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. However, since they were working in the employ of the Romans, it is likely that they had to stick to the original concept laid out by Gaius Calpurnius Piso. Remember, the original story came from India and was not an account of events that took place in Israel. 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 to 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. However, Matthew's Jesus is more of a Jewish social reformer, while Mark's Jesus is more of a mystical Jewish messianic figure who has come to suffer and die for the salvation of man. This idea definitely exposes the Roman origin of this gospel as Jesus is made to suffer much in the order of the Roman Publius Decius Mus, which would make Jesus the ideal Jewish Messiah for the Romans, a dead one. Matthew is also knowledgeable enough to elaborate on the outcome of events which were still not clear when Mark was written which demonstrates a later date of authorship. Anyhow, the author, of Matthew, 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.

So, what does Matthew say that is missing in Mark's gospel. The difference is references to the Pharisee, which are often taken to be antisemitic, but are not. They are anti religion. "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers But all their works they do to be seen by men."--Matthew 23:4,5; "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."--Matthew 23:13; "Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness."--Matthew 23:26,27; "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets."--Matthew 23:31. In Buddhism the mind is often referred to as the cup. So, you may find a Buddhist master telling his pupil that before we start you must first empty your cup. Here the author is accusing the Pharisee of not entering into the kingdom, meditating, or allowing their followers to do so. Therefore they have killed all the prophets of Israel by ignoring what they taught.

Now, it has always been believed that the author of Matthew made a colossal blunder later in the gospel when he describes Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey, as also stated in Mark, Luke and John. The author supposedly misread Zechariah 9:9 where it says 'mounted on a donkey, and on a colt', the foal of a donkey. So, here you have Jesus entering Jerusalem seemingly performing some sort of rodeo trick mounted on, not one donkey, but two animals at the same time. This has always been viewed as a major error, but it is not. Apollonius portrays Jesus in Matthew, much as himself, as a tireless progressive social reformer, opposed to slavery, while in the employ of the ultra conservative Romans who were seeking to sustain slavery. So, in a sense you have Jesus (Apollonius) mounting two horses. This very same idea can be found in Thomas (47) Jesus said, "A person cannot (at the same time) mount two horses or draw two bows. And a slave cannot serve two masters, but truly will honor the one and scoff at the other...." However, as I have just explained Jesus (Apollonius) attempts to do just that.

Dennis R. MacDonald's "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" helps confirm Joseph Atwill's claim that the gospel authors, particularly the authors of Mark and Matthew relied on a writing technique known as typology. Greco-Roman students were taught to compose texts through a process called mimesis, and they often relied on the Greek Classics, namely those of Homer, for inspiration. Mr. Atwill found similar correlations between the gospels and the writings of Josephus.

Remember, from the testimony 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.

Now, there were actually two separate versions of Matthew in circulation up until the 4th century. The other version came from the Armenian Church and was written about a certain Mathieuo who embodied the Phoenician idea of a god savior. This version supposedly predated Abraham of the Old Testament. When the Catholic Church was in the process of incorporating the Armenian Church the Armenians offered up their version, but it was rejected by Theodosius the Great, and they were forced to pay the ultimate price for their heresy. So, the copy of Matthew that you find today in your bible is the one originally written by Apollonius. Obviously, accepting the Armenian version would have opened up a whole can of worms that the Church was not willing to deal with. This Armenian version of Matthew was probably the purer of the two, as it likely did not contain the temple narrative, the anti-phasasaic rants or the story of the crucifixion all of which must have been added by Apollonius.

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. John may have been originally started by Apollonius while he was in exile on the Isle of Patmos. 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 who found these documents 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. This gospel is called the Gospel of John not because it was written by someone named John, but because it was written about John, St. John the Divine (Apollonius of Tyana), the first Bishop of Rome. Just like today's Pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, will forever henceforth be known as Pope Francis so too did Apollonius/Paul/Simon become St. John the Divine. Today, Church Leaders scratch their heads and feign ignorance as to the true identity of the author of 'Revelations.' If this person was so obscure then why did they make him a saint and what was so divine about him. Since John himself was the crucified savior there was no need, in the Gospel of John, to replace 'Jesus/John' on the cross with Simon Cyrene, who of course was one and the same person with Apollonius/Paul/St. John the Divine.

