Jesus Lied - He Was Only Human: Debunking the New Testament (25 page)

A classic example of this is that Paul writes about the disciple Peter, i.e. the same Peter that denied Christ three times shortly after Jesus’ arrest. Paul makes no mention of what is a central component to the arrest-trial-crucifixion story, and a story that would have certainly been Peter’s signatory swan song.

Moreover, Paul had motive to make mention of Peter’s treachery. Why? Because they hated one another! Peter and Paul were the apostolic odd couple, and the New Testament clearly shows the two were lifelong verbal sparring partners.

At the centre of their animosity towards one another were their respective opposing views on whether non-Jews should be included in the early Christian Church. Peter was absolutely certain that the “unclean” Gentiles should be prohibited from gaining membership to Club Jesus, whereas Paul took his message mostly to non-Jews.

Now, if the Gospels were correct in their later written vilification of Peter, you would imagine then this would have been Paul’s ace card, and one that he would have played to silence Peter’s anti-Gentile views i.e. “Gather around everyone. Who are you going to listen to? Are you going to listen to me, or are you going to take the word of this treacherous snake that denied Jesus three times to save his own skin?” Checkmate! But, Paul is completely, totally and utterly silent on this event, and more to the point Paul never mentions a single event that Peter would have witnessed of Jesus, as his disciple. Therefore, another piece of the Jesus myth is debunked. Bam!

It is staggering that Paul seems blissfully unaware of not only most of the events of Jesus’ life, but also of all Jesus’ teachings. Paul makes similar proclamations to the ones that Jesus made; for example, “love your neighbor as thy self”; “love your enemy”; “pay your taxes”; but he never once appeals to Jesus’ authority. He never once says, “Blah, blah, blah, as said our Lord Jesus.”

Paul urges his followers to adhere to Roman law, and to respect the Roman governors, which is odd since it was a Roman Governor, Pilate, who, according to the Gospels, ordered Jesus’ execution. Is Paul unaware that Pilate played such a role? If he were, then why did he not mention it?

Put it this way; if Paul were our only source, our only document concerning Jesus, we’d know only the following: that he was a Jewish male; he went through some kind of out of body, after death experience; and that, in at least Paul’s mind, Jesus would return to earth to punish the evil-doers (non-believers) and reward the righteous (believers). We would not know that he was born of a virgin; that he came from Galilee; was baptized; taught in parables; performed various benign and arbitrary miracles; and got all pissy at money changers and overturned their tables. Certainly makes you wonder how much Paul actually knew about Jesus? Also makes you wonder just how much of the Gospel accounts, considering Paul is the only biblical author who may have lived during Jesus’ time, was embellishment or perhaps more aptly, bullshit. Well, let’s see:

The baptism of Jesus is a central component of the Jesus’ story. It not only signified the commencement of his ministry but also gave confirmation that he was, according to the Gospels, the Son of God, and the Messiah. John the Baptist is a man awarded great importance by Jesus because he shared his penchant for apocalyptic prophecy. They both claimed that the world was coming to an end, and the righteous would be rewarded in heaven.

Furthermore, it was John the Baptist who gave the message of impending doom prior to Jesus saying the same, as the former said before Jesus’ baptism,
“Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
In this instance, the trees are metaphors for humans, and ‘even now’ means that the rapture was imminent.

According to the Gospels, Jesus placed an enormous importance on John the Baptist as a player in the apocalyptic prophecy. So much so, that when John the Baptist was arrested, he and Jesus communicated while the former was in prison. As we discussed earlier in the book, John the Baptist sent a letter asking if Jesus were truly ‘the’ one:

John the Baptist also believed Judgment Day was only a matter of months, or a few years away, and therefore this was he asking Jesus for a signal that ‘the’ time had come. Jesus replied by the disciple telegram network:

This is Jesus sending a clear message that the things required of him to do prior to the apocalypse have been done, so brace for impact! Moreover, Jesus follows these words with an exaltation of John the Baptist:

I think we have adequately proved just how important John the Baptist is to the complete narrative of Jesus, at least in the mind of the Gospels. But, what does Paul have to say about this key figure?

