Simplified version.

Is the Bible the word of God?

Is the Bible as we have it, with the books chosen to be in it, the word of God?

Who said which books should be in it and why?

We have used the Old Testament to test the new because the writers of the New Testament were following on from it.

But is the Old Testament what we have been led to think it is?

Is it mostly man's word about God rather than God's word to man?

God may have spoken to the writers, but has He spoken through the writers?

Which, then, are God's laws, and which are laws men have added? Is that what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 23 - all that men had added?

Is the Old Testament what we have been led to believe it to be?

Many Christians believe the writings we call the Old Testament has always been as it is now in their Bibles. Those whose names are at the top now wrote it. The books have always been in that order and the words have been kept exactly as passed down and copied.

 The Jewish Bible is in a different order ending with Chronicles, as it puts the Torah (first five books) first, and next the prophets, sacred writings and history last. Christians wanted Malachi to be last because it connects the Old with the New with the "turning of the hearts back" etc to introduce the herald for Jesus: John the Baptist.

As Christians we used to think every word in the Bible was the word of God for us. As we were never encouraged to test it and read anything else we did not realise that what it contained was not new and given straight from God only to His chosen people.

One must never question it and seeming problems in it could be explained away. Yet, some how, often this did not satisfy; but one just pushed the questions to the back of the mind.

If we had heard of the other creation and flood stories that were similar we thought they were showing the truth of the Bible. We never thought that these earlier accounts were the "first" and had been passed on down and changed with time to appear as we have them in our Bibles.

 The Bible we have is not a one off revelation of God's word to a special people. It brings together much from an earlier, much older relationship, and preserves truth like a seed within its chaff. Our problem is getting out the truth. As Christians we did not read enough of other peoples, cultures and civilisations to be able to realise this.

We have to know what has been imported from Sumer with Abraham and from Egypt with Moses to understand the Old Testament. Also we need to know what was in the Dead Sea scrolls and other religions, such as Mithraism, to understand what have been the influences on the New Testament.

It seems much has been taken and used from other cultures, but because the Jews did not see everything staying the same as it had always been, as other cultures did, they changed those things for the “better”.

That the Bible contains the words of men, both good and bad, and the recorded actions of the good and the bad people, we all know. What is difficult to assess is what are the words of God and which are the words of men.

On this site we have used the Masoretic [traditional] writings of the Old Testament in common use today to test the New Testament. BUT what we have was put together after 1000AD! How like what was in use at the time of Jesus and the time the gospels were compiled is it?

Hebrew or Greek?

The New Testament writers appear to quote the Greek translation of the Old Testament from 165 years before Christ and so words from over 1000 years before the Masoretic [traditional] Old Testament we now have.

It is thought that the earliest written rather than spoken stories were those of the historical records held in the southern kingdom of Judah around 950 years before Jesus. The northern kingdom of Israel’s records were brought together with these about 720 years before Jesus. This is why Chronicles and Kings are similar, yet differ. The northern record also went on to the Samaritans in spoken form, and was only written down as the Samaritan Pentateuch [first 5 books of the Old Testament] just before the time of Christ.

At the fall of Jerusalem, 587 years before Jesus, the southern and northern stories were brought together with the Torah of the book of Deuteronomy [second law] which was probably written much later than the Exodus about the time of Jeremiah [possibly by him] and so not written by Moses!

The Torah of the priests [i.e. the law] was not written down until 597 before Jesus at the time of the Jews living in Babylon. It was joined with the stories from south and north after the return from Babylon about 400BCE.

What came together from these four sources then went four ways - Palestine, Egypt, Babylon, and Samaria. The Samaritan Pentateuch continued alone [the Samaritans did not accept any other books]

The Greek Septuagint was a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek in Egypt in 165BCE and also continued alone.

The Palestinian and Babylonian writings came back together just after the time of Christ at Jamnia in 100AD. These, together with the spoken law handed down from the priesthood [who were now out of a job because of the loss of the temple and so wrote their law down to save it for others], made up Old Testament we have, which was completed in 1524 after Jesus.

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls the oldest known manuscript of the Old Testament was from 895 AD. At Qumran cave number one, near Jerusalem in Israel, a manuscript of the book of Isaiah was found and dated to 100 BCE. It is very similar to the 895AD manuscript. It is now on show at the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. It is said any Israeli can read it, as it is so like Modern Hebrew.

Great thought the Christians! This confirms the Bible as the unchanging word of God.

What they do not talk about so much is that in cave four a copy of the book of Jeremiah was found. It was in Hebrew and was a short form of the book, as in the Greek Septuagint Old Testament from Egypt. What we have in our Bibles is from the land of Israel with additions of Jer. Chapter 27 v 19-22, 33 v 14 -26, 39 v 3-14, 48 v 45 -47.

 There was also another version of Exodus.

These show there have been significant changes made. No wonder there has been so much secrecy about some of the finds at Qumran! There have been body blows for both Christians and Jews.

There were 30 changes in the order of the book of Jeremiah compared with the Septuagint version. This cannot be blamed on poor translation!

At no point in the Pentateuch [first five books OT] is it said that Moses is the writer; certain portions are said to be by Moses, but not the total writing. On the other hand, there are good reasons that Moses could not have been the author. In Gen. 14:14, Abram is said to have led a group of men to the city of Dan, but elsewhere it says that this city did not exist until the time of the Judges (Judg. 18:29), long after Moses’ time.

 [But is it long after Moses? - see the New Chronology [timing] below which changes the time scale of the OT by 300 years.]

 The conquest by the Gileadites of the area called Havvothjair took place in the time of the Judges after the Israelites had entered the promised land (Judges. 10:3-4), yet the story is in the Pentateuch (Num. 32:41 during the exodus period; and in Deut. 3:14). The time of the Hebrew kings is spoken about in Gen. 36:31 in the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob period.

 How could Moses write of things that did not come into being until long after his death?

If Moses wrote Genesis from where did he get the stories? The tribes, including his own: the Levites, would have their spoken traditions passed from father to son about creation and the flood, the call of Abraham, etc.

The question arising about the creation stories from round the world is "Do these stories all come from the same place"?

Is there a similarity amongst the oldest peoples and a spreading out by time and distance from that place and time?

The flood stories are worldwide and many agree on the reason being that the creator was angry with people, but someone survived to carry on the human race.

Some, such as the Chinese, see floods as a necessary evil to be controlled to produce crops, and not a punishment.

All peoples need to know their origins so that they can know a purpose and direction for life. The world made in these old myths was perfect but something went wrong - usually men angered God or the gods, who sent a flood to clear the earth ready to begin afresh. If the world was perfect or "good" at the beginning an explanation is needed for why things are the way they are now and often, we think, not good.

The stories show a time when everything was always dark, and empty with no shape, from which is brought light, order, and shape by a central Being. This Being wants there to be other beings like Itself. This demanded action by some all-powerful all-knowing Being. This Being we call God.

Today Quantum physics would try to explain how something could come from nothing.

The big question is not was there a big bang, but is there, was there, a thinking Being who brought it all about?

Does the fact that the stories of creation and origin are alike just mean that men make God or gods in their own image? Or is there a common source from common fathers and mothers from the past passing down the facts, which may get changed later? Or even a revelation of truth from the Creator Himself to various ancient peoples as they sought answers?

The very manner in which names for God are used before Moses was told Yahweh’s name in Exodus raises problems. In certain sections of Genesis "Elohim" appears only (Gen. 1:1-31, 9:1-11); in other places "Yahweh" appears alone (Gen. 4:1-16, 11:1-9). It would seem that different traditions have been brought together into the stories.

Some stories appear more than once, in what are called "doublets." For example, in Gen. 15:5 Abraham is promised many descendants, and in Gen. 17:2 the promise is needlessly repeated. In Gen. 12:11-20 Sarah is pretended to be the sister of Abraham. This story appears in a slightly different setting in Gen. 20:1-18, and is told again with Isaac and Rebekah as central actors in Gen. 26:6-11. In the last two examples, Philistine kings are mentioned and the Philistines did not settle in Palestine until centuries after Abraham and Isaac are supposed to have lived!

How are such repetitions, contradictions, and seemingly wrong timings to be explained?

Moses

It could be that Moses did write most it, but additions of detail and comments were put in later. If the original could be added to or changed in any way, it only leads to questions about what else was added, what might (unknown to us) have been changed, and how we can be expected to trust it?

No Egyptian record exists of Moses or any of the remarkable things he is supposed to have done. Herodotus, who travelled extensively in Egypt in about 450 BCE gathering information, made no mention of him.

Christians, of course, say that the Egyptians had all references to Moses taken out from the official record so they would not look stupid, but there is no proof of this, not even the Bible. In fact, Exodus 11:3 says "Moses himself was a man of great importance in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s officials and in the sight of the people." His miraculous works, even if not part of the official records might have been preserved in unofficial ones or in folk memory, either of which might have come out again later after the events were safely in the past.

David and Solomon.

There is nothing outside the Bible about David and Solomon other than possibly the Amarna clay tablets found in Egypt and dating from the time of Pharaoh Akhenaten. This Pharaoh is supposed to have lived about 1350 BCE in the old time scale [which may be 300 years wrong - see below]. The lack of writing in Israel with the names of David or Solomon is disturbing.

