Ethics in the scriptures | Douglas Wilhelm Hard

In this discussion, I will offer a personal analysis of many branches of extant Abrahamic religions, including some that I have not looked into previously. I include Sikhism only because there is a singular reference to Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.

As a soldier, if I give an order that uses ambiguous language, or is unclear, or uses poor communication channels, or assumes prior knowledge, or contradicts prior instructions, or involves a language barrier, or gives ambiguous timings, or has unrealistic expectations, or fails to give or consider context, or gives insufficient details, or has ineffective follow up, then that order may not result in the anticipated responses, and if the error is in the order, then the result is my responsibility. For a soldier, training and experience will result in clear, specific, feasible, relevance, context-aware, timely, accountable, flexibility and understandable orders that include follow-up mechanisms, consideration of resources, communication channels, security, legal and ethical considerations delivered in a motivational tone. An all-knowing god, however, would know all consequences of any commandment or revelation for all time, and thus, when considering whether to inspire one to write “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.” that god would know how many innocent women would be tortured, burned, hanged, drowned, pressed, strangled, or beheaded, and would know exactly their pain and suffering, and that of their families, and evil and banality of those who benefitted and were enriched by such barbarous actions, so having said so, that god must somehow believe that this is the best way to convey this commandment. This god must, simultaneously, understand implicitly that banning slavery could be as simple as banning pork, shellfish, or alcohol, but explicitly chose not to, instead, focusing on banning people from wearing clothing of mixed fibers. And despite spending great time articulating how one should set up an alter, deciding it was not worth the effort to suggest explicitly that harming and raping children is an abomination.

I will look at Judaism, the teachings of Jesus, and Christianity as moral systems, elaborating on why I find them to be lacking, but I expand this to also look at most reasonably distinct branches of Abrahamic religions. My aim is to provide reasonable justifications for my assertions, drawing insights from the texts available. Additionally, in the epilogue, I will delve into modern systems of governance, concepts such as the veil of ignorance, deontology, utilitarianism, and felicific calculus, all of which, in my perspective, furnish a more compelling model for society than the aforementioned religious frameworks.

One important point is that once a religious system takes hold and becomes established, it is entirely possible and almost probably some some well-intentioned, well-meaning, and intelligent individuals join the group. Once such individuals join a religious following, they can inspire the religion to go beyond its original doctrines and tenants. Subsequent followers can "discover" new or better interpretations, and in some religions, be given better or more reasonable "revelations" from their god. Every religion, from Judaism; Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant Christianity; Shia or Sunni Islam; the Church of Latter Day Saints; or any other offshoot from a fictious "Abraham" who happened to migrate from the shores of the the Persian Gulf northward to Anatolia and finally to Canaan, making a diversion to Egypt, have (in many cases, but not all) members and leaders I would consider excellent and outstanding members of society. All of these religions have inspired great works of art, and great sacrifice. In many cases, it is these subsequent adherents that make the religion one that has any hope of it being commendable. However, for a religion to be true, we cannot examine how subsequent adherents improved the doctrines, but rather, it is necessary to look at the founders themselves. This is most difficult for early Judaism, as the Torah and most of the Tanakh was authored long after the worship of Yahweh became the central pillar of that religion. For most subsequent Abrahamic religions, however, the character of and teachings of those that founded the worship are much more clear. In all cases, the teachings of the first teachers always seem to differ greatly from what is subsequently taught, and this includes Christianity.

Judaism

Judaism has deep roots in Canaanite culture, making an understanding of the Canaanite people and their land essential to grasping its origins.

Before the rise of the first great empires of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, the Levant was home to various Semitic-speaking tribes. Their languages were mutually intelligible, facilitating cultural and economic exchange. However, the region’s geography prevented the emergence of a centralized polity.

Canaan’s landscape, unlike the expansive floodplains of Mesopotamia or the Nile Valley, was small and fragmented. It was shaped by the Levant Fault System, a strike-slip fault that separates the African Plate to the west from the Arabian Plate to the east. This tectonic feature created diverse terrain, including narrow coastal plains (such as the Phoenician coast and Gaza), mountainous highlands, and rift valleys, which were further isolated by deserts to the east and south.

The absence of a large, contiguous fertile landscape prevented any single city from dominating the region. Instead, the rugged terrain fostered a decentralized political structure, with independent city-states rather than centralized kingdoms or imperial rule. The lack of reliable agricultural surpluses made large-scale empire-building unsustainable.

Some regions, such as the fertile Jezreel Valley, provided exceptions. However, most of Canaan’s agriculture depended on seasonal rains, making food production far less stable than the irrigation-based systems of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Springs, however, sustained some of the earliest continuously inhabited settlements, such as Jericho, where natural freshwater sources allowed for long-term habitation despite the arid environment.

Before 2000 BCE and the emergence of surrounding empires and kingdoms, several cities in Canaan had already been established, functioning as fortified settlements, trade hubs, and religious centers. Among the earliest was Jericho, which dates back to 9000 BCE and is considered one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities. Located near the Ein es-Sultan spring, it developed massive fortifications by 8000 BCE, allowing it to thrive in an otherwise arid landscape. Another significant city was Byblos, founded around 5000 BCE, which became a key Phoenician port but was originally a Canaanite settlement. It maintained extensive trade ties with Egypt, exporting cedar wood and influencing Egyptian culture as early as the Old Kingdom (c. 2600 BCE).

Other cities, such as Megiddo, Hazor, and Ai, emerged during the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2000 BCE). Megiddo, located along the Via Maris trade route, developed into a major strategic city with early temples and fortifications. Hazor, first settled around 2700 BCE, would later become the largest Canaanite city in the Late Bronze Age, serving as a crucial link between Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt. In contrast, highland cities like Shechem and Ai developed slightly later but played essential roles in the region’s decentralized political landscape. Arad, located in the Negev desert, shows evidence of planned streets and water storage systems, highlighting how Canaanites adapted to harsh environments.

Several of these cities, such as Gezer and Lachish, were already functioning as fortified centers by 3000 BCE, controlling trade routes between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Ebla, though located in modern Syria, had strong connections with Canaan and produced thousands of cuneiform tablets, offering insights into Canaanite governance, economy, and religious beliefs. These cities flourished because of their proximity to trade routes, access to freshwater springs, and early development of religious and political structures.

The Canaanite pantheon developed gradually as the region’s city-states formed religious traditions centered around fertility, storm deities, and creator gods. The earliest known god worshiped in the region appears to be El, the supreme creator deity. By the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000 BCE), El was recognized as the father of gods and humans, often depicted as a wise, bearded figure. His worship was widespread across the Levant, particularly in cities like Hazor and Ugarit, where later texts described him as the head of the divine council.

As Canaanite cities grew, Baal (Hadad), the storm and fertility god, gained prominence. His rise was likely linked to Canaan’s reliance on seasonal rains, as he was seen as the bringer of fertility and agricultural prosperity. The city of Megiddo had one of the earliest known temples dedicated to Baal, dating back to the Early Bronze Age. Other major gods included Asherah, the mother goddess, who was often linked to El as his consort and was widely worshiped in household shrines and temples. Astarte (Ishtar), a goddess of love and war, was introduced from Mesopotamian influence and became associated with fertility and protection in battle.

In coastal cities like Byblos and Sidon, Dagon emerged as a grain and fertility god, worshiped particularly in regions dependent on agriculture. Meanwhile, Shapash (Shemesh), the sun goddess, was seen as the divine overseer of justice and fate, and played an important role in religious texts from Ugarit and Hazor. Another significant deity was Resheph, a god of plague and war, whose presence is noted in both Canaanite and Egyptian inscriptions as early as the third millennium BCE.

The pantheon continued evolving as Canaanite cities interacted with Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and later Indo-European Hittites. While some deities, such as Astarte and Anat, were borrowed from Mesopotamian traditions, others—like El, Baal, and Asherah—remained uniquely Canaanite, forming the foundation of later religious traditions, including early Israelite Yahwism.

The earliest recorded references to Yahweh come from Egyptian inscriptions and texts outside of Israelite tradition. One of the first known mentions is found in an inscription from the Temples of Amun at Karnak, dating to the reign of Amenhotep III (circa 1400–1350 BCE) or Ramesses II (circa 1279–1213 BCE). These texts refer to a people called the Shasu of Yhw (𐎛𐎆𐎍), a group of nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes dwelling in the regions of Edom and Midian, near the modern Sinai and southern Jordan. This suggests that Yahweh was originally venerated as a local god among these desert-dwelling peoples before becoming central to Israelite religion.

In early Israelite tradition, Yahweh is portrayed as a warrior deity, a god of battle and storms, much like the Canaanite storm-god Ba’al Hadad. This is evident in passages like Exodus 15:3, where Yahweh is declared "a man of war" (אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה). The imagery of Yahweh riding upon storm clouds, wielding thunder and lightning, and leading armies into battle strongly parallels Ba’al, who was also seen as a divine warrior riding the clouds. Yahweh’s role as a warrior-god likely emerged from the nomadic and tribal context of his earliest followers, who depended on divine favor in battles against other groups.

Interestingly, in some traditions, Yahweh may have originally been represented as a bull, an iconographic form also associated with Ba’al and other Near Eastern gods. This could explain why the golden calf episode in Exodus (Exodus 32) is so strongly condemned—it may reflect an older Yahwistic cultic practice that was later rejected by centralized Israelite theology.

Some scholars propose that Yahweh was first worshipped among the Midianites and Kenites, tribes living in the southern deserts. This idea is supported by biblical accounts such as Exodus 3:1, where Moses encounters Yahweh for the first time at Mount Horeb (Sinai), in the land of Midian. If Yahweh was originally a Midianite or Edomite deity, his worship may have spread to Canaan through interactions between Midianite priests (such as Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law) and the early Israelite highland settlers.

By around 1200 BCE, after the collapse of the Bronze Age city-states, many displaced peoples—including pastoralists, refugees, and former Egyptian subjects—began settling in the highlands of Canaan (modern West Bank, Judean Hills, and Samaria). Among these groups, Yahweh-worshiping Midianites, Shasu, or other desert tribes could have integrated with local Canaanite herders. This process likely led to the fusion of Yahwism with older Canaanite religious traditions, such as the worship of El, the high god of the Canaanite pantheon. Over time, Yahweh was identified with El, and eventually, he absorbed the attributes of Ba’al and other gods, becoming the singular deity of Israelite religion.

Yahweh likely originated as a regional storm and war deity venerated by desert nomads in Edom and Midian before becoming the national god of Israel. His worshippers—possibly including displaced groups from Egypt (such as the Levites) and Canaanite highlanders—blended Yahweh’s identity with older Canaanite religious traditions, eventually leading to the monotheistic faith of Israel. The process was gradual, with Yahweh’s warlike and storm-related characteristics making him particularly appealing in the turbulent period following the Bronze Age Collapse.

Returning to the geography of Canaan, despite its fragmented geography and lack of a dominant empire, Canaan served as a crucial trade corridor between Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia. The Levant itself provided raw materials that surrounding civilizations sought, including cedar wood from Lebanon, copper from the Arabah Valley, and bitumen from the Dead Sea, which was essential for waterproofing boats and construction. Egyptian records from the Old Kingdom (c. 2600 BCE) show extensive trade with Byblos, where they obtained timber for shipbuilding and temple construction, as Egypt itself had little access to quality wood. In return, Egyptian gold, linen, and papyrus were transported north, often passing through Canaanite cities before reaching Mesopotamia.

These characters of Canaan made it attractive to control by foreign kingdoms and empires as these became established and began to spread by the year 2000 BCE:

The earliest Egyptian influence was during the Middle Kingdom (c. 2000-1700 BCE). Their influence was limited to the coastal regions and southern Canaan. Pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty (e.g., Senusret III, Amenemhat III) established fortified trade centers in southern Canaan. Egyptian presence is seen in places like Byblos and Tel el-Daba (Avaris, Egypt), where Canaanite trade goods were found. There was, however, no direct rule, as this was mostly through trade, diplomacy, and minor military expeditions.
With the fall of the Middle Kingdom and the consequent Second Intermediate Period, the Hyksos (c. 1650–1550 BCE) exerted indirect control over Canaan. The Hyksos who controlled Lower Egypt were a Semitic-speaking people (possibly Amorites or Canaanites). The Hyksos originated from Canaan, so their rule over southern Canaan was more of a cultural extension rather than conquest. They may have ruled parts of Gaza and southern Levant as an extension of their control over Egypt.
With the establishment of the New Kingdom (c. 1550–1200 BCE), we see the first true imperial control over Canaan, including all of Canaan, from Gaza to northern Syria. The key figures are Ahmose I (c. 1550 BCE) who expelled the Hyksos and pursued them into southern Canaan; Thutmose III (c. 1479–1425 BCE) who conquered northern Canaan and Syria after the Battle of Megiddo (c. 1457 BCE); and Ramses II (c. 1279–1213 BCE) who fought the Hittites for control of northern Canaan at the Battle of Kadesh (c. 1274 BCE).
A rival to the Egyptian control in northern Canaan was the Hittite Empire (c. 1400–1200 BCE), who extended their control to modern Syria and Lebanon. The Hittites, based in Anatolia (modern Turkey), expanded into northern Canaan and fought Egypt for dominance. The Battle of Kadesh (1274 BCE) between Ramses II (Egypt) and Muwatalli II (Hittites) resulted in a peace treaty, with the Hittites controlling northern Syria and Lebanon while Egypt held southern Canaan.

Canaan sat at the crossroads of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, making it wealthy through trade but vulnerable to conquest. It was a transit zone rather than a self-sufficient imperial heartland. The Canaanites spoke a Northwest Semitic language, which evolved into Phoenician in Tyre, Sidon, Byblos; Hebrew in southern Canaan, Amorite and Ugaritic. Egyptian and Mesopotamian inscriptions mention "Kanaana" or "Kinahhu", identifying those occupying these lands as a distinct people.

Now, if Abraham had truly come from Ur (or Uruk) in southern Mesopotamia, as stated in Genesis 11:31, and had brought with him a large number of servants and dependents, then the primary language of his group would almost certainly have been Sumerian or Akkadian, the dominant languages of Mesopotamia at the time. Given that the biblical account describes only a few generations passing before the Israelites migrated to Egypt, where they remained for centuries, it follows that their linguistic heritage would have been deeply rooted in the language of their Mesopotamian origins. While exposure to Canaanite languages and later Egyptian influence would have introduced loanwords and cultural shifts, the linguistic core of Abraham's descendants should have retained significant Sumerian or Akkadian features, much as modern English, despite heavy borrowing from French and Latin, remains fundamentally Germanic in structure and vocabulary usage. However, Hebrew, like its close relatives Phoenician, Moabite, and Aramaic, is a Northwest Semitic language with no discernible connection to Sumerian and no more connection to Akkadian than any other Northwest Sematic language. If the Israelites had truly descended from a Mesopotamian-speaking ancestor, we would expect a linguistic imprint of Sumerian grammar, syntax, or fundamental vocabulary within Hebrew—yet no such influence exists. Instead, Hebrew fits squarely within the linguistic continuum of the Canaanite region, strongly suggesting that the Israelites were always a local people, culturally and linguistically integrated with their Canaanite neighbors, rather than migrants from Mesopotamia.

The Torah recounts a myth of the Israelites escaping from Egypt and traveling to Canaan, a narrative primarily found in Exodus 1:11 and 12:37, where the Israelites are described as having built the cities of Pithom and Pi-Ramesses before their departure. However, historical evidence complicates this account. Pi-Ramesses was constructed during the reign of Ramesses II (circa 1279–1213 BCE), meaning that if the Exodus occurred during this period, the Israelites would have been fleeing into Canaan, which was under Egyptian control until around 1130 BCE, during the decline of the New Kingdom. This geopolitical reality is conspicuously absent from the biblical account, which portrays Canaan as an independent land awaiting conquest rather than a vassal of Egypt. If the biblical account of the Exodus were taken at face value—claiming that 600,000 men (Exodus 12:37) plus women and children left Egypt, amounting to two to three million people—the economic and demographic impact on Egypt would have been catastrophic. Such a sudden loss of population, particularly of a laboring class, would have triggered an economic collapse, yet no Egyptian records mention any such upheaval. Egyptian administrative texts from the New Kingdom period (when the Exodus is supposedly set) continue to document a stable, functioning society with no signs of a massive labor shortage or recession. Moreover, despite the claim that this vast population wandered through the Sinai Desert for 40 years, no archaeological evidence—such as settlements, graves, waste deposits, or tools—has ever been found to support the presence of millions of people in this region during the Late Bronze Age. In contrast, far smaller nomadic groups in history have left clear traces of their movement. The complete absence of such evidence strongly suggests that the Exodus, at least on the scale described, is a later myth rather than a historical event.

The story of the Exodus may not have been an account of a singular, large-scale departure but rather an embellished tradition rooted in smaller migrations, possibly influenced by historical events such as the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1550 BCE, following the rise of the New Kingdom. The Hyksos, a Semitic-speaking people who had ruled northern Egypt, were driven out by Ahmose I, with many fleeing into Canaan. While the biblical narrative does not explicitly link the Israelites to the Hyksos, the idea of a group of Semitic people escaping Egyptian rule and resettling in Canaan provides a possible historical kernel for later Exodus traditions.

One intriguing possibility is that the Levites—the priestly tribe of Israel—were descendants of such a group. Unlike the other Israelite tribes, the Levites were not assigned a specific land inheritance in Canaan, suggesting they may have arrived separately from the main body of proto-Israelites already living in the highlands. Their role as priests and scribes implies they had specialized knowledge and training, which could have been acquired in Egypt, where literacy, administration, and religious functions were highly developed. Additionally, the name Levi is possibly linked to the Hebrew root l-w-y (לוי), meaning "to join" or "to attach," but some scholars suggest it could also be related to an Egyptian or foreign term, further hinting at an external origin. If the Levites were indeed a distinct group that later integrated into the Israelite identity, they may have brought with them an Egyptian-influenced religious tradition that was later woven into the Exodus myth.

Thus, rather than recording an actual mass migration, the Exodus story could represent the fusion of multiple historical memories: small groups of Canaanites who fled Egyptian control, Levites who may have had Egyptian origins, and broader cultural traditions about deliverance from oppression. Over centuries, these fragments were shaped into a single dramatic narrative that served the theological and nationalistic needs of later Israelite scribes.

Throughout history, pastoral tribes and city dwellers have maintained a complex relationship of both cooperation and conflict. Cities depended on pastoralists for meat, wool, dairy, and hides, while pastoralists relied on cities for grains, metal tools, and manufactured goods. However, their differing lifestyles often led to tensions: pastoralists required large grazing lands and seasonal mobility, while city dwellers sought stable territorial control and agricultural production. The Bronze Age Collapse (circa 1200 BCE), which led to the destruction or abandonment of many urban centers across the Near East, disrupted this balance. With cities in decline and trade networks breaking down, pastoralists found themselves without a reliable source of grain, which was crucial for their survival. While they could supplement their diet through foraging and hunting, this was not a sustainable replacement for the cultivated cereals they had come to depend on. In response, many nomadic and semi-nomadic groups migrated into the highlands of Canaan, where they began establishing small-scale farms to cultivate their own grain supply, transitioning toward a more settled existence.

The earliest settlements of these highland groups reflected their nomadic origins. Rather than adopting the urban grid layouts of the collapsed cities, they arranged their dwellings in a circular pattern, mirroring the tent encampments of their pastoral past. At the center of these settlements was a corral for their livestock, ensuring protection from predators and raiders while maintaining easy access to their most valuable resource—their herds. These herds primarily consisted of ruminants, members of the biological clade Ruminantia, which includes cattle, sheep, and goats. Ruminants are uniquely suited for pastoral herding because their specialized digestive system allows them to extract energy from low-quality, fibrous plant material like grasses. Their four-chambered stomachs and process of rumination (chewing cud) enable them to break down cellulose efficiently, making them the ideal livestock for societies that relied on open grazing rather than cultivated fodder.

The two key characteristics that define ruminants are their habit of "chewing their cud" (re-chewing partially digested food) and their "cloven hooves." The latter term is often misunderstood; rather than having a single hoof that is split or "cloven," these animals actually have two separate toes, each covered in a hardened hoof. This adaptation provides better stability on rough terrain, making ruminants well-suited for highland pastures and rugged landscapes. The importance of these traits is reflected in ancient dietary laws—such as those found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14—where animals that both "chew the cud" and have "cloven hooves" are deemed clean and fit for consumption, underscoring the centrality of ruminant livestock in the economy, diet, and identity of early Israelite and Canaanite pastoralists.

Returning to Canaan, the Judahites and Israelites were likely descendants of nomadic Canaanite pastoral herders who interacted and traded with the settled Canaanite villages, towns, and cities. However, as has often been the case throughout history, tensions existed between herders and urban populations. During the Bronze Age Collapse—a catastrophic event that led to the downfall of civilizations in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt—the Canaanite city-states, which relied heavily on trade, began to decline as their economic lifelines were severed. As urban centers weakened, the pastoral herders were forced to migrate into the less populated Judean Mountains and Samarian highlands, where they established small communities that would later evolve into chiefdoms and, eventually, kingdoms. This gradual transition aligns with the biblical narrative, which initially describes a period without kings before the eventual rise of centralized rule. David, often portrayed as a great king, was likely a local chieftain who managed to consolidate power in the Judean mountains and achieve some military success against the Philistines. The Philistines themselves were Greek settlers who arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, probably fleeing the collapse of Mycenaean civilization. Yet even within this story, anachronisms abound—Goliath, for example, is depicted wearing the armor of a hoplite warrior, a style that belonged to Greek soldiers of the Iron Age, long after the time David would have fought the Philistines. This historical reconstruction challenges the biblical portrayal of a grand Israelite kingdom and instead suggests a slow, organic development from tribal pastoralists into a settled society. Rather than a divinely chosen people conquering the land of Canaan, the Judahites and Israelites were likely indigenous to the region, shaped by the same economic and political forces that influenced neighboring civilizations. The Bible, in this light, functions not as an objective record of events but as a retrospective effort to forge a national identity and legitimize rule through myth and selective history.

The central highlands of the Southern Levant were home to small, independent polities, often referred to as petty kingdoms. These were decentralized, loosely organized chiefdoms rather than structured states, developing gradually from local tribal groups. Archaeological evidence suggests that Judah and Israel did not emerge as fully developed kingdoms in the 10th century BCE, as biblical narratives claim, but rather evolved over time from scattered settlements into territorial entities with distinct governance.

The northern highlands, later associated with the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), had better access to trade routes, more fertile lands, and larger populations compared to the southern highlands of Judah. Excavations reveal that northern cities such as Shechem, Tirzah, and later Samaria were significantly more developed than Jerusalem at the time. Meanwhile, Judah remained sparsely populated, consisting mostly of small villages rather than urban centers. Evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa and Tell Beit Mirsim suggests early fortified sites in Judah, but these were rudimentary compared to Israel’s more established city-states. The north was better positioned agriculturally, politically, and militarily to exert influence over the region.

By the 9th century BCE, Israel had coalesced into a more centralized and powerful polity under the leadership of Omri, a military commander who seized the throne after a coup. Unlike previous rulers who operated from Tirzah, Omri established a new, purpose-built capital at Samaria, carefully selected for its defensive position and access to trade routes. The construction of Samaria’s fortifications and palace complex, evident in archaeological remains, suggests an organized administrative state capable of managing labor, taxation, and territorial expansion.

Omri’s influence extended well beyond his immediate borders. He formed alliances with Phoenicia, securing access to Mediterranean trade networks and introducing architectural and artistic styles that enriched the kingdom. He also established vassal control over Moab, as confirmed by the Mesha Stele, which records how Moab was subject to Israel under Omri’s rule. His military campaigns likely expanded Israel’s influence into Aram-Damascus and parts of Transjordan, making Israel one of the dominant regional powers in the 9th century BCE.

The Omride dynasty, continued by Omri’s son Ahab, saw Israel reach new heights in agricultural production, urbanization, and economic prosperity. Large-scale building projects, including fortified cities, irrigation systems, and storage facilities, attest to the administration’s ability to coordinate infrastructure development. Archaeological finds suggest that cities like Megiddo, Hazor, and Jezreel were expanded and strengthened during this period, marking a shift toward a more complex state.

The dynasty also solidified diplomatic ties with surrounding nations. Ahab’s marriage to the Phoenician princess Jezebel cemented Israel’s commercial and cultural links to Tyre and Sidon, while military coalitions against Assyria, such as the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE), show that Israel was part of an international alliance against the growing Assyrian threat. This period represents Israel’s peak as a regional power, far surpassing Judah, which remained relatively isolated and agrarian.

Ultimately, the Omrides transformed Israel from a loose confederation of tribes into a centralized kingdom with fortified cities, extensive trade networks, and diplomatic influence. While later biblical narratives vilify Omri and Ahab due to their religious policies and foreign alliances, archaeological and historical evidence suggests that their rule brought stability, economic growth, and territorial expansion—a stark contrast to the much weaker and less influential kingdom of Judah.

The fall of the Omride dynasty around 841 BCE, marked by Jehu’s bloody coup, ushered in a period of instability for the northern kingdom of Israel. According to biblical accounts (2 Kings 9–10), Jehu purged Omri’s lineage, massacring King Joram, Queen Jezebel, and the royal family, along with the priests and worshippers of Baal. This was framed as a Yahwistic cleansing—a rejection of Omri’s Phoenician-influenced rule. However, archaeological evidence suggests that Jehu’s reign did not bring prosperity but rather political subservience to Assyria. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (c. 825 BCE) depicts Jehu bowing before the Assyrian king, confirming that he paid tribute, a fact omitted in the biblical narrative.

Jehu’s successors, particularly Jehoahaz (c. 814–798 BCE) and Jehoash (c. 798–782 BCE), presided over a kingdom weakened by both Aramean attacks (from Damascus) and Assyrian demands for tribute. The biblical record (2 Kings 13) describes how King Hazael of Aram-Damascus devastated Israel’s territory, reducing its army to a mere 50 horsemen and 10 chariots. Archaeological evidence from Tel Dan supports the Aramean dominance in the region, though the precise extent of Israel’s losses remains uncertain.

A brief resurgence came under Jeroboam II (c. 786–746 BCE), who restored Israel’s borders to their greatest extent since the Omrides (2 Kings 14:25-28). His reign saw economic growth, increased trade with Phoenicia, and relative peace—perhaps due to Assyria’s temporary retreat from the region. However, while the biblical text emphasizes military victories and divine favor, archaeology suggests that Jeroboam’s expansion was pragmatic rather than ideological—a result of weakened neighbors rather than divine intervention.

Following Jeroboam II, Israel rapidly declined into chaos. The Bible describes this as a period of short-lived reigns, assassinations, and civil strife:

Zechariah (746 BCE), Jeroboam’s son, ruled for only six months before being murdered.
Shallum (746 BCE) seized the throne but was assassinated one month later.
Menahem (745–737 BCE) gained power through violence and sought to stabilize Israel by paying heavy tribute to Assyria, as confirmed by Tiglath-Pileser III’s inscriptions.
Pekah (c. 737–732 BCE) opposed Assyrian influence but was overthrown in a pro-Assyrian coup led by Hoshea (732–722 BCE).

These rapid successions and internal conflicts weakened Israel’s ability to resist foreign incursions. The Assyrians, under Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BCE), began expanding their influence over the region. Archaeological evidence, such as Assyrian reliefs and inscriptions, confirms that northern Israelite cities like Hazor and Megiddo were already facing Assyrian pressure during this period.

By the time of Hoshea, the last king of Israel, the kingdom was in a fragile state—surrounded by hostile powers, weakened by internal divisions, and economically burdened by years of heavy tribute. Assyrian influence was no longer indirect; it was an ever-present existential threat. The stage was set for total subjugation, though biblical narratives would later emphasize divine punishment rather than the geopolitical realities that led to Israel’s downfall.

The fall of the Kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians was not a single catastrophic event but a prolonged process that unfolded over several decades, culminating in the destruction of Samaria in 722/720 BCE. This slow conquest is mirrored in the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14-16, which, rather than referring to Jesus centuries later, was a contemporary message about the looming destruction of Israel and Syria. The passage states that before a child—Immanuel—would grow to maturity, the land of Israel and Aram (Syria) would be laid waste. This fits historically, as the gradual Assyrian advance meant that by the time a child was old enough to "choose good from evil" (likely an age of moral awareness, around 12–13), Israel’s power was completely broken.

The Assyrian conquest came in waves:

Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BCE) first invaded in 732 BCE, capturing much of Galilee and Gilead, annexing them into the Assyrian empire.
Shalmaneser V (727–722 BCE) laid siege to Samaria for three years as Israel attempted rebellion.
Sargon II (722–705 BCE) completed the conquest, destroying Samaria and deporting much of the Israelite elite, scattering them throughout the Assyrian empire.

With the destruction of Israel, many Israelites fled south to Judah, seeking safety from Assyrian rule. This mass migration fundamentally reshaped Judah, especially Jerusalem, which saw an unprecedented surge in population. Archaeological evidence shows that Jerusalem expanded by a factor of at least ten in just a few decades, growing from a small chiefdom-sized settlement of ~1,500 people to a city of over 15,000–20,000 inhabitants.

The reasons for this migration were clear:

Assyrian rule was harsh—conquered regions were forcibly resettled with foreign populations (as noted in 2 Kings 17:24). Many Israelites preferred to live under fellow Hebrews in Judah rather than risk forced relocation.
Judah was still independent—though a vassal of Assyria, it was not annexed outright like Israel. This made it a relatively safe haven for northern refugees.
The Israelites brought greater knowledge, trade experience, and literacy—Israel had been economically, politically, and culturally superior to Judah before its fall. Many skilled workers, scribes, and administrators from Israel likely brought their expertise to Jerusalem.

Excavations in Jerusalem and its surroundings confirm this rapid expansion:

The City of David and the Western Hill (modern Old City) show massive urban growth in the late 8th century BCE.
New defensive walls were built to accommodate the influx of people.
The Broad Wall, a massive fortification, was constructed to protect the growing city.
Pottery styles and inscriptions from this period indicate the presence of northern Israelites, blending with Judahite culture.

This sudden demographic shift also transformed Judahite society—from a small, rural kingdom into a more urbanized and literate society. The influence of northern scribes and administrators may have contributed to the writing and compilation of biblical texts, which took on a more sophisticated and centralized form during this period.

Thus, the fall of Israel did not just weaken the Hebrew people; it transformed Judah, laying the foundation for its later prominence as a center of Jewish identity. Rather than being the isolated kingdom depicted in earlier biblical accounts, Judah absorbed the cultural and intellectual legacy of Israel, making it a far more influential polity than it had ever been before.

The fall of Israel to the Assyrians in 722 BCE marked a profound shift in the balance of power in the southern Levant. With the northern kingdom destroyed, large numbers of Israelites fled south to Judah, particularly Jerusalem, which saw a tenfold population increase within just a few decades. These refugees came from a more urbanized, literate, and administratively sophisticated society than Judah, which had previously been a small highland polity with limited influence. Their presence brought new economic, political, and cultural pressures, forcing Judah’s leadership to integrate a much larger and more diverse population.

This transformation created a crisis of identity. The Israelites had previously viewed Samaria, not Jerusalem, as their center of power. Their traditions, political structures, and even religious practices were distinct from those of Judah. One of the most profound differences was the Samaritan-Israelite Torah tradition, which held that Mount Gerizim, not Jerusalem, was the divinely chosen place of worship. This belief is embedded in the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is nearly identical to the Jewish Torah except for key passages that explicitly designate Mount Gerizim as the chosen place of Yahweh’s worship (e.g., Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 12:5). This version of the Torah preserves an earlier Israelite tradition that predates the rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s religious center.

With the destruction of Samaria, the Judean scribes and prophets found themselves in a unique position to redefine history—to reinterpret the past in a way that gave Judah legitimacy as the rightful heir of all Israel. To accomplish this, they crafted a narrative of a "United Monarchy" under David and Solomon, in which all Israelites—including those from the now-destroyed northern kingdom—were portrayed as subjects of a divinely chosen Davidic lineage. Jerusalem, once a marginal town, was recast as the center of divine authority, chosen by Yahweh as His dwelling place. This allowed the Judean leadership to assert that the northern refugees were not merely joining Judah—they had always been part of a greater Israelite kingdom ruled by David’s descendants.

This shift also served a political and religious purpose—it allowed Judah to erase the northern Israelite claim to independent Yahwistic worship at Mount Gerizim. The Samaritan tradition, which remained loyal to its ancient highland origins, was recast in biblical narratives as illegitimate. The fall of Samaria, then, was framed as a divine punishment for Israel’s supposed idolatry and political rebellion, reinforcing the idea that only Judah, under the Davidic line, remained faithful to Yahweh.

The so-called Kingdom of Judah before this time was a small and peripheral highland polity, rather than a centralized monarchy governing vast lands. Its control likely extended only over a few scattered villages and towns, primarily in the Judean hills and parts of the Plateau of Benjamin, which provided a crucial strategic buffer between Judah and the more powerful northern regions. The Samarian highlands, including the areas associated with the northern kingdom of Israel, remained independent and outside Judah’s influence. Archaeological surveys indicate that northern Israel had larger cities, stronger fortifications, and more advanced administrative structures, suggesting that real power resided in Samaria, not in David’s supposed empire.

The biblical narrative of the United Monarchy was thus a retroactive justification—a way to legitimize Judah’s supremacy over Israel after the latter's destruction. The scribes, working within this political and theological framework, rewrote history to claim that all Israelites, including those in Samaria, had always been subjects of the Davidic throne. The rulers of Israel’s past—the powerful Omrides and others—were delegitimized, cast as rebellious usurpers who abandoned Yahweh. Meanwhile, the Davidic kings were elevated as the only true rulers of the Hebrew people, and Jerusalem was proclaimed the sole legitimate center of worship.

This brings us to Rehoboam, Solomon’s supposed son and successor, under whom the mythical United Monarchy collapses. His reign is presented as the point where the grandeur of David and Solomon is lost, and Judah becomes a smaller, struggling kingdom. However, if no grand empire existed in the first place, then Rehoboam serves a different purpose—he becomes a scapegoat, the figure blamed for the loss of an idealized past that never actually existed. Rather than acknowledging that Judah was never truly dominant, the biblical writers frame Judah’s marginal status as a punishment for Rehoboam’s arrogance and failure, rather than as the historical reality that Judah was always a backwater compared to Israel.

Interestingly, Rehoboam’s name lacks the common theophoric elements referencing El or Yahweh, which appear in many other royal names. This is unusual for a supposed king of Judah, where divine names were often embedded in rulers’ titles to signify legitimacy. If this absence is meaningful, it could suggest that the name originates from a different tradition, or that Rehoboam himself was not seen as a particularly pious or Yahwistic ruler. Alternatively, it might indicate that the biblical narrative assigned religious significance only to select earlier rulers, while portraying Rehoboam as lacking divine favor to justify his failure. However, without further evidence, this remains speculative.

Thus, the creation of the United Monarchy narrative was not merely about glorifying the past—it was a political necessity, designed to integrate Israelite refugees into Judean culture, subjugate northern traditions, and solidify the idea that all of Israel owed allegiance to the Davidic throne. By erasing the independent highland traditions of the Samarian Israelites and replacing them with a Jerusalem-centered history, the Judean scribes ensured that Judah—not Samaria—would control the memory and identity of all Israelites going forward.

One prominent feature in Jerusalem was the Temple. If the first Temple in Jerusalem existed as described in biblical tradition, it was almost certainly built not by Solomon himself, but rather by Phoenician craftsmen under the patronage of a ruler in Jerusalem, possibly sometime in the 9th century BCE, rather than the traditionally assigned 10th century BCE. The Bible itself acknowledges the involvement of the Phoenicians, particularly King Hiram of Tyre, who is said to have provided materials, artisans, and architectural expertise (1 Kings 5:1–12). This aligns with what is known about Phoenician temple-building practices, as well as their role as major economic and cultural partners to highland polities like Judah and Israel.

While the biblical narrative places the temple's construction in Solomon’s reign (10th century BCE), there is no direct archaeological evidence confirming this timeline. However, the 9th century BCE—the time of the Omride dynasty in the northern kingdom of Israel—was a period of extensive construction and urbanization in the Levant, including large-scale public building projects. Temples excavated at Tell Tayinat (in modern Turkey), Hazor (in northern Israel), and Ain Dara (in northern Syria) closely follow the same tripartite architectural pattern described for the Jerusalem Temple, with an outer courtyard, a main hall (hekal), and an inner sanctuary (debir or Holy of Holies).

Among these, the Temple of Ain Dara is the most striking parallel. Its dimensions (approximately 30 meters in length) are remarkably close to the biblical description of Solomon’s Temple (about 30 meters long, 10 meters wide, and 15 meters high in 1 Kings 6:2). Additionally, Ain Dara features massive entrance pillars, decorative cherubim motifs, and a raised inner sanctuary, all of which match the biblical account. These architectural similarities strongly suggest that the Jerusalem Temple was not unique, but rather a continuation of a well-established Northwest Semitic temple-building tradition.

Given that Jerusalem was still a relatively small settlement in the 10th century BCE, it is likely that the temple was not built until later, under a ruler with sufficient resources and external backing, possibly a Judean leader who sought to elevate Jerusalem as a religious and political center in competition with the much wealthier and stronger northern kingdom of Israel. The overwhelming similarity to Ain Dara and other Phoenician-Canaanite temples strongly indicates that the Jerusalem Temple followed an established architectural model, rather than being a uniquely Israelite innovation.

