The Passion - FROM FAITH TO FREEDOM

FROM FAITH TO FREEDOM
by Avery Newman

1                       The Third Piece of Advice
Yuktiyuktamupa'deyam' vacanam' ba'laka'dapi anyam'trn'amiva
tyajyamapyuktam' padmajanmana'.

[Even if a young boy says something logical it should be accepted; and
even if the lotus-born Brahma' (the mythological creator of this universe)
says something illogical, it should be rejected like a straw.]

Advice of ancient Indian sages

 

Once there was a hunter – well, in some ways, aren't we all? One day this
hunter captured a very strange bird in his net. Just as the hunter was
about to grab the bird, she spoke to him, saying “Hunter, don't you know
that if you kill me and eat me I can provide only a few mouthfuls to one
so big and strong as you. In no time you will have forgotten me
altogether. But if you should spare me, then I shall give you three pieces
of advice which will benefit you for all the rest of your life.”

The hunter was very impressed with this offer. He asked how the
transaction could be arranged so that he would be sure to have his three
pieces of advice and she could feel secure in obtaining her freedom. The
bird suggested, “I will tell you the first piece of advice while still in
your net. If you are satisfied, I will offer the second piece of advice
from a branch of that nearby tree. And again, if you are satisfied, the
last piece of advice I will call out to you from atop of yonder hill.” In
this way a deal was struck between a tiny but clever bird and the giant
but simple hunter.

“My first piece of advice,” said the bird, “is never to regret losing
anything once it is gone.” The hunter thought a moment and appreciated the
wisdom in this maxim. He asked for the second piece of advice. From the
nearby branch the bird spoke, “Never believe anything you're told if it is
illogical.” Again the hunter found it easy to appreciate the wisdom of the
tiny bird's advice, and he consented to her flying out of reach before
hearing the third piece of advice.

From the hilltop the bird laughed and cried out, “You foolish man, in my
belly there is a large diamond of immense value. Had you but kept me you
would have been rich today beyond imagination.” Immediately the hunter
became confused – could he recapture the bird? No, that was not possible,
so he sat down and started to lament his mistake. After some time he
remembered that the bird had not given him the third piece of advice. He
felt that, even if he could not have the diamond, at least he was entitled
to one more pearl of knowledge. So at last the hunter looked up and,
addressing the bird, requested the third and final piece of advice.

But now that tiny bird only chirped and flew away.

Dharma
Everyone wants happiness. From the moment we awake until the moment we
sleep, our minds quest after the sympathetic vibrations that satisfy our
various psychic longings. Whether it be ice cream, a game of tennis, a
movie or a telephone call from a friend – whatever the source may be, if
the psychic assimilation of that object or action be complementary to
one's desire, the experience one enjoys is called happiness. Conversely,
if the object or action be contrary to one's desire, the psychic
experience may be called unhappiness.

Naturally everyone prefers to get those things that s/he would like rather
than those that s/he considers to be unpleasant. Quite naturally also,
human beings – in fact, all living beings – want to remain alive. Too much
unhappiness leads to a state of despair in which one contemplates suicide.
Happy people never think to kill themselves. So this basic instinct for
self-preservation expresses itself always in the drive to find the sweet
shelter of permanent and all-pervasive happiness.

Against the threat of unhappiness and self-destruction, human beings will
not settle for just a small amount of happiness. Rather, everyone wants
endless happiness – a state of being that transcends the precincts of
pleasure and pain, weal and woe. Religions often declare such a state of
being to be possible only in a fairy-tale land called Heaven – a place one
cannot visit while alive. Some social philosophies envision such a heaven
on earth, calling it Utopia or New Jerusalem. But that heaven for which
human beings really long is, ultimately, not so much an external condition
as it is personal, internal condition. In spiritual jargon, this goal is
known as bliss, the inner state of being that outsteps the limitations of
sensory perception. Can one say that, in the final analysis, human beings
knowingly or unknowingly seek only for bliss and nothing else? This is
reasonable; but, unfortunately, to say so would invite all kinds of
calumny from those of different religious persuasion.

Let us here examine briefly the concept of limitlessness or infinity. If
we think in mathematical terms – set theory – there can be more than one
infinite entity. For example there are the set of all even integers and
the set of all odd integers – both sets are infinite and both are mutually
exclusive, that is, the members of each set are completely different from
the members of the other set. That is mathematics. In the field of
philosophy, infinity is one all-inclusive entity or state of being.
Whether we call it Bliss, Brahma [1] , Peace, God, Allah, Consciousness,
Truth or whatever – still that Supreme Entity or Supreme State remains
only one. [2] In India, the sages say: Ekam' sad viprah bahuddha vadanti
[Truth is one, but the wise call It by many names].

To sum, we find that in every woman and man there is a thirst for
limitlessness – a longing for bliss, which is but one of many names for
the Supreme Being, the Infinite Entity. This longing for the great is
found in everyone; but, unfortunately, not everyone is conscious of it,
nor even are all those who are conscious of this longing really making a
sincere effort to satisfy the craving. When one does knowingly move in a
systematic way on the path of spirituality to attain bliss, to achieve
cosmic awareness, we call that endeavor dharma. There is in the English
language no equivalent word for dharma. Some people try to define dharma
as religion, but the two words differ both in concept and in practice. The
derivation of the word dharma is from the Sam'skrta roots, dhr + man,
signifying that which sup****ts one's existence. The word religion is
derived from the Latin religare, meaning to tie back, to tie up, to tie
fast. Whereas dharma is scientific and dynamic, religion is dogmatic and
static. Human dharma is based on expansion of mind, social service,
attunement of the individual vibration with that of the cosmic flow and,
ultimately, merger of the unit consciousness with the Supreme
Consciousness. Religion, on the other hand, rests solely upon the blind
and obedient acceptance of various doctrines which are at times irrational
and discriminatory. Whereas dharma is a powerful force for freedom,
religion has proven over the centuries to be more effective at keeping
humanity enslaved. And, whereas dharma always promotes unity, religion has
consistently sown the seeds of division in every field of human existence.

When I was young and learning to play baseball, the coach told us
repeatedly that if we want to score a hit, we must keep our eyes always on
the ball. Soon I found that this rule applied in tennis also, and
eventually I understood that this worked in every walk of life. Constant
study is required if one wants to learn any subject; constant practice is
required if one wants to become proficient at any profession; and constant
aspiration is required if one wants to become an ideal human being. But,
you ask, how does one develop such constancy?

The two strongest motivating emotions are love and hatred. Both hatred and
love make the mind one-pointed on the object of concentration. Through both
hatred and love many admirable works have been accomplished. Especially
when it is necessary to overcome a particular enemy (and here enemy
generally denotes an abstract concept like fear or greed or exploitation,
only occasionally referring to something more concrete like a specific
disease), in this case hatred of the enemy is not necessarily harmful.
Yet, hatred remains a somewhat irritating emotion, lacking in the sublime
sweetness of love. So when it comes to moving along the path to
perfection, love of the Supreme is a far more satisfying approach than
hatred for the Supreme. Though hatred may perhaps carry the spiritual
aspirant to the highest attainment, the road traversed is generally
antisocial and doomed to worldly failure. The path of love, however, is in
total harmony with service to society and with all the finest human
expressions. For this reason we say that love for the Divinity – Devotion
– is the most valuable treasure of humanity. Devotion safeguards one's
individual existence and makes possible the meaningful and socially
productive utilization of the human being's greatest potentiality.
Simultaneously, devotion provides her or him with a sweet and satisfying
relation****p to an always present, always helpful Companion.

About this time in a study session, someone will rise to object, saying
that no one has been able to prove the existence of God. Let me sidestep
that question for now. Whether or not God does exist, humanity has
certainly aspired to realize a Divine Being posited to be the repository
of all bliss and all peace. People do yearn to realize the Supreme; and,
in consequence, they have adopted or have been persuaded, intimidated or
compelled to adopt many fantastic, often absurd, and frequently
self-destructive methods pur****ting to be the way to attain that end. In
the pages to come the author hopes to expose some of the logical
inconsistencies in the institutions of Western religion (i.e. Judaism and
Christianity) and to present the vision of a new humanity guided by a new
humanism.



2                       Another Cup of Tea
Kevalam' sha'strama'shritya'm' na karttavyovinirn'ayah yuktihiina'
vica'retu dharmaha'ni praja'yate.

[It is undesirable to accept anything just because it is written in the
scriptures; for if the illogical sayings therein be accepted and acted
upon, it results in the loss of dharma.]

Advice of ancient Indian sages

 

To Tolerate or Not to Tolerate
Entering the arena of religious discussion is generally a no-win venture,
like trying to deep-fry a snowball. At first there's a lot of explosive
debate – sparks fly everywhere – and, in the end, the original topic is
often lost to view. Most sensible people prefer to avoid discussion of
religious topics. Should a person, moreover, be not only sensible but also
sensitive, then surely s/he would hesitate to say anything which might
disturb another's flow of devotion toward God. If one person wor****ps God
as a formless Entity and another chooses to see God in the imagined form
of Jesus, what is the harm?

How one wor****ps the Supreme in the inner sanctum of one's heart is a
matter of personal choice and will surely differ from person to person. It
is said that once a simple child entered the kingdom of God by wor****pping
her drunkard father. It is also told that once a poor farmer got lost
going to Jerusalem for Yom Kippur, the most holy day of the Jewish
calendar. Not having the prayers in memory, he was still granted a high
position in God's Book of Life since he reverently repeated the Hebrew
alphabet all day long. Hanuman, the great devotee of Rama, was asked to
explain why he always repeated the name of Rama and never uttered the
name, Vishnu. Hanuman replied, “Though Vishnu may also be God, though Rama
and Vishnu may be two different names for the same one Being, nevertheless
Rama is everything to me.” And so if one person chooses to wor****p God
through the medium of Jesus and another wor****ps God as a formless and
somewhat abstract concept or even an anthropomorphic old man in the sky –
whatever the pros or cons, the way in which an individual chooses to
conceive of God must be recognized as a fundamental human right.

On the other hand, freedom of wor****p cannot reasonably be extended to the
point where it can work to the detriment of society. In other words, while
we must accept an individual's choice of a personal Deity, we are not
equally obliged to accept all the social consequences of those teachings
which may be attributed to or connected with that chosen Deity. If
someone's personalized God instructs her or him to kill every man, woman
and child in a particular city, surely we will not happily accept that
divine commandment. Likewise, we cannot easily appreciate nor should we
appreciate any number of lesser and greater antisocial injunctions which
are found in the scriptures of the various religions prominent today. Many
high-minded intellectuals have been saying of late that all religions are
essentially the same in respect to their teachings. From my studies, the
only teaching I could find which was common to all religions was the claim
made by each to be the one and only true religion, with all other faiths
relegated to a status of lesser and often satanic significance. And it is
exceedingly rare when any religion endeavors to substantiate its claims on
ground more solid than the holy nature of its scriptures. How often do we
hear lines like “It's written in the Bible”, “The Bible tells me so”, “I
swear on the Bible”, “The Bible is my authority”, and so on.

Judaism boldly asserts, “We, the Jews are God's chosen people. Our God is
the only true God; everyone else's God is false. We are the blessed
community; all others have been cursed.” Christianity counters with the
declaration, “Our Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life – the only
begotten son of God. No one can know the Father without first securing an
introduction from His son. So we alone are saved, and all others are
doomed to perish in Hell.” Inherent in both stances is a flagrant lack of
tolerance for any other point of view. Nowhere in Judaism or Christianity
do we find respect for the individual's right to choose her or his
personal Ideal. And ironically it is this lack of tolerance which first
casts a shadow of doubt over the validity of these religions.

If one pauses for just a moment to think rationally about the idea of a
God Who shows out-and-out favoritism for one small select group of humans
on planet Earth, or a God Who shows an even greater favoritism for one
particular man within that aforementioned group, then the mind and heart
must reject the concept of this so-called Divinity Who displays such a
strange manner of parental love. Furthermore, any normal human being must
shudder to think of the incredible excesses committed by Jews and
Christians alike in obedience to the narrow sentiments found in the Bible,
attributed directly or indirectly to God. If the essential teachings of all
religions are the same, why should the Jews have taken such pains to crush
the Christian beliefs, and the Christians even greater pains to abrogate
the Jewish creed? Or, for that matter, why are both Christians and Jews at
war with each other and with the Moslems? Most religions maintain that God
is one, but what they really mean to say is “The God in our scriptures is
the one God – all other representations are false.”

