Here I’m going to digress for a moment to offer some background facts in the Gospel narratives about the arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus. Even though the accounts in the Gospels seem to reflect some passing historical truth, I charge that much of it, as indeed the Gospels as a whole, is thoroughly paganized. Now, if this is the case, the following information should be seriously considered in the accounts of Jesus’ death, especially in light of his assumed pagan identity.

In volume one we saw from tradition that the patriarch Shem was still alive and ruling on earth when Cush, Semiramis, and Nimrod were spreading their apostate religion. This apostasy began with Ham the brother of Shem, and continued on through his son Cush¾ the Baal of history. According to the story, Baal was put to death in Egypt by orders of Shem¾ the high priest of the Almighty, the Elohim of Noah!

In the account, 72 "righteous men" were dispatched by the high priest to put Cush on trial. Accordingly, they executed him. After this act, Cush was succeeded by his son, Nimrod in the Mystery Religion, who took the attributes of his father and absorbed his legends.

As history clearly relates, the death of Nimrod was without doubt a conspiracy between Semiramis and her officials. Indeed, Nimrod’s death could have only come about by such an action. How was this conspiracy carried out? First of all, history tells us that Semiramis deceived Nimrod into giving her the rule of his kingdom for a time. This meant that the most important part of the conspiracy was in place: Semiramis was in total control of the kingdom. Now came the tricky part¾ the execution of Nimrod, the "Sun-god" of the Mysteries! It had to be handled delicately if Semiramis was to emerge the undisputed queen of Babylon and also retain the love and adoration of her people.

The Babylonian officials, corrupt and stained to the core, were all too happy to cooperate with their beautiful Queen Semiramis in Nimrod’s murder. Yet they, along with their queen, would not have wanted to be seen in any way connected to his death. What they needed was a good cover story! In fact, Semiramis realized that if she appeared in the whole affair to be herself a victim, she would not only be exonerated for Nimrod’s death, but she would actually emerge more loved and respected than ever! The perfect scapegoats would be someone who was already despised within the Babylonian Mysteries, that is to say the one man who represented the true Creator.

After the execution of Baal the adherents of the Mysteries were taught to hate the enemy of their "truth." The high priest Shem, who represented the Elohim of Noah, was declared in reality the priest of Satan¾ he was of his father, the Devil! In such a role, this "false priest" was doing all he could to destroy the true faith. So Semiramis concocted a story that the high priest had demanded Nimrod’s death. Perhaps she told that Shem himself was planning to invade the kingdom with some powerful army in order to arrest Nimrod and destroy their beloved Mystery Religion. If Semiramis, who had been given the rule of the kingdom, didn’t act, she and the entire kingdom would be in ruins. For the good of the people, Nimrod had to die.

With the disciples of Nimrod standing beside her, Semiramis declared to the people that the will of the heavenly father Baal had been made known. He would allow his son to die for the people: although innocent, and unjustly condemned, Nimrod would willingly bear their sins and the sins of all who would believe on him, and by his death they would be saved. So, as far as the people of the kingdom knew, on orders from the high priest Shem, Nimrod was crucified in the grove of his mother, who knelt beside his cross and mourned. What a pitiful sight! All the people mourned for their savior, and, at the same time, all came to recognize the tremendous sacrifice that the "mother" had made for the good of the world!

Now the Mysteries took on a new dimension. One last vestige of the religion of Noah could be abolished. The annual commemoration on Nisan 14 was replaced. Nimrod would be a sacrificial lamb, and new symbols would be instituted by which his adherents could obtain salvation and eternal life. What’s more, the blame would hereafter be placed on the priests of the true Creator: THE BABYLONIAN MYSTERIES WOULD HAVE A DOCTRINE THAT THE MESSIAH, THE SON OF GOD, WHO CAME TO SAVE THE WORLD AND FORGIVE SINS, WAS CRUCIFIED BY THE SERVANTS OF ISRAEL’S CREATOR! These men would become the villains in a story that picked up "steam" as it rolled through history.

Recalling the "demands" of Shem, the legend declared, "it is good that one man die for the people." For thousands of years this theme continued through the different versions of the Mysteries until it finally turns up in the account of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Although one can argue that this reconstruction is based partly on speculation, it is, nonetheless, based on the sound historical records of the many different mythologies of the nations where the savior-god doctrines are found.

In more than one legend of the Sun-god, it was the corrupt priesthood who had him crucified! I will here offer just one of these to make my point: ". . . his sorrows were endured for their salvation; ‘he was wounded for their transgressions, and bruised for their iniquities; the chastisement of their peace was upon him, and by his stripes they were healed;’ ‘he was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth.’ The majesty of his silence, whilst the ministers of an offended god were nailing him by the hands and feet to Mount Caucasus . . ."

This, dear reader, is the account of Nimrod’s crucifixion, nailed to the cross by the servants of God. I can’t help but believe that this account plays some part in the later story of Jesus’ death. At the very least it served as a backdrop to blame the Levitical priesthood of Israel’s Creator for the death of the pagan savior of mankind.

Christian evangelist Dr. Herman L. Hoeh wrote an article some years ago entitled, "Twelve Reasons Why Jesus’ Trial Was Illegal." In this article Dr. Hoeh went to great lengths to show that the Jews violated many of their own laws, as well as the laws of the Torah, to conduct Jesus’ trial and finally execute him. Although this is the traditional Christian view, what does the Gospel account of Jesus’ trial really tell us? This can be answered by examining both the Gospels and the article by Herman Hoeh together.

Regarding Dr. Hoeh’s presentation, there are a number of problems right from the start. First of all, he was writing from the perspective that the story recorded in the Gospels was flawless¾ infallibly preserved by God. Second, he didn’t take into account who it was that allegedly conducted the trial. Pharisees! The very name ought to cause anyone to suspect the charge put forward in the title of Dr. Hoeh’s article.

History tells us, as indeed even the NT account confirms, the extreme care the Pharisees had regarding the laws and traditions of their people. Repeatedly we read in the NT of Jesus supposedly condemning these men for their "picky" little points in ruling the religious life of Judea. Manfred Barthel writes of the Pharisees ". . . painstaking attempts to obey all the commandments (more than six hundred altogether) must have made them fairly conspicuous. For example, as it was forbidden to speak to (or even look at) a woman in public, so many Pharisees went as far as to walk through the streets with their eyes closed whenever they suspected that they were about to meet with temptation. The high incidence of bruised foreheads and bloody noses among this extremist wing of the Pharisees won them the derisive nickname ‘the Bloody Pharisees.’"

