Jesus, Resurrection, and Rapture

That's what the Catholic Church as admitted. Now lets look at some specific things that the bible says, and contradicts itself on, within the gospels, as well as embellishes.

* * * *

THE QUESTION OF WHO THE APOSTLES WERE:

It may seem silly to wonder who Jesus' apostles were, but a close reading of the bible makes this a valid question. If the writer of Mark was the first writer, and the writers of Matthew and Luke took much of their information from him, how could there be mistakes?

We are given that Matthew and Levi are one and the same person, the former being his Greek name, the latter his Hebrew name, but what about Bartholomew and Nathanael. There is no Greek/Hebrew correlation for them. What there is, apparently, is tradition and that being that when Philip is named in the list of apostles in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke for their similarity), Bartholomew always follows; in Matthew (10:3), in Mark (3:18), and Luke (6:14). However, in John there is no Bartholomew; instead we have Nathanael.

For Bartholomew and Nathanael, though they are said by most Christians, that they are one and the same person since Philip brought Nathanael to see Jesus, the name Bartholomew is Hebrew meaning Son of Tolmay (or furrows as in a planter, or worker of the soil), and Nathanael means Given of God.

We are left with accepting tradition to resolve this difference, or to look for logic, namely that John was not written by the apostle John (as is readily admitted to now), and consider that the one—Bartholomew—is not Nathanael, and therefore someone is in error. This latter seems the more likely since the gospel of John was written so late, and is so very different from the other three gospels.

This logical solution renders the thought that the gospels, all of their authors unknown, are relating stories and not facts as Fundamentalists would have it. There is no backing away from this name dilemma/discrepancy, yet preachers of today still preach sermons on many of these spurious stories as if they were indeed factual.

Though there are other discrepancies, to not nit-pick, there is the problem of who is whose son; as in: Matthew (10:3), there is a James, the son of Alphaeus, but in Mark (2:14), we have Levi, the son of Alphaeus. To make matters worse, and muddy things up more, Mark also names James as the son of Alphaeus (3:18) as well as no Levi, but instead a Matthew. This is convoluted to say the least.

Luke (5:27) says Levi and in 6:15, calls him Matthew. However, James is the son of Alphaeus in that same verse. The Matthew mixup is not so bad, but who is Alphaeus' son?

In John is where we find Nathanael, a friend of Philip (1:45, et.al.) There seems to be no list of the apostles as a group in John.

If it seems like small stuff, consider that the bible as a whole (Old and New Testaments) are considered to be error free by Fundamentalists who use this so-called error free word of God as a cudgel to hammer homosexuality, but isn't it more likely that the unknown writers of the gospels simply wrote stories to appeal to the ignorant, as well as frighten them?

Here's one more disciple error:

Matthew in chapter 4, verse 18, and Mark in 1:16 are pretty much mirrors of each other, as almost is Luke in 5:3, in describing how the first disciples were picked, though he omits Andrew until 6:14, yet mentions Levi in 5:27. Jesus is said to be by the Sea of Galilee in these cases.

Now we go to the gospel of John. In chapter 1, verse 40, it is Andrew who hears Jesus speak, along with another (presumably Philip) who goes to find his brother Simon (Peter), to tell him that "We have found the Messias..."

Quite a difference in stories. What is even more amazing is that John is the much ballyhooed gospel for it's "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." opening, along with the popularly famous 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,...", as well as the immensely popular story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

Just how many "differences" does one allow for before seriously wondering at the veracity of the stories?

* * * *THOU ART...

All Christians know the verses in Matthew, chapter 16, verses 15 and 16: "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Then we have verse 17, which says: "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona (Bar indicating "son of", in this case, son of Jona): for flesh and blood hath no revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

All Christians have heard this verse cherry-picked for the great revelation it was supposed to be, but...

In two chapters before that, 14, Jesus walks on the waters of the sea (verse 26), and gets Peter to walk on the water (verse 29), which we may have heard about too, or not. What we don't hear about is a great confession from verse 33:

"Then they worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

Only the Catholic Church could have so popularized Peter saying it two chapters later as shown above. Why? The claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome (not historically proven), and thus the first Pope, for chapter 16, verse 18 continues with Jesus speaking and saying:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The gospel of Mark (8:29) doesn't have this added "church" bit, nor does Luke (9:20) and neither does John (9:69).

This would tend to make one wonder if this was something that was inserted at a later date to justify the Catholic Church's claim that the bishop of Rome is the supreme Pontiff of the Christian Church.

Peculiarly, the gospels of Mark and John have Jesus walking on water (Mark 6:48; John 6:19), but neither have the disciples worshiping Jesus and calling him the Son of God. Luke, conversely, does not mention the walking on water sequence.

* * * *

CLEANSING THE TEMPLE:

We are used to hearing of Jesus going into Jerusalem as in Matthew, chapter 21 beginning with the first verse. I'll come back to this shortly, but with regard to the temple, in verse 12, we're told:

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,"

This is the only time Jesus is said to go to Jerusalem which was just before he was to be crucified. Mark, 11:1, and Luke, chapter 19, verse 45, say pretty much the same thing.