Thus, while toleration of a person's choice of Preceptor is highly
desirable, toleration of the dogmas which have rightly or wrongly been
associated with that Preceptor cannot always be justified. Nor can one
justify turning a blind eye to all of the myths which have been propagated
concerning the different Preceptors. Once there was a donkey; and, so long
as it kept quiet, many people believed it to be a horse. Only when it
opened its mouth and brayed, could everyone know its true identity. Now,
even if some of the people preferred to go on believing the animal to be a
horse, would it not be better that we try to correct their illusion so that
they, too, might better adjust to the practical realities of this objective
world. Thereafter, if we fail and if they really want to continue believing
the jackass to be a horse, we must accept that this belief is their
personal affair.

Moving On
Regarding Judaism and Christianity, the Bible do***ents much history and
many teachings which may be analyzed – that is, we are given ample scope
for weighing the pros and cons of these two religions on the scales of
social welfare. Whether or not the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is in
fact a substantially accurate representation of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the
prophets and the apostles, no one can say for sure. Perhaps this does not
matter for, ultimately, religion is more concerned with the scriptures we
know than with the somewhat obscure personalities glorified therein.

One day a spiritual aspirant visited a Zen Master seeking to learn the
secrets of life. The Zen Master asked him first to sit for tea, and he
started to fill the student's teacup. After the cup was full, the Master
kept on pouring tea, though now it just flowed over the cup and onto the
table. Eventually the aspirant could not keep from remarking, “Master, my
cup is already full.” The teacher replied, “In the same way as a full cup
cannot receive more tea, so also a mind full of dogmas cannot learn
something new.”

Ultimately, when we have eliminated all of the preposterous stories and
clever ploys created to instill those psychic complexes which pave the way
for politico-economic and psycho-economic exploitation, then little remains
to recommend the so-called holy books of Judaism and Christianity. Even as
historical do***ents, these books function as a shameful reminder of a
none-too-glorious past. But regrettably they are not yet historical
do***ents; rather they are the substance of the living Bible. Regrettably
our cup is full but the content is neither fresh nor warm. Pleasant or
unpleasant though it is, today we must discard the unhealthy dogmas
contained in the Bible, for without first cleansing the mind, humanity
will be unable to unite behind a more scientific and benevolent philosophy
which alone can end the petty strife that now threatens the very existence
of our planet. Is it not time that humanity be served another cup of tea?

 

Human society is one and indivisible. Keeping this supreme truth ever
fixed in one's vision, one will have to think of promoting human welfare,
love for humanity, human solidarity, and universal fraternity, and move
accordingly. Not for a single moment one should forget it nor even ignore
it. Due to paucity of intellect or mutual conflicts in the past, a vast
number of creatures have become totally extinct today from the surface of
the earth. Let the human beings not meet the same dreadful consequence.

Shrii Shrii Anandamurti

Ananda Vanii 26 May 1983



3                       In the Beginning
Spread out the sermons of amity among mankind. Remind one and all that the
establishment of human excellence does not lie in hypocrisy but in
simplicity and sincerity. Make them all realize that every individual
human problem whether big or small is the problem of the universal
humanity. Make them also understand that the origin as well as the
finality of entire humankind is one and the same.

Shrii Shrii Anandamurti

1 January 1982

 

There's a popular joke circulating these days about a mental patient who
used to go everywhere dragging a toothbrush on a leash behind him. His
madness was that he believed, the toothbrush to be a dog named Rex. One
day the psychiatrist came by and saw him standing in the hall with his
toothbrush, as usual, trailing along behind. The psychiatrist smiled and
said, “Good day – how are you and Rex this morning?” The patient said,
“I'm fine, but you know that's not really a dog on my leash – it's just a
toothbrush.” Walking on, the doctor was pleased to think that at last his
patient was showing some sign of recovery. As soon as the psychiatrist was
out of sight, the patient turned around and winked, saying, “Rex, we really
fooled him that time.”

It's often said that there's a little truth in every joke. I remember once
starting a pleasant conversation about Christianity with a woman who
introduced herself as a universalist. Before long her true colors started
to show; and, unfortunately, I found myself confronting a purple-faced
fanatic who had just damned me to hell in three different ways. Perhaps it
wasn't her fault – she'd been brainwashed or programmed a bit more than she
realized.

Sanity often takes a holiday when one's religious dogmas come under
attack. That old-time theology which was good enough for momma and papa
is, like it or not, good enough for sonny and dolly. Or in Biblical terms,
the sins of the parents are visited upon their progeny from generation unto
generation. [3] 

Monotheism
Let us take a look at the fundamental concept of Monotheism. Generally
everyone accepts Judaism and Christianity as true monotheistic creeds –
that is, Jews and Christians are assumed to believe in only one God Who is
eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. However, the general
cosmogony of both Judaism and Christianity completely contradicts this
view of God. If God be one and omnipresent, then how is it possible that
God created this universe, the “heaven and earth”, out of something which
was not Godself? According to both Judaism and Christianity, this earth
and its inhabitants are definitely not God; if they are not God, then
where did they come from? Obviously if we be separate from God, then God
is not completely omnipresent in the finest sense of the word. And if we
consider that something does not come from nothing, then God is not
completely unique either, for that material from which we were created
must be about as eternal as God because it also existed before the
creation.

Then again, what about Satan who makes an appearance from time to time,
for example in the books of Job, 1 Chronicles, Zechariah, Matthew and
Revelation? [4] If Satan is not God, and also not animal, vegetable or
mineral – what or who is this curious creature? His creation is not
catalogued with that of all the other items which were made “in the
beginning”. It seems that Satan is another eternal entity, separate from
God, and having sufficient power to resist the so-called Almighty from
time to time. 

Rather than a monotheism, Judaism and Christianity would appear to be a
tri-theism involving three eternal entities – God, Satan and the primal
matter of this universe. Should one prefer to discount this creation
(including humanity with our comparatively insignificant and much disputed
power of free will), still one must recognize Satan as some form of deity
on a par with the One God. Perhaps Satan may have to accept a slight
handicap, but he is at least entitled to play golf with the
Judaeo-Christian Divinity. Hence Judaeo-Christian religion is, if not
tri-theism, a bi-theism. And one should note carefully that this
discussion completely sidesteps the absurd and incomprehensible dogma of
the Christian Trinity, which might just “elevate” Judaeo-Christian
bi-theism or tri-theism to the impressive stance of penta-theism. One
wonders whether the eternal God of the Jews was somehow infinite and
omnipotent but nonetheless incomplete until Jesus and the Holy Spirit came
along to fill out the Trinity. And, if that is the case, what new miracles
may we discover at the time of the Second Coming.

One's view of God determines to a great extent one's view of this world.
The Judaeo-Christian vision, as opposed to the Hindu or Buddhist
conception, is completely mechanistic. There is a God Who is said to be
separate from the universe and to Whom this universe represents some form
of toy to play with.

Not only is God separate from the universe but, ultimately, each and every
creature is separate from all others. This cosmos may be likened to a
gigantic machine having many moving and interconnected parts, not all of
the parts being complementary to each other. Nature, according to this
view, becomes a kingdom that humankind must “subdue” [5] – any and all
enemies are to be destroyed (either by God or by humanity) in order to
ensure the survival of the “fittest”. [6] Unfortunately (or fortunately)
this mechanistic view of the world tends, more often than not, to be
self-destructive. The present-day problem of pollution is a good example –
that which only fifty years ago was treated as little more than a
regrettable eyesore has today become the greatest cause of alarm to
millions and millions of people. Scientists have learned, and people now
realize the tremendous threat to their existence posed by a defective
system of chemical and nuclear waste disposal. Happily, there is still
hope for our survival because the same intellectual capacity which is
required to develop earth-destructive nuclear weapons is sufficient to
correct dangerous waste disposal, and also sufficient to break down the
prison walls of inhuman and insane dogmas that have inspired countless
past wars. [7] 

Dogma
The word dogma has appeared a number of times in this text. It is
im****tant that we define the term. A dogma is any fixed belief with
boundaries which allow for no questions, which can neither expand nor
contract, which imprison the mind. One who does not accept the prevalent
dogmas is classified as a heretic, a gentile, a heathen, a witch, a
running-dog capitalist, a dirty red communist, and so on. But why should
an intelligent human being accept knowingly the limitations of dogma when
such acceptance invariably works to the detriment of both science and
civilization? The answer is simple – s/he hopes to derive some selfish
pleasure from it.

Human social movement is inspired by one of two possible motivations.
First is the Principle of Social Equality. This Principle holds that every
living being on planet Earth has equal right to exist and to develop her,
his or its full physical, psychic and spiritual potentiality. Social
equality demands that where disparities or inequalities do exist, we must
seek to eradicate them as we move ahead collectively towards the
establishment of society as one blissful universal family.

The alternative motivation is quite the opposite – it is the Principle of
Selfish Pleasure. All of the influential social, economic and political
forces today are guided by dogmas, most of which are based on this
Principle of Selfish Pleasure. People, even very intelligent people,
readily accept dogmas –with the justification that whether these dogmas be
logical or illogical, whether they do good or bad to others, still they
bring me some pleasure. And with this short-term, short-sighted mentality,
people go on enslaving themselves in the iron shackles of unreason and
inhumanity.

Go to seek out the source of these dogmas, the wellspring of human
slavery, and we need look no farther than our neighborhood church, temple,
synagogue or mosque. I do not claim that all the world's dogmas are
religious in nature – actually dogmas have permeated every walk of life.
But, at the root of all evil is the absence of a truly cosmic outlook, and
for this the religions of the world must be held responsible. Even if the
religious leaders could not give proper guidance, they need not have taken
such pains to mislead the people. Yet this is what they did, and they did
so to satisfy their purely selfish motives.

It may be that most propagators of popular religion were or are unaware of
the deleterious effects of their work. But can we imagine that those
cunning intellectuals who laid claim to divine revelation, and announced
new doctrines to deceive the people, really themselves believed that a few
drops of water on the head, or even a full bath in the river Jordan (or
Ganges), could wash away all of a woman's or a man's sins? Imagine the
extent of corruption to which these religious hucksters gave indulgence in
the name of God! Only a few hundred years ago priests in the Catholic
Church offered safe transit from purgatory to heaven in exchange for the
proper donation. [8] Even if we accept all the claptrap and bunkum about
heaven, purgatory and Hell (for which dogmas not a single peg can be
implanted in the hard ground of logic and reason), can we also believe
that those priests who fixed the fees for assorted indulgences truly
thought that their prayers had power not only to influence but actually to
command God – and that this power became effective only after receipt of
the appropriate bribe? To those priests, not only the unwary public but
also and even God was taken as nothing but a tool to be used for their own
ruthless aggrandizement. And, sad to say, even today one notable branch of
the Christian Church carries on this outrageous practice, based solely on
greed and the slanderous supposition that God is amenable to
“religio-political graft”. [9] 

Sentiment
Dogmas tend to capitalize on three particular types of human sentiment.
First is geo-sentiment, the attachment which arises out of love for a
specific geographical region. Geo-sentiment may be confined to devotion
towards one's own homestead, or may be expanded to include one's entire
homeland or country. [10] It is exceedingly rare to find anyone with
geo-sentiment extended beyond her or his national borders, though
occasionally one feels attracted to a few “special” places on the planet,
notably religious locations. Thus we find Moslems turning always toward
Mecca in performance of prayer, as if God can hear only prayers spoken in
that direction; Jews dream about celebration of the Passover in Jerusalem;
and Christians, strange as it may seem, make their holy pilgrimages to Rome
and such other out-of-the-way places as Santiago de Compostela in Spain.
True spiritualists throughout the ages, at least for the past seven
thousand years since the time of Sada****va, [11] have maintained that
there is no value in wandering hither and thither, from holy place to holy
place. The real temple is the human body. The real pilgrimage is to travel
the inner paths of human mind to attain realization of one's own union
with the Supreme. To search for God in this or that shrine, ignoring one's
own soul, is as foolish as looking here and there for food, forgetting the
sweet fruit which one has in one's very hand.