Paul never so much as even alludes to the traditions concerning John the Baptist. Paul is completely ignorant that such a man ever existed; let alone his ambivalence towards the significance to Jesus. Don’t forget that it was John’s arrest that kick-started much of Jesus’ own public activity. Simply, one cannot dismiss the absence of John the Baptist from Paul’s writings as merely an argument from silence. Remember the 9/11 analogy we used for the silence on the virgin birth? Well, same goes here.

One or two of Paul’s epistles indicate that at least Paul was familiar with the expression the “good news” (evangelion), but the expression functions in a completely different manner as to that used by Jesus. “Blessed are the meek”; “for it is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”; are nothing like the parables and aphorisms that Paul presents in his letters. The “good news” for Paul is focused on what God did through Jesus on the cross, and what his death means in terms of his second coming and judgment.

Paul makes one or two ‘loose’ references to a group of close followers of Jesus, as evident in his letter to Galatians:

Alright, so he can name three of the twelve disciples and, admittedly, He makes mention in 1 Corinthians that Jesus appeared to the “twelve” shortly after Jesus resurrection, but what importance or relevance does Paul give to the “twelve”, falling short of calling them “disciples”:

It is doubtful that Paul could have used more damning words for dismissing the disciple’s relevance. His contempt is not only reserved for the “twelve” but also for the women in Jesus’ life. There is no mention of Mary Magdalene, and nothing regarding Mary, the mother of Jesus. I am sure this fact sends chills down every good Catholic’s spine. That said, we shouldn’t be surprised by Paul’s indifference of women, as this is the same guy that wrote:

The Gospels distinctly describe Jesus as a teacher, with God having given authority, whereas Paul hardly makes mention of the ‘living’ Jesus being an authoritative source of instruction. Sixteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament are attributed to Paul, but on only three occasions does Paul invoke the title “the Lord”. Rather, Paul proclaims Christ, dead Jesus, as a divine authoritative figure.

Paul is silent on Jesus’ distinctive methodology for teaching the “good news”.

The purity laws constituted one of the few points where Jesus pushed back against the Jewish tradition:

If we read Paul’s epistles to the church in Corinth and Rome we find that Paul had a certain degree of ambivalence on the subject of dietary laws:

What is surprising is that the issue of clean and unclean foods was a major dispute within the early churches throughout the lands of the Gentiles. In fact, confusion amongst early Christians regarding food was just as divisive a topic as circumcision, and we can see that in Paul’s plea to the Roman Church, “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food”. Why did Paul not call on Jesus’ authority on the issue by citing what was written in Mark’s Gospel, “Nothing can make a man unclean”?

This is further evidence that Paul was unfamiliar with anything Jesus actually said, and possibly my gay friend is correct in citing Jesus’
“Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him”
as an endorsement of man on man lovin’.

The Synoptic Gospels describe Jesus as a reluctant miracle worker, while John proclaims Jesus’ miracles as signs of his divinity. Where does Paul stand on the issue at hand? Paul again is completely silent, or worst, seemingly oblivious of a single miracle or sign that Jesus ever reputedly performed. The only time Paul refers to miracles is in Romans 15:19, but this is a reference to his own ministry, rather than anything Jesus did.

The Gospels tell of Jesus’ struggles with the Jewish authorities, and nothing exemplifies this better than the childish tantrum Jesus threw inside the Temple:

We can presume that if Jesus had have only listened to Paul’s teachings then Jesus wouldn’t have been crucified, but then we’d have no resurrection, and then, of course, we’d have no Christianity. Paul writes in Romans:

The death and resurrection is the most important, some may argue only important, aspect of Jesus’ biography in the mind of Paul. After all, it was Paul that opined that without the resurrection there is no religion:

What is bewildering is the fact that he provides so little detail on or about the Passion narrative… it’s as though he had no idea that such events ever took place. Paul mentions that Jesus was arrested and crucified but that’s about it; there is no mention of the ‘empty tomb’, for example. Moreover, Paul’s account of Jesus’ resurrection lacks any narrative or mythological elements typical of the Gospels. Paul writes only this of the resurrection: