The Battle to Establish the Eternal Religion

Chapter Five — Putanas, Scribes & Exegetes

Recall the admonishment of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: “The atheistic rulers of this world, Asuras and Raksasas, have a natural repugnance for transcendence and are ever on the lookout for the appearance of Truth in this world for the purpose of immediately suppressing it before it has the opportunity to become established within the masses.” Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja wrote the foregoing as a warning so that we can protect ourselves from the agents of Kamsa. He further alerts us that “lexicographical interpreters are employed by Kamsa in putting down the first suspected appearance of any genuine faith in the transcendental. King Kamsa knows very well that if the faith in the transcendental is once allowed to grow it is sure to upset all his empiric prospects.”

“Lexicographical interpreters” is perhaps a difficult, but still wonderful, metaphor for these wordsmiths who re-interpret the bona fide scripture according to their atheistic mindset, playing it back as something resembling (or not) the original; but once having passed it through their mill, it is then devoid of its potency to conduct the Truth. Srila Prabhupada called them word jugglers. Through the ages they have gone by other names such as Scribes (in Europe and the Middle East 1-3,000 years ago), and in our modern day as Exegetes—those who study and explain scriptural passages—also known as academics, or even scholars. No doubt there are many, if not most, that practice their craft with integrity as they have come to understand it. But there are also many who march to the drum beat of the establishment, using their name and credentials to support a party line, often in tension with historical truths. The later we lump all together as Putanas—the agents of the atheistic controllers who are to sow falsity in the place of truth, and to seek out any appearance of the Truth for the purpose of killing it for the masses. It is then the task of the scribes to adjust and “fine tune” the dogma to do the necessary service of falsity in opposition of the Truth; and finally the Exegetes are tasked with maintaining the now well-established position of ignorance, painting any “deviant” discoverers of the Truth into a corner of ridicule, keeping them separated from the masses by surrounding them with a wall of shame and derision.

In this chapter we take up a review of history to learn the lessons it offers in the destruction of truth and the creation of false doctrines that keep people in ignorance. Our efforts will make use of the results of many who have studied the subject, albeit with little recognition for their efforts or results. By and large they are pushed to the wayside of the mainstream while other, more dutiful hacks, are promoted for their staid allegiance. That history has been sadly neglected in this regard is attested to by HRH (His Royal Highness) Prince Michael of Albany. It is safe to say that a person with such a pedigree has access to historical records and insights that go far beyond what is available to the average person. In his Foreword to Bloodline of the Holy Grail he offers that “For around two thousand years, the destinies of millions of people have been manipulated by unique, though often whimsical, personalities, who have perverted the spiritual aspirations of our civilization. With marvelous detail, the author [Gardner] has removed the constraints of vested interest to relate numerous suppressed accounts of our heritage. In so doing, he resurrects the politically silenced history of a resolute royal dynasty which the Church has long sought to vanquish in order to further its own ends. Now, in this new age of understanding, may the truth prevail.”

Our own humble effort is likewise to resurrect some recognition of these truths both ancient and modern.

In Chapter One we stated the role of these Putanas: they are Kamsa’s word-juggling intellectual agents who place their materialistic interpretation on any manifestation of the Truth the moment it appears. Their interpretations are given the highest credence by the established authorities because of their “miraculous” access to supernatural “visions,” or else because of the respectable credentials and social standing afforded their authors. Their role is to make interpretations of scriptures based on specious arguments using a high-sounding specialist vocabulary, and all manners of hypothetical possibilities—or even outright lies—all to mislead the general mass of people.

The word juggler’s have several tools in their bag of tricks for creating misunderstanding, some of which we have already seen, and others we will reference in the pages to come. Among them are: 1) substituting or reassigning words with different meanings in place of an original word, as is done in translation or interpretation, 2) changing doctrines, replacing the Truth with outright lies, or dogma, and then compelling acquiescence by threats of physical harm and eternal damnation, 3) the use of half-truths, fooling the gullible to accept a half-lie, 4) destroying, omitting, hiding, or otherwise removing genuine knowledge from circulation, 5) ridicule and harassment of those who uncover and declare the Truth, causing the cowardly to avoid such persons and their ideas, 6) reinterpretation of events and ideas from an earlier era, in the context of the modern era and understanding, 7) Throwing off a false scent by making accusations against others which they are guilty of themselves. The bewildered masses follow the falsity as a revelation of truth, 8) Silence. A treatment reserved for the most ominous threats which cannot be effectively rebutted. And finally, 9) another very effective method used often in history—decidedly silencing the truth with the sword. By the time we are finished we will have demonstrated examples of every one of them.

These lessons of history offer keen insights in understanding our own mission to spread the truth and to protect Srila Prabhupada’s legacy for the next ten millennia. But we must learn this lesson well enough to discern the truth and having done so act with discrimination, since, as everyone has learned by now, those who haven’t properly understood history will see it played before them yet again. Why does it repeat? Because the Kamsas repeatedly use these same tools that have proven so very effective in bewildering the unable, the innocent, the foolish and the naïve. Before we examine how the Truth was suppressed let us take a moment to consider exactly what we mean by the Truth with a capital “T.”

Transmission of the Truth Peering into Krishna’s Lila through Srila Prabhupada’s purports we can learn how the Truth was once distributed by the original Supreme Absolute Truth, Sri Krishna.

“When Lord Brahma personally sat in meditation, and there was a message-transmission from Lord Vishnu to Brahma. Brahma then broadcast the message to the demigods. That is the system of receiving Vedic knowledge. The Vedic knowledge is received first by Brahma from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, through the medium of the heart. As stated in the beginning of Çrémad-Bhägavatam, tene brahma hådä ya ädi-kavaye: the transcendental knowledge of the Vedas was transmitted to Lord Brahma through the heart.”[1]

Srila Prabhupada explains how this method of transmission can be perfect: “The knowledge of that disciplic succession actually comes from the Lord Himself, and if the knowledge descends unbroken, it is perfect. Although we may not be in touch with the original personality who first imparted the knowledge, we may receive the same knowledge through this process of transmission. In Srimad Bhagavatam it is stated that Krishna, the Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, transmitted transcendental knowledge into the heart of Brahma. This, then, is one way knowledge is received—through the heart.[2] Thus there are two processes by which one may receive knowledge: One depends directly upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated as the Supersoul within the heart of all living entities, and the other depends upon the guru, or spiritual master, who is an expansion of Krishna. Thus Krishna transmits information both from within and from without. We simply have to receive it.”[3]

The Absolute Truth is Vedic knowledge and it regards transcendence.  Transmission of the Truth takes place through a receiver called the heart. The ability to understand the full meaning and import of the message is determined by the quality of the receiver, that is, according to the purity of the heart. Those whose hearts are contaminated with material desires cannot hear the message correctly, just as when a radio is not precisely tuned. The farther it is off from the exact wavelength of the signal, the more it is garbled. Likewise, a white light passed through a red filter will only show the color red. Pure consciousness (clear filter, transparent medium) = pure and proper understanding (white light). Contaminated consciousness (dirty filter or colored medium) = faulty understanding, or misunderstanding (distorted picture or colored light). Srila Prabhupada explains that one’s faith is established “according to the position of the heart in contact with a particular mode of material nature. It should be understood that if one’s heart is in the mode of goodness his faith is also in the mode of goodness. If his heart is in the mode of passion, his faith is also in the mode of passion. And if his heart is in the mode of darkness, illusion, his faith is also thus contaminated;” in the mode of ignorance one accepts irreligion to be religion and vice-versa.[4] However, by hearing the pure message in submission and surrendering to it, that is, by accepting the pure message as superior and giving up one’s crooked understanding, the heart becomes purified. It is submissive aural reception that gradually purifies the heart. Therefore we are encouraged to submissively hear the pure message from the lips of the pure devotee of the Lord only, and to avoid hearing from those who are not pure in heart.

