244Questioning Paul

Incredible

…Testing Faith

 

4

A New Testament

 

Not a Chance in Hell…

Throughout the Greco-Roman world, there would be an abrupt change from Yahowah, the God who gave us life and the means to become immortal, to a god now called “Iesous Christos | Jesus Christ,” who was not only mortal, but was killed by men. There would be a complete reversal, from promoting and affirming Yahowah’s Towrah, His Miqra’ey and Beryth, to denouncing and annulling something now called the “Law” and the “Jewish Feasts” such that the “Old Covenant” would be seen as so ineffectual it had to be replaced with a “New Covenant” and requisite “New Testament.”

As we turn the page from Yahowah’s Divinely inspired and consistently accurate prophets, away from men like Yasha’yah, Yirma’yah, and Zakaryah at the end of His book and open the new one beginning with “the Gospel of Matthew,” accuracy becomes a thing of the past and Yahowah’s love for His Chosen People, Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, even His dire warnings about the ways of the Gentiles, are completely upended, with God hating His People and choosing all others over them.

After being regaled with countless long, credible, and enlightening narratives which are verifiable in the annals of archeology about the likes of Noach, ‘Abraham, Moseh, and Dowd, the things we learned, the things Yahowah accomplished through these men, were turned to mush, 245with nothing but occasional and unattested musings about them which upend their lives in an irrational attempt to negate what they represented and validate a different narrative. From one page to the next, from Malaky to Matthew, almost everything changes with the exception of the Sermon on the Mount.

In the Hebrew text a relationship was prized above all else and religion was despised. Then suddenly, that relationship was discarded and replaced with a religion. Why?

What is the purpose of the Beginning of the Book when the Addendum works so hard to usurp its credibility and then negate it? This is to say: “All of that old stuff was unreliable and ineffective, and no longer applies, no matter what God said about it, but nonetheless you should trust us because that same God authorized us to denounce Him and come up with an entirely different plan.” Really?

We turned to Sha’uwl | Paul’s oral diatribe in his “New Testament” to see if Yahowah was right when He denounced the Son of Evil for renouncing Him and then transferring every promise He had made to His beloved son, Dowd, to a character who bears no resemblance to Him, now called “Jesus Christ.” And while we affirmed His assertion, we also came to see why God loathes the Despised and Despicable Soul who changed his name from Sha’uwl to Paul, along with his allegiance from Yisra’el to Greece and Rome.

While we have demonstrated with little difficulty that Sha’uwl, now Paul, deliberately misquoted and misrepresented the Towrah and Prophets to promote his faith, we also discovered that he lied about what occurred in what would soon be called Hadrianopolis. He presented “Jews” as his enemy and the enemy of his god, even as the people who murdered his god. The Gentiles were suddenly in the role of Jews and Jews were acting like Gentiles. As 246a result, we are told that Paul’s god changed allegiances such that this role reversal became the foundation of the resulting religion.

This leads us to consider what came first, the account of the hideous anti-Semitic episode at the conclusion of the “Gospel of Matthew” where “Jews” are engaged in elaborate conspiracies to kill “Jesus” or Paul’s crusade against them. Are we to believe that Paul was justified in his accusation that God had come to hate His people for killing His son to such a degree that He suddenly changed loyalties? Are we to believe that God had changed His mind and was now embracing the Roman Beast – which is shown cleansing its hands of the whole bloody affair as it is depicted in Matthew 27?

In the current order of things, the Gospel of Matthew precedes the Acts of the Apostles in addition to Paul’s fourteen letters. It has the appearance that Paul’s animosity flowed naturally from what was alleged to have been said during the “trial” before Pilate. While he was a liar of the first order, could Paul have been justified in concluding that God had turned on His People as the “Gospel of Matthew” suggests?

As is the case with most things worth knowing, if we want to know the truth, we will have to invest considerable time and due diligence to assess the credibility of the “Gospel” attributed to “Matthew.” If my suspicions are correct, and they are based entirely upon what we have come to know about Yahowah, in addition to what He promised Dowd, I think we will find that, while portions of it were correctly rendered very early on in Hebrew, after the Sermon on the Mount very little of what follows in the “Gospel of Matthew” was actually written by a Disciple, notably the tax collector whose name was Lowy | Levi according to Mark and Luke. It is only in what is now called the “Gospel of Matthew” that this fellow bears the name, Mattanyah | Matthew.

247This obvious discrepancy is a serious problem relative to the identity of the book’s namesake. Matthew 9:9 reads: “And as Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man, called Matthew, sitting in the tax office; and He said to him, ‘Follow Me!’ And he rose and followed Him.” The designed implication is that “Matthew” became a disciple and that he, as an eyewitness to the events in “Jesus’” life, composed the “Gospel” bearing his name.

Whereas Mark, from which the “Gospel of Matthew” was substantially plagiarized, reads: “And as He passed by, He saw Levi [Lowy in Hebrew] the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, ‘Follow Me!’ And he rose and followed Him.” (Mark 2:14)

The “Gospel of Luke,” from which substantial portions of “Matthew” were derived, and which also borrows heavily from Mark, conveys a similar account in Luke 5:27: “And after that He went out, and noticed a tax-gatherer named Levi, sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, ‘Follow Me.’”

Since Matthew and Luke were written later and were based upon Mark, since Mark, unlike Luke or Matthew, knew a disciple, that being Shim’own | “Peter,” and since Mark’s account contains the most information regarding the identity of the tax collector, prudence dictates that there never was a disciple named Mattanyah | Matthew. Therefore, the book bearing this name was not only written by an imposter, the impersonator intended to deceive through the pretense of being a disciple. This is fraud in the inception, making Matthew a scam.

Christians will protest, of course, and say almost anything to avoid a realization that is this caustic to their beliefs. The first Christian resource I checked on this matter wrote: “The answer is very simple. Both are true because Matthew and Levi are the same person. Matthew is the Greek name and Levi was the Hebrew name. As a tax 248collector, Matthew worked for Greek-speaking Romans. He gathered taxes from Hebrew-speaking Jews. We see, as an example, Peter also being called Simon.” (https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/was-taxman-named-matthew-or-levi)

Plastering over a lie with another discredits both sources as deceivers. Matthew was a transliteration of Mattanyah, which superficially means: “Gift of Yah.” It was based on Hebrew nomenclature, not Greek. Mattanyah was a compound of “mattan – gift” and Yah, the familial form of Yahowah. Mattan, which appears eight times in the Towrah and Prophets, was both a noun, depicting a “present” and a name denoting an individual. It is based upon the verb “nathan – to give.” The verbal root is found 1078 times in the Hebrew text.

Incidentally, a little research shows that the fellow named Mattan was a priest in service to Ba’al | the Lord in Jerusalem, and thus represented the Devil. As such, there was no one named “Mattanyah” as it would have been considered an insult. The imposter who chose to misrepresent himself through it was either unaware of its history or was proud to serve Ba’al in this way.

Further, “Levi” is a Masorete corruption of the name of the priestly tribe, Lowy, meaning “to unite.” Moseh | Moses was a Lowy | Levite. It is obviously Hebrew too.

As for the Christian’s excuse for overlooking this overt evidence of fraud as if it did not matter, his “example,” which was that of “Peter also being called Simon,” is absurd. Simon is an English transliteration of Shim’own. This Hebrew name was derived from the verb “shama’ – to listen,” making Shim’own “He Listens.” “Peter,” on the other hand, is an English transliteration of the Greek translation of the Hebrew word, keph, which describes “hollow indentations in a rock.” Further, keph is closely related to kaphar which, as a “covering,” became 249the basis of “reconciliation.” And that indeed is the very purpose of the Miqra’ey of which Yahowsha’ was speaking when the title was afforded to his Disciple.

Therefore, the Disciple properly known as Shim’own was given the nickname, Kephas by Yahowsha’. This title was then inadequately and inappropriately translated into Greek as “Petros,” meaning “stone.” It was then transliterated into Latin and then into English, becoming “Peter.” Since the truth is so vastly superior to lies, it is a wonder Christians prefer one to the other.

As is the case with all but two books within the Christian New Testament (Yahowchanan | John and his Revelation), the closer we look the worse it gets. We are going to reaffirm that Paul’s diatribes were scribed and distributed long before the Greek versions of Mark, Luke, and Matthew were penned – and long before John, too. It was Paul’s attitude toward Jews that would cause these “Gospels” to read as they do today. Since this assessment is consistent with the historical evidence, Christianity is a house of cards, all Kings, Queens, and Jokers, which is about to tumble to the ground. This may be the most explosive exposé we have yet undertaken.

Let’s be clear. While there is no independent historical affirmation, it would still be reasonable to conclude that Yahowsha’ was condemned to be crucified by the Roman governor, Pilate, in the Province of Judaea on Passover in 33 CE. It is also possible, but not assured by any means, that some of Yahuwdah’s | Judah’s religious leaders, including the High Priest, didn’t much like Yahowsha’ because he would have sought to discredit them. However, the preponderance of the Jewish people did not know or care one way or the other, in contrast to what is written. They were trying to survive rabbinical oppression and Roman subjugation.

