Бесплатный фрагмент - Jesus’ Teachings about the Father

“Reconstruction of early Christian teaching based on a comparative analysis of the oldest gospels”

Introduction

Reading the Bible, one cannot fail to notice a striking contradiction, if not to call it complete antagonism, between the legends of the Jews, who, as we read on the pages of the Old Testament (hereinafter — OT), committed reprehensible criminal acts against humanity from the point of view of modern humanism (and for this they were glorified in the OT as holy saints of the Jewish ancestral god, Yahweh) and the Teachings of the meek Jesus, who spoke of love for all people as His brothers. It is obvious to the unbiased reader that there is a terrible chasm between these two religious teachings.

However, the Christian Church in all its confessions and jurisdictions unanimously teaches that the OT, recognized in all Christian churches by the Holy Scriptures along with the New Testament, is like a “origination guide” to Jesus, tracing the human race from the biblical creation of the first people by the biblical god “out of clay” to the heights of moral sacrifice in the name of Man. That is, the development of mankind over time from a state of primitive animal savagery to the high humanism of Christian teaching, from the first man, Adam, to the second Adam, as Jesus is called in the church teaching. At the same time, attention is drawn to the fundamental discrepancy between the behavior of the biblical Old Testament heroes, recognized by the Christian “holy righteous forefathers,” and, first of all, of their God himself, to the Christian ideals of humanism; a cruel and jealous deity of the Hebrew Bible, a treacherous tyrant and a maniac acting on the pages of the OT — in The New Testament suddenly corrected itself, taking on the appearance of the All-forgiving Heavenly Father, giving Divine Love to all his children indiscriminately (Mt. Mk 5.45: “May you be sons of your Heavenly Father, for He commands His sun to rise over the wicked and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous”).

The contradiction in this united teaching of the Old and New Testaments is carefully hidden in the fairytale biblical “history” of the Jewish people (and this is a horrific tale), which turned out to be a way of turning Jesus into a Jewish rabbi and Jewish messiah.

As one of the tasks of writing this work, the author sets out to expose this, to put it bluntly, the most outrageous forgery in history, which turned Christianity into a marginal “messianic” sect within Judaism.

At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to and especially dwell on the deliberate provocativeness of the topic under study, and categorically reject any attempts to accuse it of “anti-Semitism” by close-knit adherents of reverence for the special suffering of the Jewish people in the Holocaust, which happened “through the fault” of world Christianity. Without denying in the least the horrors of the Holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people, or the guilt imputed to Christianity in the two thousand-year-old suspicious and hostile attitude towards Jews as a people of “deicides”, I want to draw the attention of everyone that the topic under discussion concerns only — and only — the history of ancient peoples, and those religious contradictions that arose between peoples in those distant times. This is a purely academic study that does not imply any practical conclusions regarding the religious differences and preferences of modern humanity.

***

After many years of work[1]to expose Judaization of Jesus’ teachings, first in early Judo-Christianity in Jerusalem community, then — in the Roman church of II century, and following in her wake churches of “ecumenical orthodoxy” of the first centuries, and beyond — everywhere and all, without exception, current Christian denominations recognize the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament of their Holy Scripture; it finally became clear to me that all world Christianity has always worshiped not the Heavenly Father at all, but the Jewish ancestral “god”, the ancient pagan idol Jehovah. If you wish, you can trace the origin of this fairytale “god” to the pagan pantheons, much more ancient than the religion of the ancient Jews. The teachings of Jesus from the first century have been shamelessly forged as the continuation of Judaism, and united with the Jewish Torah together, as a confession of belief in common with the Jews, the false God Jehovah, presented by the Judaizers as God the Father of Jesus and ours.

According to church tradition, the Old Testament is the basis of the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus himself is the very Jewish Christ-Messiah, which is predicted in various books of the Old Testament. The word “Christ” is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word “Mashiach”, which means the Anointed, or King of the Jews, since the kings of Israel were delivered to the kingdom through the anointing of the prophets who poured holy oil on those kings. However, according to another opinion expressed in numerous works of philosophers and scientists from the 17th century[2], in fact, Jesus completely rejected Judaism, “the law and the prophets,” and preached a completely new teaching that had nothing to do with Judaism. Jesus’ teachings revealed the true knowledge of his Father God, which the Jews did not know. And Jesus himself has nothing to do with those Christ=Messiah=Mashiach=Annointed=King of the Jews, which the Jews were waiting for (and still are waiting for), and whose appearance was predicted in the Old Testament by the great Jewish prophets.

“No matter how the theologians tried over the centuries to prove the” integrity “of the New Testament, in its texts there is clearly a confrontation between two religious tendencies: a sharply negative attitude towards Judaism (which, apparently, was characteristic of Jesus himself and his teachings) on one hand and a desire for combining the worldview with Judaism (which is commonly called the orthodox tradition) — on the other hand … “The Gospel of Matthew, apparently, it is no coincidence that it opens the New Testament: the Christian church needed that from the very first lines the “new”, “corrected” Christian teaching demonstrates its Jewish roots… The first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew in general seem to be a continuation of the Old Testament, the reader is completely immersed in the atmosphere of Jewish prophecies about the Messiah, as which Jesus is presented.”

I. Evlampiev “Undistorted Christianity and Its Sources”[3].

The remaining question, as part of the Christian teaching, is the one of the salvation of all those who, involuntarily and unconsciously, being deceived by church teaching, over the millennia of church history, massively worshiped this false “God” within the framework of Christian ecclesiasticality, remains open — did the Church lead their people to salvation, and did it not bring all the” ones being saved” under her shelter to that “eternal destruction”, which it threatens to all who dare to doubt the truth of its teachings, beginning with the ap. Paul, who proclaimed the very first church anathema in the Epistle to the Galatians? Galatians 1: 8: “But even if we or an Angel from heaven began to preach the gospel to you other than what we preached to you, let it be anathema.”

But this is not actually what we are talking about now — let the leaders of Christian confessions be preoccupied by this. But rather — about finally cleansing the Teaching of Jesus from the age-old deposits of Judaism and presenting it in the form in which it could be preached by Jesus to his disciples — if possible. And I must say right away that this opportunity is very limited and small.

Sources

If we look the truth in the eye, there are practically no extra-biblical historical sources of information about Jesus, except for two quotations from the “Antiquities of the Jews” by Josephus, one of which is recognized as a later forgery. As for the conventionally biblical (that is, canonical and apocryphal) sources, I consider it proven in the revolutionary works of doctors Marcus Vincent, Mattius Klinkhardtand Dieter T. Roth, as well as their great predecessors, Garnak, Whayett, Nocks and Paul-Louis Couchoud, that all synoptic gospels are late (not earlier than 150 AD) compilations of the gospel of the Lord by Marcion, dating back to 140, ie, the sources are certainly secondary and deliberately distorted, and therefore do not have value as valid. The very gospel of the Lord (by Marcion), too, has the traces of the early Judaizing, its origin, apparently, being obliged to the early Christian messianic Judeo-Christianity, originally inclined to commitment to “faith of our fathers” in the Jewish tribal god Yahweh-Jehovah. The gospel of John is earlier (this assertion will be substantiated below) and therefore deserving more trust, however, there are easily distinguishable birthmarks of editorial Judaizing edits in it as well, which, as a rule, have the form of crude illogical inclusions of categorical imperatives of the truth of the Jewish faith — we will mark in the process of text analysis. And finally, ev. Thomas, not included in the canon of the New Testament because of its clearly pronounced anti-Jewish orientation. Nevertheless, being the most ancient text of the records of Jesus, it appears more credible as the source of the greatest reliability and closeness to what Jesus really could teach than the other gospels. Thus, as our sources, we will most of all use Thomas, with reservations — John, and finally, conditionally, the Marcion gospel of the Lord, trying to cleanse all this from Judaization and preserve everything that can be attributed by us to Jesus. It is also possible to consider individual sayings from the canonical synoptic gospels, which, although they are reliable sources of the second row, nevertheless, may contain some elements of sources that have not survived to this day, but existed during the second half of the second century. An example of such a lost source is the collection of the records of Jesus in five volumes of Papias of Hierapolis, mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea in the History of the Church.

Dating sources

The classical dating of the canonical gospels, adopted in modern biblical studies, reads: “The time of creation cannot be reliably established, but …", and this “but” is followed by the coined phrase “most scientists are inclined to think” which means — more or less justified guesses. It is useless and senseless to cite literature here, it is so vast over the past approximately five centuries, starting from the 17th century almost from Spinoza — it will be enough to refer to Metzger’s cornerstone work The Canon of the New Testament. And what is this dating? Matthew — as it is believed, the earliest — is attributed to the 50—60s, Mark — to the 60—70s, Luke, respectively, to the 70—80s, and poor undignified John, considered unreliable [8]- as much as 90—100 AD.

However, the arguments in favor of these datings are very limited. In fact, upon closer inspection, there is — alas! — just one argument, considered indisputable, in favor of the early dating of the Gospels to the middle or end of the first century. This is — two citations of [9]Papias of Hierapolis (70—155), the author of lost Jesus records in five volumes, mentioned in “Church History” by Eusebius of Caesarea [10]. One claims that Papias wrote down the memories of Jesus from the oral tradition, not trusting the written evidence: “… I understood that books would not do me as much benefit as a living voice that remains in my soul.” Another is about the sources of the records he collected (this is a quote from his quotes in the “History…” of Eusebius): " In his book he also reports other words of the Lord in the transmission of the aforementioned Aristion, as well as the stories of Presbyter John. We refer inquisitive people to them, but we consider it necessary to immediately add to everything that has been said about the Evangelist Mark. Here is what the elder (John) said: “Mark was Peter’s translator; he accurately wrote down everything that he remembered from what was said and done by the Lord, but not in order, for he himself did not hear the Lord and did not walk with Him. Later, he accompanied Peter, who taught as circumstances required, and did not intend to arrange the words of Christ in order. Mark was not at all wrong, writing everything down the way he remembered; he only cared not to miss anything and not convey anything incorrectly. This is what Papias says about Mark; about Matthew, he reports the following: ‘Matthew wrote down Jesus’ conversations in Hebrew, and translated them as best he could. He also uses the First Epistle of John, as well as Peter, and tells about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins. This story is in the ‘Gospel of the Jews’. I considered it necessary to add all this to what has been said.”

From these passages, which are, I remind you, the only “indisputable” argument in favor of early dating of the Synoptic Gospels, it becomes obvious and taken for granted that these Mark and Matthew could not be the author of the Gospel; one wrote down everything in a row, and certainly not in the form of an unfolding chronological story, but in the form of separate, unrelated memories, perhaps containing some eventful episodes, but not in the chronological order of a single history; about the other Eusebius can hardly be believed at all, since today it has already been established for sure that the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew, is a reverse translation from Greek. And the conversations of Jesus, in the first place, are not a composite story of His life, which the canonical Gospel from Matthew is meant to be, and secondly, Jesus Himself preached in the Aramaic, and it is unlikely that Matthew (if this is the same Matthew, the tax collector) would have written them down in the sacred language of the Jews, being a traitor to his people and an outcast, if you believe that he was a publican… One would rather believe that he wrote in Greek than in Hebrew. According to most scholars, the Gospel of Matthew was not written by eyewitnesses. And the authorship of “Luke” will be mentioned in detail later. As for the other, “controversial” arguments and second-tier evidence of early dating synoptics, they are considered in detail and convincingly refuted in the fundamental work of Dr. Marcus Vincent [11], and are summarized in the work already cited by us by Dr. Evlampiev[12]. No other direct documentary evidence of the existence of the synoptic gospels previously to 140 AD simply not exist in nature. It is necessary to understand. At the same time, we must pay tribute to the fact that modern researchers, analyzing the above testimonies of Papias of Hieropolis, come to the unequivocal conclusion that the “records” of the utterances of Jesus Christ made by Matthew and Mark, which are mentioned in quotations from his work, can not be the Gospels, that included into the New Testament.

As for the Gospel of John, let’s agree to accept the dating proposed by “the majority of scientists” and see what follows from this for us. Remember this fact: John is the end of the first — the very beginning of the second century.

Separately, I would like to note once again that according to the traditionally accepted dating of the Gospel texts, Mark is attributed to the 60s, Matthew — to the 70s, Luke — to the 80s, and John — to the end of the first century. Thus, in the tradition of religious studies, the opinion was fixed that John is the latest, and therefore the least reliable source, and even partially compiled by the synoptics, and constructed by a certain Gnostic community, possibly from the circle of the disciples of John the Theologian. However, as I pointed out above, the Gospel of Marcion is now considered a presynoptic text used by synoptics to create their gospels. At the same time, Dr. Marcus Vincent in his monograph “Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels” quite reasonably proves that the author of the Gospel of the Lord Marcion was Marcion of Sinope himself, and, according to our assumption below, it was written in Rome between 140 and 144 years. At the same time, the first mention of all four canonical gospels together by Irenaeus of Lyons [13]refers to the 180th year. Thus, the dating of the synoptics is shifted to the second half of the second century, although this does not apply to the original dating of the s. John 90—100 years, which presumably remains in its place. And here the most interesting thing begins: shifting the dating of the synoptic gospels to the second half of the second century, as secondary sources in relation to the Gospel of Marcion with a dating of about 140 and leaving the dating of John fixed at the turn of the 1—2 centuries., we get that John is not secondary in relation to the “sinoptics”, but, on the contrary, it was written off by the synoptics (including Marcion) from John.

Therefore, the gospel of John is brought to the forefront, as the most ancient of the canonical sources, its reliability is strengthened, and those borrowings that are attributed to it are overturned: now it is precisely these borrowings that should be attributed not to John from the synoptics, as before, but to the synoptics from John.

However, this is not all. As I indicated above, the proven[14]primacy of Ev. Marcion, in relation to the synoptics, shifts them to the third place: first John, then borrowing from John is ev. Marcion, and then from Marcion to synoptics. And we undertake to prove this statement in our book.

As for the gospel of Thomas, which “most scholars” attributed to the 60—140 years[15] (which is doubtful, I did not find any arguments, and I personally believe that the end of dating should be shifted at least to the end of the 1st century), then it is the form of this gospel in the form of a record of scattered and not connected by a single meaning records first of all testifies to the greatest antiquity of this document: it looks like a sequential record on a single carrier (a sheet of parchment or a papyrus scroll) of recordsrecords in the order of sequence in which they were collected by the author from the oral retellings of many of those interviewed by him. Apparently, this very form of recording was also used by other collectorsrecords, which were subsequently lost.

As for the indications of a 50% similarity between Thomas and the records that Marcion and the synoptics have, then after the shift of all synoptics to the middle of the second century, these coincidences unambiguously indicate the opposite: that the Gospel of Thomas is an early monument, which It was used in the preparation of the later texts Marcion and — further — the synoptic gospels, and may well claim a place of mysterious Q source, the existence of which is pointed out by historians and text analytics that study synoptic gospels. As for the gospel of John, its textual connection with ev. Marcion, as we will see later, is hardly visible, despite the ideological similarity, and this suggests that here we are dealing with two ancient sources independent of each other, which are, perhaps, the product of two different schools of apostolic Christianity.

Credibility

We will have to admit that ALL, without exception, sources we have mentioned are unreliable due to their secondary nature: both Jesus Himself and his disciples from pagan Galilee were most likely illiterate, and spoke Aramaic, and the Gospels were written in literary Greek, which could never be done by the disciples of Jesus even on the assumption of their subsequent mastery of the Greek language and writing. That is, the Testament is a record of oral stories of authors unknown to us by unknown collectors who recorded them in the Gospels. First of all, inaccuracy concerns gospel events, the oral transmission of which always creates the effect of a “spoiled phone”: the narrators retell what happened to one another in their own words, and they are also prone to exaggeration and direct fantasy in order to give themselves increased significance and enhance the effect of the importance of what is happening, often containing impossible details. At the same time, in the retelling of conversations and monologues, storytellers tend to simplify in the name of greater simplification to the listener. In this sense, similar simplifications of the parables of Jesus from Thomas to John and further to Marcion are characteristic: the often mysterious content of Jesus’ logic expressed in Thomas is simplified by Marcion to commonplace platitudes.

Biblical scholars deny the Gospel of John “authenticity” for example: “Most modern historians, being careful, prefer to completely put the Gospel of John out of brackets when reconstructing the image of Jesus. In subsequent chapters, we will follow this respectable academic tradition, referring to the texts of John only when the outlines of real earthly history are visible behind the mystical-theological fabric of this work. " [16]This is done under various obviously far-fetched pretexts, behind which often looms primarily a reluctance to recognize the clear anti-Jewish orientation of the Teachings of Jesus in the text of Ev. John, which so inopportunely undermines the foundations of the coherent theory of Judeo-Christian continuity, developed over the last century by “the majority of modern historians.” In particular, such a reason for the “unreliability” of ev. John refers to the “gnostic” character of this gospel. However, none of the inherent Gnosticism, professing knowledge of “secrets”, nor these “secrets” are present in the Gospel of John, and Jesus is not revealing, not reporting and not promising this.

The same applies to the ancient gospel of Thomas, also called the “fifth gospel” because of the centuries-old church litigation about its inclusion in the canon of the New Testament — it does not, in my opinion, contain any “secrets”, and the riddles it contains have the meaning of allegories of acute political and religious themes of that time, for just one attempt to discuss which, without due reverence in those wild times, one could be killed by a crowd of religious fanatics. Or philosophical parables, the interpretations of which by simplifying and flattening meanings were subsequently proposed by numerous interpreters, starting with the authors of the canonical gospels, who widely used the records from the same gospel of Thomas. However, there are no mystical secrets that have the magical power of dominion over Being by any of the interpreters, both Gnostic and Orthodox, in Thomas gospel: for two millennia it was not found and offered — which means that they are not there, and were not originally.

As for the synoptic gospels, today the secondary nature and late dating of these three independent compilations of an earlier source — Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord — with the aim of Judaization (as we will show later) of both: Jesus himself to be have origins tracing to the Davidic family, and His Teachings, as the preaching of Judaism to “all nations” (So go, teach all nations Matthew 28,19)

Thus, after the death and Resurrection of Jesus, despite His command to the disciples “go and preach to the whole world” (Mark 16,15), His Teachings were hijacked from two sides: from the side of Judaism for the sake of Jewish proselytism and from the side of Christian Gnosticism — both trends rushed to use His divine authority to advance their ideas and beliefs.

