Sacred Secrets

The Sacred Secrets

Preface

 

I submitted what I considered a screenplay, the title, “Which Christ” to a “Professional” critique in the industry whose feedback started like this:

“One of the main questions I have about this script is about the necessity to retell this subject matter.  This may, indeed be the so-called “Greatest Story Ever Told,” but it is also the Single Story Told Most Often.  As interesting as the story of Christ may be, it is one that is told every Sunday in church, and has been the subject of an overflowing handful of movies.”

Boy was I crushed…  I could feel the tears welling up in my heart.  It went on:

“In order to make a retelling of this oft-told tale marketable, you would need to provide an angle so fresh or a rendering so expert that it would shed fresh light on the legend.

I’m not convinced that you’ve accomplished that here in asking the question, “What if Judas weren’t guilty in exactly the way we thought?’ to the degree necessary.

Also, when you make comedic changes to Biblical matters, there are certain things that seem easier to get away with than others.

One thing you might have some trouble with is your portrayal of the Virgin Mary as someone who almost instinctively used a four-letter word.

When reworking Bible stories, there is a fine line between artists’ license and the perception of sacrilege.”

Wow, at this point I was understandably, super excited!  He called me an “Artist!”

Seriously, I did a lot of research and I read the four Gospels over and over and over again for years, then decided that the authors must have been writing about two different people, both named Jesus!

Don’t get me wrong, I am in total awe of the Bible.  It’s the only book I know of that begins with, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and then goes on to tell the history of mankind! Wow!

There’s a story in the Bible, which is told in church every Sunday about a man whose birthday marked the change of the calendar to what it is today.

This calendar is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of a man named Jesus; of Nazareth.

I say “reckoned year” because, there has been considerable controversy over what that date was.  No one knows when Jesus was born.

The historical evidence is too sketchy to “Know” just about anything concerning this Jesus.

In the Holy Bible there are four books that make up what is called the “Gospels,” that talk about a Jesus.  They are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Magi (Wise men) found Jesus in a house with his mother Mary.

In the Gospel of Luke, Shepherds found Jesus, his mother Mary and Joseph in a manger.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus heals two demon possessed men.  In the Gospels of Luke and Mark, Jesus heals only one demon possessed man.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the son of a carpenter.  In the Gospel of Mark Jesus is a carpenter.

Are you starting to get the picture?

There is a list of Jesus’ disciples in all four of the Gospels.

In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark there is a disciple named Thaddaeus.

In the Gospel of Luke, there is not a Thaddaeus, but there are two Judas’.

There are two Judas’ in the Gospel of John and a disciple named Nathanael.

I know what you’re thinking.  I thought the same thing at first, “Whoever translated the Gospels those hundreds of years ago must have made a mistake, no one’s perfect, right?”

Well, here’s another mistake.  When Jesus was arrested in Matthew:26:47 which reads, “While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived.  With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.”

Someone forgot to mention the fact that it was night, because in the Gospel of John it reads, “When he finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley.  On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.  Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.

So, Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees.  They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.”

A blind man could see that one Jesus was arrested during the “day,” and the other Jesus was arrested at “night.”

In the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ, is the son of Jacob; who was the son of Matthan; who was the son of Eleazar; who was the son of Eliud, etc., etc., etc…

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was the son, so it was thought of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, etc., etc., etc…

Which is it?  Is Joseph the son of Jacob, the son of Martthan, the son of Eleazar or is Joseph the son of Heli, the son of Marrhat, the son of Levi?

Some scholars explain the difference between the two genealogies by saying that the one written in the Gospel of Luke is for Mary’s side of the family.

I don’t think so.  I think that after considering the discrepancies in the information written in the four Gospels, especially the two different genealogies, there is no other choice but to conclude that; there were either two men, both named Jesus or someone changed the scriptures!

I found out the hard way that if you take all the information presented in the “Four Gospels of the King James version of the Holy Bible” as inspired by God, then attempted to live your life by the lessons derived from that information, your life would resemble an abstract painting and yet, millions of people on earth continue to do just that.

Is there any wonder as to why the world is in such a confused and conflicted condition?

According to Bart D. Ehrman, an American New Testament Scholar and Author of “Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, who uses a “Historical Critical Method” for examining the Holy Bible says, “Scribes copied scripture and sometimes changed it.”