While we were told by Yasha’yah | Isaiah (in the 53^rd 250chapter) that there was nothing about Yahowsha’ that would have caused him to stand out and to have been noticed, much less admired, it is likely that the few who met the reclusive Yahowsha’ would have been confused by what he had to say. He would have been caustic, as is Yahowah. When exposed to those who were religious and/or political, he would have criticized both. He would have been as opposed to Rome as he was to the Jewish establishment, and that would have been confusing at a time like this. Further, very few recognized him as the Passover Lamb. Most still don’t, even to this day.

Beyond Yasha’yah’s explanation, one of the reasons that we know that Yahowsha’ was not impressive is that nothing was written about him during his lifetime. He was not the kind of individual who would have garnered great animosity or respect. His legend was established two decades after his death by Paul – who famously speaks for him, thereby creating Iesous in his own image.

Based upon what we know, Yahowsha’ seldom engaged or spoke publicly and was a bit of a recluse. He would have been like Yahowah in this regard. Even among the twelve he chose, what little may have been written by an eyewitness would have been scribed by Yahowchanan decades later in Ephesus in an adopted tongue. And even then, “John” had very little to say about “Jesus’” life prior to the fulfillment of Passover – an event Yahowchanan never seemed to understand.

As for those who may have overtly opposed Yahowsha’, the Jewish leaders were not “teachers of the law” as they are errantly portrayed. They were no more depraved in character nor anti-God than any other clerics or politicians then or later, including, and most notably, Christians. If God had shown up at the Vatican, He would have been treated far worse. Catholics would have used the grotesque implements of torture they invented for their Inquisition to elicit a confession.

251Some of what we read today in the “Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke,” and especially Yahowchanan | John pertaining to the events of Passover in 33 CE could have been accurate. However, there are more differences between their stories than there are similarities – which is a monumental affront to their credibility. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not the reports of eyewitnesses nor of prophets – and thus they were not inspired by God, nor were they inerrant in the manner of the Hebrew text of the Towrah wa Naby’. Based upon their inconsistency with history and each other, this is not an opinion, but is instead an irrefutable fact.

Most of what was reported is inconsistent with the time, the people involved, and with common sense. There was only one potential eyewitness, Yahowchanan, but he was likely in hiding, and thus cannot claim personal knowledge of these events or discussions. Moreover, it is certain that he would not have been a witness to the musings of Jewish religious leaders or what was said before Pilate or Herod. And “John’s” assessment was written five decades thereafter when the author was at least 75 years old. It has been subject to more religious tampering than any other New Testament text, such that it is now impossible to distinguish what he may have said from what a religious scribe in Egypt or cleric in Caesarea attributed to him.

Evidence and reason dictate that some portion of what is now contained in the “Gospel of Matthew” was recorded by an eyewitness whose name was likely Lowy. However, the overwhelming preponderance of the events regaled in Matthew, especially apart from the Sermon on the Mount, were written by an imposter around 90 CE, ostensibly plagiarizing Mark and, to a lesser extent, Luke. The resulting assemblage was adjusted and augmented in the early 4^th century by the Roman Catholic Church, conclusions which will become evident momentarily.

252Our quest to understand the origin of the “Gospels” begins with coming to appreciate the role “John who was called ‘Mark’” played in this drama. His story begins in Acts 12:12 where Shim’own Kephas | “Peter” is shown visiting with him after a mal’ak | spiritual messenger is alleged to have freed the disciple from Herod’s custody. To the extent this is accurate, Mark would have been the lone author of a Synoptic Gospel who even knew an eyewitness. He was most likely regaled with Shim’own Kephas’ | “Peter’s” stories to the degree the Disciple could remember them.

Unfortunately, however, this made Mark a valuable commodity, one which Paul sought to exploit. Sha’uwl is shown bringing him into his circle of influence immediately thereafter in Acts 13:5, making Mark part of the imposter’s posse by Acts 13:13. By his own admission, Paul despised “Peter,” and would have stopped at nothing to curtail his influence for the sake of his own.

When next we see Mark, it is in Acts 15:37-39. At that time, the aspiring “Gospel” writer was wavering and ready to take leave of Paul, doing so along with Barnabas. “But Paul kept insisting otherwise, that those who had deserted him not take him.” “And there arose such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away.” Paul, however, did not handle desertion well, especially since Mark and Peter, Paul’s nemeses, had once been friends.

The trail runs through Colossians 4:10-11, where we find that Paul prevailed and once again had Mark back in his clutches, wrenching him away from Peter and Barnabas. In his letter to the Colossians we find Paul saying: “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner sends you his greetings, and Barnabas’ cousin Mark, about whom you received instructions if he comes to you. Welcome him and Iesou, who is called ‘Justus.’ These are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the 253circumcision, and they have proved to be an encouragement to me.”

Paul blabbered on about most everything, admitting to schemes against God that were appalling, and yet he was mum regarding the nature of the “instructions” he wanted to be implemented should someone encounter Mark. The Father of Lies was setting him up to write the Gospel according to Paul. And Mark would do just that, blending “Peter’s” fading memories with Paul’s rampant anti-Semitism, creating an epic to rival Homer’s Odysseus, spiced with the Sibylline Oracles for a sheen of prophetic authenticity. The Gospel was crafted under Paul’s oversight as he drew his last breath in 66 CE.

Once would not be enough, however for the author of 14 New Testament letters. Paul’s principal accomplice, Luke (Paul refers to him as his “fellow-worker” in Philemon who offers “lots of love”), would serve similarly, albeit more robustly, augmenting Mark with Luke/Acts, collectively comprising a quarter of the Christian New Testament. Having never spoken to an eyewitness or disciple, Luke incorporated a majority of Mark’s story into his own, leaving out parts he did not like while embellishing others. Luke/Acts was compiled shortly after Paul’s death, around 69 CE. The fact that Paul had passed away is why Luke felt at liberty to contradict his mentor, as he did from time to time in Acts.

While there is no credible witness, for Sha’uwl | Paul to have made such a ruckus by 50 CE that he was summoned to Jerusalem by the Disciples for questioning, he was likely 50 at the time. As such, he would have been around 33 at the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb (being the same age as Yahowsha’ which would have no doubt ticked the underbelly of the Serpent). His transition from murderer to preacher after being demon-possessed on the Road to Damascus would have occurred in the intervening years.

254The Disciples were probably a few years younger than Paul, and thus around 45 at their initial meeting. A similar differential in age could be expected between Paul and his disciples, placing Mark in his mid-50s at the time of Paul’s death. Luke would have been around the same age, maybe a few years his senior when he composed his epic tale.

Matthew would come two decades thereafter, with the first draft appearing around 90 CE. And as we know, it was a derivative of the prior two Gospels.

Therefore, the order of things was most certainly not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans 1^st and 2^nd Corinthians, Galatians, then Ephesians. It was instead…

Lowy – 40 CE Lost (Sermon on the Mount)

Ya’aqob / James – 50 CE

Galatians – 52 CE

1^st Thessalonians – 53 CE

1^st Corinthians – 54 CE

2^nd Thessalonians – 55 CE

Philippians – early 56 CE

Philemon – late 56 CE

2^nd Corinthians – 57 CE

Romans – 58 CE

Colossians – 59 CE

3^rd Corinthians – 59 CE Lost (ref: 2Cor 2:4 & 7:8)

Laodiceans – 60 CE Lost (ref: Col 4:16)

1^st Ephesians – 60 CE Lost (ref: Eph 3:3-4)

1^st Timothy – 61 CE

Ephesians – 62 CE

Titus – 63 CE

255Hebrews – 64 CE

2^nd Timothy – 65 CE

Mark – 66 CE

1^st Peter – 67 CE

2^nd Peter – 68 CE

Luke / Acts – 69 CE

Yahuwd / Jude – 69 CE

Revelation – 69 CE

Yahowchanan / John – 80 CE

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd John – 85 to 90 CE

Matthew – 90 CE

With independent corroboration nonexistent, there is considerable disagreement on the order of the books and the dates they were scribed, even on who may have actually written them. But this is certain, the present order in the Christian New Testament is wrong, leading Christians to believe that Paul’s letters were written in support of the story told in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, when the opposite is true. The Synoptic Gospels were composed to accommodate Paul. There are few realizations as crucial to one’s understanding of the stories told in the CNT.

I will admit, I’m biased. I am with Yahowah. I trust Him. I have come to love God’s people and despise those who abuse them, appreciate those who tell the truth and abhor those who deliberately deceive. So, before we press on, I have a confession to make on a directly related topic: I was wrong about “Mattanyah.” The evidence is clear: not a word of it was written by a Disciple named Matthew. The former tax collector turned Disciple, Lowy | Levi, did, however, unintentionally contribute to it with his book: According to Hebrew.

