See other Religion Articles
Title: The Trial of the Apostles
Source:
Dr. Paul Winchell
URL Source: http://www.oldarchiveonmyharddrive.net
Published: Sep 18, 2005
Author: Dr. Paul Winchell
Post Date: 2005-09-18 16:17:55 by Elliott Jackalope
Keywords: Apostles, Trial
Views: 79
Comments: 3
The aim of the previous Chapters was to defend the reputation of "The Father". This Chapter will render equal protection for the "Son". Throughout the Ages every religion offered its believers the same reward, to "live on after death". In ancient Egypt priests initiated "Mummification" as a passport to the "Afterlife". Hindu prelates promised "Nirvana" as a way for piety to escape the tedium of re-incarnation. In short, each faith pledges to cheat death by giving the faithful the prize of living on forever, and Christianity is no exception. This premise has become one of the most tenacious and unsettling concepts ever invented by man. The fear of death is so pervasive in the human mind that men will believe almost anything to deny the reality of ceasing to exist. Faith's objective is achieved by postulating that a Spiritual essence exists in the heavens above and a demonic phantom resides in the earth below. This fantasy is heightened by the promise of being "saved" in Paradise or the threat of being "damned" in Hell and each culture achieves its end with the aid of a book written by men who claimed they "knew" all about God. Fortunately, we live in America where freedom of religion gives us choices and if one chooses to believe this myth it is this prerogative. But if we invest a good deal of ourselves in a book, shouldn't we be certain that it represents God, as we believe God to be? Shouldn't that book portray a Being of the most pure moral and ethical qualities for man to worship? It should but as we've seen, our Bible fails to meet that objective. Instead, it presents a punitive god who is quick to anger, filled with terrible rage and showing little compassion for human fallibility. I have done my duty to God, as He is portrayed in the Old Testament, by refuting the accusations of biblical authors who falsely accuse Him and I feel satisfied that He has received due process. However, defending the deity of the New Testament will require a different presentation because the gospels depict a Personality that is the antithesis of Jehovah in compassion, love and tenderness. Still, I feel a defense is necessary in light of certain disturbing precepts that are incompatible with the sweet and forgiving nature of Jesus. I have therefore chosen to defend the "Son of God" by creating an imaginary trial held in ancient Rome after the Crucifixion. All of the testimony presented can be verified by a careful analysis of the four gospels. The Trial of the Apostles. [Two years have passed since the Crucifixion. Four of Christ's Apostles have written gospels, which surfaced in Rome and caused a furor. The four were arrested and taken to the Forum to stand trial. All Rome fears the possibility of more crucifixions] Clerk: The Honorable Senators, Cassius, Marcus, Dimitrius and Augustus presiding. Be seated. [Cassius bangs his gavel and calls for order. The spectators become hushed. The Prosecutor Libus and defense council Marcellus are seated in their respective places] Cassius: Good morning Libus. Libus:Good morning Senator. Cassius: Good morning Marcellus. Marcellus: Good morning, Senator. Dimitrius: The Tribunal will hear opening statements. Libus: The State is ready Your Honor. Marcus: Is the defense ready? Marcellus: Senator, before we begin we must settle a matter of the oath. Augustus: The oath Marcellus? We have a problem? Marcellus: My clients are not Romans, Sire and in all good conscience they cannot swear an oath to Jupiter. They recognize Jehovah as God of the Jews. Cassius: Hmm. They are heretics. Then have them swear an oath to their god and let's get on with it. Marcellus: Thank you Senator. The defense can proceed. Marcus:The clerk will administer the oath. Clerk: "Do you swear to your god that the testimony you give this court shall be the whole truth? All: We swear in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Dimitrius: We'll hear opening statements now. Libus: Citizens of Gaul, the State will prove that the prisoners are traitors to Rome. They committed treason by trying to place the Jew, whom our Emperor Tiberius crucified two years ago, on the throne of the Roman Empire. These four men wrote gospels claiming that he was the Son of God, which raised a furor among the faithful. In addition, they claimed to be eyewitnesses to all the events they reported. In the interest of brevity, the State requests that the four prisoners testify together. Marcellus: Objection! The request challenges protocol. Augustus: Overruled Marcellus, we'll decide that. Request granted. Escort the prisoners into the witness box. [The spectators murmur as soldiers herd Mark, Matthew, Luke and John into the witness box. Their feet are shackled making it difficult