Atheism attacks Christianity in a lawsuit against its ministers for the abuse of popular credulity and the substitution of person. It is the first time in the history of mankind that a religion is prosecuted directly in a law case that will end with a verdict regarding specific and defined crimes.

.Purchase and Presentation of the books
.Press review
.Letters of the readers
.How to buy
.Contact and mailinglist



Jhon the Nazarene

We have seen how the Zealots were changed into pacifist disciples by transforming their names (the revolutionary Barjona, into son of Jonah, the murderer Iscariot into a native of Kerioth, the zealot Qananite into a resident of Cana etc.). Now we shall discuss the falsifying that the Christians carried out on John to make him become Jesus.

THE NAME: The name John, replaced with the generic names of Christ (Kristos meaning Anointed) and Lord, was finally changed to Jesus in about the year 180 as shown in a book written by Celsus against the Christians which said: "The one you gave the name Jesus to was really just the head of a band of bandits. The miracles ascribed to him were just manifestations of magic and esoteric tricks. The truth is that all of those premises made are nothing but myths that you yourselves have fabricated without however managing to give your lies any credibility. Everyone knows that what you have written is the result of continual rewriting following criticism that you have received".

In fact, in the first versions of the gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke that appeared in the 60s of the II century, the Messiah was still described with the generic names of Christ and Lord. The Christians could not give him a name such as Pasquale, Liborio or Anacleto since a name that had never existed in the Messianic Era would have made their creation collapse into ridicule. So they gave him the name of Yeshua (Jesus) that actually means "He who saves", only appearing to take his anonymity away. In fact, one thing is maintaining the existence of a Messiah who, not having a real name, could have escaped historical examination; another thing is maintaining the existence of someone who, out of the blue, was presented with a name. The existence of this person would have needed historical documentation in order to be supported. The masses in their ignorance accepted the name without considering any etymological problems. Instead, the opponents of the Christian theologians laughed, and on revealing the artifice, they accused them of impudence and fraud. Time and the repression the Christians carried out against their adversaries made it possible for the name "Jesus" to be considered a first name and it was adopted even though it actually meant Soter. The word Soter was generically given to the pagan divinities, which nonetheless also had a name of their own. The Christians practically named their Messiah using the same artifice used by the Bible writers in the sixth century BCE when they gave their God the name of Yahweh, meaning "I am". Like their predecessors, the Christian theologians, thanks to this artifice, could defend the existence of Jesus while keeping his anonymity. (Like father like son!).

The problem that derived from substituting the name John, which was remembered by tradition, with the name of Jesus, was solved. Now they had to counterfeit the names of Galilean and Nazarite, which meaning Zealot, would have contrasted decidedly with the religious and pacifist nature of the Messiah they were constructing. Since it was impossible to eliminate them, they gave them other meanings resorting to fraud as they had done with other names of members of the Boanerges band.

The name Galilean was simply interpreted as "an inhabitant of Galilee". However, the other name, Nazarite, proved difficult to resolve. Their first attempt to remove its revolutionary meaning, as documentation shows, was to make it depend on a prophecy resorting to the announcement the angel had made to Manoah's wife: "...thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb... "(Judg. 13:5). This announcement was however, too clearly similar to Samson. So it was rejected and substituted by the prophecies of Micah and Isaiah, which referred to the birth of the future king of Israel: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, 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". (Micah 5:2) "And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). If these prophecies were used to justify why Jesus was called Nazarite it was because both the Hebrew words Netzer (shoot) and Nazir had the same consonants n z r (in Hebrew, as in Phoenician and ancient Egyptian, words were written with only the consonants. For example: reason = r s n or truth = t r t).

This solution was also rejected not only because it appeared to be too imaginary and almost impossible to sustain, but also because as in the first solution, it could not be referred to Jesus as it referred to David the son of Jesse.

Therefore, after having tried pointlessly to find a passage in the Bible that could justify the name of Nazarite in the form of a prophecy, once again they resorted to a geographic expedient. They connected the name Nazarite to the town of Nazareth as they connected the appellation of Qananite with the town of Cana and Iscariot with the town of Kerioth. However, it is precisely with this umpteenth swindle that the forgers will give us the final and unquestionable proof of the non existence of Jesus, a person who never existed, and who is just John's double.

