Once a Christian: How the Bible Convinced Me to Walk Away

By Wayne Talbot

You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:2224).

Jesus spoke these words to a Samaritan woman, but the author believes that they should be directed to Christians of all denominations. Jesus preceded these words by stating that the hour is coming when you will, neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. Central to the prophecies is a return to Jerusalem from where the Father will be worshipped forever. Why would Jesus contradict the Father?

Contradictions such as these were largely responsible for the author doubting the authenticity of the texts, or if the texts are authentic, then one must doubt the claims of Jesus being the prophesied Messiah. There were two key issues that the author sought to resolve separately: (1) Does Christianity truly follow the footsteps of Jesus of Nazareth, or did Rome invent its own Jesus, a man who never was? and (2) Was Jesus the prophesied Jewish mashiach of the kingly line of David? Other contentious issues would resolve from those two. Resulting from wide-ranging research, the author concluded that neither Christian precept was true. Believing in God and walking away from Christianity was his only choice.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris AU
• Release date: Jul 11, 2017
• ISBN: 9781543402179

Wayne Talbot

The author, Wayne Talbot, was once a Christian, but continually struggled with what it was that he should believe. Not quite sure, he went back to a beginning, questioning whether in truth, the existence of God was believable. He concluded for God, publishing his reasoning in his first book, “If Not God What?”. Raised in the Catholic faith, but finding some doctrines having no basis in the bible, his studies directed him away from Catholicism to non-denomination Protestantism; from there to Evangelical Christianity; from there to Messianic Judaism; and from there to where he is today - a theist believing in the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, but aligned with no identified religion. His quest for an understanding of God has him studying the ancient texts of Scripture, guided by the published works of numerous Old and New Testament scholars – Jewish, Christian, and secular. Focusing on specific issues has allowed him to see through the fog of doctrine, dogma, and theology, and reach conclusions which he has published in numerous studies, this analysis of prophecy fulfillment being his thirteenth. His journey continues, one that he believes he will never finish, for on many issues, he has only managed to uncover untruth. Though a late starter in the literary field, Wayne Talbot has published a novel, Finding the Shepherd, a pseudo-biographical account which alludes to his own theological wanderings against a background of places he has been, but entirely fictional people and events. He has published a refutation of Richard Dawkins’ Greatest Show on Earth, entitled The Dawkins Deficiency, and an entirely original treatise, Information, Knowledge, Evolution, and Self, which contends that the posited mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to account for the cognitive information and knowledge in humans.

Book preview

Copyright © 2017 by Wayne Talbot.

Library of Congress Control Number:       2017910396

ISBN:               Hardcover                         978-1-5434-0219-3

                        Softcover                           978-1-5434-0218-6

                        eBook                                978-1-5434-0217-9

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Scripture taken from:

The New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982, 1994, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Artscroll English Tanach: The Jewish Scripture. Copyright © 2011, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Chumash, Stone Edition: The Torah, Haftaros, and Five Megillos. Copyright © 2009, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Aramaic English New Testament: Peshitta English Aramaic Critical Edition. Copyright © 2012, Netzari Press LLC. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 07/10/2017

Xlibris

1-800-455-039

www.Xlibris.com.au

754550

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication

Acknowledgements

Author’s Note

Part 1: Thesis & Goals

Chapter 1-1: Why I Reject Christianity

Chapter 1-2: My Personal Journey

Chapter 1-3: On Discernment

Part 2: A Basis for Understanding

Chapter 2-1: Introduction

Chapter 2-2: The Bible

Chapter 2-3: Understanding Christian Thinking

Chapter 2-4: Interpreting Scripture

Chapter 2-5: The Original Faith

Chapter 2-6: Pagan Influence & Corruption

Chapter 2-7: Painting Jesus into Scripture

Chapter 2-8: Defending the Bible

Part 3: Son of God … or Man?

Chapter 3-1: Son of God

Chapter 3-2: Son of Man

Chapter 3-3: Old Testament Apocalyptic Writers

Chapter 3-4: Son in the Gospels

Chapter 3-5: Son in the Epistles

Chapter 3-6: Jesus About Himself

Chapter 3-7: New Testament Development

Part 4: God to Man to God

Chapter 4-1: How Jesus Became God

Chapter 4-2: How God Became Jesus

Chapter 4-3: How God became a Trinity

Part 5: Prophecy Fulfillment

Chapter 5-1: Gospel of Mark

Chapter 5-2: Gospel of Matthew

Chapter 5-3: Gospel of Luke

Chapter 5-4: Gospel of John

Chapter 5-5: Prophecy Fulfillment Conspiracy

Chapter 5-6: Daniel 9 and the 70 Weeks

Chapter 5-7: Jews For Jesus

Part 6: Further Examination of the Gospels

Chapter 6-1: The Royal Line of David

Chapter 6-2: The Synoptics

Chapter 6-3: Gospel of John

Chapter 6-4: Developing Anti-Jewishness

Chapter 6-5: Why Was Jesus Secretive?

Chapter 6-6: The Messianic Mission of Jesus

Chapter 6-7: The Betrayal of Jesus

Chapter 6-8: Eschatology

Chapter 6-9: The Resurrection

Part 7: Acts and the Epistles

Chapter 7-1: Minor and Non-Pauline Epistles

Chapter 7-2: Acts of the Apostles

Chapter 7-3: Paul – Hero or Heretic?

Part 8: The Law

Chapter 8-1: To Obey, or Not to Obey

Chapter 8-2: Jesus and the Pharisees

Chapter 8-3: Jesus on the Law

Chapter 8-4: Understanding the Law

Chapter 8-5: Hellenic Influence

Chapter 8-6: Decline of Jewish Influence

Chapter 8-7: Legalism

Part 9: No Redeemer Necessary

Chapter 9-1: Original Sin

Chapter 9-2: Necessity of a Redeemer

Chapter 9-3: What Scripture Really Teaches

Chapter 9-4: Replacement Theology

Part 10: Review and Summary

Chapter 10-1: One God

Chapter 10-2: Some Other Matters

Chapter 10-3: Where to from Here?

