New Revelation informs us not only as to the proper text and the meaning of Jesus' message, but also gives details about the evangelists. Expert opinion as to authorship of the different gospels varies enormously. Protestant theologians are almost all agreed that none of the evangelists were eyewitnesses or earwitnesses. The Catholic Church on the other hand considers John the Evangelist to have been Jesus's most loved disciple. The latter view has been confirmed in New Revelation. Some authors rate the Gospel of St. John to be without significance. 10
Yet New Revelation refers to this Gospel in particular as the one that is most reliable. Clement of Alexandria (3rd c.) was right in judging the Gospel of St. John to be "the spiritual gospel", "the heart, the climax, the Holiest of Holies in the New Testament." 11 John describes the secret conversations between Jesus and Nicodemus and gives the exact location, something only an eyewitness could know.
Because there are a few introductory sentences that have a certain philosophical ring to them, many critics have erroneously come to the conclusion that John was a Hellenist. As New Revelation shows, those sentences had come from the lips of Jesus. Quite apart from this, these few verses are no reason to put undue emphasis on the philosophical nature of St. John's Gospel. The literature sometimes contains the weirdest and most absurd theories as to the person of St. John the Evangelist.
Jean Paillard, a Catholic, says: "John's father ran a fishing enterprise, employing a number of hired men. The family appears to have been very well off and to have had connections with the leading people in Jerusalem." 12
New Revelation tells us that John was the son of very poor people who had problems feeding their large brood of children. The details are as follows: "Joseph's children, his own as well as those he had taken into his house, suffered the greatest poverty and most of them did follow Me. Among them there was also John who spent a lot of time at Joseph's house and was an apprentice in that house. For his father was even worse off than Joseph himself and therefore handed-over his son that he might learn Joseph's trade. He did learn it and was a very skilled carpenter and joiner, also knowing how to do turned work. In addition to this, he loved Mary and Me and the whole house of Joseph greatly, and there were no better and more trustworthy hands to which Mary could (later) be entrusted than those of this very son of Zebedee." (Schrift 32, 4)
During the time of Jesus's teaching mission, John was fully informed of all events and all that Jesus said. Yet he only wrote down a small part of it. He was explicitly instructed to put down only the most essential part: "So John and Matthew also wrote down the gospel, but only the key points, leaving aside most circumstantial detail" (Gr VI 148, 20) John would sometimes ask if he might make a note of what he had just heard, and the answer he received on one occasion was: "Let it be. In yonder time (i.e., Lorber's day) I shall, in so far as there is need, have such things revealed to such men as are of good will, through the mouths of newly awakened servants, seers and prophets." "Apart from the most important thing, My teaching office on this earth, you will, in the gospel written by you, say, with regard to the extraordinary teachings and deeds, that I have taught and done many a thing that is not written in the books; and even if such were to be written down in the books, the world, that is, mankind, would not be able to grasp it." (Gr X 157, 2 and 3)
Particular interest attaches to the revealing sentence added at the end, making it clear that people would not be able to grasp the content. The mutilated and therefore rather strange text of St. John's Gospel as it has come down to us (21, 25), saying that the world itself could not contain the books, is amplified and given meaning in New Revelation. Elsewhere in New Revelation, this passage is rounded out by the addition of the word "yet". The complete and very meaningful text therefore says that the people living in those days would not have been able to grasp the occult teaching Jesus was passing on to His disciple. "In the present day, however, . . . culture and civilization and man's intellect are very different from what they were in those days," (Pr 24) "My disciples were as yet like innocent children, initially unable to grasp the exalted ideas relating to Myself and My Kingdom, as later they did when My Spirit had come upon them." "If My disciples could still put such questions, you can imagine how the others, less initiated, were thinking." (Pr 296)
On the island of Patmos, John also wrote his "Occult Revelation". He was a hundred years old at the time, and was assisted in his writing by a friend who had given up his Greek name and also called himself John. (Gr XI p. 264)
According to New Revelation, John concluded his gospel "at just about the time when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans." (A.D. 70, author). John, more than a hundred years old, then wrote "his visions upon parchment, under the title The Revelation to John." (Gr XI p. 264)
As to the Gospel of St. Matthew, the scholars are in the dark as to the person of the author. lt has been established that the Gospel of St. Matthew in its present form is made up of older elements, and many assume that the author of this gospel had the Gospel of St. Mark available to him, and also another, unknown source, generally designated by the letter Q (for German Quelle = source). This dual-source theory is not universally accepted. Some authors maintain that it is the prevailing view, others oppose it. According to Paillard, modern scholars are agreed that the dual-source theory is "far too simple". 13 The different views will not be gone into here, as New Revelation provides the full and final answer in this case.
It states that Matthew had been "in the service of the Romans as a scribe" at a major customs post by the Sea of Galilee." (Gr IX 114, 1) (This Matthew, a mere scribe employed at a customs post who also ran a pub by the side, should not be confused with the selfemployed tax collector Matthew.) "He was then taken up by Me, when, travelling to Kis, I met him at a station midway between Capernaum and Kis, and this caused Me to be accused of going about with tax collectors and sinners." "As this Matthew was good with his pen, however, and did not want to part from Me again, I took him up as a scribe, but merely for factual things. John had to write down the Word, i.e., My teachings, and Matthew sometimes wrote down for himself the less spiritual parts of My teaching and sermons, though he always had John correct them for him; for Matthew had a good memory for facts, but not a good one for the teachings.
"As to My family background, he knew very little of this while he went about with Me, and what he did know, James, Simon and John had told him on occasion. He did not note this down at the time, but only some years after My resurrection, when he was chosen to be an apostle, in place of Judas Iscariot. (In the English Bible, this man is referred to as Matthias, in Acts 1, 23 and 26, translator.)
"This apostle Matthew himself, as evangelist, had put together his gospel very properly and correctly, and then set out on his journey to the southeastern parts of Asia with it.
"Then, however, five Matthews came forward, in Jerusalem, in Galilee, in Samaria, then in Tyre and Sidon, and each wrote a gospel of Matthew; the one that appeared at Sidon was indisputably the most acceptable. The other four were rejected at the great Nicene Council as showing no agreement at all with it, nor with each other, and therefore apocryphal, while the Sidonian gospel was retained as very likely genuine. And therefore this one, too, is partly apocryphal, though the writer did make every conceivable effort to present the matter in as true a form as possible.
"He himself actually wrote - instead of this one - fourteen gospels, depending on how the matter was somehow made known to him by supposed eyewitnesses. He then wrote a fifteenth based on these fourteen, and in the opinion of many experts this was declared the most important and most true; and this pseudo-Matthew, whose name really was l'Rabbas, is the man who produced the Gospel of St. Matthew of today. The real gospel, however, is today still in a large collection of books and writings in a major city in the mountains of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula." (Gr XI p. 241-242)
Jesus had predicted the following to Matthew the apostle: "...another, who will be writing in your name, will take your place, and his gospel will remain." (Gr X 157, 6) The gospel we know, therefore, is the one written by the pseudo-Matthew, whose name was l'Rabbas (or Barsabbas, translator) and who wrote under the pseudonym of Matthew. New Revelation has the following to say of him: "The pseudo-evangelist Matthew was a perfectly honest man, a seeker of truth, and was most assiduous in searching for the truth of that which happened there, for about twenty years, until he began to compile and write his gospel. At this time, no apostle of Mine was to be found in the country of the Jews, although there was no particular lack of other witnesses for that period. As is usually the case, however, very many people from the many places I had visited had all kinds of things to tell of Me; usually, however, only what they themselves had heard and experienced of Me in their towns or villages. It is easy to understand therefore why it was quite impossible for a l'Rabbas, and also many other evangelists, however well intentioned, to get a completely clear picture of everything I did and taught and what was brought to realization on Me."