All four Canonical Gospels make the names Nazarite (Nazarene) come from the city of Nazareth stating that it was the town where Jesus grew up and studied during those thirty years that preceded his sermons. It is from Nazareth that we will obtain conclusive proof to show that Jesus is in reality John. Let's examine this town that in the gospels is described in a completely different way from how it actually was. Why was the town of Nazareth located on a plain far from the Sea of Galilee described in the Gospels as being built on a mountain overlooking a lake?

The answer is simple. The city on the mountain overlooking a lake is the real city where the Messiah reported by tradition lived and which the Gospels describe, whereas the town located on a plain forty kilometers from the Sea of Galilee is what the falsifiers used to justify why he was called Nazarite. This contradiction between the description the Gospels give about the real town where the Messiah lived and the city of Nazareth depended on the fact that the falsifiers wrote the four canonical gospels in Rome. They had no knowledge of Palestine and made the serious mistake of reporting traditional tales, which referred to John without worrying about adapting them to the city of Nazareth that they had chosen only because its name could justify the appellation of Nazarite.

Reading the Gospels we notice that the city of Jesus is not the Nazareth located on a plain forty kilometers from the Sea of Galilee but another city that is located on a mountain overlooking the Sea of Galilee. There are many references made to lake surroundings, boats, fishermen, and rough waves caused by storms. The apostles themselves are all fishermen that Jesus converted into disciples while they pulled in their nets: "...when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence And when he was come into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works". (Matt. 13:53-54). "When Jesus heard of it, he departed thence by ship into a desert place apart...Jesus healed the sick and multiplied the loaves of bread and fish. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray. From the mountain he saw below in the Sea of Galilee that the apostles' boat was in danger from the waves generated by the wind that had suddenly started blowing (Matt. 14). Luke also confirms that the city of Jesus was on a mountain when he speaks about a precipice: " Jesus went to Nazareth where He was brought up: and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and he stood up to read...And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath. And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the bow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his own way." (Luke 4:14-30). In addition: "The same day went Jesus out of the house and sat by the sea (lake) side. And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat." (Matt. 13:1-2).

Mark also recounts (Chap. 3-4): "...a great multitude, when they heard what great things he did, came unto him. And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him... And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would...and they went into an house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread... there came his brethren and his mother, and standing without, sent unto him, calling him..." After having explained who his real relatives were, "... he began again to teach by the sea side..."

At this point, we are aware that the town where Jesus was brought up could not be Nazareth, which is forty kilometers from the lake and situated on a plain. So through other sources we wanted to see how the real town was which is situated on a mountain near the Sea of Galilee and surrounded by precipices.

The answer came from Flavius Josephus who describes the town of Ezekias, the father of Judas the Gaulonite and the grandfather of John the Galilean, called the Nazarite: "The Rabbi Ezekias, a medical doctor, belonged to a rich and high-ranking family in the city of Gamala located on the Gaulonite Side of the Sea of Tiberias. This town did not submit to the Romans but relied upon the difficulty of the place, for it was situated upon a rough ridge of a high mountain, with a kind of neck in the middle: where it begins to ascend, it lengthens itself, and declines as much downward before as behind, insomuch that it is like a camel (gamlà) in figure, from whence it is so named, although the people of the country do not pronounce it accurately. Both on the side and the face there are abrupt parts divided from the rest, and ending in vast deep valleys; yet are the parts behind, where they are joined to the mountain, somewhat easier of ascent than the other; but then the people belonging to the place have cut an oblique ditch there, and made that hard to be ascended also. On its acclivity, which is straight, houses are built, and those very thick and close to one another. The city also hangs so strangely, that it looks as if it would fall down upon itself, so sharp is it at the top. It is exposed to the south, and its southern mount, which reaches to an immense height, was in the nature of a citadel to the city; and below that was a precipice, not walled about, but extending itself to an immense depth." (Jewish Antiquities).

If this is the town that the Gospels ascribe to Jesus, what else can be concluded if not that Jesus was born and lived in Gamala in Gaulonite and not Nazareth in Galilee as the Church would like us to believe? If Jesus is from Gamala then who else could he be than John, the grandson of the rabbi Ezekias? Just replace Nazareth with Gamala and everything appears clear. Everything that was previously written was to prepare the readers for this conclusion. Even the most stubborn believers who are inclined to deny even the most evident truths cannot reject this conclusion. However, I'm not finished demonstrating the non-existence of Jesus because I will provide so much evidence to demonstrate what the falsifiers (the Holy Fathers of the Church) have been capable of doing to build this imposture which is Christianity.

