Jesus Christ was the central figure in one of the most audacious plots in history. Much of the astonishing story is hinted at in the four Gospels, and yet is consistently ignored or misinterpreted. Yet even though the truth of Christ can be laid out for all to see, the vast majority of Christians will never accept it. Why? Because they have "faith".
It’s useful to contrast faith with science (knowledge). One definition of a scientific theory is that it must be capable of being falsified i.e. it must make predictions that, if not borne out, will cause it to be judged false. If the predictions of Einstein’s various theories had not been experimentally verified then no scientist would have accepted them. All scientific theories are provisional because, at any time, new experimental data can refute them. Newtonian physics, which had been successful for centuries (and remains successful in most situations encountered in everyday life), was eventually overthrown by Einsteinian physics because in specific situations where the two theories predicted different outcomes, the experimental data vindicated Einstein and refuted Newton. Towards the end of the 19th century virtually no scientist would have anticipated that Newtonian physics was about to be replaced; nevertheless, it happened. This is one of the greatest strengths of science: the most cherished of theories can be discarded if the facts demand it. So why have Christianity, Islam and Judaism not gone the same way as disproved scientific theories? It’s because they rely on faith, the enemy of reason. If Newtonian physics were a faith-based religion, we would no doubt still have “Newtonians” stomping around condemning the “Einsteinians” as dangerous heretics who should be exterminated and cast into hell. No matter what the Einsteinians said, no matter how much proof they offered, the Newtonians would never change their minds. Science spares us that tragedy. Religion, on the whole, does not.
Are people like Osama bin Laden, the Pope, and the Chief Rabbi capable of holding different opinions from those they currently espouse? Is there anything they would accept as evidence that they are wrong? If not, aren’t they just brainwashed automatons, or mindless extremists with a fanatical and irrational adherence to the position they have adopted? One thing’s for sure: these people can’t all be right since they believe in entirely different things.
There are thousands of religions, all making radically different claims. Here’s a question for everyone following any of these different belief systems. Is there anything that would stop you believing? That is, would you accept any kind of “falsification principle” being applied to your religion? Is there any “fact” that you would accept as a refutation of your chosen religion? If you cannot formulate such a possibility then doesn’t it mean that you believe blindly? If you proudly state that your faith is "unshakable" then you are not prepared to accept anything as evidence against your beliefs. Therefore, your beliefs constitute an irrational fanaticism, completely divorced from reality. The difference between you and an insane person is merely a matter of degree or opinion since a madman also adheres to unreasonable, unverifiable beliefs that he will never abandon under any circumstances. Scientists actively look for anomalies and inconsistencies. They seek data that doesn’t conform with the expected results. That’s where Quantum Mechanics came from. Classical physics couldn’t account for a number of observed phenomena so had to be discarded, no matter how painful. Do religious believers look for anomalies, for reasons not to believe? And, if they don’t, aren’t their beliefs worthless? They could literally believe anything if they are never willing to challenge their beliefs. Every religious person ought to be skeptical because why would the True God want to associate with fools and blind believers?
Virtually all religions are designed to brainwash people into a state where they become “mad” i.e. they will buy into the particular religion hook, line and sinker and nothing will ever dent their faith. Look at the millions of Muslims participating in the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Do they ever give the impression that they are thoughtful, independently-minded individuals who are open to criticism of their religion and who are capable of questioning their beliefs? Or do they resemble a mind-controlled horde who will tear to shreds anyone who rejects their beliefs? Islam, more than any other religion, is the angry scream of the lynch mob. Muslims went berserk because of a cartoon in a Danish magazine depicting Mohammed as a terrorist. People were killed. Danish products were boycotted. Imams spoke out against the evils of free speech. Someone tried to murder the cartoonist. Is this behaviour sane? Is faith sane? Or is it another word for madness? The search for gnosis – the highest knowledge – is the opposite of faith.
Since Christianity is the world’s dominant religion, we particularly challenge all Christians to consider what facts they might accept as refutation of their religion. Are there any? Every aspect of Christianity has been put under a microscope and found wanting. Nothing other than blind, defiant belief has survived the forensic analysis of Christianity.
The question becomes not whether Christianity (or any of the other main religions for that matter) is true but why so many people continue to believe in a religion that is illogical, incoherent, contradictory, incredible, ludicrous and whose myriad failings have been highlighted in endless books. The answer is simple. People will believe anything if it gives them a “system” with which they feel comfortable. Christianity provides people with a moral framework, a history, a community, a worldwide family, a hope of eternal life, a hope of paradise. Above all, it gives them an identity. The fact that the religion is unbelievable and manifestly false is neither here nor there as far as they are concerned. To abandon Christianity is a step so terrifying to Christians that the vast majority will never take it. Those who do lapse from Christianity are those who never fully engaged with it in the first place, hence their identity was not defined by it. Once your identity is exclusively defined by a religion you’re in real trouble because to abandon your religion is to lose your identity. A few months ago, a Jehovah’s Witness wrote to us to say how disgusted he was with his religion and how he now wanted to worship Lucifer, the god of light. He poured out his revulsion for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. A few months later, he said he had become “terrified” and had now begged to be allowed back into the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We were not surprised in the slightest. Many people are the victims of this horrendous mind control that will never let them go.
Jews endured millennia of horrific persecutions and expulsions, culminating in the Holocaust. How could anyone continue to believe in Yahweh after he failed to lift a finger to prevent any of this? Can there be any rational basis for belief in Yahweh as a “good”, trustworthy, honourable God who has entered into the holiest, most solemn covenant with his “chosen people”? This is demonstrably the worst contract in the history of the world; all the more surprising since so many Jews are lawyers. No sane person would continue to abide by it. It was rescinded long ago by the complete failure of one of the parties to honour the agreement. Faithful Jews only believe in Yahweh now as an act of hateful protest against the rest of the world. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are known to be fakes, but that doesn’t mean the plan doesn’t exist. Some Jews, their elite, will never be satisfied until they have fully avenged themselves against the world. Mammon has replaced Yahweh as their true God. Banks are the synagogues of Mammon. Wall Street is the Third Temple. Money is their new Ark of the Covenant. This isn't true of all Jews, of course: just the ones who want to dominate the rest of us. The others are entirely innocent.
The early Church leader Tertullian said of Christianity: “It is true because it is absurd. I believe because it is impossible.” That is still the basis of Christianity. Insanity.
People are Christians because they are scared not to be. Imagine having to understand the meaning of life without having Christianity to fall back on, without all of that comforting brainwashing, so deeply ingrained as to become second nature. The Christians are not alone, of course. All of the mainstream religions play the same game. It’s not the “truth value” of these religions that anyone cares about, but the rituals, the comfort, the consolation, the hope and the simplistic means for understanding life that such religions offer i.e. these religions are psychological rather than philosophical. And precisely because of that, they cannot be shaken by “facts”. They are immune to challenge. An atheist such as Richard Dawkins wastes his time trying to debate with them. He has failed to understand that he is attacking their identity and psychology but not offering to replace religion with anything that has any of the same psychological benefit.
Anyone who seeks to topple the false gods must offer better gods. Those who offer the sterile vacuum of atheism can’t succeed. Few people are psychologically capable of maintaining an atheistic mindset. Even the fierce atheist Voltaire supposedly converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.
Illumination, the religion of the Illuminati, is concerned with both the truth and with psychological well-being. The aspect of Illumination that deals with the truth is highly scientific and philosophical, and we shall be outlining it in the coming weeks. This aspect has a specific form. However, the psychological aspect can have whatever form is suitable to prepare the initiate for the more complex aspect. The members of the Illuminati can choose any form of religious devotion they like, and many choose to focus on the ancient gods and rituals of the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Egyptians, Norse, Persians, Babylonians etc. Particularly favoured gods and goddesses are Mithras, Apollo, Aphrodite, Dionysus, Demeter, Ra, Lucifer, Minerva and Janus. None of these is regarded as the “True God” (who is named Abraxas by the Illuminati) but they are all psychologically valuable. No Illuminatus follows any of the gods of the mainstream religions, all of which are children of the Demiurge, psychotic and profoundly damaging psychologically.
While it is vital for any credible religion to be concerned with truth, it is just as important for the psychological aspects of religion to be healthy and inspiring. In this respect, everyone should be free to choose their own gods and rituals. Religions such as the Abrahamic ones that impose rigid, exclusive ways of worship on their followers are obnoxious, oppressive, tyrannical and repellent and ought to be opposed by all decent, thinking people. The Hindus, with their mixture of polytheism for everyday religious devotion and monotheism for their abstract, philosophical thinking, have a far healthier model of religion.
The “Christianity” of Jesus Christ bears no resemblance to the Christianity of Catholicism and Protestantism. Isn’t it time people listened to the truth about Christ? Yet there are many “truths” to be explored. You can have Christ the woman, Christ the gay man, Christ the married man, Christ the pagan, Christ the Jew, Christ the anti-Semite, Christ the man, Christ the god, Christ the man-god, Christ the king, Christ the humble man, Christ the freedom fighter, Christ the magician, Christ the fraud, Christ the whatever you desire him to be. Take your pick.
P. D. Ouspensky in A New Model of the Universe said:
"Historically the chief role in the formation of Christianity was played not by the teaching of Christ but by the teaching of Paul. Church Christianity from the very beginning contradicted in many respects the ideas of Christ himself. Later, the divergence became still wider. It is by no means a new idea that Christ, if born on earth later, not only could not be the head of the Christian Church, but probably would not be able even to belong to it, and in the most brilliant periods of the might and power of the Church would most certainly have been declared a heretic and burned at the stake.
"Thus the New Testament, and also Christian teaching, cannot be taken as one whole. It must be remembered that later cults deviate sharply from the fundamental teaching of Christ himself, which in the first place was never a cult.
"The New Testament is a very strange book. It is written for those who already have a certain degree of understanding, for those who possess a key. It is the greatest mistake to think that the New Testament is a simple book, and that it is intelligible to the simple and humble. It is impossible to read it simply just as it is impossible to read simply a book of mathematics, full of formulae, special expressions, open and hidden references to the mathematical literature, allusions to different theories known only to the 'initiated', and so on…Every phrase, every word, contains hidden ideas, and it is only when one begins to bring these hidden ideas to light, that the power of this book and its influence on people, which has lasted for two thousand years, becomes clear."
"[St John's Gospel] was written in Greek and probably by a Greek, certainly not by a Jew. One small feature points to this. In all cases in which in the other Gospels it is said 'people', in St John's Gospel it is said 'Jews'."
"The words of the Gospel, 'The Kingdom of heaven is within you,' sound for us hollow and unintelligible, and they not only do not explain the principal idea, but are more likely to obscure it. Men do not understand that within them lies the way to the Kingdom of Heaven and that the Kingdom of Heaven does not necessarily lie beyond the threshold of death.
"The Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God, means esotericism, that is, the inner circle of humanity, and also the knowledge and the ideas of this circle."
2) The Female Christ
According to Dr Anthony Harris in The Sacred Virgin and the Holy Whore, Jesus Christ was a female suffering from a genetic abnormality called Turner's Syndrome, which gave her a rather masculine appearance.
Consider this rather odd expression relating to the Last Supper (John 13:23):
Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
A Muslim has written an article entitled "Did Jesus Have Female Breasts?"
Along similar lines to Jesus being a woman, it is claimed by some people that Pope John VIII was a woman ("Pope Joan") masquerading as a rather boyish man. She fell in love, became pregnant and was torn to pieces by an angry mob when she revealed her deception in the most blatant way by giving birth during a papal mass. This pope was erased from history by the Church, paving the way for the second, official Pope John VIII. History is being rewritten all the time. It is always in flux.
3) The Gay Christ
A number of ancient sects believed that Christ had male lovers.
