Why now, 2,000 years later?

"If you asked Frank Lloyd Wright why his buildings were not built 2,000 years ago, he would answer that the technology at the time did not support the idea for the intended design.  Only recently did the new technology provide the tools to access the material in the manner of the intended design."

Gregg R. Zegarelli             

My undergraduate degree is a Bachelor of Arts from Duquesne University.  I had dual major areas of study in History and Accounting, and dual minors in Philosophy and Political Science.  I also studied the classics and classical languages.

First, I could not have managed the technical process of unifying the text without significant computer skills.  Really, documenting the unification process with 3,000 references, each of which can individually point to up to all four Gospels was a daunting task.  I actually banged my head on the table a couple of times thinking it would never end. 

Second, without significant legal training and experience, I could not have managed unification of the four testimonies from a conceptual perspective.   Attorneys are trained to find the single truthful story within multiple varying testimonies.  The individual testimonies remain, but only on single truth can be put to the judge or jury.

Third, without owning my own law office, I would not have been able to manage my time and financial resources to accomplish the project.  That is, writing the book was a huge undertaking over 2 years.  If I needed to take time to complete the work, I could do so; because I am the employer, I could not get fired--it just cost me time and money.

The short answer is this: I am an attorney.  I am well-educated, and I have been practicing for 18 years.  Now, there are different types of lawyers: for example, criminal lawyers, personal injury lawyers, corporate lawyers.  I would be considered a cross between a corporate lawyer and a corporate litigator.  My clients have hired me to review terms and conditions for some very complex deals, including venture capital and mergers and acquisitions.  I am not trying to puff here, that's not the point, I'm trying to set a premise that my profession requires a significant amount of detailed reading, writing, analysis and reconciliation of textual works.

Having said that, I began deeply studying the bible in the year 2000 after I became married to my wife, Jodi.  That's where the long story comes in, which is also a story for another day.  In reading the Gospels, I thought it was just too hard.  I thought, "If it's too hard for me, and I am trained to read complex documents all day, it must be too hard for others, as well."  So, ...

It is true.  None of the Gospels has the entire story of Jesus.  If you look at Unification Index, you will see clearly that each Gospel is a separate "testimony" of Jesus' life.  There are parts in one that are not in the others.  [Editor's note: see Sample Pages, Unification Index]

For example, the Gospel of Luke has many more parables than the other Gospels.  Only, Matthew and Luke contain the statement of Unending Forgiveness [forgive seventy-seven times in one day].  Only John has the story of Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles at the Last Supper.  These are only a couple of examples.

It's just too hard, and it should not be that hard.  Even after writing ONE, I still cannot do it from memory.  I need to go to the Unification Index to see exactly from where clauses are derived.

There is no way to deeply study the Gospels without deeply studying the source Gospels.  But, not everyone has the time to read all four Gospels, and, in truth, they should not have to do so.  In retrospect, I have heard many people say that the Gospels are intimidating to read.

I love the story of Michelangelo, in which he said that the statue of David was already in the marble and that he merely removed the excess marble in revelation.  There is, of course, no "excess" in the perfect Gospels considered by some to be divine.  But, that's a bit theoretical, and we live in a real world where we must eat and sleep, and take the time to read the Word and to reflect on the message.

Jesus said his yoke easy and burden light.  All I have done is to take the four Gospels, superimpose them upon each other and remove the general duplication.  Then, I took the unique portions and integrated them.  So, in 230 pages, shorter than most novels, you receive the entire text.  All text is accounted for and is proved in the Unification Index. 

First, that story is only contained in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; it is not contained in Mark and John.  That is, if you only read Mark and John, you will not read that story.  Even so, it is stated differently in Matthew and Luke.  Now, I am quoting generally here, and not verbatim, so you need to go to ONE or the online sample to see the verbatim text and how it is exactly handled.

