Jesus under the Microscope (Part 1)

There are so many misconceptions about Christ in the Christian world today, as there have always been throughout Christian history. He has been thought to be everything from a prophet to an angel to God himself. What we will be doing in this article is setting aside all the religious propaganda, removing all the mythologizing, and looking at this character for what he really was—a mere fallible human being. Having seen how permeated the Bible is with so many contradictions and flat-out lies, we should now be able to more easily dispense with all the disproportionate claims made about Christ in the New Testament. In fact, we actually do not have much to go on to confidently determine whether or not he even existed. But we will not be dealing with that argument here. Instead, we shall advance with the premise that he did exist, but not as the exalted being that both the Bible and the Christian religion, to varying degrees, have made him out to be over the centuries. As any Bible believer will tell you, one of the most urgent factors that must be taken into account in order to correctly ascertain the true meaning of any given biblical passage is to place it into its proper historical context. Understanding what was going on in the world at the time a specific passage was written is key to the proper interpretation thereof. This is very true and it only makes sense. However, Christians miserably fail to do this when it comes to the driving factors that led to the spawning of their religion—they fail to take into consideration the historical context of the time. And because they fail to do this, their understanding of a great deal of the New Testament is severely deficient. So it is time, now, to fill in this considerably large gap. And what is this proper historical context for understanding Christianity (and thus Christ himself)? 

It is the first century Judean phenomenon of insurrectionism against Roman rule, and discontent with the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem. The religious and political climate of the “Holy Land” in the first century was volatile in the extreme. Many Jewish sects were popping up across the landscape, being led by extremists—even terrorists—who, at least in some cases, wanted to see the Jewish leadership either reformed or removed completely and replaced with individuals who shared their sentiments. From there, they wanted to see the Romans ousted from Jerusalem, and eventually to have the Roman government toppled altogether. Some of the rebels were not so much concerned with the corruption of the religious leaders in Jerusalem, however. Their only target was the Romans, figuring that if this factor could be removed, all else would fall properly into place. But regardless what their stance was concerning the temple leadership, a good many of the leaders of these various extremist groups quickly realized that the best way to amass a sizable support base from the Jewish masses was to sell themselves as the promised messiah who would bring freedom from the Romans, elevate Israel to unprecedented heights, and establish the “kingdom of God.” The second century Roman historian Tacitus captured the essence of this first century Judean mindset when he wrote these words sometime between 105 and 108 AD: “The majority [of Judeans] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the orient would triumph and from Judea would go forth men destined to rule the world.”

As the messianic banner began to be waved with increasing frequency by the Judean would-be ousters and conquerors of Rome, it soon began to dawn on the Romans that messianic claimants were synonymous with insurrectionism. Thus every new charismatic leader who rose up was held in high suspicion and was scrutinized very carefully. Any hint of an attempt at an uprising was justifiably met with ever-increasing ferocity. Even all the way up to Rome, including the emperor himself, there was apprehension over this matter, which we see from the writings of another Roman historian of the same era, Suetonius, who had this to say about Tiberius Caesar: “He abolished foreign cults at Rome, particularly the Egyptian and Jewish, forcing all citizens who had embraced these superstitious faiths to burn their religious vestments and other accessories. Jews of military age were removed to unhealthy regions, on the pretext of drafting them into the army; the others of the same race or of similar beliefs were expelled from the city and threatened with slavery if they defied the order. Tiberius also banished all astrologers except such as asked for his forgiveness and undertook to make no more predictions."

Initial complaints made by malcontented Jews against the clergymen in Jerusalem involved the refusal of these religious authorities to strictly and exclusively uphold the “sacred” writings of Moses and the prophets (they were instead leaning toward “unscriptural” traditions). The Jewish hierarchy, for the most part, was also seen as being too soft with the Romans, instead of standing up to them like militant Moses would have done, as the Torah states. These rebels wanted to bring back the “good old days” when the Israelites were reported to have overthrown by force any people that even looked at them funny. In this type of environment, uprisings—mostly against the Romans—were commonplace, occurring literally all the time. As Josephus tells us in Antiquities of the Jews: “In Judea, where matters were going from bad to worse, Felix [a Roman procurator] had to capture imposters and rebels on a daily basis.” 

Among the many opposition groups that existed at this time were the Zealots and the Sicarii. Another group was the Essenes which, although they had already been in existence for quite some time before the first century, began by this time to play a more active role in attempting to reform the Jewish leaders and throw off the “yoke” of the Romans. These groups, and others like them, operated both covertly and overtly, depending on the circumstances and / or the level of fanaticism of the individuals working for this effort. None of these collaborations ever succeeded, of course. As you may be aware, the whole insurrectionist movement culminated in the famous Roman sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. General Titus marched in and laid siege to the city. Thousands starved to death, and later thousands more who participated in the uprising were executed en masse by crucifixion. Though this did not fully stop the uprisings, the entire infrastructure of Jerusalem was so thoroughly devastated by the Romans, including the leveling of the temple, that the Jewish nation never rose up again (not in the ancient world, that is). This, let it be repeated, is the climate in which Christianity arose. Fail to take this background into account, and you will forever fall short of making sense of this religion and its founder.

We can achieve a much better grasp of the intimate relationship that existed between the insurrectionist and messianic movements (and thus the Jesus movement) by reviewing a brief roster of some of the more well known insurrectionists from around the time of Christ. Note how most of them were messianic claimants / religious fanatics (or at least fanatics who hid behind the mask of religion): 

• Simon of Peraea (a former slave of Herod): Killed by the Romans in a rebellion in 4 BC. He had called himself “King of the Jews.” Does this ring a bell? Did Christ not also bear the title of “King of the Jews”? (More on Simon of Peraea later.)
• Athronges (born in 3 AD): He was a leader during the early first century insurrection under Herod Archelaus, who defeated him and his followers. Josephus said this about Athronges: “This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that, although he risked his life, he did not much care if he lost it in so great a design.” He had worn a crown on his head, clearly indicating that he thought of himself as king. Again, sound familiar? And the fact that he cared not about risking his life for his cause should also sound familiar.
• Menahem ben Judah: Son of Judas of Galilee (who himself was another messianic rebel that we will discuss later). Menahem was an assassin of Roman leaders and a militant leader of the Zealots. When the war broke out against the Romans in 66 AD, he attacked Masada with his band, armed his followers with the weapons that were stored there, and proceeded to Jerusalem, capturing the Roman fortress of Antonia by overpowering the soldiers of Agrippa II. He essentially declared himself king and lorded for a time over all the Roman troops. 
• Matthias (son of Margalus): He helped to lead out an uprising in 4 BC that resulted in him and his students being tortured to death by Herod’s men (Herod the Great). 
• Theudas: He was a messianic figure who guided a band of 400 men to attack the Romans around 44 AD, but was defeated by Cuspius Fadus and his forces. Theudas was later beheaded. Acts 5:36 says of him: “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.” Josephus also wrote about this man: “Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus…took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.”  
• Judas Chrestus (another messianic figure that we shall later discuss).
• Jude, son of Ezekias (more on this messianic figure later as well). 
• Eleazar, son of Simon: He played a major role in the war against the Romans in 66 AD, and two years later took over the leadership of the Zealot party. 
• John of Gischala, son of Levi: He also played an important role in the revolt of 66. 
• - Simon, son of Giora: Still another big player in the 66 war, he was welcomed in Jerusalem as a deliverer and would-be king, with the waving of leafy branches (recall how Christ received the same reception on “Palm Sunday”). Simon was ultimately captured by the Romans, tortured, and then executed.
• The messianic leaders Jesus the son of Sapphias and Jesus the son of Ananus are two other insurrectionists that we will have more to say about further along in this chapter. 
• “The Egyptian”: No name is listed for this individual, but Josephus tells us that his rebellion was squashed by the Roman procurator Antonius Felix, which was sometime around 57 AD (more on this religious pretender later, also). 
• “The Samaritan Prophet”: Josephus relates how this individual led an uprising (which occurred sometime around 36 AD), but he was soon defeated by Pontius Pilate’s soldiers. This character was not necessarily a messianic figure, but he was certainly a religious extremist.
• Judas, son of Hezekiah: Around 4 BC, in the confusion after the death of Herod the Great, this “head of the robbers,” as Josephus called him, seized the royal palace in the Galilean city of Sepphoris. He took all the weapons in the armory, as well as a hoard of money, and then proceeded to terrorize the region. It is believed that he was later killed by the Romans. This individual was one of the rare exceptions to the rule, apparently having no religious motive (or even a falsely-professed religious motive) behind his rebellious ambitions. 
• “Anonymous Prophet”: Josephus refers to an anonymous prophet who, in 59 AD, led a rebellion that was crushed by Porcius Festus and his forces. By his title we can deduce that he had obvious religious motivations for launching this rebellion.
• Jonathan the Weaver: Around 73 AD, he led a large number of fanatics into the desert, according to Josephus, to “show them signs and apparitions.” The governor Catullus attacked them, but Jonathan managed to escape. However, it is believed that he was later captured and killed.
• Lukuas: A leader of the Kitos War of the early second century, which was later put down by the Romans. He referred to himself as “king,” i.e. “King of the Jews.”
• Simon, son of Kokhba (died in 135 AD): This man founded a short-lived Jewish state just before the Romans defeated him. He was a messianic figure as well. 
• Simon ben Kosiba: It was said of him that he was “God’s anointed,” and his name meant “son of the star.” His rebellion was brutally crushed by Hadrian in 136 AD.

We could mention more, and surely there were many others like this that are not known to us today, the record of which has long since been eradicated by the ravages of time. But are we not able to discern from this partial list a very disturbing pattern? Truly, the insurrectionist and messianic movements of the first century were inseparably conjoined. Thus, all the radical religious and political figureheads in first century Judea were nothing but rabble rousers. So, do you really think that Jesus of Nazareth was any different? As we shall see, he certainly was not. Christ was all about religious and political change through either complete reform or else outright explosive revolution. 

One of the first indications we get in the gospels that something is amiss with the flawless characterendowed superhuman Jesus hypothesis is the disregard that he had for his parents, as we discussed before. Recall how he disappeared at age twelve and went to the temple to debate theology with the Jewish leaders, without ever telling Mary or Joseph that he was leaving, let alone where he was going. He also seemed too quick to take attention off both his mother and his siblings in a public setting (see again Luke 8:19-21; 11:27, 28), and he addressed his mother as “Woman” at the Cana wedding feast (John 2:4). This was not very becoming of the “Son of God.” 

Christ had no fewer than six siblings—James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and at least two sisters. Why did Christ seem so keen on distancing himself from them? Did he have something to hide? Did they perhaps know him to be a fraud and he was afraid that they (or at least some of them) might expose him as such? Did they know that he was hoping to incite an insurrection, which placed him in fear that they might blow his cover?

The gospels drop some very strong hints of tensions that existed between Christ and his kin—tensions pertaining to their frustration over his frequently-expressed desire for secrecy. First we shall examine a few passages that deal with this propensity of Christ to operate in a clandestine fashion: 

“After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man’s ears. Then he spit and touched the man’s tongue. He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, ‘Ephphatha!’ (which means ‘Be opened!’). At this, the man’s ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly. Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it.” - Mark 7:33-36

What exactly was Jesus in fear of here? And where was his faith in his “heavenly father” to protect him from whatever evoked this fear? But do notice how this passage said that the more Jesus commanded people not to talk about their being healed by him, “the more they kept talking about it.” Think about this for a moment: Why would Jesus have even said not to tell anyone if he supposedly knew that people were going to talk all the more? He does not sound very supernatural here. Another passage of this sort is Mark 7:24, which says: “…He [Jesus] entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret.” Once more Christ fails to pass the “superhuman” test here. 

