The Central Question of the Real Messiah - Did Christ Sit on a 'Real Throne' at the End of the Gospel?

This blog is rarely updated. Stephan Huller develops new posts from the material in this book at his personal blog Watch for the release of the sequel - the Teachings of the Real Messiah out in bookstores March 15, 2011

I know that there has been a lot written about the 'throne of God' and 'sitting on the right hand of power' in academic literature. As a Jew from a deeply mystical tradition I will break it down for my audience - the power that sits in the throne is the lowest manifestation of the Godhead. This hypostasis is a reflection of the 'unseen Father' rather than God Almighty Himself.

Of course scholars are very comfortable writing and formulating theories about the development of the merkava concept in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's easy to do that when everything is entirely 'theoretical.' But what about the gospel, the central story in Western civilization? Did Christ sit enthroned in a real throne or was it all 'just a metaphor'?

Let me explain what I mean. Christians aren't allowed to think that the story of Jesus' ministry or his Passion were at all fictional. Yet the gospel never originally ended with just an empty tomb. It is apparent from the original Roman and Alexandrian gospels that the narrative ended with an enthronement.

Now I can't prove why the earliest surviving gospels of Mark all seem to end with the empty tomb. Yet I can suggest that given the textual evidence associated with Irenaeus, Clement and Tatian it had to have something to do with the question I just raised - namely was it a real throne or all 'just a metaphor'?

The problem is this - there can't be a throne in heaven. God can't actually appear in an anthropomorphic form. So how is it that everything BEFORE the conclusion is based on 'real historical' events but then suddenly - even after the main protagonist raises from the dead - we are supposed to imagine the narrative 'suddenly transforms' into something utterly symbolic.

Indeed - if we are to be honest about it - everything BEFORE the conclusion signals that someone will sit in a throne by the end of the narrative. The disciples are said by Alexandrian tradition to have seen Christ enthroned in glory at the Transfiguration. Salome appears with John-Mark and his brother and asks who will sit at the right and left on the throne of glory. Jesus announces to the Sanhedrin that the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the father after the Resurrection.

The list goes on and on.

Of course as I have noted before the absurdity of our inherited tradition holds of course that this 'Christ' came down from the throne to start the gospel only to go back 'up' to the throne by its conclusion. What sense does Jesus' announcement to the Sanhedrin make in this scenario? God takes the flesh for a year - like he's on holiday - only to go back where he started from - i.e. 'Never Never Land' where he is not really an anthropomorphic figure not really sitting on a throne that doesn't really exist.

I know most of us are familiar with this silly narrative and so the whole story seems to 'make sense.' Yet I hope at least a few of my readers will acknowledge that there has to be something missing from the narrative - i.e. context.

My lord people! Stop thinking that we're smarter than everyone in antiquity. Yes our culture can take credit for inventing machines that freed those of us who 'have' from enslaving those of us who 'have not' (yet now in America we leave those people lying in gutters to quietly self-destruct). However we should never think that we have 'improved' our understanding of God or the original religious principles of our tradition.

All that has happened is that we have successfully deluded ourselves into thinking that these people were just primitive versions of ourselves. This is so stupid it's dangerous. The elders of our tradition had an infinitely superior understanding of the essence of our religion. Can anyone seriously believe that any Christian theologian of the twentieth or twenty first century had a better understanding of the gospel, Christianity or Christ than Origen of Alexandria?

Yet I tell you, my friends, these deluded moderns really believe that they have improved on Origen, that they know better than Marcion - even Irenaeus. All modernity comes down to egoism gone rampant. This is particularly dangerous in the study of religion where 'God's will' is the guiding principle.

In any event let me spell out what changed between now and then - the immediate acceptance of a man sitting on the throne as a symbol of governance. Our governments are based on the will of man. Ancient man - still not completely disconnected from a fatalistic belief in the 'will of God' saw governments - including the most despotic rulers - as being controlled by forces in the heavens.

So it is that when we take part in any form of democratic governance we necessarily sever ourselves from the ancient world view. We close ourselves off from the idea that the world should be governed by "God's will." Man or mankind is now the measure of all things. The modern reader should read Marcus Aurelius' reflections on his role as an instrument of God. Even in his worst hour we are told he reasoned that there was no way he could fail or the Empire would crumble owing to his belief in himself as an instrument of God or of God's involvement in the governance of the Empire through him.

In other words he's wasn't just worrying about 'being re-elected' i.e. how to flatter or pander to the voting interests of a certain block within their constituency.

I guess my point is that the same logic pervade the near contemporary Jewish expectation regarding the messiah. God would necessarily provide an anointed king to govern the people in real 'historical time.' The notion of God being only 'up there' and mankind governing itself through a democratic form of government (i.e. governing themselves through 'democracy' would be an absurdity to ancient Jewry).

The only form of government that would be acceptable to the Jews of the Common Era would be the re-emergence of the messiah - the one sitting on the throne as a living 'reflection' of God in heaven. Yet we in the modern era have had the simplicity of the original Biblical concept torn away from us. If you look at the use of the word mashiach in the Old Testament it is impossible to distinguish the term from the concept of secular ruler.

We can thank two centuries of European Christian manipulation of the Bible for any misunderstandings and misapplications of the term 'messiah' that have now emerged in our culture ...

So too must we charge that those forms of Christianity which stood closest to Judaism - i.e. Origen and the Origenists who are later accused of 'falling into Jewish error' - would necessarily have shared this idea of all religion coming down to a real person sitting on a real throne in real time and space in this world. There really can be no other way and those who argue otherwise aren't familiar enough with Origen's consistent emphasis on a two advent theory of Christianity (i.e. that Jesus was only the weak set up for the eventual manifestation of a royal messiah).

Indeed - to sum up my initial observation here - it has always been overlooked by scholars that all the 'Origenists' who follow Origen happen to be Popes who sit on a real throne in a real place (Alexandria) and govern a real nation of Christians. In other words the argument of the Origensts was entirely self-serving. They (and their successors even in the modern Alexandrian Church) see themselves as the successful completion of the original Jewish expectation that eventually a royal messiah would govern a 'divine kingdom' on earth.

The only wrinkle in this new paradigm is that the Copts essentially argue that the 'Christ soul' wasn't limited to one person - 'Christ' transmigrates to all successors of St Mark through their active participation in his person (and with his skull).

So it is that I want to stress over and over again how important tradition is. If there is one thing that we can curse the effects of Protestantism is that it spawned the notion that the texts of the New Testament canon can be yanked away from a physical tradition. Only Luther and the wooden-headed Germans who followed him could have dreamed up something so absurd.

The gospel is about Jesus setting up an expectation or making an 'announcement' (annoucement = gospel) about a physical man sitting in a physical throne in a physical place in a particular year, month and date which comes to fulfillment at the end of the narrative. This used to be the original context of Christianity. It was (and still is to a degree) the underlying logic of the Alexandrian tradition. The Roman Church undermined this logic (for purely selfish reasons) but it is the Protestant approach to the New Testament which has forever severed us from rescuing this original understanding.

Protestants will never allow us to ground the text in a physical throne owing to their irrational hatred of the Papacy. The concept is a non-starter with these people because of Luther's irrational hatred of the Roman Church. Indeed Protestantism is essentially a northern European reaction against tradition, the real tradition of Christianity. It really is that simple.

One would have hoped that after rebelling against Rome that Luther would have encouraged his followers to turn to another ancient tradition, one which could provide a CONTEXT for the conclusion of the gospel. Yet I was expecting too much from Germans again.

It was a dangerous thing to simply abandon the Papacy. To be truthful with you I fear that without it Jesus really died for no purpose. Luther had a right to accuse the contemporary Roman pontiffs of corruption. He had a right to separate himself from the See of Peter but his abandonment of the concept of Pope or 'Papa' made all subsequent theologians who developed from his immature rebellion unable to make sense of Christianity.

The point is that 'a man sitting on a real throne' is the central thread to the gospel. Yet the original idea has been deliberately obscured by subsequent editors of the New Testament canon. I will argue that the gospel was originally about Jesus coming down to this world in order to unite his glory to mortal flesh on the throne of God. As such it wasn't Jesus simply coming down from his throne and going back up to a throne in heaven but rather bringing glory down from heaven and available to all mankind through his apostle sitting on the Papal throne.

Again, why else would the gospel of Mark introduce Salome making that request on behalf of the original author? Why doesn't Jesus use the third person when speaking of the one who will be seated at the conclusion of the narrative?

The point is that almost anyone with any discernment has recognized that there is a 'secret' at the heart of the gospel. The idea that Jesus ritually prepared one chosen disciple for union with his 'Christ soul' to sit on that 'messianic throne' seems to be the only explanation which ever made sense to me.

I guess what I am trying to say is that only once we see the gospel as just one part of the original mechanism established by Christ to perpetuate his mystery throughout the ages does the whole process suddenly become a whole lot less mysterious.

Protestants would never come up with this solution because they are essentially Luther's bastards.

However I propose to my readers that it all comes down to choosing between the Roman and Alexandrian Papacies. There were two traditions which claim to have established two thrones which essentially grew from their association with the Gospel of Mark. This isn't something to dismiss over a pint of beer.

It's like trying to isolate circumcision as a mere 'practice' of Judaism.

The Papacy is an integral part of the religious experience of the two Churches which claim to have grown out of the Gospel of Mark, the original gospel which in its earliest form has Christ end up sitting on a throne.

What I am suggesting to my readership is that the Alexandrian claims came first. They held that this John-Mark in the gospel came to Egypt almost immediately after the Resurrection and ended up being enthroned in Alexandria during the course of his preached HIS gospel. I happen to find this paradigm most interesting as it gives the enthronement at the conclusion of his text a striking parallel to events associated with his own person.

The Alexandrians to this very day can't separate Mark's gospel from his enthronement or any of the other things he did while preaching his gospel to them. They are not Protestants after all. They actually have a real functioning tradition established by the chief witness to Jesus' ministry.

At the same time I have to recognize that there is another tradition at Rome which claims to 'own' the original gospel of Mark. This is the Roman tradition and this position is first witnessed by Irenaeus. Irenaeus knows of the enthronement at the conclusion but interestingly says that the heretics associated with Alexandria are wrong for thinking Christ was a separate person from Jesus and wrong for thinking that his enthronement happened in this world rather than the world to come.

Nevertheless it is very strange that the Roman See developed as a kind of 'parallel Papacy' to the original institution first established in Alexandria. Not only did they eventually appropriate the traditional title of the Patriarch of Egypt and his gospel they instituted a consistent subordination of Mark both overtly - in terms of demoting him from the canon of apostles - but also covertly - with regards to the consistent denial that there was any other figure taking part in this 'gospel mystery' beside Jesus.

Of course with all these textual and contextual manipulations the Roman Catholic Church appears as an irrational, misbegotten abortion. It simply doesn't make sense and cannot answer the basic question - was Christ enthroned in a real cathedra? The Alexandrians know the truth. They might not tell outsiders their truth and maybe not all of them know all the levels and degrees to this mystery. However you can be assured that the most enlightened in their community are aware that the Christ soul was passed on to their Papacy through St. Mark and being properly 'prepared' for this throne by Jesus himself.

Just take the time to befriend one of their leading thinkers as I did and you will learn the truth. The economy is tanking anyway. Why not pursue the mysteries that were unsolved by our ancestors? God knows there is nothing else to available for us to do in this world other than work ourselves to an early grave ...

If you want to read an interesting book buy the Real Messiah here.

Three Reasons Why Everyone Should Buy the Real Messiah


Reason #1 - the Real Messiah presents a complete revaluation of our traditional understanding about the origins of Christianity which happens to be well written and easy to follow for anyone regardless of reading level.

If you're happy believing going on believing that the only tradition that ever knew anything substantive about Jesus, the Bible and Christianity is the one invented, promoted and established among white people, well then, let me say - this isn't the book for you.

