Confessions of a Pastor

CONFESSIONS OF A PASTOR
Pastor Craig Lyons1 says to all truth seekers; “Once Christians understand what the Jews have always understood about Atonement then they will understand why it is impossible for anyone to die for you or pay for your sins....opps...the New Testament and its inherent Sun Worship which clothes this Jesus of the NT is exposed.”
The reverend then offers apologies by saying; “Sorry to all the dead monks that forged this New Testament and apologies to the apostate Essenes who began this whole ruse with their synthesis of Sun Worship and Judaism when they forged key passages of the Hebrew Scriptures when translating them into Greek, but you must know the truth about the true Revelation of God given mankind in the beginning, about sin and how it is to be handled before God BEFORE YOU DIE and find out that you have been lied to and deceived about the most important thing in life―God and your relationship with Him.”
The honest pastor admits; “Sadly our Christian Bibles are a mess, to put it mildly. Thank God for true Christian Scholars like Keil and Delitsch who first opened my eyes to this truth and sent me looking into Judaism for corroboration. WOW, that changed the whole direction of my life as a Pastor who realized I, like Isaiah, was a man of unclean lips teaching a lie and deceiving people. So in my repentance and atonement for such a hideous sin of misrepresenting God incorrectly I made my amends again by setting the record straight and giving you the truth long kept from you.”
If the world had more honest pastors like Craig Lyons, there would be less anti-Semitism and less missionizing to the Jews, telling them that Christianity is the better religion, because God replaced Judaism with Christianity.
With all of its lies, forgeries and hate, is Christianity really a better religion? What proof is that?
NOTES:
1. Pastor Craig Lyons, M.Div: 902 Cardigan, Garland, Texas75040
Copyright © 2003, Hugh Fogelman. All rights reserved.

Eusebius the Forger
Who was Father Eusebius? He was just about the most important man in the early history of the Christian church. Some say he was the "yeast" and his history of the Church was the "bread" on which Christianity was formed. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea was born in 260 CE and died in 339 CE. He wrote the famous "Historia Ecclesiastica," which was published in 325 CE, seventy-two years before the New Testament was canonized. His book has been referred to as the History of the Church, which laid down the course of Christianity that is still in effect today.
It was with Eusebius' help that his close friend, the ex-pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, won the crown. His close relationship with Constantine, it was easy to bring about the agreement in 329 that gave official sanction to Roman Catholicism as the State Religion of the Roman Empire. Until this time, almost 300 years after the death of Jesus, the New Testament as we know it today did not exist. What did exist were various writings and notes written by Jesus' disciples and followers. The Church Council of Nicaea in 325 CE was presided over by Constantine with Eusebius at his right hand. It was there that the cardinal principle of unity was established. From that time until the Reformation in the 16th Century there was only one form of Christianity–that which Eusebius had helped to create.
Eusebius wrote, "the names of Jesus and Christ were both known and honored by the ancients" (Hist. Eccl. lib. i. ch. iv). Eusebius, who is Christianity’s chief guide for the early history of the Church, confesses that he was by no means scrupulous (giving careful attention to what is right or proper), to record the whole truth concerning the early Christians in the various works that he has left behind him. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., ch.8 p. 21).
In the book "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" it states that: "Eusebius indirectly confesses that he had included stories that would do credit to the glory of Christianity and he had suppressed all that could tend to discredit Christianity. The carefulness of the historian has exposed his own character of censorship" (Eusebius and the Christian Martyrs, Chapter 16, pg. 197).
Edward Gibbon, speaking of Eusebius wrote:
"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries" (Gibbon, Rome, vol. ii., Philadelphia, 1876).
Gibbon also wrote:
"It must be confessed that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved in less than a century the final conquest of the Roman empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals" (Gibbon, Rome, vol. iii. p. 163).
Dr. Robert L. Wilken, first Protestant scholar to be admitted to the staff of FordhamUniversity recently wrote:
"Eusebius wrote a history of Christianity in which there is no real history. Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest and unfair historian in ancient times".
