It has often been emphasised that Christianity is unlike
any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain
events which are alleged to have occurred during a short
period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are
presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is
revealed it will become clear that they do not represent
historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins
of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the
New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which
we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)
The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New
Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of
those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic
opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface)
admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first
century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia,
Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement
conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest
Gospels were progressively written during the decades
following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. In a
remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the
earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament],
it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the
fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp.
656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church
claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of
Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins
slips into one of the biggest black holes in history.
There is, however, a reason why there were no New
Testaments until the fourth century: they were not
written until then, and here we find evidence of the
greatest misrepresentation of all time.
It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine,
originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who
authorised the compilation of the writings now called the
New Testament. After the death of his father in 306,
Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and
then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the
Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint
of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the
air, free of all human events happening around him. In
truth, one of Constantine's main problems was the
uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their
belief in numerous gods.
The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the
truth about the development of their religion and conceal
Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character
of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).
They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine,
attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335,
vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene
F a t h e r s, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose,
Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson,
LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type
of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled
religious order (The Dictionary
of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art,
Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5).
Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters,
and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly
suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they
"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes.
They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to
hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the
circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care
to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured,
rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ...
they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ...
and still the less do they understand ... and they write
nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."
(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria,
c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)
Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many
lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed,
each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial
groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and
"altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience
(Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century).
From Constantine's point of view, there were several
factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop
an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent
confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths
of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilising religious
splinter groups was only one of Constantine's problems.
The smooth generalisation, which so many historians are
content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced the
Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official
toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should
be erased from our literature forever (C a t h o l i c
E n c y c l o p e d i a, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299,
passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at
Constantine's time, and the Church acknowledges
that the tale of his "conversion" and "baptism" are
"entirely legendary" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed.,
vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).
Constantine "never acquired a solid theological knowledge"
and "depended heavily on his advisers in religious
questions" (C a t h o l i c E n c y c l o p e d i a,
New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to
Eusebeius (260-339), Constantin noted that among the
presbyterian factions "strife had grown so serious,
vigorous action was necessary to establish a more
religious state", but he could not bring about a
settlement between rival god factions (Life of
Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned
him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute of
foundation" and needed official stabilisation (ibid.).
Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented
dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined
State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law.
When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish
religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with
letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace
among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine,
probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a
decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates
"be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the
public, and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman
province of Bithynia in Asia Minor. They were instructed
to bring with them the t e s t i m o n i e s they orated
to the rabble, "bound in leather" for protection during
the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon
arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and
Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry). Their
writings totalled "in all, two thousand two hundred and
thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and
saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated
by them" (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73;
N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).
The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"
Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was
summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea.
It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early
clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the
intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at
this gathering that Christianity was born, and the
ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult
to calculate. About four years prior to chairing the
Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious
order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that
regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the
other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he
instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings
on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (C a t h o l i c
Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was
"held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical
History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).
In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of
presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of
Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,
"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius,
they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who
understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers,
Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint). This is
another luminous confession of the ignorance and
uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr
Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian
historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales
(1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots"
(An Apology for C h r i s t i a n i t y, 1776, 1796 reprint;
also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils"
entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From
his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson
concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were
all under the power of the devil, and the convention was
composed of the lowest rabble and patronised the vilest
abominations" (An Apology for C h r i s t i a n i t y, op. cit.).
It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for
the commencement of a new religion and the theological
creation of Jesus Christ.
The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings
at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons"
( C a t h o l i c E n c y c l o p e d i a, Farley ed.,
vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see
The Mystery Man of the Bible / Apollonius - The Nazarene
by Hilton Hotema - 1967
In the religion that came from the east, the most prominent
god was Krishna, Kristos, Cristos, Christos.
Apollonius spent some years in India studying the scriptures
of their god, and took copies of these back with him when he
returned to Antioch, where he came regarded as "an eloquent
man, and mighty in the scriptures" (Acts 18:24), and where
he taught the doctrines of the Hindu god.
In the religion of the Druids to the west of Rome, the leading
god was known as Hesus, or Hesous, or Iseous, a word which,
traced to its source, came from "Nous," meaning Mind or
Intelligence, first of the Eons, beginning of all things, first
revelation of the Divinity, or "Only Begotten" (Pike, p.560).
The Celtic Druids, wrote Godfrey Higgins, "were the priests
of oriental colonies who emigrated from India." They were
"the builders of Stonehenge or Carnac, and of other
Cylcopean works, in Asia and Europe."
