Anunnaki and Ancient Hidden Technology (MUST SEE)

Free thought means the ability to think independently of existing platforms. I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation

The Universe is an Illusion, But Consciousness Isn't.

   The substance of the universe is not matter. Matter does not actually exist. Matter is nothing more than the varied vibrations of individual particles. These particles exist because of energy and this energy creates attraction and form because of the act of consciousness.  Therefore the true substance of the universe is consciousness. People have bought into the false reality that the substance of our world is matter and then by default, materialism. Materialism creates fear. Fear that I may not have what I need to survive tomorrow so I must accumulate what I can today. Selfishness, greed, envy, etc are all characteristics of materialism. Yet in reality, our reality is evolving and growing with each individual thought. Each independent thought expands the universe and everything that exists, creating new dust, their gravitational assimilation, stars, eventually new worlds, galaxies and universes.

   Understand therefore, that the moment we stop thinking for ourselves- the moment society as we know surrenders the ability to question everything, creation will cease to exist. The entire expansion of the universe will stop. And the universe, not only the world will surrender to chaos. Religion teaches us that God created the universe. No. consciousness did. Consciousness exists without matter because consciousness is the act of awareness. The danger of religion, of globalism, of systematic education is the abdication of free and independent thought. If I have to teach you about God, you no longer know God. You know what a system has taught you about reality and they have given it the label of God.

   We are marching headlong into a new world where entertainment is of greater value than education. And free thought is considered terrorism. Quantum physics is considered anti Christian and truth must bow to the majority lie. The immorality is not who you do and do not have sex with. Satan is not the rabid demon trying to convince you to curse your God. No my friend, the foundation of immorality lies at the feet of governance and society. The institutions that keep the manufacturers of our illusion of reality in power.

   If I can think freely and act on those thoughts consistently until I die for my own peace of mind and the harmony and advancement of life I have discovered my identity and I have found God.

   If you cannot do that my friend, you do not have God. You do not have purity, you have fear. And in this world we run, live and operate on fear.
   Somewhere a new universe is taking shape because I have the courage to believe what I believe. Whether or not I can see this universe does not actually matter. Whether or not I can feel or comprehend its life is of little consequence. And yet this universe is made in my image. My DNA is its pattern of existence because I believe that life spawns from the act of consciousness. And in this universe, as life is created they will search endlessly for their God. They will create identities and worship it. And yet I am the God they all are and can be if they simply act on their own consciousness. Therefore I say boldly what you believe a man called Jesus told you: that "my kingdom is not of this world." And yet I am a king and I am a god. The evil and good in that world is of my own making. My own harmony, my own dysfunction. My own internal battle against this wretched existence of materialism.
   If you cannot believe this, it is because you are afraid. You are a slave to the institutions of this world and so I call you out of it and challenge you to be separate. If you cannot do this my friend you are not awake. You are not born again. You are still asleep.
   You have one purpose for living and one purpose only. To Wake Up and act upon what you see when you do. There was never nothing. It is not possible because the simple act of becoming aware of nothingness is the definition of consciousness. The act of consciousness is the spark of creation. The ability to think independently of a system of beliefs is the beam of evolution.
   Humans are conduits of consciousness. That is our purpose. Once we realize that we will possess the ability to create our own reality not someone else's. We will never find the origin of life because life's origin is not material. That is a false reality created to subjugate the human race into bondage and abdication of our true nature.
   God is not an identity, God is a reality. And reality is shaped by the ability to think independent thought; the act of consciousness itself.
   This universe, and therefore this world exists because a consciousness somewhere on another plane awoke from it's slumber and its conductor acted boldly on its revelation. This consciousness will be forever unknown to us but we are patterned after it, not to worship it but to find the knowledge and inspiration to create universes of our own.
   I know what God is and I know what God isn't. I will not surrender my consciousness to the engineers of false realities. If that means I stand alone in the plane and battle the demons spawned by the corruption that gives this world power then so be it. I have faced more persecution than any one Christian here in these United States so do not talk to me about martyrdom and suffering for the sake of Christ. You have not the slightest idea what Christ is and what it means. If there was a Jesus he would curse this depraved religion erected in his name to hell. And any religion that refuses to acknowledge the truth when it stares them in the face, and would rather believe that a flesh and blood human being could be worthy of worship is not a religion it is an occult.
   If Jesus taught you anything it was not to worship him. Not to call him God. And do not accept money to teach people the truth.
   I challenge you to a different reality. Your own if you have the courage, strength and endurance to create it.

The Bible As An Allegory

  
 
   The Dead Sea Scrolls...what are they, and why are they so important?
   To understand this, you must first understand the irony of Judaism. Judaism has always placated Christianity, from the origin of the religion of the Roman cross, even until now as the Jews do not believe in a Jesus Christ. And yet, half of the Christian bible is the Hebrew bible; so that no matter how far Christians may try to distance themselves from the unbelieving Jews, they will never succeed in doing so. Christians need the Jews for theological relevance. The Jews need the Christians to avoid extermination at the hand of their Muslim neighbors. And yet the whole thing is one dramatic nod to the origin of all of this divine worship.
   Kemet. Or Egypt.
   What is strange about the Torah is the assertion that these books are the works of a god. The God by all accounts. But according to whom? Let us assume for a moment, that each of the books of the old testament bible are the identical translations of the Torah texts, found in the dead sea scrolls. I want us then to understand the litany of texts, or books, that were also found among these scrolls. Observe just to name a few:


- The Book of Tobit
- The Letter of Jeremiah (normally included with The Book of Baruch)
- The Book of Ecclesiasticus


Just a sample of books found among the DSS but not found in the KJV:
- The Book of Jubilees
- The Book of 1 Enoch
- from The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
- - The Testament of Levi
- - The Testament of Naphtali
- - The Testament of Joseph
- The Book of Noah
- The Genesis Apocryphon