“A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, ‘Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.’ Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. ‘I am willing,’ he said. ‘Be clean!’ Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy. Then Jesus said to him, ‘See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’” - Matthew 8:2-4.

After Jesus was said to have raised the daughter of a synagogue ruler from the dead, Mark 5:43 says that “he charged them [those who were standing by]…that no man should know [about] it.”  

Again, why do you suppose that Christ was so secretive about his healing powers? Was he not supposed to have wanted people to know about his miracles so that more crowds would gather to hear his “good news about salvation”? Did he not inform some followers of John the Baptist (as seen before in Matthew 11:2-5) that his miracles were a sign that he was the promised messiah? And then he said, in John 10:25: “The works that I do in my father’s name, they bear witness of me.” So if Christ taught that his miracles were to bear witness of himself, why oh why was he so secretive about them on these other occasions? Can it be that he feared his “miraculous powers” would be exposed as a fraud? Or perhaps he was paranoid that the Romans might correctly connect him with other messianic figures who all turned out to be insurrectionists. In any case, if he truly was the “Son of God,” he should have harbored no fear about his miracles being publicized abroad. Instead, he would have wanted that to happen

Now let us look at how Christ’s siblings were highly suspicious of his secrecy regarding his “miracle-working powers,” which in itself is very revealing (John 7:2-5): “Now the Jewish festival of booths was near. So his [Jesus’] brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things show yourself to the world.’ For even his own brothers did not believe in him.” 

Christ’s own kindred were doubting him because of his secrecy, and were thus egging him on to “put up or shut up,” as the expression goes. You can just sense their frustration with him—a frustration that we all should share. 

Another passage like this is Mark 3:20, 21: “Jesus went back home, and once again such a large crowd gathered that there was no chance even to eat. When Jesus’ family heard what he was doing, they thought he was crazy and went to get him under control.”

 Jesus’ own family thought he was crazy and out of control? Was Christ’s family unit this dysfunctional? Or can it be that they knew some things about him that others were unaware of—that we today are (mostly) unaware of? Knowing that his siblings were not impressed with him, Christ felt the urgent need to make this damage-control statement (Matthew 13:57): “…a prophet is without honor in his own house.”

It appears that Christ’s kin later got on board with him (probably because they took notice that his following had grown by leaps and bounds and thus saw in this a huge potential for profiteering by pilfering the gullible masses). But nevertheless, Christ’s siblings initially understood him to be crazy, and surely never imagined that his messianic dreaming would ever take off the way it did.

One of the reasons for Christ’s brothers and sisters initially thinking he was crazy must simply have been the fact that many of the things he said and did were completely off the wall, as will now be shown. During his ministry, Jesus pulled some highly questionable deceptive maneuvers that make much more sense in the context of him having been an insurrectionist, rather than the “divine Son of God.” In John 7:8- 10 he told some of his followers: “Go to the feast yourselves: I am not going up [to Jerusalem] to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come. So saying he remained in Galilee. But after his brother had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly, but in private.” 

Here Jesus told a whopper of a lie. He said he was not going to the feast, though later on he did actually go, but incognito. Why did he lie? Why not just say that he did not want to be recognized and that he would later show up in disguise? Jesus was a liar and a scam artist. His defenders can argue all they want that he had good reason for lying. The fact still remains that the great Jesus lied—end of story. 

Matthew 5:22 portrays Jesus as saying: “Whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.” How Christ could make a statement like this when he himself hypocritically called many people “fools” is very distressing. In Matthew 23:17, for example, he told the scribes and Pharisees: “You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?” In Matthew 5:44 Jesus compelled his followers to: “Love your enemies; bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.” 

But in Matthew 12:34; 23:15, 19, 27, 33; and John 10:8 he called people “vipers,” “serpents,” “hypocrites,” “whited sepulchers,” “thieves,” and “blind.” Did Jesus follow his own advice? Did he love his enemies and bless those who cursed him? No. Jesus was a staunch advocate of the “Do as I say, not as I do” philosophy—a colossal hypocrite like his “heavenly father,” Yahweh. So it is no wonder that so many of Christ’s followers have been hypocrites over the centuries—they have been following their master’s lead.

Jesus proclaimed in John 13:34: “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another.” But was this really a new commandment? Not at all, as Leviticus 19:18 attests: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” 

So why did Jesus say this was a new teaching? He obviously was not concerned about the accuracy of his religious teachings. And why? Because he was only nominally interested in religion, viewing it mostly as a vehicle to forward his insurrectionist aims. He knew that religion was a powerful means of manipulating the masses who never bother to fact-check what their trusted gurus tell them.

We cited several examples in an earlier chapter where Christ grossly misquoted from the Old Testament, which further demonstrates the lack of genuine devotion he had to his faith. But perhaps this next passage will demonstrate that fact even more lucidly, where he is quoted as saying to his disciples (Matthew 5:33-37): “…you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” 

Jesus was here disclosing his fierce opposition to the disciples swearing any oath whatsoever, even going so far as to say that doing so came from “the evil one”—the devil. Yet, in doing this he was blatantly defying an explicit command from the Old Testament. He actually admitted this defiance when he said, “you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all.” Here Jesus was quoting from Deuteronomy 10:20, which says:“…fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.”

Be sure to not miss the significance of what Christ was doing in the above Matthew 5 passage: He was literally trashing the “sacred word of God”—something that he constantly rebuked the Jewish leaders for doing. Not only was Jesus blatantly contradicting the Old Testament here, but he was even contradicting his own self, since he said (Matthew 5:17-19): “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Once again we can see how phony Christ’s religious claims were.

We find a story, in Luke 8:43-45, of a woman coming up to Christ and receiving a miracle just by touching the hem of his garment. After she did this, Jesus called out: “Who touched me?” But why would he have asked such a question? Would he not have known who it was already, if he was the “divine Son of God”? There are way too many things that do not add up here. 

Jesus condemned being angry in Matthew 5:22, saying: “… every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.” But in Mark 3:5 he exhibited the very same anger that he decried in others: “He looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart.”  

In other words, Jesus again failed to practice what he preached. And let us recall the angry temper tantrum he threw when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple—still more hypocrisy. Yet another good example of Christ’s hypocritical teachings is found in Matthew 5:39, where he said:“Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” 

Not only did he not turn the other cheek when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple, but neither did he do so at his trial. John 18:22, 23 says: “When he [Jesus] had spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, ‘Answerest thou the high priest so?’ Jesus answered him, ‘If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?’” Where was the turning of the other cheek here?  

But this passage introduces another quandary: As mentioned before, according to Isaiah 53—a scripture that Christians like to claim prophetically applies to Christ—there should have been no response given by Christ at all to his accusers at his trial. For Isaiah wrote (verse 7): “…he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” 

Christ, as we just saw, was certainly not silent before his “shearers.” We see the same lack of employment of the “turn the other cheek” policy by Jesus in Matthew 10:33, where he declared: “Whoever denies me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.” 

This sounds more like carrying a grudge than displaying forgiveness. Is Jesus not supposed to love his enemies too? But notice how, even though Christ said he would not forgive one who denied him, he did forgive Peter for denying him, and three times at that. This presses us to ask ourselves how anyone could place confidence in a religious instructor like this. Speaking of forgiveness, in Matthew 18:21, 22 Jesus told Peter that he should forgive a brother who sins against him multiple times—seventy times seven, to be exact. But just a few verses earlier (verses 15-17), Jesus told his disciples that “If your brother sins against you…and if he refuses to listen even to the whole church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” No, that is not a mixed message—not at all. Matthew 27:11 portrays this scene from Christ’s trial: “The governor asked him [Jesus], saying, ‘Art thou the king of the Jews?’ And Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou sayest.’” What kind of an answer was that? Can this even be called an answer at all? Look how evasive Christ was here—the same guy who said, “Let your yeas be yeas, and your nays be nays.” 

Yet this reply he gave was neither a yea nor a nay. He fully avoided the question altogether. Why? Because he did not want to be recognized for what he was—an insurrectionist, that is why. John 18:34 records this same answer a bit differently, but still showing Christ being evasive: 

“Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?” We have this related comment recorded in John 19:9, in regards to Pilate asking Christ where he came from: “…Jesus gave him no answer.” No answer? If he was the “savior of the world” and had nothing to fear, why be silent? If he came to die for mankind’s sins, why not come right out, especially at this late stage of the game—just prior to his crucifixion—and proudly proclaim, “Yes, I am the king of the Jews, the king of the universe”?

We happen upon another troubling passage that does not add up in Luke 22:31-33, where Jesus is recorded as saying: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. And he [Simon Peter] said to him, ‘Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.’” Jesus said he prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. But when we read Matthew 14:31; 16:23; 26:69, 70 we discover that Peter’s faith did fail on several occasions, and miserably so. Are we to assume that Jesus’ prayer for Peter was to no avail? This makes Christ’s promises of guaranteed answered prayer for his followers all the more meaningless, such as when he said (Matthew 21:22): “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” 

At this point you might be thinking that, even though these passages are problematic, they do not prove that Christ was an insurrectionist. Agreed. In and of themselves, these passages do not prove that. Such proof will surely be provided in due time. But for now we are simply building the case that Christ was not who he professed himself to be, or who his fans have professed him to be. Now we will take another look at a text cited earlier, since its message is so timely for our current discussion about Christ’s dark side. Jesus told a believing woman with a sick child (Matthew 15:28): “O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” 

Here we see that Jesus only (allegedly) healed this girl because of her mother’s faith, without any concern for the health of the child herself. In fact, Jesus first heartlessly made this woman beg him before he decided to “heal” her daughter, as we see from verses 22 and 23: “A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.’ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.’”

Zero in on how the disciples also had no compassion for this woman or her daughter. Christ apparently taught his disciples well, for she was a Gentile and, as was mentioned before, Christ did not care much about Gentiles. Like all the dedicated insurrectionists of his day, he was a Jewish supremacist. Do not forget how he said that “I was sent [supposedly from “heaven”] only to the lost sheep of Israel.” - Matthew 15:24.

Not only was Christ not genuinely concerned about the woman’s daughter in the story we just read, but we find another instance where he displayed disregard for children in general. Ironically, the very passage that records this particular incident is often cited as proof that Christ was concerned for the rights of all children. But a more careful scrutiny thereof suggests something else entirely. This passage is Mark 9:42, where Jesus said: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.”

Was Jesus really expressing concern for all children here? No, he was not. The key to properly understanding this statement of Christ is the part that most people ignore: “those who believe in me.” Christ’s condemnation of the mistreatment of children here only applied to those children who believed in him. Apparently the mistreatment of all other children was of no consequence to him. A very disturbing statement was made by Christ in the context of a story recorded in John 9:1-3: “As he [Jesus] went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.’” 

What Jesus was saying here is that this man was deliberately made blind, and allowed to suffer for decades on end with this disability, just so that the “power of God”

could later be manifest when Jesus arrived on the scene to heal him. Another passage like this concerns the alleged raising of Lazarus from the dead. In John 11:4 Jesus said that Lazarus was allowed to get sick so that “the Son of God might be glorified thereby.” Later, after Lazarus had died, Jesus said (John 11:15): “I am glad for your sakes that I was not there [to help him when he was sick], to the intent [that] ye may believe.” 

How are these the words of a sane, compassionate man, let alone the “divine Son of God”? Jesus was saying here that Lazarus was allowed to suffer and die, just so that people could be amazed when he ostensibly raised him from the dead. This point is further confirmed in verse 6: “When he [Jesus] heard...that he [Lazarus] was sick, he [deliberately] abode two days still in the same place where he was.” 

