Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
The (False) Truth
From the perspective of the present, I would describe the environment I grew up in as a miniature society, in which the only thing that mattered was to be a Catholic. In those days, there was some segregation in the Netherlands. It is undeniable that in the 1940's and 50's there was not much to do in the Catholic south of the country. North of the big rivers, everything was different. Those regions were inhabited by people who thought differently – by Calvinists or other strict reformists. The churches there always expected people to wear black stockings, which was the symbol of a very strict way of life. That is how we described those people and when we talked about them, it seemed so far away, as if we were speaking of a foreign country. During the war and all it entailed we attached a lot of importance to whatever the pastor preached to us on Sunday. Most people did not have much money to spend and there was an atmosphere of threat and insecurity. Their daily existence was the thing that kept people occupied.
In this world, I grew up in a traditional Catholic family. Sundays, High Mass and Praise were obligatory. The same went for some other days also. We had to attend Praise on Wednesday evening and were obliged to go to church every first Friday of the month. In May and October (the months devoted to Mother Mary), we visited church every night for the rosary prayer. I grew up with themes like the Ten Commandments, and getting indulgence, which we could earn by lighting a candle and reciting, six times, the prayers of Our Father and Hail Mary. After that, we would leave the church for a moment and all would start over again. Every time we followed this routine, we deserved an indulgence on behalf of a deceased person. All devout Catholic persons followed this scheme, because they followed their leaders and believed what the Church taught them. One can compare this to a sect, for the members were brainwashed by their leaders and had their minds turned around. People accepted delusions and fabrications without further investigation. I can still hear my father say, "The pope is infallible in his declarations." It is clear to me that this morbid comedy has been playing for ages. It was most successful during times when common people did not know how to read or write.
In September 1942, my mother took me to school for the first time and I was not exactly eager to go. I was an early pupil, only six years old. With the war raging, there was no such thing as nursery school. During that first year in school, I experienced my First Holy Communion. It was common practice to place the word "holy" before other words, whether it was justified or not. Did this really add any value? Now I know that the Catholic Church wanted this word to convey some sort of elevation, but apart from this woolly, unrealistic theological thinking, the basic meaning of the word holy is simply: "complete."
When I grew up it was common practice for the entire first class of a Roman Catholic primary school to be prepared for First Communion. It was not a matter of choice and we simply went with it. Nowadays, parents and child together make the decision whether or not to take First Communion. That is why few children take their First Communion these days. The question arises: who ever came up with this? However, in those days the Church was still the dominant center of society, where people adored the pastor or chaplain of their religious community. It was what people were used to and they were, in a manner of speaking, blind, because nobody noticed the degree of manipulation of this institution called "the Church."
Part of the preparation for First Communion consisted of learning several songs. One of them stuck in my mind. It clearly made a big impression. The first part of the song was, "My Jesus, Beloved Lord, lives behind the golden door of the altar." I remember while I was singing this, it filled me with loathing, but I did not understand why. During visits to the church, the atmosphere of candle light, incense, song and music, was very soothing for me and I would usually drift away into daydreams. Looking at it from my current viewpoint, I think I would have revolted if I had had the capacity to reflect on it, at that time. Utter nonsense of course, Jesus living behind the golden altar door. In my mind, I see the famous Dutch comedian Toon Hermans, telling the public he was knocking on the little door, but nobody ever answered. This is a playful remark, but in fact, it is appalling that even adults did not question this nonsense!
Another example is the Catechism, from which it is clear to what degree we were brainwashed. When I go back in my memory, I still feel anger surging inside me. Looking at it objectively, it is a stupid game of question and answer, which may be appropriate for children, but certainly not for adults. I even wonder if the authors were perhaps children themselves, or if they were simply senile? How many people are still aware of the Catechism? Not many, I presume. This is why I decided to look more closely at this paradigm of the Catholic theological teachings. Quoting some questions and answers:
To which purpose are we here on earth? We are here on earth in order to serve God and go to heaven.
Who has taught us how to serve God? Jesus Christ taught us how to serve God.
How should we obey the teachings of Jesus Christ? We should obey the teachings of Jesus Christ with deep faith and reverence.
Who is God? God is our Father, who lives in heaven.
Nowadays we can laugh about a simple game of question and answer like this. Is it not completely ridiculous that they used it to manipulate and brainwash people? Most tragic is that even the teachers believed in this invented nonsense.