The recent discovery at Tel Dan (in northern Israel) of an inscription containing the word "bytdwd" (translated by some as "House of David") caused great excitement. However, the fact that a variant of this same name Dadua, as well as numerous other Biblical name associations appear in the Amarna tablets, has been overlooked for more than 100 years! This shows how much the time scales that have always been used, even though there is little supporting evidence for them, have influenced historians.

David and Solomon are in the Bible two of the greatest kings of the ancient world, yet within the usual time scales, the right place for them cannot be found. The book "Archaeology of the Land of the Bible" says: "The Bible is the only written source concerning the United Monarchy and it is therefore the basis of any historical presentation of the period".

The early archaeologists wanted to find evidence of the Biblical world so much that a time scale was made in which it could not possibly have existed. The new time scale of David Rohl solves the long standing problem of 300 years difference between the Bible and archaeology, and provides a truer, although very different, time in which the Bible stories and people can be thought about [The difference between being in the bronze age, which ended in the Middle East about 1200 BCE, or in the iron age]. For example: there were in Palestine fine cities having new temples and palaces, and political letters from Palestine rulers to Egyptian Pharaohs that contain David's name, as well as many other Biblical things, at the time of Akhenaten, who reigned in Egypt 300 years before the usual time given for Saul and David. It also means the Pharaoh who took Jerusalem during the period just after Solomon was Rameses II!

The stories of David and Solomon were told to say that the setting up of the Second Temple priesthood many years after that on the return from the Babylonian exile was the will of God. God who used to live in a tent now lived in the Temple. The earlier Hebrew gods or heroes, David and Solomon, became the heroes of the story and the founders of the Jewish state and its Temple. The aim was to say they needed the Temple but it worked so well that it made the make-believe history and David and Solomon seem real and they began to be seen as real people in an Israelite Golden Age that never existed.

It is more likely they were vassal kings under the Egyptians, and possibly their stories have been made like those of the Pharaohs of the time to give Israel its heroes and a proud history

The prophetic Books.

What does all this mean for the prophetic books? Are they really prophetic or were the "prophecies" added after the events to make a spiritual point?

Until nearly the middle of the second century after Christ the Alexandrian Greek Bible [the Septuagint] was the meeting-ground of Christians and Greek-speaking Jews. Justin bears witness that in his day the Septuagint was "in the hands of all the Jews everywhere" (Apol. 1. 31).

 Yet Justin knew that the Jews of his generation were not really happy with the old Greek version. There was more than one cause. In the first place it had been used with great success to help Christianity, which the Synagogue was by this time very much against; and it was thought that the Christians had changed the words to help their cause. In Isaiah 7 verse 9 the Alexandrian Bible made the prophet foretell that a virgin should conceive, where the Hebrew word just means a young woman [there being another word for a virgin that could have been used]. Here and there a Christian comment seems actually to have found its way into the version, as when the Psalmist was made to say” The Lord hath reigned from the tree" - a clearly meaning the cross. This was why the Masoretic [traditional] text we have in our Bibles as the Old Testament was put together from Hebrew sources [as discussed above].

Jeremiah

There are differences of order in Jeremiah between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. A section missing from the Septuagint version and that found at Qumran [both much older than the Masoretic text], which is of significance, is Jeremiah. 33 v 14 - 26. This passage is about an everlasting covenant with the house of David and the Levites [priests]. This repeats the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 v 12-17. This promise has not been kept. Christians have, as usual, spiritualised this away because they see Jesus as replacing the King David/Messiah and the priesthood. Why would the Jews have left out such an important promise before the removal of the temple and exile in AD70? They were oppressed, with no king of the Davidic line, and the priesthood was corrupt and not of the Aaronic line, so there was every reason to hold onto such a promise, just as there was in the time of the Babylonian exile in Jeremiah’s day. If it were written in Jeremiah’s time it would have stayed there, as it was important from then onwards - why would it be removed? The answer can only be that it was added after the events of AD70 when the temple was destroyed! [Also after the death of Jesus who was supposed to replace the priesthood and be the everlasting High priest and the Davidic Messiah]

Daniel

The book of Daniel seems to be written by someone called Daniel who was probably of the royal household and taken away to Babylon in 606BCE. The book is in two parts:

 1.the historical in chapters 1-6, where Daniel is referred to in the third person [i.e. it is written about him by another person] and

2. The prophetic in chapters 7-12. Chapter nine is important to Christians, who have said that the prophecy of the 70 weeks is foreseeing the coming and dying [cutting off] of the Messiah [one anointed with oil], namely Jesus. [BUT see Daniel 9 on the other longer and in depth study for reasons why that is not correct - it was about the ending of the High Priesthood, who were also anointed]. Many scholars think the chapters from 7 on were added at a later date and represent history with a spiritual agenda.

 Daniel is not with the prophets in the Hebrew Bible but in the last section with Ezra and Nehemiah and Chronicles as a historical rather than prophetic book, and so is given less spiritual importance by the Jews than Christians give to it.

The vision of chapters 10-11 leads us step by step up to the events of 165 BCE (11v39), but before those of 164. The writer knows of the making religiously unclean of the Temple at Jerusalem by Antiochus IV (7 December, 167 BCE; see Dan. 11.31). He refers to the revolt of the Maccabees and the first victories of Judas (166BCE). But he does not know of the death of Antiochus (autumn 164BCE; see Dan. 11.40 ff.) and the cleansing of the Temple by Judas on 14 December 164BCE. So we can at least put the second part of the Book of Daniel (chapters 7-12 with reasonable certainty in 164 BCE.

This explains why the Book of Daniel is so right in describing the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, and why it is wrong when it describes the rulers of the Babylonian empire. The author of "Daniel" did not live at the time of the Babylonian empire, but four centuries later, under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes

. Most of the "prophecy" in Daniel is written in the form seeing the future, but it is really a telling of past events. This was OK in its time of writing - people did not see anything wrong in doing that, but for us it seems like a lie.

What about the prophecies in Ezekiel?

The prophecy we’ll look at as an example is against the Phoenician city of Tyre in Ezekiel chapter 26, and is dated 586 BCE. To understand this we also need to know a little about Tyre. Tyre was an important seaport for the world and famous for its sailors and merchants, the Phoenicians. It was a wealthy city since it was the most important trading seaport in the Eastern Mediterranean linking shipping to Cyprus, Italy, Greece, Spain, and North Africa with land caravans from Arabia, Babylon, Persia, and as Far East as India. At this time, the main part of Tyre was an island city about a mile off shore.

 The city of Tyre did pass into Babylonian rule, but that was the result of an agreement that required money to be paid to the Babylonians. The city of Tyre was not destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar or the Babylonians, and in fact continued to thrive as a trading centre.

Now, those who want to say that the Bible is always right point to the fact that Tyre was eventually destroyed, and so Ezekiel’s prophecy came true. Tyre was, indeed, destroyed in 332 BCE by the Greek Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great). He used the clever idea of using rubble from the destroyed mainland settlements to build a walkway to the island, providing a land bridge for his troops. Since that time, Tyre has no longer been an island, and is now connected to the mainland by a narrow strip of land.

So, those who want to say that the Bible is always right would claim, the prophecy was really for the far future even though Ezekiel himself thought it was near. But this raises another whole series of serious problems, and is really blindly holding a view even though there is clear proof it is wrong rather than looking carefully at the biblical text.

There are still other things about Ezekiel’s prophecy that are not right.

Isaiah

Most teachers agree that when we talk about the prophet Isaiah we are actually talking about at least two people. The "First Isaiah" probably lived in Jerusalem during the second half of the 8^th century BCE. His prophecies are recorded in chapters 1-39 of the Book of Isaiah. He saw his own nation, Judah, fight two wars and also saw the destruction of the Northern Kingdom (Israel). Even though there was war around him, First Isaiah was a prophet of peace.

Second Isaiah lived among the exiled Jews in Babylon. Isaiah may or may not have been his name. Many think that he was an unknown prophet whose words were simply added onto the end of Isaiah’s. His goal seems to have been to encourage the exiles to keep to whom they are and be separate from Babylonian culture.

The Second Isaiah has been called "the first Hebrew monotheist" [one who believes there is only one God].  He taught that other gods were not real and that, eventually, everyone would worship the Eternal One. He taught that the Jews should act and not just wait for such a time

The prophecies of Second-Isaiah

Second Isaiah contains the very meaningful so-called Servant Songs-chapter 42, verses 1-4; chapter 49, verses 1-6; chapter 50, verses 4-9; chapter 52, verse 13; and chapter 53, verse 12.

 Writing from Babylon, the writer begins with a message of comfort and hope and faith in their God Yahweh. The people are to leave Babylon and return to Jerusalem, which has paid "double for all her sins." As creator and Lord of history, God will rescue Israel, His chosen servant. Through the Servant of the Lord all the nations will be blessed: "I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations." The Suffering Servant, whether the nation Israel or one person acting for Yahweh, will help to bring about the saving of the nation. Though Second Isaiah may have been speaking of a longed for prophet, many scholars now hold that the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel. Christians have said the Servant Songs, especially the fourth, are prophecies referring to Jesus of Nazareth-"He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief . . .," but this is because they want them to be and so their ideas are open to question, according to many teachers. These things could be said of many Jews throughout history.

Psalms

The Hymn to Aten the sun god Re, was found on a clay tablet at tel Amarna, the capital city of Akhenaton, Pharaoh of Egypt, who may have lived at the same time as David, if the new time scale is correct.