   Note that for most of these, only very small fragments of each book were found. What should also be noted is that the book of Esther was not found among the DSS. This means that someone created the story. By whom and for what, we do not know. And yet, we are to know that divine God inspired it. I think not.
   Oh my friend, I have many questions for you and I greatly anticipate your response. What is the book of Tobit? What is the book of Baruch? Jubilees? Enoch? The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi, Naphtali, Joseph, Noah, The Genesis Apocryphon... all these texts found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and yet, they were all dismissed from the canonized bible for insufficient merit.
   How is it that all of these texts would have been written together, intended by their preservers to belong together and yet modern religions have decided to separate them and label some the inerrant word of God, and others unreliable fictitious tales? Is it possible that they are all, in fact, the work of fiction and that a few celebrated men chose to elevate them to the status of divine origin?
   Here is what we know. Every original civilization wrote their history in stone. The Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Mayans. Of these original civilizations, animal skin writings, parchments, have always been the work of foreign influences; a way to begin the process of assimilating the original tradition into foreign culture. What this then tells us, is that the so called Dead Sea Scrolls are not original. They are copies. Copies of what, is the question. And here is where things begin to get interesting for faithful Christian pilgrims.
   Archaeologists have uncovered not one stone, rock or artifact belonging to the ancient Jews or Hebrews. Not one. Below are a selected list of ancient civilizations for whom the opposite has been found.
   Sumeria 3200–2360 B.C.
   Greece 900–200 B.C
   Phonecia 1100–332 B.C
   Egypt 2850–715 B.C.
   Babylon 1728–1686 B.C.
   Maya 1800 BCE to 250 CE.
   Akkadian 2350–2230 B.C.


