A Bible Shaped by Power

The claim that the Bible in its present form has been substantially shaped by human power and does not contain the whole truth that Jesus promised is unsettling, yet it finds significant support both in the Bible’s own internal witness and in the historical record.[1] The Old Testament prophets repeatedly accuse priests, scribes, and rulers of corrupting the law, commercializing spiritual instruction, and causing the people to stumble.[2] Jesus himself confronts the religious authorities of his day as those who shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces, nullify the word of God by their traditions, and relish honorific titles that obscure their duty of humble service.[3] Historically, the Scriptures that became “the Bible” emerged through a long and complex process of composition, editing, collection, and canonization, overseen by communities and leaders whose decisions were conditioned by theological convictions, political pressures, and institutional interests.[4] The canon that emerged is a precious and norm‑giving witness to God’s revelation, yet it is also a limited and historically conditioned selection from a wider and partly lost body of inspired and influential writings.[5] At the same time, the New Testament portrays Jesus not merely as a teacher within this tradition, but as the eternal Word who sent the prophets and as the one who promises the Spirit of truth to guide his followers “into all truth,” including “things to come” that extend beyond the horizon of the first century.[6]

When these strands are brought together, a coherent picture emerges: Scripture itself testifies that religious elites often distort God’s word; history confirms that powerful men have shaped the biblical canon; and the theology of Christ as the Word and of the Spirit as ongoing guide suggests that the fullness of divine truth cannot be exhausted by a closed, materially transmitted book.[7] This paper develops that claim systematically, using a structure analogous to a formal research paper in order to clarify the argument and its foundations.

1. The Problem Stated: Bible, Priest, and the Missing Truth

The question that animates the underlying document—“Why don’t priests teach what was written in the Bible?”—is not merely a complaint about poor preaching; it is a protest against what appears to be a systematic gap between the radical, often anti‑institutional thrust of Jesus’ words and the domesticated, institution‑protecting teaching often heard in churches.[8] The thesis to be defended is twofold:

1. The Bible as we have it has been molded by men of power, and therefore does not contain the whole truth Jesus promised.
2. Jesus, as the living Word who sent the prophets, is the criterion by which both the Bible and priestly teaching must be judged.

This thesis does not deny that God speaks through Scripture, nor does it assert that the canon is worthless or wholly corrupted.[9] Rather, it contends that the canon is a partial and power‑shaped witness, not the full and final embodiment of the Word of God. The Bible is authoritative in a derivative and relative sense, while Christ as the living Word is authoritative in an absolute sense.[10]

To substantiate this claim, we must proceed along three converging lines of inquiry:

• The biblical critique of religious authority, showing that Scripture itself warns us that priests and scribes can distort God’s message.
• The historical development of the canon, tracing how political and ecclesiastical power influenced which writings were preserved, promoted, or suppressed.
• The Christological and pneumatological argument, examining how the New Testament’s presentation of Jesus as the Word and the Spirit as ongoing guide relativizes any fixed collection of texts.

2. The Bible’s Own Indictment of Priestly and Scribal Authority

2.1 Prophetic Charges Against Priests and Scribes

Far from presenting priestly and scribal authority as infallible, the Old Testament is replete with prophetic denunciations of the very custodians of the law.[11] Jeremiah laments:

“From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.”[12]

Here the religious professionals are accused of deceit, greed, and superficial teaching, offering reassuring messages that mask the people’s true spiritual condition. Malachi indicts the priests for corrupt teaching and partiality:

“For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty and people seek instruction from his mouth. But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi.”[13]

The priestly vocation is defined as preserving knowledge and conveying God’s instruction, yet the prophet charges that they have turned aside and caused many to stumble. The implication is clear: the mere fact of being priests does not guarantee fidelity to God’s word.[14]

Ezekiel similarly rebukes Israel’s leaders:

“Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common… Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain.”[15]

Here priestly misteaching is linked with political oppression, suggesting that religious distortion often serves broader systems of exploitation. The prophets thus give us a theological framework for suspecting that religious establishment and true revelation are frequently in tension.

2.2 Jesus Versus the Scribes and Pharisees

The Gospels intensify this prophetic critique. Jesus repeatedly contrasts his teaching with that of the scribes and Pharisees, not merely over minor issues, but over the very core of God’s will. In Mark 7, he accuses them of nullifying the word of God for the sake of their tradition, citing their use of the Corban rule to evade the commandment to honor father and mother. The charge is not that they have misunderstood a few verses, but that their interpretive tradition systematically undermines God’s law.

In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces a series of “woes” on the scribes and Pharisees, describing them as hypocrites, blind guides, and whitewashed tombs. They tithe mint, dill, and cumin but neglect “the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy and faithfulness.” They love places of honor and titles such as “Rabbi,” but Jesus tells his disciples, “You are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.”

The point is not merely moral; it is epistemological and ecclesiological: true authority belongs to Christ alone, and his followers are to resist religious hierarchies that obscure this fact. Jesus thus uncouples fidelity to God from obedience to religious elites, opening the possibility that the institutions charged with guarding Scripture can themselves become obstacles to its true meaning.

2.3 Jesus as the One Who Sent the Prophets

The document’s core claim that Jesus “knew what the prophets had taught, because He sent them” is not a pious exaggeration, but resonates with the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ. In Matthew 23:34, Jesus says:

“Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify…”

Here Jesus speaks in a divine register, claiming the prerogative traditionally ascribed to God alone: the sending of prophets. John’s Gospel presents him as the Word (Logos) who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were made, including the history of Israel’s prophetic revelation. If Jesus is the one who sent the prophets, then he is not merely an interpreter of Scripture, but its author and source, the living criterion of its truth.

This has profound implications: if the Word himself confronts priests and scribes as distorting the prophetic message, then institutional religious authority cannot be equated with fidelity to revelation. The Bible itself, in reporting this conflict, invites us to maintain a critical stance toward all human mediations of God’s word, including the processes that produced the Bible.

3. Jesus, the Word, and the Promise of Further Truth

3.1 The Word Made Flesh as Final Revelation

The New Testament presents Jesus Christ not simply as another prophet, but as the climactic self‑revelation of God. Hebrews declares:

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…”

John 1 identifies Jesus as the Word who “became flesh and dwelt among us,” full of grace and truth, and insists that “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” The implication is that the fullness of God’s self‑disclosure is personal, not textual. Scripture bears witness, but the Word himself is the revelation.

This is crucial for our thesis. If Jesus is the Word of God in person, then the Bible—even as inspired witness—cannot be identical with the Word. It can be true, authoritative, and indispensable without being exhaustive or infallible in the same way Christ is.

3.2 The Spirit of Truth and “Things to Come”

In the Farewell Discourses of John, Jesus promises the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, who will be sent after his departure. He tells the disciples:

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth… and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

This statement undercuts any claim that the truth Jesus intended to communicate was fully contained in the sayings recorded during his earthly ministry. There are “many things” not yet said, reserved for post‑Easter communication through the Spirit. The Spirit’s role is not merely to remind the disciples of what Jesus already said, but to guide into all truth, including future realities.

Theologically, this suggests that revelation in Christ has both a once‑for‑all and an ongoing dimension: the person of Jesus is the definitive revelation, yet the Spirit continues to unfold and apply this revelation across time. A fixed canon of texts, especially one formed within a few centuries of the apostles, cannot be the exhaustive container of this ongoing guidance.

