Because Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus actually comprises the first scriptures in the New Testament and immediately offers us a problem, perhaps we should look first at the history of the book of Matthew itself.

The first question is can the book of Matthew be trusted to give an accurate account of Jesus? Bishop Papias was the first to mention a book by that name. Writing about 145 C.E., he says, "And the presbyter said this. [notice he is offering hearsay as his evidence!] Mark having become the INTERPRETER OF PETER [] wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor accompanied him . . . Matthew put the Oracles (of the Lord) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

Before commenting on Matthew, notice, according to Papias, that Mark (whichever Mark this was!) wrote down what he remembered from hearsay and even then not in exact order. This means that someone must have done a considerable rewrite of his book. Also notice he wrote down the sayings and deeds of Jesus, which exclude the birth and death accounts as we now have them.

Now if the "sayings or deeds" of Jesus were all that Mark wrote down, and if, as so many authorities now assert, Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, from whence came the genealogies, the birth and death narratives in the Gospels? Even with these questions, keep in mind that this particular "Mark" wasn’t personally present at the events and sayings he reports.

As for a man named Matthew, Papias says "he" wrote down only the oracles, or the sayings of Jesus! However, we should remember that we have absolutely no way of knowing who wrote the book that later bore Matthew’s name (meaning the book now called Matthew is not necessarily the topic of Papias’ comments). Also note that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, or more likely, in Aramaic (a Hebrew dialect that was the language of Jesus’ day).

If only the sayings of Jesus were written down, and then only in Hebrew, what does this tell us? The only conclusion is that whoever wrote a book called Matthew, the book now known to Christianity was obviously rewritten in Greek by some later person, and it was at that time that the now-cherished traditions of the birth and death accounts were tacked onto the sayings of Jesus! IN OTHER WORDS, THE FAMILIAR GOSPEL ACCOUNTS SO NEAR AND DEAR TO THE HEARTS OF BILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS WERE LATER ADDITIONS SUPPLIED BY THE PEN OF AN ANTI-SEMITIC PAGAN-GENTILE-CONVERT!

I realize that it is hard to accept the charge that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth are spurious: I know this because I’ve spent months wrestling with the question. But, consider if it is more than curious that in the twenty-three books from Acts to Revelation, there is not one reference to, or a word of quotation from any of the four Gospel accounts¾ including the words supposedly spoken by Jesus! Nor is there any details of Jesus’ death and resurrection in these books. Don’t you think that if Paul, for instance, knew the very words of a man he was preaching to be God Himself, he would have used them extensively as references in his epistles to the Christian churches? This should tell us that Paul, and whoever wrote the non-Gospel books, knew nothing of the Gospels¾ which means that they had not yet been written! This is particularly significant, and may offer insight into the words of Paul when he writes this warning: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed."

After having gone off on an aside, let us now look at the genealogy of Jesus.

One of the most valuable proofs that Jesus was the Messiah is his descent from King David of Israel. It should require little explaining here that the Messiah, foretold by the prophets, was to be from the House of David. Hence in the first chapter of the New Testament we find the Gospel of Matthew starting with a genealogy from Abraham to David and then to Jesus. But there is a curious aspect of this genealogy of which few Christians have ever been aware: Matthew’s genealogy deliberately leaves out Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim, thus making void its own statement in 1:17: "So ALL the generations from Abraham to David are FOURTEEN generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are FOURTEEN generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are FOURTEEN generations."

We can only guess at the significance of the three divisions of fourteen generations. As the number seven denotes completion in the "OT," perhaps the writer wants to show that the generations were complete from Abraham to "Jesus the Messiah" (two sevens in each group). Whatever the reason, let’s see how he arrives at the numbers:

The Sacred Scriptures: The New Testament:

Solomon Solomon

Rehoboam Rehoboam

Abijah Abijah

Asa Asa

Jehoshaphat Jehoshaphat

Joram Joram

Ahaziah ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Joash ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Amaziah ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Azariah Uzziah

Jotham Jotham

Ahaz Ahaz

Hezekiah Hezekiah

Manasseh Manasseh

Amon Amon

Josiah Josiah

Jehoiakim ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Jeconiah Jeconiah

Having found one problem right from the start, we next come face to face with another: Matthew’s genealogy includes the accursed King Jeconiah! Jeremiah 22:30 tells us: "Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

One of the proofs of "Old" Testament prophecy is that indeed, no descendant of Jeconiah ever ascended the throne of Judah. How then could Jesus ever hope to sit on the Throne of David if he descended from Jeconiah?

But hold on! This isn’t the only supposed ancestor of Jesus that causes Christianity problems. We go back only one generation before Jeconiah to King Jehoiakim. In Jeremiah 36:30-31 we read: "Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: ‘He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of day and the frost of the night. I will punish him, his family and his servants for their iniquity."

Now we can see why Matthew skips over the accursed Jehoiakim! How could this king’s descendant, supposedly being Jesus, inherit a throne that the Elohim of Israel has declared will not pass to him?

These scriptural problems might explain the words of Paul, who writes to Timothy and warns him not to allow anyone to teach contrary doctrines: "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying WHICH IS IN FAITH." This might also explain Titus 3:9 in which Paul again warns of "foolish questions" and "genealogies."

Some scholars have observed that Paul’s warnings are evidence that spurious pedigrees of Jesus’ family were circulating already in his time, and indeed Paul’s letters do seem to back this up. Perhaps we should also note that Paul’s answer to this was to ignore the problem and admonish Christians to just have faith! If Jesus was born of the House of David, and this was a proof of his Messiahship, then Paul’s answer in the face of spurious genealogies wouldn’t have been very reassuring. Even though Christianity teaches that faith can move mountains, it can’t change one’s pedigree!

Knowing full well the serious implications of this genealogy, some Christians claim that the curse of Jeconiah did not literally apply to Jesus because Joseph was not his father. In other words, being literally descended from David from another branch, as Luke supposedly has him do, and not the accursed Jeconiah, Jesus was in the clear. But both genealogies plainly state that they are the pedigrees of Joseph!

Actually, the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest New Testaments in existence, renders Matthew’s account as simply: "Joseph begat Jesus." This can be verified by John 1:45 when Philip found Nathanael and told him "We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Again, we read in John 6:42: "And they said, is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" There is no question that the pedigrees intended to convey Jesus’ legitimate descent from David through Joseph and hence his Messiahship.

