{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_22955/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_22955","id":"gutenberg_22955","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22955","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought","Jesus Christ -- Teachings"],"text":"Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Stephen Blundell\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n            THE MISTAKES\n              OF JESUS\n\n\n\n                 BY\n\n            WILLIAM FLOYD\n\n   _Author of \"Social Progress,\"\n     \"People vs. Wall Street,\"\n        \"Our Gods on Trial,\"\n         \"War Resistance.\"_\n\n\n\n             _New York_\n THE FREETHOUGHT PRESS ASSOCIATION.\n\n\n\n\n Copyright 1932 By\n THE FREETHOUGHT PRESS ASSN., INC.\n\n\n\n\n TO DEVOTEES\n OF TRUTH\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note:\n\n    Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. Archaic\n    spellings have been retained. Paragraph spacing has been normalised.\n\n    A table of contents, though not present in the original publication,\n    has been provided below:\n\n      FOREWORD\n        Face the Facts. The True Jesus. Scriptures Unauthentic. Faith in\n        Jesus. Documentary Evidence. Retain the Good. Christianity Must\n        Go.\n\n      ANTIQUATED THEOLOGY\n        The Virgin Birth. The Jewish Messiah. Eternal Damnation. The\n        Atonement. Angels and Devils.\n\n      FALSE IMPRESSIONS\n        Jonah and the Whale. End of the World. Miracles. Eternal Life.\n        Raising Lazarus. God's Protection. Belief in Prayer.\n\n      OBSCURE TEACHINGS\n        Witnesses and Judge. Cannibalism. Religion Only for Children.\n        Difficult or Easy? Charity. The Scriptures Upheld. Illogical.\n        Parables Deceptive.\n\n      DEFICIENT INSTRUCTIONS\n        Labor. Usury. Economics. Punishment for Debts. Healing. Peace.\n        Marriage. Celibacy. Adultery. Divorce. Faulty Judgment.\n        Unconvincing. Prohibition. Lack of Experience.\n\n      AN INFERIOR PROTOTYPE\n        Cursing Nature. Forgiveness. Vituperation. Destruction of\n        Property. Egotism. Lack of Courtesy. Unethical Advice. Sermon on\n        the Mount. Inconsistency. Fear. Failure.\n\n      CONCLUSION\n        Jesus a Myth. Judged by His Works. Ethical Evolution. Gains, not\n        Losses.\n\n      CODE OF LIVING\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\n\nThe tradition regarding Jesus is so glamorous that it is difficult to\nreview his life and character with an unbiased mind. While\nFundamentalists and Modernists differ regarding the divinity of Christ,\nall Christians and many non-Christians still cling to preconceived\nnotions of the perfection of Jesus. He alone among men is revered as\nall-loving, omniscient, faultless--an unparalleled model for mankind.\n\nThis convention of the impeccability of Jesus is so firmly established\nthat any insinuation of error on his part is deemed a blasphemy.\nDoubting Jesus is more impious than mocking God Almighty. Jehovah may be\nexposed to some extent with impunity; a God who destroyed 70,000 of his\nchosen people because their king took a census[1] is too illogical for\nany but theologians to worship. But the Son of God, or Son of man, is\nsacrosanct. Jesus is reverenced as the one man who has lived unspotted\nby the world, free from human foibles, able to redeem mankind by his\nexample.\n\nRespect for the principles of Jesus is so inbred in American people of\nall faiths that an attempt to disparage his worth is denounced as bad\ntaste. The detractor is suspected of being an immoral person, no matter\nhow convincing may be the proof which he presents. A conspiracy of\nsilence is directed against any system of ethics advanced as superior to\nthe Sermon on the Mount. In popular opinion Jesus never made a mistake;\nall his teachings were infallible; no other view is tolerated.\n\n\n_Face the Facts_\n\nThis unwillingness to acknowledge the shortcomings of Jesus is partially\ndue to fear of sustaining a great loss. The familiar answer to heretical\narguments is that faith should not be destroyed unless something can be\nput in its place--ignoring the fact that something always may be\nsubstituted for beliefs destroyed. That substitute is faith in the world\nas it really is. And our modern world, with all its shortcomings, is\ninfinitely preferable to the earth, or even the heaven, of the first\ncentury. We now know that man can do more to eradicate sorrow than Jesus\never thought of. We can have greater confidence in the world as revealed\ntoday than in the doubtful traditions of Biblical times.\n\nBut suppose there were nothing to substitute for the myth destroyed,\nshould that deter the Truthseeker from continuing his investigation?\nScientists do not hesitate in their research because the result of a new\ndiscovery may be disastrous. They seek the facts regardless of\nconsequences; they want to know the Truth about the physical world.\nEthicists should have a similar desire concerning the metaphysical\nworld. They should have confidence that the Supreme Intelligence (as\nEdison called it) will lead on to better things.\n\n\n_The True Jesus_\n\nIf Jesus was what his followers believe, no arguments will destroy their\nfaith in him; but if Jesus was not perfect, according to modern\nstandards, it is important that his status as God, or man, should be\nrevised. Loss of confidence in an erring idol is not loss of a true\nideal.\n\nWhen an iconoclast asserts that Jesus lacked supreme intelligence, the\nnatural question is, \"How do you know that you are right in your\nappraisal, 'lest haply ye be found even to fight against God'?\" The\nanswer is that we do not claim omniscience, but merely request everyone\nto use his or her own judgment, with intellectual honesty, examining\neach act or saying of Jesus without regard to presupposed ideas or\ntradition.\n\n\n_Scriptures Unauthentic_\n\nThe consensus of scholarship has rejected the creation of the universe\nin six days in 4004 B.C., science having proved the existence of the\nworld for millions of years. Higher Critics refuse to credit the book of\nGenesis, according to the first chapter of which the trees, beasts and\nfowls were created before man, but according to the second chapter after\nman. It is not assuming too much for the humblest writer to say that\nMoses was mistaken concerning many things he described in the\nPentateuch. It follows that if one important portion of the Bible is\nuntrustworthy, other parts of that same book may not be the infallible\nWord of God. The New Testament, as well as the Old, may be examined\ncritically, and if the gospels contain numerous contradictions, the\nstatements of the authors on any point, including the life of Jesus, are\nopen to question. A conscientious person should reach conclusions based\nupon the best knowledge obtainable from all sources.\n\nIf anyone is convinced that Jesus made mistakes, he is not necessarily\ncompelled to become an atheist. All other Gods that have been worshipped\nby men have been found imperfect. The oft exposed errors of Jehovah do\nnot prevent Christians and Jews from professing belief in God. Those who\nrequire support from outside themselves cling to the symbol of deity\nthough not thoroughly crediting any personality ever described in any\nsacred scriptures. Except Jesus.\n\nAn Evolutionist passes beyond the negative denial of God to the\nconstruction of a new philosophy in which Truth is his guide, Truth\nbeing the nearest approximation to reality obtainable with our present\nknowledge. Belief in the world as it is now, and as it is going to be,\nis a sufficient creed.\n\n\n_Faith in Jesus_\n\nWith Jesus entrenched in popular opinion, there is small probability\nthat faith in him will be shaken unless there is a preponderance of\nevidence against his divinity. No one need abandon faith in Jesus until\nconvinced that something better has been found. No one should even\nexpose himself to heretical arguments unless he is a devotee of Truth.\nThen only can he rejoice at a revelation of error in confidence that the\nmore nearly the universe is understood the better can man adjust himself\nto his surroundings. A worshipper of Truth fears no destruction of false\ngods, nor any facts that may cause him to throw over treasured\nsuperstitions. He is willing to prove all things and hold fast to that\nwhich is true. He rejoices when his idol is shattered, knowing that he\nis approaching nearer to the true way of living, a way that Jesus did\nnot adequately explain.\n\nAny attempt to censure the character of Jesus will meet with the\nridicule it deserves unless substantiated by documentary evidence. The\nmere improbability of events contrary to natural laws does not destroy\nthe ethical value of the teachings of the Nazarene. Anything might have\nhappened in the eerie days of old; the critic must do more than deny the\nhistoricity of Jesus and the inspiration of the Bible. To be convincing\nhe must derive from the scriptures in which Christians believe whatever\nproof can be deduced to unveil the superstition of a redeeming Savior.\n\n\n_Documentary Evidence_\n\nThe documents most generally accepted by Christians are those collected\nin the King James Version of the Bible. The Apocrypha and other early\nmanuscripts are unreliable. None of the thirty or more writers who\ndescribed events around Jerusalem in Jesus' time gives any account of\nhis teachings. The only life of Jesus is found in the four gospels; the\nnumerous biographers of Christ have had no other reliable source of\ninformation. It is deceptive for the publishers of revised editions of\nthe Bible to claim that \"original manuscripts\" have been consulted. Not\none of the original manuscripts is in existence, the earliest extant\ndating from the fourth century A.D., while the most ancient portion of\nthe New Testament in any museum was transcribed in the sixth century.\n\nAccepting, therefore, the King James Version of the New Testament as the\nmost reliable source of information, the question arises as to what\nportion of the chapters therein may be considered authentic. Scholars\nhave rejected the entire gospel of John as less reliable than the\nsynoptic gospels; and the sixteenth chapter of Mark as an addition after\nthe original papyrus had broken off. Modernists, being confronted, in\nspite of these deletions, with inconsistencies in the gospels of\nMatthew, Mark and Luke, have assumed the further privilege of rejecting\nany verses which appear at variance with their beliefs. Liberals of this\nclass contend that the supernatural side of Jesus may be disregarded and\nyet that Jesus will remain Our Lord. They reject certain evangelistic\npassages that conflict with modern thought, but accept other statements\nby the same authors as authoritative.\n\nAs the Christian churches have not accepted any abbreviation of the\nBible as a substitute for the King James Version, it seems proper for\nthe critic to have recourse to that translation as the most authentic\ndescription of the life and teachings of Jesus. He is justified,\nmoreover, in considering every word in the supposedly inspired gospels\nas equally reliable. His only concern should be to interpret each verse\nas nearly as possible as the original writers intended their words to be\nunderstood, allowing for Eastern hyperbole and the custom of the times.\n\n\n_Retain the Good_\n\nIn preparing a critical analysis of the character of Jesus, it is freely\nadmitted that many of the thoughts attributed to the son of Mary are\nsuperlatively fine. They will live forever whether the personality of\nJesus be rejected as a divinity or not. That these beautiful preachments\nare ignored here is not due to any desire to belittle admirable\nsentiments or to disparage right living. The loving side of Jesus has\nbeen emphasized again and again and will be borne in mind by the reader\nwhen other less admirable traits are criticized. The intent of this\ncriticism is not to destroy idealism but to assist the spirit of true\nprogress.\n\n\n_Christianity Must Go_\n\nThe significance of this investigation lies in the changes that would\nhave to be made in religious thought if it should be found that Jesus\nwas not perfect. If Jesus was in error concerning conditions of his own\ntime and exhibited no knowledge of our modern problems, his authority\nwill be lessened. Searchers after the true way of life will not continue\nto worship a person whose conception of the physical and spiritual world\nwas erroneous. If Jesus made mistakes, he is neither the Son of God nor\nan infallible man.