The Origin of the Bible
Copyright 2005 by William Edward Hunt
All Rights Reserved
The only thing we know for sure about the Bible is its author who is the Roman emperor,
Constantine the great.  No, he did not write a single word.  Donald Trump didn't drive a single
nail but he is the builder of Trump Tower.  Constantine wrote not a single word but he wrote
the Bible just like Donald built the building.  They didn't physically do it.  Someone else did the
actual physical work.  They are the brains behind them.  Why was the Bible written?
It was not written because Constantine needed a hobby.  That much we can say with a great
deal of certainty.  We can also say that there was probably more that one reason.  Perhaps we
will get a better idea if we look at the record before drawing any conclusions.  So what does the
historical record say about it?  For some strange reason, the history of the author of the Bible is
not all that well agreed upon by historians.  When I read a couple of so called history books
about him, I noticed that there is no clear consensus of historical opinion.  The historians seem
to be canonizing him or trashing him.  Of course I have just expressed an opinion that I will not
support with reprints of their writings but rather, I invite you to check it out and see for yourself.  If
you are the type of mentality that is swayed by what writers say then you will notice your mind
changing from time to time when you read the "real" history of Constantine.  I am not so easily
swayed but am human and tend to believe authors must have some basis.  What is agreed upon
by historians is their opinions that are subject to error.
History is a consensus of opinion of historians and may or may not represent the truth.  I hope
you don't expect me to argue this either.  Historians don't argue with it so why should we waste
our time arguing their case which is yet to reach a consensus with respect to the author of the
Bible, Constantine the great.  That much is readily verifiable and therefore, for the sake of
brevity I am requesting that we stick to our subject and simply make a note of the fact that we
will not be building an iron processing plant for want of a file.
So why did Constantine order the Bible to be written?  Let's get another thing out of the way.  He
was a Roman emperor and therefore we need to examine that fact a little and look at that side of
the history.  Again we must note that there is no consensus of opinion which is never brought out
with any force to the average person.  I say average person because at the university they do
bring it out.  The Roman empire like all others both then and now beginning with the very first
ever empire or civilization were one and all organized crime gangs not unlike those with which
we are familiar like the mafia.  Since this is of foremost importance we will look into it somewhat
but again we will not be replacing historians here.  What ancient, so called civilizations were is
documented and it is simply a matter of examining the documents with the warning that all
authors draw conclusions for their readers.  I will not pretend to do otherwise but rather point out
a couple of glossed over historical facts.
What was life like in the Roman empire?  How would your life be if you had have lived then?  
That's not that difficult to imagine.  If you were a Roman then you were a member of the master
race and if you were not then you were a slave.  That's simple enough isn't it.  The notion of a
master race is one of the oldest.  Enter God or was that god?  Master races have the God given
right and duty to enslave the world.  God rewards the members of the master race with slaves so
they can get their work done while they sleep.  But most important of all, only members of the
master race shall have gold.  Therefore, it is their duty to collect up all the gold in the world and
bring it to God's treasury.  Beg your pardon.   I meant to say Caesar's treasury.  But when we
examine that process under the microscope we discover what is nothing more than a pack of
robbers out taking what other people have with gold only being a part of what they take.  They
take their entire lives and all that comes and/or goes with life.  And just who did the first hand
reporting of events in their world?
The next thing to notice is who actually writes the history.  You don't suppose the history of the
world is the history of master races do you?  And you're not suggesting that only historians
from the master race are the ones that do the writing are you?  Next thing you're probably
going to say is that "what they wrote and the whereabouts of their heads relative to their bodies"
had more than a little to do with the content of what they wrote.  That's exactly what I want to
say.  Constantine was the leader of a pack of crooks that robbed the whole world and enslaved
all the people of the world.  But they wore such fashionable tunics and he rode around in a gold
plated chariot drawn by four white horses.  He couldn't possibly be a crook.  Could he?  Why that
nice man loved Jesus just like you.  That nice man loved anyone who had any gold in any
quantity at all completely to death.  And that nice man loved power most of all.
At the time Constantine was elected emperor and absolute dictator of Rome, the empire had
been quartered.  There were three other emperors and absolute dictators.  The four of them
each had a chunk of the empire to rule which compares to the US government before
incorporation into a republic.  At that time each colony had a governor.  The most significant
difference is that the Roman governors didn't have a higher authority like the colonial ones had
in the king of England.  In all gangs there is but one leader.  In the case of Rome the gang was
so large it was decided that one man could not rule the whole thing.  Wrong, cried Constantine
and he proceeded to murder his co emperors and take over their empires.  Awe shucks, he was
just uniting the empire.  Such a nice man and a fine dresser and he loved his mother too.  The
Bible was the outcropping of councils of bishops of the way church.  That is well documented
and a not argued fact.   So when we see him in council with the bishops of the "Way" church, just
who was showing who the way and what way was that?
Was that the Jesus way or the Constantine way?  What could those two possibly have in
common?  Let's see, hum.  How does that story go?  The firstborn Egyptian son got whacked by
an angel of the lord and the firstborn Hebrew son got to be the biggest shot in the history of the
whole wide world otherwise no one would have ever heard of him.  Somebody got whacked and
somebody didn't and the one that didn't become a real somebody as a result.  And the whacking
becomes the most celebrated gangland hit in history that is celebrated in churches, temples,
synagogues and mosques today.  Whatever could Jesus have that Constantine wanted to steal?
 Will that mystery ever be cleared up?  You don't suppose the notion of a "son of God" had
anything to do with it?  All Caesars were "sons of the god Mars" and "sons of a bitch wolf" too.  
This isn't another case of someone getting whacked and someone else getting rewarded is it?  
Organized criminals like the mafia never whack anyone do they?  Do I need to prove they do?   
Constantine didn't whack a dead man and take over his territory did he?
Killing a dead person is tricky business.  But what if he comes back to life and is accompanied by
the heavenly host?  Killing him in that case is presumed to be impossible to say nothing of
having to stay on full alert while you wait for him to actually come back to life presuming you will
actually stand a chance of successfully resisting all that power.  The Way church presented
Constantine with both a problem and an opportunity.  Clearly he did not anticipate their claim that
the coming of Jesus with the heavenly host was just around the corner.  What he undoubtedly
noticed is the fact that the "perception" was all that was necessary to make people get in line.  
By the time of Constantine the Way gang had made substantial inroads managing to convince
people that Jesus with a mighty army was about to crush Caesar and it was in their "political"
best interest to at least in secret join the Jesus master race that included absolutely everyone,
i.e. "Going forth teach all nations..."
The most inviting thing the Way church had to offer was "all nations" to a man who, by his
actions alone can be identified as a "all nations" emperor who had risk it all to be just that.  His
wars of union could have gone the other way and had they have done that he would now be
known as the rebel that got put down by the proper authorities.  His first union with Way folk no
doubt was in that effort where they showed significant political power and the ability to raise a
Christian army.  Although the Way church preached that Jesus would be here momentarily they
saw fit to NOT wait for help from heaven and helped themselves.  So if we take off both the rose
and the pitch colored glasses and open our eyes what Constantine did was purely political and
nothing more than posturing as he prepared to capture a political base, the Way church.  We
must recognize that war is simply one political tool that is intended to remove one politician, the
loser from office and turn his power and all that comes with it over to the winner.  What
Constantine did was a purely political move that won for him the leadership of the Way church
and some other goodies as well, a new way of taxing called tithing.  Money is power and no one
understood that better than Constantine the great.
When we read accounts of what happened during Constantine's emperor-ship that point, simply
taking over a political entity is clearly both there and not there at the same time based upon
which author one is reading at the time.  The pros try to make the church leaders his equals.  
Hardy har har har.  The contras over state the case for his control.  The truth lies somewhere in
the middle no doubt.  It is clear that he struggled for understanding at the outset which is where
the Bible enters the big picture.  The question that seemingly is never asked is why was the
Bible written.
Understanding why the Bible was written is as simple as noticing something different about the
Romans and all others of their day and age.  They are known as the "givers of law."  What does
that mean?  It means that they subscribed to a set of rules that everyone would follow.  They
were so thorough that their rules extended to slaves and even sexual events with slaves. They
also included more unusual things like a standard blueprint for laying out the expected, army
camps and the totally unexpected, where different things of interest in towns would be located.  
What they did was organize themselves in such a way that there was not a lot of remembering
where things were located.  Therefore it makes perfect sense for a Roman emperor to demand
to know the whereabouts of heaven and especially hell.  We can expect he immediately realized
the great benefit of hell, a place to get shed of people who refused to conform and probably
thought of heaven as a fringe benefit.  When we examine paganism, the other way of seeing
things, heaven and hell are both missing, not in the mind but in the stated case.  The Romans,
subconsciously no doubt sent many to hell, as real a hell as they could imagine by inflicting
forever wounds on their bodies.  And if the Romans did not expect that this life is NOT the end of
life then they are alone among men.  So we can expect that Constantine was not all that
inquisitive about hell, a condition of body but rather, a place called hell.  If hell is a place then at
a minimum, Constantine must know it's whereabouts if for no other reason than the potential
need to attack a capture it which is exactly what he did.  Hell is a gold mine.