The first seventeen verses of Matthew chapter one, however, are negated by the rest of the chapter. After trying to establish the physical descent of Jesus from King David through Joseph (even if a few ancestors have to be dropped to do so), the story goes on to tell us that Mary was with child by the "Holy Ghost." If this is the case then it simply means Matthew failed to prove Jesus was from the House of David, and therefore that he was the expected Messiah of Israel. Obviously, I’m not the only one who thought of that problem, because the controversy has generated a standard Catholic answer.

For centuries it has been the contention of the Catholic Church, and therefore ingrained on subsequent generations of Protestants, that the genealogy of Luke preserves the descent of Mary, thereby Jesus’ physical pedigree from King David. However, if this be so, then Luke preserves the physical descent of Jesus through Nathan and negates the promise of God that the Messiah should also come through King Solomon. In I Chronicles 17:11-12, God tells David: "And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of they sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever."

To answer those who would say that this pertains to Jesus and not King Solomon, notice in II Samuel 7:13 that we have the same prophecy: "He [Solomon] shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee."

Well, aside from all the problems, the genealogy of Luke was long ago proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church to be that of Mary primarily because it contradicts the pedigree of Matthew: if one wasn’t declared to be Mary’s, then both stand to be blatant forgeries! And, because the Protestant Churches are daughters of the Mother Church of Rome, they too have followed the traditional Catholic excuse.

However, the descent of any Israelite was to be considered through the father, as Israel had a patrilineal system of determining descent, meaning that no woman appears in any genealogy of the "Old" Testament. To be sure, women are mentioned in the context of chronology, but not in descent. (Moses, for example, explicitly commanded that the Israelites were to be counted "according to their father’s houses.")

The second reason the Catholic Church came to light upon the genealogy of Luke to be that of Mary’s¾ even though she isn’t even mentioned there¾ is obviously due to the fact that Jesus couldn’t, as someone must have pointed out, be descended from the accursed King Jeconiah, as Matthew had him to do.

As if the confusion of two separate pedigrees being declared as Joseph’s weren’t enough, someone, unaware of the patrilineal requirement of the Hebrews and seeing the problems the pedigrees caused in regards to the "holy ghost-immaculate conception" account, added the phrases "was supposed" and "the husband of Mary" to the genealogies in order to insinuate that Jesus wasn’t Joseph’s flesh and blood¾ well, I think by now you would agree that we’ve had enough of this confusion!

Actually, if one wanted to find Mary’s ancestry within the confines of the NT, a sure indication would be found in Luke 1:5: "There was in the days of Herod, . . . a certain priest named Zacharias . . . and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron and her name was Elizabeth." Now we are informed in verse 36 of chapter one that Elizabeth was the cousin of Mary, which would mean they both had to have some common ancestry. Given the fact that God has promised to preserve the separate identities of the Twelve Tribes for the end-time restoration of Israel, this places Mary as a Levite by descent, which might answer the question as to why Jesus was seemingly so well versed in Holy Scriptures as well as the sayings of Judah’s rabbis.

As a study of all the material written about this issue will immediately disclose, it is useless to even attempt to present the many arguments put forward by those trying to determine the correct individual¾ Joseph or Mary¾ to which either the genealogy in Luke or Matthew belongs. And to say this again, these arguments are made by ignoring the simple fact that both pedigrees bluntly state that they belong to Joseph. However, a few individuals over the centuries have had the courage to actually challenge the subject. One was the renowned Hebrew and Greek scholar Ferrar Fenton, who, in his translation of the New Testament, removes the genealogy of Luke with these words: "I remove the Genealogy . . . for the following reason: it is quite irreconcilable with the one of Joseph given by St. Matthew, which is capable of verification from the records of the Old Testament, while this interpolated one in St. Luke’s Gospel cannot be so. It also breaks the continuity of the Text, in a manner that so accomplished a writer as that Evangelist would never have done. I am, therefore, perfectly satisfied that it is merely a note of some early editor, and never formed part of St. Luke’s Gospel.¾ F.F." Of course, in discarding Luke’s genealogy, Fenton raises the issue of King Jeconiah¾ oh well!

I should also mention that there is a considerable gap in the number of generations between the two genealogies: at least 300 years worth! Luke gives forty-one generations between David and Jesus, and Matthew twenty-seven¾ a difference of fourteen generations which represents an impossible chronology. Perhaps the best commentary I’ve read on this question, is from a Dr. South. Writing in Kitto’s Biblical Encyclopedia, he says: "Christ’s being the true Messiah depends upon his being the son of David and king of the Jews. So that unless this be evinced the whole foundation of Christianity must totter and fall."

At any rate, Jesus was known in tradition as the son of Joseph and the different genealogies were a result of trying after the fact to come up with proofs of his Messiahship. Further evidence to back up this statement shall be laid out as we progress in this study. When the information is presented, it will certainly prove that the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke can be disregarded as spurious. In fact, it will be seen that Matthew was notorious for his garbled "proofs" from the "Old" Testament regarding Jesus’ Messiahship. It will also become increasingly clear that there are two different Jesus’ in the Gospel accounts, just as there are two different theologies to be found between the Epistles of Paul and those same Gospels¾ AND NEITHER OF THESE AGREE WITH THE "OLD" TESTAMENT!

We shall now look closely at one of the clearest pagan corruptions to be found in the New Testament. It deals with the birth narratives, which, remember, were never a part of the earliest writings of the Christian Church.

We’ve already covered the symbolism of the dove, and its connection in Christianity to the Holy Spirit of God. We have uncovered its origins in the ancient paganism of Babylon. This was all tied together in volume one with the story of Nimrod/Tammuz’ divine birth by the "virgin" Mother-goddess Semiramis: the Mother-goddess conceived the baby savior-god, according to the story, by the "holy spirit" of the Babylonian Trinity, and wherever this tale spread, the virgin-mother’s divine birth of the "savior" became a primary focus of the Mystery Religion.

There is no need here to recount all of the similar features to these tales and the New Testament accounts of Mary and Jesus because they are completely outlined in volume one. However, I would like to point out that when these pagan legends have been exposed to Christian readers, it has caused considerable concern. Additionally, this history has afforded ample evidence for critics to use against the New Testament, which, in turn, is then used to attack the original Hebrew faith.

I have mentioned several times that when I wrote volume one I was continually confronted with many particularly disturbing similarities between the pagan Sun-god birth legends and the New Testament account. In fact, as I’ve also admitted, I purposely didn’t mention these in MB because not only did the information bother me, I felt that too much of this material would cause discouragement rather than edification of the Christian faith¾ which, after all, was the real reason behind the writing of MB!

