New Testament Scriptures: Apostolic or Apologetic?

Forged (2011)

The author of this book contends that most of the books of the New Testament are forgeries. That’s not really a surprise, unless you are a fundamentalist Christian and believe that the Bible is the “Word of God”. The ‘truth’ may be that false narratives could have been written down in order to ‘prove’ that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah of the Jews. As we have seen previously, the Gospels, for example, may have been Roman fabrications to persuade the reluctant Jews (and their Christian offshoots) to secretly worship Titus as their Lord and Saviour. The ‘best solution’ to ward off rebellion was to have scriptures that told them to be good Roman citizens. “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart … and treat thy neighbour as thyself” (the Golden Rule). They never intended that this new religion should succeed.

Even now, I am reluctant to throw the baby (Jesus) out with the bath water, since Edgar Cayce’s Source has confirmed many ‘truths’ about Jesus’ existence. Take, for example, this discussion point about Mary:

One of the chief questions driving this narrative [the Proto-Gospel of James] concerns Mary’s suitability for her role as the mother of the Son of God. Surely Jesus’s mother was no ordinary person! And in this story, Mary is anything but ordinary. Her own birth is miraculous. Her mother, Anna, is barren, but miraculously conceives as a result of her prayers and the prayers of her husband, the wealthy aristocratic Jew Joiachim. As a young child Mary is inordinately special. Devoted to God from birth, she is taken by her parents to the holy Jewish Temple as a three-year-old and is raised there by the priests, who do not need even to feed her, since she receives her daily food from the hand of an angel.

When she is about to reach puberty, Mary can no longer remain in the Temple, presumably because menstruation was thought to bring ritual impurity. So the priests gather to decide how to find her a husband. Instructed by God, they have all the unmarried men of Israel come together, each of them bringing a wooden rod. The high priest gathers all the rods and takes them into the sanctuary. The next day he redistributes them to each man, and a great sign appears. A dove emerges from Joseph’s rod, flies around, and lands on Joseph’s head. He is thus the one chosen to take the young Mary as wife.

Forged (pp. 234-235). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.

This passage seems to follow almost exactly what Edgar Cayce’s Source suggested about Mary in one of the many readings that were taken down in the early stages of the 20th century. How can that be? Is the Source making up stories, too? Or is he/she/it quoting from this document? What’s a person to believe?

Discernment is a two-way street. If something cannot be ‘proven’, one must accept it ‘on faith’.

Have we been hoodwinked for almost two thousand years? It certainly seems that way.

But, I ask: “What about Josephus?”

About cdsmiller17

I am an Astrologer who also writes about world events. My first eBook "At This Point in Time" is available through most on-line book stores. I have now serialized my second book "The Star of Bethlehem" here. And I am experimenting with birth and death charts. If you wish to contact me, or request a birth chart, send an email to cdsmiller17@gmail.com
This entry was posted in history and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to New Testament Scriptures: Apostolic or Apologetic?

  1. captmccoy says:

    There’s the story (contested vigorously) Mary may have been a temple virgin who was either raped by, or violated her vows with, a Roman soldier named Pantera. This was according to Celsus, a 2nd century Greek philosopher.

    Like

    • cdsmiller17 says:

      Disinformation, probably. The Romans usage of Mary as the name of so many NT women is a similar deflection tactic: to them “Mary” meant ‘female rebel’. Not dissimilar to our modern usage of “Sheila” to denote a ‘female Australian’.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. cdsmiller17 says:

    (Talk about wanting to have it both ways…)
    One of the striking and, to many people, surprising facts about the first century is that we don’t have any Roman records, of any kind, that attest to the existence of Jesus. We have no birth certificate, no references to his words or deeds, no accounts of his trial, no descriptions of his death—no reference to him whatsoever in any way, shape, or form. Jesus’s name is not even mentioned in any Roman source of the first century. This does not mean, as is now being claimed with alarming regularity, that Jesus never existed. He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence. But as with the vast majority of all persons who lived and died in the first century, he does not appear in the records of the Roman people.

    Forged (pp. 256-257). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. captmccoy says:

    Yes, it was probably intended to be a jab at Christianity because Celsus was an opponent of the religion. The half of Rome’s adoption, Orthodox or Eastern Church doesn’t teach the virgin birth. At least Russian Orthodox doesn’t. His mom being unfaithful, raped or whatever in my mind would take nothing away from Jesus’ teachings.

    Like

    • cdsmiller17 says:

      I completely explored these themes in my “Star of Bethlehem” posts (from 2016).

      In the words of John Lennon: “Let me take you down
      ‘Cause I’m going to Strawberry Fields
      Nothing is real
      And nothing to get hung about
      Strawberry Fields forever…”

      Liked by 1 person

  4. captmccoy says:

    Jesus absolutely existed, and changed the way people thought. Prior to him the concept of god was a horrible mass murderer and rapist. People sacrificed animals and stoned women in the streets for adultery. The concept of god among the Romans was no better. His statement that the true God was the God of Love changed people’s mindsets and set forth the basis for the Western World and our beliefs in justice and, admittedly eventually, equality.

    Like

  5. captmccoy says:

    LOL. I believe they didn’t have a choice but to take over the religion. By the 3rd Century they had altered their religion to be one resembling monotheism. Christianity had become too popular; no one wanted to worship the royalty as gods anymore. By the 4th they adopted it themselves, re wrote it, suppressed anything they didn’t like, and created two versions of it.

    Like

  6. captmccoy says:

    There was a schism in Islam as well, between Shia and Sunni beliefs. Based on who should fill the shoes of the prophet Muhammed by all appearances. Oddly enough communism and socialism, defined by Marx, are set up to be opposition forces.

    Liked by 1 person

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.