The record says that the Way theologians beat around the bush in a manner of speaking and did
it profusely.  That would never do for the blueprinted Roman approach so Constantine did
something about it.  He held meetings, councils where what people believed could be made
official.  At the first council, Nice, Constantine wore the purple robe of God along with his solid
gold crown and patiently listened while they, the Way church authorities argued with each other
about things that could not be argued.  What we are calling arguing was more akin to quarrelling
than arguing in my opinion.  The mighty emperor listened and then made a demand that they tell
him, at a minimum, identify their one true God.  That was at the end of a gruelling day of
discussion that didn't seem to be getting anywhere.  An Egyptian, (wink wink) priest named Arius
said that Jesus was not God and was clearly in favor of defining a single spirit God that would
violate grammar by not spelling it god.  Father Arius made a compelling enough case that
Constantine was seen to nod his head in agreement.  The fact that the clergy did not agree on
something as fundamental as the one true God that all Romans hence fourth would by law be
required to believe in, probably caused their emperor some amount of grief.  In the end he
invoked the power of God, his office and demanded a clear statement of, definition of that God.  
The next day he got it and accepted it as "good enough" with just a word of two changed to his
liking.  That statement is now known as the Nicaean Creed.  The Council of Nice led to the final
product, the blueprint, a document that clearly stated what everyone believed.  Today that
document is known as the Holy Bible.

As a footnote, Father Arius was fired and his supporters banished.  Later when Arius appealed
directly to the emperor for reinstatement, he was invited to lunch and immediately thereafter died
in the latrine of diarrhea.  Arius is known as the first heretic who lay in his grave with his tongue
rotting in his mouth.  Probably went straight to hell don't you imagine.
I believe that outside of the Bible, The Nicaean Creed is the first mention of a Trinity God.  Did
Constantine call someone's bluff?  Both the Father and the Holy Ghost, Spirit Gods are
misspelled using the upper case G.  They are both gods.  Only Jesus can possibly be God
because the upper case only applies to people that are sons of a god.  Yes, Constantine agreed
with Arius but was a realist no doubt.  Between the Greeks and Romans the gods market was
fairly well cornered already.  So we can expect that the strongest argument in favor of Jesus as
the son of god was that it allowed them to take at least two existing gods and spell the entity that
results, the Holy Trinity, God.  What we have to guide us is the fact that no one understands the
Trinity God as a single, just one God.  That is explained as a mystery, nomenclature that is
difficult to argue with.  Can you count to 3 was what the mighty emperor was undoubtedly
thinking.  A clear definition of God was only one of many demands Constantine made.  The
Romans demanded a manual with all the facts so no one would be confused.  I think he came up
a bit short of what was demanded.
What we know is the theologians of the Way church argued many dogmatic points of interest
such as, was the virgin Mary really virgin.  It is these seemingly silly arguments that allows us to
understand why Constantine dispatched an army to Egypt to destroy churches.  Was he
attempting to cut off debate or was there a more sinister reason?  Not only can one worship the
wrong God but having a mystery for a God must have convinced him that to worship the wrong
One was ordinary, a matter of accident springing from misunderstanding.  We also know that
whatever the Way church had in the way of a manual to guide them was mostly writings of their
own making.  So the advent of the Bible springs from a demand by the emperor for organization
and a desire to standardize beliefs.  After all was said and done, Constantine intended to shove
whatever it turned out to be down the throats of citizen and slave alike.  A soldier's manual was
an absolute necessity in his mind.  But where in the confused mess of what the Way gang had
would he find that?  In order to appreciate his position one must confront an alien with the Bible's
main stories in a blitz.  The Bible is more closely akin to "Loony Tunes" than newspaper type
reporting of facts as they happened emphasising God's direct communication with His last
creation, man.  In the abstract it's a pile of nonsense and even more so when one bishop has
one story and another has what he claims to be the same story but different.  And they're fighting
about which one's right.
At some point, Constantine surely realized that a clear understanding was impossible.  That did
not stop him.  He demanded and got the canon, a collection of selected documents, some of
which were clearly the work of Way people and some that were not.  All collected together they
present a problem to just read them all, never mind the fact that there are all sorts of conflicts
between individual documents and others in the pile to say nothing of time-line problems like the
statement by Jesus, "Not one generation shall pass before I return."  If the mighty emperor even
noticed that what did he think?  How was that explained to him?  That alone tells us that content
was not nearly as important as a document that could be used to try heretics and we can only
imagine how many of them he expected.  After all, if a priest, Father Arius could present a good
argument that Jesus wasn't God then what will pagans do with the same information that Father
Arius had.  So they did the best they could do under the circumstances.  They collected up
conflicting documents from around the empire and burned them.  I believe Constantine had the
great library at Alexandria burned but there is no substantial evidence so I won't say it.  He did
dispatch a legion to Egypt with orders to destroy churches and he is on record for burning
documents to say nothing of Father Arius' unfortunate "after lunch" digestive problem that lead to
his immediate death.  Constantine, as reported in history could not remove all the evidence and
especially the evidence that he was an evidence remover.  The sending of troops to Egypt to
destroy churches got my attention.
The old heap of inconsistent documents, the original documents were copied, edited, added to
the new heap and the originals burned.  That accounts for why the trail backwards in time from
where we are ends with Constantine, that really nice emperor who converted to Christianity.  It
was he who gave us the Bible as an information source that stands alone.  The Bible as a
history is not verified by other historical documents.  Is it correct and all the others in error?  Did
the historians carelessly fail to record some rather obvious historical events like the death of
Pharaoh's firstborn son and several hundred thousand if not million people making an epic trek
across the desert from Egypt to Jerusalem?  That's a big pill to swallow even for a country boy.  
So pardon me while I notice a few things that have not before been noticed.
The Bible as we know it begins with Constantine the great.  The history it contains is nowhere
else to be found.  Constantine burns both documents and people and destroys buildings in a
place where buildings are made of stone, Egypt.  Therefore there must be some connection
between the three, people, documents and Egypt.  So I asked an obvious question.  What is that
connection?  Where do I start looking for evidence?  The people are dead.  Not much left there.  
The documents are burned.  Not much there either.  How about those Egyptian churches where
they were worshipping the wrong God?  Bingo!  Rocks are durable.  Even after they have been
banged hard with sledge hammers they hang right on.  That is especially true if we can call
those rocks mega-rocks.  When I finally identified the place and saw the pile of rubble that
archaeologist pass off as vandalism I couldn't help but imagine myself being one of those legion
troopers in the burning hot Egyptian sun swinging a sledge hammer with the sweat pouring off
and wondering why.  I did a hitch in the military during conscription that gives me first hand
experience with soldiers doing things they don't understand and what they say about it.  Does
anyone know any really good cuss words in Latin?
Hoaxes are planned misunderstandings.  The really good ones leave lots of room for
interpretation.  The Bible is the ultimate in that regard with one conflicting statement after the
other.  It leaves room for grabbing hold of a single statement like the snake dancers of
Appalachia who do some rather dangerous stunts to demonstrate their faith based upon a single
statement from the Bible.  The key is that interpretation is required, it's controversial, not exact,
and the like.  That must have been a hard sell to a Roman emperor that was made a lot easier
by the volume of writings to be amalgamated together.  The value of being the authority on such
a thing is obvious.  It's the word of God and ordinary people can't possibly read and understand
it.  But it's the word of God and ordinary people MUST have it.  Therefore, the Bible stands
alone as a man made absolute necessity of life that encompasses every aspect of life beginning
with a defined protocol for getting one's self conceived and ending with one's personal
resurrection from the dead when Jesus finally at last returns with the heavenly host at His side.  
There is plenty of wiggle room so that there can be a multitude of all those absolute demands
made, not by the emperor but by Almighty God.  However, the emperor is clearly charged with
enforcing God's rules.  As you and I do not have to understand it and neither did Constantine.  All
we need to do is have faith in it.  Hoaxes, things people have faith in that are inexact,
controversial, with lots of wiggle room and that need the highest authority both here on earth and
in heaven itself to be properly enforced.  Enforcing God's law has many benefits for the enforcer.
 Sold to the highest bidder, Constantine the great, emperor of the entire known world or at least
as much of it as one would want to emperor.
Several reporters on the Constantine councils say that they believe Constantine's ability to keep
the job of emperor was what caused him to act the way he did.  Of course we know that he
looked up into the sky and saw the big PX and heard voices and so on.  That's a familiar story
told by all soldiers going into battle.  The big PX in the sky is where they go if they don't keep
their heads down.  They have great big candy bars at the one in the sky.  So the notion that
Constantine saw it is not that unusual.  I wonder if he realized that as an abstraction all he did
was apply for the job of emperor.  You don't suppose emperors have an even bigger PX in the
sky?  Constantine won a great big PX here on earth.  The big PX isn't all emperors get for taking
the risk of applying for the job and being selected by heaven's first resident, God.