Here the question will be put as to why I did not enlighten those people more clearly, so that they would have been able to put nothing but the whole and perfect truth down on parchment. I tell you that with wholly honest people who made such endeavor, I never did hold back. But if later a world that had already grown selfish made something else of those honest reports, I cannot help this, for every human being has a perfectly free will. I have also provided much opportunity for winnowing, as you can see from the many great councils held since My day, that were given the task by My spirit to separate the lie that had crept in from the truth and reject it before the whole congregation. Yet the weeds were flourishing everywhere among the wheat, and they did not succeed in wholly eradicating them." "And so truly great winnowings are happening also in this day (Lorber's), here and elsewhere, and the enemy of truth will no longer be able to do anything against them. I am now building great dams to hold back any flood of lies, and setting up the true rock of Peter, that shall not be overcome by the gates of hell." (Gr XI p. 262-263)
New Revelation also gives many interesting details about Luke and his gospel. "As for his gospel, it is a collection of deeds that has come into being due to his researches both in and around Jerusalem relating to Myself, My deeds and teachings, through different people. He himself arranged them in his own way, in chapters and verses, and he was of course unable to relate this to the numbers given to chapters and verses in another gospel; this is why many things appear in quite a different chapter and in different verses than in the works of the other evangelists, as each of you may find out by comparing the parallel passages referred to.
"As to his person, he was a drawer and painter of designs, and was able to provide the weavers, clothiers and carpet makers with the products of his hands; the designs of Jewish shawls and curtains were also frequently from his hand. In addition to this he was also a calligrapher and scribe, particularly when someone wanted to have something written in a perfectly beautiful and regular hand, he understood and spoke Greek, Latin and Hebrew, and if need arose was also able to communicate and make himself understood in the other languages commonly spoken around Judah.
"What is more, he was a thorough going newsmonger, as you always have and always will find people who are, and thus enquired into everything that happened particularly in My days, causing much talk and to-do among people. It gave him pleasure to have some unusual news to tell to the many curious people he used to know, and he certainly did not act the eclectic (be selective) in this, for the next best thing was alright with him, so long as it appeared extraordinary.
"To begin with, much of what he had to tell was of his own provenance, particularly in the absence of genuine information. lt was only later, when the apostle Paul had been preaching My word here and there in Greece, that his friend Theophilus, who also lived in Greece, seriously put it to him that he should obtain reliable information about Me, write it down and send it to him. He, Theophilus, had heard such different things about that Nazarene, from the Jews and also the Greeks, that he could not get a clear idea as to what had really been so special about this person. He was asking himself, he said, if he had been a supernatural being, or merely someone well versed in much wisdom from the books.
"When Luke in Jerusalem had received this letter into his hands, he finally took up the matter more seriously and enquired into everything concerning particularly My person and teaching. The things he wrote down, he did not have from any loose talk of My true disciples, but generally from other people who held Me and My teaching in regard, some of whom had known Me personally, while most had heard about me from My disciples. Between My presence as a human being on this earth and the completion of Luke's gospel, thirty-five years had elapsed (i.e., A.D. 68), and it was after this that he was able to dispatch it to his friend Theophilus in Greece; Theophilus then compared this Gospel with his own notes.
"That was the situation with his gospel. lt was even more so with his Acts of the Apostles, which he also wrote down at the request of his friend Theophilus, doing so towards the end of his life, at a time when not a single one of My first apostles and disciples was left in Jerusalem. These Acts of the Apostles also underwent quite some changes at the hands of his friend, and even the information he had gathered in the land of the Jews was often made up by disciples and broadcasters of My word who often presented themselves to be such without having received an inner call, each of them wanting to know better.
"It thus happened that both the gospel of Luke and even more so his retrospective Acts of the Apostles contained inventions and exaggerations, things of which My real apostles and disciples knew little or nothing. They spent little time in Jerusalem and were to be found more in Galilee, Samaria, and other regions more distant from Jerusalem.
"Knowing this, you will be well aware that the earthquake and darkness referred to at My death on the cross, the graves opening in the Valley of Joshaphat, My ascension on from two different mountains, and also that outpouring of the holy spirit, are by and large the product of the imagination of various adherents and admirers, and indeed have to be such, as the most reliable of all evangelists (John) who had to be present on any important occasion, makes no mention of all this. Nor does Luke say whether he himself was present at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit or not.
"His gospel and his Acts of the Apostles came very close to being declared apocryphal at the great Council of Nicaea. But the occidental bishops resisted this, and thus everything written by Luke was declared to be authentic, and to this very day, this Luke counts among the most trustworthy of evangelists, more being made of him to this very moment than of John." (Gr XI p. 271-273)
"Why should I have done such a thing at My death as darken the sun completely, and this for a full three hours? And if that had been so, then the sun also could not have shone in other countries, and this would no doubt have been recorded by their scribes. As it is, even Roman historians do not recall any such event. The thing must then have applied to Jerusalem only, that I would have permitted everybody present to have been struck blind for three hours, with John alone keeping his sight, as he makes no mention of such a darkening of the sun. "As in the case of the darkened sun, so with My ascension to heaven reputedly seen in this world. For where was the heaven supposed to be that I went to?! Or where should He who is Omnipresent go, to show mankind where He truly is at home?
"I would say, however, that I shall be at home everywhere throughout the whole of infinite space, for I am in all and everything the principle that originally gave life and maintains it, and without Me nothing exists or continues anywhere!" (Gr XI p. 273-274) In the chapter entitled "Jesus's Life on Earth", reference is made to how his body dissolved into atoms and suddenly was no longer visible. As it says in Gr VII 129, 9, He came "into His wholly divine element".
"Do not take offence, therefore, at this man because of several inaccuracies that occur in his writings, for in the first place he was not the real originator, but rather those who made corrections after him, and I could list more than a dozen for you. And in the second place he was full of good will, especially in later times, and truly concerned to leave utter purity to posterity in his writings. He cannot be given the blame for what greedy community readers later made of the gospel. They have sown tares among his wheat, that grew with the wheat." (Gr XI p. 274)
"Luke, Mark or Matthew on this account; for they did at least make an effort in their day to look for the purest and best among the many distortions already made of My teaching. But where the physical facts are concerned, they did partly make these up themselves, and for the most part they did in the end have to take some of the material they had from the lips of people who often enough were blatantly pretending to have been eyewitnesses or earwitnesses of this or that. They then compared this with passages they knew from the ancient prophets, and found that what they had written was in agreement. With this, they felt the criterion for the truth of what they had put down was wholly complete and valid.
"If it had remained at that with the gospels, things would be a great deal better now than they are. For those gospels had far too little of the miraculous, the cruel and the terrible for mankind, and for this reason it was later found necessary to make many additions, especially in part among Jewish Christians, Greeks and Romans, a hundred years before the great Council of Nicaea, additions in particular that smell greatly of miracles, and that are strongly judgmental, to make Me, the benefactor of mankind, who has been concerned more than anything to make men care about love and truth, into the very opposite." (Gr XI p. 275 f.)
"The worst and most horrific was, however, done only after the great Council of Nicaea, by the Greek, and even more so the Roman bishops. For they made every effort, basing themselves partly on the heathen Tartarus and partly on the old Jewish Sheol, to paint the last judgement, purgatory and hell in the most lurid colors, making of Me, in one person, Aeacus, Minos and Rhadamanthus, who in Hades judged the souls of the dead. According to this, I would have to judge, condemn and for ever curse to hell, most implacably and without pity, all who did not obey the directions and orders of the so-called 'holy father' in Rome.
"I think I have now made it sufficiently clear to you that neither I nor any of My true evangelists are or could be the inventors and teachers of all this. For surely I cannot call Myself the greatest love and compassion, and then the next day the utter desire for revenge, implacable and without pity, and eternal desire to punish and torture My children for their wrongdoings, when fundamentally they often are not responsible for a hundredth part of it. I have not come to let that which was lost become even more lost, but to seek it out in all love, and bring it back into the light again, that it shall not be lost." (Gr XI p. 246)
The question immediately arises as to why God did not prevent such falsification. This question is also raised in New Revelation, and answered as follows: "Why did I, the all-knowing and almighty Lord and God, permit it that My pure word, given to the apostles and indeed many other people, has not infrequently been passed on in the most contradictory form by them and so many evangelists, and that there is so very little that I am perceptibly doing against this?" "That question is just as if one were to ask Me why I do not allow nothing but wheat, corn and barley and peerless fruit trees (and no weeds) to grow from the soil on earth." (Gr XI p. 251)
"Just as in this case everything does have its aim and purpose, so the many who hold wrong beliefe and superstitions do have their aim and purpose on this earth. For if everybody were already as enlightened as the Archangel Raphael when they are born into the world, though still living in the torpid bodies, no one would stir himself to reflect on anything, making efforts to find the pure truth. Soon a general lethargy would develop, as no one could either help or harm anyone else. As it is, however, people with a more brilliant intellect are indeed stimulated all the more by those who are stupid, to work all the harder and with greater energy to counter stupidisy and darkness, the more these threaten to spread. They then take great pleasure in having brought many who were blind into the path of light through their endeavor. And this is also where the gospels, with their contradictions regarding facts or literal meanings, have their purpose. They do still contain the pure spirit, and anyone who is enlightened just a little by Me will be able to find it.
"As for the so-called common people, who in their blind simplicity will, like children, take a brass coin to be a golden ducat, they suffer no harm. You know that in My father's house there are many mansions or schools where such souls, who here are impoverished in spirit, can and indeed will find their way to the right light. And this is also the reason why I have such great forbearance with the so-called vicars of the Lord here on earth. For everything here has its time and its span." (Gr XI p. 252)
"Luke, and also the pseudo-evangelist Matthew (I'Rabbas) started to record their gospels not very many years after Me, and yet in many respects deviated so far from the truth that in the end it had to become obvious that in many major aspects they seriously contradict one another. No one would think of checking things in those days; each of the evangelists had his particular readers and listeners and took little heed of any other evangelist, and the evangelists themselves only went by what they had written down. Sometimes they even took real pleasure in what the one of the other of them had (all to himself) in his gospel.
"Thus l'Rabbas (Matthew) also took little account of Jesus being circumcised in the Temple after the eighth day following His birth, nor of the three wise men from the orient, the right to Egypt, and Herod's terrible massacre of the children in Bethlehem. l'Rabbas (pseudo-Matthew) did have this reported to him in Tyre and Sidon, and in his way also did record it. But being more of a heathen than a Jew, at least earlier on, he took little account of the circumcision of the Jesus child, and so these two evangelists strangely contradict each other in this respect, while in many other areas they agree even as to details of place and time.
"According to Luke, then, we have a Jesus circumcised in full accord with Jewish law and custom, born in a stable in Bethleham and welcomed only by the shepherds, never visited by the wise men, with no need to flee to Egypt, but who rather returned at leisure to Nazareth, to wait there in complete peace, in no way persecuted by Herod, until he reached his twelfth year, when he set out for Jerusalem with his parents.
"In Matthew's gospel we see Jesus being born in an ordinary house; there are no shepherds who come to call, but instead the three wise men from the east (of whom Luke never dreamt in his gospel, nor of the flight to Egypt, the cruel massacre of the infants by Herod, and certainly nothing of Jesus returning to Galilee from Egypt when Archelaus ruled." (Gr XI p. 277 f.)
The statement that each of the evangelists held only to what he had learned, taking little heed of what others had written, makes it clear that there is no real foundation to the argument among the experts as to who copied whom. The evangelists did not copy each other, though now and then they would have come across the same informants, with the result that certain reports had to be similar. This shows how easily speculation can lead astray.
"Now everyone may well ask himself: Which of the two evangelists, considered by himself, has adhered to the truth? The answer is: Actually neither, for each only reported what he had heard people say. In Jerusalem, no one dared speak of the inordinate cruelty of Herod, for fear of punishment; in Sidon and Tyre, in what then was Coelesyria, Herod was hated above everything, and his cruelty was no secret, nor the cause that had brought him to it.
"In the same way, if you were to read the two gospels and make careful comparison, you would come upon quite a number of significant contradictions and much unevenness, though these will be easier to make good to some extent and correct than a Jewish Jesus who was circumcised and a heathen one who was not. This is why now, in this day, both the old and the new nonsense in all that contradicts Me needs to be completely eradicated from these gospels, and indeed I myself with it, so that the only and everlastingly true gospel of John may appear in its full light.
"For it will be easy for everyone to grasp and understand that in the long run I can no longer have continued existence in the light of these four gospels now in existence, and also of many of the letters from Paul and the other apostles, for every contradictory statement in these will make Me myself a contradiction in the eyes of the learned men in the world, in the same way as in the present Christian sects, each sect has its own Christ who takes the liberty of roundly condemning any other Christ of any other sect ." (Gr Xi p. 278)
"Although the evangelists have written everything under the guidance of My spirit, yet their will was perfectly free, and thus also their judgement and accordingly their assumption." (Gr XI p. 296)