'Christianity' — The Religion Of Paul
Saul of Tarsus Was Its Chief Architect!

We hold to an opinion that the knowledge of the truth regarding not only the content but the assembling of 'The Christian Scriptures' was subject not only to outright manipulation but also to corruption.

Could The Early Writings
of 'The New Testament'
Have Influenced Later Writings?

If the earliest writings of that which became 'the New Testament' canon (aka 'the Christian Scriptures') were written by Saul of Tarsus, we come to a rather obvious conclusion as to the sphere of influence in the mindset of other authors.

In other words, if it can be shown that Saul of Tarsus wrote his books prior to the bulk of the rest of what is 'The New Testament', it is easy to see that his influence could well have dictated how that those following him would have thought about and made conclusions regarding the topics and even history which they wrote about.

Indeed, we have elsewhere discussed how that the way the 'Christian' world looks at their 'Jesus' is essentially what they have been told about 'Him' by Paul!

The information below was found at The New Testament Canon (Chapter 2), By Glenn W. Barker. It shows each 'New Testament' book, its author, the best guessed dates for date written followed by the best guessed place of origin. Our comments follow the list.

"Due to the nature of the New Testament material, the matter of authorship, date, and place of origin is necessarily tentative and conjectural. Books which treat this material in a more extensive form include Feine-Behm-Kümmel, And Introduction to the New Testament (Protestant Liberal); D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 3 vols. (Protestant Conservative); and A. Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction (Roman Catholic). Our suggestions are as follows:"

The list above is primarily consistent with many of the other sources found regarding the dating of the books of 'The Christian Scriptures'.

Does anyone besides us find it odd that for a religion which was to be built upon the teachings of the King Messiah, and following His death, the leadership of his hand-chosen disciples who were native born Israelites, that absolutely none of those books is definitively shown to have been written in the land of Israel? Moreover, it is clear that the writings of Saul of Tarsus preceded those of actual eye-witnesses!

From the list above, it shows that Saul of Tarsus wrote between the years 50 and 64 CE. The only other book shown to possibly have been written within that timespan was the book of James (50-60). Every other book is dated thereafter.

That fact alone should cause enough of an alarm (it should 'raise a red flag') for even minimally discerning people.

It is quite obvious to see that there is a possibility that just one individual could have predominantly influenced the entire canon of 'The Christian Scriptures' — And That One Person Was NOT Yeshua!.

Is it not apparent that 'Christianity' is, in fact, 'the religion of Paul'?

Anti-Semitism In The 'The New Testament'?
(Notably In The Book Of John)

Those of us who are ethnically Jewish find it especially disturbing how that, particularly evident in the New Testament book of John, that the ruling authorities are mostly referred to as "Jews!" — these references supposedly by a writer who himself was to have been an Israelite Jew!

To illustrate, we will cite just a few passages that refer to the Israelite ruling authorities using the term "Jews". That makes it quite clear that in the least there has been a great deal of corruption through a scribal "poetic license"; but all such examples make it look quite probable for a non–Jewish authorship as well.

However, particularly in lieu of the internal evidence we note herein, and even though we have to consider that the book of John actually may have been 'authored' by Gentile(s), that does not preclude a possibility that the Apostle John, whom the book was named after, did not write an original manuscript or would have dictated to another to write his words which could have been considered an original manuscript.

Yet, if that were the case, we find it hard to believe that the original manuscript would have been written in Greek!. Even if there was original authorship by the Apostle John, the results speak for themselves! Quite obviously, later scribes with anti–Jewish biases clearly added to the book (or wrote it in toto, as the case may have been).

We appreciate and may be sometimes informed by some of the books of the New Testament (they could be considered a history, after all). However, when the rabbis, priests, etc. (ruling authorities) are casually referred to as "Jews", it really appears that the author is anti–semitic. It appears that the writing is from a non–Israelite, Gentile perspective.

The fact is that according to the "gospel" accounts, the original Talmidim (disciples) of Yeshua were all ethnic Israelites (Jews). Therefore, we have to question as to why, as it appears in the book of John, that ethnic Israelites would ever refer to their own priests and/or other rulers using the term "Jews". This appears to be not only offensively derogatory, but also quite suspect to us!

Moreover, it seems much more likely that a purportedly Israelite/Jewish author, to refer to their own ruling authorities by using the term, "Jews" in the derogatory manner by which it appears to be within the passages that follow, would only do so if he was what is modernly termed "a self-hating Jew".

Much more likely, the author was probably NOT ethnically Jewish, nor, for that matter, even a native Israelite!

