There is a continual conflict in the statements of Christ's biographers with respect to the various events of his life as compared with each other; and in some cases they contradict themselves. We will present some examples:—
154. Who came to worship Christ when he was born? Matthew says, "wise men from the East" (Matt. ii. 5). Luke says they were shepherds of the same country (Luke ii. 8).
155. How were they led? Matthew says they were led by a star (Matt. ii. 6). Lake says by on angel (Luke ii. 3).
156. What did the parents of Jesus do when he was born? Matthew (ii. 13) says they fled into Egypt. But, according to Luke (ii. 26), they staid there forty-one days.
157. To whom did God speak at Christ's baptism? To him: "Thou art my beloved son" (Luke iii. 22). To the bystanders: "This is my beloved son" (Matt. iii. 17).
158. Where did Christ go after being baptized? Mark says he went immediately into the wilderness, and was there forty days (Mark 1. 12). John says three days after he was in Cana (John ii. 12).
159. Where was John while Christ was in Galilee? "John was put in prison" (before that) (Mark i. 14). "John was baptizing in Ænon" (John iii. 23).
160. Where was Christ when he called Peter and Andrew? Matthew and Mark say, "walking by the Sea of Galilee." Luke says, "sitting in their ship" (Luke v. 10).
161. Where were Peter and Andrew at the time? Matthew and Mark say, "In their ship, fishing." Luke says, out "washing their nets" (Luke v. 2).
162. How came Peter and Andrew to follow Jesus? Matthew and Mark say he "called them." But, according to Luke, the draught of fishes caused them to go.
163. Where did Christ heal the leper? Matthew says at the mount, after the sermon (viii. 2). Mark says when preaching in Galilee.
164. Who told Jesus the centurion's servant was sick? Luke says he sent the elders of Israel to tell him (Luke vii. 3). But Matthew says the centurion went himself (Matt, viii. 5).
105. Where did Christ go after curing Peter's wife's mother? Matthew says beyond the lake, and drowned a herd of swine (viii. 18). Lake says to Nain, and raised the dead (Luke vii. 11).
166. Where did Christ drown the swine with devils? Matthew says in the country of Gergeasenes. Mark and Luke say in the country of Gadarenes.
167. Where did the devils remonstrate against going? Mark (v. 10) says against being sent out of the country. Luke (viii. 31) says it was against going into the deep.
168. Were Christ's disciples allowed to use staves? Yes: "Take nothing... save a staff only" ( Mark vi. 8). No: "Take neither shoes or yet staves" (Matt. x. 9).
169. When did Christ pluck the ears of corn? Matthew (xii. 1) says after he had appointed his twelve disciples. But Luke and Mark make it after that event.
170. What woman interceded for her daughter? "A woman of Canaan... cried unto him" (Matt. xv. 22). The woman was a Greek (Mark vii. 26).
171. How great was the multitude which Jesus fed with seven loaves and a few fishes? Matthew says four thousand, besides women and children (xv. 38). Mark says four thousand in all (viii. 9).
172. How long was it after Christ was transfigured that he took James and John up into the mountain? Six days after (Matt. xvii. 4). Eight days after (Luke ix. 28).
173. How much power did Jesus say faith as big as a grain of mustard-seed can impart? Matthew (xvii. 20) says enough to remove mountains. Luke says (xvii. 6) enough to pluck up trees by the roots. Both large jobs for one man.
174. Who asked seats in the kingdom for Zebedee's children? Matthew says (xx. 20) it was their mother. Mark says (x. 35) they asked it themselves. Why did he refuse them two seats when he had promised them, with the other ten disciples, twelve thrones? (Matt. xix. 28.)
175. How many blind men did Jesus restore near Jericho? Matthew says (xx. 30) two blind men. Mark and Luke say only one, Bartimeus.
176. Where did he perform this miracle? Matthew says as he was going away from Jericho. Luke says as he was coming into the city (xviii. 35).
177. When did Christ drive out the money-changers? Matthew and Luke say the day he rode into the city. Mark says not till the next day (xi. 11).
178. What did Jesus tell his disciples about the ass? Matthew says (xxi. 2) he told them they would find an ass and colt tied. Mark and Luke say they found tied only a colt. And John says it was a young ass, and Jesus found it himself (xii. 14). Mark and Luke say he rode the colt. But Matthew (xxi. 7) represents him as riding both the ass and the colt.
179. Who answered Christ's question in the parable of the vineyard? Matthew says (xxi. 41) his disciples answered the question. Mark and Luke both say he answered it himself.