It seems to be asking a lot for any thinking person to believe Dr. Hoeh’s charges of mass violations of the law in light of the above facts. But, as a Christian writing for other Christians, he takes it for granted that the statement of his title is fact and goes on to make his case against the Pharisees. Now let it be known that Herman Hoeh was by no means the first to condemn the Jews on the point that Jesus’ trial was illegal. I only single out his article because I happen to have it at hand and because it succinctly lays out the points so often presented in defense of this argument.

Dr. Hoeh starts his attack by quoting from a book entitled The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, by Jewish author, Max Radin, a professor of Law (at the time of the article) at the University of California. Dr. Hoeh writes: "Mr. Radin, who has been taught from childhood to believe what he does, says there is ‘no clear statement of how the knowledge of the trial came to those who reported it.’" (Isn’t it interesting that Dr. Hoeh criticizes Max Radin on a point of which ALL OF US ARE EQUALLY GUILTY! Are not most people, religiously speaking, products of their upbringing? Is not Herman Hoeh merely defending Christianity because he himself was reared a Christian?) "Radin has been taught to believe that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke nor John had any personal evidence because the trial was private, a secret affair."

Well, Mr. Radin has a good point! Even if there were such men who wrote the books that bear their name, how would they have had first-hand information on the fine points of the trial considering that they were not there? Here is Dr. Hoeh’s answer to this question: "What he [Radin] neglected to say, of course, was that Jesus Christ, who was condemned, rose from the dead and is alive today. The One who heard everything, who was there on trial, rose from the dead and told the disciples what occurred so that they could report it to us that we might know today."

Mr. Radin "neglected" to say that Jesus rose from the dead and told his disciples what to write? Incredible! Maybe he understood instead that the Messiah of Israel was never to have been in such a situation and therefore didn’t want to follow the Christian example by appealing to a Babylonian deity and his "sacred" traditions! Of course the truth is that we are again face to face with the major proof of the New Testament offered by the ministers of all Christian religions: faith! There is no concrete evidence, only faith that God chose the Catholics of the first three centuries to preserve His "New Covenant," which is based on the claim that God Himself was born of a young Jewish woman in the first century C.E., died, and rose from the dead to forgive mankind of their sins if they would only eat his flesh and drink his blood!

Continuing his criticism, Dr. Hoeh also quotes The Prosecution of Jesus, by Richard Wellington Husband: "According to the common view the right to try capital cases [cases involving the death penalty] and even the right to pronounce sentences, still rested with the Sanhedrin, but the actual penalty could not be inflicted until the governor [in this case Pilate] had given his sanction." Dr. Hoeh counters: "But this view is not true. The Jews not only had the power to try certain crimes, but they had the power to convict and the power to execute in all but cases of treason and sedition." "The assumption that the Jews had no power to execute is incorrectly based on John 18: 31-32. Here the Jews had said that, ‘It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. Lifting it out of its context, critics have assumed that the Jews had no lawful right whatsoever to put anyone to death. But this does not happen to be the case." "Have we forgotten how Stephen died? The Jews said, ‘He blasphemes,’ and they stoned him to death. . . . When Jesus first preached his sermon the day of Pentecost in Nazareth in Galilee, the Jews sought to stone Him to death. IF IT WERE ILLEGAL, THEY WOULDN’T HAVE DARED TRY IT. THE ROMANS WOULD HAVE POUNCED ON THEM."

Herman Hoeh also notes the case of the woman caught in adultery. The Jewish leaders were going to stone her, and Dr. Hoeh points out, again according to the Gospel account, that they had no legal reason why they could not have done so. Indeed, Dr. Hoeh tells his readers that "Jesus could have said very simply, ‘Don’t you know under what law you are living?’ And what would they have felt like before the Romans¾ if that would have got to Pilate’s ears? But Jesus didn’t say any such thing. Jesus accepted the fact that they had the right to execute adulteresses and other criminals." Dr. Hoeh goes on to comment that in the case of Paul, "wherever the Jews were settled it is plain that the Jews had the legal right to execute the penalty of their law." "Josephus even bears testimony to the fact that the Jews could execute criminals and enforce punishment for any violation of the Mosaic law."

But Herman Hoeh’s arguments aside, the general consensus among Christian scholars is that the Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus death had no power to execute anyone. Let us see who is correct in this matter—and what it means to this discussion.

The fact is that Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, book 14, chapter 9:3) tells us that the Sanhedrin had the right to condemn someone to death during the time of Antipater and his son Herod (later the Great). This would have been 47-43 B.C.E., and is the reference that Dr. Hoeh bases his statement on. Karl Kautsky asks in his book, Foundations of Christianity: "Was the Sanhedrin still allowed to pronounce death sentences at that time [during the "trial" of Jesus]? The Talmud says: ‘Forty years before the destruction of the Temple [70 C.E.] the power of life and death was taken from Israel." This would have been 30 C.E., or, if we follow the traditional dates of Jesus’ birth and death, before or very near the time of Jesus’ trial¾ again according to the Gospels. So apparently Antipater and Herod allowed the Sanhedrin the right to execute and this right continued until 30 C.E.

Of course, all this supposes that we can actually know in what year Jesus was born, and especially the year in which he died¾ all of which is purely a matter for speculation.

Dr. Hoeh is entirely wrong if he holds on to the year in which he assigns Jesus’ death; on the other hand he is entirely correct, if he will concede that Jesus’ trial didn’t occur in the year to which he assigns it! The fact is that the same Gospel that gives Dr. Hoeh support in his arguments, also tells us that Jesus couldn’t have died in the year(s) most theologians support, because he was born in the reign of King Herod the Great, which ended in 4 B.C.E.