The second type of sentiment is known as socio-sentiment, derived from
one's love for a particular community. Instead of concerning oneself with
the welfare of a particular geographical area, one thinks in terms of the
well-being of a specific community, even to the detriment of all other
communities. [12] The Jews, the Christians, the Moslems, the Hindus, the
Buddhists – all religions have propagated that their community is the only
one traveling the high road to God. All have tried to maintain the purity
of their community by exterminating any religious competition, often
declaring their barbaric efforts at genocide to be nothing less than'
virtuous deeds. This socio-sentiment starts with family (exploited so
cleverly by the Church with regard to salvation of ancestors as mentioned
earlier) and extends potentially to all of the human race. [13] When
socio-sentiment reaches the maximum degree of extension, we would normally
call it general or ordinary humanism. [14] 

This general humanism is the third type of sentiment. It is also a bogus
creed. The humanist pays lip service to the suffering humanity while
carefully protecting her or his own life style and bank account. Long ago
I visited a Christian monastery. After a sumptuous meal (which I declined
to eat because it was non-vegetarian), we retired to a large, well-heated
living room. There, as we all sat comfortably on expensive leather-covered
easy chairs, I told stories to the novices in the hope that their eyes
might open to an expanded vision of practical spirituality. At length one
very bold young man confessed, “You see, we take vows of chastity, poverty
and obedience – we are here to help save humanity – but somehow it does not
seem that we are undergoing any hard****ps, much less poverty.” He then
asked me, “What do you suggest we do?” Well, the answer was so obvious
that I felt embarrassed to say it, for even Jesus had advised the rich man
to sell his possessions and to distribute the proceeds to the poor. [15] So
long as one million people are dying of starvation every month, most of
them little children, a few monks or priests or rabbis speaking
high-sounding words from the snug harbor of their luxurious homes will
hardly help to solve the problem. Rather, they set the worst possible
example, inclining people toward indifference to the miserable plight of
their less fortunate sisters and brothers.

Neo-Humanism
While I am bound to admit the well-meaning sincerity of most adherents to
the ordinary humanistic sentiment, still all their work and all their
sincerity are bound to end in naught. Ordinary humanism is simply devoid
of any ongoing source of inspiration. The dictum, “Love your enemies”,
[16] sounds sweet in the ears; but, as long as one views any human being
as an enemy, it becomes next-to-impossible to love her or him. Similarly a
love which extends only to human beings, and does not go out to the animals
and plants, will soon dry up by making too many analytical distinctions.
[17] While reading the New Testament one is touched by several stirring
passages which call for the love of all humanity, but search throughout
the entire book and one cannot find a single line sup****ting love for
animals or plants, not to mention inanimate objects. Is love something
which one can turn on and off at will? “I love God, and I love human
beings, but animals and plants and this rich brown earth are here only to
serve my pleasure.” Love just does not work like that. In the final
analysis, ordinary humanism, based on a mechanistic view of the universe,
cannot be accepted as anything other than pseudo-humanism. Ultimately it,
too, rests on the Principle of Selfish Pleasure.

It is due to the degradation of this ordinary humanism, this
pseudo-humanism, that a new humanism based on the Principle of Social
Equality is required. Where ordinary humanism concerns itself more with
the object of love, trying to embrace all human beings, Neo-Humanism
places more stress on the subjective faculty of loving. Because
Neo-Humanism takes an' organic, holistic view of the universe,
Neo-Humanism can project an equal love for all beings, all animate and
inanimate entities. Neo-Humanism does not separate this creation from its
creator. It recognizes all and everything as different manifestations of
the one Supreme Consciousness. With this outlook it is no longer necessary
to maintain two great laws as Jesus said – love God with all your heart,
soul and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself. [18] It is sufficient
to say simply, “Love God within and without you” or, even more simply,
“Love God”. Even Jesus had to admit that one cannot serve two different
masters – eventually one must love one and hate the other. [19] Hence the
love offered by Jesus was always adulterated with some degree of hatred it
was not pure love. [20] Pure love which does not discriminate between
friend and enemy, God and this world, can only be realized through
pinnacled devotion for a truly all-pervasive Deity – then alone there is
no conflict of interest. This pure love will provide the eternal source of
inspiration for Neo-Humanism.



4                       The Covenant
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lard appeared to Abram,
and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou
perfect

And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee
exceedingly.

And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of
many nations.

Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be
Abraham: for a father of many nations have I made thee.

And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee,
and kings shall come out of thee.

And 1 wilt establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after
thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto
thee, and to thy seed after thee.

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the Land wherein
thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting
possession; and I will be their God.

And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou,
and thy seed after thee in their generations.

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed
after thee; Every man child among you shall be cir***cised.

And ye shall cir***cise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a
token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

And he that is eight days old shall be cir***cised among you, every man
child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with
money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must
needs be cir***cised: and my covenant shat be in your flesh for an
everlasting covenant.

And the uncir***cised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not
cir***cised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my
covenant.

Genesis 11:1-14

 

Humanism or Property Rights
Following Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June, 1982, and the prolonged
Israeli military presence in Beirut, an outcry of protest was heard from
all around the world, including even the President of the United States.
Israel's Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, responded angrily, declaring
“Nobody is going to lecture the Jews about humanism”. This was a peculiar
remark. Was Mr. Begin implying that Judaism is a particularly humanistic
religion? No, surely that was not the point he intended. In my opinion, it
was a scathing condemnation of the popular form of political hypocrisy –
self-serving censure of others clothed in high sounding humanitarian
language. Quite clearly Mr. Begin was not convinced that Christians or
Moslems had or have the moral right to criticize Jews on humanitarian
grounds; and surely the history of Christian persecution of Jews (as
evidenced by the Spanish Inquisition, the Russian Pogroms and, most
recently, the German Holocaust) as well as the continued non-acceptance by
Moslem countries of Israel's very right to exist as a Jewish country hardly
would incline a Jew to believe that Christian and/or Moslem tall talks and
humanitarian ideals are anything more credible than a politician's
campaign promises. Despite all the rhetoric expended by religious leaders
on the subject of universal sorority and fraternity, the global humanity
remains still fragmented by petty religious differences while the downcast
and downtrodden m***** are no longer just hungry but fairly gasping for
breath. Mr. Begin's words took on their full im****t within days after he
spoke them, as Israeli defense forces provided tactical military sup****t
while the Lebanese Christian Militia moved into the Palestinian refugee
camps and slaughtered as many as 1500 Moslem men, women and children. Yes,
Mr. Begin was correct – no Christian has the right to lecture a Jew on
humanism, any more than a Jew has the right to lecture a Christian on the
subject. 

Here we confront a knotty question – if real humanism is not the substance
of religion's social outlook, then what is this outlook? The question is
problematic, not because it is difficult to answer, but because it is
dangerous to answer. I can never forget one of my introductory cl***** in
law school. The subject was Property Law, and our professor came into the
classroom the first day of class positively grinning like the devil. He
posed his question calmly: What is the basis of law; what is the rock on
which our social codes are built? Immediately one bright young lad started
waving his hand; and, when called upon, he gave this reply, “The Ten
Commandments, sir.” Our professor laughed loudly and told the student he
should have enrolled in Divinity School rather than in Law School. The
next four or five guesses referred to religion, humanism, and previous
social codes – all of these responses were shot down by our clever
instructor, with efficient sarcasm. He was clearly enjoying himself that
afternoon. In the end, we never did give him the answer he wanted, and he
never did tell us the answer he was hoping, or not hoping, to hear. That
is to say, we gave him the great satisfaction of feeling eminently
superior to all of us, which feeling was probably his main concern that
day –  another freshman class tested and no threats this year.

The question of a basis for law and social codes is tantalizing; and, in
some ways, intimately connected with the subject of religion despite the
understanding, or lack thereof, by that particular professor. He wanted to
suggest that property rights lie at the root of the whole legal process –
or so I assume – because his course was entitled Property Law and it seems
logical that property rights was the subject he attempted to present in
that first day's class. In any event, I have no doubt that the entire
legal process does turn around the central issue of what is private and
what is collective property, and how that property shall be protected.
What the professor of Property Law may not have realized and, even if he
did, might well have been reluctant to say is that property rights lie
also at the core of Western religion. Throughout history the concept of
property rights held by the prevailing religion of a country was generally
reflected in the legal and economic systems of that land. For now, though,
let us leave this very broad thesis and turn to a more limited analysis of
Judaism. [21] 

Abraham and the Hapiru God
Though Moses is generally taken as the Preceptor of Judaism because it was
he who allegedly provided the Ten Commandments and the far-ranging code of
ethics of the Jews (including a penal system based largely on the
principle of lex talionis, i.e. “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” [22] ) and
also many aspects of Jewish religious observance, [23] nevertheless it is
Abraham who was the grand patriarch of the Jews and whose impact is still
felt today, more even than that of Moses. Ask a Jew Whom does s/he
wor****p; and  the customary reply is, I wor****p “the God of Abraham” or
“the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”. So it was Abraham who first defined
God for the Jews, although in his day they were called not Jews but Hebrews
or, as many historians surmise, Hapiru.

On the basis of archaeological excavations in this century, especially
those of the royal palace at Mari, an ancient city on the Euphrates, the
time of Abraham's life has been fixed at approximately 2,000 B.C. In those
days it was customary for the patriarch of any particular clan to select
the clan's deity, and thus the clan's patriarch became also the founder of
the clan's religious cult. Such was the case with Abraham, who chose for
his clan a deity of the popular high-god variety. The clan was to wor****p
the particular “God of the Fathers”; and, in return for that wor****p, the
deity was expected to protect the clan and provide some special favors.
Thus, as per the dictates of traditional socio-religious sentiment, which
has remained largely unaltered throughout the annals of human history, the
clan's chosen deity declared to the clan, “Your God is the true God, and
you are the blessed, chosen people of this universe –all other gods are
inferior or false, and all other people are cursed.”

In a rather ordinary fa****on, or at least not in a very extraordinary
fa****on, Abraham founded a religious cult which was destined to leave its
imprint on the last four millenniums of human history. Of course it is
rather doubtful that Judaism could have survived so long but for the
timely assistance of Moses who secured liberation for the Hebrews from
Egyptian slavery, and who established the comprehensive religious and
administrative code which is still strictly followed by Orthodox Jews of
today. But Moses would have been a man without a God, a man without a
people, a man without a mission had not Abraham proclaimed his covenant
with the Hapiru God. [24] 

Zionism – A Religion Is Born
To examine more minutely the essence of Abraham's contribution to Judaism,
one must look closely at the Covenant quoted at the head of this chapter.
The Covenant provides four essential aspects – first, the promise of God
to multiply the clan into a gigantic and politically powerful nation;
second, the promise of God to grant to the clan an eternal freehold on the
land of Israel; third, the clear position of Abraham as religious and
political leader of the clan on the basis of his special relation****p to
God (which was, in addition, the only apparent reason for the first two
promises); and fourth, the rite of cir***cision for baby boys, on the
eighth day after birth, which “brands” each male member as one of the clan
and indicates his inclusion in or acceptance of the previous three
provisions of the Covenant. [25] 

Human beings in general – like elephants, sheep and pigeons but unlike
tigers and dogs – have always preferred to live collectively rather than
to roam about the world on their own. Though physical hard****ps may be
much reduced in this 20th Century, nevertheless even today the world often
seems to be and really is threatening to the Jews who must constantly
remain alert against the consequences of anti-Semitism. Even today, less
than forty years after the German Holocaust in which six million Jews were
slaughtered mercilessly, the resurgence of a virulent anti-Jewish feeling
in Europe has triggered many terrorist attacks on innocent human beings
whose only crime was to have been born a Jew. Thus it is little wonder
that most Jews today cling to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state as
if Israel were some kind of security blanket, which most assuredly it is
not. Today the Jews suffer due to irrational dogmas which arose four
thousand years ago in the wake of group and clan clashes. Had Judaism not
been promulgated, there could be no anti-Semitism – there could have been
no Inquisition, no Pogroms, no Holocaust – neither would the Jews have
existed nor would there have been Christians or Moslems to persecute them.
But then, as the popular saying goes, if wishes were cars, then beggars
would drive. Let us leave this rosy field of fantasy and return to the
harsh historical realities.