There is something very subtle about the unusual union of a pagan emperor and the Way
church.  What they did was split the front.  The bishops were in charge of enforcing God's rules
but not really.  The emperor maintained that role just like before.  Emperor is as close to God as
one can get.  Emperors are sons of god of course and only miss actually being God by the way
the word is spelled and only then with the raising of the case of the first letter of the word.  It's the
difference between god and God.  We can be sure that those bishops informed his most royal
how loyal they were to him.  All they were doing was promoting him from son-of-god to
enforcer-for-God.  Since he was the law enforcement,  if he accidentally broke a few of God's
rule here and there it would be up to his judgement whether or not punishment was necessary to
correct the problem.  In turn, his judgement applied to everyone, free man and slave alike.  
Where the bishops come into the picture is deciding what God's rules actually were and were
not.  The council was a tool to make sure that God's rules conformed to the Roman standard, the
same rules for everyone.
What Constantine did in demanding and getting consistency of belief is a hoax.  Why?  Hoaxes
are innocent looking misunderstanding creators.  The fellow with a sheet over his head in the
dusky grave yard intends to create misunderstanding.  He is also playing to an audience of those
who desperately need to believe and are therefore looking for whatever evidence they can find
to verify what they believe.  There was a multitude of documents as well with conflicting versions
of the same story.  It's impossible to actually believe both when one says one thing while others
say something else.  A good example of this is the Gospels.  There are several more original
Gospels.  The four chosen were "sort of" the same story.  Choosing to include four and not just
one came about because no individual Gospel has all the story.  The ones left out have
something in radical conflict with the ones chosen.  A good example is the Nativity story,
Christmas.  In an excluded Gospel, Mary went into labor on the way to Bethlehem and bore
Jesus in a cave and not a barn as related in the included Gospels.
Are the differences in the stories a matter of one "eye witness" account versus another?  One
could argue that they are but the evidence says otherwise.  None of the Gospels say that the
Holy Couple was accompanied by an army of reporters who made notes along the way between
Nazareth and Bethlehem.  In fact they, the Gospels say that they were alone.  There's room for
meeting other travelers going the other way but an odd dozen reporters tagging along is out of
the question.  So, just where did they get the story?  Did they muse at the ceiling and conjure it
believing they were communicating with God?  Is it a matter of different versions of what God
said?  Don't you wish there could be a dozen reporters present to hear Par Robertson converse
with God.  We only get what Pat thinks God says.  If the Gospels are any indication of what
different listeners hear when God speaks we'll have to discount what Pat hears when God
speaks to zero.  What we can say with certainty is that the authors of the papers used to
construct the Bible were neither present at the time the actions took place nor did they get the
story directly from God.  Since the stories are very similar we can more than suspect they have a
common source.  What is that source?
Constantine burned the papers, burned the people and sent the legions to destroy churches.  If
he is not concealing evidence then he went to a lot of trouble for nothing.  I agree.  False
versions of what God said must be burned else people might read them and believing
themselves cause other to also believe.  That's what heretics do.   We can't let heretics either
accidentally or on purpose promote false versions of God's word.  So the false versions were
burned and people like Father Arius thrown into the fire along with them which leaves just one
little detail, the source document or documents that were used in the beginning.  Not only did the
Roman historian report the sending of the Legions to Egypt but they were not successful in
burning all those false documents either.  However, let us focus our attention on the sending of
legions to Egypt for the expressed purpose of destroying churches in the relentless struggle to
eliminate heresy.
Where did the original information come from used by the authors of the "original" papers that
were collected, sorted, selected and amalgamated into what we now know as the Holy Bible?  
The big finger is pointing directly towards Egypt as the source of those documents.  But where in
Egypt did they go?  Where were those churches where heresy was the norm?  If the legions
carried out their orders the place must be a pile of rubble.  Roman legions prided themselves in
carrying out Caesars orders.  Let's suppose they did.  Then to locate the place or places we
need only to find piles of rubble and then see if there is any connection to the Bible stories.  
Then there is still another problem.  
If the writers of the original versions of the Bible stories got them from Egypt then they must have
been written in hieroglyphics.  That's a whole new can of worms.  Hieroglyphic writings date
back a long time and were long lived.  We know there is considerable "drift" in things like the
meaning of words, common usage as it is called.  As an example let's examine the word, evil.  
When it was first coined and for a very long time thereafter it only meant that the thing in
question was made out of matter.  Evil meant the opposite of holy.  Holes have no matter while
all else is of material composition.  Ghosts are holy meaning they have no bodies while men are
evil because they do have bodies.  Today the word evil means something radically different.  
Thus we can say that the meaning of anything written in any language will vary radically with
time when literally translated.  Do hieroglyphic writings avoid this?
My first impression of hieroglyphic text was that a herd of chickens had gotten loose on slabs of
wet cement but then the tracks repeat themselves and seem to have structure, a rational of some
kind.  But then there is a more telling side to them.  They are loaded with pictures.  Not being
able to decipher the symbols at first, I resorted to looking at the pictures and wondering what
they meant.  What kind of information is there in pictures?  They are supposed to be worth a
thousand words each.  How many words are in the Bible and how many pictures are drawn on
the wall in Egypt?  Is there a correlation?  I ask stupid questions like that and I try to answer them
too.  And what about those chicken tracks?  Are they simply describing what's pictured or are
they "picture helpers?"  Maybe the pictures are illustrations of what the words say, I thought.  I
thought a lot and finally realized that I could write whole sections of the important parts of the
Bible without translating a single word of the symbolic script.  Then there is still other
considerations.  Those writings are unique to a social class.
Who got their pictures put on the wall in ancient Egypt? But of course, only the upper crust got
that.  Therefore, if the original material used to write the Bible comes from Egypt then it must
have been about Pharaoh.  Did I mention that Moses was a prince of Egypt?  Did adopted sons
of the queen get written up complete with pictures of them?  They should be easy to identify if
they did should they not?  Can't seem to find one.  But there is this rather oddball, Amenophis IV
that has a few pictures at a place that has been "vandalized" called Akhetaten.  Today that place
is known as El Amarna and "cults" are to be found with really smart people picking up where the
biological child of the sun who built that tabernacle left off.  Now are we talking about a
tabernacle in the wilderness, some kind of tower to get up to where God lives.  Could that be a
big house built by someone who got banished from the kingdom of God?  Just where did Adam
and Eve go when God threw them out of the garden of Eden?  Did the level of the Nile rise so
high it flooded the place out and drowned every living thing.  Well, not everything.  The good, the
ones that did God's will survived.  What God is this we're talking about anyhow?  Is it "the God of
the father of Moses?" The serpent that tempted Eve wasn't on her hat was it?  Was it one of
them asp snakes made out of solid gold?  God wouldn't be caught dead with a cheap snake, no
doubt.  Whatever original sin was it had the effect of causing Eve to be "like unto God."  Would
wearing the symbol of God make the wearer "like unto God?"  If God is determined by a symbol
then why won't it make the wearer God?  Why stop short at "like unto" and not all the way to
God?  Every Biblical event happened during the Amarna period of ancient Egypt.
It is my opinion that the Constantine gang made a conscious decision to disguise the fact that
"God the Father" is really the sun.  They went way out of their way to move Amenophis IV from
Egypt to Judah, give her a male Jewish name, Jesus and then use the text of the real story
replacing the Egyptians with Romans.  But then they could not read the original text so they had
several versions of it and picked a couple of good looking ones with the remainder ordered
burned.  Of course the opportunity to stick Constantine's favorite people to hate, the Jews with
the stigma of Christ killer didn't hurt a bit.  Was it planned?  My guess is that it was.  The bottom
line is that the hoax happened under the command of Constantine the great.  He is the great
hoaxer belonging in the book of records for the ultimate hoax of all time to date.  The Bible far
out paces, The Protocols of International Zionism a proved hoax by the finding of the original
materials used in it's construction.  The Bible has that same distinctive earmarking of literary
hoaxes, it's not from original material.  That led me to a little saying, "hoaxers are nil in talent and
skill" meaning they do not create stories but rather copy and edit that which has already been
created.  In the case of the Bible there are many crooks in the road both figuratively and literally.  
Following the trail is very difficult but not impossible.
It is not necessary to prove every clause, phrase and assertion of the Bible is bogus to prove the
whole book is a lie.  All that is necessary is to identify the "God of the father of Moses."  That is
the master link in the chain.  Is the God to whom Mose spoke the same God that is identified in
"Webster's" dictionary?  They are two radically different Gods, so different that they aren't even
spelled the same.  I went to Egypt and identified Moses and the god to which Moses spoke.  At
this point nothing else therein is trustworthy.  Moses is clearly the NOT Pharaoh, Amenophis IV
and the God of the her father is clearly not God at all but rather just one god from a large set of
gods, the sun.  Everything Moses did, so did Amenophis IV do.  What Moses did cannot be
verified because it was moved in space from El Amarna to the Sinai desert.  We can account for
Moses speaking to Pharaoh by simply noticing that Moses was the "son" of the queen at a
minimum.  Slaves did not go waltzing into Pharaoh's quarters making demands.  But then there
are other complications none the least of which is Moses being a woman.  Once one comes to
an understanding of the original story, one can appreciate what Constantine faced with his take
over of the Way church and the introduction of Roman exactness to the situation.  But then he
covered evidence telling me that he was "in on it."