Bibliography

DEDICATION

"The author who benefits you most is not the one who tells you something you did not know before, but the one who gives expression to the truth that has been dumbly struggling in you for utterance."

~ Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, December 15 ~

This book is dedicated to all those authors who awoke in me, serious doubts as to the authenticity of traditional Christian doctrine and theology. The existence of modern Israel, and the continued existence of the culture and religion of the Jewish people, despite two millennia of persecution, had me wondering whether my Catholic upbringing had in fact, suppressed God’s truth.

In my own bible studies, I noticed, as expressed by Catholic scholar, Bernard Lee, "how often scriptural texts have been read in the light of dogma, and were not heard in their original voice."¹ I had already begun to doubt, when the following words confirmed my doubts:

Most Christological interpretation has been ‘supersessionist’, that is, it has interpreted Jesus as initiating a new Covenant that supersedes Judaism. Historically, it is quite improbable that Jesus had any such thing in mind.²

If it was not in the mind of Jesus, then in whose mind was it?

To all those authors, Christian, Jewish, and secular, whose works have encouraged my own research resulting in this book, this is for you.

I can only pray that I done justice to your scholarship and beliefs.

References:

1. Lee, Bernard J., S.M., The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1988, p. 46

2. Ibid, p. 17

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

"I have learnt a great deal from scholars, as often as not,

more of what thoughts to reject than to accept."

~ Anonymous ~

I have studied the works of so many religious authors: Catholics, Protestants, Messianic Jews, and Orthodox Jews, that I cannot honestly say who has influenced my thinking the most, but acknowledge that all have done so to a greater or lesser extent. In this study, I will acknowledge very few directly in the text, but have included a comprehensive list of the most influential reference works in the Bibliography.

There are numerous Christian authors like Oswald Chambers, A.W. Tozer, C.S. Lewis, and Edgar Andrews, whose Jesus narrative I have rejected, but whose gentleness and wisdom have enriched my life enormously. One might argue that they have, in truth, evidenced the Christian case through their example, but a similar argument can be made for the Jewish example: I have found more wisdom applicable to everyday life from the Jewish Sages, than I ever have from their Christian peers. In my studies, I have found no truly unique Christian values – all such values have their origin in Judaism. This should surprise no-one, for as described in the New Testament, Jesus himself was a Jewish rabbi, steeped in the culture of his Jewish community.

I would like to thank all those who have contributed to my studies over the past years, through conversation, debate, correspondence, and their individually published works, for I have learned much, particularly from those who have challenged my thinking, and encouraged me to dig ever deeper.

Most especially, I thank God for giving me the heart to earnestly seek Him, always acknowledging that I will only ever learn, what He will allow me to learn of Him. Researching issues such as religion and the overarching theory of evolution, it has become evident that at best, I can only uncover the untruth that has built up over the centuries, the truth itself ever elusive.

My greatest satisfaction comes from continuing to seek.

In many ways, I am saddened that Christianity is not true, for there is much to like. Christianity has inspired beautiful churches, wondrous works of art, books, poems, music, and hymns. I fondly remember singing the Missa Cantata during my Catholic school days, and still enjoy hearing and singing such works as the Ave Maria, Agnus Dei, and many other devotionals. I continue to be inspired by songs like Somebody Bigger Than You And I, Be Still My Soul, and You Raise Me Up. We often hear of Christian values, but to be fair, they were Jewish values long before Jesus was born, for there is nothing in our relationship with each other, and with Father God, which wasn’t already taught from Torah. And then we have Christmas, that wonderful time of sharing with family, and with those less privileged. Knowing its social value, I choose to ignore its demonstrably pagan origins, including the traditional Christmas tree.

There is something especially heart-warming about Christianity – it is such a shame that it does not have its origins in our Creator, or even I believe, in Jesus of Nazareth.

AUTHOR’S NOTE

"There is none righteous, no, not one … There is none who seeks after God"

(Romans 3:10-11)

When I first read these words, and accepted the preamble: "As it is written", I sought to find where it was written. My NKJV referred me to Psalms 14:1-3, 53:1-3, and Ecclesiastes 7:20. Checking the Psalms, I realised that they had been taken out of context, for the opening lines, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God, had been omitted. The Psalmist was referring to atheists and pagans, not Jews and followers of Jesus, and I began to wonder what message the Apostle Paul was attempting to send. Ecclesiastes 7:20 reads: For there is not a just man on earth who does good, and does not sin." This is a relatively innocuous statement, and hardly supports the misquotation in Romans, but it does offer a truth that Christianity, no doubt influenced by the writings of Paul, seems to misunderstand: that one sins does not preclude them from being considered just in the eyes of God.

In the Gospels, we find that Zacharias and Elizabeth "were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (Luke 1:5-6). Why the apparent contradiction in a book that many claim, is inerrant, being the very words of God Himself? If God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor 14:33), why is the New Testament narrative so confusing? Could it be that God is not the author of the New Testament, and that the Holy Spirit has not been guiding Christian teachings?

When I read Church Father, Eusebius, relating the words of Constantine in relation to Easter: And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews ... Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way¹, I thought to myself: when did Jesus ever direct his followers to a different way, especially in relation to Passover and the Sabbath? Jesus religiously followed the practice of Judaism, and did not consider the multitudes that followed him detestable. Why did Eusebius consider this worth repeating without refuting Constantine? What happened in the years between Jerusalem and Rome?

I am an analyst: by aspiration, inclination, proclivity, training, and occupation, and my antennae began to tingle: What was going on here? Has no-one edited the New Testament for continuity and integrity? If even the most just people sin, yet Zacharias and Elizabeth were considered righteous, how does that reconcile with the Christian claim that there is none righteous, and there is no forgiveness without Jesus? Did not God advise Cain: Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But If you do not improve yourself, sin rests at your door. Its desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it (Genesis 4:6-7, TJB)? Does not the Old Testament tell us that God will abundantly pardon those who repent (Isaiah 55:6-9)? So why would people later develop the notion that we need someone to die for our sins – did God change His mind?