Using a process called, “Textual Criticism” which is the process of attempting to ascertain the original wording of a text, scholars have found, to my surprise, that there were not two Jesus’.

Before I ever heard of Bart D. Ehrman or Textual Criticism, I discovered discrepancies in the writings of the “Four Gospels.” I wondered, if there are discrepancies in the New Testament of the Holy Bible, could there also be discrepancies in the Old Testament? Yes, there are.

What I discovered while examining the Old Testament, the book of Genesis, was amazing!  I wrote about it in my book, “Genesis II.”

How I found out that there was something terribly wrong with the New Testament is kind of a not so funny story.

I tried, with all my heart, body and soul, to live my life according to the words written in the scriptures of that New Testament.

I failed miserably.  Of course, being the “Perfectionist” that I was, I blamed my failure on what the author wrote in Matthew:26:41:

“Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

My flesh was weak…

I was so convinced that the scriptures were inspired by God and therefore inerrant, that when I found out differently, I decided to expose to the entire world the “Fact” that there were TWO men named Jesus:  Two Christs, hence, the screenplay, “Which Christ!”

Who would have thought that “Scribes” would have had the audacity to take it upon themselves to alter the words of the Holy Bible or that the authors of said Gospels would make up stories?

I later decided that regardless of what changes, additions and/or deletions were made to the scriptures, I believe the overall message would not and could not be lost.

I now believe that the Holy Scriptures are in fact, inerrant. I now believe that the changes, additions and deletions are all “Divine Intervention!” I believe this because, if it wasn’t for the so-called mistakes, no one would have bothered to investigate the so-called problems.

If no one bothered to investigate the so-called problems, well let’s just say, the incredible story you’re about to experience would have never been written.

No amount of man’s meddling with the words of the Holy Bible could take away from the purpose for which the “Author” (God) intended.

According to most scholars, the Gospel of Mark was the first of the Four Gospels written.  It is believed that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the book of Mark as one of their sources of information.

The Gospel of Mark was written between AD 66 – 70.  It was only in the 19th century that Mark came to be seen as the earliest of the four gospels, which now that I think about it, is pretty crazy.  Eighteen hundred and some years, and it was just figured out the Gospel of Mark was the first of the Four Gospels?

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between AD 80 and 90.

The most probable date for Luke’s composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.

If the authors of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a reference, how is it that the Gospel of Mark starts with this Jesus character being a grown man and in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the character Jesus is a baby?

Mark

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (Mark:1:9)

Matthew

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew:1:18)

Luke

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. (Luke:1:30)

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (Luke:1:31)

The answer is, the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke invented their stories!  That’s right, total fiction!

I want to know the facts about everything concerning Jesus, don’t you? I want to know the truth!

What is “Truth?”

Truth – properly to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or {faithful} to trust or {believe} to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once; stability; figuratively {certainty} {truth } trustworthiness: – assured ({-ly}) {establishment} {faithful} {right} {sure} true ({-ly} {-th}) verity.

Verity – true principle or belief, especially one of fundamental importance.

At this point, I feel it necessary to tell you that if you are sensitive about your religion, “STOP” reading this blog right now!  What I’m about to reveal will be disturbing to those of a sensitive nature.

It will be extremely difficult, but I think if we look hard and long, I believe we can find some truth in the “King James version of the Holy Bible.”

Bart D. Ehrman  wrote in the conclusion of his book, Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, “For God to inspire the bible would be so that his people would have his actual words, but if he really wanted people to have his actual words surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place.  Giving the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.”

I totally disagree with Bart. I believe that the King James version of the Holy Bible as well as any other version of the Holy Scriptures, were “Inspired by God!”

It is the purpose of this blog to make this “Revelation” perfectly clear.

Whose bright idea was it to put four books about the same event together with a bunch of letters from who knows who, into a collection anyway?

From this “mixed bag” of misinformation, grew a major mess; a wayward way of life; a radical and at times ridiculous religion called “Christianity” was formed.

The “Author” (God) must have had a reason for allowing the bible to remain, until today, in the odd order that it is in.

The “Author” must have had a reason for allowing the discrepancies to remain until now.

