DID A HISTORICAL JESUS EXIST? (PART 1)

The information in this posting is from the research and presentation of "Did a Historical Jesus Exist?" by Jim Walker. It is a scholarly approach to the question as to whether any reliable historical or archaeological information exists that will confirm a historical figure named Jesus.

"Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus."


ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

[An interpolation is a passage inserted into a text by some later writer, usually without the authority of the original author; or the act of introducing such additional material.]

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias.

We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, monsters and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts.

For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts.

None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

THE BLISS OF IGNORANCE

It has come to my attention that some people want to not know the truth about some of their beliefs.

This reminds me of something that my former high school teacher, John Thomas, said: “Ignorance is bliss.”

Even though I never forgot what he said, for years I couldn’t seem to whole-heartedly agree with it.

Now, I know why not. It is because (like a drug that makes a person happy) ignorance (although it may cause happiness) has some dreadful side-effects.

In some ways, ignorance is like a drug that makes a person happy but has harmful side effects.

Most people are aware that some drugs have harmful side effects, but they are not quite aware that many drugs (even some that are prescribed by doctors) do not cure an illness—they simply relieve the symptoms. And, even though a doctor may simply prescribe medicine, the patient would be better served by letting him or her know what may have caused the illness and how to prevent it.

In other words, many prescriptions may just cause you to become ignorant of the symptoms, while simultaneously causing you to become permanently dependant upon the drug for relief.

If, on the other hand, you knew what the cause and prevention were, then you could eventually be rid of the problem altogether.

I agree with John Thomas—to a point, but I do not think that ignorance is the best way to solve real problems.

However, I understand why some people feel as though they are perfectly happy with what they know that just isn’t so, and want desperately to remain ignorant of the truth—regardless of the side effects. In most cases, if not all, it is because they themselves are totally unaware of the harmful side effects caused by or exacerbated by their ignorance.

In The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) the following could have been included:

Blessed are the ignorant for although they may be unhealthy and mentally enslaved, they will still be happy.

DID THE EXODUS REALLY HAPPEN?

Notwithstanding the bible, there is no evidence that the Exodus as written in the Bible ever happened.

It couldn’t have happened during the time stated in the bible.

The following information was extracted from a presentation by AfricansArise.


WHEN DID THE EXODUS HAPPEN?

According to 1 Kings 6:1, the Exodus occurred about 480 years before Solomon started work on the first Temple in Jerusalem.

Using the Bible and other sources from Egypt and Assyria, this would place the Exodus at around 1440 BCE.

But there are problems with this chronology.

Exodus 1:11 says that the Pharaoh made the Israelites build a store city called Rameses.

The Egyptians called it Pi Rameses—“House of Rameses”—and it was built by Rameses II (“the Great”). Rameses II reigned from 1279 to 1213 BCE.

Therefore, if the Israelites built this city, they could not have left Egypt before 1279 BCE—over 150 years later than claimed by 1 Kings 6:1.

So the first problem with the Exodus story is that the biblical dates do not match up with the historical and archaeological facts.


IS THERE ANY RECORDS IN EGYPT ABOUT THE EXODUS?

Let’s move on to the actual events that allegedly took place during the Exodus.

The Bible speaks of 10 plagues in Egypt including the death of every single firstborn son in one night.

By any standards, this would be a colossal loss of life. Then, well over a million Israelites left Egypt (“600,000 men—not counting women and children”) on the same night.

The estimated population of Egypt at that time was about 5 million people. The sudden loss of a fifth of the population would have been noteworthy. Since the Egyptians kept extensive records, it seems quite strange that not a word is mentioned about this massive event.

The Bible then says that Moses parted the Red Sea with his staff and led this massive group through it on foot. The pharaoh pursued them but he and his army were drowned in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:27, Psalm 136:15).

These events were large-scale, spectacular and miraculous. They also all took place in the world superpower of the day, Egypt. So if they really happened, there should be an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence. But, we have no clue, not even a word about early Israelites in Egypt. Neither in monumental inscriptions, on walls of temples, nor in papyri are any of these events mentioned. Moses, Aaron, the plagues, and the defeat of the Egyptian army at the sea are completely absent from the extensive documentation we have for ancient Egypt.

So, if these events really happened, they passed by without even a single comment from anybody in Egypt!


DID THEY LIVE IN THE SINAI DESERT FOR FORTY YEARS?
What about the 40 years in which more than a million Israelites camped in the Sinai desert? (Numbers 14:33)

Except for the Egyptian forts along the northern coast, not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has ever been identified in Sinai. And it has not been for lack of trying. Repeated archaeological surveys in all regions of the peninsula have yielded only negative evidence: not even a single sherd, no structure, not a single house, no trace of an ancient encampment.

So, no evidence has been found for the forty years’ wondering either.


WHAT ABOUT THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN?

At the time the Israelites allegedly conquered Canaan, Canaan was a tightly controlled colony of Egypt with colonial forts and garrisons stationed at strategic points around the country. It would make no sense to escape out of Egypt and then go into a country that was itself an Egyptian colony. It is highly unlikely that the Egyptian garrisons throughout the country would have remained on the sidelines as a group of refugees (from Egypt) wreaked havoc throughout the province of Canaan. And it is inconceivable that the destruction of so many loyal vassal states by the invaders would have left absolutely no trace in the extensive records of the Egyptian empire.


DID THE WALLS OF JERICHO COME TUMBLING DOWN?

There were no walls! Excavations show that at that time, Jericho was small and unwalled, and other ‘conquered’ towns such as Ai and Arad were not even inhabited. Plus, historical texts show that in reality, these Canaanite provinces were weak and insignificant and depended on Egypt for security.


IN SUMMARY, as far as I can see, there is no hard evidence to support the biblical story of the Exodus. The most reasonable and logical conclusion to draw from this is that the Exodus just didn’t happen (at least the way described in the Bible).

DID MOSES WRITE THE PENTATEUCH?

Most Christians have been taught in Sunday school that Moses wrote the first five books of the bible. These books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are often referred to as the Pentateuch or Torah. However, outside of the more conservative seminaries and churches, it is commonly held that Moses did not write these books, that they are a compilation of works by numerous writers over an extended period of time.

The time of Moses was established from the biblical stories to be approximately 1400 B.C. However, it has been estimated by biblical scholars that the earliest writings of the Pentateuch were written about 950 B.C. Even if Moses existed, he couldn’t have written anything in the bible. And, even though we do not know who actually wrote the Pentateuch, anyone who wrote it couldn’t have been an eye-witness about anything in it. Therefore, since the Hebrews were writing about someone who allegedly lived 4 centuries earlier, it stands to reason that much of what is said about an heroic figure would be exaggerated to mythical proportions even if the person actually lived. However, Moses is just as fictional as Noah, Abraham, and Adam.