When I read: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3), like the Bereans, I pursued the NKJV references and found that in fact, Jesus dying for our sins was not according to the Scriptures: there is no mention anywhere in the Scriptures of this prophecy. Was Paul attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the scripturally illiterate Corinthians? Check these references for yourself: Psalm 22:15 and Isaiah 53:5-12. The Psalm is clearly irrelevant, and Isaiah 53 has been lifted out of the context of the preceding and following chapters. We will have more to say on that later.

As an analyst, I seek to authenticate any, and all, authorities, ever conscious of the Cult of Authority to which so many meekly succumb. Where the New Testament authors quote the Old Testament, I always check both Christian and Jewish sources, and multiples of each, to verify the accuracy and validity of the quotation, bearing in mind the Hebrew literary device of midrash. When Christian apologists offer proof texts to substantiate their claims, I always check them for myself; also checking the understanding of those to whom "were committed the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2). Who better to understand the prophets than the Sages of that community? To my great disappointment, I have found that a great many of the so-called proof texts, and claimed fulfilled prophecies, were anything but.

It did seem to me that if I were to truly seek after God, I must begin a difficult journey, however reluctantly, else how could I be more righteous than those described in Psalm 14:1?

As one Christian writer observed: "We desperately need to heed what Kierkegaard said about Christianity: ‘The greatest proof of Christianity’s decay is the prodigiously large number of [like-minded] Christians’."²

My Dilemma

Who was / is Jesus of Nazareth?

The first question that I asked of myself was: Should I care? If Jesus was not the prophesied Messiah, should I care who he was, any more than wondering who Buddha was, or Confucius, or any other person of history? Certainly, an interesting chap, who perhaps inadvertently influenced the greatest religious movement in history, but so what? I am not overly concerned with who Mohammed was, other than to understand why Islam is such a popular religion, and why modern fundamentalists seem so intent on slaughtering people. So why care about Jesus?

The only answer I can give is this. I was raised a Catholic, spent years at a Catholic Boys’ boarding school, considered for a time becoming a priest, or maybe joining a religious order like the De La Salle Brothers, and for the greater part of my life, Jesus as Messiah was as real to me as my own parents and siblings. So, firstly, anything so deeply embedded in my life is not easily discarded. Secondly, I am convinced that Jesus was not whom Christianity claims he was, yet somehow, he was so powerfully influential: why was that? Was Jesus himself so influential, or was it the writings about him, and the later interpretations, which so influenced people? Thus, I am curious about Jesus, because he represents a mystery, and I have an insatiable curiosity about all manner of things.

There can be no question that he existed, and whilst I do not accept the New Testament writings in their entirety, neither do I dismiss them entirely. Much of what Jesus is reported to have said, echoes the writings that he would have studied, and the lessons that he would have learned at the feet of his contemporary rabbis. To my mind, that confirms a continuity of the oracles of God, exactly as I would expect. However, as one Jewish commentator opined: everything that is true in the New Testament is old, but everything that is new is untrue. I cannot be certain, but in general, I have come to agree with that opinion.

Here is the paradox: Jesus asserted, "I do nothing of myself, but as my Father taught me, I speak these things" (John 8:28), but if Jesus was God, what need would he have of being taught by the Father? That notwithstanding, the way that Christianity has interpreted his words is contrary to how Jesus would have learned these very same things, from his teachers in the Galilee, and Jerusalem. If one were to write a theological summation of both the Jewish Bible, and the Christian New Testament, they would contradict one another on numerous important points.

How can that be so?

How could God teach one thing to His first-born son (Ex 4:22); confirmed through His oracles and the advantage of the Jew (Rom 3:1-2); send a messiah only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 15:24), [perhaps the sheep of the house of Judah were not lost]; yet come with a different message? The words of God are either eternal truths, or they are not. When God delivered His teachings at Sinai, what we often refer to as commandments, should also be accepted as guidance and eternal truth, because being the words of God, the two terms are synonymous. Did not Matthew write that "Man shall … live … by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4)? Thus, the Sabbath, and other commandments that we are to obey; the irrevocable covenants made with Israel; the clear statements regarding forgiveness available to those who repent; the centrality of Jerusalem in the End of Days; and numerous other truths derived from the Tanakh, cannot be easily dismissed, especially as in the main, Jesus confirmed these things.

It is this paradox that I must resolve.

Experience has taught me that to uncover the truth, one must first strip away the untruth, much as archaeologists must first clear away a jungle, or centuries of debris, to uncover what lies hidden beneath. The truth of God, and Jesus, is I believe, hidden by the misinterpretation of some of what Jesus said; the writings of Paul as he sought to self-identify in what he believed to be the Messianic era; the transition from the Jewish traditions of Jesus to the Gentile philosophies of Rome; and in the compromises of the Hellenic Jews in Alexandria, Antioch, and elsewhere. If I am to believe other words of Jesus as reported in the Gospels, a separate case arises concerning the identity of Jesus, and who he thought he was. We deal with all these issues in later chapters.

Ancient Perspective on Divinity

In Part 3 of this study, we will undertake a brief review of ancient perspectives of divinity, in both the Jewish and pagan religions. I have long been obsessed with how, why, and when, a religion founded by Jews, as practised by Jesus in Jerusalem, became so thoroughly anti-Jewish in Rome: to my mind this made no sense. Christianity clings to the God of the Old Testament, and uses much of that book to justify its own theology and doctrine. At the same time, it claims that the teachings and promises of an immutable, omniscient God, as recorded in that book, were rescinded when the Father sent the Son to die for forgiveness of our sins, quite contrary to what the Old Testament Prophets had to say about repentance and forgiveness.