If a ruler of Jerusalem financed the construction of a temple, the most likely sources of wealth would have been:

Tributary payments or alliances with Phoenicia, for the involvement of Tyre suggests that economic or political ties with the Phoenicians may have contributed to the temple’s funding. This would have been a strategic investment, strengthening Jerusalem’s ties to Tyre, much like later Judean-Israelite-Phoenician partnerships.
Trade revenue from regional commerce, as although Judah was not a major trade hub, some wealth could have come from taxation on trade routes, particularly in connection with Edom and Arabia.
Internal taxation or labor obligations, for large-scale building projects in the ancient world often relied on a system of forced labor (corvée) rather than paid workers. A ruler of Jerusalem could have used his own population for construction, as described in 1 Kings 5:13–18, where Israelite laborers are conscripted for Solomon’s projects.

While the specific ruler responsible for the temple remains unknown, it is possible that a later Judean king, rather than Solomon, commissioned its construction. If the temple followed a Phoenician-Canaanite architectural model, then it was likely built under foreign influence and expertise, much like the temples at Tell Tayinat and Ain Dara.

The original construction site of the temple would have required significant modification of Jerusalem’s natural terrain. The biblical account suggests that it was built on Mount Moriah, which, in reality, was likely a high ridge overlooking the settlement. The construction process would have involved:

Leveling the ground or using terracing to create a foundation for the temple.
Building retaining walls to support the temple complex, similar to other hilltop structures in the Levant.
Using large ashlar stones for fortification, a technique commonly used by the Phoenicians and northern Israelites.

The temple would have been a dominant structure within Jerusalem, positioned as the focal point of religious and political activity. However, it was not necessarily an imperial-scale project—unlike the later monumental expansions seen in Israel and Samaria, the early Jerusalem temple was likely a modest but symbolically significant structure, more in line with other regional temples.

Despite later biblical claims that Jerusalem was the sole legitimate place of worship for Yahweh, archaeological evidence indicates that many sites throughout Israel and Judah were dedicated to Yahweh worship. Some of the most notable sites include:

Arad (near Beersheba) where a fortress temple dedicated to Yahweh, discovered with altars, incense stands, and clear evidence of worship. Interestingly, two standing stones (massebot) were found in the shrine, which may represent Yahweh and his consort, Asherah. This suggests that early Yahweh worship was not exclusively monotheistic, but rather part of a broader Canaanite religious tradition.
Bethel and Dan that were major Yahwistic sanctuaries in the northern kingdom of Israel, established by Jeroboam I as rival worship centers to Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:26-33). The biblical narrative portrays them as illegitimate, but they were likely important Yahweh-worshiping centers.
Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (northern Sinai) that had inscribed pottery from this site includes references to “Yahweh and his Asherah,” reinforcing the idea that early Yahwistic religion acknowledged a divine consort.
Shechem (near Mount Gerizim) that was an ancient religious center for the Israelites and possibly included Yahwistic worship. The later Samaritan tradition continued to view Mount Gerizim as the true center of Yahweh’s worship, rather than Jerusalem.

This evidence contradicts the biblical narrative of religious centralization under Jerusalem, suggesting that Yahweh was worshiped at multiple locations before later religious reforms sought to erase these competing sanctuaries.

If the temple was built in the 9th or 10th century BCE, its dedication to Yahweh as the exclusive deity would depend on whether Judah had fully transitioned to monolatristic Yahwism at that point. The Bible presents the temple as solely dedicated to Yahweh, but in reality, early Judahite religion was not yet fully monolatristic, and many highland sites suggest the worship of Yahweh alongside other deities, such as Asherah. However, the absence of direct archaeological evidence from the First Temple itself means that its religious function as solely Yahwistic cannot be confirmed or denied.

The First Temple in Jerusalem, if it existed as described, was not an unparalleled, divinely revealed structure, but rather a product of regional temple-building traditions, likely influenced or directly built by Phoenician craftsmen. Its funding and construction were undertaken by a later Judean ruler, rather than the legendary Solomon, as part of an effort to elevate Jerusalem into a significant religious and political center. Given the dominance of Samaria and other major Levantine cities, it is possible that this project was inspired by, or even influenced by, the expansionist policies of Omri and his successors, though the identity of the specific Judean ruler responsible remains uncertain.

However, Jerusalem was not the only Yahwistic center. Numerous archaeological discoveries show that Yahweh was worshiped in multiple locations throughout Israel and Judah, including Bethel, Dan, Arad, and Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. These sites demonstrate that early Yahwistic religion was decentralized, with significant variations in practice, including the likely veneration of Asherah alongside Yahweh. Only later, as Judah sought to consolidate power, did the biblical narrative promote Jerusalem as the “only” legitimate center of Yahweh worship, erasing the diverse religious traditions that had existed before.

To be continued...

Samaritan

With the return of the exiles from Babylon, a power and cultural struggle unfolded between those worshipers of Yahweh who remained and those who had been exiled. In cosmopolitan Babylon, Jewish beliefs underwent significant evolution, particularly in the absence of the Temple. The alterations to their fundamental understanding of faith sharply contrasted with the beliefs of those who stayed behind. While the returning exiled community firmly established itself in Jerusalem and the surrounding Judean Mountains, those in the north who had remained separated and formed a distinct religion in the Samarian highlands.

The Samaritans directed their worship exclusively towards the teachings in their version of the Torah, which differs from the Judean Masoretic text (I acquired a copy of the first English translation by Benyamim Tsedaka, featuring a parallel English translation of the Masoretic text). Only later did other texts become incorporated into their faith. They do not acknowledge any of the other books, writings, or interpretations used in Judaism. The Samaritan community places high value on the literal adherence to their sacred texts, with religious practices characterized by a commitment to maintaining traditional observances outlined in the Samaritan Torah.

Their worship includes pilgrimages to Mount Gerizim. Deuteronomy 11:29 states, “When the Lord your God has brought you into the land that you are entering to occupy, you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal.” At the base of Mount Gerizim are Jacob's Well and Shechem, once the capital of the Kingdom of Israel and now a suburb of Nablus. The Torah does not explicitly mention where the temple would be built; instead, it contains statements such as “you shall bring everything that I command you to the place that the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his name” and “only at the place that the Lord will choose in one of your tribes—there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do everything I command you.” Based on the earlier statement that “you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim,” those living in the Samarian highlands interpret this to mean that it is the designated place of worship, not Jerusalem.

The moral teachings and rituals of worship are more strongly based on the writings in the Torah without any formalized system of interpretation. Thus, Samaritanism is almost certainly more strict in its readings of various gender roles and prohibitions, including those against homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles.

Jesus's teachings

Yeshu was born to Mariam (referred to as Jesus and Mary hereafter) in Nazareth, within the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, one of the sons of King Herod the Great. Jesus is described as having been trained as a craftsman (τέκτων or tektōn). Paul does not mention Mary or Joseph, but he emphasizes Jesus' birth in Galatians 4:4, stating, "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law..." The author of Mark does not mention Joseph either and has only one clear reference to Mary in Mark 6:3, where the people of Nazareth say, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Joseph is mentioned only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in the context of Jesus' birth.

At the time of Jesus' youth, Nazareth likely had between 200 and 400 inhabitants, and most homes were built into the soft limestone cliffs, with excavated caves forming part of many homes. No significant civil structures from that period have been found. However, just four miles to the north, Herod Antipas had grand plans for the city of Sepphoris. In 14 CE, when Tiberius became emperor, Herod Antipas renamed the city Autocratoris in honor of the emperor. He initiated significant building projects there, aiming to Hellenize and transform it into a major administrative and economic center, calling it the "Ornament of Galilee." It is likely that Jesus made the one-hour journey to work on these projects, observing the stark contrast between the poverty of Nazareth and the opulence of the nearby city.

Whether in Nazareth or Autocratoris, though more likely the latter, Jesus seems to have been influenced by the teachings of the Rabbis and the apocalyptic message of Merkavah mysticism. The opulence of pagan Autocratoris contrasted with the poverty of Jews living in Nazareth would have easily primed Jesus for the message of the ascetic, apocalyptic itinerant preacher he would meet in his twenties.

Jesus echoed the message of the ascetic apocalyptic itinerant preacher John the Baptist he followed, emphasizing the imminence of the Kingdom of Yahweh—rejecting the notion of a distant or futuristic event, certainly not spanning two thousand years into the future. His mission did not involve preparations for a protracted endeavor; rather, he foresaw the Kingdom's swift arrival, anticipating the resolution of all issues directly by Yahweh, not through human endeavors. Jesus primarily advocated for a straightforward personal moral framework, omitting broader societal structures or support from his teachings.

Jesus emphasized the importance of personal transformation and the cultivation of an individual relationship with God. His teachings predominantly centered around foundational concepts such as love, forgiveness, humility, and compassion, all serving as avenues to establish a personal connection with God. However, these moral principles were consistently conveyed within the context of the impending arrival of the Kingdom of God. Given this perspective, it is not unfounded to interpret Jesus' message as closely aligning with the recorded beatitudes, wherein he extolled the blessedness of those embodying specific qualities:

The poor in spirit
Those who mourn
The meek
Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness
The merciful
The pure in heart
The peacemakers

For each of these qualities, Jesus promised distinct rewards, often with a heavenly focus. Nevertheless, he also introduced the concept of a "persecution complex," underscoring the blessedness of those who endure persecution for the sake of righteousness and those who withstand false accusations in his name.

In both cases, the underlying message is clear: Jesus presented the lure of great rewards, not on Earth as we know it today, but in the coming Kingdom of God. Yahweh had created the Earth as a paradise for humans, it it was the sin of humans who ruined; but with the coming of the Kingdom of God, this Earth would be transformed back into that paradise that had previously existed, and those who entered this kingdom, either through resurrection or through entering that kingdom, they would both be given glorified and divine bodies, and not their corrupt bodies they had. He emphasized that one's personal deeds and actions should serve as a demonstration of their commitment to preparing for the impending Kingdom, in the hopes that others would be drawn to this message.

Jesus emphasized the enduring importance of the commandments and the covenant with Yahweh, asserting their binding nature until the arrival of the Kingdom of God. He urged a commitment to the law from the heart, distinguishing it from a mere adherence to external rules, a practice observed by the Pharisees and scribes.

Next, Jesus adopted a holistic approach, aligning specific moral principles with broader life attitudes:

He correlated anger with the potential for murder, urging followers not to harbor anger against family or peers.
He associated lust with the potential for adultery, advising against entertaining lustful thoughts.
He linked divorce to lustful desires, indicating that refraining from lust could reduce the need for divorce.
He cautioned against making oaths, highlighting the danger of broken promises, and advocated for straightforward honesty.
He discouraged seeking revenge, proposing that accepting harm done rather than seeking reciprocal harm was virtuous.
He advised loving and praying for enemies, emphasizing that harboring hatred only begets anger.
He discouraged flaunting generosity, prayers, or fasting for acknowledgment, suggesting these acts be performed in secret.
He warned against placing too much emphasis on accumulating worldly riches, emphasizing the greater significance of heavenly rewards.

These principles closely tied to the earlier-discussed beatitudes, particularly those concerning purity of heart, mercy, a desire for righteousness, and meekness. Together, they formed the moral and ethical framework that Jesus espoused for his followers. However, all these teachings were ultimately about preparing individuals for the impending Kingdom of Yahweh.

As a specific example, in what is translated into Greek and subsequently into English as Mark 2:27-28, Jesus declares, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” In Aramaic, the term "בַּר אֱנָשׁ" (bar ʾenash) would likely have been used for what is translated as "humankind" and "Son of Man," implying that Jesus meant, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, so the man is lord even of the Sabbath.” This response was prompted by the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus's disciples picking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus emphasized that the Sabbath was instituted for the benefit of humans, a day of rest, not to restrict them. However, to make a point with the Pharisees, Jesus offered what could be considered less-than-ideal advice in Matthew 15:1-20. The Pharisees observed Jesus's disciples not adhering to Jewish traditions of handwashing. Jesus responds with, “Listen and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” He then concludes, “Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” This aligns with Jesus's holistic approach to the Covenant and the Law, emphasizing that personal hygiene wouldn't matter if the Kingdom of God were imminent. However, given the knowledge that Christians would be reading these texts for two thousand years, could Jesus not have also emphasized the importance of handwashing?

To clarify, Jesus stressed the importance of upholding the law in his teachings:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

While many Christians may not readily enumerate more than the initial Ten Commandments, Jesus recognized the urgency of the impending Kingdom, simplifying the approach to the law. Drawing from other Jewish scholars, he condensed it into three key commandments:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might (Deuteronomy 6:5). When questioned about the greatest commandment, Jesus echoed this sentiment in Matthew 22:37-38: "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment."
Love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18). Hillel the Elder's interpretation was, "That which is hateful unto you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah; the rest is commentary." Jesus expanded on this, saying, "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." He also reaffirmed Leviticus with, "And a second [commandment] is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Collectively, these teachings functioned as a concise summary of the Torah. In the short term, these commandments seem straightforward. However, Jesus acknowledged the challenge of consistently living up to these ideals. While caring for one's neighbor is crucial, human nature sometimes requires prioritizing oneself and one's family. This doesn't diminish the importance of caring for one's neighbor but recognizes the complexity of consistently loving one's neighbor as oneself, particularly in challenging circumstances.

In some instances, however, this emphasis on the imminent arrival of the Kingdom led to what can only be considered as questionable advice:

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
And which of you by worrying can add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?
Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For it is the gentiles who seek all these things, and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.
There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.

While it is true that excessive worrying can lead to stress, unless you see the coming of the Kingdom of Yahweh as imminent, the advice given here is useless at best and dangerous at worst. Birds do not sow nor reap, but they also die much quicker, with few living to a relative old age. Consider hunter-gatherer societies, where each day is a struggle to find sufficient quantities of food; we sow and reap specifically to avoid such a situation. However, the last is a commandment from Jesus that very few follow, even though this is a verse that is trumpeted from at least some pulpits. If the majority of Christians were to follow this advice, society would probably begin a downward spiral. Still, if you honestly believe the Kingdom of Yahweh is coming in a matter of days, months, or perhaps a few years, this would be reasonable.

Jesus refrained from explicitly advocating for concepts of justice or equality and remained distant from political and societal systems of his era. His underlying belief was that the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh would bring about a transformative era, rendering earthly governments and social structures irrelevant.

In Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus explicitly advised against judgment, emphasizing, "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged," and continues with the admonition "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye but do not notice the log in your own eye?" While contemporary interpretations often stress the importance of addressing one's own shortcomings before scrutinizing others, within the context of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh, this may have served as another reminder to prioritize personal righteousness over correcting others. In such a scenario, individual judgment would be superfluous, as divine judgment would prevail upon the advent of the Kingdom.

Nonetheless, the practical reality is that every society, regardless of its beliefs, requires a judicial system to evaluate and judge those who are perceived to have harmed the social order. For instance, a brief historical example during the Montreal Police strike revealed that even a temporary absence of potential judgment could empower darker elements of society.

Although Jesus did not explicitly instruct his followers to refrain from political activism or organizing social movements, his teachings and actions conveyed a distinct message:

Nonviolent resistance: Jesus implicitly promoted a form of nonviolent resistance by emphasizing the ideas of turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies. These principles encouraged personal responses of love and forgiveness when faced with opposition and persecution, rather than advocating for political change.
Separation of spiritual and political: Notably, Jesus separated the spiritual from the political realm when he advised, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.”

In essence, Jesus's teachings offered no explicit political or social framework. Instead, his primary emphasis centered on individual righteousness and spiritual transformation. He espoused the belief that the Kingdom of Yahweh was impending, negating the need for extensive preparations or long-term planning, as the Earth's transformation would be orchestrated by Yahweh, not by human hands. This perspective reinforced the idea that the most reasonable course of action was to focus on personal spiritual growth in anticipation of the imminent arrival of Yahweh's Kingdom.

In the United States, where a significant majority of the population identifies as Christian, the political landscape is marked by stark contrasts. Far-right white supremacist and Christian nationalist groups often advocate for policies and societal structures that appear fundamentally at odds with the goals and values promoted by socialist or anti-capitalist groups. This stark divergence in political beliefs within a Christian-majority society raises thought-provoking questions about the influence of personal interpretation and biases, as well as the role of Jesus' teachings in shaping these views.

Jesus, as a central figure in Christianity, didn't provide explicit guidance on specific policies or societal frameworks. Instead, his teachings centered on personal morality, spirituality, and the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh. Consequently, individuals often rely on their personal beliefs and biases to interpret and apply Jesus' teachings within a political context. This lack of clear, prescriptive guidance leaves room for a wide spectrum of interpretations and allows for the development of various political ideologies within the Christian community.

Additionally, the diversity of political perspectives within Christian America underscores the complex relationship between faith and politics. It prompts questions about how religious beliefs interact with individual values, social influences, and the broader political landscape. Moreover, it highlights the potential for Christianity to be a source of unity and inspiration for some, while also serving as a platform for division and contention among others.

The situation takes a graver turn when the Christian church gains political authority, as history shows. This often leads to the persecution of individuals who were labeled as witches or heretics, resulting in their impoverishment, exile, and even execution. Any form of dissent against established political and social structures becomes equated with opposition to the church, seen as a challenge to divine authority. Within Christian scriptures, certain verses have been interpreted to provide a basis for the severe punishment of those considered troublesome:

In Matthew 3:12, Jesus is recorded as saying, “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” These verses, taken out of context, have been used to justify harsh punishments for those deemed heretical.
Leviticus 20:27 states, “A man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritualist shall be put to death; they shall be stoned to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.” Throughout history, individuals have been accused of such practices and subjected to persecution.
Likewise, in Matthew 18:6, Jesus is quoted as saying, “If any of you cause one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck, and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.” This verse has often been used to punish those perceived as leading others, especially the youth, astray.
In 1 Corinthians 5:13, Paul teaches, “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” While expulsion from a small congregation may result in minimal harm, being ostracized from an entire society can become a matter of life and death.

This transformation of religious authority into political power has historically been associated with acts of persecution and has seldom advanced the messages of love, forgiveness, and redemption.

In summary, Jesus dedicated his teachings to prepare his followers for the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh, with no inclination or concern for societal or political structures. This moral system is solely centered on individual conduct. Consequently, at its core, Christianity primarily offers guidance for individuals in their interactions within social, religious, and business contexts. However, it does not provide a comprehensive framework for structuring society or establishing governing policies, operating on the premise of an impending panacea.

When faced with an ethical dilemma that requires choosing between various actions or decisions, unless the situation is straightforward, pinpointing an exact teaching of Jesus prescribing one decision over another is seldom possible. In such instances, the somewhat clichéd question "What would Jesus do?" becomes the only recourse. However, this question introduces a challenge as it allows cherry-picking from Jesus's sayings to support either choice:

Concerning the giving of gifts:
- 2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: anyone unwilling to work should not eat.
- Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who asks of you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
Regarding wealth:
- Luke 6:38 ...give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap, for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.
- Malachi 3:10 Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing.
- Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
Concerning squatting:
- Exodus 20:15 You shall not steal recalling Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets...”
- Matthew 25:35-36 “...for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.
Regarding families:
1. Matthew 10:35-36 “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.” and when Mary and Jesus's brothers came to him in Capernaum, he was told “Your mother and your brothers are outside asking for you,” Jesus replied in Mark 3:33-35 “Who are my mother and my brothers? Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Jesus additionally says in Matthew 19:29 “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my name’s sake will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.”
2. Matthew 19:19 “Honor your father and mother.” and Matthew 19:4-6 “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The list can go on and on.

Regardless of which saying is chosen for a specific situation, another may argue that the saying is taken out of context. When reading apologies for Christianity online, the emphasis is often on the claim that a particular saying or narrative is being taken "out of context." However, the best description of the Bible I have heard is that it is essentially a textual Rorschach test: you will find the verse you need to support your thoughts. This may sound shallow, but there is significantly more evidence for this:

Psychological studies have found that people tend to be somewhat egocentric when considering other people's mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colors their final conclusions. Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try to divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God's attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God's will and their own opinions.

A person who holds negative views toward LGBTQ+ people may believe that Jesus, too, shares those views, while those who embrace the LGBTQ+ community believe that Jesus, too, embraces them. Each will find their own passages and interpretations to support their personal beliefs. Always remember that if the gospels are inerrant, Jesus specifically said in Matthew 19:4-6, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.” At least in this passage, Jesus denies homosexuality and bisexuality. Recall that this is allegedly the same god that said hundreds of years earlier in Leviticus 20:13 that “if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.” Recall that this is in a culture where death meant not only the death of the body but also the death of the soul. Nevertheless, many Christians can reinterpret scriptures not only to ignore such passages but also to find others that positively support such relationships, and I find such devotion to both their ideals and beliefs commendable. To quote Nicholas Epley:

“People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want. The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing.”

Returning to the previous subject, the question "What would Jesus do?" provides no more basis for an ethical decision, and while Jesus's sayings are nice for interpersonal relationships, they are inapplicable to the world at large. Reality entails limited resources, wealth disparity, concentration of power in ruling elites, inequalities, inequities, discrimination, violence, bigotry, bias, and conflicting interests. Over the past two thousand years, considerable progress has been made to address these issues, but these solutions didn't originate from Jesus's teachings. Instead, they emerged from observations of societal flaws and the proposal of solutions.

Now, how successful was Jesus in his ministry while he was alive? From the gospels, the best answer is that, apart from his closest disciples, it does not appear he had much success: the success would come after he is executed. First, the disciples of John the Baptist did not flock to Jesus, despite John the Baptist allegedly recognizing Jesus as the "Lamb of God." Even today, there are followers who believe John the Baptist is the messiah. Second, despite having grown up in Nazareth for almost thirty years, there appear to have been no recognitions of Jesus being in any way remarkable whatsoever, and the people were apparently astonished simply by Jesus having read from Isaiah:

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said in Luke 4:22 “Is this not Joseph’s son?”

Did nothing Jesus did or said in the first thirty years hint at his remarkable character to his neighbors? Recall that when Jesus was a young boy in Jerusalem in Luke 2:46-47, it is told, "...they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers." Finally, most of his ministry was in and around the seaside town of Capernaum on the shore of Lake Galilee. Recall all the miracles Jesus performed, healing the sick, casting out demons, healing withered hands, healing the lame, feeding the five thousand with just a few fish and loaves of bread. The people in this town had front-row seats to Jesus's miraculous deeds and teachings for at least one year, and yet, the reception was so negative that in Matthew 11:20-24, it says:

Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his deeds of power had been done because they did not repent.

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!

For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you.

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven?

No, you will be brought down to Hades.

For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

But I tell you that on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.”

Chorazin and Bethsaida are two small villages in the vicinity of Capernaum. Note that the gospel itself states that these were the towns “in which most of his deeds of power had been done,” and yet they rejected his message. What is clear, however, is that this also emphasizes that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was coming soon, for Bethsaida was to experience some form of punishment, and yet today it is nothing more than a park on the shore of Lake Galilee: will God punish a park for the deeds of its denizens from two thousand years ago?

After exploring these historical and sociopolitical aspects, it becomes evident that many of the solutions addressing issues such as limited resources, wealth disparity, power concentration, inequalities, and discrimination didn't originate from Jesus's teachings. While his sayings are valuable for interpersonal relationships, they prove insufficient when addressing the complex realities of the world at large. Progress over the past two thousand years in areas such as resource management, progressive taxation, democratic governance, human rights, and scientific advancements stems more from human ingenuity and critical thinking than from religious doctrines. Notably, the teachings of Jesus, focused on personal conduct and spiritual growth on the assumption the coming Kingdom of God was imminent, do not seem to form a solid basis for building or maintaining a free and just society.

Moreover, the Torah was written, compiled, edited, and redacted much later, likely around 800 BCE or later, centuries after the events it purports to describe. At the time these events supposedly took place, written Hebrew was almost nonexistent, meaning that any early records would have been preserved through oral tradition. Over time, these oral accounts would have been subject to distortion, embellishment, and loss of historical accuracy, with myth and theology taking precedence over precise historical recollection. The Exodus story, therefore, reflects not an eyewitness account but a later ideological retelling shaped by the political and religious concerns of the scribes who compiled it.

The Yahweh of the Torah often exhibits distinctly human traits, behaving in ways reminiscent of human rulers, judges, and warriors. These anthropomorphic qualities suggest that early Yahweh worship was modeled after human kingship and authority structures. Here are some passages that demonstrate Yahweh’s human-like characteristics:

In Genesis 3:8-9, Yahweh walks in the garden and lacks omniscience, for “They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” Yahweh is physically present, walking like a human ruler inspecting his domain. He also does not know where Adam and Eve are, suggesting limited knowledge.
In Genesis 8:20-21, Yahweh smells the aroma of burnt offerings: “Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of humankind.’” Yahweh smells the burnt sacrifice like a human king enjoying a feast. The phrase “pleasing odor” suggests a sensory experience similar to human perception.
In Genesis 18:1-8, Yahweh eats with Abraham: “The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre… He looked up and saw three men standing near him… Abraham ran to the herd, took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared and set it before them, and he stood by them under the tree while they ate.” Yahweh (one of the three “men”) eats food like a human guest visiting a tribal leader. This mirrors the hospitality traditions of Near Eastern rulers.
In Genesis 32:24-30, Yahweh personally wrestles Jacob: “Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak… Then he said, ‘Let me go, for the day is breaking.’ But Jacob said, ‘I will not let you go unless you bless me.’” Yahweh (or his angel) physically wrestles with Jacob, implying a human-like body that grows fatigued and needs to leave at dawn.
In Genesis 18:20-21, Yahweh descends to investigate Sodom: “Then the Lord said, ‘How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me, and if not, I will know.’” Yahweh does not know everything and must physically descend to verify reports, much like a king checking on a distant province.
In Exodus 31:17, Yahweh gets tired and rests: “It is a sign forever between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.”
In Exodus 32:14, Yahweh changes his mind after a plea: “And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.” Yahweh is persuadable, acting like a human judge or king who is influenced by appeals.
In Deuteronomy 1:30-31, Yahweh walks in front of his people: “The Lord your God, who goes before you, is the one who will fight for you, just as he did for you in Egypt before your very eyes.” Yahweh is described as marching ahead like a military leader, just as a human king would lead troops into battle.
In Exodus 19:20, Yahweh physically appears on Mount Sinai: “The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain, and the Lord summoned Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up.” Yahweh descends from above as if traveling between locations, much like a human ruler making a grand appearance before his subjects.

Later, in 1 Samuel 15:10-11, Yahweh regrets his own decisions: “The word of the Lord came to Samuel: ‘I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned away from following me and has not carried out my commands.’” Yahweh expresses regret, much like a human ruler who realizes a mistake and seeks to undo it.

These passages clearly depict Yahweh as having human-like qualities, including physical presence, limited knowledge, emotions, fatigue, sensory perception, and even the need for food and rest. These traits align closely with the characteristics of ancient Near Eastern kings, reinforcing the idea that early Yahweh worship was modeled after human leadership structures before evolving into a more abstract and transcendent deity over time.

Many of the commandments that form part of the covenant between Yahweh and the Judahites are clearly economicly motivated, not by Yahweh, but rather by the aristocracy of Judah:

In Deuteronomy 17:16, we see a ban on Egyptian horses: “Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You must never return that way again.’” Horses were an expensive import from Egypt, where chariots and warhorses were major industries. This law discourages reliance on Egyptian military goods, ensuring that Israelite rulers do not become dependent on foreign suppliers.
In Numbers 15:38-39, we see a prohibition on foreign clothing: “Speak to the Israelites and tell them to make fringes on the edges of their garments throughout their generations and to put a blue cord on the fringe at the edge. You shall have the fringe so that, when you see it, you will remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them.” This command distinguishes local Israelite clothing from imported textiles. Foreign-dyed garments, particularly Tyrian purple from Phoenicia, were luxury items. The blue fringe requirement ensured that Israelites wore local wool dyed with tekhelet (possibly a different, non-Phoenician dye), avoiding dependence on Phoenician trade networks.
In Leviticus 11:3-8, we see a ban on eating foreign-fed livestock: “Any animal that has divided hoofs and is cloven-footed and chews the cud—such you may eat. But of those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not have divided hoofs; they are unclean for you.” This law restricts imported meat and livestock from foreign sources that do not meet Israelite purity standards. It specifically mandates the consumption of animals within the clade Ruminantia, which includes species best suited for nomadic herding due to their foraging efficiency, multi-chambered digestive systems, and ability to thrive on sparse vegetation. Since pigs, which lack a ruminant digestive system, were commonly raised in Philistine and Canaanite coastal cities, this law effectively blocks pork imports and reinforces a livestock economy centered around herdable ruminants, such as sheep, goats, and cattle. By favoring animals that require pasture rotation and mobile grazing, this restriction supports the self-sufficiency of nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists over settled agricultural economies.
In Deuteronomy 32:37-38, there is a prohibition on foreign wine: “Then he will say, ‘Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge, who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their libations? Let them rise up and help you; let them be your protection!’” This passage implies that foreign wine was tied to idolatrous worship, discouraging Israelites from importing wine from Phoenician or Philistine producers. This would have supported local viticulture in the highlands instead of relying on trade from cities like Tyre or Ashkelon.
In Leviticus 19:19, we see a restriction on foreign agricultural practices: “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.” This law discourages foreign agrarian techniques, possibly those of the Canaanites or Egyptians. It limits the introduction of hybrid crops and textiles, reinforcing local Israelite herding and farming traditions.
In Deuteronomy 7:25-26, there is a prohibition on foreign gold and silver idols: “The images of their gods you shall burn with fire. Do not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take it for yourself, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is abhorrent to the Lord your God.” This law discourages the acquisition of foreign luxury goods, particularly gold and silver artifacts from surrounding nations. It functions as a ban on purchasing foreign religious items, reinforcing local economic independence.

7. Ban on Egyptian Bread and Leaven (Exodus 12:15-20)

“Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day shall be cut off from Israel.”
➡ Economic Impact: The Passover restriction may have originated as an embargo against Egyptian-style bread, which was made with refined grains and traded widely. The Israelite diet relied more on local barley and simple bread-making techniques, reinforcing cultural separation from Egypt.

8. Ban on Foreign Interest Loans (Deuteronomy 23:19-20)

“You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge an Israelite interest.”
➡ Economic Impact: This protects Israelites from economic dependence on foreign lenders, such as Phoenician merchants or Mesopotamian moneylenders. It ensures that wealth stays within the community rather than flowing to external economies.

9. Restrictions on Trade with Foreign Nations (Deuteronomy 7:2-6)

“And when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them… for they will turn away your children from following me.”
➡ Economic Impact: This command prevents trade alliances with surrounding nations, such as Phoenicians, Moabites, and Philistines, reducing foreign economic influence. It functions as a trade embargo disguised as religious purity.

10. Ban on Using Foreign Tools for Worship (Exodus 20:25)

“But if you make for me an altar of stone, do not build it of hewn stones, for if you use a chisel on it, you profane it.”
➡ Economic Impact: This prohibits the use of imported tools (such as Philistine or Egyptian metal tools) in religious rituals. It promotes locally sourced, unworked materials, reinforcing economic independence.

Judaism finds its origins in a distant tribal setting, emerging from the worship of a single deity within the Canaanite pantheon. These early adherents were Canaanite nomadic pastoral herders who later settled in the Samarian highlands and the Judean mountains. Their transition to this new homeland was instigated by the profound social and economic transformations associated with the Bronze Age Collapse. Notably, they devoted their worship to Yahweh, often in conjunction with his consort Asherah, also known as Astarte or Istar. At the time, the fertile valleys and Mediterranean shores were densely populated by city-dwelling Canaanites and Greek migrants. While these cities experienced economic hardships due to the collapse, there was little space for these herders to establish themselves. Consequently, some were compelled to inhabit the arid Judean mountains and others the more northern Samarian highlands, setting them apart from the more fertile regions to the west, north, and east of the western edge of the Jordan Rift Valley. This valley delineated the boundary between the Arabian plate and its neighboring plates to the west, introducing not only scarcity but also the constant threat of earthquakes to those residing in the highlands and mountainous terrain of the region.

In 720 BCE, the Assyrians conquered the northern Samarian highlands, home to other settled nomadic pastoral herders. As a result of the Assyrian conquest, many individuals from the northern region sought refuge in Judah. Judah managed to avoid annexation due to its remote and barren nature, which held little appeal for the Assyrians. To integrate these northern refugees and migrants into Judahite society in the south, the aristocracy and Yahweh's priesthood initiated a series of books that conveyed the shared mythology of the tribes residing in the Samarian highlands and Judean mountains.

The primary aim of the initial books that would eventually constitute the Torah and the older prophets in the Nevi'im was to foster social cohesion. During this process, Yahweh and El were merged, while gods like Ba'al, Asherah, and others from the Canaanite pantheon were eventually rejected by the priests in Jerusalem. Following the aftermath of the Bronze Age Collapse, the Judahite tribes experienced a period of independence, and their desire for a sustained independent homeland, especially among the ruling elite and priesthood, paralleled that of other tribes. They aspired to be free from foreign authorities, to worship in their unique way, and to govern themselves autonomously. Consequently, the ruling elite and priesthood established a code of conduct through a covenant with their god, Yahweh. The stories within the Torah underscored the relationship between the tribe and Yahweh, including myths highlighting how loyalty to Yahweh brought worldly rewards, while disloyalty and the worship of other gods incurred Yahweh's displeasure. Notably, loyalty to Yahweh was demonstrated through allegiance to the Judahite ruling elite and priesthood, as kings and priests could channel the resources of the entire tribe toward goals framed as divine mandates.

This covenant with Yahweh became the guiding framework for social interactions among the Judahite people. It is this covenant that displays so clearly its human origins. Starting with Exodus, we have:

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
I may be punished for something my mother's father's father did? However, we have not even had a thousand generations since David. Of course, what this does likely demonstrate is that there was an understanding of both genetics and learned behavior in an environment where most learning came from your family. Children of poor families remained poor, children of thieves likely became thieves, and children of the wealthy and influential remained so. Genetics mutations were likely seen as punishments from Yahweh.
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.”
Many of the commandments regarding the handling of slaves are simply dreadful: you can beat a slave so long as you don't knock out an eye or a tooth and they can get up after 48 hours.
“Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death.”
“Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.”
Striking or cursing your parents is hardly an action that merits the death penalty. I'd like to know how modern Judaism reconciles this.
“You shall not commit adultery.”
One consequence of sexual liberty is a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases, and yet, an omniscient being decided, instead of informing his people regarding the germ theory of disease, instead imposes monogamy and punishes those who deviate from this commandment. Of course, this did not happen, and instead, people observed that those who remained monogamous did not experience the consequences of sexually transmitted diseases, and therefore those who had multiple partners seemed to be cursed by the gods.
There are a number of commandments which Yahweh could have summarized as follows: “If the actions of one harms another, then the harmed shall be compensated in such a way so as to return that person to that person's state prior to the harm. If this cannot be done due to maiming or death, then that same harm will be set upon the one causing it. If the individual harmed, or if killed, the family of that individual choose to instead impose a fine, the one who caused the harm may pay the fine to avoid physical maiming or execution.”
“When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.”
This basically says that daughters are the property of the father and that a virgin has more worth to the father than one who is not.
“You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.”
How many women have been killed unjustly due to this commandment? Any omniscient being should have foreseen the death caused by such a generic statement and taken greater care to describe the true intention of this commandment.
“You shall not revile God or curse a leader of your people.”
This commandment would most certainly be something a human leader would put into their law. An omniscient being, however, would realize that leaders are fallible and should be subject to criticism.
“You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses.”
“The choicest of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God.”
Yes, be sure to give to the priests your offerings and your wine promptly and without delay.
“You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”
This one is odd, and one that I don't understand, but what is more difficult to understand is the Rabbinical prohibition that results from this commandment that one must not eat meat and cheese together. Given that they both provide proteins, it would be better to eat bread with meat today and then bread with cheese tomorrow, than to eat meat and cheese together, leading to a more balanced diet; however, this is more a consequence of the prohibition on eating dairy and meat together. However, given that birds and fish do not produce milk, one must ask why the prohibition of eating cheese together with meat includes those animals for which there is no mother's milk.
“When my angel goes in front of you and brings you to the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and I blot them out, ... I will set your borders from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will hand over to you the inhabitants of the land, and you shall drive them out before you. You shall make no covenant with them and their gods. They shall not live in your land, lest they make you sin against me, for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”
This is a statement of genocide and the subjugation and eviction of indigenous people. Apparently this is seen in a negative light today, but when commanded by a god, it must be acceptable, and indeed righteous. Of course, no Judahite king ever occupied even close to the claimed territory, although, following the 1967 Six-day War, Israel was able to extend its western borders to the Red Sea. It is alleged that the Kingdom of Solomon extended to the Euphrates, but while it not unbelievable that David had a son Solomon who ruled after him, it is clear that no such kingdom described ever existed and was likely modeled after the lesser but still extensive kingdom of the Israelite king Omri.
“You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.”
There is no punishment punishment for striking a slave so hard that he or she cannot get up for a day, but performing any sort of work on the Sabbath immediately warrants the death penalty.