Kristos is a name derived from Kris, meaning the orb of
the Sun. Krishna or Kristos was the Hindu Son God. In the
ceremonies of the Indian Mysteries, Kristos was the incarnate
spirit of the Hindu God Brahm, who in the course of time
became the Chaldean Ab-Ram of the Jewish scriptures
(Gen. 11:27), the same signifying Father Brahm or Father
The Druidical ceremonies came from India; and the Druids
were originally Buddhists. They worshipped the Sun (Kris)
under the name of Hesus.
Apollonius is mentioned in the Bible as Apollos, "an eloquent
man, and mighty in the sciptures (Acts 18:24). The statement
that he was a Jew, born at Alexandria, is another falsehood
used to conceal his real identity. As he was destined to
become the Jesus of the Bible because of his extraorinary
work in religion, his true identity was carefully concealed.
Apollonius brought the Hindu religion into the Roman provines
to the east of Rome. He was known also by a name that meant
the Son of Apollo -- Apollo in turn meaning the Sun, the same
The name Apollo means the same as Sol, Saul (Acts 7:58),
and was frequently abbreviated into Pol, Paul, Paulus. He is
the Paul of the Bible.
In the Acts, these names are changed in the spelling to suit
the purpose of the author, and to conceal the fact that they
were of the same meaning, and related to Apollonius, the
greatest propagator of the Hindu religion in Rome in the
first century AD; and beyond all question the author,
expounder, and advocate of the Hindu theology set forth in
the New Testament, no part of which ever had the remotest
relation to any Jew or Hebrew theology.
So careful were the politico-religious founders of orthodox
Christianity to conceal everything relating to Hesus of the
Druids, that little mention of him can be found, and that
little is contained in that valuable book, "The Celtic Druids,"
by Godfrey Higgins (London, 1826). Under the head, "The
Druids Adored the Cross," he wrote:
"Having shown that the Cross was in common use in all
religions long before the time of Christ, by the continental
nations of the world, it is only necessary now to show that
it was equally in use by the Celtic Druids in Britain and
Ireland, in order to overthrow the arguments used to show
certain monuments as being of Christian origin from the
circumstances alone of their bearing the figure of a Cross.
"Shedius, in his treatise "De Mor. Germ." 24, speaking of
the Druids, confirms all I have said on this head. He wrote
that the Druids seek studiously for an oak tree, large and
handsome, growing up with two principal arms, in the form
of a Cross, beside the main stem upright. If the two horizon-
tal arms are not sufficiently adapted to the figure, they
fasten a cross-beam to it."
"This tree they consecrate in this manner: Upon the right
branch they cut in the bark the word, Hesus; upon the center
or upright stem, the word, Taramis; upon the left branch,
Belenus; over this, above the going off of the arms, they
cut the name of God, Thau (the Mark of Ezek. 9:4); under all,
the same repeated Thau."
"This tree so inscribed, they make their kebla, in the grove
cathedral, or summer church, toward which they direct
their faces in the offices of religion, as to the amber stone
or the cove in the temple of Abury; like as the Christians
do to any symbol or picture at the Altar" (Antiquity Unveiled,
When the church fathers made this discovery, they inter-
polated in Deut. 21:23, "For he that is hanged (on a tree)
is accursed of God," then interpolated in Gal. 3:13, "For
it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
Here the evidence is preserved and rendered plain that the
Druids of Gaul, Germany, Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia
had a trinity, of which Thau (Thoth of the pre-Egyptians) was
the supreme God, Hesus the human executor of the will of
the first, and Belenus, the solar light and heat thru which all
life was believed to have originated and to be preserved.
These were the three personifications of the Trinity. Hesus
in the trinity occupied the same position and represented
the same theological function as the Kristos of the Hindu
Furthermore, the Druidic Hesus was connected with and
attached to a natural, not an artificial, Cross, and that much
nearer were the Druids to the worship of the true God, the
God of Nature, than the Christian idolators who bow in
adoration before the carved crucifix.
According to tradition, the Druidic Hesus and the Hindu
scriptures reached Marseille about 800 BC, being taken
there by the Phoenicians, who visited and traded in that
region, and carried their religion with them. The name of
their god, Hesus, was derived from the word Hes, meaning
fire, fire-god, or sun-god, The Son of God.
The doctrines of Hesusism were propagated among the
nations west of Rome. It was not until 1500 years later,
about 700 AD, that Kristosism was introduced there by the
Christian priesthood, and then it was resisted even by
resort to arms.
Hesusism had gained great ascendency and had some of
the finest schools in Gaul, Germany, Britain, and Ireland,
and it was ardently taught by St. Patrick and others.
The group that appropriated the Druidic god Hesus under
the name of Hesus Christos, sought diligently to conceal
the facts by destroying the evidence as to the source of
their spurious deity Jesus Christ.