\n\nSo long as people feel compelled to worship what has been proved\nimperfect, or to evade important doctrines of their creeds for fear of\nlosing faith in old traditions, their minds will not be receptive to\nchanges in social conditions that require abandonment of established\ncustoms. Christians are imbued with a psychology derived from a\ncompleted revelation. The firmer their belief in Jesus, the greater\ntheir resistance to new ideas. Catholics are more reluctant to join\nprogressive movements than Modernists and Modernists than Evolutionists.\nReligious people are apt to be afraid of the new world; they doubt the\npossibility of eliminating war, poverty and injustice--customs as deeply\nrooted in the social world as belief in Jesus is in the religious world.\nIf the chief reactionary bulwark of the past is abandoned, there will be\ngreater possibility of accepting new revelations.\n\nWhat would happen if Christians should discover that their leader was\nnot an incomparable guide? Absolutely nothing at first. Those accustomed\nto lead a moral life would continue to do so. Members of Christian\nchurches are the very people who most wish to do what is right. They\nwill not lose their character because Jesus has lost his fictitious\ndivinity. On the contrary, they will search for the most elevating\nprinciples to substitute for the personality that has been found\ndeficient. It is difficult for people to be superior to their gods.\nThese same church-going individuals, when freed from the fetters of\nantiquated supernaturalism, will gradually learn to serve mankind with\nthe same devotion they now render to a misunderstood God. They will no\nlonger be limited by the defects of their paragon in their efforts to\nmake the most of life. They will seek to solve modern problems in a\nrational way instead of deciding such matters as birth control, divorce,\nwar and prohibition by reference to the scriptures, as they do now. For\nthe first time they will make their decisions according to the best\nknowledge obtainable today.\n\nJesus was in advance of his time. He declared that such revengeful\ntheories as an eye for an eye must be supplanted by forgiveness. But as\nthe world has evolved, Jesus has stood still. His teachings, superior as\nthey were to those of the ancient Israelites, are now found to be\ninferior to the best ethics culled from the wisdom of the ages, brought\ndown to date. It is heartening to feel that we can appropriate the\nsuperlative principles of all time instead of worshipping a deified\npersonality who was limited to the best that men of his own generation\ncould conceive.\n\nThis examination of the life and character of Jesus will be based upon\nthe accounts in the New Testament. Each passage will be construed as\nappears to the writer to have been originally intended. The reader may\nsubstitute his own interpretation, but should in no instance pass\nlightly over a situation as immaterial. Every word or action of Jesus is\nan important link in the chain of his divinity, or of his exalted\nposition as a moral guide. Each argument should be met by acceptance or\nrejection, never with indifference. No reader of the following pages\nshould ever say, \"What difference does it make?\" Everything concerning\nJesus is of vast consequence in determining whether he is or is not a\ndivine Savior, or a perfect guide.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Chron. xxi.\n\n\n\n\nANTIQUATED THEOLOGY\n\n\nThe first event in the life of Jesus, the gospel story of his birth, is\nnow considered unauthentic by many scholars and some theologians. The\nbirth of a virgin, the visitation of an angel, the star in the East are\nphenomena contrary to natural laws and rest on insufficient authority\nfor acceptance as credible. The probabilities are against exceptions in\nthe laws of the universe.\n\n\n_The Virgin Birth_\n\nThe original evidence for the virgin birth is found only in the gospels\nof Matthew and Luke, two unknown historians, and both these evangelists\nimplicitly deny their own tale when they trace the descent of Jesus from\nDavid through Joseph.[1] The slaughter of the children by Herod, in fear\nof Jesus as a rival, probably never took place. Mark, Luke and John do\nnot mention it; Josephus, who dwelt on the crimes of Herod, knew nothing\nof this massacre. According to Luke, Mary and Joseph took Jesus to\nJerusalem openly soon after the supposed decree.[2]\n\nThere is dispute as to whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth,\nand the date of his birth has been placed anywhere from 4 B.C. to 7 A.D.\nMatthew says that Jesus was born \"in the days of Herod\", while Luke says\nit was \"When Cyrenius was governor of Syria.\" Herod died in 4 B.C.,\nwhile Cyrenius did not become governor of Syria until 7 A.D.\n\nThe romantic story of the Christ-child is not corroborated by the\nhistorians of the time and is in opposition to the theory of evolution\nby natural processes. And yet it is still one of the main sources of\nJesus' fame, being repeated at Christmas-tide in the churches, thus\nconnecting Jesus with God in a superhuman manner.\n\nThe consensus of scholarship is in practical agreement that the theory\nof the virgin birth as a link between Jesus and God is a mistake; but\nwhose mistake was it? Jesus never referred to his miraculous birth. If\nhe was merely a man and never heard of the rumor about his conception,\nhe was not to blame for the spread of this misleading story throughout\nChristendom.\n\nWhile Jesus did not refer to his divine paternity in a physical sense,\nhe did endeavor to convince his hearers that he was more directly\nconnected with God than other men. \"I and my Father are one.\"[3] \"No\nman knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father,\nsave the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.\"[4]\n\nJesus thus proclaimed himself identical with the Lord God of the Old\nTestament who called himself Jehovah. This is entirely in keeping with\nthe whole Christian theory, for the _raison d'etre_ of Jesus derived\nfrom the act of God soon after the creation. Adam and Eve ate of the\nfruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which God had\ncommanded them not to touch, and for this disobedience, this fall of man\nfrom grace, God cursed mankind. Jesus came to earth to save man from the\nwrath of Almighty God.\n\nBut this claim of Jesus to oneness with God renders him liable to\ncensure for the acts of Jehovah which represented a standard of ethics\ninferior to that preached by the Son of God. According to the\nscriptures, which anyone may freely search, God advised or countenanced\ndeception[5]; stealing[6], selfishness[7], conquest by force[8],\nindiscriminate slaughter[9], murder[10], cannibalism[11], killing of\nwitches[12], slavery[13], capital punishment for rebellious sons or for\nseeking false gods[14], sacrifices of animals[15] and other acts\nrepresenting the concepts of primitive men.[16]\n\nWhile Jesus could read[17] and was familiar with the scriptures, it is\npossible that he was not acquainted with the system of dictatorship\nformerly employed by his Father. Occasionally Jesus denounced the ethics\nof \"them of old time\", but he always referred to his Father as perfect.\n\nThe dilemma is that Jesus must be condemned either for claiming identity\nwith Jehovah (to whom he was really superior), or for accepting with\nonly slight improvements the tyranny of God as described in the Bible,\nthe Word of God. Of course if the Bible is not the Word of God, the\nwhole system of Christian theology falls to the ground.\n\n\n_The Jewish Messiah_\n\nJesus claimed to be the Messiah expected by the Jews. \"And the high\npriest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that\nthou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith\nunto him, Thou hast said.\"[18] \"Again the high priest asked him, and\nsaid unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus\nsaid, I am.\"[19] \"Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And\nhe said unto them, Ye say that I am.\"[20] \"The woman saith unto him, I\nknow that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come he\nwill tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am\nhe.\"[21]\n\nThese acknowledgments by Jesus that he was the Messiah are important,\nfor if he claimed divinity when he was merely mortal, either under false\npretences or being self-deceived, he made a mistake of the most serious\ncharacter. His claim was not recognized by his own people, and many of\nhis followers today deny that he was the Jewish Messiah. Jesus said that\nhe came from God to save the Jews. Either he was truly the predicted\nMessiah or he made an inexcusable error. In this as in other instances\nto be cited, Fundamentalists will not admit any mistake, for they\nbelieve in the supernatural events connected with the Son of God. But\nModernists, who reject the anointed Christ while clinging to the human\nJesus, may be at a loss to reconcile Jesus' claim to Messiahship with\ntheir rejection of his divinity.\n\nJesus stressed his mission to save the world, saying \"For God so loved\nthe world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth\nin him should not perish, but have everlasting life.\"[22]\n\n\n_Eternal Damnation_\n\nWhether Jesus was mistaken or not in his estimate of his close\nrelationship with God is for each person to decide; but his theory of\nthe disasters that would follow unbelief in his divinity leads to\nserious difficulties if accepted literally. For not only was Jesus in\nerror when he insisted that salvation depended upon belief, he was also\nreconciled to eternal suffering for unbelievers. Note some of his\nexpressions:\n\n\"If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.\"[23] \"Depart\nfrom me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and\nhis angels ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but\nthe righteous into life eternal.\"[24]\n\n\"Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never\nforgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.\"[25]\n\n\"Except ye repent ye shall perish.\"[26]\n\n\"If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter\ninto life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire\nthat never shall be quenched.\"[27]\n\n\"How can ye escape the damnation of hell?\"[28]\n\n\"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth\nnot shall be damned.\"[29]\n\nIt is evident from these quotations that Jesus not only preached belief\nin his divinity as essential to salvation, but endeavored to terrify\npeople into belief by threats of eternal torment. Jesus was responsible\nfor the theological conception of a fiery hell. If he was mistaken, if\nthere never was a place of torment for the wicked after death, is it not\nan act of constructive criticism to expose the person most responsible\nfor the false doctrine that has caused so much fear and mental\nsuffering? Must we not deplore this mistake of Jesus and recast our\nentire opinion of him as a religious teacher?\n\nAre we not justified in stating positively that Jesus made a mistake\nwhen he taught a physical hell and condemned people to spend eternity in\ntorment for the doubtful sin of disbelief?\n\n\n_The Atonement_\n\nThe doctrine of the Atonement was taught by Jesus. \"For this is my blood\nof the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of\nsins.\"[30]\n\nWhether this sacrifice of the innocent Jesus to save sinful man was\nordered by God or was voluntary on the part of Jesus, it represents a\ntheory of reprieve from punishment long since abandoned as unethical. If\nsin must be punished, there is no justice in relieving the sinner and\nplacing the burden upon the righteous.\n\nMoreover, the Atonement appears to have been ineffective, for in spite\nof the sacrifice that Jesus made, few were to be saved under his scheme\nof salvation. \"Many are called but few are chosen.\"[31] \"Strait is the\ngate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be\nthat find it.\"[32] \"Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I\nsay unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.\"[33]\n\nIf the theory of Atonement for sin by the sacrifice of the innocent was\nnot ethical and if Jesus taught that doctrine, he was in error, was he\nnot?\n\nThe sacrifice of Jesus was not so great as often made by men. Jesus was\nsustained with the thought that he was saving the world; his physical\nsuffering was not long continued; on the night of his crucifixion he was\nin paradise.[34] He endured a few hours of pain compared to weeks of\nsuffering by wounded soldiers, or years spent in prison by the\nproponents of an ideal.\n\nJesus not only claimed the power to remit sins but also said to his\ndisciples: \"Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and\nwhosoever sins ye retain, they are retained.