3.3 Scripture as Witness, Not Prison, of the Word

The Johannine and Hebraic Christology thus compel a reorientation: Scripture is a witness to the Word, not the Word itself. Jesus rebukes those who “search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” The danger is treating the text as an end in itself, rather than as a window to the living Christ.

If Scripture can be misused in this way already within the first century, it is not difficult to imagine how later institutions might also absolutize the letter at the expense of the living Word and Spirit. Our argument, therefore, is not that Scripture should be discarded, but that it must be read under the judgment and illumination of Christ and the Spirit, rather than as a closed, self‑authenticating system controlled by priestly elites.

4. The Historical Formation of the Biblical Canon

4.1 From Oral Tradition to Written Collections

Historically, the writings that comprise the Bible emerged from a long and complex process. Much of Israel’s early tradition was transmitted orally—stories, laws, songs, and prophetic oracles circulated in communal memory before being written down. These materials were then collected, edited, and shaped into larger compositions such as the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua–Kings), and the prophetic books.

Scholars have identified editorial layers within these texts, reflecting the perspectives of priestly, royal, and prophetic circles at different times. For example, the Deuteronomistic editors, likely working in the late monarchic and exilic periods, interpreted Israel’s entire history through the lens of covenant fidelity and apostasy, justifying the fall of the kingdom as God’s judgment. Priestly editors emphasized cultic and ritual dimensions, reflecting the interests of temple‑centered religion.

These processes were not neutral; they involved interpretive choices, inclusions, omissions, and re‑framings. While faith understands God as working through these human agents, historically we can see how positions of power—royal courts, temple hierarchies, scribal schools—shaped the formation of the texts.

4.2 Jewish Canon Development and Exclusions

The notion of a fixed “Old Testament” canon is itself the result of historical development. By the time of Jesus, the Torah(Pentateuch) was widely regarded as authoritative, and the Prophets (Former and Latter) enjoyed high status, but the boundaries of the Writings were still fluid. Books like Daniel, Sirach, 1 Enoch, and others were circulating and used in various Jewish communities.

Later rabbinic tradition speaks of discussions at Yavneh (Jamnia) about the status of certain books (Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther), indicating that canon decisions involved debate and contestation. Some texts were eventually excluded from the Jewish canon but remained influential in other circles. For example, 1 Enoch, highly regarded among some Second Temple Jews and cited in the New Testament (Jude 14–15), did not enter the later rabbinic canon, though it was preserved in Ethiopic Christianity.

This diversity shows that there was no single, uncontested Jewish canon in Jesus’ day. The set of Scriptures Jesus and the apostles knew and used was broader and more fluid than the later Protestant Old Testament. The closing of the Jewish canon, in dialogue and sometimes in tension with emerging Christianity, inevitably involved boundary‑drawing that reflected theological and communal interests.

4.3 Early Christian Writings and Competing Authorities

The New Testament writings arose in a similarly dynamic environment. Early Christian communities produced letters, Gospels, apocalypses, acts, and treatises. Many such writings circulated and were read in churches, but only some became part of the canonical New Testament.

By the mid‑second century, figures like Marcion were proposing their own canons (a shortened Luke and some Pauline letters), rejecting the Old Testament entirely. The church’s response involved both asserting the authority of inherited Jewish Scriptures (as “Old Testament”) and discerning which Christian writings bore authentic apostolic witness. Lists like the Muratorian Fragment (late second century) show an emerging consensus but also disagreements: some books we now accept (Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter) were disputed; some others (Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter) were widely read but eventually excluded.

Criteria often cited for canonicity—apostolicity, orthodoxy, widespread use—were themselves interpreted by bishops and theologians embedded in specific controversies. As theological battles with Gnostics, Marcionites, and others intensified, canon‑formation became a tool in defining “orthodoxy” and consolidating ecclesiastical authority. This does not mean the process was purely political or cynical, but it does mean that power and conflict shaped which writings were elevated as Scripture and which were marginalized.

4.4 Councils, Emperors, and the Consolidation of the Canon

By the fourth and fifth centuries, as Christianity gained imperial favor, the push for a unified canon intensified. Church fathers such as Athanasius, in his Festal Letter of 367, provided lists of New Testament books that match our present 27‑book canon, while also recommending other texts (like the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas) for reading but not as Scripture. Regional councils (Hippo 393, Carthage 397 and 419) ratified similar lists for the Latin West, combining Old Testament, deuterocanonical, and New Testament books.

These decisions did not occur in a vacuum. They were embedded in broader efforts to establish doctrinal unity (against Arians, Donatists, etc.) and to align the church with imperial structures after Constantine. A single, authoritative set of Scriptures was crucial for enforcing doctrinal conformity and liturgical uniformity across a diverse empire. The codex as a physical form—bound collections of books—also facilitated the presentation of a fixed canon, in contrast to scrolls that could be more flexibly combined.

Meanwhile, many writings—some edifying, some heterodox—were rejected, destroyed, or left to languish. The discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices and other early Christian texts in the twentieth century reveals a much richer and more diverse early Christian literary landscape than the canonical New Testament alone suggests. These findings do not require us to accept all such texts as inspired, but they remind us that our Bible is the result of selective preservation, often by those in positions of institutional power.

4.5 The Reformation, Trent, and Confessional Canons

The sixteenth‑century Reformation reopened questions about canon and authority. Reformers like Martin Luther challenged certain doctrines and practices, emphasizing justification by faith and the primacy of Scripture over church tradition. In this struggle, the canon itself became contested terrain. Luther questioned the status of books like James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, deeming them of lesser value compared to the “true and noblest books” that clearly preached Christ. He also rejected certain Old Testament deuterocanonical books (e.g., Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees), aligning his Old Testament with the shorter Jewish canon.

The Catholic response, culminating in the Council of Trent (1546), reaffirmed the larger canon including deuterocanonicals and insisted on the equal authority of Scripture and unwritten traditions. Trent also declared the Latin Vulgate to be the authentic text for liturgical and doctrinal use, thereby centralizing interpretive control in the hands of the magisterium.

The result is that different Christian traditions now operate with different canons:

• Protestant Bibles typically include 66 books.
• Catholic Bibles include 73 books (adding deuterocanonicals).
• Orthodox churches may include still more (e.g., 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151).

This confessional divergence underscores that what counts as “the Bible” is not merely a matter of divine gift, but also of historical selection, doctrinal conflict, and institutional power. The canon that emerged in each tradition is therefore best understood as authoritative for that community without being exhaustive of all inspired or valuable writings.

5. The Canon as Power‑Shaped and Incomplete

5.1 Authority Without Exhaustiveness

The historical survey above allows a nuanced conclusion: the biblical canon is a theologically significant but historically contingent collection. It is not arbitrary; it reflects genuine efforts to preserve apostolic faith and prophetic witness. Yet it is also the product of debate, exclusion, and consolidation, often under the influence of bishops, councils, and sometimes emperors.

To say that the Bible has been “molded by men of power” is not to claim that it is a lie, but to insist that we cannot identify the canon one‑to‑one with the full content of divine revelation. The Spirit may have guided the church away from some writings and toward others, but this guidance worked through fallible human judgments that bear the marks of their time.