That’s the focus of this blog.  Why did the “Author” allow the Holy Bible to remain in the messed-up condition that it is in?

Didn’t the “Author” know that someday, someone, would actually read the bible and discover all its mistakes?

After reading Bart D Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus The Story Behind Who Changed the Scriptures and Why,” I do not trust a single (English) word written in the King James version of the Holy Bible.

I do however, trust the Hebrew and Greek definitions of the English words in the King James version of the Holy Bible.

In the Old Testament of the King James version of the Holy Bible the words, when reverse translated from the English language to the Hebrew definitions tell a completely different story from the one that the English words tell.

The intention of this blog is to see if the same phenomena exists when reading the New Testament using the Greek definitions of the words reverse translated into English.

I believe the King James version of the Holy Bible when reverse translated, “Is the Inspired and Inerrant Word of God.”  The so called, “Discrepancies” were put there intentionally, not by the human beings who deliberately altered the scriptures, but by their “Creator,” who inspired their mischievous misdeeds.

The name Matthew means; gift of Jah; {Mattithjah} the name of four Israelites; an Israelite and Christian.

Mark –  properly to {come} that {is} (impliedly) to assent: – consent; (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literally or {figuratively}) as a {flag} beacon; {monument} omen; {prodigy} {evidence } etc.: – {mark} {miracle} (en-) {sign} token.

Luke – Contracted from the Latin Lucanus; Lucas a Christian: – Lucas Luke.

John – Of Hebrew origin; Jehovah-favored; {Jochanan} the name of nine Israelites: – Johanan.

Three out of the four titles have a spiritual meaning; Matthew, gift of Jah, Mark, to {come} that {is} (impliedly) to assent: – consent; (in the sense of appearing); a miracle and John, Jehovah – favored.

That leaves Luke; a Christian.

If it were left up to me, I would take the Gospel of Luke out of the bible for just that reason:  The word Luke doesn’t have a spiritual meaning when reverse translated.

The King James version of the Holy Bible was left in the condition that it is in for a reason.  So, I will leave Luke alone, for now.

After Jesus died, his followers expected him to return at any minute, certainly before they themselves died, therefore no one felt it necessary to write anything down. As eyewitnesses began to die, someone thought it would be a good idea to write about the character Jesus and His teachings.

In defense of the authors of the Gospels as well as the organizers of the Cannon of Scriptures, none of them knew that the writings would be studied by scholars 2000 years in the future.

I’m almost sure that at least one of the anonymous authors thought they were just preserving history for posterity’s sake. My gut tells me some of the anonymous authors wanted history to read the way “they” wanted it to read.  I will discuss who “They” are in the conclusion of this blog.

According to most modern-day Scholars, only a very small percentage of the people back in the days of the character Jesus could read and write.

I believe everything written in the New Testament of the Holy Scriptures was passed on for decades via letters written by priests to other priests reporting the miraculous things happening during the times of the character Jesus.

The writing of letters from one priest to another explains the consistency in story-line.

Scribes changed the text at will, putting whatever suited their fancy.  We don’t know what’s real from what’s “Scribed!”

I guess that’s why they call it “Faith.”

Modern day scholars tell us that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, written some 20 – 30 years after the book of Mark, used the book of Mark as a reference.

For that reason alone, I would disregard both the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, but, like I said about the Gospel of Luke, the “Author” (God) left them in the “Cannon of Scriptures” for some reason, so I’ll leave them alone, for now.

Mark, Matthew and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because of the close similarities between them in terms of content, arrangement, and language.

 

Each gospel writer portrayed the character Jesus and his divine role in different ways.

The Gospel of John and the synoptic gospels present completely different pictures of the character Jesus.

According to several sources found in a Google search, the character Jesus stood for a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

The synoptic gospels represent the character Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed a temple.

He states that he offers no sign as proof of his divinity in the book of Mark and only the sign of Jonah in the books of Matthew and Luke.

In the synoptic gospels the Jesus story takes up a single year.

In the synoptic gospels the “Last Supper” takes place as a Passover meal, while in John it happens on the day before Passover.

In the Gospel According Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, the character Jesus is repeatedly called out as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.

