The Lies of Paul and the Falsified Church of Rome, 2


The Lies of Paul and The Falsified Church of Rome, 2



Traduzca esta pßgina al espa˝ol usar FreeTranslation.com
Traduire Cette Page A Franšais utilisation FreeTranslation.com
▄bersetzen Sie Diese Seite Zu Deutsch Gebrauch FreeTranslation.com


eXTReMe Tracker

Bible [Gr.,=the books], term used since the 4th cent. to denote the Christian (Roman authorized version only) Scriptures and later, by extension, those of various religious traditions. This article discusses the nature of religious scripture generally and the Christian Scriptures specifically, as well as the history of the translation of the Bible into English. For the composition and the canon of the Hebrew and Christian Bible, see Old Testament; New Testament; Apocrypha; Pseudepigrapha... from The History Channel New Testament

Jesus was Married!

Mary Magdalene was in fact the wife of Jesus, and that fact was omitted by Pauline Christian revisionists and editors of the Gospels.

An argument for support of this speculation is that bachelorhood was very rare for Jewish males of Jesus' time, being generally regarded as a transgression of the first mitzvah (divine commandment) - "Be fruitful and multiply". It would have been unthinkable for an adult, unmarried Jew to travel about teaching as a rabbi, as Jesus certainly did.

The Magdalene is not, at any point in any of the Gospels, said to be a prostitute. When she is first mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, she is described as a woman 'out of whom went seven devils'. It is generally assumed that this phrase refers to a species of exorcism on Jesus' part, implying the Magdalene was possessed. But the phrase may equally refer to some sort of conversion and/or ritual initiation.

The cult of Ishtar or Astarte - the Mother Goddess and 'Queen of Heaven' - involved, or example, a seven-stage initiation [the seven veils]. Prior to her affiliation with Jesus, the Magdalene may well have been associated with such a cult. Migdal, or Magdala, was the 'Village of Doves', and there is some evidence that sacrificial doves were in fact bred there. And the dove was the sacred symbol of Astarte.

Eve came from Adam's Rib...NOT! Females should submit to males...NOT! He is her Master...NOT!

This web Master has had the unpleasant experience to sit in a pew and listen to a preacher condemn men for not being the 'ruler' of their household. This preacher shamed these men for not being 'THE MASTER' over his wife!. This is wrong!. Men and women are created equal, to be partners, to share responsibilities and decisions, to love and respect EACH OTHER equally. ONE IS NOT TO ABUSE or MISTREAT THE OTHER.

Jesus said, "God is both male and female, not divided but the Two in One.... In God the masculine is not without the feminine, nor is the feminine without the masculine.... In God the masculine powers and feminine powers are perfectly united as One.
"Verily, God created mankind in the Divine image male and female, and all nature is in the image of God.... In the beginning, God willed and there came forth the First Beloved Son and the First Beloved Daughter, united as Love and Wisdom, created in the Image and Likeness of the Father-Mother, and of these proceed all the generations of the spirits of God, the Sons and Daughters of the eternal....

"Therefore shall the name of the Father and Mother be equally hallowed, for they are the great powers of God....
from..ESSENE CHRISTIANITY VERSUS PAULIANITY

Paul reveals himself to be biased towards women -- indeed, he seems to hate them -- and to be a megalomaniac. ("Megalomania" is a disease of the mind marked by unwarranted feelings of personal superiority, omnipotence and grandeur.)

Peter hated women, in particular Mary Magdalene

The Metaphysical marriage

Church reasoning would say that Christ was already married to the Church, an image that was developed first by Paul in what became the New Testament and then later expanded on by the Church fathers. Some writers, following an early tradition that Jesus is in a mystical sense the second Adam (again beginning with Paul and continuing with Irenaeus and others), embody this sense with literal parallels: like the first Adam, his bride was taken from his side when he had fallen asleep (died on the cross). In medieval Christian anagogic exegesis, the blood and water which came from his side when he was pierced, was held to represent the bringing forth of the Church with its analogy in the water of baptism and the wine of the new covenant. Thus Christ can be said to already have a wife in the Church; and so it would not be considered possible or tolerable to believe that he was otherwise married.

Church Fathers wanted women dominated by men. They used the story of Adam's rib to convince women to be submissive. As we have read on Passage page 1, this is a false doctrine, a lie. Because of this doctrine women and children are abused, raped and treated like possessions. Therefore the CHURCH, those mentioned above, created this false doctrine and lie.

The Laws of Moses

Moses was born of a woman who was married to a man of the house of Levi...at least that's what the gospel tells us. We don't think Moses was a Hebrew at all. We know Aaron was his half-brother so we think only Aaron was Hebrew - of the tribe of Levi. The Hyksos (Shepherd Kings) included Abraham and his family. The Hyksos worshiped Baal and pagan gods which included the bull (of Tauras) we see on the 'Ark' page. Aaron was not brought up in the same household as Moses, so it was easy to convience Aaron to let the people build the 'golden bull' while Moses was gone on the mountain. Moses' idea of who God was, seems to be very different than Aaron's and it took 40 years to try and show them the true God. He really never did but the secret teachings were carried on by Joshua, David and Solomon. Only the 'initiates' knew the truth.

Moses, in the first five books of the bible, is referred to as 'the Pentateuch' in Jewish works, and it is portrayed that he wrote down what he was told by God himself,... so they contend. We have shown that 'The Ten Commandments' were the original Laws of Thoth, written in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, 2000 years before Moses wrote them on a slab of rock. If you've been to Solomon's Temple, What you didn't know.
You saw the first temple decorated with Egyptian figures which shows the real heritage of the teachings.

But Joshua also edited these original works. This intends to show that the Old testament is infact only a portion of the truth, stylized by men like Abraham, Joshua, Isaiah and Ezekiel who professed a Hebrew point of view. We have shown that this view differed with the Nazerine (originally Egyptian) doctrine that Moses, Solomon and Jesus taught. If you read Death of the disciples you saw what the differences were in the religions of the time period.

