I am not writing articles to get people to be agreeable. I write because I wish to uncover truths and I wish these truths to become dialogue; a prelude to something else, something greater.
The subject of Christianity is not an obsession of mine, it is contemplation. The ideological conformity of a disparaged group of ideas that a self elected few consented to establish as the entire foundation of a religion. In fact, the totality of the religion itself. All at the expense of the one they claim to follow, Jesus of Nazareth.
My question for this article is as follows: what is the trinity? And why is the trinity never mentioned in the bible? Who is Jesus, and why did Jesus never call himself God. Why was Jesus' name changed from the name which the angel commanded his name would be called Immanuel to Jesus without explanation. And why did reformation leader Martin Luther seek to change or omit over 18 books of the canonized bible? I will ask these questions, then I will answer these questions and you will see without a doubt the distinct possibility that the religion of Christianity is a fabrication of an ideology represented and presented by the man Christ Jesus.
I want to start with a quote by the reformation leader Martin Luther.
"Burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and to throw pitch and sulfur into the flames; to destroy their homes; to confiscate their ready money in gold and silver; to take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; and if that did not help matters, to hunt them of the country like mad dogs." (Luther’s Works, vol. Xx, pp. 2230-2632 as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.99).
"Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch" (Martin Luther (1483-1546): On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543 as quoted from Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268293).
Does this sound like a man fit to lead a reformation? Does this sound like a man we should entrust to reveal to us the hidden truths kept secret from us by the corruption of an all powerful Roman Catholic Church?
How many people know that Jesus quoted from books that are not included in the canonized bible? These are books that the pagan priests in the notorious Council of Nicea were fully knowledgeable of but purposely omitted. It should be noted that there are many gospels associated with Jesus; that is to say that each of the reported 12 disciples have a gospel, or a book that is attributed to the time they spent with Jesus, and only four if them were selected. Two of them are not even the works of disciples but individuals whom "tradition" (whatever that is) supposes had close ties with these disciples. Why then did the disciples themselves not write for themselves? Were they illiterate? Of course not. We find that they wrote gospels which did not agree with what came to be known as orthodox Christianity. These gospels were then subsequently banned and instead gospels written by anonymous authors, whom history cannot verify, were published in their stead.
What is more, is that out of almost 200 writing (books) that either documented the life of the carpenter from Nazarine, or either belonged to Hebrew religious custom or tradition, only seventy were selected during the Council of Nicea for the supposed reasoning that the other hundred or so books did not appear to be written by the influence of God. This conclusion was arrived despite the full knowledge and fact that the man called Jesus Christ (Ye'shua) quoted from many of these books during his ministry on earth.
This would lead us to believe that the purpose of the architects of this religion called Christianity did not have a completely holy agenda. Perhaps their purpose in creating the bible was not entirely noble which would explain why so many of these leaders were not devout.
What is more, is that out of almost 200 writing (books) that either documented the life of the carpenter from Nazarine, or either belonged to Hebrew religious custom or tradition, only seventy were selected during the Council of Nicea for the supposed reasoning that the other hundred or so books did not appear to be written by the influence of God. This conclusion was arrived despite the full knowledge and fact that the man called Jesus Christ (Ye'shua) quoted from many of these books during his ministry on earth.
This would lead us to believe that the purpose of the architects of this religion called Christianity did not have a completely holy agenda. Perhaps their purpose in creating the bible was not entirely noble which would explain why so many of these leaders were not devout.
I emphasize these points because one of the more important qualifications the Council of Nicea used as criterion for establishing not only the canon but the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is their authorship. Reportedly only the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by disciples who actually were eyewitnesses to Jesus.
What if I told you this were not true. What if I told you that out of each of the canonized gospels none of their authors were disciples of Jesus. In fact, none of them knew Jesus on any personal level and what is more, none of the authors were eyewitnesses of Jesus; they never ate with, talked to, saw in person, or communicated with Jesus. Not the author of Matthew. Not the author of Mark. Not the author of Luke and not the author of John.
The authors are anonymous. They are called the gospels According to... for a reason. We do not know who they were and we do not need to speculate. We do not need to tell lies and we do not need to forge documents.
We know the above to be true because the documentation of the individuals who created the bible and the means in which it was created lie safely stored in the vault of the Vatican in Italy. For starters, Luke and Mark were not disciples. We don't know who they were. What is more, the gospels that have their names on it are conclusively agreed to be only attributed to them but not even the works of the men themselves. Not only do we not know who Luke and Mark are, we do not even know who wrote for them. We know this because the guardians of this privileged information; those who created the canonized bible from the Apocrypha have told us so.
"The earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"
More evidence. Observe: "Some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then." -Tony Bushby
The authors are anonymous. They are called the gospels According to... for a reason. We do not know who they were and we do not need to speculate. We do not need to tell lies and we do not need to forge documents.
We know the above to be true because the documentation of the individuals who created the bible and the means in which it was created lie safely stored in the vault of the Vatican in Italy. For starters, Luke and Mark were not disciples. We don't know who they were. What is more, the gospels that have their names on it are conclusively agreed to be only attributed to them but not even the works of the men themselves. Not only do we not know who Luke and Mark are, we do not even know who wrote for them. We know this because the guardians of this privileged information; those who created the canonized bible from the Apocrypha have told us so.
"The earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).
These are not my own musings. These are truths established by scholars, historians and archeologists and these conclusions are conclusive. The canonized gospels are not the work of the disciples. In fact, the only people who still claim that the gospels were written by the actual disciples of Jesus are those individuals preaching it. More evidence. Observe: "Some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then." -Tony Bushby
Let us examine the evidence: The oldest dated gospel was written, not published, but written, 40- 80 years after Jesus' death. However this text, and the bible it came from is not the canonical bible we have today. The earliest writings of Jesus came from what is known as the Sinai bible. This is important because of the lineage of the bible. The gospel according to Mark- of the canonized bible- was not written until the fourth century. And I can assure you faithful pilgrim that these two separate texts, both supposedly written by or attributed to the same man, both claim and allege two vastly different accounts of the life of Jesus.
This information is important because while Christianity seeks to identify itself as advocating the early dating of the gospels, they do not confess (and in many cases do not know), that these early dates of their gospels come from the Sinai bible which does not agree with the Holy Bible they reference behind the pulpit today. If you ask your church leader to explain to you the origins of the bible, see if he is able to inform you of any of this I have only revealed to you, or anything I will reveal further.
I ask you to diligently listen to me. A man loves a woman. The woman has told him a version of whom she is and that version is supported by the woman's friends, family and associates; the man falls deeper in love with the woman based on these stories and accounts of this woman's integrity and experience until his union suggests that he cannot live without her. But then one day this man encounters information that suggests the woman is not who she says she is. Though he may seek to cast this evidence aside and count it as rubbish, he cannot for the more he ignores it, the more its legitimacy is exposed.
It does not matter that this information is coming from people his wife and his wife's family told him were dangerous and harmful because the information is consistently accurate. And the more he looks at it the more he becomes grieved by the knowledge of information convicting his wife as a liar and the support from her friends and family as orchestrated misinformation.
How is this not the ultimate betrayal? And how can the man not become overwhelmed with grief? Does it mean that he no longer loves the woman? Does this mean that he no longer holds her as dear to his heart? Absolutely not. He still loves her. But his heart is torn beyond repair because he understands that he loved a lie. He realizes that he embraced a fictional character. And if he is a man of truth he cannot, knowing the truth, continue to do so because this would make him a liar as well.
This is my parable for if I am the man in this story, my faith in Christianity is my lover. And while I still love her, for all that she has given me, I cannot ignore the truth about her. And the truth is found in the history of its highly esteemed manuscript the Holy Bible. The ability to trace its origins ultimately leads us to the inception of the religion in its orthodox form because the religion cannot exist without it.
And yet the seminary your pastor came from does not teach this information. But that is because this information belongs to the Catholic church and in that den of iniquity, unless you know what you are looking for; unless you are willing to drown your hands in the sloth of ruin, you will not find it.
But is there, centuries old documents written by the very same men who created this religious carnival.
You see the bible you have today is an alteration of information arbitrarily orchestrated by individuals appointed by a pagan dictator. These individuals were not the Catholic bishops and priests of legend convening with halos around their heads, angels all about them protecting them while they accessed the spirit of God.
They were the pagan idolaters of old.
We will get to this subject later but let us first examine why the lineage of the bible is important. There are many bibles in circulation. And they all have different messages and stories that if compared and cross referenced would do more than contradict each other. They would oppose each other.
The three oldest known bibles are listed in order as follows. *I am only listing three but there are many more.
1) The Sinai bible
2) The Alexandrian bible
3) The Vatican bible.
The Sinai bible was only found after the Vatican or Catholic bible was published and distributed and it struck fear into the leaders of this cult because of the accounts that were given. I will explain later. But for now let us focus on the Vatican bible which is where your standard Holy protestant bible comes from. You will not learn this in Sunday school. You will not hear of this on Sunday morning or Wednesday night bible study. And yet these facts are the undisputed truth.
The text of the earliest book to be written was that of the gospel according to Mark and was written in Greek not Aramaic. We know that the original twelve disciples were Jewish; and spoke Aramaic. That is not to say that they did not speak Greek, but there is nothing in the culture of that time that suggests that the Jews of that time had any religious translations in Greek. In order for the gospels to be written by actual disciples these eyewitnesses would have been Aramaic speaking peasants almost entirely from rural Galilee. After all the author Mark is said to have been a follower and translator for Peter. If the twelve disciples themselves were perfectly capable of writing in Greek they would not require translators. And we know this because Peter himself wrote two epistles (though the second is largely disputed).
This information is important because while Christianity seeks to identify itself as advocating the early dating of the gospels, they do not confess (and in many cases do not know), that these early dates of their gospels come from the Sinai bible which does not agree with the Holy Bible they reference behind the pulpit today. If you ask your church leader to explain to you the origins of the bible, see if he is able to inform you of any of this I have only revealed to you, or anything I will reveal further.
I ask you to diligently listen to me. A man loves a woman. The woman has told him a version of whom she is and that version is supported by the woman's friends, family and associates; the man falls deeper in love with the woman based on these stories and accounts of this woman's integrity and experience until his union suggests that he cannot live without her. But then one day this man encounters information that suggests the woman is not who she says she is. Though he may seek to cast this evidence aside and count it as rubbish, he cannot for the more he ignores it, the more its legitimacy is exposed.
It does not matter that this information is coming from people his wife and his wife's family told him were dangerous and harmful because the information is consistently accurate. And the more he looks at it the more he becomes grieved by the knowledge of information convicting his wife as a liar and the support from her friends and family as orchestrated misinformation.
How is this not the ultimate betrayal? And how can the man not become overwhelmed with grief? Does it mean that he no longer loves the woman? Does this mean that he no longer holds her as dear to his heart? Absolutely not. He still loves her. But his heart is torn beyond repair because he understands that he loved a lie. He realizes that he embraced a fictional character. And if he is a man of truth he cannot, knowing the truth, continue to do so because this would make him a liar as well.
This is my parable for if I am the man in this story, my faith in Christianity is my lover. And while I still love her, for all that she has given me, I cannot ignore the truth about her. And the truth is found in the history of its highly esteemed manuscript the Holy Bible. The ability to trace its origins ultimately leads us to the inception of the religion in its orthodox form because the religion cannot exist without it.
And yet the seminary your pastor came from does not teach this information. But that is because this information belongs to the Catholic church and in that den of iniquity, unless you know what you are looking for; unless you are willing to drown your hands in the sloth of ruin, you will not find it.
But is there, centuries old documents written by the very same men who created this religious carnival.
You see the bible you have today is an alteration of information arbitrarily orchestrated by individuals appointed by a pagan dictator. These individuals were not the Catholic bishops and priests of legend convening with halos around their heads, angels all about them protecting them while they accessed the spirit of God.
They were the pagan idolaters of old.
We will get to this subject later but let us first examine why the lineage of the bible is important. There are many bibles in circulation. And they all have different messages and stories that if compared and cross referenced would do more than contradict each other. They would oppose each other.
The three oldest known bibles are listed in order as follows. *I am only listing three but there are many more.
1) The Sinai bible
2) The Alexandrian bible
3) The Vatican bible.
The Sinai bible was only found after the Vatican or Catholic bible was published and distributed and it struck fear into the leaders of this cult because of the accounts that were given. I will explain later. But for now let us focus on the Vatican bible which is where your standard Holy protestant bible comes from. You will not learn this in Sunday school. You will not hear of this on Sunday morning or Wednesday night bible study. And yet these facts are the undisputed truth.
The text of the earliest book to be written was that of the gospel according to Mark and was written in Greek not Aramaic. We know that the original twelve disciples were Jewish; and spoke Aramaic. That is not to say that they did not speak Greek, but there is nothing in the culture of that time that suggests that the Jews of that time had any religious translations in Greek. In order for the gospels to be written by actual disciples these eyewitnesses would have been Aramaic speaking peasants almost entirely from rural Galilee. After all the author Mark is said to have been a follower and translator for Peter. If the twelve disciples themselves were perfectly capable of writing in Greek they would not require translators. And we know this because Peter himself wrote two epistles (though the second is largely disputed).
Mark, the Mark according to whom wrote the text, was a highly educated, Greek speaking Christian living in an urban area outside of Palestine or possibly Rome who never traveled to Galilee. So the existence of eyewitnesses would not have much if any effect on his Gospel.
The same is true, even more so, with the later Gospels. Luke begins his Gospel by saying that eyewitnesses started passing along the oral traditions he had heard (Luke 1:1-4), but he never indicates that he had ever talked to one. Further more he never states who the eyewitness is. He has simply heard stories that had been around from the days of the eyewitnesses.
What is more, there are clear examples in the gospel texts that in the fact that they are describing events that were relayed to them, not events that they personally witnessed or experienced.
Example: Luke 1:1 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
Example: John 21:21-24 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” 23 The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
As you can see the literal interpretation by the authors themselves, they are writing accounts they had no first hand knowledge of. Who, in the example of the book of John is the disciple bearing witness? If John was writing the book he would have wrote it in the first person not the second person. Not the third person. We know this is true because this is consistent with the rest of biblical literature.
As you can see the literal interpretation by the authors themselves, they are writing accounts they had no first hand knowledge of. Who, in the example of the book of John is the disciple bearing witness? If John was writing the book he would have wrote it in the first person not the second person. Not the third person. We know this is true because this is consistent with the rest of biblical literature.
What is more disturbing is that when we come to the identity of these gospel authors, we are again left to wonder and adopt whatever the language of tradition tells us. And yet even tradition cannot make up its mind as to who these people were. The person who wrote Luke was not a disciple. There was never a disciple named Luke. We are told that Luke was Paul's assistant, perhaps a physician or healer. But the constraints of time do not allow Luke to write such a book with the aid of eyewitnesses. None of the disciples accepted Paul you see, and Paul himself only actually talked first hand to Peter and James once according to Paul's own writings. If Luke was Paul's assistant, he would not have had access to any of the disciples either.
This anonymous Luke character wrote Luke entirely on his own, sniffing out the stories of Jesus independently. Convincing himself of their interpretation and summoning up his own version. This is why it is called the gospel according to Luke. But Luke who? And what on earth is a man who had no knowledge of Jesus doing writing a gospel. And how did this gospel become accepted?
This anonymous Luke character wrote Luke entirely on his own, sniffing out the stories of Jesus independently. Convincing himself of their interpretation and summoning up his own version. This is why it is called the gospel according to Luke. But Luke who? And what on earth is a man who had no knowledge of Jesus doing writing a gospel. And how did this gospel become accepted?
There was never a disciple named Mark. That is why it is called the gospel according to Mark. But Mark who? The answer is that we do not know who these authors are they are obscure to us. And yet they are included in the canon. Why? What we have are a conglomeration of writings that no one knows to whom they belong and yet they are being held up as the truth; the gospel. If we don't know who someone is, we do not know their character. We do not know their associations and we cannot attest to their actions. In other words, there are no witnesses verifying their story.
I want you to understand something: nowhere in the history of the world is such a thing possible. I cannot go into any court of law, I cannot arrive at any college campus with an affidavit alleging the witness of something that does not include the identity of the author who wrote the affidavit.
I cannot present a thesis that does not contain the evidence, the research, and studies taken in support of my conclusions.This is impossible to do and if I did it I would get laughed out of the lecture hall, my evidence would be labeled inadmissible and I would not be allowed to try such a thing lest I be held in contempt. I would fail the assignment. And that is precisely what we have here in the creation of the bible. A colossal failure.
I cannot present a thesis that does not contain the evidence, the research, and studies taken in support of my conclusions.This is impossible to do and if I did it I would get laughed out of the lecture hall, my evidence would be labeled inadmissible and I would not be allowed to try such a thing lest I be held in contempt. I would fail the assignment. And that is precisely what we have here in the creation of the bible. A colossal failure.
And yet the book of the bible which is reported as having no flaws, we are told, not by anyone in the bible mind you but of the scholars who've read it and the self appointed leaders who created it; this flawless book with no contradictions in it cannot account for over half its authors. We don't know who they are. We don't know where they come from. And therefore by conclusion we do not know if they even existed. They have no witnesses. What we have are anonymous authors writing books about Jesus- these stories have not and cannot be confirmed.
These same stories contain assertions that not even the disciples could know. The birth of Jesus, the three wise men, the escape into Egypt, the angels gathering around shouting Hosanna!!?! Where did these stories come from? Joseph, Jesus' father did not allege this. If he did, the authors would have said so as we see clearly in the verses above their consistency in acknowledging their sources of information were not first hand.
It wasn't from Mary either for the exact same reasons. And it wasn't from Jesus because Jesus never talked about his infancy according to the records we have available.
So then, how did these accounts enter the gospels? How were the gospels created in the first place?
Observe a text taken from author and historian Tony Bushby and his book Forged Origins.
The First Council of Nicaea
About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).
About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).
In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,
"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.).
It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ."
How the Gospels were created
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.
With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Savior God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.
Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century.
Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave,
Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).
How the Gospels were created
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.
His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).
Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.
Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.
Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,
"fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art"(ibid.)."These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms"(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).
They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.
With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Savior God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.
Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century.
Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.
The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,
The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,
"a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains"(History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871).
If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave,
"legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire"(Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86).
Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).
Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).
The Latinized name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).
The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,
The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,
"put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven"(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying,
"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors"(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).
Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).
The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620).
There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.
It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:
It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:
Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes(God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).
Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods -Apollo and Zeus- but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanized version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Savior" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god.
Julius Caesar was hailed as, "God made manifest and universal Savior of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Savior of the whole human race"(Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952).
Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalized on his coins as the "Savior of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Savior and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings.
Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.
Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.
"As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..."(God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).
At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects:
Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god.
A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite.
That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".
The theory that Jesus was both man and God is just that: a theory. This is not anything that Jesus claimed himself. His very name, in fact was not the name he was prophesied to have. Remember in Isaiah, we are told by the angel that his name is to be Immanuel. Why then do we find in the gospels, the same angel telling Joseph to call him Jesus? Did the angel change his mind? Not at all and it gets worse. Again observe:
The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an "assemblage of legendary tales" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759).
Discovery of the original Essene Bible
On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380.
It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine's Monastery.
During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world's oldest known Bible, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library).
It was locked away in the Vatican's inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).
Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.
Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.
A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity's claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible's New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence.
Forgery in the Gospels
When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognized by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible's version of the New Testament, not modern editions.
Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected:
Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.
Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions.
One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying:
"The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour".
That is because there never was a virgin birth.
It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was "the first Gospel written" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).
Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called "messianic prophecies" (51 in total).
The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the "raising of Lazarus", and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).
Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of "resurrection" appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisks-marks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.
The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing") of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul:
"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain"(1 Cor. 5:17).
The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying,
"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").
Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.
The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples.
The Church admits:
"The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).(Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).
Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus "and was carried up into heaven", but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today ("Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels", F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.
Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes "The Great Insertion", an extraordinary 15th-century addition totaling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said:
"The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences"(Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).
Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission", a total of 1,547 words. In today's versions, that hole has been "plugged up" with passages plagiarized from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke's version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated "word of God" ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", op. cit.)
Anonymous authors
There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:"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). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church's shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith.The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.
After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr Tischendorf expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding..."...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one."
(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have "been altered in many places" and are "not to be accepted as true" (When Were Our Gospels Written?, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).
This is the truth of the fabled Council of Nicea. Not from history books written by corporations who are sponsored by churches. Not history books written by authors who work for companies sponsored by Seminaries. What you have just read are the historical records of the Catholic Church that oversaw the creation of Christianity. It is they who destroyed the Essene Gnostics for there true portrayal of the Carpenter from Nazareth. And it is they who wrote the new testament.
Or perhaps they are lying and that is why God sent us the righteously indignant German Reformer Martin Luther. Don't worry. We will get to him in a moment.
But for now let us consider these centuries of silence that elapsed from the time the biblical gospels tell us that Jesus walked the earth to the first account we have written about him
Or perhaps they are lying and that is why God sent us the righteously indignant German Reformer Martin Luther. Don't worry. We will get to him in a moment.
But for now let us consider these centuries of silence that elapsed from the time the biblical gospels tell us that Jesus walked the earth to the first account we have written about him
There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters..., op. cit.).
"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." - Poe Leo X 1513- 1521.
You tell me why the ruler of Christendom would say such a thing. Understand that these so called bishops were pagans. They had never seen, never heard, never walked with, talked with or ate with Jesus and created a conclusion independently of the knowledge of the man they later called Jesus that this same Jesus was both man and God at the same time. A man- God; according to the Nicean Creed.
Yet we find that the Council of Nicea was not a collegiate body of ‘fair-minded senators’ moving peacefully towards collective decisions. This is most certainly not the story of legend reflected in the Church’s own ancient literature. Dean Milman, the celebrated Christian historian, summarized the general nature of Church Council when he said:
For this information we do not look at theology. We do not look at teachings. These all came from the Martin Luther, the father of lies, a man we will examine carefully very shortly. Instead we look to the facts. And the facts are that the original gospel of Mark, for whom all the other gospels are based, do not include any account of Jesus' birth, the nativity and in fact the account of the carpenter's life begins in his thirties. This is not by mistake. For we have seen very clearly that the name Jesus Christ was never given by any angel but by the pagans of Rome seeking to unite two gods into one ritual. The gospels were then subsequently altered to include this name which is why the name and account of how the Nazarene acquired his name does not agree with the Torah.
I am not alleging that the carpenter Jesus did not exist. However I am concluding that the creation of a god man was manufactured by pagan priests attempting to unify a fledgling empire. And I am alleging that the name Jesus was not the carpenter's birth name.
You tell me why the ruler of Christendom would say such a thing. Understand that these so called bishops were pagans. They had never seen, never heard, never walked with, talked with or ate with Jesus and created a conclusion independently of the knowledge of the man they later called Jesus that this same Jesus was both man and God at the same time. A man- God; according to the Nicean Creed.
Yet we find that the Council of Nicea was not a collegiate body of ‘fair-minded senators’ moving peacefully towards collective decisions. This is most certainly not the story of legend reflected in the Church’s own ancient literature. Dean Milman, the celebrated Christian historian, summarized the general nature of Church Council when he said:
“Nowhere is Christianity less attractive, and if we look to the ordinary tone and character of the proceedings, less authoritative, than in the Councils of the Church…The degeneracy is rapid from the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E) to the first of Ephesus (431 C.E), where each party came determined to use every means of haste, manoeuvre, court influence, bribery, to crush his adversary;…where each had its own tumultuous foreign rabble to back his quarrel…”
In light of documentation we know that the messiah was never to be named Jesus. We know this in the book of Isaiah where the angel declares that the messiah will be named Immanuel. Strangely enough, the new testament has an inexplicable manifestation of a new name that the same angel declares the messiah must be called. And why would an angel change his mind? Where, in the history of the bible or the Torah has this ever happened? After all angels are created to be direct messengers of God who does not change his mind. A God that "is the same yesterday today and forever."For this information we do not look at theology. We do not look at teachings. These all came from the Martin Luther, the father of lies, a man we will examine carefully very shortly. Instead we look to the facts. And the facts are that the original gospel of Mark, for whom all the other gospels are based, do not include any account of Jesus' birth, the nativity and in fact the account of the carpenter's life begins in his thirties. This is not by mistake. For we have seen very clearly that the name Jesus Christ was never given by any angel but by the pagans of Rome seeking to unite two gods into one ritual. The gospels were then subsequently altered to include this name which is why the name and account of how the Nazarene acquired his name does not agree with the Torah.
I am not alleging that the carpenter Jesus did not exist. However I am concluding that the creation of a god man was manufactured by pagan priests attempting to unify a fledgling empire. And I am alleging that the name Jesus was not the carpenter's birth name.
A close examination of the Nazarene's teachings will confirm that he taught we are all sons of God and that in fact, we are all gods. We. This is a plural noun.
Evidence that Jesus considered all mankind divine can be seen in John 25, when he was
accused of blasphemy, He asked; "Why is it you say I blaspheme because I call
God my father, when your father's did so." He quoted the 82nd Psalm. He always said, "I go to my father and yours", He never seemed
to make a distinction between himself and others. He taught 'Our Father who art in heaven.' Not 'my father in heaven' He never
mentioned, nor hinted, at our being children of God by adoption. This was a tale created after his death. This was a doctrine created by the same man who fused pagan worship with Messianic beliefs. See Christianity: The Great Chameleon.
Jesus taught that we are all children of God by birthright. And we are all gods by conception.
The only way to make sense of Jesus as being exclusive in his divinity was to establish a so called Trinity. This idea that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all equally and powerfully God; A triune God manifested in three separate forms.
Where was this ever taught by Jesus? I urge you to open your bible. Not your commentary, not your books on theology, I urge you to open your Bible and read it. Where did Jesus ever make mention of a triune God? It is not there.
If you open your Bible to Mark 10-18-31 you will find Jesus rebuking a man for calling him good. Charging him instead with the fact that "there is none good but God." Jesus, we find, explicitly told these people who wished to worship him, do not worship me "do not call me good. Only God is good." Only God is to be worshipped.
What happened to Christianity? What happened to the belief of Jesus and the truth of Messianic prophesy? It is clear what happened to it, it was added to, and in some cases taken away; a direct charge from Jesus himself who ordered his disciples not to add or take away from his words. Specific commands from the one Christians claim to worship. Commanding that he is not to be worshiped and to preserve his words and not to add to them or take away from them. Unfortunately Christianity is run afoul of both commandments and they do not seem to care. For when their errors are pointed out they seek to explain these errors with the theology written by the same men who changed Jesus' message in the first place.
It is not secret my views towards Paul. I do not believe he was a truthful individual and I believe he had ulterior motives. I believe he changed the message of Jesus in order to create a god worthy of worship and I believe he consciously and knowingly fashioned himself in a way that elevated himself to saint hood, which in the tradition of Catholicism, is deity. And it is this version of Jesus the messiah that Christians today worship: Paul's religion not Jesus' teachings. Everyone who believes the teachings of Paul to be God breathed fail to recognize important facts. Paul's murdering of the Christians is not recorded anywhere. It cannot be found, it is only alleged and accepted. Yet we know that the true disciples did not trust him because of it.
A closer examination will find that Paul was murdering the Gnostics. We know this because of who the Gnostics were. The Gnostics were a group of believers that were called Essenes. John the Baptist was an Essene. Joseph of Aramatheia, the one who gave Jesus his tomb was an Essene. A small sect of believers who did not worship Jesus but believed his teachings had different meanings than what is currently taught.
Paul realized that he could not destroy them with blood because their numbers only grew. So instead of slaughtering them he manufactured a conversion story and sought to alter their beliefs with his writings as he claimed to be in higher standing with God above any of them including Peter, the man Jesus authorized to shepherd his flock. Paul's conversion was a Trojan Horse and he destroyed them from within.
Ever wonder why this version of the slaughter of Christians is not included in historical references outside the bible? Ever wonder why much of the persecution and murder of Christians is not included outside the bible? It is because it was the orthodox Christians killing the Christians who believed a different version of events.
The only reliable historian who documents the torture and murder of the Christians on an epic scale was the Jewish historian Josephus and he was an Essene, therefore his writings were documenting the persecutions of his people's beliefs. It is not documented anywhere else because the orthodox Christianity we have today annihilated the Essene Gnostics and destroyed many of their gospels.
The following defines this religion brought to us by Paul: "But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit." 2 Corinthians 12:16. This is the confession of the so called apostle Paul. He tells them in plain sight what he has done. He boasts about it and cowards have the audacity to make the man boasting about deceit and his ability to lie craftily, a member of biblical and church liturgy.
What is the deceit? We will get to that later.
But it is after the Council of Nicea that the heresy becomes even more revolting. We find the Roman Catholic church, the very group responsible for organizing Christianity into a religion, omitting and including books that were very clearly as much a part of Jewish religious tradition as any of the books of the Old Testament. The book of Jubilees, Macabees, Enoch, all books that Jesus himself quoted.
Why do you think Jesus referred to himself as the son of man, over and over again? Or have you not ever found this strange? Do me a favor and read the Book of Enoch. We find prophesies about the "Son of Man". And in the book of Enoch, the title "Son of Man" is repeatedly emphasized so that he would not be confused as being God; that this "Son of Man" was not God but came from God in order to save mankind, by his teachings not from hell and eternal damnation because of sin, but to save them from hurting each other and destroying his creation.
You would find, that there are these texts and many more used and followed many years before Jesus. These same texts were used and subsequently quoted by Jesus himself. In fact Jesus quoted from the book of Enoch more than any other book of the Torah (yes Enoch is part of sacred Jewish religious authority). Or where do you think his parables came from?
Read the book of Enoch.
These same books were followed and quoted after Jesus died. And yet, somehow Christians of today, in some twisted way, want to believe that these books do not belong in the bible. They would rather believe that these books are the work of blasphemy.
Again I ask you, who are these Christians following. And whom are they truly worshiping? If it is Jesus then why do they not accept the Jesus that Jesus described himself as. Why do they choose to disregard this Jesus and choose to accept a version created by mortal men who were proven to be corrupted by greed, power and lust for influence? How can you have the man you claim to fashion yourself after, quoting from books of the Torah, yet you turn around and decide that those quotes, and by association, those books are not the word of God.
