Brother AACOOLDRE : Not the devil's advocate


Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2001
By Andre Austin

I recall months ago a local preacher coming over my home to visit my sick great uncle. The Minister asked me if I believed that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. I replied in the affirmative. You see he was testing me to see if I was a Gnostic or an anti-Christ who deny Jesus came in the flesh. He should have dug deeper and asked me if I believed that Jesus was executed in 36AD as a price for sin. Yes he was killed at the instigation of Herod Antipas and Pilate for the sake of the Jews , as a scapegoat, that was living at that time in 36AD. But before 36AD and after no. To avoid a Jewish massacre Jesus was put on the cross. This time limited death was then turned into a universal sacrifice for all of mankind.

Why Jesus died just for Jews in 36AD in Israel and not the entire planet?

Here’s a compiled list of reasons to reason with.

1. Paul created new scripture by constructive abuse and mistranslation of the Old testament. So they say Jesus died because Adam passed sin on to mankind. “In Paul’s Roman’s 5 saying that death passed upon all men, because all sinned; Augustine followed an author who mistook it to say death passed upon all men because of Adam all sinned. Original sin was read unnecessary into Genesis and was then forced on to Paul by a wrong translation of his writings”. (The Unauthorized Version By Robin L.Fox p.25). Adam didn’t eat of that fruit and it was unnecessary for Jesus to die. The purpose of the Tree of Knowledge story is to condemn the Egyptian idea that knowledge of moral order would lead to Eternal life, which conflicted with Hebrew monotheistic teaching. It’s a sophisticated attack upon Egyptian philosophical religious doctrines in the OT and it has nothing to do with Jesus in 36AD. The Tree of life and Knowledge was based on the Egyptian Shu and Tefnut identified as the principle of moral order or Maat/Truth. In Egypt the soul’s main enemy was ignorance. Jesus said the Egyptian proverb to know the Truth/Maat and it set your soul free.

2.Isaiah 7:14 reports that a virgin by the name of Immanuel. Immanuel means God with us or a referral to the Egyptian God called Amen. Did Jesus need to be virgin born because of the tainted flesh of sin of humans because of Adam. If so we are in bad luck The word used for virgin was not virgin but “Young woman” and Jesus wasn’t called Immanuel. Isaiah was talking about a person that lived during King Ahaz time not in 36AD. So Jesus was a perfect sacrifice like lambs, goats, and bulls were used for atonements for sin that had no blemishes. Well according to Josephus Jesus had a hunchback and that would have disqualified him just like a lamb would if it had a blemish. Now if Mary wasn’t a virgin then Joseph and Mary Begot Jesus and not God with an Angel and the holy wind breathing up her vagina. If Jesus had no virgin birth this may void the statement: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life John 3:16)

3. The ground work was set for the mistranslation of Isaiah 7 now enter Isaiah 53. Lets begin with a quote. “And he that sent me is with me; the father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29). Now compare this quote with another. “ And he (Jesus) made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death... yet it pleased the lord to bruise him... when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” (Isaiah 53). These two verses contradict Jesus’ statement when he was hanging on the cross allegedly saying: “My God my God, why hast thou forsaken, me? (Matthew 27:46). The word forsaken is same for left. Clearly Isaiah, 800 years before Jesus was born, was talking about someone besides Jesus. The word forsaken is the same word for left.