180. When did Christ tell the truth about Lazarus? He first said his sickness was not unto death, but afterwards said he was dead.
181. When did the anointment of Christ take place? Matthew says (xxvi. 2) it was two days before the passover. But John says it was six days after (John xii. 1). And Luke makes it much later (viii. 36 and xxii. 1).
182. Where did the anointment take place? Matthew says (xxvi. 6) in the house of Simon the leper. Luke says (vii. 36) in the house of a Pharisee. But, according to John, it was in the house of Lazarus (xii. 1).
183. Where was the ointment poured? Matthew and Mark say on his head. But Luke and John say on his feet.
184. When did Christ say one of his disciples would betray him? Matthew says (xxvi. 21) while they "did eat supper." But, according to Luke (xxii. 20), it was after supper was over.
185. Where did Jesus go after supper? John savs "over the brook Cedron" (xviii. 1.). But the other three evangelists say to the Mount of Olives.
186. When did Judas betray Christ? John says (xii. 27), after supper he went out and made the bargain. But the other three say it was before supper he made the bargain.
187. Where and to whom did Peter first deny Christ? John says (xviii. 17) to the damsel at the door. The other three say to the men in the ball.
188. To whom was the second denial made? Matthew and Mark say to a maid. Luke says to a man. John says to those who stood by the fire (xviii.).
189. To whom was the third denial made? Matthew and Mark say to those who stood by. John says (xviii.) to the servant of the high priest.
190. Where was Christ crucified? John says at Calvary. The other three say at Golgotha.
191. At what hour was Christ crucified? Mark says (xv. 26) it was the third hour. But, according to John (xix. 14), it was after the sixth hour.
192. How was Christ dressed for the crucifixion? "And put on him a scarlet robe" (Matt, xxvii. 28). "They put on him a purple robe" (John xix. 2).
193. What was the drink offered to Christ at the crucifixion? Mark says it was wine mixed with myrrh (xv. 23). Matthew says it was vinegar mingled with gall. But Luke represents it as being only vinegar (xxiii. 36). Matthew says Christ tasted it; but, according to Mark, he did not.
194. Who bore Christ's cross? Matthew says Simon of Cyrene (xxvii. 82). But John says Jesus bore it himself (xix, 17).
195. Which of the thieves reviled him? Mark says both of them (xv. 29). Luke says (xxiii. 30) only one of them, and the other reviled him for it.
196. What were the words of the superscription on the cross? "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews" (Matt, xxvii. 87). "The King of the Jews" (Mark xv. 26). "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke xix. 18). "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" (John xix. 19). But one of these can be right.
197. Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? Yes: "We have a law by which he ought to die" (John xix. 7). No: "It is not lawful to put any man to death" (John xviii. 31).
198. Who came to Christ's sepulcher? Matthew says (xxviii. 1) Mary Magdalene and another Mary. According to John, it was Mary Magdalene only (xx. 1). But Lake says the two Marys and Joanna (xxiv. 10)
199. Was it daylight when they came to the tomb? No: "They came while it was yet dark" (John xx. 1). Yes: "They came at the rising of the sun" (Mark xvi. 2).
200. Whom did the women see at the tomb? Matthew says (xxviii. 1) an angel sitting. Mark says (xvi. 5) a young man. Luke says (xxiv. 4) two men. John says (xx. 12) two angels.
201. Did any of the women enter the sepulcher? Yes: They entered in (Mark xvi. 6). No: They did not (John xx. 2).
202. Who looked into the sepulcher? According to Luke, it was Peter (xxiv. 12). According to John, it was another disciple (xx. 4).
203. Did Peter go into the sepulcher? John says he did go in (xx. 6). According to Luke, he did not (xxiv. 12).
204. Did those who visited the tomb relate the case to any one? According to Luke, they told the eleven disciples (xxiv. 27). But Mark tells us they said nothing to any man (xvi. 8).
205. To whom did Christ appear after his resurrection? Matthew says to the two Marys (xxviii. 9). Mark says to Mary Magdalene alone (xvi. 9). According to Luke, it was to two of his disciples at Emmaus.
206. When did Christ first appear to his disciples? Matthew says it was at Galilee (Matt, xxviii. 16). Luke says it was at Jerusalem (Luke xxiv. 33).
207. How did Christ's disciples feel when they met him? Luke says they were terrified (xxiv. 37). But John says they were glad (xx. 20).
