Gospel Inconsistencies That there would be discrepancies in independent accounts of the life and passion of Jesus is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is that between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics there is almost no agreement. The genealogies which were added later to Matthew and Luke, to give credence to Jesus' Messianic claims, are not the same as you would expect if you were talking about the same person. There is also no agreement among the Synoptics concerning the birth or resurrection of Jesus. However, only between the time of the baptism and the empty tomb narrative, the Gospel narratives contain no major discrepancies. The most consistent part of the narrative in each gospel deals with the arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion of Jesus. This section and only this section of the gospel accounts were likely what was written by Apollonius, Damis and Lucius. Everything else including the resurrection accounts, the ascension, the genealogies and the virgin birth were interpolations made by the second century authors. Since neither Apollonius nor Damis were of Jewish birth, it is obvious that the authors had to turn elsewhere for those elements on the lives of other individuals. Candidates for this would be elements taken from the lives of the Essene 'Teacher of Righteousness' and of the Davidian Yeshai beth Halachmee who could very well have been the Sadduc who reorganized the Essene community at Khirbet-Qumran c 4 BCE. The conflicting genealogies could very well have been theirs. While some may think that the genealogies reflect the work of Judaizing (Essene) Christians, my take is that it was the Romans who wanted to remove the Jewish Messianic title to Rome, much in the manner as it is stated in the balsam analogy of Pliny the Elder. The genealogies show no comprehension of Jewish laws of accession. While it is possible that there was a staged 6 hour crucifixion, it is highly unlikely that there actually was a ministry. Many of the accounts during this time frame could reflect events taken from the life and execution of the Essene 'Teacher.' This would more readily explain Jesus' strong opposition to the Pharisaic Jews in Matthew which is the most Jewish of the 4 gospels. Much as Atwill suspected it was Vespasian and the Flavians who were responsible for creating the Christian scriptures much as in the manner envisioned by the Pisos. According to John W. Marshall, 'Revelations' was originally composed c 69-70 CE and is representative of an early Judaic Christianity. The basis for this dating is the vision of the siege of Jerusalem and the prediction that it would last much longer than it actually did, which indicates that it must have been written during that time frame. Hence the faulty prophecy. The 7 heads of the beast represent the Roman emperors with the 8th Vespasian identified as the anti Christ and Paul as the false prophet. The question is, "Why would Apollonius, who claimed to be the author of 'Reveleations' via automatic writing, identify himself as the 'False Prophet?'" Simple, at that time there was no Paul. Apollonius did not know that he was Paul. The life and nature of Paul were a second century creation taken from the life of Rabbi Elisha and a certain Saul, an avaricious Herodian aristocrat, borrowed from Josephus. 'Revelations' was then revised and published near the end of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian. Adela Collins, a theologian at the University of Notre Dame, referring to Pliny 'Natural History' 4.69-70; Tacitus 'Annals' 4.30, writes: "Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished." In his testimony in "Antiquities Unveiled" Apollonius claims that he voluntarily retired to the Isle of Patmos c 69 CE, or the year after it is claimed by the Church in "Acts of Paul" that he was beheaded. "When Vespasian was emperor, Apollonius supported and counselled him so long as he worthily tried to follow out his instructions; but when he deprived the Greek cities of their privileges, he immediately rebuked the Emperor to his face. 'You have enslaved Greece,' he wrote him. 'You have reduced a free people to slavery.'"—Dr. R. W. Bernard, "Apollonius the Nazarene, Part 9. It is this insolent behavior, on the part of Apollonius, that could very well have gotten him banished to the Isle of Patmos. In all liklihood, it was Apollonius, Damis and Lucius who were responsible for writing the Gospel according to Mark. Since everything written about Jesus, was invented then the author of Matthew would have to possess a clear understanding, not only, of exactly what theological positions were being taken, but also the life story of Jesus according in the gospel. Therefore, the author could not have been a stranger to the Gospel of Mark or its meaning. The author is also slavish in his reliance on Mark, indicating that he was in agreement with it for the most part. He is also knowledgeable enough to elaborate on the outcome of events which were still not clear when Mark was written. Anyhow, the author makes it abundantly clear as to exactly who he is by identifying himself as the person who was actually crucified, therefore the author could only have been Simon Magus/Paul/Apollonius. It is in Matthew and only in Matthew that Jesus, referring to his 'Beloved Disciple" Damis states: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."—Matthew 16:18. Now. it is quite possible that Apollonius only wrote Matthew as an updated version of Mark, from his Apollonius' perspective, and did not intend it to be a separate gospel. Remember, from the testimopny of Pilate that he only crucified one person named Jesus, that person giving his name as Jesus ben Onanias. This bungling of the name, Onias, could have been either a misunderstanding on the part of Pilate or an error by the medium. However, I strongly doubt that Jesus would not have known his own family tree, but someone, like Apollonius (Simon of Cyrene), posing as Jesus might have been uncertain as to the exact pronunciation. This could explain why Apollonius included the lineage of Jesus at the beginning of Matthew. Of course, this would make the Matthew lineage the authentic ancestry of Jesus. It is also possible that some Judaizing sect added the lineage shortly after Matthew was written. Likewise, the original author of the Gospel of John indentifies himself as the 'Beloved Disciple' which clearly indicates that the author must have been Damis sometime after he and Apollonius had gone their own ways. Now, it is clear that what was written then could not be anything like what we find in the New Testament today or the originals would have survived the flames. There is another possibility here. After Damis' death in Alexandria, his sister, Samostra, gathered his effects and his writings and took them back to Tyana in Cappadocia. Since there are some scholars who believe that John's Gospel was written by Mary Magdalene, which reflects a feminine author, it is possible that Samostra or someone close to her wrote the original Gospel according to John. Damis died in Alexandria c 90 CE. It is believed that John was written in Ephesus on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime in the late first century. Since the author of John relied solely on the written notes of Damis it is likely that this gospel more accurately details the true nature of Apollonius' itinerary. However, the lack of first hand knowledge available only to Apollonius accounts for the philosophical inconsistencies between John and the Synoptics. According to Chrisitan scholar Bart Ehrman the inconsistencies in the Greek grammar suggest that the gospel was later redacted. Most likely the Gospel of Mark was written while the group was under the employ of the Roman Emperor Vespasian. When they were no longer under the control of Rome they then each wrote their own gospels. Apollonius based his on the life of the Essene Teacher and Damis, or his sister, on the life of his friend and mentor. Since Apollonius could not have been the Jewish Messiah, the author made him the 'Word' which had always been. It is likely that someone, at a later date who knew the identities of the original authors, rewrote both Matthew and John. While it would seem obvious that Lucius then wrote the Gospel of Luke, this was not the case, that gospel was the work of second century Greek satirist Lucian. Since both Luke and Marcion's Gospel of the Lord share many contextual similarities it is quite likely that they both worked from the same prototype which may have been written by Lucius. However, the dedication to Theophilus, who was Archbishop of Antioch during the mid to late second century, at the outset of the gospel and the claim that many had already taken up the pen suggests a latter date of composition. It is Jesus' lineage in Luke which make it highly unlikely that the first century Lucius, who was well acquainted with Apollonius, was the author. So, it is true that Christ and his Apostles wrote the Christian scriptures. However, it is just not the same Christ and Apostles that you are led to believe who wrote the scriptures. According to Professor Hilton Hotema, in his "Forward" to the publication of the "History of the First Council of Nicea" originally published in 1925 by Dean Dudley, there existed a hidden agenda at the Council of Nicea. According to Hotema the two chief Gods of the day were the Hindu Krishna and the Druidic God Hesus. The two Deities were represented by two factions at the Council, who each proclaimed that its God was the oldest and only true God. The strife between the two factions, says Hotema, had grown so serious that "vigorous action was necessary to establish a more peaceful religious state." The following is from Hotema's "Forward." "The burning question which the Nicean Council was called to settle, was whether the Hindu Krishna should be worshipped accordingly, or whether they should be united and molded into one God. Constantine (Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus-he seems to have considered himself a Flavian, but I am not aware of the family connection) first tried to settle the argument by proposing the adoption of both Gods. This policy failed, and the arguments of the bishops finally became so hostile between the two factions, that Constantine summoned the leading bishops of the sects to meet in council at Nicea and consider the matter. "Constantine was wise enough to have the council convene at Nicea, in the Roman province of Bythnia, in Asia Minor, so the people of Rome would have no knowledge of its real purpose. It is said that the Council convened in May and ended in August 325. But others say the struggle was so fierce in that Christian Council that it extended into September.... Sabinus, bishop of Heraclea, in a letter to a friend, stated that with the exception of Constantine and Eusebius of Caesarea, the 300 bishops who finally voted in favor of Constantine's scheme to unite the names of the two chief Gods were "a set of illiterate, simple men who understood nothing much," to quote his words. And it was these ignorant prelates, subject to all kinds of motives, to fear of being branded heretics, their desire to agree with the Emperor and win his favor, anxiety to close the angry proceedings, that finally, by their votes, decided under duress that the world should accept and receive the name of the New God who would lead the new Religious System known as Christianity." This compromise is really not as strange as it may sound. As we have already demonstrated, Jesus Cunobeline's name clearly associates him with the Druidic God Hesus and Paul/Apollonius was associated with the Indian Christ of the Tamil people, not Krishna the manifestation of Vishnu, but Sananda Kumara the twin, of the manifestation of Shakti the wife of Lord Shiva, Sanat Kumara, the 'Peacock Angel,' or Mitra who was the Indian root of the Persian worship of Mithra. Continued Table of Contents