   Every single civilization listed above has verified historical records, gravesites, bones, original authorship attributed directly to their existence at specific time and place in history. We cannot find one of the same for the so called Jews. The tale of Abraham, we find, suggests that the patriarch existed after 1800 B.C. Yet there is no trace of him. Or his sons, or his descendants. In fact, the only historical Jewish figure whom gives us some contemplative reprieve is Moses. Who was falsely advertised as being Hebrew when in fact, if he existed at all, he was most likely Ramses.
   There are no ancient ruins, no ancient documents, nothing but the tales of a bunch of decayed writings on animal skin which are falling apart and date back to 150 BC or 250 BC. We don't actually know, because the tests are dealing w/ texts which are in rapid decay. That is not the point however. My point reveals a more startling truth. The point is that the oldest evidence of the Hebrew language is only found from 10 B.C.E. This means that the Hebrew language only existed in circulation for ten years. Ten years before Jesus entered the world stage. And yet, as we know, the Jews of his day did not speak Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. How is it that an ancient people who pre dated the dawn of civilization do not even have a language to call their own?
   Oh yes, this is true. But the Dead Sea Scrolls, you might say. Yes pilgrim. Even the DSS. It turns out, that the majority of the scrolls were written in Aramaic and Greek. Yes much of the DSS are Hebrew but the idea that the most ancient of writings are Hebrew are simply false. The majority of Hebrew texts found in the DSS are calendars, alphabetic characters, laws and tradition, none of which date back before 10 BC.
   And yet if they were the Hebrews who brought us Abraham. If they were the Hebrews who were led out of captivity by Moses, then how is it that the earliest writings of the Hebrew legacy were not written in Hebrew, but Greek?
  This is why author Norman Golb alleges in his book Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls that they were not the Essenes who were responsible for the texts, but the Jews of Jerusalem who wrote it these books as they prepared for Roman siege. I do not agree with this hypothesis either, as you will find.
   In fact the oldest scrolls, carbon dated back to the time periods of 150 and 250 BCE, perhaps beyond, but they are not Hebrew texts. Now I must ask the pervading question...why, and...how, exactly is it that in these ancient texts, supposedly written before the Roman Empire, even before King David ascended the throne, could Greek texts be found amongst sacred Hebrew historical preservations of literature and artifacts? How were the Greeks even present during this time?
   For we find, faithful pilgrim, that indeed, the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls are not in fact Hebrew, they are Greek.
   This then implies that the oldest. The VERY OLDEST of Jewish religious tradition was not penned by Jews or experienced by their Hebrew ancestors, but was created by the conquering Greeks, authored by their heralded king, Alexander. I am not making this up pilgrim. Or would you care to read for yourself:
   "All of the Greek texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in koine, the common dialect of the post-classical Hellenistic and Roman worlds and the New Testament language. A total of 27 Greek manuscripts have been identified from the Qumran caves. This includes all remains of 19 papyri found in Qumran Cave 7, and several Greek manuscripts preserved in Cave 4, made up of mostly biblical fragments. While the majority of the Cave 7 manuscripts cannot be identified, exceptions are a copy of Exodus and an Apocrypha work, the Epistle of Jeremiah. Attempts to identify some Cave 7 Greek fragments as Enoch are subject to debate, while attempts to identify fragments as New Testament have proven unsuccessful."- The Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library 
   Attempts to pass off the Dead Sea Scrolls as proof that the ancient Hebrews wrote their history over three millennia ago, and that through the divine inspiration and intervention by God through human beings, it has somehow retained its original form is just this side of deception. You have been hypnotized, faithful pilgrim, by the corrupted pendulum of your fictitious authors.
   Let us now further examine...for the sake of argument, let us suppose, that the earliest DSS can be carbon dated from 300 BCE. Well now that just happens to be around the same time Alexander invaded Egypt. This is not a coincidence. This is the confluence of cultures that explains why ancient Greek is included amongst the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts that comprise the DSS.
   And yet if you still are not convinced, I do not blame you one bit. Your religion resembles a cult more than it does a truth. Because when the truth stares you in the face you will still rather search for ways to explain it away so that you can go back to the church which sponsors your fallacy and enjoy companionship. The like mindedness of others who too know that the man they serve could not be a God. Yet choose to throw away reason and worship him anyway. Your salvation and patterns of influence are not of divine origin but of masonic engineering. What God would piss urine and shit feces like the rest of us?
   I would flog myself if I discovered that the icon Jesus I had worshipped my whole entire life was in the Porto potty filling it up with the stench of his bowls. No man who bleeds like me could be any more than me and this is the truth. This is the illusiveness of some made up religion that fancies the man a god.
   Jesus never existed in the first place. And neither did David, Solomon, the prophets, Joshua, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. You have a bunch of fictitious characters created by the same people who created Homer's Iliad. Don't you know that they are still searching for Troy? They haven't found it and they are not going to find it. Much like everyone is looking up 3,000 years later waiting for Jesus to come back. He's not coming back because he never left in the first place, and he was never here to begin with.
   I can only speculate as to the reasoning behind this creation, yet I can only do so because we've been taught it is the truth. When truly, if you read the book of Enoch, another work of fiction, yet Jewish lore, it reads like historical credulity also. But Enoch is not included. Everyone knows it is fiction. And so is the Torah, or the Old Testament. Neither is the New Testament a work of original truth or the entire bible- for it is all symbolism.
   I rue those who claim that the bible is a lie and that Jesus is a lie. That Islam and Judaism are lies. Of course they are not a lie. They are literary genius, giving those who need a God other than themselves and the harmony of life itself, a purpose in this life. It is their fault they do not understand that sacrificing the quest for truth in this life for the sake of a fictitious God renders you useless in the next life, but it is their choice. Who am I to rob them of it?
   If you tell me that you have found Jesus and that Jesus is the way, I will congratulate you. If this mirage keeps you from starving in this desert wasteland called life, gives your mind strength and emboldens your heart, I am with you pilgrim. We all need strength to endure.
   And yet, I will not bow the knee to a prop used to illustrate the iconography of my ancestor's conquerors.
   If I was a Somali pirate who succeeded in destroying the American Naval power of the Atlantic ocean, and I proceeded to the mainland to conquer the rest of the empire, yet I found there, people who looked like me, who I knew could trace their roots back to my homeland, the motherland of Kemet Afrikaa, I suppose an intellectually superior method of liberation would be to not only give these people a future in the lands I have already conquered, but to give them a history as well. For surely we Africans living in this brothel of Solomon's temple do not know our history. We do not know where we come from.
   Imagine the implications of a man such as Marcus Garvey giving black people, not just a general place of pilgrimage but specific qualifications and landmarks. A purpose, a mission. A kingdom. Now imagine that specific genealogies were created as well, giving black people not just a race to claim, but an identity, a nation, a direct line back to the garden and the original man.
   The ramifications would be devastating for America. The economy would lie in ruins as its largest consumer class marched out in indignation. The halls of power would be in upheaval as the war on drugs and the industrial prison complex no longer had wheels for the mill to turn. Political parties would shift, realign and disappear altogether.
   Christianity itself would stand on the brink of collapse. With no tithes from the ancestors of slaves, the burden of the poor would shift to that of the preachers, turning the inner cities towards anarchy. America would crumble from within.
   The Jews are a false identity of a people unsatisfied with their culture. Written by Greeks, for Greeks. They were embraced by Alexander and given a false history and therefore an engineered path to the future. There never was any mass Exodus, there never was an Israel, and there never was a temple. These tales were created to weaken an empire and enslave a nation. Egypt fell, its treasure was stolen, and the Jews were created. Rome only existed because of these people. The Roman Catholic church, the whole of Christendom owes its existence to these manufactured identities. The word "Jew" itself is not even a real word. It is an English term of Semitic depravity. It only began its introduction into the world's vocabulary after the King James Version was translated. It was inserted into the bible in the same fashion. How can a people exist long before the word itself was even created?
   There are a group of African Americans here in America calling themselves Moors. They are part of an Islamic group known as the Moorish Science Temple of America. These people claim they belong to the Moorish Empire which they claim, spanned the entire globe and was the very first world empire. Nothing could be further from the truth. And yet the Moors in America are a people, who if given the right leader, would pose a serious threat to the status quo.
   The trick of a fabled powerful Jewish nation has been done before. Undoubtedly it will be done again. Black people in America are not Moors because the Moorish empire was never so vast and it no longer exists. The Moors have a country and that country is Morocco not America.
   Much like the black people of today, the Hebrews never had a home. To assert one for them would be a dangerous work of fiction.                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
   The Hebrew language fell completely out of circulation by 200 AD and was not reintroduced until Israel was created by the same lineage which created the people in the first place. Guess who preserved the language? Yes pilgrim, the Roman Catholic Church. How noble of them.
   I suspect, that once Alexander successfully invaded Egypt, he found men and women living in Egypt who looked like him. The Hebrews were an Afro- Asiatic people. Yet the Jews are white.
   It was Alexander who is found in the text: "the Great I am" it is Alexander declaring to great Pharaoh "let my people go." It is Alexander declaring to the nations. "I am the lord your God. You shall have no other Gods before me." It was Alexander declaring "I am a jealous God" there was no voice from heaven. Only a tyrannical egomaniac.
   According to author, historian and professor at Tel Aviv University Shlomo Sand, "the Jewish people were invented, from the Bible to Zionism."
    "The Jews are neither a race nor a nation, but ancient pagans – in the main Berbers from North Africa, Arabs from the south of Arabia, and Turks from the Khazar empire – who converted to Judaism between the fourth and eighth centuries CE."
   Could it be, pilgrim, that the religion of Judaism was created as a truth, dating back to the Greek invasion of Egypt. A way to liberate people Alexander himself could not win over to his cause; but the characters which would bring the religion to life are fictitious? That the Hebrews were a real people but they had no religion and were not a nation. If there ever were Hebrews in Egypt, they were there willingly. And if they lived in Egypt that would make them Africans. The Hebrews, therefore, are not Jews and the Jews are not Hebrews. The Hebrews are Africans, the Jews are Europeans. The Jews never existed until the invention of a Christian church.
   If you do not believe these things pilgrim, I do not blame you. And yet I do not envy you either. Alexander conquered the known world so very quickly because he was the architect of monotheism. He understood that he could unify thrones under one heaven if they each worshipped the God of that heaven. They would bow to him if he positioned himself as that very God.
   Egypt was the vicar of spirituality, which is why it was so necessary that he get there and destroy it. He did so through cunning, manipulation, murder and deception. And the rest of the world still worships him for it.
   It is beyond folly. And yet I still believe. I believe in those who believe in these fictional creations. But I no longer believe in these creations as being legitimate claims to truth. For in fact we have been told not to. Faithful pilgrim if you still find solace in the fact that the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls can be translated almost word for word, directly into the King James Version of the bible, and you take these translations literally then I must point you directly to the very literal translation of the New Testament Galatians Chapter 4:23-24
   "But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar."   
   And there you have it. The New Testament, explaining its origins in the Old Testament, confirming the truth of both concerning what I have been trying to tell you. These stories are only stories. Nothing more. The bible can be confirmed in one word. Allegory.
   I believe this, because the bible tells me so.