This is not to say David copied it, but that this is typical of the style of hymns of the time, and some lines are very similar to those in psalm 104.

There are also ideas like those in the Old Testament, particularly Genesis. The hymn is compared in detail with Psalm 104 on the other longer in depth site [see link to left in contents list]

This shows the Bible is not the only one of its kind.

Song of Songs

This is a very difficult book. Many ideas have been put forward as to why it is in the Bible. Like the book of Esther there is not a mention of God. Here is nothing about festivals, the temple, the laws or spiritual things at all, seemingly.

It is a love poem, with what she said to him, and he said to her, her comments about him to others, and a few comments from others called "the daughters of Jerusalem". Interestingly he only seems to make one comment about her to others! This is typical of what goes on in a romance. People love to say wonderful things to each other and to tell to others how wonderful their loved one is. Women do this more than men!

She is his sister wife. This is something that happened in Egypt, but the only incidence in the Bible is Abraham with Sarah as his half -sister wife.

If there is not a hidden spiritual code why is the book in the Bible?

The Jews say it describes the relationship of God as husband and Israel as the beautiful wife.

Christians say it is about Christ and the church he sees as beautiful.

The goddess Isis was black skinned [as the woman in Song of Songs] and represented the best in womanhood as wife to Osiris, (the god of rising from the dead and rebirth), and mother to Horus, first king of Egypt.

She showed the power of love to overcome death because she took sperm from her dead husband and gave birth to Horus. In Song of Songs there are verses about the power of love to overcome death.

There are love poems for Isis found on papyrus from Egypt that are similar to this book.

The wife of Pharaoh was often his sister. Abraham said Sarah was his sister, when she was really his half sister

In the Osiris story, Isis and Osiris, the sister and brother, got married. The relationship between Isis and Osiris was purely a story with a meaning.

In Egyptian love-songs the words ‘sister’ and ‘brother’ simply mean ‘beloved’ and do not mean they were really brother and sister. It is about the best love being made in heaven, between the mythical brother and sister, Osiris and Isis.

In fact the style of Song of Songs is similar to many passages in Isaiah, which was probably written a few generations after the time of Solomon.

So there is a powerful connection with Solomon and, even if he was not actually the writer of Song of Songs, whoever was had him in mind.

Chapters 30 and 31 of Isaiah point out that it is stupid to trust in Egypt. Solomon made an agreement with Egypt by marrying Pharaoh's daughter yet Israel was invaded by Egypt soon after.

Because of the style of the book being like a love poem to Isis, and the comments mostly by the woman who clearly knew Solomon well, it could be that the writer was Solomon's wife, the daughter of Pharaoh. If so it is probably the only work in the Bible we have that was written by a woman!

Job

Job has to be a very old book. Most of the book only speaks of "God" not Yahweh and contains nothing about the laws of Moses or Jewish festivals.

The introduction and conclusion do mention Yahweh. They also speak of Satan [the accuser] as though he is a being. This is an idea the Jews picked up in Babylon during the exile centuries later.

So it is likely that the first and last parts of the book were added much later as a commentary. This is serious because it is in those chapters 1&2& 42 that we have the reasons for the things that happened to Job, and his reward in getting back twice what he lost.

Book of Proverbs

The Book of Proverbs is sayings and longer poems composed from the 10th to the 4th century BC and finally collected about 300 BCE. The sayings are either statements that make you think or warnings about how to behave. The longer poems are saying how glad people are about wisdom, that it is good to look to it, and liken it to a woman who at God's right hand helped in creation.

 Egyptian wisdom can be seen in Proverbs, making it possible to date the book to before the exile. Respect for women (31:10 - 31) is encouraged. The book is usually said to have been written by Solomon as the example of Israelite wisdom, but many wise men had a hand in writing and collecting its parts such as the “men of Hezekiah.”

Conclusions about the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not what strict believers of either Christianity or Judaism say it is. It is not the perfect word of God of which no word can be changed. It has been changed and edited by man over a long period of time.

It contains things like other sacred writings from other peoples such as the Sumerians and the Egyptians, and so is not the only one of its kind.

It seems the Levitical priesthood had huge control and made the Israelites a separate people who did not get involved with practices connected with the afterlife. The gentile "worship" of the sun, moon, and stars was not for them. The dying and rising again of the god was connected with the setting and rising of the sun, the waning and waxing of the moon and the procession of the stars and the seasons, by the gentile nations. This gave a great emphasis to the afterlife and everlasting life. This aspect is missing in Judaism and was brought to Christianity from the gentile mystic cults, such as Mithraism, by Paul.

The Judaism of the Old Testament is a guidebook for life in this world for the Jews.

The Old Testament may not even be true as far as history is concerned.

There is truth in it but it has to be searched out like gold nuggets from tons of ore.

Is the New Testament to be trusted?

CHRISTIAN; ARE YOU A FOLLOWER OF CHRIST OR PAUL?

At the beginning it must be said that the following conclusions have come from a long period of trying to prove Christianity to be right, but seeing in trying to do it that Paul and Jesus do not teach the same things. After many years as Christians it was very painful, but having prayed many times to be shown the truth - whatever the cost, this web site tells of the results.

Most Christians do not know that they are following the teaching of Paul and not that of Jesus. Jesus taught that the people of Israel should live by the Law of Moses in its pure form as taught in the first five books of the Bible without all the extras that the religious leaders had added: see the beginning of Matthew 23. Paul taught that all that was done with and the work of Jesus had been to finish all that ! Where do we find that in the gospels? Where do we find Jesus saying his death would be instead of those who should die because they were so bad and sinful and his death would end all the animals being killed for that and that his blood would cleanse from sin instead of blood of the animals?

What we know of Paul comes from his own writings and those of Luke in the book of Acts. It has to be said that the book of Acts is mostly about the Acts of Paul!

It seems Luke’s main reason for writing the book of Acts was to support Paul in his arguments with the church in Jerusalem.

 Paul is not talked about by the other writers of the New Testament, except Peter in a letter where he says Paul is hard to understand!

Paul claims a better understanding given directly to him (there was no other witness to it) yet he never met Jesus in the flesh. He was supposed to be in Jerusalem at that time so why was he not a disciple then - Jesus could have called him then? His letters were written before the gospels yet no mention is made in the gospels of his new understanding and teaching which are additional to that given to the other disciples.

In writing Acts Luke is trying to bridge a gap that had happened between the church in Jerusalem and the church set up by Paul among the Gentiles. What Luke wants to say is that if a man like Paul, who said he was well educated in Judaism and a Pharisee learned beyond his years, had decided that Christianity was the true Judaism how could there be a problem? There needed to be a link between the old and new covenants, Judaism and Christianity, and Jew and gentile.

But Paul has this sense of being special that separates him:

1

a special revelation direct from God. In effect he is putting himself on a level with Moses.

2

His Christianity is new and different and not just a branch of Judaism

3

Not only was it special at the beginning, but also he has had other experiences since - see 2 Corinthians 12 v2&3.

4

He had special marks on his body that no one else then claimed to have (Galatians 6 v7).

5

He received instruction about the Eucharist [communion or breaking of bread] directly (1 Corinthians 11). He instituted the communion as we know it now as a replacement for Passover, which those at the last supper know it was not, because it took place on the preparation day not the day of Passover (see John’s gospel especially ch 19. v 31 & 42)

Paul’s writings show muddled thought and a way of arguing not like the Jewish Pharisaic or Rabbinical style. In fact it shows his origins and education in a gentile pagan society with the mystery cults and a Greek way of using dialogue for argument. The book of Romans especially shows this style where an imaginary enemy asks questions which you have chosen to make your point and you answer. Paul never uses parables or the typical Jewish sayings of Rabbi Jesus or any typically Jewish teacher.

It could be argued that this is because he is writing to gentiles so he uses their way of thinking: BUT he uses ideas from the Jewish scriptures and twists them to suit his doctrine.

 A Rabbinical way of reasoning is by comparing one thing with another. If a rule applies to a small thing it must apply to a larger. If two passages seem to disagree, then a third must be found that brings the two together. Rabbis taught that God created the world by his word - the Torah [law]. The study of it takes a life time and nothing in it could be changed -" not a jot or tittle" would pass away". But Paul says the law is slavery even though it was given to Israel when they just become freed from slavery. In Galatians ch. 4 Paul makes Hagar the mother of Israel under the burden of the law still (when she was really the mother of Ishmael, a gentile) and Sarah the mother of the free gentiles (when she was really the mother of Isaac, a Jew)!

If you study what Paul says about himself and his conversion and what Luke says in Acts you will see that they do not agree. Even the three accounts in Acts do not agree on what was seen and heard by the others present on the road to Damascus. Ananias is a Christian in Acts 9 and a strict observer of the Jewish law in Acts 22!

The accounts in 1 Cor. 11 v32 and Acts 9 v 22-25 do not agree about Paul’s escape from Damascus.

How could Paul’s understanding be so different from the teaching the disciples received face to face with Jesus, that it caused two big rows in Acts 15 and 21? Look at what is said here in Acts and Paul’s behaviour (after it being agreed to let off new believers from circumcision, as were God fearing gentiles who partly practised Judaism, Paul, in the next chapter circumcises Timothy because he had a Jewish mother! [Either you are giving up all the law demands or not! (See Paul in Romans 2)] Compare that with his account written to the Galatians of the same meeting. He was very bold to the gentiles but not so when he met those who had actually been with Jesus. After his conversion he was very slow to go to see them - it would have been normal to long to talk at length with those who had spent years with his Lord.