However according to the Gospel account, we are asked to believe that Jesus was "about 30" in the 15th year of Emperor Tiberius, or 29 C.E.. This means, if you follow Luke’s account that Jesus’ ministry lasted for one and a half years, that he died in 30-31 C.E. Or, to follow John’s account of a three and a half year ministry, 32-33 C.E. Now the key words here are "about 30 years" of age. What if Jesus was 29 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius? Or what if he was 31 years old? Then there is that declaration in Matthew that he was born in the reign of King Herod the Great¾ which was, at the latest, 4 B.C.E. This means that, if Jesus was around 31 years old when he was killed, the year would have been about 26-27 C.E., and Herman Hoeh would be entirely correct in his arguments that the Sanhedrin had the power to execute! At any rate, we can see that the Gospels give us conflicting information, and it can be used to support any number of arguments¾ or to shoot them down.

Now what Dr. Hoeh is trying to prove is that the Gospels accounts are entirely correct regarding the details of the arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus. In other words, he, like all traditional Christianity, is looking for an excuse why the Romans weren’t guilty of Jesus’ death, and to thereby put the blame on the Jews. Dr. Hoeh concludes that the Jews didn’t want to appear to their people to be the ones responsible for killing Jesus, and therefore took him to the Roman authorities for the actual condemnation.

Karl Kautsky writes: "When the Gentile Christians took over the tradition of this death on the cross, they soon found a fly in the ointment: the tradition said that Jesus had been crucified by the Romans as a Jewish Messiah, as king of the Jews, that is, as a defender of Jewish independence and a traitor to Roman authority. After the fall of Jerusalem this tradition became doubly awkward. Christianity had come into complete opposition to Judaism, and in addition wanted to be on good terms with the Roman power. The trick was now to give the tradition such a twist that the guilt of Christ’s crucifixion should be shifted to the Jews and Christ himself cleared not merely of any violence, but of any feelings of Jewish patriotism or enmity to Rome." This is quite insightful considering that Kautsky was a pure-blood German and, as his book clearly spells out, had no use for the "Old" Testament!

In light of the above, let’s now consider the following question: when Christianity was finally accepted by the empire and its emperor, how could an arrogant and obstinate man like Constantine embrace a religion that his predecessors had not only persecuted for centuries, but that actually had murdered its savior-god? The answer is: he couldn’t have¾ unless the empire had been completely exonerated and the blame placed on someone else!

That this was the case can be demonstrated by recalling from volume one Constantine’s letters regarding the Council of Nicaea: "It seems unworthy to calculate this most holy feast [Easter] according to the customs of the Jews, who, having stained their hands with lawless crime, are naturally, in their foulness, blind in soul." "What right opinions can they [the Jews] have, who after the MURDER OF THE LORD WENT OUT OF THEIR MINDS AND ARE LED, NOT BY REASON, BUT BY UNCONTROLLED PASSION." "Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries . . ." Discussing the Jews, the Sabbath, and the Holy Days, Constantine writes, "Therefore this irregularity must be corrected, IN ORDER THAT WE MAY NO MORE HAVE ANYTHING IN COMMON WITH THE PARRICIDES AND MURDERERS OF OUR LORD." Needless to say, history tells us that Constantine’s edicts became law in the early Christian Church.

As we progress, let’s not forget the SATANIC HATRED with which the early Catholic Church treated the Jews and everything perceived as Jewish! And, if that same church had total control of the Gospel accounts, we can hardly expect that they would have left the blame of Jesus’ death on the Romans where it squarely belonged. (Indeed, the Coptic Christian Church even went so far as to "canonize" Pontius Pilate for his actions in the trial of Jesus!)

How significant to this point that the only evidence outside of the Gospels of Jesus’ life is this brief remark by Tacitus about a certain "Christus" "from whom they [the Christians] took their name," and who "had been put to death under Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilatus." He then says of Christianity that, "Repressed for a time, this detestable superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the fount of the evil, but at Rome, whither all irregularities and infamies tend to gravitate."

Not only does the only historical account of Jesus’ very existence tell us virtually nothing about the man, but notice whom Tacitus credits with the death of Jesus: PONTIUS PILATE! What does this tell us? It tells us that someone, when he was busy grafting into the sayings of Jesus a Mithraic account of his birth and death, had some reason why he could not let the facts of a Roman execution stand. The perfect scapegoats, to satisfy everyone involved, were the Jews, who were hated by all parties concerned! What’s more, the subsequent history of Christianity also bears out the fact that the "holy" or "chosen" people of God had to be abandoned if the religion was to attract converts and grow into a powerful church.

As I have continually noted, the truth of prophecy was that the Messiah was to come only to the Israelites¾ Jews included¾ and not to the Gentiles! (This is a point that is going to be amply demonstrated in the coming chapters.) So, something had to be done if the newly developed Gentile counterfeit "faith" was to survive. Hence, Jesus would be proclaimed the awaited Messiah whom Israel then rejected and murdered. With this established, and essentially ignoring the very foundation of "OT" messianic prophecy, the Gentile authors of the NT were free to proclaim that the Messiah was now sent to the world¾ meaning, of course, to the Gentiles!

Perhaps the greatest irony of the entire tragic episode is that these same Gentiles have been able to filter down to true Israel, i.e., the lost Ten Tribes, their pagan counterfeit god by using a first century Jewish victim named Joshua of Nazareth. From this totally irrational account and perversion of "OT" prophecy and Scripture, we present-day Israelites have come to reject God’s true plan for our salvation and have bought into the notion that at the trial of Jesus, a handful of first century Jews, by their denial of the "Messiah," could totally and completely negate God’s own Word and His unbreakable promises made to all Twelve Tribes of Israel!

In fact, let’s look here at the spectacle of Pilate literally washing his hands of the matter, declaring that "I am innocent of the blood of this just person." The next recorded words have led to the slaughter of millions of Jews and the vengeful persecution of millions more during the coming two thousand years: "Then answered all the people, and said, HIS BLOOD BE ON US, AND ON OUR CHILDREN." Century after century this has been the vindictive reason of Catholic murderers as they robbed and killed Jews. The tragic irony is that nothing of the kind was ever uttered: the entire story was a Catholic fabrication to make the Roman governor look good and exonerate the blood-guilt of the Roman Empire of Jesus’ death. Actually, one need only recall the chilling foundation of Simon Magus’ Christian Church to understand how his anti-Semitic rhetoric could evolve into blaming not just the Jews, but the very priesthood for Jesus’ death.

