The word "Christian" appears in the Bible two (2) times. Let me repeat that number. . . No need. In fact, what makes the bible the bible and not the Torah is the inclusion of the new testament. And in the new testament the very word of the Christ inspired religion is mentioned only twice. Jesus Christ, the figure upon which the very essence of Christianity is predicated upon, used the word zero (0) times. You will excuse me if I find these facts baffling- enough to write an entire blog about it- but I must say: these facts are very intriguing especially considering we are dealing with a religion that assumes the title(s) of divine and ordained all in the same breath.
As I write this blog I sit in an open lounge coffee cafe. The time is 9 o'clock pm and I have a cup of coffee to aid me in this affair. I assume I will be up for a while, referencing and cross referencing and such. Let us examine:
I will not spend my time writing about why or why not Christianity is barely referenced in the bible. No, that would be an arduous task to be sure. Instead this blog will focus on the exclusion of the word and what that means. For example, if I compose a song, yet in this song I mention a specific word only twice in the entire song, one may assume the song was written not merely for the benefit of that single topic but that single topic is a beneficiary of the song; a bi product of sorts. This is not to say that the title of the song cannot be the less mentioned word/topic. But it does demand explanation and in this explanation there is a great deal of interpretation that may or may not be true.
By comparison, the word "Jew" is used over 200 times in the New Testament alone. For the sake of argument we will ignore the fact that the word "Jew" is a purely English transitory convenience and that the word has no Hebrew or Aramaic roots. Nonetheless for the English bible, the word is mentioned over 200 times. Yet, how is it that Jesus Christ was a Jew, when the word Jew was not even a word until the 18th century? The word Jew is both malevolent and benevolent. In its malevolent form, the word is a derogatory one, as one may use the word negro to deride a darker skinned people. In its benevolent form, the word "Jew" actually means a resident from the land of Judea. Yet how is it that Jesus is believed to be a Jew when he was actually born in Galilee, a state entirely separate from Judea? Of course the answer belongs to the genealogy of Jesus' earthly parents who's lineage belongs to the tribe of Judah. Yet there is only one problem, and that is that Mary's lineage is never listed in the bible. In both Matthew and Luke the genealogies belong to Joseph, who in fact was not Jesus' father at all. In fact, the two separate lineage accounts are not the same. One starts with Adam and goes to David while the other starts with Abraham and goes to David. Biblical scholars argue that these are merely accounts of both Joseph and Mary and attribute the differences as such. I would follow along in this theory but I digress for now we have entered the often too familiar and peculiar land of Christianity: biblical explanation followed by interpretation. For to assume this conclusion as correct we would be forced to declare that the name of Joseph, for whom the genealogical references are attributed, are wrong in at least one instance and then take it upon ourselves to attribute one of them to Mary; which one we attribute to her, and how we make this decision is beyond me, I am not that smart. All I know is what the two references say and they have two different accounts, yet the same name and that name is Joseph.
Yet we know that Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah, a direct line from the offspring of David. But how? Mary's lineage is imagined and only Joseph's is confirmed. Yet if Jesus was born of immaculate conception, Joseph's lineage doesn't actually matter.
Why am I pointing to these inconsistencies and why am I harping on them? It's simple. Orthodox Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah because of this acute problem. Pastors across the grand globe of Christianity will tell you it is because Jesus did not physically overthrow the Romans. This may be partially true. But in all actuality the mainstay of their refusal to accept Jesus as Christ is one of lineage. You cannot be my king if there is no proof that you were born from royal bloodline. This is the argument and it deserves audience.
Understand therefore, it is not the Jews who accept Jesus as the son of God. It was not Jesus in fact who claimed to be God, and who constantly referenced himself as the "son of man". Rather it was those after Jesus died who claimed Jesus to be divine. I am not saying that this is wrong. I am simply stating the facts. Jesus did not create a new religion. Neither did his disciples. The people who never followed Jesus while he walked the earth created a new religion and they called it Christianity. Yet how can you claim to follow a man who's teachings you do not actually follow? Let us begin with the "Sinner's Prayer".