Paul saw all the law as finished as regards salvation and a new covenant was now in force.

Compare this with what Jesus said in Matthew 5 v 18 & 19 and Matthew 23 v2. If everything the disciples knew and understood was going to change and God was moving the goal posts would not Jesus have explained and warned them?

The only new covenant they knew about was in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 where God promised to give the people of Israel a new heart to be able to keep his laws by the power of His Spirit. The Jews were not expecting a messiah who would die for their sins because their scriptures did not say such a person would come. Where does it say in Isaiah 53, or anywhere, that a substitute sacrifice would be made by a divine Son of God that would end animal sacrifice and people’s sins be washed away by his blood?

 Even Daniel chapter 9 is talking about the ending of the high priesthood.

 If these two passages prophesy what happened to Jesus why are they not used over and over in the New Testament? Why do the writers of Jesus’ birth stories not use it? The Jews cannot be blamed for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah - that was someone who would make Israel free of her oppressors and restore the kingdom as it was in David’s day, and that is what the people wanted Jesus to be: a warrior king to free them from the Gentiles, and poverty, and make Israel great again.

Paul clashes with the elders in Jerusalem in Acts 21. He seems to know there is trouble waiting for him there (see ch. 20 v22). The elders tell him thousands of Jews have believed there and are all zealous for the law, but they have heard Paul teaches the Jews who live among the gentiles to stop practising the law. They advise him to join in a purification ceremony to show he still practises the law, and he does! So meeting head on with the authority of the apostles he gives way. Now this brings the question: who was right? What teaching had the apostles from Jesus that makes them so sure? If Paul was sure he was right in his new understanding why does he not stick to it?

 What is the significance for Jewish converts to Paul’s Christianity today? Would Jesus really have asked them to stop practising Judaism? What about gentile Christians? Would Jesus ask them to start to practise his Judaism?

 This is why I ask: who do you follow Paul or Jesus?

Paul and the Eucharist.

Paul was very influenced by pagan rituals. Mithraism was widespread at the time where there was bread representing the body and flesh of the god, and wine representing the blood of the god. This was a sacrificial offering but was also a “taking in” of the god.

 Jesus asked his friends to remember him when they had a meal. This was not the Passover meal as the “last supper” was eaten on the day of preparation for Passover. The Passover lamb was not a sin offering, and was not a sacrifice at the temple as other animals that were sin offerings, but it did save the people of God from death in Egypt. Its blood showed who were the Israelites and who were Egyptians. It showed who was in the chosen nation. Jesus knew his death would be for political reasons to stop many being killed in riots at the great gathering for the feast.

When Jesus speaks of the new covenant he is using the same words used by Jeremiah in ch. 31 verses 31 -34.

So Paul has turned a meal to remember Jesus into a pagan ritual.

Paul and Baptism

Converts to Judaism were baptised to cleanse from ritual impurity and so to be able to enter the temple and eat holy food. The baptism of John the Baptist was for repentance and so similar to that of converts to Judaism entering a new life. The Jews use the Mikveh [baptism by fully submersing in running water] bath for new beginnings a various points in life - after menstruation, before marriage, before Shabbat [Sabbath], before the main feasts etc. It is not to wash away sin or connected with dying and rising again from death, but is connected with a new birth or beginning.

Paul’s idea ignores repentance [which he hardly speaks about] and makes baptism the means of the convert sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ - a rite of entry into a mystery religion.

Paul and the Death and Resurrection of Jesus.

The Pharisees believed in a resurrection for those who had lived a righteous life and that resurrection was the revival of the physical human body. For Paul it is becoming divine - becoming the god.

When Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 it is about spiritual bodies. To a Jew the resurrection of Jesus did not prove his divinity any more than the resurrection of Lazarus made him divine.

The Jews see the death of Jesus as a death of a martyr, not a sacrifice. A martyr dies because they will not change what they believe and so go willingly to death: Jesus said, " I willingly lay down my life." A sacrifice has no say in it - it is a victim.

Isaac was to be a sacrifice, but God stopped it. He did not want human sacrifice and provided a ram instead.

In Judaism the sacrifice dies, not for the sinner, but for the sin.

The Passover lamb died so that Israel could leave Egypt - it was nothing to do with sin. The sins of the nation of Israel were dealt with on the Day of Atonement [see Leviticus ch 16]. Why did not Jesus die on the Day of Atonement if his death was about removing our sin?

Paul says the law cannot save, but to a Jew that is not the point. A Jew is saved by being in the covenant of Judaism, and the animal sacrifices only atoned for sin you did not realise you had committed. For deliberate sin there had to be repentance [a change of heart] and reparation [putting it right, if possible] and sometimes the death penalty.

Paul says you have to be included in the death and resurrection of Christ and so become divine by adoption [acceptance].

 Paul misuses scripture by dressing up pagan ideas in the clothing of passages in the Old Testament and in Jewish language. Paul’s Christianity is a mystical religion disguised as a fulfilment of Judaism.

 Paul does not teach what Christ taught and is not a follower of Christ, or even a Pharisee, which makes him a liar. Paul hardly mentions repentance - which was preached by Jesus and John the Baptist. Jesus warned of his death and resurrection, but never said it would be a sacrifice. In fact in the gospels the word “sacrifice” comes only once in Mark 9 v49 about a sacrifice needing to be salted. Why when it is supposed to be the point of Christianity?

Paul and Satan.

The Pharisees did not see the devil as a fallen angel, with much power as Christians teach today, but as something or someone acting as an enemy (which is the meaning of "satan" which is a Hebrew word for an adversary) carrying out the will of God as an angel of death or an accuser.

 Because of Paul some Christians have the idea that demons are everywhere. This together with Paul speaking of the  "god of this world" has led to Charismatic Christians praying against and taking territory from satan and his demons.

Here again Paul differs from Jesus and the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 4 v4 he calls satan the god of this world who has blinded those of the world.

Paul says satan has blinded the world so they cannot believe, but in Romans 9 he says God has hardened the hearts of the unbelieving Jews. Why should Jews be hardened and gentiles blinded? Why should gentiles have such a different mode of salvation from that given to the Jews? If it is to be so different why choose a Jew to die for both? Why would God spend 2000 years teaching the Jews about it all only to change everything without any warning or explanation? That, as we would say today, is a mega moving of the goal posts! Yet God has declared He does nothing without speaking through his prophets first. (Amos ch 3 v7)

The results of Paul’s teaching.

The effect that Paul had on Christianity is not doubted, but the question is has he spread the Christianity understood and practised by those disciples who were with Jesus and taught by him for three years and who were, like him, Jews? Or has Paul started a new religion that was to replace Judaism not fulfil it?

The gospels do not give the picture that Jesus was starting a new religion at all, but was turning the hearts of the children back to the fathers' faith, from where they gone astray. [See the end of Malachi]

What Paul has passed on the western Christianity is a replacement religion, not a fulfilment or even a progression. This has made the Jews -" the lost sheep to whom Jesus came" against Christianity and added much fuel to the fire of anti -Semitism.

Paul’s teaching has allowed such denominations as the Restoration movement to say God has finished with the Jews and the church is the new Israel.

Also his teaching is loved by the Roman Catholics who practise the idea that celibacy [not having sex of any kind] is the best way to live your life in the service of God. This is unlike Judaism where all priests had to be married, and apart from some Essenes [an extreme sect of Judaism], married was the normal state for everyone. People may say Jesus was an Essene, BUT the gospels do not say he was unmarried, which is odd as it was not the normal state.

Paul and Anti-Semitism.

In 1Thessalonians 2 v 14-16 Paul says the people of Thessale have become like the churches in Judea in being persecuted by their own countrymen. The Jews in Judea are accused by him of killing Jesus, and also the prophets. They drove out Paul and his disciples; yet try to stop him from preaching to the gentiles. Here is another example of Paul’s muddled thinking:

If they drove him out why should they then care what he said to the gentiles? They would care about what he was doing to destroy Judaism, but would not care if gentiles were converted to his form of Christianity, AS LONG AS it did not lead to Anti-Semitism.

 Why was HE driven out of Judea, but the other disciples allowed to stay?

They stayed because the church in Jerusalem was accepted as it was seen to be a branch of Judaism. Paul’s brand of Christianity produced arguments with both the new Christian groups of the Ebionites and Nazoreans as well as orthodox Jews.

In Romans chapter 11 Paul says the mission to the Jews failed because they rejected Jesus (but Jesus said he had come to the lost sheep of Israel - had he failed? What about the Jewish church in Jerusalem?)

Paul says salvation had come to the gentiles because of the sin of the Jews, as if this was all a part of the plan, but Jesus said he had sheep of another fold (John 10) and there would be ONE flock and one shepherd, so why would there be a new apostle with a new message for the gentiles?

What Paul is saying is that the Jews acted like Judas in betraying Jesus, so they are now seen as Judas and Christ killers. All the suffering of the Jewish people is seen as proving the" truth" that Christianity is meant for gentiles now and the Jews are lost unless they convert to it - they are being punished for rejecting Christ.

All the sins of society became heaped on them as scapegoats - see Isaiah ch 53.

In Jonah ch.1 v 14 those who threw Jonah into the sea prayed " do not hold us accountable for killing an innocent man - YOU oh Lord have done as you pleased!"

It was both Jews and Romans who put Jesus to death.

