Here, we are dealing mainly with the early "Christian Church" history and its theology. Most Christians are getting their history lesson about Christianity from their own church that has been told or written in a very bias manner that presents the early church as they wish to see it rather than what the true history say's about them. What can you expect of a history teaching that come from their own kind that portray their history which puts them in the most favourable light? Here is a sample of how Christians tend to re-writing history to hide the truth. Christians will write about how the savage Indians (First Nation People) used to scalp the white Christian settlers. Conveniently forgetting to mention that it was the white Christians who first introduced the scalping of people. How did this event really come about, you may ask? White Christian Governors and other high officials in their "Christian" society had put a bounty on the heads of all Indians that choose to remain free. These Indians were harassed and were forced to roam from their lands in order to remain a free people. Settlers were taking the land of the first nation people by hook or by crook or under force. In order for this bounty system to work, to receive the cash for each Indian that these fine upstanding Christians had killed, be they men, woman, an elderly person or child or baby, they would have to show proof of their kill. The only PRACTICAL way to do this was to scalp the Indians. The scalp of an Indian would be proof enough that an Indian was killed. Once this became the common trend among the whites, the Indians in revenge began to take the scalp off the white Christian settlers for a very different reason. It became to them a badge of honour in defeating their enemy. They never scalped old people, women, children or babies like their white Christian counterparts had done. We also know how the Christian Church tend to re-write their own history in a manner to suite their own favourable light. (If they can get away with it). We can see how the Protestants and to some lesser degree, the Roman Catholic Church negates to mention their own horrific atrocities they took part in during their Christian history. We see that during the first century, all of the scattered groups of "churches", of the new found Faith called The Way, that were emerging, were quite independent from one another. That they only united together, under great duress when Charlemagne cane onto the scene. It was also under great duress by Charlemagne, may I add, that the church came up with one cohesive dogma in order to put an end to all of the infighting that was going on among the various independent Christian groups of churches. Questions about the true interpretation of their teachings were challenged and fought during its beginnings, right up through to 300 CE or so. This plainly shows how unclear the teachings and beliefs of Christianity was at the time. The Christian belief was settled only after three hundred years after the fact. One must remember that these scattered independent groups of "churches" had already by then well formed ideas, dogmas and beliefs of their own. What the mainline "Church" had to do was to backtrack and find ways and means to interpret "scripture" that would by then, conform and support their ideas, dogmas and beliefs that had already been set in place, regardless what the truth may well have been. These became the early drafts of what was to become the making of the New Testament. It was during these early years that the text was sorted, insertions of text were added and words were changed. Words added or taken away that would lend support to affirm their beliefs and dogmas that had already been well established. By the time the printing press came to be, eleven hundred years later, the New Testament came into exitance. Text were copied along with all of the tampering that had already been made by the church which their dogma's had by then been well established in all of Christendom. All text that were to be copied and printed to make the "New Testament" would have been copied from these corrupted works that had already been tampered with. Even the King James version that the Protestants like to proclaim as the infallible word of GOD came from the works that had been corrupted, tampered by the early "church fathers"! Churches still do this even today with the newer Bible versions. I believe that it is high time for the full truth about Christianity be made known in order for Christianity to ever become clean. Most people by now know that during the very early part of Christianity, the early church fathers did not have a book like the New Testament as we now have today. Rather, all what they had were only a sheet or two of scripts with random sayings written on them. If they were fortunate enough to have them at all. By the time the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE which was razed to the ground by the Roman Army, there was a wide diversity of sayings and writings about Yeshua. It was about this same time that their newly formed fictitious Je-Zeus Christ was invented and made him a god. The true Yeshua was relegated to obscurity while the fictitious man made god