But what about John, that maverick of a different story teller?

In chapter 2, verse 13 (just after he changed wine into water at Cana), he is said to be in Jerusalem and cleansing the temple. More, this is not the only time he goes to Jerusalem. Again, in chapter 5, there is a "feast of the Jews" as in verse 1, and he goes there and performs a miracle on the Sabbath day (verses 7-10).

Once more, in chapter 7, we're told of the feast of Tabernacles where Jesus sent his disciples alone (verse 8), but then surreptitiously goes as in verse 10 and then went into the temple and taught, after which many said he was the "very Christ" (verse 26, and "This is the Christ", (verse 41).

Suddenly, in chapter 10, verse 22, we're told it "...was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter." In verse 40, he goes beyond Jordan until called to Jerusalem again for Lazarus, he of the famed raising of the dead as preached in churches and made much of in movies.

After this, he goes into the wilderness (11:54), and just before Passover, goes to Bethany just south of Jerusalem back to where Lazarus and his sisters, Mary and Martha live.

The big question here is just when did Jesus cleanse the temple: early on as in John, or just before his crucifixion as in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? And why such a difference?

The Catholic bible, in its introduction to John's supposed gospel, does not address any of these issues, but dances around it all as euphemistically as it could by starting out saying: "The Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels. It is highly literary and symbolic."

Yes, it is "quite different". Make that vastly different as shown above. More like quite a story with all of the dramatic effects to appeal to hopes and emotions, as well as fear as we'll soon see.

There are just too many holes and too much editing in John's so-called gospel to be believable.

* * * *

REINCARNATION?

It certainly seems like that's what's being proposed by the disciples, and more, that idea per se is not contested by Jesus. We find this in John's gospel immediately in chapter 9, verses 1-3:

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

"Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Of immediate note is that the disciples actually wondered if he had sinned before he was born, but how could he have sinned if he wasn't yet born? Only reincarnation answers that.

Note also that Jesus doesn't deny reincarnation, but simply says: "Neither hath this man sinned..."

How is it that this was inserted here? How is it that it is not explained anywhere, or by anyone, or preached in any pulpit? If any did, and someone questioned it logically, it would prove a quagmire for the preacher. More though, what did this author of John really believe?

* * * *

Jesus entering Jerusalem to meet his fate.

Here's another that would prove a quagmire if they told the truth about the origin of this. Read on.

In Matthew, chapter 21, verses 5 and 9, we are told of Jesus entering Jerusalem "...sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." This is also in Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; and John 12:14.

All of these gospels say it is in fulfillment of Zechariah, chapter 9, verse 9. That's true, but there's only one problem.

That problem is admitted to by the Catholic bible in its introduction to the book of Zechariah. It says:

"Zechariah's initial prophecy is dated to 520 B..C. ... The first eight chapters of the Book of Zechariah contain oracles which certainly belong to himwhile the last six (sometimes called 'Deutero-Zechariah') represent the work of one or more unknown authors." [Bold mine.]

"Deutero" meaning two or more. It goes on:

"The second part of Zechariah is divided into two sections, each with its own introductory title. The first (9—11) [verses]consists of oracles whose historical background, date and authorship are extremely difficult to determine. With 9:9 begins the messianic vision of the coming of the Prince of Peace. The verses describing the triumphant appearance of the humble king are taken up by the four Evangelists to describe the entry of Christ into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday." [Bold mine.]

Note two things: the first of which is that this book is like Isaiah, and has several different authors lumped together as if one author, and secondly, note the admission of the verses in question being "extremely difficult to determine" as to authorship and historical background.

Again, this, the entry into Jerusalem, looks very manufactured, but who did the editing and inserting is unknown, but it is not to be taken as a sacred writing.

Once more, there are too many holes in the bible to take it seriously.

* * * *

JESUS TAKEN—WHAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN KNOWN

In all of the gospels, the writers all give information that they couldn't have possibly known, but they give it freely anyway just as if they were eye witnesses to what went on, and with all involved; the bible is laden with such writing. There are so many of these occurrences, but I never gave them much thought until now. When I think about it now, I realize just how this emphasizes the fictive nature the writing of the gospels is. The churches continue to simply let the gospel titles say what they don't openly admit to otherwise: that the gospels are not written by the name associated with them. They simply let you read on in ignorance, and when a preacher from the pulpit quotes from one of these books, that preacher says: "In the gospel of...(fill in the blank), we find that Jesus says..."

This is a more than tacit admission that the name on that gospel is not the gospel writer. To me, as I consider it, I think that this is shameful, like a lack of truth in advertising that so many companies engage in to fool you.

To show this, I'll emphasize a few places where it is obvious that there was no way for the author to actually know what he wrote (I don't think any woman wrote any of the gospels, what with the way women were subjected to men). The first will be when Jesus was taken to be tried and crucified, and presented in the gospels as if fact.