If Christianity depends on his death should we not be grateful to them instead of blaming them?

The Recorded Sayings of Jesus

First it must be said that if Jesus had come to keep and fulfil the law (Matt 5v17) (in fact the Khaboris manuscript has " and to add to it" possibly in the sense of a rabbi adding the exposition of the depth of meaning) then what he said must be in line with the Old Testament.

The Khaboris is just one of several versions of the gospels we have. We do not all remember that we are not reading the Bible in the languages and words written by the original writers.

On looking at the history of languages and the versions still available it becomes obvious we are now reading translations of late versions. There are differences in the versions written in between which are important enough to make one wonder what the original really said!

What happened to the originals- were they destroyed because they were not in line with Paul's Christianity, and may, indeed have been written to put matters right?! It is odd that we have nothing earlier than the time the church was writing the statements of its beliefs and using Paul's teaching as the basis for its beliefs. The early Christians, such as the Ebionites, only accepted the Gospel of Matthew, and that without the first three chapters - it began as Mark does with the ministry of John the Baptist with no explanation of from where Jesus came.

The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew translated from Shem Tov (see the in depth version for differences on this site) and the Aramaic versions from the Syriac churches (other versions such as the Khaboris manuscript and the version translated from the scriptures of the Church of the East by Victor Alexander), give a different picture of Jesus. If there are large differences in these versions treasured by those who speak a language much closer to that spoken by Jesus why have Christians put so much weight on the versions we have as supposed to be the "word of God", and which have been translated from Greek manuscripts centuries after the events? Which, if any, are like the very first writings?

Maybe Greek had overtaken Aramaic as the language spoken at the time by most people, but WHO were these accounts written for - the Jews or the Gentiles and what would they understand best that the writer would use? Jesus insisted he came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But Paul was for the gentiles and is said to have written his letters earlier than the Gospels. So have the original accounts of what Jesus said and did been changed to make them fit Paul's teaching?

Is, perhaps, the gospel of Thomas, found much later [about the same time as the Dead Sea scrolls in the 1940’s and never been part of our Bibles] closer to what Jesus really said?

 When the Jewish followers of Jesus were seen as another kind of Judaism why write in Greek for them?

Jesus sayings are typical of a Jewish Rabbi, also sometimes of a Greek philosopher of the Cynic school, (see "Question of Q" below), and sometimes like Hinduism.

This is not surprising as Galilee was at the cross roads of trade routes of Europe, Asia and Africa. Jesus may well have met people from those places who were teachers of their own faiths and philosophies. Maybe he brought together the best from them all and this is why he is the greatest teacher of them all.

One could argue that true sayings would be common to great religions and philosophies. Yet some of the sayings do not seem to make sense in the gospels we have, which suggests some changes have been made to the text.

Some do not even seem to be true.

That of a bad tree only bringing forth bad fruit and a good tree bringing forth only good (Matt. 7 v17 and Luke 6 v43), for instance. This does not fit with Genesis 2 v 17 and the fact that Kings David and Solomon and Moses were each both good and bad! The nation of Israel is portrayed as a vine brings forth both good and bad grapes.

Probably we do not have in any version the true sayings of the person we call Jesus unadulterated with the additions and changes of those under the influence of Paul and Mithraism.

What is the Kingdom of God?

The Jews believe God rules over the entire universe and the kingdoms of the world, but he has a special rule over the people and the land of Israel. (Psalm 103 v 19 and 2 Chronicles 20 v 6). His kingdom is everlasting (Daniel 4 v 3 and Psalm145v13).

God is in the heavens, but nowhere in the OT does it speak of the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God as such. Those are New Testament terms.

Daniel 2 v 44 says the God of the heavens will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. This, when seen in the background of the time of writing, is the longing for Israel to be free from invasion and oppression. This is seen by many as coming about only when the Messiah comes.

In Jeremiah 30 and 31 and Ezekiel 36 the bringing back of the kingdom under a king from the line of David is promised BUT goes together with the setting up of a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of the Israelites, who would be one nation again.

Is this spiritual kingdom what Jesus is talking about when he teaches about the kingdom of God?

Had the idea grown in the inter-testament times of the restoration of the kingdom brought about by the coming of the Messiah and a great battle to rid them of the enemy? (See the war scroll in the Dead Sea scrolls written in the time between the Old Testament and the New). It was during this time that they had been overrun by first the Greek and then the Romans.

This restored kingdom would not only be a blessing to the Jews but would extend to all the kingdoms of the world as the prophets said would happen after the great "Day of the Lord".

But it seems Jesus was teaching that they were wrong to expect it then; in his time - they were not reading the signs of the times rightly. The opposite was going to happen and they would again be out of the land and the temple and priesthood gone.

The writer of John's gospel (said to be the latest writing) had seen what happened in AD70 and is the one to record what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman - that neither the Samaritans nor the Jews would be worshipping on their own holy mountains, but would learn to worship in spirit and in truth.

There is a physical world and a spiritual world and God is Lord in both.

In the gospel of Thomas Jesus says, "the kingdom is inside you and it is outside you."

This is again an understanding of the eastern religions; that you find God within yourself. This is contrary to the Judaism we usually hear that God is totally "other" than the creation He has made.

But in Luke 17 v21 Jesus said that the kingdom is within you [some translations have “among” you]

 If you are part of creation then He spreads through your very atoms. You are part of the substance of the mind of God that has become touchable whether you know it or not. But when understanding of this comes, then the kingdom is experienced in a new and powerful way. When you know everything and everybody is also a part of the mind of God you treat him or her differently. Love comes more easily because you know they relate to you and you to them as a part of the expression of God Himself.

Jesus said a number of things that show he knew this kingdom and wanted others to know it too, possibly more importantly than thinking about the actual restoration of the kingdom of Israel. This would certainly of antagonised the Jewish leaders of his day.

The Cross.

The word as such does not occur in the Old Testament. Why not if this was the great plan?

There are two related words: a)"atzeb" which means pain or distress, a cutting. It comes from the root "to hew down". and b) "etza" which is a wooden pole or tree, and is often used in the OT for an idol cut from a pole, e.g. Isaiah 40 v 20.

The translation from our Greek/English Bible into Hebrew for Jewish converts [Messianic Jews] has formed a word especially for the purpose: "tzelaboo"; meaning "his cross."

The interesting thing is that the verse Matthew 10 v 38, where other versions speak of taking up the cross to follow him, is not in the Hebrew Matthew of Shem Tov, which is the only Hebrew version we have. This is a document dating from the middle ages (see "Other versions…." in the other in depth study)

The Greek word is "stauros" which means a stake.

Vines Greek dictionary says the two beamed cross had its origin in Babylon and was the symbol of the god Tammuz, [a fertility god], in the shape of the letter tau (T).

In the 3^rd C AD pagan ideas were adopted, or allowed, to encourage church membership and the top of the T lowered to make the cross as we know it.

It was an X that Constantine saw in the sky, which is the beginning of the word "Christ" in Greek. This began the Christian Empire as he then said this must be the religion all his subjects.

If Jesus said any thing like "If you do not take up your cross and follow me you are not worthy of me." or, "Deny yourself and take up your cross", then he was talking about the cutting away of worldly things and all your fixed ideas and baggage that prevent you from being able to follow him.

It was customary for those to be crucified to carry the cross beam to the site of execution, so what he might have meant was that you have to continue with having things cut away until you reach the end of your life.

The use of "Christ" in the Gospels.

If the man called Jesus did not, according to the gospels we have, do anything to give good reason for being called the Messiah by the Jews why do we have the term apparently used in the scriptures passed on to us?

It seems the word Christos which is the Greek equivalent of Messiah in Hebrew could have been confused with "chrestos" which means good, kind, or gracious. It was also a name commonly given to slaves or servants. The difference is only one letter i.e. the third. In chrestos it is like an n with a long tail, and in Christos it is like an " i " without the dot.

So copyists could have made a mistake or the letter could have become blurry.

On the other site we go through all the references trying out the changed name to see if it makes sense and is a possibility.

Also it should be kept in mind that the Hebrew for a good teacher, or good, and for good holy man is tzedek - perhaps this is what was originally written and the Greek word for good (chrestos) used for it on translating and then became changed to Christos as Messiah later

Is there a resurrection?

The Torah, or first five books of the Hebrew Bible, does not say much about death and the after life. The place where the dead go is called sheol, which means a place of silence.

The book of Job has more to say: especially in chapters 14 and 19. It depends on which translation you use as to what you learn from these verses. The Hebrew is rich with meaning and is open to variation and so those translating have come to different conclusions according to the mindset they bring to it. Having said that; surely the Jews working in Israel to bring out the Jerusalem Bible must be respected as they are using their native tongue in the place of origin?

So, using the Jerusalem Bible as a yardstick, let us compare the other versions with it.

Job chapter 14 verse 10 says: "A man dieth, wasteth away, giveth up the ghost, where is he now?"

Job chapter 14 verse 12: "A man lieth down and doth not rise, 'til heavens be no more they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. "

Job chapter 14 verse 14: "If a man die shall he live again? All the days of my service I should wait until my reward should come."

Other versions compare quite closely with these versions except for the word "service". Here in the Hebrew it is not " avodah" meaning worship or serving God as we think of it, but means a time of warfare, which is what Young’s Literal translation has. The authorised version has  “days of my appointed time."