That is, Jesus sat back and waited for Lazarus to die. Incidentally, for those who believe that Lazarus really died, then Jesus lied earlier, in verse 4, by saying that Lazarus’ sickness was “not unto death,” when he would have known that it surely was unto death. But, of course, as we saw earlier, the whole story of Lazarus being raised from the dead was staged, in which case Jesus was not lying when he said that Lazarus’ sickness was not unto death. However, even with this scenario we have a strike against the great Jesus, since he fooled the people into thinking that he literally raised a dead man back to life. 

The Bible explicitly condemns excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages. However, in the story of the wedding feast at Cana, in John 2, Christ, we are informed, turned about half a dozen jugs of water into wine. These jugs, as indicated in verse 6, were capable of holding the equivalent of as much as 20 to 30 gallons each, totaling to a maximum of 180 gallons of wine. So this was one heck of a party. Obviously, then, Jesus was not opposed to unrestrained indulgence in alcohol, as many Christians insist. To further advance this point, fix your eyes on these enlightening remarks in Matthew 11:18, 19: “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

These were the words of Christ himself, admitting that he was a party animal, and attempting to justify that fact. Jesus is mentioned in John 3:13 as having expressed the point that “…no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven.” But as we previously saw, 2 Kings 2:11 tells us that “Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” We are also told in Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5 that Enoch was taken up into heaven. So what was Jesus talking about in John 3:13? Also take note of how Jesus said that he, the “Son of Man,” was “in heaven.” Jesus was on earth when he made this statement, so how could he say that he was “in heaven” at the time? And how could he have said that he had ascended into heaven at this point, when the time for him to supposedly do that had not even come yet? Matthew 26:18 has Jesus making this statement: “Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, ‘The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples.’”

Talk about intrusiveness, bad manners, and a callous disregard for the concerns of others. Here Jesus was inviting himself (along with his disciples) into someone’s home, whether that someone liked it or not. And he made this imposing self-invitation binding by saying, “The Master saith…” How arrogant. No Christian would accept this kind of behavior from anyone today. Yet Jesus gets a free pass. 

In Matthew 11:29, 30 Jesus gave this assurance: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me…and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Now take Matthew 10:17, 18 into account, where he sent an entirely antagonistic message: “Beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.” Also, in Matthew 10:22 and Luke 21:17 Jesus told his followers that they should expect to be hated for his sake. And then, in John 16:33 he said: “In the world ye shall have tribulation…” 

So how exactly are we to interpret his words, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light?” And how is our soul to find rest in all of this? What incredibly mixed messages Christ sent. But naturally, when you see Christ as the insurrectionist that he was, then it only makes sense that he would talk like this. On the one hand, he needed to say things that would lure people in, but he also needed to emphasize that he wanted followers who would go all the way for him and his cause, risking everything, including their own lives. This is why Jesus said (Luke 9:24): “For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.”  

Christ demanded an unconditional abandonment of everything and a total commitment to himself alone (Luke 14:33): “Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”  

This is the voice of a cult leader with a sinister agenda. It is not the voice of a loving leader with the interest of his followers in mind. There was no limit to what Christ wanted his followers to give up for him. As we saw before, he was all for castration (Matthew 19:12): “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” 

Christ was also for removing any body part that might be an obstacle or a hindrance to following him all the way (Matthew 18:8, 9): “Wherefore if thy hand or foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out…” 

Some might argue that Jesus was speaking figuratively here. But does it really matter? We just read that he was all for castration. His point was that everything that got in the way of following him, no matter what it was, had to be parted with. Christ also advocated abandoning one’s own family in order to play the “follow the leader” game with him. He made this related fanatical remark in Mark 10:29, 30: “Truly I tell you…no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.” 

Not only does this statement present a moral dilemma, where Christ was corrupting people’s motives for doing what is right by promising them a reward, rather than telling them to do good simply because it is the right thing to do, but what he said here does not even make sense. For how is it that one could be repaid a hundred-fold for leaving one’s mother for the gospel’s sake? Is Christ going to give a person a hundred mothers? And would a hundred mothers actually make up for the loss of one’s real mother? But get a load of what he was advancing here: Jesus was all about splitting up the family. He talked so much about love elsewhere, while inflicting a deadly blow on the most sacred bonds of love in the above statement. And that is not the only time he made an inference like this. Look what he said in Matthew 10:35, 36: “For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” Jesus was about division, not unity (Luke 12:51): “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.”  

Look at this for what it is. Jesus wanted devoted “soldiers” like himself who would be so faithful to his rebel cause that nothing would prevent them from fighting against Rome, the Jewish leaders, or even their own family members, if necessary. Yet, all the while, he disguised this fanatical agenda behind the shroud of religion. And to reinforce this fanaticism, Jesus also said, as we have seen (Luke 14:26): “He that is not with me is against me.” Here he was using a very clever, subtle “back door” tactic of pitting his disciples against non-believers. Jesus even went so far as to tell his followers to hate their family members: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”  

And now for the ultimate mind blower (another point made earlier that must be repeated here): All the while that Christ taught his followers to hate their families—the ones who loved them—he also instructed them to love their enemies—those who hated them (Matthew 5:43, 44): “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” And then there is this nonsense (Luke 6:27-30): “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.”  

This is unadulterated brainwashing. Do Christians even follow this garbage? Never. They would be insane if they did, and they know it. So why do they hail this nut as their hero and their Lord? What Christ wanted was extremist followers that distanced themselves from loving people and allied themselves with hateful people—all the while diluting his poison with sweettalk about “love.” Just as Christ steered his followers away from commitments to their still-living relatives, so that they could be more fully dedicated to his dictates, so too did he sway them from concern for their recentlydeceased relatives. Check out the heartlessness that he expressed in this next scripture (Luke 9:59-62): “And he [Jesus] said unto another [man], ‘Follow me.’ But he said, ‘Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.’ Jesus said unto him, ‘Let the dead bury their dead.’…And another also said, ‘Lord, I will follow thee; but first let me go bid them farewell, which are at my house.’ And Jesus said unto him, ‘No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.’” 

What he meant by this is that his followers were not even to bother taking time out to mourn their departed loved ones, or to say goodbye to their living relatives. They were simply to drop everything and everyone, forget their former lives, and move on with a focus that was fixed instead—and entirely—on his bidding. How incredibly callous. Jesus constantly reminded his mind-controlled disciples that an important part of their job was to go out and make more converts, or win more recruits. He said he wanted them to be “fishers of men”—to hook people in so they could not get away. And indeed, till this day most converts to Christianity are still unable to get away once that hook is sunk deep into their soul. As we saw before, Jesus said in John 5:31: “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” But then he voiced these words In John 8:14: “Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.” What a circus clown.  “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works,”said Jesus in Matthew 5:16. But then he stated in Matthew 6:1: “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise, ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.” 

Keep in mind that Christians boast of Jesus as the best teacher the world has ever known. But, as should now be clear to the reader, much of what he said is sheer nonsense, and filled with endless contradictions. Another one of Christ’s classic contradictions is contained in chapter 16 of Luke. First he said in verse 9: “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.” But then, in verse 13, he confusingly proclaimed: “You cannot serve God and mammon.” 

What is the most needed ingredient for the Christian who wants to see miracles happen in his or her life—faith or prayer? It depends on which Jesus quote you look at. For in Matthew 17:20 he said that it is faith: “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say to this mountain, ‘Remove hence to yonder place,’ and it shall remove. And nothing shall be impossible unto you.” But Mark 9:29 has Jesus saying that prayer (along with fasting) is the answer: “This kind [of miracle—in this case, casting out a demon] can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.” 

But did we not just see Jesus saying, in Matthew 17:20, that through faith nothing shall be impossible? Are contradictions like this not a dead giveaway of a false teacher? And is Jesus thus beginning to look more and more like an insurrectionist, and less and less like a “savior”? Matthew 28:18 records these words of Jesus: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” But he could not have really meant this, because he made this comment in Matthew 20:23: “To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give.” And how about this statement from John 5:30: “I can of mine own self do nothing…”? Jesus just could not get his act together. In Luke 6:37 he said: “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned.” But then he thusly contradicted himself in John 7:24: “… judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

Not only could Christ not send a straightforward message regarding others judging, but he tripped over his own tongue regarding his personal judicial status. First we shall look at John 8:15, where he said: “I judge no man.” In accordance with this, Jesus further stated in John 12:47: “I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” However, in John 5:22 he adversely said: “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” Likewise, in John 9:39 he affirmed: “For judgment I am come into the world.” He further stated in John 5:27: “And he [God] has given him [talking about himself in the third person] authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.” In verse 30 he gave this message: “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” And finally, in John 8:16 he commented: “But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.”

These are massive contradictions—ramblings of an unstable mind that waffles back and forth aimlessly. And that is all the first century insurrectionists ever did. For someone who claimed (at least in some instances) that he came not to judge, Jesus did, in truth, do a lot of judging during his “ministry.” Take Matthew chapter 23, for example, where he continually called the scribes and Pharisees “hypocrites” and “vipers.” Mixed messages were sent by Jesus about his alleged, ever-abiding presence with his disciples. In Matthew 28:20 he told them: “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Contradictorily, in Matthew 26:11 he stated: “Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.” Furthermore, in John 7:34 he proclaimed: “You shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.” This is the same Jesus who also said “Seek and ye shall find.” Christ insisted in John 10:30 that he and the Father were one, while in Mark 13:32, as we have already seen, he said: “But of that day and that hour [of his second coming] knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.” 

How could he be “one” with the Father if he is not even let in on the date of his own supposed second coming? And why would “Father Yahweh” not fill him in on this? “I am the light of the world” said Jesus in John 9:5. But then he told his disciples: “Ye are the light of  the world” in Matthew 5:14. Which is it? How about this one? We read in Mark 10:18: “‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good—except God [the Father] alone.’” 

Was Jesus admitting here that he was not good? Why would he say that only God, or Yahweh, was good? (And what a tremendously false statement that is!) In Matthew 13:31, 32 Jesus said (as mentioned before) that “heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.” First of all, the mustard seed is, once again, not the “least of all seeds.” Secondly, when it grows it does not become the “greatest among herbs.” And thirdly, it does not give rise to a tree. You would think that Jesus, the alleged co-creator, would know these things. Speaking of Christ’s ignorance of nature, in John 12:24 he foolishly stated: “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” 

As was also pointed out before, something that has died cannot bring forth fruit. Seeds do not die when planted in the ground. Instead, they sprout to form a new plant. Another point covered earlier that needs to be mentioned here again, which also exposes Christ’s ignorance of nature, is his silly statement in Mark 9:50: “Salt is good. But if salt has lost its saltiness, wherewith will ye season it?” 

The question must be repeated: How does salt lose its saltiness? Jesus pretended to be humble by saying, in John 8:50: “I seek not mine own glory.” 

But after his supposed resurrection, we find that he actually did seek his own glory, as recorded in Matthew 28:9: “And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, ‘All hail.’ And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.” This is quite strange, considering that Christ said: “I do not accept glory from human beings.” - John 5:41. 

In addition to this, we are confronted with the fact that Jesus was constantly glorifying himself long before his crucifixion, saying things like: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) and “I am the vine, ye are the branches…without me ye can do nothing“ (John 15:5). Does this sound like the same person who said, in Matthew 11:29: “I am meek and lowly in heart”? 