As a result, church orthodoxy has developed a monstrous hybrid of Jewish fairy villainous-Yahweh God on the one hand, the magic of the Gnostic secret knowledge the “mysteries of God” and in the middle, sandwiched on the two sides and squeezed into only one single commandment of love for God and neighbor (quite of the Old Testament origin) [17] The Good News of Jesus, the Son of God: “The Kingdom of Heaven has drawn near to you.”

World Christianity has turned over time into a subsidiary of Judaism in its proselytism and preaching to the world.[18]: everyone now, whoever you ask, knows about the Jewish fairy-tale characters God-Jehovah, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Sarah, Moses and Aaron, David, Solomon, Elijah and Elisha, etc. — more than about Jesus. And worship Jehovah as their God-Father. And, together with the listed above, consider all of the Biblical Old Testament saints of questionable “righteousness” — describe in the OT pre-Jewish and Jewish savages, the villains, deceivers, cruel sadists, and outright criminals — to be their Christian holy forefathers. In addition, they do not even realize that Jesus, the Son of God, is declared the son of a villainous maniac-murderer “from the beginning”, Jehovah, and “through that” it means that Christ = Messiah = Messiah = Anointed = King of the Jews, whom the Jews are still waiting for, and who — whether it will be the Antichrist, or the Christ in the Second Coming, or both. And the Chrisitans do not even realize how stupid they look as “Christians” with a name, received from the Jews in the memory of the mockery of Jesus by Pilate, pinned to the cross of Jesus sign “King of the Jews.”

However, the time has come to free Jesus from the magnificent gilded grave, built over the centuries and millennia and forming the bulk of His tombstone, consisting of churches and temples. Time to free His Teachings about the Heavenly Father — from the ancestral religion of the Jews with their fabulous “god” Jehovah: the Santa-Claus type, except an evil and vindictive one — on the one hand, and materialistic magicians who rely on some secret knowledge, some on the training of “spiritual practices” such as asceticism and other arbitrary rules to establish their being without God — on the other. Time has come to release the truth out of the bushel of sewer deposits accumulated for centuries of false “Christianity” by limping Judaism and Gnostic magic — and to show the world the true teaching of Jesus, namely: CHRESTIANITY (from the word Chrestos — Good Lord, as the first Christians called Jesus until the fourth century)[19]. And this is what we will do, without further ado.

To do this, let’s select from the Gospels what has at least some chances of authenticity! And what is inherent in Jesus and His Teachings of the Son of God, sent by the Father to proclaim to mankind the Good News about the Kingdom of Heaven and Eternal Life for those chosen by Jesus by faith in Him — and let’s see what we get.

So, we have three sources of our sought — ChrEstianity: Thomas, John and Marcion, as the most reliable. Let’s look at them — what are they?

Ev. Thomas, apparently, the most ancient of the three, is presented in the form of a kind of common conversation between Jesus and his disciples — such is the form chosen by the evangelist (or evangelists). At the same time, mind the fact that the gospel was originally written in Greek and subsequently translated into the Said dialect of the Coptic language, which itself is a certain dialect of Greek. That is, all this was definitely not written by the apostles, by the illiterate Galilean fishermen from the God-forgotten outlying province of the Roman Empire, who spoke (and, doubtedly, wrote) Aramaic. At the same time, if we discard the artificial search for deep secret meanings connecting this set of sayings and dialogues with an allegedly secret semantic subtext and treat reading with an open mind, just like a text, then the modern reader — me — has a persistent feeling of a rather chaotic set of individual, in no way interconnected sayings, phrases, remarks, thoughts and random dialogues about everything and nothing — this is not a conversation at all, but a heap of all sorts of scraps of memories of Jesus, and probably not first-hand. This text, does not at all look like any kind of harmonious doctrine, it lacks not only internal coherence, not only a single composition of meaning, but the records themselves often look like a set of random, unrelated phrases.

I personally think and believe that this is precisely an unedited record of accidentally collected, whatever the writer was able to find, witness memoirs. They are the very oral “records of Jesus” that the narrators heard either from Jesus Himself or, rather, from one of the disciples, or even the disciples of the disciples about Jesus. That is so distorted an information set that to extract from it a coherent and consistent Teaching is the same as building a modern expensive convertible with the help of the wind blowing from a car scrapyard, so to speak.

To put it simply, this is a collection of folk wisdom, drawn from stray sources, recorded (in Greek) by no means — unfortunately — by a witness of Jesus, and not even from the words of His living witnesses, but only attributed to Jesus by popular rumor. And, perhaps, there will be echoes of the Teachings of Jesus in it, like grains among the husks of threshing, which will still have to be blown in the wind of common sense in order to reap a clean harvest. The task is not easy. And it is further complicated by the fact that the original listeners, the disciples of Jesus, were ignorant, illiterate and underdeveloped people who belonged to the bottom of the working people, and by no means to the top of the intellectual elite. And therefore the conceptual apparatus that they had at their disposal was by no means sufficient to accommodate the radically new Teachings of Jesus about the Unknown God, Eternal Life and the godlike immortal fate of Homo sapiens. This, I believe, explains the abundance of what can be classified as riddles, the solution of which should lead the reader to the saving through the Gnostic secret knowledge, which, as the Gnostics interpret, it is said in the prologue: “He who has found the interpretation of these words will not taste death.” I do not think that Jesus set himself the task of asking his disciples unsolvable riddles without solving them in order to deliberately confuse and torment, or thus train them in interpreting his riddles — apparently, they simply could not contain what He was trying to tell them using analogies, which, he hoped, would be more understandable to them than highly intellectual philosophical reasoning.

In addition, layering of both Jewish and Hellenic wisdom, mixed with gnostic wisdom, add difficulty to the task of separating the seeds of the Teachings of Jesus Himself from the chaff of alien teachings attributed to Him for the use of His authority.

And one more remark. During his lifetime, Jesus did not consider it necessary to initiate his disciples not only into the mysteries of heaven, but even into how the world actually works. However, according to the Gnostics, having appeared to them as the Risen One, for some reason he told in detail in the Gnostic texts of the Nag Hammadi library[20]about the heavenly structure and the war of the gods, forgetting, however, to tell something as simple as that the earth is round and revolves in the void around the sun. I personally consider the Gnostic wisdom that was forcedly imposed on Jesus in the Gnostic texts as a forgery no less shameless than the Judaizing falsification of the synoptic gospels carried out by the newborn church orthodoxy at the turn of 2—3 centuries.

So the more something mysterious in the records of Jesus in St. Thomas — the less we should trust it as the testimony of the living voice of Jesus. We will proceed from this logic in our selection. From the above, it becomes obvious that what is selected from this ancient gospel can be used only as an addition to something more solid and similar to a single harmonious logical construction, having at least some semblance of teaching as such.

As such a basis, I think, may well serve the gospel of John, which is, of course, a later attempt to unite scattered memories of events associated with Jesus, discussions, speeches, thoughts expressed by Him united by a common thoughtful philosophical and religious system, on which, being strung in a certain order, it turned into a kind of narrative that claims to be the story of Jesus’ teachings; narrative of a process of perception and cognition of the Master by his students, so that later they themselves become its evangelists. Such systems of views, of course, were created and cultivated for more than one year in the circle of the closest disciples of Jesus and their disciples and followers who had already gathered around them. This gospel, apparently, is the work of a whole team of authors, which, however, could have a single leader and inspirer, whose name was given to the gospel in his name, “from John” — or, perhaps, someone else who became the Teacher of apostles after Jesus. There is, however, the hope that this John was the beloved disciple of Jesus, John the Theologian, a young man who remembered many living facts and real events that were reflected in the gospel of his name. But there is another version, which we will consider in the course of our study of the gospel of John.

Finally, the Gospel of Marcion is, most likely, an artificial construct of the narration about the history of Jesus ‘preaching, made in the name of uniting the information about Jesus of the most varied reliability collected by the author into a single whole consistent teaching of the Good News, at least with the help of the chronological sequence of events in which Jesus’ utterances are written. In addition, by placing Jesus’ statements in an event context, the author strove to make it easier for readers to understand complex, often very abstract ideas and philosophical constructions of Jesus with the help of examples from everyday life circumstances. So it is hardly possible to take seriously the fantasy eventful surroundings of this rather late, in comparison with the two previous sources, as real events — especially if there is simply no mention of anything like this in the two previous sources.

A comparative example is the calling of the disciples in John and Marcion. Marcion (2,1—11; 3,13—16) (and the synoptics who copied him, Luke 5,7 …) describe the calling of disciples as a one-time phenomenon, very schematic, the reality of what is happening is very conditional. Something like this: Jesus preached, the surrounding people pressed him, he got into a boat that sailed from the shore and continued preaching until he finished. As a token of gratitude, he ordered to throw the net and rewarded the boatmen with an unprecedented catch — a miracle! Then he said; follow me, I will make you fishers of men — and they, abandoning everything, followed him, to where is unknown. All this gives a very deliberate edification, firstly, and secondly, the lack of vitality, stasis, sculpturality of the scene frozen in marble.

Another description is given by “John” (John 1: 36—51): two of John’s disciples see Jesus passing by, whom John the Baptist points out to them as “the lamb of God,” they, interested, follow him, he invites them to visit, they spend the whole day in conversation with him, then, in the evening, they bring Peter to Him, then, in the morning, Philip, then Philip calls Nathanael … — a whole series of living and very real events. Which leads to the formation of an inner circle of disciples gathered around Jesus. Not by a miraculous supernatural calling — but by their own will they chose Him as their own Teacher, being convinced by His words in conversation with Him. He was able not to subdue them with amazing miracles, but to convince in his own words, while leaving the choice for them, to their free will. Isn’t that what the Son of God the Heavenly Father should do with his beloved brothers in humanity, rather than his despised servants?

This very true life scene does not at all resemble the cold marble of the frozen scene of the vocation of the disciples, which horrified Peter by the terrible miracle of catching the fish they caught.

So our choice of the reliability of events is left to John, he has the first word in our future narrative.

Thus, summarizing the above, it can only be concluded that Judaizm and Gnosticism of the first followers of Jesus together brought Him Teaching into the jungle of Christianity in its present form, it actually being a marginal area of messianism in Judaism, and in fact proselytizing sect of Judaism-light for the non-Jews, in the form of universal human religion of Noachism (promoted by Judaism on the basis of common roots of all “Abrahamic” religions) — Christianity without the Son of God, whose divinity the jews cannot admit.

However, the task I see and set for myself — is to extract from available sources, and, after a deep analysis on the reliability of the content of the Gospels, clean, and present in an explicit form the teaching of Jesus, which he during the three years of evangelism shared with part of humanity accessible to him. And to prove that his ChrEstianity (from the word ChrEst — the Good Lord) has nothing to do with Judaism or with Abraham-ism, nor Gnosticism, nor even with the current Christianity, nor even with whatever religions still popular with humanity, as they are all — without exception — manifestations of ancient superstitious paganism.

We are not talking about writing a new gospel — failed attempts at this have already happened in history more than once, and have never been accepted by the People of God, either disappearing without a trace, sinking into oblivion, or taking their place in a series of apocrypha, which has no faith. It is rather, as I said, about cleansing the texts of Judaizing insertions and politically expedient for a specific historical moment of deliberate editing, which shamelessly put into the mouth of Jesus and attributed to Him what He never said or did because of his complete antagonism of the Jewish religion and its “god”, whom He directly called the devil, a murderer “from the beginning”.

Such attempts to combine the Gospel teachings into a single text were made earlier, including in ancient times. One of the first is “Diatessaron” (“δia τεσσ ρων”, literally “through four”) by Tatian, the original text of which has not survived to this day. This work, created probably in the late II century, enjoyed great prestige in the Syrian Church for several centuries. In it, Tatian combined all the canonical gospels in one narrative. So, since this text was not rejected by the Church and existed in it along with the canonical gospels for the first few centuries, until it disappeared in the depths of time, then the very attempt of such an act is not reprehensible and permissible, as it is not condemned by the conciliar consciousness of the Church. The purpose of this work is a similar attempt to compose the teaching of Jesus based on an in-depth analysis of sources and a comparison of those elements that have a chance of reliability.

Criteria

Before proceeding directly to the very process of compiling a single text, it is necessary to choose those tools and selection criteria that will help us free Jesus from a heap of sacred garbage, like Michelangelo, seeing his David in a block of marble, freed him with a hammer and chisels — only we need a broom, a mop, and a trash can as tools.

To do this, we will have to briefly summarize the results of our research in recent years, point by point:

1. God Jehovah, he is same as Yahweh, he is an unnamed Jewish god denoted in writing as a Tetragrammaton, he is Sabaoth, he is Adonai the Lord and is mentioned in six other nicknames in the Hebrew Bible, in Christianity called the Old Testament, is a fairytale character in Hebrew folklore. We are not talking about any real existence of this literary hero: he is the product of superstitious fears generated by the ignorance of ancient savages who animated and humanized formidable natural phenomena. That is, who created imaginary gods for themselves in their own image and likewise — the Jewish Yahweh is one of those many, similar to him in different cultures: Baal, Zeus, Perun, and so on.

2. The same applies to other gods, angels, demons and other fairytale creatures mentioned in the Hebrew Bible — which is indisputably proven by modern historical and archaeological science and is fully reflected in the review by S. Petrov “Here are your gods Israel. The pagan religion of the Jews”. And also most of the biblical characters and the events described in the bible are nothing more than old tales of a pseudo-heroic epic, invented over the centuries of enslavement, among the oppressed marginal people, a permanent inhabitant of a remote province in the backyard of great empires. There has never been: the creation of the world by the “gods” Elohim, Adam and Eve, created by another “god”, Jehovah, the Garden of Eden with a serpent and an apple, their children Cain and Abel, Noah with the flood, Abraham with Sarah, Joseph and his brothers, Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon, the prophet Elijah, as well as resettlement to Egypt, flight from Egypt, forty years of wandering in the desert and all the other “history” of the Jewish people, described in the Bible millennia later than the events mentioned in it.

3. Angelology, demonology and cosmology were borrowed from the Jewish pagan faith (as well as even more ancient pagan beliefs that borrowed all these fables from each other) by Christianity in a completely thoughtless and uncritical manner, and all this rubbish is still an indisputable part of the Christian sacred tradition, causing modern people ironic bewilderment, by its utterly comic archaism. However, the church cannot refuse a flat earth with a painted wooden sky on pillars today, since such ideas about the world are sanctified by the authority of the holiness of the fathers and cannot be refuted or even questioned within the framework of mainstream (catholic and orthodox) church teaching. Even a single recognition of injustice and apparent ignorance of holy teachers will cause a collapse of all the authority of two thousand years of… no less but the Divine Truth. We recognize the importance of the doctrine of the church, but question its foundation.

As for the category of angelic and demonic entities, their armies and worlds, there is a long, millennia-long history of gradual transformation from ancient superstitions into a pagan pantheon of many major gods and smaller gods, many of whom played a secondary role and performed official functions (for example, messengers, or perpetrators of punishments, executions, intimidations, judgments, and so on) assigned to the peoples under the main gods. How this evolution of myths, which ended in Judaism (IV of century BC) borrowed and learned from the Sumerian-Babylonian legends notions of whole special worlds beyond the visible world: heaven as the seat of the gods and of the angelic hosts, and hell (Sheol), as the place of residence of the souls of the dead before the general resurrection at the Last Judgment, and the demons tormenting them; enemies of the human race, led by the devil,.. all of this is traced in the most detailed way in the above- mentioned book of Petrov. S That is, there are no angelic ranks and the heavenly hosts, and there is no wickedness in high places and the world of demonic spirits, although so many believe passionately in such creatures and speak of them as the reality: — the saints, and sinners — Christians of all times and nations. All these are the later inventions of Christian dreamers, the fruit of their inflamed imagination, warmed up on the thong of ancient superstitious legends. The generalization of all this legendary “heavenly” hierarchy was compiled within the framework of the church teaching of Christianity in a book of the fifth century called “The Heavenly Hierarchy” [26] byunknown authors under the false name “Dionysius-Areopagite”, from 70 AD, who lived in first century, obviously, and not in the fifth century, he would not be able to live for that many years even if it was a miracle. The purpose of the forged authorship of this pseudo-epigraph, apparently, was to give more credibility by the authority of the apostle himself — as all this fabulous “heavenly army” looked so implausible even then for Christians of that time.

4. There were no holy animals Kerim (cherubim) and Saraf (seraphim)[27], borrowed by Christianity from the painful “prophetic” visions of the ancient Hebrew “seers”. Moreover, all the “prophecies” of these prophets, led by no means by the Spirit of God (which — despite church teachings did not descend on any of the people, except Jesus, until the day of Pentecost), suffer either from manic mental disorders with “visions” and “voices”, or the propaganda bias of custom-made manipulators. Visions of this entire fairy-tail hierarchy, it seems, occurred only in the troubled heads of various mentally unhealthy people, including the “holy prophets and visionaries.” All these are wholly and completely fictional characters, the product of either imagination, or disease based on superstitious fears and psychiatric “visions”.

As for the conjuncture-political side, as a rule, inherent in any prophecy, then the most accurate description of all these ancient biblical “prophecies” I met in the book by Latynina[28]about Jesus: “However, one thing should not be underestimated: the extremely pragmatic nature of Jewish theology. Under King Josiah this theology reflected the interests of Josiah surprisingly well, under Ezra this theology reflected the interests of Ezra remarkably well, and under the Hasmoneans it perfectly reflected the interests of the Hasmoneans.

All the prophecies that we have already cited in this book (and those that we have not cited yet) were made exclusively in retrospect and in favor of a completely specific political addressee. Only when they did not come true, their acualization was transferred to an indefinite future” — a devastating characteristic by a Jewish writer who cannot be suspected of being committed to Christianity.

5. Here’s what follows from all this for those who read the New Testament. There are many episodes in the New Testament related to the miracles of casting out demons both by Jesus and his disciples. And conversations with Him about this, His statements on this topic, attributed to him references to the devil, Satan, Beelzebub and demons. Based on what I said above, we must make a choice: either Jesus Himself believed in all this fairy-taly hierarchy and He Himself was at the mercy of these ancient superstitions — and in that case He cannot be the Omniscient God and the Son of God. Or all this was attributed to him by those who themselves believed in it, thought that Jesus also believed, and ascribed it to Him when writing the Gospels.The choice is not rich: just out of two. However, I personally choose the latter for myself, that is, I believe that the mention of angels and demons in the Gospels is attributed to Jesus by superstitious ignoramuses. For me, Jesus, being the Son of True God, undoubtedly possessed Divine Omniscience, and knew perfectly well how the world works and everything about the Kingdom of Heaven (“If I tell you about earthly things and you don’t understand what will happen if I start talking to you about Heavenly?” (Jn 3.12)) — and therefore, for me, any evangelical events and sayings of Jesus concerning: hell, demons, angels, demons expulsion, general bodily resurrection from the dead, the Second Coming, the Last Judgment, the End of the World and other eschatological expectations, again uncritically adopted into Christianity from the Hebrew biblical paganism. And as a result of this choice, I have a scalpel in my hands — the very criterion for selecting the reliability of the Gospel texts — with the help of which I can surgically cut out from the New Testament a malignant tumor of Judaism with its fairytale metastases in records, attributed to Jesus.

6. I believe that Jesus was not who He was so persistently presented both by the ancient beneficiaries of the gospel falsification, and by the current Judaizers, the seekers of the “historical Jesus”. Nothing about his ancestral Jewry, family, parents “from the clan of David”, the prophesied place and the circumstances of the birth, and his belonging to the Jewish religion since childhood: really we do not know anything from anywhere except the first chapters of the synoptic Gospels, clearly written later in front of Marcion gospel by unknown counterfeiters in the second half of the second century, when to get real facts about any of this was no longer possible. Same way how reliably nothing is known about Him at all until His appearance at the sermon. Due to the complete lack of information about the childhood, adolescence and youth of Jesus, it is simply impossible to say anything definite about this period of Jesus’ life — there is nothing to take information from, even hypothetical.

7. At the same time, it is quite grounded to suppose that Jesus the Galilean was not a Jew, because he could not be: in Galilee at that time there were no Jews-robbers hated by the population of Galilee only as gangs and military units during raids of the pagan Galileans [29]– robbers who infiltrated into Galilee. Jesus also was not a preacher of Judaism and the Hebrew god Jehovah, but denounced it, as the” devil " (John 8,44).

8. From non-biblical sources in general about Jesus, you can learn only two things: 1 — He had a brother named Jacob, which Josephus mentions[31], and therefore both mother and family; and 2 — Jesus is considered a FALSE prophet of Nazariteism[32], an ancient sect of the inhabitants of Galilee, who confessed a Mandean, non-Jewish god, whose belief was apparently borrowed from the Zoroastrians and brought to Judah from Babylon after the return of the Jews from captivity four hundred years before Christmas. But the true prophet of this religion was John the Baptist, whom, according to the Nazarene legend, Jesus betrayed as a teacher, creating his own sect and his own teaching, not Jewish and not Nazarene. John himself, apparently, was a Mandeus and Nazarene preacher of the Babylonian god Ahura Mazda [33], alien to the religion of Judaism, and was killed by the Jews precisely for this preaching. Attempts to portray him as a preacher of Judaism are obviously untenable, and the story of Herod’s impious marriage is a rather obvious “cover operation” for the murder of John precisely for preaching a “different” God.

9. Jesus was neither a disciple of John the Baptist, represented in the canonical gospels, as a Jewish prophet and preacher of Judaism, nor an apocalyptic prophet, nor the head-baptist of the sect of John after his death, as is presented in numerous writings of the “majority of scientists” of seekers of the “historical Jesus”. He confessed another — not Jewish and not Nazarene — God, the Heavenly Father, hitherto unknown to mankind, to which “He revealed” Him (John 1.18). And that is why He was declared by the Mandean-Nazarene sect of John — a false prophet.

10. Jesus himself, apparently, preached the True God, hitherto unknown to mankind (” No one has ever seen God; the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He revealed” Jn 1:18), His Heavenly Father, whose Son He became through the Birth from Above from Baptism by Spirit at a conscious age, about which He Himself speaks to Nicodemus in a memorable conversation given in ev. John (Jn 3.3—5)

“3 Jesus answered and said to him: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.

4. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?

5 Jesus answered: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Jesus, I suppose, has rejected the Hebrew pagan beliefs in the fairy Yahveh and turned him aside, as the fantasy of superstition, just denouncing them as a belief in “the Devil” (also quite fantastic character[34]), worship of the “prince of this world.” He did not feel any respect for the Jewish “law and prophets”, did not fulfill the prescriptions of the Torah and the Tanakh, and, according to the Gospel testimonies (cleansing them from strained excuses of Him as a good Jew, distinguished by a special zeal for observing not the letter, but the “spirit” of the law) deliberately violated the Jewish law in front of crowds of people, from whose fanatical reprisals against Him He was saved by the MIRACLE of God, which always spoke in His favor and righteousness.

11. I presume, contrary to Church Teachings, that while Jesus did resurrect, but not in the material body as the Jewish version says should precede the general resurrection of the dead in the bodies in the new world. Body is not needed to God. While His appearance in front of disciples if it ever happened, was understood by them, as a return to life of his dead and buried (or somehow vanished) flesh. Those who were resurrected earlier by Jesus, if such actually existed, later died again, since the life of the body does not exist outside this world, and it is mortal by its nature. By the way, Thomas Didyme, who is called “Thomas the Unbeliever” in the church tradition, in his gospel somehow does not mention either the Resurrection or the appearance of the Risen Jesus personally to him. Which, we must admit, is strange, if, of course, we accept the version that this gospel was written by Thomas himself, as his personal memories of Jesus. And it is not, as we suggested above, just a sequential record of the testimonies of many different eyewitnesses collected by an unknown individual, not related to each other. The assumption that Thomas, according to the testimony of John, who put his hand into the “nail plagues” on the body of the Risen One, while writing his own gospel, could forget to mention this fact, seems absolutely incredible.

It seems quite possible that the legend of the bodily resurrection arose and took root in the Judeo-Christian environment, and was even mentioned by Paul as a tribute to the same notorious Judaization with its prophecies about the general resurrection of the dead — “on the last day”. To the contrary, the resurrection of Jesus as God in the kingdom of Heaven opened to mankind Him as the Way in which everyone who accepts the good news about the beginning of eternal life here and now, will resurrect together with Jesus as his brother in the kingdom of the Heavenly Father — “transfer from death to life” (John 5,24).

12. In the Gospel of Marcion (13.16) and the synoptics who followed him, Jesus Himself asserts that the Jewish Covenant, “the Law and the Prophets” — is before John the Baptist (Luke 16.16). While after him comes the Son of God, who brings the message of the Kingdom of Heaven, which should not be expected in the mythical coming resurrection of the dead, it is available to any person directly in earthly life, although it requires special efforts (“taken by force”). This is the new faith, understood in the most general sense of the Teachings of Jesus as the Good News of the approach of the kingdom of heaven, about it entering a person’s life here and now, and the person entering into eternal life with God immediately, without delay to an uncertain future of the Jewish prophecies. So all references to this uncertain future must be removed from the Good News of Jesus.

13. It should also be taken into account that the authors of the Gospels of John and Marcion (let me reiterate that the names of Gospels do not indicate the real authorship, who the real authors are — only God knows), not to mention the synoptics, when writing, added from themselves not only the Jewish component, but also the Hellenic one. A typical example of this kind is the whole legend of the immaculate “seedless conception” of the Ever-Virgin: in the Hellenic tradition, this is a typical way of glorifying and elevating outstanding people.[35]. For example, even Plato the philosopher was also supposedly conceived immaculately. At the same time, for the Jews, conception without a seed is folly and blasphemy. So the creator of “Luke” pandered to the tastes of both types of its customers: both Judaism and Hellenism. And even further: tended to newly-born hierarchy that appeared all of a sudden from nowhere in the Brotherhood of Jesus at the turn of the century, proclaiming itself and only itself the bearers and distributors of the Holy Spirit blessing, the heirs to the apostles of Jesus Himself, who supposedly put his hands on the disciples in order to especially sanctify them and put them as bosses of “the herd”… tended to them in support of their divine sacred origin “from apostles” through the succession of “laying on of hands.” This cunningly woven lie is very easily refuted from the fairy-tale like Acts written for the same purpose: Paul himself, who introduced this fashion of making bishops through the laying on of hands, was never placed in this way by anyone, either an apostle or a bishop, but only accepted the usual Baptism through Ananya the disciple, that is, just an ordinary follower of Jesus (Acts 9: 10—19). All this and the like, the deliberately fairy-tale content of the gospels and New Testament as a whole is subject to unconditional removal and unquestioning eradication from the compilation of the conditionally authentic Teachings of Jesus.

Therefore, summing up all of the above in the 13 points, on the basis of the system of selection that we determined and its criteria, we have to establish and highlight some of the pivotal events of ev. John and Marcion, the conditionally reliable ones, on the basis of which it is possible to build a story, while understanding all the conventionality of all the other “events” used by the authors of the Gospels to give greater event credibility to the words of Jesus, placed in certain circumstances for the sake of explaining what He wanted to say Himself, or what the authors of the gospels wanted to say through His mouth. And, finally, to place in the context of the selected events the words of Jesus from the sources listed above: the gospels of Thomas, John, Marcion, Luke, Matthew and Mark, selected on the basis of the same criteria, which we accept as conditionally reliable.

This is an approximate concept of a possible selection of Gospel verses into a single text of the future “Gospel of Jesus”.

Gospel of John, Analysis

John, chapter 1. Prologue John 1,1—18

For many years, serving on Easter and reading the “Prologue” of the Gospel of John during the Easter Mass (the first 18 verses of the first chapter), I felt a sense of reverence and admiration for the greatest wisdom of mankind, enclosed in 18 lines (John 1.18) … And, having never understood anything from it, not a word at all, I hoped that someday I would grow to accommodate and comprehend this wisdom.

Be afraid of your desires, they can come true.

As part of our investigation into the origin of the Gospel texts, let us proceed to chapter 1 of ev. John.

It is important to understand that — and this is acknowledged by all biblical scholars — the Prologue is not part of Gospel from John, but only precedes him — the gospel itself begins with the 19th verse.

That is, verses 1 to 18 are not what Jesus said and taught, are not his teachings and the Good News or a story about him and his gospel — but represent a certain philosophical doctrine of God, worked out among the disciples and followers, presumably, John the Evangelist circle. It is their collective idea of the God whom Jesus preached, and of Himself as the Son of this God.

And what are these ideas? Unfortunately, here we meet as many as three levels or heaps of Jewish, Gnostic and finally Hellenic wisdom.

Let’s analyze.

Chapter 1, verses 1—2: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 It was in the beginning with God.”

At the beginning of what? God is without beginning. This means that His Word is without beginning. Here, obviously, the beginning means the biblical creation of the world: “1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the water” — what was before, and what God was BEFORE the act of creation, the Bible is silent about it, but in the act of creation this god is Ellohim, (Gods). The plural for word “God” (El) — what does it mean? Apparently, the pagan “Pantheon” of gods, which the Jewish Bible (this is the official scientific name of Old Testament) and earlier sources mention time and again. And in John 1.1, what God is this? In the Greek original, Θεός, that is, just God, but in Hebrew this “just God” Θεός = אֱלֹהִים, that is, all the same Ellohim (Gods)! There is clearly a return to the biblical version of the Creation.

Therefore, it is about the same Jewish gods again: either Ellohim (Gods) from the first chapter of the book of Genesis, or Yahweh from the second chapter.

Simply put, the penetration of Judaism elements is detected — first, but not at all last. Whoever was the author of this verse of the prologue, he is a Jew by faith, this is obvious.

Next begins the manipulation of the concept of Word. If God Himself is the Word, then how can He have the Word — he has Himself or what?

We find the answer in William Barclay’s work, he is professor of theology at the University of Glasgow. From his book Commentaries on John: “For over a hundred years before the birth of Christ, the Hebrew language was forgotten. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but the Jews, with the exception of scholars, no longer knew it. Therefore, the Old Testament had to be translated into Aramaic so that people could understand it. These translations were called ‘Targumi’. Targumi were created in an era when people were filled with the thought of the transcendence of God and could only think that God was very distant and completely incomprehensible (the idea of the transcendence of the mono-God was borrowed by post-captive Judaism from Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian Captivity of the Jewish people — auth.) And therefore, the people who were engaged in the preparation of Targumi were afraid that human thoughts, feelings and actions would be attributed to God. In other words, they made every effort to avoid, when it comes to God, Yahvist anthropomorphism (humanization).”

That is why the authors of the targums began to replace the “too human-like” God everywhere in the text of the Tanakh with the WORD of God, as His creative power. Which turned out to be very consonant with the idea of the divine Logos (Word), which created the world and governs it, which was prevalent in Greek-speaking philosophy for over four hundred years, starting with Heraclitus. And although the Jews themselves by the time when Jesus lived had long abandoned both the Targums, returning to Hebrew, and from God’s Word, as from a heresy that was planted in Judaism by Philo of Alexandria, this very idea turned out to be very useful for the evangelist, who sought to substantiate the Divinity of Jesus for recently pagan Christians: “You have thought, written and dreamed for centuries about the divine Logos. Jesus is this Logos who descended to the earth”, ” The Word became flesh”, — the author of the Prologue told about Jesus to the former Greek-pagans Hellenic-Christians what they understood.

All this wisdom is a mixture of Jewish religious and Hellenic philosophical ideas in the name of the Teachings of Jesus “to pass more easily” so that new converts do not choke on what is “for the Jews it is a temptation, for the Hellenes it is madness.” This is the usual propaganda of religious innovation.

Let’s read on.

3—5 “Everything through Him began to be, and without Him nothing began to be that began to be. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” This is philosophical poetry, on which hundreds of books have been written. But God is still the same — Jewish one.

“6 There was a man sent from God; his name is John. 7 He came for a testimony, to testify of the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not a light, but was sent to testify of the Light. 9 There was a true light that enlightens every person who comes into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own did not accept him. 12 But to those who accepted him, believing in his name, he gave authority to be children of God, 13 who neither of blood, nor of the desire of the flesh, nor of the desire of a husband, but of God they were born. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father”

From which God? All the same, from the Jewish Yahweh, (in Judaism of Jesus’ times the difference sin interpretations was already explained by the fact that the God in the Bible is the same, only the names are different). And here suddenly the Light appears, which is: true — in what sense? Light is matter, now we know this, but the evangelist did not. And therefore he gets confused in the matter: he speaks of light sometimes as the actual light, sometimes — light in a figurative sense, and the light is starting to assume the mystical meaning of divine origins. If we mean the “light of reason”, then those who come into the world will not reach the reason to soon, and it is mainly those around them that enlighten them. Let us recall the “Mowgli” found in India — it remained a beast, since the “light of reason” did not touch him outside of human society, in the absence of human communication. If, however, Light is the Creative Power of God (“the world began to be through Him”), then there are already two Creative Powers, and even three, or even four: besides the Word and Light, there is also Spirit and Wisdom mentioned elsewhere. But the key to this is simple — all this is a reference to the secret knowledge of the Gnostic doctrine. That is, in addition to the religious Jew and the Hellenic philosopher, the Gnostic also had a hand in the Prologue. Then “he came to his own and his own did not accept him” — a return to Judaism, his own — these are God’s chosen Jews, who else? “And to those who accepted” — here is the beginning of the “theology of replacement” developed and preached by Paul: the Jews killed the Messiah in the person of Jesus, and therefore Jehovah’s Choice passed to those who believed that Jesus is the very Messiah, the Anointed One, the King Jewish.

“He gave the power to be children of God, who… were born of God” — and only here is the speech of Jesus about the Beginning from Above, about the Son of God of all who believed in the Heavenly Father and His Son of God Jesus Christ (the good). And then — again a rollback to Judaism-Hellenism-Gnosticism in verse 14. “The only begotten of the Father” — what is that? These are religious and philosophical disputes that lasted until the 4th century of the “only begotten or consubstantial” type, and have not been completely resolved to this day. In the Greek text, μονογενής is the only begotten, the only one. That is, the old pompous word confuses and hides the true meaning: the only son of his father, He is the only son of the Father, born by the Father Himself, nothing unusual. Here is just one question: how would a mortal person who wrote the Prologue know about the family circumstances of God Himself? Moreover, to dare to tell these God’s family details in a completely earthly way, describing the relationship between fathers and children? From this point of view, such statements look like unscientific fantasy: why would God reveal his family secrets to mere mortals? Thus, it turns out that from the Teachings of Jesus here there is only, for the first time, the definition of God: not just an impersonal collective name for the Jewish names of God, but by the name revealed to us by Jesus. It is this line that most vividly indicates the late editing of the text dating back to the beginning of the theological battles waged by the “Orthodox” with the “Gnostics” from the second century.

Let’s proceed.

“15 John testifies of Him, and, exclaiming, says: This was the One about whom I said that He who followed me stood in front of me, because he was before me.”

Where did he say, to whom did he say and when? –Well, in the following story about the visit of John by the Pharisees. The author of the Prologue reveals himself: he first read the Gospel of John, and then wrote the prologue to it. That is, he put the cart in front of the horse.

“16 And from His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace,” — of whose fullness, Jesus fullness? What is meant by fullness? In the church teaching there is the concept of the Fullness of the Holy Spirit, which the Church possesses, But “grace upon grace” draws more attention. That is, it turns out, you can add a little more Spirit to the Spirit of God, strengthen God, multiply Him, increase Him? Since God is the Spirit, then either he is present in all his Fullness or not at all, the Spirit is not divided into parts. But, in any case, this is the subject of theological controversy much later than the supposed time of the writing of the gospel at the end of the first century.

“17 for the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ "- ah!, that’s the point: after all, some implicit, but certainly saving part of grace, it turns out, was contained in the Jewish Law given by Moses, and Jesus added to it his grace-truth, and then the graceful grace happened: the Old Testament merged with the New one. On this basis, today an idea is being carried out and a new, revolutionary idea is being put forward about the equal salvation capability of the New and Old Testaments: for Christians, Salvation is in Jesus, and for the Jews — in the Torah..

To the obvious absurdity of this multi-storey religious structure, it remains — for “fullness” — to add that, according to modern scientific views, biblical heroes, including the above-mentioned Moses and the Jewish ancestral god Yahweh-Jehovah himself, are fictional heroes, and the entire biblical history of the Jewish people — a collection of folk tales and, of course, a fantasy. As for “through Jesus Christ,” the very attachment: Christ = Mashiach = King of the Jews, which is expected by the Jews according to the biblical OT-prophecies, to the Name of Jesus, reveals that the author of the Prologue a Messianic Jew.

