I once made a quote, a rhetorical question actually, and posted it on my Facebook wall, thus: 

“If the Gospel according to Matthew put the birth of Jesus at 6 BCE and the Gospel according to Luke put the same birth year at 7 CE, thus reflecting an odd 13-mysterious-years gap, a Masonic number, will it not be stupid of me to neglect this disturbing fact and still call the Bible a Holy Book of God?”

Until I set out to ask questions about how religions were developed among the humans, I had always worn a straitjacket of “thus saith the Lord.” However, when I study carefully the holy book of the Jews and the Christians, the latter being my adopted religion, through the magnifying lenses of the literary world, science, and archaeology I began to see things differently. This culminated in the writing of my book THEY LIED TO US – Unveiling How Christianity And Islam Religions Were Forged. The book will be available for sale June/July 2019.

Before I read the work of Joseph Atwill (PhD) – Ceasar’s Messiah, I had read the work put together by Abelard Reuchlin – The True Authorship of the New Testament. As a matter of fact, I deferred the reading of Professor Atwill's book until I had sent my manuscript to the publisher. I adopted the path of Reuchlin in my work. I was glad to know that these gentlemen and the host of others who has written about the authorship of the New Testament and the historicity of Jesus Christ are coming to the same conclusion – if you want to know the author of the New Testament, you must first know Josephus, the 1st-century Jewish historian. Many riddles are listed in the Bible leaving the hints for a possible correct decode to the works of Josephus.

Reuchlin, resulting from his many years of research, discovered that the Piso’s family, that is, one of the leading Roman aristocrats of that era, composed the New Testament of the Bible. This truth will shock many who are newly introduced into the realm of critical thinking and serious researches on this subject. In my own case, I literarily fell sick when the truth of the dubious authorship of the New Testament first came to me, thereafter, it had been one personal discovery after another. I began to see what I would have otherwise overlooked had I not be awakened from the slumber of deceits. By the time I came in contact with the work of Reuchlin, therefore, I was of a matured mind with my reasoning and knowledge well galvanized to admitting the truth and the underlining falsehood.

Going back to the opening paragraph, the Gospel according to Matthew links the birth of Jesus Christ to King Herod’s heinous infanticide of all the children of about two (2) years old. Sceptics do not see how this could have been possible of a puppet king under the control of the Roman Emperor. However, historically, King Herod died 4 BCE. The Gospel according to Luke, however, links the same birth scenario of Jesus Christ to a census purposely carried out for a taxation exercise. 

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.” Luke 2: 1-3

Josephus provided additional information leading to the conclusion that this exercise took place in the second year of Cyrenius’ Governorship of Syria in 7 CE. But, wait a minute! Didn't Matthew say King Herod killed children of about two (2) years thereby alluding the birth of baby Jesus and the visitation of the Magi to 6 BCE? This had been a great bone of contention. How could Matthew say 6 BCE and Luke would say something, on the contrary, that is, 7 CE (AD)? I found the exposition and submission of Marie Casale on this topic very illuminating, but then, some questions still remain to be answered:

1.    Did Luke genuinely make a mistake in attaching the birth of Jesus to Cyrenius? If true, how many other mistakes are in the Bible?

2.    The argument put forward by many scholars is that the passage in the Gospel according to Luke should have been understood as “And the taxing was made when Cyrenius was first the governor of Syria.” This is meant in some way to imply that a similar census took place when Cyrenius was on his first official assignment at Syria and probably not connected to the birth of Jesus Christ.

A careful study reveals that there are only two occasions when Caesar Augustus carried out the census of the Roman populace. The first was 28 BCE when he was in his sixth consulate. The figure of the headcount was put at 4,063,000 and the second time, was when Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls at 8 BCE. The figure of the second headcount was given as 4,937,000 Roman citizens. Jesus could not have been born at this time and this was the closest to anything that Luke could have ever referred to. It was particularly noted that Quintilius Varus, not Cyrinius, was Governor of Syria from 6 BC to 3 BC during the reign of Herod. (Velleius 2.117.2; Tacitus, 5 Historiae 5.9.2; Josephus, War 1.617-39 & 2.66-80, Antiquities 17.89-133, 17.221-23, 17.250-198).

