The Two Christianities





In this age of information more and more people are beginning to realize that the history they’ve been taught their whole lives is a lie.  Many people have learned various amounts of untold history regarding a number of topics, but only a few have learned what you’re about to learn. 

The same way the people in power to this very day refuse to show Egyptians as being black, they refuse to reveal the fact that there are basically two Christianities – one scripture based, seen in the New Testament and practiced by early Christians; the other church based, and religious – Roman Christianity, a product of Rome. 

The belief system/religion of the Israelites, incorrectly called Judaism, was transformed by God (Yahuah) through the Messiah, Jesus (Yahusha).  Unbeknownst to many, a new religion called Christianity was never created by Him.  If you study the Bible you’d see that Jesus adhered to “Judaism” (the Tanakh/the Old Testament), and after the resurrection, the apostles adhered to “Judaism” and Christianity (the transformation).  If you study history you’d see that the earliest Christians did the same.  It was only after some time, and much interference from men with wicked intentions, that the transformation drifted away from its roots and morphed into different sects of Christianity which practiced and believed in slightly different things.  During the time most of these sects lived in seclusion, or roamed about being persecuted, a totally different and separate religion was created, the Roman Catholic Church.  These Roman Catholics were called Christians also, and it wasn’t long before the name Christian was only in reference to their religion.  This new religion took all authority and not only claimed to be the head of all Christianity, calling itself “The Church,” it acted as head, making and “abolishing” commandments, and punishing the individuals and sects who wouldn’t conform to its type of Christianity, which was extremely different.  They murdered many, perverted many, and created many sects of their own.  Europeans then took this, and offshoots of this new religion, around the world with them when they murdered, enslaved, subjugated, and displaced the natives of non-European populations (“colonialism”).  As a result, the nations of the world were introduced to, even forcibly converted into, something that was never instituted by the God of the Bible. 





Gentile Tyranny



One thing that is never taught alongside the New Testament is Roman and Israelite/Jewish relations during that time period.  The same way you saw the US invade, take over, and gain full control over Iraq, placing the rulers they wanted at the head of the country, the Greek empire followed by the Roman Empire did the same to the Holy Land and Israelites. 

Take a look at this animated map of the expansion of the Roman Empire:



The following snippets of information on Gentile rulers are vital in understanding why and how Roman Christianity came about.  Please don’t be discouraged from reading this, trust me, it’s needed.


“Apocryphal book of 2.Maccabees 6:1, 2 talks of King Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), who in his attempt to stamp out the Jewish religion, directed that the temple at Jerusalem be profaned and rededicated to Zeus (Jupiter Olympius).”





Jerusalem, near the Egyptian frontier, was an important point, and in one of its internal revolutions Antiochus saw, perhaps not without reason, a defection to the Egyptian side.  His chastisement of the city, including as it did the spoliation of the temple, served the additional purpose of relieving his financial necessities.  It was a measure of a very different kind when, a year or two later (after 168), Antiochus tried to suppress the practices of Judaism by force, and it was this which provoked the Maccabaean rebellion.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)




Antiochus punished an outburst of strife between the rivals by plundering the Temple and slaying many of the inhabitants (170 B.C.). Two years later Jerusalem was devastated by his general Apollonius, and a Syrian garrison occupied the citadel (Akra). The Jews were ordered under pain of death to substitute for their own observances the Pagan rites prescribed for the empire generally.  In December 168 sacrifice was offered to Zeus upon an idol altar (” the abomination, of desolation,” Dan. x. 27) erected over the great altar of burnt-offering.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)



Antipater the Idumaean

Antipater I the Idumaean (died 43 BC) was the founder of the Herodian Dynasty and father of Herod the Great. According to Josephus, he was the son of Antipas (I) and had formerly held that name.[1]

A native of Idumaea, southeast of Judea between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, which during the time of the Hebrew Bible had been known as the land of Edom,[2] Antipater became a powerful official under the later Hasmonean kings and subsequently became a client of the Roman general Pompey the Great when Pompey conquered Judea in the name of Roman Republic.

When Julius Caesar defeated Pompey, Antipater rescued Caesar in Alexandria, and was made chief minister of Judea, with the right to collect taxes. Antipater eventually made his sons Phasaelus and Herod the Governors of Jerusalem and Galilee respectively. After the assassination of Caesar, Antipater was forced to side with Gaius Cassius Longinus against Mark Antony. The pro-Roman politics of Antipater led to his increasing unpopularity among the devout, non-Hellenized Jews. He died by poison.

The diplomacy and artful politics of Antipater, as well as his insinuation into the Hasmonean court, paved the way for the rise of his son Herod the Great, who used this position to marry the Hasmonean princess Mariamne, endear himself to Rome and become king of Judea under Roman influence.




Herod the Great

Herod (/ˈhɛrəd/; Hebrew: הוֹרְדוֹס‎, Hordos, Greek: Ἡρῴδης, Hērōdēs; 74/73 BCE – 4 BCE),[1][2][3][4][5] also known as Herod the Great and Herod I, was a Roman client king of Judea,[6][7][8] referred to as the Herodian kingdom. He has been described as “a madman who murdered his own family and a great many rabbis“,[9] “the evil genius of the Judean nation”,[10] “prepared to commit any crime in order to gratify his unbounded ambition”[11] and “the greatest builder in Jewish history”.[9] He is known for his colossal building projects throughout Judea, including his expansion of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (Herod’s Temple), the construction of the port at Caesarea Maritima, the fortress at Masada and Herodium.



The symbolic vision in Revelation 12:1-17 was played out in real life in Matthew 2:1-23.  Satan, the dragon, acted through Rome.




The First Jewish War of 66–70

In 66, there was a Jewish revolt in Judea stemming from Greek and Jewish religious tension.[142] In 67, Nero dispatched Vespasian to restore order.[143] This revolt was eventually put down in 70, after Nero’s death.[144] This revolt is famous for Romans breaching the walls of Jerusalem and destroying the Second Temple of Jerusalem.[145]


Christian tradition

Non-Christian historian Tacitus describes Nero extensively torturing and executing Christians after the fire of 64.[7] Suetonius also mentions Nero punishing Christians, though he does so because they are “given to a new and mischievous superstition” and does not connect it with the fire.[190]

Christian writer Tertullian (c. 155–230) was the first to call Nero the first persecutor of Christians. He wrote, “Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine”.[191] Lactantius (c. 240–320) also said that Nero “first persecuted the servants of God”.[192] as does Sulpicius Severus.[193] However, Suetonius writes that, “since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome” (“Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit“).[194] These expelled “Jews” may have been early Christians, although Suetonius is not explicit. Nor is the Bible explicit, calling Aquila of Pontus and his wife, Priscilla, both expelled from Italy at the time, “Jews”.[195]

Reputed martyrdoms of Peter and Paul

The first text to suggest that Nero ordered the execution of an apostle is the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, a Christian writing from the 2nd century. It says, “the slayer of his mother, who himself (even) this king, will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.”[196]

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275–339) was the first to write explicitly that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero.[197] He states that Nero’s persecution led to Peter and Paul’s deaths, but that Nero did not give any specific orders. However, several other accounts going back to the 1st century have Paul surviving his two years in Rome and travelling to Hispania, before facing trial in Rome again prior to his death.[198]

Peter is first said to have been crucified upside-down in Rome during Nero’s reign (but not by Nero) in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (c. 200).[199] The account ends with Paul still alive and Nero abiding by God’s command not to persecute any more Christians.

By the 4th century, a number of writers were stating that Nero killed Peter and Paul.[200]



Nero persecuted real Christians.  This was before Roman Christianity.  This persecution, and the rest that was to come, is what’s shown in Revelation 12:17.


17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


Those were the early Christians.  They had the testimony of Jesus and kept God’s commandments.




According to Suetonius, a prophecy ubiquitous in the Eastern provinces claimed that from Judaea would come the future rulers of the world. Vespasian eventually believed that this prophecy applied to him, and found a number of omens, oracles, and portents that reinforced this belief.


In addition to the uprising in Egypt, unrest and civil war continued in the rest of the empire in 70. In Judea, rebellion had continued from 66. Vespasian’s son, Titus, finally subdued the rebellion with the capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70. According to Eusebius, Vespasian then ordered all descendants of the royal line of David to be hunted down, causing the Jews to be persecuted from province to province.





When Vespasian was declared Emperor on 1 July 69, Titus was left in charge of ending the Jewish rebellion. In 70, he besieged and captured Jerusalem, and destroyed the city and the Second Temple. For this achievement Titus was awarded a triumph; the Arch of Titus commemorates his victory to this day.


Upon his arrival in Rome in 71, Titus was awarded a triumph. Accompanied by Vespasian and Domitian he rode into the city, enthusiastically saluted by the Roman populace and preceded by a lavish parade containing treasures and captives from the war. Josephus describes a procession with large amounts of gold and silver carried along the route, followed by elaborate re-enactments of the war, Jewish prisoners, and finally the treasures taken from the Temple of Jerusalem, including the Menorah and the Pentateuch.[48] Simon Bar Giora was executed in the Forum, after which the procession closed with religious sacrifices at the Temple of Jupiter.







