Is there anything wrong with the teachings of Jesus himself?

Before I answer that question, I will just say that Jesus himself wrote no gospel. So I’m not exactly discussing Jesus’ teachings but rather what anonymous writers wrote about him. Yes I’m referring to the four gospels. Although they were given the names, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, there has much uncertain as to who the authors actually were. As they are only personal advertisements about Jesus, rather than documents having the national traditional history quality that the Hebrew Bible books do, then they have a different standard to live up to. Just because unknown persons chose to attach the gospels to the Jewish Bible and call them along with other books “the new testament,” that doesn’t automatically make them of the same quality or worth, or make them worthy of the same standing as the Jewish Bible.

So, let’s pretend, for now, that the names given to those gospels have some truth to them. The question arises which says this: do the teachings they have written as coming out of Jesus’ mouth have any problems?

The answer is “yes.” Yes! The teachings of the gospels do contain unfounded statements and error. As Michael Skobac along with many others, wisely say, Whatever the gospels teach that is new isn’t true; and whatever they teach that is true isn’t new.

I’ll give a few easy examples. Throughout this, I will not deal with the excuses given by the various types of christian there are, whether they be messianic “jews,” Paul-hating Jesus followers or the mainstream variety. I will just deal with the words of the gospels. I leave the christians to make their excuses without any actual traditional teaching from Jesus himself. By that I mean that neither Jesus nor the gospel writers ever started an unbroken tradition of how to correctly interpret these words. So I can only go by the text.

In Matthew 19, in a response to an argument from the Pharisees about divorce, Jesus said the following:

He said to them, Because of your hard-heartedness, Moses gave license for you to divorce your wives … (Matthew 19:8a)

There is an error in this teaching: the unfounded nature of the reason the commandment was given.

There is no explicit and clear statement in the Jewish Bible or the written Torah that that the procedure of divorce was given because of the hard-hearted nature of the people. Therefore Jesus’ teaching has no foundation; it is baseless. Although Jesus assumes that “it wasn’t this way from the beginning,” that is no basis upon which to claim that the reason for the law is hard-heartedness.

As the wise rabbi Isidor Kalisch said,

It is impossible that Moses, the strict teacher, who never allowed the passions of the people to influence him, should have yielded to the hardness of their hearts, and given a Law to favor them. (A guide for rational inquiries into the Biblical writings: being an examination of the doctrinal differance between Judaism and primitive Christianity, based upon a critical exposition of the Book of Matthew, by Isidor Kalisch)

Matthew 12:5 has Jesus saying the following.

Haven’t you read in the law that, on the sabbath, the priests in the temple desecrate the sabbath and are guiltless?

And the answer would be no! There is nowhere in the Torah where it can be read that the priests in the temple desecrate the sabbath. It’s that simple. So Jesus was simply wrong in this statement.

Now I already can hear the retorts of some christians. “But it says that you’re not allowed to do x on the sabbath, and the priests do x, therefore they are breaking the sabbath.” Understand that this is a logical argument, not an explicit statement of Torah. The Torah doesn’t judge the priests or their work as sabbath-breaking. So there is no foundation to Jesus’ statement. He’s simply wrong! If God says that people in general can’t do certain things on the sabbath, yet also commands priests to do those things on the sabbath, then that would mean that the priests are allowed to do what they do, there is no desecration involved.

But regardless of that, Jesus’ statement is wrong.

Matthew 11:7-14 has Jesus saying that John was either the messenger promised in Malachi 3 or Elijah which is reaffirmed in Matthew 17:10-13. Luke 1:17 tries to push the idea that John simply had the spirit and power of Elijah.

This is all contradicted both by the simple statement of Malachi 3 and the words of John himself.

Firstly, let’s talk about Malachi. Look at what the promised messenger should do.

See me sending My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me; and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, see him coming, said the LORD of hosts. But who may endure the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appears? For he is like fire that refines, and like fullers’ soap; And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver; and they shall be offering to the LORD offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasant to the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years. And I will come near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against those that swear for falsehood; and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and who don’t fear me Me, said the LORD of hosts.

There is not one sign that this happened during the days of John. There was no purification of the Levites and there was nothing said about the people offering righteous offerings. There is nothing said about the judgment against sorcerers and adulterers. This has nothing to do with John.

Then there’s the notion about who John was. Make no mistake about it, Malachi prophesied the coming of Elijah the prophet from God who had sent him (Malachi 3:23 [or chapter 4 verse 5 in christian versions]). There is nothing that spiritualizes the words to make it talk about someone other than Elijah coming in his power and spirit. So the simple statement of Malachi invalidates the teaching of Jesus. John is not Elijah the prophet and Elijah the prophet isn’t John.

This is confirmed by John in the book of John chapter 1 verse 21 where he is asked outright if he is Elijah and he said a categorical “no!”

So Jesus is dead wrong.

In some versions of the new testament, at the beginning of John chapter 8, there is a story of a woman caught in adultery. The argument is given that Moses commanded that the woman should be stoned. Jesus’ response is that a person without sin can cast the first stone. Remember, Jesus’s argument was not that this was not a proper court session or that both the woman and the man should be punished together. He’s only response is that the person without sin should cast the first stone.

Although to some that may be a witty response that is supposed to strike at the conscience of those about to stone the woman, the principle itself is nowhere to be found in the Jewish Bible. In fact the opposite is taught. Deuteronomy 16:18-20 and throughout Deuteronomy 17 and other places in the Torah teaches that justice should be pursued by means of courts, officers and witnesses. There are no unrealistic standards of sinlessness demanded in order to execute judgment.

