god-proof.com

Just to let you know I’ve started a Hubpage hub that poses the question, who was Jesus?

All practicing Muslims fast during the holy month of Ramadan. From the moment the sun rises to the moment that it sets, no particle of food or water should be taken into the mouth. In other words, no food or drink during sunlight hours. (You are free to scoff your face after sunset, however. I’ve known Muslim friends to put on weight during Ramadan, which kind of defeats the purpose of fasting.)

Anyway, fasting isn’t really an option for devoted Muslims. It’s one of the five pillars of Islam which makes it obligatory.

Problem is that when you get close to the North Pole there are days and days of continuous sunlight. In Greenland for example, which is home to the Kalaallit Inuit, the sun can stay out from the end of May to the end of July. It’s to do with the axis of the earth in relation to the sun. Google it.

So, imagine a faithful Muslim Eskimo who wants to follow all of Allah’s commandments. When the month of Ramadan falls during a period of continuous sun the Eskimo Muslim must not eat or drink for two months!

Does Allah really hate Eskimos? Was it part of his plan to deny them an afterlife? Or is it more likely that an ancient book was written by humans during a time when science knew nothing of the Polar Regions?

If the historical Jesus was alive today, he’d have been a hillbilly.

The historical Jesus was born in the rural province of the Galilee, a fertile land which exported fish and olive oil around the Roman Empire. Then, just as now, there was a prejudice against the rural folk, and the historical Jesus might have experienced it.

The historical Jesus and his gruff country accent

In the Talmud (c. 200 ce), an incident is preserved of a rural Galilean being ridiculed in the cosmopolitan marketplace of Jerusalem for his rough country accent:

“You stupid Galilean, do you want something to ride on [hamar: a donkey]? Or something to drink [hamar: wine]? Or something for a sacrifice [immar: a lamb]?” (Mishnah Erubin 53b)

Even in our times city types are known to poke fun of the country yokels and the same was happening back then. Another incident recorded in the gospels supports the idea of a gruff Galilean accent. A servant girl asks Peter whether he was with the group of Jesus’ followers, saying “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.” (Matthew 26:73)

We can certainly imagine how the historical Jesus would have been perceived when he was active in Jerusalem. That Christians would proclaim Jesus of Nazareth, a mere Galilean, as the messiah was perhaps understandably lamented. “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Cries Nathaniel in the Gospel of John (1:46).

The messiah was meant to be a kingly character and not a simple peasant from the backwaters of Israel with an ugly accent.

The Galilean troublemakers

There was also an impression that these farmers and fishermen were little more than troublemakers. Rabbinic texts, such as the Misnah, records Galileans being an aggressive people who were happy to squabble amongst themselves and who did not strictly observe Judean standards of ritual purity when worshipping. Indeed, one Yochanan ben Zakai, a Jewish sage, complains that during all his years in the Galilee he was only asked twice about the Jewish law, causing him to practically cry in despair (Mishnah Shabbat 15d). It’s also interesting to note that the historical Jesus criticised the Pharisee’s overreliance on observing the more mundane aspects of the Jewish law.

The Galileans were renowned for their violent attitude too. When the Romans ordered a census in 6 ce to gauge how much taxes they could squeeze out of their newly acquired lands of Judea, a rebellion was sparked. The head of this movement was Judas the Galilean. Later when it was clear the rebels could not defeat Rome, the native Judeans were ready to accept terms, yet the Galileans urged them to fight until the bitter end.

This brief sketch of Galileans allow us to imagine what it was like when the historical Jesus came into Jerusalem to overturn the tables at the Temple. The historical Jesus probably spoke gruffly, was perceived as a trouble maker and ultimately was executed for causing trouble in Jerusalem.

Anyway, in my book I attempt to reveal the historical Jesus, but of course the historical Jesus and the theological Jesus are two different things. So, it’s a great resource for people who are interested in challenging the Christian faith. Help a hungry author and buy it. Thanks.

Israel of the first century is full of examples of would-be messiahs; men who claim to be able to perform miracles based on the Old Testament. But their lives are all rather short.

