Mt:18:8: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mt:18:9: And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Here Jesus repeated himself (Mt. 5:29-30). This time, though, he implied that if we fail to lop off an offending hand or foot, we might be "cast into everlasting fire". That would certainly be a painful experience! Note that Jesus called the fire everlasting, not our stay in the fire. His words do not imply that we would somehow survive the fire, stay in the fire, and somehow continue to be burned but remain whole for eternity. Modern Christian theologians think that Jesus had Gehenna in mind: the city garbage dump where fires were kept burning. His listeners knew that things cast into the everlasting fires of Gehenna were quickly consumed and reduced to smoke and ashes. They would not have imagined the later Christian view of eternal pain and suffering in a fiery hell.

But Jesus’ words have caused fear, untold suffering, and mental illness in his followers for centuries. Too bad God wasn’t more clear when he dictated his book.

If we attempt to take Jesus’ words to mean what theologians taught they meant until very recently, they don’t make sense. The theologians used to say that when a wicked person (i.e. someone with unamputated offending appendages) dies, their immaterial soul goes to hell to be burned forever. But how could Jesus speak of an immaterial soul having hands, feet, and eyes? These are components of the physical body, not of a bodiless soul. Obviously Jesus was speaking of physical bodies which would quickly be consumed in a fire.

I wonder how much good these words of Jesus (or his inventors) can really be said to have done for mankind? Does anyone today believe that their hands, feet, or eyes can lead them to sin? Does anyone really believe that cutting them off or plucking them out is a good idea? No, somehow Christians attempt the "that doesn’t mean what it says" excuse. But when it comes to the everlasting fire, they have long taken it literally. Jesus’ words here have done much harm to ignorant humans for centuries, and I doubt very much that they ever did anyone any good.

Mt:18:15: Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mt:18:16: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mt:18:17: And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

I like the first verse of this set of verses. I would rather have someone come directly to me and tell me if something I did offended her. But I’m not so fond of the remaining verses. Jesus says that every accusation may be established by two witnesses. Failing that, the "church" (whatever Jesus meant by that in his time, since, of course there were no Christian churches, only Jewish Synagogues) would take over the matter, and if the offending person still didn’t repent, he would be ostracized.

The problem with this is that the accused is nowhere given an opportunity to plead his case or call his own witnesses. The accuser’s witnesses serve as the judge and jury, and the "church" accepts their accusation as true as long as there are at least two of them. That is hardly an ideal system of justice. The American legal system, though far from perfect, and created by "mere" human minds, is much more just.

Mt:18:19: Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mt:18:20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Well, now I see why our little experiment failed before: you were alone in praying for your million dollars. So let’s follow Jesus’ amended guide: get someone else to pray together with you for that million bucks (you’ll have to split it with her, but it’s worth it to prove Jesus’ words true)… What? You both prayed and you still didn’t receive your million dollars? You’d better re-read Jesus’ words and try again. You’ll see that this simply cannot be; he stated categorically that if two people agreed on what they asked for, his Father in heaven would grant their wish.

Mt:19:3: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mt:19:4: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mt:19:5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mt:19:6: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mt:19:7: They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mt:19:8: He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Mt:19:9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Here Jesus all but said, "The laws of Moses were made by Moses, not God, and they contradict the law of God." In other words, Jesus accused Moses of breaking this law:

Deut:4:2: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

But whether or not Moses broke this law, Jesus certainly did by adding his stricter rules to it.

Mt:19:12: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Here Jesus told us of yet another way that men might obtain membership in his kingdom of heaven: by cutting off their testicles!

Mt:19:16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mt:19:17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Once again, Jesus reiterated his belief that keeping the commandments of the law leads to salvation. Here would have been a perfect opportunity for Jesus to explain that the law had now passed away and all one needed to do to have eternal life was to believe in Jesus and his upcoming sacrifice. But instead, Jesus said the exact opposite of what Paul would’ve said had he been asked this question.