One of the more significant "planned misunderstandings" of Christianity is to disguise the fact
that pagans expected the dead to go to a new world.  Killing people is just a head start program
of some kind.  The park ranger at Little Big Horn national park, the scene of Custer's last stand is
trained to say that the Sioux lopped of heads so the troopers would enter the spirit world missing
their heads.  This is in conflict with "the happy hunting ground" where many if not all native
Americans expected the dead to go.  It's not the "happy hunting spirit world."  Misunderstandings
are planned just that easily.  Change one little word and away we go to la la land.  What was
necessary to plan a little misunderstanding can be seen with great clarity by examining the
following two statements:
Moses was the adopted son of the queen of Egypt.
Moses was the son of the queen of Egypt.
By adding the word adopted we can disguise the fact that Moses was a prince of Egypt to the
average person.  It requires only the minimal knowledge of how kingdoms work, the fact that all
sons of queens, adopted or birthed are princes.  Then we get to the most famous killing of all
time, the firstborn Egyptian son.  What gives here?  Does Pharaoh have a firstborn son?  Did the
original text say Pharaoh's or Egyptian first born son?  What is Pharaoh's firstborn son?  Why,
he's the crown prince, meaning what?  Meaning he will be the next Pharaoh.  Why would anyone
want to kill the crown prince?  Because that someone is making room at the top.  Who benefited
from the killing of the firstborn Egyptian son?  Moses, of course.  We can get that fact all
confused by other insinuations and especially, Leader of 12 tribes of Israelites.
Are Jews, Hebrews and Israelites one and all the same group of people?  Constantine had to
ask that question, don't you expect?  What's missing from the historical record?  A map showing
a place where Hebrews and Israelites come from.  They must be space aliens that arrived on
earth in flying saucers.  When in history did Jews start referring to themselves as Hebrews?  
What makes Jews Israelites and no one else?  Why did the first Pharaoh from the new dynasty
after the collapse of the old due to NO firstborn son call himself, "Conqueror of Israel?"  Did he
conquer Palestine?  Palestine was already under the control of Egypt but contested by the
Turks.  Did he run the Turks back out?  Could Israel actually be Egypt?  What Ramses I did was
conquer the Egyptian crown and put it on his own head.  King Tutankhamen is a joiner, a filler of
the gap between dynasties.  The fact that Constantine sent the legions to Egypt for the
expressed purpose of destroying churches tells us that he knew Egyptian history and especially
the fact that Moses was Amenophis IV.
The Way church is an unknown that must remain just that until documentation emerges that tells
us what it really was.  The religion that resulted when Constantine took over the Way church
was based upon Pharaoh's religion where Pharaoh was God.  That's God spelled with the upper
case G and not just an ordinary "son of god" like Roman, Greek, Japanese, Persian and many
other emperors.  Constantine settled up and accepted his role as head of the new Way church
that got it's name changed to Christian.  His motivations were several and more than a little
obvious.  He settled for being served the finest food there was on solid gold plates and ate at the
biggest table on earth.  He did not attempt to defeat the imaginary army, the heavenly host led by
Jesus but instead captured it and integrated it into his arsenal by making himself the personal
representative of Jesus right here on earth.  And he imitated Jesus in several other ways as well
the most important to "we the people" being taxes.
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are God's" was put
into play.  Caesar collected taxes and everyone in the empire was required by law to become
Christians and tithed.  Tithes, taxes paid to God.   In both cases the money flowed in
Constantine's direction giving him the identically same problem now faced by Mafia Godfathers,
seeing to it that all of the money arrives safely.  The term that applies is, "going into business for
themselves" referring to the money collectors.  That's what heretics do.  They go into business
for themselves and the so called Reformation spawned a slew full of that species of "fishers of
men."  Constantine most certainly understood that God never gets the money collected in "the
name of God" and neither is it piled in the street and burned.  Money earmarked for God is
collected and spent by men.  The men collecting the money and the men spending it are two
different sets of men in the original version of Christianity.  So Constantine set himself up as the
final collector of money in route to God that by default made him God.  Money given to God is
collected by God as a matter of fact and not conjecture as the giver is the determiner of who or
what God is.  "God is the best job there is" sums up Constantine's faith.  Being God's direct
representative is good enough to get the part of the job of God one ordinarily thinks of, the
money and what it will buy, The Power, The Kingdom and The Glory of the Almighty Dollar.
Proof the Bible is a hoax comes from the identification of Moses and the "God" of the father of
Moses, Amman Ra, god of the Egyptian treasury.  Once one comes to an understanding of who
Moses actually was and the god to whom he spoke, a multitude of other evidence follows.  At the
battle of Jericho all the valuables, gold, silver, copper and iron were collected and brought to
God's treasury according to the Bible, for example.  The Bible is a treasure house of tidbits like
that making it an archaeologist's dream come true.  With a little effort just about every Biblical
mystery can be resolved.  It's loaded with "one liners" that seem to come from nowhere.  Don't
believe the nowhere part.  Every action at a minimum can be found in the writings from the walls
in Egypt with the most significant, Moses speaking to God at El Amarna, Akhetaten.
So what can we say with great certainty about the origin of the Bible?  The material, information
came from Egypt.  It was a little worn, tattered and torn and grossly misunderstood but never the
less was being used by an organization known as the Way church to extort wealth from people
with threats of eternal damnation.  Then came his most royal majesty, Constantine the great to
get in on the good thing the Way gang had going.  We can sum that up by noticing that the
Roman empire based it's economy on robbery and this was the last great one of them, the
people themselves.  They got so good at robbing that they ended up robbing themselves.  
Another way of looking at the situation is that Constantine went to church and robbed it.  No
matter how clever one gets in noticing what happened the results are the same.  In the end
Constantine became the head of the church and operated the last terminal for the money it
collected for God making him God's closest representative here on earth.  In short, Constantine
is the real first pope.  He decided all the major issues none the least of which was to standardize
what people believed.  That has it's base in the fact that the Romans were organized and the
Way church was something less than total organized.  So Constantine fixed that problem by
giving them a "soldiers manual" which today is known as the Holy Bible.  In that interest he
convened councils beginning with Nice in the year, 325.  Six years later, 331 he commissioned
50 portable copies to be made for his bishops, no doubt, so they would all be consistent in what
they and theirs preached and taught.  What transpired at the councils or meetings and during the
six years from the first until the final product is and will no doubt remain foggy.  The press, (what
was written by anyone and publicly displayed or read) was kept under control as it had been
from the beginning of the empire and remained that way until, July 4, 1776, a date that shall live
in infamy for some none the least of whom was the head of The Church of England, his most
royal magnificent worshipfulness, king George.  On that date the original contention by Father
Arius was reaffirmed by the statement, all men are created equal, thus denying the divinity of
Jesus Christ, a man.  The Constitution may be amended.  The Declaration of Independence
stands as written until Jesus returns with the heavenly host.
The Last gods
gods are interesting critters that do work but have no mass, are not made out of matter.  Thus
we can separate gods form all other creatures but only in the mass department.  gods and
beasts alike do work, apply a force to material objects, things made of matter, things with mass
and cause them to move.  A lot of misunderstanding of gods comes from not understanding
simple concepts like work.  No work is done if no material object is moved.  Talking on the phone
is work because talking causes air particles to move.  So the only difference between gods and
other beings is that gods have no mass.  Thus gods are holy and all else is evil.
Evil and holy are two opposites like up and down.  They define each other for it is impossible to
have one without the other.  Holes, by definition have no bodies, no mass, contain no matter that
is a part of them.  A hole can be filled with matter but still remains a bodiless thing nevertheless.  
All matter is evil meaning that it is not holy.  Ancient philosophers and even some today have a
lot of fun with evil and holy.  Any number of holes can be contained in the same space while evil
things occupy the entire space and reject all other evil things attempting to enter the space.  
gods are pure holes for they have no bodies at all.
Theoretically, it is possible for an infinite set of gods to occupy every point in space.  Since gods
occupy no space at all and have no mass then adding another to a point is a no-worker.  
However, gods are more than bodiless entities because they are also capable of doing work.  
gods apply force to physical things and cause them to move.  Sir Isaac Newton did not take this
into account and carelessly left gods out of his physics.  Or did he?  Clearly, there are three
gods right now in the physics as taught everywhere.  They are, gravitational, electromotive and
magnetic forces that exhibit all the distinguishing characteristics of gods, i.e. they do work
without bodies.  All three reach out across space with bodiless forces that cause objects to
move.  gods are bodiless force appliers that do work.  Thus all three are gods in the most
rigorous definition of gods.  Of course, there was a time when there was a multitude of gods.  
How different were they.
Perhaps an understanding of gods in general will take some of the mystery out of Trinity God,
angels, devils and the like.  When we put the requirement on the gods to do work we not only
stand a better chance of understanding them but can lump into the set gods all the supernatural
beings of record.  If the supernatural being is incapable of doing work then the thing doesn't
warrant any respect because it certainly can't hurt or help.  All the things people want done for
them and fear having done to them involves work.  Throwing people into hell is work.  Stoking
the fires of hell is work.  Getting one safely past Satan is work.  Properly entertaining one in
heaven is work.  Everywhere we look that which we expect form God, angels and devils involves
work either done for or against us.  Thus the key to understanding supernatural beings in
general and gods in particular is the fact that they are bodiless critters of some kind that do work.