One of those disturbing features was the claim that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations until after the birth of Jesus, which is a story told about the "earthly" parents of numerous baby Sun-god-saviors. One example is Apollo, whose "earthly parents" had no sexual relations until after his birth. Even though this is a small point, I use it to illustrate how unnerving it becomes to see at every turn the story of Jesus echoed in pagan traditions that predate him by thousands of years. The ancient church father, Justin Martyr, wrote, "When I am told that Perseus [a Sun-god] was born of a virgin, I realize that here again is a case in which the serpent and deceiver has imitated our religion."

Let us now go on past the evidence of volume one, and peer into the New Testament account in light of history. Here, I think you must agree, my vindication for earlier denouncements will be found.

According to the New Testament, one of the signs of Jesus’ Messiahship was a virgin birth. Christianity claims that the Scripture to prove this is found in Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

There has probably never been an "Old" Testament Scripture more frequently quoted by Christians than this verse. This is especially true every Christmas when we are all reminded, whether we want to be or not, that a virgin brought forth a son to be the savior of the world. But, unknown to most Christians, there is a problem here.

First of all, the quote in this instance doesn’t follow the Masoretic Text of the "Old" Testament. It comes from the Septuagint! It is, in fact, a major instance of the KJV translators inserting their own theology in place of God’s Word. But, like billions of Christians, I had heard this verse repeatedly throughout my life and it was certainly ingrained in my mind as sacred Scripture. Also, like those same millions, I can’t really say that I had ever bothered to look at the story in Isaiah to put my beliefs into context. I now intend to correct this oversight!

The word translated "virgin" in Christian theology, actually means "the young woman," (i.e., the original Hebrew is "ha’almah" or "the young woman," and not "habethulah" which means "the virgin"). The original reads: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Of course there have been volumes written by Christians defending this Scripture as a prophecy of the coming Messiah (specifically Jesus). But, even if an entire library were written, it would mean absolutely nothing in light of the real story and its connection to the salvation and the restoration of the Ten Tribes of Israel in the end time.

H.W.F. Gesenius renders the Hebrew "ha’almah" thus: "Used of a youthful spouse recently married, Isa. 7:14 (compare Joel 1:8). The notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys, for which the proper word is ‘habethulah.’" He notes that the Septuagint "incorrectly rendered" the word as virgin, and ends by saying, "neither does it convey the idea of the unmarried state, as has of late been maintained . . ."

I can’t help but to quote the added notation of the translator of Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, one Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, L.L.D., which shows the complete ignorance and bias of Christianity in this matter: "The object in view in seeking to undermine the opinion which would assign the signification of virgin to this word, is clearly to raise a discrepancy between Isa. 7:14, and Matt. 1:23." "The absolute authority of the New Test. is, however, quite sufficient to settle the question to a Christian."

To put the question of Isaiah 7:14 in context, we need to consider to whom the "Lord Himself" was going to give a sign, which we can do so by simply going back to that time and place.

King Ahaz of Judah was in a terrible state of mind when this prophecy was written¾ as indeed he had every reason to be. His kingdom was shortly to be invaded by the King of Syria teamed with the northern Kingdom of Israel: "And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it." In Isaiah 7:3-7 we read that God sent the prophet Isaiah to meet Ahaz to tell him not to fear the alliance of Israel with Syria, and that He, the Elohim of Judah, would not allow any harm to come upon the nation at this time. To alleviate the king’s fears, God was going to give him a sign.

Notice verse 11: "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord." Now the king’s reply didn’t please God, as verse 12 makes clear.

Here was the Creator of the Universe offering not only to deliver Judah and King Ahaz, but to give comfort by performing a sign for reassurance! But, the wicked King Ahaz bluntly refused the offer! Here is God’s reply in verse 14: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign [of deliverance from the military threat]; Behold, ha’almah’ [i.e., THE YOUNG WOMAN] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL." Again, for what was this sign given? As assurance that Judah and its king should be delivered from their enemies!

Now consider the Christian explanation of this verse: it is that the sign would be the birth of the Messiah, which they claim was Jesus! Can you imagine, if God was trying to comfort King Ahaz and the nation of Judah in the face of such adversity, that He would offer a sign that was to come to pass nearly 700 years in the future? Well, that is what Christianity teaches when they maintain that this was a prophecy about the birth of Jesus Christ!

God might as well have told Ahaz, "700 years from now, after you and all the people in the kingdom are dust in the ground, I will give you a sign that I will deliver Judah from this enemy that now threatens you." There would be little comfort in such a promise! However, Matthew’s account specifically says that the birth of Jesus was the sign from God to King Ahaz: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

What Matthew’s assertion means in light of what the Scripture actually says is nonsense! What’s more, the Hebrew word harah is past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in both Hebrew and English, represents past and completed action, and a number of rabbis have pointed this out to stubborn Christians! The verse should read: "Behold the young woman has conceived [is with child] and bears a son . . ."

Furthermore, the definite term "the young woman" indicates that King Ahaz personally knew the woman through whom the sign was to be given. It would hardly have been a sign to the king if some totally unknown woman bore a son and named him Immanuel about which Ahaz would have never known. It would have to be someone the king knew as "the young woman" clearly indicates. In other words, at some point into the terrible situation confronting the kingdom, someone would come to the king and say, "by the way, your niece gave birth to a son today: she has named him Immanuel which means that God is with us." Suddenly King Ahaz would remember the words of Isaiah’s prophecy! Suddenly, and perhaps finally, he would trust in God to deliver Judah from their enemies!

"And she shall call his name Immanuel," which means "God is with us." What an absolutely clear statement! Isaiah 7 doesn’t say that God would be born "among us," but that He was "on our side": He would fight for Judah and deliver them from their enemies!

This would be a good place to make another observation. I once asked a minister why Jesus or Joshua, his Hebrew name, wasn’t called Immanuel if Isaiah 7 was a prophecy about the coming Messiah? Of course, I didn’t get an answer! The reason Jesus was not called Immanuel was because Isaiah 7 is not a prophecy of a coming Messiah. The truth of the matter is that a cult arose around a certain Joshua from Galilee proclaiming him to be the Messiah after he turned thirty years old¾ decidedly too late to replace his name with that of Immanuel.

All we have in the "Immanuel" prophecy is another case of the NT gospellers scouring the "Old" Testament in an effort to prove Jesus’ Messiahship, and they did so decidedly too late to rename Jesus Immanuel!