The truth is that there was a whole tradition of Christianity spread across the Middle East long before Islam which eventually made its way into every corner of the Empire which has been completely ignored by traditional scholars.

Academics have been so completely preconditioned by the 'rules' set for them by the ancient Greek and Latin Church Fathers that they have, in my mind, missed the boat on the original formulation of their own religion.

They and their ancestors were lied to - almost from the beginning - and they find themselves without the ability, the courage or the intellectual integrity to correct the crimes of past ages.

The Real Messiah begins with a basic assumption which is overlooked by other books on Christianity. The voices of Christians of the Middle East were effectively silenced by the Catholic Church. Our European tradition only began in the late second century and it is no wonder that it commenced with a war against the so-called 'the heresies.'

This terminology is ultimately misleading. It was the Catholic Church which actually branched of from the original teachings of the very Middle Eastern traditions it anathematized, pursued and punished in the late second century period.

So it is that I begin my Real Messiah with a very different set of presumptions based on years of wrestling with the original reports about these so-called 'heresies.'

I have come to the conclusion that the original Christianity of the Middle East shared the same spirit as early Islam. The justification for this assumption would take up too much time to share with the reader in the limited space available here. The bottom line being that ancient Syriac and Aramaic speaking Christians shared one prominent feature with their Islamic descendants - the unmistakable emphasis that Jesus never claimed to be the coming one announced by Moses and the prophets.

Indeed my exhaustive investigation of ALL ancient sources (not just those held sacred by the European Church) leads me to the unshakable conclusion that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus ever claimed that he was the awaited messiah of the Jews. The only reason that western scholars see Jesus as the Christ is because they were baptized into this understanding at birth.

The reason Jesus doesn't look like the messiah predicted by the Law and prophets is because he wasn't the messiah predicted by the Law and prophets.

The reason for Jesus's repeated denial in the gospel that he was the awaited Christ - and his repeatedly correcting and rebuking those who promoted this idea - was that the original gospel writer himself knew that Jesus himself denied that he was the Christ predicted by the Law and prophets.

It really is that simple even if it means disposing with almost two thousand years of European disinformation about Jesus.


Indeed let us now ask the most dangerous question of all who was it that wanted us to believe that the meek Jesus was the true messiah of Israel? The Roman government which was at the same time actively seeking to hold together its Empire in a time of crisis throughout the period of late antiquity.

As such there can only be one proper understanding of the gospel - Jesus was coming to announce someone else as the 'one who was to come.' The people of the Middle East always read the gospel in this way. They think that Mohammed was the one whom Jesus announced (viz. 'the Paraclete'), and that it was Mohammed who was the prophet Moses said would come who was 'like him' (Deut 18:17 - 19).

Christians and Muslims have argued over whether Jesus was announcing himself or someone else for well over a thousand years. The Real Messiah settles the issue once and for all. Islam had the right formula. Yet this should surprise no one. Islam itself was born from the repressed desire of the original tradition to ultimately reassert itself and rid the region of its European oppressors

Indeed as I see it, the Roman Catholic Church and its Byzantine offshoot were only crooked attempts at holding back the authority of the original and ultimately subversive (at least from the point of view of Caesar) formulation of the gospel and the gospel writer.

The understanding went something like this - immerse yourselves in the mystery of Christ and the kingdom of heaven will be revealed on earth. Do the things which Jesus taught and you will see a living man sit on the divine throne as God.


The Real Messiah does something which no book before it has ever attempted to do. It identifies the original gospel writer St. Mark as a real historical figure who - as it turns out - happens to bear an uncanny resemblance to Mohammed.

It's as if Mohammed had a precursor, someone who cut a path which inspired the 'prophet of the perfect religion' some five hundred years later.

Indeed in my mind there is only one way to settle the issue of the true message of the gospel. We have to get to the heart of the true historical identity and intention of St. Mark. Indeed it doesn't matter who you or I or any of the thousands of New Testament scholars think Jesus was saying - it all comes down to what St. Mark had in mind when he wrote his narrative.