So, if Moses did not write the Pentateuch, then who did? It is the case that the authors are unknown. However, biblical scholars have theoretically determined that the Pentateuch was comprised from four sources. Religious studies courses at most universities teach that the Pentateuch is a composite work consisting of four literary strands. The four strands have been assigned the letters J, E, D, and P; each representing a different document or source that was woven into the fabric of the Bible. This set of assumptions has gone by a number of names including the documentary theory and the Graf-Wellhausen theory. According to this view, the letter "J" stands for the Yahwist ("J" from the German Jahweh) narrative, coming from the period of the early Jewish monarchy, about 950 B.C. "E" stands for the Elohist narrative from the region of the Northern Kingdom dating from about 750 B.C. "D" is best represented by the book of Deuteronomy and is said to have originated in the Southern Kingdom about 650 B.C. or later. And finally, "P" is the priestly document that comes from the period after the fall of Israel in 587 B.C. According to the theory, the Pentateuch reached its current form around the time of Ezra or about 400 B.C.

Why is the issue of Mosaic authority an important one? Those who accept the documentary or Graf-Wellhausen theory argue that the content of these books should be seen as a mixture of credible historical events and religious poetry sparked by man's religious imagination. For example, regarding Moses and God on Mount Sinai, one author of an Old Testament survey writes that, "It would be foolish, for instance, to rationalize the burning bush, as though this vision were something that could have been seen with the objective eye of a camera." Holders of this view reject the notion of supernatural revelation and regard much of the Pentateuch as folklore and Hebrew storytelling.

On the other hand, the conservative view holds to Mosaic authorship and treats the books as a literary unit. This does not mean that Moses didn't use other documents to write his books. He obviously did. But since other Old Testament authors affirm Mosaic authorship, as do numerous New Testament writers and the early church fathers, the veracity of the Bible as a whole begins to crumble if Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch.

In this article we will take a closer look at the source of the documentary theory regarding Mosaic authorship and offer a response that argues for the integrity of the Bible.

For almost two thousand years Christians accepted Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. That's not to say that some didn't acknowledge problems with the text. Many had noted what seemed to be two separate creation stories in Genesis, as well as the problem of Moses recording his own death in Deuteronomy 34.

In 1753, a French physician named Jean Astruc began the modern study of source or literary analysis by writing a commentary on the book of Genesis. He noted that the first chapter of Genesis refers to God as Elohim, while the second chapter uses mostly Jehovah or Yahweh. Astruc believed that Moses must have used two different sources in writing Genesis, each having different names for God, and that the Elohim source was the older. This established the first principle of what would become known as the documentary hypothesis, the assumption that different divine names must mean different authors or sources. In 1780 Johann Eichhorn took this theory and ran with it. He applied the idea of two sources to the rest of Genesis, Exodus, and finally to most of the Pentateuch. He eventually gave up on the view of Mosaic authorship as well.

The next step came in 1805, when Wilhem De Wette argued that none of the Pentateuch was written before David. He established the "D" document standing for Deuteronomy, which he believed was written as propaganda to support political and religious unification in Jerusalem during the reign of king Josiah around 621 B.C. We now have three source documents: J, E, and D. Although others in the late 1700's and early 1800's found as many as thirty-nine fragments in Genesis alone, the final, "P" or Priestly document of the current theory was added by Hermann Hupfeld in 1853. He believed that the E source should be split in two, the later becoming the new P document.

The name most associated with the documentary hypothesis is Julius Wellhausen. His publications in the late 1870's didn't add much new information to the theory, but rather argued for it from a Darwinistic perspective. Wellhausen claimed that the J, E, D, P sequence followed the development from primitive animism towards the more sophisticated monotheism as the Hebrew culture and religion evolved. Within its pages, at least in the story of Abraham and Isaac, the Hebrews also moved from human sacrificing to animal sacrificing.

NO DEGRADATION OF THE BIBLE

Following is a message that I sent to a dear friend who mistakingly thought that one (or more) of my research papers degraded the bible. I have posted this message so that no one else will get such a false impression about either my intentions or any of my presentations:


Because you have at times been an inspiration to me, I have admired you. I have also sincerely cared for you. And, because I profoundly appreciate many things written in the bible, I have been deeply saddened by your assertion that one (or more) of my research presentations degraded the bible.

My first response to those words was surprise because I was unaware that I had sent you any message that graded or evaluated the bible.

And, since you did not say specifically what you read that you thought degraded the bible, I couldn’t even re-read it in order to ascertain whether it did in fact do that.

But, after two days of deliberation, I have overturned your conviction because it was based upon your subjective experience and not upon the facts.

However, just be sure that I didn’t accidentally do what you said I did, I reread the e-mail to which you responded: The Bible and Magic from Mangasarian’s book, The Bible Unveiled. But this email only focused on one aspect of the bible—the magic in it. Of course it did say that magic is dishonest science, but who can disagree with that?

Mangasarian used Voltaire’s definition of magic. He wrote, “A magician is … a man who pretends to possess the secret of doing what nature can not do.” I think that’s a fair definition of a magician.

And, given his definition of magic, who can deny that the bible has much magic in it?


According to this definition, anyone who claims to walk on water, calm the sea, raise someone from the dead, or turn water to wine is a magician. It has been written in the bible that Jesus did such things.

However, that excerpt from Mangasarian’s book was more a criticism of magic and the dishonest use of it in the bible than an evaluation of the entire bible.

I must admit, nonetheless, that he did assert that there are better books for science than the false science in the bible. But anyone who would disagree with that assertion is either ignorant of the bible, ignorant of science, or ignorant of both science and the bible.

Please don’t misunderstand; I am not saying that anyone who believes in the magic in the bible is ignorant. I am aware that one can be intelligent about some things and ignorant about other things. I also believe what Socrates allegedly said, “We are all ignorant, only about different things.”

And, I am aware that some of us choose to ignore (or be ignorant about) some things.

I am also aware of self-hypnosis and self-deception.

Nonetheless, because some people “can’t handle the truth” about some things, I am aware of the benefits of selective ignorance, self-hypnosis, and self-deception.

Finally, it is also true that some people don’t aspire to achieve or learn much more than they already know, and may be quite satisfied (and even happy) with what they think they know that just isn’t so.

Nevertheless, it is neither my intent nor my right to judge anyone in regards to these means coping with reality and of being happy. But, I think it only fair of me to express my intent in regards to the research that I have shared wtith you in regards to the bible—especially since you perceived at least one of them as to have degraded the bible. In the following paragraph I will attempt to explain my intentions in the fewest of words.

I believe that through understanding the origins of religion people can be freed from its bonds to think for themselves and take responsibility for their own judgments.

Finally, I admit that religion has virtually saved the lives of many people; on the other hand, religion has also destroyed the lives of many other people. In any event, however, irrational beliefs in religions have impeded the scientific growth and technological development of the people mentally enslaved by them—regardless of whether such people have been enslaved voluntarily or have just been fooled into uncritically believing such nonsense.

If you dare to listen to an objective view of religion presented in a comedic fashion on video, click on the following link, but let me warn you, if you want to be ignorant about religion, then don't watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

If clicking on it doesn't work, then copy and paste it in your address bar.

DID MOSES WRITE THE PENTATEUCH?