The Kamsas and Putanas, because of their envy of the Supreme Truth, will not, indeed, cannot, hear with submission. Their hardened hearts are unfit receivers for the transcendental message. Because of their envy of the Supreme the message of Truth is repugnant to them, and they are compelled to change it to accommodate their conceptions of self-superiority, substituting themselves as the highest objects of worship. Thus in the history of Christianity we see that a successful effort was made by the Kamsas of the Pauline Church to destroy the Truths Jesus attempted to reestablish. Yet they then deified him, placing themselves as exclusive intercessors between him and the masses. Establishing themselves in such a position they were then in a position to dole out the favors of the Lord, or not, forcing the masses to supplicate to them in their attempts to find “eternal salvation.”

Control by the Sword “Progresses” to Control by Belief 


We can understand by their expansive conquering, controlling, and exploitative activities that the Romans were the leading Raksasas of their day. They extended their territories by conquest and dominated the entire Western world, desiring to be the lords of all; a testament of their mentality as lords is demonstrated by the fact that at that time the Roman garrison were required to worship their standards (their flag as representative of the empire) as their deity. They loathed the Jewish Christians for their defiance and refusal to submit to them.[5] Consequently they were merciless in their exploitation and murder of them as explained briefly above. The Romans were the ones who, through their local agents, or by their agents” own initiative, put Jesus to the cross, sent Paul as an agent within the church thereby wreaking havoc in its name, plotted the death of James, sacked the Temple and Jerusalem, and eventually exterminated or drove out of Palestine all of the Jewish Christians. What survived was what they allowed to survive.

After the fall of the Temple, the Judaism of the Establishment Rabbis was the only tradition the Romans were willing to tolerate, because of their accommodating attitude towards foreign rule. “The same was to hold true for the form of Christianity we can refer to as “Pauline,” which was equally submissive or accommodating to Roman power . . .” Eisenman tells us, continuing, “The development of this genre of “Overseas” Christianity[6] was actually concurrent and parallel to the development of Rabbinic Judaism – if something of its mirror image. Both were not only willing to live with Roman power, they owed their continued existence to its sponsorship...the power and brutality of Rome was operating to both drive out and to declare heretical what is now called Jewish Christianity, ‘Essenism’ or ‘Ebionitism.’” [7] 

Not only were the Jewish Christians driven out, but its truth was replaced with “a largely Hellenized, other-worldly mystery cult. . . This surgery was necessary if Christianity in the form we know it was to survive, since certain doctrines represented by James, and probably dating back to his Messianic predecessor ‘Jesus,’ were distinctly opposed to those ultimately considered to be Christian.” [8] That is, the Truths held by the Jewish Christians were a distinct threat to Pauline Christianity and therefore had to be removed. 

This assessment by Eisenman is, striking as it is, by now expected. Striking in that Eisenman has understood and reported the relationship of these two “religions” with the Establishment powers of Rome. If Rome sponsored them, we can be sure that it did so for their own purposes. We ourselves identify that purpose as a tool for the suppression of the Truth that manifest in the movement of Jesus and James, a Truth that gave its followers freedom in spiritual understanding; and its replacement by the Pauline version of Christianity that was employed to maintain an ignorance of spiritual truths—all the while providing people with an outlet for religious sentiments and mysticism that they are naturally inclined toward. The ultimate purpose of the Roman Raksasas? We learned of it earlier in the first chapter: their own personal sense enjoyment through the control and exploitation of as many others as possible.

Interestingly, we find that the church “orthodoxy” first takes root in Rome. But Rome is the very capital of the heathens!? Curious, isn’t it, why Rome would become the seat of the church instead of Palestine? Until we recall that, of course!, that is the destination of Paul in his retreat from threatening Jewish Christians, as well as the headquarters of the establishment powers of the time. And it is here that the Jewish Christians are without advocates of their own, while Paul finds advocates with powerful voices and the means to continue to promote this ideology through many coming decades, even centuries. That Christianity continues unabated from within Rome itself gives testimony to Eisenman’s statement above that it owned its existence to the support of Rome. Continuing into the second and third centuries it is the church “fathers” seated in Rome who establish what will be acceptable as truth, and what is not.

Now as we add up the evidence regarding Paul—his travels, his connection with the Romans, and the development his ideology—an intentional design begins manifest. Two-thirds of Paul’s twenty year ministry was spent “overseas” mainly to and throughout Greece. In contradistinction to the early church, his main effort was in converting Gentiles (i.e., Greeks), not Jews, to his new religion: “Christianity.”[9] Further the earliest existing Gospels are written in Greek, not only with a distinctive Pauline orientation, but simultaneously with a blatant disregard of the historical Jesus, James, the other Apostles, and anything of the perspective of the Jewish Christians. This combination reveals a possible blueprint designed to portray an idealized, even mythical, reality to those persons who would have had little opportunity to the verify his claims. If Paul intended to sow a false representation of the early church, which area would offer the most fertile field? Palestine, or a distant land where people would know little of facts regarding Jesus and his teachings? Had Paul attempted to pursue his preaching in Palestine he would have been laughed at, or killed. Indeed, his every visit to Palestine produced vows to his murder because of his blatantly intentional transgressions. Then we might ask, was he sent, or did he volunteer to go to a distant land, and there induce people who had no connection with the understanding or history of Jesus or the Jews to accept his teachings? His portrayal of the events of Palestine, as Eisenman has shown, as well as the Gospels written after his own creed, are almost entirely a fiction. But by and large his audience, ignorant of the facts as they were, and having no means by which to verify what was presented to them, accepted Paul’s version of the teachings of Jesus, and his miraculous redemption of all sinners. Anywhere but Palestine is thus preferential for Paul’s, or rather Rome’s, purposes.

Conquest and control by the sword is a laborious task that exacts its own harsh tolls. Constant unrest and uprisings also demand a regular expenditure of effort and blood. How else then to develop a control mechanism that requires little of one’s own blood but provides for the willing forfeiture of others” when necessary? Certainly the unflagging conviction of the Jewish Christians was not lost on the occupying forces. These Jewish Christians would withstand any amount of torment, even at a tender age, rather than defile their consciences.[10] Could not this rock-solid allegiance be garnered and used by the Kamsas themselves? Why should the unseen God of these believers be the only enjoyer of such willing sacrifice? Hiranyakasipu was similarly bedeviled by his son’s determined devotion to some supposed and unseen God other than himself. After all, the demons” opinion is, “are we not gods who deserve such supplication? Don’t we deserve that place of worship?” Ahhh then! Make it so! And if we can’t take the place of God, then at least we must be the sole intercessors to His access. How? Control men by controlling their beliefs! A man’s commitment to his religious beliefs is far stronger and more indefatigable than his allegiance to any other cause. What is wanted then is the successful creation and development of a religious belief system that subordinates the believer to the will of the ruling elite (and conveniently acts as a powerful tool to bury any manifestation of the Truth). And it is the development then of this new “religion” which becomes the keystone in the Arc De Triomphe in the battle to bury the Truth. It is with the creation and development of the Roman church that the Raksasas now enter in the guise of the leaders of the faithful. Leading them astray that is.

The development of both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity have been significant to the West, but it is Pauline or Hellenic Christianity that is our focus here. Nor are we interested in establishing the authenticity of Christianity and its doctrines per se, and do not argue for or against these. Rather, our interests are the history and development of its dogma, its scriptures and their interpretation, and the more recent archeological finds from the Middle East that shed light on this early time. Our story focuses on the machinations of the Putanas, scribes and exegetes.

Development of Pauline Doctrine and the Canonical Bible 


If Pauline Christianity was the antithesis of what Jesus and James stood for, it supported the purpose of the powers that developed it. Its development begins of course with Paul, who, as we have seen by his activities, words, and invented philosophy, provided the Putanas with sufficient material to flesh out the creation of the Christian religion, complete with sacred mystery, promise of heavenly reward and threats of eternal peril. Not only did Paul’s activities provide grist for Luke’s propaganda mill, but Paul himself was exceedingly clever and articulate, and he knew full well what he was up to. Eisenman respectfully acknowledges that “in Paul we are dealing with one of the most able rhetoricians (read: word-juggling, lexicographical interpreters) Western culture ever produced.”[11]

Pauline Christianity is built around the doctrines that eventually became established in the Bible and canonized at the Council of Nicea in 325AD, later ratified at the Council of Hippo in 393. It was at these councils that the official canon, or authorized books of the church’s New Testament were established, and it is often noted that what was left out was probably more important than what was included. The orthodoxy developed in the 2nd century established much of the church dogma through polemics written in support of the Pauline doctrines, and largely in opposition to the truths of the Gnostics and Manicheans. Further we must remember that Guttenberg was yet 500 years away, and the creeds were hand-copied, one by one. Did these scribes adhere to the principle of respecting these texts as sacred and not changing anything, as did Ebionites or the “keepers of the Vedas,”[12] or did they have another set of rules? The veils of the past are parted for us by the scholarship of the past two centuries, allowing us to review the textual, literary and historical veracity of the Bible—all important lessons to us on the consequences of starting down the slippery slope of scriptural “editing.” Behold what their “editing” has wrought!

