The religious fanatics of Rome in the 6th century staged a massacre of the Jews and expulsion of the Jews from the Palestine: the Rome was also entrenching through the cleansing of Christianity from Judaism, which  was insisted by the Greeks. Rome was partly successful. The Kipchaks challenged the rest of the Europe.

The Christianity, it should be noted, rendered not a best service to the Jewish people. It grossly invaded the spiritual life of the Jews, coming up with who they did not have, the Christ! A Son of God.

But Judaism does not have God the Father. Consequently, a son could not declare himself. And that we know from the original of the Old Testament text. The Jews about that story (or rather details of the life of a Jew named in the 2nd century Jesus Christ) have learned much later. Not before the 2nd Ecumenical Council of 381, which approved the Gospel, a New Testament. Prior to that in circulation were more than a hundred conflicting versions of his life, the so-called Apocryphal Gospels. Four of them were selected.

From the author. The desire to connect that event with Josephus Flavius (37 - 100), a Hebrew historian who switched to the side of the Rome in the Jewish war, does not agree, for example, with the Apocalypse. Even with its later edited (!) text. Interventions in the texts of the ancient authors were customary for the Christian clergy, was correcting everyone and everything. So from the 9th century is practiced the "editing" of the translations of the Old Testament and other books, called sacred. What cvan be said about Josephus Flavius.

The first Christian communities did not break up with Judaism. The Early Christianity was a sect of Judaism.

Declaring Christianity a new European religion gave Byzantium generous fruits, the tree grew in the Byzantine garden. In 6th century Rome went against the Palestine, not at all to conduct theological disputes there, but in an upmaship game with Byzantium to beat up the Jews.

The Greeks fell cowardly mum, for them answered Kipchaks: to their own detriment, but in defiance of Rome they gave shelter to the suffering without a guilt Jewish people. Dasht-i-Kipchak stretched out its hand to the weak, demonstrating that the commandment of the Lord "Blessed art the merciful" Türks abide not only in the words. In the steppe villages in the 6th century appeared Jewish quarters with synagogues - Djugut-Auls. The Jews with the rights of the citizens - and not slaves! - were allowed to participate in the life of the Dasht-i-Kipchak, except for the army, they could not observe there their laws of Moses (Aul is a village in Türkic, originally a summer village of the pastoral husbandry people on their pastur rout; Djugashvilli was a family name of Stalin, lit. meaning in Türko-Georgian compound "Jewish Son", where Djur/Djug stands for Jew or Jewish).

No other people had so much freedom among the Türks as the Jewish people. In Khazaria, for example, the Jews were running the trade. They communicated with their brethren, who hid in Spain from the Roman legionnaires.

The references in the historical works of that time about the interest of the Khazars to the Jewish faith do exist, however, they make sense only in the context of the acceptance by the Türks of the expelled Jews - one without the other does not make sense. In addition, we must remember that the words "Christian" and "Jew" in Türki were synonymous (In the 6th c., the Christians for the Türks were still Jews).

The Khazar Kagan following the example of the Caucasian Albania ruler became interested in Christianity, which is quite admissible: in the Derbent was located the patriarchal throne of the Caucasus ... In any case, the annals do not mention the Judaism of the Türks, but do about their Christianity *.

From the author. The example of the Karaims is not quite convincing. They are Judaical, but not Jews.

The story about Kagan choosing the faith is another fake. A legend of the same content, but with a "positive" outcome is written by the same hand for the Kiev Rus.

Of course, the neighboring of the two free peoples, the Kipchaks and the Jews, was mutually beneficial. The Jews showed themselves to be quite good craftsmen and merchants. The Kipchaks in response guarded Djugut-Auls as their own. Importantly, the Türks lived peacefully with their neighbors, did not seek to suppress their culture or adopt it. But they did like foreign women.

Without exaggeration, only the generosity of the Kipchaks saved then the Jews from a certain death, to which the Europeans condemned them. Unfortunately, that has been forgotten, though now plenty of Jews bear clearly Türkic looks, they have blue eyes and high cheekbones. These are the "traces" of the commonwealth of the two peoples ... And (some of) these blue-eyed Jews draw their saviors as villains.

The historians (and certainly including Jewish historians) sooner or later have to tear out the Great Steppe Country from the clutches of the oblivion - our common homeland, to unravel the intricacies of intrigues and concoctions which crushed her history.

The Byzantine, Roman, Russian historians by and large erased the Dasht-i-Kipchak from the historical maps. Like there were no Kipchaks.

A shadow of Constantinople fell like a cloud over the Eastern Europe. The presence of the Jews in the Dasht-i-Kipchak only hightened the gloom, the isolation of the Kipchaks has continued. Everything then was handy for Rome which again, like a thousand years ago, was coming onto the world stage, reviving a new empire: a total submission of the Europe to it, through the Christian Church, was only a matter of time. The Byzantine churchmen saw their defeat and could not resist it.

In the "steppe" Church, called at the 2nd Council of Ephesus (449) the Scythian, the East and West as though came together. They could not come to a compromise, their split was a matter of time.

The most eastern, both geographically and spiritually, the Diocese of Scythia for a long time was then in isolation. She could not be forgiven for the Jews taken under protection. She was remembered the past greatness of Attila. The Romans and Greeks could not forget many things... Only the Churches of the Caucasus, which, together with Kipchaks remain faithful to the God, maintained some connections with the Türks. In essence, that was what was once was called the Eastern Church.

Tengrianism was distinguished by freedom, it did not have the administration like the Papacy. In the Eastern tradition, critical issues were resolved in "circle", at the councils which were called up as necessary. The Türks did not administer their spiritual lives, their custom was different. And this was their minus, relying on God, they blundered themselves. The Türkic clergy seemed have forgotten that the Europe for them was a "stranger monastery", where ruled "its own canon"! The Türks there also were behind because of their conservatism and boundless stubbornness.

A weakness of Tengrianism turned out even in that that in contrast with the Western church, where services were conducted in Latin, it used the local languages. The desire to have the service understandable turned into a disaster, was brought division that led to disunity, divided flock into national areas and states. In other words, the Spiritual Institute of the Great Steppe was scattering, it has never been unified, monolithic ... And that also was taken as arms by the Vatican. The Papal intelligence worked brilliantly.

Encountering the European culture, Tengrianism suffered damage because of its lack of organization. The Europe really had its customs and rules. From that followed vulnerability.

The West did not accept the freedom of spirit of the Great Steppe, did not tolerate it in their clergy. Their views on culture and values it first displayed at the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, and then at 451 AD Council of Chalcedon. There, the church was formed primarily as an organization!

The Greeks figured out that the Türks would not take a role of a head of the Christian Church, that became the Byzantine emperor Constantine, and not the Türk to whom Constantine was paying tribute! In Rome, up to the 9th century too,  the Christian Church was ruled by an emperor. And in the Dasht-i-Kipchak that did not exist, never! The Türkic Khans never conceived about a power over the Church, which was understood as power over God. The Khans simply were not admitted to the solution of the church affairs. The secular and religious in the Great Steppe each lived their own lives.

Initially, that was also in the Rus. The first, who felt constrained under the roof of the temple was Prince Andrew Bogoliubsky (1111 - 1174), in the whole "steppe" diocese he alone saw not only the spirit of religion, but the its power. (There it was, the Viking nature! There it was, the West!) From that moment a desire to subjugate the Church or at least its part the Rus Prince, like it once was not leaving the Greek emperor Constantine. And then also the Pope Gregory the Great.

But neither with a construction of a magnificent temple in Vladimir, not even with abduction for him of a precious Kyiv relic, the icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Prince Andrew Bogoliubsky proved nothing ... He clearly lacked the Roman patience and the Greek treachery. He was too straightforward (because of the Kipchak upbringing by his mother) (Or more likely, the Kipchak upbringing of her dad, who by tradition was in charge and dedicated to the upbringing of his grandsons).

And although the prince commanded to portray themselves with a halo over his head, he did not become any holier. To interfere in the church affairs he was also proscribed. The conflict between the Church and the secular authorities in the Rus, sowed in its foundations, matured by the 12 century. It was inevitable: collided two psychologies, two etiologies, the eastern and the western ... Without going into details, it should be just mentioned that Prince Andrew had to pay for the insolence, the God punished him - "wants to be an autocrat", said the Prince's contemporaries from his surroundings, brutally killing him in the night of June 30, 1174.

God also saved the Tengrian faith during the Mongol rule in the Dasht-i-Kipchak, already called the Golden Horde (in the Rus lingo). True, the Mongols did not strive to subdue anything, the Tengrianism was close to them. Batu Khan, after coming to power, built a (Christian) temple, bade to be baptized, his son Sartakh was a clergyman, advanced to become a deacon. The Mongols were liberal in everything, they exempted the Rus clergy from paying tribute, and took the temples and monasteries under their protection from the Rus princes, who took to ranning their hands into the pockets of the church like their own.

In the early 6th century there came the Türkic Kipchaks, it was them who dictated their will, they turned the river of time in Europe on their path ... But that seems to have been forgotten by the absent-minded Europeans!

This supposedly "forgotten", but the indisputable fact of history brings the lost harmony to the whole European history: it relates the events of Early Middle Age with a logical thread, brushing aside speculations and allusions.

That was the Türks who brought to Europe an equilateral cross on their banners, they prayed to the Heavenly God, and the historians of antiquity (Prisk, Jordanes, and others) called Attila, his father Mundzuk and other Kipchaks "Christians", although this word was clearly inaccurate *. The Christians they were not.

From the author. The equilateral cross was a tamga (totem sign) of the Kerei ulus (here: tribe). Apparently, Attila belonged to that tribe, since the cross was on his banner. Every Türkic ulus had its sign, its patron protector, its tree, its bird. The Kerei clan is known practically among all Türkic nations.

Prior to acquaintance with the "barbarians", the Christians did not know not only the Heavenly God, but neither the cross, their present symbol. They did not know the sign of the cross, temples, icons, bell tolls, present prayers. I repeat, the Christian religion did not exist (as we know it)!.. Was absent not only a symbol of faith, but also the canon, that is, the rites! And without a canon, without a symbol, is that a religion?..

The Early Christianity was distingguished by simplified rite, if it ever existed. The circumcision, for example, was considered obligatory for men. What the ritual of prayer looked like? That surrounded the Early Christians, who did not have any churches, nor permanent places for praying? That is nknown. The Church literature is silent on that.

The historical literature is more specific ... It convinces that not the Christ brought the cross, but Attila. Alas, it really is so... Now many crosses are distinguished - Latin, Greek, Patriarchal, St. Andrew and a dozen of others, but no one would say: which one is connected with the Christ?

None!

To be precise, the Christ carried to the Golgotha Calvary not a cross, but a T-shaped beam, they were used for executions. The Holy Apostle Barnabas, like all Early Christian writers, taught: "In the letter T you have the cross" (Greek Ττ).

And the Türkic equilateral cross the Early Christians called a "sign of the beast". You can read the Bible ten times, but there is not a single word on whether any of the Christians crossed himself. Not even Christ. They did not have neither cross, nor the sign of the cross!

The first (or the earliest) Christianity, which allegedly arose during the Christ time as a form of faith, survived until now! And that is perhaps the most striking matter in the history of religions ... A relic of the faith! Its traces lead from the Palestine and Asia Minor, not from the Rome. And they are the only ones from the Christ on the road of Christianity. No other traces do exist.

Think of it, could the followers of Christ to accept along with him his disciples also? Never. The pupils cowardly fled during the execution of the Christ. How can they be followed, those who betrayed their teacher? Those who abandoned him at the time of death? In no religion, in no people the betrayal was ever a subject of respect and reverence.

Therefore, the Old Testament, on which relied the Christ, became the teaching of the first Christians. And the rite came to them from the Jews. The words "Christian" and "Judaic" were synonymous, they did not differ. Because the Early Christianity was a sect of Judaism.

Among the Jews, in addition to the Christians, there were other sects, such as Zealots. What distinguished Christians from the other Jews was only that they believed in the near coming of the Messiah, as the the name of the Savior Hero (but not of the Christ!) was uttered, who would save the Europe from the Roman yoke, that was foretold by the Apocalypse.

The proof of that rests in the history of communities called in Russian Judaical, they are the oldest branch of the Christian religion, the very first one! At first it was finding its adherents in Palestine, and then for refusal to participate in the Judean War (66 - 73) the Jews expelled the Christians to the Asia Minor. Then they settled in Rome. (This is why the Rome is considered to be a cradle of Christianity in Europe. But of what Christianity?)

To them, to the Judaical Christians, appealed the Apostle Paul with the "Epistle to the Romans"! In the far-away Rome, the capital of the empire, Paul saw the followers of the teachings of Christ.

The fourth chapter of the "Epistle" addresses the circumcision obligatory for the Christians. There are, for example, the following words: "And the sign of circumcision he received as a seal of righteousness through the faith". Or: "This blessing relates to circumcision". On the eighth day after birth was performed this sacred rite, through which has passed the Christ himself.

The circumcision was held as baptism, that is, initiation for Christianity.

The Judaizer Christians are still distinguished by their amazing conservatism, they do not recognize any innovations in their faith. They worship the faith accepted from the hands of Christ. Unfortunately (or fortunately), about that most ancient branch of Christianity is known very little, the official Church from the 4th century persecutes its followers, and they hide all their life.

However, were preserved, for example, the notes of travellers. In the 19th century in the Baku province (now the Jalalabad district) was a village Freely (Privolnoye), whose inhabitants until today adhere to the ancient, "pure" Christian traditions.

Here's how the eyewitness described them: "The heresy of the Judaizers, as is known, first appeared in Russia in the 15th century in Novgorod, from where it spread to Moscow, to Novgorod it was brought from Kiev by a Jew Skharia. The essence of this early teaching, judging from scarce sources, is on the one hand rejecting most essential tenets of Christianity (the Trinity, the divine nature of Jesus Christ), some sacraments, the spiritual hierarchy, the veneration of icons, of the monasticism, and on the other hand in observing the Judaic rites. The Judaizer heresy was condemned at the Moscow Cathedral of the 1504 and suppressed."

Particularly severely were punished in Russia the followers of the true Christianity in the 19th century. At that time it has found a wide response in the hearts of Russians, and started mass expulsions from the country of the followers of that doctrine, their physical destruction. Just at that appeared in the Baku province the village Freely and other villages, they were founded by the extracts from the Central Russia *.

From the author. Of great interest in this regard for the historian of religions would be the Karaims, the Karaite Türks living in the Crimea and Lithuania. They also are the followers of the Old Testament only. But can they be called "Judaizers"? Or are they the carriers of more ancient teaching that arose before Christianity and even before Judaism? The latter is more likely. In the Altai and other Siberian regions of Türks' habitation (unrelated to the Palestinians in any way) exist the ancient folk traditions, which perplex scientists to a dead end, in essence they are the fragments of the Old Testament, the canvas of its account. Wherefrom it came? First they were found by a Russian missionary priest Stefan Landyshev, and published in the 19th century. It is just a striking resemblance to the biblical traditions about creation of the world, creation of a man, the Fall, the truth of faith, etc. (Considering that Altai was connected with Messopotamia by the visiting and residing Scythians back in the 7th c. BC, that Jeti-su was a center of Nestorian Christianity for centuries before the advent of Islam, that Nestorian Christianity reached Mongolia and Baikal, there were ample opportunity for the mounted and travelling people to be exposed to the Messopotamia-originated accounts)

The residents of the Freely, of course, did not call themselves with the ear-splitting word "Judaizer", they were saying: "We are Sabbathians". In other words, the followers of pure Judaism. All dubious layers that later appeared in the teachings of Christ, including the New Testament, they rejected strenuously, seeing a heresy in them. Because not from the Christ are these books!

Indeed, not from him. The canonization of the Christian books, including the New Testament, began in the late 4th century, called a "golden age" of the East and the West. This was a whole era of joint church Councils, theological disputes, and even melee fights in the name of the affirming the faith.

There intertwined everything: the lust for power and ambition, greed and envy, the bishops knew what to fight for ... Only the "apostolic" was missing ... Exept for the names. The church was built by the people - simple, but by no means simpletons.

The name "Jesus Christ" appeared in the 2nd century, before that the hero was called Yeshua (Joshua). Much of what has become known was due to the efforts of the Apostle Paul, who lived after the Christ. But ... he, as asserts the Church, supposedly "saw and heard" Christ, even talked to him, being in a sort of ecstatic state ... Later, the number of "conversants" and "witnesses" of Christ has grown many tenfolds. And each one tried to report on his "meeting" ... Were written books and later not recognized (apocryphal) Gospels.

During the prayers, the "pure" Christians after the covenant of Christ use only the Hebrew words. The temples in the village Freely, according to the eyewitnesses, resembled synagogues. The church or cathedral features in their architecture were absent. Again, that is natural. Besides the synagogues, the Christians, barely distanced from the Judaism, could not and did not have rights to come up with different ritual places.

Of the holidays, the residents of the Freely recognised Saturday for the whole year, and Purim (Mardehai days), the Jewish Passover with matzo and some other holidays.

No sign of the cross the "pure" Christians imposed on themselves - they simply do not have it. But the outsiders tell about fornication, or rather about open relationships in the community, which were not considered to be a sin. That is an ancient Jewish tradition. People live by their own laws, their own morality. And they call a temple a different structure, not something to which the official Christians are accustomed to.

Among the Sabbathians, everything is according to the ancient precepts of the Bible! As was during Christ (BTW, the Sabbathian is a popular Ladino and now Hispanic last name, Chavez. Its Russian version is Subbotnik).

Inside the "Christian" synagogue (which literally means "house of meetings"), are the spacious rectangular halls, in the end stands a bookcase, veiled with a curtain. In the middle of the hall stands a pulpit for a reader or preacher. It was the synagogue - their purpose and the arrangement - duplicated the first Christians! There was no church architecture during Christ.

Unfortunately, the representatives of the official Church have never done a study of the Judaizer ritual, it was justified by the allusion that the heresy lies outside of its interests ... But what is the "heresy" in such case?

Who deviated from the teachings of the Christ? Is it Judaizers? .. This question seems nobody ever asked. Sorry. Because of that, the origins of Christianity are littered with blatant fiction, which accumulated over the centuries.

The Judaizers reject the "traditional Christianity" precisely for of their innovations, insisting that it is impossible to correct Christ.

What are these innovations? In what? When did they appear? And why?

The Early Christians do not recognize the divine nature of Christ and the Trinity. In other words, they reject the most important tenets of the official Christianity. What does that mean? It is obvious that these dogmas appeared after the Christ. So in the beliefs of the Sabbathians, they came to the religion from the evil one.

And indeed, in the early 4th century, at the 1st Ecumenical Council in 325 AD the Byzantine Emperor Constantine ordered Christians to hold Christ equal to the God the Father. Exactly ordered, justifying his position of the "oneness" thus: "... the definitions of the autocrat, aimed to defend the truth, should not be resisted."

Weighty saying ...

Under a rude pressure of the secular power came the first major church dogma. Is such approach just in the spiritual quest? The answer belongs to theologians. But the most important law of Christianity was voiced specifically from the lips of the Emperor Constantine, who ... was not a Christian! All his life he had a title of the Supreme (pagan) Priest.

And what is a dogma? It is a cornerstone of religion, its basis. Notably, the Constantine idea was not new, in 268 AD it was already expressed, discussed, and ... rejected at the Antioch Council, recognizing it to be absolutely heretical.

The Constantine proposal was sooner not a dogma, but a brilliant political boon of the Byzantium, which made the Trojan horse of the ancient Greeks a puny child's toy. Then, the Greeks masterfully hid the delayed action poison: it killed the religion of the Türks.

"God is eternal, for He is the World and the creator of the World," - said Türks in antiquity.

Therefore, the Christ is not equal to the God because Christ was born, and the birth denotes a start. He could not die for the same reason, because the death denotes an end. If he died on the cross, it meaqns that the God died along with him. But that is absurd, because the God is eternal ...

And that is a double absurdity. The Gospel of Matthew in the very first line reads: "Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of David, son of Abraham" ... How to interpret this phrase? Aren't there too many fathers for a boy? And where is the God the Father?

The ignorance of the pagan! Constantine brought the Church to nonsense. The first to voice against it were the Sabbathians as dissenters. Then voiced in some church leaders and even some Churches. All in vain. They were not heard.

For example, Bishop Arius tried to explain to Constantine and others that a son can not be his own father. However, the voice of reason drowned among the cries of opponents, who saw in that dogma something quite different, an expansion of the Greeks' power to other territories. To those territories where they believe in Hevenly God. In other words, the Türkic lands! The Greeks were readying this new Trojan horse for them. They dreamt up to enter the temples of the Türks with a laurel branch, with the rights of the brothers in spirit, and to subjugate them by assimilating their culture. What happened was almost exactly that.

Byzantium, becoming a leader of the Christian world, ignored everything that hindered it to reach the secret goal ... And that already is not a religion, it is politics! The pure, or better dirty, politics. The self-confident Türks, accustomed to seeing white as white and black as black did not suspect a trickery. Only the Romans figured it all out and initially secretly supported the Greeks.

Creating a state church, the Emperor Constantine was ensconcing in the Mediterranean, and that, of course, started bothering Rome. Moreover, the Byzantium began organizing entire spectacles, demonstrating a personal friendship of the Emperor with God; ostensibly to him "the God miraculously, through visions, was opening the intents" of the enemies, "repeatedly honoring him with personal appearances of the God". It was a frank farce ... But so was being created the image of the Saint Emperor.

Precisely as a "Holy" wrote about him a well-known church historian Eusebius, not mentioning, however, that the "Holy" with his own hands strangled his close relatives, his wife and son (Different versions exist as to his own hands or using other hands, which do not change the picture). And after all that in the history of the Church the Constantine is called with a honorific title of a main hero of Christianity - "isapostolos, i.e. equal with the Apostles emperor"...  "The Great" ...

The (Orthodox Christian) custom of celebrating the Spring Festival, the Christian Easter, also has Altaic roots. The Türks celebrated it quite differently from the Jews and Early Christians. Following the biblical precepts, they still eat matzo, an unleavened thin bread. The Tengrians did everything differently, they were baking Easter breads (kulich).

Kulich embodied a masculine beginning. It was given a corresponding form (of a phallus), were invented dough recipes, with the idea of not improving the taste, but of the cake to harden and "arouse", that is to increase in size. And God forbid for it to fall, that is a very bad omen. The top of the finished cake was smeared with white cream and sprinkled with colored millet grains. Next to it were laid two colored eggs.

The worship rite of masculinity, the phallus, is known in the East since time immemorial, it was considered sacred. Figuratively speaking, it was associated with tillage, the beginning of the next harvest, and in general with the birth of a new, desirable beginnings.

It was a most important ritual for continuation of life.

It should be noted that the Easter traditions in their modern form also came to Europe, and also like the Christmas trees, initially were traditions of solely the Kipchaks ...