| We
have seen how the Zealots were changed into pacifist disciples
by transforming their names (the revolutionary Barjona,
into son of Jonah, the murderer Iscariot into a native
of Kerioth, the zealot Qananite into a resident of Cana
etc.). Now we shall discuss the falsifying that the Christians
carried out on John to make him become Jesus.
THE
NAME: The name John, replaced with the generic names
of Christ (Kristos meaning Anointed) and Lord, was finally
changed to Jesus in about the year 180 as shown in a
book written by Celsus against the Christians which
said: "The one you gave the name Jesus to was really
just the head of a band of bandits. The miracles ascribed
to him were just manifestations of magic and esoteric
tricks. The truth is that all of those premises made
are nothing but myths that you yourselves have fabricated
without however managing to give your lies any credibility.
Everyone knows that what you have written is the result
of continual rewriting following criticism that you
have received".
In
fact, in the first versions of the gospels according
to Matthew, Mark and Luke that appeared in the 60s of
the II century, the Messiah was still described with
the generic names of Christ and Lord. The Christians
could not give him a name such as Pasquale, Liborio
or Anacleto since a name that had never existed in the
Messianic Era would have made their creation collapse
into ridicule. So they gave him the name of Yeshua (Jesus)
that actually means "He who saves", only appearing
to take his anonymity away. In fact, one thing is maintaining
the existence of a Messiah who, not having a real name,
could have escaped historical examination; another thing
is maintaining the existence of someone who, out of
the blue, was presented with a name. The existence of
this person would have needed historical documentation
in order to be supported. The masses in their ignorance
accepted the name without considering any etymological
problems. Instead, the opponents of the Christian theologians
laughed, and on revealing the artifice, they accused
them of impudence and fraud. Time and the repression
the Christians carried out against their adversaries
made it possible for the name "Jesus" to be
considered a first name and it was adopted even though
it actually meant Soter. The word Soter was generically
given to the pagan divinities, which nonetheless also
had a name of their own. The Christians practically
named their Messiah using the same artifice used by
the Bible writers in the sixth century BCE when they
gave their God the name of Yahweh, meaning "I am".
Like their predecessors, the Christian theologians,
thanks to this artifice, could defend the existence
of Jesus while keeping his anonymity. (Like father like
son!).
The
problem that derived from substituting the name John,
which was remembered by tradition, with the name of
Jesus, was solved. Now they had to counterfeit the names
of Galilean and Nazarite, which meaning Zealot, would
have contrasted decidedly with the religious and pacifist
nature of the Messiah they were constructing. Since
it was impossible to eliminate them, they gave them
other meanings resorting to fraud as they had done with
other names of members of the Boanerges band.
The
name Galilean was simply interpreted as "an inhabitant
of Galilee". However, the other name, Nazarite,
proved difficult to resolve. Their first attempt to
remove its revolutionary meaning, as documentation shows,
was to make it depend on a prophecy resorting to the
announcement the angel had made to Manoah's wife: "...thou
shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come
on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto
God from the womb... "(Judg. 13:5). This announcement
was however, too clearly similar to Samson. So it was
rejected and substituted by the prophecies of Micah
and Isaiah, which referred to the birth of the future
king of Israel: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out
of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler
in Israel". (Micah 5:2) "And there shall come
forth a shoot out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch
shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). If
these prophecies were used to justify why Jesus was
called Nazarite it was because both the Hebrew words
Netzer (shoot) and Nazir had the same consonants n z
r (in Hebrew, as in Phoenician and ancient Egyptian,
words were written with only the consonants. For example:
reason = r s n or truth = t r t).
This
solution was also rejected not only because it appeared
to be too imaginary and almost impossible to sustain,
but also because as in the first solution, it could
not be referred to Jesus as it referred to David the
son of Jesse.