In fact, considering Simon’s hatred for the Jews, and remembering that he claimed to have been the resurrected Jesus Christ¾ having been put to death by the Jews only to rise from the dead on the third day¾ might give significant insight to Dr. Hoeh’s earlier remarks that "the one" who rose from the dead told his disciples what to write down! But this discussion of Simon will have to wait for the last chapter so that we may continue with the subject at hand.

Having gone off on a somewhat lengthy aside, we need now to return to the supposed trial of Jesus by the Pharisees. Regarding the article by Herman Hoeh, what, briefly, were his twelve points concerning the illegality of Jesus’ trial?

He begins by pointing out that a conspiracy existed between Judas and the high priest so that Judas "might betray" Jesus (Luke 22:3). Matthew 26:4 states that the high priest and the chief Jews wanted to take Jesus "by subtlety, and kill him." So, according to the one who wrote the general Gospel account, it was a murder conspiracy. Of course not only was such a plot illegal, it was inherently against everything the priesthood stood for! Dr. Hoeh’s points are further outlined below:

1. No formal charge of any crime was leveled for the execution of the arrest warrant: "There was no warrant for His arrest, no statement of what He had done. They just simply took Him." "Here is what Jewish law declares on this point. Mendelsohn says in his Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, page 274: ‘The testimony of an accomplice,’ that is, Judas, ‘is not permissible by Rabbinic law . . . and no man’s life, nor his liberty, nor his reputation can be endangered by the malice of one who has confessed himself a criminal.’ The very fact that Judas took a bribe from the judges was certainly proof that Judas was a criminal!"

But, Judas didn’t appear against Jesus as a witness! If you follow the Gospel accounts, the high priests had been gathering evidence for many months against Jesus. It was others who came forward with charges. The charges didn’t come from Judas Iscariot. In Luke 22 we find that Judas took "bribe" money only to tell the priests’ guards where they could find Jesus. Furthermore, just because the Gospels fail to say that there was an arrest warrant outlining the charges means very little. These Gospels are notorious for their inaccurate details, and they hardly lend themselves in support of Dr. Hoeh’s arguments!

2. The first part of Jesus’ trial was a preliminary examination "in a PRIVATE NIGHT PROCEEDING before Annas (John 18:12-14, 19-23)." "Notice the Jewish law on this point from Dupin’s book, Jesus Devant Caiaphe et Pilate (a French work): ‘Now the Jewish law prohibited all proceedings by night.’" "Salvador in his Institutions de Moise, pages 365, 366 declares: ‘An accused man was never subjected to private or secret examination . . .’ Yet Jesus was!" "According to Jewish law, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, the Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice." Here, Dr. Hoeh makes his first strong point about the illegality of the trial.

3. The indictment against Jesus was illegal: "According to the law of the Jews, declares Edersheim in Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Volume I, page 309: ‘The Sanhedrin did not, and could not originate charges.’"

4. The Sanhedrin held an illegal proceeding because it was before sunrise. Dr. Hoeh again quotes Mendelsohn, page 112.

5. The Sanhedrin convened to try a capital case on a day before an annual Sabbath, another illegality. The authority for this point rests on the Mishna, IV, 1, in regards to the Sanhedrin.

6. The trial was illegal because it was concluded in one day. The Mishna states: "A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day (IV, 1.)."

7. The sentence against Jesus was "illegally pronounced by the Sanhedrin because it was founded upon Jesus’ uncorroborated statement. The Jewish Court pronounced sentence on Jesus with no supporting evidence whatever!" This is based on Jesus’ admission in Matthew 26:64 that he was the Son of God. According to Maimonides (Sanhedrin IX, 2) a man cannot be convicted even by his confession. Dr. Hoeh notes: "Even Mr. Radin admits that Jesus’ testimony was not blasphemy. On pages 248 and 249 he says: ‘The ‘blasphemy’ which the Pentateuch mentions is a literal cursing of God or a direct defiance of him. . . . No such thing could have been charged against Jesus by his most inveterate enemies.’"

8. No merits of Jesus’ defense were considered.

9. "The condemnation of Jesus by part of the Sanhedrin was illegal because those who would have voted against the condemnation of Jesus were not there!" Again Dr. Hoeh cites Mendelsohn to prove his point.

10. "The sentence against Jesus was pronounced in a place forbidden by law. . . . The trial of Jesus wasn’t held in court! Read Luke 22:54: ‘And they seized him, and led him away, and brought him into the high priest’s house.’"

11. "Most of the Sanhedrin members themselves were legally disqualified to try Jesus." Dr. Hoeh quotes Josephus in naming the judges who were seated by their bribes.

12. The court "illegally switched the charges against Jesus from blasphemy to sedition and treason before Pilate." Dr. Hoeh concluded with the assertion that Jesus had been tried for sedition and treason¾ not for blasphemy! Of course, he lays this charge upon the plotting of the Jews: "The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy. But they did not want to execute Him. So they charged him with treason before the Romans. What the Jewish religious leaders had to do was to trump up charges of treason against Christ in order to bring it up to Pilate so that they would appear not to be responsible for His death."

Here Dr. Hoeh totally ignores the historical information available to make his point, and to be blunt, he simply can’t have it both ways! In his book about the crucifixion of Jesus, Dr. Hoeh supports the year 31 C.E. as the time of death, which would have been after the time the Sanhedrin lost the authority to execute. But here he is saying that the Jews had that authority, which would invalidate his argument that the crucifixion took place in 31 C.E.!

As I noted above, it is simply impossible to know the truth in the matter. However, let’s give Christian "scholarship" the benefit of the doubt, and say it was illegal at the time of Jesus death for the Sanhedrin to put a man to death, which is supported by John 18:34: "It is not lawful for us to put ANY MAN to death." Any man means no man under any circumstances! So either the Jewish rulers had no authority in any circumstances, or they could and did execute criminals. Which is it? We can thank Dr. Hoeh for pointing out the fact that the Gospels gives us two different answers!

After recounting that Pilate turned Jesus over to the "Jewish mob" to be killed, Dr. Hoeh writes: "But notice¾ Pilate did not even give a formal decision against Jesus Christ. He just turned Him over to the soldiers to do what the Jewish mob wanted." As we shall see, Dr. Hoeh is wrong about that!