If you are claiming that there was insufficient space in which for Yahweh to elaborate on rules regarding the ethical behavior of people, just consider that:

All of Exodus 28 (40 verses) is dedicated to the minutia of the vestments of the priesthood. For example,
“...and you shall make for the breastpiece two rings of gold and put the two rings on the two edges of the breastpiece. You shall put the two cords of gold in the two rings at the edges of the breastpiece; the two ends of the two cords you shall attach to the two settings and so attach it in front to the shoulder pieces of the ephod. You shall make two rings of gold and put them at the two ends of the breastpiece, on its inside edge next to the ephod. You shall make two rings of gold and attach them in front to the lower part of the two shoulder pieces of the ephod, at its joining above the decorated band of the ephod. The breastpiece shall be bound by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a blue cord, so that it may lie on the decorated band of the ephod and so that the breastpiece shall not come loose from the ephod.”
All of Exodus 29 (46 verses) is dedicated to the ordination of priests. For example,
“You shall also take the fat of the ram, the fatty tail, the fat that covers the entrails, the appendage of the liver, the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, and the right thigh (for it is a ram of ordination), 23 and one loaf of bread, one cake of bread made with oil, and one wafer, out of the basket of unleavened bread that is before the Lord, 24 and you shall place all these on the palms of Aaron and on the palms of his sons and raise them as an elevation offering before the Lord. 25 Then you shall take them from their hands and turn them into smoke on the altar on top of the burnt offering for a pleasing odor before the Lord.”

Why does Yahweh have such a desire for the “pleasing odor” of a burnt offering? This is repeated so often elsewhere in the Torah: “And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, ...” in Genesis 8 and in Leviticus 1, “...an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.” Of course, the aroma of a barbeque is well known to humans today as being exceptionally pleasing, and today we know it is at least in part due to the Maillard reaction, but why would an omniscient and omnipotent god care about the temporary smell of a burned carcass?

Now, there are many commandments that impose some form of social justice:

“You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely heed their cry; my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans.”

“If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. If you take your neighbor’s cloak as guarantee, you shall restore it before the sun goes down, for it may be your neighbor’s only clothing to use as a cover. In what else shall that person sleep? And when your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate.”

However, I doubt that that any god killed someone who abused a widow or orphan.

Going on to Leviticus,

The first chapter is entirely devoted to burnt offerings. Again, humans have receptors in the nose to detect both beneficial odors, such as that of pleasing food, and detrimental odors, such as that of excrement, decay, poison and hákarl. Odors increase the enjoyment of food, and it is necessary for all animals to eat, but why would an omniscient being care about the ephemeral aromas wafting up from a burnt offering? Did he create animals simply to provide humans with a source of proteins which they could burn on wood fires?
The second chapter is entirely devoted to grain offerings.
The third chapter is devoted to offerings of well-being.
The fourth chapter and most of chapter five are devoted to purification offerings.
The balance of chapter five and the start of chapter six are devoted to offerings with restitution. It describes in part how you must pay restitution if you have inadvertently harmed your neighbor, but it also includes offerings to Yahweh.
Further instructions regarding offerings continue until the end of chapter seven.

Of course, all these offerings go the the priests, who benefit from them, for they, their families and their servants and slaves may eat from these offerings: no wonder they scriptures insist on “unblemished” sacrificial offerings. It is hardly surprising that those who wrote the scriptures were also the ones who most benefited from them. On occasion, it is required that a sacrifice be burned until there is nothing left, but this is the exception and not the rule. More importantly, could not some of those verses be used to described how one may identify a “witch” that is to be put to death?

We then get to the dietary restrictions in Leviticus 11:

“From among all the land animals, these are the creatures that you may eat. Any animal that has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed and chews the cud—such you may eat.”

This is recorded as having been spoken by Yahweh directly to Moses.

Now, all placental mammals that ruminate belong to a single clade Ruminantiamorpha within the order Artiodactyla:

The first branch is into the clades Tylopoda (including camels, llamas, guanacos, alpacas and vicuñas which ruminate but are not kosher) and Artiofabula.
Artiofabula branch into the clades Suina (including pigs, which do not ruminate and are not kosher) and Cetruminantia.
Cetruminantia branch into the clades Cetancodonta (including hippos, whales and dolphins which do not ruminate and are not kosher) and Ruminantia.
All animals in Ruminantia ruminate or “chew their cud” and all animals in this clade have two toes that evolved into hooves (having “split hooves”) and are therefore kosher.

One marsupial will regurgitate its food, and that is the kangaroo, but this seems specific to this species.

This leads to the question: did the earliest ancestors of Artiodactyla ruminate and then some species branched and lost this ability, or did rumination evolve twice: once in Tylopoda and again in Ruminantia? Anyways, Ruminantia include:

chevrotains (6 species);
deer and moose (49 species);
giraffe and okapi;
pronghorn;
musk deer (4 species);
cattle, goats, sheep, and antelope (143 species).

Ruminantia are animals that get all their energy from cellulose, a very meager source of energy, and thus they seem prone to herding, which makes them ideal species for nomadic pastoral herders.

Not once, but twice did mammals evolve hooves. The keratin nails that evolved in mammals provided protection to the digits from cuts, abrasion and impacts. They allowed for greater sensitivity aiding in grooming, foraging and exploration; for example, they allow mammals to scrape and remove dirt, debris and parasites from the skin and fur. Our five-fingered limbs, while providing excellent tools for carnivores and omnivores as well as tree-climbing, in three branches of herbivores, there is evolution of hooves from nails often associated with a reduction of digits. This reduction in digits and the evolution of the nails into hooves have significant benefits:

Hooves provide a larger surface area compared to soft pads, which allows for better support and traction, especially when running on varied terrain. This adaptation is crucial for escaping predators or pursuing prey.
Hooves distribute the animal's weight more evenly over a smaller surface area, reducing pressure on specific points of the foot. This is particularly advantageous for large-bodied animals that exert significant force on their limbs.
The hard, keratinized surface of hooves acts as a protective shield, guarding against injuries from rough terrain, sharp objects, and abrasive surfaces.
Hooves are lightweight structures, reducing the energy required for locomotion. This is especially important for animals that cover large distances in search of food, water, or mates.
Hooves are well-suited for various environments, from soft, muddy terrain to rocky landscapes. This adaptability allows hoofed animals to inhabit diverse habitats, ranging from grasslands and forests to deserts and mountains.

The relevant clades are:

The already-mentioned clade of Artiodactyla, where the number of digits reduced to two, of which Ruminantia is a sub-clade.
The clade Euungulata, where the number of digits reduced to one, which includes horses, asses, zebras, tapirs and rhinoceroses.
The clade Paenungulata, where the number of digits vary between three and five, and yet where the digits do not have hooves as these two previous clades, they do have evolutionary features in the nails that are resembling the functionality of hooves, including elephants, dugongs, manatees, and hyraxes.

Like most mammals, kangaroos have pads.

As only animals within the clade Ruminantia both ruminate and have two digits (referred to as “split hooves,” which is technically incorrect, as they were never a single hoof to split), they are the only kosher animals. What mutation that split these off from their closest relatives, the clade Cetancodonta, is beyond me, and what makes all these other animals unfit to eat, too, is beyond me. However, if you consider that the earliest Judahite and Israelite ancestors were nomadic pastoral herders, and it seems that those animals that were easiest to herd were essentially restricted to this one clade, then it makes economic sense to force an embargo on any animals that were not raised by these nomadic herders: no pigs, no camels. Let us now look at what Leviticus 11 says about those animals that are not kosher: “The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them...”

“The camel for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.”
Correct, for the camel evolved to survive in the desert sands, and thus the nails of the two toes did not evolve to hooves. Also, camels evolved the ability to ruminate separately from the clade Ruminantia.
“The rock badger, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.”
Incorrect, as the rock hyrax is not a ruminant, so there are in fact two strikes against it and Yahweh himself is wrong.
“The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.”
Incorrect again, as the rabbit, too, is not a ruminant, and it does not even have hooves, and again Yahweh in his dictations is wrong.
“The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.”
Correct, both ruminants and pigs are species within the clade of Artiofabula where the number of digits is reduced to two, but pigs adapted themselves to be omnivores and thus either did not require and thus did not evolve the ability to ruminate.

Thus, the selection of animals that are considered kosher do in fact fall into one clade, but the reasons given for excluding rock badgers and hares are incorrect in both cases, as neither of these animals ruminate: the only other species that ruminate are camels, llamas, and others in that clade. If Yahweh had created the universe and dictated this to Moses and Aaron, then Yahweh would have known that rock badgers and hares do not chew their cud. Leviticus 11 should have said:

“The rock badger and the hare, for even though they may appear to chew their cud, they do not and they do not have divided hoofs; they are unclean for you.”

Subsequent chapters in Leviticus cover pedestrian topics, and yet, in none of this does Yahweh enlighten us as to how to identify when a woman is acting as a witch who must be killed. Instead, we cover such uninteresting topics such as

Purification of women after childbirth, which of course includes an offering to the priests.
Skin disease, including varieties and symptoms, but only so as to classify individuals and their clothing as either clean or unclean. Yahweh was unable to provide any medical help at this time. As far as what to do to help the individual, “The person who has the defiling disease shall
1. Wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head be disheveled.
2. Cover his upper lip and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean.’
3. Remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean.
4. Live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.”
Purification of the diseased, which of course, includes an offering to the priests: “he shall take two male lambs without blemish and one ewe lamb in its first year without blemish and a grain offering of three-tenths of an ephah of choice flour mixed with oil and one log of oil.”
House diseases, including varieties and symptoms, but also including a rather clear statement as to the cause of mold: “When you come into the land of Canaan, ... and I put a defiling disease in a house in the land of your possession, ...”
Emissions of semen or mensural fluids both cause the individual and anything that comes in contact with it to be unclean, and of course, the cleansing requires another offering to the priests: “On the eighth day [he or she] shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting.”

With the Babylonian exile, those Judahite intelligentsia formulated a significant change to the religion: Yahweh was not just one of many gods and the god of the land of Judah, but rather he was the only god: he was now the creator of everything, and the Judahite people were his chosen people. When those in exile returned to Jerusalem, they found that their new formulation was not accepted by many of those who remained, and the subsequent conflicts are also recorded in the latter prophets.

Judaism has been seriously misinterpreted by Christians. At first, Jesus had had himself anointed, and when this was presented to the Roman governor of Iudaea, he had Jesus executed for sedition, and the sign on the cross indicated Jesus's crime: having had himself anointed, Jesus was declaring himself to be king of the Jews. Consequently, the loyalties of any follower of this executed traitor would be at best questionable. To minimize this unfortunate relationship between their prophet and the Roman state, followers began to establish stories that cast blame not on Jesus's apocalyptic ministry, but rather on the Jews. Jesus was not a traitor, but rather, he was innocent and just, and it was the Jews who pressured Pilate to execute him. Voluminous forgeries were authored that sought to distance Jesus from the verdict of guilty of sedition against the Roman state.

Still, Judaism survived, and Christianity was adopted not by Jews but rather by first the Greeks and then the Romans and others, and these followers of Jesus appropriated the scriptures of the Judahite religion, at least, when it benefitted them. The concept that the Kingdom of Yahweh would come to Earth followed by the resurrection of the righteous would be discarded and instead Greek ideas of Heaven and Hell and later Purgatory were adopted instead. The idea that a messiah would come and usher in this kingdom of Yahweh was replaced with the parallel story that Jesus would come again, ushering in of that same kingdom. It was awkward, though, as now Christians went directly to Heaven upon their deaths, and yet would be resurrected once Jesus ushered in his kingdom. This may have made sense if Jesus's return was imminent, as Paul believed, but billions of Christians have since existed in Heaven, some for almost two-thousand years.

But Judaism survived, and it is in some ways a much more interesting religion than Christianity. The paramount duty of all Jews is to keep the covenant, but one must thus correctly interpret what Yahweh meant:

“Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

Six days you shall labor and do all your work.

But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—

you,
your son or your daughter,
your male or female slave,
your livestock, or
the alien resident in your towns.”

But what is “work”? Is a one-hour walk considered work, or is a journey only considered work if is related to monetary gain? Can one carry firewood on the Sabbath? What if carrying that firewood was the difference between life and death; say, in the middle of a snow storm? Can you carry an injured person to a doctor on the Sabbath, and if this is allowed, how serious must the injury be? However, most Jews understand Yahweh to be reasonable: a parent or guardian would be obligated to carry a sick child to see a doctor on the Sabbath if that child was deathly ill, or even if it was simply suspected that the child was deathly ill. All of the commandments that deal with the interactions between people are there to govern the interactions between Jews and other Jews, so the commandment “you shall not murder” is a prohibition against murdering another Jew. It does not say that you cannot kill another Jew, for example, if that person is attacking you or your family and the only way to stop that individual is to sufficient bodily harm as to either kill or potentially kill that person. It also says nothing about actions against those who are not Jewish, although

One interesting solution to the commandment that you will not take Yahweh's name in vain is simply to never mention the name. Instead of saying Yahweh, you instead use אֲדֹנָי (adonai) or "Lord." This leads to an interesting transliteration: while Yahweh is spelled יהוה, so with no long vowels indicated, the name could be pronounced in a myriad of different ways, as ancient Hebrew just stored the consonants. For example, if short vowels are generally omitted, while long a, e or i are represented by æ and long o or u are represented by v, then

Yv mæbæ 'bl to ræd ths bækvs yv kn gs wt th vvwls r.

The study of the covenant is central to the philosophy of the Pharisees, those teachers who established what is modern rabbinic Judaism.

When I went to church, no minister ever mentioned the teachings of a former Baptist preacher or theologian; indeed, I never once heard anything about the history of the Baptist church. On the other hand, at a Coptic Christian service I attended, part of the six-hour service included teachings on the heresies from ages past. The Catholic church does refer to the teachings of its 37 doctors of the Catholic church, and the teachings of those who lived before the schisms between Catholic and Orthodox churches are also held in high regard by the latter. On the other hand, what was emphasized was that rabbinic Judaism diverted from Yahweh's

Stepping back in time, it's essential to recognize that many of the original commandments were rooted in the socio-economic conditions of the Judean mountains nearly three millennia ago. The figure of Moses, often attributed to leading the Exodus from Egypt, is a subject of historical debate, as there is no evidence to support the existence of such an event. Consequently, it's highly unlikely that the written or oral laws were truly given at Mount Sinai. However, the strength of a body of laws is not solely contingent on divine inspiration but on the acceptance and adherence of the majority of those subject to these laws.

For almost three thousand years, many Jewish communities have interpreted and followed, at least in part, this ancient corpus of laws and traditions. While one can admire the dedication, scholarly examination, and ongoing discussions related to the interpretation of both written and oral laws, a key distinction lies in the fact that, unlike constitutional law, which allows for changes to the underlying constitution, the assertion that both oral and written laws were divinely conveyed by Yahweh himself renders them immutable.

An alternative approach was adopted by a more conservative and aristocratic faction, known as the Sadducees. The origin of their name remains a subject of debate, with theories suggesting it may be derived from their purported descent from Zadok, the first High Priest during King David's reign. Zadok is the only figure whose lineage lays legitimate claim to the High Priesthood. Another theory traces the name to the Hebrew word 'tzadok,' signifying 'righteous' or 'just.' It is possible that their appellation is a fusion of these origins.

The Sadducees staunchly rejected the Pharisaic belief in the existence of an Oral Torah and, at best, expressed skepticism regarding the notion of a resurrection of the dead. Their theological stance held that when the body perished, so did the soul. In their view, divine blessings and rewards were meant to be reaped in this earthly life, necessitating strict adherence to the written Torah. This included the paramount requirement of performing sacrifices exclusively in Jerusalem, which further solidified their close association with the Temple. This affiliation granted them considerable political influence, enabling them to sway the Judahite populace.

The Sadducees profited significantly from the Temple's role as a religious and financial hub, cultivating social and political ties with the Jewish elite spanning the vast Roman Empire and beyond. Their willingness to collaborate with various ruling authorities in Jerusalem, whether the Greeks, the Hasmoneans, the Herodians, or the Romans, further solidified their position.

This adherence to the Temple and its practices set them in stark contrast to other religious sects. The Sadducees clashed with the Pharisees, who upheld the Oral Torah, and with apocalyptic groups like the followers of John the Baptist and Jesus, who believed in the resurrection of the dead and the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh. Additionally, their opulent association with Jerusalem's Temple opposed the Essenes' rejection of such luxury and the Sicarii's opposition to collaboration with the Romans. Jesus's actions, such as his temple disruption during Passover and his teachings that opposed Roman authority, would undoubtedly have drawn the attention of the Sadducees. When they discovered that Jesus had been anointed, this provided them with the evidence required to label him as an enemy of the Roman state.

However, with the First Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, this marked the demise of the Sadducees. With their primary source of power and income obliterated, their influence waned, and they likely assimilated into Pharisaic traditions. Nevertheless, their ideas persisted, with later groups like the Karaite Judaism emerging with similar beliefs.

The Christian faith

For nearly 55 years—just one week shy of that milestone—I assumed Christianity was an extension of Judaism. However, I now recognize that, apart from Jesus’s ancestry and certain mythological elements, Christianity is fundamentally a product of Greco-Roman religion and philosophy, not Judaism. In many ways, it represents a cultural appropriation of Judaism by the Greeks, stripping away its core tenets and reshaping it to fit Greco-Roman ideals—philosophical, political, and theological.

Around the year 1 CE, Yeshua (Jesus) was born to Mary and Joseph in Nazareth, near the city of Sepphoris. After the death of King Herod the Great in 4 BCE, his son Herod Antipas was appointed tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. At the time, Nazareth was an insignificant rural village, lacking public buildings, civic institutions, or even a synagogue. Unlike the nearby city of Sepphoris, which was a regional administrative and economic hub, Nazareth was little more than a cluster of simple homes, likely carved into the limestone hills. Archaeological evidence suggests a small population engaged in subsistence farming, with no signs of urban infrastructure. While some Jewish villages had mikva’ot (ritual baths), no such structure has been found in Nazareth from this period, further suggesting its status as an unremarkable settlement on the fringes of Galilean society.

Herod Antipas, however, sought to transform Sepphoris into the "Ornament of Galilee," a grand administrative and cultural center befitting his rule. This ambitious project required a vast workforce of craftsmen, laborers, and builders to construct its fortified walls, palaces, markets, and public buildings. Given that Joseph is described as a tekton—a term that could refer to a carpenter, stoneworker, or general craftsman—it is likely that he traveled the roughly five miles from Nazareth to Sepphoris each day to work on the city’s expansion.

The journey would have been a modest but regular commute, following dirt paths through the rolling hills of Lower Galilee. If Joseph indeed labored in Sepphoris, he would have been exposed to the bustling environment of a Hellenized city-in-the-making, where Greek, Roman, and Jewish influences intertwined. He may have worked alongside skilled artisans, assisting in the construction of homes, workshops, or even the grand structures that would define Antipas’s vision. This proximity to Sepphoris likely shaped the economic and cultural environment of nearby Nazareth, even if the village itself remained a humble settlement with no significant public infrastructure.

Yet while Sepphoris flourished, Nazareth remained little more than a quiet outpost, untouched by the grandeur rising just beyond the hills. The contrast would have been stark—on one side, a city adorned with theaters, colonnaded streets, and the symbols of Greco-Roman sophistication; on the other, a village of subsistence farmers and tradesmen, lost in the traditions of their ancestors. Such rapid transformation could not have been without tension. For those like Joseph, toiling under Antipas’s ambitions, the encroachment of foreign customs and ideals may have been unsettling. It is possible that he regarded Sepphoris with unease, watching as Greek rhetoric, Roman architecture, and imperial administration reshaped Galilee.

Joseph disappears from the historical record after Jesus’s childhood, suggesting that he may have died while his children were still young. If he worked in Sepphoris, the physical demands of daily labor—or an accident amid the city’s relentless expansion—could have led to his early death. His absence would have left his family vulnerable, forcing them to navigate a world that was shifting beneath them. Whether through direct hardship or the growing chasm between the Jewish villages and the urbanized centers of power, such circumstances may have sown in his sons a sense of discontent with the order of things. The clash between old and new, between the traditions of their forebears and the Greco-Roman vision imposed by Antipas, may have left an indelible mark—one that would shape their understanding of the world and their place within it.

At the time that Jesus was a young man, John the Baptist was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher who proclaimed that the Kingdom of Yahweh was near and that people needed to prepare for its arrival through repentance and renewal. His message, preserved in multiple Gospel accounts, was one of urgency—a call for moral and spiritual transformation in anticipation of divine intervention.

This was not merely a call for personal righteousness; it was rooted in the long-standing Jewish apocalyptic tradition, which anticipated a moment when Yahweh would decisively intervene in history. According to this belief, the present age of oppression and corruption—marked by foreign rule, economic inequality, and moral decay—would soon come to a cataclysmic end. The rulers of the Earth, including the Romans and their collaborators among the Jewish elite, would be vanquished, and Yahweh alone would reign. The dead would be raised, the righteous would be rewarded, and the wicked would be cast out.

John’s message echoed the prophecies of figures like Daniel, Isaiah, and Malachi, who spoke of a coming Day of Yahweh when divine justice would overturn earthly powers. His call to repentance and baptism in the Jordan was not about ritual purity but about preparing to stand before Yahweh in judgment. Those who refused to change their ways would be swept away in the coming transformation. This belief in an imminent, world-altering event made John’s movement urgent, radical, and dangerous—especially to those in power.

John’s preaching centered on immersion in water as a sign of repentance. However, his immersion differed significantly from the traditional mikvah in Jewish practice. The mikvah was a ritual bath used for purity laws, such as cleansing after bodily impurities (e.g., menstruation, contact with a corpse, or sexual relations) or before entering the Temple. It was not a one-time event but rather a regular requirement to maintain ritual purity.

John’s immersion, on the other hand, was not about ritual purity but about moral and spiritual renewal in preparation for the coming Kingdom of Yahweh. Unlike the mikvah, which was concerned with maintaining the status quo of Jewish religious life, John’s baptism was a radical, single-event transformation meant to prepare people for an impending cosmic upheaval. This is reflected in the Gospel accounts:

Mark 1:4 where “John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”
Luke 3:3 where “He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”
Matthew 3:6 stating that “Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.”

The phrase "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" suggests that John’s immersion was meant as a symbolic act of turning away from sin rather than an act of cleansing ritual impurity. The urgency of John’s message—his insistence that the Kingdom of Yahweh was at hand—made this immersion a decisive break from past transgressions, preparing individuals for the divine transformation of the world.

Given Jesus’s likely exposure to the Hellenization of Sepphoris, the appeal of John’s message becomes clearer. Sepphoris, the nearby city rebuilt by Herod Antipas, embodied Roman power, wealth, and cultural influence—all of which could be seen as corrupting forces encroaching upon Jewish life. If Jesus grew up witnessing the economic disparities and the growing divide between the Jewish peasantry and the urban elite, he may have felt drawn to a movement that rejected the existing social order in favor of a divinely mandated renewal.

Jesus traveled to John and was baptized in the Jordan, an act recorded in all four Gospels: In Mark 1:9-11 we have that “At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Matthew 3:13-17, Luke 3:21-22, and John 1:29-34 confirm this event, highlighting its importance. The act of immersion in the Jordan River may have carried additional symbolic weight. The Jordan was where the Israelites, under Joshua, entered the Promised Land after leaving the wilderness (Joshua 3). By baptizing in the Jordan, John may have been invoking this historical moment, signaling that a new era was about to begin—not a return to physical land, but a spiritual entry into Yahweh’s coming reign.

John’s popularity grew, drawing large crowds, but it also made him a political threat. According to Josephus (Antiquities 18.116-119), Herod Antipas feared that John’s influence could lead to unrest, as he commanded the loyalty of many followers. Eventually, Herod had John arrested and later executed, marking the end of his public ministry. However, John’s death did not mark the end of his movement. By the time of his arrest, his message had already galvanized many in Judea and Galilee, fostering the widespread expectation that divine judgment was imminent. His call for ordinary Jews to prepare for Yahweh’s intervention—rather than placing their trust in the Temple elite or Roman rule—had resonated deeply, and his followers continued spreading his teachings. John’s legacy continued to influence followers such as the Mandaeans, who continue to this day to venerate him as the true messiah and last prophet. His influence endured long after his death, not only through those who saw him as a forerunner but also among those who regarded him as the central figure of their faith. Though Herod had sought to silence him, John’s movement proved far more enduring than any ruler’s decree.

With John the Baptist’s arrest, it appears that Jesus sought to take up the mantle of his message, ensuring that the call to repentance and preparation for Yahweh’s imminent Kingdom did not fade. Jesus did not merely continue John’s apocalyptic preaching—he became its leading voice, proclaiming that the long-awaited divine intervention was at hand.

From the very beginning of his public ministry, the Gospels portray Jesus echoing John’s urgent warning: In Mark 1:14-15, it says that "After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time is fulfilled,’ he said. ‘The Kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!’" This passage explicitly connects Jesus’ mission to the moment of John’s arrest, reinforcing the idea that he picked up the apocalyptic message where John left off.

Jesus’s teachings consistently emphasized the nearness of Yahweh’s Kingdom, often warning that it would arrive within the lifetimes of his listeners:

Mark 9:1 where Jesus says “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come with power.”
Matthew 10:23 where he says “Truly I tell you, you will not have gone through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

These statements suggest that Jesus believed—just as John did—that Yahweh’s judgment and transformation of the world were imminent. His urgency was not metaphorical; it was a call to prepare for a profound, world-altering event that he believed would unfold soon.

Moreover, Jesus' apocalyptic warnings mirrored John’s imagery of divine judgment, particularly in passages where he described cataclysmic upheaval: in Mark 13:24-26, he said that “But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” By adopting and expanding John’s message, Jesus positioned himself as the next great prophetic voice proclaiming Yahweh’s reign. While John had prepared the way, Jesus now declared the fulfillment was imminent.

Both John the Baptist and Jesus preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh, warning that divine intervention was near and that the world as it stood would soon be overturned. Central to this expectation was the arrival of an anointed figure, often referred to in apocalyptic literature as the "Son of Man"—a figure who would play a decisive role in Yahweh’s coming reign. At a certain point, it appears that Jesus began to identify himself with this prophetic role, interpreting his own mission as the fulfillment of the long-anticipated messianic transformation.

Despite the grand claims made about him, Jesus was ultimately a failed prophet—not because he was arrested or executed, but because those who knew him most intimately rejected his message. The very people among whom he lived, preached, and performed supposed miracles remained unmoved or actively hostile toward him.

In Nazareth, his hometown, Jesus was dismissed outright. According to the Gospels, when he returned to preach there, his own neighbors and family—people who had known him since childhood—refused to believe in him: In Mark 6:3-4, they said “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.’” If Jesus had truly been a divine being with undeniable miraculous power, why did his own hometown see him as nothing more than a deluded carpenter?

The same pattern played out in Capernaum, the town where Jesus spent most of his ministry and performed many of his supposed miracles. Despite all his efforts there, Capernaum rejected him, along with the neighboring towns of Chorazin and Bethsaida. Jesus himself acknowledged this failure when he angrily cursed them, for in Matthew 11:23-24, Jesus cursed them: “And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.” If Jesus had genuinely performed verifiable supernatural acts—something as undeniable as restoring a withered hand in front of the entire town—would these people not have been awestruck? In a small community, where every family would have been connected to those afflicted, would even a single true miracle each month not have transformed public opinion? After a year, nearly every family in town would have had a direct encounter with his power. And yet, those closest to him remained skeptical or outright rejected him.

His failure to convince his own people, despite claiming divine power, speaks volumes. If the very communities that witnessed his works firsthand dismissed him, how could he have expected to transform the world? Rather than a triumphant messianic figure, Jesus left behind disillusionment, betrayal, and rejection—a failed prophet whose message failed to take root where it should have mattered most. Thus, Jesus decided to take his message to Jerusalem at Passover.

To prepare for this, Jesus underwent a symbolic anointing, an event recorded in multiple Gospel accounts (Mark 14:3-9, Matthew 26:6-13, Luke 7:36-50, John 12:1-8). A woman—identified as Mary of Bethany in John’s account—poured an expensive ointment (nard) over Jesus, an act that carried profound symbolic and political significance. Anointing with oil was traditionally associated with royal coronation (as in 1 Samuel 10:1, where Saul is anointed as king) and priestly consecration. By accepting this act, Jesus may have been publicly embracing the role of the Anointed One (the Messiah), further solidifying his claim that the Kingdom of Yahweh was at hand.

However, this dramatic display was not well received by all of his followers. At least one disciple—Judas Iscariot—reacted with disillusionment or frustration. According to John 12:4-6, Judas objected to the extravagance of the gesture, questioning why such an expensive oil was not sold and the money given to the poor. Whether his objection stemmed from genuine concern, political discontent, or personal disappointment, this moment seems to have marked a turning point. Judas, perhaps disturbed by what he saw as self-aggrandizement, or possibly fearing the consequences of Jesus’s increasingly bold actions, sought out members of the Jewish aristocracy and disclosed critical information about him.

This betrayal provided the Sanhedrin—the Jewish ruling council—with an opportunity to move against Jesus, particularly in light of his recent disruption of the Temple (Mark 11:15-18, Matthew 21:12-13, Luke 19:45-48, John 2:13-16). His growing anti-Roman, apocalyptic message and his messianic claims positioned him as a direct threat, not only to the Temple authorities but also to Roman governance itself.

In the eyes of the authorities, Jesus’s acceptance of an anointing signified more than a religious rite—it was a public declaration of kingship. To proclaim oneself as the Messiah—the divinely anointed leader who would usher in Yahweh’s rule—was tantamount to sedition under Roman law. By accepting the title of "King of the Jews," even symbolically, Jesus placed himself in direct opposition to the authority of Pontius Pilate and the Roman administration. This act ultimately led to his arrest, trial, and execution, as his movement had now escalated from an apocalyptic religious revival to a perceived political rebellion—one that Rome could not ignore.

According to the earliest gospel, during his trial before Pilate, Jesus remained largely silent, offering little in his own defense. The gospel of Mark presents this as a deliberate act, possibly in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering servant (Isaiah 53:7), who would be "like a lamb led to the slaughter, silent before its shearers," for in Mark 15:3-5, it says that "The chief priests accused him of many things. So again Pilate asked him, ‘Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.’ But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed." This silence stands in stark contrast to his dramatic cry from the cross, when he finally broke his composure in the face of death, where in Mark 15:34 it says that "At three in the afternoon, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ (which means ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’)." The shift from stoic silence before Pilate to a desperate scream of abandonment on the cross reveals a stark transformation in Jesus' final hours. If he had once expected divine intervention, none came. In that moment, he seemed completely alone, forsaken not only by his followers, who had fled, but by Yahweh himself.

Both John the Baptist and Jesus preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh and emphasized that it would be heralded by a specific anointed figure referred to as the “Son of Man." At a certain point, it appears that Jesus began to identify himself with this prophetic role. In anticipation of this, he underwent a symbolic anointing, involving the use of what seemed to be a rather costly ointment.

This act, blending elements of self-aggrandizement and extravagance, appeared to disillude at least one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot. Judas, perhaps disturbed by this display, apparently shared information about Jesus's anointing with someone associated with the Jewish aristocracy. This disclosure provided the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, with the necessary grounds to address the disruptive figure from Galilee who had recently disturbed the Temple proceedings while spreading an anti-Roman, apocalyptic message.

In the eyes of the authorities, Jesus's act of self-anointing signified a claim to messiahship, effectively positioning himself as the "King of the Jews" and, as a result, placing him in direct opposition to Roman governance. This pivotal turn of events led to Jesus's arrest, a trial on charges of sedition, and ultimately, his execution.

1. Response to Jesus's execution

There seem to have been at least three responses to Jesus's execution:

Some followers seem to have abandoned the cause: while Christian traditions hold that the eleven disciples continued to further the ministry of Jesus, very few are explicitly mentioned in the gospel of Luke and the subsequent text of the Acts of the Apostles.
Some followers continued to teach Jesus's message, and this seems to have included Jesus's brother James. For hundreds of years, one such group, the Ebionites, continued to believe that Jesus was adopted the “Son of Yahweh” at his baptism, and was a prophet whose message was an end to the sacrifices in Jerusalem; however, if this was part of Jesus's original message, it does not appear in any of the Christian literature.
For other followers, the eschatological understanding for many Jews (at least, those who believed in the resurrection of the dead) was that the Kingdom of Yahweh would come and that those righteous who were dead would be resurrected: the soul and the body were inextricably linked, so the soul could not exist without a body, and as Yahweh breathed life into Adam, he too would breath life back into the bodies of the deceased. It seems that Mary Magdalene and perhaps Peter either had a vision or claimed they had a vision that Jesus had been resurrected: his resurrection would be the first of many, and soon Jesus would return ushering in that Kingdom. Indeed, Matthew 27:52-53 describes the resurrection of others at this time: “The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.” The author of Matthew still believed that the coming of the Kingdom of Yahweh had started, and that Jesus would return soon ushering in that Kingdom.

2. First adopted, then born, and then a divine being

Over time, this third attitude seems to have dominated: it was certainly included in the message of Paul. Over time, the understanding of who Jesus was also changed:

“You are my Son, today I have begotten you” appears in at least some ancient copies of Luke, indicating that Jesus was adopted the Son of God at his baptism.
The authors of Matthew and Luke author their birth narratives as if Jesus came into existence at his conception; there is no discussion of Jesus pre-existing his birth. Additionally, the author of Luke has an interesting understanding of what happens after the resurrection:
The author of John and Paul thought Jesus was an angel or other divine being. In John, we have “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” Here, the “Word of God” parallels the “Angel of God", the “Wisdom of God", the "Spirit of God" and the "Son of God" (a title given to the kings of Judah). In Paul, the poem in Philippians 2 clearly describes an angel: a being that is in the form of God (like Adam and other angels) but not God, and this angel is exalted after his resurrection. If Jesus was already God, this passage makes no sense: “Jesus who, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, assuming human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. Therefore God exalted him even more highly and gave him the name that is above every other name, so that at the name given to Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
However, the author of John and Paul have very different ideas of what the resurrected body is: in John, Jesus still has the holes in his hands and the gash caused by Roman soldier's spear. Paul, on the other hand says in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 “So it is with the resurrection of the dead...what is raised is imperishable...it is raised in glory...it is raised in power...it is raised a spiritual body...there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, ...the last Adam became a life-giving spirit...But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual...the second man is from heaven...and as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. ...we will also bear the image of the one of heaven.”
The author of John also has a bizarre understanding of who Jesus is, for he does not describe a god, but rather one who is local and temporal: “But now I am going to him who sent me, ... Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you...because I am going to the Father, and you will see me no longer.”

It is important to note that the “Word of God” was an idea described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who saw the “Word of God” as an intermediary between Yahweh and the created world; this was not an ideal novel to the author of John. That Jesus needed to be born to a virgin is the result of a mistranslation of ancient Hebrew in the Pentateuch, where the Hebrew word for a “young woman” was translated to the Greek word for “virgin”, even though there is already a separate word for “virgin” in ancient Hebrew. That Jesus needed to be born in Bethlehem, caused to gospel authors to narrate completely antithetical birth narratives:

In Luke, the first two chapters embody Gemütlichkeit. Mary and Joseph begin their lives in Nazareth, and travel to Bethlehem for a census under Quirinius, who became governor of Syria in 6 CE, as the Romans had deposed Herod Archelaus; (although no record of such a census has ever been found). In Bethlehem, Jesus is born and shepherds come to visit him. After a week, Jesus is circumcised and a month later, the family travels to Jerusalem for the ritual of purification for Mary, after which they return to their home in Nazareth.
In Matthew, the first two chapters embody fear and loathing. Mary and Joseph begin in Bethlehem, and during the life of King Herod, Jesus is born, and they are visited by Magi from the East. After this, they flee to Egypt to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses, and King Herod kills hundreds of infants under the age of two in Bethlehem (although no contemporary records of this atrocity six miles from Jerusalem have ever been found). After King Herod dies in 4 BCE (a decade before Jesus was born in Luke), they return to Judah, but fear the newly installed ethnarch Herod Archelaus, so instead of going home to Bethlehem, they go north to Galilee. There, Joseph “made his home in a town called Nazareth.”

Slowly, Jesus is being transformed from a human to some sort of divine being. Being born the son of a deity is a common trope in Greek mythology, so why can't Jesus be the son of Yahweh? Polytheism is integral to Greek mythology, so why not make Jesus a god? Christianity is nothing more than Greek appropriation of Jewish beliefs.

3. Approaches to Salvation

We must now look at how the execution of Jesus is interpreted by his followers. There are two distinct themes: salvation comes through

repentance and turning to God, or
Jesus's sacrificial blood that cleanse the sins of the one who believes and has faith in this.

3.1 Salvation through repentance and turning to God

Recall that John the Baptist proclaimed “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” The author of Luke and Acts continues this interpretation, whereby he says:

“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:32)
“Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7)
“Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:26-27)
“No, I tell you, but unless you repent you will all perish as they did.” (Luke 13:3)

All of these passages that emphasize repentance appear only in the gospel of Luke: they are not part of the common passages shared with Mark or Matthew. The author of Luke continues this interpretation in the book of the Acts of the Apostles:

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
“Repent, therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out.” (Acts 3:19)
“Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18)
“While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)

Nowhere does the author of Luke and Acts every associate the blood of Jesus as having any part in salvation: as with John the Baptist's message, salvation comes from repentance and turning to God. This is paralleled in the letter of James, the brother of Jesus, who seems to have continued the message of his brother Jesus after the latter's execution. Statements in this letter that parallel Jesus's message include:

James 1:27 “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
James 2:13 “For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”

James, the brother of Jesus, appears to have stayed in Jerusalem to continue spreading the apocalyptic message of John the Baptist and his brother Jesus. James also emphasizes the same message as John the Baptist and the author of Luke and Acts; that is, to repent and turn to God: James 4:7-10 says:

Submit yourselves therefore to God.
Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.
Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Lament and mourn and weep.
Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into dejection.
Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

3.2 Salvation through faith and sacrificial blood

The message of John the Baptist, the author of Luke and Acts, and James, the brother of Jesus, differs markedly from the opinions of the author of John and Paul. The author of John explicitly refers to Jesus as the "Word of God," but also refers to Jesus as the "Lamb of God." Jesus's execution is now being understood as a sacrifice, and the author of John explicitly moves the execution of Jesus from the morning after the Passover meal (remembering that the day starts at sunset), to the day of the preparation of the Passover meal, so Jesus's execution is now on the same day as the sacrifice of the Passover lambs: in the book of John, there is no Passover meal, even though this is explicitly mentioned in all three synoptic gospels.