4. Jesus supposed to come back like Noah to save the world (Luke 17:26). Well Noah is based on the Egyptian Nun in which the flood is the Nile river bringing in new life; and the eight survivor souls were Egyptian deities and the flood and Nile stories are 15 cubits high. The rite of water baptism, being born again-new life, was-and is-for many Christians a reenactment of Jesus death and resurrection”p.48 (see 1 Peter 3:20-21). This appears to be a spiritual martyrdom while Paul appears to advocate a physical martyrdom in (Philippians 3:10-11). Not only did Jesus use Noah as an analogy but also the wedding ceremony of his coming to get his bride. Genesis 6:1-3 contains a puzzling passage. It tells us that god had become angry because the sons of god married the daughters of man, this event triggered god’s determination to wipe out mankind with a flood. “And the lord said , my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years (120 years) but Noah lives 950 years so the 120 is symbolic of other things. Perhaps Egyptian history holds a solution to the mystery. The flood occurred in the year that Methuselah died, 2105 BC. The above warning occurred 120 years before the flood, or in 2225. Is there any event in 2225BC that may shed some light on this matter? In the biblical story, the “Sons of God” would originally have been the Memphis pharaoh, the god Horus. The “Daughters of Man” would have been the daughters of a Herakleopolitan king, the false Horus-a man. The biblical story suggests that a marriage occurred between members of the Memphis court and the Herakleopolis court, one that led to a dispute over which line of princes- Herakleopolitan or Memphites- would ascend to the throne of Horus. All Egyptian Kings were the living personification of Horus and all Egyptian kings were called son of God.

5. It’s more important to practice love of your community and fellow mankind than to believe that a person died for your sins. Don’t believe in a death penalty for sin because it contradicts love. Love God, love self and others. Killing is not love and I wouldn’t ask anyone to die for me. Lets not martyrdom trump love. Love with faith is service/works orientated like providing clothes or food for a brother or sister says James 2:15. Faith and works have to coordinate and work together. Paul throws a cheap shot at James by saying grace trumped faith and works when they are all interdependent and work together. Paul contradicted himself when he said:“If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and worse than an unbeliever” 1 Timothy 5:8 which is basically the same thing James 2:15 said. Christians sects may have inserted into the mouth of Paul to attack James to lessen his influence. James also said “was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. You see that his faith and is actions were working together?” James 2:22. Now Here’s Paul’s direct attack: “If Abraham were justified by works…for what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt” Romans 4:2-4. I hope James wasn’t making an analogous theme with Abraham and Isaac because the deed of sacrificing Isaac didn’t go through with it then placed a ram close by as a substitute offering. The Koran follows the same episode in declaring a substitute was put in place for Jesus. But this didn’t happen Jesus was killed but not for atonement for anyone’s sins. However, the sacrifice of Issac was derived from a ritual reenactment of Egyptian funerary services which identified the deceased with Osiris. But in the Genesis story it’s no longer necessary for Horus to die to become Osiris; Osiris is simply Horus as an adult. I think Jesus may have been an initiate of the Egyptian religion based on the cult of Osiris, Horus and Isis. There are just too many coincidences to rule it all out.


The fate of the Gospels first rest and is decided by death sentence. A great, unnecessary instinct of revenge should have been substituted for unconditional love of requiring no killing.

The works of Josephus reports that: “John , that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards another, and piety towards god, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him , if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness”-The Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, chapter 5:2
This would make John the Baptist in agreement with James to double team up on Paul.

What really happened?

The evidence SHOWS that Pontius Pilate must have been in consultation with the Jewish authorities prior to the arrest of Jesus. Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been a Roman cohort involved in the arrest. The evidence also shows that during the Roman proceedings, Pilate wanted Jesus put to death, treated him with contempt, and never had any serious intention of releasing him.

John tells us that there was no Jewish trial between the arrest of Jesus and the Roman proceedings and that the Jewish authorities specifically rejected Pilates offer to conduct their own trial. This confirms the Mishnaic principle that under Jewish law there could be no Jewish proceedings during the holiday; therefore, the Jewish council couldn’t hand down a death sentence. Luke transform Mark’s full-blown evening trial into a mere daytime inquiry, with no finding that Jesus violated Jewish law. Paul also said that the Jews found “no cause for a sentence of death”. We know, therefore, that prior to the arrest the Jewish authorities had no plans to conduct any official proceedings against Jesus or to hand down any verdict against him for violating Jewish law; after the arrest, no such trial or inquiry took place. If Pilate had been in consultation with the Jewish authorities early on, he had to know that no such Jewish proceedings would occur.