Again, instead of being content to leave the historical identity of the evangelist in obscurity, I draw from a number of sources that traditional scholars would never think of employing to put forward the argument that Mark was in fact a figure very much like Mohammed, differing only in that he lived at the time of Jesus.

You have to read my book to appreciate the wealth of evidence which suggests that St. Mark was an nobleman of Arabian ancestry - even the last king of Israel viz. Marcus Julius Agrippa. Of course this isn't the place to lay out the evidence. The bottom line is that it can now be revealed that Christianity was established by a Mohammedian figure over five hundred years before Mohammed.

Once this understanding becomes the starting point of investigations into the origins of Christianity a whole new understanding emerges - one which views ALL the surviving texts of the Church Fathers with a healthy amount of suspicion.


It all comes down to the question of who Mark was. In short - what were his beliefs, his motivation for writing the gospel. With this line of investigation it is difficult not to feel that all historical information about the original gospel writer was deliberately expunged by members of the nascent Roman Church. They had to destroy our emerging picture of this man because it was all too obvious that he embodied the hope of the Middle Eastern community to install one of their own as ruler of the world in place of Caesar.

When all the historical sources are heard it is difficult not to believe that such a historical 'correction' occurred in the second century. The counterfeiting of the gospel was an 'inside job' but these traitors received 'help' and 'encouragement' from the wicked Emperors of Rome. This understanding isn't founded on the ravings of one modern conspiracy writer but is an idea repeated over and over again in Islamic sources and early Coptic traditions.

Yet Western scholars refuse to listen to these ancient testimonies which contradict their inherited presuppositions about Jesus, the messiah and early Christianity. The reality is that most of them were never interested in truth. Their only interest from the beginning was to reinforce the traditional European hegemony over a Middle Eastern literary tradition.

The Real Messiah forever shatters that cultural Imperialism ...


So let me ask you again - what if our inherented presumptions about Christianity were fundamentally flawed? What if the existing Catholic faith was forced onto its first believers in late second, third and fourth centuries? After all no one denies that there were ongoing persecutions initiated by the Imperial government against Christianity. Yet no one has ever satisfactorily determined what was behind this massive loss of life especially in Egypt and north Africa?

Isn't it at least possible that the Imperial authorities were trying to 'help' one form of Christianity gain an advantage over another?

In other words, maybe the persecutions were ultimately successful in their aims. A specifically 'Roman' Catholic faith was fostered - one which had a completely new understanding and interpretation of the gospel, the New and Old Testament and - most importantly - the identity of the Christ of the new Israel.

It wasn't just that someone came along and had 'new ideas' about the holy books of Judeo-Christian tradition. Something absolutely essential was excised along the way - viz. the hope for a specifically Jewish anointed king who would rule over all the peoples of the world.

This is who the real messiah is, was, and always will be. He is a royal figure of this world. A real person sitting on a real throne, governing a real kingdom of God in real time and space.

Jesus did none of these things and it is for these reasons that the leading Jewish sages throughout the ages denied the 'messianic credentials' trumpeted by his naive followers among the Gentiles.

Yet, could this 'misunderstanding' have been deliberately encouraged by the rulers of the Gentiles - the later Caesars of Rome as part of an effort to purge the new religion of an older - more Jewish - understanding of a secret message within the original gospel of Mark?

The idea is at least worth considering ...


There exists a number of documented reports in Arabic, Hebrew, Ge'ez and other languages that the Catholic Church was 'fostered' by one of the worst Emperors in history, Lucius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus or as he is simply known to historians - 'Commodus'(the character played by Joaquin Phoenix in the movie Gladiator).

His Christian mistress Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias is universally acknowledged to have 'assisted' at least one Roman Pope get established on the throne of St. Peter. Yet was there more to this Imperial manipulation? Was Commodus quite literally establishing a counter-throne to a rival episcopate in Alexandria associated with St. Mark which had challenged the secular authority of Rome for generations?

I think such a case can be made. It can only developed over the course of a series of books, but the Real Messiah represents the first step in that direction. At the very least, I discovered the rival throne to St. Peter's in Rome. At a minimum I demonstrate how this throne dates back to the very beginning of Christianity in Alexandria. Indeed I think it tells us much more - the identity of the original messiah within Christianity.

The Real Messiah lays the groundwork for the great revelation which will follow - namely that the gospel was never about proving Jesus was the messiah. Jesus never claimed any of this nonsense. This idea was only inserted into the New Testament in Commodus' time in order to subvert the tradition away from its original hope in a messianic 'kingdom of heaven' in this world in the lifetime of its believers.

St. Mark's original gospel wasn't about Jesus the messiah as much as it was Jesus announcing Mark as the messiah of Israel. The historical figure of 'St. Mark' was Marcus Julius Agrippa, the last king of Israel. He established the gospel as a narrative introducing historical events surrounding his historical enthronement in Alexandria in 38 CE, a year and a half after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

The original gospel of Mark was deemed a threat to the Empire because it secretly held that this Jewish king rather than Caesar was the real ruler of the world. Why should any of this have been a threat almost a century and a half after Agrippa's historical enthronement? Because the Alexandrian's still retained Mark's original throne and used it to coronate ever new representatives of the Evangelist in his stead.

Once the function of the throne is properly understood it will be apparent that 'St. Mark' was only the first of a series of royal kings in the line of Jesus. Each Pope in Alexandria was in turn a rival to Caesar. They were nothing short of living representatives of Jesus and his Christ - the two in one person (Eph 2:14) - projected into the future until the realization of the predicted end times.

Yes, I know this sounds like yet another crackpot theory about the gospel. However unlike many other 'crackpots' my theory has the support of a number of the greatest Biblical scholars in the world right. This list includes:

A fascinating read with surprising twists and turns as the argument develops. Stephan Huller pulls together information from pertinent sources–historical writers of the first and second century, Jewish and Pagan religious practices of the time, archeological insights, Christian artifacts–and proposes an intriguing new interpretation of the formative period of the Christian movement. Imaginative, thrilling, intriguing, daring, and enlightening.

David Trobisch
Bangor Theological Seminary

The Real Messiah is a stunning work. I have followed the development of his research and theorizing for several years and have found myself more and more amazed at this man’s ocean-wide command of ancient sources and equally at his ability to see old things afresh as if never glimpsed before. No reader is obliged to accept every theory Huller offers as the price for learning very much from him. And no reader has the right to dismiss his more shocking theses just because they are unheard of.

Robert Price, Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute author of Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man

Stephan Huller has been thoughtfully pursuing the questions of Christian origins by looking into some interesting connections with parallel Samaritan events. Now he has come up with some startling conclusions about Mark. Well researched and well written. A scholarly book that reads like a murder mystery. Well done!

Robert Eisenman, Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University, Long Beach and author of James the Brother of Jesus

Huller’s command of the primary sources is phenomenal. You might still be unconvinced of his claims but you will have to work hard to refute them.

Ruairidh (Rory) Bóid, Honorary Research Associate Centre for Religion and Theology School of Historical Studies Monash University (Melbourne)

Stephan Huller has written one of those rare books one sees once or twice in a decade. The Real Messiah lays hold of and unfolds a completely new paradigm or model of reality; and sheds unexpected new light on virtually everything it touches. It touches all aspects of the core values and master story of our culture, from that critical creative moment in which both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism were born 2000 years ago, down to this very present moment of Judeo-Christian efforts at rapprochment. Huller proposes that the biblical Jesus story must be reconsidered in the light of evidence regarding the true nature the real Messiah of Judaism and Christianity. His argument is pristinely and meticulously developed, and illustrated with demanding empirical evidence. The Real Messiah is well written, an engaging narrative, an entertaining ride through a vital phase of ancient history. It will challenge and perhaps unseat most everything that you took for granted in your philosophy and theology. This work must not be ignored.

J Harold Ellens, Editor for the Praeger Series in Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. Research Scholar at the University of Michigan Department of Near Eastern Studies


Now all of these quotes from these influential scholars are real. You can contact them individually if you want to verify their authenticity. I really have come up with something quite important. I had this theory bouncing around in my head almost since the day I was born because, the core of the idea - viz. that the gospel was the story of Jesus announcing the coming of someone else - was part of my inherited Frankist religious tradition. Now you can own it for less than the cost of a DVD of some bad movie that you'll get bored of the first time you watch it ...

Buy the Real Messiah here

Reason #2 for buying my book - what better way can you spend $10 nowadays?

Seriously, if you go on to Amazon or Barnes and Noble the Real Messiah sometimes goes for as low as $10. Just think about it. A dinner for two people at McDonald's is more than $10 unless you are stuck eating from the value menu in which case I DON'T WANT YOUR MONEY. Go look for a real job so that you can take your date to better places and maybe you might get lucky sometime.


Buy the Real Messiah here

Reason #3 for buying my book - during the course of writing my book I stumbled upon the most important discovery in the history of the study of the Bible.

I know this sounds like a rather inflated claim. Just think of the competition - the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi library. Yet I really think that my discovery of the throne of St. Mark in Venice's Basilica di San Marco rivals those other two. It's the object that you saw when you first visited my page here. I think it proves that Marcus Julius Agrippa was the Real Messiah of Christianity. Let me take a moment to help tell you all about it so that you finally shell out the ten dollars to buy my book.


I was on vacation with my wife in Venice and we were lining up to go through the various rooms in the Basilica di San Marco when - as Lisa remembers it - I made a quip about needing to sitting down (I remember it the other way around but that's not the point). One of us pointed to the other than there was a chair beside the pillars in the main chamber which houses the body of St. Mark. It was a joke really as we knew that the chair was a relic that the Venetians had stolen from Alexandria. Nevertheless it caused me to actually pay attention to this object that I otherwise wouldn't have.

The object is really quite small. It looks like a chair made for a child. I noticed that there was an ancient inscription scrawled across the front of the chair and at once I thought I recognized that at least part of the letters were written in Samaritan Hebrew characters.

The more I looked at this object, the more I became convinced that it was quite significant. I went to the office of the Basilica to find whatever information I could about the throne and set about to decipher the meaning of its inscription, its symbolism and its function. The result of the years of research which follow is the book I am now asking you to purchase - the Real Messiah. I determined that the throne was used in 38 CE to enthrone Marcus Agrippa as the messiah shortly after he witnessed Jesus' crucifixion (he later wrote down these experiences in the original gospel of St. Mark which the Alexandrians were also said to have taken from Alexandria).

I think my study of the throne is the best thing about my book. I also have a more detailed study of this 'throne of St. Mark' coming out in the Journal of Coptic Studies in the fall of 2009. This paper is about 34 pages long and is directed at an academic audience. The Real Messiah by contrast is written for everyone.

The book got a very good review in Publisher's Weekly (which I will share with you in order to convince you to spend the $10 to purchase my work). This will be followed by a brief overview of my findings regarding the throne of St. Mark and how they prove that Marcus Agrippa was St. Mark and in turn that he wrote his gospel in order to prove that he rather than Jesus was the Real Messiah of Christianity.

I thank you all for spending the time to read my little blurb. And now without further ado is the Publishers Weekly review followed by some photos of the throne at the heart of my investigation:

The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity
Stephan Huller. Sterling, $24.95 (274p) ISBN 978-1-90678-712-7

It’s hard to imagine how the world would have evolved if Jesus of Nazareth hadn’t been proclaimed savior of the world, with the accompanying religious institutions and their impact on societies throughout history. Huller suggests in this intriguing and challenging book that, when the true history of the period is studied, it will reveal that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, but instead acted as a herald of the coming one, Marcus Agrippa, who, Huller argues, is the real author of the Gospel of Mark. Huller, a descendant of Jacob Frank, founder of an 18th-century religious sect that combined Judaism and Christianity, draws on extensive knowledge of ancient sources to answer the question, “[D]id Jesus build the Church or—just as likely and in some ways more so—did the Church build Jesus?” Is the entire Christian tradition a case of mistaken identity? Huller wants us to abandon 2,000 years of worship and scholarship, a tall order and one likely to be widely challenged.

- Publishers Weekly March 2009