Also, Jesus either said here that he was not good or that he was God. Since Christians maintain that Jesus was good, they must hold that Jesus was here calling himself God. The problem with this is that Paul said:

1Cor:8:6: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Thus, Paul made a plain distinction between "God, the Father" and the "Lord Jesus Christ". We know that Jesus repeatedly referred to God as his "Father", but never referred to himself as the Father. And since even Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus was "God the Father", it follows that if we believe Paul’s words about there being "but one God", then Jesus could not be God. How then can we take Jesus’ words that "no one is good but God"? We would have to take these words at their most obvious meaning: he meant that he was not God and (therefore) he was not good.

Mt:19:23: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mt:19:24: And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mt:19:25: When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mt:19:26: But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

But how could it be impossible for men when Jesus stated that nothing was impossible for his believers (Mt. 17:20)?

The idea that the rich could not enter heaven contradicts the promises in the Old Testament of wealth for the righteous as well as Jesus’ own words just a few verses later (but which are elaborated in Mark):

Mk:10:29: And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
Mk:10:30: But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Here Jesus promised great riches to his believers -- but didn’t he just say that a rich man could not enter heaven? Yet he also tells his apostles that they will "sit in the throne of his glory, upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, and we assume Jesus’ throne is in heaven (Mt. 19:28). One could argue that Jesus was not promising them material wealth, and was referring to spiritual brothers and sisters. But what about the "land"? What "spiritual" land do Christians receive "an hundredfold now in this time"? Since there is no such thing as spiritual land, it follows that Jesus was speaking literally. Jesus was speaking of forsaking literal material wealth for his sake, and so it seems he was promising literal material wealth "an hundredfold now in this time" to those who would forsake what they had. He was offering a bribe for people to believe in him. Since those words were written, millions have believed in him, but only a very few have ever experienced a hundredfold increase in material possessions. Besides, how could one ever have a hundred mothers as Jesus promised?

Mt:20:23: And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Jesus’ lack of authority in heaven contradicts what he later said:

Mt:28:18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

If "all power" had been given to him, he should at least have a say in where people will sit.

Mt:21:19: And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
Mt:21:20: And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

But in Mark’s account of the same incident the fig tree does not wither quite so soon; it is not until the following day (Mark 11:20). More importantly, the attitude Jesus displayed here showed that he regarded nature as only existing for man’s good. If something in nature was not fulfilling his immediate needs, then it deserved to be cursed and destroyed. This same attitude, pursued by men for millennia, has resulted in the ecological crisis we have today.

Mt:21:22: And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

It’s time to ask for your million dollars again. I guess you don’t need a companion to ask with you after all.

Mt:21:23: And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
Mt:21:24: And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
Mt:21:25: The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
Mt:21:26: But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
Mt:21:27: And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Jesus evidently was fully aware that he was teaching something else other than the law, and so deserved the priests’ censure in light of Deuteronomy 4:2 and his own words at Mt. 5:19. So, he equivocated by asking them a controversial question and then refused to answer their question since they could not answer his. It seems to me that Jesus was unfair to the priests and elders. They believed, according to the same Scriptures Jesus liked to quote from, that God had given them custody of the law and authority to teach and uphold it. When they saw someone "adding to" and "taking away from" the law, it was their "God-given" duty to ask such a person by what authority he spoke. Since Jesus refused to answer them it seems grossly unfair to judge them in a bad light since Jesus purposely withheld information from them.

According to the Bible, God laid down a law, and he said that anyone who tried to change this law or taught men to disobey the law should be killed without mercy. Without a doubt Jesus was guilty of these things. The priests gave him every chance to clear himself and explain the situation. Jesus purposely evaded their questions. What choice did he leave them?

We might argue that if the miracles are true, the priests should’ve realized Jesus was the Messiah. But how would they know if he was a false prophet or not? Jesus himself warned:

Mk:13:21: And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
Mk:13:22: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

So signs and wonders would not establish Jesus as the true Christ. So, if you were to see someone performing miracles you’d have to find out more about him by going to the source and asking him. If he refused to answer your questions there would be no basis for thinking he was the true Christ.