Paralleling my own obsession is that of Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Bart D. Ehrman, who noted:

As an historian, I am no longer obsessed with the theological question of how God became man, but with the historical question of how a man became God.³

Having studied Jewish literature including the Tanakh, Talmud, Chumash, Siddur, and commentaries by the Sages, and the works of secular historians, I acquired some knowledge of ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Greek religions. From these, I sensed that the notion of a man-god was more pagan than Jewish, and had concluded that there was nothing in the Tanakh (Old Testament) that in any way suggested a Triune God. I contend elsewhere that we should distinguish between divinity and deity, the distinction being that divine is god-like, whilst deity is god. There is evidence from the Tanakh, even from Genesis, that we are made in the image of God, and thus in a sense, divine. In ancient texts, we read of many levels of divinity, and we need keep this context in mind as we explore further. Commenting on this issue, Ehrman observed:

As we will see, even though Jews were distinct from the pagan world around them in thinking that only one God was to be worshipped and served, they were not distinct in their conception of the relationship of that realm to the human world we inhabit. Jews also believed that divinities could become human and humans could become divine.⁴

I am grateful for this referenced study by Ehrman, because it validates my own doubts regarding the truth of Christianity, and fills in some gaps in my thinking. I can highly recommend this study, and will quote from it further as we proceed.

My Watershed Moment

It came as somewhat of a shock to realise that the portrait of Jesus Christ, as painted by Christianity, is a distortion of that real person born in Bethlehem some two thousand years ago. Somehow, in the transition from Jerusalem to Rome, a Jew became a Gentile. A Torah observant Jew, faithful to the will and teachings of the Father, a man who affirmed Torah as he came to rescue the lost sheep of the house of Israel, became a man who established a new religion, discarded Torah, and allowed the Gentiles to craft their own rules, even to the extent of labelling the Jews as Christ Killers. This term, which emboldened Europeans to treat the Jews with hatred and contempt to this very day, could only have been devised by people who had no understanding of the self-proclaimed mission of the Messiah, if in fact, that is who he was.

The Catholic Church claims that the Pope is the legitimate successor of the Apostle Peter, anointed by Jesus himself, yet when did Peter ever express hatred toward the Jews, and blame them for the death of his Master? When did Peter ever turn from Torah, cease observing the God-ordained commemorations, or cease worshipping in the synagogue? How can a church leader who denies Torah, claim to represent on earth, the one who affirmed Torah, asserting that his authority came only from the Father? To the Jew, Torah is God’s infinite wisdom revealed: to the Christian, it is an anachronism, binding on the Jew only as onerous commandments until the coming of the Messiah. Having studied Torah in depth, I find it incomprehensible that anyone who has studied similarly, could ever come to such a bizarre conclusion.

This book explains why I have concluded as I have: that Christianity is a false religion, and that the Jesus Christ of Christianity is a man of fiction, a man who never was. There was a Jewish man named Yeshua, but who he was is a truth which I have yet to uncover. What I have uncovered are the numerous untruths, and it is these that I explain in this study.

Prologue

Let me confess that I have trodden this path with no little fear and trepidation, stepping from light to darkness, entering a tunnel seemingly without end. As I stumbled past pitfalls, clambered over rocks, waded through muddy waters, sheltered from blasts that chilled my soul, and heard the warning cries: Go back, go back, I did indeed turn around, more than once, longing for the warmth of the light that was dimming behind me, terrifyingly, until I could see it no more. Was the path beneath my feet heading downward, in the direction of Hades? Was it the evil one who was drawing me closer? Those words in my head: heretic, revisionist, deviant, blasphemous, anathema – whose voice was I hearing? But I would console myself: surely God will not condemn those who diligently seek Him, even when they are wrong and confused? If I pray to Him for guidance whilst still in this tunnel of ignorance and fear, will He not hear my cry and bring me to Himself? What is faith, if not that?

But then I remembered the advice of Rabbi Tarfon, regarding the study of Torah: "It is not your obligation to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it."⁵

I must keep on, for what I have learned so far will ever prevent me from going back – it is as if some theological bridges have been burned after I crossed them, and I would fail both God and myself, were I to attempt to rebuild them. But almost imperceptibly, I sense a light in the distance. The tunnel seems wider somehow, the path smoother, the air less stale, and I am less frightened. Confidence is returning, for the evidence that I am uncovering seems, to my mind, to be irrefutable. Witnesses are appearing from every direction, and their testimony rings true, for the testimony of each collaborates that given by each other. It is written that the truth shall set you free, but curiously, many seem to prefer: ignorance is bliss, confident that they have already found the truth. Thus, I continue to seek the truth despite my discomfort, for I cannot be sure of the source of that discomfort: God or man, the spirit or the flesh?

I cannot shake this feeling of disloyalty: to family, to friends, to priests and pastors, and to the very Christianity that set my feet on this path in the first place. I fear that some will disown me, as one Baptist minister has already done, with what seemed like acrimony: I was on the slippery slope to hell. But I have a friend in God, and perhaps He can be enough, as He has been for so many of the heroes of faith, whose lives are narrated in the ancient writings. I make no claim of being a hero, but I would like to be. One commentator noted: A Christian is not what we are, but what we aspire to be. A Christian is not what I am, but I am unclear of what I aspire to be, other than someone who seeks after God with all the talents that He has seen fit to grant me.

If you have read this far, then perhaps there is an uncertainty in your own lives, a yearning for truth that remains, as yet, unsatisfied. I pray that it be so.

Wayne Talbot

Kelso NSW Australia

September, 2017

References:

1. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 18-19, Nicene and Post Nicen Fathers, 1979, second series, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525

2. Marie M. Thulstrup, Kierkegaard’s Dialectic of Imitation in Howard A. Johnson and Niels Thulstrup (eds.), A Kierkegaard Critique, [New York: Harper 1962] p 277

3. Ehrman, Bart D., How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Harper One, New York, NY, 2014, p. 2

4. Ibid, p. 45

5. Marcus, Rabbi Yosef, Pirkei Avot: The Ethics of the Fathers, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY, 2011, Mishna 2.16, p. 76

Part 1

THESIS & GOALS

"Who is wise? One who learns from every person."

~ Shimon Ben Zoma, Rabbinic Sage, second century CE ~

I write primarily for my own purposes: I must know the truth of God. I do not expect to find it, at least, not completely, but if nothing else, I should be able to eliminate the untruths that permeate religions. This then, is the goal of this study: understanding the truths and untruths of Christianity.

I have sought a simple, concise, yet comprehensive statement as to why I have rejected the religion which I followed for most of my life, and it comes down to this: In my studied opinion, Christianity fails the test of God’s teachings to His first-born, the Children of Israel.

