The Sermon on the Mount – Evidence of a Later Invention


To be fair, this isn’t a hard sell but the evidence is quite convincing. We already know how corrupt the early Church was and still is, so this definitely plays into the evidence we have concerning the probable forgery of this well-known part of Scripture. Outside of fundamentalist scholars, this isn’t even controversial in the field. By the way, fundamentalist scholars? Why would you be a scholar of something that the world now strongly believes is pure mythology transformed into theology?If you don’t know anything about the Sermon on the Mount, here is the lowdown.

This sermon is the longest discourse of Jesus found anywhere in the New Testament, and strangely enough, it’s only found in the Gospel of Matthew at Chapters 5 through 7, even though there is an apologetic argument that it’s mentioned in the Gospel of “Luke” commonly referred to as “The Sermon on the Plain”, it isn’t, which is the mainstream consensus of reputable scholars, and I’ll detail why it’s not to be taken seriously. Why didn’t any other of the Gospel writers mention what appeared to be a major inspirational and impactful event in Jesus’ life? Was only “Matthew” an eyewitness to it? I doubt that. Something smells fishy. Well, it was the Age of Pisces after all.

I’m not going to copy and paste the entire sermon, as it’s quite long, but here are some of the most well-known quotes from it:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

“You are the salt of the earth.”

“Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

“You have heard that it was said … But I say to you.”

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

“Love your enemies.”

“Beware of practicing your piety before others.”

“Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven…”

“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

“So do not worry.”

“Do not judge.”

“Ask, and it will be given you.”

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

“Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

“Everyone then who hears these words … will be like a wise man.”

It’s a pretty radical speech that few so-called Christians embrace. If they did, the world would be a much better place.

Anyway, what is the evidence against the Sermon actually being historical? Well, if you’ve read any of the other articles on this site, you will definitely find evidence doubting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and that everything is celestial in origin (small sampling of that here). That alone has the ability to squash that this is anything but an invention of the early Church and the Gospel writers, whomever they were. I mean, we have no idea who wrote them, of which the Catholic Encyclopedia corroborates:

“It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves … they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that “the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship”, adding that “the headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656).

The Gospel authors just appear to copy, rewrite, and elaborate on the other ones, eventually making Jesus appear to be very human by the time we reach “John’s” Gospel. I mean, the original version of “Mark’s” Gospel (the first Gospel written around 60 CE) never mentions Jesus on Earth, only that he was experienced through revelation. That is in perfect alignment with Gnostic thought. That’s why the Gnostics rebelled so mightily against the Church but were finally silenced after the Spanish Inquisition. By the way, “Mark’s” ending is spurious as well, and the Church admits that, too:

“the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine … almost the entire section is a later compilation” (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading “The Evidence of its Spuriousness”; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading “Canons”)

There are so many verbatim passages from each one (“Matthew” clearly borrowed from “Mark”, etc.) that it has to make you consider the very real reality of plagiarism. That’s not such a radical statement if you’ve done your homework on the subject.

But what does mainstream scholarship say about the Sermon? That is quite interesting. Let’s dive in.

More and more mainstream scholars are embracing the opinion that the Sermon on the Mount is a later, fabricated work. Actually, they are in agreement that it was professionally written by someone of a much higher educational background than the supposed disciples, and most likely coming from a Greek author. From just a cursory glance at the disciples and what they “wrote”, not a single one of them would have the knowledge of how to write in such a complex way with an in depth understanding of sentence structure. An educated author, not an illiterate fisherman.

Another giveaway that Jesus never said any of this is the complete and total disregard or mentioning of the Jewish Temple Cult requirements and observations (Torah requirements, etc). Jesus acts like the Temple Cult doesn’t even exist and has been destroyed. The problem is that the Temple Cult wasn’t destroyed by the Romans until after 70 CE, prior to that, it was still going strong…..meaning that there is no way Jesus said the words contained in the Sermon. This was professionally written by a Greek author. I mean, Jesus rambles on and on never mentioning the temple sacrifice code laid out in detail in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, nothing at all like, should it be avoided, rejected, or was it needed anymore? These would have to be addressed because it was a major practice prior to 70 CE. Meaning, once again, that it was written after 70 CE and not spoken by Jesus.

With that being said, do we just toss this articulate speech full of meaningful wisdom on how to be a good person and live a good life in the trash? No, we take from it the good and leave the doctrine and religion in the past where it belongs.

6 thoughts on “The Sermon on the Mount – Evidence of a Later Invention

  1. Be cautious fellow sojourner there are some dangerous pathways that you can open out of ignorance in fleshly brain. If you claim the flesh will become GOD you have been misled. It is the spirit/soul that does it. To say the flesh will “ascend” is to say ego will ascend which is the root of all suffering
    When you find the truth that this earth has been almost completely conquered by two of the oldest cults known to man the cult of the serpent and cult of the SUN.
    Literally under foot there are probably serpent beings as testified by peoples all over the planet. Look at jared kushner in his talking and so many more like him, that is some sort of hybrid creature how he wets his lips
    There is a group that tries to “practice” the sermon on mound, but have almost all taken vaccine, answer that please,


    1. I appreciate the comments but it seems to me that you’ve journeyed a little too far down that rabbit hole. Pulling back a little and simply enjoying life is highly recommended. That’s my path now. No religion, no doctrine, no rules. Just love and kindness.


  2. You are on the pulse here and this is brilliantly written. I have compiled authentic letters and sayings from the work of Ehrman and DeConick, and less than 1/3 of what is known as the “New Testament” canon holds up. And you are right to say that the later titled “Sermon on the Mount” is an invention. I’d like to put out a feeler to see if there may be some corroboration potential here. This is a very unique message that you are discussing and I wonder if we may benefit from each other. Anyway, well done. Thanks for publishing this.


    1. Thank you, Kurtis. That’s very kind of you to say.

      I actually haven’t written a post in quite some time. Life sometimes throws some curve balls your way and forces you to shift your focus. That’s kind of where I am at the moment, but I am looking forward to getting back to writing again. Once things get back on track for me, maybe we can discuss a possible corroboration.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s