Domitian firmly believed in the traditional Roman religion, and personally saw to it that ancient customs and morals were observed throughout his reign. In order to justify the divine nature of the Flavian rule, Domitian emphasized connections with the chief deity Jupiter,[66] perhaps most significantly through the impressive restoration of the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill. A small chapel dedicated to Jupiter Conservator was also constructed near the house where Domitian had fled to safety on 20 December, 69. Later in his reign, he replaced it with a more expansive building, dedicated to Jupiter Custos.[106]

The goddess he worshipped the most zealously, however, was Minerva. Not only did he keep a personal shrine dedicated to her in his bedroom, she regularly appeared on his coinage—in four different attested reverse types—and he founded a legion, Legio I Minervia, in her name.[107]

Domitian also revived the practice of the imperial cult, which had fallen somewhat out of use under Vespasian. Significantly, his first act as an Emperor was the deification of his brother Titus. Upon their deaths, his infant son, and niece, Julia Flavia, were likewise enrolled among the gods. With regards to the emperor himself as a religious figure, both Suetonius and Cassius Dio allege that Domitian officially gave himself the title of Dominus et Deus.[108][109] However, not only did he reject the title of Dominus during his reign,[110] but since he issued no official documentation or coinage to this effect, historians such as Brian Jones contend that such phrases were addressed to Domitian by flatterers who wished to earn favors from the emperor.[69]

To foster the worship of the imperial family, he erected a dynastic mausoleum on the site of Vespasian’s former house on the Quirinal,[111] and completed the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, a shrine dedicated to the worship of his deified father and brother.[54] To memorialize the military triumphs of the Flavian family, he ordered the construction of the Templum Divorum and the Templum Fortuna Redux, and completed the Arch of Titus.


Foreign religions were tolerated insofar as they did not interfere with public order, or could be assimilated with the traditional Roman religion. The worship of Egyptian deities in particular flourished under the Flavian dynasty, to an extent not seen again until the reign of Commodus. Veneration of Serapis and Isis, who were identified with Jupiter and Minerva respectively, was especially prominent.[107]





Shortly afterwards, the Jews inside the Eastern Roman Empire, in Egypt, Cyprus and Cyrene – this last province being probably the original trouble hotspot – rose up in what probably was an outburst of religious rebellion against the local pagans, this widespread rebellion being afterwards named the Kitos War.[235] Another rebellion flared up among the Jewish communities of Northern Mesopotamia, probably part of a general reaction against Roman occupation.[236] Trajan was forced to withdraw his army in order to put down the revolts. He saw this withdrawal as simply a temporary setback, but he was destined never to command an army in the field again, turning his Eastern armies over to Lusius Quietus, who meanwhile had been made governor of Judaea and might have had to deal earlier with some kind of Jewish unrest in the province.[237] Quietus discharged his commission successfully, so much that the war was afterward named after him – Kitus being a corruption of Quietus.[238]




The Roman Empire in 117 AD, at its greatest extent at the time of Trajan‘s death.




Hadrian and Judea; Second Roman-Jewish War and Jewish persecution (132–136)

In 130, Hadrian visited the ruins of Jerusalem,[citation needed] in Roman Judaea, left after the First Roman-Jewish War of 66–73. He rebuilt the city, according to a midrashic tradition initially allowing the rebuilding of the Temple, but when told by Samaritans that it would be the cause for much sedition, he then changed his mind,[54] a motive that seems to have been undone or contradicted by his subsequent decision to build a temple to the Roman god Jupiter on the ruins of the Temple Mount instead,[55] and other temples to various Roman gods throughout Jerusalem, including a large temple to the goddess Venus.[56] He even renamed the city itself, as Aelia Capitolina after himself and Jupiter Capitolinus, the chief Roman deity.


A tradition based on the Historia Augusta suggests that tensions grew higher when Hadrian abolished circumcision (brit milah),[58] which he, a Hellenist, viewed as mutilation.[59] However one scholar, Peter Schäfer, maintains that there is no evidence for this claim.[60][61][62]

These anti-Jewish policies of Hadrian triggered in Judaea a massive Jewish uprising, led by Simon bar Kokhba.


Hadrian’s army eventually put down the rebellion in 135. According to Cassius Dio, overall war operations in the land of Judea left some 580,000 Jews killed, and 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed to the ground. The most famous battle took place in Beitar, a fortified city 10 km. southwest of Jerusalem. The city only fell after a lengthy siege of three and a half years, at which time Hadrian prohibited the Jews from burying their dead. They were eventually afforded burial when Antoninus (Pius) succeeded Hadrian as Roman Emperor.[67] According to the Babylonian Talmud,[68] after the war Hadrian continued the persecution of Jews.

He attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of continuous rebellions, prohibited the Torah law, the Hebrew calendar and executed Judaic scholars (see Ten Martyrs). The sacred scroll was ceremonially burned on the Temple Mount. In an attempt to erase the memory of Judaea, he renamed the province Syria Palaestina (after the Philistines), and Jews were barred from entering its rededicated capital. When Jewish sources mention Hadrian it is always with the epitaph “may his bones be crushed” (שחיק עצמות or שחיק טמיא, the Aramaic equivalent[69]), an expression never used even with respect to Vespasian or Titus who destroyed the Second Temple.





The Romans regarded Jupiter as the equivalent of the Greek Zeus,[5] and in Latin literature and Roman art, the myths and iconography of Zeus are adapted under the name Iuppiter.


Jupiter’s Capitoline Temple probably served as the architectural model for his provincial temples. When Hadrian built Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was erected in the place of the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem.




By now you should be able to see that there was a hate for the Israelites and their “religion,” which came from the Scriptures (Tanakh/Old Testament).  And you saw the constant attempts to eradicate it. 



To put everything into perspective


332 BCE

Alexander the Great conquers Phoenicia and Gaza, probably passing by Judea without entering the Jewish dominated hill country on his way into Egypt.

200 BCE–100 CE

At some point during this era the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is canonized. Jewish religious works that were explicitly written after the time of Ezra were not canonized, although many became popular among many groups of Jews. Those works that made it into the Greek translation of the Bible (the Septuagint) became known as the deuterocanonical books.

167–161 BCE

The Maccabees (Hasmoneans) revolt against the Hellenistic Empire of Seleucids, led by Judah Maccabee, resulting in victory and installation of the Hanukkah holiday.

157–129 BCE

Hasmonean dynasty establishes its royal dominance in Judea during renewed war with Seleucid Empire.

63 BCE

Pompey the Great lay siege to and entered the Temple, Judea became a client kingdom of Rome.

40 BCE–4 BCE

Herod the Great, appointed King of the Jews by the Roman Senate.

1st century CE

6 CE

Province of Roman Judaea created by merging Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea.

10 CE

Hillel the Elder, considered the greatest Torah sage, dies, leading to the dominance of Shammai till 30, see also Hillel and Shammai.

26–36 CE

Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus killed by the Romans.

30 CE

Helena of Adiabene, a vassal Parthian kingdom in Mesopotamia, converts to Israelite religion. Significant numbers of Adiabene population follow her, later also providing limited support for Jews during Jewish-Roman wars. In the following centuries the community mostly converts to Christianity.

30–70 CE

Schism within Judaism during the Second Temple era. A sect within Hellenised Jewish society starts Jewish Christianity, see also Rejection of Jesus.


The Great Jewish Revolt against Roman occupation ended with destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem. 1,100,000 people are killed by the Romans during the siege, and 97,000 captured and enslaved.[citation needed] The Sanhedrin was relocated to Yavne by Yochanan ben Zakai, see also Council of Jamnia. Fiscus Judaicus levied on all Jews of the Roman Empire whether they aided the revolt or not.


Period of the Tannaim, rabbis who organized and elucidated the Jewish oral law. The decisions of the Tannaim are contained in the Mishnah, Beraita, Tosefta, and various Midrash compilations.[7]


Final events of the Great Jewish Revolt – the fall of Masada. Christianity starts off as a Jewish sect and then develops its own texts and ideology and branches off from Judaism to become a distinct religion.

2nd century


Kitos War (Revolt against Trajan) – a second Jewish-Roman War initiated in large Jewish communities of Cyprus, Cyrene (modern Libya), Aegipta (modern Egypt) and Mesopotamia (modern Syria and Iraq). It led to mutual killing of hundreds of thousands Jews, Greeks and Romans, ending with a total defeat of Jewish rebels and complete extermination of Jews in Cyprus and Cyrene by the newly installed Emperor Hadrian.


The Roman emperor Hadrian, among other provocations, renames JerusalemAelia Capitolina” and prohibits circumcision. Bar Kokhba (Bar Kosiba) leads a large Jewish revolt against Rome in response to Hadrian’s actions. In the aftermath, most Jewish population is annihilated (about 580,000 killed) and Hadrian renames the province of Judea to Syria Palaestina, and attempts to root out Judaism.


Rabbi Akiva is martyred.


With Emperor Hadrian‘s death, the persecution of Jews within the Roman Empire is eased and Jews are allowed to visit Jerusalem on Tisha B’av. In the following centuries the Jewish center moves to Galilee.

3rd century


The Mishnah, the standardization of the Jewish oral law as it stands today, is redacted by Judah haNasi in the land of Israel.


Period of the amoraim, the rabbis of the Talmud.

4th century


Roman Emperor Constantine I enacts new restrictive legislation. Conversion of Christians to Judaism is outlawed, congregations for religious services are curtailed, but Jews are also allowed to enter Jerusalem on the anniversary of the Temple’s destruction.


Jewish revolt, directed against Constantius Gallus, is put down.


Because of the increasing danger of Roman persecution, Hillel II creates a mathematical calendar for calculating the Jewish month. After adopting the calendar, the Sanhedrin in Tiberias is dissolved.


