One Writer Makes Jesus Affirm What THEN we come to study the sayings attributed to W Jesus the contradictions become more and more pronounced. The most irreconcilable statements are put in Jesus' mouth, often by the same evangelist, as the following few quotations will show : JESUS IS THE JUDGE OF MEN. The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.- John v, 22. not. JESUS IS NOT THE JUDGE OF MEN. I (Jesus) judge no man.- - John viii, 15. If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him For I came not to judge the world.- Ibid. xiii, 47. JESUS WITNESS OF HIMSELF IS TRUE. I am one that bear witness of myself Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.- Ibid. viii, 1, 4, 18. JESUS WITNESS OF HIMSELF IS NOT TRUE. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.-Ibid. v, 31. TEMPTATIONS ARE TO BE AVOIDED. Lead us not into temptation.— The Lord's Prayer, Matthew vi, 13. TEMPTATIONS ARE TO BE COURTED. Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.James i, 2. In the same way it could be proven by the bible that Jesus worked miracles of every description to inspire faith in his mission, and from the same book it could just as positively be shown that Jesus not only worked no miracles whatever, but that he gave his word of honor he would under no circumstances give a sign to prove his claims: JESUS REFUSES TO PERFORM And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith There shall no sign be given unto this generation. And he left them. JESUS RECITES HIS MANY Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see. The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up.† It is difficult to suppose that the Pharisees, after seeing all these miracles performed in their midst daily, desired "a sign" from him, or that Jesus, instead of pointing to his many miracles, should declare, positively: "There shall no sign be given unto this generation." The miracle of Jonah, who was in the belly of a fish for three days, was enough, Jesus said to the Jews, to prove his own divinity. Again, it is as clear as anything can be, for instance, that the words, "Go, ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," were interpolated into the text of the Gospels after the Trinitarian party had come into power. If Jesus really delivered the words to his disciples just before they began their missionary labors, how is it that not one of the baptisms by the Apostles recorded in the New Testament were in the name of the Trinity? Paul was not baptized according to the formula given in the Gospels; Peter did not baptize in the name of a triune God; Philip, *Mark viii, 11-13. Matthew xi, 4, 5. Matthew xxiii, 19. who baptized the Ethiopian, does not seem to have known of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost form of baptism. Again, if Jesus really commanded his Apostles to go into all the world, and teach all nations, is it likely that only a short time thereafter, Peter, one of the pillars, who had seen the risen Lord, and was now confirmed in his faith, would have refused to preach the Gospel to Cornelius because the latter was not a Jew? And if Jesus really sent them unto all the nations of the world, how are we to explain the bitter controversy over the admission of Gentiles into the church a controversy that led Paul to denounce. Peter as a dissimulator? It is not a lack of moral courage, but courtesy, which, in view of these revelations, restrains us from calling the above text in the Gospels a partisan forgery. Is it reasonable to suppose that the same Jesus who forbade his disciples to go to the Gentiles, telling them to confine themselves exclusively to the Jews, also commissioned them to make no distinction of race, country or religion? Below we present one of the most important commandments of Jesus, and the prompt cancellation of the same, in parallel columns: Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.* Again, Jesus said: Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.f I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.‡ * Matthew x, 5. + Luke xvi, 15. Matthew xv, 24. . It is claimed that Jesus postponed the giving of the larger command until his disciples could appreciate it. But there is a serious objection to this explanation. When Jesus forbade his apostles to visit any of the cities of the Gentiles, he stated his reason for it. "I am not sent," he said, "but unto the house of Israel." Could any pronouncement be more explicit than that? He further explained to his disciples that they would not finish visiting the cities of Israel before they would see him in his second coming. It was after Christianity had crossed over into Europe that a note of universality was introduced into it. That Jesus had no idea, or even desire, to include the non-Jewish peoples of the world into his heavenly kingdom, is clearly inferred from his definite declaration that the world would come to an end during the lifetime of some of those who heard his preaching. And now, how do the orthodox defend themselves against these revelations? One of the answers they offer is that contradictions and inaccuracies occur in all books, but we do not discredit them on that account. Therefore, they conclude, it is not fair to discredit the bible because of the mistakes it contains. But the bible is claimed to be an infallible book; and for an infallible book to stand in need of the courtesy and indulgence shown to human writings is a terrible humiliation. Moreover, the kind of contradictions which exist in the bible would destroy the reputation of any book. A second defense is that the mistakes in the bible are limited to details only, and that in the essentials, it is infallible. It will not be necessary to remind the readers of this book of the untruth of that statement. But why could not an inspired book be as accurate in the details as in the essentials? If, for instance, the world were really created, or if Jesus were crucified and raised from the grave, why is there not a consistent account of these events? A third defense is that these contradictions really prove the inspiration of the bible. Had there been one consistent account of the life and teachings of Jesus, instead of four contradictory ones, the apostles might have been suspected of collusion, but the inconsistencies in their narratives show, it is said, that they were honest men. Let us test the value of the above defense by applying it to a specific instance: Matthew and Luke testify that the women, upon their return from the empty grave of Jesus, communicated their experience to the disciples: "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre and did run to bring his disciples word." Mark, on the other hand, testifies that the women fled from the sepulchre in consternation; "neither said they any thing to any man." Now, did the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration both accounts were supposedly produced, purposely cover the facts, or misinform the reporters, that it may never be definitely known what the women really did when they returned from the grave; or, did he confuse the writers that the world may see in their disagreements the proof of their honesty? But such a manœuvre would only prove the ingenuity of the Holy Ghost not the honesty of the reporters. If the women communicated with the disciples upon their return from the grave, then, to have reported as Mark does, that "neither said they any thing to any man," was an error. It may have been an honest error, but if he were |