The Birth of Jesus

Christians testified the life of Jesus only through prophecies since there is no historical evidence of Jesus. Supposing that everything the prophets announced had to come true because it was divine inspiration, the Christian writers wrote the gospels and made all of Christ's actions depend on phrases taken from the Bible, which were suitably adapted and made to pass for prophecies.

At this stage we need to discuss fatalism, which by eliminating free choice and therefore making man not responsible for his own actions, would make Christ himself seem like a puppet in the hands of an already established Biblical destiny. It is not my intention to discuss the non-existence of God but only to demonstrate that Jesus was not a historical character. Therefore, the reader is free to draw his own conclusions concerning "predestination" which makes man not responsible for his actions and thwarts the existence of a God who judges according to merits and demerits.

Like the rest of his life, the birth of Jesus was created from phrases taken from the Bible, a mixture of contradictions, lies, and superficiality. Initially his birth was ignored by the four Gospels and was added in the first half of the third century and only in the gospels according to Matthew and Luke. This occurred following a decision made by the Christians to justify the humanization of their Messiah through a terrestrial birth. Their opponents had criticized them, wondering how Jesus could become a preacher as a man if he hadn't been born to a woman. In fact all four canonical gospels began by presenting Jesus as an adult starting his preaching from Capernaum. The only justification of his human existence was given by a voice that could be heard from above while Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist which said: "You are my beloved Son... I have this day begotten you". Since the decision to give Jesus a terrestrial birth contradicted the conception that up until then the Christian theologians had made depend exclusively on God, they had to change the verse to: "...Jesus also came and was baptized by John...And a voice sounded from Heaven that said: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". (Matt. 3:17).

The Gospel of John does not mention a terrestrial birth because the Christian theologians preferred to give him a theological birth as the "Word", to make their Messiah a "Logos" as Mithras was in the Avestic religion.

The terrestrial birth of Jesus created a great problem: should he be born in Bethlehem, according to the prophecy of Micah, which wanted him to come from Bethlehem ("But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, 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"- Micah 5:2), or in Nazareth, which was the city where they had made the name Nazarene come from? Therefore, to satisfy these two needs, the writers of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, working separately each according to his own imagination, managed to each give his own version so that there are two different births.

The Nativity according to Matthew: To satisfy the prophecy of Micah which said he was from Bethlehem and to justify his appellation of Nazarite, Matthew had Jesus born in Bethlehem, and then had him move to Nazareth where he lived for the rest of his life.

To understand Matthew's rather intricate stratagem to justify the move from Bethlehem to Nazareth the best thing to do is to follow the facts in the Gospel account: The three kings who had brought gold, frankincense and myrrh had just: " departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until bring thee word for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night and departed into Egypt. And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Then Herod...slew all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under...Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet saying, " In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted (?!) because they are not but when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life....But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judeaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: not withstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (Matt. chapter 3)(I will comment this later):

The Nativity according to Luke: Contrary to Matthew, who had Jesus born in Bethlehem since Joseph and Mary resided there, Luke states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Mary and Joseph, residents of Nazareth, had to go to their hometown due to a fiscal census ordered by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria when Palestine was annexed to the Roman Empire. (This is the census of the year 6 that gave rise to a revolt led by Judas the Galilean, John's father.)

Thus Micah's prophecy was fulfilled which said that Jesus would come from Bethlehem: He was born in the famous cave warmed by an ox and a donkey. Then Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth where they lived and which they had left temporarily due to the census.

Both accounts of the Nativity reported by the Gospels are purely made up. Besides their inaccuracies and absurdities this is confirmed also by the fact, already mentioned, that the gospel figure, being from Gamala has nothing to do with either Bethlehem or Nazareth.

1) The genealogies that are given concerning Joseph in the two gospels to demonstrate that his son Jesus descended from the house of David as announced by the prophecies, are so different that they seem to refer to two different people. The names are so different that not even two names in these versions are the same. There is even a numerical difference in the number of ascendants that in Matthew is 42 and in Luke is 56. This difference depends on the fact that the two genealogies were not written according to a set criterion of historical objectivity but followed an imposition that came from the number 14 of the Hebrew cabala of which the total number of descents should have been a multiple. The difference here depended on the fact that while Matthew multiplied this number by three (42), Luke multiplied it by four (56). (You can draw your own conclusions in justifying the principles the evangelical truth is based upon!)