This notwithstanding, let’s lay to rest the claim that this is a prophecy of the coming Messiah by looking at verse 15 of chapter 7. This Scripture tells us that the young child, Immanuel, would not, by any means, be perfect¾ as we are told the sinless Jesus was. "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." In other words, this little boy, Immanuel, was to learn, like all humans do, right from wrong by experience! Notice then verse 16: "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil [meaning he would be a sinner!], and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

Again, the child Immanuel was to be born as a sign to Ahaz, and before this imperfect, sinful little human child was two or three years old, Judah would be delivered from her enemies! Go to II Kings 16:9 to see if God delivered Judah as He had promised Ahaz! Go also to II Kings 15:29-30 for additional evidence!

History tells us clearly that three years after the sign to King Ahaz (732 B.C.E.) Tiglath-Pileser III took Damascus, and executed the Syrian king and destroyed the Syrian kingdom, which rendered Israel completely powerless. These events happening three years from the time of Isaiah’s prophecy clearly spells out the meaning of Isaiah 7:16 and the identity of the child Immanuel!

What the Holy Scriptures and history clearly spell out is that Ahaz and Judah were delivered from their enemies, which means that the sign of the birth of the child Immanuel must have also come to pass. There is no prophecy here of a child being born almost 700 years in the future! Furthermore, if one wants to find a way around these facts by claiming that this is a "dual" prophecy, which many ministers now preach, then the entire chapter needs to be applied in this manner. That is, we must understand that Jesus did not live a sinless life because the child Immanuel had to learn to refuse evil and choose good. In addition we must believe that God delivered Judea from their enemies (meaning Rome) in the time of Jesus.

To sum this discussion up, I would like to illustrate a typical tactic used by Christian writers, which I can do from an article I have here on Isaiah 11. Defending the Christian position that this is a prophecy about Jesus, but not being able to explain the Scripture within its "OT" context, the writer asserts: "The real key to understanding this remarkable prophecy of Isaiah is found in the New Testament." He then proceeds to explain Isaiah 11 by using the Gospel of Matthew! Absolutely incredible! Not being able to prove the Messiahship of Jesus from the true prophecies of Israel, this Christian minister assures us that Jesus was the Messiah by quoting other NT scriptures! No honest God-fearing human being can do that! It is only by the authority of Israel’s sacred Scriptures that the Messiah can be understood!

There appears only in the book of Matthew a curious account of the Magi, or "three" Wise Men, who came from the east to visit the new-born Jesus. Even though the NT doesn’t say there were three wise men in number, this has been the tradition because, first of all, they brought three gifts to the baby Jesus¾ gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But, this explanation, just like the Gospel "Wise Men" themselves, isn’t anywhere near the truth! How this curious story came to be in Matthew is accounted for in the same manner that other pagan traditions came to be associated with Jesus.

First of all, most biblical historians seem to agree that the Magi were from Persia, the land of Mithraism! In fact, the word "Magi" is of Persian origin. Webster’s Dictionary tells us that the word is from the Old Persian word Magus, "1. . . . the priestly caste in ancient Media and Persia, supposedly having occult powers. 2. Douay Bible, the wise men from the East, (in later tradition, three in number) who came bearing gifts to the infant Jesus." (The dictionary also tells us that it is from the word Magi that we get the English "magic!")

Asimov’s Guide to the Bible writes, "‘Wise men’ is a translation of the Greek ‘magoi,’ which has entered our language by way of the Latin as ‘magi.’ The word is derived from ‘magu,’ the name given to their priests by the Persian Zoroastrians. Throughout ancient history, the priests were considered the repositories of important knowledge. Not only did they know the techniques for the propitiation of the gods, but¾ IN BABYLONIA PARTICULARLY¾ THEY STUDIED THE HEAVENLY BODIES AND THEIR INFLUENCE UPON THE COURSE OF HUMAN AFFAIRS. THE PRIESTS WERE THEREFORE LEARNED ASTROLOGERS. . . "

This is some very interesting and important information, because, as T.W. Doane notes, the Mithraites of Persia not only have a very similar birth account to that of the baby Jesus but "three wise" men as well. He goes on to note that when the three Wise Men of Mithraism came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, they brought him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh! As this account predates Jesus by hundreds of years, here, plainly stated, is the origin of the "Three Wise Men" tradition in Christianity!

We should never forget, as this study progresses, that the many pagan beliefs associated with early Christianity came directly from the Mystery Religion of Babylon. From there they were filtered through Egypt into every ancient nation on earth. Thus, in the Egyptian Mysteries, the forerunner of the Persian account, there was a belief that the three stars in the Belt of Orion were represented by the "Three Wise Men," and that they pointed to Osiris’ Star Sothis, which rose in the east to announce the coming of the savior at the season of the Nile flood.

But, as far as the history of Christianity is concerned¾ in particular the account of Jesus’ birth¾ we are principally concerned with the Mithraic version of the Babylonian Mystery Religion for one very important reason. It is very significant that in first century Rome the worship of Mithra was the most popular of all the versions of the Mysteries. It is also significant that the Roman Mithraites had Wise Men, or Magi, acting as priests of that religion. In other words, the first century Roman Magi were nothing more than the Mithraic priests of Nimrod/Tammuz dominating the religious structure of Rome. This information needs no references here as it was completely documented in volume one¾ where, if you will recall, we saw how thoroughly the worship of Mithra was assimilated into the first century Roman Catholic Church. Indeed Mithraism was, by all accounts, at times indistinguishable from the Christian Church.

It is, therefore, not surprising to find that the Catholic Christian Church has a Feast of Epiphany, which was identical to the Mithraic Feast of Epiphany¾ both being celebrated at the same time! The Christian "feast" celebrated Jesus’ "appearance to the Shepherds [and] to the three Kings." The Mithraic feast celebrated the arrival of the Sun-Priest-Magi at the birthplace of their savior-god Mithra in Persia! In other words, the early Christian Church adopted wholesale the pagan accounts of Mithra’s birth, as volume one clearly shows, and the Magi, or "Three Wise Men" story was simply a part of the same process! Can we continue to blame a satanic counterfeit when we find Mithra’s birth account grafted directly onto the later Gospel story of Jesus’ birth? In fact, we need only add to this story the crucifixion of Mithra from volume one to see how complete the picture becomes!