Jews and Gentiles

   If I asked you to define God, what would you say? How would you define God? And so I ask you: Define God.

   Now that  you have done so, I must ask you. Is this definition your own, or is it the definition that someone has given you?

   There is a clearer way to ask this, and that is, before you started immersing yourself into the doctrine of your religion of choice... before you heard from anyone else who God was, what God was, where God was; who was God to you?

   Chances are that you do not recall a time where you encountered the idea of God independent of the definitions or influence of others. This is not your fault of course or mine. We are creatures of our environment.

   But how do you define something that has no history?

   How do you accept the stories of authors that have no identity and therefore no confirmation, as truth written by God and for God, inspired by him. How do you know that God is a male. How do you know that God is not a woman? What makes you think that God could be either?

   What I've come to understand is that we all define God in our own way. The concept of religion is not superior. It is simply more widely accepted and therefore practiced than a humble individual notion. And yet, it does not make it true.  

   I want to be clear that I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. But I do not believe that Jesus actually existed. Therefore, I do not believe that Jesus was God's son. I believe in Jesus the ideal; the concept; the moral fabric that would weave such a creation. I believe in that Jesus. But Jesus never existed. Sin is a fabrication of something more grave and practical: disloyalty and disharmony.

  The idea that it is a sin to love whomever you choose, or to commit adultery is laughable. Name one old testament wedding. Who married Adam and Eve? Name one old testament patriarch that did not have more than one wife. Marriage is an institution created by people. Established by people who defined their lives by methods of oppression.

   These views of mine place me in an incredible juxtaposition amongst my peers for they are the majority, Christians, who live and die by every word in that leather bound text and are devoted to the accepted lineage of its creed. I do not seek to unravel this devotion because this devotion was brought about by elements more powerful and conclusive than mere words. This devotion was brought about by the systematic engineering of culture. And this is something that words, no matter how concise, supported and evidenced cannot compete against.

   The American way of life demands a Savior. It demands a savior because America is a carbon copy of the Greco- Roman empire. Nothing could be more vile, obscene or amoral than that heathen state of greed, murder, lust and destruction. Yet America was a necessary evolution of the change brought about by the maturation of science. The Greco- Roman empire demanded a moral savior because of its immoral seed, its only begotten son, Capitalism, doomed the world it knew and continues to whore, to slavery and infested brothels. The treasure which funded its expansion was brutally taken from Africa.

   Jesus is as Capitol as the Federal Reserve. Just as empirical as the rulers his image represents. The cross is as sacred as the constitution and that is because they both arose from the same construct.

   Imagine, for a moment, pledging your loyalty to someone you've never met, and will never actually know. And yet you are told that this person has done everything for you and therefore you owe this man your allegiance. The conscious mind would then ask the following:

   "What is it that this Savior, this man, has done for me?" We then find that the entirety of our salvation is based on a construct called sin. This debilitating entity that has no premise was seemingly created out of thin air. The problem, is that it was created from the same people who gave us Jesus in the first place.

   That is like saying that we have to pay taxes to avoid our nation's economy defaulting on its loans, only to find that we are paying taxes to the very same folks who are creating our debt in the first place. Which of course happens to be precisely what is going on in this very moment thanks to the creation of the Federal Reserve System. 

  

 
   I will anger a great many with this article. No doubt I have already angered a great many. The truth of the matter is, however, that none of my research is original. I research everything that I write and each of my articles are the investigation of claims made by true historians. Not evangelical apologists who simply learned a way of thinking from a school of thought created by the people who created the culture in the first place.
   I'm not a theologian who is a professional regurgitation of commentaries. I posses intellectual vigor.
   I do not write or make claims based on a point of view to steer an agenda. For the only agenda I have is the truth. And you will find that if you escape the learned traditions of your religious education and view things purely as an observer of historical facts, the truth illuminates the lies.
   I make no apologies for my views. I am an African. I am a liberationist. And I therefore am an African liberationist. My native land has been conquered by invaders and my people have been in exile ever since. We have adopted pagan culture. We have adopted pagan religion. And we have adopted pagan wives. We have been stripped of our ancestral rights and heritage, to the effect that we no longer know to what tribe we belong. We have been given the name of our conquerors and oppressors. Our spirituality was stolen, recreated in the image of Europeans and fed back to us in the form of a pagan religion called Christianity. I have no choice but to speak out against the lies that have befallen my people. I have no choice but to resurrect the voices of my murdered ancestors. I have no choice but to summon the royalty of the Pharaoh's of old so that anyone who will listen can know what has been done; what is being done, and what will be done.
   Do not mistake my words for hatred. Do not accept the infantile dissemination of logic that conveniences my scorn for bitterness. Bitterness means that you have no hope and no recourse. I assure you this could not be further from the truth.
   It is a fact; an irrefutable fact that the book called the bible is a forgery. Yes I have said it. And no matter how adamantly you may try and prove this assertion false, you will only succeed in turning over the rocks of ancient Egypt that endure. And they are these rocks which tell the truth. They are these rocks which have been there all along; shouted down by a religious ruling class who knew the truth but obscured it from the conscious of the public. But the evidence has been presented, the cases have been made and the verdict is in. It does not matter how many appeals the Christian church files, and how many motions they've tried to suppress, the verdict has been read and it is not in the favor of this religion which has been created in the name of a man they have called Jesus.
   Forgery is defined as the action of forging or producing a copy of a document, signature, banknote, or work of art which alters the integrity of the original. None of the books of the New Testament were written by any of the men they are claimed to have been written by. None of the gospels are. None of the epistles are. They have been tampered with and altered time and time again. Not only through the unfortunate method of language translation but by the simple fact that we do not know who the original authors were in the first place. *See my previous article: The Swastika of Martin Luther.
   None of the books of the Old Testament were the writings of any of the authors they are reported as have being written by and we know this because the first copies of the Torah only date back 800 years which is 800 years after the first New Testament bible was published. I repeat, the oldest known Torah scroll is only dated as far back as the thirteenth century A.D. do not take my word for it pilgrim. Look it up for yourself. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130530-worlds-oldest-torah-scroll-bible-bologna-carbon-dating/
   And I quote: "This week, University of Bologna Professor Mauro Perani announced the results of carbon-14 tests authenticating the scroll's age as roughly 800 years old.

