Summation Christianity was not created by a person named Jesus Christ. What had started as a social reform movement led by, Yeshu, the 'Essene Teacher' wound up becoming a new religion. Since the religion of Yeshai beth Halachmee had been in existence for many years, there was no reason for him to sacrifice his life to become the soter figure of a new order. Anyhow, Yeshai was a member of the Pharisee who did not believe in the pagan concept of a sacrificial savior. The Essene already had a soter figure, 'The Essene Teacher of Righteousness.' It is also clear that neither the Nazoreans, nor the Jews had a reason to create a new religious order. And, as we have shown, there were no Apostles. However, we know that the Romans were intent on creating a new Jewish like religion for the Roman Empire. So, they subverted the rites from the Nazorean sect, most of whom they slaughtered at both Gamala and Qumran, altering them to suit their taste and enlisted the aid of the Cappadocian sage Apollonius and his Apostles Damis and Lucius to create the scriptures for the new order. The person crucified by Pontius Pilate was not the first coming of the savior, but supposedly the second coming of the Essene 'Teacher of Righteousness.' While Christians are taught all about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, even their own scriptures clearly state that the person crucified was actually Simon. John is the only gospel that clearly states that the person crucified was Jesus and that gospel, a latter day Hellenized account, in all liklihood was written about Simon who was actually Paul, Apollonius, or St. John the Divine. Each and every contributor to the conspiracy had his or her own motives. In some case it was simple self preservation, in others it was to acquire fame and in some to turn a nifty profit from the sale of their creations to members of the Roman aristocracy who understood the satirical nature of the writings. At the time they created their works, none were aware of the manner in which their writings would eventually be used. Only in the case of the Roman Emperor Constantine and his trusted companion Eusebius was there a great conspiracy to create a totally new religion fabricated in such a manner as to impart Roman values on future generations. The reference to Simon as the father of Alexander and Rufus, who were the Roman soldiers responsible for the arrest and execution of Simon/Peter and James the Great as well as Simon bar Giora, clearly indicates that the gospels were not written as onsite accounts of the life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, but were latter day compositions. Both of these events, which ocurred decades after the scriptural crucifixion, point to the total inauthenticity of the gospels. Could this reference mean that Simon, much like Shakepeare was the father of Hamlet, was the father of the Roman counter insurgency responsible for the destruction of the 'Jewish Messianic Movement,' clearly represented by those individuals who were crucified. It is inconceivable that any Jew would have made such a statement, especially an Essene. This also confirms that the Simon crucified c 70 CE was not the Apostle Peter, but the Idumean Jewish revolutionary leader Simon bar Giora, for a person cannot die from crucifixion twice. The person in both the Mandaean and Talmudic literature, where he is compared to Balaam, was Paul and not Jesus. It is possible that Yeshai (Zadok) left Israel for Cornwall after the demise of Judas of Galilee and in all liklihood never returned. The name Jesus Christ was not officially used until after the Nicene Council of 325 CE, when it was agreed that he, and not Apollonius who was worshipped by some as a god, would become the iconic figure of the new religion. The life of this fictitious character is based partially on the early life of Yeshai beth Halachmee and partially on the life and teachings of, the Essene Pythagorean 'Teacher of Righteousness.' The only authentic parts of the gospels, from the baptism thru the empty tomb narrative, were written by and about philosopher and necromancer, Apollonius of Tyana. The character who gets baptized by John in the gospels is actually Apollonius (Paul) not Jesus. To conceal this fact, which would place Paul in the vicinity of Jerusalem c 30 CE, the conspirators, and in this case I mean Marcion and Lucian, incorporated the miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus from the life of Rabbi Elisha ben Abuiah into the life of Paul. When it came to their attention that Yeshai was much older than Apollonius the Church moved his birthdate to that of his younger sibling John of Gamala who shared the same lineage. Christian writings like the Gospel of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermes, and Thomas the Contender, in which the chief religious figure is only referred to as Lord or Savior, give us an insight into how the original canonical gospels may have looked. These earlier unedited writings, some from the same pens as those who wrote the scriptures, represent the fabric onto which Orthodox Chrisitanity wove its passion of Jesus Christ. If the Gospel of Peter only referred to the crucified savior as Lord, then there is good reason to form the opinion that the canonical gospels did likewise, as Peter is believed to have been written after the first gospels were already penned. Although today, the definition of Messiah and Christ are considered interchangeable, due mostly to Christian influence, this was not always the case. This incompatibility was nowhere more apparent than it was to the Jews, who took their designation of Messiah very seriously. The term Jesus Christ is not of Jewish origin. The title Christ is incompatible with the idea of the Jewish Messiah. To the Jews the Messiah was a kingly warrior who would save the Jewish state by defeating its enemies on the battlefield. The Christ, on the other hand, is the Greek word for, an Indian concept which refers to a pacifistic spiritual leader not a military leader. The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke were late first and second century additions made either by Judaizers, possibly Apollonius himself, or the Romans who wanted to export the Messianic title to Rome, while the virgin birth was created by second century Hellenizers. Now, it would seem obvious that since the ministry of Jesus parallels the military campaign of the Roman Emperor Titus that the authors of the gospels used Josephus' 'War of the Jews' as their source, but this could not have been the case. The first gospel was written c. 70 CE, and 'War of the Jews' was not published until c 79 CE. So, Josephus and the authors of the gospels had to be writing concurrently, in tandem, from current events on the ground during the war. This points to only one possible source, that being the cadre of Apollonius, Damis and Lucius writing with the aid of Josephus under the auspices of Vespasian and Titus. No one else had either the motive or the facts to have written the original gospels other than the Romans. This brings us back to the 'Tathbit Dala'il Nubuwwat Sayyidina Mahammad.' "HIS DISCIPLES said to him. "Does circumcision help or does it not?" He said to them, "If it helped people's fathers would beget them from their mothers already circumcized."—Gospel of Thomas 53. While I have no idea if Jesus even had a position on circumcision, it is clear from the Jerusalem Council that Paul was opposed to circumcision. So, it is likely that the disgruntled Nazoreans mentioned in the text were actually followers of Paul and not Jesus. It would be odd if the same person who claimed, if God wanted men circumsized they would be born that way, would favor castration as a means of avoiding sexual temptation. While the Council adopted a platform against circumcision they upheld Jewish dietary law, that is with the exception of Paul, who agreed to the Council's decisions, but went about teaching his own religious precepts. According to the fifth century Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine, "those Christians who "abstain both from flesh and from wine" are "without number".—St. Augustine, "On the Morals of the Catholic Church 33." Even the author of the Vulgate St. Jerome was a vegetarian. Therefore the question is, Why were the followers of a wine drinking, meat eating religious icon like Jesus vegetarians? I think the answer is simple. These people were not following a religious icon by the name of Jesus Christ, but one by the name of Apollonius. This raises another problem. Why would a devout vegetarian who travelled to India, a vegetarian country, and brought back scriptures from a vegetarian religion say the following: "One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs."—Romans 14 Vs. 1-2 "But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not to doubtful disputations. "One man hath the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of Devils, Through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving: "For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer."—1 Timothy 4 Vs. 1-5 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: —Colossians 2:16 After the Nicene council, certain "correctors" were appointed whose task it was to rewrite the scriptures, omitting all that pertained to vegetarianism and abstinence from alcohol. This is indicated in the following statement by Archdeacon Wilberforce, who writes: "Some are not aware that, after the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325, the manuscripts of the New Testament were considerably tampered with. Prof. Nestle, in his `Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek Testament,' tells us that certain scholars, called `correctores,' were appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities, and actually commissioned to correct the text of the Scripture in the interest of what was considered orthodoxy." Why would this be necessary if the scriptures were as claimed by the Church originally written by those professing the Orthodox form of Christianity. These quotes from the Pauline Epistles are obviously latter day Roman interpolations and not the words of Paul. This being the case then how do we know what was originally written by Paul and what was written by Marcion and what was written by Constantine's correctors? As we have clearly shown Paul claims that he was crucified with Jesus, and Simon claims that it was he who was actually crucified. Hence Paul, which is derived from the Persian word Paulis which means deceiver, was actually Simon. And, as we have shown Simon was Paul, and Paul and Apollos were admittedly the same person, and Apollos was really Apollonius of Tyana, or the real Paul. The original teachings of the Essene Teacher along with scriptures of the pagan gods which were the foundation upon which Christianity was created as well as writings about Apollonius are what the Romans spent so much energy burning during the 4th century. Jesus' views are basically Pythagorean Essene references delivered in the context of a male celibate commune, sprinkled with Buddhist overlays which were derived from the scriptures brought back from India by Apollonius. Though his teachings are never presented in that context by the Chrisitan clergy. More than likely, your minister or priest gives a sermon with a few select quotes from scripture to add divine authority to his own point of view. These teachings were never followed by anyone including the Gospel Jesus himself. The Pauline Epistles, although heavily redacted to reflect the Roman Orthodox view, come from an earlier period in Apollonius' life and are heavily laden with Zorastrian duality, knowing nothing of Pythagorean or Buddhist influence. While Jesus opposes marriage and carnality on strictly social and practical grounds much like the Buddhists, Paul's opposition is purely based on the evil impulses of the physical body. The differing doctrines of Jesus and Paull can be explained by Apollonius' religious evolution. It seems that when he tried to sell his Mithraic sun god theories to the Jews only the Essene, who were already adept in Zorastrian concepts, which are at the root of Mithraism, were willing to entertain his ideas. The original 9 documents which he brought back that formed the basis of his epistles were likely of Zorastrian, which totally fit his world view of good and evil, and not Buddhist origin. In all liklihood, it was the Essene who went along with his staged crucifixion. After his rebuke by the Pharisaic high priest, father of Miryai, he turned toward the Greek community and totally renounced the Jews and rejected Jewish law. After his return from India he went his own way forming his own 'Essene Brotherhood' at Nazarita. The Pythagorean Essene Jesus represents the belief system, not of Apollonius, but of the original Essene 'Teacher of Righteousness.' After Apollonius' trip to farther India his ideas become more Buddhist, which are reflected in the Gospel Jesus, but are totally absent from the epistles. Why would the Roman aristocracy not only accept such a Buddhist influenced communal religion when it was known that Buddhism fluorished as a rebuttal of the bruttal caste system, of India, created by the Brahman rulers? Wouldn't this turn the poor and destitute against the state? First off the Romans were sick and tired of the Jews and their dime a dozen messiahs. Why not create a messiah to end all messianic claims. Secondly, they were tired of all the religious unrest that existed in the empire between different religious factions and most importantly, they made sure that the new doctrine would employ a new psychological mechanism similar to the caste system of the Brahmans. Only this time the poor weren't being told that their suffering was a just reward for the sins of past lives, but rather that their poverty was a sign that it was they who were the elect people of God and that they would receive their rewards in the life to come, while the rich and the ruling classes who enjoyed a life of luxury would spend eternity suffering in hell. A belief system like this would lighten the burden of the aristocracy in dealing with the social and economic problems of the day. In this new order the desolate would revel in their poverty and the slaves would work all the harder as proof that they were among God's elect. The Flavians were also a new royal line looking to replace the Claudio/Caesar line and they wanted something to show for their efforts in Israel. They were also concerned about their image for having destroyed one of the greatest cities in the ancient world, Jerusalem, and performing genocide upon its people. If you don't think that it worked, think again. Most people today aren't even aware of the fate that befell Jerusalem and the Jewish people, all they know is that the Jews killed Jesus Christ. The new religion was designed for the faithful to adhere to Roman and not Jewish values. This is why Jesus tells the faithful "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;" In other words pay your taxes. This is why Jesus is made to eat meat and drink wine much like members of the Roman aristocracy, and why Jesus claims "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." In other words he supports the Roman value of monogamy, even though both the Jews and the Nazoreans were polygamists. However, it is quite clear that the real Essene Jesus was not only not in favor of divorce, he was not in favor of marriage. Jesus' teachings represent those of a celibate male renunciant communal ascetic. While Christians teach that the Nazoreans and Ebionites were early Jewish Christian sects, they were not. They were separate independent religions which were later incorporated into the Catholic Church. Those members who did not convert were severely persecuted. The Gospel Jesus was called a Nazorean because he belonged to that Jewish sect and not because he was born in Nazareth. It was possible, in certain instances, for a person to be a member of more than one sect. Christianity was the brainchild of Paul not Jesus, and the name was first used c 41 CE. Even though Paul supposedly spent 2 weeks in Jerusalem with Peter and James, both of whom were later crucified by Tiberius Alexander, the Pauline Epistles show absolutely no knowledge of the life or teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul's refererences to a crucifixion and being hung from a tree are about him and the 'Essene Teacher of Righteousness,' and not about a person named Jesus Christ. Jesus' opposition to the Pharisee appear mostly in Matthew because the author was aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews that was, mostly likely, taken from earlier Essene scriptures written not about Jesus of Nazareth, but about the Essene 'Teacher of Righteousness' Yeshu. Proof that there were actually 2 individuals who were believed to have been Jesus, but who lived almost 100 years apart can be found among the Jewish writings: "It once happened that R. Elazar ben Damah was bitten by a snake and Ya'akov of the village Sechania came to heal him in the name of Yeshu ben Pandira, but R. Yishmael did not allow him."–Tosefta Chullin 2:23 It is quite probable that this Yeshu was the Essene 'Teacher of Righteousness who was executed circa 65 BCE by Aristobulus II. If this is true then how can anyone explain the following in the Shabbat (a tractate in the Talmud pertaining to the Sabbarh): "During the first century of Christianity the Rabbis lived on friendly terms with the minim. Rabbi Eliezer, who denied to the heathen a share in the future life, is said to have discoursed with the Judæo-Christian Jacob of Kefar Sekanya and to have quietly listened to the interpretation of a Biblical verse he had received from Jesus ('Ab. Zarah 16b; Eccl. R. i. 8). Ben Dama, a nephew of R. Ishmael, having been bitten by a snake, allowed himself to be cured by means of an exorcism uttered by the min Jacob, a Judæo-Christian. These friendly feelings, however, gradually gave way to violent hatred, as the minim separated themselves from all connection with the Jews and propagated writings which the Rabbis considered more dangerous to the unity of Judaism than those of the pagans. "The writings of the minim," says R. Tarfon, "deserve to be burned, even though the holy name of God occurs therein, for paganism is less dangerous than 'minut'; the former fails to recognize the truth of Judaism from want of knowledge, but the latter denies what it fully knows"—Shab. 116a. The reference to Jesus indicates that the Babylonian Talmud, composed c 200 CE, was not composed of new Jewish writings, but rather was a compilation of extant writings. However, I am quite certain that Yeshu ben Pendira's name is not in the Bible, so I don't know what Bible this Talmudic verse supposedly came from. Notice that the first verse from the Tosefta document refers to Yeshu ben Pendira, while the second refers to Jacob a Judaeo-Christian who uses a verse about Yeshu ben Pendira he received from Jesus which indicates that Jesus was a distinctly different person who lived after the time of Yeshu ben Pendira. Now, this person could not have been the Christian savior Jesus Christ since the quote clearly states that this person was a Judæo-Christian and as we have already proven there were no Christians prior to 41 CE or during the lifetime of the Gospel Jesus. It also indicates that the person in question was well aware of the Yeshu of the Jewish writings. As we have already demonstrated, this person could only have been Apollonius/Paul the 'False Messiah.' Sources Table of Contents