewhere it is narrated that he was stoned to
death.^

Saint Irenaeus (a.d. 192), one of the most celebrated, most respected, and
most quoted of the Christian Fathers, tells us on the authority of his master,
Polycarp, who had it from Saint John himself, and from others, that Jesus was
not crucified at the time stated in the Gospels, but that he lived to be nearly
fifty years old.

The following is a portion of the passage : 

As the chief part of thirty years belongs to youth, and every one will confess
him to be such till the fortieth year ; but from the fortieth he declines into
old age, which our Lord [Jesus] having attained, he taught us the Gospel, and
all the elders who, in Asia assembled with John, the disciples of the Lord tes
tify; and as John himself had taught them. And he [John ?] remained with them
till the time of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John but other Apostles,
and heard the same thing from them, and bear the same testimony to this
revelation.^

In John viii. 56, Jesus is made to say to the Jews : " Your father Abraham
rejoiced to see my day ; and he saw it and was glad." Then said the Jews unto
him : " Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? " If
Jesus was then only thirty or thereabouts, the Jews would naturally have said,
" Thou art not yet forty years of age."

There was a tradition among the early Christians that Annas was high priest
when Jesus was crucified. This is evident from the Acts (iv. 5). Now, Annas, or
Annias, was not high-priest until the year 48 a. d.^ Therefore, if Jesus was
crucified at that time, he must have been about fifty years of age. It is true
there was another Annas, high-priest at Jerusalem ; but that was when Gratus
was procurator of Judaea, some twelve or fifteen years before Pontius Pilate
held the same office.^

According to Dio Cassius, Plutarch, Strabo, and others, there existed in the
time of Herod among the Roman-Syrian heathen a widespread and deep sympathy
for a "crucified King of the Jews." This was the youngest son of Aristobulus,
the heroic Maccabee. In the year 43 b. c. we find this young man  Antigonus
 in Palestine claiming the crown, his cause having been declared just by
Julius Caesar. Allied with the Parthians, he maintained himself in his royal
position for six years against Herod and Mark Antony. At last, after an heroic
life and reign, he fell into the hands of this Roman. '* Antony now gave the
kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on a cross and
scourged him,  a thing never done before to any other king by the Romans,  he
put him to death." ^

The fact that all prominent historians of those days mention this extraordinary
occurrence, and the manner in which it was done, shows that it was considered
one of Mark Antony's worst crimes, and that the sympathy with the " Crucified
King " was widespread and profound.^ Some writers think that there is a
connection between this and the Gospel story ; that Jesus was in a certain
measure put in the place of Antigonus, just as Herod was put in the place of
King Kansa, who sought to destroy Crishna.

In the first two centuries the professors of Christianity were divided into
many sects ; but these might all be resolved into two divisions,  one
consisting of Nazarines, Ebionites, and orthodox ; the other of Gnostics, under
which all the remaining sects arranged themselves. The former are supposed to
have believed in Jesus crucified, in the common literal acceptation of the
term ; the latter,  believers in Christ as an ^on,  though they admitted the
crucifixion, considered it to have been in some mystic way, perhaps what might
have been called spirituaiiter, as it is regarded in the Revelation ; but,
notwithstanding the different opinions they held, they all denied that the
Christ did really die, in the literal acceptation of the term, on the cross.
Mr. King, in speaking of the Gnostic Christians, says : 

Their chief doctrines had been held for centuries before in many of the cities
in Asia Minor. There, it is probable, they first came into existence, as
MysfcBf upon the establishment of direct intercourse with India, under the
Seleucidae and Ptolemies. The college of Essenes and Megabyzae at Ephesus, the
Ophites of Thrace, the Cretans of Crete, are all merely branches of one antique
and common religion, and that originally Asiatic*

Several of the texts of the Gospel histories were quoted with great
plausibility by the Gnostics in support of their doctrines. The story of Jesus
passing through the midst of the Jews when they were about to cast him headlong
from the brow of a hill (Luke iv. 29, 30), and when they were going to stone
him (John iii. 59 ; x. 31, 39), were not easily refuted.