Matthew reinterprets Mark, stressing the character Jesus’ teachings making subtle changes to the narrative in order to stress his divine nature – Mark’s “young man” who appears at the character Jesus’ tomb, for example, becomes a radiant angel in Matthew.

In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, the character Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony. The character Jesus preaches in Jerusalem, launching his ministry with the cleansing of the temple.

Mark never calls the character Jesus “God” or claims that the character Jesus existed prior to his earthly life, never mentions a virgin birth (the author apparently believes that the character Jesus had a normal human birth), and makes no attempt to trace the character Jesus’ ancestry back to King David or Adam.

Mark’s description of the second coming is made up almost entirely of quotations from scripture.

Mark had no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. The miracle stories in Mark confirm Jesus’ status as a “Messenger” of God (which was Mark’s understanding of the Messiah).

In the Gospel According to Luke, apparently written for Gentiles, the character Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.

Luke expanded on the source and eliminated some passages entirely; most of chapters 6 and 7, which he apparently felt reflected poorly on the disciples and painted Jesus too much like a magician.

Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the “Holy Spirit” in the character Jesus’ life and in the Christian community.

In Luke the character Jesus is portrayed as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.

Unlike Matthew, Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not only for the Jews.

The Gospel According to John is the only gospel to call the character Jesus, God. In the Gospel According to Mark, the character Jesus hides his identity as messiah, in the Gospel According to John he openly proclaims it.

In the Gospel According to John, the character Jesus is an incarnation of the eternal Word, who spoke no parables, talked extensively about himself, and did not refer to a “Second Coming.”

The Gospel According to John has no baptism, no temptation, no transfiguration, no “Lords Supper” and no stories of the character Jesus’  birth.

In the Gospel According to John the Jesus story takes three years, the cleansing of the temple is at the beginning of his ministry and he performs several miracles as signs, most of them not found in the synoptic gospels.

The Gospels provide a good idea of the character Jesus and His teachings.  Hopefully, Historical Critical Study can distinguish the ideas of Jesus from the ideologies of the authors and scribes who changed the text!

Matthew and Luke have frequently edited Mark to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between John and the synoptic gospels make it impossible to accept both as reliable according to scholars, but I believe taken as a whole, contradictions and discrepancies included, the four Gospels are not only reliable, they reveal the “Truth.”

To get to the truth about who the character Jesus was, what he did and did not do and what it all, “Really” means for Religion as well as what it “Really” means for mankind, it is necessary to examine each book of the Gospels individually, keeping in mind the fact that each author has a separate message and that message is, “Inspired by God!”

I  learned from studying Bart D. Ehrman’s books, particularly, “Jesus, Interrupted Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)” that there is a better way of reading the bible.  He calls it, “Horizontal Reading.”

In horizontal reading, you read a story in one of the Gospels, then read the same story as told by another Gospel as if they were written in columns, next to each other.  Reading the stories in the bible this way, you’ll find a lot of the discrepancies. That is how I will write this blog.

The very first thing that shows up as an addition to the Holy Scriptures, according to most modern day scholars; Bart D. Ehrman being one of them, is the “Virgin Birth of the character Jesus.”

I believe a lot of non-believers remain non-believers because of what is written about the birth of the character Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

I remember when I first read that the mother of the character Jesus was a virgin. I was only twelve years old. I had to look up the word virgin in the dictionary.

I thought to myself, “It’s impossible for someone to have a baby and be a virgin!”

Then I remembered what I had read or heard in church, “And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.” (Mark:10:27)

And so, I believed. Imagine my shock when I heard that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke fabricated their stories!

Away in a manger
No crib for His bed
The little Lord Jesus
Lay down His sweet head

The stars in the sky
Look down where He lay
The little Lord Jesus
Asleep on the hay

The cattle are lowing
The poor Baby wakes
But little Lord Jesus
No crying He makes

I love Thee, Lord Jesus
Look down from the sky
And stay by my side
‘Til morning is nigh

I remember singing that song when I was a kid going to my uncle’s church. Every Christmas my siblings and I would be snuggled around the fireplace, roasting marshmallows and eating popcorn, oh wait, that was a family on the television!

Whatever, the point I’m trying to make is, I believed every word of that song.

Bart D. Ehrman tells us that the character Jesus was not the miraculously born child of a “Virgin” Mary born in a manger, no crib for his bed.

