Who was the Real Jesus Christ?
"Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."--Galatians 1:17, 18. Here Paul is referring to his visit to Jerusalem three years after his dramatic baptism on the road to Damascus where he has a supposed encounter with the ascended Jesus.

"Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also."--Galatians 2:1. The problem here is getting the timeline in Acts to correspond to the timeline in the epistles. So we have Paul going to Jerusalem to see Peter three years after his infamous road to Damascus conversion, and once again visiting Jerusalem fourteen years later. It is well established that there was a great famine in Jerusalem c 44 CE. "And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus."--Acts 21:10 "And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar."(41-54 CE. )--Acts 11:25-30.

Such is the inauthenticity of the Christian scriptures. According to most Christian teachers, Paul has his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus sometimes after the year 30, but they will never show their flock the actual quotes. Since we know that the famine took place in 44 CE, when we add 3 + 14 we find that this visit took place 17 years after the baptism of Paul. Christian ministers have long been aware of this, and each offers his own fuzzy math to counter the argument. But when we subtract 17 years from 44 CE we are left with the year 27 CE for Paul's conversion. What is wrong with this date? Well, for one Paul claims to have seen some sort of apparition of a disembodied Jesus. However, not only was Jesus still alive at this time, he had not even begun his ministry according to the Synoptic Gospels. So, how could Paul have been persecuting Christians at a time when not only were there no Christians, but also there was no Jesus Christ? "Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia [Tarsus]. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."--Galatians 1:22-23. How could this be possible?

"1. At that time also a man came forward,--if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply]. 2. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man. 3. His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power. 4. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply]. 5. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel."--Slavonic Josephus. This passage is similar to the infamous 'Testimonium Flavianum' in Josephus' 'Antiquities'. While the headings of the text attribute these characteristics to Jesus, it is known that the headings are editor's additions and not original to the text. So, the person in question could really be just about anyone, but one thing is clear, Josephus could not have met Jesus in person since he was only born in the year 37 CE. However, he was well acquainted with Apollonius of Tyana who was the real Paul of Tarsus. I included this only because it reflects the similarity in context to both the claim of Apollonius and the text in Galatians.

Now, Slavonic Josephus, which only surfaced during the Middle Ages, was originally accepted as real, but later discredited as being a forgery. The problem with that conclusion is that who else could possibly have written it. A Jew would never have written about Jesus, and a Christian would have followed the scriptures, but this text offers a unique insight into the story and is not reliant on the canonical scriptures.

The Church claims that Jesus was a member of the Pharisee, but it is quite clear that no group was more opposed to his teachings then they. We know that Jesus was not a Roman, so who were these followers of Jesus? They could only have been members of the Essene community, or as many of the early Church Fathers would call them the heretics.

Do you believe that there were two people called Jesus Christ? The Church has always used Paul as a witness who attests to the existence of Jesus, but how can you explain the following? "And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus."--Galatians 4:14. Since this epistle was written by the Apostle Paul then you would have to accept the fact that he, Paul, was accepted as Jesus Christ. "And from what I have learned, as a spirit, I conclude that I am both the Jesus and St. Paul of the Christian scriptures."--J.M. Roberts, "Antiquity Unveiled", Testimony of Apollonius of Tyana. It couldn't be more clear. Biblical scholars agree that Galatians is a true example of Paul's writing. The arguments favoring the authenticity of Galatians are its style and themes, which are common to the letters of the Pauline corpus.

Jesus says, you are not no good worthless sinners. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?''--John. 10:34. Being that Jesus was supposedly not only a Pharisaic Jew, but also a direct descendent of David I find it strange that Jesus uses the possessive adjective 'your' instead of 'our'. You can learn more about the etymology of New Testament language in our earlier book 'The Mystery of Jesus Christ and the False Messiah' which can be found online at nazoreans.com.

"The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."--Psalm 110:4. Melchizedek, who we have previously identified, was a vaguely defined figure from the Old Testament similar to the Gnostic version of Jesus Christ, but was believed by many Essene to be the Archangel Michael. So, what Paul is saying is that it is he who was known as Melchizedek and also Jesus Christ. "As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"--Hebrews 5:6. "The original meaning of that was 'a priest after the order of the Sun.'"--J. M. Roberts, "Antiquity Unveiled", testimony of Damis. The Old and New Testaments have variant spellings.

Continued Table of Contents