Thus, to be blunt, I contend that Christianity is a false religion - one of man, not of God.

To many, this is an outrageous claim, I confess to that, but I shall expound on the reasons for my conclusion in greater detail. Further, and this, even perhaps, is the most important issue, I contend that Christianity is not even a religion based on the teachings of the man, Jesus, whom Christianity claims is the Divine Messiah. Again, quoting Catholic scholar, Bernard Lee:

There is little likelihood that Jesus had any conscious intention of founding a new religious institution, either superseding Judaism or alongside it. If for reasons of historical probability, we refrain from an active voice verb saying that Jesus founded the church, Christian faith never hesitates for a moment to say that our church is founded in Jesus the Christ, and in God’s gift of Covenant with us in and through Jesus. Here we are again with the ghosts of continuity and discontinuity, the same ones that haunt Christianity’s own sacred texts: the continuity is clearer in Mark’s Gospel than in John’s; in the genuine Pauline epistles than in the pseudo-Pauline pastoral letters. Christian continuity with Jewishness is my concern in these pages. If Jesus did not step outside Judaism to be who he was in life, can he still be that for Christians today?¹

Note the distinction that Bernard Lee makes here: even though Christians may acknowledge that Jesus did NOT actually found this new religion, the new religion was nevertheless founded IN Jesus. But then the conundrum: If Jesus did not step outside Judaism, how can a religion that not only steps outside Judaism, but repudiates it entirely, claim to be founded in Jesus? It is this utter rejection of practically everything that Jesus taught, practised, and believed in, that has me rejecting Christianity, for in a very real sense, Christianity rejects the true Jesus as revealed in the Gospels.

At the beginning of this study, and perhaps even at the end, I lack conviction on some issues, most especially: the truth of Jesus. I am convinced, however, that Jesus was not as portrayed by Christianity: he was not the prophesied Messiah, he was not God incarnate, and he was not the Second Person of the Trinity. I do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity for this, and other reasons.

When I started earnestly studying the Bible over fifteen years ago, I was a committed Christian, or at least, I thought so. Excepting some specifically Catholic doctrine, I accepted the basic precepts of the broader Christian faith, without being associated with any identified denomination. However, the more I studied, the more my doubts grew. At first, I resisted such doubts, rationalising that centuries of devout Christian scholarship could not be wrong. I have close friends, people whose views I held in high regard, some of whom are also authors of Christian books and commentaries: how, in conscience, could I oppose them? Even today, I maintain my subscription to that most conservative of Christian journals, Touchstone. Why? Because whilst not accepting the Christian theology, the morality expressed therein strikes a chord within me: I am convinced that God would approve.

We must love God above all others: this is my primary axiom.

Jesus is said to have warned: "He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt 10:37). Did he mean Jesus as a man, or Jesus as God? If he was/is God, then the assertion makes sense, but if not, then something is badly amiss. At this stage, I will reaffirm the semantic difference between divinity and deity, one that exists in my mind at least, even if dictionaries do not make that distinction. I would contend that a deity is divine, but a person can be divine without being a deity. Divine relates to being God-like, or relating to God, as in divine liturgy. Jesus, as a special creation of God (if that is who he was), one whose sole purpose on earth was to convey the good news and rescue the lost sheep of the house of Israel, could be considered divine without being a deity. When Jesus stated: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), he could have meant that he and the Father were one in spirit and purpose, although there is evidence that the Jews there present might have interpreted him differently.

We will come back to that line of thought a little later, as I will offer that Christians may be interpreting the Jewish reactions based on Christian presuppositions, not on how the Jews of the time would have understood Jesus’ words. We must immerse ourselves in Jewish culture, Hebraic thought patterns, and the culture overlayed by the Romans and Greeks, before we can be certain that we are correctly understanding the reactions of people as narrated in the Gospels.

Issues in Contention

I find that Christian authors and apologists are, far too often, guilty of begging the question: the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. For example, in a book we discuss in greater detail later, the author often takes refuge in tradition to justify his argument:

The identification of the ‘angel of the Lord’ with the preincarnate Christ does make sense if one engages in a self-consciously retrospective and deliberately canonical and Christological reading of the Old Testament.²

In effect, the author is saying that if you read the Old Testament the way that Christianity wants you to read it, you will understand it the way Christianity wants you to understand it. What sort of logical argument is that?

The most pressing issue I have is the one alluded to earlier by Bernard Lee: If Jesus did not step outside Judaism to be who he was in life, can he still be that for Christians today?. However, I would phrase it this way:

"If Jesus did not step outside Judaism to be who he was in life, do Christians truly follow Jesus when, far from just stepping outside Judaism, they repudiate it entirely?"

I am aware of the arguments for Jesus repealing the Law, but I do not accept them, contending that extreme literary gymnastics are required to derive that meaning from his words. In no particular order, as I struggle to find one, following is a list of my primary issues for which this study seeks resolution:

1. What presuppositions do Christian apologists bring to their reasoning, especially regarding the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture?

2. On what basis, can it be claimed that Scripture is an accurate representation of the Word of God.

3. With so many variations in the translations and extant copies of Scripture, on what basis can anyone decide which is the true version?

4. Was an identifiable Messiah prophesied?

5. What did the prophecies say about the mission of that Messiah?

6. Were there to be two messianic missions: one for the remission of sin, the second occurring in the End of Days?

7. Was Jesus the prophesied Messiah?

8. Did Jesus believe that he was the prophesied Messiah?

9. In what sense, did Jesus see himself as Messiah?

10. Did Jesus always see that he had two missions?

11. Did Jesus’ disciples believe in only one mission initially, and only later conclude that there must be two, their eschatological expectations not eventuating?

12. Can an entity, infinite in all respects, be considered a composite as the doctrine of the Trinity requires, or must God be an indivisible singularity with multiple aspects to His essence, but none separately identifiable from the whole?

13. Can there be three persons in the God-head, each with varying levels of authority and knowledge, or is that antithetical to there being one omnipotent and omniscient God?