Here are a few examples of what happens when you want to be messiah:

• The historical Jesus. Healed the sick and exorcised demons. Executed by crucifixion.
• Theudas. Wanted to part the river Jordon. Massacred by Roman cavalry and beheaded.
• The Egyptian. Was going to miraculously tear down the walls of Jerusalem. Ran away when the Romans came)
• John the Baptist. Baptized Jews in the river Jordon. Beheaded by Herod (friend of Rome)

These examples of would-be messiahs are taken from the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. They all had several things in common. They were all charismatic and attracted crowds of followers. They all practiced miracles that were inspired from the scriptures. They all ended up dead at the hands of the Romans.

But why didn’t the Romans take kindly upon these messiahs?

Well, the Romans didn’t like troublemakers, and in these times the plethora of holy men preaching about god’s kingdom and the messiah were trouble – there was only one kingdom (Rome) and one king (Caesar).

You see, in those times the Jewish religion and politics were inseparable. The long awaited messiah was often envisenged as a kingly character, a brand new king David who would rule over the word. The Romans did not like this at all.

And when the Jews gathered in big crowds there was usually big trouble. Josephus tells us, for example, that during festivities at the Temple in Jerusalem riots would often break out. The Romans actually had to increase their garrison during Jewish festivals to keep the crowd under control.

So did the historical Jesus die for our sins? Or did he die because he was seen as a political troublemaker? As a historian and religious sceptic I know what I’m arguing for.

Jesus in the gospels is often referred to as the ‘Son of God.’ These days Christians take this to mean that god had a literal son, but the historical Jesus would have understood the term completely differently.

The historical Jesus was a Jew. And in the context of the Jewish scriptures the title ‘Son of God’ specifically refers to three things:

• Israel and its people
• heavenly beings
• and the kings of Israel

Outside of the Old Testament, any Jew who remained faithful to the law of Moses and who revered Yahweh above all else could in fact be referred to as a ‘Son of God.’ This interpretation is confirmed in other Jewish writing, for example Jesus Ben Sira (writing c. 175 ce) calls on his people to care for others and in return  “god shall call you son, and shall have mercy on you.” (Hosea 11:1)

When you think about the term in its Jewish context then it’s quite plausible that the historical Jesus would have been labelled as a ‘son of god.’ Jesus was a often hailed as a Rabbi and in his famous Sermon on the Mount in the gospel of Matthew he talks about the importance of the Jewish law.

The term experienced an evolution of sorts when it was taken out of its Jewish context. As the new religion spread throughout the Roman Empire new converts (former pagans) interpreted the term according to their own cultural context. To the pagan mind there was nothing inherently wrong in thinking of a man as a divine son of god.

Julius Caesar (100-44 bce) for example was officially declared to be divine by the Senate, and his heir Augustus (64 bce-14 ce) produced coins for propaganda purposes inscribed with the words ‘if father is divine, so is the son.’ Romans were encouraged to worship him as such.

In my book The Christ Conundrum I argue that the historical Jesus was a Jew. Therefore Jesus would have found the Christian interpretation of the title to be completely blasphemous. The Jewish religion, then and now, prohibits humans from claiming divinity.

The historical Jesus wore Jewish Tzizit

As there are no descriptions of the historical Jesus nobody knows what he looks like. However, there are a few passages in the gospels that allow us to see what he was wearing. It should come as no surprise that the historical Jesus dressed as a Jew.

Let me demonstrate.

In the Book of Deuteronomy (22:12) god says, “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover [yourself].”

These tassels are known as ‘Tzitzit’ and are still in use by practitioners of Judaism today. Use of these tassels is old and they certainly would have been in use in Jesus’ time.

Now compare god’s commandments with what is written in the Gospels: “Now a woman, having a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her livelihood on physicians and could not be healed by any, came from behind and touched the border of His garment. And immediately her flow of blood stopped.” (Luke 8:43-44)

In the original Greek of the gospels the term ‘border’ is in fact a translation of the Hebrew word ‘Tzitzit.’ So here we have direct evidence that the historical Jesus dressed like a Jew – hardly surprising since he is often hailed as ‘rabbi.’

