The religious sentiment of man is neither an accident nor an anachronism. We may address the drive, sustenance and goal of this sentiment as salvation, or moksham, since its rationale is to bring about wholesomeness in a being that struggles at the present epoch of time between the two poles of his mortal beinghood and his immortal consciousness. 
In the view of christians themselves, the books ascribed to Moses, which exclusively initiate sin, exactly anticipate jesus the “redeemer,” and this is also characteristically corroborated by jesus himself in the new testament through his “gospel” writers.From the first book of Moses in the old testament, “Genesis,” to the last book of John in the new testament, “Revelation,” i.e., from the point of engenderment of “sin” to that of the rebellious proclamation of jesus’ real identity as Lucifer, one can perceive a threadbare substratum—an unmixed elemental compulsion—that is to be formed into an ensemble, beneath a mass of literary heap that encases the biblical god. This core substratum consists of the forcible infusion of the selfsame extraneous concept of sin, an infusion that prepares for, and accurately was to be followed by, the alleged concrete saving act of jesus. This purports to be, and at that pass would so seem obviously to be, the salvation from sin, the saving act being the only antidote for that “original sin” of man, the supposed original factor of evil.
For example, the most part of ch.5 of the book scripted by John consists of a monologue by the uterine jesus on his cryptic father. The chance is seized by him when his maternal countrymen in their situation of insensibility to Lucifer in his distinction from Beelzebub authentically contradict his inveterate affectations of an objectively-lost devahood—after they were tipped against him inexplicably by the very person whom he had sensationally saved from a 38-year-long illness. Twelve times in ten adjacent sentences he treats of the cryptic father, and the real connotation falls flat on the Jews on their insensibility. Then at the end of the chapter and the monologue, he brings the famed Moses in, and he was also understandably insensible to Lucifer per se. “That one wrote about me” (John 5:46), says the pseudo-son confoundingly to the Jews now in their long-perceived insensibility.
The alleged resurrection on jesus’ part and the hyped-up virginal conception by Mary (see also n.5, ch. IV, Ancient Mother II), however, constitute the main objective indicatives of his relation with the invisible spirit of mount Sinai mentioned in the old book. They are also the chief formulas that are met with disapproval by the ungarbled mind even in commissioned christianity, and the very themes that have been most raved about clerically to secure a halo for the two figures, or, in the case of non-catholics, for one of them.
As for the ethical teachings of jesus  —momentarily considering him synchronically, and also, arguably, as a biological human  —they are not even unique, scholars having found their origin in prior books.
To follow then the avowed reality that runs in christian tradition and the bible, the transcendental spirit-god of the books of Moses assumed an enigmatic human form and called himself jesus and christ in the new testament. This jesus is crucified, but he disappeared from the grave, “rose” in the essentially autologues report, and later appeared to several women, and subsequently to men.
An abstract personality pursuing Moses and shadowed in his books, in short, materialised in jesus, seemingly concretised in flesh and blood.  The exertion of the gospel writers without exception is towards substantiation, even at the cost of wantonness, of the apparently inscrutable life account of jesus, while the letters of Peter and Paul further institute the bridge between the god of the old testament and jesus of the new testament.
In the sixteenth century the present new testament came to be assimilated at last as genuine—and the church fatherhood posted approval on the apposite texts. Many other books of the same category, and just as old, were labelled spurious, apocrypha, and destroyed or marginalised for discord, if not contradiction, with the texts thus organised. 
However, these very texts are themselves in discord over many crucial details, the disagreement being phenomenal in the case of the four so-called gospels. Although exuberantly concerned with the same character, the so-called son of man, they nevertheless numerously conflict multilaterally, bilaterally, and unilaterally in such instances as the words reported by some books at the point of his brain death, and the same uttered differently or not at all in others, the two thieves who both insulted him in Matthew 27:44, of course with none of them receiving paradise, and one of the same two who rebuked the other one for his affront and qualified for his paradise in the same account in Luke (23:39-43), the catalysing words “and was taken up into heaven” (Luke 24:51) not existing in certain manuscripts, and several, tangled endings of Mark, all inextricably bearing on the highlighted resurrection and its aftermath.
These monstrosities are only resolvable from the cognition of the real identity of the book as self-expression of Lucifer the rebel in his transformed personality as acquired from Mary with title of jesus. Under mandate of the pseudo-system above mentioned, however, the discordances have to do more with themselves than with the “unknown” quantity of identity. Therefore (but wishfully) no one at all could possibly be perplexed over them, all the more so if it were to be ingrained that jesus was all too perfect and sacrosanct and it was from man’s old incorrigibility that the distortions came to be.
But man is no sinner, and this both by genetic reason and by cogent testimony in the anterior scripture of the Vedas. The Veda unquestionably nullifies the christain sin, in the first place by its independent, unforced cognition of papam in the abstract, and secondly by the complexion of this cognizance on its part. The complexion in turn renders the Sanskrit papam into a wholesomely different entity from the subjective, illusionary and terrestrially impossible sin  —on the one hand by definition as misdeed, dosham, and on the other by the declared autonomous dissolution of such real and objective papam. 
It is therefore irrefutable that there was no sinner before the pentateuch appeared. It would be chimerical as well as a piece of christian wishful thinking to suppose that numerous men at different times in such an epoch put their brains together and designed the “mystical body of christ,” a mysterious man-god amalgam and the lone begetter and carrier of the sin gene, who is also the perorative redeemer therefrom.
Again the substratum exposes the true nature of the “mystical body” as a composite of pseudo-God and pseudo-Man. Jesus is neither Man nor God. Man is the “one who reflects,” and God is the “perfection of goodness.” But jesus, as revealed by the biblical substratum of his real identity, is a malevolent spirit possessing a motivation to usurp the realm of reason and of truth, and hence of salvation.
The whole endeavour of christianity as indubitably announced by its champion is the “overturning” of reasoning directed toward the correct identification of its source-being as Lucifer. Taking his cue from the latter,  Paul accurately articulates the received word in post-mariological time. Boldly now he narrows it down to reasoning per se. Boldly again but meticulously he announces that “we are overturning reasonings.”
Since reasoning is the line that demarcates man from animal, christianity is seen to be a system for degeneration of man through retroversion of this demarcation.
The primordial system on the other hand invests man with the right to apply reasoning even to the (hypothetical) supreme being’s articulation, viz., Sruti, and thus to surpass scripture in the process of using it. 
Along with deeply embedded undertones of mysteriousness, the present christian bible does portray its wizard obtrusively as a divine and genuine being. Historically tracing him to the hilt only leads to a dead end, and the ambitious figure that emerges from the bible book is the net result of a programmed—and latterly disingenuous —design that was started by the same being around 3500 years ago through Moses, that was carried forward by him through a number of other writers of the same race stock, all uniformly imbibing the same alien notion of sin from the same historically initial author and his “inspirer,” and that culminated in the so-called act of redemption from sin recorded in the name of still others several years after the event.
These factors, and the historically unheralded, but at the same time chronologically posterior, display of a guilt in consciousness in the “unchosen” Vedic land of India by hand of the “chosen”  would sufficiently evince the objective existence of a mind at once alien, malevolent and mysterious, that is commonly operating in and through all writers from Moses to John, and that caused the entire book to be composed during a span of 1500 years, in text that is centrally correlated around the alien notion of sin, substantiated out of the same sin’s consanguineous guilt, and capped by the animational visible input of an alluresome (On the question whether he is sensitive to suffering consistent with the nature of his embryogenesis)physical hanging.
Interspersed in the same books, one also finds subsequent to Moses and in the intervening period before the so-called new testament compositions like the Psalms of David, which resonate with echoes of the innocence of man, as if it is reflected by a typifying poetical mind that at the same time struggles helplessly with the unperceived trap of sin/redemption set by Lucifer, who is actually conceived by the race itself to be jehovah-god.