Manna

      The Priestly text contains a fantastic story in Exodus.  The Hebrew people were on the brink of starvation.  Then God miraculously rained bread down from heaven.[1]  This bread was called "manna."

      A second version of the story is told by the Elohist source.  Yet the manna in the Elohist account is different from the manna in the Priestly account.  In the Elohist account, it never says that the manna came from heaven.  It never says that the manna was a miracle.  It never says that the manna was a gift from God.  In fact, the Elohist manna was very poor food.  The Hebrews complain, "Our soul is dried away.  There is nothing at all besides this manna before our eyes."[2]  It was just lying on the ground, and it made for a lousy supper.  It was not the bread of heaven. 

      Jesus gives us a third account of the manna, saying, 

 

Moses did not give you bread from heaven.[3]

 

Here, Jesus clearly rejects the Priestly account.  The manna is not bread from heaven.  Jesus explicitly denies the fact that manna ever came down from heaven.  Simply put, Jesus called the Priestly text's version a fib.

      There is still a fourth version of the story – the scientific version.  Manna is actually quite real.  Anyone can find it in the desert of Sinai, even today.  Just as the Bible tells us, it is truly white like coriander seed, it falls like dew in the night, and it is sweet.[4]  But it definitely does not come from heaven.  Manna is actually the resin produced when insects cut through tamarisk tree leaves.[5]

      From a scientific standpoint, it seems Jesus was ahead of his time.  He agreed with the Elohist source and with science.  He disagreed with the fallacious Priestly text which erroneously claimed that manna came from heaven.

 

Jesus and the Sabbath

      "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."[6]  So said Jesus.  From the gospels, we may notice that Jesus was permissive when it came to exerting oneself on the Sabbath.  He rejected the strict regulations against gathering food on the Sabbath, the prohibition against healing on the Sabbath, and the rule that you should not help an animal out of a ditch on the Sabbath.  Jesus was so casual about the Sabbath that many believed he was breaking it.

      Why did they think he was breaking it?  Because the Priestly text said so, that's why.  According to the Priestly text, if someone gathered firewood on the Sabbath, they should be executed![7]  According to the Priestly text, you should not gather food on the Sabbath, as it said, 

 

Six days shall you gather it, but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, you shall not find any. [8]

 

Notice that Jesus directly disobeyed this Biblical commandment when he walked through the grain fields collecting food on the Sabbath.[9]  This is nothing short of a clear cut case of Jesus breaking Torah Law.  Jesus directly and intentionally disobeyed the Bible’s commandments.  However, he only broke the commandments of the Priestly text.  He did not break the commandments from the earlier Yahwist and Elohist sources.

 

Jesus and the Holy Feasts

      The earliest texts of the Old Testament, that is the Yahwist and Elohist together with the pre-exilic Prophets, know of only three holy feasts God commanded Moses to observe.  These three festivals are 1) Passover which is also called Unleavened Bread, 2) the feast of Weeks or First Fruits which is also called Pentecost, and 3) the feast of Ingathering or Harvest which is also called Tabernacles.  The earliest record of these comes from the Yahwist account of what God instructed Moses on the mountain, and also from an archaic source called the Covenant Code, both of which now reside in Exodus.[10]  As these are the earliest listings of holy feasts, they constitute the best information we have concerning what Moses may have actually commanded Israel to observe.  References to these three festivals also appear in the pre-exilic Prophetic writings.[11]  These early texts instruct observers to rejoice during the three festivals.  There is no mention of any particular priesthood, nor is there any mention of a temple or a central shrine such as Jerusalem. 

      Jesus Christ kept all three of these festivals.  All of the gospels explicitly testify that Jesus kept Passover.[12]  Jesus also kept Ingathering, which is also called Tabernacles.[13]  It seems from the chronology of John’s gospel that Jesus also kept Pentecost; although it is not specifically stated, John’s chronological placement of the other festivals in his gospel narrative lead us to consider Pentecost the most likely candidate for the unnamed feast of John 5:1.  In any case, Acts 2 confirms that Pentecost was very much a foundational holy day of the apostolic church.  From John, we can also deduce that Jesus kept Hanukah,[14] which was more like a national holiday such as the Fourth of July or Cinco de Mayo than a religious holiday, and does not pertain to the religious Law of the Torah.  

      The early Christian observance of Passover is especially well documented.  A large faction of the orthodox churches in Asia Minor kept Passover instead of Easter Sunday even into the third century,[15] and Polycrates testified that they inherited this tradition from none other than the Apostles John and Philip.[16]

      Therefore, we may conclude that Jesus and his earliest followers kept the three feasts of the most ancient Hebrew texts - Passover, Pentecost, and Ingathering.  Once this is understood, it becomes clear that there is no difference between the religious festivals Jesus observed and the festivals given in the earlier sources of the Torah.  They both kept the same religious holidays.

      But the Priestly text adds two holy days nowhere mentioned in the earlier texts of the Old Testament.  These two are Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) and Atonement (Yom Kippur).[17]  As these two extra days are mentioned only in the Priestly text, they appear to have been introduced into Judaism only at a very late date, and are therefore not authentic. 

      Stunningly, there is no record whatsoever that Jesus or any of his early followers kept either of these two religious holidays.  It is as if the early Christians somehow knew these two holy days were of dubious origin, and so they shunned them.

      This is yet another indication that the Priestly text was a falsification of the original Hebrew religion, which neither Moses nor the Prophets nor Jesus Christ endorsed.  And, if the Priestly text is not trustworthy, then neither is the fallacious account of creation it contains within Genesis 1. 

      Also, one may notice from the gospel that Jesus kept Tabernacles, that is Ingathering, for only a portion of the festival, not for the full seven days.[18]  The Old Testament records that when Ezra read the Law, it was found that they needed to keep the Feast of Tabernacles seven days, and that this had not been done since the time of Joshua.[19]  Now Joshua, as we have already established, was a fictitious character, since his supposed conquest of Canaan can in no way synchronize with archaeology.  Yet even if we suppose he truly existed, Joshua was at least eight centuries prior to Ezra.  What is the likelihood that the keeping of Tabernacles was lost for eight full centuries, then mysteriously rediscovered?  This does not indicate revival.  This reeks of forgery.  To be sure, the earlier parts of the Law do mention a festival of Ingathering to be kept in the autumn, but this earlier scripture does not say that it should necessarily last seven days, nor that it is necessary to dwell in tabernacles.[20]  These two regulations were inventions of the Priestly sect, and even then, there are three different versions, for the Priestly heretics could not even agree among themselves.[21]

 

 

 

Jesus, Jeremiah, and Paul Against Priestly Circumcision

      "Moses gave you circumcision, not because Moses wanted it, but rather because your ancestors did it."[22]  So said Jesus.  According to the Priestly text, Moses gave circumcision to Israel.[23]  But the Elohist tradition, from which Jeremiah and Abiathar came, says nothing of circumcision.  The Yahwist narrative mentions circumcision only once, and even then, it mentions how everyone who got circumcised was suddenly killed in a murder rampage at the hands of others who were also circumcised.[24]

      Moreover, there is a grave discrepancy between the Yahwist and the Priestly accounts of Abraham's covenant with God.  In the Priestly text, God commanded Abraham to practice circumcision five times in a single passage.[25]  But in the earlier account of Abraham's covenant, that is the Yahwist account, circumcision is never once mentioned.[26]

      The earliest sources, the Elohist and the Yahwist, are in agreement with Jesus, Jeremiah, and Paul – but the later source, the Priestly, has no witnesses to call.  Here is what Jeremiah says about circumcision:

 

Yahweh says, "Behold the day is coming when I will punish all of them who are circumcised along with the uncircumcised… so take away the foreskins of your heart…"[27]

 

And here is what Paul says about circumcision:

 

Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter…[28]  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing…[29]  There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, for Christ is all, and in all.[30]

 

      Notice a pattern here?  Both Jeremiah and Paul had the same attitude toward circumcision.  What mattered was "circumcision of the heart," not of the flesh.  It was spiritual, not physical.  Only the Priestly text saw physical circumcision as essential.  On this the Priestly text is incongruent with other authorities.  As Jesus says in Thomas,

 

If circumcision were a good thing, then their father would have sired them already circumcised.[31]

 

This is another reason to be suspect of the Priestly text and its creation myth in Genesis 1. 

 

Celibacy

      The Priestly text states "Be fruitful and multiply."[32]  Consequently, many religious individuals believe that procreation is a God-sponsored sporting event, albeit not for spectators.  According to Protevangelion, the grandparents of Jesus Christ felt shame because they could not have children,[33] and worse, Jesus Christ's grandmother was ostracized because her womb was barren.[34]  But her shame was alleviated by the miraculous birth of her daughter Mary.[35]  Although not in the Bible, Protevangelion probably contains genuine facts not mentioned elsewhere.  For example, the early testimony of Justin Martyr agrees with Protevangelion that Jesus was born in a cave, over and against Luke which says he was born in a manger.[36]

      Jesus did not agree with the mistreatment of the barren, and he blatantly disregarded the Priestly text's command to reproduce sexually.  Jesus said,

 

Some have cut off their genitals on behalf of the Kingdom of Heaven.  Not everyone can accept this doctrine, but those who can accept this, let them accept it.[37]

 

Spoken as hyperbole, which Jesus frequently employed, the meaning of the overstatement is still apparent.  On this point, the teaching of Jesus is again at odds with the Priestly text, and therefore he is also at odds with Genesis 1, because it is part of the Priestly text.  Yet Jesus' doctrine on celibacy aligns perfectly with the practice of the Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, as Josephus testified,

 

They (the Essenes) don't have slaves or wives, because they think the first is unfair and the second just causes arguments.[38]

 

      A preference for celibacy existed both in the Bible and also in Christian tradition, as well as in the Gnostic literature.  In the Bible, Paul cautioned against marriage,[39] and John believed that virgins will receive heavenly rewards.[40]  Ancient Christian leaders encouraged celibacy as a way to draw closer to God.  Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Novation, Cyprian, Victorinus, and Pierius were among the pre-Constantine leaders who endorsed celibacy.  The only early Christian on record for expressing reservations about the practice of celibacy was Methodius.[41]  Yet it should be noted that Peter was married and Philip had children.[42]  As Jesus said, not everyone can accept the doctrine.  Even the angels of Christ are celibate, as Jesus says, "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," and everyone in the kingdom of God will eventually be celibate like the angels[43] – in this, they are unlike the world-creating angels of the demiurge, who amuse themselves with all manner of bestial perversion.

      Tertullian said that it was common for married Christian couples to abstain from sex by mutual consent, so that they could pursue a more spiritual union with God.[44]  Paul himself was apparently both married and celibate.  In one New Testament passage, he indicated that he was celibate, but also indicated that he had a "sister-wife."[45] 

      Recently, a new theory has become popular that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married with children.  Yet this finds little support in early Christian literature.  We have, at our disposal for study, four dozen ancient Gnostic scriptures, a plethora of early Christian apocryphal books, and ten volumes of Christian literature written before Constantine.  Within this literature are detailed descriptions of the beliefs and practices of a multitude of unorthodox groups.  Yet none of these groups are said to have believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers, nor that they had a child together.  No orthodox Christians believed it, and no "heretics" believed it either.  Nobody even suggested it.  This cavernous silence amidst a mountain of ancient literature makes the theory highly improbable. 

      Some point to The Gospel of Philip, which states that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene.  Yet if Jesus kissed Magdalene, how is this different from what the New Testament states about fellowship – "Greet each other with a holy kiss?"[46]  Should we extrapolate from this that early Christian fellowship included orgies during church services?  Should we presume that Judas performed a homosexual act on Jesus when he "betrayed the Son of Man with a kiss?"[47]  Perhaps the elders of Ephesus were also homosexuals, for they kissed Paul on the neck.[48]  Likewise the merciful father who fell on the neck of his prodigal son and kissed him.[49]  Such misunderstanding is the result of an ethnocentric assumption that kissing is necessarily sexual.  Even to this day, a kiss is a greeting in Middle Eastern cultures, and does not carry with it any sexual connotation.  Why assume anything more concerning Mary Magdalene?

      Still, they point to the Merovingian kings of France as the ancestors of Christ and Magdalene.  Yet here, there was a political motivation for the invention of a lie, for the Merovingians were newly converted Germanic pagans struggling to control a nation of Latin Christians.  The ethno-religious struggle in France at that time was severe.  What better way for the Merovingian kings to legitimize their dynasty and unite their kingdom than to say they were descendents of the King of Kings himself?  Hence, the story was a political lie told for the unity of France – and even then it did not come about until 500 years after the fact.   

      Jesus was celibate, the Essenes were celibate, and many early Christians were celibate.  These facts are attested for in the earliest sources.  A sexual relationship between Jesus and Magdalene is not.

 

Jesus and Leviticus

      Jesus quoted from Leviticus fairly frequently.  This is worthy of examination, because Leviticus was Priestly in origin.  Some of these quotes were in opposition to Leviticus.  To "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," Jesus replies, "But I tell you to not resist a wicked person."[50]  To "You shall not swear by my name falsely" he replies "You shall not swear at all."[51]

      But in other places, Jesus appears to endorse Leviticus.  "Love your neighbor as yourself" is found in Leviticus, but here the section starts out with "Yahweh spoke unto Moses," not Moses and Aaron, as the Priestly text does elsewhere,[52] and so its connection to the priests of Aaron is weakened. 

      Jesus' saying "Every sacrifice will be salted with salt," is also paralleled in Leviticus.[53]  But the ritual use of salt was not confined to the Priestly sect, for Elisha also used it.[54]  Elisha was of the northern tradition and was therefore unaffiliated with the southern Aaron-Zadokee sect that wrote the Priestly text.

      If there is any passage where Jesus seems to have unequivocally embraced a Priestly regulation, it occurs where Jesus tells the leper, "Show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded."[55]  The regulations for this gift are found in Leviticus.  But Jesus adds "do it as a testimony to them," perhaps to signify that he was not commanding this from his own belief but rather requesting it in order to stay on good terms with the priesthood, as a testimony to them that he was not a rebel, for it was still early in his ministry and his time had not yet come.  This interpretation is substantiated in the gospel account of the temple tax, wherein Jesus tells Peter that the children of the kingdom don't have to pay temple tax, but tells him to pay it anyway, "lest we offend them."[56]  The gospel passage is relevant because it refers to the command that all Jews pay the temple tax, which was part of the Priestly text.[57]  Therefore, when Jesus declares that the children of the kingdom don't need to pay the temple tax, he speaks against the Priestly text, yet he obeyed its command anyway, in order to stay out of trouble.

      Concerning the leper, the Old Testament passage to which Jesus refers speaks only of Moses, not of Aaron – unlike a great deal of the Priestly text in which Aaron and Moses act together, yet here Moses acts alone.  As such, the passage may have an author who was not affiliated with the Aaron-Zadok line of priests.[58]  This is substantiated by two other facts.  First, Deuteronomy, which is derived from the old Elohist traditions of those affiliated with Abiathar, mentions the command about leprosy, and calls the priests "Levites" instead of "sons of Aaron," thus associating the leprosy laws with the Elohist school.[59]  Second, Leviticus contains two parallel pieces of legislation about leprosy – chapter 14, which mentions only Moses; and chapter 13, which mentions both Moses and Aaron.  It appears, therefore, that chapter 14 may be a Priestly redaction of the Elohist version touched upon in Deuteronomy, and that chapter 13 is the purely Priestly version. 

      Hence, we may plausibly excuse the anomaly, for there is no doubt that Jesus accepted the bulk of the Elohist and Deuteronomy law codes, which he quotes frequently. 

      It is also noteworthy that Campbell and Obrien regard only chapters 8, 9, 10, and 16 of Leviticus to have been part of the Priestly text proper, as they write, 

 

The extensive collections of laws in Leviticus 1-7, 11-15, and 17-26 do not belong to the Priestly document (see Pentateuchal Traditions 8-9); hence only the narrative sections are attributed to P here.[60]

 

If this is true, then Jesus never quoted nor even alluded to the Priestly text at all, since all the parts of Leviticus he referenced were outside chapters 8, 9, 10, and 16. 