Those were difficult and dangerous days four thousand years ago. For a
nomadic people like the early Hebrews, the greatest security was to belong
to a large and strong clan. And the most valuable possession was owner****p
of a vast area of land, the more land the better in a desert environment
which did not easily yield sup****t to life. Thus it was that Abraham
cleverly exploited, in the name of God, the two most powerful sentiments
which exist – the sociosentiment to belong to a great and powerful clan,
guaranteeing security and happiness in this world as well as whatever form
of happiness there may be in the afterlife (though this seems to have been
a matter of little or, at least, of secondary interest to the early
Hebrews or Jews) and, secondly, the geo-sentiment to have a safe and
secure homeland. And just to sweeten the pot a little bit, that “promised
land” was generally advertised as a country “flowing with milk and honey.
[26] 

Any student of history knows that the Jews maintained control over Israel
for not more than six hundred years of their four thousand year history,
and they had a sizeable settlement in Israel for not more than fifteen
hundred years. As for the milk and honey, that is surely debatable, but no
greater exaggeration than the declaration by Eric the Red that his newly
discovered country was “GreenLand”. And finally, despite a possible
increase in virility that may have accrued from cir***cision of male
children, [27] the Jews have remained a rather small minority group, most
certainly not numbering as many as “the dust of the earth”. [28]
Nevertheless, sentiment does not rely on facts to gather momentum. A new
religious sect arises almost every day proclaiming the end of the world,
and each such new sect seems to weather quite well the failure of that
particular prophesy. Rather, some say, the faith of the adherents tends to
increase by virtue of the lie as “faith generally has no locus standi in
reason”. Surely the Jews have proven this point by clinging steadfastly to
their religion and by laying down, even in this 20th Century, not just a
historical but also a divine claim to the land of Zion.



5                       The Water of Meribah
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy
brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give
forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock:
so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.

And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him.

And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock;
and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of
this rock?

And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice:
and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their
beasts also.

And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to
sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not
bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Numbers 20:7-12

An Appointment from God
Human beings in general have an unfortunate habit of believing everything
they read in the newspapers, and they have an even more unfortunate habit
of believing everything they read in the Bible. Of course, the vast
majority of the Christians and Jews never really bother to read the whole
book from cover to cover. Mostly they tend just to believe what they are
told that the “Holy Bible” says. And they are incredibly receptive to the
blasphemous lie which they've been told about the nature of the Bible –
that it is a book of unerring accuracy. [29] 

But can modern woman and man really accept as truth all of the far-out
stories in the Bible? Certainly, the more science develops and archaeology
uncovers, the harder it is to believe all of that fantasy about a six-day
period of creation and a God Who takes a rest on the seventh day, [30]
about the sun standing still in the sky for thirty-six hours so that the
Hebrews could completely annihilate the Amorites, [31] about Jesus going
up a mountain to have a talk with two ghosts and being witnessed by Peter,
James and John who somehow could recognize those two phantoms as Moses and
Elijah, [32] about a beast rising out of the sea with seven heads and ten
horns, [33] and on and on and on.

Judging by how easy it still is to befool the common people with a little
religious jargon, a clever op****tunist in Bible days must have found no
difficulty at all in gaining recognition and power by claiming a special
appointment from God – particularly if that appointment seemed to have
occurred with some element of change or novelty. In the case of Jesus, the
dramatic event which established his authority was his baptism by John
allegedly accompanied by a “voice from heaven” saying, “This is my beloved
son in whom I am well-pleased”. [34] With Abraham, his claim to have sealed
a Covenant with God may or may not have been unique in style and form, but
the content of that Covenant was a work of genius (as displayed by its
ability to bind Jews still today, some four thousand years later, to the
dogmatic and superstitious religion of their ancestors). And certainly not
by accident, it was that very Covenant which established Abraham's
leader****p as a “father of many nations”. [35] Finally, for Moses, his
right to rule was founded on the specific charge to lead the Hebrews out
of Egypt and into the land of Israel, which charge as related by Moses,
was given to him by the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob” speaking from a burning bush which was not consumed. [36]
Strangely, not even one of the three patriarchs, not even Moses claimed
his mandate by virtue of the will of the people. So far we have examined
the case of Abraham. Let us now look more closely at the historical figure
of Moses.

Moses – Jew or Gentile
According to the Bible, [37] Moses was born a Hebrew, son of a prominent
leader of the tribe of Levi. His brother was Aaron and his sister was
Miriam, both of whom were respected as religious teachers or prophets
among the Hebrews. Unfortunately, the King of Egypt, in whose country the
Hebrews were at that time enslaved, had begun to fear the growing size and
strength of the Hebrew race, and he had ordered that all male Hebrew babies
should be drowned. According to the story, Moses' mother kept him hidden
for three months (somehow and for some reason neglecting to perform the
customary cir***cision when the child was eight days old), and afterwards
left the baby in an “ark of bulrushes” in the “flags by the river's
brink”. Along came the Pharaoh's daughter who found the ark and
immediately recognized the uncir***cised baby of three months as being a
child of the Hebrews. But nevertheless, she accepted him as her own son
despite the orders of her father. Then we are told that the Pharaoh's
daughter, at the suggestion of Moses' sister who had been watching the ark
and baby from nearby, appointed the mother of Moses to be his wetnurse. In
this way the Bible explains how Moses was raised as an uncir***cised
Egyptian prince, though really he was a true-blue Hebrew.

Is this story credible? One can easily believe that Moses was raised as an
Egyptian prince. There seems to be no controversy on this point, and surely
it was this royal upbringing that qualified Moses as an efficient military
and administrative leader for the Hebrews. No doubt his life in the royal
palace also provided him with high-level contacts who might have been
sympathetic to him personally, and who could have assisted him in his
petition for the release of the Hebrews under his care. Moses probably was
a childhood playmate of the particular Pharaoh who ultimately granted the
Hebrews their freedom. Moreover, as a prince of noble lineage, but having
absolutely no chance to reach the throne (being the son not of the Pharaoh
himself but rather of the Pharaoh's daughter), Moses surely must have
longed for a kingdom of his own, and would perhaps have turned an
appreciative eye more than once in the direction of the Hebrews, a hardy
race as evidenced by the pyramids they had constructed. He may even have
had some real sympathy for the Hebrew people, having been raised as a
child by a Hebrew nurse, perhaps even having had the op****tunity to engage
in long discussions with Aaron, his alleged brother. [38] That much we can
readily believe, but can we also believe that Moses, himself, was truly a
Hebrew? This “fact” sounds far-fetched no matter how many times we read
God speaking to Moses, always referring to Aaron as “Aaron, thy brother”.
[39] Surely there was no need for God to take such pains to stress that
Aaron and Moses were brothers – at least not to Moses. Once should have
been enough and so, in the words of the great English bard, William
Shakespeare, “methinks he doth protest too much”.

No doubt there was a great deal of controversy about the actual parentage
of Moses. In order that the clan accept his leader****p, it was essential
to establish Moses as a bona fide Hebrew. For this it was vital for Moses
to have the full sup****t of Aaron, who could testify as to Moses' Hebrew
identity. Aaron would certainly be prepared to give this testimony because
he required Moses' contacts in the royal palace to arrange the liberation
of the Hebrews, Aaron's people. Furthermore, Aaron was a religious leader,
not a political leader, and it would seem he knew much less than Moses
about administrative and military matters. Hence Aaron may even have been
inclined, however reluctantly, to accept Moses as the political leader of
the Hebrews (for one generation only), although he was always zealous to
guard his own claim to religious leader****p. Moses and Aaron were both
without doubt strong-willed, intelligent men who assisted each other in
the fulfillment of their personal ambitions. Their joint endeavors enabled
the creation of a new Hebrew Kingdom in the land of Canaan. But, again,
were they really brothers? Was Moses really a Hebrew? Candidly speaking, I
find this supposition a bit suspect. Let us consider the following points.

First, there is the question of Moses' cir***cision or rather his lack of
it. As Moses is recorded to have said to God, “Behold the children of
Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am
of uncir***cised lips?” [40] There is also a very confusing passage in the
Bible wherein Moses' first wife, who is also not a Hebrew, bitterly curses
Moses as a “bloody husband” for compelling her to cir***cise their son
(who was presumably at that time quite a bit older than eight days, the
prescribed age for the religious rite to take place). [41] What makes this
seem very strange is that Moses surely knew about the Covenant demand for
ritual cir***cision on the eighth day as, no doubt, did his “alleged”
Hebrew parents. Yet Moses would appear to have been the only uncir***cised
Hebrew man to come out of Egypt; and, even before leading the Jews out of
Egypt, Moses was somewhat careless about the cir***cision of his own sons.

As if all the above were not enough Moses, during his forty years of
leader****p, made absolutely no effort to arrange the cir***cision of any
of the new-born Hebrew male children. [42] Is it probable that such
leaders of the Hebrew clan as Aaron's parents and Moses himself would
easily forget or lightly ignore this all-im****tant ceremony without which
“that soul shall be cut off from his people”. [43] 

Second, how likely is it that the Pharaoh's daughter could recognize an
uncir***cised three-month old baby as being Hebrew rather than Egyptian?
Then, after supposedly realizing the baby to be a Hebrew, why would she
flagrantly disobey her father's order and keep the child under her
protection as her very own son? [44] Certainly no one in the royal palace
would have believed the child was really hers unless it were true, for
even in those days a woman was pregnant for nine months before a baby was
born, and Moses was already three months old when, according to the story,
he first appeared in the palace.

Third, the unmistakable political struggle between Moses on one side and
Aaron and Miriam on the other side, as ****trayed when Aaron and Miriam
started a sedition against Moses' leader****p on the grounds of his
marriage to an Ethiopian woman, [45] bespeaks something less than a
healthy familial relation****p, And it is certainly curious about Moses'
predilection for marrying non-Hebrew women, Is this not one more
indication that the uncir***cised Moses was somewhat unique, different
from the other Hebrew men?

Fourth, although Moses had two sons, [46] still none of Moses' descendants
were apparently accepted as either political or religious leaders of the
Hebrews, whereas the family of Aaron was granted religious domination of
the Jewish people into perpetuity. [47] What is it that made the sons of
Aaron so holy and the sons of Moses completely ordinary? Might not we say
that the children of Moses were cursed as they were almost blotted out of
all the “Chronicles”. [48] The only reasonable explanation is that the
partner****p between Aaron and Moses was one of convenience for both men,
but that ultimately it was Aaron who struck the better bargain on behalf
of his family, and even his tribe. The last days of Moses must have been
bitter indeed as he was compelled to hand over political leader****p to
Joshua, Moses' right-hand man, but not to his own son, As regards the
descendants of Moses, officially treated as Levis, their appointed destiny
was to serve Aaron's male descendants forever. [49] Perhaps the only
satisfaction that Moses got was the selection of Joshua from a tribe other
than that of Aaron, the Levi tribe, [50] to which also Moses was alleged to
belong (but, as is clear, that can hardly be believed).

The Ten Commandments
To this day the Jews scrupulously avoid adulating Moses. No doubt this
custom grew out of the intense power struggle which raged between Moses
and Aaron, and which ultimately was won by Aaron or, if not by Aaron
himself, by his sons. Nevertheless the contribution of Moses to the Jewish
religion was surely monumental, whether or not this contribution was all
good, and even if perhaps much of it was derived from Aaron's rather than
from his own thinking. Of course, from this distance in time, it is quite
hard to determine what came from Moses and what from Aaron and what from
Aaron's sons. Modern religious scholars are doubtful as to how much of the
Pentateuch (the Five Books of Moses), was in truth given by Moses. [51] It
would seem logical that the moral code, the diverse secular laws and
ordinances, and the military strategy were at least largely developed by
Moses himself, as those were the areas of his specialized training. [52]
Hence, let us examine briefly the teachings of Moses rather than the man
himself for, in the final analysis, it is action, not lineage, which
determines one's greatness in social life. Whether or not Moses was a
Hebrew should not be a matter of great concern for an enlightened mind,
though clearly to a sectarian-minded Jew or even to a fundamentalist
Christian that point is of paramount im****t.

Of Moses' teachings, first in im****tance would be the Ten Commandments.
[53] Though Western religion generally declares these ten principles to be
the foundation of all morality, a thoughtful analysis will show that they
constitute little more than a primitive set of rules to define a
particular society, and to keep the individual members thereof from
antagonizing one another to the point of endangering the social integrity.