 This shows a progression away from the original idea as a look at the word "reward" proves. Young has the end of verse 14 as " til my change come", but the word in Hebrew can mean a reward, or a change in the sense of a change of guard soldiers or fresh troops, a refreshing change of circumstances for the better. Actually, the New International version has it quite well: " All the days of my hard service I will wait for my renewal (or release) to come."

Job is in a battle, but he knows one day if he hangs in there God will reward him with a change for the better.

It is when we come to Job chapter 19 that the real differences show up.

The Jerusalem Bible has for verses 25 and 26:" I know my avenger lives and he who outlives all things will rise when I shall be dust. But whilst I am still in my flesh, though it be after my skin is torn from my body, I will see God that I might see him for myself, that my eyes might behold and not another, in longing for that my reigns are consumed within me."

There is nothing here of a resurrection from the dead and seeing God after that. In fact if the Hebrew is studied carefully a greater depth is revealed. The word "avenger" can mean a redeemer or anyone who sets free, or even one who acts as in a vendetta for revenge. But most interesting is the word for" skin" which can also mean blindness. So the tearing away of flesh is like having a cataract removed and being able to see clearly. Job knows that one day the skin will be torn away and he will see and know God clearly and properly in a way he cannot now. But it will happen whilst he is still alive and in his flesh.

Because of the removal of the covering of skin some translations have added "worms" but they are not there in the original. His Christianity biases even Young, who is usually so close in his translation: he has "That I have known my Redeemer, the Living and the Last, from the dust he doth rise. And after my skin doth compass this body (“body" is in italics recognising it is not there in the Hebrew) then from my flesh I see God."

The King James authorised has "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand in the latter day (day in italics recognising it is not there in the original) upon the earth (not "eretz" in the Hebrew - it is " efer" which means dust.) And though after my skin worms (again in italics because it is not there in the original) destroy this body (italics), yet in my flesh I shall see God."

At least the New International version leaves out the worms!

It seems from all this that the idea of resurrection from the dead, restoration of life, is a late idea [after the OT was written].

Languages

It should be remembered when reading the Bible in our English versions that the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek did not use capital letters and so proper names and divinity could not be shown by their use.

What language did Moses write in and what did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob speak?

Did the collection of stories we call Genesis have to be translated into Hebrew because that was not fully formed as a language until about the time of David, having developed from Phoenician that came from the early Canaanite language?

Aramaic also came from the early Canaanite, which had come from Akkadian, which is probably what Abraham spoke. In the early days the languages were more like dialects as they were so alike so it is likely that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and sons could understand ancient Egyptian (another descendant from Akkadian) and Moses could understand the language of the Midianites.

As time went on they changed and evolved further to the extent that on returning from the exile in Babylonia where a form of Aramaic was spoken the people of Judah had to have the Hebrew Scriptures explained to them in Aramaic (these explanations were written down as the Targums.) But some English people would want an interpreter to understand a person speaking the broad accent of Glasgow in Scotland!

It is an interesting point that the Greek alphabet also descended from the Phoenician.

The alarming thing is that the different versions of the gospels from the different languages have more than just variations in shades of meaning: there are important differences that are to do with basic beliefs

Messiah?

It seems the Jewish followers believed Jesus was the Messiah, who, although he died, would return and establish the restored kingdom of Israel. He was to bring release from poverty and oppression on his return by throwing out the Romans and bringing in the true reign of God through the law that gave justice for all.

 Perhaps Jesus believed he was bringing the word of God to his generation. The miracles were supposed, then, to be the seal of God that his teaching was true.

The man

We see in the gospels was a man of his time who believed in the added beliefs from the time of the Babylon exile about heaven, hell, demons and Satan.

Matthew, Luke and John, have lengthened shorter earlier versions with additions, which may have been for reasons of new beliefs from Paul's influence.

When time went on and Jesus had not returned, nor had the Messiah come as they expected, then Paul’s version of Christianity took over. This was a way of explaining the problem away. It was all spiritualised - it was to be a spiritual kingdom. The temple and sacrifice were gone and so they were not able to keep much of the law, as Paul said. But Jesus had said then they would worship in spirit and truth!

The Mishnah (second law) was written down by the Jews about the same time as the gospels. It was the Jewish response to the loss of the temple and sacrifices, and to give direction to a people not living in the land now. This was completed, with the commentaries called Gamara and put into the Talmud, by about 200 AD.

Almost all the quotes from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint, which was a translation into Greek from the Hebrew texts done in Egypt and used by the Jews who lived in Egypt as they spoke Greek rather than Hebrew. This does suggest the gospels we have were written for Greek speaking gentiles, or for Jews that did not know Hebrew, (which means they were not pious; as those who were still used Hebrew, in the way Roman Catholics used Latin: it was the language of the priesthood) probably not living in Israel but in other parts of the world.

It has to be questioned whether Jesus was a true prophet as well as a teacher because what he supposedly said about the future could have been added later, and also that neither he, nor the Messiah have come “soon“

. Christians expect the return of Jesus and Jews expect the Messiah to come.

Paul hardly refers to the teaching of Jesus and he is said to have written before the gospels we have were put together. Some of what he says disagrees with Jesus (see "Christian do you follow Christ or Paul?" on this above). Could our gospels have originally been written to argue against Paul's message and actually making Jesus more Jewish again? Later additions to them have brought them more into line again with what were the beliefs of the gentile church who followed Paul.

That the sayings generally attributed to Jesus come from a deeply spiritual teacher emerges from the confusion

Q and other writings of Interest

There are some learned people who think there was a gospel of just the sayings of Jesus in existence many years before the gospels we know were written. They call it “Q”. Not all agree that it exists hidden in what we now have, or ever existed alone before. If it existed no copy survives.

Those who believe in the Bible being given exactly as it is by God do not believe in Q because of the deep outcome it would have which would challenge the basic beliefs of the church.

The lowest layer and apparently first text [Q1] consists only of simple instructions, i.e. Do this, don’t do that. No parables or miracles, birth or death.

After the finding of the Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi in Egypt, which consists only of sayings, a "sayings gospel" was more acceptable.

What is remarkable about Q1 is that the first Christians were only interested in their relationships with God and with other people, and their training for the Kingdom of God on earth. Totally absent from their spiritual life are almost all of the things that we associate with Christianity today. There is absolutely no mention of (in alphabetic order): adultery, angels, apostles, baptism, church, clergy, confirmation, crucifixion, demons, disciples, divorce, Eucharist [communion], great commission to convert the world, healing, heaven, hell, incarnation [God coming in the flesh of Jesus], infancy stories, John the Baptist, Last Supper, life after death, Mary and Joseph and the rest of Jesus’ family, magi, miracles, Jewish laws concerning behaviour, marriage, Messiah, restrictions on sexual behaviour, resurrection [rising from the dead], roles of men and women, Sabbath, salvation, Satan, second coming, signs of the end of the age, sin, speaking in tongues, temple, tomb, transfiguration [the changed appearance of Jesus], trial of Jesus, trinity [God in three persons], or the virgin birth.

Jesus is described as a believer in God, but there are no indications that he was considered more than a gifted human.

Further "detective" work has shown that Q can be subdivided into three subdivisions of sayings, called Q1, Q2 and Q3. The writing of Q apparently started about 50 CE, about 20 years after Jesus’ putting to death by the Roman authorities. Unlike other Gospels, which seemed to be written over a short period of time, Q was added to from time to time over a period that has been thought to be as long as 35 years. As in the case of the other Gospels, the names of the people who wrote Q are unknown.

Our conclusion is that this is an interesting idea, and it does seem that the texts we now call the gospels have been added to over a period of time.

Yet it does not seem right that, if Jesus was Jewish, and his followers mostly so, that the first writings of his sayings by them would be in Greek and make him into a Greek philosopher. Why would they later start to add Jewish genealogies and details about him being born into a practising Jewish family and recommending that his followers continue to practise the Mosaic Law? (See Matt.5 v17-20 and 23 v 1 & 2) If Paul was right all that was finished!

It would be especially out of place after AD70 and the destruction of the temple with the end of the priesthood and the keeping out of both Jews and Christians from Jerusalem for a long time by the Romans. But teaching to enable Jews to live in a multicultural society without the temple, its rituals and priesthood was very relevant.

Other texts are available which the" church fathers" decided not to include in the Bible.

These include the "apocrypha" usually placed between the Old and the New Testaments.

And "the other gospels," such as that of Thomas (which is a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus), the gospel of Peter, the gospel of the Hebrews, (which is a re-writing of the gospel of Matthew and only fragments still exist of it) the epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd (an parable by Hermas), the Didache, the Apocalypse of Peter, and others. Some still exist, but some are lost, such as the letter to Laodicea. Many interesting documents were found at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt in 1945 and those, together with others can be found on the Internet.

The Jews also have an apocrypha and one of those books that were kept out of the Hebrew Scriptures for fear it would encourage the worship of angels is the Book of Enoch, which is also on the net. The Jews, like Christians have argued about what is scripture!

There are examples of Jesus -like words in other writings; e.g. from the Bhagavad Gita of the Hindus and the Talmud of the Jews.

These examples have been given to show you that men have not always agreed on the "word of God" and the words have not come down to us pure and unchanged.

Also that teaching attributed to Jesus is not only one of its kind.

The apocrypha was included in most Bibles in the west until a hundred or so years ago, and some modern Bibles still have it.