Most Christians have been taught in Sunday school that Moses wrote the first five books of the bible. These books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are often referred to as the Pentateuch or Torah. However, outside of the more conservative seminaries and churches, it is commonly held that Moses did not write these books, that they are a compilation of works by numerous writers over an extended period of time.

The time of Moses was established from the biblical stories to be approximately 1400 B.C. However, it has been estimated by biblical scholars that the earliest writings of the Pentateuch were written about 950 B.C. Even if Moses existed, he couldn’t have written anything in the bible. And, even though we do not know who actually wrote the Pentateuch, anyone who wrote it couldn’t have been an eye-witness about anything in it. Therefore, since the Hebrews were writing about someone who allegedly lived 4 centuries earlier, it stands to reason that much of what is said about an heroic figure would be exaggerated to mythical proportions even if the person actually lived. However, Moses may be just as fictional as Noah, Abraham, and Adam.

So, if Moses did not write the Pentateuch, then who did? It is the case that the authors are unknown. However, biblical scholars have theoretically determined that the Pentateuch was comprised from four sources. Religious studies courses at most universities teach that the Pentateuch is a composite work consisting of four literary strands. The four strands have been assigned the letters J, E, D, and P; each representing a different document or source that was woven into the fabric of the Bible. This set of assumptions has gone by a number of names including the documentary theory and the Graf-Wellhausen theory. According to this view, the letter "J" stands for the Yahwist ("J" from the German Jahweh) narrative, coming from the period of the early Jewish monarchy, about 950 B.C. "E" stands for the Elohist narrative from the region of the Northern Kingdom dating from about 750 B.C. "D" is best represented by the book of Deuteronomy and is said to have originated in the Southern Kingdom about 650 B.C. or later. And finally, "P" is the priestly document that comes from the period after the fall of Israel in 587 B.C. According to the theory, the Pentateuch reached its current form around the time of Ezra or about 400 B.C.

Why is the issue of Mosaic authority an important one? Those who accept the documentary or Graf-Wellhausen theory argue that the content of these books should be seen as a mixture of credible historical events and religious poetry sparked by man's religious imagination. For example, regarding Moses and God on Mount Sinai, one author of an Old Testament survey writes that, "It would be foolish, for instance, to rationalize the burning bush, as though this vision were something that could have been seen with the objective eye of a camera." Holders of this view reject the notion of supernatural revelation and regard much of the Pentateuch as folklore and Hebrew storytelling.

On the other hand, the conservative view holds to Mosaic authorship and treats the books as a literary unit. This does not mean that Moses didn't use other documents to write his books. He obviously did. But since other Old Testament authors affirm Mosaic authorship, as do numerous New Testament writers and the early church fathers, the veracity of the Bible as a whole begins to crumble if Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch.

In this article we will take a closer look at the source of the documentary theory regarding Mosaic authorship and offer a response that argues for the integrity of the Bible.

For almost two thousand years Christians accepted Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. That's not to say that some didn't acknowledge problems with the text. Many had noted what seemed to be two separate creation stories in Genesis, as well as the problem of Moses recording his own death in Deuteronomy 34.

In 1753, a French physician named Jean Astruc began the modern study of source or literary analysis by writing a commentary on the book of Genesis. He noted that the first chapter of Genesis refers to God as Elohim, while the second chapter uses mostly Jehovah or Yahweh. Astruc believed that Moses must have used two different sources in writing Genesis, each having different names for God, and that the Elohim source was the older. This established the first principle of what would become known as the documentary hypothesis, the assumption that different divine names must mean different authors or sources. In 1780 Johann Eichhorn took this theory and ran with it. He applied the idea of two sources to the rest of Genesis, Exodus, and finally to most of the Pentateuch. He eventually gave up on the view of Mosaic authorship as well.

The next step came in 1805, when Wilhem De Wette argued that none of the Pentateuch was written before David. He established the "D" document standing for Deuteronomy, which he believed was written as propaganda to support political and religious unification in Jerusalem during the reign of king Josiah around 621 B.C. We now have three source documents: J, E, and D. Although others in the late 1700's and early 1800's found as many as thirty-nine fragments in Genesis alone, the final, "P" or Priestly document of the current theory was added by Hermann Hupfeld in 1853. He believed that the E source should be split in two, the later becoming the new P document.

The name most associated with the documentary hypothesis is Julius Wellhausen. His publications in the late 1870's didn't add much new information to the theory, but rather argued for it from a Darwinistic perspective. Wellhausen claimed that the J, E, D, P sequence followed the development from primitive animism towards the more sophisticated monotheism as the Hebrew culture and religion evolved. Within its pages, at least in the story of Abraham and Isaac, the Hebrews also moved from human sacrificing to animal sacrificing as they became more humane.

THE BIBLE AND MAGIC

The following is an excerpt from Mangasarian’s great book, The Bible Unveiled:

Still another word, the explanation of which would greatly help us to understand the bible, is the word magic.

A magician, according to Voltaire, is a man who pretends to possess the secret of doing what nature can not do.

Another Frenchman defines magic as the “strategy of the savage.”

There is not very much difference between these two definitions.

Magic is the weapon, or art, or the science, of the savage against the powers of nature.

The magician claims to be able to “go one better” than nature, or to bring nature to terms.

• If the plague is upon the land, the magician bids it steal away.

• If wild beasts attack his hut, the magician throws a spell over them and makes them harmless.

• Fire will not burn.

• Water will not drown.

• The grave cannot hold its prey.

• Even the god become helpless at a word from the magician.

Magic, in a sense, is the coup d’état of the savage. When one country is at war with another, the best generalship consists in finding out the tactics of the enemy with a view of beating him at his own game. Likewise, the aim of the magician is to steal the secret of the gods and then play the part of a god not only better than the gods themselves, but against them as well. Isn’t man wonderful!

In one sense, magic is science in the making. But while science seeks to control nature through knowledge, magic resorts to spells, charms, incantations and concoctions. In other words, magic is dishonest science.

Now, much as I regret to say it, the bible is more than tainted with this kind of science.

Not a word is there in the bible about studying the laws of nature, for study is not necessary where there is magic. The real thing, science, is made superfluous by the imitation article—magic.

Thus the bible, by its preference for a false science, postponed, if it did not succeed in defeating altogether, the intellectual evolution of man.

Scarcely anything happens in the bible in a natural way. Miracles are so many, and so frequent, that there is practically no nature in the bible:

• The dead arise.

• The rivers flow backward.

• The sea turns into dry land.

• Sticks change into serpents.

• The axe head floats on the water.

• Walls and fortifications fall at the sound of a trumpet.

• Animals talk.

• Virgins become mothers.

• Sun and moon are arrested and then set free.

• A universe is produced out of nothing.

All this is done with as little ado as a magician requires to pull a rabbit out of his sleeve. In the bible, we are in the land of magic. Nature is suspended, and the supernatural is in full swing.

I read the other day of a country farmer who went to see a celebrated conjurer perform his wonders. He saw the “wizard” pick money out of the air, shoot watches into people’s pockets, change copper into gold and silver, and perform a hundred other equally marvelous feats.

As he was leaving the charmed presence of the juggler, he expressed his surprise that so resourceful a man should be under the necessity of giving performance to earn a living. He could not understand why a man whose touch turned everything to gold should collect dimes at the box office. Of course, the explanation is perfectly simple:

The wonders which the conjurer performs are sham wonders. In the same way, the miracles in the bible never help anybody nor accomplish anything because they are sham miracles.

• The bush which burns, and yet is not consumed, is a sham bush—the bush is not a bush, and the fire is not real fire.

• The few loaves and fishes with which Jesus fed a great multitude were sham loaves and fishes, and the multitude which, though hungry, could not exhaust the food, was a sham multitude. Sham bread, sham multitude, sham hunger! Such are the wonderers of the conjurer or the magician in or outside the bible. If Jesus really possessed the power of multiplying a few loaves into an exhaustless supply of bread, why is there then any poverty in the world?

Moreover, the miracles—which are as thick on the pages of the bible as blackberries on a bush—what good did they do to the people for whose benefit they were performed?

• If the Egyptians perished in their homes, the Jews perished in the wilderness.

• If the Egyptians lost their slaves, the Jews lost their sons and daughters—lost themselves.

What good did all the miracles performed in their behalf do for them? Their city, Jerusalem, was set on fire, their homes pillaged, their children put to the edge of the sword, over and over again. What benefit did they derive from the ten thousand miracles lavished upon them?

And look at the Greeks! Not one miracle did Jehovah perform for them. Yet they rose to be the masters of the world, and are still by their worth and genius, the teachers of mankind.

JEPHTHAH SACRIFICES HIS DAUGHTER

The following story is found in the bible in the book of Judges, chapter 11. It is about a man who burned his daughter to death as a sacrifice to God:

The spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He went through Gilead and Manasseh and returned to Mizpah in Gilead and went on to Ammon.

Jephthah promised the LORD: “If you will give me victory over the Ammonites, I will burn as an offering the first person that comes out of my house to meet me, when I come back from the victory. I will offer that person to you as a sacrifice.”

So Jephthah crossed the river to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He struck at them from Aroer to the area around Minnith, twenty cities in all, and as far as Abel Keramim.

There was a great slaughter, and the Ammonites were defeated by Israel.

When Jephthah went back home to Mizpah, there was his daughter coming out to meet him, dancing and playing the tambourine. She was his only child. When he saw, he tore his clothes in sorrow and said, “Oh, my daughter! You are breaking my heart! Why must it be you that causes me pain? I have made a solemn promise to the LORD, and I cannot take it back!”

She told him, “If you have made a promise to the LORD, do what you said you would do to me, since the LORD has given you revenge on your enemies, the Ammonites.” But she asked her father. “Do this one thing for me. Leave me alone for two months, so that I can go with my friends to wander in the mountains and grieve that I must die a virgin.” He told her to go and sent her away for two months. She and her friends went up into the mountains and grieved because she was going to die unmarried and childless.

After two months she came back to her father. He did what he had promised the LORD, and she died still a virgin.

HUMAN SACRIFICE

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice. God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh. Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are "pleasing to the LORD".

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

The first seven chapters of Leviticus have extensive rules regarding animal and food sacrifices. These offerings are supposed to be burnt so that God can smell them. If you read through these it seems clear to me that the priests were getting their followers to make a big feast for them every week. The priests were very particular about what kind of food to bring and how to prepare it.

Even more peculiar is God's obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:12 -13 the Lord said "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me." Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that "consecrate" means a burning sacrifice. Of course, it was a sin not to obey the priests. Since any sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers.

Here, in Exodus, like with Abraham in Genesis, the human sacrifice can be avoided if it is replaced with another animal or money. In other words, to avoid the death of one’s first-born child, the father would have to pay whatever the priest demanded. What amounts to kidnapping and ransom was perfectly legal there and then. Such behavior is definitely immoral. And, here and now, it would most definitely be illegal.

However, in chapter 27 of the Old Testament book of Leviticus the Lord allows for no redemptions. The human being must be sacrificed. To avoid difficult language, I will present the entire chapter from the Good News Bible (without the use of quotation marks):


LAWS CONCERNING GIFTS OF THE LORD

The LORD gave Moses the following regulations for the people of Israel. When a person has been given to the LORD in fulfillment of a special vow, that person may be set free by the payment of the following sums of money, according to the official standard:

• Adult male, twenty to sixty years old: 50 pieces of silver

• Adult female: 30 pieces of silver

• Young male, five to twenty years old: 20 pieces of silver

• Young female: 10 pieces of silver

• Infant male under five: 5 pieces of silver

• Infant female: 3 pieces of silver

• Male above sixty years of age: 15 pieces of silver

• Female above sixty: 10 pieces of silver

If the man who made the vow is too poor to pay the standard price, he shall bring the person to the priest, and the priest will set a lower price, according to the ability of the man to pay.

If the vow concerns an animal that is acceptable as an offering to the LORD, then every gift made to the LORD is sacred, and the man who made the vow may not substitute another animal for it. If he does, both animals belong to the LORD. But if the vow concerns a ritually unclean animal, which is not acceptable as an offering to the LORD, the man shall take the animal to the priest. The priest shall set a price for it, according to its good or bad qualities, and the price will be final. If the man wishes to buy it back, he must pay the price plus an additional 20 percent.

When someone dedicates his house to the LORD, the priest shall set the price according to its good or bad points, and the price will be final. If the one who dedicated the house wishes to buy it back, he must pay the price plus an additional 20 percent.

If a man dedicates part of his land to the LORD, the price shall be set according to the amount of seed it takes to sow it, at the rate of ten pieces of silver per bushel of barley. If he dedicates the land immediately after a Year of Restoration, the full price applies. If he dedicates it any time later, the priest shall estimate the cash value according to the number of years left until the next Year of Restoration, and set a reduced price. If the man who dedicated the field wishes to buy it back, he must pay the price plus an additional 20 percent. If he sells the field to someone else without first buying it back from the LORD, he loses the right to buy it back. At the next Year of Restoration the field will become the LORD’s permanent property; it shall belong to the priests.

If a man dedicates to the LORD a field that he has bought, the priest shall estimate its value according to the number of years until the next Year of Restoration, and the man must pay the price that very day; the money belongs to the LORD. At the Year of Restoration the field shall be returned to the original owner or to his descendants.

All prices shall be set according to the official standard.

The first-born of an animal already belongs to the LORD, so no one may dedicate it to him as a freewill offering. A calf, a lamb, or a kid belongs to the LORD, but the first-born of an unclean animal may be bought back at the standard price plus an additional 20 percent. If it is not bought back, it may be sold to someone else at the standard price.

No one may sell or buy back what he has unconditionally dedicated to the LORD, whether it is a human being, an animal, or land. It belongs permanently to the LORD. Not even a human being who has been unconditionally dedicated may be bought back; he must be put to death.

One tenth of all the produce of the land, whether grain or fruit, belongs to the LORD. If a man wishes to buy any of it back, he must pay the standard price plus an additional 20 percent. One of every ten domestic animals belongs to the LORD. When the animals are counted, every tenth one belongs to the LORD. The owner may not arrange the animals so that the poor animals are chosen, and he may not make any substitutions. If he does substitute one animal for another, then both animals will belong to the LORD and may not be bought back.

These are the commands that the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai for people of Israel.

THE BIBLE UNVEILED IV

Mangasarian lists six arguments in favor of the bible and critically discusses each one:

1. “The bible ought to be judged by its fruits,” is one of the most commended arguments in its favor.

It is claimed that civilization, with all its blessings, is the gift of the bible.

If this were true, it could not prove the bible inspired.

The inventors of steam, the mariner’s compass, and the printing-press have contributed much to human progress, but would that prove that they were inspired? The writings of Socrates and Aristotle greatly aided the development of Europe, as the wars of Alexander the Great helped to educate all Asia. But does that make Greek literature, or Alexander’s wars, inspired?

But it is not true that civilization is the exclusive gift of the bible.

There was a civilization in Rome and in Greece that were fairer without the bible.

If the bible is the sole civilizing force, how explain the Dark Ages, when there was no other book that was even allowed to be named which did not agree with the bible?

2. The next “best” argument in favor of the bible is that it gives the world the only information on God, the soul, the origin of man, his destiny, life beyond death, and the mysteries of Revelation.

But what is the information worth? Is its account of the creation of woman out of a rib, believable? Is the portrait of God, as given in the bible, acceptable? And as to the beyond, does the bible throw any more light on the question than the older or new theosophical books?

3. A third “best” argument is that the bible presents the highest morality and the noblest ideals ever known by man.

What are they? Did the bible discover morality? Was selfishness, or theft, or murder, or meanness, a virtue before the bible forbade them? Was there no love of one’s neighbor, love of one’s country, or nobody to practice charity, or justice, in the world before Moses or Jesus?

But it is not true that the bible teaches the highest morality; on the contrary, as this book undertakes to show, morality is the least of all the anxieties of the bible.

According to its teaching, belief comes first; and all the morality in the world, we are told, can not save the man who will not believe.

4. Another plea made in behalf of the bible is that it has comforted thousands and reformed some of the worst characters. “I have the witness of the spirit in me,” argues the convert, “that the bible is the ‘Word of God.’” And he proceeds to relate how he was a downcast, or fallen in sin, and the bible made a new man of him.

We rejoice whenever the disconsolate find cheer or the fallen rise. Nor is our happiness diminished in the least when we are told that it was the bible which worked the change. Whoever dries a tear upon the eyelid of sorrow and whatever the force which lifts the fallen to their feet, deserves the gratitude of man.

But if that proves the bible divine, why are there so many who are not comforted, or so many of the fallen who do not rise at all? An infallible book should save more people than the bible is claimed to do. The greater part of Christendom, not to speak of the rest of the world, is still to be saved.

If the bible only saves some, so does education and other purely human agencies; and if education does not save everybody, neither does the bible. Wherein, then, is the superiority of the “divine” to the human?

Moreover, if a man is comforted by reading Shakespeare, or Goethe, or Emerson, or George Eliot, would that prove these authors inspired? Or, if a sick man is made better by exercise, or medical attention, and a bad man becomes good by a change of environment, would it follow that these agencies were divine?

If the bible is not the only power that can help, then it is but one of many agencies; and, why should one of the many agencies which make for improvement be labeled “divine”?

Nor does the plea that: because “I feel it in my heart that the bible is divine,” make it so. If “I feel it in my heart” were enough to prove anything true, other bibles would be as true as ours. The Turk and the Chinaman “feel it” in their hearts about their gods as we do about ours. This argument from feeling practically dispenses with knowledge, and leads to intellectual nihilism.

5. In defense of the bible it is further urged that, it being “a heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel,” allowance should be made for the unavoidable imperfections which have crept into its pages.


God was the author, man was the amanuensis, they say, and therefore, the defects of the bible should be charged to the account of man.

But why should a heavenly treasure be enclosed in an earthen vessel?

Was not Jesus divine as his father? Why could not he have committed the revelation to writing? Why leave it to unknown and unreliable reporters to transcribe a divine message? If the reporters were not unreliable, then what is the complaint?

But if reliable reporters could not be found, the deity could just as easily, and very much more safely, have written the whole of his message with his own hand.

Besides, a heavenly treasure which an earthen vessel can spoil is not very heavenly.

If the incorruptible can be corrupted, then it is not any different from any other corruptible thing.

Unfortunately, the infallible book has to be protected against printers’ or revisers’ mistakes. Let us have a better bible—one that no earthen vessel can contaminate.

6. Finally, “Why not dwell upon the truths in the bible and let alone the errors?” is another of the “strong arguments” of the bible defenders. “There are truths enough in the bible, and to spare,” say they. “Why, then, waste time on its imperfections?”

But it all depends upon how serious the imperfections are. It is not the number of errors, but their importance that counts. One serious blemish in a book would be enough to condemn the whole book. The strength of a chain is in its weakest link. It is no comfort to think that there are many more sound links in the chain than weak ones. When the defects in the bible are pointed out, it is no answer to say that many, or even most, of its parts are all right.

THE BIBLE UNVEILED III

William Jennings Bryan was not the only politician or publicist, who contributed to the tercentenary celebration of the bible.

Writing in the Outlook, Theodore Roosevelt, to his own satisfaction, at least, meets the opponents of the inspiration of the bible, and briefly disposes of them.

“Occasionally critics,” he writes, “taking sections of the Old Testament, are able to point out that the teachings therein are not in accordance with our own convictions and views of morality.”

Is it only “occasional” critics who express disapproval of the Jewish-Christian scriptures? And suppose it true that only “occasional” critics call attention to the harm which the bible does by its immoral and impossible teachings: Does that fact relieve the defenders of the bible from the obligation to answer their criticisms? The important question is not, who makes the criticism; but, is the criticism just?

“The Old Testament,” continues Mr. Roosevelt, “did not carry Israel as far as the New Testament has carried us; but it advanced Israel far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached.”

This is practically a plea of guilty.

Why was not the Old Testament as good as the New is supposed to be? Was it not equally divine?

If the Old Testament was meant to prepare the Jews to accept the New Testament, they have not accepted it yet.

But is it true that “the Old Testament carried Israel far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached”?

It is now nearly two thousand years since the New Testament began to “carry us,” and where have we reached?

In how many things have we advanced beyond the Greeks and Romans, for instance?

Only yesterday the black man carried chains in our land, and throughout Christendom white slavery of a more degrading type than ever known before is still with us. Political corruption of a character which Mr. Roosevelt himself has pronounced the most deep-seated and chronic is eating away the vital parts of the American nation, while the hunger, the misery and the squalor in the slums of our great cities, side by side with the waste of wealth and the worship of show, prove daily the complete failure of Christianity as a regenerating force.

Whatever of hope there is today in the human heart for a better future on earth, and whatever signs there may be of a realization of justice and happiness for all men, here and now, we are indebted for them, not to the New Testament, but to modern thought, which is heresy from the point of view of the New, as well as the Old, Testament.

It is the passing of the bible that has opened the way for real and radical reforms. It is the failure of the inspired teachers to fulfill their promises that has at least induced man to step to the front and assume full control of the world’s destinies. Man no longer prays to the gods; he works.

When the bible was supreme in Europe, was the world better?

Would Mr. Roosevelt return to the Middle Ages? Will he go back to the times of Knox, Wesley, Calvin and the New England clergy, or to the times when, by authority of the bible which then ruled without a rival, in court and church, in the home and the school, men and women were bought and sold like animals, or burned alive as witches, or tortured to death in a thousand dungeons for daring to think.

When the bible was supreme in Europe there was neither science nor commerce.

When the bible was supreme, tyrant and dissolute kings ruled by the “grace of God,” and priest persecuted the thinker in every capital of the Christian world.

It is the emancipation of thought, and not the New Testament, that has conquered for us every blessing we enjoy.

Not until the Renaissance, that is to say, not until Europe deserted its Semitic or Asiatic teachers for those of Hellas and Rome, did modern nations begin to wax strong in mind and body.

The New Testament really carried us to the times of the Old Testament.

It was the Renaissance of Greek thought and art that changed the “thorns and thistles” of theology into the golden fruit of science.

THE BIBLE UNVEILED II

In a private letter to an inquirer, to whom I am indebted for the quotation I am about to make, Mr. W. J. Bryan, referring to the author of this book, asks, “If Mr. Mangasarian has books better than the bible, there is nothing to prevent his presenting them to the public, and driving the bible out of use.” But that is precisely what is being done. The bible has been, a step at a time, driven completely out of use in the halls of learning. It is no longer an authority, for example, on questions of science—geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology and all other branches of the principal pursuits of man. Better books on these subjects have replaced the “Word of God.” What is true of science is true of history, politics, government, education, commerce; in all these departments and activities of life better books have relegated the bible into the background.

Did the framers of the American Constitution, for instance, which Gladstone calls “the proudest product of the pen and brain” of man, consult the bible for their work? Did they borrow the doctrine of the separation of Church and State from the bible? The Church in the bible dominates the State; but the Americans compelled the Church to take its hands off the State. Did they learn that lesson from the bible? The Constitution, again, declares that all power is derived from the consent of the governed. Is that biblical? Does not the “Word of God” plainly teach that “the powers that be are appointed of God,” and that not to obey the powers thus appointed, whether they be good or evil, is to receive “damnation to their souls”? Evidently, then, the makers of America had better books than the bible to be guided by.

Where, again, is it permitted in the bible to tolerate all religions and to favor none? If there is any one idea more prominent than any other in the bible, it is that the religion which it announces is alone true, and that all others are pernicious, and to be suppressed by fire and the sword. And religious tolerance is one of the glories of the American Constitution.

And then, there is the question, “What will you give us in place of the bible?” We can not take anything away from you which you can keep and if you can not keep the bible, you have to let it go, whether or not you can find another to take its place. But are there not better stories in the world than those of the serpent in Eden; the fall of man; the deluge and the drowning of the human race; the ten plagues of Egypt; the talking snake; the whale that swallowed a man who lived to tell about it, and of the innumerable wars and massacres? Is it true that the foolish rites and ceremonies, and the unintelligible trinities, incarnations and resurrections in the bible can not be matched? Are we really worrying that, if we give up these tales and mysteries, we will not be able to find anything to replace them?

If we desire fairy tales, there is the mythology of the Greeks; if we want miracles, there is science with its real wonders; if we want stories of human adventure and heroism, there is history, ancient and modern; if we want biography, better than the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the story of glorious discoverers and inventors whose genius transmuted human ignorance into knowledge and barbarism into civilization. And for the sufferings of the gods, read the story of the martyrdom of man!

THE BIBLE UNVEILED I

Following are excerpts from M. M. Mangasarian’s book, The Bible Unveiled. Although I will not use quotation marks, all of the following remarks are from this book:

To make it possible for a for man to be as honest in his religion as he would like to be in his business; to make him as unafraid in church as he aims to be anywhere else, and to help make him as impatient of a lie on Sunday as he is on any other day of the week, is the object of these studies on the bible. I wish to be able to kindle in the breast of every free citizen of this free country the love of truth, irrespective of whether it helps or hurts; I wish to shame cowardice and hypocrisy out of every man and woman who speaks the English language.

A book which claims infallibility; which aspires to absolute authority over mind and body; which demands unconditional surrender to all its pretensions upon penalty of eternal damnation, is an extraordinary book and should, therefore, be subject to extraordinary tests.

The veil lifted! I am not going to give new names to the bible, or find new hidden meanings in it. That is not my profession. Occultism, which enables a reader to find in any book whatever he is seeking, has never commanded my respect. By lifting the veil, I mean a very simple thing—showing up the bible.

All idols are veiled. The veil is the idol. Uncovered, they scare nobody. I shall try to do to the great idol of Christendom what the sun does to the earth—coax it into the light.

The majority of people who exalt the bible above all other books have not studied the book—not even read it, except a chapter here and a passage there. If the bible had been a smaller book, people would have been more familiar with its contents, but being a book of ponderous size, the generality of people have only a dabbler acquaintance with its contents. Really, the size of the book has been its best protection. There is scarcely any other book which is more reverenced, and less known, than the bible.

The very people, however, who are so ignorant of the bible, would be the first to throw up their hands in horror should the least criticism be directed against its contents. Despite its enormous sales, the bible is a stranger in the home, the school, the study, the shop, and in all the assemblies of the people. But the less some people are acquainted with the bible the more they seem to believe in it. Indeed, ignorance of the bible is indispensable to faith in its inspiration.

Moreover, it is this ignorant veneration which makes it dangerous for any one to read and tell the truth about it. Formerly, when the church had the power, such a man was either hacked to pieces, or burned to cinders; today, even, he is persecuted as much as public opinion will permit. It is a matter of history that in the name of this Jewish-Christian volume, which people do not read and are but superficially acquainted with, nearly a hundred millions of lives have been destroyed in Europe alone. Could anything be more appalling? In modern times, the church can no longer do to the unbelievers in the bible what it did to them for over seventeen hundred years, but it does to them as much as public sentiment will allow.

The reader will be interested in examining with me the book in the defense of which, I regret to say, nearly every imaginable crime has been committed. It gives me pain to say this, but who can hide the truth? Moreover, my sole purpose in telling the plain truth is not to offend, or give pain but to encourage everybody to approach the book without fear. I am not going to praise the bible; but I am not going to denounce it either; I am going to explain it.

It is my desire not so much to talk about the bible—when, and where, and by whom, it was compiled; how it was discovered; burned in the destruction of the temple, and later restored by the scribe Ezra; how it has been edited and revised again and again—but to lift the veil and show the book to the world.

M. M. MANGASARIAN

Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian (December 29, 1859–June 26, 1943) was born in Ottoman Empire, attended Robert College in Constantinople; in 1880 he enrolled at Princeton University. He was pastor at a Presbyterian church in Philadelphia from 1885-1887, resigned in 1887 and became an independent lecturer in Philadelphia, in 1890 became affiliated with the Ethical Culture Society of NYC. In 1890 he founded the Independent Religious Society, of which he remained the leader until his resignation in 1925. During his life Mangasarian wrote a number of books. His most popular book deals with the evidence against the existence of an historical Jesus. He also wrote hundreds of essays and lectures on questions of the times. His books and essays were translated into French, German, Spanish, and other foreign languages. The general subject of his writing was religious criticism and the philosophy of religion. Note: One of the issues of the 1925 "The Christian Register" (a Unitarian publication) devoted a large article to him.


The four following posts are excerpts from Mangasarian’s three books:

1. The Bible Unveiled

2. The Truth about Jesus—Is He a Myth?

3. Is the Morality of Jesus Sound?

IS THE BIBLE HISTORICALLY TRUE?

Is the Bible right after all? Is it historically accurate? This is an important question; because, if the Bible is not true in the historical details it records, then it may also be false in other things.

The question is addressed in the book The Bible as History by Werner Keller. In the postscript by Joachim Rehork, whereas he writes:

"It is full of problematical statements with the consequence that representatives of the most diverse disciplines, 'schools' and opinions have racked their brains again and again over contradictions, repetitions and inconsistencies in the Biblical text—inconsistencies of which the following are a few examples.

Then Rehork lists some examples of which I number three here:

1. In the Bible there are two accounts of the Creation (Genesis 1: 1-2, 3; and Genesis 2: 4ff). In the first of these two accounts of the Creation, God created man last; in the second, however, God created him first, that is to say, before all other creatures. In one case God created mankind from the beginning as “male and female”; then, however, only the man came into being from “the dust of the ground”, while woman was formed subsequently from a rib of the man.
2. The name of Moses’s father-in-law has been transmitted in three different forms, once as Jethro (Exodus 3:1; 4:18; 1-12), once as Reuel (Exodus 2: 18) and finally as Hobab (Judges 4: 11).
3. How could Moses describe his own death (Deuteronomy 34)? Or to put the question another way: can the first five books of the Bible really have been written by Moses when they tell us of his death?

After listing such problems, Rehork continues: “These are only a few examples of inconsistencies in the Bible.”

The Bible is not history as we are accustomed to think about history. It is more akin to mythology; or, as may more correctly be said: it is historical fiction.

This does not mean that some of the lessons in morality are not beneficial; quite the contrary, the Bible wouldn’t have lasted so long if it wasn’t quite beneficial. However, because it was written by humans it is just as prone to error as any other book—regardless of how divinely inspired you may think that the writers may have been. Therefore, the Bible should be read just as critically as any other book.

Long ago, I was advised by a wise friend to never be a slave to anyone or anything. Today, I understand his words much more than I did then. I don’t think anyone should be a slave physically or mentally to anyone (past or present) or any book (regardless of who wrote it), or any idea (whether it be a religion, a god, perfection, or patriotism).

Yes, I believe many of the moral principles stated in the Bible. For example, here is something from First Thessalonians 5: 13b-22 English Standard Version (ESV) that has inspired me:

• Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

The words “test everything” may be understood to mean think critically about everything—including what’s been written in holy books. Even though people who wrote them may have been inspired by godly thoughts, they may also have been dead wrong about some things that they themselves believed to be true.

Here’s an inspirational message from First John 4: 1 (ESV):

• Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

In order for me to accept this message, I redefined the key terms: spirits and God. I also changed the word prophet to sage.

1. I define spirit as a thought and/or an emotion.

2. I define God as being my supreme ruler; for me God is a trinity—that is, three elements integrated as one:

a. Nature is god of the universe.

b. Humanity is god of the earth.

c. My own mind is god of my own body.

3. And, I change the word prophet to sage, because sage means having or exhibiting wisdom and calm judgment. Unlike the word prophet, sage doesn’t mean that the person is always right and never wrong; it only means that he or she has a lot of wisdom, knowledge and understanding from which others can learn.

The following scripture is from Job 34: 4 (ESV):

• Let us choose what is right; let us know among ourselves what is good.

I take this to mean: reserve the right to think for yourself.

Ephesians 5: 10 in the Good News Bible says:

• Try to learn what pleases the Lord.

As I stated above, for me the Lord (or God) is a trinity: nature, humanity, and my own mind. To have integrity, I must figure out and do what would harmonize with all three, which together constitute my Lord. For me, trying to please (or harmonize) all three elements is a constant balancing act as well as a constant search for more wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.

I could, of course, go on and on quoting inspirational scriptures; the Bible is loaded with them. But, let me quote just one more passage, found in Ephesians 5: 8b – 15 in the Good News Bible:

• So you must live like people who belong to the light, for it is the light that brings a rich harvest of every kind of goodness righteousness, and truth. Try to learn what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the worthless things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out of the light. …. So be careful how you live. Don’t live like ignorant people, but like wise people.

To me, this means that human beings should be intelligent (the light is wisdom, knowledge and understanding). And, I already told you who and what the Lord is to me—the trinity of nature, humanity, and my own mind conceptualized as one.

So, as you can see, I believe in much that has been written in the Bible; I just don’t believe everything that I’ve read in it. Of course, I am not the first one to selectively believe the Bible; Thomas Jefferson, just to name another, believed as I do that the ethical system that was allegedly taught by Jesus is the finest the world has ever known; however, Thomas Jefferson also sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the Bible.

Even as beneficial as religion has been to the humaneness of humanity, it has also caused much ignorance, suffering, and death to many people.

Notice also how typical it is for people to think that their religion is all right and all others are all wrong. People can clearly see the mythology in the religions of others yet they have chosen to maintain blind faith in their own religion even when the inaccuracies within it should be obvious.

Nevertheless, I don’t prescribe an abandonment of religion; some people are much better off with it than without it. Nonetheless, it is okay to be an atheist as long as one is also a moralist. A moralist is one who follows a system of humanitarian principles. And, such a system can very well be created by and for yourself.

However, one humane problem that tends to exist in organized (or institutionalized) religions is that they tend to separate people into groups. People typically care about people in their own religion but tend to care less about people who are not. In this regard, religion tends to build walls that spiritually separate people from each other. And, I believe as did Isaac Newton that “We build too many walls and not enough bridges.”

BIBLE: HISTORY OR HOAX

Faith is belief without proof something that has either been said or imagined.  believing without proof what one has heard or read. Myths, "prophecies," "miracles," and divine revelations require faith to be believed. During ancient times (and even today) people have proclaimed beliefs in ghosts, spirits, gods, goddesses, angels, devils, witches, fortune-tellers, talking snakes, etc. People in every generation have told stories. The Greek and Roman Myths were their religion during ancient times. The Hebrews didn't believe in many gods, like the ancient Greek and Romans; they believed in one god; however, they still made up stories in regards to this one god. In this way they were not doing anything differently. Unlike the Greek and Roman mythology, the Hebrews used the names of some real places and real people mixed in with some fictitious ones. What they told was historical fiction. It is easy to dismiss the Greek and Roman religion as mythology; however, the ancient Greeks and Romans believed their religion just like people believe Judaism, Christianity, and Islam today. They too believed their religion based upon faith. Faith is not a reason; faith is the absence of reason. Isaac Newton said, "A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding." The truth is enlightening: come out of the darkness of blind faith and into the light of understanding.

Copy the following links and paste them in an e-mail message; then send it to yourself; when you receive it you can then click on the links in numerical order to see videos of archaeological and historical findings that will enlighten an open-minded viewer to the fact that the Bible is full of myths, legends, and historical fiction.

PART 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S5MxOeWIhg&feature=related

PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5Uxp4YNFws&feature=related

PART 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrrzzHOhr8Y&feature=related

PART 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1eO5Dd6WgY&feature=related

PART 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diVIIu9QMBg&feature=related

PART 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBvSaOlgF2s&feature=related

PART 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7xRDhnftko&feature=related

PART 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUe0RWJHARI&feature=related

PART 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fytWeAjW8U&feature=related

PART 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VzDZ6eySVA&feature=related

PART 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BjynKnAKEI&feature=related

PART 12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5h0s_61-LE&feature=related

PART 13: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BRe1EUAtLY&NR=1

PART 14: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cLKl-TEQa0&NR=1

PART 15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxGZ1xW_NsA&NR=1

PART 16: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnK3n7xhOU&NR=1

IS THE STORY OF ABRAHAM A MYTH?

The following information is an extraction from an Article that appeared in The New York Times entitled IS THE STORY OF ABRAHAM A MYTH? Princeton Professor Doubts Whether the Patriarch Ever Existed:

If there is a personage whose historical existence would seem to be established by centuries of written record and the confident belief of many nations, of whole races, through countless generations, it is that of Abraham, the patriarch.

Is the story of Abraham a myth?

The Jewish people trace their origin to Abraham. The account of his life given in the sacred books of the Hebrews—books accepted and held in equal reverence by the entire Christian world and the entire Muslim world—is positive, clear, and definite. So clear and definite, indeed, that the critics whose scrutiny of the Bible has led them to reject as myths and legends such Biblical stories as that of the Garden of Eden, the Fall, and the Deluge, have generally felt that real history began with it: that Abraham was the first historical character of whom we know. And, indeed, any layman who reads the first chapters of Genesis must feel a change in the character of the narrative as he passes from the extraordinary events described as happening at the beginning of time into the realistic atmosphere of the day when a man named Abram set out from the city of Ur, in Chaldea, to live the life of a nomad in Egypt and Palestine, prospering and becoming the head of a tribe which was to expand into a mighty nation. The exquisite character, merely from a literary standpoint, of such details as the incident of Hagar in the desert, the purchase of the cave of Machpelah, the finding of Rebekah by the well, would persuade every ordinary reader that he was on solid ground of historical time. When, furthermore, it is known that the story of Abraham is supported by numerous inscriptions recently found on Babylonian stones and tablets, there would seem to be no ground for suspicion as to the reality of the existence of the father of Isaac and Jacob and the Jewish race.

In point of fact, it is the connection, which is undeniable, between Babylonian literature and the Old Testament which is appealed to by those who assert that the Old Testament stories are fictitious, and who now declare that the character Abraham was no more a living man than was Osiris or Indra, Hercules or Apollo, Siegfried or Sigurd, Beowulf, or King Arthur, William Tell, or Jack the Giant Killer.

Professor Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton University lectured at the University of Pennsylvania last week, and made it clear to his auditors that in his scholarly opinion it was very doubtful indeed whether there was ever such a man named Abraham. Professor Wilson pointed out many curious similarities between Hebrew stories and Babylonian myths.

THE MYTH OF NOAH'S ARK

According to the Book of Genesis (chapters 6-9) and the Quran (surah hud), Noah built a ship or large boat (called an ark) at God’s command to save himself, his family, and the world’s animals from a worldwide flood. The Ark features in the traditions of a number of Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and others.

God, seeing the wickedness of man, is grieved by his creation and resolves to send a great flood. He sees that Noah is a man "righteous in his generation," and gives him detailed instructions for the Ark. When the animals are safe on board God sends the Flood, which rises until all the mountains are covered and all life is destroyed. At the height of the flood the Ark rests on the mountains, the waters abate, and dry land reappears. Noah, his family, and the animals leave the Ark, and God vows to never again send a flood to destroy the Earth.

Although traditionally accepted as historical, by the 19th century growing impact of science and biblical scholarship had led most people to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story. Nevertheless, there are still some people who think that everything written in the Bible is absolutely true.

Although biblical literalists continue to explore the mountains of Ararat, the place named in the book of Genesis (chapter 8, verse 4) where the Ark came to rest, this is just another myth. A typical flood myth (also called a deluge myth) is a mythical story of a great flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution. It is a theme widespread among many cultures, though it is perhaps best known in modern times through the Biblical and Quranic account of Noah's Ark, the Hindu puranic story of Manu, through Deucalion in Greek mythology or Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

According to N. K. Sandars translation of the Utnapishtim (1960), Gilgamesh, in Babylonian legend, was king of Uruk. He is the hero of the Gilgamesh epic, a work of some 3,000 lines, written on 12 tablets c.2000 b.c. and discovered among the ruins at Nineveh. It tells of the adventures of the warlike and imperious Gilgamesh and his friend Enkidu. When Enkidu suddenly sickened and died, Gilgamesh became obsessed by a fear of death. His ancestor Ut-napishtim (who with his wife had been the only survivor of a great flood) told him of a plant that gave eternal life. After obtaining the plant, however, Gilgamesh left it unguarded and a serpent carried it off. The hero then turned to the ghost of Enkidu for consoling knowledge of the afterlife, only to be told by his friend that a gloomy future awaited the dead.

The Biblical story of Noah's Ark actually has two, slightly different stories woven together to appear to be one complex and slightly confusing story. The first of these was written by the Yahwist source, who lived around 800-900 BCE, while the second story was written by the Priestly source, who probably lived during the sixth century BCE.

The stories of Noah's Ark have much in common with the story of the great flood in the much older Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as several other Near Eastern epics. However, it was probably not a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, but rather they probably had a more ancient common source of oral stories told long before the Babylonian or the Hebrew people were writing. Ian Wilson (in his book, Before the Flood,) has written that there once was a great flood that to its survivors must have seemed like a world-wide event sent by the gods. 

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Sumerian city of Ur "was founded ...at some time in the 4th millennium BC ... by settlers thought to have been from northern Mesopotamia, farmers still in the Chalcolithic phase of culture. There is evidence that their occupation was ended by a flood, formerly thought to be the one described in Genesis."


This occurred in 5600 BCE, when the Mediterranean Sea broke through the narrow Bosporus land-bridge and inundated the lush farmland where the Black Sea now lies. Epic stories of this event and its survivors would have been passed on orally until the development of writing at least one thousand years later, when the legend predecessor to Noah's Ark was committed to writing.