The world is run by a family of giant lizards

Posted on August 30, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

As a child, my Methodist parents paid lip service to respecting others’ beliefs as long as they didn’t conflict with their own. I was to respect other people’s tastes, political opinions and allegiances, but they also warned me to be suspicious of the Catholic family living next door, the Spiritualists across the road, men with long hair, all foreigners and anyone wearing a turban!

But are we supposed to respect people who blow themselves up in crowded places taking dozens of innocent bystanders with them, or those who behead blameless people in the Syrian desert believing that they’ll be venerated as martyrs in the next life? Or even someone who dies when meddling with poisonous snakes in accordance with a nonsensical passage of scripture written 1,900 years ago.

A few year ago author David Icke achieved notoriety for claiming – in all seriousness – that the world is run by a family of giant lizards who disguise themselves as humans, including both George Bushes, the Queen of England, Tony Blair and many leading industrialists. Mr Icke, who has sold shitloads of books around the world, vehemently defends this position. How much respect should we accord to this belief?

Similarly, there are people all over the world who believe that a man came back to life two thousand years ago after being nailed to a cross. He was last seen floating skyward on a cloud and will one day return to Earth and rescue us from our misery and sin.

We consigned Odin, Jupiter, Zeus and Thor to mythology years ago – yet Elohim, YHWH, Jehovah, Abba – whatever you want to call it – is still venerated.

Religion and superstition are essentially the same. They are both types of belief. The only difference is that religion is taken seriously and has much higher status. People readily apply logic to most areas of their lives, but religion is not subjected to the same standards of proof as, say, science, mathematics and psychology.

©David Lawrence Preston, 30.8.2016

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

The First Gospel

Posted on August 30, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

‘Mark’ was the first of the four official gospels to be written, around 70 CE. Only the seven authentic letters of Paul and the anonymous letter to the Hebrews were written before this, which means ninety percent plus of the New Testament was written after.

Nobody knows who wrote it, but it is clear the author was no eyewitness and makes no such claims. Some have suggested that it was written by a young associate of the disciple Cephas; if this were true, he would be author closest to Yeshua, but it’s unlikely. Others think it could have been written by a young one-time companion of Paul, John-Mark, but this is unlikely too.

Some think it was written in Syria, others in Rome. There are no indications that the author was familiar with the geography of Palestine. It seems to have been written for gentile Christians, since the author, probably Jewish, felt the need to explain Jewish law and customs.

There is no birth story in the First Gospel – it begins with Yeshua’s visit to John the Baptist and ends with a group of women discovering the empty tomb. There is no divine conception, no birth story, no shepherds, wise men or flight into Egypt. These stories were invented later.

Nor did the original text claim that a resurrection had taken place. The final twelve verses about sightings of the ‘risen’ Master, his instruction to the disciples to ‘go to every part of the world and proclaim the gospel’ and a warning that those who do not believe will be ‘condemned’ – were written by a different author and added years later, probably to bring ‘Mark’ into line with the Second and Third Gospels, ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’.

In the First Gospel, Yeshua is primarily a great humanitarian. He performs miracles not as ‘signs’ that he is divinely ordained (that came later, in the Fourth Gospel) but to help people. It’s light on dialogue and heavy on miracles. He drives out a lot of demons. ‘Mark’s’ Yeshua was the secret Messiah until his final week. The disciples are constantly urged not to tell anyone who he is or what he has done.

Everything that appears in ‘Mark’ also appears ‘Matthew’, ‘Luke’ or both, but there is hardly any consensus with the Fourth Gospel, ‘John’.

Being the first to be written, it is tempting to think of ‘Mark’ as closer to the facts than the other gospels. This may be true, but the author was no neutral historian. Like the others, he was a creative writer applying his own spin to the stories he had heard to convince his readers of his point of view.

Any good journalist will tell you, never let the facts get in the way of a good story! The author of ‘Mark’ did this instinctively!

©David Lawrence Preston, 30.8.2016

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter

Balboa Press/Hay House, 2015

We know next to nothing about Yeshua

Posted on August 29, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Most religions can be traced back to a wise, knowledgeable and persuasive teacher, usually with great charisma, who claims to have answers to the deeper questions. Often they claim that G-d spoke directly to them.

Yeshua certainly held this appeal for his close followers and continues to do so for millions around the world. But the truth is, we know next to nothing about him!

We know a great deal about the main historical figures of that era – Nero, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Marcus Aurelius and so on. We know more about characters that pre-date him, such as Socrates, Plato and Alexander the Great. We also know more – much more – about New Testament figures such as Pontius Pilate, the Herods, Caiaphas and Paul of Tarsus..