By the time the Gospels were first penned most of the Jews and Jewish Christians had been decimated and/or driven to the hinterlands of Palestine and Syria by the war on Jerusalem. Typical dates given for the Gospels creation is after the destruction of the Temple, given as AD 70, but perhaps as late as AD 110. Who then wrote them? Its often news to most people, even those raised as Christians, that the books of the New Testament—those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—were not likely written by men of those names; or even by those who were the contemporaries of Jesus. Eisenman tells us that “they are still representative of a genre of literature characteristic of the Second Temple Period and the Hellenistic world generally, called pseudopigrapha – meaning books written under a false pen-name – and do not represent the genuine reports of a man called Matthew, a man called Mark and a man called Luke – John aside – whoever these men might have been.”[13] That may not be as troubling as it sounds though, or rather, this shortcoming is shored up by explaining the meaning of “author.” In the Introduction to the Books of the New Testament,[14] The New American Bible tells us “it should be remembered that for the ancients authorship was a much broader concept than it is today. In their time a man could be called the “author” of a work if he was the authority behind it, even though he did not write it.”

There is a possibility that a follower of Jesus, of whatever name, wrote a gospel later called Matthew, as there is evidence of its existence in Hebrew. Of the original, Edward Gibbon writes: “the fact is attested by a chain of fathers - Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Jerome, etc… But this Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew is most unaccountably lost; and we may accuse the diligence or fidelity of the primitive churches, who have preferred the unauthorized version of some nameless Greek.” [15] In any case what survives to us is written in Greek, and contains Hellenistic inclinations. Gibbon also notes that the (currently) two first chapters of Matthew, dealing with the Immaculate Conception and virgin birth, did not exist in the Ebionite copies. These ideas were doctrines that were fundamental to the worship of the gods of the Greeks, Romans, etc., during that era and are considered to have been added in later redactions.

The earliest of the Gospels is generally considered to be Mark’s. Not one of the original apostles, he is thought to have been a companion of Paul, and, according to Clement of Alexandria, wrote his gospel in Rome for a Hellenistic-Roman audience. The observed Roman connections would necessarily impart a pro-Roman bias to the work, and preclude a Jesus who was in any way anti-Roman. His writing, not surprisingly, bears an unmistakable Pauline viewpoint.

Besides the usual redactions, editing and censorship, there is another peculiar irregularity with the Gospel of Mark that introduces the deceptive polemics of the Patriarchs. A “missing” fragment Mark’s gospel found by Professor Morton Smith in 1958 in a Jerusalem monastery, appears to have been deliberately left out, or even suppressed, by one of the church Patriarchs, Clement of Alexandria. One Theodore wrote to Clement to complain of the interpretation of Mark by a Gnostic sect, the Carpocratians, who, according to their own understanding, not surprisingly, arrive at a conclusion far afield from that of the Patriarchs. It may well be that the Carpocratians had misinterpreted the tract of the Gospel, but as mentioned above, we are more interested in what is revealed in the exchange, of which this episode is instructive.[16] Theodore consequently attacked their interpretation, reporting it to Clement, to which Clement wrote the following missive:

“You did well in silencing the teachings of the Carpocratians. For these are the “wandering stars” referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, ‘of the deep [things] of Satan,’ they do not know that they are casting themselves away into ‘the nether world of the darkness’ of falsity, and, boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such [men] are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true [things] are the truth [?!], nor should that truth which [merely] seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.”[17]  

This is certainly the tell-tale signature of polemicist, advocating a denial of any even obvious truths that stem from his ideological adversaries—what to speak of disparaging them and their motives. In other words if these Gnostics speak the truth Theodore is admonished to deny it, and even lie, if that will help to defeat them! This appears to parallel Paul’s “winning at all costs” strategy. Yet, Clement goes on, encouraging more lies and deceit:

“But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way, nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For “not all true [things] are to be said to all men.”

Here he admonishes Theodore to deny—even under oath—knowledge of the existence of the secret gospel of Mark! There appears to be something here that he is intent on keeping hidden. As it turns out Clement was rather successful in expunging the story of Lazarus as it appears only in the gospel of “John.” Mark’s gospel has other omissions that would square with the Gnostic understanding, such as the resurrection and subsequent appearances of Jesus. However, later second century editions of Mark’s gospel are appended with Resurrection accounts. These two cases of editing are regarded as demonstrable and proven, and many others, albeit less provable, are suspected, or expected.

The author of the gospel of Luke is generally considered to be another friend of Paul’s, who also had no first hand experience of the events in Palestine. His gospel is dated somewhere around AD 80. “Luke” was reputed to be a Greek doctor, an educated man, and he is supposed to have composed his work for a high-ranking Roman official at Caesarea, the Roman capital of Palestine. These connections again give evidence to a bias for the Romans and perforce against the attitudes of the anti-occupational Jewish Christians. “Luke” is also the supposed author of Acts of the Apostles, which are considered to be the “second half” of the gospel, both being addressed to a Theophilus. As Paul’s friend we expect, not disappointedly, greatly sympathetic support of Paul’s “theology.”

With regard to the Gospel according to John, little fact is known about the author, although a footnote in The New American Bible[18] states that it is a widely accepted theory that the Gospel of John was written by his disciple. The gospel is believed to have been composed in Greek around 100 A.D., in the vicinity of the Greek city of Ephesus. Later redactions are suspected by others, again not Jewish Christians who really knew Jesus, but Greeks who did not. How much of the gospel is actually from “John” is impossible to know. But how much of any of the original Gospels remain with us today we do know: None. All of the original works have all been “lost” in time, and the earliest extant editions date from the fourth century, all in Greek. In fact of the nearly 5,000 Christian writings that have survived till today, none predate the fourth century.

With the exception then of Paul writing his own letters, the other authors are those who did not have first hand witness to the events they describe—events that had taken place 40 to 80 years prior. How likely is it that what they portray is accurate or even true? Did the events described actually take place at all, and are the words and teachings ascribed to Jesus factual? The dogma of course is that the Bible is the “inspired” word of God, and as such it must therefore be inerrant, and cannot be impugned. But the fact of the matter is that the inerrant Gospels impugn each other! — and not once or twice, but dozens of times. How can an inerrant “scripture” do that? It can’t. Despite the facts, an army of Putanas has been mustered to defend the integrity of scripture as it stands, by whatever means, and very often the means that works best is silence. The contradictions that arise are conveniently overlooked by priests and scholars alike, and only those few religious historians or scholars who delve deeply into analysis of the texts will discover the contradictions. If they happen to raise a cry of alarm they are adequately overshadowed by a scholarly and ecclesiastical consensus that points out the “patently obvious” misunderstanding. [19] Eisenman puts it like this: “A scholarly consensus of sorts has emerged concerning the Gospels, which concedes that later religious history has made it influence felt, the only question being to what extent. Despite the last-ditch efforts by conservative scholars and fundamentalists to defend their historicity [historical authenticity], based  in part on a prior belief in the authority of scripture, much material in the gospels, even allowing for hyperbole, patently borders on the fantastic.”[20]  Practically speaking we can mostly forget about accuracy in the New Testament, and because there was so much else that transpired in the process, when we speak of accuracy we will have to answer with: “whose accuracy?” We will visit this topic again below in discussion of the exegetes. 

In terms of the historical setting the Gospels cannot be said to in any way accurately portray the era. Instead they offer a highly romanticized version of events totally disconnected from the historical and political realities and most of the personalities present at the time. And beyond all this there is within the New Testament evidence of “fulsome wordplay and polemics”[21] concerning people and places. For example, Nazareth as a geographical location was not even on the map during Jesus” years; therefore he was not “Jesus of Nazareth,” but “Jesus the Nazorean,” from Nazorim, meaning “one who keeps the covenant or Law; ” as we have described above the Jewish Christians kept strict adherence to the Law. This derivation is of course ignored undoubtedly because it reveals a Jesus that Pauline Christianity labors to conceal. Similar treatment has been given to the words “Galilean,” and “Sicarios.” Then there are certain characters are blended together and/or the activities of one are parsed to several others. Say Schoeps: “The canonical Gospels weave together events and interpretations into a tangle which cannot be unraveled since the Gospels are separated from the events which they report by generations as well as by catastrophes.”[22] The many Johns, James and Simons seem to refer to different people but reflect the activities of the same person, or vice versa, reaching the point of ridiculousness, when describing for example “‘Mary the sister of ‘her own sister Mary’”! (John 19:25).

Additionally, Jesus” family members, are for the most part ignored (for which Eisenman means to resurrect James) and worse, as Jesus” probable wife, Mary the Magdalene, is made out to be a harlot.[23] The list of complications easily becomes a book in itself and enjoins the 1,000 pages Eisenman requires to adequately deconstruct the mess. I pause here however, anxious that I weary the reader with minutia. The entire affair can be summed up with a few words from Eisenman, also reflecting his vexation: “Nor can we say that in the Gospels we do not have a composite recreation of facts and episodes relating to a series of Messianic pretenders in Palestine in the first century . . . we have repeatedly shown how historical events were refurbished and changed in the history of early Christianity as represented in Acts . . . [and] materials in the Book of Acts were erased or overwritten where information relating to the life and death of James was concerned. In the process staggering loopholes in the New Testament, in the form we presently have it, were systematically and painstakingly set forth”; and, elsewhere: [with regard to discrepancies in Acts] “What is the point of all these obfuscations and reversals? . . . All this is very mysterious and makes almost no sense at all, except that the picture in Acts has huge discrepancies when compared with the one in Galatians and doesn’t mesh at all. Acts now turns to more mythologizing and story telling . . .” [24] 

Eisenman’s question about the purpose of it all has also been the quest of many others. Talmudic scholar Hyam Maccoby, for one, sees a purpose in the “revisionist history”:

“As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation.”[25] 

Maccoby’s admonition that the evidence be examined with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies, reflects our own purpose to discern the truths of history.

We gain additional confirmation of these ill-motivations and redactions from Schoeps:

“In particular, far too much credence has been given to the Acts of the Apostles, a literary work which is based upon a variety of sources, traditions, and fragmentary reminiscences, and which actually represents the accepted view of Christian beginnings held by only one of the parties of early Christianity, namely, the victorious party. As a matter of fact, this reconstruction of Christian beginnings grew out of the necessities of a much later historical situation. One who is accustomed to assessing documents in terms of their tendencies must regard Acts as a product of the second or third generation of Christians. It pursues an obvious dogmatic goal and to that end it cultivates the already powerful tendency to create legends and refashions persons as well as events according to its standards and conceptions. In the same way the canonical Gospels weave together events and interpretations into a tangle which cannot be unraveled since the Gospels are separated from the events which they report by generations as well as by catastrophes.” [26]   

Biblical Redactions 


So much for the creation of the bible. Let us now turn to the alterations of its doctrines, however true or false it may have been to begin with. If we ask when scriptural alteration began we can say as early as the second century—the same era in which it was written— with documented evidence from that era as well. The changes that were made were in fact met with the same alarm and consternation that the current changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books produce among certain, but not all, sections of his followers. Celsus, an Epicurean philosopher of the second century writes for us that: “Certain Christians, like men who are overcome by the fumes of wine and care not in the least what they say, alter the original text of the Gospels so that they admit of various and almost indefinite readings. And this, I suppose, they have done out of worldly policy, so that when we press an argument home, they might have the more scope for their pitiful evasions.” 

The word-juggling of the ancients is corroborated by modern scholars who have had access to a wide variety of ancient texts. Dr. F. H. Scrivener confirms the second century shenanigans in his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.[27] He writes: “In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest.” He goes on to state that although it sounds paradoxical “the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within 100 years after it was composed . . . The point on which we insist is briefly this: that the evidence of ancient authorities is anything but unanimous, that they are perpetually at variance with each other, even if we limit the term ancient within the narrowest bounds...The reader has but to open the first recent critical work he shalt meet with, to see them scarcely ever in unison, perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against one.”

The multitude of differences that appear in Christian scripture are not at all easy to catalogue, what to speak of understanding their origins. As it happens in all times, and ours are no exception, soon there were many factions holding to various conceptions of understanding: their proxy for the Truth. They wrote to establish and promote their own positions, and all the while criticizing the changes made, or the changes rejected, by others. It wasn’t long before we witness how those who introduced the heresies themselves adopt the age-old tactic of accusing others of that which they themselves are guilty.[28] The “church fathers” now become heresiologists, accusing those who deviate from their own deviancies as deviants, as we saw with Clement above.

Similarly, Patrician Origen was commissioned by the church in the third century, to answer the allegations of Celsus written in the second century, and in doing so he acknowledges that there “are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.” Of course he does not admit that the person whom he is pointing his finger at is the now established orthodoxy. Rather he would convince the innocent, the foolish and the naive, that it is the very keepers of the Truth who deviate.  Further, Origen’s reply also verifies that this wholesale corruption of the scriptures did in fact take place as early as the second century when Celsus originally leveled his charges against the Church. And what was it that Celsus charged? That the Christian scriptures “admit of various and almost indefinite readings [because] the original text of the Gospels has been altered to coincide and substantiate the doctrines of the Gentile converts in an attempt to prove their tenets of belief.”[29]  That is, the doctrines had been arranged to support Paul’s religion—his newfound “Christianity”—and specifically to favor the understanding of his converts as opposed to that of the actual followers of Jesus, the Jewish Christians. This is the determination of spiritual truths by political weight. It oddly gives a greater emphasis and importance to the opinions of new converts over the opinions of the older, more experienced and knowledgeable contemporaries of their acharyas Jesus or James.[30]

The Scribes 


Few people who were literate in the first century and those capable with letters were often the hirelings of the establishment. They were employed to write its version of the truth. Josephus was one, who, although previously a Palestinian revolutionary, capitulated to the Romans and took up their cause in order to save his skin. Eusebius was another. They were both younger contemporaries of Paul, and they were both beholden to the powers of Rome. The victors write history, and as victors do, they commonly give little if any voice to those they subjugate. That is one reason why we find the slanted coverage given to Paul in the New Testament, who was in opposition to literally every other Apostle and Jesus himself, and few “column-inches” given to the original church members. Those that are, are almost hopelessly transmogrified. Beyond that there was the efforts of the individual scribes who often took matters into their own hands, as it were.

Those who copied scriptures often altered the original words and meaning in accordance with their own beliefs. St. Jerome confirms this for us: “They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own.”[31] Thus, each copy was edited to clarify the beliefs of the copyist, or perhaps his employers. Scribes may have also, upon finding something disagreeable, viewed the offending verse of scripture as an error in the understanding or theology of the previous copyist.

Here is an example from the scribe Jerome who was employed to correct such “errors.” Under the title Versions of the Scriptures, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary states that: “Jerome had not been long in Rome (A.D. 383) when Damasus asked him to make a revision of the current Latin version of the New Testament with the help of the Greek original. ‘There were,’ he says, ‘almost as many forms of text as copies.’ The Gospels had naturally suffered most. Jerome therefore applied himself to these first. But his aim was to revise [revert to] the Old Latin and not to make a new version. Yet, although he had this limited objective, the various forms of corruption that had been introduced were, as he describes them, so numerous that the difference of the old and revised text is clear and striking throughout. Some of the changes Jerome introduced were made purely on linguistic grounds, but it is impossible to ascertain on what principle he proceeded in this respect. Others involved questions of interpretation. But the greater number consisted in the removal of the interpolations by which especially the synoptic gospels had been disfigured.” 

