"Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" (John 2:16)

Here Jesus is speaking angrily to those who were selling goods within the boundary of the temple. Here is the text leading to his statement:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (John 2:13-15)

He overturned tables and drove the animals outs. He was very upset. Why was Jesus so upset?

What did Jesus mean by 'my Father's house'?

This is how Jesus described the temple: "my Father's house". Jesus is personalizing the temple. This was where people worshipped God.

There are three pertinent words here:

1) "my" is possessive. Why would Jesus be possessive concerning God? This is because Jesus enjoys a personal relationship with God. A loving relationship. Consider the use of "my" when someone says "my husband" or "my brother." The word "my" signifies a loving relationship that allows them to say "my." Otherwise, there is no ownership. Jesus does not own God any more than a wife does not own her husband or one brother owns another brother. But the use of "my" signifies a particular relationship: one of love.

2) "Father" signifies that God is an individual, separate from Jesus. "Father" also indicates a familial relationship, where one person (Father) created the other (Jesus). It also indicates dependency: A person looks to their father as a protector and guardian. This is how Jesus felt about God.

3) "House" indicates a dwelling place. A "house" is a place where someone lives. In other words, Jesus saw that God dwells in the temple. This does not mean that God only lives in the temple because we know that Jesus and other prophets have described God as residing in heaven. So we know that God can expand Himself, and dwell within those places where He will accept worship. This does not depend upon a building. It depends upon devotion. God will dwell where ever He is worshipped with love and devotion. Once a loving servant of God asks God to come within a particular location to be worshipped, God will comply. This is because God enjoys exchanging loving relationships.

In other words, Jesus became so upset because they were abusing the house of God - with Whom Jesus had a loving relationship.

So we can see that Jesus was upset with people turning the location of loving worship to God into a market. Is this much different from what takes place at most professional churches and temples around the world? We see so many bazaars and flea markets being hosted at churches. Churches have become the means of funding so many unrelated events today.

Why is money so important to some institutions?

We can see Jesus' disdain for turning the temple grounds into a place where money is king. Those sellers and money changers on the temple were all about money. The temple became a place of business. It became centered around money.

This was opposed by Jesus, because Jesus taught that the temple was a place of worship, not a place to make money.

Ironically, even though Jesus angrily turned over tables and chastized these sellers, today we find many sects that claim to follow Jesus will engage so much effort to raise money.

These efforts include turning churches into bazaars and marketplaces, mirroring the kind of event Jesus condemned here.

Some sects have billions of dollars of funding from so many events. To this we add the so many pleas by sectarian evangelists who ask for money in so many tricky ways, to bring billions into their coffers. Why do they need so much money? Why is money such a central focus among these so-called religious leaders?

The reason is that love of God is not as important. If helping others learn to love God - Jesus' primary teaching - is not the primary mission of the institution, that emptiness creates a hole. Such a hole must be filled, and most will fill that hole with the need to make money. This is the hole of self-centeredness, which pervades this world.

Should preachers earn a salary?

Jesus did not earn a salary from preaching. Neither did John the Baptist. Nor did Jesus' disciples.

Yet we find that most of today's religious leaders are paid salaries to preach. Is this appropriate? To turn preaching into a business in order to earn money and even - for some institutions - become wealthy.

Isn't this offensive to God and Jesus? To turn an activity that should be based upon love into a business?

Jesus' example is clear. Teachers who truly represent Jesus do not accept payment for their services. They do not earn salaries. If someone wants to donate to the teacher, that is their free choice. But there is never a salary set up. This taints the entire process with quid-pro-quo, which leads to greed. It has no part in the teachings of God and God's representative.

This does not mean money is not required for distributing spiritual information. Yes, expenses have to be paid, and sometimes printing costs and building costs and microphone costs have to all be paid for. So donations and payments can be made for these things. This is not the same as profitability, however. Once a person takes a profit from passing down the teachings of Jesus and the prophets, those teachings are tainted and have no value.

So how would a teacher of God be fed and have a roof over his or her head? Yes, donations can pay for this. A fund can be set up to house and feed the teacher, and pay his expenses related to teaching.

Things used for the purposes of disseminating the Truth can certainly be paid for by donations. But earning a lucrative salary from preaching runs contrary to everything that Jesus stood for.

Jesus states this

"Freely you have received; freely give." (Matt. 10:8)

Jesus was not paid to teach. Neither was his teacher John. Neither were his disciples. Why not? Because this is God's will.

Teaching about God is not a paid position. And receiving a salary for teaching about God is offensive to God. Yet so many sectarian teachers today will pay for their seminary education, and then be paid to teach. Contrasting Jesus' principle, theirs is:

"You have paid to receive, now charge to give."

This function - of paying to receive and being paid to give - is rooted in self-centeredness. Service is the opposite of self-centeredness, and thus indenture. If a person is paid to do their service then the service is not voluntary. It is indentured.

The Supreme Being wants us to come to love Him out of our free will. Not in exchange for something else.

“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." (John 4:21-24)

"Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." (John 4:21-24)

So what, when, and where is Jesus referring to when he says to the Samaritan woman that "a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem"?

The reason Jesus talks about the mountain is because the Samaritan woman said:

"Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” (John 4:20)

What is Jesus telling the woman?

Jesus is clarifying to the woman that the ultimate worship of God and the exchange of our original relationship with God does not require us to be in Jerusalem or on the mountain. It does not require us to be in a church or a synagogue or a mosque or a temple. It does not require us to be in the "holy land," or even require us to occupy any location on earth, even it is called the "holy land."

The exchange of our original loving relationship with God takes place in the spiritual dimension. It is a spiritual exchange that does not require us to be in any physical geographic location.

This very point that Jesus is making, in fact, is the answer to the sectarian violence and struggle for land among Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other groups around the world.

Doesn't God own everything?

He owns all the land. He owns all the Holy places. Whether a person claims to be a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu, there is no ownership to any particular tract of land or temple by any human or group of humans. God owns every temple and all lands.

So why are so many in the Middle East and around Asia fighting with each other to claim ownership of certain lands and holy sites? Why is it so important to them that they would kill others or force hardship and wars simply to gain control of those lands?

It is because they do not accept that God is the only Owner and He is in full control. And any portion that we might be given to caretake does not give us the right to claim ownership rights to the detriment of others.

The ironic thing about all of these wars and struggles over pieces of land and holy sites is that if everyone were to simply accept that God owns all the land and all the holy sites, then there would not only be peace, but everyone would share the land and the land would be more productive for everyone. And the holy sites would be open to all to worship, regardless of sect or religious institution.

Why do fanatics fight over God's property?

Today we see that some fanatical institutions are claiming God's property. They would like to control certain sections of land that actually belong to God.

The evidence that they do not own or control this land is plain to see: They have to fight others for the land. If the land belonged to them would they have to fight for it? No.

If the land belonged to any particular institution or religion then that religion or institution would be able to control the land without having to fight for it.

But because they fight for it we know that it does not belong to them.

Today these sites - instead of being cultivated for food and worship - are now covered with tanks, fences, bombed-out buildings and barracks. There might be a few farms here and there, but mostly everyone is focused upon guns, tanks, missiles and bombs. Why?

Because the focus is not upon accepting each other as God's children. The focus is upon claiming God's property as ours. This is why there is bloodshed and not enough food to eat among these regions.

Is this how God would have us treat His children? Is this pleasing to a God that simply asked, through Moses and Jesus, to love Him and care for His children?

Certainly not. They are simply fanatics who do not trust that God is the Ultimate Owner, so they feel they must try to gain control using force.

And as a consequence there is suffering. 

Is this suffering caused by God?

No. It is caused by those people who hurt and abuse others - who will, by the laws of physical nature, also come to suffer from the same pain they cause upon others: If not in this life then the next.