203. How often did Christ show himself to the disciples? John says, "This is now the third time." But, according to the other three, it was the sixth time.
209. Where did Christ part from his disciples? Mark says (xvi. 14) it was at Jerusalem. But, according to Luke, it was at Bethany.
210. When did Christ ascend? According to Luke, it was the day of his resurrection (Luke xxiv. 13). John says it was nine days after (John xx. 26). But, according to Acta i. 3, it was forty days after.
211. From what place did Christ ascend? Luke says (xxiv. 6) it was from Bethany. Acts says (i. 6) it was from Mount Olivet.
212. Did Christ bear witness of himself? Yes: "I am one that bear witness of myself" (John viii. 13). No: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John v. 21).
213. Could man bear testimony for Christ? Yes: "Ye also shall bear witness" (John xv. 26). No: "I receive not testimony from man" (John v. 23).
214. Did Christ come on a mission of peace? Yes: "To preach glory to God,... and on earth peace" (Luke ii. 13). No: "I came not to send peace but a sword" (Matt. x. 34).
215. Did Christ have a dwelling-place? No: Matthew says (viii. 20), "He had not where to lay his head." But John says he had a house, and his disciples saw it (1. 34).
216. Was Christ the savior? Yes: "Christ is the savior of all men" (1 Tim. iv. 10). No: "Beside me [Jehovah] there is no savior" (Isa. xiiii. 11).
217. Was Christ omnipotent? Yes: "I and my Father are one" (John x. 30). No: "My Father is greater than I" (John xiv. 28).
218. Was Christ equal to God? Yes; "He thought it no robbery to be equal with God" (Phil, ii. 6). No: "Mv Father is greater than I" (John xiv. 28).
219. Was Christ supreme God? Yes: "He was God manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. iii. 16). No: "He was man approved of God" (Acts ii. 22).
220. How did Judas die? Matthew says he went out and hanged himself (Matt. xxvii. 6). The Acta says he went out and fell headlong (Acts i. 18).
221. Did the men at Paul's conversion hear a voice? Yes: "Hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts ix. 7). No: "They heard not the voice" (Acts xxil. 9).
222. Did John see a book? Yes. "I saw... a book written within," &c. (Rev. v. 1). No: "No man in heaven or earth could look on the book" (Rev. v. 3).
228. Was John the Baptist Ellas? Yes: "This is Elias which was to come" (Matt. xi. 14). No: "And he said I am not Ellas" (John 1. 21).
224. When did Herodias ask for the head of John the baptist? Matthew says before Herod's great promise to her; but Mark says it was after (Mark vi. 24).
225. Is the law of Moses superseded? Yes: "We are delivered from the law" (Rom. vii. 6). No: "I came not to destroy the law" (Matt. v. 17).
226. Who was the father of Joseph? "And Jacob begat Joseph, husband of Mary" (Matt. 1. 16). "He was the son of Hell" (Luke iii. 23).
227. Who purchased the potter's field? "Judas, with the reward of iniquity" (Acts I. 18). "The chief priests took the silver, and bought the potter's field" (Matt, xxvii 6).
228. Yes: "The spirit led Christ to Jerusalem" (Acts xx. 22). No: "The spirit forbade him to so" (Acts xxi. 4).
229. Yes: "I go to prepare a place for you" (John xiv. 2). No: "It was prepared from the beginning" (Matt. xxv. 84).
280. Yes: "The mission of the gospel began at Jerusalem" (Luke xxiv. 47). No. "It began at Galilee" (Acts x. 37).
231. Yes: "I beseech you as strangers" (1 Pet. ii. 11). No: "You are not strangers" (Eph. ii. 14).
232. Yes: "Christ died for his enemies" (Rev. x). No: "For his friends" (John xv. 13).
233. Yes: "I write unto you, fathers" (1 John ii. 13). No: "Call no man father" (Matt, xxiii. 9).
234. Yes: "I am with you alway" (Matt, xxviii. 20). No: "It is expedient for you that I go away" ( John xvi. 7).
Total, 277, including double contradictions.
We will not attempt to argue that these conflicting statements prove that no such events as here referred to ever transpired, and that the whole thing is a fabrication. We only argue that it proves the writers were not inspired by infinite wisdom, or they would have told the exact truth in all cases, so that there could have been no mistakes. It also proves that we never can know the real facts, or arrive at an accurate knowledge or the exact truth, with respect to any 01' those doctrines, duties, or events the contradictions appertain to; and, as these contradictions refer to almost every doctrine, precept, and event of any importance, it thus sinks all Bible teaching into a labyrinth of uncertainty. Hence notone single statementin it can be set down as absolutely true without corroborative evidence.
