I shot him a questionable glance.
“I was a Straight-A seminarian,” he explained. “Regardless, the chain is unbroken. The Bible gives the precise age at which all but three of them sired his firstborn. It also gives the age of death of each of them. One knows who was whose father and who was whose son all the way from Adam to Christ. ‘Adam begot Seth who begot Enos… who begot Jacob who begot Joseph—the father of Christ.’
“In ancient times, with no social practices restricting age at which one could sire one’s firstborn, the average generation length was under seventeen. The mathematical calculation 55 generations multiplied by 17 is 935 years or 929BC for Adam and Eve.
“Bibles tell us differently. Those patriarchs who lived between 3100BC—the time of the first pharaoh—and 1400BC—the time of Moses—lived to an average age of 273. Conversely, the average lifespan of the pharaohs, for the same period, was 33 and the oldest, Ramesses II, lived to the extraordinary age of 86.
“The patriarchs who came earlier—4000BC to 3100BC—lived even longer, Adam living 940 years. Adam was still alive when the Pharaoh Naumer established the Egyptian Empire in 3100BC.
“When the Bible was first put together in a single volume, the authors realized, if these patriarchs had lived normal life spans, it would place the time of Adam and Eve sixteen hundred years after the pyramids had been built. Because the genealogy from Adam and Christ was unbroken, adding patriarchs was not an alternative. The only option was to add extraordinary lifetimes to the early patriarchs to push the date back to 4000BC—acceptable then, but not today—we know mankind goes back tens of thousands of years before that.
“There is no wiggle room here. The integrity of the Bible rests on the fact Adam and Eve were created around 4000BC—the reason no preacher will budge from that date—his credibility is at stake.
“Regardless, when Darwin and Einstein came along, the preacher would show up in the courtroom. Armed only with his immense credibility, he would win every time.
“But where is he today? He is not there. He is not there because he knows the ‘hippie’ now has his film. Darwin and Einstein now have the facts. They will make mincemeat of him.
“Religion is like a work of fine art. One might be an expert in religion. Another might be an expert in fine art. The preacher is the expert in religion. It is his job to win the credulity of his customers so they will respond with their faith and ultimately with their dollars.
“The dealer is the expert in fine art. It is his job to win the credulity of his customers so they will respond with their awe and ultimately with their dollars.
A better way
“Yet, there is a more reliable way to determine a religion is not the true religion than scientific disclaimer.” My ears perked up.
He answered my ears, “The Winning Card!
“Let us consider Mother Church. The thesis of canon law is ‘Some children are born better than others and are entitled to more.’
“Without delving into the handicapped, the remarried, certain ethnic groups, transgenders, morphodites, homosexuals, born-out-of-wedlock children and others deprived of basic rights under the laws of nations by Mother Church, consider the plight of the little girl.
“Canon law conditions children from an early age little boys are better than little girls. Only a little boy can grow up with the power to change a piece of bread into the body of a God—unless, of course, he happened to have been born-out-of-wedlock.
“It doesn’t take scientific disclaimer to determine one is not dealing with the true religion here,” pointing to his head. “Common sense tells us, if we are all children of the same God, all children are created equal. Mother Church has gone astray here. Some children are not born better than others. Yet, these things can change. It is possible to change the Church back to what Christ had intended.”
He paused for a moment to emphasize his summarization, “It is possible to change Christ from what Mother Church has made Him out to be—a piece of bread in a cup—to ‘What is in this for others.’
“Yet, there is a more telling reason one knows the Church as it is today is not the true Church Christ spoke of in the gospels. In Matthew, Christ explicitly defines his Church, ‘When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as Hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in public places, that they may be seen and heard of men. Verily, I say unto you, They have their reward in this life. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, talk to me in secret; and verily, I say unto you, Ye will have ye reward in my Kingdom. When ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do; for they think they shall be heard for their speaking in public places…’4
“Christ tells us His Church should not be the public display we have made of it in the west. He tells us our relationship to God is a direct and sacred one and not the business we have made of it—the definition of religion in all communist societies.
“Roncalli said it best, ‘His Church is not in buildings of wood and stone… it is in your heart. It is in your compassion for others.’5
“Roncalli?” I scratched my head.
“Yes, Roncalli… John XXIII,” he smiled at my ignorance.
“Regardless, religion is not God. It is what ancient and medieval men of motive defined as God in order to accomplish political goals. Today it continues to be a business which entrepreneurs capitalize on man’s tendency to believe in ghosts to accomplish political convictions.
“Yet, the definition of God, religion vs. atheism, is quite similar. Both religion and atheism agree the ground beneath us and the air around us and the space beyond us—actually the composition of all atoms to the core of the earth to the infinity of the universe—is God. That religion decrees God is the air around us is readily seen in that all religions claim God keeps His eye on each of us at all times—a must for preachers to accomplish their political objectives.
“Yet, religion goes a step further. It claims this composition of atoms ‘thinks’ the way we do. It tells us the composition of these atoms is mentally a human being—a Supreme Human Being.
“Scripture claims God made man in His image. Yet, if one relies on common sense, man created God in his image. Even the most gullible of Christians today know that God did not create Adam and Eve as adults. For Darwin and Einstein now have the facts.”
He answered my unasked question. “Besides, there would be no point to it. Both religion and atheism agree ‘God’ created the parts—the atom—from which everything grows. It would make no sense to make each one of us individually. What’s more, if God made each one of us individually He would create each of us as adults. What’s more, He would create each one of us as perfect adults.
“It is most likely the true God is the God we know as a matter-of-fact gives us life—the God of Nature—the God of my atheist father. Studies have shown children who grow up outside religion grow up free of prejudices instilled in children by preachers and are more likely to follow Christ’s instruction, ‘Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.’
“It is that my father was an atheist that made him a true follower of Christ. Also true, as you know, of Karl Marx,” he smiled.
“My father knew if Christ actually performed the miracles said of Him, though a common man, He would be a historical figure like many other common men, like Fulton, Edison, Einstein, Tesla and others who have left their miracles behind.
“It was that my father saw Christ as a man, and not as a ghost, that enabled him to see past the mythology of Christ to the reality of Christ. Although he did not believe a man lived who had performed the miracles that are said of Him, my father did believe good men had written the gospels—men who wanted to do away with the evilness Moses and other ancient ghosts had left behind. My father’s convictions are well founded. They are historical fact.”
“Historical fact?” I pondered.
The Quest for the Historical Jesus
“The Quest for the Historical Jesus6 begun by Reimarus in the eig
hteenth century and followed by a long progression of the world’s leading theologians and historians. It was finally put to rest by Nobel Laureate Albert Schweitzer in 1905, clearly establishing the gospels as theological and not historical documents.
“The consensus of these scholars—among the most brilliant men who ever lived—clearly established Christ a theoretical figure and not a historical figure. Christ was not a man, but an ideology.
“This is still true today. Despite centuries of investigations, no leaf left unturned, no one has ever found the scarcest bit of evidence Jesus Christ ever lived. That is, a man who performed the thirty-five miracles He is said to have performed.7
“This does not conflict with faith. There is no school of theology in the Catholic world that recognizes Christ as a historical figure. Schools of theology teach faith. They do not teach history. Christ is a matter-of-faith—not a matter-of-fact. No pope or theologian has ever challenged Schweitzer’s conclusions.
“Conversely, no history book mentions Jesus Christ. If it were possible to attend in one’s lifetime all the history classes of all the universities in the world since the beginning of time one would never hear the words, ‘Jesus Christ.’ Yet, we have the remarkable phenomenon Jesus Christ is believed by half the western world to have been the most important historical figure who ever lived.
“One will learn of the Pharaoh Naumer followed by a long line of others all the way down to Cleopatra. Along the way one learns of people like Homer, Aristotle, Plato, Alexander, Confucius, Buddha, Tao, Caesar, Diocletian, Constantine, Mohammad, Genghis Kahn, Guttenberg, Galileo, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Magellan, Columbus, Napoleon, Fulton, Washington, Lincoln, Pasteur, Bell, Edison, Salk, Darwin, Einstein, Lenin, Tesla, Hitler, Churchill and millions of others—the overwhelming number of which were born as common men, but, one will never hear the words, ‘Jesus Christ.’
“There is no better example of the confusion of faith and reality than we think of Jesus Christ as a man who actually lived and think of Sherlock Holmes as a man who never lived, whereas just the reverse is true.8
“All western religions thrive on the tendency of the population to believe in ghosts. The religion one pays depends on which ghost one believes in. The ‘Burning Bush’ which spoke to Moses was followed by a succession of two dozen other ghosts appearing to various prophets, each one contradicting what the others had to say which came before it—the reason the Bible is selective reading—one can support whatever one has to say on either side of the aisle.
“Strangely, this ‘ghost’ who claimed to be the God of all of us never appeared to more than one of us at a time. There was no independent witness to any single one of these ghost’s testimony.
“The only thing that separates the Bible from Jack and the Bean Stalk, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella and Goldilocks and the Three Bears is the phrase ‘God—a ghost—spoke to…’ which preface each storyteller’s testimony. Otherwise, it is just a fairytale.
“Yes,” I agreed. “This afternoon, Jack and I concluded Moses lied when he told his many tales.”
The bishop looked at his protégé as if he had missed the lesson of the day. He then turned back to me.
“Moses was not lying. He did not lie when he claimed a ghost—a burning bush appeared to him. He didn’t lie when he claimed to have taken the Commandments on Mount Sinai. He didn’t lie…”
“He didn’t lie?” I looked at Jack.
The bishop responded, “Moses, himself, is a fictional character.
“Today we know the stories Moses is said to have told are fiction. Today, we know the Israelites were not in Egypt at his early time, so we know the stories of the Ten Plagues, the Exodus, the Red Sea Miracle and even the Ten Commandments were fiction. One knows the earth is round and rotating around its sun and is not the flat center of the universe the God of Moses claimed it to be.”
“How can one tell that? None of us were there.” I corrected him.
“That his stories are fiction tells us Moses, himself, could not possibly have written them. Had he written them at his time, people would have known—as we know today—they were fiction.
“Had he written he had led two million people out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea and drowned the Egyptian army together with its pharaoh, the people of his day would have known he was writing fiction because they would have known the Jews had not been in Egypt and the Egyptian army and its pharaoh were very much alive.
“No, the stories were first told at least a few generations after his alleged time, more likely, centuries after his alleged time, probably around 650BC when the history books place the first Jews in Egypt.
“The culmination of all of Moses’ stories is the taking of the Promised Land. They were fabricated by Hebrews with motive of territorial expansion who wanted to convince future generations God gave the rich land on the banks of the Mediterranean Sea to them. As we know today, it worked—much of the western world is convinced God gave that land to the Jews.”
I looked at him as if I had just awakened from the dead.
He smiled and pointed to his temple.
Allowing several minutes for the awakening to take hold, “There is nothing wrong with children believing in ghosts before their sixth birthday. But, when one carries it beyond the world of Goldilocks and the Three Bears and claims this ghost or that ghost dictated some kinds of people are better than others and are entitled to more, men and women of good conscience” pointing, once more, to his temple, “must intervene and stand up for what is right.
“It follows we have the evangelists—from the other side of the aisle—who wrote of Christ as much as a century after His time.9
“A century after His alleged time?” I questioned.
The Mythical Christ
“Although we do not know when the gospels were written we do know the earliest date each of them could have been written because each of them mentions historical events.
“The Gospel of Mark speaks of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (70AD), so we know it could not have been written before 70AD. Matthew and Luke were written after 85AD as they speak of events which did not occur until that time. For this same reason, the Gospel of John could not have been written before 95AD. Although the gospels were most likely written long after these times, we know they could not have possibly been written before these times.
“To see this clearly, one must consider what has survived.” He stepped to the sideboard and retrieved a sheet of paper.
History period written of Earliest possible date10 most probably date10
Mark 24-27AD9
70AD
100AD
Matthew 7BC-27AD9
85AD
105AD
Luke 7BC-27AD9
85AD
110AD
John 24-27AD9
95AD
125AD
Oldest surviving gospel manuscripts
a = tiny fragment of a part of a verse is the oldest surviving gospel manuscript.
Not possible to determine 2nd vs. 3rd century papyri, the speculation this could be as early as 150AD is based on handwriting comparisons prevalent at the time
b = sporadic verses considered unreliable as they contain countless scribal errors
c = Vaticanus substantial manuscript held by the Vatican
d = Sinaiticus complete manuscript of the gospels held by the British Library
e = Alexandrinus partial manuscript held by the British Library
“Conservative scholars claim the scrap dated as early as 150AD proves the gospels were written before then. It supports conservative historians’ claim the gospels were written late in the first century.
“Middle-of-the-road historians place their authorship in the early to mid-second century. No historian places authorship of the gospels prior to the earliest possible historical dates (70-95AD). All agree on the order in which they are written: Mark-Matthew-Luke-John.
“Seminaries get around history by cla
iming the evangelists, being guided by God, were able to predict these historical events and wrote them into the record. Thus we have the widespread misconception the evangelists followed Christ around with notebook and pen.
“Regardless, Mark includes Christ’s ministry, miracles and the Resurrection. Mark speaks of Christ as ‘Son of Man.’ In Mark, three times Christ denies He is God. Mark 10, ‘Jesus said unto him, Why callest me good? There is none good but one, And that one is God.’
“Consistent with his use of ‘Son of Man’ Mark does not mention the Virgin Birth—a requirement of divinity in Greek mythology.
“The most credible of the gospels—Mark—the only gospel that could have possibly been written by a man who could have possibly witnessed Christ’s ministry—clearly denies Christ is God.
“We know Mark was not a direct witness to the events he speaks of or he surely would have told us so. What is more revealing is that he does not cite other witnesses. Mark does not disclose his sources.
“From the beginning of time all nonfiction writers have divulged their sources. The difference nonfiction vs. fiction is one has sources and the other doesn’t. There is only one possible explanation why Mark did not disclose his sources.”
“Possible explanation?” my ears perked up.
“He had no sources. Mark was writing fiction.”
He paused for a moment or two, the time it took for the hairs to curl up and down my neck and run up and down my back.
“Middle of the road historians place the writings of Mark, the first gospel, in the second century because if he had written as early as 70AD, a few could have been alive who had been alive in Christ’s time. They would have not known of a man who performed the miracles he spoke of. Christ performed some of His miracles before thousands of people in Nazareth, a town of ten thousand.
“How can you be so sure Mark wrote the first gospel?”
“Matthew and Luke plagiarize Mark and add the concept of the Virgin Birth. Had Mark plagiarized the others he surely would not have omitted the most fundamental aspect of Christ’s divinity—the Virgin Birth. Mark wrote the first gospel. Bibles place Matthew first so that the New Testament begins with the birth of Christ.
Murder in the Vatican Page 25