So, if Pilate had conferred with the Jewish authorities and knew that they would conduct no official proceedings and hand down no verdict, and if Pilate never wanted to release Jesus but did want to execute him for claiming to be King of the Jews, why would the Roman soldiers turn Jesus over to the Jewish authorities with the apparent understanding that the Jewish authorities would bring Jesus back to Pilate in the morning? The Romans had their own custodial facilities. What was the point of the temporary transfer? Why risk bringing Jesus through the packed public streets during the busy daylight hours, past hordes of potential Jesus fans, in order to affect a transfer of custody when it was expected that Jesus’ followers might riot if they learned he had been arrested?

Also, why were the disciples allowed to go free and why was Jesus taken to the unfortified house of the high priest rather than to secure custodial facility, especially if there were fears of a potential riot over the arrest of this popular prophetic figure? How long could it take before the disciples went around telling everyone that Jesus had been arrested? For that matter, why wasn’t there a riot or massive protest in front of the high priest’s home?

There is clearly something wrong with the gospel picture. Jesus should have remained in Roman custody; his disciples should have also been taken into custody; the many followers of Jesus should have also been out in force protesting the arrests. Why didn’t this happen?

Jesus in Jewish Custody

The main reasons the Romans brought troops into Jerusalem and its environs for the Passover festival were to keep the peace on this very crowded holiday and to make sure that there were no popular demonstrations against Roman rule that got out of control. Jesus had a large following, but he was not from Pilate’s jurisdiction and would be expected to return to Galilee after the Holidays were over. Ordinarily, as long as Jesus didn’t cause much public disruption or lead any troublesome protests against Roman authority, it’s not likely that Pilate would be much concerned. He had more serious problems, such as the Fourth Way, the militant group of Pharisee rebels that aggressively opposed Roman occupation of the Jewish homeland.

On this particular Passover, shortly before Jesus arrest, there had been a violent insurrection that led to deaths. It is likely that Roman soldiers were targeted by Jewish militants and that many innocent civilians were accidentally killed in the panicky aftermath of the Roman response. Under these circumstances, Pilate and the Roman military would have been on high alert and not very tolerant of any form of public resistance or public protest. The presence of a popular prophetic leader preaching the coming of a new kingdom that would replace the Romans would now become a problem.
The situation was fluid and volatile. If Jesus continued his preaching, the potential existed for more public demonstrations against Rome and further possibility of more riots, more violence, and more roman and Jewish deaths.

Pilate was intolerant and would not consent to any diminution of his authority or allow any scenario to suggest that he was either afraid to act or could be cowed by mob pressure. He didn’t wash his hands. And he did not allow mass public demonstrations against Roman authority. Still, any attempt to crack down on Jesus could trigger more demonstrations and perhaps another violent insurrection against Pilate and the Roman soldiers. The governor had to consider the impact of whatever decision he made, and either choice could have disastrous consequences.

Both Pilate and the Jewish authorities would have been concerned about the situation, and each would be looking for ways to minimize the potential for new outbursts. Any solution had to preserve the appearance that Pilate was in full and complete control

I suggest that the only logical and historically plausible solution for why, under these circumstances, the Romans arrested Jesus but allowed him to remain in Jewish custody was that some sort of deal had been made in the expectation that the problems could be avoided if such an agreement were carried out. What kind of bargain would have been struck?

The deal, as I see it, had the following components. Jesus would instruct his followers to remain calm and not engage in any public demonstrations either on behalf of Jesus as the messiah or against Pilate or Rome. To ensure that his followers kept their end of the bargain, Jesus agreed to remain a hostage in the custody of the Jewish high priest until after the holidays were over, at which time he would be released and allowed to return to Galilee. To facilitate the arrangement, Pilate agreed that the disciples would remain at large in order to keep Jesus followers under control. Jesus agreed to this for humanitarian reasons, to avoid a large number of innocent civilian deaths.

Such an arrangement was a win-win deal for Pilate. If it worked, he would have kept the peace without surrendering any authority. Jesus would go home to Galilee, a different political jurisdiction, and would not be of any further bother to him. Pilate didn’t much like Herod Antipas, and this Jesus fellow could be the tetrarch’s headache instead. If the plan failed, then Pilate would already have Jesus in custody and could take the appropriate punitive action.

