Chapter 21 - The Eulogy of James : The Epicenter of the Fictional Jesus Conspiracy

Chapter 21 - The Eulogy of James : The Epicenter of the Fictional Jesus Conspiracy

 

 

From the previous chapter, the epistemological formula is derived: (HOSEA 6:1-3 and Matthew 27:51-54). These are the "saints" mentioned by Paul, John, James and others in the New Testament Canon: Matthew 27:52, Revelation 8:3, and Jude 1:3 are just a small percentage. The connection to the "saints" means that the prophecies and predictions contained in the New Testament were intended to be fulfilled seven decades after the Temple was destroyed by the Romans (The Gospel of John 19:34 and Revelation 1:7). The last Gospel intended to address and answer the many questions concerning Jesus. The reason for this is John's attack on those who doubted the existence of Jesus (1st John 4:3 and 2nd John 1:7). John attacks the doubters because the disbelievers of the Christian message may have utilized the false prediction by Paul earlier to attack the early Christian community. The non-believers strongly pointed to the various false predictions located in the Gospel of Matthew and Paul's own letters then they concluded that Jesus never existed since he never showed up when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans.

Before concluding the hypothesis that the Gospel of John was the last Gospel or rather a document highlighting the deeds of a supposedly supernatural Jesus, Paul simply repeated the behavior from his teacher and leader - James. Acts 21:18-25 is proof of James leadership. There is also evidence from the Talmud itself describing James as leader of the early Christians:

 

Avodah Zarah,Fol.17,col. 1 - Rahsi says heresy here refers to the "heresy of James," or, in other words, Christianity.

 

Therefore, the Gospel of John was a document with a multipurpose role: an explanation to the reason of why the "saints" were dispatched by James into the city of Jerusalem while it was recovering from a massive earthquake, and a fictional description of a supposedly superhuman Jesus. Let me first submit the possible scenarios not mentioned in the Gospels but hinted within the Gospels:

 

(1) These three: Matthew, Peter, and another unnamed disciple took the body of Jesus out of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. So; it would appear hours later, in front of the followers of Jesus, he resurrected himself.

(2) They transferred the body out of the tomb after the Sabbath observation which is Saturday evening sunset. The hint is stated in Matthew 24:20 concerning the prohibition of travelling during the Sabbath.

(3) They then traveled to a location several distance past Mount Nebo in Jordan. These actions would explain why Peter and the other two disciples were absent Sunday morning. Hints are the three wise kings from the East located only in the Gospel of Matthew 2:1-12. These hints which are also textual errors implicates the author of the Gospel of Matthew in a conspiracy.

 

Let us review the information:

The Gospel of John, the last Gospel, hints of Peter and another disciple in the tomb before the Eulogy (Gospel of John 20:3-10). The composition of the Gospel of John was to address many questions which had arisen after the failed materialization of Jesus because of the connected earlier "dispensationalist" predictions stated by Paul and the Gospels of Matthew. The reason is because both writers described a desecration of the Temple. However, when the Temple was destroyed many people doubted the validity of not only the predictions but also the Christian movement.

 

The proposed interjected theory:

 

It is very possible that John, in the Book of Revelation, hinted this in symbolic language in Revelation chapter five. This theory could be true based on the fact that "Armageddon" in Revelation chapter sixteen is describing the crucifixion of Jesus (rather than a future event). Also, Revelation chapter eleven describes the symbolic two witnesses which are actually describing the loyal "body of Christ": Gentile Christian and Jewish-Christians. The previous evidence shows that John followed Paul's "gospel" in conflict with Matthew 10:5-15. The hint connecting both Revelation chapter five and sixteen is Revelation 11:13. The verse Revelation 11:13 is describing two events: the chaos of the massive earthquake after the crucifixion of Jesus and the Temple’s destruction by Vespasian. Therefore, the body of work contained in the Book of Revelation was presenting past events and justifying the reasons for Christianity. John utilized symbolic language directed for the early Christians and to keep their faith in the midst of the Roman onslaught. The conclusion is obvious, the book of Revelation was written for a particular time and purpose. It was not written as a prediction for distant future events. It was also written by someone who was involved in the cover-up of the real events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. Supporting evidence is Jude 1:8-11. Jude is speaking about some Jews and followers who have used psychics or psychic energy to see what really happened to the body of Jesus. These psychics existed among the Jewish community and some were healers as is noted by a modern author. The Jewish group involved in the previous activity are called the Essenes a fact which Josephus mentions in his well-known treatise. The modern author which has reviewed his claim is Rebecca Gray and she gives several evidence of the ability of some Jews during the era of Jesus who healed, predicted possible future events and looked back into the past to get information. Furthermore; the statement by Peter, in the collection attributed to him, is also a cover-up (2nd Peter 1:16-21) and a support of moving “the goalpost” (2^nd Peter 3:8).

 

Before the document was produced by Matthew - The Gospel of Matthew - James told Peter and the two other disciples to take Jesus body out of the tomb. He then prepared himself to give a speech Sunday morning using Hosea 6:1-3. The other unmentioned "disciple" is Matthew. James was approached by the real doubters and early skeptics of the faith. They were pointed out by Paul (2nd Timothy 2:17). This is central because Matthew 27:52-53 is connected with the behavior of Hymenaeus and Philetus who expressed the earlier idea of James (Hosea 6:1-3 and Matthew 27:52-53). It is very possible that these two individuals, or a group of doubters like "Thomas", were at the eulogy and gave a set of questions to James as to the whereabouts of three individuals: Matthew, Peter and another unnamed disciple. The set of questions by the doubters and the authorities created the need to construct a document called the Gospel of Matthew. After the Temple’s destruction, the writer of the last Gospel, John defends the previous subject located in the Gospel of Matthew and defends the failed prediction by describing the supposed resurrection of Jesus. Furthermore; the mention of Thomas, the doubting Thomas, is very peculiar. The reason for this observation is because of the absence of a document from this disciple who doubted Jesus' resurrection (John 20:26-31). For some odd reason the only document we have using his name is a "Gnostic Gospel" which is known in academic circles to be not written by him. There is also missing a document from Lazarus (John 12:1-19) which could have explained the detail of his own miracle and verified it for all times. The Gospel of John was written after the three epistles of John and the epistles of John were written some days after the Temple's destruction. These doubts were created because of the failed materialization of Jesus returning after the Temple's destruction which created a crisis within the Christian movement. Hence, the reason of why the three epistles of John addressed the issue of those doubting the existence of Jesus (1st Epistle of John 2:18-22, 4:3; 2nd Epistle of John 1:7). However, the Gospel of John was a Gospel reacting to the doubts after the Temple’s destruction which also addressed another concern surrounding another set of questions created concerning Jesus' burial. In the 1st Epistle, John, attacks the Roman philosophers (Stoics and Epicureans) questioning the existence of Jesus because Jesus did not show up during the Temple's destruction (1st Epistle of John 2:16). The reasons is because the earlier source, Matthew 24:20 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-7, hinted of a desecration of the Temple which did not materialize and plus Jesus did not show up even when the Temple was being destroyed by the Romans. Therefore, the three Gospels which were formed before the destruction of the Temple by Vespasian: Matthew, Luke and Mark. The two Gospels written before the execution of Paul by Nero: Matthew and Luke. The Gospel written after Paul's execution: The Gospel of Mark. These four were created after an important event threatened the validity of the movement starting with the crucifixion of Jesus which created the “The Testament of Jesus” (The Gospel of Matthew).

 

Therefore, the Gospel of John was the second Millennialist document or Book written by John. Furthermore, the first set of collections written as Millennialist documents and second composed work, after the Book of Hebrews, were the Epistles of John. The Book of Hebrews is the only document written by John to be a Dispensationalistic document or a document written before the Temple’s destruction. John then produced a document that would convince Jews and non-Jews of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus because many questioned the validity of the predictions in the earlier documents. In other words, the predictions within the previous documents failed to materialize even after the Temple’s destruction. Furthermore, it was directed in the beginning towards the Greeks versus the Romans of the city of Jerusalem (The Gospel of John chapter one and the Gospel of John 12:20). The previous evidence may have been one of the many factors which lead to John’s arrest and exile by the Roman authorities. Hence, one of the possible reasons to produce such a document which would have covered two things:

 

(1) To present a document defending the Christian doctrine after the Temple's destruction. To also explain the location and reaction of Peter and Matthew while visiting the tomb (The Gospel of John 20:1-10). The truth is that James told a group of disciples to take the body out of the tomb before Sunday morning. The previous observation had to be the situation because many people seen the failure of the desecration prophecy and then doubted the existence of Jesus.

 

(2) A document written by John to address the various questions by the mourning citizens of Jerusalem (Revelation chapter ten and Revelation 11:13). The following verses are an expression of the followers after the Temple's destruction. The verse, Revelation 10:11 is presenting to the reader the "Book of Revelation" after the author years earlier had written down the "Gospel of John". In other words, John was saying, that right now I am writing down and composing the Book of Revelation (Revelation 10:11). However, he had written down something previously (Revelation 11:13) after the destruction of the Temple: It is the Gospel of John. Therefore; it is known that the Gospel of John, mentioned in Revelation chapter five, may have been the catalyst of John's arrest and exile.

 

The first Gospel to be produced is the Gospel of Matthew or “The Testament of Jesus” (Hebrews 9:15-20). The Gospel of Matthew is Jewish-Christian in orientation because of Matthew 24:20. This verse states a regulation for travelling during the Sabbath. The obvious conclusion:

 

(1) The Sabbath regulation noted in the Gospel of Matthew presents the problem that this document was written in haste. There are several verses within the Gospel of Matthew which supports this theory. Most importantly, the Gospel of Matthew has expressed the idea that the Temple was not going to be destroyed but rather desecrated by the Romans. There are parts in other Gospels which presents that the writers predicted its destruction but this will be shown to be a contradiction because at times the Gospels show both the desecration and destruction of the Temple. The previous was questioned by all within and without the Christian movement because Jesus failed to materialize or return when the Temple was destroyed. Hence, the previous events forced John to move “the goalpost” in the Book of Revelation.

 

(2) The Gospel of Matthew was written to address the deeds of the "saints" in Matthew 27:52-53. It stated their efforts and this may have satisfied most of the followers of James (followers of Jesus) who attended the Sunday morning eulogy. Then it attacked the doubters within the city by saying they tried to bribe witnesses in Matthew 28:11-15 concerning the supposed resurrection of Jesus.

 

(3) The Gospel of Matthew was a motivational document addressing to those who participated in the "Good News" operation after the eulogy of James on Sunday morning after Jesus’ burial. Obviously, the doubters within the camp subsided. Therefore, the Gospel of Matthew successfully strengthened James' leadership years before the Temple’s destruction. The Gospel of Matthew motivated the followers and it keeped them loyal after the negative responses by the inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem. However; the last Gospel, the Gospel of John, had to be composed to address the failed predictions concerning the Temple's predicted desecration and evident destruction. The evidence of this is noted in the Epistles of John. The epistles are evidence that the Gospels were rewritten to address the Temples destruction in the face of many doubters inside and outside of the Christian movement.

 

(4) It also exposes the fact that they thought something would happen soon concerning the Temple during the Roman occupation. This could be sensed throughout Matthew chapter twenty-four. Matthew 24:20, in reality, simply allows the reader to observe that the predictions were intended to keep the followers of Jesus loyal to diminish the doubters and skeptics within the movement from creating further doubts concerning the agreed doctrine (read the chapter on "Armageddon and the Breastplates" of Revelation chapter nine). The truth is that this particular verse is an outlier because it also exposes that the predictions and prophecies within the New Testament Canon are false. The reason, to make this very clear, is that the Sabbath regulation for traveling is not followed today by Christians and was only followed by observant Jews. Moreover, the context within the chapter is saying that the return of Jesus would happen during those conditions stated in Matthew 24:30 and 24:36. These two previous verses are mutually tied with Matthew 24:20. Therefore, the Gospel of Matthew was primarily a motivational document against the doubters and skeptics within the early Jewish-Christian movement before the Gentile Christians outnumbered them and before the destruction of the Temple. The previous destruction of the Temple created the conditions for the creation of the Gospel of John which addressed the groups which attacked the validity of the predictions and the Christian movement itself. Paul's role was proven crucial to motivate the Gentile Christians and this initiated another cover into the conspiracy: The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark (2nd Timothy 4:11-13). The reason for the Gospel of Mark is based on Paul’s martyrdom or execution by Nero and to counter the theme of Matthew 10:5-10 which went against the proposed Paul’s inclusion principle. The writer of the Book of Revelation, John's last document, expresses the growth of the Gentile Christians but falsely predicted that the Jewish-Christians would see the return of Jesus. Obviously, there are no Jewish-Christians from the era of John which exist today or in the modern era. If John lived longer then when the seven decades expired, John would have produced another document moving the goalpost to another objective. Therefore, the real objective is the installment of a theocracy (Revelation 2:27 and Revelation 19:15).

 

It could be concluded that the Gospel of Matthew satisfied most of the followers because of Matthew 27:52-53. Peter was left out until years later when he addressed some issues from Rome (1st Peter 4:13) but this was enacted because of the controversial opinion of Paul (Romans 11:23-26 versus Matthew 10:5-15). All of the documents highlight the importance of one thing: The inclusion principle of accepting someone outside of our local tribe (Romans 11:23-25). In other words, the evolution of the local tribe affiliation into the Human or universi tribe described and adopted by Paul in Romans chapter eleven in conflict with Matthew 10:5-15.

Is it important to present later additions (suspected verses) as a factor to determine the validity of my thesis? No.

 

If we were to observe the evidence submitted: Matthew 24:20, Matthew 27:52-53, Matthew 10:5-15 and the verses used in the Gospel of John the conclusion would still be the same. These verses were never in question concerning the later additions. Also, Shem Tov's Hebrew of the Gospel of Matthew was composed several hundred years later. The verses in question would not be affected to form the previous conclusion. The words of the main scholar and leaders of the church year after the first generation:

 

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." - Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1

 

The above evidence is the reason why later additions (verses) are in dispute in both Gospels. It is quite possible that when conditions changed all four Gospels added more verses to reflect the preconceived inherited belief: Of a "man" that is part god and man. This particular strand of belief was later intertwined in later editions and revisions to be read among the growing Greek/Gentile Christian members within the "Body of Christ". Therefore, the theory is strong because it is rational and reasonable that the Gospel writers edited their story (Gospels), much later, to fit a changing audience. The litmus test, is to abrogate or leave out the disputed verses and still it would not change the proposed theory. The above historical saying actually supports the proposed theory because of the evidence located in the Book of Revelation showing that John implied of authorship of another book - The Gospel of John. The above also exposes another observation: The Gospels of Matthew has predicted a false “prophecy” based on the information given by Irenaeus. Matthew chapter twenty-four falsely predicted the desecration of the Temple and Jesus’ physical return. The reason is because the Temple was destroyed and Jesus did not return. Two other Gospels follow the same pattern: The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark. Only one Gospel mentions the destruction of the Temple: The Gospel of John. This would explain why John was detailing the destruction of the Temple and defending the resurrection of Jesus within the Gospel of John because many people during the era was criticizing the predictions within the previous three Gospels.

 

 The next two evidence is presented:

 

"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could." - Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)

 

"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language." - Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)

 

Simply, the evidence above supports the theory again. Matthew 24:20 mentions one key term: "Sabbath". This is the reason why two things are apparent:

 

(1) The intent of the writer was for the first group of "saints": The Jewish-Christians who were directed and dispatched by James to proclaim the "Good News" into the city of Jerusalem after the massive Earthquake which occurred naturally after Jesus' death.

(2) The prediction, concerning the desecration of the Temple, is proven false because the "Sabbath" regulation for traveling is obviously irrelevant and conflicts with Paul's own winning doctrine. The triumph of Paul's interpretation was inclusion of Gentile Christians in opposition to Matthew 10:5-15. The previous observation is supported by the compromise concerning foods (Acts 21:18-25) and the behavior of the Christian leadership (Galatians 2:7-12). Nevertheless, it is understood that Paul was expected to become the next important player in the cover-up and conspiracy.