Chapter 9 About the New Testament

They tell us that the New Testament is based on the prophecies of the Old Testament.If so, it must have the same fate as its foundation. It is by no means unusual for a woman to conceive, bear and kill a child before she is married, although it is improper to do so.I see no reason not to believe that a woman like Mary and a man like Joseph existed, and that Jesus existed; but mere existence is irrelevant and not sufficient grounds for belief or disbelief.In the mind of the common man, the matter might be so; so what?Although, there may be such people, or at least in partial cases there are people like them, because almost all romantic stories are caused by some real circumstances; The sentence is true, but inspired by the situation of Alexander Selkank.

My concern is not with the existence of such men, but with the parables of Jesus Christ recounted in the New Testament and with the fanatical and vain teachings which I object to.The story, as it is told, is obscenity and obscenity.It describes a young woman who was betrothed, and during the betrothal, in colloquial language, was raped by a ghost, and with impious pretexts (Luke Chapter 1, verse 35), "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." Nevertheless, Joseph later married her and lived with her as his wife.At this time, it is time for him to make an enemy of the ghost.The story was told in plain language, and when it was told in such a way that there was not a priest who did not listen to it with a sense of shame. ① Obscene language in matters of faith, however veiled it may be, is always an allegory and a sign of deceit; for our serious belief in God must not be connected with the story here told, so as to make absurd Explanation.Such a story is superficially of the same kind as that of Jupiter and Leda, of Jupiter and Oneba, or of Jupiter's other adventures in love; As has been explained, the Christian faith is based on pagan myths.

As for the historical parts of the New Testament, concerning Jesus Christ, they are limited to a short period of less than two years, and are all within one country, almost at the same place, whose inconsistencies in time, place, and circumstances have been found to be The fallacies of the Old Testament, and proving them to be deceitful, cannot be expected to be given as much space here.Comparing the New Testament with the Old Testament is like a farce that has no place to accommodate many violations of unity.However, certain blinding contradictions, repelling the fallacies that pretend to be prophetic, are enough to show that the story of Jesus Christ is false.

I point out an indisputable opinion: first, the agreement of the parts of a story does not prove the story to be true, for the parts may agree and the whole may be false; second, the inconsistency of the parts of a story Proof that the whole story can't be true.Consistency does not prove true, and inconsistency certainly proves false. The history of Jesus Christ is found in the Gospels that are said to be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew talks about the genealogy of Jesus Christ; and there is also the genealogy of Jesus Christ in the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke. Whether the two are consistent or not, it will not prove that the genealogy is true. For, it is possible to be fabricated; but if they contradict each other in every detail, they will prove absolutely false.If Matthew told the truth and Luke told a lie: or if Luke told the truth and Matthew told a lie, since there is no basis for believing the one is better than the other, there is no basis for believing either : If the first thing they say is not credible, it will prove that anything they say afterward is not credible.Truth is a consistent thing; as for inspiration and revelation, it is impossible to think that they are contradictory if we admit them.Either the so-called apostles were liars, or the books that were supposed to belong to them were written by others according to their ideas, just like the Old Testament.

"Matthew's Gospel" made a named family tree in the sixth verse of the first chapter, from David to Joseph, Mary's husband, to Christ, a total of twenty-eight generations. There is also a named family tree in the Gospel of Luke, from Christ through Mary's husband Joseph to David, a total of forty-three generations; moreover, only the names of David and Joseph are in the two lists .I have here put the two genealogical tables side by side, and for the sake of clarity and comparison I have arranged them in the same direction, from Joseph to David. (See the table on the page) Now, if people like Matthew and Luke start to talk about the history of Jesus Christ, his origin, and his character, they will tell a set of lies among them (according to these two records , indicating that they did so), may I ask, what other basis (as I asked before) is there for people to believe the strange things they said later?If the natural chronology they give of him is not to be believed, they tell us that he was the Son of God, born of a devil; How can we believe it?If they lied in one chronology, why should we believe another chronology?If his natural affairs were fabricated—and they must be—then why should we not presume that his celestial genealogy was also fabricated, and all unbelievable?Would any serious thinking person stake his future happiness on the belief in a story that is naturally impossible?Betting on the belief of a story incompatible with all decent thinking, and proven to be someone's invention?Wouldn't it be safer for us to end up with a simple and pure belief in a God (i.e. deism) than we would be caught in a sea of ​​impossible, irrational, unhealthy and contradictory stories?

Although, in the New Testament, as in the Old Testament, the first question is, are they true?Are they written by someone called an author?Because of this basis, it can be said that the miracles mentioned in the book can be believed.On this point there is no immediate proof, positive or negative; and all cases prove doubtful; doubt is the opposite of belief.So the case of these books, as far as this tendency of the evidence is concerned, turns out to be the opposite. But, apart from this, it can be assumed that the authors of these so-called "four Gospels", and the writings belonging to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are deceitful.The disorganization of the historical parts of the four books, the silence of one book on matters mentioned in the other, and the disagreements that can be found among them, mean that the books are the work of some unconnected individuals. Works, written many years after the events they pretend to narrate, each telling his own story, and not the works of persons who lived closely together, such as were supposed to have been written by those called the Apostles; in short, These books, like the books in the Old Testament, were not made up by the people who signed them.

The story of the proclamation of the angels, the conception of the Holy Spirit, is not told much in the books called Mark and John, as it is in the books of Matthew and Luke.The former said, an angel appeared to Joseph; the latter, Mary; but neither Joseph nor Mary were the worst proofs they could think of; , rather than themselves.Suppose a woman who is pregnant says, and even swears, that her pregnancy was due to a ghost, and that an angel told her so, would anyone believe her?Surely no one believed her: why, then, should we believe the same thing about another woman we've never met, and who said it when, where, and by whom?

What a strange and paradoxical thing this is: the same circumstances which would weaken belief in even a possible story should serve as a motive for believing in a story which, on the face of it, every symbol is absolutely impossible and Deceptive too! The story of Herod's killing of children under the age of two belongs entirely to Matthew's account; it is not mentioned at all in other books.If this were the case, its generality must have been known to all writers; and it would be astonishing that it should not be mentioned in other books.This writer tells us that Jesus escaped the massacre because Joseph and Mary were warned by angels to take him to flee to Egypt; but he forgot to prepare food for John, who was not yet two years old.John, though staying behind, ate as well as Jesus who fled; so the story is a self-deception in terms of plot.

No two of these authors agree and use exactly the same language, and the inscription, though simple, tells us that it was placed before Jesus when he was crucified: Mark says that he was crucified at the third hour (nine o'clock in the morning), and John at the sixth hour (twelve o'clock at noon). The inscriptions mentioned in these books are: Matthew - This is Jesus, King of the Jews Mark - King of the Jews Luke - This is the King of the Jews John—Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews Trivial as these circumstances are, we may infer from them that whoever the authors were and when they lived, they were not present at the time.Of the so-called apostles, only one appears to have been near the scene, and that man was Peter; he was then accused of being a follower of Jesus.It is said (the Gospel of Matthew

26:74) "Peter cursed and swore, and said, I do not know that man!" Yet those who make us believe the same Peter, according to their own account, are guilty of perjury.What reason, what basis, should we do this? In the four books, their accounts of the circumstances of the crucifixion vary. In a book called Matthew it says, "From the high noon to the early morning, the whole earth was darkened.—Suddenly the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom—And the earth shook—And the rock was split —The tombs were also opened, and the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised up, and after the resurrection of Jesus, they came out of the tombs, entered the holy city, and appeared to many people." The bold author of "Matthew" Such a story was told, but he had no support from the authors of the other books.

The author of the book known as Mark, when he described the situation of being crucified, did not mention that the earth shook, the rock was split, the tomb was opened, and he did not mention that the dead came out. The writer of Luke does not say the same.As for the author of the Gospel of John, although he described in detail everything from the time of the crucifixion to the burial of Christ, he did not speak of darkness—the veil of the temple—the earthquake—the rock—the tomb—nor did he say raise the dead. Now, if these happenings are true; if the authors of these books lived when these things happened, if they were really the men mentioned, were the four men called the apostles—Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John, as true historians, could not have failed to record these things, even without the aid of inspiration.It is notorious for these things to be assumed to be true, and it is vital that they remain undiscussed.If there were an earthquake, all those who are called apostles should have been witnesses of the earthquake, for they could not have been absent; the opening of the tombs and the raising of the dead and entering the holy city are more important than the earthquake.Earthquakes are often probable, and natural, and prove nothing; but the opening of the tomb is supernatural, and is directly applicable to their teaching. He did not come down, so the execution must have been in the afternoon; but Mark makes it clear that he was crucified at the third hour (nine o'clock in the morning). Mark 15:25, John's Gospel Chapter Nineteen Section Fourteen. --author of their cause and of their apostolate.If it were true, the whole chapters of those books would be filled with these things, and would be the topic and unanimity of all authors; Dull, chattering; and all the most important things, if true, are downplayed, passed over, or mentioned by one writer and none of the others. It is easy to tell a lie, but how to support it after telling it is difficult. "Gospel of Matthew" The author of the book should tell us who and what happened to the saints who were resurrected and entered the city; he should also tell us who saw it, because he dared not say that he saw it himself, nor did he say that they whether they came out naked, all of natural colour, male or female saints; whether they came out fully clothed, where their clothes came from; their property; how they were received; whether they were evicted in order to regain their belongings, whether they instituted criminal proceedings against hostile trespassers; ; whether they die again, or go back alive to their graves, and bury themselves. It is indeed strange that a group of saints should be resurrected, and no one knows who they are, or who saw them, and not a word is said on the subject, nor that the saints have anything to ask for. Say it to us!The prophets of the past (as we have heard) must have had a lot to say if they had spoken of these things in prophecy.They will tell us everything, and we should have posthumous prophecies with notes and comments on those who came before, at least a little better than we have now. If Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, and David had not been an immutable Jew, they would have remained in the whole of that Jerusalem.Had John the Baptist and the saints of that day been there, everyone would have known them, and they would have preached and made all the other saints famous.But no, these saints are brought up suddenly, like the gourd plant in Jonah that was born by night and withered the next morning for no reason.This part of the story ends here. The story of the resurrection follows the story of the crucifixion; and in this as in that, whoever the authors, there are so many differences that it is evident that none of them were present. According to Matthew, when Christ was placed in the tomb, the Jews asked Pilate to send a watchman or a guard to guard the tomb in case his body was stolen by the disciples.In response to this request, they sent guards, who closed the entrance with stones, and guarded the tomb.But no other book speaks of such a plea, of closing the entrance of the tomb, nor of guards or watchmen; according to their records, there are none of these.However, Matthew comes to the second part after the story about the guards and watchmen, which I will note in the conclusion, since it will help me to spot the errors of those books. "Matthew" continues to describe (the first verse of the twenty-eighth chapter), the Sabbath is coming to an end, on the first day of the week, when the day is about to dawn, Mary Magdalene and another Mary come Look at the grave.Mark said it was when the sun was rising, and John said it was still dark.Luke says that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women came to the tomb.John said only Mary Magdalene came.About their first evidence, so unanimous!Yet they all seemed to know Mary Magdalene well: she was a woman of many circles; it is not a wild guess that she may have been loitering. The second verse of Matthew goes on to say, "Suddenly there was a great earthquake, because an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and rolled away the stone, and sat on it." But the other books do not speak of earthquakes, nor of anything The angel rolled the stone away and sat on it, and their records don't say that the angel sat there. Mark says that the angel is inside the tomb, sitting on the right hand side.Luke says that there were two standing by; and John says that they both sat down, one at the head and one at the feet. Matthew says that the angel sitting on the stone outside the tomb told the two Marys that Christ had risen and that the women had hurried away.Mark says that the women were surprised when they saw the stone rolled away, and when they entered the tomb they saw an angel sitting on the right side of the tomb, which the angel told them.Luke says there were two angels standing there: John says it was Jesus Christ himself who told Mary Magdalene; she didn't go into the tomb, she just stopped and looked inside. Now, suppose the authors of these four books go to a courthouse to give an alibi (because the essence of the attempt here is to prove by supernatural means that there is no body), and suppose they use the same contradictory methods Present evidence, as presented here, and they risk having their ears cut off for perjury, and they deserve it.Yet here is the proof, and these books have been imposed on the world, and as divine inspiration, and as the unalterable word of God. After making this narrative, the author of Matthew tells a story not found in any other book, which is exactly the same as I just alluded to. "Now," he said, (after the women had spoken to the angel sitting on the stone), "behold, some of the watchmen (meaning the watchmen on the graves, as he said) go into the city, And he reported to the chief priests all that had happened, and the chief priests and the elders gathered together for counsel, and they gave a large amount of silver to the soldiers and said, Say this: His disciples came in by night and stole him while he was sleeping; if When the governor heard this, we will persuade him to protect you. The soldiers received the money and did what they were told; and this saying (his disciples came and stole him) is still circulating among the Jews to this day." The statement "until this day" is a proof that the book, though called the work of Matthew, was not written by Matthew, but was composed long after these times and pretending to treat these things; for The implication of this statement is that there is a long time in between.It would be inconsistent to speak of anything that happened in our time in this way.So to give this expression an intelligible sense, we must assume that at least a few generations have passed, for such an expression takes our minds back to antiquity. This absurd story is also not worth mentioning, because it shows that the author of this "Gospel of Matthew" was a very shallow fool.The stories he tells are contradictory in their probabilities: for the guard soldiers, if there were any, would have been told that the bodies were stolen while they were asleep, and that they had not come out to stop the offerings. One reason is that they too, by their deep sleep, have prevented them from knowing how and by whom it was done: but they are taught that it was the disciples who did it. If someone wants to produce evidence to prove that something happened to him while he was asleep, how it was done, and who did it, and he said he didn't know what happened, this kind of evidence will not be accepted; The evidence for is ample evidence in the New Testament, but useless for anything involving truth. Now I come to the part of the evidence in those books concerning the fictitious appearance of this non-existent Christ after his resurrection. The author of Matthew says that the angel sitting on the stone at the entrance of the tomb said to the two Marys (Matthew 28:7), "Behold, Christ has gone before you." to Galilee, where you will find him; and behold, I have told you." It is this author who, in the next two verses (viii, 9) again makes Christ, after the angel has told the two women , and immediately addressed them in person for the same purpose.The women hurried out and told his disciples; in verse sixteen it says, "The eleven went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed, and when they saw him they worshiped him." But the story that the writer of John tells us is very different from this one, for he says (chapter 20, verse 19), "That was the evening of the first day of the week (the day when Christ was said to have risen ) in the place where the disciples were gathered, and when the Jews shut the doors for fear, Jesus came and stood among them." According to Matthew, the eleven disciples were already on their way to Galilee, to go to the mountain which Jesus himself had appointed; at that moment, according to John, they were gathering in another place, not by agreement but Stealth, for fear of the Jews. The contradiction between the author of Luke and the author of Matthew is more acute than what John says; for he makes it clear that he said that the meeting was in Jerusalem, on the very night he (Christ) got up, eleven The individual is there (see Luke 24:13 and 33). This now appears impossible, unless we admit that these so-called disciples had a right to willfully withdraw the lie, that the author of these books might have been one of the eleven so-called disciples; for if, according to Matthew , these eleven people went to Galilee, according to the agreement of Jesus himself, to meet him on a mountain, the time is the day of his resurrection, then Luke and John must be two of the eleven disciples; Yet the writer of Luke understood that he said, and John meant the same, that the meeting was on the same day, and that the place was in a house in Jerusalem: but on the other hand, if, according to Luke and John, Matthew must have been one