3.3 Vicarious redemption

4. The resurrection and the Kingdom of Heaven

4.1 The Kingdom is coming soon

Recall that both Jesus and Paul insisted that the Kingdom of God would come in their lives:

Jesus said in Mark 9:1 “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
Paul emphasizes that the Kingdom of God has not yet come, but that it is coming for in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, it says “For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever.”
Paul later emphasizes this in a letter to the church in Rome. In Romans 13:11-12, he says “Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is already the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone; the day is near. Let us then throw off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light...”

Among Paul's worst advice, it however does make sense sense if he believed that the Kingdom of God was coming soon: In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 he says “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” He continues later in that narrative to say “Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is good for you to remain as you are.”

4.2 The Kingdom will come, but it must get worse first

As the decades passed, and the Kingdom did not come, subsequent authors changed the message. The forger who wrote 2 Thessalonians wrote in 2:1-10 the following:

As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.
Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.
Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?
And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

This introduces the idea that the Kingdom of God will not come until the situation becomes much worse, a darkening that will be heralded by a "lawless one." Notice how the forger attempts to convince the reader that this was always known? The forger attempts to dissuade the reader of the idea that the Kingdom of God is coming soon, for he denies the existence of the authentic letter of Paul to the Thessalonians where above we see that Paul includes himself with those "who are left." Specifically, the second letter says "we beg you...not to be quickly shaken...by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here." The letter likely refers to what is now known as 1 Thessalonians. The author then tells his audience “Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?” However, none of the authentic letters of Paul refer to such a “Lawless One.”

In the forged letters of John, the author introduces the idea of an “Antichrist”, in 1 John 2:18 “Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour.”

Finally, in the Revelation of John of Patmos, the author engages in a hurricane of revenge porn, an orgy of destruction and death. This author now introduces yet another character, the “Beast.”

All three predictions of a coming evil have been the fuel of preachers for the past two thousand years, and the current time is always indicative of the end times, when the “Lawless One,” the “Antichrists” and the “Beast” are already among us.

It is interesting to note that the author of Luke emphasizes that it is not the death of Jesus that brings salvation, for in the gospel of Luke, the curtain is torn while Jesus is still alive: in Luke 23:44-46, it says

It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun’s light failed, and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his last.

Similarly, James, the brother of Jesus, seems to counter Paul's claim that faith is all that is necessary for salvation. In James 2:14-17 it says

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

Paul and the author of the gospel of John understood Jesus's execution to be a sacrifice, and his sacrifice was the final one. From that point on, there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals in Jerusalem, there was no longer a need to feed the coffers of the Jewish ruling classes in Jerusalem. Indeed, the author of John even moved Jesus's execution from the day after the Passover meal to the pervious day, the day of the sacrifices of the animals for the Passover meals. Describe Paul's belief of salvation... However, not all authors understood Jesus's death to be sacrificial: for the author of Luke and Acts, it was not the blood of Jesus that made you pure, but your repentance and faith in Jesus (expand on this).

The introduction of Heaven and Hell

While many apocalyptic preachers continued to teach that the Kingdom of God was coming, and coming soon, including the disciples of John the Baptist and the followers of Jesus, as well as many others, the belief that Jesus was somehow tied to this coming kingdom and that Jesus was the herald who would usher in this kingdom remained sidelined by the majority of Jews: Jesus had been executed on a cross and was thus cursed according to Deuteronomy 21:23, which says “... for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse.” Additionally, his life did not exemplify that of one who was anointed, or a messiah. As described before, Jews saw the body and the soul as being inextricably linked: you could not have one without the other. The very concept of a resurrection is only introduced in the book of Daniel, a book written around 200 BCE at a time when Greeks controlled Jerusalem and Judea and those who followed the Law were punished while those who became Hellenized were rewarded. To deal with this cognitive dissonance, the author of Daniel and others suggested that there would come a time in the future when the bodies of all would be raised and the righteous would be rewarded while all others would be punished. In Daniel 12, 1-3 it says

“At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise.

There shall be a time of anguish such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence.

But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,

some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.”

Even at the time of Jesus, the Sadducees did not accept the concept of the resurrection of the dead, for after all, they benefitted from the cultic rituals at Jerusalem, and it was by offering sacrifices there that Jews would gain favor from Yahweh in the here-and-now, but many others believed in this, and the apocalypticists such as John the Baptist believed this would be soon, but Jesus would not be the herald of that coming kingdom.

By the time of Jesus, there were more Jews living throughout the Roman Empire outside of Canaan than there were living in the ancient homelands of Judea, Samaria and Galilee. These million Jews living throughout the empire, and their religion attracted many gentiles to their faith. The transition, however, was difficult, for conversion meant that one would have to adhere to the laws in the Torah, and this included all of the dietary restrictions as well as, for men, circumcision. Thus, converts fell into two categories: those who converted fully, or proselytes, and those god-fearers who were at the gate. Both of these groups provided both financial and political support for the Jewish diaspora.

Paul, however, introduced the idea that one could be a complete follower of Jesus without having to adhere to all the dietary requirements, and more importantly, men did not need to be circumcised. Thus, very soon, many of the earlier followers of Jesus were not Jews, but rather they were Greeks. This, of course, put the nascent community of Jews following Jesus at odds with the Jewish diaspora: if these people at the gate could now be fully welcomed into this messianic community, that would also be where their financial and political support would go, as well. While the apocalyptic message of John the Baptist, Peter, Mary Magdalene and James, the brother of Jesus, remained a Jewish faith, the message of Paul soon became dominant outside of Judea.

However, as more and more Greeks became followers of Jesus, they began to introduce their concepts of the soul and Hades: a place where the souls of the dead immediately entered and existed not having to wait for subsequent resurrection. Plato had long ago described the soul as being immortal soul, one that would become separated from the body at death. There was a belief that the soul would cross the River Styx, the boundary between the land of the living and the land of the dead, to enter Hades. In some understandings of Hades, it is divided into different realms; for example, some divided that realm into three: Elysium for the righteous, Tartarus for the evil, and the Asphodel Fields for everyone else. It is not any significant stretch of the imagination that followers of Jesus transformed these into the Heaven and Hell of Christianity today. Paul, at least initially, did not understand the afterlife in this sense, for in his oldest extant letter to the Thessalonians 6:13-16,

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, ... God will bring with him those who have died. ...we who are alive...will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself...will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Thus, Paul's earliest message seems to parallel Jewish eschatological beliefs: he does not suggest that those who have died are experiencing some sort of divine paradise. The word Paul uses for death is sleep, and this does not suggest going to Heaven, waiting to be returned to the body at the time of the resurrection. All of 1 Corinthians 15, discusses and emphasizes the resurrection of the dead, and this appears to be written in contrast to alternate beliefs circulated at the time, almost certainly the introduction of some form of Heaven or Hell to which the soul goes after death. To extract a few statements:

Now I want you to understand...the good news...through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you.
Then [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.

This statement, however, describes death by saying that they were “asleep;” that is, not a conscious awake soul in Heaven.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead,
how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised.
If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation...and your faith is in vain.

After some further discussion, Paul reiterates:

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins.
Then those also who have died in Christ have perished.
If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

He makes a rather entertaining statement that emphasizes that if there is no resurrection, there is nothing to look forward to, so no afterlife:

If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul then contrasts the human body and the resurrected body:

What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory.
It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body.

He then concludes that

If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

Paul then contrasts the physical body and the spiritual one by contrasting Adam and Jesus:

The first man, Adam, became a living being;
the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual.
The first man was from the earth, made of dust;
he second man is from heaven.
As one of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and
as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.
Just as we have borne the image of the one of dust,
we will also bear the image of the one of heaven.

He then discusses the coming Kingdom of God:

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
We will not all die, but we will all be changed.
The dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and
this mortal body must put on immortality.
When this perishable body puts on imperishability and
this mortal body puts on immortality

Again, Paul believes exactly what at least some Jews believed: Yahweh created a paradise for humans to live in, and human sin corrupted that paradise creating this world, so when the Kingdom of God comes, this Earth will be transformed back into that paradise, and the bodies and souls of the dead will be raised with spiritual, imperishable bodies. He is arguing against the ideas of Greek converts in Corinth, a city less than 60 miles from Athens, and far from Judea. These converts would have had beliefs of Hades and a spiritual afterlife, and Paul was arguing against this; reinforcing the Jewish belief of the resurrection of the dead with the coming of the Kingdom of God.

In time, however, Paul seems to have adopted the Greek interpretation of the afterlife. In one of his later letters, he says in Philippians 1:23-24 “I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better, but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.” CONTINUE!!! 2 Corinthians

Thus, Christianity, having evolved from the teachings of Paul more so than the teachings of Jesus, combined with the Greek concepts of a soul and an immediate afterlife, and having to reconcile the fact that the Kingdom of God has not yet come and so predicting a future time of world-wide evil ruled by characters controlled by Satan, results in a religion that is bizarre at best. However, at this time, Jesus is not yet even understood as being God: he was a righteous man or he may have been a divine being, but not god. This, however, was another influence of the Greek and other pagan converts and followers: for these people, the idea of there being multiple gods was obvious, so Jesus, too, could have been God. This, however, is antithetical to the entire corpus of Judean beliefs associated with God: it is a monotheistic religion: there is only one god. If there is only one god, how can Jesus also be god? With the introduction of polytheism into the worship in Christianity, this would provide centuries of arguing how there can be both only one god, but first two and then three gods. CONTINUE

Later, after all the gospels were written down, do we have the first hints that Jesus was being equated with God. In a letter to the Ephesians by Ignatius of Antioch, we have the following, where “our Physician” is Jesus:

But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.” Being incorporeal, He was in the body, being impassible, He was in a passible body, being immortal, He was in a mortal body, being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

It is possible that one of the earlier references to God existing in three beings is by Valentinus, a second-century gnostic Christian about whom we only know what proto-orthodox Christians wrote about him in their attacks against his heresies:

The Father who was God and beyond comprehension.
The Word, which was an embodiment of the creative, revealing and masculine aspects of God.
The Wisdom, which was an embodiment of the divine wisdom and feminine aspects of God.

It was only at the turn of the second to the third centuries that another proto-orthodox Christian writer Tertullian finally introduced the idea of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being one god.

These two ideas introduced long after Jesus's execution: that Jesus's execution was a sacrifice, and that to be saved one must simply believe that Jesus was indeed a sacrifice; and the immediate sending of the soul either to Heaven or Hell introduces horrible precedents:

First, for any harm you cause, you are not responsible to those who are harmed, but rather, you are answerable to Yahweh and Jesus. You are not obligated to make amends to those you harmed, and you are absolved of any responsibility of that harm. Indeed, the worst person in the world is welcome in Heaven so long as he confesses that person's own belief that Jesus forgives sins. There is no responsibility imposed on the believer: Jesus forgave you, and while it may be suggested you ask forgiveness of those you harmed or the make reparations, you are not obligated to do so.

Second, we have the ultimate carrot and stick: believe and you go to Heaven (you don't even have to be good to get there), otherwise, the punishment for non-belief is eternal punishment in Hell. What actually happens in Heaven is not really described, other than some sort of paradise, but there are explicit descriptions of the torments of Hell: it is clear that the earliest Church elders who devised these beliefs focused more on the stick than on the carrot, and humans, when given a choice, generally seek to avoid pain. This is encapsulated in Pascal's wager.

Thus, the Christian moral system is even worse than the message of Jesus, and still worse than the moral system of Rabinnic Judaism: Heaven is a reward that can be gained through simple belief and not one righteous action, and Hell is the place for those who reject such an evil framework. For your sins, you are not answerable to those whom you harmed, but you are only answerable to Jesus. Indeed, it is much more risky to give a loan to one who promises to repay with references to Jesus and God, for such a person may default, but may feel no obligation to in any way compensate you: their Jesus has forgiven them, and that is sufficient.

Good or love?

I will share my perspective on two approaches that Christians often assert can be employed in dealing with moral situations: first, the doctrine of double effect, and second, the claim of the supremacy of love.

The doctrine of double effect posits that an action with potentially harmful consequences is permissible if:

The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

This doctrine's earliest formulation is attributed to Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. However, a notable concern arises from the ambiguity of the term "morally good," as its interpretation hinges on the perspective of the agent, often a Christian. The agent's beliefs about salvation, divine punishment, and collective retribution can significantly influence what is deemed "morally good." For example, actions resulting in perceived salvation or the prevention of divine intervention might be considered morally good by the agent, leading to potentially harmful consequences for others.

Determining whether the bad effect is willed by the agent poses another challenge. While resources might exist to achieve the good effect without the bad, questions arise about the acceptable cost of pursuing the alternative. The agent can also assert morally good reasons for their actions without necessarily revealing their true intentions.

In Thomas Aquinas's original formulation, the agent is tasked with determining if the good effect can be achieved without the bad, and if not, permitting the bad effect to occur. However, this raises questions about the agent's true intentions and the subjective nature of evaluating conflicting consequences.

I have encountered another perspective that advocates for embracing the principle of "love one another" as a universal solution to all problems. This concept of love, emphasized by both Jesus and Paul, permeates the teachings found in the Bible. In Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus articulates:

“ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Similarly, in Romans 13:8-10, Paul underscores the paramount importance of love:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

In 1 Corinthians 13:4-13, Paul endeavors to delineate the nature of love:

Love

is patient;
is kind;
rejoices in the truth;
bears, believes, hopes and endures all things; and
never ends.

Love is not

envious,
boastful,
arrogant,
rude, or
irritable.

Love does not

insist on its own way,
keep record of wrongs, or
rejoice in wrongdoing.

Paul concludes by asserting the transitory nature of knowledge:

Knowledge will come to an end. For we know only in part but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.

Reflecting on personal growth, he illustrates:

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

He then draws a juxtaposition between the ephemeral and the everlasting:

And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love.

Love, as an emotion, is inherently constrained by the limits of space and time. Its expression is intimate, reserved for those within one's personal sphere—family and friends—and doesn't effortlessly extend to individuals beyond the local community. The pain or distress of a beloved child evokes deep grief, enduring for days, weeks, or even years. However, we cannot mourn the passing of every child or every child affected by blindness due to malnutrition. The term "love" encompasses a spectrum of emotions, all unified by their ability to ignite powerful motivations.

Interpersonal love, distinguished from affection for more abstract entities, shares the label "love" due to its commonality in evoking potent positive emotions. However, a stark contrast emerges between these two facets of love:

Love for another person (family members, friends, or romantic partners) involves, among other factors:
- Emotions triggered by the release of neurotransmitters such as oxytocin and dopamine, associated with bonding, pleasure, and reward.
- Activation of brain regions like the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and the caudate nucleus, integral to the experience of romantic love.
- Psychological processes encompassing feelings of intimacy, passion, and commitment, as articulated in psychologist Robert Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love.
On the other hand, love associated with one's community, region, country, the world, social justice, environmentalism, humanitarian efforts, or other causes entails:
- A complex interplay of emotions, embracing pride, loyalty, a sense of identity, empathy, compassion, and a broad feeling of connectedness.
- Engagement of brain regions possibly linked to self-identity, group affiliation, perspective-taking, prosocial behavior, moral reasoning, and anticipation of positive outcomes.
- Psychological processes entailing loyalty, pride, shared identity, concern for others' well-being, a desire for global harmony, commitment to addressing challenges, deep dedication, a sense of moral duty, and motivation for positive change.

Crucially, the second form of love is not a mere extension of the first; they represent distinct human responses, each with its own unique characteristics and impact. While these delineations are not rigid, they acknowledge that individual experiences may vary. Indeed, one may personify a country (consider Britannia, the national personification of the United Kingdom), a cause, or a belief (Jesus, Isis, Allah) to the extent that the reactions experienced toward the second mirror those felt toward the first.

On a personal scale, the first form of love, as an emotion, yields numerous benefits:

Love functions as the cornerstone for building both personal and community relationships, fostering trust, empathy, and understanding.
It serves as a catalyst for kindness, charity, and volunteerism, propelling individuals and communities to extend help to those in need.
Love becomes an invaluable tool in conflict resolution, facilitating communication, compromise, and reconciliation.
It cultivates a sense of unity and solidarity, both among acquaintances and within the broader community.
Recognizing its necessity for mental health and well-being, love provides crucial support, enabling individuals to navigate stress and adversity.

Conversely, the second form of love extends motivation beyond the boundaries of one's community:

It fuels an interest in education, inspiring individuals to acquire skills and knowledge aimed at societal improvement.
Love becomes a driving force behind activism, advocacy, and leadership, propelling engagement in causes such as environmental conservation or social justice.

However, it's vital to note that these impacts remain confined to individual actions. This doesn't negate the substantial benefits of love, especially when untainted by negative emotions like jealousy. Yet, it's crucial to recognize the limitations of extrapolating such emotions to significantly larger populations of humans or, possibly, other living organisms. This, I believe, is the false extrapolation that many Christians make when asserting that "love" can be a universal solution. Interestingly, a pastor I once knew, who built his own church on this principle, was eventually ousted by the parishioners he had initially attracted to his "non-denominational" congregation.

Personal emotions, such as love, can translate into actions and reactions that benefit one's immediate community. However, extending these benefits beyond the local context becomes markedly challenging. Take, for instance, wealth distribution: while it's easy to identify a community near one's home that is more impoverished, addressing global issues requires acknowledging that problems on a worldwide scale stem from insufficient and unequal resource distribution. When dealing with problems beyond local communities where interpersonal relationships are unfeasible, an impersonal approach is essential. Representatives from various communities are designated to advocate on behalf of their respective constituencies, and love ceases to be the primary mediating force in such interactions.

There are additional issues associated with relying solely on love:

Love tends to focus on short-term interests, motivating individuals to address immediate needs. However, long-term solutions to global challenges often demand delayed gratification, sacrifice, and patience, motivations not exclusively driven by love.
Love alone cannot rectify deeply entrenched systems of injustice, inequality, and discrimination. Legal, economic, and social changes are necessary to address these issues effectively.
Emotions, including love, are inherently inconsistent and subject to change. They cannot be relied upon to provide the stability and consistency needed to address persistent global problems.

Again, to be fair, love of the second kind can have benefits beyond the immediate community:

Within a community, love can cultivate a profound sense of belonging and shared responsibility. Individuals, driven by love for their neighbors and community, may actively participate in initiatives aimed at enhancing local living conditions, supporting local businesses, and contributing to overall community well-being.
Expressions of love for one's region or country can serve as powerful catalysts for civic engagement, activism, and advocacy, propelling individuals to work toward positive societal changes. Unfortunately, it is crucial to acknowledge that such love can also be susceptible to manipulation by governments.
A broader love for humanity can compel individuals and organizations to address global challenges. Matters such as poverty, climate change, and human rights can evoke a profound sense of responsibility and a commitment to effecting positive change on a global scale.
In the realm of international cooperation, love for global peace and understanding can foster diplomacy. Individuals, organizations, and nations, driven by a shared love for humanity, may collaborate to confront transnational challenges, including pandemics, environmental issues, and conflicts.
Love for those in need can be a potent force behind philanthropy and humanitarian efforts. Compassion-driven individuals and organizations may contribute resources, time, and expertise to alleviate suffering, provide aid during emergencies, and support sustainable development.
A passion for knowledge and a commitment to the well-being of future generations can propel educational initiatives. Investing in education, whether on a local or global scale, empowers individuals to make positive contributions to society, nurturing a more informed and compassionate world.
An appreciation for diverse cultures and a desire for mutual understanding can fuel cultural exchange initiatives. By embracing diversity and fostering intercultural dialogue, individuals can play a crucial role in reducing prejudices and promoting harmony on a broader scale.
Love for the planet and concern for future generations can inspire environmental stewardship. Individuals and organizations motivated by a deep love for nature may actively work toward sustainable practices, conservation efforts, and the resolution of environmental challenges.

Nevertheless, neither a desire for good nor love alone can unravel ethical conundrums. Our reality is shaped by the constraints of a planet with limited resources and marked by unequal and unjust distributions of both resources and wealth. The pursuit of "good" can become problematic when goodness is entwined with righteousness and subjective interpretations of the will of a deity. While potent emotions can drive individual actions and motivate others in the immediate sphere, they fall short as a foundational principle for mediating between communities.

A shift in the Jewish conception of Yahweh involves the loss of his personal name: instead, as Jesus is the specific name attributed to the "Son of God," Yahweh seems to be designated as the "Father," though this connection is implied rather than explicitly stated. This implication raises concerns of anti-Semitism. While Judaism emphasizes Yahweh's mercy, compassion, and care for his creations, it refrains from using the term "love," opting for descriptions such as kindness, grace, and forgiveness. The love of Yahweh is evident in his relationship with his chosen people, as reiterated in familiar passages like John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."

It's only in later letters, such as 1 John 4:8 and 16, that God becomes explicitly equated with love: "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love," and "So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them."

Thus, the Father is equated with love, portraying an idealized form that implies God loves everyone akin to a father's love for his children. However, this concept appears somewhat awkward. In typical father-child dynamics, the father may scold, guide, and forgive, emphasizing a balanced approach. In contrast, this Fatherlike God demands love and, if unreciprocated, subjects individuals to eternal punishment—evoking a more sadistic and self-centered ruler than a loving deity.

The Fatherlike God contradicts the characteristics of love outlined by Paul:

If God were patient, why would he have sent a plague as described in Numbers 11 where the Israelites in the wilderness express discontent with the manna provided by God, desiring meat. Moses, overwhelmed by the people's complaints, questions God about the burden placed on him. In response, God provides quail to satisfy the people's demand, but their ingratitude leads to divine anger, resulting in a severe plague that strikes the Israelites.
If God were kind, he would not have flooded the entire world, killing all but one family, including innocent infants and children.
If love does not rejoice in wrongdoing, why does the Lord take delight in bringing you to ruin and destruction if you do not diligently observe all the words of this law that are written in this book, as is recorded in Deuteronomy 28?
If God rejoices in the truth, why did he, when needed a way to have Ahab, King of Israel, go and die in battle, did he accept the offer of a spirit who said he would “go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets,” to which God responds “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it.” Indeed, why did he tell Adam “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die,” and yet, Adam lived for hundreds and hundreds of years thereafter. Indeed, if he rejoiced in truth, why is so much of Genesis pure myth?
Indeed, if love rejoices in the truth, why are mental afflictions attributed demon possession, and why are serious mental afflictions attributed to being possessed by many, and sometimes, thousands of demons?
If love bears all things, why is it that God "could no longer bear the sight of your evil doings, the abominations that you committed; therefore your land became a desolation and a waste and a curse, without inhabitant, as it is to this day." (Jeremiah 44:22)
If love keeps no record of wrongs, why does God visit the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and the fourth generation (Numbers 14:18)? In fact, why does God send anyone to Hell at all?
If God is not arrogant, why does he demand that “you shall have no other gods before me”?
If God does not envy, why does he become angered when his children worship a golden calf?
If love is not irritable, why does he say “You have rejected me, you are going backward, so I have stretched out my hand against you and destroyed you—I am weary of relenting.” And if love bears all things, why does God become weary of relenting?
It love bears all things, why does God strike down Uzzah because he had reached out to take hold of the ark of God when the oxen pulling it stumbled?

The Christian "Father" God demanding love and reacting aggressively to non-reciprocity reflects manipulative and controlling behavior, indicative of possessiveness and emotional or psychological abuse. Such conduct is considered emotionally or psychologically abusive and necessitates support and intervention to ensure well-being. This type of behavior exhibits not love but rather a manipulative or controlling disposition, suggesting possessiveness, a lack of respect for boundaries, or an unhealthy approach to relationships. In the extreme, it could be considered emotionally or psychologically abusive. Terms like "manipulative," "controlling," or "emotionally abusive" may be used to describe such behavior, depending on the severity and nature of the actions. If God were such another person, it would be essential to recognize such patterns and seek support or assistance if you find yourself in a situation where your well-being is at risk. In this case, as the Father insists on being loved and reacts aggressively when that affection is not returned, and tortures the person who does not reciprocate their love exhibits extremely harmful and abusive behavior. This behavior reflects a severe form of emotional and physical abuse. Words such as "abusive," "violent," "sadistic," and "dangerous" might be used to describe someone engaging in such actions. It is crucial for anyone facing such abuse to seek help and support, as this type of behavior is not acceptable, and the victim's safety should be a top priority. If this was not a god, professional intervention, such as contacting law enforcement or seeking assistance from domestic violence organizations, would be necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the victim.

In essence, the declaration "God is love" seems to be a deepity, diminishing the significance of all other human endeavors by categorizing them as futile. This statement elevates one emotion—pertinent to well-being and health—at the cost of disregarding the multifaceted nature of human emotions, extensive research, and diverse human actions. Regrettably, the depiction of the Christian love-god diverges significantly from Paul's nuanced and comprehensive description of love.

Recent changes

Certain Christians have recently modified the traditional concept of reward and punishment, particularly concerning Hell. Some propose Hell as a place separate from Yahweh, which seems awkward given Yahweh's alleged omnipresence, and not the realm of torment described in various scriptures. Alternatively, some posit that Hell is nonexistent, suggesting that the souls of non-believers simply cease to exist. It's important to note that this cessation applies not to evildoers' souls but specifically to those who did not acknowledge Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice.

Furthermore, another notion introduced is the idea of "once saved, always saved." According to this perspective, it isn't imperative to believe at the moment of death; rather, one simply needs to have believed, even if only for a fleeting moment, that Jesus was the final sacrifice. Some Christians, unable to reconcile the idea of individuals like Albert Einstein suffering in Hell, introduce additional exceptions that may grant access to Heaven without explicit belief and faith in Jesus. It's crucial to emphasize that none of these variations finds support in any scripture. The Christian scriptures assert unequivocally that Yahweh cannot tolerate even the slightest sin, and the sole path to absolution is through the belief that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, with his blood washing away sin.

Summary

While the teachings of Jesus may offer some benefits for interpersonal relationships, the inherent limitations stemming from the focus on the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God seriously constrain the ethical foundation upon which a society can be constructed. The alterations introduced by subsequent followers, which gave rise to Christianity, fail to enhance this formula. With the promise of Heaven as a reward and the threat of Hell as a punishment, coupled with the belief that this life is merely the prelude to an eternal existence, the resulting moral teachings are incongruent with supporting long-term solutions for civilization.

The Christian narrative envisions the return of Jesus to bring about the annihilation of the existing world, including its governments and societies, inherently viewing all institutions as transient. The concept of 'good' becomes entangled with notions of righteousness and the execution of the 'will of God,' where adherence to certain commandments and guidelines coexists with the disregard for others. However, a notable absence of clear guidance persists regarding which commandments should be followed and which should be ignored. In comparison to Jesus's original teachings, the subsequent doctrines of Christianity appear even less desirable. While individual Christians may indeed embody commendable qualities, this is likely attributed to their personal commitment to embrace the beneficial teachings of Jesus, selectively ignoring many of the subsequent doctrines that evolved into Christianity.

The Mandaeans

change with subsequent splinterings of the Abrahamic religion a little more than twelve hundred years later.

Thus, like Jewish and Christian scholars, Islamic scholars continually reinterpret the original scriptures in the light of current conditions, and in all causes, I find this laudable. Unfortunately, however, the Qur'an is still there today, with good points, and bad points, and it is up to the reader to make the appropriate interpretation, and as has been previously suggested, the individual can always find the verses necessary to prop up whatever bad idea the individual may have.

Islam

Unlike Jesus, Muhammad (مُحَمَّد ﷺ) was explicitly looking to create a religious system that initially would lead to a more equitable society, but later would support his political ambitions. While in Mecca, he did not have political power and had to both live with the pagans, Jews and Christians while also attempting to attract the support of the latter two. However, as his teachings began to attack the pagan beliefs, he and his followers began to be persecuted, up until his life was threatened. At this point, Muhammad and his followers fled to Yathrib, a city that would be renamed al-Medina, or The (Enlightened) City. Here, Muhammad established his political authority, and his teachings became longer and more legalistic, political, absolute and critical. Interestingly enough, like Judaism, there is the written law, the Qur'an, and the oral law, the hadith or sayings of Muhammad.

1. Pre-Islamic Mecca

Before Muhammad's rise to power, Mecca was already a significant center along a crucial north-south inland trade route connecting Yemen with the northern Byzantine and Sasanian (Persian) empires. The highly sought-after products from Yemen, particularly incense and spices like the famed frankincense and myrrh, originated from the aromatic resins of the Burseraceae family of trees found in the southern climates. Additionally, these goods included high-quality woven fabrics, garments, precious stones such as agate and onyx, metalwork, including copperware and other metal artifacts, as well as salt from Yemen's substantial deposits, perfumes, and oils.

While the Red Sea provided a sea route from Yemen to Egypt and Canaan, these voyages were susceptible to shipwrecks and piracy. An overland passage through politically stable regions offered a more secure means of transporting these valuable goods. Mecca, with its proximity to a well, became a settlement supporting these caravans and eventually evolved into a commerce hub. Positioned approximately midway along the trade route, Mecca's caravans traveled both north and south, facilitating trade in various commodities.

Fortune smiled upon the settlement when a black meteorite was discovered. Like other sacred stones and landmarks across Arabia, this meteorite became an object of veneration. Mecca joined the ranks of pilgrimage sites such as Rajm al-Hajar, Dhu al-Khalasa, and Al-Abalat. The prevailing polytheistic religion in Arabia incorporated animistic beliefs, where sacred stones or landmarks were believed to be inhabited by spirits, alongside the anthropomorphic gods constituting the Arabian pantheon.

Common practices in this polytheistic setting included

pilgrimages to holy sites,
kissing or touching sacred objects or landmarks,
circumambulating them, and
offering animal sacrifices or other gifts.

Mecca, uniquely positioned on a major trade route and possessing a large meteoric black stone, became not only a commerce center but also a pilgrimage destination. The locals constructed a cubic shrine, known as the Ka'aba, and initially housed the black stone inside. Pilgrims would circumambulate around this stone cube as an integral part of the pilgrimage ritual.

2. Muhammad

Muhammad was born into the Hashemite clan within the Quraysh tribe, a prominent group in Mecca responsible for providing water to visiting pilgrims. Successful as a trader and merchant, he married Khadijah at the age of 25. Demonstrating intelligence and skill in poetry, Muhammad was known for his fairness and honesty in dealings. His interests extended to worship, meditation while secluded, and a commitment to a greater social justice that existed at his time. None of this seem to be such extraordinary claims.

Despite his upbringing in Mecca, Muhammad's religious ideas seemed to have been significantly shaped by interactions with various Jewish and Christian groups in Palestine and Syria, particularly with Gnostic Christians. Over more than two decades, he contemplated a religion with connections to Judaism and Christianity, introducing interpretations and nuances that gave the religion a predominantly Arabic character. He envisioned a monotheistic religion, and there seemed to have been four requirements:

He wanted to maintain the supremacy of Mecca and the Ka'aba and at least some of the rituals associated with these.
He sought to establish a religion with a foundation, authority, and legacy that traced its roots back to Abraham.
He had to reinterpret stories within the Torah and more generally the Tanakh so as to integrate these stories with his narrative.
Having visited both orthodox and gnostic Christian communities, he recognized that the idea of the trinity was incompatible and antithetical to the concept of monotheism, so he had to reinterpret the life and teachings of Jesus, again to integrate these stories with his narrative.

Initially, Muhammad sought to persuade local Jews and Christians of the truth of his newly founded religion. However, rejection from both these communities and caused a rift between his followers and and these communities, one that has not healed in almost a millennium and a half. Muhammad presented his new religion through a claim that they were poetic pronouncements recited to him by the angel Gabriel (جِبْرِيل, or Jibrīl), poetry which he then shared with others. We will begin by looking at multiple examples of these while contrasting them with canonical, non-canonical and apocryphal scriptures from both Judaism and Christianity.

3. Islam and Jesus

In brief, initially there were many very different sects of Christianity, and each had very different viewpoints, including some believing that Jesus was nothing more than a good human teacher, others believing that he was born the son of God, others believing that Jesus and Yahweh were two very different gods, Jesus being the higher god and Yahweh, the creator of this world, was a lesser god. By the fourth century, most of the Roman Empire followed the orthodox beliefs. Initially, there were hundreds of books and letters, all claiming some sort of reliance on the earliest disciples and apostles, but again by the fourth century, the number of accepted books was reduced to only 27 by a bishop of Alexandria, who wrote

Let no one add to these or take anything from them…. No mention is to be made of the apocryphal works. They are the invention of heretics, who write according to their own will, and gratuitously assign and add to them dates so that, offering them as ancient writings, they may have an excuse for leading the simple astray.

Many of these apocryphal works were, over the generations destroyed or lost, and it is only with good fortune that we have found a few scrolls intact at various locations. What these works show, however, is a Christianity very different from what we understand it today. For example, in England, early Christianity blended with Celtic beliefs producing a hybrid unique to the British Isles. In Syria, on the borders of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the control of the Orthodox church diminished, and alternate forms of Christianity continued to exist. It was into this region that Muhammad's caravans travelled, and it is reasonable to believe that it is in these regions that Muhammad first learned of Christian teachings.

We know that Muhammad had access to some gospels because in Surah 5:46-47, he explicitly refers to such writings:

We sent Jesus, son of Mary, in their footsteps [the footsteps of earlier prophets], to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him:

We gave him the Gospel with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed–

a guide and lesson for those who take heed of God.

So let the followers of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down in it.

Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are lawbreakers.

Muhammad is saying that Christians need to do nothing more than read their own gospels and that in doing so, they should come to realize that what is written in the Qur'an is true. The issue is that Muhammad was trading in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, almost three centuries after Orthodox Christianity was established as were the books of the Christian scriptures. There is not amazing support for Orthodox Christianity in those scriptures, but some points are clear: where it says anything at all, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Jesus was executed. The earliest gospel is now called Mark and is likely the earliest gospel to be written, but the letters of Paul predate even this gospel by decades. All of these were written at some point prior to the end of the first century, and even the Revelation of John of Patmos likely dates to around 95 CE. All these books, and many others written in the first century, support the common narrative that Jesus was executed.

In other verses, Muhammad also refers to the gospels:

3:3-4 Step by step, He has sent the Scripture down to you [Prophet] with the Truth, confirming what went before: He sent down the Torah and the Gospel earlier as a guide for people and He has sent down the distinction [between right and wrong].
3:47-51 [The angel] said, ‘This is how God creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He only says, “Be”, and it is. He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, He will send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel: “...”’
5:68-69 Say, ‘People of the Book, you have no true basis [for your religion] unless you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and that which has been sent down to you from your Lord,’ but what has been sent down to you [Prophet] from your Lord is sure to increase many of them in their insolence and defiance: do not worry about those who defy [God]. For the [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Sabians, and the Christians– those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good deeds– there is no fear: they will not grieve.

This suggests that the message of Christianity was sent by Allah through Jesus, and that this message was recorded in a text known as the Gospel, which we should assume are books authored by early followers of Jesus. The issue is that the earliest extant Christian writings are the letters of Paul, and the earliest gospels were only written almost half a century after Jesus's execution. But Jesus did not leave any gospel, at least in Orthodox Christianity. There is one apocryphal book that is written as if it was authored by Jesus himself: the Second Treaties of the Great Seth. Also, as we saw above, that what eventually became Christianity had little resemblance to what Jesus taught and likely believed.

Let us look at what Muhammad says about people and events around the life of Jesus. Muhammad rejected the idea of the trinity, but continued to see John the Baptist and Jesus as prophets. Unlike mainstream Christianity, Muhammad also included Zechariah as a prophet. For Muhammad, Jesus was just another man. Muhammad, as any other rational person, understood the mental gymnastics, indeed, the mental contortions, and the struggles believers in the trinity while simultaneously believing in monotheism have with the cognitive dissonance they must experience is seen as spiritual growth:

God exists as one essence in three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit and these three persons are considered co-equal, co-eternal, and together form the unity of the Holy Trinity.

Muhammad even addresses the claim of the trinity in the Qur'an:

An-Nisa 4:171

So believe in God and His messengers and

do not speak of a ‘Trinity’

– stop [this], that is better for you–

God is only one God,

He is far above having a son,

everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and

He is the best one to trust.

5:73-76

Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]:

there is only One God.

If they persist in what they are saying,

a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist.

Why do they not turn to God and ask His forgiveness,

when God is most forgiving, most merciful?

The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger;

other messengers had come and gone before him;

his mother was a virtuous woman;

both ate food [like other mortals].

See how clear We make these signs for them;

see how deluded they are.

Say, ‘How can you worship something other than God,

that has no power to do you harm or good?

God alone is the All Hearing and All Knowing.’

23:91-92

God has never had a child. Nor is there any god beside Him–

if there were, each god would have taken his creation aside and tried to overcome the others.