256Unfortunately, as little as ten percent of what is presently contained in the Greek text came from According to Hebrew. The rest was largely plagiarized from Mark and Luke, and then embellished under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. This conclusion is readily derived from the text itself because the “Gospel of Matthew” is exceedingly anti-Semitic. While I have come to this conclusion reluctantly, it was driven by trying to understand the origins of the anti-Jewish nature of the episode before Pontius Pilate and the zombiesque conclusion of Matthew 27 – especially as it relates to Paul’s rant against Jews in Acts 13. It is the case of the wolf and his litter.

Let’s acknowledge and become grounded in what is factual. The “Gospel of Matthew” does not specify an author. That would not have been the case if it had been written by one of Yahowsha’s Disciples, because the realization that he was both chosen by Yahowsha’ and an eyewitness would have given his account enormous credibility – as is the case with Yahowchanan | John. Moreover, had it been scribed by a Disciple, it would have been called “Lowy | Levi.” It is only called “Matthew” because the tax collector’s name was changed and then misappropriated.

The resulting “Gospel of Matthew” was based upon Mark, with 600 of Mark’s 661 verses incorporated into the text. Taking far less than 90% of any text and passing it off as one’s own is dismissed and discredited as “plagiarism” today. There are an additional 220 statements taken from Luke, Paul’s coworker. Collectively, 56% of Matthew came from Mark and 24% was taken from Paul’s associate, Luke, such that only 20% of it is original – with most of the additional material coming from the Book of Hebrew by Lowy.

Each time the Towrah and Prophets are cited, the wording matches that found in the Septuagint, including 257that of the supposed virgin birth. Every time Yisra’el and Yahuwdym are mentioned, the Greek text reflects the attitude we find reflected in Paul’s oral and written diatribes against them.

Now that we know from where the content was taken, let’s consider the timing of events. Since it contained his defiant and emotionally-charged rebuttal to the excoriating trial before Yahowsha’s Disciples in Yaruwshalaim, and since it is the only letter to restate (actually contradict) his frightening encounter with the flashing light he claimed was “Jesus,” Paul’s first letter was the one he dashed off to rebuke the Galatians. It was penned in 52 CE. Over the next 14 years, his 14 epistles (in addition to the 3 which were lost) were written and widely distributed. They are preserved in their entirety in P⁴⁶, a scribal copy comprising the most comprehensive early papyrus.

Luke, Paul’s “beloved physician” (read the conclusion of Colossians), was an active player in Paul’s entourage, and he produced the book that bears his name in addition to Acts of the Apostles, composing both shortly after Paul’s demise at 66 years of age in 66 CE. Considering that Paul admits that the “thorn in his side” was “a messenger from Satan,” Dr. Luke may have been a frustrated exorcist.

The overwhelming majority of scholars have concluded that the earliest Greek edition of the “Gospel of Matthew” was written in 90 CE, after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple by Rome in 70 CE. That is at least two decades after Luke wrote his “Gospel” and its sequel, “Acts.” By that time, Paul’s initial letters had been in circulation for over three decades.

Matthew’s gestation, therefore, coincided with the end of the Towrah-centric movement among Yahuwdym | Jews who followed Yahowsha’ and the subsequent transition to the overwhelmingly Gentile phenomenon that evolved into the Christian religion. The author of the text may have been 258Jewish, but if so, he had become decidedly Christian. He wrote in a highly polished version of Greek. His story reads like a journey from one to the other, going from the Towrah-affirming Sermon on the Mount to the Romanesque nature of the meeting before Pilate and subsequent Roman crucifixion before a mob of angry Jews. It was shaped by the Sibylline Oracles, the Odyssey, and Paul’s epistles, as were its predecessors.

Interesting in this regard, prior to the melee leading to the crucifixion, Yahuwdym are called Yisra’elites by the compiler, only becoming “Ioudaioi – Jews” thereafter as a sign of their rejection of the Christian Christ. This tactic is deployed to preclude them from the Kingdom of Heaven and then as evidence that the promises made to them had been taken away and given to the church. The primary support for the advancement of Replacement Theology, apart from Paul’s letters and the Book of Acts, is found in the “Gospel of Matthew.”

In that I am admitting my mistake, in my defense, I had a good reason for considering key aspects of what I had wrongly attributed to “Matthew” favorably, and I was not alone. There is sound justification to conclude that the Disciple Lowy | Levi, as a witness to the Sermon on the Mount, transcribed what he had heard, composing what is found in the 5^th to 7^th chapters. There are aspects of the Olivet Discourse which also ring true and were likely copied from Lowy’s much earlier testimony.

There is credible extant evidence showing that the earliest followers of Yahowsha’ were Towrah-observant Yahuwdym who read what Lowy | Levi wrote in a book called “According to Hebrew” and nothing else apart from the Towrah and Prophets. Affirming this, in 140 CE Papias wrote that the book his fellow Christians now referred to as “Matthew” had “compiled the sayings of ‘Jesus’ in Hebrew.” In addition, Irenaeus wrote: “They use ‘Matthew’ only, and they repudiate the Apostle Paul, 259maintaining that he was an apostate from the Towrah.” (Ienaeus Haer 1.26.2) If Irenaeus is right, we already have our answer.

The Talmud even admits to burning early Hebrew accounts pertaining to someone who may well have been Yahowsha’. The lone candidate would have been Lowy’s | Levi’s According to Hebrew, now part of the mislabeled the “Gospel of Matthew.”

Even Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, admits to receiving a truncated copy of such a book written in Hebrew, one which he says was prepared for him by a Jewish acquaintance near Antioch. Fragmentary evidence of it is preserved in his notes. Known then simply as According to Hebrew, or just Hebrew, it was attributed to a disciple and contained the prophetic testimony leading to Yahowsha’s birth while excluding the genealogy now found in the “Gospel of Matthew.” The Hebrew text chronicled Yahowsha’s temptation before Satan in the wilderness. It included a limited collection of Yahowsha’s most important sayings, specifically His Sermon on the Mount – which is found nowhere else in the “New Testament.” Hebrew addressed his celebration of Pesach with his Disciples before actually fulfilling Passover. It even covered Yahowsha’s first appearance thereafter, which was to his brother, Ya’aqob.

Hebrew states that Yahowsha’ was a man, not God. Based upon what was quoted from According to Hebrew, it’s worth reiterating that this eyewitness account concludes with Yahowsha’s first post-Bikuwrym appearance, which, if to his brother and Disciple, Ya’aqob, would have affirmed that he made this sacrifice for his people. And speaking of Ya’aqob, in Jerome’s Commentary on Ezekiel Six, in reference to Hebrew, he would lament on behalf of the Roman Catholic insistence that Mary remained a virgin: “there is counted among it the most grievous offenses, ‘He that has grieved the spirit of 260his brother.’” As we might expect, Hebrew presents Ya’aqob, Yahuwdym, and Yisra’el as brothers, and the Towrah favorably.

Affirming the existence of the Hebrew eyewitness text, Clement, Origen, Hegesippus, and Didymus all cite from it, as did the aforementioned, Jerome. They admit that According to Hebrew was used as a proof-text to supplement what is now called the “Gospel of Matthew.” Eusebius, the most villainous man in this entire episode, included a reference to it in his list of disputed writings in Antilegomena, noting that “it was only used by the Hebrews.”

Sadly, shamefully, as a result of Eusebius and Roman Catholicism, indeed because of their utter disdain for all things Jewish, the codices of Hebrew were obliterated when the Church Canon was codified in the 4^th century. According to Hebrew was deemed heretical and destroyed – that is with the exception of its memory.

Even the Roman Catholic Church admits: “Christian antiquity is unanimous in maintaining that St. Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew. The testimony of St. Papias, St. Irenæus, St. Pantænus, Origen, Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and of many other Fathers and ecclesiastical writers bears out this statement.” (eCatholic2000, Catholics Online for the Third Reich (oops, my mistake) Millennium) Please bear with me on the intended pun; we have a lot of ground to cover and it is going to get nasty. This is not the last time I’ll cop an attitude. Frankly, I’m disgusted that so few have fooled so many for so long.

There is a ray of light. The people who were responsible for drawing our attention to Hebrew referred to themselves as “Ebyownym.” Their name was based upon the Hebrew word, ‘ebyownym, which was spoken by Yahowsha’ to describe “those who have been oppressed and abused in need of deliverance who will inherit the 261earth” at the commencement of the Sermon on the Mount. The lives of those mistakenly called “Ebionites” were scandalously recorded by Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses, Origen in Contra Celsum, Eusebius in Ecclesial History, Hippolytus in Fefutatio Haeresium, and even by Jerome in his Commentary on Matthew. The Roman Catholic Church universally despised them – to the same extent and reason Paul loathed Towrah-observant Yahuwdym who recognized and followed Yahowsha’.

The justification for all this decidedly negative attention is that the ‘Ebyownym universally rejected Paul. They celebrated the Miqra’ey, Beryth, and Shabat. To these Church Fathers, they were “Judaizers” and thus “Heretics.” Furthermore, far from rabbinical, Rabbi Akiba and the followers of Bar Kochba also persecuted the ‘Ebyownym for refusing to recognize their messianic claims. Hated by both religions, following the Diaspora that ensued after the final Roman assault on Judea in 133 CE, few, if any, ‘Ebyownym survived. But they left an affirmation that the Disciple Lowy | Levi had transcribed Yahowsha’s words in Hebrew and that the first to follow Yahowsha’ treasured According to Hebrew along with the Towrah.

