While the Judeo-Christians and the Jews have spent countless hours and untold billions of dollars propagandizing our people with the false teachings of when Christ was born. So have they been doing with who actually killed Him.

This study, in part, is taken from one of Pastor Sheldon Emry’s sermons. I believe that Pastor Emory was one of the greatest Bible scholars of this century and perhaps of all time. The only one would even remotely reach him in scholarship was Pastor Howard B. Rand. Their study and teachings far exceed anything the Judeo-Christian ministers have done over the years.

The Judeos have been too busy kissing up to the Jews in order to get vast amounts of money. For whoever will betray Christ with false teachings the Jews will shower with vast amounts of money that they have stolen from our people.

The Judeo-Christian ministers do not wish to be exposed to the antics of the Jews when they are angry at someone. And example of that would be Paul which is told to us in Acts 16:17‑24: “The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers, And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews ( This does not mean Jews by race for they are not a race, but only a people who have accepted Judaism as their religion; nor by religion because Paul was raised as a Jew but was converted to the Way on the road to Damascus), do exceedingly trouble our city, And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them. And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.”

So not wishing to be exposed to this sort of treatment by the Jews, they would rather live in luxury and betray our Lord and Savior and King.

Recently we posted a study about when Christ was actually born, refuting the age old lie perpetrated by the Jew. This study will show you the truth about who actually killed Christ and it was not the Romans.

                            WHO KILLED CHRIST?

As an article pri­nted in The Phoenix Ga­zette on Saturday, September 27, 1969 touched upon the last chapter; we feel that it is now necessary to present a study on "Who Killed Christ." The article was headed  His Failure to Co‑operate Cited "Jewish Effort To Save Jesus From Execution Told," by George W. Cornell:

New York (AP): "Jewish officials sought to save Jesus from Roman execution, but He wouldn't co‑ operate, says a noted authority on First Century Jewish and Roman law. That's the latest conclusion about an old but still pondered judicial proceeding that has echoed through history. This new and probing analysis of the case comes from Justice Haim Cohn of Israel's Supreme Court. His findings, presented in the Israeli Law Review, were published recently in Hadassah Magazine in his country. He maintains that the ques­tioning of Jesus by the Jewish council, the San­hedrin, on the night before His trial and condem­nation by the Roman occupation government, was an unsuccessful effort to find grounds for sav­ing His life. However, under Roman Law, he adds, the accused could be convicted on his own plea of guilty, even without witnesses, and to avoid this, Jesus had to be 'dissuaded from pleading guilty' and 'induced to co‑operate.' Justice Cohn says it was for this purpose, after the Sanhedrin had discredited the witnesses, that its president, the high priest, questioned Jesus directly, asking if He was 'Christ, the Son of the Blessed.' Jesus replied in the affirmative. 'That reply caused the high priest and the Sanhedrin to give up in despair.'

The Israeli Justice writes, since Jesus would not 'bow to their authority' or give the assurances they needed to intervene in His behalf. 'They could do nothing more,' he says, other than let the Roman trial run its course. Rather than being prompted by purely eithico‑religious considerations, however, 'their motives were realistic and political,' he says, 'aimed at regaining some of their lost influence among the people.'

Nothing could have been further from their intentions, or more harmful to their purpose, than to arouse the discontent and disaffection of the people by lending a hand in the execution by the Romans of one of their midst.' On the other hand, 'any action on their part to prevent such execution would, if successful, have been likely to arouse popular applause and to reinstate them in the eyes of the people as their natural and legitimate leaders.' He says this is the only objective that could have caused the unusual night meeting of the Sanhedrin, in view of conditions, laws and customs of that day, and it also fits basically the Gospel accounts. The meeting started with numerous witnesses being questioned and branded as 'false witnesses,' he notes, adding that they obviously would have been accepted as truthful if incriminating testimony had been desired. However, he adds, the Sanhedrin 'was interested in satisfying itself that any evidence that might be available against Jesus was false and inadmissible' so they could safely intercede in His behalf. 'Hence it so found and so declared.' That point would have been sufficient under Jewish law for clearing Jesus of the Roman charges, the Justice notes, since Jewish law prohibited any conviction except by testimony of at least two reliable witnesses."

Note : This article was across the top of the page carrying religious and church news. The argument, presented by this AP news release, that the so‑called "Jews" were really attempting to save the life of Jesus is Entirely False. For instance, it was the Jewish scribes, chief priests and Pharisees who arrested Jesus in the first place, Not The Romans. However, the Jew Haim Cohn does make two very, revealing admissions.

1). Cohn says that their [Jewish officials'] motives were realistic and political aimed at regaining some of their lost influence among the people. In other words, the Jews wanted to regain their power over the people!

John verifies this motive when he quotes the chief priests and Pharisees, who claimed they were fearful: "Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." (John 11:47‑48) Then John goes on to state: "Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death." (John 11:53)

Haim Cohn says they [the Jews] tried to save Him in order to remain in power over the people; But God's Holy Word says they [the Jews] tried to kill Him in order to remain in power over the people! So true to their history, the Jews, have always said one thing [we always do good], but do in actuality the opposite [always do evil].

2). Then after more lies about the Sanhedrin trying to discredit the witnesses against Jesus; [Matthew bears witness of this lie by stating]:  "Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council SOUGHT [looked for] FALSE WITNESS AGAINST JESUS, to put him to death." (Matthew 26:59)

     Then: Cohn admits they tried to get Jesus to deny that He was Christ, the Son of the Blessed, and to bow to their [the Jews'] authority. However, Jesus would not bow to the Jews' authority nor deny He was the Son of God, Haim Cohn then says, "they [the Jews] could do nothing more" than let the Roman trial run its course [Now, most Christians will believe this out of hand never thinking about the fact that the Romans, Pilate, wanted to turn Him loose but the Jews would not have it that way].

We shall have much more to say about the Roman trial later, but it is very significant that the high Jewish authority of that day tried to make Jesus deny His Divinity and bow to their authority. That is what Satan asked the Lord to do, fall down and worship him. Which is what Communist leaders require all over the world, that people deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ and bow to their authority. And here we see the admission that Judaism in its ancient form was so opposed to Jesus Christ that its leaders admit it was necessary that He be killed in order to establish Jewish authority!      

They Have Not Changed in the Almost 2000 Years since Jesus’ Time on Earth : But even so, all to many "Judeo-Christian Ministers," not seeing the significance of these admissions, will be deceived by Haim Cohn's Lie that the Jewish officials sought to save Jesus from Roman execution and will be parroting that Lie, the Jews didn't really kill Jesus but tried to save Him! At the same time they will join the increasing effort to convince Christians to accept the idea that Judaism is equal to, and is perhaps even superior to, Christianity, including the idea that Jews should be brought into the Christian churches  to teach us about the Bible. What Blasphemy!!!                              

“As long as there remains among the Christians any moral conception of the social order, and until all faith, patriotism, and dignity are uprooted, our reign over the world shall not come. We have already fulfilled part of our work, but we cannot yet claim that the whole of our work is done. We have still a long way to go before we can overthrow our main opponent: The Christian Church. We must always bear in mind that the Christian Church is the only institution which has stood, and which will, as long as it remains in existence, stand in our way.

The Christian Church, with its methodical work of edifying and moral teachings, will always keep its congregations in such a state of mind, as to make them too self-respecting to yield to our domination, and to bow before our future King of the Jews.

That is why we have been striving to discover the best way of destroying Christianity and its very foundations. We have spread the spirit of revolt and false liberalism among the nations of the Christians so as to persuade them away from their faith and even to make them ashamed of professing the precepts of their Religion and obeying the Commandments of their leader Jesus Christ.

We have brought many of them to boast of being atheists, and more than that, to glory in being descendants of the ape! We have given them new theories, impossible of realization, such as Communism, Anarchy, and Socialism, which are not serving our purposes. The stupid Christians have accepted them with the greatest enthusiasm, without realizing that those theories are ours, and that they constitute our most powerful instrument against themselves...

We have blackened the Christian Church [through plays, movies, television, newspapers, magazines, books, programs], with the most ignominious calumnies, we have stained its history and disgraced even her noblest activities. We have imputed to it the wrongs of its enemies, and have thus brought these latter to stand more closely by our side. So much so, that we are not witnessing, to our greatest satisfac­tion, rebellions against Christianity [by placing false teachings in the seminaries, and by placing their agents in most of the pulpits of America and the other Christian nations of the world], in many countries. We have turned her Clergy into objects of hatred and ridicule, we have subjected them to the contempt of the crowd [Through the antics of False Christian preachers, like the Jew Jim Bakker, the Jew Mike Evans and many others. Through greedy dogs like Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggert, etc.]. We have caused the practice of the Catholic Religion to be considered out of date and a mere waste of time [and through their influence many so-called Catholic Priests are Queers and perverts and worse].

And the Christians, in their stupidity, have proved easier dupes than we expected them to be. One would expect more intelligence and more practical common sense, but they are no better than a heard of sheep. Let them graze in our fields till they become fat enough to be worthy of being immolated to our future King of the World...

We have founded many secret societies, which all work for our purpose, under our orders and our direction. We have made it an honor, a great honor, for the Christians to join us in our organizations, which are, thanks to our gold, flourishing now more than ever.

Yet it remains our secret that those Christians who betray their own and most precious interests, by joining us in our plot, should never know that those associations are of our creation, and that they serve our purposes.

One of the many triumphs of our Freemasonry is that those Christians who become members of our Lodges, should never suspect that we are using them to build their own jails, upon whose terraces we shall erect the throne of our Universal King of the Jews; and should never know that we are commanding them to forge the chains of their own servility to our future king of the world.

So far, we have considered our strategy in our attacks upon Christiani­ty from the outside. But this is not all. Let us now explain how we have gone further in our work, to hasten the ruin of the Christian Faith, and how we have penetrated into its most intimate circles, and brought even some of her clergy to become pioneers of our cause.

We have induced some of our children to join the Christian Church, with the explicit intimation that they should work in a still more efficient way for the disintegration of Christianity, by creating scandals within it. We have thus followed the advice of our Princes of the Jews, who so wisely said: 'Let some of your children become cannons [Judeo-Christian Ministers, pastors, etc.], so that they may destroy the Church.' Unfortunately, not all among the 'convert' Jews have proved faithful to their mission. Many of them have even betrayed us! But, on the other hand, others have kept their promise and honored their word. Thus the counsel of our Elders has proved successful. We are the fathers of all revolutions - even of those which sometimes happen to turn against us. We are the supreme masters of peace and war. We can boast of being the Creators of the reformation! Calvin was one of our children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation.

Martin Luther yielded to the influence of his Jewish friends , and again, by Jewish authority and with Jewish finance, his plot against the Catholic Church met with success But unfortunately he discovered our deception, and we had to dispose of him before he could alert the Christians. Thanks to our propaganda to our theories of Liberalism and to our misrepre­senta­tions of Freedom, the minds of many among the Gentiles were ready to welcome the Reformation. They separated from the Church to fall into our snare. And thus the Catholic Church was very sensibly weakened, and her authority over the Kings of the Christians was reduced almost to naught.

We are grateful to Protestants for their loyalty to our wishes, although most of them are, inn the sincerity of their faith, unaware of their loyalty to us. We are grateful to them for the wonderful help they are giving us in our fight [Through traitorous clergy] against the stronghold of Christian Civilization, and in our preparations for the advent of our supremacy over the whole world and over the Kingdom of the Christians.

So far we have succeeded in overthrowing most of the Thrones of Europe. The rest will follow in the near future. Russia has already worshiped our rule. France, with her Masonic Government, is under our thumb. England, in her dependence upon our finance, is under our heel; and in her Protestantism is our hope for the destruction of all Christianity. Spain and Mexico are but toys in our hands. And many other countries, including the United States have already fallen for our scheming [Thanks to the Clergy of Organized Religion and the radio and TV evangelists].

But Christianity is still alive...We must destroy it without the least delay and without the slightest mercy. Most of the Press in the world is under our Control; let us therefore encourage in a still more violent way the hatred of the world against Christianity. Let us intensify our activities in poisoning the morality of the Christians. Let us spread the spirit of revolution in the minds of the people. They must be made to despise Patriotism and the love of their family, to consider their faith as a humbug, their obedience to their Religion as a degrading servility, so that they become deaf to the appeal of True Christians and blind to their warnings against us. Let us, above all, make it impossible for Chris­ be united...for non-Christians to join the Church; otherwise the greatest obstruction to our domination will be strengthened and all our work undone. Our plot will be unveiled, the Christians will turn against us, in the spirit of revenge, and our domination over them will never be realized. Let us remember that as long as there still remain active enemies of Christianity, we may hope to become Masters of the World...And let us remember always that the future Jewish King will never reign in the world until Christiani­ty is destroyed..." (From a series of speeches at the B'nai B'rith Convention in Paris, published shortly afterwards in the London Catholic Gazette, which was forced out of business and closed by the Jews and their "friends" shortly after the publication of this article. Further substantia­tion of the authenticity is that Paris Le Reveil du Peuple published a similar account, 1936)                

However, before you are deceived by such Jewish propaganda, why not search the Scriptures with us to see what God's Holy Word has to say about Who Killed Christ? Because in any murder investigation, the authorities usually seek answer to the following questions:

1). Were there any previous attempts to kill the deceased, and if so, by whom?

2). Had anyone shown enough hatred of the deceased so as to demonstrate a desire to kill him?

3). Had the deceased, prior to his death, named any who might attempt to kill him?

4). Who was last seen with the victim? Who might have had him under their physical control?

5). What is the testimony of those who witnessed the murder?

In the case of a murder committed many centuries ago, such as the death of Christ, we must avail ourselves of the historical records of events of that time. In this case we have a complete written account of the first years of our Christian era. We shall take each of the above questions in the order asked.

As we read but a short way into the Gospels before we find the first attempt to kill Jesus. In chapter 2 of Matthew we find that King Herod attempted to trick the Wise Men into revealing the location of the child Jesus. When God prevented that, we find that Herod: "...was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under..." (Matthew 2:16) Herod did this in a vain attempt to kill Jesus, in His infancy.

Mark tells of the healing of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day: "And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him...he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." (Mark 3:1‑5)

Following which: "And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him." (Mark 3:6) So here we see the Pharisees planning with others to kill Jesus. The Herodians are identified in secular history as also being Edomites.

After Jesus healed a man which had an infirmity: "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him...the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father..." (John 5:16‑18; See also John 8:57‑59)

Many other instances of thwarted attempts by the religious leaders to kill Jesus in Jerusalem are described in all four Gospels. The situation became so bad that John relates: "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." (John 7:1; Also Luke 6:11)

Besides the actual attempts to murder Jesus, we find the Gospels tell of open ridicule, trickery, and hatred of Jesus by the chief priests, scribes and Pharisees.

In Matthew the Disciples told Jesus the Pharisees were offended by what Jesus had said. (Matthew 15:12)  Yet we find that all four Gospels tell of the multitudes of the people who came to praise Jesus for His miracles at the very same time the religious authorities hated Him. No antagonism was evidenced from the people, although not all believed, of course. And neither did the Romans take particular attention to His coming and going, only the so‑called Church Leaders.

After Jesus overthrew the tables of the money changers in the temple, Mark says: “And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished [impressed] at his doctrine." (Mark 11:18) Fear of the loss of their wealth and power made these greedy men desire the end of Jesus' miracles. Then after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead: "...he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth..." (John 11:43‑44)

In response we find that the Jews: "Then...the Jews...some of them went their ways to the Pharisees. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? or this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." (John 11:45‑48) John goes on to say: "Then from that day forth they [the Jews] took counsel together for to put him [Jesus] to death." (John 11:53) This hatred for Jesus became so well known in Judea that we read: "Howbeit no man spake openly of him [Jesus] for fear of the Jews."  (John 7:13)

Sometimes a murder case is solved when authorities find that the victim knew, or suspected, that certain persons might attempt to take his life. Using that as a lead, they [the authorities] could then investigate further by considering who did Jesus say would kill Him? And we find that Jesus told the twelve disciples of His coming death, and He named the men who would do it. "From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the Elders and Chief Priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day." (Matthew 16:21)

There are nine (9) places telling of His prophecy of His own death (Matthew 16:21, 20:18; Mark 8:32; Luke 9:22, 18:33 and John 6:64, 13:1, 18:4 and 19:28) and five (5) times. (Matthew 16:21, 20:18; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22 and 18:33) He names the chief priests, scribes, elders, and Pharisees as those who would kill him! In the Gospel of John we find an account of Jesus personally accusing these same men of seeking to kill Him. John 7, speaking to the Jews: "...the Jews..." (John 7:15) He asked: "...Why go ye about to kill me?" (John 7:19) These Jews are identified in the next chapter as: "...the scribes and Pharisees..." (John 8:3)

Jesus then delivered to them a scathing rebuke, including these words: " seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." (John 8:37) His rebuke so angered them that: "Then took they up stones to cast at him..." (John 8:59)

In this same chapter we find that Christ identified these religious rulers as Not of Israel! This will be shown later. Jesus also taught a parable in which He identified His murderers, after which they again attempted to kill Him. We know it as the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21:33‑46 and Luke 20:9‑19. This parable is the story of planting a vineyard and similar to Isaiah, in which we read: "...the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel..." (Isaiah 5:7)

This verse in Isaiah identifies the vineyard as "the house of Israel," and the planter is identified as God Almighty. In the parable, the vineyard [Israel] is under the charge of husbandmen, to whom the planter sends servants that they [the husbandmen ‑‑ Jews] should give Him the fruit of the vineyard. But instead, the husbandmen beat and killed the servants. (Matthew 21:35) Then the householder [God]: "But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying. They will reverence my son." (Matthew 21:37)

But what did Christ teach they would do? "But when the husbandmen saw  the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance." (Matthew 21:38) Then we read: "And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet." (Matthew 21:45‑46)

In Luke's account he says: "And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: For they perceived that he had spoke this parable against them." (Luke 20:19) So it is obvious that they [the Jews] understood that Jesus knew it was they who would attempt to kill Him!

Therefore in this parable and its aftermath, we see that those who Christ said would kill Him are same who then attempted to do so [This story also identifies these "religious" men as non‑Israelites as we'll see a little further on]. Thus the evidence we have seen would bring these men only under suspicion. It would be considered "circumstantial evidence" in a modern court of law and would not be enough to convict the scribes, the chief priests, the elders, and the Pharisees of the murder itself. They could have been found guilty of attempted murder; but we are seeking the answer to Who Killed Christ, not just who threatened Him.          

Matthew, Mark and Luke each tell of the final plans that were made to kill Jesus, identifying the men who made the plans   and then proceeded to carry them out. "Then assembled together   the Chief Priests, and the scribes, and the Elders of the people, unto the palace of the High Priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him." (Matthew 26:3‑4) That is pretty plain testimony, is it not? Describing the actual capture, he relates: "And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the Chief Priests and Elders of the people." (Matthew 26:47)

From Mark: "...and the Chief Priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death...and immediately while he yet spake, cometh JUDAS, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the Chief Priests and the scribes and the Elders." (Mark 14:1, 43)

Luke gives the same account with the addition of "Captains of the Temple": "And the Chief Priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people...And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called JUDAS, one of the twelve...Then Jesus said unto the Chief Priests, and captains of the Temple, and the Elders...with swords and staves?" (Luke 22:2, 47, 52)

Then John relates this same story he identifies The Band of Mark 15:16:  "And the soldiers led him [Jesus] away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band." (Mark 15:16)

Who then mocked and mistreated Him: "Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the Chief Priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons...Then The Band and The Captain and Officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him." (John 18:3, 12) So, we can see all relates that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to His captors, and state that it was The Chief Priests who had agreed to pay Judas money for that betrayal. And we can see clearly who the BAND was that Jesus was delivered up to by the Roman Soldiers. It was the Band given to Judas from the Chief Priests and Pharisees, the Captain, Officers and soldiers of the temple!!! "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the Chief Priests...they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver." (Matthew 26:14‑15 See also Mark 14:10‑11, Luke 22:3‑5) That the high priest, Caiaphas, was privy to all these events is proven again when Jesus was taken directly to his [Caiaphas'] palace.

John tells of the people's belief in Jesus' miracles, (John 7:32) and then identifies Jesus' captors as: “...a band of men and officers from the Chief Priests and Pharisees...then the band and the Captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him." (John 18:3, 12)

Some of our "Judeo-Christian Ministers" try to make it appear that all the people in Jerusalem were the culprits in His [Jesus'] betrayal and murder, but these same chapters above tell that His followers were willing to fight for Him, but were prevented from doing so by Christ Himself. For when Peter attempted to defend Jesus, He [Christ] said: "...Put up again thy sword into his place...Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" (Matthew 26:52‑54)

So by this, we can see that Christ gave the Disciples to understand that He must be allowed to be taken captive. It was only after this that the disciples forsook Him. (Matthew 26:56)

Nowhere in All of the New Testament Scriptures is anyone accused of being a part of Jesus' betrayal and capture except those who were directly connected with, or paid by, the religious rulers of Jerusalem!

Now that we know who captured Jesus, let us continue with the rest of the account of this ancient drama. Many of our "Judeo-Christian Ministers" [teach a lie ‑‑ although they may not know it, for failure to study the Scriptures] and attempt to blame the Romans, through Pilate, for the murder of Christ. However, from the time of His being taken by physical force [by the Jews] until His death on the Cross, Jesus came into the presence, and under the control, of the civil authorities of Judea, Not of Rome! It is true that Rome was in full military control of Judea at that time. But that was due to the actions of the Pharisees themselves. The following is the account related in the Jewish Encyclopedia which led up to the Romans becoming the military conquerors of Palestine: "It is difficult to state at what time the Pharisees, as a party, arose. Josephus first mentions them in connection with Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus. (Ant. 13:5,9). Under John Hyrcanus (135‑105) they appear as a powerful party opposing the Sadducean proclivities of the king, who had formerly been a disciple of theirs, though the story as told by Josephus is unhistoric­al. (Ant. 13:10,5; comp. Jubilees, Book of, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs)

The Hasmonean dynasty, with its worldly ambitions and aspirations, met with little support from the Pharisees, whose aim was the maintenance of a religious spirit in accordance with their interpretation of the Law. (see Psalms of Solomon)

Under Alexander Jannaeus (104‑78) the conflict between the people, siding with the Pharisees, and the king became bitter and ended in cruel carnage. (Ant. 13:13,5; xiv.1,2) Under his widow, Salome Alexandria (78‑69), the Pharisees, led by Simeon ben Shetah, came to power; they obtained seats in the Sanhedrin, and that time was afterward regarded as the golden age, full of the blessing of heaven. But the bloody vengeance they took upon the Sadducees led to a terrible reaction, and under Aristobulus (69‑63) the Sadducees regained their power. (Ant. 13:16,2 ‑‑ xiv.1,2) Amidst the bitter struggle which ensued, the Pharisees appeared before Pompey asking him to interfere and restore the old priesthood while abolishing the royalty of the Hasmoneans altogether. (Ant. 14:3,2) The defilement of the Temple by Pompey was regarded by the Pharisees as a divine punishment of Sadducean misrule. After the national independence had been lost, the Pharisees gained in influence while the star of the Sadducees waned. Herod found his chief opponents among the latter, and so he put the leaders of the Sanhedrin to death while endeavoring by a milder treatment to win the favor of the leaders of the Pharisees, who, though they refused to take the oath of allegiance, were otherwise friendly to him...In King Agrippa (41‑44) the Pharisees had a supporter and friend, and with the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees.

Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition, Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future..." (Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 665‑666)

And it is also true that Rome had ordered that no one was to be put to death by the local authorities. The chief priests were allowed to judge and punish for minor crimes; but the death sentence could be imposed or allowed only by the Roman Governor, who was Pilate at that time. And it was for that reason, the Jewish priests, though they had pronounced the death sentence on Him. "...He is guilty of death." (Matthew 26:66, 27:1) They could have whipped Him, but their desire was His death. "...when they {the Jews} had bound him {Christ}, they {the Jews} led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor." (Matthew 27:2)

At first Pilate refused to comply with their demands, and they immediately set about to force Pilate to give his consent for them to put Jesus Christ to death. The details of his several attempts to release Jesus are told by all four Gospel writers. "...Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he [Pilate] knew that for envy they had delivered him [Christ]...And the governor [Pilate] said, Why, what evil hath he [Christ] done?" (Matthew 27:17‑23); "But Pilate answered them saying, will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him [Christ] for envy...Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done?" (Mark 15:9‑14)

In fact, Pilate went to great lengths to convince the priests and Pharisees that they should not put Jesus to death.  "And Pilate when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, Said unto them...behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man [Jesus] touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worth of death is done unto him." (Luke 13:13‑15)

In his attempts to save Jesus, Pilate had sent Him to Herod because Herod had authority in Galilee where Jesus began His ministry. "...teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man [Jesus] were a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time." (Luke 23:5‑7) But Herod only mocked Him, and then sent Him back to Pilate. "And Herod with his men of war [soldiers] sent him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." (Luke 23:11)

Also, note, these "solders" of Herod's are the "band of soldiers" as spoken of in Matthew 27:27, not the [Roman] soldiers of Pilate! "Then the soldiers of the governor [Pilate] took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers [Herod's]. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe...and mocked him..." (Matthew 27:27‑29)

We then find that again and again Pilate sought to release Jesus. (Luke 23:16 and John 19:12) Much more could be related of the almost desperate attempt by Pilate to save Jesus from death and of the reaction of the mob, who responded with threats of violence and insurrection: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made..." (Matthew 27:24); "And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them [the rulers ‑‑ see verse 18] and of the chief priests prevailed." (Luke 23:23)

The final threat to Pilate was an accusation of treason, by him, to Caesar if he were to release Jesus. "...Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:12)

Now some diehard, pro‑Jew, anti‑Christ "Judeo-Christian Ministers," in spite of all this evidence, will still insist that, "Well, it is true that the Jews urged the death of Jesus; but what really happened was that when Pilate gave up, he turned Jesus over to the Roman soldiers, and the Romans then proceeded to crucify Him."

But, again we ask, What saith the Scripture? "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye [Jews] to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." (Matthew 27:24‑25)

Therefore, it is obvious to any thinking person, it was Not the Roman soldiers who answered, it was the Jewish Priests, Elders, Scribes, Captains and Officers of the Jews. Because it is so very important and to avoid the possibility of a misunderstanding we will explain verse 27 further. This verse says the soldiers of Pilate: "...took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers." (Matthew 27:27)

Then the next verse recounts how they crucified Him. But, and this is very very important, the words "of soldiers" is in italics, which means, they were added by the translators! Mark's account is almost identical to Matthew's, except mark stops with the words "the whole band." "...led him away into the hall...and they call together the whole band." (Mark 15:16)

The only Band referred to in all these accounts is the Band of the Chief Priests and Pharisees! (See again Matthew 27:27 and John 18:3, 12) Thus, by leaving out the words "of soldiers," inserted by the translators, it becomes obvious that both accounts say the same thing, i.e., that Jesus Christ was taken from Pilate's presence by his soldiers and then turned over to the band of the Chief Priests and Pharisees! Nowhere in the four Gospels are the Roman Soldiers referred to as a band. Luke confirms this, when he relates the following: "And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they [chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, Elders, Captains and Officers of the Jews] required. And...he delivered Jesus to their [chief priests etc.] will...they [chief priests etc.] led him away...they [chief priests etc.] crucified Him [Christ]..." (Luke 23:24‑33)

Luke does not say the Roman soldiers crucified Jesus, but he does say the Chief Priests and Rulers crucified Him: "...the Chief Priests and our rulers...crucified Him." (Luke 24:20)

John confirms Luke's words with: "...Pilate saith unto them [Chief  Priests and Officers], Take ye [Jews] him [Christ], and [You Jews] crucify him: for I find no fault in him." (John 19:6)

And again with: "...saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar [here the Jews even deny that God is/was their King]. Then delivered he him therefore unto them [The Jews] to be crucified. And they [chief priests etc.] took Jesus, and led him away...Where they [Chief priests etc.] crucified him..." (John 19:14‑18)

Paul also said it was the Jews who crucified the Lord Jesus Christ: "...even as they have of the Jews. Who...killed the Lord Jesus..." (1 Thessalonians 2:14‑15) However, most so-called "Judeo-Christian Ministers," Traitors to the Lord Jesus Christ and Jewish boot licks, simply ignore these points, and usually quote only from vs. 23 and 24 of John 19 to try to prove the Roman Soldiers were the one who actually nailed Jesus to the Cross. So let's see what these verses tell us. VS.. 23 begins: "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts..." (John 19:23)

Then follows the story of the soldiers casting lots for Jesus' garments. The "Judeo-Christian Ministers" say, Ah ha, See, it says the Roman Soldiers crucified Jesus! But – it should be obvious, from what we have just read in the previous verses 16 and 18, that those referred to as they in verse 23 are not the Roman Soldiers, but the soldiers of the Chief Priests, Scribes, Pharisees, and Rulers of the Synagogue!

Therefore it would be absolutely logical to read verse 23 as follows: "Then the soldiers when they [chief priests etc.] had crucified Jesus, took His garments." This reading would be in agreement with what we have already read from the unimpeachable witnesses, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul. The story of the parting of the garments of Jesus reveals another important truth. "...made four parts, to every soldier a part..." (John 19:23)

Implying there were only four soldiers present at the crucifixion! Which would hardly have been possible if it had been an official Roman execution. Now, understand this, the information in this paragraph has do direct bearing on who crucified the Lord, but it is important information nevertheless and should be mentioned. "...and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout." (John 19:23)

The coat referred to here, and in the other Gospels is called a robe, was not divided by the soldiers. It was left in one piece, and the soldiers cast lots for it, as they did with the garments. It is described as being made "without seam, woven from the top throughout." Christians should receive a blessing from realizing the robe placed on Jesus by Herod prior to His death was Not torn by the soldiers. "They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it..." (John 19:24)

     Don't you see it yet? Our Lord Jesus Christ walked to the place of His sacrificial death wearing the vesture [Robe], made in the manner and color prescribed for the Robe of the High Priest of Israel, (See Exodus 28:31‑32) thus identifying Him as our High Priest! Praise the Lord God!!! Now let's consider: Why did Pilate wash his hands? The conclusion that the Jewish priests and their band were the actual murderers of Jesus, which has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, rather than the Romans being responsible for His death, would also explain the strange ritual that Pilate and the Jewish mob took part in when Pilate: "...washed his hands...saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it [you do it]." (Matthew 27:24) The Jewish mob then answered and said: "...His blood be on us, and on our children." (Matthew 27:25)

This same action is mentioned in Moses' Law in Deuteronomy 21 and was performed by the elders when a murder was committed by unidentified persons. The entire explanation of the law is too long to quote here, but you should read it. Briefly, it required the civil authorities to go through the ritual of washing their hands in water and declaring: "And all the elders...shall wash their hands...And they shall...say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it." (Deuteronomy 21:6‑7)

This action absolved the officials of guilt, just as it did for Pilate. And Pilate would not have performed this ancient ritual had he been planning to have his soldiers kill Jesus! The Jewish priests, because they knew the Law understood the significance of Pilate's actions, when he washed his hands, and the fact that Pilate would not put Jesus to death.

Moreover, Pilate told them to do as they wished ["see ye to it"], and they answered Pilate's proclamation of his innocence by saying they would do it ["His blood be on us, and on our children"]. They knew Pilate's act and words also declared, in advance, that Jesus was the innocent victim of murder!

The Apostles and Disciples, many of whom personally witnessed the events, who wrote the New Testament would have known the truth of these matters concerning Jesus' death. And nowhere in the gospels or in the Epistles are either Pilate or the Roman Soldiers accused of putting Jesus to death! That Jesus considered the Jews Himself considered the Jews the greater culprits is proven by His Words to Pilate:  "...he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:11)

In spite of all this evidence, most of today's "Judeo-Christian Ministers" attempt to absolve the Jews of this crime by telling Christians that it was Pilate and the Romans who put to death the Lord of Glory. An example of this deliberate deception is related below, from The Phoenix Gazette Saturday, November 2, 1968. Under caption Evangelist accuses Christians. Titled "Prejudice Against Jews Un-Christian" ‑‑ My answer, by Billy Graham.

"Question: Why is it that so many Christians [so‑called] still carry prejudice against anyone who is Jewish? As I understand it, the Christian faith grew out of Judaism, and its first adherents were Jews. Why, then, do so many Protestants have this antipathy toward the Jews? J.D.

Answer : I'm glad you said 'so‑called' Christians, because I don't believe that a true Christian should have antipathy toward anyone. True, there are professing Christians who harbor prejudices against various ethnic groups. It is natural for a person to be partial toward people who speak, look, and act like himself. But one of the marks of the early Christians was their unfeigned love, not only for the 'brethren,' but for all men. At Pentecost there were people from all over the then civilized world, and the Spirit of God fell equally upon them all. What are the reasons why some people are prejudiced against the Jews? Perhaps one reason is envy, for, as we know, the Jewish people are very intelligent, and are usually eminently successful in anything they undertake. Another reason may be the mistaken impression it was the Jews who crucified Christ. this is not true. The Romans actually killed Him.

But in a sense we all had a part in it. The Bible says, 'All we like sheep have gone astray, but the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' P­e­o­ple of many races had a part in Christ's crucifixion. Whatever prejudice there may be against the Jew, justification for it is not found in the Bible. The Bible says, 'For there is no difference.'"

What an unmitigated, deceitful and contemptible liar Billy Graham is!!! Unlike Paul's evangelism, Billy Graham's evangelism never has brought on him the enmity of the Jews. Perhaps it is because Graham accuses the Christians of "prejudice or envy" of the Jews, but never accuses the Jews of "prejudice" against Christians! Graham writes that the Romans actually killed Jesus Christ. This has been proven by our study to be a lie.

The Disciples and the Apostle Paul never taught or accused the Romans of killing Jesus, nor did they teach that Christians and many races had a part in Christ's crucifixion. Instead they wrote of the: "...the Jews: Who...killed the Lord Jesus..." (1 Thessalonians 2:14‑15) "And how the Chief Priests and our rulers...have crucified him." (Luke 24:20) "...And the voices...of the Chief Priests prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they [chief priests etc.] required. And he...delive­red Jesus to their will...they led Him away...they crucified him..." (Luke 23:23‑33) "...he [Pilate] saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they [the Jews] cried out, Away with him [Jesus], away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The Chief Priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he [Pilate] him [Jesus]...unto them [Jews] to be crucified. And they [Jews] took Jesus, and led him away...Where they [Jews] crucified him..." (John 19:14‑18) "...Pilate saith...take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him." (John 19:6. Also see Acts 2:36; 4:8-12; 5:30; 10:39; 13:27-29)

Billy Graham further quoted the Scripture out of context to imply that there is no difference between Jews and other people. The Scripture he quoted was Romans 3:22 which relates that there is no difference between those that believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. But Paul knew there was a difference, and he made it very plain when he said: "...the Jews: Who...killed the Lord Jesus...and they please not God, and are contrary to all men." (1 Thessalonians 2:15)

While accusing the Christians of prejudice and envy against the Jews, modern evangelist Billy Graham praises the Jewish people by saying they are very intelligent, and...usually eminently successful in anything they undertake. This, of course, is a very, very subtle insult to Christians, implying that Christians must be less intelligent and less successful ‑‑ otherwise why the envy? But Graham [or whoever it is who writes his column and books, because I personally believe that he is too stupid to write his own columns!] is a master at confusing and downgrading the Christians and Christianity right to their faces, yet they never seem to catch on! The above proves Graham to not only be lying to those who trust him most, but is also guilty of teaching deliberate lies and false doctrines. Not only that, but Graham does not tell his insulted readers where the Jews get the so‑called intelligence he says they have, although it cannot come from God so long as they deny Christ; nor does he indicate what it is that the Jews undertake with such eminent success.

And so, my fellow Americans, inasmuch as your "Judeo-Christian Ministers" have probably never discussed these matters with you, we shall consider, from, and what it is that is being undertaken by these children of those who killed the prophets, these descendants of the scribes and Pharisees Who Killed Christ. Also, it must be kept in mind; Only about 5 percent of the present day Jews came from Palestine, whereas 95 percent are Khazars, which has been explained elsewhere in this book.

However, the fact of the matter remains: With so much evidence in the Bible, any person who believes the Word of God should know who killed Jesus Christ. And since the Holy Scriptures tell of the further death [murders] and persecutions of believers at the hands of these same people, and since the history of the last 1900 + years gives ample evidence of their continuing hatred of Christ and His Christian people. So perhaps it would be in Christendom's advantage to study just a little further in the hope of foreseeing the future relationship between Christians and those: "...I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9, 3:9)

First, it must be understood that the people who occupied the seats of civil and religious power in all Jerusalem at the time of Christ were not Israelites! They were descendants of Ishmael and Esau, who had intermarried with Canaanites and thereby produced a race of people eternally hostile to True Israel, which we shall see. Those other who watched the proceedings are related in the following: "And many women there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee..." (Matthew 27:55) "...women looking on afar off... when he was in Galilee, followed him...and...which came up with him unto Jerusalem." (Mark 15:40‑41) "And there followed him a great company of people, and of women..." (Luke 23:27) These, the followers standing "afar off" were true Israelites! They had believed, as Jesus had said the people of Israel would: "...and the sheep [Israel] follow him [Jesus]: for they know his voice...My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:4, 27) Look if you will, but only Israelites, of all the world's people, are called sheep in the Holy Scriptures.

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus had plainly identified His murderers as a non-Israelite people. Speaking to the "Jews" in John chapter 8, Jesus said they were Abraham's seed (vs.. 37) but denied they were Abraham's children (vs.. 37). The descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son by Hagar, are called Abraham's seed: "...the son of the thy seed." (Genesis 21:13)

But nowhere are they or the descendants of Esau called children ! However, God Almighty calls Abraham's other son Isaac "thine only son," indicating that only through Isaac would they be called "sons," or "children." For we know that Abraham had eight sons altogether, but only is Isaac is regarded in the Scriptures as Abraham's son. All the others are called "seed." (See Genesis 21:12, 22:16) This same pattern was followed in the rejection of Esau and his descendants and the choosing of Jacob [Israel] and his descendants.

Jesus Christ, who knows the end from the beginning, knew that the scribes and Pharisees and the chief priests to whom He was talking were not Israelites, but were the descendants of Ishmael or Esau. That they were aware that He knew of their ancestry is admitted by their cry, false as it is: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth...When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

To be sure that we would understand that these Edomites [Jews] would never heed God's Word; would never become Christians, Jesus went on to say to them: "He that is of God [descendants of Jacob‑Israel] heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47)

Now, Christians who have always wondered why the "Jews" continually refuse to hear [believe] God's Word in Christ need wonder no longer. The Book of Acts tells the story of the beginning of the calling out of the True sons of God, the Israelites: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12) And the changing of their name to Christians. "...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26) That Israel was to have a change in name, and that the new name was to be the NAME OF THEIR LORD, is prophesied in Isaiah: "...thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name." (Isaiah 62:2) Then in Isaiah 65 God speaks to the Enemies of Israel: "And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name." (Isaiah 65:15)

The scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus: "...We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God."  Many so-called Judeo-Christian Ministers, pastors and etc., will say they are making reference to Christ and His birth here. But that is simply not so, the scriptures clearly state: "But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart." (Luke 2:19)

Some will try to say Mary was keeping the things the shepherds were doing in her heart. But this is not true because the shepherds, "And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them." (Luke 2:20)

What the Jews were talking about, was the birth of Pharez and Zarah, the twin sons of Judah and Tamar. The story is related as follows:  "And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep. And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife. When Judah saw her, he thought here to be an harlot [she was not but Judah thought she was]; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it here, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him. And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood. And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not. Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place. And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in his place. And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent the kid, and thou has not found her. And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom [This is where The Jews were saying they were not the children of Abraham, nor of Judah because they were not descendants of Judah through Pharez and Zarah!]..." (Genesis 38:13-24) But, Esau is called a "fornicator" in Hebrews: "Lest there be any Esau [the father of the Jews]..." (Hebrews 12:16; See also Genesis 26:34 and 36:2‑3)

Genesis 36 makes it plain that Esau's offspring were to be known as "Edomites," meaning "Reds."  "...he is Esau the father of the Edomites." (Genesis 36:43) Note also, Ishmael's mother was not Abraham's legitimate wife so that her offspring were never called children either. Jesus Christ further denied the Jews' claim to be the sons of God, for He answered: "...If God were your Father, ye would love me..." (John 8:42) He then proceeded to relate a prophecy and a warning of what that mixed‑breed race would do in the future. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do, he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is  no truth in him, when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

Even as  far back as Moses, we find that God told Aaron and his sons [his descendants, who were the priestly line] that: "...they shall put my name [Christ (ian)] upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them." (Numbers 6:27) What race has been blessed by God above all other people? There is only one answer: True Israel, the Caucasian, White Race, the Anglo‑Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Scandina­vian, and kindred peoples, the descendants of the scattered tribes of Israel!

This can be the only explanation as to why that within a few hundred years after the Resurrection of Jesus, as the story of Christ came to our race, the other gods [Greek, Roman, Scandinavian, etc.] which were being worshiped by them was cast aside, and Christianity came to be accepted as the one true religion by our European ancestors.

These European nations soon became known, even in the eyes of the heathen, as "Christian Nations," or collectively as "Christendom," which means "Christ's Dominion." Surely, if the heathen can see that the White Race is named after Christ, and that God has blessed us, then it is past time for the White Anglo-Saxon race itself to begin to recognize its own True Israel Identity!

However, there was no name change of the Ishmael‑ Esau‑Canaanite‑Edomite Jews, or Judeans, who were the civil and religious rulers in Jerusalem and who, as we have seen, were the murderers of the Lord Jesus Christ. They have, for almost two thousand years, refused to hear the Words of the Lord, as Christ has said they would, and they retained the name of Judean "Jew," in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah we just quoted, that the "enemies" of True Israel would leave their name "for a curse unto My Chosen."

And their own curse, that "His blood be on us, and our children," remains with them to this day. It cannot be removed or taken off unless or until they are converted and become Christians in truth and in righteousness. But our Lord's Words in speaking to them, show they will not turn or be converted, for He told them: "But ye believe not, because ye [Jews] are not of my sheep..." (John 10:26) Can it be said any more plain by Jesus: The Jews are not His Sheep, only the Israelites are His Sheep! Paul even more forcefully, said: "...a false prophet, a Jew...Then Saul [who was called Paul], filled with the Holy Ghost...said...thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the lord?" (Acts 13:6‑10)

Jeremiah relates the following: “Give heed to me, O LORD, and hearken to the voice of them that contend with me. Shall evil be recompensed for good? for they have digged a pit for my soul. Remember that I stood before thee to speak good for them, and to turn away thy wrath from them. Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle. Let a cry be heard from their houses, when thou shalt bring a troop suddenly upon them: for they have digged a pit to take me, and hid snares for my feet. Yet, LORD, thou knowest all their counsel against me to slay me: forgive not their iniquity, neither blot out their sin from thy sight, but let them be overthrown before thee; deal thus with them in the time of thine anger.” (Jeremiah 18:19-23)

And again: “...let them not come into thy righteousness let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.” (Psalm 69)

For those of you who still remain somewhat confused over the term "Jew" in the New Testament, just remember that it is translated from a Greek word meaning "Judean," or "a resident of Judea."

It was not a religious term, nor a racial term as such at that time in history, but was named on ALL who lived in Judea, except for the Romans. that is why the woman at the well in John 4:9 called Jesus a Jew, or Judean. And that is also why Peter was called a Galilean in Mark 14:70 and Luke 22:59.

In fact, Pilate even asked Jesus if He were a Galilean when he heard that Jesus came from Galilee. Both words were geographic in meaning until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Then, and this is most important to understand, the only people who retained the name of "Jew" were those who rejected Christ, and whose descendants still do!

They were the non-Israelites, as we have seen in this study, while the True Descendants of Israel accepted Christ and became known as Christians. It is probably true that MOST of the residents of Jerusalem and Judea were Edomites which was the reason that Jesus chose His disciples from Galilee, except for Judas [the Jew ‑‑ the traitor]. Then at the Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the on lookers said:  "...Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?" (Acts 2:7)

Thus Making Another of Billy Graham’s Statements a Lie . The statement: "At Pentecost there were people from all over the then civilized world, and the Spirit of God fell equally upon them all." See how Graham with subtlety distorts the Scriptures and makes a lie sound like the truth, and deceives many, for they only listen to his words, and do not examine what he is actually saying.

Jesus went to the very "heart," the Headquarters of the Ishmael‑Esau‑Canaanite‑Edomite Jews to fulfill the prophecy that His enemies would kill Him. (See Psalms 69 and Isaiah 53) Today millions of these Ishmael‑Esau‑Canaanite‑Khazar [Jews] inhabit all the nations of Christendom, where they are active in all phases of society, government and religion.

It might serve you well to realize they have always insinuated themselves into True Israel's society for their own purposes [review the parable of the "tares and the wheat"]; and Christ described this characteristic when He said: "...the lusts [desires and ambitions] of your father [the devil] ye will do." (John 8:44) In America and other Israel Nations, they have worked their way into the most powerful positions in government and in the professions. Many are in semi‑religious organizations, claiming to seek "civil rights," "better conditions for the poor," and "improvement of race or personal relations among people." While others control the "peace" or "anti‑war" groups. all of which in some way or another have a destructive effect on our Christian society and on our Christian beliefs.

Their Most Effective Method is described by Luke in his story of their attempt to destroy Christ. "And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him...they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor." (Luke 20:19‑20)

This is still today one of their most effective methods, by which they, in order to demonstrate their power, have caused even Presidents to resign in disgrace. Today we find "humanitarians," "philanthropists" with their multi‑million‑dollar Foundations, "human‑rights" workers, "liberals" in politics and religion, and others "Which feign themselves just men, such as Billy Graham, Mike Evans, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Keneth Copeland and many, many more," crying for "equality," "justice for the poor," "love," "no‑discrimination," "false Christian doctrines" and etc. And most attempt, always out of context ‑‑ just as we have seen about the quotations of Billy Graham, to quote something of Jesus, "taking hold of His Words," as it were, for deceit. "And Jesus...said...Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ [saying to men that Jesus is or was Christ]; and shall deceive many." (Matthew 24:4‑5)

Collectively they are all working toward one purpose ‑‑ to pass numerous laws, statutes and regulations so that "They might deliver [Christians] into the power and authority of the governor [government]."

So as to eventually bring about the total annihilation of Christians and Christianity, especially in America. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bri­ngeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit...Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:15‑20)

Do you not understand yet, there is nothing the Jews do, which benefits Christians or Christianity, but is always destructive to Christians, and brings only evil upon mankind in general.

The so‑called converted Jew is well known in many Christian circles, always pleading the Name of Christ all the while promoting Jewish interests, to the detriment of Christianity! Which causes one to wonder just how many "converted" Seminary Profes­sors, Preachers, Sunday‑school Teachers, Evange­lists, "Judeo-Christian Ministers," Priests, Writers of books and tracts, and Editors of so‑called "Christians" publications today are actually spies sent forth by modern scribes and Pharisees to "Feign themselves just men" in order to entrap unwary Christendom; by bringing in more and more damnable heresies, such as those denying the Lord Jesus who bought them with His Blood, and through deceit and covetousness make merchandise of Christians and Christianity. "...there shall be false teachers among you, who pri­vily [secretly] shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying [deny­ing the Virgin Birth] the Lord that bought them...And many shall follow their pernicious ways [in­sidiously undermining or weakening Christianity]; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness [Greedy‑covetous: implies greed for something that another person rightfully possesses] shall they with feigned [fic­titious] words make merchandise of you." (2 Peter 2:1‑3)

Paul prophesies of them and says of Satan’s "Judeo-Christian Ministers." "For such are false apos­tles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ...ministers of righteousness [Judeo-Christian 'Ministers']..." (2 Corinthians 11:13‑15)

They have been so successful that today, in the latter part of the 20th Century, they have filled Christendom with "Jewish fables." "For there are many...deceivers, specially they of the circumcision [Jews]...who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not...[But we as Christians to be sound in the faith are not to] not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:10‑14)

Paul prophesied of our latter day Christians, proving that he was truly a prophet of God: "...the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers ['Judeo-Christian Ministers'], having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto [Jewish] fables." (2 Timothy 4:4)

It is well known those who do the work of the "Jews" are not always of their race as is told in Acts. "But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy [Remember what Billy Graham said about Christians' envy of the Jews ‑‑ well Paul says the Jews are moved by envy not Christians], took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company [mob], and set all the city on an uproar..." (Acts 17:5)

This same technique is being used today in America and the other Anglo‑Saxon Nations. The Jews and their "agents" cry out, demanding something anti‑Christian [But always in the Name of Christ], and then raise up mobs of "lewd fellows of the baser sort [men and women of corrupt moral standards] to set the city [or nation] in an uproar." "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Matthew 23:15) These so‑called "demonstrators," are usually criminal degenerates or drug addicts, then are given wide publicity in the Jewish‑controlled news media. Then the demonstra­tions, and the threat of more violent ones, are then used by these anti‑Christs to force local or national authorities to accede to their demands.

If any violence occurs during the demonstrations, the police are blamed [as were the Roman soldiers of Christ's time]; while the Jews successfully conceal their part from the public and non‑Jewish authorities. This concealment is made easier by "PHONY PATRIOTS" who direct the anger of the people of the nation in the desired direction instead of against the Jews who manipulate the mob from behind the scenes! In this manner, laws and customs are changed; and the public never realizes how it has all come about!

Then [Just as in Christ's time] come a breakdown of civil authority, in which Jewish Judges [along with the Communist Controlled "Civil liberties unions"] force the police to release the criminals [like Barabbas] upon society under the pretext of following the law, while persecuting True Patriots, such as the late Rev. Lester Rolloff, Gordon Kohl [murdered by Federal Authorities under the guise of "Obeying the Law"], Rev. Richard Butler, Rev. Bob Miles and Rev. Bill Gale, just to name a few.

America is suffering from this same revolutionary technique, perfected during 2,000 years of practice. Other nations have already fallen under their anti‑Christ control through the same methods, to the tune of tens of millions of Christian death's! If our Christian people were familiar with God's Word, they would take a look at the lewd fellows which are being gathered against our nation, and recognize them for what they are, and other events of the day, as part of the end of the age battle against Israel, Prophesied throughout God's Holy Word.

But most are almost totally ignorant of the Bible, to the point that they do not know our identity as Israelites, nor the Jew's identity as Ishmael‑Edomite‑Canaanite‑Khazar people. They have been beguiled by Spies and Traitors have "feigned themselves just men," and have taken over our political system, news media and our churches.

The use, by the anti‑Christian element of the word "Demonstrators" to describe their mobs has great significance. It does not come from our use of the word to mean show by example, or to teach by doing, but rather from two Greek words. The first is "Demon," which means "Devil," and the second is "Stratos," meaning "Army."

So literally, the word Demon-Strators means a Devil Army. "...Presumptuous...self-willed...not afraid to speak evil of dignities­...natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things they understand not...Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own decivings...­Having eyes full of adultery...cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way...These are wells without water, clouds...carried with a tempest­...For...they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh...they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption...But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." (2 Peter 2:10‑22)

It is probable that they chose the word deliberately. Remember, our Lord said to the, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." The next time you see one of their demonstrations and are amazed at their utter depravity, remember that you are watching a "Devil Army" marching against Christ and America. Just before His crucifixion, our Lord told His followers of the future persecution of Christians to come from the Jews, when He said: "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep your's also." (John 15:20)

If they hated the sayings [teachings] of Christ, {"One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the crucifixion of Christ. Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to bungle. If I'd had charge of executing Christ, I'd have handled it differently. You see, what I'd have done was had him shipped to Rome and fed to the lions. They could never have made a Savior out of mincemeat." (Rabbi Hecht, Jewish World)} they will hate the sayings [teachings] of His followers. Jesus then goes on to say: "But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake because they know not him that sent me." (John 15:21)

They Will Persecute Christians, Because They Do Not Know God ! Yet many Christians have been deluded into thinking that the Jews worship God. But Christ says: They do not know Him!!! The He explains why He came to Jerusalem and Judea to testify to the Jews: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak [excuse] for their sin...but now have they both seen and hated me and my father." (John 15:22‑24)

Therefore, any “Judeo-Christian Minister” who teaches the Jews may not like Jesus, but that they love God, the Father, is a liar. Then Jesus quotes Old Testament Scriptures to identify those of whom He has been speaking: "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." (John 15:25) This was in reference to: "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty." (Psalms 69:4)

Though there are many many more verses that could be quoted to show the hatred of the "Jews" for all Christians and Christianity; If these will not suffice then 10,000 more will not suffice to convince any more than the Jews were convinced by a Risen Christ. Psalms 35 identifies them [Jews] as the enemies of Israel, of Christ and of God. that these same enemies would be the one who would crucify Him is foretold in Psalms 69. As shown before in verse 4, He say, "They...Hate me without cause" and calls them "mine enemies." In verse 21 He says: "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." (Psalms 69:21)

It was on the Cross that Jesus' crucifers gave Him gall and vinegar to drink! And to forestall the argument that Luke 23:36 says the "soldiers" gave Him the vinegar I would insist that you read all accounts in the four Gospels. "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink." (Matthew 27:34)

Here when the "Jews" [chief priests, elders, scribes and Pharisees] offered Him vinegar mixed with gall, He did not drink. But later when an Israelite offered Him vinegar only ‑‑ He did drink of it! "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice...Some of them that stood there... stra­ightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink." (Matthew 27:46‑48)

Mark related the same, almost word for word: "And they [Jews] gave him to drink wine [vinegar] mingled with myrrh [gall - piss]: but he received it not." (Mark 15:23) So, here again, when the "Jews" offered it, He did not drink of it. But later offered vinegar [wine] only by an Israelite ‑‑ He did drink of it! "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice...some of them that stood ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink..." (Mark 15:34‑36)

Then we have a very short version as related by Luke: "And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar." (Luke 23:36); "Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. when Jesus therefore had received the vinegar..." (John 19:29‑30)

So we can clearly see that Psalms 69 was fulfilled not in the Roman soldiers, whom Jesus never called His enemies, but in the Jews who actually nailed Him on the Cross. Psalms 69 goes on to prophesy that those who offered Him vinegar mixed with gall would never become what we would call Christians. "For they [Jews] persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded [Jesus]. Add iniquity unto their iniquity: And let them not come into thy righteousness let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous." (Psalms 69:26‑28)

Again, how foolish it is to think we can preach or witness to the enemies of Christ and convert them. For if God's Holy Word says it won't be done; then it won't be done. Psalms 69 verifies what Jesus said to the Jews that they would not hear His Words.

We of True Israel must recognize that our deliverance is in the hands of an Almighty God. We must know, as Christ knew when He told Pilate: "...Thou couldest have no power all against me, except it were given thee from above..." (John 19:11) Moses told our forefathers that disobedience would bring certain punishments to Israel. One such punishment was: "The stranger [non‑Israelite] that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low." (Deuteronomy 28:43)

The American Government, at all levels, is systematically being transferred into the hands of Jews, Negroes and other non‑Israelites. Thus we can see this prophecy is being fulfilled before our eyes! But deliverance is also promised to Israel in the same Book, from which we have been reading in verses too numerous to quote. But let us end with one of the promises that eloquently shows that our redemption and deliverance comes from the same Christ that the enemies of Israel thought they had killed. Zacharias gave it when he was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied saying: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hat visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham. That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life." (Luke 1:68‑75)

And since that life is to be everlasting, we shall not only be delivered from the hand of Israel's enemies, but we shall also be delivered into the Kingdom of God. Jesus Christ shall rule and reign in righteousness and: "...hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:10)

It is probable that these Edomite [Red‑Communist] Jews will continue victorious over us, the True Israelites, for some time to come. For they are being used of God to chastise us for our disobedience, and their power over us will continue only until we repent of our sins and turn to God for deliverance as a people. Because of our special Blood Covenant relationship with Jesus Christ, their power over us will then be broken. That our deliverance will come when we "as a people" turn to God and to His Word is made clear in literally hundreds of verses. 2 Chronicles 7:14, not only promises deliverance upon obedience but identifies the Israel People as "My people which are called by My Name."  "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

In Joel is a special prayer we will pray to be delivered from alien rule: "...Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?" (Joel 2:17) The next verses promise immediate release, and chapter describes the great, world battle that will destroy all heathen rule over Israel.

The future destruction of the Edomite enemies of Jesus Christ, and our part in their destruction, is also foretold in the Bible: "And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau [Edom]; for the Lord hath spoken it...And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lords." (Obadiah 18); "...and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts." (Zechariah 14:21); "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27) And there are others.

Both rewards and vengeance are in the Hands of the Living God. The unrepentant murderers of Jesus shall fail in their attempt to destroy Jesus Christ, because His Blood, shed on the cross at Calvary, has redeemed us "from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us."

                       The Crucifixion of Christ

The following Note formed part of the text in the Second Edition of The Golden Bough (London, 1900), vol. Iii. Pp. 186-198. The hypothesis which it sets forth has not been confirmed by subsequent research, and is admittedly in a high degree speculative and uncertain. Hence I have removed it from the text but preserved it as an appendix on the chance that, under a pile of conjectures, it contains some grains of truth which may ultimately contribute to a solution of the problem. As my views on this subject appear to have been strangely misunderstood, I desire to point out explicitly that my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth as a great religious and moral teacher, who founded Christianity and was crucified at Jerusalem under the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

The testimony of the Gospels, confirmed by the hostile evidence of Tactius (Annals, xv. 44) and the younger Pliny (Epist. x. 96), appears amply sufficient to establish these facts to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced enquirers. It is only the details of the life and death of Christ that remain, and will probably always remain, shrouded in the mists of uncertainty. The doubts which have been cast on the historical reality of Jesus are in my judgement unworthy of serious attention.

Quite apart from the positive evidence of history and tradition, the origin of a great religious and moral reform is inexplicable without the personal existence of a great reformer. To dissolve the founder of Christianity into a myth, as some would do, is hardly less absurd than it would be to do the same for Mohammed, Luther, and Calvin. Such dissolving views are for the most part the dreams of students who know the great world chiefly through its pale reflection in books. These extravagances of scepticism have been well exposed by Professor C.F. Lehmann-Haupt in his Israel, seine Entwicklung im Rahmen der Weltgeschichte (Tubingen, 1911), pp. 275-285. In reprinting the statement of my theory I have added a few notes, which are distinguished by being enclosed in square brackets].

Many years ago an eminent scholar pointed out the remarkable resemblance between the treatment of Christ by the Jewish soldiers at Jerusalem and the treatment of the mock king of the Saturnalia by the Roman soldiers at Durostorum; and he would explain the similarity by supposing that the soldiers ridiculed the claims of Christ to a divine kingdom by arraying Him in the familiar garb of old King Saturn, whose quaint person figured so prominently at the winter revels. (P. Wedland, “Jesus als Saturnalien-König,” Hermes, xxxiii. (1898) pp. 175-179)

Even if the theory should prove to be right, we can hardly suppose that Christ played the part of the regular Saturn of the year, since at the beginning of our era the Saturnalia fell at mid-winter, whereas Christ was crucified at the Passover in spring. There is, indeed, as pointed out, some reason to think that when the Roman year began in March the Saturnalia was held in spring, and that in remote districts the festival always continued to be celebrated at the ancient date.

If the Jewish Temple guards conformed to the old fashion in this respect, it seems not quite impossible that their celebration of the Saturnalia may have coincided with the Passover; and that thus Christ, as a condemned criminal, may have been given up to them to make sport with as the Saturn of the year. But on the other hand it is rather unlikely that the officers, as representatives of the Temple, would have allowed their men to hold the festival at any but the official date; even in the distant town of Durostorum we saw that the Jewish soldiers celebrated the Saturnalia in December.

But closely as the passion of Christ resembles the treatment of the mock king of the Saturnalia, it resembles still more closely the treatment of the mock king of the Sacaea. (The first to call attention to the resemblance seems to have been Mr. W.R. Paton, who further conjectured that the crucifixion of Christ between two malefactors was not accidental, but had a ritual significance “as an expiatory sacrifice to a triple god.” See F.C. Conybeare, The Apology and Acts of Apollonius and other Monuments of Early Christianity (London, 1894), pp. 257; W.R. Paton, “Die Kreuzigung Jesu,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, ii. (1901) pp. 339-341.

The grounds for the conjecture are somewhat slender. It is true that a Persian martyr, S. Hitztibouzit, is said to have been crucified between two malefactors on a hill top, opposite the sun (F.C. Conybeare, p. 270), but the narrator of the martyrdom gives no hint of any sacred significance attaching to the triple crucifixion) The description of the mockery by St. Matthew is the fullest. It states: “Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.” (Matthew 27:26-31. Mark’s description (15:15-20) is nearly identical)

Compare with this the treatment of the mock king of the Sacaea, as it is described by Dio Chrysostom: “They take one of the prisoners condemned to death and seat him upon the king’s throne, and give him the king’s raiment, and let him lord it and drink and run riot and use the king’s concubines during these days, and no man prevents him from doing just what he likes. But afterwards they strip and scourge and crucify him.” (Dio Chrysostom, Or. Iv. Vol. I. P. 76. L. Dindorf. As I have already mentioned, the Greek word which describes the execution ( _ κρέμαόαγ) leaves it uncertain whether the man was crucified or hanged) It is quite possible that this remarkable resemblance is, after all, a mere coincidence (but that is not likely, since the crucifixion was actually done by the Jewish Temple Soldiers and not the Romans, the Jews would be following their traditions, which Christ condemned so thoroughly), and that Christ was executed in the ordinary way as a common malefactor; but on the other hand there are so many scattered hints and indications of something unusual, so many broken lines seemingly converging towards the cross on Calvary, that it is worth while to follow them up and see where thy lead us. 

In attempting to draw these fragmentary data together, to bridge the chasms, and to restore the shattered whole, we must beware of mistaking hypothesis for the facts which it only professes to cement; yet even if our hypothesis should be thought to bear a somewhat undue proportion to the facts, the excess may perhaps be overlooked in consideration of the obscurity and the importance of the enquiry.

We have seen reason to think that the Jewish festival of Purim is a continuation, under a changed name, of the Babylonian Sacaea, and that in celebrating it by the destruction of an effigy of Haman the modern Jews have kept up a reminiscence of the ancient custom of crucifying or hanging a man in the character of a god at the festival. Is it not possible that at an earlier time they may, like the Babylonians themselves, have regularly compelled a condemned criminal to play the tragic part, and that Christ thus perished in the character of Haman?

The resemblance between the hanged Haman and the crucified Christ struck the early Christians themselves; and whenever the Jews destroyed an effigy of Haman THEY WERE ACCUSED BY THEIR CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORS OF DERIDING THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE NEW FAITH, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. (Dio Chrysostom, Or. Iv. vol. I. p. 392)

It is probable that on this painful subject the Christians were too sensitive; remembering the manner of their Founder and Savior’s death it was natural that they should wince at any pointed allusion to a cross, a gallows, or a public execution, even when the shaft was not aimed at them. An objection to supposing that Christ died as the Haman of the year is that according to the Gospel narrative the crucifixion occurred at the Passover, on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, whereas the feast of Purim, at which the hanging of Haman would naturally take place, fell exactly a month earlier, namely, on the fourteenth day of the month Adar. While not wishing to blink or extenuate the serious nature of the difficulty arising from this discrepancy of dates, but we would suggest some considerations which may make us hesitate to decide that the discrepancy is fatal. In the first place, it is possible, though perhaps not probable, that Christian tradition shifted the date of the crucifixion by a month in order to make the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God coincide with that annual sacrifice of the Passover lamb which in the belief of pious hearts had so long foreshadowed it and was thenceforth to cease. (The extreme improbability involved in the suggested transference of the date of the Crucifixion is rightly emphasized by Professor C.F. Lehmann-Haupt in some observations and criticisms, which he wrote: “I regard it as out of the question that ‘Christian tradition shifted the date of the Crucifixion by a month’ ...but in my opinion it is impossible. All that we hear of the Passion is only explicable by the Passover festival and by the circumstance that at that time every believing Jew had to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Without the background of the festival all that we know of the Crucifixion and of what led up to it is totally unintelligible.”)

Instances of pressure brought to bear, for purposes of edification, on stubborn facts are perhaps not wholly unknown in the annals of religion. But the express testimony of history is never to be lightly set aside; and in the investigation of its problems a solution which assumes the veracity and accuracy of the historian is, on an even balance of probabilities, always to be preferred to one which impugns them both. Now in the present case we have seen reason to think that the Babylonian New Year festival, of which Purim was a continuation, did fall in Nisan at or near the time of the Passover, and that when the jews borrowed the festival they altered the date from Nisan to Adar in order to prevent the new feast from clashing with the old Passover. A reminiscence of the original date of Purim perhaps survives, as we have already pointed out, in the statement in the book of Esther that Haman cause pur or lots to be cast before him from the month of Nisan onward. (Esther 3:7)

Therefore it seems not impossible that occasionally, for some special reason, the Jews should have celebrated the feast of Purim, or at least the death of Haman, at or about the time of the Passover. But there is another possibility which, remote and fanciful as it may appear, deserves at least to be mentioned. The mock king of Saturnalia, whose resemblance to the dying Christ was first pointed out by Mr. Wendland, was allowed a period of license of thirty days before he was put to death. If we could suppose that in like manner the Jews spared the human representative of Haman for one month from Purim, the date of his execution would fall exactly on the Passover. Which, if any, of the conjectural solutions of the difficulty is the true one, we will not undertake to say.

It may be objected that the mockery of Christ was done, as most Christians believe, not by the Jews, but by the Roman soldiers, who knew and cared nothing about Haman; how then can we suppose that the purple or scarlet robe, the sceptre of reed, and the crown of thorns, which the soldiers thrust upon Christ, were the regular insignia of the Haman of the year? To this we may reply, in the first place, that even if the legions stationed in Syria were not recruited in the country, they may have contracted some of the native superstitions and have fallen in with the local customs. This is not an idle conjecture. We know that the third legion during its stay in Syria learned the Syrian custom of saluting the rising sun, and that this formal salute, performed by the whole regiment as one man at a critical moment of the great battle of Bedriacum, actually helped to turn the scale when the fortune of the empire hung trembling in the balance.

But it is not necessary to suppose that the entire garrison of Jerusalem really shared the beliefs and prejudices of the mob whom they overawed; soldiers everywhere are ready to go with a crowd bent on sport, without asking any curious questions as to the history or quality of the entertainment, and we should probably do the humanity of Roman soldiers too much honor if we imagined that they would be deterred by any qualm of conscience from joining in the pastime, which is still so popular, of baiting a Jew to death. But in the second place it should be observed that, according to one of the Evangelists, it was not the soldiers of Pilate who mocked Jesus, but the soldiers of Herod, (“And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him (Christ), and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe...” (Luke 23:11)) and we may fairly assume that Herod’s guards were Jews.

The hypothesis that the crucifixion with all it cruel mockery was not a punishment specially devised for Christ, but was merely the fate that annually befell the malefactor who played Haman, appears to go some way towards relieving the Gospel narrative of certain difficulties which otherwise beset it. If, as we read in the Gospels, Pilate was really anxious to save the innocent man whose fine bearing seems to have struck him, what was to hinder him from doing so? He had the power of life and death; why should he not have exercised it on the side of mercy, if his own judgment inclined that way? This can be explained and understood when we read: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye [Jews] to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." (Matthew 27:24‑25)

We are told by the Evangelists that at the feast which witnessed the crucifixion of Christ it was the custom for the Roman governor to release one prisoner, whomsoever the people desired, and that Pilate, convinced of the innocence of Jesus, attempted to persuade the multitude to choose Him as the man who should go free. But, hounded on by the rabbi’s and elders who had marked Jesus for destruction, the rabble would not hear of this, and clamored for the blood of Jesus, while they demanded the release of a certain miscreant, by the name of Barabbas, who law in goal for murder and sedition.

Accordingly Pilate had to give way: Christ was crucified and Barabbas (who was a Jewish hero, because his sedition was against the Roman government, not the Jewish) set at liberty. (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19) Now what, we may ask, was the reason for setting free a prisoner at this festival? In the absence of positive information, we may conjecture that the Gael-bird whose cage was thrown open at this time had to purchase his freedom by performing some service from which decent people would shrink. Such a service may very well have been that of going about the streets, rigged out in tawdry splendor with a tinsel crown on his head and a sham sceptre in his hand, preceded and followed by all the rag-tags of the town hooting, jeering, and breaking coarse jests at his expense, while some pretended to salaam his mock majesty, and others belabored the donkey on which he rode.

It was in this fashion, probably, that in Persia (Babylon) the beardless and one-eyed man made his undignified progress through the town, to the delight of ragamuffins and the terror of non-Jewish shopkeepers, whose goods he unceremoniously confiscated if they did not hasten to lay their peace-offerings at his feet. So, perhaps, the ruffian Barabbas, when his irons were knocked off and the prison door had grated on its hinges to let him forth, tasted the first sweets of liberty in this public manner, even if he was not suffered, like his one-eyed brother, to make raids with impunity on the stalls of the non-Jewish merchants and the tables of the non-Jewish money-changers.

A curious confirmation of this conjecture is supplied by a passage in the writings of Philo the Jew, who lived at Alexandria in the time of Christ. He tells us that when Agrippa, the grandson of Herod, had received the crown of Judea from Caligula at Rome, the new king passed through Alexandria on his way to his own country. The disorderly populace of that great city, animated by a hearty dislike of his nation, ceased the opportunity of venting their spite by publicly defaming and ridiculing the Jewish monarch. Among other things they laid hold of a certain harmless lunatic named Carabas, who used to roam the streets stark naked, the butt and laughing-stock of urchins and idlers.

This poor wretch they set up in a public place, clapped a paper crown on his head, thrust a broken reed into his hand by way of a sceptre, and having huddled a mat instead of a royal robe about his naked body, and surrounded him with a guard of bludgeon men, they did obeisance to him as to a king and made a show of taking his opinion on questions of law and policy. To the point the jest unmistakably at the Syrian king Agrippa, the bystanders raised cries of “Marin! Marin!” which they understood to be the Syrian word for “lord.” (Philo Judaeus, Adversus Flaccum, vol. Ii. Pp. 520-523. Th. Mangey (London, 1742).

The first to call attention to those passage was Mr. P. Wendland (“Jesus als Saturnalien-Konig,” Hermes, 33. (1898) p. 175). Mar-na, “Our Lord,” was the title of a Philistine deity worshiped at Gaza and elsewhere. See C.P. Tiele, Geschichte der Religion im Altertum (Gotha, 1896-1903), I. 258. Compare Hebrew and English Lexicon, edited by F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and Ch. A. Briggs (Oxford, 1906), p. 1101)

This mockery of the Jewish king closely resembles the mockery of Christ; and the joke, such as it was, would receive a keener edge if we could suppose that the riff-raff of Alexandria were familiar with the Jewish practice of setting up a sham king on certain occasions, and that they meant by implication to ridicule Jesus Christ by comparing him to his holiday counterfeit.

The poor imbecile who masqueraded in a paper crown at Alexandria was probably not a Jew, otherwise the jest would have lost its point; and his name, according to the Greek manuscripts of Philo, was Carabas. But Carabas is meaningless in Hebrew, whereas Barabbas is a regularly formed Hebrew word meaning “Son of the Father.”

The palaeographic difference between the two forms is slight, and if we conjecture that in the passage in question Philo himself wrote Barabbas, which a Greek copyist, ignorant of Hebrew, afterwards corrupted into Carabas. If this were granted, we should still have to assume that both Philo and the authors of the Gospels fell into the mistake of treating as the name of an individual what in fact was a title of office.

Thus the hypothesis which, with great diffidence, we would put forward for consideration is this. It was customary, we may suppose, with the Jews at Purim, or perhaps occasionally at Passover, to employ two prisoners to act the parts respectively of Haman and Mordecai in the passion-play which formed a central feature of the festival. Both men paraded for a short time in the insignia of royalty, but their fates ere different; for while at the end of the performance the one who played Haman was hanged or crucified, the one who personated Mordecai and bore in popular parlance the title of Barabbas was allowed to go free.

Pilate, perceiving the trumpery nature of the charges brought against Christ, tried to persuade the Jews to let him play the part of Barabbas, which would have saved his life; but the merciful attempt failed and Jesus perished on the cross in the character of Haman. The description of his last triumphal ride into Jerusalem reads almost like an echo of that brilliant progress through the streets of Susa which Haman aspired to and Mordecai accomplished; and the account of the raid which he immediately afterwards made upon the stalls of the hucksters and money-changers in the temple, may raise a question whether we have not here a trace of those arbitrary rights over property which it has been customary on such occasions to accord to the temporary king. (Matthew 21:1-13; Mark 11:1-17; Luke 19: 28-46; John 12:12-15. As to the license accorded to temporary kings, see The Dying God, p. 56, 148)

If one should ask why one of these temporary kings should bear the remarkable title of Barabbas or “Son of the Father,” we can only surmise that the title may perhaps be a relic of the time when the real king, the deified man, used to redeem his own life by deputing his son to reign for a short time and to die in his stead. We have seen that the custom of sacrificing the son for the father was common, if not universal, among the Jews; and if we are right in our interpretation of the Passover, that festival; the traditional date of the crucifixion, was the season when the dreadful sacrifice of the first-born was consummated. (The Dying God, p. 166)

Hence Barabbas or the “Son of the Father” would be a natural enough title for the man or child who reigned and died as a substitute for his royal sire. Even in later times, when the father provided a less precious substitute than his own offspring, it would be in accordance with the formal conservatism of religion that the old title should be retained after it had ceased to be appropriate; indeed the efficacy of the sacrifice might be thought to require and justify the pious fiction that the substitute was the very son of that divine father who should have died, but who preferred to live, for the good of his people.

If in the time of Christ, the title of Barabbas or Son of the Father was bestowed on the Mordecai, the mock king who lived, rather than on the Haman, the mock king who died at the festival, this distinction can hardly have been original; for at first, we may suppose, the same man served in both capacities at different times, as the Mordecai of one year and the Haman of the next.

The two characters, are probably nothing but two different aspects of the same deity considered at one time as dead and at another as risen; hence the human being who personated the risen god would in due time, after he had enjoyed his divine honors for a season, act the dead god by dying in good earnest in his own person; for it would be unreasonable to expect of the ordinary man-god that he should play the two parts in the reverse order by dying first and coming to life afterwards. In both parts the substitute would still be, whether in sober fact or in pious fiction, the Barabbas or Son of that divine Father who generously gave his own son to die for the world. (In favor of the theory in the text, which supposes that in the tragic drama of the crucifixion Jesus and Barabbbas played parts which were the complements, if not the duplicates, of each other, it might, as M. Salomon Reinach has pointed out, be alleged that in the Armenian and old Syriac versions of Matthew 27:16-17, as well as in some Greek cursive manuscripts, the name of the prisoner whom Pilate proposed to release is given as Jesus Barabbas, a reading which was also known to Origen and was not absolutely rejected by him. See Encyclopedia Biblica (London, 1899-1903), s.v. “Barabbas,” vol. I. col. 477; Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, edited by F.F. Burkitt (Cambridge, 1904), I. 165, ii. 277. In the latter passage Professor Burkitt argues that Jewus Barabbas was probably the original reading in the Greek text, though the name Jesus is omitted in nearly all our existing manuscripts. Compare S. Reinach, “Le roi supplicié,” Cultes, Mythes, et Religions, I. (Paris, 1905) p. 339)

This seems to shed fresh light on some of the causes which contributed to the remarkably rapid diffusion of Christianity in Asia Minor. We know from a famous letter of the younger Pliny addressed to the Emperor Trajan in the year 112 A.D. that by the beginning of our era, less than a hundred years after the Christ’s death, Christianity had made such strides in Bithynia and Pontus that not only cities but villages and rural districts were affected by it, and that multitudes of both sexes and of every age and every rank of or Israelite ancestors professed its tenets; indeed things had gone so far that the temples were almost deserted, the sacred rites of the public religion discontinued, and hardly a purchaser could be found for the sacrificial victims. (Pliny, Epist. x. 96. The province which Pliny governed was known officially as Bithynia and Pontus, and extended from the river Rhyndacos on the west to beyond Amisus on the est. See Professor [Sir] W.M. Ramsay, the Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1893), p. 224. Professor Ramsay is of the opinion “that the description of the great power acquired by the new religion in the province applies to Eastern Pontus at least.”

The chief religions center of this district appears to have been the great sanctuary of Anaitis or Semiramis at Zela. Strabo tells us (xii. 3. 37) that all the people of Pontus took their most solemn oaths at this shrine. In the same district there was another very popular sanctuary of a similar type at Comana, when the worship of a native goddess called Ma was carried on by a host of sacred harlots and by a high priest, who wore a diadem and was second only to the king in rank. At the festivals of the goddess crowds of men and women flocked into Comana from all the region round about, from the country as well as from the cities. The luxury and debauchery of this holy town suggest to Strabo a comparison with the famous or rather infamous Corinth. See Strabo, xii. 3. 32 and 36, compared with xii. 2. 3. Such were some of the hot-beds in which the seeds of Christianity first stuck root)

It is obvious, therefore, that the new faith had elements in it which appealed powerfully to the True Israelites. We have seen that the conception of the dying and risen god was no new one in these regions. All over Western Asia from time immemorial the mournful death and happy resurrection of a divine being appear to have been annually celebrated with alternative rites of bitter lamentation and exultant joy; and through the veil which mythic fancy has woven round this tragic figure we can still detect the features of those great early changes in earth and sky which, under all distinctions of race and religion, must always touch the natural human heart with alternate emotions of gladness and regret, because they exhibit on the vastest scale open to our observation the mysterious struggle between life and death.

Is The Cross

A Christian Symbol?

This study would not be complete without a close look at what has been presented as the instrument upon which the Lord Jesus Christ was placed. The instrument upon which He died. So we present the following for your study and consideration. It is taken in part, from a book called "Babylon Mystery Religion ‑ Ancient and Modern" by Ralph Woodrow.

The Cross is recognized as one of the most important symbols of the Roman Catholic church. It is displayed on the top of the roofs and towers of their churches. It is seen on their altars, furnishings, and ecclesiastical garments. The floor plan of the majority of Catholic churches is laid out in the shape of the cross. All Catholic homes, hospitals, and schools have the cross adorning the walls. Everywhere the cross is outwardly honored and adored ‑ in hundreds of ways.

In like manner, the sign of the cross is often used in the Catholic rites. When an infant is sprinkled the priest makes the sign of the cross upon the infants forehead saying: "Receive the sign of the cross upon thy forehead."

During confirmation, the candidate is signed with the cross. On Ash Wednesday, ashes are used to make a cross on the foreheads of Catholic members. When they enter the church building, they dip the forefinger of the right hand in "holy water," touch the forehead, the chest, the left and the right shoulder ‑ thus tracing the figure of the cross. The same sign is made before eating meals. During Mass, the priest makes the sign of the cross 16 times and blesses the altar with the cross sign 30 times.

Most Christians will never study enough to come to realize that the mark of the Beast is the Cross! See #5516: chi xi stigma, khee xee stig'-ma; the 22d, 14h and an obsol. letter (4742 as a cross ) of the Greek alphabet (intermediate between the 5th and 6th), used as numbers; denoting respectively 600, 60, and 6; 666 as a numeral:-six hundred threescore and six..

Protestant churches, for the most part, do not believe in making the sign of the cross with their fingers. Neither do they bow down to it or use it as an object of worship as does the Catholic church and many of its affiliates. They have recognized that these things are unscriptural and superstitious. But they have made use of the cross on their steeples, on their church roofs, on pulpits, and in various other ways. And so, to one degree or another, Christendom ‑ both Papal and Protestant ‑ has assumed that there is virtue in the cross image; that our church buildings should be decorated with it; that it is a Christian symbol. But we ask: Is the cross which took our Savior's life a thing to be adored?

Should we parade the instrument of death before the world and be proud of it? Do the scriptures anywhere teach that we are to take the cross and place it upon our buildings or wear it around our necks? Many have never questioned the use of the cross on churches and their furnishings. They have assumed that the cross was a Christian symbol. But a study of historical evidence plainly reveals that the cross symbol is of pagan origin! The early Christians did not consider the cross a virtuous symbol, but rather as "the accursed tree," a device of death and "shame." (Hebrews 12:2) They did not trust in an old rugged cross. Instead, their faith was in what was accomplished on the cross; and through this faith, they knew the full and complete forgiveness of sin!

It was in this sense that the apostles preached about the cross and gloried in it. (1 Corinthians 1:17‑18). Such references to the cross in the epistles never refer to a piece of wood one might wear around his/her neck or carry in his/her hand. The message of the apostles was concerning the one that hung and died on the cross. When they spoke of the cross, they were speaking of the suffering of Calvary, the supreme sacrifice that was made there, and the eternal purpose of God that was accomplished. But never did those of the early church consider a piece of wood as a protector, a good luck charm, or as an object of worship. No, such use of the cross came much later.

It was not until Christianity began to be paganized that the cross came to be thought of as a Christian symbol! It was in 431 A.D. that crosses in churches and chambers were introduced, while the use of the crosses on steeples did not come until about 586 A.D. (Harper's Book of Facts)

In the 6th Century, the crucifix image was introduced and its worship sanctioned by the church of Rome. (Fausett, p. 145) It was not until the second council at Ephesus that private homes were required to possess a cross. (The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, p. 157)  Such use of the cross then was obviously not a doctrine of the early true church. It was not a part of "the faith that was once delivered to the saints." From where then did it come?

In the following, we will give historical proof that the cross was an object of worship centuries before the Christian Era. We will see that the cross sign is Babylonish and that its entrance into the professing church was but a further attempt to mix paganism with Christianity.

Centuries before the Christian era, the cross was honored as a religious symbol by the people of Babylon. It is seen on their oldest monuments. (Doane, p. 342) Historians say that it was a symbol associated with Tammuz ‑ a Jewish god. (The Greatness that was Babylon, p. 496‑498)

The Cross Symbol

The Cross Symbol : In its original form ‑ came from the first letter of the name Tammuz, the "T". The same sign of the cross that Rome now worships was used in the "Babylonian Mysteries," says Hislop, "...that which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of Chaldeans and Egyptians ‑ the true original form of the letter T ‑ the initial of the name of Tammuz...and was used in every variety of way as the most sacred was used as an amulet over the heart; it was marked on the official garments of the priests, as on the official garments of Rome today." (Two Babylons, p. 197) From Babylon, this cross symbol spread to Egypt, where monuments preserved to this day give abundant evidence of its use there.

In any book on Egypt that shows the old monuments and walls of their ancient temples, one can see the kings and gods of antiquity holding crosses in their hands. The inscription shows some of the gods of Egypt in mystery form ‑ part human and part animal ‑ each holding a cross! A building of Amenophis IV at Thebes, Egypt, has inscriptions of the king praying, with a picture of a round sun circle with a mystery form of the sun‑god beneath it. A noted historian in reference to Egypt: "Here unchanged for thousands of years, we find among her most sacred hieroglyph­ics the cross in various forms...but the one known specially as the 'cross of Egypt,' or the Tau cross, is shaped like the letter T, often with a circle or ovoid above it, yet this mystical symbol was not peculiar to this country, but was reverenced...­among the Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Mexicans, and EVERY ancient people in both hemispheres." (The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, p. 2‑3)

As the cross worship spread to various nations, it took on varied forms and was used in varied ways: Among the Chinese, "the cross is...acknowledged to be one of the most ancient is portrayed upon the walls of their pagodas, it is painted upon the lanterns used to illuminate the most sacred recesses of their temples." (The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, p. 13)

The cross has been a sacred symbol in India for centuries among non‑Christian people. "In Northern India, the cross is used to mark the jars of sacred water taken from the Indus and Ganges...In Southern India the cross is used as an emblem of disembodied Jaina saints...The east Indians (revered the cross sym­bol)...centur­ies before our Lord appeared upon earth." (The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, p. 10)

In the central part of India, two rude crosses of stone have been discovered which date back to a time centuries before the Christian era. One of these crosses is over 10 feet high; the other over eight feet. (The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, p. 12) Among the Hindoos of India, the cross was regarded as sacred to their god Agni. (Monumental Christianity, p. 14) The Buddhists, and numerous other sects of India, marked their followers on the head with the sign of the cross.

On the continent of Africa, "at Susa, the Abyssinia...the natives plunge a cross in the River Gitche...­the Kabyle women although Mohammedans, tattoo a cross between their eyes...In Wanyamwizi, or the land of the moon, the inhabitants decorate their walls with crosses...the Yaricks established a line of kingdoms from the Niger to the Nile...on their shields (was) painted the image of a cross." (The Cross in Tradition, History p. 9) Here then is mention of the use of the cross by numerous heathen tribes in Africa who knew nothing of Christ!

When the Spaniards first landed in Mexico, "they could not suppress their wonder," says Prescott, "as they beheld the cross, the sacred emblem of their own (Catholic) faith, raised as an object of worship in the temples of Anahuac. The Spaniards were not aware that the cross was the symbol of worship of the highest antiquity...(and was used by many) pagan nations on whom the light of Christianity had never shone."

In Palenque, Mexico, founded by Votan in the 9th century before the Christian era, is a heathen temple known as "the temple of the cross." There inscribed on an altar slab is a central cross six and a half by eleven feet in size! (Encyclopedia or Religions, Vol. 3, p. 70) In olden times, the Indians of Mexico worshiped the cross as TOTA (Our Father).

This practice of addressing a piece of wood with the title "father" is also mentioned in the Bible. When God's people of the Old Testament mixed idolatry with their religion, they worshiped pagan gods and said to a stock, "Thou art my father!" (Jeremiah 2:27) But it is contrary to the Word of God to call a piece of wood (or a priest!) by the title "father." " no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9)

Ages ago in Italy, before the people knew anything of the arts of civilization, they believed in the cross as a religious symbol. Even at this early period, they believed it was a protector and it was placed upon tombs. (The Cross in Tradition, History and Art, p. 99) Through the centuries, it was used as a religious symbol right on up to the days of the pagan Roman empire. In 46 B.C. Roman coins show Jupiter holding a long scepter terminating in a cross. (The Cross in Tradition, History and Art, p. 26) This was his symbol. (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 1, p. 495) The vestal Virgins of pagan Rome wore the cross suspended from their necklaces, as the nuns of the Roman Catholic church do now. (Two Babylons, p. 198)

The Greeks depicted crosses on the head band of their god corresponding to Tammuz of the Babylonians. In the Eleusinian Mysteries, a cross was placed on the breast of each initiate. (Bible Myths, p. 343) Porcelli mentions how that Isis was shown with a cross on her forehead. Her priests carried processional crosses in their worship of her. The temple of Serapis in Alexandria was surmounted by a cross. The temple of the Sphinx when it was unearthed was found to be cruciform in shape.

Ensigns in the form of a cross were carried by the Persians during their battles with Alexander the Great (B.C. 335). Bible Myths, p. 346. The cross was used as a religious symbol by the Aborigines of South America in ancient times. (Curiosities of Popular Customs, p. 297) New born children were placed under its protection against evil spirits. The Patagonians tattooed their foreheads with crosses. (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 1, p. 495) Ancient pottery in Peru has been found that is marked with the cross as a religious symbol. (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 1, p. 386)

Monuments show that Assyrian kings wore a cross suspended on their necklaces, (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 1, p. 494) as did some of the foreigners that battled against the Egyptians. These warriors wore a small cross suspended to a necklace or to their collar. The cross was also figured upon the robes of the Rot‑n‑no as early as the 15th century before the Christian era. (Wilkinson, Vol. 1, p. 376)

Much more could be said about the many uses of the cross as a religious symbol and object of worship among those who lived in olden times. But enough has been said to well establish the fact that the cross was in use long before the Christian era. To sum it up, there is hardly a pagan tribe where the cross has not been found. (Two Babylons, p. 199) "In some form, all through the ages, the cross has existed and has had a vital significance and influence." (The Cross ‑ Its History and Symbolism, p. 16)

As an instrument of death, of crucifixion, the cross is also very ancient and pagan. "The cross was used in ancient times as a punishment for flagrant crimes in Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Palestine, Carthage, Greece, and Rome...Tradition ascribes the invention of the punishment of the cross to a woman, the queen Semiramis!" (The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, p. 64)

"But since Jesus died on a cross," some ask, "does this not make it a Christian symbol?" NO! The fact that Jesus was killed on a cross shows that it was already an established form of punishment and death ‑ among pagans. However, Christ was not killed on a cross, He was crucified on a "Stake."

It was not a Christian symbol when Jesus hung on it, and nothing has ever changed to make it a Christian symbol now! As one has asked: Suppose Jesus had been killed with a shot‑gun; would this be any reason to have a shot‑gun hanging from our necks or on top of the church roof? Would this make a shot‑gun a Christian symbol of virtue? No!

It is not what killed our Lord, but what his death accomplished that is important! As the cross symbol spread to the ancient nations (as we have seen it did), it took on different forms in different countries until there were many forms of the pagan cross. Catholicism, adopting the pagan idea of cross worship, also adopted these various forms of the cross. Thus, to this day, the Catholic church does not adore just one type of cross, but numerous types. Now we ask: If the Catholic use of the cross originated with the cross of Christ, then why are so many different forms of the cross used? It is evident that Christ only hung on one cross.

If cross worship originated with the cross of Christ, would it not seem that only one type would be used? The fact is that cross worship did not originate with Christ and all of these various forms of the cross were pagan symbols before the Christian era. A noted writer said: “Of the several varieties of the cross still in vogue, as national and ecclesias­tical emblems, distinguished by the familiar appellations of St. George, St. Andrew, the Maltese, the Greek, the Latin, etc., there is not one amongst them the existence of which may not be traced to the remotest antiquity!" (The Pentateuch Examined, Vol. 6, p. 113)

Now let's notice a few examples of how these different crosses were actually sacred symbols long before the Christian era: That form of the cross which is known as the Tau cross was widely used in Egypt. What is known as the Greek cross may also be found on Egyptian monuments. This form of the cross was used in Phrygia where it adorned the tomb of Midas (B.C. 718). (Doane, p. 344; The Cross in Tradition, p. 21) In the ruins of Nineveh, a king is shown wearing a Maltese cross on his bosom. The form of the cross that is today known as the Latin cross was used by the Etruscans. Its use on an ancient pagan tomb with winged angels to each side of it.

What has been called the St. Andrew's cross was highly venerated among the Cumas in South America. It was regarded as a protector against evil spirits. (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 1, p. 494) It appeared on the coins of Alexander Bala in Syria in 146 B.C. and on those of Baktrain kings about 140 to 120 B.C. (Needless to say, this was long before "St. Andrew" was ever born!)        

Most of the crosses on the Protestant Churches is called the Calvary cross, yet this cross is taken from an ancient inscription in Thessaly which dates from a period prior to the Christian era! Now the fact that these various forms of the cross have all been adopted by the Romish Church, makes it obvious that such cross‑ sacredness did not originate with the cross of Christ, for he died on only one cross!      

What type of cross was it upon which Jesus died? The word "cross" in the Bible is translated from "stauros" which comes from the root "sta," that is, "to stand." As far as the Word itself is concerned, there is no indication of any cross piece whatsoever. In his scholarly "expository Dictionary of New Testament Words," W.E. Vine states that the Greek word "stauros" means simply an upright stake and is, "to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross...(which) had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the Mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt...In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiasti­cal system, pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross‑piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ." (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 1, p. 256)

As to the exact shape of the cross upon which Christ hung, we need not be too concerned, for it is not the shape of the cross that is the important thing. It is the one ‑ The Lord Jesus Christ ‑ that hung there and what He accomplished that is ALL important.


Constantine and The Cross

When considering the above information concerning the cross, someone will, almost always bring up the so‑called vision of Constantine. So we include the following with that in mind. A factor that caused the adoration of the cross image to become firmly established in the church of the falling away was the famous "vision of the cross" and the so‑called "conversion" of the Roman Emperor Constantine.

On the day before the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine prayed to his sun‑god and there appeared a cross ‑ we are told ‑ over the setting sun with the inscription: "In hoc signo Vinces;" that is, "In this sign conquer." The next day, Constantine advanced the battle behind a standard portraying a Cross. He was victorious in this battle and professed conversion. Of course such a seeming victory for Christianity, the conversion of the emperor ‑ as the result of the cross vision did much to further the use of the cross in the Roman Church.

But are we to suppose that the Lord Jesus gave such a vision to the Emperor Constantine? Actually there is little reason to consider this vision as authentic, especially since it has no real historical basis, and due to the fact that Constantine's vision was supposedly in answer to him. The only authority from whom the story has been gathered by historians is Eusebius, who confessedly was prone to edification and was accused as a "falsifier of history."

If Constantine ever did, in reality, have such a vision, we can be sure its author was not Almighty God or the Lord Jesus Christ. The very idea that our Lord would command a pagan emperor to make a military banner embodying the cross and to go forth conquering and killing in that sign, is altogether inconsistent with the general teachings of the Bible and with the Spirit of true Christianity. This Roman empire (of which Constantine was the head), had been described in the scriptures as a "Beast."

Daniel saw four great beasts which represented four world empires. These were Babylon (lion), Medio‑Persia (bear), Greece (leopard), and Rome. This fourth beast, the Roman Empire, was so horrible in the eyes of God that it could not be compared to any earthly beast. (Daniel 7:1‑8) Considering then how wicked this beastly Roman Empire was in the eyes of God, are we to suppose that the Lord Jesus Christ became the leader of this beast system? Or would Jesus give a wicked emperor a vision and tell him to kill and fight as his representative?

Did Jesus ever tell his people to go forth to kill others under a cross‑banner supposedly representing him? Of course not! The very basis of Christianity is opposed to the unfairness of war, hate, and murder. Why then should we suppose that Christ would tell Constantine to conquer in His name and sign to further the Beast system of Rome?

Obviously, such a vision came not from our Lord Jesus Christ! But if the vision was not of God, how was it that Constantine was converted as a result? The fact is that the "conversion" of Constantine WAS A HOAX! Even though this man had much to do with the establishment of certain doctrines and customs within the fallen church, the facts plainly show that he was not truly converted, not in the Bible sense of the word. Historians admit that the conversion of Constantine was "nominal, even by contemporary standards." (Man and His Gods, p. 220)

Probably the most obvious indication that he was not truly converted may be seen from the fact that AFTER his supposed conversion, he committed several murders ‑ including the murder of his own wife and son! According to the Scriptures, no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. (1 John 3:15)

Constantine's first marriage was to Minervina, by whom he had a son named Crispus. His second wife was named Fausta who bore him three daughters and three sons. Now Crispus, his first born son, became a great soldier and a help to his father in the battles. Yet, in 326, very shortly after the directing the Nicaen Council! Constantine had this son put to death. The story is that Crispus had made love to Fausta, Constantine's wife. At least he was so accused by Fausta. But this may have been her way of getting Crispus out of the way, so that her sons would have claim to the throne!

However, Helena, Constantine's mother, persuaded him that his wife "had yielded to his son." And so, Constantine had Fausta murdered also. (The Story of Civilization ‑ Caesar and Christ, p. 663) But these were not the only murders he committed. About the same time that Constantine had his son murdered, he decreed the execution of Licinianus, his sister's son. Constantine also put Licinus, his sister's husband, to death ‑ even though he had promised her that he would spare his life! (The Story of Civilization ‑ Caesar and Christ, p. 663; Medieval Italy, p. 4)

After Constantine's supposed conversion, he still remained the Pontifix Maximus or High Priest of the pagan state religion. (The Growth of the Christian Church). As Pontiff, he was required to carry out the ceremonial of the traditional cult. Likewise, when he dedicated Constantinople, he used both pagan and Christian rites in the dedication. Further evidence of how Constantine attempted to unite and mix together both paganism and Christianity, is seen on coins of the period which he had made.

On these coins he put a cross (to please the professing Christians) while on the same coins were representations of Mars or Apollo. While professing on one hand to be a Christian, yet on the other hand, he continued to believe in pagan magic formulas for the protection of crops and the healing of disease. (The Story of Civilization, p. 656) Constantine did show numerous favors toward the Christian faith however.

He abolished death by crucifixion. He stopped the persecutions of the Christians which had become so cruel at Rome. Why them, if he was not truly a Christian, did he do these things? The answer to this is also clearly written in history. Persecutions had not destroyed the Christian faith. Constantine knew this. And since his position was being challenged by a rival emperor and because of his dire need for support from every quarter, he turned to the Christians.

Instead of the empire constantly being divided ‑ the pagans opposing the Christians ‑ why not take such steps as might be necessary to mix both paganism and Christianity together, and thus bring a united force to the empire? This was clearly the reasoning of Constantine. By this time, most of the church leaders were thinking in terms of numbers and popularity, rather than in terms of spirituality and truth anyway, and thus were ready to make compromises with paganism.

This was especially the case at Rome. Soby adopting the cross as a symbol on the banners of his army, Constantine figured he could establish a unity among his troops. The apostate Christians would think they were fighting for the cross of Christ; the pagans could not object because the cross was also one of their sacred emblems. Says the noted historian Durant: "To the worshiper of Mita (the pagans) in Constantine's forces, the cross could give no offense, for they had long fought under a standard bearing a Mithraic cross of light." (The Story of Civilization, p. 655) And thus the so‑called Christians and pagan Mithraists in the army of Constantine were united and successfully fought the battle.

Another factor that contributed to cross‑worship in the church of Rome centered around Helena, Constantine's mother. In 326, when she was almost eighty ‑ according to the legend ‑ she made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and there by the help of a Jew who understood her superstitious tastes, found three crosses.

The original cross was identified, we are asked to believe, because it is said to have worked miracles at the suggestion of Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem. The other two crosses produced no miracles. And so Helena ‑ according to the story ‑ had found the original, the true cross! But that the true cross was found is no doubt false, for laws among the Jews required crosses to be burned after being used for crucifixion. (Fausett, p. 145) That Helena did visit Jerusalem seems to be historically correct. But the story of her discovery of the original cross was evidently a later addition, for it did not appear until 440 A.D. ‑ 114 years later! (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 1, p. 494)

Let us just suppose that someone did find the actual cross upon which Jesus died. Would there be any virtue in that piece of wood? No, absolutely none. The Calvary cross served its purpose even as the brazen serpent had served its purpose when the children of Israel were bitten by snakes. We will remember that Moses had made a brazen serpent and raised it up on a pole. This was a type of the way that Christ was to be lifted up. (John 3:15)

Nevertheless, after the brazen serpent had served its purpose, the Israelites kept it around and finally began to worship it. (2 Kings 18:4) They made it a relic and attempted to copy the heathenistic use of relics and mix it into their religion! And so Hezekiah "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord" by breaking the brazen serpent to pieces.

In like manner, if we actually had the original cross ‑ if it were still in existence ‑ there would be no reason to set it up as an object of worship. Why? Because its purpose has been fulfilled. If then there would be no power in the ORIGINAL cross, how much less is there in a mere piece of wood in its shape?

In view of these things, it becomes obvious that the use of the cross ‑ in sign or symbol, in any shape or form ‑ as an object of worship, is a mockery to true worship, which is the worship of Christ himself! But each century brought more superstition into the Romish church in connection with the cross image.

It came to be recognized as a protector. Had it not helped Constantine win the battle of Milvian Bridge? Had not the cross worked miracles for Helena? And so it came to be regarded as an image that could scare away evil spirits. It was worn as a charm. It was placed high up on church steeples to frighten away lightning. But because of the high position of the cross upon the steeple, it was often the very thing that caused lightning to strike the building! The use of the cross in private homes was supposed to ward off trouble and disease. And so even as the pagan Egyptians had set up obelisks, image was believed to possess supernatural powers, even so did people come to worship the cross. Thousands of pieces of wood ‑ supposedly pieces of the "original cross" were sold as protectors and charms.