The teacher taught us also biblical history and about the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) and the confession of faith, which is the Creed of the Catholic Church. Looking back, I now realize the genius of these lessons. The friar knew, acting from his personal religious experience, how to open the hearts of children, in an emotional and almost theatrical way, and then spread the seeds of the Catholic faith. He must have felt great satisfaction, knowing he had fulfilled his task in a splendid manner. The entire class was mesmerized listening to his story and the children looked at the beautiful illustrations of biblical stories that the teacher showed. These friars must have been trained to present their story in a very lively manner. Another example of acting were the preachers, mostly Franciscans or Augustinians, who would often shamelessly conduct the meditations of suffering from the pulpit. They were complete little plays, theatrical to the core.
The friar told us about the Emperor Constantine, who, during one of his hunting parties had seen a deer carrying a shining cross between his antlers. He showed us a beautiful illustration of this occurrence. As a child, I was very susceptible to this kind of story, but I also experienced a feeling of resistance, of doubt about what I was told. During my quest, I concluded that, indeed, many of those beautiful stories they told us were not accurate at all. The subject of the Catholic Church had become an important issue to me in another way: I used it to search for the truth. My curiosity was aroused while reading The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, written by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln. The book was a revelation to me and at the same time, it confirmed what I already knew. Having conducted research for many years these scientists uncovered secrets that form the basis of our Western civilization. From the first chapter the book intrigued me, and I could not stop reading.
My research consisted, largely, of reading books that discussed in detail the history of the Catholic Church, the papacy and the Bible. However, what I read did not surprise me at all. In most cases, I received images within myself that confirmed what I was reading and formed a supplement to it. My journeys through France and to Rome also supplied me with important information and insights on these subjects. Thus, I discovered that the Roman Catholic Church came into being during a period of great confusion. During the first two centuries C.E., Rome was the center of the European world – a melting pot with people of many nationalities. There were various cults and hundreds of different gods, originating from all kinds of places. The disorder was such that a need began to arise in many minds for a religion centering around one God.
I was intensely interested in all I encountered, but one question kept recurring: Who was this historical figure called Jesus, in reality? It is quite hard to form a coherent idea of him, using biblical texts only.
In the Bible, we read that Jesus was the son of a poor carpenter, born of a virgin, immaculately conceived, and referred to as the Son of God. All very vague and questionable information. All along, it was clear to me that this nonsense simply could not be the truth. Therefore, my quest started with the questions: What is the origin of all this? Moreover, what is the real truth?
I started to look for apocryphal texts (i.e., not approved by the Church), many of which have fortunately been located again after centuries of oblivion. They supply important information.
Despite the fact that the Roman Church destroyed many writings, in order to delete all traces of their deception and malpractice, in 1945 a farmer in Nag Hammadi (Upper Egypt) found a jug. It contained writings dating from the first centuries of Christianity. Scientific research on these texts has shown us that the story of Jesus, as officially presented, is a big lie. Of course, this is sensitive information. I simply feel we should not ignore the truth that finally came to the surface after so many centuries hidden.
Not long after, in 1947, a shepherd found another jug with some very ancient manuscripts, in the caves near Chirbet Qumran, on the northern shore of the Dead Sea. These writings give us a lot of insight into the time when Jesus was born. Several texts show us that Jesus was a rebel. He took exception to the authority of the Roman occupation, but he also did not agree with the orthodox leaders of the Jewish faith.
Both sources confirm that Jesus was a pretender to the throne of David, descended from the old bloodline, and his parents were far from poor. One can draw this conclusion from texts that show his mother associated with other women of importance and fortune. Therefore, Joseph was definitely not a poor carpenter. These documents shed a new light on the origin of Christianity. They give information about the old world, but also about the person of Jesus. They make it easier to understand why the Roman Empire sometimes persecuted the followers of Jesus. To me, the main point is that they show how the Christian faith as we know it today, is based on falsehood. The fact that these texts were found was a miscalculation by the Catholic Church.
In my view, the Bible, especially the New Testament, is no more than a form of literature. It is meant specifically to achieve certain aims by spreading this invented message. Carefully selected texts were combined as if they belonged together. A new sort of theological Christianity had arisen, in which the scholars (exclusively men) played an important part, as "Fathers of the Church."
At the end of the second century C.E., Church Father Irenaeus (bishop of Lyon), selected some evangelical texts from the more than thirty that were current at the time. He chose four, for the simple reason that there were four quarters on a compass. These scriptures were anonymous. It was later on that the names of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John were attached to them. His choices were very sexist: all references to the status of women had to be banished. Writings that did not fit in with his selection were confiscated and burned. There must have been hundreds. Their contents will always remain unknown, but we know they were mostly Gnostic writings, describing the life of Jesus, his marriage to Mary Magdalene and his offspring. The truth had to be disguised.
