Home

the REAL history of christianity:
the biggest SCAM in world history.

About 3 years ago I started my investigation into the origins of christianity. This was after I found out about christ-mythicism and all the discussions going on. I decided to study for myself. In the past I had studied history and my interest always went to ancient history. Also I was raised a roman catholic but I left the church in my twenties. But I always kept a soft spot for Jesus because of his teachings. So I was motivated and I had time enough because I am unemployed as the result of a sickness. I am a woman from the Netherlands with a laptop. Enough about me.
After studying history I am qualified to do this study. But I think everybody is qualified as long as you stick to a few rules. You have to have some intelligence, you have to be prepared to read a lot, also outside your subject, you have to be critical of everything you find, so you have to keep on asking questions about everything, you have to look for dates, you may not be prejudiced, you have to have an open mind, you must be prepared to change your view. Setting your prejudice aside is of course the most difficult for everyone.
There are many new testament scholars and 95% is christian. In fact they should be excluded from this study. They have a bias that big that this is unworkable. They already know the truth beforehand, and they already know what the outcome of their study will be. If they find something different they will ignore it. This is very dishonest. Of course history is not an exact science, but you will have to keep some distance to your subject, and try to be critical, otherwise your study will come to nothing. After looking at some evangelical minister before an audience who was “proving” the resurrection from the gospels themselves, I immediately had enough of evangelicals. It is like proving the flood from the old testament. The book is true, how do you know that, because it is in the book. We are not going to begin like that. But looking at the christ-mythicists who say Jesus never existed, they are also not able to solve the problem satisfactorily as to where this all came from.
I am proud to say that I did. By normal rational thinking and asking questions. You don’t even have to read greek. What of course does help a lot is looking further than the new testament. Without studying judaism, gnosticism and the mystery religions you will get nowhere. And almost nobody does that because christianity is so “unique”. Or they are looking but cannot find it.
I read that they (the scholars) are already busy for 50 years to refute the influence of the Mithra religion and proud to have succeeded. What should I say? The eucharist (bread and wine ritual) comes directly from the Mithra religion. So you know what you are looking at the next time you go to mass. Mithra is persian, you know what is more? The word mass, from latin missa, from persian mizza. The word mitre, from persian Mithra. The staff, the ring and the mithre of the bishops, from the Mithra religion, the highest rank who were called “father”. I don’t know, but there seems to me a connection between the catholic church and the Mithra religion. Who occupied the vatican hill before Constantine gave it to the church? The Mithra religion. Who is that on that mosaic down there on a chariot? That is Mithra. The catholic church thus certainly has to do with the Mithra religion.
How do I know that all? Because I am an interested reader. And because my subject is the origin of christianity, by which I mean the catholic church, not just whether Jesus existed or not. So I look wider, say 0 – 200. And all the other scholars do not. Which is incredibly stupid. And which is why they cannot solve anything. Because the answers lie in the 2nd century. In fact nothing happened in the 1st century, at least there was no christianity yet. I am sorry but you are all being fooled, but it is not that easy to find out.

It is in fact quite easy to decide whether Jesus existed or not. From what do we know about the life of Jesus? From the 4 gospels. Is there any contemporary corroboration of the life of Jesus? No there is not. I read that there were no crucifixions there between 6 and 44. No, there is nothing. There are 2nd century mentionings of christians (which might mean chrestians) but that can be. In the 2nd century christians appeared. But the name Jesus was never mentioned.
Do I have to talk about Tacitus and Josephus? How many arguments do you want for it being forgeries? Tacitus is not contemporary, it is about 100 years later which makes it hearsay. Tacitus does not give the name Jesus. In Tacitus chrestus is changed into christus (this has been proven), so it is about chrestus.
Is this the same Tacitus as about the Nero persecutions? Well, this story has been found. It comes from around 400. So it is a proven forgery. And since Tacitus was missing until the 15th century, there has been time enough to make some changes. By the way, no other roman writer says anything about these “Nero persecutions”. Because they did not happen. Nero is just an easy name. They also could not happen because there were no christians yet.
But the christian scholars, we should better call them apologists, keep on going on about Tacitus, although it is a forgery, and the name Jesus does not even appear there. Should this then prove that Jesus existed? Of course not. I think they know that themselves, but they just keep going on. The problem is that ordinary people believe them of course.

The same goes for Josephus. The so-called Testimonium Flavianum has been declared a forgery already long ago. But the apologists keep on going on, because it is their last straw. When it falls, they have nothing. The text is a very tiny gospel. Including a resurrection. Including the words christ and christians. How could Josephus who was living in Rome already for 20 years have written that? The word christ is not even jewish. Christians is not jewish. The apologists have a solution: they declare it partly Josephus and partly forgery. How desperate can you be? But which is what? So you get a hundred examples of what they all think of it. It is all pure speculation, there is no proof whatsoever. It cannot be determined. So it cannot be used. You can see from a distance that it is a forgery, it is made from a gospel. There were no gospels at the time. Josephus would not write that.
It comes from Josephus book 2, from about 95. Book 1 is about the 1st century from about 75. Arriving at the 1st century in book 2, Josephus gives small summaries from his much larger stories in book 1. So where is the much larger gospel in book 1? It is not there. There is nothing there. If there is nothing in book 1 there also cannot be anything in book 2, especially as Josephus is living in Rome since 15 years. So the TF is not by Josephus, also not partly. Nor is the “Jesus called Christ” which is simply Jesus bar Damneus, which you can simply see if you read the whole story instead of picking out a few words. Just picking out a few words is of course forbidden in research, but they do it. Whole books are written about it. Why? It is so simple. Nor is the remark about John the Baptist by Josephus. We should believe that the John the Baptist as presented in the gospels existed. I found out he did not. The John the Baptist from the gospels is made up, a forgery.
Why is this not recognized? They know the TF is a forgery, but they keep going on about it. As long as the ordinary people believe them, everything is allright. They keep it up. And the catholic church keeps laughing. What shall we call it? Deception of the world through self-deception? Well, the TF is fake, so there is no corroberation at all for the existence of Jesus. O I forgot, the TF only appeared after the year 300. Before that nobody mentioned it.

Which all means that we only have the 4 gospels for the existence of Jesus and nothing else. Which is very strange considering what he all did according to these gospels. He so-called rose from the dead but nobody cared to mention it. Only 40 or 50 years later and then in another country in greek. Could nobody write in Judea or Galilea? So, why didn’t they? We at least know three professional writers from there.
Philo was a philosopher who lived in Alexandria. He died in the year 50. He came regularly in Jerusalem. He says nothing about Jesus.
Josephus lived there until about 75. He wrote a book about the first century right after the war. He says nothing about Jesus too.
Justus of Tiberias, a writer from Galilea, wrote a history of Galilea in 60 – 80. There is no Jesus in it, or someone comparable. This book is gone, but we do have a comment from the patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century who read it. That is how we know.

I do not suppose that the apologists ever tell you about Justus of Tiberias: what does not fit they simply leave out. But the comment on this book shows that there was no Jesus ever in Galilea. Although Galilea is the most important place in the gospels. Josephus had even been the governor of Galilea during the war. So we see from Josephus and Justus of Tiberias that there was no Jesus in Galilea. He cannot be pointed out from these jewish writers. In fact it means that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. The apologists simply are not giving you all the information there is. In this way you are fooled, I would say lied to.
This all also means that the gospels are lying. I cannot help it, but it must be a made-up story. This is as far as I can get without studying anything. So who made it up?

These gospels have been placed by the catholic church in the years 30 – 60 as eyewitness testimony. But someone discovered that they must have been written after 70. I don’t know if the church agrees. And there comes a new scam by the apologists: they MUST then have been written between 70 and 100, making them almost eyewitnesses. Why? After 70 means just after 70. Any year would do. What is the evidence for 70- 100? There is no evidence. Nothing. It is just an assumption, made by christian apologists. But everybody agrees. It is the “general consensus”. But to me the general consensus means nothing when there is no evidence. It just means there are christian apologists at work.

But I discovered at the beginning of my study by coincidence that the 4 gospels appeared for the first time, together, in the book by Irenaeus, then bishop of Lyon, in 185. I think this very suspect. Especially because Irenaeus, according to his biography consisting of 2 lines, was a simple presbyter of Lyon who had lived there his whole life, and only once left in 178. So where did he find these 4 gospels? In the trash of the neighbours? Did he live together for years with the Holy Spirit? Did he write them himself?
And why do all these 100-s or 1000-s of christian scholars do not tell this to you? Probably to be able to keep on lying about the gospels being written in the 1st century. And since normal people of course believe the “experts”, or the churches, everybody who wants to find out something is stuck there.
So the gospels are from 185. And they come from Lyon. This has been proven 2 times in the 19th century by men who studied every scrap of paper from the beginning searching for a gospel. The books are on the internet. One I cannot find anymore, I got it from clicking on a note (there are many, many books on the internet, you just have to click on notes, bibliographies and so on, and you can find interesting things). The other book is there, on a freethought website. It is called “supernatural religion”. After having searched everything to 180, this man concluded that everything that would appear after 180, being 150 years after the death of Jesus, could not be anything more than “just stories”. And that there is after so much time “no evidence for miracles”. No evidence for anything “supernatural” going on.
He is of course right. It was in England and the anglican church panicked, because the book was well sold. They even gave out a large sum of money for anyone who could refute it. But nobody could. Then when the writer died without heirs in 1905 the book disappeared. It was never reprinted again, sold out was sold out. In England it cannot be found anymore. My idea is that the anglican church bought the rights of the book and the silence of the publisher as soon as the author had died, and made the book disappear forever.
I would say so far for free thought and free speech, and research. The church simply makes disappear what they don’t like. This was in 1905, just 100 years ago. What was the panick about this book, and why does the church wants this book hidden? Because the gospels appearing after 180 would indeed mean that they are not real, and that nobody can prove anything supernatural. So that IF Jesus had lived, he would have been a normal human being, and the rest had been invented. And normal human beings do not rise from the dead. There would not be a resurrection. Which would be the end of christianity if it came out.
It was kept all within England. There were no communication possibilities in 1874 yet. But now there are. Everybody has a laptop and can look all over the world, and what is more important: in the past. Almost everything can be checked. It is obvious that the gospels first appeared in the book of Irenaeus from 185. And were never mentioned before. Which indeed means there is no evidence for anything supernatural happening.
So why is this not made public? And why is it the “general consensus” that they were written between 70 and 100? Because you are all being fooled, being lied to, by apologetic christians. It can also be that they don’t know themselves. The church does not want it to come out, that is for sure. But what kind of a scholar are you, what kind of a new testament expert are you, if you do not even know when these gospels you are studying appeared for the first time? Because they DID appear in public at a certain moment. Which was 185. A professor on the internet called all these scholars “lazy and worthless”. To say the least.
Anybody knows Bart Ehrman? The well-known new testament scholar, seen by himself and a lot of people as an “expert”. Who now calls himself an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. He does not even know what that means. He is the biggest Jesus-freak I have ever seen. He is not a scholar at all, because he only wants to prove that Jesus was real. For this he is making things up all the time. Because it MUST BE TRUE. He must be incredibly stupid and naive, or he has some sort of agenda. After he had found out that the gospels came from Irenaeus in 185, instead of that making him think, he simply cried out: “that is a 100 years after they were written!” He seemed not to understand his own stupidity. Because that of course cannot be true. I would say that the church needed gospels, at least one. Like Irenaeus himself said: the gospels are the pillars of the church. So why were these alleged gospels not brought to the church? Now it looks as if they were hidden from the church for a 100 years!!! That cannot be.

Again by coincience I found a gospel of John in the Nag Hammadi library of gnostic scriptures. You could listen to it and so I did, on YouTube. It was our gospel of John, only much shorter. I looked in the list of findings: it was not there. I looked in all the lists of findings I could find: It was never mentioned. If it is not mentioned it is not published, it does not exist. Was I getting crazy? I looked it up again and there it was. I listened again. This time I noticed some differences. I looked it up in the bible. Obviously one of them had been forged. It was not difficult to see which one. Which one was the oldest? In the Nag Hammadi John all the names are in aramaic, so that one must be older. Which means that “our John” has been forged, and not a little bit. So at once I got an idea: Irenaeus, the one who presented the gospels in 185, is a FORGER. I did not know then how right I was. Irenaeus IS a forger, the biggest forger the world has ever seen. That has come out of my study.
That is why the gospel of John is not published and does not appear in the list of findings. People could start comparing the two texts and that would lead to a lot of questions. It would bring the catholic church in big problems. But now nobody knows about it. Apparently there has been made some deal between the catholic church and the people of the Nag Hammadi scriptures. And that is why you and I and everybody will never find out the truth. Because the church is much faster and much richer. And completely dishonest. It confirms to me that Irenaeus is indeed the forger of the church, and I guarantee you that the church is watching to make sure that nothing disturbs his legacy.
I have found two other items like this in the 20th century, which could bring the church in serious problems. If people only knew. One of them would bring christianity right down. And you know what? None of these items is well known. I cannot find people who have heared of it. It has all been taken care of by the church. I think they have a special division for that.

So, without having been in the first century myself, I have discovered some interesting things. The forgeries of Tacitus and Josephus are not the only books with so-called information, although the scholars say so. The first book of Josephus (the war of the jews) written immediately after the war in 70, and about the whole first century, and the book of Justus of Tiberias who wrote a history of Galilea around 60, and on which we still have a written comment, also give important information. Two historians from first century Judea and Galilea, and there is NO JESUS in their books. Which can only mean that there was no Jesus. Certainly not in Galilea. We can skip the whole Jesus of Nazareth business, whether 1st century Nazareth can be found or not, because Nazareth has nothing to do with it. The gospel stories were made-up. All of them. I cannot help it.
Maybe it is helpfull if I tell you what else Irenaeus came up with in 185: apart from “our” four gospels, he had the Acts of the Apostles, the 10 letters of Paul as presented to us, 4 new letters of Paul nobody had ever heard of before (the pastoral letters, so-called written from prison in Rome and Hebrews), the letter John 1, a letter of Peter, and the book of Revelation. 21 Books, at that moment the whole new testament (it later came to 27 books). Everything important was there. Where did it all come from so suddenly?
Since it is a generally known fact (just look in the 2d century) that the church had no papers at all in 145, except their own scripture which was the old testament, everything must have been “arranged” between 150 and 185 by the church of rome in the person of Irenaeus. Irenaeus then brought everything to Rome, the so-called Canon was opened in 200, the four gospels and the Acts as brought by Irenaeus went in, and never went out again. Et voila, there was the roman catholic church (the word catholic also comes from Irenaeus).
Before that the church was JEWISH (!!!!!!) and their scripture the old testament. A special kind of jews who did not keep the jewish Law and would be seen as apostates by orthodox jews. But still jews: they worshipped Jahweh and had the old testament. Maybe also others who believed in the old testament.
I am not 100% sure, but I have not found anything that would mean the church of rome was already christian before that. The story about Peter founding the church of rome is just part of the scam. It was invented in 160, some bones were dug up and brought to the church, they were put in a metal box and buried under the church. And so this was created. It is all a hoax.
The people presented as belonging to the church from before did not exist. Clemens and Ignatius of Antioch did not exist. They were invented by Irenaeus, who of course wrote their stories and papers. Polycarp did exist but the letter is by Irenaeus. Polycarp came from Paul. In that way the so-called apostolic fathers were created to bridge the gap between the fake Acts and the church. Irenaeus was busy all the time, but if you read enough of him you come to recognize his writing-style. He loved martyr-stories and so he created them. He also loved miracles.

Why do I tell that all? Because the whole world is deceived by the church of rome. We are all victims of their scam. And they became rich and extremely powerfull with it. They exercised control over the whole population of Europe until 1500. And committed innumerable crimes.
And because we are all lied to by all those “christian” scholars. They withhold information to say the least. Why don’t they tell about  Josephus first book from 70, totally about the first century, and about Justus of Tiberias book, which writers both lived there in the 1st century?  It would show that they did not notice any Jesus, least of all from Nazareth. I am afraid this means that there was no Jesus. So the information is withheld by them. Suppose we find it out, that there was no Jesus observed by jewish writers from the 1st century. Christian scholars won’t have that. But the internet is there: you can look it up for yourself.
And then: why is it not told that the four gospels appeared for the first time in 185, by Irenaeus, and were not known before? Who put the current names on them? Irenaeus, that is clear from his book. Who makes all 4 writers appear in the Acts? Irenaeus. It is all on the internet. Not difficult to find. If people cared to take their face out of the bible. It is not IN the bible that you will find any answers. They are either not telling on purpose, or they don’t know themselves. Which is the utmost stupidity: not knowing WHEN the gospels appeared (and by whom and why). Simply assuming they are from the 1st century without  evidence. Is this by accident? I have no words for it.
So we have now two jewish historians who actually lived there in the 1st century who did not observe any Jesus. We have Philo. And then 4 gospels, and the rest of the new testament, from 185.
Then christianity is built around the so-called resurrection. Where does this resurrection come from? It comes from the gospels, which are from 185. Well that is a long time after it alledgedly happened. Time enough to rewrite and forge any documents there might have been. Or to simply make it up.
From 155 on Irenaeus is going to do it. I have seen him being called the EDITOR. Even the REDACTOR. It is about removing things from texts, adding things, writing in other people’s texts, changing texts, making everything fit together a.s.o. I call someone like that a FORGER. And he is a very professional forger, nobody has noticed anything. Everything fits. Everything is supported some place else. An enormous undertaking, which demands a complete overview of all the texts, an incredible memory, and a high intelligence and motivation. Irenaeus was undoubtedly a genius. All his papers still stand as the official NT. Some have been found out to be fiction, but nobody has any idea that it is all the work of one man. He could write in different styles, adapt to other authors. And he was very good at moving pieces of text into another text. As we can see in the gospels. So Irenaeus was a genius, but an evil genius. Because the whole NT consists of lies, of made-up stories. It is one big scam. It is accompanied by a book of 800 pages introducing everything, writing against gnostics, setting up in detail the catholic church, writing a creed, and supplying the theology, which is also still there today. Even the trinity is already suggested. The church implemented it all, and it stayed the same now for 1800 years. Which makes every believer in fact not a believer of Jesus, but actually a believer of Irenaeus, since he wrote and forged it all.
His most usefull invention was and still is the “apostolic authority”: Jesus himself gave his authority to the apostles, who went then over the world and founded the churches, which they led. When they were old they passed over their authority to their successors, the bishops, which did this again to their successors. In this way all the bishops of the catholic church derive their authority directly from the apostles, and thus from Jesus Christ himself. And so the pope can call himself “the vicar of Christ”. Can anyone get any higher? No, nobody can. Again a very good idea by Irenaeus. The catholic church has got the highest authority of all the christian churches, sects and heresies.

Before I will tell you what happened, I have a new problem, which is the word “christ”. Jesus is easy, it comes from the greek iesous, which seems to be a translation from the aramaic Yeshua. But what does “christos” mean? You can search long for it but you will not find it. I have seen it used constantly together with “messiah” as being the same. That is not true, that is a lie: Paul was the first to use christ. Are they all telling me now that Paul was preaching a Jesus the messiah? They can all not be more wrong than that!!!
1. the greek language has a word for messiah, and they have also a word for anointed one, and both is NOT christos.
2. What is the use of preaching a jewish messiah to people in Turkey and Greece? It is something typically jewish. There is no use.
3. A messiah is a HUMAN BEING, not a son of god. Paul says: Jesus Christ is the son of god. Paul does NOT mean messiah.
4. A messiah = anointed one is a king, sometimes a highpriest or a prophet. Mostly a king. (I looked this up at least 10 times to be sure). It has no other meaning. Since the country is occupied by the romans, any messiah (there can be more of them) must first remove the romans out of the country before he can become king. A messiah is therefore the leader of an armed rebellion against the romans, who after the romans are conquered, becomes king. And that is it.
Is Jesus a messiah? Not at all. Jesus is the opposite of a messiah. He preaches rules for peace. Even: love your enemies, turn the other cheek. He is a pacifist. A messiah is an armed warrior against the romans. Anybody who knows what Jesus is saying, must know that he is not a messiah, and therefore actually can not be crucified as “king of the jews”. Only if Pilatus was retarded, which he was not.
5. Take notice of the jewish rule: a dead messiah is not a messiah at all.
Howcome the catholic church is saying that Jesus was the messiah? He did not do at all what a messiah is supposed to do. He was no messiah. We are all being manipulated by Irenaeus and the catholic church into believing he was. I never believed it because I knew that it was something typically jewish. So why did they do it, except for harassing the jews, robbing them of their messiah? It is the reason for the hoax that Jesus will be coming back, to do his messiah jobs. You see, the scam is everywhere.

So, what on earth are “jewish christians”? The word christ comes from Paul, and so is used in Turkey and Greece. Not in judea of course because it is a greek word. Since jesus christ is the son of god according to Paul, there are no jewish christians, since the jews don’t have a “son of god”. EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THIS. This is very important: any talk about a son of god cannot come from judea. If you would want to try, you get stoned. So slowly the total fake of the Acts becomes visible, and the manipulation in the gospels. It is not for nothing that Paul at the start of his mission gets immediately into conflict with the jews he comes from from Jerusalem. (letter to the Galatians). The term christians comes from Paul, from the west of Turkey, not from Judea. Paul is the founder of christianity.
The term jewish christians is used by dumb people, who think that christianity, about the son of god,  started in the year 30 in Jerusalem and spread from there, as the gospels say. It absolutely did not. Of course I know we are all directed in that direction by the Acts, but the Acts are fake. Which is easy to see if you compare them with the real Paul, from his letters. They are not the same persons at all. Therefore I suggest that we pull out the Acts and see what we have left. And everybody should of course use his own brain. You only need very little knowledge of judaism (like they have one god only) to understand that the son of god-idea does not come from them. For most if not all writers it is too much trouble to think about that. So they go on and on about jewish christians who were not there. They are absolutely worthless. And in this way nothing gets solved ever.
There are more blatant lies but I will keep it at this for now. Jesus is NOT a messiah, and there are NO jewish christians. It starts with Paul in Turkey. What I don’t understand is that nobody has noticed that before. All believers I guess. Well you cannot be a bible-believer and an objective scholar at the same time.
I can tell you more about what Jesus was not. This last century it was decided by the majority, including Bart Ehrman of course, that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. I just suppose that “apocalyptic” means “the end of the world”. He was thus announcing the end of the world. I can put everybody’s mind at ease: HE WAS NOT. This all comes from Irenaeus manipulation of “the kingdom of god”. In Mathew he even calls it the “kingdom of heaven”, which is real catholic.
It is quite difficult to find, but the kingdom of god is actually a jewish fantasy, in which Jahweh will change the world for them. If you want to be heard there, you ‘d better talk about it. The kingdom of god will take place ON THE EARTH. Jews have no “end of the world”. The world is all they have. They have no heaven except it is the place where Jahweh lives. They have no hell either. You just die and go to “sheol” which is some sort of underworld, as the greeks have with hades. There is thus nothing apocalyptic about Jesus at all. You are all being conned again, especially in Mark and Mathew and in revelation of course. The “scholars” simply don’t know what the kingdom of god means, which is a big shame.

I will try to tell you what happened. It has nothing to do with the official story that after Jesus death and resurrection christianity started in judea. Peter went to Rome and founded the church there. After that everything went wonderful and it spread quickly. They were persecuted by the roman emperors so there were many martyrs. They were recognized by the emperor Constantine. Except for Constantine these are all lies.
The real history is totally different. This is hard to find because “by coincidence” all the orhodox papers survived, while all the others did not. So it looks as though there was nobody else. This produces the biggest bias ever, everybody going out from catholic papers. So you cannot find a page on internet where it is all declared. You have to search and search and read everything you can find. I did this for three years, day and night.
I had an open mind, I just wanted to know what was going on, as so many people do. It could be anything as far as I was concerned. I am not religious anymore (I was raised a roman catholic myself), but always interested and I have a soft spot for Jesus (who doesn’t?). Though despite forgeries nothing points to his real existence, I wanted to know where the story then came from. And of course you might never know who you find.
I did what almost nobody does: I took the years 0 to 200. Everybody interested should do that. The so-called scholars with all their PhD’s and all their terrible arrogance do not do that. They are all so NT-minded that they think the world ends in 100. Anybody thinking he is an historian should look further, and before. By sticking to 100 you cannot find anything.
Then I can tell you fom experience that you will get nowhere if you don’t study judaism and jewish history. Then you have to study gnosticism. And you have to study the mystery religions. Otherwise you will not find it. The “scholars” of course don’t. That is why they don’t find anything. And never will. You can read dozens of books and articles by writers who have not got a clue about the jewish religion. They don’t know what messiah means, or the kingdom of god. You can look this up. They don’t. They think they know everything beforehand.
I found out that a lot of good research was done in the 19th century. Was it going to fast? Albert Schweitzer, physician and protestant theologian, stepped in and started “the search for the historical Jesus”. Many books followed, nothing interesting came out. But it had held up research. After that we came to the phase where we are still in right now. All the research from before was forgotten, and everything started anew. Nobody knew anything. This goes on now for about 100 years and they all still know nothing. 100 Years thrown away, with big bragging about PhD’s and about who is the biggest expert in the field.
If you want my opinion: nobody knows anything. I believe the biggest news is that Mark was written before Mathew, and is therefore the first gospel. But this is only interesting if the gospels in the NT are in the right chronological order of course. I found out that they are not. Since when is anything in the NT in chronological order? Nothing is. So their big discovery and all the attention for Mark, only makes Mark the THIRD gospel, and Mathew the FOURTH. Luke is never counted and John is too different. Still they are one and two.
Sometimes there are new scholars, who discover interesting things, ask interesting questions, look at other things than the rest. I find this very refreshing. These people are immediately attacked by the “regular” scholars, never on what they exactly have written, but on their person. This is so disgusting I have no words for it. They arrogantly burn these people down to the ground, especially if they do not have a PhD, or not the right one. They do not let anyone in their circle. The way is closed. I want to mention as their victims Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, who write wonderfully, are intelligent and have learned me a lot. And Dorothy Murdock (now deceased) who compared religions. She was intelligent, had an incredible amount of knowledge, and she wrote that good that after one time reading you understood everything immediately. Just a pleasure to read!!!!! (She has a large website still). Although she is dead, she is still being put down to this day. They are doubting her “credentials”. What do you think about that?

I will be going to tell you what I found. You are going to meet: 1. the Ebionites, 2. Paul, 3. Marcion, 4. the church of rome in the person of Irenaeus. I will try to keep it as simple as possible.
I am proud on how I discovered that the Ebionites (so-called jewish christians) are the source of everything. Go back to the first writing we have: the first letter of Paul, to the Galatians. Not long after starting his mission Paul is being followed by the “men from James” who are circumcising people after Paul is gone. Paul is furious.
Who are these people? Everybody will say: the apostles. No they are not. They are just an organisation who like to call their messengers: apostles (which is OT-language for messengers). (Our 12 apostles are fake, the name is taken from Paul’s letters). These people are just the people in Jerusalem where Paul comes from as an apostle himself. They are jews and logically speaking they have a message for other jews. The gentiles Paul speaks about are not greeks, but jews living abroad. For other members they insist on circumcision, becoming jewish. This means the message is jewish, and they stand in their right. But a jewish message by definition CANNOT BE about a son of god, which would be the biggest blasphemy ever. Jews do not have a son of god of course. About who they want to talk we do not know, but it is a human being.
But Paul, apart from not circumcising, which means he is not jewish, is also preaching THEIR Jesus as the son of god, which again means he is not jewish. Paul has stolen Jesus from them for his own purposes. They hate Paul. At home they reject Paul. Paul himself, in his letter, tells them to put their circumcision more or less up their ass, and why not their whole Law too while we are at it. No jew would ever talk like that about judaism. For the third time and very obvious: Paul is NOT a jew. Paul never goes back to Jerusalem: his second visit there is a forgery, has been found out.
So Paul has deceived a group of people into naming him their apostle, and has stolen their HUMAN Jesus and turned him into the son of god. Now I step over to the book of Irenaeus from 185. Irenaeus has been traveling widely, probably from 155 on, to investigate what exactly is going on in the east. He can read, so what is he looking for? For the group Paul comes from of course. In the book he presents about 25 gnostic groups,  what they say and what he has against them. In the middle of them he names a group, which is jewish, the ONLY jewish group. They live in judea, they worship Jahweh alone and keep the Law. Then: they reject Paul (this is a big hint). And: they have a human Jesus (another big hint). It is the group where Paul comes from!!!!! Why didn’t Irenaeus shut up? Everybody could find it out!!! But nobody did. Maybe he knew that. No, the main reason is that he is going to abuse them.
Irenaeus calls them the EBIONITES. This is a false name, so that nobody ever finds out who they are exactly: the original people where the original Jesus-story comes from. NOT Jesus Christ, just Jesus. What do you all think of that? The original Jesus has been found!!!!
That it was all about the Ebionites became obvious after 1965, when the catholic church released a book about eastern heresies, which they had confiscated in 380. From the time of the roman empire to the time of the Beatles. There had to be something very important in it. The only group that meant anything to us were the Ebionites, because Irenaeus had written about them in 185. These Ebionites were different: they, or a group of them, called themselves THE POOR, and their Jesus was a PROPHET. We had been not allowed to know that of course, because the Poor gives again a connection with Paul, and a prophet is not the son of god. Suppose we would find out that the original jewish Jesus was a prophet!!!! And Paul is always collecting money for the poor in Jerusalem, which should just be printed with a capital P, becoming the Poor, in Jerusalem, the group he was an apostle for. (Any other suggestion in Paul’s letters of poor people is forgery).
The “scholars” did not get it. They declared the writer from 380 unreliable, in fact not knowing what he was talking about. They did of course. They must be catholic. I myself see here the proof of the enormous conspiracy we are facing. The original Jesus of the Poor was a prophet. Irenaeus visited them, found out everything, and hid their name and the function of their humanly born Jesus in his book. It must therefore be Irenaeus who ordered the church that nothing else was to become known about them. The church obeyed and confiscated the book with them in it in 380. And THAT IS A CONSPIRACY, a very longterm conspiracy. If the church knows what it is about, as I suppose they do, then they are hiding the true and original identity of Jesus, who was a human being, a prophet, since 185 when the 4 gospels appeared.
The catholic religion is based on the resurrection of Jesus, as described in the gospels where it is written: He has risen. I am so sorry but these gospels appear in 185 and were never mentioned before. The (forged) letters of Paul also come from Irenaeus. And it might be news, although it is just a question of good reading, but Paul never writes “he has risen”. I can simply not believe that no-one has ever seen that. It is the first thing that pops out when you start reading. Can someone tell me what has been going on here? Since when is “he was raised from the dead by his father”(Paul) the same as “he has risen”(gospels)???  So, the resurrection is from 185. That should say enough to everybody.

It was of course almost impossible to find something about the Poor or the Ebonites. After a long search I found information in a (furthermore good) encyclopedia. After the war in 70 the Poor started. They were a reform movement within Judaism. They wanted change. To begin with they wanted longlasting PEACE, which is quite understandable. And they wanted to stand up for “the poor”. Not only the poor, but everyone who was put outside the society and ignored, as the sick and the handicapped and people who worked for the romans like tax-collectors. Because if there was something wrong with you, even only being poor, you were called a sinner, because your condition was a punishment from Jahweh for your sins. As a sinner you were considered “unclean” and you were avoided: nobody would speak to you, nobody would touch you, you were not allowed in houses and certainly not to sit at the table with other jews, you were not allowed to enter the temple etc. (such nice people, jews).
To join the Poor, you had to sell your possessions and give the money to the community, and everybody would live of that, to enable the “poor” to join. They were vegetarians. And living according to their own peace-rules.
To make their ideas known they wrote a story, about a TRUE PROPHET, called Jesus, who was going around talking to people and saying wise things, some sort of lecturing. He also was the “prophet like Moses”, predicted by Moses, who was giving the second Law. These were the peace-regulations like: love your enemies, turn the other cheeck, forgiving people etc. It was the second Law, for in the kingdom of god, so for the future. But the Poor were already going to live according to it, and you were invited to join them.
So why was he a TRUE prophet? Well, in the time of Pilatus he had predicted the destruction of the temple and the fall of Jerusalem, and because this had just happened in 70, he was a TRUE prophet. His prediction had come out. Therefore the story was written after 70, which was not hidden, but placed in the year 30. Very simple. And why the year 30? Because that is exactly 40 years before 70 of course. With the jews 40 is a holy number. And 40 is also seen as a generation, which in principle means that nobody remembers it anymore. Which is necessary if you invent a story.
And that’s it. That is Jesus. It is a story written by the Poor about a true prophet. An invented story to spread their ideas for change. We call it a gospel. We have one gospel that looks like this. I reread it and it fits. In this gospel Jesus is called 4 or 5 times a “prophet”. And the good news is not his coming to earth, but the coming of the kingdom of god. It is the only gospel that partly fits the description of the story of the Poor, which is the ONLY gospel of course. All the rest is fake.
At the end of the story he gets arrested and executed. Which is not that strange. People who want a big change, and speak that out in public, are generally not liked at all by the authorities, then as well as now. Especially as the Poor also abolished the prophets except Moses and Jesus. Which he had also been telling out loud. But after a few days Jahweh raises him from the dead, and takes him up to heaven. Both things are normal for jews because they occur in the old testament, which they see as true. End of the story.
Good story. Beautifully written. Too bad what happened to it. So no, Jesus did not exist. It is an invented story by the Poor, written in 72 or 73. It was then that Jesus was “born”. There was nothing in the year 0, and nothing in the year 30. It started after the war (70). Please don’t think that Irenaeus did not know that. Irenaeus knew everything!!!! He was the only one. And his co-workers in rome of course.
How did he make Ebionites from the Poor? The Poor in hebrew was Evyonim/Ebionim, which was their hebrew name. He simply made from Ebionim, Ebionites. A fantastic success because nobody knew hebrew. It has still not been found out, although I have now read about it three times. Ebionim has to be translated by the Poor, like Paul did. Ebionim comes from the old testament. It means the poor, the needy, and the people whose rights have been taken away, and who Jahweh promises to help. Irenaeus knew them (he had an interpreter with him of course) and hid them under Ebionites. Together with their starting in 70, which was made known, they played no role anymore. Because it all “truly happened” in 30 according to the church since 185.
I had allready read in a french (!!!) book from 1756 that the Ebionites were no christians, but that they were jews, wanting to reform judaism. This information was therefore allready known in 1756.

I come to Paul. I get deadly sick of people who say that Paul did not exist, that his letters were written by some school, etc. Paul was a real person. We have seen that allready because the Poor followed him, and explicitly rejected him. I have found during all my reading diverse descriptions of how he looked like (and not by his enemies). I even saw a mosaic with him on it. Paul is real. Paul was as I said allready NOT a jew. He spoke aramaic, but I don’t know why. Maybe he ran away from a jewish family. Or he had worked there. He was educated.
No I will have to tell you things about Paul, that nobody seems to know, while they are obvious. I read these letters and I did not have any idea what it all was about: vague, subject changing all the time, etc. Very badly written. I read them against my will a second time, this time only looking at his teaching. That was very short and very simple: JC died, JC rose, if you put your faith (= trust) in that, you will get a life after dead yourself.
This main message is clear and that is a mystery religion. No doubt about that. The dying – rising – god, who is a saviour, is the message of all the mystery religions. They were all about life after death. And since Paul also produces a baptism AND a bread and wine ritual, it is the mystery religion of Mithra, which was at that time the largest religion in the eastern part of Turkey. Paul came from Turkey.
The mystery religions were the most popular religions in hellenistic times, from 300 BC (Alexander the Great) to 300 AD (Constantine). There even have been found Mithraic temples in England, one near London, and one near the Hadrianic Wall in the utmost north. I tell this because a lot of biblical “scholars” do not seem to be able to “find” them. They have now been denying any connecton between the mystery religions and Paul for 50 years, and they think they have won. It simply means that they are not able to recognize a mystery religion even when it is spelled out to them. They cannot even find any dying – rising – gods, and the arguments are the utmost stupidity.
So Bart  Ehrman cannot find any god born of a virgin, not knowing of course that the virgin was not there before 185, long after Paul’s death, and as if that has anything to do with a mystery religion. The mystery religions are NOT about some gods LIFE, they start with his DYING. But Ehrman is laughing as if he said something intelligent. And Osiris comes back as the god of the Death Realm, so he must be some sort of ghost. Everything totally wrong. If you want to hear stupidity, you should listen to Ehrman, the “expert” in new testament scholarship, who is writing a lot for common people, through which his ridiculous phantasies spread, which makes him dangerous. His only purpose is to PROVE that Jesus really existed as a human being, and that requires a lot of unsupported idiotic phantasies. He is the biggest fan of Jesus real existence I know, but he is not a christian anymore, he says, so he does it for fun. He simply invents things himself (I can give many examples) and then shouts them happily around, as if he has found something. Well he found something allright, in his head.
So I will have to explain what a mystery religion is. I just want to say that everything I say can be found on the internet if you search long and hard. Never be satisfied with one opinion, there can always be found more. Look at 10 opinions or 20. Look for details or for things you never heard before, and search on there. As long as you think that everything about christianity happened in the first century (the Irenaeus-church scam), you will find nothing. As long as you go out from the gospels, also so-called from the first century (stupidity), you will also discover nothing. The story created by the Poor between 71 and 75 is everything there can be found from the 1st century. Christianity is from the 2nd century. Every mentioning of it in the 1st century is a forgery to make it look real. I personally did not see anything as stupid as placing the 4 gospels in the 1st century, with Mark first. Everybody who follows that implicitly believes that Jesus was alive at 30. Dumb. But we have nothing else I see people writing. Yes we do, but you are in the WRONG CENTURY.
The mystery religions are about a dying – rising – god, who is a saviour. What is a dying – rising – god? After humanity became sort of civilized (out of primitive) they went over to more civilized religion also. Civilized religion is about NATURE GODS, mostly polytheistic. This happened of course at different times in different countries. The Egyptians were already there at the moment we learn about them, 3.000 BC. The most important god in Egypt, and for that matter over the whole civilized world, is the dying – rising -god. There are still ancient temples over the whole world for it, a very famous one in Cambodja, one in the south of the USA built by indians, and two very ancient ones in Ireland and on Malta, both from 3.500 BC. (Was the world already created then?).
Is the dying – rising – god already found? Which most important god is dying and three days later rising again? The dying is on 22 december, and the rising is on 25 december. IT IS THE SUN GOD, because the sun is dying on 22 december (its lowest point) and rising on 25 december (one degree going up again). Of course you have to be civilized to have astronomers who study the sun, the moon, the stars and the planets. And of course the sun god is the most important god, because we can all live without a trinity, or without Jahweh or Allah for as long as we want, but we cannot survive a single day without the sun. If the sun disappears we all disappear. Everything is dependent upon the sun. Very well observed around the world. I wished the sun religion had stayed, it is not agressive and the feasts would be the same. The (re)birth of the sun was celebrated on 25 december. The most important feast was on 21 march, the spring-equinox, when the day and the night had the same length and the days were going to get longer. Then was celebrated the conquering of life over death, of light over darkness, of good over evil. It looks a lot like someone in the beginning of christianity knew about this.
So, what do the mystery religion gods have in common? Mithra, Osiris, Attis and Dionysos? Very good: they are (former) sun gods. And every sun god is by definition dying and rising. And that is why Mithra is in a mystery religion: he is the PERSIAN SUN GOD. Very simple. Dying – rising – gods are always sun gods. If you cannot figure this out not even in 50 years (Bart Ehrman and the rest with him), how high do you think yourself that your IQ is? Is this not totally ridiculous that so-called scholars have never heard about sun gods and the sun religion? They could not find it in the bible so it does not exist? They only looked at judea and galilea and Egypt was to far away? They could not read about it, for this is all longtime known. I declare these people incredibly stupid.
And yes, in a way Jesus (the prophet from the Poor) became some sort of sun god, because Paul put him in the mystery religion of Mithra. He became a dying – rising – god. And a saviour: if you trusted this you would get life after death (spiritual life of course). A short, simple and very attractive message. Now this “life after death” is gnostic. I could never have found that on my own. There was another researcher on youtube who found that out: a very intelligent and very fast moving scholar, who I still thank for his efforts. It looks like the mystery religions were sun religions combined with gnosticism. These sort of combinations happened a lot in hellenistic times. It is called syncretism. This happened when people were still free to choose and to change. It means Paul was a gnostic.
What is a gnostic? First, it is not what they called themselves. The word comes from Irenaeus and suggests something which is not true (of course). Gnosis means knowledge, but in the sense of self-knowledge and self-awareness, like at Delphi was written: “gnothi seauton”, know yourself. So I don’t know what they called themselves.
Second, it is a religion. After the nature religions there came two people who thought out a religion by themselves. The first was Zarathustra, a persian priest. We don’t know when. There is a 6th century BC story, but it may be much older. Zarathustraism spread and it became the persian state-religion around 500 BC. There was only one god, in the universe, who was a creator god. This was completely new in the world. (The OT was written later and the jews were not known yet). The second one was Plato, around 380 BC. He also came up with one god in the universe, an abstract god made of light, meant to be a universal god. He was called: god the father. This god had children who came out of him, who could move around. The two most important were: the Logos (firstborn son) who was there from the beginning, and Sophia (wisdom) a daughter, aka the Holy Spirit.
Just in case people think that god the father, JC the son who was there from the beginning, and the holy spirit have anything to do with judaism or with the church, they don’t. They come from Plato, it is what WE call gnosticism. Now look in the letters of Paul, and you will see immediately that Paul is a gnostic. He put JC in the place of the Logos. (I must always laugh when scholars are wondering how it is possibe that Paul has such a “high christology”. That is because he is a gnostic.) Paul’s god the father is thus NOT Jahweh. Irenaeus put Paul’s “god the father” in the creed. So our “trinity” is gnostic to start with. Irenaeus took it over from Paul.
So-called gnosticism (from Plato) became popular in Greece and it moved into Asia with the armies of Alexander the Great. In the centuries after it spread everywhere. Combining with the sun religion for instance. The reason that we don’t know that, is that gnosticism is not centrally organized, with temples or bishops. It functions in schools or in communities, or in monasteries, with a teacher. Apart from the main beliefs, differences are possible. All I know is that men and women are equal (very important for me). Women also preach, administer sacraments etc. There are differences between gnosticism in Egypt and the gnosticism of Paul in Turkey. Paul is more into basic gnosticism.
So now at least nobody has to question anymore where gnosticism “so suddenly” came from. Or if the jews invented it themselves. Gnosticism WAS THERE since 300 BC. Everywhere, also in judea, without them recognizing it as such. I don’t know when, but the Logos became very popular in many places.
So Paul was a member of the mystery religion of Mithra. He’d have to be to get his knowledge because the mystery religions were secret. He then wanted to start a mystery religion of his own, but this time not only for men and secret, but for everybody and totally in the open. Some sort of a universal mystery religion. But he did not have his own dying – rising – god. Until he heard the Jesus story of the Poor and he got his revelation: “god revealed his son in me”. Meaning: he got an idea. This Jesus died and rose again, and therefore could be used in his mystery religion. So when he was ready preparing he went to Jerusalem to visit Kephas (Peter is a forgery). After 15 days pretending to be jewish and supporting their ideas, he was accepted as their apostle, and he left, never to return of course. Because he had deceived them and had taken their Jesus from them. Alas for him, but luckily for us, the Poor followed him, but he wanted to have nothing to do with them. He did not care that he had stolen their prophet from them. That is how christianity started, because the name Jesus Christ comes from Paul (and christ definitely not means messiah).
So that is why Paul never talks about Jesus (paper) life, and never quotes him. Nobody understands that. That is because it is a mystery religion which always starts with death. And for Paul Jesus is also NOT a human being, but a (mystery religion) GOD. He is spreading a new religion with a NEW GOD. Everything in the letters that speaks otherwise, is forgery by Irenaeus. And since nobody is interested in mystery religions, the enigma is still there. While by seeing that Paul starts with Jesus’ death it is possibe to identify the mystery religion.
So Paul goes to work, first in the west part of Turkey and later also in Greece. And quite successfully. A lot of his letters are written to Greece, because he cannot travel there all the time of course, and he is living in Turkey. Since the original story was definitely written between 71 and 75 by the Poor, I will have to guess when Paul visited there. I say the year 90, maybe 95.
This changes the content of the new testament completely, I cannot help it. There was still ONE gospel then. I guess Paul was preaching until about 120. (Many people say the letters of Paul are from the second century). There is nothing known about his death, so I think he died peacefully somewhere in Turkey. His 10 letters are in principle real, all of them. There is talk about one getting lost, and being replaced. I do not get at all “scholars” deciding what is real and what not. These “big 4” promoted at  one time, that was so stupid. These letters selected are the MOST FORGED of all the letters. Scholarship moves on in this case. Although everything is very heavily forged (there is talk of 30%!!!!!) which has made Paul unrecognizable on purpose (making him a jew), I would still ask for some respect for Paul. After all he is the only real and existing person in the whole new testament, and therefore I don’t like it when he is ridiculed, or even his existence is denied.
I myself have found many forgeries in Paul. When you know what he is preaching exactly you will find many things he simply could not have said. For a start everything which points to his alleged jewishness can be removed: it is forgery. Everything pointing to Jesus’ humanity should be taken out. Him refering to the OT must be taken out. Anything refering to Adam must be taken out (that is Irenaeus’ hobby). It has been found out that all the nasty things about homosexuals, women, etc. are not by Paul, but by Irenaeus. And things like: there is blood on the cross, the jews killed him, and he died for our sins, are definitely not by Paul, because Paul’s Jesus is a god. Irenaeus was saying that and he placed it in Paul. In case people don’t get it “the brother of the lord” and “Peter” are also forgeries by Irenaeus. So I give a small begin in rehabilitating Paul.
So there is a lot of work to do, if somebody wants to know what Paul realy said and what not. It will make the letters a lot more readable, because it is all the forgeries that make it so difficult to read and so unclear. That the letters of Paul in the NT are not at all the letters as they were brought to rome, in the right order, is well known. Irenaeus forged them and made them much larger. He said the letters received had been mutilated by Marcion, but since they had them already he now gave the real ones (meaning the forged ones). This is all lies. The letters of Paul were new to them. Irenaeus is always only lying, but has been believed now for 1800 years. Like I said before: he is a master-forger. Without his fraud and forgery and lying there would not have been any catholic church at all. The original letters of Paul are gone forever. They are trying to retrieve them (from Tertullianus?) but they are forgeries, different forgeries, which only make things worse. A trap from Irenaeus for us. He was thinking about the future. The real ones he destroyed.
So people who look difficult when someone says “interpolation”, they all should think again. It is very well known that christians are actually forgers. All the church-fathers are lying, not because I say so, but because they say so themselves. They all say that lying is permitted, as long as it is for the “building-up of the church”. So nobody should have to look strange if the new testament is not what they thought it was. It appeared in 185, and no year sooner, after it had been written and forged by Irenaeus for 25 years. Irenaeus wrote the pastoral letters for obvious reasons. At least it has been found out that they are not by Paul. Everybody should be prepared to accept massive fake and forgery.
So around the death of Paul, around 120, there still was only ONE gospel, the gospel of the Poor. Who was Paul? To start with he was a thief: he deceived the Poor and stole their Jesus the prophet, and made him into a god. He didn’t care about them at all. It can be that in those days such behaviour was more normal than now. He could have thought that they would never find out what he was doing in Turkey. The apostleship was necessary so that he could refer back to the Poor, if he was accused of inventing it himself (smart). And yes, he was accepted as an apostle by Kephas. He even might have known that it was just a story, making stealing easy.
In the spreading of his gnostic mystery religion he was genuine. He meant what he said and he tried very hard. He wanted as many converts as possible. Although he must have known every time he said or wrote Jesus, that he had stolen the character from the Poor. Somehow he made him in his mind his own character. I think Paul was a lonely person, because of how he looked. He was extremely small, which is why everybody always had called him Paulos. Paulos is greek for “small”. He even started to call himself Paulos, which made things possibly easier. He also had a bent back, or crooked legs. Then he also had red hair and was early balding. His skin was so fair that he got burned incredibly in the summer, his face getting redder than his hair. He had blue eyes. I wouldn’t call that a typical jewish appearance, would you? The protestants always say that he was ugly.
I think part of this hard working for a new religion was that it permitted him to get to know a lot of people, to have an important purpose in life, to be somebody. He now had a reason to simply walk up to people and start talking to them. He became somebody, he became an important man, well liked, everywhere wellcome. He was the FOUNDER OF A NEW RELIGION, which should become large. He would be remembered. Of course I am speculating.
Well, he was remembered, but not in the way he wanted. His letters were forged beyond recognition before being put in the NT. The result is that still nobody knows who he was and what he wanted. Some people even deny his existence, or ridiculize him. He has been accused of anything you can think of. And a fake personality has been created of him by Irenaeus in the Acts. His religion was destroyed. I do not think that that was what he had imagined. He spread a new gnostic mystery religion. Gnosticism was just a religion, different from judaism. They had an other god, which was the reason that they were destroyed, after the  church had stolen from them, pretending it to be catholic. Leave this all to Irenaeus.
PAUL was the inventor and founder and father of GNOSTIC CHRISTIANITY, which started around 90. (The Poor starting in 75). That is a 100 years before the catholic church started. So who was first actually? Gnostic christianity from Paul was. And by the way everything so-called written before 120 was NOT WRITTEN then at all. It could not have been of course, because Jesus was the STORY from the Poor, in judea.

So, in 120, how about the church of rome? What about it? It was there already longtime and it was JEWISH. A kind of special jews who did not keep the jewish Law. So they looked and acted rather normal. But jews: they worshipped Jahweh and their scripture was the old testament. (You can look this up). But what about Peter founding the church of rome?That? That is a lie they keep up until today of course. That was a phantasy story, invented in 160 by the really first bishop of rome. Take your head out of the NT and look into REAL history is all I can say. Not even the catholic church itself denies that they dug up “HIS” bones in 160!!! Interesting! This is all part of the big Irenaeus SCAM of course! But this was not good enough. The church goes against its own scripture (Acts, where he is in 50 still in Jerusalem) and places Peter’s founding of the church in 43!!! And he was bishop for 25 years! In reality the first bishops appeared in the 2nd century, around maybe 130. So the catholic church is lying about its origins, it is as simple as that. But I learned allready that everything was allowed if it was for the building-up of the church. I wonder what more they are lying about……

So we come to MARCION visiting the church of rome in 145. I think this date is wrong on purpose and it should be more like 125. Marcion came from the north of Turkey to speak to the presbyters (no bishop yet!). He brought with him the original 10 letters of Paul, and a gospel called the “gospel of the Lord”. It was his canon, his new testament so to speak.
Marcion had a message: from his gospel it was clear that the jewish Jesus  could not be the son of Jahweh (he showed this with comparisons between the gospel Jesus and the old testamentic Jahweh) and that Jesus Christ therefore was the son of an OTHER GOD, who manifested himself through Jesus. This other god was also HIGHER than Jahweh. He was the good god.
Any idea how the jews and other Jahweh-worshippers of the church looked, who had only the old testament as scripture? There was no OTHER god than Jahweh according to them. And higher? They threw Marcion out of the church. He was declared a heretic, a heretic of the OLD testament!!! And – important – they did NOT give his papers back. Now THEY were in possession of the letters of Paul and the gospel of the Lord.
This seemingly small story is the most important happening, that caused the origin of the catholic church. As any honest writer will tell you: the first new testament is by Marcion 145, the second new testament is by Irenaeus 185. So all the “scholars” and others who think that everything was ready in the year 100, and the church was founded by Peter in 43, they are completely 100% wrong. They do not look further than the NT or other catholic (fake) writings. They must be all christians themselves. Otherwise it is inexcusable. Of course christians never refer to Marcion, I myself had never heard of him, but he is one of the most important figures of the 2nd century.
The church read the papers, saw that Marcion and Paul were gnostic (at least then they knew what was what) and put them aside. Until a certain moment. Around 155 it was enough. Justin Martyr was in rome, a self-appointed philosopher from samaria who had started his own school of philosophy. He was also a christian and very loud about it too. I read what I could find from him and I think he was crazy. He is known as the first “christian apologist”. It is difficult to place him, because he is combining the old testament (he must have been jewish before), with Paul’s christianity, and the story from the Poor as far as I can discover, thinking that Jesus was real. The church knew him of course. Justin personally invented the resurrection of the dead in the flesh, the last judgement, and heaven and HELL. He called hell “eternal burning in the lake of fire”, and immediately started to threaten the roman emperor with it. I always thought hell was something christian. No it isn’t, it is for everybody in the world, Justin decided. He was executed in 165, Irenaeus got his papers in 170 and used them. The by Justin invented last judgement and hell we find afterwards back in the NT. Irenaeus placed it there.
May I remind you all that Justin Martyr was the FIRST writer about christianity at all, in the sense of the church of rome, which took his papers when he was dead. And that the year was 170. And that the second writer was Irenaeus in 185. And that the hoax about Peter founding the church came from 160. Just to give you all an idea about the time of the beginning of the catholic church.
So the church had the 10 letters of Paul, and the gospel of the lord, from Marcion. Then Justin Martyr came in conflict with the mystery religion of Mithra, because he was always out on the streets. There were accusations of plagiarism, which it was (remember Paul). The mystery religions were hundreds of years older. But Justin shouted that they were just telling stories, but that this had really happened, in Jerusalem. By this time the church had enough: they wanted to know what was going on in the east. (Read Justin Martyr).
Furthermore the hated Marcion had begun a church of his own. A church meaning with a building and an organisation. And he was very succesfull too, competing with them. Marcion seems to have been a charismatic person, a real religious person, a practical person and an excellent organizer. The church was strict (you were not allowed to be married) but it flourished. The church of rome wanted to destroy Marcion and his churches.
That is why Irenaeus was sent out to the east. He traveled extensively, visiting every school or community which was gnostic in the east, writing down who they were and what they said (see his book). Of course he looked for the group where Paul came from, and he found them in judea, they called themselves the Poor. Of course he had an interpreter with him. What he discovered there was enough for him to start his job. Should I tell it again? They were the original Jesus-group. They had a written story about a Jesus who was a true prophet. He was also the prophet-like-Moses who brought the second law. He was of course a HUMAN BEING. Irenaeus found out when it was written. It would have been translated for him. Maybe he even got a copy. They hated Paul and he heard why. And he discovered or just knew on what THEY BASED THEIR STORY. Because also THEY based their story on something. I will tell that at the end.
So I want to say that Irenaeus knew EVERYTHING about the origin of Jesus. You must if you want to forge and lie convincingly. Therefore you first must know the truth. I suppose he shared his knowledge with his friends within the church. There had to be planning. They were going to go over the church of Marcion, destroying him in the proces. Forced by the mystery religions in rome (remember Justin) their Jesus had to be a human being (as opposed to Paul’s god.) Irenaeus gladly accepted the task, which of course had to be done in secret. I guess it took him about 25 years, but then of course you had something: a NT with 21 books (!!!) and the catholic church with every aspect of it (including creed and theology).
In fact, that is it. They could start. Actually it is the same catholic church we still have, and the same NT. Only a few small things added through the next centuries. It was all in greek, Irenaeus’ language. And of course nobody came to read it, except people high up in the church. It was only translated in latin around 400. Whatever his name was got an honorary name: Irenaeus, which means “peacebringer”. Depends on what you mean, but for the church he was. Accordingly we find in Mathew: blessed are the peacebringers.
Problem is that it is all lied. It is nothing but fraud, enormous forgeries, phantasy and lies. But it was done in such an intelligent way that it could not be found out. It still hasn’t. Until now. I could not do it, not in 100 years. Irenaeus must have been very intelligent, very accurate, and with an enormous oversight. It was his life-job. Even after delivering, later in Lyon, he kept on writing until his death (AD 202).
I know most of what he did. This really takes a lot of reading, and recognizing things. If I have to explain that all, it will cost me months. I’d rather give examples and explain them, and just name the rest. I’ll give you a hint how to recognize Irenaeus: martyr-stories (Ignatius and Polycarp), miracles (Mark and Mathew), and exaggerations (feeding 5000 people, the deads rising at Jesus’ death) (typical jewish).

To begin with he had the 10 letters of Paul, the gospel of Marcion and the gospel of John (gotten from Turkey during his travels). But of course he had the Septuagint (bad translation of the jewish scriptures), Josephus of course, and the papers of Justin.
It is the general consensus (to use the word) that the church had no papers (except the OT) when Marcion came to visit, officially in 145, I think 125. Everybody agrees that that was the point they got started with their own canon. Now the general christian scholar says that the church simply went to “gather” their gospels, which then took 40 years. A bit long don’t you think? They were simply lying there, waiting to be found.
Bu who says that the church was christian at all? The word christ comes from Paul. The first writer about it was Justin Martyr (in rome 150 – 165) and he was not even a member of the church. Irenaeus was in 185 the second writer of the church, and the first church-father. Try to find christian writings from rome from before 145. I cannot find them. There aren’t any. The letter Clemens 1 was written by Irenaeus, because it popped up anonymously in rome around 165, and Irenaeus named and dated it!!! And I would not consider this letter “christian” at all. So no there is nothing, except one fake letter. I have concluded that the church was not christian at all in 145, just jewish. A christian church without any papers, any gospel?
I found a website from somebody specialising in all those gnostic groups Irenaeus named in his book. He provided a map. Really, I did not know what I was seeing!!!!! There are the Poor (Ebionites) on their own in judea. And almost all the other groups are close together in the west of Turkey!!!! You know what? They were founded by Paul!!! Like I said Paul was a gnostic, and he did more than writing some letters to greece!!! He was founding communities in Turkey, especially in the west. Irenaeus “forgot” to tell WHERE he found them. He compares the Poor with THEM: the original jewish Jesus-group with gnostics from Paul!!!! Now you see he has begun, bringing the Poor down.
So, where were all those gospels? There weren’t any, and if there were they were GNOSTIC. The church had decided to take over Paul’s god the father, JC the son who was there from the beginning (the Logos) and the holy spirit (Sophia) which is all GNOSTIC. So Irenaeus found the gospel of John in Turkey, which was exactly right because the prologue indeed was about “In the beginning was the Logos”. So he acquired it and he took it home. It would prove what they call “the pre-existence of Jesus”. It was indeed called the gospel of John and it was of course a GNOSTIC GOSPEL.
So he started forging. The Logos became the Word, which is a wrong translation. Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were inserted in the prologue. Through a forgery he created PETER. He created Kephas meaning rock (in connection with Paul). Despite “the Word became flesh” this Jesus was a normal person with a spirit inside. This was removed. And so on. How do I know that? From the gospel of John in the Nag Hammadi scriptures, which is older than ours. You can listen at it for yourself on Youtube. Defense of the catholic church? Preventing its mentioning and publication. The owners of the NH scriptures are seemingly open to bribery, or catholics themselves. A MAJOR DISCOVERY LOST, if nobody does something about it. The rest of John was used to fill up the other gospels. I also could not find the big middle part of our John, the I am this and I am that, which disgusts me. Only the I am the water of life, with the samaritan woman at the well, is there. So it could be that the whole rest of it is put there by Irenaeus, which would account for that it is enormously overdone, and not like John, who writes very good.
John is originally a jew, who has turned gnostic and left the country. The jewish gnostics are of course not very fond of judaism. That is why we find 71 times “the jews” in a negative way (other gospels 5 times). But he knows everything about judea, what is where and the customs, which makes it a rather jewish gospel. Gnostic is the fact that Jesus has a few students (he is a teacher), the spirit in the form of a dove, and the fact that Jesus has come to proclaim his father (the gnostic god). John is a writer, he can write a real story which you can follow, totally different from the other gospels. It was written between 110 and 130 I guess. It is the SECOND gospel in time.
How does John know the story? From Paul, who was there around the time. I think that Paul asked John to write a gnostic version. Paul and John have exactly the same message (life after death, which is gnostic). My NT keeps referring to them together, I always wondered what they had to do with each other. Now I know.
John gives some sort of personal artistic impression. The changing of water into wine comes from Dyonisos, who does this at his own wedding. The 153 fish at the end are from an anecdote about Pythagoras. There might be more references to god knows who. John is difficult to forge because of the ongoing story, which would account for the large “I am” part in the middle. The catholic priest who found out that John was “forged by a catholic” was excommunicated and declared a heretic in 1925.

The gospel of John was the first that was ready. Irenaeus had also the gospel of Marcion. To put it simple: he made Luke out of it. Large birth-story at the frontside, fake passion at the end. Marcion begins with: It was in the 15th year of Tiberius. Then the shouting began (remember that Marcion should be destroyed): Marcion had “STOLEN” the gospel of Luke and mutilated it (taken the birth-story of). Throughout his book Irenaeus keeps complaining about Marcion, how he had mistreated the gospel of Luke, blackening Marcion in every way he can. Of course it is the other way around: he has made Luke from Marcion. He put all kinds of extra things in it.
Then he gives it to Tertullianus, his personal disciple, who should write a book about it. Follows a large book called: against Marcion. At this moment there is talk that against Marcion was written in greek. In that case Irenaeus wrote that also, and is Tertullianus only translating in latin. But not only that. The gospel of Marcion has been retrieved already longtime from Tertullianus, so I read it. The general text is beautfull!!!! Very short sentences, very simple and very clear. To be understood by everybody. But it has been FORGED. Don’t expect that Irenaeus gives you the REAL gospel of Marcion. From thursday afternoon, it is completely fake, and very badly written. So now many people think that Luke and Marcion are identical, but they are NOT. I think I can pick out many forgeries, but we will never know how it ends. The real gospel disappeared when the “Marcionites” were persecuted out of existence.
There are many “scholars” who still believe Irenaeus, and say also that Marcion stole Luke, which is complete nonsense, since Marcion brought his gospel himself to rome, long before Luke appeared. But I have also found the birth-story of Luke which was separate, and which was written around 150. So Marcion could not have had it, even if he wanted to.

Getting a little feeling of Irenaeus’ work-method? Forging and lying. So now he had two gospels. John was John, but gnostic, and Luke was derived from Marcion. But they wanted four. Why? Against Marcion of course, because he only had one. So Irenaeus wrote Mark. And after that he wrote Mathew. And the gospels were ready. Mark and Mathew were both written after 170, by Irenaeus. There is Justin in them, available only in 170.
LIke I told allready, Jesus was a story from the Poor. Jesus did not live. He existed only on paper. Irenaeus knew it all.  And that is why there were no gospels about him (except a gnostic one). Nobody writes stories about a story. If you want them, you have to write them yourself. So he did.
Do you want proof? I don’t know where to begin. I found the birth-story of Luke. It comes from the “infancy gospel of James” written in 150, all about the life of the virgin Mary. It is still there. I found the birth-story of Mathew. It is in Justin’s papers, available in 170 (when he died). This proves that Luke and Mathew were not ready before 170. It is what the so-called “divinity” of Jesus rests on. It does NOT come from the Poor, who kept on resisting this story until they died. (I cannot find alas who wrote these birth-stories).
Then in Mark and Mathew we get an explosion of miracles. That is Irenaeus. In Mathew especially we get many references to the OT prophets, which should mean that Jesus was predicted. This is all constructed by Irenaeus, the OT adept from the church. And it is all bullshit of course, very easy to find out. But Jesus had to be glued to the OT, which was the whole meaning of it.
Then in Mathew there are many typical catholic things, which nobody seems to notice. Like staying in the desert for 40 days with the DEVIL. The devil was invented by Justin. Jews do not know any devil. Good and bad BOTH come from Jahweh. That is what you get with ONE god. The word satan, only two times in the whole OT, means something else. So Irenaeus creates the devil in the gospels. I don’t know if you know but religions that also have an evil power, like Zarathustraism, are generally put down as “not really monotheistic” as we, they are called “dualistic”. So christianity is actually also dualistic, im my opinion, as seen by the big role the devil has played in christianity. Recently the pope was again saying that the devil is REAL.
Then we get the threatening with destruction of three whole villages (including baby’s and women and children), because they do not believe in him (I always thought religion was optional). He doesn’t come for peace anymore, but for the sword. He threatens people with hell, also a catholic invention, just for THINKING something (very catholic!!!!). And we get the suggestion of burning people who dare to deviate. Is this the nice prophet Jesus, who is a pacifist???? NO, this is the catholic Jesus, from a conservative, authoritarian jew or greek of the church, called Irenaeus. And all these terrible, invented Jesuses, are in one gospel with the peacefull Jesus. People do not seem to notice.
And about the famous sermon on the mount: through all my reading I was able to find Luke in it, to find the hated Marcion in it directly, and to even find Justin Martyr in it. In other words the sermon on the mount is FAKE, It has been put together of other writings of other writers. And this happened after 170 (Justin’s death). It is by this proven that Mathew was written after 170.
I must say Irenaeus takes a lot of his writing and ideas from Justin Martyr. He is not so much of a writer but a forger, which includes shifting texts from one gospel to another, so that nobody can find out which one was first. And they didn’t. And they still don’t. And that Mark being first hype is ridiculous.
This was point 1 against Marcion: we have four gospels by eye-witnesses and Marcion only has one. And that one he has stolen from us. And our Jesus was predicted in the OT.

Then we come to the 10 letters of Paul Marcion has. They get forged beyond recognition by Irenaeus. This is a fact. Paul is made a totally different person with totally different ideas. There is so much forgery put inside that it will be impossible to find out who Paul was and what he actually said. These are the letters we have today, which were brought in by Irenaeus. Then the shouting started again: Marcion had mutilated the letters of Paul, taking much out which did not fit his theology. While Irenaeus had put things in, scholars who work on that say it is 30%.
That was point 2 against Marcion: Marcion had mutilated the letters of Paul, WE have the real ones. Paul belongs to us.
Then he wrote the so-called pastoral letters to define Paul’s date of dying, to promote Luke as Paul’s best friend, to put women more down, and to make Paul condemn gnosticism. A Luke was only mentioned ONCE in the letters, so even if he existed he was unimportant, and of course long time dead.
Time for the Acts: Irenaeus had to bridge the gap between 30 and 70, the fall of jerusalem, after which the Poor started. It is mostly about the terrific Paul, who is now made into a team-player and firmly under the control of the apostles. Their differences are easily made up. Circumcision and the Law get abolished for gentiles. The Acts are 100% fake, it is all invented and written by Irenaeus, so-called by Luke.
That was point 3 against Marcion: change the hated gnostic Paul into THEIR best apostle, and especially: tearing Paul as far as possible AWAY from Marcion. So Paul was placed back from 90 – 120 to the year 31. Although Marcion had his papers directly from Paul or given to him by someone after Paul’s death. Marcion was the heir of Paul’s papers. I think therefore Marcion was placed forward from 125 to 145.
That was enough. Irenaeus still wrote the letter John 1, a letter of Peter, and heavily forged the so-called book of revelation, which is more forgery than real. He put Justin’s resurrection, judgement and hell at the end. Since then people are afraid of the end of the world and of hell. It is just an idea of fanatical and crazy Justin Martyr.
So, the NT is practically ready. Irenaeus delivered it to rome around 185, the canon was opened in 200, and his four gospels and the Acts went in, and never went out again. The church was ready to start.
On the Poor, who had written the original story in 72, he gave false information. They became the Ebionites, they were jews but he accused them also of gnosticism (impossible, different religions, different gods), he even compared them to other gnostic groups, and their rejection of Paul (big clue) he used to keep them out of the church. Their human Jesus he called “born of Mary and Joseph” and then later he dumped the gospel of Mathew on them (“they take off the birth-story”). By that he made them some sort of christians without the virgin Mary. And they are still seen as so-called jewish christians. By the time this news had reached the Poor they started protesting against the gospel of Mathew, but who was listening? It is still written today that they used the gospel of Mathew only.
Was he done? No, he was not. Because of the mystery religions and Paul who talked about a god, Jesus should become a human being. Marcion’s gospel had a god coming to earth, only looking like a human being. The church was of course heavily against this. It was easy: take the landing on earth out of the gospel of Marcion and you have a human being. And even John with his “and the Logos became flesh” had in fact a human Jesus who received the “spirit in the form of a dove”. So you plant that in all the gospels and you are done: a human being invaded by a divine spirit. Now if I understood it right most gnostic groups had a human Jesus with a divine spirit inside. So what was the difference?
The difference became the birth-stories that Irenaeus had found: the virgin Mary. I have no idea who thought them out. Now he became born as a human being while at the same time being the son of god. Wonderfull, but totally disturbed. Until then a god was a god, and a human being a human being. They could not mix. All the people born from an earthly woman and Zeus in greek mythology, are HUMAN. Born on the earth and living there is HUMAN. To present someone as human and at the same time divine, is impossible, and disturbed. But with it there were now three gospels with some sort of son of god who was also human. Only Mark remained. Irenaeus presented that as follows: this gospel comes from people who think that Jesus has a spirit inside (that is all the other gospels too!!). When they sincerily believe they can still be redeemed of this error. So now it was an error, but never mind. I am sure this was done to lure gnostic christians away to the church. Irenaeus found the gospel of Mark furthermore unimportant.
Now Irenaeus was going to build the authority of the church on the apostles. They were mentioned by Paul, but this were people from the Poor around 90, James and Kephas. In the gospel of Marcion there were no disciples, John had 4 or 5 students. Irenaeus invented the other 7, which then made 12 and put them in all the synoptics. 12 Disciples made 12 apostles. Apostles found churches and name bishops. So the authority of the catholic church derives directly from the apostles, and from Jesus. Nobody can get higher.
There was still a gap in time, so he invented a few persons to suggest that there was a functioning church since the apostles. I allready explained that Irenaeus wrote the letter of Clemens. Clemens does not exist. He wrote the letter of Polycarp, who had existed; only the last six lines or so are by the real Polycarp. Polycarp mentions there letters, and a certain Ignatius. And Ignatius of Antioch was born; thank god I did not have to read those letters because they are anyway by Irenaeus. Ignatius of Antioch did not exist. He was so-called bishop from 60 to 115 (55 years!), so he could just know Polycarp who was from 110 to 160 (50 years!), and he was up-to-date!
The last I found out is that Papias does not exist. Papias is known for using hearsay. But Papias is hearsay himself!!!! The church historian Eusebius did not have any papers from Papias. He found him in other writers, like Irenaeus. So Papias did not exist at all, or did exist somewhere, but his text is by Irenaeus. I should have known!!! Papias talks about non-existing apostles, who became known only in 185. Mathew writes in aramaic? That is to be able to dump Mathew on the Poor, and push Mathew as the first gospel. And Mark went to rome with Peter? Peter does not exist, and that rome-story was invented in 160. The info is all fake. On purpose. He is proving that Mark and Mathew were there allready before him. And what is more important BEFORE MARCION. They had to be before Marcion. To present themselves as the original christians. To be able to declare Marcion a heretic. Bad luck: Marcion was first.
I almost forget Josephus. The TF, the James the brother of Jesus called christ, and the mentioning of John the baptist are all forgeries by Irenaeus. Wenn the book was written (93) in rome, there did not exist any christianity yet. Paul was just starting in Turkey. And what I would like to know: where are the mentionings in his OTHER BOOK? You know, the book about 1st century judea (the war of the jews) written in 71? It must be there if he wants to repeat it more than 20 years later!! Well, there is nothing mentioned. Which means it is forgery.
Which can also otherwise be argumented very easily. And has been allready long time ago. But 20th century christians do not want to listen. They keep on going on about it. The “Jesus called christ” took me 10 minutes. Take “called christ” out and read the whole (small) story. It is about James and Jesus bar Danneus, which was probably written there before it was replaced. And the fuss is about the fact that the high priest executed illegaly a member of ANOTHER high priest-family. Just diminishing  the competition. And that is why James’ brother Jesus is made high priest. Very simple, very easy. People get that exited when they read “Jesus called christ” that they loose their thinking capacity. Well, in that case Irenaeus had an easy job. Even now with everybody educated and with computers, they still do not get it. They are just as dumb and credulous as in the 2nd century, only now they have no excuses.
By this time I have the impression that Irenaeus wrote everything catholic from the period 0 to 185. It won’t be far off. And everything is still there also, how wonderfull. And all other papers have disappeared, what a coincidence. I forgot James the Just, coming from Hegesippus. Must be inserted also by Irenaeus, if Hegesippus existed at all. I have found where this story comes from: it is a gnostic story, at the moment in the Nag Hammadi papers. Easy to find. I think Irenaeus made James his hobby. There can of course be found nothing about Jesus, because he did not exist, but you always have his so-called brother James. As long as he is mentioned you win.
One of his most brilliant forgeries is in Galatians. Change James in James, the brother of the lord, and Kephas in Peter, and you reach two very important things: you place Paul back from 95 to 35, away from Marcion, to the time that you want him. And you prove that Jesus existed, because Paul knows his brother and his most important disciple. I must say it is brilliant, but it is a forgery by Irenaeus. Jesus exists only on paper, by the Poor, so he cannot have a brother or disciples. Paul knows just a James and a Kephas, people from the Poor.
Then, the sweating of blood in the garden (Luke) comes directly from Justin Martyr (170).
The sentence “father, in thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke) also comes from Justin Martyr.
And there have been discovered things from Justin Martyr in the letters of Paul. The conclusion was that someone has been forging the letters of Paul with pieces of Justin Martyr, but they have no idea who did that. It must be done after 165 when Justin died. If you don’t get that you must be really stupid, because there is only one man who could have done that: that is the one who had them and published them in 185. Irenaeus. So now we know that he used Justin to forge Paul.

I am allready for years now deadly sick of Irenaeus. He is the one directly responsible for the originating of the catholic church, and for the writing and forging of the new testament. He is always lying no matter what. I think this is the biggest scam of world history with 2 billion members now, and it stands allready for 1800 years without any view of things changing. And it is completely fake. Since Irenaeus did it alone, but of course was not the only one who knew, it was a conspiracy by the (jewish) church of rome. And it still is.
I know “conspiracy” has a negative connotation, and there is a lot of nonsense talked about it, but that does not mean that conspiracies don’t exist. Everybody seems to be lying, if not to others than to himself, according to research. We have all kinds of criminality: theft, robbery, rape, murder, child abuse, and there are a lot of con-artists going around abusing old people aso. It happens also through internet and telephone. Corruption exists everywhere on the planet and is as old as humankind. But what about secret business-deals between large companies at the expense of ordinary people? I would call that a conspiracy. We only do not use that word. Secret arrangements between countries? You can call everything arranged SECRETLY of which no-one may know, a conspiracy. In this case the roman catholic church is an absolute conspiracy. And they do anything to keep their secret hidden. They had to act upon it two times in the 20th century. And now they are safe, they think, because they don’t know me.
I have to say one thing for Irenaeus. His book was called “against the gnostics”. In it you frequently find (especially in book 1 and 2) the word “hairesie”, which is greek and which means “choice”(of religion) and not heresy. To be sure I looked up what he wanted to do with them. The answer is: nothing. He only advises everybody to AVOID them. He also cannot do differently because gnosticism is an OTHER religion, with an OTHER god, and no heresy of the soon to be catholic church. Wenn the book got translated in latin, the translator obviously did not like the title and looked in the book for something else. It was about hairesie, so he called it “against haeresies” which looked latin but was no latin word. So nobody knew what it meant. It means “choices”. In time this word evolved into heresy, so now all the gnostics and the Poor are wrongly called heretics.

This all started with the Poor, that is certain. The same the Poor Paul is collecting money for (he also has to eat and sleep). It is the group Paul comes from. Irenaeus is hiding them and is giving false information about the Poor. How? From the hebrew for the Poor, Ebionim, he made the Ebionites, so that no-one might find out who they were. This has worked until today. They are seen as not important because they started after the war in 70.
And Jesus died in 30. And yes he did, in their FICTIONAL STORY. They wrote the story in about 72. And their Jesus was an important prophet. That is all. Irenaeus knew. That is why he hid their name and gave false information, putting them among the gnostics. Because Irenaeus cs. had planned to sell Jesus the god as a “REAL PERSON”, and everything in the story had “really” happened. And so we come to Jesus, and the gospels. He made a small mistake which nobody ever noticed: the Ebionites rejected Paul. Why would they do that? They say he is an apostate (not a jew) and they are right. Irenaeus “forgets” to mention that they call Paul also a “false teacher” (a liar) and they are right again. How do they know him? Because he came from them, as their messenger. And the circle is round. See their conflict in the letter to the Galatians, Paul’s first letter.
Any information about the Ebionites in the future should be blocked, was Irenaeus’ instruction. How do I know that? Because it was DONE by the church. There is the conspiracy again. They were in only one book, 200 years later, and it was confiscated by the church and hidden. It was only released in 1965. It appeared that the Ebionites called themselves “the Poor”, and that their Jesus was a PROPHET. There we are. Another circle round. But because of the level of stupidity of the “scholars” they did not notice anything about it and just declared the writer (from 380) out of his mind. Anything found that does not fit in with the catholic church since 200, is always rejected. Always.
The fictional story came from the Poor, written about 72. This means Paul came around AFTER that. Paul did not live in the time the NT gives and still everybody thinks is true: you are being conned. He did his preaching probably between 90 and 120 in Turkey and Greece. From him the word “christos” comes. And christianity. As you may now see: you can never trust the catholic church. They are always lying. They are selling now for 1800 years a FICTIONAL HUMAN BEING as the son of god. And remember: THIS WAS DONE BY SOMEONE WHO KNEW THAT IT WAS JUST THE STORY OF THE POOR ABOUT A PROPHET. How about that???

Why was it done? It was a massive retaliation against Marcion and Paul. They were GNOSTIC christians which meant they had an other – and higher – god than Jahweh. But there is no other god than Jahweh according to them. Actually that was it. And according to this gospel of the lord, this Jesus was walking in their home country Judea. It was to protect the role of the jewish old testament and the jewish god Jahweh. Paul and Marcion did not use the old testament (which is before Irenaeus rewrote Paul).
Marcion comes directly from Paul. Nobody knows that. After Paul’s death it was Marcion who inherited his papers. He took them to the church of rome. I would like to know why. Did he not know how fanatical jews were? Maybe not, he came from the north of Turkey. He should never have gone there. After being rejected and kicked out Marcion started his own church, with the 10 original letters of Paul and 1 gospel. Paul and Marcion were not anti-semitic. Marcion said they were just an other religion, which is true. The church of Marcion became popular, too popular according to the old-testamentic church of rome. It was then that their action was planned and Irenaeus was set to work. The result became known in 185.
It was a take-over from Marcion, who was blackened in every possible way: he had been stealing and mutilating texts. Marcion had done no such thing, and there is also no evidence for it. He had personally brought his papers to the church of rome, which was 40 – 60 years before Irenaeus published. So who did he stealing and the mutilating? Paul was torn away from Marcion and was made theirs, in an other century. They had to take over from Paul god the father, jc the son who was there from the beginning, and the holy spirit. Does this sounds jewish to anyone? No, because it isn’t jewish!!! It is gnostic!!! God the father is the gnostic god, the son who was there from the beginning is the gnostic Logos, and the holy spirit is the gnostic Sophia (wisdom), a daughter of the gnostic god. UNTIL NOW NOBODY HAS RECOGNISED THIS, because they don’t recognise that Paul is a gnostic, and they don’t know what gnosticism is.
Irenaeus did it and it resulted in 325 in a Trinity, after which everybody had to shut up (but didn’t). The persons in the Trinity are gnostic. The  spirit in the form of a dove comes from the gospel of John (a gnostic) and Irenaeus placed it over in the other three gospels, without knowing that “the dove” is ALSO gnostic. The dove is another name for the holy spirit, and as we all know a dove is a female pigeon. That is because the holy spirit is FEMALE, as is to be seen in all the pictures of her.
Irenaeus who had been constantly telling and writing against the gnostics and everbody that there was “only one god” (Jahweh), was not happy himself about this “son”. In his book he is avoiding as much as possible “the father” and “the son”. He calls the father constantly just “god”, and the son the “word of god”. In that way it still looked like only one god. He took it from the gospel of John, by translating the Logos with the Word. The whole world has taken this over but the gnostic Logos does absolutely not mean the Word. The Logos cannot be translated by one word. If I have to do it it means something like REASON or RATIO. We still have the words logic, logica and logical from it. The first line of the prologue of John was by the way written by Plato, the inventer of gnosticism.

This is the way it was done. I am absolutely certain. You can look at it from every angle or real year, and you still get the same. For those of you who want to check this, it is all on the internet. Only, almost everything happens in the 2nd century (between 70 and 185). All these “biblical scholars” from every denomination and also the “christ mythicists” have found nothing and have no idea, because they led themselves be led by the chronology of the new testament of the catholic church, as if THEY would be going to tell you the truth. It was they who did the SCAM in the first place. Consequently scholars hang around the year 30, and stay in the first century as if anything happened then. You all have been conned again by Irenaeus.
The gospels are all fiction. Nobody exists in them. The only historical person in all four is Pontius Pilatus. But the way he is portrayed that is not the real Pilatus at all (see Josephus). So the person exists, but his behaviour is fiction. Mark and Mathew are written by Irenaeus around 170, and they are simply open propaganda for the catholic church, and therefore can be done away with. They are also called the “catholic gospels”.
Mark seems to have been written by a greek who knows everything about the septuagint and is highly educated. Like I said: Irenaeus. I don’t understand the Mark-hype, because somebody found out that it was written before Mathew. I could have told you that after simpy reading the two. But they now think that Mark is the first gospel because of the order in the NT. Stupid! Nothing in the NT is in chronological order, not even the letters of Paul. You are all being conned again!!! And by seeing them busy this SCAM can go on forever (what of course is the meaning of it all).
Not that it matters much because all the gospels have been written or heavily forged by Irenaeus. Anyway Mark and Mathew are number 3 and 4 from around 170. John is a gnostic gospel from around 110 – 130. And Luke is a partial reworking from the gospel of Marcion, which he got around 120. And I am so glad to be able to say it out loud: LUKE IS THE FIRST SYNOPTIC GOSPEL, then Mark, and then Mathew. Nobody got that!!
I am shocked that all these “scholars” don’t even know where the gospels come from and when. And what the chronological order is. You must be mad if you don’t know that, or do know but think it is unimportant. You are missing the most important date of church history: the beginning of the catholic church.
Why is it actually called the roman catholic church instead of the roman christian church? Anybody? Because there was already a christian church, the church begun by Marcion. These churches are called the Marcionite churches all the time, as if they had no name, but it was of course the christian church (based on Paul).

It can easily be seen that Mark and Mathew have never been to the country at all. There was no sanhedrin then, or it could anyway not be called without roman permission. Furthermore the sanhedrin never convened after sundown. Goodbye Mark and Mathew. There was of course no custom of releasing a prisoner. This was, like Barabbas, all invented.
I personally have a problem with the “sea of galilea”. I learned at school from our chaplain that it was the “lake of genesareth”, which I remembered because I thought it such a beautiful name. It can only be found in Luke, the first gospel. What went into Mark and Mathew (Irenaeus) to change a rather small lake into a see? One look at a map and everybody sees it is not a see. And everybody knows that Mark and Mathew have NEVER BEEN to Galilea, or its surroundings. So what are they talking about at all? It really gets ridiculous when they are in the boat, already 9 HOURS on the way to the other side, when you can in reality simply ROW to the other side in 2 hours. And there are no scholars who found this out? That is really pathetic, a child can do it. By these things you can see that you are reading FICTION. It also proves that it is not based on oral tradition, because people from there would at least give the names right.
Recently I found out that Kafarnaum did not exist. I was not ready for that. Thanks to Josephus in his other book: the war of the jews. Recommended for reading. Josephus was the governor of Galilea in 66/67, so he knows. He describes that there is a well on a hill west of the lake. Because of the water coming down, Genesareth is very fertile and all kinds of fruit-trees grow there throughout the year. And the name of the well is Kafarnaum!!!!
Who wants more??? I have enough. The gospels are fiction, invented stories. The church must hate Josephus. Thank god nobody studies him. They are much too busy with the fake TF and the fake “Jesus called christ” in the other book of Josephus. These things could have been found out long ago. I wonder why they weren’t. Bible-lovers? Thinking it is all true? Or just not-thinking at all?

It was waiting for Constantine. Constantine had a problem: he was very insecure. He wanted a religion to support him. He choose the catholic church. We don’t know how this happened, or why. I think it was the organisation of the church, the strict hierarchy. Anything said to the top went straight down to the bottom, and everybody obeyed. No other religion had this. Mithra-temples, gnostic communities aso. functioned all by themselves.
Constantine wanted to make use of their organisation. In exchange he would support them. They got big beautiful churches, land and money, and influence and as a result their numbers grew. Constantine started to persecute the other christian religions. This was applauded by the church, who seemed to be full of hatred against others. The marriage between church and state was born.
In 380 they became state-religion. The first thing they did was to forbid free speach, and free writing. By then everybody could know that they were bad news. Around 400 all the other religions in the roman empire were abolished. Something like that had never happened before!!! In the ancient world there was religious tolerance (with the exception of the jews). Fanatical catholics and monks started demolishing the ancient world: temples, statues, mozaiks, libraries, everything went down. Books were burnt. Priests and teachers murdered. Until nothing was left. Everybody was converted by force. By now everybody knew that the catholic church was very bad news. Not only were they extremely intolerant, they used fysical violence.
They were propagating that there was only one god. This is jewish. In the OT there is written: I am the Lord your God, you are not allowed to worship OTHER GODS. So there are other gods at least. I don’t know how the jews picked this up. I don’t think they started forcing their god on others.
This dramatically changed with the OT-lovers of the church. Marcion made clear that he and Paul had an OTHER god, a higher god than Jahweh, the gnostic god (god the father). Because Paul and Marcion did not abolish Jahweh, there were now TWO gods according to the church. In fact there were two religions. After that Irenaeus did nothing else than write over and over again (to begin with the so-called Ignatius) that there was only ONE GOD, who created the whole universe (instead of only heaven and earth), the god of the OT. He kept on writing that through made-up persons. That is where the “there is/exists only one god”- mantra comes from.
They kept on repeating that. Which is why they when they got power started to extinguish all other religions and gods. With force. There was only one god (from the OT) and therefore only one truth (theirs) was their idea. From about 380 they could do what they wanted. It was the church that was in charge, not the emperor. The roman empire might fall, the church didn’t.
They governed the population, they governed the kings. I don’t know if it has anything to do with any religion, but the church was simply out on power and wealth. And on control over the people. They more or less governed the middle ages, also called the dark ages. It was totalitarian, everything was controled by the catholic church. What you did, what you said, and even what you thought. Helped by the devil (from Irenaeus and Justin) and heaven and hell (from Irenaeus and Justin) they could manipulate everybody.
So every form of education was forbidden in 600, so that people only had the church to listen to, mary magdalene was declared a prostitute also in 600, 6000 saxons were slaughtered because they refused to convert around 800, conversion happened with an army present, there were many crusades organised, which was just slaughtering people, people were burned alive for being a heretic/having a different opinion, there came periods of so-called witch-hunting and burning, and any sign of gnosticism was eradicated by burning everbody (like in the south of france in the 13th century). I almost forget the Inquisition.
What should I or anybody say? Even today they are in your private bedroom by forbidding contraceptives. This was one of the ideas of Augustinus from about 400. He was obsessed with sex and sin. So your sex-life is being governed by the catholic church on the basis of an idea from a weirdo of the year 400. That is 1600 years ago!!!! You can say at least that the catholic church does not develop over time. Everything stays the same as it was in the beginning of the middle ages. It is a world apart, totally disconnected from western society. But still governing 2 billion people despite financial scandals and widespread child-abuse, where the priests are NOT punished (also an idea from Augustinus from 400). How do you do that without the people leaving?

Where does all that intolerance, hatred and violence come from? I am not sure. You could say that it is from the “one god idea”. But it did not happen in Persia when monotheistic Zarathustraism was state religion. The persians were tolerant. I am afraid that it is the BOOK. The OT and the NT are both fiction, but as long as you can impose it on people as the absolute truth and people believe that, they start thinking they own the truth. The only truth on earth because it is WRITTEN DOWN word by word in a BOOK. The OT is not written by priests and scribes from around 330 BC (or Ezra in 450 BC as the jews say), no it is dictated by God himself, who has never been seen. And the NT is not fabricated totally by Irenaeus to kill off Marcion, no it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, who has never been seen. Who says this particular god or this holy spirit exist? I think they don’t. I think they are just used by priests and bishops to impose their particular brand of the truth on the population. In fact I am sure of that. Religion does not come from invisible gods, religion comes from priests. You just make the people believe it comes from gods. It is always a power-structure.
After writing every detail down in a book, the religion cannot change anymore. Other religions come and go or change, no problem, but the religions with a book stay the same. Anybody saying something is a heretic. You see that with jews, catholics, protestants and moslems. And so people’s lives are ruled by ideas of 2000 years old. As if the world does not change. Because they own the truth, which is in itself impossible, because THE truth does not exit. Ask somebody in Japan where there is no church what his truth is.
What did John say in his gospel? “And the truth shall set you free”. He is right. The truth is not rules and regulations from a book. Nor lists of dogma’s which you MUST believe from a church. The truth is something else, and knowing it makes you free.
I myself am so relieved by having found out the truth behind the catholic church, and behind Jesus. A by the Poor invented jewish prophet put in  writing.

There are so many people writing about this all, thinking about this, researching. There is no end to it. Is Jesus historical? Is Jesus mythical? Is Jesus a legend? Is Jesus mythocohistorical? Is Jesus one of the many Jesuses from Josephus?
How far do you think you get when you follow catholic writings only? I admit that all the other writings were destroyed by the church, but that does not mean that the catholic church writings which are all still there are TRUE. I know for a fact that they are not. It is a set-up. It has to prove something, eg. that Paul’s Jesus Christ is the son of Jahweh, which he is not. That there were catholic bishops everywhere, which there were not. The first bishops came only around 140.
To find that kind of things you have to study history, not religion. That is the big mistake of everybody: they are studying the origin of a religion, with the help of papers from that same religion. Isn’t that a little bit dumb? Who says they are telling you the truth? I regularly read: but that are the only papers we got! We have to do it with them. If that is the case, why don’t they read EVERYTHING there is? Because they stop at the year 100, and they have no idea at all that in the year 100 there still was nothing. They all just assume that the NT is right. They do not recognise that there is an organisation behind it (the church) which has “certain interests”. And that is not studying history at all. That is studying the catholic church, and I wish everybody much strength in getting any real information from them!!!
It is like the OT. If you want to study the history of the jews, what do you do? Read the OT? Or study their real history? Of course the jews say that the OT IS their real history. Any normal human being these days knows that that is not true. You cannot start writing in 300 BC (or 450 BC) about a 1000, or 2000, or 3000, or even 4000 years before. That is impossible. It is fiction.
So scholars are all starting in the year 30, and then immediately there are 1000’s of christians everywhere. This is the dumbest you can do. And I get irritated by people who seem to think that “christos” is a jewish word. And even more by people who think that it means “messiah”. And that Paul is preaching a jewish messiah as son of god. And that is what everybody thinks!!! This is really stupid. Nobody seemingly has been able to find out what a messiah is. An “anointed one” is a warrior against the romans, who defeats them and becomes king. He can be sent by Jahweh, like prophets are, but they are all human beings. That is jewish.

So what do you have to do? You must be looking for years, historically speaking, how difficult it seems to be. And you must be coming out of the 1st century. The 1st century is the scam. I looked from the beginning until the year 200.
And in the beginning I found a year: 185. Irenaeus of Lyon came forward with our four gospels. Isn’t that late? It took a lot of reading but I found out that they had not been mentioned EVER before. Not even the idea of a gospel. What do you think then? I thought: he must have written them himself. Then I found a gospel of John on youtube (I look everywhere) and it was our gospel, but different. Our gospel is a forgery. What do you think then? I thought: Irenaeus is a forger. Irenaeus is writing, and he is  forging. Then I found that Irenaeus not only came with the gospels but with the WHOLE new testament. What do you think then? I thought: he is a writer and a master-forger. AND THEN YOU KEEP THAT IN MIND. And then you go on, looking for further years. And when you try hard enough and long enough you will find years. And when you have years, and facts, then it becomes easy to see what is true and what is not true.
I call this historical research. Someone wrote: this is work for a researcher who solves cold cases, and has unlimited time. That would be me. Nobody or almost nobody does this kind of historical research. And especially not in the 2nd century when everything happens. The believers follow the NT. The non-believers also follow the NT. And Bart Ehrman is just crazy: he is convinced that there was somebody. And then he is spreading all kind of invented bullshit about this person, which makes this person even more famous than the catholic church says. Who can take that seriously? Ehrman is a special category of special Jesus-lovers. But he is the “expert” and people listen to him.

I’ll give an example of a FACT. The birth-story of Luke comes from another writing, called the infancy-gospel of James, which is placed in 150. This means that the gospel of Luke was only finished AFTER 150. This means goodbye to the idiotic 1st century hypothesis. It also means goodbye to Irenaeus’ shouting against Marcion and the whole book Against Marcion. Marcion would have been stealing Luke, and mutilating it, meaning he had taken of the birth-story. This is still widely believed although there is no evidence for it. Too bad for Irenaeus that Marcion’s gospel was already in possession of the church BEFORE this birth-story was even written!!!! So Irenaeus is a writer and a forger, AND an incredible liar. This is more than enough to say that IRENAEUS CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. He is just blackening Marcion. These conclusions can be drawn by using a laptop and looking in the right century.
The birth-story of Mathew comes from the papers of Justin Martyr, available from 170. This means that the gospel of Mathew was only finished AFTER 170. And goodbye again to the idiotic 1st century hypothesis. Luke became ready after 150, Mathew after 170. And who got angry when informed that there was no virgin in Jesaja? Irenaeus, who tried to relate everything to the OT for obvious reasons (he was so-called predicted in the OT, also still widely believed). He angrily said bluntly that the septuagint (bad greek translation of the OT) was the ONLY TRUE version, and that if the jews had something different, that was because they had meddled with their own scriptures!!! THAT is the real Irenaeus. And he simply went on with the so-called virgin.
It also means goodbye to Irenaeus’ emphasizing time and again that the “Ebionites” and “everybody there” (Judea) was using Mathew, because Mathew was not written yet when he visited there. IRENAEUS IS A LIAR. He is inventing jewish christians (which are of course not there), misrepresenting the Poor again, and pushing his own gospel (Mathew) as being written first instead of last. IRENAEUS IS AN INCREDIBLE LIAR. HE IS RE-WRITING HISTORY.
Then I saw that both birth-stories pointed to the same year: 6 AD. The one from Luke is obvious because it is about the census the romans held in judea (only) in 6 AD. But Justin thought that after king Archelochus (removed in 6 AD) there came another king called Herodes. And it is to THIS Herodes he is referring as sending the soldiers. And the year is 6 AD. And in the infancy-gospel of James (where Luke comes from) after the birth they have to flee for the soldiers of Herodes. So also THIS writer thought that there came a new king Herodes in 6 AD. There was no new king Herodes but both writers thought it.
So the year of birth is definitely 6 AD. And if Jesus died in 30 AD, he was thus only 24 years old. Definitely. Irenaeus can make him 30 in Mathew (from which comes our AD/BC), and John can make him 45, but he was born in 6 AD, and therefore 24 years old when he died. According to the birth-stories then.
Now you see what you all can find by looking in the 2nd century. You find two birth-stories with two years. And you can in fact draw a lot of important conclusions from them, which changes the view of the beginning of the catholic church. WHY HAS NOT THIS BEEN DONE BEFORE BY SCHOLARS???? Everything could have already long be in the open.


When I thought I was ready I still started to look into Marcion. Of course the Poor (Ebionites) and Marcion are mostly and widely ignored and misrepresented. But the Poor and Marcion are the only completely honest people I have found. Marcion might even have been too honest for his own good.
When Marcion came to rome the church was jewish, there was no bishop yet, and their only scripture was the greek OT. They were not christian. Through Marcion they came in possession of the 10 original letters of Paul, and a gospel called the gospel of the lord. They say that was in 145, I think it was in 125 (because Justin describes Marcion in 155 as an old man).
It is about this gospel, until today called the gospel of Marcion. They say they have retrieved it from “against Marcion” and it looks like Luke. Irenaeus used the gospel of Marcion to create Luke. For me it is very easy to see that the gospel of Marcion has been forged (by Irenaeus). It will be impossible to get the original text back. Is that important? Yes, very. This is going to be spectacular and UNKNOWN:
Marcion inherited Paul’s papers. He said in rome that the gospel came also from Paul, and that Paul had written it (which he sincerily believed). Nobody believes that even now. So I started reading it and I must say that it has been definitely in Paul’s hands. The god Jesus from the letters is landing from the sky. There is in the beginning two times “christ” added, and two times “the son of god”. Those things definitely come from Paul. Furthermore Paul left the text alone: Paul is not a professional forger at all, and if you know him you see immediately what he has done. The text looks like Luke.
Then I came across the “translation error” I read an article about. Who had been translating? And I thought “oh my god!!!”. IT IS THE ORIGINAL GOSPEL OF THE POOR!!!! Paul was accepted as their apostle by Kephas, and therefore Kephas gave him a copy of their gospel, which he should use in his preaching of THEIR message. Paul kept it and translated it from aramaic into greek!!!! Paul is the only one we know who is bi-lingual. And therefore there is a translation error: it is the camel who has to go through the eye of a needle. The aramaic word means camel, but has a second meaning that Paul did not know: it is a thick rope made of camel-hair, and now it finally makes sense for the first time. Furthermore excellently translated as far as I can see. Whether Paul used the gospel in his preaching we don’t know, but he had it with him.
So the gospel of Marcion is the original aramaic gospel from the Poor from 72, translated by Paul. How about that!!! Only one translation error, and the few typical Paul things in the beginning are different. I became very enthusiastic. It is the one and only real gospel, written by the Poor who invented Jesus, in 72. We should be gratefull to Paul!!! We know part of it as Luke and Irenaeus took care that Luke would be placed last of the synoptics. It was not a book to be read originally, it was to be read out loud to the people.
It has already been found out by scholars that Luke was made from Marcion, and not the other way around. Which is obvious, since Marcion was in rome in 125 or 145, and Luke appeared only in 185. It has also been found out that Mark was written after Luke. And that John was written after Marcion (the method has to do with language). So I am right: the gospel of Marcion is the so-called Ur-gospel. It is the gospel-story of the Poor which Paul had gotten there, and which was translated by Paul, after which it came to Marcion. I can say this is spectacular.
Irenaeus used it for Luke, which is the first synoptic gospel, and it was not finished until after 150 as we have seen. This proves that ALL the synoptics were written AFTER 150. NOBODY KNOWS. Then we also know who wrote them of course: our master-forger Irenaeus.
The gospel of John comes also from Turkey. John must have read the original one to get an idea about his own writing. So Paul knew John and let him read the gospel. Paul probably asked John to write a GNOSTIC version which he did (around 110?). John is a gnostic teacher, writer and scholar, and as an ex-jew anti-judaism, which can be seen. John invented Judas (which means jew). This cannot come from a jewish reform-movement. His Jesus is a gnostic teacher with some students. He has come to make known his FATHER (the gnostic god). So he is some sort of son of god, although he also has a spirit inside which points to a human being. The whole “I am this and I am that” enormous part in the middle is probably fake, by Irenaeus who found this gospel during his travels.
Paul let his god Jesus land from the sky, only looking like a human being. Why is that? Because his Jesus is a god. He could not make him into a human being, otherwise he had to CEASE TO BE A GOD, says Marcion. That is normal thinking. A god and a human being are not the same. Until someone invented the virgin Mary (150) and you get a strange and non-existing combination of human and divine. So a Jesus who only looks like a human being is not a “phantom” or a “ghost” as some people like to say. It is a GOD, who is spiritual in gnosticism. Of course the church was very much against this, as it came from Paul and Marcion. They were selling Jesus as a (partly) human being. Crucifying a god is not possible.
So Irenaeus worked from the gospel of Marcion (the original aramaic gospel) and from the gospel of John (the gnostic gospel), both from Turkey via Paul, to make the rest. When he was finished nobody knew anymore what came from what. They still don’t know it, as they think Mark was first, from the year 70. Super-stupid. Find the birth-stories and study Marcion and wake up.

Now I have to stand up for the totally demolished Paul. Paul started a gnostic religion. In the form of a mystery religion (dying-rising-god, who is a saviour). Gnostics function in groups with a teacher, nothing more organised. NOW WE ARE GOING TO SEE FAR-REACHING FORGERIES MADE IN PAUL

1. The letters of Paul are filled with churches, there is even a church in Jerusalem. This is all fake and forgery. Paul never uses the word “church”, he speaks of “ekklesia”. An ekklesia is just a meeting of a group of PEOPLE, when living together maybe a COMMUNITY. Of course the church of rome did not want that. So what did they do? Unbelievable but true: they changed their OWN name from church into ekklesia, but remained of course the church. Since then every asshole living has translated Paul’s ekklesia with church, too stupid to look up what ekklesia actually means. A worldwide strictly hierarchical organisation in big buildings I would not call an ekklesia (in principle a group of people), but they still call themselves that way. So in italian you have chiesa, in spanish iglesia, in french eglise, all from ekklesia. And Paul was not founding communities, but churches. He was so-called working for the church instead of founding a religion. Is this funny? I don’t think so.

2. There is another word: it is the “cross”. Paul did not write cross. Paul wrote “stauros”. It was in his gospel and at that time everybody knew that of course. A stauros is a stake, an upright piece of wood, used by the romans to execute people. You don’t have to carry it of course, it is already at the execution place. I hope everybody understands this: THERE WAS NO CROSS. In the oldest new testaments from the 4th century, still in greek, there still is stauros. Around 400 when translated into latin stauros became crux. There does cross comes from. Although it was well translated, because crux also means stake. I don’t know who and when had the idea to make from a stake a cross. But I do know that it happened after 400. The very first picture of Jesus on a cross is from 480, and he is standing upright and strong.
So we are all being conned again. All these crucifixions, crucifying and crucifixes are FAKE. We are all for nothing confronted our whole life with all those terrible paintings and crucifixes, nails and blood, and this suffering Jesus hanging as deep as possible from a cross. I was catholic, and I have still nightmares from it. THE CROSS IS TOTALLY FAKE. I do not think this is funny anymore. It is a 5th century forgery of the true historical facts. It could easily be done since Constantine had abolished this punishment. In due time nobody remembered anymore what it was exactly. So take a letter of Paul in greek with the word stauros in it, and it gets simply translated with cross, as if nothing is the matter. As if translaters do not know what stauros means. This is a continuous scam.
I found out what the real “crucifixion” was. It was not easy. We know it from bones found of victims. There was a stake, not 5 meters high as on pictures, just 2.50m. Your arms (elbows) were tied with a rope backwards/up to a small piece of wood. This was put over the stake to make you hang there. Your feet were put on both sides of the stake. Then they nailed your feet to the stake through your heel-bones. So you were more or less standing there. You would be naked. There would be no or hardly any blood. It was not about blood. Because your arms were tied up you could hardly breath. In the end you would die of suffocation. It could take days, which was the point of it. So there were two nails, and they went through you heels. This is certain.
Also terrible but no crucifixion at all. Jesus died on the stake (in the story). We are again the victims of an enormous scam by the church. Why they did it? Maybe it looked more terrifying, with all the nails and the hammering and the pain and the blood? More terrible, more “suffering”? I cannot look in the brains of catholic bishops.
There is a roman report that there were no crucifixions in judea between 6 AD and 44 AD. Certainly not during the emperor Tiberius, from 14 AD to 37 AD. I’d just like to mention it.

3. Then we get to the last important words: Jesus and Christ. Again, in the oldest greek new testaments from the fourth century the word is Chrestos (and not Christos). In the next codex from 450 the word is still Chrestos. So the word Christos (a very simple forgery) comes at the earliest from the 2nd half of the 5th century. Again some funny bishop?
We are sure that Marcion used Chrestos from a church of Marcion being found from 318 (the oldest church ever found). Marcion based himself completely on Paul (letters and gospel) so Paul used Chrestos. This has been confirmed. What did Chrestos mean? That was difficult to find. Normally it means the good, the benevolent, the holy and those kind of things. But in connection with a god it means “Saviour”. And Paul was of course preaching a mystery religion: a dying-rising-god who is a saviour. So Jesus is the dying-rising-god, and Chrestos is Saviour. The saviour part is giving “life after death”, which is gnostic. So Paul is completely logical.
So Christos is a forgery. Why was this done? I think that christos is supposed to mean “anointed” in greek, although I am not convinced about that. Then “anointed” would mean messiah, what would make Jesus “the messiah”. It is a blatant forgery!!!!! Still people are thinking and shouting that “Jesus was the messiah”. I have told so often what a messiah is (read Josephus) and JESUS IS NOT THAT AT ALL!!!! I suppose then that messiah also means “son of god”. This is total bullshit. I cannot find any other reason for this forgery than that it was done to harass the jews: they so-called killed their own messiah, which was why Jahweh/God had left them and went to the gentiles. This is called Replacement Theology, which comes from Justin Martyr, and was followed by Irenaeus and Tertullianus. It is the claiming of the jewish messiah, and blackening the jews. It seems to be funny, but it isn’t.
So you can study for a whole year, or 3 whole years as I did, and each and every scholar says that christ (in Paul) means messiah, and that Jesus is the messiah, and that paul was preaching him in the service of the church. Poor Paul, the greek gnostic, who was preaching a saviour god, who gave life after death. If Paul was not destroyed yet, he was now. It is a very dirty forgery, also against Paul.
To make an end to this messiah-shouting, I read in Tacitus. Tacitus also has an OTHER book, called Histories, which really IS by Tacitus at least. Of course it is not read. Tacitus seems to be a very serious man. He tells that the jews, because of some prophecy, were expecting their messiah between 66 and 70. And that THAT was why they kept on fighting against the romans. If this is true, and I would not know why not, everybody can quit naming a messiah in 30. Is that clear now? Tacitus against the church? Give me Tacitus (the real one).
Why the letter of Plinius to Trajanus must be true (maybe embellished by christians who make him torture women). Paul was active there between 90 and 120. This means 112 AD can be the first time that some governor notices chrestians. Plinius has no idea who they are or what they want. That is correct because it is completely new. Seen the answer from Trajanus? He says to leave them alone. And that it is “not of this age” to hunt people for their religion. Those terrible roman emperors, always persecuting christians, as the church says. Another big lie. Roman emperors had no policy for persecuting people for religion.
This means that there can be NO mentioning of christians before 112. Because Paul started it and nobody else. It was new and it was in west Turkey. So the things in Josephus from about 93 are forgeries: christianity was not known yet, except in Turkey. Tacitus about Nero? Give me a break. A forgery of course. A crucifixion by Pilatus? Paul does not even say that. A forgery of course. Tacitus could not have heard about any chrestos in 116. We must keep things in historical perspective: the Poor wrote their story in about 72, Paul came to visit after that, I guess 90.

4. The name Jesus. There was no Jesus. In the church of Marcion found there it is chiseled above the door: ISU chrestos. If Marcion said “isu chrestos” that means Paul had written “isu chrestos”, and that in the gospel of the Poor translated by Paul there was “ISU”. Marcion based himself completely on Paul and was honest. The aramaic word must then have been ISHU. Then it gets very difficult. I found 19th century photos of ISHU JEWS. That is very Remarkable. In a very large name-list I found that Ishu = Jesus. So the word ISHU is right. IRENAEUS MADE JESUS OF IT. So even the first name is a forgery. Paul did not write Jesus Christ died on a cross, but Isu Chrestos died on a stake. That is the original. SO THE NAME JESUS APPEARS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 185.
I tried to find what Ishu means, if any. Very difficult. It seems to mean “the prophet like Moses” (which he was according to the Poor), and the true prophet (which he was also). In Samaria it is used for Moses, then meaning: His Man, in the sense of Gods Man, maybe Man of God, or even Prophet. It seems that Ishu means Prophet, or Man of God. IT WAS NOT REALLY A NAME!!!!!
And prophet, or man of god, DOES NOT MEAN SON OF GOD. Irenaeus knew of course. That is why he changed Ishu into Jesus. Jesus can only come from aramaic Yeshu. Which the Talmud uses: they transcribed back. Irenaeus tried to link it to Yeshua/Yoshua, but that is false. A forgery in the Septuagint was necessary to make that work.
It proves for the last time that Paul was not a jew. Because he thought it was a name. He speaks aramaic but he does not know much about the OT.
Nobody has to doubt anymore that Irenaeus had Paul’s original letters, and the gospel of Marcion/Paul/the Poor, which Marcion had brought to rome himself, and that he damned well knew that the original was Ishu, a prophet/man of god. A human being. The name Jesus is the ultimate basic forgery which proves that the gospels were a scam from the beginning, by Irenaeus. There were of course no other gospels about a nameless jewish prophet. He even visited the Poor himself. And did everything to misrepresent them and make them unknown. Information about them was not allowed. It came only after 1965.
Papers come in in rome with Isu and Isu chrestos in it. Isu means prophet or man of god. Years later these papers (and many more) come out again with Jesus in it. Jesus is the son of god (he can walk on water eg.). The name has been changed by Irenaeus who comes with all the papers. The “man of god” has been changed into the “son of god”. This proves that the gospels are total fairy-tales, fabricated by Irenaeus. It was all the time about a human being. I rest my case.
So what about the resurrection? The RESURRECTION is FAKE. It was invented by Irenaeus and put in the gospels. You get 4 times “he has risen”. NOBODY in 1800 years has seen that in Paul’s letters there is no self- resurrection??? Because Paul kept to the gospel of the Poor, where Ishu was raised by Jahweh, and taken up to heaven. So Paul says “he WAS RAISED from the dead BY HIS FATHER” (god). That can happen to anybody. Jahweh can do that. HOW CAN ANYBODY HAVE MISSED THAT EVER?????? It means this sentence was literally in the gospel of the Poor, otherwise Paul would not have said it this way. And Paul’s “according to scriptures” is about the gospel of the Poor. So Irenaeus invented THE resurrection which became the basic belief of the catholic religion. It made possible the sending out of (invented) apostles in Mathew which became the basis for the catholic church, and for the authority of the catholic church.
Polycarp, about whom Irenaeus was so fond that he rewrote his letter, and used him constantly for his own purposes (he was dead so that was easy), and who was the so-called bishop of Smyrna, was in fact a gnostic christian coming from Paul. We meet him in the last six lines of the letter, and he seems a very friendly man. Irenaeus did that because he mentions “letters” and an “Ignatius” and we all know where that all led: to a new invented “apostolic father”. But he forgot to erase the subscription, which was: IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD AND GOD. And his father who raised him from the dead. This comes from Paul. And from the gospel of the Poor. And Jesus is promoted to GOD.
I must say Paul’s gnosticism, which gives life after death, combined with the original gospel of the Poor, must have given a nice religion. Gnosticism is about love, and it is non-violent. Much better than the OT  Jahweh lovers, who are by definition intolerant and violent.

Where are the original papers? They were with Marcion, and his church. Until they were persecuted out of existence, including their papers. They were with Irenaeus. It seems they are in “against Marcion”. But you don’t have to expect that you get something that important from Irenaeus, without it being totally forged.
I read one restored letter of Paul. It is a forgery which makes things worse. The letters of Paul are gone forever, destroyed by Irenaeus.  Unless people will try to get the forgeries out off the letters we have. That can be very difficult, since there is talk of 30% forgery. It looks to me like 50%. You’ll be surprised to find that Paul is a totally different person than you had thought. The letters as we have them now are not real: it is too much forged. It is half Paul and half Irenaeus. It is impossible to know what Paul said and what not.
Marcion has been called the most religious man between Paul and the year 400. He has also been called the first protestant, because of his “sola scriptura”. There were in his church ONLY THE SCRIPTURES.
The gospel of the Poor/Paul/Marcion. The latest news is that Irenaeus divided it over Luke, Mark and Mathew. Then it can never be found again. It seems also that Tertullianus did not write “against Marcion” but was just translating what he got from Irenaeus (who used Justin). Tertullianus did not even have the gospel of Marcion himself. What has been retrieved then comes from Irenaeus. Any chance of honesty? No, not at all. Did anybody have the gospel of Marcion? No nobody, except Irenaeus.
After close reading diverse times what has been retrieved, I think it can be basically genuine, but with a lot of forgeries from the gospels put inside. I also have a rather clear idea what these forgeries are, because I know it is about a human prophet and healer from the Poor. So I can come a long way if I try. But from the so-called last supper on it is FORGERY WORD FOR WORD. There was of course no eucharist: we are talking about a human being. It is badly written and all fake, taken from the other gospels. So we will never know what happens on thursday evening and friday. Who did and said what. Irenaeus did not want it known. I suppose he modeled his passion on the gospel of John and on Justin.
In general you can say that the more OT there is in a gospel the more fake it is. Irenaeus planted it there to prove his “prediction”. The whole crucifixion-story comes from a forged Psalm. So everything is so-called predicted to the details. In fact it is written over from the OT. It isn’t a genuine story. You see this in Mark and Mathew. Even John, who does not like jews at all, does not have a jewish crowd shouting for his death. Only jewish authorities, priests aso. The crowd comes from Irenaeus. In the original gospel of the Poor they were also not there of course. The Poor wanted more jewish members.

Why do the gospels start in Galilea, someone asked. Well that is forced through the birth-story of Luke which mentions Nazareth a few times: his parents live there. This birth-story is from 150 AD and has therefore nothing to do with the original Jesus-story. It is proof that the gospels were written after 150 AD (except the two who were just forged). So it has to start there. Well, the Poor/Paul/Marcion had no birth-story of course. So the question rises: did the original story from the Poor/Paul/Marcion began in Galilea? Everything begins in Galilea except John. In the retrieved gospel of Marcion he lands near Kafarnaum and goes into the synagogue.
But what is found on a 7th century paper in the British Museum? About what certain people say? It is written: Marcion said (which is Paul): “our Lord was not born from a woman. He came into the sphere of the creator god, and landed on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, in the form and the image and the likeness of a man, but without a body.” This seems to me the genuine text of Paul. It then points to the original gospel of the Poor beginning between Jerusalem and Jericho, and not in Galilea at all. It can be that there was no Galilea in the original gospel written by jews. It can be that the whole Galilea-piece was invented by Irenaeus. I found that Kafarnaum did not exist as a village, but was a well on a hill. Josephus wrote that. The whole Galilea story can be a scam. Since Irenaeus mentions two times “the road between Jerusalem and Jericho” himself he knows this from the gospel of Marcion, which he is “reworking” into Luke.


That is all I have found. I was definitely not out on these findings, I was just doing research in the 2nd century. I also had not expected anything like this. It is for me just as big a surprise as it is for you. But it is based on facts: years, writings aso. You can look it all up by yourself. In the 2nd century you cannot get around Irenaeus. Under his own name or under the name of invented others (like Papias, Clement of rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp aso.) I have unraveled the SCAM set up by the old-testamentic church of rome, and implemented by Irenaeus. It was done because of Marcion (and Paul, gnostics), who began a church of his own and had a lot of success. The church of rome started a massive retaliation against Marcion because of his “other god”, which was the gnostic god. It was the god of the jews (Jahweh) against the god of Plato (god the father).
The original story of the Poor had something awkward. It could be explained in favour of judaism, but also against judaism. It was of course written by jews. But they were a REFORM-MOVEMENT, they wanted change. The pharisees were their enemies (see Luke). So if you are looking for a reason for arrest, it is there. But they were also abolishing the prophets, except Moses and Ishu. And parts of the Law concerned with sacrificing (they were against that). A lot more reasons for arrest. The original story did not end with Easter (why would it?). Easter was brought in by John, and planted over in the rest).

What I do not understand is that this whole fake has not been found out. If you dig up the birth-stories from 150 and 165, that should make you think about the gospels, and this so-called virgin birth, which was not there. That is enough. No way there are gospels from Mathew and Luke from the first century. IS THIS TOO DIFFICULT TO DO for all those hundreds or even thousands of scholars around the world?????? How lazy, dumb, worthless, ignorant etc. can they be????? Or do they not want to solve the problems? Are they too christian for that? It is really easy to refute gospels from the first century, especially because there is NO EVIDENCE they were there at all.
I hope I have made clear enough that this resurrection (by himself) comes ONLY from the gospels and that these gospels come ONLY from Irenaeus in 185. It was not in the original gospel from the Poor, which Paul had, and which Marcion inherited. It must have been invented after Marcion’s visit to rome in 145 or 125. It is simple: our master-forger Irenaeus invented it and put it in his gospels. The resurrection comes thus  from Irenaeus, who based himself a lot on Justin Martyr’s papers (died 165). The whole NT and the catholic church as a whole come from Irenaeus. Everybody should know that.
It leads to the terrible conclusion that you, as a catholic or as a protestant, are not believing in Jesus but in Irenaeus. He even invented the name “Jesus”. He wrote or forged everything, nothing to do about that. The original story can partly only be taken out of the gospel of Marcion. But this stops before the last supper. The rest is not known. The rest comes from Irenaeus. And it is a written story: this Jesus does not exist.
There is also nothing “unique” about christianity. Every sungod on earth dies and rises from the dead. But they are gods. Well what is Jesus? Just a human being? Then he cannot rise from the dead. And why is he then in the Trinity as god? I do not get this. There is a lot of sun-religion and Mithra-religion in it. The dying-rising-god-saviour comes from the Mithra-religion which is gnostic, and thus comes from Paul.
Have you ever heard of the renaissance popes? They were of a special kind. One of them is reported as saying: “Well, that Jesus-story did not  leave us poor”. And another one said “that Jesus was just an avatar of Mithra, and that he personally did not think that he existed”. And I must say: that is as close as you can get to a definition. (Apart from that the original story was indeed from judea). Those popes were not backward. Never mind what the church led the people to believe.
There is an interesting saying: there are two groups of people: the ignorant and credulous people, and the others who are less so, who try to con the first group. This might in principle be true. Some writers say that organized religion everywhere in the world, is in the hands of priests who take advantage of ignorant and credulous and often superstitious people. And the priests have the power and the money, without working one day of their life. To believe the catholic church, not only the NT, but also all their doctrines and dogma’s and saints and martyrs etc., you must be very credulous.

What about theology? There also is something weird. The Poor had no theology of course because they were Jahweh abiding jews. But they did have authority-confronting reform ideas, which they put into their prophet Ishu.
Paul’s theology was simple. He came with god the father, the son who had always been there from the beginning, and the holy spirit. This is 100% GNOSTIC. This son of god he put in the mystery religion of Mithra: the dying-rising-god, who was a saviour: Isu Chrestos. If you had faith (NOT belief) in his rising, he would give you life after death (spiritual of course). For the son of god he used Ishu, the prophet of the Poor, because he was raised from the dead by Jahweh. This soon led to a complete break between them. They stayed in judea, and Paul moved on to the west. That was it. By faith in Isu Chrestos you could gain life after death, which in that time was nowhere else to be found. At least Paul was not dumb, and his intentions were good. Although he had to do some deceiving and stealing for it. Gnosticism was just a religion, coming from Plato (which was older than the “old” testament).
Marcion’s theology was equal to Paul’s. Paul was his teacher.
Now we get Irenaeus’ theology. He took god the father, the son, and the holy spirit over from Paul and John (also gnostic). His Jahweh became the gnostic god the father. He even kept the dying-rising-god who was a saviour, but in a totally other form. The god was changed in a human being (sort of) through the non-existing virgin Mary (from 150), and he rose from the dead all by himself, which is of course not possible. The name he changed in Jesus. And there we have “the biggest miracle in world history” as they say. It is just a perversion of the original story and of Paul, who kept to the story.

But Irenaeus was not done yet. It had to be a saviour, but not by giving life after death as in Paul and in the gospel of John. And then we get something very strange: Jesus suffered and died as a human sacrifice for us, so that our sins would be forgiven, past, present and future: one size fits all. And this was Jahweh’s plan all along, Jahweh sent him for this.
This is called “the theology of the cross”. Irenaeus invented it and put it in his own gospels Mark and Mathew, and in Paul of course as if it came from Paul. This Jesus from Mark and Mathew is continuously predicting his own death (and resurrection). Very catholic, very unreal, very fake. Think about it: Jahweh, who has no son, sends his son to earth to become a human sacrifice (forbidden by judaism), as a payment to himself, so that he becomes willing to forgive sins. IS THIS NORMAL THINKING??? Is this Jahweh normal? Why doesn’t he just forgive sins if he wants to? Why does someone have to die for that? Why his only son? Seemingly he looooooves the people, but he does not love his son. His son doesn’t even want to, but he has to obey “the WILL of the father”.
How patriarchical and authoritarian (jewish) can you get? Who thinks like that? It is Irenaeus. To me this is completely abnormal. But the church loved it. And where is the good Jesus from the Poor? The “life after death” giving Jesus from Paul and Marcion and John? He is no more. He is reduced by Irenaeus to a suffering victim, who is hanging from a cross. The eternal victim. This is used to teach the people to endure their misery and suffering. Wonderfull. And since he died for US, we have to be eternally gratefull and feel eternally guilty. And eternally sinfull. Also wonderfull. This sums up the catholic church. In case you don’t get it there are crucifixes everywhere to remind you. And in every catholic church about 15 bloody paintings.
A new religion about a victim. Very usefull. And Irenaeus took care that Jahweh stayed very much ON TOP. He sent him and he ordered this. Maybe we can blame somebody else.

Time for the victims:
1. the Poor: their prophet and their story were stolen by Paul who started a religion with him, declaring him the son of god (the gnostic one), which of course cannot be done. They had to fight Paul, other gnostics, the jews, and in the end the christians.
2. Marcion: Marcion was a disciple of Paul, and inherited his 10 letters and his gospel (from the Poor, slightly changed in the beginning). Marcion did NOTHING to the texts. He was honest and innocent. Then he was overloaded with accusations and slander by Irenaeus and Tertullianus. I suppose he was dead by then, but still. He and his church were broken down for nothing. Because he had another god than the jews. The church of rome hated him (and Paul of course). I suppose they disappeared in the 4th century under the persecutions started by Constantine. The original letters of Paul and the original gospel of the Poor were in possession of the church of rome. Irenaeus completely demolished them. The gospel he used to create Luke, but he put many other things in it, e.g. the passion week. The letters he forged that much, that it is almost impossible to find Paul back in them and nobody knows what it is about. The ORIGINALS ARE GONE FOREVER. And what you get back through Tertullianus is NOT the original gospel.
3. Paul: of course this stealing from the Poor is bad. But apart from that he set up a good religion: gnostic and through a Mystery Religion. They were only for men and strictly secret. Paul opened it up for everybody, and not secret at all. It was about faith and life after death, both gnostic. I see nothing wrong with it. He worked very hard. He left his papers to Marcion. The gospel he slightly changed: his god went to earth, so he had to let him land only looking like a human being. How else should you do this with a god? (there was no virgin Mary yet invented).
He didn’t deserve at all what Irenaeus later did to him. Changing his whole person in the Acts, making him work for non-existing apostles, the gospel not spoken about and disappeared, his letters totally ruined, making him someone else than he was and giving a lot of false information, even making him jewish!!!! So everybody has the wrong ideas about Paul. Forever. The church did not even print the letters in the right chronological order. His first letter (galatians) was removed to the back. Paul was made to live in 35 instead of 100, and he is used to confirm Jesus’ existence. Furthermore many people do not believe he existed, though he founded gnostic christianity. Paul is definitely the most abused person by the church in early christianity. Thank god I am educated enough to pick out the gnostic mystery religion, and the gnostic trinity, otherwise still nobody would know about it. It is of course against the “consensus”, but these consensus-people should better start searching and reading instead of commenting on others.
We would all have been much better of with Paul and Marcion than with the church. This is easy: no central organisation or authority. Just communities or groups with a teacher, women were equal to men (in the year 100!!!!!), freedom of thinking, saying and writing, intellectual development was stimulated. Tolerant and peacefull. Not bad at all I would say. Especially in comparison to the church, which was authoritarian, prescribing everything you should think, do or believe.
4. We all. Everybody in the world, taught what to think, how to behave, and to believe in detail, all the same (this is what catholic means: everywhere the same) . Just repeating automatically as being brainwashed. In the meantime it cannot be ridiculous enough.
5. Jesus: started of as the prophet like Moses who in the end died at the stake, was raised from the dead by Jahweh and taken to heaven. This all on paper, it is a written story to be read to the people. Paul took him with him, and changed him into the son of the gnostic god (the Logos). He was going to provide spiritual life after death. His story went with him.
Then he was taken again, by Irenaeus. His story disappeared never to be seen again. Irenaeus was only interested in his death, and invented a ridiculous story about it, never heard before. It took a few hundred years, then they started to make images of him which they nailed to a cross. He had never heard of a cross. They started showing him everywhere, first in churches, but soon in monasteries, living-rooms, bedrooms, and at the side of the road. You could hardly move without being confronted to them. Now Jesus was not happy anymore. Where he came from the making of idols was forbidden. Now people were kneeling before crucifixes, praying and worshipping.
But apart from that: Jesus did not want to be portrayed as almost naked suffering and dying all the time. He thought it terrible. Nobody talked anymore about his life, what he had all said and done. This church was a death-cult, and he had landed in the middle of it. Since then Jesus is very depressed. He is being totally misrepresented, as sacrificing himself which he wasn’t. He was murdered, that’s all. Jahweh raised him and took him to heaven. For the rest he wants to have nothing to do with it. He is appalled by what they all do and say in his name. And he is sick of all the crucifixes and bloody paintings. My question is: did anybody ever think about Jesus himself, how he would feel about all this? Or is he just a convenient image for the invented theology of Irenaeus and the catholic church? Is he just being used? In the meantime the whole world knows his name and his idol, but NOBODY KNOWS HIM.


Irenaeus started with the gospel of Marcion (in rome since 125 or 145) and with the gospel of John (found in Turkey during his travels). Both were fiction, and Irenaeus knew that. Marcion came via Paul from the Poor/Ebionites, and is the original story from 72. It was used to blacken Marcion and is partly in Luke. Parts of it were replaced by Irenaeus’ writing in Luke. The original passion is gone and made into a copy of the rest.
This means the passion story is in principle based on John for the other gospels. Now John is a gnostic, and a teacher, a writer and a scholar. A free spirit who comes with his personal impression of the story. This means his story is the farthest AWAY from the original story. But HIS passion-story is used for the others. It is probably a special John-invention, like most of the rest. Which makes ALL the passion-stories inventions, copies from John. And not from the original.
There is something about this passion of John, which was used as an example. It makes me think of something called “the sacrifice of the sacred king” (or his son). I read a very difficult but very interesting book about the origin and working of “primitive religions”. This is 20th century info from anthropology. Opposite of what we are taught, it is the primitive religions which have ONE god. The later civilized religions have MORE gods. Polytheism is therefore more civilized than monotheism (although jews and christians are always shouting the opposite). There are still primitive religions, in the forests of East Africa, and the jungle of Brazil. Maybe more places but not discovered yet. But I saw that the largest primitive religion still around is JUDAISM (don’t tell them!!!). Egypt already had a civilized religion before 3000 BC (sun-religion). Judaism is still primitive. I suppose they kept themselves going with their BOOK, while the rest of them disappeared. PRIMITIVE RELIGIONS CENTRE AROUND HUMAN SACRIFICE. The jews abolished that at a certain moment and replaced it with animal sacrifice. But further all the characteristics are there.
The primitive religions have four forms of god: 1. an ancient ancestor, 2. a mythical hero, 3. a god, 4. the sacred king. The sacred king is a human being who is more god than king. He lives apart, he is not allowed to be touched, etc. He must take care of the people/tribe. When it does not rain for a long time, he must take care of it (provide for rain). When he cannot, he is sacrificed (literally). Kings who do not want this, send a substitute. They send their son. The son is sacrificed (for the good of the people) because it is the will of his father.
To me, that looks a lot like the catholic theology by Irenaeus. I don’t know if John did this on purpose. He must have, being a scholar. A John who comes with a story of Dionysus, and an anecdote about Pythagoras (1st greek philosopher 600 BC), can also know about the sacred king. To this sacrifice of the son also belongs dressing him up like a king (mantle, crown, sceptre) and mocking him (beating, laughing, spitting in the face etc.). Then the royal attributes are taken away, and he is sacrificed. I don’t know for sure, but I think we are looking in John (and thus the rest of the gospels) at the sacrifice of the sacred king’s son, as a substitute for his father. He even gets the tag: king of the jews. (which has absolutely nothing to do with messiah, the whole messiah influence is from Irenaeus). He is not a substitute for us, he is a substitute for his father the sacred king. Jahweh is the sacred. This means John blames Jahweh.
By having to do the WILL of the father in the other gospels, I would also say Jahweh is to blame for Jesus’ death, because he sends him to do it. But Irenaeus (who wrote this) is kicking only on his “obedience” and does not know about the rest. He sees this whole happening as a sign of Jahweh’s love, instead of sending your own son to a terrible death deliberately is the worst kind of child abuse ever. But jews were so patriarchical that they do not see this. But it comes from the sacrifice of the son of the sacred king (from John). Which really happened everywhere before and which is a characteristic of primitive religion. Which makes catholicism a primitive religion, according to its theology (from Irenaeus). And protestantism too. Primitive religion COMES from human sacrifice.

That is it. But I have noticed a “change” in christianity. Though it was created in the interest of the OLD testament and Jahweh (against the god of Marcion and Paul, which was the gnostic god), they are lately saying that “god is love”. I heard it on television from a protestant theologian and I did not know what I heard. So I looked on the vatican website and it was the same: the pope says “god is love”. Well you can say a lot about the jewish OT god Jahweh, but not that he is love. The gnostic god from Paul and Marcion and John represents love. I don’t know what is happening. Is it a way to keep the people on board? What I do know is that some people are very angry about this; they are screaming that “the god of Marcion is back”. Of course he isn’t because that would mean abolishing the Old Testament. But the god of Marcion, who is love, still seems to be a sensitive subject. How about that????

The old testament is of course fiction. It was written for certain purposes, and it was very succesful. It still is. But it was written from about 330/450 BC on, so it cannot be about 4000 BC. It cannot even be about 1200 BC: to far away. So the “the Torah was dictated to Moses” was invented. Apart from that gods do not dictate books, in the time of Moses the alphabet had not been invented yet, so there could not be written ANYTHING at all. They simply “forget” that. Never mind, religions are set up by priests for ignorant and credulous people, so they will believe it. And they did. And still do.
For their purposes they made Jahweh anthropomorphic, he is just like a human being, talking all the time to everybody. But Jahweh was originally NOT anthropomorphic. Then they made him the “creator god” (borrowed from the persians who had until then the only one), but Jahweh was not at all a creator god. He was a primitive god. So this whole OT is also a set-up by priests around 300 BC (the jews say 450 BC, but that does not matter for the point). It is a set-up and it is fiction from AFTER the babylonian exile. Nothing to do about that.

So what does the NT have to do with the OT? I often asked myself that, because Jesus and Jahweh do not seem family to me. Their personalities cannot be more different. Apart from that it is a story written by the Poor, jews who live in judea, so it is about a jewish prophet, Jesus and Jahweh have not much to do with each other. Because this reform-movement wanted to CHANGE a lot of things, so their prophet said rather controversial things.
What Irenaeus made out of this is incredible. Especially in Mark and Mathew. And that really disgusting theology of the cross. That terrible human sacrifice. It all comes from Irenaeus. Again a scam, a set-up, fiction sold as the truth. This time to protect Jahweh against the gnostic god of Marcion and Paul.
Slowly I get the idea that it does not matter if it is true (OT and NT) as long as you can SELL it as true, as long as the ignorant and credulous and superstitious members BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. And that seems to still work. Even when everybody has now a computer and can search for himself. Even the so-called biblical scholars with a degree or even a PhD still believe it. Now Irenaeus used a lot of aliasses, and made everything to fit tight, but this can be found out. As I did. But they do not even take their face out of the NT, which is incredibly dumb because it is a total fiction. For every book you study you first have to find out WHEN it was written, by WHOM it was written and WHY it was written. This also goes for the NT. Especially the WHY is super-interesting. In the NT case it was against Marcion and Paul and their god. I guess most scholars do not even know who Marcion is, and how important he was.
The most irritating to me is the “Jesus was the messiah” hoax. You read everywhere that “christ” is just a translation of “messiah”. There is then the jewish christ, jewish christians etc. BUT CHRISTUS IS A FORGERY FROM AFTER 450 AD. Before it was chrestus. It is a scam from the catholic church. By changing chrestus into christus, they could say that christus meant anointed, which meant messiah, and that Jesus was therefore the messiah. Everybody swallowed this until now.
The word anointed appears only two times in the OT. It comes from the prophets. The word is more often there but always in reference to a king. Because anointed means in principle king, or highpriest, or prophet. A messiah (taken from the persians by the way) is a political/military function: a warrior, a leader of rebellion against the romans, who afterwards becomes king. That is the general idea, inside and outside judea. And of course he is a human being. Since messiah is a military function to begin with, a warrior, the question whether Jesus was a messiah is very easily answered: HE WAS NOT. Not at all. He was the opposite, teaching peace. What is so difficult about it??? Why does nobody know this??? It must be the same: it is said to ignorant and credulous people, who believe ANYTHING the church says. They can just invent what they want, and it will be believed. Possible or not, crazy or more crazy, it does not matter. Proclaim it a dogma, and they win.
What surprises me the most is that even today people believe that. All the writers believe that. Too lazy to look up what a messiah actually is and does (which takes 5 minutes), and to look up when it was invented by the church. Just all following the church. All sheep. If you cannot loosen yourself from the church, even today, or from the NT which was written by the church (185), what are you calling yourself a SCHOLAR for? Just repeating and confirming the NT and the church is not necessary. People who want that can go simply to church themselves. There are no books about it needed. Which means 95% of the biblical scholars can go home and start doing something usefull.

I have seen during the years something very disgusting. Everybody who discovers something or finds something out or publishes something new or has an independent viewpoint, is ignored by the scholars, or put down in a terrible way. It is never about what they write, it is always personal. They have no PhD, or not the right one, they should mind their own business, they make so many mistakes it cannot be talked about, etc. I cannot repeat how mean these scholars are. They burn peope down. It seems that they form some kind of “guild” who deny other people entrance. Only they count.
But they themselves produce absolutely nothing. Still all others should shut up. A university professor of philosophy was told that he was “not suited” to read these old texts, while in philosophy you are used to reading much older texts. And him was said to mind his own business in the future. How about that? Who talks like that? Unbelievable. This means that everything new or discovered goes right down the drain, and every intelligent and inventive writer is rejected and not taken seriously. This is an enormous shame because it is those NEW people who come with new ideas which can be used by everybody.
So the status quo remains. Nothing is gained. It is all in the hands of the guild. I started my own research. No gospel research of course, which is useless, but historical research. I took the years 0 to 200. I tried to find out who were the important persons there, and when, and what they exactly said and did, and why. In that way you get a new timeline, and you can start connecting people. It is a lot of work, you have to get a complete oversight until 200, it is a lot of reading, from all kinds of people, but in the end EVERYTHING FITS PERFECTLY.
I declare the Jesus-problem solved. Jesus did definitely not exist, the story in which he appeared was written in 72 AD about. He was a very important prophet and healer, and of course a human being. After his death Jahweh raised him and took him to heaven. His name was not Jesus, but Ishu. All the rest is in principle fake. This prophet can still be found in a large part of the middle piece of Luke and Marcion.
I am so RELIEVED that I was able to find it. It was a burden which has now fallen away. So many people have questions and so much is written about it. And nobody knows for sure. I had my own questions of course. Now I have finally solved it. I did nothing else but study for 3 years. For me the outcome is not the most important, but THAT IT COULD BE SOLVED. At last. Everybody can make up their own minds now. Jesus was not a person but a paper character in a beautiful story. In Luke and Marcion there are still parts of it. The whole story is gone. Now I know that he did not exist, I still have a lot of sympathy for the original Jesus from the original story from 72. It would be hard to do without him after all those years. But you won’t get me in a catholic church no more. Because it is completely fake, and a total perversion of what was meant. And everything you hear there is invented by Irenaeus.
I hope that more people are interested in real history instead of being forced to listen to these fake biblical scholars who know absolutely nothing. Just in case they want to burn me down to the ground: It is ME who solved everything, while they know nothing. I did historical research instead of following the church and all its catholic writings. I have discovered what large-scale FORGERY is. I have proven it and it is watertight. I have no more questions now. No more secrets. And it is absolutely like John said: the truth sets you free.

So I say goodbye to Bart Ehrman in his fairy-tale world. His newest project I read is a search for the “historical roots of Judas”. I wish him a lot of success. He is going to publish a book about it, of course. Judas does not belong to the original story from judea. It does not really fit to a jewish reform-movement looking for members to invent a betrayer called judas (= jew). There was no betrayer. Judas comes from the gospel of John, who as a jewish gnostic more or less “hated” jews.
For all the other biblical scholars: have fun with the gospel of Mark. Anybody with any sense of history would not think that there were gospels in the 1st century. There is also NO EVIDENCE for it, they all just assume it. Never make assumptions. Since there was no Jesus (only on paper, in judea) there also cannot have been gospels. By the way, the name Ishu/Isu was still there in 185. Anything with Jesus in it has to come later. Who would have thought that: even THE NAME JESUS IS A FORGERY, by Irenaeus. Christus is a forgery from the 5th century or later in the bible, and chrestus does NOT mean messiah. And the cross is a forgery from the 5th century. Never mind: everywhere where it reads stauros (stake) we simply get it translated as “cross”. Even the church starting to call themselves ekklesia is a forgery, by which they got a lot of “churches” in the east which were not there. They were Paul’s communities. So there was no church of Jerusalem, no bishop etc. And James (“the brother of the Lord”) is just the leader of the Poor around 90.

I repeat that the gospels are fake:
– the birth-story of Luke is from 150,
– the boy of 12 in the temple who knows everything is taken from the book of Josephus, and is about Judas the Gallilean.
– the birth-story of Mathew comes from Justin’s papers (who died in 165).
– the sermon on the mount is put together from different writers (Luke, Marcion, Justin) and is therefore fake. It is also seen as not real by scholars, because it is much and much to large to be understood all at once by ordinary people.
– the gospels begin in Gallilea, because the birth-story of Luke (150) demands it. This means all the synoptics were written/put together AFTER 150. For all we know the whole Gallilean episode is fake.
– this also proves that the gospel of Marcion is older than Luke. It was in rome BEFORE the virgin Mary was invented.
– Kafarnaum does not exist as a village, to be found in the book of Josephus (very painfull mistake by Irenaeus, he took it from John).
– from a 7th century paper in the British Museum we know that Marcion’s Jesus landed on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho, and NOT near Kafarnaum as NOW written there. Marcion was forged by Irenaeus.
– what we have found of Marcion (in Tertullianus, but written by Irenaeus) is FORGED (by Irenaeus).
– some intelligent person has found little “latinisms”, meaning a greek writer living in latin surroundings (rome?) using a latin way of saying. These latinisms are found in Mark, in Mathew, and in Irenaeus. They are the SAME latinisms. This confirms what I already knew: that Mark and Mathew were written by Irenaeus.
– John the Baptist does not exist. Maybe it is nice to know that jews do not baptize at all. Baptism comes from Paul, who took it from the mystery religion of Mithra. And a so-called baptism for the “remission of sins” is just a preview of the catholic baptism!!!!!
– there is no 40 days in the desert with the devil, because judaism does not have a devil. They have Jahweh which is more than enough. The devil was invented by Justin Martyr.
IS IT ALREADY TIME TO GO TO JERUSALEM??????
– the passion-story is taken from the gospel of John, not from Marcion (we don’t know how that ended).
– the eucharist comes via Paul from the mystery religion of Mithra. Any mentioning of blood is abhorrent to jews; they are not allowed to get in touch with it (is primitive religion).
– the crucifixion comes from Psalm 22, so from the OT, (after it had been forged). It did not happen like that, it is written from the OT.
– THE RESURRECTION (by himself) COMES FROM IRENAEUS. Appearances and sending out disciples idem dito (185).
– the road to Emmaus was taken from the “ascension of romulus” (thanks to a jewish writer). I had not expected that.

Order of the gospels, before forging or writing by Irenaeus:
1. the gospel of Marcion, called the gospel of the Lord, who inherited it from Paul like he said. Paul took it with him from the Poor in Jerusalem, when Kephas had accepted him as their apostle/their messenger. It was written about 72, and it is fiction (very well written!!!). The original Jesus is a prophet, and thus a human being (what do you expect otherwise from jews?????) That it comes from Paul can be seen easily as Paul’s GOD Jesus is landing on earth. Paul translated it from aramaic into greek!!! Paul is the only one we know who knows both languages, and there is a translation-error in it, which nobody knows.
Irenaeus’ visit to the Poor must have been VERY enlightening. That enlightening that he gives them a false name: the Ebionites, and starts spreading false information about them. The “scholars” still not have found this out, you can read Ebionites everywhere, and they are not important. In fact they, the Poor, have invented and written the Jesus-story. But Jesus lived at 30, everyone cries. No he didn’t, it is a fictional story PLAYING in 30, but WRITTEN about 72.
Irenaeus knew all about it, BEFORE he started writing the new testament. So the whole NT is fake and forgery from after 155/160. The only real things are the letters of James and Jude, although also there I discovered a “christ”.
2. the gospel of John, written about 110/120 in Turkey. This gospel is gnostic. John was a gnostic teacher, writer and intellectual, leader of one of the gnostic communities Paul founded. I guess Paul showed him his jewish gospel and asked him to write a gnostic version. Which he did. Irenaeus loved the prologue, he planned to change the Logos (gnostic son of god) in the Word. A great success, and the whole world still believes that Logos means Word. It does not. Despite the prologue: how does the Logos come to earth? The Logos is a divine spirit and he enters Jesus. So Jesus is a human being, invaded or even taken over by a divine spirit. The dove is very gnostic. This was placed by Irenaeus in all the other gospels: it is all gnostic.
3. the gospel of Mark, written about 170, by Irenaeus. He might have had some basic text, but I don’t think so. When it is about a messiah, and there are miracles in it, it comes from Irenaeus. And the original Jesus was a prophet.
4. the gospel of Mathew, written about 170, after Mark, by Irenaeus. This gospel is definitely written by Irenaeus. He took from Mark almost everything, he took from Luke, he took from others. A messiah, miracles, and typically nasty catholic things. And anti-jewish of course.
The anti-jews attitude came from Justin Martyr, was taken over by Irenaeus, and then by Tertullianus. So it was there from the beginning. Irenaeus took anyway a lot of ideas from Justin Martyr (died 165). Like the resurrection of the dead in the flesh, the last judgement, and HELL. Furthermore the Satan (as being the devil), the replacement theology aso. In the beginning of my study I read papers from Justin, and I could only conclude that he was CRAZY, and fanatical. I now still think he was crazy. He was by the way no member of the church.

Before tampering the chronological order was: 1. Marcion, 2. John, 3. Mark, 4. Mathew.
By forging and rewriting the first one ready was: 1. John, 2. Luke, 3. Mark, 4. Mathew.
The gospel of John was really called like that, John being a gnostic teacher in Turkey. He was changed in the non-existing apostle John. Mark, Mathew and Luke do not exist. Luke is one time mentioned in the letters of Paul, when traveling on a ship. Irenaeus pretended in the fake pastoral letters written by himself, that Luke was Paul’s best friend. Since Marcion came obviously from Paul, Luke could be made a replacement as Paul’s “best friend”. It takes some thinking but then you get there. So he used Luke also for the Acts, which is predominantly about Paul. The Acts were written by Irenaeus and 100% FAKE. This has been proved many times. The real Luke, if there ever was one, was already dead when this all was fabricated.
Mark and Mathew: Irenaeus let them be mentioned by Papias. Papias did not exist. Even if he did the text is from Irenaeus. Eusebius had no papers of Papias; he had to retrieve him from others. So Papias did not only use only hearsay, he IS HIMSELF HEARSAY, I would say invented by Irenaeus. The information given by “Papias” is false. But even I had difficulties with this for a time. Then at once I saw it, reading more. The 12 apostles are invented by Irenaeus and are for the first time mentioned in the gospels, that is in 185. There is nobody who can talk about them before that, because they do not exist.
Especially the Mark going with Peter to rome: this story about Peter going to rome was invented in 160 in rome. Nobody can talk about that before 160. It is all fake. And this Mathew, who was writing something in aramaic, was put there to harass the original Poor. Because Irenaeus wrote that he saw no gospel there when he was there (the original gospelstory, through Paul now Marcion) but that it did not matter, BECAUSE THEY ALL USED MATHEW THERE, just taking off the birth-story. Of course Irenaeus had heard their story, maybe he even got a copy. That is what he came for. So instead of their own gospel he dumped Mathew on them, which he had written himself. He was not waiting for the original story about the prophet. And in one movement he placed Mark and Mathew back in time. Because it all had to be written in the 1st century.
Or at least before Marcion showed up in rome, so that Marcion could be the ARCH-HERETIC. So Marcion who had the original 10 letters of Paul, AND the original gospel from the Poor (only slightly changed by Paul in the beginning, to make his GOD come to earth) was declared the arch-heretic, and is still seen that way, although not by everybody. And there the original texts went down the drain. They perished when Marcion’s church perished during the persecutions by Constantine or by the church of rome. Never to be seen again. (Now people say: Marcion is interesting, but we know so little about him. Well, how did this come to be?).
I hope everybody can follow Irenaeus’ way of thinking and acting. I have done my best to reproduce it. It is not nice to do, because I have to put myself in his shoes, which I do not like. But it can be done. The man was obviously a genius. But it is the most disgusting thing ever done. It is only fraud, forgery and lies. He changed even the name from ISU into Jesus, disconnecting from the original papers. What kind of a man is capable of using his talents for 25 or 30 years for this lying and forging only. It was done to get Marcion and his churches out of the way, because Marcion and Paul had a second god, higher than Jahweh (in fact they had one god, the gnostic god). It was all done for the glory of Jahweh and the primacy of the old testament. The church were apostate jews: they did not keep the Law. But Jahweh was everything to them.
So who invented christianity? Was it Jesus? Jesus does not exist, it is only a story. Was it Paul? Paul founded gnostic-christianity, he said that faith (trust) in the rising of the god ISU CHRESTOS was enough to gain eternal life. This comes directly from the mystery religions, and is gnostic. Paul’s movement was taken over by the church in 185. So it is Irenaeus who invented christianity as the catholic church. Everything of it. Before 185 there was no catholic church, only a jewish church. The whole thing was set-up to keep Jahweh as the only god, and the old testament as most important. The OT was where Jesus came from, it was said. Actually that was NOT the case as you have seen. The whole so-called prediction in the OT, is created by Irenaeus in Mathew, and is a farce. There is nothing in the OT about a Jesus, the son of god, of course. But as long as the people believed it…………..they couldn’t check it, could they?

What is authentic in the NT? The letters of James and Jude. The gospel of John, a completely gnostic gospel with exactly the same message as Paul. But there are forgeries in it (there is a Simon Kifa, not a Simon Peter, a forgery by Irenaeus to create Peter). The gospel of Luke, partially based on the gospel of Marcion, but with a lot of additions which did not belong there. Like from the last supper to the end is fake. The first 10 letters of Paul. But these have been forged that much by Irenaeus, that they have become unclear and Paul cannot be found in them anymore. A completely new Paul was created. And they are on purpose not in chronological order. So almost nobody has any idea about the real Paul. The forgeries amount to 30%, as people say who are working on them. AND THAT IS IT. There is no more.
Nobody knows. I have to add that the gospel of John also takes ONE year. Imbeciles have been spreading for ages that it takes 3 years, because he goes 3 times to Jerusalem. So, is Jerusalem a forbidden city? But he goes 3 times to easter. No he doesn’t. He goes also to OTHER festivals. The jews have a lot of festivals. Anybody ever heard of Purim and Yom Kipur? At least my catholic NT of 1970 knows that, and names the other festivals. There is nothing about easter in the text. It is again just an assumption, but a really stupid assumption.
The same goes for the “disciple whom Jesus loved”. That is of course NOT John, because John is the STORY-TELLER. I also did not know who it was, until someone said that you should read the whole gospel and you would meet him. And that is true: it is Lazarus, who is a young man and not an old man as I always thought. His sister Mary can be Mary Magdalene. They also are disciples, but they are rich. Magdalene means “tower” as in “leader”. So again two problems solved.

Now finally Marcion is in the picture. At least 20 books are published about him in the last 20 years. People getting their PhD on him. So I read the contents of the books (I am on a gigantic biblical forum, I don’t know how I got there anymore, with 1000s of threads). These books are all worthless. Of course nobody knows that Irenaeus took Marcion and Paul apart by placing Paul back in time about 60 to 90 years (see the Acts). So they could then take Paul and forge him. And Marcion could not have  known Paul. THIS STILL STANDS. In fact Marcion was a direct disciple of Paul. If you find out the dates this shows. It can be done. The gospel of Marcion is still seen as written by him, although he himself said that he did NOT write it. He said he got it from Paul, which is the truth.
If the level of “investigation” is still that low, in fact following the NT and thus the catholic church, I am afraid nothing will be found out ever. It is very disappointing. Independent thinking is not there. It is hardly imaginable. And it is disgusting. How did I find it all out? I said it before: look until 200, search for the few facts and years (very difficult), then make a new time-line, read carefully EVERYWHERE, and it becomes clear what was when and why. Forget about the 1st century mantra and leave it. Start thinking independently. That is the only way.
Our best stage-performer since 50 years was interviewed because he became 75. He was asked: “where you really that forward in 1970?”. He replied: “No I was not that forward, only the rest remained back”. That is the way you should see this. Just go forward if you can. Leave the rest.
Now people are working (hard) to get the gospel of Marcion and the letters of Paul back. I don’t know where they want to get them. They are gone. I think they are working from Tertullianus. But it has been found out that Tertullianus did not write that, he was just hired to translate it in latin. Tert. did not have the gospel of Marcion himself. The text he got came from Irenaeus. Well, whoever thinks that Irenaeus is giving the real gospel of Marcion to Tert. to be published, he should think again. It was the real gospelstory written by the Poor in 72, about the true prophet. It should disappear, like them!!!! Part of it he used for Luke, and that is still there, but the rest of the retrieved text is of course FALSE. The real text is never to be found again. Irenaeus had it and furthermore nobody. I suppose he destroyed it.
I told I saw a photograph of ISHU-jews from the second half of the 19th century. If they survived Hitler, they can still have the original aramaic text. They should be tracked down and asked for it. Then that will be the original gospel of the Poor (which Paul had, translated and left to Marcion). These people have a very long breath, from 70 on. It would be so nice to find them.
With the letters of Paul it is different. They are forged by adding things. Whoever can take the forgeries out, can find the original letters. But it is probably 30%!!!! I can give a few hints. Everything concerning Jesus as a human being must go out, then everything concerning Paul’s “jewishness”, all the bullying, all the negative stuff about homosexuals and women, all the catholic theology, all his speaking well of the jewish Law, the brother of the Lord and Peter of course, and more things. This is all inserted by Irenaeus. He even puts things of Justin into Paul; this has been found.
So they think now they have retrieved the letters of Paul from Marcion from Tertullianus. This is of course FAKE by Irenaeus. There was 30% added by Irenaeus. Then he gave to Tert. in each letter just a few lines that would have been taken out by Marcion, so they seem almost the same as the ones we have. Thereby he is hiding his 30% additions. Again don’t fall for anything Irenaeus is telling you. Nobody knows of course. For now, Irenaeus is much too clever for all the still naive scholars from today, who now think they have the original letters and the gospel back. They cannot be found anymore. Unless someone is going to take out the 30% forgery OUT OF THE LETTERS. I do not see this happening because they have no idea of it.
Paul is simply a greek gnostic, who tries to set up a general gnostic religion in the form of a mystery religion. He talks therefore only about a dying-rising-god, who is a saviour. Nothing more. Jesus is a god or a divine spirit. God the father and the son who was there from the beginning are the gnostic god and his son the Logos. The holy spirit is gnostic. There is no more. He talks about ISU (the dying-rising-god) CHRESTOS. Chrestos means “good” but in connection with a god it means SAVIOUR. (christos is a forgery from after 450). That is Paul. Nothing wrong with that.
Only he deceived the Poor for that, stealing their human prophet Ishu and making him into a god. AND getting their scripture when he was accepted as apostle by Kephas (Kephas is a completely normal name, still in use among Palestinians as Kephah). Paul was very good in aramaic. That is how everything started. Gnostic Christianity comes therefore from the west of Turkey around the year 100. AND JEWS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. And Judea and Gallilea have nothing to do with it. And there are NO jewish christians. And NO persecutions. And when did they split? They have never been together in the first place.
That is all made up by Irenaeus, who sold everything as “really literally happened”, like the jews do with the old testament. Well he was an old testamentic jew (or jewish greek). So it was the same trick. That is why in Mark and Mathew he is surrounded by family and friends, people who know him, to make him more human and to make him more REAL. People with brothers exist, that idea.
I read a wonderful statement by a writer, to go along with this: IT IS VERY EASY TO FOOL PEOPLE, BUT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FOOLED.

The timeline:
70: end of the jewish war.
72: a reform-movement starts, called the Poor. They wrote a story about a jewish prophet, Ishu, who brings their ideas to the people.
around 90: Paul wants to set up a new (gnostic) mystery religion, for everybody. He needs a dying-rising-god. Having heard about the Poor, he visits there in order to be named their apostle/messenger and get hold of their story.
95: Paul and the Poor break up definitely (see galatians). Paul never goes back. The jews (the Poor) have of course NO son of god. Paul is not a jew, but a greek gnostic who speaks aramaic.
95 – 120: Paul is founding numerous gnostic communities in the west of Turkey. Later he travels to Greece and tries it there.
125: after Paul’s death Marcion inherits his papers: 10 letters and 1 gospel (the gospel of the Poor). Marcion takes them to the church of rome (why?????) which is jewish (but without the Law). Marcion gets kicked out and declared a heretic of the OLD TESTAMENT. He does not get his papers back.
125 – 155: Marcion sets up his own church and is successful, competing wih the churches of the church of rome. The church of rome did nothing between 125 and 155: it seems they were not interested in Paul and the gospel, having seen that Paul is a gnostic and Marcion too. This changes when Marcion is successful. They now want to destroy Marcion and his god.
Gnosticism is just an other religion, as there are 100’s in the roman empire (the romans don’t persecute religions). It has been invented by PLATO in the 4th century BC and it is spread everywhere. It has one spiritual god in the universe and a number of divine spirits (children). So no, the jews did not invent it themselves, and it does not come from Philo etc, they were INFLUENCED by it. Gnosticism was already around long before. I hope this is understood now and forever.
The problem was that Marcion had said that his gnostic god was HIGHER (it was a universal god) and more loving than the jewish god (this is undoubtedly true). This was according to the jews of the church of rome impossible: Jahweh was the creator-god, the only god. They did not understand that that was true ONLY FOR JEWS. Other people had other gods. The persians also had a creator god, where the jews stole theirs from in the attempt to upgrade their religion, which was the OT. Their action began. They had some fanatical, highly motivated, highly educated man there, who was writing all the time. He was called Irenaeus and he wanted the job, which of course had to be done in secret.
155 – 185: Irenaeus started by traveling and visiting every group there was. It was easy to find out where “Marcion’s gospel” came from. From the Poor. So Irenaeus knew what the original gospel was. And he knew where they based it on. That story had to disappear. And the Poor he called the Ebionites and he started to misrepresent them. The lie about the Ebionites has still NOT been found out, although it is on the internet. He brought the gospel of John from Turkey with him (gnostic).
Through lying and forging and inventing he produced the NT. And all the other so-called writers from before 185. That is all Irenaeus. And a book where he explains everything and sets up the catholic church. Every aspect of it. Without Irenaeus there would not have been a catholic church, nor a NT. And everything on a tone like “like we all know, like we all understand etc.” I heard on the radio that that is the tone you must take when you are introducing NEW THINGS. IT IS ALL LIES.
Ishu was a prophet, on paper, not the son of god, and not a messiah, although Irenaeus was pushing this. I have even read a messiah as son of god. How dare they!!!! Never mind, everybody is brainwashed or dumb or credulous, and they CANNOT READ, they’ll believe it. The church declares it so it is the truth. Paul made him the son of god, but that is the GNOSTIC god. John did the same. The last supper, trial and crucifixion- stories were all taken from John and they are all fake. John was not writing history but giving a gnostic artistic impression, probably about the “sacrifice of the son of the sacred king” (primitive religion).
By the way, the gnostic god CAN send his son to earth (since he has one), but Jahweh can’t because he has not got one. Look in the OT or ask a jew. So how can he send one???? Nobody seems to have asked. But it was predicted in the prophets, Irenaeus made of it. Well prophets are not god, and you can predict whatever you want from the OT, very easy.
After 30 years Irenaeus was ready and it became public. In 200 the canon was opened and the 4 gospels and the Acts immediately went in, and stayed in. The catholic church started. It is all forgery and lies. Fabricated by Irenaeus. Done to destroy Marcion and his god. By its strict hierarchical organisation (from Irenaeus) the church of rome was chosen by Constantine as his favorable religion in 313. The rest is known.

That is what happened. The original gospel of Marcion/Paul/the Poor was destroyed, only the middle part stayed, in Luke. From the last supper on it is fake, like the others. The 10 letters of Paul were forged. Paul was placed back to 35, to remove him as far as possible from Marcion. Marcion was placed forward to 145. Marcion was then accused of stealing and mutilating by the one who in reality did that. But no-one knew what was in that gospel. Tertullianus did not have it. Epiphanius did not have it. Tert. translated only what he got from Irenaeus. What we have now is what HE wants us to have.
It is known from the beginning that the letters of Paul in the NT are NOT the ones as they were delivered by Marcion. But nobody does anything about it. Marcion had again taken things out, said Irenaeus. Instead of endlessly whining about which one is really by Paul and which one is not, to their opinion, they should better start taking out the forgeries out of ALL OF THEM. Galatians and Romans are forged the most. Have fun. It is about 30%. Then we talk again in 30 or 50 or 100 years.
There are enough things to be done. Stop believing the BIGGEST FORGER AND LIAR IN HISTORY for one, and his many aliasses. Irenaeus invented the resurrection (in the gospels) on which everything is based. Irenaeus invented the name Jesus, and it does not come from Yeshua/Yoshua. They also have not figured THAT out yet. So Jesus, and the resurrection are from 185. Think about that. Stop whining about Mark being first, all this lied junk COMES FROM ONE PERSON (except John). Before 155 the jewish church knew only the so-called gospel of Marcion, which was the original gospel of the Poor, slightly changed by Paul. And the original letters of Paul, in the right order. Marcion brought them.

Sometimes I get desperate: how long is this scam still going to last? It can be over in no time. I think I have proved about 30 times that it is all lies. Everything can be found on the internet, everything can be solved. If I can do it, everybody can do it. You can also take my description.
You don’t have to wait for the official “scholars”, they are not going to do it for you. When you see what they are doing, I don’t know if I have to cry or to laugh. It is all so dumb and so incredibly beside the point. They do not come any further than biblical texts. Well the solution is not there, because they are all fake or forged. In Paul there are an incredible amount of forgeries. They all have no idea. You are not allowed to say forgery. Well I am sorry, but it is all forgery and lies. Nobody has any idea about gnosticism or mystery religions. They all go out from christianity as it is presented in the NT and in the churches, because they are all christians and they all think it is true what is written. IT IS NOT. They are simply all brainwashed from baby on.
I have just been looking for information, because I wanted to know, and I kept on searching until I found it and understood it, and it fits perfectly. So now I know. I wish this for everybody. Since any kind of christianity does not start before 90/95 (Paul), you have to study the 2nd century. That is where everybody goes wrong to start with: all kinds of things are ASSUMED for the 1st century which are not there (eg the gospels). Don’t assume things, find facts, real facts, so not from the NT. If you want to study this seriously and objectively you MUST FORGET ABOUT THE NT. Put it out of your head. If you don’t do that you can never be objective.  You will keep falling back in fairy-tale land. The NT consists of lies. It is all fabricated by Irenaeus between 155 and 185. IT WAS MENTIONED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 185. And HE placed it back to the 1st century!!!!
I know that Irenaeus was incredibly smart. His whole fabrication still stands. Of course it helps that the church declares it 100% TRUE, and says that you MUST believe it. So most people do. If you don’t you are a heretic and you will get burned alive at the stake. Oh, they stopped that in the meanwhile, I don’t know when exactly. But nowadays with so many academics, and everyone having a computer, you would say that everything would have been solved. But nothing is solved!!!!! How much you read does not matter: it is everywhere the same. Nobody has got any clue. And nobody ever will if they keep following the NT and christian writings (all Irenaeus) instead of historical facts.

On the biblical forum I found a scholar who says that the whole NT, about which was talked until 367, was in fact written by ONE person at the end of the 2nd century. Hurrah!!! Someone found it. But then he says that he does not know who it is. How much choice do you have? From 150 on you have Justin (died in 165), Irenaeus and Tertullianus. Tert. was a personal convert of Irenaeus and functioned as his translator into latin. How does he mean he does not know who it is????? Didn’t he read the book by Irenaeus?
Another said: I always wondered how Irenaeus could get his hands on so many texts. But he says: it must have been “free borrowing” around the world.
Another said Irenaeus had the whole new testament, but that was because it was already there…………Irenaeus only had to “pick it up” somewhere. Maybe at Polycarp, who was dead.
It seems impossible to name Irenaeus as the writer, even now. Although he wrote a book of 800 pages to defend it, which consists of only lies. I don’t know why that is: It is so obvious when you study him thoroughly. Apart from that he is the only one who could have done it (before that it was only Justin (150 – 165 in rome) who seemed to have had some text).

They can’t even get the timeline right: Jesus lived in 30 because that is in the gospels. And from there everything is seen. In fact there was no son of god then, called Jesus. There was nobody. If you would say he did you would get stoned for blasphemy. Doesn’t anybody know judaism???? It all derives from the written story from judea from around 73 about a PROPHET called Ishu. Only the story plays in 30. That is it. That is all. A prophet is a human being. Does Ishu sounds like Jesus? Paul talked about Isu, Marcion did also. Jesus arrived only in 185: Irenaeus had given him a new name. Just like that. So any talk about Jesus is already talking about a forgery.

There is no Jesus. There is only a jewish reform-movement within judaism, who wrote a story to spread their program in a nice way, about a PROPHET called Ishu. They called themselves the Poor. Irenaeus called them the Ebionites to hide this. The story was written in 72/73, but plays in 30. AND THAT’S IT. THERE IS NO MORE. After his crucifixion and burial Jahweh raises him from the dead and takes him to heaven. (Jahweh does not take corpses to heaven).
Everything which is called christianity today originates from this story, and from John (the 2nd gospel). What we have left of it is the middle part of Luke, which is already quite special. And there will be some of it in Mathew, but I cannot define this. In Luke (or Marcion) you must take out any mentioning of family, disciples, and miracles because they were not there. The only miracle left is the raising from the dead of the only son of a poor widow who gets buried (only in Luke), because prophets (in the OT) do this to show that they are really prophets.
It is a shame that Luke (the middle part) and John, the two oldest gospels, are put in the back in favor of the two fabricated gospels by Irenaeus from about 170. Nobody ever looks at Luke although the middle part comes from the ORIGINAL STORY from the Poor, who wrote it in 73. John is gnostic but I think special and original. He invented the “king of the jews”, used by Irenaeus in the other gospels. A lot of John is used in the other gospels, like the clearing out of the temple court. But John is last they say. No he is PLACED last. He is second. But John is fiction they say. That is correct, but they are ALL fiction.
Apart from the middle part of Luke and some things in Mathew there is nothing from the original gospel from 73 there. John is original gnostic from about 110: it is forged and used for the rest. And “the Word became flesh” is the most important sentence for Irenaeus. He wanted to prove that Jesus was a real human being, but had a “pre-existence”. Then you have to go to the gnostics. Only the gnostic Logos can never be translated with the Word. As if Irenaeus did not know that. Did you know that John says that Jesus is about 45 years old? Irenaeus makes it 30.
All the rest of the gospels is invented and lied together by Irenaeus. Try to find any gospels before that: they are not there. Or mentioned by Irenaeus’ aliasses of which there are many (he of course had to place them back in time). It is all lies and it is fiction, because there was no Jesus as Irenaeus well knew. It was a fictional story by the Poor from 73 as he found out visiting there, about a human prophet. He was destroying the gnostics especially Marcion and Paul.
According to Paul Jesus was the son of the gnostic god, a divine spirit. He let him go to earth as a god, only looking like a human being. How else? You cannot change a divine spirit into a human being. The gospel went to Marcion who founded a church with it. Most gnostics had a human Jesus “invaded” by the christ spirit, a divine spirit in the gnostic universe (especially in Egypt). Irenaeus wanted a real human Jesus, to be able to call the rest heretics. In fact the gospel Jesus also gets a divine spirit inside, at the baptisms. There is no difference!!! But thank god somebody invented the “virgin Mary” (one in 150, one in 165). With this Jesus could be BORN and therefore he was a real human being. Problems solved!!!! They should be eternally grateful to the inventors of the virgin Mary. And they are!!!! Look how she has been venerated from the beginning!!! Without her this all would not have been possible. (I have no idea who invented her).
I read a fantastic story about what happened when Irenaeus was ready. They wanted it made public. That could be done by getting it placed in the public library. I had no idea that that existed. There were public libraries where everybody could and did read important things. So suddenly the public library in rome burned down around 190. Irenaeus and his collegues were shouting that their scriptures had been lost in the fire. When the library was rebuilt, it was announced it was for the lost papers. And when it was ready, they put their scriptures in. That is the way they did it.
By being placed in the public library they became the official version of christianity. All the gnostic communities and the gnostic churches of Marcion who were just peacefully going about their business suddenly did not count anymore. They (Irenaeus) had defined christianity exactly as they themselves wanted. And the rest already there for a 100 years became heretics. That is the way it started. Only they had to call themselves the catholic church, because there was of course already a christian church, from Marcion.
So anybody thinking it is true, and christianity started in the year 30, Peter going to rome, and them being a great success, is completely 100% deluded. That is only the fairy-tale they tell you. They are convinced nobody can check, because they keep everybody pinned down in the 1st century. When you dare to go out of there, 100s of people start immediately burning you down, calling you dumb, crazy aso. But I dare everybody to study the 2nd century and after that we speak again. Because it is all on the internet, you just have to search.

I still don’t understand where the years 70 – 100 for the four gospels comes from. It is a total lie. I have not followed this, they used to be put before 70. Someone found out that could not be true. Did the church agree? Who put them at 70 – 100? Did the church do that? Otherwise I cannot find a reason why EVERYBODY agrees on these dates, as if it is a law. Where is the evidence? Who on earth is proclaiming something for which there is not even evidence?
I have evidence. They were first named and presented in 185. Let us talk about THAT. And everything else is a smokescrean, they are Irenaeus aliasses. You are being fooled. You are being manipulated. Who wrote the TF? Irenaeus of course. In the year 93 Paul was just starting, and the name was Isu. The name change into Jesus comes from Irenaeus. So no, there was no Jesus known anywhere in 93. You have to study the facts of course. Eusebius is always blamed. Do you have any idea what he had to work with? Only forgeries and lies. The blame does not belong on Eusebius.

Ehrman goes to his next “debate”. He does not have to prepare, he knows everything allready. Jesus existed of course and everything is true. It s all confirmed by Josephus (the TF) and Tacitus. He is very confident. I just told where the TF comes from and that the name Jesus did not even exist in 93. But HE is the expert. And how on earth could Tacitus have heard about Pilatus in 116? Paul was still in Turkey. Some of his followers went to rome. How many? 10? 20? Trying to set up a community there. There were no christians furthermore. The word christian (actually chrestian) comes from Paul. So this is a forgery, very simple. Like the story about Nero, also a forgery. The story about the prophet was not even written yet. LEARN SOME FACTS instead of babbling the believers’ stories. In my opinion the whole Tacitus book is fake. A book never seen before suddenly pops up in the 15th century? Complete? In a monastery where traditionally forgeries are made? Declared to be Tacitus on only one old page from the 11th century? Please. It looks more like the church needed extra corroberation. So that Ehrman just has to say Josephus and Tacitus to win the debate.

The original story can be partly found in Luke/Marcion. At least there you can still see who and how the original prophet was. Very nice!!! But: reading in Josephus (War) I found that KAFARNAUM DID NOT EXIST!!!! Josephus, who was the governor of Gallilea in 66 and 67, tells that on a hill west of the lake there is a spring, of which the water coming down makes genesareth (the area west of the lake) extremely fertile. Fruit trees are bringing forth fruit throughout the year. And the name of the SPRING is Kafarnaum. If Kafarnaum is not a town, and there are still doubts about Nazareth existing then, how about the whole Gallilea story? It was not there!!!! It was invented by Irenaeus, who forgot to check Josephus on it. This is a VERY BIG HOLE in the gospels!!!!!!
And of course Marcion lets him land near Kafarnaum, but this is all forgery by Irenaeus. Originally Paul lets him land “on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho”. In other words, there was no Gallilea originally. Which seems normal because the original story comes from Judea. This Gallilea comes from the birth-story of Luke where they live in Nazareth. Therefore the gospels HAD TO begin there. This birth-story is only from about 150. And so the SYNOPTICS HAVE TO BE WRITTEN AFTER 150. This is proved. And they are fake.
And there is of course no S, no L, no M, and no Q. People talk about them as if they really exist. Because everything comes from Mark. Mark is also from after 150 of course. And sayings??? Jesus/Ishu exists only on paper, so there is no more. Everything the same in the synoptics comes from LUKE of course, and is copied into the other two. But all the “scholars” are being led by the prologue in Luke which makes him last. Do they really think that that is real? That that is there by coincidence? Do they really believe Luke and Acts are written by the same person? Still no idea about forgery? About manipulation? Come on people!

AND NOW I STILL HAVE TO GET VERY ANGRY:
In the letters Paul preaches a mystery religion. This is very clear. ISU becomes the dying-rising-god, who is a saviour. CHRESTOS means saviour. Paul preaches ISU CHRESTOS. Marcion preaches ISU Chrestos. Jesus Christ does not exist. Paul and Marcion are basic gnostic. Paul must be called the founder of gnostic chrestianity. Paul founds communities, NOT churches. The mystery religion is still there in the letters. But “experts” do not recognize a mystery religion even when it is thrown in their face. They do not know what it is and make stupid remarks.
Doesn’t anybody know that “god the father” is not the OT “the Lord”? And that Isu Chrestos, the son, who was there from the beginning also is NOT from the OT? At least I cannot find him, and neither do the jews. Paul speaks about the GNOSTIC god and the Logos, for the moment Isu Chrestos. Like John whose whole prologue is about the Logos. Nobody understood that that is all gnostic? No? Of course Irenaeus changed Jahweh/the Lord immediately in god the father, so since then the creator god is called god the father. The same god the father they HATED  because he was the gnostic god of Marcion and Paul. But you see: Marcion’s churches must go (competition) and Paul they keep. As a totally different person and in a different century. Far away from Marcion. Even before the Poor had written their story (73).
Paul does not say cross. He says stauros (stake), the right word from the story and the roman death penalty. And Paul keeps to the story all the time. Paul does not say that Isu Chrestos rose from the dead, which would be the most easy and normal thing to say. He says that Isu Chrestos WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD BY HIS FATHER, on the 3rd day according to scriptures. This is a copy of the story of the Poor, where Ishu was raised from the dead by Jahweh on the 3rd day. So he was raised by god (always possible), he did not raise himself (not possible). NO RESURRECTION. And Paul’s scriptures is his copy from the story of the Poor.
SHOULD I BELIEVE THAT NOBODY HAS SEEN THIS??????? Is everybody blind???? There is no resurrection (by himself) in Paul. The resurrection comes only in the gospels, which as we have seen were written after 150 by Irenaeus and which are FAKE. The whole Gallilea episode is probably invented, and the passion is taken from the gospel of John (from about 110). Therefore 4 times “the king of the jews”. The eucharist is invented. No jew could ever talk like that because of the taboo on blood. The resurrection on which the catholic religion is built comes from Irenaeus, as well as the name “Jesus”. And the theology also comes from Irenaeus: Jahweh sent his son to die as a ransom so that Jahweh can forgive sins: who has ever heard something weird like that?? The theology of the cross was there. Is still there.
Irenaeus got his honorary title (Irenaeus means the Peacebringer/maker), no idea what his name was, nobody knows. According to his biography he lived his whole life in Lyon as a simple presbyter (elder). I am more than pleased that I have unraveled the whole lying and forging and inventing by Irenaeus between 155 and 185, which led to the catholic church. Since the original gospel from the Poor is gone, it is one big lie in which we are living since 200. I know of nobody who has seen through this largest scam of history. I am proud of myself. Being smarter than Irenaeus is almost impossible. He has reminded himself in the so-called sermon on the mount. For there we find the “Blessed are the peacemakers”, and that is he himself!!!


But there is still a problem. Like I said the conspiracy is still being protected. They prevented that a more authentic gospel of John in the Nag Hammadi papers came on the list of scriptures, so nobody knows it is there. This to prevent that their forgeries come out. Point for them. The book they confiscated in 380 on the order of Irenaeus who had forbidden that anything about the Ebionites would appear was released in 1965, and indeed the Ebionites were in it. I seems to be a worthless book, but concerning the Ebionites it was said that they called themselves the Poor (there they are then) and that they were talking about a prophet (there he is). But the “experts” did not understand a word of it and the writer was declared unreliable. Although this was a chance to start unraveling everything. Another point for them.
But there was a 3rd item which could bring them in trouble and I cannot let this one go. It is kind of complicated. In 1890 there was discovered in Russia somewhere a 16th century copy of Josephus’ book “The War of the Jews”, with two stories in it we did not know: one about someone we would call John the Baptist, and one about a man with a number of “Jesus characteristics”, but not the gospel story (which we now know is fake). It could all be traced back to the 10th century.
It was translated in german because a german well-known scholar wanted to write a book about it. He concluded in 1906 that it was written by Josephus, and that it had been a source for christianity. This book was ignored. In 1920 G.R.S. Mead, one of my favourite scholars who was ignored because he was a member of the Theosophical Society (whatever that may be) translated it himself from german in english “to make it available to everybody”. He advised everybody in the field to study it as it was “the most peculiar thing ever found in christianity”. He was right.
And how many people read this? Nobody did according to my knowledge. Ignore mr. Mead. I ofcourse read it and what was already known about it. It certainly was not the gospel story, but it was written by Josephus as far as I could see.
Two years ago I looked what had happened to it, and I discovered it had been declared a forgery around 1970. A FORGERY??? What had happened? A few people only (I think three) had looked at it and declared it a forgery, and that was that. Only three people, and it was done so fast and especially so discrete that nobody else had noticed it. I never read anything about it, it had been done away with.
These three people are clearly LYING. I wonder if they are fundamentalist catholics by themselves only, or also were invited by the Vatican. I suspect the Vatican has to do with it. I read only one person and then could not take more, ashamed of how people can lie. This woman said the 10th century russians did it. This is a lie because our own manuscripts of Josephus ALSO do not go back further than the 10th century. This means nothing to when it was written. And why did they do this? Answer: because they wanted to make Josephus christian!!! Apart from this ridiculousness, I have ONE QUESTION: WHY THEN DIDN’T THEY???? Because this has nothing to do with the christian story. Asked why she bothered because it was about an anonymous man, she said “that there were catholic dogma’s in it”. Well, I looked long and hard but I could not find hem. She is stonehard lying.
Another said that the 11th century russians did it: they wanted to use it in their “ideological warfare” with their neighbours. Apart from that any form of warfare there and then was decided by swords, this is an idiotic 20th century lie. How can anybody invent something like that!!!!
The problem is that when something is declared a forgery, everybody believes that and no-one looks any further. The church who probably hired these types is relieved. Because this was the most dangerous thing that could happen to them. BECAUSE THIS WAS WRITTEN BY JOSEPHUS.
I will tell you what was already known about this text, which was IGNORED by them: 1. It is not a russian text at all, it has been translated from the greek. This is proven because there are still greek words in it, which the russians could not translate. So now it can be from any year, also from 75 and Josephus. 2. It is obviously 1st century information. 3. The story is in itself CONSISTENT which points to TRUE. 4. It is independent of the gospels. 5. It is written by a jew (obvious from the text).
How many persons fit this pattern? I know only one: Josephus. There is so much to do always about the fake TF, and now the REAL story by the REAL Josephus has been found, they don’t know how quickly they can throw it away, before anybody with brains can take a look. Is this honest work???? No it is deceit. A lot clumsier than Irenaeus did it.
Do you recall that information about the Ebionites had to be hidden? Only from 1965 on it became clear that they called themselves the Poor and were talking about a prophet (the original gospel). Why was this book released at all in 1965? As a diversion-tactic. Like the official declaration in 1969 that they had found out after 1400 years that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute after all (declared so in 600). Another diversion. From the fact that the refound Josephus text was declared a forgery at the same time. That’s how they do it.
Irenaeus knew of course everything. That is why he gave the Poor a false name (Ebionites) and spread false information about them. Their gospel story went with Paul, who translated it, who may have used it, and who left it to Marcion. Paul left it practically intact, he was no forger. Irenaeus tore his own copy apart and placed it mostly in Luke and partly in Mathew, and maybe Mark. The rest he threw away. The beginning (Gallilea) and the end (the Passion) of the gospels are by Irenaeus.
But Irenaeus had understood that the gospel of the Poor was based on a true story by Josephus. This story should therefore disappear forgood, or anyone could find out that part of the gospels were based on the book of Josephus, instead of being eye-witness-stories. Was he nervous? Not at all. He let it be destroyed only after he had made himself widely use of it. The copies of Josephus’ books were in the public library, so that was easy. The story was gone forever. Apparently one was missed, maybe by being outside the roman empire. This copy ended up in russia, where it was found in a 16th century Josephus. That is the story, and THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF JOSEPHUS IS BACK. Only no-one knows about it. It proves the TF to be of course a blatant forgery. Only the use of the name “Jesus” says that already. The name Jesus did not appear before 185. Nobody seems to know that. Well the Poor had Ishu, Paul thus had Isu, and Marcion had Isu. There was no Jesus. Jesus comes from Irenaeus. (Time to throw the NT out).
It is not gone now, it is on the internet. Everybody can study it. When you buy the book about the war from Josephus, I believe you get it extra, for fun. So we can all laugh about this forgery. I believe that is called: hide in plain sight. Nobody takes it seriously. But it is really by Josephus, and it has really happened to a real man. He was the basis for the prophet Ishu from the original gospel-story from the Poor (James and Kephas), which Paul had taken with him, and which Marcion had after him.
There is another timeline than the one presented to you. The Poor/Ebionites started after the war, after 70, which is why they are never counted. Jesus lived in 30. Well Ishu did, but the Poor did not. They started after 70, and THEY WROTE THE STORY, with the help of Josephus. This is the so-called ur-gospel that everybody is looking for. Paul had it and slightly changed it (his god Isu had to descend to earth) and Marcion had it of course. And Irenaeus from the church of rome. Since then it is gone. What you find in Tertullianus (as written by Irenaeus) is NOT the gospel of Marcion of course. Irenaeus would of course not be making the jewish ur-gospel public, which was meant to disappear. It has not been seen since. It is gone.
With Paul visiting the Poor (which is proven) Paul has to be placed after 70. I would say 85 or 90. Paul’s preaching would go on until about 120. Which matches with Marcion visiting the church of rome about 125. Irenaeus makes this 145 for different reasons. This does not fit with Justin calling Marcion “an old man” in 155. It was then between 125 and 155 that Marcion founded all his churches. In about 155 the activity of Irenaeus began. I can be 5 years off, but this is in general the right timeline.

Over to Josephus. There is a story about whom we would call “John the baptist”. It is certainly by Josephus because “Archelochus” is mentioned (who knows him?) and a “Simon the Essene” (who knows them?). Josephus is the only writer who has ever named the Essenes. So that is certain. It is about an unnamed man dressed in camel-skin and with hair everywhere (Josephus calls him the “wild man”) who has to appear before king Archelochus. He calls himself a prophet and is known for his enormous big mouth. This man is beheaded by Herod Antipas because of his big mouth, keeping bothering Herod about his second marriage, which was not legal according to the jewish law.
You should say this is John the baptist. But apart from him starting under king Archelochus, which is before 6 AD, which makes him at least 20 years older than Jesus, and apart from this beheading cannot have taken place before 35 AD (this has been long known) so not in the time of Jesus, this man is NO BAPTIZER. There is no word or even hint of baptizing in the text. This man is running around the country opening his big mouth.
This means our John the baptist and everything he seems to do and say IS FAKE. The John the baptist from the synoptics does not exist, while we all think he does. Irenaeus took this figure from Josephus and combined him with the “John who was baptizing” and announcing Jesus as higher than him, from the gospel of John (the 2nd gospel). Now John is a gnostic writing a gnostic gospel in Turkey, and we have no means of knowing who this John represents, maybe some gnostic teacher he knows, or maybe he made it up by himself. In the jewish ur-gospel there was no John the Baptist. Irenaeus made him up and makes him also very important, introducing the CATHOLIC baptism. Everybody is conned by Irenaeus again: the John the baptist we get presented in the synoptics does not exist. Which is why Irenaeus let this man be removed from Josephus. It is of course not meant that this would come out ever. And by the way JEWS DON’T BAPTIZE at all. Catholics do. O how difficult it is to know something about jews!!!
So John the Baptist does not exist. I already found that Kafarnaum does not exist. There are doubts about Nazareth (it comes from a birth-story from 150). Nazareth can be made of Genesareth e.g. I know it was not there when the first tourist visited, which was Helena the mother of Constantine. But it had to be found…………It seems that Helena, or the bishops accompanying her, simply pointed out a village and said it was Nazareth and put a name-sign there. I have thus a strong indication that the ur-gospel did not play in Gallilea at all, but in Judea. It was written by judeans, so why not.
There seems to be a lot invented/made-up in the synoptics. They came from Irenaeus. He is the master-forger. All that talk about 3 different gospels from 3 different communities (there were no communities except those from the Poor), but all looking very much alike, and written by highly educated greeks which were not there, is of course bullshit. THE NAME JESUS APPEARS FIRST IN 185.  Before 100 there were no “communities” except from the Poor from 70 on, and if there were already a few, they were GNOSTIC communities founded by Paul in the west of Turkey. That is where the gospel of John comes from. I don’t know if you all follow, but Paul’s Isu Chrestos was NOT a human being, but a god (a divine spirit in gnosticism). In the by him translated gospel of the Poor, he therefore lets him come down to earth, looking like a human being but being a divine spirit. This gospel went to Marcion. Any word about someone human in Paul’s letters is forgery.

In Josephus there is a larger story, also about an anonymous man. I think it is a whole page, maybe more. It is difficult to see a connection with our gospels, but these are completely fake, I cannot say any different after what I all found. But if you look at the story of the Poor, which went with Paul and ended with Marcion, then you can see how the Poor did this.
After a long search I found information about the Ebionites (the Poor). They wanted to change judaism not in a small way. They came with the peace-regulations (love your enemy, turn the other cheek aso as in Luke), which they called the “second law” going over the first law of Moses. It was brought by their prophet Ishu, the prophet-like-Moses from the OT. Also our “Our father” comes from them. Ishu was also the “true prophet” because he had predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, and since this had recently happened he was the true prophet. It was thus written after 70. They ABOLISHED all the prophets except Ishu and Moses. They were against animal-sacrificing and ABOLISHED everything in the law which had to do with that, which is almost the whole law. I also read they removed from the law the things that were later added, which resembles an earlier movement, in which way you only keep the 10 commandments.
They wanted equal treatment for everybody. There was a lot of oppression and extortion going on, and the poor people could not defend themselves. Therefore Ishu spoke for the poor. In judaism you could be declared a “sinner” for everything (eg for being blind: your blindness was then a punishment by Jahweh for your sins) and you could drop dead. As a sinner you were then declared “unclean” which was the end for you. People had to keep a certain distance from you, were not allowed to speak with you, or enter your house, and certainly not sit with you at the same table to eat. You were completely avoided, the word is shunned. It must have been a “wonderfull” country with a “wonderfull” religion. No wonder so many people left. I mean it: it must have been terrible to live there, despite all the holyness written down. All this clean/unclean business and the bloody sacrifices come from judaism still being a primitive religion with one god. Primitive religions are intolerant to outsiders and among themselves. Anyway, that is why Ishu constantly talked to “sinners” of all kind and went freely into their houses and ate with them. Which is why the pharisees (the doctors of the law) hated him.
Do we recognize something? Yes we do, at least I do. This is the main content of the gospel of Luke. Well this is Ishu, the prophet of the Poor. Invented by the Poor, and written by the Poor. And this is their religious/political program, which is the same there. It was written by jews, it is about jews and for jews. It is quite a program for change. But since they were themselves (orthodox) jews, they were NOT PERSECUTED. This played all after 70.
So now you know where the so-called Jesus comes from. The name Jesus comes from Irenaeus (185), who also called the Poor the Ebionites (this is still not understood by anyone), and spread false information about them, comparing them with gnostic groups (a blatant lie). Of course they (AS JEWS) talked about a HUMAN BEING. That is all they CAN do. Any jews talking about “the son of god” is impossible. Anyone should know that, at least everyone with an education above primary school level. Okay these were not there in 200 AD. But they are there NOW!!!!
This whole son of god business comes of course from Paul. But Paul is not jewish. Paul is a greek gnostic, which is another religion, and god the father, the gnostic god, actually has a son who is there from the beginning. Only Paul uses Ishu, in greek Isu, as the son. (Jesus is a forgery in Paul). It seems they still have not found out that Paul is a gnostic. You are told that gnosticism is a heresy. A heresy of what? Paul started at 90, the catholic church at the earliest in 190!!!!! Gnosticism is a separate religion, and gnostic chrestianity was started by Paul 100 years before any catholicism. This is all hidden by fake writings and forgeries. And as a result Paul is still placed in the 50’s of the 1st century.
Somebody made then of Paul’s son of god a so-called son of the jewish god, who has no son. Apparently nobody understood this at the time. Apparently nobody understands this still!!! The so-called prediction by the prophets is a hoax, by Irenaeus in Mathew, this is for the credulous. You can better say that the OT is copied to create the gospels. The information we have about the Ishu from the Poor, I would say openly in Luke, more hidden in Mathew, comes of course from the gospel of Marcion, who simply had this gospel, inherited from Paul, who deceived the Poor into giving him a copy. Marcion delivered it to the OT church of rome.
People should begin to understand that Paul’s preaching happened between 90 and 120. The Acts are of course fake, by Irenaeus. It is also time to understand that Mark, Mathew and Luke do not exist. If they did they were long time DEAD when the gospels were written by Irenaeus between (roughly) 160 and 180. The only thing coming from the original gospel-story from the Poor about the prophet Ishu, who gives THEIR PROGRAM, is the middle part of LUKE. What we admire so much in Jesus is actually the religious/political program from the Poor. The rest of the synoptics is FAKE. In Luke we also find the only real parables. Mark and Mathew simply do not know what a parable is.

Now how did the Poor formed their story? After the war Josephus wrote his book immediately, in aramaic, and send it round to all the jews he could find (also in other countries). He wanted to warn the jews about all that could happen to them if they rebelled against the romans. So the Poor could read the book in 71, long before it was published in greek. They found a story which appealed to them. Now pay attention: this at least really happened to a real man.
As Josephus often begins: In that time there came a man. There was a man who regularly came by Jerusalem and stayed then at the Mount of Olives, with his friends. He was a wonder-healer, he healed people without seemingly doing anything (there are Ishu’s healings). He was very popular, whole masses of people ran out of Jerusalem to see him when he came. Josephus tells that he not always kept the law, especially not the sabbath law (there are the healings on the sabbath, and other breakings of the sabbath law). Josephus says it was not a big deal. I say: tell that to the pharisees who were standing by!!!! Josephus tells that some people said that it looked like their first lawgiver had returned (there is the prophet like Moses with the 2nd law).
Then people wanted him to go into Jerusalem with them, to remove the romans, and then he would be king. They probably thought that he could magically make the romans disappear. The healer rejected this absolutely. But the jewish authorities heard about it and decided to inform Pilatus (there he is). Because when they didn’t and something happened Pilatus would blame them for not telling, and they would be killed, their possessions taken, and their children out on the streets. So they told Pilatus, who sent soldiers. The healer was arrested with a lot of violence, even people got killed.
So he was brought before Pilatus. Pilatus saw he was a doer of good, not of evil, that he was NOT a revolutionary, and that he was NOT out on power (no would-be messiah), and he RELEASED him. Happy and relieved the healer went back to his usual place on the Mount of Olives. He was now even more popular than before.
But the pharisees were pissed. Josephus says they were jealous. Maybe because he was much more popular than they were. They wanted him dead. They took 30 talents of silver and went to Pilatus. They offered Pilatus the silver if he would crucify the healer. But….Pilatus first took the money, and then did nothing, but gave THEM permission to act as they wanted. The pharisees lured around waiting for the right moment. When the right moment was there (at night?) they grabbed him and THEY crucified him.
This is terrible, much worse than the gospels. This true story was taken by the Poor to base Ishu on. No whining about a messiah or a king or a son of god or a “christ” or more of that bullshit. Not to say that TWO trials were strictly forbidden by the jews: you cannot be interrogated TWICE by two different courts. That is one of very many things that refers Mark and Mathew to the garbage-can. Totally invented stories, there is nothing real about them. Both called catholic stories, which they are. In my opinion both by Irenaeus, who of course knew nothing about the geography and the rules there, since he was living in rome.
This story by Josephus is real, and I must say it hit me hard. That is always the difference between real and fake. This is a real human story. I cannot imagine some russians in the middle ages making this up. And they didn’t: it was translated from greek. This is just the long lost Josephus story. Why is there a TF and nothing in his first book? That cannot be!!!
Well THIS is the story and it has been removed from all of Josephus books. By the same person who created the fake John the baptist with his catholic baptism. What a coincidence that it is in all the three synoptics. It is time people would understand that there is ONE central person who is fabricating these “gospels”. I know who this is. It is the same man who has been traveling around since 155 and says that he FOUND the gospels there in the east. The original jewish story about Ishu the prophet is with the Poor who are shut out of the church by him. Paul had a copy, but Paul is dead. Leaves only Marcion, who inherited Paul’s copy. Put Marcion’s copy partly in “Luke”, and start accusing Marcion of stealing. There are still people nowadays who believe that. How dumb can you be. Marcion brought a copy to the church of rome in 125, and Luke pops up in 185. Who was first? Ask a child of 10. Then the original story is gone. The stories in Josephus will be removed, so that nobody finds out.
Because the story is not finished yet. The pharisees hang up a sign at the temple entrance, which read: “he didn’t reign, he was crucified by the jews because he predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.” Apparently this was forbidden. And of course he didnt, they were just giving an excuse for killing him to the people. (There is the true prophet). And then the tomb was empty. His friends said that he stood up from the grave. Others said that his friends had stolen the body. Josephus has a problem with both: for becoming alive again you have to have help from heaven. At least an angel or Jahweh himself must come down to do it. On the other hand stealing the body would be difficult because there were roman guards at the tomb, and the whole of Jerusalem was watching. (This was all used by Irenaeus of course, especially in Mathew, the guards at the tomb).
Then there follows a rather long story about the tearing of the temple curtain. This happened about the same time as the crucifixion of the “wonder-worker”. Josephus does not want to draw conclusions from this, but he just wants to mention it. (Irenaeus used this in the gospels).
The he tells that much later, around 45, his friends are still going around telling people that he is still alive. And they are believed (ignorant, credulous people everywhere). The romans let this go, until they are fed-up with it. Then they end the movement, which is very simple. The friends are arrested, and to prevent problems in Jerusalem, are shipped oversees to different places “for further investigation”. They were of course never seen back. And that was the end of it.
It is quite a large story. You can see that this story is used by Irenaeus. This wonder-healer was not only innocent and murdered in a terrible way. He had friends who did not give up. It is not clear what kind of movement it was. Now we can also see why different roman sources, like the real Tacitus from his other book, say that “all was quiet” under Pilatus: no crucifixions (which had to be reported to rome). And indeed: Pilatus himself did not crucify him. Josephus was born in 37 in Jerusalem and grew up there. He therefore did not see this happen, but his parents, other family-members, neighbours, teachers aso DID. Maybe there was talked about it. You cannot get any closer to eye-witness testimony. This story is simply true: this man existed and this happened to him.
Josephus gets even emotional about it. He says that this man was a wonder-healer and doer of good. He was very popular in Jerusalem. He is upset that he could be murdered just like that, by offering a BRIBE to Pilatus. The story is placed in the “bad things of Pilatus” section. Josephus concludes at the end that the healer had been dead all the time, because despite his friends saying that he was still alive, he had not been seen anymore by anyone since his death. (which means that the body was stolen after all). (Compare Jesus being “seen” ONLY by his friends. If you want to show that you are alive again, you should be seen in the centre of Jerusalem by everybody!!!!! A very weak point in the gospels).
This whole story we have missed since 185 for the benefit of Irenaeus fake stories. Irenaeus used it, that is certain. But the Poor used this story for their story about the prophet Ishu. Isn’t it wonderfull? Completely back to the beginning!!!!! They changed the end in Ishu being indeed raised from the dead by Jahweh, and taken to heaven by him. For jews a very credible ending (see the OT).

Josephus thought this story important enough to give a summary of it in his second book from 93, the antiquities of the jews. So he did. This was wiped by Irenaeus who wrote the TF instead, a tiny little gospel-story (gospels appeared in 185). Time after time “scholars” are writing about this forgery, saying that it is at least partly written by Josephus. Now we have seen it is not. They do not get that there was no christianity in 93 yet. Only according to Irenaeus it was because he invented it.
So the TF begins: “In that time there came Jesus a wise man, if it is at all possible to call him a man, because he did many wondrous deeds.” Now how begins the Slavonic Josephus as it is called: “In that time there came a man, if it is at all possible to call him a man, because he did many wondrous deeds”. NOW SOMEONE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME: a book from Josephus from 93 and a different book from Josephus from the 10th century in russia. And exactly the same text in the beginning. This can only be if that text is written by the same person, being Josephus. After that the stories are totally different. The gospels appear in 185, introducing the resurrection. And no they are not from the 1st century. There is no way Josephus could have written about that in 93 in rome. The word christian did not even exist yet. The russian story is very well possible, I would not know why not. Josephus even wrote a summary in his book from 93.
I conclude that the story in the Slavonic Josephus is the real story. It was removed from the book just like the story about the so-called John the baptist who did not baptize. The writer of the synoptics did it to prevent the discovery of his lies. And that is Irenaeus. He also wrote the TF of course, and he let the first sentence of Josephus stand because it fitted his Jesus, only inserting “Jesus a wise”. He could do that because he had the story from 70 removed, FOR EVER. That is what happened.
And now we should believe again that the people who named the Slavonic Josephus a forgery did not see that the beginning was exactly the same as from the TF. They did not notice that. Do you believe it? I don’t. Everybody is fooled again. Instead they said that the russian story was “nothing important”, “just some kind of TF” (I don’t think so, the man is dead) and “there was nothing in it that we did not know allready” (about a completely new story!!!!!). Simply lying. It happens under your nose. It never stops. The catholic church does not want it recognized, or the TF would be out as a catholic forgery. And they do not want it recognized anyhow. It would prove the gospels false. Or written from Josephus. 3rd point for them in the 20th century. Nobody knows about it. Please, do something about it!!!!! I cannot do it on my own. Read the text yourself: it is under slavonic josephus, please take the article by mr. Mead.

Rests Jozef of Arimathea. The important follower of Jesus, who is described very favourably everywhere. He is going to ask for the body, takes the body off, wraps it in linnen, and puts it in some nearby tomb. Exit Jozef of Arimathea. Who is he? In Josephus book about the war there is this Jozef bar Math(at)eu, who aks Titus for 3 bodies to be taken of the stakes. One man survives. Now take “bar Matheu”, take off the “b”, insert an “i”, and change the “u” in an “a” for place name. And there is Jozef of Arimathea.
Who is Jozef bar Matheu? THAT IS JOSEPHUS himself. Josephus is in all the gospels, also in the original one from the Poor. Why is that? Well why do you think? Because he asks for bodies to be taken off? Not only that. It is because HE WROTE THE STORY on which they based their gospel about the prophet Ishu, the Slavonic Josephus, in 1970 declared a forgery. And Josephus really was a fan of the wonder-healer, and was appalled about the way he was killed.
To thank him for the story, Josephus himself appears in the gospel as Jozef of Arimathea. (The christians never have been able to find the place). Jozef of Arimathea even became famous in Middle Ages’ legends as the keeper of the holy grail. I suppose the presence of Josephus himself in the earliest  gospels is an obvious sign that Josephus had something to do with the original gospel-story from the Poor, the russian story in the war of the jews we now have. From the Poor it went to Paul, from Paul to Marcion, and from Paul to John. Irenaeus had no idea of this being Josephus, or he would immediately have changed the name.
I again want to emphasize that the ones who declared the russian Josephus a forgery, are not just stupid or clever, they are malevolent. Even a jew joined their ranks. They also do not want it out that it was the pharisees who committed the murder. The pharisees are the nowadays rabbis. They just changed names after 70. Malevolent because it was known in 1920 allready that the story was not russian at all, but translated from greek. They deliberately treated it as russian, they deliberately lied. And malevolent because it was also known that it was not writen by a christian, so not by the russians: no christian would call Jesus on the cross “that wonder-worker”. Therefore it was written by a jew. They left this deliberately out, they deliberately lied.
Who calls this scholarship? Is this all allowed? Did nobody check on them? Is a title enough to be believed? That means you and I can be lied to all the time without knowing it. An academic study is enough to do it. I advise you to use your own brain and accept nothing without questioning it. You are probably deliberately misled all the time by so-called academics. Almost all of them are convinced christians, and they have their own agenda. It is almost impossible to say there that Jesus might not have existed.
The name Ishu is dificult. There is an Ish in genesis and exodus. Ish means “a man”. Nobody knows who that is. He visits Abraham eg. I read it is a man who speaks with the voice and authority of Jahweh. That would mean the writers understood that Jahweh/the Lord cannot just pop down to talk to people. But I think it could be blasphemy to use that name for your prophet. Of course Josephus says “a man”. So they said Ishu. It seems to mean “god’s man” or “man of god”. That comes from Samaria. That would then have been the name of their prophet: Ishu, the man of god. (Irenaeus replaced it by Jesus. Did Jesus exist? No, he did not. Did Ishu exist? No, it is a written story by the Poor. A combination of the man from Josephus and their own religious/political program).

Why was he (Jesus) killed? People are giving all kinds of reasons, most of the time 5 or 6. The so-called wiping clean of the temple court is nonsense, because it was taken from the gospel of John where this happens in the beginning and nobody reacted. Nobody noticed? John was the 2nd gospel in possession of the church. It is by the way John who gives the only understandable (and maybe even reasonable from their point of view) reason for his arrest and killing. Well done! It has a connection with the story by Josephus, only there the authorities have only their own interest at heart, while in John they are thinking of bloodshed and the people.
I read an interesting article where the writer said that problems with the pharisees is always mentioned as one of the 6 reasons. He proposed this then as the MAIN reason, which confirms exactly the Josephus story, which this writer did not know. He says that when you break the law, especially the sabbath rules, and you do that out in the open in front of others while the pharisees are standing by, you are in fact DENYING THE AUTHORITY of the pharisees. Since their authority is everything to them, they are the “doctors of the law”, they will gladly kill you for that!!!!!
And that is what happens in Josephus I think. Josephus says they were “jealous” because he was so popular? I don’t think so. Josephus also tells that he broke the law, especially the sabbath law, but that it was nothing important. Not for Josephus no, who was an intellectual and of important priestly family. But what about the pharisees who were standing by? The wonder-healer broke the sabbath law, out in the open with maybe even 500 people watching, and pharisees standing by. He deliberately denied the authority of the pharisees, maybe even made fun of them. And THAT is why the pharisees wanted him dead.
I think the author of the article is right. I had never thought of it that way, but he is right. Compared to the story of Josephus it fits perfectly. Only Josephus did not know this, which is why he writes then “jealous”. And that is it!!!! The man from Josephus on which the Poor based their prophet Ishu (man of god) on, was crucified by the pharisees because he did not keep the sabbath law. With which we are back to the gospel’s “healing on the sabbath”. Which what it was in principle about originally. Of course a totally different ending was made, all based on John, who introduced “the king of the jews”. In my opinion he was describing “the sacrifice of the sacred king’ son”, pointing to Jahweh as guilty of his dead (remember John was a gnostic christian).

The only thing I still desired to know was whether the Poor used the ending of Josephus’ story in their gospel. There is no way of finding out. Paul had this gospel but is not telling about it in his letters, or if he did it would have been removed by Irenaeus. Marcion had this gospel, but that does not exist anymore. What we get in Tertullianus is NOT the gospel of Marcion. Irenaeus wanted this gospel out of the way. He knew where it came from and Marcion was the enemy.
Somebody published a few lines from the babylonian Talmud. What is the Talmud? As far as I can see it consists of 1000s of comments by rabbi’s (pharisees). It consists of very short stories (a few lines) in which rabbi’s actually mock others and have a lot of fun about it. These are parodies on somebody or something.
It is written in the Talmud that after 70 the Law was replaced by a gospel. It just happened. “I did not come to abolish the Law, I have come to fulfill it” is written. So a certain well-known person goes to a judge in connection with an inheritance. (Through the name of this person we know when this was supposed to happen: about 90/100 AD.) So this judge must have been impeccable. But he was offered a BRIBE and he immediately took it.
And then they have a lot of fun. Not the bribe-offerers did something wrong, but the one who TOOK THE BRIBE. This is about the gospel of the Poor. Because of the word BRIBE I think it refers to them (the pharisees/rabbi’s) offering a bribe to Pilatus and Pilatus taking it.) The fun is about the one TAKING the bribe, not the ones offering it. I think this means that the gospel of the Poor kept to the Josephus story, where Pilatus takes the bribe from the pharisees, and gives them permission to kill Ishu. The Talmud is always somewhat cryptic, but I think this is obviously referring to the gospel of the Poor. Declaring themselves innocent and Pilatus guilty.
This was then in the gospel of Paul, and in the gospel of Marcion. As you know this TRUE story disappeared in our gospels of 185. To be replaced with a story, which came from the gospel of John which was gnostic and therefore anti-Jahweh, and in possession of Irenaeus after his traveling (about 155). The gospels were written by him afterwards. Of course Irenaeus knew that the original gospel was based on Josephus: he was sleeping with Josephus under his pillow so to speak. But for the “one true religion” the Jesus-story could not come from a story in Josephus from 71. And it did not fit his theology. That is why he let the story be removed from Josephus, never to be seen again.


I am ready. I have solved the whole origin of christianity, which was called chrestianity at the time. From the earliest beginning in the year 71 until the beginning of the roman catholic church in 185 – 200.
Of course the guild, the official “biblical scholars” and “experts” will ignore me, declare me crazy, put me down in every way, declare me not qualified to say anything about it, etc. etc., because I “only” studied history and did not even finish it because of an illness. The problem is that they ONLY study the NT, as I did a thorough HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION for which I was educated. So they are bible students, and I am a history student. The NT is just a book, and real  history is something completely different. The book is PART of history, but not all there is. If you think that is all there is, you simply are incredibly prejudiced and a bad scholar. This applies to all the theologians and biblical scholars and experts I learned to know.
Studying the NT will bring you nothing. They don’t even know who were writing it, and when, and why. They are just assuming and assuming and assuming. Of course the biblical scholars can simply repeate what all their predecessors have said. For mythicists it is much more difficult because they have to come up with an alternative explanation. Nobody has done an historical investigation like me from 0 to 200. That is why they know nothing.
They all make some basic mistakes. 1. They do not recognize FORGERY (I reject the ridiculous word “interpolation”, which sounds as if there is nothing wrong). 2. They do not recognize FAKE, outright LIES. 3. They all STICK to the 1st century from the idea that everything happened in the 1st century, because the NT tells us so. But they do not know what the NT actually is!!!!!!  In fact there happened NOTHING direction christianity in the 1st century!!!!!! I don’t think many people know that. The only thing that happened is that Paul visited the Poor probably around 90. (Later Irenaeus renamed the Poor: the Ebionites, to break the connecton.)
It was the same Irenaeus who came up in 185 with an enormous book in which he presented the four gospels, which HE had named, and also quoted from the rest of the NT as then available, 21 books. Not only the gospels turned up for the first time, but also THE NAME IESOUS, which became Jesus. The name Jesus was not there before. Now go and think about that. (which again proves the TF a forgery because the name Jesus was not there yet in 93).
Paul did not say Jesus. The name Jesus in Paul is a FORGERY. Which means every “Jesus” since is a forgery. Now you know it. We can all stop talking about a Jesus beause there was no Jesus before 185. O, and the name Jesus can only come from Yeshu. Only the jews transcribed it right. By the way Paul also did not say “christos” but “chrestos”, which certainly does not mean messiah. I read that in 450 there was still only “chrestus” in the NT, so I don’t know when the whole “christus” hoax started. Christus is a forgery.
As I am beginning to understand it now, sorry this is so difficult for me, in Paul Jesus Christ (two forgeries) would then mean Jesus the Messiah, and the Messiah would then mean “the son of god.” Sorry people I have never heard such bullshit in my life. I was raised catholic, but nobody ever said this to me anywhere, not at home, not in school and not in the church. There are obviously more people who find this “Messiah”-business ridiculous. It is one of the stupidest forgeries I have heard off, but it is still followed everywhere. Paul also did not say “cross” and “crucified”. He wrote “stauros” which means “stake” which is correct for the roman punishment. The cross as we know it was invented after 400, I don’t know when. So you see, the catholic church remained creative. Paul never wrote “church”, he only said “ekklesia”, which means actually a meeting of people, maybe a community. Of course it has been too difficult for all the “experts” to look up what ekklesia actually means, what messiah means and what stauros means. And of course nobody can read greek also. Or maybe they do a special christian church translation. It is a scandal how we all are deceived by fake translations.
So Jesus is a forgery from 185, Christos is a forgery, Messiah is completely fake, and the cross is a forgery, at the earliest 5th century. What would be real? I get sick of people doubting the existence of Paul, his letters, that they would be written by a school or by Marcion, or are anyhow not by Paul. Actually Paul is almost the only real person in the whole NT. We know how he looked like and he is even depicted in a mosaic. That is more than we can say of Jesus. But Paul’s letters are the most forged: people working on it think it is 30%. To me it looks like 50%. So try to find the real Paul in there. This is impossible.

I simply don’t know how to summarize. There is one gospelstory from the 1st century. It was written in 71 by the Poor, and it was about a prophet (a human being). It contained their reform-program for judaism. Around 90 Paul came to them and deceived them in appointing him their apostle and giving him a copy of the story. They followed him into Turkey, there were problems, and they broke up forgood. We see this in the letter to the Galatians, of course the 1st letter: just read carefully and you can see that they are jews, and therefore could never be speaking about the son of god. But Paul IS speaking about the son of god, and is very negative about judaism. In other words: Paul is not a jew. Is this too difficult? (Everything about Paul’s alleged jewishness is forgery. The 2nd visit is also a forgery).
Paul is a gnostic. He wants to spread a (gnostic) mystery religion out in the open. So Mithra out, Ishu in. The dying – rising – god – saviour. The dying – rising – god is Ishu, in greek Isu, and chrestos means saviour. Makes Isu Chrestos which is originally in Paul’s letters. Then the message: Isu Chrestos dies on the stake, Isu Chrestos is raised from the dead by his father (he follows the story, so no resurrection by himself), trust in this gives you life after death (spiritual). Life after death is the gnostic message. Isu is a god, or a divine spirit as in gnosticism. (Everything pointing to Isu being a human being is forgery). Is the mystery religion so difficult to find????? It is in every letter!!!! I picked it out at my 2nd reading!!!! Paul is preaching a mystery religion about Isu Chrestos. He has never heard anything about a Iesous Christos. It seems the “experts” do not know what a mystery religion IS. Well when the ignorance goes that far, where is help for them? I heard Ehrman say he cannot find any dying-rising-god. The SUN GODS are the dying-rising-gods and they can be found all over the world!!!!!
Paul went to the west of Turkey and founded many gnostic communities. Later he went to Greece and Macedonia, and returned to Turkey. When the greeks wrote him letters he replied. He died in Turkey around 120.
He left his papers to Marcion: 10 letters in the right order and 1 gospel (still the gospel of the Poor). I found out that Paul had translated it from aramaic into greek (very well done!!!!).
Marcion took the papers to the church of rome. He should not have done that. It is about 125. The church of rome, and its sister-churches, were jewish. Not exactly jewish because they did not circumsize and did not keep the law. I don’t know how real jews would call them: apostates? But their scripture was the OLD TESTAMENT and JAHWEH their god. They had never heard of Paul, his letters or the gospel.
So Marcion was going to enlighten them. He should not have done that. He explained that Isu was the son of god, walking in judea (of all places), but that he did not come from Jahweh but from an other god who was higher than Jahweh (the gnostic god). To explain that he had made a list with good things from Isu and bad things from Jahweh, to compare. Isu could simply not come from Jahweh. The presbyters of the church (still no bishop) were not amused. Marcion was declared a heretic and kicked out, they kept his papers. This was a heretic against the OLD testament.
The church was further not interested in the papers. They had seen that they were gnostic, that Paul and Marcion were gnostics, so they put them in a cupboard or something. UNTIL: Marcion had begun a church of his own, not a community but a church (buildings, organisation), and he was successfull. It spread and spread and competed with them. THEN it was enough. They HATED Marcion with his “higher god”. It would have been around 155.

A planning was made. They were going to destroy Marcion’s churches, the chrestian churches. They planned a take-over: their chrestianity would be bigger, more gospels, more papers, and especially more powerfull. They would come with a human being instead of a god etc.etc. Marcion and Paul were the enemy. And the brilliant and very conservative  Irenaeus was going to do it. He went traveling to the east for information first.
All in all he was ready in 185. And there was the NT as we know it. And there was the catholic church as we know it. And there was the eucharist, and the creed, and the theology of course (also planted in Paul’s letters as if it came from Paul). Most of it he wrote himself. Other things he forged. The typically gnostic gospel of John was forged. He needed the Logos (the son of the gnostic god) to make “the Word”. Paul’s letters were that much forged that you could hardly find Paul himself, to make him fit as so-called jew. There were of course nowhere gospels because Jesus did not exist, everything until then was based on the gospel of the Poor which was fictional and about a human being. This gospel was divided, and spread over Mathew and Luke, the largest part in Luke. The rest was thrown away. Just try to find it back again. The rest he wrote himself. Mark, Mathew and a large part of Luke. The names come from him. From Isu he made Jesus. That is how it was done. And a lot of shouting that there was ONLY ONE GOD (in the world) which was the creator god, Jahweh.
Nobody has to doubt this, text of Justin Martyr (died 165) is found in Mark, in Mathew and in the letters of Paul!!!! The birth-stories are from 150 and 165. The same latinisms were found in Mark, Mathew AND Irenaeus. Irenaeus was the “guardian” of Justin Martyr’s papers. It was simply done between 160 and 180. This man was undoubtedly brilliant, but evil. He was probably THE BIGGEST LIAR AND FORGER IN WORLD HISTORY.
The whole NT comes from him. The name Jesus comes from him. It is completely FAKE, LIES AND FORGERY. There was no Jesus. I would like to see the original gospel from the Poor, about the prophet Ishu. But looking at the so-called gospel of Marcion retrieved, that is not it. There was probably no Gallilea in it, no John the baptist, and from the last supper on everything is completely fake (based on the gospel of John). THE RESURRECTION COMES FROM IRENAEUS.

So the whole world believes in a FAKE story from about 200. How is it possible. Of course the whole story suggests that it really happened in 30 in front of eye-witnesses. The 12 disciples/apostles are fake. Not difficult to see because they cannot speak. Only 3 are mentioned frequently. James (taken from Paul), Peter (a forgery) and John (because of the gospel, which is gnostic). The apostles don’t exist. Irenaeus invented them to base the authority of the church of rome on. Look at the St. Peter’s basilica. The “Peter coming to rome” invention is from 160 (what makes the info from Papias fake). To suggest the ongoing activity of the church from the beginning, the Acts, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome and Polycarp’s letter were invented and written by Irenaeus. So the gap was closed. Then he invented Papias and probably Hegesippus. Papias to place Mark and Mathew back in time. He created Luke’s importance in the fake pastoral letters, which he also wrote. And John was in Paul, in the fake 2nd visit. All these people did not exist. Paul’s communities were made churches, and it began to look nice. Of course all these papers are still there. Everything else was declared heretical and/or destroyed, which makes it look as if they were the only ones there. I can go on and on.
Of course it was terrible that this was possible. One man did it, for the church of rome. Conservative, authoritarian, extremely motivated, highly educated, loved writing, especially so-called letter-writing, specialised in forging, able to write in different styles, no problem with lying. He was RUTHLESS. The NT and the name Jesus come from him. It is all fake. It is all invented. It is all lies. There was no Jesus, there was only Ishu, the prophet from the Poor from 71 (in Paul Isu, with Marcion Isu). And even Ishu was an invented person in a partly invented story. These are facts: a church from Marcion was found with Isu Chrestos chiseled above the door. Jesus arrives much later.
What also is terrible is that it has not been found out yet. Since science and rational thinking re-developed in the 18th century, there could have been done something. In the 19th century they did their best. But from the 20th century on it is the worst. You would say that rational thinking had not developed at all. 1000s of so-called scholars at universities and everywhere ONLY defending the NT. NO critical scholarship AT ALL. NO historical investigation like I did. ONLY staring in the bible, as if the answers are THERE. Are they staring in the OT too, to find answers about the origin of the world and human beings? Everyone who tries to say something different is simply ignored or arrogantly burned down.
The bible-lovers seem to have a monopoly. Rational thinking is back to the 17th century level, despite all the modern communication-methods, so as everybody having a laptop at home. In a few seconds you can go over the whole world for information. This does not seem to help. The gospels are still placed in the 1st century (without evidence!!!): THAT IS A CHRISTIAN LIE. Mark has been placed first, BUT THAT IS A LIE TOO. When I can find multiple lines of Justin Martyr (died 165) in there, then Mark is not first, and certainly not from 70, I’d rather say 170. Stupid assholes. Justin can also be found in Mathew in the sermon on the mount. And in the letters of Paul. Who had the papers of Justin? Is it getting clearer allready? Is the fog lifting? It can all be found by studying history.
I had thought I would be happy now I am finished, making fun perhaps of “scholars”. But I am not happy at all. It is a big shame that nobody of these arrogant “I am the expert” types knows to produce something usefull. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Other people do not dare to speak up because of them. I am actually getting depressed over this. And ordinary people are left in the dark. It is sickening. It takes a lot of work and a lot of thinking, but it can be solved by every intelligent and interested person. Just don’t give up.
But normal people are held up by all the “expert scholars” who keep on telling them that the gospels are true and Jesus was an historical person, and that the gospels are from the 1st century. In fact the gospels are fake, lied together between 160 and 180 by Irenaeus, first appearing in 185. Before that there was not even a Jesus. The church of rome (Jahweh and Old Testament worshippers) did it out of hatred for Marcion and Paul because they were gnostic, and therefore had an other god, the gnostic “god the father”, whom they said was higher than Jahweh. It was done to make Jahweh and the OT win and to make the jewish god Jahweh the only god in the world. This worked out as we all know.

Since nobody seems to know it: gnosticism (or what it was originally called) is not a heresy from anything, IT IS A RELIGION. It was invented by PLATO in 370 about, so it comes from Greece. Now everybody knows it. It went into Asia with Alexander the Great. There are no churches and no central authority (bishops). It is just practised in schools and communities. It is a sort of teaching, and a way of living. It is peacefull, they bother nobody. It is not about any special knowledge (gnosis as Irenaeus says), only about SELF-knowledge (very usefull). There is one god, the good god, god the father. This god is spiritual, abstract, light, and somewhere in the universe. This god can not move. This god has children who come out of him (so; born). These children CAN move. The most important is the Logos (first son), which is “the rational principle that governs the universe”. Then there is also Sophia, which means wisdom, aka the holy spirit aka the holy dove, a daughter of god the father.
Paul is writing about god the father and the son who was there from the beginning. This is the gnostic god and the Logos. He also talks about the holy spirit. PAUL IS A GREEK GNOSTIC. This is stolen by Irenaeus for the church. Instead of Jahweh we now get god the father, Jesus the son, and the holy spirit, which becomes the Trinity. The Trinity is gnostic.
For the Logos Paul takes “Isu Chrestos”. He preaches a hellenistic mystery religion. The mystery religions are gnostic. Isu is the dying-rising-god, Chrestos means saviour. Isu is a god, a divine spirit, every indication that he is human is forgery by Irenaeus (born of a woman under the law, 500 witnesses, brother of the Lord etc. etc.). Isu is greek for the aramaic Ishu, the prophet from the Poor, who he has deceived into naming him THEIR apostle and giving him THEIR story. He hopes to never see them again.
Why should I explain what a mystery religion is? Can they not find it by themselves? Seemingly not. Are they not scholars? I have never seen people THAT PREJUDICED. Why should I explain what gnosticism is? Why does nobody know what it means and where it comes from and when? Are they scholars? I don’t think so. They do not study anything that happens outside Judea and Gallilea in the 1st century. NARROWMINDED. PREJUDICED. I don’t call them scholars. You MUST know what a mystery religion is, and what gnosticism is, otherwise you can never follow Paul. It helps also to find out what Paul could never have said. Paul was NOT interested in the OT. Paul was the founder of gnostic chrestianity. Because his followers came to be called chrestians. This started around 90. The church of rome started their NEW version in 200: 4 gospels and the Acts. This is a fact, found on an official catholic site about the canon.

I have send some of my findings a year ago to three mythicists. I wanted to help them, I thought they would be pleased. I heard nothing back, not even “I don’t agree but thank you for your trouble”. It seems that mythicists are just as arrogant as historicists. They are always right.
But I did get in touch with a canadian professor of biblical studies. After writing to him he immediately wrote me back. He was very friendly and interested. So we started corresponding. Of course there came some misunderstandings because he had the normal time-line and christian history in his head. But the discussion was at least on a high level of education, so we didn’t have to explain every word to each other. When I solved a question for him, he accepted it. He obviously respected me, and my scholarship. When I told him briefly about my new time-line, he advised me to write about these new dates and expand on them. He also told me to go on the internet. When I then sent him my new time-line, making clear what exactly happened when exactly, and who did what,
he called it: A SPLENDID HISTORICAL NARRATIVE, and IMPRESSIVE. So I have at least one fan. It gave me the courage to go on.
I hope someone reads this and that all comes out,
love and greetings, Cora.

P.S.: The resurrection was invented by Irenaeus. Two billion people believing in a LIE from Irenaeus and the catholic church. Can it be worse? The gospels are fake, written or forged by Irenaeus between 160 and 180. The new name became: Jesus. You have been fooled.
It was all done for the glory of Jahweh, the jewish god (against god the father, the gnostic god from Plato.) Is there any reason why the whole world should worship the OT Jahweh, the god of the jews only? The jews who used to live on a piece of land the size of a stamp in the east? He was the creator god? Only according to THEM!!! In fact he wasn’t. He was one of the last primitive gods. In writing the OT the jewish priests decided to raise him to a creator god, in order to impress the upcoming greeks, making Jahweh all-powerfull. So you get half a page creator god, and 800 pages primitive god. The idea they took from the persians who had a creator god already.
Maybe we do it because of Jesus, who was jewish after all. As we have seen Jesus does not exist, is fiction, is just a fabricated story from 185. Does the NT have anything to do with the OT? I would say no, not at all. So no reason anymore to worship the primitive OT god of the jews, in my opinion. God is not necessarily Jahweh, the god of the jews. Because the god of the jews simply IS the god of the jews, and they don’t want other people using him. Ask them!!! May be it is time to look for another god.