for them to walk] Dimitrius: Let's have your opening statement now Marcellus. Marcellus: Noblemen and good citizens of Rome. The charges presented by the State are false. No witnesses have come forward to corroborate the allegations. The defense will prove that the prisoners acted in good faith as Apostles of the man from Nazareth. [As Marcellus concludes, Libus approaches the witness box] Libus: State your names and occupations. Matthew: Matthew. Tax collector. Luke: Luke. Doctor. Mark: Mark. Fisherman. John: John. We are fishers of men, Sire. Libus: Fishers of men, how quaint. Let me start with Luke whose gospel claims that from the beginning you all were eyewitnesses. He goes on to report that in the sixth month--let me quote: Chapter 1 verse 26: "The Angel Gabriel was sent from God to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph". In Verse 32: the angel tells Mary she will bring forth a holy son "and his name shall be Jesus". You say she was espoused to this Joseph and still a virgin? Luke: Gabriel appeared to Mary before she and Joseph came together. Libus: Really? Just how long had the two been-espoused? Marcellus: Objection to the snide innuendo Your Honors. Cassius: Sustained. Libus: Who else reports this Angel Gabriel visiting Mary? (No reply) Only you make this report Luke? None of your colleagues mentions this visit? Luke: No Sire. I alone reported Gabriel telling Mary. Libus: Your Honors, please notice that Matthew remains silent yet he too reported the incident. Matthew: Yes, but I stated the angel told Joseph not Mary. Libus: Told Joseph? Hmmm. Allow me to quote from Matthew Chapter 1-verse 20: "Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying Joseph--".(stops) Joseph was not awake at the time? Matthew: No sire. He was asleep. Libus: This angelic visit that you report, occurred in a dream? Matt: That is correct, Sire. Libus: How can one man know the content of another man's dream? Marcellus: Objection. That calls for speculation. Marcus:Sustained. Libus: But Senator, my question has great relevance. This event is the very cornerstone of Christianity. If, as Matthew claims, Mary did not receive the angel's visit and Joseph was asleep, can Matthew's report be considered viable evidence? Marcus: Dreams do not qualify as evidence Libus. Therefore, Matthew's report is considered "Hearsay". Only Luke's testimony is deemed relevant. Libus: Then I ask the tribunal to note we've only just begun and already we have discrepancies. Cassius: So noted. Continue please. Libus: Which gospel reports the birth of Christ in the manger? Luke: I report that glorious event, Sire. Libus: Only you again Luke? Matthew: Excuse me Sire. I report the star of Bethlehem and the wise men called the Magi. Libus: Yes Matthew, but you state that Jesus was born in their house not in the manger and Luke makes no mention of a house or of this-Magi. Now which version is correct? Luke: Mine Sire. As God is my judge, it was in the manger. Matthew: I disagree, Sire, Jesus was born in their house. Libus: Senators, another discrepancy for the record? Dimitrius: So noted, Libus. Continue. Libus: Were either of you present at the time? Matthew: I was not present. Luke: And I was not born yet, Sire. Libus: Then, Your Honors, is this not also considered hearsay? Marcus: If neither man were present, I would say it is. Libus: But, neither man was present at the angel's visit either. Augustus: Then "Hearsay" would also apply in that case unless-substantiated by another witness. Libus: I see. John, does your gospel report these events? John: No Sire, mine does not. Libus: Mark, does yours? Mark: No Sire. Libus: May I ask why not? Aren't they crucial to Christianity? Mark&John: Oh, most certainly, Sire Very important indeed. Libus: Then why have you two failed to mention them? Mark & John: (Silence) Libus: We'll come back to this. Matthew, I'm fascinated by your report. You write that the moment Jesus died, wait-let me quote this exactly: Matthew verse 50: "And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many". Extremely powerful images you have described. Who else witnessed what Matthew reports? Luke? Mark? Luke: Not I Sire. Mark: Nor I Sire. Libus: Come, come gentlemen, corpses strolling through the city? These are no everyday occurrences. (Silence) Senators, surely they must have noticed these walking cadavers. Marcus: You've made your point Libus. Now move it along. Libus: Mark. Tell us your recollections of these amazing events that Matthew describes. Mark: I recall seeing nothing like that Sire. Libus: You're testifying under oath that you recall no dead saints walking about the city? But Matthew claims they were "seen by many". Were you watching something else, Mark? Marcellus: Objection, he's badgering the witness. Dimitrius: Sustained Marcellus. Marcellus: Thank you Senator. Libus: But Senators, none of the witnesses corroborates Matthew's claims. Dimitrius: John has not testified to that effect. Libus: John, tell us what you recall