The dilemma faced by anyone interested in the real Yeshua is this: there are no independent sources. Moreover, the real person cannot be found in the gospels because they present a highly selective and distorted view. The historian Josephus and the other contemporary authors merely described Yeshua as a man who suffered the usual fate of dissenters in Roman Palestine (crucifixion).

But the New Testament authors had someone quite different in mind – the person Yeshua had become for them during the time that had elapsed since his execution decades earlier. He had become the mystical Christ figure described in the Fourth Gospel, written in the 90s or later. By then he had become a god-man incapable of sin; a miracle worker who had power over life and death; who offered signs so people would believe, and who offered up his life knowing he was destined to be the saviour of humankind.

We don’t even know what he looked like

The popular image of Yeshua as a tall, long brown-haired, pale faced man wearing a long, flowing robe, cannot possibly describe his real appearance. He would have resembled any other rural Galilean Jewish male of that era, and remains of poor Jewish men from that time reveal that they were short by today’s standards, thick set, dark-skinned, bearded and with dark tousled hair.

Whether he was fat, thin, long-haired, short-haired, healthy, fit, attractive or ugly we will never know for sure. Nor will we ever know what he sounded like. Did he have a deep voice or a high-pitched voice? We don’t know. The only adjective describing his speech in the gospels is ‘authoritative’.

Most images of Yeshua are much like the word pictures of him and discourses in the Fourth Gospel – loosely – yes, very loosely – based on a real person, but highly fictionalised.

©David Lawrence Preston, 29.8.2016

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

‘Jesus’ wasn’t called ‘Jesus’

Posted on August 26, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

The first and most obvious historical fact about the main character of the New Testament gospels is that he wasn’t called ‘Jesus’. To some, this is an obvious point, to others it comes as a surprise; some acknowledge it but think it doesn’t matter. But it does, because it illustrates the way in which the religiously-charged carpenter from Nazareth was transformed into the son of G_d in the minds of his followers.

He was probably known to his family and friends by the Aramaic name Yeshua bar Yehosef – Yeshua Son of Joseph (or Yeshua ben Josef in Hebrew). Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew once spoken in Northern Palestine, and Yeshua’s mother tongue. Jesus is the Greek equivalent.

So why Greek?

All the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek, not Hebrew or Latin as commonly supposed. Then around 382 CE, a priest called Jerome was translating the New Testament scripts into Latin and decided to stay with the Greek name. It stuck.

After his death, Yeshua became known as ‘the Christ’ at the instigation of his leading apostle, Paul of Tarsus. The literal meaning of Christ is ‘the anointed one’, from the Greek ‘Christos’. ‘Messiah’ means much the same thing.

Yeshua became known to the world as ‘Jesus Christ’, but he would not have answered to either name. Strange, isn’t it? Millions of subscribers to the world’s largest and most influential religion refer to their ‘Saviour’ by a name he would not have recognised! They are names ascribed to him years after his death.

Does it matter? Consider this: the bogus and mischievous millionaire ‘guru’ known as Bagwan Shree Rajneesh in his lifetime, the man who preached simplicity and humility yet acquired 98 Rolls Royces, was relaunched as ‘Osho’ after his death. It distanced him from the real man and made him seem more likely to be taken seriously. Need I say more?

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

Christianity is not about good deeds but blind faith

Posted on August 25, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Does Christianity help or hinder us realising our spirituality?

Spirituality is a deep appreciation of our non-physical essence coupled with an enriching process of personal growth and transformation.

In contrast, religion is a formalised set of beliefs and rituals presented within a formatted organisational structure. It’s an uncomfortable fact for those who like formality and ceremonials in religion that the Christian Prophet Yeshua (‘Jesus’) was not a huge fan of them.

Not long ago, a prominent former UK government minister presented a TV programme on the future of Christianity. During the programme, she debated with a Humanist. He argued, as a humanist would, that the whole basis of Christianity is fictitious. There are no gods, no angels, no devil and no miracles, and morality doesn’t depend on believing in these things.

‘Don’t you believe in love and forgiveness, and being kind to each other?’ she countered. He said of course he did, but that didn’t make him a Christian; all the great religions teach love, compassion, peaceful conduct and right living. Humanism does too. They’re largely common sense and do not need Christian theology to support them. And he’s right. Because it’s not these things that define Christianity. There’s a lot more to it than loving your neighbour and treating others as you would like to be treated.