“18 No one has seen God at any time; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed "- and how can this true statement be combined with all the previous? And how can this be Jehovah, whom so many had seen already: Adam and Eve, Abraham with Sarah, and Moses (from behind) and even Elijah the prophet, and who appeared to many biblical characters from behind, from the front, or even sideways, and even in the form of pillars and other horror stories, and more than once arranged personal beatings with or without reason. And again, editorial interference in the text: “the Only Begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father”- all this, I dare to insist, is a reflection of much later theological disputes that theologically, have never been completely resolved. And the victors, the “Orthodox” (church orthodox) prevailed only exclusively by “police” measures — as always. “I am the Father in the bosom” is lost in translation, hinting both at Jehovah and at the “pregnancy” of God with his Son. But in fact ὁ κόλπος πατήρ literally means “the one who is on the father’s chest”, that is, simply “beloved.” “He revealed”: ἐκεῖνος — he who; ἐξηγέομαι — to tell, show. So, in sum: “No one has ever seen God; the only beloved son told about Him”.

Whoever the author of the Prologue was, he was definitely not a disciple of Jesus.

John Chapter 1, continued

Well, let us pass, however, to ev. John from verse 19, what do we see? Priests and Pharisees came to John from Jerusalem to find out who he is. So what? He announced to them that he was not Christ (Messiah-Messiah-Anointed-King of the Jews), neither Elijah, nor a prophet — but who are you? Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness: Correct God’s Ways — Like Isaiah the Prophet[37]said. About Isaiah and his sophisticated prophecies suddenly recalls the one who appeared from the wilderness, where he was, according to Luke, from infancy (Luke 1.80: “80 But the baby grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts until the day of his appearance to Israel” — this is all about him), overgrown with wild hair and never washed in life, a prophet, a savage, illiterate.

Does God need to clear the road?

And then — a question to him from the sent priests and Pharisees: why do you baptize?

From the point of view of the Jews, the question is meaningless and insane — what kind of baptism by washing with water from a river “for the remission of sins”? Sin is forgiven only by a bloody life-for-life sacrifice and nothing else. If they were sent to John, it was only for the purpose of arrest, trial and execution for blasphemy: “who can forgive sins, except God?”

Further, John elaborates before the Pharisees about “going in front” to baptize with the Spirit — who would listen to him. But the most interesting is yet to come. “28 This took place at Bethabar near Jordan, where John baptized” — in the ancient codes it is written in Bethany [38], and later converted to “Bethavar”, that is, “river crossing or ferry” — let’s remember this. Bethany is located three kilometers from Jerusalem, and thirty to fifty kilometers from Jordan, so John could hardly baptize “in Jordan” in Bethany, and therefore pious editors in later lists transported the obviously impossible Bethany to some faceless “ferry” (through Jordan, of course), which must have been on the Jewish side somewhere opposite Jerusalem, in the Jericho area — in general, no matter, geography is not a master’s science, and the authors of the Gospel are clearly at odds with it. This is followed by a whole speech, addressed to an unknown person, very pathetic: when the Jewish inspectors left, literally the next day, John suddenly sees Jesus (walking towards him) and speaks about Him to someone undefined,: “Behold the Lamb of God.”

“29 The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God who takes on himself the sin of the world.

29 — firstly, he sees Jesus coming to him and immediately recognizes in Him the one who was predicted to him — but how? Second, in what sense is he the lamb that takes away the sins of the world? Only in one way: the lamb was slaughtered and burned in the Jewish ritual sacrifice “for the atonement of sins”, and it turns out that Jesus was by his Father-God intended “for the atonement of sins” as a sacrifice to Himself? Whatever Heavenly Father, sounds like Ivan the Terrible, killing his own son. And thirdly, it is strange to hear about the Jewish sacrifice from exactly the man who himself canceled this sacrifice, replacing it with penitential washing “for the remission of sins.”

“30 This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man who was ahead of me because he was before me” — the very thing that the author of the Prologue could not avoid mentioning before (see John 1, 15) — that is, the idea of the eternal existence of Jesus as the Word of God is being imposed.

“31 I Didn’t Know Him; but for this he came to baptize in water, so that He might be revealed to Israel. 32 And John testified, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and staying on Him. 33 I did not know Him; but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me: on whom you will see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. 34 And I saw and testified that this is the Son of God.”

Long explanation by John as to why when he saw Jesus, he said, that he is “the Lamb of God.” That is — he sees the Spirit upon Him in the form of a dove, although Jesus has not even approached him yet, let alone has not been baptized? Then why does he speak about it in the past tense, if he saw it right now? If one saw such a thing, he would not “testify”, but, probably, would have yelled and jumped from a happy shock. Another cart ahead of the horse: he had just seen him walking, but had already seen the Spirit in the form of a dove descending on Him — when and where? But — again — not a word about the baptism of Jesus: just on whom you see the Spirit in the form of a dove, that is the One.

35 The next day John stood again and two of his disciples.36 And when he saw Jesus walking, he said, Behold the Lamb of God.

Déjà vu, the return of the story to the same place, only as if again the next day.

All this, of course, is good — but where is the very Baptism of Jesus by John? There is none, because there was none!

Many generations of interpreters asked the question: why should Jesus, the sinless Son of God, God Himself, the Word and the Light, described a couple of lines above, be baptized “for the remission of sins”? Even the authors of the synoptic gospels, who thoughtlessly copied from John what was not there at all — about the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove on Jesus baptized by John during baptism — were also embarrassed. And Mathew even came up with the formula “for this is how we must make all righteousness” (Mathew 3, 15) — what righteousness of baptism “for the remission of sins” can there be, if the Son of Man is without sin?

I would like to declare — there was no “righteousness” in the Baptism of Jesus “for the remission of sins,” which in itself is already a lie. As there was neither this baptism itself, nor the descent of the Spirit “in the form of a dove”, nor the “Lamb of God” — all this is a big bunch of lies, lies “for salvation” from I don’t know what.

What happened? It is deducted from the gospel like two and two.

Jesus had come to John the day before to denounce him as a false prophet of the Gnostic Mandean-Nazarene teaching, seducing the people by faith in a false God, and pointed him to the True God, the Heavenly Father and Himself as the Son of God. But John did not believe Him — he had too much to lose: the Nazarene prophet at the zenith of glory and veneration, the Baptist of the people “for the remission of sins”, tens and hundreds of disciples, crowds of adorers — it was difficult to give up all this, declare it a delusion and false teaching, and follow Jesus, become His disciple. But this is precisely what can be traced in all his previous assurances: the one who has stood in front of me is following me, I am not worthy to untie his shoes, He baptizes with the Spirit, He is the Lamb of God — having met such, it would be time for John to drop everything and go to him as a disciple. However, as we can see, this is not happening. Why?

He didn’t believe it — that’s why. Because he was a Nazirite, a Manda teacher and prophet who preached another, non-Jewish, god of pre-Christian Nazarene Gnosticism, the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda, whom he was taught in the family of a Nazarene teacher, and not at all in the family of a Jewish priest (who came from where in pagan Galilee — is a big question). And then it is understandable why the next day they disperse like strangers: Jesus walks by and does not even greet him, and John does not greet Him either. But he sends two closest students. Pointing to the Lamb of God? Oh no, sir. He sends them to convince Jesus, to prove that the real prophet and teacher is himself, John. And they go obediently. But the result surpassed the intentions…

And here it is appropriate to remember about Bethabar, in which John allegedly baptized. From outskirts of Jericho to Nazareth it is about 150 kilometers. Imagine: the next day after the meeting between Jesus and John, and the never happening “baptism” of Jesus by John, they meet again — but this time in Galilee, as is obvious from the following text. Have they covered one and a half hundred kilometers from the Dead Sea to Nazareth overnight — on cars with personal drivers? Doubtedly. John did not baptize in Judea, he baptized in pagan Galilee, in Bethabar near the Sea of Galilee, where he did not risk being caught and arrested for anti-Jewish “blasphemy.” And no Pharisees went to him except with the guards to capture — as indeed happened as soon as John stuck his head out with his sermon to Samaria, on the border with Judea (“And John also baptized in Aenon, near Salem, because there was a lot of water there” Jn 2:23): where he was immediately captured by zealots, sentenced and executed as a detractor of Jewish Law. That was later masked by the synoptics by the absurd disarray in the royal family.

Bethabar, in fact, means a crossing, that is, a place where the river becomes so shallow that you can wade it easily. Such a passage, presumably, was about three kilometers from Capernaum up the river — it was here, apparently, that John baptized. On the other side of the Jordan was the village of Bethsaida Julia, and, apparently, John found a shelter there. It can be assumed that Jesus came to him in the village to talk, and he also found a place for himself there for the night. But in order to get to the village, you had to enter the river. Perhaps the myth about the baptism of Jesus by John is connected with the fact that, having met with John, Jesus went with him to the village where John lived, to talk, and together they entered the water, crossing the river.

By the way, in the Mandean sacred books, discovered by science just a century ago, along with the John the Baptist, who is portrayed as a great prophet, teacher and martyr of the pre-Christian Gnostic Nazarite, Jesus is declared a false prophet, a traitor to John and a detractor of the Nazarene doctrine. So, it seems, something went wrong: Jesus brings the disciples of John, the Nazarenes, Andrew the First-Called and the future John the Theologian, to where? Home in Nazareth? No, it’s about fifty miles from Capernaum to there. In the Greek text, the word μένω is used, which means “to stay” — that is, Jesus temporarily stopped somewhere, apparently to meet with John. And, most likely, in Capernaum, from where he came to meet with John, he spent the night with him in Bethany in conversation, they did not find common grounds, and Jesus leaves back to Capernaum, where he brings the disciples of John, and they spend with him a full day in a conversation that shakes them so much that they completely and forever forget about John. At night, Andrei rushes to another city nearby, to Bethsaida, three kilometers from Capernaum, to inform his elder brother, Simon-Peter, that they have “found the messiah” (what kind of messiah if they are disciples of John the Baptist, Nazarenes and believe in another, non-Jewish god? This is clearly an insert that aims to make Jesus a Jew), and leads Peter to Jesus. Apparently, they spend the night in conversations, and in the morning they run first to Philip, and then to Nathanael — they are all friends and, of course, participants and disciples of the John sect, so that all references to the “messiah” and phrase that “from Nazareth can there be anything good” in terms of the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies: these are just absurd Judaizing insertions, which we will continue to meet in abundance.

And what is it that Jesus tells Nathanael that Nathanael, shocked, although he had just been skeptical saying “what good is from Nazareth”, suddenly immediately falls on his face before Jesus with the words “You are the Son of God”? What a change! “I saw you under the fig tree” — Jesus said, and what does it mean, what mystery is behind these words that shocked Nathanael with its revelation? I personally have long guessed it: Nathanael, the gardener, in the depth of the garden under the fig tree had a secret, hidden from prying eyes shelter where he spent time during the afternoon heat, praying to God, being a secret prayer, ascetic. And it is this fact, which no one but God could know, Jesus saw through the Spirit. No one has seen Nathanael under the fig tree, except God, and this episode gives us hope that God accepts the prayers of even those who turn to him with all their hearts, even if they do not know the true God.

It is worth adding that the mention of Nathanael as a “true Israelite” is clearly added later, all with the same purpose. Nathanael was a gardener in Galilee, not in Judea.

This is the story of the “calling” of disciples by Jesus — it was not He who chose them, but they chose Him out of their own free will, the free will of people, which God never forces!

Conclusion: There was no Baptism of the Lord “from John” and the Spirit of God did not descend on Jesus in the “form of a dove”. And in general there was no need for Jesus the Son of God in all this absurd baptism-washing with water from the river “for the remission of sins” — the Son of God is already sinless. And the man-Jesus, born of earthly parents, does not need the “forgiveness of original sin”, because, being the Son of God, he knows that all these idle biblical tales are all the same traditional ancient Jewish paganism, and no “original sin” over humanity in reality gravitated, because it simply did not exist. Jesus Himself, as we will see below, never baptized neither with water nor the Spirit, Jesus was never a disciple of John the Baptist, He was not the performer of the prophecies “about the Mashiach,” and He was neither a Jew nor a Nazirite. Water baptism for the remission of sins is an ancient Mandean tradition of pre-Christian Gnosticism, and has nothing to do with Jesus and His Teachings, CHRESTIANISM.

Thus, the dry remainder of the first chapter of John:

1 No one has seen God at any time; Jesus, the Father’s beloved and only Son, spoke about Him. And to those who received Him, believing in His name, He gave the authority to be children of the Father, who were born neither of the blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a husband, but of the Father.

2 John sees Jesus walking towards him

3On the next day, John stood again and two of his disciples. And when he saw Jesus walking, he said

4Having heard these words from him, the two disciples followed Jesus.

5 And Jesus, turning and seeing them walking, saith to them: What do you want? They said to Him: Rabbi, which means teacher, where do you live?

6 He says to them: go and see. They went and saw where He lives; and stayed with him that day. It was about ten o’clock.

7One of the two who heard about Jesus from John and followed him was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.

8He first finds his brother Simon and saith to him, We have found;

9and brought him to Jesus. And Jesus, looking at him, said: You are Simon the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas, which means: a stone (Peter).

10The next day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee

11Philip was from Bethsaida, from the same city with Andrew and Peter.

12 Philip finds Nathanael and says to him: We have found Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth.

13 But Nathanael said to him, Can anything good be out of Nazareth? Philip says to him: go and see.

14Jesus, seeing Nathanael coming to Him, says of him: Behold, indeed, in whom there is no guile.

15Nathanael saith to him, Why do you know me? Jesus answered and said to him: Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.

16Nathanael answered him, Rabbi! You are the Son of God

17 Jesus answered and said to him: You believe, because I told you: I saw you under a fig tree; you will see more than this.

That’s all!

John, chapter 2

In this chapter, a very important event takes place — a miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. Small everyday details, very vital and obviously not invented, convince in the reliability of the narrative.

“1 On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the Mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and His disciples were also called to the marriage” — what disciples could be “called to the marriage”, if they had just started to be with Him? Three — John, Andrew and Simon — on the second day counting from the meeting of Jesus with John; two more — Philip and Nataniel — on the very third day in question; there is also John’s brother James or Jacob (Zebedee), who is not mentioned here. Also, apparently, Thomas — we will meet with him later, but he comes from the same place, which follows from the list of the disciples who returned to Galilee from Jerusalem after the Passion of Jesus: (John 21,2) “and Nathanael from Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others from His disciples”- it is obvious that Thomas belongs to the same company. The mentioned ‘two others’ are, presumably, all the same Philip and someone else from the Galileans, not named. In total — eight. Jesus’ mother was invited to the wedding, and this is understandable — but what does Jesus and his disciples have to do with it? And another question — why is Mary invited alone, without her husband?

Apparently, the father of Jesus, conditionally — Joseph, since information about him is found only from records by the synoptics, who we have no faith in, by that time he had already died, Mary remained a widow, but it was indecent for the woman to appear alone at the wedding, and Jesus, as the eldest son, had to accompany her. And the disciples, as is typical of youth, simply followed him — it is more fun together. In the future, we will return to this assumption; there is confirmation of it in the text.

By the way, we note that it is the presence of Jesus at the wedding that destroys the pious legend about the origin of His brothers and sisters as step-siblings: as if Joseph had them from the first marriage and then married Mary after his first wife died; and that Mary gave birth without husband’s participation; and therefore Jesus was the “youngest” in Joseph’s family. No, he was precisely the eldest son, the duty to protect the honor of the mother passed to Him from the late father in seniority — and that is why He, the only one of Mary’s children, accompanies her at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. And he was born, like his younger siblings, from their father, Maria’s husband, in a legal marriage.

“3 And as there was a lack of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him: they have no wine. 4 Jesus said to her: what is to me and you, woman? My hour has not yet come. 5 His mother said to the attendants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”

There are many meanings hidden in this small episode.

A wedding is an expensive and even ruinous business for a poor family — and then Jesus brings with him a whole bunch of guys who are not shy to eat and drink. And Mary feels awkward in front of the family of the newly-wed, feels guilty for the lack on the table that was not prepared for a whole group of extra strangers — and therefore she turns to Jesus with reproach, hinting that the lack happened because of them. Jesus answers her, as modern sons do to their mothers in a similar situation: “This is not our problem,” and adds that His “hour has not come,” that is, the time has not yet come for what? For what happens next. That is, these two KNOW. They know that Jesus is the Son of God and that EVERYTHING in this world is available to Him. And therefore, Mary, without entering into an argument, puts Him in a position without a choice: His duty to correct the created inconvenience for her is obvious, and He has no right to refuse, even referring to the untimeliness of His Divine intervention. She no longer speaks to Him, but to the attendants: do as He tells you. Well, he won’t send them to the store for wine, will he? And they don’t have much money to get the whole feast drunk.

And Jesus humbles himself before his mother’s will.

“6 There were six stone waterpots here, standing according to the Jewish custom of cleansing, containing two or three measures” — what kind of Jewish customs can be obeyed in pagan Galilee?

In general, a separate comment should be made on this topic, since the absurd insertions about Jewish customs and similar points will continue to appear often. Therefore, you need to understand what Galilee was in the time of Jesus. In order not to delve into a major historical study, let’s take a brief reference from Wikipedia:

“Galilee is a historical area in the north of Israel. In the 3rd millennium BC. e. Galilee was settled by the Canaanites. In the 2nd millennium BC. e. here the Hurrians, Hittites and Egyptians appear. Then the country comes to the attention of the Israeli tribes and is included in the kingdom of Israel. In 722 BC. e. Galilee is part of the Assyrian state, the local population is evicted and replaced by Assyrian colonists. In 539 BC. e. Galilee comes under the rule of Persia. In 333 BC. e. from the Persians, Galileo was captured by the troops of Alexander the Great, and the colonization of the lands by Greek and Macedonian colonists began. After this period, Galilee changed hands several times between the Hellenistic dynasties of the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Syrian Seleucids, until the conquest of Galilee by Rome in 63 BC. e.

From the reign of the Hasmoneans and the Maccabean Wars to the conquest by Roman troops in 63 BC. e. Galilee was repeatedly subjected to predatory raids by the Kingdom of Judah. In the 1st century A.D. e. Judas Galilean[42]together with several Jewish priests, started riots in the city of Sepphoris, which provoked the arrival of Roman troops in Galilee, as a result of which it was devastated, most of the local population was killed, and the rest were sold into slavery by the Romans. From the period of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in the 70s A.D. e. begins the mass migration of Jews to the devastated Galilee, the development of the territories of Galilee and Samaria, the development and construction of synagogues. In 636, Galilee was annexed to the Jordanian province of the Caliphate.”