The last pagan Roman Emperor, Julian, allows the Jews to return to “holy Jerusalem which you have for many years longed to see rebuilt” and to rebuild the Second Temple. Shortly after, the Emperor is assassinated, and the plan is dissolved.


Galilee earthquake of 363






The Changing Face of Christianity



Early Christianity

Early Christianity is the period of Christianity preceding the First Council of Nicaea in 325. It is typically divided into the Apostolic Age and the Ante-Nicene Period (from the Apostolic Age until Nicea).

The first Christians, as described in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, were all Jewish, either by birth, or conversion for which the biblical term proselyte is used,[1] and referred to by historians as the Jewish Christians. The early Gospel message was spread orally; probably in Aramaic,[2] but almost immediately also in Greek.[3] The New Testament‘s Book of Acts and Epistle to the Galatians record that the first Christian community was centered in Jerusalem and its leaders included Peter, James, and John.[4] Paul of Tarsus, after his conversion to Christianity, claimed the title of “Apostle to the Gentiles”.


During the Ante-Nicene period following the Apostolic Age, a great diversity of views emerged simultaneously with strong unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period. Part of the unifying trend was an increasingly harsh rejection of Judaism and Jewish practices. Early Christianity gradually grew apart from Judaism during the first two centuries and established itself as a predominantly gentile religion in the Roman Empire.



If it was created to be a new religion, it would have begun apart from “Judaism,” and its initial spread would have been apart from “Judaism,” but that’s not what happened.  “During the Ante-Nicene period following the Apostolic Age, a great diversity of views emerged simultaneously with strong unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period.  Part of the unifying trend was an increasingly harsh rejection of Judaism and Jewish practices.  Early Christianity gradually grew apart from Judaism during the first two centuries and established itself as a predominantly gentile religion in the Roman Empire.”  This great diversity of views and anti-Israelite fervor, as seen with European rulers, didn’t just happen; it was caused intentionally.

In the New Testament you can read how the Church was already being infiltrated and disrupted before 70 A.D.

THEN fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)



BUT there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.



18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.



4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father. 5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.




3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.


This was only the beginning.  What Rome saw in these believers was a new type of “Jew”/Israelite, and they saw this new “Judaism” spreading to their people, their land, and lands under their control; being led by these new “Jews”/Israelites.


This excerpt from How the Vatican created Islam by Alberto Rivera is accurate.  I came to the same conclusion in my research and studies.

“Sweeping changes were in the wind. Corruption, apathy, greed, cruelty, perversion, and rebellion were eating at the Roman Empire, and it was ready to collapse. The persecution against Christians was useless, as they continued to lay down their lives for the gospel of Christ.

The only way Satan could stop this thrust was to create a counterfeit ‘Christian’ religion to destroy the work of God.

The solution was in Rome. Their religion had come from ancient Babylon, and all it needed was a face-lift. This didn’t happen overnight, but began in the writings of the “early church fathers”.

It was through their writings that a new religion would take shape. The statue of Jupiter in Rome was eventually called St. Peter, and the statue of Venus was changed to the Virgin Mary. The site chosen for its headquarters was on one of the seven hills called ‘Vaticanus’ – the place of diving serpent where the satanic Temple of Janus stood.

The great counterfeit religion was Roman Catholicism, called ‘Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth’ (Revelation 17:5). She was raised up to block the gospel, slaughter the believers in Christ, establish religions, create wars, and make the nations drunk with the wine of her fornication as we will see.”



Roman Christianity teaches that there were early church fathers besides Jesus and the apostles, and they go to their words as though they are the words of the apostles.  In reality, most of these so-called early church fathers were a part of the conspiracy.


Go to the following website and read the information starting from Ante-Nicene Church Fathers Vs. the Apostolic Father.  You’ll see the same anti-Israelite, anti-Torah/anti-Law spirit seen with those Greek and Roman rulers.


The following Wikipedia article contains some useful information: 
When reading all Wikipedia articles you have to be aware of each word used, and each source used.  A true search for the truth of any matter has to go beyond Wikipedia.

Just reading some of the things Ignatius of Antioch is said to have said, or actually did say, you see the birth of Roman Christianity and Catholicism:


Here are some additional sources for researching this matter


So far you should be able to see a common trend – anti-Israelite/anti-Jew and anti-Torah/anti-Law.



Did you know that there was no such thing as the terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” in the earliest Bibles?  Can you guess when this came about?  During the time of the “early church fathers”.  Think about what’s being said to you when you read these terms.  The section which contains the Law, and everything Israelite, is old.  The section which contains the Gentiles, no Law (in the eyes of the average person), and set in a time of Gentile domination, is new. 


New Testament

Use of the term New Testament to describe a collection of first and second-century Christian Greek Scriptures can be traced back to Tertullian (in Against Praxeas 15).[8] In Against Marcion, written circa 208 AD, he writes of

the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel.[9]

And Tertullian continues later in the book, writing:

it is certain that the whole aim at which he [Marcion] has strenuously laboured, even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.[10][note 1]

By the 4th century, the existence—even if not the exact contents—of both an Old and New Testament had been established. Lactantius, a 3rd–4th century Christian author wrote in his early-4th-century Latin Institutiones Divinae (Divine Institutes):

But all scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ—that is, the law and the prophets—is called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New: but yet they are not discordant, for the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ, who, having suffered death for us, made us heirs of His everlasting kingdom, the people of the Jews being deprived and disinherited. As the prophet Jeremiah testifies when he speaks such things: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new testament to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they continued not in my testament, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord.”[Jer 31:31–32] … For that which He said above, that He would make a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect; but that which was to be given by Christ would be complete.[11]




Reading the information on Tertullian contained in this article you can see today’s Roman Christianity:


Nearly every Christian minister today teaches these eighteen hundred year old lies and misinterpretations.  It’s not a religion based on the Bible, it is man-made – man-made commandments, interpretations, and tradition.  It’s the equivalent of today’s so-called Judaism and the Talmud.

F.Y.I. unlike what Irenaeus and Tertullian stated, the person called the anti-Christ is NOT the same person referred to as the man of sin, nor is it the same person referred to as the beast. 


And in this writing you see the same anti-Israelite and anti-Law mentality:

Now think about “Old Testament” and “New Testament”.

As stated in the article on early Christianity: “During the Ante-Nicene period following the Apostolic Age, a great diversity of views emerged simultaneously with strong unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period.  Part of the unifying trend was an increasingly harsh rejection of Judaism and Jewish practices.  Early Christianity gradually grew apart from Judaism during the first two centuries and established itself as a predominantly gentile religion in the Roman Empire.”

I haven’t read everything that every so-called early church father has written so I can’t say for sure who was a part of the conspiracy or not.  It may be that with some of them their false interpretations of words, subjects, verses, and/or prophecy was used by others for the conspiracy.  Nevertheless, if a person’s words and/or actions run parallel with the main agenda – to sever “Christianity” from “Judaism” to make a new religion – that person is automatically a suspect in my opinion, even if they support “this” and protest against “that”.  Just know that with history, particularly European history, there is usually the exoteric version of an event, the official story, and an esoteric version of an event, the real reasons.  You have to be able to see past the exoteric and play private investigator to get to the real reasons.



Constantine the Great and Judaism

Under Constantine the Great Jewish clergy were given the same exemptions as Christian clergy.[1] Constantine, however, supported the separation of the date of Easter from the Jewish Passover (see also Quartodecimanism), stating in his letter after the First Council of Nicaea (which had already decided the matter):

“… it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul … Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way.”[2]

Theodoret‘s Ecclesiastical History records The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present:

“It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. … Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. … Let us … studiously avoiding all contact with that evil way. … For how can they entertain right views on any point who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. … lest your pure minds should appear to share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved. … Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. … no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews.”[3]



For centuries many Christians have been taught to hate the “Jews”/Israelites.  It should be clear where much of this comes from – people like the “early church fathers” and Constantine.  “Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries.”  As already stated, the very first “Christians” were all Israelites/“Jews,” so what he’s saying doesn’t even make sense.  Isn’t it interesting how Constantine’s words are just like the words of some of the “early church fathers”? 

For centuries Roman Christianity has taught that God totally replaced Israelites/“Jews” with Gentiles.  If you hijack someone’s “religion,” and create your own based on it, I guess you have to make such claims.  But are such claims true?  God sent Jesus to “Jews”/Israelites only (Matthew 10:1-8, 15:21-24).  The inclusion of the Gentiles came later through Peter and Saul/Paul (Acts 11:1-21).  Most Roman Christian ministers today won’t point that out.  What they will point out, and take out of context, is when Saul said that he was turning to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46).  They use that, out of context, as proof that God abandoned the Israelites for Gentiles, or Christians.  And most of them do this because this is how they were taught to teach the Bible.  But if you put that verse back in context and read what comes after it, you will see that Saul/Paul turned to Israelites again. 


AND it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.


And that was only seven verses away!



NOW when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. 5 ¶ But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. 6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; 7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. 8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. 9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go. 10 ¶ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. 14 And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still. 15 And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed. 16 ¶ Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. 17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.


This means that when he said “we turn to the Gentiles,” he was speaking of turning away from the Israelites/“Jews,” and to the Gentiles, in that particular city, not in general.  See Romans chapter 11 for a clear statement from Saul disproving what Roman Christianity teaches in regards to this matter.  That’s another one they don’t tell you about.  And why?  It conflicts with the lies, the false interpretations they’ve been indoctrinated with, and indoctrinate you with.  It is opposed to the false reality, the Roman Christian Matrix, that has been created over the years.