theology began to spread through most of these "house" churches's who were independent gentile Christian groups scattered throughout the country. Each had their own version of the story about their fictitious Je-Zeus Christ and what he had taught. These house churches were actually people's home's where Christians gathered together at a persons house (dwelling place) and spoke about the teachings of their fictitious god, named Je-Zeus Christ. This situation came about because of a deep rift that had developed between the traditional Judaeo establishment and the original Apostles of Yeshua. The Apostles of Yeshua were no longer welcomed at the established synagogues or Temple. So the Apostles of Yeshua. started to take their message to the pagan Gentiles when the traditional Jewish establishment rejected the idea about Yeshua being the Messiah-King. Then a deep rift developed between the original Apostles and the gentile heathen Christians. At first, disputes over many traditional teachings were ironed out. But the dispute that finally broke these two groups up was mainly on the issue of this newly man-god concept that the gentiles began to develop in their theology. The Gentiles Christians began to adopt the ideas of Yeshua, but transformed into their now fictitious Je-Zeus Christ was something like a god. Later, this Je-Zeus Christ was to become their god that took the place of the true GOD (The Heavenly Father) whom Yeshua's Apostles had always maintained. The heathen Gentile Christians also had many problems among themselves about who had the right interpretation of their newly formed Je-Zeus Christ and about his life. It was about this time frame that the concept of Je-Zeus Christ being god began to be fully developed. This caused many a rifts between the original Apostles of Yeshua and the Gentile Christian groups that caused the final split over this issue. This issue had caused much anger and disruption between them..that it eventually led to their final break- up. In time, the heathen paganized Gentile Christians replaced all of the original Apostles of Yeshua churches that had been established by them. Along with this take-over came a new brand of Christianity. (I call these the paganized perverted form of Christianity). These early "church fathers" who were not the original Apostles of Yeshua were also called Apostles among themselves. Even though they were not from the original twelve. One must never forget, and this is what gives many people problems. It is that the writings that we know as the "gospels" were really written long after the time frame of the actual event that they were written about. We will find clear example's of this as we examine the writings of the New Testament. Let us just look at the word "church" as it is found in the New Testament. As when Yeshua was supposed to have said... "Upon this Rock, I will build my "church". All that was known in the first century era was the term Synagogues and Temples. The use of the word "church" found in the New Testament writings clearly shows that it was re-written at a much later date. There was no word as "church" during and just after the time of Yeshua. That word "church" which was to mean, congregation only came into existence (invented) at a much later in time. Yeshua had really said... "Upon this Rock, I will make a congregation of the New Covenant". In that he will build his foundation, upon Peter's "Faith" that he will establish between his disciples, believers to our Heavenly Father. As you will see, much of the text found in the New Testament encountered many changes, like re-writing history from questionable source texts. This is the reason there are so many discrepancies within the New Testament with actual history. Given this brief outline at what we are dealing with when we examine the early Christian era, we are now ready to see how the early church fathers strung the various text together to make it into a unified flowing stream. In order to do that, one would have to add, subtract or restructure the text that was then available to bridge the various sayings and life of Yeshua by changing his name into Je-Zeus Christ, together with their own concept of their man made god in each of the four "Gospels". Most Protestant Christian, because of their ignorance, believe every word in the New Testament to be a true account of actual history. I will point out the places where stories and passages were only meant to be symbolic, not to be taken as factual events that had actually taken place. So let us examine the birth of this fictitious Yeshua for a start and see what we can find out, about the truth, of these stories. Please know that in this endeavour to expose those parts of the New Testament that are outright lie's, some may call them exaggerations, (these will have a symbolic meaning rather than being actual events), I will just point them out for the reader as places where they can start to check out the validity of what I am saying through their own research. Check out all documents that you can find from various sources so that you do not get a bias point of view. Now that we have that understanding, let us shine the light of TRUTH upon these text that make up the New Testament.

______________________________________________________________

So now let us open the pages and look at Matthew and Luke. There is no Genealogy of Yeshua within the pages of Mark and John. Therefore we can set them aside for now. Looking back at Luke, the writer who wrote the Genealogy of Yeshua was honest enough to make the statement as this... "When Yeshua began his work, he was about thirty years of age, being - so it was supposed - the son of Joseph, ect, ect. This shows that the writer of Luke did not know Yeshua in person, for he would have known the exact age of Yeshua when he had started his ministry. ( After all, all of my followers in our group know my age when I began my work, even those who were not with me at the very beginning of my work.) If the writer had personally known Yeshua, he would have not only written Yeshua age, but would have included his day and year of birth as a matter of fact. I find it strange that the writer of this diligent work would have missed the chance to include it in his journal. Luke, it also writes that... So it was supposed - the son of Joseph. Here again it shows clearly that the writer of Luke was not with Yeshua when he lived. He is getting his sources from other people. Now in Matthew, we can see that the writer made an attempt to write a Genealogy for Yeshua. Unfortunately, it do not do anything for his effort because Yeshua was not of the bloodline of Joseph, who was the step-father of Yeshua. In truth, this part of the text was added in much later in time by an early father of the faith in an attempt to link Yeshua with the bloodline to David. It is quite apparent that the writer did not notice this at the time of his writing. So now, let us continue with the story of Yeshua birth according to these writers of the Gospels. Let us look what the writer in Matthew wrote being that it is at the first part of the New Testament. As I read the text about Mary and Joseph, so far it is O.K. Here is now where An Angel of Father spoke to Joseph in a dream... saying Joseph, Ben David, have no fear about taking Mary...ect, ect. She (Mary) is to have a son and you shall call him (Je-Zeus?). (We can see here that this part of the text was tampered with), he will save [his] people, (the Jewish people), not the pagan gentiles, from their sins. Nothing here about a Messiah in the Jewish context. Strange that just below this text, we are in Matthew 2:23, the passage repeats itself but the name of Emmanuel is now given. This name is not strange, because it was a common name among the Jews. It meant, that GOD was with His people. Something that the Christians misinterpreted to tie in Je-Zeus Christ as their god. But why the name change? Did not the writer know the name of Yeshua? Or was this part of the text copied from another source? Here is a perfect example of inserting a few lines in order to twist the passage to the "Christian" theology. Already this is becoming the beginning of a misleading intent on the part of the early fathers of the Christian church. I should stop here and go no further! But for the sake of TRUTH, I will carry on. I can see by the reading of chapter 2, this whole story is a total fabrication that it can pass for an outright lie. This text was added in, in order to try to give their (Je-Zeus Christ) a birth story that equals to that of Moses. And to find this thing happening in a Holy Bible? Why not? It is not the first time that such a thing was done during the evolution of the "Bible". At last we get to chapter 3 with John, the Baptizer. Now we are getting to something that is true, at last. Let's go over to Luke and see what that writer had written. The story of Aaron and Elizabeth is true. Chapter 1:5-24. I see in line 32, it says, Great will be his dignity and he will be called... (I see that someone dropped the..) [a] Son of the Most High. Another mischief by the early church fathers to make Yeshua their god. We go on to The Shepherds. So it can not be the time, the month of December as they have claimed to be the birthday month of Je-Zeus Christ. No shepherds at that time of the year, would be foolish enough to have had sheep out onto the pasture during that time of the year. Its too cold and with the rainy season on, too darn cold and wet for sheep to be grazing out. Also; The Magi's depicted in the birth story of Je-Zeus Christ, were a Persian priestly cast that had become extinct hundred of years before Zoroaster was born in the 6th Century BCE Zoroaster, who was a sage that had revived, in a much different form, some of the ancient extinct Magi's teachings that had been banned by the King, in its scriptures called the Zend-Avesta. Present day Zoroastrians only have some of Zoroaster,s writings that had survived the Muslim's conquest of Persia. (The Moslems had destroyed most of Zoroaster's teachings at that time). They are presently among the Parsecs people. So we see that the wise men were not Magi's, but some wise men of the Parsecs people. King Herod (the Great) never killed hundreds or thousands of children as depicted in the New Testament. There are no writings from other sources that confirm that such an event had ever taken place. Not even within the Jewish community. If this event had indeed taken place, such an event would have been documented as all other atrocities that were committed against the Jewish people. Would you think that children being murdered along with their parents, who would, no doubt, have surely tried to defend their children from this brutal attack that would cause their death's. Are we to believe that the Jewish people would not have recorded this kind of an atrocity as part of their history? You know very well that such an event would have been recorded from other sources if indeed such an event had taken place. By the way, Herod died in 4 BCE Never mind, lets carry on. During that time frame, it is said that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to be counted for a census. Let us study this tale. We now know that a census was never taken by the Roman Empire in Judea (Palestine) anywhere near the time frame when Yeshua was supposed to have been born. Right away we can see that this tale is an outright lie. But lets carry on. Joseph had taken Mary who was nine months pregnant on a rough three day journey to get to Bethlehem. I could be done, maby. But it would have been a very slow and rough progress that would have taken a lot of strength from Mary. But what happens when they finally arrive at Joseph's home town? It say's that they could not find a place in the Inn. Inn? What Inn? Why go looking for a place in an Inn when all of Joseph's family and relatives would have gladly given a place for Mary to birth her child? But what do we read in the text? That they ended up in some old barn (manger) all by themselves without their friends and relatives at such an auspicious time? And we are suppose to believe this? Give me a break, will you! One lie upon another! Even this whole story of having to flee into Egypt is a total fabrication! People are suppose to swallow these tales, hook, line and sinker, and believe these to be true? Yeah, Right! I see that they left out the part of the rape of Mary that had taken place. Of course they would. After all, it would be unbecoming of having a "Mother of god", as a rape victim. According to the high standards of the church fathers. Speaking of rape victim, I do recall that there was a Genealogy in the text on Mary side of the family. I see that the church fathers had it switched, once they became aware that the bloodline on Mary side of the family tree is, let us say, of ill repute? No wounder that they changed it to a male line, least anyone got wind of Mary's bloodline. Circumcision and the presenting the child in the Temple is true to form. But now we read that Simeon was told through a vision, that a child will appear within their Temple that will become the Redeemer of Israel and says... This child is destined to be the downfall and the rise of many in Israel. (How true that was.) The Prophetess we read, says.. after giving thanks to GOD, and talked to the crowd about the child to all who looked forward to the deliverance of Jerusalem. The first mention of a Messiah. They were talking about the deliverance from the Romans. The next text is Yeshua at the age of twelve. There is something very amiss here... I will reveal it to you when I will continue tomorrow.

All right, Here we have Yeshua in the Temple, with Simeon, who was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death until he had seen the Anointed, our Beloved Brother Yeshua. The Prophetess, also at the same Temple, declared about baby Yeshua as such. No problem so far. We all know that for the Jews at that time, everyone was on pinheads, so to speak, for a coming Messiah. The greatest news that the Jewish people could ever have received. Now, at last, their Messiah has come. What a moment of joy for the entire Jewish people. Redemption at last. That through this child, they will one day be set free from their oppressors. You would think that everyone would be bubbling over with this great news that the Messiah had finally come. You would think that such news would travel secretly throughout the whole of the land. During Yeshua growing up years, you would think that the people would be tripping over each other with a love for Yeshua, as their new hero, that would exceed all else. You would also think that Yeshua would have been under the full protection of the Temple. But what do we find, nothing. Instead, we are told that when Yeshua was older, and he was ready to start the mission he was prophecide to accomplish, they ran Yeshua out of his home town in Nazareth, the place where he grew up during all of his young life. Then when Yeshua, starts his mission, at the age of thirty, all of the Temple Priests do not know this Yeshua is their one and only Messiah? Give me a break, Please! It is plain to see that the declaration of Simeon and the Prophetess was added in at a later date. It is plain to see that this event did not happen at all, not the way it reads. So what gives? Could this be just another one of those symbolism thing? Naw, that could not be. After all, those Protestant Preachers will tell you that this must be a factual story as it was written. Never mind the gross errors that I have just pointed out. You must read it and accept it as it reads, line by line, precept upon precept, lies by lies, ect. ect.. It is very clear that the early church fathers had added these lines, or lies. They had clearly tampered with the text of Simeon and The Prophetess that had declared Yeshua to be the Messiah at the time of his birth. Yet the early "Church Fathers" were too stupid not to see this discrepancy that was plainly staring them right in their face? I really wounder how people can read something, and not see where the mistakes are when they are so obvious. If you look carefully, you will find this kind of tampering all through the New Testament. So far, I have just scratched the surface in getting to the truth on the writings that make up the New Testament, before we even really got started. We have uncovered much thus far. Let us continue.

___________________________________________________________________