A further major contradiction of Jesus, which was previously touched on, is found by comparing the next two verses. First up is Mark 8:12, where he declared: “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 

Then he conflictingly stated in Matthew 16:4: “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” 

So now we see that there is a sign. Furthermore, notice what Peter said in Acts 2:22: “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” 

Here we find that many signs were given by Christ who, again, had initially said that none would be given at all. Still further, we have this account in the gospel of Luke 7:20-22 (also cited earlier): “When the men [disciples of John the Baptist] came to Jesus, they said, ‘John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’ At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, ‘Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor’” 

So Jesus truly was about giving “signs” after all. He definitely was the spitting image of his father (Yahweh), since both of them constantly flip-flopped with nearly everything they ever said (and did). This next text contains a real whopper of a lie from Jesus (John 16:13): “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”  

All truth? Has this ever been a reality for the Christian world, or for even one of its members, throughout the past 2,000 years? No two Christian denominations—and not even two individual Christians—have ever been able to agree on just about anything, and yet the great Jesus said that his “Spirit” would lead believers into all truth. What a bald-faced lie. He also bragged in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. But this is also a gargantuan fib. Down through the centuries, some of the most horrific crimes against humanity have been committed by Christians—Catholics and Protestants alike. They have tortured and murdered each other back and forth, along with Muslims and other “heretics,” over a period of many centuries. Christianity has brought us the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Dark Ages (with its suppression of scientific advancements and its despotic subversion and control of the secular powers of Europe), and a myriad of other evils. Is this Christ’s definition of the gates of hell not prevailing against his church?

A famous statement that Christ is known for, even by many non-Christians, is (Matthew 5:9): “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

But then he schizophrenically stated in Matthew 10:34—a declaration that many Christians would prefer to forget: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” 

Not only do we again see the colossal hypocrisy of Jesus brazenly portrayed here, but we also can discern his true colors coming through as the insurrectionist that he was—a point that, again, will become much more evident as we progress in this discussion.

The word “gospel” comes from the Greek word “evangelion,” which means “good message,” or “good news.” But what is good about any of the news brought by Christ? Have a look at this statement (Matthew 10:22): “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” 

That is real comforting. But then, as if to counteract that last statement, look at the mixed message Christ sent in this next verse, which we cited a short time ago (Matthew 5:16): “…let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” 

So which is it? Does clinging to Christ attract or repulse the non-believer? 

A while back we had highlighted the inconsistencies in Christ’s message regarding how one could obtain salvation. It is time to revisit some of them, which will underscore our hypothesis that his religious claims were a mere façade—a cover for his real agenda:

• In Luke 10:27, after being asked by a lawyer about the requirements for eternal life, Jesus replied: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.”

• “…if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” - Matthew 19:17

• “The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” - John 5:28, 29.

• He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” - John 3:36.

So, according to Jesus, what is the real path to salvation? Is it love, faith, or obedience? Obviously it really did not matter to him. He gave multiple answers so that there would be something for everyone, in order to attract the maximum number of people to his covert rebel cause. Although, he was particular about molding that maximum number so that they would be unbendingly committed to himself (and if not, he turned them aside—see again Luke 9:59-62) 

In the passage that follows, Jesus taught his adherents, through the medium of a parable, to pester someone until they got what they wanted from him or her (Luke 11:5-10): “Then he said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him. Then the one inside answers, Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything. I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man’s boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs. So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.’” 

As stated previously, Jesus, in Luke 11:50, informed the Jewish leaders of his day: “…this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world.” 

So now you must ask yourself: Could Christ really have been interested in justice when he talked about one generation paying for the sins of a previous generation? Here we have another example of “like father, like son,” where Christ echoed an archaic, grim theme of Yahweh’s from the Old Testament. We have been seeing that, upon close inspection, Christ’s teachings were not all that they have been cracked up to be. Another good example of this is the parable he told in Matthew 20:1-16: “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’ ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered. He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’ When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’ The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” 

What exactly is the message being taught here? That it is acceptable for an employer to underpay his long-time workers? That newcomers should receive top priority over senior staff? There is no positive or uplifting connotation here. 

Considering all that we have covered thus far about Christ, is it not plain that there is something desperately wrong with this character and his teachings? Jesus insisted that reverencing his every word was the only course of action that one could take if he or she wanted to stand on solid ground, as we see from Luke 6:47-49: “As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” 

But in reality, aligning your life with Christ’s counsels makes you the perfect sucker. To build on his cracked foundation is a guarantee, contrary to what he said, that your house will be washed away: you will be taken advantage of as you turn your other cheek and give your cloak to the thief; you will be homeless when you sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow “the Master”; you will be hated of all men and rejected by your family whom you are told to hate; and on and on it goes. So what do we have here? Is this all good news, or is it the message of someone with an unwholesome agenda—an insurrectionist agenda?

Was Jesus Really an Insurrectionist? 

We have seen that Christ was undoubtedly Essene-trained and -influenced, like John the Baptist. We have also seen that Christ, when sending his disciples out on their first missionary journey, told them that they could stay and receive accommodations at Essene homes during their trek. So there can be little doubt that there was a close connection maintained, at least early on, between Christ, his followers, and the Essenes. We have also seen that the Essenes (or Herodians) were allied with the Pharisees (to some degree, anyway), and that a good deal of both of these groups were opposed to Roman rule, and had either directly or indirectly assisted with uprisings. So it would only figure that Christ and his followers had such rebellious leanings. Already we have touched on some evidence of this, but we shall now be thoroughly documenting this ugly reality—ugly, that is, for those who have fallen for the “glory and glamour” view of Jesus and his religious movement that later became known as Christianity. Of course, the very fact that Christ was a messianic figure, all on its own, places him in the spotlight of suspicion as an insurrectionist, since the first century messianic movement and insurrectionism were one and the same. Most people through the centuries have envisioned Christ as having been a peaceful pacifist—the last person to be expected to have sought after power or to have advocated violence. Such folk have been quick to reference statements attributed to Christ that highlight his seeming love for peace and abhorrence of violence. But wait a minute—is that not just how a crafty operator conducts himself? In order to hide sinister ulterior motives, is it not necessary to cloak them with misleading speech? As we have seen throughout this entire discussion, the Bible plays this sort of game all the time. Yahweh is portrayed as loving one minute, but as a raging psychopath the next. And since Christ himself said that he is one with Yahweh, should we not expect the same game-playing from him? Have we not already discussed quite a few instances where Christ sent mixed messages? But now it is time to expose his ultimate mixed message—to reveal him as the covert rabble rouser that he was. We previously established that Jesus was a Jewish supremacist. He believed that Israel was all that mattered, and he said that he came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. To him, like all the messianic claimants of the first century, the glorification of Israel was the ultimate goal. Carefully note what Jesus said in Luke 21:24: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” 

What do you suppose he meant by this? He believed that Jerusalem would be under Gentile rule for a time (or that it would be “trampled on” by the Gentiles), but that ultimately it would emerge victorious over the other nations. And where did he get this idea from? Perhaps these next several Old Testament scriptures will refresh your memory:

• “He [Yahweh] shall subdue the people under us [Israel], and the nations under our feet.” - Psalm 47:3
• “...and they [the Gentiles] shall be thine [Israel’s]: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee…” - Isaiah 45:14
• “...they [the Gentiles] shall bow down to thee [Israel] with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet…”- Isaiah 49:23
• “For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee [Israel] shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” - Isaiah 60 12
•  “Thou [Israel] shalt reign over every nation but they shall not reign over thee…[T]he Lord thy God shall set thee on high above all nations of the earth.” - Deuteronomy 15:6; 28:1
• “See, I have this day set thee [Israel] over the nations…to root out, and to pull down and to destroy.” - Jeremiah 1:10

Jesus was intimately familiar with passages like these, and they underpinned his entire philosophy and world view. Bible believers do not deny this, although they will argue that Jesus was looking forward to a future “heavenly kingdom” as the time when Gentiles would be ruled by Jews, and not to an earthly kingdom. Well, is there really a difference? What does it matter if Jesus was looking in either the immediate future, here on earth, or the distant future, up in “heaven,” for the fulfillment of promises like this: 

“...they [the Gentiles] shall bow down to thee [the Israelites] with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet…”? Lick up the dust from their feet? The fact that Christ looked forward at all to such a thing like this shows us the type of supremacist mentality he had—a mentality that was the calling card of all the insurrectionists of his era. Jesus frequently referred to himself as “the son of man.” For example, in Mark 14:62 he told the Jewish leaders: “And you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 

It has long been debated as to what exactly was meant by this phrase, “son of man,” but a good insight into this matter can be extracted from this messianic “prophecy” of Daniel, which not only mentions “son of man,” but it also makes reference to this individual coming with “the clouds of heaven” (Daniel 7:13, 14): “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” 

Surely Jesus envisioned himself as this “son of man” who would rule over the nations with “sovereign power.” But he was not just looking forward to a future heavenly kingdom. Like all the other first century messianic figures, Christ also looked forward to, or at least hoped for, an immediate fulfillment of the promised glorification of Israel. In fact, recalling our previous discussion about New Testament passages that refer to Christ’s second coming as an event that was expected to happen soon, within the lifetime of the apostles, it could be argued that Christ viewed this event—his second coming—as one and the same with his hoped-for successful uprising against Rome and the establishment of his “kingdom of heaven,” or “kingdom of God,” headquartered in Jerusalem. In other words, Christ’s frequent discussions of his “soon return” may simply (and most likely) have been cloaked inferences to his anticipated successful uprising and the establishment of a “kingdom” right there in the “Holy Land.” With this in mind, we should now review some passages cited earlier, in the context of our discussion of Christ’s second coming, to see that the real message behind these texts may indeed have simply been an anticipation of the upcoming establishment of an earthly messianic kingdom (but hidden behind the mask of an alleged supernatural return of Christ from “heaven”):

• “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” - Matthew 16:27, 28.

While this passage does mention Jesus coming with his angels in the glory of his father, this can be explained in any one of three ways:

1. a) that Christ expected a host of angels to descend from on high in support of him marching triumphantly as king into Jerusalem (which is doubtful since Christ was arguably only superficially religious);
2. b) that the reference to attending angels was inserted into the text later on, after all of Christ’s generation had died off and it became clear that his promised return (or rise to power) in their lifetime was a pipe-dream (and thus Christ’s “second coming” was transformed into a “coming in the clouds” event that was chronologically pushed off into the nebulous distant future); 
3. c) (which is the most likely explanation) that Christ mentioned angels to throw his enemies off the trail so they would not be so easily able to affirm his power-grabbing aspirations. If this last option is indeed the correct one, this would fall in line with other instances where Christ’s words have had double meanings, such as when he claimed to be raising Lazarus to life from a literal death, when Lazarus never really died

“Jesus began to preach, and to say, ‘Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” - Matthew 16:27, 28.

When Christ sent his disciples out on their first missionary journey, he gave them this instruction (Matthew 10:7): “Go and announce…that the Kingdom of Heaven is near.” 

Jesus could not have made it any plainer here that this “kingdom of heaven” (the establishment of his messianic rule here on earth) was going to happen very soon (or so he thought). He surely was not talking about some alleged distant future return from “the land of the clouds.” No. He was talking, once again, about something else entirely—something that never happened because his plan went belly-up. 

• “I [Jesus] tell you, there are those here who will not taste death until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” - Mark 9:1

Interestingly, when Simon bar Kokhba launched his rebellion in 132 AD, he also used the term “kingdom of God” to rally people behind him. It stood for a call to freedom from foreign rule and the establishment of Jewish sovereignty. And this is what Christ meant by the use of this term as well.

So we see that Jesus was busy psyching up his audience for a soon establishment of an earthly messianic kingdom, which is just what most Jews of that era were hoping for, and that hope was based on prophetic passages like these:

• “...A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab…” -  Numbers 24:17
• “...those who oppose the Lord will be broken. The Most High will thunder from heaven; the Lord will judge the ends of the earth. He will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.” - 1 Samuel 2:10 
• “Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious....His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.” - Zechariah 9:9, 10
• “Instead, they will serve the Lord their God and David their king [that is, a future descendant of David, who would represent him], whom I will raise up for them.” - Jeremiah 30:9
• “The Lord your God will raise up unto you a Prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren, like unto me...” - Deuteronomy 18:15

This was Moses speaking here, prophesying that the coming messiah would be like him. So, to the Jews of the first century (and to Christ himself), the whole messianic concept stirred up visions of Moses-like militaristic conquests of Israel’s enemies. 

“…The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him I will give it.” - Ezekiel 21:27

Isaiah 11:4.  

“With righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.” - Isaiah 11:4.  

Even some apocryphal books expressed these same prophetic hopes. Here are a couple good examples from the Psalms of Solomon: 

• “Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David, in the time which thou, O God, knowest, that he may reign over Israel thy servant; and gird him with strength that he may break in pieces them that rule unjustly” - 27:23, 24
• “And a righteous king and taught of God is he that reigneth over them: and there shall be no iniquity in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy and their king is the Lord Messiah....[He] shall smite the earth with the word of his mouth even for evermore....He himself also is pure from sin, so that he may rule a mighty people, and rebuke princes and overthrow sinners by the might of his word. And he shall not faint all his days, because he leaneth upon his God: for God shall cause him to be mighty through the spirit of holiness, and wise through the counsel of understanding, with might and righteousness”  - 27:35-42 

Most Jews in Christ’s day believed these prophecies were soon to be fulfilled, which is why messianic claimants were so numerous at that time. As these messiah figures were caught and executed, their names were quickly all but forgotten, with the sole exception being Christ, of course. When it became obvious that his “kingdom of God” ambitions were going to go up in smoke like all the others, instead of the leaders of the Christ cult admitting that their beloved messiah was a fraud, they reinvented the religion, rewrote the script, and decided to exploit the masses of gullible believers—a game that continues to be played out today. It needs to be mentioned that the term “kingdom of God” (or “kingdom of the Lord”) was used in Old Testament times, and it referred to an earth-based kingdom in Jerusalem, presided over by the Israelite king. For example, 1 Chronicles 28:5 quotes David as saying: “And of all my sons, (for the Lord hath given me many sons), he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.” 

Christians would argue that Christ was not after earthly power, since he is alleged to have said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” But hold on. Christ made that comment to Pilate, at the time of his trial. Of course he was going to tell him that, hoping to get himself out of trouble. As it turns out, Christ was almost never up front in his discourses with both the Jewish and Roman authorities. When Pilate asked him outright if he was a king, for example, Christ cunningly never gave him a straightforward answer. Yet, when Christ was alone with his closest followers, he did not hide his alleged kingly status. For instance, look at this exchange between him and Nathanael (John 1:49, 50): “Then Nathanael declared, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.’ Jesus said, ‘You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree…’”

Here we see that Jesus was called king very early on in his ministry, and he did not renounce that title. On the contrary, he confirmed Nathanael’s assertion. We can see, then, that Christ was very crafty. He was careful not to reveal certain pieces of information to certain people that could make trouble for him. This is normal and acceptable behavior for the average person. But, do not forget, Christ was not supposed to have been an average person. Thus we must ask why he would need to play such games. In any case, is it not apparent that he was playing this type of game with Pilate when he told him his kingdom was not of this world?

Jesus was a huge fan of Moses. And Moses, of course, was nothing but a blood-thirsty, land-grabbing tyrant who led the children of Israel into one gory bloodbath after another, and all for the glory of Israel and in the name of the fire-breathing dragon-god, Yahweh. But Moses did not just lead Israel to attack and kill Gentiles. Often he led them to kill fellow Israelites, like what we see in Exodus 32:26-29, which we read before: “[Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, All of you who are on the Lord’s side, come over here and join me. And all the Levites came. He told them, This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors. The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing.” 

Bear in mind that Christ had no contention whatsoever with passages like this. This story was well known to him, and he probably preached whole sermons on it (privately anyway, to his disciples), talking about the “good old days” of Israel’s former glory that needed to be revived. Predictably, Christ avoided speaking this way publicly, because the Romans would have snuffed him and his followers out much earlier. But it is beyond doubt that Christ did indeed favor Moses, and thus Moses’ tyrannical militant policies. In this regard, make a careful observation of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:2, 3: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” 

Did you absorb what Jesus just said here? In spite of Moses’ psychopathic, mass murdering behavior, Jesus had great respect for his “seat of authority,” and thus he told his clan to do whatever the Jerusalem leaders told them— even though he locked horns with them on so many issues—all because these corrupt leaders occupied Moses’ position. You can try and squirm around this issue all you want, but the fact remains that Jesus idolized an ethnic-cleansing, land-stealing, guerilla warfare general. That is the real mentality of Christ—everything else is mere window dressing. And did Jesus not say, in Matthew 10:34, “I am not come to bring peace, but a sword”? Think about that real carefully. Christians want us to believe that Jesus was speaking figuratively here, and he surely intended for those outside his inner circle to interpret him that way. But beneath the thin veneer he was assuredly speaking in a literal sense. Or else there is no other way of explaining the following: In Luke 19:12-14 (which we briefly referenced earlier) Jesus began to tell his disciples a parable about himself, saying: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’ But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’” 

Here Jesus was referring to how many would reject him as king. But what we want to pay special attention to is this next statement that he had this individual mutter at the end of the parable (and remember that this individual represented Christ himself): “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me”

(verse 27). Ponder that passage real carefully and then see if you are unable to agree that Christ was after power—Moses-like tyrannical power. It was evidently Christ’s intention that this statement would inspire his disciples to start an uprising, and that others would join ranks with them and kill anyone who would not accept him as their new king (and to do so right in front of him, in fact). Christ made another comment that was ripe with violence—this time in the form of a threat to the temple authorities (Matthew 21:44): “Anyone who falls on this stone [meaning himself] will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.” Spoken like a true insurrectionist. In Luke 12:49, 50 Christ again lifted the veil and blurted out exactly what his aims were: “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed!” 

What constraint? The constraint of Rome and the Jerusalem temple leadership. Jesus is said to have made several comments warning of the devastation that Jerusalem was soon to face at the hand of the Romans (in 70 AD). Some have argued that these were prophecies that prove Jesus was sent by Yahweh. But who is to say that these statements were not put in his mouth later on, with hindsight, and that he never even made them? That is certainly a possibility. But here is another: Christ may very well have made these statements, but if so, they were not “prophecies.” In the insurrectionist context, these types of things are exactly what we would have expected Christ to say, since the Roman destruction of the whole Jerusalem infrastructure and its leadership would have been a major part of his game plan, and would also have been expected to naturally result from decades of relentless uprisings. Here are some of these warnings he gave:

• “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children.” - Luke 23:28
• “And so upon you [Jewish leaders] will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.” -Matthew 23:35, 36
• “Look, your house is left to you desolate.” - Matthew 23:38
• “Truly I tell you, not one stone here [of the temple] will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” - Matthew 24:2
• “Pray that your flight [from Jerusalem, to escape Rome’s wrath] will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.” - Matthew 24:20
• “The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls…” - Luke 19:43, 44
• “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment…”  - Luke 21:20-22

Think back at our lengthy discussion of Yahweh the mass murdering monster. We explored scores and scores of horrific examples of his bloody crimes of slaughter on nearly every page of the Old Testament. When we see that Christ said he was one with this deity, that is quite troubling. But the problem for Christians grows exponentially worse when we discover that Christ took upon himself all the credit for everything that Yahweh did and said in the Old Testament. How so? In John 5:37 he stated: “And the Father himself, who hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.” 

In other words, all the instances of Yahweh appearing, talking, and acting in the Old Testament were supposed to have been Christ, in his “pre-incarnate” form, appearing, talking, and acting in Yahweh’s place. Another statement like this, which is even more concise, was made by John the Baptist, as found in John 1:18: “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” 

The message here, again, is that, in all the instances in the Old Testament where “God” was said to be talking, appearing, and acting, it was actually supposed to have been Christ doing the talking, appearing, and acting in place of his father. This means that, taking New Testament theology into account, Christ was the one who commanded all the killings that we read about earlier, which the Old Testament credited to Yahweh. Further along this train of thought, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:“…our ancestors…passed through the [Red] sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” 

So again we see that Christ was supposed to be the one leading and talking to Moses and the ancient Israelites, giving them commands to kill and steal as they journeyed through Canaan to the “Promised Land.” It was also supposed to be Christ who was talking here in this next passage (1 Samuel 15:2, 3): “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Let the point be repeated that, according to the New Testament, this was Jesus talking here. So, why should there be any doubt that Christ was speaking literal when he said, “I am not come to bring peace, but a sword”? And what do you suppose he really meant when he portrayed himself as saying, in the context of a parable: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king  over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me”? Can the conclusion be avoided that Jesus was not about peace or humility, in spite of whatever rhetoric he voiced about his endorsement of those virtues (or the rhetoric that was put in his mouth by later editors)? Seeing Christ as having been driven by an insurrectionist mentality in his mission can enable us to finally make sense of what exactly was going on when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple. The great and humble Jesus threw a temper tantrum in this instance, plain and simple. Was this behavior in accordance with what we would expect from a “loving” and “meek” individual? No. We find one account of this incident in Matthew 21:12, 13: “Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there [with a whip]. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. ‘It is written,’ he said to them, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers.” 

How is it that a meltdown performance of this type can be esteemed by Christians as unacceptable for anyone else, but permissible for Jesus himself? Why do Christians give Jesus free reign, as they do with Yahweh? This double standard of making exceptions will not stand. It is time to stop playing games and admit that Jesus was not what he has been made out to be. Humble and meek? Above human frailties? Forget it! 

Christ lost control with the moneychangers for one reason—to challenge (or better yet, trample) the authority of the religious establishment, quite clearly in hope of setting off a riot or a rebellion against its stranglehold (more on this later). Christ also trampled the political authorities of his day, such as when he provokingly referred to Herod as a “fox” in Luke 13:32. And what about when Christ cursed the fig tree, supposedly instantly killing it, as we talked about earlier? Was this not another example of his real character shining through? Just as bothersome, Matthew 8:28-34 records this deplorable misdeed on Christ’s part: “When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. And they cried out, saying, ‘What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?’ Now there was a herd of many swine feeding at a distance from them. The demons began to entreat Him, saying, ‘If You are going to cast us out, send us into the herd of swine.’ And He said to them, ‘Go!’ And they came out and went into the swine, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the waters. The herdsmen ran away, and went to the city and reported everything, including what had happened to the demoniacs. And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw him, they implored him to leave their region.” 

Not only does this tale reek of nonsense (demons wanting to enter a herd of pigs—why?), but does this sound like something that a supposed compassionate, co-creator of animals would ever do, especially when he presumably knew that the pigs were going to jump to their deaths? Christ talked about Yahweh’s (and thus his own) concern for birds (Matthew 6:26): “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.” 