 Who decides these things and with what right and by what reason? Can we really say the 66 books we have in our Bibles today is all that is worth considering? Can we rely on their truth? Are they the word of God to us?

The Book of Revelation

Introduction

This is a difficult book and there are many arguments about it. So many attempts have been made to unravel its meaning - often with very strange results!

Now that we have arrived at a place of doubting the soundness of the New Testament and have realised that what we thought was Christianity was Paul's teaching not that of Jesus it is time to go over the book of Revelation again.

(Note: It would be a good idea to read also what we have about Paul's teaching on the in depth study in "Christian are you a follower of Paul or Christ?", and that of the Recorded Sayings of Jesus, The Life of Jesus, Was Jesus the Messiah, and Daniel ch. 9 to fully understand Revelation)

Basic Questions to Ask about Revelation

1.Who wrote the book? It says it is "John" and begins with 7 letters to the churches in Asia Minor for which he seems to be caring. It is thought by most people this was the apostle John, who was one of the twelve chosen by Jesus, (who was a young fisherman when Jesus was alive and was the only disciple to live to old age.) It is also assumed that this was the same person who wrote the gospel by that name and the three letters by “John“.

 The beliefs (and much of the content) in all these are different from the other gospels. WHY? It is more like Paul. The use of the “Lamb“, stressing the sacrificial substitution death, never used in the other gospels is peculiar. (It could be a play on the fact that a Hebrew word for "word" is also a word for a lamb. John‘s gospel begins with the idea of the word of God coming in flesh) It is thought that the gospels were all written after Paul's letters, so Pauline influence could be there in all.

The striking difference in Revelation and the gospel of John is how the number seven dominates. Revelation is made from groups of seven unfolding from within each other, and the gospel of John has seven speeches by Jesus and seven miracles presented so "they would believe". The idea that light means understanding and the use of symbolism are both very deeply spiritual, mystical, and Kabbalist [Jewish spirituality]. The connection with mystical passages in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel is obvious in Revelation.

So had this simple fisherman from Galilee become a Jewish mystic over the years?

Was the writer really John the Baptist, whose family was of the priesthood and who lived alone in the desert? This, of course would mean he escaped death and went to live on Patmos (someone else having been beheaded in his place?).

The Aramaic translation of Revelation says it was John the Baptist who wrote it [according to the translation by Victor N Alexander which is on the Interne!.]

2. When was it written? Usually it is said to be in AD95. This is because it is assumed that John was banished to the island of Patmos during the ill treatment of Christians under Domitian, but it could also have at the time of Nero in the mid 60's. We know the temple was destroyed in AD70, yet measuring the sanctuary of the temple is ordered in chapter 11 - was this just symbolic of seeing what the spiritual state of the people using the temple was like? Ezekiel also was involved in "measuring" by actually being shown the spiritual abominations [practices which God hated] continuing which had caused the desecration in what was a destroyed building of the temple during the Babylonian exile and the reason it was destroyed was that same spiritual desecration. Could the writer of Revelation be saying the same thing i.e. the temple was destroyed because of desecration? The interesting point is that he does not say it is because the Jews rejected the Messiah!

If this book was written after the destruction of the temple then the situation at that time was that the Romans had excluded all Jews and Christians from a ten-mile radius round Jerusalem and this lasted many years. There was no way to get to the religious sites precious to both Jews and Christians. This was a terrible thing and would cause much heartache.

 Which brings us to why it was written:

3. Why was Revelation written? If ever there was a need for the Messiah to come and re establish Israel as a Kingdom again and to rid her of her enemies this was it! It was worse than captivity abroad - the enemy was in the land and Torah [law of Moses] could not be practised. Rome and particularly the Emperor, was the enemy.

4. What, then did the Jews expect of the Messiah and his coming? On thinking of this it must be remembered that the writer is a Jew who believes Jesus came to do away with the need for sacrifice - he is the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world in and once and for all act.

But, this writer is different from Paul, because he sees this being for Jews - Revelation is a very Jewish book and much of its meaning lost on Gentiles, unless they have learned a great deal about the Old Testament, especially prophecy, and know something of Jewish mysticism (Cabala) It seems this is where Christians have gone wrong in understanding the book, together with their belief about the Messiah having died a substitution sacrificial death and is coming back again

Conclusions about Revelation: Why have Christians of the generations following its writing taken this book so seriously when it was obvious by then that these things did not happen "soon"? The test of prophecy is whether it comes true (Deuteronomy 18 v 18 to end).

When the Bible was put together in 387AD at Carthage (made necessary by the persecution of Diocletian) the criteria used to decide what to keep and what to reject was whether the work came from the apostles and so was on a level with the Old Testament prophets, had the mark of the Holy Spirit and /or words of Christ. (Luke had been with Paul and "Mark" was said to really be from Peter.)

The eastern churches, however, did not accept Revelation as part of the Bible until centuries later and the Greek churches have never!

So many theories have been put forward to try to make it fit with the events of the time in which people have lived. It was supposed to be the French revolution, it was the First World War, and it was supposed to be the EEC. etc. Many books about it written in our life time - perhaps in the seventies and eighties and look really silly when read now. The world has changed so fast.

The most logical way is to see it as a book written to answer the problems of its time at the end of the first century when there was no longer a temple for worship and sacrifice, and no access to Jerusalem for either Jew or Christian. There was severe persecution and death sometimes for Christians. The need for a Christian/Jewish Messiah to return and deal with the situation was great. Jesus fits that in the mind of the writer.

But as that has not happened after 1900 years the book is seriously compromised.

It illustrates the pitfall of thinking anything using the name of Jesus is worthwhile.

The book also makes much use of the Old Testament scriptures, but so did the adversary in tempting Jesus.

Even though it is Cabalist in style those expert in Jewish mysticism do not think it is even a good example.

The style is similar, and the language and doctrine to the gospel of "John" and also the letters of "John" and most people think the same writer wrote them, with Revelation being written before the gospel. This would explain why there is no exposition in the gospel of what will happen at the time of the end, as in the three other gospels because it is all there in Revelation.

The remark at the end of the gospel by Jesus to Peter about the disciple who leaned on the breast of Jesus at the supper possibly remaining alive until Jesus returned, whilst he (Peter) would follow Jesus - possibly meaning he would also be crucified, has made people think the writer was the young disciple John who outlived the others and wrote his gospel much later and the Revelation, expecting now that he was very old the return of Jesus must be soon Jesus had said the generation that saw the beginning of these things would see the end. (Mark 13v30, Matt. 24 v34, and Luke 21v32). [He may have meant that those who saw his ministry would see the temple destroyed. It was within 40 years and many could have seen both.]

The writer makes much use if the Old Testament prophets. He uses Daniel for the beasts, Ezekiel for the visions of the throne room, Zechariah for the two witnesses, and Isaiah for the picture of the relationship between God and His people and how he punishes their enemies (Rev. ch.11, 12, 14,19, 21 and22). He takes large chunks of Isaiah ch. 60 -66. The difference between Revelation and Isaiah is that Isaiah is speaking of a literal earthly Jerusalem and the writer of Revelation of a heavenly Jerusalem.

The writer of Revelation has called upon other writings too - he knows many of the texts in the Dead Sea scrolls. He also uses the book of 2 Esdras, which is an apocryphal book. In ch. 11 of that book the writer has a vision of a three headed eagle with twelve wings rising from the sea that is obviously the Roman Empire.

So, it seems, there is very little in Revelation that is new, so why is it called a "revelation"?

Revelation is an interesting book, but not one to get excited about as we pass the year two thousand, which is not the anniversary of the birth of Jesus anyway!

The Seed in the Chaff. Spirituality in the Bible.

We have seen from the studies on this site that the historical details and even the main characters in the Bible are suspect, but does it matter who said what and in what circumstance? The question is: are they words of significance spiritually?

Words that convey spiritual insight to you personally are what is of great value. They are like finding gold nuggets or precious gems in a mountain of rubble

Here are some gems from the Bible [you will probably know of others as these are only a few of the many!]:

Be still and know that I am God. [Psalm 46 v 10]

The kingdom of God is within you. [Luke 17 v 20 -21]

God looks for those who worship in spirit and in truth. [John 4 v 23 &24]

Light [knowledge] without love is darkness still. [1 John 2 v9]

God acts on behalf of those who wait for Him. [Isaiah 64 v4]

The eternal God is your refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms [Deuteronomy 33 v27a]

God does speak, now one way, and now another, though man may not perceive it. [Job 33 v 13 -14]

For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord. [Isaiah 55 v 8]

To the question "Which is the greatest commandment in the Law" Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." [Deuteronomy 6 v 5]. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: " Love your neighbour as yourself" [Leviticus 19 v 18]

All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments. {Matthew 22 v37-40]

Luke 14 v 11 and 17 v 14. Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

John 3 v 6. Flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit to spirit.

John 3 v3. Unless a man is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of heaven.

John 3 v 27. A man can receive only what is given to him from heaven.

John 3 v 10. We speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen.

John 4 v 37. One sows and another reaps.

John 7 v 18. The one who works for the honour of the one who sent him is a man of truth.

John 8 v 31. The truth will set you free.

John 13 v 14. Wash one another's feet.

Romans 9 v 16. It does not depend on mans desire or effort but on God's mercy.

Romans 12 v 2. Be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

Galatians 5 v 6b. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Philippians 4v 11b. I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances.

James 2 v 13b. Mercy triumphs over judgement.