In many churches, the "benediction" as it were, concludes the service in which the pastor invites his listeners to become Christians by praying a certain prayer. There is an elephant in the room at such benedictions and that is that there is no "sinners prayer" anywhere in the bible. The only prayer that Jesus instructed his disciples to use was the Lord's Prayer: "Our father. . ." notice, Jesus begins this prayer with "father" and never mentions himself in the prayer at all. Yet somehow we have have distorted benedictions in which pastors are instructing their listeners to pray to Jesus. This is obscene, to be frank, and I will take it a step further. There is very little that Paul, says in the New Testament by way of salvation that agrees with what Jesus says.
For example, according to Paul, one must "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead and you will be saved." Romans 10:9-10. Who gave Paul this authority to declare the process for salvation? What exactly is he talking about and what makes him think that he can super cede what Jesus himself said about salvation? For Jesus gave an entirely different path to redemption. Read Luke 10:25-27. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself." Read John 5:24 "I tell you whoever hears my words and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life. . ."
There is a definitive difference in the teachings of Jesus and what was taught after Jesus about Jesus and I contend that what was taught after Jesus about Jesus is not entirely correct. One of the main proponents of these incorrect teachings is Paul himself. Allow me:
If Jesus tells you what you must do to inherit eternal life and then someone else tells you what you must do to inherit the same but what he tells you is different than what Jesus told you, who should you believe? It is at this point that we see the beginnings of what I now refer to as the adoption of Christianity, that is, Christianity's journey of change. Understand, I am not saying that Paul was a liar, neither am I declaring his teachings to be false. What I am saying is that there is a clear difference in what Paul said and what Jesus said. The fact of the matter is that what Paul says in the New Testament has no authoritative figure to validate it. Jesus quoted the Torah, thereby validating the Old Testament. He constantly referenced its teachings and values. Therefore, if I believe Jesus I have no choice but to believe the Old Testament and vice versa. My question, is what and who validates Paul and the rest of the New Testament after Jesus?
Paul claims that Jesus himself stopped him on the road to Damascus in the form of a bright light which blinded him and thereby ordained him as an apostle. Paul then claims that after he was led to Ananias that Jesus himself trusted Paul with the gospel to carry to the Mediterranean world. Again I do not dispute any of this. What I do question is its source of validation. If the story of the Old Testament is that it was designed to prepare us for Jesus and Jesus validated and fulfilled it, who and what validates and fulfills the post gospel New Testament? Paul would have us believe that it was Jesus himself. Yet Paul never saw Jesus, only a bright light. The light blinded no one but him, despite the fact that others were with him. And who were these other men? According to Hebrew law, a dispute must be validated by two or more witnesses and these witnesses must testify on behalf of the dispute. Read Deuteronomy 19:15.
Even Paul validates the need for witnesses and their verbal validation in Corinthians 2 13:1. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established".
Where is the testimony by the men whom Paul claims were with him that this event on the road to Damascus actually happened? There is none. There is Paul saying it happened, and Paul saying that men were with him, but their testimony is not recorded. My question is why not, and what does that mean? For if something so fundamental for the truth to be established is omitted we are asked to have faith in a man and that what he says is the truth.
Let me be clear about something, what makes God's word, God's word, is not because it comes in a book named the bible. What makes God's word God's word is the fact that a certain set of writings not only exist but are also validated by someone proved to be greater than all humanity. The problem with much of Christianity today is that our beliefs are based not solely on that person of Jesus but on the teachings of a mere man who claims to have been instructed by Jesus, but whom Jesus is never recorded as validating. You will forgive me if I am not ready to accept authorship from this person. You must forgive me if I do not care that it offends modern Christianity because modern Christianity is a revulsion of what Jesus taught that his followers must be. Are Paul's teachings part of the Bible? Absolutely. Are Paul's teachings the Word of God? Absolutely not. Paul was a man, flesh and blood just like you and I and therefore all his teaching were merely human and prone to the same human flaws we experience today. There is nothing Divine about his teachings or influence. The Word, as it were, was made manifest through Jesus Christ himself or need I remind you of John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word. . ."