“For how can they entertain right views on any point who, after having compassed the death of the Lord … in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord.”  That’s exactly what’s been taught from the pulpit for over a thousand years, true or false?


17 ¶ And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, 18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, 19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.


Who did he say was going to kill him?



33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: 34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.



32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: 33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.



24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.



24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: 25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.


These are just some of the examples of how Roman Christianity, through ministers in churches, teaches one thing while the Bible states another. 

For hundreds of years the powers in Rome refused to allow the scriptures to be translated out of Latin, keeping large populations from reading it themselves, and allowing for their certified priests to be the only ones teaching the people.

Today, it’s the same set up, only without the language barrier; this has been replaced with conditioning.  The people are conditioned to believe that they shouldn’t, and can’t, read the Bible for themselves; they need a “man of the cloth” to do it for them.




The Quartodeciman controversy arose because Christians in the churches of Jerusalem and Asia Minor celebrated Passover on the 14th of the first month (Aviv), while the churches in and around Rome changed to the practice of celebrating Easter on the following Sunday calling it “the day of the resurrection of our Saviour”. The difference was turned into an ecclesiastical controversy when synods of bishops which held to Apostolic tradition condemned the practice.[4]


Of the disputes about the date when the Christian Pascha should be celebrated, disputes known as Paschal/Easter controversies, the Quartodeciman is the first recorded.

In the mid–2nd century, the practice in Asia Minor was for the pre-Paschal fast to end and the feast to be held on the 14th day (the full moon) of the Jewish lunar month of Nisan, the date on which the Passover sacrifice had been offered when the Second Temple stood, and “the day when the people put away the leaven”.[5] Those who observed this practice were called Quartodecimani, Latin for “fourteenthers”, because of holding their celebration on the fourteenth day of Nisan.

The practice had been followed by Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle and bishop of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155) – one of the seven churches of Asia, and by Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180).[5] Irenaeus says that Polycarp visited Rome when Anicetus was its bishop (c. 68-153), and among the topics discussed was this divergence of custom, with Rome instituting the festival of Easter in place of the Pasch. Irenaeus noted:

Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.[6]

Condemnatory synods

According to Eusebius, in the last decade of the 2nd century a number of synods were convened to deal with the controversy, ruling unanimously that the celebration of Easter should be observed and be exclusively on Sunday.

Synods and conferences of bishops were convened, and drew up a decree of the Church, in the form of letters addressed to Christians everywhere, that never on any day other than the Lord’s Day should the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead be celebrated, and on that day alone we should observe the end of the Paschal fast.[4]

These synods were held in Palestine, Pontus and Osrhoene in the east, and in Rome and Gaul in the west.[4] The council in Rome, presided over by its bishop Victor, took place in 193 and sent a letter about the matter to Polycrates of Ephesus and the churches of the Roman province of Asia.[8] Within the same year, Polycrates presided over a council at Ephesus attended by several bishops throughout that province, which rejected Victor’s authority and kept the province’s paschal tradition.[8]

Polycrates emphatically stated that he was following the tradition passed down to him:

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming … All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.[5]


On receiving the negative response of Polycrates, Victor attempted to cut off Polycrates and the others who took this stance from the common unity, but reversed his decision after bishops who included Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, interceded, recommending that Victor follow the more peaceful attitude of his predecessors.

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom.”[10]


In the short following chapter of the account by Eusebius, a chapter headed “How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover”, he recounts that the Palestinian bishops Narcissus and Theophilus, together with the bishops of Tyre and Ptolemais, wrote a lengthy review of the tradition of Sunday celebration of Easter “which had come to them in succession from the apostles”, and concluded by saying:

Endeavor to send copies of our epistle to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.[9]

There has been a debate about the time when quartodecimanism disappeared and in particular whether it disappeared before or after the First Ecumenical Council, held in 325 at Nicaea. Since the work of Duchesne[11] the first opinion “has gained widespread acceptance”.[12] According to Mark DelCogliano: “So by the early 4th century all Christians were celebrating Easter on a Sunday. Accordingly, it was not the Quartodeciman practice that Constantine sought to eliminate, but rather the so-called ‘Protopaschite’ practice which calculated the paschal full moon according to the Jewish lunar calendar and not the Julian solar calendar”.[13]

As shown, for instance, by the Sardica paschal table, it was quite common at that time that the Jewish calendrical year started before the equinox. In case the previous year had started after the equinox, two Passovers would be celebrated in the same solar year (the solar New Year was starting on March 21). Since the 3rd century this disorder of the Jewish calendar of the time was lamented by several Christian writers, who felt that the Jewish were often using a wrong lunation as their Nisan month and advocated the introduction of an independent computus by the Christians.

In a letter to the bishops who had not been present, Emperor Constantine I said that it had been decided to adopt a uniform date, rejecting the custom of the Jews, who had crucified Jesus and whose practice often meant that two passovers were celebrated in the same solar year:

It was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast, from which we date our hopes of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to our most holy religion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their baseness… being altogether ignorant of the true adjustment of this question, they sometimes celebrate Easter twice in the same year. Why then should we follow those who are confessedly in grievous error? Surely we shall never consent to keep this feast a second time in the same year… And let your Holinesses’ sagacity reflect how grievous and scandalous it is that on the self-same days some should be engaged in fasting, others in festive enjoyment; and again, that after the days of Easter some should be present at banquets and amusements, while others are fulfilling the appointed fasts. It is, then, plainly the will of Divine Providence (as I suppose you all clearly see), that this usage should receive fitting correction, and be reduced to one uniform rule.[14]





From Saturday Sabbath to Sunday Church


Lord’s Day

Biblical use

The phrase the “Lord’s Day” appears only once in the Bible in Revelation 1:10 which was written near the end of the first century. It is the English translation of the koine Greek kyriake hemera. The adjective kyriake (“Lord’s”) often elided its noun, as in the neuter kyriakon for “Lord’s [assembly]”, the predecessor of the word “church“; the noun was to be supplied by context.

In Rev. 1:10, the apostle John, used kyriake hemera (“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day”) in a way apparently familiar to his readers. Observers of first-day worship hold that this means he was worshiping on Sunday, resurrection day. Seventh-day Sabbatarians hold that since Jesus said he was “Lord of the Sabbath”[2] and that Isaiah called the Sabbath the “Lord’s Holy Day”[3] then the Lord’s Day is the Seventh-day Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). Both parties accordingly use this verse to lay claim to the name “Lord’s Day” for their day of worship.


Early church

In the first centuries, Sunday, being made a festival in honor of Christ’s resurrection, received attention as a day of religious services and recreation, but seventh-day Sabbath rest (based on the Jewish Shabbat, because the earliest Christians were all Jews) was still observed by “almost all churches”.[10][11] Often first-day worship (Sunday morning or Saturday night) was practiced alongside observance of seventh-day Sabbath rest[15] and was a widespread Christian tradition by the 2nd century, attested in patristic writings of the 2nd century;[16][17] over time, Sunday thus came to be known as Lord’s Day. These early Christians believed that the resurrection and ascension of Christ signals the renewal of creation, making the day on which God accomplished it a day analogous to the first day of creation when God made the light. Some of these writers referred to Sunday as the “eighth day”.



Sunday was chosen as a day for a festival to honor Jesus’ resurrection.  While this man-made observance existed, the seventh-day Sabbath, a God-made observance, was followed as well … by the same people.  The term “the Lord’s Day” probably started off as just a nickname for the day he rose, and the festival was added later by whomever.

Let’s say that Jesus rose on a Sunday, and Sunday is what’s called “the Lord’s Day,” where is the information stating that the seventh day Sabbath is abolished?  Where is the information stating that Sunday, the Lord’s Day, is the new Sabbath?  Where is the information stating that there is to be a gathering or celebration on the Lord’s Day?  Where is the information stating that the Lord’s Day is to be celebrated?

And proving that it was a practice is not proving that it was a commandment.  There is a huge difference between the two.  There’s a huge difference between what others did for whatever reasons, and what you have to do because God said so.

In that full Wikipedia article on the Lord’s Day, you can see some of the statements of the “early church fathers” arguing that the Sabbath is abolished, and the Lord’s Day is the day for Christians to observe in its place. 



Now, let’s go over some history to see how the Sabbath was officially changed, in your mind, to Sunday.


How the Sabbath was switched to Sunday…STRICTLY HISTORY!!!



Law Relating to Sunday

The earliest recognition of the observance of Sunday as a legal duty is a constitution of Constantine in 321 a.d., enacting that all courts of justice, inhabitants of towns, and workshops were to be at rest on Sunday (venerabili die solis), with an exception in favour of those engaged in agricultural labour.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)



Shabbaths and the Feasts Days (Part3)



Constantine the Great

Constantine would retain the title of pontifex maximus until his death, a title emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood, as would his Christian successors on to Gratian (r. 375–383).


However, Constantine certainly did not patronize Christianity alone. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), a triumphal arch—the Arch of Constantine—was built (315) to celebrate his triumph. The arch is decorated with images of the goddess Victoria. At the time of its dedication, sacrifices to gods like Apollo, Diana, and Hercules were made. Absent from the Arch are any depictions of Christian symbolism. However, as the Arch was commissioned by the Senate, the absence of Christian symbols may reflect the role of the Curia at the time as a pagan redoubt.[218]

Later in 321, Constantine instructed that Christians and non-Christians should be united in observing the venerable day of the sun, or Sunday referring to the sun-worship that Aurelian had established as an official cult. Furthermore, and long after his oft alleged conversion to Christianity, Constantine’s coinage continued to carry the symbols of the sun. Even after the pagan gods had disappeared from the coinage, Christian symbols appeared only as Constantine’s personal attributes: the chi rho between his hands or on his labarum, but never on the coin itself.[219] Even when Constantine dedicated the new capital of Constantinople, which became the seat of Byzantine Christianity for a millennium, he did so wearing the Apollonian sun-rayed Diadem; no Christian symbols were present at this dedication.