Consider these statements:
(From the Secret Gospel of Mark):
"And straight away, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing a linen cloth over [his] naked [body]. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Mark 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
Mark 14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
The "beloved disciple" is usually identified as John. What does it mean that he was "beloved"? Why does he have such an intimate and physical relationship with Jesus, even resting his head against his chest in front of the other apostles? Why would the apostles accept this behaviour in what was unquestionably a homophobic culture?
But various sects didn't hesitate to draw the seemingly inevitable conclusion: Jesus and the beloved disciple were lovers. Yet how could such a scandalous relationship involving a major public figure be possible in Biblical times?
4) The Married Christ
Of course there is one way out of this dilemma, but the alternative is every bit as repellent to most Christians as the idea that Jesus was homosexual.
What if the beloved disciple were not in fact a man (John), but a woman - his wife. No one would be surprised in the slightest if a wife laid her head against her husband. Many books, most famously The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln) and the spectacularly successful novel The Da Vinci Code (by Dan Brown), have identified Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus. Da Vinci's painting The Last Supper famously shows Jesus seated next to an extremely effeminate, unbearded man (nearly everyone else in the picture has a beard), or is it a woman? Both are wearing clothes that are colour coordinated, emphasising their closeness. The Last Supper is an extraordinary picture because it blatantly serves up a startling visual representation of the two most controversial (and mutually exclusive) theories concerning Jesus - that he was gay or married. Every Christian Church should have a reproduction of The Last Supper hung over the front entrance to remind every Christian of what choice they must make: Gay Jesus or Married Jesus.
In the Gospel of Saint Philip, we find:
And the companion of the saviour was Mary Magdalene. Christ loved Mary more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her [mouth] (uncertain due to damage to the manuscript). The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?"
The same gospel also says: "There were three who always walked with the Lord; Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion."
And some have said that companion can be translated as "spouse".
It has been suggested that Mary Magdalene was a leader of the early Church and that she in fact is the unidentified "Beloved Disciple", to whom the Fourth Gospel (normally called the Gospel of John) is attributed.
There was nothing extraordinary in that time about a man and his partner travelling around together. Simon Magus, the Illuminati's most revered Grand Master, was always accompanied by his companion Helena, a former prostitute.
It should be noted that in coded manuscripts a common "trick" is to use one name to describe two separate people. This allows a constant ambiguity to be maintained. Those who are not aware of the code will be confused, but those who understand the code will easily understand the message. When both people are involved in the same episode, they are referenced by their normal names. In the Gospels, the "beloved disciple" is two people: Mary Magdalene (of Bethany) and her brother Lazarus (Jesus' brother-in-law). John 11:1-2 says, "Now there was a certain man sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, of the town of Mary and of Martha her sister. (And Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment. And wiped his feet with her hair: whose brother Lazarus was sick.) His sisters therefore sent to him, saying "Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick."
So, we definitely know that Lazarus is "he whom thou lovest" i.e. the "beloved disciple". But we also know that when the beloved disciple lays "his" head against Jesus' chest, it cannot be a man that is being described since it would never have been tolerated by the other apostles. In that case, the beloved disciple is Mary Magdalene.
Mary and her brother Lazarus are known by the single codename of "John". The context usually reveals which one of the pair is being discussed. The Gospels are full of tricks being played with names to bamboozle those who do not know the code.
5) Christ the Jew
Jesus explicitly tells his apostles not to have any dealings with non-Jews:
Matthew 10:5: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Matthew 10:6: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 10:7: And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
To a woman of Canaan, Jesus says (Matthew 15:24):
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
In other words, Jesus' message is only for Jews; specifically those Jews who have not yet understood that he is the Messiah.
In similar vein, Jesus says to a Samaritan woman (John 4:22):
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
How much clearer can Jesus be? He was a Jew and was explicitly saying that only Jews can have salvation. All Christians (non-Jews) are damned out of the mouth of the very person they worship. That's irony for you. What fools choose to worship someone who has condemned them to hell?
When crowds touched the hem or fringe of Jesus' garment, they were actually touching the tassels (the tsitsit) that we see even today being worn by Orthodox Jews. Forget any portrayal of Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed Aryan: he was probably a dark haired, dark eyed, Orthodox Jew with the skullcap, odd hairstyle, big beard and characteristic robes and tassels of an Orthodox Jew of his time.
If Jesus had been portrayed in anything like the manner of his actual appearance, there would have been no Christianity because no Gentile, no Roman, no Goth, no Gaul would ever have worshipped an Orthodox Jew. Even to refer to him as Jesus Christ - a Greco-Roman name - is a political act of propaganda to distance him from his Jewish roots. He should be called by his actual Hebrew name: Yehoshua ben Yosef. Isn't it about time Jesus was depicted accurately? Would Christianity collapse overnight if he were?
Orthodox Jews then, as now, are an exclusive, closed shop: they had and have no interest in non-Jews. They made and make no attempt to convert anyone. They are intensely tribal. Anyone who does nevertheless convert to Judaism is viewed with the utmost suspicion and never truly accepted. In the UK recently, there was a court case concerning whether the non-observant son of a Jewish woman was more entitled to a place at a Jewish faith school than the observant son of a religious-minded mother who had converted to Judaism. The governors of the school were in no doubt that the boy whose mother was born a Jew had more entitlement than the boy whose mother was a convert, regardless of their respective degree of religious devotion. In other words, Judaism is racial, not religious. If you are not of the Jewish bloodline, transmitted via the mother, then you can never be truly Jewish if you convert. No Gentile would ever have been acceptable to Jesus Christ (Yehoshua ben Yosef). To call him "Jesus Christ" is to completely misrepresent him.
Matthew and Luke both provide an extremely detailed genealogy for Jesus, showing just how impeccable his Jewish bloodline is (Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3: 23-38). Rather comically, the two genealogies disagree. Nevertheless, why should we be told this information if Jesus Christ was supposed to become a god to the non-Jewish world? What non-Jew would want to know of, or care about, the Jewish ancestry of Jesus Christ?
Jesus makes it clear he has no intention of overthrowing Judaism and replacing it with a new religion (Matthew 5:17):
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
6) Christ the anti-Semite
In an extraordinary outburst, Jesus accuses Jews ("Abraham's seed") of being the children of the Devil and "not of God" (John 8: 37-47):
8:37: I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
8:38: I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
8:39: They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
8:40: But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
8:41: Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
8:42: Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
8:43: Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
8:45: And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
8:46: Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
8:47: He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
Christian Gnostics have pointed to this passage as proof that Jesus regarded Yahweh as the Demiurge (Satan), and the Jews as his wicked followers, who were deaf to the word of the True God. It's hard to imagine a more anti-Semitic statement.
Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, the pagan day of the sun. He was therefore announcing himself as a solar god.
Jesus cursed a fig tree, symbolising the Jewish religion and how it would soon be replaced by Christianity (Matthew 21:17-22):
And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.
Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever.
And presently the fig tree withered away.
And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
And the same story is told in Mark 11: 12-14 and 11: 20-24
And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.
And his disciples heard it.
And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
Jews wanted to kill Jesus because, on the Sabbath day, his apostles plucked corn and he cured a sick man (Matthew 12: 1-14):
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
The Jews are held solely responsible for the death of Jesus (Matthew 27: 23-25):
And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
7) Christ the King
When Jesus was crucified, a sign calling him Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews was placed on the cross. In other words, the most significant fact about Jesus according to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate who ordered his execution was his claim to be the Jewish King. He wasn't labelled a thief, a rebel, a murderer, a rapist, a looter, a blasphemer, a god, a fraud or anything else; just the King of the Jews. Anyone who made such a claim was committing a capital crime against the imperial power of Rome. Only Rome decided who could rule Israel. To say otherwise was to challenge the authority of the emperor.
John 19:15: Pilate saith to them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Caesar.
It's laughable that Christians claim that Jesus was innocent and didn't deserve to be crucified. According to Roman law, his execution could not have been more merited. He was a rebel, an insurrectionist, a man setting himself up as a king and consequently committing high treason against the ruling Roman regime.
The Jews themselves knew the law (John 19:12):
If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend. For whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar.
After Jesus miraculously fed the five thousand, the people wanted to make him king there and then (John 6:15):
When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
But rather than trying to play things down, Jesus then walks on water that evening (John 6:16-19):
6:16: And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,
6:17: And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.
6:18: And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.
6:19: So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
Jesus then seems to teleport the ship to land (John 6:21):
Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.
And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
Why didn't Jesus deny it if it were false? Why is "God" playing evasive word games? Why is he pleading the Hebrew equivalent of the Fifth Amendment? He refuses to answer for the very simple reason that he knows he will incriminate himself. What a shifty character, so economical with the truth.
Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
In Matthew 2:1-12, the three wise men explicitly seek "the King of the Jews".
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
Then Herod, 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.
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion, shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem: BEHOLD THY KING will come to thee, the just and saviour: he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
When Jesus enters Jerusalem for the Passover festival, he is treated as the rightful king (John 12: 12-19):
On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,
Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.
These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.
The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record.
For this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle.
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.
Jesus was quite simply the most famous/infamous person in Jerusalem during the Passover
Matthew 21: 10-11:
And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
8) Christ the Warrior
Jesus tells his apostles to sell their clothes to buy swords (in other words, weapons are to take priority over everything else: Luke 22:36):
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
When Jesus is arrested, Simon Peter (and probably others) fight back (John 18:1-14):
When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
Jesus preached war, division, civil war and martyrdom (Matthew 10: 34-39):
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Ironically, and bafflingly, Jesus also condemns the use of the sword, even though he encouraged his followers to buy them (Matthew 26: 51-52):
And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
9) Christ's appearance
Christ's appearance is never described in the Gospels. The prophet Isaiah prophesied what the Messiah would look like - the ugliest man of all time. Not only that, he would be despised and rejected. He would be a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. (Isaiah 52:13-15; Isaiah 53:1-12):
Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Jesus was reputed by more than one person to be extremely ugly. The Carpocratians were said to possess images of an ugly Christ based on a likeness commissioned by Pilate during Christ's trial. In The Sacred Virgin and the Holy Whore, Jesus is described as being about five feet tall with a hunchback and scant hair. He is dark skinned, with a long face, a long nose, and a boyish beard. This description allegedly derives from the Jewish historian Josephus.
10) Christ the Brother
There is a clear statement that Joseph enjoyed carnal relations with Mary and that they had at least one other son (Matthew 1:25):
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Again, we discover that Jesus was the "firstborn son" i.e. not Mary's only child (Luke 2:7):
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Christ was in fact a member of a large family, with four brothers and several sisters (Matthew 13:54-58 and also Mark 6:3 and John 2:11):
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?
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
Mark 6:3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
John 2:11 After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brethren, and his disciples.
11) Christ the Miracle Worker
The wedding feast in Cana in Galilee is mentioned in only one Gospel (John, Chapter 2). Jesus' mother apparently thought it was a fit task for the "Son of God" to use his power to turn water into wine for thirsty wedding guests. Is that what you would ask the Son of God to do? Does he grant three wishes like a genie in a bottle?
And, amazingly, the Son of God complied. His first recorded miracle was to get people drunk on alcohol. What a start to his miraculous career. Maybe he was trying to appeal to the followers of Dionysus. Some researchers have speculated that this was Jesus' own wedding (to Mary Magdalene), hence why his mother was so anxious for him to address the alcohol shortage (it didn't reflect well on her own skill as a hostess).
Jesus said that his apostles had the ability to perform the same miracles that he could, including raising the dead (Matthew 10: 8):
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
His most remarkable miracle is raising Lazarus from the dead. This, like the wedding at Cana, is described in only one Gospel and again it is John's (John 11: 1-57): Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.
Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again.
His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.
Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.
Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.
Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:
And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.
Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house.
Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.
Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee.
As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him. Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.
The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.
Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,
And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept.
Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!
And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?
Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.
And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.
Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?
Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.