Another scholar, Joseph Wheless charged that Eusebius was one of the most prolific forgers and liars of his age in the church.
After reading the above, one should ask two questions:
1. Just how truth worthy are the writings in the New Testament? And
2. Are Christians following a man-made faith?
Paul L. Maier (1999) wrote:
“They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies. Some have even found it unnecessary to emend the text but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, using a wicked, godless teaching to plunge into the lowest depths of destruction. They have not been afraid to corrupt divine Scriptures, they have rescinded the rule of ancient faith, they have not known Christ, they ignore Scripture but search for a logic to support their atheism. If anyone challenges them with a passage from Scripture, they examine it to see if it can be turned into a common syllogism. Abandoning the holy Scripture of God, they study "geometry" [earth measurement], for they are from the earth and speak of the earth and do not know the One who comes from above.” From Book 5 section 28
After reading how the Church Historian, Eusebius altered early writings to fit his own idea and concept of how he believed Jesus was, could the Christian truly believe that Jesus said all the things credited to him? Are Christians willing to put their souls on the line? Those who will never question what has been written and use “blind faith” as their logic will always dismiss any claims, evidence and facts that have been produced to show that this religion is faulty and could never had happened in the way the New Testament presents it. Like the old saying goes: “Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up!" Are you one of them?
Paul Maier continues:
“Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their "corrected" -though really corrupted-texts. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, published with the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic authorities, tell us that the decision to have four gospels instead of just one is credited to the early church father St. Irenaeus, who was the first writer to mention the four gospels by name.
St. Irenaeus wrote:
"It is not possible that the gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principle winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world and the pillar and ground of the Church is the gospel, it is fitting that we should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side" (Catholic Encyclopedia vol. VI, pg. 659).
As for the writings of Paul, the Encyclopedia Biblica states categorically:
"With respect to the Canonical Pauline Epistles, none of them are by Paul. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false writings). The group (ten epistles) bears obvious marks of a certain unity, of having originated in one circle, at one time, in one environment, but not of unity of authorship" (Encyclopedia Biblica III pg. 3625-26).
The Father of Christianity appears to be Paul and the Father of the history of the Christian Church appears to be Eusebius. Both never knew or walked with Jesus. Yet, Christians today believe everything these two men want them to believe. Christians believe every word they read and hear to be the words from God.
And they are betting their souls on those man-made words. How sad!

WHAT IS IN A WORD, OR TWO?
Hugh Fogelman
The author of Hebrews in the King James Version (KJV) of the Christian Bible once again had to alter Hebrew scripture in an attempt to show that a Psalm of David refers to Jesus.
The subject Psalm in the KJV:
Psalm 40
6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.
9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest.
Hebrews 10:4 (KJV) says “for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
Then it refers to a misquoted Psalm 40:6-9 when saying:
“Wherefore, when he comes into the world, he said, Sacrifice and offering thou would not, but a body have you prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do your will, O God” (Hebrews 10:5-7).
The Living Bible interprets these same verses as:
“That is why Christ said, as he came into the world, ‘O God, the blood of bulls and goats cannot satisfy you, so have made ready this body of mine for me to lay as a sacrifice upon your altar. You were not satisfied with the animal sacrifices, slain and burnt before you as offerings for sin” (Hebrews 10:5-7).
The New International Version (NIV) Study Bible says:
“Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased” (Hebrews 10:5-6).
It explains when Christ came into the world he said the words of this psalm of David (40:6-8).
The Christian Jerusalem Bible says;
“You, who wanted no sacrifice or oblation, opened my ear, you asked no holocaust or sacrifice for sin; then I said, Here I am! I am coming! In the scroll of the book am I not commanded to obey your will? My God, I have always loved your Law from the depths of by being”.
All four Christian bibles are supposedly quoting Psalm 40:6-8.