You have no such authority and you are a disgrace to the faith you claim to follow. You are unworthy of the message you carry and the blood you claim your pardon through. You are worse than a hypocrite, you are a farce. Christianity today is not the devoted following of Jesus Christ. It is the devoted worship of a figure they have been deceived into accepting as truth.
Understand that this change was all instigated by Paul. Paul understood that in order for him to be accepted into the church he once helped slaughter he would need to create a narrative that deified the person the slaughtered were following. The problem is that none of the original messianic followers believed him. Peter didn't believe Paul, James didn't believe Paul, John didn't believe Paul, Matthew didn't believe Paul. They knew Paul was lying about his conversion for one simple fact.
Jesus said "For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"
This did not happen. There was no consensus that Paul came in the name of the Lord and certainly no one declared this about the light Paul claims he encountered. In fact the exact opposite happened. Paul was shunned by the leaders of the Essene Gnostics: Peter and James. Against this, Paul who is only self validated as a converted apostle having authority over all even Peter who, mind you, Jesus placed in authority as the head of his teachings, had the audacity to label Peter a hypocrite and a liar. Therefore Paul's conversion, by the definition given by the man called Jesus, is a lie. It could not have been true. And either Christians reckon with this truth or they call their messianic savior a liar.
Or perhaps they will simply concoct another doctrine no doubt created by another Jew hating bigot; in which case, we should all prepare for World War III.
Paul's story of the Damascus miracle was false and the disciples knew it. What we have instead are stories from Paul that he reinvents and describes in contradictory ways time and time over again as he seeks to describe the event where he was visited by Jesus. These outlandish stories can be found in the book of Acts.
Or perhaps they will simply concoct another doctrine no doubt created by another Jew hating bigot; in which case, we should all prepare for World War III.
Paul's story of the Damascus miracle was false and the disciples knew it. What we have instead are stories from Paul that he reinvents and describes in contradictory ways time and time over again as he seeks to describe the event where he was visited by Jesus. These outlandish stories can be found in the book of Acts.
You cannot truthfully arrive at any other conclusion other than the reality that Christianity is not true. The bible is not authentic. I am sorry but excluding and including writings by the exclusive arbitration of corrupt Roman Catholic leaders, written anonymously by devout pagans, forged against the authentic accounts of a man never called Jesus, fabricated by to pagan cults to unify an empire created and bathed in the blood of the Jews does not constitute anything holy, nor will they ever.
Jesus was an Essene. This is clear in the writings of the dead sea scrolls and Apocrypha. Peter and James; in fact all of the disciples were themselves gnostic Christians. We know this because Jesus lived and found refuge amongst the Essene who wrote the gnostic gospels. We know Jesus had close ties with this group because Joseph of Arimethea is the one who gave up his tomb for Jesus' body, this man himself was an Essene. John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, was an Essene and the writings of the Sinai gospel accurately reflect the beliefs and way of life of the Essene.
In fact it is widely believed that Josephus himself, the great historian, the only one who chronicles this historical religion was an Essene as well. Why is it then that the Essenes- the very same people with whom Jesus trusted with his life- were the ones who were persecuted; the ones whose writings were banished; the ones who were killed of and destroyed by the very same people who created the religion of Christianity today?
In fact it is widely believed that Josephus himself, the great historian, the only one who chronicles this historical religion was an Essene as well. Why is it then that the Essenes- the very same people with whom Jesus trusted with his life- were the ones who were persecuted; the ones whose writings were banished; the ones who were killed of and destroyed by the very same people who created the religion of Christianity today?
Do you see flaws in my argument? If so what are they? We know that Jesus hated liars. He detested them and despised them. Why then would he spend so much time and invest so much trust in individuals who would teach lies about him? He would not. The Essenes saw Jesus, they talked with Jesus, ate with Jesus and hid Jesus. They even buried Jesus and they are these people who wrote first hand accounts of Jesus. They are these people who explained what he taught. These teachings; known now as Gnosticism ran contrary to what the Catholic bishops of Nicea, founded by Paul himself would have you believe. And it runs contrary because the whole point- the whole goal of establishing this religion of universal Christianity- was to create a hierarchy of power, emphasized by sainthood and deification so that those in charge could control the nations and rule an empire.
Modern Christians find peace and reconciliation in the pacifist nature of Christianity today. Are they quick to forget its bloody past? The Crusades are only part of this: the ability of a group of individuals to rally together under the notion of the threat from outsiders; those who look differently act differently and believe differently. The ability to convince the consenting majority who already believe what you want them to: (religion) that those on the outside are trying to destroy you.
And yet it is easy to do because they already believe what you want them to. This is what (religion) is all about. Organizing a society around common values, morals and ideas. This, my friends, is the platform upon which great nations, kingdoms and empires are founded. It is what gives them their great strength.
Under this knowledge, religion's bloody past began long before the crusades. The reason Christianity was established was to establish a universal belief system which would make it easier for Constantine to rule.
This very same religion of Christianity is solely responsible for the destruction of the Essenes. They killed them, burned them at the stake whenever they found them and torched as many of their books and gospels as they could, many of which predate the earliest known canonized gospels.
Historically, the first thing a rising power does when encountering opposition is complete and utter destruction. Genocide, murder and desolation. We find that Christianity; for all its touted sanctification was sanctified in blood all right. But it was the blood of the historical Jesus' closest allies; funded by the confiscation of the wealth of these humble people in order to spread the propaganda of an empire.
And yet Christians are a peaceful people. That is why over 85% of the citizens who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are Christians. Damn the Crusades. We are engaged in a Crusade right now, for the same reasons as before. Wealth, power, greed and envy.
You see that Christians are only peaceful when the society they are fashioned for are in power. When the economic model they rely on is not threatened. As soon as they are threatened with having to suffer like Jesus, unlike Jesus they turn violent. Against his commands they retaliate. Who are these people? And how did such a pronounced hypocrisy become so universally accepted? It wasn't through Jesus. This violent behavior was first seen in Paul when he was known as Saul, murdering all who opposed him. It was continued in the Universal Christian church, the drunken whore of Babylon he created, and continued through the Abomination of Desolation which is the protestant church created by Martin Luther.
Who was Martin Luther and what was the reformation all about?
Have you ever wondered where Nazi Germany's hatred for Jews came from? And have you ever wondered why America, the protestant capital of the world was so intent on establishing an new Israel?
I want to quote something for you. "Burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and to throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; to destroy their homes; to confiscate their ready money in gold and silver; to take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; and if that did not help matters, to hunt them of the country like mad dogs." (Luther’s Works, vol. Xx, pp. 2230-2632 as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.99).
"Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch" (Martin Luther (1483-1546): On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543 as quoted from Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268293).
Behold your great reformer. This is your Christian champion, the one who would open the eyes of the masses of confused, blind and dumb Europeans. Showing them their salvation through the slaughter of Jesus' very own people. In the name of everything holy, how in the name of God can you accept a gospel that comes from such a man? Whose idiocy are you so faithful and to what end? For what reason?
Martin Luther was a German Monk. Who hated the Jews worse than Hitler did. Historians agree conclusively that anti-Semitism in Europe specifically Nazi Germany is and was the direct result of the teachings of Martin Luther. It provided the foundation for the attacks by Nazi Germany on the Jews.
Author and historian Reinhold Lewin writes that "whoever wrote against the Jews for whatever reason believed he had the right to justify himself by triumphantly referring to Luther." Also according to Lewin just about every anti-Jewish book printed in during the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther. So that the very foundation of protestant Christianity is soaked in the blood of the same people of their Messiah Jesus Ye'shua, murdered by the founders of their religion. Yours. You follow a tradition that kills those who find the truth. But you have the audacity to preach salvation and grace and atonement and some nonsense about the rapture because Jesus will come and save the people who believe that he is God despite the fact that he specifically told them he wasn't; and despite the fact that your leaders killed his bloodline. You belong to a den of murderous thieves, not angels and halos I fear.