Note.—The reader will observe, from the contradictions in the foregoing list with respect to all the duties of life, as well as all the crimes of society,—such as war, intemperance, slavery, theft, robbery, murder, falsehood, swearing, lying, &c.,—that it isabsolutely impossibleto learn our moral and religious duties from the Bible.
No person of refinement and good morals, who has not been warped and biased by education or religious training in favor of the Christian Bible, can read that book through without being often shocked and put to the blush by its obscene and vulgar language! Indeed, there are more than two hundred texts calculated to raise a blush on the cheek of modesty. Many of them are so obscene that we would not dare copy them into this work. It would not only outrage the feelings of the reader, but it would render the author liable to prosecution.
A law has been recently passed by Congress prohibiting the publication and circulation of obscene literature; and many persons have already been prosecuted under that law,—some of them for merely selecting and publishing some of the obscene texts of the Bible. But, without being influenced by these considerations, we will, in order to spare the feelings of the reader, merely state the import of some of these texts.
1. Omitting the history of Adam, in which we find some not very refined language, we will commence with Noah. We are told that Noah became so drunk as to strip off all his clothing, and one of his sons, to avoid seeing him in that situation, walked backward, and covered him: for which act his father cursed him. Thus it appears that Noah, although "a righteous man," was not a very modest or decent one. And such a man being held up as a righteous example must have a demoralizing tendency upon those who accept him in this light. (See Gen. ix. )
2. The story of Abraham and Sarah, and the account of Abraham's illicit intimacy with his servant-maid Hagar, as related in Genesis (chap. xvi.), and his and Sarah's gossip over the affair, is any thing but modest.
3. The "holy man" Lot: The story of Lot's incest with his daughters, as set forth in Genesis (chap. xix.), is both immodest and disgusting.
4. Rachel and Bilhah: The tea-table talk of Jacob and Rachel, about the act of Jacob in seducing their maid-servant Bilhah, must be morally repulsive to all only Bible believers.
5. The story of Leah and Zilpah is not much better. (See Gen. xxx.)
6. The bargain between Leah and Rachel about Reuben's mandrakes (Gen. xxx.) is too immodest to relate or contemplate.
7. Jacob's trick of using peeled sticks and poplar-trees among his cattle is something more than a descent from the sublime to the ridiculous. And were it not deemed "divine revelation, heavenly instruction," it would have been left out (Gen. xxx.).
8. The account of Rachel's stealing her father's images, and then telling an indecent falsehood to hide it, is not very suitable for a "Holy Book" (Gen. xxxi.).
9. The story of the defilement of Dinah we will not attempt to describe, as we can not do it without offending decency. (See Gen. xxxiv.)
10. The story of Reuben and Bilhah, in the next chapter, may be instructive to the pious, but is not so to persons of refined taste.
11. If you read the narratives of Judah, Onan, and Tamar, as related in the thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis, for humanity's sake keep it out of the hands of your children, and useyourinfluence to prevent its circulation among the heathen; for it must have the effect to sink them still deeper in moral depravity and mental degradation.
12. The disgusting story of Absalom's familiarity with his father's concubines, as related (2 Sam. xvi. 32), is so disgusting, that we will barely allude to it. Having referred to twelve cases more, we shall pursue the repulsive subject no further, except merely to indicate the chapter and verse where a long list of such cases may be found and examined by those who may need more evidence that the Bible is an obscene book, not fit to be read in decent society.
13. Vulgar language is used in representing men as acting like dogs. (See 2 Kings ix. 8.)
14. Job describes disgusting conduct toward a woman (Job xxxi. 9).
15. Solomon's Song of Songs contains much that is obscene language from the first to the eighth chapter.
16. Isaiah makes revolting suggestions relative to stripping women. (See Isa. xxxii. 2.)
17. Ezekiel is represented as eating disgusting food (dung) (Ezek. iv. 12).
18. Jehovah's command to Hosea to marry a harlot is of immoral tendency.
19. Isaiah frequently makes use of vulgar language. One case may be found in chap. lxvi. 3.
20. Another case in Hosea, describing horrible treatment of women and children. (See chap. xiii. 16.)
21. The conduct of Sechem towards certain women, as told in Gen. xxxiv. 4, is loathsome.
22. The conduct of parents toward their daughters, as described in Deut. xxii. 15, and as enjoined by the Mosaic law, is disgusting and shocking in the extreme.