If there was more to the gospel that Jesus wanted us to know as his word he would not have left without telling us. Understand that Jesus never says that the Bible is the Word of God. The Word was Jesus himself. Which leads me to my conclusion that the rest of the bible, (excluding Hebrews, a book included in the New Testament but was actually written by the Hebrew Patriarch Moses), after Jesus left the earth may be divinely inspired, but is not divinely ordained and I reject any argument which says otherwise. It is not God who affirmed the post gospel canonized bible. It was a group of men now called the Council of Nicaea. I repeat, the modern bible was created by a group of men. Furthermore, the book of Revelations was included in the canonized bible after the Council Nicaea convened. There is not even factual evidence as to how Revelations got included into the cannon. Yet we are under the belief that Christianity is the only way to God. Nothing could be more insecure, self absorbed and hideous; no statement more preposterous, because Christianity is what exactly? Oh I know what it is supposed to be. I know where its lineage comes from. But when you examine its evolution over the decades and centuries of its existence, it resembles nothing of its origin.
Let me ask you something. If you go to church, how many of your church's leaders are still in their first marriage? OK, great. Now how many of those who are not in their first marriage got divorced for any reason other than infidelity? How many of the female members are divorced because their husband was caught in infidelity? Final question: exactly where did Jesus say, for any other reason than a woman's unfaithfulness to her husband is divorce permitted?
This, ladies and gentleman, is where the truth meets reality and the truth is not comfortable. Read Mark 1:1-12. Understand, it makes no provision for divorce if the man is cruel to his wife. It makes no provision for divorce is the man is unhappy with his wife. It makes no provision for the woman to divorce her husband if the husband cheats on his wife. It makes no provision for divorce if the man is abusive to his wife or the wife abusive to her husband. And yet, how many churches condone, accept, teach, or practice otherwise?
Understand that the model for Jesus' relationship for those who believe in him is marriage. If we fail to get marriage right, and we have; if we create new laws and provisions as we "adapt" to modern times, if we conjure up our own ideas as we go along for what we deem as appropriate for what makes sense in our eyes, than we may have some idea of how the post gospel bible was put together.
Human interpretation will always lead to human error. And so Christianity has become this great chameleon. Yet I am not surprised. Christianity is based upon a figure named Paul who at once defined himself as a chameleon: 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." Indeed. Would you like to know what Jesus said?
"I am the same, yesterday, today and forever." Hebrews 13:8. Clearly contrasted. There is no chameleon in the church that Jesus created. There is in the gospel of Paul. These vastly different statements by these two different figures speak volumes about the message of these two different men. Alas, the Christians of today which claim to be followers of Christ are a group of individuals who I dare say Jesus himself would not accept. Some preacher somewhere told them to pray the sinner's prayer for salvation and they did. But Jesus never taught conversion, he taught discipleship. Jesus taught eternal life. You cannot inherit that by saying a simple prayer, it comes through sacrifice and repentance.
Look at your church today. I'll wager your pastor lives in the suburbs somewhere in some comfortable sided house in a two car garage with a minivan. Let us contrast that picture with the one given in Luke 18:18-22. A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Let's compare that picture with ourselves. Modern Christianity says that the lesson here is to be willing to give up everything. That Jesus isn't actually saying to give it all up but rather it is a mindset. Three words: Read It Again. SELL EVERYTHING, TO THE POOR (meaning you will have to short sell, not for profit). THEN FOLLOW ME. Most people who tithe aren't even giving to the poor, the money is going to the church building's mortgage, utilities and rent. I wonder how much money could actually go to the poor if churches got rid of their luxurious buildings that they've convinced themselves that God himself provided for them- while the rest of the city is starving and children are going without food and shelter and single mothers can barely pay rent- and instead rotated church member homes for meetings and service? I wonder how much money would go to the poor then? Two words: SELL EVERYTHING. But I digress, that would mean that pastors wouldn't get salary what with no office to go to and no building to run, the pastoral office just isn't quite so expensive. How much is the average cost of seminary again? Somewhere around $12,000 a year and that was seven years ago. I believe Jesus pulled out a whip and flipped tables for abominations like this. But we've succeeded, of course, in doing what he was trying to prevent: profiting off faith in God. But like Paul says, when in Rome do as the Romans right? Absolutely disgusting.
I don't care if you agree with this blog post or not, but the fact is, if you call yourself a Christian, you probably aren't the person Jesus had in mind for his Disciple. The two titles look vastly different in reality.
The time is now 2am of the same day and I must be up in three hours. Yet I am happy with my work. The cafe is empty. The store is closed. Sip on that.