If you have not read "On the Jews and Their Lies" I urge you to do so. It is a 65,000-word anti-Semitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther. This is protestant Christianity in it's honesty laid bare for everyone to see. It's historical roots in elitism, classism, racism, hatred and deception. There is nothing messianic about it. There never has been.
And they say that the man was great despite his human flaws because after all are we not all flawed? Of course we are. But either the man spoke from the inspiration of God or he did not. Either the man was divinely influenced, as protestants claim, or he was not. Because to claim such a thing would then mean that his hatred was divinely ordained also. I'm sorry but you cannot separate the two and therefore the entire construct is a farce.
And yet he is vindicated in the eyes of the Christian believer because he unveiled the truth of the bible for the peasants and made it accessible to the commoners. Or so the legend goes. Can we, for the sake of truth and in keeping with the myth of Martin Luther, investigate the truth for ourselves?
We travel back in to the sixteenth century to do so and what we find is a man, almost identical to Paul in his desire to shift and mold the status quo of Christianity in his own image. A man, much like Paul, who could ultimately, could not conceal his murderous hatred for those who represented the truth of Jesus. We know how the Catholic church was created; this abomination of Christian universality. We have discussed briefly the Council of Nicea and how it was orchestrated by man not God and how the subsequent arbitration of the inclusion and exclusion of religious texts produced the biblical liturgy we have today. What is the word of God? Was the council of Nicea divinely orchestrated or was it not? Was it a righteous context or not? I ask this question because the very bible that evolved from this so called council of corrupt bishops was changed and altered by Martin Luther himself. The man took the liberty of removing books from the bible that were up to this point considered divine and holy. Inspired by God himself. How then can one man changed the divine word of God? How can it be that this man is hailed as a reformer and liberator of the church? Oh he reformed it all right.
The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.
Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether. He altered the sacred text and created the protestant bible we have today. Which of course is now claimed to be sacred and divinely inspired. Mind you, he did this independently of any so called council. He did this independently of any governing body or reviewed peers that would hold him accountable. He did this on his own.
What? Have you never heard of these books? That is because they are not in your bible because one man, a Jew hating anti-Semitic bigot decided they should not be considered words of God, despite the fact that Jesus himself quoted many of these texts.
What is more, he changed or removed a total of 18 texts from the approved canon. Explore the following examples for yourself:
"St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).
Of the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the bible) he says: “We have no wish either to see or hear Moses” (Ibid, p. 202).
"About this book of the Revelation of John…I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
“Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book.”…
“Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it…Solomon did not, therefore, write this book.”…
“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much…”
“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (as quoted in O’Hare, p. 202).
You see that what we have here is a man, who is guilty of trying to destroy God's chosen people, the Jews, the very same people from whom Jesus descended, and the very same people he said he would come back to claim; this man Martin Luther who would destroy these people and order others to do the same in the same breath claims that his work of church and biblical reformation is inspired by God and his new version of the bible is God's will...and you believe him...
This is bullshit. The result of a massive grifting by those who exploited the loyalty of the believers of Ye'shua, perpetuated by the so called Gentiles (or non Jews) desperate to be included in the movement.
The reason the Jews are hated and despised; historically and still today is because their legacy stands in the way of those who would hold power. The ability to define the morality, virtues and fundamental truths of a people is ultimate power. And no matter the era or religious deceiver, the Jews have stood in the way. First the Essenes, then the European Jews exiled after the Roman empire destroyed Jerusalem.
Then their were the African Jews; we haven't even started talking about them; the true line of the tribe of Judah and why the true Jewish nation is survived in Africa and Africa alone. We will do so in a separate chapter.
Finally the holocaust. People still don't get it. What was the holocaust all about and what created it? I'll tell you who did it: the Christians did it.
Communism, among other things, asserts that the state is the only god that should be worshipped and requires the allegiance of the people as a religion. Fascism is an even more consolidated form of communism because it gives the power and authority of the government to on man, the dictator. So that people are required to worship the dictator. The Christians, true to their chameleon identity conformed to Hitler and his laws because this is what Christianity teaches: to obey those in power because God put them there. (?)
The Jews however believe no such thing. Jesus, the Messianic Jew said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
This new version of Christianity, where people only fight when their access to comfort and a standard of living is threatened is not Messianic. It is satanic; evil. And the Christian faithful, since the religion was created, are eating it by the tons; proliferating their false doctrine to the masses to the point that Ye'shua, if he ever comes back, would not recognize this so called church that he did not create.
What is overlooked about this so called reformer Martin Luther is that for him to alter the bible, he must have a had a different outlook and therefore doctrine, not only on the church, but what it is that God said and what he wanted us to know. What was that doctrine?
We know that Luther removed seven books from the supposedly divine word of God. What is often overlooked is that he tried to remove an additional number of books as well specifically Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2 Peter. Aside from the fact that 2 Peter like many of the gospels are disputed as even being written or authorized by Peter, instead, the writings of Paul written after Peter's death as an attempt to sway Peter's followers who had up to that point rejected both Paul and his apostolic claims- this desire to destroy the bible spoke to something deeper.
Martin Luther's doctrine were based on two principles. Sola Gratia and Sola Fide.
Sola gratia is Latin for by grace alone. I am loosely translating here but that is what it means. The concept of course is almost identical to the one that Paul created. This ridiculous notion that salvation comes from unmerited favor by God. Nowhere did Jesus ever teach this and we will explore this further in a little bit. But for now it is understood that the Catholic church had created an incredible array of ceremonies and procedures that cost the average sinner a great deal of money in order for their sins to be absolved. What Luther did was bring back the original idea of Paul with the desire to give the sinner pardon independent of the catholic authority. It's not that this is wrong, it's that the idea it originated from is false.
What is Sola fide? Sola fide is this notion that believers are considered righteous by faith alone. So the idea is that the sinner must first be saved. Once saved he must then become righteous and this can only be done first by grace, then by faith. Faith in what, of course is the question. I think we know the answer to this; faith in the man made tale that Jesus was and is God and part of the triune God head.
This Doctrine of Sola Scripture, created by Martin Luther or Scripture Alone, simply did not add up or agree with what the Catholic church had previously constituted as the Word of God which is why Luther was so hell bent on changing it. The writings of James and much of Peter were written in hostile response to Paul's letters. The book of Hebrews also did not agree with his Solo gratia and Sola fide doctrines.
His solution? Destroy the bible. And the remnants of his destruction is what is now called God's Holy Word. Alterations, arbitrary inclusions and exclusions based upon hatred for the Jesus' bloodline, and this is what you would place your faith in...
Do you understand now why the Son of Man became Jesus after the Angel specifically told Mary and Joseph he should be called Immanuel? It is plain as day in the definition themselves:
Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (As to say) God be (is) with us." Yet somehow we changed his named to Jesus in one fell blow by authors who did not see Jesus' birth or witness any of the nativity production they so eloquently pen. Yet every time the bible is altered by so called men of God, they claim it was inspired. If it was inspired before, why did it need to be changed?
The first definition of the messiah found in Isaiah is the true definition. And yet the Greek translation, found in the forgery redefined who Jesus was. You cannot embellish prophecy. You cannot add to it. If this was Jesus' purpose it would have been said in the old testament. Immanuel was not meant to be worshipped.
But that was not good enough because a certain conceited few wanted Jesus to represent something much greater. Though this was never his task or mission here on earth and we have seen the reasons and factual evidence for that explored earlier. And yet; As the Christmas song goes: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus. He will save his people from their sins."
But his name was never Jesus. It was Immanuel. And it is this same unyielding, rabid desire to be saved that pushes people to unimaginable behavior, the deceit and treachery from which, holds no equal in the realm of man or the earth we've corrupted by it.
So we come to the subject of the trinity. What is the trinity and why is it so important to the Christian religion? The trinity is the belief that there are three interpretations of God or manifestations, but that each interpretation is equally as powerful as the other. The trinity, or triune God, claims that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the trinity and all God. This of course makes no sense but the trinity is not only accepted, it is needed. And it is needed because, as we have seen, there are no witnesses to all of this formation, reformation that were ultimately used as the production for the Word of God and the church.
According to religious legality and historical legitimacy, in order to claim something as true it has to be established by at least two witnesses. Never mind that Jesus himself never witnessed himself as God, for the arbitrators of the religion none of that matters. The trinity is a necessity of Christianity even if it does not make any sense, and no Christian can explain it. The concept of a Son God and a Spirit God was never presented before Jesus during his life. It only came by those who'd never seen the man, after he died. Jesus was not the founder of Christianity. Jesus was the founder of Gnosticism whom the Christians murdered and burned at the stake. The founders of Christianity were the Gnosticism killing Christian called Paul, or Saul, or whatever his bipolar, schizophrenic blood thirsty conscious allowed at the time. They were Constantine, the man who united that Christianity with Pagan worship. And they were Martin Luther, the Jew killing reformation bigot who inspired the Nazi holocaust. I have often wondered what the three headed beast of Revelation is exactly and then I understood why Martin Luther wanted to not only ban but destroy the text. He was a part of the monster. He created the monster. He was the monster.
In 1543 the German Reformation leader Martin Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also advocates their murder, writing "we are at fault in not slaying them."
He did just that and his spawn Hitler continued this murderous legacy. Understand, good readers, that the entirety of protestant biblical theology was written by, spawned from, and based on the teachings of that man sixteenth century Martin Luther.
The very seminary your reverend attended in order to attain his license to preach to you the word of truth was founded by German Reformer Martin Luther. And he "reformed" it from forgeries.
The teachings of that seminary; the very doctrine that comes from its theology are nothing but the regurgitation of a man who decimated the bible according to his own will; fashioning it in his own image, and hated, killed, robbed and destroyed God's people, a repetition of what the Christians did to the true believers; the Essene Gnostics. Do you not see the manifestation of this image? I will tell you plainly.
Adolf Hitler. Luther was Hitler's inspiration and we see so plainly. I ask you; if Adolf Hitler created a self described so called doctrine, would you follow it? If he authorized and published a bible with books removed, texts rearranged would you read it?
Do not be hasty in saying no for you, in fact, already have. And you do so with pride and indignation that is not righteous.
No wonder the Americans are so passionate about establishing and defending Israel.
No. God did not inspire the writings, teachings or role of this man. His bible, the Catholic bible, and the evil they inspired throughout the paradise of creation are not divine. They are not holy and they are not the work of a just and loving God. They are the work of hate, fear, misogyny, bigotry, deceit and greed and I will not give it liturgy; so help me God.
Furthermore, if you are such a coward that you cannot call out Martin Luther for who and what he truly was than you have no right to label men like me who would denounce him as liar and his doctrine the work of lies, anything other than truthful. For if you stand by his doctrine after you know the truth, then it is you foolish pilgrim who agrees with the lie, not I.
Fear not. Love Now.
Behold your great reformer. This is your Christian champion, the one who would open the eyes of the masses of confused, blind and dumb Europeans. Showing them their salvation through the slaughter of Jesus' very own people. In the name of everything holy, how in the name of God can you accept a gospel that comes from such a man? Whose idiocy are you so faithful and to what end? For what reason?
Martin Luther was a German Monk. Who hated the Jews worse than Hitler did. Historians agree conclusively that anti-Semitism in Europe specifically Nazi Germany is and was the direct result of the teachings of Martin Luther. It provided the foundation for the attacks by Nazi Germany on the Jews.
Author and historian Reinhold Lewin writes that "whoever wrote against the Jews for whatever reason believed he had the right to justify himself by triumphantly referring to Luther." Also according to Lewin just about every anti-Jewish book printed in during the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther. So that the very foundation of protestant Christianity is soaked in the blood of the same people of their Messiah Jesus Ye'shua, murdered by the founders of their religion. Yours. You follow a tradition that kills those who find the truth. But you have the audacity to preach salvation and grace and atonement and some nonsense about the rapture because Jesus will come and save the people who believe that he is God despite the fact that he specifically told them he wasn't; and despite the fact that your leaders killed his bloodline. You belong to a den of murderous thieves, not angels and halos I fear.
If you have not read "On the Jews and Their Lies" I urge you to do so. It is a 65,000-word anti-Semitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther. This is protestant Christianity in it's honesty laid bare for everyone to see. It's historical roots in elitism, classism, racism, hatred and deception. There is nothing messianic about it. There never has been.
And they say that the man was great despite his human flaws because after all are we not all flawed? Of course we are. But either the man spoke from the inspiration of God or he did not. Either the man was divinely influenced, as protestants claim, or he was not. Because to claim such a thing would then mean that his hatred was divinely ordained also. I'm sorry but you cannot separate the two and therefore the entire construct is a farce.
And yet he is vindicated in the eyes of the Christian believer because he unveiled the truth of the bible for the peasants and made it accessible to the commoners. Or so the legend goes. Can we, for the sake of truth and in keeping with the myth of Martin Luther, investigate the truth for ourselves?
We travel back in to the sixteenth century to do so and what we find is a man, almost identical to Paul in his desire to shift and mold the status quo of Christianity in his own image. A man, much like Paul, who could ultimately, could not conceal his murderous hatred for those who represented the truth of Jesus. We know how the Catholic church was created; this abomination of Christian universality. We have discussed briefly the Council of Nicea and how it was orchestrated by man not God and how the subsequent arbitration of the inclusion and exclusion of religious texts produced the biblical liturgy we have today. What is the word of God? Was the council of Nicea divinely orchestrated or was it not? Was it a righteous context or not? I ask this question because the very bible that evolved from this so called council of corrupt bishops was changed and altered by Martin Luther himself. The man took the liberty of removing books from the bible that were up to this point considered divine and holy. Inspired by God himself. How then can one man changed the divine word of God? How can it be that this man is hailed as a reformer and liberator of the church? Oh he reformed it all right.
The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.
Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether. He altered the sacred text and created the protestant bible we have today. Which of course is now claimed to be sacred and divinely inspired. Mind you, he did this independently of any so called council. He did this independently of any governing body or reviewed peers that would hold him accountable. He did this on his own.
What? Have you never heard of these books? That is because they are not in your bible because one man, a Jew hating anti-Semitic bigot decided they should not be considered words of God, despite the fact that Jesus himself quoted many of these texts.
What is more, he changed or removed a total of 18 texts from the approved canon. Explore the following examples for yourself:
"St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).
Of the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the bible) he says: “We have no wish either to see or hear Moses” (Ibid, p. 202).
"About this book of the Revelation of John…I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
“Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book.”…
“Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it…Solomon did not, therefore, write this book.”…
“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much…”
“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (as quoted in O’Hare, p. 202).
You see that what we have here is a man, who is guilty of trying to destroy God's chosen people, the Jews, the very same people from whom Jesus descended, and the very same people he said he would come back to claim; this man Martin Luther who would destroy these people and order others to do the same in the same breath claims that his work of church and biblical reformation is inspired by God and his new version of the bible is God's will...and you believe him...
This is bullshit. The result of a massive grifting by those who exploited the loyalty of the believers of Ye'shua, perpetuated by the so called Gentiles (or non Jews) desperate to be included in the movement.