23. And language no less disgusting, relative to the treatment of men, as prescribed by law, is found in Deut. xxiii.
24. The account of Paul's conversion, as described in Acts ix., is extremely vulgar.
The above-cited cases are mere samples of hundreds of similar ones to be found in God's Holy Book in the use of indecent language, calculated to make any person blush to read in private, much more if read in public. Indeed, no person dare read them to a company of decent people. Look, then, how the case stands. Look at the mortifying condition in which every devout Bible believer in Christendom is placed. Here is a book which, it is claimed, emanated from a pure and holy being; which contains so many passages couched in such obscene and offensive language, that any person who attempts to read the book to a company must be constantly and critically on his guard, and is liable to be kept in a state of fearful anxiety (as the writer knows by his own experience), lest he stumble on some of these offensive texts. What an uncomfortable situation to be placed in when reading a book which is claimed to be perfect in every respect! We have seen a Bible class in school stopped suddenly by the teacher, with orders to close their Bibles, because he had observed, by looking ahead, that the chapter contained language which would bring a blush to every cheek if read. In the same school we saw a modest boy, of refined feelings, burst into tears because he was required to read to the school a certain passage in the account of the conversion of Paul. The teacher being a devout Christian, whose piety overruled his decorum, attempted to enforce the reading by a threat of punishment, but failed. We have also seen the offer of one hundred dollars' reward, standing in a paper for a considerable time to any person who would read a dozen texts to a company of ladies, which the gentleman offering the reward might select, but no person dared to disgrace himself by accepting the offer.
And what is the moral, or lesson, taught by these things? Why, that the Bible is a very unsuitable book for a refined nation of people to read habitually, or for a morally elevated and enlightened age of the world, though it was probably adapted to the age and to the people for which it was written. They had not attained to the present standard of morality and refinement. We cherish no disposition to censure them. They were probably honest, and lived up to their highest idea of right. If anybody deserves censure in the case, it is the professedly enlightened Christians of the present age for going back to a savage, unenlightened age and nation for their religion and morals.
The following figures point to texts, many of which are too vulgar to be described in any kind of language:—
Gen. xvii. 2, very disgusting; xix. 8, 33, 35, a shocking case; xx. 18; xxv. 23, disgusting; xxx. 3, very obscene; xxx. 15,16; xxxi. 12; xxxiv. 2, 7, 16, 22; xxxviii. 9, loathsome; xxxviii. 29; lix. 25; Exod. 1.16; xix. 15; xx. 2; xxii. 10; xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xii. 15; xviii. 7, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24; xxi. 7, 20, extremely vulgar; Num. xiv. 33; xix. 6, disgusting; xxv. 1; xxxi. 35; Deut. xxi. 11; xxii. 15, 21; xxii. 22, 23, 25; xxiii. 1, very disgusting; xxiii. 13, 17, 18; xxv. 5, 7, 10; xxxi. 16; Judg. xi. 37; xix. 2, 25; Ruth i. 11, 12; iii.; iv. 13; 2 Sam. vi. 20, 22; vii. 12; xi. 4, 11; xii. 11, 12, very disgusting; xiii. 11, 12, 14, 20, 22, 23; 1 Kings i. 4; iii. 16, 17, 26; xi. 3; xvi. 11, very filthy; xxi. 21; 2 Kings xviii. 27, very filthy; 2 Chron. xxi. 13, 15; Esth. ii. 12, 14; Job iii. 10; xvi. 15; xxi. 24; xxxi. 10, very disgusting, and 15; xxxii. 19; xi. 16; Ps. xxii. 10; xlviii. 6; cxxxix. 13; Prov. xxiii. 27; xxx. 16,19; Eccles. iv. 11; xi. 5; Sol. 1. 13; Iii. 1; vi. 8; vii. 2, 3; viii. 8; Isa. iii. 17; xxvi. 17, very nasty; xlvii. 2; xlix., very obscene; xlvi. 7; Jer. ii. 20; iii. 1, 2, 6, 9, very filthy, and 13; iv. 31; xiiii. 27; xiv. 17; xvi. 3, 4; xxix. 8; xxx. 6; xxxi. 8, 27; Lam. ii.13; vii.; Ezek. iv. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 33, 35; xviii. 6; xix. 2; xxii. 11; xxiii. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 43; xliv. 25; Hos. i. 2; ii. 2, 4, 5; iv. 14, 18; vii. 4: ix. 1,14; Mic. 1, 2; iv. 10; Nah. iii. 4; Hab. ii. 16; 2 Esd. viii. 8; ix. 43; xvi. 38, 49; Jud. ix. 2; Wisd. of Sol. iii. 13; iv. 6; Ecclus. xx. 4; xxvi. 9; xxxviii. 25; xiii. 10; Bar. vi. 29; 2 Macc. vi. 4; Matt. 1. 25; xxiv. 19; xxv. 10; Luke i. 15, 24, 31, 36, 41, 44, 49; ii. 6, 7, 23; xi. 27; John xvi. 21; Acts ii. 30; Rom. i. 26,27; iii.23; 1 Cor. vii. 1; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Heb. xi. 11; 2 Pet ii. 2; Rev. xii. 2; xvii. 1; xviii. 4.