14. How can a God, described as omnipotent, be subject to the authority of a higher God?

15. How can a God, described as omniscient, not know something?

16. Does the Old Testament ever suggest the need for substitutionary atonement, or is there sufficient evidence that forgiveness is available to all those who truly repent?

17. How could a God, who hates the spilling of innocent blood, and even more, hates the human sacrifices of the pagans, will that His Own Innocent Son should be sacrificed?

18. If God forgives, does He also forget, thus invalidating any assertion that atonement is still necessary?

19. Is there a prophecy concerning the death of the Messiah?

20. Do the messianic prophecies identify the Messiah as God?

21. Did Jesus believe that he was God?

22. Is Jesus’ belief about himself evidence, ipso facto, that what he believed about himself is true?

23. Is there evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was confused on some issues?

24. The initial Jewish disciples of Jesus were called Followers of The Way, or Nazarenes: what was their view of the continuing authority of Torah?

25. Did Paul truly preach against the Law, or has Christianity interpreted him that way?

26. Does the Gentile Church in Rome truly represent the teachings of Jesus, or were the Nazarenes, whom Rome rejected, the true followers of Jesus?

27. How did the Church in Rome become so thoroughly anti-Jewish, and was that antipathy the reason why so much of Christian interpretation of Scripture, especially the New Testament, an argument against Judaism?

28. Can anti-Jewishness be easily read into the New Testament, even if the authors had no intention of presenting an anti-Jewish tone?

29. Even if Jesus was/is Messiah, and God, is Christian doctrine and theology in accordance with how he lived and what he taught?

30. Did Jesus really fulfill over 100 (350 in some accounts) Old Testament prophecies, or is this a myth based on inadequate translations and misinterpretations, deliberate or otherwise?

31. Do the Gospels narrate implausible events?

References:

1. Lee, Bernard J., S.M., The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1988, p. 17-18

2. Bird, Michael F., How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2014 (with Craig A. Evans, Simon J. Gathercole, Charles E. Hill, and Chris Tilling, p. 36

CHAPTER 1-1

WHY I REJECT CHRISTIANITY

"You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

(John 4:22-24)

Jesus is recorded as having spoken these words to a Samaritan woman, but concluding from extensive research, I contend that they should be directed to Christians of all denominations. Jesus preceded these words by stating that the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. Central to the prophecies is a return to Jerusalem from where the Father will be worshipped forever: why would Jesus contradict the Father?

I need to get this important issue out the way from the beginning, so that readers do not automatically assume, hopefully, that I entirely reject a reality of Jesus, or the New Testament writings. Firstly, I believe there to be a disconnect between the Jewish, Torah-observant Yeshua, and the Jesus as Christianity sees him. It may seem irrational to believe that one can separate Christianity from Jesus, but history demonstrates this to have been so. The original followers of The Way, the Nazarenes, were like Jesus – Torah observant; early Christianity was a messianic sect of Judaism. Late second century onward, Christianity was anything but.

Why?

Regarding the New Testament writings, I do accept them as authentic, in part, but I have two problems with them. Firstly: they are inconsistent and internally contradictory, and the later Gospels evidence theological development. Secondly: it is more the Christian interpretation of them, following the transition to Rome, that has caused me concern. I do not believe that they are necessarily God-inspired, and most definitely reject any notion of inerrancy. There is sufficient internal evidence, that the authors quoted from an unreliable copy of the Greek Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew Bible, and thus, the authors either misunderstood, or that their works were later edited to conform to a developing theology.

I will offer evidence to this effect as we proceed.

There are two elements to the authenticity of the New Testament: (1), historical; and (2), theological. There are parts of these writings which can be demonstrated to be historically true, and other parts, though unproven, about which we can have no reason to doubt. Similarly, however, there are texts which are highly doubtful, even though the evidence against them may be circumstantial only. From a theological perspective, there are texts which conform to the Jewish Bible and thus can be accepted as true, but in the main, the quotations of the Old Testament are inaccurate or misrepresented. This raises the question: what is the source of the quotations? Does the NT quote the Hebrew, the Aramaic, or the Greek texts, and which version(s)? We will come back to that issue a little later in our discussion on the Bible. The primary point however is that the theology associated with a New Covenant, the rejection of Torah, and Jesus as Messiah dying for our sins, is entirely antithetical to the Jewish Bible. To the Orthodox Jew, the New Testament is an abomination and a call to idolatry: I am coming to that view also.

There are three, primary monotheistic religions in the world: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Each has their own definition of the one true God: Yahweh (or whatever you prefer), the Holy Trinity, and Allah respectively: same God, different perspectives, although here note that Islam did not start as a monotheistic religion: Mohammed asserted that his God was the greatest of those that were followed in his culture: this is important as we shall see. We have Yeshua, Jesus, and Isa: same historical figure, different interpretations of who he was, and his mission on earth. If God is identified by His characteristics, what He has revealed to His Creation, and how He has commanded us to live, then we should apply those same considerations to the identity of that man born in Bethlehem some two thousand years ago, just as we do with Mohammed. Each religion has its own perspective, and whilst not all can be right, all can be wrong.

Thus, whilst I have yet to find him, I continue to search for the authentic Yeshua/Jesus/Isa, and whilst I prefer the Hebrew name Yeshua, I will compromise and call him Jesus. Many have trod this same path, and thousands of volumes have been written on the subject, but as there are so many contradictory opinions from reputable scholars, not all of which can be true, then I feel at liberty to evaluate the evidence for myself, and come to my own conclusions. Perhaps I am ornery, but I must own truth for myself, not just accept it from others, unless of course, there is a plausible consensus on an issue. With no undue modesty, I perceive this as intellectual integrity.

So now, back to the authenticity of Christianity.

In brief, it is my considered opinion that Christianity took hold in Rome by compromising with the pagans and entirely repudiating its Jewish beginnings. There is a great deal of evidence for this, and I shall give just a few examples. It is incomprehensible to me that a Jewish Messiah, one who "was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 15:24), and who initially refused to help a non-Jewish woman (Matt 15:21-28), would subsequently:

a. Establish an entirely new, anti-Jewish religion.

b. Abandon Torah.

c. No longer keep holy the Sabbath; and among other things,

d. Change the dates and purposes of God-ordained commemorations.