 The yet to be understood forces of nature, gravity, electricity and magnetism satisfy the bodiless
force entities that do work making them gods.
Understanding kills gods.  Athena, Greek god of the wind bit the dust when it was discovered
that the air is made of matter, evil and not holy at all.  Until then it was assumed that Athena
could be prayed to, sacrificed to etc and the wind would blow and not blow accordingly.  When
the Greek Navy defeated the Persians, Athena was given credit for blowing the right amount in
the right direction.  Those lucky Greeks out prayed the Persians.  What really happened was the
Persians prayed to the wrong god and Athena got mad.  Athena got a bit mad down around New
Orleans a while back.  Poseidon was the one that actually flooded the place out.  Getting two or
more gods mad at the same time is hazardous.  Of course there's the case where people of faith
sought refuge in the Baptist church and prayed themselves silly but it didn't stop Poseidon so
they escaped by breaking the stained glass window.  God didn't totally let them down but did not
stop the two rampaging gods, Athena and Poseidon.  Is that significant?
Spirits come in two flavors, holy and evil.  Holy spirits have no bodies while evil ones do have
bodies.  Liquor is perhaps the most common evil spirit although a gun to the head can also
change one's mind.  Spirits are things that change a person's personality at least on a temporary
basis.  There's a hillbilly song that goes, sick sober and sorry, broke disgusted and sad which
pretty much tells the tale on temporary mind changes brought about by the introduction of evil
spirits to one's body.  Spirits are mind altering.  Evil spirits are easy to understand while holy
spirits are a bit more mind boggling.  How can something without a body change one's
personality?  The answer is information.  Information must have a body to reside on in order for it
to exist.  There's paper and ink on the paper.  The information varies with the shape of the ink.  
The spirit of that which is written is determined by the information.  Thus we can say that holy
spirits are informations without a place to reside.  Silly people try to get pure information but it
won't work.  Information cannot be moved from one place or person to another place or person
without being written on a body of some kind.  The spoken word rides on the air mass as an
example that shows the need for matter to move information.  Thus we can say that holy spirits
are mind altering informations while evil spirits are mind altering things with the information
portion imbedded.
Some caution is necessary to avoid ruling out the existence of holy spirits altogether.  They do
exist but only in the mind.  Holy spirits are responsible for all inventions and creations such as
works of art.  They are the lights that go off in the inventor's mind.  Lies are inventions and
therefore are the work of the holy spirit in man's mind.  Evil spirits such as liquor can help out in
cases where there is the need to lie and keep a straight face.  It can also go the other way of
course so caution is advised in all lying situations.  The predominant attributes of holy spirits is
they allow creative thought and lying, both functions of the human mind.
Understanding spirits allows us to better understand gods.  All gods are holy because they have
no bodies.  All gods are limited to information sources because things without bodies cannot do
work.  However, gods have been credited with doing work that is miraculous by definition.  A
miracle is the work of a god.  Miracles differ from tricks by who does them.  If a man causes
whatever happens to happen then it is a trick while the identical thing done by a god is a miracle.
 When people pray to a god they are asking for a miracle.  If the Baptist church in New Orleans
had been spared the wrath of Katrina it would have been a miracle.  If a man had come up with a
way to save the church that would have been a neat trick.  Men do tricks that are known as
magic acts while gods perform magic acts that are miracles.
The ability to do work without a body is a miracle in and of itself.  Gravity, electricity and
magnetism all three do just that.  They are bodiless forces that do work and can be controlled or
at least predicted with evasive actions taken as necessary.  They are the last three of a once
huge set of identified bodiless workers that has been trimmed by holy spirits in the minds of men.
These last three gives us an opportunity to validate God.
Since all is now known it is no longer necessary to question the operation of the physical world
in which we find ourselves.  We are now free to seek the spiritual and bask in the sunshine of
Almighty God.  The last three gods stop the scientists who would explain everything in physical
terms leaving God out altogether.  Tell us oh mighty scientist just how does gravity work, other
than well, all the time and everywhere?  Does Almighty God have anything to do with it?  Ancient
scientists certainly did not leave Almighty God out of their equations.  So what we have here is
an opportunity for the scientist to humble himself and admit that gravity, electricity and
magnetism are all just things in God's mind.  And if God stops thinking about them or decides to
change them then look out for there will be the devil to pay.
Newton noticed that every particle of matter attracts every other particle of matter.  What he
failed to notice is HOW they attract each other.  Only God knows that.  Newton went on to notice
how much they attract each other, when they attract each other and even suggest things that
might be done about it.  HOW they attract each other is missing leaving the door wide open to
say things like, "look at all the order in the universe.  There must be a God."
How old is the notion that God is behind the unexplained physical phenomena?  How old is the
human race?  It wasn't that long ago that the scientist accepted the fact that Almighty God was
behind sail boat moving through the water.  And, it's a given that praying to and making sacrifices
to Athena will improve your chances at sea.  Wait a minute!  Almighty God!  Where did Almighty
God come from?  We were examining gods and then comes God and now God has become
Almighty?  But of course, Almighty God is all the little gods all wrapped up into one humongous
fungus God.  This gives us a second chance to change god to God.  If god is a man then
referring to Him with the little, g is impolite.  Men gods are actually Gods.  And if there is a huge
set of gods then we'll need new nomenclature for the set.  Greek mathematicians undoubtedly
used the Greek alphabet.  However:
G = g1, g2,..gn
Almighty God, G is the sum total of all the gods, gi.  Almighty God began as a very large set of
unexplained physical phenomena that has been trimmed by the better understanding but short of
total understanding of the physical world in which we find ourselves.   Today, Almighty God is
gravity, electricity and magnetism, all three being bodiless forces that reach out across space
and do work.  This will remain so until someone notices still another unexplained and, naturally
unexplainable phenomena.  Is short, Almighty God explains all.  With Almighty God all things are
possible.  Being possible means they will absolutely happen at least according to Murphy:
                          If anything can happen it will.
Murphy wins again!  What could happen has happened.  Someone has noticed where the Holy
Bible came from, who originated it, why it was written and even noticed that it is a hoax.  Is the
word hoax too strong?  Should it have been said that the Bible is a mistake, contains a few
errors or something more innocent sounding.  The Romans operated murder for fun from
daylight until dark, seven days a week, fifty two weeks a year, for over four hundred years.  Only
those who would call that civilized will insist on me pulling the punch, be polite even.  I found the
source documents and they prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt the Bible is phoney,
a five star hoax.  What am I supposed to do with that information?  Should I burn it?  It's not mine
to burn.  I see.  Let things go on their merry way.  The scholars are perfectly willing to let it go.  
It's their books I read and their copies of pictures and their tutorials on reading hieroglyphics.  So
what is wrong with me?  After all is said and done whatever will we do for morality without the
hoax to guide us?  Will people stop "loving their neighbors as themselves?"  The constitution
says nothing about loving one's neighbors.  It demands that we respect our neighbors rights.  
Those rights begin with the right to life itself.  We're not likely to get that from an emperor of an
empire that gloried in the taking of their neighbors everything and used their neighbors lives as
play things, a source of entertainment.  The Holy Bible is Roman written for the Roman church
and the information it contains was warped to fit Constantine's desire to be God.  It worked for
him and is still working.  Will being a proved hoax have any significant effect on that?  Only you
can say for sure.  It's up to you and what you do about it.  You can be polite and not notice.  
That's what I'm being told to do.  I'm not about to do nothing, stand silent and watch the return of
the Holy Roman Empire and the destruction of democracy.
Decoding the Hoax
Does the Bible actually contain real history?  Is it pure fiction or is there a historical basis for the
information found in it?  The following is a, how-to map the Bible into the real history.
In the department of education mathematics is the orphan.  The poor little fellow is turned away
at every door when the math involves words.  The notion of taking words and converting them
into equations is out of the question.  Students have called upon constitutional protection to
avoid doing them, cruel and unusual punishment.  Masochist alone seek out word problems as a
source of entertainment is the only way to see word problems.  However, if one is to decode the
sacred scriptures then one must be prepared to give up the notion that memorizing truths is the
ultimate in educational skills.  There is no way to memorize all the possible answers to equations
involving a single variable never mind one that has many.  I find great humor watching people do
just that, attempt to memorize the answers as opposed to learning how to do the arithmetic.  
What I have just said is that I find it difficult to explain the obvious when the obvious involves
nothing more that connecting a few dots to get the picture.  What follows is a mathematical
analysis of just one of dozens of Biblical truths.  If you find this to be cruel and unusual
punishment then you may think of me as a masochist for this is what I do automatically with every
word spoken to me.  For example, I can still see the priest and hear his words, "for many are
called but few are chosen" spoken when I was 9 or 10 years old.  It goes without saying that I
would attempt to make sense out of that.  Does it make sense?  When I inquired of the
evangelicals what it meant the reply was, "some ministers will be more successful than others"
which I mathematically transform into, "some ministers will drive Rolls Royce's while others will
stand on street corners with tin cups."  Pardon me while I laugh.