Let's start with Matthew.  Basically, in Matthew, Peter approaches and asks him, “If someone sins against me, how often must I forgive him?  Seven times?” Jesus answers, "Not seven, but seventy-seven times."  It is generally considered that Jesus means unending forgiveness.

Next, Luke.  Now, in Luke, the story is similar, but different in a very important way.  First, in Luke, there is no question from Peter.  Jesus merely makes a proclamation.  Secondly, Jesus places a condition into the sentence.  In Luke, it is something like, "If someone sins against you, and if he repents, forgive him.  And if he does it and repents seven times, then you should forgive him." 

So that is a very good single example of how the texts are similar, and yet importantly different.  In the real-world, how does a non-scholar remember those fine distinctions?  That is, to remember the subtlety of the differences and similarities?  Particularly when these two source Gospels are often separated by the entire Gospel of Mark. 

Here is how I handled the unification, and I believe that it is handled accurately and with complete integrity.  In ONE, it reads something like:

Peter approaches Jesus and asks, “If someone sins against me, how often must I forgive him?  Seven times?”  Jesus answers, “If someone sins against you, and if he repents, forgive him. And if he does it and repents seven times, then you should forgive him not seven but seventy-seven times.”  [Editor's note: colorization of text for convenience of the reader.  See Sample Pages, Unification Index]

The end result is ease, clarity and greater impact of the message.  At the same time, if the reader does not recall that particular distinction—and we have not met one reader who did remember that distinction—the reader can source it back to the Gospels through the Unification Index to prove the text.

There are "harmony of the Gospels" and there are "parallels of the Gospels," the former being soft consolidations of the four Gospels—such as Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ—and the latter usually taking the form of the respective texts of the Gospels placed in columns next to each other.  Harmony of the Gospels are, in every case of which I am aware, not authoritative to the source texts.  Parallels are inherently authoritative, but they are not easily readable.  So, ONE is authoritative and easy to read.  It also contains a new post-unification reference numbering system.  Without the advanced technologies available to manage the integration of the Gospels, the task would be virtually impossible.

If you asked Frank Lloyd Wright why his buildings were not built 2,000 years ago, he would answer that the technology at the time did not support the idea for the intended design.  Only recently did the new technology provide the tools to access the material in the manner of the intended design.  The design was to unify authoritatively.

But, ONE is different because it is a complete textual integration of the original texts.  Absolutely, every clause—every clause—in the original four Gospels is accounted for in ONE, and this is proven in the Unification Index.

On another day, when I was explaining the book in more detail to Shawnna, one of my other staff, in the presence of Lisa, both Lisa and Shawnna got really, really excited.  So, I asked Lisa why she was so excited--somewhat fanatically--this time and not before.  She said because, this time, I explained the Unification Index and the 3,000 references back to the source Gospels.  She said that was the difference to her between my "narrative take" on the Gospels, versus something authoritative that allows readers to cross-check my work and resolve the text back to the source Gospels.

In a separate example, I was explaining to one of the marketing representatives the example of Unending Forgiveness, and that, by unification, you see clearly see how repentance integrates with the concept of forgiveness.  She responded, "Great, everyone has their take on the bible."  I responded, "No, this is not 'my take'; it is actually in the verbatim language of the original Gospels.  Just go to the Unification Index."  [Editor's Note: ONE:1707]

So, again, it is the Unification Index gives ONE its authority, and it is that authority that makes ONE unique.

As to me, I am who I am and I've done what that I've done.  I hope my work is received in the manner intended: to share the good news. 

I am an attorney, and, as such, I am professionally trained to reconcile and to present testimony.  That is what attorneys are trained to do for their clients.  I have merely reconciled the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 

It was as if four witnesses entered my office with a story to tell.  As the attorney for my client, I can present the four original testimonies to the judge and jury, but I must unify and summarize in my closing argument with only one truth.  And, so it is with ONE.

I really like the statement of Abraham Lincoln, where he says that the articles of belief in religious institutions are too complicated and that he would join any church that has love as its only requirement for membership.