Additionally, the Sermon on the Mount, from which the ‘Ebyownym derived their name, is so universally disconcerting for Christians and destructive to their religion, it’s unlikely to the point of being incredulous to assume that Yahowsha’s speech was composed by one of the Christian faithful. The ‘Ebyownym have given us a gift, one I suspect Yahowah wanted us to have, because the “Sermon on the Mount” contains everything we need to know about Yahowsha’ to prove that he and Paul were enemies.

Collectively, the combination of the authentic material compiled in Matthew 4-7 (Testing and the Sermon on the Mount) and 24 (the Olivet Discourse), when compared to 262the weight of the Greek text’s irrational, anti-Semitic, and otherwise unattested conclusion, represents 90% of the 20% that was unique to the final product. The imposter writing surreptitiously under the pseudonym “Matthew” was therefore only responsible for 2% of his content, having derived 60% from Mark, 20% from Luke, and 18% from According to Hebrew. So much for the notion of inspiration.

Successful fabricators seldom invent anything from whole cloth, but instead weave in threads of truth by usurping the credibility of others. Such is the basis of the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas – as well as the Qur’an and Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Christian who compiled Matthew would have been aware that the early followers of Yahowsha’ had treasured the Disciple’s eyewitness testimony in According to Hebrew. It is also readily apparent that he had copies of Mark, Luke, and Acts, in addition to Paul’s letters. He simply blended them together to create his “Gospel,” leaving its hideous conclusion to be embellished by a far more nefarious fellow, Eusebius. He followed suit, pilfering from the Acts of Pilate, a spurious work which reads eerily like the conclusion of the resulting compilation.

What we know for certain is that a disciple, and likely Lowy | Levi, as an eyewitness, strove to accurately record Yahowsha’s testimony in the language he spoke. According to the Disciple, the joy he expressed in initially reuniting with his brother, Ya’aqob, proved that he came for the lost children of Yisra’el. But this would all be disregarded, as it was too “Jewish” for the Roman Catholic Church. We also know that those who gained custody of these documents, those who compiled the Church’s Canon which became the “New Testament” of the “Holy Bible,” were the scum of the earth. They were everything they falsely projected on God’s people, an arrogant and deadly, scheming brood of religious racists and consummate liars. 263If you think this an unfair generalization or oversimplification, buckle your seatbelt.

The oldest surviving manuscript of the “Gospel of Matthew” is P¹⁰⁴ from Alexandria, Egypt. That is telling because it attests to the realization that Christians would return to the place from which Yisra’el had been freed. The Greek text was scribed sometime before 200 CE. It covers Matthew 21:34-37:

“When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.”

We know that Yahowah asked Dowd to tend His garden, and that he is God’s son, who the world has failed to respect. But Christians, duped by Paul, have remained clueless in this regard. As a result, they would make this a battle between “Jesus” and “his killers” – the always cheating and conspiring, power-hungry, Jews. It takes one to know one, I suppose.

Verses 38 through 42 were not part of this papyrus, the lone pre-Constantine witness to the 21^st chapter. Wherein we now read how this story was twisted to implicate the Jews:

“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?

‘He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,’ they replied. ‘And he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at the harvest time.’

264Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes?”’”

Not a word of this is found in the 3^rd century P¹⁰⁴. It is so awkward, so readily transparent, with “Jesus” asking his audience, comprised of either Romans or Jews, to complete his parable, only to offer an incongruent citation, it is obviously a Christian interpolation. Think about it: why would Yahowsha’ ask those who were not to be trusted to convey something which is endorsed as trustworthy? Can you name another parable in which Yahowsha’ asks his audience to participate in the story?

Furthermore, the citation attributed to “Jesus” regarding the “cornerstone” is from Mizmowr | Psalm 118:22, and it pertains to Dowd | David. It represents yet another pathetic attempt to justify Christianity through Replacement Theology.

With P¹⁰⁴ in the late 2^nd century jumping from Matthew 21:37 to what is now classified as Matthew 21:43-44, we find:

“Therefore, I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”

That appears to be all the unknown compiler wrote in the waning days of the 1^st century. And since God has not taken anything away from His people, and cannot do so without becoming disingenuous, we should be asking ourselves why this parable was attributed to Jews in a much later, 4^th century Roman addition:

“When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the 265crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.” (Matthew 21:45-46)

Therein lies one of the three “Gospel” claims attributed to “Jesus” suggesting that the Kingdom of God had been taken from Jews and given to Gentiles. But without the added text from the 4^th century, it is torn asunder. Although to be fair, the entire proposition is preposterous. It is Dowd’s Kingdom which will be established forever according to Yahowah, and Dowd is the most Yahuwd of Yisra’elites. In a moment, we will consider the fate of the other two.

Based upon all we have come to know, Heaven is actually out of reach to those who are common, and thus forbidden to the political and religious. Those who claim to be serving God, and who make a living doing so, will be excluded, many imprisoned in She’owl, for having misled multitudes.

And yet the only proof apart from the heavily redacted Roman Codexes of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the 27^th chapter even existing before the conclusion of the 8^th century is P¹⁰⁵, which was written sometime before 500 CE. It contains Chapter 27:62-64, a fanciful episode of “Chief Priests and Pharisees” walking to “Pilate” on the Shabat of Matsah and asking him to allow them to work on that day “by guarding and securing the tomb.” It also includes Chapter 28:2-5, describing a “violent earthquake caused by an angel of the Lord who came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.’” The earthquake the previous day is well-attested, but the resounding thump and dazzling light show of the heavyweight angel, not so much – nor the trembling dead.

266Without Chapter 6 appearing prior to the time of Constantine and the Nicene (named after Nike, the Greek goddess of Victory) Council, Roman Catholics were free to add their own variation of “the Lord’s Prayer” (6:9-15). Without a single 2^nd or 3^rd century witness to Chapter 16, Eusebius, not Christ, authored the phrase upon which Roman Catholicism was built in 16:13-20, including “You are the Christ,” and then, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” From this unattested and incongruous citation, the un-Godly institution of a “Church” was born, along with the myth of a Divinely appointed papacy enshrined upon the “Seat of Saint Peter.” This addition would give unwarranted credence to the spurious notion that “Jesus” acknowledged that he was “the Christ.”

Without any evidence except for the heavily edited Codexes of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (both scribed under Eusebius’ direction in the 4^th century), prior to the beginning of the 9^th century there is not any support for anything in Matthew Chapter 6. Therefore, based upon what we know of him, Eusebius becomes the most likely source of:

“From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” (Matthew 16:21)

This was also seen as a repudiation of Jews and their Towrah. However, there were few if any “teachers of the law” in the sense of the “Towrah” at that time. The rabbinical types favored their Talmud, just as they do today. The few who were actually Towrah observant were neither religious nor leaders within the community – and all who were would have recognized Yahowsha’ and clung to his every word. Further, Yahowsha’ “suffered many things at the hands of the” ROMANS, not “elders, the chief priests, or the teachers of the law.” It is absolutely, and 267unquestionably, inarguably, Rome that “killed” the Passover Lamb. The notion that some Jews may have encouraged them is incidental to the fact.

It is worth noting that in Codex Sinaiticus alone, which is the least mutilated of the two Roman Catholic scribed codices, throughout the 6^th and 7^th centuries ten different scribes made over 20,000 alterations and revisions to the text. And this is clearly one of them because Yahowsha’ went to Yaruwshalaim to suffer a single occurrence, Passover, and the “hands of the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law” had nothing to do with his role as the Pesach ‘Ayil. Further, the Passover Lamb does not make a curtain call so as to “be raised to life.”

Yahowsha’s life would have been meaningless if he had not fulfilled his responsibility as the Pesach ‘Ayl | Passover Lamb in harmony with the Towrah. This is one of many things that Christians cannot seem to fathom. While it is interesting that the Roman Catholic Church blames Jews for what they did in order to justify the Church’s standing with God, what actually matters is that Yahowah fulfilled His promise to provide the Passover Lamb – not who killed him.

Unlike Mark, however, upon which the Gospel of Matthew was based, you will find no mention of “Passover” in association with the crucifixion. It was deemed too Jewish for Roman Catholic tastes and was seen as clutter around the pagan festival of Easter. And thereby, the Church doomed the billions of souls it claimed to have saved.

While Chapter 4 is extant in P¹⁰², only verses 11-12 and 22-23 are shown, thereby eliminating any credible backing for the third of the three supposed allegations that the promises to Jews were somehow magically transferred to Gentiles. Christians use the belatedly added 4:17, which reads: “from that time on Jesus began to preach, ‘Repent, 268for the Kingdom of Heaven has come near,’” to suggest that things had changed such that it was out with the old and in with the new. And yet even here, the Christian interpolator got it wrong. The “Kingdom of Heaven” would not begin for another 3,000 years, and even then, it would follow the reestablishment of the “Kingdom of Dowd.”

Returning to Chapter 16 for a moment, now that we know that there is no early evidence of it, we can credibly dismiss another false prophecy attributed to “Jesus” at the conclusion of the chapter. The beginning of this conversation rings true, while what follows is likely from Christian musings in the 4^th century.

Trying to stop Yahowsha’ from serving as the Passover Lamb, the Disciple: “Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ‘Never, Lord!’ he said. ‘This shall never happen to you!’ Jesus turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.’

Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’” (Matthew 16:22-28)

It bears repeating. There is a message at the beginning of this story Roman Catholics and their stepchildren have missed. Yahowsha’ came to be the Passover Lamb. 269Allowing the body of His diminished manifestation to die was, therefore, the primary concern of God. Wanting to keep his physical body alive, wanting to prevent him from fulfilling his purpose, aligns one’s motives with the religious and their sponsor, Satan. Therefore, when Roman Catholics seek to blame Jews for killing “Jesus,” rather than expressing their gratitude for his sacrifice as the Lamb of God, they are associating themselves with the Adversary and precluding the benefits of Pesach.

If Jews were to blame for doing as the Towrah prescribes, and presenting the Passover Lamb for sacrifice, then they are to be commended. And that is likely the reason a small number of Yahuwdym were shown encouraging his death on this day. While they did not kill him, it was their responsibility to select and present the lamb. The Christian text’s failure to mention God’s intent on this day, and Yahowsha’s role in it, is an impenetrable blight on the religion’s credibility. Preoccupied with irrelevant details, and getting most of them wrong, the Church missed the big picture – the only story which actually mattered.

At this point in the timeline, it would have been jarring to mention the idea of a cross – of the device Romans invented to ensure submission to their subjugation through the most hideous form of torture ever perpetrated on humankind. The words ascribed to him are counter to the Towrah and sadistic, wholly incongruous with Yahowah’s nature – the very thing He rails against. Human sacrifice is an anathema to God. He is not asking us to torture ourselves, much less try to become our own Passover Lamb. He honored His promise to do this for us so that it would not happen to us.

The only influences we are asked to “deny” are the very deceptions those who wrote these words prescribe: submission to religion and government (theirs, of course). As a result of these three days, we receive the blessings of 270eternal life, perfection before God, and adoption into His Covenant Family.

According to Yahowah, He is returning with His beloved son, Dowd, His Chosen One and Messiah, not with the “Son of Man” – unless we read that as Dowd | David. God has made it abundantly clear that Dowd is returning with his Father’s glory.

While I do not know, and frankly don’t care, if Dowd is going to reward those who have done something meritorious, and only know that he is going to do away with the likes of Roman Catholics, “truly I tell you, EVERYONE who was standing there tasted death twenty centuries before ANYONE would see the son of God come in his kingdom.’” Placing words on Yahowsha’s lips he would never have said is unforgivable, as is making him out to be a false prophet. And yet I am thankful in a way for their blunder because it proves that these words were not inspired and that they were not spoken by God.

To assume otherwise, to believe that the “Gospel of Matthew” represents the inerrant word of God, is to be irrational. I suppose that is why it requires faith.

There is an issue here for thoughtful Jews that we should address before we move on. Since Yahowah is resolutely against human sacrifice, why was the Passover Lamb human on this day? Why not an actual lamb? The answer is that Yahowah told ‘Abraham not to harm Yitschaq because He was going to provide the sacrifice, becoming the Pesach ‘Ayl. In that He created us in His image, we humans, by design, were conceived to be the animal most like God.

When Yahowah set apart a diminished aspect of Himself to honor His promise to provide the Passover Lamb, the body took the form of a man, not a cute, furry, four-legged animal which would otherwise be consumed during the celebration. The Pesach ‘Ayl representing 271Yahowah on this day acted like Him and spoke like Him such that the observant would recognize Him and appreciate what He was doing to fulfill Passover.

Beyond this, the body was simply flesh – something with a very limited lifespan by any standard. His soul, which was and remains the essence of His nature, did not die. His nepesh | soul would go on to fulfill Matsah the following day such that, when it was released from She’owl, Yah’s nepesh and ruwach were reunited – representing the unification of man and God. Therefore, the actual life of Yahowsha’ was not sacrificed, just his body, which, as a collection of molecules, was meaningless apart from the symbolism. The real sacrifice was what Yahowah’s nepesh endured in She’owl on UnYeasted Bread, and it is this Miqra’ which perfects us so that we can be adopted into His Covenant Family.

Therein is yet another part of this story Christians miss: Passover without UnYeasted Bread is counterproductive. Eternal life without perfection equates to an eternity separated from God in She’owl. That is why the Roman Catholic insistence on “Good Friday” leading to “Easter Sunday” has become a Plague of Death. And this is not a recent contrivance, but instead, replacing Passover with the resolutely pagan celebration of Easter Sunday began in the late 2^nd century such that it was ubiquitous among Christians by the time Roman Catholics seized upon it.

The Christian fixation on the tortured and dead body of their god is sadistic and bizarre. Even their belief in bodily resurrection is counterproductive. It is our frail, physical nature that keeps us stuck in time, making bodily resurrection leading to eternal life an oxymoron. To be eternal, we can no longer be material.

With the Jews swept off center stage and into hell in Christian lore, “God’s primary work in the world is now 272accomplished through the building of Christ’s church, after which Jesus will come again to the earth and establish His kingdom – ruling the world from Israel.” (Chuck Swindoll, God’s Masterwork) Speaking of “hell,” you have earned it, Chuck, for having swindled Jews of God’s Masterwork.

Returning to the Christian piece de résistance, the glaring omission from all ancient manuscripts of the entire episode before Pilate becomes more curious still when we recognize that there are two parchments attesting to what came before it, covering Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33, and 29-40 dating prior to 300 CE, with another, P³⁷, written prior to 400 CE covering 26:19-52. This means that there is nothing apart from the aforementioned Roman contrivances dating prior to 800 CE to suggest that the Christian author of what has been entitled “the Gospel of Matthew,” whoever he may have been, wrote a word about what occurred before “Caiaphas, the High Priest” (Matthew 26:57-68), of them stating that “Jesus” was “worthy of death,” of them “spitting in his face,” or of them “taunting him.” There is also no validation for “Peter” denying “Jesus of Nazareth” in Matthew 26:69-75, which is convenient since there was no Nazareth at the time. In fact, to call him “Jesus of Nazareth” (as is now stated in Matthew 26:71) emphatically dates the completion of the “Gospel of Matthew” to the time of Constantine and his mother in the 4^th century when this myth was conceived and then promoted by Eusebius – Constantine’s publicist. With this obvious error, we now have proof that portions of the “Gospel of Matthew” were developed under the dishonest and racist auspices of Eusebius and his Roman Catholic Church. There is no other rational way to explain this mistake.

In addition, there is no indication, whatsoever, apart from the mutilated texts prepared initially by Eusebius on behalf of Constantine known today as Vaticanus and 273Sinaiticus, both Roman creations in the 4^th century, both replete with tens of thousands of modifications over many hundreds of years, that “early in the morning, all the Chief Priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed. So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor.” (Matthew 27:1-2)

In Mark, upon which the Greek Matthew is based, this alleged meeting took place “two days before Passover,” not the morning of it. And it must be acknowledged that every reference to the motives of Jewish religious leaders is “alleged.” If such a meeting took place, there is no way that those who contributed to the creation of Matthew, Mark, or Luke, and not even Yahowchanan | John, would have known what was thought or said. They were not there. In fact, other than Yahowchanan, they were not even in Yaruwshalaim, and perhaps not even alive, when the events they regale occurred. But they left their fingerprints, proving with the long list of obvious misrepresentations and false prophecies that none of this was inspired by God.

There is no validation for “Judas’ remorse for having betrayed innocent blood” for having “thrown the money into the temple,” or for “hanging himself.” (Matthew 27:3-5) It may have occurred to a man of a different name, but the reference to “innocent blood” was a Roman contrivance used to condemn Jews.

The unattested conversation between the “Chief Priests” “talking about picking up the coins since it was blood money” is a myth, nullifying the misquotation and misappropriation of the prophecy in Zakaryah, “they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used it to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” (Matthew 27:6-10 (corrupted to fit the occasions from Zechariah 11:12-13)) The notion is preposterous. Clerics of their status do not go around picking up scattered coins. Moreover, if they perceived it 274as “blood money,” they would not have gone on to commit the crime.

This content is the residue of Roman Catholic anti-Semitism, and of their chief apologist and propagandist, Eusebius (d. 340 CE), as well as his unsavory cronies. He was the bishop of Caesarea, a place where there was no distinction between Imperial Rome and Roman Catholicism. He was also a raging anti-Semite and consummate liar who blamed the Jews for the “death of ‘Christ.’” It is as if religion constipates the brains of such men and, for them, becomes a license to lie (by Eusebius’ own admission as we will soon see).

Yahowsha’ was tortuously executed on a Roman order, by Romans, and in the Roman method. He was not stoned by the Jews who were powerless at the time – something clearly acknowledged in Mark. And as we have noted: the Passover Lamb always dies. It does not matter who does the deed, only that we understand and celebrate his sacrifice. In lamenting about “Jews killing Jesus,” Roman Catholics have become the embodiment of what they claim “Jesus” said in response to “Peter” when he took that same approach: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

We will make our case against the emergence of the Roman Catholic Church and Eusebius in a moment, but first let’s examine some of the other material which can be removed from the “Gospel of Matthew” now that we know that the 27^th Chapter is spurious. Clearly, the following was written in the 4^th century to exonerate Rome and condemn Jews. Not a single word of this is chronicled in any independent source – at least apart from the Acts of Pilate, which is not remotely credible. It, like the alleged letter from Pilate to Tiberius and the “Messianic” addendum to Josephus’ Antiquities in the 4^th century regarding the events of this day, has been shown to be a careless forgery. 275It did not happen this way…

“Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ ‘You have said so,’ Jesus replied. When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, ‘Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?’ But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.

Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, ‘Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?’ For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.

While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: ‘Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.’ But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

‘Which of the two do you want me to release to you?’ asked the governor. ‘Barabbas,’ they answered. ‘What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?’ Pilate asked. They all answered, ‘Crucify him!’ ‘Why? What crime has he committed?’ asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, ‘Crucify him!’ When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood,’ he said. ‘It is your responsibility!’ All the people answered, ‘His blood is on us and on our children!’ Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.” (Matthew 27:11-26)

276All of the characters are out of character. This was so poorly written, it is transparent. If you cannot see through the lies, then you have indeed been blinded by them.

It is incumbent upon us to use the test Yahowah prescribed in His Towrah to know what is true and what is not. All we need is to use His criteria, plug in the evidence, and use reason. For example, I started to question this diatribe for many reasons. First, washing of the hands to absolve one of guilt is a Jewish practice, one prescribed in the Towrah. It was never Roman. Pilate would not have done so.

Second, Romans do not play to the crowd and they are not swayed by non-Romans. We have a credible, extant record of how Pilate dealt with messianic figures. His response is dutifully recorded by Josephus in Antiquity, Volume XVIII, Chapter 4, page 1. The incident occurred in 36 CE and chronicles the inhuman way Pilate quelled a messianic uprising. The chapter is entitled: “How the Samaritans made a tumult, and Pilate destroyed many of them. How Pilate was accused; and what things were done by Vitellius relating to the Jews.”

It reads: “[Year 36.] But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence: and who contrived everything so that the multitude might be pleased. So he bid them to get together upon mount Gerizzim: which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains: and assured them, that when they were come there, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place; because Moses put them there. So they came there armed; and thought the discourse of the man probable. And as they arrived at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together. But Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon the roads, with a 277great band of horsemen, and footmen: who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village: and when it came to an action, some of them they slew; and others of them they put to flight; and took a great many alive. The principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius; a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria; and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed. For that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans; but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea; and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the Emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome: and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius; which he durst not contradict. But before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead. [A.D. 37, Mar. 16.]”

In light of this historical record, what are the chances that, when ordering the death of the most famous individual in world history, the leading “messianic” figure of all time, this same man turned to his wife and chatted about her dreams, or that he washed his hands of the whole affair? What are the chances that, if this occurred, not a word was written about it in any historical account, especially considering the Roman propensity to record and respond to every hint of revolt in their Empire with an iron fist?

What are the chances that Jews, who hated Romans for their subjugation, and who would be crucified by the hundreds of thousands by them, asked a Roman procurator to torture one of their own? Why would the Roman listen to, much less agree with, the Jews he was there to suppress? Why is there no record of “Jesus Barabbas” if he was such a notorious fellow? Why is there no history of Roman clemency in association with Passover if it was the 278governor’s custom? And speaking of Passover, if we are to believe that this was written by the Disciple, why didn’t he mention it since he would have known that it was Yahowsha’s sole purpose? He would have, after all, celebrated Pesach the previous evening with Yahowsha’ and have listened to him explain his role during this Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God. If this had been inspired by God, don’t you think He might have wanted us to know this as well?

Since the issues between Pilate and the Jewish religious leaders prior to this event are legend, with Pilate tormenting them by displaying all manner of Roman religious paraphernalia, why is the Roman capitulating to those who have sought his dismissal? Why would anyone, much less everyone, say: “Let his blood be on us and on our children?” Not only was contact with blood, especially from a dead person, of considerable concern to Jews, but their children had also done nothing.

This account is told quite differently in the other “Gospels,” especially in Mark and by Yahowchanan. And why is there no corroborating historical text for an event of this magnitude – one that would be used to change the course of history? And I am neither the first nor the last to bring this great aberration of God’s message to our attention. German theologian, Ulrich Luz, describes it as: “redactional fiction.” Graham Stanton, a British New Testament scholar, wrote: “Matthew’s anti-Jewish polemic should be seen as part of the self-definition of the Christian minority which is acutely aware of the rejection and hostility of its ‘mother’ Judaism.” Howard Kee recognized, “The bitter words he attributes to the Jews have caused endless harm in arousing anti-Jewish emotions.” N.T. Wright, the Anglican New Testament scholar and theologian, stated: “The tragic and horrible later use of Matthew 27:25, ‘His blood be on us, and on our children,’ has served an excuse for Christian anti-Semitism as a gross 279distortion of its original meaning, which was surely a reference to the fall of Jerusalem.”

Donald A. Hagner, a Presbyterian New Testament scholar and theologian, warned: “It cannot be denied that this statement, unfortunately, has been used to promote anti-Semitism. The statement is formulaic, and the reference to ‘our children’ does not make them guilty of the death of Jesus, let alone children or Jews of later generations.” Too bad he was unaware that the entire presentation was a Roman Catholic deception.

Anglican theologian, Rowan Williams, then Archbishop of Wales, and soon-to-be Archbishop of Canterbury, stated that Matthew’s Gospel has been made into “the tool of the most corrupt and murderous misreading of the passion stories that has disfigured the Church’s record.” “The evangelist’s bitterness at the schism within God’s people that continues in his own day, his impatience with the refusal of the Jewish majority to accept the preaching of Jesus, overflows into this symbolic self-denunciation by ‘the people.’ It is all too likely that his first readers heard it as a corporate acknowledgment of guilt by the Jewish nation, and that they connected it, as do other New Testament writers, with the devastation of the nation and its sacred place in the terrible disasters of AD 70, when the Romans destroyed the Temple and along with it the last vestiges of independent power for the people. Read at this level, it can only make the contemporary Christian think of all the centuries in which Jewish guilt formed so significant a part of Christian self-understanding, and of the nightmare which was made possible by this in the twentieth century.”

While that is the heart and soul of the Christian problem, the cancer that has eroded the church and led to its genocidal rage against Jews, that’s not the end of the lunacy. The following reads like a page out of the twisted and plagiarized Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

280“While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, ‘You are to say, “His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.” If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.” (Matthew 28:11-15)

This is so preposterous it requires a wholesale suppression of reason to believe a word of it. The book Yahowah inspired on behalf of Yisra’el had now been given an addendum to destroy these same people. The world was being engulfed in the longest-lasting and most reprehensible Conspiracy Theory of all time: Blame the Jews. The resulting carnage explains why Yahowah labeled the religion’s inspiration: the Son of Evil, the Father of Lies, and the Plague of Death.

Today, the fastest-growing, most destabilizing and pervasive belief system is Conspiracy. By blending religion, politics, culture, and sheer stupidity together, the advocates shirk responsibility and cast aspersions on others. They have become master manipulators, so effective at fabricating evidence that nearly half of those alive today believe one or more ludicrous claims. These include: Black Lives Matter, Make America Great Again, Socialism is progressive, Jews control the world, vaccines contain tracking devices, mass shootings are politically staged, 9.11 was an inside job, condensation trails from jet exhaust are really chemtrails for mind control, the Earth is flat, the six moon landings were staged, and then, unbelievably, shape-shifters and reptilian overlords run the governments of the world.

The worst Conspiracy may actually have been 281Christianity, itself. It was conceived by blending inaccurate and misappropriated citations from the Towrah and Prophets together with the mythology of Dionysus, Mithras, Odysseus, the Sibyl, Gnosticism, Roman politics, and Greek culture, along with a heavy dose of stupidity and anti-Semitism. The resulting concoction was incorporated into the Christian Bible (from babel – to confuse by intermixing) as a result of the imposters and coconspirators who originally scribed words like these in the Gospel of Matthew.

When we recognize what Roman Catholics were able to add in the 4^th century, we are even freed from the Day of the Zombies…

“The tombs broke open and bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, ‘Surely he was the Son of God!’” (Matthew 27:52-54)

While this obviously did not occur, it does explain the Christian fascination with Zombies and the Living Dead. And please, if Yahowsha’ was the “Son of God,” don’t you think he would have said so and not referred to himself as “the Son of Man?” Said another way, should we rely on anonymous men, indeed Romans, to declare that “he” was other than he claimed?

Since all of the anti-Semitic warts found in the Gospel of Matthew are unattested in the 2^nd, 3^rd, and early 4^th century manuscripts which have been unearthed, and with the exception of Eusebius’ heavily redacted Codexes of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, not one of these troubling accounts is contained in a later 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, or 8^th century manuscript, the obvious conclusion is that the Church of 282Rome added them to justify their desire to annihilate the Jews and exonerate themselves immediately after having solidified their power.

Their embellishments remain incompatible with Yahowah’s enduring love for His People, they are inconsistent with the Towrah, are unattested in history, and are irrational in dialogue, setting, and execution. Only those predisposed by religion to believe lies would put any faith in something this completely incongruent, perverted and preposterous. Quite frankly, Satan’s Qur’an is not as overtly anti-Semitic as the closing chapters of Matthew.

The despicable men who wrote and promoted these repulsive theories had, in every conceivable way, become far worse than the vile assessments they were projecting on Jews. They created a Straw Man who, by comparison, didn’t make their intolerance seem as bad.

Since we have drawn the association, let’s consider how differently this story plays out in the book that was plagiarized to create it. Why, after copying 600 of Mark’s 661 verses to compile Matthew, are they so divergent when incriminating Jews?

In Mark 15, there was a question and answer session before Pilate, but no trial. Yahowsha’ is delivered to Pilate, but not accompanied. He asks him only two questions, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Yahowsha’s answer to the first is not only different than recorded in Matthew, his, “It is as you say,” would have led directly to his crucifixion without anyone playing the blame game. Rome had appointed Herod King of Judea and that response would have been seen as admitting to leading an uprising against Roman authority, and thus as treason. So, let’s agree that Mark, who was not there at the time, gave the wrong answer.

In Matthew, a flashback was deployed at this point as a rhetorical tool even though it was out of sync with the 283flow of events: “When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer.” It was inserted because Pilate was not invited to that session and would have known nothing of it, providing no basis for his subsequent line of questioning. But in Mark, the religious are present and within earshot, interrupting the Roman governor: “And the chief priests accused him of many things, but he answered nothing,” which again was the wrong answer. They may not have agreed with his replies, but nonetheless, he provided answers.

Not only would it have been un-Roman and a security risk for Pilate to have shared the stage with the Chief Priests who detested him, had they been there taunting “Jesus” they could not have been among the crowd, inciting them. Nonetheless, Mark’s account reads: “Then Pilate asked him again, saying, ‘Do you answer nothing? See how many things they testify against you. But Jesus still answered nothing, so that Pilate marveled.” Matthew reads, “to the great amazement” of Pilate.

In an attempt to separate fact from fiction, that was the first time, not the second, Pilate is alleged to have asked this question. And secondly, Yahowsha’ answered the only answerable question Pilate posed in the Christian narrative, making the rest of this read like it was written by an idiot. For example, what is the motivation for Pilate being “greatly amazed” or “marveling?” Frustrated perhaps, bored, maybe, but rulers are seldom impressed with subjects who implicate themselves as Yahowsha’ had done if we are to believe Mark.

Mark’s story is enlightening because it reflects upon the nature of men. Individually, he was a good man. Curiosity led him to Shim’own | “Peter,” who brought out the best in him. But once under Paul’s shadow, insufficiently grounded, he wavered, showing the kind of vulnerability a psychopath was able to manipulate. Having heard Paul continually condemn “Peter” with his 284Conspiracy Theories, and having endured Paul’s incessant anti-Semitic rants, Mark was incorporated into Paul’s gang of goons, becoming one of them.

Mark’s migration to the dark side is indicative of humankind. Individually we can be good or bad, shifting from one to the other based upon our circumstances. However, collectively, as societies, nations, and civilizations, especially when religious, political, or conspiratorial, we are consistently malignant. I could give a thousand learned men a year, and nary a one of them could find a nation, civilization, or religion that was more good than bad, more truthful than dishonest, that afforded its subjects the same freedoms and opportunities as the leaders, and that treated its neighbors and rivals ethically. Not one, ever. And such is the psychology of gang mentality. The individual’s sense of responsibility and morality is appropriated by the group. People stop thinking for themselves and start believing what they are told. And then they lash out as a group, often as thieves and murderers, debasing themselves while corrupting their society.

While Mark has thus far presented much less information than is found subsequently in Matthew, and nothing conspiratorial, other than word order, “Matthew” regurgitates Mark’s assessment: “Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd.” Versus: “Now at the feast he was accustomed to releasing one prisoner to them, whomever they requested.” There was no such custom in Judea or any Roman province, not on this day or any day. It is a fairytale, one that became a nightmare for God’s People.

Mark augmented his story with details “Matthew” chose to ignore: “There was one named Barabbas, who was chained with his fellow rebels, they had committed murder in the rebellion.” Excuse me for trying to make sense of this, but there was no rebellion at this time and Rome never 285released murderous revolutionaries. Of him, Matthew says: “At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas.” If he was so well-known, why is nothing known of him?

Then rather than Pilate recommending the release of Barabbas, as we read in Matthew, “So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, ‘Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?’ For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him,” we find something decidedly different in Mark…

“Then the multitude cried aloud and began to ask [him to do] just as he had always done for them. But Pilate answered them, saying, ‘Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?’ For he knew that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy.”

Why do you suppose “Matthew” changed “King of the Jews” to “Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Since both were wrong, by contradicting his source, “Matthew” proved that neither Mark nor Matthew were inspired or inerrant, and neither could be trusted.

Keeping it real, in all of the annals of Roman history, there is no record of any kind that Rome released prisoners to appease those they had conquered. It is absurd to assume that an empire sufficiently ruthless to crucify rebels would accommodate them on occasions which were in opposition to Rome’s politics and religion, as is the case with Passover. Moreover, the one thing we know about Pilate is that he was famous for antagonizing Jewish religious sensibilities – not accommodating them.

And speaking of them, that is yet another flaw in the Christian fable. Not only wasn’t there room for a “multitude” before Pilate’s residence, but Roman soldiers would also have seen such crowds as a threat and removed them. The entire story is not only contrived, it is not 286credible.

Addressing the differences in the Gospel of Matthew, we find Pilate initiating the possibility of a prisoner release rather than the crowd requesting it – which is significant with regard to motivation. Worse, at least for the credibility of the text, in Matthew, as we have noted, Pilate is alleged to have said, “Jesus who is called the Messiah,” rather than “Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”

Either claim, if admitted, would have resulted in a conviction and immediate execution. If Pilate had surmised that Yahowsha’ was claiming to be “King of the Jews,” this sham of a trial would have concluded with a pronouncement of guilt. The same is true as we have learned by searching Antiquities of those who made Messianic claims. And while they are not the same – not even remotely – they would have led to the same result, nullifying any chance that Pilate washed his hands of responsibility or found no reason for conviction.

The reason for this delegitimizing difference is likely found in a pathetic and desperate text entitled “The Acts of Pilate.” It purports to have been prepared by Pilate’s agents and sent to Rome because Pilate allegedly converted to Christianity and wanted Tiberius to know that they had appeased Jews by killing the Messiah. Most everything we read in Matthew that differs from Mark is found word for word in that thoroughly discredited 4^th century text, likely forged by Eusebius, the same fellow that forged a letter from Pilate to Tiberius on this subject and altered Josephus’ testimony so that rather than never mentioning Yahowsha’, he waxes poetic about him, calling him “the Messiah.”

Pilate’s concluding assessment in both Mark and Matthew is inconsistent with the other “Gospels,” and it is out of character for Rome. Trying to explain the inexplicable, Mark wrote: “For he knew that the chief 287priest had handed him over because of envy.” Again, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that the Roman governor would have considered or valued their motives, even if known. He had no concern for their “self-interest,” and was publicly opposed to them. Pilate’s loyalty was to himself and to Rome. He was not a tool manipulated by Jewish religious sentiments, which he famously abhorred.

When a subsequent document adds more to the story, it typically has more to do with the mindset of the writer than what actually happened. All that Mark, the text that was used to create Matthew, has to say next is: “But the chief priests stirred up the crowd, so that he should rather release Barabbas to them. Pilate answered and said to them again, ‘What then do you want me to do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews?’ So they cried out again, ‘Crucify Him!’”

Since the determination of whether this is true or false is life or death, I am not being petty picking it apart. The chief priests could not have stirred up the crowd if they were sitting beside Pilate accusing Yahowsha’. And this reads: “so that he [Pilate] should rather” instead of “so that the crowd of Jews would rather” release Barabbas. If the priests were inciting the crowd it would have been the other way around. And Pilate is said to be answering them [the crowd] when the people allegedly gathered have said nothing. Moreover, it reads, “he said to them again,” when this is the first time he has addressed them. Further, since there was no rebellion at the time, Barabbas, should he have even existed, could not have become a cult hero for rebelling against Rome. Romans suppressed such notions by killing a hundred subjects for every Roman murdered by a rebellious individual or community. The deadly repercussions of freeing a Roman rebel would have made this choice unconscionable.

As previously noted, a person claiming to be king in opposition to Rome was tantamount to treason. Had the 288Roman governor actually made this statement he would have become complicit in the crime, recalled and likely killed: “What then do you want me to do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews?” The Jews were not calling him their “king.” Every word of this is utter nonsense. From beginning to end, the narrative underlying the Bible’s Passion is pathetic.

As suggested previously, another irresolvable problem for the Christian depiction is that there was not enough room for a small crowd to gather, much less one sufficient to bring shame on an entire population. In the “Gospel” which has come to bear Mark’s name, Pilate met Yahowsha’ in an aule, which means “hall,” wherein Pilate was seated during the brief interview. This would suggest a room in the Praetorium – which was located in the northernmost wing of Herod’s Palace. From praetor, it would have been the residence of the highest-ranking civil servant of Rome. Those ushered into an audience before the Roman prefect, and within a hall serving as an adjunct to the larger palace, would have been by invitation only, thereby eliminating any possibility of a crowd.

Challenging Mark’s assessment, and moving the proceedings outside, Yahowchanan wrote five decades thereafter in what would become John 19:13 that “Pontius Pilate brought [Yahowsha’] forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew, Gabbatha.” That is a problem as well because this not only differs from Mark’s aule, Gabbatha is an Aramaic term, not Hebrew, and means either “black” or “elevated.” Lithostrotos is a Greek word and means “tessellated” or “mosaic.” It was used to describe “ornamental pavement.” However, the only “tessellated mosaic floor” at the time was neither “elevated” nor “black.”

The lone mosaic of the kind dating to this period is on the eastern side of the palace. And even here we have two 289issues. Archaeological studies have confirmed that the Roman pavement at this site was laid by Hadrian in the 2^nd century – a hundred years after these events played out. This mosaic serves as the floor of the eastern forum of Aelia Capitolina, which Hadrian named after himself after destroying the rest of the city in 133 to 135 CE. Prior to Hadrian’s artistry, the area he covered had been the site of the Struthion Pool, and thus was filled with water. The pool survives with vaulting added by Hadrian so that the Roman Forum could be built over it. Therefore, Yahowchanan’s depiction is all wet and dates this portion of his “Gospel” to sometime around 150 CE.

Suffice it to say, there is no possibility that a large crowd of unruly Jews had gathered before Pilate on this day to shout: “Crucify him” or “May his blood be upon our heads and that of our children.” And since that is historically impossible, and thus did not occur, there is no justification for Paul’s arguments against Jews. There is no longer a basis for Christianity, Replacement Theology, nor Christian anti-Semitism. They all dissipate into the ether of religious mythology.

Also inconsistent with the customs of this time, the Romans had a well-established system of jurisprudence. What is depicted within the “Gospels” was not a trial and Pilate was not sitting in the judge’s seat. Further, judges do not interrupt criminal proceedings of this magnitude to consider the musings of their spouse, nor use them to issue a verdict. Dreams are inadmissible. Therefore, this is equally ridiculous…

“While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: ‘Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.’ But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

290‘Which of the two do you want me to release to you?’ asked the governor. ‘Barabbas,’ they answered. ‘What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?’ Pilate asked. They all answered, ‘Crucify him!’ ‘Why? What crime has he committed?’ asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, ‘Crucify him!’”

While this choice was not afforded in Mark, the rest of the story is somewhat similar, except Matthew corrects the problem of “Crucify him” only being requested once, not twice. Mark then finds closure, while Matthew has an agenda. Mark reads: “Then Pilate said to them, ‘Why, what evil has He done?’ But they cried out all the more, ‘Crucify Him!’ So Pilate, wanting to gratify the crowd, released Barabbas to them; and he delivered Jesus, after he had scourged Him, to be crucified.” End of story.

A Roman prefect would never have subjected himself to, nor solicited the advice of, an unruly crowd in this manner – even if there had been room for a school of them to swim in the fountain before him. If they were chanting death wishes while splashing about, there would have been no speaking over them or reasoning with them. Moreover, under the dictatorial control of Rome, popular sentiments were irrelevant, especially when judging a person suspected of treason. Rome governed through subjugation and fear, not through inclusiveness and harmony. Rome was vicious – ergo scourging followed by crucifixion.

These issues, while devastating to the credibility of Mark’s hearsay account, are nothing compared to what we now find in the Gospel of Matthew…

“‘Why? What crime has he committed?’ asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, ‘Crucify him!’ When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood,’ he said. ‘It is your responsibility!’ All the people answered, ‘His 291blood is on us and on our children!’ Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.”

Frankly, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is more credible. No Roman washed his hands of any such affair, shirking his duty to Rome. And even Romans did not torture and kill innocent men strictly for their amusement – at least not until the advent of Roman Catholicism. Moreover, the notion that thoughtless zombies went from chanting “Crucify him” to a unified chorus of, “His blood is on us and on our children!” is ludicrous. There is a better chance of finding marshmallows and lemonade in hell.

This comparison was between Matthew and Mark, since one was predicated upon the other, and the latter couldn’t keep his story straight in the end. The conflicts with Luke’s account are far greater, and yet they pale in comparison to what we find in Yahowchanan. If these four “witnesses” were presented today, the defendant wouldn’t need Johnnie Cochran to rhythmically proclaim on behalf of a murderer: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

Out of the “Gospels” and back to reality, after squelching the sanity of Arian (who recognized that Yahowsha’ could not have been the totality of God) at the Council of Nicaea, the Roman Catholic Church used the caricature of “Jesus” they had modeled after the vastly more popular Odysseus and Dionysus, to project Greco-Roman hatred on those they had oppressed, delegitimizing and dehumanizing Jews. They did so based upon the inspiration of Paul and the Roman Church. Their war of words serves as the basis of the conspiracy theories which led to the Holocaust and which are running rampant today.

Christians have perpetrated these lies for a reason: they, like their patron saint, Paul, want to claim for themselves what God has given to Yisra’el and Yahuwdah. And they want a scapegoat to blame for never having 292grown beyond their grotesque dead god on a stick. Clueless as to who Yahowsha’ was and what he was doing there, this miserable institution is attempting to mask its culpability and shame.

We will never know how far Paul’s devotee went in the waning days of the 1^st century to blame Yahuwdym for what Rome had done to Yisra’el, differentiating what he wrote from what the Roman Church augmented. All we know is that he conspired to create an amalgamation of Paul’s letters, the Disciple Lowy’s | Levi’s Hebrew transcriptions of Yahowsha’s most important declarations, with Mark’s and Luke’s hearsay accounts. The result would have made Odysseus proud, caused Dionysus to blush, and the Sibyl to gush in response. But alas, they were no more real than the story of trial, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

The historical evidence affirms that a disciple provided eyewitness testimony of the Sermon on the Mount and Olivet Discourse concurrent with his witness of those events. The result was beloved by the ‘Ebyownym – those who derived their name from the Hebrew text and were the first to recognize that Yahowsha’ walked out of the pages of the Towrah. In so doing, they realized as we do that Sha’uwl sought to demean and sever the only connection that made Yahowsha’s life meaningful.

To counter the credibility of the ‘Ebyownym, “Matthew” used Mark and Luke to flesh out the story such that it reflects the derogatory sentiments in Paul’s epistles and speeches. Then, as the Roman Church emerged under Constantine and began formalizing its creed at Nicaea, a Roman Catholic Bishop, Eusebius, wrote the rest to demonize Jews and canonize Replacement Theology.

Eusebius was not the only villain, but he played a horrific role to be sure, stirring the pot of anti-Semitism and Roman supremacy. He had the means and motive 293regarding the gestation of Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They express his sentiments and read like his other works.

The evidence reveals that it was Rome that changed the course of history by writing: “As Pilate washed his hands of the affair, the Jews all shouted, ‘Let His blood be on our heads and that of our children!’”

Unfortunately for Roman Catholics, their forefathers not only committed this crime, but they also blamed the victims. Catholics and their Church earned the designation of the Whore of Babylon. They will be convicted for this audacious lie, along with the crimes of promoting the pagan practices of Sunday Worship, drinking the blood of “Christ” during the Eucharist, Lent, Christmas, and Halloween, the Madonna and Child, Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven, of the Lord Jesus Christ, for a New Covenant and New Testament, for the Trinity, for the myth of the birth, death, and resurrection of God, of crosses and Jewish culpability, of Replacement Theology, of popes, Holy Fathers, and saints holding the keys to heaven, while replacing the Passover meal with the “Last Supper,” and its fulfillment with “Easter.”

Romulus and Remus, mythically born of Greco-Roman nobility to this same Vestal Virgin and Mars, the God of War, were abandoned along the banks of the Tiber to be suckled by a wolf and adopted by a shepherd. One would kill the other, with the survivor becoming the antithesis of what Moses would achieve, creating the most vicious empire man would ever know, Rome. It is all chronicled in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities should you care to read the Roman Old Testament. And just as Romulus would kill his brother and partner in pursuit of supremacy, it is the legend that Rome killed the Benjamite Wolf, Paul.