Follow Population Alert on

Questions?


based on telephone interviews conducted Dec. 3-7, 2014 among a national sample of 1,507 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (605 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 902 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 513 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see http://people-press.org/methodology/.

 

Roman Emperor Constantine in 324 AD saw in the confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. The first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born.

A total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god . By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" existedf and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.

"As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..."

(God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects:

  1. Caesar

  2. Krishna

  3. Mithra

  4. Horus

  5. Zeus

    (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).

Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god.

 

A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine. 

 

Because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".

 

In 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible's New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence. When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified.

 

However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church.  

One glaring example "The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour".  That is because there never was a virgin birth.

No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark ( the gospel that spawned the other 3). Not only that, those narratives are missing in the Sinai Bible,  the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark. The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees.

 

The allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). REBUTTAL

 

We have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century.

 source

 

More HISTORY OF THE BIBLE - NEW TESTAMENT
 

Saint Paul severed Christianity from Judaism over the issue of circumcision around 50 A.D., this was more than just Faith versus God's Commandments and Laws. (Examine closely Galatians.) It was a cultural severing as well. Judaism forbids images (and the worship of any physical object including a man). Christianity was clearly Unitarian and Jewish at the beginning, Gentile converts grafted a pagan overcoat onto the faith.

 

The Gospel of Mark Examined

The Gospel of Mark begins with John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus where he immediately goes out in the desert for 40 days and is tempted by Satan. This is pretty much the same story in Matthew and Luke but runs into problems immediately with Judaism.

Under Judaism there is no devil nor does the devil rule the world. Christian dualism is a product of the cultural influences of Zoroastrianism and Hellenism. This contradicts Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

This idea was introduced by Paul and derives from Hellenism - Paul claims Satan is the "God of this world" (2 Cor 4:4).

Thus God alone is the source of good and evil and not separate beings, parts of God, angels, devils, etc. God alone rules the earth and created the universe not creation by separate or lesser beings.

Now we come to Mark chapter 2 and Jesus heals a paralyzed man and right away we have so-called teachers of the law claiming Jesus was committing blasphemy. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

The first problem is Judaism says no such thing - this was a creation of Christianity. This also tries to suggest that Jesus is somehow God and begins to set up a paradigm of confrontation with the Jews. They do not specify here who the teachers of the law are - are they Pharisees or Sadducees?

The idea sickness is caused by sin is more Paulist nonsense and simply irrational. There's no prohibition against "healing" at any time under the Pharisees. This view was concocted by Paul, "Therefore sin came into the world through one man (Adam) and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Romans 5:12).

This is important to understand because the two groups were mortal enemies. The Sadducees were the party of the rich and the politically powerful. Their center of power was the Temple in Jerusalem - and that power was concentrated in the hands of the high priest who was appointed by the Romans.

Since Greek rule around 330 BC foreign occupying powers had been appointing the high priest. This was their belief that the political-religious authority was concentrated at the Temple and by controlling the Temple they can control the people.

The problem was the rise of the Pharisee party starting perhaps 160 BC. This would be the equivalent of your country Evangelical churches today and religious power was concentrated at the local synagogue.

The Temple was seen as nothing more than ceremonial. In addition the Pharisees believed in the Oral Law a concept rejected by the Sadducees.

The Sadducees only believed in the first five books of the Torah and unlike the Pharisees rejected the concept of bodily resurrection. Quoting Acts 23:8,

"For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both."

Later on in Mark 2:16 we have the Pharisees critical of Jesus having dinner with the sinners and tax collectors. Be aware these tax collectors were not the harmless people the Gospels make them out to be. Many of them were vicious criminals that destroyed the lives scores of people through extortion driving them into slavery, ruin, and even suicide. This was literally Mafia 101.

It needs to be pointed out all of this took place at a time of violence and revolution. The Gospel writers play this down to a religious controversy and remove the political one. Judah was under harsh Roman rule and were allied with the Sadducees.

In Mark 2:23 we have a confrontation over the Sabbath. Mark has the Pharisees claiming that eating on the Sabbath is unlawful. The entire confrontation is ridiculous. Jesus goes into the story of King David and how he ate the consecrated bread that was only for priests to eat, etc.

The other problem was they were stealing - it wasn't their grain to just wonder into the field and eat. The fact is Jesus and his followers were anti-Roman rebels because they knew the Messiah (which Jesus believed he was) would overthrow Roman rule. In fact this was confirmed in Acts 5:34;

"a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go!"

Jesus followers were clearly considered part of the anti-Roman resistance just as Judas the Galilean and Theudas were - they and scores of others had been executed for sedition. So if they were running from the Romans and their Sadducee allies they were justified UNDER JUDAISM and Phariseesism to do just what they did. In fact if it comes to health or safety the Law is abrogated under Judaism anyway.

The Gospel of Mark has Jesus say quote, "the Sabbath was made for man, not the man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even on the Sabbath."

While Mark is attempting to create an image of conflict with the Pharisees what Jesus stated was Pharisees 101. So this entire sequence makes no sense on its face unless he was facing somebody else and not the Pharisees - these were likely Sadducees.

The "Son of Man" simply means human nothing more.

Why would Mark make this confrontation out to be the Pharisees instead of the Sadducees he hardly (except Mark 12:18) even mentions? If the gospel of Mark had been written 70 A.D. or later this was after-during the destruction of the Temple and the Sadducees during the Jewish revolt from 66 through 70 A.D. The Sadducees were wiped out while the Pharisee opposition remained.

If Mark was written in Rome for Romans there would be an effort to play down the Roman part in this drama. But due to the early date of writing there may still have been those familiar enough with the actual Jesus so Mark had to placate them - plus the fact he broke with Paul may have colored his views.

This would've left one enemy for Paul and his followers to deal with and that was the Pharisees. And because this was a Roman Gentile audience they would never know the difference anyway.

Further proof that the Sadducees were in control of the Temple can be found in Acts 5:17;

"Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation..." It was the high priest crying to kill Jesus' followers back in Acts 5.

And Acts 4:1, "And as they spoke unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them..."

The Jewish Messiah was supposed to be king of this world but in John 18:36,

"my kingdom is not of this world" and "now my kingdom is from another place."

This is a Gnostic belief and not a Jewish belief. The Jewish Messiah was to create God's kingdom in this world but the Gnostics believed in a heavenly or spiritual kingdom free of a corrupt material universe and becoming one with the Father and the Son in a spiritual union.

Further proof of this is John 17:21-23 Jesus proclaims,

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one..."

The Gnostic messiah would impart to his followers salvation by a type of spiritual wisdom or knowledge of oneself and the Father. See;

1 Corinthians 12:8, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Corinthians 15:34, 2 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Corinthians 6:6, 2 Corinthians 8:7, 2 Corinthians 10:5, Ephesians 1:17, Ephesians 3:4, Ephesians 3:19, Ephesians 4:13, Philippians 1:9, Philippians 3:8, Colossians 1:9, Colossians 1:10, Colossians 2:3, Colossians 3:10, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Timothy 3:7, Hebrews 10:26, 2 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:3, 2 Peter 1:8, 2 Peter 2:20, 2 Peter 3:18.

Paulism seems to use "faith" interchangeably with "knowledge."

Now we come to Mark 6:1 and we have the story of the beheading of John the Baptist the man "crying in the wilderness". The figure in Isaiah 40:3 was not supposed to be beheaded.

This is vitally important to understand that the Jewish understanding of the Messiah as a military political figure has no relation to the cosmic Savior deity of the Apostle Paul or the proto-Gnostic John. This Kingdom of God was supposed to be here in the real world. Reference Malachi 4:5.

Mark 13:13, "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."

And Matthew 34:24, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

As the Gospels progress from the oldest such as Mark to the newest such as John they become progressively more anti-Jewish and more Gnostic. John is so alien to Mark they can't even agree on Jesus and the Cross. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke Simon carried the Cross but in John 19:17,

"And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:"

In Mark 3:1 we find Jesus enters a synagogue and heals a man with a shriveled hand. Again the gospel of Mark makes this out as a confrontation with synagogue officials over the issue can you do medical treatments on the Sabbath.

There is no confrontation here because under Judaism once again things such as medical treatment or anything life-threatening the Law doesn't apply.

This is once again creating the false paradigm that Jesus was hated by the Pharisees and building up to the plot that they were going to kill him later on. What he did again was Pharisees 101. Jesus was a Pharisee.

In Mark 4:10 is Gnosticism 101:

"when he was alone the 12 and the others around him asked him about the parables he told them, the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you but to those on the outside everything is said and parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding otherwise they might turn and be forgiven."

This is Gnosticism because Jesus is imparting secret spiritual knowledge (Wisdom) to his select followers but talks babble and parables to others. This is the "knowledge" Paul and Peter referred to in the earlier list above.

Again Mark 4:22 says, "For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and what ever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open if anyone has ears to hear let him hear..."

Again the image of Jesus as a Gnostic spiritual master who is revealing to his followers hidden knowledge not available to others.

In Mark 5:8 we have the story of Legion and the demon possessed pigs whom Jesus causes to go drown themselves. Nothing else to say.

In Mark 7:1 we have another confrontation with the Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law over the issue of unclean or not washing one's hands before eating. Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 is ridiculous because this has nothing to do with this issue other than another Paulist attempt to attack God's Laws.

In addition Jesus is taking God's words from Isaiah suggesting he is God - that would be blasphemy under Judaism.

In Mark 8:27 Jesus asked his followers, "who am I?" They replied "some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others, one of the prophets." Peter answered, "you are the Christ."

Understand that Christ is really Greek for anointed - this is merely a title. Other anointed figures would include Cyrus the Persian in Isaiah 45:1,

"Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;"

Anointed simply means a servant of God just as the Jewish term son of God refers to a holy and righteous man. The Jewish understanding of Christ is simply a man that walks with God not a divine human.

In Mark 10:32 he tells his disciples that they're going up to Jerusalem, that he is going to be betrayed, condemned to death, and will be handed over to the Gentiles. Jesus knew in advance what was going to happen and in fact planned on it. As we shall see this entire story of Judas is questionable.

In Mark 10:1, etc. we know the story of Jesus entering Jerusalem, the cheering crowds, and the near riots he created by clearing the Temple. Thousands of people saw Jesus, everyone knew who he was.

In Mark 11:20 we have the story of a dead fig tree Jesus cursed-killed in Mark 11:12 because it had no figs for his lunch. This displays some type of petty anger because this relates to Joel 2:22;

"The trees are bearing their fruit; the fig tree and vine yield their riches..."

Seems the "Lord's answer" is already running into problems.

In the Gospel stories we have the Feast of Tabernacles during this time which is in the fall when these events occurred and not in spring as Christianity claims with Easter - the pagan idea of risen savior gods occur in spring. See Zechariah 14:16. Passover is in spring but they can't occur at the same time.

In Mark 11:27 etc. Jesus was walking around the temple court the chief priests and the teachers of the law of the elders and etc. were questioning his authority. He refers to the Holy Spirit and his baptism in Mark 1:9 as his authority. The only problem is there's no Holy Spirit in Judaism nor does the terms Holy Ghost/Spirit hardly even appear in the Old Testament.

This is another Hellenist-Platonist' concept introduced by Paul who also claimed the authority of the Holy Spirit. Again God is One as Jesus said in Mark 12:29;

"The most important one, answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one..."

It's obvious everybody knew who Jesus was. His answer here was babbling nonsense. Later in Mark 12:13 the Pharisees and Herodians confronted Jesus over the issue of paying taxes to Caesar.

This makes no sense - Pharisees and Herodians were mortal enemies. This was most likely the Sadducees again because their power depended on Roman rule. The Pharisees and the zealots were enemies of the Romans, their puppets, and allies.

In Mark 13:1 etc. Jesus goes into the signs of the end of the age. He proclaims the day and the hour unknown but is clearly at that time.

In Mark 14:43 we have the arrest of Jesus after the kiss from Judas to help identify him to temple officials. This makes absolutely no sense because every body knew who Jesus was - who could not know?

Jesus was taken to the high priest. We know the story of Peter's denial, and the accusations against Jesus. One of the accusations was the Temple being destroyed and rebuilt in three days.

This was no threat at all to the Pharisees but this was a grave threat to the Sadducee party whose power was at the Temple. Jesus admits to the high priest that he is the "Christ" out to destroy them.

In Mark 15:1 Jesus is turned over to Pontius Pilate who asked Jesus are you the king of the Jews? Jesus said yes. Under Roman law this is sedition - anyone claiming to be king of the Jews is overthrowing Caesar and thus crucifixion is the penalty for rebellion.

Now we come to the absurd story of Barabbas and Pontius Pilate claiming some Jewish custom to release murderers on a particular holiday. This is a lie because there is no such custom. In fact Barabbas was another rebel accused of insurrection thus sentenced to crucifixion.

Crucifixion was reserved for crimes against the Roman State.

During the crucifixion the New American Bible identifies the other two men not as robbers but as revolutionaries. Any threat to Roman rule is considered sedition and punishable by death. Jesus was executed for breaking Roman law by Romans.

Jesus had broken no Jewish law and as a Pharisee he had no qualms with other Pharisees. But as the Jewish Messiah he would be leading an insurrection against the Romans and their puppets the Sadducees.

The silly incident with Barabbas and Pontius Pilate completely defies known history. Pontius Pilate actually lived and they have archaeological proof in Italy. He was a tyrant, murderer, and went out of his way to antagonize the Jews to the point the Roman government removed him from office.

Mark 15:9 clearly says that it was the chief priest behind the death of Jesus - they were the appointed allies of the Roman occupiers. Unlike the stories in Matthew, Luke, and John Pontius Pilate directly executed Jesus and contradicted the lie in the other Gospels that Jesus had not broken Roman law and that it's the Jews fault.

The image of Pontius Pilate as somehow almost begging for Jesus's life and caving in to Jewish mobs is absurd. John 18:30 illustrates this absurdity:

"They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death..."

That is absurd - they can execute people by stoning. Remember Stephen? John 18:38 - 19:4 after questioning Jesus Pilate said,

"Pilate said to him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and said to them, I find in him no fault at all...Pilate therefore went forth again, and said unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him."

To quote www.britannica.com

Pontius Pilate, (died c. ad 36), Roman prefect (governor) of Judaea (ad 26�36) under the emperor Tiberius; he presided at the trial of Jesus and gave the order for his crucifixion...he incurred the enmity of the Jews by insulting their religious sensibilities, as when he hung worship images of the emperor throughout Jerusalem and had coins bearing pagan religious symbols minted.

After Sejanus's fall (ad 31), Pilate was exposed to sharper criticism from the Jews, who may have capitalized on his vulnerability by obtaining a legal death sentence on Jesus (John 19:12). The Samaritans reported him to Vitellius, legate of Syria, after he had attacked them on Mt. Gerizim (ad 36). He was then ordered back to Rome to stand trial for cruelty and oppression, particularly on the charge that he executed men without proper trial...

Hardly sounds like the wimp in John 19:7-8;

"The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid..."

The Chief Priest said in John 19:15, "We have no king but Caesar." Only a Sadducee quisling would say something like that - and the Paulist wanting the favor of the Romans.

In the end Jesus was hoping for a miracle from God to defeat the Romans and establish what he believed was his kingdom on earth. He failed horribly and his last agonizing words to God were, "my God my God why have you forsaken me?" Jesus clearly never planned to die this way on a cross. This was not the prophecy of Zechariah 9:10.

It's obvious that Jesus knew the confrontation was coming and in my opinion sent Judas to set it up - or the story was fabricated to explain away Jesus' failure to deliver this "Kingdom of God" however defined.

The idea of Judas having to identify Jesus is simply crazy. But the church needed a fall guy and Judas - and the Jews - were it. Judas in grief obviously never wanted this to happen either. Depending on which story we believe he hung himself or he fell in a hole and his insides burst.

In the end Jesus the failed itinerant Pharisee rabbi died a horrible death as a Jew for a Jewish cause. A few years later his memory was hijacked by a Hellenistic-Roman usurper named Paul. His name would be used as an excuse for genocide and persecution of the people Jesus loved and died for.

Christianity has a hell of a lot to answer for.

Notes:

Of the 231 times the word faith appears in the Bible it appears only twice in the OT. (KJV)

Holy Spirit/Ghost appears only twice in the OT and not used in the manner of the NT.

Most quotes taken from the KJV and edited according to the NIV Student Bible.

Christian Historical references taken from the Catholic New American Bible New Testament revised 1986.

Jewish historical and political history taken from 'Mythmaker Paul and the Invention of Christianity' by Hyam Maccoby.

source