If not for Cyrinius census, could Luke have linked the birth of Jesus to any other census in the following passage?

"And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."                 Luke 2: 3-5

What is certain is that no satisfactory answer can be provided without the admittance that the Scripture is in serious error and needs to be reviewed for the purpose of possible amendment. As it stands for the past two thousand years, the information is contradictory, and only very few Christians ever saw it.   

Personally, I would rather beg to disagree with what scholars had portrayed as a plausible solution – the admittance of an outright error or word misplacement in the work of Luke. In the light of the fact that it was the Roman aristocrats who conspired and wrote the New Testament, then, what appeared to have been contradictory messages must now be seen and understood as a trademark or a coded message from the authors of the presumed Holy Book of the Christian faith.

The author of this biblical passage, subject to my scrutiny, was secretly addressing a would-be reviewer of world calendar at a later time in human history. The reputation of Julius Caesar loomed large in the first century and the then calendar was named after him. These aristocrats who authored the New Testament had hoped and planned that a time would come when there would be the need to review human calendar when the chronology in the adopted Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew Scripture) expires.

The occasion Josephus and his cohorts envisaged eventually came in the 6th century. By AD 500, the chronology in the Septuagint Scripture was reading 6000 AM which means that from the creation of the world, human history had reached its 6th millennium, hence, a possible end of human history. However, when this did not happen, there was the need to review the then calendar. Taken from Wikipedia:

“It was a Christian monk, known as Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Little), who first reckoned that the calendar should be regarded as beginning from the birth of Jesus in AD 1. When Pope John I, who in the year now known as AD 525, requested that the dates for future Easters should be calculated, Dennis, who worked at the complex now known as the Vatican, then produced a chart beginning “in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 532” (anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi DXXXII) or AD 532.”

To the learned monk, it was not a difficult thing to realise that, at face value, there are 13 years between 6 BCE and 7 CE going by the guidelines provided by Josephus. The middle of the 13-year gap is 1 AD. The birth of Jesus Christ was planned to appear as if it is the beginning of the New Age. And this they succeeded in achieving when in actual fact the set date was meant to confuse those who would want to follow and study human history. By setting the date as it currently appears, they inadvertently set on course another prophetic milestone that was carefully inserted into the Book of Daniel. The full story is contained in the upcoming book THEY LIED TO US. 

One more thing on my mind, why did the book of John say Jesus was crucified on Nisan 13 (John 18:28, 19:14), that is, Jesus was crucified on the preparation of the Passover?

"And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!" Jn 19:14

When the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:7) however say that Jesus ate the Seder (Passover), his last supper before he was killed? Traditionally, that was Nisan 14 which had been the Jewish Passover ever since and till date.

Unknown to Bible readers, the two dates for the birth of Jesus have a subliminal gap of 13 years; and the records about the death of Jesus equally have  Nissan 13 carefully inserted into it. The number 13 and 33 are the Masonic symbol in use by the ageless Brotherhood. Upon this numerical importance was America founded on 13 colonies, hence the identified items on the America Great seal appear in their 13s – 13 stars, 13 steps of the (Masonic) pyramid, 13 bars and stripes on the shield, 13 arrows, 13 olive leaves and seeds, 13 letters on the ribbon. Jesus had 12 disciples making a total of, 12 + 1 = 13. The Sun with the 12 zodiac signs makes a total of 13.  Jesus was purported to have been killed when he was 33 years old. 330 is the highest rank in Freemason. old.    

No one, except the diehard people who walk not by reasoning but by faith, cannot but see and admit this symbolism and their possible deep meaning. To my understanding no signature can be more profound than this that God did not write the New Testament with obvious contradictions, subliminal symbols and odd messages; the Brotherhood did this. Few words are sufficient for the wise. 

Tunji Adeeko

August 7, 2018 

No comments

Leave a comment