I. Circumcision is a very ancient rite, and of heathen origin, though we are told in Genesis that it was a command of God to Abraham; and it was nationalized by Moses. It was considered by the Jews a very important religious rite, and has been practiced by them from their earliest history. So highly was this ordinance esteemed amongst them, that it was in some cases performed twice. According to Herodotus and Diodorus, instead of the Jews getting the command direct from God, they borrowed the custom of the Assyrians; and Josephus silently assents to its truth; and J. G. Wilkinson says, "It was established in Egypt long before Joseph was sold into that country," which furnishes evidence of its existence before the time of Moses.
Among the Jews this rite was performed on the eighth day after birth: all converts to their religion, and all servants, had to submit to the ordinance.
Jerome says that in his day a majority of the Idumæans, Moabites, Ammonites, and Ishmaelites were circumcised. The ancient Phoenicians also observed this rite, and the aboriginal Mexicans likewise. The Mahomedans also practice it; and, although the Koran does not enjoin it, it has been practiced wherever that religion has been adopted. The rite is performed on both sexes in Arabia. This rite was practiced by the early Christians. Even the wise Paul gave practical sanction to this ordinance in the case of Timothy. The Coptic and Abyssinian Christian churches still observe the custom. A circumcision festival was established in the Church, and kept on the 1st of January in commemoration of the circumcision of Jesus.
The toleration of this rite by the Jews and Christians shows that they were dwelling on the animal plane,—that they had not risen to that high state of spirituality which would lead them to abandon such heathenish ordinances and customs. It is so repulsive to refined society, that some civilized nations have enacted laws interdicting the custom. Yes, this senseless, cruel, heathenish rite has to some extent been abandoned, and must ere long entirely disappear from the earth. It can not withstand the lights of science and civilization: it is a childish, senseless, obscene, vulgar, heathenish, cruel, and disgusting superstition.
A total ignorance of the laws of health is indicated as existing amongst the disciples of all the ancient religions by the alternate extremes of fasting and feasting. The latter is injurious to health, and the former, also, if long continued, as was frequently the case. But the subject of health did not occupy the minds of religious enthusiasts. They knew nothing of the laws of health, and cared less if possible. Fasting is reported, In some cases, as extending to an incredible period of time, continuing in some cases for months. Hindoos often fasted for a week, and in some cases, if reports are time, for several weeks. Pythagoras of Greece fasted, it is said, forty days. Both the fasts and the feasts were generally held to signalize or celebrate some astronomical epoch; such as the changes of the moon, changes in the seasons, &c. The ancient representatives of the Christian faith were much given to fasting, as were also some of the Jews; but, at the present day, Christians, with others, are more addicted to feasting than fasting, although fasting is enjoined by the Bible both by precept and practice. In this respect modern Christianity bears no resemblance to ancient Christianity.