Constantine enforced the prohibition of the First Council of Nicaea against celebrating the Lord’s Supper on the day before the Jewish Passover (14 Nisan) (see Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). This marked a definite break of Christianity from the Judaic tradition. From then on the Roman Julian Calendar, a solar calendar, was given precedence over the lunar Hebrew Calendar among the Christian churches of the Roman Empire.[222]



“This marked a definite break of Christianity from the Judaic tradition.”  What Constantine did was not a break from “tradition,” it was a break from the commandments of God.  And even before Constantine the plot to eliminate the Law, Israelites, and real Christians (believers who followed the word of God), was well under way.  This plot continues to this day. 


Here is a prime example of how verses were later selected to justify what was being done, the celebration of a Sabbath-like Sunday with no observance of the true Sabbath.


If it’s right there in history how the Sabbath “got changed,” why are these ministers saying that this verse plus that verse, plus the “fact” that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday means the Sabbath is on Sunday?  They teach you the lies they were taught.  And some of them find out the truth about the lies, but continue to teach them.  For the ultimate example of a pastor, a leading pastor in America, teaching such lies, and having those lies proven to be lies, check this out after you finish The Two Christianities.  You will learn a lot.





The Mother of Harlots


Up until about the 2nd century there was a hand full of Christian churches (bodies of believers) that were seen as main authorities.  Over time, as many of the countries these churches were located in were attacked and overran, the church at Rome ending up as the dominate church.  From this position they sought greater and greater authority and eventually morphed into the Roman Catholic Church, claiming all authority over all Christianity. 


“After the fall of the Western Empire, which marked the beginning of the Middle Ages, Rome slowly fell under the political control of the Papacy, which had settled in the city since the 1st century AD, until in the 8th century it became the capital of the Papal States, which lasted until 1870.”



If you remember your history, the Popes began to act as emperors while being head of the Roman Catholic Church.



The new “church” was only a continuation of the plots already carried out by Rome for centuries.  It stood in opposition to what was clearly written in the Bible, and created much of its own doctrine.


Shabbaths and the Feasts Days (Part2)


The Vatican and Sun Worship Connection


There is so much more to know about this “church”.  The symbolic vision seen by John in Revelation is 100% accurate.  Every detail about Mystery Babylon is correct, even though it was written hundreds of years before the Catholic Church even existed.  For a full breakdown see this later.



This documentary reveals a lot about the history of the Catholic Church:

A Lamp In The Dark:untold history of Bible – Full Film

Here are some key statements

– But if Constantine were a true believer, how could he turn and persecute other Christians?  Some researchers believe it was because his faith was divided.  Researcher Dave Hunt writes that “While heading the Christian church, Constantine continued to head the pagan priesthood, to officiate at pagan celebrations, and to endow pagan temples even after he began to build Christian churches.”  “As head of the pagan priesthood he was Pontifex Maximus and needed a similar title as head of the Christian church.”  “The Christians honored him as ‘Bishop of Bishops,’ while Constantine called himself Vicarius Christi, Vicar of Chirst.”  For the cause of unifying the empire, the pagan practices of Rome were eventually combined with what was called the Universal, or Catholic, Church.  But many Christians saw in this new system an apostate union between the Church and the powers of the world.  Through Constantine would begin the persecution of those who opposed the new universal faith.  As a result of his edict against heretics, it would be said that more Christians were persecuted after his conversion than before it.  When the Roman Empire would eventually suffer its decline, the bishops of Rome would rise up and take to themselves the titles of Constantine – Pontifex Maximus, Bishop of Bishop, and Vicarius Christi; the Vicar, or substitute, of Christ.  As 17th century historian Thomas Hobbes wrote, “If a man consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof …”


– While some may attribute the beginning of the Dark Age to Constantine, the record of history shows that the name of this era was given because the Bible was forbidden.  The psalmist writes “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”  But in the 13th century, Rome made a concerted effort to put out that light, and to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures.  The conflict began with a Catholic priest named Dominic Guzman.  It can be said that Dominic, along with Pope Innocent III, were the two original founders of Rome’s most dreadful engine of terror and destruction, the Inquisition.  The Inquisition itself began, not because of witches, or as a crusade against Muslims, but rather because of Bible believing Christians.


– In the year 1206, the Albigenses made a confession, “That the Church of Rome was not the spouse of Christ but the Church of confusion, drunk with the blood of the martyrs.  That the Church of Rome was neither good nor holy nor established by Jesus Christ.”


– By 1233 A.D. Pope Gregory IX would establish the Inquisition as official church doctrine, and thus began some six hundred years of bloodshed against Bible believers.  As a direct result of the Albingensen Crusade, the popes began to outlaw the translation, possession, or reading of the Bible.  Historian David Cloud explains that “The light brought by the Scriptures made Rome’s heresies plain.”  “The persecutions which Rome poured out upon these peace-loving people were intended to destroy them, as well as their Scriptures.”  Beginning with the Albingenses, Rome’s Inquisition continued its bloodthirsty cause for centuries.  Its estimated death toll was recording by historian John Dowling in 1845.  Who wrote, “… it is estimated by careful and credible historians that more that fifty millions of the human family have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors.”

In modern times, it is traditionally thought that Roman Catholicism was the only form of Christianity until the Protestant Reformation.  But history shows that Bible believers have always existed outside the Roman Church, and were hated by Rome because of it.  A history of these groups can be found in the book The Pilgrim Church by E. H. Broadbent.  Broadbent shows that what these groups had in common was that they did not submit to the Roman Papacy, and they sought to follow God’s Word as their final authority.


– The Geneva Translation would continue to dominate until it was replaced by the Bible destined to be called the best selling book of all time, the King James version of 1611.  But this would only occur after the Geneva Bible was outlawed in England, with some even being arrested for owning it.  It seems to have been forbidden because of the very footnotes that had made it so popular, commentaries that represented the collective views of the Reformers at the time, but were in direct opposition to the Church of Rome.  Rome’s ongoing persecution of Bible believers only convinced them that she was indeed the great whore of Revelation chapter 17, the woman who sits atop the scarlet colored beast full of names of blaspheme.  In the Geneva translation, we read “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet … And in her forehead was a name written ‘A mystery, that great Babylon, that mother of whoredoms and abominations of the earth.  And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of Saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.  And when I saw her, I wondered with great marvel.”  The Scripture says the woman is a city which sits upon 7 mountains, or hills.  The Geneva translators wrote, “Very children know what that seven hilled city is, which is so much spoken of … That is the damnable harlot … the spiritual Babylon, which is Rome … In manner of deeds: She is red with blood, and sheddeth it most licentiously, and therefore is colored with the blood of the Saints …”


– Early Christians and the Reformers were very familiar with the blasphemous declarations from the Papacy, which were often the subject of intense debate because from ancient times the popes had declared themselves to be equal with God.  Jesus said, “And call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”  Yet the popes took to themselves the name “holy father,” along with all claims of authority that might be assumed by such a title.  Pope Innocent III who fathered the Inquisition said, “The pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man, but of the true God.”  Meanwhile, Pope Nicolas said of himself “I am in all, and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory … And I am able to do almost all that God can do.  I then, being above all … seem by this reason, to be above all gods.”  Nicolas even claimed that the popes have the power to change the Gospel itself saying, “Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ.”


– Yet despite these Biblical warnings, the popes repeatedly claimed they were equal to, and above God; and were even called by Catholics “our lord god the pope”.  The Lateran council, while addressing Pope Julius II, said to him, “Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us … for thou art shepherd, thou art physician, thou art governor, thou art husbandman … thou, finally art another god on earth.”  In the 19th century, Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto, who would later become Pope Pius X, declared, “The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ: On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ, himself, under the veil of the flesh.  Does the Pope speak?  It is Jesus Christ who is speaking … Hence … when anyone speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine but to obey.”  Jesus said of himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”  Yet Pope Pius IX blasphemously declared, “I alone … am the successor of the Apostles, the vicar of Jesus Christ … I am the way, the truth, and the life …”  The popes have not only made claims to be God, but have insisted that salvation itself depends directly on obedience to them.  Pope Boniface VIII said, “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”  Pope Clemet VI said, “No man outside obedience to the Pope of Rome can ultimately be saved.”  “All who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church, and died in final impenitence have been damned, and gone down to Hell.”  Even in modern times, Pope John XXIII in 1958 declared, “Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff … and only if they be united to him can men be saved …”  In 1984, Pope John Paul II was quoted as saying, “Don’t go to God for forgiveness of sins: come to me.”  The quote was based on a Los Angeles Times article which reported “Rebutting a belief widely shared by Protestants and a growing number of Roman Catholics, Pope John Paul II … dismissed the ‘widespread idea that one can obtain forgiveness directly from God’ …”  Furthermore, according to traditional Catholicism, obedience to the Papacy is said to be required no matter how dreadful the Pope might be.  Catherine of Sienna, one of the patron saints of Italy, whose mummified head is still preserved in Rome today, said, “Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest in his bosom.”  “He who rebels against our father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ.”  “We honor Christ if we honor the Pope.”  Such demands for blind obedience were confirmed by the Popes themselves, but confronted by the reformers.  By men like Martin Luther who said, “The Pope, possessed by demons, defends his tyranny with the canon, ‘Si papa’ (or, “yes father).  This canon states clearly: if the Pope should lead the whole world into the control of hell, he is nevertheless not to be contradicted.”  “It’s a terrible thing that on account of the authority of this man, we must lose our souls, which Christ redeemed with His precious blood.”  Because of this evidence, Luther declared, “I believe the Pope is the masked and incarnate devil … because he is the Antichrist.”