It is this agreement, I suggest, that led to Judas reputation as the one who handed Jesus over. Someone had to represent Jesus in the course of the three-way negotiations between Pilate, the high priest, and Jesus. As treasurer of the movement, Judas appears to have been among the most trusted of Jesus disciples. Judas is clearly depicted in the gospels as meeting with the chief priests to discuss the handing over of Jesus not for money but saving civilian lives, and all four gospels depict this hand over.

Pursuant to these negotiations, Judas arranged for Jesus to turn himself in to a Jewish delegation from the high priest. The transfer was to take place at an isolated place away from the city crowds. Pilate, not necessarily convinced that everything would come together, or perhaps worried about a trap or trick, sent a large military force along to make sure that Jesus was taken into custody as agreed, and to be fully prepared in case Jesus’ followers balked at the arrangement.

Initially, things went according to plan. Jesus was taken to the high priests home, the disciples were let go, and no riots broke out. But in the morning, something went wrong. Jesus was transferred to Roman custody. Why?


If such an agreement had been reached, why would the Jewish authorities deliver Jesus to Pilate the following morning? If Pilate was satisfied with the arrangement, the high priest had no incentive to break the deal. It would only make him look bad among the Jewish constituency and reflect badly on his honor. He had given his word to consummate a deal. Pilate would probably not be too pleased with the sudden change in circumstances either.

But Pilate had given his word also. He had much to lose in prestige if he broke his public commitment. Something significant must have taken place to cause Pilate to back off his end of the deal. One possibility is that Jesus followers violated the terms of the agreement, but we have no evidence that this is the case. We do have evidence, however, for another explanation-intervention by Herod Antipas.
Herod Antipas feared prophetic figures with large Jewish followings in his area of dominion, Galilee and Peraea. The evidence suggested that he was not particularly well liked by his constituents and that he feared that such leaders could incite an insurrection against him. For this reason, he had already beheaded john the Baptist,(who was arch considered like Jesus). Afterwards, he feared that Jesus was another John the Baptist. Mark preserves traditions that Herodians had it in for Jesus; Luke tells us that just before the Passover holiday, Herod had planed to kill Jesus. Just prior to leaving for the Passover festival, Jesus taunted Herod, challenging the tetrarch to come after him in Jerusalem.
Strangely, Luke’s account of the Roman proceedings introduces a trial by Herod in which the tetrarch initially appears to have a somewhat benevolent attitude toward Jesus, despite the fact that Herod earlier planned to kill Jesus and latter treated Jesus with contempt. According to Luke, Herod concurred with Pilate’s determination that Jesus was innocent of wrongdoing and should be released. No other Gospel records a Herodian trial, and we pointed out some additional objections to the credibility of Luke’s Herodian interlude.

For one, it contradicted Luke’s more believable earlier depiction of hostility by Herod toward Jesus (as well as Mark’s representation that the Herodians plotted to kill Jesus). Second, it appeared that herod served as a substitute for Pilate, with Luke shunting off Pilate’s graphic hostility toward Jesus onto this semi-roman, semi-Jewish figure. Third, and most importantly, Luke’s entire thesis about Herod’s benevolence depends on an portrait of Pilate as thinking Jesus innocent and wanting to set him free. As our evidence clearly showed, Pilate never meant to set Jesus free once the Roman proceedings began.
Luke’s benevolent portrait of Herod is false. If that is the case, where is this anti-Jesus tetrarch in the course of the arrest and prosecution of Jesus? The answer is that herod Antipas got involved and demanded that Pilate execute Jesus for claiming to be king of the Jews.

Herod would have been very unhappy with Pilate’s arrangement. It called for the release of Jesus and his return to Galilee. The last thing Herod wanted was the return of a free Jesus to Galilee, where he could continue to stir up troubles for the tetrarch. Herod wanted Jesus dead when he was in Galilee and he would have wanted him dead in Jerusalem.

John (or more likely one of his sources) may have deceptively preserved Herod’s complaint to Pilate. During the Roman proceedings, John alleges that when Pilate continued to press for the release of Jesus, the Jews responded, “if you release this man [Jesus] you are no friend of the emperor”. everyone who claims to be king sets himself against the emperor. When examing this passage, we saw that it lacked credibility for a number of reasons. The chief objection, however, is that Pilate never intended to release Jesus, so the entire scenario is unlikely.

A little later in the dialogue, the Jews shout again, “We have no king but the emperor”, this declaration was made in response to Pilate’s question, “Shall I crucify your King?” Again, I pointed out why this exchange lacked credibility.
Both alleged Jewish statements, however, would make sense if they came instead from Herod, in response to learning about Pilate’s agreement to release Jesus at the end of the holidays. Herod would have been pushing Pilate to execute Jesus and threatening to report him to the emperor if he released a man being hailed as the king of the Jews. John would even be technically correct, although highly deceptive, by claiming that this threat came from the Jews, since Herod was a Jew. He merely held back which Jew made the charge and when it was made.

A threat from Herod against Pilate would not be insubstantial. He had as much if not more clout with the emperor than Pilate did. Indeed, in the golden shields affair, Herod would almost certainly have been one of the four herodian princes that complained to the emperor about the governor’s misdeeds. Pilate understood that Herod could do him serious damage by telling the emperor that the governor sided with a man hailed by Jews as ushering in a new kingdom that would displace Rome. Having already had one disastrous run-in with Herod and the emperor, Pilate wouldn’t have been anxious for a repeat performance, especially from a rival who would be anxious to undermine the governor’s prestige. Such a complaint from Herod could lead to Pilate’s removal from office. What’s a poor Roman tyrant to do? On the one hand, he faced potential violence, riots, deaths, and a rotten public relations fiasco; on the other was job security and all the figs he could eat. Pilate must have taken almost all of a New York minute before choosing job security. He broke his word and demanded that the high priest bring Jesus to him.

This brings credibility to the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, (GOP), which stated:

According to the GOP Herod was the one who gave the order for the execution. “Herod the King commanded that the lord (Jesus) be taken saying to them (Pilate), what things [what] soever I commanded you to do unto him (Jesus), do”.


All four Gospels depict some sort of morning session before Jesus was turned over to Pilate, but the circumstances of the meeting are vague. Mark talks about some sort of ambiguous consultation, even though he depicts an earlier full-blown trial and verdict the night before. Matthew says that the chief priests conferred in order to bring about Jesus’ death. Luke presents a redacted account of Mark’s evening trial but has no verdict. John says simply that Jesus was brought to Caiaphas and turned over to Pilate.

Having determined that there was no evening proceeding following the arrest of Jesus, and given the ambiguity and lack of specification in Mark and John as to what happened in the morning, I suggest that this morning session was in response to Pilates demand that Jesus be turned over to roman custody and that the Jewish authorities were concerned about the consequences of Pilate’s revocation of his commitment. In that regard, I suggest that john’s story about the Jewish council reacting to a roman threat, which john positions several days earlier, actually occurred on the morning in question. The dialogue between Caiaphas and the council makes more sense in this context.

As you may recall, a council member expressed the concern that the growing popularity of Jesus would lead the Romans to destroy the nation and the Temple. In response, caiaphas said, “you do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed”. (Does this indicate the Universally sacrifice was applied later?). John said that from that day on, the council planned to put him to death. At the time, I expressed some reservations about this scenario. I pointed out that it made no sense for the Jews to want to put Jesus to death if the Romans had the problem with him.

However, if we put this council meeting in the context of a demand by Pilate to produce Jesus, then a more logical scenario emerges. The council would have been debating what to do in the face of Pilate’s reneging on his promise. There was an issue of honor here. The council at the Roman request and suffer a far more tragic consequence. Eventually, the council yielded ad entered into an agreement not only with Pilate but also with Jesus, and both parties had to be taken into consideration. If Pilate backed off the deal, then the fair thing would have been either to release Jesus or to refuse to turn him over. Both options carried deadly consequences. In either case, a forceful and violent Roman response could be expected. Such a debate would better explain Caiaphas’s response. He argued, essentially, that it was better to turn Jesus over to the Romans and have only one person die than to resist to the fear of direct confrontation with Roman troops and submitted to Pilate’s demand. They brought Jesus to him.

The breaking of Pilate’s word would have caused a great deal of consternation among both the Jewish leaders and followers of Jesus. No doubt, many other Jews would have been deeply disturbed by what happened.

Our analysis showed that the followers of Jesus were present and active in the crowd, asking that Pilate free Jesus pursuant to his holiday custom of releasing a prisoner. But Pilate refused ( Barnabas first name was Jesus but was taken out of later edition. Jesus Barnabas caused Muslims to wrongly believe that a substitute Jesus was killed on the cross). At this point, we should expect riots in reaction to the broken commitment, but none occurred. Why not?

The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that Jesus shared the council’s concern about the large number of deaths and injuries that might result from a confrontation with Pilate and wanted to avoid the shedding of innocent blood. He may have even directly participated in the council session, although we can’t be sure. In any event, he probably asked his followers to remain calm and told them not to worry about him, that the arrival of the new kingdom was imminent, and that when it came, they would all be reunited under the rule of Israel’s god. His followers, with great grief and restraint, acceded to his wishes.


At first, Christians did not blame Judas and the Jews for this catastrophe. It was well understood that they acted in good faith and that Pilate broke his word. But as opposition developed between Jews and Christians, the Jesus movement used polemical techniques to transform this story into one of betrayal.

The deal negotiated by Judas with the high priest became the basis of charges that this disciple betrayed Jesus. The efforts of the Jewish leadership to take Jesus into its safekeeping for the holiday became the basis of charges that the Jews arrested Jesus with the help of Judas. The submission to Pilate’s demand to surrender Jesus in order to save hundreds if not thousands of innocent Jewish lives became , in Matthew’s words, a Jewish conspiracy, in which “all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death”. (In other words he died for the people who were living at that time, with the possibility of past and future lives also). The deal promising to release Jesus after the holidays, made before Jesus was taken into protective custody, became a post-arrest offer by Pilate to release Jesus. Pilate’s sarcastic remarks to the followers of Jesus about releasing “your King” became further evidence of Pilate’s efforts to release Jesus over Jewish opposition. Demands by roman soldiers the crowd to crucify Jesus wrongly became the demands of Jewish members of the crowd. Calls for the release of Barnabas by his followers wrongly became demands from the chief priests. Herod’s fear of Jesus’ popularity wrongly became the fear of the Jewish authorities. Herod’s opposition to the release of Jesus became Jewish resistance to Pilate’s offers to let Jesus go. Herod’s threats against Pilate wrongly became Jewish efforts to bully the governor. Herod’s insistence on the execution of Jesus wrongly became Jewish demands that Jesus be put to death.

This substitution of the Jewish authorities and chief priests for Herod is all the more remarkable in that the Jews did not recognize Herod as having any official status whatsoever as a Jewish leader. He was simply a roman client and a roman loyalist, appointed over Jewish opposition to the post of tetrarch. He had no religious or moral authority over the Jews and he was highly unpopular among his Jewish subjects, especially after his murder of John the Baptist. Even the Herodian Jewish credentials were highly suspect among the Jewish people.

As the historical misrepresentations passed on from one telling to another, Christian storytellers rearranged scenes, distorted the evidence, and invented new episodes in order to blame the Jews and exonerate the Romans. These distortions, falsifications, and deceptions took on nearly canonical proportions in the era when the gospels were being written, and after the gospels were written, they became canonical in fact. The harm done over the centuries to the Jewish people by those who accepted these gospel claims at face value is enormous and probably incalculable. Now the record has been set straight and lets make future persecutions or harassments less likely.


* “Herod and Pontius Pilate met together…to conspire against your holy servant Jesus” (Acts 4:27).

* “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of Herod” Mark 8:15. Leaven is a symbol of evil influence. The context of “unleaven bread in Acts 12:1-3 was about Herod killing James and trying to kill Peter.

* A plot by Herod Antipas was hatched to kill Jesus and he was warned (Luke 13:31-34)

* Only after the arrest of Jesus Herod and Pilate became friends (Luke 23:12).

* Lactantius, a third century Christian writer reported: “Then Pilate was overpowered by their outcries, and by the instigation of Herod the tetrarch., who feared lest he should be deposed from his sovereignty”.

* Pilate releasing Barabbas would have been like President Bush releasing Bin landen after his terrorist followers insisted he be released.

* Jesus didn’t die for the world sins. He himself was Baptized by an Essene member, John the Baptist, then immediately sent out to be tempted for sin. Elaine Pagels states: “The rite of baptism was-and is-for many Christians a reenactment of Jesus death and resurrection”p.48 (see 1 Peter 3:20-21). So we see Jesus going back to the days of Noah. But Noah was the Egyptian Nun in Egyptian mythology. This was nothing new every Egyptian wanted to be Osiris coming back to spiritual life three days after death. There was no spiritual need for Jesus to die for mankinds sin because Adam didn’t pass on sin into the world.

1. The gospel writers contradict each other.
2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.
3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.
4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

*In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).
2. This contradicts Jesus' earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul's version) to the gentiles. This proves my point of showing how the Christians evolved to include all people when the focus was just on Jews in Israel. This piggy backs Jesus dying to avoid a massacre not to redeem people from sin.

The gospel that Jesus and his disciples proclaimed to the Jews was in accordance with what the Old Testament predicted about a human Messiah reigning over a restored kingdom of Israel, a kingdom of peace and righteousness. The people of Israel were to repent as personal righteousness was necessary to become a member of the kingdom.
In contrast to Jesus' gospel was the gospel preached to the Jews and gentiles by the apostle Paul, which Paul refers to as "my gospel" and "the gospel that I preach" to differentiate it from what was being proclaimed by the disciples. In Paul's gospel the human Jewish Messiah became a divine saviour of all nations, the restored kingdom of Israel became a heavenly kingdom, and admittance to the kingdom was based on faith rather than personal righteousness, a concept in the letter of James rejects.
The two gospels caused great animosity between Paul and the original apostles, an animosity that is played down in the books of Acts and Galatians, but which still shows through in several places. When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were scattered or killed, and the opposition to the gospel of Paul was largely eliminated. The gospel of Paul was incorporated into the gospel of Jesus, in many cases supplanting it. Righteousness is still in effect because “The dead were judged according to what they had done (works)” (Rev 20:12). And those who are hell bound are distinguished from heaven bound as righteousness or wrong. “They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteousness will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father” (Matthew 13:42). Paul wanted it to be easy as possible for non jews to join the club so he eliminated the Faith & works doctrine of James, brother of Jesus and eliminated circumcision a surgery Jesus had as an infant.

* Another indicator that the Gospels are Second Century inventions comes from the rabid anti-Semitism contained therein. In the very early years, Christians were all Jews. By mid First Century, if the letters of Paul are to be believed, the Gentile movement took hold, but Jews and Gentiles still got along. But it was only after the destruction of the Temple and at the end of the First Century that relationships between Christians and Jews deteriorated, illustrated by the special malediction placed in the central Jewish prayer, the Shermoneh Esrei (aka Sherman Esrei), cursing the Nazarenes and other Christian groups. Thus, the rabid anti-Semitism of the gospels is clearly a Second Century phenomenon. groups, cementing the schism between Christians and Jews. Prior to this date (approximately 90 AD), such vehement anti-Semitism would not have been expected.
( This corroborates Greenberg thesis that blaming Jews for Christ murder was a later invention.


Support, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on $$RICH$$'s profile.
$$RUCH. SO COOL.VBRO. WHAT MY bornday. Again. Destee. June. U didn't call. Phone me. I'm loosingbit. In my dopamine euphoria. None stop. I send my new pic. Noylt. Me. That guy. Wears 1x. I wear.b3x. Ok love Destee Fam. Errors I don't care ok. Love
Destee wrote on MANASIAC's profile.
I saw you ... :yaay: ... Welcome Home! ... :flowers: