The Painful Truth About The Worldwide Church of God

By John O.

Most of us have been lied to all our lives. While this avalanche of misinformation - and usually about God and religion - may have unintentionally come from parents, friends, and relatives, it's usually a little more sinister when it deliberately comes from outside our families. Politicians lie, religious leaders lie, the news media lies, oil companies always lie, and in Sho-Biz, it seems no one ever tells the truth.

When this is applied to one of the most important characters in history, it has an even greater impact. When lies are perpetuated about an historical character, after whom we supposedly are expected to model our conduct, then such lies can take us all on a completely different spiritual path in life. The historical character in question is Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.

Much has been written on the site about the person that's been called Jesus. But, if any lesson is to be learned here, then it is this. It really doesn't matter what this "Jesus" guy's name was, or where He came from, or if He even existed. The lessons and teaching, and the attitude of love to fellow man are far more important than the actual person. Ignore the messenger, as the saying goes, but remember the message.

I'll mention here, that the upper case pronoun in Jesus' case is meant for clarification ONLY, and not for some form of reverence. If there's more than one person spoken of, then it's easier to note which one is which.

The background of the Jesus person is somewhat of a dichotomy. To the devout Christian, He symbolizes the epitome of Deity in the flesh, while with some historians, several say there's no record of this guy ever existing. If no such person (whatever his name) ever existed, then where do all these legends come from? In any twisted historical story, legends always have their foundation in some sort of facts. So what are these facts? Who was it that spawned the reported miracles, and great deeds from the man that was called the Nazarene? If no such person as "Jesus" existed, then where do we get all those legends? But, if there really was a do-gooder in those years and a philosopher, then who was he? Is it possible that some historians are simply looking in the wrong place?

With several historians, a new channel has been found in this mystery, and their answer is surprising, especially when it comes to the old millennial lies that have been perpetrated by Catholicism. This knowledge is NOT new, but the average Christian has been reluctant to look at any history other than a heavily redacted Biblical account of the man they call Jesus of Nazareth. As one professor said: "The problem for any historian in trying to reconstruct the life of Jesus is simply that we don't have sources that come from the actual time of Jesus himself." Quoted by Professor L. Michael White, Director of Religious Studies, University of Texas at Austin.

In the first place, Jesus was NOT His real name. It was a title. According to the Bible, His real name was Immanuel. But, apart from the stories of Jesus, there is historically recorded many travels - through the Roman Empire - of one remarkable man, presumably anointed or enlightened, and this man journeyed and taught Godly wisdom in that early Church era. Since "Jesus" is the Greek for the name "Joshua," the early Christians gave this particular early philosopher the name of Joshua, as they believed that this distinct, early New Testament man would be the one to lead them out of Roman bondage and into a new life. As the original Joshua had done his "promised land" task in around 1400 BC, they hoped this new Joshua would then do the same for them in the early common era. But, his real name was NOT Jesus.

As time progressed, two hundred years or so, into the early Church era, the real identity of this early philosopher was lost, and the title of Jesus of Nazareth became the only name by which this "anointed" teacher (or Christ) was known. The early Christian writings talk only of Jesus, which is the only name by which they recognized their "Christ" and the progenitor of their Christianity, but the Roman world knew this philosopher by another name entirely. His real name was Apollonius of Tyana.

So, this Apollonius individual, who taught and did remarkable things in those years actually existed as a historical fact (and references will be given), but his authentic name didn't conform to the later official and Christian derived, historical name of "Jesus," and his thinking certainly didn't conform to many of the new Christian doctrines. That's why, when historians are looking for evidence of Jesus of Nazareth, they have an almost impossible time. The Jesus of Nazareth character, who was loosely based on the personage of Apollonius, cannot be found in secular history, and so - except for the Bible, a "historical" Jesus never existed.

Inserted into this article will be any number of links to other places on the Internet with explanations of the Apollonius background. People who are interested enough can continue their own research here, and "prove all things." Please avail yourself of these links (and the links from those points), as they provide (with variation) what history really knows about Apollonius and many facts about this early New Testament time. They will show that Apollonius and the fabricated character of Jesus of Nazareth are one in the same. And all the scams that the Catholic Church went through with their Biblical redacting - in order to make Jesus the only hero and "anointed" one - were strictly political and monetary moves.

Three books are referenced here, and are available from or Barnes &, and possibly can be found in your local bookstores. The first is: "Apollonius of Tyana," by G.R.S. Mead. The next is "Apollonius of Tyana," by Ralph Shirley. And the third is: "Jesus Christ: A fiction founded on the life of Apollonius of Tyana," by Michael Faraday. Internet links will be given later.

Apollonius was born in Tyana, in Cappadocia, in Asia Minor - now modern Turkey. He looked like the average Greek scholar of his day. He had full head of curly hair, and a medium size beard. A bust of him is in the Naples Museum in Italy. While some early Christians called him by his Biblical name, Immanuel, and referred to him as Immanuel Apollonius, the Romans knew him as Apollonius Tyanaeus.

He was Greek and not Jewish. He had a formal education, was taught by the best teachers of the day, was Hellenistic in his religious approach, a dedicated humanitarian, and was known as a Roman citizen. Apollonius, however, did not agree with many Roman practices. He abhorred violence, and the sacrificing of animals. The latter also went for the Jewish peoples' practice too. And, as we shall see later, he lived a much more austere (but happy) lifestyle than the fun-loving Romans of his day.

Apollonius traveled the Roman empire, and also went to the far East. He passed through many countries in his travels, including Galilee, Samaria, and Judea, where he reputedly spent over three years. This accounts for the exaggerated "Jesus" ministry and saga that that was published throughout the Levant in that time. The Jesus of the Bible was actually a fictionally based character derived from the person of Apollonius Tyanaeus.

Apollonius lived to be about a hundred years old, and no one knows where or how he died. In the early thirties AD, a Jehoshua Ben Pandira, the illegitimate son of a maid, Stada, and a Roman soldier Pandira, was executed in Jerusalem for reasons not clear to history. This Jehoshua is mentioned in the Jewish Talmud, and was regarded as the one who later became known as the Jesus the Nazarene. Since Apollonius was still alive and regarded by many as the anointed, then it's no wonder that in later times, references were made to Apollonius being alive after the "Nazarene" was killed. And so, this gave rise to the legends: "He is risen . . . "

Much of those happenings are cluttered in history here, and there are sometimes different versions of the lives of all who lived at that time. Since historians tend to color things from their own perspective, we do the best we can to weed out the chaff and try to get at the truth. In other words, we'll examine what makes the most sense (Ockham's Razor) of the situation in light of the facts that we know.

Christianity was taking hold in the Roman Empire in the first two centuries of the modern era, as they were a strong population force (like now) to deal with. As we see, in today's world, politics always caters to everyone for the sake of votes. In Rome, all segments which proved to be good citizens were appeased to gain their continued loyalty, and that included Christians.

In 325 AD, it was Emperor Constantine and his group that made the church of Rome a conglomerate of paganism and the Christian philosophy. In this way, the Christians could be appeased along with the Romans, and thus, all people could maintain continued loyalty to Caesar. This was done at the series of meetings called the Council of Nicaea, and the philosophies of Rome and new Christians were examined. However, the original Christian philosophy (originally derived from Apollonius' teaching), needed substantial modification. For example, Apollonius was a vegetarian and one who abstained from all forms of alcoholic beverages. The Roman Church, on the other hand, loved their meat and drank to excess. So the Roman Church re-invented the Jesus of Nazareth character to suit its own political and personal gains. Biblical redacting now showed this "new improved" character of Jesus to be both "a glutton and a wine bibber." Apollonius also abhorred violence of any sort, but the Roman Church condoned violence if its interests were challenged. Thus, the new redacting showed Jesus' "righteous" anger and violent behaviour when he kicked the money changers out of the Temple. The Apollonius philosophy was gradually abandoned and a new set of teachings were introduced as coming from the "new-improved" philosopher - the re-invented Jesus of Nazareth. Please check out:

It was 100 years earlier, and long before the Nicaean council began, that some older Romans considered this Christian counterfeit of Apollonius was taking center stage. Jesus of Nazareth - the title given to him by Christians - was now pre-eminent, despite the fact that He was only a collection of myths. The original teacher (Apollonius) was neither Jewish, nor conformed, in any way, to the Christ's revised life history that the early New Testament church and the Roman Church had invented. Please check:

Julia Domna was the second wife of Emperor Septimus Severus (193-211 AD), and was concerned that Rome was losing touch with its association of the teachings of Apollonius, and noted the beginnings of the twisted doctrines being introduced, attributed to the Christian Jesus. She commissioned a current and eminent writer, Flavius Philostratus, to write the history of Apollonius as a record to show that this great New Testament philosopher was really a Greek and not Jewish. This is one of the best records we have today of the life of Apollonius of Tyana, despite the attempts of the Catholic Church over the years to destroy this history. Please see:

In the early 16th century, this chronicle of the life of Apollonius was released in Europe, but met with (naturally) strong Catholic opposition. Historians were immediately accused of trying to create a counterfeit of Jesus, while the historians rebutted with the fact that the legends of Jesus were based on the life of Apollonius. To this day, modern Christianity would rather ignore the history of Apollonius and focus its profitable theology on its own imaginary creation of the many Biblical and unfounded happenings as attributed to the invented Jesus.

In those early centuries, the Roman Church had total control on all the early Christian writings. They based their whole acceptance of the new "Scriptures" on whether those writings agreed with their own philosophy or not. So, they redacted document after document to make them conform to Catholic thinking, and burned the rest. And thus, the Bible was born.

It's a very important fact here, that NOWHERE in either of the histories of Apollonius or the created legends about Jesus, is the alternate sage, prophet, humanitarian - or contemporary philosopher - ever mentioned. This is rather strange in the light of the fact, that IF they were really two different people, history's timing shows that their paths MUST have crossed many times. But the histories are completely silent on this, and it's not surprising, since they're both one and the same individual.

It's also interesting to note that modern religion will never give up its hold on the Jesus myth. They will never admit that the legends of Jesus belong to the deeds of another whom they do NOT recognize. There is too much money at stake with the modern day marketing of God with Jesus as the bait. Both the Vatican and Microsoft are wealthy corporations, but there are two big differences. First, the Vatican is infinitely more wealthy than Microsoft, and secondly, Microsoft markets a legitimate product. Please check out Nino LoBello's book on "The Vatican Empire," available at Amazon and other places. With this information, is it any wonder that modern religion will never relinquish its hold on the Jesus saga?

If we can try to ignore, for the moment, the Roman Catholic church's redacting of the Bible and focus on what does indeed appear to be correct, then we can find similarities (to show the two are the same person) between Apollonius and the Jesus character, the latter mythical account which was based on the former one's life and works.

First: They were born in the same year . . . 4 BC. Second: They both preached love to all mankind. Third: They were both in constant trouble with the religious authorities. Fourth: They both traveled to spread their doctrines. Fifth: They both spent time in India with Buddhists. Please check Janet Bock's book: "The Jesus Mystery: Of lost years and unknown travels," from Amazon, etc. Also Dr. Charles Francis Potter's book on "The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed." These are only two volumes giving the same basic, overall account as the testimony given in the life of Apollonius by Philostratus. There have also been two movie documentaries on this subject, now available on VHS. Sixth: They both have been reported to have performed miracles. Seventh: They both were reported to have de-materialized at times. Eighth: They both have been credited with raising people from the dead.

For other similarities, please check out:

There's one big difference in the two philosophies that was deliberately NOT reported in Biblical accounts, and that was undoubtedly omitted by the Roman Church because it would limit their control over people. Apollonius believed in re-incarnation.

So, what we're looking at is the following. We have the early teachings of a traveling Greek philosopher, Apollonius, whose deeds formed the basis for the Christian Christ and Messiah. What we read in the Bible as the sayings of Jesus, are most probably the reported teachings of Apollonius when he traveled through the Levant area. But, the true Apollonius' existence had later been smothered by the multi-colored legends of a mythical, and much embellished, Christian leader renamed Jesus, and this whole charade had been promulgated by the early Roman Catholic Church for the purpose of gaining disciples for themselves, controlling the masses with fear and intimidation, and future centuries of incredible monetary gain and power.

This scenario answers the questions regarding why the historians have such a hard time in finding any "historical" Jesus. It also answers the historical questions regarding the philosopher Apollonius. It answers the question as to why modern Christianity ignores this man who was an enlightened soul, who did indeed exist in the first century AD, and to whom history bears witness. It explains partially why Christianity today carries more of a bloody record than any other warring nation throughout history. It explains this, because the origins of Christianity were founded on lies, deception, malice, and the myths of a fictional man, Jesus, whose life did not even exist as written, but whose invented, imaginary existence was falsely derived from a genuine philosopher who was neither "Christian" in his approach, nor was he Jewish. Christians would call Apollonius a "pagan."

Now, we're left with one other question to ponder. Does all this matter? Other than the fact that we might now view history a little differently, the answer's "No." It certainly would make a difference IF we worshipped the man, Jesus, or if we were looking for some sort of Messiah. But since exiting religion, we (hopefully) no longer look to any man as Savior.

It interesting to note that the early Christians NEVER regarded their "Jesus" as Messiah, or Savior. They regarded him as anointed (or enlightened) and that's all. It was the early Roman church that started all that Messiah and Savior stuff, and with their redacting inserts, we have the additional drivel about: "His shed blood covers our sins," and . . . "By His stripes you are healed." None of these statements were ever recorded from any Biblical statement of the legend, Jesus. Nor were they ever attributed to Apollonius. The Catholic Church created the legend of Jesus as the Messiah, and they pontificated themselves, as His ONLY emissaries. The intent, of course, is so that no one would dare look elsewhere. And for the next eleven hundred years, that's basically what happened. It worked.

There's nothing that's been said here that is intended to criticize the statements of love to our fellow man that are extant in the New Testament writings, and generally attributed to the person of Jesus. Actually, it doesn't matter whether those universal statements came from Apollonius or Mickey Mouse. They are still statements of love and peace to all mankind - which if followed - would bring peace to the whole planet.

But these ideas are not new. They've been taught by people of peace from the earliest times. Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Apollonius, Plotinus, B"hme, Bacon, Emerson, Whitman, Russell, and many others have all taught the universal principles of love to fellow man. They've all taught unconditional love and respect to all mankind - allowing others to freely have their own thoughts, ideas, and opinions without snide, self-righteous criticism or persecution of any sort. Once more, it's the adherence to the principles rather than the adoration of some messenger that's important. Apollonius should not be venerated either. He was only the vessel for a Higher Power. Spirit concentrates on the essence of the message, while organized religion concentrates its focus on the messenger, the profits, and control over the lives of all its believers.

There's too much information about this subject to be given in one article, but please go onto the web, check it out (and there are several places to look and versions to see), and decide for yourself, since we've now probably indelibly shattered some folks sacred cows. But, since the above explanation is the only overall one that answers all the fundamental questions, then the scenario is most probably true. Wadda U think?

Wanna chat? The email is: [email protected]



If you have anything you would like to
submit to this site, or any comments,
email me at:
Send Me Email

Back to "Painful Truth" menu


The content of this site, including but not limited to the text and images herein and their arrangement, are copyright 1997-2003 by The Painful Truth. All rights reserved.

Do not duplicate, copy or redistribute in any form without prior written consent.