– The Reformation itself had begun over the issue of merchandising the souls of men through the sale of indulgences that were literally written licenses authorized by the Pope as pardons for sin.  The indulgences were sold to pay for building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.


– What happened next was as if the bowels of hell itself had opened and spat forth the most dreadful and wicked society ever assembled [the Jesuits – “the Society of Jesus”].


– Historically, the Jesuits are known for their insidious methods of deception, spying, infiltration, assassination, and revolution.


– The Jesuit General, a position created by Loyola himself, is often referred to as the Black Pope because of the black robes that he wears and the tremendous power he is said to hold.  Former Jesuit General Michelangelo Tamburini once boastfully said, “See sir, from this chamber, I govern not only Paris, but to China; not only to China, but to all the world, without anyone knowing how I do it.”


– With all these things in mind, consider that it was this society that was specifically commissioned by the Pope to launch the Counter Reformation in 1540 under the direction of Ignatius Loyola.


– The plan of the society was to overthrow the Bible based education of the Protestants.  In his book on the Jesuits, Rulers of Evil, F. Tupper Saussy writes that “By 1556, three-fourths of the Society’s membership were dedicated in 46 Jesuit colleges to learning against learning … to indoctrinating minds with the learning of illuminated humanism as opposed to the learning of Scripture.”  “This network would expand by 1749 to 669 colleges, 176 seminaries, 61 houses of study, and 24 universities … partly of wholly under Jesuit direction.”  In the 19th century, Charles Spurgeon warned of the impact of Jesuit education.  He spoke of certain preachers, saying, “… they keep back a portion of the gospel … having studied in the devil’s new Jesuitical college.” 


Now think about the American pastors who taught that God and the Bible supported racial superiority and slavery.  Were they Jesuits, or Jesuit trained?  Were they Freemasons?  I’m sure it’s all of the above and more.




From this new religion came offshoots.  Another way to put it is that she, the Roman Catholic Church, had children.  We know most of them today as Christian denominations (which includes some “non-denominational”). 

Even if a church body claims that it’s not a denomination, it’s still a child, and still has the same mother as the others.



That initial, main branch is not the true Church, and is not the earliest “Christianity”.  It’s the false Church.  The fact that the first two churches to branch off did so by councils shows you who was in control, and what they branched off from – Rome.

The funny thing about the split is that Protestants believe they are the true Church, and practice true Christianity, while the Catholic Church is the false Church practicing false Christianity.  The truth is, Protestants are still they’re mother’s child and carry some of the doctrines and practices that originated from her, as well as the “early church fathers”.


From the branch of Protestantism


Not all churches under a denomination are the same.  There are some who believe in and practice different things than the majority of the other churches under that denomination.  In the same way not all people in a church, or outside of a church, are the same.  This is why God judges people as individuals, not as groups


Additional Information


The learning institutions attended by many Christian ministers tell them how to interpret words, verses, ideas, and prophecy of the Bible.  These institutions teach them “Church history” and direct them to the “early church fathers”.  They even teach them how to deliver their messages, and they offer advice for the present and future.

If you control the training institutions attended by teachers, which ministers are, you can control what’s being taught by teachers, thus learned by students (millions of churchgoers).  If it’s mandatory that a potential teacher first attend and graduate from such an institution (answer how they want them to answer to be certified), it’s mandatory that every teacher teaches what those who control the institution wants them to teach.  And by the use of Trinity Broadcasting Network, and similar church networks, the Luciferian and atheistic elite, who have controlled Rome and the Papacy for hundreds of years now, have Christians off on another planet, practicing a religion that is beyond what Rome created for them.

So, the question is:  What is your church teaching?


Reggie White… from Preacher of traditional Christianity to Torah Truth Seeker


“He resented the fact that pastors knew that what they were preaching in the pulpits was tradition, and it wasn’t from the word of God.”  So, there you have it, it’s not just me saying it.  And if people are living by the words of ministers, which are almost always a product of tradition, they are NOT living by God’s words no matter what they think, what they feel, or how many other people are doing the same. 

As a Christian, it would be best to do as Reggie and his family did and call yourself a believer rather than a Christian, a name that has been defiled, and used in numerous crimes against humanity.  Though this name is used in the New Testament, it’s not used in a way that suggests that it was an official name.


As a Christian, aren’t you taught that you don’t have to follow God’s commandments?  Isn’t that what the people who learned from other people who learned from other people who learned from others taught you?  “The Law was nailed to the cross.”  “Stay away from that Law”  “That’s legalism.” 

Take a look at what was in the Bible the whole time they were teaching you that (the Bible that you won’t read):

Note: this part of the vision was pertaining to a time period after the resurrection.

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


Those were those early Christians.  And that was after the resurrection, so how could the Law, God’s commandments, be legalism that you must stay away from, and that you as a Christian doesn’t have to follow?



Take a look at these other verses in Revelation:

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.


Who are the saints?


And this verse is in reference to a time period that is about 1900 years after the resurrection, so how the heck could being a Christian, having the faith of Jesus, mean to disregard the Law/God’s commandments?



14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


Who will have right to the tree of life and the ability to enter in to New Jerusalem?


There are some people who do “the meat” of the commandments by nature, and those who He declares righteous for other reasons, so don’t assume I’m saying you won’t make it just because you’re not constantly reading the Torah, it may be in your heart.



And it doesn’t stop there.


19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:


Jews who believed and were zealous of the law?  The new “Christianity” has taught that the Messiah destroyed the law, and yet in the Bible, and in history, the first believers followed the Law.  Something isn’t right.  How could they be believers and zealous of the Law at the same time?  Roman Christianity teaches that to believe is to be void of the Law.



17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


As stated in Revelation 22:14.



35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment.



13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. 15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.


Are Christians taught to keep the Messiah’s commandments?




9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.



29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


“make void”: katargoumen
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
2673. katargeó
abolish, cease, cumber, do away

From kata and argeo; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively — abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.


“we establish”: histanomen
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
2476. histémi
cause to stand, establish, hold up

A prolonged form of a primary stao stah’-o (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively) — abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up).



12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.



CHILDREN, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.



MY little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.


That’s actually about keeping the Messiah’s commandments.  And what was one of the Messiah’s commandments?  To keep the Father’s commandments.




18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. 19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. 22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.




6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 19 We love him, because he first loved us. 20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.



WHOSOEVER believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his

commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.



THE elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth; 2 For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever. 3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father. 5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.




Isn’t this true of Christians?


THEN came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?



7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.



9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.



On one side you have Yahuah (God), Yahusha (Jesus), the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), the prophets, the apostles, and the Bible; on the other side you have Rome, the Catholic Church, the pope, “early church fathers,” tradition, religion, church, and ministers.  Choose your side.



P4CM Presents JIG-A-BOO by Featured P4CM Poet Jackie Hill @JackieHillPerry



13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.



Watch from 16:33 – end
I’ve Denounced Christianity! Following YAHUAH!





AND after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.



If you are ready to unlearn, and learn, and ready to walk in obedience; the Father has already gotten things prepared for you.  The knowledge is awaiting you, and the teachers are awaiting you. 

I see that some of you, as Saul/Paul once said of the Israelites, have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge.  What I’m about to give you will help you tremendously in that area.  Go here and download Wake Up Jacob.  You can start by understanding the structure of the Bible.  I would suggest you start at “The Bible” and read that section in its entirety.  This will give you understanding of what the Bible is, what the Bible isn’t, and how it came to be.  This is information that has to be known if you’re going to read the Bible.

Below, you will find a link to some testimonies of people who have already made the transition from typical church and Christianity to true followers of the Bible, Yahuah, and Yahusha (“… and all you can feel is the Spirit of God million man marching you into an underground railroad not filled with those that have been trained.”).  Most of these people have come into the truth by researching, studying, and learning from others.  In Wake Up Jacob, all of that is done for you.  All you have to do is read, watch, and listen.

Here is the link to the testimonies:

It’s not a move away from Yahuah (God), Yahusha (Jesus), or the Bible, it’s the exact opposite – it’s a move closer.  And from what I’ve seen, people who have come from a church background do much better in this walk than those who come from nothing and try to live out the Instructions/the Law without having first been immersed/baptized and introduced to the instructions in the New Testament. 

And here are some online tools to help you study:



This is about salvation, and if you care about other’s salvation, pass this on.





Additional Contributing Factors



The quest to eradicate the Israelites and create a new Gentile religion separate from the Tanakh went even further than what you’ve read thus far.  Below, I’ve added some additional information showing some of the other ways this was carried out.



Do you realize that nearly every person in the Bible was Hebrew or Israelite, and spoke Hebrew (though it’s not actually called Hebrew)?  With that being the case, how do you read the Bible in your language?  Translation.  There’s a long history of translating when it comes to the Bible, and most Bible versions weren’t created for righteous reasons.  Some of the versions, particularly the European versions, even aide the plot to convince the world that the Law was done away with.  Let me cover just one of those instances.