The reason the Jews are hated and despised; historically and still today is because their legacy stands in the way of those who would hold power. The ability to define the morality, virtues and fundamental truths of a people is ultimate power. And no matter the era or religious deceiver, the Jews have stood in the way. First the Essenes, then the European Jews exiled after the Roman empire destroyed Jerusalem.
Then their were the African Jews; we haven't even started talking about them; the true line of the tribe of Judah and why the true Jewish nation is survived in Africa and Africa alone. We will do so in a separate chapter.
Finally the holocaust. People still don't get it. What was the holocaust all about and what created it? I'll tell you who did it: the Christians did it.
Communism, among other things, asserts that the state is the only god that should be worshipped and requires the allegiance of the people as a religion. Fascism is an even more consolidated form of communism because it gives the power and authority of the government to on man, the dictator. So that people are required to worship the dictator. The Christians, true to their chameleon identity conformed to Hitler and his laws because this is what Christianity teaches: to obey those in power because God put them there. (?)
The Jews however believe no such thing. Jesus, the Messianic Jew said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
This new version of Christianity, where people only fight when their access to comfort and a standard of living is threatened is not Messianic. It is satanic; evil. And the Christian faithful, since the religion was created, are eating it by the tons; proliferating their false doctrine to the masses to the point that Ye'shua, if he ever comes back, would not recognize this so called church that he did not create.
What is overlooked about this so called reformer Martin Luther is that for him to alter the bible, he must have a had a different outlook and therefore doctrine, not only on the church, but what it is that God said and what he wanted us to know. What was that doctrine?
We know that Luther removed seven books from the supposedly divine word of God. What is often overlooked is that he tried to remove an additional number of books as well specifically Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2 Peter. Aside from the fact that 2 Peter like many of the gospels are disputed as even being written or authorized by Peter, instead, the writings of Paul written after Peter's death as an attempt to sway Peter's followers who had up to that point rejected both Paul and his apostolic claims- this desire to destroy the bible spoke to something deeper.
Martin Luther's doctrine were based on two principles. Sola Gratia and Sola Fide.
Sola gratia is Latin for by grace alone. I am loosely translating here but that is what it means. The concept of course is almost identical to the one that Paul created. This ridiculous notion that salvation comes from unmerited favor by God. Nowhere did Jesus ever teach this and we will explore this further in a little bit. But for now it is understood that the Catholic church had created an incredible array of ceremonies and procedures that cost the average sinner a great deal of money in order for their sins to be absolved. What Luther did was bring back the original idea of Paul with the desire to give the sinner pardon independent of the catholic authority. It's not that this is wrong, it's that the idea it originated from is false.
What is Sola fide? Sola fide is this notion that believers are considered righteous by faith alone. So the idea is that the sinner must first be saved. Once saved he must then become righteous and this can only be done first by grace, then by faith. Faith in what, of course is the question. I think we know the answer to this; faith in the man made tale that Jesus was and is God and part of the triune God head.
This Doctrine of Sola Scripture, created by Martin Luther or Scripture Alone, simply did not add up or agree with what the Catholic church had previously constituted as the Word of God which is why Luther was so hell bent on changing it. The writings of James and much of Peter were written in hostile response to Paul's letters. The book of Hebrews also did not agree with his Solo gratia and Sola fide doctrines.
His solution? Destroy the bible. And the remnants of his destruction is what is now called God's Holy Word. Alterations, arbitrary inclusions and exclusions based upon hatred for the Jesus' bloodline, and this is what you would place your faith in...
Do you understand now why the Son of Man became Jesus after the Angel specifically told Mary and Joseph he should be called Immanuel? It is plain as day in the definition themselves:
Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (As to say) God be (is) with us." Yet somehow we changed his named to Jesus in one fell blow by authors who did not see Jesus' birth or witness any of the nativity production they so eloquently pen. Yet every time the bible is altered by so called men of God, they claim it was inspired. If it was inspired before, why did it need to be changed?
The first definition of the messiah found in Isaiah is the true definition. And yet the Greek translation, found in the forgery redefined who Jesus was. You cannot embellish prophecy. You cannot add to it. If this was Jesus' purpose it would have been said in the old testament. Immanuel was not meant to be worshipped.
But that was not good enough because a certain conceited few wanted Jesus to represent something much greater. Though this was never his task or mission here on earth and we have seen the reasons and factual evidence for that explored earlier. And yet; As the Christmas song goes: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus. He will save his people from their sins."
But his name was never Jesus. It was Immanuel. And it is this same unyielding, rabid desire to be saved that pushes people to unimaginable behavior, the deceit and treachery from which, holds no equal in the realm of man or the earth we've corrupted by it.
So we come to the subject of the trinity. What is the trinity and why is it so important to the Christian religion? The trinity is the belief that there are three interpretations of God or manifestations, but that each interpretation is equally as powerful as the other. The trinity, or triune God, claims that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the trinity and all God. This of course makes no sense but the trinity is not only accepted, it is needed. And it is needed because, as we have seen, there are no witnesses to all of this formation, reformation that were ultimately used as the production for the Word of God and the church.
According to religious legality and historical legitimacy, in order to claim something as true it has to be established by at least two witnesses. Never mind that Jesus himself never witnessed himself as God, for the arbitrators of the religion none of that matters. The trinity is a necessity of Christianity even if it does not make any sense, and no Christian can explain it. The concept of a Son God and a Spirit God was never presented before Jesus during his life. It only came by those who'd never seen the man, after he died. Jesus was not the founder of Christianity. Jesus was the founder of Gnosticism whom the Christians murdered and burned at the stake. The founders of Christianity were the Gnosticism killing Christian called Paul, or Saul, or whatever his bipolar, schizophrenic blood thirsty conscious allowed at the time. They were Constantine, the man who united that Christianity with Pagan worship. And they were Martin Luther, the Jew killing reformation bigot who inspired the Nazi holocaust. I have often wondered what the three headed beast of Revelation is exactly and then I understood why Martin Luther wanted to not only ban but destroy the text. He was a part of the monster. He created the monster. He was the monster.
In 1543 the German Reformation leader Martin Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also advocates their murder, writing "we are at fault in not slaying them."
He did just that and his spawn Hitler continued this murderous legacy. Understand, good readers, that the entirety of protestant biblical theology was written by, spawned from, and based on the teachings of that man sixteenth century Martin Luther.
The very seminary your reverend attended in order to attain his license to preach to you the word of truth was founded by German Reformer Martin Luther. And he "reformed" it from forgeries.
The teachings of that seminary; the very doctrine that comes from its theology are nothing but the regurgitation of a man who decimated the bible according to his own will; fashioning it in his own image, and hated, killed, robbed and destroyed God's people, a repetition of what the Christians did to the true believers; the Essene Gnostics. Do you not see the manifestation of this image? I will tell you plainly.
Adolf Hitler. Luther was Hitler's inspiration and we see so plainly. I ask you; if Adolf Hitler created a self described so called doctrine, would you follow it? If he authorized and published a bible with books removed, texts rearranged would you read it?
Do not be hasty in saying no for you, in fact, already have. And you do so with pride and indignation that is not righteous.
No wonder the Americans are so passionate about establishing and defending Israel.
No. God did not inspire the writings, teachings or role of this man. His bible, the Catholic bible, and the evil they inspired throughout the paradise of creation are not divine. They are not holy and they are not the work of a just and loving God. They are the work of hate, fear, misogyny, bigotry, deceit and greed and I will not give it liturgy; so help me God.
Furthermore, if you are such a coward that you cannot call out Martin Luther for who and what he truly was than you have no right to label men like me who would denounce him as liar and his doctrine the work of lies, anything other than truthful. For if you stand by his doctrine after you know the truth, then it is you foolish pilgrim who agrees with the lie, not I.
Fear not. Love Now.