Even following the gospel teachings of Yeshua is not enough. It’s not even the point. Far more important for Christians is to believe certain things about him – who he was, how he came to Earth, his place in the Holy Trinity and what became of him after he died. The religion’s greatest apostle, Paul of Tarsus made this very clear: he wrote that if we have absolute faith in Yeshua’s death and resurrection, we take our place in the Kingdom of G_d. This, not one’s good deeds, is what distinguishes a Christian from a non-Christian.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

The Hebrew prophecy of a virgin birth is based on a mistranslation

Posted on August 25, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Two of the New Testament gospels tell us that Yeshua’s mother was a virgin at the time of his conception and that this had been prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. About a third of the world’s population choose to believe this. But this particular prophecy was a mistranslation of a passage from the Book of Isaiah, written in Hebrew in the 8^th Century BCE.

Modern translations such as the New Revised Standard Version, 1989 by Oxford University Press, read as follows: ‘Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son…..’ Older, inaccurate translations (including the King James Bible) say, ‘Behold a virgin shall conceive…’

Moreover, when you read the passage in Isaiah it is clear that the author was predicting something that would happen to King Ahaz in his own time, not 800 years later!

Regrettably, the incorrect version continues to be widely used, compounding the error and perpetuating the Christian myth.

In the 1980s the Anglican Bishop of Durham, Dr David Jenkins, said it was not necessary to believe the gospel birth stories to be a good Christian. He attracted huge publicity and was widely chastised in Christian circles.

But there was nothing new in what he said – he was merely expressing a view that had long existed among scholars. For example, in 1906 Dr Albert Schweitzer described the virgin conception as ‘not literary versions of a tradition, but literary inventions.’

And so, by any reasonable criteria, they are.

©David Lawrence Preston, 24.8.2016

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

The real Pilate was a ruthless tyrant, not a kindly ditherer

Posted on August 25, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

If you’ve seen Michael Palin’s portrayal of Pontius Pilate in Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’, you’ll recall the weak and wavering man with a stutter in awe of his friend Bigus Dickus. Does this in any way resemble reality?

No. Not at all.

The Pilate of history was a vicious and paranoid tyrant who had no hesitation in putting people to death without trial. Roman Prefects could treat members of the subject nation more or less as they wished. Outside the gospel stories there is no record of Pilate ever showing mercy, and it would have been completely out of character to let anyone off the hook. Anyone thought to pose a threat to law and order would have been quickly and mercilessly dispatched.

Indeed, Pilate was later recalled to Rome to face charges of misrule. He went on to commit suicide in disgrace!

The gospels say it was only when the chief priests convinced Pilate that Yeshua bar Yehosef was a danger to public order was he sent for crucifixion. The authors faced a dilemma – how could they explain why this notoriously vindictive man had to be persuaded to send Yeshua to his death even though he believed that he had no charge to answer?

‘Matthew’ was so keen to absolve the Romans of their responsibility that he has Pilate’s wife advising him in to ‘have nothing to do with this innocent man for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.’ There is no mention of this in the other gospels.

Pilate’s reluctance in the gospels to crucify this articulate Jewish irritant contrasts so much with what is known about him from historical sources that it seems certain that later editors ‘doctored’ the gospels to deflect blame away from Rome.

Indeed, few scholars regard the gospel reports of Yeshua’s ‘trial’ as having any credibility at all!

©David Lawrence Preston, 25.8.2016

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter

Balboa Press, 2015

Yeshua was wrong!

Posted on August 25, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

The writers of the first three (Synoptic) gospels made it perfectly clear – Yeshua/Jesus’ mission was to proclaim the imminent coming of the Kingdom of G_d.

Many Christians have never read the gospels in detail. I have, and one fact jumps out at you from almost every page. Once its significance understood, it casts a long shadow over the whole of the New Testament. It was the subject of most of Yeshua’s parables and sayings and is acknowledged by most Bible scholars.

It is this: Yeshua taught that the Kingdom of G_d was on its way. The world in its present form was about to be transformed. G_d would take direct charge and people must learn to live right because judgement would immediately follow. Only those who had changed their ways (repented) and met the required standards would survive.

This was not some far-distant event; it would happen within a generation.

‘Truly I tell you,’ he says in the First Gospel, ‘there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of G_d has come with power.’[1]

‘The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of G_d has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.’[2]

He reaffirmed it in his Last Supper speech. ‘I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it with you in my Father’s kingdom.’[3] He didn’t mean a kingdom somewhere else, but right here on Earth.

Now, nearly two thousand years later, it is clear that Yeshua was wrong and the Synoptic Gospel writers were mistaken to believe him. It was already clear that by the end of the 1^st Century that the Kingdom was not coming soon, which is why this claim is almost entirely missing from the Fourth Gospel (‘John’). By then, Yeshua’s prediction had been superseded by events.