Mt:23:1: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mt:23:2: Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mt:23:3: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

As has been pointed out previously, the same could be said of Jesus. There follows many verses in which Jesus calls the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, and yet Jesus himself was hypocritical.

Mt:23:29: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mt:23:30: And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mt:23:31: Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mt:23:32: Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mt:23:33: Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Here again Jesus was holding one’s ancestry against one. His words could hardly have been taken as a prayer or a blessing. It is clear that he was cursing his enemies, and therefore was himself guilty of hypocrisy (Mt. 5:44).

Mt:23:35: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mt:23:36: Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Here, Matthew slipped up; Zacharias, the son of Barachias had not been born yet at the time Jesus supposedly lived.

How could it be fair for this one generation to be held responsible for all of the blood shed upon the earth since Abel? What did they have to do with Abel’s death, or anyone else that had been killed before they were born? Here again we have the gross injustice of punishing the descendants for their distant ancestor’s sins!

We have now come to the place in the narrative where Jesus told the signs which shall mark his second coming and the end of the world. Every generation which has read these words (up to and including our own) has thought them to apply to their own time. If you go back a hundred years and read what Christians were writing then you will see that they saw the wars and crime of that time as fulfilling the "signs". You can continue to go back a hundred years more, or as far back as you care to go and see the same thing. The signs were generic enough to apply to any time. But, listen to what Jesus said to the people of his time after mentioning all of the signs of the end:

Mt:24:34: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

The writers of Matthew, looking back on the destruction of the temple about 70 CE could rightly say this. In hindsight they could put these words into Jesus’ mouth and make him predict the Roman desecration of the temple:

Mt:24:15: When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

To have pagan Romans standing in the holy Jewish temple was certainly an abomination and it certainly happened before Jesus’ generation had passed away. But Jesus did not come soon afterwards. Christians have been awaiting his return for nearly 2,000 years now. So Jesus prophecy concerning his "second coming" failed.

Mt:24:35: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

This is bad news indeed for the meek who are to inherit the earth. The statement that the earth shall pass away contradicts Eclesiastes 1:4:

Eccl:1:4: One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Of course the statement that heaven shall pass away is also bad news for Christians who hoped to live there with Jesus in the afterlife!

Mt:25:29: For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

This very sentence is self-contradictory. If someone "hath not" you cannot take away "that which he hath"; he hath nothing to take away! Jesus used these words to conclude his parable of the faithful and evil servants, in which he chastises the evil servant for not investing his money:

Mt:25:26: His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
Mt:25:27: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
Mt:25:28: Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

Mt:25:30: And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to lend to others without charging interest or hoping to get anything back:

Lk:6:34: And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
Lk:6:35: But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

He also told us not to even worry about tomorrow, especially as regards money:

Mt:6:24: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mt:6:25: Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Mt:6:33: But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mt:6:34: Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

It seems the "evil servant" in his parable was only "evil" because he was following Jesus’ words above.

Next, we come to Jesus’ parable of the "sheep and goats" in which he divides people into these two categories, rewarding his sheep-like followers and punishing the "goats":

Mt:25:46: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Believers in a literal hell of fire and brimstone interpret this to mean that unbelievers will experience conscious pain forever. Such an idea is as repugnant to a sense of justice as it is to the notion of a God of love (although it comports well with the God of the Old Testament). Christians who do not believe in the literal fire-and-brimstone variety of hell hold that since this was a parable, the "everlasting punishment" is no more literal than the "sheep" or the "goats". An everlasting punishment could just as easily be an eternal unconscious death, or simply a separation from the presence of God.