In our times many churchgoers consider that these differences in the Bible are taken as settled long ago, or at least they have settled for themselves having picked out the version that best reflects their own way of thinking. But the fact is that during the formative period, redactions were rampant and documents were edited to confirm, and conform to, the doctrines of Pauline Christianity, and allow them to preponderate over, or totally obscure, the doctrines of the Jewish Christians. The noted Church Historian Eusebius quotes the Patrician Dionysius, who reports that his own epistles had been tampered with: “When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.”[32]

And Eusebius adds to this his own experience: “Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.[33] That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them,[34] that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? [sic] For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed.”

The reference to the devil’s apostles who modify the texts is also not the opinion of just one person long ago—his sentiments are echoed in our own age. A highly respected Bible scholar, Dean John W. Burgon, writes in reference to certain manuscripts: “I insist and am prepared to prove that the text of these two Codexes (B and Aleph) is very nearly the foulest in existence.”[!] [35] and “That they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstratable (sic)… B and Aleph are covered all over with blots . . . We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their evil character.”[!][36]  We ask with (almost) no surprise “what else would we expect knowing that the entirety of this is set in motion by the Kamsas of the Roman Empire?”

It is a stupefying experience to realize that despite a plethora of undisputed statements exactly like these, by not just a few, but by many scholars, that these revelations seem to be tightly sealed behind a the high walls of the church or academia, the bulk of the Christian followers apparently in ignorance of any of it! Such is the nature of childhood training that what is once learned is innocence is never even questioned in maturity. Where is their discernment? Cheated by their own crooked intentions to use religion in the service of their senses it never enters their minds. Many Christians continue to maintain their faith in the Bible as the inspired word of God despite so much evidence of corruption, and the so-called ministers make no attempt to educate their charges in the truth, continuing to feed them on the poisoned cakes of falsified doctrine. All of it combines to support the statements of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta that “Putana is the slayer of all infants. The baby, when he or she comes out of the mother’s womb, falls at once into the hands of the pseudo-teachers of religion. These teachers are successful in forestalling the attempts of the good preceptor whose help is never sought by the atheists of this world at the baptisms of their babies. This is ensured by the arrangements of all established churches of the world. They have been successful only in supplying watchful Putanas for effecting the spiritual destruction of persons from the moment of their birth with the cooperation of their worldly parents. No human contrivance can prevent these Putanas from obtaining possession of the pulpits. This is due to the general prevalence of [the] atheistic disposition in the people of this world.”[37]

Avoidance and Neglect: The Weapon of Silence 


Those who control the propaganda efforts of the establishment are generally in a position to chose what they respond to and how. Where they feel on safe ground and able to defeat their adversaries they will enjoin the battle. When they feel themselves outgunned however, their best response is often a conspiracy of silence. In the case of keeping Christians in ignorance it is much easier if they are not taught doctrines that belie the wrangling of the church—the vast majority will never look far enough on their own, or give credence to challenges to what they have already accepted as truth.

Michael Cremo (Drutakarma Prabhu) has reported the use of this technique in the scientific community. He writes: “When I was researching and writing Forbidden Archeology, I discovered that orthodox scientists have often employed silence as the most effective way of responding to evidence that challenges an established doctrine.”[38] He also refers to his correspondence with a leading sociologist, Michael Mulkay, who apprised him that his own two best works had been met with silence from reviewers. While still effective, it is not a new technique. It appears to have been used for millennia.

Schoeps writes, referring to the “early church,” that “the synagogue [Rabbinic Judaism]... pursued the still more effective tactic of steadfastly ignoring its opponents. The weapon chosen by the Pharisaic rabbinate was extreme and hence effective. The vanquished not only died out but were buried under a blanket of silence. Hence the surprise provided us by the Dead Sea Scrolls.”[39]

The high walls of the church and academia serve as effective barriers to forestall access to the truth, and an anecdote related to me by a devotee friend is telling in this regard. Finding himself in a quandary about the course curriculum while a Junior in college he approached the department head for rectification on the matter. My friend was incredulous that the Department Chairman was aware that the school was teaching concepts that were known to be incorrect. Upon presenting the matter he was told, in a rare instance of complete candor, that the purpose of the university was not to teach the truth! Moreover, he was not even held to that standard by the University. He admitted that he could write just about anything he wanted, and due to his already high academic status it would be printed and taught to students all over the world. My friend was advised that if he wanted to know the truth he should find a Hindu holy man. Shattered by this revelation he dropped out of school and shortly thereafter joined the Hare Krishna Movement.

Changes to Support Falsified Doctrine 


As mentioned earlier, many changes in biblical texts were made later as the doctrines of the church were developing. Examples are legion, but I would like to offer just one as a demonstration. I will use for this example the central doctrine of the Trinity—God in three aspects of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

This was not a doctrine of the original texts but was later added to the Bible in an attempt to establish proof from the “divinely inspired word of God.” Our proof of falsity of this lies not in polemical debate, but with historical artifacts: copies of the ancient texts themselves.

The concept of the Trinity is based solely on 1 John 5:7 where the King James Bible states it as: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” But in Biblical translations, such as the New American Standard Bible, derived from older biblical manuscripts, this verse is entirely without any support for the doctrine of the Trinity. It states simply: “And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.”

Regarding the validity of the verse 1 John 5:7, the Adam Clarke Commentary states that: “It is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting[missing] in every manuscript of this letter written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin; the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. It is missing in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Aethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct manuscripts have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.” But while missing in all of these it now appears in the majority of Bibles, but still not all.[40] Plainly, it was added at a later date as then required to substantiate the doctrine.

The divinity of Jesus did not take root everywhere all at once of course. Every mode of thought has its own trajectory, and Jesus’ humanity persisted in the understanding of many, especially of course the descendants of the Ebionites, Essenes and other early Christians. One of their descendants was likely Arias, a presbyter of Alexandria, who participated in the discussions at the Council of Nicea in AD 325. The temperament of compromise at the proceedings was effectively demonstrated when Arias, upon advocating the supremacy of a single omnipotent God Who was not to be humiliated in the flesh (therefore by necessity excluding the crucified Jesus from any divinity) was summarily punched in the face and ejected from the proceedings. The doctrine of the Trinity and the deification of Jesus the Christ was then decided by a vote and ensconced as Catholic dogma. There never was any theological basis to support this “conclusive truth” of Catholicism. It is further suggested by some that in the competition for converts, the one-upmanship of gods was a requirement. In today’s parlance Jesus’ divinity was a marketing ploy. To be able to hold his own against already established creeds, any new god had to be at least comparable to the others, because why switch if “my (demi)god is better than your (demi)God?” Jesus therefore could be no less than a “god,” but would preferably be “God.” By vote it was made so and Jesus was thus raised to Godhead status.[41] This is also the likely source of the many miracles attributed to Jesus. Suffice it to say that the doctrine is a fiction supported by nothing more than fiction, yet it is promoted and accepted as the truth by the Kamsas and their willing victims.

Polemics of the Heresiologists 


The polemics of the early Patriarchs were in large part written against Gnostics who, armed with certain spiritual truths continued to present obstacles to the complete control by the church. Certain of the Gnostics had significant followings and they were singled out for rebuke, their philosophies condemned by extensive polemics: Origen against Celsus, Tertullian against Marcion, Augustine against the Manicheans in the early fifth century. Hyppolitus and Irenaeus wrote attacks on the heresies of the Gnostics in general. The Gnostics taught a variety of doctrines that challenged the “universal” church: that Jesus was not God, that everyone could have a direct relationship with God, and that no intercessor, such as priest or pope, was required; that the Law of Moses must be followed and faith alone was  not sufficient for salvation, and more. These challenges not only diminished control by the church but presented the truth of the Eternal Religion and had to be stopped.

The most effective measures of the “Church Fathers” accounts are intended less to present information than to refute it. That is, the arguments of the Gnostics were not addressed in a straightforward and scholarly way to attempt to arrive at the truth. Their positions were often completely unstated to the point that what the heresies actually were usually has to be inferred from the attacks of the patriarchs. These deliberate omissions were intended to conceal the truths they were attacking, lest they be viewed by the readers in a positive way. Obviously this resulted in a deliberately distorted picture.