For lots more insights into the historical Jesus check out ‘The Christ Conundrum: The Skeptic’s Guide to Jesus.’ My book argues that the historical Jesus was a Jew, and Christians have got history all wrong.

Check out my interview on the Pod Delusion. I talk a little bit about a few oddities in the New Testament and the historical Jesus, which gives you a fairly good idea of what the book is about. Enjoy!

Many Christians hold to the belief that Jesus, the so-called son of god, was born from a virgin. Catholics continue to believe that Mary was so pure and sinless that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. Have they actually read what the bible says about the matter?

In the Gospel of Matthew 1:18, it says “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.” Notice that Matthew says that Mary got pregnant before she ‘came together’ with Joseph, – taken at face value this simple statement means that eventually the holy couple did get it on.

The gospel of Luke is similar. Luke says that while the couple were in Bethlehem the time came for the baby to be born, “and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.” (Luke 2.7) Luke says that Jesus was her first son. This means that Mary had other children, but Jesus was the first. Had the author of Luke wanted to suggest that Mary had only one son, and was a virgin for life, he would have phrased this statement differently.

So, here we have two gospel statements suggesting that Mary had other children and so wasn’t a virgin all her life. And the gospels continue to provide insights into the siblings of Jesus: Matthew records an incident in Jesus’ hometown which reveals the names of Jesus’ three brothers. The people say, “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”

Of course Christians will claim that the term ‘brothers’ can actually mean ‘cousins.’ They will say that perhaps these brothers were actually spiritual brothers. But unfortunately, this premise simply does not stand up against historical scrutiny. We know that the apostle Paul actually encountered, and even squabbled with Jesus’ younger brother James; a man of great importance to the early church. Additionally we have the words of the ancient historian Eusebius, who in his work ‘Ecclesiastical History’ written c. 367 ce, mentions the “relatives of our Lord according to the flesh.” (HE 1.7.16)

Thus, we can say that Eusebius knows of Jesus’ relations, and he describes them not as spiritual brothers, but according to the flesh. Historically speaking it is likely that Joseph and Mary were an ordinary married couple who had at least three sons, and several other sisters (who are never mentioned by name). However, when Christianity came to spread beyond the confines of first century Palestine and into the Roman Empire the religion blended with pagan ritual and rites and emerged as something entirely alien.

There is a tradition of special births in the pagan sects. The legendary figures of Asclepius, Hercules and Dionysus all had human mothers and divine fathers. Even historical figures – mighty rulers and wise philosophers – were given miracle conceptions. An example is the famous philosopher Plato. There are several ancient accounts of his legendary birth which commonly have Apollo appearing in a vision to Plato’s mother who then becomes pregnant, despite the fact that she has yet to lay with her husband. Plato’s birth thus sounds similar to Jesus’.

Having a divine birth did help the ancients Greeks and Romans to explain why some men were greater than others, but the historical Jesus likely had a normal birth. His mother was a normal woman who conceived through the normal human route. But when Jesus evolved away from his human roots and became increasingly described as a divinity, the former pagans and non-Jewish Christians gave Jesus a miracle, virgin birth. Thus, in conclusion, the historical figure of Mary was not a virgin, and her human son was not born a god – but he did eventually evolve into one. 

Finally… some truth about Jesus.

Written with the express aim of disproving the notion that Jesus is God, ‘The Christ Conundrum: The Skeptic’s Guide to Jesus’ re-examines the evidence to reconstruct the life and times of the historical Jesus – and guess what? Jesus was a mere mortal man. In fact, as the Christ Conundrum so aptly demonstrates, Jesus was a monotheistic Jew and as such he would have been abhorred and disgusted that Christians have got his story so wrong.

