Thoughts on the book "Who was Jesus?" by D.M. Murdock

I was scanning through the PDF book "Who Was Jesus? - Fingerprints of the Christ" by D.M. Murdock which I downloaded recently. Some of the questions raised in the book are valid and thought-provoking - here's sharing a few excerpts that resonated with me.

"In consideration of the numerous, detailed and remarkable
correspondences between Elisha ("God saves") and Jesus
("God saves"), and between Joseph and Jesus, as well as
many other "types of Christ" in Jewish and Pagan literature,
as remarked upon even by the early Church fathers, it is fair
to ask whether or not the gospel writers had in mind closely
reproducing in Jesus these other esteemed figures. Such a
suggestion, of course, would imply that the gospels are not
necessarily biographies of actual occurrences in the life of an
historical figure but could represent a fictionalized compilation
of characters." (p. 122)

Yes, the early century writers could well have borrowed elements of Jewish and Pagan literature to make up a fictional character called Jesus Christ.

"On the surface of it, if taken literally the New Testament
seems to record the advent of the messiah, as prophesied in
the Old Testament. However, there may be a different
reason for this appearance. In scrutinizing all of the Old
Testament "prophecies" that purportedly relate to the
coming messiah, it is evident that the gospels were
deliberately designed to show that these scriptures had been
fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When these and other OT scriptures
are studied and seriously considered, therefore, it is logical
to ask if they constitute "prophecies" and "prefiguring" of the
advent of a historical Jesus Christ—or if they were used as a
blueprint in the creation of a fictional messiah." (p. 138)

Yes, the so-called fulfilment of prophecies could have been cleverly devised by writers who were familiar with the Jewish literature to write in such a way that it appears as if the messiah managed to fulfil the prophecies.

"If God is omnipresent, wouldn't
that mean that everything is God, including us? The
significance of this last assertion cannot be understated: If
God is everywhere present, then we are "him," and "he" is
us. God is everything, and everything is God—doesn't that
sound like pantheism as well? The word "pantheism" comes
from the Greek, "pan" meaning "all," and "theism" pertaining
to God/divinity. Can something be monotheistic and pantheistic
at the same time? If not, how do we separate out the
omnipresent God?" (p. 187)

This is a good point - if God is omnipresent and if God is everything, wouldn't it be logical to say that God is also us, and in us, and around us? Like what Carlton Pearson stated too, God is not a christian or a jew or a hindu or a jew - God is in us, around us, as us. In God, we live and move and have our being.

"While reading certain apologies and apologetics texts,
one may frequently receive the impression of desperation to
reconcile and harmonize at any and all costs, because
fundamentalists are compelled through conditioning to
believe in the evidently irrational and indefensible position
that the gospels represent the inerrant and literal Word of
God. Once we discard this indefensible position, however, we
may be able to make more sense of the Bible as a "human
book," i.e., manmade and containing allegory, rather than
serving as literal and inerrant Holy Writ." (p. 215)

This is also the conclusion I have come to at this point - that the Bible is man-made and contains allegory, and not meant to be literal. It is definitely not inerrant due to the many mistranslations, translation bias, and inconsistencies in the narratives throughout.

"In consideration of all the various discrepancies,
problems and patent proganda, it can be logically wondered
whether the New Testament represents a "historical record"
or "factual biography" of a stunningly miraculous life, or
simply a propaganda tool for the priesthood to lay down its
doctrines and dogma as they developed over the centuries.
If the latter is true, even if the priesthood was under divine
guidance, could we honestly claim that the New Testament
as it stands constitutes a reliable biography of the Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ, who purportedly walked the Earth 2,000
years ago? At most, we could say that the NT represents an
inaccurate portrayal based on the best or worst wishes of its
composers. At the least, we would have to entertain the
thought that the gospel story is fictional. Indeed, examining
all these discrepancies, problems and errors in what is
supposed to be an accurate and inerrant portrayal of actual
historical events, one is prompted by honesty and logic to
ask whether or not the evangelists and later scribes were
just making it up as they went along!" (p. 253-254)

The last part is especially significant, as it deals with the possibility that the new testament was written with a political and religious agenda in mind. While I think some parts may be beneficial in terms of teaching people to love one another and love one's enemies, other parts of the new testament, such as the writings of "Paul" to establish a church hierarchy of pastor/deacon/elders, could have been concocted and compiled by early church fathers to control the masses. So, these are my thoughts for now.