This is from the 1611 King James Version:


18 ¶ And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow. 19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; 21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.


The Jews in the synagogue in Ephesus wanted Paul to stay longer, but he refused, saying that he had to keep the feast at Jerusalem.  Israelites were commanded to keep feasts in the Law (see: Leviticus 23), with three of them being a pilgrimage type of feast.  And he didn’t say he had to “attend a feast,” as if he was only going to speak, he said “keep the feast”.  That means keep the Law.


If you go here and click on the Bible versions near the top of the screen, or check the ones you have at home, you’ll see that many versions have taken that part out.  They don’t have the part where he says he has to leave so that he can keep the feast in Jerusalem.





Names can’t actually be translated, they have to be, or should only be, transliterated.  How can they be transliterated?  Figure out which letters in your language come together to make the sounds that are vocalized when saying that person’s name.  That would be how you spell their name in your language.  It may not look like anything you’re used to, but as long as it causes you to say that person’s name, that’s how it would be transliterated.

How you vocalize your name is how you say your name.  Even if your name means “cat” in your language, saying the word that means “cat” in another language would not actually be saying your name.  It’s an equivalent, but not your name.  Would you respond to it?  No.  So, it’s not your name.  When going from one language to another a name has to be transliterated. 

When translating the Bible, the Gentiles didn’t transliterate names, they changed them completely.  Later, others “translated” from these new names.  Think about it, how did Israelites get names like Matthew, John, and Jeremiah?  Even today, with knowledge of Hebrew, and having Hebrew scripts, they still refuse to give the populations the truth.  There are only a handful of Bible versions that restore the original names, but those versions are not promoted or backed like the others (of course).

If you read the Old Testament you’ll see many “ethnic” sounding names, but “somehow” the prominent individual in a chapter will have a European name.  For some reason they could transliterate some people’s names, but for the prominent individuals in that chapter, it couldn’t be done.  That seems suspicious to me.

Here are some of the original names: Moses is Mosheh.  Joshua is Yahusha/Yahushua.  Jeremiah is Yirmeyahu.  Isaiah is Yeshayahu.  Matthew is Mattithyahu. 

So, they stole someone else’s religion, translated the texts in their own language, redefined the doctrines of that religion, and changed people’s names to the names of their people.  What’s next, painting Israelites to look like their people?  Yes.



The iconoclast period and the later Italian Renaissance period where the two major periods in history where images that determined how the world would see the people of the Bible where destroyed and/or created.  And guess who was there, involved, both times?  The so-called Jews, the ancestors of the today’s fake Jews.  But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the people who stole another people’s identity were there at the place and time when the images of the original people were destroyed and remade. 

If you don’t know, the people calling themselves Jews today are descendants of converts, not descendants of Israelites.  I won’t go into this, the proof is out there, I will only add a short video the touches upon this subject.

Please disregard the title of this video, as it has nothing to do with the video.

Video 10- Testimonies of Edomites Gentiles Telling Blacks They Are the True Hebrew Israelites



Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine Empire, sometimes known as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the predominantly Greek-speaking continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), originally founded as Byzantium. It survived the 5th century CE fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.





Once the Khazars emerged as a power, the Byzantines also began to form alliances, dynastic and military, with them. In 695, the last Heraclian emperor, Justinian II, nicknamed the slit-nosed (ὁ ῥινότμητος) after he was mutilated and deposed, was exiled to Cherson in the Crimea, where a Khazar governor (tudun) presided. He escaped into Khazar territory in 704 or 705 and was given asylum by qağan Busir Glavan (Ἰβουζήρος Γλιαβάνος), who gave him his sister in marriage, perhaps in response to an offer by Justinian who may have thought a dynastic marriage would seal by kinship a powerful tribal support for his attempts to regain the throne.[174] The Khazarian spouse thereupon changed her name to Theodora.[175] Busir was offered a bribe by the Byzantine usurper, Tiberius III, to kill Justinian. Warned by Theodora, Justinian escaped, murdering two Khazar officials in the process. He fled to Bulgaria, whose Khan Tervel helped him regain the throne. Upon his reinstallment, and despite Busir’s treachery during his exile, he sent for Theodora; Busir complied, and she was crowned as Augusta, suggesting that both prized the alliance.[176]

Decades later, Leo III (ruled 717-741) made a similar alliance to coordinate strategy against a common enemy, the Muslim Arabs. He sent an embassy to the Khazar qağan Bihar and married his son, the future Constantine V (ruled 741-775), to Bihar’s daughter, a princess referred to as Tzitzak, in 732.



So, Leo III was allied with the Khazars.  And this is just some of the information which shows that.



Tzitzak, Irene of Khazaria, married the future Byzantine Emperor Constantine V and had a son whose name was Leo IV.  Leo IV married Irene of Athens.  Leo IV was raised an iconoclast under his father, who was married to Tzitzak, the Khazarian princess.




List of Khazar rulers

Bihar is the name given in some sources to the Khazar Khagan whose daughter, Tzitzak, married the future Byzantine Emperor Constantine V. Their son was Leo IV, called “Leo The Khazar”.



Would he have been a Christian, or a secret Jew?



Leo IV, byname Leo The Khazar (born Jan. 25, 749—died Sept. 8, 780), Byzantine emperor whose reign marked a transition between the period of Iconoclasm and the restoration of the icons.”




Byzantine Iconoclasm

The “First Iconoclasm”, as it is sometimes called, lasted between about 726 and 787. The “Second Iconoclasm” was between 814 and 842. According to the traditional view, Byzantine Iconoclasm constituted a ban on religious images by Emperor Leo III and continued under his successors.




Byzantine Empire

Religious dispute over iconoclasm

The 8th and early 9th centuries were also dominated by controversy and religious division over Iconoclasm, which was the main political issue in the Empire for over a century. Icons (here meaning all forms of religious imagery) were banned by Leo and Constantine from around 730, leading to revolts by iconodules (supporters of icons) throughout the empire. After the efforts of empress Irene, the Second Council of Nicaea met in 787 and affirmed that icons could be venerated but not worshiped. Irene is said to have endeavoured to negotiate a marriage between herself and Charlemagne, but, according to Theophanes the Confessor, the scheme was frustrated by Aetios, one of her favourites.[68]

In the early 9th century, Leo V reintroduced the policy of iconoclasm, but in 843 empress Theodora restored the veneration of icons with the help of Patriarch Methodios.[69] Iconoclasm played a part in the further alienation of East from West, which worsened during the so-called Photian schism, when Pope Nicholas I challenged the elevation of Photios to the patriarchate.[70]




Constantine VI

Constantine VI (Ancient Greek: Κωνσταντῖνος Ϛ΄, Kōnstantinos VI; 14 January 771 – before 805[1]) was Byzantine Emperor from 780 to 797.

Early life and the regency of Irene

Constantine VI was the only child of Emperor Leo IV and Irene. Constantine was crowned co-emperor by his father in 776, and succeeded as sole emperor in 780, at the age of nine. Due to his minority, Irene and her chief minister Staurakios exercised a regency over him.[1]

In 782 he was betrothed to Rotrude, a daughter of the Frankish King Charlemagne by his third wife Hildegard. Irene herself broke off the engagement in 788. In 787 Constantine had signed the decrees of the Second Council of Nicaea, but he appears to have had iconoclast sympathies.[1]




Second Council of Nicaea

The Second Council of Nicaea is recognized as the seventh of the first seven ecumenical councils by both West and East. Orthodox, Catholics, and Old Catholics unanimously recognize it; Protestant opinions on it are varied.

It met in AD 787 in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea; present-day İznik in Turkey) to restore the use and veneration of icons (or, holy images),[1] which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717–741). His son, Constantine V (741–775), had held the Council of Hieria to make the suppression official.


The veneration of icons had been banned by Byzantine Emperor Constantine V and supported by his Council of Hieria (754 AD), which had described itself as the seventh ecumenical council.[2] The Council of Hieria was overturned by the Second Council of Nicaea only 33 years later, and has also been rejected by Catholic and Orthodox churches, since none of the five major patriarchs were represented. The emperor’s vigorous enforcement of the ban included persecution of those who worshiped icons and monks in general. There were also political overtones to the persecution—images of emperors were still allowed by Constantine, which some opponents saw as an attempt to give wider authority to imperial power than to the saints and bishops.[3] Constantine’s iconoclastic tendencies were shared by Constantine’s son, Leo IV. After the latter’s early death, his widow, Irene of Athens, as regent for her son, began its restoration, moved thereto by personal inclination and political considerations.

In 784 the imperial secretary Patriarch Tarasius was appointed successor to the Patriarch Paul IV—he accepted on the condition that intercommunion with the other churches should be reestablished; that is, that the images should be restored. However, a council, claiming to be ecumenical, had abolished the veneration of icons, so psychologically another ecumenical council was necessary for its restoration.





Byzantine iconoclasm

The iconoclastic period in Byzantine Christian history came on the foundation of early Islamic iconoclasm, to which it was in part a reaction. It spawned one of the most contentious theological conflicts in Christian history.

As with other doctrinal issues in the Byzantine period, the controversy over iconoclasm was by no means restricted to the clergy, or to arguments over theology. The continuing cultural confrontation with Islam and the military threat from the expanding Muslim empire created substantial opposition to the use of icons among certain factions of the people and the Christian bishops, especially in the Eastern Roman Empire. Some of these adopted the belief that icons were offensive to God, and/or that it bolstered the arguments of Muslims and Jews that their religion adhered more closely to God’s will than Christianity did. Some refugees from the provinces taken over by the Muslims seem to have introduced iconoclastic ideas into the popular piety of the day, including notably among soldiers.