We are going to examine the "virgin birth" of God.  It was argued, quarrelled over at the council
of Nice in the presents of the son of the god, Mars, Constantine the great.  Did they reach the
proper conclusion?  Pardon my noticing that his most royal was a son of a bitch wolf while we
are about it.  Don't you wonder what he was thinking with the bishops arguing about something
as fundamental as getting one's self born?
What are the fundamentals of the Nativity?  Let's see.  There was a woman who became
pregnant without the benefit of sexual relations with her husband.  Then she took a trip with her
husband and bore the child at the climax of the journey.  She was of lowly birth meaning that she
was not nobility.  In spite of that, an act of God no doubt she was hounded by reporters who took
down every last detail including a visit from an angel announcing to her that she was pregnant
and that God did it.  In the interest of maintaining focus we will not notice that God is being
involved in a paternity suit.  Lucky for God, her husband said, "it's OK honey, I'll raise the kid"
and whoever, God or otherwise got off the hook.  We will instead focus our attention on the
details of the holy birth.
The child came in the night at an out of the way place.  It was dark and there were none of the
usual amenities, roof over head, a mid wife, hot water and so on.  We can expect that as a
matter of natural law, babies can be birthed in the dark so that's not much.  However, there was
a God send of a sorts, "a light as bright as day" so she and anyone else could see.  The
question to be answered is, just what was that light?   In the ancient world the only artificial light
came from flame.  It probably began with camp fires and by the year one there were formal night
lighting equipments, lamps and candles which rely on flame for lighting.  Nothing along that line
can reasonably be described as a "light as bright as day" no matter how de luxe they might be.  
Surely kings had the best possible lamps for instance but even they were not close to the light of
the sun.  Did the sun shine at night on this one special occasion?  They didn't have time keeping
devices, clocks and watches so the night was defined to be the time when the sun was not in the
sky.  Besides that, the reports said that the sun was not there otherwise the need for light was a
non event.  Therefore there must have been a light source that is as bright as the sun but that is
not the sun.  Whatever could it be?  The answer is incredibly simple, lightening.  Prior to the
invention of electric light, lightening is the only light that is close to that of the sun.
Stars could be as bright as the sun could they not?  Come to think about it, the sun is a star.  
The reporters who tagged along didn't say that did they?  How could one tell the difference?  If
another star suddenly appeared in the sky that was as bright as the sun, how could one tell that
it was not the sun.  If that star was in a different position, closer or further away from earth then
the most likely explanation is that the sun moved closer of further away and not that it was a
different star.  The problem to be solved in understanding the story is to identify a light that is as
bright as a star but is not a star.  If we differentiate between stars and the sun we are ignorant of
the known, at this time, physics of the universe.  Specifically, we must say that stars are not suns
or that the sun is not a star.  That will get you an F in the science department.  When the test
question is: What is the sun?  A - a star; B - a light from God; C- an unexplained phenomena; D -
none of the above; E- all the above.  It will be a failing mistake to not answer A.
Now we can put one piece of the puzzle in place, the star that lit the night as bright as day that
was not our closest star, the sun.  That star is not a star at all but rather a weather phenomena  
known as lightening.  This is not something to be believed or not believed as a matter of
personal choice or faith.  It's a fact of physical existence.  To deny it means there must be
another explanation.  Lightening at the time of the holy birth was itself a god.  So the choices are
clear.  Either accept the known science as factual or rely on supernatural beings to explain.  
What we can say without the slightest fear of error is that the authors of the sacred scriptures did
expect lightening to be the work of a lightening god.
The Nativity is embellished with several goodies like shepherds and singing angels.  The
presents of shepherds along with all the reporters probably crowded the place a little.  However,
there is a clue in shepherds.  That says the birth took place outside of city limits, in the pasture
where the shepherds were keeping watch over their flocks.  So the woman who got pregnant
without sex with her husband went on a trip where she had the baby in the country with
lightening flashing about.  The shepherds were probably someone's imagination.  In any case
they only serve to tell us that the baby came outside of town.  Did the residents of Jewish
settlements around the year one build houses for their animals, barns in town?  Towns in the old
west had livery stables where travelers boarded their horses for extended stays.  Was that a
common practice in the ancient world and in the near east in particular.  A building dedicated to
housing animals is hard to find in towns today.  Was it different then?
How about those herald angels?  What is an angel anyhow?  Angels are supernatural beings,
things without bodies that can do work.  Don't forget that talking is doing work because it causes
molecules of the air mass to vibrate else that which is spoken cannot be heard by the human
ear.  So they are bodiless creatures that are capable of doing work.  That's what gods are by the
definition of gods.  Therefore angels must be gods.  What's different about them?  It all depends
of one's perception of God.  If there are many gods, paganism then angels are nothing more than
ordinary gods.  However, if there is but one God then angels are something else altogether
different.  Are they?  What do angels do for a living?  Well, they bring messages from God to
people like the announcement that the woman was pregnant.  Without that she might not have
guessed why her belly was swelling.  In that case God had control over the angel.  Therefore we
can say that angels are gods that are under the control of God.  Well, not complete control.  
There is the case of the fallen angel, Lucifer who decided to take over heaven and throw God
out.  I wonder why CBS, NBC, ABC, AP and UP failed to cover that event.  Taking over heaven
and throwing God out must be news worthy.  So where's the catch?
The herald angels were in the sky.  They are gods of some kind.  One of those gods decided to
throw God out and others followed him.  Lucky for God, faithful angels fought with the rebel
angels and defeated them.  God is dodging some big bullets.  First thing is God got a woman
pregnant and now there's a man ready to take care of the kid.  Then God gets hit with the coup
and lucky again, there's enough loyal angels to save His bacon.  Are these event related to each
other?  The woman delivered the baby in the country with lightening flashing about that tells us
there was a thunder storm in the sky.  Is heaven in the sky?  Is God in heaven?  Then God must
be in the sky and observers on the ground saw God get thrown out.  However, God is so lucky.  
The faithful Michael mounted a counter attack and threw the bad guys right back out of the sky.  
That came with a lot of cursing and hollering, the sort of thing that happens when people fight.  
But it is in the sky and there are eye witnesses.  Herald angels didn't curse and holler did they?  
What else usually accompanies thunder storms?  How about wind?
When we take all the evidence it suddenly fits the text.  The herald angels singing lullaby's was
the wind whistling through and around things.  The wind is a god, Athena you know.  Angels are
gods that work directly for God.  So the picture develops.  A woman of low social status delivered
a baby in the country during a thunderstorm at night with high winds.  The baby was not fathered
by the husband of the woman.  However, the husband didn't complain because he knew that
God did it.  During and after the delivery, voices were heard singing praises to the newborn king.
 What?  Where did the king part come from?
Ah so!  There's another piece to the puzzle.  The baby is a king and better yet a king of kings.  
That means the baby is royal.  Well now, not so fast.  That won't come until later when the baby
is all grown up.  Waiting for princes to become king happens only after they are all grown up and
never before father dies.  Speaking of kings, part of the Nativity story involves "wise men."
In the world of gangsters, wise men live longer.  Kings, by definition are gangsters.  Kings of
kings are gangsters who lord over other gangs.  The mafia makes a good example of this.  I
thought I would mention this even though it requires doing word problems to figure it out and
therefore I don't expect the average person to make the connection of wearing fine clothes, riding
around in gold plated chariots and having money to burn, what kings of kings do is what mafia
godfathers do too.  When the wise men see the godfather they come on bended knee and bring
expensive gifts.  Of course, there is always those who get ideas.  Sometimes their ideas work
and sometimes they get high class funerals.  Someone is forever trying to take over the kingdom
of God and if God's kingdom is somewhere else then the godfather's kingdom will do.
The wise men are described as magi.  Magi is a word that means nothing more than magician.  
The notion that they were kings is a hoax itself, a little one embedded in the big one.  In the
ancient world the word Emanuel, a modern day common name in the romance languages means,
"one with the hands of the gods" which is what the word magi also means.  Magic acts were
considered to be supernaturally orchestrated by the dumb public.  Magicians were "connected"
to the gods and could call upon them to do miracles.  Miracles are now differentiated from magic
acts by saying that miracles are the work of God.  Will hoaxing never end?  When someone
finally figures our HOW every particle in the universe attracts ever other particle?
The wise men, magi has another twist.  There is a picture taken from the wall in Egypt of
magicians from the east bring gifts to the new born king, Amenophis IV.  It was brought to Europe
by Napoleon's gang, nineteenth century.  I'm not sure about this but I suspect it upset the Vatican
and the original has since been totally destroyed.  Is there a connection?  Constantine
dispatched a legion to Egypt to destroy churches.  Was there a follow up, a fine tuning of the
original cover up?  It shows a lot more than three magi.  The record says that the actual number
of magi was disputed by early Christian theologians.  Why would anyone dispute a fictional
event?  Why is there no record of the magi paying a visit to Herod?