I think Jesus' teachings are very clear.  He said, "Learn the meaning of the scriptures, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"  I understand his point to be all about substance over form.  So, I do not think that institutional rites and ceremonies are necessary to apply Jesus' teachings.  And, if religion should divide us, it is the devil's game.  The devil's trick.

Do I personally believe that women should be denied the opportunity to be priests if they want to be?  No, not really.  Jesus was obviously a Jew, and the lack of women in the church was culturally traditional as was washing the outside of the cup, but I personally think the time of that idea is passed.  Jesus, himself, was certainly not a traditionalist.  Can someone argue that Jesus was a man and, therefore, all priests must be men?  Sure, I suppose on one foundation of analysis.  But, on another foundation, look at ONE: 2123.  Jesus alluded to, in the afterlife, there is no gender.  Who really has authority to argue about genitalia in heaven?  So, I personally take no offense whatsoever to any religion that permits full participation by women in the rites and ceremonies.  I think the benefit of leading the celebration of deepened reflection is something to be equally shared between genders.

Do I personally think that priests must forego the blessing of marriage?  No, not really.  For those who voluntarily make the choice and devotion, it can be beautiful, but I personally do not find it a necessary constraint of belief.  Did Jesus say to leave spouse and family behind to follow his teaching?  Yes.  But, I personally understand that to mean that anyone who diverts you from good works, anyone, must be rejected—even if that is your spouse or parent.  Jesus spoke metaphorically on many, if not most, occasions.  If God created the human race and commands union only by marriage, then how do procreation and complete discipleship become reconciled?  Even in ONE: 1782, I do not understand Jesus to require celibacy, but only to acknowledge it when it undertaken by those who can do so without pain of choice.  Shall pure devotion make us extinct?  So, I personally take no offense whatsoever to any religion that permits full participation by married persons in leadership of rites and ceremonies.  I think that benefit is something to be equally shared.  I understand that communal leadership will necessarily separate some from others, but it does not, to me, need to be based upon such a beautiful thing as marriage and family.  I do not think it is necessary to deny our fundamental humanity to reconcile our devotion to the Spirit.

But, saying I have difficulty reconciling some issues is nothing unusual.  Certainly, many people have some difficulties reconciling some aspect of religious tradition, but that does not mean that these beautiful beliefs of fundamental goodness become bad.  So, for example, even though I have difficulty accepting that celibacy must be a constraint of communal leadership, does not mean that it follows that any religion that requires celibacy is bad.

I understand that there can be value in the consistency of tradition, even if the idea represented, to me personally, is somewhat outdated.

The Universal version is for those who desire to study the four Gospels, but without the certain events that rest on fundamental Christian faith.  For example, does a Jew or Muslim really want to read about Jesus rising from the dead?  It is somewhat fundamentally contradicting. 

However, open-minded Christians can read the Universal version, because it is still an accurate statement within its own context.  And, certainly, a non-Christian who desires to gain the full message of the Gospels should read the Divine version.

The Universal version was named because it is intended to be enjoyed by those who either do not believe Jesus was divine or who wish a more empirical study of the Gospels.  That is, somewhat more universally acceptable.  But, depending upon how the term "Christian" is defined, there are some who call themselves "Christians" who remain somewhat agnostic--meaning that they don't know--as to certain miracles and they might find more comfort in reading the Universal version, as well.

I don't think anyone should be superficially judged by the cover of the book they read.  I believe both versions to be works of goodness, but with different purposes.  So, it was purposeful, that if you are reading ONE, no one knows which version you are reading.

Secondly, let me be a bit more theoretical and hopeful.  I am hopeful that all Christians equally embrace both versions for what they contain, in substance: the beautiful consolidated teachings of someone generally believed to be one of the greatest persons who ever lived.  If the reader chooses to read either version, that person is spending their valuable time learning the good teachings of Jesus, and that, I hope, is something for us all to embrace.