Mary was a virgin, but not in the way that most “Believers” think.

She was a maiden; by implication an unmarried daughter, which is the Greek definition of the word virgin found in the Strong’s Concordance of the “King James version of the Holy Bible.

The Hebrew definition is, a lass (as veiled or private): – {damsel} {maid} virgin.

Lass – a girl or young woman.

In both the Hebrew language and the Greek, a virgin is a young, female human being.

The belief that the character Jesus was the “Messiah; God’s Son; the “Christ,” prompted the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to create a “Holy Ghost” pregnancy.

Matthew

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew:1:18)

Luke

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man (Luke:1:34)

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke:1:35)

Wow, the lengths to which some people would and did go to push their religious agendas!

My question is, “Why did the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke create fictitious “Virgin Mary” stories?”

There are no independent historical records that support either Matthew’s or Luke’s stories. It seems that both authors improvised. They lied, but why?

Matthew created his story to coincide with so-called Old Testament prophecies.  It’s clear that Matthew made up these stories to lend credibility and to impress readers, even though the so-called prophecies were taken out of context and misquoted.

Luke tried to give his account of a virgin birth a “Back Story,” like, the birth of John the Baptist; the character Jesus’ cousin and Mary was a virgin; her husband was named Joseph, and the character Jesus was born in Bethlehem, nice try Luke!

According to Bart D. Ehrman and his textual criticism, Jesus was born in Nazareth.

If it were left up to me, I’d take out of the Holy Scriptures, any and all references to the character Jesus being born of a virgin.

For the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to have ended up in the “Cannon of the Holy Scriptures” and for the fictitious stories about the birth of the character Jesus to a “virgin” to have remained until today, intact, creates, in my mind, so many questions I don’t know where to begin asking.  Yes, I do…

The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used their very fertile imaginations to mislead readers.

The question is, “Why did the Gospels According to Matthew and Luke end up in the Cannon of Scriptures?”

My guess, which is really more than a guess, is, to compete with the Gospel of Mark!

The Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel written. Back in those days, when you wrote a book the only way to make a copy was to hand copy it yourself or hire someone to hand copy it for you.

The Gospel of Mark had a 20 to 25-year head start in circulation. There was no way “They” could get a hold of all the copies to destroy them, so it was necessary to write competing Gospels.

According to Wikipedia, “The book of Mark was apparently written with a Roman audience in mind.  In it, the character Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions.”

Heroic? The character Jesus was being spoken of as a hero by all the people of his time, no doubt by all the souls he healed, gave sight and those whose limbs he restored.

They” probably thought to themselves, “The followers of this character Jesus will soon forget about all this nonsense, then everything will go back to normal.”

When someone decided to write about the character Jesus their whole world changed. No longer was the character Jesus a folk tale, soon to be forgotten.

Now, the story of the character Jesus would and could be told to everyone, for generations.

Stories about this heroic character Jesus and His miraculous deeds would be remembered forever!

People were probably leaving the synagogues, forming groups, listening to fellow believers read the Gospel of Mark and giving the readers of those “Inspired words of God” all their money!

They” couldn’t have that, so, “They” wrote a Gospel of their own! “They” created their own hero! A Jewish hero! A hero for the Jews! “They” wrote the Gospel According of Matthew!

The new and improved Gospel with the “Virgin Birth” and “Genealogy” was the new craze!

Soon, anyone who could read and get a group of people to listen, was getting paid!

The “Made up” story about that character Jesus had become a “Cash Cow!”

The Gospel of Matthew which featured a “Jewish” hero, the character Jesus and a “Virgin Mary Baby Mama Story” would make way more money than Mark’s, “Grown Ass Man Story!”

Jews had a hard time believing that a carpenter from Nazareth who died on a cross could be their “Messiah.”

No problem! Then came the Gospel of Luke. A hero for everyone! Yes, even the Gentiles!

The problem that existed over 2000 years ago seems to me to be the same problem that exists today, that is, “What to believe?”

What is the truth and more importantly, what does it have to do with today?

The “Ultimate” purpose of this blog is to reverse translate the English translation of the four Gospels. The English translation is the story or stories read and understood only on the surface. The reverse translated stories get down underneath to the “Real” stories that have been hidden for centuries.