about these unusual happenings. John: ( Silence) Libus: John? Senators, instruct the witness to respond. Cassius: The witness will answer the question. John: I say unto thee Senators, if what Matthew describes had occurred, I most certainly would have reported it. Libus: Then none of you corroborate Matthew's claims? John: Who knows Sire? Perhaps it did happen, perhaps not. I simply do not recall. Libus: Really? John, do you know your Ten Commandments? John: Verily I do. Libus: What is the fifth? John: Honor thy father and thy mother. Libus: Then let me read how Matthew quotes Jesus: 10-37, "He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me". Does that sound like honoring father and mother? Matthew: But Sire. What the master meant by that-- Libus: A simple yes or mo will suffice. ALL: But the master was only- Libus: Yes or no! Marcellus: Objection! He's being hostile. Marcus: Sustained. Libus: Did Jesus ever write a word himself for his followers? ALL: No Sire. // The master wrote nothing himself. // He instructed us to do so//We wrote everything that he said. Libus: Then we have no alternative but to accept your words do we? Luke: But we wrote what he taught. Libus: Perhaps you wrote what you thought he taught. Marcellus: Objection! They have already responded. Augustus: Objection sustained! Libus, our patience is being strained. Libus: Mine as well Your Honors. Just listen to Mark's report that Jesus rebuked a fig tree for being bare out of season-then cursed the tree for having no figs. Are we to believe that an intelligent being acted in that manner--toward a tree? Mark: Tis the truth Sire. We all were present and observed it. Libus: You then write, "The tree withered away and died". Mark: It, it did, Sire. We watched it happen. Libus: What did your master say after that? Mark: He said, "Have faith in God". Libus: Hmm, perhaps it was only a fig-ment of your imagination Mark? (The spectators laugh) Marcellus: Objection! Senators, this is a court of law not a theater for amusement. The prosecution is making a mockery of this trial. Cassius: Sustained! Libus: Senators, he says I make a mockery? Then listen to this one. When the Apostles needed money to pay the tax collector, Jesus instructed Matthew in: 17-27: Here Matthew, since you wrote this you read it to the Tribunal. Matthew: (reads) "Lest we offend them, go thou to the sea and cast a hook and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: Take that and give it unto them for thee and me". Libus; Do you expect this learned body to accept such an inane story? Are we to believe a wise teacher that Christ was supposed to be, actually told you to do that? Matthew: T'is the God's truth Sire. I swear it! Libus: Of course, you swear it. You also swear he was the Son of God don't you? And John, you state that while Jesus was on the cross, one of our soldiers thrust a spear into his side and blood and water gushed out. John: Thou art correct Sire. That is what I wrote. Libus: I notice your three colleagues make no mention of that. Anyone care to substantiate John's testimony? All Three: Sire, I recall no spear // neither do I. // Nor I Sire. Libus: The three of you stood right next to John and neither of you saw blood and water spurting from the wound? Matthew, Mark and Luke: I saw no wound // Nor a soldier thrust a spear, Sire// I saw no blood or water. John: On my honor Senators, I saw it. God knows I do not lie. Libus: Your friends don't seem to agree, John. Marcellus: Objection. My client has implied no falsehood. Cassius: Sustained. Libus, it might be wise to leave this now. Libus: But Senators, this event cries out for confirmation. Marcus:Abandon it!! Libus: Yes Sire. Matthew and John, both of you report that eight days after the Crucifixion, Jesus walked through your closed door-and asked for food? Matthew: Verily Sire. Thou art correct. Libus: You're testifying that you actually saw him? John: Yes Sire. He came to us in Galilee. Libus: Then why have Mark and Luke failed to mention such an amazing happening? Luke and Mark: er, Our only concern Sire, was with his hunger. Libus: And that's why you didn't mention it? (They nod) Did you feed him? Matthew and John: That we did Sire He brought us a fish // We had some honeycomb and a bit of meat. He was famished Sire. Libus: Are these Senators to believe that after being dead for eight days he re-appeared and craved real food? John: Tis true, Sire. He said unto us "Handle me and ye shall see I am flesh not spirit". Libus: Wait. Let me understand this. He was flesh yet he walked through a closed door? He ate real food and Matthew says after eating he vanished right before your eyes. Was this the "Ascension" that you speak of? Mark: Not right then Sire. But both Luke and I reported the Ascension of Christ. Libus: The Ascension is a crucial tenet of Christianity isn't that so Matthew? Matthew: Oh yes, verily Sire. Verily. Libus: Do you agree John? John: Indeed I do Sire. Indeed. Libus: Then please explain why both you and Matthew didn't mention it? Matt & John: Oh, I believe we mentioned the Ascension. // Did we not, Sire? Libus: No. Not one word from either of you. Luke and Mark are the only two that reported the Ascension. Senators, isn't it amazing that that Luke and Mark continue to report issues vital to Christendom while John and Matthew fail to even mention the Ascension of Christ? John claims that Jesus bore his own cross while Matthew, Mark and Luke all identify Simon the Cyrenian as the bearer. We continue to hear one conflicting report after another. Whose testimony can the Court possibly believe? Cassius: That is for us to decide Libus. You know your role. Now move on. Libus: Yes Your Honor. John and Matthew, I've read and re-read your manuscripts with great care and noticed that both of you constantly talk about Hell and damnation. John: T'is true Sire! For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to save man from going to Hell. Matthew: And he that believeth on Him that sent Christ shall not be condemned to Hell but shall receive everlasting life. Libus: That's precisely what I mean! You two go on and on allegedly quoting Jesus about Hellfire and Damnation. For example, (flipping through the pages) here! "If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out (mumbles) whole body be cast into Hell" And here again "Hell" again "Hell", "Hell". (stops) You men are Jews; in fact all the Apostles are Jews and your master as well. You were raised with the Mosaic Code so where would Jesus have learned about Hell? There's no mention of Hell in the five books of Moses. These aren't Christ's words they're yours' aren't they? Be honest; he's not here to defend himself. Both: Sire, we simply report what the master------- Libus: Yes of course you do. And here again you make him say (reads) "Hell, Damnation, Hellfire, Hell where the worm dieth not. Again Hell, Damnation, and again! (he stops) Both you and John quote Jesus, constantly dwelling upon Hell and Damnation. You make him seem obsessed by it, consumed with it. (pause) It hardly seems reasonable that one who loved and sought only to do good would want to frighten those who believed in him. You said he wrote no word of his own so we only have your gospels to rely upon. These are your words aren't they? There's still time to recant your testimony. Marcellus: Objection! This is despicable! I have never seen such obvious intimidation. Libus: Senators, hear me out. When Pontius Pilate handled the Christ matter, I assumed the problem was resolved but when theses gospels surfaced in Rome their blasphemy created such a firestorm I had the prisoners arrested and brought this trial to the Forum. I was convinced they were heretics and traitors to our Emperor, Tiberius Claudius Nero. But now I feel impelled to uncover the truth before we act too hastily once again. The whole purpose of this trial is to separate fact from fiction and to be frank I am finding it hard to believe that a Being of such love and compassion could have this duel side to his nature. A man who forgave Sinners during life does not become a tyrant after death and pursue them beyond the grave to damn them to Hell. I reject the notion that Jesus was the author of Hell and Damnation and suggest that John and Matthew are the ones that created the concept. Senators, grant me a moment more and listen to the words of the man we crucified. (He reads) "Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. Blessed be them that mourn for they shall be comforted. Blessed be the weak for they shall inherit the earth. If I, thy Lord and master, wash your feet ye ought to wash one another's feet. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am meek and lowly of heart and in me ye shall find rest unto your souls. The son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and give his life as a ransom for many. Resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also and if a man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. Judge not and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned, forgive and ye shall be forgiven. Whosoever shall speak a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him. Love one another as I have loved you". Ibus: Senators, there have been so many inconsistencies in the testimony we've heard today that we don't seem to be talking about the same man. Matthew and John depict Jesus as a split personality, which I find completely inconsistent with the words I've just read. I may be Rome's Prosecutor but my concern is with the truth and I intend to uncover it before we act too hastily and make another mistake! Can any of the prisoners name the original twelve Apostles of Christ? Mark: Oh, yes, Sire, with the greatest of pleasure. (Alternating as they help each other) All four: Let’s see, there was: 1. Simon known as Peter Libus: Each one of your gospels contains a list of the twelve names you’ve just mentioned and one other gospel called “Acts” also lists those twelve. ALL: True, Sire