The first four of the Ten Commandments are crude religious dogmas defining
the Jews by their choice of a God, and the manner whereby they are to
wor****p that God. “I am the Lord thy God who took you out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before
me.... thou shalt not make any graven images.... thou shalt not take the
name of your God in vain.... remember the sabbath day and keep it holy” –
these read a bit like the demands of a jealous spouse for complete and
faithful attention. One very curious point, certainly worth noting here,
is that the first commandment, which defines the Hebrew God, omits any
mention of the Covenant made with Abraham. Perhaps Moses thought to create
his own God – the God of Moses as opposed to the God of Abraham. [54] And
it is equally interesting to note that the first commandment, by its
phraseology, accepts implicitly the existence of other gods. Had there
been a clear concept of monotheism, the final words of that commandment
would have had to declare: there are no other gods except me. [55] 

As for the last six commandments: “honour thy father and mother.... thou
shalt not kill.... thou shalt not commit adultery.... thou shalt not
steal.... thou shalt not bear false witness.... thou shalt not covet...”.
these six commandments clearly applied only to the conduct which was
expected from Jews among their own community. And even with respect to
their communal application, there were many exceptions.

“Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee”. Indeed this was one commandment which
the early Jews took quite seriously. A child who honored her or his parents
might or might not live a long life as prophesied, but a child who failed
to honor her or his parents was quite unlikely to survive long,
considering that filial rebellion or even mere disobedience was punishable
by death. [56] 

“Thou shalt not kill” seemed generally to connote “thou shalt not kill a
Hebrew;” for time and again the God of Abraham gave instruction through
the mouths of Moses, and especially Joshua, to kill every man, woman and
child in various cities of Canaan so that the Hebrews might claim the land
and possessions of the Canaanites. [57] However, killing of Jews was also
permissible from time to time under cir***stances for which capital
punishment was prescribed, and killing of Jews was also allowed when a
special lesson from their bloodthirsty God was demanded. For instance,
after the construction of the golden calf had failed to achieve its
purpose, Aaron sought to cover up his crime by making all the people stand
“****d” while Moses gathered and armed the Levis, and sent them out to
“slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man
his neighbor” – all supposedly in obedience to the command of God. About
three thousand men were killed on that day. [58] 

 “Thou shalt not commit adultery” obviously did not preclude the rape of
those women belonging to the conquered Canaanite clans, who were fortunate
enough to be spared from slavery or death for that specific purpose. [59] 

“Thou shalt not steal” requires no special consideration, as all the
Canaanite cities were obviously subject to looting. Yet there is one
noteworthy incident of theft which must be mentioned. Just before the
Hebrews left Egypt, Moses gave a special order which, of course, he
claimed came from God..”. and the children of Israel did according to the
word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and
jewels of gold, and raiment: and the Lord gave the people favor in the
sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they
required. And they spoiled the Egyptians”. [60] Is it any wonder that the
Pharaoh's “heart hardened” against the Hebrews so that he went after them
as they fled from Egypt with their booty? Moreover one must wonder whether
or not the Pharaoh really granted the Hebrews a full exit permit, for what
reason could the Egyptians have found to “loan” the Hebrews jewels and
raiment if they had no expectation of the Hebrews' return? More likely the
Pharaoh permitted Moses only to construct a new and separate city in which
the Hebrews would live. Moses, however, seized the op****tunity to rob the
Egyptians and free the Hebrews. The Pharaoh's response was exactly what
one might expect under such cir***stances.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness” obviously did not apply to the
activities of spies who, even in those days, had the additional duty to
spread disinformation about the real position and strength of their own
army.

And as for “Thou shalt not covet”, this commandment may have had relevance
with respect to small items but surely not to the bigger ones as, for
example, the land of Canaan (Israel) which was allegedly “flowing with
milk and honey”. In fact one may postulate that the unrestrained covet for
Israel – in a word, “Zionism” – was and still is the basis for most of the
greater and lesser crimes of the Jewish people. In the end even God had to
admit: “I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities
which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards
which ye planted not do ye eat.” [61] Somehow this just does not seem
moral, no matter how one tries to justify it.

Morality which cannot be applied universally but serves the purposes only
of a select community is hardly worthy of recognition as such. Even if one
tries to generalize the moral code of the Hebrews (Jews), to make this code
apply for and towards all humanity, which obviously was not the original
intention, to do so would be to throw into question all of the various
passages in the Bible, both before and after the Ten Commandments, where
God has ordered the Hebrews to violate this code. And if one places in
jeopardy those many passages, then doubt is cast also on the Divine Source
and the Divine nature of the Ten Commandments themselves. Logically these
Ten Commandments cannot stand as absolute Truth from any point of view. It
is not possible to generalize the Ten Commandments because of the intimate
and special relation****p of the first four commandments with the Jewish
people. And even were it possible to somehow ignore or expand he first
four, the remaining six commandments are far too vague in their expression
to be practical in day to day life.

A Blot on the Collective Conscience
Other than the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Moses were mostly of an
administrative nature – the institution of judges and the enactment of
various laws and ordinances. To say that these laws were just would be
untrue – they were at best expedient. The records point to a highly
unequal and inequitable treatment of women and illegitimate children, of
religious and ***ual deviants, of immigrants and perhaps especially of
those so accursed by God as to be poor. [62] 

Regarding the plight of the poor for just a minute more, it is worth
noting here that there was apparently no guidance given by Moses on the
subject of law enforcement. This naturally meant that the rich could take
benefit of the law whenever it suited them, while the poor were rarely
able to bring a rich person to court, or ensure that a court judgement was
actually executed. Justice in such a situation is poorly served – even
impartial judges and even the best of laws, which the Mosaic code
definitely was not, are of little real value unless coordinated with an
independent police force. The system set up by Moses was as efficient as a
set of gums without any teeth – a fact which one must reasonably assume
could not escape the notice of a political leader as astute as Moses, at
one time or another, during his forty year reign.

What remains to be said for Moses? Whether or not he was Hebrew or
Egyptian, whether or not his laws were just or unjust, one must concede he
was much more than just a puppet of Aaron. Moses was a powerful and
charismatic personality. Without Moses the clan and cult of Abraham might
well have disappeared from the face of planet Earth after a mere six to
eight hundred years of not-so-distinguished existence. [63] Abraham may
have established the Hebrew clan, but Moses forged the Hebrews into a
Jewish nation. And with the impact of that violent creation, Moses left an
indelible imprint upon the collective psychology of a people which has
remained for more than three thousand years.

The End of a Cycle
As a young boy I used to wonder how it was possible for a just God to
permit the slaughter of six million Jews during World War II. [64] Only
after studying the Bible in light of the cosmic law of karma and samskara
(roughly, action and reaction) could I find the answer. In science we have
discovered that each and every action incurs an equal and opposite
reaction, provided there is no change in time, space or form. Similarly,
in the realm of human existence, people both individually and collectively
are bound to undergo the reactions of their actions. A good action begets a
good reaction. A bad action begets a bad reaction. This is the inexorable
way in which our universe is regulated – even God would be reluctant to
interfere in these matters, for ultimately behind the requital of an act
lies the Divine intention of benevolence. The punishment for an evil act
teaches us not to repeat the same mistake, and the reward for a righteous
act makes us realize that we can never enjoy such bliss by ignoring the
dictates of morality. [65] 

Looking at the early history of the Jews as recorded in the Bible, the
Hebrews wandered in the desert for forty years after leaving Egypt. Then
they conquered Israel by brute and brutal force under the leader****p of
Moses and, thereafter, Joshua. It is quite possible that this conquest was
the most bloody and inhuman atrocity in recorded history; and, on that
basis alone, it is hardly any wonder that the Jews have been oppressed
throughout their checkered career. But more to the point, and as much as
we may regret it, what took place under the warped conditions of the Nazi
Third Reich was undeniably in accordance with Natural Law. It was only
just that the modern Jews should return to Israel (following a second,
even longer wandering in the symbolic wilderness which the Jews refer to
as their dias****a years), [66] only after they themselves had been
butchered in like way as their ancestors had massacred the original
inhabitants of Canaan.

The cycle begun by Moses was completed in 1945, but the lesson of Abraham
has yet to be properly understood. Israel is not the sole property of the
Jews, nor even a safe refuge for them. Ultimately no individuals or
nations can cut themselves off from the rest of humanity, declaring a
piece of this planet to be their exclusive domain. This earth and all its
wealth is meant to be utilized for the individual and collective welfare
of all living beings. No matter what anyone says and no matter what anyone
says that God says – human society is one and indivisible, and this entire
universe is our collective birthright.



6                       Of Prophets and Kings – The Christ Conspiracy
“Now Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon gave charge concerning Jeremiah to
Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard, saying,

Take him, and look well to him, and do him no harm; but do unto him even
as he shall say unto thee”.

Jeremiah 39:11-12.

 

Preface
The year was 6 A.D. Judah of Galilee had just organized a Jewish rebellion
against the new Roman taxation of Judaea – but already he was dead. Judah's
followers, the Zealots, chose discretion as the better part of valor and
retreated to the sympathetic, Essene-controlled deserts, where they hoped
to carry on with greater secrecy their guerrilla resistance to the Ronan
occupation. That same year a Galilean child was born to an unmarried
woman, and with that baby boy the Messianic dream of both the Zealots and
the Essenes took life. Who was the father of that child? Was there any
relation****p between the child's mother and the Essenes? What was the
relation****p between the Zealots and the Essenes? And what was their
relation****p – if any – to that child?

We may never have a definitive answer to these questions – at least not
until human beings develop the capacity to read directly the permanent
imprints of each and every action and event on the etheric records of
relative time. Today we can apply only our logic and reason to analyze, as
best we can, the limited historical and Biblical information available to
us. The only thing we know for certain is that Jesus of Nazareth
definitely did not save either the Jews or the Gentiles, much less the
whole world.

Many of the details presented here cannot be considered proved beyond a
shadow of a doubt. However, I believe that sufficient evidence, both
direct and cir***stantial, is adduced to refute most of the preposterous
notions popularized by the Church. To put it simply, the Gospel story is
often a far cry from the Gospel truth. Occasionally I may offer more than
one alternative scenario; but, wherever and in whatever way I diverge from
the standard dogma, it is my opinion that such an alternative presents a
more probable rendition of events as they really took place two thousand
years ago.

This analysis of the life of Jesus may seem brief to many readers – it is
brief by preference. Some other persons may object to the disjointed style
in which interesting sup****tive material and an abundance of tantalizing
speculation appear in footnotes. But this treatise is intended neither as
a work of fiction nor even as a definitive study of the life and times of
Jesus. Although much material presented herein amounts to a direct attack
on the character of the historical Jesus, even that, or rather especially
that, is not the purpose of this writing. My primary intent here is to
expose some of the myriad flaws in the popular story; and, for any “with
ears to hear” or “eyes to see”, this purpose must surely be accomplished.
To extend the discussion beyond that point would prove no more valuable
than the early Christian debate on how many angels can dance on the head
of a pin.

If in the process of making my points I should offend anyone's religious
sentiment, that most assuredly is not my intention. To a large degree my
position is like that of the farmer who, while claiming that his donkey
would get up and move forward even on a softly spoken command,
nevertheless always hit the donkey's head with a sledge hammer before
whispering in its ear. Said the farmer, “My donkey is very obedient, but
first I must get its attention”. Anyway, let me give prior warning to my
readers that the following material is definitely not for the faint of
heart, and that those who choose to read further do so at their own risk.
If some honest but simple persons fail to understand this caution and,
reading further, might feel that I have overstepped all reasonable
boundaries of religious tolerance, then to those good and gentle people I
offer my sincere apology and beg their pardon.

God and This World
Once a student asked his Teacher to explain the difference between God and
this world. The Teacher held up her fist and said, “There is no
difference.” Next she showed two fingers and said, “They appear to be two,
but in action and in essence they are one.” Then she began to shake her two
fingers back and forth, faster and faster, until they appeared as one and
finally disappeared altogether. “And that one,” said she, “always remains
a mystery until and unless one merges one's identity in it.”