Therefore,
after having tried pointlessly to find a passage in
the Bible that could justify the name of Nazarite in
the form of a prophecy, once again they resorted to
a geographic expedient. They connected the name Nazarite
to the town of Nazareth as they connected the appellation
of Qananite with the town of Cana and Iscariot with
the town of Kerioth. However, it is precisely with this
umpteenth swindle that the forgers will give us the
final and unquestionable proof of the non existence
of Jesus, a person who never existed, and who is just
John's double.
All
four Canonical Gospels make the names Nazarite (Nazarene)
come from the city of Nazareth stating that it was the
town where Jesus grew up and studied during those thirty
years that preceded his sermons. It is from Nazareth
that we will obtain conclusive proof to show that Jesus
is in reality John. Let's examine this town that in
the gospels is described in a completely different way
from how it actually was. Why was the town of Nazareth
located on a plain far from the Sea of Galilee described
in the Gospels as being built on a mountain overlooking
a lake?
The
answer is simple. The city on the mountain overlooking
a lake is the real city where the Messiah reported by
tradition lived and which the Gospels describe, whereas
the town located on a plain forty kilometers from the
Sea of Galilee is what the falsifiers used to justify
why he was called Nazarite. This contradiction between
the description the Gospels give about the real town
where the Messiah lived and the city of Nazareth depended
on the fact that the falsifiers wrote the four canonical
gospels in Rome. They had no knowledge of Palestine
and made the serious mistake of reporting traditional
tales, which referred to John without worrying about
adapting them to the city of Nazareth that they had
chosen only because its name could justify the appellation
of Nazarite.
Reading
the Gospels we notice that the city of Jesus is not
the Nazareth located on a plain forty kilometers from
the Sea of Galilee but another city that is located
on a mountain overlooking the Sea of Galilee. There
are many references made to lake surroundings, boats,
fishermen, and rough waves caused by storms. The apostles
themselves are all fishermen that Jesus converted into
disciples while they pulled in their nets: "...when
Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence
And when he was come into his own country he taught
them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished,
and said Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these
mighty works". (Matt. 13:53-54). "When Jesus
heard of it, he departed thence by ship into a desert
place apart...Jesus healed the sick and multiplied the
loaves of bread and fish. And when he had sent the multitudes
away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray. From
the mountain he saw below in the Sea of Galilee that
the apostles' boat was in danger from the waves generated
by the wind that had suddenly started blowing (Matt.
14). Luke also confirms that the city of Jesus was on
a mountain when he speaks about a precipice: "
Jesus went to Nazareth where He was brought up: and
as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the
sabbath day, and he stood up to read...And all they
in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were
filled with wrath. And rose up, and thrust him out of
the city, and led him unto the bow of the hill whereon
their city was built, that they might cast him down
headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went
his own way." (Luke 4:14-30). In addition: "The
same day went Jesus out of the house and sat by the
sea (lake) side. And great multitudes were gathered
together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and
sat." (Matt. 13:1-2).
Mark
also recounts (Chap. 3-4): "...a great multitude,
when they heard what great things he did, came unto
him. And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship
should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they
should throng him... And he goeth up into a mountain,
and calleth unto him whom he would...and they went into
an house. And the multitude cometh together again, so
that they could not so much as eat bread... there came
his brethren and his mother, and standing without, sent
unto him, calling him..." After having explained
who his real relatives were, "... he began again
to teach by the sea side..."
At
this point, we are aware that the town where Jesus was
brought up could not be Nazareth, which is forty kilometers
from the lake and situated on a plain. So through other
sources we wanted to see how the real town was which
is situated on a mountain near the Sea of Galilee and
surrounded by precipices.
The
answer came from Flavius Josephus who describes the
town of Ezekias, the father of Judas the Gaulonite and
the grandfather of John the Galilean, called the Nazarite:
"The Rabbi Ezekias, a medical doctor, belonged
to a rich and high-ranking family in the city of Gamala
located on the Gaulonite Side of the Sea of Tiberias.
This town did not submit to the Romans but relied upon
the difficulty of the place, for it was situated upon
a rough ridge of a high mountain, with a kind of neck
in the middle: where it begins to ascend, it lengthens
itself, and declines as much downward before as behind,
insomuch that it is like a camel (gamlà) in figure,
from whence it is so named, although the people of the
country do not pronounce it accurately. Both on the
side and the face there are abrupt parts divided from
the rest, and ending in vast deep valleys; yet are the
parts behind, where they are joined to the mountain,
somewhat easier of ascent than the other; but then the
people belonging to the place have cut an oblique ditch
there, and made that hard to be ascended also. On its
acclivity, which is straight, houses are built, and
those very thick and close to one another. The city
also hangs so strangely, that it looks as if it would
fall down upon itself, so sharp is it at the top. It
is exposed to the south, and its southern mount, which
reaches to an immense height, was in the nature of a
citadel to the city; and below that was a precipice,
not walled about, but extending itself to an immense
depth." (Jewish Antiquities).
If
this is the town that the Gospels ascribe to Jesus,
what else can be concluded if not that Jesus was born
and lived in Gamala in Gaulonite and not Nazareth in
Galilee as the Church would like us to believe? If Jesus
is from Gamala then who else could he be than John,
the grandson of the rabbi Ezekias? Just replace Nazareth
with Gamala and everything appears clear. Everything
that was previously written was to prepare the readers
for this conclusion. Even the most stubborn believers
who are inclined to deny even the most evident truths
cannot reject this conclusion. However, I'm not finished
demonstrating the non-existence of Jesus because I will
provide so much evidence to demonstrate what the falsifiers
(the Holy Fathers of the Church) have been capable of
doing to build this imposture which is Christianity.
The Birth of Jesus
Christians testified the life of Jesus only through
prophecies since there is no historical evidence of
Jesus. Supposing that everything the prophets announced
had to come true because it was divine inspiration,
the Christian writers wrote the gospels and made all
of Christ's actions depend on phrases taken from the
Bible, which were suitably adapted and made to pass
for prophecies.
At
this stage we need to discuss fatalism, which by eliminating
free choice and therefore making man not responsible
for his own actions, would make Christ himself seem
like a puppet in the hands of an already established
Biblical destiny. It is not my intention to discuss
the non-existence of God but only to demonstrate that
Jesus was not a historical character. Therefore, the
reader is free to draw his own conclusions concerning
"predestination" which makes man not responsible
for his actions and thwarts the existence of a God who
judges according to merits and demerits.
Like
the rest of his life, the birth of Jesus was created
from phrases taken from the Bible, a mixture of contradictions,
lies, and superficiality. Initially his birth was ignored
by the four Gospels and was added in the first half
of the third century and only in the gospels according
to Matthew and Luke. This occurred following a decision
made by the Christians to justify the humanization of
their Messiah through a terrestrial birth. Their opponents
had criticized them, wondering how Jesus could become
a preacher as a man if he hadn't been born to a woman.
In fact all four canonical gospels began by presenting
Jesus as an adult starting his preaching from Capernaum.
The only justification of his human existence was given
by a voice that could be heard from above while Jesus
was baptized by John the Baptist which said: "You
are my beloved Son... I have this day begotten you".
Since the decision to give Jesus a terrestrial birth
contradicted the conception that up until then the Christian
theologians had made depend exclusively on God, they
had to change the verse to: "...Jesus also came
and was baptized by John...And a voice sounded from
Heaven that said: "This is my beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased". (Matt. 3:17).
The
Gospel of John does not mention a terrestrial birth
because the Christian theologians preferred to give
him a theological birth as the "Word", to
make their Messiah a "Logos" as Mithras was
in the Avestic religion.
The
terrestrial birth of Jesus created a great problem:
should he be born in Bethlehem, according to the prophecy
of Micah, which wanted him to come from Bethlehem ("But
thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, thou be little among the thousands
of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me
that is to be ruler in Israel"- Micah 5:2), or
in Nazareth, which was the city where they had made
the name Nazarene come from? Therefore, to satisfy these
two needs, the writers of the gospels of Matthew and
Luke, working separately each according to his own imagination,
managed to each give his own version so that there are
two different births.
The
Nativity according to Matthew: To satisfy the prophecy
of Micah which said he was from Bethlehem and to justify
his appellation of Nazarite, Matthew had Jesus born
in Bethlehem, and then had him move to Nazareth where
he lived for the rest of his life.
To
understand Matthew's rather intricate stratagem to justify
the move from Bethlehem to Nazareth the best thing to
do is to follow the facts in the Gospel account: The
three kings who had brought gold, frankincense and myrrh
had just: " departed into their own country another
way. And when they were departed, behold the angel of
the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise
and take the young child and his mother, and flee into
Egypt, and be thou there until bring thee word for Herod
will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose,
he took the young child and his mother by night and
departed into Egypt. And was there until the death of
Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of
the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I
called my son.
Then
Herod...slew all the children that were in Bethlehem
and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and
under...Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by
Jeremy the prophet saying, " In Rama was there
a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted
(?!) because they are not but when Herod was dead, behold,
an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph
in Egypt, Saying, Arise and take the young child and
his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they
are dead which sought the young child's life....But
when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judeaea in
the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither:
not withstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he
turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came
and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall
be called a Nazarene. (Matt. chapter 3)(I will comment
this later):
The
Nativity according to Luke: Contrary to Matthew, who
had Jesus born in Bethlehem since Joseph and Mary resided
there, Luke states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem
because Mary and Joseph, residents of Nazareth, had
to go to their hometown due to a fiscal census ordered
by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria when Palestine was
annexed to the Roman Empire. (This is the census of
the year 6 that gave rise to a revolt led by Judas the
Galilean, John's father.)
Thus
Micah's prophecy was fulfilled which said that Jesus
would come from Bethlehem: He was born in the famous
cave warmed by an ox and a donkey. Then Mary and Joseph
returned to Nazareth where they lived and which they
had left temporarily due to the census.
Both
accounts of the Nativity reported by the Gospels are
purely made up. Besides their inaccuracies and absurdities
this is confirmed also by the fact, already mentioned,
that the gospel figure, being from Gamala has nothing
to do with either Bethlehem or Nazareth.
1)
The genealogies that are given concerning Joseph in
the two gospels to demonstrate that his son Jesus descended
from the house of David as announced by the prophecies,
are so different that they seem to refer to two different
people. The names are so different that not even two
names in these versions are the same. There is even
a numerical difference in the number of ascendants that
in Matthew is 42 and in Luke is 56. This difference
depends on the fact that the two genealogies were not
written according to a set criterion of historical objectivity
but followed an imposition that came from the number
14 of the Hebrew cabala of which the total number of
descents should have been a multiple. The difference
here depended on the fact that while Matthew multiplied
this number by three (42), Luke multiplied it by four
(56). (You can draw your own conclusions in justifying
the principles the evangelical truth is based upon!)
2)
The two birth dates referred to are at least eleven
years apart. Matthew's Gospel sets Jesus' birth before
Herod's death (which took place in the year 4BCE) and
Luke's Gospel states that the census happened in the
year 6CE. (Let's remember that the Church presents Matthew
as an eyewitness and Luke as a person who learned the
facts directly from Mary, whom he personally knew.)
3)
Matthew says that Mary gave birth in Bethlehem and at
home, because she lived there at the time the birth
took place: "And when they (the three kings)) were
come into the house (Joseph's house) theysaw the young
child and Mary his mother, and fell down and worshipped
him..." (Matt. 2:11).
Luke
states that they went there due to a census. They had
nowhere to stay because they didn't have their own house
and no one would give them lodging so the child was
born in a stable: "The kings went to Bethlehem
and found Mary, Joseph and the child lyingin the manger
of a cave with an ox and a donkey to keep him warm and
lots of shepherds all around bringing their gifts, and
above all there was a multitude of angels singing: "
Glory to God in the highest".
4)
The slaughter of the innocents ordered by Herod and
the flight to Egypt sustained by Matthew are ignored
in the gospels according to Mark and John as is the
visit made by the three kings.
5)
The fact that the Holy Family moved from Nazareth to
Bethlehem because of a fiscal census is improbable and
clearly used as a pretext. We know that, according to
the Roman laws, citizens had to declare their income
at the fiscal office of the town where they worked,
that is, where they resided and not where they were
born. Improbabilities and pretences are confirmed by
the journey that Mary makes which has no justification
considering the Roman laws. "Only the head of the
family had to present himself to the fiscal authorities
as expressly specified by the edict and married women
were exempt if represented by their husbands."
6)
Another absurdity, invented to create the plot of the
gospels, was that of Herod who: "...when he had
privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently
what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem,
and said, go and search diligently for the young child;
and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that
I may come and worship him also.". (Matt. 2:7-8).
Herod
was certainly the most powerful king ever to reign in
Palestine during the Roman times. As reported by historical
documentation, he had a perfect intelligence organization
to defend himself from the revolutionaries of the Jewish
Nationalist Party and from whoever could have plotted
against him. How can one believe that he would need
three foreign kings that were passing through to know
if the Messiah was born in Bethlehem? That Messiah,
whose birth was known to everyone in Judea because of
the announcement made by the angels that flew up into
the sky singing hallelujah, hallelujah. How is it possible
that everyone knew where the king of kings had been
born as indicated by such a bright star that it could
be seen in the Far East except Herod and his court?
Since the Gospels report (Matt. 2:1) that the three
wise men asked the inhabitants of Jerusalem where the
king of the Jews was, why couldn't Herod have stepped
outside his palace and asked the first person he met
where his rival was?
It
is evident that this is an absurd fairy tale made up
of imaginary characters such as the three kings who
were added only because they brought gifts of gold,
frankincense and myrrh. Since the Christian theologians
were following the established program of replacing
the Avestic religion with Christianity in the minds
of the people by making the two beliefs as similar as
possible they made the kings offer the same three things
which were offered to Mithras
With
the same purpose Jesus' birth was initially celebrated
at the beginning of March and then changed to December
25, Mithras's birthday. They made Jesus be born in a
cave as were Mithras, Dionysus and Tammuz and all the
other sun gods because they proved that by being born
in a dark place they could triumph over darkness. This
program of conquering the masses was based on favoring
pagan beliefs as much as possible so that they would
assimilate Christianity without any traumas. The Church
then continued to follow this practice by using the
pagan temples to celebrate their own rites.
7)
The Holy Family was sent to Egypt to prove, through
God's statement: "Out of Egypt have I called my
son", that Jesus was really the Son of God. This
fact shows that the gospel writers were Christians of
pagan descent who didn't know what the Bible verses
referred to. In fact the phrase "Out of Egypt have
I called my son", does not refer to the Messiah,
as believed, but to the Hebrew population that God,
by calling them from Egypt, had freed from the Pharaoh's
slavery. Therefore, it would have been better if they
had left Jesus in Bethlehem where he was born avoiding
that trip to Egypt.
Apart
from demonstrating their Biblical ignorance by making
Jesus stay in Nazareth to transform him from a Nazarite
into a Nazarene, in the meaning of inhabitant of Nazareth,
this gives us the definite proof of their imposture.
At
this point, taking into account the differences between
the two gospels, I would be curious to see Matthew's
reaction to the Nativity scenes that are built today
with Jesus lying on the straw in a manger. According
to what the Church wants us to believe he was an eyewitness,
and he had Mary give birth in a comfortable bed at home!
Having
finished with the Nativity, Luke goes on to recall Jesus'
circumcision which is totally ignored by Matthew. Luke
tells everything about this ceremony. He speaks of a
certain Simeon, a just man, who honored the baby with
words that were dictated by the Holy Spirit. He refers
to Anne, the prophetess and even mentions the two doves
that were offered in sacrifice according to the Law
of Moses (with the head crushed with the thumbnail).