James 2 v 17. Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

1 John 4 v 8 and 16. God is love.

Matthew 5 "the beatitudes."

The Lord's Prayer

Psalm 23

These words from the writings of Thomas Paine sum up our conclusion about the Bible:

"It has often been said, that anything may be proved from the Bible, but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything

Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed.

It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation

Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.

It honours reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation."

-Thomas Paine

Inspired sayings.  A basket of fragments.

The question is not what we think, but WHAT IS TRUTH?

Proverbs 23 v23 " Buy the truth but do not sell it."

Truth can, and must be tested.

Truth overemphasised is error.

Truth detracted from is a lie.

Truth is so heavy few can carry it.

Truth must be evidenced or it is a doctrine of mythology.

Truth loves the light and is most beautiful when most naked. (Richard Baxter)

Truth is first a doctrine we believe, and then it becomes a truth to be treasured, then it comes home to our hearts as a reality, and so is a blessing.

Time does not give the seal of authenticity to words of antiquity. (Just because it is old it does not have to be right!)

God is greater than the sum of men's thoughts.

Faith is the bit between encounters with God

You do not get blessing without wounding

Taoist saying: The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

As knowledge increases men become more like gods.

We should go by what is written on our hearts as God has chosen not to give us the originals.

The temple is about mercy, not sacrifice: it is a way for a sinful people to meet with a judgmental God in loving mercy.

What is hateful to you do not do to others.

We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.

Would that I loved the best of human beings as tenderly as God loves the worst.

To truly love is to know what causes others pain.

Love divorced from duty will run riot, and duty divorced from love will starve.

The essence of love is communication.

The apostle John writes that light (knowledge) without love is darkness still.

I have had many things in my hands, and lost them all, but whatever I have placed in God's hands I still possess. (Luther)

God has joined together commandment and promise.

Prayer is the pouring out of the soul to God; it is not a matter of words.

What seem to be great disasters may be saving you from much worse.

It is at the time of the greatest disasters when the greatest things are revealed.

When you have lost everything you risk everything because you have nothing to lose.

Trust God when the providences (circumstances) seem to run contrary to the promises. (Thomas Watson.)

Lord grant me wisdom to know what I have to leave you to do, and what I have to do.

You cannot fail in the work God gives you to do.

God can make His own provision for His own work to be done.

God will only trust us with the big things of His plans when he knows we will look on them as His not ours.

It is always "now" with God.

Isaiah 64v4:" God acts on behalf of those who wait for Him".

All I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for what I have not yet seen.

Sabbath rest means entire abandonment to the will of God, and absolute faith that His will is best and brings the only true happiness. (Hannah Pearsall Smith)

Gold was given for both the calf and the lamp stand, one was an idol, and the other gave light in the sanctuary. (Philpot)

Unbelief is pride because it refuses to believe God; not finding in itself a reason for believing. This is the height of presumption.

The stops of a good man are ordered by God just as much as his steps. (George Muller)

The seeds of discouragement cannot grow in the heart of a grateful person.

The burden of suffering is the necessary weight to keep down the diver whilst he hunts for pearls. (Richter)

Shall He not do as He will with His own?

God seeks His own glory in unlikelyhoods. (Bishop Hall)

We may be wanting in our trust, but our trust will not be found wanting. (Bishop Hall)

God cannot be less than the highest of that which we are aware.

God is greater than the sum of men's thoughts.

Men often think God is not working at all because He works so slowly.

You do not get tunnels on sidings - they are on the main line going to your destination - they mean you are passing through a mountain.

The Hebrew day begins with the night

We can only see the heavenly lights when the lights of earth have gone out or dim.

The little cloud is the earnest (promise or deposit) of the coming blessing.

Proverbs 19v 2 "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and so miss the way."

We do not find fairness as our carnal mind sees it in the Bible, but we do find mercy.

Sin is not just falling short - it is going beyond the bounds also (trespass or transgression) [Thomas Watson].

Hedges may hinder; but they also protect and prevent.

Solomon, who had it all, concluded all was vanity.

The jewel of assurance is best kept in the cabinet of a humble heart. (Thomas Watson)

Faith without repentance is presumption, repentance (i.e. conviction) without faith is despair. (John Owen)

Hypocrisy is a combination of the two greatest sins: unbelief and presumption.

Humility is truth, pride is lying. (Vincent de Paul)

To fall face down is a position of self-effacement. To lie on your back is to look God straight in the eye: the pride of man.

Most “morality” is lack of opportunity! (Mark Twain)

God's mercy rescues sinners from the penalty for sin, but His love is greater in making them sons.

Faith honours God: God honours faith.

Our part is to wait: his to perform.

God will not give you a shabby substitute.

The same sign at a different time can have a different meaning. e.g. red sky at night and morning.

The problem with getting great things from God is being able to hold on until the last half hour!

You must go first to God about men before you go to men about God.

Not only to endure the will of God, or even to choose it, but to REJOICE in it!

Even if it seems good is it what God has said to do?

Wait for the right time: His time.

If an act is to glorify God he must get the credit for it.

Go when He says, or you will loose the power. Do not go too soon or it will be presumption.

He makes the way open at the right time.

Follow His instructions exactly doing ALL He says in the way He says.

No self-reliance: only faith in Him No pride before people - pleasing them.

Desire is love in action: delight is love at rest.

God made order from chaos by dividing and separating.

If you do not understand the beginning how will you understand the end?

Spirituality goes beyond the boundaries set by men.

Words of antiquity are not always true; but the new is not always better.

Compassion is the water of life.

True Silence is to the spirit as sleep is to the body; nourishment and refreshment. [William Penn. 1699.]

The bread of heaven is the act of giving BUT sharing is greater still.

Truth clothed in compassion is the lifeblood of spirituality, but only when it is given to others who have need and would drink from the same cup.

What is truth is not word of mouth; but comes from the heart.

Some of the greatest inhumanities have been done by those sure they do the will of God.

He who denies woman her womanhood denies God.

The following are excerpts from the poems of the Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore:

"I shall ever try to keep all untruths out of my thoughts, knowing that thou art that truth which has kindled the light of reason in my mind.

The traveller has to knock at every alien door to come to his own, and one has to wonder through all the outer worlds to reach the inmost shrine at the end.

My eyes strayed far and wide before I shut them and said, "Here art thou!"

I am certain that priceless wealth is in thee, and that thou art my best friend, but I have not the heart to sweep away the tinsel that fills my room.

Have you not heard his silent steps? He comes, comes, ever comes.

The woodlands have hushed their songs, and doors are all shut at every house.

Thou art the solitary wayfarer in this deserted street. Oh my only friend, my best beloved, the gates are open in my house - do not pass by like a dream.

Through birth and death, in this world or in others, wherever thou leadest me it is thou, the same, the one companion of my endless life who ever linkest my heart with bonds of joy to the unfamiliar.

The flower sweetens the air with its perfume; yet its last service is to offer itself to thee.

Now I am eager to die into the deathless.

Like a flock of homesick cranes flying night and day back to their home in the mountain nests let all my life take its voyage to its eternal home in one salutation to thee."

About truth:

"I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organise a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organise it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, and a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it."
[J. Krishnamurti, Ommen, 1929.]

.

Excerpts from "Mysticism. A study and an anthology by F.C.Happold.

Part 26 the conclusion - a mystic's universe.

Mysticism is like a great fugal pattern with the themes interwoven.

There are three interwoven aspects which we have called a] the mysticism of knowledge and understanding b] the mysticism of love and union, c] the mysticism of action.

There are four interrelated visions a] the vision of Oneness b] the vision of Timelessness c] the vision of Self other than the empirical self d] the vision of a Love enfolding everything that exists.

When we contemplate these interrelated visions what picture of reality emerges?

It is of a universe which is a dynamic unfolding of Spirit. There is nothing in it which is not Spirit, the "seed of all seeds".

There is a mysterious coinherence between matter and spirit. It is as though matter is an incarnation of spirit as it were.

To know, to understand is not enough, the deep spirit of man craves for something more, for something which has been given many names, salvation, redemption, eternal life,, the kingdom of heaven, union with God,.

A lonely being contained in a brief span between birth and death, as a material entity he is only an insignificant bundle of atoms in a vast and frightening impersonal universe, soon to return to dust to be known no more. Yet he feels he is more than this. He is conscious of a "spark" within of being perhaps more than just an image of divinity within, of an undivided Unity from which he is separated and to which he longs to return . But the divine light is there within him and cannot be forever quenched.

The Way springs out of the vision for without the vision the Way could not be known. It is the way union through reciprocal love. It is not an easy way but the way of utter self loss. But the supreme loss is the supreme finding.

There are times when  the awakened soul, craving for a revelation which will make sense of the riddle of the universe, of the apparent futility of life, and of its own inadequacy, may feel there is no answer. Sick with longing it can only cry " De profundis Domine". But desire is everything; for this prayer of desire not  seldom the prelude to the revelation. Suddenly the timeless moment is there, the morning stars sing together, a sense of utter joy, utter certainty, and utter unworthiness mingle and in awe and wonder it murmurs "I know".

Here is a poem by the Western mystic William Blake:

“To see a world in a grain of sand,

And a heaven in a wild flower,

To hold infinity in the palm of your hand

And eternity in an hour.”

There certainly seems to be more unity of understanding among the mystics of all religions than the various religious leaders.

next section : Christian: are you a follower of Christ or Paul?