I have already noted in volume one the tremendous similarities of Mithraism to Christianity, which at the time, if I may restate this, caused me considerable concern. In fact, as my research intensified, my concerns turned to fear: fear that my Christianity was nothing but regurgitated Mithraic doctrine. Indeed, history relates that for the first three centuries of this era Mithraism and Christianity competed with one another (or perhaps it is best said that Christianity competed with Mithraism) for supremacy in the Roman Empire. This continued, until, finally¾ and through tremendous compromises¾ Christianity won out.

It is interesting to understand that Mithraism was quite tolerant of other religions¾ which, of course, accounted for its ultimate demise. But, unlike Mithraism, the new Universal Christian Church had no tolerance for any other faith. Following the plan of its founder, from the beginning it had set out to conquer rivals by any means¾ usually by the total assimilation of their theology. So, once the church fathers had assimilated Mithraism, the very memory of the once dominant pagan religion was erased from the memories of Christianity, while indeed, its savior-god simply became a virgin-born deity renamed Jesus the Christ. This is when the real Jewish Joshua/Jesus had to become the son of the supreme god of the Trinity, after which, it would then follow that he had to die on a cross for the sins of the world.

Now, within Mithraism we find an interesting twist as opposed to the other Sun-god type religions descended from Babylon. This difference in the account of Mithra at once tells us that it was his identity that was grafted onto the life of the real Jewish Joshua/Jesus: Mithra, it was said, WAS BORN OF A MORTAL VIRGIN and attended by shepherds and Magi who brought gifts to the little new-born savior-god. In fact, this legend was responsible for the Christian account of Jesus being born in a cave. Accordingly, a cave was found in Bethlehem in which Jesus was supposed to have been born, and over which the Catholics have long since raised a church.

If you need further convincing that Mithra’s birth was the source of the Gospel legends, consider that, according to Forlong’s Encyclopedia of Religions, THE BIRTH CAVE OF JESUS IN BETHLEHEM WAS A PAGAN PLACE OF WORSHIP LONG BEFORE HIS TIME. IN THIS CAVE TAMMUZ WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN OF HIS VIRGIN-MOTHER AND IT WAS THERE THAT HE WAS LATER MOURNED AFTER HIS CRUCIFIXION. In other words, the ancient Israelite apostate worship of Tammuz was flourishing in Bethlehem at a remote time, where, according to pagan-Israelite tradition, he was said to have been born. And it was this same cave that was later assigned as Jesus’ birthplace by the Christian Church!

Perhaps we can completely understand how thorough the Christian Church fathers were in their process of assimilation by relating the other deeds of Mithra before his death and resurrection and comparing them to Jesus’ deeds. They included healing the sick, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, and making the lame walk. He also was supposed to have cast out evil demons, and interestingly enough, Mithra was called Peter and bore the ancient Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, which, remember, was a peculiar feature of the Egyptian Mysteries.

Walker writes: "Before returning to heaven, Mithra celebrated a Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory of this, his worshippers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross." "It was called mizd, Latin missa, English mass." When Mithra died on a cross, his image was laid to rest in a rock tomb, which, when added to the above and the information presented in volume one, tells us why The Catholic Encyclopedia admitted that the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity disturbed the early church fathers.

The fact of Mithra’s importance, not only in pagan Rome, but in the new-born Roman Christian Religion, is a truth that we shall continue to uncover. It certainly should be clear why the early "church fathers" went to great lengths to hide the truth from the following generations of Christians by their wholesale destruction of books and scrolls¾ writings that outlined the religions of the old Sun-gods and their "virgin" Mother-goddesses.

Even though in volume one I presented ample evidence of the wholesale destruction of books by the Catholic Church during the centuries of their existence, let’s look at yet one more account, which concerns the great library of Alexandria, built by Ptolemy: "This Library became the most extensive and celebrated of the ancient world, containing some 700,000 manuscript books at the time it was savagely destroyed, in 391 A.D., by the benighted Christian zeal and fury of Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria and his crazy monks of Nitria, as related in Kingsley’s Hypatia or any history of the times."

I say now that the damnable war on secular education is no accident of history: it was and continues to be a well executed plan that has robbed the human race of tremendous knowledge. In fact, the very information you are reading here, and have read in volume one, was the intended target of this Catholic "holy" war. Although badly damaged, thankfully enough of the truth of history remains to reveal the deception.

In regards to the "Wise Men" of Matthew, let’s recall here some words from Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: "‘Wise men’ is a translation of the Greek ‘magoi,’ which has entered our language by way of the Latin as ‘magi.’ The word is derived from ‘magu,’ the name given to their priests by the Persian Zoroastrians. Throughout ancient history, the priests were considered the repositories of important knowledge. Not only did they know the techniques for the propitiation of the gods, but¾ in Babylonia particularly¾ they studied the heavenly bodies and their influence upon the course of human affairs. The priests were thereof learned astrologers."

Everyone is undoubtedly familiar with the story of the "magic" star that the Magi saw in the east predicting the birth of Jesus, who, as it turns out in Christian legend, was a little savior-god just like their beloved Mithra. They apparently followed this star to Jerusalem, where it vanished, unfortunately, just long enough to cause them to go to Herod and ask about the King of the Jews.

Before preceding further, let’s note that there is absolutely no reference in the "OT" messianic prophecies to make a star announce the birth of the Messiah, although a few attempts to draw prophetic connections have been made. Some have utilized Numbers 24:17: ". . . there shall come a Star out of Jacob . . . and shall smite the corners of Moab . . ." to refer to the star of the Magi. However, most scholars understand this to be a reference to King David. Others cite Isaiah 60:3: "And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." This passage, however, refers to Isaiah’s vision of an ideal Jerusalem yet in the distant future, meaning in the end-time. But, in all fairness and given the tremendous pagan implications, who can blame the many NT scholars for suppressing their urge to explain this strange account from the "Old" Testament?

Actually, even the author of Matthew doesn’t attempt to relate this story of the "prophetic star" to the "OT," which is odd considering, as we’ve seen and will continue to see, he doesn’t seem to miss too many opportunities to connect the tales of Jesus to an "OT" prophecy! What’s more, in view of the fact that only Matthew has this account, the entire episode is rather suspect in the birth account of Jesus¾ unless we consider the legends from Persia, the land of the Wise Men, and of their god Mithra!

Accordingly, the Jewish priests told both King Herod and the Magi of a prophecy in Micah 5:2: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." The Tanakh gives the proper translation: "And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath, least among the clans of Judah, from you one shall come forth to rule Israel for Me¾ one whose origin is from of old, from ancient times."