2) The two birth dates referred to are at least eleven years apart. Matthew's Gospel sets Jesus' birth before Herod's death (which took place in the year 4BCE) and Luke's Gospel states that the census happened in the year 6CE. (Let's remember that the Church presents Matthew as an eyewitness and Luke as a person who learned the facts directly from Mary, whom he personally knew.)

3) Matthew says that Mary gave birth in Bethlehem and at home, because she lived there at the time the birth took place: "And when they (the three kings)) were come into the house (Joseph's house) theysaw the young child and Mary his mother, and fell down and worshipped him..." (Matt. 2:11).

Luke states that they went there due to a census. They had nowhere to stay because they didn't have their own house and no one would give them lodging so the child was born in a stable: "The kings went to Bethlehem and found Mary, Joseph and the child lyingin the manger of a cave with an ox and a donkey to keep him warm and lots of shepherds all around bringing their gifts, and above all there was a multitude of angels singing: " Glory to God in the highest".

4) The slaughter of the innocents ordered by Herod and the flight to Egypt sustained by Matthew are ignored in the gospels according to Mark and John as is the visit made by the three kings.

5) The fact that the Holy Family moved from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of a fiscal census is improbable and clearly used as a pretext. We know that, according to the Roman laws, citizens had to declare their income at the fiscal office of the town where they worked, that is, where they resided and not where they were born. Improbabilities and pretences are confirmed by the journey that Mary makes which has no justification considering the Roman laws. "Only the head of the family had to present himself to the fiscal authorities as expressly specified by the edict and married women were exempt if represented by their husbands."

6) Another absurdity, invented to create the plot of the gospels, was that of Herod who: "...when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.". (Matt. 2:7-8).

Herod was certainly the most powerful king ever to reign in Palestine during the Roman times. As reported by historical documentation, he had a perfect intelligence organization to defend himself from the revolutionaries of the Jewish Nationalist Party and from whoever could have plotted against him. How can one believe that he would need three foreign kings that were passing through to know if the Messiah was born in Bethlehem? That Messiah, whose birth was known to everyone in Judea because of the announcement made by the angels that flew up into the sky singing hallelujah, hallelujah. How is it possible that everyone knew where the king of kings had been born as indicated by such a bright star that it could be seen in the Far East except Herod and his court? Since the Gospels report (Matt. 2:1) that the three wise men asked the inhabitants of Jerusalem where the king of the Jews was, why couldn't Herod have stepped outside his palace and asked the first person he met where his rival was?

It is evident that this is an absurd fairy tale made up of imaginary characters such as the three kings who were added only because they brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Since the Christian theologians were following the established program of replacing the Avestic religion with Christianity in the minds of the people by making the two beliefs as similar as possible they made the kings offer the same three things which were offered to Mithras

With the same purpose Jesus' birth was initially celebrated at the beginning of March and then changed to December 25, Mithras's birthday. They made Jesus be born in a cave as were Mithras, Dionysus and Tammuz and all the other sun gods because they proved that by being born in a dark place they could triumph over darkness. This program of conquering the masses was based on favoring pagan beliefs as much as possible so that they would assimilate Christianity without any traumas. The Church then continued to follow this practice by using the pagan temples to celebrate their own rites.

7) The Holy Family was sent to Egypt to prove, through God's statement: "Out of Egypt have I called my son", that Jesus was really the Son of God. This fact shows that the gospel writers were Christians of pagan descent who didn't know what the Bible verses referred to. In fact the phrase "Out of Egypt have I called my son", does not refer to the Messiah, as believed, but to the Hebrew population that God, by calling them from Egypt, had freed from the Pharaoh's slavery. Therefore, it would have been better if they had left Jesus in Bethlehem where he was born avoiding that trip to Egypt.

Apart from demonstrating their Biblical ignorance by making Jesus stay in Nazareth to transform him from a Nazarite into a Nazarene, in the meaning of inhabitant of Nazareth, this gives us the definite proof of their imposture.