Then Hebrew writers left out facts about Adam,Seth, Noah, Nimrod, Moses, Solomon, Jesus and Enoch that disconnected them with their true mission and their real religious view point. If you have read all the index and Intro pages, you found what was left out. Sophia, her son, the three Adam's, the Sciences, the real reason Nimrod revolted, what the Priests of Thebes really taught Moses, what Enoch really taught, Solomon's magic, and the equality of women, ie. Eve/Isis. They also misconstrued the sacred sexual union between husband and wife.

The Old Testament of the Bible was written in 1540 BC to 580 BC, before 'Isreal'( God's chosen people ) were controlled by outsiders but they left out important texts that tied Moses to the Essene Nazarene movement. Moses' mission was to restore the teachings of Enoch, but the people wouldn't listen. The men of Rome and Greese changed the "Laws of Moses" by saying these laws were 'outdated'. This resulted in the New Testament, which proclaims that Jesus was God and not human and that he rose to Heaven in the flesh. None of this is true as we explained on Passage page 2 and 3.

This doctrine of death and literal resurrection has been copied from all the old Pagan religions so that the Greeks would "buy" it. However some of the gnostics say that Jesus was only an 'image', a projection of faith and not a real person. If we apply this to the Christ however, it makes sence. If we study the gospel of John we see that Jesus left no footprints when he walked and he could walk through walls. We think Jesus was a real person, but his projected image is what every person believes to be Jesus and that is projected in one's own mind. That doesn't mean Jesus wasn't a real person.... but then his name wasn't really Jesus either.

The name 'Jesus' is a title. The person was real. John the Babtist says so, The Nag Hammidi Scrolls say so, the Dead Sea Scrolls say so, Edgar Cayce says so, Mary Magdalene would have said so, and the brother's of Jesus, Thomas and James said so.
The Romans made up most of the story, part of it is true, part is not. Logic and common sence is the key to find the truth. They copied their Roman Gods and made them into the Jesus of the NT. see Christ's Mission for the truth. Then the Romans also promoted a disrespect for the female in every known aspect of life and they called sex dirty and blamed the women for this so-called sin. As seen above in the words of Jesus, this was not the original lesson.

If you live by 'blind faith', you will be ruled by 'blind faith' and lies. If you question just one little thing, your mind is open to new truths. You can escape from this blind faith prison where you are a slave. Are you too weak to think for yourself? Are you so controlled by some church that you have no right to have your own opinion?

Religion is a mirage of different interpretations. The bible is subject to interpretation by which ever faith you subscribe to. But much of the passages are obvious and do not fall into that category. For example, the below scripture tells us precisely that the societal system we live within is of Satan:
II Corinthians 4:4; "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not." The God of this world is not the true God.

A church leader, father, pastor, priest, rabbi, has control over what you are 'allowed' to believe. If you question anything, you are automatically a sinner. Don't buy into this guilt inducing tactic. Think for yourself and learn.

Many scripture lessons Quote Jesus as saying, "The people are blind, they have eyes but do not see and they have ears but do not hear". The act of blinding someone is bestowing lies upon people so that they spread those lies throughout humanity making everybody believe them. The above scripture tells us specifically that the societal system is that of a liar. In that scenario people wouldnĺt always readily accept the truth because of it conflicting with what they were taught. In fact, they would violently oppose the truth because it means they would have to admit they allowed themselves to be misled and brainwashed by the ones who initiated the societal system they live within.

Satan's two most popular behavioral traits described in the bible are:
A Liar and the father of it: see John 8:44; "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

If people became knowledgeable of Satan's devices he would not be able to control or fool them, therefore one of Satan's goals would be to keep Man ignorant while his demons control society from high places.

Hosea 4:6; "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

Paul: fanatic, heretic, egotist, misogynist... gay?*

After intensive and extensive research, the psychiatrist Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum was able to recreate a detailed portrait of Paul's character in his well-known work 'Genius, Madness and Fame'. Paul was frail, plain and small, yet at the same time harsh, rejecting, impetuous and passionate. His Zeal in the persecution of Christians was a compensation for his own feelings of inadequacy. The vast attraction of Paulinism is the idea of redemption and release from inner crises. Paul had boundless energy and matching ego. He suffered from severe attacks, which he blamed on demons. The latest sources have shown that there may have been a cause for what he often described as "a thorn in the flesh", his own personal cross. He might have suffered tragically from his own homosexuality. His problem caused him great antipathy towards sexuality altogether, and was decisive in his development of an ascetic doctrine of marriage, which has been of formative influence in the base image of sexuality and of women that continued to dominate Christian thinking.

* The editors are not homophobes; we merely suggest that Paul's antisexual, woman hating attitudes may have arisen from his own inability to come to terms with his homosexuality. An alternative interpretation might be that Paul was an epileptic whose 'Vision' was a pre-seizure sensory phenomenon. ..from Paul The First Heretic

Excerpt from Jesus The Son Of Man, Kahlil Gibran

"This day I heard Saul of Tarsus preaching the Christ unto the Jews of this city. He calls himself Paul now, the apostle to the Gentiles. I knew him in my youth, and in those days he persecuted the friends of the Nazarene. Well do I remember his satisfaction when his fellows stoned the radiant youth called Stephen. This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. At times he seems like an animal in the forest, hunted and wounded, seeking a cave wherein he would hide his pain from the world."

"He speaks not of Jesus, nor does he repeat His words. He preaches the Messiah whom the prophets of old had foretold. And though he himself is a learned Jew, he addresses his fellow Jews in Greek; and his Greek halting, and he ill chooses his words. But he is a man of hidden powers and his presence is affirmed by those who gather around him. And at times he assures them of what he himself is not assured. We who knew Jesus and heard His discourses say that;"

He taught man how to break the chains of his bondage that he might be free from his yesterdays. But Paul is forging chains for the man of tomorrow. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the name of one whom he does not know. The Nazarene would have us live the hour in passion and ecstasy. The man of Tarsus would have us be mindful of laws recorded in the ancient books. Jesus gave His breath to the breathless dead. And in my lone nights I believe and I understand. When He sat at the board, He told stories that gave happiness to the feasters, and spiced with His joy the meat and the wine. But Paul would prescribe our loaf and our cup. Suffer me now to turn my eyes the other way.