Those who have read the Christian Bible are familiar with the fact that the ancient Jews and early Christians had their holy mounts and holy mountains, and that they are often referred to in the Bible. Mount Sinai and Mount Horeb were to the Jews consecrated spots. They called forth their highest feelings of veneration; they occupied a place in their devout meditations, similar to that of heaven in the mind of the Christian worshiper. It may be said to have been a substitute for heaven with the Jews; for they knew no other heaven, and dreamed of no other in their earlier history. And Mount Zion was a place equally sacred in the devout meditations of the early Christians. All the Oriental nations had their holy mountains before the Jews were known to history: Merau was the holy mount of the ancient Hindoos; Olympus, of the Greeks; Athos, of the Egyptians. It is therefore evident that the founders of the Christian religion borrowed the idea of attaching sacredness to mountains. Several of Christ's important acts were represented as having been performed on mountains. His sermon was delivered on a mount; his march into Jerusalem was from the "Mount of Olives." Luke says he went and abode in the Mount of Olives (xxi. 87). The Devil took him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world; and, finally, his earthly career culminated on Mount Calvary. "Holy hill," holy mount, and holy mountain—the most important of which was Mount Zion—are terms often used in the Old Testament. History discloses very fully the origin of the custom of attaching sacredness to hills and mountains. One writer says it was partly from the conviction, that, the higher the earth ascends, the nearer it approaches the residence of the Gods; and consequently they would the more certainly hear the prayers and invocations of mortals. Prophets, seers, and anchorites were accustomed, from these considerations, to spend much time on the hills and mountains. In view of these facts, we may conclude that all persons acquainted with history will acknowledge that the Jews and Christians derived the tradition of regarding hills and mountains as "holy" from the Orientals, and that it is consequently a heathen tradition.
Jerusalem was the principal holy city of both Jews and Christians; and Palestine was their holy land.. Here, again, we find them anticipated by heathen nations. Thebes was the holy city of Egypt, Ida the holy city of India, Rome the holy city of the Greeks and Romans, Mecca the holy city of the Mahomedans. And, like the early Christians who spent much time in visiting Jerusalem, the Mahomedans make frequent pilgrimages to Mecca. Syria was the holy land of the Chaldeans and Persians, Wisdom the holy land of the Hindoos, and Benares the principal "holy city." And these holy places they visited very frequently, going in large companies, singing hymns, and reciting texts from their holy books as they traveled. And Christians in the time of Constantine spent much time in traveling to and from Jerusalem and the Holy Land, prompted by the same superstitious notions and feelings. Here we observe another analogy in the religious customs of the Jews, Christians, and heathens, all of which were derived from ancient India.
Holy rivers were quite numerous among the devotees of the ancient religions. Ganges, in India, appears to have been the first river invested with the title of "holy." Its waters were used for the rite of baptism, and were supposed to impart a spiritual life to the subject of immersion. Jordan and the Euphrates were regarded as sacred by the Jews, and the former was the chosen stream for the rite of baptism by that nation.. Even Christ appears to have believed he could receive some spiritual benefit by being dipped beneath its waves. The Nile was a sacred river in Egypt, and many repaired to it for spiritual benefit. Thus the origin of holy rivers and holy waters is plainly indicated to be of heathen origin.
The Old Testament is principally a history of the Jews and their God Jehovah,—a narrative of their trials, troubles, treachery, quarrels, and faithless dealings toward each other. No other God ever had so much trouble with his people; and no other nation ever showed so little respect for their God, or so little disposition to obey him, or live up to his commands. There appears to have been almost a natural antipathy between them; so that they were constantly repelling each other. The relationship appears to have been a forced one, possessing but few of the adhesive ties of friendship.
Both parties were apparently happier when separated, as they were several times,—on one occasion for a long period (Lam. v. 20). And yet, according to the biblical history of the case, they got along as well, were as moral and as happy, as when their God was with them. Hence it is evident, if he had never returned, they would have sustained no serious loss or disadvantage in any way. The case furnishes an argument in favor of that class of people who are frequently denounced by the priesthood for "living without God in the world." If "God's own people" could get along without him, why can not men and women of this intelligent age? And the reason he assigns for remaining with them as much as he did shows it was not from natural affinity or affection for them, but because he had "promised" to do so. Did he not know that "a bad promise is better broken than kept?" Another circumstance which implies that Jehovah cherished but little respect for his people, and cared but little about them, is that, from his neglect (as it seems most natural to attribute it to this cause), they were literally broken up while he was apparently with them. One portion of them fell into the hands of Shalmaneser, King of Assyria, and the other portion into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon; and they were never able to regain their political power as a nation afterwards. And, to cap the climax, ten out of the twelve tribes were lost entirely, thus leaving Jehovah almost childless, and destitute of worshipers. And a search for them for several thousand years has failed to bring them to light. This circumstance is entirely irreconcilable with the idea that the Jews were the special favorites of God. Indeed, it prostrates the assumption entirely beyond defense. It proves, also, that Jehovah's promise never to leave or forsake them was not adhered to. (See 1 Sam. xii. 22.)
