And wasn't the guys screaming for his head, jews? Rome ruled, yes. But the Jews were also denying him as Son Of God.
Well, kind of.
You see, because Jesus is a fictional character, the story gets rewritten.
The first gospel written was the Gospel of Mark, which was clearly written by someone who never had been to Judea and gets things about the culture and geography clearly wrong.
the Gospel of Matthew, which heavily plagarized Mark, was written to try to appeal to the Jews, so there is a whole bunch of citation of "Prophecy" in Matthew, which either make up old testament verses that aren't actually there, or completely gets them out of contex.
then you get the gospel of JOhn, which is pretty trippy, and written at a time where the Schism between jews and Christians were clear and pronounced. So you will not in John that John constantly talks about "The Jews" being against Jesus and instigating his crucifixion. Meanwhile, Pontius pIlate is recast as a softy who was reluctant to crucify Jesus. (When in fact, Pilate was kind of ruthless and had no problems killing people who got out of hand without trial.)
Or to put it another way. Mark and Matthew are the ROddenberry version of Captain Kirk, and John is the JJ. Abrams version.
The two gods of Christianity.
The church admitted that vital elements of proceedings at Nicaea are ´strangely absent from the canons´30 and the suspicion exists that documentation recording the true nature of the creation of Jesus Christ was later suppressed or destroyed. However, using records that endured, Bishop Eusebius ´occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural addresson the emperor´s behalf´.31 Documentation available revealed that there were no British churchmen in attendance at the Council, for most delegates were Greek. ´Seventy eastern bishops´ represented Asiatic factions32 and small numbers came from other areas. Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa; Paphnutius from Egypt, Nicasius of Die from Gaul and Dommus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia. It was at that puerile assembly, and under cult conditions, that two thousand and forty-eight ´bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists´ gathered to debate and decide on a unified belief system that encompassed only one god. By that time, a huge assortment of´wild texts´33 circulated amongst presbyters, and no list of´accepted´ or canonical writings existed. Many of those Gospels, Epistles and Revelations are listed in the ´Lost Books of the Bible´ later in this book, and some still carry the names of a great variety of Eastern and Western divinities.
The men argued violently among themselves, expressing various personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special god. When speaking of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, the Bishop of Hereclea, said in an account of the proceedings:
Excepting Constantine himself, and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing.
Dr Richard Watson, a disillusioned Christian historian and previously Bishop of Llandaff in Wales, referred to them as ´a set of gibbering idiots´. After a lifetime of research into church councils he concluded that ´the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were nearly all under the power of the devil and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble, and patronized the vilest abominations´.34
It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new Roman religion and the subsequent creation of Jesus Christ.
A Libyan presbyter named Arius, in attendance at Nicaea, expressed concern that ´the bishops shall develop two gods´35 and that ancient statement caused confusion in the church for centuries. Pious Christian historians confessed that they ´didn´t understand its meaning´ and ascribed it ´to the peculiar interposition of heaven´ ,36 However, in light of current understanding from particularly the Vatican scroll discovery, it is now possible to determine what Arius meant, and it provides major conflictions with the church´s presentation of Jesus Christ.
Selecting a god.
Up until the Council of Nicaea, Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods, Apollo and Zeus, but the great bulk of common people idolized Julius Caesar. Excluding the first letter in Caesar´s name, the remainder of the word had great significance in the community, ´namely AESAR is the Etruscan for ´god´...C being the Roman numeral 100´.37 Because of that godly connection, Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate five days after his death (d. 15 March 44 BC) and was subsequently venerated as the Divine Julius. Because he was Roman and ´Father of the Empire´, he was the most popular god among the rabble for more than 400 years. His followers were called %%WORD773%8 and so revered was the Divine Julius that at least three ancient provincial cities were named Caesarea in his honour; one each in Palestine, Northern Africa and Cappadocia.
At the Palestinian Caesarea, Josephus described a massive structure built and dedicated in the first century to the honour of the Divine Julius:
Directly opposite the harbour entrance, upon a high platform, rose the Temple of Caesar, remarkable for its beauty and its great size. In it stood a colossal statue of Caesar, not inferior to Zeus at Olympia ... and one of the goddess Roma, equal to the Argive statue of Hera.39
The Temple of Caesar stood until around mid-sixth century, indicating that the inhabitants proudly preserved their ancient edifice, perhaps as a revered relic to the Divine Julius. Some time later, a Christian church was built on the northwestern flank of the site of Caesar´s Temple, directly over the Temple foundation and using some original stones. Archaeologists at the site were puzzled by the chronological discrepancy between what they believed was the Christianizing of the Roman Empire with Emperor Constantine and the construction of a Christian church some 300 years or so later. They wondered how the most imperial and Roman city in Palestine, the Episcopal see of Bishop Eusebius, could preserve and honour a so-called Pagan temple for so many Christian centuries.
Clearly, archaeologists were accepting the orthodox presentation of Christian development and were yet to realize that there was no Christianity until well after the Council of Nicaea.
It is probable that Constantine sited the summit at Nicaea because it was the original home of Julius Caesar´s clan, the Ulius (hence Julius). Remains of a temple structure exist there today and the probability is that it was originally built in honour of the Ulius family, or Julius Caesar himself. Some archaeological evidence suggested that Nicaea was called Caesarea in the fourth century but principal Catholic author and celebrated Doctor of the Sorbonne in Paris, Lewis Du Pin (d.c. 1725), claimed that it was called ´Number 1 Caesar´ (Nl Caesar) and that was later vocalized as Nicaea.* Part of the Caesar name is still carried in the word today and enhances Du Pin´s reasoning.
Because the general Roman populous adored the Divine Julius, he was the most fashionable god in Western presbyters´ texts but was not recognised in Eastern or Oriental writings. Constantine´s intention at Nicaea was to create a new god for the Empire that would unite all religious factions under one deity and presbyters were permitted to debate and decide upon who the new god would be. Throughout the meeting, the howling factions were immersed in heated debates in attempts to promote their own divinity and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion; ´As yet, the new God had not been selected by the council, and so they balloted, in order to determine the matter. For one year and five months the balloting lasted´.41
At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a short list of five prospects, namely, Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, and Zeus. Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and ultimately decided the new god for them.
He determined that the names of his two first century descendants Jesu Cunobeline and Judas Khrestus be joined as one, Jesu Khrestus, and that would be the official name of the new Roman god.
A vote was subsequently taken and it was with a majority show of hands that both men became one God ...161 votes to 157. Following longstanding Heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman Apotheoses Decree to legally deify the new god for the rabble and did so by democratic consent and with the blessing of presbyters in attendance. A new Roman god was proclaimed and´ officially´ ratified by Emperor Constantine.42
That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Yesu Cunobeline and Judas Khrestus among the Roman gods as one individual composition today called Jesus Christ and lent earthly existence in two forms to the Empire´s new deity.
At that time, historical records revealed that the Christian religion had not yet developed and the few church documents that refer to an established Christian god previous to the Council of Nicaea are ´later forgeries, written retrospectively´.43 Bishop Taylor´s assertion is supported in later chapters.