According to Herman Hoeh’s reasoning, the only cause for the side-trip to Pilate in the first place was so that the Jews could avoid being seen as having put Jesus to death. But, also according to him, the Roman’s turned Jesus over to the "Jewish mob" which then "murdered" him. This means the whole episode of Jesus being taken from the court of the Jews to Pilate, as told in the Gospels, was for nothing. Furthermore, I might add a historical fact here: if the Jews had actually been the ones to have put Jesus to death, then they would have stoned him! There would have been no "Christian" crucifixion! This is another fact that Dr. Hoeh brought to our attention by reminding us about the woman caught in adultery and Stephen’s martyrdom!

This jumbled account is complicated by another disturbing fact: the generous attitude of Pilate. It is a fact of history that this man was notoriously bloody, and well known as an anti-Semite. However, John 19:4 has Pilate both reasoning with and then begging the Jews not only for the life of Jesus, but for his release. If Pilate had wanted Jesus released, he would have ordered it done! There isn’t a historian conversant with this time and place in Roman history that would dispute this conclusion. "Agrippa I, in a letter to Philo, calls Pilate ‘an inflexible and ruthless character,’ and reproaches him for "bribe taking, acts of violence, robberies, misdeeds, offenses, constant executions without trials, endless and intolerable brutalities.’" Pilate was indeed so notorious for his harsh measures in Judea, that he was eventually recalled to Rome in 36 C.E. This was not a man who would have failed to get his way on anything from the Jews!

Now this same "innocent" Pilate, who, we are assured, wanted desperately to release Jesus, was also afraid of him on account of a dream his wife had and also because he thought that Jesus could be a god. Nevertheless he ordered the beating of Jesus there in the "judgment" hall.

If you follow the Gospel account, Pilate apparently stood by while his men mocked Jesus, put the famous crown of thorns on his head, spit on him, smashed his head with reeds, put on the purple robe supplied by King Herod, and which presented such a hilarious sight to Pilate that he and the king were made friends, and finally had his soldiers nearly whip to death a man that he is elsewhere said to be in such fear and awe of.

After all this treatment, Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that Jesus was led from the hall to be crucified. Yet the Gospel of John doesn’t end this episode after the treatment above. It is this account that contradicts the other three and tells us that Pilate must have been present while his men abused Jesus. After the mocking, John 19:4 has Pilate again going out to the Jews, with Jesus in tow wearing his robe and "crown," to plead for his life. Imagine the spectacle: Pilate, who finds "no fault in him," stands there with Jesus, who is arrayed with the purple robe and crown of thorns, dripping from head-to-toe with blood, to plead for the life of this "innocent" man!

Although certain parts of this story present a ridiculous historical account, there may be parts of it that are completely true. For one thing, the behavior of Pilate and his men would have been consistent, not only with Roman ways, but specifically with Pontius Pilate’s reputation. However, if the account of Jesus before Pilate represents some grain of authenticity, then I charge that the truth has been reversed¾ which is a thought that I shall pick up later.

After this great spectacle, we next find Pilate ordering the crucifixion of Jesus and placing the famous inscription placed over his head on the cross CONVICTING HIM OF BEING THE KING OF THE JEWS! Here we surely have a blended account based on history, legend, and anti-Semitism: one blaming the Jews for Jesus’ death: the other, which follows history, showing that indeed the very orderly Romans charged, tried, and sentenced Jesus to be executed and then placed the customary placard over his head on his cross listing his crimes.

The last paragraph is, in historical reality, all that we know for sure about one Jesus the "Christus." However, Dr. Hoeh, who, remember, is only following Roman Catholic "history" regarding Jesus death, asks us to believe the unbelievable. In the first place, he wants us to accept that the Pharisees would violate very law on their book in order to purposely put to death a man they knew was Israel’s Messiah. Secondly, he wants us to believe that this was done under the scrutiny of the entire Sanhedrin. A seemingly small point, but one that is significant in a discussion of Pharisees, is that we are told the high priest tore his clothes at Jesus’ blasphemy¾ which was forbidden by the law of Moses. What reaction would the other Pharisees have had at this demonstration? Why, almost the same as the one that supposedly caused the priest to tear his clothes in the first place!

Let’s also notice that, according to Matthew 26:63, the high priest misuses the name of God: "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." When Jesus affirms the high priest’s question, The Complete Gospels says about this verse, "It is not clear why what Jesus said is blasphemy." But the same cannot be said for the high priest, who, in effect, ask Jesus in the name of the Creator to swear an oath¾ which would have been unthinkable to any religious Jew!

As Dr. Hoeh stated at the beginning of his article, the only proof for the entire episode is essentially that we must believe that Jesus rose from the dead and told his disciples what to write in the Gospels! Well, aside from what Dr. Hoeh would have us believe, based on history, what may we conclude from his article? Although shaded by his own Christian upbringing, Herman Hoeh, nonetheless, makes valid points, and does quite adequately (with minor flaws aside) show that the trial and execution of Jesus was indeed illegal from the standpoint of Jewish law. Although far from what Dr. Hoeh was trying to prove in his article, the fact that so many laws were violated proves one thing only and that is that the author of the Gospels did not have sufficient knowledge of the laws of the Sanhedrin to give the world an undetectable forgery in his writing!

Points of Law

Actually, in light of that last statement, I should add that the account of Jesus’ arrest and trial is far more in keeping with Roman justice than that of the Jews¾ which is the key to understanding where this account originated.

Mr. H. B. Colquhoun, a British attorney, who also believed in the Anglo-Israel identity, writes: "In our European civilization there are two Laws: the Civil or Roman Law, and the English Common Law. In order that you may know the privileges that you have, I want you to understand the difference between these two systems of Law. It is my opinion as a lawyer, a graduate of a Law University, that our English Common Law is based on the Law of the Lord. This is the vital difference between the two systems of Law; one is based on the law of the Lord and the other is based on the law of Babylon."

Mr. Colquhoun makes his point about Roman law by using the example of the famous Alfred Dreyfus trial in France, which was quite significant because it immediately put me in mind of the Gospel account of Jesus’ trial, which was supposedly conducted by the Jewish Sanhedrin.