How hypocritical, then, that he should have so little regard for pigs. He certainly was no animal rights advocate. Do you suppose his advocacy for human rights fared any better? We looked at Matthew 5:29 before, where Christ said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” 

What an incredibly bizarre thing to say. The Christian would argue that Christ was not speaking literally here. But nevertheless, it was totally unnecessary to speak in such morbid tones when he could have gotten his message across just as effectively with a better analogy. This should also tell us something about his character. There have actually been Christian extremists over the centuries that have taken this advice literally, and have maimed themselves for life. Worse yet, some Christian cultists (like the Snake Handlers of Georgia) have been bitten (and sometimes killed) by deadly snakes because Christ promised, as we saw before, that his followers would be able to handle such creatures without being harmed (Luke 10:19): “I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.”

Why would Christ talk like this at all, knowing that people would take such statements to heart, and be hurt or killed thereby? This last statement does not even appear to be figurative. When Christ encouraged his followers to become eunuchs for the sake of “the kingdom of heaven,” he certainly was not speaking figuratively there. What kind of a person would talk like this, except a fanatic who wanted nothing but blind obedience and unbending loyalty? And then there is this sick comment of his from John 6:53: “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” 

Again, it matters not that Jesus was speaking figuratively in this case. It is still a pretty repulsive thing to say, is it not? We cited a few verses from Revelation chapter 19 earlier, to show the violent side of Christ—an alleged glimpse into the future when he unleashes his wrath. But we here need to consider this passage again, in more detail (verses 11-21): “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he [Christ] that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, ‘Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.’ And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh”

Pretty disgusting imagery. Similar imagery is found in chapter 14 of Revelation (verses 14-20).: “I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, ‘Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.’ So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested. Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, ‘Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth’s vine, because its grapes are ripe.’ The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia” 

This is the “gentle Jesus” being discussed here. Just as Yahweh had a child-killing fetish, the book of Revelation portrays Christ as being endowed with this same “virtue.” Christ himself is depicted as reciting these relevant psychopathic words to the church of Thyatira in chapter 2, verses 20-23: “I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.” 

The Christian apologist would argue that this passage is speaking symbolically. But what difference does that make, really? Look at the mentality here. Is it not right in line with that of the brutish Yahweh in the Old Testament? 

Was Jesus a Zealot? 

Already, of course, we have seen considerable evidence that Christ had the makings of a typical first century Judean insurrectionist. But was he also a Zealot, specifically? The Zealots were a Jewish sect that at first just refused to pay tribute to the Romans, declaring that Yahweh was their only king. Apologists would argue that Christ could not have been a Zealot, since he said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” However, he probably only said this to avoid an incident prematurely, or perhaps he never made this statement at all. In any case, as we shall soon be covering, Christ was definitely a tax protester, albeit not so openly as were some of the other Zealot insurrectionists at that time. Christ’s persona matched that of a typical Zealot in many other ways. As the Zealots transitioned from mere protesters to radical and violent activists—even assassins—Christ followed suit with his words and actions growing more and more bold, such as when he told his disciples, through a parable: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” 

Was this not advocacy for assassination? Of course it was. And how about when Christ mouthed these words, which we hardly need to repeat again: 

“I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”? Was this not a Zealot thing to say? Again, of course it was. We have talked already about Christ’s cleansing of the temple and will later be discussing his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey. Were these not acts of a Zealot, provoking both the religious and political leaders of the day? Yes indeed, they most certainly were. 

Christians would be quick to jump to Christ’s defense by pointing out all of his “peacenik” rhetoric, but that is really all it was—rhetoric. First century insurrectionists—especially messianic claimants—were known for playing such word games. Josephus wrote this about the Zealots, in particular: “[They] deceived and deluded the people under the pretence of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of government...and went before them into the wilderness, pretending that God would show them the signals of liberty.”

This is precisely what Jesus was doing with his “Blessed are the peacemakers” routine—deceiving and deluding, which was a favorite Zealot strategy. Paul’s approach was right in line with this, as we see from what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 12:16: “...crafty fellow that I am, I caught you [the Corinthians] by trickery!” When Jesus said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s,” This was in response to a question posed to him by the temple authorities (Matthew 22:17): “Tell us…what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

The very fact that Christ was asked this question shows that the Jews suspected him as being a tax-protesting Zealot like Judas of Galilee. And by the way, this reply that Christ gave here may very well have had Zealot connotations to it. In effect, Christ was saying that coins with Caesar’s image on them should be paid to him, since they were his coins. But the temple, Jerusalem, and all of Israel belonged (theoretically) to “God”; thus they should be taken from Rome and returned to him (and his alleged appointed messiah, of course). When Jesus gave this reply, he probably had Leviticus 25:23 in mind:“‘The land [of Israel] is mine,’ says the Lord.” Jesus quite possibly had this next passage in mind as well, where Yahweh told the Israelites (Exodus 23:31, 32): “…You shall drive them [the heathen] out before you. You shall make no covenant with them and their gods. They shall not live in your land.”

As to whether or not Christ personally was a Zealot is really immaterial, since he displayed characteristics thereof and thus was obviously intimately connected with them. So connected that at least one of his disciples was a card-holding member, if you will. This disciple, personally chosen by Christ, was called Simon (not to be confused with Simon Peter, although Peter’s temperament in his earlier years wellsuited him to have been a Zealot as well. Think of the fact that he was called Simon Bar-jona, which, as we will see in a moment, can mean “outlaw,” or “terrorist”—common titles that were applied to Zealots). 

We first hear about Simon in Luke 6:15, which gives this listing of several of Christ’s disciples: “Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot.” How many Christians have read this passage through the ages, and yet never batted an eyelash at it? But there it is, the significance of which cannot be overstated: One of Jesus’ disciples was a Zealot—a first century terrorist. Why would Jesus have personally selected such an individual to be one of his disciples? Most Christians would argue that Simon gave up his Zealotous ways after hanging out with Christ for a while. But this is not true. We discover from Acts 1:13 that Simon remained a Zealot after Christ’s alleged resurrection and ascension into heaven: “When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” 

This Acts passage is even more troublesome than the Luke reference we just perused. For we not only see that Jesus chose a Zealot to be one of his disciples, but he never bothered to sway him away from his violent path of Zealotry. Notice how it does not say “Simon the former Zealot,” or “Simon who was called the Zealot.” It still gives him the designation of Zealot, in the present tense, long after all those years he spent with Christ. This is a huge dilemma for fans of the pro-peace Jesus. 

And it should be mentioned that Judas of Galilee, who founded the Zealot movement in 6 AD, had a son named Simon. Could the biblical Simon be this same individual? It is also significant to note that the disciples John and James were named “sons of thunder” by Christ, which was a common title assigned to Zealots. Were John and James Zealots too? Even Judas, whom Christ did not choose but was nevertheless allowed to be a disciple, was called “Iscariot,” which was a corruption of the Latin word “sicarius” (or “dagger-man”)—a common Roman term used for murderous insurrectionists / Zealots. 

It was implied a moment ago that Peter’s other name, Simon Bar-jona, can mean “outlaw,” or “terrorist”—titles often applied to Zealots. We discover that “Bar-jona,” in all New Testament versions, is always translated as “son of Jona.” This would be a correct translation if Jesus and the disciples spoke Hebrew, but they did not. Instead, they spoke Aramaic, and “bar-jona” (or bar-jonna) in Aramaic has a completely different meaning—again, “outlaw,” or “terrorist.” So, was Peter also a Zealot? Should we doubt it for one moment? 

Another big smoking gun that drives us to connect Christ with the Zealot movement, and insurrectionism in general, is the fact that he was from Galilee (Matthew 26:69), spent a great deal of his time in Galilee, and that all the disciples that he personally chose to follow him had come from Galilee (with Judas being the only exception). Not just his disciples, but a great many other followers of Christ came from Galilee, as we read in Matthew 4:25: “And there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee…”

Why is this a big smoking gun? Oh, the things that are not taught in Sunday School! Galilee just so happened to have been the number one breeding ground for insurrectionist / Zealot activities in the first century. For instance, Judas of Galilee, the founder of the Zealots, launched numerous uprisings from this region, as did others like Jude bar Ezekias. Judas of Galilee, like Christ, pawned himself off as a messianic figure, and often used the phrase “kingdom of God” to motivate his recruits. Jude bar Ezekias led a rebellion in 64 AD, in protest of a Roman tax. It was quickly squashed, and it resulted in the mass crucifixion of 2,000 of his clansmen. The thousands more who were not executed were sold into slavery

A Closer Look at Judas of Galilee 

We must diverge for a moment to elucidate a bit on the Zealots’ founder, Judas of Galilee, because doing so will give us a much-needed, clearer glimpse into the mindset of first century insurrectionists / Zealots, including Christ, whose story so closely parallels that of Judas. Like Jude bar Ezekias, Judas of Galilee was also opposed to taxation. Speaking on this matter, Josephus wrote: “Judas...became zealous to draw the people to revolt, who both said that this taxation [under Cyrenius] was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty.” This same individual is actually mentioned in the book of Acts 5:37: “…[a] man rose up, Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed” 

Significantly, the same was said about Jesus—that he was a subversive tax protester. In Luke 23:1, 2 we read this account: “Then the whole assembly rose and led him [Jesus] off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.’” 

Knowing him to be a tax protester, like all other insurrectionists / Zealots, is the reason why the Jews asked Christ, as we saw a moment ago (Matthew 22:17): “Tell us therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute [taxes] unto Caesar, or not?” 

What an astonishing parallel with Judas of Galilee. Craftily, Jesus did not oppose taxes when he was speaking in public, but he surely did so when he talked privately with his disciples. And this is what the gospels mean when they say that Jesus spoke plainly to his disciples, but in parables when he spoke publicly. Case in point: Christ protested the temple tax when alone with his patrons (Matthew 17:24-27): “After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the twodrachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, ‘Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?’ ‘Yes, he does,’ he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. ‘What do you think, Simon?’ he asked. ‘From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others [foreigners]?’ ‘From others,’ Peter answered. ‘Then the children are exempt,’ Jesus said to him. ‘But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.’”

Here Jesus was privately expressing his aversion to the Herod-ordained temple tax, saying that it was only to be paid by foreigners, and not by native citizens of Israel. And notice how he told Peter to pull a coin from a fish’s mouth, rather than from the treasury bag, in order to pay this tax. If Jesus protested this tax (albeit privately), you can bet he protested other taxes as well, just like all his fellow messiahs / insurrectionists / Zealots.

Consider still another parallel between Jesus and Judas of Galilee, also related by Josephus: “For Judas [of Galilee]...who created a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults...by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted.” 

Here Josephus said that Judas created a fourth sect (besides the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes). Did Jesus not start a major sect? It would almost seem like Jesus and Judas of Galilee were the same individual. As far as Judas inciting tumults, look what was said of Christ (Luke 23:5): “He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.”

Likewise, the Talmud states in in Bavli Sanhedrin 43a: “On the eve of Pesah [Passover], they hung Jeshu [Jesus]. And the crier went forth before him forty days [saying], ‘[Jeshu the Nazarene]...hath deceived and led astray Israel. Anyone knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.’ And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of Pesah. Ulla says, ‘Would it be supposed that [Jeshu] a revolutionary had aught in his favor? He was a deceiver…’” 

The fact that Christ was here called a revolutionary further confirms that he was indeed one who stirred up the people. We talked a while ago about Christ’s callousness regarding dead loved ones—that his followers were not to worry about burying their dead, but were instead to drop everything and make following him their number one priority. This, too, was the philosophy of Judas of Galilee. Josephus wrote this regarding his disciples: “They also do not value [or care about] dying any kind of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord.” And regarding that last part, “nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord,” did Christ not say, “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even Christ”?