But this is what Christianity did, either because they were Jewish practices, or to satisfy a pagan community. In short, rather than Christianity having converted Rome, Rome converted Christianity. As I noted earlier, Catholic scholar, Bernard J. Lee, S.M. (Society of Mary, Marists), wrote:

Most Christological interpretation has been ‘supersessionist’, that is, it has interpreted Jesus as initiating a new Covenant that supersedes Judaism. Historically, it is quire improbable that Jesus had any such thing in mind. There is little likelihood that Jesus had any conscious intention of founding a new religious institution either superseding Judaism or alongside it.¹

So now, if Jesus had no such intention, and I believe that to be the case, then it is unlikely that his Apostles, and immediate disciples, had any such intention either. If Paul’s claim of his commission having been given directly by Jesus is true, then it is similarly unlikely that Paul had any such intention. That being so, who did start this new religion which sought to eradicate everything Jewish? One can reasonably conclude that it was the Gentiles, not the Jews, who developed Christianity in Rome, and in the process, threw out the baby with the bathwater. Hatred of the Jews was so intense that development of this new religion became irrational, holding onto only those precepts which were acceptable to the Hellenist mind. Irrational because in the process of their theological development, these new Christians repudiated much of what Jesus is reported to have taught.

But that is one perspective: another is that it was Paul who founded Christianity, and there is much evidence to believe that to be true. James Dunn devotes Part 3 of his book, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, to what he calls The Bimillennial Paul. He opens his discussion with:

There were three absolutely crucial figures in the first generation of Christianity – Peter, Paul and James the brother of Jesus. Of these, Paul probably played the most significant role in shaping Christianity. Prior to Paul, what we now call ‘Christianity’ was no more than a messianic sect within first-century Judaism, or better, within Second Temple Judaism – ‘the sect of the Nazarenes’ (Acts 24:5), the followers of ‘the Way’ (that is, presumably the way shown by Jesus (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4’ 24:14, 22). Without Paul, this messianic sect might have remained a renewal movement within Second Temple Judaism, and never become anything more than that. Almost certainly, that is how James would have preferred the new movement to remain.²

Studying Paul’s letters in the sequence in which they were written, and contrasting the content with the non-Pauline epistles, I am confident of the truth of James Dunn’s observations. Nevertheless, I suspect that Paul himself remained Torah observant throughout his life. Paul often says the right thing, in accord with the Jewish beliefs of his time, but just as often appears to say the wrong thing. In a later chapter, I will offer evidence that such appearance is often due to misinterpretation by the later Church in Rome. However, on one issue he was clearly wrong, and there is textual evidence that this influenced his thinking, and some of his instructions to his followers: he believed that Jesus, as Messiah, was soon to return, perhaps even within Paul’s own lifetime.

As for the passages in Paul’s letters which, I believe, have been misinterpreted by Christianity, perhaps even deliberately, let me offer just one example here:

But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known to God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years, I am afraid for you lest I have laboured in vain. (Gal 4:8-10).

Every Christian commentary that I have read on these verses, offers the same interpretation: that the Galatians were returning to the weak and beggarly elements of Jewish worship. Now clearly that is nonsense. Before they knew God, the Galatians, as pagans, worshipped the Roman gods and celebrated the various Roman festivals throughout the year. A study of Pax Romanus reveals that all under Roman rule, except Jews, were required to do so under the pain of death. How could pagans celebrate as the Jews did even before they knew God? To participate in Judaism is to affirm a knowledge of God.

If Paul really did believe that the worship practices of Judaism, the same ones that Jesus observed, and that Paul too observed, were weak and beggarly, then he was a hypocrite and a liar.

Development of the Notion of Divinity

I have read but few apologetics on this as a subject, but it is essential to our understanding of how Jesus came to be considered God. A later chapter discusses this in more detail, but as historian Bart Ehrman counsels, rather than ask: Did Christians think of Jesus as God?, we should more correctly ask: "In what sense did Christians think of Jesus as God?"³ [italics in original]. In the ancient world, God was not separated from humanity in an absolute sense, but rather, there were gradations of divinity: smaller gods subject to the Big God at the top. In the Judaeo/Christian Apocrypha, the celestial realm consists of Seven Heavens. Even the Apostle Paul referred to this concept: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago … was caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2), the third being the Clouds. Now Paul’s conversion is generally dated around AD 33-36, and 2 Corinthians, AD 58. Paul stated: It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast (12:1), so it is possible that Paul here was referring to the visions he had on the road to Damascus, although the timing of fourteen years suggests a later experience.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that Paul accepted the concept of the Seven Heavens. Note also that in the narrative of the ascension of Jesus, he was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight (Acts 1:9). The wording is again, suggestive of the Seven Heavens, and at a deeper level, suggests that the contemporary thinking was not that Jesus was God in the sense of being equal with the One God, but that he was divine at a lower level. I have that same sense from Paul’s writings.

As ever, we must understand the ancient writings in their then contemporary sense, and attempt to understand the thinking behind the words, based on the cultural beliefs then extant.

Anti-Jewishness of Rome (and Christianity)

I would like to write chapter and verse on this topic, it angers me so much, but as others have written more extensively on the subject, and I have so many other topics to cover in this study, I will leave it to the reader to pursue the subject further for themselves. As a starting point, I can highly recommend this study⁴ by Isaac Jules, but I do want to give you a flavour of what occurred, so that you can, perhaps, understand where I am coming from, and why I feel this anger toward the early Church of Rome.

Church Father, Eusebius, quoting Emperor Constantine, declared in relation to Easter:

And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance for future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way.⁵

Nothing in common, i.e., the abandonment of the very basis of Judaism, the religion that God ordained. How can a Saviour, whose very authority came from the Father, present a different way: did God change His mind? If Christianity has nothing in common with the Jews, then how can it have anything in common with that most Jewish of men, Jesus of Nazareth? Christianity condemns itself.