"Across the water, in France, some of you will remember the famous Dreyfus trial. To a lawyer it was a most astonishing thing to read about. How they brought into that Court hearsay, opinion, and testimony that was not under oath. The whole civilized world revolted at the unfairness of that trial, until finally, after many years, some measure of justice was meted out."

Mr. Colquhoun then parallels the Roman type of justice prevalent in Catholic Europe to those of the nations wherein the Ten Tribes of Israel now dwell: "One of the first and great principles of the English or Common Law is that ‘you shall do to others as you would that others should do unto you.’ . . . You think that is taken from the Bible, probably from the Sermon on the Mount. You go back a long way before then, to the day when our ancestors were assembled in their hollow square at the base of that great Mount of Sinai when God gave His law to the Children of Israel. . . . One of the provisions of that Law was that a man cannot be convicted, no matter what the charge, even of murder, on the evidence of one witness. That is not the Law of France, Germany, Russia, Japan, or any other country in the world that does not speak the English tongue."

"Another thing which shows that our Law is based on the Law of the Lord [i.e., Israel’s Creator] is the fact of the ‘presumption of innocence.’ I hope you will take particular notice of it. If you were to be arrested in France on suspicion of any crime, without any charge being made against you, you would be detained and might be kept some days without being allowed to communicate with your friends, because you are presumed to be guilty, and it would be entirely up to you to prove your innocence. What a different system under the English Common Law, under which you are presumed to be innocent until you are proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!"

The trial of Alfred Dreyfus illustrates how the ancient laws of Rome, which Mr. Colquhoun compared to the laws of Babylon, still live as a foundation for many Catholic-European nations. This is very significant because those same laws were in effect in the first century C.E., and were known throughout the areas where Christianity flourished. In other words, these laws would have been the only legal system known to the early Greek-speaking church fathers. And, coincidentally, we are to believe that the same system just happened to be followed by the Sanhedrin in the supposed trial of Jesus—and the whole thing was then written in a polished Greek vernacular by his Jewish disciples!

I think, given the evidence presented in both volumes one and two, that the account of the Jesus trial can be seen as having come from the pen of an anti-Semitic Greek-speaking Christian Church father! And we can all thank Dr. Herman Hoeh for bringing this to our attention! Actually, what Dr. Hoeh should have named his article, given the evidence of the Gospel trial of Jesus, was, "12 Reasons Why Jesus’ Trial Proves that the Gospels Were Written by Gentiles Unfamiliar With First Century Jewish Law!"

We should also notice here the account of Barabbas. The Gospels clearly state it was a custom for the Roman governor to release a condemned man at Passover every year. Yet, seeing how many Christians rely heavily upon Jewish sources to prove points of their religion, when it is to their advantage, it is interesting that, outside the New Testament, no such custom is known in Jewish history.

Regarding this Gospel-alleged custom, Karl Kautsky writes: "It is contrary to Roman institutions, which did not give governors any right to pardon. And it is contrary to any orderly law to give the right to pardon not to some responsible body but to a crowd that has happened to come together." "But even if we are willing to let that pass and accept the singular pardoning power of the Jewish crowd, as it chances to congregate around the procurator’s lodgings, the question still arises, what does this power to pardon have to do with the case in question? For Jesus has not yet been legally sentenced. Pontius Pilate is faced with the question: Is Jesus guilty of high treason or no? He answers with the question: Do you want to use your power to pardon in his favor, or no? Pilate has to give sentence, and instead of doing so appeals to the pardoning power! Does he not have the power to set Jesus free if he considers him innocent?"

The story of Barabbas goes against history and reason. Furthermore, it is quite out of place in the Gospel accounts except to make the Jews appear more villainous than they have already been made to look, for not only did the priests knowingly have the very Messiah of Israel murdered in order to keep their own authority, they indeed have him killed in the place of a convicted murderer!

Having repeatedly pointed out that whoever wrote the accounts in the Gospels were not Jews, I feel that the evidence offered thus far proves this beyond doubt. In order to cement this charge, let’s note a few more points. Whoever wrote the Gospels were simply unversed in the "Old" Testament, which, if they were religious Jews, as indeed the very nature of the New Testament demands that they should be, would have been appalling!

Here are some examples: In Matthew 23:35 Zechariah is called the son of Barachiah, when in reality he was the son of Jehoiada, as II Chronicles 24:20-21 clearly states. Mark 2:25-26 says that David ate the shew bread when Abiathar was high priest, yet I Samuel 21:2 tells us that Ahimelech was high priest: Abiathar succeeded his father Ahimelech as per I Samuel 22:18. Luke 2:4-5 says that Bethlehem was called the City of David. Yet II Samuel 5:6-7 tells us that Jerusalem, or Zion, is the City of David. (True, David was from Bethlehem, but it was not the City of David.)

In Genesis 11:26, 32 we read: "And Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram . . ." "And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran." Genesis 12:4, ". . . and Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran." In Acts 7:4 we read: "Then came he [Abraham or Abram] out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell." Abraham left Haran when Terah, his father, was 145 years old, and that was sixty years before Terah died!

Acts 7:14 says that Joseph brought to Egypt seventy-five souls, yet in Genesis 46:27 we find the number at seventy. In Acts 7:15-16, "So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem." But, in Joshua 24:32 we find that only Joseph was buried in Shechem, and Jacob bought the plot from the sons of Hamor, not Abraham!

In Numbers 25:9 we read that 24,000 Israelites died by the plague brought on by their sins, yet in I Corinthians 10:8 the number is 23,000. In Galatians 3:16, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." Read Genesis 13:16: "And I will make thy seed [Abraham’s] as the dust of the earth: so that if man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered." The word seed can be singular, but it is defined in the same verse as numerous as the dust of the earth! What Paul is trying to say in Galatians 3:16 is absolutely absurd! (You should also consider all the other promises made in the "Old" Testament to the seed of Abraham¾ meaning, of course, specifically to the children of Israel. See Genesis 13:16, 15:13, 26:4, 22:17, etc.)

Hebrews 9:19-20 says that Moses sprinkled both the people and the Book of the Covenant with blood, whereas Exodus 24:6-8 explicitly says he only sprinkled the people. In Genesis 47:31 we read that Joseph bowed himself upon the head of his bed, yet in Hebrews 11:21 we find him leaning upon the head of his staff.