Josephus does not discuss the death of this Judas character, but he does report that Judas’ sons, James and Simon, were executed by the procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander in about 46 AD. Incidentally, James and Simon were the names of two of Christ’s disciples, and according to Matthew 20:20-23, at least one of these two disciples, James, was eventually crucified. Is there some sort of connection here? Mention is first made by Josephus of Judas of Galilee in connection with his (Judas’) version of a “cleansing of the temple” in Jerusalem, during the reign of Herod the Great in 4 BC. At this time, Judas, along with his co-teacher Matthias, son of Margalus, tore down Herod’s symbol of fealty to Rome, the Golden Eagle, which Judas saw as an idol that was defiling the temple. This event was at the beginning of Judas’ “ministry,” while, as found in the book of John, Jesus’ first act of his “ministry” also involved a cleansing of the temple—the driving out of the moneychangers. 

Judas was crowned messiah in Galilee, says Josephus. And so it was with Christ, whose messianic mission was launched in, and had focused around, Galilee. Christ, in fact, felt very comfortable there, as we see from John 7:1: “Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in [Judea], because the Jews sought to kill him.” 

Just as Jesus’ ministry was preceded by the ministry of John the Baptist, baptizing in the River Jordan, the ministry of Judas of Galilee was preceded by a baptizer in the Jordan, who preached about a great spiritual leader that would soon arise to bring liberation from Rome, and who would create a revival of Torah-based nationalism. As a curious side note, according to Josephus, a certain “Simon” was preaching exclusion of all nonJews from the temple. He was later escorted to Caesarea by Roman guards, to answer to Agrippa in 43 AD. The author of Acts took this historical event and placed it into Chapter 10 of that book, reinventing it with a Christian slant. Here, Simon Peter, who also initially taught exclusion of non-Jews from the temple, was escorted to Caesarea to meet Cornelius, a Roman Centurion. There, Simon Peter decided that Cornelius, a Gentile believer in Jesus, should be included into the Christian fold. We noted before how Jesus, at the age of twelve, spent three days at the temple where he was (Luke 2:46, 47): “…sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.” 

Similarly, Judas of Galilee taught at the same temple as a young man. He was, said Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, “…the most celebrated interpreter of the Jewish laws and…[was] well beloved by the people, because of [the] education of their youth [that he provided].”

A bright star in the east that heralded the birth of Christ had reportedly led the Magi to the manger. Similarly, in Josephus’ War of the Jews, he described how, at the time of the rebellion orchestrated by Judas of Galilee’s Zealots: “At the ninth hour of the night, so great a light [in the sky] shone around the altar and the Temple, that it appeared to be the brightness of midday. This light continued for half an hour…and was interpreted by the sacred Scribes as a portent of events that immediately followed…” 

It must also be emphasized that, in regards to this bright light being seen over the temple at the ninth hour, the time of Christ’s crucifixion is also declared to have been at the ninth hour, and that the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom at this time. Surely the gospel accounts of the “star in the east” and the tearing of the veil at the “ninth hour” were borrowed from the story of Judas of Galilee. It matters not that some of the details are different—the evidence of borrowing by the New Testament authors from Judas’ story is overwhelming. Confront another parallel: Herod is stated to have tried to kill both Jesus and Judas of Galilee—Jesus as a baby, and Judas after his temple cleansing. 

A further parallel follows: The trial of Jesus and the release of Barabbas occurred at the Passover feast, while the release of prisoners at the trial of Judas of Galilee’s temple cleansing uprising also coincided with Passover.

One last parallel we shall examine is that of the “missing years” phenomenon. At least twenty years of the life of Judas of Galilee are left undocumented by Josephus. And likewise, almost the same length of Christ’s life is left out of the gospel record. So what can we conclude from all of this? At the very best, we have here even further reasons to believe that the story of Christ in the gospels was largely made up—plagiarized from previously-existing storylines. Or, we might conclude that Christ and Judas of Galilee were one and the same person, or that Christ followed the example of Judas of Galilee (in which case his story was later doctored-up to make him look less like a terrorist and more like an angel). But either way, the Christian house of cards comes crashing to the ground.

Recall how we previously cited Acts 5:37, which says: “…[a] man rose up, Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.” 

We have a problem here when we consult Josephus. For he tells us that the Zealot movement of Judas of Galilee continued to thrive for quite some time after the 66 AD rebellion, into the early second century. The Christian apologist would insist that the biblical record is correct, and that Josephus is the one who got his story wrong. But in light of all the discrepancies we have uncovered with the gospel accounts, it seems abundantly clear that Josephus is the more reliable source. Incidentally, this Acts 5 verse is used by Christians to argue the point that Christ could not have been the same person as Judas of Galilee. Indeed, he may not have been. However, it could also be argued that this verse was added to distance Christ from his true identity. If Christ was not the same person as Judas of Galilee, he was certainly in league with those of Judas’ ilk. Christ endorsed other self-professed holy men who, like himself, performed “miracles” and “cast out demons” to win over the masses to their rebel cause. Just look at this exchange between Christ and his disciple John (Luke 9:49, 50): “‘Master,’ said John, ‘we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.’ ‘Do not stop him,’ Jesus said, ‘for whoever is not against you is for you.’” 

Here Christ expressed an eagerness to accept and work with other messianic figures, as long as they were not opposed to him or his message. Incidentally, that statement, “whoever is not against you is for you,” is very often untrue. The fact that Jesus said it just goes to show how desperate he was for allies. Another gospel reference that showcases Christ’s solidarity with other insurrectionists is Matthew 11:12: “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force.” 

Jesus was clearly referring here, supportively, to all the violent uprisings then taking place for the cause of the “kingdom of heaven.” He was saying that all the insurrectionists (or “men of violence”—at least the ones that did not oppose him) were his co-workers. Though Christians would have us believe that Christ was speaking of violence metaphorically here, that is ridiculous. In fact, if Christ was truly against insurrectionism, then for him to have used the words “violence” and “force” as metaphors at that time, when violent rebellions were springing up everywhere, would have placed him upon the very summit of insensitivity, at the very least.

Christian theologians have long contended over exactly what Jesus meant when he said, in Luke 17:21, “…the kingdom of heaven is within you.” Arguments have been made back and forth over what type of profound spiritual application this statement bears. But there is nothing spiritual about it at all. This statement was no more than a motivational mantra drilled into the heads of a fanatic’s followers. Jesus was here creating a mindset—a revolutionary mentality—that he hoped would inspire his would-be triumvirates to remain focused, perhaps without even realizing it, on a spirit of rebellion against the Pharisees, and even Rome. In essence, Christ was telling them that the power to bring about the physical messianic kingdom that they were hoping for was within themselves. These words could not have been more cunningly chosen, as they seem, on the surface, to be talking about a non-physical kingdom, so as not to arouse suspicion from Roman soldiers, when, in reality, a physical kingdom is exactly what his Jewish audience was looking forward to. Jesus also said that (Matthew 3:2):“…the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 

He wanted his followers to believe that something big was coming soon. Christ was pumping up their enthusiasm, hoping the people would rise up themselves, without him having to personally or directly initiate it, and thus not have his fingerprint on the trigger. Jesus also said to his disciples (Matthew 6:33): “Seek ye first the kingdom of God…and all these things [your needs] will be added unto you.” 

That is, “Make preparations for the coming messianic kingdom your top priority, and everything else will fall into place.” Earlier in this work it was suggested that when Christ said “the kingdom of heaven is within you” he was introducing an esoteric teaching. There might appear to be a contradiction here to some readers, since it is now being proposed that this same saying is to be understood as an incentive for insurrectionism. But there is actually no contradiction at all, since Christ’s hidden insurrectionist agenda was, in fact, the main theme behind his esoteric (or hidden) teachings. Jesus further instilled the insurrectionist mindset in his listeners by saying (Matthew 13:33): “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” He was here encouraging the inner spirit of rebellion to increase with ever greater momentum. He later contrasted this leaven-themed mindset with that of the Pharisees and Sadducees, by saying (Matthew 16:6): “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” Carrying on with this same metaphor, he voiced this warning in Mark 8:15: “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and [of] the leaven of Herod [the Herodians, i.e. the Essenes].” 

In other words, Christ wanted his adherents to have his mentality (or leaven) and not that of the temple leaders or the Essenes—to focus on his instructions and to ignore theirs. He was, for sure, inciting the spirit of rebellion. It was because Christ had a hidden agenda—because he was up to no good—that he constantly had to publicly hide his true intentions behind symbolic language, as in the “leaven” passages we just read, and in parables. He even admitted, privately to his disciples, that he did this: “Therefore I speak to them [the Jewish leaders and the masses in general] in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says (John 16:25) ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive.’”

In modern vernacular, Christ was concealing his true meaning so that only a select few would understand what he was really saying. He was playing cloak and dagger. And why was he doing this? Because, again, he had something to hide. Expectedly, Christ allowed the least number of people into his inner circle of “in the know” followers. But even with them he was not totally straightforward, squeaking out bits and pieces of his agenda here and there, exercising extreme caution, knowing that any premature disclosure to them of his ultimate plan could potentially frighten some of them off, or spoil his plan altogether. Thus he told his disciples in John 16:12: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” He further told them (John 16:25): “These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs [or parables]: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.” 

One of the many sleazy tactics Christ used on his disciples to keep them eating out of his hand was his reduction of them down to the mentality of obedient little children. He did not even seek to hide this aim, as we see from these two verses:

1. "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 18:3
2. “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.” - Luke 10:21  

Christ said this prayer out loud for the benefit of his on-looking disciples, to drill into them the notion that “the Father” himself desired them to be submissive like young kids. Not only did Christ want his followers to have child-like minds, but he also desired for them to mimic blind sheep, in the sense of them becoming entirely incapable of ever thinking for themselves again. This is how he put it in John 10:27: 

“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” To instill this stance of blind adherence even more deeply into their psyche, Jesus told his gullible flock: “You are my friends if you do whatsoever I command you.” - John 15:14. 

This is pure mind control. Not to mention that it again exposes Christ as the phony that he was, only agreeing to be friends with his disciples if they did every single thing that he commanded them to do. Some friend. As time progressed, Jesus dropped more and more hints that walking his path was going to lead to greater and greater sacrifices—culminating ultimately in the loss of everything. Thus he said things like what follows:  

• “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.” - Matthew 13:44-46.
• “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” - Mark 10:21. 

Christ wanted his “soldiers” to have no earthly attachments whatsoever. And recall, as we saw before, that he did not even want them to pause to bury their dead. Everything had to be dropped immediately, and the focus had to be on his cause and his cause alone. Nothing else mattered. This is how cult leaders operate. And that is just what Christ was—a cult leader. 

It was not until the very end of his ministry that Christ began to speak more plainly to his disciples, disclosing what he had only hinted at in the beginning—that following him not only involved them having to make major sacrifices, but ultimately to sacrifice their very lives. Early in his ministry he dropped subtle hints like this (Matthew 10:39): “…whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.” 

But in the latter part of his mission, Christ became much more candid in this regard (John 21:18, 19):  “‘Very truly I [Jesus] tell you [Peter], when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.’ Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, ‘Follow me!’”  

“Follow me” to crucifixion, that is. “Be so committed to insurrectionism,” Christ was saying to Peter, “that losing your life over it will not matter to you.” And yet, look at the scandalously hypocritical message he delivered in John 10:10: “I have come that they [his followers] may have life, and have it to the full.”