Author, Andrew Carruth says “I wrote the Christ Conundrum because I wanted to show evangelical Christians that their claims about Jesus are so absolutely wrong. All you have to do is look at the historical evidence for yourself and it’s clear to see Jesus was a Jew of his own time – he wasn’t god, and he most certainly was not a Christian!”

There are sure to be surprises and intrigue as the ‘Christ Conundrum’ takes you on a fascinating journey into a distant past where people believed that disease were caused by demons, where political activity meant crucifixion, and where people thought the end of the world was just around the corner. Into this explosive mix Jesus emerged.

“It’s interesting that many Jews of the period were expecting an imminent end to the world order,” the author says. “We see this same expectation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jesus’ mission is largely concerned with it. Indeed, in the gospels Jesus explicitly predicts that the end would occur within the lifetime of the disciples who were listening to him. Two thousand years later and the end that Jesus predicted still hasn’t come, clearly he was wrong – Jesus was a false prophet!”

CJ Werleman, also an author at Dangerous Little Books praised the Christ Conundrum “The book gives a very thorough argument, it’s an intriguing exploration of the life and times of Jesus, and the rapidly expanding market for atheist books will surely love it.”

SYNOPSIS

Using the latest scholarly research this book deciphers the mystery behind the mythical figure of Jesus and aims to demonstrate, once-and-for-all, that Jesus was a mere, mortal man. By looking at the ancient sources through the lens of the historian, Andrew Carruth reveals Jesus to be a man of his time; Jesus was a first century Jew, with a very Jewish mission and was hardly unique – in fact there were several other historical miracle workers and ‘Sons of God.’ Entertaining, historically accurate, thought-provoking and controversial the Christ Conundrum is a must read for skeptics and believers alike.

REVIEW COPY
If you’re a journalist or popular atheist blogger who’d like to review this book then please request a here: http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com/contact

COMPETITION PRIZE
If you’d like to offer your audience free copies of this book as a competition prize along with a review then tell us your plans and we’ll do whatever we can to help:
http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com/contact

WEBSITE LINKS

Andrew Carruth’s Website: www.god-proof.com

Andrew Carruth’s blog: www.god-proof.com/blog

Andrew Carruth on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndrewCarruth

Andrew Carruth on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Andrew.Carruth

INTERVIEWS/ARTICLES

Andrew Carruth is happy to provide free content in return for a ‘plug’ of his book. He is open for interviews, speaking engagements, freelance commissions, or other ideas. Please contact: http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com/contact or andy@god-proof.com

THE AUTHOR

Andrew Carruth is a former journalist and narcotics control officer who has lived in the Maldives and Indonesia, but who has returned to his native UK to focus on his writing. It was during his travels that Andrew came to realize that people are all essentially the same and that it is foolish to divide them according to which superstitious fable they happen to believe in.

The scene of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem couldn’t be more dramatic. As he approaches the culmination of his ministry he knows that torture, humiliation and death awaits him. Along the road the Jews have assembled to cheer their saviour on. The Son of God passes them by, the lord, seated on two donkeys.

The reader at this stage would be forgiven, quite rightly, for asking what was Jesus Christ doing riding two donkeys at the same time? Why not just ride on one? Alas, this is the scene as described in the Gospel of Matthew.

Matthew writes that Jesus has just instructed his followers thus; “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me… The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.” (Matthew 21:1-8)

So what is happening here? Did Matthew really believe that Jesus sat on two donkeys? Why?

There are many oddities in the New Testament which the book, The Christ Conundrum: The Skeptic’s Guide to Jesus, deciphers in detail. In this case, Matthew has been pinching prophecies from the Old Testament to construct a biography of Jesus. He wants to show that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, but in this instance he makes a mistake. He misreads a prophecy in the Book of Zechariah (9:9) and believes that it refers to two donkeys. Actually the relevant passage only refers to one such creature, but this was lost in translation when the original Hebrew was translated into Greek – the version favoured by Matthew.

This demonstrates that Matthew was not an eye witness to Jesus’ life as numerous Christians have claimed. Instead Matthew was constructing Jesus’ biography by cherry picking prophecies from the Old Testament.