Some will undoubtedly argue that the above problems are minor and of no importance. Yet to many Christians they are anything but! Whole studies have been conducted to try and explain the above discrepancies. These explanations include, incidentally, the criticism that the "Old" Testament has been altered by Jewish rabbis after the writing of the New Testament in order that the Messiahship of Jesus couldn’t be proved by their own Sacred writings! However, I think that, when added to the evidence already presented, the above problems should cause one to stop and think about their proper place in New Testament criticism.

For almost two thousand years the Christian world has blamed the Jews for the "murder" of their "Lord." It is an accusation based solely on the Gospels, which, when the anti-Semitic rhetoric is stripped away, is at best a jumble of contradictions. To be sure, some grains of authenticity show through and they undoubtedly reflect the life of the real Joshua, who, it seems, did die by order of Pontius Pilate.

However, the text of the Gospels, whether true or false, was never available to the Christian laity. The Roman Catholic Church, who was responsible for the piecemeal composition of the Gospels and the other books of the NT, never allowed its reading or translation in the common or "vulgar" tongues.

The Christians of the world could hear no more of the life and sayings of their Jesus than was allowed by the church. They certainly had no way of knowing or comparing the scriptures as I’ve done in this chapter. And even if they had a New Testament in their "vulgar" tongue, ninety-nine percent of the population couldn’t read or write, which means they were still dependent upon the priests for their Gospel knowledge. This is unfortunate, since these same priests represented a church that was founded upon anti-Semitism.

The tremendous Jewish blood-letting wrought by the Christian Church has always been justified by the Gospel accounts of the "Christ-killers." It is an indisputable fact that the two thousand years of Christian persecution against the Tribe of Judah can be laid right at the doorstep of the Gospels. Aside from the infamous declaration of the Jewish mob at the "trial" of Jesus, the Gospels also offer the world the supposed words of Jesus in his constant condemnation of the Jewish priesthood. Christians accordingly reason that if the priests of Judah were of their "father the Devil" then all Jews are of the Devil! One merely has to go back to volume one and read the statements of that infamous church founder, Martin Luther, to understand the kind of hatred spewed against the Tribe of Judah by the Christian Church.

Perhaps some will wonder if I’m offering a denial that the first century priesthood of Judea was unstained. No! History tells us that some of these men were anything but holy. However, the corruption was by no means widespread, which means, simply stated, that the words put into the mouth of Jesus by the Gentile authors of the Gospels was done to give license to "Jew-baiting" (to use a term of anti-Semitic hatred) by countless generations of Christians.

All we see in the Gospels is an excuse invented by Satan to cause tremendous hostility between the Ten Tribes of Israel and the Tribe of Judah. The result has been the execution of a well laid plan to destroy the saving truth of Israel’s Holy Scriptures and the denial by the Ten Tribes of the Elohim of their fathers! However, the choice of the Jewish priesthood for the "scapegoats" in Jesus’ death was ill-advised from a historical perspective. In choosing the Jewish priesthood for this distinction, the church had, in fact, focused on men who hated the occupation of Rome: they had absolutely no use for Rome, and especially disliked the anti-Semitic Pilate.

Even more to the point, the Sanhedrin and all Jews were equally hated by the Romans, and Pilate often went out of his way to insult them. His actions in the mocking of Jesus clearly show this side of his character. If the Jewish priesthood wanted a man crucified, Pilate would have been all too happy to release him and then to have dared them to do anything about it! History indeed tells us that the priesthood by its very nature did everything in its power to keep one of its own people out of the hands of the Romans. The true historical question is: why would the Sanhedrin turn over a Jewish man, no matter who or what he was, to the hated occupying Romans?

Robert Sheaffer, in his book The Making of the Messiah, writes: "There is absolutely nothing in Jewish law or custom to suggest that it is possible to arrest a prisoner, convict him, then turn him over to some other group for execution. Hiram Cohn, a noted Israeli jurist, writes: ‘It is inconceivable that a Jew would be delivered by a Jewish court to the Roman enemy for execution, whatever his crime; the Sanhedrin would rather have abstained from passing capital sentences than having them carried out by a hateful adversary in a manner incompatible with Jewish law and repellent to Jewish sentiment.’"

The fact is that the Sanhedrin never arrested any of the dozens of other would-be Messiahs that appeared in the first century C.E. This is quite significant considering that they all would have made the same claims that Jesus supposedly did. However, supposing that the Sanhedrin wanted to kill Jesus, and remembering the arguments of Dr. Hoeh that they still had the authority to execute, the Sanhedrin would have stoned Jesus themselves for one simple reason: Pontius Pilate was an unpredictable despotic maniac who hated the Jewish priesthood, and no one in their right mind would have dealt with such a man if there was no need! But, this is all so much lemonade because all we are dealing with is the Gospel accounts and they are so poorly written that if they were submitted to a publisher today, they would be immediately rejected as the work of an anti-Semitic amateur!

To repeat this again, history tells us only that Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate. It doesn’t tell us in what year or the circumstances.

Given this as a fact, and supposing for the moment that the Gospels reflect a grain of traditional truth, then why would the Sanhedrin become involved in the case of Jesus when he was arrested by the Romans? For one thing they probably became involved in every capital case tried by the Romans when it concerned a Jew. This would especially be so, given the fact that a Roman trial was synonymous with injustice!

If the Sanhedrin was involved in the trial of Joshua of Nazareth, as indeed they were likely to have been, how do you suppose they and the people felt to see another of their race taken before a Gentile who hated and oppressed them at every turn? What would their reaction have been to watch the hated Pontius Pilate in complicity with the equally hated King Herod as the two of them mocked this Jewish man named Joshua with a royal robe, a crown of thorns, beating him and then finally condemning him to a horrible, humiliating death? The very act of putting a crown of thorns and the purple robe on Jesus was a slap in the face of the prophecies of the Messiah which all the Jews would have found near and dear.

It is, however, possible to read the Gospels and to see a glimmer of truth by dismissing the anti-Semitic rhetoric. While doing this you may find that far from making charges against Jesus, the priests may have been indeed arguing in his favor. They may have been pointing out to Pilate that his crimes, if any, were religious in nature and were therefore no matter for the civil court of Rome. If they could have persuaded Pilate that Jesus should be handed over to them for examination, then they could have called him into account, given him a warning, and then released him.