There are those who consider Jesus Christ, not as a person, but as a spiritual
principle, personified by the Essenes, as the ancients personified the sun, and
gave to it an experience similar to their own.

According to Christian dogma, the Incarnation of Christ had become necessary,
on account of Sin, which was introduced into the world by the Fall of Man.
These two dogmas cannot be separated. If there was no Fall, there was no need
of an Atonement, and no Redeemer was required.

Jesus Christ saves men as he helps them, by his teachings and example, to live
pure and upright lives.

As far as we can judge, Jesus himself did not assert that he was equal to, or
a part of, the Supreme God. Indeed, whenever occasion arose, he asserted his
inferiority to the Father. He made himself inferior in knowledge, when he
declared, that of the day and hour of the Judgment, nQ_man knew,  neither the
angels in Heaven nor the Son,  no one except the Father. He made himself
inferior in power, when he said that seats on his right hand and on his left,
in the Kingdom of Heaven, were not his to give. He made himself inferior in
virtue, when he desired a certain man not to address him as Good Master, for
there was none good but God. The words of his prayer at Gethsemane, " all
things are possible unto thee," imply that all things were not possible to
himself ; while its conclusion, " not what I will, but what thou wilt,"
indicates submission to a superior. The cry of agony, " My God ! My God ! why
hast thou forsaken me ? " would have been quite unmeaning, if the person
forsaken and the person forsaking had been one and the same.

As was the case with Sakya Muni, and many others, the sun-myths were
incorporated into the history of Jesus Christ.

There is much circumstantial evidence to show that Jesus was an Essene, and
that the Essenes were Buddhists. At the time of Christ's birth, the Jews were
divided into three sects  the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Sadducees,  the
last only being purely Mosaic, and the first two being very like the Buddhists.
That Buddhism had been planted in the dominions of the Seleucidae and Ptolemies
(Palestine belonging to the former) before the beginning of the third century
B.C. is proved by a passage in the Edicts of Asoka, grandson of the famous Chan-
dragupta, the Sandracottus of the Greeks. These edicts are engraven on a rock
at Girnur, in Guzerat. The great missionary effort of Buddhism took place in
the time of Asoka, about B.C. 307, and it was not likely that the west would be
neglected when the eastern countries received such attention as they did. The
Buddhist missionaries, without doubt, made their way to the Hebrews, who had
always shown a great aptitude to adopt the faith of outsiders, and persuaded
many of them to listen to the teachings of Siddhartha ; but they were unable to
convert them sufficiently to induce them to give up the Law of Moses. (See Note
15.)

The Essenes were a sect of unusual and singular piety, their exemplary virtues
eliciting the unbounded admiration of even the Greeks and Romans. Severe
asceticism, a rare benevolence to one another and to mankind in general, were
their most striking characteristics. Their fundamental laws were, to love God
and their neighbor, and do to others as they would have others do to them. They
lived in communities or monasteries, and had all things in common, merely
appointing a steward to manage the common bag.

They advocated celibacy, but had no law prohibiting marriage ; though if any
among them wedded, they were obliged to enter another class of the brotherhood.
Their numbers were continually being augmented by additions from outside.
When a person wished to enter the community, he was taken upon trial ; and, if
approved, he was obliged to take an oath that he would fear God and be just
towards all men. He sold all that he possessed, and gave the proceeds to the
brotherhood. They resembled, in their habits and customs, a fraternity of monks
 of a working, rather than a mendicant order. They were all upon the same
level, the exercise of authority one over another being prohibited. They
abhorred slavery, and called no man on earth Master, yet they served one
another. When going upon missions of mercy, they provided neither silver nor
gold, but depended entirely upon the hospitality of other members of the
brotherhood. When going upon perilous journeys, they took weapons of defence,
but repudiated offensive war. They abjured swearing. They conversed on such
parts of philosophy only as concerned God and man, and conversed not at all on
secular subjects before the rising of the Sun, but prayed devoutly, with their
faces turned to the._£a§t. They did not lay up treasures on earth, and despised
money, fame, and pleasures, as they thought these things had a tendency to
enchain men to earthly enjoyments,  a peculiarly Buddhist tenet. They consid-
ered the use of ointment as defiling, which was certainly not a Hebraic
doctrine. They gave thanks before and after eating; and before entering the
refectory they bathed in pure water and put on white garments. They ate only
enough to sustain life. They put the greatest stress upon being meek and lowly
in heart, and commended the poor in spirit, those who hunger and thirst after
righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemaker.