Irenaeus condemned the followers of Jesus in Nazareth, because they claimed Jesus had been born as a human being and was not of divine descent. Irenaeus proclaimed Jesus had preached the wrong religious teachings and was mistaken in his religious convictions. The Church did everything in its power to reform the life of Jesus in order to make it fit in with the story they claimed was true.
The four gospels as we know them from the New Testament are contradictory. There is the story of Jesus being born in a stable, which we have always been told. It may sound romantic when recited before an open fire and it may have some sentimental value, but it simply cannot be true. Let us look at it with discernment. Matthew and Luke both wrote about the birth and descent of Jesus, but their versions are very different, as well as their time-frames.
According to Matthew, Jesus was an aristocrat, the pretender to the throne of the royal family of David; Luke also mentions Jesus was a descendant of David. Mark, though, tells us the story that the Church sticks to.
Mention of a census during the reign of the first Emperor, Augustus, cannot be found anywhere in historical texts. In all probability, if a census of this stature had taken place, historians would have recorded it. According to Luke this census took place in the year 6 C.E., during the reign of Quirinus, and according to Matthew, Herod died in the year 4 B.C. Obviously, this information is contradictory, because there is a gap of at least nine years.
Luke, who pretended to be a historian, wanted to lend credibility to his story by adding the name of Emperor Augustus. This was usual in those days. However, there was no census in those days: there was a registration in the tax register, which was a regional matter. This was the conclusion of scientific research led by Emil Schürer in 1885. It appeared that the registration was for two different sorts of taxes: personal taxes and property taxes.
These contradictions could never have been solved without the communal archives of the Essenes, as written down in the Dead Sea Scrolls. From them we learn that there were two sorts of birth: first the physical birth (as recounted by Matthew) and then birth into the community, which entailed a ritual rebirth (as noted by Luke). There is a gap of twelve years between the two births. A child then became a member of the Jewish community at the age of thirteen. Luke 2:41-50 says that Jesus, at twelve years old, was detained in the temple and said to his parents, "Didn't you know that I have to be in the house of my Father?" In fact, this refers to twelve years after he became a member of the Jewish community. He was 24 years old and had to discuss his status with the teachers of the temple. Here his "Father" refers to his religious father, the high priest, the "father" of the Jewish community.
In those times, two systems of dating were used, the Roman and the Hebrew, and this is the cause of some confusion. We know that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great, so this must have been before his death in 4 B.C.
The occurrence on Jesus' 24 birthday in the temple gives us the exact month of his birth. Luke states it was during Easter. Jews celebrate Easter in March, which is the first month of the Hebrew calendar. According to the Essene dating system the term for every first day of the month was this day, or "today." Luke 2:11 says, "Today a savior was born in the city of David." Judging from the difference between the Hebrew and Roman calendars, Jesus was born on March 1, in the year 7 B.C.
Neither Jesus nor his parents could have lived in Nazareth, a town that did not even exist in those days. Nazareth is not noted on old maps and historians do not make any mention of it. Jesus was called "the Nazarene," but this was because he was a member of the society of the Nazarene.
The name Nazareth stems from the Hebrew word Nazrie ha-Brit, which was the name of an Essene community. Therefore, "Jesus of Nazareth" never existed.
So, where did he actually live? Joseph came from Bethlehem and lived there, so it seems logical that Jesus lived there too. This is the most obvious conclusion, because Bethlehem was the town of King David, of whom Jesus was a direct descendant. Why would the Romans make a registration of Joseph in the tax register, if he did not live in Bethlehem and was not affluent? Because of this, the story of the inn must be false as well. If a person owns a home in Bethlehem, why not sleep there in comfort, rather than stay at an inn, instead? The mention of a "carpenter," walking beside a donkey on which his heavily pregnant wife was seated has to be taken in the symbolic sense. It is a fabricated story. Just like the story of the virgin birth in a stable or cave. This simply seemed to fit in. The same goes for the shepherds with their sheep, the singing angels and the miserable conditions. It is absurd! Research shows that Jesus was the son of wealthy parents, both of whom were of royal blood: Joseph was born into the House of David and Mary belonged to an Armenian dynasty.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "The Deceit of Rome"
by .
Copyright © 2019 Maurits Prins.
Excerpted by permission of Trine Day LLC.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