Christians realised this, and they knew it made them look ridiculous. The author of the Second Letter attributed to (but not written by) Peter felt the need to make excuses for the kingdom’s non-appearance. ‘Do not ignore this one fact, beloved,’ he wrote, ‘that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.’[4]

This is still what Christians believe today. They still believe the Kingdom is coming because Yeshua said so. It’s just that he got the timing wrong!

[1] Mark 9:1

[2] Mark 1:15

[3] Matthew 26:29

[1] 2 Peter 3:8

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

If we want a rounded picture, we must be look at all available sources

Posted on August 25, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Church theologians say that everything we need to know about Yeshua (‘Jesus’) can be found in the New Testament, and that what is written there is all true. But surely if we want a rounded picture, we must be look at all available sources. That’s not easy; Yeshua barely features in any non-Christian sources from the 1^st Century and none at all from the first half of the century when he was alive.

Outside the New Testament there are only four known references to him, and they don’t say very much:

Flavius Josephus[1], a Jewish historian (c37-c100 CE), referred to him as a ‘Yeshua who was called Christ’, a healer from Galilee[2] who attracted large crowds, told stories and was put to death because he made the authorities nervous.

The Roman historian Tacitus (c55-c120 CE) wrote of the ‘Chrestiani’ blamed by the Emperor Nero for setting fire to Rome in 64 CE. The name derived from ‘Christus’ who ‘was executed in the reign of Tiberius on the orders of the procurator Pontius Pilate’ for allegedly refusing to pay taxes to the Emperor.’[3] Tacitus tells us that ten years after Yeshua’s death the authorities were aware of conflict in Rome’s Jewish community about whether Yeshua had really been their Messiah. Christians were mistrusted by mainstream Jews, persecuted by Emperor Nero and widely mocked.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c75-150 CE), a Roman biographer and historian[4], and Pliny the Younger (c62-113 CE)[5] also mention conflicts between Yeshua’s followers and the authorities.

Neither Josephus, Tacitus, Tranquillus nor Pliny considered Yeshua’s teachings worth a mention, and none verify the most extraordinary events described in the New Testament, the virgin birth, nature miracles, resurrection and ascension.

Historians have long expressed amazement that a man who was supposedly mobbed by crowds, performed miracles and rose from the dead didn’t get much of a mention in any of the non-devotional literature of the time. It suggests he was a fairly minor figure during his lifetime, almost unknown outside his own region, and that much of what was written about him came from the creative imagination of a tiny group of people – the Christian community.

[1] Antt.20, 197-203 = XX, 9,1)

[2] A small province that is now part of Northern Israel.

[3] Annals XV, 44,3)

[4] Claudius, 25

[5] Epistles X, 96

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

Yeshua bar Yehosef was barely mentioned by the chroniclers of his time

Posted on August 24, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Did Yeshua bar Yehosef, the man later renamed ‘Jesus’ by his Greek and Roman followers, actually exist?

At one time I doubted it. I placed him in the same category as King Arthur, Hercules and Robin Hood, mythical characters only loosely based on real people. But now I’m sure he did, even though the historical evidence is slim.

The problem is, the New Testament texts and most of the so-called Gnostic Gospels were written by men who never met Yeshua and were intent on glorifying him. Indeed, they are the only documentary sources from his own century that place any great importance on him at all. From a historical perspective he was a marginal figure, barely worthy of a mention by the major chroniclers of the time.

Outside the gospels there are only four known references to him, and they don’t say very much. Only one, by Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, referred to him personally. He described him as a healer from Galilee who attracted large crowds, told stories and was put to death because he made the authorities nervous.

The Roman historians Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus and Pliny the Younger also mention conflicts between Yeshua’s followers and the authorities but say nothing about Yeshua the man.

Neither Josephus, Tacitus, Tranquillus nor Pliny considered Yeshua’s teachings worth a mention, and none refer to – let alone verify – the most extraordinary events described in the New Testament, the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and ascension.

If these events really took place, don’t you think they would have done?

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

David Lawrence Preston

Dedicated to creating a kinder, happier, healthier world

Tag Archives: Yeshua

The world is run by a family of giant lizards

The First Gospel

We know next to nothing about Yeshua

We don’t even know what he looked like

‘Jesus’ wasn’t called ‘Jesus’

Christianity is not about good deeds but blind faith

Does Christianity help or hinder us realising our spirituality?

The Hebrew prophecy of a virgin birth is based on a mistranslation

The real Pilate was a ruthless tyrant, not a kindly ditherer

No. Not at all.

Yeshua was wrong!

If we want a rounded picture, we must be look at all available sources

Yeshua bar Yehosef was barely mentioned by the chroniclers of his time