The Essenes combined the healing of the body with that of the soul ; and the
Greek name by which they were known, Therapeutae (Essene is the Assyrian word
for Therapeutae), signifies healer, or doctor^ and designated the sect as
professing to be endowed with the miraculous gift of healing,  more especially
with respect to diseases of the mind. They did not offer animal sacrifices, but
strove to present their bodies " a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto
God." It was their great aim to become so pure and holy as to be temples of the
Holy Spirit, and to be able to prophesy. They reverenced Moses and had respect
for the Sabbath. They practised endurance as a duty, and bore all tortures with
equanimity. They fully believed in a future state of existence, in which the
soul, liberated from the body, mounts upwards to a Paradise where there are no
storms, no cold, no intense heat, and where all are constantly refreshed by
gentle oceanbreezes. Pliny tells us that the usages of the Essenes differed
from those of all other nations.

It will be evident to those familiar with the Gospels that the tenets of the
Essenes and the teachings of Jesus are almost identical. Jesus differed from
them, however, in some respects, as any large nature is apt to differ from
others. He repudiated the extremes of the Essenes. They were ascetics, but he
ate and drank the good things of life. They considered themselves defiled by
contact with those less holy than themselves; but he associated with publicans
and sinners.

Every Jew was obliged to be a member of one of the three sects named above, and
it is but natural to suppose that Jesus would have been more in sympathy with
the Essenes than with the other two Jewish sects. It is a significant fact that
he frequently rebuked the Sadducees and Pharisees, but never denounced the
Essenes.

As we have seen, the Essenes were ascetics and celibates, while the purely
Mosaic of Jews were neither. It is true that fasting is occasionally men
tioned in the Old Testament, as a sign of grief or of abasement, but never as a
means of gaining salvation in a future life,  for immortality was unknown to
Moses and the Jews ; while celibacy is everywhere spoken of in the Old
Testament as a misfortune, and an abundance of wives is regarded as a proof of
divine favor. '¦

The Jews were encouraged in having a plurality of wives, but they were nowhere
directed or, recommended to live on charity. The Priests and Levites were not
ordered to go about the country expounding or teaching the Law. Consequently,
when asceticism, preaching, and celibacy began to be advocated, between the
time of Antiochus and Jesus, the inference is that they were introduced from
without, and by those of the only religion which inculcated them as articles of
faith and practice.

It appears singular that there should be no mention of the Essenes in the
JN"ew Testament, considering the fact that the other two Jewish sects were so
frequently spoken of. This can only be accounted for on the ground that the
multitude of references in the New Testament to a class called the Brethren,
refer to the Essenes. The Essenes were a brotherhood, and knew each other as
brethren, as the Free Masons, who claim descent from the Essenes, do at the
present day. We are told that the disciples were first called Christians at
Antioch. They must have had a name previous to that, and we know they ad
dressed each other as brethren.