May God be exalted above what they describe!

He knows what is not seen as well as what is seen;

He is far above any partner they claim for Him.

The entirety of Sura 112 (Al-Ikhlas) is devoted to this topic:

In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy Say,

‘He is God the One, God the eternal.

He begot no one nor was He begotten.

No one is comparable to Him.’

We will proceed as follows:

We will look at how the Qur'an describes Jesus's execution.
We will then look at all other verses that describe the life of Jesus.

In almost all cases, we will observe that one fact becomes painfully clear: Muhammad's Jesus is based on Gnostic Christian scriptures.

3.1 Jesus's execution

When I first read those sections of the Qur'an that spoke of Jesus's life and death, I came across something that was too familiar:

4:157-159

[The Jews] said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’

(They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him,

though it was made to appear like that to them;

those that disagreed about him are full of doubt,

with no knowledge to follow, only supposition:

they certainly did not kill him–God raised him up to Himself.

God is almighty and wise.

There is not one of the People of the Book who will not believe in [Jesus] before his death,

and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.)

The Qur'an behooves the Christian reader to “judge according to what God has sent down in [that Gospel].” Unfortunately, by 600 CE, the only gospels in Orthodox Christianity (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) all clearly retold that Jesus was executed on the cross. But if Muhammad is telling Christians to reject the trinity and accept his version of events, what gospel is he referring to? There is one possible candidate: The Second Treaties of the Great Seth. This is a Gnostic text that is not that long, but it is written as if it was authored by Jesus. The text, however, likely originated in Alexandria in 200 CE, and in that text it says:

For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness,

since they nailed their man unto their death.

Their thoughts did not see me,

for they were deaf and blind.

But in doing these things,

they condemn themselves.

Yes, they saw me;

they punished me.

It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar;

it was not I.

They struck me with the reed;

it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder.

It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns.

Later, it states:

After they bound [Simon] with many restraints,

they nailed him to the cross, and

they fastened him with four nails of brass.

The Muslim would have to believe that all the early Christian writers got it all wrong, that the original Gospel that Jesus brought was lost, and yet almost two hundred years after his execution, one Gnostic Christian forging his text allegedly in the name of Jesus managed to have the truth revealed to him, at least for that one aspect of the text. What is more likely is that some of the Christians with whom Muhammad traded in the earlier days of his life were Gnostic Christians who still had copies of these older texts, and that Muhammad heard these stories, and then incorporated them into his Qur'an. Also, one would expect that an archangel would be aware that the vast majority of Christians at that time used the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and so would not tell the “followers of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down in it.” What is written in the Qur'an contradicts the gospels; what is written in the Qur'an is in harmony with Gnostic texts, and is in fact in harmony with the only gospel that I am aware of that is written in the first person by Jesus.

We will now proceed to look at all other references to Jesus in the Qur'an.

3.2 Other references to Jesus and other Christian figures

We will now look at numerous other references to Jesus and other figures who appear in the four gospels. Remember that the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were almost certainly the first four to be written, with Mark being written first, then Matthew and Luke (both of whom copied from Mark) and finally, and independently, John.

3.2.1 Mary and Zechariah

We begin by looking at the time prior to Jesus's birth. In Christianity, Zechariah is restricted to being the father of John the Baptist, and his one action was questioning the angel Gabriel when he was told that at an old age, he and his wife Elizabeth would have a son. For this, he was made mute until his son was born. In Christianity, Joseph is the husband of Mary, and plays a more significant role, at least in the two birth narratives. Joseph is also mentioned in three of the four gospels. Zechariah, however, does play a much more significant role in the infancy gospel of James and also in the Qur'an where Zechariah seems to take the place of both the father of John the Baptist, but also the protector of Mary.

The infancy gospel of James is an apocryphal text written around 150 CE. In this book, Mary is born to Joachim and Anne, and they bring Mary to the Temple at the age of three, and

her parents went down, marveling and praising and glorifying the Lord God that the child hadn’t turned back. And Mary was in the Temple of the Lord. She was nurtured like a dove, and received food from the hand of an angel.

She lived in the Temple until she was twelve years old, and an angel charges Zechariah with finding Mary's husband:

“Zechariah, Zechariah, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them each bear a staff.

And whomever the Lord God points out with a sign, she’ll be his wife.”

In the Qur'an, however, we have a similar story, but not identical story. Instead, Mary is immediately entrusted to the protection of Zechariah, but other components of the story are similar:

Al Imran (the family of Joachim) 3:37, a Medinan surah.

Her Lord graciously accepted her and made her grow in goodness, and entrusted her to the charge of Zachariah.

Whenever Zachariah went in to see her in her sanctuary, he found her supplied with provisions.

He said, ‘Mary, how is it you have these provisions?’

and she said, ‘They are from God: God provides limitlessly for whoever He will.’

In both narratives, Zechariah has a role to play in her upbringing, and in both stories, Mary is fed by god.

In the Qur'an, however, it continues by telling how Zechariah asks for a child:

Al Imran (the family of Joachim) 3:38-41, a Medinan surah.

There and then Zachariah prayed to his Lord, saying, ‘Lord, from Your grace grant me virtuous offspring: You hear every prayer.’

The angels called out to him, while he stood praying in the sanctuary,

‘God gives you news of John, confirming a Word from God. He will be noble and chaste, a prophet, one of the righteous.’

He said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when I am so old and my wife is barren?’

[An angel] said, ‘It will be so: God does whatever He will.’

He said, ‘My Lord, give me a sign.’

‘Your sign,’ [the angel] said, ‘is that you will not communicate with anyone for three days, except by gestures. Remember your Lord often; celebrate His glory in the evening and at dawn.’

This story is repeated twice:

19:2-11

This is an account of your Lord’s grace towards His servant, Zachariah,

when he called to his Lord secretly, saying,

‘Lord, my bones have weakened and my hair is ashen grey, but never, Lord, have I ever prayed to You in vain: I fear [what] my kinsmen [will do] when I am gone, for my wife is barren, so grant me a successor––a gift from You––to be my heir and the heir of the family of Jacob. Lord, make him well pleasing [to You].’

‘Zachariah, We bring you good news of a son whose name will be John––We have chosen this name for no one before him.’

He said, ‘Lord, how can I have a son when my wife is barren, and I am old and frail?’

He said, ‘This is what your Lord has said: “It is easy for Me: I created you, though you were nothing before.” ’

He said, ‘Give me a sign, Lord.’

He said, ‘Your sign is that you will not [be able to] speak to anyone for three full [days and] nights.’

He went out of the sanctuary to his people and signaled to them to praise God morning and evening

And again:

21:89-91

Remember Zachariah, when he cried to his Lord, ‘My Lord, do not leave me childless, though You are the best of heirs.’

We answered him– We gave him John, and cured his wife of barrenness– they were always keen to do good deeds.

They called upon Us out of longing and awe, and humbled themselves before Us.

Remember the one who guarded [Mary's] chastity.

While the Arabic for Zechariah's question is the same, رَبِّ ٱجۡعَل لِّيٓ ءَايَةٗ, the response starts with the same phrase, ءَايَتُكَ أَلَّا تُكَلِّمَ ٱلنَّاسَ, after this, they differ, ثَلَٰثَ لَيَالٖ سَوِيّٗا (three nights together) versus ثَلَٰثَةَ أَيَّامٍ إِلَّا رَمۡزٗاۗ (three days, except as a symbol...).

Compare this with Luke 1:5-23

...there was a priest named Zechariah, ... His wife was...Elizabeth.

Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord.

But they had no children because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years.

Once when he was serving as priest...he was chosen by lot...to enter the sanctuary of the Lord to offer incense...

Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right side of the altar of incense.

When Zechariah saw him, he was terrified, and fear overwhelmed him.

But the angel said to him,

“Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit. He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Zechariah said to the angel, “How can I know that this will happen? For I am an old man, and my wife is getting on in years.”

The angel replied,

“I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. But now, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time, you will become mute, unable to speak, until the day these things occur.”

Meanwhile the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering at his delay in the sanctuary.

When he did come out, he was unable to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the sanctuary.

He kept motioning to them and remained unable to speak.

When his time of service was ended, he returned to his home.

There are similarities, and yet also differences. Zechariah does not speak in the book of Luke until after the naming of his son.

3.2.2 John the Baptist

The descriptions of John the Baptist in the Qur'an include that he will be "noble," "chaste," "a prophet" and "one of the righteous." In Luke 1, he is described as "great in the sight of the Lord" and being "filled with the Holy Spirit." He must never "drink wine or strong drink."

As for his naming, in the Qur'an, it is oddly specific:

‘Zachariah, We bring you good news of a son whose name will be John––We have chosen this name for no one before him.’

In Luke 1, it just says "you will name him John." The name Yohanan was already common in Judea, so perhaps the fact that "we have chosen this name for no one before him" only refers to the fact that none of the other prophets were called that, but this seems a peculiar re-interpretation of the fact that Yohanan was not a name used in Zechariah's family:

On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child,

and they were going to name him Zechariah after his father.

But his mother said, “No; he is to be called John.”

They said to her, “None of your relatives has this name.”

Then they began motioning to his father to find out what name he wanted to give him.

He asked for a writing tablet and wrote, “His name is John.”

And all of them were amazed.

Immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue freed,

and he began to speak, praising God.

In Luke, Zechariah is mute for nine months; in the Qur'an it is only three days. Again, if the Qur'an explicitly tells “followers of the Gospel” to “judge according to what God has sent down in it,” why is this being told when by the year 600, the only known variation this story is found in the Gospel of Luke, and there it is nine months that Zechariah is mute, while in the Qur'an it is only three days.

Now, closer to the Qur'an is a passage from the gnostic Mandaean Book of John:

Who told Battay, who instructed Battay,

Who told Battay, to go to Elizabeth and tell her,

“A child is coming to Judaea, a prophet is coming to Jerusalem!

A child is coming to Judaea, a guide is standing with him...”

It seems that Battay's message is more similar to that recorded in the Qur'an, specifically referring to John as a "prophet." The stories that appear in the Qur'an seem to more closely parallel those in gnostic Christianity.

3.2.3 Mary and Jesus

Next, the annunciation is similar, yet different:

19:16-22

She withdrew from her family to a place to the east and secluded herself away;

We sent Our Spirit to appear before her in the form of a perfected man.

She said, ‘I seek the Lord of Mercy’s protection against you: if you have any fear of Him [do not approach]!’

but he said, ‘I am but a Messenger from your Lord, [come] to announce to you the gift of a pure son.’

She said, ‘How can I have a son when no man has touched me? I have not been unchaste,’

and he said, ‘This is what your Lord said:“It is easy for Me––We shall make him a sign to all people, a blessing from Us.”’

And so it was ordained: she conceived him.

This parallels the discussion in Luke 1:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God...to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David...

And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.

The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”

The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God... For nothing will be impossible with God.”

Mary, however remains secluded, and once again we have a miraculous feeding, this time by a palm tree:

19:22-She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to [cling to] the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’

but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.”’

In the infancy gospel of James, Joseph and Mary are on route to Bethlehem, but the birth takes place in the wilderness away from civilization:

And they came to the middle of the journey,

and Mary said to him, “Joseph, take me down from the donkey, because the one who’s inside me is pushing to come out.”

And he took her down from the donkey

and said to her, “Where will I take you and shelter you in your awkwardness? This place is a wilderness.”

And he found a cave there, brought her (to it), ...

A similar narrative appears in the Syriac infancy gospel, a fifth-century gospel that seems to have used the infancy gospel of James as a source.

In the Qur'an, Mary is alone when she gives birth. She then returns to her people:

19:27-34

She went back to her people carrying the child,

and they said,

‘Mary! You have done something terrible! Sister of Aaron!

Your father was not an evil man; your mother was not unchaste!’

She pointed at him. They said, ‘How can we converse with an infant?’

[But] he said:

‘I am a servant of God.

He has granted me the Scripture;

made me a prophet;

made me blessed wherever I may be.

He commanded me to pray,

to give alms as long as I live,

to cherish my mother.

He did not make me domineering or graceless.

Peace was on me the day I was born,

and will be on me the day I die

and the day I am raised to life again.’

Such was Jesus, son of Mary.

None of this has any parallel in the synoptic gospels, but Jesus as a babe does speak in the gnostic gospel of pseudo-Matthew, where Jesus is two years old and the family flees to Egypt, but on the way, they are accosted by dragons, so

Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother, and stood on His feet before the dragons;

and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired.

Then was fulfilled that which was said by David the prophet, saying:

Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons; ye dragons, and all ye deeps.

And the young child Jesus, walking before them, commanded them to hurt no man.

But Mary and Joseph were very much afraid lest the child should be hurt by the dragons.

And Jesus said to them:

Do not be afraid, and do not consider me to be a little child;

for I am and always have been perfect;

and all the beasts of the forest must needs be tame before me.

In the Syriac infancy gospel, Jesus speaks even earlier: from the cradle:

He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother:

I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos,

whom thou hast brought forth,

as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee;

and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

This, however, is the linchpin of the issue: Jesus was never born of a virgin. He was born the son of Mary and Joseph (or whoever his father was, as the Qur'an only mentions her guardian). A mistranslation of the Hebrew word for a "young woman" (there is a specific Hebrew word for a virgin, and that was not used in Isaiah 7:14) to the Greek word παρθένος meaning "virgin" lead early Greek Christian followers to claim that Jesus was born the Son of God, as opposed to being adopted the Son of God at his baptism. While it is not impossible for Yahweh to impregnate a woman, there is no precedence for that in any books of the Tanakh or Talmud; however, for Greeks, stories of gods giving birth to offspring through intercourse with women is common. The only novelty in Christianity was that Mary allegedly was still a virgin following the conception (not impossible if Yahweh just introduced the appropriate chromosomes, including an X chromosome, into an egg of Mary. However, neither Paul nor the authors of Mark or John appear to be aware of this miraculous conception. Remember also that for Muhammad, Jesus was just another prophet, so what was the need for the miraculous conception? The angel Gabriel would have known that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but Muhammad seems to have taken the story as begin at least in part true, although Muhammad does not seem to have accepted the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem nor that Mary's husband was Joseph, instead having Jesus being born in the wilderness, as described in the infancy gospel of James, and Mary remaining under the guardianship of Zechariah.

There are also stories of Jesus making birds from clay, and breathing life into them:

3:49

5:110

Then God will say, ‘Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favor to you and to your mother: how I strengthened you with the holy spirit, ...

how, by My leave, you fashioned the shape of a bird out of clay, breathed into it, and it became, by My leave, a bird; ...

In the gnostic infancy gospel of Thomas, we have:

This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook:

and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools,

and made them straightway clean,

and commanded them by his word alone.

And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows.

And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them).

And there were also many other little children playing with him.

And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph:

Lo, thy child is at the brook, and he hath taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and hath polluted the Sabbath day.

And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying:

Wherefore doest thou these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do?

But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them:

Go!

and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping.

Later, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has Jesus being

But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph;

and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together.

And when Jesus saw what was done,

he was wroth and said unto him:

O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee?

behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit.

And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house.

But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth,

and brought him to Joseph,

and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.'

Here, the five year-old Jesus kills another playmate simply for dispersing water that Jesus had collected. While many letters and gospels were referenced in even early second century Christian literature, the first reference to this infancy gospel of Thomas was only in 180 CE. At the time, it was not attributed to Thomas, as it was recalling Jesus's youth, it was supposed that it must have been written by Judas Thomas who some assumed was a brother of Jesus (perhaps even a twin). This is a gnostic gospel that appears to have originated in Syria and being gnostic, it would have been suppressed but could have easily survived on the eastern fringes of the Byzantine empire. This is where Muhammad trading expeditions led him, and so it is not unreasonable to believe he heard this story. However, the issue is this story is not recorded in any of the earliest traditions of Christianity for well over one hundred years following his execution. This would suggest that if the Qur'an is true, then some gnostic Christian sect somehow was able to introduce absolutely absurd ideas as to this world and the Heavens but was able to learn of and retain this one true story.

Once again, we must ask what is more reasonable?

The story recorded in the Qur'an is true, in which case, the only gospel to faithfully record this true event was the gnostic Infancy Gospel of Thomas. However, that gospel also clearly emphasizes that Jesus was divine and actually quite petty. If the story in the Qur'an is true, then why is the only Christian literature containing this story one that was written half a century after the last accepted gospel, that of John. Also, if that author, over a century after the fact, was so inspired to tell this as being a true story, why does that same inspired author include stories that would be absurd in the context of the Qur'an? Despite this infancy gospel being rejected by Orthodox Christianity centuries before Muhammad, the angel Gabriel never-the-less told Christians that as “followers of the Gospel” they had an obligation to judge the Qur'an according to “what God has sent down in it.”
The story in the Qur'an is a story that Muhammad heard while on his journeys and understood from the Gnostic Christians to whom he spoke that this was indeed the true gospel, and then Muhammad authored verses that paralleled the stories he heard in Syria.

3.2.4 Jesus's life

For a prophet, the Qur'an says very little about Jesus. In 3:49-50, we have

He will send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel: “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will make the shape of a bird for you out of clay, then breathe into it and, with God’s permission, it will become a real bird; I will heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life with God’s permission; I will tell you what you may eat and what you may store up in your houses. There truly is a sign for you in this, if you are believers. I have come to confirm the truth of the Torah which preceded me, and to make some things lawful to you which used to be forbidden.

Why is a "miracle" of turning clay birds into live ones a sign for anyone other than perhaps those few who watched this? It seems that Muhammad could not come up with a better sign than this. As for what else he did, there are only generic statements of healing the blind and lepers, and raising the dead. The Qur'an claims that Jesus made lawful at least some actions that were previously forbidden, but the Qur'an does not explicitly sate what any of the gospel that Jesus delivered. Instead, it seems Muhammad believed that his stories were from the common Christian gospels he heard from those with whom he traded, however, nothing could be further from the truth: the earliest gospels were the ones adopted by the Orthodox Christians and these do not contain the stories told in the Qur'an, while the stories in the Qur'an do parallel closely stories told in Gnostic Christianity, one that would also be wrong with repsect to the monotheism of Muhammad, and those stories were written at least half a century after the last gospel of John.

Additionally, there are only two sections in the Qur'an and they both are copies of each other, with little new information, and neither say anything of what Jesus's gospel actually said, as it must be assumed that Muhammad knew that Christians could refer to gospels such as the Second Treaties of the Great Seth and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Here are the two stories from the Qur'an:

3:47-51 [The angel] said, ‘This is how God creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He only says, “Be”, and it is.

He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel,

He will send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel:

“I have come to you with a sign from your Lord:

I will make the shape of a bird for you out of clay, then breathe into it and, with God’s permission, it will become a real bird;

I will heal the blind and the leper,

and bring the dead back to life with God’s permission;

I will tell you what you may eat and what you may store up in your houses. There truly is a sign for you in this, if you are believers. I have come to confirm the truth of the Torah which preceded me, and to make some things lawful to you which used to be forbidden. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. Be mindful of God, obey me: God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him– that is a straight path.”’

5:110 Then God will say, ‘Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour to you and to your mother: how I strengthened you with the holy spirit, so that you spoke to people in your infancy and as a grown man;

how I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel;

how, by My leave, you fashioned the shape of a bird out of clay, breathed into it, and it became, by My leave, a bird;

how, by My leave, you healed the blind person and the leper;

how, by My leave, you brought the dead back to life;

how I restrained the Children of Israel from [harming] you when you brought them clear signs, and those of them who disbelieved said, “...”; and how I inspired the disciples to believe in Me and My messengers– they said, “We believe and bear witness that we devote ourselves [to God].”’

A hint at the source...f

In Surah 5:46-47, we get an idea as to the source of Muhammad's teachings:

We sent Jesus, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him:

We gave him the Gospel with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed–

a guide and lesson for those who take heed of God.

So let the followers of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down in it.

Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are lawbreakers.

The earliest gospels were those that now form the canonical scriptures: books called Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, likely written in that order. The letters of Paul predate all of these. All of these were written prior to the year 100 CE, and all of these affirm the idea that Jesus was indeed executed by the Romans. While the stories differ, all state that Jesus was executed. This is the belief of all Christians within the Roman Empire, and because this narrative had the support of the state, it was generally dominant. However, Muhammad trading expeditions took him to the Levant, and it is here, on the fringes of the empire, that alternative Christianities took hold and flourished: it is these cultures that stories such as that of Jesus making clay birds and not actually dying on the cross were told, and it is likely these that Muhammad heard and retold. Muhammad reiterates that there is some significance to the Christian gospels:

3:3-4 Step by step, He has sent the Scripture down to you [Prophet] with the Truth, confirming what went before: He sent down the Torah and the Gospel earlier as a guide for people and He has sent down the distinction [between right and wrong].
3:47-51 [The angel] said, ‘This is how God creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He only says, “Be”, and it is. He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, He will send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel: “...”’
5:68-69 Say, ‘People of the Book, you have no true basis [for your religion] unless you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and that which has been sent down to you from your Lord,’ but what has been sent down to you [Prophet] from your Lord is sure to increase many of them in their insolence and defiance: do not worry about those who defy [God]. For the [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Sabians, and the Christians– those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good deeds– there is no fear: they will not grieve.

But Jesus never authored any of the canonical gospels, although the Second Treaties of the Great Seth was written as if it was authored by Jesus, and it is in this document that Jesus is allegedly not executed.

These two sections repeat and are essentially a complete summary of the life of Jesus in the Qur'an; a very restricted and almost insignificant coverage of Jesus's life, with most of the stories paralleling gnostic scriptures:

3:47-51 [The angel] said, ‘This is how God creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He only says, “Be”, and it is.

He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel,

He will send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel:

“I have come to you with a sign from your Lord:

I will make the shape of a bird for you out of clay, then breathe into it and, with God’s permission, it will become a real bird;

I will heal the blind and the leper,

and bring the dead back to life with God’s permission;

how I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel;

how, by My leave, you fashioned the shape of a bird out of clay, breathed into it, and it became, by My leave, a bird;

how, by My leave, you healed the blind person and the leper;

how, by My leave, you brought the dead back to life;

3. Judaism

Another aspect of Islam is that it tries to present itself as a monotheistic religion that is the completion and correction of the messages of Judaism and Christianity, and thus must integrate itself into the stories found in the Torah and, to a lesser extent, the other books of the Tanakh. Thus, Muhammad included into the Qur'an various stories told, especially in Genesis. As with stories regarding Jesus, these differ from those told in Genesis:

Genesis 2:19-20

So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them,

and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

The man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and to every animal of the field...

Surah Al-Baqarah (the heifer) 2:31-33

He taught Adam all the names [of things],

then He showed them to the angels and said,

‘Tell me the names of these if you truly [think you can].’

They said,

‘May You be glorified! We have knowledge only of what You have taught us. You are the All Knowing and All Wise.’

Then He said,

‘Adam, tell them the names of these.’

When he told them their names, God said,

‘Did I not tell you that I know what is hidden in the heavens and the earth, and that I know what you reveal and what you conceal?’

In Genesis, it is man who names all creatures, but in the Qur'an it is Allah who teaches Adam the names of all things.

Surah 3:59

In God’s eyes Jesus is just like Adam:

He created him from a dust,

said to him, ‘Be’,

and he was.

This parallels Genesis 2:7, which says

...then the Lord God

formed man from the dust of the ground

and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

and the man became a living being.

Unfortunately, no human was created from dust, which itself is soil lifted by wind and other airborne particles such as those from volcanos, and this would include silicon, an element not found in any human cell. Indeed, dust is hardly the material from which to make humans, as it contains little if any moisture. Every human is made by the joining of two cells, and that fertilized egg continues to split usually making what resembles a human being. The first cell was likely comprised of a lipid bilayer and it was most certainly formed in the ocean, far from any dust. Either the Angel Gabriel once again reiterated a falsehood, or Muhammad was simply repeating stories that he had previously heard. It would have been so nice had Muhammad actually corrected the account, and while he "corrected" many alleged errors in Judaism and Christianity, he never corrected any of the most serious flaws.

The repetition of a single story...

2:34-36

When We told the angels, ‘Bow down before Adam,’ they all bowed.

But not Iblis, who refused and was arrogant: he was one of the disobedient.

We said, ‘Adam, live with your wife in this garden. Both of you eat freely there as you will, but do not go near this tree, or you will both become wrongdoers.’

But Satan made them slip, and removed them from the state they were in.

We said, ‘Get out, all of you! You are each other’s enemy. On earth you will have a place to stay and livelihood for a time.’

7:11-21

We created you, We gave you shape, and then

We said to the angels, ‘Bow down before Adam,’ and they did.

But not Iblis: he was not one of those who bowed down.

God said, ‘What prevented you from bowing down as I commanded you?’

and he said, ‘I am better than him: You created me from fire and him from clay.’ 13God said, ‘Get down from here! This a is no place for your arrogance. Get out! You are contemptible!’ 14 but Iblis said, ‘Give me respite until the Day people are raised from the dead,’ 15 and God replied, ‘You have respite.’ 16And then Iblis said, ‘Because You have put me in the wrong, I will lie in wait for them all on Your straight path: 17I will come at them– from their front and their back, from their right and their left– and You will find that most of them are ungrateful.’ 18God said, ‘Get out! You are disgraced and banished! I swear I shall fill Hell with you and all who follow you! 19But you and your wife, Adam, live in the Garden. Both of you eat whatever you like, but do not go near this tree or you will become wrongdoers.’ 20Satan whispered to them so as to expose their nakedness, b which had been hidden from them: he said, ‘Your Lord only forbade you this tree to prevent you becoming angels or immortals,’ 21 and he swore to them, ‘I am giving you sincere advice’– 22he lured them with lies

17:61-65

When We said to the angels, ‘Bow down before Adam,’ they all bowed down,

but not Iblis. He retorted, ‘Why should I bow down to someone You have created out of clay?’ 62 and [then] said, ‘You see this being You have honoured above me? If You reprieve me until the Day of Resurrection, I will lead all but a few of his descendants by the nose.’

God said, ‘Go away! Hell will be your reward, and the reward of any of them who follow you– an ample reward. Rouse whichever of them you can with your voice, muster your cavalry and infantry against them, share their wealth and their children with them, and make promises to them– Satan promises them nothing but delusion–but you will have no authority over My [true] servants: Your Lord can take care of them well enough.’

18:50

We said to the angels, ‘Bow down before Adam,’ and they all bowed down,

but not Iblis: he was one of the jinn and he disobeyed his Lord’s command.

Are you [people] going to take him and his offspring as your masters instead of Me, even though they are your enemies? What a bad bargain for the evildoers!

20:115-121

We also commanded Adam before you, but he forgot and We found him lacking in constancy.

When We said to the angels, ‘Bow down before Adam,’ they did.

But Iblis refused,

so We said, ‘Adam, this is your enemy, yours and your wife’s: do not let him drive you out of the garden and make you miserable. In the garden you will never go hungry, feel naked, be thirsty, or suffer the heat of the sun.’

But Satan whispered to Adam, saying, ‘Adam, shall I show you the tree of immortality and power that never decays?’

and they both ate from it.

A similar story appears in the Qur'an in two separate surahs:

Surah Al-Baqarah (the heifer) 2:34

When We told the angels, ‘Bow down before Adam,’ they all bowed.

But not Iblis [Satan], who refused and was arrogant: he was one of the disobedient.

Surah Sad (the letter "sad"), 38:71-78

Your Lord said to the angels,

‘I will create a man from clay.

When I have shaped him and breathed from My Spirit into him, bow down before him.’

The angels all bowed down together, but not Iblis, who was too proud.

He became a rebel.

God said, ‘Iblis, what prevents you from bowing down to the man I have made with My own hands? Are you too high and mighty?’

Iblis said, ‘I am better than him: You made me from fire, and him from clay.’

‘Get out of here! You are rejected: My rejection will follow you till the Day of Judgement!’

The rebellion of Iblis is repeated five times in the Qur'an, but for what purpose? Additionally, it is a story that does not appear even once in the Torah. It does, however, appear in the "Life of Adam and Eve" a Jewish apocryphal group of writings likely authored in the first century of the common era, so only centuries before Muhammad. In these writings, there is a story that explained why Satan rebelled against God, for he was commanded to bow down to Adam.

The Devil answered: "Adam what are you saying to me? On account of you I was cast out from heaven.

When you were formed, I was cast out from the face of God and was sent forth from the company of the angels.

When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God,

Michael led you and made you worship in the sight of God.

The Lord God then said: 'Behold, Adam, I have made you in our image and likeness.'

Having gone forth Michael called all the angels saying: 'Worship the image of the Lord God, just as the Lord God has commanded.'
Michael himself worshipped first then he called me and said:

'Worship the image of God Jehovah.'

I answered: 'I do not have it within me to worship Adam.'

When Michael compelled me to worship, I said to him:

'Why do you compel me? I will not worship him who is lower and posterior to me. I am prior to that creature. Before he was made, I had already been made. He ought to worship me.'

Hearing this, other angels who were under me were unwilling to worship him.
Michael said: 'Worship the image of God. If you do not worship, the Lord God will grow angry with you.'
I said: 'If he grows angry with me, I will place my seat above the stars of heaven and I will be like the Most High.'
Then the Lord God grew angry with me and sent me forth with my angels from our glory.

On account of you we were expelled from our dwelling into this world and cast out upon the earth.
Immediately we were in grief, since we had been despoiled of so much glory,

and we grieved to see you in such a great happiness of delights.

By a trick I cheated your wife and caused you to be expelled through her from the delights of your happiness,

just as I had been expelled from my glory."

This book was written within a century of the life of Jesus, and it is a known apocryphal book. Thus, we are once again left with two possibilities:

The story of Iblis is true, and in all the histories of the Jews, they hid or forgot about this story, but this story was revealed to two individuals: the author of the apocryphal book The Life of Adam and Eve and Muhammad. The first is the author of a book that was made up half a millennium before Muhammad existed, and while the balance of the book is entirely fanciful, that one story rings true, and Muhammad was told to recite that same story.
Muhammad, while travelling to Syria, heard from the same people who told him that Jesus did not die on the cross, this other story from a book that they believed to be true: the Life of Adam and Eve. Muhammad then retold this story, not once, but five different times while reciting his Qur'an.

That last points critical: why repeat something as mundane as Iblis not wanting to bow down to Adam being the cause for him being punished? Could that same text not have been useful to elaborate more clearly on succession? After all, almost immediately, the followers of Islam split into the followers of Ali (the Shia) and the followers of the Caliph (the Sunni). Or perhaps a clearer discussion on when to fly airplanes into buildings and when not to? Or exactly how brutal and sadistic terrorist should be when they kill children in front of their parents, or parents in front of their children? It is not an interesting story, and not enlightening.

The next verse in the Qur'an reiterates a message that was allegedly told by Yahweh to the Jews:

Al-Ma'idah (the dining table) 5:27-32, a Medinan surah,
[Moses], tell them the truth about the story of Adam’s two sons:

each of them offered a sacrifice, and

it was accepted from one and not the other.

One said, ‘I will kill you,’

but the other said, ‘God only accepts the sacrifice of those who are mindful of Him. If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise mine to kill you. I fear God, the Lord of all worlds, and I would rather you were burdened with my sins as well as yours and became an inhabitant of the Fire: such is the evildoers’ reward.’

But his soul prompted him to kill his brother:

he killed him and became one of the losers.

God sent a raven to scratch up the ground and show him how to cover his brother’s corpse

and he said, ‘Woe is me! Could I not have been like this raven and covered up my brother’s body?’

He became remorseful.

On account of [his deed], We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person

–unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land–

it is as if he kills all mankind,

while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind.

Our messengers came to them with clear signs, but many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

Compare and contrast this with Sanhedrin 37a 35-39

But in capital cases he is held responsible for his blood [sc. the accused's] and the blood of his [potential] descendants until the end of time, for thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: the bloods of they brother cry unto me: not the blood of thy brother, but the bloods of they brother, is sad; that is, his blood and the blood of his [potential] descendants. (Alternatively, the bloods of they brother, teaches that his blood was splashed over trees and stones.) For this reason was man created alone, to teach thee that whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, scriptures ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world.

The last statement of this poetry attempts to denigrate the Jews, but the story is not one expressed in the Torah, but rather, it is from a rabbinical text discussing interpretations of the story of Cain and Abel, not from the mouth of Moses.

The following is an interesting misrepresentation of Judaism:

Surah At-Tawba (the repentance) 9:30, a Medinan surah

The Jews said, ‘Ezra is the son of God,’ a and

the Christians said, ‘The Messiah is the son of God’:

they said this with their own mouths, repeating what earlier disbelievers had said.

May God confound them! How far astray they have been led!

The statement that Christians say that Jesus is the son of God is indeed correct, but but nowhere in the Tanakh nor in any rabbinical teaching is anyone identified as an offspring of Yahweh. Instead, certain individuals who are especially close to Yahweh may be referred to as such, but not as a literal offspring of Yahweh. Now, there are mystical sects within Judaism, and within these sects there are concepts such as Ben Elohim (בני אלהים), or Sons of God, but such believers form only a small minority of Jews.

male-centric religion...

In order to attract adherents, it really seems that Muhammad's primary focus was to make his new religion appeal to men. This can be seen again and again throughout the Qur'an as there are many verses that appeal to both authority over women and sexual pleasures for men, but few if any for women. After all, in his culture, women are the property first of their father, and then their husband. The claim is that the rights of women are greater than those that were given to women prior to the introduction of Muhammad's teachings, and perhaps they are, but as other religions, these revelations are set in stone and unchangeable, subject only to interpretation.

An-Nisa' (the women) 4:2-3, a Medinan sura, allows men to marry up to four wives, or their slaves:

Give orphans their property, do not replace [their] good things with bad, and do not consume their property with your own–a great sin. If you fear that you will not deal fairly with orphan girls, you may marry whichever [other] women seem good to you, two, three, or four. If you fear that you cannot be equitable [to them], then marry only one, or your slave(s): that is more likely to make you avoid bias.

Al-Aḥzāb (the clans) 33, a Medinan sura, allows Mihammed to marry however many wives he wishes, not limited to four, and he made use of this, including a marriage to Aisha that was consummated when she was nine-years old.

Prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives whose bride gift you have paid, and any slaves God has assigned to you through war, and the daughters of your uncles and aunts on your father’s and mother’s sides, who migrated with you. Also any believing woman who has offered herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to wed– this is only for you [Prophet] and not the rest of the believers: We know exactly what We have made obligatory for them concerning their wives and slave-girls– so you should not be blamed: God is most forgiving, most merciful.

An-Nisa' (the women) 4:34, a Medinan sura, allows husbands to beat their wives under prescribed conditions:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Al-Muʼminun (the believers) 23:1-6, a Meccan sura, gives permission for a man to have sex with both his wives and his female slaves; consent for sexual relations is assumed with wives by the fact that they are married and with female slaves by the fact that they are property.

The believers must (eventually) win through, Those who humble themselves in their prayers; Who avoid vain talk; Who are active in deeds of charity; Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame, ...

Al-Baqara (the heifer) 2:282, a Medinan sura, describes the circumstances where the witness of two women is equivalent to that of one man:

O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do.

An-Nur (the light) 24:2, a Medinan sura, describes the punishment for sexual relations outside of marriage:

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Ar-Rahman (the mercy) 55, a Medinan sura, describes Heaven with a very male-centric view, and these verses, as well as others, have been interpreted by those seeking to motivate martyrdom:

For those who fear [the time when they will] stand before their Lord there are two gardens... There will be maidens restraining their glances, untouched beforehand by man or jinn. Like rubies and brilliant pearls. Shall the reward of good be anything but good?

Additionally, we have:

There are two other gardens below these two.... There are good-natured, beautiful maidens. They will all sit on green cushions and fine carpets. Untouched beforehand by man or jinn. Dark-eyed, sheltered in pavilions.

Mecca and the Kaaba

Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam requires that Noah and Moses existed, and yet, neither did for there was no world-wide flood and there was no exodus of the Jews from Egypt, and thus, the intermediary Abraham did not exist. Thus, Islam is on the same mythological foundation as is Judaism and Christianity; however, Muhammad wanted to integrate his new system of worship with previous Abrahamic stories, thus gaining the same authority for Islam as both Judaism and Christianity did.

Muhammad recognized there was something significant and simpler about a monotheistic religion: he contrasted the polytheism of his tribe and others, and contrasted this with Judaism and the supposed monotheism of Christianity. This became central to his new religion, and initially, he sought to appeal to both Jews and Christians. At first, he emphasizes the oneness of god, and for this, he seems to have chosen Allah. Hubal was the god of Muhammad's tribe, the Quraysh. The name Allah appears to be a contraction of al-ilāh, the phrase "the god" and may have been used to emphasize the supremacy of Hubal, at least for the Quraysh. Hubal, together with other lesser gods, were worshipped at Mecca at a rather simple cubical building called the Kaaba.

Mecca, however, had many benefits: first it was on the overland Incense trade route between Yemen and the eastern Mediterranean. Caravans would stop at Mecca, but simultaneously, Mecca was approximately half way along the route between Yemen and the eastern Mediterranean. Thus, caravans could head north during the summer, and south during the winter. Despite the harsh climate of the Arabian peninsula, just south of Mecca was a region that produced wheat, grapes and other fruits.

What Mecca had that was unique, however, was a meteoric black stone which was held at the Kaaba, a simple cubical building that housed this meteorite together with representations of many other of the gods, including Hubal, the primary deity of the Quraysh, the tribe that controlled, in addition to other lands, Mecca. It may have been that Hubal was referred to as al-ilāh, the phrase meaning "the god" and this may have been contracted to Allah. The name appears to be cognate with El or Elohim. This precious stone also became an attraction for pilgrims, as this pre-Islamic poetry demonstrates:

Arise, let us go, for the camels have been waiting long,

And the black [stones] of the meadow we will visit.
Their rider struck the fawn with the rod of an ostrich,

And, by my life, how bright was her face as she passed by!

But therein lies an issue: there are no clear references to Mecca in any records prior to Muhammad, and Islamic history claims that the Kaaba was only recently rebuilt prior to Muhammad beginning his preaching. It may have only been at most a century or two prior to Muhammad that the meteor fell to Earth and the establishment of Mecca as a place of pilgrimage. If it had been such a destination for significantly longer, one would have expected some sort of mention, perhaps only in passing, in some writings by the Roman or Byzantine empires.

Muhammad was born into this world, and engaged in the incense trade. In his interactions with Jews and Christians, he seems to have recognized there was something significant and simpler but also more powerful about a monotheistic religion: he likely contrasted the polytheism of his tribe and others, and contrasted this with Judaism and the supposed monotheism of Christianity. It seems Muhammad began to devise a new religion based on the teachings of Judaism and the various branches of Christianity he came in contact with (remembering that these would be oriental-orthodox churches, and definitely not the church based in Rome. Monotheism was to become central to his new religion, and initially, he sought to appeal to both Jews and Christians. At first, he emphasizes the oneness of god, but he rejected that Jesus was god, and instead downgraded Jesus to the status of a prophet, only slightly higher than the itinerant apocalyptic preacher he was. His earliest teachings were more benevolent including social justice, patience, resilience, personal moral conduct and accountability, but he also taught of the coming day of judgement, but he also took on the title of the last prophet. His teachings attracted neither Jews nor Christians, and so he sought to expand his followers from his own people. His teachings, however, put him in conflict with his polytheistic tribe, and after thirteen years, he was forced to flee to Yathrib, well over three hundred miles to the north. Here, Muhammad was able to establish political control, and it was here that his teachings became more authoritative and harsh. The surahs that were told while Muhammad was in Mecca are referred to as Meccan surahs, while those after the flight north are called Medinan surahs. With political control, Muhammad began to fight against those who opposed his new religion:

Al-Ma'idah (the dining table) 5:33, a Medinan sura, describes the punishment for those who fight against Islam:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; ...

33:64-65, describes the fate of unbelievers:

God has rejected the disbelievers and prepared a blazing fire for them. There they will stay permanently, with no one to befriend or support them.

A reinterpretation stories from Judah?

The religion also has claims that in light of history are mythical: the Qur'an claims that Abraham and his son Ishmael built the foundation of the Kaaba. Ishmael's mother, Hajar, is elevated from being a sex slave to a wife. The claim also follows that these aspects of history were erased from the Judean scriptures to denigrate the Arabs, who were seen as descendants of Ishmael. This denigration of the Arabs, however, perfectly parallels all other denigrations:

All Canaanites are allegedly descendants Canaan, the accursed son of Ham, specifically:
1. The Phoenicians are descendants of Canaan's son Sidon who lived on the coastal side of the Lebanon Mountains.
2. The Arvadites are Phoenicians who lived on the island Arvad off the coast of modern-day Syria.
3. The Hittites are either descendants of Canaan's son Heth or are the Hivites, descendants of an unnamed son of Canaan. The Hittites controlled Anatolia but invaded south along the eastern Mediterranean coast.
4. The Jebusites, who occupied Jerusalem, are descendant from an unnamed son of Canaan.
5. The Amorites, whose descendants have been interpreted as being been the Arameans who lived on the interior side of the Lebanon Mountains, are descendant from another unnamed son of Canaan.
The Egyptians, Nubians and generally all other North African cultures are descended from the other sons of Ham.
All Edomites are allegedly descendants of Esau, the hairy and unruly son of Isaac.
The Amalekites--who were exterminated--are allegedly the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau.
The Moabites and Ammonites are descendants of incestuous relationships between Lot and his daughters.
All Arabs are descendants of the the son of Abraham and his sex slave.

Finally, Abraham home is now removed from his origins coming from Canaan, and instead, he began his life in the city of Ur from the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Sumeria. This pattern is repeated throughout the Judean scriptures to denigrate all cultures that were a threat or in competition for the same regions as the Judahite people. While the authors of the Torah may have genuinely believed that they were recording the histories of the Judahite people, Muhammad was knowingly embellishing myths that he had heard from his interactions with Jews and Christians.

Abraham built the Kaaba

However, more importantly, the exodus did not occur, and thus, many chapters of the Qur'an are retelling of the myths that appear in the Torah, and consequently, without an exodus, any prior event is also mythical, and thus without an actual person by the name of Abraham, he could not have built the Kaaba, and Musa did not lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. The Qur'an claims that Mecca is ancient, being built by Abraham:

Al-Hajj (the pilgrimage) 22:26-29 We showed Abraham the site of the House, saying,

‘Do not assign partners to Me.

Purify My House for those who circle around it, those who stand to pray, and those who bow and prostrate themselves.

Proclaim the Pilgrimage to all people.

They will come to you on foot and on every kind of swift mount,

emerging from every deep mountain pass to attain benefits and celebrate God’s name,

on specified days, over the livestock He has provided for them––feed yourselves and the poor and unfortunate––so let the pilgrims perform their acts of cleansing, fulfil their vows, and circle around the Ancient House.’

None of this is recorded in the Torah, and the Kaaba itself was only rebuilt a few years prior to Muhammad starting his teachings. It was built by the Quraysh tribe to attract pilgrims, perhaps on an older foundation, but there is no known record of the Kaaba outside of Mecca prior to the life of Muhammad, and at the time of Muhammad, the population was still well under one thousand. There is little evidence that Mecca was even inhabited more than a few hundred years prior to Muhammad. The Kaaba is intimately associated with a black meteoric stone. This was common throughout many Semitic tribes at the time, and Baetylus refers to rocks that are worshipped on account of the uniqueness of the rock itself, and not a carving made from the stone; for example, if the rock was a meteorite. Deuteronomy 28 twice threatens worshipers of Yahweh of being forced into alien practices that included the worship of stone:

The Lord will bring you and the king whom you set over you to a nation ... where you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone.
The Lord will scatter you among all peoples ... and there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone.

The Kaaba seems to parallel the Holy-of-holies in the Temple.

In Chapter IV of Exhortation to the Heathens by Clement of ALexandria who lived c.150 CE to c.215 CE, he says

Anciently, then, the Scythians worshipped their sabres, the Arabs stones, the Persians rivers.

In Dissertation 38 by Maximus Tyrius, he says

The Arabians, indeed, venerate a god whom I do not know; but the statue of him which I have seen is a quadrangular stone.

An apocalyptic preacher

However, in the end, Muhammad was, like Jesus, a failed apocalyptic prophet: he, too, predicted that the end of the word was nigh: the Day of Judgement was coming soon.

33:63 People ask you about the Hour. Say, ‘God alone has knowledge of it.’ How could you [Prophet] know? The Hour may well be near.
20:15 The Hour is coming––though I choose to keep it hidden––for each soul to be rewarded for its labour.
22:1People, be mindful of your Lord, for the earthquake of the Last Hour will be a mighty thing: on the Day you see it, every nursing mother will think no more of her baby, every pregnant female will miscarry, you will think people are drunk when they are not, so severe will be God’s torment.

Why say that "The Hour may well be near." when it has been one-and-a-half millennia, and there has still been no

Recall that there is significant discussion in Islam regarding the actual interpretation of all these verses, with a small minority of Muslims even accepting homosexuality as being right before god. For example, slavery, while being clearly permitted in the Qur'an, is an institution that is essentially abolished, at least officially, in most nations with Muslim majorities. At the same time, the abolition of slavery was never taught as a fundamental tenant of Islam. Muhammad's teachings may have improved the conditions of slaves, but the practice continued to exist, and it was ultimately external pressures that led to the end of slavery. Today, while Sharia may make provisions for holding slaves, judges can decide that the conditions under which slaves can he held are simply not met. This must, however, be contrasted with organizations such as Daesh, which, upon controlling territory, impose slavery--especially sexual slavery--on those who were captured in war: the interpretation may change, but the Qur'an has not.

Integrating local beliefs into Islam

However, as with all other religions, if a god knows at the time of authoring a text exactly how that text will be misinterpreted in the following thousands of years, should that not behoove that god to clarify the original revelation? Legislative bodies must always deal with subsequent unintended consequences of statutes that are passed, but a god allegedly knows all consequences for all time of any revelation. If god was aware that a misinterpretation would lead to thousands suffering in slavery or hundreds actively seeking martyrdom, any reasonable god would, in my opinion, want to clarify, to make the revelation less ambiguous and thus more beautiful. The Qur'an was able to ban the drinking of alcohol, could it not do the same with slavery?

However, in addition to the Qur'an, there are many hadith that prescribe significantly greater punishments, at least in the interpretation of certain Muslims, including execution for apostacy and stoning for sexual relations outside of marriage. Recall that if a god is all knowing, then when the words were recited to Muhammad, then that individual would have known the misery such misinterpretations would now be causing throughout the world. It is trivial to adjust any of the above verses to be more clear on the breadth and scope of what is said. While some aspects of Islam are actually far more advanced and just than societies that existed at the time, like Judaism and Christianity, the law was written, and it was fixed for all time since then. Recall that all three Abrahamic religions described up until now consider their scripture to be the final word. This approach does change with subsequent splinterings of the Abrahamic religion a little more than twelve hundred years later.

Gaining adherents: a male-centric approach

A summary

The Druze

I was initially under the mistaken impression that the Druze faith was, like Sufism, a branch of Islam. However, it is a distinct religion that splintered from Islam in 1017 or 1018, during the life of an Isma'ili mystic within the Fatimid caliphate. He introduced new ideas forming the basis for a new religion, including an reinterpretation of the pillars of Islam, seeing them instead as a divine punishment for those who were not spiritually attuned to Allah and his designs. The Qur'an is to be interpreted and not read literally. The pillars of Islam are replaced with seven unitarian principles:

An affirmation of the unity of god (tawhid).
The recognition of Allah's manifestation in different prophets and spiritual leaders throughout history (tajalli).
The soul is eternal, extending both into the past and the future (nafs, cf. Mormonism) and the soul undergoes reincarnation on Earth until it reaches a state of spiritual purification and enlightenment (cf. Sikhism).
The goal of spiritual purification and enlightenment is to realize that unity with Allah: Muslims simply acknowledge the unity of Allah, but for Druze, you can achieve, or realize, the oneness with Allah (tawhid al-mutlaq).
An acknowledgement that divine guidance is given through prophets and spiritual leaders, and such guidance is required to attain this state, for prophets and divine leaders only revealed this understanding to members of the faith, making it an esoteric religion (cf. Mandaeism).
An emphasis on justice and moral conduct in personal and social life ('adl).
The acceptance of Allah's will and resignation to divine providence (samā‘)

He also introduced two additional ideas:

The Caliph, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, is understood to be a manifestation of divine wisdom, if not the mouthpiece of Allah (cf. Rastafarianism).
Al-Hakim disappeared in 1021, and it is believed that he entered a state of occultation and will return (risāla, cf. Jesus and Madhi).

Principles 3, 4 and 5 parallel beliefs within certain beliefs within gnostic Christianity, where some humans have the divine spark of Sophia and must learn how to escape this realm and the fifth emphasizes that leaders will be the one who reveal this secret wisdom to followers. These beliefs, however, put the Druze faith at odds with the teaching of Islam. Gnostic Christianity, however, again draws from Greek traditions introduced into early Christian beliefs, including the mystery cults. Like Jesus and Mahdi within Twelver Shīʿism (Imāmiyya), Al-Hakim is expected to return, again, an idea that does not exist in Judaism, but was introduced by the earliest followers of Jesus following his execution.

The most sacred texts are the letters of Wisdom. Given the esoteric nature of the religion, many passages use metaphorical and ambiguous language, archetypal symbolism, cryptic phrases, and allegorical narratives. Many passages require interpretation, and three levels are described:

The obvious, which is accessible to all who read.
The hidden, which requires critical and systematic interpretation or explanation involving the "correct" linguistic, historical, cultural, and contextual contexts to derive deeper meaning and understanding.
The hidden of the hidden, which is accessible only to those enlightened individuals who understand the truth of nature and the universe.

One such passage from the first letter reads as follows:

But you, despite this, you are swimming in the torrent of ignorance;

you sink into the desert wandering and you indulge in the game,

until you find yourself confronted with that day that you were threatened of.

No! You will know soon!

Again: you will know soon!

No! If only you knew the certain knowledge of this fact!

You know, all of you, that the apparent hidden grace that Allah Most High has bequeathed to

his friend and Imam on earth,

the Commander of the Faithful (peace of Allah be upon him),

the Imam of your century

accorded them in turn,

whether noble or peasant,

whether you belong to the elite or vulgar;

he made you enjoy his apparent and hidden nature,

abundantly and to the measure of possibility,

by his favor and generosity,

as he saw fit (peace of Allah be upon him),

without being stingy in the abundance of his gifts.

While more poetic, even in the English translation, the text is clearly esoteric:

The first line starts with a metaphor suggesting that you are deeply immersed or surrounded by a powerful and overwhelming force of ignorance.

The next line continues with another metaphor suggesting you are experiencing a sense of being lost, confused, or aimless, as if wandering in a vast and barren desert.

That second line concludes with another metaphor suggesting that you are actively participating or engaging deeply in a particular activity, pursuit, or behavior, implying a level of enjoyment or immersion.

The next line uses both a metaphor and personification of the day: the metaphor and personification in the third line emphasizes the consequences of your actions. The metaphorical expressions in the first two lines set the tone for the challenges and consequences you are likely to face, with the personification adding a sense of agency or intentionality to the impending "day" of reckoning.

The next three lines employ repetition, a rhetorical device commonly employed for emphasis, creating a strong impact on the reader or listener. The repetition of the exclamation "No!" adds to the emphasis, signaling a strong denial or disagreement.

The passage describes a warning or admonition, urging the reader to avoid ignorance and aimless pursuits. It emphasizes the imminent realization of a significant truth. Following this, it highlights the apparent and hidden blessings bestowed by Allah upon the earthly Imam, extending to individuals from various social backgrounds. The Imam's generosity is emphasized, portraying a message of abundance and favor.

While individual letters may be translated, most religious knowledge and practices are kept confidential within the community, not unlike the gnostic and esoteric Mandaen faith. Unlike many other religions, rituals exist to strengthen the individual and are a benefit for the follower, and thus, for the most part, are not considered obligatory.

You cannot convert to the Druze faith; you must be born into it, and a child must have two Druze parents, making it truly a tribal religion. Consequently, marrying outside the faith is as forbidden as apostasy, and either is considered synonymous with the death of the individual. Of course, refusing to accept converts may have been a means of protecting the faith from the negative consequences of acquiring followers from surrounding and better-established religions; however, it also parallels gnostic ideas of only some humans having the divine spark: for the Druze, only they have the ability to escape this realm, and they may believe a narrative similar to gnostic Christianity: only those within the Druze faith have the divine spark, and all others are simply animated clay beings, destined to die and return to the dust.

Interestingly, even if little is known about the faith itself due to its strict boundaries, I find little merit in this branch of the Abrahamic faith. To be fair, I also have limited knowledge thereof. The fact that societal pressure, including familial pressure, is used to keep individuals within the faith parallels the pressures placed on individuals within, for example, the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults. Such teachings are at best at odds with religious and personal freedoms, and being over one millennium old does not make it immune to such criticism. Historically, there is little to suggest that Al-Hakim was in any way divine, and one historian, Paul Walker, writes

"Ultimately, both views of him,

the mad and despotic tyrant (like Germanic and Roman despots) irrationally given to killing those around him on a whim, and

the ideal supreme ruler, divinely ordained and chosen, whose every action was just and righteous,

were to persist, the one among his enemies and those who rebelled against him, and the other in the hearts of true believers, who, while perhaps perplexed by events, nonetheless remained avidly loyal to him to the end."

If Allah were to come to Earth incarnate as a divine ruler, one might expect a more significant legacy.

Sikhism

To understand the early centuries of Sikhism, one must consider its emergence in Punjab, a region that had been predominantly Hindu yet under Muslim rule for centuries. It was in this context that Guru Nanak, the son of a merchant, rose as a spiritual teacher advocating equality, spiritual devotion, and the existence of a singular God—a concept that, while present in Hindu traditions, was a fundamental tenet of Islam.

Over the next two centuries, Guru Nanak and his nine successors played pivotal roles in shaping the foundations of this evolving faith. During Guru Nanak’s lifetime, the Mughal Empire consolidated its control over Punjab, maintaining dominance for the next two hundred years. In its early years, the Mughal rulers followed a policy of relative religious tolerance, allowing non-Muslim communities to practice their faiths without state interference.

The first nine Sikh Gurus primarily focused on the spiritual dimensions of devotion and ethical living. However, a significant shift occurred with the fifth Guru, Guru Arjan, who compiled the writings of his predecessors along with other spiritual compositions into a single sacred text—the Adi Granth (ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ).

This period of spiritual consolidation was disrupted when Guru Arjan was executed by the Mughal emperor Jahangir, marking a turning point in Sikh history. In response, his son and successor, Guru Hargobind, expanded Sikhism’s scope beyond purely spiritual teachings, emphasizing the necessity of temporal power and self-defense. This dual approach was formalized in the concept of Miri Piri (ਮੀਰੀ-ਪੀਰੀ), which symbolized the balance between spiritual devotion (Piri) and worldly authority (Miri).

To reflect this new philosophy, Guru Hargobind introduced martial training into Sikh life and adopted the two swords of Miri and Piri, which remain central to Sikh symbolism today, including in the Sikh Khanda 🪯.

It was during the reign of Emperor Aurangzeb, when the Mughal Empire reached its zenith, that a significant shift toward religious intolerance occurred. This led to widespread persecution of Sikhs and the destruction of their Gurdwaras, alongside the suppression of other non-Muslim communities.

In this climate of escalating oppression, Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Sikh Guru, was executed for defending religious freedom, particularly on behalf of Hindus facing forced conversion. His son and successor, Guru Gobind Singh, responded to this increasingly hostile environment by transforming Sikhism into a more structured and militarized community, ensuring that Sikhs could defend both their faith and their people.

To institutionalize this transformation, Guru Gobind Singh founded the Khalsa in 1699, a distinct Sikh brotherhood committed to upholding spiritual discipline, martial training, and social justice. Sikhs who choose to be initiated into the Khalsa undergo baptism (Amrit Sanchar), adopt a strict code of conduct (Rehat Maryada), and dedicate themselves to the defense of righteousness and the Sikh way of life.

The religious persecution and intolerance under Aurangzeb and his successors played a significant role in the decline and eventual fall of the Mughal Empire. As Mughal policies alienated non-Muslim communities, including Hindus, Sikhs, and Rajputs, internal resistance grew, weakening the empire from within.

By the mid-18th century, the Mughal Empire had already suffered major territorial losses, and its influence waned further after its defeat by the British East India Company at the Battle of Buxar in 1764. With the British primarily focused on Bengal, a power vacuum emerged in northern India, accelerating the Mughal Empire’s decline.

Against this backdrop, Ranjit Singh successfully established the Sikh Empire in 1799 through the capture of Lahore, consolidating Sikh misls (confederacies) into a unified state and assuming the title of Maharaja. Under his leadership, the Sikh Empire flourished, expanding across Punjab, Jammu, Kashmir, and parts of present-day Pakistan.

However, following Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, the empire fell into political turmoil. Five successive maharajas ruled between 1839 and 1843, but instability persisted. In 1843, the five-year-old Maharaja Duleep Singh ascended to the throne, yet by 1849, the Sikh Empire was annexed by the British, becoming the Punjab province of British India.

To fully understand the origins and evolution of Sikhism, one must examine the geographical and historical significance of Punjab. This fertile region, part of the Indus Valley, is bordered by the Sulaiman Mountains to the northwest and the Makran Coastal Range to the southwest. To the east, the Thar Desert extends toward the Aravalli Range, gradually fading as it reaches the convergence of the Indus and Ganges river systems.

To the south, the Thar Desert transitions into the salt marshes of the Rann of Kutch, eventually meeting the Arabian Sea. In contrast, the northern boundary of Punjab is dominated by the Himalayas, which act as a formidable barrier to the southwest monsoon winds. When these moist winds collide with the southern slopes of the Himalayas, they release significant rainfall, creating higher precipitation levels in the foothills and northern plains.

The Himalayas serve as the source of several major rivers that flow through Punjab, including the Jhelum, Chenab, Beas, and Sutlej. Fed by glacial meltwater and monsoon rains, these rivers form an intricate network of waterways, sustaining the region’s agriculture and enhancing the fertility of the southern plains.

To the west, the Indus River follows the contours of the Sulaiman Mountains, collecting the combined flow of these tributaries. This convergence of water sources has endowed Punjab with rich alluvial soils and a consistent water supply, solidifying its long-standing reputation as the "Granary of India."

The geographical features of Punjab, including its Himalayan-fed river systems and distinct climatic patterns, have profoundly shaped both its ecology and historical significance. The Indus River and its tributaries ultimately converge before flowing through a narrow, 60 km-wide valley near Rahim Yar Khan, where the river squeezes between the Sulaiman Mountains and the Thar Desert. Once it escapes this natural bottleneck, the Indus Valley expands into the Sindh plain, opening up the landscape once more.

Despite having natural barriers to the west, north, and east, Punjab has historically been a crossroads for invasions. Armies and migrating groups have repeatedly entered the region via three major routes: from the south through the Indus Valley, from the northwest via mountain passes leading to modern-day Afghanistan, and from the northeast through the open plains connecting Punjab to the Ganges watershed. This geostrategic position made Punjab a fertile yet contested land, repeatedly influenced by external conquests and cultural exchanges.

Yet, many modern maps of Punjab fail to fully capture its distinct geography. They typically depict boundaries, rivers, elevations, or vegetation in isolation, but to truly understand Punjab’s natural borders, one must consider all three elements together. When analyzed comprehensively, the geographical uniqueness of Punjab becomes as striking as that of Hungary or the Czech Republic in Europe—a region whose natural features define its historical and cultural identity just as much as political borders.

The Umayyad Caliphate, during its early expansion into the Indian subcontinent, conquered significant portions of the Sindh plain in 711 CE and attempted to push north into Punjab. However, despite these incursions, the Umayyads failed to establish lasting control over the region, as local resistance and logistical challenges limited their influence beyond Sindh.

Meanwhile, in southern India, particularly in Tamilakam, a spiritual reform movement known as the Bhakti movement was emerging. This movement emphasized personal devotion, homage, and direct worship of a single deity, proposing that salvation could be attained through such devotion. Its theological variations ranged from henotheism (reverence of one god while accepting others) to monolatrism (exclusive worship of one god despite acknowledging the existence of others).

Over time, the Bhakti movement spread across the Indian subcontinent, reshaping religious thought and challenging rigid social hierarchies. By the 15th century, its influence had certainly reached Punjab, where it played a role in shaping the spiritual environment from which Sikhism emerged.

Despite the influence of the Bhakti movement, Islam emerged as the most significant external force shaping Punjab’s history. Before the advent of Islamic rule, the Gupta Empire (circa 320–550 CE) dominated northern India, extending from the Indus Valley to the borders of Burma and southward on both sides of the Deccan Plateau.

However, with the decline of the Gupta Empire, the region fractured into smaller kingdoms, leaving Punjab vulnerable to external invasions. One of the most impactful incursions came from the Bactrian Huns (Hephthalites), whose northwestern invasion destabilized both Punjab and the upper Ganges region, contributing to the fragmentation of political power in the subcontinent.

Despite the resurgence of Hindu kingdoms, the political landscape of Punjab underwent a dramatic transformation with the rise of the Ghaznavid Empire in Persia. Beginning in 973 CE, the Ghaznavids launched a 50-year military campaign into India, with Punjab as their first major conquest.

However, the Ghaznavid rule in Punjab was relatively short-lived. They were eventually overthrown by the Ghurid dynasty, an Afghan power that defeated the Ghaznavids in battle at Lahore, solidifying its control over the region. This pattern of dynastic shifts continued until 1206 CE, when a Mamluk (slave) dynasty established the Delhi Sultanate, marking the beginning of sustained Muslim rule in northern India.

The Delhi Sultanate, despite periods of expansion and contraction, retained control over both the upper Indus and upper Ganges valleys until 1526. Initially, it followed a policy of religious intolerance, enforcing restrictions on non-Muslim communities. However, by 1320, rulers like Muhammad bin Tughlaq began to adopt a more inclusive approach, shifting toward religious pluralism and administrative pragmatism to maintain stability over a diverse population.

In the following sections, we will explore the first nine Sikh Gurus, examining their teachings and contributions to the early development of Sikhism. We will then discuss the Sikh scriptures, focusing on their spiritual and historical significance. Finally, we will conclude with an analysis of Guru Gobind Singh, the establishment of the Sikh Empire, and the modern legacy of Sikhism today.

The first nine gurus

Guru Nanak was born in 1469 CE into a mercantile Punjabi Khatri caste, similar to Muhammad’s background in his region. Raised in an affluent family, he received a formal education, which contributed to his intellectual and spiritual development.

As with many religious founders, later traditions ascribed miraculous signs to his birth. Some accounts describe a divine light surrounding him, reminiscent of the star of Bethlehem during Jesus’s birth, the celestial radiance said to have illuminated palaces in the Levant upon Muhammad’s birth, and the alleged glowing aura surrounding Kim Il-sung as an infant. Similarly, both Hindu and Islamic priests were said to have visited the newborn Guru Nanak, mirroring the way the Magi visited Jesus. These narratives follow a familiar mythological pattern, reinforcing the idea that spiritual leaders must be born under extraordinary circumstances to signify their divine purpose.

Sikhism, like Islam, rejects the polytheism of the culture into which its founder was born. Instead, Guru Nanak introduced the concept of Ik Onkar—"One God"—who is often referred to as Waheguru, meaning "wonderful and awesome spiritual teacher." This idea is strikingly similar to the descriptions of divine authority found in Christian theology, as exemplified in Handel’s Messiah:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:

and the government shall be upon his shoulder:

and his name shall be called

Wonderful,

Counsellor,

The mighty God,

The everlasting Father,

The Prince of Peace."

At the age of 27, around the same time Jesus is believed to have begun his ministry, Guru Nanak embarked on a spiritual journey. While his travels were undoubtedly significant, later traditions have amplified their scope, attributing to him extraordinary feats and encounters. In many narratives, he is described as besting scholars and religious figures in debate, much like how Jesus, at the age of ten, is said to have astounded the rabbis and scribes at the Temple.

When Guru Nanak established Sikhism, he emphasized a set of fundamental principles aimed at spiritual enlightenment and social reform:

Ik onkar (One God): A belief in a single, formless, and all-encompassing divine reality, rejecting polytheism and idol worship.
Equality and unity of humanity: A rejection of social hierarchies, religious divisions, and gender discrimination, affirming that all people are equal in the eyes of God. This specifically included a firm rejection of the Hindu caste system.
Naam Japna (remembrance of god): The practice of constant meditation and devotion to the divine name as a means of spiritual connection and purposeful living.
Kirat Karni (honest living): The principle of earning a livelihood through hard work and integrity, rejecting exploitation, dishonesty, and unethical practices in all aspects of life.
Vand Chakna (selfless service): The importance of sharing with those in need, practicing charity and generosity, and contributing to the well-being of the community.
Satguru ki Sewa (truthful living): Living a life of truth, honesty, and righteousness, following a path of integrity and moral discipline.
Inner devotion over rituals: Sincere worship and a direct connection with God, rejecting empty rituals, superstition, and external displays of religiosity.
Sangat (community worship) and pangat (community kitchen): The practice of gathering for worship and sharing meals in a communal kitchen, fostering unity, equality, and social inclusion.

These principles reflect a broader effort to eliminate societal inequalities, a theme also evident in the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and Muhammad, all of whom sought to challenge social injustices and uplift marginalized communities.

For the first three successions, each Sikh Guru personally selected a successor based on spiritual merit and leadership qualities. However, with the fourth Guru, Guru Ram Das, the pattern changed, as he appointed his own son as his successor, establishing a hereditary lineage that continued for several generations:

Guru Nanak Dev chose Guru Angad Dev, who chose Guru Amar Das, who chose Guru Ram Das.
Guru Ram Das's son was Guru Arjan Dev, whose son was Guru Hargobind, whose son was Guru Har Rai, whose son was Guru Harkrishan.
This dynastic succession remained unbroken until the death of Guru Harkrishan, who died of smallpox at a young age. When asked who should succeed him, he reportedly uttered "Baba Bakala," indicating that the next Guru would come from Bakala. This led to the appointment of Guru Tegh Bahadur as the ninth Guru.
After Guru Tegh Bahadur’s execution by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, his son, Guru Gobind Singh, was appointed as the tenth and final human Guru, bringing the lineage of personal Gurus to an end.

Guru Nanak lived during a pivotal period of South Asian history. His lifetime coincided with the collapse of the Delhi Sultanate and the rise of the Mughal Empire. In 1526, Babur, a descendant of Timur, expanded eastward from Central Asia, first conquering Punjab and then defeating the last Delhi Sultan, Ibrahim Lodi, at the First Battle of Panipat, establishing Mughal rule over northern India.

The Mughal Empire’s greatest period of expansion occurred under Padshah Akbar (r. 1556–1605), whose military brilliance allowed him to extend the empire across the Indus and Ganges river valleys and deep into the Deccan Plateau. Beyond military conquests, Akbar’s administrative reforms created a centralized and efficient government, dividing the empire into provinces governed by appointed officials.

A notable aspect of Akbar’s reign was his policy of religious tolerance, described as Tawhid-i-Ilāhī (Oneness of God), which promoted the idea that all forms of worship were ultimately directed toward the same divine reality. He encouraged interfaith dialogue and removed discriminatory taxes on non-Muslims. Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das lived during Akbar’s rule, and Sikhism continued to develop and grow under his relatively inclusive policies.

The execution of Guru Arjan Dev and the rise of miri piri

The son of Padshah Akbar, Jahangir, ordered the execution of the fifth Sikh Guru, Guru Arjan Dev, in 1606 CE. Following his death, his son, Guru Hargobind, succeeded him as the sixth Guru. Deeply affected by his father’s martyrdom, Guru Hargobind introduced a new approach to Sikh leadership, emphasizing that Sikhs must engage in both spiritual and temporal matters—a philosophy known as miri piri.

Unlike his predecessors, Guru Hargobind actively trained in martial arts and encouraged his followers to do the same. He adopted two swords—one representing Miri (temporal power) and the other Piri (spiritual authority)—symbolizing the dual responsibilities of Sikhs as both devout believers and defenders of justice. This transformation marked the beginning of Sikh militarization, which later played a crucial role in resisting Mughal persecution.

Aurangzeb’s reign and Sikh persecution

Akbar’s grandson, Shah Jahan, is best known for commissioning the Taj Mahal, and under his reign, the Mughal Empire continued to prosper. However, following his death in 1666, his son Aurangzeb ascended the throne. Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb adopted a policy of religious marginalization, reimposing the jizya tax on non-Muslims and deliberately targeting Hindu temples and Sikh Gurdwaras for destruction.

The jizya, a Qur'anic tax on non-Muslims, was intended to strongly encourage conversions to Islam. However, under Aurangzeb, this policy became increasingly aggressive, leading to forcible conversions and widespread persecution of Hindus and Sikhs. Four Sikh Gurus led the community during his reign, navigating a period of heightened oppression.

One of these leaders was Guru Tegh Bahadur, who became the ninth Sikh Guru after Guru Harkrishan died of smallpox. Guru Tegh Bahadur ultimately sacrificed his life in defiance of Aurangzeb’s forced conversion policies, reinforcing Sikhism’s commitment to religious freedom and resistance against tyranny.

The Sikh scriptures

The fifth Guru, Guru Arjan, played a pivotal role in preserving and formalizing Sikh teachings. He compiled the writings of his predecessors into a single sacred text, the Adi Granth. This scripture became the foundational text of Sikhism, later expanded and formally designated as the Guru Granth Sahib, the eternal Guru of the Sikh faith.

While Sikhism originated within the cultural and religious landscape of Hinduism, it also absorbed monotheistic influences, particularly from Islam, which itself was shaped in part by Judaism. One example of this interwoven theological tradition can be found in a verse referencing "Baba Adam":

ਬਾਬਾ ਆਦਮ ਕਉ ਕਿਛੁ ਨਦਰਿ ਦਿਖਾਈ ॥ ਉਨਿ ਭੀ ਭਿਸਤਿ ਘਨੇਰੀ ਪਾਈ

Translated, it suggests

Adam who is considered the first human being, was shown some sight, i.e. he was tempted – to eat the forbidden fruit.

He was also told he had had enough of heaven – and must leave.

This reference to Adam aligns with Judeo-Islamic traditions, highlighting the influence of Abrahamic narratives within Sikh scripture.

However, from a scientific perspective, the Adam and Eve story is a myth, as human beings are the result of evolution by natural selection. The earliest human ancestors emerged in the savannas of Ethiopia, evolving separately from their closest extant relatives:

Bonobos (which evolved south of the Congo River),
Chimpanzees (which evolved north of the Congo River and in the forests of West Africa).

This shared mythological theme, as found in many religions, reinforces the human origins of Sikh scripture—a reflection of cultural storytelling rather than divine revelation.

Upon reflection, the teachings of the first nine Gurus set Sikhism apart as one of the most benevolent and egalitarian religious traditions globally. However, the inclusion of supernatural elements, such as the miraculous signs at Guru Nanak’s birth, further underscores the human authorship of this tradition. Additionally, borrowing a fabricated story from an Abrahamic religion to create a narrative of human unity appears to be a misguided attempt at interfaith connection, rather than an authentic theological insight.

The last guru, the scriptures, and the empire

The penultimate Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, was executed by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, leading to the ascension of his son, Guru Gobind Singh, as the tenth and final human Guru. Similar to the transformation initiated by Guru Hargobind, whose father, Guru Arjan Dev, was also executed, Guru Gobind Singh completed the evolution of Sikh culture into a synthesis of spiritual devotion and martial discipline. His most profound impact was the formal regimentation of Sikh militarism, culminating in the creation of the Khalsa Panth, a distinct martial order within the Sikh community.

Individuals seeking admission into the Khalsa underwent baptism (Amrit Sanchar), marking their commitment to the faith and its martial responsibilities. Upon initiation, they adopted the honorifics Singh ("lion") for men and Kaur ("princess") for women.

Khalsa Sikhs adhered to a strict moral code, emphasizing:

Honesty.
Equality.
Meditation and faithfulness to God.
Opposition to all forms of persecution, whether of oneself or others.

Initiated members were also bound by the observance of the Five Ks, which symbolized their faith and discipline:

Kesh – Refraining from cutting one’s hair, which was typically kept in a turban
Kanga – Carrying a wooden comb to maintain cleanliness
Kara – Wearing a steel bracelet on the dominant hand as a symbol of strength and unity
Kachera – Donning cotton undergarments, representing self-discipline and modesty
Kirpan – Carrying a ceremonial sword, symbolizing the duty to protect righteousness

This integration of martial principles into religious practice is encapsulated by the concept of Sant Sipahi, or the "saint-soldier"—a warrior devoted not only to defending the faith but also to upholding justice and virtue.

This leads to my second observation: The evolution of the religion seems obvious and a consequence of human events: the two gurus who began to steer this nascent religion towards a martial path both had had their fathers executed by the Mughal emperors. It is not at all surprising then that they both took steps, more than any other guru, to reorganize the religion around the martial culture it is known for today. To be fair, Guru Nanak did raise points that could easily be seen in support of such a reorganization. He celebrated courage especially when such courage is necessary for either justice, or for standing up against injustice or oppression.

As an aside, the martial discipline of the Khalsa Sikhs bears interesting parallels to other historical warrior groups:

Christian Military Orders – The Templars, Hospitallers, and Teutonic Knights were Christian warrior-monks who combined religious devotion with military prowess. However, unlike the Khalsa, these Catholic orders were not universally encouraged within Christianity, as monasticism in Catholicism was generally separate from military service.
The Gurkhas of Nepal – A closer parallel may be found in the Gurkha military tradition within Nepalese culture. From a young age, Gurkha children are raised in an environment that supports and encourages military service. However, unlike the Khalsa, the Gurkha tradition lacks a strong religious component, making it more of a national martial identity than a spiritual commitment.
Swiss Military Tradition – The Swiss gained fame for their exceptional martial skills, particularly as mercenaries in early modern Europe. However, their military discipline was not driven by religion but by a commitment to independence and neutrality. Unlike the Khalsa, whose martial identity is rooted in spiritual duty, the Swiss approach was primarily secular and political.

Guru Gobind Singh ended the line of human Gurus, perhaps recognizing that a successor might undo his reforms or fail in resisting the Mughal Empire. Instead of appointing another Guru, he expanded the Adi Granth, incorporating hymns from his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, and then formally designated it as his successor. This scripture became the Guru Granth Sahib, the eternal Guru of the Sikh faith.

By establishing a fixed, unalterable text, Guru Gobind Singh ensured that Sikh teachings would remain free from manipulation or later additions. This decision provided consistent guidance to Sikhs wherever they lived and eliminated the succession disputes that had historically plagued religious movements. Instead of competing claimants to the guruship, all Sikhs would now be unified under a single, authoritative text.

