Brother of Yeshua

Who many of you call Jesus

Christ Before Jesus: In the Gentile world prior to the time of Jesus, the word Christos or Christian was used in reference to an enlightened initiate in the Greek Mystery Religions -- which was basically Mithraic. In many instances, those men who authored the Epistles that came to bear the name of Paul, were drawn from Mithraic (Christian) Initiates. Thus, what came to be called Christianity existed before the time of Jesus -- as demonstrated at this link ( http://nazirene.org/unfaithful2.htm ). Quoting the foregoing link: Today we call ourselves by the Greek word Christian -- but have we ever questioned where the term originated? And what does it mean? The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge confirms that the name "originated outside of Christian and Jewish circles". The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible states that: "By the late first and early second centuries the name Christian, which early believers avoided using of themselves, was beginning to be accepted". Why? Because of the direct influence of the Mithraic initiates who called themselves Christian. But in the theological conflict between the Jews and Gentiles, the Mithrac clergy adopted the Gospels -- corrupted them to make them support the tenets of this Greek Mystery religious system -- and portrayed the original disciples of TheWay as heretics who were too Jewish to understand the teachings of Jesus. Then they created what has been called Replacement Theology -- which parallels that of Islam in many ways -- which states that Jesus was born among the Jews to condemn them, and then took his rightful place as the leader of the Christians (enlightened Mithrac initiates) -- which, according to their dogmatic mindset, meant that the Gentile Church was always the true Church. Again, quoting the above link: With regard to the historical people who were called the people of Christ before the time of Jesus, it did not mean anything to an enlightened Christian that the masses of people worshiped the sun, moon, stars or idols. What is now Christmas is the rebirth of the sun-god -- and what is now Easter was the worship of the moon goddess Ishtar and the resurrection of the sun-god (see Easter vs Passover).

Who many of you call Jesus

That the initiates of the ancient mystery religions were called Christians prior to the time of Jesus is demonstrated in a letter from the Emperor Adrian to Servianus, written in 134 A.D., wherein it is stated: "Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis, call themselves Bishops of Christ". What is confirmed is that, with the advent of Jesus, the Christ or Christos was not a new term, and there were people throughout the empire who were called Christians prior to the time when the name came to be associated with the followers of Jesus. More important, though, is the fact that they brought their ideas and beliefs pertaining to the Mithraic Christ into the religion of Jesus -- which teachings in their original form possessed an essence and spiritual reality that few of these Pagan Christians could perceive. Therefore, it wasn't that the original disciples were too Jewish to understand the teachings of Jesus and TheWay -- but rather, that a whole segment of the Gentile Church was too pagan and heathen to understand the teachings and objectives of the Gospels.

Who many of you call Jesus

Archaeologists have demonstrated that the word Christos, which we render Christ, has been found not only on Pagan temples, and used in relation to those who were said to be the sons of the Pagan gods, but the term was also engraved on tombstones and other Pagan artifacts prior to the time of Jesus. In the Greek and Roman mystery religions of the time, the Christos was the Anointing of the Logos, and the Christian was the follower of the Anointed. In the writings of Clement of Alexandria we find it explained that: "Those who lived according to the Logos were really Christians, though they have been thought to be atheists; as Socrates and Heraclitus were among the Greeks, and such as resembled them" (Strom. bk. i, ch xix). Eusebius, the great historian of the early Church, admits that the religion that is called Christianity was known to the ancients (Eccl. Hist., 1, ch iv) and writes that the religion of Jesus had "...been known among all nations, nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our doctrines of religion, have not been lately invented by us, but from the first creation of man, so to speak, have been established by the natural understanding of divinely favored men of old... What then should prevent the confession that we who are of Christ practice one and the same mode of life and have one and the same religion as those divinely favored men of old? Whence it is evident that the perfect religion committed to us by the teaching of Christ is not new and strange, but, if the truth must be spoken, it is the first and the true religion".

Who many of you call Jesus

Modern Christians who erroneously believe that what is today called Christianity started with Jesus, will be unable to relate to the words that "our doctrines of religion... have been established by the natural understanding... and [is] the same religion as those divinely favored men of old". The early Gentile Christians knew this fact, and it was for this reason that a copy of Platos Republic and other such writings was contained among the writings preserved in the recently discovered Nag Hammadi Library of early Christian writings. St. Augustine wrote: "That, in our times, is the Christian religion, which to know and follow is the most sure and certain health, called according to that name, but not according to the thing itself, of which it is the name; for the thing itself which is now called the Christian religion, really was known to the ancients, nor was wanting at any time from the beginning of the human race, until the time when Christ came in the flesh, from whence the true religion, which had previously existed, began to be called Christian; and this in our days is the Christian religion, not as having been wanting in former times, but as having in later times received this name" (Opera Augustini, vol. i, p.12). What this means is that the Jesus in the existing Gospels was converted by the Church to support the tenets of Mithraism, which was the universal religion of the empire. The problem is that the original teachings of TheWay had absolutely nothing in common with what came to be called Christianity under Pagan Rome.

Those teachings in the scriptures that supported the original objectives of "...the heightening and enlargement of human consciousness (see Key Of Knowledge - Heightening And Expansion Of Mind) were removed by the scribes of that segment of the Church which called itself Orthodox -- and the verses of the scriptures which supported the original spiritual objectives, were then portrayed and condemned as Gnostic interpolations. Resulting in the reality that the modern congregation of believers have been spiritually disenfranchised by the dogmatic dispensations that became ingrained in the doctrines of the Church -- which dogmatic dispensations was necessary in the creation of a secularized religion where the "...political implications ...[were] crucial to the development of Christianity as an institutional religion"

So in the conversion of Rome, everything that supported the Jewish roots and foundation of Jesus' teachings had to be suppressed and even condemned -- so much so, that Dead Sea Scroll expert A. Powell Davies professed: Biblical scholars , he writes,

Who many of you call Jesus

In the words of Brian McLaren as quoted in an interview with Lisa Ann Cockrel which was published in Today's Christian Woman (see Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right), Brian McLaren is quoted as stating: "One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history - it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn about church history."

Thus, the Christian world has perpetually closed their eyes to their own biblical scholars such as Dr. Vincent Taylor who writes i n his book, The Text of the New Testament, that

In his book, Introduction to the New Testament, B.W. Bacon wrote:

Who many of you call Jesus

In his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, by Dr. F. H. Scrivener, he writes that:

The Great Lie

The Gentile Church Witness: When did Yeshua/Jesus become the Messiah/Christ? Modern Christians proclaim that Jesus was God -- but this was not what was believed by those who knew and learned from him. And while modern believers ignore this fact, the proof is overwhelming! In the early Christian writing known as THE INSTRUCTOR, a second century work by Clement of Alexandria, it is written: "

Who many of you call Jesus

The Old Testament prediction made reference to in the above quotation by Lactantius is found at Ps 2:7 which reads: "I will declare the decree: the Lord has said to me, 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You'" (NKJ). And what few Christians today realize is that most ancient copies of the New Testament scriptures does in fact confirm the prophesy that these words were indeed spoken at his baptism when the Father said of Jesus: "Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee". Moreover, these words which were spoken to Jesus are actually confirmed at two other places in the New Testament.

In a writing by Justin (died 165 A.D.) known as the Dialogue of Justin with Tryphon, A Jew, in chapter LXXXVIII, Justin writes about Jesus, clearly referencing the Gospels baptism accounts: "He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life; but then the Holy Ghost, and for mans sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: Thou art My Son: this day have I begottenThee." (Justin, Trypho) Justin then goes on to explain to Trypho the Jew-- once more obviously quoting the original form of Matthew 3:17 and Luke 3:22: "For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee, is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, Worship me; and Christ answered him, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. (Id., ch. CII.) Others who found the same passage in Matthew are Juvencus, Evangeliorum Libri Quattor, I 360-64 and Hilary, De Trinitate, VIII, 25, Tyconius, Reg. 1

Who many of you call Jesus

In the Hebrew Matthew, there are two variants to the baptismal account which are different from the Greek text tradition. The first adds "today I have begotten thee." After saying many things, this Gospel continues: After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased. And again, Today I have begotten You. Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to Him, Who are you, Lord? And again a voice from Heaven said, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. Then John, falling down before Him, said, I beseech You, Lord, baptize me! But He forbade him saying, Let it be so; for thus it is fitting that all things be fulfilled. (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7) [see Wikipedia - Authentic Gospel Of Matthew] Further, this day I have begotten thee appears in the following Greek of Matthew: D (Greek) and the Old Latin. (E.B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879) at 40.) Also, in "Codex Bezae and most of the old Latin manuscripts...the voice instead cites Psalm 2:7: 'This day I have begotten thee." (Barbara Aland, Jol Delobel, New Testament textual criticism, exegesis, and early church history (Peeters, 1994) at 120.) Throckmorton in Gospel Parallels (1992) explains that this variant (this day I have begotten thee) exists in some of the oldest versions of Luke such as P4, meaning Paris Papyrus, third century (id., x, xviii, 14); S, meaning Sinaiticus, middle fourth century (id., xiv, 14); A B, Codex Alexandrinus, 5th century and Codex Vaticanus, 4th Century (id., x, 14), and W Manuscript (5th century).

Who many of you call Jesus

Faustus vs Augustine: The phrase this day I have begotten thee was quoted by Faustus ca. 400 AD from both Matthew and Lukes Gospel as having been uttered at Jesus baptism. Faustus was unorthodox in his view that Jesus, the Son of David, was not born Son of God but became Son of God at his baptism. This position of Faustus which was of course the same as the Ebionite Nazirenes and the Original Gospel accounts, was rejected by the dogma of the Emperor Constantine's Church that Jesus was the 'eternal' Son of God -- which doctrine was embraced at Nicea in 325 AD. In opposing Faustus, Augustine's objective was to alter Jesus to match Constantine's favored deity - Sol Invictus. See our "Council of Nicea".) Augustine in his point-by-point rebuttal, does not dispute how Luke read -- he disputes only how Matthew then read after it was rewritten. We find this Faustus-Augustine exchange in Schaffs Augustin: The Writings Against the Manicheans and Against the Donatists, in Book XXIII (1890) at 313. Schaff recounts Faustus points about the Matthew passage when read in light of Luke: Faustus recurs to the genealogical difficulty and insists that even according to Matthew Jesus was not Son of God until His baptism. Augustine sets forth the Catholic view of the relation of the divine and the human in the person of Christ. [quoting Faustus directly] I will, for the present, suppose that this person was right in saying that the son of David was born of Mary. It still remains true, that in this whole passage of the generation no mention is made of the Son of God till we come to the baptism; so that it is an injurious misrepresentation on your part to speak of this writer as making the Son of God the inmate of a womb. The writer, indeed, seems to cry out against such an idea, and in the very title of his book to clear himself of such blasphemy, asserting that the person whose birth he describes is the son of David, not the Son of God. And if you attend to the writers meaning [i.e., Matthew's meaning] and purpose, you will see that what he wishes us to believe of Jesus the Son of God is not so much that He was born of Mary, as that He became the Son of God by baptism at the river Jordan.

Who many of you call Jesus

He [i.e., Matthew] tells us that the person of whom he spoke at the outset as the son of David was baptized by John, and became the Son of God on this particular occasion, when about thirty years old, according to Luke, when also the voice was heard saying to Him, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Schaff provides Augustines complete reply. Id., at 318 et seq. Augustine disputes only how Matthew read but not how Luke read. However, he quotes Matthew back at Faustus: when He was baptized by John, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Augustine says these words do not imply that He was not the Son of God before. Id., at 315. Augustine ignores the quote from Luke which made Faustus case. (For further discussion of this portion of Faustus, see Barbara Aland, Jol Delobel, New Testament textual criticism, exegesis, and early church history (Peeters, 1994) at 121.) Based on Epiphanius and Jerome's account of the Hebrew Matthew, it must have been altered instead of Luke. Only after Augustine did not want to cope with Faustus's argument any longer, Catholic authorities also erased the Luke 3:22 version as well.

Who many of you call Jesus

While Augustine attempted to argue his point using the corrupted copies of Matthew, it is easily proven that the older Matthew manuscripts read exactly the same as Luke -- i.e., this day I have begotten thee appears in the following Greek of Matthew: D (Greek) and the Old Latin. (E.B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879) at 40.) Also, in "Codex Bezae and most of the old Latin manuscripts...the voice instead cites Psalm 2:7: 'This day I have begotten thee." (Barbara Aland, Jol Delobel, New Testament textual criticism, exegesis, and early church history (Peeters, 1994) at 120.)

The Spiritual Consequences: Were these the actual words which were spoken to Jesus? If they were, what are the religious and spiritual implications for the modern Christian in search of a more intimate relationship with the Lord? This very serious doctrinal problem is raised in the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary where it is written: [Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.] Augustine, with some moderns, apply this to Christ's external generations from the Father. `The expression (says Alexander) 'I have begotten thee' means, I am thy Father: 'Today' refers to the date of the decree itself: but this, as a divine act, was eternal, and so must be the Sonship it affirms. This, however, is a forced way of interpreting the words, and not at all consistent with the context, which clearly connects the Sonship with the resurrection of Christ. Does the apostle, then; mean to say that Christ became God's Son -- for the first time and in the only sense in which He was the Son of God -- by His resurrection from the dead? That cannot be; for, besides that it would contradict the whole, strain of the New Testament regarding Christ's relation to the Father (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary).

Who many of you call Jesus

The problem is seen in the fact that the Bible means exactly what is says: Jesus became the Son of God -- initially, by the Anointing (Messiah/Christ) of the Holy Spirit at his baptism -- and permanently, with his resurrection. In fact, because they believed what Jesus himself taught them -- i.e., that Jesus was a man who had so fulfilled the Law of God within himself, and had so purified and consecrated himself that he became One with God -- the original (Jewish Ebionite/Nazirene) followers of Jesus were condemned as heretics by the later Gentile Church. Thus, the second century writer Irenaeus states that they:

From a biblical perspective, there is nothing in the Old Testament that even remotely implies or predicts that the Eternal God will come in the form of man. The prediction was that God would raise up a prophet from among the Jews, like Moses, as seen where it is written: The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him (Deut 18:15 NIV). When Peter spoke before the Jews, he stated that this prediction applied to Jesus -- and in so doing, himself called Jesus a prophet: Moses said, The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you... This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up (Acts 3:22;7:37 RSV).

Perhaps more importantly is the fact that Jesus referred to himself as a prophet, as seen in the words: But Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house (Matt 13:57 RSV). When conversing about his crucifixion, Jesus again spoke of himself as a prophet, as seen where it is written: Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldnt do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem! (Luke 13:33 NLT). Thus, Jesus told his disciples and followers that he was a prophet.

Who many of you call Jesus

In Jesus prayer to the Father prior to his crucifixion it is written: And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt (Matt 26:39 KJV). If Jesus was God, and the Father and the Son were not separate and distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. In these many such instances where Jesus prays to God -- or the Father -- if they were one and the same, Jesus would have been praying to himself -- and his will, would of necessity have been the Fathers will. Moreover, neither could God call his disciples his brothers, and make the statement: Go instead to my brothers and tell them, I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God (John 20:17 NIV).

What Jesus taught his disciples was that he and the Father were One -- but this same Oneness was also applied to his disciples, as seen in the words: That they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me (John 17:21-23 NAS). The problem is that we cannot even begin to understand the essence and meaning of this spiritual concept, until we are first able to comprehend our own divided nature -- the reality of our pre-existent soul -- and our vision has been opened to where we are able to see beyond the natural barriers of this world. What Jesus is saying, though, is that in the same way that he and the Father are One, they too are One.

If Jesus was God -- or even coequal with God as in the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity -- Jesus could never have said to his disciples: You heard me say, I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me

Who many of you call Jesus

It is a widely accepted doctrine among Christians today that the disciples and Messianic followers did not comprehend the true nature of Jesus, because they did not proclaim that he was God -- as did the later Gentile converts. What Jesus taught his disciples with regard to who he was, is exactly what was stated by Peter after he was totally enlightened by the Holy Spirit: Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know (Acts 2:22 NIV). Where did Peter get the notion that Jesus was a man -- a man "accredited by God" -- a man that God performed miracles, wonders and signs through? Didnt Jesus himself say that Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself... (John 5:19 NAS); The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works (John 14:10 NKJ); I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me (John 5:30 NKJ); ...I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him (John 8:28-29 NIV); for the works which the Father has given Me to finish -- the very works that I do -- bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me (John 5:36 NKJ); I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You (John 17:6-7 NKJ).

How could God give God works to finish? How could God know nothing except what God taught him? Moreover, why would God -- a Being that cannot be defiled -- consecrate himself as seen in the words: They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth (John 17:16-19 RSV).

Are these just words -- or did Jesus truly mean that his disciples were not of this world? When Jesus states that he is At-One with God, does that mean that he is God? And when Jesus states that his disciples are at-one with both him and God, does that make them God? These are questions which the Apostle warns that the mind of man in his natural state is incapable of answering incapable, until they have themselves attained this same level of oneness which is portrayed as the ultimate goal of the disciple who walks in TheWay.

Who many of you call Jesus

In view of what Jesus taught his disciples and followers, again let us review the direct witness of the Apostle Peter as found in the Clementine Holily number sixteen, Chapter fifteen, where he opposed Simon Magus and states: Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God....

It is a well recorded fact of history that the disciples of Jesus, his brother Jacob/James, and the Messianic Jewish believers who were his friends, brothers and followers, did not believe that Jesus was God. Those people who spoke to him -- ate with him -- traveled with him -- and were taught by him -- and was even his brother -- believed exactly as it is written in the scriptures: But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men (Matt 9:8 KJV).

Fundamentally, every person who was taught directly by Jesus held a common belief which was documented by Edward Gibbon of a supernatural union of a man and a God; and this mystic doctrine was adopted with many fanciful improvements by Carpocrates, Basilides, and Valentine... In their eyes, Jesus of Nazareth was a mere mortal, the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary: but he was the best and wisest of the human race, selected as the worthy instrument to restore upon earth the worship of the true and supreme Deity. When he was baptized in the Jordan, the Christ, the first of the aeons, the Son of God himself, descended on Jesus in the form of a dove, to inhabit his mind, and direct his actions during the allotted period of his ministry

Who many of you call Jesus

This belief -- that the Christ, the first of the aeons, the Son of God himself, descended on Jesus in the form of a dove, to inhabit his mind, and direct his actions during the allotted period of his ministry , is simply not understood by the carnal mind of natural organic man -- as is very clearly stated in the Bible itself. We can only start to comprehend this belief that was held commonly by ALL the faithful believers who were taught directly by Jesus himself, as well as those who were closest to him in the first century, when we begin to apply what the Apostle Paul put forth in the first chapter of Romans, and explore the belief in relation to our own entrance into this world.

For a more in depth study of the above -- the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity -- the conversion of the Church of Rome -- and the alteration of the teachings of Yeshua, you can read the article entitled: How Did Jesus Become The Son Of God at http://Ebionite.com/SonOfGod.htm

Yeshua/Jesus did not come to promote belief in the Messiah/Christ - neither did he come to promote the worship of Messiah/Christ - Yeshua/Jesus came to teach the people TheWay to become Messiah/Christ, and fulfill the vision of a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation of Anointed (Messiah/Christ) Disciples who are set aside for the service of the Most High God that Yeshua taught was the Father of all of mankind. The path of TheWay could not be walked by many Jews because they were carnal in their perception of the Law (Torah), and could not use the Key of Knowledge to open the inner door to the Kingdom. In like manner, the majority of the Roman and Greek followers who were too Pagan to embrace the teachings of Yeshua, were not interested in a life of genuine change and spiritual transformation, so they made Jesus their God so they didn't have to pick up their own cross and follow in TheWay. Thus, the Church itself betrayed and crucified Messiah/Christ when it immersed itself in the way of the heathen, and worshiped the messenger instead of imitating the pattern and example that Yeshua set as the required standard for all those who called upon the name of the Lord. The Good News is that once you understand and are willing to live in accordance with the Original teachings of the New Covenant, the Promise is that you will Know the Truth for yourself as you are permitted entrance into the Kingdom within you (Lk 17:20-21).