As De Quincey says : " If the Essenes were not the early Christians in
disguise, then was Christianity, as a knowledge, taught independently of
Christ,  nay, in opposition to Christ." ^ This would explain the very singular
fact that Josephus has not mentioned Christ or the early Christians. The
Essenes disappeared from history shortly after the time assigned as the
crucifixion of Christ, and it is supposed that they have come down in history
as Christians. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, the celebrated ecclesiastical
historian, considered them Christians. He says : " It is very likely that the
commentaries [Scriptures] which were among them [the Essenes] were the Gospels,
and the works of the apostles, and certain expositions of the ancient prophets,
such as partly that Epistle unto the Hebrews and also the other Epistles of
Paul do contain." i

Eusebius, in quoting from Philo concerning the Essenes, seems to take it for
granted that they and the Christians were one and the same ; and from the
manner in which he writes, it would appear that it was generally understood so.
He says that Philo called them *' worshippers," and concludes by saying : "
But whether he himself gave them this name, or whether at the beginning they
were so called when as yet the name of Christians was not everywhere
published, I think it not needful curiosity to sift out." 2

Epiphanius, a Christian bishop and writer of the fourth century, in speaking of
the Essenes, says : " They who believed on Christ were called Jessaei [or
Essenes] before they were called Christians. They derived their constitution
from the signification of the name 'Jesus/ which in Hebrew signifies the same
as Therapeutes, that is, a saviour or physician." ^ Godfrey Higgins says : 

The Essenes were called physicians of the soul, or Therapeutae ; being resident
both in Judaea and Egypt, they probably spoke or had their sacred books in
Chaldee. They were Pythagoreans, as is proved by all their forms, ceremonies,
and doctrines, and they called themselves sons of Jesse. ... If the
Pythagoreans, or Conenobitae, as they were called by Jamblicus, were Buddhists,
the Essenes were Buddhists. The Essenes called Koinobii lived in Egypt, on the
lake of Parembole or Maria, in monasteries. These are the very places in
which we formerly found the Gymnosophists or Samaneans, or Buddhist priests, to
have lived, which Gymnosophists are placed also by Ptolemy in northeastern
India.

Their [the Essenes] parishes, churches, bishops, priests, deacons, festivals
are all identically the same [as the Christians]. They had apostolic founders,
the manners which distinguished the immediate apostles of Christ, scriptures
divinely inspired, the same allegorical mode of interpreting them which has
since obtained among Christians, and the same order of performing public
worship. They had missionary stations or colonies of their community
established in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, and
Thessalonica, precisely such and in the same circumstances, as were those to
whom Saint Paul addressed his letters in those places. All the fine moral
doctrines which are attributed to the Samaritan Nazarite, and I doubt not
justly attributed to him, are to be found among the doctrines of the ascetics.-
^

In reference to this subject, Arthur Lillie says : 

It is asserted by calm thinkers like Dean Mansel, that within two generations
of the time of Alexander the Great, the missionaries of Buddha made their
appearance at Alexandria. This theory is confirmed in the east by the Asoka
monuments, in the west by Philo. He expressly maintains the identity in creed
of the higher Judaism and that of the Gymnosophists of India who abstained
from the " sacrifice of living animals,"  in a word, the Buddhists. It would
follow from this that the priestly religions of Babylonia, Palestine, Egypt,
and Greece were undermined by certain kindred mj^stical societies organized
by Buddha's missionaries under the various names of Therapeutes, Essenes, Neo-
Pythagoreans, Neo-Zoroastrians, etc. Thus Buddhism prepared the way for
Christianity.^

The sun-god Dionysius (Bacchus), son of Zeus and the virgin Semele, daughter of
Cadmus, King of Thebes, was born on the twenty-fifth of December. As he was
destined to bring ruin upon Cadmus, he was, by the order of that monarch,
confined in a chest and thrown into the Nile. Like Moses, he was rescued and
adopted. He performed many miracles, among them being the turning of water into
wine. He had a rod with which he could perform miracles, and which he could
change into a serpent at pleasure. He crossed the Red Sea dry-shod, at the
head of his army. He divided the waters of the rivers Orontes and Hydaspes by
the touch of his rod, and passed through them dry-shod. By the same mighty wand
he drew water from the rock; and wherever he went, the land flowed with wine,
milk, and honey. It is said that while marching with his army in India he
enjoyed the light of the Sun when the day was spent, and it was dark to others.
Like Moses, Bacchus was represented as horned. He was called the Law-giver, his
laws being written on two tables of stone. (See Note 7.)

It is related that on one occasion Pantheus, King of Thebes, sent his
attendants to seize Bacchus  the Vagabond Leader of a Faction, as he called
him. This they were unable to do, as his followers were too numerous. They
succeeded, however, in capturing one of his disciples, who was led away and
shut up fast in prison ; but, while they were getting ready the instruments of
execution, the prison doors came open of their own accord, and the chains fell
from his limbs, and when they looked for him he was nowhere to be found.

Bacchus was called the Slain One, the Sin-Bearer, the Only-Begotten Son, the
Saviour, and the Redeemer, His death, resurrection, and ascension were
commemorated in early spring by festivals similar in character to those held by
the Persians, Egyptians, Chaldeans, and others.

The Greeks had their Holy Mysteries. Their Eleusinian Mysteries, or the
Sacrament of their Lord's Supper, was the most august of all their ceremonies.
It was celebrated every fifth year, in honor of Ceres, the goddess of corn,
who, in allegorical language, had given them her flesh to eat ; and Bacchus,
the god of wine, who, in like sense, had given them his blood to drink. These
mysteries were accompanied with rites which were considered to be an expiation
of sin. Throughout the whole ceremony the name of their God was many times re-
peated. His brightness, or glory, was not only exhibited to the eye, by the
rays which surrounded his name (or his monogram, I. H. S.), but was made the
peculiar theme of their triumphant exultation. The monogram of Bacchus, I. H.
S., is now used as the monogram of Jesus Christ, and is wrongfully supposed
to stand for Jesu Hominum Salvator, or In Hoc Signo.

The stories of Prometheus, Achilles, and Meleagros represent the short-lived
Sun. Ixion, bound on the wheel, was the god Sol crucified in the heavens. The
crucified dove, worshipped by the ancients, was none other than the crucified
Sun ; as it is well known that the ancients personified the Sun as female as
well as male.

The ancient Etruscans worshipped a Virgin Mother and Son, the latter
represented, in pictures, in the arms of his mother. This was the goddess
Nutria. The goddess Cybele was another Virgin Mother, and was called Queen of
Heaven and Mother of God. The Galli, now used in the churches of Italy, were
anciently used in the worship of Cybele. They were called Galliambus, and
were sung by her priests. Our Lady Day, or the Day of the Blessed Virgin, of
the Roman Church, was first dedicated to Cybele.

The ancient Scandinavians had a sun-god, or Saviour, Baldur the Good, son of
the Al-fader, Odin or Woden (Heaven), and the virgin goddess Frigga. Baldur was
slain by the sharp thorn of winter, descended into Hell, and rose again to
life and immortality. The goddess Frigga was worshipped, and the night of the
greatest festival of all the year  at the winter solstice  was called Mother-
night.

The Scandinavians worshipped a triune God, and consecrated one day in the week
to him, the day being called to the present time Odin's, or Woden's, day, which
is our Wednesday. They observed the rite of Baptism. They had a legend of an
Eden, or Golden Age, which lasted until the arrival of woman out of Jotunheim,
the region of giants. They also had a legend of a deluge, from which only one
man and his family escaped, by means of a bark. They had a legend corresponding
to the Hebrew story of David and Goliath, in which their hero Thor (the Sun)
throws a hammer at Hungnir, striking him in the forehead. The hammer was a
cross. They also worshipped a god called Frey, who was fabled to have been
killed at the winter solstice, by a boar (winter) ; therefore, a boar was
annually offered at the great feast of Yule, now called Christmas. (See Note
8.)

The ancient Germans worshipped a virgin mother and child. The virgin's name was
Ostara, or Eostre, whence comes our Easter. In ancient times this festival was
preceded by a week's indulgence in all kinds of sports, called the carne-vale,
or the farewell to animal food ; and this was followed by a fast of forty days.
This occurred centuries before the Christian era. (See Note 9.)

The ancient Druids of Britain were also sunworshippers.