of these eleven who were assembled in one house in Jerusalem: yet Matthew says that the meeting was on a mountain in Galilee, so the evidence given in those books, is mutual negation. The writer of Mark makes no mention of the meeting in Galilee; but he says in chapter sixteen, twelfth, that after Christ's resurrection two of the disciples went into the country.As they were walking, Jesus appeared to them in a transfigured form, and they went and told the rest of the disciples, but the rest of the disciples didn't believe it either. Luke also tells a story in which he kept Christ busy all day and into the evening on what was falsely called the Day of Resurrection.This story completely invalidates the account of going to the mountains of Galilee.He said that two of them, but did not say which two, were going to a village called Emmaus, about twenty-five and a half miles from Jerusalem, and Jesus was with them in disguise until evening, and had dinner with them, then disappeared; on the same night, he reappeared at the meeting of the Eleven in Jerusalem. In this paradoxical manner the false proof of Christ's return is given; and the authors agree only on the secret of the elusive return; Still in a closed house in Jerusalem, still dodging.To what are we to ascribe this evasiveness?On the one hand, this is in direct conflict with the supposed or purported purpose of convincing the world that Jesus is risen; on the other hand, publicizing the event would expose the authors of those books to public scrutiny under, so it was necessary for them to keep it a secret affair. As for the story about Jesus being seen by more than 500 people, only Paul said so, not the 500 people themselves.So this is only the testimony of one man; and according to the same record, even this man would not have believed it when it happened.His evidence, assuming that he was the author of the fifteenth chapter of Corinthians, which is the source of this account, is like a man going to court to swear that what he said on oath before was false.A man is often able to understand reason, and he is often entitled to change his opinion; but this freedom does not apply to facts. Now I come to the last scene, the scene of the ascension.The fear of the Jews here, and the fear of everything else, must be out of question.This event, if true, sealed the whole situation; and in this matter the true future mission of the disciples was left to be proved.Words, neither proclamations nor promises, neither uttered in secret in a hideout on the Mount of Galilee nor in a closed house in Jerusalem, or even presumed to have been uttered, are not public evidence: so this last scene needs to be erased. Possibility of denial and controversy; should be as public as I said in the first part of The Age of Reason, as visible to all as the noonday sun, at least as public as the crucifixion was widely rumored.But to the point. . First, there is no mention of the author in Matthew, nor in John.If this is the case, is it possible to infer that those authors who pretended to be detail-oriented in other matters would have kept silent if this matter were true? The writer of the Gospel of Mark ends the story with a flick of the pen in a flippant and sloppy manner, as if he was tired of writing romance, or felt ashamed of it. So did the writer of Luke.Even between the two writers there is no apparent agreement on the location of this final remark. According to the Gospel of Mark, when the eleven disciples were sitting at the banquet, Jesus appeared to them, and it is said that the meeting place was in Jerusalem.He later said that the conversation took place during the interview; he went on to say (like a student ending a dull story), "After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat on the Right." But the writer of Luke says that the Ascension went from Bethany, that he (Christ) led them out as far as Bethany, and left them there, and was taken up to heaven.So did Muhammad.As for Moses, according to the apostle Jude (v. 9), Michael contended with the devil over the body of Moses.When we believe these parables or any of them, we do not believe in God. I have now examined four books which are said to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and when I consider that the entire period from the crucifixion to the so-called It was but three or four days, and all this is said to have taken place in the same place, Jerusalem; and I believe it is impossible to find so many glaring fallacies, contradictions, and lies in any recorded story, as these books do.They were more, and more astonishing, than I expected to find when I began this examination.If you compare my thoughts when I wrote the first part of "The Age of Reason", it is far more than that. At that time, I had neither the Bible nor the New Testament to refer to, nor could I access.My own situation, and even my life, were increasingly in danger; and as I wished to leave something behind on this subject, I was compelled to write more quickly and briefly.The quotations I used at that time were only from memory, but were still correct; and in that part of the work, the effect of my observations was most clearly and persistently convincing, namely: The Bible and the New Testament is imposed upon the world, the birth of a man, the narrative of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, his death appeasement of God's wrath, and the description of redemption in that singular way, all are lies and falsehoods The irreverence of the wisdom and power of God--Only "Deism" is the true religion, I was and still am an opinion; a belief in a God, imitating his moral character, or practicing his moral conduct — On this alone (as far as religion is concerned) our hope of future happiness rests. I say this now—may God help me so. But back to the point—although it is impossible to ascertain who the authors of these four books are as a matter of fact at such a long time interval (this alone is enough to make it a doubt, and where there is doubt, we will Do not believe), but it is not difficult to confirm from the negative side that those books were not written by the people who are said to be authors.The contradictions in those books suggest two things: First, the authors would not have been eye-witnesses to the events they speak of, or they would have narrated them without those inconsistencies; therefore, these books were not written by men called apostles, who are conjectured to be This kind of witness. Second, no matter who these authors are, they will not take concerted actions to deceive, but just write independently without knowing the situation of others. The same evidence that applies to one case applies equally to both; that is to say, the books were not written by men called apostles, that is to say they were not negotiated to deceive. As for inspiration, that is quite out of the question; we can equally associate truth and falsehood as inspiration and contradiction. If four people are all witnesses to a situation, they should agree on when and where it happened.They each know the matter, each for his own sake, making the negotiation unnecessary; one will not say that it was on a hill in the country; the other will not say that it was in a house in the city. ; the one will not say when the sun rises; the other will not say when it is dark.Because no matter where and when, they all know the same. On the other hand, if four people are collaborating on a story, they will unify the various versions of the story and cooperate with each other to support the whole.Such collaboration can supplement facts that are lacking in one situation, as in another, knowledge of facts can replace the need for collaboration.So the same inconsistency proves that there is no agreement, and that the people reporting it have no knowledge of the facts (or, so to speak, of the facts as they claim them to be) and can also find out that their reporting is a lie.So those books were neither written by men called apostles nor contrived by impostors.So how are they written? I am not a person who is willing to believe in so-called deliberate lies, or lies in the first place, except for some people who are labeled as prophets in the "Old Testament", because making prophecies is a profession of lying.In many other instances it is not difficult to find that even simple suppositions, which, through credulity, in the progress of time have become lies, are finally presented as facts.Whenever we find a charitable reason for such things, we should not take it for granted. The stories of the posthumous apparitions of Jesus are stories of apparitions, as the timid imagination is often hallucinated and credulous.Not so many years ago, such stories were also told in the story of Caesar's assassination, and they generally originated in violent events, or executions of innocent people.In such cases the story unfolds benevolently with the support of sympathy.It progresses little by little until it becomes a "most certain" fact.When it comes to ghosts, credulity fills the history of its life, and speaks of the reasons for its appearances!One man said this, another said that, until later the story of the ghost and its master, like that of Jesus Christ in these four books. The story of the Appearance of Jesus Christ is a bizarre mixture of the natural and the impossible, distinguishing legend from fact.With the door closed, he is described as popping in and out, disappearing and reappearing, like a man dreaming of an unreal dream; he is later said to feel hungry, to sit down to eat meat, and to eat his supper.But like the people who tell such stories, the full picture is never given, and the same is true here.They have told us that, when he rose again, he left his clothes from the grave; but they forgot to prepare him other clothes for his later appearance, nor tell us what he wore with them when he ascended; Go naked, or go with everything on.In the case of Elijah, they were careful to say that he threw down his coat; yet they do not tell us how he could not be burned in the burning chariot.But as the imagination supplements this deficiency, we may presume, if we like, that his coat was woven of the fur of a serpent. Those who are not well acquainted with church history will think that the book called the New Testament has existed since the time of Jesus Christ, just as they believe that the book belonging to Moses has existed since the time of Moses.但是历史上的事实却另是一样；在所谓基督生存时代以后的三百多年，不曾有过象《新约》这样的书。 什么时候才开始有所谓属于马太、马可、路加和约翰的书，是个完全难以肯定的问题。这些书是谁写的，在什么时候写的，一点证据的影子也没有；也很可以用任何其他所谓使徒的名字来称呼这些书名，就象用现在的名字来称呼一样。书的原本不在现存基督教会的掌握之中，正象他们冒称由上帝亲手在西乃山上的满块石头上写给摩西的十诫表不在犹太人的手中一样。即使这样，也没有可能证明在任何一种情况下的笔迹。写那些书的时候，还没有印刷，因此除手抄本外无所谓出版。抄本是任何人能够照抄或随意修改而称之为原本的。我们能否认为上帝把自己和自己的意旨用这些不妥的方法传授给人，是合乎上帝的智慧，或者把我们的信仰寄托在这样的不确定上面是适当的？我们不能造出、不能改变，甚至也不能模仿上帝所造的一片草，然而却能制造或改变上帝的言语，就象我们改变人们的言语那样容易①。 大约在所谓基督生存时代三百五十年以后，有好几种我现在所讲到的着作散存于各种人的手中；当教会已经开始形成一种圣秩制度或教会政府、而且具有政治权力时，它就着手收集那些着作成为一种法典，就象我们现在看到的一样，叫做《新约》。象我在《理性时代》第一部分里所说的那样，这些着作是通过公议来决定的，决定在他们所收集的作品中，哪些应该作为上帝之道，哪些不是。 犹太人的法师们从前通过表决来决定《圣经》中的着作。 至于教会的目的，在一切教会的全国性机构中都是这样：是权力和收入，而它所用的手段是恐怖，所以在他们所收集的作品中，最有奇迹性和最为神奇的，就最有机会被选入，这是在意料之中的。至于这些书的可靠性，因表决所占的地位，就不能作更高的要求了。 然而在当时自称为基督徒的人中，争辩是非常激烈的；不仅在教义方面，而且也在这些书的可靠性方面。在称为圣奥古斯丁和浮士德人之间的争议，大约四百年，后者说，“称为福音书作者的书是在使徒时代很久以后才写成的，出于某些无名人物的手笔，他们恐怕世人不相信他们记载的事件，这些事件是世人无从得知的，所以用使徒的名义来发表。在那些书中充满了愚蠢和不一致的叙述，它们之间既不一致，又无联系。” 在另一处，他亲自对赞成那些书就是上帝之道的人说，“你们前辈就这样在上帝的经文中插入了许多东西，这些东西虽然用了他的名义，但是和他的教义是不符的。这也不足为奇，由于我们经常证明这些东西既不是他自己写的，也不是他的使徒写的；绝大部分是根据传说，根据含糊的报道，并把我不知为何物的半犹太人放在一起，然而他们之间也很少一致。他们还是用上帝使徒的名义发表，就这样把他们自己的错误和谎言归之于使徒。” ①从这些摘录中，读者可以知道《新约》各书的真实性是被否定的，当这些书通过公议决定就是上帝之道的时候，它们却被作为传奇、伪书和谎言对待。但是教会的利益，由于火刑的帮助压服了反对派，终于镇压了一切调查研究。奇迹接着奇迹，如果我们愿意相信它们，并且人们也被教育说他们是①《理性时代》的第一部分出版不满二年，已经有一句用语不是我的。这句用语是：《路加福音》是惟一得到多数人异口同声的支持的，或许确然如此，但是我没有这样说过。有人可能知道这种情况，把这句话加在英国或美国印刷的版本中的一页末尾的注释中；印刷工后来把这句话插入书的正文，而把我称为它的作者。如果这样的事情发生在这样短的时期内，尽管借助于印刷术可以防止个别版本的修改，而在当时还没有印刷术，任何会写的人都能写出一本书来，并且把它称为马太、马可、路加和约翰的原作。在这样长的时间内，有什么事下会发生？ --author ①上面两段节录是我从布朗热的法文本《保罗传》中得到的，布朗热是从奥古斯了反对浮士德的文章中摘引的，他曾参考过那些文章。 --author 相信的，不管他们是否相信。但是（通过灌输思想法）法国革命排除了教会制造奇迹的权力；自从革命开始以后，她不能通过一切圣徒的帮助制造出一个奇迹；由于她从来没有比现在处于更大的需要，我们可以不用占卜得出结论说，从前一切的奇迹都是诈术和谎言。②当我们考虑到在介乎据称耶稣生存时代到《新约》成书时的三百多年间，我们一定看到，即使不借助于历史的证据，其确实性也是极为可疑的。荷马着作的可靠性，就其原作者而论，比《新约》更可靠，虽然荷马最古，要早一千年。一个非常杰出的诗人，才能写出荷马的着作，因此很少有人能够作此尝试；能够写出这种着作的人，不会放弃自己的名誉而让给别人。同样，很少人能够写出欧几里得的《几何原理》，因为只有一个杰出的几何学家才能写出那样的着作。 但是关于《新约》中的着作，特别是告诉我们关于基督复活和升天的部分，任何能够讲述一个幽灵的显现，或一个人行走的故事的人，都能写出这样的书来；因为这个故事讲得太拙劣了。所以伪造《新约》的可能同伪造荷马和欧几里得着作的可能相比，是几百万比一。在今天无数的传教士或牧师中包括主教和一切人在内，每人都能讲道，或翻译一点拉丁文，特别是以前已经译过一千遍的；但是其中有谁能够写出象荷马的诗，或欧几里得的科学着作；牧师这些事件说明在基督徒的不同派别中流行的意见。当时，《新约》 象我们现在看到的，是通过公议成为上帝之道的。下面的节录摘自那作品的第二章： “马西安派（一个基督教的派别）断然说，宣传福音者满口是谎话。曼伊克恩派在基督教开始的时候，创立了一个人数众多的教派，把全部《新约》 作为伪书而抛弃，指出他们认为真实的其它一些完全不同的着作。哥林多派和马西安派一样，不承认《使徒行传》。恩克勒蒂派和塞维尼安派则既不采取《使徒行传》也不承认《保罗的书信》。克里索斯顿在他对于《使徒行传》 的评论中说，在他那时代，大约在四百年时，许多人不知道作者是谁，也不知道此书。圣艾琳生活在那个时代以前，报道说瓦伦丁派象其它几个教派的基督徒一样，指斥经文中充满着不完全、错误和矛盾。埃比安伊特派或纳泽伦派是最初摈弃《保罗的书信》的基督徒，并且认为他是一个骗子。其中，他们报道说，他原始是个异教徒，又说他来到了耶路撒冷，住了一些时候，他有意要和一个高级祭司的女儿结婚，他使自己受了割礼；但是毕竟没有得到她，他和犹太人吵架，写东西反对割礼，也反对守安息日，还反对一切教仪。 --author 的学识总和，除极少例外，不过是a,b,ab和hic hoec ,hoc；他们的科学知识是三乘一等于三，假使他们生活在那个时代，这点滴的知识，已绰绰有余地使他们能够写出《新约全书》来。 由于伪造的机会比较大，所以诱惑也比较大。一个人用荷马或欧几里得的名义来写作，得不到什么好处；如果他能写得同他们一样，那不如他用自己的名义来写；如果写得差，他就不会成功。因有自尊心，他不会做前者，做后者又不可能。但是写《新约》那样的书，一切诱因在于伪造。在那个时代以后的二、三百年，即使能够编造出最富于想象的历史，也不能因此认为这是一本用真正作者名义写的原着；惟一成功的机会在于伪造，因为教会需要伪造的东西作为它的新教义，于是真理和才能就不成问题了。 但是人死以后能够走路，以及人因剧烈和非常手段致死化为鬼怪的故事，并非不寻常（如前所述）。由于那时的人习惯于相信这类事情，习惯于天使和魔鬼的显现以及它们进入人体之内，使人受到摇撼而战栗如疟疾发作一般，他们再从人体中被抛出来，好象人们服了呕吐剂一样——（《马可福音》告诉我们，抹大拉的玛利亚，耶稣从她身上赶出七个鬼；）。人们一点也不觉得奇怪的是，这种故事会由耶稣基督传扬出去，后来又变成马太、马可、路加和约翰等四种福音书的基础。每个作者写出他所听到的故事，或其大概情形，并且用传统上作为目击者的圣徒或使徒的名义命名他的书名。只有以此作根据才能说明那些书中的矛盾，如果情况不是这样，那末它们就是彻头彻尾的欺骗，说谎和伪造，甚至无需为轻信作辩解。 象前面引文中提到的那样，说它们是由一种半犹太人写的，是完全可以辨别清楚的。经常提到的那个主要的暗杀者摩西和两个称为先知的人，确认了这一论点；在另一方面教会称赞了这种欺诈，承认《圣经》和《新约》互相呼应。在基督教的犹太人和基督教的非犹太人之间称为预言的东西和预言中提到的东西、类型和所代表的东西、预兆和所预示的东西，都已经被辛勤地搜集出来，象旧锁配旧的撬锁钥匙一样搭配在一起了。故事非常愚笨地讲出夏娃和蛇，而且非常自然地说到人、蛇之间的仇恨（蛇经常咬人的脚跟，因为它达不到更高的部分；而入经常打蛇的头，因为这是防止蛇咬的最有效方法①）；我说这个愚笨的故事曾被列入预言之中，是一种类型和一种诺言的开端；而且以赛亚对亚哈斯撒谎欺骗说，“必有童女，怀孕生子”，作为表明亚哈斯必将得胜的一种预兆，当时的事实是，他打败仗（在评论《以赛亚书》时，已经指出过），所以是一种歪曲的缠绕之词。 约拿和鲸鱼也几乎变成一种预兆或一种典型。约拿是耶稣，鲸鱼是坟墓；因为据说（他们曾使基督自己说出来），《马太幅音》第十七章第四十节说，“因为象约拿在鲸鱼腹中呆三日三夜，人的儿子也将在地心里呆三日三夜”。 但是事情发生得很尴尬，据他们自己叙述，基督在坟墓中只有一天和两夜，大约三十六小时而非七十二小时；就是星期五一夜，星期六一日一夜；因为他们说，星期日早晨日出时或日出以前，他已经起来了。但是这件事就象《创世记》中蛇咬人踢，或《以赛亚书》中的童女生子一样，由于配合得十分适当，它将纳入整个正统事物之中。《新约》中的历史部分及其证据就是这样。 《保罗的书信》——这些书信据称是属于保罗的，为数十四，几乎充满了《新约》的其余部分）那些书信是否由他们所说的那个人写的，是个无关紧要的事情，因为不管作者是谁，要靠辩论来证明他的教义。他并不冒充是复活与升天时种种情景的目击者；并且他声称，他不相信那些事情。 他去大马士革的路上被打倒在地上的故事，其中并无奇妙和非凡的事情；他逃命，那是比其他许多被闪电击中的人所做的还要多，他将失明三天，在那个时间内不能吃喝，在这般情况下，都是普通的事情。和他在一起的同伴们似乎没有受到同样的苦难，因为他们都很好，并且带他走了其余的路程；他们也都没有冒称看到什么异象。称为保罗的这个人的品性，依照对他的记载，其中有许多粗暴和狂热之处；他对人的迫害和后来的传教一样，都是狂热；他受到的打击，使他改变了思想，但没有改变他的本质，他不论是一个犹太人或者是一个基督徒，都是同样的狂热者。这样的人永远不会是他们宣传的优良品德的证据。他们的行动和信仰一向是极端的。 他开始用辩论来证明的教义，就是同一尸体的复活：他进而把这件事作①“他要伤你的头，你要伤他的脚跟。”见《创世记》第三章第十五节。 --author 为永生的证据。但是人的思想方法会有很大不同，他们从同样的前提中得出的结论亦然如此。这种关于尸体复活的教义与作为永生的证据相去太远，在我看来，却为反对此说提供一种证据；因为如果我的身体已经死了，又从已死的尸体复活，这个可以推断的证据是，我将再死。那种复活不能保证我们不再死去，好比疟疾发过以后，不能保证不再复发。所以相信永生，除了复活含有的模糊教义外，我认为必须有一种更高尚的观念。 此外，从选择和希望来说，我宁愿有一个比现在更好的身体和更合宜的形象。各种动物在创造中，在某些事情上胜过我们。姑且不谈鸽子或鹰，就拿有翅的昆虫来说，在几分钟内就能比人在一小时内更轻松地越过更大的空间。按身躯的比例来说，最小的鱼的滑游胜过我们的运动，几乎不可比拟，而且毫不疲倦。甚至行动迟缓的蜗牛，也能从地穴底部爬到上面去，人在那里因缺乏那种能力，将会死亡，一个蜘蛛能够在顶端纵身一跃，象作好玩的娱乐。人的体能十分有限，笨重的骨骼结构不怎么适合于范围广阔的消遣娱乐，因此没有什么东西可以引诱我们期望保罗的意见是正确的。对于宏大的场面来说，人体太渺小——对于这崇高的问题来说，又太卑贱。 但是撇开一切其它论据不谈，生存的意识是我们对于另一种生命惟一可以想象得到的观念，而那种意识的连续就是永生。生存的意识，或我们关于生存的认识，不必局限于一种形式，即使在这一生之中，也不必限于同一事物。 我们在各种情况下，也没有同样的形式，在任何情况下，也没有构成我们二、三十年前的身躯的同样物质；然而我们意识到都是同样的人。甚至两腿和双臂，几乎组成人体的一半，对生存的意识来说，也不是必要的。这些东西可以失去或被去掉，而生存的意识仍然存在；假如在它们的地位装上翅膀或其他附属物，我们不能想象它能改变我们存在的意识。总之，我们不知道我们的组成是多大或多小，小又是何等精细美妙，能在我们中间创造这种存在的意识；超过了那种意识，就象桃子的果肉和桃核中有生长力的微粒是不同的而且是不相连的。 谁能说通过什么美好物质的极其美妙的活动，能在我们称之为头脑里面产生一种思想？然而当那种思想产生时，象我现在产生我在写作的这种思想一样，是能够流芳百世的，而且是具有那种能力的人的唯一产物。 铜像和大理石像是会毁灭的；摹仿它们做出来的雕塑像就不是完全相同的雕像了，也不是同样的手艺了，这和复制的画图不是原来的画图，是同样的道理。但是印刷和重印一种思想达到一千遍以上，并且可以用任何一种原料——刻在木头上，或雕在石头上，在一切情况下，思想是永恒的和完全相同的那种思想。它有一种永不损坏而存在的能力，不受物质变化的影响，它同我们所知道的或能想象得到的任何东西，性质不同，而且有本质上的区别。 如果所产生的东西在本质上有一种不朽的能力，那么，它不仅是产生它的那种力量的象征，而是和存在的意识相同的，所以也能永存不变；它和最初同它有联系的物质无关就象思想最初显现于印刷或书写中一样。一种思想不会比另一种更难相信，但我们能够看出哪一种是真实的。 存在的意识并不依赖于同一形式或同一物质，这种意识在创造出来的东西显示在我们的感觉器官时，可以得到证明，只要我们的器官能够接受那种显示。动物的大量创造，在来生的信仰上所给我们的教导，远胜于保罗。它们的小生命象一个地球和一个天——一个现在的和一个将来的国家：这种小生命组成一种雏型的永生，如果能这样说的话。 我们眼见的创造的最美部分是带翅的昆虫，但它们原来不是这样。通过不断变化，它们有了那种形态和那种无与伦比的色彩。今天缓慢和爬行的毛虫在几天后变成一种蛰伏的形态，而且象是死亡的状态；在下一次的变化后，出现一种完全是生命的壮丽雏型——一只美丽的蝴蝶。以前的生物没有留下相似的东西：一切东西都发生了变化。它的一切能力都是新的，对他说来，生命是另一种东西。我们不能设想这种状态之下的动物，其存在意识和以前的动物是不同的；我为什么一定要相信同一躯体的复活对我说来必然使存在意识在今后继续下去。 在《理性时代》的第一部分中，我已经把创造称为唯一真实的上帝之道；而且衣这本创造之书中，不仅指也这样的事情或许如此，而且的确如此。未来状态的信仰是合理的信仰，是以创造中可以看得到的事实为根据的，因为我们今后将生存在一个比现在更好的状况和方式之中，这比一条毛虫会变成一只蝴蝶离开粪堆飞入天空，并不更难相信，如果我们以前不知这是事实的话。 至于在《哥林多前书》第十五章被称为属于保罗的可疑的粗俗语言，成为某派基督徒葬仪的一部分，这象安葬时的钟声一样毫无意义。对于理解没有任何说明——对于想象也没有举例说明，而是让读者自己去找出什么意义来，如果他能做到的话。“凡肉体，（他说）各有不同。人是一样，兽是一样：鱼又是一样；鸟又是一样。”那么，还有什么呢？——什么也没有了，一个厨师也可能说出这些话来。“有（他说）天上的形体，也有地上的形体；但天上形体的光荣是一样，地上形体的光荣又是一样。”那么，还有什么呢？ ——什么也没有了。有什么不同呢？He said nothing. “日有（他说）日的荣光，月有月的荣光，星有星的荣光。”那么还有什么？ ——什么也没有了，除了他说，这星和那星的荣光也有区别，不是指它们的距离，他也许可以同样告诉我们，月光不如日光那样明亮。这一切不比魔术师的胡言乱语好一些，他捡取一些他不懂的言词来迷惑一些求问幸运的轻信之人。传教士和魔术师的行业是相同的。 有时保罗假装为一个博物学家，他从植物生长的原理来证明他的复活的体系。“你们这些蠢人，（他说）你们种的东西除非死掉，不会生长。”对于这种说法，一个人可能用他自己的言语来回答说；保罗，你这蠢人，你所种的东西不会生长，除非它不死；因为死在地里的谷类，从来不，也不能生长发育。只有活的谷类才能生产第二代的谷物。但是这个隐喻，无论从什么观点来看，不是明喻。这是接连发生而不是复活。 动物从一种存在的状态发展到另一种，象从毛虫发展到蝴蝶，是适用这种情况的；但是在各类的情况中就不适用，这说明保罗是他说别人的那种人，是个蠢人。 这十四种使徒书信是否属于保罗，无关重要；它们不是辩论性的就是教条式的；辩论有缺点，教条部分只是假定罢了，而且没有标明是谁写的。《新约》中其余部分也可以这样说。自称为基督教会的教会理论，不是以使徒书为根据，而是以包括所谓属于马太、马可、路加和约翰的四本福音为根据，也就是以假造的预言为根据的。使徒书是从属于那些书的，所以必然与它们相依为命的；因为如果耶稣基督的故事是荒谬的，那么以此为根据的一切理论都是一种假定的真理，必然要随之破产。 我们从历史上得知，教会的主要领导人之一阿塔内细阿生活在《新约》 形成时代①；我们也从荒谬的胡说中得知，他以一种信条为名给我们留下了那些编成《新约》的人们的品性；我们还从同一历史中得知，构成《新约》的那些书的真实性在当时是被否定的。根据阿塔内细阿之流的议定，就以命令颁布《新约》为上帝之道；除了用命令颁布议定的上帝之道外，没有别的东西能给我们一种更奇怪的想法。那些把信仰寄托在这种权力上面的人，把人置于上帝的地位，他们没有将来幸福的基础；虽然轻信不是罪恶，但是拒绝相信却是犯罪。这是把寻求真理的努力在良心的孕育期间就加以扼杀。我们永远不应把对于任何事物的信仰强加在自己身上。 我在这里把《旧约》和《新约》的问题作一结束。我提出它们是伪造的证据，是从这些书的本身中摘引出来的，而且它的运用象一把两边有锋口的刀，任何一边都可用。如果这种证据被否定，那么经文的真实性也就随着被否定了；由于这是经文的证据，如果这种证据被承认，那未这些书的真实性就不能得到证明。《旧约》和《新约》中包含的矛盾的不可能的事，使它们处于一个宣誓赞成又反对的人的地位。任何一种证据都可以判他犯有伪证罪，他的名誉同样遭到毁坏。 如果《圣经》今后破产，其原因不在我。我只不过从一大堆混乱的东西中摘取证据，而证据与混乱的东西又是混在一起的。我把证据安排在明确之处，使人看得清楚而且易于了解。我这样做是让读者自己去判断，象我为自己作出判断一样。 ①阿塔内细阿，按教会编年记，死于871年。 --author