Thus we can affirm the canon’s normativity for Christian faith and practice, while denying its exhaustiveness. The Bible is a privileged, primary witness to Christ, but it does not contain the entirety of what the Word and Spirit have to say to the world, nor does it preserve every true word ever spoken through prophets and apostles.

5.2 Lost, Suppressed, and Marginalized Voices

Moreover, history attests that many writings and traditions—some of them clearly influential in early Christian and Jewish communities—were lost, suppressed, or relegated to the margins. We know of letters of Paul that are no longer extant (e.g., a letter to the Laodiceans, referenced in Colossians 4:16), and we possess only fragments or later references to other early Christian works. Some texts, like the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache, were highly esteemed and in some regions treated almost as Scripture before being definitively excluded from the canon.

In Jewish tradition, texts like 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and others retained canonical or quasi‑canonical status in some communities while being rejected in others. The fact that Jude quotes 1 Enoch suggests that the apostolic circle did not draw precisely the same boundaries as later canon lists.

These facts support the thesis that the Bible as we have it is not the totality of inspired or authoritative religious writing. The process of canonization has left some voices out—not necessarily because they were false, but sometimes because they did not align with the theological and institutional priorities of the dominant church.

5.3 Translations, Redactions, and Doctrinal Agendas

Even within the canon, the transmission and translation of texts have been influenced by doctrinal and institutional agendas. While the overall textual reliability of the New Testament and Old Testament is strong by ancient standards, there are well‑known variants where later scribes appear to have softened difficult sayings, harmonized accounts, or made clarifying additions. Translation traditions (e.g., the Vulgate, King James, modern versions) also reflect interpretive choices that can tilt theological emphasis one way or another.

Thus, even if the canon were perfectly chosen, the way it is mediated to believers is never entirely neutral. Priests and preachers stand at the end of a long chain of textual, editorial, and translational decisions, many of which were made by ecclesiastical elites or state‑aligned institutions. This intensifies the need to distinguish the living Word from any particular edition or interpretation of the written word.

6. Why Priests Often Do Not Teach What Jesus and the Prophets Taught

6.1 Institutional Self‑Preservation

One major reason priests and pastors often fail to teach the more disruptive elements of Scripture is institutional self‑interest. Jesus’ teachings on wealth, power, non‑violence, and radical discipleship are uncomfortable not only for individuals but for churches embedded in social and political systems. To preach consistently that the first must be last, that the poor are blessed and the rich warned, that love of enemies is obligatory, and that religious titles and hierarchies are suspect, is to risk undermining ecclesiastical prestige and patronage.

Historically, churches have often been allied with states, empires, or local elites, benefiting from land, exemptions, and social authority. In such contexts, there is a strong incentive to domesticate the prophetic and radical strands of the Bible, emphasizing personal morality, ritual observance, and loyalty to the institution. The prophetic critique of priests becomes an embarrassing mirror, and so it is quietly neglected or allegorized away.

6.2 The Comfort of Tradition Over the Risk of Truth

Another factor is the weight of tradition. Over centuries, interpretive frameworks solidify into catechisms, confessional documents, and liturgical patterns. Priests are trained within these frameworks, often rewarded for repeating them rather than questioning them. Yet Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees shows that tradition can become a means of evading the deeper demands of God’s word, even when it originated with good intentions.

Many clergy sincerely believe they are being faithful by teaching what “the Church has always taught,” without realizing that some of these teachings are historically conditioned accommodations or later developments not fully aligned with the prophetic and Christological core. Fear of controversy, loss of position, or accusations of heresy can further discourage critical engagement with the tradition.

6.3 Selective Use of Scripture

Because the Bible is a large and diverse anthology, it is possible to construct quite different theological profiles by selecting certain texts and ignoring others. Priests may emphasize passages that support sacramental systems, hierarchical order, or moral regulation, while downplaying those that challenge wealth, call for communal sharing, or relativize institutional authority. This is not always done cynically; sometimes it reflects unconscious bias or the constraints of lectionary systems that omit some of the Bible’s more disturbing passages.

The net effect, however, is that many believers do not encounter the full range of biblical teaching, especially the parts most critical of religious and political power. When they read the Gospels or prophets for themselves, they may feel that their priests have not been teaching what is “really written,” and in many cases this perception is justified.

7. Reconsidering Biblical Authority in Light of Christ the Word

7.1 Christ as the Canon Within the Canon

If Jesus is the Word who sent the prophets and who promises the Spirit of truth, then he is the measure of Scripture, not the other way around. Early Christian thinkers sometimes spoke of a “canon within the canon”—a core of texts (often the Gospels, or Paul’s writings on Christ) that serve as the key for interpreting the rest. More fundamentally, we can say that Christ himself is the canon within the canon, the living criterion against which every text and every tradition must be tested.

This does not mean discarding parts of the Bible that seem difficult; it means reading them in light of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection, asking whether a given interpretation reflects the character of God revealed in him—marked by self‑giving love, justice, mercy, and truth. Where a literal or traditional reading seems to contradict the spirit of Christ, we have reason to question that reading and to seek a deeper understanding.

7.2 The Spirit and Continuing Illumination

The promise of the Spirit as guide into all truth implies that the church’s understanding of revelation is not static. Over time, believers wrestling with new circumstances have been led to fresh insights that were not clearly articulated in earlier eras—regarding, for example, slavery, the dignity of women, or religious freedom. In many cases, these developments involved a return to neglected aspects of Scripture in light of Christ, against entrenched institutional positions.

Thus, the Spirit’s work is not to add arbitrary novelties, but to deepen and extend the church’s grasp of the truth revealed in Christ. Sometimes this involves correcting long‑standing misreadings or bringing marginalized voices (prophetic, mystical, reforming) to the center. A closed canon does not preclude such development; rather, it provides a stable yet limited point of reference for ongoing discernment.

7.3 The Incompleteness of the Bible and the Faithfulness of God

We are now in a position to state the central paradox: the Bible is incomplete, yet Jesus’ promise that his word will not pass away remains trustworthy. The incompleteness lies not only in the fact that certain inspired or valuable writings were never included, but also in that human sin and power have shaped the canon and its interpretation. Yet God’s faithfulness does not depend on a perfect book; it rests on the living Word and the active Spirit.

The written Scriptures, even in their limited and historically conditioned form, are sufficient to bear witness to Christ and to nourish authentic faith. Their very formation under conditions of conflict and imperfection mirrors the pattern of incarnation itself: God’s self‑communication comes to us in and through the fragility of human history, not in some abstract, unmediated purity. Recognizing this does not diminish Scripture’s importance; it relocates our ultimate trust from the text to the One whom the text proclaims.

8. Practical Implications for Faith and the Church

8.1 Reading Scripture Critically and Devotionally

If the Bible is a power‑shaped yet vital witness to Christ, then believers are called to read it both critically and devotionally. Critical reading means attending to historical context, recognizing editorial processes, and being aware of the political and institutional forces that shaped the canon. Devotional reading means approaching the text in prayer, seeking to hear the voice of the living Christ who speaks through its words by the Spirit.

These two modes are not opposed; they purify each other. Critical awareness prevents idolatry of the letter and alerts us to how texts can be misused in the service of power. Devotional openness guards against reducing Scripture to a mere historical artifact, reminding us that God continues to address us through these ancient writings. Together, they foster a mature faith that honors the Bible without absolutizing it.