\"[35]\n\nIs that true? Surely it is proper to ask that blunt question. Here is a\ndefinite statement concerning the power of certain men to remit sins. If\nthose men did not have the power deputed to them, must we not doubt the\naccuracy of Jesus?\n\nJesus made a distinction between himself and the Comforter: \"It is\nexpedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter\nwill not come unto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you ... And\nI will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he\nmay abide with you forever.\"[36]\n\nIt must surprise some Christians that the Comforter could not be present\nat the same time with Jesus.\n\n\n_Angels and Devils_\n\nJesus believed in angels and devils, often referring to these imaginary\nsupernatural beings as if they existed. \"Thinkest thou that I cannot now\npray to my Father and he shall presently give me more than twelve\nlegions of angels?\"[37] \"So shall it be at the end of the world: the\nangels shall come forth.\"[38]\n\nThe devils were among the first to recognize Christ's divinity: \"What\nhave we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God?\"[39] \"Let us alone,\nthou Jesus of Nazareth; art thou come to destroy us? I know thee, who\nthou art, the Holy One of God.\"[40] \"And unclean spirits when they saw\nhim, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of\nGod.\"[41]\n\nJesus believed in demoniacal possession, casting out devils on several\noccasions.\n\nJesus frequently referred to heaven as a place above the earth: \"And\nthen shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power\nand glory.\"[42] \"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right\nhand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.\"[43] \"Verily, verily,\nI say unto you, hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of\nGod ascending and descending on the Son of man.\"[44]\n\nWhen Jesus was transfigured and talked with Moses and Elias, he charged\nhis disciples, saying, \"Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man\nbe risen again from the dead.\"[45]\n\nAccording to the creeds based upon the Bible, Jesus rose from the dead,\ndescended into hell, and ascended bodily into heaven. According to the\ngospels he stilled the storm, walked on the water and told Peter to do\nso and to find money in a fish's mouth and catch a large draught of\nfishes. These and other miracles connected Jesus with God and were part\nof his theology.\n\nEvery fair-minded person should re-read the gospels and refresh his\nmemory regarding the theology of Jesus. Then a decision must be reached\nas to the correctness of the views expressed. Either conditions on earth\nwere different in the first century from those of the twentieth, or\nJesus was mistaken in his conception of God, heaven, hell, angels,\ndevils and himself.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Matt. i; Luke iii.\n\n[2] Luke ii, 22.\n\n[3] John x, 30.\n\n[4] Matt. xi, 27.\n\n[5] Ezek. xiv, 9; Num. xiv, 30-34.\n\n[6] Ex. iii, 21-22.\n\n[7] Deut. xiv, 21.\n\n[8] Num. xxxi et al.\n\n[9] Ex. xxxii, 27.\n\n[10] Deut. vii, 16 et al.\n\n[11] Jer. xix, 9 et al.\n\n[12] Ex. xxii, 18.\n\n[13] Lev. xxv, 44-46.\n\n[14] Deut. xxi, 18-21; xiii, 6-9.\n\n[15] Lev. i, 14-15.\n\n[16] See the Old Testament.\n\n[17] Luke iv, 16.\n\n[18] Matt. xxvi, 63-64.\n\n[19] Mark xv, 61-62.\n\n[20] Luke xxii, 70.\n\n[21] John iv, 25-26.\n\n[22] John iii, 16.\n\n[23] John viii, 24.\n\n[24] Matt. xxv, 31-46.\n\n[25] Mark iii, 29.\n\n[26] Luke xiii, 3.\n\n[27] Mark ix, 43.\n\n[28] Matt. xxiii, 33.\n\n[29] Mark xvi, 16.\n\n[30] Matt. xxvi, 28.\n\n[31] Matt. xxii, 14.\n\n[32] Matt. vii, 14.\n\n[33] Luke xiii, 24.\n\n[34] Luke xxiii, 43.\n\n[35] John xx, 23.\n\n[36] John xiv, 16.\n\n[37] Matt. xxvi, 53.\n\n[38] Matt. xiii, 49.\n\n[39] Matt. viii, 29.\n\n[40] Luke iv, 34.\n\n[41] Mark iii, 11.\n\n[42] Mark xiii, 26.\n\n[43] Mark xiv, 62.\n\n[44] John i, 51.\n\n[45] Matt. xvii, 9.\n\n\n\n\nFALSE IMPRESSIONS\n\n\nJesus not only held mistaken ideas about theology, as anyone but a\nFundamentalist must admit, but he often gave impressions about earthly\naffairs that were unreliable to say the least. Occasionally his\nstatements were actual misrepresentations of fact.\n\n\n_Jonah and the Whale_\n\n\"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so\nshall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the\nearth.\"[1]\n\nEvidently Jesus believed the story of Jonah and the whale, as well as\nthe tale of Noah's ark[2] both of which are now generally discredited.\nMoreover, his prophecy regarding his entombment was inaccurate, for he\nwas only two nights and one day in the heart of the earth, from Friday\nnight to Sunday morning.\n\n\n_End of the World_\n\nJesus was decidedly mistaken in his theory of the approaching end of the\nworld.\n\n\"Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\"[3] \"Ye shall not have\ngone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.\"[4] \"There\nbe some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the\nSon of man coming in his kingdom.\"[5] \"And this gospel of the kingdom\nshall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and\nthen shall the end come ... Verily I say unto you, This generation shall\nnot pass, till all these things be fulfilled.\"[6] \"The time is\nfulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.\"[7] \"So ye in like manner,\nwhen ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even\nat the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not\npass, till all these things be done.\"[8] \"The hour is coming, in the\nwhich all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come\nforth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they\nthat have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.\"[9]\n\nJesus was confident that the day of judgment was coming in the first\ncentury, but it has not come yet, nineteen hundred years later. This\nerroneous belief in the imminent end of the world had an important\nbearing upon his entire philosophy; for if the end of the world was so\nnear it was far more important to prepare for life hereafter than to be\nconcerned over mundane affairs. May we not view with doubt any of Jesus'\nteachings that depended upon his mistaken conception of the duration of\nthe world?\n\n\n_Miracles_\n\nJesus is reported to have fed 5,000 people with five loaves and two\nfishes, and again 4,000 with seven loaves and a few small fishes. He\nwalked on the water, calmed the seas, raised three persons from the dead\nand performed other miracles contrary to natural laws. These wondrous\nacts were depended upon by him to convince the people that he was the\nexpected Messiah: \"Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear\nand see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers\nare cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor\nhave the gospel preached to them.\"[10]\n\nJesus assured his disciples that they too would be able to perform\nmiracles: \"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name\nshall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they\nshall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not\nhurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.\"[11]\n\"He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and\ngreater works than these shall he do.\"[12]\n\nJesus set great store by these marvels that only magicians attempt\nnowadays. Ministers of the apostolic succession cannot cast out devils\nor take up serpents, and they are affected by deadly drinks the same as\nothers. Jesus had a primitive idea of the value of such magic. Either he\nsought to deceive the gullible, or, as is more likely, was himself\novercredulous. It is important to remember that Jesus stressed the value\nof enchantment and advised his successors to conjure in his name.\n\nIf the miraculous had not been connected with the name of Jesus, it is\nprobable that he never would have been heard of. His ethical teachings\nalone would not have won for him the exalted position that has come from\nthe stories of his miraculous birth, life and ascension. In other words,\nhis fame rests upon the supernatural side of his life that is now\ndiscredited by many of his followers.\n\n\n_Eternal Life_\n\nThe remarks of Jesus on the subject of death were not accurate. \"If a\nman keep my saying, he shall never see death.\"[13] \"Whosoever liveth and\nbelieveth in me shall never die.\"[14]\n\nApparently Jesus referred to natural death, in which case he was\nutterly mistaken; but if he meant that believers in him should live\nforever in heaven, even so he gave a false impression; for there is no\nevidence that life after death is assured to Christians more than to\nothers. Unbelievers were also to have eternal life, though in torment.\n\n\n_Raising Lazarus_\n\nJesus took advantage of opportunities, even of death, to create dramatic\neffects. The eleventh chapter of John shows that when Lazarus was\nreported ill, Jesus said, \"This sickness is not unto death, but for the\nglory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.\" So Jesus\nlet Lazarus, one of the believers whom he loved, die[15] in order that\nhe might have the triumph of raising him from the dead. \"Then said Jesus\nunto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I\nwas not there, to the intent ye may believe.\"\n\nThe confusion between earthly death and loss of eternal life was shown\nin the remark of Jesus to Martha: \"I am the resurrection and the life:\nhe that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.\" This\nmight be construed to mean that believers should have eternal life\nhereafter, but Jesus evidently had reference to life on earth for he\nproceeded to raise Lazarus from the dead and cause him to live again on\nearth with his sisters.\n\nWhen Martha reminded Jesus that Lazarus had been dead four days, Jesus\nreplied, \"Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou\nshouldest see the glory of God?\" But Jesus himself had doubts of his\nability to bring back Lazarus to life, as shown by his spontaneous\nprayer of thanks: \"Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.\" Then\nhe revealed again his desire to dramatize the occasion, saying, \"And I\nknew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand\nby I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.\"\n\n\"Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which\nJesus did, believed on him.\" Do the followers of Jesus, who claim that\nhe made no mistakes, believe on him? If so, they must believe that he\nraised Lazarus from the dead as he claimed to have done. Do they believe\nthat they can also raise people from the dead? Jesus so assured them\nwhen he promised that believers could do greater works than he\nperformed. No, Jesus gave a false impression of his power.\n\n\n_God's Protection_\n\nJesus continued his deception of the world by promising protection that\nhas never been accorded. \"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And\none of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the\nvery hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are\nof more value than many sparrows.\"[16]\n\nThese sayings may properly be taken as symbolical or allegorical; but\nthe evident intention was to assure his followers that God would protect\nthem in their daily life. Safety was promised for believers, a safety\nthat has been lacking for everyone. There is no evidence that God does\nprotect believers any more than unbelievers. When the Titanic went down,\nthose who perished were not solely the wicked persons; there was no\ndistinction in the terrible disaster between believers and unbelievers.\n\nJesus created in the minds of his hearers and his followers the idea\nthat God was watching each individual to save him from danger, but this,\nunfortunately, is not a fact. It sounds comforting; it makes people feel\nnearer to God; but experience proves that no such close relationship\nexists. Jesus gave a false impression of God's loving care for men.\n\n\n_Belief in Prayer_\n\nModern religious people may still consistently believe in prayer as a\nform of inward aspiration, but it is difficult to take literally the\nassurance given by Jesus of practical accomplishments by means of prayer\nin his name.\n\nJesus did not confine himself to promising spiritual results from\nprayer, but distinctly gave it to be understood that the physical world\nwould respond to petitions to Jehovah. \"Again I say unto you, That if\ntwo of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall\nask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.\"[17] \"If\nye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to\nthe fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou\nremoved, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things\nwhatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.\"[18]\n\"What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive\nthem, and ye shall have them.\"[19] \"If ye have faith as a grain of\nmustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder\nplace; and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible unto\nyou.\"[20]\n\nThese promises have not been fulfilled. Bishops, priests and deacons\nwith strong faith have been unable to obtain, by means of the most\nsincere prayer, results similar to those indicated. They have followed\nJesus in vain. No man living dare put his faith to the test by a public\ndemonstration of prayer for physical changes. Christian prayers for rain\nare conventional, not being offered with confidence that rain will\nfollow.\n\nJesus has misled us.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Matt. xii, 40.\n\n[2] Luke xvii, 27; Matt. xxv, 38.\n\n[3] Matt. iv, 17.\n\n[4] Matt. x, 23.\n\n[5] Matt. xvi, 28; Mark ix, 1.\n\n[6] Matt. xxiv, 14-34; Luke xxi, 32.\n\n[7] Mark i, 15.\n\n[8] Mark xiii, 29-30.\n\n[9] John v, 28-29.\n\n[10] Matt. xi, 4-5.\n\n[11] Mark xvi, 17-18.\n\n[12] John xiv, 12.\n\n[13] John viii, 51.\n\n[14] John xi, 26.\n\n[15] John xi, 6.\n\n[16] Matt. x, 29-31.\n\n[17] Matt. xviii, 19.\n\n[18] Matt. xxi, 21-22.\n\n[19] Mark xi, 24.\n\n[20] Matt. xvii, 20.\n\n\n\n\nOBSCURE TEACHINGS\n\n\nMany of the sayings of Jesus lacked clarity. Various interpretations\nhave been put upon them by scholars of distinction. No one is sure what\nwas meant.\n\nAccording to the gospels, Jesus was descended from David, but Jesus\nmystified his hearers on this descent, saying: \"If David then call him\nLord, how is he his son?\"[1]\n\n\n_Witnesses and Judge_\n\nOn the subject of witnesses there is great confusion. \"If I bear witness\nof myself, my witness is not true.\"[2] \"Though I bear record of myself,\nyet my record is true.\"[3] \"It is also written in your law, that the\ntestimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and\nthe Father that sent me beareth witness of me.\"[4] \"I and my Father are\none.\"[5] \"My Father is greater than I.\"[6]\n\nThis and the following instruction regarding judicial procedure are far\nfrom clear. Jesus acknowledged the principle of law requiring more than\none witness but said that in his case the only other witness necessary\nwas his Father, although he and his Father were one.\n\nJesus is supposed to be the judge of the world, but his statement of the\ncase leaves the issue ambiguous. \"For the Father judgeth no man, but\nhath committed all judgment unto the Son.\"[7] \"I judge no man. And yet\nif I judge, my judgment is true.\"[8] \"And if any man hear my words, and\nbelieve not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to\nsave the world.\"[9] \"For judgment I am come into this world, that they\nwhich see not might see; and that they which see might be made\nblind.\"[10]\n\nThe quality of reasoning employed in these instances has naturally led\nto theological quibbling. If Jesus can argue in that fashion, so can his\nfollowers, at the expense of intellectual honesty.\n\n\n_Cannibalism_\n\nThe Jews could not understand what Jesus meant when he said: \"Except ye\neat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in\nyou. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal\nlife.\"[11]\n\n\n_Religion Only for Children_\n\nNor are these sayings clear: \"I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and\nearth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and\nhast revealed them unto babes.\"[12] \"Whosoever shall not receive the\nkingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.\"[13]\n\nThis train of thought implies that education is of no importance where\nbelief is concerned.\n\n\n_Difficult or Easy?_\n\nAfter enumerating the many hardships that must be endured by his\nfollowers, Jesus contradicted himself by saying, \"For my yoke is easy,\nand my burden is light.\"[14]\n\n\n_Charity_\n\nThere are apparent contradictions in his instructions regarding charity:\n\"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works,\nand glorify your Father which is in heaven.\"[15] \"Take heed that ye do\nnot your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no\nreward of your Father which is in heaven.\"[16]\n\n\n\n_The Scriptures Upheld_\n\nJesus reverenced the Hebrew Old Testament.\n\n\"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not\ncome to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven\nand earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the\nlaw, till all be fulfilled.\"[17]\n\nAnd yet Jesus was the reformer, overthrowing ancient customs, renouncing\nthe old principle of a tooth for a tooth, improving upon the Mosaic law.\nHe was inconsistent.\n\n\n_Illogical_\n\nThe logic of Jesus is often difficult to follow.\n\n\"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of\nrighteousness, and of judgment: of sin because they believe not on me;\nof righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of\njudgment, because the prince of this world is judged.\"[18]\n\nJesus admitted his obscurity: \"These things have I spoken unto you in\nproverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in\nproverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.\"[19]\n\nThat time has never come.\n\n\n_Parables Deceptive_\n\nJesus explained his obscurity in this way: \"Unto you it is given to know\nthe mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that\nseeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.\"[20]\n\"But unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:\nthat seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,\nand not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their\nsins should be forgiven them.\"[21]\n\nIn other words, Jesus, who said he came to save the world, concealed his\nmeaning for fear some of his hearers should be converted and their sins\nbe forgiven--which is exactly what he sought to bring about.\n\nObscurity in a teacher is a great defect, especially when he glories in\nhis ambiguity. If any Christians wish that Jesus had been more clear,\nthen Jesus does not appear perfect to them, and they should admit his\nimperfections.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Matt. xxii, 41-45.\n\n[2] John v, 31.\n\n[3] John viii, 14.\n\n[4] John viii, 17-18.\n\n[5] John x, 30.\n\n[6] John xiv, 28.\n\n[7] John v, 22.\n\n[8] John viii, 16.\n\n[9] John xii, 47.\n\n[10] John x, 39.\n\n[11] John vi, 53-58.\n\n[12] Matt. xi, 25.\n\n[13] Mark x, 15.\n\n[14] Matt. xi, 30.\n\n[15] Matt. v, 16.\n\n[16] Matt. vi, 1.\n\n[17] Matt. v, 17-18.\n\n[18] John xvi, 8-11.\n\n[19] John xvi, 25.\n\n[20] Luke viii, 10.\n\n[21] Mark iv, 11-12.\n\n\n\n\nDEFICIENT INSTRUCTIONS\n\n\nIn a number of instances the teachings of Jesus are so incomplete, or so\ninappropriate, as to render no assistance in meeting similar situations\nin modern life. Either his meaning is not clear, or his instructions are\ntoo primitive to be applicable to our civilization.\n\n\n_Labor_\n\nThe relation between employer and employee is one that requires\npractical guidance. Let us see what information Jesus gave on this\nimportant subject.\n\nThe parable of the laborers[1] relates that an employer hired men to\nwork in his vineyard for twelve hours for a penny, and that he paid the\nsame wage to other workers who toiled only nine, six, three and one\nhour. When those who had worked longest resented this treatment, as\nmodern strikers would, the employer answered, apparently with Jesus'\napproval: \"Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for\na penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this\nlast, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with\nmine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be\nfirst, and the first last.\"\n\nThis parable may be a comfort to autocratic employers, sustaining them\nin their determination to dominate labor, but the principles enunciated\nare lacking in social vision. Equal pay for unequal work is approved,\nand the employer is vindicated in regulating wages and hours as he sees\nfit without regard for justice or the needs of the workers. In the\nmanner of modern employers, the \"goodman\" calls his worker \"Friend\" but\ntreats him with contempt. Jesus taught that the workers were wrong in\ndemanding justice, that the employer was justified in acting\nerratically, as the money paid was his. He presented the issues between\ncapital and labor and sided with capital. He stated the fact that the\nfirst shall be last, but said nothing to remedy that unfortunate\nsituation. He did not explain how workers could obtain proper\ncompensation for their labor.\n\nJesus assumed a fair attitude when he said, \"The labourer is worthy of\nhis hire\", and, \"It is enough for the disciple to be as his master, and\nthe servant as his lord\", but he continued with doubtful logic: \"If they\nhave called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they\ncall them of his household\", implying that if an employer is\nworldly-minded his servants will be even worse.\n\nLittle respect is shown for employees in the remark, \"The hireling\nfleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.\"[2]\nProbably in those days as now many an employee stuck to his post nobly\nto do his duty.\n\nThe meaning is obscure in his other comment upon an employer who told\nhis tired servant to serve his master first, ending with the enigma, \"We\nare unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to\ndo.\"[3]\n\n\n_Usury_\n\nIn the parable of the talents the servant who did not put his money out\nat usury to make profits was condemned: \"And cast ye the unprofitable\nservant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of\nteeth.\"[4] Punishment was to be severe in Jesus' program; the\ndisobedient servant \"shall be beaten with many stripes.\" Jesus did not\nadvise leniency in such instances except that \"he that knew not, and did\ncommit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.\"[5]\nIn his estimation the servant was a slave to be punished corporeally by\nhis master, even if ignorant of his wrong-doing.\n\nA Dr. Taylor, former Yale College theologian, is reported to have said:\n\"I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ were now on earth he would, under\ncertain circumstances, become a slaveholder.\" A Southern divine in 1860\ncould well maintain that slavery was approved in both Old and New\nTestaments, but no Christian would now impute slaveholding to Jesus. The\nstandard of human relationships has improved since slaveholding days in\nAmerica. The modern attitude toward servants, though by no means\nperfect, is superior to the relationships between master and servants\naccepted by Jesus. Slavery was the custom of the times and Jesus did not\nrise above it.\n\nIn the parable of the unmerciful servant[6] Jesus taught the duty of\nforgiveness. He rightly rebuked the servant who oppressed his\nsubordinates after being well treated by his lord. But the punishment\nsuggested by Jesus for the abominable conduct was extremely harsh: \"And\nhis lord was wroth and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should\npay all that was due unto him.\" Torture for criminals was thus taught by\nJesus.\n\nJesus, apprenticed to his father in his youth, never did any practical\nwork so far as we know. He lived on the charity of others, setting an\nexample that would bring trouble to anyone who followed in his train. If\nanything, he was an agitator, a peripatetic propagandist, teaching what\nhe believed right but not working to support himself and therefore not\nbeing a good example for the workaday world today.\n\n\n_Economics_\n\nNothing in the teachings of Jesus was more definite than his\ndenunciation of riches.\n\n\"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ... A rich man shall\nhardly enter into the kingdom of heaven ... It is easier for a camel to\ngo through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the\nkingdom of God ... The rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell\nhe lifted up his eyes, being in torments ... Woe unto you that are\nrich.\"\n\nThese strictures upon the rich appear somewhat severe, and Jesus went\nmuch farther, condemning even ordinary thrift and precaution.[7]\n\nAccording to Acts ii, 44-45 and iv, 32, \"All that believed were together\nand had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and\nparted them to all men, as every man had need ... Neither said any of\nthem that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they\nhad all things common.\"\n\nIt is to be presumed that the disciples practiced this communism at the\ninstruction of Jesus. If Jesus approved of communism was he right or\nwrong?