The Jesus Delusion (4312 Words)

Copyright© 2010 G.M. Jackson

All Rights Reserved

jacks_ongar@hotmail.com

Jesus Christ has certainly influenced a lot of people. In fact, because of Jesus (and the Roman emperor Constantine), many now routinely break two of God's Commandments: They rest on the first day of the week (Sunday, the day of the sun god Sol Invictus) rather than the seventh (Saturday), they also worship a symbol (the crucifix). Fortunately for them, God looks the other way as long as they commit their sins in his name. But why does God, the most omnipotent being in the universe, need Jesus?

Well, apparently God had a bit of a PR problem. God was jealous and rather vindictive throughout the Old Testament. To improve his public image God felt it was time to have a front man: one who was good looking and compassionate, someone who appealed to the ladies--the burning-bush routine just wasn't cutting it. The great flood and Joshua's genocides only reduced the number of his followers. His boy Samson refused to get a haircut and was a terrible role model for young people.

God needed a new son! Someone who was good with crowds. Adolf Hitler? Nah...save him for a later time. Compassion was the key. Therefore God decided upon Jesus. God decided to get married and have his holy son. Oh wait...strike that. God decided to take a poke at Mary (who was married or at least engaged to Joseph) and have a bastard son.

OK, so God was off to a bad start here, but it gets better...or does it? To find out more about Jesus it is best to read his writings. But wait! It appears that Jesus never wrote anything down. There is no book of Jesus. How odd. One would think Jesus would have scribbled a little. Perhaps he was too busy walking from place to place and didn't have time. Oh well. I guess we will just have to settle for the Gospels that were written by some dudes named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

According to the Gospels, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. But where Jesus was born is less controversial than when he was born. Up until the time of the Roman emperor Constantine, early Christians celebrated the birth of Jesus on the fifth of January. However, Constantine changed the date to December 25, since that was the birth date of his favorite sun god, Sol Invictus. He also changed the day of worship to Sunday. After all, why piss off the pagan sun god? Jesus, being the forgiving type, will no doubt understand.

Perhaps the greatest controversy surrounding Jesus is the belief that he is God, or the son of God--a divine soul on par with God himself. However, Luke 18:19 says:

"'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good--except God alone.'"

Mark 10:18 concurs. Hmmmm... it appears Jesus was just a sinner like the rest of us. Only God is good, but even God likes to dabble in genocide and falls prey to petty jealousy. (See Old Testament.) So what do Christians have to say in defense of their lord and savior?

Well, first they quote what they feel is the relevant passage:

"And the ruler asked him (Jesus), 'Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.'" (Luke 18:18-19)

Then they point out that we are obviously confused if we assume that words mean what they mean. One absurd argument I have encountered goes like this:

"I can understand your confusion. On the surface, it appears that Jesus is claiming he isn't good and therefore not a god or son of one, but in reality, the ruler doesn't have faith. The ruler favors his wealth over Jesus. Essentially, Jesus is saying, 'If you don't believe I'm God (or the son of God), then why are you giving me a compliment that only applies to God?'"

As you can see, this argument makes the assumption that 'good' only applies to God. Further it assumes that the ruler would label Jesus a god when he allegedly has little or no faith in Jesus--that somehow it is only appropriate to label Jesus good only if you have unequivocal faith in him. Otherwise, Jesus in a sinner and only God is good. Obviously this absurd argument only affirms the literal meaning of Luke 18:19. Deep down the Christian who made this argument knows this and continues to drown in his own words:

"People who are charitable would be people most of us would call 'good.' Although, compared to God, we aren't good at all. We are sinners. Only God is good and only those who see Jesus as God have the right to call him good."

So let me get this straight. If I don't believe Jesus is God, then I don't have the 'right' to call him good? Fellow heathens take note. If you don't believe Jesus is God or the son of God, you have no right to call him good. You don't have the right to call what is good good. Therefore call what is good a sinner until you recognize that Jesus is good--but then you already do, but you don't have the right. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Another defensive argument is as follows:

"Jesus was saying, 'You know that only God is good. So do you realize that when you're calling me good, you are (rightly) saying I'm God?'"

That's interesting. So if I say to my dog, "Good boy!" I am calling him God? That makes sense since dog is god spelled backwards. All kidding aside, Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Now if Jesus is God, then he shouldn't be surprised if someone calls him good. Further, if he is God, he is omniscient, he knows why the ruler called him good, so he doesn't have to ask. By contrast, if we assume that Jesus did not regard himself as God or anything good, then the passage makes sense.

Here is one of my favorite spins:

"Remember that the passage was translated from another language of another culture that lived long ago. If you were to go back to that time and say, 'Gimme five' they might not realize you meant 'Slap my hand.' They might take you literally and offer you five units of something."