Of course, as in most New Testament "fulfillment’s" of prophecy (especially in Matthew), there is a problem here. First of all, let us note that the rest of Micah’s prophecy isn’t related in the NT account¾ which it should be because it follows immediately upon 5:2 and is part of the prophecy: "Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this man [this one] shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land."

The rest of the chapter goes on to show that this prophecy will be fulfilled in the end time! Please don’t take my word for it! Turn to Micah 5 and read this verse in context of the chapter: the time-setting is the end when the restoration of Israel takes place! I ask you here, and will ask repeatedly before the end of this book, where is the 2,000 year gap between the coming of the Messiah, the restoration of Israel, and the Kingdom of God to be found in the entirety of "Old" Testament prophecy? This is a question that will be answered later, but for now keep it in mind as we look very closely at this particular prophecy of the Israelite Messiah.

First of all, as so many biblical scholars point out, the Messiah didn’t necessarily have to be born in Bethlehem but needed only to have come from a certain family/clan that originated in this region: namely the House of David. We will discuss this in some detail later, but suffice it to say that once again we find an instance where the New Testament composers, having no real understanding of messianic prophecy, went to elaborate extremes to weave a story around Bethlehem in the account of Jesus’ life. This was because the real historical Jesus, according to oral tradition, was from Nazareth¾ not Bethlehem!

The real Jesus was a Galilean and had no connection to the birthplace of King David, which is proven by John 7:42-43. The people of his day, when they heard Jesus speak, said, "This is the Christ. But others said, shall Christ come out of Galilee? hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him."

Throughout the Gospels Jesus is constantly referred to as a Galilean with no reference that he was from Bethlehem, outside the birth narratives. Of course this proved inconvenient for whoever wrote the books of Matthew and Luke, because they knew that Jesus, if he was the Messiah, had to be of David’s family (or the House of David): hence a spurious genealogy was drafted. In their misunderstanding of Scripture, the writers of these two Gospels believed that Jesus had to be literally from Bethlehem (the City of David, as they call it): hence a spurious account of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem was composed, which would also preserve the Mithraic tradition of the pagan Christians converts. Of course, while composing a Bethlehem birth account, the Gospel writers had to also explain that Jesus was from Nazareth because, undoubtedly, at the time the Gospels were written too many people still knew where the real Jewish Joshua/Jesus was from.

Attempting to reconcile his misinterpretations of the messianic prophecies to what both history and legend had related of Jesus, the author of the Gospel of Luke says: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [i.e., Quirinius] was governor of Syria. And all went to be taxed every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David."

Luke 1:5 dates the birth of Jesus in the "days of Herod, king of Judea," who died in 4 B.C. Yet, we find the taxation and journey from Galilee to Bethlehem to have occurred in response to census in the time Quirinius was governor of Syria. History plainly records that the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was governor of Syria affected only Judea, not Galilee, and it took place in 6-7 C.E., which was ten years after the death of Herod the Great!

This misinformation alone shoots a hole in the infallibility of the Gospel assertion, but add to this the following reasoning: can you imagine the efficient Romans requiring millions of people to suddenly become dislocated and to start traveling back to their ancestral homes to register for a simple tax? Think of the disruption of commerce¾ which could have hardly been compensated by the few pennies per person such a tax would have brought. It would be like me having to travel back to Kentucky (my birthplace) from Utah to pay my income tax, or to be counted in a census! Isaac Asimov notes: "Though this device has much to be said for it from the standpoint of literary economy, it has nothing to be said for it in the way of plausibility. The Romans couldn’t possibly have conducted so queer a census as that."

Again, this absurdity is told in an effort to reconcile the historical fact that Jesus was from Nazareth, and arose from a misunderstanding of "OT" prophecy by the Gentiles who wove the Gospel accounts! There was no reason for Joseph and Mary to be in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth, except to connect them to the Mithraic/Tammuz birth cave/stable found there. If you doubt this, then consider that in another version of the Mithraic birth account, the step-father of the "savior-god" goes to his ancestral home to pay his taxes. It is during this visit that the little "savior" is born and that the Three Wise Men bring gifts of frankincense and myrrh!

Returning to the Magi account: after the royal audience, we are told, the Magi went on their way to Bethlehem to find the Messiah. Now these were not just three men on camels bouncing along a dusty back road out of Jerusalem. They were supposedly fabulously wealthy and would have been traveling with large households of servants, guards, flocks, herds, household goods, (and who knows what else), on their way from an audience with King Herod. Imagine the scene upon their arrival in a small town like Bethlehem. And, if this were not enough, we are to believe that, coincidentally, the "magic" star just happened to have reappeared after their Herodian audience, and went on to lead them to Jesus, WHERE IT STOOD SHINING OVER HIS HOUSE LIKE A NEON SIGN FLASHING IN THE NIGHT SAYING: "HERE I AM KING HEROD, COME KILL ME!"

We won’t get into the strange astrological implications of this star and the fact that such stories were common in mythology¾ including a prophesying star in the story of Mithra’s birth. But it is interesting to note that the Magi clearly say "we have seen HIS star in the east." This means they didn’t see just any old star, but a specific star associated with the birth of a god! Kersey Graves writes: "‘. . . among the ancient there seems to have been a very general idea that the arrival of gods and great personages, who were expected to come, would be announced by a star.’ And the cases of . . . Caesar, Pythagoras, Yu, Chrishna, and Christ, may be cited in proof of this declaration." "Mr. Faber (in his ‘Origin of Idolatry,’ vol. ii. p. 77) reports Zoraster (600 B.C.) as prophetically announcing to ‘the wise men’ of that country, that a Savior would be born, ‘attended by a star at noonday.’"

It may be even more important to this discussion to consider a point made by T.S Doane: "The Jews had already, long before Christ’s day, dabbled in astrology, and the various forms of magic which became connected with it. . . . They were much given to cast horoscopes from the numerical value of a name."

First of all, it needs to be made clear that by no means did the majority of first century Jews "dabble in astrology," as Mr. Doane implies, but it is a certain that some did, and it is likely that this was a leftover superstition from their Babylonian captivity. It then stands to reason that such Jews were the more superstitious among their kindred, and these people would certainly be somewhat opposed to the orthodox teachings of the Hebrew faith because of the strong denouncements in the Scriptures of their practices.

If this was the case, I then propose that these superstitious Jews in first century Judea would have been disposed to believe the stories of Jesus’ miracles¾ and more to the point, such people, who might be less familiar with the Holy Scriptures than other Jews, would be the ones more likely to believe in a Messiah if someone were using distorted Scriptural prophecies! This means that the first century Jews (called Nazarenes), who made up the first "Christian" Church, would have been more easily drawn from this superstitious underclass. If these people did believe in such things as a "lucky star" and other miracle accounts of their new-found Messiah, it certainly would form a building block on which the Gentiles of Rome could stand in later centuries¾ especially in the assimilation of Mithraism into the later Christian Church. This is a point to seriously consider especially when history shows that Christianity didn’t grow into a large church among the Jews. This means that the majority of Jews, who were historically quite "orthodox," would never have succumbed to the pagan superstitions of Christianity in light of their own knowledge of the faith of Abraham.

But, meanwhile back in Bethlehem, and after a very short visit for men having traveled for months on end to see this "god," the Wise Men are ready to leave for home after being warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, who had asked them to report to him the young child’s whereabouts.

At this point there are two stories in the account of Matthew that are really nothing short of incredible. When Herod learns that the Wise Men have left for their own country he sends an army to destroy all the little babies in Bethlehem of two years old and under¾ according to the time the Wise Men had first seen the star in the east (which, as we find in 2:16, must have been two years previous to their arrival). Additionally, the account says that Herod not only killed all the babies in Bethlehem, but in "all the coast thereof."

First of all, it is certainly a stretch of the imagination to believe that this notorious king would have not had his spies follow the Wise Men and was thus already in possession of the knowledge he wanted! Anyone familiar with the history of King Herod would know this to be a fact. Second, with such an array of wealth and pageantry entering into the house of Joseph and Mary in a town the size of Bethlehem—NOT TO MENTION THAT "MAGIC" STAR THAT STOOD GLEAMING OVER THEIR HOUSE LIKE A NEON ROAD MAP!¾ the information of whom the Magi visited would be widely known, rendering it absolutely unnecessary to murder all the country’s small children¾ an act that would have probably caused a revolt against this hated man.

Think about it for a moment! Would you as a parent stand helplessly by as soldiers ripped your baby son from your arms and butchered him before your eyes? Think about thousands of parents¾ all at once¾ in this predicament! I’d say that if any one thing could precipitate a riot, this would do it!

Furthermore, there is not one account outside Matthew about Herod’s slaughter of the innocent children of Bethlehem. For instance, Josephus, who records very trivial things about Herod’s reign, never mentioned this. Kersey Graves writes of Josephus: "And yet he not only lived in that country, but was related to Herod’s wife, and regarded him [Herod] as his most implacable enemy, and professes to write out the whole history of his wicked life in the most minute detail, devoting thirty-seven chapters of his large work to this subject . . . And yet Josephus says not a word about his inhuman and infamous butchery of the babes which Matthew charges him with (about fourteen thousand in number) . . ." (To this criticism I would add that had the mysterious star of the Magi not disappeared in the first place when the royal travelers reached Jerusalem, only to reappear after they left, then they wouldn’t have had any reason to go to Herod and inform him that a "king" of the Jews had been born. This would have simply avoided this supposed great slaughter of the innocents!)

Please give this whole account some serious thought! What an absolutely untenable scenario! It is clear to any thinking person that this absurd story was woven merely to bring into the Gospels the absorbed Mithraic legends of a Roman Sun-god’s birth ¾ complete with "Three Wise Men," shepherds, and the "lucky star," while explaining Jesus’ being born in Bethlehem when in fact he was from Nazareth! And if you think this is a far-fetched statement, there is further information to clearly show why such an account about King Herod wound up in the Gospels.

The fact is that there are few of the pagan Sun-god savior birth accounts that don’t include an evil king who wished to kill the innocent little "savior-god" before or after he was born. I will not go into this history here, accept to mention the very significant story that "innocents" were slaughtered in the tale of Nimrod’s birth!

Of course, the gospeller of Matthew had to make this supposed slaughter fit the "OT" prophecy of the Messiah, so he came up with a real dilly: Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, we are assured, fulfills the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15, "A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not."

Once again, only a quick glance at this prophecy will inform the reader that it deals with the restoration of Israel in the end time and has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of the future Messiah! Notice what God Himself says of "Rachel’s weeping," "Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they [that is Israel] shall come again from the land of the enemy." This is hardly talking about the birth of Jesus and a fraudulent account of slaughtered children. Besides, the children in first century Bethlehem were Jewish¾ the sons of Leah¾ and Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin whose descendants formed two different tribes!

This all leads into the next event: after the departure of the Wise Men, God supposedly warns Joseph in a dream to take the infant Jesus and his mother and to "flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him." So, we are told, Joseph and Mary took Jesus that very night and fled to Egypt. Such a turn of events is significant because, as we will discuss later, THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION TO THE JESUS LEGEND ISN’T COINCIDENTAL! At any rate, only Matthew’s account mentions this Egyptian journey, which wouldn’t be too serious of a fault if it were not for another assertion in the Gospel.

We are again assured that all of this fulfilled yet another prophecy of the Messiah, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." This Scripture is found in Hosea 11:1: "When Israel was a child, [i.e., in its infancy as a nation] I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols."

Now, if Hosea 11 is a prophecy of the Messiah, then not only is he one and the same as Israel, which the "Old" Testament prophecies prove he was not, but he also left Egypt and SACRIFICED TO BAAL! Bluntly stated, if Hosea 11:1 speaks of the future Jesus, then so does verse 2, which means that we must necessarily believe that Jesus sacrificed to Baal in order to "fulfill" what was spoken by the prophet! In fact, if this was a prophecy of Jesus Christ, then we can read in Hosea that he should have returned to Egypt to have fulfilled the rest of it: the sword should have raged against him and devoured him, and he should have gone into slavery!

Of course, Hosea 11 is clearly a prophecy about the nation of Israel and not the Messiah. Once again the prophecy of the Messiah is not only misunderstood in the New Testament Gospels, but the sloppy misapplication of Hebrew Scripture is in itself an eyewitness to the fact that Gentiles were tampering with something they knew nothing about.

It is interesting to check the many books on the subject of Jesus’ life and see how they work around the Egyptian story passage in light of Mark, Luke, and John’s account. Some completely ignore it while others offer two or three explanations. The problem they have with this story is that no matter how one looks at it, the two accounts are in total conflict and by no stretch of the imagination harmonize with one another¾ as we shall now see.

Luke 2:21 records that when Jesus was eight days old (he and his parents were still residing in Bethlehem) he was circumcised. The next event directly conflicts with the flight to Egypt story: "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord." The Hebrew days of purification were forty in number, meaning that Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem for well over a month following the birth of Jesus, after which, according to Luke, they went straight to Jerusalem, where Herod, according to Matthew, was waiting to kill their son! No mention of a midnight flight to Egypt here!

Let’s add yet another criticism at this point: we are told in Matthew 2:22 that Joseph was afraid to go back to Jerusalem after his Egyptian visit because Archelaus "did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod," therefore (being again warned in a dream) he went to Galilee. This, we are told, fulfilled some unknown prophecy of the Messiah being called a Nazarene. Yet, another son of Herod was ruling in Galilee, namely, Antipas! This raises the question as to why one son of Herod would be less likely to kill Jesus than another?

Anyway, after the Temple visitation, Luke 2:39 tells us that the "holy" family returned to Nazareth. Matthew 2:23 picks this up after the "holy" family’s Egyptian holiday story, and, as noted above, declares the return to Nazareth yet fulfilled another prophecy that the Messiah shall be called a Nazarene. Now if you have one of those Bibles that has a center reference, like the one I’m now using, it is likely that you will not see an "OT" Scripture reference for Matthew 2:23 as to why Jesus was called a Nazarene. The Collegeville Bible Commentary says of this: "The precise source of the quotation is not certain; the texts most often cited as POSSIBLE SOURCES are Judg. 13:5, 7 and Isa. 11:1." The editors, perhaps not understanding to what they are admitting, go on to say, "At any rate, the [NT] episode explains why Jesus was connected with Nazareth and why he began his public ministry in Galilee." They are exactly right! The real Jewish Jesus was a Nazarene, and the clumsy attempt to have him born in Bethlehem makes absolutely no sense.

But, let’s not bypass the commentary’s reference to Judges. Read what Judges 13:5 actually says: "For lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." This was, of course, the promise of God to the barren wife of Manoah of Zorah that she would conceive. The son born of her was Samson, the great "OT" hero. He did become a Nazirite, which is a man who has taken a vow before God. A Nazirite would not cut his hair, nor would he drink any intoxicating drink. If by some stretch of the imagination someone wants to apply this vow to Jesus, the NT directly refutes this assumption in Matthew 11:19 and in Luke 7:34. More to the point, the vow of a Nazirite has absolutely nothing to do with the city of Nazareth. Furthermore, if you want to claim Judges 13:5 as a messianic prophecy, Jesus did not fulfill the second part of this prophecy: he never delivered Israel out of the hands of the Philistines. Again, we see further evidence of the shaky Scriptural grasp of the NT Christian gospellers!

What about the second "possible source" for the Matthew 2:23 claim connecting Jesus to Nazareth? Isaiah 11:1 says: "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:" This Scripture does not mention anything about Nazareth: there is simply no such passage in all the "Old" Testament about the Messiah being called a Nazarene! The mention of Matthew’s gospeller that Jesus was called a Nazarene to fulfill prophecy brings us to yet another so-called "fulfillment" of prophecy.

In Matthew 4:13-16, we read: "And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nepthalim: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, the land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."

This Scripture is found in Isaiah 9:1: "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. Isaiah 9:2: "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined."

Asimov’s Guide to the Bible writes: "The two verses in Isaiah do not, however, belong together. The first verse (9:1) belongs to the material in the eighth chapter, in which Isaiah is talking about the destruction, not long before, of Israel by the Assyrian forces under Sargon. The second verse (9:2) represents a complete change of subject and even a shift from prose to poetry. It starts a coronation hymn which might have been written, originally, to celebrate the anointing of a new king, possibly Hezekiah." "In the Hebrew Bible (and in the new Jerusalem Bible as well), Isaiah 9:1, with its reference to Naphtali and Zebulon, is to be found as the last verse of the eighth chapter (Isaiah 8:23), while what is Isaiah 9:2 in the King James Version begins the ninth chapter as Isaiah 9:1. This is by far the more logical separation of the two chapters, and the combination of the two verses in the same chapter was undoubtedly influenced by their quotation together by Matthew . . . so that he might indulge in his hobby of making as much of Jesus’ career as possible seem to have been predicted by the Old Testament."

For the sake of argument, I have treated Isaiah 9:1 as a as genuine messianic prophecy—even though it is anything but.

The fallacy of "Matthew’s" claim can be seen by looking in a Hebrew interlinear Bible, the Tanakh, or The Holy Scriptures. There, you will find 9:1 missing and at the end of chapter eight! On the other hand, if you have the Septuagint you will find the Christian arrangement, and, at the same time, the source of the gospeller’s information! This offers great insight into the authorship of the Gospel of "Matthew!"

Of course, the KJV translators, using many Catholic sources for their work, kept the verse arrangement even though this breaks the continuity of the original Hebrew text, from which they were supposed to be working.

At any rate, all these muddled attempts to make Jesus fit some Gentile-perceived prophecy of the Messiah brings up another point of history and Scripture. That is Luke’s assertion in 2:22 about the purification. The Complete Gospels write: "Such a custom of presenting a firstborn to God in the temple is unknown in Jewish tradition." "The Law (NUM. 3:47-48) required a payment of a fee, about which Luke is silent." What this admission tells us is that once again we find a large degree of ignorance about the Law of Moses, BY WHOEVER WAS WRITING THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS!

If only Christians could put away the stories, and therefore the prejudices of a lifetime, they could clearly see the tissue of fables woven around the birth of Jesus, not the least of which is the flight to Egypt story.

As we end this chapter, consider this question: what if you had grown up in a place where there was no such thing as Christianity, and one day you came upon a Christian missionary? Now this missionary began teaching you about Jesus from the New Testament, after which you went to your local library and discovered that centuries before the foundation of Christianity, a deity, who was a "messiah," was born of a virgin, had a king trying to kill him (who then slaughtered innocent babies), fled to Egypt, had three wise men visit him, had twelve disciples, ate a "last supper" with these disciples¾ instituting the symbols of bread and wine as his flesh and blood, and then was crucified on a cross? Would you be eager to believe the missionary’s version of Jesus, or would you use logic and recognize that if

you wanted to accept such a story of a human deity dying for your sins, then you should actually be looking to Mithra for your salvation? In other words, would you have faith in the original, or the later copy!

These last questions are but a few thoughts on which to continue the information of this book.