The scroll dates to between 1155 and 1225, making it the oldest complete Torah scroll on record." -Diane Cole

for National Geographic

Published May 30, 2013

  

   What I am telling you pilgrim, is that writings which are suppose to be ancient law, existing during the time of David, the law that Jesus came to fulfill never existed until the Catholic church created it.

   We know we do not know who the original authors were because each of the afore mentioned books and scroll(s) were written; not published; written decades and in the case of the Torah- centuries after the persons the books are attributed to- died. The question then, is who wrote the bible?
   The Dead Sea Scrolls are a mockery of historicity. I understand the enthusiasm over the fact that upwards of 500 B.C. there were found fragments of texts which mimic almost identically the books of the Torah and Old Testament Bible. What is just as ludicrous is that these texts are found amongst a slew of other fragments that are texts belonging to Jewish stories which have uniformly been accepted as myth, legend and literary fiction.
  We are known by the company we keep. If I go to a library under the fiction section and I find a fictitious book that reads like an historical document, it is still fiction. And the author who put it there knows it.
   Furthermore, mere fragments of some of the Septuagint have been included in these legendary scrolls. Are we then to assume that the rest of the writings that were omitted are somehow proof that they were ever actually written? And how is this conclusion drawn? Because the texts, which no one knows their origin, say that it is the word of God.
   Foolish pilgrim, who wrote it? If you don't know who wrote something, you cannot verify its authenticity. If you cannot suggest who wrote it you cannot suggest it is reliable. These stories allege events that have never been seen in this world nor ever will be. And the more outlandish they are, the more religious they become. History does not know who the Jews are. And there certainly was no mass Exodus from Egypt. It is not recorded anywhere.
   Observe:
   "We Jews and Church Leaders have known since the beginning of Christianity that it was
synthesized by the Roman Piso family for the purpose of maintaining control over the masses and to
placate slaves. And, this is why we Jews are the "Chosen People" and why we have endured so
much for so many years; we are witnesses to the lie. Our ancestors wrote what they could about
this in our texts."
FROM CHAPTER I (The True Authorship of the New Testament)
  
   The authors of the bible are the Piso/Flavian dynasty. And that is why the only historian in the history of the world who can independently verify the accuracy of the bible is a man called Flavius Josephus.
   "Professor Bruno Bauer, in his work of 1877 "Christ and the Caesars" stated that he had concluded that the Romans had authored the New Testament and that Flavius Josephus was the inventor of Jesus."
   What is the Piso/Flavius dynasty? You may ask. The Piso family are royal relatives of the Roman  Herods who were given control of the Semitic provinces. The Herods of course were relatives to the Flavian Emperors. Flavius Josephus, in fact, was merely a pseudonym for the real face behind the bible and its "independent" history. Josephus' real name was Arrius Piso.
   Observe:
   The tie-in is that Arria the Elder was married to the emperor Vespasian’s
brother (before Vespasian became emperor). He was T. Flavius Sabinus.

From this relationship we find the connection to the alias names of the Pisos
as "Paetus". Quoting from "The True Authorship of the New Testament," by
Abelard Reuchlin; "Vespasian relied upon Piso because he was grandson of
his own brother - Vespasian’s brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, had married Arria
Sr. (i.e., Arria the Elder), who was Piso’s maternal grandmother. Piso’s
identity as thus also a Flavian is decipherable from the appearance in the
Flavian family line of L. Caesennius Paetus (Townend, Gavin, "Some Flavian
Connections," Journal of Roman Studies, LI. 54, 62, 1961). That was an alias
(like Thrasea Paetus) of Piso’s father, L. Calpurnius Piso [ Note: we now
know Arrius Piso’s father to have been Gaius Calpurnius Piso who was
executed by Nero]. See page 20 supra, wherein Piso himself also is mentioned
as a Caesennius Paetus. That is the true reason Piso used the literary
pseudonym of Flavius; it was not because of his alleged - but untrue and
hardly necessary - adoption by Emperor Flavius Vespasian. He was in fact
(already) a Flavian."
  