Spiritualists sometimes say, “As above, so below” – or, in other words,
what applies in the realm of spirituality also applies to this material
world. Many people have talked about the value or desirability of a
separation between church and state, but the fact is that this separation
has never existed and can never fully occur. There may be a technical
distinction and a legal separation, there may even be a tem****ary
opposition between the government in power and the prevailing religious or
spiritual authorities, but history has shown time and again that, for
better or for worse, the state and the church are inevitably wedded to
each other. The simple fact is that both are claiming a legislative
authority over the people. The Church claims a moral prerogative, with
freedom to make certain adjustments as per necessity in the application of
the alleged God-given ethical and social principles revealed in their
scriptures. The State claims a legal prerogative, with freedom to enact
new laws, or amendments to laws within certain limitations and on the
basis of a divine or popular mandate to rule. These two sets of laws
cannot long remain at variance with each other. [67] “One society, one
law” is the foundation of a healthy nation – too much internal clash and a
civilization crumbles either from internal turmoil or external pressure.
This plain fact of life has been well understood, either consciously or
unconsciously, by virtually all major political and religious leaders
throughout the annals of recorded history. Hence, though Church and State
may have appeared to be separate at times, in essence and in action they
were generally one. The ancient kings claimed to be Gods. When that ploy
failed, they claimed a divine right to rule and they invariably imposed or
sup****ted only those religions which upheld that right, Christianity being
one of the foremost religions to do so. [68] Throughout the world today,
even in the most decadent or corrupt or inhuman regimes, one 
inds remarkably little conflict between the dominant secular and religious
leader****p. In Russia where it is alleged that Christianity has been
brutally suppressed, we find nowadays a warm and sup****tive relation****p
expressed between the predominant Russian Orthodox Church and the present
communist government. [69] 

Jesus gave recognition to the need for social harmony when he said, “Every
kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house
divided against a house falleth.” [70] But Jesus seems to have applied
this principle in a curious way. Although Jesus was himself a Jew, he had
a low opinion of the prevailing Jewish leader****p, both secular and
religious; that is to say, both Herod whom Jesus called a “fox”, [71] and
the Sadducees, Pharisees and Scribes whom he treated as being beneath
contempt. [72] On the other hand, Jesus took great pains to sup****t the
right to rule of the Roman Empire which was, at that time, firmly in
control of Israel and heavily taxing the Jews. [73] Jesus was
unquestionably prepared to bring division among the Jews (in fact, this
was his stated mission [74] ), but he did not want to foment rebellion
against the Romans. This seemingly treacherous conduct of Jesus certainly
merits our study and our analysis. What was the real ambition of Jesus –
was it spiritual or political? Who benefitted most from his activities?
Did Jesus work alone or did he have secret sup****ters? What was his
strategy? And finally, did Jesus succeed or fail in achieving his stated
and unstated objectives? Let us consider these questions one at a time.

Reading Between the Lines
In analyzing anything relevant to Christianity, the entire New Testament
is significant and, to a lesser degree, the Old Testament. With respect to
the life of Jesus himself, one must be concerned primarily with the four
Gospels. Unfortunately we encounter considerable discrepancy about the
facts as presented in the four Gospels, particularly in comparing the
Gospel of John with those of Matthew, Mark and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels,
grouped together because of their literary similarities). Thus, while John
strongly implies that Jesus was in no way born in Bethlehem, the two
gospels that clearly record the date and place of Jesus' birth – that is,
Matthew and Luke – agree only that he was born in Bethlehem. [75] Where
Matthew suggests that Jesus was born in 4 B.C. at Bethlehem, which was the
original home of Joseph and Mary, [76] Luke places the date around 6 A.D.
in Bethlehem, where Joseph and Mary had gone only for tax registration
purposes. [77] There is also a wide divergence in the genealogies
presented by Matthew and Luke. [78] Besides the vast difference in the
number of generations (according to Matthew it is 28 generations from
David to Jesus, whereas Luke specifies 42 generations), the two
genealogies cannot agree even on who was Joseph's father or from which son
of King David the line is descended. Matthew records the entire Sermon on
the Mount [79] taking place on a mountain, but Luke splits it up, having
Jesus deliver at least part of the sermon on the plains. [80] All of the
Gospels present the story of Jesus in a different order as, for example,
the timing of Jesus' visit to Nazareth. [81] As regards the crucifixion,
there are three different versions of Jesus' last words. Matthew and Mark
have him die crying out the opening words to Psalm 22. [82] Luke has Jesus
surrendering his spirit to God. [83] And John has Jesus declaring, “It is
finished.” [84] 

Regarding the crucifixion event, the whole story given by John differs
radically from that of the other three Gospels. In the Synoptic Gospels, a
man called Simon who was from Cyrene carried the cross for Jesus, [85] but
John records that Jesus carried his own cross. [86] According to Matthew,
Mark and Luke, all of Jesus' acquaintances, including his mother and the
other women who followed him, watched the crucifixion from a great
distance, [87] but John claims that he and Jesus' mother and the other
women were standing just by the cross, so close that Jesus could have easy
conversation with them. [88] John is the only one of the four to record the
piercing of Jesus' side, and the “blood and water” which immediately flowed
from that alleged wound. [89] Ultimately there is no logical or even
miraculous way to resolve these contradictions. If we try to reconcile the
Synoptic Gospels with John, then we must credit not just Jesus but also the
women who followed him with supernatural abilities – how else could they
jump back and forth from both far and near to the cross? Not only that, if
we give credence to John's story, we must accept that the corpse of Jesus
made medical history. One may concede that three out of four Gospels may
have erred in where the mother of Jesus and John were standing at the time
of the crucifixion, but it seems highly unlikely that these three would
fail to record a significant event such as the piercing of Jesus' side,
had this really taken place. To be reasonable, we must surely reject the
entire story of the crucifixion given by John, basing our analysis on the
more probable data presented in the Synoptic Gospels. Briefly, a man
called Simon the Cyrene carried the cross for Jesus (or whomever was
crucified); and, when the crucifixion took place, there was nobody who
knew Jesus well close enough to the cross to clearly witness the event,
unless it was that Simon the Cyrene himself. It is also worth noting here
that, even if Simon the Cyren
 did know Jesus personally (which probably he did), in any event he seems
to have disappeared mysteriously immediately following the crucifixion.
[90] 

All in all, from beginning to end, from his very birth to his alleged
death, Jesus was a most controversial character. In trying to piece
together his life and deeds, the Gospels are often more confusing than
helpful. The Synoptic Gospels, however, are a bit more credible than John;
and, of those three, Luke would appear to be the most reliable and unbiased
chronicler of events. [91] Luke seems also to be the author of The Acts of
the Apostles, the New Testament book following the four Gospels. This book
provides the only comprehensive record found in the Bible of events of the
early Church, albeit that record is clearly prejudiced in its heavy
concentration on the activities of Paul, with whom Luke was closely
associated. [92] That Acts was written by Luke may be concluded not only
from the aforementioned cir***stance, but also by virtue of the similar
literary style found in Luke and Acts, by the fact that the author of Acts
apparently did write a Gospel, and that Acts definitely follows more easily
after Luke than after any of the other three Gospels found in the Bible.
Also, both Luke and Acts are addressed to the same person, Theophilus,
while none of the other books of the New Testament are written for him.
[93] Thus, in analyzing the life of Jesus, the story in Luke tends to take
precedence over those in Matthew and Mark; and all of the Synoptic Gospels
take precedence over John, although Matthew, Mark and John all become very
significant and may even precede Luke when one wants to study or analyze
the teachings and philosophy of Jesus or of the early Church. In any
event, a proper analysis of the life, actions and teachings of Jesus
demands that one take the evidence of all of the Gospels with the
proverbial grain of salt, often trying to read more in between the lines
than in the numbered passages.

Ambition
Our first question is: “What was the real ambition of Jesus – was it
spiritual or political?” Without a doubt the Church would insist that
Jesus was totally apolitical. Unfortunately, one can no more easily
believe that Jesus' activities were apolitical than one can believe that a
Polish Pope's interest in the Polish trade union, Solidarity, is purely
pastoral. [94] An incredible effort went into establi****ng Jesus as a
direct descendant of David, by which virtue Jesus would clearly have been
entitled to ascend the Jewish throne – this is the first hint. The Gospel
of Matthew starts on this point, and Davidic descent is a recurring theme
throughout the Gospels. [95] There is, of course, a slight inherent
contradiction in the lineage of Jesus in that Joseph, not Mary, was
allegedly descended from David, but both Matthew and Luke stated with
vigor that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. [96] However, I think we
can safely ignore this problem as everyone in Israel at the time of Jesus
ignored it. The significance given the birth of a popular heir to David's
throne was enough to trouble Herod I who, according to Matthew's account,
was the official King of the Jews in Israel when Jesus was born. [97]
Herod was a practicing Jew, but not at all of such illustrious descent.
Technically he was not entitled to sit on the Jewish throne. Hence, we are
told, he sought to murder Jesus and thereby eliminate the competition. [98]


A second and salient fact is that Jesus was claiming or was claimed to be
the Messiah [99] or, in Hebrew, Ma****ah – the “anointed one”. According to
Jewish tradition both priests and kings were anointed by pouring oil on
their heads. [100] We read in one famous Psalm of David the declaration,
“Thou anointest my head with oil”, [101] meaning “God makes me a king”.
But, when the Jews referred to the Ma****ah, they meant no ordinary priest
or king, but rather a great Savior. At the time of Jesus, two opinions
were prevalent regarding the probable nature of the Messiah. One view
expected the “anointed one” (in Greek, Khristos; in Latin, Christus; in
English, Christ) to establish a kingdom in this world with its center at
Jerusalem. In that case the Messiah would, of course, have to be a direct
descendant of David, and thus entitled to rule over the twelve tribes. He
would also necessarily free Israel and the Jews from the tyranny of
foreign rule. Many Jews refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah simply
because he did not fulfill these expectations. They said, “When I look out
my window everything seems to be the same – how then can Jesus have been
the Messiah?” The other interpretation given the Messiah postulated that
his coming would inaugurate a heavenly kingdom in which the dead would be
resurrected and the holy would ascend to heaven, there sharing in the rule
of this new and other-worldly empire. By this standard also, Jesus
obviously could not be accepted as the real Messiah by any Jew who chose
to look out the window. In any event, Jesus may perhaps have spoken about
the second type of Messianic kingdom, [102] but he undoubtedly hinted
about a more worldly kingdom as well – a kingdom in which his twelve
apostles would sit on thrones and rule over the twelve tribes of Israel.
[103] Moreover, that kingdom, Jesus said, was to be established while at
least some of those apostles were still alive. [104] After two thousand
years, one wonders which of Jesus' disciples 
as escaped death for so long. Surely this was one critical prophecy, or
promise, which Jesus failed to fulfill. It is no surprise that few Jews
accepted him as their true Messiah.

Third, grounds for the alleged crucifixion were based on the charge that
Jesus was fomenting a rebellion of sorts. Out of sarcasm or out of
sympathy, he (or his surrogate) was crucified with the words, “King of the
Jews”, on the cross. [105] Pontius Pilate, no doubt a politically astute
man understood, and maybe appreciated that Jesus was seeking a mundane
kingdom rather than some quite ethereal empire. The fact that the
disciples of Jesus carried swords, and were told by Jesus to carry them,
[106] looks odd if their goal was indeed purely religious. Furthermore,
Jesus' entry into Jerusalem apparently coincided with a physical
insurrection led by Barabbas, [107] and so it happened that Jesus could be
crucified between two “thieves”, probably the revolutionary accomplices of
Barabbas. [108] By association alone, one may presume that Jesus had at
least some relation to their cause, even if his strategy and tactics may
have differed a bit. That is, where the Zealots openly fought against
Rome, Jesus appeared to have no animus against Caesar, preferring rather
to attack Herod and the Jewish bureaucracy, the enemy within rather than
the enemy without. Sup****t of Jesus for the Zealot cause is substantiated
by the fact that we find no record of Jesus ever openly opposing the
Zealots, whereas it is clearly recorded that at least one of his chosen
twelve apostles, Simon Zelotes, was in fact a card-carrying member of the
group. [109] Furthermore, on one occasion Jesus openly indicated sympathy
for the martyred Zealot soldiers. [110] And last but not least, it is good
to remember that the Zealots were commonly referred to as the Galileans,
and many of them must have been blood relatives of Jesus. [111] 

Fourth, after Jesus left Israel, that is, after the alleged crucifixion
and the so-called resurrection (which did not by any account fulfill
Jesus' own prophecy to remain in the grave for three days and three
nights, [112] having been, according to all accounts, at most only one day
and two nights [113] ), after the departure of Jesus, it is significant to
note that leader****p of the movement fell on the shoulders of Jesus' first
brother. [114] Jesus had four brothers in all – James, Joses, Simon and
Judas. [115] While James, one of the twelve apostles, is called “James,
son of Alphaeus”, [116] the James who is definitely brother of Jesus and
son of Mary is often called James the Less. [117] This title is highly
reminiscent of the terms used to describe second sons in royal families.
In any event, after Jesus left, it was James the Less who assumed the
mantle of leader****p over the early Christian Jews, and this leader****p
was accepted by all, including Paul, despite the fierce internal rivalry
among the apostles. Why should the apostles have accepted James the Less
as their leader, particularly after Jesus had declared all believers as
his real brothers, [118] if there had been no political ambition
motivating their sect? Frankly it reads too much like a monarchy to think
that it was intended as anything else. Even the “General Epistle of James”
is written with a completely different style than all the other Epistles,
his being expressed with the authority of a man who does not have to
establish his right to rule.