The idea of redemption through the sufferings and death of a Divine Saviour is
to be found in the ancient religions of China. One of their five sacred
volumes, called the Y-King, says, in speaking of Tien, the Holy One : 

The Holy One will unite in himself all the virtues of Heaven and earth. By
his justice the world will be re-established in the ways of righteousness. He
will labor and suffer much. He must pass the great torrent, whose waves shall
enter into his soul ; but he alone can offer up to the Lord a sacrifice worthy
of him.

An ancient commentator says : " The Holy One [Tien] does not seek himself, but
the good of others. He dies to save the world." Tien is always spoken of as
one with God, existing with him from all eternity, " before anything was made."

Lao-kiun, the Chinese philosopher and teacher, born in 604 B. C, was said to be
a divine emanation, incarnate in human form. He was said to have existed
"antecedent to the birth of the elements, in the Great Absolute." " He was
the original ancestor of the prime breath of life, and gave form to the
heavens and the earth." He descended to earth and was born of a virgin, black
in complexion, and described as " marvellous and beautiful as jasper." When
his mission of benevolence was finished on earth, he ascended bodily into the
Paradise above. Since then he has been worshipped as a god, and splendid
temples have been erected to him. He taught the doctrine of One God, who is
also a Trinity. His disciples are called Heavenly Teachers. What is now known
as the Easter celebration was observed in China, and called a Festival of
Gratitude to Tien. (See Note id.)

The Chinese have, in their sacred books, a story of a Golden Age and a
mysterious "delicious" garden, wherein grew a tree bearing "apples of
immortality," guarded by a winged serpent, called a Dragon. The garden was
moistened by four rivers, which flowed from a source called the Fountain of
Immortality. One of the rivers was called the River of the Lamb. In this
blissful abode there was no calamity, sickness, or death.

In one of the Chinese sacred volumes, called the Chi-King, it is written : 

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
for knowledge, demolished them. Our misery did not come from Heaven, but from a
woman. She lost the human race. Ah, unhappy Poo See ! thou kindledst the fire
that consumes us, and which is every day augmenting. Our misery has lasted many
ages. The world is lost. Vice overflows all things, like a mortal poison.

The Chinese have a legend of the Sun standing still, and a legend of the
Deluge. Accounts of the ascent to Heaven of holy men, without death, are found
in their mythology. They believe that in the latter days there will be a
millennium, and that a divine man will establish himself on earth, and
everywhere restore peace and happiness. From time immemorial the Chinese have
worshipped a virgin mother and child. The mother is called Shin-moo, or the
Holy Mother, and is represented with rays of glory surrounding her head. Tapers
are kept constantly burning before her images, which are elevated in alcoves
behind the altars of their temples.

In the mythological systems of America, a virginborn god, or saviour, was not
less clearly recognized than in those of the Old World. Among the savage tribes
his origin and character were, for obvious reasons, much confused ; but among
the more advanced nations he occupied a well-defined position.

The Mexican sun-god, or saviour, Quetzalcoatle, born in the land of Tulan in
Anahuac, was the son of Tezcatlipoca, the Supreme God of the ancient Mexicans,
and the virgin Sochiquetzal, who was worshipped as the Virgin Mother, the Queen
of Heaven. Tezcatlipoca was styled Xiuleticutle, an epithet signifying the Lord
of Heaven. {Xiuletl signifies blue ; and therefore was a name which the
Mexicans gave to Heaven.)

Quetzalcoatle's birth was heralded by a star, and the Morning-star was his
symbol. He taught metallurgy, agriculture, and the art of government. He was
tempted by the Devil, and a forty days' fast was observed by his disciples. He
was put to death by Eopuco, and died for the sins of mankind, after having been
placed on a beam of wood, with his arms outstretched. He was represented in
some instances as crucified in space, in the heavens, within a circle of
nineteen figures, the number of the me-tonic cycle,  a serpent (the serpent,
when represented in connection with a crucifixion, denoting evil, darkness,
and winter) being in the picture. He was occasionally represented as crucified
between two other victims. This denoted the three qualities, or
personalities, of the Sun, as Creator, Saviour, and Reconstructor,  the
Trinity. In other pictures he is crucified on a cross of Greek form, with the
impressions of nails on the feet and hands, and with the body strangely covered
with suns. In these pictures many of the figures have black faces, and the
visage of Quetzalcoatle is strangely distorted.