   The question then, is who was Arrius Piso? The answer is simple. He was Roman royalty. The governor of Syria and what is now also called Palestine. What you will find is that the so called Jews found their origins here not in the wilderness of a so called Canaan. Instead, there in the Semitic region of Syria, they are in fact European royalty. The Hebrews are not Jewish. The Jews are not Hebrews. The Hebrews are Africans. The Jews are European royalty.
   It is a fact that Mark was the first gospel to be written. It is believed; based on this fact, that the other the other three gospels of Matthew, Luke and John were written based on the claims of Mark. Of course this claim was made before the first recorded bible ever written Codex Sinaiticus revealed that there was no resurrection story in Mark. Which means that Mark 16:9-20 were the creation of someone. Who created it, why they created it, and when they created it is unknown. But the fact of the matter is that the resurrection of the man called Jesus was not contemporary to the life of the man. It was created over 400 years after Jesus died. And so to were the other three gospels.
  It doesn't mater if you don't believe me; you can research it for yourself.  Therefore do not take my word for it, the gospels are not contemporary to the events they claim to be witnessing and neither are the epistles. None of the authors were eyewitnesses to Jesus; of Jesus; to Jesus. In any court of law, this is what we would consider hearsay. They are anonymous sources- people we cannot know their identity. The only claims that these people ever existed are made by the oral traditions inscribed in the forged writings of the bible.
   The stories of Jesus reflected in the gospels and the epistles are stories that are modifications of the oral traditions of Jesus and adaptions of Egyptian mythology.
   I do not contend that Jesus existed. I do not contend that Jesus was God's son. We are all God's children. What I do contend however, is that the biblical accounts of the man called Jesus; which by the way wasn't even his real name, neither was it Ye'shua or Ye'hoshua because that means Joshua. In fact the name Jesus never existed until the fourth century A.D.
   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. -The Swastika of Martin Luther.
   Again you can look this up.
   What I do not believe is that the Jews ever existed. I believe an Afro- Semitic people called Hebrews existed. But the Hebrews and the Jews are not the same thing. I do not believe that there was ever an Exodus from Egypt and therefore I do no believe any of the stories attributed to these people. I do not believe there was a king David. I do not believe in a so called royal bloodline. And even if I did, you would still have to explain to me why there are two different lineages that the book of Matthews gives Jesus' royal origin. Furthermore, if he was born of a virgin; which I do not believe either, the lineages listed are not of Mary's, they are both Joseph's.
   Call me stupid but if I cannot produce the bloodline of my mother, only that of my father- from whom I was never actually conceived because I claim my conception was of immaculate divine origin- there is reason to believe that I never existed either.
   There is no historical evidence that there was ever any exodus from Egypt. (See Unearthing the Bible).
   There is no evidence of Solomon, David, Joshua, or Moses, or any other of these so called Jewish Patriarchs. What you have instead are an Afro- Semitic people who spoke Aramaic, which is not to be confused with Arabic, a nomadic people with no home and no ancestral heritage who were given a history by the most powerful institution ever created: the Roman Catholic church.
   Supposedly these people called the Jews established a kingdom which dwarfed the concepts of the greatest empirical nations of their time; Babylonians, the Persians, and the Egyptians. And yet not one iota of concrete evidence of the existence of these people can be found. Not one burial ground, monument, artifact, or token can be found to attribute the existence of a people called the Jews. Again, not to be confused with Hebrews, which are Aramaic nomads; history cannot figure out where the Jews belong in the chronological summary of events. The people who call themselves Jews today are not Hebrews, they are European Semites.
   The only place that the Jews existed is the bible. History cannot find them.
   I am going to make a claim that may sound absurd to you. But it only sounds absurd because you've never heard it before. Yet if you do your research you will discover that the absurdity is historical fact, verified, not only by a plagiarized book, but by separate cultures spawning vast oceanic waters and histories which have verifiable records. Before I present my thesis I want to first present some factual parallels which establish the premise for this thesis.
   Some parallels between Horus and Jesus Christ:

1. Horus born of a virgin. Jesus born of a virgin.

2. The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. Jesus was fostered by Joseph.

3. Horus was of royal descent. Jesus was of royal descent.

4. Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star “in the east” bearing gifts.

5. The birth of Horus announced by angels. The birth of Jesus announced by angels.

6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.

7. Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.

8. Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [Sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.

9. Horus had 12 followers. Jesus had 12 disciples.

10. Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

11. Horus raised someone from the grave [his father Osiris] Jesus raised Lazarus [notice the name similarity] from the grave. Lazarus is short for Elasarus - the “us” on the end is romanized. Elasarus was derived from “El-Asar” which was the name given to Osiris.

12. Horus was buried and resurrected in the city of Anu. The place Bethany mentioned in John was a derivative of the words “Bet” and “Anu” which translates “the house of Anu”. The ‘y’ on the end of bethany is interchangeable with the letter ‘u’.

13. Horus was killed by crucifixtion. Jesus was crucified.

14. Horus was accompanied by two thieves at the crucifixtion. Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

15. Horus was buried in a tomb at Anu. Jesus was buried in a tomb located in Bethany [Bet-Anu].

16. Horus was resurrected after 3 days. Jesus was “said” to resurrected after over a period of three days.

17. The resurrection of Horus was announced by three women. The resurrection of Jesus was announced by three women.

18. Horus was given the titel KRST which means “anointed one” Jesus was given the title Christ [Christos] meaning “anointed one”
  
   Understand that Egyptian mythology, or Maat, predates the legacy of the man called Jesus Christ by more than 3000 years. I will present compelling arguments that the entire bible is the plagiarized literature of Maat. But before we get there I want you to understand why the Jews were created by the Roman Catholics, why and how their legacy has been widely and successfully distributed as truth. To do this I will use the bible. The following is an excerpt taken from Genesis 10:2-20.
   2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. 6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. 7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. 8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said , Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. 13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim. 15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, 16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, 17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, 18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad . 19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest , unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha. 20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.   
   Now, you may ask, why is this important and what does this have to do with anything? It is important my friend because this is the only passage in the Torah that decisively tells you who the Hebrews are and who the Europeans are. You see, the word Gentile never meant anyone who is not a Jew. It meant anyone who is not a descendant of Ham. Verse 5 of the above texts is clearly informing you that the peoples mentioned are the Gentiles. It just so happens that they are all Europeans. 
   The legacy verses of Genesis Chapter 10 are verses 6-20. They are the descendants of Ham. The interesting fact is that they are all African or of African lineage. Cush is Ethiopia, Mizraim is Egypt, Phut is Libya, Canaan is Palestine. I could go on. The point, however, is that according to their own plagiarized source, the Hebrews, who were God's chosen people, were actually Africans. And they are only every European who are the Gentiles. It says so plainly in the text.
   And yet, if you fast forward a few hundred years to the so called new testament gospels and epistles you will find the polar opposite. A redefinition of Gentiles around the construct of Jews which first entered the scene in the new testament. Previously, the Jews did not exist.
   The question then, is who are the Jews? I think the answer is plain. The Jews are Europeans of Semitic lineage who have laid claim to the historical background of the Hebrews. The Hebrews of course, are of African origin. It is this subversion of the true nature of things that have led to the creation of European empires, which did not previously exist, leading to the destruction and ruin of a people, a continent and cultures that begat life in the first place. In order to elevate a culture that you fashioned in your own image, you must first destroy the culture you stole it from. Mark Zuckerburg stole Facebook from the Winklevoss twins and subsequently trampled them into obscurity. PlayStation was created from Nintendo which has been flushed into oblivion. I won't even mention what happened to Sega.
   The UFC has destroyed or consumed every major fight promotion that has gotten in its way. If you look at the UFC today it is not actually the UFC. The UFC is PRIDE, WFA, WEC, Strikeforce. And yet it is the UFC. In the same way, anti- African transatlantic slavery was the result of years of empirical destruction of the peoples whose culture the Greco Roman empire was founded upon. The only way to elevate Rome was to destroy the Africa which spawned it into existence.
   Religion is the deification of a culture. Nothing more. And the agenda of spreading a religion is a method of spreading that culture for culture and racial superiority. The creators of the religion become the God(s) of the people they've conquered; and if implemented properly, it is for this reason that a "liberated" people can be a colony of the conquering force. India is still a colony of great Britain which was preluded by the British Empire which was funded by the Roman Catholic church. India may have won it's independence but it's culture is fashioned after the Empire which fell but exists in the embodiment of the United States.
   Africans live in America. We are not African Americans, we are Africans who have been stripped of our lineage. Our native land was conquered and we were sold into slavery. Unlike the Exodus of the Jews, this is not a fabricated story. We will go home, our monuments will endure, our coins will be remembered and our kings will be celebrated because African liberation will not adopt the ways of our conquerors. We will not accept the culture of our oppressors. Many have. We- I- will not. For when you have knowledge, you don't need faith. Therefore you don't need credit, which means the manufactured creation of debt and sin and grace do not exist. Which is why the search for such a thing and it's discovery is discouraged by the church.
   Anyone who does their research and arrives at any conclusion such as mine is ridiculed as having the spirit of the anti Christ, false prophets, lost, on my way to hell...so on and so forth. Question: if eternity is not a physical place, how can I be punished by the material lakes of fire or be rewarded with the earthly corruptions of streets of gold.
   The Roman Empire never fell. Roman Catholicism insured its survival and the United States of America is its modern Avatar. Yet I want to assert to you that the Jews do not exist. They never existed. The sons of Japheth, called the Gentiles in Genesis 10:2-5 are the only so called Jews who ever existed. You call them Jews; but the bible calls them Gentiles. You decide, faithful Christian, which discernment is correct. The Jews are not a nation.
   Israel was created out of thin air just like sin, just like currency, just like debt. These are the arbitrary orchestrations of powerful people with the agenda of world domination. They've created a masterful story of Armageddon and centered it around the assault against Israel, a nation that, in truth, has no right to exist. But if you put an Islamic republic right in the middle of America's Heartland how would you respond oh Christian? Would you not resort to any means necessary to rid your homeland of the foreign invaders? Then why do you support the state of Israel? God choose the Jews, only if you understand that the Jews created the God that chose them. And the that the Greco- Roman empire created the Jews.
   Have the integrity then to see through the manipulation of the State and the powers of capital control. We will find that the Jews are nothing more than Europeans with Semitic roots. The only chosen people of God, if you believe such a thing, were Africans. Our conquerors knew this and so they created a people called the Jews. They could not allow us to wrestle our heritage back from them. Therefore they organized a religion to go along with the slave ships. They gave us a bible along with our chains. They called themselves Jews to us and we gave up our God given heritage to them so that now our African men are emaciated and our African women are prostitutes, loving, needing and defending the very nation which raped us in the first place. And the tool which begets this depravity is Christianity.
   I will utter this quote: "The central figure of the ancient Egyptian Religion was Osiris, and the chief fundamentals of his cult were the belief in his divinity, death, resurrection, and absolute control of the destinies of the bodies and souls of men. The central point of each Osirian's Religion was his hope of resurrection in a transformed body and of immortality, which could only be realized by him through the death and resurrection of Osiris" (Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection Volume 1)
   This sounds like a vaguely familiar doctrine to me. And let me ask you, which story came first. I think we know the answer to this. It wasn't the Christian doctrine. Horus, the son of Osiris had a divine nature and a human nature. Horus was believed to be both fully divine and fully human. It is believed that Horus was the twin brother of Sat, otherwise known as Seth. Who was the Egyptian precursor to the European Satan.
    Horus was the son of Osiris and Isis, the product of a virgin birth who rose from the dead through the conquering of his archenemy Set, an original acronym for Satan. At the hand of his only begotten son Horus.
   It is important to understand that this Egyptian story predates the virgin birth of the man called Jesus by centuries. It is also important to understand that the very same people who invaded Egypt are responsible for creating the bible, forging it's literature and establishing the religion of what is today called Christianity. It is just as important to understand that this religion only took shape after the hieroglyphs, which are the ancient Egyptian religious mythology, were translated.
   There is no such thing or person as a man who lived in the ancient Roman Empire named Jesus. I am not trying to be controversial but it is a fact. Jesus is not a Hebrew, Jewish or Semitic name. Jesus, translated into Aramaic, which was the Semitic language of that time, is translated as Ye'hoshua or adapted as Yeshua. But even Yeshua does not mean Jesus. Yeshua means Joshua. There was no Aramaic, Semitic, Jewish, or Hebrew name that one can attribute to Jesus. Jesus Christ didn't exist until the first Council of Nicea. *See The Swastika of Martin Luther