At the beginning of this article, I pointed out that religion and politics
tend to merge. In the outer life of Jesus, religion may have been the
dominant theme; but, with respect to his inner ambition, politics would
appear to have gained the upper hand.

For Whose Benefit
Who benefitted most from the activities of Jesus? By his own words, Jesus
came only to serve the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [119] When he
sent out his disciples, prior to the “resurrection” at least, he gave
clear instruction not to approach any gentiles, i.e. non-Jews. [120] Even
after the “resurrection” it would appear that his instruction remained to
continue an approach only to Jews. Although there is one passage at the
end of Mark which talks about preaching the gospel “to every creature”,
[121] most historians and theologians admit that these verses were
probably appended at a later time to justify salvation for non-Jews.
Indeed this appendage was necessary – otherwise, the decision to approach
Gentiles was taken by James the Less, under considerable pressure from
Paul and Peter, [122] while the words of Jesus as recorded in John state
definitively that only the Jews may hope for salvation. [123] It is
evident that Jesus intended his mission to benefit only the Jews; but, in
point of fact and from any angle of vision, this program was a failure.
Few Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah and so, even from a purely
religious point of view, few Jews could have benefitted from his advent.

Jesus did, however, create a divisive wave throughout the camp of the
Jews, and this division had clear political advantage for Rome. There is
an ancient political maxim, one of the cornerstones of British imperial
strategy, and that is: “divide and rule”. Jesus certainly played a
significant role in undermining the Jewish rebellion against the Roman
Empire. The Jews had a history, even a tendency to revolt, as evidenced by
Jewish uprisings in Israel both before and after Jesus, e.g. the Maccabean
revolt of 128 B.C., the Zealot insurrections of 6 A.D. and 66-70 A.D., and
the revolution led by Bar Kokba from 132-135 A.D. (It is noteworthy here
that the Jews tended to adulate the leaders of these rebellions as
possible Messiahs, this most evident in the case of Simon Bar Kokba. [124]
) Jesus also had a strategy of revolution in mind, but he sought to
liberate the Jews not from any foreign power but rather from their own
corrupt Tetrarch, Herod Antipas, who was undoubtedly an evil character,
though probably not the main enemy in the minds of most Jews. 

In respect to strategy, Jesus took his lead more from the prophets and
less from the patriots. Indeed, there are many remarkable similarities
between Jesus and Elisha (who healed lepers, raised the dead, and took
charge after Elijah, whom Jesus declared John the Baptist to be [125] ),
and between Jesus and Ezekiel (who called himself again and again the “Son
of Man” and spoke much of the future blissful society [126] ). Most
remarkable of all are the parallels which emerge if one compares the life
of Jesus to that of Jeremiah. Both lamented over the fate of Jerusalem,
[127] both railed against false prophets, [128] both sup****ted the right
of a foreign power to tax Israel, [129] and both were, in return sup****ted
by the leaders of that foreign power. [130] Surely Roman rule was
strengthened by the psychologically destructive impact of the anti-Judaic
teachings of Jesus, such as: do not resist evil, turn the other cheek, pay
the Roman taxes, be poor, and love your enemy. [131] Most of these
teachings, if we examine them closely, were either illogical, impossible
or hypocritical, but we shall deal with this subject later. Suffice it to
say here that the teachings and activities of Jesus worked very much in
favor of the Roman politico-economic exploitation of Israel – a fact
ultimately recognized and turned to great profit (or “prophet” to make a
weak pun) by Constantine the Great. However, if we are to give credit
where credit is due, then this point was probably first realized by Paul
who, though a Jew, was also one of the elite few who could claim the
prestigious and powerful privilege of being a bona fide Roman citizen.
[132] And so it is little wonder that Paul was the main driving force
behind the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect into a
Gentile religion. Many theologians wonder why Jesus became so popular
among the Gentiles and yet could not attract the Jews. Historians do not
face the same enigma – the historians are rather amused by the obvio
s and telling fact that the nucleus of the Christian Church, the Vatican,
was soon located in Rome rather than in Jerusalem.

Behind the Scenes
Did Jesus work alone or did he have secret sup****ters? First let us
examine who were his known sup****ters. There were the twelve apostles and
his brothers, who may or may not have been included among the twelve,
though probably not. There was his mother and a rather large group of
women, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna and many others, who
always traveled with Jesus. [133] Then there was Joseph of Arimathaea, a
Counsellor, [134] Nicademus, a Pharisee and a “ruler of the Jews”, [135]
Zacchaeus, rich chief of the Roman tax collectors, [136] Procula, the wife
of Pontius Pilate, [137] and even Pontius Pilate himself. [138] Considering
the avowed stance of Jesus that the rich had almost no chance of entering
the Kingdom of God [139] and that it is the meek and oppressed m***** who
will “inherit the earth”, [140] one might well wonder how Jesus managed to
amass such a large circle of wealthy and influential friends. At the very
least, this is subject to suspicion. The first healing recorded in Matthew
is on behalf of a Roman centurion's servant, [141] though no one is said to
have entered the house to verify either the illness or the cure. Surely
that, too, is suspicious, for one cannot attribute the later partiality
shown by the Romans towards Jesus only to that one questionable event. As
mentioned earlier, something smells fishy here, and that smell does not
proceed only from the many feasts which Jesus and his followers enjoyed.
[142] No, the fishy smell derives from an unholy alliance with Rome. But
is it possible that Jesus was the only traitor among the Jews?

The real conspiracy becomes clear when we examine the relation****p between
Jesus and John the Baptist, as outlined in Luke. According to Luke, Jesus
and John were related through their mothers, who were cousins. [143] As
mentioned earlier, Jesus was descended, through Joseph, from David.
Regarding John, both his father and his mother were allegedly from the
line of Aaron. His father, Zacharias, was a priest which meant
automatically that he, as a Jew, could trace his lineage to Aaron, but
Luke elaborates that John's line came from Aaron's son Abia [sic],
presumably Abihu. [144] Unfortunately, we are told in the Old Testament
that Abihu had no children; and, indeed, none can be found in the
Chronicles. [145] But let us give this point a go-by; for, after all,
Zacharias was not the only one who liked to pretend he was descended from
someone great. John's mother, Elisabeth, was also allegedly descended from
Aaron through one of his daughters. [146] All in all, John the Baptist was
described to be a member of the “Cohen”, or Priestly caste. Then,
according to the story, the angel Gabriel visited Zacharias, John's
father, to tell him that John would soon be born, that his role would be
that of harbinger to the Messiah, and that his name should be “John”.
Shortly thereafter, Gabriel appeared to Mary – to announce the imminent
birth of a son, that this son would be the long-awaited Messiah, that God
would give to him the throne of David, and that he should be named “Jesus”
(probably from the Hebrew Name “Yehoshua” – Joshua – meaning “Savior” and
signifying, as we learn in Matthew, that he would “save his people from
their sins” [147] ). Gabriel further told Mary that her cousin, Elisabeth,
had already conceived a son, and that she was in the sixth month of her
pregnancy. On learning this, Mary went immediately to be for the next
three months with Elisabeth, presumably leaving only after the birth of
John. Not long after John, Jesus was also born. [148] 

What may we glean from this story? First, Mary and Elisabeth, besides
being cousins, must have been close friends. Hence the recognition of
Jesus by John was hardly a miracle, nor even was it spontaneous, despite
the apostle John's protests to the contrary. [149] Jesus and John must
have known each other well; and, as they had been destined from their very
births, or from even before their births, to form a two-man,
closely-aligned team, it is little wonder that they did do just that.
[150] After all, those were the roles they would have been trained from
childhood to play. If we discount all of the talk about angels, and
substitute human beings (perhaps, if one likes, psychically or even
spiritually developed humans), then the makings of a well-planned and
sizeable conspiracy emerge. But, what sort of conspiracy?

At the time of Jesus almost all Jews were expecting God would send the
Messiah soon. Throughout their history, whenever difficulties arose, the
Jews have always expected and often received a “hero or sage” to lead them
out of their predicament – but ever and always they waited for the one
great and final Savior. Just forty years ago, those Jews langui****ng in
Nazi concentration camps often maintained their spirits with one thought –
Ani Maamin, I believe – “I believe the Messiah will come.” So it was in
Israel at the time of Jesus, Israel dominated by the incredibly powerful
Roman Empire, [151] the Jews could hope for an extraordinary and
miraculous liberation from the oppressive grip of those gentile
barbarians. Some Jews expected a supernatural being; others looked for a
military leader; many dreamed about the establishment of an economic
paradise where all their needs would be fulfilled without working. All
believed that, after the Messiah's advent, a utopia would be established –
either heaven on earth or earth in heaven. In brief, the eschatological
views of Christianity regarding the Second Coming are roughly equivalent
to what the Jews expected – and still expect – from the Messiah's “first
coming”.

In that particular time when Jesus appeared, an age permeated with the
sweet dream of emancipation and the harsh realities of politico-economic
exploitation, many pretenders arose to claim the “throne of David”. A
cursory glance at the books of prophets will show how most of the accepted
prophets, “messengers of God”, warned against “false prophets”. [152] Even
Jesus warned against “false Christs”. [153] Back then the competition was
feverish; and, throughout the centuries since then, the lure of Messianic
power has continued to attract clever and audacious Jews to make their bid
for the post of God's Anointed. To name just a few of the pretenders, there
was Bar Kokba in the 2nd Century, Abraham Abulafia in the 13th Century,
Sabbatai Zebi in the 17th Century and Jacob Frank in the 18th Century.
These were some of the Jewish contenders – if one includes all of the
Christians and Moslems who had similar delusions of grandeur, then the
ranks expand considerably. Even today there are at least two, and maybe
three prominent gurus based in the United States who are hailed by their
disciples as the reincarnation of Christ. To elucidate this point, let me
briefly relate one incident which occurred at the start of this Century.

The year was 1911, and Annie Besant had been for four years President of
the Theosophical Society in India. Suddenly she announced to the world
that a young Indian boy of barely 16 years would be the medium through
which the World Teacher would speak. Jiddu Krishnamurti was named the
messianic reincarnation of the Buddha. In order to sup****t his activities,
Ms. Besant founded the World Order of Star, which operated for seventeen
years, until 1928, when Krishnamurti finally admitted that the claims made
about him were false. Forty years passed and then, in 1969, the
Krishnamurti Foundation was established to propagate the new ideas of the
non-guru-no-guru guru.

Even this year (1984), just a few months ago many thousands of people
waited with burning expectation for Jesus to miraculously and
simultaneously appear on television sets all around the world. The
charlatan who spread this nonsense has quietly slipped away; but, no
doubt, his economic security has been well served. And we may surely
expect him to appear in public once again to give some far-fetched
explanation for the failure of his far-fetched prediction. When humanity
can today still be that gullible, it is no wonder that people were
somewhat receptive at the time of Jesus. It is very much to the credit of
the Jews then in Israel that they were, by and large, not taken in by the
clever game of John the Baptist and Jesus. And it goes even more to the
credit of Jewish intelligence when one considers how skillfully the Jesus
scheme was orchestrated by the Essene Sect from behind the scenes.