true. Libus: Do the names Luke or Mark appear on any of those lists? John and Matthew: (startled) Why no, Sire they do not. Libus: In the gospels that Luke and Mark themselves wrote, do their names appear on those lists? Matthew and John: No Sire. They do not. Libus: I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this crucial evidence. ( (The four Senators rise) "The Tribunal takes judicial notice. Libus: Then would it be fair to say that both Mark and Luke were not members of the original twelve Apostles and therefore could not have been eyewitnesses to the events they reported? Matthew & John: (reluctantly) Yes Sire. It seems so. Libus: Members of the tribunal. In light of this incontrovertible evidence, the State moves that all the testimony of Mark and Luke be stricken from the record and declared to be "Hearsay". Now, only the testimony of Matthew and John is relevant in this trial and they scarcely agree on anything. John reports Jesus bleeding on the cross and Matthew sees no blood; Matthew reports dead saints walking and John sees none. There can be only one resolution to this matter and that is for Your Honors to decide. Cassius: The Tribunal revues these proceedings and will render its decision tomorrow morning. Take the prisoners away. [Everyone is shocked into silence as the soldiers lead the four men out of the witness box]. The End I need not defend Jesus now since Libus did it so eloquently- but let me repeat his words:"A Being of such love and compassion who forgave Sinners during life does not become a tyrant after death and pursue them beyond the grave to damn them to Hell". A Final Word Over the years the Bible has gone through numerous revisions yet each time the anger and threats of the deities have never been mollified. Religion would remain just as effective if the offensive portions of Scripture were expunged and no harm would befall the faithful if gods were portrayed with greater tolerance of man's weakness by transcending the pettiness of their own too human emotions. Depicting the Jews as "God's chosen people" offends the sensibilities of other ethnic groups and we know in our hearts that the Lord is not biased for we are all His children. And I believe we would feel more kindly towards one another if the violence and cruelty were culled from the text. We protest over violence in television, violence in movies and even violence in computer games but does religion truly need a god that commits mass murder, destroys a country, kills Egyptian babies, sends plagues that torment thousands, betrays Hebrews and drowns their pursuers? And that's mild compared to drowning the entire world because He was sorry He made man. How can man be happy feeling that God believed he was evil? To make matters worse the Creator of the Universe is portrayed as an insecure, almost paranoid Being who believes in witches and is obsessed with other gods. At the very least, isn't some of that text expendable? I'm past eighty now and fairly certain I won't see ninety but I'd like more of a choice than Hell or Paradise when I go. Now that we now know the Bible was created by a vote of Emperor Constantine's Cardinals, wouldn't we all be better off if other options were offered - or is fear of what happens after death the glue that holds it all together? I hope not because I believe better of God.
Copyright Dr. Paul Winchell 2003
2. Bartholomew
3. James, brother of John
4. Simon the Canaanite
5. James, or Jude
6. Andrew Son of Alpheus
7. Philip
8. John
9. Matthew
10. Simon called Zeloites
11. Thomas and
12. Judas Iscariot
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Just a little something I thought I'd share with all of you this fine Sunday. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts / comments / flames / etc...
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#2. To: Elliott Jackalope (#0)
Most interesting read - thanks for the post.
#3. To: Elliott Jackalope (#0)
Believers would be believers of ANY religion they were raised in from childhood.Seemingly intelligent people,doctors, lawyers and scientists believe the claptrap of many different religions .How a religion starts can be illustrated by a religion that sprang up from inadvertant recipients of off course parachute supply drops at the jungle sites of combat with the Japanese in the South Pacific .Veterns of combat in the South Pacific returned for a reunion and found the natives worshipping bamboo replicas of cargo planes that had been parachuting supplies to American troops . The natives had moved deep into the jungle to avoid the destruction ,and had inadvertently received the food ,tools and shelter that had blown off course and the natives thought the airplanes were Gods dropping them much needed food and tools..And THAT ,boys and girls is how all our religions start.
Whosoever shall speak a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him. Love one another as I have loved you".
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest