## Vorspann — front matter

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-frontmatter-de.md / augenoeffner-frontmatter-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[Frontispiece]**

[Image: colour plate of Shiva and Parvati as a single merged double face, with
Ganesha seated before them among offerings and his mouse, against an orange
aureole made of Om signs.]

[Devanagari verse lines: vāgarthāv iva…]

*Two lines of Devanagari in Nāgarī type, with a daṇḍa closing the first line and
a double daṇḍa the second (Kālidāsa, Raghuvaṃśa I.1). The exact printed
diacritics exist only on the photograph `PXL_20260823_091612677.jpg`; a
letter-perfect Devanagari transcription was deliberately not attempted.*

Translation: So that I may grasp the word and its meaning exactly, I venerate
Parvati-Parameswara (Parameswara: synonym of Siva), who unite with each other as
the word unites with its meaning, and who are the mother and father of the world.

**[Title page]**

**<u>Eye-Opener</u>** [*Augenöffner*]

**Why should the Bible and the Koran
be banned for children?**

**Titus Leo**

**Identitypublishers.org**

**Switzerland**

**[Imprint]**

©

***All Rights Reserved***

Printed & Bound by Press Group, Slovakia

**[Dedication]**

**Dedicated**

**to my**

**Father / Guru / Saviour**

**Leo the Great** [*Leo der Grosse*]

**[Acknowledgements]**

**<u>In Gratitude</u>** [*In Dankbarkeit*]

[Image: a single colour peacock feather, to the left of the column of names.]

Vinodh Kumar

Jean Louis Sterren

Patrick Grünig

David Andenmatten

Shivadas Flagg, U.S.A

Reto Schmidli

Heinz Abegglen

Ashok Haridas, London

Wanda Jane, Canada

Dr. Barbara Schillig

Corinne Schneider

Christine Eggel

Copy-editing [*Lektorat*]:      Dr. Thomas Konrad, D-München

**[Contents]**

**<u>Contents</u>** [*Inhalt*]

| | |
|---|---|
| 1. The Garden of Eden: The Truth | 19 |
| 2. Jesus' Birth: The Truth | 57 |
| 3. The Father of Lies | 67 |
| 4. The Miracles | 91 |
| 5. Groundless Wrath | 125 |
| 6. The False Promise | 131 |
| 7. The True Author of the Gospels | 141 |
| 8. The Last Supper | 157 |
| 9. The Resurrection: The Truth | 175 |
| 10. The Discord | 251 |
| 11. The Holy Spirit: The Truth | 263 |
| 12. The Fate of the Apostles | 271 |
| 13. Antichrist | 285 |
| Petition | 291 |

## Einführung & Vorwort (S. 9–16)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-einfuehrung-de.md / augenoeffner-einfuehrung-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 9]**

*(unpaginated in print — section opening)*

**Introduction** [*Einführung*]

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all rest on the shared article of faith of
eternal existence, or of the ‚eternity of a creator‘. The Bible's opening words
„In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth“ are founded on this
article of faith. The fundamental standpoint of modern science comes to a
different *Schuss* [sic — "shot"; evidently *Schluss*, "conclusion"], namely that
creation as a process is eternal. If the truth is the ‚eternity of creation‘, as
science assumes, then the ‚eternity of the creator‘ is a false conception.

The basis of modern man's existence is science. The thought of the eternity of
creation is supported by science. The thought of the eternity of the creator is
not. The trustworthiness of science lies in empirical demonstration [printed
*Beweis-führung*, with a stray mid-line hyphen]. The thought of the eternity of a
creator is fundamentally absurd, since it is un-scientific [printed
*un-wissenschaftlich*, likewise hyphenated].

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have to do with Jesus in one form or another.
In Judaism, Jehovah is the object of worship.

**[p. 10]**

In Islam, Allah forms the centre of veneration. In Christianity it is Mary's son,
or Mary-Jesus.

The author does not acknowledge Jesus as Christ. He does not believe it. He knows
that Jesus is not Christ. For these reasons the author has, as far as possible,
dispensed with the title Christ in reference to Jesus.

Millions have died, as victims of a diabolical deception by Lucifer, the Highest
Devil, who manifested himself as Jesus.

This book is dedicated to them. If the millions who live today and are affected
by the same deception were to be freed from it, the book would have fulfilled its
purpose.

*(The page ends here; the lower third is blank. The Einführung ends with it.)*

**[p. 11]**

*(unpaginated in print — section opening)*

**Preface** [*Vorwort*]

The author of this book is an ex-Catholic who grew up in South *barat*/South
India (These enemies of Christ do come from our own ranks—*1 Johannes* 2.19). His
mother tongue is Malayalam, a South Indian language. He speaks English and a
little German.

How can he be the author of a German-language book?

It came about like this: thirteen years ago, after Titus Leo had studied the
Bible and the Koran, he wrote down his conclusions in Malayalam. This manuscript
(about 30% of this book) he gave to his father, who is at the same time his guru
and the discoverer of the identity of Jesus. His father translated the manuscript
into English. Through good friends this version was later translated into German.

The former President of the USA, George W. Bush, said that everyone should have
the right to believe. If everyone believed the same thing, this would be no
problem. But if the faith of one religion stands opposed to the faith of another
religion, then conflicts in the name of faith will inevitably arise. If, for
example, the one group

**[p. 12]**

believes that Jesus is the Son of God and the other group objects that God cannot
have a son, the danger of a conflict between these groups arises. Such conflicts
are the cause of the bloodshed of millions of people. That is the two-thousand-year
history of Christianity!

God is by definition the perfection of the good. To show mercy is a gesture of
true goodness. Because God represents the perfection of the good, he is thereby
also perfect in his compassion.

The Bible says that God is Jesus' father, and this father says the following
words about his son: “This is my beloved Son, in him I have great joy”.
(*Matthäus* 3:17)

If this statement is true, why then does God let his beloved and innocent son be
crucified for the sins of others? Let us think back to the Garden of Gethsemane,
where Jesus, twelve hours before he was condemned to death, pleaded three times
with his father: „My Father, if it is possible, then preserve me from this
suffering.“ (*Matthäus* 26:39). His father, who had claimed to be the God of
compassion,

**[p. 13]**

showed, however, no pity whatever towards his beloved son.

How can someone who lets no mercy prevail towards an innocent man do so towards a
sinner?

Even on the cross, a few minutes before Jesus loses his body, he accuses his
father with the following words: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
(*Matthäus* 27:46). This proves that Jesus had expected his father to preserve
him from death, and that he actually did not want to die at all. If, then, Jesus
did not want to die for the sinners of this world, then it is also not correct to
assert the following: “Jesus died for the sins of the world.“ From this the
following conclusion follows: Jesus accuses the father of being responsible for
his death; thus it was his own father who killed him, in order to atone for the
sins of the world.

What is actually meant by „saving the world“?

From whom or from what is the world to be saved? Is the world to be saved from
its sins and from the originator of sins, the Devil? Fundamen-

**[p. 14]**

tally, the world is to be freed from the Devil and from sins.

If it is the Devil who causes people to commit sins, then it should also be the
Devil who has to be removed. Instead, the Bible says that God killed his only and
innocent son, who did not want to die at all. Furthermore, is it possible to save
the whole of humanity through the death of a single one? If this were possible,
then this would have to be the arch-enemy of man, that is to say, in other words,
the supreme Devil himself.

I do not exaggerate when I claim that the God of the Bible hates the innocent and
lets sinners go unpunished.

Here is a typical example: while Uriah, a soldier of David's, was fighting on the
battlefield, David had an affair with his wife Bathsheba. When he learned that
she was pregnant by him, David had his loyal soldier killed and took the widow as
his wife. Later, when the child was born to David, „…the Lord caused the child
that Uriah's wife had borne to David to become mortally ill, … on the seventh day
the child died.“ (*2 Samuel* 12:15-18). Instead of the

**[p. 15]**

God of the Bible killing the murderer David, he killed the innocent child. What a
perverse judgement that is!

How can one describe someone who kills an innocent child as the perfection of the
good? Or let me put it this way: would you call someone God who mercilessly kills
an innocent child?

At this point I should like to show two further principal actors of the Bible,
namely Sarah and Abraham, and their true character.

How many Christians know that, when a famine reigned in the land in which Abraham
lived, he decided to become rich by pimping out his own wife to the king of
Egypt? Abraham, however, withheld from the king the fact that she was his own
wife. Here is the list of the gifts and presents that Abraham received from
Pharaoh through his pimping: „And he (the king) did good to Abram for her sake;
and he received sheep and cattle and donkeys, menservants and maidservants,
she-donkeys and camels.“ (*1.Mose* 12:16)

And how many Christians know that Sarah, the wife of Abraham, was a filthy woman,
who pimped out her maidservant Hagar to her own hus-

**[p. 16]**

band Abraham? And when Hagar had borne Abraham's son, Sarah even demanded of
Abraham that he send Hagar and the baby into the desert. Abraham, a typical
spineless husband, obeyed his merciless and jealous wife.

Abraham is a classic example of how a husband or father should not be. It is
truly astonishing that this pimp and spineless, unprincipled man [sic — the
German adjective endings are incongruent] was and is accepted as the father of
the Jews, Christians and Moslems.

The number of Sarahs and Abrahams who live among us is the living proof that most
of us do not know the true character of Sarah and Abraham.

After forty years of privation, the father of the author of this book made a
great discovery. This discovery is a secret password which can decrypt the Bible.
He shared this secret with his son.

The sun has gone down, but it has not left the world in darkness—its light shines
out through the moon.

January 2012 [*Januar 2012*]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Titus Leo

*(Date line flush left, name line flush right; the folio 16 below them.)*

## Kapitel 1 — Garten Eden: Die Wahrheit (S. 19–56)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-1-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-1-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

> **WITNESS ·** S. 17–18: unwitnessed leaves between the Vorwort and the chapter title — no image records them; the 2026-08-23 frame map shows no gap, consistent with blank leaves. S. 19–20: chapter title leaf (image page; Cranach's Adam and Eve) and blank verso — outside the transcription layer; text begins S. 21.

**[p. 21]**

Many have occupied themselves with the story of creation. But Jesus already said: "You
will look and look, but not see." No one could decipher the truth behind it. I hope that
this investigation into the truth in the story of the Garden of Eden, with the key that
was handed to me by my father and teacher, will open your eyes, dear reader.

At the beginning of the story, the "God of the Bible" commands the first man, Adam: "And
God the LORD commanded the man and said: Of every tree of the garden you may eat; but of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of that you may not eat; for on the day you
eat of it you must die!" *(Genesis 2:16-17)*

Before we begin our discussion, the following factors should be taken into account:

**1.** Paradise is incredibly vast; every tree is beautiful to look at and bears fruit
for food *(Genesis 2:9)*.

**[p. 22]**

**2.** There are two different trees in the middle of the garden. One grants the
knowledge of good and evil, and the other eternal life. *(Genesis 2:9)*

**3.** The creation of the woman took place, according to *Genesis* 2:22, only after the
command to the man had been issued.

It happened that the woman spoke with the serpent that appeared in the garden. "Then the
woman said to the serpent: Of the fruits of the trees of the garden we eat; but of the
fruits of the tree that stands in the middle of the garden, God has said: You shall not
eat of it and shall not touch it, lest you die!" *(Genesis 3:2-3)*

When the "God of the Bible" spoke to the man in *Genesis* 2:16-17, he did not mention
the location of the tree of knowledge. He also concealed from him that he would die if
he ever so much as touched the fruit of knowledge. But this additional information given
by the woman is nowhere to be found in the God of the Bible's original command.

Where did the woman get her knowledge, if at that point in time she did not yet exist at
all?

**[p. 23]**

There are two possibilities: **1.** She heard it from Adam, or **2.** The "God of the
Bible" repeated the command after the birth of Eve. The following objections rule out the
first possibility.

Had Eve received the command from Adam, he would have relayed the information in the same
words as God. Eve would not have been able to make the additional statements.

In her answer to the question that was expressly addressed to her, Eve said: "Of the
fruits of the trees of the garden **we** eat." This proves that Adam is present in this
scene. Had Eve repeated the words as Adam had conveyed them to her at the time, Adam
would have interrupted her, because she was misquoting God.

And, very importantly: had God not repeated the command to Eve, the fruit of knowledge
would have been forbidden to Adam alone. Nor would it have been forbidden to share the
fruit of knowledge with Adam. In that sense Eve committed no fault when she ate the
fruit of knowledge and when she shared it with him. In that case the "God of the Bible"
would also have seen no occasion to curse the woman *(Genesis 3:16)*.

**[p. 24]**

These objections rule out the possibility that Eve received this command from Adam. Since
the statement is not mentioned in the Bible, it must be assumed that God passed the
command on to Eve, together with the additional information.

The first command (the one addressed to Adam) says only: "… of that you may not eat; for
on the day you eat of it you must die!" But the command Eve spoke of ran: "… but of the
fruits of the tree in the middle of the garden God has said: 'Eat not of it, neither
touch it, lest you die'!" *(Genesis 3:3)* According to the first command, Adam could have
touched the fruit of knowledge; he could even have taken it into his mouth and, without
swallowing, spat it out again.

The other tree in the middle of the garden is the tree of life and bears the fruit that
would have made eternal life possible for Adam. Accordingly, without eating the fruit of
this tree, Adam and Eve would have had to die anyway — in other words: they could have
died at any moment!

**[p. 25]**

The question is, why did the "God of the Bible" not inform Adam and Eve about the
existence of the fruit of life?

A Catholic priest known to us claims that God permitted Adam to eat fruit from every
tree except the tree of knowledge. The priest thereby includes the tree of life.
*[corrects adamandeve.txt line 34, which reads "An unknown Catholic priest"; the German
is "Ein uns bekannter katholischer Priester" — a priest known to us]*

It has been pointed out that the fruit of knowledge and the fruit of life were placed in
the middle of the garden. If Adam and Eve had been informed by God of the consequences of
eating and of touching the fruit of knowledge, how could Eve or Adam then have summoned
the courage to go to the middle of the garden in order to get the fruit of the tree of
life? For without the fruit of life they would inevitably have remained mortal. But if
they had approached both trees, how could they then have told one tree from the other?

Moreover, God did not inform them that the tree of life stands in the middle of the
garden and that without the fruit of life they would die. Although he placed the tree of
life at the same location as the forbidden

**[p. 26]**

fruit of knowledge, he warned them of the deadly consequences of touching the tree in
the middle of the garden. If God had intended Adam to live forever, he would not have
planted the tree of life and the tree of death in the same spot.

Instead of telling them about the tree of life and its location, he prophesied to them
that they would surely die if they went to the middle of the garden.

Here the cunning of the God of the Bible reveals itself. He knows that Adam and Eve are
afraid of death (he is the one who planted this fear in them); that is why he also wants
to keep them away from the middle of the Garden of Eden, where the tree of life stands.

The belief is that Adam became a sinner by taking the fruit of knowledge of good and
evil. If that were the case — that Adam and Eve had had the fruit of knowledge — why then
does God say: "Behold, the man has become like us; he knows good and evil."
*(Genesis 3:22)*. This would mean, first, that the "God" of the Bible is one among many
and not the one and only "God". Secondly, he and "the others" would also have had to eat
of

**[p. 27]**

the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. And thirdly, why would the fruit of
knowledge be deadly only for Adam and Eve, but not for him and "the others"? If Adam were
a sinner because he ate the fruit of knowledge, then the "God of the Bible" would have
been a sinner before Adam, for exactly the same reason.

If Adam had become the equal of the "God of the Bible" through knowledge coming over him,
yet still could not live forever, then "God" too would be destined to die. It must be
noted that, in contrast to the "God" of the Bible, Adam's offspring live on, and that the
death of Adam and Eve therefore does not mean the death of the human species.
*[corrects adamandeve.txt line 50, which reads "he was nevertheless destined by 'God' to
die" — the German makes God the one destined to die, which is the whole point of the
argument]*

Clinging desperately to their faith, some of my friends who call themselves Jehovah's
Witnesses claim that Eve lied when she said: "Only not the fruits from the tree in the
middle of the garden. God has said: 'Do not eat of them, do not touch them, or you must
die!'" *(Genesis 3:3)*.

"To lie" is defined as "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive"
*(Merriam Webster's)*. What motive, then, would Eve have

**[p. 28]**

had to deceive the serpent? She had no motive at all!

All the more so: if Eve had had a motive, she would go to the serpent, and not the
serpent to Eve.

The most important thing in this connection is that the conversation between Eve and the
serpent took place *before* she took the fruit of good and evil. It is therefore
unreasonable to argue that the woman harboured evil thoughts against the serpent.

Besides, according to the Bible the serpent is Satan: "He is that old serpent, who is
also called the Devil or Satan, and who deceives the whole world."
*(Revelation 12:9)*.

If Eve were the deceiver, then she would be the Devil, and that would make all of us
children of the Devil! Jesus too would be a child of the Devil, because he also was born
of a woman (Mary).

If the words of the "God" of the Bible were true, then Adam would have died the moment he
touched the fruit of knowledge. Yet the Bible says that Adam lived 930 years: "And

**[p. 29]**

all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
*(Genesis 5:5)*

Some of my good friends, Jehovah's Witnesses, argued that "for God one day is a thousand
years", as it stands in *Peter* 3:8 [the print omits the ordinal; the passage is
*2 Peter* 3:8]. Therefore, they say, God spoke the truth when he told Adam that he would
die on that same day. *[corrects adamandeve.txt line 66, which makes the Witnesses the
ones speaking the truth; in the German it is God who is said to be speaking the truth]*

This argument is refuted as follows. In the Bible it says: "And God saw every thing that
he had made, and beheld it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth
day." *(Genesis 1:31)*. It was the sixth day when he created Adam. "And thus on the
seventh day God finished his works which he made, and rested on the seventh day from all
his works which he had made." *(Genesis 2:2)* If one day has a thousand years, then Adam,
who was created on the sixth day, was already a thousand years old by the seventh day.
This is a contradiction of *Genesis* 5:5, where it is written: "And all the days that
Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

If God really meant by this that eating the fruit of knowledge would result in death
within a thousand years, then it could still have been attractive to Adam to eat

**[p. 30]**

this fruit, since it would grant him a thousand-year life. This can ironically be
compared with cigarette smoking. Smokers know perfectly well that this vice is unhealthy.
Nevertheless people smoke, because they have the certainty that they will not die on the
day they smoke.

God's command does not include that Adam and Eve would be driven out of paradise if they
ate from the tree of knowledge. So the question arises here: why then did God expel the
two from paradise? He had, after all, already explained to them beforehand, precisely,
that they would die immediately.

And in any case: is knowledge a crime deserving the death penalty? I think not. If
knowledge were a crime, then Jesus, the son of this God of the Bible, would also have to
die, because he says: "Nor shall you let yourselves be called 'teacher', for only one is
your teacher: Christ" *(Matthew 23:10)*. A teacher is someone who passes knowledge on. If
having knowledge is a crime, then whoever passes knowledge on would be an even greater
criminal. By comparison: drug consumption is a crime,

**[p. 31]**

but trafficking in drugs is graver still.

Several punishments for a single fault are unfair. Yet God curses Adam and Eve in the
worst way and, in *Genesis* 3:16-19, imposes severe penalties on them: "And to the woman
he said: I will make much travail for you when you become pregnant; in pain you shall
bear children. And your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall be your master.
And to the man he said: Because you have obeyed the voice of your wife and eaten of the
tree of which I commanded you and said: You shall not eat of it —, cursed be the ground
for your sake! With toil you shall feed yourself from it all your life long. Thorns and
thistles shall it bear for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of
your face you shall eat your bread, until you return to the earth from which you were
taken. For earth you are, and to earth you shall return."

Such conduct is not fitting for God. God is good, God is kind, God is perfect. To be
unjust, evil and flawed are attributes of the Devil. Unfortunately, the behaviour of the
God of the Bible does not match what one expects of God.

**[p. 32]**

Some of my good friends — Mormons, who believe in the Bible — claim that God meant that
Adam would die mentally, or spiritually, if he ate the fruit of the knowledge of good
and evil.

In what follows I shall try to explain more fully my thoughts, which stand in
contradiction to the above view.

In *Genesis* 2:17 God nowhere says that Adam would die spiritually. Whoever entertains
such a notion is putting new, that is to say invented, words into the biblical God's
mouth.

When my friends argue that Adam died spiritually at the moment he had the fruit of
knowledge: what kind of death is then meant when, according to the Bible, Adam dies at
930 years of age? How can there be another death of Adam, if after eating the fruit of
knowledge he is punished with a spiritual death?

The simple truth is that there is no such thing as a "spiritual death". The spirit is
life. Death is the absence of precisely this spirit within the body. Moreover, the spirit
is bodiless and therefore invisible.

**[p. 33]**

How can one determine the death of something that is invisible?

When a spirit dwells in a body, the body is alive. The moment the spirit leaves the body,
the body dies. This means that the body becomes alive at the moment the spirit enters it,
and thus the spirit is the bearer of life. In other words: the spirit is life.

Consequently it is established that my friends, when they say that the man died
spiritually after eating the fruit of knowledge, are not arguing logically. For there is
only one kind of death: the death of the body.

When God brought the woman to the man, he pretended to have created a suitable partner
for the man. Later he cursed that same woman, who — even if she wished to be loved by the
man — would only be oppressed by him *(Genesis 3:16)*. Between "being loved" and "being
ruled over" there is a great difference. The former gives the woman freedom and
self-respect; the latter, however, takes away the woman's independence and destroys her
self-respect. *[corrects adamandeve.txt line 96 twice: the German "gab er vor …
erschaffen zu haben" is "he pretended to have created", not "he intended to create"; and
the German contrast is between being **loved** and being ruled, with the woman as the one
who wishes, not "desired" with the man as the one who desires]*

The woman is also called "the better half" of the man. But according to the Bible the
woman is only

**[p. 34]**

created out of one of Adam's ribs. She is cursed and is to be ruled over by the man. In
other words, the woman is nothing other than the man's slave. This is a false teaching,
contemptuous of humanity and unworthy of woman, which the Bible here advocates, and which
is far removed from the truth. If the woman really is an evil being, why should anyone
then think of respecting the woman or accepting her as an equal? Unfortunately this is
one of the many unlovely methods the Bible deliberately employs in order to defame the
woman.

The bishops of the sixth century discussed whether the woman really was a human being, or
whether she truly deserved that name. Luther too, in Wittenberg in the year 1591 [so in
the print; Luther died in 1546], quoted the Bible as follows: "The man, by contrast,
should not cover his head; for the man is the image of God and reflects the glory of God.
In the woman the glory of the man is reflected. The man was not created out of the woman,
but the woman out of the man. Nor was the man created for the woman, but the woman for
the man." *(1 Corinthians 11:7-9)*.

**[p. 35]**

It seems that Luther, the "father of the Reformation", in his haste to discriminate
against woman, even forgot the simple mathematical equation that if A = B and B = C, then
A = C. In other words, if the man is the image of God and the woman is the image of the
man, then the woman too is the image of God.

The truth, however, refutes the Bible's teachings. Man and woman owe their existence to
the same being: the woman.

The "holy" Thomas Aquinas, the great doctor of the Church, called the woman "an imperfect
man" *(mas occasionatus)*. He further held the doctrine which, under the term
"humuncleos" [so in the print; the Latin is mangled — *homunculus*], asserted the
following false claim: that the male sperm supplies a hundred percent of the base
material for the foetus. The mother's womb, on this view, is merely the earth in which
the seed grows. Science and the microscope have long since refuted this male
self-centredness. *[corrects adamandeve.txt line 106 in three places: "an imperfect man",
not "an occasional man"; "a hundred percent", not "almost a hundred percent"; and the txt
silently repairs the print's "humuncleos" to "homunculus", concealing an error of the
book]*

Yet we do not need the help of technology in order to refute Thomas' miscalculation. We
know that the father's contribution to the conception of an infant is not even one gram.

**[p. 36]**

The rest comes from the mother. The mother is therefore in no way subordinate to the
father, as she is presented by holy Thomas and by the Bible.

The "woman-hater" Tertullian (AD 200), who also went down in history as the "father of
the Latin Church", held that "women are the gate through which the Devil enters — the
woman was the cause of the fall and therefore responsible for the death of the Son of
God." It looks as if Tertullian is trying to say that we should kill all women and put an
end to this human race, because women are ultimately to blame for the death of Jesus? For
Jesus to be able to die at all, he was first born of a woman (Mary). The true reason he
was condemned to death was that he had fallen out with the Jews. He had insulted the Jews
in various ways; among other things he said: "They belong to their father, the Devil, and
they want to carry out their father's desire." *(John 8:44)*. Jesus was even warned
verbally by one of those he had insulted: "One of the religious scholars spoke up: '…
note that in saying these things you insult us'." *(Luke 11:45)*
*[corrects adamandeve.txt line 112: the German sentence about Mary is a statement, not
the rhetorical question "Are women to blame because Jesus could die in the first place?"
which the txt invents]*

**[p. 37]**

The son of God not only hates the Jews; he also wants to bring everyone to hate their
loved ones. Indeed Jesus wants all people to hate one another, even the members of his
own family: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, mother, wife, children,
brothers, sisters, and himself as well, he cannot be my disciple." *(Luke 14:26)*

When I questioned a friend about the verse cited above, he said that Jesus was speaking
of love. This, he said, was to be gathered from the following quotation:

"But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you."
*(Luke 6:27)*. Jesus appears to teach both. From a human perspective, however, his
teachings are wholly unacceptable. Human beings have a natural tendency to bring good to
those they love. Parents are to be loved and good is to be done to them. Only someone who
hates his parents wants to do them harm.

Now to the rest of the paradise story:

Let us take a look at the development of the story in which Adam and Eve eat the
forbidden fruit: "Then

**[p. 38]**

the eyes of them both were opened, and they became aware that they were naked. Therefore
they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. Later they heard the voice
of Jehovah, who was walking in the garden about the time of the breeze of the day, and
the man and his wife then hid themselves from before the face of Jehovah God among the
trees of the garden. And Jehovah God called to the man repeatedly and said to him: 'Where
are you?' Finally he said: 'I heard your voice in the garden, but I was afraid because I
was naked, and so I hid myself.' Thereupon he said: 'Who told you that you are naked?
Have you eaten from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?' And the man went on
to say: 'The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me [fruit] from the tree, and so
I ate.'" *(Genesis 3:7-12)*.

*[The German prints this long quotation in pre-1996 orthography (*daß*) and nests the
inner speeches inside the same quotation marks as the outer frame; here the nesting is
regularised for readability.]*

There are many questions one can raise about these verses from the book of Moses.

We begin with the question: why did God go to the Garden of Eden?

Some of my friends imagine that God was taking an evening stroll here. Whatever my
friends may imagine —

**[p. 39]**

*Genesis* 3:8 says: Later they heard the voice of Jehovah God, who was walking in the
garden about the time of the breeze of the day, and the man and his wife then hid
themselves from before the face of Jehovah God among the trees of the garden. It is only
mentioned that he went in the evening, not that it was an ordinary evening stroll. And it
should further be noted that Adam and Eve would have *expected* God in the garden if he
had usually gone walking in the evening. Both of them, however, panicked when they caught
sight of God, and hid themselves.

Further, the Garden of Eden is Adam and Eve's home. If the "God of the Bible" had been
taking an evening stroll, he would have done so *without* entering Adam and Eve's home
and calling out for Adam. *[corrects adamandeve.txt line 129, which drops the negation
and has him doing exactly the opposite: "he would have done so entering the home of Adam
and Eve and calling out to Adam"]*

But the story says that when he was in the Garden of Eden, he searched for Adam. God had
the intention of meeting Adam. Adam and Eve had already disappeared behind the trees when
they heard his steps in the garden. This is the reason why he could not find Adam. He
could see neither Adam nor Eve, and so he began to call for Adam. Why did he search
desperately for Adam and not for Eve? This

**[p. 40]**

detail suggests that he had come only in order to meet Adam.

Finally Adam answered: "I heard your voice in the garden, but I was afraid because I was
naked, and so I hid myself."

When Adam and Eve heard God's voice in the garden they were naked, even though they had
sewn the fig leaves together.

The Bible says that God called for Adam several times: "Adam, where are you? Adam, where
are you?" Once, twice, three times. Adam did not answer. Why? Because he thought God
would find his hiding place and see him naked.

Why did he call for Adam again and again? It is, after all, assumed that God is
omniscient. Yet he did not know behind which tree Adam had hidden. It looks as though
Adam and Eve were playing hide-and-seek with God like children. God could not find the
two of them, because Adam was cleverer.

As long as Adam is naked he does not have the courage to answer. After a while, however,
he does answer. That means that in the meantime he has covered his genitals and his fear
has vanished.

**[p. 41]**

The Bible says: "Adam and his wife were naked, but they were not ashamed of it."
*(Genesis 2:25)* When they had eaten of the fruit of knowledge, their eyes were opened
and they knew that they were naked. They showed no signs of fear when they noticed their
nakedness. Instead they sewed fig leaves together to cover their genitals. Why? Were they
ashamed of their nakedness?

The reason for Adam and Eve's fear consists in showing their nakedness to the "God of the
Bible". The two of them can overcome this fear only if they cover their genitals. When
Adam addressed his answer to God, he said that he was naked and therefore afraid. This
means that he is now no longer naked and no longer feels any fear.

Let me remind you that the size of the Garden of Eden is immense, because all kinds of
trees are in it — as the Bible claims. If God were making his usual evening walk through
the garden, it would be possible that he would not meet Adam and Eve at all; they could
be anywhere in this enormous garden. But God calls for Adam, because he does not know
where Adam is. It seems that

**[p. 42]**

God came into the garden that evening in order to meet Adam.

Adam was afraid when he heard God's footsteps. That is, he was afraid because he knew
that God was coming to meet him. It is clear that the cause of his fear must have to do
with the "God of the Bible" and with his genitals, which he later covered. Why did this
"perverse" so-called God of the Bible not cover the first human couple with clothes from
the very beginning?

The Bible says that Adam and his wife were naked, but that they were not ashamed. So man
and woman were like animals. In physical appearance the man is like an animal that walks
upright, for example like a chimpanzee. Animals are shameless (shameless: incapable of
perceiving shame; *Merriam Webster's*), although they are naked. The difference between
man and animal consists in the fact that man is able to know that it is a shame to be
naked. If God were the true creator of man, then the first thing he would have had to
give the man would have been the knowledge of good and evil. But the so-called God of the
Bible behaves in the opposite way. He assures the man that he is free to eat of every
tree of the garden

**[p. 43]**

but that he may not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. On the day he eats
of it, he will die.

Fear is a state of mind; defined as "filled with concern about an undesired situation."
*(Merriam Webster's)* The child is afraid to approach the fire, because its memory
reminds it of the experience that the heat of fire hurts. For Adam and Eve this means
that they were given a painful experience by God — namely the experience of being naked.
*[corrects adamandeve.txt line 155, which does not translate the German definition but
substitutes a different, longer English dictionary definition of "fear"]*

Moses claims to have written the book of Genesis 3,500 years ago. As long as man does not
know the difference between good and evil, he will also not know the difference between
God and Devil — in other words: between his friend and his enemy. Because God is defined
as the good, he represents the perfection of the good *(Merriam Webster's:* God is the
perfect being in power, wisdom and goodness); the Devil is the opposite, defined in
*Merriam Webster's* as "the supreme spirit of evil". *[corrects adamandeve.txt line 157,
which reads "Moses claims that the book of Genesis was written over 3500 years ago"; the
German has Moses claiming to have written it]*

If God is light, then the Devil is darkness. If one does **not** have the knowledge of
good and evil,

**[p. 44]**

no one can know what is to be done or what is not to be done. Such was the case with Adam
and Eve before they took the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil". Their
understanding was that of an infant or a small child. What is extraordinary about people
at this age is that they believe everything they are told. An example of this: a mother
feeds her three-year-old child and promises — pointing at the moon as she does so — to
give it the moon if it will eat a little more. The child believes its mother and eats
more. *[corrects adamandeve.txt line 159, which drops the negation and produces the
nonsensical "When one knows the knowledge of good and evil cannot know what to do"]*

In this example the mother speaks of things she cannot bring about, yet her motive
justifies the promise. God's threat, however, that Adam and Eve would die if they ate the
"fruit of knowledge", is in no way justified. For he does this with the intention of
deceiving them, so that they would not go near the tree of life.

One ought to believe the words of one's parents, of one's own wife and children, of
sisters and brothers, of people one knows as good friends, for they are well disposed
towards you. But do not believe in Jesus, who claims to be your saviour and commands: "…
love your enemies; do good to those who hate you." *(Luke 6:27)*

**[p. 45]**

Man must not forget his enemy Lucifer, the father of lies, who does nothing but lie. He
is the liar who again and again asks to be believed in his words, so that he can take up
room in the minds of men. "Mary-Jesus" claimed to be "Christ", the long-awaited King of
the Jews. "Pilate asked him: 'Are you the King of the Jews?' 'You say so,' Jesus
answered." *(Luke 23:3)* He even cursed the Jews with the following words: "Therefore I
have told you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am he, you
will die in your sins." *(John 8:24)*. Accordingly every person should believe Jesus'
claims if he wants to live, no matter how unfounded they are! As soon as people go along
with his threat and give him room, he begins his work in them.

**When God told Adam and Eve that they would die as soon as they ate the "fruit of
knowledge", they believed him and did not eat this fruit either.**
*[corrects adamandeve.txt line 167, which inverts this sentence. The German is
"…glaubten sie ihm und aßen diese Frucht auch nicht" — they believed him and did NOT eat
it. The old English reads "they believed him and ate the fruit anyway", which destroys
the argument: the whole point is that the threat worked, the couple abstained, and the
serpent then had to intervene to correct them.]*
"Then the serpent said to the woman: 'You shall by no means die the death, but God knows:
on the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God and know
what is good and evil'." *(Genesis 3:4-5)*.

**[p. 46]**

If the serpent had not intervened; if Eve had not taken the step of taking the "fruit of
knowledge" and had not urged Adam to eat the fruit with her; if Adam had trusted "God" —
then humanity would have remained naked and ignorant. All that man would have had would
be the fear of death, which sooner or later would have killed him.

The man did not obey the command of the God of the Bible and ate the fruit. He died when
he was 930 years old, as the Bible says. The Bible also says: "Therefore it holds: as sin
came into the world through one single man, so also the overcoming of sin. The sin of
this one brought death with it, and all fell prey to death, because they too all sinned
themselves." *(Romans 5:12)*

If the reason death came into the earth lies in the fact that the man ate of the fruit of
knowledge, why then do the animals die? Do they die because they disobeyed God's command
and ate the fruit of knowledge? [the print has the present tense *essen* here, which is
ungrammatical after the past *gehorchten*] If the animals eat the fruit of knowledge, why
were they still not aware of their nakedness? Every naked animal on earth proves the
untruth of the Bible. *[corrects adamandeve.txt line 173, which turns the German question
into a statement and adds negations: "They die, although they did not listen to God's
command and did not eat the fruit of knowledge"]*

**[p. 47]**

In the Bible the summons according to which people, or rather Peter, should kill and eat
animals, birds and reptiles runs as follows: "Then he became hungry and wanted to eat.
While the meal was being prepared, he had a vision. He saw heaven opened, and something
came down from it to the earth that looked like a great sheet held by four corners. In it
were all kinds of four-footed animals, creeping things and birds. A voice called: 'Rise,
Peter, slaughter and eat!'" *(Acts 10:10-13)*.

And the same voice also commands the birds in the Revelation of John: "Then I saw an
angel standing in the sun. He called with a loud voice to all the birds that were flying
high in the sky: 'Come, gather yourselves for **God's great feast**! Come and devour the
flesh of kings, generals and warriors! Devour the flesh of horses and of their riders,
**the flesh of all human beings**, of slaves and free, of high and low!'"
*(Revelation 19:17-18)*

*[The bold emphasis on "God's great feast" and "the flesh of all human beings" is in the
print.]*

How can this dreadful being, which dreams of eating the flesh of all human beings, be
God, the perfection of the good? If the supper of the "great God" is the flesh of

**[p. 48]**

*[From here on, no earlier English version exists.* `adamandeve.txt` *breaks off
mid-sentence exactly at the page seam above: "…consists of the flesh of".]*

all human beings, then I ask myself, what would breakfast and lunch of this biblical
monster be?

Back to our subject: the Garden of Eden.

So the "God of the Bible" made cows and sheep, crows and parrots, tigers and elephants,
in order to find a suitable partner for the man. "And God the LORD said: It is not good
that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper to be about him. And God the LORD
made out of earth all the animals of the field and all the birds under heaven, and
brought them to the man, that he might see what he would call them; for whatever the man
would call each animal, so it should be named. And the man gave a name to every beast and
bird under heaven and animal of the field; but for the man there was found no helper to
be about him." *(Genesis 2:18-20)*

After cursing the human beings, the "God of the Bible" said: "Now the man has become like
one of us and knows what is good and what is bad. It must not be that he also eats from
the tree of life. Otherwise he will live forever!" And he sent the man away from the
Garden of Eden, so that he should till the

**[p. 49]**

soil out of which he was made. So God the Lord drove the human beings out and set up
east of Eden the cherubim and the flaming sword as guards. No one was to be able to reach
the tree of life." *(Genesis 3:22-24)*

God did not know that the man had eaten from the tree of knowledge, for he asked: "Have
you perhaps eaten of the forbidden fruits?" *(Genesis 3:11)* By contrast, God was certain
that Adam had *not* eaten of the tree from which he was permitted to eat fruit, namely of
the tree of eternal life. This is impossible, because he knew that as long as the man was
afraid, he would not dare to go into the middle of the Garden of Eden, in which the fruit
of eternal life was to be found.

Did God not know that Adam and Eve would die without the "fruit of life"? Then he ought
first to have told them the location of the tree of life. Instead of doing that, he lied
to them that they would have to die if they ate the fruit of the tree in the middle of
the garden. It is impossible that the "God of the Bible" knew for certain that death
would follow if they did so. According to the Bible there are two trees in the middle of
the garden. But since Adam and Eve had been informed about only one tree in the middle of
the

**[p. 50]**

garden, it is possible that they ate of the "fruit of life" by mistake. The only reason
he told them that they would surely die is that they were afraid of death and were
therefore not to go near the "fruit of knowledge". Man and woman were never to learn the
difference between right and wrong, and never to be able to perceive their nakedness.
Only in this way could the "God of the Bible" use this to his advantage.

The "God of the Bible" originally said that Adam could eat the fruit of all the trees,
only not that of the tree of knowledge. This was a deceitful trap, for shortly afterwards
he confirmed to them that they were now alive to eat the fruit of the tree of life as
well. This is the confirmation that he turned everything he originally said into its
opposite.

The serpent said that their eyes would be opened, that they would be like God, knowing
good and evil: "Then the eyes of them both were opened and they became aware that they
were naked…" *(Genesis 3:7)*. In *Genesis* 3:22 God also concedes the truthfulness of the
serpent's further statements: "Behold, the man has

**[p. 51]**

become like one of us and knows what is good and evil." These words underline the truth
that "God" knew that the serpent was telling the truth.

In reality everything the serpent said is sincere and honest, while everything that came
out of "God's" mouth is untrue and dishonest.

According to the declaration in *Genesis* 2:16-17, all the fruits in the garden are
permitted to the man except the fruit of knowledge. This therefore includes the fruits of
the "tree of eternal life" as well. But according to "God's" declaration in
*Genesis* 3:22 it is impossible for the man to eat the "fruit of eternal life" without
having eaten the "fruit of knowledge" first. For without the "fruit of knowledge" Adam
and Eve would never have had the knowledge that they need only raise their hand in order
to pluck the "fruit of eternal life". It was always only the "God of the Bible" who knew
of this tree's existence.

His intention was to instil fear in them, so that they should never have eternal life at
their disposal. His motive is evident from the following words: "But now, lest he stretch
out his hand and take also from the tree of

**[p. 52]**

life and eat and live forever!" *(Genesis 3:22)*

If the "God" had told the truth, Adam and Eve would have died the moment they touched the
"fruit of knowledge". Instead, this happened: "Then the eyes of them both were opened."
*(Genesis 3;7)* [the print has a semicolon in the reference]

As the serpent assured Eve, they did not die when they touched the "fruit of knowledge".
According to the Bible they died because "God" expelled them from the Garden of Eden
before they could eat the "fruit of eternal life". That makes the "God of the Bible"
responsible for their death, and not the serpent. In other words: the "God of the Bible"
is the murderer of man. That is the climax of the "paradise" story. The same "God of the
Bible" who claims to be the creator of man is himself the liar, the deceiver — or, to put
it differently, the representative of evil in this story.

One might ask oneself why he posts guards after the expulsion of man and woman from the
garden, or why he posted none before they obtained knowledge. It is quite simple: because
in reality there is no paradise with a tree of knowledge and a tree of life

**[p. 53]**

in the middle. This story is the cunning work of a wholly evil psyche that despises
humanity.

Here are a few more questions which show that the Garden of Eden existed only in the head
of the "God of the Bible".

The fruit that grants eternal life was therefore not forbidden to them. How, then, can
God say that he may eat of the tree of eternal life and yet die on touching the "fruit of
knowledge"? These words are self-contradictory, and *aporia* is a chief hallmark of the
lie.

This insight is further underpinned by the following command: "… (eat) only not from the
tree of knowledge. Otherwise you must die." *(Genesis 2:17)*. That means: if Adam does
not eat the fruit of knowledge, he would never die. What purpose, then, does the tree of
life have?

The message of this story is easy to see through. Man and woman lived without sin as long
as they were without self-knowledge. The moment they realised that they were naked like
the animals and were therefore ashamed, they became sinners. No wonder there are beaches
in the so-called civilised part of the world where

**[p. 54]**

the followers of this God show themselves completely naked and without shame. I ask my
sisters who are not ashamed of nakedness outdoors: if it is right to live naked and not
to feel ashamed, why did the "God" clothe the man and the woman? "And God the Lord made
for the man and his wife garments of skins." *(Genesis 3:21)*

If it is a sin to cover the genitals with fig leaves, then covering the body with animal
skins is a still greater sin. For the man and the woman at least did not kill any animals
in order to cover their nakedness. Incidentally: was the "God of the Bible" also naked
and unashamed when he spoke with Adam and Eve? Or had he been ashamed on account of his
nakedness and covered his genitals with animal skins? If he were clothed, it would be
only because he was ashamed of being naked. If nakedness and shamelessness were the right
answers, God ought not to have clothed them when they covered their genitals with fig
leaves. Either way there are only contradictions in this story, and the "God of the Bible"
is their author.

The Bible begins with the paradise story, and this therefore forms the foundation of
Judaism,

**[p. 55]**

Christianity and Islam. At the beginning of the story God utters the sweet words which
say that human beings would be free to eat every fruit from the garden, including the
fruit that grants eternal life. The story ends, however, with God's intention that human
beings should not live forever.

Only through the serpent did they have the courage to attain knowledge, despite God's
overwhelming threat. If they had remained ignorant, they would never have had children.
"And Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived." *(Genesis 4:1)*. If the serpent had not
taken the woman's fear from her, the two of them would never have gone to the middle of
the garden. Accordingly they would never have been in a position to taste the "fruit of
eternal life" or the "fruit of knowledge". In that case they would have had no offspring,
and this would have meant the death of Adam and Eve — that is, the death of the species!

The clear conclusion from this is that we human beings have the serpent to thank for the
fact that the man/human being did not die in paradise. To believe the lies of the "God of
the Bible" and to do what he says would have been

**[p. 56]**

tantamount to the disappearance of our species.

This exposition should also strengthen you, dear reader — male and female — in the
conviction that one should not believe in the "God of the Bible", and that the so-called
"Holy Scripture" is a book full of contradictions and untruths.

The fact is that "Adam" and "Eve" are names for "man" and "woman". Truly, I say to you,
man and woman are still alive. The one who writes all this is a man born of a woman. Both
are still alive. Thus every living man and every living woman confirms that the Bible is
a book of lies.

*[End of chapter. Below this paragraph p. 56 is blank to the foot; chapter 2, "The Birth
of Jesus: The Truth", begins on p. 57.]*

## Kapitel 2 — Jesu Geburt (S. 57–66)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-2-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-2-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 57]**

[Image: A night-time nativity scene in a stable — Mary bends by candlelight over the newborn child, surrounded by shepherds and bystanders raising their hands.]

**[p. 58]**

*(Blank verso; not scanned.)*

**[p. 59]**

Although there are four books that tell of Jesus, only Matthew and Luke speak about the subject of Jesus' birth and how it came about. *Matthew* 1:18-20: "And so Jesus Christ was born: His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Even before the marriage Mary was expecting — through the Holy Spirit — a child. Joseph wanted to act according to God's commandments, but also not to expose Mary publicly. So he considered dissolving the betrothal quietly. While he was still thinking it over, an angel of God appeared to him in a dream and said: 'Joseph, you descendant of David, do not hesitate to marry Mary! For the child she is expecting is from the Holy Spirit.'"

The quoted Bible passage attempts to depict a well-known scene: Before they (Mary and Joseph) came together, Joseph found Mary pregnant with the child from the Holy Spirit, and because he was a pious man, Joseph wanted to divorce her in secret, in order to prevent Mary from being exposed to public disgrace. This is a conceivable solution, based on the law that was given

**[p. 60]**

to the Jews through Moses, which says: "If a man takes a wife and marries her, and she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found something shameful in her, then he shall write her a letter of divorce and give it into her hand and dismiss her from his house." (*Deuteronomy* 24:1) [German: *5.Mose* 24:1; the wording quoted is Luther's archaic register.]

In other words: Joseph could divorce Mary without making it known that she was pregnant before the marriage (through the Holy Spirit). Joseph decides, after his dream, against the divorce, as is mentioned in the quotation. The story continues with: "When Joseph awoke, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and married Mary. But he did not sleep with her until the birth of her son. Joseph gave him the name Jesus." (*Matthew* 1:24-25)

There are clear inconsistencies in the above-named quotation; some of them are discussed here:

If Joseph, already knowing that Mary was pregnant through the Holy Spirit, had decided to be rid of her, why should he have changed his mind when he was later informed in his dream about what he already knew, where he heard: "Joseph, you descendant of David, [The German print opens this speech with an English-style raised quotation mark instead of the German low one — see the German file's anomalies block.]

**[p. 61]**

do not hesitate to marry Mary! For the child she is expecting is from the Holy Spirit"?

According to the account in *Matthew*, the "God of the Bible" did not inform Joseph of the impregnation of his future wife before God impregnated her. But as soon as Joseph had decided on divorcing Mary, an angel of God appeared. It follows from this: had Joseph known nothing before the marriage about Mary's secret pregnancy, and had he not thought of divorcing her, the angel of God would not have appeared to Joseph, not even in a dream.

Is it right on the part of the so-called God of the Bible to impregnate Joseph's future wife without his knowledge? What would have happened to Mary if Joseph had not married her? She would have given birth to Jesus and the Jews, in accordance with their law, would have stoned her to death, because she was pregnant but not married.

Joseph had no sexual contact with Mary until after the birth of Jesus. Consider: when Jesus was twelve years old, he went missing in Jerusalem and was found three days later in the temple court: "The parents were beside themselves when they found him there. 'Child,' Mary asked him, 'how

**[p. 62]**

could you do such a thing to us? Your father and I have searched for you everywhere in despair!' 'Why did you search for me?', Jesus replied. 'Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?' But they did not grasp what he meant by it." (*Luke* 2:48-50)

Joseph knew that the Holy Spirit was Jesus' father, and he marries Jesus' mother in an act of righteousness, in order to protect her from public shame. He had no sexual contact with her until after the birth of Jesus, and he named him Jesus, as had been commanded him by the angels. When he was asked by Jesus: "Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?", he did not understand this. The Bible says that not only Joseph but Mary too had failed to understand. This account cannot possibly be true. [The German re-quotes Luke 2:49 here with 'im Hause' where the block quote above has 'im Haus' — a difference of archaic dative inflection that English cannot carry. Both are reproduced in the German file.]

Even when Jesus was over 30 years old, Mary still could not understand what Jesus said and did. She thought Jesus had gone mad:

"When his relatives learned of this, they set out to take him away by force, for they said to themselves: 'He must have gone mad'." (*Mark* 3:21) "Meanwhile the mother and the brothers of Jesus had arrived.

**[p. 63]**

They stood before the house and sent someone to call him out." (*Mark* 3:31)

This passage proves that the story of Gabriel's appearance before Mary cannot be correct.

Let us take a look at what Luke has to say about the events shortly after Mary's impregnation: "Then Mary said: 'I belong to the Lord, I am ready. Let it happen to me as you have said.' Thereupon the angel left her. Soon afterwards Mary set out and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judaea. There she went into the house of Zacharias and greeted Elisabeth. When Elisabeth heard her greeting, the child leapt in her womb. Then she was filled with the Spirit of God and cried out loudly: 'Blessed are you of God, chosen among all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!'" (*Luke* 1:38-42)

According to Luke, Elisabeth was the first person to learn of Mary's secret pregnancy. Subsequently Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph and had been pregnant for three months, returned to her house. Only now did Mary and Joseph marry. This is not possible at all, because Mary gave birth to Jesus only six months

**[p. 64]**

after her marriage, and people would have noticed that she was already pregnant before the marriage and that the father of her child was not Joseph. Mary would therefore have fallen into public disgrace, since Joseph's righteousness would have been called into question by the marriage.

If Mary of Nazareth in Galilee, after she had become pregnant, hurried to a town in Judaea in order to meet the older Elisabeth, herself six months pregnant, how could it then have been that Joseph, who knew nothing of all this, should have thought of divorcing Mary? Did the older Elisabeth, herself six months pregnant, travel the miles from Judaea back to Nazareth in order to inform Joseph about the pregnancy of his future wife? The Bible denies this: "And Mary abode with her about three months; thereafter she returned home again." (*Luke* 1:56)

The only person in this scene is Zacharias, the husband of the older Elisabeth, who was struck dumb by the angel Gabriel: "And behold, you shall be silent and not able to speak until the day that this shall come to pass, because you have not believed my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season." (*Luke* 1:20) [The German sentence as printed asserts that Zacharias is the only person in the scene; the sense requires 'the only person who could have informed Joseph'. The gap is in the print, not in the transcription.]

**[p. 65]**

Can anyone imagine that the old man Zacharias ran to Joseph, the future husband of Mary, and communicated to him by gestures that Mary had been impregnated by the Holy Spirit?

If Joseph had learned before the marriage about Mary's pregnancy through the Holy Spirit, then the story that Mary visited Elisabeth for three months shortly after her impregnation is a lie. The so-called Holy Bible does not tell the truth, not even about the birth of Jesus.

**[p. 66]**

*(Blank verso; not scanned. End of the chapter.)*

## Kapitel 3 — Der Vater der Lügen (S. 67–90)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-3-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-3-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 67]**

## The Father of Lies

[Image: Photograph in red-brown tone, close-up of a carved crucifix — the bearded face of the crucified Jesus, head inclined, eyes lowered. Laid over the face, as in a double exposure, appears the figure of a second, smaller crucifix: the corpus with outstretched arms runs vertically across nose and mouth, the crossbeam across the eyes. Upper left, a further small cross shape.]

**[p. 68]**

[Blank page. Verso of the chapter title page; not included in the scan — recorded from the pagination, not from an image.]

**[p. 69]**

All of man's problems can be traced back to the working of his enemy, namely Jesus, in his midst in the shape of his friend and redeemer. –Leo the Great

Isaiah calls Lucifer the morning star. "You morning star, how could it happen that you plunged down from high heaven?" (14:12)

Here Jesus proclaims that he himself is Lucifer "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to inform you, the prophets, reliably of what is coming upon the congregations. I am the root-shoot and descendant of David. I am the shining morning star." (*Revelation* 22:16)

Likewise we find in *John* 6:51 a claim by Jesus concerning the bread that he gives: "And the bread that [sic in German] I shall give is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." (likewise: *John* 6:56: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinketh my blood abides in me and I in him.") But when someone actually takes the bread, it is Satan who enters into him: "He took a piece of bread, dipped it and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. As soon as

**[p. 70]**

Judas had taken the bread, Satan took possession of him." (*John* 13:26-27).

Instead of Jesus, Satan goes in when a person actually receives the bread that is given to him by Jesus. This comes about because Jesus and Satan are one and the same.

## Who Is John the Baptist?

John the Baptist is the first to confirm that Jesus is the Son of God. But when one considers the facts, it becomes clear that this claim is false and baseless. Moreover, he is refuted by his own words.

In *John* 1:29 John the Baptist says with regard to Jesus:

"Behold, this is God's Lamb, which bears the sin of the world!" In *John* 1:32 John the Baptist says: "I saw that the Spirit came down like a dove from heaven and remained upon him." In *John* 1:34 the Baptist is quoted: "And I saw it and bore witness that this one is God's Son."

In *Matthew* 11:2-3 one reads: "But when John heard in prison of the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples and had them say to him: Are you

**[p. 71]**

he who is to come, or shall we wait for another?"

The Baptist says he "saw" the Spirit come from heaven and remain upon Jesus. But *Matthew* 11:2-3 shows that the spectacle mentioned never took place. If it were true that the Baptist saw such a spectacle, how can he then still send others to Jesus to enquire whether Jesus really is the one who is to come, or whether they should wait for someone else?

Evidently he is asking whether they should wait for someone else, someone not yet known to him. If it were true that the Baptist had observed a dove that had come from heaven and remained upon Jesus, he could not ask whether they should wait for someone else. But that is exactly his question. Therefore the statement that he saw a spirit like a dove come from heaven and remain upon Jesus is doubtful and false.

**[p. 72]**

## There Is No Truth in Jesus

In *John* 14:6 Jesus is quoted: "I am the way and the truth and the life."

The question is whether there is any truth in the speaker himself. If there is truthfulness in Jesus, his claim that he is the way and the life could also be correct. But if there is no truthfulness in Jesus, then by that very fact the utterance will be completely refuted.

Let us now consider some passages in the New Testament which will show that there is absolutely no truthfulness in Jesus.

*Matthew* 17:10-13: "And his disciples asked him and said: 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' Jesus answered and said to them: 'Elijah shall indeed come first and set everything right. But I say to you: Elijah has already come, and they did not recognise him, but did to him what they wanted. So also shall the Son of Man have to suffer from them.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist."

**[p. 73]**

That Jesus really was referring to John the Baptist becomes clear beyond this from his words in *Matthew* 11:12-15: "But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and those who do violence seize it for themselves. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And (if you are willing to accept it) he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"

What does the Baptist himself say about his identity?

"And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him: 'Who are you?' And he confessed and did not deny; and he confessed: 'I am not the Christ.' And they asked him: 'What then? Are you Elijah?' He said: 'I am not.'" (*John* 1:19-21).

Jesus says Elijah is John the Baptist. But the Baptist himself says he is not Elijah. Which of the two is telling the truth? Certainly the Baptist. He would gain nothing by lying. But Jesus would gain something by lying. Jesus proclaims that Elijah must come before he restores everything. When Jesus identified the Baptist as Elijah, the Baptist had already been

**[p. 74]**

killed. This served Jesus as a convenient opportunity to lie about the Baptist's identity.

The discovery of even the smallest untruth cannot be reconciled with a person who claims to be the way, the truth and the life.

It therefore becomes clear that Jesus is neither the way nor the truth nor the life.

Jesus was not a shining personality among evildoers, but a cunning adherent of evil, in the midst of good-natured people.

In *Luke* 22:36 Jesus calls upon his followers to buy swords for themselves: "Whoever owns no sword shall sell his cloak and get himself one." When they show him two swords which they already had, he answered: "It is enough." (*Luke* 22:38)

Later one of these men uses a sword and wounds a servant who came to seize Jesus. He then said to this man: "Put your sword back in its place! For whoever takes the sword shall perish by the sword." (*Matthew* 26:52). He knew this — so why does he beforehand call upon them to sell their garments and to buy swords? The

**[p. 75]**

reason he gives is that it is written that he is to be counted among the lawbreakers. Who else besides lawbreakers needs a sword? He urges them to keep the sword ready. When they use it, he intervenes with the opposite advice.

In *John* 8:25 the Jews ask him concretely to disclose his identity. "Then they said to him: Who are you then?" Instead of giving an answer, Jesus tries to evade the question with the remark "First of all, he who I am speaking to you." Then follows a discourse about his father.

To this the Jews answered him: "Then the Jews answered and said to him: Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have the devil? Jesus answered: I have no devil, but I honour my Father, and you dishonour me." (*John* 8:48-49)

When he is told that he has a devil, Jesus says that he honours the Father. He is saying in truth that he does not have a devil, as they innocently suppose, but more precisely that he honours the devil.

From *Matthew* 3:13-15 it may be gathered that Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John in order to

**[p. 76]**

be baptised by him. John tries to dissuade him by saying that he would be the one who ought to be baptised by Jesus. Jesus answered: "Let it be so for now! For thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Thereupon John obeys Jesus. "Us" means both speaker and hearer. Jesus is consequently saying that if he were to be baptised by John, then John ought also to be baptised by him. If John were to be baptised by Jesus, Jesus ought also to be baptised by John. But that is exactly the opposite of righteousness, or the inversion of righteousness. In short, Jesus claims that our righteousness is unrighteousness. John was immediately willing to baptise him after Jesus had explained this special mode of righteousness to him.

This is the Christian kind of righteousness. The whole history of Christianity is an elaboration of this kind of righteousness.

## Jesus and Judas Iscariot

*Mark* 10:17-21 refers to a meeting between Jesus and a certain man who wanted to know how he might obtain "eternal

**[p. 77]**

life" from Jesus. Jesus says to him: "Go, sell everything you have, and give it to the poor … "

But the principle is not observed by Jesus himself. *John* 12:3-5: "Then Mary took a pound of ointment of pure, costly nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. Then one of his disciples said, Judas, Simon's son, Iscariot, who afterwards betrayed him: 'Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?'"

Judas feels the contradiction between Jesus words from the earlier meeting and the passing up of an opportunity to save a large sum of money for the poor. He therefore turns to the high priests and offers to show them where Jesus was. That is no betrayal. It is the natural reaction to his personal finding that Jesus was an impostor.

Incidentally, Judas never committed suicide, as is often claimed. Nor did he ever feel remorse over his action.

The Bible itself supplies two different accounts in the New Testament.

**[p. 78]**

According to *Matthew* 27:5 Judas hanged himself out of grief, after throwing away in the Temple the money he had received for his action. The priests bought a piece of land with it for burials. But according to *Acts* 1:18 Judas honestly bought a piece of land with the money and later died in an accident.

## The End of the World Is a Lie

On his subject of the end of the world Jesus said in *Matthew* 24:36: "No one knows when the end will come, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son. The day and the hour only the Father knows."

Jesus admits here that he does not know when the world will end. But his words in *Matthew* 24:44 are contradictory: "Therefore be ye also ready; for the Son of Man will come at an hour when ye think not." If he says that he does not know when the event takes place, how can he also say that it will take place at an hour when no one expects it? Since both statements cannot be correct, Jesus is evidently lying in both cases.

**[p. 79]**

Besides this, Jesus says in *John* 10:30 that he and his Father are one. If that is the case, he ought to know everything his Father knows. How can he then say that the day and hour of the end of the world are known only to his Father and not to him? What Jesus sets out in *Matthew* 24:36 contradicts what he says in *John* 10:30. Self-contradiction is the mark of falsehood.

Since there is no truth in Jesus, and since he has existed from the beginning as Lucifer (*Revelation* 22:13: "I am the A and the O, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."), the words of Jesus in *John* 8:44 concerning Lucifer as the highest devil ("for he is a liar and a father of the same.") find their meaning in Jesus and only in Jesus.

## Jesus Kingdom of Heaven Is Hell

One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is the promise of heaven for those who believe in Jesus, the so-called one and only Son of God, and the threat of hell for those who do not believe it.

**[p. 80]**

Jesus says: "Repent, the kingdom of heaven has come near!" (*Matthew* 4:17) But is it really heaven that Jesus means by this term?

Of the two others who were executed together with Jesus, one bore witness to his faith in Jesus. And Jesus said to him: "Truly I say to you: Today you will be with me in paradise." (*Luke* 23:43)

But this is what Jesus discloses about his own whereabouts after his death: "So shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the midst of the earth" (*Matthew* 12:40), that is, in hell.

Only moments after he told the believer that he would be with him in paradise on the same day, both died. Jesus, who betook himself into the depths of the earth or into hell, surfaced on the earth only on the third day. So Jesus designates hell as paradise. This is what Jesus is really saying: "Today you will be with me in hell."

Here is a further proof that Jesus, the so-called Son of God, lies, even shortly before he lost his body on the cross: "Jesus was on the way to Jerusalem. There he once called the

**[p. 81]**

twelve disciples aside to himself and said to them: 'Listen! We are going to Jerusalem. There the Son of Man will be delivered up, according to God's will, to the leading priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and hand him over to the strangers who do not know God, so that they may make their mockery of him, flog him and nail him to the cross. **But on the third day he will be raised from the dead.**" (*Matthew* 20: 17-19)

Jesus said he will be raised from the dead only on the third day. How can he then travel to paradise on the Friday evening with his crucified neighbour?

Although Jesus said he would spend three days and three nights in the depth of the earth after the crucifixion, he was seen on the earth on Sunday morning. If he had descended into the depth of the earth immediately after his body was laid in the cave on the Friday evening, and had appeared again on the earth on Sunday morning, that would mean that he spent only one and a half nights (the half of Friday night and the whole of Saturday night) and one day (Saturday) in the depth of the earth. So he did not remain three days and three nights in the depth of the earth, as he had boasted to the Jews.

**[p. 82]**

How can such a liar be the embodiment of truth?

In *John* 21:15-18 Jesus put the same question to Peter three times. The question: "Do you love me?" Each time Peter answers in the affirmative. Incidentally, Peter had denied Jesus three times. That is why Jesus makes him recant three times.

The third time Jesus said to him: "Truly, truly I say to you: When you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and lead you where you do not want to go." (*John* 21:18) Heaven is where Peter wanted to go. Hell is where Peter does not want to go!

This statement by Jesus contradicts itself, since he says: "When you were younger"—that means Peter is not young at this time, but then he said: "But when you grow old", which means that Peter is still young.

When Jesus in *John* 21:18 says: "another will gird you and lead you where you do not want to go", he is saying indirectly, in so many words, that his kingdom of heaven is in truth hell.

**[p. 83]**

Because the place Peter wants to go is heaven, the only possibility of getting there is to follow Jesus without reservation. Peter does exactly that. But what does Jesus say? You will be led to the place where you do not want to go, namely into hell.

I shall mention a few further lies of Jesus before I end this chapter.

The night before he was crucified, Jesus said to the high priest in *Luke* 22:52-53 "Then he turned to the leading priests, the captains of the temple guard and the elders of the council, who wanted to arrest him: "Why do you come here with swords and clubs; am I then a criminal? Daily I was with you in the Temple and you did not proceed against me. But now your hour has come. Now the dark powers have power over me."

The truth is that the Jews often tried to proceed against Jesus while he was preaching in their synagogue. But each time he slipped away when they tried to detain him. In fact it happened on the very first day of his preaching, mentioned in *Luke* 4:28-30: "And all who were in the synagogue were filled with wrath when

**[p. 84]**

they heard this. And they rose up and thrust him out of the town and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, in order to cast him down. But he went away through the midst of them."

In *John* 8:59 another incident is mentioned in which Jesus, the so-called "Lion of Judah", had to hide himself in fear of arrest: "Then they took up stones to throw them at him. But Jesus hid himself and went out of the Temple."

And again an example in the text of *John* 10:39: "Then they sought again to seize him. But he escaped out of their hands."

Every time he escaped their grasp, but when he was finally arrested, he said according to *Luke* 22:53: "Daily I was with you in the Temple and you did not proceed against me."

If someone claims that he is the embodiment of truth and he repeatedly makes contradictory statements, then this claim cannot be accepted as truth, because contradictions are a sign of the lie. Listed below are some of these contradictory statements by Jesus. The poor Jewish fisher-

**[p. 85]**

men certainly did not recognise this, because they were blind in their faith in Jesus.

## The Old Serpent Is Not the Devil

Jesus speaks about the devil in *John* 8:44 "You are of the father, the devil, and you want to do according to your father's desire. He is a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth; for the truth is not in him."

The Bible says "He is the old serpent, who is also called the devil or Satan" (*Revelation* 12:9)

The serpent said to Eve that their eyes would be opened when they had the fruit of knowledge, and as soon as they had the fruit of knowledge, the Bible says: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened" (*Genesis* 3:7).

The old serpent is Satan and there is no truth in him, claim the Bible and Jesus. Because one finds truth in the words of the serpent, the serpent cannot be the devil. This shows the *Revelation* 12:9 deceives man with a lie.

**[p. 86]**

## Yet More Lies from Jesus:

"And Jesus said: For judgement I have come into this world." (*John* 9:39)

" … I have not come in order to judge the world … " (*John* 12:47)

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (*John* 5:31)

"It is I who bear witness of myself." (*John* 8:18)

"For the poor you have with you always; but me you do not have always" (*John* 12:8)

" … I am with you all the days until the end of the world." (*Matthew* 28:20)

" … honour your father and your mother." (*Luke* 18:20)

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother and his wife and his children and his brothers and sisters, and moreover his own life as well, he cannot be my disciple." (*Luke* 14:26)

And finally *Luke* 6:27, of which it is said that it sets Christianity above the other religions. Jesus says here: "But I

**[p. 87]**

say to you who are listening: Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you." But the same Jesus says exactly the opposite in *Luke* 19:27: "But those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."

A person who is intent on destroying his own enemies has no right to tell others that they should love their enemies. This is the foundation of the rebellion.

Helen Ellerbe says in her book *"The Dark Side of Christian History"* / *"The Dark Side of the History of Christianity"* concerning the Pope: The fall of the city of Constantinople was a punishment for the fact that it had not submitted to the Catholic Church. Bible passages supported this stance:" "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me"

Every observation of his true kingdom that is close to reality Jesus tries to stifle at the outset. See here the cunning manner of his words in *Luke* 18:17: "Truly I say to you: Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it."

**[p. 88]**

Jesus is not alluding here to the innocence of children, but rather to their lack of judgement. His real statement consists in this: that one cannot enter his kingdom of heaven unless one accepts him without question.

When Jesus says that little children are best suited to reach heaven, he is thereby also saying, unwittingly, that man is not by nature a sinner. See here the contradiction in *Mark* 7:14-15: "And he called the people to himself again and said to them: Listen to me, all of you, and understand! There is nothing that goes into a man from outside that could make him unclean; but what comes out of the man, that is what makes the man unclean."

With this statement one cannot possibly agree. For it is not what comes out of the man that corrupts him, but what penetrates into him from outside. But Jesus says the opposite, in order to disparage people, and with that he generates in him the germ of guilt. Even in Christian theology this statement counts as false. For that theology says that Adam was corrupted from outside by the serpent designated as rebellious.

**[p. 89]**

Jesus attacks people through a new manner of speech, evil by nature, which he had acquired through the transformation that Mary made possible for him. Conscious of this manner of speech, he said again and again that people should understand what he says.

Jesus told many further lies still. But were one to write it all down—it seems to me there would not be enough room in the whole world for the many books that would then still have to be written.

**[p. 90]**

[Blank page. End of chapter; not included in the scan — recorded from the pagination, not from an image.]

## Kapitel 4 — Die Wunder (S. 91–124)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-4a-de.md, augenoeffner-kapitel-4b-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-4a-en.md, augenoeffner-kapitel-4b-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 91]**

## The Miracles

[Image: colour plate — Jesus in a light, belted robe stands on a stony shore with his right hand raised; behind him to the left a masted boat lies at the water with two small figures, and beyond that water and a rising rocky coast.]

*(The page number 91 is not printed on the chapter title page. Page 92 is a blank verso and was not scanned.)*

**[p. 93]**

Certain "miracles" are attributed to Jesus, the most conspicuous among them being the raising of two supposedly dead people. According to the New Testament he raised the daughter of a Jairus back to life. This, however, is far from the truth. The description of her death is found in *Matthew* 9:18. According to it, one of the rulers of the synagogue approached Jesus and said to him: "My daughter has just died." The man asked Jesus to accompany him and raise the girl back to life. The same encounter occurs in *Luke* 8:40-42. Jairus' statement runs substantially differently here than in *Matthew*. Here he says: "The [daughter] lay at her last gasp."

According to Matthew the girl was already dead when Jairus met Jesus. But according to Luke she was still alive at that moment. According to the Christians both accounts are true, and that is the real miracle!

The most outstanding "miracle" of Jesus is the resurrection of Lazarus. John is the only one who takes note of it; the subject is omitted by the other three.

**[p. 94]**

*John* 10:39 to 11:44 deals with nothing else. "They sought again to seize him; but he escaped out of their hands." That happened in Jerusalem. From there Jesus fled to the place where John first baptized. (*John* 10:39-40)

While he was there, the sisters of a man named Lazarus, who lived in Bethany, sent Jesus a message that "he whom thou lovest lieth sick". Jesus said with foresight: "The sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby." (*John* 11:4)

Jesus remains two days in his hiding place. Incidentally: if he had cared about Lazarus even in the slightest, he would have set out at once to help him. After two days he suddenly says to his disciples: "Let us go into Judaea again!" (*John* 11:7)

If this statement were true, Jesus' hiding place would have to lie outside Judaea.

*John* 11:17-19 says: "Then came Jesus and found him, that he had lain in the grave four days already. But Bethany was near to Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off (approx. three kilometres); and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother."

**[p. 95]**

Jesus set out for Lazarus' home in Bethany two days after he was informed of his illness. When he arrived there, Lazarus had already lain buried for four days. Even if Lazarus had died at the same time as Jesus was informed of his illness, Jesus needed two days and a few additional hours to reach his home in Bethany, starting from the place where the Baptist began to baptize beyond the Jordan.

What remains is the identity of the place where the Baptist began to baptize. Without doubt Jesus set out from there for Bethany. If Jesus' claim were true, Bethany would have to lie more than two days' journey on foot from the place where John began to baptize. The distance between the two places is an essential link in the chain of events that led to the alleged raising.

In order to find out what the place was called, the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke were examined, since it was assumed that John was unable to give the name of the place for lack of information on his part. But the place is not mentioned in those books. The name was not found there because it stands in John's own book

**[p. 96]**

itself. *John* 1:28: "This conversation they held in Bethany, a village east of the Jordan, where John was baptizing."

The fact is that the sudden decision was made in Bethany itself, in the very place where Lazarus lived. In reality we are told by the lie-filled Christian scriptures that Jesus needed more than two days on foot to reach Bethany from Bethany!

The resurrection of Lazarus therefore proves to be dishonest. When Lazarus fell ill and when he died, Jesus was in precisely that place, in the same village, namely in Bethany. That Jesus arrived on the fourth day after the burial is untrue.

*John* 11:43-44: "When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth! And the dead man came forth, bound with grave-cloths at his feet and hands, and his face covered with the napkin. Jesus says to them: 'Loose him and let him go!'"

It is impossible for a man who lies buried in a cave, bound in such a way at hands and

**[p. 97]**

feet and with his face covered, to come out from there!

Another miracle attributed to Jesus is the walking upon the sea. But *Matthew* 14:22-33 together with *John* 6:16-22 likewise show the mendacity of this claim.

According to Matthew's account, the supposed walking on the sea took place after the so-called feeding of the 5000. The disciples were under way in the boat, but Jesus himself stayed behind. The boat was in the midst of the sea when the wind turned against them. Then Jesus came to them, walking on the water.

The disciples were sent out by Jesus from the place where the alleged miraculous feeding of the 5000 was carried out by him. The place is even named by name in *Luke* 9:10: "And the apostles returned and told him how great things they had done. And he took them and withdrew apart into a desert place near the city that is called Bethsaida."

It was precisely in Bethsaida that Jesus performed the alleged miracle. The place to which the disciples were sent immediately afterwards is likewise named by name. That happens in *Mark* 6:45: "And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the

**[p. 98]**

ship and to go before him unto Bethsaida, until he should send the people away."

The alleged journey in the course of which Jesus made the famous walk across the sea was from Bethsaida to Bethsaida! That is exactly like his days-long march from Bethany to Bethany in order to perform the alleged miracle of the resurrection of the dead Lazarus.

The so-called feeding of 5000 men, together with women and children about 15000 mouths, took place according to *Luke* 9:10 in Bethsaida. According to Mark the place was a different one. For *Mark* says in 6:45: "And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship and to go before him unto Bethsaida"! So there are two contradictory versions of the place in question of the alleged miracle: one says that it was performed in Bethsaida, the other says with equal authority that it was after the "miracle", when Jesus set out for Bethany.

Luke even lacks consistency. He says in 9:10 that the miracle was performed in a city "that is called Bethsaida". But in 9:12 Luke describes the same city as "a desolate region".

**[p. 99]**

*Luke* 9:16-17: "Then he took the five loaves and two fishes and looked up to heaven and gave thanks over them, broke them and gave them to the disciples, that they should set them before the people. And they ate and were all filled; and there was taken up what remained over to them of fragments, twelve baskets."

It is not the case that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. He only divided them. For it is written that fragments remained over, not whole loaves or fishes. It is impossible to divide five loaves and fishes so as to get enough fragments to fill twelve baskets. Besides, how can Luke be sure that he looked up to heaven? Instead of saying that Jesus looked upward, Luke says he looked to heaven.

The Bible claims that Jesus performed many miracles. Without the collaboration and the temporary help of demons, Jesus would not have succeeded in performing these so-called miracles.

Let me begin with that miracle mentioned by Luke (*Luke* 8:26-32): "And they sailed over into the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. And when he went forth to land, there met him a man out of the city, who had devils from a long time and wore no

**[p. 100]**

clothes and abode in no house, but in the tombs. But when he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him and called with a loud voice and said: What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God, the Most High? I beseech thee, torment me not. For he commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For it had plagued him a long time, and he was bound with chains and held in fetters, and he tore the bonds asunder and was driven by the devil into the wilderness. And Jesus asked him and said: 'What is thy name?' He said: 'Legion'; for many devils had entered into him. And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep. But there was there a great herd of swine feeding on the mountain. And they besought him that he would allow them to enter into them. And he allowed it them."

The man possessed by demons lived in tombs. Jesus was still on the water, he had just left the boat. But when Jesus had left the boat, the demon was already there before him. So while Jesus was under way in the boat, the demon travelled from his tomb to the shore. The demon knew exactly when and where he would meet Jesus.

**[p. 101]**

The very first declaration that came from the head of the demons was: "What have I to do with thee Jesus, Son of the Most High God?" If the demon had known that he had nothing to do with Jesus, why did he go to Jesus in the first place? He did not come to ask what he had to do with Jesus; instead he called Jesus, in front of the disciples, "Son of the Most High God". He wanted the disciples to believe that Jesus really was the Son of the Most High God.

The demon also said: "I beseech thee, torment me not!" If the demon was so afraid that Jesus might torment him, why then did he want to meet Jesus? This shows that the real reason for the demon's haste to meet Jesus was not that he was afraid of Jesus, but that he wanted to have a drama staged in front of Jesus' disciples.

Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to leave the man. If this were true, why did this devil not obey the command of his master? Why is he so obstinate that he wanted to leave the man only in front of Jesus' disciples?

The Bible claims that Jesus told the demon to leave the man. But the Bible also says that Jesus did not know the name of the de-

**[p. 102]**

mon to whom he was speaking. Nor did he know by how many demons the man was possessed. For the Bible says that Jesus asked him "What is your name?" The demon answered: "Legion." (Legion is defined by *Merriam Webster's* as a very large number). As we know, Legion is not a proper name, so the demon could not answer Jesus' question properly. Through his answer Jesus knows that he is not alone.

Why did Jesus not know that the man was possessed by many devils? Jesus did not know the name of the devil with whom he was speaking, but the devil knew with whom he was speaking, for he said: "Jesus, Son of the Most High God".

Why did the demons ask Jesus for permission to enter into the herd of swine? If they need permission in order to take possession of someone, then they would have afflicted the man in the story with Jesus' knowledge. In any case, he gave the permission at once and the demons entered into the swine and killed them all.

This killing of a large number of swine was something that could have been prevented by Jesus. But Jesus seemed to prefer the demons to the

**[p. 103]**

swine. There can be several reasons for this. For example, it could be that the demons only pretended that they needed Jesus' permission in order to enter into animals, so that the disciples, who had seen all this, would have still greater faith in Jesus. If this were the case, then Jesus could not refuse the demons' request—and for this reason (even if he were to refuse the permission), because they would have entered into the swine anyway and would have ignored his answer. Thus the disciples would have become witnesses of Jesus' defeat, and this would have weakened their faith in Jesus.

That is why Jesus agreed to their request at once, which in return conveyed to the disciples the image of Jesus that not even the demons could do anything without Jesus' permission.

The story continues with: "Distraught, the herdsmen fled into the city and into the surrounding villages and reported what had happened. From everywhere the people came running to convince themselves. They saw the man whom Jesus had just freed from the demons. He was properly dressed and sat quite calmly beside Jesus. Then they became uneasy.

**[p. 104]**

Those, however, who had watched it all, told how the possessed man had been healed by Jesus. Thereupon the people of Gadara asked Jesus to leave their region again, for they were very much afraid. Jesus got into the boat to travel back. The healed man asked to be allowed to stay with him. But Jesus charged him: 'Go home and report what a great miracle God has done for you.' Then the man went and told in the whole city what a miracle Jesus had done for him." (*Luke* 8:34-39)

At the end of the drama of Jesus and his devil-friends  the people gathered in one place and said to Jesus that he should leave their land. Now the [sic] man who had been possessed asked Jesus whether he might follow him. But Jesus refused this request. In acting so, he contradicted himself: "As Jesus was about to go further, a man ran up to him, threw himself on his knees before him and asked: 'Good teacher, what must I do to obtain eternal life?' Jesus replied: 'Why do you call me good? There is only one who is good, and that is God. You know his commandments: You shall not kill! You shall not commit adultery! You shall not steal! Say nothing untrue about your fellow man! You shall not defraud! Honour your fa-

**[p. 105]**

ther and your mother!' 'Teacher', answered the young man, 'I have kept these commandments from my youth up.' Jesus looked at him full of love: ' One thing you still lack: Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor. With that you will gain a treasure in heaven that is never lost. And then come and follow me!'" (*Mark* 10:17-21)

According to this verse, whoever wishes to attain eternal life should above all follow Jesus.

This is confirmed in *Matthew*: "One who belonged to his disciples asked Jesus: 'Lord, I want first to bury my father, but then I should like to go with you.' But Jesus replied: 'Come with me now, and leave it to the dead to bury their dead! '" (8:21-22)

According to these above-mentioned verses, a man who wants to bury the dead body of his father should not do so, but should follow Jesus. Why then did Jesus not let this other man follow him, although he asked to? This happened simply because the people had told Jesus that he should leave the city. Jesus not only refused this man his request, he also told him what he had to do: "" Go home

**[p. 106]**

and report what a great miracle God has done for you. ' Then the man went and told in the whole city what a miracle Jesus had done for him."

When Jesus told him that he should go home in order to tell what great things God had done for him, he spread the news of Jesus' deed throughout the whole land. That is why Jesus refused him companionship on the way, although he had asked for it. Jesus said only: "Go home and report what a great miracle God has done for you." If a man had been healed after being possessed and tormented by demons for years, he would certainly go home and tell his relatives about it.

He knew that this command would make him famous throughout the whole region, and that was exactly what Jesus wanted.

It is also striking that most of these miracles happened after sunset "In the evening, when the sun had set, they brought many sick people and people dominated by demons. Almost all the inhabitants of the city gathered in front of Simon's house. Jesus healed many of their diseases and compelled the de-

**[p. 107]**

mons to release their victims. In doing so he forbade the evil spirits to speak of him, for they knew exactly who he was." (*Mark* 1:32-34)

Did they bring sick people or people possessed by demons who appeared sick? That is not clear in *Mark*, but the same event as presented in *Matthew,* removes this doubt: "That same evening they brought many people dominated by demons to Jesus. He needed to speak only one word, and the possessed were set free and all the sick healed." (8:16) They were people possessed by various demons who appeared sick to the others. That is why Jesus made the demons come out of them with a single word ("Go!")—the demons disappeared and all who appeared sick became normal.

Let us consider a similar miracle that the one and only Son of God performed. Of this it is told in *Matthew*: "And when he came into the ruler's house and saw the flute-players and the tumult of the people, he said: 'Go out! For the girl is not dead, but sleeps. ' And they laughed him to scorn. But when the people had been put out, he went in and took her by the hand. Then the girl arose. And this report went out

---

*(End of Part A. The sentence breaks off at the foot of p. 107 and continues on p. 108.)*

**[p. 108]**

through this whole land. And as Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, who cried out: Ah, thou Son of David, have mercy on us! And when he came home, the blind men came to him. And Jesus said to them: Do you believe that I can do this? Then they said to him: Yes, Lord. Then he touched their eyes and said: Be it done to you according to your faith! And their eyes were opened. And Jesus threatened them and said: See to it that no one finds out! But they went out and spread the news of him throughout this whole land. Now when these had gone out, behold, they brought to him a man who was mute and possessed. But when the evil spirit had been driven out, the mute man spoke. And the people marvelled and said: Such a thing has never yet been seen in Israel." (9:23-33)

[Note: inside this quotation the German print gives all the direct speech without any inner quotation marks — see the German file's anomalies.]

What does a demon gain by making a man silent? The only person who profits from this action of the demon is Jesus. Because the people and the disciples had seen this drama, they were astonished and thought that Jesus had accomplished something truly great.

Here is yet another story: "At that time they brought a man to Jesus who was blind and mute, because he was possessed

**[p. 109]**

by an evil spirit. Jesus healed him, [illegible – approx. 10–12 characters, covered by a thumb during scanning] could speak and see again. At this the crowd fell into great excitement and all asked themselves: ' Is he perhaps the promised Son of David?'" (*Matthew* 12:22-23)

[Note: the German remnant visible after the gap is '…nte wieder sprechen und sehen'. The German file records the conjecture 'und er kon|nte' — 'and he could' — with its supporting evidence, but leaves the body text marked unreadable.]

Jesus healed this man, so that he could now speak and see. Jesus let the evil spirit go out, so that the man no longer appeared blind and deaf.

As Jesus went on performing miracles with the help of his devil-friends, people began to ask themselves whether it could be that Jesus was the son of David, the Messiah. The Pharisees said that only through Beelzebub, the prince of the demons, could this man drive out demons. Because he knew their thoughts, Jesus said to them: "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said: 'He drives out the evil spirits by none other than Beelzebub, their chief.' But Jesus perceived their thoughts and said to them: 'Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and every city or every house divided against itself cannot stand. Now if Satan drives out Satan, he must be divided against himself; how then can his kingdom stand? But if I drive out the evil spirits by Beelzebub, by whom do

**[p. 110]**

your sons drive them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I drive out the evil spirits by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has indeed come to you. ' " (*Matthew* 12:24-28)

Beelzebub is the prince of the devil (*Merriam-Webster‘s*), Beelzebub is *only* a fallen archangel, whereas Lucifer or Satan is the fallen, rebelling rebel archangel (*Merriam Webster‘s*). The Pharisees thought Jesus was possessed by Beelzebub. They did not know that Mary-Jesus is Lucifer-Satan, who through Mary took on a pseudo-human body. The Pharisees did not know the secret of Jesus' birth. They did not know that Mary was pregnant with Jesus before she had married Joseph. That is why they believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and for that reason they also believed that Jesus was a human being who was possessed by Beelzebub.

If Jesus had known that every household which divides itself cannot remain standing, why did he then say: "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, not peace, but division." (*Luke* 12:51)

**[p. 111]**

Jesus said: "Is Satan then also divided against himself — how will his kingdom stand?" (*Luke* 11:18)

There is a difference between Satan and Beelzebub. Beelzebub is a fallen archangel, who is also called prince of the devil, whereas Satan is Lucifer, the fallen rebel archangel, who is also called regent of the devil. (*Merriam Webster‘s*: the supreme personification of evil is also called regent of hell. Lucifer was a mighty but proud archangel before he rebelled against heaven). The Pharisees, or the Jews, mentioned only Beelzebub. But since Jesus here speaks of Lucifer-Satan, he thereby unintentionally reveals that he himself is Lucifer-Satan, the regent of the devils.

Jesus also argued: "If I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom then do your sons drive these out?" Did the Jews have nothing better to do than drive out demons? Only at the time when Jesus began his so-called ministry did people possessed by demons live in Israel. In fact the people of Israel had never seen anyone who drives out demons: "And after the demon had been driven out, the mute man spoke. And the crowd

[Note: the German prints 'den' where the sense requires 'denn' ('then'); see the German file.]

**[p. 112]**

marvelled and said: Such a thing has never yet been seen in Israel!" (*Matthew* 9:33)

How does it come about that hundreds of possessed people appeared precisely when Jesus was starting his career? "But when evening had come and the sun was going down, they brought all the suffering and the possessed to him; and the whole city was gathered at the door." (*Mark* 1:32-33) As Jesus let more and more demons go out, he gained more and more renown: After that a man was brought to him who was blind and mute, because an evil spirit ruled him. Jesus healed him, and he could talk and see again. In great excitement the people then cried out: "Is this Jesus perhaps after all the promised saviour, the Son of David?" (*Matthew* 12:22-23)

Whoever believed in Jesus or did not, the devils really believed that Jesus was the Son of God! "People who were possessed by evil spirits threw themselves down before him as soon as they saw him, and cried out: 'You are the Son of God!'" (*Mark* 3:11) What could better prove that Jesus is the Son of God than the words which come from evil spirits. But why does the Bible say: "He (Jesus) did not let the evil spirits come to speech; for they knew

**[p. 113]**

exactly who he was?" (*Mark* 1:34) Jesus let the evil spirits cry out: "You are the Son of God." But Jesus did not let these evil spirits, who knew who he really was, come to speech. This proves that Jesus did not let the demons say out loud who he really was. They were only allowed to cry out that he was the Son of God.

Jesus said: "When a demon is driven out, it wanders about in desolate regions in search of a new victim. If it finds none, it resolves: 'I will return to where I came from.' When it comes back and finds its former dwelling clean and adorned, but empty, then it seeks out seven other spirits which are still worse than itself. Together they take possession of the person, who is now worse off than before. Just so will it also happen to this godless people." (*Matthew* 12:43-45)

*Luke* 11:26 gives one more important piece of information: "Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits which are more malicious than himself, and they move in and dwell there, and the last state of this person becomes worse than the first."

**[p. 114]**

If Jesus knew: When a demon was driven out of someone, and this one then returned with several evil devils, that would mean that the condition after the driving out of the demons would be worse than before. Why then does he trouble himself with driving out demons? Jesus-Lucifer's evil plan shows itself when he says: "Just so will it also happen to this godless people." This is truly the concealed order of Jesus-Lucifer when he drives out demons, so that the last state of the man is worse than the first.

The healing of the people by Jesus was only a drama which Jesus-Lucifer played together with his subordinates, the so-called fallen angels, the devils. A perfect example of this is *Matthew* 8:5-13. "When Jesus arrived in Capernaum, a Roman centurion came to him and said: 'Lord, heal my servant! He lies paralysed in bed and suffers terribly.' Jesus answered: 'I will come along and heal him.' The centurion replied: 'Lord, I am not worthy to receive you in my house. Say only a single word, and my servant will be well.' I too have superiors whom I must obey, and I myself issue orders to my soldiers. When I say to one «Go!», then he goes. If I command another

**[p. 115]**

«Come!», then he comes. And when I say to my servant «Do this!», then he carries out my order.' When Jesus heard that, he marvelled greatly. He said to the people who had followed him: 'One thing is certain: Among all the Jews in Israel I have met no one with so firm a faith. And I tell you: Many people from all the world will come and celebrate the feast of joy with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in heaven. But those who were originally destined for God's new world will be thrust out into the deepest darkness, where there will be only wailing and helpless lamentation.' Then Jesus said to the centurion: 'Go home again! What you have believed has become reality.' At that same time the servant became well."

The Roman centurion said that he himself was a man with authority and with soldiers who were under his command. How could he know that Jesus too possessed authority and commanded soldiers/devils? Conversely, Jesus accepted everything this man said.

When Jesus said: "Go home again! What you have believed has become reality", it happened. Exactly at that hour his servant was healed. That is to say, Jesus could heal

**[p. 116]**

without going to the house of the Roman centurion. Why then did he say that he would go to him and heal him? Only if he says, "I will go and heal your servant", can the demon-possessed Roman centurion preach of his faith in Jesus before Jesus' disciples and other people. That means that the dialogue between the Roman centurion and Jesus was planned in advance. The probability that this Roman centurion was possessed is therefore very high.

The Roman centurion said that he need only say to his soldier "go!" and then the latter would follow this summons. He wanted only that Jesus should say the "word", which is nothing other than "go!". At the end of the conversation Jesus said "go!"—and exactly then the servant was healed. The exclamation mark with the word "go" shows the emphatic force of this utterance, since an exclamation is defined as a "sharp and sudden utterance". (*Merriam Webster‘s*)

Jesus said: "Among all the Jews in Israel I have met no one with so firm a faith." If this were true, Jesus should have given the keys to his kingdom in heaven to this Roman centurion and not to Peter, who was evidently possessed by Satan

**[p. 117]**

as this passage suggests: "From that time on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer much from the elders, the chief priests and scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him and said: Lord, spare yourself! May this never befall you! But he turned round and said to Peter: Get away from me, Satan! You are an offence to me; for you think not in a divine way, but in a human one!" (*Matthew* 16:21-23)

Peter thought that Jesus was a great personality. That is why he did not accept it when Jesus disclosed his death plan. This is a natural reaction of a man who radiates goodness. But Jesus became furious and called Peter Satan. If Jesus had known that Peter thinks the way compassionate people simply think, why did he then call him Satan? If anyone reads this text in which Jesus calls Peter Satan, it would be impossible to arrive at the idea that Jesus is Satan. For if Peter is Satan, how can Jesus then also be Satan? There is only one single Satan. But once again; If Peter, a man, is Satan, why does Mary-Jesus then call himself "Son of a man"? Jesus said: "Call no one

**[p. 118]**

on earth your father; for one is your Father, who is in heaven". (*Matthew* 23:9) If this were true, Mary-Jesus would be lying every time he calls himself "Son of a man", because: Whenever he calls himself Son of a man, he says unintentionally that a man is his father. Jesus, who was begotten out of wedlock by a spirit and a human woman, commands people to call no one on earth father.

Jesus said: "Call no one on earth your father, for you have only one Father"—but the New Testament begins with a list of men of whom it is assumed that they are the fathers of Jesus. This too is false, because the genealogy of Jesus ends with the following words: "Eliud, father of Eleazar, Eleazar father of Matthan, Matthan, father of Jacob, and Jacob father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." The Bible does not say that Joseph is the father of Jesus, it says only that Joseph is the husband of Mary. The genealogy in the Bible is therefore that of Joseph and not of Jesus. It is set down still more clearly in *Luke* 3:23-24: "And Jesus was about 30 years old when he began; he was, as was supposed, a

**[p. 119]**

son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph".

While the genealogy in *Matthew* says that Jacob is the father of Joseph, Luke says with the same definiteness that Joseph is the son of Eli!

Here another incident is presented as a miracle which Jesus accomplished: "And he rose up and went out of the synagogue into the house of Simon. But Simon's mother-in-law was stricken with a severe fever, and they asked him on her behalf. And he stepped up to her, bent over her and commanded the fever, and it left her. And immediately she rose up and served them." (*Luke* 4:38-39)

Jesus did not command the fever to go; instead he commanded this of the demon which had possessed her. As soon as the demon had left her, the fever was gone. So Jesus could record one more miracle. Jesus went to Simon's house. What was Simon's mother-in-law doing in Simon's house? If she was ill, why was she then visiting her daughter? It seems that a sick woman had to be healed so that she could serve a meal. And what about Simon's wife or his mother?

**[p. 120]**

Yet another miracle: "And behold, a great storm arose on the lake, so that the ship was covered by the waves; but he was asleep. And his disciples came to him, woke him up and said: 'Lord, save us! We are perishing!' Then he said to them: 'Why are you so fearful, you of little faith?' Then he rose up and commanded the winds and the sea; and there came a great stillness." (*Matthew* 8:24-26)

The wild storm came without warning, which means that the rising of this storm was seen by no one before it struck the boat. It was therefore a storm which had suddenly appeared from nowhere and struck their boat. Storm is defined by *Merriam Webster‘s* as a disturbance in the atmosphere, combined with wind and usually also with rain, snow, hail, sleet or thunder and lightning. The miracle in this story is therefore that Jesus slept in the boat while strong waves beat over the boat and it was perhaps also raining and thundering.

At last the disciples went and woke him up. They said: "Lord, save us! We are going to go under!" To this he answered: "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Even when their boat was on the point of going under and they were close to a tragedy, they still believed in Jesus.

**[p. 121]**

That is why they woke him up and said: "Lord, save us". They perhaps waited so long in order not to disturb the Master's sleep. But the first thing Jesus said when he awoke was to complain of their lack of faith. If Jesus had really been asleep, he would certainly have woken up when the heavy storm struck their boat. Jesus only pretended to sleep, so that he could rebuke them for their missing faith when they woke him, and bring still more faith into them. This faith, which he again and again and cunningly implanted in them, cost them their lives in the end.

If it had been a natural storm, then Jesus would have needed only to calm the wind. Because the waves depend on the wind, and the wind would have stopped, it would not have been necessary also to calm the waves, since waves calm down automatically when the wind is still. But the Bible says that Jesus rebuked the wind and then the waves. In other words: When Jesus rebuked the wind, it calmed down, but the waves did not. From this it follows that they were heavy waves which struck the boat even when there was no more wind. But then Jesus rebuked the waves and it was completely calm!

**[p. 122]**

Jesus reacts in panic every time he notices that his true satanic identity could be uncovered. A typical example is to be found in *Mark* 9:14-18 & 21-25, where he falls into panic on account of obvious signs of the disclosure of his true identity.

*Mark* 9:14-18 "On their return they found the other disciples together with some scribes in the middle of a large crowd. The scribes had drawn the disciples into a dispute. When the people saw Jesus, they ran towards him excitedly and greeted him. 'What are you arguing about?', he asked them. One out of the crowd answered: 'Teacher, I have brought my son here so that you may heal him. He cannot speak, because he is ruled by an evil spirit. When this spirit gains power over him, it throws him to the ground. Then foam comes to the boy's mouth, he grinds his teeth and finally lies unconscious. I have already implored your disciples to drive out the evil spirit; but they were powerless.'"

*Mark* 9:25-26: "Jesus saw that more and more people were running together; then he said threateningly to the evil spirit: 'You mute and deaf spirit, I command you: Come out of this child and

[Note: the announced range is 9:14-18 & 21-25, but this second block is labelled 9:25-26; the print does not agree with itself.]

**[p. 123]**

never come back again!' The spirit screamed continuously and dragged the boy wildly back and forth, then it went out of him. The boy lay as if lifeless on the ground, so that the people were already saying: 'He is dead. ' "

The father of the boy said that the spirit was mute. Jesus, however, reproaches the spirit for being mute and deaf. In doing so Jesus committed a gross error, for the spirit heard him and obeyed his words when he commanded it to leave the boy's body. That shows: The spirit was not deaf.

Jesus committed the error because he fell into panic. He banished the spirit when he saw that more and more people were running together. Evidently the unclean spirit was to remove itself from the scene before the people came too close. In this haste he fell into panic and committed the error. His panic arose through the sudden realisation that disclosure as Satan and as leader of all unclean spirits was possible. Having thus come about, he was himself seized by this realisation, which on the above-mentioned occasion had come over him involuntarily.

**[p. 124]**

[Blank page — end of chapter. Confirmed by the book's owner; not scanned. The next scanned page (PDF index 66) is the title page of chapter 5, "Grundloser Zorn" / "Groundless Wrath".]

## Kapitel 5 — Grundloser Zorn (S. 125–130)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-5-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-5-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 125]**

## Uncaused Anger

[Image: John the Baptist, standing on a rocky outcrop in a bare hilly landscape, preaching with his right arm raised to a densely packed crowd that sits and reclines around him.]

**[p. 126]**

[Blank page — verso of the chapter title, not scanned.]

**[p. 127]**

In *Matthew* 3:7 John the Baptist speaks of the "coming wrath". It is reported that John addresses Pharisees and Sadducees together. With regard to the Sadducees at least, however, the report is false and dishonest. While Pharisees are strongly believing, Sadducees are strongly unbelieving. Matthew himself writes later on about Sadducees who put Jesus in a vice over one of his principal assertions. John was only the forerunner of Jesus. It is incredible that Sadducees would suddenly go to John without cause in order to be baptized by him. Since Pharisees are believers and moreover live in strict accordance with the Law that was given to Moses by Jehovah, the anger against them of which John speaks is uncaused.

With regard to that anger, John asks tellingly: "who has warned you". The origin of this uncaused anger against man is to be found in Lucifer alone.

The account dates from the 16th century. It comes from a personal experience and from the pen of Maria of Agreda (Spain).

**[p. 128]**

She was a mystical nun and a strong and pure Jesus-fanatic. But the person she actually perceived in her devoted, meditative vision was the unaltered Lucifer. Since the identity of that person with Jesus lies entirely beyond Maria's reach on account of her excessive super-stition [German: *Aber-glaubens*, the print splitting the word for superstition], disguised as belief in God's Son, her report of the vision is objective, true and first-hand. Accordingly one finds the origin of the anger in Lucifer.

The exact moment when Lucifer rebelled against man is correctly traced back by Maria of Agreda to the moment when the idea of man was born. "Then Lucifer and his angels rebelled", she reports precisely from her vision. "As soon as Lucifer and his followers went into hell [under compulsion, through the rebellion against man], they gathered themselves into a great council, ... Lucifer said: 'And you, you demons who were harmed together with me, follow me! Obey me in pursuing this vengeance, just as you followed me into the rebellion! Pretend to love men, in order to destroy them; serve them, in order to deceive them and to destroy them. Help them, in order to pervert them and to draw them into these regions of hell.'"

**[p. 129]**

Lucifer's utterances are aimed expressly against man. Therefore the vengeance announced in them is a vengeance against man. This vengeance is also uncaused, since man had not yet been created at that point in time. Maria of Agreda continues with the vision: "No human tongue can declare the malice and the anger towards the human race — which did not yet exist, but was to be created — in this first council of Lucifer and his hosts." Jesus' kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, is the embodied high-water mark of Lucifer's malice and anger against the human being.

[Rest of the page blank — end of chapter.]

**[p. 130]**

[Blank page — end of chapter, not scanned.]

## Kapitel 6 — Das Falsche Versprechen (S. 131–140)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-6-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-6-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 131]**

## The False Promise

[Image: Jesus in a white robe sits raised on a rock beneath a tree, preaching; listeners in coloured robes stand and sit around him, with a reddish glowing evening sky behind.]

**[p. 132]**

[Blank page — verso of the chapter title, not scanned.]

**[p. 133]**

To his followers Jesus held out a new hope for the end of the world, and with it also the hope of his own reappearance. This was to come about within their lifespan. *Matthew* 10.23: "Truly I say to you: You will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." But *Matthew* 24.14 says: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all peoples, and then the end will come."

Jesus says first that he will return before the preaching of his so-called gospel in all the cities of Israel is completed. That is an obvious lie, for, according to his own words in *Matthew* 24:36, "no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone, the day and the hour of his return."

He says later that he will only come once the same gospel is being preached in all the world. With the second statement it becomes clear that his aim was the effective preaching of his gospel throughout the whole world, through the

**[p. 134]**

people he had chosen himself. If he had told this to the misled men from the beginning, they would have left him on the spot, for they would immediately have regarded it as an impossible task. Therefore he first promises the disciples that he will come again before they have finished preaching the so-called gospel in all Israel. But the promise was not kept. Instead the promise became a fraud, although he had said in *Matthew* 24:34-35: "Truly I say to you: This generation will not pass away until all this comes to pass. Heaven and earth will pass away; but my words will not pass away."

Jesus' announcement of his imminent return is now 2000 years old. If the smallest truth were to be found in Jesus, his return and the end of the world would have taken place long ago. All this shows that there is no truth in Jesus and that he is a liar and the father of lies. *John* 8:44: "You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He is a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth; for the truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks of his own; for he is a liar and a father of the same."

**[p. 135]**

That is a knowing statement. Every word in it concerns the speaker himself, namely Jesus. They are realized in him and in no one else. Anyone who considers Jesus and his seditious outpourings in the so-called gospels will come to the same conclusion, especially when he compares these words in any of the four books with the same text in another book.

## Deceit, thy name is Jesus!

Consider now the conversation between Peter and Jesus in the presence of John, as reported in *John*. *John* 21:20-24 "But Peter turned around and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, who had also leaned on his breast at the supper and had asked: 'Lord, who is it that betrays you?' When Peter saw him, he says to Jesus: 'Lord, but what about this one?' Jesus says to him: 'If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!' So this saying then arose among the brethren: 'This disciple does not die!' And yet Jesus had not said to him that he would not die, but rather: 'If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?' This

**[p. 136]**

is the disciple who bears witness of these things and has written this; and we know that his testimony is true."

Why did Jesus say that John would outlive the rest?

Of the eleven disciples who remained after the death of Judas, James, the son of Zabedee, was the first who died. Since Jesus did not appear, the remaining disciples were firmly convinced that John was still alive. For this reason the story went around that John would not die. It is impossible to know that Jesus did not intend to say that John would never die. Only after John is dead can one know it. However it is not possible for John to write this down, since it is possible for no one to write anything after his own death. Therefore the text that stands written in his name is the work of another.

John's interpretation, that Jesus did not intend to say that John would not die, is also refuted by Jesus' own words in *Matthew* 16:28: "Truly, I say to you: There are some standing here who will not taste death

**[p. 137]**

until they have seen the Son of Man coming in his kingdom!"

The words were addressed to everyone, doubtless to John as well. The renewed emphasis of this indication by Jesus is written in *John* 21:23. Yet through such an indication Christianity would have collapsed with the death of John, following on the death of James. Through the indication repeated here, Christianity survives the certain collapse after John's death.

Jesus chose John because he would be the last disciple to die. With his words he assured himself that all the other disciples would believe it until their own deaths, while they unintentionally followed his plan concerning John's safety. However, through his citing of John, the last disciple who will die, the others would have withdrawn in view of their own deaths, which does reveal a flaw in his promise. The violent death of James at the hands of the Jews would doubtless have been that turning point. (*Revelation* 12:2)

*Mark* 14:50 reports accordingly when he says that at the arrest of Jesus all

**[p. 138]**

his disciples left him and fled. Beyond that, Peter denied him three times out of fear of death.

If the disciples were still steadfast even after James' death, it was because Jesus deceived them up to the last moment with his promise to return safe and sound before John's death. The disciples died. John died too.

His promise to return while John was still alive was a trap, so that he could be sure of further victims besides James. So-called Christianity has gained enormously through his fraud. If Christianity were renamed, it would deserve the name of a fiduciary martyrdom.

When his disciples asked him: "Tell us the day and the hour of your return" (*Matthew* 24:3), Jesus said "no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone" (*Matthew* 24:36), but when Peter asked about John's future, Jesus spoke as though he were the one who would decide about his own return, saying: "If I wanted him to live until my return, what is that to you?" If it were Jesus' Father who decided about his return, then

**[p. 139]**

it would also be his Father who would decide whether John should live until Jesus' return. But Jesus said: "If I want him to live until my return?" This contradiction confirms the fact that Jesus deceived his disciples when he promised that he would return before John's death.

[Rest of the page blank — end of chapter.]

**[p. 140]**

[Blank page — end of chapter, not scanned.]

## Kapitel 7 — Der wahre Autor der Evangelien (S. 141–156)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-7-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-7-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 141]**

## The True Author of the Gospels

[Image: bust portrait of Jesus in the style of a Sacred Heart devotional picture — long hair, short beard, light robe; on the breast a heart wreathed in thorns and crowned with a cross, within a halo of rays.]

**[p. 142]**

[Blank page. Verso of the chapter title page; not present in the scan — recorded from the pagination, not from an image.]

**[p. 143]**

The hidden characteristic of the so-called Gospels is a constant rebellion against consistency. This shows the existence of a common author of all four books.

Let us begin with the account of how Jesus came to his disciples. *Matthew* 4:18-22 says that Jesus saw Peter and his brother for the first time as he was walking along the Sea of Galilee. They were casting their nets into the sea.

Jesus called on them to follow him. They would be made fishers of men. They left their nets and followed him.

The same encounter is recounted in *John* 1:35-45. But here it is a completely different version. The place is different as well. According to Matthew the meeting took place in Galilee. But according to John it was in Judaea. John writes that it was on the following day, when Jesus decided to go to Galilee. Therefore the meeting was not in Galilee. Since Jesus was in Judaea at that time, the meeting mentioned by John took place only in Judaea.

**[p. 144]**

John also says that Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptist. But in *Matthew* this is never mentioned.

In *Matthew*, Jesus makes discipleship attractive to Peter and Andrew with the offer of making them fishers of men. But in the book of John, Andrew and later Peter follow Jesus without any arts of persuasion, simply because they genuinely want to become disciples.

In short: it is impossible to establish from the Bible in what manner Peter and Andrew became the disciples of Jesus, since the available data are so contradictory. The writers, Matthew and John, are themselves disciples of Jesus. Why then do the accounts contradict each other? The only answer is that these books are not the work of these men, but of another. When each of the four books is considered independently, they are free of contradictions. But that is not the case when they are brought into relation with one another. This means that all four books come from a single rebellious spirit, namely Jesus.

**[p. 145]**

One proof of this is the omission of the subject matter of *John* 3:22-23 in *Matthew*, and of the subject matter of *Matthew* 4:12 in *John*.

*John* 3:22-23 says: "After this, Jesus and his disciples came into the Jewish land, and there he remained with them and baptized. But John was also still baptizing at Aenon, near Salim, for there was much water there; and they came there and were baptized."

According to this account, Jesus and his disciples were baptizing at the same time as John was baptizing people nearby. According to Matthew, however, this is impossible, for Jesus selected his first disciples only after the imprisonment of the Baptist, who was later beheaded in the (same) prison.

It is impossible that at the time when Jesus and his disciples were baptizing in Judaea, John was baptizing in Aenon, since according to Matthew John the Baptist was in prison and was killed there—long before Jesus recruited his first disciples. *Matthew* 4:12: "Now when Jesus heard that John had been delivered up, he withdrew into the land of Galilee." In this Galilee Jesus finds his first disciples.

Since Matthew and John are both disciples of Jesus and eyewitnesses, the contradiction

**[p. 146]**

is at first insoluble. For the only explanation is that they are not the true authors of these books. Certain aspects of these books show that a guiding mind stands behind them. Why, for example, is *John* 3:22-23 missing in *Matthew*? *Matthew* 4:12 speaks of the imprisonment of John the Baptist. But John says that the Baptist was imprisoned only later (3:24).

In short, there is a uniformity in these writings. Secondly, this uniformity is a rebellious one. The rebellion is found in all four books from beginning to end.

In order to show once again that all four books come from a single rebellious being, we now turn to the so-called prayer in Gethsemane, in which we quote it in full.

*Matthew* 26:36-47: "Then Jesus came with them to a place that was called Gethsemane, and said to his disciples: Sit here, until I go over there and pray. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee and began to grieve and to be distressed. Then Jesus said to them: 'My soul is troubled unto death; remain here and watch with me!' And he went a little way off, fell down upon his face and prayed and

**[p. 147]**

said: 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not as I will, but as thou wilt!' And he came to his disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter: 'Could you then not watch one hour with me? Watch and pray, that you do not fall into temptation! The spirit is willing; but the flesh is weak.' A second time he went away again, prayed and said: 'My Father, if it is not possible that this cup pass from me, unless I drink it, then let thy will be done!' And he came and found them sleeping once more, and their eyes were full of sleep. And he left them and went away again and prayed a third time and spoke the same words. Then he came to his disciples and said to them: 'Ah, will you only sleep and rest? Behold, the hour is here, that the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. Rise up, let us go! Behold, he is here, the one who betrays me!' And while he was still speaking, behold, there came Judas, one of the Twelve, and with him a great crowd, with swords and with staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people."

The disciples were asleep when Jesus addressed these words of silent petition to his alleged Father. How then can the words appear in the book? Since Jesus was arrested at the end of the alleged prayer, there is afterwards

**[p. 148]**

no conversation with the disciples. Matthew, Mark and Luke cannot know it, except from the disciples mentioned above. Of the four writers, John was the only one who was present at the scene. But he does not mention the episode. The only fully awake person at the scene was Jesus.

The rest were asleep. It is clear that the writer of the episode must be Jesus himself.

Let us go back to Luke for one detail. Luke names as the source of his entire Gospel those people "who saw it themselves from the beginning" (*Luke* 1:2). Who are the eyewitnesses who reported to him about the so-called prayer? Yet Luke writes that the disciples, the only possible eyewitnesses, were "sleeping for sorrow" (*Luke* 22:45).

Luke supplies this additional information, which is missing both in Matthew and Mark: "But there appeared to him an angel from heaven and strengthened him. And it came about that he wrestled with death and prayed more fervently. But his sweat became like drops of blood, which fell upon the ground." (*Luke* 22:43-44)

How can the disciples sleep when an angel comes down from heaven and appears before them a stone's

**[p. 149]**

throw away? And when Jesus was praying some distance from the disciples, how could the disciples then see that sweat like drops of blood fell from Jesus onto the ground? Incidentally, it was almost midnight!

The Gethsemane account testifies to a magnificent pretext on Jesus' part. Firstly, it is impossible for Jesus to pray to his Father. For Jesus himself says in *John* 10:30 that he and the Father are one. This is confirmed at length in *John* 14:8-9: "Philip says to him: 'LORD, show us the Father, and that is enough for us.' Jesus says to him: 'Have I been with you so long, and you do not know me, Philip? Whoever sees me sees the Father; how then do you say: Show us the Father?'"

From these words of Jesus it becomes clear that there are not two different persons such as Jesus and his Father, and that Jehovah is the same as Jesus. How then can Jesus pray to his non-existent Father?

The reason why he repeated his prayer three times is that his pretext failed each time on the sleeping disciples. Jesus says that his soul suffered terrible torments. But shortly

**[p. 150]**

before, before Judas made arrangements to point him out to the officials, Jesus says maliciously: "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him." (*John* 13:31) In the next moment the glorification turns into torment!

The rebellion continues unchanged in the accounts after his death.

*Mark* 16:5-7: "And they went into the tomb and saw a young man sitting on the right hand, who had a long white garment on; and they were terrified. But he said to them: 'Do not be terrified! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified one; he is not here. See there the place where they laid him! But go and tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you into Galilee, there you will see him, as he said.'"

According to this statement, Jesus should have appeared first in Galilee. But according to Luke he appeared instead in Jerusalem. *Luke* 24:33-36: "And they rose up in that same hour, returned again to Jerusalem and found the Eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said: The LORD is truly risen and has appeared to Simon. And they told them what had happened on the way and how he had been recognized by them

**[p. 151]**

in that he broke the bread. But while they were speaking of this, he himself, Jesus, stepped into their midst and said: Peace be with you!"

If it were true, as Luke says, that he appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem, then the reference in *Mark* 16:7, according to which he would appear to the disciples in Galilee, is untrue. But there is no indication in the book of Mark as to where Jesus actually presented himself to his disciples. The place was deliberately omitted in *Mark*. Likewise, the promise of the appearance in Galilee was deliberately omitted in *Luke* (*Mark* 16:7).

The conclusion is that both books stem from a single—and moreover from a self-rebelling—spirit.

A similar example is offered by *Luke* 23:49, compared with *John* 19:25-26.

According to Luke, "all his acquaintances stood at a distance, and the women who had followed him from Galilee, and saw all of this (meaning Jesus' execution)." Consistently with this, Luke mentions no address by Jesus to those standing around.

But in *John* 19:25-26 we read: "But there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his

**[p. 152]**

mother's sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Now when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he says to his mother: 'Woman, behold, this is your son!'"

Luke rebelliously omits what John inserts about various specific persons waiting by the gallows and listening to Jesus. John in turn cautiously omits what Luke writes with regard to the same people, who however are standing at a distance. The accounts betray a common cunning spirit behind both.

The rebellion exists even in the area of the testimony given by the accusers of Jesus, which again proves that the true author of the so-called Gospels is a rebel against himself. In the Scriptures, Lucifer is the name of such a rebel.

*Mark* 14:55-58 deals with such a piece of testimony. Mark writes that the accusers lied when they testified against him, saying that he had declared he would rebuild the temple of Jerusalem in three days. But John declares, just as authoritatively, though indirectly, the testimony of the same accusers to be truthful. John quotes Jesus' words, that he would rebuild the temple in three

**[p. 153]**

days: "Jesus answered and said to them: Break down this temple, and on the third day I will raise it up." The omission of this statement in *Mark's* book happened deliberately, as did its inclusion in *John*. Once again this proves, firstly, that the books stem from another and single author [Note: the print has the plural "Autoren" where the sense requires the singular], and secondly, that this real author is a rebel against himself.

In *Mark* 15:29-30 we read: "And those who passed by blasphemed him and shook their heads and said: 'Fie on you, how finely you break down the temple and build it in three days! Help yourself now and come down from the cross!'" In these verses Mark contradicts himself. Proceeding from what he said earlier, these words would be false. But he now quotes unsuspecting passers-by using the very same words. This is an example of a self-nourishing rebellion.

Incidentally, all of this shows that Jesus was executed for good reason. Mark writes: "Many gave false witness against him; but their witness did not agree." (14:56). But he has nothing else to set against this than the seditious procedure described above.

**[p. 154]**

The following shows a perfect example of the fact that the Gospels were not written by — and were not even seen by — those who were with Jesus.

*Mark* 14:29-30: "But Peter said to him: 'Even if all take offence at you, yet not I!' And Jesus says to him: 'Truly, I say to you: Today, in this night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times!'"

Some passages later, Mark writes a detailed account of how Peter denies Jesus three times.

"And while Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came. And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said: 'You too were with Jesus, the Nazarene!' But he denied it and said: 'I do not know, and do not understand either, what you are saying!' And he went out into the forecourt, and the cock crowed. And when the maid saw him, she began again and said to those standing by: 'This man is one of them!' But he denied it once more. And a little later those standing by said again to Peter: 'Truly, you are one of them!

**[p. 155]**

For you are a Galilean, and your speech is the same.'

But he began to curse [himself] and to swear: 'I do not know this man of whom you speak!' Then the cock crowed for the second time; and Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him: 'Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.'" (14:66-72).

Luke describes the same situation as follows:

"But he said: 'I tell you, Peter: The cock will not crow today, before you have three times denied that you know me!'" (22:34).

In the book of *Mark*, Jesus says Peter would deny him three times in that night, before the cock had crowed twice. According to Luke, however, the cock crows for the first time after Peter has denied Jesus three times. For the narration of the same situation, two different variants are chosen.

Mark's narrative does not agree with Luke's narrative. The words of the two contradict one another, although they knew what the other had each written.

**[p. 156]**

Independently of this, *John* writes in 8:44 the following: "When he speaks the lie, he speaks out of what is his own, for he is a liar and the father of it." John's words about the devil point to Jesus, the author of these books.

*[End of chapter 7. The remainder of p. 156 is blank.]*

## Kapitel 8 — Das letzte Abendmahl (S. 157–174)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-8-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-8-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

> **WITNESS ·** Transcribed 2026-08-27: the 23 August transcription wave had missed this chapter; the gap was found and closed at serving time.

**[p. 157]**

[Image: A colour reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's *Last Supper* — Jesus at the centre of the long table, the twelve apostles in four groups of three on either side, three window openings behind. Without any numbering of the figures.]

**[p. 158]**

*(Blank verso; not scanned.)*

**[p. 159]**

The New Testament calls Judas Iscariot the betrayer of Jesus. But was Judas really a betrayer? Or was it Jesus who deceived Judas?

The Last Supper is regarded by Christians with a special fascination. Yet it is nothing other than a piece of intellectual buffoonery — ultimately brutal, but still nothing more than a crude farce.

This fascination falls away once one uncovers the sub-plot: it is the betrayal of one man, but also of a group of men, if not indeed of all humanity, by the greatest of all deceivers.

Let us examine the account of John in chapter 13:

Jesus said: "Verily, verily I say unto you: one among you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one upon another, and they were troubled as to whom he spoke of." *John* 13:21-22.

**[p. 160]**

First, it is clear that none of the disciples intended to "betray" Jesus at the time when he uttered the accusation. This accusation brought suspicion among the disciples. They were baffled and did not know of whom he spoke, as the Bible says.

The passage continues:

*John* 13:23-25: "Now there was one among his disciples, who sat at table at the breast of Jesus, whom Jesus loved. To him Simon Peter beckoned, that he should enquire who it might be of whom he spoke. For the same lay at the breast of Jesus, and he said unto him: 'LORD, who is it'?"

Now there was one among his disciples (e.g. no. 2 in the picture), who sat at table at the breast of Jesus, whom Jesus held dear. To him Simon Peter (no. 3 in the picture) beckoned, that he should enquire who it might be.

*John* 13:26 Jesus answered: "It is he to whom I dip the sop and give it. And he dipped the sop and gave it to Judas, Simon's son, the Iscariot" (no. 1 in the picture)

*John* 13:27: "And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him: 'What thou doest, do quickly!'"

**[p. 161]**

"But no one at the table knew for what purpose he said this to him. Some thought, since Judas had the purse, that Jesus was saying to him: Buy what we need for the feast! Or that he should give something to the poor. When he had now taken the sop, he went out at once. And it was night." (*John* 13:28-30)

Let us examine this story: did the other disciples hear what John (the disciple whom Jesus loved) asked Jesus? The probability is small, because it says: For the same lay at the breast of Jesus, and he said unto him: "LORD, who is it?" If he leaned at Jesus' breast, he will surely have spoken quietly. He could equally have stayed where he was and spoken in a low voice — why did he not do it that way? Because he did not want the disciples who sat on the other side of John to hear what he was asking Jesus. It follows that Judas did not hear what John asked Jesus. That is to say, when Jesus gave Judas the bread, Judas did not know that Jesus was deceiving him in this way in front of John.

But Jesus gave Judas the bread in order to make him possessed, in order to make him act according to his plans. At the same time John thought that the only reason for Jesus' giving of bread to Judas was to show him of whom Jesus spoke. When he

**[p. 162]**

therefore gave Judas the bread, Jesus deceived Judas and John and the rest of the disciples at the table.

Peter tried, by way of his friend John, to find out who it was of whom Jesus spoke, because he saw that he sat close to Jesus. Jesus' answer to John: "It is he to whom I dip the sop and give it …"  If Judas were the real betrayer, and if he had known that taking the bread meant betraying Jesus, then he would not have taken it. If the other disciples had heard what John asked Jesus, then they would have understood that it had something to do with the betrayal of Jesus.

In any case, the sudden departure of Judas is strangely taken by the disciples as an indication that he wanted to buy something for the feast (which was already in full swing) or to give money to the poor (another unlikely scenario — it was already late at night).

But the Bible says that Judas acted the way he did because he was possessed by Satan in person when Jesus gave him the bread. So it was not "just any demon", because such a one would not have succeeded at all in making one of Jesus' apostles possessed.

**[p. 163]**

We take from *Luke* 9:1 "Then he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all devils, and that they could heal diseases."

When Jesus came to Judas with a piece of bread, Judas surely thought of the words of Jesus from *John* 6:51 "I am the living bread, come down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread shall live in eternity. And the bread that I shall give is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." [The German prints the conjunction 'dass' where the relative pronoun 'das' is required; the slip cannot be carried into English.]

Jesus knew when and where he would be arrested: "When Jesus had spoken these things, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kidron; there was a garden, into which Jesus entered, and his disciples." (*John* 18:1)

But Judas, who had already left the house in which the supper took place, could not know where Jesus and his disciples were going — and this despite the following statement of the Bible, according to which this was a gathering place where the disciples and Jesus often stayed and which Judas ought therefore to have known.

"But Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place also; for Jesus often gathered there with his disciples." (*John* 18:2)

**[p. 164]**

This cannot be, since Jesus and his disciples spent most of their time in Galilee. Jesus and his disciples came from Galilee, and Jesus always preached in the villages of Galilee.

This is the sequence of events: Jesus was brought up in Nazareth, Galilee. He went to the river Jordan in order to be baptized by John the Baptist. When Jesus then heard that John had been put in prison, he went to Galilee. But instead of remaining in Nazareth, Jesus moved to Capernaum. "Now when Jesus heard that John had been delivered up, he departed into the land of Galilee. And leaving the city of Nazareth, he came  and dwelt at Capernaum, which lies by the sea, in the land of Zebulun and Naphtali." (*Matthew* 4:12-13)

In Galilee he finds his first disciples: "And as Jesus walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting their nets into the sea; for they were fishers." (*Matthew* 4:18)

"And Jesus went about in all the land of Galilee, taught them in their synagogues and preached the gospel of the kingdom and healed all manner of sickness and disease among the people." (*Matthew* 4:23) and *Mark* 1:38-39:  "And he said unto them:

**[p. 165]**

Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for therefore am I come. And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee and cast out the devils."

"From that time forth Jesus began and showed his disciples how he must go up to Jerusalem and suffer much from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day rise again." (*Matthew* 16:21)

"Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests and scribes; they shall condemn him to death  and shall deliver him to the heathen, to be mocked and scourged and crucified; and on the third day he shall rise again." (*Matthew* 20:18-19)

From then on Jesus came with his disciples to Jerusalem and was arrested in Gethsemane.

When Jesus was brought before Pilate, the priests and the assembled crowd said the following about Jesus: "With his teaching he stirs up the people throughout the whole Jewish land. He began in Galilee **and now he has come as far as here**." (*Luke* 23:5)

**[p. 166]**

From these verses it becomes clear that Jesus and his disciples did not meet in Jerusalem/Gethsemane in accordance with their habits. From this it must be concluded that Judas, under the influence of a demon befriended with Jesus the arch-devil, led the officers of the law to the garden of Gethsemane.

After Judas had left the table of the Last Supper, Jesus went on speaking for a short while to those remaining at the table. Then suddenly Jesus said to them: "Arise, and let us go hence." (*John* 14:31) Why did he do this?

Let us imagine what would have happened if Jesus had not said this to them. Then the Jews would have arrested Jesus in the house where they had taken the Last Supper, together with the apostles. The apostles would not have been able to flee as they did in the garden of Gethsemane. *Mark* 14:50 "Then all his disciples forsook him and fled."

In such a scenario the apostles would have been arrested together with Jesus and the owner of the house.

The apostles who fled came back to the place where the Last Supper had taken place. If the

**[p. 167]**

Jewish authorities had known that Jesus and the apostles gathered in that room, then the apostles would certainly have been afraid to go back there, since they too could have been arrested.

Although the Bible does not expressly say that the apostles who fled from the garden of Gethsemane returned to the room of the Last Supper, we know that even 40 days after the so-called  resurrection all the apostles (except Judas) were still in the room of the Last Supper: "Having arrived in Jerusalem, they went into the large room in the upper storey of that house which had already served them as a meeting place until then." (*Acts* 1:13)

Every Christian believes that Jesus died for the sins of the world. The Bible confirms this belief: "And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours alone, but also for those of the whole world." (*1 John* 2:2). According to the Bible it was the will of Jesus' supposed father that he should die for the sins of the world; here Jesus speaks: "…and said: Father, if thou wilt, take this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thy will be done!" (*Luke* 22:42)

**[p. 168]**

Jesus' death follows upon his arrest, and he is arrested because of Judas. If Judas were possessed by Satan, as it stands in the Bible, and if it was the will of Jesus' father that he be arrested and killed, why then should Satan, the "enemy of God", help Jesus to be arrested?

According to the Bible, Satan is a stumbling block in Jesus' path. Look here: "Jesus turned round to Peter and said: 'Get thee behind me, Satan! Thou art a stumbling block to me.'" (*Matthew* 16:23)

When Judas left the house in order to alert the police, Jesus is more cheerful than ever.

When Judas received the bread, he went at once, and it was night.

That is why Jesus said, as Judas went: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." (*John* 13:31)

If Judas had been possessed by Satan, who was a stumbling block for Jesus, he would have done nothing that glorified his enemy. [The German verb form here is ungrammatical; the sense is as rendered.]

If Judas had been possessed by Satan, and Jesus had come in order to save mankind, why then should Satan, the enemy of

**[p. 169]**

men, have helped Jesus? This problem can only be solved if Jesus himself is identified as Satan. But what really happened is this: Judas was possessed by Satan, and Satan caused Judas to do something that would eventually have brought glory for Jesus. Let me remind you that Satan entered into Judas when Jesus gave him the bread, as described above. Soon afterwards Jesus sent Judas away with the words: "Go and do what you must, quickly!" (*John* 13:27). Not even three hours later Jesus said three times: "My Father, is it not possible that this cup pass from me, except I drink it — so let thy will be done!" (*Matthew* 26:39)

Although he said three times to his imaginary father: "I drink it then, so let thy will be done", while he was on the cross, shortly before he lost his body, he rebelled once again: "About three o'clock Jesus cried aloud: 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachtani?'" (That means: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") (*Mark* 15:34)

One might think Jesus was schizophrenic, because his thoughts change so drastically. But the fact is, Jesus is not schizophrenic; everything he said and did was deliberate.

**[p. 170]**

For example, by saying: "My Father, is it not possible that this cup pass from me, except I drink it — so let thy will be done!", he tried to blackmail his apostles emotionally. Although he tried it three times, he was not successful, for it was midnight and the apostles were asleep.

What if Jesus himself was the Satan who deceives men by pretending to them that he was saving them? Then it would be necessary for Satan to play out the crucifixion drama.

Further, it was Jesus who foretold, (*Matthew* 16:23) what would happen to him in Jerusalem, when Peter tried to be a stumbling block to him, and that is the reason why he called Peter a Satan. [The reference stands mid-clause in the German print, exactly as placed here.]

Nowhere in the text does it say that Peter was possessed by Satan. But if Peter was not possessed, why then did Jesus call him "Satan"? The "Satan" who was in Peter did not want Jesus to die. But the Satan who was in Judas wanted Jesus to be arrested and killed.

This points to the fact that the "Satan" in Peter and the 'Satan' who was in Judas were not the same

**[p. 171]**

ones.  The one is an obstacle in Jesus' path and the other paved the path for Jesus. [The German marks the two Satans with double and single quotation marks respectively; the distinction is reproduced here.]

If Jesus is the son of God, how does it then come about that there is one Satan who behaves like an obstacle in the way, while the other Satan helps him to reach his goal?

They are two totally different entities. The problem with this is: "Satan" is a unique being. How can it be that the Bible speaks of two different Satans?

There is a devil mentioned in the Bible who speaks with Jesus shortly after his time of fasting in the desert. Let me direct your attention to this conversation:

"Thereafter Jesus was led by the Spirit of God into the desert, where he was to be exposed to the temptations of the devil. For forty days and nights he ate nothing. Hunger tormented him. Then the devil came and put him to the test. He challenged him: "If you are God's son, then make bread out of these stones!" (*Matthew* 4:1-3)

Here we have a devil who calls into question Jesus' claim to be the son of God and who challenges him by saying: if you are the

**[p. 172]**

son of God, then prove it by a miracle.

But note the contradiction: "And when the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him, cried out and said: 'Thou art God's son!'" (*Mark* 3:11)

So we find two different kinds of devils in the Bible. One devil who challenges the divine sonship, and another who cries out that Jesus is the son of God.

Their characters are totally different. The one sort stand in opposition to Jesus, while the others pay him homage. The devil who was in Peter opposes Jesus, while the other, who was in Judas, is at his service.

That means a division in Satan's realm, i.e. a division of hell.

Jesus too brings discord. Jesus himself declares: "Do ye think that I am come to bring peace on earth? I say: No, but rather division." (*Luke* 12:51)

But according to Jesus' own words there can be no division in Satan's kingdom. Look here: "But the Pharisees, when they heard it,

**[p. 173]**

said: 'He casts out the devils by none other than Beelzebub, the chief of the devils.'" (*Matthew* 12:24) Jesus retorts: "If then one Satan cast out the other, he must be divided against himself; how then can his kingdom stand? But if I cast out the devils by Beelzebub, by whom do your children cast them out?" (*Matthew* 12:26-27)

The Pharisees accused Jesus not of being possessed by Satan but by Beelzebub, the "prince of demons".

Beelzebub is a fallen archangel and the prince of the devil, whereas Satan Lucifer is "the fallen ***rebelling*** archangel" *(Merriam Webster's)*. The unique character of Lucifer or Satan is rebellion and revolt. Do not forget: Jesus too was a rebel.

Even though he has fallen and has lost his status as an angel, he rebels against this reality and claims to be God. Lucifer's means to that end is the so-called "Holy Bible".

**[p. 174]**

*(Blank verso; not scanned. End of the chapter.)*

## Kapitel 9 — Die Auferstehung (S. 175–250)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-9a-de.md, augenoeffner-kapitel-9b-de.md, augenoeffner-kapitel-9c-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-9a-en.md, augenoeffner-kapitel-9b-en.md, augenoeffner-kapitel-9c-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 175]**

## The Resurrection: The Truth

[Image: colour plate — two veiled women approach the rock tomb from the left; a third woman in a light garment bends forward past the rolled-aside round stone toward the open entrance.]

*(Page 176 is a blank verso and was not scanned.)*

**[p. 177]**

No one who has died has ever come back. The Bible, however, says that Jesus accomplished this impossible task. A re-examination is therefore worthwhile. Various versions of the resurrection story exist. One contradicts the other; and they are even self-contradictory.

Contradiction is a mark of untruth. It is easier to count the stars in the sky than the lies in the Bible. The resurrection story is no different. First I would like to show you some of the principal contradictions bound up with the story of Jesus' resurrection.

## Contradiction 1

The Bible states that Jesus rose from the tomb on Sunday morning (*Mark* 16:9). How many people actually went to the tomb at that point in time?

We begin with *Matthew* 28:1: "But when the Sabbath was over and the first day of the week was

**[p. 178]**

dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the tomb". *Mark* 16:1-2 does not agree with *Matthew*: "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might come and anoint him. And they came to the tomb on the first day of the week very early, as the sun was rising."

*Luke* 24:1 does not agree with *Matthew* and *Mark*: "But on the first day of the week very early they came to the tomb and brought the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them."

According to Luke they went to the tomb with certain others. Luke means Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary, the mother of James, when he mentions "they", which is also set out later in verses 9 & 10. Luke says it was a group of women  from the towns of Galilee that came to the tomb in which Jesus lay buried.

Now to *John* 20:1: "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene comes early, while it was still dark, to the tomb and sees that the stone had been taken away from the tomb." John contradicts all the other accounts by saying that only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Contradiction

**[p. 179]**

is a mark of the lie. Truth has only one version, whereas a lie can have several versions, which moreover can contradict one another, as in the so-called Gospels.

## Contradiction 2

Why did the women who followed Jesus from Galilee go to the tomb??

According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary", the mother of James, came in order to look at the tomb. Matthew contradicts himself here. He mentions in *Matthew* 27:61 that these two women saw the tomb on Friday evening at the burial.

"And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb."

According to Luke the women even saw the body being laid in the tomb: "With Joseph there went also the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee. They watched as they laid the dead man in the tomb." (23:55) This was 30 to 36 hours before the visit early on Sunday morning mentioned in *Matthew* 28:1. So the

**[p. 180]**

women's visit did not take place in order to look at the tomb, as stated in *Matthew*.

Mark says: "After the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, Salome and Mary, the mother of James, bought fragrant oils in order to anoint the dead man." (*Mark* 16:1)

This is a contradiction to Matthew, who says nothing about the women going with oils in order to anoint the body of Jesus; rather, the purpose of the visit consisted in seeing the tomb.

Now to *Luke* 24:1: "But on the first day of the week very early they came to the tomb and brought the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Luke refutes Mark when he says they went to the tomb with the oils they had prepared and not the ones they bought, as reported in *Mark*. Perhaps, given the number of women who were present, Luke says they had prepared the oils!

Now to *John*: "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene comes early, while it was still dark, to the tomb and sees that the stone had been taken away from the tomb." (20:1) John does not mention why Mary went to the tomb.

**[p. 181]**

## Contradiction 3

What did Mary Magdalene, or she and the women, or the women together see at the tomb?

According to Matthew: " … behold, there was a great earthquake. For the angel of the LORD came down from heaven, stepped up and rolled the stone away from the door and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning and his garment white as snow. But the guards were terrified with fear and became as though they were dead." (28:2-4)

Mary Magdalene and Mary perceived a strong earthquake as the angel of the Lord came down from heaven. Scientifically speaking, an earthquake occurs on account of a sudden shifting of the earth's plates beneath the surface.  The earthquake would therefore make more sense if the angel had ascended from hell.

If a strong earthquake were the consequence of an angel coming down from heaven, then an earthquake ought to follow every descending angel. We go on to *Luke* chapter 1, where the appearance of another angel is mentioned: "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God into a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin

**[p. 182]**

who was betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in to her and said: Greetings to you, favoured one! The Lord is with you, you blessed among women!" (26-28) This angel is said to have been sent by God from heaven, yet no earthquake followed upon this event.

A strong earthquake has a magnitude of eight or higher on the Richter-Gutenberg scale, which can cause enormous damage over a wide area.  If there was a strong earthquake there because of the angel who came down from heaven to Golgatha in front of the tomb of Jesus,  then the round stone which Joseph of Arimathea had rolled in front of the entrance would have had to be moved away from the entrance by the shaking of the quake. The Bible says that the earthquake occurred precisely in front of the tomb and the stone that blocked the entrance remained there unmoved until the angel rolled it away!

*Matthew* 28:4: "The guards fell to the ground in terror and lay there as though dead". The guards did not tremble because of the earthquake, but because of their fear of the angel. If the men were so frightened that they appeared as dead, what then would have

**[p. 183]**

become of the women? According to Matthew the angel even spoke to the women, and he did not throw them into panic as he did the men.

*Matthew* 28:5-7: "The angel turned to the women: 'Do not be afraid! I know that you are looking for Jesus, the crucified one. He is no longer here. He has risen, as he foretold. Come and look at the place where he lay. Then hurry, go to his disciples and tell them that Jesus has risen from the dead. He will go ahead of you to Galilee, and there you will see him. This message I am to deliver to you.'" All this happened while the men were trembling and frozen to death.

Now to *Mark* 16:3-7: "And they said among themselves: Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb? And they looked and became aware that the stone had been rolled away; for it was very large. And they went into the tomb and saw a young man sitting on the right hand, wearing a long white garment; and they were horrified. But he said to them: 'Do not be horrified! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified one; he is not here. See there the place where they laid him! But go and tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you

**[p. 184]**

to Galilee; there you will see him, as he said.'"

And again Mark contradicts Matthew, telling a completely different story. How could Mark leave out the earthquake mentioned in *Matthew*, which is supposed to have shaken the whole region?

*Mark* says in 16:4: "And they looked and became aware that the stone had been rolled away." They saw neither an angel who came down and rolled the stone away, nor did they see guards. So they stepped into the tomb and saw a young man sitting on the right-hand side, who told them roughly the same thing as the angel who spoke in *Matthew*.

Now to *Luke* 24:2-7: "But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb and went in and did not find the body of the LORD Jesus. And while they were troubled about this, behold, two men in shining garments stepped up to them. And they were afraid and bowed their faces down to the earth. Then these said to them: 'Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, saying: The Son of Man must be delivered

**[p. 185]**

into the hands of sinners and be crucified and rise again on the third day.'"

According to Mark the women saw a man when they entered the tomb. According to Luke the women saw no one when they entered the tomb. Since one account contradicts the other, either Mark's or Matthew's account is a lie. Yet both cannot be true. In conclusion we turn to John, the beloved disciple of Jesus: "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene comes early, while it was still dark, to the tomb and sees that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. Then she runs and comes to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and says to them: 'They have taken the LORD away out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.' Then Peter and the other disciple went out to the tomb. But the two ran together, and the other disciple ran ahead, faster than Peter, and came first to the tomb, peeps in and sees the linen cloths lying there; but he did not go in." (*John* 20:1-5)

According to John, the disciple whom Jesus supposedly loved, Mary Magdalene did not enter the tomb into which Jesus' body had been laid, on Sunday before sunrise. Nor did she see at the entrance

**[p. 186]**

any angel sitting on the stone, which does not agree with the [sic] of the Gospels of Mark and Luke.

## Contradiction 4

What did she or the others do after the visit to the tomb?

*Matthew* says in 28:8-10 & 16 "Terrified, the women ran away from the tomb. At the same time indescribable joy filled them. They wanted to report everything they had experienced to the disciples at once. They had not got far when Jesus suddenly stood before them. "Greetings!", he said. Then they fell down before him and clasped his feet. Jesus calmed them: "Do not be afraid! Go, tell my brothers they are to come to Galilee! There they will see me." (28:8-10) "But the eleven disciples went to Galilee onto a mountain where Jesus had directed them." (28:16)

But Mark contradicts Matthew directly in 16:8: "Then the women fled from the tomb and ran away. Fear and horror had seized them. They spoke to no one about it, so terrified were they."

**[p. 187]**

Now to *Luke* 24:8-9: "And they remembered his words. And they went back from the tomb and proclaimed all this to the Eleven and to all the others." Luke's account agrees with Matthew's, but not with Mark's.

Finally the disciple whom Jesus loved. His account agrees with none of those named above; *John* says in 20:2: "Then she runs and comes to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and says to them: 'They have taken the LORD away out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.'"

The Gospels therefore stand in contradiction to one another with regard to the story of Jesus' resurrection. It is a disgrace that believers regard the four Gospels as works inspired by God. Were these divine works, they would not contradict one another in so many respects. But the simple truth is that the works not only contradict each other but are also self-contradictory.

**[p. 188]**

## Contradiction 5

Where did Jesus meet his apostles and the other disciples after his resurrection?

According to Matthew, Jesus appeared to the women before they could pass the news on to the disciples at all, even though the angel had told them they would see Jesus in Galilee.  "And they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to proclaim it to his disciples. And as they went to proclaim it to his disciples, behold, Jesus met them and said: Greetings!" (28: 8-9)

Now to *Mark:* Chapter 16 has two contradictory versions of the resurrection story. The first ends with verse 8: "Then the women fled from the tomb and ran away. Fear and horror had seized them. They spoke to no one about it, so terrified were they."

In *Mark* it continues with a note from the Church to the reader: "The oldest reliable manuscripts and other very old witnesses do not contain *Mark* 16:9-20."

That tells us first of all that the Gospel of *Mark* consists of several manuscripts. Why

**[p. 189]**

should Mark produce several manuscripts of the same book? Even if he did this for some strange reason, how can his manuscripts contradict one another? Is it because he writes of things of which he is not certain and therefore brings two different versions? If the author himself is not sure of what he is writing, how then can we give credence to his words?

Conversely, the books of the Bible  are perceived as inspired utterances of God, hence the title "God's Word". This title is in any case inappropriate for the book "Jewish Proverbs", which is located exactly in the middle of the Bible.

What does a good God intend to achieve by inspiring Mark to write chapter 16 up to verse 8 and later verses 9-20, which contradict each other? Be that as it may: this question lies outside the scope of this chapter. Here we are discussing the resurrection of Jesus and related matters.

*Mark* 16:9-10 says: "Jesus had risen from the dead early in the morning on the first day of the week and appeared first to Mary of Magdala, whom he had freed from seven demons. She ran

**[p. 190]**

to the disciples, who were mourning and weeping for Jesus."

In verse 10 of the unreliable manuscript Mary Magdalene went and announced it to those who had been with Jesus. But the old reliable manuscripts tell exactly the opposite in verse 8.

If this is the reliable version, then the others by Matthew, Luke and John are lies. For they say the women went and told everything to the apostles, in other words: to those who were with him.

*Matthew* 27: 57-61: "In the evening a rich man came from Arimathea. His name was Joseph and he was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked him for the body of Jesus. Pilate ordered this request to be granted. Joseph took the dead man, wrapped him in a new linen cloth and laid him in the tomb which he had had hewn out of a rock for himself. Then he rolled a large stone in front of the entrance of the tomb and went away. Mary of Magdala and the other Mary were also present. They remained sitting by the tomb."

The place where Jesus was crucified, Golgota, lies on a hill: "But when they looked up,

**[p. 191]**

they saw that the stone, although it was very large, had been rolled away." (*Mark* 16:4)

Even before we had begun the investigation, we have found many contradictions.

How does it come about that there are contradictions in the "words of God" or in the "inspired utterances"?  The spirit that inspired Luke also inspired John, and yet their formulations contradict one another. That is to say, they were possessed by a spirit, by a lying spirit and not the Holy Spirit, as the Bible claims.

An investigation has much to do with asking questions and finding answers. We shall therefore raise many questions. Let us begin with a simple question.

How did this place come by the name "Place of the Skulls"? To find this out, we put a few questions to ourselves.

Why does it say: Boldly Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus? This points to it having been unusual to hand over the body of a condemned, crucified criminal to the relatives. The relatives of the criminal usually show

**[p. 192]**

not the courage to turn to the authorities in order to obtain the body. When Jesus was crucified, two others had been crucified there with him. What happened to the bodies of these two criminals? These bodies must have been devoured by animals or birds. In the night from Friday to Saturday by animals, if the bodies were taken down from the crosses, or on Saturday morning by vultures, if the bodies were left on the crosses. As Jesus said "Where the carrion [sic: "As" for "Aas"] is, there the vultures gather." (*Matthew* 24:28)

Animals and birds eat only the flesh, some also chew the bones, but the skull will remain behind in Golgota, the Place of the Skulls. That is how the place must have received this name. This name points to nothing other than the fear that people had of this place. There was not only a new tomb there, but also a garden at the Place of the Skulls. The tomb was therefore in the garden (*John* 19:41). The tomb was located in the garden and the garden at the Place of the Skulls.

A garden is an area on which herbs, fruit, flowers or vegetables are planted. Or a garden is a public recreation

**[p. 193]**

area, or a park usually adorned with plants and trees. It is improbable that anyone would plant vegetables or fruit on the hill at the Place of the Skulls. It is still more improbable that a public recreation area adorned with trees should stand next to a crucifixion ground. No one would gladly sit among skulls in order to relax. So then: How does a garden come to be at the Place of the Skulls?

Let us assume that the rich man Joseph of Arimathea worked for months on the hill in order to form a tomb out of a rock. People passing by would have recognised him as a respected member of the Jewish council (*Luke* 23:50) while he laboured hard in Golgota, at the Place of the Skulls. In order to avoid this problem, he first created a garden around the rock. This is the main reason, but there are several other reasons besides.

In this garden the disguised Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, and she thought he was a gardener.  Outside this garden lies the ground where the Romans used to crucify criminals. There is the possibility that the crucifixions were put on display at the Place of the Skulls every month and that the people of

**[p. 194]**

Jerusalem gathered there in order to see this at first hand. Since the work on the tomb may have taken months, it is likely that the observers of the crucifixions noticed the construction of the tomb. With this garden around the tomb, Joseph of Arimathea — or the demon who disposed over him — solved the above-mentioned problem cleverly.

We have two other problems with this theory. **1.** Would people not have noticed Joseph of Arimathea going to the Place of the Skulls? **2.** What about the noise that would have arisen from the work on the rock? People would certainly have noticed Joseph of Arimathea if he went to Golgota during the day. If, however, he went in the dark and in disguise, the deeply sleeping people would not have seen him. Even if someone had seen him, that person would not have recognised Joseph of Arimathea, since he was disguised. Add to this that he went to the Place of the Skulls, where out of fear people did not normally go even in daytime.

If someone works a stone with a chisel and a hammer, then a noise undoubtedly arises. Such a noise can be perceived even far away, provided the work is done at normal

**[p. 195]**

speed. But what if Joseph worked unusually slowly in the initial stage? Then there would be no problem on account of the noise. Let us imagine that the secret disciple first struck the large block out of the rock, then chiselled one to two metres into the rock, closed the entrance with the block and could then go on working safely inside.

Some may perhaps wonder how Joseph of Arimathea could work in the darkness and with so little oxygen in that  small space. Light is actually needed only for working the block; after that it is possible to continue without light. Moreover he is on the hill in the garden; he can remove the block again and again in order to see the progress of his work, and at the same time the problem of oxygen is likewise solved. The larger the tomb becomes, the more spacious and comfortable it becomes for him to continue his work with the entrance closed.

Why should Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man and known member of the Jewish council, build the tomb at the Place of the Skulls at all, where the most notorious criminals were punished with death? The Bible says that Joseph of Arimathea, a secret disciple of

**[p. 196]**

Jesus, created the tomb into which Jesus' body was laid. If this tomb had not been made, the whole story of the resurrection could not have taken place.

It is possible that he intended to create a tomb for his older family members. But then he would not have done so at the Place of the Skulls. Beyond that he is a rich man and would have hired someone to build the tomb. But the tomb into which Jesus' body was laid was created by Joseph of Arimathea: "and laid him in his new memorial vault, which he had hewn in the rock." (*Matthew* 27:60) The tomb was new, that is, only just completed, perhaps even only one or two days before Jesus' crucifixion.

Even if Joseph of Arimathea was rich, he was a disciple of Jesus and he was waiting for the kingdom of heaven. According to Jesus' words "And further I say to you: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (*Matthew* 19:24)

Why did Jesus not say to the rich man of Arimathea: "So go, sell what you have, and give it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come and follow

**[p. 197]**

me!", as he said to the rich man in *Matthew* 19:21? The answer is simple: apart from Jesus, no one knew that Joseph was his disciple. In fact he was not only a secret disciple of Jesus, but also created in secret a garden with a tomb in it.

Although he was a disciple of Jesus, none of the other members of the Jewish council knew about it. That shows how clever Jesus' plan was.

Incidentally, it was Mary and Joseph without whom a birth of Jesus would not have been possible. They also stood, in a manner of speaking, as godparents at the second birth, the resurrection of Jesus.

Only when evening came on did Joseph of Arimathea appear in Golgota. It should be mentioned that Jesus died on the cross at three o'clock in the afternoon. Joseph of Arimathea only arrived on the spot once the people of Golgota had returned home. He did this in order to make sure that no one would learn of his discipleship. He first came to Golgota and then went to Pilate in order to request the body: "In the evening a rich man came from Arimathea. His name was Joseph and he was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate

**[p. 198]**

and asked him for the body of Jesus." (*Matthew* 27:57-58)

He took the body down from the cross, did his work and disappeared.  Now, there was also Nicodemus, another secret disciple of Jesus, who visited him at night, likewise a member of the Jewish council. He too came when evening drew on, after the Jewish gathering had anointed Jesus' body with perfumes and left Golgota. (*John* 19:39-42) It is, however, difficult for one man to take down a body that is nailed to the cross. But Joseph of Arimathea was not alone; Nikodemus [sic — the German prints "Nicodemus" and "Nikodemus" in the same paragraph] accompanied him.

Since all four Gospels report contradictorily on the resurrection of Jesus, and since John is the supposedly beloved disciple of Jesus and was the first to hear from Mary that the body of Jesus had been taken down, let us look at this version of the story. In *John* 20 it says: "On the first day after the Sabbath, still before sunrise, Mary of Magdala went to the tomb. There she saw that the stone no longer lay in front of the entrance of the tomb. At once she ran to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. Excitedly she reported to them: 'They have taken the Lord out of the tomb

**[p. 199]**

and we do not know where they have brought him!'" (1-2)

Who removed the stone from the entrance?

Since the body of Jesus was not in the tomb, there are only two possibilities.

**1.** Someone went into the tomb in order to take Jesus' body out, just as Mary told Peter and John. **2.** Someone wanted to leave the tomb.

Only Jesus with his dead body, which was located there, could leave the tomb. Let us analyse the possibilities. Let us imagine that Jesus awoke in the middle of Friday night, only a few hours after his body had been laid there. He had risen with the body that was laid in the tomb, and with this body he moved the stone aside and left the tomb.

If Jesus had really risen with his body, then he could not have entered the upper room where his disciples had shut themselves in out of fear of the Jews, since the doors were locked from the inside. *John* 20:19, however, says: "But in the evening of that same first day of the week, when the disciples were gath-

**[p. 200]**

ered and the doors were shut for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst."  If Jesus could enter a room despite locked doors, then he could also leave a closed tomb without removing the entrance stone. Since the Bible says the stone had been rolled aside, it is now established that this happened from the outside. That means [sic — the German prints "heisst" here, not "heißt"] that someone entered the tomb after Joseph of Arimathea and Nikodemus had laid the body of Jesus in the tomb and closed its entrance.

From this it can be concluded that Jesus had not risen with his body, and therefore the body must have been destroyed. Who did this? How and when was it done? If Jesus' body was destroyed, how then did he appear to his apostles? These questions we shall work on in the following pages.

Mary ran to Peter and John when she saw that the stone had been rolled away and said: "They have taken the body out of the tomb." Why did she not say that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance? Even though she did not take a step into the tomb in order to make sure that the body had been removed, she was certain in the

---

*[Part A ends with p. 200; the text continues on p. 201.]*

**[p. 201]**

assumption that the body was no longer in the tomb.

Mary Magdalene could only know that the corpse of Jesus had been removed if she had helped make it disappear. Indeed, the Bible gives ample indications in this direction. When Jesus came from Galilee to Jerusalem many women followed him: “And many women were there, watching from afar off, who had followed Jesus out of Galilee and had served him; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of the children of Zebedee.” *(Matthäus* 27:55-56)

Even on Friday afternoon, after he had died and before the assembled crowd returned, there were women there who had followed Jesus in order to look after his needs. For Jesus there was no greater necessity than to make his body disappear, since, having lost it on the cross, he could not attend to this himself.

If the corpse of Jesus had been removed by one of the women who had followed him from Galilee, then Jesus would have had to live in constant fear, for as long as that woman lived, that she would betray it to the apostles.

**[p. 202]**

Therefore Jesus would not have employed anyone known to the apostles or to any other follower from Galilee to carry out this misdeed.

Thus the scripture cited above, which describes the women of Galilee as accomplices in the misdeed, is refuted by the cunning endeavour of a super-criminal attempting to lead the examiner astray.

Let us look briefly at how Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus came in the dark to the Place of Skulls.

*Johannes* 19:38-42 “After this (“when the evening drew on”, according to *Matthäus* 27:57) Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus. And Pilate permitted it. So he came and took down the body of Jesus. But Nicodemus also came, who had formerly come to Jesus by night, and brought myrrh and aloes mingled together, about a hundred pounds. Then they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the manner of the Jews to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a

**[p. 203]**

new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. There they laid Jesus, because of the Jews' day of preparation, since the tomb was near at hand.”

Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus have certain things in common:

They were secret disciples of Jesus. They were members of the ruling Jewish council, or Sanhedrin — in other words: they belonged to the Jewish jurors. Both of them appeared in the evening at the Place of Skulls, after the crowd of people had dispersed. They were the two men who laid the body of Jesus in the tomb.

John does not mention that Joseph is the one who made the tomb. Yet John says: “ … there is a garden there with a new tomb.” How do Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus know about the new tomb in the garden at the Place of Skulls? If Joseph of Arimathea had known nothing of this new tomb in the garden, why then did he go to Pilate in the evening to obtain permission to take down the body of Jesus?

Since both were Jews and were afraid of being exposed as followers of Jesus, the two certainly knew nothing of each other. Put differently: Joseph of Arimathea did not know that Nico-

**[p. 204]**

demus was a follower of Jesus, and vice versa.

If Nicodemus did not know that Joseph of Arimathea was a follower of Jesus, then he also could not know that Joseph went to Pilate. If a Jew had known that Joseph of Arimathea approached Pilate in connection with Jesus of Nazareth, then Joseph would have got into trouble. That is why Joseph would not inform Nicodemus, a Jew, about his secret plan.

What was Joseph's intention with the body when Pilate permitted him to take it? This problem testifies that Joseph of Arimathea had known about the new tomb in the garden, since on Friday evening he went to Pilate in Jerusalem to ask him for permission to take the body down. Afterwards he went, that same evening, to the Place of Skulls.

Now to Nicodemus. Why did he come alone in the dark with a load of a hundred pounds? Did he not know that Jesus' body was nailed to the cross with large nails and that it was almost impossible to take it down

**[p. 205]**

alone? Or did he intend to oil the body while it was still hanging on the cross?

John is the only one who mentions Nicodemus as Joseph of Arimathea's helper at the burial of the body. If all the others, contrary to John, are telling the truth, how then could Joseph of Arimathea take the body of Jesus down from the cross by himself? This underlines John's statement that Joseph had a helper — something the other gospels simply suppress.

Since Nicodemus and Joseph did not come together, and Joseph was the one who went to Pilate, why then did Nicodemus bring 45 kg of spices to anoint the body? What Joseph of Arimathea does makes little sense either. Together, however, they would accomplish the task. This peculiar coordination points to a genius controlling the whole proceeding. Here it must be said that they were in a psychic state in which their individual, ordinary personality had been replaced by another. In other words: they were possessed.

By whom were they possessed? Who profits when Nicodemus and Joseph are possessed? It is

**[p. 206]**

none other than Jesus, for it is Jesus himself who took possession of Joseph and Nicodemus.

That explains why Nicodemus and Joseph did not know each other as followers of Jesus. Joseph went to Pilate in Jerusalem, and as he came in the dark to the Place of Skulls, Nicodemus reached the Place of Skulls with perfumes.

When they came to the Place of Skulls, a surprise awaited them in the dark. The surprise was nothing other than a group of women from Galilee. We have several problems here: why did these women remain at the Place of Skulls after everything was over and the assembled people had returned to their houses? Were they waiting for Joseph and Nicodemus? Or was the arrival of Joseph and Nicodemus a shock to them?

Let us examine closely the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee to the Place of Skulls, the site of his crucifixion. *Lukas* 23:48-49: “And all the people who were there and looked on, when they saw what happened, beat their breasts and turned back again. But all his acquaintances stood afar off, and the women who had followed him from Galilee, and saw all this.”

**[p. 207]**

When the crowd of people left the Place of Skulls, the women of Galilee observed this from a distance. When evening came, however, only two women were still present, sitting opposite the tomb, while Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus laid the body in the tomb: “and laid him in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in a rock, and rolled a great stone before the door of the tomb, and departed. And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting over against the tomb.” *(Matthäus* 27:60-61)

This tomb was situated in the garden — that is to say, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting in the garden. So there is also the possibility that they observed the crucifixion of Jesus from this garden, hidden behind the trees. Since they were women from Galilee, they did not know that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were secret, wealthy followers of Jesus. As evening fell, one after another left the place; only Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, stayed behind. But the women did not know what to do. Even if they had wished to take the body of Jesus down from the cross, they would not have managed it because of the nails. Without proper tools it would have been impossible for them

**[p. 208]**

to take the body down. They heard Joseph and Nicodemus approaching the Place of Skulls. Since the women were followers of the condemned man, they hid themselves in fear in the dark behind the trees and went on watching what happened. They saw how Joseph and Nicodemus took the body down from the cross. As it is written in *Johannes*: “But Nicodemus also came, who had formerly come to Jesus by night, and brought myrrh and aloes mingled together, about a hundred pounds. Then they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the manner of the Jews to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. There they laid Jesus, because of the Jews' day of preparation, since the tomb was near at hand.” (19:39-42) The continuation is to be found in *Matthäus*: “ … and laid him in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in a rock, and rolled a great stone before the door of the tomb, and departed.” (27:60)

Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, came out of their hiding place once they were convinced that Joseph and Nicodemus had left the site.

**[p. 209]**

The continuation in *Lukas* reads: “And the women also followed after, who had come with him out of Galilee, and beheld the tomb, and how his body was laid.” (23:55)

Let us imagine:

A few hours later, most probably around midnight, after Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, possessed by the demons of Jesus, had laid the body in the tomb, they returned to the Place of Skulls. Both were carrying a corresponding quantity of readily flammable material, such as linen cloths. They moved the stone a little to the side, entered the tomb, and rolled the stone back before the entrance. Now they were inside the sealed tomb with a lamp, the linen cloths and oil, beside the body of Jesus, whose head was covered with a small piece of fabric and whose body, anointed with spices and perfumes, was wrapped in long linen cloths.

Joseph and Nicodemus began their work. Joseph at one end and Nicodemus at the other. Nicodemus removed the sweat-cloth that covered the head, and Joseph freed the body from the linen cloths. After Nicodemus had

**[p. 210]**

removed the sweat-cloth, he helped Joseph with the linen cloths.

After they had removed some of the linen cloths, they began to wrap the body again with the linen cloths they had brought with them. Thereupon they moved the stone a little to the side from within, went out into the garden, gathered a few pieces of wood, brought them into the tomb, left it again to gather still more dry wood, and with it built a woodpile in the tomb, two to three metres away from the spot where Jesus' body had been laid. Then they poured a little of the oil they had brought over the woodpile. Afterwards they carried Jesus' body from the place where they had laid it to the woodpile, laid it upon it, and emptied the rest of the oil over the body, which was now wrapped in many linen cloths. Joseph of Arimathea took the sweat-cloth and the linen cloths he had earlier removed from the body. Then he left the tomb, while Nicodemus set fire to the body of Jesus; and when he saw flames rising from the linen cloths, he too left the tomb, and together they sealed the entrance and waited outside in the garden in the darkness.

**[p. 211]**

Was the tomb large enough to build a woodpile two metres from the spot where Jesus' body lay? Yes, it was a large tomb. The Bible says, when Jesus was on the cross: “Many women from Galilee had come together with Jesus to Jerusalem. They had provided for him, and now they were watching what happened from a distance.” *(Matthäus* 27:55)

Jesus' corpse was laid in the tomb by Joseph and Nicodemus: “With Joseph there also went the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee. They watched as the dead man was laid in the tomb.” *(Lukas* 23:55)

It also says:

“Very early on Sunday morning the women went to the tomb with the fragrant oils they had prepared. The stone with which it had been closed had been rolled aside. When they entered the burial cave, they did not find the body of Jesus, the Lord.” *(Lukas* 24:1-3)

“Among these women were Mary of Magdala, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and a number of others.” *(Lukas* 24:10)

So there were a number of women in the tomb; this makes it clear that it must have been a large tomb.

**[p. 212]**

Between three and four o'clock in the morning they entered the tomb again, sealed the entrance behind them, kindled the lamp, and gathered up the remains — the ashes, the skeleton and the skull. They carried everything out in their outer garments, dug a hole in the garden and buried the remains there. They returned to the tomb, and Joseph laid the linen cloths at the place where he supposed the body of Jesus had lain; and Nicodemus folded the sweat-cloth carefully and laid it in a separate place, since it was stained with Jesus' blood, so that on Sunday morning, when the people came, they would not accidentally tread on this small piece of fabric. There were still other reasons for leaving the cloths in the tomb. After they had finished everything, they left the site on Saturday morning at about five o'clock, while it was still dark. They left the entrance wide open above all so that the smell would not linger in the tomb. They did this in order to mislead the people and let them think that someone had gone in and taken the body away — as Mary Magdalene believed.

Now on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene awoke. She was possessed by many demons: “Now when Jesus

**[p. 213]**

was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.” *(Markus* 16:9)

Controlled by the demons, Mary went to the Place of Skulls and saw that the stone had been rolled aside from the entrance of the tomb. Then she ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciples whom Jesus loved, and said to them: “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have brought him!” *(Johannes* 20:1-2)

When she said “we”, she meant herself and the other Mary, who was with her. By “they” she meant Joseph and Nicodemus. Peter and John came running to the tomb. “Without going in, he looked into the burial chamber and saw the linen cloths lying there.” (20:5)

John could not see the other piece of fabric, since he did not go further in and the tomb was presumably not sufficiently lit. Besides, the tomb is situated in the garden.

After John came Peter. “Then Simon Peter came following him and went into the tomb and sees the linen cloths lying, and the sweat-cloth that had been bound about Jesus' head not lying with the linen cloths, but on both sides, folded

**[p. 214]**

together, in a place by itself. Then the other disciple also went in, who came first to the tomb, and he saw and believed it.” (20:6-8)

What did John believe? Did he believe what Mary Magdalene had told him? That is: “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have brought him!” Now, a later verse says: “For as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” (20:9)

Then verse 10: “So the disciples returned to their houses.” Peter and John are fishermen in Galilee. If they had set out on Sunday morning from Golgotha, which lies a hundred miles from Galilee, they would never have reached their houses by Sunday evening, since two thousand years ago one had to travel on foot. John therefore contradicts himself. “On that Sunday evening all the disciples had gathered. For fear of the Jews they kept the doors firmly shut. Suddenly Jesus was among them. He stepped into their midst and greeted them: ‘Peace be with you!’” *(Johannes* 20:19)

The disciples would not fear the Jews if they had returned to Galilee. They

**[p. 215]**

feared the Jews because they were staying in Jerusalem, the city of the Jews.

Luke confirms this constellation. Jesus appeared to Peter and John on Sunday evening in Jerusalem. “And they rose up that same hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the Eleven gathered together, and those who were with them, who said: ‘The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon.’ And they told them what had happened on the way, and how he was recognised by them in the breaking of the bread. And as they were speaking of this, Jesus himself stepped into their midst and said: ‘Peace be with you!’” (24:33-36).

Leaving out the name of the place, Jerusalem, was done deliberately in *Johannes* 20:19, in order to avoid the exposure of the lie.

In order to justify the word of God, a believer argued that Peter and John returned to their houses in Galilee and from there came back again to Jerusalem. But then the question arises in view of the distance. This would not only double the distance, but the hardship as well. In that era it was unthinkable to cover two hundred miles in a single

**[p. 216]**

day. In fact they would not even manage a hundred miles in a day.

Furthermore: if John and Peter had returned to their houses, which were a hundred miles away from the dangerous place, they would not have gone back to Jerusalem, since they were afraid of the Jews.

All these contradictions show beyond doubt that *Johannes* chapter 20 verse 10 is a lie within “God's words”. If this gospel had truly been written by *Johannes*, then he would not have lied about the fact that he and Peter returned to Galilee on the day of the resurrection. A lie is an untrue statement made in order to deceive *(Merriam Webster's)*. Since John does not profit from such a lie, this indicates that John is not the author of this gospel.

Let us look at what happened at the Place of Skulls after Peter and John left: “But Mary stood before the tomb and wept outside. And as she wept, she peered into the tomb and sees two angels in white garments sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body had been laid. And they said to her: ‘Woman, why weepest thou?’ She says to

**[p. 217]**

them: ‘They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.’ And when she had said this, she turned back and sees Jesus standing, and does not know that it is Jesus. He says to her: ‘Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?’ She thinks it is the gardener, and says to him: ‘Sir, if thou hast carried him away, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will fetch him.’” *(Johannes* 20:11-15)

Peter and John had been at the tomb, probably a minute earlier, yet the angels did not trouble themselves to appear to them. The angels spoke to Mary out of the tomb and asked her why she was weeping, as though they did not know the reason. It stands so written, and one might think that these two angels had come the whole way from heaven merely to ask Mary why she was weeping.

Mary Magdalene, who was possessed by seven demons, had for the first time in her life a vision of angels. Why did she turn round at all?

There is one possibility. As she was answering the angels, she heard a noise behind her back, and in order to see where the noise came from, she turned round. Then she saw Jesus in the

**[p. 218]**

garden, standing at exactly the spot where Joseph and Nicodemus had buried the remains of the burnt body.

The Bible says Mary did not recognise Jesus. Why? Because the spirit of Jesus did not appear to her in a form she knew. She saw the stranger and thought it was the gardener. The spirit asked her: “Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?”

Did Jesus not know why she was weeping? And did he not know whom she was seeking? He certainly knew. Why then did he put such questions to her?

The spirit's first question runs: Why are you weeping? This question had been asked by the angels who were at the tomb, and Mary had already given an answer to it. Since Mary was standing outside the tomb and speaking to the angels at the tomb, and the gardener was standing directly behind her inside the garden, he must have heard the answer. Of this the Bible says: “And when she had said this, she turned back and sees Jesus standing.”

Why then did the spirit ask the same question? The answer she gave to the first question is also the answer to the second question, which ran: “Whom seekest thou?” This means: he put these

**[p. 219]**

two questions not because he did not know the answers to them, but because he wanted to let time pass. Why?

Peter and John had only just left the tomb. Jesus wanted Peter and John to be at a distance where Mary could no longer be heard, so that Mary could not call them back to the tomb. That, then, is why the angels appeared to Mary first and the gardener afterwards. The angels asked one question, the gardener asked two questions, and Mary repeated her answer twice — that makes three questions and two answers, which allowed a sufficiently great distance to open up between Peter and John and the tomb. Peter and John did not come running to the tomb because they could not believe what Mary had told them, but also out of fear of the Jews. So they also hurried back to their hiding place, the upper room.

Mary did not notice that the gardener was the spirit of Jesus, even when he spoke to her. That means the spirit appeared to her not only in a different shape; the voice, too, was unfamiliar to Mary. The gardener called her woman, as though he did not know her name. He did this in order to mislead Mary and conceal his true identity. As soon as she answered, the sup-

**[p. 220]**

posed gardener also spoke: “‘Mary!’ Then she turned round and says to him: ‘Rabboni’ (that is to say: Master)! Jesus says to her: ‘Touch me not! For I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, and to my God and to your God.’” *(Johannes* 20:16-17).

First Mary spoke with the angels who were at the tomb, then she turned round and saw the spirit of Jesus, whom she did not recognise. When she heard the voice say the name Mary, she turned round again, and was now facing the tomb. This time Jesus called her Mary and she turned round at once, which means: the voice sounded from the tomb behind her back, and when she turned round and saw Jesus at the tomb, she called him Master. That would mean: when she heard the voice, she knew it was Jesus and that he was standing at the tomb. But there were no angels there any more, and the gardener too was gone.

Only if Mary had known that the gardener was Jesus would she have tried to touch him. That is why Jesus did not yet need to tell her, at that point in time, do not touch me. When, however, he appeared to her at the tomb in a familiar shape and with a familiar

**[p. 221]**

voice, she wanted to step closer to him and take hold of him, in order to make sure that it was not a spirit; but he turned her away, saying: “Touch me not! for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren and say to them: I ascend to my Father.” *(Johannes* 20:17)

When, after his death on the cross, he appeared to someone for the first time, his first words were “Do not touch me!” Why? Jesus gives an answer to this question: “Because I have not yet ascended to my Father.” If Jesus had not yet gone to heaven on Sunday morning, then he lied on the cross.

One of the two condemned men who were crucified with Jesus on the same day declared himself a follower of Jesus. Thereupon Jesus promised the follower: “Verily I say unto thee: Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” *(Lukas* 23:43). According to this verse Jesus was in paradise on that same day, that is to say on Friday.

This proves that the reason why Mary Magdalene may not touch him did not consist in his not yet having been with his Father, but in the fact that it was the spirit of Jesus that

**[p. 222]**

appeared, after he had lost the body on Friday on the cross.

And furthermore, Mary had known nothing of the promise Jesus made to his follower on the neighbouring cross, because during the crucifixion she was keeping at a greater distance. This served Jesus as a favourable opportunity to lie to Mary.

Whom does he mean by: “Go, tell it to my brethren!”? Did he mean the sons of Joseph, the husband of his mother? Or did he mean the apostles? One quotation refutes the ambiguity entirely: “And he stretched out his hand over his disciples and said: Behold, these are my mother and my brethren! For whosoever does the will of my Father in heaven, the same is my brother, sister and mother.” *(Matthäus* 12: 49-50).

This means: the message he gave to Mary was for Peter and John, who had been at the place a few minutes earlier. Why then did he not appear to them, seeing that they were at the tomb minutes before he appeared to Mary?

To answer this question, some of my good friends who believe in the Bible argue that Jesus, at the time when Peter and John were at the tomb, had not yet

**[p. 223]**

risen. But if Jesus had not yet risen, then his body would still have had to be lying in the tomb, since the faith says that Jesus rose with his body.

Besides, what Jesus communicated to Mary was something he had already told them on Thursday after the Last Supper, on the way to Gethsemane: “I came forth from the Father and am come into the world; again I leave the world and go to the Father. His disciples say to him: Behold, now thou speakest plainly and utterest no proverb.” *(Johannes* 16:28-29).

Therefore the reason why Jesus had appeared to Mary cannot be that of sending Mary with a message to his brethren, if they already knew the content of the message. Had he wanted to remind them of it, he would have appeared to Peter and John at the tomb himself, which he did not do.

If Jesus had wanted to convey the message that he was returning to his Father to Peter and John, he could have done so while the two were at the tomb. For when the two came to the tomb, Jesus was there in the garden, invisible. Or

**[p. 224]**

did he not want to appear to them there and at that moment? Why?

Jesus died on Friday on the cross (Good Friday, as the Christians call it), and on Sunday he told Mary Magdalene that he had not yet ascended to heaven — consequently he lied on the cross, minutes before he died.

One of the two condemned men who were crucified with Jesus on the same day declared himself a follower of Jesus: “Verily I say unto thee: Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” *(Lukas* 23:43) According to this verse Jesus was in paradise on that same day, Friday. Yet on Sunday, when he appeared to Mary, he said exactly the opposite: “For I have not yet returned to my Father.”

The self-appointed apostle Paul lies to the Corinthians—*2.Korinther* 12:3-4: “And even though I do not understand how he got there—God alone knows that too—, he was in paradise.” The *Offenbarung* of *Johannes* says this about paradise: “To him will I give to eat of the fruits of the tree of life, which stands in God's paradise.” (2:7) Paradise is the Garden of Eden, for the tree of life stands in the middle of the

**[p. 225]**

Garden of Eden. Here is the dwelling place of Jesus after his death on the cross.

Where faith abides, logical thinking disappears. Faith is the abductor of logical thinking and the midwife of superstition.

It would be impossible for Jesus to deceive Mary had she not placed her faith in him. Jesus sent Mary with the following message: “But go to my brethren and say to them: I ascend to my Father.” *(Johannes* 20:17) Mary could, for example, have asked herself why Jesus had not appeared to Peter and John, seeing that they had been at the tomb only a few minutes earlier. He could have given them this information directly — why did he not do so?

Jesus sent Mary with the message “I am going back to my Father.” Had he then ascended to his Father? No, he had not. The Bible says: “But on the evening of that same first day of the week, when the disciples were gathered and the doors were shut for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stepped into their midst and says to them: Peace be with you!” *(Johannes* 20:19) Do not forget: Jesus, who said, peace be with you, also said: “Do not suppose that I have come to send peace on the earth.

**[p. 226]**

I am not come to send peace, but the sword. For I am come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s enemies shall be his own household.” (*Matthäus* 10:34-36)

Let us look at what happened after he had sent Mary away with the message “But go to my brethren and say to them: I ascend to my Father”. “Mary Magdalene comes and announces to the disciples: ‘I have seen the LORD, and he has said such things to me.’” (*Johannes* 20:18)

Certainly Jesus knew that Mary would not only deliver the message he had asked of her, but would also tell of other events. Mary told them how Jesus had appeared to her at the tomb and how he rebuffed her when she wanted to touch him, since he had not yet ascended into heaven. Actually this is the only message Jesus wanted to convey to them through Mary, according to which no one is permitted to touch him before he has ascended into heaven. This is also the reason why he did not appear to Peter and John when they were at the tomb.

**[p. 227]**

Mary Magdalene did not know that Jesus told the believers that he would have a common meal in heaven on the same day. For Mary Magdalene was not near him when Jesus said this.

How could Jesus be sure that Mary passed the message on to his apostles. For a spirit like Jesus this is very simple: the spirit would follow Mary unnoticed to the room in Jerusalem, where the eleven apostles and others were, and listen to her as she speaks to the others.

When she came and told of the things she had seen, they did not believe the words. Mary told what she had reported to Peter and John an hour earlier, that the body of Jesus had been taken and that she did not know where they had laid him. Peter and John had given credence to her words, which is why they visited the tomb and were just returning from Golgotha. Then Mary came with a new story, according to which she had seen Jesus and he had conveyed to her the message that he would ascend to his Father. This story stands in total contradiction to what she had reported only a short time before.

**[p. 228]**

Just as Mary had not known of the promise that Jesus gave to his follower on the neighbouring cross, so the apostles too did not know of it.

Jesus is now, invisible to all the others, in the same room in Jerusalem. Everyone is speaking of the fact that the body of Jesus was taken from the tomb.

After some time he spoke: “And behold, two of them went that same day into a village which was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem; whose name is Emmaus. And they talked with one another of all these happenings. And it came to pass, as they so talked and questioned one another, Jesus drew near to them and walked with them. But their eyes were held, that they did not know him. But he said to them: ‘What manner of talk is this that ye hold between you as ye walk, and are sad?’ Then one named Cleopas answered and said to him: ‘Art thou alone among the strangers in Jerusalem, who knowest not what has come to pass therein in these days?’” (*Lukas* 24:13-18)

On Sunday, early in the morning, he sent Mary with the message that he would ascend to his Father, yet on Sunday afternoon he spoke

**[p. 229]**

with two other disciples who had been together with the apostles in the room in Jerusalem. On foot these went from the room in Jerusalem to Emmaus, which lies seven miles away. Jesus drew near to them and walked with them; they did not recognise him because their eyes were held, so says the holy Bible. Scriptures are unbreakable, Jesus told the Pharisees. Were this true, then the disciples would have recognised Jesus even if their eyes were held. Since Jesus spoke with them, they would as disciples have had to recognise his voice. That is comparable to his appearing before Mary in the form of the gardener. In daylight he appeared not as Jesus, but as a stranger.

Not because their eyes were held did they fail to recognise him, but because he appeared to them in a strange form. We understand this from the words that Cleopas spoke: “Art thou the only one among the strangers in Jerusalem?”

At first Jesus appeared to them as a stranger, so that they would not be tempted to touch him, or even think that a spirit was accompanying them. The other reason is: as a stranger he can converse with them and know nothing of the events that had taken place in Jerusalem a few days before. “He said

**[p. 230]**

however to them: ‘What manner of things are these that ye discuss with one another as ye walk?’ Then they stood still, sad. And the one named Cleopas answered and said to him: ‘Art thou the only one among the strangers in Jerusalem who does not know what has happened there in these days?’ And he said to them: ‘What things?’” (*Lukas* 24:17-19) With this question Jesus strengthened them in their conviction that he is a stranger who had no idea what they were speaking of.

Deceived by Jesus, they answered the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth: “And he said to them: ‘Which?’ But they said to him: ‘That of Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deeds and words before God and all the people; how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to the condemnation of death and crucified him. But we hoped that he should redeem Israel. And besides all this, today is the third day since these things came to pass. Also certain women of our own have alarmed us; they were early at the tomb, did not find his body, and come and say they have seen a vision of angels, who say he lives. And certain among us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.’” (*Lukas* 24:19-24)

**[p. 231]**

The Bible says they told Jesus, today is the third day since this happened. Yet this is not correct, since the day in question was a Sunday, as only two days had passed since the crucifixion. The rest of the story stands in agreement with the resurrection story in *Lukas,* yet is completely contradictory to the story in *Johannes*.

In any case, the stranger from Jerusalem, hearing this, said: “‘O ye fools and slow of heart, to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Must not Christ suffer such things and enter into his glory?’ And he began at Moses and all the prophets and expounded to them all the scriptures that were spoken of him.” (*Lukas* 24:25-27)

If Jesus was supposed to suffer in order to enter into his glory, then the fools and the slow of heart should not have believed it, and this on account of their bewilderment at the fact that Jesus should apparently be privileged to suffer.

If it stands in the scriptures that Jesus must suffer in order to enter into his glory, why then did Jesus cry out on the cross: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” On

**[p. 232]**

Friday afternoon on the cross he accused his Father of having let him suffer. But two days later, on Sunday afternoon, he rebuked his disciples because they did not know that he had to suffer in order to enter into his glory. What a swindler!

The stranger began a conversation and called them fools, that is, he insulted them. If he had first explained to them what foolishness they were committing and had called them fools afterwards, it would have been right. So the stranger provoked them. How can they be called fools if they slowly believed everything that the prophet said, namely that the Christians must suffer if they would enter into his glory, since not one single prophet of the Old Testament ever named the word “Christ”?

When Jesus held this conversation, there did not yet exist a single book of the so-called New Testament. “Christ” is a Greek word, which means “oiled”. The books of the so-called Old Testament were written in the Hebrew language. How then can anything about “Christ” be written in the books of the Old Testament?

**[p. 233]**

Although the Bible claims: “And he began at Moses and all the prophets and expounded to them all the scriptures that were spoken of him”, this statement is not supported by a single scripture. The simple truth is that these two men did not even know that the stranger was actually speaking about himself!

Jesus went on speaking to them: “And they drew near to the village into which they were going; and he made as though he would go further. And they urged him and said: ‘Stay with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.’ And he went in to stay with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at table with them, he took the bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognised him. And he vanished from before them. (*Lukas* 24:28-31)

According to the Bible, Cleopas and the other person were disciples of Jesus. The two were well acquainted with Jesus and would have recognised his face and his appearance. But even after he had spent two to three hours speaking with them, they had not understood that it was Jesus. There is only one answer to this problem: Jesus appeared to them in a different form, above all with a face that they had not

**[p. 234]**

seen before. Therefore they believed he was a stranger.

Therefore they did not believe that this stranger was Jesus until he had taken the bread, blessed it and given it to them. What if it had been these two disciples of Jesus who had taken the bread, blessed it, broken it and eaten it with the others? Jesus had taught them to act so, and that precisely three days before the time in question, that is, on Thursday evening at the Last Supper. “And he took the bread, gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them and said: This is my body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me.” (*Lukas* 22:19) That also means that these two disciples were present at the Last Supper.

The Bible cunningly hides this fact with the words: “And when the hour came, he sat down and the twelve apostles with him.” (*Lukas* 22:14) Where were the others who followed Jesus from Galilee? Did they no longer follow him once they went to Jerusalem? If that is so, how then did it come about that on the early Sunday morning they were together with the apostles in the large upper room where they took the Last Supper?

**[p. 235]**

In order to follow his satanic teachings on how bread is to be transformed into the flesh of the “Son of Man”, the two disciples on that Sunday evening took the bread into their hands, blessed it, took it into their mouths, closed their eyes and said: “This is the holy body of Jesus” and ate it, as an example of how the Catholics do it in their churches. When they opened their eyes, they were surprised, because the stranger had transformed himself into Jesus of Nazareth. But at the very instant they recognised him, that is, were able to identify him, he vanished from their field of vision.

They thought Jesus appeared to them because they broke the bread as he had taught them. From their point of view it was immediately after they had blessed and eaten the bread that the stranger vanished and Jesus appeared. Therefore it says: “And they told them what had happened on the way and how he had been recognised by them in that he broke the bread.” (*Lukas* 24:35) Did they tell them only how suddenly he had appeared when they had broken the bread, or did they also tell how he had vanished as soon as they had stretched out their hands to touch him? Surely they must have told this as well.

**[p. 236]**

Where was Jesus when the two disciples spoke to the apostles? Cunning as he is, he would surely have been in their midst and would have waited for the right moment to appear to them.

The two disciples returned to Jerusalem. “And they rose up that same hour, returned to Jerusalem and found the Eleven gathered together and those who were with them.” (*Lukas* 24:33)

Let us imagine the conversation of his followers:

Cleopas to Peter: “Mary Magdalene is right, Jesus is still alive, for he has appeared to us.”

Peter and the others said to Magdalene and Cleopas: “Why then does he not appear to us?”

Mary Magdalene said, looking at Thomas: “Because you do not believe his words. I told you that he said, do not touch me, because I have not yet ascended to my Father.” But you said: “ … you will only believe when you have touched him.”

Thomas left the room. Now the apostles and all the others looked up to the roof and prayed with the single thought that Jesus

**[p. 237]**

would appear to them. Then and there Jesus appeared to them. This was the rebirth of Christianity, which had been dead for a while when they had crucified the founder. With the crucifixion of Jesus they (the Jews) helped Jesus. They did not know that it was Jesus who had sent Judas to them; they did not know that he had planned his own execution. That is also the reason why, still on the cross, he mocked the Jews: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!” (*Lukas* 23:34)

300 years later Christianity was permitted by a psychopath named Constantine Augustus (called St. Constantine by the Catholic Church), who “executed his own son and boiled his wife alive.” (Helene Ellerbe, *The Dark Side of Christian History)* Constantine was Roman emperor from 306 to 337. Later, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius I introduced a law which established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

But the only true Son of God, who said, Father forgive them, since they (the Jews) know not what they do, also said: “But now bring here my enemies, who would not acknow-

**[p. 238]**

ledge me as king: they shall be executed before my eyes!” (*Lukas* 19:27)

## Jesus and Thomas

But Thomas, one of the twelve disciples, who was called “the Twin”, was not with them when Jesus came. Consequently the other disciples said to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “If I do not see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the print of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe it.” (*Johannes* 20:24-25)

These words of Thomas show not only that he doubted that it was the spirit of Jesus, but also that not one of the disciples tried to touch Jesus. Had they touched him, they would have said so to Thomas, and not merely: “We have seen the Lord.” Thomas would then not have had to declare that he would believe the events only once he had touched Jesus.

According to the words that Jesus spoke to Mary Magdalene, no one was to touch him before he had ascended to his Father. According to the Bible (*Apostelgeschichte,* chapter 1) Jesus ascends 40

**[p. 239]**

days after his resurrection to his Father. If Jesus had appeared to the apostles on the day he rose, he could not have let himself be touched by them, otherwise he would be a liar, since he had told Mary Magdalene beforehand that he should be touched by no one before he had ascended to his Father. Had he ascended to his Father, this would rule out the possibility that any of his disciples on earth could touch him. In summary: after his death it is impossible to touch him. So how can anyone be certain at all that it was not his spirit that appeared after his death?

Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene in the morning and afterwards he appeared to Cleopas and the other disciples who went to Emmaus. He spent several hours with them. Why did Jesus not appear to the apostles who would die for him? This is a very serious question; there are two reasons for it: we see in the Bible that Jesus first appeared to his apostles when Thomas was absent. The one reason was therefore the presence of Thomas among the apostles. The second reason was that they should not try to touch him.

**[p. 240]**

Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene early on Sunday morning, but at 22.00 hours he had still not appeared to the apostles. Surely they asked themselves why. At this critical moment they had only the message that Jesus had given them by way of Mary. “Touch me not! For I have not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren and say to them: I ascend to my Father.” This lie brought it about that the disciples believed that Jesus had ascended to his Father in heaven after he appeared to Mary. When Cleopas, however, had returned from Jerusalem, they knew that Jesus had not yet gone back to his Father. That is to say, they were still not permitted to touch him.

## The Watch at the Tomb

“On the next day—it was the Sabbath—the leading priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate and said: “Lord, it has occurred to us that this swindler, while he was still alive, claimed: ‘After three days I shall be raised from the dead. Therefore give instruction that the tomb be guarded until the third day! Otherwise his disciples could steal the corpse and then

**[p. 241]**

tell the people: ‘He has been raised from the dead.’ This last deception would then be even worse than everything else before.” “There you have a watch, said Pilate. “Go and secure the tomb as well as you can.” So they went to the tomb and sealed the stone that closed the entrance to the burial chamber. The watch helped them in this and remained behind at the tomb” (*Matthäus* 27: 62-66)

There are various reasons why I do not agree with the story of the watch at the tomb. Let me set out a few of them.

What, for example, was the reason that the Jews wanted to post guards?

The Jews said: “it has occurred to us that this deceiver [Jesus], while he was still alive, claimed: ‘After three days I shall rise again.’ Therefore command, please, that the tomb be guarded until the third day! Otherwise his disciples could come and steal the corpse and then claim before the people that he had risen from the dead.” (*Matthäus* 27:63-64)

The fact is that not even John the disciple, whom Jesus loved, knew that Jesus must rise from the dead. “For they (John & Peter) had not yet under-

**[p. 242]**

stood the Holy Scriptures, in which it does stand that Jesus must rise from the dead.” (*Johannes* 20:9) That proves that *Matthäus* 27:62-66 never happened, since it was impossible for the priests and Pharisees to know something that not even the apostles knew until Sunday morning.

The Bible says: “There was also a man there named Joseph. Although a member of the Jewish council” (*Lukas* 23:50) and “Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but only secretly, because he was afraid of the leading men.” (*Johannes* 19:38)

If Joseph was afraid of the Jewish leaders, then he would not have disclosed his secret membership in Jesus’ club, above all not before those who had crucified Jesus. The reason why he came only in the evening was this, that he could be sure the people had left Golgotha.

The leading priests and the Pharisees therefore did not know that the body of Jesus lay buried in the newly made tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. They did not even know that the body of Jesus had been taken down from the cross on Friday evening by two Jewish council members who were secret disciples of Jesus. How then did they come to the consideration of posting guards before the

**[p. 243]**

secret tomb that Joseph of Arimathea had built?

Here another problem:

The Bible says that the Jews posted guards before the tomb on Saturday morning, the day after the crucifixion. If the Jews feared that the disciples of Jesus would come to steal the corpse and to claim that Jesus had risen, why then did they not consider having the guards posted as early as Friday evening? What brought the Jews to the consideration that the disciples of Jesus would not come on Friday evening to steal the corpse? They could steal the body on Friday evening and three days later claim that he had risen from the dead.

Let us imagine that guards had been posted before the tomb and that the entrance to the tomb had been sealed on Saturday morning. How could the women of Galilee go with oil to the sealed tomb in order to anoint the body of Jesus on Sunday morning? These remarks in addition to the fact that there were no watchmen at the tomb.

When Jesus was crucified, the women of Galilee stood at a distance from the cross and from the crowd,

**[p. 244]**

observing everything. The reason why the women did not come closer was their fear of being persecuted by the Jews. Had there been watchmen at the tomb, the women of Galilee would not have gone early to the tomb on Sunday morning and made themselves known as followers of Jesus.

## The Sequence of Events

Jesus appears to Mary and sends her off with a cunning message: “Touch me not! For I have not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren and say to them: I ascend to my Father.”

The disciples receive the message from Mary. The disciples of Jesus are those who give credence to his words. That is why they remembered the words of Jesus at the Last Supper when they heard Mary speak the message. “In my Father’s house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have said to you: I go to prepare a place for you. And when I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself, that ye may be where I am.” (*Johannes* 14:2-3)

**[p. 245]**

This promise of Jesus at the Last Supper and the message they received from Mary led them to believe that Jesus had ascended to his Father and would prepare a place for them there!

Time runs on … Sunday night … two disciples return from Emmaus to the apostles, tell them that they have seen Jesus, who during the day spoke with them for several hours, which attests that Jesus has not yet ascended to his Father. Jesus says: “Christ suffer such things and enter into his glory.” (*Lukas* 24:26)

Had Jesus ascended to heaven in the time between his appearance before Mary and the one before Cleopas, then he could have let himself be touched by Cleopas and the other disciple; instead he vanished at the moment they recognised him: “They recognised him; and he vanished from before them.” (*Lukas* 24:31) That means that Jesus did not even give them the time to consider whether they wanted to touch him.

The quotations below render messages that Jesus wanted to convey to the apostles through Mary and Cleopas.

**[p. 246]**

**1.** Jesus wants no one to touch him. (from Mary)

**2.** Jesus has entered into his glory: “Christ suffer such things and enter into his glory.” (*Lukas* 24:26) (from Cleopas)

**3.** Jesus has not yet ascended into heaven, but he will ascend to his Father. (from Mary)

**4.** If anyone tries to touch him, then he vanishes: “Thereupon their eyes were fully opened, and they recognised him; and he vanished from before them.” (*Lukas* 24:31) (from Cleopas)

On the late Sunday evening Thomas was, according to Luke, still with the other apostles in the house in which they had taken the Last Supper. According to John, however, Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared. Both versions could be correct if Thomas had been present when the two disciples from Emmaus arrived and had then left the room shortly before Jesus appeared. Yet the question remains: why did Jesus not appear when Thomas was present with the other apostles? Or why did he wait until Thomas had left the room? Or why does Jesus vanish before Thomas came back to the others? Decisive here is

**[p. 247]**

the question: Why did it take a week until Jesus appeared to Thomas?

Jesus knew of the doubt that Thomas harboured towards him; that is why he appeared again a week later. All that Jesus would have had to do is to wait until Thomas had come back. Why then did he vanish before Thomas came?

During the 18 hours Jesus appeared in disguise before Cleopas and the other disciple, who were on their way from the room in Jerusalem to Emmaus. He manipulated them to his own advantage, and when he then at the end made himself known to them for one second, he vanished from their side before they could touch him at all. With regard to the week between the Sunday appearance before the apostles at midnight and the appearance before the unbelieving Thomas, no information at all is to be found concerning the whereabouts of Jesus. Why? It is possible that the other apostles needed a week to convince Thomas to believe in Jesus without touching him. Only then did Jesus appear again.

“Eight days later the disciples had gathered again. This time Thomas was with them. And

**[p. 248]**

although they had locked the doors again, Jesus suddenly stood in their midst and greeted them: ‘Peace be with you!’ Then he turned to Thomas: ‘Lay your finger on my pierced hands! Give me your hand and lay it in the wound in my side! Doubt no longer, but believe!’ Thomas answered: ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him: ‘You believe because you have seen me. How happy can those be who do not see me and yet believe!’” (*Johannes* 20:26-29)

It is not written whether Thomas touched Jesus when Jesus called upon him to do so (what is clear is that this contradicts the message Jesus gave to Mary). This speaks for the fact that Thomas placed his faith in Jesus without touching him. This fact moreover confirms that Thomas gave him his faith only once he saw him.

When Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene on Sunday morning, he said: “Touch me not! For I have not yet ascended to my Father.”

According to *Apostelgeschichte* chapter 1, Jesus will ascend into heaven to his so-called Father on the 40th day after his resurrection.

**[p. 249]**

This proves: no one touched Jesus when he appeared to his disciples again and again during the 40 days. Jesus let himself be touched by no one not because he had not yet ascended to his Father, but because after his crucifixion he came back as a spirit.

A Catholic priest argued that Jesus had ascended to his Father after he had appeared to his disciples on Sunday at midnight—a week before he appeared to Thomas. Had Jesus ascended to his Father after he had appeared to the apostles on Sunday at midnight, in order then, after a week, to come back to earth and appear to Thomas, then this would be the second return of Jesus. The fact is that the priest who argued so, together with millions of other people around the clock and around the globe, is still waiting for the second return of Jesus!

## Kapitel 10 — Die Zwietracht (S. 251–262)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-10-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-10-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 251]**

[Bild: Jesus in a light robe, seated before an evening sky, holding a lever-action rifle upright in his left hand.]

**[p. 253]**

Some people say that Christians kill the Moslems. Others say that Moslems kill the Christians. It is not important whether they are Moslems, Christians or even Jews. When a human being takes the life of a fellow human being in the name of “religion”, it is the devil, our enemy, who laughs.

Among Christians Jesus is called the Prince of Peace. But his own words already prove the opposite.

*Lukas* 12:49-51 “I have come to kindle a fire on the earth, and I wished it were already blazing. But I must still take a baptism upon myself—if only I had it behind me already! Do you think I have come to bring peace into the world? No, not peace, I tell you, but division!”

How can a human being of sound common sense call a person their saviour of the world, when this person publicly proclaims that the reason for his coming is to destroy the peace

**[p. 254]**

of the world and to bring division? How worthless the Christian faith is.

Jesus proclaims in so many words that he endures unspoken suffering because the world of man is not yet consumed by the fire of division. The main part of the present book consists in showing that Jesus and Satan are one and the same person. Satan means deceiver. Jesus is the Satan who took on human form in order to drive forward the destruction of mankind. This is what Jesus means when he says: “ … whoever has seen me has also seen my Father.” (*Johannes* 14:9) Jesus, the pseudo-human, represents through himself and in himself the deceitful mask, put on by Satan, the highest of the devils, whose stated intention is the total downfall of mankind, hidden under the pretext of wanting to save it. The following quotation from Jeremiah confirms this argument.

*Jeremia* 4:10 “They will lament: ‘Lord, our God, you have gravely deceived this people and Jerusalem! You announced peace, but now we have the sword at our necks.’”

Thus said the “dear God”, the so-called father of Jesus, in *Zephanja* 1:3 “I will exterminate

**[p. 255]**

the human beings and the animals, also the birds under the sky and the fish in the sea, everything that has seduced men into idolatry. Yes, I will wipe all human beings from the face of the earth.”

In *Lukas* 12:49-51 the untransformed Satan steps out from behind his mask. In other words: Jesus forgets his mask and appears in his true identity as Satan. The passages *Lukas* 12:14-52 show how the throwing off of the mask took place. Jesus says in *Lukas* 12:40-41: “So you too must be ready at all times; for the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect it.”

Thereupon Peter replied:

“Lord, does the comparison with the master of the house apply to everyone or only to us apostles?”

The statement that he has come to set the world on fire follows this question. Jesus expresses himself so on the basis of his earlier statements in *Lukas* 9:27: “But I assure you: some of you who are standing here now will still see in their lifetime how God's rule prevails!”

**[p. 256]**

Besides others, all twelve of his disciples were present there. The disciples naturally applied the statement quoted above to themselves. But the same Jesus said afterwards in *Lukas* 12:39-40 “Get this one thing clear: if a master of the house knew in advance at what hour the thief comes, he would prevent the break-in. So you too must be ready at all times; for the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect it.”

Jesus does not answer Peter's legitimate question, whether his explanation was directed at others or at everyone. The reason for this is: the answer awakens in Jesus the fear that his identity as Satan could be exposed. Had Peter recognised the true face of Jesus, the so-called Christianity would no longer exist. Peter's enquiry kindles in Jesus the fear that his true identity is already known to Peter. This fear makes him panic. He loses all caution and lets his satanic vein burst out: that he had come to kindle a fire on the earth, that he would be glad if it were already burning, and that he must let himself be baptised, and how it urged him that this ceremony might soon have been accomplished. Only for Satan can the continued existence of mankind be a burden and a reason to rejoice over the

**[p. 257]**

weak. This kind of reaction corresponds only to the greatest evil.

Jesus removes every possible doubt about his intention. “Do you think I have come to bring peace into the world?”, he asks bluntly. “No, not peace, I tell you, but division.” Division is the opposite of unification. Jesus states that he has come to bring division. That would mean: before Satan, transformed into Jesus, appeared in the midst of men, mankind knew no division. Christianity and Jesus are the bringers of disunity and strife between human beings.

The devil says further in *Lukas* 12:52-53 “For this is how it will be from now on: when five people live together in one family, three will stand against two and two against three. The father will be against the son and the son against the father. The mother will be against the daughter and the daughter against the mother. The mother-in-law will be against the daughter-in-law and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law”

Let us look at how Satan, who is presently known as Jesus, brought division among

**[p. 258]**

mankind, which was free of it. The three religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam were all created by Gabriel, the fallen angel. Islam begins with Mohamed, to whom Gabriel had appeared in a vision, and Christianity begins with a similar visit by Gabriel to Mary. In Judaism Gabriel appears to the fleeing Moses, even before Jehovah appeared. *2.Mose* 3:2: “There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing flame that struck out of a thorn bush. Moses saw only the burning thorn bush, but it struck him that the bush was not consumed by the flame.”

According to the Jewish scriptures the future ruler of Israel will arrive out of Bethlehem in Judaea. *Micha* 5:2: “But to you, Betlehem, in the territory of the clan of Ephrathah, the Lord says: “As small as you are among the towns in Judah, out of you shall come the future ruler over my people Israel. His origin lies in the distant past, in the days of primeval time.”

But *Markus* 1:9 records: “At that time it happened: Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee to John and let himself be baptised by him in the Jordan.”

**[p. 259]**

Gabriel tells Mary that Jesus will be called the Son of God. And yet the same Gabriel says afterwards to Mohamed that it does not lie in Allah's nature to have a son. *Koran* 19:34-35: “This is Jesus, the son of Mary. It is the word of truth, which they doubt. It does not befit God to take a child to himself. Praise be to Him! When He has decided a matter, He says to it: Be! And it is.”

Further it says in the *Koran* 19:29-30: “They pointed at him (Jesus). They said: ‘How can we speak with the one who is still a child in the cradle?’ He said: ‘I am the servant of God. He caused the book to come to me and made me a prophet.’”

The prayer in the *Koran* 17:111 reads: “And say: Praise be to God, who has taken no child to himself, and who has no partner in the kingly rule and no friend as a helper out of humiliation!”

Further the *Koran* 18:4-5: “And so that he may warn those who say: ‘God has taken a child to himself.’ They have no (proper) knowledge of it, and neither did (earlier) their fathers. It is a monstrous word that comes out of their mouths. They speak nothing but lies.”

**[p. 260]**

It shows itself repeatedly that Jesus in the Koran is not the Son of God.

There is only one explanation for these deviations of a fundamental nature: the three scriptures are radiated out by the same being. The explanation is again to be found in *Lukas* 12:51-52: “Do you think I have come to bring peace into the world? No, not peace, I tell you, but division. For this is how it will be from now on: when five people live together in one family, three will stand against two and two against three.”

Religious conflicts have brought forth wars in which millions have already shed their blood in order to propagate or to defend their faith, each in the belief that what his scripture says is the truth, not knowing that they were all wrong.

In this way the *Koran* 2:216 commands: “Fighting is prescribed for you, although it is repugnant to you. But perhaps something is repugnant to you while it is good for you. And perhaps you love something while it is bad for you. And God knows, but you do not know.”

**[p. 261]**

Jesus, alias the highest devil, who resolved to destroy the human race, feeds religious disunity through these three pseudo-scriptures.

The 2000-year history of Christianity and the 1500-year history of Islam have caused over 5000 wars on the earth. Helen Ellerbe, a well-known author says in her book, “*The Dark Side of Christian History*”

“The idea that mankind could live without domination and violence, far from being an idealistic myth, is about to be underpinned by a new view of the history of mankind. The works of James Mellaart, Marija Gimbutas, and Riane Eisler illustrate that mankind lived in peace for 25000 years, that is, a far longer period of time than the 3500-5000 years which have been lived in war and under domination”.

## Kapitel 11 — Der Heilige Geist (S. 263–270)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-11-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-11-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 263]**

[Bild: Painting of a white dove in a wreath of light, surrounded by clouds, putti and angelic figures.]

**[p. 265]**

In his last conversation with the disciples he misinformed them when he said that after his death his father would send the Holy Ghost. He also told them seditiously that the Holy Ghost was their timely “helper”, and that he would remind them of everything that Jesus had taught them himself (*Johannes* 14:26).

Earlier, in *Markus* 13:11, Jesus spoke thus to the same disciples: “When they shall lead you and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”

Stephen was the first disciple who put this assurance into practice.

He was questioned by the court after he had preached—this is a parallel to the Jewish scriptures—, whether Jesus had been the Christ. He held a long address before the court. At the end he said: “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as

**[p. 266]**

your fathers did, so do ye.” (*Apostelgeschichte* 7:51).

“When they heard these things, it went to their hearts, and they gnashed their teeth at him. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said: ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’ Then they cry out [sic] with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed upon him with one accord, thrust him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man whose name was Saul, and stoned Stephen, who called upon God and said: ‘LORD Jesus, receive my spirit!’” (*Apostelgeschichte* 7:54-59).

The evil spirit, or the so-called Holy Ghost, first moved Stephen to enrage the court by loudly insulting their descent and their forefathers. Stephen looked up to heaven and regarded it as the dwelling place of Jesus. The same spirit moved him to say that he saw heaven open and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. At that moment they stoned Stephen to death.

**[p. 267]**

Stephen was questioned by the same court as Jesus had been before him. Jesus had been asked by the court: “ ‘Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ But Jesus said: ‘I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ ” (*Markus* 14:61-62).

Stephen sees him standing. Jesus says he will be sitting. His first and subsequent disciples have waited for this from the beginning until today. They are still waiting to see him standing, before he will land. The simple lesson that can be learned from this is that Jesus had lied to everyone and made fools of them all, as only he could do it, since he himself is Satan, the highest devil.

For the wretched end of Stephen and of many others, Jesus is responsible with his promise to send a helper, but he sent the executioner, whom he seditiously called a helper [sic] About the Holy Ghost Jesus says to the disciples in *Johannes* 16:7 that the Holy Ghost cannot come as long as he himself is physically alive: “But I tell you the truth(!): it is good for you that I go away. For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto

**[p. 268]**

you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.”

The first event that happened after Jesus' so-called ascension is the entry of the Holy Ghost (*Apostelgeschichte* 2:1-4).

The Holy Ghost cannot appear on the stage as long as Jesus is present here. On the other hand the return of Jesus is predetermined for the end of the age: “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then shall all the tribes of the earth wail, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with great power and glory.” (*Matthäus* 24:30)

In short, Jesus cannot appear on the earth before the end of the world. *Apostelgeschichte* 3:21: “ … whom the heaven must receive until the time when all things shall be restored, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”

But Jesus appears before that, and even more often:

*Apostelgeschichte* 9:3-5: “And as he (Paul) journeyed and came near to Damascus, suddenly there

**[p. 269]**

shined round about him a light from heaven; and he fell to the earth and heard a voice which said unto him: ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?’ And he said: ‘LORD, who art thou?’ The LORD said: ‘I am Jesus.’”

*Apostelgeschichte* 23:11 says further: “In the following night the Lord stood by Paul and said: ‘Be not afraid! As you have borne witness of me in Jerusalem, so must you bear witness also in Rome!’”

The quotations named above show that Jesus' account of his ascension into heaven and of his sitting at the right hand of the Father are seditious lies.

Amid further statements turned into their opposite, Jesus also says in *Johannes* 3:13: “And no man ascendeth up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, namely the Son of Man, who is in heaven.”

If one untangles these ostentatious words, one reads: “No one has brought it from hell to the ground, but he has fallen down here, the son of Satan.”

Jesus has not ascended to heaven. For an archangel like him, who through the impulse

**[p. 270]**

of unjust deeds has fallen to the underworld, it is not possible to find a renewed entry here.

This raises doubt about the existence of the Holy Ghost. The so-called Holy Ghost is nothing other than an altered counterpart of Jesus.

## Kapitel 12 — Das Schicksal der Apostel (S. 271–284)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-12-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-12-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 271]**

## The Fate of the Apostles

[Image: Caravaggio, Crucifixion of St Peter — Peter nailed head-downward to a cross and being hauled upright by three men]

**[p. 273]**

Jesus claimed and promised a great deal: "I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." (*John* 10:11)

Whether he was a good shepherd or the wolf in sheep's clothing can only be proved by correct analyses of the facts.

Let us begin our analysis with the following words of Jesus:

"Nor are you to let yourselves be called teacher, because you have only one teacher: Christ." (*Matthew* 23:10).

Now look at how Jesus reacted when someone called him teacher:

"Jesus was asked by a respected and wealthy man: 'Good teacher, what must I do to obtain eternal life?' Jesus replied: 'Why do you call me good? There is only one who is good, and that is God.'" (*Luke* 18:18-19)

Of the two words "good teacher" he accepted one word; the other he rejected. He accep-

**[p. 274]**

ted the word "teacher", but he rejected being called "good ". That is to say, he accepted being a teacher, but he did not accept being a good teacher. He asked: "Why do you call me good?" He said: "There is no one good."

If Jesus were good, he would not have asked: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus says not only that it was wrong to call him good, but he also says that it would be wrong to call anyone good except God. It is generally believed that Jesus is the one and only Son of God. The so-called New Testament supports this belief in the opening lines of Mark: "This is the saving message of Jesus Christ, the Son of God". In his first Sermon on the Mount he said: " … a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." (*Matthew* 7:18)

If a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and if Jesus is the Son of God, what then is wrong with his being called good? We know that Jesus does not want to be called good.

**[p. 275]**

Christians believe in the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The word Trinity is defined as "the union of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma". (*Merriam Webster's*) The Son in the Trinity is represented by Jesus. According to the words of Jesus, no one is good except God, whom the Father in the Trinity represents. If only the Father figure of the Trinity is good, then the other two, that is Jesus and the Holy Spirit, are bad. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, the mother of Jesus. Was Mary then bad as well?

When this question was put to a believer, he said Jesus had only said that no one was good; he had not said that all were evil.

Who is good and who is bad? Bad is the one who thinks of hurting someone without cause. Good is the one who harbours no such thoughts. That is to say, the one who is bad is not good, and the one who is good is not bad. Therefore someone who is not good must be bad, and vice versa.

"I and the Father are one." (*John* 10:30)

**[p. 276]**

Jesus' words, that [sic — the German prints *das* where *dass* is required] no one is good, is equivalent to the statement that all are bad. Jesus therefore said that all are bad except God, and it is assumed that this God is his Father. If Jesus is not good and his Father is the only one who is good, why then did he say: "I and the Father are one"? (*John* 10:30)

And further. Philip said: "Lord, show us the Father, then we shall be satisfied!" Jesus replied to him: "I have been with you so long now, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has also seen the Father. How then can you ask: 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?" (*John* 14:8-10)

If Jesus' Father is the one and only good person, and if this person is in Jesus, as he claimed before Philip [the German prints the short form *Philip* here and *Philippus* twice earlier on the same page], how can Jesus then say that he is not good? According to Jesus' own words, all who have seen Jesus have seen only a bad person, but all who have seen Jesus' Father have seen the one good person. It is therefore wrong to say that those who have seen Jesus have seen his Father.

**[p. 277]**

This is what Jesus said about his Father and about himself: **1.** He and his Father are one. **2.** His Father is in him and he is in his Father. **3.** Those who have seen him have seen his Father. If these statements were true, Jesus' Father would also have to be a bad being. The "Holy Bible" gives many testimonies to prove the character of Jesus' Father. Here is a perfect example: "Then I saw an angel standing in the sun. He called out with a loud voice to all the birds flying high in the sky: 'Come, gather for **God's great banquet! Come and devour the** flesh of kings, commanders and warriors! Devour the flesh of horses and their riders, the **flesh of all human beings**, of slaves and free, of high and low!'" (*Revelation* 19:17-18)

Jesus says that there are no good ones apart from this dreadful being, which dreams of a banquet with the flesh of all living creatures — which also means: with their flesh and mine. It is dreadful merely to imagine this. The truth is exactly the opposite of what came out of Jesus' mouth: no one is as bad as the "God of the Bible".

Jesus therefore had to say that the worst being is the only good being. In uttering such

**[p. 278]**

a lie, Jesus was attempting to replace God with Lucifer. This is as if one replaced medicine with poison; it is not what one would expect from the "Saviour of the World". Jesus is not the Saviour of the World. His Father's dream is to prepare a banquet with the flesh of all living creatures, while the Son says the Father sent him to save the world!

It is as with today's politicians; what they say and what they do bear no relation to one another—what Jesus said and what he did always contradicted each other. Jesus is thus, if you like, the forefather of today's politicians.

Jesus, who says that no one is good, claims that he is a good shepherd. If it is wrong to call Jesus a good teacher, it is also not right to call him a good shepherd. His claim to be a good shepherd is therefore false.

Jesus explained the qualities of a good shepherd with a parable: "What think ye? If any man have a hundred sheep and one of them go astray: doth he not leave the ninety and nine upon the mountains, and go forth and seek that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find

**[p. 279]**

it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more over it than over the ninety and nine which went not astray." (*Matthew* 18:12-13)

According to this parable, a good shepherd is someone who leaves the flock and goes to look for a lost sheep. The character of Jesus was without exception different from the character of the man in the parable: "From that time many of his disciples turned back and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve: 'Will ye also go away?'" (*John* 6:66-67)

Jesus ought to have left his twelve apostles and gone to seek those who had left him. But he made no effort to bring back those who had left him; he even asked those who were with him whether they too wanted to leave. That is to say: the character of Jesus was the opposite of the good shepherd in the parable.

Jesus said to his disciples [sic — the German has singular *Jünger* where the dative plural *Jüngern* is required]: "Go your ways; behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves." (*Luke* 10:3) Would a good shepherd not know that one does not send the sheep to the wolves?

Let us take a look at the reward he promises his apostles: "Everyone who leaves behind his house, his

**[p. 280]**

brothers and sisters, his parents, his wife, his children or his possessions in order to follow me will receive all this back a hundredfold and will receive eternal life." (*Matthew* 19:29)

And now let us look at what reward they really received for leaving their families and following Jesus. Let us begin with Simon Peter: he was crucified head-downward on a Roman cross. He died during the reign of Nero by crucifixion. This is the reward for the first disciple who called Jesus "Son of God". Then Simon Peter answered and said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God!" (*Matthew* 16:16)

**Andrew:** brother of Simon Peter: he was nailed to an x-shaped cross at Patrae in Achaia, Greece, on the orders of the Roman governor Aegeates. This too happened during the reign of Nero, on 30 November in the year 60.

**James:** son of Zebedee and brother of John: James was beheaded: "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed

**[p. 281]**

James the brother of John with the sword." (*Acts* 12:1-2)

**John:** son of Zebedee: John died at a great age. John was the only one of the twelve apostles to reach a great age. (The reason why Jesus let John grow old is explained in chapter 6, in the section "Deceit, thy name is Mary-Jesus".)

**Philip:** Philip went to Carthage, Greece, Phrygia and Syria, where he preached and worked miracles. The apostle was crucified and stoned to death.

**Bartholomew:** It is assumed that the apostle Bartholomew (also known as Nathaniel) had preached in Armenia, India, Mesopotamia, Persia and Phrygia. It is claimed that he was flayed alive and then crucified.

**Thomas:** The apostle Thomas (also known as Didymus) preached in Persia and in India, where he was killed by four soldiers armed with spears.

**Matthew:** Matthew preached in Persia and Ethiopia, and it is assumed that he was slain with

**[p. 282]**

an axe at Naddabar in Ethiopia.

**James:** son of Alphaeus: The apostle James preached in Syria, and it is assumed that he was slain with a club.

**Thaddaeus:** The apostle Thaddaeus (also known as Judas or Jude, brother of James) was crucified at Edessa.

**Simon the Zealot:** He travelled through many parts of the Roman Empire, and it is assumed that he was crucified in Persia.

**Judas:** son of Iscariot: The Bible gives two entirely different accounts of the death of Judas Iscariot: "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." (*Matthew* 27:5)

"This man purchased the field, for the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (*Acts* 1:18) In any case, he did not die a natural death.

**Matthias:** Matthias who replaced Judas of Iscariot: Matthias was chosen as an apostle after the death of Judas Iscariot. He preached in Syr-

**[p. 283]**

ia, then returned to Rome, where he was burned, as is assumed.

Back to chapter 6, *John*: all those who had left the good shepherd very probably had a normal life and a normal death, and all those who had stayed with the good shepherd had a sorrowful life and a dreadful death. This is the story of the "Good Shepherd" and his flock.

Jesus was not the first religious leader. There were religious leaders before him and after him. Before him there lived, for example, Buddha. His followers, however, were not murdered in such bestial ways. Why did this happen only to the followers of Jesus? The other religious leaders did not give such promises (of an eternal life) as Jesus did. Their followers led a normal life and died a natural death.

The fact is that the apostles preached all over the world that Jesus was the good shepherd. But precisely this was then the reason why they, the sheep, had lost their lives in such a brutal way. Was Jesus really a good shepherd, or rather the wicked wolf?

## Kapitel 13 — Der Antichrist (S. 285–290)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-kapitel-13-de.md / augenoeffner-kapitel-13-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 285]**

## The Antichrist

[Image: photograph of an elderly man in white clothing in a garden]

**[p. 287]**

The New Testament of the supreme devil contains, at its end, a passage that in a provocative manner identifies its own killer—the "Antichrist" in Christian terminology—in the form of an arithmetical figure.

"Here is wisdom! Whoever has understanding, let him ponder the number of the beast; for it is a man's number, and his number is 666." (*Revelation* 13:18)

Evidently the speaker knows whom "666" represents. Since he does not come clean about it, he evidently wants to keep the person's name hidden.

To find out the man behind the number is a task for the intelligent. "Find it out if you can", the old scripture challenges its readers. The hint that is given consists in the fact that it stands for a human name.

Because this passage belongs to the Bible, and because the author wrote for clever minds who are capable of finding out the true meaning, the

**[p. 288]**

conclusion can be drawn that the person addressed can be found in the Bible. How else can the author say that the intelligent one could find it out in the proper manner? The two hints "here is wisdom" and "whoever has understanding" indicate that the key to the number lies in the Bible itself.

When one says or writes 666, one thereby means only the number—6. The other two sixes are merely repetitions of the first six. In the Revelation of John, Jesus does not say 666, but 6-6-6. It follows that instead of a "beast" with the number 666, one ought to look for one with the number 6.

Is there a being in the Bible that is identifiable by the number 6?

Such a being does in fact exist in the Bible. It is none other than the being who is presented in the Bible as the father of mankind, namely Adam.

"And God said: 'Let us make human beings, an image that shall be like us'" (*Genesis* 1:26 )

"And so it came to pass. And God looked at everything he had made; and behold, it was very good.

**[p. 289]**

Thus out of evening and morning came the sixth day." (*Genesis* 1:31)

The creation of man in the Bible was completed on the sixth day.

Man in the Bible is therefore associated with the number 6.

In *Revelation* 13:18 it says that the name [sic — the print reads "der Name" (the name); on the sense of the passage one would expect "die Nummer" (the number)] stands for a man's name. What Jesus actually said was that the number stands for the first man's name. The decisive word "first" has been suppressed out of resistance against the truth.

The man in *Revelation* 13:18, whom Jesus and Christianity regard as the Antichrist, is the same being named Adam from Genesis. Because Adam is presented as the first man, and all of mankind is described as descending from him, it becomes clear that Jesus presents the whole of mankind as his killer.

The Antichrist is the opponent of Jesus.

Because Jesus designates the whole of mankind as his enemy, Jesus is the enemy of human beings — in other words, the supreme devil.

**[p. 290]**

The reason why Jesus does not simply reveal the identity of his enemy, although he could, is that the words are addressed to that same enemy.

## Petition & ROOTS (S. 291–307)

> **WITNESS ·** from augenoeffner-petition-roots-de.md / augenoeffner-petition-roots-en.md. German: page-faithful transcription of the printed copy (authority). English: parallel rendering by this project — NOT the original wording; quote the German.

**[p. 291]**

## Petition

The petition set out below was sent to several departments of justice, to investigating magistrates' offices and to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, as well as to the European Court in Luxembourg. We are still waiting for justice. As is well known: justice postponed is justice denied. There is only this one way to make the matter public, namely with this book.

The Bible may neither be shown to children, nor may it be distributed among them. This book contains violent verses, pornographic stories and texts in which sodomy and incest occur. We petitioners seek a censoring of the Bible for children under 16 years of age, and give our reasons as follows:

It is the wish and the right of every child to be loved by its parents. Every mother and every father wishes for the love of their child. In our society more value than ever is placed on not punishing one's child by withdrawing love. But the

**[p. 292]**

withdrawal of love is not bad for children alone; parents suffer just as much when their child shows no affection. Even the penal code addresses the violation of the duty of care and upbringing. Now, however, it is written in the Bible that one must hate one's father and one's mother in order to be allowed to follow Jesus: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and [his] mother and [his] wife and [his] children and [his] brothers and [his] sisters, yes, even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple." (*Luke* 14:26).

How do these words meet a child? A child as yet knows nothing about penal codes or the consequences of withdrawn love. The quotation mentioned calls for hatred within the family, so that one may be accepted by Jesus. It seeks to make the children of our world believe that the love of our fathers and mothers is nothing good. Love and hatred can be interpreted in various ways, yet these two opposites are defined in only one way: love means "what is good, what is pleasant" and is, in the narrower sense, the term for the strongest affection. Hatred is a human emotion of sharp antipathy and generally stands for the strongest form of aversion (definition: *Duden*). According to the Bible, then, one receives the affection of Jesus only if

**[p. 293]**

one holds one's own family and oneself in aversion. A book that approves of hatred and its consequences must never be accessible to children! We therefore call upon the honourable court to prevent the distribution of the Bible among children. It is a widespread teaching of the church that after death one enters heaven and can enter "Eternal Life" only if one follows Jesus. In other words: without faith in Jesus one is banished into the "Eternal Fire", i.e. into "Hell". Thus, according to the words of Jesus, one would have to hate one's own father, one's mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters and oneself in order to be loved by Jesus and to be allowed to follow him.

The petitioners believe that they live in a country in which man and woman are treated as equals. Freedom is granted to both without discrimination as to sex. But the Bible teaches the opposite. According to the Bible the woman deserves no love, even when she loves her husband. See *Genesis* 3:16. To the woman he said: "I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth-pains you will bring forth children, and your deep longing will be for your husband, and he will rule over you".

**[p. 294]**

A woman who loves her husband is ruled by him, says the Bible. According to the words of the Bible and of its God, the man must be a ruler and the woman his slave. This conception of a life shared by man and woman is not acceptable, is intolerable, and stands entirely opposed to the lived fundamental principles of our modern society. Our society has recognised this immoral hierarchy and has resisted it. Our society says "Yes" to equality of the sexes; the Bible says quite clearly "No" to it. We live in complete opposition to what the Bible teaches us; we have long since stopped following its approaches and its morality. Anyone who engages with the content of the Bible will come to doubt the values he has held so far. The Bible may well lead children into endangering the progress society has made. Boys will not respect women but will want to rule them, if they live by the principles of the Bible.

In the Bible stands the written story of incest between a father and his two daughters. *Genesis* 19:31-36 "And the firstborn then said to the younger one: 'Our father is old, and there is no man in the land who could have relations with us after the manner of

**[p. 295]**

the whole earth. Come, let us give our father wine to drink and let us lie down with him and preserve offspring from our father.' So during that night they repeatedly gave their father wine to drink; then the firstborn went in and lay down with her father; but he did not know when she lay down and when she got up. And it came about the next day that the firstborn then said to the younger one: 'See, last night I lay down with my father. Let us give him wine to drink tonight as well. Then you go in, lie down with him, and let us preserve offspring from our father.' And during that night too they repeatedly gave their father wine to drink; then the younger one got up and lay down with him, but he did not know when she lay down and when she got up. And both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father."

This story contains the following messages: **1.** If no suitable sexual partner is available, take a family member (here the father) — incest. **2.** The enabling of sexual intercourse with a person against that person's will — rape. **3.** Alcohol is ideal for making someone compliant to you. **4.** A connection between alcohol and perversion.

**[p. 296]**

The repetition of the words "and he noticed nothing, neither how she came to him nor how she got up from him" highlights the possibility of making a man so drunk that he is no longer capable of perceiving sexual intercourse with his own daughter. The state forbids incest. Whoever performs coitus with a blood relative in the direct line, or with a full or half sibling, is punished with imprisonment of up to three years or a monetary penalty. Even the code of law of the Catholic Church, for which the Bible likewise serves as the foundation of its religion, forbids incest. Incest is rejected in every respect, yet in that book which counts as holy exactly this is approved. How can it be legitimate for ideas of this kind to be spread among children, although carrying them out has long counted as a criminal offence?!

The Bible is still freely available to children; the book with its repugnant stories stands open to them at any time. An adult knows very well that such a deed can neither be approved of nor is legally permitted. A child to whom the Bible is presented as the foundation for a happy life is not in a position to judge this.

**[p. 297]**

The church is determined, despite countless unacceptable verses of the Bible, to approve of it as a basis of faith for human beings. It names the Bible "Holy Scripture", "the Word of God", and with this title veils its negative influences on humanity. The petitioners believe that everyone has the obligation towards his children to protect them from the influence of a book such as the Bible. Anyone who protects his child from books with unlawful contents should also protect his child from the content of the Bible.

Certain verses in the Bible should, in the petitioners' view, on no account be read by children. Some of them are quoted below for the investigating magistrate.

**1.** "Happy will he be who seizes your children. And truly dashes them against the jagged rock." (*Ps.* 137:9).

Children under 16 are not capable of judgement in every act. If the Bible, the "Word of God", is accessible to them, there is every possibility that a child will justify killing as a "way to happiness".

**2.** "And you will certainly eat fat to satiety and drink blood to drunkenness from my

**[p. 298]**

sacrificial victim, which I will slaughter for you.  And at my table you shall be sated with horses and charioteers, with mighty men and warriors of every kind — is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah" (*Ezekiel* 39:19-20).

We petitioners believe that  children under 16 alter their values and views by reading or hearing such verses. No child should, because of biblical influence, harbour negative thoughts or even become a bad person.

**3.** "And you shall say to the soil of Israel: 'This is what Jehovah has spoken: »See, I am against you, and I will draw my sword out of its sheath and cut off from you the righteous and the wicked«.'" (*Ezekiel* 21:3).

This verse is proclaimed as a communication from God. A child believes in its truth and may possibly interpret killing as God's will, since according to the Bible God does this too.

"And you, O son of man—prophesy, and strike palm against palm, and 'A sword!' should be repeated three times. It is the sword of the slain. It is the sword of one slain who is great, which encircles

**[p. 299]**

them.  So that the heart may melt and [in order] to increase those who are cast down at all their gates, I will bring about a slaughter by the sword. Ha, it is made for lightning, honed for slaughter! Show yourself sharp; go to the right! Take your position; go to the left, wherever your face is turned!  And I myself too will strike my one palm against my other palm, and I will still my rage. I myself, Jehovah, have spoken." (*Hesekiel* 21:14-17).

We petitioners believe the "God of the Bible" speaks like a being that takes pleasure in killing. Pleasure in killing is felt by psychopathic personalities, such as are to be seen in horror films. A being that cheerfully strikes down and  slaughters human beings would, by our conception, never be called God. The petitioners therefore ask the honourable court that the Bible be forbidden to minors without delay.

**4.** "And those slain by Jehovah will finally, on that day, certainly be from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth. They will not be mourned, nor will they be gathered together, nor buried. Into ma-

**[p. 300]**

nure on the surface of the ground they will become." (*Jeremia* 25:33).

**5.** "And I will appoint four families over them, is the utterance of Jehovah — the sword for killing and the dogs for dragging away and the flying creatures of the heavens and the beasts of the earth for devouring and for destroying." (*Jeremia* 15:3).

Human bodies are compared by the biblical God with dung. The biblical God says that all human beings from one end of the earth to the other are to be slaughtered. What a horror scenario for our children!

**6.** "For your own sakes, leave off from the earthling man, whose breath is in his nostrils, for on what basis is he himself to be taken into account?" (*Jesaja* 2:22).

The human being is a social creature who orients himself towards his fellow human beings. Trust is therefore the foundation of a happy shared life. For this reason we petitioners ask this court to forbid the Bible, which teaches mistrust. Ideas of this anti-communal kind should on no account influence children.

**[p. 301]**

**7.** "And I have become full of the rage of Jehovah. I have grown weary of holding it in. Pour [it] out upon the child in the street and at the same time upon the intimate group of young men; for they too will be seized, a man together with his wife, an old man together with one full of days. And their houses will certainly be handed over to others as property, the fields and the wives at the same time. 'For I shall stretch out my hand against the inhabitants of the land' is the utterance of Jehovah." (*Jeremia* 6:11-12).

**8.** "Conduct a legal case with your mother; conduct a legal case, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. And she should put her fornication away from herself and her acts of adultery from between her breasts, that I may not strip her naked and actually set her out as on the day of her birth and truly make her like a wilderness and lay her down like a waterless land and put her to death by thirst." (*Hosea* 2:2-3)

The "God of the Bible" says, "accuse your mother", and further, "she is no longer your wife" and "so that I can strip her naked as on the day of her birth".

**[p. 302]**

At first children do not understand words like "fornication". Words that exist in the Bible appear good to a child. So it may well take them into its vocabulary and make use of them in everyday life. For those who do understand these words, however, the text is a degradation of the woman who bore them and lovingly raised them.

The petitioners have jointly examined the disagreeable and misanthropic quotations of the Bible, of which there are countless. They begin with the following quotation from *Luke* 14:26 or *Luke* 12:51-53, "Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you emphatically, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two and two against three. They will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against [her] mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against [her] mother-in-law." The petitioners have had to conclude that the Bible advocates crimes against human rights. They have finally decided to turn to this court, so that these problems, which must be dealt with, may find a swift solution.

**[p. 303]**

According to the Bible it is not the earth that circles the sun, but the sun that circles the earth; see: "At that time Joshua proceeded to speak to Jehovah, on the day on which Jehovah gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he then said before the eyes of Israel:

'Sun, stand motionless over Gibeon, And moon, over the low plain of Aijalon!'

Accordingly the sun stood motionless, and the moon really stood still, until the nation could take vengeance on their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar, 'and the sun stood still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set, for about a whole day'?" (*Joshua* 10:12-13).

This implausible story of Joshua teaches children exactly the opposite of what is taught to them in primary school. The petitioners find such statements of the Bible unscientific and misleading.

The last example of the fact that the Bible is not suitable for young readers:

"And she constantly multiplied her acts of prostitution to the point that she thought of the days of her youth, when she gave herself up in the land of Egypt as

**[p. 304]**

a prostitute. And she constantly had sensual desire after the manner of concubines who belong to those whose fleshly member is like the fleshly member of asses and whose organ of generation is like the organ of generation of stallions." (*Ezekiel* 23:19-20).

The petitioners perceive unambiguously pornographic tendencies here. Under the penal code, the offering, showing, handing over and making accessible of pornographic writings, sound—or visual recordings, images, or their dissemination by radio or television to a person under 16 years of age, is strictly forbidden.

No child should ever be permitted to read the Bible with its obscene contents. We petitioners request the honourable court to forbid the handing over of the Bible to minors without prior warning. This book contains numerous, extremely violent and destructive texts, such as we have  set out above.

Many further pieces of evidence are available with which to argue for banning the Bible for minors, yet we are of the opinion that for the court all these quotations should be grounds enough to decide and to act accordingly.

**[p. 305]**

The dignity of the court is a foundation for the survival of a free community. The free community survives only if its children are protected.

With the expression of our highest regard
The Petitioners

| Name | Date of birth | Nationality | Place of citizenship | Signature |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hr. Anderson Nicholas Lane | 31.10.1984 | Schweiz | Worb-Bern | [Unterschrift] |
| Hr. Sterren Jean-Louis | 11.09.1984 | Schweiz | Eischoll-Wallis | [Unterschrift] |
| Hr. Imhasly Jan-Mathys | 15.09.1985 | Schweiz | Fiesch-Wallis | [Unterschrift] |
| Hr. Kumar Vinodh | 30.09.1960 | Indien | Kochi-Indien | [Unterschrift] |
| Hr. Gundi Martin | 08.10.1987 | Schweiz | Brig-Wallis | [Unterschrift] |
| Hr. Panakal Titus | 08.10.1969 | Indien | Kochi-Indien | [Unterschrift] |
| Dr. Hr. Gilles Allenbach | 25.04.1980 | Schweiz | Adelboden-Bern | [Unterschrift] |
| Dr. Fr. med. Barbara Ketzer | 21.05.1963 | Schweiz | Altdorf-Uri | [Unterschrift] |
| Hr. Escher Matthias | 15.12.1981 | Schweiz | Brig-Wallis | [Unterschrift] |
| Fr. Polomska Maria | 09.09.1988 | Schweiz | Mörel-Wallis | [Unterschrift] |
| Fr. Schneider Corinne | 22.02.1986 | Schweiz | Würenlingen-Aargau | [Unterschrift] |

[handschriftlich: Hr. Abgottspon Valentin(?) 25 09 1979 Schweiz Staldenried-Wallis [Unterschrift]]

> **Transcriber's note on the table on p. 305.** The column headers are set bold and underlined in print (Name · Geburtsdatum · Nationalität · Bürgerort · Unterschrift); the underlining is not reproduced in Markdown. The table is very faint in print (apparently a photographic reproduction of an already weak copy) and was read from the scan's original JPEG layer (2405 × 3526 px) with contrast enhancement and a median filter. All dates, nationalities and places of citizenship are securely legible. *Probable but not letter-certain* are: "Worb-Bern" (the final letter of the place name), the surname in row 8 ("Ketzer"), "Polomska", "Würenlingen-Aargau", and the date in row 11 ("22.02.1986"; possibly 23.02.). The signature column contains handwritten strokes that sit vertically offset against the name rows — an unambiguous row-by-row assignment of individual signatures cannot be derived from the print and has therefore not been asserted; each row carries only the neutral marker [Unterschrift]. The final row is not typeset but added by hand; "Abgottspon" and "Staldenried-Wallis" are clearly legible, the first name and the digits of the year less so. The separators in the handwritten date are not discernible and have been rendered as spaces.

**[p. 306]**

## ROOTS

**A forum for those returning to humanism**

Gassa -14, CH-Ried-Brig 3911
SWITZERLAND
+41 27 923 01 81/ 079 651 67 11
idp@gmx.ch
identitypublishers.org

### Aim and function

This organisation is registered in Switzerland and serves as a forum for those returning from Christianity to humanism. Congratulations! Every such returner marks the re-discovery of somebody's roots, as you all know. For this reason this organisation is called "Roots". Wherever they try to integrate into their provisional surroundings, returners will probably encounter problems of isolation or even hostility. This is especially so in areas where many, in the name of Christianity, are aggressive against humanism. Of all of these, the Roman Catholic characteristics are, owing also to

**[p. 307]**

their entire adaptation to insurrection, the most abhorrent.

There are also future returners whom this organisation will try to reach. We want to reach as many returners as possible. We want to share information and suggestions with them and to be moral support to them in their situation, proceeding from their high principles. We find the phenomenon of humanism, conscious or unconscious, demonstrable in the complete human race. Furthermore our organisation will set barbaric, satanic and anti-human passages from the Bible and Koran side by side, with quotations from humanists such as Robert Green Ingersoll, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell and many others.

We are also an Anthroposophical non-profit organisation and hope that we have introduced you sufficiently into this communiqué.