8.2 Discerning the Church That Jesus Promised

The original document raises the question of where the “church that Jesus promised” is to be found when many visible churches seem compromised by power and tradition. According to the New Testament, the true church is not defined primarily by institutional continuity or canonical control, but by fidelity to Christ, the confession of him as Lord, and the presence of his Spirit among believers.

Jesus tells Peter that on the rock of the confession “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” he will build his church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. This promise does not guarantee the infallibility of any particular hierarchy or canon; it guarantees that Christ will always have a people who know him and are known by him, even if they must at times stand against religious establishments.

Thus, the church Jesus promised is found wherever people hear his voice in Scripture, respond in faith, practice love and justice, and remain open to the leading of the Spirit, even when this challenges inherited structures. Institutional churches can participate in this reality to the extent that they submit themselves to the judgment of the Word and Spirit, rather than seeking to control them through canon and office.

8.3 The Role of Priests and Teachers Re‑Envisioned

In this framework, priests, pastors, and teachers are not gatekeepers of a closed canon, but servants of the Word, accountable to Christ and the community. Their role is to help believers engage Scripture deeply, to draw out its prophetic and liberating dimensions, and to discern together how the Spirit is speaking today. When they fail in this role—through cowardice, self‑interest, or captivity to tradition—believers are justified in questioning their teaching and seeking more faithful guides.

At the same time, believers are called not to individualistic isolation but to communal discernment. The Spirit speaks not only to isolated readers but to the gathered church, in which diverse gifts and perspectives are brought to bear on the text. This communal reading can help correct personal blind spots and guard against idiosyncratic interpretations, even as it must continually resist the ossification of new traditions into unquestioned dogma.

9. Conclusion: Honoring Scripture by Going Beyond It

The thesis that the Bible has been molded by men of power and does not contain the whole truth Jesus promised is, in light of both Scripture and history, not only plausible but in many respects unavoidable. The prophets and Jesus himself warn us that priests and scribes can distort God’s word, turning teaching into a means of control and gain. The historical record shows that the canon emerged through processes marked by controversy, exclusion, and institutional consolidation. The New Testament’s own Christology and pneumatology declare that the fullness of revelation resides in the person of Jesus and in the ongoing work of the Spirit, not in a fixed collection of texts.

Affirming this does not require rejecting the Bible; it requires relocating it within a larger economy of revelation. The Bible is a central, irreplaceable witness to Christ, but Christ himself is the truth to which it points. The Spirit continues to lead the church into deeper understanding, sometimes through voices and insights that lie beyond or even against dominant canonical interpretations.

To honor Jesus as the Word of God is thus to hold the Bible with reverence but not with idolatry, to listen carefully to priests and teachers but to test their teaching against the character and message of Christ, and to remain open to the uncomfortable guidance of the Spirit, who exposes the distortions of power and calls the church back to the radical simplicity of the Gospel. In this way, the very recognition of the Bible’s incompleteness becomes a doorway into a fuller trust—not in the perfection of a book or an institution, but in the living faithfulness of the One who promised that his words, unlike every human structure, will never pass away.

10. Endnotes

1. For a general overview of the canon’s formation and its historical conditioning, see standard introductions to the Old and New Testaments and major histories of the biblical canon.
2. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Micah, and Malachi are especially prominent in criticizing priests, prophets, and rulers for corrupt teaching and exploitation.
3. See particularly Matthew 23; Mark 7:1–13; Luke 11:37–54.
4. Canon histories note the roles of scribal schools, temple authorities, bishops, regional councils, and, later, emperors in shaping the canon.
5. Evidence of lost or non‑canonical but influential writings includes references in biblical texts themselves (e.g., lost letters of Paul) and discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi library.
6. John 14–16 presents Jesus as promising the Paraclete who will lead into all truth; John 1 and Hebrews 1 present him as the definitive revelation.
7. This line of reasoning has been developed in modern theology under themes such as “Christ the criterion” and “Scripture as witness.”
8. Many readers notice a disjunction between the radical demands of the Sermon on the Mount and typical church preaching or practice.
9. Classical Christian theology affirms both the inspiration of Scripture and the humanity of its authors and redactors.
10. The distinction between absolute and derivative authority is common in Christ‑centered approaches to Scripture.
11. The prophetic critique of priests and scribes is a persistent theme in the Old Testament.
12. Jeremiah 6:13–14 (cf. 8:10–11).
13. Malachi 2:7–8.
14. Malachi’s accusation shows that priestly office does not guarantee faithful teaching.
15. Ezekiel 22:26–27.
16. Prophetic literature frequently pits lone prophets against institutional religion and monarchy.
17. The Synoptic Gospels repeatedly contrast Jesus’ teaching with that of the scribes and Pharisees.
18. Mark 7:9–13.
19. Matthew 23:13–36.
20. Matthew 23:23.
21. Matthew 23:8.
22. Jesus’ warnings about titles and hierarchy suggest a fundamentally egalitarian ethos among his followers.
23. The idea that Christ is the one who sent the prophets flows from New Testament Christology.
24. Matthew 23:34.
25. John 1:1–3, 14.
26. The conflict between Jesus and the authorities functions as a paradigmatic critique of religious systems.
27. Hebrews 1:1–2.
28. John 1:14–17.
29. Many theologians emphasize that God’s ultimate self‑communication is personal, not merely propositional.
30. This is implicit in the distinction between Christ as the Word and Scripture as words about the Word.
31. John 14–16.
32. John 16:12–13.
33. This undermines any simplistic idea that all Jesus intended to say is already fully recorded in the Gospels.
34. The notion of revelation as both definitive and unfolding is a common theme in theology of revelation.
35. The concept of Scripture as witness is prominent in various modern theological traditions.
36. John 5:39–40.
37. Jesus’ critique of scripturalists who miss the point warns against textualism.
38. Oral tradition in Israel is widely discussed in biblical scholarship.
39. The composite nature of the Pentateuch and historical books is standard scholarly consensus.
40. Source and redaction criticism identify different layers and perspectives in the text.
41. The Deuteronomistic History hypothesis explains the theological framing of Joshua–Kings.
42. Priestly materials (often designated “P”) emphasize

Direct “Savior of the world” statements

• And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. (1 John 4:14)
• For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16-17)
• To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:19)
• And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)
• The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)
• But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Hebrews 2:9)
• For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:3–6)
• Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32)
• For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (Titus 2:11)
• For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. (Luke 19:10)
• Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18)

A brief scholarly framing (to match the texts)

• The NT repeatedly uses κόσμος (kosmos, “world”) and πᾶς / πάντες (pas/pantes, “all/everyone”) in soteriological contexts, signaling a universal horizon to Jesus’ saving work and God’s saving desire.
• At the same time, many “world/all” texts sit alongside response/faith language (e.g., “whoever believes” in John 3:16), so these passages are commonly read as teaching universal provision/offer rather than automatic universal salvation.

For the methodology behind these claims, please see: Explantion of Methodology

A user on X posed the following question regarding the basis for my work and the validity of my critique of modern Christianity and my view of the corrupted texts used to support illogical doctrines.