So once again, the teaching of at least some versions of Jesus is dead wrong.

As a last example, I’ll refer to Luke 24:46 which was a teaching of Jesus.

… Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the anointed one [or the Christ] to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.

In a previous article, I showed that there is no evidence of this being written in the Jewish Bible. Nowhere at all in the Jewish Bible does it state that the promised anointed king must suffer and be resurrected on the third day, no place at all. Isaiah 53 doesn’t say this. It doesn’t even mention the promised anointed one or “messiah.” Daniel 9 doesn’t say this. It has two anointed ones living centuries apart from one another, and neither one is said to have suffered or died or be raised on the third day. Zechariah 12 doesn’t say this. It neither mentions the promised anointed one going through suffering, nor anyone being resurrected on the third day. There is not one place in all the Jewish Bible that states as Jesus taught, that the anointed one must suffer and be resurrected on the third day. This is pure fantasy.

[ASIDE: Is it a coincidence that people say that Luke was a follower of Paul and Paul says something similar in 1 Corinthians 15:4?]

So in this teaching, Jesus is dead wrong.

So here are some examples of where the gospel writers putting words in the mouth of Jesus that were simply wrong. There are others. But this wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive list.

Advertisements

About hesedyahu

I'm a gentile living in UK, a person who has chosen to take upon himself the responsibility God has given to all gentiles. God is the greatest aspect of my life and He has blessed me with a family. I used to be a christian, but I learnt the errors of my ways. I love music. I love to play it on the instruments I can play, I love to close my eyes and feel the groove of it. I wrote my songs when I was single and not so happy and since I've been married, I haven't written as much. I guess that shows how happy and blessed I am. What else is there?
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Is there anything wrong with the teachings of Jesus himself?

  1. searchinmyroots says:

    Once again – Great article!

    I’ve always wanted to see a book that has the Christian bible verses with the corresponding Hebrew Bible verses along side to show the inconsistencies.

    Just don’t know how large that book would be!

  2. searchinmyroots says:

    Well, I’m not quite sure what it would look like. Maybe a Christian bible that has the Hebrew verses either underneath, on the side or in footnotes where there is a contradiction and/or misuse. And then referring to something that has the real meaning of the Hebrew verse quoted.

    Sounds complicated huh?

    But if it was published, I’d like to see how Christians react to it as I know many read the footnotes or references. Hey, they do it with our bible!!

  3. I have some answers (or partial answers) to most of your objections here (not all…. I don’t know everything, or understand all Scripture perfectly,….)

    But first I want to affirm that I am in agreement with some of your observations in your first long paragraph above, about the nature of the Bible text. Yet there are some facts of history that the “Christian” system never taught either of us for over 20 years. I only found these things out a couple of years ago.

    The big thing that “Christians” keep hidden is the truth about Marcion, the second century heretic. HE is the one who coined the term “New Testament” for his own new book. It contained nothing except 10 of Paul’s letters, and an abbreviated Gospel of Luke. Nothing else! And Marcion said the Hebrew Scriptures were the “Old Testament” which was irrelevant. Marcion’s group of churches were active for about 200 years – until Constantine merged Marcion’s book with the other texts that TODAY comprise out “New Testament.”

    • hesedyahu says:

      Your point about Marcion is totally irrelevant to the article. Also my comments were with regards to the gospels. They aren’t part of the Jewish Bible. So there is no discussion about the nature of the biblical text as logically the gospels are not part of the Jewish Bible. Since I don’t accept the any part of the christian bible, whether it include just the gospels or includes any of the other books, then it’s not included as “biblical texts.”

      • Do you know what the following terms have in common?
        Bible (either “Christian” or “Jewish” version)
        Tanach
        Canon
        New Testament
        Inerrancy

        None of these words appear in the “Jewish Bible” or the “Christian Bible”

        The Bible texts are never referred to as one book that is whole or complete – and all texts are certainly not created equal. You speak of “the Jewish Bible” as if it is “one book”, it is all “God’s word” and God can’t say anything else…… But these are traditional assumptions which have no Biblical basis.

        Many Jews today are “Torah observant” – not Tanach observant. The Kethuvim, the 3rd section of the “Jewish Bible”, is not equal to Torah, and it is not all “the word of God.” Ester doesn’t even mention God once.

      • hesedyahu says:

        it’s funny when you talk about “biblical basis” as if your standard of biblical basis has a biblical basis.

        Anyway, it’s irrelevant. Nuf said!

  4. My “Biblical basis” ?
    This is not a complete comprehensive answer – but it’s a start.

    Jesus said:
    “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. I tell you the truth, 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.” [Matthew 5:17-18]
    and
    “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” [Matthew 24:35]

    The Apostle Peter never claimed that his own words, or the words of any other “New Testament writer”, were “the Word of God.” Only 3 Apostles wrote Scripture in our current “New Testament” – Matthew, John, and Peter – and Peter didn’t really quote Jesus directly. (Paul was NEVER appointed an apostle by anyone, despite his frequent false testimony about himself making that claim.)

    The Apostle Peter wrote this:
    “I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command of our Lord and Savior through your apostles.” [2 Peter 3:2]

  5. benaiah juma says:

    the word of God is true and it should not be rejected in any way. If anyone doubts the word of God is already condemned and if anyone argues and debunks the word of God he or she will receive the greatest damnation. Let the word of God teach and inspire people, any form of criticism is complete stupidity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s