Yet, he does not reveal who took the foreskin and preserved
it so that future believers could venerate it. Today
it can be found at the Ursuline Convent in Charroux,
in France. We can imagine these chaste and bashful nuns
blushing while praying on their knees in front of a
piece of foreskin. What is even funnier is that in the
Christian world there are five more of these pieces
that are jealously kept as relics in gold reliquaries.
Just for your information, I will say that the reliquaries
are displayed once a year to the faithful who passing
in front of them kiss them through the window. (It seems
that the Ursuline nuns of Charroux do it even more often!).
But
this is nothing compared to the following: "If
Jesus left his foreskin on earth, did He ascend to heaven
physically complete or not?" To know how the Church
settled this dilemma just ask any Dominican friar or
Jesuit friar, as they are specialized in resolving theological
problems!
After
telling about Jesus' birth, both Matthew and Luke present
Jesus at Capernaum at the age of thirty beginning preaching
his sermons just as Marcion affirmed in his gospel,
with only one difference, that their Christ presented
himself in flesh and blood while Marcion's only appeared
to be a man.
At
this point I am finished with the Nativity, even if
there would still be infinite details (serious or comical)
to discuss, and I ask myself if it is possible to believe
the Church which maintains that the two conflicting
gospels were actually written by the two persons in
question? One was written by Matthew, as an eyewitness;
the other was written by Luke, an apostle who reported
the accounts "after having scrupulously and accurately
carried out this research."
Before
going on to the next chapter that will deal with the
passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, I would
like to give a brief explanation regarding the creation
of Joseph, a putative father, and Mary, a virgin and
terrestrial mother.
The
name Mary, which derives from the Hebrew name Miriam,
was chosen from among the most common female names to
be found in the Bible. Virginity was attributed to her
simply because all the god-saviors, from Eastern and
Western religions were children of a god who coupled
with a virgin, such as Horus, who was born of Isis,
Tammuz of Ishtar, Attis of Nana, Perseus of Daphne,
and Mithras was Ahura Mazda's son of an unnamed virgin.
Then if we consider the birth of Vishnu from the virgin
Devaki we can note that Luke's Nativity is a perfect
repetition: "God's will is done. Hail, virgin and
mother! You will give birth to a son who will be the
savior of the world. But flee, as Kansa (the god of
evil) will look for you and will have you and your child
killed. Our brothers will guide you to the shepherds
who are at the foot of Mount Metu. It is here you will
bring your divine Son into the world". This narration
taken from Hindu texts is very similar to the birth
of that Messiah of the first Apocalypse that was born
on earth from a virgin who was followed by a dragon.
Various similarities are found in Luke's account of
the Nativity, with all the details, the shepherds and
Kansa who is changed into King Herod, who searches for
the child to have him killed. This is a further confirmation
that Christianity is just the plagiarism of other religions.
Consequently,
to support Mary's virginity, who else could she marry
but a pure and chaste man capable of resisting temptations
of the flesh? In the Bible the man who was remembered
for his chastity was Joseph, the son of Jacob. He was
the Joseph who had been elevated to the rank of viceroy
of Egypt and had resisted the temptations of Potiphar's
attractive wife. Accordingly, Jesus was given a putative
father named Joseph, husband of Mary, who was to remain
a virgin. Both Josephs had a father named Jacob.
At
this point, we can summarize by saying that numerous
pieces of evidence (too many) prove that Jesus was the
result of a transformation that was carried out on John,
the son of Judas the Gaulonite. However, the decisive,
indisputable, and therefore irrefutable evidence was
provided by the evangelists themselves through the transformation
of the name Nazarite into Nazarene that they carried
out so that the prophet's words would be fulfilled:
"A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid".
(Matt. 5.14).
Luigi
Cascioli
|
