|
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 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 latter’s name was written over
Apollo’s
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 Plato’s 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
|