\n\n\"Blessed be ye poor.\"[8]\n\nPoverty is not a blessing but a curse. Jesus taught the theory that the\npoor would be rich hereafter while the rich would be in hell.\n\n\n_Punishment for Debts_\n\nWe have seen that Jesus expected an unjust servant to be tormented until\nhe paid in full. There are also other evidences that he approved of\nimprisonment for debt. \"Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou\nart in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to\nthe judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast\ninto prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out\nthence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.\"[9]\n\nA legislator who patterned his life after Jesus would be justified in\nenacting laws imprisoning for debt and scourging for misdemeanors.\n\nSome may say that the sentiments expressed by Jesus were not mistakes\nbut merely presented the customs of his day. Possibly he did not intend\nto advise all that he seemed to approve; but if Jesus was a practical\nand prophetic guide he should have made it clear that he did not\nsanction the actions he apparently commended.\n\nIn the parable of the pounds the nobleman, seemingly with the approval\nof Jesus, denounced the servant as wicked who did not put his lord's\nmoney in the bank to draw interest.[10] And in the parable of the\ntalents the lord rewarded those who had made 100 per cent profit through\nspeculation.[11]\n\nAnother contradiction of his theory of the blessedness of poverty was\nhis promise that those who followed him \"shall receive a hundredfold now\nin this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and\nchildren, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal\nlife.\"[12]\n\nFinally, Jesus stated the unfortunate truth, \"Whosoever hath, to him\nshall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath\nnot, from him shall be taken even that he hath.\"[13] If Jesus did not\napprove of that worldly method of distribution, he could have denounced\nits injustice instead of leaving the comment as if it expressed his own\npolicy.\n\n\n_Healing_\n\nMany Christians value Jesus most for his healing powers, but Jesus\nlooked upon disease almost as he did upon demoniacal possession, as\nsomething evil that could be cast out. \"But that ye may know that the\nSon of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the\nsick of the palsy) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine house.\"[14]\nThere was confusion in his mind between sin and sickness.\n\nJesus healed leprosy and palsy by touching the sick person; he healed\nthe servant of the centurion by absent treatment, and restored sight by\nspitting on the eyes[15] or anointing them with clay made with\nspittle[16], or by requiring faith.[17] He healed a withered hand, cured\nimpediments in speech and deafness, all without medical applications,\neven replacing an ear severed by a sword.[18]\n\nChristian Scientists practice the same methods with confidence in\nsuccess, but medical and surgical treatment are the most reliable means\nof effecting cures, disappointing as they are. If Jesus could cure\ndisease, it was remiss of him not to instruct men definitely in his\nmethods so that the suffering from illness that has afflicted the world\ncould have been averted.\n\nJesus did not isolate the germ of leprosy, or establish any practicable\nmethod of preventing disease. He has been of less value to the world as\na healer than Pasteur, Lister, Koch, or Walter Reed.\n\nSome Christians will say that Jesus did not tell us how to avoid illness\nbecause man needs to be chastened by pain. If that is correct, if pain\nand disease are sent by God and are consciously permitted by Jesus, sick\npeople should be allowed to suffer instead of trying to heal them.\n\n\n_Peace_\n\nJesus has been called the Prince of Peace, but the weight of his\ntestimony is not on the side of absolute pacifism. With his view of\nrendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, it is possible that\nhe would have advised young men to obey the state and enlist, or accept\nthe draft, whenever their country called.\n\nOn November 12, 1931, Rev. Dr. T. Andrew Caraker said at a banquet of\nthe American Legion in Baltimore that if Jesus Christ had lived in 1917\nHe would have been the first to volunteer in the American army, the\nfirst to wear a gas mask, shoulder a rifle and enter the trenches.\n\nOther ministers derive from the same gospels the belief that Jesus would\nnot have stabbed Germans with a bayonet. Nor would Jesus have advised\nothers to fight if he had been unwilling to fight himself.\n\nMost of the sayings of Jesus regarding violence or non-resistance were\nintended to apply chiefly to personal relationships; he said little of\ninternational strife. What he did say showed placid acceptance of the\nwar system:\n\n\"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not\ntroubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not\nyet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against\nkingdom.\"[19]\n\n\"And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled:\nfor such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation\nshall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.\"[20]\n\n\"But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for\nthese things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. Then\nsaid he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against\nkingdom.\"[21]\n\nThese verses have a more direct bearing on war as we now know it than\nany of his other sayings. They show his belief in the inevitability of\nwar. Apparently he did not feel himself competent to counteract general\nmass militarism. He offered no program for arbitration of international\ndisputes, no substitute for war between nations, no policy of war\nresistance.\n\nWhen Jesus advised non-resistance, saying to his follower, \"Put up again\nthy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish\nwith the sword,\"[22] he was merely stating the danger of using violence,\nnot the immorality of employing force. In fact, he commanded his\ndisciples to take the very sword which he later told them to sheathe:\n\"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one ... And\nthey said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It\nis enough.\"[23]\n\nThus Jesus, the supposed non-resistant, prepared his followers with\nswords. These swords were for defense, and when the time came he\nrepudiated even that use of the weapons, but, nevertheless, he armed his\ndisciples instead of adhering to his principle of non-resistance. He did\nnot set a positive example of disarmament.\n\nJesus said: \"Blessed are the peacemakers ... love your enemies ... Have\npeace one with another ... On earth peace, good will toward men ...\nPeace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you ... These things have I\nspoken unto you that in me ye might have peace ... Resist not evil: but\nwhosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other\nalso.\"\n\nOther remarks of Jesus favored violence: \"Think not that I am come to\nsend peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.\"[24]\n\"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but\nrather division.\"[25] \"But those mine enemies, which would not that I\nshould reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.\"[26] \"My\nkingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then\nwould my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the\nJews.\"[27] \"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in\npeace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome\nhim, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth\nhis spoils.\"[28] \"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he\ndrove them all out of the temple.\"[29]\n\nIn determining whether or not Jesus was a promoter of peace it is only\nreasonable to review everything that he said or did relating to the use\nof violence, giving equal weight to every verse. We cannot accept one\nstatement and reject the others. The conclusion reached must be that\nJesus was inconsistent in advocating both non-resistance and the use of\nforce. He took diametrically opposed positions, the use of swords and\nscourges and non-resistance being mutually exclusive. Jesus preached\nnon-resistance and at the same time armed his retainers with two swords.\nHe advocated turning the other cheek but did not criticize war.\nTherefore, pacifists and militarists, with their opposite philosophies,\nshould both admit that at times Jesus was mistaken.\n\n\n_Marriage_\n\nJesus occasionally eulogized marriage: \"For this cause shall a man leave\nfather and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be\none flesh ... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put\nasunder.\"[30]\n\n\n_Celibacy_\n\nOn other occasions he made remarks which indicated his preference for\ncelibacy as the higher state, the one he adopted for himself. \"In the\nresurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as\nthe angels of God in heaven.\"[31] \"The children of this world marry, and\nare given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to\nobtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry,\nnor are given in marriage.\"[32] \"I say unto you, That whosoever looketh\non a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in\nhis heart.\"[33] \"There are some eunuchs which were so born from their\nmother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of\nmen: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the\nkingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive\nit.\"[34] \"There is no man that hath left ... wife, or children for the\nkingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this\npresent time, and in the world to come life everlasting.\"[35]\n\nJesus referred to the absence of marriage in heaven, the ideal realm.\nPaul's testimony adds to the evidence that Jesus considered celibacy\npreferable to any form of sex expression, even marriage.\n\n\n_Adultery_\n\nOn the other hand, Jesus was tolerant of sex offenses. He chatted in a\nfriendly manner with the woman of Samaria, saying: \"Thou hast had five\nhusbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband.\"[36] And about\nthe woman taken in adultery he said: \"He that is without sin among you,\nlet him first cast a stone at her ... Neither do I condemn thee: go and\nsin no more.\"[37] \"The harlots go into the kingdom of God before\nyou.\"[38]\n\n\n_Divorce_\n\nJesus sanctioned divorce. His followers are so annoyed at this fact that\nthey frequently quote the verse on the subject with the offensive clause\nomitted. The text reads: \"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away\nhis wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you,\nThat whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of\nfornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry\nher that is divorced committeth adultery.\"[39] Again in Matthew xix, 9,\nhe makes the same exception. It is evident, therefore, that Jesus\npermitted divorce for one cause. If the wife was unfaithful the husband\ncould divorce her, but otherwise no matter how unhappy the couple might\nbe, they must remain married.\n\nThe admirable leniency of Jesus toward sex offenders, and his permission\nto divorce, must seem like mistakes to churchmen who consider\nextramarital sex relations the unforgivable sin. And everyone must see\nthe danger of having our judges adopt as a principle of justice the\ndismissal of offenders on the ground that the prosecutors have also\nsinned.\n\nA Christian girl of today would not be encouraged by the most zealous\nreligious parents to marry a man exactly like Jesus.\n\n\n_Faulty Judgment_\n\nJesus selected Judas to be the treasurer of the apostles' joint funds,\nbut later admitted his error, saying: \"Have I not chosen you twelve, and\none of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for\nit was he that should betray him, being one of the twelve.\"[40]\n\nJesus erroneously supposed that \"salvation is of the Jews.\"[41] \"Go not\ninto the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter\nye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.\"[42] A\nnationalistic and partial spirit is expressed in these sentences, a\nspirit that has been followed to the extent that Jesus would not be\npermitted to enter America if he applied for a visa.\n\n\n_Unconvincing_\n\nJesus failed in his mission to save the world. He made the supreme\nsacrifice in vain. His method of proving his divinity did not convince\nhis hearers: \"But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet\nthey believed not on him.