In the gospel given as Matthew, in chapter 17, we're told of Jesus being taken. In verse 11, it says he stood before the governor [Pilate], and was questioned. We're told he asked a specific question: "Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest."

Think about it a moment. At the end of the previous chapter (26, verse 75), we're told that Peter went out and wept bitterly. That the writer could have known, but would a writer/follower of Jesus be allowed into the presence of Pilate while he "questioned" Jesus? Not likely!

What the writer is doing is "guiding" you to believe what he wants you to believe. It's just like the bible Sunday school lesson being presented (in Protestant and Independent churches) cherry-picked verses to help you "understand" the bible and Jesus better. They're leading you to believe what they want you to believe, and without question.

A much more egregious example of this sort of writing in the gospels is found in the one attributed to Luke. Amazingly, this writer has Luke admitting that what he says is from hearsay, meaning he didn't know any of it for a fact, but rather believed what he heard. This is made clear in the opening verses.

However, what he presents thereafter is a pretty comprehensive account of things said, by whom they're said, and what was thought, as well as all the circumstances surrounding it.

In verse 13 of the first chapter, he has an angel specifically saying things to Zecharias, and in pretty much detail, detail that he couldn't possibly have known of since he wasn't there, and nobody else was. In other words, it's all a fiction.

This charade continues on in the "heart-warming" tale of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, being told in like manner as that which was told of her husband, Zecharias (just mentioned), and again, in great detail.

This is followed by Mary, the mother of Jesus, being told of her own pregnancy by an angel, then, incredulously thereafter, visiting Elizabeth and Elizabeth's baby jumping in her womb at this occurrence.

This all occurs in the first chapter of Luke's supposed gospel.

Remember, it is admitted that Luke was not a part of the "first generation" of believers, and relies on "special traditions" in the writing of this gospel, as well as not actually being the writer of this gospel.

There are many writings of "special traditions", including the Proto-Gospel of James (from "Lost Christianities" bt Bart D. Ehrman, 2003, Oxford University Press), which purports, in part, that a midwife actually proved Mary was still a virgin by physical examination of Mary by sticking her finger in Mary to see if she is still intact. Maybe "Luke" felt this one to be too intrusive and crude and preferred the fables he did write about since they were emotionally much like today's modern soap operas on TV.

Yet we are told to consider this as sacred writing because it is believed to be "inspired" by God. It is men who tell us to believe this though written by an unknown author, men who have special agendas, and as it turned out, desired to rule over all of Christianity with all power and all available privileges.

Our emotions and hopes for eternal life without the hassles of this existence, without the pains and struggles we go through, are being appealed to, and little, if any, reliable fact is given to us. They simply ask one to believe that what they tell and present to one is true, and to take it on faith.

Read with a critical eye and wondering just how the author could have known what was said by persons in the detail they report them in, and you'll find many places where this is not possibly a true account of what was said, if indeed anything was said at all.

Keep in mind that what they pass for truth must be laden with facts, and stories are not facts!

* * * *

THE RESURRECTION AND WHEN:

Aside from Daniel in the Old Testament, the words that the writers of the gospels put in Jesus' mouth must be factual. Words from Jesus are the same as "Thus saith the Lord" when spoken by a true prophet of God in the Old Testament for he is considered one with God, or God incarnate. No true god could make a mistake. The test of a true prophet is whether or not what he said that God would do comes to pass. If it does not, that person is not a prophet.

It has already been said that there is nothing in the Old Testament that speaks of a resurrection save in Daniel, but Daniel has been proven a fiction written about 160 BCE as if a historical novel dealing in the age of Babylon in the 500s BCE.

We are told that Jesus himself predicts a resurrection. That is true if we can take the words put in his mouth by the gospel writers.

The first definitive statement as to when this resurrection will occur is found in Matthew, chapter 16, verse 28 which says:

"Verily I say unto you, There will be some standing here, which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

One bible expositor tries to say that this means Jesus transfigured as is said to happen in the next verse, but that does not seem to be the case when other gospels are considered.

In Mark, for instance, chapter 9, verse 1, Jesus is said to say:

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

"Come with power" is the operative phrase here.

What Matthew puts in Jesus' mouth is in his chapter 24, verse 34, that is identical to Mark 9:1 above says:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

What things need to be fulfilled is itemized in all of the previous verses of Matthew chapter 24, including verse 30 which says:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shallsee the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power [there's that power mentioned in Mark above in chapter 9, verse 1] and great glory." [Bold mine.]

And when does he supposedly say this will happen? Verse 34 tells it (as said earlier in Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; and Luke 9:27. It is reiterated in verse 30 of Matthew as above) where he again says:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled."

Mark, chapter 13, verse 30 says the same thing with regard to "this generation shall not pass till all these things be done."

Luke, chapter 21, verse 32 says almost the identical thing: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled." Almost identical.

All three say virtually the same thing, and it is a repetition of the same thing said previously by all three gospels.