Let me make it perfectly clear. There were two sets of manuscripts supposedly written by Paul that were found. The first set was found by Marcion in Antioch which formed the basis for the Gospel of Luke. This is a city where Apollonius spent much time and in all liklihood these manuscripts contained the very same parables of Jesus that are in Matthew. The second set of documents were found in the monastery at Sinope, in modern day Turkey, and were the manuscripts from Damis which were brought back to Cappadocia by his sister Samostra and this set did not contain the parables which were the work of Apollonius. Marcion's father was the Bishop of Sinope. These documents formed the basis for the Gospel of John, hence no parables consistent with the Synoptics. There are many scholars who believe that the Gospel of John was written in Ephesus which is where Apollonius died c 99 CE.

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, or his followers, based his on the life of the Essene Teacher, and Damis, or his sister, on the life of his friend and mentor. It has always been believed that the author of Mark did not have the so-called Book of 'Q' which contained the parables of Jesus, but there really didn't have to be such a book since Apollonius himself was the source for most of these Pythagorean parables which he was not allowed to use in the Mark gospel. Since Apollonius could not have been the Jewish Messiah, the author, of John, 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, no fan of the new faith, who wrote his gospel as a parody to be enjoyed by the Roman aristocracy. 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, but in all likelihood came from the mutilated manuscripts of Damis which were found by Marcion. 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."

Since it was the Emperor Constantine who convened the Council at Nicea and commissioned Eusebius to produce 50 copies of the first Christian Bible, it is important that we learn a little bit about him. "He had a father-in-law, whom he impelled to hang himself; he had a brother-in-law, whom he ordered to be strangled; he had a nephew twelve or thirteen years old, whose throat he ordered to be cut; he had an eldest son, whom he beheaded; he had a wife, whom he ordered to be suffocated in a bath. An old Gallic author said that 'he loved to make a clear house.'"--Voltaire, "Philosophical Dictionary, article on Constantine.

Constantine outlawed gladiatorial shows, abolished the cruel punsihment of breaking the legs of criminals and branding their faces, and prohibited crucifixions, but ordered informer's tongues to be cut out, and molten lead to be pured down the throats of those who connived at the abduction of virgins, the principal offenders being cast to the beasts or burnt alive, a practice which would catch on among the fledgling religion. This punishment which was deemed too cruel for traitors, murderers, poisoners etc, was reserved only for heretics.--[ibid.]

It seems that prior to the Council of Nicea there was no such person as Jesus Christ. Therefore, it was Eusebius who was responsible for adding the names and locations of events to the gospel narratives. The compromise between the various factions 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. If we use the same logic that the Church used in choosing the canonical gospels, then we would have to believe that the first versions of these gospels would be the most authentic. However, when we inspect the very first of these Bibles, the Codex Vaticanus, we find that the name Jesus Christ is not even mentioned in the entire document. The same is true of Codex Sinaiticus and all of the existing first editions. The title of the religious saviour is only represented by IYXY with the Y actually being a Greek U. It was not until almost a century later when St. Jerome wrote the Vulgate that the name Jesus Christ suddenly exploded onto the scene.

"In certain representations of the images of the saints, a lamb is portrayed, etc. We, therefore accepting the old forms and shadows as signs of the truth and as traditional symbols of the church, prefer Grace and Truth, which we accept as the fulfillment of the law. So, that which is perfect, let us place in pictures, even before the eyes of all. We have decreed that that Lamb, which taketh away the sins of the world, Chrsit our God, ought to be portrayed henceforth in human form in place of the Lamb."--6th Ecumenical Council, 82nd Canon, 680 AD. The wording here is crucial. These people were very careful with their wording. Notice that they did not say that they were replacing the image of the lamb with that of Jesus Christ, but that Christ is our God, therefore they are inserting a human form to replace the lamb.

Continued Table of Contents