Lazarus's resurrection from the dead was naturally a sensation. Many Jews abandoned their religion to follow Jesus because of this astounding miracle. Lazarus became so famous that the chief priests wanted to kill him too (John 12: 9-11):
Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;
Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.
12) Christ the Man (not God)
Jesus says he does only what his father taught him, thus drawing a clear distinction between his wisdom and God's. He is conceding that he is not part of a Godhead (Trinity) that has equal powers, intelligence, judgement and experience (John 8:28):
I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me.
Jews accuse Jesus of being a Samaritan rather than a Jew, and of being possessed by a devil (John 8:48):
Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
Jesus says that it's OK to blaspheme against him (because he is just as man), but not against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:32):
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Note that the "Holy Ghost" is the Christian equivalent of the Hebrew Shekinah, the presence of God in the world.
13) Christ the God
Jesus, having said that he does nothing of himself, but only what his father has taught him then makes the declaration, "I and my Father are one" (John 10: 22-42):
10:22: And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
10:23: And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
10:24: Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
10:25: Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
10:26: But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
10:27: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
10:28: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
10:29: My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
10:30: I and my Father are one.
10:31: Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
10:32: Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33: The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
10:34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
10:35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
10:36: Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
10:37: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
10:38: But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
10:39: Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
10:40: And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
10:41: And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.
10:42: And many believed on him there.
Note that John 10:30 is almost certainly a fabricated insert to bolster the notion of a Holy Trinity where God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are three persons within a unity, sharing one "substance". The Sabellian heresy asserted that God is one person with three aspects/natures/ways of revealing himself to humanity. In other words, according to Sabellius, there weren't three distinct persons in one God, but rather one God revealing himself in three different ways (wearing a threefold mask, so to speak). How many practising Christians have ever heard of Sabellius and would be able to meaningfully debate the complexities of the concept of the Trinity (which amounts to a claim that God suffers from the most extreme form of multiple personality syndrome ever known where three separate persons permanently coexist within one being).
Jesus says that he existed before Abraham and that anyone who follows his teachings will never die (John 8:51-59):
8:51: Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
8:52: Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
8:53: Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
8:54: Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
8:55: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
8:56: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
8:57: Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
8:58: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
8:59: Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
Note that in 8:59 where it says that Jesus "hid himself" in the crowded temple, this is taken by some to indicate that he could make himself invisible (in fact there are several places in the Gospel where Jesus mysteriously disappears from the midst of large crowds) and by certain Gnostics to prove that he did not have a physical body but was pure spirit that could appear or disappear at will. (They also claimed that Jesus only appeared to die on the cross since he had no physical body that could perish).
Also note that the Jews were prepared to stone Jesus to death for blasphemy, thus proving that the fact that he was eventually crucified rather than stoned was because he had committed a capital crime against Rome (he had already committed a capital crime against Judaism by claiming to be God).
In Luke 1:32-37, we learn that Jesus is the Son of God and the King of Israel:
In Luke 1:32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Lu:1:33: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Lu:1:34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Lu:1:35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Lu:1:36: And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Lu:1:37: For with God nothing shall be impossible.
But how can Jesus' father be "David" (i.e. the royal line of King David) if his father was the "Holy Ghost"? He is to be given the throne of David and to reign over the house of Jacob forever. This is a specifically Jewish reference. It has no relevance whatever to Gentiles.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
In Matthew 14:61, Jesus explicitly acknowledges that he is the Son of God.
14:61: But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God?
14:62: And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
14) Christ as on Old Testament Extremist
Despite being regarded as gentle, tolerant, peaceful, loving and forgiving, Jesus proves that he is anything but with his deranged statements in the style of an Old Testament prophet (Matthew 5:28-30):
5:28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Note that here he introduces the concept of the "thought crime" long before George Orwell introduced the term i.e. you sin simply by thinking sinfully. Whether you actually act on your sinful thoughts is neither here nor there; you have already committed the sin (hence you might as well go ahead and do it because you will be punished for it anyway).
5:29: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
5:30: And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
15) Christ and the Higher Self
Jesus says that at moments of crisis, the Higher Self will take over (Matthew 10: 17-19):
10:17: But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
10:18: And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
10:19: But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
Some Christian Gnostics have argued that the event known as "The Transfiguration" was symbolic of Jesus' first encounter with his Higher Self (Matthew 17: 1-5):
17:1: And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
17:2: And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
17:3: And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
17:4: Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
17:5: While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Gnostic Christians say that Jesus preached that everyone could be a "son of God" or a god (John 10: 34-36):
John 10:34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law: I said you are gods?
John 10:35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36: Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest because I said: I am the Son of God?
Jesus is referring to Psalm 81 (or 82 in some Bibles): 1 and 6:
81:1 God hath stood in the congregation of gods: and being in the midst of them he judgeth gods.
81:6 I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the Most High.
Gnostic Christians claim that Jesus is saying that everyone can be a "Son of God" and enjoy the same relationship with God that he did; everyone can be part of the "congregation of gods".
Jesus makes the Gnostic statement that anyone can become perfect like God (Matthew 5:48):
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
16) Christ the Unknown
Virtually nothing is known about Jesus Christ. Outside of the Gospels, the few historical sources that seemingly refer to him are so vague or ambiguous that they may not be about him at all. Several researchers have concluded that he doesn't exist at all beyond the pages of the New Testament. He is a fabrication, a fiction, they say. However, these researchers would have equal difficulties with many other figures whom no one doubts existed. For instance, outside of the Gospels there is almost no mention of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea. It might be expected that a Roman Governor's life would be well documented, but this is simply not the case.
Even within the Gospels, there is meagre information about Jesus. New Testament scholar Burnett Hillman Streeter said that apart from the forty days and nights in the wilderness, of which we know practically nothing, everything we know about the Gospel Jesus cannot occupy more than about three weeks of his life. There is little mention of his mother, virtually none of his father, and controversy rages over whether he had brothers and sisters.
The Gospels are full of contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities, leaving ample scope for innumerable heresies to spring up. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but none of his teachings have been preserved in that language. We are always dealing with translations and translations of translations. Ambiguity and inaccuracy are inevitable.
The Gospel Writers: Eye Witnesses or Fiction Writers?
All writers are familiar with the concept of "Point of View". For example, the birth of Jesus was witnessed, according to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, by Mary, Joseph, three wise men and some shepherds. Matthew and Luke certainly weren't witnesses. Presumably, it was from Jesus that they heard the story of his birth, and Jesus must have been told about it by Mary and Joseph. However, none of this is actually explained. The "facts" are stated by a so-called "omniscient narrator" who has full knowledge of everything that happened. Many old-fashioned novels employ this style of narration, but most modern novels use a limited point of view where the author tries to inhabit the heads of a small cast of characters. Only what is known to the character can be described. For example, an omniscient narrator might say, "John was watching TV. Outside his front door, a SWAT team was getting ready to smash it open." But "John" has no knowledge that the SWAT team is outside so if an author is using the limited point of view of that character, he can only write something along the lines of, "John was watching TV. Some sitcom junk. He wasn't paying attention. God, how had he managed to get himself in this situation? Suddenly, he froze. He was certain he'd heard voices outside his door. Cops? Instinctively, he reached for his pistol. The bastards won't take me without a fight, he thought." You see how different the two styles are?
When you are reading the Gospels, you should always think to yourself, How does the author know this? Consider Matthew 1:18-25:
1:18: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
1:19: Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
1:20: But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
1:21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
1:22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
1:24: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
1:25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
So, how does Matthew know any of this? He wasn't a witness. Who told him? Is his source reliable? Isn't it all just hearsay? This type of narration readily lends itself to fabrication and fantasy. It would have been far more credible if Matthew had written, "One day I was talking to Jesus and asking him about the circumstances leading up to his birth. He said that Mary and Joseph had told him that one day etc etc… I was astonished and said to Jesus, 'Do you really believe that?'"
But that doesn't sound very authoritative, does it? Quickly, the whole thing would dissolve if it were written from anything other than an omniscient viewpoint. And note that the omniscient viewpoint if often referred to as the "God" point of view because the narrator knows everything. But these Gospels aren't written by God, so they should be viewed with the utmost circumspection. If Pilate and Jesus had a private conversation hours before Jesus' death, how can anyone other than those two possibly know what was said?
How can anyone know what took place between Judas and the chief priests? This is complete fiction (Luke 22: 3-6):
22:3: Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
22:4: And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
22:5: And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
22:6: And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
How would anyone know what message Pilate's wife sent to him (Matthew 27:19)?
When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
(Many of the articles featured on this website are also written from the omniscient point of view and every reader is entitled to question the veracity of each statement. The difference between us and the priests and preachers of mainstream religions is that we do not demand that you treat everything as holy scripture. We deny that there is any such thing. Make up your own minds. Be skeptical. We have ancient, secret scrolls of a similar type to those found at Nag Hammadi, but that doesn't make their contents infallibly true. All documents must be interpreted. The question is usually one of which interpretation is most credible, and everyone judges credibility in their own way.)
Much of the Gospels is fabricated. Who are the authors of the Gospels anyway? People often assume that the authors knew Jesus personally. Two and perhaps three of them didn't. Matthew may have been one of the Apostles, but some scholars insist he was not. Mark definitely didn't know him: he heard about him from Peter. Luke didn't know him either: he was a companion of Paul who also never met him. "John", the "beloved disciple" did know him, but we have already mentioned the issues concerning John's true identity.
Paul said (I Corinthians 9:22), "I am made all things to all men." In other words, he was prepared to say anything to whoever happened to be listening. The Gospels are of similar ilk. Anyone can take whatever they like from them. Jesus himself is all things to all men. As we have shown in the sections above, he can be anything anyone wants him to be. He provides quotations for and against any position you care to choose. Christians don't seem to find this a problem, which says all you need to know about them. Every contradiction, every inconvenient fact is simply ignored.
Christianity was designed to be acceptable to Romans. Anything that was problematic in the Gospels was simply altered. The "big picture" was all that mattered. The fine print could be argued about later by theologians (and that's exactly what happened).
Religion, in the past as now, was not only psychological but also political. A religion, for example, that says that Jews are the chosen people will not be adopted by anyone other than Jews. The Roman Empire certainly wouldn't have embraced it. "Jewish" Christianity had to be Romanised, and Paul, the pagan priest of Mithras from a Jewish background, was the perfect person to do the job. Christianity was founded after Christ's death and burial, not during his lifetime. Christianity is much more closely related to pagan gods than it is to Yahweh of the Jews.
As for Jesus being "God", this was only established by a vote at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. In other words, for three centuries there were many people who called themselves Christians who did not necessarily regard Jesus as God. The Jehovah's Witnesses of today are of similar ilk. They call themselves Christians but they follow the tradition of Arius that Jesus is God's first and greatest creation, but is not himself God. If Christians understood the history of Christianity they would stop being Christians. It is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated against humanity.
Worthwhile Sayings of the New Testament
Not everything in the New Testament is anathema. Amongst all the lies and poison are pearls of high wisdom that can be used by all decent people. (The Demiurge is a master psychologist. Obviously, he did not create religions that were full of nothing but manifest evil. All of his religions contain beauty, truth, morality etc, under which is a hidden underbelly of evil that, Satan knows, will rise to the surface and overwhelm any goodness in his religions. Just look at the violent and evil histories of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Where is all the goodness, where is the consideration towards others, the love, the tolerance, the peace? Nowhere to be seen. Only the evil is visible.
But any good religion would certainly incorporate these wise sayings:
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only.
It's not enough to read, to listen, to be passive. One must act.
Faith without works is dead.
This is a scriptural refutation of all those scriptural Protestants who say that only faith matters. Everyone must do their bit, must contribute positively to the community.
Unto the pure all things are pure.
Many Gnostics hold a similar view. Once you have attained your Higher Self you are incapable of sin.
I Timothy 6:10
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Every Wall Street banker should be branded with this.
Acts of the Apostles 20:35
It is more blessed to give than receive.
This is something else that should be branded on the super rich.
What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Yet another sign that should be inscribed over Wall Street and all the temples of capitalism, for capitalism is the worship of Mammon.
No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
This should be an inscription placed over every bank in the world.
Acts of the Apostles 10:34
God is no respecter of persons.
And no human being - such as princes and kings, preachers and popes, the rich and famous - should demand or be given respect that they have not earned.
In my Father's house are many mansions.
In other words, everyone doesn't have to behave the same way to come to God. There is no need for uniformity, for rigid rules and regulations, for blind, mindless obedience. There is a unique door to salvation for everyone, not a single door through which everyone must pass like sheep or cattle.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
There is a greater love: laying down your life for strangers.
If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
In other words, society should be united: it should not comprise "them and us", rich and poor, strong and weak. It should be based on community, not on selfish families all desperately trying to get one over other families. Our world is a divided house because families (especially the dynastic families of the Old World Order) choose to divide it.
The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.
Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions are that very darkness. Illumination is the light that shines in the dark.
All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
A motto for all Christian armies?
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
And people also encounter Archons and Phosters without knowing it.
For many are called, but few are chosen.
...to succeed in the quest for the Holy Grail.
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
A good moral principle, rarely sighted on this earth.
But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Another good moral principle. The Old World Order, who have so arranged the affairs of the world so that they are always first, should be given a taste of what it's like to be last.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Yet most people spend most of their time judging others. We should judge ourselves instead. Why is religion full of rules and commandments if it is not about judging? The ultimate society is one that needs no rules, no commandments, no laws because good and rational conduct is internalised in everyone.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
The Abrahamic religions are the wolves, seeking to control everyone, to exert a universal tyranny.
Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Do as you would be done by.
The ultimate statements of morality.
Religion and the Movement
One of the objects of The Movement is to bring about a religious reformation and renaissance, to escape from the religions of control, tyranny, fear and power to those of self-expression, creativity, liberation, diversity and enlightenment. First and foremost we mean a religion of psychological well-being that can be shaped by each and every person in their own image i.e. in terms of what makes sense to them and what they enjoy. They can turn to religions of the past (as the Illuminati do), or devise their own new religions. It doesn't actually matter what "outer form" religion takes so long as it prepares the person to seek the truth. Anyone who demands that you follow rules, regulations and commandments, who demands that you wear certain clothes, eat certain foods, pray five times a day, perform certain religious tasks each week, do nothing on the Sabbath etc, is a false prophet working for the Demiurge. Let no one control you. Each person should approach the True God in their own way. There is no prescribed way of seeking God, no holy book cast in stone, no prophet whom everyone must obey. Reject them all. Religion is yours, not theirs. You are in control of it, not them. And once you have freed yourself of the control of others then your mind will be free to turn to God and to comprehend his true nature.
The religion of absolute truth is the religion that succeeds the religion of psychological well-being. You cannot find the former until you have achieved the latter.
Can you make a contribution? If you were starting a new religion tomorrow, what message would you want the world to hear? The quotations from the Gospels that we have highlighted above are universal principles. They are not the property of Christianity. All religions, even those controlled by the Demiurge, have good things to say. The important task is to filter out and refine the good and reject the bad.
Wouldn't the world be a much healthier place if each and every person had their own religion, based on the collective wisdom of all the world's religions, ancient and modern?
The First Commandment is this: Let no one give you any Commandments. It is for you to create your own. If you are a good and decent person you will come up with good and decent rules by which to live your life.
In the second part of this article (The Jesus Plot), we will reveal the true nature of the "mission" of Jesus.
The Jesus Plot
In response to our article entitled The Jesus Myth, we were contacted by a "Christian" called Ola Adesote, living in London in the UK. Here's what he had to say to us:
Whoever you are, I will try and bring you a cup of water in hell when you're burning for all your transgressions against the Creator and His Son. You have lost the battle, Satan - (I know you're not Satan but you're his advocate!) The light of God through his Son cannot be quenched.
I know your time is near and that you must have your blood sacrifice and orgy in the coming months/ years but those whose names are written in the book of life cannot be erased certainly by your quimsy insipid party tricks.
One way through The Messiah! We responded as follows:
We feel sorry for you, Ola. Unlike you, we won't condemn you to hell. We hope you start to adopt a healthy and moral attitude towards others. It is never too late to escape from the brainwashing to which you have been subjected. Deep down, you know your beliefs are ridiculous. All you did was scream deranged abuse at us (very typical of your kind). You were unable to refute a single thing we said. And, of course, you're incapable of doing so.
Good luck to you in the future and may you find your way to the True God. Try studying and learning. It will stand you in good stead in life.
The One Immortal Blemish
We do genuinely feel sorry for Ola. His "Messiah" is Satan and he doesn't realise it. He lacks the ability to intellectually challenge what we say (which would be difficult in any case since we have quoted directly from the "infallible" scriptures by which he sets so much store), so he simply lashes out, as his kind so often do. He is the perfect example of the fanatical, unthinking, blind believer.
Note the hysterical tone of his message, the threats, the hatred, the implied violence, the mindless adherence to the "Messiah", the shrieking assertion of unshakable "faith" (madness), the ludicrous reference to the "book of life" in which his name is supposedly written. (What, because he's a really nice person? The "book of life" is more like the list of the damned). For centuries, the Illuminati have had to endure the persecution of people of this hate-filled, Satanic ilk. We know them all too well.
Ola says that "we" must have our "blood sacrifice and orgy". Is he entirely ignorant of the history of his Church? We have had two thousand years of "blood sacrifice and orgy" caused by his religion, his Messiah. And look at the violent Zionists bloodily persecuting the Palestinians. Look at the Muslim hordes. Mohammed, a warlord "prophet" (who would certainly in modern times have been accused of war crimes for butchering prisoners of war, and crimes against humanity) conquered with the sword, and what has changed other than that bombs and guns have replaced the sword? These people are so in thrall to Satan that they can't see the blinding truth that they are the main cause of suffering in this world.
Let no one be in any doubt. The Abrahamic religions are the primary vehicle for the Demiurge to impose his cruel will on this world. The "prophets" of these religions belonged to two types. Most of them were none other than archons of the Demiurge, acting in person to alter the course of human history in favour of the Demiurge's tyranny, or ambitious servants of the archons who saw a means to achieve worldly glory and power.
The archons rarely intervene directly in the affairs of the world. When they do, it is most often as "holy" prophets performing "miracles". Most prophets have been a curse on this world. They have brought nothing but lies and horror in their wake.
We have endured two thousand years of Christianity (the unholy creed that says you are damned to hell if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour), fourteen hundred years of Islam ("We love death more than you love life."), thousands of years of the Jews (the self-proclaimed "Chosen People"). Is the world a good and decent place because of these religions? Have they delivered societies of which humanity can be proud? Only the blindest fools would continue to pledge their allegiance to these failed religions. Of course, they haven't failed - they have achieved the divisive will of the Demiurge perfectly. They are the roots of all evil. Abraham, the man who was prepared to kill his son simply because Yahweh told him to, was a psychopath and everyone who is proud to follow his three tyrannical religions is equally deranged.
American Christian evangelist Pat Robertson declared that the Haiti earthquake was a consequence of a "pact with the Devil", made when the Haitians overthrew slavery 200 years ago. Another Christian fanatic claimed that God sent the 2004 tsunami to punish "godless" Swedish homosexuals on vacation. The degree of hatred that Christians have towards those who don't share their beliefs is pathological. They are some of the most dangerous people on earth. Make no mistake, the "perfect storm" of fanatical Zionism, extremist Islam and apocalyptic Christian fundamentalism could push the world to the very brink of Armageddon.
Now, we can but hope, is the dawning Age of the True God, when humanity can put behind itself the errors and horrors of the past. Humanity cannot be free until the evil Abrahamic religions have been utterly overthrown.
One must wonder what Ola's employer thinks about his hatred of non-Christians. One must hope that Ola's job does not bring him into contact with the general public. Does he walk around, like the Muslims and Jews, thinking that everyone who does not agree with him is destined for hell? "Outside the Church there is no Salvation" is the demented claim of these crazy and dangerous people.
Such people are full of the most monstrous inner demons. They are consumed with self-hate and the darkest doubts. Their coping mechanism is to project all of the filth in their minds onto others and then hate those others. But it is truly themselves they hate. They are creatures of the shadow, ruled by their fears and irrational, bestial impulses.
If "hell" is where we would be permanently free of people such as Ola then their hell is our heaven.
Would any other followers of Christianity like to leave hate-filled messages for us? We will use them to show what kind of people you are, to show that you are a curse on humanity. Ola Adesote has confirmed every statement we have made about the true, infernal nature of Christianity.
Someone asked us recently if it were possible to be both a Christian and an Illuminatus. The answer is absolutely not. Christianity, as demonstrated by Ola, is a religion of Satan that promotes nothing but poisonous hatred. There are many things to be done in the world, many people to be helped, yet Ola has got nothing better to do with his time than rant at us. Why isn't he out and about trying to make life better for others, as Christians are supposed to but never actually do?
Ola is so far from gnosis that he is unlikely ever to reach the true path and the embrace of the True God. (Yet it is not too late, Ola. You still have time to turn your life around and find the light and the truth. Reject your Satanic Messiah and seek the True God). Even the atheists are closer to God than Ola. You don't find atheists condemning people to hell and frothing at the mouth with hatred. They put forward their case calmly and sensibly, backed by facts.
We welcome all atheists and agnostics to join the Movement as part of a united alliance against the Abrahamic faiths of evil. These three faiths - Christianity, Islam and Judaism - are the central cause of conflict and division in the world. They are the absolute enemy of humanity (just as the Demiurge intended that they should be). Jerusalem, the capital of the Abrahamic empire, is one of the most violent, hateful and divided cities on earth. At a stroke, the world would be a vastly better place if these religions vanished without trace.
Watch this YouTube footage of rival Christians fighting each other in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Christianity's holiest site where Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and resurrected (allegedly). Doesn't that sum up these people? Peace on earth and good will to all men. Shalom. Yeah, right!
In the 19th century, Schopenhauer, a fervent atheist, made a number of pertinent remarks.
"Those who think the sciences can go on advancing and spreading wider without threatening the continued existence and prosperity of religion are very much in error. Physics and metaphysics are the natural enemies of religion. To speak of peace and accord between them is very ludicrous: it is a bellum ad internecionem (war of extermination). Religions are the children of ignorance, and they do not long survive their mother. Omar understood that when he burned the library at Alexandria: his reason for doing so - that the knowledge contained in the books was also contained in the Koran or was superfluous - is regarded as absurd, but is in fact very shrewd if taken cum grano salis (with a pinch of salt): it signifies that if the sciences go beyond the Koran they are enemies of religion and consequently not to be tolerated. Christianity would be in much better shape today if Christian rulers had been as wise as Omar. By now, however, it is a little late to burn all the books."
No doubt Ola also wishes that all the books could be burned. He has no need of books because he never uses reason and can't formulate an argument. He hides behind "faith" as do all those who lack the intelligence to confront the ridiculous claims of their religions. We invite Ola to send us a defence of his religion. We promise to post it on our website unedited so that all can see what Ola has to say for himself and his Messiah. If he thinks he knows more about Christianity than we do, he is a fool. We are experts even in something as obscure as the "Filioque" controversy. You can be certain Ola isn't. He stews in his own ignorance.
Schopenhauer said, "The reason civilisation is at its highest point among Christian peoples is not that Christianity is favourable to it but that Christianity is dead and no longer exercises much influence: as long as it did exercise influence, civilisation was at a very low point among Christian peoples. All religion is antagonistic towards culture."
Christianity is indeed dead, but the corpse is taking a long time to rot. People like Ola are still enslaved by it, still lashing out against truth, reason and culture. They have found nothing positive in their lives and they do not have the mental capacity to escape from their dreadful predicament. The more their religion is disproved the more desperately they cling to it since it's the only recognisable flotsam in their ocean of despair and ignorance. Ola, like many followers of Abraham's religions, is suffering from cognitive dissonance: the more he doubts his own beliefs the more fanatically he has to proclaim them because he has nowhere else to turn.
As Schopenhauer said, "What a bad conscience religion must have is to be judged by the fact that it is forbidden under pain of such severe punishment to mock it."
Have you ever met a Christian, Jew or Muslim who did not react with rage when his beliefs were challenged? Not surprising perhaps, given the levels of violence these twisted religions have visited upon the world.
Ola has an exceptionally bad conscience. He defends his beliefs with threats rather than reasoned argument. What kind of person is that? The message of Christianity is supposed to be one of love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, pity, charity and community. Is there any indication of any of those qualities in Ola's message? The thoughts he expresses are the perfect proof that Satan is the true author of Christianity. There is not one particle of love or peace in what he says; just the desire to consign others to hell.
The great atheist Nietzsche highlighted what these people were like long ago. In one of his most stunning works On the Genealogy of Morality, he said:
There's no doubt that these weak people-at some time or another they also want to be the strong people, some day their "kingdom" is to arrive-they call it simply "the kingdom of God." People are indeed so humble about everything! Only to experience that, one has to live a long time, beyond death-in fact, people must have an eternal life, so they can also win eternal recompense in the "kingdom of God" for that earthly life "in faith, in love, in hope." Recompense for what? Recompense through what? . . . In my view, Dante was grossly in error when, with an ingenuity inspiring terror, he set that inscription over the gateway into his hell: "Eternal love also created me." Over the gateway into the Christian paradise and its "eternal blessedness" it would, in any event, be more fitting to let the inscription stand "Eternal hate also created me"-provided it's all right to set a truth over the gateway to a lie! For what is the bliss of that paradise? . . . Perhaps we might have guessed that already, but it is better for it to be expressly described for us by an authority we cannot underestimate in such matters, Thomas Aquinas, the great teacher and saint: "In the kingdom of heaven" he says as gently as a lamb, "the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss." Or do you want to hear that message in a stronger tone, something from the mouth of a triumphant father of the church, who warns his Christians against the cruel sensuality of the public spectacles. But why? "Faith, in fact, offers much more to us," he says (in de Spectaculis, c. 29 ff), "something much stronger. Thanks to the redemption, very different joys are ours to command; in place of the athletes, we have our martyrs. If we want blood, well, we have the blood of Christ . . . But what awaits us on the day of his coming again, his triumph!"-and now he takes off, the rapturous visionary: "However there are other spectacles-that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce than those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples! And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity" (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). "The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. 'This is the man,' I will say, 'the son of a workman or a prostitute'" (in everything that follows and especially in the well-known description of the mother of Jesus from the Talmud, Tertullian from this point on is referring to the Jews) "the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected, or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuce.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant this to you so that you may see such sights, so that you can exult in such things? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart?" (1. Cor. 2, 9). "I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" (first and fourth tier of seats or, according to others, the comic and tragic stages).
By my faith: that's how it's written.
We invite all Christians to abandon their horrific beliefs. Join the Movement and find a new way of life. Listen to others and start to make positive changes to your life. You will become a happier person, someone with a contribution to make rather than someone who spews out bile against those who don't share your beliefs. Try helping people rather than condemning them to hell. Do you think that's how you make friends? What are you so terrified of?
We forgive you, Ola, and all those like you. We wish the best for you. We want you to turn your energies to helping humanity rather than wishing eternal suffering on others. The hell exists inside your head, and for that we feel the greatest sympathy for you. We hope that you and all others who are gripped by this ongoing Satanic nightmare can find release. Start reading books about other religions, about philosophy and science. Broaden your horizons. Take off the blinkers. It is ignorance that keeps you in Satan's iron grip. Educate yourself. Become a positive person with a contribution to make rather than an ill-informed fanatic. You must be so unhappy looking at the world through such distorted goggles that "reveal" demons everywhere - but all you're doing is looking inside your own head at the ghastly shadow contents of your own mind.
The last word must be left to Nietzsche. The closing words of his incendiary book The Anti-Christ are amongst the most powerful ever written:
With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible charge any prosecutor has ever uttered. It is, to me, the extremest thinkable form of corruption, it has had the will to the ultimate corruption conceivably possible. The Christian Church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let no one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! To abolish any state of distress whatever has been profoundly inexpedient to it; it lives on states of distress; it creates states of distress in order to eternalise itself. . . . For example, the worm of sin: it was the Church that first enriched mankind with this state of distress!
To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! These are the blessings of Christianity! Parasitism as the sole practice of the Church; with its anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the Cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy there has ever been, - against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul - against life itself. . . .
Wherever there are walls I shall inscribe this eternal accusation against Christianity upon them - I can write in letters that even the blind will see… I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty--I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind… And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus (unlucky day) on which this fatality arose - from the first day of Christianity! - Why not rather from its last? - From today? - The revaluation of all values!
The Davidic Conspiracy
The purpose of the plot
A king of the house of David had not ruled over Judah since Zedekiah in 586 BC when the Jews were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar and forced into captivity in Babylon. By the time Jesus Christ (Yehoshua ben Yosef) had reached his thirtieth birthday, it was over six hundred years since a Davidic monarch had sat on the throne in Jerusalem.
The true story of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with religion. It was actually an elaborate plot to resurrect the Davidic monarchy, to bring the lost line of kings back to power.
Every Jew wanted nothing more than to find a new David. They wanted to be free of the Roman occupation, they wanted the southern kingdom of Judah to be reunited with the northern kingdom of Israel, to form the united ancient kingdom of Israel, as it was in the time of David.
The people longed for it, prayed for it, and were certain that their God would deliver it to them. One day, the Messiah would come and restore everything to Israel that had been lost. The Temple would become more glorious than ever. They would bathe in the favour of Yahweh. And the more they watched the Romans tramping through their streets, abusing them and flaunting pagan gods, the more they dreamt of the Saviour.
But how could the power of Rome, the greatest empire on earth, a savage military machine, be overcome? Only the direct intervention of Yahweh could defeat such a power. In the time of Joshua, the priests of the Jews had carried into battle the Ark of the Covenant - the holy vessel that, in a very real sense, contained Yahweh himself - to vanquish the enemies of Israel. But the Ark was lost long ago.
The importance of the Ark cannot be stressed enough. It enabled the Shekinah - the earthly presence of Yahweh - to live amongst the Jews. The Chosen People had their Chosen God in their midst.
The Jews quite literally believed that they, through their high priests, could converse directly with God. You didn't merely pray to God, you had a two-way conversation with him. No god ever had greater resonance for a people.
(As to why the Creator of the Universe would choose to inhabit a box carried around by a human tribe that lived in dusty, ancient Israel thousands of years ago, and lead them into savage battle, well, you'll need to ask him.)
To have a Davidic king on the throne, the Roman occupation of the province of Judea would have to be made so militarily costly to the Romans that they would cut their losses and leave. The whole nation would have to rise up to drive them out. But what could inspire an entire nation to risk their lives for freedom from Rome, to re-establish the rule of the Davidic kings? The recovery of the Ark would certainly do it, but that wasn't going to happen.
But then the leaders of the Davidic royal family in waiting had a stunning thought. What if a person could be a human Ark of the Covenant? That is, what if a specific person were possessed by the Shekinah and walked around as a being of flesh and blood but expressing the voice of Yahweh, expressing the divine will itself?
If the people thought that the divine presence was amongst them once more, they would rise as one. Judea would become ungovernable and the Romans would leave. Then the Davidic king could be restored to the throne.
But how could it be engineered? There was no reason at all to expect Yahweh to help since he had failed to help the House of David for some six hundred years. So, if they wanted to achieve their ambition, they would have to fake it. It would be for the greater good and hence fully morally justified but nevertheless it would be the biggest deception in all history.
There was one thing above all that would have to be pulled off if people were to truly believe: the chosen candidate would have to do the impossible...rise from the dead.
And so began the greatest lie of all time.
A god cannot be born in the normal way. His birth must be distinguished from that of ordinary mortals. Either he is born of other gods, or he is born of a "virgin". Jesus Christ was said to be born of a virgin for no other reason than that no one would take him seriously as a deity if he weren't.
Anyone who seriously believes that Jesus Christ actually was born of a virgin is stupid. You would have to have taken leave of your senses to believe it. Even two of the gospels don't repeat the nativity story of Jesus, so ridiculous is it.
The nativity myth had two other functions to serve. 1) To show that Jesus was a humble man of the people, hence he was visited by shepherds in his manger. 2) To show that he was a great king and god, hence a star appeared over Bethlehem and three kings of the East visited him.
This is pure mythology. It is astonishing that billions of people treat it as real. They are celebrating a fake god being born in a mythological setting involving mythological characters. December 25th is the birthday of Mithras, Sol Invictus, Lucifer and many other solar and light deities. It certainly isn't the birthday of Jesus Christ.
There was no star over Bethlehem, and Herod carried out no slaughter of the innocents. King Herod died in 4 BCE and the Roman Census took place in 6 CE, so the nativity tale that claims that both the Census and Herod's "massacre" took place within months of each other is an obvious fabrication.
But does it matter to Christians that the nativity is an invention? Would it stop them celebrating Christmas? Isn't it time to replace Christmas with the ancient pagan festivals of the winter solstice such as Saturnalia? Nothing could be more symbolic of a new world than the abolition of Christmas with all of its saccharine, fake, hypocritical sentimentality, and its annual orgy of consumerism.
The Family of Jesus Christ
Very little is reported in the Gospels concerning Jesus' mother and father. We hear next to nothing about any extended family. Why not? Because the very existence of a family is inconvenient, to say the least, in terms of the construction of the Christian myth. To discuss the family is to betray what was really going on.
It was especially forbidden by the Christian Church to say that Jesus had brothers and sisters, even though it explicitly says he did in the Gospels (Mark 6:3: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?"). Christian apologists spent a great deal of time trying to explain away such remarks, but their attempts were laughably unconvincing.
Here and there in the Gospels, attempts have been made to hide the truth (usually by changing the names of key figures), but every now and again the truth is glimpsed.
We know that Jesus had four brothers. What were these brothers doing while Jesus was preaching in Judea? Well, three of them were standing right behind him. The three apostles known as James, Simon and Judas were Jesus' brothers and leading supporters. They were deliberately misrepresented as having no fraternal relationship with him.
James (the Just) was the most important of the three. Although Jesus, the oldest brother, was the "Messiah", it was James, the next oldest, who was intended to assume the throne as the Davidic King of Israel. Simon (later renamed Peter, the "Rock", the man who came to be regarded as the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church) was to be the high priest of the new post-Messiah Jewish religion (which had nothing to do with Catholicism). Judas was the family's treasurer, but Jesus had also earmarked him to play the role of the traitor. It was the most thankless and yet vital of tasks, as we will discuss later in this article.
The youngest brother was Joseph, better known as Joseph of Arimathea. (It is traditional to say that Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus' uncle, but that was simply plucked out of thin air by Christian commentators to explain why Joseph was allowed to bury Jesus. Clearly, he had to have a family connection. And he did - he was Jesus' brother.)
Joseph also had a key role to play: he was the "inside" man, working within the Sanhedrin as the eyes and ears of Jesus' family. The Sanhedrin was the highest judicial and religious council of the Jews, consisting of 72 members. Joseph was a scribe for the Sanhedrin. A scribe was a distinguished professional who combined the roles of adviser, counsellor, minister, financier and lawyer. The Sanhedrin had several scribes who provided expert support services to the council.
These five brothers were reminiscent of the American Kennedy brothers: Joseph, John, Robert and Edward. The Kennedys' father was determined to have a son in the Whitehouse, to establish a new dynasty. The oldest brother was the "Chosen One", but he died in WWII. The baton then passed to JFK. When he was assassinated it passed to RFK. When he in turn was assassinated, to Teddy.
In the case of Jesus' family, Jesus was the "Chosen One", but it was never intended that he should assume power. His job was to "die", be "resurrected" and "ascend into heaven". His family would then be deemed to enjoy the favour of God himself. Jesus' family would be the Chosen Family of the Chosen People of the one God. The Jews would fall at their feet and hail the divine family of God, the priest-kings, the living Ark of the Covenant that could communicate directly with God.
Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, a second cousin of Jesus. Jesus' family tried to pretend that John the Baptist had sanctioned him as the Messiah. As explained in The Armageddon Conspiracy, John the Baptist actually had someone else in mind: Simon Magus of the Illuminati, the greatest of men who has almost been erased from history because of Christian propaganda. We will return to Simon Magus at a later time, given his crucial significance to the Illuminati.
Like many "holy men", Jesus was said to have gone into the wilderness for forty days and nights to spiritually test himself. Members of many religions, secret societies and Special Forces carry out the same exercise. The Illuminati also use this technique - an initiate is taken to one of several isolated retreats and left on their own, with enough bread, water, fruit and nuts, for forty days and nights.
It was inherent in the ideology of the Family that Judaism would have to be reformed to accommodate the special status of Jesus as a divinely chosen Messiah, a flesh and blood Ark of the Covenant through which the Shekinah manifested itself as in times of old. The Davidic line of kings would be upgraded to a line of priest-kings with the closest possible connection to God. Jesus, of the line of David, would be deemed to be the vessel of the Shekinah. From them on, the Davidic family would be the most sacred family on earth, the anointed ones, the holy ones, the chosen of God.
They would rule Israel in perpetuity.
To establish the new Jewish religion that recognised the unique status of Jesus and the sanctified Davidic line, it would be necessary for the old Jewish religion to be reformed.
But the old regime had no intention of bowing to the will of the Family. Their whole power base was threatened. They hated the Family just as the priests of ancient Egypt hated Akhenaten for trying to replace their gods. They had no intention of letting this coup happen. Many of them were actively collaborating with the Roman ruling regime to ensure themselves a good living. Many were making good money from all of the commercial activities taking place within the Temple precincts. They would brook no interference. They would remain as the establishment. They would resist the Family with all their power.
Jesus had the following conversation with Peter (Matthew 16:16-20):
16:16: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
16:17: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
16:18: 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.
16:19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
16:20: Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
He intended to set up a new Jewish Church, with Peter as its High Priest, but he desired the utmost secrecy at this time.
It should be clearly understood that there was nothing particularly heretical about Jesus' statement that he was the Son of God.
In Psalm 82:6, those who held power in Israel - priests, judges, rulers etc were referred to as "gods" and "sons of the Most High". When God sent Moses to Pharaoh, he said, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh" (Exodus 7:1) i.e. Moses, as the messenger of God, was speaking God's words and expressing his will. So, Jesus could easily argue that he was using the same terminology as had already been used in the context of kings, prophets, priests and judges in Israel i.e. he had Biblical justification and precedence for his assertions.
Raising people from the dead was almost commonplace in the Bible: (1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4: 33-36; 2 Kings 13:21; Luke 7:11-17; Luke 8:40-56; Matthew 27:52; John 11:43-44; Acts 9:40-41; Acts 14:18-19; Acts 20:9-12.)
In one instance, St Paul is stoned to death by Jews in Antioch (Acts 14:18-19). He apparently resurrects himself and then goes about his business, without a word on the profound mysteries of being dead. In fact, in every instance, there is never any follow-up regarding any of these so-called literal resurrections from the dead. They are never mentioned again. None of the select group who have overcome death is asked any questions about what happened. There is no medical verification of any of their allegedly lethal conditions. These stories are blatant fabrications. No one who is truly dead ever comes back to life in the same body. But gods and holy men need their "miracles" to prove their credentials so they dutifully arrange the charade of resurrecting collaborators of theirs from the dead, or they simply make the whole thing up and it then becomes a matter of "faith" whether you believe these episodes or not. The brainwashed masses suck it all in without question.
In fact, the expression "raising people from the dead" is often used as a spiritual metaphor. The "dead" are those who are stuck in spiritual ignorance; they are raised from the dead when they "see the light" and are initiated into a spiritual sect. Gnostics often referred to non-Gnostics as "the dead". Jesus unquestionably regarded those who were not part of his sect as "the dead".
So, how can you make a convincing pretence of bringing someone coming back from the dead? The issue is to make someone seem sufficiently dead for a sufficient amount of time to deceive medically naïve people. Certain drugs can induce such deathlike states.
Prior to his own "resurrection", it was imperative for Jesus to carry out a full-scale test of "coming back from the dead". The person he chose for the task was his closest confidant: his brother-in-law Lazarus (aka the "beloved disciple" John, brother of Mary Magdalene, the other half of the "beloved disciple" designation).
He had already carried out two carefully stage-managed "resurrections" (Luke 7:11-17 - the raising of a widow's son, and Luke 8:40-56 - the raising of Jairus's daughter). These had been well received - they had attracted growing public attention - but were very much "fresh" i.e. the "deceased" had only just died. It would have much more of an impact if the person had been "dead" for several days.
Chapter 11 of the Gospel of John furnishes the story of Lazarus. Mary of Bethany (aka Mary Magdalene), who had anointed Jesus, sent word to Jesus that "he whom thou lovest is sick." Jesus replied, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God that the Son of God may be glorified by it." In other words, he already knew all about it, and its purpose was to bring him fame and glory, to establish his divine credentials. He waited two days (!) and then went to see Lazarus. He said, "Lazarus our friend sleepeth, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep." When his use of the word "sleep" was challenged, he hastily changed it to "dead". The Apostle Thomas then said, "Let us also go, that we may die with him." (The disciples had previously been discussing Jesus being stoned to death by the Jews if he went back into Judea from Galilee, so this could easily be interpreted that the disciples knew they were going on a "martyrdom" mission.)
When Jesus arrived in Bethany (just outside Jerusalem), it was to be told that Lazarus had been "four days already in the grave". Martha, Mary's sister, said to Jesus, "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." Jesus replied, "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live." (This of course is the entire basis of Christianity.) They went to the tomb of Lazarus - a cave with a stone laid over it, exactly as Jesus himself would soon be placed in - and Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead by commanding, "Lazarus, come forth". "And presently he that had been dead came forth, bound feet and hands with winding bands, and his face was bound about with a napkin." (The drug Lazarus had taken to simulate death had worn off within a day, by which time he was placed in his tomb. He had left himself a hidden supply of food and water to sustain him. Then all he had to do was wait for Jesus to arrive and call to him.)
Some Jews who had witnessed this went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. The Sanhedrin then assembled and discussed the matter. "What do we, for this man doth many miracles. If we let him alone so, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation." There are two points to observe here. Firstly, it is somewhat remarkable that they don't seem in any way disposed to start treating as a possible god someone who supposedly raises people from the dead. If it happened nowadays, and was scientifically verified, even atheists might start to change their opinions. Clearly, the Sanhedrin did not treat the resurrection as "real"; merely as propaganda by a "miracle worker". Secondly, they associated Jesus Christ with a violent rebellion that would bring down the wrath of Rome on the Jews. No intelligent person should be in any doubt that Jesus Christ was the leader of an armed revolt against the Jewish establishment and the Roman army of occupation. So eager was he to arm his followers that he ordered them to sell their clothes so that they could buy weapons. ("He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.")
Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, knew precisely what the stakes were. "'…it is expedient for you [he said to his fellow conspirators] that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.'…He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation…From that day therefore they devised to put him to death. Wherefrom Jesus walked no more openly amongst the Jews, but he went into a country near the desert, unto a city that is called Ephraim, and there he abode with his disciples."
So, Jesus knew he was under sentence of death from the Jewish Sanhedrin. ("And the chief priests and Pharisees had given a commandment, that if any man knew where he was, he should tell, that they might apprehend him.") If caught, he would be stoned to death. He and his armed followers went into hiding temporarily. The whole of Judea was buzzing with talk about Jesus and Lazarus, the man who came back from the dead. Jerusalem, about to celebrate the great festival of the Passover, was in a frenzy and everyone was waiting for what Jesus would do next. ("They sought therefore for Jesus and they discoursed one with another, standing in the temple. 'What think you that he is not come to the festival day.'") Was the time of the prophesied Messiah at hand? Would the hated Romans with their false gods finally be overthrown? The whole city and country was a powder keg. If Jesus came to Jerusalem for the Passover, either the whole city would rise up and his military coup would succeed, or he would perish. The stakes, quite simply, could not have been higher.
How were the Gospels able to say what the Sanhedrin was thinking? Because amongst them was the scribe Joseph, brother of Jesus. Long before, an artificial feud had been constructed between him and Jesus to make it seem as though their relationship had broken down irretrievably. Now he was a trusted member of the administrative group that served the Sanhedrin. In fact, he was often consulted about Jesus' likely plans and movements, and he had often provided valuable information. But all along, he was playing a part. He was fully committed to Jesus and the agenda of the Family. He was a "fifth columnist".
Jesus had now moved to Bethany to be with his wife Mary Magdalene, his brother-in-law Lazarus and his sister-in-law Martha. Mary anointed him. ("Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair, and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.") Mary, anointing her husband so lovingly and expensively, knew that she may soon be parting company with him. At this stage, the only person who fully knew Jesus' ambitious plan was Lazarus, his closest confidant and best friend. The Jewish establishment regarded him almost as much of a threat as Jesus. (John 12:10-11: "But the chief priests thought to kill Lazarus also. Because many of the Jews, by reason of him, went away and believed in Jesus.") Jesus' brother Judas complained about the expense of the ointment, saying that the money should have been given to the poor. Jesus retorted, "Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial." He knew he was going on what amounted to a martyrdom operation, a suicide mission.
It is valuable to compare Jesus' plan with the Irish Easter Uprising of 1916 against the British. The leaders of the rebellion knew they would lose and that they would either die in battle or be hanged or shot for high treason after they were captured, which they surely would be. (All of the main leaders were indeed executed in due course by British firing squads.) Victory was not the point of the exercise. The uprising was a blood sacrifice, intended to enter the rebels into the annals of Irish myth, to inspire the Irish people and make them rise against their British oppressors. Although the uprising failed, within six years twenty-six of the thirty-two counties of Ireland had achieved their freedom from Britain. In other words, within six years the "failed" uprising had largely achieved its purpose.
Jesus' plan was the same, except he had no intention of dying.
Welcomed as King into Jerusalem
"And on the next day, a great multitude that was come to the festival day, when they had heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, "Hosanna, blessed be the king of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord, peace in heaven and glory on high."
In other words, there can be no doubt that Jesus was being treated as a divinely mandated and legitimate king, the true Messiah. This was not only a direct challenge to the Sanhedrin but also to Rome, for only the Emperor could appoint kings. It was an act of high treason against Rome, warranting the death penalty.
Jesus did absolutely nothing to disabuse the people of the notion that he was the Messiah and the prophesied king of Israel. In fact, he went out of his way to meet the expectation.
"And Jesus found a young ass, and sat upon it, as it is written: 'Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy king cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.'"
Since Jesus was determined to fulfil the scriptures regarding the coming of a king, it is a disgrace that he refused to answer Pontius Pilate when the Roman Governor asked him directly whether or not he was the king of Israel. The facts spoke for themselves. It reveals what a dishonest, sly character Jesus was that he refused to give a direct answer to a direct question. It is extraordinary that Christians see nothing wrong with Christ's shiftiness, evasiveness and refusal to speak the truth. (See Luke 20: 2-8 for another example of Jesus wriggling out of giving straight answers.) The man was a charlatan, a cheap conjuror and a liar.