When you determine something is “corrupted” or “distorted” versus true, what standard do you use to distinguish this? Is it historical manuscript evidence, personal revelation, philosophical method, or something else? You emphasize hidden knowledge lost to the institutional church. Would you say that aligns with a Gnostic view of hidden truths? How do you differentiate between trustworthy apostolic tradition and what you label as distortion? By what epistemic standard are you making those judgments?

1) What standard distinguishes “corrupted/distorted” from “true” here?

Comparative, quasi-scientific textual criticism (Origen as model)

The author explicitly holds up Origen’s Hexapla as the paradigm for detecting corruption: laying multiple textual forms side-by-side to identify “variations, omissions, and alterations,” i.e., comparison + critical reasoning + empirical analysis.
On that basis, the author claims Origen judged the Septuagint (Greek) to require “less revision” than later Hebrew/Aramaic forms, treating this as evidence of later “abbreviated, distorted, or excised” passages.

Historical method: triangulation across independent witnesses

The general historical rule: a “historical fact… must be verifiable by at least three independent sources; without that triangulation… ‘history’ is merely propaganda.”
So “distortion” is associated with single-channel, power-shaped narratives; “truth” is associated with multi-source corroboration.

Philosophical method: logic + reason + falsifiability

The author frames “wisdom” as anchored in logic and willing to discard claims that fail reality-testing (“a philosopher must discard theories that are proven false”).
And it emphasizes the classical progression: logic → observation/reason about the physical world → only then contemplation of the ethereal.

Ethical discernment: the “triple-filter test”

A key normative standard is explicitly given as the repeated filter:
“Is it true? Is it good? Is it useful?” (Socrates)
In this framework, something can be labeled “rhetoric/propaganda” (a kind of distortion) if it persuades or controls but fails truthfulness and moral purpose.

“Lived experience,” but under discipline, not carte blanche revelation

The reference does appeal to “reason, ancient wisdom, and lived experience,” especially when discussing the ethereal realm—but it pairs that with warnings about deception and insists the same triple-filter discipline applies “in every realm.”
So “experience” functions as data, not as an automatic trump card, for instance, thousands of medical cases of reincarnation or near death expereience.

2) Does the “hidden knowledge lost to the institutional church” align with a Gnostic view?

It resembles a “hidden wisdom” motif (truth preserved in allegory/parables; institutional suppression; loss/burning/rewriting of texts).
But the epistemic posture described is not “secret knowledge validated by insider authority.” Instead, it repeatedly frames recovery as publicly testable by comparison, evidence, logic, and moral evaluation (“test everything for yourself”).

So, it converges with a ‘hiddenness’ diagnosis (truth obscured by power), while diverging from an elite, authority-by-secrecy posture, because it emphasizes method (Hexapla-style comparison), triangulation, and universal discernment rather than privileged initiation.

3) How does it differentiate “trustworthy apostolic tradition” from “distortion”?

The author’s dividing line is less “apostolic succession” and more apostolic-credibility-as-tested:

Proximity to earlier strata via textual comparison
Trust increases when a tradition/text aligns with earlier recoverable forms (e.g., Septuagint judged closer than later revisions, per Origen’s comparison).

Resistance to power-driven dogma
“Distortion” is repeatedly tied to institutional power: “politically motivated” redaction, imperial councils, condemnation of Origen, rewriting/burning, and dogma as control.

Consistency with reasoned, moral wisdom
The author treats “wisdom” (logic + moral clarity) as the benchmark against propaganda/rhetoric. If a doctrinal claim functions as fear-control or contradicts moral goodness, it’s implicitly suspect.

In short: “trustworthy tradition” is what best survives comparative textual scrutiny, multi-source historical checking, and the truth/good/useful filter—and what is least explained as a product of institutional convenience.

4) By what epistemic standard are these judgments being made?

Scientific/critical method applied to texts and history (comparison, critical reasoning, empirical analysis; triangulation).

Philosophical rigor (logic-first, reality-testing, discard what fails).

Moral teleology (truth evaluated by whether it is true/good/useful; rhetoric judged as distortion when untethered from wisdom).

Disciplined experiential data (experience allowed, but explicitly warned and filtered, not treated as infallible revelation).

That is: a hybrid of textual-historical criticism + philosophical reasoning + ethical discernment, with experience admitted as supporting evidence only when it passes the same disciplined filters.

Assessing whether the Catholic Church violates the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus requires a careful distinction among (a) formal doctrine, (b) devotional practice, and (c) institutional behavior across history. Critics who argue “violation” typically claim that certain Catholic teachings and customary practices function—even if not always intended—in ways that conflict with the moral and theological architecture of the Decalogue and with Jesus’ own criticisms of religious authority, hypocrisy, and spiritual coercion. This essay consolidates the main lines of that critique and supports key claims with primary texts and widely used reference sources. The methodoligy is explained in detail here: Explantion of Methodology

1. The First Commandment and the problem of “functional rivals” to God

The First Commandment’s demand for exclusive worship (“no other gods”) becomes, in Catholic–Protestant dispute, a question of whether Catholic Marian and saintly devotion can create functional rivals to God. The Church formally rejects worship of anyone but God; nevertheless, Catholic devotional life includes a distinctive intensity of language and practice directed toward Mary (prayers, feasts, shrines, processions, and consecrations). Catholic teaching explicitly describes devotion to Mary as “intrinsic to Christian worship,” while simultaneously presenting it as distinct from adoration owed to God alone.¹ Critics argue that this distinction may exist at the level of theology but is frequently unstable at the level of ordinary piety: when requests for protection, help, and deliverance are routinely directed to Mary or saints, devotion can appear to “share” trust that Scripture frames as belonging uniquely to God. The point of the critique is not that Catholic theology calls Mary a goddess, but that devotional ecosystems can unintentionally create parallel objects of reliance, which, from a strict Decalogue lens, risks violating the commandment’s exclusive demand.

2. The Second Commandment, sacred images, and the contested boundary between veneration and idolatry

The Second Commandment forbids making carved images and bowing down to them.² Catholic churches, by contrast, commonly display statues and icons before which candles are lit and kneeling may occur. Catholic doctrine offers a well-developed defense: it asserts that “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype” and that the respect shown is “veneration,” not the “adoration” due to God alone.³ For critics, the issue is not whether a theological distinction can be formulated, but whether the visible and ritual pattern resembles precisely what Exodus condemns—religious images placed in sacred space, receiving gestures and practices commonly associated with worship. On this reading, the Second Commandment is not primarily a metaphysical warning about what one thinks an image “is,” but a practical warning about what humans predictably do with images in religious settings. The academic question, therefore, becomes anthropological as much as theological: whether a tradition’s ritual economy of images reliably prevents the slide from “remembrance” into idolatry.

3. “Do not take the Lord’s name in vain”: empty religion, formulaic piety, and spiritual transaction

While the “name in vain” prohibition is often reduced to speech ethics, critics apply it to religion that becomes performative or transactional. In Catholic contexts, this critique targets a potential drift toward “formulaic” spirituality: the idea (or perception) that repeating particular prayers, performing particular devotional acts, or invoking particular saints can function like mechanisms that yield spiritual benefit. This criticism does not require denying Catholic teaching on interior disposition; rather, it claims that complex devotional systems can encourage magical thinking—using God’s name and holy things as tools rather than as expressions of repentant faith. In academic terms, the complaint is about ritualism without moral transformation, a theme that also appears in Jesus’ condemnation of outward religiosity masking inward corruption.

4. “You shall not kill” and the historical burden of religious violence

The charge of violating the prohibition on killing is often anchored in the Church’s historical entanglement with violence: crusading warfare, coercion of dissenters, and punitive systems associated with inquisitorial institutions. Reference works describe the Crusades as military expeditions organized by Western European Christians beginning in the late 11th century, framed by participants in part as acts with spiritual significance.⁴ The critique is not merely that Christians fought wars—an unsurprising historical fact—but that religious authority sometimes sacralized violence and treated it as spiritually meritorious, a posture critics argue collides with Jesus’ teaching about enemy-love and non-domination.

Similarly, the Spanish Inquisition is widely described as an institution that employed brutal methods and produced “widespread death and suffering.”⁵ Academic responsibility also requires noting that popular polemics frequently inflate death totals; for example, some modern historical estimates of executions under Torquemada are far below the “millions” sometimes claimed. Britannica reports that estimates of burnings under Torquemada are generally around “about 2,000.”⁶ This does not absolve the institution; it clarifies the scale and supports a more rigorous argument: even at lower totals, the moral problem remains the principle of coercive punishment for belief and the willingness to attach the Church’s authority to lethal enforcement.

5. “You shall not commit adultery”: sexual exploitation, abuse of power, and institutional failure

Critics frequently treat the commandment against adultery as encompassing sexual exploitation—especially where authority and vulnerability intersect. Here the modern sexual-abuse crisis becomes central, because it involves both personal wrongdoing and, in many cases, organizational misconduct. The 2004 John Jay study—commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice—was intended to provide a descriptive accounting of the nature and scope of abuse allegations in the United States.⁷ While scholars debate causal explanations and institutional reforms, the ethical critique is straightforward: sexual abuse violates chastity and justice, and concealment or minimization compounds the wrong. In a Jesus-centered frame, the scandal is intensified because Jesus repeatedly condemns leaders who harm the vulnerable and who cover corruption with pious appearances.

The same pattern is illustrated by the Vatican’s report on Theodore McCarrick, which describes a comprehensive documentary review of decision-making and institutional knowledge regarding allegations over time.⁸ Critics use such materials to argue that beyond individual sin there existed a broader culture of clerical protectionism—an inversion of Jesus’ model of servant leadership and a practical violation of truth, justice, and care for victims.

6. “You shall not bear false witness”: secrecy, misdirection, and reputational management

The command against false witness is invoked not only for direct lying but for systematic concealment, misleading public statements, and management of information in ways that thwart justice. The McCarrick report is again relevant as a documentary case study in how warnings and allegations can be mishandled within hierarchical systems.⁸ The moral claim critics advance is that religious institutions bear heightened obligations to truth precisely because they claim moral authority. In that sense, failures of transparency are not peripheral administrative mistakes; they become theological betrayals, conflicting with Jesus’ harsh critique of hypocrisy—public sanctity paired with private corruption.

7. “Call no man your father”: titles, authority, and mediated access to God

A prominent textual dispute arises from Matthew 23:9: “Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”⁹ Catholic practice commonly addresses priests as “Father” and builds a structured spiritual authority around ordained ministry. Critics argue that even if Catholic apologists read Matthew 23 as hyperbole against pride rather than a literal ban on the word “father,” the institutional effect of honorific titles can cultivate the very status-seeking Jesus condemns in that chapter.

This criticism intensifies around confession and absolution. Catholic teaching states, on the one hand, that “Only God forgives sins,” but, on the other hand, teaches that Christ gives this power to men “to exercise in his name,” and that bishops and priests “have the power to forgive all sins” in the sacrament of reconciliation.¹⁰ Critics counter by appealing to texts emphasizing Christ’s exclusive mediatorship—“one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).¹¹ The academic issue here is not whether Catholicism can cite biblical warrant for ecclesial authority (it frequently appeals to John 20:23, among other texts)¹² but whether the resulting system creates a de facto clerical gatekeeping of forgiveness that conflicts with the New Testament’s emphasis on direct access to God through Christ.

8. “You shall not steal” (and coveting): money, spiritual benefits, and institutional wealth

Finally, critics connect “stealing” and “coveting” to the Church’s historical relationship with wealth and the monetization of religious practice. The classic case is indulgence abuse. Britannica notes that the indulgence system “easily lent itself to misunderstanding and abuse,” with money being a principal contributing factor, and explicitly references “abuses such as the sale of indulgences.”¹³ A related Britannica biography describes Johann Tetzel and notes that his indulgence preaching was considered by many contemporaries an abuse that sparked Martin Luther’s reaction.¹⁴ Even if the Church later acted against particular abuses, critics argue that the historical pattern demonstrates a recurring moral hazard: when spiritual standing, relief, or privilege becomes entangled with money and institutional projects, the result predictably invites exploitation—an outcome consistent with the Decalogue’s prohibitions and with Jesus’ warnings about religious leaders who “devour widows’ houses” and love honor.

Conclusion

The academic critique surveyed here does not depend on caricaturing Catholic doctrine as overtly polytheistic or intentionally idolatrous. Rather, it argues that certain Catholic doctrines (especially regarding Mary, images, clerical authority, and sacramental mediation) and certain Catholic institutional behaviors (especially violence in earlier centuries and secrecy surrounding abuse in modern times) can functionally conflict with the Ten Commandments and the ethical-religious posture Jesus taught and embodied. Catholic sources offer principled distinctions—veneration versus adoration, instrument versus source, ecclesial authority versus divine authority—but critics contend that these distinctions often fail as social realities and thereby yield predictable forms of moral and spiritual distortion. The sustained scholarly question is thus less “Can Catholicism defend itself in theory?” and more “What kinds of religious life does it reliably produce in practice—and do those outcomes align with the Decalogue and with Jesus’ anti-hypocrisy, anti-domination ethic?”

Footnotes

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §971 (“devotion to the Blessed Virgin… intrinsic to Christian worship”). (vatican.va) ↩
2. Exodus 20:4–5 (prohibition on carved images and bowing/serving). (YouVersion | The Bible App | Bible.com) ↩
3. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2132 (honor to images “passes to its prototype”; veneration distinguished from adoration). (vatican.va) ↩
4. “Crusades,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (definition and aims; spiritual framing by participants). (britannica.com) ↩
5. “Spanish Inquisition,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (overview emphasizing brutal methods and suffering). (britannica.com) ↩
6. On estimates of executions under Torquemada, see the “Spanish Inquisition” entry noting modern estimates of burnings under Torquemada around “about 2,000.” (britannica.com) ↩
7. The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950–2002 (John Jay College report for USCCB, 2004). (USCCB) ↩
8. Report on the Holy See’s Institutional Knowledge and Decision-Making Related to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (1930 to 2017) (Holy See report, 2020). (sandiego.edu) ↩ ↩²
9. Matthew 23:9 (prohibition on calling anyone “father” on earth). (Bible Gateway) ↩
10. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1441 (Only God forgives sins; Christ gives authority to men to exercise in his name); §1461 (priests’ role in absolution). (vatican.va) ↩
11. 1 Timothy 2:5 (one mediator between God and humanity). (Bible Gateway) ↩
12. John 20:23 (forgiving/retaining sins). (Bible Hub) ↩
13. “Indulgence,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (money as contributing factor; misunderstanding and abuse, including sale). (britannica.com) ↩
14. “Johann Tetzel,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (indulgence preaching regarded as abusive by contemporaries; sparks Luther’s reaction). (britannica.com) ↩

Jesus tells the old Pharisee Nicodemus that he must be reborn in the womb so that he can live by Jesus’ teachings. (John 3) This is the only logical explanation for the core concept of Christianity – restoration only through Jesus.

Of course, this was taught by the early Christians. This was the Good News of Jesus. Even someone like Nicodemus, who helped lead the Jews astray, could have a second chance.

The most compelling evidence for reincarnation teaching in early Christianity comes from the emperor Justinian. It was the emperor who declared reincarnation heresy in 543 AD, and the church needed 10 years to ‘correct the texts’ and ratify his declaration.

Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e., that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that, satiated with the vision of God, they had turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them had died out (ἀπψυγείσας) and they had therefore become souls (ψυχάς) and had been condemned to punishment in bodies, shall be anathema. (Weblink)

300 years after Origen died, the emperor declared him and his teaching anathema (heresy). Anyone who believed or taught this was now an enemy of Rome and a subject of the Inquisition. This is why all traces of reincarnation in Christianity were eliminated, and this is what fragmented Christianity into thousands of sects.

Why do Christians not believe in the concept of reincarnation? (on Quora)

Only within the last 50 years has this threat of heresy subsided, and theologians are only now starting to re-examine the early Christian teachings. Ronald Heine does the English-speaking world a wonderful service by translating the fragments of Origen’s original Greek commentaries on the Gospel of John. In my mind, this book does three important things for the modern world:

• It gives us a glimpse into the sweet wisdom of Origen, the only person in history to perform a scientific study of all the early versions of the Old Testament.
• The knowledge and wisdom he gained from the Hexapla shines through, especially in his work on John.
• Books one and two provide the clearest distinction between Jesus and God, as these books concentrate only on John 1:1. This shows the opposition that early Christians had to the trinity dogma and Constantine.
• For me, the most important thing about these fragments is what is missing. The first ten books went from John 1:1 to 2:25, but what was destroyed by the Roman Empire was John 1:8-14, 1:30-51, and 2:1-11. We have enough evidence of Origin’s unique insight to know that what he wrote about the baptism of Jesus, the second coming of Elijah, and Jesus’ turning water into wine in Cana posed grave danger to the dogma created by the emperor Justinian to further his rule of the Roman Empire.

Ronald Hein continues his valuable work on the second half of Origen’s Commentary on John. As one of the last of Origen’s works, it is, in my opinion, the most important for our world today. This book is rare since it is translated from his original Greek and not from a Latin dogma-adjusted summary.

This book provides great insight into the logic that Origen used in his analysis of the entire text of the bible – comparing the same phrase’s meaning at each occurrence and weighing the most reasonable meaning, while providing the reader with his analysis. Thanks to Mr. Heine, modern researchers have access to the enlightened period that existed before the Dark Ages.

Again, the second half of the fragments provides a clear picture as to what the materialistic rulers of Rome feared in Origen. The commentaries on the most controversial chapters were destroyed – chapters 3,4,6,7,9,10,12. In addition, the following sections are also missing 4:1-12, 8:1-18, 8:26-36, and 11:1-38.

Solomon [the Yahwehist] wrote the first version of the OT around 950 BC. By the time of the prophet of Micah (740 – 700 BC), the bible had already been corrupted.

“The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us. Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.” Micah 3:11-12

Even then, the priest and their ‘prophets’ were chasing material wealth. Jeremiah (627-580 BC) reflected these feelings about the leadership of the Jews and

“How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?” Jeremiah 8:8-9

Then came the Babylonian Exile (598 – 538 BC), where the Jews were conquered and brought to the city of the Devil. The time they were here did not help their spiritual understanding of the OT. The prophet Ezekiel (593-570 BC) was with them, but they could not understand his inspired teachings either.

“And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee. And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me. And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day. For they are impudent children and stiffhearted. I do send thee unto them; and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God. And they, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them. And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house. And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they are most rebellious.” Ezekiel 2:1-7

Malachi (445-425 BC) was the last prophet of the old testament, who came after the Jews returned from the city of the devil and rewrote the OT, tainted with their experiences there.

“For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.” Malachi 2:7-9

Jesus knew this long-standing problem with misunderstand of inspired texts, and of the works of the scribes and church leaders.

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” Matt 23:9–13

Huldrych Zwingli translated  John 1 as Origen has once taught.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [a divine spiritual being].” John 1:1 

There is no original version of Matt 28:19 available to us today, so we do not know what Matthew wrote. The only fragment available comes from the writing of the Codex Sinaiticus after the Council of Nicaea

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matt 28:19)

See: https://manuscripts.csntm.org

This is what Jesus left us with – the promise to send teachers and spirits of truth to explain all the truth

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:12–13)

And He told us that must search for the truth, because He does cast it one the road for any swine to find.

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” (Matthew 7:6–8)

On the surface, Christianity has promised peace to its followers, and to the world in general. The birth of the savior, Jesus Christ, was heralded with the greeting:

“Peace on Earth, and Good Will towards Men”. (Luke 2:14 KJV)

Jesus departed from His apostles with the words:

“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid”. (John 14:27)

Is there more peace on Earth after the coming of Jesus or less? It is hard to judge, but there is little peace in this world, especially in the 2000 years of Christianity. So, either the bible is wrong, or it is being taught wrongly.

If we start with Luke 2:14, we see that there are two interpretations of this greeting, the one shown above int eh King James translation, but often there is another which shows up in many bible translations.

“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests”, given in the New International translation (NIV).

This would say that peace on Earth is limited to those God likes, or to whom He has gifted a peaceful lifetime.

The parting quote from Jesus is even more selective. He is not offering any promise of peace on Earth. What He offers to everyone is “His Peace”.

Jesus tells us that He is not of this World, so His Peace is not of this world either. This world is ruled by the god of the dead. (Mark 12:27) So, Jesus cannot promise peace on Earth.

“And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world” (John 8:23)

Jesus, the King of Heaven (John 18:36) and what He brought to Earth with His act of Redemption is Heavenly Peace, and this peace is in the soul of everyone. Prior to His Victory over Death, there was no hope for humanity. There was no way for any soul to enter Heaven.

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13)

But after Jesus defeated Satan, and opened the gates to Heaven, there is hope for all the fallen. This is the spiritual peace that Jesus has given to all the fallen, the promise that the path home is open whenever they are ready to start the journey.

I was asked to examine the Reincarnation page on Catholic Answers website through the eyes of Origen.

There is much on this website that is outright false, especially their claim: “Actually, he was one of the most prolific early writers against reincarnation!” Origen was the most prolific Christian scholar ever, period. This means that he examined both sides of the arguments to determine which side was valid. Taken out of context, some of his writings can prove almost anything. But since he was the author of the theory named The Restoration of All Things, reincarnation is a key component to this theory.

The website states that the second council of Constantinople says nothing about reincarnation, but this is not true. The first anathemas against Origen were about the concept of the pre-existence of the soul and this is the basis of reincarnation. The final anathema was against the concept that all the fallen will eventually be restored to heaven. This is the core teaching of early Christianity – not one will be lost! (Luke 15:4-5)

The website quotes Origen’s Commentary on John 6:7, but this section of Origen’s commentary on John is one of the many that do not exist in his original Greek. The only copies of this section of the text are from the ones that Rufinus translated into Latin and adjusted to the doctrines established by the church. They are using their own doctrines to justify their doctrines.

I find it interesting that the website references Shirley MacLaine they completely ignore the large amount of research that has been gathered since Shirley MacLaine by Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Jim Tucker.

The popular apologetic book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict is used by many as a defense for their Christian faith and by others to sell the promise that “if you believe in Him then Jesus wipes away all your sins and you will have eternal life.”

On the surface, this seems to be a no brainer – become a Christian and all your troubles will go away. Unfortunately, the house of cards that this book builds, is built on an unstable foundation, not solid stone.

The book starts out demonstrating that naturalism inadequately explains the qualities of the observable universe, and concludes that theism is the only answer. But this is a giant step to a forgone conclusion that the author is proposing. The logical second step would be to develop a hypothesis, using the same criteria that disavowed naturalism. And the second step would be to test philosophies and religions to see if any satisfy the hypothesis. I have taken this step and created the Two World Hypothesis.

The book goes on the say that Christianity is the only true version of theism by saying Christianity is the only religion that where its god came down to earth and was resurrected from the dead for the salvation of man. Again this sounds good on the surface, but like the claims of Intelligent Design, it is not built on a strong logical basis, leaving these claims open to logical attack.

For instance, the claim of this book is that God Himself became man and bases its claim of being the only true theism on this point. Here is where I find the book quite interesting and what caused me to write a review. The book uses 40 quotes from Scripture to demonstrate the trinity, the basis for the argument that the Creator Himself became man.

The book claims “Considered in their entirety, these passages of scripture proclaim one eternally existing God as three distinct persons: Father, Son and the holy spirit each being fully divine.”  It uses three conditions to prove the trinity – The oneness of God, The simultaneous distinction of each person, The divinity of each person.

Below are the opening arguments for each of the three conditions.

The oneness of God

(1 Cor 8:6) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. This passage has nothing to with oneness, but rather demonstrating that there is one Father and the is one lord (king) Jesus. Many of the passages they quote have this same property of demonstrating that God the Father and Jesus separate entities.

The simultaneous distinction of each person

(Matt 28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This is the only passage of the 10 referred to in this section that specifically calls out all three persons that the trinity is based on. All of the other passages  demonstrate the diversity of the spiritual world and the great distinction between the Father and the Son.

The divinity of each person

(2 Cor 1:2) Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.  It is curious that this condition is introduced this way. It clearly shows the distinction between the Father and the Son and does not specifically say anything about their divinity, they are just a opening blessing in the form that Jesus suggested we pray in Matthew 6:9-13.

I have attached all 40 quotes from the King James Bible for review – Evidence That Demands a Verdict – The Trinity.

This is where the house of cards falls apart for me. Even if I accept that theism is the only explanation of the universe, I cannot accept the premise that modern, dogmatic Christianity is true and correctly describes the meaning of life and reasons why there is such suffering and evil in the universe. For me, it is this the of book that helps to polarize atheist and theists. It is way to easy to collapse the house of cards when building it questionable doctrines that can be rebutted with the text of the Bible as I have done here.

The early Christians, like Origen and Arius taught that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, separate and distinct. Jesus is the King of Heaven and God is the Creator and Our Father. Jesus is one of the seven “Spirits of God” (Rev 4:4–7). Before the fall, all of God’s angels were at one with Him, not equal to Him. Heaven is infinity diverse, more so than humanity. There is no evidence in the bible that Jesus is God, the Father. There is only the misunderstanding of two concepts:

• Oneness: Jesus says he is one with the Father. Oneness is not equal, it is one in will, one in love, and one in purpose, but independent.
• The Father is in me: There is piece of the Father in each of His children, it is the spark that gives us eternal life.

John 20:25 – 30 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.

Jesus says the Father is greater than all, including himself. He is telling us that He is one in will with God, but explaining how He is not God.

Matt 19:16–17 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Jesus says he is not Good, only the Father is Good.

Luke 22:41–43 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

Jesus prays to the Father expressing his will, but accepting the Father’s will. This is oneness, not one person.

It was after the time of Origen that the Romans paganized Christianity but creating the Trinity Doctrine and rejecting this early Christian wisdom.  How did the Alexandrians convince the majority of the Council of Nicea that the Trinity was true?

The early Christian concept of The Restoration of All Things was established in the third century through the sweet wisdom of Origen of Alexandria. It is the antithesis of the eternal damnation doctrine established by the emperor Justinian in 543 AD and reflects the Good News that Jesus taught:

“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” (John 3:17)

Edward Moore provides the theological details of the Apocatastasis in his paper entitled: Origen of Alexandria and Apokatastasis. Origen taught that the soul pre-exists human life and that through The Gift of Reincarnation all of the fallen souls will be saved, and returned to God. He rejected the concept that some people are destined for eternal suffering, thus fulfilling Jesus’ promise that not one will be lost:

“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.” (Luke 15:4-5)

A later paper by Edward Moore, Evagrius Ponticus and the Condemnation of Origen, closes with this warming statement:

“In closing, I would like to add that my interest in Origen arises not from any desire to start an Origenist movement in the Orthodox Church, or anything of the sort, rather, my goal is to urge Christians of an intellectual bent to examine, philosophically, doctrines of the Church that are harmful to the noble ideal of absolute human freedom, and also to call for compassion for sinners. No doctrine, in my view, shows more compassion for sinners than apokatastasis – a product of an intellect so inflamed with love for his fellow creatures that he could not even admit that the devil is damned forever.”

Jesus promised that His Word would never die, and knowing what happened to the prophets that came before Him, He knew the effort needed to keep it alive. Jesus also knew that He was unable to make his apostles understand Heaven and His Father in the three short years that He taught. So, Jesus promised to send the Comforters, Teachers and Spirits of Truth (John 14:17 15:26 16:13) to finish the jobs of explaining the Word and keeping the Word alive. He had delivered the important message that He was the Son of God and He demonstrated this to them.

In the second century AD a Teacher appeared named Origen of Alexandria. He did exactly what Jesus had promised. He painstakingly explained the New and Old Testaments in terms understandable for all. He was the most prolific biblical scholar that ever lived and bridged Judaism, Platonism and Christianity with beautiful clarity. His work was destroyed by the dark force which threw the West into the dark ages. True to His promise, Jesus sent other Teachers: Zwingli, Calvin and Luther to keep His word alive and to reverse the paganist teachings introduced by the likes of Constantine and Justinian. A great darkness again came down upon the world resulting in two world wars. But true to His word, Jesus sent more Teachers and Comforters.

Johannes Greber, Reverend G. Vale Owen and Beatrice Brunner re-delivered the Word during these times and continued to correct the dogma that plagues Christianity, furthering the work that Jesus promised. In this modern time, few can accept the consequences of the Word, and therefore, unable to relish in the enormous consolation that Jesus’ original teaching brings for all of mankind. The story of its fragmentation is in my book The Banishment of Light.