At the death of Quetzalcoatle, " the Sun was darkened, and withheld her
light." He descended into Hell, and rose from the dead. His death and resur
rection were celebrated in early spring, when victims were nailed to a cross
and shot with an arrow.

The cross was said to be the Tree of Nutriment, or Tree of Life,  epithets
applied by the Roman Catholics to the cross. The rite of Baptism was observed,
and was believed to cleanse from sin. Infants were baptized, that sin, which
tainted the child before the foundation of the world, might be washed away, and
the child be born anew. The sacrament of the Eucharist was observed, the bread
being made of corn-meal mixed with blood ; which, after consecration by the
priest, was given to the people as the flesh of their Saviour. (See Note i i.)

The Mexican idea of the Supreme God was similar to the Hebrew. Like Jehovah,
Tezcatlipoca dwelt in the ''midst of thick darkness." No man ever saw his face,
for he appeared only as a shade. When he descended upon the Mount of
Tezcatepec, darkness overshadowed the earth, while fire and water, in mingled
streams, flowed beneath his feet, and from the summit. He was omnipresent and
omniscient, a being of absolute perfection and perfect purity. The Mexicans
paid him great reverence and adoration, and addressed, him, in their prayers,
as "Lord, whose servants we are."

In the annals of the Mexicans, 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. By the
Mexicans, she is called Ysnextli, which signifies eyes blind with ashes. By
sinning, she lost Paradise, her crime being the plucking of roses, called Fruta
del arbal,  the fruit of the tree. They declare that they are still unable to
look up to heaven on account of this fall.

The ancient Mexicans had a tradition of a deluge, from which a person
corresponding to Noah was saved, with six others, in an ark, which landed on a
mountain, a bird being sent out to ascertain when the waters had subsided. They
also had a legend of the building of a tower, which would reach to the skies,
their object being to see what was going on in Heaven, and also to have a place
of refuge in case of another deluge. The gods beheld with wrath this edifice,
the top of which was nearing the clouds, and they hurled fire from heaven upon
it, which threw it down and killed many of the workmen. The work was then
discontinued, as each family interested in the building of the tower received a
language of its own, and the builders could not understand each other. The
ancient Mexicans pointed to the ruins of a tower at Cholula, as evidence of
the truth of their story.

The disciples of Quetzalcoatle expected his second advent. He told the
inhabitants of Cholula that he would return to govern them. This tradition was
deeply cherished by them ; and when the Spaniards, with Cortez at their head,
came to subdue the land, the Mexicans implicitly believed that Quetzalcoatle
was returning, bringing his temples (the ships) with him.

The annunciation of the Virgin Sochiquetzal was the subject of a Mexican
hieroglyphic. In this she is represented as receiving from the ambassador, or
angel, a bunch of flowers. This brings to mind the lotus, the sacred plant of
the East, which is placed in the hands of Pagan and Christian madonnas. The
resurrection of Quetzalcoatle is represented in hieroglyphics. The cross was a
very sacred symbol with the Mexicans.

Heaven they located in the Sun, and the blessed were permitted to revel amongst
lovely clouds. There was a hell for the wicked, and a sort of " quiet limbo for
those who were in no way distinguished." Amongst their prayers or invocations
were the formulas : 

" Wilt thou blot us out, O Lord, forever ? Is this punishment intended not for
our reformation, but for our destruction ? " Again : " Impart to us, out of thy
great mercy, thy gifts, which we are not worthy to receive through our own
merits."

" Keep peace with all." " Bear injuries with humility ; God, who sees, will
avenge you." These were among their maxims. Also : " Clothe the naked and feed
the hungry, whatever privations it may cost thee ; for, remember, their flesh
is like thine." A Spanish writer remarks that the Devil had positively taught
the Mexicans the same things which God had imparted to Christendom.