\"[43] \"For neither did his brethren believe in\nhim.\"[44] After he had healed many, cast out unclean spirits and\nappointed his twelve apostles to do likewise, his friends \"went out to\nlay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.\"[45]\n\nJesus admitted his impotence as a human being when he said, \"I can of\nmine own self do nothing.\"[46] Even with the assistance of his Father he\ndid not accomplish what he set out to do.\n\n\n_Prohibition_\n\nThe miracle of turning water into wine, providing one hundred gallons of\nwine after the people at the party had \"well drunk\", must appear to\nprohibitionists like a mistake on the part of Jesus. Many Methodists\nand Baptists would have preferred to have him turn the wine into water;\nyet they will not admit that Jesus made a mistake.\n\n\n_Lack of Experience_\n\nSo far as the gospels relate, Jesus never had any experience with three\nof the chief difficulties of human life--sex, earning a living and\nillness. He was therefore less able to explain those relationships than\none who has struggled through in the customary manner of mankind. To\ntake the inexperienced Jesus as our guide in practical living would be\nlike a traveller who was planning a trip over perilous mountains and\nengaged as a guide a man who had never crossed the mountains.\n\nAs Jesus believed that the end of the world was approaching, and as he\nrevealed no information about the future, his teachings should be taken\nas applying solely to his own time. A divinity living now would preach\nfar differently from the inadequate doctrines of Jesus.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe abandonment of reliance upon a Jesus who has not changed in nineteen\nhundred years, in favor of an Evolutionary philosophy that requires\nconstant change, leads to a new conception of the world and its\npossibilities for man. A person who has thought himself out of\nantiquated theology may be expected to have an open mind towards the\nbetterment of human customs.\n\nEvery improvement in human relationships originates secularly and is\nadopted by the Church only after a bitter struggle. Faith in Jesus is a\nreactionary force. The Christian opposes change in the creations of God;\nthe Evolutionist seeks to alter every unsatisfactory condition. The\nEvolutionist is more responsive than the orthodox Christian to proposals\nfor promoting the happiness of the human race. Many liberals have\nabandoned conservatism because they saw the hypocrisy in Christianity.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Matt. xx, 1-16.\n\n[2] John x, 13.\n\n[3] Luke xvii, 10.\n\n[4] Matt. xxv, 30.\n\n[5] Luke xii, 47-48.\n\n[6] Matt. xviii, 23-34.\n\n[7] Matt. vi, 25-31, discussed under the Sermon on the Mount.\n\n[8] Luke vi, 20.\n\n[9] Matt. v, 25-26.\n\n[10] Luke xix, 23.\n\n[11] Matt. xxv, 20.\n\n[12] Mark x, 30.\n\n[13] Matt. xiii, 12.\n\n[14] Matt. ix, 6.\n\n[15] Mark viii, 23.\n\n[16] John ix, 6.\n\n[17] Mark x, 52.\n\n[18] Luke xxii, 51.\n\n[19] Matt. xxiv, 6-7.\n\n[20] Mark xiii, 7-8.\n\n[21] Luke xxi, 9-10.\n\n[22] Matt. xxvi, 52.\n\n[23] Luke xxii, 36-38.\n\n[24] Matt. x, 34.\n\n[25] Luke xii, 51.\n\n[26] Luke xix, 27.\n\n[27] John xviii, 36.\n\n[28] Luke xi, 21-22.\n\n[29] John ii, 15.\n\n[30] Matt. xix, 5-6.\n\n[31] Matt. xxii, 30.\n\n[32] Luke xx, 34-35.\n\n[33] Matt. v, 28.\n\n[34] Matt. xix, 12.\n\n[35] Luke xviii, 29-30.\n\n[36] John iv, 18.\n\n[37] John viii, 7-11.\n\n[38] Matt. xxi, 31.\n\n[39] Matt. v, 31-32.\n\n[40] John vi, 70-71.\n\n[41] John iv, 22.\n\n[42] Matt. x, 5-6.\n\n[43] John xii, 37.\n\n[44] John vii, 5.\n\n[45] Mark iii, 21.\n\n[46] John v, 30.\n\n\n\n\nAN INFERIOR PROTOTYPE\n\n\nOrthodox Christians accept both Old and New Testaments as authority for\ntheir actions, whereas Modernists are not much concerned with the\ncommands of Jehovah but maintain that Jesus is the pattern for their\nlives. Religious liberals feel that the troubles of the world come\nlargely from failure to follow the teachings of the Nazarene. They look\nupon him as the perfect example of what a man should be. In their\nopinion, if everyone would act as Jesus did all would be well.\n\nOn December 7, 1931, Dr. Henry Van Dyke preached at the Brick\nPresbyterian Church, New York City, that the way to end the financial\ndepression was to act as Jesus would: \"We can judge only by what he did\nand said in the first century, an age not so different from our own, an\nage of unsettlement, violence, drunkenness and license. Christ would\ntell us not to yield to panic.... Christ would not tell us to join any\npolitical party or social group....\"\n\nSuch a sermon sounds encouraging but, as a matter of fact, Jesus has not\nshown any of his ministers how to end the depression. To trust him for\nguidance in our modern world is to pin faith on an incompetent\ninstructor. We can learn how to end the depression by examining the\nrecords of our own time and by correcting the errors that have been\nmade. It is not safe to rely upon a person who had no knowledge of\nAmerica's practical needs and whose acts and advice regarding worldly\naffairs in Jerusalem fell short of the best ethical values.\n\nIn this treatise it has been shown that Jesus made mistakes. Every\ninstance cited may not appeal to all readers as worthy of criticism, but\nthere can be no doubt in the mind of any honest thinker that several at\nleast of Jesus' ideas were erroneous. His theology was filled with\nsuperstitions, his cosmology was that of the pre-scientific era, he\nexpected the end of the world within a generation, his conception of sin\nwas theological rather than ethical, he failed to convince his hearers\nby his oratory, he exaggerated the results from prayer and he related\nparables that gave a false sense of values.\n\nNow we shall turn to his personal character and teachings to see if he\nwas always the meek, gentle soul portrayed by the conventional Christ.\n\n\n_Cursing Nature_\n\nThe act in Jesus' life that has been most difficult for theologians to\nexplain was the cursing of the fig tree. The tree was created to bear\nfruit in the Summer, but when Jesus found it without fruit in the\nSpring, he cursed it so that it withered away.\n\n\"Now in the morning, as he returned into the city, and when he saw a fig\ntree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves\nonly, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever.\nAnd presently the fig tree withered away.\"[1] \"For the time of figs was\nnot yet.\"[2]\n\nThis episode involves several mistakes--ignorance of the seasons;\ndestruction of a profitable food-producing tree; exhibition of temper\nwhen thwarted, and giving false information regarding man's power to\neffect physical changes by a curse.[3]\n\nIf Jesus acted unwisely in this one instance and was right in all\nothers, he is neither an infallible God nor a perfect pattern for\nmankind.\n\n\n_Forgiveness_\n\nThe conventional Jesus is emblematic of supreme kindness and\nforgiveness, but in reality he was far from lenient in many instances,\nnor did he advocate forgiveness for certain offenses.\n\n\"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee ... tell it unto\nthe church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee\nas a heathen man and a publican.\"[4]\n\nIn the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Abraham was represented as\njustified in not forgiving the rich man tortured in hell, or even in\nsaving the rich man's brothers as requested by the victim of Jesus'\npolicy of punishment.\n\nAgain Jesus said: \"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also\ndeny before my Father.\"[5] \"Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy\nGhost hath never forgiveness.\"[6]\n\nAll the wicked were condemned by Jesus to eternal punishment with no\nchance of forgiveness.\n\n\n_Vituperation_\n\nJesus was often vehement in his language to an extent hardly compatible\nwith gentleness of character.\n\n\"O generation of vipers! how can ye, being evil, speak good things?\"[7]\n\n\"Woe unto you, hypocrites, for ye compass sea and land to make one\nproselyte, and when he is made, ye make him two-fold more the child of\nhell than yourselves.\"[8]\n\n\"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation\nof hell?\"[9]\n\n\"If I should say I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you.\"[10]\n\n\"All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers.\"[11]\n\n\"Ye fools and blind.\"[12]\n\nThis language may have been necessary, in Jesus' opinion, to convince\nhis hearers of their sins, but such vituperation does not become a\nmodern ethical teacher.\n\n\n_Destruction of Property_\n\nTwo acts of Jesus, consistent with his disregard of worldly goods, were\ndestructive in character.\n\n\"And there was a good way off from them a herd of many swine feeding. So\nthe devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go\naway into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they\nwere come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole\nherd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and\nperished in the waters.\"[13]\n\nJesus did what the devils requested, cruelly killing two thousand\ninoffensive valuable animals that belonged to other people.\n\n\"Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold\noxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when he\nhad made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple,\nand the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and\noverthrew the tables.\"\n\nJesus has been defended for other acts on the ground that he was living\nin less civilized times than our own, but here he is seen offending both\nancient and modern sensibilities. The destruction of the swine and the\nrouting of the merchants were sensational and erratic exhibitions. If\nreformers today should destroy herds of animals, except to protect\npublic health by due process of law, or overthrow banks, they would be\nliable to arrest in any city of Christendom. Therefore the consensus of\nopinion denies exoneration to Jesus for his spasmodic resort to direct\naction.\n\n\n_Egotism_\n\nIf Jesus was not God, but merely the ideal man, his estimate of himself\nwas excessive. In addition to his remarks already quoted there are many\nother instances of an exaggerated ego.\n\n\"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,\nand children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he\ncannot be my disciple.\"[14]\n\n\"Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.\"[15]\n\n\"If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.\"[16]\n\n\"I am the light of the world.\"[17]\n\n\"I am the Son of God.\"[18]\n\n\"I am the resurrection and the life.\"[19]\n\nIf Jesus was correct in claiming that he was the Messiah, if he could\ncontrol the elements and send people to heaven or hell, he was justified\nin any extreme remarks; but not if he were merely a man. Every person is\nentitled to have as good an opinion of himself as his character and\nability warrant, but expressions of his own worth are unseemly even if\ntrue, and are inexcusable if exaggerated. As Jesus himself said (though\nthis authority is only for believers) testimony about oneself is\nunreliable.\n\nJesus not only claimed to be more than a man, he threatened his hearers\nwith death if they did not agree with him. All of which might be\npermissible if he were God, but was an egotistical illusion if he was\nmerely human.\n\n\n_Lack of Courtesy_\n\nJesus did not always exhibit the courtesy one would expect of a\ngentleman, or even of a nature's nobleman.\n\nThe first instance of lack of consideration was when he slipped away\nfrom his parents, causing them unnecessary anxiety: \"Son, why hast thou\nthus dealt with us? behold thy father and I have sought thee\nsorrowing.\"[20] He had remained behind to study Hebrew theology and did\nnot tell his parents, presumably because he thought they would not have\npermitted the venture.\n\nAnother instance was found in his daily life:\n\n\"A certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and\nsat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had\nnot first washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye\nPharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your\ninward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools ...\"[21]\n\nJesus had not only failed to wash as was expected of a guest, but\ndefended his uncleanliness and abused his host.\n\nAt another time Jesus was discourteous to his mother:\n\n\"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They\nhave no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with\nthee?\"[22]\n\nJesus was apparently annoyed at his mother's interference, though he\nfollowed her suggestion. He did not set a good example for children in\naddressing their mothers.