Similar to the Kingdom of Judah, which emerged from the power vacuum left by the Bronze Age Collapse only to decline as surrounding empires reasserted control, and resembling the Hasmonean dynasty, which rose to power following the fall of the Seleucid Empire but eventually succumbed to the expansion of the Roman Empire, the Sikh states, or misls, emerged in the early 1700s as the Mughal Empire waned.

Despite the Maratha Empire's expansion across much of India, it never extended its borders to encompass the Punjab. In response to external threats, twelve semi-autonomous Sikh states initially formed a loose confederacy, each maintaining individual control while cooperating for collective defense and mutual benefit.

As pressures mounted, the misls were united in 1799 under the leadership of Ranjit Singh, who assumed the title of Maharaja (Emperor) over these twelve polities. The Sikh Empire endured for fifty years, until the British Empire expanded its presence in India and annexed Punjab.

Ranjit Singh, the first Maharaja, was a highly competent administrator and military leader. Under his rule, the Sikh Empire expanded to encompass nearly the entire upper watershed of the Indus, including Jammu and Kashmir. He also sought to govern in accordance with Guru Nanak’s teachings, fostering religious tolerance and administrative efficiency.

However, his death in 1839 was swiftly followed by the demise of his eldest son, Kharak Singh, a year later, plunging the empire into political instability. Internal conflicts and succession struggles ensued, leading to a rapid turnover of rulers. In 1843, the five-year-old Duleep Singh ascended the throne as Maharaja, but by 1849, he was deposed when Punjab was annexed by the British, marking the end of the Sikh Empire.

Just as Jews view the independence of Judah and the Hasmonean dynasty as signs of Yahweh’s favor, in contrast to the collapse of imperial suzerainty, Sikhs also tend to interpret the independence of the Sikh Empire as divinely ordained rather than mere political opportunism.

However, the death of charismatic and skilled leaders—who had been crucial to the empire’s rise—led to a complete collapse of political control. Despite the influence of Guru Nanak’s teachings, the empire ultimately struggled to maintain its independence and lasted only fifty years before succumbing to the larger forces of imperial expansion.

Today and a summary

The emphasis on martial culture in Sikhism, first advocated by the sixth guru and later formalized by the tenth, is understandable within its historical context. The Sikh community endured waves of persecution, and the integration of military discipline alongside spiritual devotion was seen as a pragmatic necessity rather than an inherently aggressive ideology.

However, like any martial tradition, interpretations of these teachings have varied over time. While the vast majority of Sikhs worldwide reject violence, some individuals have attempted to justify acts of terrorism in the name of Sikh nationalism. A tragic example is the 1985 Air India Flight 182 bombing, which claimed the lives of 329 innocent people, including two young students I had known in elementary school. Their parents, who rebooked their flights at the last minute for business in Canada, have lived with unimaginable grief ever since.

While such incidents are not reflective of Sikhism as a whole, they raise philosophical questions about the role of religious texts in preventing extremism. If a deity actively endorsed a martial culture as necessary for followers, one might expect religious texts to contain explicit warnings against acts of terrorism—not only condemning them but also outlining clear spiritual consequences for engaging in such violence.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that historical Sikhism and modern extremism are not the same phenomenon. The Khalsa tradition was founded as a means of self-defense, not as a justification for offensive violence. If divine guidance were to be held responsible for the actions of extremists, then nearly all religious traditions—including Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism—would face similar critiques regarding historical and modern acts of violence committed in their names.

Ultimately, while most Sikh communities strongly oppose terrorism, one might argue that religious texts across many traditions could be more explicit in discouraging violent interpretations of faith.

These are my reflections on a particularly intriguing religion from a historically rich and geopolitically significant region of the world:

While the Guru Granth Sahib is undeniably inspiring, it nonetheless incorporates a reference to the mythological story of Adam and Eve, even if only as an incidental comparison. This raises the question: why include a myth from another tradition if its fundamental premise is incorrect?

The evolution of Sikhism from a purely spiritual path to one that also embraced militarism was shaped largely by two key figures, both of whom had lost their fathers to persecution. Guru Hargobind introduced the philosophy of miri-piri, integrating a martial dimension into Sikhism by arming his followers and establishing a military tradition to defend against religious oppression. Guru Gobind Singh further formalized this transformation, founding the Khalsa and emphasizing the qualities of the Sant-Sipahi, or saint-soldier.

When Sikhism eventually gave rise to an empire, it succumbed to the same pressures and internal conflicts that have historically plagued hereditary polities. These smaller Sikh states initially emerged in a power vacuum, then unified under a capable and charismatic leader in response to external threats, only to fall into decline once larger surrounding empires reasserted control.

One broader observation extends beyond Sikhism itself: no religious tradition appears to have a text comprehensive enough to dissuade its followers from engaging in acts of terrorism, torture, or other forms of violence. Even when moral prohibitions exist, history has shown that scriptural interpretations can be flexible enough to accommodate nearly any action. If such texts were divinely inspired, one might expect their moral injunctions to be clear, absolute, and universally understood. I do not know what a religious text would need to say to achieve this, but an all-knowing deity certainly would.

On the other hand, most Sikh communities exhibit a strong ethical foundation, and the absence of a centralized religious authority allows for greater interpretive flexibility. The Guru Granth Sahib, unlike many other scriptures, does not contain explicit prohibitions on sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, its emphasis on equality and justice has allowed some Sikh communities to be more accepting of the LGBTQ+ community, applying the principle that all are equal under God. The Sikh tradition of compassion and opposition to oppression aligns well with modern human rights principles.

Perhaps it is precisely because Sikhism is not an Abrahamic religion that it has been able to avoid some of the most troubling aspects associated with those traditions, such as slavery, sexism, misogyny, and homophobia.

The Latter-day Saints

Another branch of Christianity was established by Joseph Smith in the early 1800s, within the United States. Before receiving the golden plates from the angel Moroni, Joseph made a living as a "glass looker," asserting his ability to locate treasure using seer stones. The golden plates he received were believed to contain a text that Joseph translated into English from a writing system described as "reformed Egyptian."

According to the narrative, a Jewish prophet named Lehi, along with his family, escaped Jerusalem before its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar II in 597 BCE. They embarked on a journey that eventually led them to the Americas. The descendants of Lehi's son Nephi became known as the Nephites, while the descendants of his sons Laman and Lemuel were referred to as the Lamanites. The Nephites, considered more righteous, were ultimately destroyed by the faithless and rebellious Lamanites. The last Nephite, Moroni, concealed a collection of engraved golden plates in 421 CE. Centuries later, Moroni, now regarded as a divine being, guided Joseph Smith to discover these plates.

The Lamanites were described as having dark skin, and it was claimed that they were the ancestors of at least some of the First Nations of the Americas. However, it's important to note that there is no genetic, linguistic, historical, or archaeological evidence to support such a connection.

In the following discussion, we will explore various aspects of the church that was founded based on these translations. Regrettably, I must confess that I have not yet had the opportunity to see the musical "The Book of Mormon."

Priesthood

The hierarchy of leadership within the Latter-day Saints is loosely based on the Jewish priesthood structure, consisting of a lesser Aaronic priesthood and a greater Melchizedek priesthood. These priesthoods possess the authority to consecrate covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, and expectations that are believed to extend for all time and eternity. All contracts that are not sealed in this manner end when with death.

It's important to note that these priesthoods are reserved for men who have been anointed, and women are not permitted to hold such positions. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that until 1978, Black men were also excluded from holding the priesthood.

The pre-mortal soul and the curse of black skin

Joseph Smith taught that souls are co-eternal with God, as he elaborated:

...the soul—the mind of man—the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? ... Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven.

In this perspective, souls are not created at birth but are co-eternal with God, preexisting our births, inhabiting human bodies upon our birth, and continuing to exist after our deaths. These souls are believed to have lived in a "pre-mortal" existence.

The scriptures, specifically 2 Nephi 5:20-25, convey the consequences of not hearkening to the word of the Lord:

Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that:

Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity.

For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint;

wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,

that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

And thus saith the Lord God:

I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people,

save they shall repent of their iniquities.

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed;

for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.

And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

And because of their cursing which was upon them

they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

And the Lord God said unto me:

They shall be a scourge unto thy seed,

to stir them up in remembrance of me;

and inasmuch as they will not remember me,

and hearken unto my words,

they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

The original summary of this chapter was:

Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

Another example is found in Mormon 5:15, which states:

And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.

These teachings implied that being born as a Black African was seen as a punishment, suggesting that their souls were less valiant or unsupportive of God's plan in their pre-mortal lives. Consequently, Black individuals were denied access to priestly offices until 1978. Additionally, the darker skin of the First Nations of Turtle Island was also interpreted as a punishment for deeds committed before their mortal lives.

While these teachings have been disavowed, questions arise regarding why a divine god, who possessed knowledge of how these teachings would be interpreted for the first 150 years of the church, did not clarify that the written doctrines did not reflect the intended message, especially if the goal was to make humanity aware of the divine truth.

Plan of salvation

The Plan of Salvation serves as a comprehensive framework that delineates the purpose of life and the eternal destiny of individuals. It commences with a pre-mortal existence, during which all humans are recognized as spirit children of God. Mortal life on Earth presents an opportunity for personal growth, facing trials, and exercising agency, while the atonement of Jesus Christ extends the promise of redemption and the chance for repentance. Following death, individuals undergo resurrection and face a final judgment, ultimately resulting in their placement within one of three degrees of glory.

Marriage and women

Polygamy was introduced by Joseph Smith following a series of revelations, the most significant of which is found in Doctrine and Covenants 132. It is evident that the entire system is male-centric and misogynistic.

The revelation begins with a statement that this is what is being revealed by God to Joseph Smith himself:
- Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph...wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, [etc.], as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines.
As God speaks, he claims that this is an "everlasting covenant," and it seems that "everlasting" only lasts until the end of the 1800s:
- ...I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
Marriages not performed by the priesthood cease upon death:
- Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
There are great rewards, including ascendency to godship, for those whose marriages are sealed by the priesthood:
- And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.
Wives who commit adultery will be destroyed:
- And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.
On the other hand, wives of husbands who commit adultery may be given to another man who has been faithful:
- And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a avow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery. And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.
Now we get to the rules for polygamy, and remember, these are described as "eternal":
- And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
- And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
Wives in polygamous marriages who commit adultery will be destroyed:
- But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
Wives must submit to their husbands or be destroyed, and the husband is free:
- And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law. Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

This system is entirely male-centric, and there are no serious punishments for men who commit adultery. Polygamy persisted within the church until the laws of the United States of America and the threat of forfeiture of church property prompted the leadership to receive a revelation closer to the end of the nineteenth century.

Slavery

In Mosiah 2, we encounter King Benjamin, the second ruler of Zarahemla, a city of such magnitude that the multitude he addressed was so vast that he had his words transcribed for the benefit of all. Fortunately, we have a record of his teachings. In this remarkable speech, which is recorded in verses 13 and 14:

Neither have I suffered

that ye should be confined in dungeons,
nor that ye should make slaves one of another,
nor that ye should murder,
or plunder,
or steal,
or commit adultery;
nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness,

and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you—And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.

Similarly, in Alma 27, we encounter the righteous Nephites, yet within this group, there is one faction characterized as evil: the Amalekites. On the other hand, we have the evil Lamanites, but within this group, a faction has renounced violence: the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. The malicious Amalekites, unable to attack the Nephites, vented their anger on the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. Seeking refuge with the righteous Nephites, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies had, prior to forsaking violence, inflicted harm upon the righteous Nephites, which led to their fear of destruction. Ammon, a Nephite missionary to the king of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, reassures the king in verse 9:

It is against the law of our brethren, which was established by my father, that there should be any slaves among them; therefore let us go down and rely upon the mercies of our brethren.

This anti-slavery message undeniably resonated with Joseph Smith's earliest audiences, particularly those in the Northern free states. However, as the missionary efforts moved south, this anti-slavery stance began to wane, and it became more convenient to teach that slavery was acceptable in order to attract wealthy converts (those who held slaves), as reflected in Doctrine and Covenants 134:

We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth...; but

we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants,
neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters,
nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life;
thereby jeopardizing the lives of men;

such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

It's noteworthy that this shift is not dissimilar to what transpired within Christianity. If one were to solely consider the teachings of Jesus, the abolition of slavery would be almost certain. However, after the execution of Jesus, as subsequent Christians sought to propagate their interpretation of his message, they repeatedly emphasized that slaves should remain loyal and faithful to their masters. In the case of Paul, he even advised that slaves should not endeavor to secure their freedom. Similar to Christianity's changing stance on slavery when it was expedient for the religion's growth, the teachings of Joseph Smith evolved as well.

Today, the Church is unequivocally opposed to slavery, but the desire to gain converts, especially when slavery was legally sanctioned, sometimes took precedence over opposing such a morally reprehensible institution.

The LGBTQ+ community

The LGBTQ+ community has historically faced marginalization, with the church continuing to oppose same-sex marriages today. In more recent times, much like the Bahá’í faith (which we will see next), the teachings of the church emphasize love, compassion, and understanding toward this community. However, the religion still conveys the message that individuals with non-heterosexual orientations are somehow inherently flawed, effectively labeling them as "broken." Whether implicitly or explicitly, the religion aims to guide those in same-sex relationships toward a path of self-improvement, implying that they need to "fix" themselves. The core issue, however, lies in the fact that one cannot control their innate attractions; they can manage and restrain their actions, but attraction cannot be manufactured to align with societal expectations.

In contrast to the Bahá’í faith, the Latter-day Saints assert that each eternal soul possesses an essential and eternal gender identity as either male or female, corresponding to their gender at birth and cannot be changed.

Plagiarism

Finally, there is an ethical question regarding the founder and the origins of the Book of Mormon and other writings. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the golden plates given to him by Moroni. However, the language in which they were translated was not the English of early nineteenth-century America but rather the English of the Elizabethan period, similar to the King James translation. Interestingly, there are entire passages that parallel those found in the King James translation. If Joseph Smith was genuinely divinely inspired to translate the reformed Egyptian from the golden plates into Elizabethan English, he should not have made the same translation errors. However, if Joseph Smith fabricated this and merely plagiarized the King James translation, the same errors would appear. We will examine one such case, as found in Isaiah 2:12-17:

For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty,

and upon every one that is lifted up;

and he shall be brought low:

And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up,
and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

And upon all the high mountains,

and upon all the hills that are lifted up,

And upon every high tower,

and upon every fenced wall,

And upon all the ships of Tarshish,

and upon all pleasant pictures.

And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down,

and the haughtiness of men shall be made low:

and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.

In almost every pair of statements, the second parallels the first, with the exception of the fifth pair, involving "ships" and "pictures," breaking the parallel structure. This discrepancy arises from a phrase, החמדה, which contains a word appearing only once in the entire corpus of Judahite scriptures. The translators appear to have chosen a translation out of context, whereas modern translations of Isaiah, including Jewish translations, provide a more contextually appropriate translation, such as the New Revised Standard Edition (Updated), which reads:

against all the ships of Tarshish
and against all the highly prized vessels.

This translation aligns better with the context compared to "image" or "picture." Additionally, in ancient Egyptian, the words for ships and images were entirely different. If Joseph Smith were genuinely translating reformed Egyptian, he should have been able to select a more appropriate translation. However, this is not the case, as seen in 2 Nephi 12:12-17:

For the day of the Lord of Hosts soon cometh upon all nations, yea, upon every one; yea, upon the proud and lofty,

and upon every one who is lifted up,

and he shall be brought low.

Yea, and the day of the Lord shall come upon all the cedars of Lebanon, for they are high and lifted up;

and upon all the oaks of Bashan;

And upon all the high mountains,

and upon all the hills,

and upon all the nations which are lifted up,

and upon every people;

And upon every high tower,

and upon every fenced wall;

And upon all the ships of the sea,

and upon all the ships of Tarshish,

and upon all pleasant pictures.

And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down,

and the haughtiness of men shall be made low;

and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.

The words from the King James translation are highlighted in magenta. A close examination of 2 Nephi 12 reveals that it is, verse by verse, a parallel if not a direct copy of Isaiah 2, comprising all twenty-two verses. Joseph Smith adds a second statement to create a parallel between "ships of the sea" and "ships of Tarshish." However, the statement about "pleasant pictures" is retained. Apologetics related to this mistranslation have been explored, but none seem worthy of serious consideration. One amusing suggestion posits that this was indeed what was inscribed on the golden plates, with the writers anticipating the misinterpretation by the King James translators. The apparent conclusion is that Joseph Smith was not translating golden plates but instead was plagiarizing his copy of Isaiah. There are numerous other issues, including Joseph Smith's limited understanding of the grammar of Elizabethan English and his reliance on phrases such as "come to pass" or "came to pass," which readers are encouraged to explore further.

Summary

In conclusion, Joseph Smith's teachings appear to be an appeal to the basest instincts of his audience and potential converts. For those of the White race, the message conveyed is one of inherent blessing and divine love, coupled with the prospect of multiple wives whose bonds extend into eternity. While the initial message was rooted in anti-slavery sentiments, the quest for converts among wealthy southern slaveholders prompted a swift transformation in this stance. Brigham Young, who assumed leadership of the burgeoning Mormon community after Joseph Smith's death, serves as a prominent example. With fifty-six wives to his name, he implemented the ban on Black men entering the priesthood and professed himself as "neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man."

Over the past two centuries, some of the church's negative teachings have gradually evolved to align more with modern sensibilities, often coinciding with societal pressures rather than genuine divine intervention. The church's teachings, however, lack progressive or enlightening qualities, and the notion that North American First Nations are descendants of a wandering Jewish family lacks substantiated historical evidence.

In fairness, subsequent generations of followers have endeavored to adapt Joseph Smith's works into a more mainstream religion. Today, the church's doctrines bear little resemblance to its tumultuous history. Similar to mainstream Christianity, individuals can cherry-pick verses that align with their own beliefs, and those of a more conservative persuasion can find ample support for their views within the Latter-day Saints' teachings. Next, however, we will look at a different branch of Abrahamic religions: one that sprouted only a few years later, but one that was significantly more enlightened.

Baháʼí

A more recent Abrahamic religion was founded by Baháʼu'lláh, who partially based his teachings on those of his mentor and teacher, the Báb. Similar to the relationship between John the Baptist—considered a herald and an incarnation of Elijah—and Jesus, the Báb also taught that another prophet would soon emerge, and Baháʼu'lláh claimed to be that prophet. Although the followers of Baháʼu'lláh have grown in number over the past two centuries, some adherents of the Báb—particularly the Azali Babis—still reject Baháʼu'lláh's claims, much like contemporary followers of John the Baptist who deny that Jesus was either a prophet or Yahweh himself. While Azali Babis are now a small minority, their opposition stems from theological disagreements, including a rejection of Bahá'u'lláh's claim to be the next divine messenger and concerns that the Bahá'í Faith deviated from the Báb’s original teachings.

This new branch of an Abrahamic religion originated on May 22, 1844, when Siyyid ʻAlí-Muhammad adopted the name "the Báb" (meaning "gate"—the same word used in Babylon to mean "gate of the gods"), signifying that he was the returned Mahdi of Twelver Shi'a Islam. In 1844, Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí assumed the name Baháʼu'lláh, and in 1863, he openly declared himself a prophet.

All Abrahamic religions are products of their respective times. Each subsequent religion garners followers by setting itself apart from earlier Abrahamic faiths while integrating contemporary philosophies into its doctrines. However, none of these religions typically introduce ideas that significantly deviate from the prevailing consensus of their founding periods.

In contrast to other Abrahamic religions, the Baháʼí Faith explicitly incorporates this concept into its doctrine. Instead of asserting that theirs is the ultimate and final revelation—similar to Moses delivering the covenant, Jesus representing the ultimate sacrifice, and Muhammad presenting the Quran—the Baháʼí Faith teaches that the one and only God progressively reveals His message through a succession of prophets. This lineage includes figures such as Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and Baháʼu'lláh, with each prophet imparting teachings relevant to the people of their respective eras.

The Baháʼí faith does not claim that Bahá'u'lláh is the last prophet but emphasizes that, as the most recent revelation, Bahá'u'lláh offers the most current guidance for humanity. Consequently, as the latest revelation, the Baháʼí faith encompasses numerous progressive teachings, with one fundamental tenet being the equality of all humans and the collective endeavor to achieve it. Their leaders are democratically elected, and they advocate for the establishment of a single, democratically elected world government. Additionally, the persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran and other countries has shaped their global identity, often pushing them toward solidarity in the face of oppression. However, this same persecution may also limit internal debate, as external threats reinforce loyalty to existing doctrine rather than encouraging theological evolution.

The Baháʼí Faith does not claim that Bahá'u'lláh is the last prophet but emphasizes that, as the most recent revelation, his teachings provide the most current guidance for humanity. However, as scientific knowledge and social understanding evolve, there arises a question: Can Bahá'í teachings on gender, sexuality, or morality be updated in light of new evidence, or are they bound by 19th-century perspectives? While the faith upholds progressive revelation, its stance on LGBTQ+ issues, for example, still reflects older moral frameworks rather than modern scientific insights into human sexuality. Their leaders are democratically elected, and they advocate for the establishment of a single, democratically elected world government. However, while the Bahá'í Faith emphasizes unity and democracy, its leadership structure is hierarchical, with the Universal House of Justice functioning as the final religious authority. Unlike religious traditions with decentralized leadership or open theological debate, Bahá'í doctrine is centrally interpreted and binding on all adherents. This raises questions about how much genuine theological evolution can occur within the faith, particularly in areas like LGBTQ+ rights or scientific advancements that challenge older doctrines.

Of particular interest is the Bahá'í Faith's approach to certain "sins," such as homosexuality. While the Universal House of Justice—the governing body of the Bahá'í Faith—has unequivocally stated that it no longer considers such practices more grievous than any other and that "to view those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be contrary to the spirit of the Faith," the religion still maintains its rejection of homosexuality as an ordinary facet of human interaction:

The Bahá’í Writings state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and sexual relations are restricted to a couple who are married to each other. Other passages from the Writings state that the practice of homosexuality is not permitted. The teachings of Bahá’u’lláh on personal morality are binding on Bahá’ís, who strive, as best they can, to uphold the high standards He has established.

At the same time, the Bahá'í Faith does not oppose the gay community’s pursuit of same-sex marriage legalization. Importantly, it also does not object to transgender individuals and allows for sex reassignment surgery, after which they may marry a person of the opposite gender within the faith.

As a result, the Bahá'í Faith represents a moral advancement from its predecessors, who once executed, excluded, and targeted LGBTQ+ individuals. However, its stance remains inconsistent: while it condemns discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, it simultaneously upholds 19th-century moral codes that frame homosexuality as a deviation rather than a natural human variation. This creates a contradiction—if Bahá'í teachings accept science as a tool for understanding truth, why have they not fully embraced modern scientific perspectives on human sexuality? The faith's rejection of homosexuality as "not permitted" ultimately rests on religious tradition rather than biological, psychological, or sociological evidence. It explicitly enjoins its followers not to discriminate against, disparage, or condemn them. Nonetheless, the religion still conveys the message that there is something inherently flawed about individuals with non-heterosexual orientations, essentially labeling them as "broken." Implicitly or explicitly, it aims to guide those in same-sex relationships toward a path of self-improvement, implying that they need to "fix" themselves. The core issue, however, is that one cannot control their innate attractions; they can manage and restrain their actions but cannot manufacture attraction based on societal expectations.

Homosexuality is a prevalent phenomenon in thousands of animal species and is an integral aspect of the human condition. Consensual same-sex relationships are vital for the robust mental well-being of those who wish to engage in them. Opposing such relationships—ones that individuals seek to nurture and cultivate—inevitably leads to harm. The Bahá'í Faith, rooted in moral codes dating back to the Judean highlands almost three millennia ago, inevitably reflects these historical influences.

Notably, the Bahá'í Faith can accommodate transgender individuals because its religious literature remains silent on the matter. This silence, however, exposes a deeper inconsistency—if doctrines on gender can evolve due to a lack of explicit religious prohibition, why can't prohibitions on homosexuality be revisited in light of modern understanding? The faith’s adaptability in some areas but rigidity in others suggests that its moral progress is not solely based on divine revelation but also on historical and social contingencies. However, it is important to remember that concepts like sex reassignment surgery likely never crossed the minds of individuals living in the nineteenth century. One can only speculate about what Bahá’u’lláh would have said on this issue had it been presented during his time.

The Jehovah's Witnesses

A relatively recent branch of the Abrahamic religions, Jehovah’s Witnesses were founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1870, placing them in the same century as the emergence of Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) and Baháʼu'lláh (founder of the Baháʼí Faith). Like these other movements, Jehovah’s Witnesses introduced new theological interpretations that diverged from mainstream Christianity.

Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the doctrine of the Trinity and emphasize a strict monotheism, where only Yahweh (whom they call Jehovah) is considered God. Jesus is not viewed as God but rather as a divine being—God’s first creation—who serves as the Word of God and the ultimate sacrificial figure. This interpretation aligns more closely with early non-Trinitarian Christian sects than with mainstream Christianity, where Jesus is seen as both divine and co-equal with God.

Heaven, hell, and resurrection

Charles Taze Russell rejected the traditional Christian concepts of heaven and hell. Instead, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that there is no conscious afterlife upon death; rather, the dead remain in an unconscious state until the arrival of God’s Kingdom, at which point some will be resurrected.

This belief reflects a return to early Christian apocalyptic traditions while departing from mainstream Christian views, which generally uphold the immortality of the soul and the existence of either Heaven or Hell as final destinations.

Jehovah’s Witnesses once held that only 144,000 people would be resurrected to rule with Jesus in Heaven. However, by the 1930s, this interpretation was modified:

The 144,000 would still rule with Jesus in Heaven,
But a second group—referred to as “the other sheep”—would live on Earth in God’s restored Kingdom.

Much like Joseph Smith and Baháʼu'lláh, Charles Taze Russell also taught that further revelations would continue to be delivered.

It's worth noting that, for Jehovah's Witnesses, the New World Translation is considered to be the divinely inspired and correct translation. However, a link provided will direct you to the New Revised Standard Version (Updated) for comparison.

Blood transfusions

Jehovah's Witnesses hold a deep reverence for Jesus' words, particularly when he stated in Matthew 5:18: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." One of the more ethically challenging aspects of this faith is its strict interpretation of biblical commandments, which stands in stark contrast to Judaism's approach to religious law. While Judaism often seeks reasoned interpretations of the Covenant, Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to adhere to a more rigid, literal reading of scripture. This is particularly evident in their prohibition of blood transfusions, which they derive from passages such as Acts 15:28-29:

"For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things: to keep abstaining

from things sacrificed to idols,

from blood,

from what is strangled, and

from sexual immorality.

If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!"

And in Leviticus 17:10-14:

"‘If any man of the house of Israel or some foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood,

I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood and cut him off from among his people.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.
That is why I have said to the Israelites:

“None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.”

If any man of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild beast or a bird that may be eaten,

he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust.

For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it.

Consequently, I said to the Israelites:

“You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret these verses as an absolute prohibition, extending beyond dietary restrictions to include medical procedures such as blood transfusions. As a result, even life-saving transfusions are forbidden, and those who undergo them may face ostracization within their community.

Moreover, Jehovah’s Witnesses actively discourage members from seeking blood transfusions, even in cases where medical necessity dictates that a transfusion is the only viable treatment. This has led to tragic outcomes, including avoidable deaths, as adherents prioritize obedience to doctrine over scientifically proven medical care.

While those who uphold this doctrine view their refusal as an act of profound faith, other religious traditions—such as Judaism—take a different approach. Within Judaism, religious law explicitly allows for the breaking of commandments when life is at stake, under the principle of pikuach nefesh (saving a life). This distinction highlights the contrast between a faith that prioritizes strict scriptural adherence and one that considers human well-being as a moral imperative.

From a biological standpoint, blood is composed primarily of plasma—a mixture of water, sugar, fat, protein, and salts—along with various cells made of the same amino acids as other tissues. While red blood cells play a vital role in transporting oxygen and removing carbon dioxide, they are no more critical to life than any other organ.

For this reason, the absolute prohibition of blood transfusions remains one of the most ethically troubling aspects of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine. While many aspects of their faith can be debated on theological grounds, this particular belief has direct, measurable consequences on human lives—a reality that raises serious ethical concerns.

Predictions of the coming Kingdom of God

In 1876, Charles Taze Russell predicted that within two years, by 1878, the saints would undergo a transformation into a spiritual form. He believed that this year would mark the beginning of God's Kingdom exercising power, accompanied by signs of God’s renewed favor toward the Jews. However, none of these prophesied events came to pass.

Subsequently, he wrote, "We do not know the exact day or hour, but we anticipate it to be in 1881, possibly around the autumn, as the parallels suggest the culmination of favor for Zion and the end of an era. This is when the door to the marriage closes, and the high calling to become the bride of Christ ceases." Once again, these expectations did not materialize.

In his "Studies in the Scriptures," Charles Taze Russell proclaimed that October 1914 would mark the "full end of the times of the Gentiles" and the ultimate limit of human rulership. In a book "The Time is at Hand", published in 1889, he wrote "the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16:14) which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of the earth's present rulership, is already commenced." He envisaged the commencement of Jesus's millennial reign, the establishment of an earthly paradise, and the foundation of God's Kingdom on Earth. Russell envisioned the total collapse of all existing governments, the fall of “what God calls Babylon and what men call Christendom”, and the gathering of 144,000 saints to rule with Jesus from Heaven. However, these prophecies also went unfulfilled.

To be clear, Russell’s prophecy concerning A.D. 1914 was explicit and specific, leaving no room for misinterpretation or translation errors. The prophecy stated that the battle "will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of the earth's present rulership."

Yet by the end of 1914, the only two countries to be conquered were Luxembourg and Belgium—hardly representative of “the earth’s present rulership.” The prophecy also stated that 1914 marked the "end," not the "beginning" of this battle (which, according to Russell, had already started in 1889). Thus, attempting to extend the timeline to include the collapse of governments in 1918 is historically inconsistent.

Moreover, the fall of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman empires—while significant—did not constitute the complete overthrow of global power. The British and French empires remained intact, and the United States was on the rise as a world power. Clearly, the world’s ruling structures were not overturned in 1914.

Faced with the failure of these predictions, The Watch Tower, the official Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publication, sought to reinterpret the events. It later stated:

"We did not assert with absolute certainty that this would be the year. We merely encouraged everyone to examine historical facts and draw their own conclusions."

After Russell’s death in 1916, posthumous editions of Studies in the Scriptures were extensively revised to account for the unfulfilled prophecies. In this revised interpretation, 1914 was no longer the ultimate end of human rulership but was instead redefined as “the beginning of the end of Gentile times.” This reinterpretation was further linked to the outbreak of World War I.

Despite subsequent predictions that also failed to come true, Jehovah’s Witnesses continued to revise their expectations, with each unfulfilled prophecy being reinterpreted as a success—though never in the way originally anticipated.

For those interested in further exploration, the Wikipedia page on this subject provides a thorough and well-documented account of these shifting interpretations.

Just the 144,000, or more?

Another noteworthy aspect is the original, literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation, which suggested that only 144,000 individuals would be saved. With the imminent arrival of God's Kingdom, Jehovah’s Witnesses expected this number to be fully accounted for.

However, when the prophesied arrival of God's Kingdom in October 1914 failed to materialize, and more than a century passed without fulfillment, doctrinal adjustments followed. In the 1930s, a new revelation emerged within the Jehovah’s Witnesses community, introducing the concept of an additional group known as "the other sheep."

Under this revised understanding, the 144,000 "chosen ones" would rule alongside Jesus in Heaven, while the "other sheep" would find their place in God's Kingdom on Earth. Given that the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses at that time was nearing 144,000, this doctrinal shift was particularly well-timed.

Education

Even today, Jehovah's Witnesses remain steadfast in their belief that, despite the passage of more than a century, the imminent arrival of God's Kingdom is just around the corner. Consequently, this faith stands out as one that places minimal emphasis on secular education.

Public education is valued only insofar as it complements scriptural learning, and it is expected to take a secondary role once a Witness dedicates themselves fully to the development of their spiritual knowledge and understanding. After all, in their view, the Kingdom of God could arrive at any moment.

This perspective calls into question the pursuit of a traditional four-year university education, given that the end is believed to be nearer than such a timeframe allows. Witnesses argue that disciplines such as physics or sociology hold little relevance in the context of God's Kingdom.

However, they still acknowledge the need for practical skills, such as carpentry and other trades, suggesting that these will continue to hold importance in the future.

Moral code

The moral code for Jehovah's Witnesses encompasses several key principles:

Maintaining separation from the world.
Abstaining from participation in political activities.
Avoiding military service.
Limiting contact with non-Witnesses primarily for the purpose of proselytizing.

Furthermore, Witnesses are prohibited from engaging in various activities, including:

Premarital sex.
Extramarital affairs.
Homosexual relationships.
Gender transitioning.
Smoking.
Using electronic cigarettes.
Drunkenness (though alcohol consumption is allowed).
Drug abuse, with specific medications permitted.
Accepting blood transfusions.
Gambling.
Practicing yoga or meditation.
Celebrating birthdays or any other festivities aside from the memorial of Jesus's execution (not coinciding with Easter).
Adhering to dress and grooming that isn't considered modest.
Having contact with former Witnesses.

The practice of shunning former Witnesses is mandated, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, which advises not to judge those outside the faith, but to maintain internal judgment: “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” This practice of shunning (or disfellowshipping), applies to former Jehovah’s Witnesses who leave the faith and also those who violate religious teachings and fail to repent. This can mean severing all contact with close family members, including parents, children, and siblings, making it a powerful tool for enforcing obedience.

However, it's important to note that, like most other conservative Abrahamic religions, Jehovah's Witnesses consider homosexuality to be morally unacceptable.

Distancing itself from Christianity and the cross

The cross is one of the most ubiquitous symbols of Christianity, traditionally representing the manner in which Jesus was executed. For the first fifty years of their existence, Jehovah's Witnesses prominently featured the cross in their publications.

However, in the 1930s, a doctrinal shift occurred when scholars within the movement concluded that the Greek word σταυρός was more accurately translated as "stake." As a result, Jehovah’s Witnesses came to assert that Jesus was executed on a stake without a crossbar.

Initially, I found this perspective borderline absurd, but further research has revealed a substantial body of supporting evidence supporting this interpretation.

The name Jehovah

The term "Jehovah" originates from an effort to remind Jews not to utter the name of God, יהוה (Yahweh). When vowel markings were introduced, they were borrowed from the words "Elohim" or "Adonai" and attached to God’s name. This practice was intended to signal that one should read the name aloud as "Elohim" or "Adonai" rather than pronounce it directly.

However, when attempting to vocalize יְהֹוָה‎, it results in the pronunciation "Yehowah," from which the artificial name "Jehovah" emerged. It is important to note that "Jehovah" was never the actual name of God.

Given this, one could argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses should more accurately refer to themselves as "Yahweh’s Witnesses." However, doing so would require a deeper understanding of Hebrew, much like how "Born-again Christians" would need to understand Koine Greek to call themselves what Jesus likely intended: "Born-from-above Christians."

Child abuse

The most damning aspect of this religion, however, is its closed and insular nature, which discourages adherents from seeking help from secular authorities in cases of child abuse.

In Australia, where the Jehovah’s Witnesses population has been estimated at around 100,000 over the past half-century, there have been over 1,000 documented cases of child abuse within their congregations. This suggests that at least one percent of members have experienced childhood abuse at the hands of sexual predators.

However, reporting such incidents to secular authorities is often avoided, as doing so could tarnish the organization's reputation and invite external investigations, which Jehovah’s Witnesses perceive as being under Satan’s influence.

These myopic, cult-like, and isolationist attitudes are deeply troubling. Yet, for those who genuinely believe that the end of the world is imminent, it becomes possible to rationalize extreme behavior, including turning a blind eye to such crimes.

Summary

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to restore the earliest Christian doctrines, harkening back to a time before Jesus was equated with God in a Trinitarian framework. Their faith places a stronger emphasis on a literal interpretation of scripture than most other Christian denominations, leaving little room for nuanced or varied interpretations.

As a result, their conventional disapproval of the LGBTQ+ community, their disregard for child safety, and their absolute prohibition of blood transfusions are not just concerning but, in many respects, profoundly harmful.

Christian "Science"

Amid a 19th-century wave of religious innovation and alternative spiritual movements in the United States, Mary Baker Eddy authored Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Like contemporary groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the New Thought movement, Christian Science emerged in response to perceived shortcomings in traditional Christianity, offering a spiritualized approach to healing and religious practice. Although published in 1875, the Church of Christ, Scientist was founded in 1879. Eddy believed that all ailments could be healed through spiritual understanding, prayer, and the application of divine principles, as outlined in her book. She posited that a deep connection with God and an understanding of spiritual truths—the "science" part—could overcome all sickness and suffering.

Eddy questioned the efficacy of science-based medicine, advocating instead for the healing power of spiritual understanding. This perspective led some followers to rely solely on prayer and spiritual practice for healing while rejecting research-based medical treatments.