The Essenes were a more or less monastic order of priestly origin based
mainly in the deserts of Judaea, and there are actually many pieces of
clear evidence indicating that they, the Essenes, were the real
masterminds of the “Christ Conspiracy” First, there are at least two
separate and credible sets of do***ents that have appeared in Tibetan
monasteries, which link the life of Jesus with the Essene community. The
first is The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, pur****ted to have been hidden in a
Buddhist monastery by members of the Essene order who feared corruption of
the truth by later op****tunists. The second is a set of Buddhist do***ents
(verified by both Nicholas Notovich, a Russian explorer, and Swami
Abhedananda, a founding member of the Ramakrishna Mission), which describe
the training of Jesus in India under Jain and Buddhist instruction, and
which clearly refer to the earlier training and later sup****t of Jesus and
John the Baptist by the Essenes. [154] 

The second piece of evidence is based on information derived from the Dead
Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947. A careful analysis of the philosophy of the
Qumran Sect, (the Essene or Essene-like community which wrote, copied and
preserved many scrolls), reveals a remarkable similarity to the philosophy
taught by Jesus and John. For example, the Essenes were very firm in their
opposition to any kind of oath-taking, and in their sup****t of communal
property – two themes which were quite prominent in the teachings of Jesus
and John. [155] 

Third, the lifestyle and activities of John strongly testify to his having
been a member of the Essene Community. His ascetic nature [156] parallels
nicely the rigorous monastic existence of the Essenes. His use of the
baptism rite, which the disciples of Jesus used as well, [157] was by and
large quite foreign to the mainstream of Jewish tradition but,
nonetheless, similar to the initiatory baptism of the Essenes. The clear
reference to John's desert training in Luke, [158] John's preaching in the
Judaean desert when Jesus appeared on the scene, [159] and John's
self-description as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness”, [160] –
all these can only be taken as confirmation that John, himself, was an
Essene. And the fact that Jesus was ready to accept the baptism of John,
or rather that he intentionally sought the baptism of John, [161] can only
lend credence to the theory that Jesus also accepted the authority of the
Essene Order.

Fourth, the Messianic pattern depicted in the New Testament, best
described by Luke, conforms exactly to the Essene predictions about the
Messiah as revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. According to the Essenes,
there would be a Messianic pair – a priestly Messiah from the House of
Aaron and a royal Messiah from the House of David. Both would be entitled
to the honorific of Ma****ah as both priest and king are anointed with oil
according to Jewish tradition. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Essene
conception of these Messiahs was not that they would be supernatural
beings, as per later Christian dogma, but rather that they would be ideal
leaders presiding over a righteous and just socio-religious society in
Israel. As was pointed out earlier, John the Baptist was clearly stated to
be descended from the house of Aaron, and Jesus was just as clearly
declared to be from the house of David. Thus the two men conformed, not
only in role, but also in lineage to the Essene prediction. If we
substitute a leader of the Essene sect for the angel Gabriel in Luke's
story, then everything falls neatly into place.

Fifth, when John the Baptist was arrested and killed by Herod, this act
was clearly an unexpected shock for Jesus. Matthew and Mark both record
that, immediately after John's death, John's disciples went to Jesus with
the news, and Jesus promptly retreated to the desert. [162] Where else
would he have gone but to the sanctuary of his Essene sponsors, for
clearly he found it necessary not only to take refuge, but also to consult
with the Essenes and revise their strategy. The first stratagem had been
based on two Messiahs; and, presumably, it had been finalized just prior
to the start of Jesus' mission, when he was recorded to have been fasting
for forty days in the “wilderness”. [163] After John's death, it became
necessary that Jesus play both messianic roles – not just the political
but also the religious role – and hence the need for conference, and
restructuring of the plans.

Sixth, there were four prominent philosophical schools among the Jews at
the time of Jesus – the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Zealots and the
Essenes. [164] There were also some additional, socially elite groups such
as the Scribes and the Herodians. The link between Jesus and the Zealots
has already been suggested. Note here that both the Essenes and the
Zealots had at least one thing in common, which was of small concern to
the Sadducees and the Pharisees – they both wanted to see the early
establishment of a Jewish theocracy in Israel under the rule of the
promised Messiah. What better place to organize a conspiracy of that sort
than in the desert strongholds of the Essene monasteries, so very close to
the Zealot guerrilla camps. [165] 

Seventh, throughout the Gospels we read the scathing condemnation by Jesus
of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the Herodians and the Scribes. [166]
But we find not a single remark directed against the Essenes or the
Zealots. It is hard to believe that the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians
and Scribes were all “vipers” whereas the Essenes and Zealots were all
“angels”. This incredible silence of Jesus regarding corruption among the
Zealots and the Essenes leads one to conclude that either these two groups
were already sup****ting Jesus, or else he was actively seeking their
sup****t. Jesus never rebuked anyone who spoke favorably of him, as
witnessed in the incident where he told the apostle John not to stop the
unknown man who was “casting out devils” in the name of Jesus, because
“there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly
speak evil of me”. [167] These words and this silence both expose the
logic of a political candidate, not the thoughts of a spiritual teacher.
Everyone knows that the devil also can quote scriptures and perform
miracles, but generally the political op****tunist tends to disregard this
fact in order to encourage sycophancy. The complete silence of Jesus with
regard to the Essenes is sure indication of a secret and significant
alliance between the two.

Eighth, all of the theories regarding the derivation of the word “Essene”
have a close connection with the life and activities of Jesus as well.
Some scholars have suggested that the name came from the Hebrew word
“Hasidim”, meaning the “righteous ones”. This name applies because the
Essenes were known to spend their entire lives in study of the Bible in
all its minutest details – something which Jesus also had obviously done –
and because the Essenes, like Jesus, stressed the need to be more righteous
than the Pharisees and Sadducees. [168] Another possibility is that the
word “Essene” was derived from the Aramaic word “Assiyin”, meaning
“healers”. Both the Essenes and Jesus placed much im****tance on healing.
[169] One last possibility is that the name came from the Hebrew word
“Hassene”, meaning the “silent ones” and referring to the Essene secrecy
about their teachings and activities. Perhaps this last-mentioned
possibility comprehends the most salient aspect of Essene doctrine and
conduct and, similarly, a most critical aspect of Jesus' ministry as well.
Not only did Jesus teach his followers to give alms secretly, but he also
cautioned those whom he had healed not to reveal who had done the healing.
Jesus even enjoined his disciples to keep secret his messianic mission.
[170] Though Jesus, of course, knew these secrets would (could) never be
kept, his stress on secrecy may have been a good form of “child
psychology” – in other words, ask a child to keep a secret, and that child
will be sure to tell everyone. But Jesus himself did keep some very
im****tant secrets concerning his strategy, allies and his ambition, which
secrets one can now realize by a careful analysis of the hidden
implications of Jesus' words and actions

Ninth, the teachings of James and the early Church were very much in
harmony with Essene doctrine. One notes most particularly the practice of
communal living, the ban on private property and, once again, the ban on
swearing oaths. [171] 

Tenth and last, the Essenes first appeared around 200 B.C., and they
disappeared around 200 A.D. Their close proximity to the life and time of
Jesus is obvious, but the link is finally confirmed when one notes that
the Essene Sect dissolved mostly by merging into the Christian community.
In this respect they were the only Jewish group which really accepted
Jesus – not even the Zealots remembered Jesus when they became convinced
that he was not going to succeed in his bid for political power.
Therefore, the Essenes must have had a closer touch and a more firm
commitment than the Zealots to the movement founded by Jesus and John the
Baptist. This point is sup****ted by the fact mentioned earlier that the
Essenes went to great pains to preserve their own records about the life
of Jesus – records which they no doubt expected, or at least hoped, would
further the interests of their own select group.

Strategy and Tactics
What was the strategy of Jesus? Already much is clear, but a few points
remain to be made. First, Jesus sought to play on the Messianic hope and
the superstitions surrounding the Messiah in order to gain immediate
popularity among the Jews. To this end Jesus made promises which he knew
he could not fulfill, for example, to establish the kingdom of heaven on
earth while the present generation still lived. [172] He also courted the
poverty-stricken m***** by promising them a utopia in which they would no
longer need to work. [173] In addition, Jesus would appear to have
“forgiven” an incredible conglomeration of sins, and one may certainly
question his power or authority to do this, [174] Second, he applied the
well-known techniques of faith healing to gain popular appeal, to appear
as having miraculous powers within himself. Unfortunately, or rather
fortunately, faith healing works not by the special capability of the
healer, but as a consequence of the latent power within each person's own
mind – this personal power being activated by concentration achieved
through total faith, and often brought to a peak by unexpected or unusual
modes of treatment. Where there is lack of faith, there is lack also of
mental concentration; and where there is lack of mental concentration, one
fails to cross the limits of intellect into the realm of intuition, wherein
the solution to all problems may be found. Had Jesus possessed any special
power to heal, he would not have had to resort to such theatrics as
spitting on a man's tongue or in a man's eyes, nor would he have had to
insist so much on faith as a prerequisite for his services. [175] 

Third, Jesus made a common practice of exorcism, something which the
Church today generally frowns upon, and has virtually discontinued because
most educated people realize there are no such things as ghosts and spirits
and demons. Possession (by demons) is nothing more than a mental malady and
a nervous disease. Hence, the exorcist usually gives the diseased person a
good thra****ng or some other physical shock to set right the nervous
disorder. S/he then applies varying psychological treatments to cure the
mental disease. The exorcist never wants to reveal this secret; rather,
s/he mutters some meaningless mumbo jumbo or gives some specious
explanation of the treatment, hoodwinking the unwary public into believing
in her or his “supernatural” powers. Jesus once claimed to have cast out,
in one minute, a particularly nasty species of devil which “goeth not out
but by prayer and fasting”. [176] Nowadays, if a man speaks like this, or
if we hear that a man has freed some women from “evil spirits and
infirmities” and thereafter those women have been following that man and
“ministering unto him of their substance”, [177] surely we would have very
grave doubts about the man's conduct and intentions. There is no good
reason to be less suspicious of Jesus for having behaved in that fa****on
two thousand years ago, especially considering the general trend of
exploitation of women found in Judaism at that time, and also considering
that Jesus apparently did nothing whatsoever, by either word or action, to
alleviate that exploitation. [178] 

Fourth, Jesus spoke and projected himself as a man having special
authority from God. We are told by Matthew that, following the Sermon on
the Mount, the populace who heard Jesus were astonished more by the manner
of his speaking than by what he had said. [179] Simple people seem always
to be impressed more by the medium than by the message, to use the words
of Marshall McLuhan. This also accounts for the attainment today of a
B-grade movie actor with no great genius to the most influential political
position in the world. Playing on the fears and superstitions of the
people, Jesus brazenly declared, “All things are delivered to me of my
Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the
Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” [180]
Even more to the point he announced, “Whosoever shall deny me before men,
him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” [181] Surely, a
sincere and honest person who just cannot have faith in this demagogue, or
believe his religious tomfoolery, would never be damned to “eternal hell”
by a loving God.

Fifth, Jesus tried to establish his messianic credentials by fulfilling
all the pertinent predictions found in the Old Testament, as well as all
the general eschatological expectations of the Jews. The Gospel of Matthew
reads almost like an exposition of prophecy and fulfillment, with Jesus
doing virtually everything just to satisfy one prediction or another.
[182] Many of the simpler predictions could be managed through sheer
trickery, or careful planning, by Jesus and/or his Essene sup****ters. But
Jesus could not satisfy all of the prophecies. As was mentioned earlier,
he could not manage to stay in the grave for three days and three nights
as the “sign of Jonah” demanded, nor could he establish his “kingdom of
God” before that present generation of Jews had passed away. Still in all,
many good Christians say that these are but petty details which pale in
significance before the glory of Jesus' crucifixion and his subsequent
resurrection. Let us now briefly examine those two crucial events. [183] 

Regarding the crucifixion, it is im****tant to remember from the start that
all of Jesus' close acquaintances were kept a far distance from the actual
place of the cross, the crucifixion. [184] Hence one finds immediate
grounds to question whether indeed it was Jesus who was crucified. The
fact that Jesus was alleged by his disciples to have been in g