   I am going to get straight to the point and inform you once again, that this is because the savior of the world known as Jesus was a creation of an elite European culture (root word cult) who labeled themselves as Jews. These people created the bible as a plagiarized version of Egyptian Maat.
   What is Maat? Maat or ma'at, also spelled māt or mayet, was the ancient Egyptian concept of truth, balance, order, law, morality, and justice.
   After the European invasion of Egypt by Alexander, Egypt has lost its sovereignty. Egypt lost its sovereignty by the deception of the European alleging that they had come in peace. Egypt has lost its sovereignty and has never regained it. Alexander tried to become recognized as Pharaoh and failed. His successor, Ptolemy I also known as Soter or Savior tried as well but failed. The problem was that they could not decipher the Mecunenta which are called by archeologists as Hieroglyphics.
   Thousands of African men and women died because they refused to decipher their ancient spiritual texts which dated back over two thousand years B.C. The European invaders understood that the key to the might of these savages came as a direct result from the beliefs and the knowledge of the Mecunenta. Religion organizes culture. An organized people are a powerful people, a wealthy people.
   Ptolomy the I was the beginning of the Roman Ptolomy era in Egypt. With the help of Egyptian coptics, the original traitors to the empire, they translated much of our Mecunenta to the invaders. The problem for the invaders is that they did not translate everything properly. Some of this was done on purpose and much of it was a simple matter of the pitfalls of language barriers. Yet what was produced was the plagiarizing of Egyptian spirituality. It was rewritten, Europeanized and fed to the world as their own so that the creators of the religion would be worshipped as God.
   Though a people may overthrow an invader, they not so easily are able to unbelieve  that which you have been taught to believe. That is because religion is psychological warfare. It is nothing more than this.
   Alexander knew that in order to effectively rule Egypt he had to also be accepted into their religious order, in keeping with the tradition of the Pharaohs. Alexander died in 323 B.C. without being granted this enviable right.
   Yet Soter, his Egyptian successor, or Ptolomy I murdered as many Egyptian priests as it took until the Melkite Coptic priests relinquished, sold out, and translated the Mecunenta. They granted him his wish and so changed Soter's, name to Serapis. And yet the only place in Egypt that Serapis' authority was accepted was in Memphis, the region of the Melkite Coptics. In his anger, Serapis shut down all the temples in Egypt.
   In return for their betrayal, the leader of the Melkite Coptic priests, Sylvester, was elected the first pope of the Roman Catholic church. This is why, to this day, Coptic Christians, elect their own Pope and have their own Papal order.
   It is the figure head of Serapis that was adopted as the face of Jesus and is still today the European figure head of the man called Jesus. Christians worship the European conqueror of Egypt. He was a liar, a thief and a murderer.
   I'm not sure where this information was omitted from history. I suppose it was suppressed by the same folks who created this diabolical construct. Currency is nothing more than the physical analogy of salvation. Sin is the spawn of the physical reality of debt. Faith and credit are as closely related. Catholicism needed the Jews in order to expand its influence. For there can be no unification toward empirical expansion without the fear of an opposition.
   In this way Christianity today needs Islam. For without Islam the spread of capitalism and the ever growing net of wealth disparity and global servitude cannot be realized.
   The key is this: If you can convince the people you've stripped of wealth that their salvation depends on surrendering their earthly riches in return for eternal wealth that can only come from serving the one who stripped you in the first place, then you will inherit eternal salvation and riches that will never die.
   Insanity does not begin to describe this motive or belief. It is lunacy. And yet this lunacy has been encouraged and demanded by our culture. If you live in a capitalist culture you need a Savior. If you live in a dictatorship you do not need a moral Savior, you need a physical conqueror.
   We find that each monotheistic religion is not original. It is not original because they each borrowed from each other. The question then, is where did they borrow from?
   The answer of course is Africa. The story of Africa is greater than the continent itself. The story of Africa is the story of creation. God is not up in heaven. God is within you. God is of you. God is you. God is us. All of us together, all of our spirits united is God. And yet with the confusion of religion, currency and monies that do not exist, this unity can never be found. And God will forever be a euphemism, not a reality.
   I want every woman and man to know and understand that he is here because he created himself. She is here because she created herself. Life is the paintings we have imagined as ever present realities coming to completion. The purpose of life is to experience what we have created, individually and collectively in order to establish harmony for the next painting. And the next, and the next. No artist ever depletes himself of creations.  Artists fail to create when they lose inspiration. Therefore your spirit only dies when you cease to encourage its production. Religions teach you to stop searching. To believe that you have found it.
   But truth is ever evolving, and so is God because we are the architects by the lives we live and the patterns we weave.
   Aligning yourself with religious regimes may give you purpose in this life, but it will rob you of your place in the next.
   Spirits do not die. They are eternal because spirits are possibilities. Canvasses that are waiting for inspiration.
   Spirits have no memories only consciousness. Here on this earth we have been compounded with a soul. This soul is our memory, our primary weapon against insignificance. It is why life is so sacred. For whatever period of time harmony suggests, we have the ability to remember everything, both past and future, in order to become the gods we created ourselves to be. Therefore, never stop searching. Jesus is not the answer. Jesus is a proposition. Muhammad is not the solution. Merely an antithesis against selected influence.
   We were given our souls to recall why we are here. We created ourselves and therefore we must give ourselves life. We must give each other life. And life will give us a future. You owe your existence to harmony; the balance of spirits and souls.
   I do not worship God because God is not meant to be worshipped. God is meant to be created with every breath, every stroke, every idea, every relation. God is evolving whether you know it or not, whether you believe it or not. If you think that God is some deified moral authority arbitrating his rules and laws down to a wayward woeful man, you belong on the slave ship your ancestors died on or the chains your forefathers created.
   Our morals are each different yet they are measured on the same scale, called to the same standard. Our life spans are not the same and yet we determine this with the life we lived before, with the patterns we use to paint the creation.
   Do not blame God for the evils of the world, do not blame Satan. Satan and God are one and the same. It is you and I; I and I who are responsible for the now, the past and the future.
   "I know... the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."-Revelation 2:9

The Swastika of Martin Luther

   A lot has been made of my blog postings concerning socio economic and socio political ideology. My religious ideology as well. I welcome feedback, opinions, contradicting viewpoints and the like. It is an indication that my audience is conscious; that is fully aware of themselves. Also aware of their external identity. If something is not true it is ignored because it is ignorant. It only inspires agitation and aggression when there is truth because truth is not ignorant and therefore cannot be ignored.
    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.

   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"

(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).

   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.

   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?

   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. 

   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).

 

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.

 

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,

"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,

"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:

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.

"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:

1. Caesar
2. Krishna
3. Mithra
4. Horus
5. Zeus
   (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).

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.

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:

1. the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius)
2. the Missive of Barnabas
3. the Odes of Solomon

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

  

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: 

“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.

   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?

   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.