So basically the controversial passage where Jesus admits he's not good, should not be taken literally, since it may be a mistranslation. But that puts a wet blanket on the notion that the Bible is the word of God. If we can't trust what the Bible says, then we have to rely on Man's interpretation--which is less than perfect, since only God is good...or perhaps God isn't good, since we can't take the passage literally.

But then again, perhaps Jesus was being ironic according to some. There is no mistranslation, but rather, Jesus had a sense of humor. So when he said, "'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone," he was just kidding, folks! Hahahaha! Anyone who reads the Old and New Testaments knows for a fact that God was a genocidal, jealous monster while Jesus at least paid lip service to love, compassion and forgiveness. No doubt Jesus had his disciples rolling in the aisles when he suggested his father was good and he was not.

Speaking of irony, no doubt Jesus was joking when he said the following:

"It is easier for a camel to get through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven."--Matthew 19:24

Surely if Jesus and God are one and the same or if Jesus is on par with God, he knows that heaven contains many rich and powerful men: Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, etc. No doubt they are sitting around a table in heaven, drinking heavenly tea, and having a good laugh, "Oh that Jesus! He's such a character!"

If Jesus is a kidder, then it would be unwise for us to accept his words without question and scrutiny. Blind acceptance or faith should be discarded.

Of course, all the arguments that Christians use to defend the sayings of Jesus obviously don't come from God or even men inspired by God, since they vary. If there is a God and if he intervened, surely only one argument would be set forth: the truth.

If one examines the sayings of Jesus, one finds even more evidence that Jesus was not God or on par with God. For example, Jesus said, "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away and will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

Note the part where Jesus admits the father is greater than him. Of course, the holy spin doctors (especially those who believe in the holy trinity) like to split hairs and provide the following counter-argument:

"The word 'greater' does not mean greater in the sense of a higher type of being but rather greater in the sense of position or authority."

But how can Jesus be God if God is greater in any sense? In response, the spin doctors choke on the question and cough up the following explanation:

"When Jesus was on Earth in the form of a human, he was inferior to God but when he died on the cross and returned to heaven, he returned to his former glory as God's equal."

Even if we accept this as true, Jesus is still not God and it looks as though we now have two gods when there is supposed to be only one. Add the holy ghost and that makes three. To further complicate matters, the one true God is a jealous god and does not like sharing the limelight. (See Old Testament.) If Jesus and God are equals, who is in charge? Who's the boss? Will Jesus and God arm-wrestle to resolve the matter? According to Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus apparently won the match and is now superior to God. Matthew 28:18-20 states in part: "And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.'" But the trinity folks argue the following:

"But Jesus is God and God is Jesus."

If that's the case, then in John 14: 28, God is telling his followers that he is greater than himself, and in Matthew 28:18-20, God is giving himself authority over heaven and earth. I'm sorry but that makes as much sense as a fart in a spacesuit. Further, it makes God appear schizophrenic: "Hey God?"

"What, God? and call me Jesus."

"Why? we are one and the same. Anyway, I am giving you authority over heaven and earth."

"Thanks, God, or should I call you Jesus?"

"No, you're Jesus!"

"Oh, that's right. I am but I thought I was you."

"You're making my head hurt!"

"Sorry. God, now that I'm in charge of everything, what will you do?"

"I'll sit and stew in the abyss like I did before creation. No wait! I'm you! So I will be in charge of heaven and earth--and I just want to thank you...er...me for putting me in charge."

And Jesus said, "Uh...you're welcome...(man my head is spinning!)"

Suppose we assume that Jesus and God are two separate entities; would the spin doctors' explanation work any better? Nah! John 14:28 says, "I go away and will come to you."

When Jesus returns, he will be inferior to God again since he is leaving the higher position and authority of heaven to return to Earth once more.

Another problem with the spin Christians put on John 14:28 is that Jesus and God are both considered perfect, so one cannot be superior to the other in any sense; otherwise, the inferior one is less than perfect. If Jesus was less than perfect, then all his teachings and sayings are less than perfect. Therefore one should not blindly accept them as true.

More damning proof that Jesus was not God nor omniscient comes from Matthew 24:36: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

Another thorn in the side of the Christian establishment is Jesus pleading with God: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

Apparently, Jesus didn't get the memo. You know--the memo telling Jesus that he was sent to Earth to die for our sins and that he would rise to heaven and become God's equal...blah...blah... Surely there was a mix up. God may be perfect, but he is surrounded by harp-playing, fairy-winged idiots who lean on his every word but can't follow simple instructions! "Tell Jesus my plans! I won't have any bastard son of mine making a fool of himself!" The angel, who was assigned the task of keeping Jesus informed, not only lost his wings but his wings were plucked one feather at a time by God's supreme plucking hand.

According to Mark 11:12-13, God's messengers were not the only ones who were incompetent: "He [Jesus] was hungry. And on seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs."