“Then you [the disciples] will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.” - Matthew 24:9

Christ is also depicted as having made this similar statement to his followers from beyond the grave, up in “heaven”: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life.” - Revelation 2:10. What a manipulative schemer he was, setting a death trap for his devotees. And according to Christian tradition, the disciples were indeed “faithful unto death.” In fact, most of them were crucified. This tells us that they certainly did carry on with Christ’s insurrectionist aims, since, as stated before, crucifixion was a penalty reserved only for those who committed serious crimes against the Roman state. Akin to this, look what else Jesus said about those who chose to walk in his footsteps (Mark 8:34): “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” 

What do you suppose Jesus meant by taking up the cross here? Christians insist that he was speaking metaphorically. But was he? Rest assured that he was speaking literally, for he knew all too well that falling in line with his insurrectionist path would assuredly lead many to crucifixion by the Romans. Upon close inspection, virtually none of what Christ did or said can be construed as praise-worthy. Just ponder his cold recruitment policy from Matthew 10:14: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.” 

Is it not most apparent that Christ wanted to win as many warriors to his cause in as short a time as possible? Otherwise it does not make sense to say this, if the goal was simply to “save souls.” Is this the same guy who said to turn the other cheek and love your enemies? This could not be done if a policy of “move on quickly and brush off your feet” was to be adhered to. But even more sickening is what Christ went on to say in the next verse: “Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” 

So if a whole town or household of people rejected the gospel message because they could see that the Bible is nothing but a pile of inconsistent, plagiaristic, and outright nonsensical literary rubbish, they were somehow more evil than what the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah once were? This was nothing but a scare tactic for the disciples to use, in order to threaten and frighten people into joining ranks with Christ’s hopeful guerilla army. True to form, the disciples later followed this “dust-brushing” instruction to the letter, after having their message rejected in Antioch (Acts 13:51): 

One of the many things Jesus said that only makes sense in the insurrectionist context is “My hour has not yet come.” At the wedding feast at Cana, for example, Jesus told his mother after she asked him for his “divine help” when she realized there was no more wine (John 2:4): “Woman, why do you involve me? My hour has not yet come”  

What was this “hour” that he was referring to? Even those endowed with the least amount of discernment should be able to detect from this that Jesus did not want too much attention drawn to himself prematurely. But he did make an exception and perform a fictitious miracle here, since this wedding feast was out of the way in Cana, which was in Galilee. However, Jesus preferred not to conduct too many of his hocus pocus tricks publicly, because he knew that the Romans would surely identify a “miracle worker” as an insurrectionist. So he was hoping to hold things off until he felt he had a large enough following where he would not have to worry about the Romans, as they would be powerless by that time, he hoped, to stop him. It was this particular hoped-for moment of triumph that he dubbed as his “hour.”

On another occasion, as we saw earlier, Jesus referred to this same “hour” as his “time” (John 7:3-6): “Jesus’ brothers said to him, ‘Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.’ For even his own brothers did not believe in him. Therefore Jesus told them, ‘My time is not yet here; for you any time will do.’”  

Jesus felt more at ease performing his “miracles” in Galilee because he was amongst fellow insurrectionists. But we see that his own siblings were growing impatient with, and doubtful about, his claims. “If you’re really the messiah,” they thought, “then boldly perform these miracles right in Jerusalem. What are you afraid of? God will protect you.” But Christ did not take them up on their challenge, because he was looking to a more down-to-earth force to protect him—a force he had not yet been able to amass. The Bible believer really has to wonder here: If Jesus truly was the “Son of God,” why would he have hesitated to do his thing right out in the open, in the heart of Jerusalem, regardless whether it was his “time” yet? Would not his father up in heaven have protected him until that time had arrived? 

We shall now look at something strange that Christ did, which also only makes sense in the insurrectionist context. John 6:15 says: “Jesus, knowing that they [the multitude he had just allegedly miraculously fed with fish and loaves of bread] intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.” 

Notice—they wanted to make him king. And why? Because that is what the messianic figures of the first century were all about—becoming king. And that is what Jesus was all about. But why did he withdraw to a mountain at this time, distancing himself from the crowd that wanted to make him king? He did this because he was still not ready. Once again, he felt that his following was not yet large enough. However, by the time of the next Passover, when there were exceptionally large numbers of Jews gathered in Jerusalem from all over the empire, Christ mustered up enough confidence to believe that his “hour” had finally come—that there were enough Jews present to launch a successful uprising. Even though a good many of the Jews who had gathered were not necessarily loyal to Christ, personally, he felt that if there was an outbreak, most everyone would join in, regardless who was at the wheel. Do not forget that the anticipation of a messianic revival was especially at fever pitch during Passover time. So Christ accordingly began to wax bold as this “holy day” approached, feeling that he could possibly be unstoppable. As Josephus wrote: “[Jewish festivals were] the usual occasion for sedition to flare up.” 

And Passover was a particularly volatile occasion for sedition, since this holiday has always been connected by the Jews with the concept of national liberation. If there was ever a time for a rebellion to break out, thought Jesus, this was it.

One would not ordinarily associate Christ with attention-seeking, or looking upon the poor with contempt. But let us observe what went on toward the end of his ministry (Mark 14:3-9): “While he [Jesus] was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, ‘Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.’ And they rebuked her harshly. ‘Leave her alone,’ said Jesus. ‘Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.’” 

Here it sounds like Jesus was receiving an erotic body massage, and getting a real thrill out of it at that. It would appear that Christ’s “flawless character” was not all that flawless after all. And look at his lack of concern for the poor here, not caring that the large sum of money (a year’s wages) that was used to buy this perfume could have been utilized, instead, to feed the hungry. Jesus’ response was, “The poor you will always have with you…” Wow—just what we would expect from a phony insurrectionist with no genuine interest in compassion or morality. It turns out that this incident is what prompted Judas to sell Christ out to the Jewish leaders. In the very next two verses (Mark 14:10, 11) we read: “Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.” 

Could it be that Judas finally figured out what Christ was up to—something of which he wanted no part in, recognizing that Jesus was not the great “sinless” leader that he professed to be? Is this why he “betrayed” Jesus? Perhaps he felt a little betrayed himself. It is a given that Judas, who was a member of the sicarii (or “daggermen”), wanted to overthrow the hierarchy in Jerusalem, and ultimately the entire Roman Empire. But perhaps he was disillusioned to discover that his great leader was not what he thought he was (not the “true messiah,” sent by Yahweh). Or maybe he was upset over the fact that there was a change of plans in the works—that the overthrow would most likely not be happening in the time-frame or manner that he and many others desired. This being the case, we can conclude that Judas did not commit suicide by hanging himself, as Matthew 27:5 tells us. Nor did he die by falling to the ground and having his guts mysteriously burst open, as the book of Acts claims (1:18). Instead, we could perhaps surmise that Judas was probably murdered by Christ’s other, more loyal followers, maybe even at Christ’s behest. For notice what Jesus said about Judas betraying him (Matthew 26:24): “…woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” 

What happened to forgiving seventy times seven here? Or loving your enemy? What about turning the other cheek? Judas only betrayed Christ once, but Peter denied him three times. So why was Christ able to forgive Peter, but not Judas? Does this sound fair? The truth is, Christ was upset with Judas, not because he “betrayed” him, but because Judas saw through Christ’s thin veil and probably called him out as a fraud. So he just had to go, in spite of all the “love your enemy” poppycock. Another point to bring out here regarding Christ’s lack of forgiveness for Judas is found in John 13:27: “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him [to egg him on to betray Christ]. So Jesus told him, ‘What you are about to do, do quickly.’” 

The point being made here, in citing this verse, is that, since Satan supposedly moved Judas to betray Christ, this would have made Judas a victim of manipulation. So how could he be viewed as the one responsible for Christ’s betrayal? How could he not be entitled to sympathy, let alone forgiveness, from Christ? There was an occasion where Jesus excused Peter for an indiscretion, recognizing that Satan was allegedly manipulating him from behind the scenes, which drove Jesus to say to Peter (Matthew 16:23): “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” 

Not that Christ was calling Peter Satan here, but he was acknowledging Peter’s blunder as having been instigated by Satan. So the question is, why did Jesus not do the same for Judas, when the gospel record clearly states that Satan moved him to betray Christ? We have here yet another double standard of Christ, do we not? The truth is, Jesus did not make an allowance for Judas like he did for Peter because Judas obviously did not fall for his shenanigans, as Peter did. An additional clue that Christ was an insurrectionist arises when we look carefully at Peter’s real reason for denying him, as found in Matthew 26:69, 70: “Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. ‘You also were with Jesus of Galilee,’ she said. But he denied it before them all. ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about,’ he said.” 

Make sure you catch the significance of this: Peter denied his connection with Christ because it was mentioned that Christ was a Galilean, and Peter did not want to be connected with that word, which at that time was synonymous with insurrectionism. Toward the end of his ministry, as Jesus came to suspect that his plans were most likely not going to come to fruition and that only disaster (the Roman sacking of Jerusalem) would likely result in the end from his efforts and those of others like him, he started to set up the scribes and Pharisees (and the city of Jerusalem in general) to take the fall for what he saw coming. He thus vindictively labeled the foreseeable Roman-inflicted calamity as a judgment from God upon the whole nation of Israel, because of its leaders’ rejection of him as the messiah. For example, Christ stated (Matthew 23:37, 38, 35, 36): “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate….And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.” 

Now look at how Josephus—himself an initial supporter of the rebel cause—reacted the same way, pinning on the scribes and Pharisees (as well as Jerusalem in general) what he and his fellow dissidents were themselves responsible for: “O most wretched city, what misery so great as this did you suffer from the Romans, when they came to purify you from your intestine [intestinal] hatred! For you could no longer be a place fit for God, nor could you long continue in being, after you had been a sepulcher for the bodies of your own people, and had made the holy house itself a burning place in this civil war of yours. Yet may you again grow better, if per chance you will hereafter appease the anger of that God who is the author of your destruction.”

That sounds too familiar. We find another intriguing parallel to the biblical Jesus in the writings of Josephus, who had written about a certain "Jesus, the son of Sapphias", who was the leader of a sedition mob of “mariners” in the vicinity of Tiberias. Was it not also said of the biblical Jesus that he led a group of fishermen, or “mariners”? And could they not also have been referred to as a “sedition mob,” seeing that several of them—perhaps all of them—were Zealots / Sicarii, and seeing that nearly all of them came from Galilee? As far as the name Sapphias goes, this may have been the family surname from Joseph, the father of Jesus. Josephus further said of this Jesus, son of Sapphias, that he was from Galilee, and that he was an “innovator beyond all others.” He was also a “high priest” and a general—a military leader. Still another Jesus was made reference to by Josephus—“Jesus the son of Ananus.” This may possibly be a parallel reference to "Jesus, son of Sapphias,” since he was also an insurgent, came from the same area, and lived at the same time. 

Furthermore, he was also a high priest and a leader of a rebellious band of mariners. But there is still more, which further connects this individual with the biblical Jesus. He is additionally referred to as a plebeian, or a common man, and a “husbandman,” which was a term that the New Testament applied to Jesus in James 5:7. This same Jesus was said by Josephus to have lamented over the coming fate of Jerusalem, just like the biblical Jesus did. And Jesus the son of Ananus was also persecuted, just as the biblical Jesus was. In fact, check out what Josephus said about the persecution of this Jesus, and how this Jesus reacted to it in the same fashion that the Jesus of the gospels reacted to his own persecution:“[C]ertain of the most eminent [men] among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man [Jesus], and gave him a great number of severe stripes [lashes from a whip]. Yet he did not say anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him, but still he went on with the same words…supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, [they] brought him to the Roman proctor; where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet still he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears.” 

Recall how the biblical Jesus “answered not a word to his accusers” (Matthew 27:12, 14) as he was being tried and later whipped (although keep in mind, as we saw before, that John chapter 18 depicts Jesus as being quite vocal with his accusers).