The Pharisees were appalled by Christ's rapturous reception: "Do you see that we prevail nothing? Behold, the whole world is goes after him."
Jesus, followed by a huge crowd, triumphantly went to the temple to goad and challenge the Jewish establishment by attacking their money-making machine: "And entering into the temple, he began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought, saying to them, 'It is written, My house is the house of prayer. But you have made it a den of thieves.'"
The Jewish authorities were appalled: "And he was teaching daily in the temple. And the chief priests and the scribes and the rulers of the people sought to destroy him. And they found not what to do to him, for all the people were very attentive to hear him."
In other words, Jesus had seized control of the temple and was preaching to the people as a fiery demagogue, working them into a frenzy. A full-scale uprising was imminent. The Romans and leading Jews met in emergency session to decide what to do. Pilate was not confident he had sufficient men to deal with Jesus and his army. He sent for reinforcements.
Jerusalem waited with bated breath.
Jesus, knowing that events were moving towards a climax, had a last supper with his wife, brother-in-law, brothers and other most loyal disciples. He made it clear to them that he would die and then be resurrected. Only Lazarus knew that Jesus would simply be repeating the same pretend resurrection that he had already undergone.
His "martyrdom" required a final bitter twist: he must be betrayed by one of his brothers. It couldn't be James, the person earmarked to be King of Israel after Jesus' death, nor Simon Peter, earmarked to be the high priest of the new Jewish church. It couldn't be Joseph because he was a scribe to the Sanhedrin and wasn't part of Jesus' entourage. There was only one person it could be.
Jesus did not conceal from any of the attendees at the Last Supper that he would nominate a "traitor" from amongst them (although they were all shocked), and nor did he make any secret of whom he had chosen (John 13: 21-26):
13:21: When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
13:22: Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
13:23: Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
13:24: Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
13:25: He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
13:26: Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
Although there is then a pathetic attempt to pretend that the others did not know who the traitor was despite the fact that he had been chosen right in front of them, no person who has actually read the Gospels could possibly doubt that Judas was selected rather than uncovered as the traitor. Imagine that the leader of a small group of revolutionaries said that one of them was a traitor. The others wouldn't have rested until the leader had said who it was - because such a traitor endangered the security of all of them. Jesus had to explain to them that he needed a traitor for his plan to work, and one of them would have to perform the dreadful task. Betrayal was necessary to fulfil the scriptures (Matthew 27:9): "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value."
The idea that Judas betrayed Jesus by identifying him with a kiss is one of the most laughable fables ever committed to paper. Jesus Christ was the most notorious and recognisable man in Jerusalem at that moment. To say that someone would need to point him out with a kiss is as absurd as saying that no one would recognise Brad Pitt if he walked up Fifth Avenue. The true nature of Judas' betrayal is not actually mentioned in the Gospels because it gives the whole game away.
There is one further great irony. Judas was in fact a traitor to Jesus: he had thrown in his lot with Simon Magus, the leader of the Illuminati, and was providing information to Simon Magus about everything Jesus did. The Gospel of Judas, mentioned by the Church leader Irenaeus and thought lost, is in the hands of the Illuminati to this day, and it is from this that the details of the narrative outlined here has been obtained. Judas is still held in high regard by the Illuminati to this day.
Many Gnostic sects revered Judas, and one sect actually named themselves the Judasites in his honour. Judas did not kill himself. This was a Christian fabrication. He joined the intimate circle of Simon Magus, wrote his Gospel and remained a loyal member of the Illuminati until his death.
Mount of Olives
After the Last Supper, Jesus Christ, Lazarus and the other men, joined the camp of their army on the Mount of Olives, most of whom were asleep. They had previously told them that at dawn they would storm the city. Morale was high amongst the rebel force because they thought they could overcome death, as Lazarus had "proved". But Jesus and Lazarus knew it would take a miracle to defeat the expertly trained, battle-hardened Roman garrison, backed up by the temple guards of the Jews.
But there would be no great battle. Judas had gone to see his brother Joseph who had immediately taken him to an emergency meeting of the Sanhedrin. Judas explained that he knew of an unguarded path that could be used by a force to bring them undetected into the heart of the rebel army and take them completely by surprise while they were asleep.
The Jews went to Pontius Pilate and he immediately assembled a force of Roman soldiers, accompanied by the Jewish temple guards.
John 18: 2-3 "And Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place because Jesus had often resorted thither together with his disciples. Judas therefore having received a band of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons."
Although we are told about a "band of soldiers", it is imperative to understand that this was actually a full Roman cohort of six hundred men. The Latin translation explicitly uses the word "cohortem": 18:3 Iudas ergo cum accepisset cohortem et a pontificibus et Pharisaeis ministros venit illuc cum lanternis et facibus et armis
We can assume that the temple guard would also be a few hundred strong. Since it would be inconceivable that a military force of some 1,000 men would be assembled to take a handful of men prisoners, we can assume that the rebel army consisted of anything between 1,000 and 5,000 men.
Surprise was almost total. Many of the rebel army were captured (and would later be crucified alongside Jesus Christ), and many managed to escape into the darkness. A few skirmishes broke out. One involved Simon Peter (John 18:10): "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name of the servant was Malchus."
Further evidence of the brief struggle is found in John 18:4-6
18: 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, "Whom are you seeking?"
18: 5 They answered Him, "Jesus of Nazareth."
Jesus said to them, "I am He." And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them.
18: 6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Why on earth would Roman soldiers go backwards and fall to the ground simply because Jesus identified himself (and note that in the Gospel of John there is no mention of the ludicrous fabrication of Judas kissing Jesus)? This is actually a coded reference to the fight that broke out; the Romans were briefly pushed back and a few were killed or wounded.
In the fray, Jesus himself was struck across the forehead, making him seem to sweat blood. Comically, Luke 22:44 tries to pretend that he sweated blood whilst praying:
"And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground."
Jesus and many others were arrested and taken away.
The authorities tried to round up those who had fled, challenging people in the street who looked suspicious, most of whom tried to save themselves by denying any link to Jesus (hence the tale of Peter denying Jesus three times).
The trial of Jesus was brief. He had led an armed revolt against Rome and had called himself the King of the Jews. Pilate instantly ordered his crucifixion, along with all the other rebels who had been captured.
The Jewish philosopher and writer Philo said of Pontius Pilate, "He executed troublemakers without a trial," and referred to Pilate's "venality, his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behaviour, endless executions, endless savage ferocity." The Jewish historian Josephus said that several times Pilate had almost provoked insurrections among the Jews due to his insensitive approach to Jewish customs.
It can be concluded that the Jesus affair was buried amongst these numerous partial insurrections during the governorship of Pilate, hence why there is virtually no record of it in Roman history.
The Jesus insurrection was a forerunner of the first Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 CE and Simon Bar Kokhba's revolt of 132-135 CE and should be viewed in that context. (Simon Bar Kokhba, "Son of a Star", was in very much the same Messianic mould as Jesus Christ, but with a more obvious military plan.) Christian apologists have obliterated the Jesus Revolt from history. It is vital to realise that the Gospels were written and rewritten in the seventy years covering the two major Jewish-Roman wars. Jewish Messianic hopes were crushed, the Second Temple was utterly destroyed and Judaism itself was on the verge of extinction. The Messianic Dream of the Jews had proved catastrophic. Judea was forcefully Romanised by order of the Emperor Hadrian and the land purged of huge numbers of Jews. In that light, it would have been a suicidal strategy to present Jesus as a Jewish Messiah of the Davidic line who had led an uprising against Rome. He had to be distanced from the Jews and made acceptable to a Roman audience. Paul had already got the process going by linking Jesus to Mithraism, and it was this Roman version of Jesus that swept the Roman Empire. The Jewish truth underlying the story of Jesus was buried as deeply as possible. It is time for it to be rediscovered so that the Christian Lie may be exposed once and for all. The world has been the victim of a vast fraud.
Pilate's soldiers relentlessly ridiculed Jesus' claim to be a king (Matthew 27:27-50):
27:27: Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the barracks, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.
27:28: And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.
27:29: And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
27:30: And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.
27:31: And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
27:32: And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.
27:33: And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
27:34: They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
27:35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
27:36: And sitting down they watched him there;
27:37: And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE
KING OF THE JEWS.
27:38: Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
(The men who were crucified with Jesus Christ weren't robbers but fellow rebels, and there were several scores of them.)
27:39: And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
27:40: And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
27:41: Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
27:42: He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
27:43: He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
27:44: The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
27:45: Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
27:47: Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
27:48: And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
(This was when a drug was administered to Jesus Christ. It was the same drug that had been used to induce a deathlike state in Lazarus.)
27:49: The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
27:50: Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Jesus "died" in an absurdly short space of time. Most crucifixion victims took two to three days to die; Jesus died in a matter of hours, barely enough to make it plausible.
Pilate was astonished when he heard that Jesus had died so quickly (Mark 15: 43-45):
15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a noble counsellor, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, came and went in boldly to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
15:44 But Pilate wondered that he should be already dead. And sending for the centurion, he asked him if he were already dead.
15:45 And when he had understood it by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
We can see that Pilate was distrustful and suspicious, but he was also preoccupied with restoring order to Jerusalem after the recent disturbances. Satisfied that Jesus was dead, he was prepared to hand over the body to Jesus' brother, Joseph of Arimathea, scribe to the Sanhedrin.
John 19:34 says that Jesus was speared in the side by a Roman soldier to prove that he was dead, although this episode is not mentioned by any of the other writers. In Luke (23:47), a Roman centurion says, "Indeed this was a just man." In Mark (15:39), the centurion says, "Indeed this man was the son of God." In Matthew (27:54), the centurion says the same thing.
Some people have suggested that the spearing event was fabricated so that it could be claimed that a prophecy had been fulfilled (John 19: 36-37). However, it was a regular practice for Roman soldiers to spear bodies to confirm death, and Pilate would certainly have wanted certainty that Jesus was dead, especially given the suspiciously short amount of time Jesus was on the cross.
The spear involved in this episode is the so-called Spear of Destiny, one of the Grail Hallows, and it is discussed at length in The Armageddon Conspiracy.
For those who maintain that Jesus didn't die on the cross, this spearing is extremely inconvenient, and it is usually denied that it ever happened. However, it did happen. We will return to this later in the article.
Although Matthew says that Pilate was persuaded to post a guard on the tomb (Matthew 27:62-66), Mark, Luke and John mention no such thing. It is obvious that this is a later Christian fabrication to make the event seem more miraculous. Pilate had no soldiers to spare on such a task, with the city still at fever pitch, and he was sure Jesus was dead, hence the matter was finished.
The Gospels say that the following women were present at the Crucifixion and subsequent entombment of Jesus:
Matthew: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew 27:56).
Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, and Salome (Mark 15:40).
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary of James (Luke 24:10).
John: Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother of Jesus) and her sister, Mary of Cleophas (John 19:25).
It is, of course, absurd to assert that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had a sister with exactly the same name as herself.
The truth is this. The women present were Jesus' wife, his mother and his three sisters: Mary (of Cleophas), Salome and Joanna i.e. all of the women closest to him and who would be expected to be there. Clearly, the mother of "James and Joseph" is one and the same as the mother of Jesus. James and Joseph (of Arimathea) were two of his four brothers, the other two being Simon Peter and Judas.
Another point worth commenting on is what Jesus said to his mother just before he died (John 19:25-27):
19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
(This should be written as, "his mother, his sister Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.)
19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
19:27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
We have already said in the article "The Jesus Myth" that the "beloved disciple" was a coded reference to two people: Mary Magdalene and her brother Lazarus. Lazarus wasn't present at the crucifixion because he would have been arrested on the spot, but his sister was. What the Gospel of John is saying is that Mary, mother of Jesus, was to be taken under the protection of Jesus' wife Mary and her brother Lazarus, the most trusted disciple. Mary, mother of Jesus, could not stay with her sons James or Simon Peter who were on the run, nor with Judas who was with the Illuminati, and her daughters couldn't offer her any protection. Only Joseph of Arimathea could have taken her in, but Joseph's own future was uncertain.
As it turned out, Mary, mother of Jesus, her three daughters, Mary Magdalene, Mary's sister Martha and brother Lazarus, all fled to France within a matter of weeks. Joseph of Arimathea went to Britain (Glastonbury).
According to Matthew, the following events happened on the Sunday of Jesus' "resurrection".
1) Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary (mother or sister) went to the sepulchre. 2) There was a "great" earthquake. 3) An angel in snow-white garments, with a brightly lit face, descended from heaven, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 4) The Roman guards were struck with terror and "became as dead men". 5) The angel said to the women, "Fear not. I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified." (Just in case you had forgotten!) "He is not here, for he is risen, as he said." 6) He showed them inside then told them to announce to the disciples that he was risen, and that they would see him in Galilee. 7) The women rushed to tell the disciples but they immediately encountered Jesus, who said almost exactly the same thing that the angel had just said.
According to Mark, this is what happened:
1) Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother) and Salome (sister) went to the tomb. 2) The stone had already been rolled back 3) Inside the tomb was a young man (angel?) dressed in bright white robes. 4) The angel said, "You seek Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. He is risen. He is not here. Behold the place where they laid him." He said they would find him in Galilee. 5) Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene then in "another shape" to two of the disciples. The other disciples didn't believe them, so he appeared to all of the disciples. 6) Then he ascended to heaven where he sits on the right hand side of God. No eyewitnesses are mentioned! So much for him meeting the disciples in Galilee.
According to Luke, this is what happened:
1) Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother) and Joanna (sister) went to the tomb. 2) The stone was rolled back. 3) Jesus' body was not in the tomb. 4) Two men in bright white robes appeared. They said the usual things. 5) The women told the disciples. They were not believed. 6) Peter went to the tomb to see for himself. 7) Two disciples met Jesus on the road to Emmaus, but they did not recognise him. They said about Jesus, "We hoped that it was he that should have redeemed Israel." Then they recognised Jesus. 8) They went back to Jerusalem to tell the others. 9) Jesus then appeared to all of them. 10) He then ascended into heaven.
According to John, this is what happened:
1) Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. 2) The stone was rolled back. 3) She ran away and bumped into Simon Peter and the other disciple "whom Jesus loved" (Lazarus). 4) She said to them that "they" had taken away Jesus' body. 5) The two men rushed to the tomb. They were baffled. (John 20:9: "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." Which is very odd since even Jesus' enemies knew about this: Luke 27:63: "Sir, we have remembered that which the seducer said while he was yet alive: After three days I will rise again.") 6) The disciples went home. 7) Mary Magdalene went into the tomb and found two angels in white. 8) She then encountered Jesus himself, but didn't recognise him, thinking him the gardener. She asked him if he had removed the body. 9) He said her name and suddenly she recognised him. He told her not to touch him. 10) Mary went to the other disciples and reported the incident. 11) Then Jesus appeared to them, but Thomas was not there and expressed his doubts. 12) Eight days later, Jesus reappeared, and Thomas's doubts were assuaged. 13) Jesus showed himself to his disciples, who were fishing, at the sea of Tiberias. They didn't recognise him. They weren't doing well with their fishing, but, with Jesus' help, they then caught a multitude of fish. They then realised it was Jesus.
We encourage everyone to read the "Resurrection" chapter in each of the Gospels. Remember that this is allegedly Holy Scripture, the "Word of God", divine, eternal and infallible. Protestant Christians are forever proclaiming that they live by scripture alone and not by the man-made laws of the Catholic Church. Yet "scripture" is riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, errors and the downright unbelievable. How can anyone possibly place unshakeable faith in something so flawed, so obviously wrong? The Protestants must be mad to proclaim the accuracy of scripture.
The Gospel accounts of the Resurrection strongly resemble drafts of a novel where the author is trying out various combinations of events to see which ones work best. And this is what the Gospels really are: fiction.
Each Gospel is a novel based on a real person. Using a few core truths, each Gospel writer then created his own particular fiction, getting across his own desired message. John's story about catching fish is clearly an allegory: the disciples were unsuccessful with converting people until they placed their complete faith in Jesus and then they were hugely successful at making converts. John 21:11 says that they caught exactly 153 fish. Here is speculation about what this number might signify:
This is a good illustration of how the Gospels are often about symbolic "truths" rather than literal ones. The Protestant fundamentalists with their crazy insistence on the literal truth of the Gospels are practically deranged. No one in their right mind would set any store by the literal stories contained in the Gospels. It is the coded meaning that these Gospels are truly all about. They are, in effect, coded, allegorical novels and if you want to know the truth of them then there's no point in going to preachers, pastors and priests (who know nothing about the real meaning of the Gospels). You should instead study esoteric writings about the Christian mysteries, which, as we have previously said, are closely linked to those of Gnostic Mithraism.
Christ and the End of Days
The four Gospels end with an extraordinary eruption of bitterness on Simon Peter's part towards John (Lazarus), the "beloved disciple" (John 21:20-25).
Jesus and Peter are walking together, and Jesus tells Peter the manner in which Peter will meet his death. Peter is irritated to discover that the beloved disciple is lurking behind them. Peter petulantly asks Jesus what fate will befall the beloved disciple. Jesus snaps back that it is not Peter's business, but also indicates that the beloved disciple will remain alive until Jesus "returns" (the Second Coming). Peter then tells the other disciples that the beloved disciple won't die. And the beloved disciple, the author of the Gospel, then says that Peter was misquoting Jesus and laboriously spells out what Jesus actually said, even though Peter's interpretation was surely quite accurate.
It is virtually impossible to understand why this silly bickering, nit-picking and semantic navel-gazing should have been allowed to stand as the culmination of the four Gospels.
The beloved disciple's concluding sentiments are:
"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
What happened to the Jesus Plot?
Jesus Christ knew that the Romans could not be defeated and the Davidic Royal line restored to the throne by guerrilla actions such as those being carried out by the Zealots. It would take a national insurrection, making the land ungovernable, before the Romans would cut their losses and depart.
Jesus calculated that the only thing that would make the people of Judea fight to the death would be the belief that they wouldn't truly die i.e. they would be resurrected.
So, Jesus' great plan was to show that he personally could defeat death and anyone who followed him would have nothing to fear. He carried out a test run of his plan using his brother-in-law and most trusted companion: John aka Lazarus. Sure enough, many people were amazed by Lazarus's resurrection and started to believe in Jesus.
To complete his plan, Jesus had to raise himself from the dead. He led an uprising during the Passover Festival and, as expected, he was caught and sentenced to crucifixion, the standard penalty for anyone who challenged the power of Rome.
A man secretly working for Jesus had been instructed to put a drug in a vessel of vinegar. Jesus would say, "I thirst" after a few hours, enough time to make the crucifixion seem credible, and then would be given the drugged vinegar that would send him into a deathlike state, just as had already been rehearsed in the case of Lazarus days earlier.
Jesus expected that no one would see any need to break his legs, as was sometimes done to crucifixion victims to accelerate their death (unable to support their weight, their lungs would collapse under the pressure, and they'd die of asphyxiation). He was right about this, but he had not anticipated being speared in the chest by a Roman soldier. A wound that would prove fatal was inflicted.
Joseph of Arimathea, Jesus' brother, thought him dead and buried him.
And then one of the most remarkable episodes in the history of the world took place. What happened next was nothing to do with resurrection (there's no such phenomenon: dead bodies are never reanimated) but with reincarnation. Jesus died but his soul then found a new host. It was the body of the man mentioned in Mark 14:51: "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body." The man had been with Jesus for the last few days, waiting to be initiated into the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven". He had hidden near the tomb, sure that Jesus would rise from the dead and desperate to be a witness to the miracle.
He got more than he bargained for. Jesus' soul passed into him and instantly changed his nature. Although the man had the same physical features as before, he was now dominated by Jesus' personality. It is for precisely this reason that all the people who first encountered Jesus after the Resurrection failed to recognise him. It was only when he spoke and was able to say things that only Jesus could know that they realised who he was.
Jesus, in his new body, had to dig a grave and bury his old body since it would ruin everything if it were discovered. Luckily, he had the entire Sabbath day to work undetected because everyone in Jerusalem was busy with their Sabbath worship.
Every Christian has to account for why the appearance of the resurrected Christ changed to such an extent that he was unrecognisable to those who knew him best. Reincarnation accounts for the difference; resurrection does not. If the same body had come back to life, it should have had exactly the same appearance as before. The whole tale of "Doubting Thomas" seeing and touching the wounds that were inflicted on Jesus during the crucifixion was fabricated to dispel the doubts that lingered amongst many of the eyewitnesses concerning Jesus' altered appearance. (John 20:29: "Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.")
The upshot was that Jesus' "resurrection" was a disaster. The original idea was that he would triumphantly reveal himself to the people, show that he had come back from the dead, and the Jewish people would then rise as one. Jesus would instruct them to place his brother James on the throne as the Davidic king, and make Simon Peter the High Priest of the Temple. (Jesus himself could not assume any power because it would soon become apparent that he was mortal and not a god. His task was to provide the divine sanction for James and Peter and then flee the country while pretending that he had ascended to heaven. He did flee the country in due course, although he might have stayed given how different he now looked.) But that outcome was impossible now because Jesus was unrecognisable.
Jesus was in fact the "angel" seen at the sepulchre. There is one final revelation that must be made concerning Jesus. He was none other than one of the Demiurge's archons, hence his many powers and his angelic appearance after his reincarnation.
Since Jesus no longer had the same appearance, only those who knew him personally were willing to believe that he had come back to life. For the rest of the Jews, there was no reason to believe he had done what he had promised to do. That's why the Jesus Plot failed.
It was one of the bizarre accidents of history that it then mutated into something entirely different and gave birth to the Christian religion. The law of unintended consequences had enjoyed the final joke of the Jesus affair.
We cannot reveal the additional sources of our information about the Jesus Plot (beyond the Gospel of Judas) for secret reasons. In any case, you should treat it with caution. Be skeptical. Compare it with the Christian version of events. Which do you find more credible? Always use your own judgment. Unlike the Christians, we do not say that any document is holy writ and must be believed utterly. Anyone who demands slavish obedience to any text is mad and anyone who thinks any text is the Word of God is mad. There is no text ever written that is not full of ambiguity and difficulties in interpretation.
James the Just
James, the man who would have been king if the Jesus Plot had succeeded, eventually became the leader of the Jesus sect in Jerusalem but was later condemned by the Sanhedrin for breaking Judaic law and stoned to death.
Simon Peter, brother of Jesus, was a Jew who wanted to restore the Davidic line of kings to the throne of Israel and be free of the Roman army of occupation. He was earmarked to be the new high priest in the new order. He would have been appalled that he was instead later recognised as the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, a religion that bears no resemblance to anything Peter held sacred.
Paul was a Jew who was initiated into Mithraism and became a Mithraic priest. He was the one who brought Messianic Judaism and pagan Mithraism together in one unholy package. He was the true founder of Christianity.
Jesus' "divinity" was established by a vote at the Council of Nicea in 325. Until that time, Christianity was a much broader Church than it is now, with many competing opinions about Christ's nature. Sunday, not Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath), was deemed to be the day of rest. 25 December, the birthday of Mithras and Sol Invictus, was chosen for Christ's birthday. 25 December is also the birthday of Lucifer.
In addition to having Christian sympathies, the Emperor Constantine was a follower of Sol Invictus, a pagan god closely associated with Mithras. In Constantine's mind, there was precious little difference between Sol Invictus, Mithras and Christ.
In a subsequent article we will discuss what became of the Davidic family of Jesus Christ.