At this point, taking into account the differences between the two gospels, I would be curious to see Matthew's reaction to the Nativity scenes that are built today with Jesus lying on the straw in a manger. According to what the Church wants us to believe he was an eyewitness, and he had Mary give birth in a comfortable bed at home!

Having finished with the Nativity, Luke goes on to recall Jesus' circumcision which is totally ignored by Matthew. Luke tells everything about this ceremony. He speaks of a certain Simeon, a just man, who honored the baby with words that were dictated by the Holy Spirit. He refers to Anne, the prophetess and even mentions the two doves that were offered in sacrifice according to the Law of Moses (with the head crushed with the thumbnail). Yet, he does not reveal who took the foreskin and preserved it so that future believers could venerate it. Today it can be found at the Ursuline Convent in Charroux, in France. We can imagine these chaste and bashful nuns blushing while praying on their knees in front of a piece of foreskin. What is even funnier is that in the Christian world there are five more of these pieces that are jealously kept as relics in gold reliquaries. Just for your information, I will say that the reliquaries are displayed once a year to the faithful who passing in front of them kiss them through the window. (It seems that the Ursuline nuns of Charroux do it even more often!).

But this is nothing compared to the following: "If Jesus left his foreskin on earth, did He ascend to heaven physically complete or not?" To know how the Church settled this dilemma just ask any Dominican friar or Jesuit friar, as they are specialized in resolving theological problems!

After telling about Jesus' birth, both Matthew and Luke present Jesus at Capernaum at the age of thirty beginning preaching his sermons just as Marcion affirmed in his gospel, with only one difference, that their Christ presented himself in flesh and blood while Marcion's only appeared to be a man.

At this point I am finished with the Nativity, even if there would still be infinite details (serious or comical) to discuss, and I ask myself if it is possible to believe the Church which maintains that the two conflicting gospels were actually written by the two persons in question? One was written by Matthew, as an eyewitness; the other was written by Luke, an apostle who reported the accounts "after having scrupulously and accurately carried out this research."

Before going on to the next chapter that will deal with the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, I would like to give a brief explanation regarding the creation of Joseph, a putative father, and Mary, a virgin and terrestrial mother.

The name Mary, which derives from the Hebrew name Miriam, was chosen from among the most common female names to be found in the Bible. Virginity was attributed to her simply because all the god-saviors, from Eastern and Western religions were children of a god who coupled with a virgin, such as Horus, who was born of Isis, Tammuz of Ishtar, Attis of Nana, Perseus of Daphne, and Mithras was Ahura Mazda's son of an unnamed virgin. Then if we consider the birth of Vishnu from the virgin Devaki we can note that Luke's Nativity is a perfect repetition: "God's will is done. Hail, virgin and mother! You will give birth to a son who will be the savior of the world. But flee, as Kansa (the god of evil) will look for you and will have you and your child killed. Our brothers will guide you to the shepherds who are at the foot of Mount Metu. It is here you will bring your divine Son into the world". This narration taken from Hindu texts is very similar to the birth of that Messiah of the first Apocalypse that was born on earth from a virgin who was followed by a dragon. Various similarities are found in Luke's account of the Nativity, with all the details, the shepherds and Kansa who is changed into King Herod, who searches for the child to have him killed. This is a further confirmation that Christianity is just the plagiarism of other religions.

Consequently, to support Mary's virginity, who else could she marry but a pure and chaste man capable of resisting temptations of the flesh? In the Bible the man who was remembered for his chastity was Joseph, the son of Jacob. He was the Joseph who had been elevated to the rank of viceroy of Egypt and had resisted the temptations of Potiphar's attractive wife. Accordingly, Jesus was given a putative father named Joseph, husband of Mary, who was to remain a virgin. Both Josephs had a father named Jacob.

At this point, we can summarize by saying that numerous pieces of evidence (too many) prove that Jesus was the result of a transformation that was carried out on John, the son of Judas the Gaulonite. However, the decisive, indisputable, and therefore irrefutable evidence was provided by the evangelists themselves through the transformation of the name Nazarite into Nazarene that they carried out so that the prophet's words would be fulfilled: "A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid". (Matt. 5.14).

Luigi Cascioli



Thanks to a perfect bank and post service, the first edition of The Fable of Christ has been outsold also due to an excellent carrying out of the consignment

© Luigi Cascioli