Mt:26:7: There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
Mt:26:8: But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
Mt:26:9: For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
Mt:26:10: When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
Mt:26:11: For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

So Jesus taught that since we don’t live forever we might as well enjoy our luxuries and not bother about giving to the poor. This is in direct contradiction of what he told the rich man:

Lk:18:22: Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

I guess Jesus figured that the poor were blessed because "theirs is the kingdom of heaven," (Mt 5:3) so he evidently felt that we don’t need to help them out on earth. His statement, "for ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." also contradicts the following:

Mt:28:20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

At the "last supper" Jesus announced his betrayal, and said:

Mt:26:24: The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

We are asked to believe that God planned Jesus’ death as a sacrifice to atone for mankind’s sins. Yet he condemned a necessary player in his grand scheme. This hardly seems fair.

Jesus went on to tell them that they would all deny knowing him. Peter alleged that he would never deny Jesus, and Jesus told him:

Mt:26:34: Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

In case we’re in any doubt, Luke also records Jesus words as follows:

Lk:22:34: And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

That is very clear: the cock would not crow at all until Peter had denied knowing Jesus three times. But Mark’s account relates that the cock crew immediately after the first time Peter denied knowing Jesus:

Mk:14:66: And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:
Mk:14:67: And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
Mk:14:68: But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
Mk:14:69: And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
Mk:14:70: And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
Mk:14:71: But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
Mk:14:72: And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

We see that Mark put different words in Jesus’ mouth in order to make his "prophecy" comport with the reality of what happened, and so Mark contradicts Matthew and Luke as to what Jesus said and what happened.

Mt:26:39: And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

What Jesus asked of his Father was not granted according to the Bible; Jesus was crucified. Jesus told us that whatever we ask the Father for would be granted (Mt. 7:7-11), but what Jesus asked for here was not granted. So Jesus was wrong.

Jesus showed by his words "let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" that his will was contrary to the will of God. Therefore Jesus could not be God ("a house divided against itself shall not stand" Mt. 12:25-26), and Jesus did not willingly sacrifice himself for our sins. The account of his words plainly shows that if there were any way possible of getting out of it he would have gladly taken it.

Remember that Jesus also said that "with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26) If that’s true, then why does Jesus pray, "O my Father, if it be possible…"? Such words indicate that Jesus did not believe that all things were possible for God. Therefore he lied to us and he was a hypocrite to profess something he did not believe. But this brings up another interesting point: why couldn’t God have come up with a different method of "salvation"? Why was it impossible for him not to sacrifice his son? There are many instances in the Bible where God simply forgave or overlooked the breaking of his laws (Jesus himself gave us the example of David breaking the law without invoking any punishment in Mt. 12:3-4). So why wasn’t it possible for God to forgive Adam and Eve, or at least their descendants? Why wasn’t it possible for God to have Jesus deliver the following as his "good news" message:

"You heard that it was said that a son shall bear the sin of the father. But I say unto you that a son will no longer bear the sin of the father, but let every man’s sin be upon his own head. For the kingdom of heaven is like unto these little children, spotless from the womb. For nothing that comes out of the womb is defiled, but is of God. It is only through one’s own sin that one becomes defiled and unworthy of me."

Had this passage actually occurred in the Bible, theologians would be quick to cross-reference it to:

Ezek:18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This verse contradicts the notion of "original sin." If it’s true that "with God all things are possible", then he surely could’ve used this scripture or come up with some such solution to save his son. It does no good to argue, as Hebrews 9:22(RSV) does, that: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins". Such a statement is contradicted by the many other rituals of forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament. Blood was only one of many ways to obtain forgiveness of sins. Other ways included: prayer (Num. 14:17-20; Hos. 14:1-4), flour (Lev. 5:11-13), jewelry (Num 31:50), and money (Ex 30:15-16). So it should’ve been possible for this omnipotent God of love to grant his only-begotten son’s prayer; he wouldn’t even have to break his own law (though he had broken his own law on numerous occasions with less reason and no qualms).

Punishing the descendants of Adam and Eve for Adam and Eve’s sin is unjust. Killing Jesus in order to forgive the descendants of Adam and Eve for Adam and Eve's sin is also unjust. No civilized court on earth would accept a surrogate prisoner. If you commit a crime and are sentenced to prison and I offer to go to prison in place of you I would be laughed out of court; justice can not be served by proxy. Every man knows these things as common sense. But God evidently thinks that two wrongs make a right.

Mt:26:48: Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
Mt:26:49: And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.

Why did the henchmen of the chief priests and elders require Jesus to be pointed out to them in this manner? Didn’t they already know all too well who he was?

Mt:26:52: Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

If Jesus didn’t like swordplay why did he instruct his followers to sell their garments in order to buy swords just hours before?

Lk:22:36: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

At the hearing Jesus refused to speak in his own defense or explain his purpose on earth, leaving the authorities little choice:

Mt:26:63: But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mt:26:64: Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Jesus did not answer the question, and seemed unable to distinguish a question from a statement. The priest did not state that Jesus was Christ, the Son of God, he asked him if he were. Jesus’ reply "Thou hast said" is untrue.

The High Priest has long since died, and never saw Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven, so Jesus’ prophecy did not come true

Mt:27:3: Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Mt:27:4: Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
Mt:27:5: And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Mt:27:6: And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
Mt:27:7: And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Mt:27:8: Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Although this says that Judas hanged himself, and the chief priests bought the field, the account in Acts says something very different:

Acts:1:16: Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Acts:1:17: For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Acts:1:18: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Acts:1:19: And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

According to the writer of Acts, Judas was the one who purchased the Field of Blood, not the chief priests. And, according to Acts Judas did not hang himself, but fell and "burst asunder". The two accounts also disagree as to why the field was named "the field of blood".

Mt:27:11: And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
Mt:27:12: And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
Mt:27:13: Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
Mt:27:14: And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.

Once again Jesus mistook a question for a statement and refused to explain who he was or what he was trying to accomplish. Hearing only accusations and no defense, Pilate had little choice.

Mt:27:28: And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

John disagreed about the color of the robe:

Jn:19:2: And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

When was this robe put on him? According to John, it was during his trial (Jn. 19:2-5). According to Matthew 27:26-28 and Mark 15:15-17 it was put on after his trial.

Mt:27:33: And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
Mt:27:34: They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
Mt:27:35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Luke tells us that it was not Golgotha where Jesus was crucified, but rather Calvary:

Lk:23:33: And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

When they got to the place of crucifixion, what did they give him to drink? According to Matthew, it was "vinegar mingled with gall". But Mark tells a different story:

Mk:15:23: And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

Matthew tells us that they cast lots for his garments, but John tells us that they did not cast lots for his garments (plural); they ripped up his garments and only cast lots for his coat:

Jn:19:23: Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
Jn:19:24: They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Matthew does not tell us when the crucifixion took place, but John tells us it was after the sixth hour:

Jn:19:14: And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
Jn:19:15: But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Jn:19:16: Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

Mark, however, tells us it was the third hour:

Mk:15:25: And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Mt:27:37: And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

What was it that was written over Jesus’ head?

Mk:15:26: And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

How’s that again?

Lk:23:38: And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Tell me once more; I want to make sure I have it exactly right. What was written above Jesus’ head?

Jn:19:19: And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Here is a clever attempt at reconciling these four contradictory statements: the statements were written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew and each language had a slightly different message. That accounts for three of the four, but what about the fourth? Well, Matthew and Mark quoted the same message, but Mark just left off the first word.

One problem with this attempted reconciliation is that Luke says that all three languages said the same thing: "This is the king of the Jews," with no mention of the name "Jesus" at all. So there is no getting around the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew and John.

Mt:27:38: Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
Mt:27:39: And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
Mt:27:40: And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Mt:27:41: Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
Mt:27:42: He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
Mt:27:43: He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Mt:27:44: The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

Mark tells us the same thing about these two thieves:

Mk:15:27: And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
Mk:15:32: …And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

But Luke tells us something totally different about one of the thieves:

Lk:23:39: And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
Lk:23:40: But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
Lk:23:41: And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Lk:23:42: And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Lk:23:43: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

So which are we to believe? Did both of the thieves revile Jesus, or did one defend him and become "saved"? The only way out that I can see is to hold that one of the thieves at first reviled Jesus and later repented. This explanation is not very likely given the very limited amount of time he had to convert from a reviler to a believer, and the fact that he said he expected Jesus to save himself if he were truly the son of God.

In Luke’s account Jesus says "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise". But, according to the Catholic creed, Jesus "descended into hell and on the third day he rose again". Hell, by most accounts, is not "paradise". The Bible itself doesn’t go so far as to say Jesus was in hell, but Jesus prophesied that he would be "in the heart of the earth" for three days following his death. Is the "heart of the earth" the location of "paradise"? Or are we to believe that Jesus spoke of his body only, and his spirit went immediately to heaven upon death and hung around there for a couple of days and then re-entered his stiff, putrefying body? If all of this is true, the unknown thief that was crucified next to Jesus was the first human to enter into heaven (in light of Mt 11:11). It’s odd that the writers of Matthew, Mark, and John omitted such an historic event!

One attempt to reconcile all this is to say that in the sentence, "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise" the comma is misplaced, and it should read, "Verily I say unto thee To day, shalt thou be with me in paradise". In other words, "today" refers to when Jesus made the statement, not to when the thief would be with him in paradise. But as there is no punctuation in the ancient Greek manuscripts, and only one translation (that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) puts the comma where this argument says it’s supposed to be, the likelihood of its being true is not high.

We now come to the last words of Jesus before he died:

Mt:27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

What an incredibly strange thing for the Son of God to say! He supposedly knew that he had come to earth to die "for remission of sins" (Mt 16:21; 26:28) according to God’s plan. Did he think God would stop the killing at the last moment as he had done for Isaac? Did he assume that all things were possible for God and that God had found a way to "let the cup pass" from him at the last moment, figuring that Jesus had suffered enough? In a word: did Jesus think his prayers in the garden of Gethsamane were really going to be answered?

Why would Jesus ask God "why hast thou forsaken me" unless Jesus believed that God really had forsaken him? Jesus’ question was not "have you forsaken me?" it was "why have you forsaken me?" So there was no question in Jesus’ mind whether or not God had forsaken him. He felt that God had forsaken him, and he was asking God why he had forsaken him.

Jesus was either right or he was wrong about God forsaking him. If he was wrong, then he and the Father were not "one" as he had claimed (John 10:30). Jesus expressed disappointment in God; God had not behaved as Jesus expected, and Jesus wrongly interpreted God’s lack of action as "forsaking". Since Jesus is the one that explained God to us (John 1:18), if Jesus was mistaken in what he thought God would do, it makes his explanation of God and everything else highly suspect.

But if Jesus was right, and God really did forsake him, then the plan really was to save Jesus from death at the final hour, and God reneged on his end of the deal and forsook Jesus.

Either way it’s not a pretty picture; it reveals disharmony (at the very least) between the father and the son. If they cannot agree on the plan of salvation, how can we? And if God, in effect, lied to his own Son, how can we trust anything he supposedly inspired the writers of the Bible to say?

The most sensible conclusion to draw from Jesus’ words "why hast thou forsaken me?" is that Jesus was not the Son of God. He was just a man who prayed for deliverance and, like all people who pray, did not receive an answer because there is no one there to give an answer. But even if we still believe that Jesus really was the Son of God, we see that God forsook him and left his prayers unanswered: so what chance have you or I got in getting a hearing? Jesus’ God proved unreliable and unhearing (or at least impotent). Such a "God" is not worth our time.

Mt:27:54: Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

But Luke tells us that the Centurion said something quite different:

Lk:23:47: Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

Of course it could be that he centurion said both things. But if he had declared that Jesus was the Son of God, it’s odd that Luke thought such a declaration of faith by a gentile was too insignificant to report!

Mt:27:55: And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
Mt:27:56: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

Matthew tells us these women were watching from "afar off". John tells us they were standing by the cross:

Jn:19:25: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

After Jesus died and was sealed in the tomb…

Mt:28:1: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Mt:28:2: And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

So the stone was in front of the door when the women first arrived, and they saw a single angel roll the stone back from the door. But Luke tells us:

Lk:24:1: Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
Lk:24:2: And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Lk:24:3: And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
Lk:24:4: And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

Lk:24:10: It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

So Luke contends that the stone was already rolled away from the tomb when the women arrived, and they saw, not an angel, but two men (Mark 16:5 contends that it was one man, while John 20:11 contends that it was two angels, so none of the four accounts agree as to who was there). Also, it was not just the two Mary’s who were involved, but other women as well (all four accounts disagree as to who the women were that saw and reported this incident, and in fact, Mark relates that the women didn’t report the incident at all! (Mk. 16:8))

Mt:28:9: And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

In John’s story, Mary Magdalene goes alone to the tomb and discovers the stone already rolled away. She goes and reports this to John, and John and Peter run to the tomb, discover the body missing, and go home. Then, Mary, all alone again by the tomb, sees the two angels, and then Jesus, but unlike Matthew’s account, she does not recognize Jesus when she first sees him, and far from ‘holding him by his feet’, she is not allowed to touch him:

Jn:20:14: And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Jn:20:15: Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
Jn:20:16: Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
Jn:20:17: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

But, returning to Matthew now, we have a group of women leaving the tomb:

Mt:28:11: Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
Mt:28:12: And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
Mt:28:13: Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
Mt:28:14: And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
Mt:28:15: So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

The last thing in the world a Roman soldier would admit to would be falling asleep on duty; it would mean his life. No amount of money could make it worth their while to tell their superiors that they fell asleep on duty. Also, no Roman soldier would report to the Jewish priests. They would report to their Roman commanders and make up any story they could to avoid the charge of having fallen asleep on duty. Finally, a Roman governor would hardly let himself be "persuaded" by Jewish priests as to how to manage his own men. The soldiers knew this, and so would hardly be persuaded to lie to their superiors.

Mt:28:18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt:28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mt:28:20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Matthew tells us that Jesus’ last instructions were to baptize people and teach them to observe his commandments. He did not say, "tell them to just believe in me and be saved". In spite of this, in all of Paul’s voluminous writings and exhortations he quoted Jesus a total of one time. He didn’t teach anyone to obey Jesus’ commandments (or even that there were such things as commandments from Jesus). He taught that one just needed to have faith in Jesus’ sacrifice in order to be "saved". As far as carrying out Jesus’ order to baptize people, Paul had this to say:

1Cor:1:17: For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

It’s evident that Paul never read Matthew (in fact, Paul’s writings predate any of the Gospels). What is interesting to note is that Jesus supposedly told his apostles something quite different from what he told Paul.

Matthew’s account ends here with Jesus’ command to teach and baptize. But Mark, Luke, and Acts have yet another scene to play: the ascension of Jesus into heaven:

Lk:24:50: And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
Lk:24:51: And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

So Luke tells us that Jesus ascended into heaven from Bethany. But in Acts we read it was from the Mount of Olives:

Acts:1:9: And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Acts:1:10: And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Acts:1:11: Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Acts:1:12: Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

According to Mark, the apostles "sat at meat" when Jesus ascended to heaven:

Mk:16:14: Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Mk:16:15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mk:16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mk:16:17: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mk:16:18: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Mk:16:19: So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

The above verses have led to many unfortunate deaths by Christians who have taken them as "God’s Word" and "Gospel Truth". Modern day Christians have sought to excise these verses from the Bible as "spurious" since they are so dangerous. We have seen numerous examples in which morality requires that we do as Jesus says but not as he does: Mark 16:18 is an example where we must not even do what he says!

Prev Next Contents