Imagine Jesus, the divine, holy, wisest of the wise not knowing that figs were out of season. Now allegedly Jesus could have performed a miracle and made figs magically appear, but he preferred sour grapes instead: "Then he said to the tree, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again.'" (Mark 11:14)

So what did Jesus do about his hunger? Well if you read on through Mark 11, he and his crew entered Jerusalem and started a riot at the temple (apparently no food was served). There was no Denny's Restaurant in those days, so Jesus and his gang left Jerusalem and came upon the same fig tree that was now withered and dead. According to Mark 11:21, Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi see! the fig tree you cursed has withered up."

Clearly Jesus was mad when he didn't get his figs. Perhaps he had low blood sugar. Anyway, Jesus apparently was walking in circles because he went back to Jerusalem and did a bunch of stuff, but did he ever eat? One has to wonder why he went back to the same fig tree after he cursed it. Was he senile? But surely we should give Jesus the benefit of the doubts (which are piling up like camel-dung mountain). He did, after all, prove his power by performing miracles, so he must be a god. Then again, Moses parted the Red Sea and he wasn't a god--just a man, a prophet, a servant of God. The Bible indicates that Jesus was no different.

"Behold my servant whom I have chosen."--Matthew 12:18

"The God of Abraham and Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus."--Acts 3:13

"For truly in the city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus..."--Acts 3:13

The above passages show that Jesus, like Moses, was God's servant.

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly shown by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst..."--Acts 2:22

The above passage shows that God did the miracles through Jesus. Like Moses, Jesus was God's tool.

However, when we compare Jesus to Moses, Moses comes out on top. As a servant of God, Moses was far more successful than Jesus. Moses did everything he was supposed to do: He delivered his people out of Egypt and to the promised land. Jesus, on the other hand, failed to deliver his people from the Romans and was crucified. Supposedly he will return and finish what he started, but so far his people have waited over 2000 years and still no paradise. Moses accomplished his tasks within his short lifetime. The same could be said about David, Joseph, Abraham, etc. They all finished what they started and none have to return due to first-time failure.

Nevertheless, some Christians will emphatically argue that Jesus is God due to this passage: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

However this next passage debunks the notion that Jesus and God are one and the same: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." (John 17:11)

Well obviously Jesus' disciples can't be one and the same in the flesh, but they can be one in purpose and in spirit. Does that mean that the disciples are all one entity? No Christian I know makes that construction. But they do make that construction with Jesus and God. They are of one purpose (except when Jesus didn't get the memo) and of one spirit--however, the same could be said of Moses, for instance. He and God were of one purpose and one spirit also, yet no Christian believes Moses was a god. The implication of the above passage is that anyone can be one with God by having the same purpose as God.

Still, Christians will cling desperately to the story of Jesus' conception and birth. He had to be a demigod if not a god. Like Samson, Jesus was sired by God. What makes the story preposterous is the fact that it makes God look foolish and Jesus a bastard. If God really exists and if he has moral principles, he would have commanded Mary to divorce Joseph, then Mary and God would have been married before the baby Jesus was conceived.

The typical rebuttal I frequently run into is "God is not immoral; he had some higher purpose that only he knows."

Well maybe a criminal lawyer can use that defense at trial: "Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence plainly shows that my client is an axe murderer, but the truth is, my client isn't really a criminal. When he hacked those people to bits he had a higher purpose that only he knows. Therefore, you must acquit him of all charges."

Then there is the problem I mentioned earlier: Mere mortals like Moses were on par or even eclipsed Jesus when it came to miracles and accomplishments. Apparently demigod status amounts to squat. And that makes perfect sense if we assume there is no God and Jesus' story was only a mythical legend.

There is evidence that suggests that Jesus was not even a flesh-and-blood human being but a metaphor representing the morning star (the planet Venus).

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."--Revelation 22:16

This passage can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is the Morning Star. Or, perhaps the Morning Star is a metaphor for Jesus and Jesus was really an Offspring of David? Hmmm... Isn't Jesus supposed to be an Offspring of God? Let's check Matthew 1:6-16; it shows the family lineage starting with David. David beget Solomon who beget...(let's skip some generations and cut to the chase)...Jacob who beget Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born..."

Now, as you can see, it was Joseph, not Mary who was beget by David and his begetees. Jesus was allegedly an Offspring of God and Mary and was not Joseph's Offspring; therefore, not David's Offspring. Assuming that the Bible is the word of God, apparently, once again, God can't keep his story straight and bears false witness. Shame on you, Lord!

With regard to the matter of Jesus being the Morning Star, Patricia Lantz of the Atlanta Astrology Examiner points out the following:

"The phenomenon known as Venus Retrograde occurs approximately every 20 months. This is when Venus travels in reverse motion against the backdrop of stars. When Venus is 3 weeks into her retrograde period, there is a short period of darkness as Evening Star. After 3 days of invisibility, still Rx, she emerges rising ahead of the Sun as a Morning Star... It is 40 days from station retrograde to station direct."