Three of the four bibles tied Hebrews 10:5 and Psalm 40 very neatly into Christian theology, but, according to the original source, the Hebrew Bible, what did David actually say? The Tanakh reads:
“Neither feast-offerings nor meal-offering did You desire, but you opened my ears for me; burnt-offering and sin-offering You did not request. Then I said, Behold, I have come with the Scroll of the Book that is written for me. To fulfill Your will, my God, do I desire, and Your Torah is in my innards.”
The Sages explain David was saying to God; “I show my gratitude not with offerings, but I present myself holding the Torah, resolved to obey everything in it.”
Do you think the writers of the New Testament had to change the Hebrew Bible once again in order to make Jesus fit?
Why did Christianity change G-d’s original Judaism, in a brazen attempt to validate its new religion?
Copyright © 2003, Hugh Fogelman. All rights reserved.

DO THE PROPHETS SPEAK OF JESUS?
Shmuel Golding
Part 1
The purpose of these polemics is threefold: to arm with logical refutations those who are pestered by fundamental Christian evangelists who come knocking at the door, to examine the claims of the evangelists by comparing the New Testament with its ancient base, the Hebrew Bible and to enlighten the fundamentalists who are ignorant or unwilling to submit to the findings and intensive research of scholars and theologians over the past 200 years - and rightly so. Their "christological proofs" would disintegrate.
Christianity is said to be founded on Judaism and the New Testament upon the Old. Jesus of Nazareth is claimed by the New Testament to be the promised messiah of the Old Testament. These polemics examine those claims.
1
Matt. 1.22-23: "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet*, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, God with us." (*Isa. 7.14).
Virgin birth is an important fundamental teaching believed by most Christian denominations, who claim it is a fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy.
REFUTATION
The verse which mentions a virgin can only be found in the K.J.V., which is incorrectly translated. Other Bibles, such as the N.E.B., R.S.V. and the Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Version) do not give credence to the belief in a virgin birth. There are five points worth noting as we compare the original Hebrew with the English translation of the K.J.V.:
a) In Hebrew, the verse reads in the present tense, "is with child" and not as according to the K.J.V., which says, "will conceive and bear a child." In Hebrew, it states that she is pregnant, not will be pregnant. In fact, in the Catholic Bible, Isa. 7.14 reads as follows: "The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son.” Jesus was not born until 700 years after this sign was given, which could not be described as "soon.” The text reads "is with child"; no woman could be kept pregnant for 700 years until Jesus arrives.
b) This is not a prophecy for some future date; it is an "ot" (sign). Whenever "ot" is used in Hebrew, it means something which will come to pass immediately. "Ot" is used elsewhere in the Bible: "This shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord" (Isa. 38.7-8) and "If they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign" (Ex. 4.8-9). In each case, the sign came to pass immediately, not 700 years later.
c) The name of the child was to be Emmanuel. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find that Jesus is called Emmanuel. The angel informs Joseph in a dream that Mary will give birth to a son and that he could call his name "Jesus" (Matt. 1.20-21). "His name was called "Jesus" (Luke 2.21). All the evidence indicates that Emmanuel was a different individual from Jesus.
d) The text specifically says, "the young woman" - "alma" - whereas the King James Version changes the translation to "a virgin." The definite article is changed to the indefinite article, whereas the original text is evidently referring to the young woman known to both Isaiah and Ahaz and not to some unknown person in the future.
e) There are a number of verses found in the Hebrew Bible where "alma" is used in describing a woman who is in fact a virgin and such verses are used by fundamentalists to substantiate their beliefs. See Genesis 24.43 and Exodus 2.8.
Therefore our argument is not to over-emphasize "alma" as not meaning a virgin but to point out that alma only applies to a woman for a fixed period of time, irregardless of whether or not she is a virgin, for when she is no longer young, she loses the right to be called "alma.”
An alma can be a young woman who is a virgin or a young woman who is no longer a virgin and the way it is employed in this text can only tell us that she is a young woman, who, by the very fact that she is with child, can no longer be a virgin.