\n\nWhen the Syrophenician woman asked him to help her daughter, \"Jesus\nsaith unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to\ntake the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she\nanswered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat\nof the children's crumbs. And he said unto her, For this saying go thy\nway; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.\"[23]\n\nJesus practically admitted that he had made a mistake in speaking\nunkindly to a Gentile. Her clever answer induced him to change his\ndecision. A physician who called a stranger's child a dog would now be\nconsidered brutal even in a free hospital.\n\n\"And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go\nand bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead\nbury their dead.\"[24]\n\nJesus could have allowed the man to attend his father's funeral and\nfollow him later. Would not that have set a better precedent?\n\nWhen Peter intervened to protect Jesus, the latter \"turned, and said\nunto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me.\"[25]\n\nEven though Jesus was determined to go on with the sacrifice, he could\nhave been more appreciative of his best friend's suggestion.\n\n\n_Unethical Advice_\n\nWhen the unjust steward cheated his employer, Jesus gave the following\nremarkable advice:\n\n\"And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely:\nfor the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the\nchildren of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of\nthe mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you\ninto everlasting habitations.\"[26]\n\nThis passage should be read again before deciding whether Jesus advised\nopportunism rather than morality. The words must be taken as they are;\nno interpretation can be based upon the assumption that Jesus was always\nright and therefore meant something different from what he said.\n\n\n_Sermon on the Mount_\n\nMany Christians say that they care nothing for theology; that the Sermon\non the Mount contains all that is necessary for a religious life, being\na perfect system of ethics.\n\nThe Sermon on the Mount does contain many admirable principles, but also\nsome that are inferior to present standards. Few of the people who\npraise this Sermon would think it proper to abide by all the teachings\ntherein. Christian parents do not wish their children to follow either\nthe letter or the spirit of this famous preachment. It begins in the\nfifth chapter of Matthew.\n\n\"Blessed are the poor in spirit.\" Is it better to be poor in spirit than\nrich and eager in spirit? Being poor in spirit is to be faint of heart.\nThis is bad advice, is it not?\n\n\"Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.\" This means\nthat those who mourn on earth will be comforted in heaven; but now that\nlife on earth has assumed greater importance, so far as our daily\nconduct is concerned, than life in heaven, the philosophy of gloom is\nunfortunate. Jesus preached acceptance of unhappiness as the common lot\nof man; he should not therefore be credited with providing happiness on\nearth. His urge to rejoice was usually in anticipation of good things to\ncome in the next world. He preached sorrow for all here rather than the\ngreater happiness for the greater number.\n\n\"There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers\nplaces. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver\nyou up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all\nnations for my name's sake ... and because iniquity shall abound, the\nlove of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the\nsame shall be saved.\"[27]\n\n\"Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.\"[28]\n\nThe beatitude, \"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth\"\nis of doubtful accuracy or value.\n\nThe commands to pluck out an eye or cut off a hand may not have been\nintended literally, although it does appear as if Jesus referred to the\nphysical body, and men have often so interpreted these doubtful\ninstructions.\n\nJesus said that \"Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth\nadultery\", which is no longer true. Those who permit remarriage after\ndivorce should admit an error on Jesus' part.\n\n\"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil.\" This instruction should\nbe reversed, should it not? Evil should be resisted in every possible\nway that does not involve evil in itself. What modern ethical teacher\nwill say that evil should not be resisted, or that this advice of Jesus\nwas perfection? If his instruction was intended to refer to physical\nresistance, then no righteous person should fight in any war, no police\nshould be delegated to arrest criminals. If the phrase has merely a\nspiritual meaning, it is certainly unsound advice, for evil should be\novercome by good.\n\nA fanatical attitude towards the law was recommended when Jesus said:\n\"If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him\nhave thy cloak also.\" Extreme generosity and non-resistance are taught,\nbut the illustration was not well thought out, for if the man had\nalready won his suit and taken the coat, it is evident that the owner of\nthe coat had put up a legal fight instead of giving away his coat and\ncloak as Jesus implies he should. Yielding more than a legal opponent\nwins in court is not compatible with defending the suit, nor is it a\nprinciple that would meet the approval of most of Jesus' followers\ntoday.\n\n\"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is\nperfect.\" If Jesus referred to Jehovah as his Father in heaven, the\nstandard of perfection advocated was very low, for Jehovah was, as\nThomas Jefferson put it, \"cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.\"\n\nThe Lord's Prayer is not the simple, clear, devotional petition that is\nusually supposed. Take it literally, as was undoubtedly intended, and\nits irrelevance to actual life is at once apparent.\n\n\"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.\nThy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.\" This is a proper\ninvocation only if there is a heaven in which God's will is done. None\nsuch has been discovered.\n\n\"Give us this day our daily bread\" indicates that God would not give our\ndaily sustenance without being asked, whereas there is no apparent\ndistinction in actual living between those who pray for bread and those\nwho do not.\n\n\"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors\" intimates that\ndivine forgiveness is not to be superior to that of men.\n\n\"And lead us not into temptation\"--as if God were anxious to lead us\nthere and would be deterred by our prayer.\n\nIt may seem like petty cavil to criticize the prayer that has been\nacclaimed for many centuries as ideal, but, seriously, what valuable\nprinciple for guidance through life does the Lord's Prayer contain? Do\nits requests represent the best modern conception of prayer as an inward\naspiration rather than as petitionary? Is it not vain repetition to\nrecite it again and again?\n\nThe general idea of offering prayer in order to obtain various needs\npresents the difficulty of reconciling the conception of an omnipotent,\nall-foreseeing God with the contradictory theory of a Father who\nrequires prayer before caring for his children, an almighty God who will\nbe turned from his course by human petitions. Man can do wonders in the\nway of conquering nature, but he has not been able to alter natural\nlaws, nor is there any evidence that such laws have been changed at any\ntime in answer to prayer.\n\nIf the Lord's Prayer is not essential for man's welfare in the world, we\nmay conclude that Jesus over-emphasized its importance.\n\nOne of the most important portions of the Sermon on the Mount is the\nadvice regarding worldly possessions. Nothing in the teaching of Jesus\nis more definite than his instructions regarding wealth. He strikes an\nadmirable note when he says, \"What is a man profited if he gain the\nwhole world and lose his own soul? ... A man's life consisteth not in\nthe abundance of the things which he possesseth.\" This general principle\nis sadly needed in the modern money-seeking world, but the teachings of\nJesus on economics go much further, far beyond anything the best people\nof today are willing to follow.\n\n\"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall\ndrink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on ... Take therefore no\nthought for the morrow.\"[29]\n\nThese commands, taken literally as Jesus intended, would lead to\ninfinite trouble. Men are obliged to take thought for the morrow; if\nthey do not they will fail to survive. In Jesus' plan provision for the\nearthly future was of no importance because of the imminence of eternal\nlife, but now it is considered one's duty to provide for old age.\n\nThis mistake of Jesus cannot be explained away by saying that Jesus was\nright and that man falls short of the counsel of perfection given by\nthe Master. No, there are few indeed who will say that it would be right\nto shape their financial life as Jesus advised. If they do not believe\nit right to follow his instructions, definite as they are on this\nsubject, they must admit that he was wrong. Either thrift is now\nunrighteous, or Jesus is not a dependable guide for modern life.\n\nThe following instructions have little meaning now except for Roman\nCatholics. \"But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy\nface, that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which\nis in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee\nopenly.\"\n\nAnother portion of the Sermon holds out false hopes that cannot be\nsubstantiated: \"For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh\nfindeth.\" Is there any virtue in thus deceiving the people regarding the\npossibilities of prayer?\n\n\"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do\nye even so to them.\" This is the famous Golden Rule that has been\nheralded as one of the most original portions of Jesus' teachings. But\nJesus admitted that he did not first state this rule when he said, \"for\nthis is the law and the prophets.\"[30]\n\nConfucius, born in 551 B.C., several times announced the rule, \"What you\ndo not like when done to yourself, do not to others.\" This negative\nstatement is less effective than the Jewish rule, but both are admirable\nregardless of who first formulated them. The Golden Rule is as valuable\ncoming from the Hebrew fathers as if Jesus had originated it.\n\nThe Golden Rule, however, is not perfect. It is one of the best rules of\nthe ancients, showing the desirability of reciprocity, but it does not\ndemand that our desires be always just, nor does it insure that what we\nwant done to ourselves will always be what others most need. It would be\nconsistent with the Golden Rule for a convivial man to entertain his\nprohibition friends at a speakeasy, or for a Catholic to take his\natheist guests to daily mass. Possibly an even better rule than judging\nothers by ourselves would be to do unto others what best pleases them.\n\n\n_Inconsistency_\n\n\"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by\nwhom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had\nnot been born.\"[31]\n\nApparently the arrangement between Jehovah and Jesus was that Jesus\nshould not give himself up as a sacrifice voluntarily but should be\nbetrayed by someone else; and yet, although the betrayal was desired,\nthe man who assisted was to be condemned.\n\nThe sacrificial plan for salvation was continued to the end in order\nthat \"the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.\"[32] The\nscriptures were Jewish, so this is additional proof that Jesus, rejected\nby the Jews, considered himself the predicted Jewish Messiah. While the\nJews expected a Messiah, there is no clear prediction of Jesus in the\nOld Testament.\n\n\n_Fear_\n\nJesus said, \"Be not afraid of them that kill the body\"; but when\nthreatened with bodily injury himself, he was afraid. \"Then took they up\nstones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself.\"[33] \"Then the Pharisees\nwent out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.\nBut when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence.\"[34]\n\nThis avoidance of physical injury may have been due to a desire to\npostpone his end until the proper time, as indicated by \"Mine hour is\nnot yet come\", but when the time did come, Jesus did not bear his\napproaching death bravely, as Socrates did when about to drink the cup\nof hemlock. Jesus was much afraid, \"and prayed, saying, Father, if thou\nbe willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will but thine\nbe done.\"[35]\n\nHe was resolved to go through with the painful experience at any cost\nbut was much more frightened than many a mortal man, though he had a\ngreater cause to sustain him than martyrs who have suffered\nuncomplainingly; for he believed that his sacrifice would save the\nworld: \"and there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening\nhim. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was\nas it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.\"[36]\n\nAfter saying, \"The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified\n... He that loveth his life shall lose it\", he again showed terror: \"Now\nis my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this\nhour, but for this cause came I unto this hour.\"[37]\n\nIt is to be noted that God did not answer the prayer of Jesus, though\nJesus had said that God would always answer prayers in his name. Jesus\nrecognized his failure to obtain the answer, saying on the cross, \"My\nGod, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\"[38]\n\n\n_Failure_\n\nMany a good man is a failure from a worldly point of view, but failure\nis not what one would wish to copy. Jesus sought to save the world.\nSurely no one looking at the world today can say that he succeeded. His\nplan of salvation was a failure; it did not work out as Jehovah and\nJesus intended. An ideal teacher is needed now almost as much as two\nthousand years ago. If the world is gradually improving, as seems\nprobable, it is in spite of the superstitions of the past, not because\nof them.\n\nAt one time Jesus denied his own perfection, saying: \"Why callest thou\nme good? there is none good but one, that is, God.\"[39]\n\nChristian parents who hold Jesus up to their children as a paragon would\nnot wish their sons to grow up to be just like Jesus. He is not an\nacceptable prototype.\n\nJesus did not provide the knowledge so much needed by man to enable him\nto shape his course through life. No one knows how to live correctly,\nhow best to meet each situation, what action is suited to the occasion.\nJesus did not tell us what to do. His sayings are interpreted in many\ndifferent ways. He failed to predict the needs of the future.\n\nJesus did not explain relations between man and wife, nor between\nemployer and employee, nor how to educate children, nor how to preserve\nhealth, nor how to make a living, nor how to prevent war, poverty and\nsuffering. Jesus gave little practical information, and his spiritual\nadvice was not clearly enough expressed to enable man to apply it to\nmodern conditions. Jesus neglected to instruct people how to live. His\nknowledge of the world was less than that of the average American\ncitizen.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Matt. xxi, 18-19.\n\n[2] Mark xi, 13.\n\n[3] Mark xi, 20-23.\n\n[4] Matt. xviii, 15-17.\n\n[5] Matt. x, 33.\n\n[6] Mark iii, 29.\n\n[7] Matt. xii, 34.\n\n[8] Matt. xxiii, 15.\n\n[9] Matt. xxiii, 33.\n\n[10] John viii, 55.\n\n[11] John x, 8.\n\n[12] Matt. xxiii, 17.\n\n[13] Matt. viii, 28-34; Mark v, 13; Luke viii, 26-34.\n\n[14] Luke xiv, 26.\n\n[15] John xi, 26.\n\n[16] John viii, 24.\n\n[17] John viii, 12.\n\n[18] John x, 36.\n\n[19] John xi, 25.\n\n[20] Luke ii, 48.\n\n[21] Luke xi, 37-40.\n\n[22] John ii, 4.\n\n[23] Mark vii, 25-29.\n\n[24] Matt. viii, 21-22.\n\n[25] Matt. xvi, 23.\n\n[26] Luke xvi, 1-9.\n\n[27] Matt. xxiv, 7-13.\n\n[28] Luke vi, 21.\n\n[29] Matt. vi, 25-34.\n\n[30] Matt. vii, 12.\n\n[31] Matt. xxvi, 24.\n\n[32] Matt. xxvi, 56.\n\n[33] John viii, 59.\n\n[34] Matt. xii, 14-15.\n\n[35] Luke xxii, 42.\n\n[36] Luke xxii, 44.\n\n[37] John xii, 23-27.\n\n[38] Mark xv, 34.\n\n[39] Matt. xix, 17.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\nThe historicity of Jesus has been discussed in many books and pamphlets.\nWhether Jesus lived or not depends upon what is meant by that phrase. If\none is satisfied that there was a peripatetic philosopher named Jesus\nwho was the son of a woman named Mary and who lived and taught around\nJerusalem, uttering some, but not all, of the words attributed to him,\nthen Jesus may be said to have lived. There can be no serious objection\nto the acceptance of that Jesus as an actual personage even though he\nwas ignored by secular historians and though the time and place of his\nbirth and death are in doubt.\n\nOn the other hand, if there never was such a person as the Jesus\ndescribed in the New Testament--a man born of a virgin, superior to\nnatural laws, able to walk on the water, and change the course of\nnature, performing miracles, casting out devils, a man who never erred,\nwho was crucified, rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven\nwhere he now sits to judge the world--if there was no such man-God as\nthe Jesus of the gospels, some may hesitate to say that Jesus ever\nlived.\n\n\n_Jesus a Myth_\n\nSincere Evolutionists who discredit miracles, must needs consider the\ngospel Jesus as a myth. This does not mean that Jesus had no reality,\nbut that the original facts have been so enlarged upon that the\nprincipal features of his life are more fanciful than real. If you\neliminate from the life of Jesus as unhistorical his birth, his\nmiracles, his theological teachings, his resurrection, ascension and\nmessianic mission, the Christ no longer exists. Jesus would have\nattracted no attention were it not for the very circumstances which\nModernists admit were mythical.\n\n\n_Judged by His Works_\n\nWhether Jesus was God, or man, or myth, he can be judged by his works,\nas he himself recommended. If he is found to be perfect in word and\ndeed, it makes little difference whether he lived or not. As a symbol he\ncan be revered and copied. But if Jesus is now seen to be the product of\nhis times, representing the virtues and defects of his biographers, with\nno vision beyond their ken, his authority is gone.\n\nNot only will the divinity of Jesus be discredited if he was found to\nhave been occasionally in error, but his value as a guide to life will\nbe impaired. What will be the result of this radical change? None of the\nbeautiful ideals or sound ethical principles attributed to Jesus will\nbe lost. Not one saying or counsel of valuable advice need go. Not one\nevil thought need take the place of that which was good. In fact, the\nfinest qualities of existence will be more vital in our lives when their\nrealization becomes of primary importance instead of being subordinate\nto worship of the supernatural. Principles are superior to persons. A\ndead personality remains unchanged; live ethical principles can be\ndeveloped by more complete knowledge of evolutionary processes.\n\n\n_Ethical Evolution_\n\nEvolution has been progressing along ethical as well as physical lines.\nTo the teachings of Jesus, once considered perfection, have been added\nmany newly discovered principles of value, for knowledge is cumulative.\nAll the best thoughts of the ages are ours forever, no matter who first\noriginated or expressed them.\n\nWhatever the plan of the universe may be, it is more nearly comprehended\nnow than in Jesus' time. Twentieth century events are more dependable in\nforming our philosophy of life than those of the first century. The\nfailure to grasp this fact is the death knell of orthodox religion.\nEvery existing religious sect has founded its spirituality upon events\nsupposed to have occurred in the past. Christianity depends upon the\ndirect creation, fall of man and life of an atoning Savior, all physical\nin character. Our new metaphysics will be based upon conditions existing\ntoday and that will be revealed by science in the future. The\ngeologists, embryologists, biologists and astronomers of 1932 have more\ninformation about nature than Jesus had. On that knowledge can be\nfounded a system of living superior to the Sermon on the Mount.\n\nOur own time is the most dependable era of revelation. We can safely\naccept whatever stands accredited after thorough examination, including\nall teachings of Jesus that are admirable. A modern person with\nreligious zeal has confidence that the world is ordered along consistent\nlines and will respond favorably to man's best efforts to solve the true\nway of living. The scientific mind and the religious spirit are\ncomplementary. Religion, instead of being a system of handed-down\nsanctity, may become an inspired revelation to each individual--a\nreligion of the spirit of the modern world.\n\nAs the spirit derived from Truth is superior to that based upon\ncredulity, the new doctrines that supplant the old may be expected to\nexcel any that have preceded them. Anyone may be as spiritual as the\nproved facts permit.\n\nIf the world has been improving physically and ethically, we can have\nconfidence that whatever knowledge is necessary for our salvation is\navailable to each of us now. No living God has died; no great principle\nhas been lost. Instead of depending upon Jesus in an unthinking manner,\nwe must seek the Truth wherever it is found and follow wherever it may\nlead regardless of consequences. This requires more courage than\nprofessing Jesus, whose teachings can be construed to mean whatever the\nreader desires. While the majority regard Jesus as an ascetic, a\nreformer, opposed to business and joviality, Bruce Barton has convinced\nthousands that Jesus was the great business man, rotarian and\nadvertiser.\n\n\n_Gains, not Losses_\n\nAmong the compensations that may supplant the loss of Jesus as an ideal\nare the thrill at being a pioneer in striving for the welfare of the\nhuman race rather than for individual salvation; the satisfaction at\nhaving a consistent creed that can be maintained against all criticism\nwithout hypocrisy or evasion; emancipation from inhibitions required by\na supposedly divine teacher. Every pleasure is not a sin, but rejection\nof theology does not imply indifference to evil. Science warns against\nexcess as strongly as any ancient command. The fear of natural or\nman-decreed punishment in this world is as potent as the dread of\neternal torment threatened by Jesus.\n\nIf Jesus really was the sort of personage described in the Bible; if he\nreally was born of a virgin, controlled the elements and had power to\ncondemn unbelievers to eternal damnation, all people should obey his\nevery word. He should be followed literally; we should sell all our\npossessions and take no thought for the morrow. But if Jesus was not\nthat sort of a person; if he was neither a supernatural God nor an\ninfallible man, he should not be worshipped as a redeeming Savior nor be\nfollowed as a true guide for human conduct.\n\nOur faith shifts with careful examination of the scriptures from belief\nin Jesus to confidence that the world is a far pleasanter abode than\nJesus imagined. Without reliance upon the authority of Jesus we can\nadopt a code which will prove comparatively effective in leading towards\na wholesome life.\n\n\n\n\nCODE OF LIVING\n\n\n1. Keep the body strong that the most efficient work may be done, the\ngreatest happiness obtained during life and a wholesome inheritance\npassed on to future generations.\n\n2. Cultivate the mind, learning as many important facts as possible,\nstriving to become expert in some particular field of endeavor.\n\n3. Develop a scientific spirit, the essential characteristic of which is\na search for Truth in the light of evidence and reason. Do not deceive\nyourself or others.\n\n4. Base your spiritual concepts on the latest developments of Evolution.\nBe prepared to change your philosophy to conform to the consensus of\nscientific opinion.\n\n5. Conduct all human relationships in a spirit of tolerance and love,\nhaving proper consideration for others, not presuming to control their\nlives.\n\n6. Treat the opposite sex honorably, respecting their complementary\nqualities, with due regard for succeeding generations.\n\n7. Endeavor to embody in the laws of the community the spirit of equity\nand progress.\n\n8. Strive for an economic system under which each individual shall be\nrewarded according to his or her value to society.\n\n9. Avoid the use of physical force for personal revenge or national\naggrandizement, having learned from experience that reason triumphs\nwhile brutality degrades.\n\n10. Hold yourself in readiness to accept new revelations.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLuther Burbank wrote concerning the above code on November 11, 1925:\n\n    \"_I am greatly pleased with your code of living ... The false\n    ancient theology has past or is rapidly passing with intelligent\n    people at the present time. It is not applicable to our conditions\n    and is of no more value than a worn-out suit of clothes._\"","title":"The Mistakes of Jesus","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":17312}