Actually, the Gospels tell us that the Sanhedrin had no reason at all to arrest Jesus, but, to the contrary, the Romans themselves had every right to do so. And we know that they did arrest him because the Roman historian Tacitus tells us so. His crime(s) against Rome would necessarily mean that he would have been arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and crucified by those same Romans. What charges did the Romans levy against Jesus?

According to the Gospels, just prior to his alleged arrest by the "Sanhedrin" Jesus rode into Jerusalem, the very seat of Roman governmental authority, as a king! With supposedly thousands calling out "Hosanna" and strewing the way with palm branches and their clothes, he rode triumphantly through the streets. Matthew 21:8 says: "And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from trees, and strawed them in the way." The New International Dictionary of the Bible tells us the Hebrew word "Hosanna" simply meant a prayer or call to "save now" and "messianic salvation." That he was a "king" is understood by the Gospel writers quoting another prophecy: "behold, thy King cometh . . . sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass."

Also consider the words of Jesus, with which a Roman "Gestapo" would have been familiar. They, in fact, clearly state his intentions: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." We could also add this exhortation: "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his script; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Such words would have led to Jesus’ arrest and execution by the authorities of Rome¾ as indeed they would in a number of countries even today!

Given the words, or threats, of Jesus, what would a Roman Gestapo have done, hearing a "great multitude" crying "Hosanna!"? He was their salvation from the occupying Roman forces: he would overthrow Pontius Pilate! "Our king!" "Save us now!" the crowd was shouting while the Roman guards were standing by! The Messiah of Israel had arrived! Would the Romans stand still for such a demonstration? Absolutely not! The heavy hand of Rome is well documented in history, and such a demonstration against their authority would have been settled immediately. Hence, they would have arrested, tried, and executed Jesus in a matter of hours. The Romans would then have nailed a placard over his head stating his crime: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews!" Even though the gospellers would have us believe that these words indicate that Pilate secretly considered Jesus the Messiah, in reality they were but an insult to the Tribe of Judah and the Holy Scriptures’ prophecies of the Messiah, and are in keeping with this despicable man’s reputation!

When the Romans arrested another "Messiah" and put him on trial, they would not have hesitated to crucify a man the day before the Passover. What a better time to make an example when hundreds of thousands would be coming into the city for their feast day. On the other hand, even if the Jewish priests were guilty of the complicity charged in the Gospels, they would never have agreed to such an act hours before Passover. Yet, we are to believe that they did this and violated every "law on the book" in the process.

Furthermore, if we can believe the Gospels that the priests feared the people, and that great multitudes of people highly revered Jesus as the Messiah, would it make sense that they would have put him to death in front of the entire city of Jerusalem at a time when a million extra people would be flooding into that place? If the Gospel charges are true regarding the Jewish priesthood, then I ask: had they no jails? Would it not be more prudent for the priests to have simply held Jesus until after the Feast of Unleavened Bread? If Jesus was so well loved by the people of Judea, would the Sanhedrin have taken the chance of causing a general riot that would have brought the Roman army down on the entire city?

Even though we are told in the Gospels that the priests feared the people because of their part in Jesus’ arrest, every one of their actions tell us that this wasn’t the case. The simple truth of the matter is that there would have been absolutely no reason to arrest, try, and execute Jesus on the day before a high Sabbath. Outside the need of the gospellers to create Jesus as the ultimate Passover sacrifice to mirror the crucifixion of the pagan Sun-gods, what was the hurry to put him to death in the space of just a few hours?

No! The account of Jesus’ death is but one more indictment against the pagans who wrote it. Indeed, the often overlooked mention in John 18:14 tells us this. The gospellers puts these words into the mouth of Caiaphas: "Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people." It is difficult to find a commentary on those words because they don’t really make sense in a Christian framework. It is, however, not hard to figure out in the context of a pagan setting. The crucified deity in the flesh simply harkens back to Nimrod, who, when he was crucified, died for the sins of the people.

So, the only expediency in the story of Jesus’ death at Passover was for the founders of Christianity. As for the truth of his arrest, trial, and execution, they were facts too well known in the early Christian Church for the fathers to simply leave the Romans out of the picture. Declaring they had no law to put anyone to death, information hardly unknown to any Gentile Roman-connected writer, we find the Jews dragging a blameless Jesus to a reluctant and completely innocent Pontius Pilate for execution.

Discussing the extraordinary occurrences related in the Gospels of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and execution, which supposedly took place all within about twelve hours at the instigation of Caiaphas, Manfred Barthel writes: "This included his first appearance before the Sanhedrin, preliminary examination by the procurator Pontius Pilate, an additional appearance before Herod Antipas (according to Luke, at least), sentencing by Pilate, scourging, and crucifixion. Remember that all this took place in a Roman protectorate, where Roman authority, and Roman law, was supreme¾ either Caiaphas was a political wire-puller of almost supernatural ability, or things must have actually happened a little differently." Indeed, the jumbled account of the different Gospels tells us that Mr. Barthel’s observations are correct!

Karl Kautsky, in his book The Foundations of Christianity, best sums up this discussion: "After the evangelists have succeeded in this brilliant way in presenting the bloody Pilate as an innocent lamb, and the innate depravity of Judaism as the real cause of the crucifixion of the harmless and peaceful Messiah, they are exhausted. Their vein of invention gives out for the moment and the old account comes into its own temporarily. Jesus is mocked at and mistreated after his condemnation, but not by the Jews, but by the soldiers of that very Pilate who had just declared him guiltless. Now he has his soldiers not only crucify him but first scourge him and mock him for his Jewish kingdom: a crown of thorns is put on his head, a purple cloak set on him, and then they strike him in the face and spit on him. Finally they fasten to his cross the inscription: Jesus, King of the Jews."

Compared to what history really says, within the prejudice of the Gospel account can be found the simple truth of Jesus’ death. It is laced with the absurd in an effort to promote the hatred of a race which represents the truth of Israel’s Creator. Such a purpose is nothing more than an on-going diabolical scheme to destroy the Ten Tribes of Israel.