The Church of the State 


Earlier we reviewed Constantine’s efforts to establish the church as the official religion of the empire. Interestingly it was his mother-in-law, a converted “Christian,” who is credited with at least suggesting the idea, perhaps also having the insight of control of doctrine being easier to manage than control by sword. Also as mentioned, Constantine’s gathering of Christians for the Council of Nicea was for the purpose of developing a Catholic (meaning “universal”) doctrine sufficiently acceptable to everyone that it would bind everyone together in one “faith.” Of course by the Vedic understanding this is ridiculous on its face as real religion can only be established by God.[42] Because the purpose of real religion is the establishment of the eternal dharma it cannot be not a democratic or political affair, a series of compromises meant to please the fallen, conditioned souls whose purposes are antithetical to the Lord. This gives us a clue as to how spiritually potent the combined efforts of the Council would be. However, a pure and spiritually potent understanding of the truth was not their objective.

The objective of the Council was to create a doctrinal consensus. Thus within a year of having concluded the canon of the New Testament any writings that contradicted the new orthodoxy were collected and destroyed—even if (or perhaps especially if) they were from the original followers of Jesus—who would now be considered pagans. This after Diocletian had undertaken to destroy all Christian (meaning of the original Jewish Christians) writings in 303 AD, resulted in the elimination of virtually all Christian writings predating the 4th century. Constantine further facilitated the coalescence of an orthodoxy by commissioning new copies of the Christian writings expurgating any of the material now considered heresy, which is how we got to the situation described above.

As with the efforts to establish the divinity of Jesus, the new Catholic doctrine was adjusted to win numbers by accommodating, and then co-opting, the demigod cults. For example, the cult of Sol Invictus, the Sun god, was a very popular deity and Constantine numbered among his devotees. The sun cult reserved his day, Sunday, for his worship, whereas Christians had observed the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday, the 7th day. To ease the entrance of sun worshippers into the Catholic fold, the day of religious observance was moved to Sunday. Likewise the birth of Jesus was formerly celebrated on January 6th, but again to accommodate the transition of sun cult members, it was changed to December 25th, the festival of Natalis, or birth of the sun, after which the days begin to grow longer. There were many other such compromises and adjustments made to blur the lines between the religions and culturally ease the transition from one to the other. All in all the new religion was constructed as a hybrid designed to accommodate as many competing parties as possible. The church was divided into four centers of control from four geographic locations, and this arrangement provided for the political manipulation of powers that could not all immediately be gathered under one domain. These things take time. Constantine himself remained a devotee of the Sun, but was finally baptized a Christian on his deathbed when he was too weak to protest. Likewise it took generations to realize full control by ideology, but it eventually developed. And in time gradually all power coalesced in the person of the pontiff who became both the secular as well as religious head of state.

The power in Rome came to dominate the Western world, making and breaking kings. All the while the Kamsas pursued their efforts to extinguish any manifestation of the Truth wherever it existed. Alexandria had been an Ebionite stronghold, and its library, which held a vast treasure of ancient works, was consequently destroyed. Pursuing other manifestations of the Truth led to the Manicheans, where for centuries embers of Gnostic truth still glowed. Considered a fusion of Gnostic Christianity with elements of Zoroastrianism (which is also replete with spiritual truths deriving from Vedic ideology) and the Mithraic traditions, they emphasized vegetarianism, celibacy and aestheticism. Mani, the founder, espoused an understanding of the soul, the doctrine of reincarnation, and the battle for the soul between the Forces of Light and Darkness. They also thought that Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament was Satan himself, and like the Ebionites, that the book of Moses had been largely falsified.[43] The Manicheans were long-established in France and later they became known as the Cathars. Despite their restrictive practices, but  undoubtedly because of the truths they taught, the Cathars attracted converts from the Roman church at an alarming rate.

Unsuccessful in subjugating the Cathars to Catholic dogma through ecclesiastical efforts, Pope Innocent III (the same pope that required acceptance of the transubstantiation under penalty of apostasy) had them declared heretics. Beginning in 1209 they were hunted down and exterminated in what became known as the Albigensian Crusade—a crusade of Christians against Christians—finally completed thirty-five years later. It should be noted that the Inquisition was first created for the discovering who the Cathars were.[44] One of the ways of separating “true Christians” from the Cathars was to require suspects to eat meat! The Cathars, strongly committed to the truth of the Eternal Religion, would rather be burned at the stake.

These examples illustrate the efforts of the Roman church to destroy any remnant of the Truth in the Western world. This, along with the character of the popes reveals them to be genuine Raksasas. The history is discomforting to hear, and the methods and actions of the popes, through and beyond the first millennia, have been well documented and include among them veritably every sinful practice known to man. Further evidence of their nature is revealed in their use of every means, foul and fair, to gain the office and then, in true Raksasas fashion, to extend their domination as far as possible. They eventually garnered both secular and political control over all of Europe. These Kamsas fully obtained possession of the pulpits as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had warned us, and one only needs to read briefly through the uncontested history to be able to discern the truth.

The Bible even refers to the church itself as the “synagogue of Satan,”[45] and in a letter to Pope Leo X on September 6th, 1520, Martin Luther wrote of the Christianity of his day that the church, “…has become the most licentious den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the kingdom of sin, death, and hell. It is so bad that even Antichrist himself, if he should come, could think of nothing to add to its wickedness.”[46]

Martin Luther here is merely confirming a prediction, perhaps not surprisingly by now, made by Paul. Curious it is that Paul should know that the Prince of Darkness would be worshiped as God in the church identified as that of Christ! However it was, he correctly predicted the demonic intentions of these Raksasas to be worshipped as God when he wrote that the demonic “. . . opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”[47] And in apparent disdain for the foolish people who follow them blindly, he again bald-facedly announces this deception, implicating the Putanas as well: “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.”[48] Here he is using the tactic of throwing a false scent, that is, accusing others of that of which he is guilty.  

Thus we finally have the successful completion of atheism in the convenient guise of religion as explained by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. This form of control lasted until another development that brought an even more complete control, after which the iron fist of the church was allowed to be broken by Luther and others. That control continues to exist today in an oligarchy almost entirely unobserved. It is so complete and has such an insidious interference with the genuine practice of religion that in our modern day people are allowed to have “religious freedom,” that is, as long as one’s religious tenets aren’t followed too closely. I will have a few comments about the continuing trajectory of the atheistic dominators into the modern day in my closing statements. Having learned some historical lessons of how an earlier manifestation of the Truth was dealt with, we now move into the modern day to observe the methods of the Putanas to maintain this artifice. Scribes now occupy the most respectable posts and pass under the title of academics and exegetes.

Controlling the Limits of the Debate

The Raksasa Kamsas who now control the world have made sure that since the trend of the world was to become educated, that the people have been given a suitable version of history. Those who are familiar with, and accept as factual, the Vedic version of history (from the Srimad Bhagavatam and other Vedic literatures such as the Puranas and Mahabharata), recognize the version of history taught in the schools of the dominant culture as extremely revisionist. By the perspective of the dominant culture, the history of the Vedas and practically all other indigenous cultures is condescendingly referred to as “myth,” and history prior to the arrival of the Raksasas and their domination of the planet (i.e., before 5,000 years ago) is considered “pre-history.” Attempts made to establish the validity of anything prior to this threshold are met with derision and ostracism, especially within the academic community.

Thus there are limits placed around what is acceptable for debate and what isn’t. Scholars who stay within the limits of debate get the respect of other academics and advance in their careers regardless of how ridiculous their theses may become.[49] Those who disregard these limits do so at peril of their academic survival. Cremo and Thompson, in their seminal work Forbidden Archeology, have labeled this phenomenon as a “knowledge filter.” Since their work was intended to compete in an academic environment they have politely limited their criticism and have avoided speaking too directly in this regard. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta however, sought no such acknowledgment and spoke freely, referring to these minions of Kamsas as Putanas—the demoniac who would attempt to slay the Lord whenever He makes His appearance as Truth. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has also admonished us that as a “chanter of the Kirtan of Hari, it is the constant function to dispel all misconceptions by the preaching of the truth in the most unambiguous form without any respect of person, place or time. That form is to be adopted which is least likely to be misunderstood. It is his bounden duty to oppose clearly and frankly any person who tries to deceive and harm himself and other people by misrepresenting the Truth due to malice or bona fide misunderstanding.” In a straightforward way then, we refer to those who would curtail the Truth as demonic, to the atheistic controllers as Kamsas, and to their word-juggling minions as Putanas. They are very real elements in the world today, not story-book creations of Vedic lore, and their existence must be taken seriously in order to properly defend the Truths they actively seek to extinguish, however insidious their methods.

The Putanas have established the limits of acceptable debate in every sphere of study: archeology, cosmology, history, Indology, biology, sociology, and yes even, or rather, especially, Christianity. The appropriate limits or borders are the ones that permit an materialistic and atheistic interpretation of reality, and they cast any other understanding, especially that of theism, in a derogatory light. It is suggested that any obeisance to religion is due to an infantile attachment to an “unenlightened” past. In short, acceptable sophistication demands faith in a scientific (read: atheistic, materialistic) understanding. Genuine theists are bumpkins.

Cremo and Thompson demonstrated the knowledge filter at work in the cameo of Virginia Steen-MacIntyre, an archeologist who was determined to stick to her scientifically valid findings of evidence of human existence in the Americas more than 100,000 years ago, although the established story of the Americas places acceptable limits of human presence at 10,000 years. She was advised to “adjust” her findings to something more reasonable, but refusing to impugn the bona fide scientific results she lost her position and was ostracized from academia, and is no longer being able to obtain a job in her field. Taking another example from the field of cosmology, there is intense academic and professional resistance to anything critical of the Big Bang, despite the fact that the Big Bang theory has been shown to be nothing more than that. Nonetheless it retains a dominant status as established fact, not to be questioned. Despite the rancorous debate in the popular press and online, academic websites fastidiously ignore any opposition, as though it doesn’t exist. Challenges, however scientific, are not allowed into “respectable” print, are shunted to fringe status, losing academic respectability.[50] Examples abound in all other fields. Those with the ability to discern the truth see that science has now become the lackey of the Kamsas being paid to support, with their academic credentials, the foregone conclusions of atheism. Science has now become what the “church” of the first millennia was—the defenders of a theistically dead worldview—and its members the unassailable priests of the day. Despite its attempts to control the minds of others however, science, in its attempts to legitimize its atheistic dogma, is losing its own respectable status among those with any awareness and ability of discernment. Having had its day, it is quickly arriving at the same dead-end reached by the Roman church, the authority that previously controlled the dominant worldview.

Nor are Cremo and Thompson alone in their evaluation of the consequences of speaking out of turn. In his Introduction to his Bloodline of the Holy Grail, a book that definitely challenges the boundaries of accepted thought, author Lawrence Gardner explains that conformity alone is valued: “. . . above all such considerations there is a further requirement: the requirement to toe the party line while paying homage to the demigods of power. This prerequisite has nothing to do with obeying the law or with behaving properly—it relies totally on not rocking the boat, and on withholding opinions that do not conform. Those who break ranks are declared heretics, meddlers and troublemakers, and as such are deemed socially unfit by their governing establishment. Perceived social fitness is consequently attained by submitting to indoctrination, and forsaking personal individuality in order to preserve the administrative status quo. By any standard of reckoning this can hardly be described as a democratic way of life.”[51] It is however, mostly the academics that are constrained by tethers placed on their understanding and reporting. Independent researchers such as Cremo and Gardner, whose careers are independent of the financial graces of the establishments, are alone free to report the truths as they see them.

These efforts to control the limits of the debate extends to the field of religious history and that story, central to the thesis of this work, cannot be better portrayed that in witnessing what transpired to bring the Dead Sea Scrolls and their unbiased interpretation to light. Eisenman figures as a key player in that drama.

Discovery and Sequestering of the Dead Sea Scrolls 


Finally revealed after two thousand years, parchment scrolls preserved by the dry desert atmosphere and cool cave temperatures offered revelations strongly challenging, and with greater authority, what was thought to have been so soundly established—seemingly once-and-for-all. The scrolls, authorities unto themselves, offered first-hand evidence of Jesus, his community and teachings, at odds everywhere with that offered in the New Testament, thus calling into question the authority of the Roman church and its version of history. What was to be done? Why, a new round of obfuscation, of course! The method of choice? Silence. Accomplished by sequestering the evidence.

These “Dead Sea Scrolls” although discovered in 1949, were effectively withheld from the academic community and general public for more than forty years. The International team of mostly Catholic scholars that was given a monopoly to study the scrolls held them in abeyance, publishing and revealing so little of their contents that it became an international academic scandal of the highest order. Unfettered access was finally achieved in 1991. However, the contents of the scrolls were released not by the International Team, but by others, amid the furious protestations of the former.

Aided by computer technology Professor Ben-Zion Wacholder of Hebrew Union College, and his graduate student, Martin Abegg, had broken the monopoly on the scrolls by reconstructing them from a concordance published in the 1950’s. Their reconstruction was thought to be 80% accurate. Then, later that year, in large part due to the sustained efforts of Robert Eisenman, the Huntington Library in California opened the flood gates by offering complete photographic sets of the original scrolls to any interested scholar.[52]

Prior to their release, Eisenman vociferously criticized the lack of free debate concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls and their contents. In The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception Baigent and Leigh detail the entire story of how a cadre of scholars to sought to control, not only the release of the scroll material itself, but even their interpretation. Their book is set in motion by Eisenman’s revelations of a controlling “consensus” in his earlier books such as Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran. In the Introduction to The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians Eisenman detailed some of the efforts of this Establishment consensus regarding the Scroll contents. To feel the full thrust of his frustration we quote Eisenman at length:

“. . . the editing and interpretation of the Scrolls had been controlled by a tight-knit and secretive group of scholars, all indebted to each other and all having the same basic perspective; it was impossible to have free and open debate in this field. . . In fact, so effective was the dead hand of these scholarly cabals that the field of the Dead Sea Scroll Studies was virtually moribund from the 1950’s to the mid-1980’s when MZCQ and JJHP appeared. . . MZCQ also called attention to the preconceptions. . . which either accidentally or otherwise tended to obscure the links of the tradition represented at Qumran to early Christianity in Palestine... It was this consensus, followed blindly as it were by its proponents and their students—who seemed hardly to read the manuscripts for themselves or, if they did, missed their thrust.”[53]

On the basis of all of the foregoing I suggest that they did not miss the thrust at all, but deliberately avoided it so that they would not have to report it, thus calling attention to it. This cabal constitutes the Putanas that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta describes, and their purpose is obviously to restrict any access to the Truth when it makes an appearance.

Every researcher’s hope and reward is that their hard work will make a difference in their field, expanding the knowledge contained therein. Eisenman is one of those researchers who has clearly opened the barn door and let the horses out, but will they find their long-awaited freedom? In his Postscript to James he clearly states what he is looking for in terms of the results of his work:

“One hopes that the arguments put forth in this book will at least lift some of the purposeful misrepresentation and cloud of unknowing surrounding these issues. Once James has been rescued from the oblivion into which he was cast, abetted by one of the most successful rewrite enterprises ever accomplished – the Book of Acts (and one of the most fantastic) – it is necessary to deal with the new constellation of facts the reality of his being occasions. It will also no longer be possible to avoid, through endless scholarly debate and other evasion syndromes, the obvious solution to the problem of the Historical Jesus – the question of his actual physical existence as such aside – the answer to which is simple. Who and whatever James was, so was Jesus.”[54]

I wish that I could report that the entire field has now seen the light and that the cloud is beginning to lift. However, as we might expect, with the release of the Scroll material efforts have been made to corral any understanding of it. In the Introduction to The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, published several years after James, Eisenman alerts us to the more recent developments in the field:

“Since the publication of all the remaining unpublished materials and attendant works, and their translation in many languages, this consensus, aided and abetted now by persons within Israeli official circles, has in the aftermath of the initial blush of excitement over the new freedom engendered by open access, begun to reconstitute and reassert itself, now backed by all the new people brought into the continuing process of preparing “official editions.” In fact, adherence to the consensus view or its variation was a sine qua non for being invited to participate in this process. This, in turn, once again highlighted the control exercised by those previously charged with editing the unpublished texts over the parameters and direction of debate in a field where there is still no really free exchange of ideas.” (emphasis in original)

This statement by Eisenman demonstrates that the Kamsas and Putanas are yet hard at work to forestall any genuine debate or free-thinking about the factual history of first century Palestine and the light that shone there. The effort to control the thinking of not only the masses, but the academics as well, continues. If any scholars want to be invited to the party then they understand that they had better play by the rules of the game, setting aside genuine scholarship and settle in as a hired-gun of the established order. Many, if not most, do. At least Eisenman, thankfully, is clearly an exception.

On a recent (April 2003) visit to major bookseller I observed a prominent display of a news article reporting the current Dead Sea Scroll Exhibit in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The news article was surrounded by a half dozen new books written on the subject of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A quick review showed that virtually everyone of them to be one of the so-called “official editions” mentioned above. Eisenman’s revealing and challenging work, James was not among the displayed offerings, which patrons might reasonably have concluded to be all that was current on the subject.[55]

Déjà vu 


Having examined the manifestation of Truth two millennia ago and its history, we are now in a position to review its manifestation in the modern day and look for parallels. Transcendence has Its own purposes to fulfill and is made manifest according to the desire of the Lord. His agents carry on His work to bring light into this dark world, despite the protests and efforts of the Kamsas to apprehend it. In the modern day it appeared in the great city of New York in the summer of 1966, and there in the very heart of materialism, the transcendental sound vibration rang out to challenge the forces of Kali. . . Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare. . . Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare. . . Hare Krishna Hare Krishna  . . .



Footnotes:
[1] Krishna Book, Chapter 1,  The Advent of Lord Krishna
[2] This is not to be taken as an allegory. That the heart has its own intelligence is attested to by modern researchers. John and Beatrice Lacey throughout the 1960-70’s asked why people experience the feeling or sensation of love and other emotional states in the area of the heart and sought to understand the physiological ramifications of these emotions. They found that the heart seemed to have its own peculiar logic that frequently diverged from the direction of the autonomic nervous system. The heart appeared to be sending meaningful messages to the brain that it not only understood, but obeyed. Even more intriguing was that it looked as though these messages could affect a person’s behavior. In their research they also observed that the heart is quite independent of the mind, acting “as though it had a mind of its own, profoundly influencing the way people perceive and respond to the world. In essence, it appeared that the heart was affecting intelligence and awareness.” See The HeartMath Solution: The Institute of HeartMath's Revolutionary Program for Engaging the Power of the Heart's Intelligence by Doc Lew Childre and Howard Martin; Harper San Francisco, 2000; also www.heartmath.org.
[3] Caitanya Caritamrta, Adi Lila, Introduction
[4] “That understanding which considers irreligion to be religion and religion to be irreligion, under the spell of illusion and darkness, and strives always in the wrong direction, O Partha, is in the mode of ignorance.” Bhagavad-gita 18.32
[5] This Raksasa attitude of control or kill is displayed by Hiranyakasipu toward his very own son Prahlāda: “Just as uncontrolled senses are the enemies of all yogis engaged in advancing in spiritual life, this Prahlāda, who appears to be a friend, is an enemy because I cannot control him. Therefore this enemy, whether eating, sitting or sleeping, must be killed by all means. SB 7.5.38
[6] That brand of Christianity developed in Greece and Rome was entirely foreign to the teachings of the Jewish Christians.
[7] Eisenman, James, p. 5-6
[8] Ibid., p. 7
[9] Real religious principles are enacted by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. SB 6.3.19; and, Srila Prabhupada in conversation with a Benedictine Monk: “To practice bhakti-yoga means to become free from designations like “Hindu,” “Muslim,” “Christian,” this or that, and simply to serve God. We have created Christian, Hindu, and Muhammadan religions, but when we come to a religion without designations, in which we don’t think we are Hindus or Christians or Muhammadans, then we can speak of pure religion, or bhakti.” Fr. SSR, Krishna, Christos, Christ
[10] Referring to the Ebionites; see the end of the second chapter, item 13 and footnote 37.
[11] Eisenman, James, p. 259
[12] “So in the parampara system in that disciplic succession, you will find no change. The original word is there. That is the thing. They are not foolish to manufacture something new.” 1976 0306SB.
[13] Ibid., p. 57
[14] The New American Bible, p. xxxiv
[15] Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire completed in 1788; Penguin paperback, 2001
[16] The episode in question refers to the possible interpretation of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus as a homosexual affair, as the Carpocratians, like their modern day counterpart Bagawan Rajneesh, were said to advocate a path to transcendence via total satiation of the senses. Were the accusations true then a responsible reply would warrant censorship. Others however have interpreted this event concerning Lazarus as a mystery initiation rite into an esoteric understanding of spirit, with the interpretation of sexual impropriety being given by Clement to throw him off the real scent, i.e., spiritual truths that were rejected from ‘Christian’ teachings. This reputation attributed to the Carpocrations may therefore have been false allegations or a deliberate and false character assassination of this Gnostic sect. In any case, the instructions of Clement go beyond the correction of faulty doctrine to the point of cult-like mindless adherence to a particular train of orthodox thought and blind following of the Patriarchs. [see Chapter Six for ISKCON parallels]
[17] Morton Smith, Secret Gospel, p. 14; and the next quote from p. 15-16
[18] The New American Bible, p. xxxiv
[19] This is elaborated on many times over by both Schoeps and Eisenman who have both put forward a thesis that lies outside the acceptable limits of the debate. For example, Schoeps writes of his suggestion on p. 43 that the events of martyrdom attributed to Stephen, were actually events that happened to James. The polemic reaction must have been intense as he writes:  “This central section of Stephen’s speech, which is doctrinally totally unique both in the New Testament and in the literature of the ancient church, has, as far as I know, only a single parallel in terms of content, viz., this passage of the Recognitions which we have attributed to the Ebionite ‘Acts.’ This gives pause for thought! In my book I proposed an explanation for this which I will not repeat since all theologians immediately see red when the historicity of the alleged Hellenistic deacon Stephen is questioned. In any case, we have in the speech of the Ebionite ‘Acts,’ whether it was delivered by James, Peter, or someone else, a counterpart to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. I regard it as a dereliction of duty on the part of the exegetes when they pass by this unique parallel without showing any interest in it.  
      Later (p. 45) he declares a polemic victory over this issue, his confirmation issuing not from any modern scholars, but from the Gnostics themselves! He writes: “Moreover, an Apocalypse of James has turned up among the Gnostic writings discovered at Nag Hammadi which has induced its editor, A. Bohlig, to declare that “the traditions concerning James and Stephen belong together.” This means that, despite all my opponents, my view is the correct one!”  
      Make note that Schoeps writes in 1961; Eisenman subsequently does unravel much of this in James.
[20] Eisenman, James, p. 57
[21] This rich characterization by Eisenman, one of many such criticisms in James, reflects Bhaktisiddhanta’s forceful disparagement of the ‘lexicographical interpreters.’
[22] Schoeps, Jewish Christianity p. 3
[23] There is a mysterious absence of any mention of Jesus’ marital status within the Gospels. Because of the apparent refusal to touch the subject this history must fall outside of the acceptable limits of academic debate (see below). It is typically only taken up by independent researchers who are free from academic reprisals. See Holy Blood, Holy Grail p.330-37; the entirety of Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Laurence Gardner; and the recently best-selling historical fiction of The Da Vinci Code.
[24] Eisenman, James, p. 959; the second quote references a second volume to come; p. 152-3.
[25] The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986
[26] Schoeps, p. 3-4. in this quote he cites: M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Heinrich Greeven, trans. Mary Ling and Paul Schubert (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956).
[27] This book was printed in the late 19th century (3rd ed. 1883) but remains a classic reference in print today.
[28] Paul: “But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them that desire an occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.” 
[29] See Origen: Contra Celsus; this is a series of eight polemics directed against Celsus.

---

Start the Hare Krishna Movement Again!