Pope Paul IV, who hated Jews, drew up the Papal Bull Cum nimis absurdum which stressed that the Christ-killers, the Jews, were by nature slaves, and should be treated as such. They were restricted to a particular area called ghetto, originally in Venice. There is evidence that this term stems from the Venetian word gheto or ghet referring to the slag heap from a foundry, which given the hatred of the Jews at the time, seems entirely plausible as an insult. Centuries later, the Third Reich copied every restriction that this Pope had originally imposed on the Jews. I do wonder what this Pope thought of Matthew 22:39; perhaps the Gospels were not studied in Rome at the time.

This anti-Semitic tradition was carried on by Innocent III, and the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. A succession of popes reinforced the ancient prejudices against Jews, treating them as lepers, unworthy of the protection of the law. Pius VII was followed by Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX — all good pupils of Paul IV. Leo XII (1823-9) even forbade vaccination against smallpox for Jews during an epidemic.

You can Google John Chrysostom, or Saint John as the Catholic Church lauds him, but what sort of saint was he? According to one, Cardinal Newman, he was a bright cheerful gentle soul, a sensitive heart, a temperament open to emotion and impulse, and all this elevated, refined, transformed by the touch of heaven - such a man was St. John Chrysostom.⁶ He certainly sounds like a nice chap, just the sort of Christian one feels that one should emulate. However, here is another observation:

"He was known as one of the most eloquent preachers of truth and love, his very name, Chrysostom, means ‘golden-mouthed’. This man was esteemed as one of the greatest of the ‘Church Fathers’. But somehow all his compassion, all his sensitivity and gentleness were lost in dealing with the Jewish people. According to Chrysostom:

The synagogue is worse than a brothel … it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts … the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults … the refuge of brigands and debauchees, and the cavern of devils. [It is] a criminal assembly of Jews … a place of meeting for assassins of Christ … a house worse than a drinking shop … a den of thieves; a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and abyss of perdition."⁷

Well, that about covers it, not too many sins left to list, and this from a man, an Archbishop no less, a Saint of the Catholic Church, who had vowed to follow the Messiah, one who had taught his disciples to love their enemies. I wonder what changed after the death of Jesus, the man who attended the synagogue every Sabbath, the man who therein worshipped the Father and preached the Scriptures? Now think about that for a moment: If hatred for the Jew was in the heart of this Church Father, the Archbishop of Constantinople, were his sentiments shared by the Church in Rome? If so, what is the likelihood that such hatred carried over into their interpretation of the Gospels and Epistles? Is it likely that early Catholic scholars, and theologians, were inclined to see the Christ as the Torah observant Yeshua of Nazareth, a messenger from God seeking to rescue the lost sheep of the house of Israel, or as a Torah refuting Jesus, affirming that the Jews had entirely lost their place in God’s favour?

If the Church of Rome viewed the Messiah that way, can we trust what they have taught Christians to believe ever since?

As I referred to earlier, one of my study references is a very disturbing book, The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, by Jules Isaac⁸. Page after page details the anti-Jewishness of the Christian churches, which led inevitably to Hitler using it as an excuse for the Holocaust:

My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them ... How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison?

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."⁹

I would not, for one moment, accept Hitler’s polemic on this issue, but that he spoke these words, and believed that others would believe him, is evidence of the prevailing anti-Jewishness of the times, especially as so many people and powers across Europe, seemingly had no objection to his treatment of the Jews. Regarding how anti-Jewishness in Europe was perpetuated by the Catholic Church, Jules Isaac continued:

Christian theology, once started in this direction, never stopped. Utterly convinced of its rights, it has repeated and propagated these mythical arguments tirelessly, with methodical thoroughness, through all the powerful means that were - and still are - at its disposal, for hundreds and hundreds of years, its thousands and thousands of voices indoctrinating each successive generation … The result is that the myths propagated in this manner have eventually taken on the shape and consistency of facts that have become incontestable.¹⁰

One might recall that prior to, and even after the horrors of the Holocaust, supposedly Christian nations such as the US, UK, and Australia refused the immigration of Jewish people.

More Questions

Who was, or is, Yeshua of Nazareth?

Quite frankly, I do not know, I just do not know. Could he have been the Messiah? Possibly, but as far as I can tell, he did not fulfill the over one hundred prophecies that Christianity claims that he did. Similarly, I can find no prophecies of a messiah dying for the redemption of sin, and nothing in the Tanakh that even suggests such a necessity.

Why am I walking away from Christianity, a religion supposedly based on the teachings of this man, one whom I do not recognise?

Perhaps if Christian apologetics did not contain so many contradictions, non-sequiturs, circular arguments, and logical fallacies, I may have found the theology to be sound, rather than an incoherent narrative. Perhaps if Christian theologians had not misquoted the Scriptures of old, had not twisted and retranslated them to serve their own ends, and had not ignored so many passages that contradicted their doctrine, I may have remained a Christian. Perhaps had the Church Fathers not been so anti-Jewish, and had not repudiated God’s commandments in Torah, I might have remained. Perhaps if the Christians of Rome had not compromised and collaborated with the pagans, but had instead kept holy the Sabbath, and remembered the various God-ordained commemorations, I might have found truth in their professed beliefs.

But they did all of those things, and called themselves the New Israel.

Studying the Gospels alone, I find no justification for the doctrines that subsequently arose in the Church of Rome. I am convinced that Jesus did not preach, nor intend to be understood, in the sense of Replacement Theology (Supersessionism). I am convinced, as I have stated earlier, that he had no intention of starting a new religion, either replacing or alongside Judaism, nor did he want anyone to do so on his behalf. I am also convinced that at no stage did Jesus teach that the Law, as given in Torah, was no longer in force. I am convinced that nothing in his teachings can be construed as meaning that he instituted a new, replacement covenant, effectively obsoleting and voiding all of God’s previous covenants with His first-born, the Children of Israel. I have published an extensive evaluation on that latter subject in my book, The New Covenant on Trial: Examining the Evidence for a Replacement Covenant ¹¹.

Thus, to answer my own question: Who was Jesus?

Quite honestly, I do not know, but I wish that I did.

I