She goes on to say,

"Is it merely a coincidence that the number 40 is also the number of days of the Venus retrograde cycle and that her three day disappearance from the sky before rising ahead of the Sun as morning star is the same amount of time that Jesus remained in the tomb before his resurrection. (Matthew 12:40 KJV)?"

Hmmmmmm.... Other scholars suggest that Jesus and his 12 disciples are really just astrological symbols. According to them, Jesus is the sun and the 12 disciples are the 12 zodiac signs. They further point out that this was a common theme throughout the Bible. For example, Jacob had 12 sons, Israel had 12 tribes. Basing Biblical tales and numbers on astrology makes sense when you consider that the ancient Hebrews were held captive and influenced by the Babylonians, the inventors of astrology.

A fish is often used as a symbol of Jesus. Coincidently, the birth of Jesus coincided with the new age of Pisces. The symbol for Pisces is the fish. And Jesus, of course, had his own fish story.

The story of Jesus is also similar to the story of Mithras. According to Alfred Reynolds,

"Mithras was the son of Ormuzd, and as a god of light himself, he engaged the powers of darkness, Ahriman and his host, in a bitter struggle. Mithras triumphed and cast his adversaries into the nether world. Mithras, too, raised the dead and will find them at the end of time. He, too, will relegate the wicked to hell and establish the millennial kingdom. [...]

"Drews, too, believe that it was the influence of Persian, notably Mithraic, thought which led to the gradual transformation of the human figure of Jesus into a Godhead. Robertson thinks that the rock-tomb resurrection of Jesus is a direct transference of Mithras' rock birth, and that Jesus also became a sun-god like Mithras, so that they share their birthday at the winter solstice. Robertson, Niemojewski, Volney and others assert that as son-god Jesus had twelve apostles representing the twelve houses of the zodiac.”

Mithraism was a popular cult in the Roman Empire. It had seven sacraments just like the Catholic Church. The cult practiced baptism, communion with bread. Eucharist hosts were signed with a cross, a symbol that originated in ancient Egypt.

Early Christians, who were still more Jewish than Christian, coexisted with pagan cults such as Mithras. Therefore, it is not far-fetched to suggest that early Christians were influenced by pagans. Christians were definitely influenced by the Greeks who believed Zeus ruled in the heavens and that Hades ruled in the underworld. Simply trade Zeus for God and Hades for Satan--and you have yourself a religion that is rich with paganism and Judaism with Jesus as its centerpiece. (God must be so jealous!)

Perhaps the most hotly contested issue between gentiles and Jews is whether Jesus was really the messiah. Was there a prophet who foretold that the messiah would be born of a virgin, crucified, and would have to return from the dead at a later time to finish what he started? The Biblical passages below come close to showing that Jesus was the messiah. When I say they come close, I mean they almost hit the side of the barn.

"He will judge between the nations and arbitrate for many peoples. Then they will hammer their swords into plow-blades and their spears into pruning-knives; nations will not raise swords at each other, and they will no longer learn war."--Isaiah 2:4

Well, Jesus' arrival certainly didn't prevent any wars, but let's hold our breaths and wait another 2000 years--maybe he'll come through.

"But he was wounded because of our crimes,crushed because of our sins;the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him, and by his bruises we are healed."--Isaiah 53:5

Here is a prophesy that vaguely asserts that the messiah will be wounded, crushed, but fails to mention death on the cross. It is just as likely that 'he,' the true messiah, was or will be crushed by a steamroller. It also mentions the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him. Well, obviously crucifixion is not discipline that makes anyone whole--it makes one dead.

"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--Isaiah 7:14

They will call him Immanuel? It looks like 'they' didn't get the memo about calling the kid Jesus. Another messenger angel gets his wing feathers plucked.

As you can see, there is no prophesy that specifically states that someone named Jesus will be born of a virgin named Mary, that he will be God's son and will fail to bring peace and harmony to the world when he first appears. He will be crucified instead and must rise from the dead, make a second appearance after at least 2000 years have passed and will then finally bring paradise to the righteous--and let's not forget about the time when Jesus walked in circles from a fig tree to Jerusalem, back to the fig tree...

I think it's safe to say that the Jesus depicted in the Bible is a mythical character. The real Jesus, if such a man existed, was most likely a Jewish rabbi with a catchy name and rock-star charisma. People who believe in the Biblical Jesus are simply deluding themselves. However, what people believe or disbelieve is not nearly as important as how they treat each other. For that reason I respect your opinions and beliefs whatever they may be and I hope you respect mine.

Let's love one another--even if Jesus never said that.