Calling the ruling authorities, Jews, when it would have been quite reasonable to call them priests, rabbis, members of the Sanhedrin, etc. is rather anti-semitic to us!

Note — we have changed the color of the term, Jews, for this illustration:

"And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”" [John 1:19 ESV]

"The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." [John 2:13 ESV]

"So the Jews said to him, "What sign do you show us for doing these things?" " [John 2:18 ESV]

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews." [John 3:1 ESV]

"After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." [John 5:1 ESV]

"So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed."" [John 5:10 ESV]

"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." [John 5:18 ESV]

"Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand." [John 7:2 ESV]

"Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him."
[John 7:13 ESV]

"Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves." [John 11:55 ESV]

"Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."" [John 18:36 ESV]

We Want To Emphasize This:
The Hebrew Scriptures Were Written In The Hebrew Language!
(Not Greek, Not Aramaic, Not Swahili, etc.)

However, we do acknowledge that there are some passages written in Aramaic.
(e.g. parts of Daniel, Ezra, a verse in Jeremiah)

We believe that a clear distinction should be made regarding 'scribal' standards of quality and integrity between the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) and that of the Christian 'New Testament'.

Are There 'Scribal' Standards
For The Word of G-d?

– YES! –
The Hebrew Scriptures
Were Meticulously Preserved By Jewish Scribes!

Jewish Scribes 'Set The Gold Standard'!

As we discuss below, Jewish scribes meticulously preserved the original writings of the Hebrew Scriptures under exacting scrutiny.

Were There Acceptable Scribal Standards
For Assembling 'Sacred Texts'?

It is a fact that there is a huge discrepancy in the acceptable scribal requirements between what are known as the Hebrew Scriptures (the Tanakh) and the Christian Scriptures (the New Testament).

The Hebrew Scriptures were copied only under conditions of strict and rigorous scrutiny of detail and oversight.

In simplistic terms,
the Tanakh WAS treated
by Israelite/Jewish scribes
as if it were, in fact,
'THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY G–D,
יְהֹוָה   [YehoVaH]'!

This point can be illustrated with a discussion regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls. The texts that were found at Qumran (the Dead Sea scrolls) show only a minuscule number of variations to the Masoretic text (which is mostly regarded as Judaism's official version). The Dead Sea Scrolls were dated from 300 years prior to the first century to the first century and the Masoretic Texts, which are used as the source for all Jewish Scriptures, were dated from around 930 C.E.

Qumran – A Community Of Scribes!

It is well known that the majority of ancient inkwells archaeologists found in the land of Israel were discovered at Qumran and/or related to it. Consequently, with this information as well as based upon the layout of its settlement and even information found in some of the recovered scrolls themselves, many people hold to the idea that Qumran was a "Scribal Community".

Hebrew Manuscripts With Scribal Errors
Were "Buried" In Earthen Jars!
(They were deemed unfit to be used in Temple Service)

The "dead sea scrolls" at Qumran that comprise texts from the Hebrew Scriptures were "buried" in earthen jars. They could not be destroyed because they contained the name of יְהֹוָה   [YehoVaH] (G–d)! They did not 'pass muster' for having been copied without error — they were unfit to be used in Temple (or Synagogue) worship, and were buried rather than destroyed for the aforementioned reason.

Did The 'New Testament' Scribes
Treat Their Manuscripts
— As If They Were The Word Of G–d?

Quite unfortunately, judging just by the results – there appeared to be little commitment for any such rigor or standards of excellence such as was obviously used in copying the Hebrew Scriptures for what has become the New Testament.

In fact, it is probably appropriate to say that, simply by the way they treated it, 'New Testament scribes' DID NOT CONSIDER MANUSCRIPTS THEY WERE 'COPYING' AS THE WORD OF G–D!

Yet, the texts that were accepted as "canon" for the assembling of the New Testament are treated as though they were assumed to have been personally approved by יְהֹוָה   [YehoVaH] and/or Yeshua!

Ironically, at least in the Protestant world, the 'mantra' of 'inerrancy and infallibility' regarding the 'New Testament' seems to infer or imply that any TRANSLATION should automatically be considered as directly inspired by G–d, inerrant and infallible as well!

Those in the King James Only movement, those who declare that the King James translation is, in fact, the WORD OF G–D, are a testament to this kind of 'sillyness'.

Please note: It must be understood that a TRANSLATION is itself someone's INTERPRETATION.

An interpretation is an attempt to capture the correct meaning of original language documents into another language, but that meaning is always subject to original language literacy, the biases of the translators, and possibly even to private agendas. That does not mean that a translation is necessarily incorrect or intentionally biased, but it can never substitute for the original writing itself.

Moreover, in our opinion, it takes 'extreme poetic license' to assume that a translation could also be considered inerrant and infallible!

In simplistic terms, the basic argument regarding the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility for the New Testament is that the original writings were all inspired by G–d; therefore, as G–d embodies ultimate TRUTH, 'New Testament Scripture' is to be regarded as TRUE, inerrant and infallible [AND, OF COURSE, – NOT TO BE QUESTIONED!].

It is a rather circular argument.

Original Manuscripts For The 'New Testament' DO NOT EXIST.

To make the statement, "the original manuscripts are inspired by G–d, infallible and without error" is subtly misleading, particularly when there is no prima facie evidence that original manuscripts ever existed!

We need to be very clear here: there are no extant, original, New Testament manuscripts, nor are there existing copies of the original manuscripts of the New Testament!

However, this is also true for the Hebrew Scriptures in that original manuscripts got old and copies have since replaced them.

But any similarity stops there. It is abundantly clear that the scribal integrity for the Hebrew Scriptures was so guarded that if there were any flaws in the copied manuscripts they were buried, never to be used in Temple or Synagogue service.

Whereas, it is strikingly apparent that there was little if any semblance of integrity for scribal integrity for New Testament scribes/copyists.

With literally thousands of the remnants of 'ancient', but not original, manuscripts with suspect scribal standards, none of which was found written in the native language of Israelite authors, it is embarrassing to presume that the New Testament could qualify as the wholly inspired, inerrant and infallible word of G–d.

Might it be that in doing so is to call יְהֹוָה   [YehoVaH] G–d a liar?

Does that mean thatיְהֹוָה   [YehoVaH] (Elohim/G–d) cannot use what has survived for His glory? Of course NOT!

"And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham." [Matthew 3:9 ESV]

Ancient Hebrew Documents Have Survived!

Ancient Israelite documents have survived! Those from Qumran are estimated to be aged from between 300 BCE (Before Common Era) to the 1st century CE (Common Era, known also as A.D.).

Moreover, the Aleppo Codex, one of the original Masoretic texts, is from 930 CE.

Quite significantly, there are only slight discrepancies, changing no meanings whatsoever, between the Qumran (Dead Sea) scrolls of Hebrew Scripture and the Aleppo Codex.

Whereas, with the more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, where no two agree and some significantly so, the Christian New Testament has absolutely no comparison of scribal standards and integrity to that of the Hebrew Scriptures!

Purposeful Corruption Of New Testament Manuscripts
By The Roman Catholic 'Abomination'?

Unfortunately, there was no such rigor and qualifications not only for authenticity but also for standards for what has become known as the corpus of texts comprising the manuscripts that have made themselves into the "New Testament".

Can The Sheer Number
Of 'Near' Manuscripts Constitute Authenticity?

Yet, there is a prevailing view by many "Christian" apologists who argue that due to the sheer number of manuscripts and 'their nearness to each other' – that qualifies them to have attained high standards 'for authenticity' – declaring that they are essentially equivalent to the same standard set by the Jewish scribes in their copying of the Tanakh! Of course, that argument for 'New Testament' authenticity is absolutely preposterous!

Isn't that 'apology' and subsequent Christian doctrine essentially stating that having an overwhelming number of documents, none of which agree completely, constitutes a model of authenticity so pure that it cannot even be questioned?

We consider that to be absolutely inane, insane and preposterous (OK, we consider it to be absolutely STUPID! — there, we said it!).

Moreover, it belies the idea that the Roman Catholic church corrupted the "body of evidence" and then purposely put a "canon" together that potentially included not only additions and untrustworthy elements but also writings that could not possibly meet rigorous standards of testing for authenticity.

Why Were Original Sources Only In A Foreign Language?

We find it odd that despite the fact that the original faith community of Yeshua was Israelite (Jewish) in culture and language, absolutely no original source writings are in either Hebrew or Aramaic, nor many (if any) references to them from other early 'accepted writings or personal letters' (note: other early writings or letters have been used to corroborate some of the manuscripts included in acceptance of documents for the 'canon').

What writings/manuscripts that "survived" the purge of the anti-Jewish factions leading into the Roman Catholic church are all copies of copies at best and often contain 'scribal additions and embellishments', but they are all written in the foreign, Greek language and apparently were added much later than when the manuscripts were supposed to have originally been written!

Again, absolutely no original Hebrew language writings were used for source material, despite the Israelite Jewish ethnicity and culture of the original handpicked messengers (aka, Apostles or Shaliachim) and others in the original faith community that followed Yeshua of Nazareth!