The term "Science" in Christian Science is deeply misleading, as it does not refer to the empirical, experimental process of scientific discovery but rather to a spiritual framework that claims to operate with the same precision as natural laws. This deliberate co-opting of scientific terminology lends an undeserved air of legitimacy to a system that fundamentally rejects the core tenets of medical science. It denotes a comprehensive, structured approach to understanding God and spiritual truths. Eddy drew a parallel between the systematic study of the physical laws governing the universe and what she saw as the "laws" governing spiritual healing, well-being, and one's relationship with God. This This false equivalence between spiritual and medical healing has had deadly consequences. Numerous documented cases exist in which children of Christian Scientists have suffered preventable deaths from treatable illnesses—meningitis, diabetes, pneumonia—because their parents, following Eddy's teachings, chose prayer over medical intervention. These tragedies expose the danger of conflating faith with medicine and the ethical implications of denying life-saving treatments on religious grounds. Eddy’s ideas reflect a return to Gnostic Christian concepts, particularly the belief that spiritual enlightenment—not faith or sacraments—leads to salvation. Like the Gnostics, Christian Science teaches that illusions of the material world, including sickness, can be overcome through divine knowledge, a stark contrast to mainstream Christianity’s reliance on faith in Christ’s atonement.

Other beliefs also diverge from mainstream orthodox Christianity, including the idea that heaven is a state of consciousness—a harmonious and eternal spiritual existence with God—rather than a literal place. Likewise, hell is perceived as separation from God, a condition that one can overcome through spiritual growth, understanding divine principles, and living accordingly.

Similarly, Jesus is reinterpreted not as a divine being or personal savior but as a symbolic manifestation of divine truth. In Christian Science, Christ is not an incarnate deity but rather a universal principle of divine healing and wisdom—an understanding that directly contradicts traditional Christian doctrines regarding the Trinity and the necessity of Jesus’s atoning sacrifice. The term "Christ" represents the divine nature—the spiritual manifestation of God's goodness and healing power. His role is understood as a demonstration of divine principles rather than as the second person of the Trinity. There is a strong emphasis on Jesus's healings, viewing them as demonstrations of spiritual truths accessible to all rather than unique miracles. The focus is on the universal Christ, which can be realized and expressed by anyone through a deep understanding of God.

Unfortunately, the unwavering belief that prayer alone can cure all illnesses has not granted Christian "Scientists" the prospect of longer or healthier lives. If well-being were solely determined by devotion and an understanding of God, there would be a risk of downplaying or concealing symptoms of serious illnesses. This misguided approach to healing turns faith into a dangerous gamble. By prioritizing spiritual conviction over medical reality, Christian Science places adherents—and especially their children—at unnecessary and avoidable risk. The insistence that faith alone can heal not only delays proper medical care but can also lead to preventable suffering and death.

Rastafari

The African community in Jamaica during the 1930s experienced economic marginalization and social exclusion. In this context, the teachings of Marcus Garvey had a profound impact on the people:

He advocated a philosophy of "back-to-Africa," a fundamental aspiration still embraced by the Rastafari movement today.
Garvey promoted Pan-Africanism, enabling Jamaicans to perceive themselves as part of a diaspora with a shared unity, solidarity, and destiny with Africans worldwide.
His emphasis on recognizing and celebrating Black identity provided many followers with role models, fostering a positive sense of self and breaking free from colonial ideas.
He encouraged the rejection of European culture in favor of embracing African culture, spirituality, and traditions.
He championed economic self-reliance and empowerment, urging the establishment of self-sufficient communal lives.
Garvey prophesied the emergence of an African king.

The integration of these ideas, along with principles of righteousness, justice, and liberation, began to take root in the African community in Jamaica in the early 20th century. However, it was the coronation of Haile Selassie I as Emperor of Ethiopia in 1930 that allowed the Rastafari movement to flourish. Haile Selassie I hailed from a dynasty claiming lineage from the union of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, with the Lion of Judah adorning the center of the Ethiopian flag. Similar to followers of Jesus scouring the Tanakh for messianic references, early Rastafarians searched for verses identifying Haile Selassie I as a divine figure, referring to him as "Jah" from "Yahweh" and equating him with God incarnate.

Ethiopia became the symbolic and spiritual homeland for many Rastafarians—their promised land, Zion. Even the name of this Abrahamic religion is derived from the emperor's pre-coronation title, Ras Tafari Makonnen, where "Ras" is equivalent to either duke or prince. Ethiopia stands out as the only African empire that was never colonized during the scramble for Africa. In addition to this historical connection, there is also a link between Rastafari and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, though their views on the divine nature of Haile Selassie I differ significantly. This connection is more through shared symbology, historical events, and a reverence for Ethiopia.

Religious foundations

Rastafarians recognize and utilize the Tanakh as one of their primary scriptures. They draw parallels between their own experiences of marginalization and impoverishment and the struggles of the ancient Israelites, as well as the suffering of Jesus. These comparisons cultivate a sense of empathy and solidarity within the Rastafarian community. Biblical characters are now interpreted from an African perspective, diverging from the predominantly European and North American depictions of a white, sometimes blond and even blue-eyed Jesus.

In Rastafari, the understanding of Jesus emphasizes love, equality, and concern for the outcast, leading to a strong emphasis on social justice, equality, and resistance against oppression. The term "Babylon" is employed by Rastafari to critique and challenge various manifestations of oppression, encompassing colonial or political subjugation, economic or environmental exploitation, military or cultural imperialism, social injustice, and hatred. This usage reflects their commitment to addressing and resisting systemic oppression in all its forms.

Rituals and practice

Marijuana, or "ganja," is smoked as a sacrament during religious rituals and gatherings, enhancing meditation, reflection, introspection, and spiritual communion, elevating the user's state of consciousness. With the criminalization of marijuana consumption by Babylon, its use symbolizes a rejection of societal norms and resistance to oppression imposed by authorities. In this defiance, it also establishes a distinct cultural identity. As a natural herb, its use is sometimes justified through Genesis 1:29:

God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.”

Many other sacraments and traditions distinguish Rastafari from Babylon, including:

The Ital diet, which emphasizes natural and organic plant-based foods while avoiding processed items, additives, and specific animal products. Naturally sourced foods are preferred over synthetically or chemically processed ones.
Fasting, a common practice that serves as a means of purifying the body and spirit while fostering a sense of solidarity and unity.
The commitment to dreadlocks and not cutting one's hair, symbolizing the rejection of oppressive cultural norms. This practice draws inspiration from the Torah and the Nazirite vow in Numbers 6:5: "All the days of their Nazirite vow, no razor shall come upon the head; until the time is completed for which they separate themselves to the Lord, they shall be holy; they shall let the locks of the head grow long."
Community gatherings known as "reasoning sessions," where discussions, music, prayers, and communal activities strengthen bonds, encourage spiritual sharing, and provide mutual support.
The wearing of green, gold, and red, the colors of the Ethiopian flag, symbolizing the land’s beauty, wealth, strength, and the blood of martyrs.

Haile Selassie I’s legacy

While not universally accepted within the Rastafari movement, the passing of Haile Selassie I is often interpreted in ways similar to Jesus's execution. Many see it as a transformation rather than a death—where Haile Selassie I transitioned to the spiritual realm, fulfilling prophecies in the Tanakh, much like those concerning Jesus. Since this transformation, his spirit is believed to continue influencing and guiding believers worldwide.

Similar to Christmas and Easter in the Christian calendar, Coronation Day on November 2nd holds immense significance in the Rastafari calendar, followed by Groundation Day on April 21st, which commemorates Haile Selassie I's visit to Jamaica. Some Rastafari also anticipate Haile Selassie I's return at a future date, akin to Christians awaiting Jesus and some Muslims awaiting the Mahdi. The parallel between John the Baptist and Jesus, and Marcus Garvey and Haile Selassie I, is also noteworthy, eliciting feelings of déjà vu.

In addition to a strong focus on the Tanakh (or Old Testament), Rastafari has a few other religions texts. One such text was written by Robert Athlyi Rogers, unfortunately does not diverge significantly from traditional Abrahamic teachings. In the very second verse of the first chapter of the first book of Athlyi, it states:

The sixth day God made man for his glory,

and all things were given unto him for his possession

and for his use the woman hath God made of man

and for the glory of the man that she serve him and raise up seed unto him.

The fruit does not fall far from the tree. Later in the chapter, the text attempts to bring Adam and Eve closer to Africans:

And God called the man Adam and the woman Eve. They were of a mixed complexion.

This is frustrating because the earliest humans were Black. Most non-Black humans carry mutations that reduce melanin in their skin to allow for sufficient Vitamin D production in lower-UV environments. These mutations also increase susceptibility to sunburn and skin cancer. This was already well known to science when The Holy Piby was written.

Despite the commendable goals of this religious movement, aiming to uplift and unite the African community in Jamaica with deep connections to the oppressed and marginalized African diaspora in the Caribbean, a regrettable reality persists. Similar to many Abrahamic religions, certain members within this community continue to oppress and marginalize individuals from the LGBTQ+ community. Despite the liberating philosophy that should naturally extend opposition to Babylon's oppression of Africans to include resistance against the same oppression faced by gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, queers, and others, it is disheartening to witness the prevalence of ingrained prejudices:

Ras Iyah V is quoted to have said "Well, naturally, I and I would have to stand with those who oppose homosexuality because that is not our way. From a moral and traditional African point of view, homosexuality is not acceptable."

Ras Astor Black has said "The Bible is our road map, so our position on homosexuality is clearly defined."

As mentioned earlier, Sikhism stands out in this analysis due to its non-Abrahamic nature, having never been burdened by the anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and criminalization prevalent in the Tanakh and Christian literature. This oppression seems to taint and blind almost every faith claiming some connection to the mythical figure of Abraham. Fortunately, within the decentralized Rastafari community, there appears to be a more inclusive stance, driven by choice rather than strict adherence to scripture.

Reggae and cultural influence

Reggae music, while not directly synonymous with the Rastafarian movement, shares profound historical ties and roots in Rastafari culture. This genre, epitomized by influential artists like Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, and Bunny Wailer, has transcended its Jamaican origins to achieve global popularity. The impact of reggae on the world stage is unparalleled, surpassing the influence of music associated with almost any other Abrahamic faith. In its global resonance, reggae stands out, akin to the widespread recognition of Gregorian chants within the Catholic Church. The infectious rhythms and socially conscious lyrics of reggae have become synonymous with the ethos of Rastafari, acting as a powerful vehicle for spreading its messages of love, unity, and resistance to oppression worldwide.

Nevertheless, given Abraham's nonexistence, the human origins of this faith become apparent. The inability to fully extricate itself from the biases ingrained in ancient Bronze and Iron Age cultures is not unexpected. Considering the success of Jesus's deification in Christianity, it is reasonable to anticipate that a new offshoot emerging from the same root would similarly identify another individual worthy of deification.

Urantia

Many readers are likely unfamiliar with The Urantia Book. This work claims to present a comprehensive cosmological, philosophical, and spiritual framework, purportedly revealed through celestial beings, offering insights into the nature of the universe, human existence, and divine relationships. Unlike almost all other Abrahamic religions—apart from Judaism, whose origins are lost in time—the original author or authors of this extension to the Judahite Torah have chosen to remain anonymous. However, Drs. William S. and Lena Sadler are leading suspects.

Urantia is allegedly the name given to Earth by these celestial beings. Yet, the suffix "-ia" typically indicates a feminine singular noun in Latin and was commonly used to form abstract nouns or names of places, states, or conditions. Why would celestial beings use a naming convention associated with the Roman Empire?

One might hope that celestial beings would shed light on previously unknown aspects of the cosmos. For instance, it would have been remarkable if, in 1942, they had revealed the universe’s actual age of 13.787 ± 0.020 billion years. Even more astonishing would have been an exact figure such as 13,706,031,970 years on November 9, 1937. The book, however, refrains from offering precise and verifiable scientific knowledge of this kind, despite including other specific numbers—such as "This noble Jerusem band of faithful mortals numbered just 187,432,811."

Rather than risk stating scientific facts that might later be proven false, the authors introduce a preemptive disclaimer:

Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.

This passage serves as a built-in defense mechanism, shielding the book’s claims from scrutiny by preemptively justifying inevitable errors. The supposed celestial beings, rather than enlightening humanity, instead warn that their cosmology will soon become outdated. In other words, their "revelation" conveniently avoids making any actual testable predictions.

Structure of The Urantia Book

The book is divided into four sections:

Part I. The Central and Superuniverses

Part II. The Local Universe

Part III. The History Of Urantia

Part IV. The Life and Teachings of Jesus

In the final book, all the familiar characters from Judean and Christian literature make their appearances, though their roles undergo significant changes, and their actions are now interpreted in light of a new understanding that the source of these revelations is attributed to celestial beings. For example, the creation of Adam and Eve enters the realm of science fiction:

ADAM AND EVE arrived on Urantia, from the year A.D. 1934, 37,848 years ago. It was in midseason when the Garden was in the height of bloom that they arrived. At high noon and unannounced, the two seraphic transports, accompanied by the Jerusem personnel intrusted with the transportation of the biologic uplifters to Urantia, settled slowly to the surface of the revolving planet in the vicinity of the temple of the Universal Father. All the work of rematerializing the bodies of Adam and Eve was carried on within the precincts of this newly created shrine. And from the time of their arrival ten days passed before they were re-created in dual human form for presentation as the world’s new rulers. They regained consciousness simultaneously.

Thus, it seems Adam and Eve arrived on Earth in 35,915 BCE. Unfortunately, a recently discovered cave painting of a pig in Leang Tedongnge, Indonesia, has been dated to 45,000 BCE, meaning humans had already developed representational art long before the events described in The Urantia Book. This discrepancy is difficult to reconcile, given that celestial beings presumably possessing superior knowledge should have been aware of such historical realities.

Theological inconsistencies and ethical concerns

The religion clearly retains its Abrahamic roots, as this individual continues to hold a significant, albeit reinterpreted, role. Abraham is depicted as a prophet and patriarch who received divine revelations and guidance from spiritual beings, including Melchizedek, now portrayed as a celestial being belonging to a high order of divine entities known as Melchizedeks or Melchizedek Sons. These beings serve as spiritual administrators and educators, playing pivotal roles in guiding the spiritual evolution of humanity and other worlds. Melchizedek is presented as one of these celestial figures who offer guidance, wisdom, and spiritual enlightenment to evolving civilizations. However, the book supports and uplifts the notion that sacrificing any other human being is an acceptable practice. It highlights Abraham's willingness to follow God's guidance, even when faced with difficult decisions like the prospect of sacrificing his son Isaac, as an example of faith and devotion.

The book attributes various statements to Jesus, including:

I am the bread of life.

I am the living water.

I am the light of the world

I am the desire of all ages.

I am the open door to eternal salvation.

I am the reality of endless life.

I am the good shepherd.

I am the pathway to infinite perfection.

I am the resurrection and the life.

I am the secret of eternal survival.

I am the way, the truth, and the life.

I am the infinite Father of my finite children.

I am the true vine; you are the branches.

I am the hope of all who know the truth.

I am the living bridge from one world to another.

I am the living link between time and eternity.

Some of these profound-sounding statements (or "deepidies") are copied from or parallel the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, but that doesn't make them any more true. I think it would have been more appropriate for Jesus to say "I am the vine, you are the fruit." This Abrahamic religion will be one of the easiest to discard, as one only needs to observe that it contains false statements about the universe.

Cosmological claims

Let’s examine the origins of our Solar System according to The Urantia Book:

Urantia is of origin in your sun, and your sun is one of the multifarious offspring of the Andronover nebula, ... And this great nebula itself took origin in the universal force-charge of space in the superuniverse of Orvonton, long, long ago...

875,000,000,000 years ago the enormous Andronover nebula number 876,926 was duly initiated.

It's intriguing, isn't it? 875 billion years ago seems rather challenging to believe, especially considering that the universe is estimated to be 13.787±0.020 billion years old according to the Big Bang model of cosmology. The Book of Urantia appears to diverge from this model, proposing a universe that has existed for almost one trillion years and contradicts modern cosmologyoutright.

Next, regarding our Sun:

Your own sun has long since attained relative equilibrium between its expansion and contraction cycles, those disturbances which produce the gigantic pulsations of many of the younger stars. Your sun is now passing out of its six billionth year. At the present time it is functioning through the period of greatest economy. It will shine on as of present efficiency for more than twenty-five billion years.

Today, we understand that the Sun is only 4.6 billion years old, not six billion. One might have hoped that celestial beings would have possessed more accurate knowledge. Furthermore, we know that the Sun will not "shine on...for more than twenty-five billion years." In reality, over the next five billion years, the Sun will evolve into a red giant, eventually becoming a white dwarf. In this last phase, it will continue to glow and give off heat for trillions of years, but this energy will be nothing more the residual heat left over from its fusionous past. (Did I just create a new word?) The book’s celestial authors, it seems, were unaware of stellar evolution.

Let's delve into something a bit more lighthearted:

600,000,000 years ago the commission of Life Carriers sent out from Jerusem arrived on Urantia and began the study of physical conditions preparatory to launching life on world number 606 of the Satania system. This was to be our six hundred and sixth experience with the initiation of the Nebadon life patterns in Satania and our sixtieth opportunity to make changes and institute modifications in the basic and standard life designs of the local universe.

The number six seems to be a favorite among the authors. However, in reality, life began 3.7 billion years ago—over "six" times longer than suggested in the book. Moreover, the great oxygenation event occurred 2.1 billion years ago, signifying the transition from bacteria using dihydrogen sulfide to water as a source of hydrogen. Interestingly, the book doesn't delve into such topics. The timeline of 600 million years ago places us in the midst of the Ediacaran era, immediately preceding the Cambrian era. Fossils found at Mistaken Point in Newfoundland date back to 580 to 560 million years ago. It would have been fascinating for these celestial beings to enlighten us about snowball earth from 650 million years ago—the glaciation events that engulfed the entire globe in ice. However, the celestial beings who authored the Book of Urantia remain silent on this matter.

The last observation is rather disheartening as it perpetuates a misconception prevalent at the time:

The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction. Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, which always turns the same face toward Urantia.

At the time the Book of Urantia was written, the prevailing scientific understanding held that Mercury was tidally locked with the Sun, with one side always facing the Sun and the other perpetually turned away. However, modern research has revealed that Mercury actually rotates three times for every two orbits, a phenomenon known as a stable resonance. This discovery was described by Alexandre C.M. Correia in the 2004 article "Mercury's capture into the 3/2 spin-orbit resonance as a result of its chaotic dynamics" published in Nature, 429. It's disconcerting that celestial beings didn't possess this knowledge and instead reiterated the erroneous scientific understanding of the time.

Final Thoughts

The Book of Urantia represents one of the latest iterations of an Abrahamic religion, and its grandiose claims also render it the most susceptible to exposing its inaccuracies. It seems perplexing that these celestial beings failed to mention even one truly significant property of the universe, such as endorsing the Big Bang model—a concept known to science since its proposal in 1927. However, its acceptance didn't occur until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964, a significant time after The Urantia Book was authored. It would have been enlightening if the celestial beings had acknowledged the correctness of Father Georges Lemaître's ideas. Even more noteworthy would have been hints at concepts like dark matter, dark energy, or just the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Had its celestial beings revealed any of these insights, The Urantia Book might be worth reconsidering. Instead, it remains a relic of 20th-century speculation, reflecting the limited scientific understanding of its human authors—who, it seems, lacked the imagination or foresight to predict the scientific discoveries that would follow.

Summary

In summary, the earliest iterations of Judaism closely resembled the religions of neighboring cultures. However, over time, and notably during the exile in Babylon, successive theologians sowed the seeds for what would later evolve into the Rabbinic Judaism observed today. This form of Judaism places a significant emphasis on the study and engagement with the teachings of Jewish scholars, both ancient and contemporary. Nevertheless, a potential weakness lies in the fact that individual biases and prejudices can never-the-less influence interpretations, resulting in a diverse spectrum of Jewish beliefs, from liberal to conservative, socialist to right-wing. Despite this diversity, they all draw from a set of laws believed to be divinely inspired and thus unchanging: while so much of the focus on study and discussion is laudable, this must be contrasted with the fact that this is still a moral system that accepts as a fundamental tenants that you may beat your slave so long as that slave can still survive a day or two, for that slave is your property, and if you rape a young woman who is not betrothed, you must pay the father a penalty and marry the young woman. Some of these laws are clearly rooted in ethnocentric, homophobic, chauvinistic, and at times misogynistic attitudes prevalent among the aristocratic and priestly classes of that era. While I hold out hope that the subsequent interpretation of these commandments has long since made them more benign, this still suggests some reverence for these commandments at some point in the past.

The Samaritan branch, while similar to Judaism, differs in certain aspects, such as pilgrimages to Mount Gerizim instead of Jerusalem and a focus on only the first five books, known as the Samaritan Torah. With significantly fewer worshipers, it appears that their practices adhere more strictly to the Samaritan Torah, contributing to chauvinistic and homophobic tendencies.

In contrast, the teachings of Jesus emerged from an apocalyptic branch of Judaism around two thousand years ago. His message revolved around the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh, where Yahweh himself would judge and usher in peace for the righteous. While Jesus's teachings on love, forgiveness, humility, and compassion are often considered admirable, they pose inherent challenges for long-term sustainability and offer limited guidance on their integration into broader political and societal frameworks. His focus on personal character does not directly address governance, legislation, or long-term social justice. Jesus's personal teachings emphasize individual righteousness, shifting the focus away from the chauvinistic aspects of his time. However, his mission was directed towards his people, and as a result, with few exceptions, he upheld the ethnocentric attitudes prevalent in his era. Instead, his teachings were rooted in the belief that the world order would be transformed under Yahweh's Kingdom, making them more suitable for individual ethics than as a blueprint for societal and political structures. As a result, when compared to Rabbinic Judaism, the teachings of Jesus hold less significance and applicability.

Early Christians initially appear to have adhered to Jesus's original teachings, but as time passed and Jesus's anticipated return did not come to pass, the religion underwent significant reinterpretation, particularly with the influx of Greek converts. This led to substantial changes in Christian theology, such as the adoption of Greek concepts of the afterlife, the reimagining of Jesus's execution as a final sacrifice, and a shift towards emphasizing faith over works for salvation. The Greek influence also reintroduced the chauvinistic and misogynistic attitudes prevalent at the time. These attitudes were easily reinforced by the Judean scriptures upon which Jesus based his teachings. While Jesus's teachings encouraged ethical behavior for an invalid reason, as the expected Kingdom of Yahweh never materialized, they are significantly more moral than these subsequent introductions into the Christian beliefs.

In contrast, the early Christian alterations introduced several concepts that diverged significantly from Judean scriptures and teachings, straying from Jesus's original message. The notion that mere belief is sufficient for eternal life and happiness in Heaven is fundamentally unjust, as it places emphasis on faith and belief rather than actions or personal righteousness. Similarly, the idea that one is solely responsible to Yahweh for their sins and not those harmed by them is an abrogation of personal responsibility. This allows individuals to harm others' property, health, or life without seeking forgiveness or being obligated to compensate those they've injured. Together, these post-Jesus introductions have led to moral concerns within Christianity, falling short of the standards taught by Jesus.

For a considerable period, I struggled to express my frustrations with the Christian faith in which I was raised. It was challenging because there were rational and admirable teachings attributed to Jesus. However, I later came to the realization that Christianity is a fusion of Jesus's teachings with subsequent elements that are entirely foreign to both Judaism and Jesus's original message. This revelation allows me to address these components separately: Jesus conveyed a simplified moral code rooted in the Torah, expecting the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh. However, this simplified code remains just that—simple. What makes Christianity more concerning than the teachings of Jesus or Judaism are the elements introduced after Jesus's crucifixion. These elements, on the other hand, give rise to profound moral concerns and pose significant ethical questions—a rather ironic juxtaposition, as Christians often view these very aspects as the cornerstone of their faith's commendability.

While the teachings of Mohammed exhibit moments of progressiveness, they persist in being homophobic, chauvinistic, and occasionally misogynistic. The writings evidently target a male audience. Despite efforts by more recent and enlightened scholars to introduce interpretations that mitigate some of the more perilous aspects of the teachings, the original doctrines are still, nonetheless, upheld as an ideal. Consequently, some individuals continue to interpret these teachings in ways that justify the acquisition of sexual slaves and engagement in military and terroristic exploits, causing harm to thousands, if not millions. These individuals insist that such actions align closely with the teachings of those scriptures.

The Druze faith originated from the Isma'ili branch of Shia Islam but swiftly transformed into an exclusive tribal religion. In this faith, conversion is not permitted; a child can be considered Druze only if both parents adhere to the faith, and apostasy is strictly prohibited. The religion is deeply esoteric, with followers safeguarding scriptures and knowledge from outsiders. It espouses the belief in an eternal soul that undergoes reincarnation until reaching a state of spiritual purification and enlightenment. While much of the Druze teachings and practices remain undisclosed, the societal and familial pressures exerted on adherents to remain within the faith draw parallels with the practices observed in various cults.

The teachings attributed to Joseph Smith show clear signs of being manufactured by the author, with evident instances of plagiarism from existing scriptures. The writings are unmistakably ethnocentric, emphasizing a Eurocentric perspective. Geared towards white men, these teachings exhibit regressive tendencies, including a resurgence of misogynistic beliefs such as polygamy. Additionally, the teachings persist in being homophobic and transphobic. While the mainstream Church of Latter Day Saints has taken significant steps to alleviate the most harmful aspects of Joseph Smith's teachings, the original doctrines are still regarded as sacrosanct, merely subject to interpretation and subsequent, conveniently timed revelations.

The Bahá'í Faith, originating as an offshoot of Shia Islam, represents a significant stride towards equality and social justice, making it appear as the most enlightened among the Abrahamic religions. Nonetheless, it refrains from outright condemnation of past teachings. Instead, it posits that subsequent revelations supersede previous ones, implying that, at some historical juncture, slavery, chauvinism, and misogyny were integral to the divine revelations 'of the time.' What frustrates me is the persistent adherence to the belief that homosexual lifestyles are fundamentally wrong, even if they shouldn't be condemned or discriminated against, all the while embracing the transgender community.

Jehovah's Witnesses present an intriguing return to the original teachings of figures like Jesus and Paul, as well as early scriptures such as the Gospels. By rejecting the Greek influences that shaped Christianity, this branch advocates a return to the concept of portraying Jesus solely as a divine being (the Word of God) and a reversion to a monotheistic religion centered around Yahweh, albeit mistakenly renamed Jehovah. Focusing on the perpetually imminent coming of the Kingdom of God, this movement introduces a new cycle of prophecies, none of which have materialized, all subsequently subject to reinterpretation. The teachings feature a more literal interpretation of Judean commandments and other doctrines, resulting in harmful consequences such as prohibitions on blood transfusions and continued condemnation of alternative lifestyles. The artificial nature of the religion is reinforced by the initial claim, subsequently being reinterpreted through convenient revelations. For instance, the teaching initially emphasized the exclusivity of this religion by asserting that only 144,000 would be saved, as described in Revelation. However, as the number of Witnesses surpasses this threshold, subsequent and convenient revelations suggest that beyond these 144,000 anointed, additional 'sheep' will enter the Kingdom of God on Earth.

The claims to exclusivity in Judaism and the Jehovah's Witnesses movement I find less appealing, although completely understandable in the first, one of the few religions today (together with Samaritanism)

Epilogue

To begin, I am not questioning the current states of many of these Abrhamic faiths, my focus is on the basis of those teachings. All of these

and while many distance themselves from the older teachings by means of interpretation or subsequent revelation, none seem to disavow themselves of the root prescripts authored by Judean aristocrats and priests in the early Iron Age in the deserts of the Judean mountains. In so many cases, where some do take great strides to ignore the most negative teachings, sporadically, some come by again and again who take a literal translation of these scriptures. Unfortunately, those who do take a literal translation have their own scriptures to support those translations. Again, most Jews, Christians and Muslims I meet live their lives by a reasonable understanding of ethics, and they use their scriptures to support their practice. Recall the words of GUY UP THERE who indicates that people's understanding of what is God's will is almost invariably their own will: God is a moral compass that points in whichever direction you are going.

Where do I derive my moral values if not from the Torah, Jesus, or the Greek influences on Christianity, the Qu'ran or the teachings of Baháʼu'lláh? First and foremost, I hold the belief that there is no soul, and therefore, our existence is confined to this life. Thus, the consequences of our actions, both beneficial and harmful to society, are confined to the course of our lifetimes. It's a fundamental truth that every mature human, in their journey through life, impacts others to varying degrees—sometimes inadvertently. Hence, the laws that govern human behavior must inherently adhere to a deontological framework. They establish a duty that individuals owe to society and its collective well-being. However, these laws are not static; they can and should evolve. This evolution occurs through various mechanisms, including legislation, governance, the judiciary, and even civil action, such as civil disobedience when unjust laws must be challenged. Duty is integral to the law.

The principles that guide the formulation and transformation of these laws find inspiration in John Rawls's concept of the "veil of ignorance." This philosophical framework posits that the principles governing society should be created from an "original position" where individuals design them without knowledge of their own place within that society. In this way, the principles must be deemed fair and reasonable by all members of that society. John Rawls outlined two key principles that align with this concept:

Each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others;
Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
- to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the difference principle);
- attached to positions and offices open to all.

In stark contrast, the Jewish law follows a deontological approach, rooted in the belief that these laws are divine and unchanging, having been bestowed by Yahweh himself (according to the divine command theory). However, it is the deontological aspect of these laws that can pose limitations. The original commandments are fixed and unalterable, leaving reinterpretation as the only avenue for change. Modern governance, on the other hand, operates under a different model. Societies establish constitutions that serve as the foundational framework for the state. This framework includes a legislative branch responsible for enacting new laws and modifying existing ones to suit evolving needs and conditions. A judicial branch ensures that these laws conform to the constitution, and an executive branch enforces the law across society. While there are aspects in the Tanakh that can be seen as supporting such a governance structure, interpretation and selection become key factors in aligning ancient narratives and commandments with the desire for a contemporary governance model. Crucially, Jesus refrained from addressing matters of polity and society. Even the subsequent Greek influences on Christianity fail to provide additional support in this context. None of these systems, however, fully encapsulates the comprehensive ideas of justice and governance espoused by philosophers like John Rawls.

To illustrate that laws can effectively serve society without the requirement of divine inspiration and that older laws are not inherently superior to newer ones, let's take the example of traffic regulations. For over half a century, there were no specific laws against drinking and driving, and for nearly a full century, there were no regulations addressing distracted driving. Nevertheless, in today's context, nobody would diminish the importance of a drinking and driving law merely because it has been in place for just fifty years, or claim that a distracted driving law is less significant due to its relatively recent introduction, only twenty years ago.

Ethics delves into the exploration of the fundamental concepts of right and wrong actions. Within the deontological framework, determining what's right and wrong relies entirely on whether an action complies with established laws. However, this leads to two essential inquiries:

When can a law be considered ethical?
Even if a personal or corporate action is lawful, does it automatically qualify as ethical?

If the sole approach to ethics were through the lens of laws, each law would, by definition, be ethical, and any lawful action would inherently be considered ethical. Nevertheless, an alternate ethical perspective comes in the form of utilitarianism, which evaluates two potential actions by individuals or corporations based on their ability to either maximize overall benefit or minimize overall harm.

Let's consider an example: you have the option to provide financial assistance in one of three ways. You could offer a single family a substantial sum of $1 million, or you could distribute $10,000 to each of a hundred families, or alternatively, you could give a quarter each to four million families. The first approach would undoubtedly greatly benefit a single family, while the second would offer meaningful support to a hundred families. In contrast, the last option would provide essentially no benefit to numerous families. If restricted to these three choices, it's reasonable to conclude that the intermediate approach is better than the two alternatives. However, if one were to contrast this second approach with two others: one providing $10,101 to ninety-nine families and another providing $9,901 to one-hundred and one families, it would be essentially impossible to determine which would be the "best." Nevertheless, the impossibility of making a finer choice does not diminish the validity of the decision to select the second option from the initial three.

One approach to assessing the benefit or harm of an action is Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus. To begin, we need to establish the metrics by which we measure benefit and harm. Are we exclusively employing economic metrics, or are we striving to gauge more abstract concepts like personal happiness, the measure Jeremy Bentham first proposed? Rather than discussing an arbitrary "good," which I argued above was subject to interpretation, I would propose that benefits and harms should be based on necessities:

physiological requirements such as water, food, clothing, shelter and rest,
bodily, emotional, financial and physical security of yourself,
family, friendship, relationships and happiness, and
personal self-esteem and self-actualization.

If any of these are increased as a result of an action, that increase would be seen as a benefit, and a decrease would be seen as a harm. The first two most fundamental categories of needs can also be more easily measured through a translation to economic gain or costs. A single action, however, can be coupled with additional actions meant to ameliorate the harms of the first action, however, the consequences are always weighed by their total impact on the wellbeing of all humans affected by the action.

For example, allowing the clearing of a deteriorating, low-income, densely-populated and unregulated and unreliably serviced urban community to make room for an apartment complex will of course be of significant economic benefit the owners of the apartments and a significant tax increase for the local government, but will likely eliminate the shelter of many more families than will units available in the complex. Those who are losing their homes are likely unable to afford units in the new complex. Those who are moving into the units will also acquire new housing, but it is likely those moving in already have established and secure homes. Thus, one must ask: What additional actions could be taken to make such an eviction at least equitable for all parties? If those evicted are forced to resettle, it is not only a question of the cost of the home (which the owner will always feel is greater than any valuation given on it by the government) but also access to employment: most poor are never-the-less employed, but forcing them to move a long distance may make the commute to their current employment difficult or impossible. Again, what additional steps should be taken, if any, to mitigate at least a significant component of the harms caused to these displaced persons?

Before we can make such a decision, we must consider other factors on the benefits and harms: How many people are being benefitted or harmed, and how large is that benefit or harm? Jeremy Bentham suggested we ask a number of key questions associated with each party who may benefit or be harmed by an action:

Intensity: How significant is the benefit or harm?
Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the change in benefit or harm to occur?
Duration: How long will the change in benefit or harm last?
Extent: What proportion of the people will be affected?
Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the benefit or harm will occur?
Fecundity: The probability that the benefit or harm will be followed by a subsequent consequence of the same kind.
Purity: The probability that a benefit or harm will will not be followed by a subsequent consequence of the opposite kind.

These metrics determine the overall benefit or harm associated with an action, with Item 1 encapsulating the essence of these determinations. Items 2 and 3 address the immediacy and duration of the action's impact on the population. Items 4 through 7 provide multipliers that factor into the calculation, relating to the proportion and nature of the affected individuals.

Now, some benefits or harms may be a direct cause of an action, and others may be indirect consequences of the benefits or harms. For example, a new housing development will benefit many who now live in that housing, but a consequence will be the inevitable increased traffic congestion for others who have lived there before the housing development. While gaining housing is a must more significant benefit for those finding housing in the new development, those will number in perhaps 50 to 100; while those displaced may number many more.

Thus, I introduce a second principle devised by Francis Kamm, and which I am altering slightly to parallel the definitions above:

The principle of permissible harm says that one may accept a harm on Party A that results from an action without taking steps to mitigate that harm only if the greater benefits seen by another Party B are are a direct consequence of that action and the harm against Party A is a result of Party A benefitting from the action. A harm should, however, be reasonably mitigated if the only way that Party B see their benefit is for the action to first cause the harm to Party A.

For example, a community seeing greater traffic congestion following the construction of a apartment complex need not be necessarily be mitigated, as the traffic congestion is a result of those who benefit; that is, those who have moved into the housing have received that benefit. This is not to say that the increased traffic congestion issue should not be entirely ignored, but it is not necessary to have an ideal solution that reverts the congestion levels back to pre-construction levels. As a counter example, clearing out unserved and unregulated housing communities in order to allow an apartment complex to be built requires that those living in the communities be evicted before construction can even begin, let alone the new tenants move into their new homes or the government seeing increased revenue. In this case, the action should not proceed until sufficient steps are taken to ensure that the harms to the existing community are corrected.

It's crucial to acknowledge that a single action can have various effects on different parties, and quantifying these impacts precisely is often imprecise. Nevertheless, despite the inherent complexity, considering these factors is a valuable exercise when evaluating the actions a person or corporation or government should take, and how additional actions may be taken to reduce the overall harms.

In conclusion, though far from being as straightforward as classifying actions as solely "righteous" or "sinful," Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus presents us with a substantially enhanced framework for comprehending the ethics of particular actions, and the consequences of those actions can be measured by their impact on a number of factors affecting the livelihood of various parties involved. I would reiterate that, in my view, nothing within the Torah, the teachings of Jesus, or the subsequent Greek additions to Christian beliefs comes anywhere near the level of utility offered by these models that were conceived of during the period of the Enlightenment and continue to be refined and improved even today.

Predictions

Here are two predictions:

Believers in any supernatural entity will agree with at least some of the observations of all but at most one of these, but for that one religion of choice, there will be something incorrect with my intepretation.
All of these religions will, when it comes time for a lesbian couple to finally decide to have a child together by fertilizing the egg of one parent with the DNA extracted from the egg of the other, producing of course a daughter, as there is no y chromosome in sight, call this an abomination.

I hope I am still alive when this second event occurs.

Judaism

Samaritan

Jesus's teachings

The Christian faith

The Mandaeans

Islam

1. Pre-Islamic Mecca

2. Muhammad

3. Islam and Jesus

3.1 Jesus's execution

3.2 Other references to Jesus and other Christian figures

3.2.1 Mary and Zechariah

3.2.2 John the Baptist

3.2.3 Mary and Jesus

3.2.4 Jesus's life

3. Judaism

​

male-centric religion...

The Druze

Sikhism

The Latter-day Saints

Baháʼí

The Jehovah's Witnesses

Christian "Science"

Rastafari

Urantia

Summary

Epilogue

Predictions