      Certainly Leviticus on the whole is of a Priestly nature, and of this there is broad agreement, yet the sum total of everything Priestly can be subdivided into several components.  There was a Priestly document or narrative of a very late date which was a forgery, and this includes Genesis 1, for it was part of the manufactured narrative.  But before this, there was a vast amount of Priestly regulation, which, as Wellhausen said, must have been based on much older traditions, for by the time they were incorporated into the Priestly text, the priests had forgotten what the regulations meant, and this is why everywhere sacrifices are described but never explained.[61] 

      This, perhaps, is why Jesus warned against removing any jot or tittle from the Torah,[62] for even though it is filled with disinformation, any attempt to remove the false parts may result in the accidental deletion of valid parts.  However, modern scholarship has given us a great deal more precision than what was available to the ancients.

 

Every Jot and Tittle

Don't believe that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets.  I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  Truly I tell you, till heaven and earth passes, not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the Torah until all is fulfilled.  So whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to follow suit will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.[63]

 

So said Jesus, according to Matthew.  Yet, like so much of Matthew, a parallel is found in Luke.  Both paraphrase the earlier Quelle document from which they wrote their gospels.  In Luke's version, Jesus said something a little different: 

 

The Torah and the Prophets were until John.  Since then, the kingdom of God is preached.  It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than it is for one tittle of the Torah to fail.[64]

 

Thus, according to Luke, Jesus' point is that the Torah foretold the coming of the kingdom of God, and toward that end it had in no way failed.  Matthew also indicates this, for "not one jot or tittle will pass until all is fulfilled," and "I came to fulfill." 

      Notwithstanding, if it still be held that Jesus meant that the Torah is perfect, then it must be asked, to which Torah was Jesus referring?  There were four different Torahs in his day – one from Judea, one from Samaria, one from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and one from the Greek Diaspora (Septuagint) – and these were by no means entirely consistent with each other.  In light of this, the whole argument becomes superfluous.  For all we know, Jesus was referring to a heavenly Torah, which truly is perfect, despite the corruptions which have occured to the Torah that has been handed down to us.  This is not just a copout.  The book of Jubilees, which the Essene community of the Dead Sea Scrolls accepted as Biblical, records that there are "Heavenly Tablets," that is, not tablets as in pills you pop, but rather tablets of Law.[65]  Not one jot or tittle of the Heavenly Tablets will fail, even though much of the Law has been corrupted on the earthly tablets.

      For this reason Saint Paul said that "Jesus took away the regulations that were against us, and nailed them to his cross, making a mockery of the world-creating angels that govern the cosmos."[66]  What were the regulations that were against us?  Neither the Yahwist narrative nor the Elohist texts are filled with regulations.  It is primarily the Priestly text which is filled with all manner of regulations.  Therefore, Paul in no way declared an end to the Old Testament Law when he said this.  Rather, he declared that Jesus had purged the Law of the Satanic verses that had polluted it.  For why should God give one Law under a certain dispensation only to negate it with a future dispensation?  Is God such an unstable Judge as to overturn legal precedent which he himself has set?  This makes God a fool.  It is much more reasonable to believe that the Law of God is forever, that it does not change.  The reason why God sends Prophets is to correct the corruption of the Law, not to issue a new Law.  As Mohamed rightly said, the eternal Law is never abrogated, but rather it has become corrupted:

 

There is a faction among the People of the Book who twist the Book with their words, and say it is from Allah, but it is not from Allah… Some of the Jews move words around, erroneously rearranging them… and so they have lost a great deal of the Prophetic word that was given to them… Woe unto thee who write the Book with thine own hands and then say 'tis from Allah![67]

 

Indeed, modern scholarship has proven Mohamed correct, not for the intolerance such statements caused, but rather for the technical correctness of the objective fact.  A great deal of the Bible is corrupted.  Therefore, new Prophets are sent to correct the errors that have accumulated over the centuries, both by accident and by intention. 

      Other gods do the same with their holy books.  Krishna, god of the Hindus, stated that he has come down time after time to straighten out the mess:

 

When righteousness becomes puny and cowardly, and when evil struts around haughtily, then my spirit comes to earth.[68]

 

      Aside from this, it is interesting to note that Jesus only sanctioned the Torah and the Prophets.  The Jewish Bible is divided into three sets of books – the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.  Jesus never sanctioned the Writings.  The Writings include Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and Esther, which we have already described the reasons for rejecting based on their affiliation with the Priestly sect and on their lack of representation among the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Writings also include the books of Solomon – namely Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. 

      Solomon was among the most notorious criminals of the Bible.