And the language and conduct of the God of the Jews on several occasions imply that, if he ever did make choice of them as his pets, he was disappointed in them, and repented of the act. When he exclaimed, "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me" (Isa. i. 2), he virtually confesses he had been short-sighted, or that he had erred in judgment in selecting the Jews as special favorites.
Certainly this is the language of vexation and disappointment, and want of judgment or foresight.
2. We are told "he hated his own heritage" (Jer. xii. 8). Here is evinced again a feeling of hatred, vexation, and disappointment, that no sensible being should manifest, much less a God.
3. "He gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek, and went and smote Israel" (Judg. iii. 13). This was a traitorous act, calculated to discredit any being. Hence it could not have been the act of an all-wise and benevolent God. Think of such a being getting into a squabble with his own children, and having to invoke the aid of heathen tribes to subdue them, and get him out of the difficulty! One day he heads an army composed of his "peculiar people" to fight the heathen, with the avowed determination to exterminate them, and "leave nothing alive that breathes," The next day he gets out of patience with their stubbornness and iniquity; his fury gets up to fever heat; and he traitorously abandons them, and joins those same enemies to fight them, and reduce them to slavery. It is scarcely necessary to say we do not believe such a God ever existed, excepting in the imagination of ignorant people.
4. Again: Jehovah is represented as selling his people several times to the neighboring heathen tribes, which again leads to the conclusion that he was disappointed in them, tired of them, and wished to get rid of them. He sold them once to Jaban, King of Canan (Judg. iv. 2), and twice to the Philistines. Wonder what he got, and what he did with the money! The first time he sold them to the Philistines, he told them he never would deliver them again: but he seems either to have forgotten his promise, or forgot there is a moral obligation to stick to the truth; for he delivered them several times after that, if his own biographer and inspired writer tells the truth. Here is more evidence that he is fickle-minded and unreliable, or that the Bible writers have misrepresented his character.
5. If we could assume there is any truth in the Bible history of Jehovah, we should not wonder that the Jews preferred worshiping a golden calf to paying their devotions to such a God, and, on the other hand, it is not surprising that he should manifest his displeasure toward them, and frequently steal away from them, and often confess grief, vexation, and regret for having made choice of such an ignorant, rebellious set of rambling nomads, who subsisted by war and plunder.
6. Jehovah's jealousy of other Gods which he so frequently manifested and so often confessed, and which is one of the most objectionable traits of his character, must be attributed to his own moral defects; for he acted in such a manner as to cause his own people to prefer other Gods to him. He frequently scolded and punished them for worshiping other Gods,—a circumstance which furnishes evidence that other Gods were better, and therefore more worthy of being worshiped. What else could have caused them to prefer other other Gods. He should have acted in such a loving and fatherly manner that other Gods could not have been more venerated and sought after. Then he would not have been so often vexed, harassed, and perplexed at the idolatrous proclivities of his worshipers, and so often resorted to retaliation by forsaking them, selling them, enslaving them, or delivering them into the hands of the spoiler! In Judges ii. 14, it is declared, "The Lord delivered them into the hands of the spoiler;" and, in Judges vi. 1, we are told he delivered them into the hands of Midian for seven years. This looks like an attempt to spoil his own plans, and to falsify his own promises to be with them, and protect them at all times.
7. Much of Jehovah's dealings with his people seemed to be by way of experiment, as in the case of trying Abraham's faith by requiring him to offer up his son. What an idea for an allwise and omnipotent God, or whom it is said, "Known unto him are all his works"!
8. But many circumstances prove that Jehovah was not the God of the universe, but only a family or national God. 1. His acknowledgment of the existence of other Gods (Deut. vi. 14). 2. His jealousy of other Gods (Exod. xxxiv. 14). 3. His traveling on foot, lodging in tents, having his feet washed, eating veal and cakes (Gen. xviii.), &c., all tend to prove this.
4. And the fact that he could not know what was going on in other nations, and not even his own until he visited the spot in person (as in the case of the Tower of Babel), is proof he was not the God of the universe.
9. We can not concede that the "Creator of unnumbered worlds" is (like Jehovah) an angry, malevolent being, addicted to feelings of revenge and retaliation, which seemed to banish the feeling of love and goodness entirely from his mind, and who is represented as being frequently thwarted in his designs and purposes by the caprices of his weak and ignorant children, who, so far from answering his expectations of being the best, turned out to be the worst, of his human heritage. Such ideas would be derogatory to Deity.
And this is the God the "American Christian Alliance" are trying to obtain a recognition of in the Constitution of the United States. What a moral calamity such a step would be!