In 695, Emperor Justinian II put a full-face image of Christ on the obverse of his gold coins. This “graven image” apparently caused the Muslim Caliph Abd al-Malik to break permanently with his previous adoption of Byzantine coin types, instituting a purely Islamic coinage with lettering only. Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople wrote in the early eighth century that “now whole towns and multitudes of people are in considerable agitation over this matter.” These attitudes were soon to reach the imperial court itself.

The first iconoclastic period: 730-787

Sometime between 726 and 730 the Byzantine Emperor Leo III Isaurian (reigned 717-741) ordered the removal of an image of Jesus prominently placed over the palace gate of Constantinople. Sources indicate that part of the reason for the removal was the military reversals suffered by Leo against Muslim forces and the eruption of the volcanic island of Thera, which Leo came to see as evidence of the wrath of God in reaction against Christian idolatry.

Some of those assigned to the removal of the icon were killed by a group opposed to this action, known as iconodules (lovers of icons). Undeterred, Leo forbade the worship of religious images in an edict 730. His agents confiscated much church property, including not only icons and statues that were objects of veneration, but also valuable plate, candlesticks, altar cloths, and reliquaries that were decorated with religious figures. The edict did not apply to the creation of non-religious art, including the image of the emperor on coins, or to religious symbols that did not portray holy persons, such as the Cross without the image of Christ upon it.

Patriarch Germanus I opposed the ban on the grounds that it surrendered to the false theological arguments of the Jews and Muslims regarding the use of religious images. Sources differ as to whether his subsequent removal from office was due to being deposed by Leo or resigning in protest. In the West, Pope Gregory III held two synods at Rome which condemned Leo’s actions, resulting in another of a long series of schisms between Rome and Constantinople. Leo retaliated by seizing certain lands under the pope’s jurisdiction.

When Leo died in 740, his ban on icons was confirmed during the reign of his son Constantine V (741-775). Nor did the new emperor have difficulty in finding churchmen who supported this policy. At the “first” Seventh Ecumenical Council at Constantinople and Hieria in 754 (“the Iconoclast Council”), 338 bishops participated and solemnly condemned the veneration of icons. Among the curses invoked at this council were the following:

  • If anyone ventures to represent the divine image of the Word after the Incarnation with material colors, let him be anathema!
  • If anyone shall endeavor to represent the forms of the saints in lifeless pictures with material colors which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil)… let him be anathema!

In this period complex theological arguments appeared, both for and against the use of icons. The monasteries were often strongholds of icon veneration. An underground network of anti-iconoclasts was organized among monks. The Syrian monk John of Damascus became the major opponent of iconoclasm through his theological writings. Another leading iconodule was Theodore the Studite.

In reaction to monastic opposition to his policy, Constantine V moved against the monasteries, had relics thrown into the sea, and banned even the verbal invocation of saints. His son, Leo IV (775-80) was less rigorous in his iconoclastic policy and attempted to conciliate the factions. Near the end of his life, however, he took severe measures against images and reportedly was about to put away his secretly iconodule wife, Empress Irene, were it not for his death. Irene then took power as regent for her son, Constantine VI (780-97).

With Irene’s ascension as regent, the first iconoclastic period would come to an end. She initiated a new ecumenical council, ultimately called the Second Council of Nicaea, which first met in Constantinople in 786, but was disrupted by pro-iconoclast military units. It convened again at Nicea in 787, to reverse the decrees of the previous Iconoclast Council held at Constantinople and Hieria, appropriating its title as the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The decrees of this council, unlike those of the Iconoclast Council, were supported by the papacy. Ironically, however, Pope Leo III refused to recognize Irene’s regency and used the opportunity of her reign to anoint Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor instead.

Eastern Orthodoxy today considers the “second” Seventh Ecumenical Council the last genuine ecumenical council. Icon veneration in the Eastern Roman Empire lasted through the reign of Empress Irene’s successor, Nicephorus I (reigned 802-811), and the two brief reigns after his.



– “His agents confiscated much church property, including not only icons and statues that were objects of veneration, but also valuable plate, candlesticks, altar cloths, and reliquaries that were decorated with religious figures. The edict did not apply to the creation of non-religious art, including the image of the emperor on coins, or to religious symbols that did not portray holy persons, such as the Cross without the image of Christ upon it.”

– “If anyone ventures to represent the divine image of the Word after the Incarnation with material colors, let him be anathema!”

– “If anyone shall endeavor to represent the forms of the saints in lifeless pictures with material colors which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil)… let him be anathema!”

So, basically it was the destruction of, and ban of, any image of someone from the Bible.  And depending on what was meant by “material colors” ….  Clearly, they were trying to erase the image of the Israelites.



Icons and Iconoclasm in Byzantium

Icons after Iconoclasm

The Iconoclastic controversy had a profound effect on the production of Byzantine images after their reintroduction in 843. Changes shaped by the Iconoclastic debate included the evolution of distinct portrait types for individual saints; the development of more standardized programs of church wall decoration in mosaic and fresco; and the growing popularity of certain subjects such as Christ’s Anastasis or the “Harrowing of Hell” (17.190.715a,b), and the Koimesis or the “Falling Asleep” of the Virgin (17.190.132).

In the Middle and Late Byzantine periods, venerable icon types from earlier centuries continued to be copied, while new icon compositions also developed. One example is the biographical icon, with scenes from a saint’s life added around the periphery of an icon portraying the saint at center. A second new form is the icon in miniature mosaic, as seen for example in the Metropolitan’s Virgin and Child icon (2008.352). The addition of precious metal revetments, or sculpted covers, to icons was also increasingly popular in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods (17.190.644–648).



White converts who claimed to be the original Jews, and white Christians who claimed to be the true Church (the fake Jews and the fake Christians) would both benefit from iconoclasm, right?  Both were in the process of stealing another people’s religion.





Many of the Christian images the world is familar with today came from the Italian Renaissance era.  Painters and sculpors like Michelangelo were commissed by the money families of Italy to create these works of art.  These works of art later became the image of Christendom.

For informaiton on this, see the videos below.


The Medici – Godfathers of the Renaissance 1/4



The Medici – Godfathers of the Renaissance 2/4



Lorenzo de’ Medici

Lorenzo de’ Medici (1 January 1449 – 9 April 1492) was an Italian statesman and de facto[1] ruler of the Florentine Republic during the Italian Renaissance. Known as Lorenzo the Magnificent (Lorenzo il Magnifico) by contemporary Florentines, he was a diplomat, politician and patron of scholars, artists, and poets. He is perhaps best known for his contribution to the art world, giving large amounts of money to artists so they could create master works of art.




Medici Family

The Medici family, also known as the House of Medici, first attained wealth and political power in Florence in the 13th century through its success in commerce and banking. Beginning in 1434 with the rise to power of Cosimo de’ Medici (or Cosimo the Elder), the family’s support of the arts and humanities made Florence into the cradle of the Renaissance, a cultural flowering rivaled only by that of ancient Greece. The Medicis produced four popes (Leo X, Clement VII, Pius IV and Leon XI), and their genes have been mixed into many of Europe’s royal families. The last Medici ruler died without a male heir in 1737, ending the family dynasty after almost three centuries.




Cesare Borgia, duke of Valentinois, Italian Duca Valentino (born c. 1475/76, probably Rome [Italy]—died 1507, near Viana, Spain) natural son of Pope Alexander VI. He was a Renaissance captain who, as holder of the offices of duke of the Romagna and captain general of the armies of the church, enhanced the political power of his father’s papacy and tried to establish his own principality in central Italy. His policies led Niccolò Machiavelli to cite him as an example of the new “Prince.”


There can be no doubt of the impact that he made in the Italy of his own day, but this impression was largely because of the backing he received from papal money and French arms.




Cesare Borgia

Because of Cesare’s influence, Cardinal Piccolomini, a strong supporter of the Borgias, was elected Pope Pius III in September.





Borgia and Leonardo

Cesare Borgia briefly employed Leonardo da Vinci as military architect and engineer between 1502 and 1503. Cesare provided Leonardo with an unlimited pass to inspect and direct all ongoing and planned construction in his domain.[citation needed] While in Romagna, Leonardo built the canal from Cesena to the Porto Cesenatico.[22] Before meeting Cesare, Leonardo had worked at the Milanese court of Ludovico Sforza for many years, until Louis XII of France drove Sforza out of Italy. After Cesare, Leonardo was unsuccessful in finding another patron in Italy. King Francis I of France was able to convince Leonardo to enter his service, and the last three years of Leonardo’s life were spent working in France.




Cesare Borgia

Cesare Borgia has been the subject of many legends regarding his ruthlessness and cruelty. He and his father, Pope Alexander VI, are considered by many to be the epitome of power-hungry corruption surrounding the Renaissance papacy.


A man of scientific rather than artistic interests, Cesare Borgia briefly employed Leonardo da Vinci as military architect and engineer.

A little known fact about Cesare Borgia is that, according to the French writer Alexandre Dumas and others, his handsome appearance seems to have influenced many images of Jesus Christ painted during and subsequent to his career.




The “Jewish” connection is too much to place here.  For information on that, download Wake Up Jacob.

This all connects to the bigger conspiracy of identity theft – the planned out, purposeful, displacement and enslavement of real Israelites in Africa in order to claim their identity. 




The Two Christianities



All glory to Yahuah and Yahusha