Elsewhere he is described as "the Lying adversary," and the "Lying Spouter" who "rejects the law in the midst of the whole congregation", "the Tongue" and the "Scoffer/Comedian" who "poured over Israel the waters of lying." LINK ABOVE see..THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF PAUL

More lies...

The next thing we will do is try to show you that the 'brothers' of Jesus were the sons of Cleopas by his wife Mary.

His wife Mary was Joseph's wife and Jesus's mother. There were not 3 Mary's at the foot of the cross only two.

Christian writers say James, Jude, Matthew, Thomas, Jose and Simeon weren't really brothers of Jesus at all, but were called 'brothers' because of the secret society to which they belonged, ( 'the brotherhood' ) or they were Joseph's children before he married Mary..

We now have solid proof that James was a younger step-brother. also see Death of the Disciples, page 2. There are 5 possibly 6 step-brothers; Jude, Jose, James, Matthew and Simeon and there were two step-sisters. There is also a twin brother named Thomas.

In the address of the Epistle of St. Jude, the author styles himself "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James". "Servant of Jesus Christ" means "apostolic minister or labourer". "Brother of James" denotes him as the brother of James 'kat exochen' who was well-known to the Hebrew Christians to whom the Epistle of St. Jude was written.

James the less; This James is to be identified with the Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 13; xxi, 18), spoken of by Paul as "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. i, 19), who was the author of the Catholic Epistle of St. James. and is regarded amongst Catholic interpreters as the Apostle James the son of Alpheus which may be (St. James the Less). but there are two apostles named James. See.. death, page 2

From a fact of Hegesippus told by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xix, xx, xxii) we learn that Jude was "said to have been the brother of the Lord according to the flesh", and that two of his grandsons lived till the reign of Trajan. see.. BRETHREN OF THE LORD)

Now some writers have said that these other sons and daughters are the sons and daughters of Joseph by his first marriage. His first wife died. He was 90 years old when he married Mary. When Joseph died, the brother of Joseph who was Cleopas, would have been responsible for the care of Mary and the children ie. Jesus and Thomas.

This is then explained as, James is Jesus's step brother. OPPS, what? step--!! How can this be? We thought Mary was a virgin forever! Think again. Then who is James's real Father? We feel it might be Cleopas, with out this explaination this then gives the illogical appearance that Jesus is divine from the beginning.

The Nag tells another story. Mary is the mother of all the brothers and sisters. Proof below ....
God is the Father of the Christ who is speaking from the 'body' of Jesus. So when he speaks of the 'Father' he does mean God. Jesus the man, however has a 'human' father, not the Holy Spirit, not God in that sence.

Jesus states over and over, that he is the 'son of man'. This means he was Not devine from the beginning. He had a twin brother who was mortal. Jesus was a mortal man. The Essene community where Jesus and his mother lived clearly explains the conception of Jesus. But then we have a problem in 'who' is James' father? And in this instance, 'Step' can only refer to different fathers. Jesus' family Tree Joseph dies, Mary is later married to Cleopas who is Joseph's brother. Luke 24:18, John 19:25. There is no other 'Mary'.

With this information involved, We told you that James and Jesus were at odds. James was favored by the Zealots. Jesus was considered King by the Zodak Jewish priestly line. There possibly was fierce competition between the two. The competition was obviously caused by the difference of religious beliefs the two taught to the people. Jesus at one point announced himself as both the Kingly and Priestly Messiah combined, which is basically true. This is true because his mother is of the Aaron, 'Priestly' bloodline, his father the Royal 'Kingly' bloodline of David. There is no other possible way Jesus could have announced this as his title. This tells us then that Jesus' father was indeed Joseph, not god physically.
When Jesus was susposedly cruisified, James takes over and announces his rights on the steps of the Jerusalem Temple. But his bloodline is also of David, so he has this right, as his father, the Brother of Joseph, is a descendent of King David and therefore Moses. Some writers say Jesus and James did not get along until the last days before the cruicifixtion.

Proof of the possibility of Step Brothers: from.. The words of James in the Nag Hammidi scrolls; "Once when I was sitting deliberating, he opened the door. That one whom you hated and persecuted came in to me. He said to me, "Hail, my brother; my brother, hail." As I raised my face to stare at him, (my) mother said to me, "Do not be frightened, my son, because he said 'My brother' to you (sg.). For you (pl.) were nourished with this same milk. Because of this he calls me "My mother". For he is not a stranger to us. He is your step-brother [...].
..from the 2nd Apocalypse of James They conveniently cut out the name. This proves three points; James is the son of Mary and Jesus and James are brothers.

Someone ( the 'YOU' above ) must have hated Jesus and had to have had Jesus prosecuted because of his so-called pagan teachings. It also tells us that Jesus was 'away' at school for many years and really didn't know James because James was very young when Jesus left. Somehow, possibly before the so-called crucifixtion, James was initiated and taught the secret work also. In Thomas's words, The people were told by Jesus not to believe anyone other than 'his brother' James.

Who is the someone who had him persecuted? Is he talking to Paul? The catholic encyclopedia verifies Paul knew James, they didn't get along. In his own descriptions Paul says James the less is in fact the 'brother' of Jesus. KJB; Acts, clearly indicates Paul and the disciples did not get along resulting in James being stoned. ..complete details on The Death of James

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a small portion in Aramaic (parts of the books of Daniel, Ezra, and Jeremiah). The text of the Hebrew Bible (called the Masoretic text, see Masora) had been standardized by the 10th cent. A.D., but the only existing Hebrew texts of biblical books before this time have been found at Qumran.

The canon of the Septuagint included the books of the later Hebrew canon, with the addition of several others, most of which were those now reckoned deuterocanonical by Roman Catholics and apocryphal by Protestants.

At the Reformation, Protestant bodies withdrew recognition of the canonicity of those portions of the Old Testament that appeared in the Vulgate but not in the Masoretic canon, although the English church considered them (i.e., the deuterocanonical books) suitable for instruction and edification, but not for establishing or confirming doctrine. To set these books clearly apart, the translators who produced the Authorized Version assembled them in the Apocrypha as an appendix to the Old Testament. Thus the Protestant canon became exactly like the Masoretic, except that it retained the order of the books as they appeared in the Vulgate.

They say it is more likely, that it was only in the days of the tribal league that the 12 tribes were first brought together. In the 10th cent. B.C. the first of a series of editors collected materials from earlier traditional folkloric and historical records (i.e., both oral and written sources) to compose a narrative of the history of the Hebrews who now found themselves united under David and Solomon.

Stemming from differing traditions originating among those living in what was later the northern kingdom of Israel and those in the southern kingdom of Judah, we can trace two dominant compilations, known as the E (preferring the epithet Elohim for God) and the J (preferring the epithet Yahweh), respectively. These were combined by a Judaean some time after the fall of the northern kingdom and are to be found inextricably associated in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, First and Second Samuel, and First and Second Kings. According to scholars, this combined JE narrative is the bulk of the earlier Old Testament. Neither one of these is the true God. As we have read, The God of Good has a secret name and only those who are worthy will receive it.

The New Testament was written by 'Men' who were living under Roman rule. Isreal was also controlled by Persia and Greece ( 450 - 325BC ) Alexander the great wanted to 'Hellenize' the world, which means 'Greek'. He died suddenly in 323BC.

The New Testament was written in Greek during the time when The Roman Emperor Constantine controlled everything ( 313AD. ) The Nicene Creed was produced by a council in the city of Nicaea. This creed 'legalized' Christinity, but only under Roman control and with a heavy price-tag..

The New Testament, is the distinctively Christian portion of the Bible, consisting of 27 books of varying lengths dating from the earliest Christian period. The seven epistles whose authorship by St. Paul is undisputed were written between 50A.D. and 60 A.D. Most of the remaining books were written in the era A.D. 70-100, often incorporating earlier traditions, which included the pagan tradition of a dying and rising savoir and a virgin birth.

Patristic literature, Christian writings of the first few centuries. They are chiefly in Greek and Latin; there is analogous writing in Syriac and in Armenian. The first period of patristic literature (1st-2d cent.) includes the works of St. Clement I, ( St. Clement was the first Christian writer to use the myth of the phoenix as an allegory of the Resurrection which actually means 'rebirth and renewal'. But they turned this around and called it heritical.)

Marcion c.85-c.160, early Christian bishop, founder of the Marcionites, one of the first great Christian heresies to rival Catholic Christianity. He taught that there were two gods, proclaiming that the stern, lawgiving, creator God of the Old Testament, and the good, merciful God of the New Testament were different. He considered the creator god the inferior of the two. Marcion also rejected the real incarnation of Christ, claiming that he was a manifestation of the Father. Though generally seen as one of the most important leaders of the somewhat loosely defined movement known as Gnosticism, he did not share some of the main premises of other Gnostic sects. He believed in salvation by faith rather than by gnosis; he rejected the Gnostic emanation theory. The concept of emanation is that all derived or secondary things proceed or flow from the more primary.

Marcus Aurelius, spoke of the soul as an aporrhoia of God, but this means a part of God, not an emanation from an undiminished source. The first real mention of the doctrine in Greek or Hellenistic philosophy is in the Wisdom of Solomon, where wisdom is described as " the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence (aporrhoia) flowing from the glory of the Almighty." These and the following expressions may, indeed, be poetical, not involving a personification of wisdom apart from the Godhead; but the way in which wisdom is spoken of throughout the book makes for the conception of an independent cosmic power which is an efflux from the Godhead.

These interpertations at first were considered truth, but these men changed religion as we know it forever.

The Lies that hold you prisoner

The Hebrew works, after the first 2 chapters are not based on the 'Laws of Moses'. They are based on a 'New beginning' that shows Moses and the priests sacrificing animals which Enoch said they must not do. Animals and all of Nature belongs to God. Leviticus also shows the slavery of mankind and a God called Jehovah. This God instills fear in the people and says they must obey him. This God requires the finest linens, gold, jewels, silver and the best of everything to be worn by the priests. In Exodus 4: 24, this God has Zipporah, Moses's wife circumsising her young son under the threat of killing Moses. This is in complete contridiction to Enoch's teachings which were given to him directly by God..

(Genesis 9:3-7) Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4. Only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat. 5. And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. 6. Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God's image he made man. 7. And as for YOU men, be fruitful and become many, make the earth swarm with YOU and become many in it." Notice it says, "he", referring to someone else. The rest of the narritive says,"I".

Blood was at the very heart of the Mosaic law with it's system of animal sacrifices and had great significance in the life of an Israelite since the pouring out of it in sacrifice could temporarily atone for sin. Clearly then blood was sacred. By pouring it out upon the ground and covering it an Israelite hunter showed his respect for the life he had taken by divine permission. Additionally, an animal properly bled would in fact be dead and the hunter would be in compliance with the command found at Gen. 9:4 which as we have learned essentially meant it was wrong to eat a living animal. Finally, by not eating blood, the Israelite would show his appreciation for the significance of the blood used in the temple arrangement of animal sacrifice.

(Leviticus 17:10, 11, Tanakh) God then explained what a hunter was to do with a dead animal: He shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth...You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off. (Leviticus 17:13, 14, Tanakh)... ........While the law about blood had health aspects, much more was involved. Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God." Genesis 9 and the Eternal Covenant

Then the followers of Paul did this.."Consequently, the texts from the law of Moses do not in any of themselves have any bearing on whether or not it would be appropriate for a Christian to use blood. The Mosaic law was nailed to the stake along with Christ. It is null and void and of no force or effect whatsoever. To argue otherwise is to deny the simple truths clearly stated through out Paul's writings in the Greek scriptures or N.T". ( they are putting Paul's writings, or 'new laws' above the Laws of Moses )

Repeated from The Disciples, "After the Maccabeans drove the Syrians out of Palestine, the Hellenstic Jews went into hiding. They formed a new sect called Sadducees or saddig. This means righteous or that it comes from the priestly name Zakok, since the Sadducees were connected with the temple priesthood. They accepted only the written laws of Moses, and condemed any teaching that was not based on the written word. They rejected the Pharisaic belief in angles, demons, and resurrection after death. Thus they opposed Jesus when He agreed with the Pharisees. The new formation of Sadducees adopted the beliefs of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who said that the soul dies with the body. However they taught that each person was the master of his own fate."

This was the beginning of many changes to suit the Gentiles. see Epheisans 2:15, that says, "By his death he ended the angry resentment between us, caused by the Jewish laws which favored the Jews and excluded the Gentiles, for he died to annul that whole system of Jewish laws. Then he took the two groups that had been opposed to each other and made them parts of himself, thus he fused them together to become one new person, and at last there was piece".
There has never been piece and if anything there is even more hatred between the groups, because this heathen, Paul created every lie imagineable to suit his own goals, the demands of Rome and the goals of the Sadduces who still wouldn't let the Gentiles in the Temple. Since the Romans and Greeks were considered Gentiles, the laws were changed to suit them and this was Paul's doing.

The opposing factions therefore each had a different messiah to support. The orthodox jews supported James, the younger step brother of Jesus, while the Hellenists ( Greeks ) supported Jesus. Jesus admitted some Greeks, Zealots and even a Roman guard into the 'brotherhood', which the disciples disapproved of. James was established as the High Priest by the Zealots who were in direct opposition to the pro-Roman Boethusean and Sadducean high priests, who had control of the temple.

Jesus taught that the dead would live again ( Luke 14:14 - John 11:25 )(but this doesn't have anything to do with a resurrection of the body.) The Pharisees taught that righteous people would live again after death ( Acts 23:8 ) while the wicked would be punished for eternity. Not many Jewish groups accepted this view. Instead they accepted the Greek and Persian idea that death permanentely seperated the soul from the body and death was final.

Jesus' ministry was not what it seemed. The Jews hated the Romans and the Christ of the NT displayed a hatred against the Sadducean Jews most solemn day, which was what they called Easter. Indeed, the King James Version at Acts 12:4 has been deliberately misstranslated to read Easter instead of Passover. To suggest that Christ would permit the Church to replace the feasts of the plan of salvation with pagan festivals when the feasts were instituted by him under instruction from God appears extraordinary and unsound. He was only professedly following the Creator, as being His Christ [Messiah], in this very hatred of the Sabbath; for He exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah:
'Your new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hateth'.
(Bacchiocchi in From Sabbath To Sunday: A Historical Investigation into the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity, The Pontifical Gregorian University Press, Rome, 1977

Jesus was not born in a town called Bethlehem. He was born in a 'cave' and it is called the Bethlehem Cave. It is about a kilometre south of the Qumran platue. see.. Jesus page 1 Jesus was born during the reign of high priest Simon Boethus who was in power between 23 to 1 B.C. see Jesus' birth, March 1st,7 BC The cave of Jesus' birth and the Magi

Jesus had been born into an environment of controversy over whether or not he was legitimate. ( the pregnancy before the marriage ) Because of this Joseph and Mary took him to 'Simon the Gabriel' the high priest, for legitimizing under the law. Despite this the jews were split into two camps. Some supported his status in the kingly line while others opposed it.

Jesus had been born at the wrong time of the year according to the prevailing Jewish Church rules.. His brother James had been born within all the rules and there was certainly no disputing his legitimacy.

In A.D. 32 when cannonized writers say Joseph died it became important to resolve the dispute. Jesus knew that tradition had prophesied a messiah who would lead the people to salvation so Jesus came forward into the public domain promising to give the people their messiah. He gathered his disciples, appointed the twelve apostles and began his ministry. This ministry was never portrayed correctly or truthfully. Keep in mind Jesus never said he was devine. The Jews would have stoned him.

The man known as Jesus was born on March 1st, 7BC on the Spring soltice. In order to regulize his status he was allocated the official birthday of 15 September in line with the Messianic requirment. His actual birthday was required to be with the Spring equinox and was planned by the Essenes to be part of a ritual of 're-birth and renewal' and as in the Zadokite tradition was aligned to the rising of Venus in it's first cycle.

The true birthday of Jesus was changed again by a Roman and actually falls on a date that celebrated a pagan holiday, in which this Roman took part. It was in A.D. 314 the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, changed the date of Jesus's birthday to December 25. Sad to say this date is still believed by many to be his birthdate.

Constantine had two reasons for making the change. Firstly it separated the Christian celebration from any Jewish association. In doing so Constantine was trying to suggest Jesus was a Christian, not a Jew.

The second reason was so that the new birthdate of Jesus would coincide with and then eventually replace the Pagan Sun Festival. The reality is that December 25th was the Pagan Sun Festival day. Constantine, until on his death bed, worshiped the pagan Sun God. This holiday also fell on the birthday of Horus, the widow's son, of Egyptian Mythology.

Even the birth of Caesar Augustus was described by sycophants of his day (writing at the time of Christ's birth) in words almost identical to that used in the bible: "saviour of the whole human race", destined to bring "peace on earth", his arrival bringing "glad tidings to the world".
As for the star, the birth of Buddha was heralded by one, and wise men were told of his coming. The massacre of innocents, trying to find the newborn child dangerous to a leader, crops up in many religions. Thus endeth the lesson of the secularists.

Every year more than three hundred and fifty Catholic and Protestant sects observe Easter Sunday, celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God who called himself the Son of Man. So too do the Russian and Greek Orthodox churches, but on a separate calendar. Such is the schism between East and West within Christendom regarding this day, which always falls on the ancient Sabbath, once consecrated to the 'Invisible Sun', the sole source of all life, light and energy.

We also learned that Jesus' real name was interupted to be Yahoshua ben Joseph, meaning 'savior the son of Joseph'. In Hebrew the word Jesus means 'saviour'. Actual Fact: There were many people called 'Jesus', but when Constantine took over, He used a Hebrew tranlation of the word 'savior' to invent a 'Jesus' the way he wanted him to appear. Every Governor/High Priest of The Nazerine sect with the required royal bloodlines was called 'Jesus', but it meant 'Teacher of the Righteous' or Governor. He was the person in charge of teaching the 'Laws of Moses'. from..[ Gospel of Philip #20a.) Yesh˙a is a secret name, 'Christ' is a name which means 'anointed'.. We found that every anointed king of the Priestly line was called Christ even and including James the Less, the brother of Jesus. Thus Yesh˙a does not occur in any (other) languages, but rather his name is Yesh˙a as he is called. Yet his name Christ in Aramaic░ is Messiah░, but in Ionian░ is: CRISTOS. Altogether, it is in all the other languages according to each one('s word for anointed░).

There was somebody named Jesus ben Levi - Josephus says so....but was this a later addition?

From the 'Jesus Page' we also know Jesus, James and the disciples were not Christian nor did they become Christians, in the sence it is known today. Again Christianity was invented by men; by Romans; and by the lier and Roman Paul, the so-called church fathers and the Roman Emperor Constantine. Saul was a Hebrew name which he changed to the Roman name Paul because it sounded like his Hebrew name ( Saul )...He changed to a Roman name because he was a Roman 'operative'.

(See the article of that name by John Reumann in Understanding the Sacred Text, p.183.)( They were not Christians ) "In Josephus we at least have a brief reference to him which is very unlikely to be a forgery (Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 5), but he makes no link of John to a Christian sect, let alone a Jesus. Reumann (p.183, following Enslin) suggests that "John and Jesus probably never met," that John was introduced into the Gospel story to serve as the messenger who was widely expected to herald the coming of the Lord."
This is not entirely true! see Jesus page 1 . Josephus' writings do show a Jesus and a John "together". This was copied from the writings of Joseph, War book 4, chapter 4... see Josephus' writings The Catholics however believe in a St. John, but John was not Christian.

Malachi prophecied the coming of Elijah to prepare for Yahweh's arrival to establish the Kingdom.
( Elijah IS 'incarnate' in John the Babtist and he did prepare for Yahweh's arrival, but again referring to a false god. ) Yahweh is not Christ.

..quote from.. THE JESUS PUZZLE ( Even in this negative comment we see the confirmation of the Gospel Q which is the Qumran Community Rule; from the Jesus page 2. Also note they believe the person of John is a figure of imagination.)
The evangelists needed an actual historical figure (since Elijah himself they say, had not put in an appearance) to herald Jesus' coming. Actually, John first appears in Q, before any of the Gospels were written, and if we look at the layer Q2, we can see that in the earliest thinking, John was regarded as heralding the new preaching of the Kingdom as conducted by the Qumran community itself. Only later when a founding Jesus was developed did the figure of John have to be aligned with him and serve as his herald.

( the comment that Elijah did not appear is, according to the Christ's word's in the Nag Hammidi collection, false. ) This appears to be a Jews view of the realness of the person named Jesus and Negative commentary like this sometimes reveals the truth.

James's name in Hebrew was J'acov, or Jacob also meaning 'saviour'. When Jesus went on trial there was a man called 'Barabbas'. See Matthew 27:16...This word also means Jesus. 'Bar', meaning 'son of', and 'Abba', meaning, 'father', refering to The Father who is GOD. Barabbas is not a personal name - in Aramaic it means "the Son of my Father". Some old manuscripts of Matthew, confirmed by the writings of the church father, Origen, reveal the full name of the criminal - it is Jesus Barabbas!

The gospels are written so that we do not see the entire story. They want us to believe that Pilate offers the crowd the choice of Jesus Barabbas, the crook, or Jesus "Bar Abbas", the son of his father, God. If we look at the gospel according to Matthew (27:17), Pilate asks the multitude: "Which Jesus will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas or 'Bar Abbas'?" The crowd replied, "Bar Abbas" - or, as Christians writers changed it to..., "Barabbas"?
But there is something else you don't know,..Jesus has an identical twin brother named Thomas. There is also somebody else here named Simon who is arrested.

So here we have Jesus 'The King of the Jews', and Jesus 'The Son of God', who was James. Since the two words originally were 'Jesus Barabbas' and the first name was deleted from the Gospel of Matthew so as to establish Gentile beliefs. Again changed by Romans. It was easy to do this since Jesus and James may have been on opposite sides of the fence in terms of religious beliefs. Jesus claimed full authority as High Priest on the Zodak side, while James claimed it for the Zealots. At one point Jesus claimed both the Kingly and Priestly rule. When Jesus was susposedly executed, James then steps forward and claims full rights on the steps of the Jerusalem Temple.
As mentioned on the 'Jesus page', There were always two Messiah's , The Kingly and the Priestly, or the Master and the High Priest. Jesus was the Master or King and James was the High Priest after John the Baptist was beheaded.

Mark, in the earliest gospel, firmly identifies 'Barabbas' as a rioter who had committed murder during an insurrection, ( this murder we think, is committed by Simon who is described as evil ) and Luke adds that the insurrection had occurred in Jerusalem itself! The gospels are here hiding something remarkable. At the very time that 'gentle' Jesus of Nazareth was entering Jerusalem hailed as a king, by coincidence a fellow called Barabbas was leading a revolution! Josephus says there was a man named Jesus ben Levi who is executed for insurrection. But was he really executed? Does 'executed' mean 'nailed to a tree'? Cruisified?
Since Barabbas/James was more popular with the crowd, he was chosen to be released. Barabbas was not the name of a criminal, but to Pilatus , James most likely was called one when he was presented to the crowd. If this story is part of the Josephus tale,
the Romans capture James, Simon, and Jesus and present them all to Pilatus. The difference is, the Matthew writers conveniently leave out Simon.

It is a fact that James had made a public claim to the right to be in the Temple as High Priest and this would have been most politically dangerous as it included the overthrow of the Roman rule of Pontius Pilatus.

(in the Gnostic text), knowledge is the means of salvation; the God of this world (SATAN), is evil and ignorant, and can be identified with the God of the Old Testament; in addition, all his minions are mere counterfeits and laughingstocks. The interpretation of the cruixfiction is that of the Gnostic Basilides as presented by the heresiologist Irenaeus: Simon of Cyrene is crucified in the place of the laughing Jesus."(Also---Gospel of Barnabas) This is backed up by the Nag Hammidi Scrolls, in the The Second Treatise of the Great Seth nineth paragraph. "And I was laughing at their ignorance."

James was the priestly Messiah , therefore in line ( as High Priest ) next to the 'Father', making him also 'Son of the Father' and 'Son of God'. Something to ponder, "Son of God" is not a literal meaning, it refers to the ONE who is appointed to teach God's Word.

After the dispersal of the Jerusalem Church, the step to divinity would have been easier for the remaining gentile followers. Nevertheless even Paul and the epistle writers were hesitant, using expressions like "the image of god" rather than leaping in with full blown divinity. Ignatius of Antioch, at the turn of the first century AD, felt able to refer to Jesus as "our god".

The title 'Son of God' today implies divinity because, from the Council of Nicaea, that is how the Christians defined it. Yet scholars largely agree that Jesus never referred to himself as Son of God and the concept never played a part in his teaching. In the gospels it never occurs in narration but only in confessions. In the Psalms of Solomon everyone led in righteousness as the Holy People of the Messiah are Sons of God. Thus it was used of the just or saintly men known as Hasidim. Hanina ben Dosa was a Son of God. Correspondingly, the Hasidim were likely to call God Abba, father. The Psalms of Solomon, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha have every indication of deriving from the Qumran Community and it is not impossible that the New Covenanters thought of themselves all as Sons of God. Jesus, if he were an Essene, might therefore have been a Son of God in this sense.

The formula for anointing a king or a priest was to use the term "only begotten" or "beloved" son, so in this sense Jesus certainly was the Son of God. Many New Testament cases of the use of "Son of God" occur in descriptions of miracles. The reason is that miracles were concocted to disguise the actions taken by Jesus's supporters when someone was indiscreet enough to call Jesus a Son of God, which would give away the secret aims of the Nazarene band.

Since the title 'Son of God' applied to a Hasid or an anointed king, it also applied to the Messiah, who was a holy king, but Jesus could still not have been thought of as a god, that was blasphemy, and none of the synoptic gospels unequivocally say it. Once he was thought of as Messiah, Jesus as an Essene (who considered themselves appointed by God from before the creation) would easily have been identified then with the pre-existent Messiah, already accepted by some Jewish thinkers.

When Luke speaks of perverting the nation he is referring to the Roman law of Laesae Majestat is whereby the assumption of the power of the government without authority was punishable by death. The gospels state clearly that Jesus defied the civic authorities. He overthrows the tables in the temple court and controls access into it because he refuses, in Mark, to allow anyone to carry anything through it. Under his regime Jesus taught daily in the temple implying a continuous period of occupation of at least several days. The parable of the vineyard and the husbandmen told the enthusiastic audience that Israel would soon be under new management.

Some fragments of an unknown gospel and of Josephus even say that Jesus officiated as a priest, entering the Holy Place, implying both that Jesus had the role of an alternative priest and that he was in a position to play it because the temple had been captured. The only people who maintained a priestly tradition outside the temple Priesthood were the community at Qumran, guardians of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Commentators on the gospels try to find in Jesus's audience both collaborators and nationalists so that one or the other would be offended by Jesus's answer. Taking the Pharisees to be collaborators, they identify Mark's Herodians with Jewish nationalists-people of the philosophy of the real Jesus. Yet the Herods were Roman puppets! It is true that Josephus tells us that the Essenes were favoured by Herod the Great but the discoveries at Qumran suggest quite the opposite. Nobody is certain who the Herodians were, but their name must imply associations with the detested puppet kings. They were allies of the Romans and allies of the Sadducees and might have been the Sadducees by another name. There is no need to look for explicit mention of nationalists and collaborators-they were there. The band accompanying Jesus were nationalists-the inquisitors were collaborators.

Depicted as part of Jesus's confrontation with the Jewish authorities-Mark places this episode in the temple. But Pharisees would not defile the temple with unclean coin - it was against the Law of Moses. In the same episode related in Luke 20:19-26 it was the Chief Priests who posed the question. This seems more likely. The Sadducees were out and out collaborators, kept wealthy out of the temple tax, paid by all Jews, and the sale of sacrificial animals. As agents of the occupying power they were the real enemies of Jesus.

Note that the priests address Jesus as one who teaches the way of God in truth. They state categorically that he is an Essene. More see..The trial of Jesus

You have to consider this; James and Jesus are of the Royal bloodline of King David. By Jewish right, and the laws of Moses, they are heir to the throne of Isreal. But we have a Jewish monarchy ran by the opposite fraction of Jewish priests who have taken over the Temple and of cource oppose anything that Jesus or James said. They are now seperated and butting heads while a war of hate against the Romans is in progress.

By mounting an insurrection James/Barabbas had committed a political crime against the Church and against the Roman state. Pilate would have had to report such a serious crime, and his response to it, to the Emperor himself. He could have found no excuse for letting such a man off - he had no say in the matter. Rebellion was a capital crime requiring the lowest form of death - crucifixion. Yet the New Testament tells the world it was gentle Jesus of Nazareth who was unjustly crucified while Pilate himself committed treason against the Emperor by releasing the leader of a revolution. The War Scroll from the Dead sea Scrolls is about this hatred of the Romans.. The War Scroll

Paul delibertly discredits the Disciples

The 'brothers' are specifically chosen! How can they be discredited later by the Lier Paul?

John 14:22 Judas said to him," Why are you going to reveal yourself to us disciples and not the world at large?" 23, Jesus replied," Because I only reveal myself to those that love me and obey me". John 15:16 - "You didn't choose me , I chose You! I appointed you to go and produce lovely fruit always"
John 15:20 - "So since they persecuted me, naturally they will persecute you". 21 - "The people of the world will persecute you because you belong to me, for they don't know God who sent me." 27 - "And you also must tell everyone about me, because you have been with me from the beginning".

John 16:2 "For you will be excommunicated from the synagogues, and indeed the time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing God a service". John 17:11 "Now I am leaving the world, and leaving them behind, and coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your own care- all those you have given me- so that they will be united just as we are with none missing". John 17: 24 "Father, I want them with me - these you've given me - so that they can see my glory.."

Jesus told the disciples to "call no man father except God." "(You are) the one to whom I say: Hear and understand - for a multitude, when they hear, will be slow witted. But you, understand as I shall be able to tell you. Your father is not my father. But my father has become a father to you".
The secret sayings of Jesus

He also tells them ( the disciples ) to call no man 'brother'. This is a christian insertion. However they do not explain that the word 'brother' was reserved for Initiates only. See Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus denies knowing his family. Luke 14: 26, has Jesus telling the disciples to HATE their families or they cannot follow him. This is nonsence!
Jesus as a man, had human brothers and sisters . The one who was closest to him was Thomas, then James, Jose Juda or Jude, Simeon, and Salome and Miriam are his sisters. Jesus had a twin brother ..reference Mark 15:40 , Galatians 1:19, Mark 6:3, John 19:25... Further discussion of the Disciples begins on The Disciples

Thomas 39. Yesh˙a says: The clergy║ and the theologians║ have received the keys of recognition, but they have hidden them. did not enter, nor did they permit those to enter who wished to. Yet you- become astute as serpents and pure as doves. (Mt 5:20, 23:1-39, =Lk 11:52, =Mt 10:16)

Quote from the Catholic encyclopedia that shows solid proof the scriptures were changed to benefit the Catholic beliefs.
"The Apostles acted upon their Master's directions. All the weight of their own Divine faith and mission is brought to bear upon innovators. "If any one", says St.Paul, "preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema" (Gal., i, 9). To St. John the heretic is a seducer, an antichrist, a man who dissolves Christ (I John, iv, 3; II John, 7); "receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you" (II John, 10).
St. Peter, true to his office and to his impetuous nature, assails them as with a two-edged sword: " . . . lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction".
from..VI. CHRIST, THE APOSTLES, AND THE FATHERS ON HERESY
"What Paul did at Corinth he enjoins to be done by every bishop in his own church. Thus Timothy is instructed to "war in them a good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith". Anotherwords, the 'faith' they created.

This is how they did it..."At the beginning it worked without special organization. The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command. When erroneous doctrines gathered volume and threatened disruption of the Church, the bishops assembled in councils, provincial, metropolitan, national, or ecumenical. There the combined weight of their authority was brought to bear upon what they called false doctrines. The first council was a meeting of the Apostles at Jerusalem in order to put an end to the judaizing tendencies among the first Christians.
It is the type of all succeeding councils: bishops in union with the head of the Church, and guided by the Holy Ghost, sit as judges in matters of faith and morals. ....Only THEIR rules applied to morals and faith.

Then they inserted this.."This early piece of legislation reproduces the still earlier teaching of Christ: "And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican" (Matt., xviii, 17); it also inspires all subsequent anti-heretical legislation". Jesus did not care what any church said!!!ie, "rules made by men".

Laying down the law of "control"..."When Constantine had taken upon himself the office of lay bishop, episcopus externus, and put the secular arm at the service of the Church, the laws against heretics became more and more rigorous. Under the purely ecclesiastical discipline no temporal punishment could be inflicted on the obstinate heretic, except the damage which might arise to his personal dignity through being deprived of all intercourse with his former brethren. But under the Christian emperors rigorous measures were enforced against the goods and persons of heretics. From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State.

"In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons; all intercourse was forbidden to be held with them; they were deprived of all offices of profit and dignity in the civil administration, while all burdensome offices, both of the camp and of the curia, were imposed upon them; they were disqualified from disposing of their own estates by will, or of accepting estates bequeathed to them by others; they were denied the right of giving or receiving donations, of contracting, buying, and selling; pecuniary fines were imposed upon them; they were often proscribed and banished, and in many cases scourged before being sent into exile. In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome.

Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichaeans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned." ( Vide "Codex Theodosianus", lib. XVI, tit. 5, "De Haereticis".)

continued on Lies 3



Site Map Main page
The Disciples The Widow's Son
The Death of the Disciples, page 2 The Death of James
The Secret of the Great Pyramid of Gaza John the Baptist
The Essenes The real Jesus
Masonic Rules in the Dead Sea Scrolls Solomon's Secrets
www.nostradamus Jesus Silenced
Forbidden Forward The False Church
Solomon Fake Shroud of Turin

Search this site


powered by FreeFind

Our search Engine does not search for the links in this site, only words in the text.

GrahamHancock.com


NO PART OF THIS SITE MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE WEBMASTER... ę COPYRIGHT 1999 - 2008 C.I.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


This page has been visited Times since December 29th, 1999