Traduzca esta pßgina al espa˝ol
Traduire Cette Page A Franšais
▄bersetzen Sie Diese Seite Zu Deutsch
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
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
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
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.
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
(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
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
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
The Catholics however believe in a St. John, but John was not
Malachi prophecied the coming of
Elijah to prepare for Yahweh's arrival to establish
( 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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!
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)
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
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".
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
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
Search this site
Our search Engine does not search for the links in this site, only words in the text.
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