Should We Accept The Arguments
That Greek And/Or Aramaic
Were The 'Universal' Languages
Used Exclusively By Hebrew Writers?

Modern arguments that Greek was the universal language of the time and that all of the early Israelite Jewish writers used it exclusively may entertain the many or perhaps the gullible, but we find that line of argumentation to be incredulous if not absolutely absurd and preposterous! We also expect that idea in and of itself has been given to us by the entity that has written (or re-written) the history — anti-Jewish factions extended into the Roman Catholic church (and its Protestant offshoots)!

A Question Of Hebrew Or Greek Ethnicity?

In regard to what is known as "The New Testament", it is our belief that the history regarding the Israelite ethnicity (aka Jewishness) of the original faith community has been grossly ignored and even expunged and supplanted by Greek culture and, especially, a 'Gentilized Religion, Christianity, centered on the teachings of one Saul of Tarsus, about Yeshua, whom he never even met'.

Moreover, the topic of our discussion regarding the credibility of Saul of Tarsus about his claims to being an Apostle (and even his own inference as an uber–Apostle) illustrate to us that the acceptance of 'Paul' has brought about the destruction of not only the core message but also the cultural and ethnic basis of the original faith community of Yeshua HaMashiach (for more information, see our page, Paul, the false apostle).

To us, it is clear that "The Roman Catholic Church" (aka the last of the four world kindgoms of Daniel 2) has deftly followed the lead of Saul–of–Tarsus, creating and establishing 'The New Testament' and 'Christianity': 'Paul's 'easy, Gentile/pagan oriented Religion about his interpretation of all things Yeshua'.

Together, in our opinion, they have supplanted, and all but eradicated, knowledge of the original faith community — that 'Israelite Faith centered in the Torah given by יְהֹוָה   [YehoVaH]' which was championed by Yeshua HaMashiach and was subsequently taught by His true followers, His emissaries, His handpicked Shaliachim (Apostles) — people He actually knew!

In fact, according to the book of John, it was to those original 12 disciples that Yeshua said would be his [exclusive] messengers:

"And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning." [John 15:27 ESV]

We sincerely doubt that any of the assemblers and many of the original writers of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) were themselves Israelites or Jews. For, in assembling their "canon," apparently they had little interest or gave little consideration to the words attributed directly to Yeshua where he said:

"... I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
[Matthew 15:24]

Contrary To Popular Belief
"... Hebrew was clearly a vibrant living language
in the first century C.E."

The image above is taken from a page on the internet we found searching for Qumran and the Hebrew Language: 407-did-the-messiah-speak-aramaic-or-hebrew-part-4-by-eaknapp

This snippet above was taken as a screen-grab from a pdf document by Dr. Gary Rendsburg

You might note that the salient text is

"Accordingly, I return to the question: to what extent does the fact that 80% of our documents are composed in Hebrew reflect the linguistic reality of the Qumran community? Or to put it in simpler terms: did they speak Hebrew? — as opposed to Aramaic, for example, or to Greek. There seems to be no other approach possible than to say: yes, the individuals at Qumran spoke Hebrew."

The link to the page by Dr. Rendsburg is: 396-qumran-hebrew-studies-on-the-texts-of-the-desert-of-judah

Why do we take the time to include information regarding the language of Qumran (where the Dead Sea Scrolls came from), and by extension, inferring that the language was common in ancient Israel?

To us, the answer is quite simple. It is because of those who consider themselves "Bible Scholars", a clear majority have espoused the argument that because the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Greek quotations of Hebrew Scripture were predominantly written in the Aramaic language, then it follows that Aramaic would have been the native tongue of "Jesus" and by inference his disciples and those others responsible for writing the manuscripts.

By contrast, those familiar with the texts found at Qumran, known as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" discovered in 1947, as the above links illustrate, by showing the predominance of Hebrew language (80% according to Dr. Rendsburg) in both the biblical and non-biblical texts lead most of those scholars to believe that the language of even the common people of ancient Israel in the last century while the Temple stood (until ~70AD) was indeed Hebrew; not Aramaic, not Greek, etc.

In our efforts to show the importance of the language of the New Testament we believe that if in fact the native tongue and Scripture knowledge of those credited with authorship was indeed Hebrew, as opposed to the commonly held belief that it was Aramaic and even Greek, we find it refreshing that the Qumran discoveries are exceptionally revealing.

Unless otherwise noted, 'Scripture' passages from the Tanakh (Old Testament) have been taken from the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) English version of 1917, and passages from the Brit HaHadashah (New Testament) have been taken from the King James version of the Bible.