Now what we have is the real story.  A woman of lowly birth got herself pregnant without benefit
of sex with her husband.  She went on a trip and was accompanied by reporters.  During her
journey she encountered an interlude of bad weather that coincided with the delivery of the
baby.  The bad weather can be identified as a thunder storm with high winds.  The baby came in
an out of the way place.  The only reason we know about this is because the reporters were
there and reported what happened.  The reports were written somewhere and have reappeared
in the Bible.  How about those reporters?
In the ancient world reporters were known as scribes.  What are the disguising characteristics of
scribes?  They only scribbled in the interest of big shots, kings, lords, that sort of people.  Oh,
they practiced and lots of little scribbles are found but none with a full story like the Nativity.  The
significant person, the woman of lowly birth that got pregnant by God must have risen in class to
have reporters reporting her every move.  In short, she must have become a lady of one kind or
the other.  We know her story was recorded somewhere and must be in some writing(s) other
than the Bible.  And we have his most royal highness pointing us directly towards Egypt.  Tiye,
queen of the Nile, did all the above in the birth of Amenophis IV except the wise men of course.  
They came when Akhetaten was nearly finished to pay tribute to the king of kings, Amenophis IV.
Is Amenophis IV Jesus?  What else did Jesus do besides get "Himself" born?  But of course,
Jesus did a historical unique, chased the money changers out of the temple of God.  Guess
what.  Amenophis IV did exactly that and it is a not disputed part of "Her" antics as Pharaoh.  The
money changers came back and retook God's house where they still reside today.  "Many are
called while few are chosen" to reap the great harvest there.
Epic Battle In The Sky Between Good And Evil
Revelation says there will be a final epic battle between good and evil in the sky that will end
with good prevailing.  Is that battle yet to come or has it already taken place?  Where did Saint
John get the story?  Did he muse at the ceiling and conjure it?  Was he really visited by angels
and the tale "revealed" to him?  Angels are gods that work for God are they not.  We can only
wonder which God that was.  What we can say with more than a little surety is that there is a
basis for the story.  What is it?
"Hoaxers are nil in talent and skill" must come into play.  Either the story is pure fiction, a fairy
tale and just that respectable or it is based upon some factual event.  If we assume the event
case then eye witness(es) are required.  Was Saint John an eye witness.  He says that he was
not claiming visions like those of a fiction writer as his source.  Were those visions of the past,
present or the future?  The easiest visions to have are of the past of course and they are greatly
enhanced by having them written down.  Did Saint John have trouble reading them?
The clue that can't be ignored is the "star of Bethlehem."  At the time that part of the story was
agreed to stars were thought of as lightening bugs flying around in the sky. There were as many
versions of what they actually are as there were observers, a huge set.  Therefore there is no
clear definition of stars except that accepted within the holy scriptures.  According to it, The
Bible, stars are living creatures that are intelligent, have hands and legs and so on.  I haven't
even looked but at least some considered them angels.  Whatever they thought is now known to
be in gross error.  No one is on record as saying the stars and sun are identical things.  Had the
hoaxers have realized that they would have down played or left the star out of the Nativity for it is
the clue that tells us exactly what was going on, lightening.  A light as bright as day?  Got it!
Lightening can come out of a clear blue sky but not in sufficient quantity to light a birthing.  That
amount at one time can only happen when it comes from clouds.  In addition, the notion of a
battle in the sky says there was more than we would ordinarily expect.  Where does that
happen?  But of course, around cliffs.  I have observed west Texas, east New Mexico lightening
that is absolutely non stop and beautiful.  Love it!  It happens at the mesas, high points.  That
told me that the lightening, the star of Bethlehem must have happened in similar geography.  
Suddenly, I got a perfect fit.  I have a woman bearing a child in the country near cliffs and there is
an epic battle going on above her.  She is of humble birth but has risen to the rank of nobility
because she is accompanied by reporters otherwise the story would have never been told.  And,
there is his most royal sending an army to destroy something.  All the pieces of the puzzle fit
together perfectly.  El Amarna with it's cliffs.  Tiye, a commoner become queen.  And God is in
the sky and got kicked out by Lucifer coincidental with the son of God being born.  Did Saint
John read the story and get it cockeyed thinking it was the "return" of Jesus and not His birth?
If you want to reject the fact that clouds are demons that can move about, change shape and eat
your lunch then let one of them reach down and touch the ground on which you are standing.  
When Athena gets really mad and Poseidon comes along for fun, God in the heavens can be
called on but not seen and never comes to the rescue.  If you think you're Thor now just wait
until they get done with you.  Athena and Poseidon play catch with lightening bolts and you don't
want to get between them because when they do that God is never visible in the heavens.  Now
just what God is that in the heavens?
Once one gets the whole picture, God is a non event, the sun.  It's Amman Ra, the sun god.  The
central hoax of the Bible is the misspelling of the word God as in "God the Father."  It should be,
"god the father."  The sun is not God.  The sun is god and just one of an incredibly large set.  
The misspelling of God carries forward to the dictionary that has an excellent description of a
humongous fungus god.  Being a humanitarian myself, I'm willing to say they are talking about
Almighty God, the sum total of all the gods.  I reserve the right to withdraw that without notice.
The final portrait in the museum of God is the son of God, Jesus.  If things were not bad enough,
the son of God turns up a woman who claims to have been fathered by the sun.  My first impulse
was to reject that.  All the thugs, crooks and hoodlums of history, lords, dukes, earls, kings,
emperors, you name them, one and all claimed to have been fathered by a god.  That probably
has a base in the psychology of having to die and face their victims, advantage victims in the
next life.  Hell, the desire to get rid of victims altogether, for all time and for good reason.  Those
victims do not go away.  They go to the next world.  Jesus is different.  Jesus, Akhenaten
honestly believed she was immortal, would die time after time like everyone else and instead of
going on to a new world each time, she would come back to life here on earth.  What was the
science she relied upon to make that claim?
God and god
When we examine the dictionary's version of what the two words, God and god mean, there is a
sense of nervousness about it.  It's as though the author isn't sure of himself.  It says that a god
is a supernatural being or even an object such as a statue.  God is given attributes like originator
of the universe, omnipotent, and the like.  But there is a compelling attribute of God.  God is a
supernatural being.  Isn't that what a god is?  What's the difference between God and god?
There is but one God while there was a multitude of gods.  The set of gods has been trimmed
to size by knowledge at this time.  There was a time when gods were credited with all sorts of
things that we know the root cause of now.  Women once prayed to a fertility god in an effort to
become pregnant.  That practice was not throttled by the fact that no woman ever became
pregnant by prayer alone.  I'm sorry, there is the Virgin Mary that did become pregnant by God.
Is that story true?  It's a matter of faith.  The fertility god isn't God is it?  At the time, all women
who wanted to become pregnant and even those that didn't but did sex prayed to the fertility
god. We know that praying to the fertility god is ridiculous.  Is it not equally dumb to pray to any
god.  In short, gods are objects of ignorance that must give way to knowledge.  Is there a real
difference between God and god?  What is it?  All the greats of history claimed to be fathered
by a god.  Even the Japanese emperor, Hirohito made such a claim that was honored by the
people.  If there is a fertility god that decides which woman shall and which shall not be with
child then his claim is valid for we are all "children of god."  I'm sorry again, we are all "children
of God" according to the religious authorities.  If that is so, we are all children of God, then the
Virgin conception is as common as corn for all women including our mothers become pregnant
by God.  So what happened when the religious authorities of the Way church were called to
council by the son of the god, Mars?  They argued and debated in his most royal presence the
word God.  What did his excellency think?  There is but one God while he already knew there
was a multitude of gods.  The dictionary is no more "nervous" about it than him.
Statues, large and small alike are not gods.  That is a mistake in the dictionary and it reflects a
big mistake made by people.  Statues only "represent" the particular god.  Only idiots pray to a
statue.  It's purpose is to satisfy the need for the human mind to visualize something when
praying.  God and gods alike are invisible critters, have no size, shape or other physical
attributes and therefore nothing can be visualized by the worshipper.  Statues solve that problem
and were and still are relied upon for that purpose.  They, statues serve to increase the nervous
state of the definitions of God and god in the dictionary.  Hoaxers love confusion, nervous
conditions and God and god alike improve things for them.  What is the difference between God
and god?  Is there any at all?
Almighty God certainly has all the might of all the gods all wrapped up in one colossal God.  
We can be absolutely certain that at least one Greek philosopher thought of that.  Is the word
God simply a way of saying all the gods with efficiency?  Since God is invisible, holy meaning is
not made out of matter and gods also conform to that then we must look elsewhere for the
difference.  What is it?  We are all fathered by god or God so that difference is zero.  God and
god are both supernatural beings.  That's not the difference.  Both God and gods are
everywhere present, omnipresent so that's no difference either.  Could God simply be just one of
many gods?  That cannot be so if God is almighty because the other gods that are not God still
have mite.  So when we work the thing out, God is the god of gods.  The gods get their mite
from Almighty God.  Now we're getting somewhere is what Constantine said.  But where did his
most royal fit into the situation?
