posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:49 AM
More about the CoverUp of the REAL "Iesous" in the Gospels
As I mentioned in previous posts, the writers/ compilers of the Gospel material were NOT eyewitnesses in Palestine to the "events they purport to
relate" and had no AIM of presenting any kind of a historical "Jesus" : their aim was clearly expressed in John's Gospel:
THESE THINGS WERE WRITTEN SO THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE THAT IESOUS IS THE CHRISTOS AND BY BELIEVING YOU MIGHT HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME
Don't forget also this important fact:
The 4 canonical gospels circulated ANONYMOUSLY (without titles---for the first 200 years) having first passed into the tradition orally for more than
40 years AFTER THE EVENTS THEY PURPORT TO RELATE and at a time when the disciples were dying off, AFTER THE JEWISH WAR AGAINST ROME WHICH RESULTED IN
A JUDAEAN DEFEAT (i.e. after AD 70) :
Thus the "gospels" began to be written down WITHOUT ALL THE ZIONIST-PALESTINIAN POLITICAL MESSIANIC WARRIOR DAVIDDIC MESSIAH RHETORIC IN TACT,
having first circulated orally in small aphorisms and sayings, and then tiny event-pericopes which gave some of these sayings a CONTEXT (many of them
made up or new such as the SERMON ON THE MOUNT in Matt chapters 5 through 7 which was made up of sayings over a 5 year period, not one big SERMON on a
MOUNTAINTOP) , first in Aramaic and then reorganzed in Greek i.e. circulating in a "foreign"tongue (Koine Greek), that is foreign to Jesus and his
disciples, and spread in Greek among foreign people (Greek Speaking Messianic Jews and God "fearing" Gentiles scattered around the Roman Empire, who
never set foot in Palestine and could not speak the original language of the "Jeezzuz" and his disciples: Galilean Aramaic).
We perhaps have in the gospels a Translated Group of Savings that comprise LESS THAN 1% of WHAT R. YEHOSHUA BAR YOSEF the GALILEAN ACTUALLY SPOKE
DURING HIS MULTI-YEAR MINISTRY.
The ORIGINAL SITZ IM LEBEN (setting in life) of this man and his little band of Messianic Hopefuls in Palestine has been completely distorted in the
process to make "Jeeezzuzz" into a god---i.e. more palatable to the masses of Greek speaking pagans and Messianists who wanted a personal
god-saviour, not some rabble rousing militant Davvidic pretender-politican who waited for miracles to happen on the mount of Olives while arming his
disciples with swords on a hill attempting to re-capture Jerusalem "from the Kittim" and re-instate the Davids (i.e. his family) on the throne.
The earliest "Christians" (like the Dead Sea Scroll sect) believed they were living in the LAST DAYS: they were all anxiously waiting for the end of
the world to happen any second (i.e. the Parousia or "second coming") and not sitting around calmly writing historical biographies (in the modern
sense) of their hero who died a martyr's death during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.
As time went on, the Christian Church who promulgated the "Jesus-as-Saviour" Cult was COMPETING with other pagan PERSONAL SAVIOUR CULTS (e.g.
Mithras or Attis): since Judaea lost the war against Rome (not once but twice, first in AD 72 and the second time under Shimeon bar Kosiba (Bar
Kokhba) in 136AD) Chrisitans had to TONE DOWN THE POLITICAL-SEDITIONIST MESSAGE of the gospels and of their hero "Iesous".
(Cf: The Road to Emaeus pericope in Luke chapter 24: "and we thought He was going to be THE ONE who would REDEEM Israel from the hands of its
It would have been a different story if the Jews won the war against Rome.
Notice how Paul, a successful evangelizer of his own brand of Christianity among the goyim (non Jews), never even met "Jeeezuz" and fought bitterly
with the disciples and family members who did know "Jeezuz" in the flesh (e.g. Galatians chapter 2: where he calls Peter a hypocrite, and refers to
James the blood brother of "Jeezuz" and Yakkob bar Zavdai (James son of Zebedee) as "those so called pillars" simply because they stuck to the
Jewish Law of Moses and ate kosher foods, still sacrificed animals in the Temple, and and did not in any way associate with any of those dirty rotten
non-Jewish idol woshipping Gentiles.
What is interesting is how much of the under-painting of the "racist-rabble rouser warrior-Daviddic-Jesus" still leakes up through the
Nice-Rebbe-Overpainting in the Gospels (i.e. whitewash) of Jesus, which have only to be looked at with a little effort, to see "the real bones coming
through the fake plastic body" that the church covered him up with to make him more "sellable" (cf: "the Greatest Story Ever Sold...").
For example, "Jeezuz" did not preach to Gentiles during his earthly mission and even called all non-Jews dogs (see Matt chapter 15: Since when is it
right to take the CHILDREN's bread out of their mouth and THROW IT to the DOGS UNDER THE TABLE?"
The Greek words placed into his mouth after his death are grammatic howlers: ("preach ye among" which is non-sense): better linguistics would
produce a rather different sense when worked back into the original Galilean Aramaic: Preach ye the Message of the Gospel of the Kingdom [of God] to
the Elect [of Israel] Scattered Among the Gentiles" (in other words he did not advocate them to "preach the kingdom TO the Gentiles").
Paul changed all of that, but he broke off from the original "church" (the Nazorean followers of "Jeeezuz" ) after AD 45.
Earlier in the racist-story of the Syro Phoenician Gentile in Matthew chapter 15, "Jeeezuz" is purported to have said: "Lady, I have come to save
ONLY the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL"----a phrase which specifically refers to Jews who had been "scattered among the Gentiles" i.e. Diaspora
Jews (beginning back in the forced reolcation exiles of 722BC (Assyria) and again in 587BC (Babylon) and later during the Persian period.)
The Ingathering of the "12-Tribes scattered among the goyim" was supposed to be one of the Functions of Coming Messiah (see Trito-Isaiah 56-66) :
Even "Jeezuz" was supposed to have said "Behold, I have sheep that are not of this fold..."
And in Luke's "sending of the 70" Iesous SPECIFICALLY tells his disciples NOT TO PREACH TO GENTILES but ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF
What did "Jeezuz" mean when he was said to have called that poor SyroPhoencian gentile a "DOG?"!!!
In the Dead Sea Scrolls (many of which were being copied out WHILE "Iesous" was still alive) the word "dog" (a ritually Unclean Animal) is often
used to describe Gentiles: in the Middle East, a dog is the lowest form of animal life, sort of what Americans would call "a cockroach" etc.
The historical "Jeezuz" would have therefore used the term as others did in his vicinity having been influenced by John the Baptist (Yohanon bar
Zechariah) who baptised him as a disciple. The Baptist preached in the "Wilderness of Judaea" which refers to the area around Qumran, where the Dead
Sea Scrolls were being copied: he seems to have used words that parallel the Scrolls verbatim, and must have been influenced by their theology and
perhaps even racism. That racism would have percolated to his disciples, one of which was.....Jesus !
No wonder the Catholic Church did not want those Scrolls read by the average church goer. Too many parallels with the words put into the mouth of
"Jeeezuz" : it also drew too clear a "historical" picture of the political scene during the time of Jesus, which culminated in a War which killed
over 800,000 people in Palestine.
And the scrolls revealed TOO MUCH OF THE RACISM OF THE 1st Century Palestinian Jewish population, which had direct parallels with the EARLY CHURCH and
THE DIRTY UNDERBELLY OF THE JEWISH WAR HISTORY OF THE PERIOD they wish to hide from their followers, who if they found out, would probably have "left
Get a highlighter out and mark up your Gospels with these kinds of sayings (e.g. the racism in Matthew chapter 15, the arming of the disciples in Luke
chapter 22, the cutting off of the slave of the high priests ear in Luke 23, and other verses we mentioned in our earlier posts).
If you look over this kind of "political" evidence in the text of the gospels (which was considered a "mortal sin" (!) requiring confession for
Catholics to read the text of the bible for themselves without the intervention of a "priest", until fairly recent times, i.e. up until about the
year 1800) you might begin to see that there is an under-current of history in the very text themselves that is not too pretty, and the embarrased
"church" spent a great deal of time NOT talking about it.