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 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, '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. According to the Pisonian Conspircy, as recorded by Tacitus in 'Histories' we know that the Romans were intent on creating a new Jewish like religion for the Roman Empire. Concurently, as recorded in the Tathbit we find that members of the Essene community were dead set on gaining revenge against the Pharisee for the unprovoked execution of the Essene Teacher in 65 BCE. These members entered into a pact with the Romans. It was Apollonius and his Essene associates who were responsible for translating Eastern documents into a form that later writers would turn into the gospels.

The Romans then adopted the scriptures from the Nazorean sect, most of whom they slaughtered at both Gamala and Qumran, during the War of the Jews, 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. However, this effort soon fizzled out under the rule of Domatian who was not a friend of Apollonius, or the new religious oder. It was a few decades later, after the death of Apollonius, that his mutilated writings would be found by the heretic Marcion, the real father of Christianity, in Antioch. 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. The resurrection is missing from Mark because it was written from a Roman perspective. Resurrection meant reincarnation to the the Nazoreans, and the Romans wanted to make it look as if Jesus was resurrected (reincarnated) as the 'Son of Man,' or the Roman Emperor Titus who returns from the dead to reap a measure of revenge on the Jews who were responsible for his, Jesus' (Titus') crucifixion.

Each and every contributor to the conspiracy had his or her own motives. In some cases 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. Of course, this was after the battle between the two competing factions of Christianity, the Gnostics and the Orthodox, had been won and the victor rewrote history. Since they rely on early Christian writings as their source, many religious scholars do not seem to be able to, or willing to grasp the fact that the Gnostic version of Christianity preceded the Orthodox, and to the Gnostics there was no crucified savior named Jesus of Nazareth, only Christ consciousness. This is what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Romans when he talks about the carnal mind as opposed to the spiritual mind. Conservative religious scholars have stood in the way of progress for centuries with their claims that only they with their theological training are capable of fully understanding the true meaning and authorship of the gospels. As stated in 1John 2:27: "ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things". As a result when you review various opinions on authorship all you find is the same old tired unconvincing rhetoric as to who the true authors were. Remember, if there are no gospels, there is no Jesus, and if there is no Jesus these people are out of a job.

This is why we find that in Paul's early Epistles, the ones that most scholars believe he wrote, we do not find a real live flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth, but rather a supernatural Christ inside of he, Paul. If you don't think that the gospels are forgeries, think again. The manufacture of false documents by the Church was so common that it became known as pious forgery. While there are those who claim that the early Gnostic style Christians were responsible for writing the gospels, it must be understood that there exists NO connection between these two disparate belief systems less the name Jesus Christ which was adopted by the Roman Church to confuse the masses which unfortunately includes many Christian scholars. The newly emboldened Church even went so far as to incorporate members of the earlier Gnostic style churches as if they were their own. However, what should be most troubling for Christians is that the closer you get to the origins of Christianity the less that is known about Jesus Christ. There seems to be no knowledge of the Christian Soter in any of the early Christian writings attributed to the so-called precursor Chritian sects living in Palestine during the life of Jesus. Although there were a number of individuals named Jesus there were none who fit the biblical description of Jesus Christ.

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.

We have read what Simon Magus had to say about the crucifixion. According to him, it was he Simon and not Jesus who was crucified. Paul clearly states that he was crucified with Christ and and that Christ lived in he Paul. Yet, Christians still cling to the false notion that a man named Jesus Christ suffered under Pontious Pilate was crucified, died and was buried. To make their point they cling to the gospels which we have clearly shown say that Simon and not Jesus was crucified. Only the Gospel of John leaves out the incident with Simon altogether, and this is because the Gospel of John was written about Simon who was Saint John the Divine.

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. Now, there is a reason why the term Lord was used rather than that of Jesus Christ in the Peter Gospel "Rev. D. H. Stanton, in The Journal of Theological Studies said:
The conclusion with which we are confronted is that the Gospel of Peter once held a place of honour comparable to that assigned to the four Gospels, perhaps even higher than some of them. This conclusion is supported by a reference of Justin Martyr (circa 160) to the Gospel then called Petra (Peter, today) but there is evidence in the Secret Vatican Archives that the writings attributed to Justin Martyr were written in the Fifth Century and retrospectively applied to him. Serapion of Antioch (c. 205) records that an odd writing called Petra was in presbyterial use during his time but later, according to Eusebius (d. 339) it was withheld because it contained some heresy. That heresy was the fact that Apollo was the god mentioned in that Gospel, not Jesus Christ, and the latters name was written over Apollos name in more modern times."

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 word was first used in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament c 200 BCE. It was used as a translation for messiah, but does not have a truly parallel menaing. 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.

Modern Christians who erroneously believe that what is today called Christianity started with Jesus, will be unable to relate to the words that "our doctrines of religion... have been established by the natural understanding... and [is] the same religion as those divinely favored men of old". The early Gentile Christians knew this fact, and it was for this reason that a copy of Platos Republic and other such writings was contained among the writings preserved in the recently discovered Nag Hammadi Library of early Christian writings. St. Augustine wrote: "That, in our times, is the Christian religion, which to know and follow is the most sure and certain health, called according to that name, but not according to the thing itself, of which it is the name; for the thing itself which is now called the Christian religion, really was known to the ancients, nor was wanting at any time from the beginning of the human race, until the time when Christ came in the flesh, from whence the true religion, which had previously existed, began to be called Christian; and this in our days is the Christian religion, not as having been wanting in former times, but as having in later times received this name"--Opera Augustini, vol. i, p.12). What this means is that the Jesus in the existing Gospels was converted by the Church to support the tenets of Mithraism, which was the universal religion of the empire. The problem is that the original teachings of The Way had absolutely nothing in common with what came to be called Christianity under Pagan Rome.

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. Then how is Saul of Tarsus connected to Apollonius? Another form of Saul would be Sol or the Sun, and Apollo just happens to be the Greek Sun god, and the numerology for Jesus is 888 or you got it, the Sun.

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 Paul 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.

The Dead Sea scrolls show us that the so-called followers of Jesus make no mention of Jesus of Nazareth. We are told that Jesus was crucified on a hill called Golgotha which is commonly interpreted to mean skull, but no such location has actually ever been unearthed. So, what does this reference to Golgotha actually mean? Could it be that Golgotha not only means skull, but that the skull which contains the mind is where the crucifixion actually occurs. In other words, these scriptures do not refer to a physical crucifixion, but to the final steps of enlightenment which starts with the birth narrative and continues with the baptism, transfiguation, renunciation, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. Much like the Buddha's eight step path to enlightenment, this is a seven step path, one for each chakra. Remember, Simon (Paul) has to carry the cross for Jesus, and Paul says "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."Galatians 2:20. In other words each man must bear his own cross or seek his own salvation. This explains the meaning of the so-called blunder of Zechariah 9:9 where Matthew has Jesus mounting two horses, but in reality what it means is that the gospels are telling two different stories; one that is literal and the second which has a deeper spiritual meaning. "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;"--Acts 17:24. "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands."--Mark 14:58 Could Jesus be referring to the temple of the mind?

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? It seems that when the Persians had freed the Jews from bondage in Babylon they encouraged the Jews to do exactly what the Brahmanas had done in India, that is to write their own holy book. "And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily," The Persian king, Artaxerxes, commissioning Ezra to write the Jewish scriptures in order to gain control of the people. "And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment." This is about as close to an admission as you will find that the Bible was written not at the behest of any unseen God, but as a means of controlling and exerting the will of the rulers upon the masses.

So, it must have seemed only fitting for the Romans who were sick and tired of the Jews and their dime a dozen messiahs to create a super 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 pacifistic Roman values and not warlike 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. Apollonius and Damis were initiated into the secret order known as 'the Sons of Sun' which included Josephus, as well as the Emperors Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva and Trajan.

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. What most people fail to realize is the fact that not only are there no contemporary extra biblical references to Jesus Christ, but there was no biblical mention of Jesus Christ prior to 325 CE. All of the scriptures that you read in today's New Testament are based on the codices commissioned by Constantine after the Council of Nicea. No one knows what was previously written since all of those earlier writings fell victim to the flames.

Jesus' opposition to the Pharisee appear mostly in Matthew because the author was aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews that was, most 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 Sabbath):

"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 Judeo-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 Judeo-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 Jud�o-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.'


It took me quite a while to figure what these passages meant since they really don't make any sense when read together. I finally had an epiphany and realized that the snake represented the serpent or the spinal column, and this referred to the introduction of Eastern kundalini theology into Judaism by both Yeshu ben Pendira c 100 BCE and the 'False Messiah' during the first century CE.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."--Matthew 6:33

Sources Table of Contents To Learn More