God is a master god.  The gods get their might from God.  Everyone is fathered by the fertility
god.  The fertility god was fathered by master god, God.  Therefore we are all both the children
of god, the fertility god that was fathered by, created by God, the god of gods.  Let's simplify the
problem and notice that we are all God's children.  Did I forget to mention that the dictionary
exhibits a nervous condition with it's version of the meaning of the words, god and God.  Perhaps
they are just being politically correct.  Anyone who does not believe there is a God is lower than
a crawdads bellybutton.  That is punctuated by the fact that everyone knows all about the gods
and especially the ones that control jackpots on slot machines to say nothing of the ones that
decide the final score at the old ball game.  Man proposes and one or more god(s) do the
disposing.  Everybody knows that and when we realize that God is in charge of the gods then
everything makes perfect sense for it is actually and in all cases, God that disposes.  God calls
upon gods to do the actual work.  God is too busy being worshipped, honored, adored, glorified
and sacrificed to, to fit any work into the schedule.  Don't you think we need another name for
those particular gods that do God's work?
This presents us with the opportunity to make a break through.  The gods that do the actual
physical work like decide if the pitched ball actually curves, is hit and so on are angels.  Angels
are gods that do God's work.  All work is the work of God since God created everything including
the angels, us and all other things.  This allows us to look into the Bible and map the work of
angels into the work done by gods in the historical record.  For example, an angel of the lord
visited Mary and told her she was pregnant with the son of God.  Which angel was that?  Why
that was the fertility god become an angel of God.  The fertility god makes the scene when there
are sexual relations in progress.  The fertility god is an angel of God just doing as God
commanded him to do and get the young lady pregnant making the baby a child of God.  Without
driving a single nail Donald Trump built Trump Tower.  So the question is, which gods are not
angels.  The answer is absolutely none.  All gods are servants of God just like us and
everything.  The word angel and the word god are interchangeable.  And the gods are for real.
Was the virgin becoming pregnant an outright lie?  Of course not.  It's just a little mix up like
those that always accompany hoaxes.  When I checked the historical record and found her she
was not a virgin and had already mothered a son.  Well, that's not a great big lie.  It was done for
the perception of things no doubt.  After all, the child in question was fathered by God.  But then
are we not all the children of God?  I'm sure I heard Billy Graham say that and he knows all about
God's children.  So the notion that Jesus was the son of God is so if we are all the children of
God.  Did God come down out of heaven and actually do the deed?  Since God is omnipresent
then God didn't have far to go getting from heaven to here.  If God did personally impregnate the
Virgin Mary then it too is a non event because God is responsible in all cases.  Angels doing the
work or God getting the job done right matters little.  It's the outcome that counts.  A son of God
was born just like what happened when I was born.  I'm one of God's children and a male making
me God's son.  Jesus is my brother and the son of God too.  But Jesus was a woman that
claimed to be a son of God.  Aw shoot far.  It hurts too much to cry so I'll laugh myself to death.
So what is the difference between god and God?  God is the creator while gods are the
created.  God is the biggest boss there is.  And God is nowhere to be found yet God is
everywhere.  What were the Way gang doing that attracted Constantine the great?  They were
profiting from that, God is everywhere and nowhere to be found.  God must be represented here
on earth and God's representatives will be in charge because God is the big boss in charge of
everything.  It is up to God's representative(s) to tell the people what God expects of them and to
deal with those who choose to do what God forbids and not do what God commands.  However
will we know what God expects of us?  But of course, God's representatives will speak to God
and tell us what that is.  So God's representatives speak to God, determine what God wants and
then enforces God's wishes.  The enforcement part will require the cooperation of the civil
authorities. That means there will be two authorities, religious and civil with the religious making
the rules that they get directly from God and the civil authorities doing the actual enforcement,
burning heretics at the stake and so on.  This is what Constantine bought.  The bishops would
decide the law and he, Constantine would enforce it.  Everyone has to eat.
Talking to God and deciding what God actually said, what it means and making laws so the
authorities can enforce God's laws is a full time job.  Of course, enforcing God's laws is also a
full time job as well.  Both law makers and law enforcers must be fed.  This brings us to the
biggest double cross in the history of the world.  Constantine's record shows he double crossed  
his fellow co emperor.  In the beginning there were four co emperors.  Constantine and one other
joined forces to remove two.  After they had successfully captured their two quadrants of the
empire, Constantine turned on him.  This time he turned to the Way gang for help.  What did he
promise them for their cooperation?  But of course, taxing power.  "If you join forces with me to
capture the entire empire then I will allow and enforce tithing" is what he said.  Tithes are taxes
paid to God.  Visions of sugar plums danced through those bishop's heads.  Who actually gets
the money that people "gift" to God?
The word "gift" has made a giant leap forward in religion during my lifetime.  I was looking at an
envelope for "gifting" in a special collection.  In large fancy print it said, My Gift to God.  OK, so I
am giving money to God.  Let's make that assumption.  That is what I have in mind.  I am no
different than those who sacrifice chickens to Vulcan, am I.  Chickens and money are
interchangeable at the chicken market.  Who actually gets either?  Vulcan does not get the
chickens and God does not get the money.  In both cases the gift is to an invisible entity.  
Therefore I can determine who or what that entity is by following the money to it's final stopping
point.  I sent the money to God.  I marked the money.  I found out who got it.  Is that not God?  
God is defined not by the physical but by thoughts in the human mind.  Each individual person
has defined God in his or her own mind and therefore the definition of God is individual.  That is
done by gifting to God.  By default, the one who gets the sacrifice, gift is God.  Thus Constantine
graciously accepted the role of God.  I realize this seems like a fast one.  It requires one to think
through what us actually going on.  Money is put on the plate as a gift to God.  The individual
giver is expecting that God will smile on him/her because of it.  In the mind of that person is a
concept of a supernatural being yet the money given never gets to that being.  Instead, a very
natural being, another person gets it.
So what did the emperor Constantine the great do?  He appointed himself God.  The one who
makes God's rules must be God.  Just because Donald Trump isn't a construction worker doesn't
mean he doesn't build buildings.  Constantine is not a supernatural being but that does not mean
he dose not occupy the office of a supernatural being, God.  No, Constantine did not write the
Bible.  He did contribute to the verbiage at least a little as reported.  In the end he became the
chief law enforcer for God's laws.  Making God's laws the law of the land makes the land the
kingdom of God.  The chief executive in the kingdom of God must be God.  The one who got the
money, not gifted but demanded by edict, tithes, taxes paid to God must be God.  Of course he
did not decide God's rules at the detailed level.  That work was assigned to the Way bishops
who supervised the actual work.  He involved himself in their, the bishop's selection, promotion,
salary, assignments and so on but no more than necessary.  
The Bible is the manual for determining the law of the land in the kingdom of God.  The one in
charge of enforcing the law, the chief executive in that kingdom is by definition, God.  The money
tithed from the faithful came to him.  He spent it on the other symptoms of God, grand palaces,
timeless memorials and, sad but inevitable a magnificent tomb.  When I compared what
Constantine did with what Pharaoh did I got a perfect fit.  Pharaoh is the first God.  Constantine
was only following in Pharaoh's footsteps.  Are God's representatives doing anything different?  
The power, the kingdom and the glory of Almighty God is enjoyed by God's representatives.  If
there is the God they claim then will that God not take exception to what they are doing, in
particular the putting of words into God's mouth that God obviously never spoke?  If God never
spoke the words then who's words are they?  Those who claim to represent God have a huge
bet placed that God is agreeable to what they are doing just like the jihad suicide attacker has a
huge bet placed that his victims will not arrive in the next world with him.
Anyone can condemn anyone else to hell by "condition of body."  Anyone can inflict a "forever"
wound on the body of another.  Pharaoh is unique in the history of the world for claiming the
road to the next life is blocked and a Christ, a savior is required to get through the road block.  
That scenario requires a place or at least a way to dispose of the bodies of those who will not be
allowed into the "next" kingdom of God in the next world.  Thus comes hell, a place rather than a
condition of body.  Hell, a place is a smoking gun for Constantine's Christianity.  The Bible is a
smoking gun for God.  God is anyone, person or being real or imaginary that operates a road
block between this life and the next life.  The marriage of the Bible and God is a marriage made
in hell and for good reason.  Hell is a gold mine.
Pharaoh achieved the power of God through hell, a place.  That tells us that people were dying
out of reach of his ability to inflict forever wounds on their bodies, hell a condition and not a
place.  Hell as a place was invented out of necessity, a terror weapon to be used on one's own
people.  It delivered the power, kingdom and glory of Almighty God to Pharaoh and did the
identical thing for Constantine the great.  He who has all the characteristics of God must be God.
The old testament does not threaten people with hell.  Jews don't believe in hell so they tell me.  
Could that be why a new testament was done?  The information, stories used to construct the
Gospels, the basic new testament attributable to God are a cheap rewrite of the life of
Amenophis IV, Moses the superstar of the old testament.  Did they realize at the time that Jesus
and Moses are the same person?  Was the notion of transplanting Moses in time and space from
Egypt to Palestine and calling her the Christ hatched before or after Constantine.  We may never
know for sure.  What we can do and what I have done is take the actions, what people did in the
big picture from the Bible and map them into history, the history of one person, the Amen, the
faithful and true, Amenophis IV.  The Bible is a hoax.  Constantine is it's author.  It got him
prompted to the office of God.  Today the pope, ministers, all who extract wealth from people in