Ironically, Jesus is supplying the answer to these various sectarian and nationalistic strifes with this statement. He tells the woman:

"...the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and His worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

What does Jesus mean by "spirit"? He is discerning between the physical world and the spiritual world. Each of us is spirit in essence, and so is God. The spiritual dimension is not a void or vague place. It is a real place. It is a place of activity, relationships, and individuals. 

Yes, people live in the spiritual world. So does God. Here God enjoys His relationships with those spiritual individuals who decide they want to exchange a loving relationship with Him. This is the place Jesus is discussing.

We can enter this place at any time, simply by singing God's Names or otherwise praying, thinking of God, or otherwise glorifying Him. We don't need to be in a mosque, temple, church, mountain, or holy land.

In fact, the real "promised land" that was referred to many times by the prophets and by God is the spiritual world. It was not some piece of desert with a couple of mountains on it. God was trying to bring those who were worshiping Him back to the spiritual world: This is the real holy land.

What does 'Salvation is from the Jews' mean?

Jesus saying that "salvation is from the Jews," has a particular context. We know that Jesus is not talking about the Pharisees or Sadducees of the organized temples of those times, because he constantly railed against these sectarian teachers and their quest for power and authority.

The word "Jews" is being translated from the Greek word ἰουδαΐζω, which means to follow the teachings given by the prophets.

Jesus is coming from a long line of spiritual teachers that included Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Job, John the Baptist and others in between. This succession of teachers (often referred to as prophets) brought to the region the messages and instructions of God.

Jesus is also within that lineage of teachers, and thus Jesus speaks from that position, and his instructions were consistent with the teachings of the prophets, tuned to the time and circumstances of that society. 

Thus Jesus is saying that salvation is accomplished by following the teachings of the prophets.

Note the use of the word "salvation" here. Let's consider this in light of some modern-day professional sectarians who say that the only path to salvation is from Jesus dying on the cross. If this were so, why didn't Jesus say "salvation is from me dying on the cross"?

No, Jesus never said that one could be saved from him dying on the cross. That was not part of his teachings. Therefore, it is hypocritical for sectarian teachers to say they are representing Jesus' teachings and at the same time teaching that Jesus' dying on the cross brings us salvation.

Rather, Jesus does teach what does bring salvation, in this statement. We can know from Jesus' statement here that one can be saved by following his teachings - the same teachings that were passed on through the lineage of the Prophets such as Abraham and Moses and Joshua and David and John the Baptist.

This salvation was available before Jesus' physical body died on the cross. And it is still available to us today.

What is salvation?

Most think of salvation as being saved from the consequences of our sins. This means the consequences of our self-centered activities (because "sins" are, in fact, self-centered activities that harm others). 

This, however, is not the goal of salvation. In fact, suffering the consequences of our prior actions is actually good for us. It helps us grow and helps us realize that we should love each other and care for each other.

But yes, it is possible to not have to suffer the consequences of our prior actions. But that requires us to learn those lessons from a spiritual perspective. That means having a change of heart.

Such a change of heart can be accomplished through Jesus' teachings.

What Jesus meant by salvation is the return to our original loving relationship with God. This is the "salvation" from our self-centered and lonely existence. Should we give our lives to God in love and trust, and live our lives trying to please God, we are saved from the struggles related to seeking happiness where there is only misery and loneliness. This is what Jesus means by "worship."

Returning to our lost loving relationship with the Supreme Being doesn't require we join any sect or be of a particular race or nationality. It doesn't require us to be in a certain place. 

It simply requires a humble and sincere approach to the Supreme Being: One that accepts our individual failings and sincerely reaches out to the Supreme Being with humility, love and devotion.

Jesus conveyed this attitude to his students:

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do." (Luke 10:21)

"And He has given him authority to judge ..." (John 5:27)

"And He has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." (John 5:27)

Is Jesus saying that God gave him the ultimate authority to judge?

Just as was misinterpreted in John 5:22, Jesus is not speaking about becoming the judge. He is speaking about being given the ability to select those who will receive his teachings. This becomes evident as we understand the original Greek texts:

δίδωμι (didōmi): According to the lexicon, this means to "bestow a gift upon another." Jesus is clearly saying that God has bestowed a gift upon Jesus. This was confirmed also in Jesus' previous statement. In other words, whatever powers Jesus has, they are bestowed upon him by the Supreme Being. Jesus is not claiming it isn't his own power, then. It is God's power, granted (δίδωμι ) to Jesus.

ἐξουσία (exousia): According to the lexicon this word means, "power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases; a) leave or permission." This means Jesus is saying that God has given him a particular type of freedom. What kind of freedom?

ποιέω (poieō): According to the lexicon: "to make; a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc." In other words, Jesus has been given the freedom to make or produce something.

κρίσις (krisis): According to the lexicon: "a separating, sundering, separation; selection." This indicates Jesus is being given the ability by God to make a choice or a selection.

What is this freedom to choose or select in the context of this statement? Before this statement, Jesus said:

"For as the Creator has life in Himself, so He grants His Representative life in Himself." (John 5:26)

In this context, Jesus is stating that the Supreme Being has given him the ability to select others to whom he passes on God's Message - which gives life.

And what is that message?

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matt. 22:37-38)

What is a 'son of man'?

The next phrase from Jesus' statement above, "because he is the son of man." makes no sense without an accurate translation* of Jesus' words into English. What is a "son of man" and why does that render him the ability to be granted this power of selection by God? Isn't every male a son of a man?

In other words, "son of man" is not the proper translation of υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου:

υἱός (huios) may be translated to "son" if the context were a father and son relationship known in families of the physical body. However, its alternative meaning from the Greek lexicon, and one better applied in this context, is "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." And what is a follower or someone who depends upon another? This is a loving servant.

ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) has the following definition in the Greek lexicon: "1) a human being, whether male or female; a) generically, to include all human individuals." Since Jesus is not talking about a physical relationship of being a son of a particular man, we must use the alternate translation from the lexicon, "generically, to include all human individuals." In other words, humanity.

So where does this leave us with the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (τοῦ means "of")?

In this context, it is more appropriately translated to:

"servant of humanity" or "servant of the people."

How does that apply to Jesus' statement?

Jesus is stating that he has been bestowed by God the freedom to select others who will receive God's Message. This is because Jesus is the servant of humanity. Jesus' teachings are a service not only to God. They are a service to humankind. His life and his teachings served humanity because they gave us an understanding of God. And the ability to know how to return to God.

And because Jesus' purpose was in the service of humanity, God gave him certain freedoms to select others to pass this message to - who then, assuming God empowered them as well - would be able to pass this Message onto still others.

Consider an analogy. Let's say that you were a baseball coach who had a passion for teaching kids to play baseball. Because of that passion, over the years you were able to train many baseball teams to become champions. Based on this passion, a major league baseball team owner decides that he wants you to be the head coach of his major league baseball team.

When the coach gives you this position, he also gives you the freedom to select the players and also field the players the way you would like. So you make your selections and you train your players accordingly. Now the owner of the team has the right at any time to fire you. He also has the right to select whatever players he wants, and pay them whatever he wants. But he gives you certain freedoms because he trusts you and your judgment of players.

In the same way that Jesus made his statement, you, the new head coach could say: "The baseball team owner has granted me the ability to select and field my players as I wish, because I have a passion and skill for training baseball players." This statement makes sense because the authority given was based on the original passion and skill.

In the same way, God granted Jesus the ability to pick certain students to whom he gave God's Message, so they could also establish their own relationship of loving service with God. This was granted by God because Jesus had a sincere love for others. He saw himself as not only God's loving servant but also as a servant of humanity.

Thus we can more appropriately translate this verse to something like:

"And He has given him authority to select because he is the servant of humanity." (John 5:27)

Why is Jesus speaking in the third person?

Notice also in Jesus' statement his third-person reference to himself. Was this a figure of speech not to refer to himself directly with "I" and "me"? Who talks like this?

For example, if a pilot was telling the passengers on an airplane that he is the pilot and will be flying the plane, would he say, "He is the pilot and the pilot will be flying the plane"? Such a statement would confuse the passengers. They would be looking for someone else besides the person who was speaking.

In the same way, if Jesus was speaking in the third person, then this would be confusing if what he was saying was solely his authority. In other words, Jesus is clearly stating that this authority is not solely his. Otherwise, he would have said, "And He has given me authority ..."

This is because Jesus is conveying that this empowerment and authority given by God is given to all of those loving servants who God empowers to represent Him.

This same authority was given to Moses, Abraham, Job, David, Solomon, Eli, Jeremiah, Jonah, John the Baptist and so many others (often referred to as "prophets") who were sent by God to bring us back to Him.

Jesus' indirect reference would be akin to a Lieutenant in the military saying something like: "The lieutenant is given his orders and authority by the general." In this way, the lieutenant is not only referring to himself. He is referring to everyone who takes on the position of being lieutenant. And like it, Jesus is referring to those who are empowered by God to be His representatives and messengers.

The erroneous interpretation of this verse has been made by those who have sought to portray Jesus as God and/or the only path to salvation. This interpretation began only a few generations after Jesus' passing for the purpose of organizing the Christian religion.

The Roman government transformed the Christian teachings into a political organization wielding power and influence throughout the Middle East, the Mediterranean, Europe and other regions.

This led to Constantine's Council of Nicea in the Fourth Century - where what we know today as the Bible was assembled and translated by scribes selected through a political process. During this process and thereafter, the Creed of Nicea was determined. And the official bishops of the church were politically appointed by the council to carry out the creed in their teachings. This political process of appointment by council continues to this day in most ecclesiastical churches.

This has nothing to do with Jesus' teachings. It has nothing to do with representing God or being authorized by and empowered by God to teach. And those who maintain this process are simply engaged in political positions oriented around securing the goals of their politically oriented sectarian organizations.

Didn't Jesus criticize sectarian institutions?

Remember that Jesus complained about similar political organizations among the institutional temples of his time. He wanted nothing to do with the organized politics surrounding the institutional temples. They were governed by politically appointed high priests, Sadducees and Pharisees - who he characterized as wolves in sheep's clothing.

It is ironic and offensive to Jesus that some of his so-called followers have done the very same thing, and to this day maintain the various politically-assembled Christian churches and sects headed by professional teachers and administrators elected by councils of peers.

The interpretation that this indicates Jesus was God is ludicrous. God is never given authority by someone else, as Jesus is clearly indicating the authority was given to Jesus. God always has always been God and He is never given authority.

And Jesus is God's servant and messenger, and those who misinterpret this statement simply do not know God. This is why Jesus said:

"They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me." (John 15:21)

 

*Here is the translation of this verse according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

"And He entrusts him with the authority to choose because he is the Servant of Humanity." (John 5:27)

“These are the Scriptures that testify about me ...” (John 5:39-40)

“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:39-40)

What does Jesus mean by 'testify about me'?

When Jesus states that the Scriptures "testify" about him, he is clarifying that he is the embodiment of the teachings contained in the Scriptures. He is the embodiment of the instruction to love and serve the Supreme Being. He is practicing and teaching what they taught.

Jesus is referring to the scriptural texts that portray the lives and teachings of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Job, Isaiah and other great loving servants of the Supreme Being - which we now refer to as the Old Testament.

During Jesus' time, this was not the Old Testament. During Jesus' time, it was the Tanakh - comprised of the Torah (the five books of Moses), the Nevi'im (the Prophets) and the Ketuvim (the Writings).

These scriptures clearly indicate that a number of Prophets - messengers of God - came to the earth to spread the teachings of loving devotion to the Supreme Being. As such, each of the Prophets was the embodiment of those Scriptures. Just as Jesus was the embodiment of those Scriptures.

This is why we find Moses' central teaching was also Jesus' central teaching:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matt. 22:37-38)

Jesus quoted this teaching of Moses (Deut 6:5) and passed it on to his students (also Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27).

Thus, we know that this is the essence of the declaration of the Scriptures, according to Jesus.

Jesus is continuing to speak to those institutional temple officials who have accused him of breaking the rules of the Sabbath as he did his work teaching love for God. Jesus is stating that even though they may be reading the words of Scripture, they have failed to derive their true meaning.

How did this testify about Jesus?

Many have interpreted* this to mean that Jesus is referring to himself being the only Messiah, and the scriptures foretell of Jesus' coming as the only Messiah.

However, this is not what Jesus really said, or meant.

Jesus was the embodiment of the teachings of the Prophets because he is loving God: He is the pure lover of God. His entire life on the earth was devoted to the Supreme Being. And He served the Supreme Being even in the greatest sacrifice. He was tortured and killed because of his service to the Supreme Being.

Is there any evidence for the doctrine of some of today's sectarian teachers that Jesus was the primary focus of the Old Testament? Or is Jesus' statement here simply being taken out of context.

There is absolutely no clear statement in the Old Testament that defines Jesus as the only coming Messiah. In fact, the books of the Old Testament are quite clear that all the Prophets were also Messiahs.

What is a Messiah?

The word 'messiah' (Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ or mashiyach) - can also be translated to 'anointed one' - describes the role of being God's representative. In other words, 'anointed one' and 'messiah' are synonyms in Hebrew. Consider this clear statement using the root of this word משח (mashach):

"Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve Me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue throughout their generations." (Exodus 40:15)

and

Those were the names of Aaron's sons, the anointed priests, who were ordained to serve as priests. (Numbers 3:3)

Furthermore, the Greek word translated to Messiah a few times in the New Testament is Μεσσίας (Messias), which also literally means 'anointed,' though it can also be translated to 'savior' or 'messiah.' This means that 'messiah' and 'anointed one' are also synonyms in Greek.

Is Messiah a role then?

Messiah is the role of being God's representative - the representative of the only person (and the true Messiah) who can truly save us - the Supreme Being.

The reality is that the Old Testament is a chronology (testament) of a lineage of God's 'anointed ones' or 'Messiahs' through thousands of years. Each of these loving servants of God described through the texts of the Old Testament, including Abraham, Moses, David, Joshua, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Job, Jonah, Noah, Jotham and others, were all Messiahs - as was Jesus. 

These were all loving servants of God who became God's messenger. As God's messenger, each was empowered to save those around them with their teachings - making them each Savior as well as Messiah.

Was Jesus the only Messiah?

If the Old Testament supposedly declares a coming Messiah in the name of Jesus why doesn't it say it clearly anywhere? Why wouldn’t God or the scriptures simply say “The only Messiah is Jesus Christ” then?

Is there even one clear sentence in the Old or New Testament that states these things? And why do some theologians have to twist and bend the words of David’s Psalms or other scriptures to try to infer that anytime the future is spoken of, it must be the day that Jesus will come?

Just consider some of the best scriptural verses that ecclesiastical sectarian teachers have used to infer the Old Testament was all about Jesus:

[The LORD had said to Abram] “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:3)

Reality: Here God is pledging to Abraham that because Abraham was doing God's will and teaching to others on His behalf, that God will protect him. He also is telling of Abraham's empowerment because he will pass on God's message to others and successive generations will hear that message. Jesus is neither mentioned nor referred to.

Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come.” (Genesis 17:9)

Reality: Here God is instructing Abraham to do His will, and instruct his children to do the same. "My covenant" is the exchange of a loving relationship with God, comprised of the loving servant serving God and God protecting His loving servants. Again, Jesus is not mentioned or referred to here.

But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” (Genesis 21:12)

Reality: God is foretelling of the split that will take place between Esau and Isaac. There is no mention or referral to Jesus.

[Moses, speaking to the Israelites] “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15)

Reality: Moses is telling his people that God will empower another teacher from among them - the people of Israel. This has nothing to do with an event thousands of years later. Moses is talking about Joshua, who God would command and lead the Israelites across the Jordan, and become their spiritual leader. Moses also recognized other teachers among the tribes of Israel, including Levi, Reuben, Dan, Gad, Joseph, Benjamin and others. Again, there is no mention or referral to Jesus.

The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:17-18)

Reality: Again, Moses is speaking of Joshua, who was Moses' servant and student, who God instructed directly after Moses' death. Once again, no mention or referral to Jesus.

[David, speaking of God] I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son; today I have become your Father.” (Psalms 2:7)

Reality: If this Psalm is read objectively, God is referring to David as His son since God is addressing David in the quote. The Hebrew word that has been translated to “son” is בֵּן (ben). 

Yes, this can indicate a relationship of offspring in the context of a physical family. 

But in this context (between God and one of God's faithful), it is appropriately translated as 'dedicated follower' or better, 'loving servant'. Thus we find, fittingly, that God is referring to David as His loving servant, and David is simply restating what God said to him. No mention or referral to Jesus.

Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of His hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in His cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and the name of His son? Tell me if you know! (Proverbs 30:4)

Reality: This is an oracle (or ode) to God written by Agur. Prior to this verse, Agur writes: "I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One." The "Holy One" is God. Though Agur is a loving servant of God, he takes the humble position of not knowing God. This is a typical position among God's loving servants. Because they are involved in a loving relationship with God, they seek Him constantly. 

Here again, we find that the Hebrew word being translated to “son” is בֵּן (ben) - which can mean according to the lexicon, "a member of a guild, order, class." - In other words, a devoted follower - or in the case of a devoted follower of God - a loving servant.

When we apply the translation properly to 'loving servant' the verse now makes sense. Even Jesus subscribed to this translation, as Jesus stated:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons [loving servants] of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

And Jesus' followers stated:

"those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons [loving servants] of God." (Romans 8:12-17)

And in Genesis it states:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. (Genesis 6:4)

None of these verses make sense when בֵּן (ben) is being translated to "son." But when בֵּן (ben) - υἱός (huios) in Greek, which can mean according to the lexicon, "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower" - these verses suddenly have meaning. For example:

"those who are led by the Spirit of God are the devoted followers of God." (Romans 8:12-17)

or

"those who are led by the Spirit of God are the loving servants of God." (Romans 8:12-17)

Now back to those verses of the Old Testament that supposedly predict Jesus' appearance:

The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him - the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear [respect] of the LORD. (Isaiah 11:2)

Reality: Here Isaiah is referring to Jesse's son David, as the verse before this says: "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots, a branch will bear fruit." This fruit that is being spoken of is the development of love for God and the passing on of the teaching of love for God through many generations. David has been revered for thousands of years as an exalted loving servant of God. There is no mention or referral to Jesus in this verse or its surrounding verses.

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, (Isaiah 61:1)

Reality: Here Isaiah is referring to himself, as he was empowered by God to preach to others about God's glories and how to develop a loving relationship with God. Again, no mention or referral to Jesus. Learn about Isaiah 53.

Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod. "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for Me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." (Micah 5:1-2)

Reality: In Micah, this prediction is probably the one that is argued by ecclesiastical sectarians as the strongest indication that Jesus' arrival was predicted in the Old Testament. Is it true?

Here Micah is talking about someone who would become the king of Israel. He is referring to a governmental king. This has nothing to do with Jesus because Jesus was not a historical king of Israel or the Jews. In fact, Jesus was completely dishonored by the official institutional temple officials of the day. Jesus was not accepted by any Israelite or official as any king. In fact, Israelite officials conspired to have Jesus arrested. Jesus was obviously not who Micah is referring to here.

Let's get more clear about the setting and history of Micah's statement. Beyth Lechem (Bethlehem Ephrathah) refers to the small city in Judah, where King David was born. Following David's reign, and at the time of Micah, there were many wars between the Israelites and the Assyrians. 

After several generations, the Ammonites and the Assyrians had battled with the Israelites, and the Israelite cities, including the Temple of Jerusalem and its fortress walls, had been badly damaged. Israel was in a poor state of affairs and was largely subservient to foreign kings.

King Jotham arose out of the House of David to become king of Israel. Being a direct descendant of David, and also a devoted loving servant of God, Jotham was both a wise spiritual leader and an adept king. It was Jotham, in fact, who finally defeated the Ammonites, and created a truce with the Assyrians. Jotham then went about rebuilding the Temple and rebuilt the walls of the city. He basically renewed Israel militarily, economically, and spiritually:

Jotham made war on the king of the Ammonites and conquered them. That year the Ammonites paid him a hundred talents of silver, ten thousand cors of wheat and ten thousand cors of barley. The Ammonites brought him the same amount also in the second and third years. Jotham grew powerful because he walked steadfastly before the LORD his God. (2 Chron. 27:6-7)

Jesus, on the other hand, was a spiritual teacher, who had numerous students. But he was never the king or ruler of Israel. Thus, he was not the subject of Micah's prophesy.

This conclusion that Micah 5 refers to Jotham is confirmed several verses later:

"And he will be their peace. When the Assyrian invades our land and marches through our fortresses, we will raise against him seven shepherds, even eight leaders of men. They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders." (Micah 5:5-6)

The practical and real translations* of all of these quotes reveal that sectarian teachers have, for centuries, sought to recklessly bend and twist the scriptures to make them appear as though the Old Testament was directly predicting Jesus' arrival as the one and only Messiah. If the texts refer to Jesus, why would it not be obvious? Is God trying to hide Jesus within the words of the Old Testament to trick some people? This would be a ridiculous conclusion.

Why do they claim Jesus is the only Messiah?

Those who claim Jesus is the only Messiah are trying to bolster Jesus’ position. Why do they need to bolster Jesus’ position? Because they haven't heard and acted on Jesus’ teachings. They have not yet seen the true power of Jesus' teachings. They have yet to see that Jesus is empowered by his loving relationship with God, and he represents God.

Such a notion was first officially promulgated in 325 A.D. when the Roman emperor Constantine decided the Roman government could better control Europe by controlling this burgeoning religion, Christianity. So he gathered up leading teachers from all over and created the Nicene Creed, which dictated that Jesus was the only Messiah in an attempt to consolidate authority.

They followed this by murdering or imprisoning those who did not follow the Creed. This created a monopoly over Christianity that stood for twelve centuries under the iron fist of the Roman Catholic Church. This strategy also worked for the Roman government as it helped control its huge empire for many centuries.

Furthermore, now that Jesus came, now all the sectarian followers are waiting for him to 'come' again? Wasn’t the first 'coming' enough? He now has to 'come' again in order for people to be saved? This, of course, is a teaching of those who did not hear and comprehend Jesus' teachings in the first place.

It must be asked of the sectarian teachers: Why, if Jesus saved everyone by his dying on the cross, did he bother to teach? Why did he stand up on hilltops, and amongst people in courtyards in order to try to teach us to love God and do God’s will, if all we have to do is stare at Jesus’ cross every Sunday and pledge our allegiance to Jesus and be saved? Why would Jesus have bothered teaching people about doing God's will and loving God?

Quite simply, this teaching of being saved by the cross quite simply misses Jesus' entire message. It produces a series of rituals to enable those who do not want to change to feel that they are saved. The result is thinking that we can do just about whatever we want, and then go to church on Sunday and wipe off all our sins onto Jesus’ cross (some ghoulishly call this “bathing in the blood of Jesus”) and then be freed of sins and be saved.

Jesus actually spoke directly to this philosophy:

“Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will come to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (Matt. 7:21-23)

Jesus says he will say “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” to those who are preaching in Jesus’ name, driving out demons and even doing miracles in Jesus name, what to speak of those who are just going to church and wiping their sins off on Jesus once a week.

The key statement here is “but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Jesus’ teachings focused on us doing God’s will. Jesus was teaching love for God and doing God's will. He was trying to teach us to change from our self-centered lives to a God-centered life.

This is the same message all of the prophets mentioned above also taught. Thus Jesus was the embodiment of the prophets of the Old Testament: He was practicing what they had taught. Yes, Jesus was the Messiah, but so were all of the prophets.

A Messiah is someone who can save a person by giving them love for God. A Messiah is the representative of God (making the Supreme Being the true Messiah). All of the prophets were representing the Supreme Being and were empowered by God. They taught love for God, and this teaching, when delivered by one who already loves God, can save us. 

Thus we can also say with authority that, as Jesus indicates, the teachings of the prophets not only testified for Jesus' life and teachings, but Jesus' life and teachings embodied them. Thus, the "life" that Jesus speaks of is loving service to God. This is why Jesus quoted Moses when he said:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38)

 

*Here is the translation of these verses according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these testify about me; yet you refuse to follow me so that you may have life." (John 5:39-40)

"I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts." (John 5:41-44)

"I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father's Name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?” (John 5:41-44)

Why do they not 'accept' Jesus?

Jesus continues to redress the institutional temple high priests and Pharisees who are accusing Jesus of not obeying the rule of the Sabbath. Jesus is clarifying that while they might sit in positions that supposedly represent God, they have no loving relationship with the Supreme Being, and have no real authority.

The English translation* of this verse misses an important point being made here by Jesus. The Greek word δόξα (doxa) means "opinion, judgment, view" and "opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning someone" according to the Greek lexicon. And παρά (para) means "from" and ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) means "men," "mankind" or "humanity." Thus, using the word "praise" here is not appropriate.

The appropriate translation would be something more like:

"I do not accept the judgments (or opinions) of men."

And then:

"How can you believe if you accept judgment (or opinion) from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the judgment (or opinion) that comes from the only God?"

What does Jesus know about them?

Jesus says, "but I know you." What does he know about them?

The key statement Jesus is making here is that he knows they do not love God: "I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts."

This is Moses' and Jesus' primary teaching - to love God. This is their primary teaching because this is what will fulfill us and make us happy.

When we do not have love of God in our hearts, our hearts become empty. When our hearts are empty, we seek to fill our hearts by using others in some way.

When it comes to those who are seen as religious teachers, this often converts into efforts to accumulate followers, become honored by followers or become wealthy on the backs of those followers.

The institutional temple high priests Jesus is addressing have gained their positions of authority because they have been approved by councils of their peers - men, in other words. Jesus is indicating this has nothing to do with having a relationship with or authority from the Supreme Being. 

It is God who empowers a person to be His representative. These institutional temple High Priests were pretending to represent the Supreme Being, but in reality, they were elected by and thus represented councils of their peers.

To gain authority by pleasing councils of peers is simply politics. It is the process of doing what others are pleased with. For example, a person who wishes to gain a position of authority within the ecclesiastical organized sectarian institutions of today must play the game of pleasing councils of bishops, cardinals, deacons or other groups who elect and approve the officials of their particular church: Peers, in other words, not the Supreme Being.

This political process works through the judgments of men. A person must seek the judgment and good opinion of these men by pleasing them in order to be elected or appointed to their position of authority. And once that authority is granted, they must continue to please these councils or be faced with being unseated from their position.

Is Jesus rejecting this entire institution?

Jesus was considered a Rabbi and taught in many synagogues. Yet he is clearly criticizing this institution and its teachers.

He is clearly indicating that real authority to represent God comes from God. This authority comes through a relationship of loving service to God - as clarified by Jesus here:

"I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts."

This authority comes from pleasing the Supreme Being. Making an "effort to obtain the judgment (or opinion) that comes from the only God" means to please God. Jesus illustrated that God was the source of his own authority, and pleasing God was his central objective:

"By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me." (John 5:30)

Jesus indicates that he can see these temple officials are not thus empowered and are not seeking to please God. They obtained their authority by pleasing others within the temple hierarchy.

How ironic it is that the very people who say they represent Jesus today have assumed the same process that Jesus condemned here in this statement. Those popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, ministers and reverends who have been politically appointed to their positions in a particular church or sect have gained their positions by pleasing those in the church hierarchy (each other, in other words). 

Then they collect salaries from their institutions, turning what is supposed to be service to God into a business arrangement.

This has nothing to do with loving God and teaching love for God on behalf of the Supreme Being and in the Name of the Supreme Being, as Jesus did, and all the prophets did.

Furthermore, the word "believe" here is not an appropriate translation. The word πιστεύω (pisteuō) means to "have confidence in" or be "entrusted." It means to trust. Jesus is speaking of trusting in the Supreme Being: Giving one's life to the Supreme Being and taking shelter in Him. This is what Jesus had done - and the reason Jesus could represent the Supreme Being.

This also ties in with, "I have come in my Father's Name." To come in someone's name means to represent that person: But it also highlights the potency or power of that person's name.

Who is Jesus representing?

Let's say the campaign manager of a politician ("John Doe") approaches the press and makes an announcement. Before the announcement, he says, "I have come in the name of John Doe." What would the press understand from this statement? They would understand that the campaign manager is representing John Doe - and what they say next will be what John Doe wanted them to say.

Thus we can come away from Jesus' statement with clarity that Jesus is representing the Supreme Being, and God’s Holy Name has great power and potency. Jesus states, "I have come in my Father's Name, and you do not accept me."

Jesus is stating that he is God's messenger, and thus is delivering what the Supreme Being wanted Him to teach. This is why Jesus also stated:

“My teaching is not my own. It comes from the One who sent me." (John 7:16)

So what did the Supreme Being want to tell us through Jesus? He wants us to renew our relationship with Him. He wants us to come home to Him and reclaim our eternal relationship with Him. This is why Jesus stated:

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matt. 22:37-38)

*Here is the translation of Jesus' statement according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

"I don’t accept honor from worldly people. But I know you – that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my LORD’s Name, and you accept me not; but if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe when you accept blessings from one another but do not seek the blessings that come from the only God?" (John 5:41-44)

“Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat? ...” (John 6:5-12)

When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do. Philip answered him, "It would take more than half a year's wages [fn] to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!" Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, spoke up, "Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?" Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." There was plenty of grass in that place, and they sat down (about five thousand men were there). Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish. When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, "Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted." (John 6:5-12)

Why did Jesus ask Philip where to buy bread?

Jesus said this to his students because he knew the people in the crowd were hungry. They only had five loaves of barley bread and two small fish to feed the people. What did they do?

Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. (John 6:11)

When they passed out the food, it gradually became obvious that somehow, there was enough food to feed everyone. And after everyone had eaten, they still had twelve baskets of bread left over.

This is considered one of Jesus’ more miraculous acts. Yet it was not Jesus' act, it was God's. For those who do not have faith in God, the miracle is indeed miraculous. 

Why would God bother making sure the people were all fed? The immediate purpose was not just to make sure the people ate. But also to keep the crowd there so they could hear Jesus' teachings.

Then of course was the purpose for most of Jesus' miracles: To illustrate that God was empowering Jesus in his activities to teach us about the Supreme Being.

What does 'giving thanks' mean?

Notice above that 'he gave thanks.' What is 'giving thanks' anyway? The Greek word used is εὐχαριστέω (eucharisteō), which refers to "giving thanks." Notice here the key word "giving". It was not simply "thanking," but a ceremonial "giving" of something.

Other translations of the original words interpret the original texts as 'blessed' as in Jesus 'blessed the food.' So what is actually taking place during this 'blessing'?

Many have interpreted this to mean that Jesus simply thanked God for the food, as many teach. This is because they do not understand the confidential loving relationship that Jesus had with God.

Since we know that Jesus performed an act that ultimately blessed the food, and we know that Jesus' focus was to love and serve God in the spirit of Moses, we must accept that Jesus was doing something that had been described throughout the Old Testament: Jesus was making an offering ("giving") to God with a heartfelt prayer ("thanks").

Is this about the ancient practice of offering?

This process is explained in detail in Deuteronomy. God has established a method to establish a relationship with Him by offering our food to Him before consuming it:

In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. (Genesis 4:2-4)

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together. (Genesis 22:5-7)

Jacob set up a stone pillar at the place where God had talked with him, and he poured out a drink offering on it; he also poured oil on it. (Genesis 35:13-15)

" 'If you bring a grain offering of firstfruits to the LORD, offer crushed heads of new grain roasted in the fire.'" (Leviticus 2:13-15)

But Moses said, "You must allow us to have sacrifices and burnt offerings to present to the LORD our God." (Exodus 10:24-26)

Then Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law in the presence of God. (Exodus 18:11-13)

"Tell the Israelites to bring Me an offering. You are to receive the offering for Me from each man whose heart prompts him to give." (Exodus 25:1-3)

These are the offerings you are to receive from them: gold, silver and bronze; (Exodus 25:2-4)

And make its plates and dishes of pure gold, as well as its pitchers and bowls for the pouring out of offerings. (Exodus 25:28-30)

"For the generations to come this burnt offering is to be made regularly at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD. There I will meet you and speak to you; (Exodus 29:41-43)

Do not offer on this altar any other incense or any burnt offering or grain offering, and do not pour a drink offering on it. (Exodus 30:8-10)

Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the LORD. (Exodus 30:12-14)

All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the LORD. (Exodus 30:13-15)

Those presenting an offering of silver or bronze brought it as an offering to the LORD, and everyone who had acacia wood for any part of the work brought it. (Exodus 35:23-25)

All the Israelite men and women who were willing brought to the LORD freewill offerings for all the work the LORD through Moses had commanded them to do. (Exodus 35:28-30)

The bronze from the wave offering was 70 talents and 2,400 shekels. (Exodus 38:28-30)

If your grain offering is cooked in a pan, it is to be made of fine flour and oil. (Leviticus 2:6-8)

Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings. (Leviticus 2:12-14)

Put oil and incense on it; it is a grain offering. (Leviticus 2:14-16)

The priest shall burn the memorial portion of the crushed grain and the oil, together with all the incense, as an offering made to the LORD by fire. (Leviticus 2:15-16)

"Over the table of the Presence they are to spread a blue cloth and put on it the plates, dishes and bowls, and the jars for drink offerings; the bread that is continually there is to remain on it." (Numbers 4:6-8)

"Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, is to have charge of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the regular grain offering and the anointing oil. He is to be in charge of the entire tabernacle and everything in it, including its holy furnishings and articles." (Numbers 4:15-17)

Prepare these in addition to the regular morning burnt offering. (Numbers 28:22-24)

" 'In addition to what you vow and your freewill offerings, prepare these for the LORD at your appointed feasts: your burnt offerings, grain offerings, drink offerings and fellowship offerings. ' " (Numbers 29:38-40)

"So we have brought as an offering to the LORD the gold articles each of us acquired—armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces—to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD." (Numbers 31:49-51)

Then the Israelites, all the people, went up to Bethel, and there they sat weeping before the LORD. They fasted that day until evening and presented burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to the LORD. (Judges 20:25-27)

The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. (1 Kings 3:3-5)

David built an altar to the LORD there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. Then the LORD answered prayer in behalf of the land, and the plague on Israel was stopped. (2 Samuel 24:24-25)

On the fifteenth day of the eighth month, a month of his own choosing, he offered sacrifices on the altar he had built at Bethel. So he instituted the festival for the Israelites and went up to the altar to make offerings. (1 Kings 12:32-33)

 "He who sacrifices thank offerings honors Me, and he prepares the way so that I may show him the salvation of God." (Psalm 50:22-23)

I will sacrifice a freewill offering to You; I will praise Your Name, O LORD, for it is good. (Psalm 54:5-7)

Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His Name; bring an offering and come into His courts. (Psalm 96:7-9)

When the king came back from Damascus and saw the altar, he approached it and presented offerings on it. (2 Kings 16:11-13)

A Levite named Mattithiah, the firstborn son of Shallum the Korahite, was entrusted with the responsibility for baking the offering bread. (1 Chronicles 9:30-32)

Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His Name. Bring an offering and come before Him; worship the LORD in the splendor of His Holiness. (1 Chronicles 16:28-30)

They were in charge of the bread set out on the table, the flour for the grain offerings, the unleavened wafers, the baking and the mixing, and all measurements of quantity and size. (1 Chronicles 23:28-30)

" 'This is the special gift you are to offer: a sixth of an ephah from each homer of wheat and a sixth of an ephah from each homer of barley. (Ezekiel 45:12-14)

Who knows? He may turn and have pity and leave behind a blessing— grain offerings and drink offerings for the LORD your God. (Joel 2:13-15)

But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. (Philippians 2:16-18)

I have received full payment and even more; I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. (Philippians 4:17-19)

These are but a few of the descriptions among the Bible that present the importance of offering to the Supreme Being. 

We can see that making offerings to God was practiced by Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David and the other loving servants of God prior to Jesus, as well among Jesus' disciples.

Would Jesus have abandoned this practice?

Are we to believe that Jesus abandoned the ancient practice of making offerings to God? Are we to believe that Jesus made up his own ritual - of "giving thanks" instead of making an offering?

Certainly, Jesus accepted the teachings of the Prophets - as he quoted them repeatedly. He also preached in the Temple "every day" according to his testimony before the High Priest. And he was repeated called "rabbi" by followers and non-followers alike.

Certainly, Jesus practiced making offerings, as David did. As Samuel did. As Isaiah did. As Abraham did. As Moses did.

Jesus also specifically instructed his students to make offerings:

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift." (Matt. 5:23-24)

“See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” (Mark 1:44)

And this was precisely why Jesus said about the food he had just offered to the Supreme Being at the 'last supper:'

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19)

Jesus wanted his disciples to remember him by his offerings to the Supreme Being.

Why did some institutions abandon making offerings?

Why have so many modern institutions been ignoring what Jesus taught and practiced? Why did the Bible translators call it "giving thanks" instead of "making an offering? 

And why do they not make offerings to God? 

The primary reason is because Paul - who did not directly hear Jesus' teachings and yet enlisted followers after years of persecuting Christians - began teaching a new doctrine loosely based on the life of Jesus.

The problem is that Paul's doctrine - now called the Pauline theology by scholars - abandoned the foundation of Jesus' teachings. That foundation was the teachings and principles of the Prophets that Jesus passed on to his followers. 

Paul declared that in order to enlist "pagans" - later termed "gentiles" - the Christian doctrine must be softened to allow those that didn't want to follow the teachings of the Prophets - which included the commandments of Moses, and the instructions and activities of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, and others, including John the Baptist and Jesus' own disciples.

Yes, Paul argued against the teachings of Jesus' own disciples, including James and Peter. He was known to have argued these teachings even in public, in front of large crowds.

Well, despite the fact that Paul's doctrine (Pauline theology) contradicted Jesus' own teachings and the teachings of his closest disciples, that theology ended up being embraced by the Romans when they stepped in to marshal Christianity and further push the theology away from Jesus' own teachings and principles.

Side note: Who were the 'gentiles' or 'pagans' that Paul fought to be able to enlist? The word 'gentiles' (from the Greek word ἔθνος defined as 'pagans' in Thayer's lexicon) were considered by Jesus to be atheists - those who did not accept the superiority of God. Most of these 'pagans' or 'gentiles' of Jesus' time were those who followed the Roman pantheon. In other words, they were worshipers of many gods, not unlike the Greeks.

So they did not accept the Supreme Being. They did not accept monotheism, which is why Jesus said he did not come to teach them. He came to teach those who accepted the existence of a Supreme Being.

We must note that the Roman 'pagans' also believed the "son of the gods" was Caesar. So it wasn't hard to teach them the concept of Jesus being the "Son of God" - in line with the Roman Emperor.

The problem is that according to scholars, Paul effectively replaced the principles taught by Jesus with a new doctrine based on becoming saved by virtue of Jesus' dying on the cross.

Despite having never been taught by Jesus, this new philosophy could easily be maintained by Roman pagans, many of whom continued making offerings to the gods under the Roman pantheon.

When the Roman government stepped in to marshal Christianity, which doctrine did they embrace? Did they embrace the pure doctrine of Jesus' teachings, which embraced the teachings of John the Baptist, David, Abraham, Moses, and Joshua?

No. It embraced Paul's version. Why? Because Paul's theology had won more converts throughout the Roman Empre than did Jesus' disciples like James, Peter, Thomas, John and Mary. 

Why? Because again, Paul's doctrine was easier. Jesus' teachings required having a change of heart, and a seeking of love for God - and activities that pleased God. What saves us according to Jesus' teachings is love for God.

Once embracing the Pauline theology, the Roman Empire and its Roman Catholic Church effectively whitewashed the theology of Jesus and his disciples. They erased the ritual of making offerings to God at the altar, replacing this with eating crackers and wine at communion (calling these Jesus' body and blood).

The Romans erased the practices of Jesus' teachings by controlling worship for over 1,000 years. The Romans banned Christianity for nearly 300 years, before Constantine graciously declared (Pauline) Christianity legal in 313. Before then, any sort of Christian activity was considered punishable by imprisonment or death.

After it was made legal, it was still considered heretical to practice anything other than the Pauline doctrine effected by the Roman Catholic Church. Doing so risked being burnt at the stake as a heretic.

In other to effect this, the Roman Catholic church - propped up by the Roman government starting with Theodosius I in 380 - controlled worship in Christianity.

They made it illegal for a layperson to own or even read any scripture, including the Bible. The Church printed only Latin Bibles (with Paul's life and letters taking up nearly half the New Testament) and banned any Bibles written in any other language. 

When John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English for the first time in the 1380s to allow non-Catholic priests the ability to read scripture directly, he was burned at the stake.

And so was John Hus, who also promoted the concept that people should be able to read scripture. In the next century, William Tyndale also translated the Bible into English. He also had it printed on early printing presses.

Then he was burned at the stake by thugs from the Roman Catholic Church.

Does this sound like an organization that wanted to save people and preserve the teachings of Jesus? No. They simply wanted to control people. They wanted to make sure that their authority was not undermined. This was a political organization that tortured and murdered people.

Furthermore, the Church ceremonies for over a thousand years consisted primarily of a priest speaking versus of Latin - which the common people did not understand. They passed out little crackers and sips of wine and spoke Latin, made cross gestures, and that was the ceremony. The concept of offering to God was completely abandoned, and replaced with a ceremony worshiping the murder of God's loving servant, Jesus.

Thus for over a thousand years, the Catholic Church controlled ceremonial worship among Christians (until the 1500s), and made sure that the people had no access to scripture so we couldn't see the teachings of the prophets, and understand that God wants us to establish a loving relationship with Him by making "fellowship offerings" (see above).

What is a 'fellowship offering'?

Just consider the word "fellowship" as in "fellowship offering" in some of the verses above. What does "fellowship" mean? Were they talking about fellowship between the congregation parishioners? No, because this was in context with a type of offering.

A "fellowship" offering means an offering to God that is made with love. It is like when a man offers flowers to his wife: He is expressing his love. He doesn't have to make the offering of flowers. But he does it because he cares about her.

This is what the Supreme Being wants from us: He wants our love. He doesn't care about getting a bunch of gold or bread or grain - He owns all this stuff anyway. Rather, He wants us to reach out to Him and establish a relationship with Him. He wants to exchange a loving relationship with us, and He knows that when we exchange a loving relationship with Him, we will be fulfilled.

Why else would God have created us? Would God just create living beings so He could watch them suffer? No, God created us to exchange love with Him. And love requires freedom (we can't be forced to love, in other words). So God gives us the choice to love Him or not, and why he also called the "fellowship" offerings "freewill" offerings.

Consider God's instruction above to the priests: "You are to receive the offering for Me from each man whose heart prompts him to give." 

For those of us who desire to love Him, He shows us how to develop that love for Him. And what is the first step? It is making offerings to Him, and praising His Names.

And why do many teach their followers to "give thanks" instead of making offerings to God?

It is because the focus is on salvation rather than developing a personal relationship with God. It is not wrong to thank God. But God should not be seen as a waiter or servant - giving us food or whatever when we want it.

All take and no give?

After all, what kind of relationship is simply composed of one person taking from the other all the time, and never giving anything back? We call that a one-sided relationship. A relationship of all take and no give.

A person who loves another person will naturally want to serve the one they love. They will want to give and not just receive.

When a person offers something to God - especially food before it is eaten - there is an inherent sacrifice and an exchange of a relationship. By offering something to God, we are first saying that we will sacrifice our own desire for that food - at least for a minute - and offer it to the Supreme Being - our Best Friend - first.
Is this not what is polite in any relationship? To offer something first to someone we care about? Offering our food to the Supreme Being before eating it is an activity that will help us re-develop our relationship with Him. Simply thanking Him may be nice, but making an offering to God with love and devotion, and then thanking Him, is even better.

*Here is the translation of this event according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

When Jesus lifted his eyes and saw a great number of people coming towards him, he said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” And this he said to test him, for he knew what he was intending to do. Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not even sufficient for each to receive a little.” One of his students – Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother – said to him, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?" Jesus replied, “Have the people sit down.” There was much grass in that place, so the people sat down, numbering about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, offered them to God, and distributed these to his students, and the students to those who were seated – as much as they wanted – likewise with the fish. When they were filled, he said to his students, “Gather up the leftover pieces so that nothing will be wasted.” (John 6:5-12)

" I am not here on my own, but He who sent me is true." (John 7:28-29)

"Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but He who sent me is true. You do not know Him, but I know Him because I am from Him and He sent me." (John 7:28-29) 

Who sent Jesus?

Jesus is clearly stating that the Supreme Being sent him. Jesus is clarifying that he is God's messenger. Isn't this who would say that someone else has sent him?

Jesus is responding to murmurs from the crowd that said:

"Isn't this the man they are trying to kill? Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Messiah? (John 7:25-27)

Jesus is explaining clearly that while his body may be born of a woman they may know, Jesus and his teachings have come from somewhere else: They come from God. Who else is the “Him” and the “He” that Jesus is mentioning here?

Do Bible translators know who Jesus is referring to?

It is disappointing that many translators of the different Bible versions (KJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, CSB, NET, TSV, ASV, DBY, HNV) would not realize that Jesus is speaking of God with these words, as they failed to capitalize “he” and “him” (as added above). 

This oversight occurs in many instances of Jesus' statements throughout the Bible. Why would translators not capitalize references to God?

The likely reason is that they do not know Who Jesus is referring to when Jesus says, “He sent me.”

Ironically, just as the crowd Jesus is speaking to here does not know who Jesus was referring to, so many institutional translators who have translated these words of Jesus also do not know who Jesus is referring to.

Why don't they know who sent Jesus?

Many institutions claiming to represent Jesus have muddied the waters with respect to the Supreme Being. Most have embraced the Nicene Creed, which confuses the identity of the Supreme Being (or "Father") with that of Jesus (the "Son").

The notion that Jesus is God negates the identity of a separate Supreme Being. The Roman government forced the politically-driven Council of Nicaea in the Fourth Century to create this Nicene doctrine.

The purpose of the Nicene Creed was not to do the will of God as Jesus instructed. The purpose was to produce political power by unifying the various churches under one organization, controlled by the Roman government. 

The objective was essentially to control the people, create authority, and attract followers.

This political orientation continues today in the form of the various official churches that compete for parishioners. 

Why do they seek authority?

They are seeking authority because they don't have real authority. They are trying to claim it in the form of numbers of followers.

Many institutions claiming to represent Jesus have been clamoring for authority for centuries.

We can see this clamor for authority with a simple distinction: Many churches use “First” in their name. We see this all over: “First Baptist Church,” “First Catholic Church,” or “First Assembly of God Church.” 

Why do they insist on naming their churches “First,” even though there were other churches of that denomination built before? Why is being “first” so important? 

Did they not hear Jesus' statement that "the first shall be last" (Matt. 20:16)?

Claiming to be “first” is an attempt to establish authority. If someone says they are “first,” they are essentially saying that they have the authority. It is an attempt to establish dominance and seniority among the other choices.

This is also why the officials of these various sects want to quote their current numbers around the world. They want to be the biggest and the best church - bigger and better than the others.

What this really reveals is that none of these institutions have real authority: The authority granted by the Supreme Being.

Authority is established by God, as Jesus said in his prayer:

"For You granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those You have given him." (John 17:2)

Sectarian institutions today are primarily political organizations, driven by people who want to see their brand of interpretation as the most popular brand. Why?

Because if they belong to the most popular brand of religion, then they will feel that they are right and the others are wrong.

This is simply a mask for someone who knows deep inside that they do not know who God is. Just as Jesus said to these institutional temple people, who were all uppity about being Jews who honored the Sabbath, “You do not know Him, but I know Him...” 

Jesus is clearly saying that all those institutional temple officials and their followers do not know God. They might be feeling proud in their ability to judge whether Jesus was breaking the Sabbath by healing someone, but at the end of the day, they did not know Who Jesus was serving and teaching about. So how could they be so judgemental?

Did Jesus seek authority?

As we see from Jesus' statement here, he isn't seeking authority. Jesus knows only God has true authority and real authority can only be granted by God.

“I know Him because I am from Him and He sent me” means that Jesus gives the Supreme Being all the authority. Jesus isn't trying to grab authority for himself.

This is an obvious and clear statement by Jesus that he is God’s messenger. Someone who is sent by another to deliver a message is a messenger. And a messenger is certainly coming from the person sending the message. And what is a messenger? 

A messenger is a servant of the person who dispatches the message. So Jesus is stating clearly that he is a servant of God. He is God’s messenger.

Notice that Jesus says very clearly, “He sent me.” How could it get any clearer than this? Yet so many claim that Jesus is God. How could Jesus be God when he clearly says, “My teaching is not my own.” (John 7:16) and here, "I am not here on my own"? Are these statements not clear enough?

For example, let's say that an employee of the ABC corporation has been dispatched from the CEO to deliver a message to another corporation. How might the employee introduce himself to the other corporation? He would say something like, "I am coming from the CEO of ABC Corporation and I am not here on my own but the CEO has sent me." Why would he take the time to explain this? Because he is explaining that he is being empowered by the CEO to deliver the message.

In the same way, Jesus is explaining that he was sent by God and is empowered by the Supreme Being. He is representing the Supreme Being. He is God's messenger. Is this not clear enough from Jesus' statements?

God owns everything, including the teachings He dispatched through Jesus.

But many don't know the Supreme Being. They live up to Jesus' statement here:

"You do not know Him..."

*Here is the translation of these statements according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

Then Jesus spoke loudly from the temple, teaching and saying, “You know me and know where I am from; but I am not here on my own authority, for He who sent me is real – He whom you do not know. I know Him because I am from Him and He sent me.” (John 7:28-29)

"You do not know me or my Father ...” (John 8:19)

"You do not know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” (John 8:19)

Why don't they know God?

Jesus is responding to a question by the institutional temple Pharisees:

“Where is your father?” (John 8:19)

Jesus responds that they do not know the Supreme Being. While they wore the robes and had the official titles and official positions in the temple organizational hierarchy, Jesus was clear with them: Despite their titles and positions, they did not know the Supreme Being.

We must now ask: How could they be the high priests and teachers of Jewish law and not know the Supreme Being? How could they have gotten those positions of priests if they didn't know God?

The answer to this lies within the processes many religious institutions use to select their teachers. An ecclesiastical religious organization is not governed and authorized by the Supreme Being. An ecclesiastical religious organization is governed by councils of men (and/or women), and thus they are only authorized by men (and/or women).

They are thus no different from political organizations. Should a person come with recommendations (know someone), follow the various rituals, and act in a manner pleasing to the members of these councils, that person can become elected by the council to their position as teacher. This is called politics.

Therefore teachers of ecclesiastical institutions are not chosen by God and thus do not represent the Supreme Being. They represent those councils that elected them. They also remain, in some manner, subject to the continued approval of that council.

This is seen in many of today's sectarian institutions. Whether the position is pope, cardinal, bishop, priest, minister, reverend, rabbi, imam, or another title, an elected teacher can only represent those who chose them. When a council of men appoints or elects a teacher, that teacher cannot represent God. They are by default representing that council. This applies to councils of cardinals, rabbinical councils, deacons, and other types of councils.

This is the very same situation that Jesus faced with these chief priests. They were elected officials, not representatives of God. They did not know God, evidenced by the fact that they could not see that Jesus was God's representative.

What can they teach, then, if they were not authorized by the Supreme Being? Were the chief priests who challenged Jesus teaching others about God? No. They could only parrot the ritual ceremonial language of their institution. They could only go through the motions, like vultures chewing on dry bones. Because they did not know the Supreme Being, they were not empowered to represent the Living God - Jesus' Father.

How does Jesus know God?

Jesus is clarifying that he can know the Supreme Being because he loves Him and wants to please Him. Jesus wants to do God's will. Jesus knows God because Jesus is engaged in a loving relationship with God.

The only way to know the Supreme Being is to be exchanging a loving relationship with Him. The Supreme Being is a very exclusive Person, and He is a loving Person. He only lets in those who want to exchange a relationship of loving service with Him.

Conversely, God graciously hides from those who are jealous or envious of Him. Those who don't want to be with God don't have to see Him. God does not force Himself upon anyone.

Why do we challenge God's superiority?

We don't want to see the Supreme Being. We want to be the center of the universe.

Those of us living in the physical world in temporary bodies, away from God, are here because we want to be the Supreme Being. We want to be in charge. We want others to respect us, and idolize us. We want to be the president, or the CEO, or the boss, or the pope (or priest), or the mother or father, or the best player in history, or the most respected actor, or the biggest musician ever. Whatever genre we choose, we want to be the best. We want to be admired. We want to be worshiped. We want to be idolized.

These are all basically the desire to be the Supreme Being, manifesting into specific physical goals. This is simply because the position of 'king of the world' is not readily available to us at the moment. If it were, we'd be struggling for that too. In lieu of that title, we'll just struggle for 'American Idol' or whatever other position is available to us.

Why do you think that God threw Adam out of the Garden of Eden? (So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden. Gen. 3:23) Adam had decided that his relationship with God was not as important as eating the fruit. Adam disobeyed God because he wanted to enjoy like the Supreme Being:

"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5)

The Supreme Being lives in a world of love. There is no envy in that world. Those who live in the spiritual realm do not desire to be God or to enjoy as God enjoys. They don't care about their own enjoyment, because they are too busy doing what pleases the Supreme Being and His associates - because they love Him.

This spiritual world cannot be entered into without purification of our current self-centered consciousness. It would be like the metaphorical bull in a china shop. Letting a bull into a china shop would result in all the dishes being smashed because the bull doesn't have the consciousness to understand the delicate nature of the dishes in a china shop.

In the same way, a self-centered consciousness does not have a place in the delicate nature of the loving relationships between the Supreme Being and His children and friends in the spiritual realm.

Returning home to our natural position in the spiritual world requires us to submit ourselves to God, who is our Best Friend and Benefactor. This is the essence of love, Jesus' first and greatest instruction:

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38)