This publication builds on a fundamental study of the history of Galilee[43], from which and others like it it is composed.

Is everything clear, it seems? There were no Jews in Galilee in the time of Jesus and could not have been. They were there only with robber raids, like bandits — and, of course, the Galilean population treated them like enemies. And the Galileans themselves were a mix of languages, which is why the Jews also called ths land “Galilee pagan.” In Galilee, apparently, representatives of many nations lived alongside, with their gods, faiths and religions, among which only one was missing — the Jewish with the Law of their evil and vengeful god-Yahweh. They dreamed of the genocide of those who lived in the territory which used to be theirs, as memory had it.

So, no Jewish customs were observed at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, and none of those present at it was a Jew — including Jesus, His Mother, and His disciples — they were not Jews, and they could not be. And from this point of view, the entire Gospel story begins to look completely different from what it is presented like in the canon of the New Testament and in church teaching. And the absurdity of Judaizing inserts and patches like the above one about “Jewish customs” becomes obvious.

Now further on the water carriers. In general, even in the most remote village, you go in and see a row of buckets of water on the bench — their presence in the house does not require following “Jewish customs”. Simply put, there were several buckets for water in the wedding hall: in case someone should wash or drink, or for household needs — they did not have a plumbing in those days. So Jesus says to the servants:

“7 Jesus says to them: Fill the vessels with water. And they filled them to the top. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw now, and take it to the chief of the feast. And they carried it. 9 When the steward had tasted the water that had become wine — and he did not know where the wine came from, only the servants who drew the water knew — then the steward calls the bridegroom10 and says to him: every man serves good wine first, and when guests get drunk, then the worse; and you have kept good wine until now.”

And here’s what is interesting: the servants, who scooped up wine from the waterpots, did not notice the miraculous transformation — why? I realized this at the market in Cana of Galilee, buying homemade wine from the locals — it was white! White wine when poured in the stone vessel looks no different than water!

“11 So Jesus started miracles in Cana of Galilee and showed His glory; and His disciples believed in Him”- and this is the end,, the point is set — it would seem. But no, the narration continues, and this sequel reminds me of the overture from the puppet show “Unusual Concert”, if anyone has seen it. There, this overture ends with a pretentious ending — and then starts to continue again — and so it does ten times over, it just won’t end. So it happens here as well — and this immediately suggests that the second chapter, already completed by the witnessing of a miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee by John, the future author of the Gospel, and thus completed; but someone really wanted to continue.

We read on.

“12 After this He came to Capernaum, Himself and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and stayed there for a few days”- so, wait a minute,, why — in Capernaum? From Cana to Capernaum, passing by their house in Nazareth, there is still a good forty or fifty miles — and why would you suddenly want to cover such a formiddable distance, for what need? They celebrated at the wedding and would return home to Nazareth, to rest — how else? Especially with brothers? But the brothers did not go to the wedding — why drag the minors along, when only Maria was invited and the eldest son to accompany the woman? There was no talk of any brothers, the brothers were at home. And Mary had nothing to do in Capernaum, especially since no relatives from Capernaum are mentioned anywhere, and a woman staying there for a few days seems unlikely — where, with whom? Let us also notice how suddenly the harmonious timeline set by the evangelist, who specifically points out at the beginning of the chapter: “On the third day…”, is suddenly broken for no reason at all, that is, it was important to show how quickly events began to develop. And suddenly — they hang out in Capernaum for several days, there is a pause. That is, from this point begins a very rough and ridiculous insertion — for what purpose? This becomes clear literally from the next verse.

“13 The Passover of the Jews was approaching, and Jesus came to Jerusalem” — and so he suddenly found himself in Jerusalem, hurried to the Jewish Passover, apparently abandoning his mother with the brothers in Capernaum, and, possibly, his disciples — not a word is mentioned about them further. That is, immediately after the miracle in Cana, where “he manifested his glory and disciples believed in Him,” he head to immediately stress His belonging to Jewry, Judaism, Jewish God, temple, holidays and customs: as soon as he performed the first miracle, he immediately rushed to Jerusalem to prove to the Jews that He is the expected Jewish Messiah — and who else? That is, he abandoned his native Galilee, did not begin to convert his people to his faith, did not preach the gospel to his fellow countrymen, but rushed to preach the Heavenly Father to strangers and aliens, the Jews, that were hostile to any faith other than their own and considered even a mere mention of other gods except for Jehovah a blasphemy deserving stoning. Was he suicidal?

“14 and found that oxen, sheep and pigeons were being sold in the temple, and money changers were sitting” — found, that is, as if he had never been to the temple and did not know the temple order, he appeared there for the first time in his life — otherwise he would not be so indignant, as further described.

“15 And making a whip of cords, he drove out of the temple all, also the sheep and the oxen; and he scattered the money of the money changers, and overturned their tables.16 And he said to those who sold doves: Take this from here and do not make my Father’s house a house of commerce”- and here is a direct forgery and substitution of the Heavenly Father of Jesus by the Jewish ancestral god Jehovah: if the Jerusalem temple is house of the Father of Jesus, it is clear that God Himself, the Heavenly Father is Jehovah, and who else? After all, the temple is his, dedicated to him and built by the Jews in time immemorial. This is how propaganda of Judaism works in the New Testament: the more monstrous the lie, the easier it is to believe in it.

Now let’s imagine the described scene. Someone, a beggar, an unknown stranger, an obvious provincial, and a Galilean by the dialect, a despicable pagan, whose speech gives him away (and so far he is just that, an unknown poor man, a vagabonf from a remote province in a foreign city, in the capital of a foreign country) appeared to Jerusalem, where he has never been before, does not know anyone, and no one knows him — he shows up from the street to the Temple and begins to misbehave there, engage in hooliganism and establish his own order? The temple guards simply would not let the Gentiles even enter the gates, biasedly figuring out who, where, and why — it was the main state national shrine, after all. No one would have let Jesus even on the doorstep. And if he dared to make a row, he would simply be killed for blasphemy, or thrown into a dungeon to find out, under torture, what he had in mind.

It is another matter when, at the end of his sermon and earthly life, He appeared in Jerusalem in glory, and the people greeted him as King and God — then he could decide on such a thing with the support of the popular crowds. But now, when no one has even heard of Him, this is pure suicide, the delirium of a madman.

“17 And His disciples remembered that it is written,” Zeal for your house is eating me up.”

And, of course, the disciples, who, it turns out, also ended up here by magic, the illiterate Galilean fishermen and gardeners, the Manda religion followers, not Jewish faith, all of a sudden — wow! — they remembered a saying from Psalms 68.10, which they apparently learned by heart. For how many years I have hollowed out this psalter both at divine services, and read over the dead, and just prayed for it at home — and then, after reading it, I did not remember where it came from, and I had to go into Google to remind myself.

“18 To this the Jews said: by what sign will you prove to us that you have the authority to do this? 19 Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days. 20 The Jews said to this: This temple was built for forty-six years and in three days will you raise it up? 21 And he spoke of the temple of his body.”

Well, surely a suicide — he blasphemes openly, in the Temple, right in the middle of a crowd of believing fanatics, mocks the Jewish faith and the Temple, and even provokes the idea of being killed — to prove and show you all. And the Jews — not a word in response, as if it was business as usual.

“22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus said” — the scripture they believed, the great scholars of Scripture from Galilee. And what does the Scripture say about this? You will laugh — NOTHING! You can check for yourself the parallel passages of the Old Testament, which the interpretation of this verse refers to: only two verses, one from Psalms 15.8: “I have always seen the Lord before me, for He is at my right hand; I will not hesitate”; another from Isaiah 55.3: “Incline your ear and come to Me: listen, and your soul will live, and I will give you an everlasting covenant, unchanging mercies promised to David” — and what do these words have to do with Jesus promising to either build a new temple in three days, or to resurrect Himself? In my opinion, none. The trick, by the way, is typical, in other gospels we find it more than once — to refer to Scripture, the reader will still not be able to check. Google did not exist then, and Scripture was not sold in newspaper stalls — and who would go ahead and browse it all in search of the necessary link.

“23 And when He was in Jerusalem on the feast of Passover, many, seeing the miracles that He performed, believed in His name” — oh, the author suddenly remembered and realized that Jesus was still an unknown beggar, a vagabond, and decided to add His fame and glory immediately, without leaving Jerusalem — He, it turns out, is a well-known miracle worker, and in the temple he did not just misbehave, but acted as one who has authority — look how many people, whole Jerusalem with was persuaded by His MIRACLES (I don’t know what miracles, the false “evangelist” does not bother to clarify the details) and converted into faith into Him, either the Son of God, or the Messiah expected by the Jews — go and figure it out into whom they suddenly believed, the author of this whole mixture is modestly silent about it this time, just in case.

“24 But Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, because He knew everyone25 and did not need anyone to testify about a man, for He Himself knew what was in a man” — and here is a belated explanation for you why Jesus did not lose his head in the temple, right there and then. It turns out that He Himself knew to whom he could be fearlessly rude, and who could be trolled without consequences for Himself — such a trick, and foresight was given to Him from God solely in order to mock people with impunity.

In general, when you begin to gaze intently at the “sacred” texts and fearlessly ask questions that are inconvenient for believers, clumsy insertions, absurdities and rude interference into the text by editing with scissors and glue creep out in their shameless nakedness and propaganda stupidity. It’s obvious — isn’t it?

This ends the second chapter of the Gospel of John, completely unexpectedly and indistinctly. And for the reader who is not engaged in the ideologue of “correct faith”, it becomes clear that the second part of the second chapter is sowed to the first part, which ended with the miracle in Cana of Galilee, not only with white threads (in other words, too obviously), but worse than that — with coarse rope of shameless propaganda. The absurdity of this shameless intrusion into the text is too obvious to take on faith all this fantasy of deceitful Jewish enthusiasm.

So, we select from the second chapter:

1 On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the Mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus was also invited. 3 And as there was a lack of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him: they have no wine. 4 Jesus said to her: what is to me and you, wife? My hour has not yet come. 5 His mother said to the attendants, Whatever He says to you, do it. 6 And there were six stone waterpots, which stood according to the custom of cleansing, and contained two or three measures. 7 Jesus says to them: Fill the vessels with water. And they filled them to the top. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw now, and take it to the chief of the feast. And they carried it. 9 When the steward had tasted the water that had become wine — and he did not know where the wine came from, only the servants who drew the water knew — then the steward calls the bridegroom10 and says to him: every man serves good wine first, and when they get drunk, then the worst; and you have kept good wine until now. 11 So Jesus started miracles in Cana of Galilee and showed His glory; and his disciples believed in him. “Period. The rest of the second chapter — to the dump, to the dustbin of the history of propaganda and manipulation.

John, Chapter 3

The next, third, chapter of ev. John begins with a very important episode in terms of comprehending the Teachings of Jesus: a conversation with Nicodemus about the Birth from Above.

But this episode itself, taken from unknown source, is very roughly attached to His allegedly first visit to Jerusalem as a prophet and wonderworker, which we have analyzed in Ch. 2. One gets the impression that another compiler of the Gospel was simply looking for a place to cram this episode into — and on the formal basis of Nicodemus, as a Pharisee and Jewish teacher, he put it together with Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem. Or he simply came up with the entourage of a Jewish teacher in a fabricated dialogue in order to bring the words of Jesus, His important words about the Birth from Above by the Holy Spirit. The trick, by the way, is constantly encountered and repeated in the gospels.

In general, upon careful reading of Ev. John, emerges the structure of multiple iterations of its compilation, at first by authors unknown to us, but, apparently, first made from the words of a living witness of Jesus, who remembered some important events that actually took place in his presence. We supposedly consider the younger disciple of Jesus, one of the first two called by Him, John Zebedee, who was later named John the Theologian. That is, people surrounding him (he himself was most likely illiterate) recorded in the form of notes the memories of individual events that he himself witnessed, and secondly, scattered sayings of Jesus, remembered by him. Then, apparently, this initial circle of authors came up with the idea to combine records on topics into some extensive monologues of Jesus and His dialogues with someone: with the disciples, with the Jews, and so on. These were subsequently repeatedly supplemented with new “utterances” in order to advance their understanding of the Teachings of Jesus, and then simply to establish their own ideas backed by His authority, presenting them as His utterances. The artificiality of this construct is noticeable in the complete contradiction and even opposition of Jesus’ statements, often in the neighboring records of the constructed dialogue. Later, someone apparently came up with the idea of combining these disparate passages into a single narrative, assembled from events and lengthy discourses, for which it was necessary to arrange them supposedly in chronological order and fill in the time gaps with fictional events, which are sharply different in form from vivid memories of “John” by the obsession of the propaganda component. All this multi-stage editing was carried out very roughly due to the technology available at that time: the text could only be cut into fragments, compiled again from the cut and added, something from oneself and then rewrite from scratch — a truly titanic work that took years. At the same time, it was too late to remove the absurdities and inconsistencies that escaped the attention of the editors, and, as such, they remained to be the evidence of deliberate rude interference in the previous version of the text. Later, previous versions were destroyed, or simply no longer rewritten and disappeared in the abyss of time. And so the generally accepted church canon gradually developed, including John (and others) gospel, which is a very distant and distorted version of what could be considered the Teachings of Jesus, and filled with numerous layers of sewage sediments of other religions and philosophical and religious ideas, introduced into the gospel by those in whose hands the original versions turned out.

Therefore, when reading Ev. Jn. you need to be aware that this is an artificial narrative construct with a conditional chronology, some of the events of which are fictitious for the sake of chronological coherence, and at the same time — there is a purpose of introduction into the mind of the reader of that image of Jesus and His Teachings, which was beneficial to the next editors and compilers, and was imposed by them on the reader. Which is very rude and reckless of inconsistencies, full of obvious absurdity of the insoluble logical contradictions that arise in the text. With such an approach to the compilation of the gospels, one can only be surprised that at least something of what really related to Jesus, His Teachings, His words and events connected with Him could reach us. With the help of God, we will pull all such artificial inserts” into the sun.”

So, the third chapter of ev. John, a meeting with Nicodemus, which is not clear when and where it took place, and whether it took place at all — but is still a very important and living testimony about Jesus and His Teachings.

“1 Among the Pharisees there was someone named Nicodemus, one of the rulers of the Jews2 He came to Jesus at night and said to Him: Rabbi! we know that you are a teacher who came from God; for such miracles as You do, no one can do if God is not with him”- this is an obvious story smoothing link that can be simply omitted. Moreover, Jesus was still unknown at that time and did not perform any specific “such miracles” in Jerusalem (where he had not yet been at that time, as will be seen later).

“3 Jesus answered and said to him: Truly, truly, I say to you, if someone is not born again (from above), he cannot see the Kingdom of God 4 Nicodemus says to Him: how can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born? " — what is it all about? Oh — about the mystical experience of Adoption to God through the Baptism of the Spirit and Birth from Above, experienced personally by Jesus, who was born from Above as the Son of God. Which is now revealed by Jesus to all who believed Him. Jesus shares HIS experience, which is summarized by Him in the realization of the need to be Born from Above for every person seeking the Heaven Kingdom and Eternal Life — you cannot enter the Heaven without being born again.

“5 Jesus answered: truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, cannot enter the Kingdom of God” — this obsessive repetition of what has already been said is aimed at mentioning WATER (which has nothing to do with it, the Spirit in no way depends on water), as a necessary condition for the Baptism of the Spirit. Here one can immediately feel the biased hand of the students of John the Baptist, the Nazarenes, who wanted to include a mention of the mission of their first teacher, who baptized “for the remission of sins,” as, supposedly, without this the Spirit will not deign — an obvious forgery and fake. However, from what follows, it is clear that Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone with water — and, if so, where did the water come from and why it was mentioned together with the Spirit, which “breathes where it wants (Jn 3.8)” regardless of any water.

“6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be surprised that I told you: you must be born again. 8 The Spirit breathes where it wants, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from and where goes: this is the case with everyone born of the Spirit”- these are the priceless grains of Jesus’ personal mystical experience, which, apparently, He shared not with some Jewish sage who dropped by to sit by the fire, but rather with the closest circle of his disciples. Who, by the way, were the disciples of John before Him, and from old affiliations could not resist writing about Water as a condition for “forgiveness of sins.” In this utterance, Jesus very clearly points out the impossibility of the Spirit to be born from flesh, the idea by which all the Gnostic and Hellenic wisdom of the Christian trinitological constructs is refuted and overturned, sent into the roadside ditch of history, with just this one phrase. This is a very important and deep idea: in the world of matter Spirit does not exist, and matter does not exist in the World of Spirit. A person with his Mind is born spiritually by the Spirit not into the world of matter, but into the Kingdom of Heaven, and begins his stay in it from the moment of birth from Above, that is, eternal life for him has already begun here and now, and not sometime in an uncertain future. A person hears the voice of the Spirit only in his own mind, which (this mind) is already “reflected” in the Heaven and therefore is subject to the Spirit — and nowhere else.

“9 Nicodemus answered and said to him: how can this be? 10 Jesus answered and said to him: you are the teacher of Israel, and do you not know this? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and we testify what you have seen, but you do not accept Our testimony. “These “we” are echoes of the subsequent Gnostic “revelations” to the disciples after the departure of Jesus, as well as the disputes between Jesus’ disciples and the Jews and their resentment against them for not being interested in the preaching of Jesus. Where and when exactly these disputes took place is unknown, but the compilers tied them to the very first visit of Jesus to Jerusalem, which, most likely, I repeat, did not happen at all — we will see this from what follows.

“12 If I told you about earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?” — Jesus is not going to reveal any “heavenly secrets” to his listeners at all — why? Well, simply because they do not need this for their personal salvation through the faith in the Son of God. And they will not understand anything… and will not believe it.

“13 No one has ascended to heaven, except the Son of Man, who is in heaven, descended from heaven” — a crude insertion is obvious, Jesus suddenly jumps from one subject to another, which does not apply at all to what was said in verse 12 — what for is this a separate statement? Well, to again persistently promote the Gnostic doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul and, at the same time, of the Eternity of the Word, which we have already analyzed in the Prologue — the author decided leave his mark here too.

“14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him, did not perish, but had eternal life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is already condemned, because he did not believe in the name of the Only Begotten God’s Son "- and here the Jews join the chorus with Moses and the bloody sacrifice “for the sins of the world ": gave the Son where? Oh — to sacrifice Him to himself; here we have the last judgment at the end of times. And the theology of substitution is already in action: the Chosen-ness is taken away from the Jews by God because they did not believe and is handed over to the Christians, who believed in the “Only Begotten Son” — the insertion is clearly a later one, when the final break with Judaism has already been determined.

“19 The judgment is that the light came into the world; but people loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil; 20 for everyone who does evil hates the light and does not go to the light, lest his deeds be exposed, because they are evil, 21 but he who does what is righteous goes to the light so that his deeds may be made manifest, because they are made in God”- the Gnostics again intervene with their light “Light” from the Prologue, this is another introduction of the Gnostic secret knowledge through Jesus Himself, through his lips. At the same time, everyone has long forgotten what Jesus was talking about at the beginning, they were carried away by a conversation with each other about their innermost. Added to this are general complaints about the injustice of the world and wicked people who did not believe Jesus and His disciples. Plus the general morality, God loves the good, but the bad — not, and these bad ones themselves try to hide their bad deeds in the darkness from God’s Light. Light and darkness are both sacred concepts here, and are used in a figurative symbolic sense of comparing the good in plain sight, and the bad — hiding in the closet, where the corpse is in the closet.

So, all who were not lazy, every cricket hurried to take part, to insert its own chirp, to the real story of Jesus.

“22 After this, Jesus came with His disciples to the land of Judea, and lived there with them and baptized. 23 And John also baptized in Aenon, near Salem, because there was a lot of water; and they came there and were baptized, 24 for John had not yet been imprisoned "- that is, he (Jesus) was in Jerusalem and suddenly came to the” land of Judah”, to which Jerusalem apparently does not belong. Obviously, the two narratives are simply mechanically combined. And he decided to live now in Judea, to baptize the Jews in his faith. And John suddenly from Bethabar near the Dead Sea, where he allegedly baptized Jesus, moved to Salim, to Samaria on the border with Judea, near the Sea of Galilee, where, it turns out, upstream of the Jordan “there was a lot of water” — there was not enough water in the river for him, you see. That is, literally in those few days that Jesus spent in Jerusalem and on the way to it, John suddenly decided to go to baptize closer to the Dead Sea, on a collision course with Jesus. By the way, any public preaching of ANOTHER, non-Jewish god would instantly lead to the death of the preacher. At the time of Jesus in Judea the “fourth sect” of zealots was active, [44]who were absolutely intolerant of all who were not faithful to the faith in the Jewish tribal god Jehovah — these were, in essence, sicarii[45], that is, the dagger-bearers who simply slaughtered to death all who they did not like in relation to their accepted piety.

By the way, one may wonder how the Christian communities in Jerusalem and other Judea survived? We find an indirect answer from Flavius[46]: The head of the Jerusalem community was by no means Peter, but James (Jacob) the Righteous, posing himself as “the brother of the Lord,” but at the same time a native Jerusalemite and a Pharisee known in religious circles. How so? It’s very simple: it was important for the Jews to return the newly-minted Christianity back to Judaism, to turn the “stricter” followers of the Jewish religion into their “progressive” sect, and to believe that the Heavenly Father preached by Jesus is the same Yahweh, only a side view. To do this, they sent their agents: Paul to the emerging Greek-pagan Christianity, and this Jacob to the Jewish, whose main community was the Jerusalem community. And therefore, for the time being, no one touched the Christians, they were under the hidden patronage of the Pharisees, “under the hood of Müller” (the head of secret police in Nazi Germany). This can be seen from the incident described in the 20th book of Flavius, when the new governor of Judea decided to deal with the hated Christians and executed Jacob, throwing him from the roof of the temple. The Pharisees were terribly indignant, declared it unlawful and complained about the arbiter to the emperor himself — you can read about this yourself in the “Antiquities of the Jews”.

“25 Then the disciples of John had a dispute with the Jews about cleansing”. Where, in Galilee? Because as soon as John (later) thrust himself closer to Judea in Salem, he was immediately captured and killed. So he still calmly remained in Galilee in the same place. And how did these Jewish debaters end up in Galilee?

“26 And they came to John and said to him: Rabbi! The One who was with you at the Jordan and about whom you testified, here He baptizes, and everyone is coming to Him”- who came? Apparently the Jews — because the disciples were with John. Wow, how worried the Jews are for the reputation of the Baptist, a preacher of another, non-Jewish, faith.

“27 John answered,” A man cannot take anything upon himself unless it is given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves are witnesses to me that I said: I am not Christ, but I am sent before Him. 29 He who has a bride is a bridegroom. but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices with joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. This — that my joy was fulfilled. 30 He must grow, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; but he who is from the earth is earthly and speaks as who is from the earth; He who comes from heaven is above all, 32 and what he has seen and heard, of that he also testifies; and no one accepts His testimony”. What about is this self-deprecating hysteria of John, who at the same time continued his mission of baptism” for the remission of sins “in spite of the discovery by him of the One by whose discovery his mission should end (according to his own words — John 1, 30—33)? If John himself did not believe Him, then why are these belated praises of Jesus? And if he did, why did he not give up the completed “mission” and didn’t leave it all, the water baptism, and did not follow Jesus to Him as a disciple? The answer is simple: the purpose of this fictional passage put into the mouth of John is propaganda, and “proof from John” that both Jesus and John are good Jews, the prophets of Yahweh, in pleasing whom one preceded the other, repetition is the mother of learning.

And further in the same spirit:

“33 He who has received His testimony has sealed that God is true, 34 for He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for God does not give the Spirit by measure.35 The Father loves the Son and has given everything into His hand.36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, and whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him "- here it suddenly turns out, unexpectedly, that John KNOWS and about the Spirit, which God gives “without measure,” and about the fact that Jesus is the Son of God (which one?), which has not yet been revealed to anyone by Jesus, and about the Heavenly Father, and about salvation through faith in the Son of God, which is yet to be learned by all from the gospel, the sermon of Jesus, which has not yet begun, if you believe the chronology given in the disassembled chapters — well, he knows everything as it is, but for some reason he himself does not believe in Jesus the Son of God, and did not go to Him as a disciple.

In general, all this, except for a couple of sayings of Jesus Himself about the Spirit and the Born again (above) — an empty collection of hollow propaganda of different sizes, trash — the events of this chapter are fictionalized and in a very strained manner, while the authors’ imagination and literary talent are simply a disaster.

The dry residue from the third chapter:

1 who is not born again (above) cannot see the kingdom of God

2 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be surprised that I told you: you must be born again (above). 8 The Spirit breathes where it wants, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from and where it goes: this is the case with everyone born of the Spirit

3 I told you about earthly things, and you do not believe — how will you believe if I speak to you about heavenly things?

4 God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him… because of belief in the Son of God

Sparse — but, well, that’s what we have.

I draw the reader’s attention to Jesus’ unequivocal rejection of the concept of the Last Judgment in the last episode. This completely refutes both the judgment itself and God as a strict judge at the end times. Here and below, we will more than once come across the refutation of messianic prophecies, accompanied by the sadness of Jesus himself that they do not believe him, trying on him the title of the messiah with all the accompanying entourage.

John, chapter 4

The next, fourth, chapter begins with a very truthful remark that fully confirms our doubts about the events in chapter 3 — however, it is not clear, again, to what time and place this remark refers. So.

“1 When Jesus learned about the rumor that reached the Pharisees that He makes disciples and baptizes more than John,”. Interesting -the Pharisees got worried, their “chosen prophet” was offended, a competitor appeared. But what about the fact that John led a sermon against the official church, and took away from its legal income by baptizing for the forgiveness of sins instead of through sacrifice? Is it okay that everyone went to him to be baptized for the remission of sins, all the people — and did not want to go to church any more? Moreover, he preached some other god, his own, not Jehovah — for this they stoned in Judea without further clarification.

“2 although Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples” — and here is the moment of Truth: Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone because he did not see the point in pouring water from the river. God forgives because he is the Father, and not because someone doused himself with water or, worse, sacrificed someone else’s life for his sin. This is a fundamental difference between the teaching of love and ordinary ancient paganism.

The disciples, who before Jesus were mantas and disciples of John, baptized: they followed, as they say, in the footsteps of their (former) teacher, deciding that this would attract more people to Jesus. He, as usual, did not mind, until, in fact, the crowds went to them to be baptized — and then He just got up and silently left the Jordan, where apparently his disciples were training for the baptists — and they sadly trailed after him, leaving their water entertainments.

“3 that he left Judea and went back to Galilee. 4 He had to go through Samaria” — but He did not go to any Judea, we have already clarified this above, and began his sermon in his homeland, in Galilee, which is confirmed by Marcion in his much more logical novel “The Gospel of the Lord”. But for further narration, the return home from the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is simply necessary, since the path from Jerusalem (and not from the Jordan, where he allegedly baptized) lies through Samaria, where He was destined for, as arranged by authors of gospel of John, an important meeting.

“5 So He comes to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near the parcel of land that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 6 Jacob’s well was there. Jesus, tired from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about six o’clock. 7 A woman from Samaria comes to fetch water. Jesus says to her: give me a drink. 8 For His disciples have gone into the city to buy food”. The whole crowd went, leaving Him alone? Did each of them buy food for himself alone? Well, if they had sent Judas with a box of money, he would have hired a trolley and rolled food lope while everyone was resting.

And — the main question — if everyone went to the city, who recorded the conversation with the Samaritan woman? Jesus himself would not paint the details for the disciples, it is specifically said about this that none of them asked Him what the conversation was about. This is indicated in order to show their shock: because supposedly they are Jews and so for them she is untouchable, and He is talking to her. But unexpectedly, this propaganda of the disciples’ Judaism turns against itself: it means that there were simply no witnesses of this story, nor his story about speaking with the Samaritan woman simply did not happen. And the evangelist has nowhere to take the material for this conversation from. The “evangelists” have done this more than once, and we will return to this argument more than once. This means that the whole subsequent story about the conversation with the Samaritan woman should go to the dump, it is made up by someone unknown, again. However, it is still worth dwelling on a couple of points to highlight the crude and shameless Judeo propaganda:

“How are you, being a Jew…”; “I know that the Messiah is coming, that is, Christ is I who speak to you”; “Isn’t He the Christ?” — the deliberate obsessive propaganda of Jesus’ Judaism. The cherry on top is: 21 Jesus says to her: Believe me that the time is coming when you will not worship the Father either on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

“22 You do not know what you bow down to, but we know what we bow down to, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the time will come, and has already come, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such worshipers for Himself24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

That is they first corrected the actual record of Jesus: “the time is coming when you will not worship the Father either on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. The time will come and has already come when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth because the Father is looking for such worshipers”- so this is forged to fit Judaism because the middle is simply inserted “we know what we bow to, for salvation is from the Jews,‘and it doesn’t matter that this blunt insert looks like a saddle on a cow. And then all this Judaized construction is recognized as suitable for the fictional event of the meeting of a Jew with a Samaritan woman — the people are stupid and still will not understand anything about the spirit, nor the truth, nor about the Father, Whom they cleverly substituted for the same ancient pagan idol. And then all this already Judaized construction is recognized as suitable for the fictional event of the meeting of Jesus the ‘Jew’ with the Samaritan woman. For the sake of this single genuine phrase ‘the time is coming and it has already come when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is looking for such worshipers,’ its consistent multi-level distortion in the spirit of Jesus’ commitment to Judaism in order to hide its truly epochal revolutionary significance, Jesus’ key statement. The whole story of the Samaritan woman was invented. And the whole conversation was built around this phrase, in order to disguise and hide its true meaning as much as possible. They could not just throw out this greatly important, and, apparently, widely known among the disciples utterance of Jesus, the Judaizers still did not dare. Instead, they took a long detour, by which they took Jesus first to Jerusalem and then back to Galilee through Samaria.

It is pertinent to note here that the philosophical concept of “Salvation”, developed in Hellenic Christianity much later, was generally absent in Judaism of that time: salvation from what if in Jewish religion the very concept of the afterlife of the soul was absent?

Let’s go further. She left and meanwhile the disciples came with food. And then Jesus throws a capricious fit — why would he?

“31 Meanwhile the disciples asked Him, saying: Rabbi! Eat 32 But He said to them: I have food which you do not know. 33 Therefore the disciples said among themselves, Has anyone brought Him to eat? 34 Jesus says to them: My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to complete His work. 35 Do you say that there are still four months and the harvest will come? But I say to you: lift up your eyes and look at the fields, how they have become white and ripe for the harvest. 36 He who reaps receives a reward and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that he who sows and he who reaps will rejoice together, 37 for in this case the saying is true: one sows, and the other reaps. 38 I sent you to reap what you did not work for: others worked, but you entered into their labor”

This is here just in order to somehow fit here a piece of Jesus’ words, stylistically very close to Jewish parables, midrash.

“39 And many Samaritans from that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman, who testified that He had told her everything that she had done. 40 And therefore, when the Samaritans came to Him, they asked Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days.41 And even more people believed in His word.42 And to that woman they said: We no longer believe according to your words, for we ourselves have heard and learned that He is truly the Savior of the world, Christ”- well, of course, The pagan Samaritans became convinced that He is the very Mashiach whom the Jews are so impatiently awaiting and were terribly happy that He decided to remain with them for a couple of days.

“43 After two days had elapsed, He left there and went to Galilee, 44 for Jesus Himself testified that the prophet had no honor in his own country” — that is, among those who believed Him and glorified Him, he did not stay and did not begin to preach around the whole vast Samaria, in which the convincing beginning, seemingly, has already been made — but stubbornly flopped again to where he was not accepted, because he is known there as the son of a carpenter, and he himself says that they will not accept him there — why did he go? Indeed, he is not looking for easy ways. In fact, this is just an unsuccessful gluing of two adjacent pieces, nothing more. But it is necessary to somehow fix it — and the compiler of this compost immediately, not in the least ashamed, comes up with a whole new story.

“45 When He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, seeing everything that He did in Jerusalem on the feast — for they went to the feast too” — oh, that’s it, it turns out not only Jesus and not even with his disciples, but all Galileans with all the people, a crowd went to the holiday and there they saw some (still unknown to us) miracles of Jesus, and were surprised, moved, repented of their unbelief and, after returning from the party, accepted him as a true miracle worker, in a unites fashion with a dear soul. That is, a miracle in Cana seemed to them not enough, but in Jerusalem — just right.

“46 So Jesus again came to Cana of Galilee, where he turned water into wine” — and finally — again — the moment of Truth: the whole story, which developed over two and a half chapters of the gospel, is a fiction entirely and completely for the sake of the Judaization of Jesus and ends with a return… to Cana of Galilee! Why? Because the entire previous piece is simply inserted into the body of the gospel from the miracle in Cana, and now, in order to continue the gospel story already written by someone, you need to somehow manage to return Jesus to that very Cana. After all, it would seem: where to go after such a difficult and long journey “back and forth”, except to refresh at his home and take a rest from the road, especially since from Samaria to Cana, the road passes exactly through Nazareth (his home town). Wouldn’t he stop there? No he passed right through his own house and covered another ten extra kilometers to Cana, where no one is waiting for Him, because the marriage is long over? No, they are waiting, and impatiently. An important man, the father of a sick boy, is waiting for him there.

“46 In Capernaum there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick. 47 When he heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he came to Him and asked Him to come and heal his son, who was dying” — but Jesus did not leave from Cana actually. The wedding was celebrated for more than one day, and Mary simply stayed for another couple of days with her relatives, Jesus also stayed with his mother, whom he could not just leave to get home alone. The disciples, perhaps as uninvited guests, returned home before Him and spread the amazing news of the Miracle at the wedding — and they are not alone, such rumors quickly spread even in the absence of a telephone, telegraph and Internet. I think a day or two is a very realistic time for the rumor to reach Capernaum, where the child of the courtier was dying, who, having heard about this, without hesitation, began to run with a request for a miracle to the miracle worker.

“48 Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders” — Jesus does not need this glory of a magician, He did not come for this, does not preach miracles — but, seeing genuine grief, he cannot refuse. Well, he grumbled…

“49 The courtier says to him: Lord! come before my son is dead. 50 Jesus saith unto him, Go, thy son is well. He believed the word that Jesus had spoken to him, and went.51 On the way his servants met him and said, Your son is well. 52 He asked them: At what time did it feel better? They said to him: yesterday, at the seventh hour, the fever left him.53 From this, the father learned that this was the hour at which Jesus said to him: Your son is healthy, and he and all his house have believed”- the journey from Cana to Capernaum is not a short distance, 40 kilometers, even on a horse on a bright day you can’t turn around — that’s why “the next day”.

AND! Finally! You can’t hide an awl in a sack, and the truth about the falsification of the previous two chapters of the Gospel text comes out into the light of God in all its ugliness.

“54 This is the second miracle Jesus performed when he returned from Judea to Galilee” — so, wait a minute, but what was the first? That is, either he performed a second miracle in his life right now, having returned to Galilee — but then what about the miracles performed in Jerusalem, which were mentioned so many times above; or did he perform a second miracle on his return from Galilee — but then why do we learn about the second, not knowing about the first, what is the first? Why wasn’t it mentioned? Because of the INSERT — two and a half chapters in the text, which tells only about the stay in Cana and two miracles in it: the first at the wedding, the second — the remote healing of the child. And we will have to admit that this miracle is overall the second, and not the second upon arrival in Galilee. But how can this be? But what about the great miracles in Jerusalem, which even dispelled all the skepticism of Jesus’ fellow countrymen? By what count are they between the two? Well, by no count — there was none: no miracles, no sudden travel to Jerusalem for Easter, no life in Judea with baptism of those who come, no return to Galilee, no meeting with a Samaritan woman — nothing! Everything is LIE! Lies for propaganda purposes and nothing more.

It should be recalled that the Galileans, from the point of view of the Jews, are terry pagans, communication with them is defiled, and for this a special sacrifice was required in the temple. The Galileans were recognized by a special dialect, and in this regard, all the stories about Jesus’ campaigns in Jerusalem on Jewish holidays look especially funny, because Jesus was not a Jew by faith in the slightest degree.

Let’s summarize. The dry residue washed by us looks pretty modest:

— Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples

— the time will come, and has already come, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is looking for such worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth

— In Capernaum there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick. 47 When he heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he came to Him and asked Him to come and heal his son, who was dying. 48 Jesus said to him: You will not believe unless you see signs and wonders. 49 The courtier says to him: Lord! come before my son is dead. 50 Jesus saith unto him, Go, thy son is well. He believed the word that Jesus had spoken to him, and went.51 On the way his servants met him and said, Your son is well. 52 He asked them: At what time did it feel better? They said to him: Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.53 From this the father learned that this was the hour at which Jesus said to him: Your son is healthy, and he and all his house have believed. 54 This is the second miracle that Jesus performed.

John, chapter 5

“1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus came to Jerusalem” — Lord, how, again? You might think that Jesus was doing nothing but walking back to Jerusalem 200 km away through the mountains on foot, off-road. As if it was smeared with honey there.

What for? Well, to prove that He preached only to the Jews: it is amazing that the Jews who rejected Him go out of their way to prove to the whole world that He is a Jew and was sent by their Jewish God to preach only to them.

In general, this whole chapter looks like a denture, written by someone using some of the words of Jesus in the name of the same Judaization, in order to firmly bind him to Jewry and Jewish faith in the ancestral god Yahweh. But in this chapter, the Judaizers jumped over their heads, contriving to carry out all this Judaizing editing twice, adding a later version on the second floor over the first one. However, in a conversation with a Samaritan woman, we have already seen even more bold approaches.

“2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five indoor underpasses.3 In these lay a great multitude of sick, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the movement of water, 4 For an angel would go down from time to time in the pool and stirred up the water, and who first entered into it after stirring of the water, he recovered, made well of whatever disease he had.”

This is the first floor of the editing added to create an impression of the authenticity of the ensuing fairy tale. Here is a description of the place of the event, and — at the same time — the Jewish legend, which later, much later, was transformed into an Orthodox way. No Angels of the Lord existed anywhere except pagan legends, and do not exist, all these are birthmarks of ancient Jewish paganism. Again, it is convenient to put into the story about Jesus the miracles of the Jewish God who sends angels to mock God’s chosen ones: let them trample and pass over each other, and we from heaven will enjoy this gladiatorial battle of the crippled — why wouldn’t the angel heal all the sick at once, with water or without water. Just because they can. But they cannot, due to the fabulousness of the angels themselves, the creations of the wild superstitious mind of the ancient pagans.

Further, the construction of the Jewish version continues.

“5 There was a man who had been sick for thirty-eight years. 6 Jesus, seeing him lying down and knowing that he had been lying for a long time, said to him,” Do you want to be well? “7 The sick man answered him: Yes, Lord; but I do not have a person who would put me in the pool when the water is disturbed; and when I come, another one comes down before me. 8 Jesus said to him, Get up, take your bed and walk. 9 And he immediately recovered, and took his bed and went. And it happened on the sabbath day. 10 Therefore the Jews said to the one who was healed: Today is sabbath; You must not take a bed. 11 He answered them: He who healed me, He said to me: Take your bed and walk. 12 They asked him: Who is the Man who told you, Take your bed and walk? 13 He who was healed did not know who He, for Jesus hid himself among the people that were in that place. 14 Then Jesus met him in the temple and said to him: Behold, you have recovered; sin no more, lest something worse happen to you. 15 This man went and announced to the Jews that he who healed him was Jesus.16 And the Jews began to persecute Jesus and sought to kill Him because He did such things on the Sabbath.”

It would seem that Jesus and the Jews are opposed here. But this is only at first glance. Jesus in this scene appears before us as undoubtedly a holy miracle worker, performing miracles … “in the name of Yahweh and by his name.” This follows from the first phrase addressed by Jesus to the Jews persecuting Him: “17 But Jesus said to them: My Father still does, and I do” — this is the real key to the meaning of this scene: the Father in this instance is Yahweh, who heals by the descent into the water of an angel, and Jesus also heals, and even on Saturday, because he is equal to God in his right to dispose of the Law at his own discretion, and both of them, the Yahweh Father and Jesus the Son, are equally kind and merciful to people. Mercy motivates both of them in relation to people and sometimes forces Jesus to break formalities in the name of fulfilling the true, inner meaning, the spiritual law, its core, essential part, the basis of which is the love and mercy of Jehovah to the chosen ones. – yeah, right. We know about Jehovah and his love for the folk he enslaved by the proverb: “The wolf took pity on the mare — he left his tail and mane.”

The thing is that the gospel was… intended for Christians, not for Jews, and it should have looked decent to them according to their faith in the Son of God — but then at least in the son of the Jewish Jehovah (who for the Jews cannot have any children or relatives in general, but for Christians it will do), this was the meaning of all these editors. And the fact that He violated the Sabbath is not so important, the Jews later explained it to Christians by his stricter observance of the Law, not by the letter of a formality, but by the Spirit of Jehovah’s love and mercy to his chosen ones. And of course, the necessary quotations from the Jewish Law were immediately found and were cited by the interpreters. “He said to them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and was hungry for himself and those with him? How he entered the house of God under the high priest Abiathar and ate the offering bread, which was not supposed to be eaten by anyone but the priests, and gave it to those with him? “And he said, “Saturday is for a man, not a man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the son of man is the lord of the sabbaths as well. “Mark 2: 23—28. It would be foolish to directly deny the Son-godhood of Jesus when addressing Christians — and having received the gospel of John, the Jewish editors “added their tar (lies) to the Christian honey” so that it was not noticeable at first glance, to a possible extent mixing in Judaism to the Gospel of John as the defining religion for Jesus. “I am the master of the Sabbath, I am the true Law” — this is what the Jewish Christians read in these lines. Jesus is shown here as… Yahweh himself.

Now let’s take a look at this scene through the eyes of an eyewitness. Overcrowding, dirt, stench — sick people rot for years in this pool by the water in the hope of healing, and there are thousands of them. Jesus came — and immediately the first question: He is the Son of God, merciful and compassionate — so WHY did He not take and heal ALL at once? That would be a great and socially significant miracle — and an act of divine mercy. Why was it necessary to look for some chosen one, no matter how good he was in himself. What, out of thousands of sufferers, only one was worthy of a divine visit?

Well, let’s say he healed. The one who had been lying paralyzed for almost forty years suddenly got up and went. — And then what? Yes, the fact that an unimaginable hubbub would have risen, and not just a hubbub, there would have begun a form of pandemonium, people, the whole thousand-strong crowd would have rushed to Jesus and would have simply trampled Him on the spot, tore him apart. And He would not go anywhere, would not dissolve in any crowd — that would be the end of Him. Let’s pay attention to a strange fact: the ill person confesses him as Lord before he was healed! Whom does he see in front of him? The ragamuffin alien who also came to be healed in the bath, is, accordingly, a competitor. And suddenly — Lord! The cart is again ahead of the horse.

So this scene is made up from start to finish.

This is followed by a long morality of Jesus, whom the Jews allegedly were eager to stone for breaking the Sabbath — and He reads a sermon to them in response, and they suddenly listen to him, obediently listen to “His voice” like sheep at His feet — amazing! It could be attributed to a miracle if they suddenly calmed down — but they continue to break off the chain and it is completely incomprehensible what keeps them from reprisal against Him on the spot, of course, for the blasphemy.

“18 And the Jews sought to kill Him even more because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God His Father, making Himself equal to God” — and here is the insert of the second layer, here the second editors already directly deny the Son-godhood of Jesus, without cunning approaches of the first editors

They are eager to kill Him, and He keeps speaking with them so calmly.

“19 To this Jesus said: truly, truly, I say to you: the Son can do nothing of Himself unless he sees the Father doing: for what He does, the Son also does the same” — this phrase is found in various forms in e. Jn. at least five more times. And what is it that the Father does out of what the Son does? We find the answer below.

“20 For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He Himself does; and he will show him deeds greater than these, so that you will be amazed.21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, so the Son also gives life to whom he wants”- but where, whom and when did God raise from the dead? Jehovah — no one and never, and we have not yet really learned anything about the Father from Jesus. And why is it mentioned here then? Well — as a preparation in advance for the main miracle: the resurrection of Lazarus the Four-Day, the authors of the Gospel are impatient to tell about it and they run ahead. But the Judaizers are on guard, and immediately this impatience is suppressed.

“22 For the Father does not judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father” — the judgment was taken by the Jews from biblical prophecies about the “end times”! And in the third chapter, any mention of the judgment in the teachings of Jesus, as an element of the pagan Jewish legend, is suppressed.

“He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” — similar to the phrase in the authentic sermon of Jesus, but we will meet it more than once.

“24 Truly, truly, I say to you: he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life” — impudently and unceremoniously right in the middle is inserted about judgment, which completely changes the meaning of this very important phrase, the utterance of Jesus, undoubtedly genuine, and constituting the core of his Teachings, as we will see with you in the future. This phrase should sound like this: “he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, has passed from death to life.”

In theory, this is where the chapter should end, it’s like a summing up, period.

And here the second floor of Judaization begins (or continues): it seemed to the second Judaizers that the Son of God was developed here, they, apparently, did not understand all the subtleties of the first implementation of the Jewish editing, and decided to add from themselves direct, straightforwardly, bluntly. Well, off we go, “according to the scriptures” to the end of the chapter.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. — Well, the zombie apocalypse promised by Mashiach suddenly sounds like the voice of Jesus — all of a sudden! And then it proceeds onto covreing all points of biblical prophecy:

5:26For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself: 5:27and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man. 5:28Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, 5:29and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. 5:30I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 5:31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 5:32It is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. 5:33Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness unto the truth. 5:34But the witness which I receive is not from man: howbeit I say these things, that ye may be saved. 5:35He was the lamp that burneth and shineth; and ye were willing to rejoice for a season in his light. 5:36But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. 5:37And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form. 5:38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he sent, him ye believe not. 5:39Ye search the scriptures, /author:, … — Oh! What are they? Torah books, I guess? Must be, because there are at least another 100 years before the written New Testament!/

…because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; 5:40and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. 5:41I receive not glory from men. 5:42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves. 5:43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 5:44How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and the glory that cometh from the only God ye seek not? 5:45Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. 5:46For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. 5:47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? " — another hysteria of an offended unbalanced and possibly mentally unhealthy Jew who believes in apocalyptic “prophecies” and imagines himself to be “the very” Jewish Messiah, the King of the Jews, whom the Jews were waiting for — nothing interesting for us. Digging in the trash, fishing for the insignificant words about the unity of Jesus with the Father just does not make sense — all this unintelligible preaching about this unity-identity we will encounter time and again, and may be not authentic Jesus sayings, but only gnostic reflections of the original authors of the gospels. And therefore, all this miserable semblance of a description of an event and a miracle should in the dump, except for the only phrase, in which it is still necessary to mentally separate the fairy-tale Jehovah imposed on Jesus as a father from the True Heavenly Father, which He tells us about.

“He that hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, has passed from death to life.”

John, chapter 6

Chapter six begins with the words “After this.” If we follow the logic of the narrative, then — this is after what was stated in the fifth chapter: another unexpected rush to Jerusalem, the healing of the paralyzed in the Sheep font and a long sermon to the Jews in the temple about the right of Jesus to perform healings on Saturdays, since He is the Son of the Jewish God. The Jews wanted to kill Him for this, but for some reason they did not do it — the Evangelist explains this by the fact that “His hour did not come”. Yes, told it to the Jews.

So, chapter six.

“After this, Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of Tiberias” — that is, just like that, suddenly from Jerusalem he found himself on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and not by himself, but with a whole bunch of people that came out of who knows where. Here, the insertion of the entire fifth chapter is directly visible, since the fourth ends with the miracle of the healing of the courtier’s son from Capernaum, and AFTER this, from Cana of Galilee “Jesus went to the other side of the sea”, which in fact is not a sea, but just a very large lake. And not to the “other side”, since Cana and Capernaum, and Nazareth and even Tiberias are all on one side of the sea, the western one, and on the other, the eastern side, there is the territory of a completely different country, Syria. Apparently, the knowledge of geogrsphy was very bad indeed mong the compilers of the Gospel.

Further, in verses 12, from 2 to 13, the well-known miracle of feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fish is described. We will not cite it in full, we will dwell only on some details:

“2 Many people followed Him, because they saw the miracles that He performed on the sick” — on foot 20 kilometers from Cana? I wonder: did they go straight ahead, without even thinking to stock up on a some bread? Doubtful. And again — what kind of miracles are performed “over the sick”, who saw them and where? Since you and I have so far certified only two miracles: wine at a wedding and the healing of a child at a distance — there are “no more miracles”.

“3 Jesus went up a mountain and sat there with his disciples.” — 20 kilometers walk in the heat. Let’s suppose it happened.

“4 The Passover, the feast of the Jews, was drawing near” — how, again, the Passover? And what does this have to do with it? This is another “false insertable jaw”, so as not to forget who is the real Master here, and whose holidays are celebrated and honored here. But for some reason no one rushed back to Jerusalem — neither Jesus nor the peoples. What a bunch of sinners.

“13 And they gathered, and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves that were left by those who ate” — an interesting remark. Why did they collect it, and how did they do that — was it taken directly from people’s hands? People probably took the excess and hid it for the road back. Or they threw the remains on the ground (which is unlikely). The answer is contained in the “twelve boxes”: did Jesus and his disciples have such quantities of empty boxes in advance? Or did they run to the store to buy only to collect other people’s leftovers in them? There was no shop, no markets — nothing at all, the place was deserted. So this is added for the sake of a catchphrase, in order to convince of the proof of the miracle: here is how much is left of five loaves of bread — and this lie “as a testimony”, being exposed, undermines the credibility of the miracle itself: if someone lied in little, who will believe them in the big? And why twelve? Oh, because the twelve tribes of Israel — and the Greek author is unaware that for a long time there had been no “twelve tribes of Israel”

Okay, let’s say — why wouldn’t Jesus really feed the hungry away from home? The question is — why did He even bring them there? It seems that it remains to assume that he was fed up with all this popularity, He was tired of the enthusiastic crowd and wanted to escape somewhere to a deserted place, where no one would follow him, to hide from everyone — but they followed Him, literally dooming themselves to hunger with the children, you can’t get out of there quickly back to civilization, to get back you need to walk again on foot in the heat. And here, for sure, one portion of the distributed bread will not be enough, it is not out of order to pour manna from heaven onto a crowd of people like this, all along the way back home to Galilee.

What is the meaning of this hike outside the city remains a mystery — did Jesus decide to arrange a picnic for his disciples and admirers? Well, at least they could have stocked up on meat, or something, and fry a kebab.

In fact, all these incongruities have a simple explanation: Jesus went throughout the country preaching, and finally got to Tiberias. But did not go there on foot, accompanied by crowds…

Note that the narrative omits a huge and important period in the development of Jesus’ preaching after the first and second miracles: for more than one year He walks on foot throughout Galilee and Samaria — but does not go to Judea, they will kill anyone who dares to at least mention another god besides Jewish Yahweh-Jehovah. He preaches, works miracles, heals the sick on a massive scale throughout the country — and becomes widely known as a great prophet and miracle worker, His glory thunders throughout the country, the people rush to Him, and follow Him relentlessly and thoughtlessly, wherever He goes — the authors simply omitted all this as unnecessary. Why? Well, because all these “events” are generally needed by the authors only for the “bundle” of the narrative, which without such events would turn into a disorderly set of disparate, unconnected, utterances of Jesus of the type of e. Thomas. But the authors wanted to create exactly the narrative, the history of the development of the Teachings of Jesus as they understood it. To do this, arranging the available records in a certain meaningful order, as well as a small number of recorded testimonials about individual events that accompanied the sermon of Jesus, especially vivid, important and therefore clearly remembered, the authors, or rather, compilers, supplemented them with some connecting events that, perhaps, did not happen at all, or, in any case, the authors did not really know anything about them, having only inaccurate rumors in the form of folk tales that had developed over the decades after the Gospel events. And therefore, almost everything described by the evangelists is simply reconstructed or made up material in order to make more authentic (like 12 boxes) the narrative bundles, some events to which the already existing scattered records of Jesus’ utterances could be tied.

Such semantic connections are given away especially by the schematic description of events in them, in contrast to those few living, full of reliable details of vivid memories, which may have been entirely recorded by witnesses, presumably by John the Theologian.

Nevertheless, let’s go back to the text and see what else we can learn from it.

In the sixth chapter, this build up of events with the aim of linking them with the words of Jesus manifested itself in a particularly contrasting way: the further events described in it look very conditional.

“15 But Jesus, knowing that they wanted to come, accidentally take him and make him king, again withdrew to the mountain alone.

This is rathre interesting, if Jesus were a Mashiach, he would have grudgingly told the newcomers something like, “Well, finally, what took so long! Bring me the crown!” But he runs away.

16 When evening came, His disciples went down to the sea17 and, getting into a boat, went to the other side of the sea, to Capernaum "- here they are, they just left their Teacher alone in a deserted place and sailed away. And where did the boat come from? Or they just stole someone else’s boat and sailed away on it?

The whole story begins to look much more truthful if we assume that Jesus and his disciples sailed in a boat to Tiberias for the sake of preaching, then everything falls into place: the boat belongs to the disciples, they are former fishermen, the disciples brought Jesus from Capernaum or Bethsaida to Tiberias to preach to the peoples there. They went to the city and spread the news that Jesus was here, the people came to Him from the city a few kilometers away to the landing site — to the place where He climbed the mountain to pray, Jesus preached to them until evening, then took pity on the hungry and performed the miracle of the multiplication of loaves, to feed everyone before the way home — and then a conflict arises with the students, to whom he did not pay attention all day, and even forced them, the inner circle of disciples of the Great Teacher (in their view), to serve the commoners, to distribute bread to them. Moreover, when they informed him that they wanted him to be king in Tiberias — apparently, it was their idea — he brushed aside and went alone again to the mountain to pray. And here they were utterly offended, angry, and — they left him, deciding to take revenge on him a little: here we will sail away from You, and you get back on foot along the coast of the Sea of Galilee, the path is not so short. But, as is usually the case with those who play the offended, they did not sail far, everyone expected that He would see them sail away from the mountain, realize that he was left alone in the wilderness far from civilization, run ashore and start waving at them, asking to come back and take him with them. This suggestion stems from the ridiculous-looking remark in verse 17:

“17 And getting into the boat, they went to the other side of the sea, to Capernaum. It was getting dark, but Jesus did not come to them”- where did he not come, to the boat across the sea? They could not even imagine such a thing that He could do that. It was getting dark — that is, soon the boat would not be visible from the shore, and they would not be able to see Jesus on the shore.

“18 A strong wind was blowing, and the sea was turbulent” — and a fishing boat, a fragile boat, loaded with a dozen people, would sink into a storm like, no doubt — and they were frightened, no longer happy with their own display of grievances.

“19 Having sailed about twenty-five or thirty stages (roughly 1 stage = 200 meters, so 5—6 kilometers), they saw Jesus walking on the sea and approaching the boat, and they were afraid. 20 But He said to them: it’s me; do not be afraid. 21 They wanted to take Him into the boat; and immediately the boat landed on the shore where they were sailing”- he saw that they were in trouble and came to the rescue, they began to sink, and He hastened to help them, to save the foolish — and performed another unprecedented miracle.

In general, if you look closely, Jesus is very reluctant to use divinity, and to create miracles, granted to him by the Father, as a rule, he is forced by the disastrous circumstances of those who turn to him for help or simply the unfortunate people he met — but he always does this reluctantly, forcedly, and even with a reservation like when his mother asked him in Cana at a wedding or grumbling to a courtier with a sick son: “you will not believe if you do not see miracles”. His goal is not to surprise with fancy tricks, but to convince with his life and sermon to believe Him, the Son of God, that there is a True God, Heavenly Father, who is waiting for everyone to adopt them to Himself, as he adopted Jesus Himself.

“22 On the next day the people who were standing on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other boat, except the one in which His disciples had entered, and that Jesus did not enter the boat with His disciples, and only His disciples sailed away. 23 Meanwhile, other boats came from Tiberias close to the place where they ate bread, with the blessing of the Lord. 24 So, when the people saw that Jesus and his disciples were not there, they got into boats and sailed to Capernaum, looking for Jesus. 25 And, finding Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him: Rabbi! when did you come here?”

People who witnessed the miracle of bread went home and the news of the miracle spread throughout the city. And in the morning the crowds were already flooding, some sailed on boats, the rabble always wants bread and a show. Someone had seen that the disciples sailed away alone, and they hoped to find Jesus alone — not expecting that he went on foot around the sea. But He is not there. Then some people on boats went in search of him Capernaum, found him and were surprised that He was already there again with the people, preaching.

“26 Jesus answered and said to them, truly, truly, I say to you: you are looking for Me not because you have seen miracles, but because you ate bread and were satisfied” — and this is the end of the story, period. This is the end of the recording of the event, which was at the disposal of the compilers. Everything that is afterwards in this chapter — a lengthy monologue of Jesus with periods of repetitions — again, similarly to the two and a half chapters about miracle in Cana is bundled on top completely mechanically, using some sort of common theme that, as it seemed to the compilers, is logical: because the bread is mentioned in both places. From this ridiculous combination of scraps, the very method of composing the John gospel is clearly visible.

Apparently, those who set themselves the initial goal of compiling a single text from the scattered scraps of records in Aramaic that they had in their hands found a certain craftsman, a professional scribe who, not being a Christian himself and not understanding the prevailing Christian rituals, first arranged the available records in what it seemed to him to be a logical order in terms of content and meaning, and then, having translated it, collected it into a single text, which was difficult to change without damaging it — and that’s how it remained. Moreover, the customers, themselves not knowing Greek, could not really check what was written in it, took the word of the specialist they chose, that he translated and rewrote everything correctly, putting everything that was given to him together. Later, of course, this original text was changed many times, and by rewriting many times, it acquired many heterogeneous inclusions, but the vicious logic of the initial combination of passages, to a knowledgeable person clearly disparate, remains visible today. Further we will see that the link between the finished narration and the further continuation of the sixth chapter is the word “bread”, used according to the formal primitive logic: there is bread and here bread — so let them be together in one chapter. The compiler of the text is unaware that the used utterance of Jesus about Himself as the Bread of Heaven certainly refers to the Last Supper, at which Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Communion. And which is mysteriously absent from it in John’s gospel. In general, as we will see, there is no mention of the Communion of the disciples at the Last Supper, and this is strange — could it be that the evangelist suddenly forgot to mention such a great event, or maybe it did not exist at all? So, there is a simpler and more logical explanation for this: the entry related to the Last Supper has already been used and mechanically attached to the place where the mention of loaves was found!

This unambiguously indicates the fact that this gospel was mechanically composed by a person not familiar with Christianity, and is a hand-made event construct.

From verse 27 begins Jesus’ “sermon” about the Bread of Heaven, as I said above, clearly attuned to the incident in Tiberias by the keyword “bread”

“27 Seek not for corruptible food, but for food that abides in eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, for God has put His seal on Him " — and what is this seal? Oh, this is is an allusion to the anointing of the kingdom, to the fact that Jesus is the very Jewish Messiah.

The original phrase, ending in “Son of Man,” contains a clear, complete thought, to which a ridiculous additional construction has been attached to mention the Hebrew God as the Father who anointed Jesus to be the Kings of the Jews. The second statement has no logical connection with the first, they are simply mechanically connected to each other into one meaningless whole sentence.

“28 So they said to Him: what should we do in order to do the works of God29 Jesus answered them: this is the work of God, so that you believe in Him, whom He sent” — this is clearly inserted here, again, purely mechanically, it is meaningless in no way not tied to either 27 or 30 and subsequent

“30 To this they said to Him: What kind of a sign will You give so that we may see and believe You? What are you doing? 31 Our fathers ate manna in the wilderness, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat”- this is a very strange statement from those with whom Jesus allegedly speaks, with those who “ate bread and were satisfied” that is, literally with those just witnessing the miracle of the multiplication of loaves. Attention is drawn to “Our Fathers…” — which fathers, who “ate manna,” the Jewish ones? But this conversation is with the inhabitants of Capernaum, who have nothing to do with the Jews at all, because it is in Galilee. But since these events most likely take place in the same location as the Last Supper, Jews were present there, and further conversation takes place here as well.

“32 Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Why did Jesus suddenly remember Moses? And — interestingly — compares the miracle of Jehovah with manna, claiming that HIS FATHER gives, unlike the God of Moses, Life to the world. Notice: This is a direct opposition of different gods: false Jehovah and God, the True Father. There is not and cannot be any continuity of religions, Jesus here speaks about it directly.

In essence, here Jesus refutes as false and rejects the fairytale biblical story of “manna from heaven”, which Jehovah fed the Jewish people during forty years of wandering in the wilderness. And he directly points to Himself as to the Savior sent to humanity by the Heavenly Father. What does “coming down from heaven” mean — a definition that we will come across more than once? This, of course, is a mention of the Birth from Above experienced by Jesus Himself and the unity gained through this birth with the Father (“I and the Father are one”).

“34 To this they said to Him: Lord! always give us such bread.35 Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life "- this is the moment of Truth, and then:" He who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst "- a clear overkill to enhance the effect, Jesus I would not lie for the sake of hyperbole, exalting Himself, since the vital needs of the living remain valid and are not canceled for those who believe in Jesus today.

“6:36But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not. 6:37All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 6:38For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 6:39And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.”- the obsessive repetition of the unity of His will with the Will of the Father who sent him. In into this the gnostic “descent from Heaven” was unexpectedly inserted, and all this done for the sake of “but to resurrect everything on the last day” — this, we will see, is repeated three times in a row, just to make sure, and is clearly attributed to the previous statements by those who expected from Jesus the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies.

“40 The will of Him who sent Me is that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life” — this is the authentic statement of Jesus, followed by the Judaizing postscript: “And I will raise him up at the last day.”

“6:41The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, I am the bread which came down out of heaven. 6:42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I am come down out of heaven?” — Lord, and these, then, where did they come from here, the Jews? And not strangers, but people who personally knew his family?

“6:43Jesus answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 6:44No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.” — again the same postscript at the end with an obsessive repetition.

“6:45It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. 6:46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he that is from God, he hath seen the Father.” — first the prophets as a source of wisdom, and then learning from God. In fact, the bridge of religious succession is being thrown again: he who has learned from the Father — from where? Yes from the Hebrew Scriptures, where else!? Teaching from God by the Spirit is immediately refuted in the next verse: you don’t understand, this is something else!

“6:47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life. 6:48I am the bread of life.” Repitition. “6:49Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.” — repeating the same insertion;

“6:50This is the bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 6:51I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” — Note that between” I am the bread that came down from Heaven “and” I came down from Heaven” there is a huge semantic difference: the first has a symbolic meaning, and the second affirms direct descent of Jesus directly from Heaven directly in the flesh to earth, which is a clear evidence of pagan beliefs in flesh gods, so that the previous “statement of Jesus” about His descent from heaven belongs to the pagan author, Jesus simply could not say that.

“6:52The Jews therefore strove one with another, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” — Jews again, another false jaw.

“6:53Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. 6:54He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” Yes, here it is again.

“6:55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 6:56He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. 6:57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. 6:58This is the bread which came down out of heaven… "- this is this piece of text authentic to Jesus, torn out from the event of the Last Supper, supplied with the same obsessive postscript about manna:" Not like your fathers ate manna and died: He who eats this bread will live forever”- and roughly inserted into this entirely fictional dispute with the Jews, by the authors. And where is the dispute taking place? ‘59 He spoke this in the synagogue, teaching in Capernaum’ — oh, that’s it, in the heat of a conversation on the shore with the Tiberias boatmen, he suddenly imperceptibly moved from the shore to Capernaum, finding himself in the synagogue surrounded by the Jews. Let me remind you that in Galilee Capernaum there were no Jews, let alone a Jewish synagogue. It will actually appear there, the synagogue, only 50 years later, after the Jewish wars and populating of Galilee by the refugee Jews. This whole ‘conversation with the Jews’ at first consisted of an independent passage from the Last Supper 53—58, and then gradually grew into completely meaningless repetitions and obsessive Judaization in several stages of editing and rewriting by those who wanted to turn Jesus’ sermon in their own way. In subsequent chapters, we will repeatedly encounter similar artificial heaps of ridiculous semantic constructions.

“6:60Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? 6:61But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? 6:62What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? 6:63It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life. 6:64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. 6:65And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father. 6:66Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 6:67Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, Would ye also go away? 6:68Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 6:69And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God. 6:70Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil? 6:71Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.”

Well, it seems they had to finish with something, because the number of absurdities and incongruities is growing in an avalanche. The Jews suddenly disappeared somewhere along with the synagogue, but some more tempted disciples appeared whom Jesus did not choose (did not I choose you twelve), unbelievers whom He knew in advance, to whom it was not given from the Father — and how could they then become pupils? Peter believes i Him — at the same time! — both as the Son of God (that is, the younger god according to pagan beliefs), and in Christ at the same time, that is, the Anointed and King of the Jews. “But one of you is a devil” — why then chose him, for your own destruction, perhaps so “that the scriptures might be fulfilled”?

And what did you and I learn from Jesus from this lengthy sermon? Except for the Mystery of gaining Eternal Life through Faith in the Son of God and Communion to Him through His Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of Communion, there is nothing new. And endless obsessive repetitions of vague allusions to unity with the Father, seasoned also with unity with everything else that is: with the Jewish God, Jewish scripture, prophets, Jews, synagogue and pagan beliefs — all this mixture does not tell us any Doctrine, which Jesus seems to have to share with those to whom He preaches and with us, dear readers. “You spoke here for three hours and told neither one nor the other,” as it is written in Winnie-the-Pooh book.

There is only one takeaway from this chapter, the mention of the Last Supper.

John, Chapter 7

In the seventh chapter we are talking about the same thing: how Jesus again went to fetch the Christmas tree… oh, sorry, that is, to Jerusalem for the feast, and not explicitly, but “as if secretly,” that is, apparently, alone. Interestingly, it begins with the phrase:

“7:1And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him.” — and this is the holy truth, and everything else in this chapter is sheer blatant lie, except, perhaps, one single phrase in the verse 28, and even that one is disguised as Judaism with a preliminary insert.

In this chapter in verses 2—14 His brothers mock him, provoking him to go to the feast, he refused “because the hour has not come”; but he went in secret, entered the temple and taught:

“7:15The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? 7:16Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. 7:17If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself. 7:18He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. 7:19Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me?” — that is, it turns out that the Teaching of Jesus is the knowledge of the Scriptures “without learning”, and this is the teaching of the Father, and therefore — as was required to prove to the Judaizers — the Father is Jehovah. At the same time, to be sure, they dragged Moses into this as well.

“7:20The multitude answered, Thou hast a demon: who seeketh to kill thee? 7:21Jesus answered and said unto them, I did one work, and ye all marvel because thereof. 7:22Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man. 7:23If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath? " — this is a reference to Ch. 5, inserted rather crudely, since it turns out that Jesus just performed a miracle in the pool, and it is fresh in the memory of those to whom he speaks — as if they have not left Jesus anywhere since then, similarly to how they advise on TV during advertising “do not go anywhere”. Jesus, being a Galilean, tells the Jews about circumcision on the Sabbath! Author, hello!

“7:24Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 7:25Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he whom they seek to kill? 7:26And lo, he speaketh openly, and they say nothing unto him. Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the Christ?” — again the Jewish Mashiach, and who else? Judaic righteousness was measured by the observance of the Law of Mitzvos, and nothing else!

“7:27Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is.”- that’s interesting, they themselves don’t know Him and don’t recognize, but where He comes from — they know in the crowd IN JERUSALEM

“7:28Jesus therefore cried in the temple, teaching and saying, Ye both know me, and know whence I am;” teaching and speaking about what? No, it is yet another insert. This is a parallel dispute between the authors of the Gospel and the “hard-eyed” Jews, who did not believe that Jesus was the very expected Jewish Messiah. And then: “and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 7:29I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me. "- you do not know the True God, but I know, and He sent me — this is the sermon about another God, and where is anything about the law. Moses and Jehovah? Here is the time for the Jews to seize Jesus and execute him on the spot: what he said by their standards is a blasphemy.

Further, from 30 to 37 there is nothing interesting, so banal squarrel between Jesus and the Jews.

“7:38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water.” — you can check for yourself, there is no such statement in the OT at all. There are seven quotes [48], designated as parallel places, three of them somehow vaguely resemble the meaning, but there is no exact quote! And then the author of this opus remembers to explain what “Jesus” meant:

“7:39But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified. " — that is, the Spirit was not yet and could not have been before His death and Resurrection, about which the author already knows for some reason as well as about the descent of the Spirit on Pentecost. This is a very late insert, because the mention of the Pentecostal event dates back to the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century. And Jesus ALREADY invites everyone to go to His place and drink, although there is nothing to offer. And, again, what does it have to do with the believers in Him when he tells all this supposedly in the temple to the Jews, who do not know at all who he is in front of them.

Further, from 40 to 52, a fictional scene of squabbles between the people, the Pharisees, their servants and Nicodemus, who secretly sympathized with Jesus, is played out:

“40 Many of the people, hearing these words, said: He is exactly a prophet. 41 Others said: This is Christ. And others said, ‘Will Christ come from Galilee?’ 42 Didn’t the Scripture say that Christ would come from the seed of David and from Bethlehem, from the place where David was? 43 So there was a quarrel about him among the people.44 Some of them wanted to seize him; But no one laid hands on Him. 45 So the servants returned to the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they said to them, Why did you not bring Him? 46 The servants answered: Never a man spoke like this Man. 47 The Pharisees said to them: Are you also deceived? 48 Did any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees believe in Him? 49 But this people is ignorant of the law, it is cursed.50Nikodemus, who came to him at night, being one of them, saith to them: 51 Will our law judge a man, if they do not first listen to him and will they know what he is doing? 52 Then they said to him, Are you also from Galilee? look and you will see that a prophet does not come from Galilee.”

What is this passage about? The fact that the origin of Jesus was well known both to the people and, in particular, to the Pharisaic authorities, which, of course, by that time had already conducted their own investigation into the origin of a man who was glorified among the people as the great prophet and miracle worker. Many considered Him the expected Jewish Messiah, which all Israel was waiting for, and, of course, the church authorities could not ignore this, since they were also expecting the Messiah. For each such incident, a test was required to ensure consistency with the ancient prophecies of the Law, as stated in verses 41—43. After conducting a thorough investigation into the origin of Jesus from the family of the carpenter Joseph, the Pharisees became convinced that Jesus could not have been the expected Mashiach, and therefore did not believe in Him. That is, it was precisely established that He was not a descendant of David, and was not born in Judaic Bethlehem — otherwise they would have learned about it from the investigation carried out from His relatives and from living witnesses, as well as from the genealogical records, which were intact at that time. They would have learned about the descent from David, and about the birth in Bethlehem, and about the fulfillment of all the prophecies that are due to the birth of the Messiah — and they would have believed. But they did not know, and therefore did not believe in Him during His life.

An obvious, albeit shocking, conclusion follows from this.

That is, it turns out that, firstly, Jesus was never a Jewish Messiah, just as the Jews claim to this day. And secondly, the whole story about the Magi, the star, the deception of Herod by the Magi, the beating of infants, the census, the birth in a manger in Bethlehem and, possibly, the flight to Egypt and the return from it to Nazareth is probably a later invention of the authors of the synoptic gospels who bent over backwards to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Mashiach they expected, and they simply made a mistake, not understanding and not accepting Him as such.

53 “and then they went home.”

So what, after all, did Jesus teach the Jews, why did he trudge on foot so far from Galilee? The Evagelist only promises and says: now, right now — but no teaching, except for the only statement for the whole chapter of the fact that He was sent by another God, the Father, with whom He is One (already fed up with the constant obsessive repetition of the same, completely understandable from the first time); we never hear anything else from Jesus in this chapter. In a word — another empty shell based on a single phrase, which they tried to give a sense of succession from Judaism, and for this they invented a whole chapter of yet another visit of Jerusalem by Jesus which actually never happened, just like the previous visits, and the arguments with the Jews that disguised the meaning of Jesus’ preaching about another, non-Jewish God. Nothing new.

John, chapter 8

This chapter is interesting in that it continues and maintains the line of Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem alone, without disciples, “as if in secret.”

It starts strangely — everyone went home, and Jesus went to spend the night on the Mount of Olives — he didn’t find a place in the city, or what? And in the morning he was again in the temple to preach to the Jews again. And then — an episode of an event about a woman taken in adultery, clearly inserted here, as a separate entry about a real event to revive the text, so that the endless strife of Jesus with the Jews does not look deliberately mournful, an imaginary dialogue in details that simply could not be literally remembered for thirty-fifty-seventy years after the evangelical events. We will not analyze this story in detail, it has nothing to do with the main line of the narrative, and therefore we will immediately move on to verse 12 and beyond. I will just note that this scene was most likely taken and borrowed from the “gospel of the Jews”.

“Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.”- such a call, similar to self-promotion, to beleive Jesus’ word, that you urgently need to sign up to him as a disciple, a kind of recruitment of followers. Further from 13 to 18 again there is an altercation of “Jesus with the Jews” about whether it is possible to believe Jesus, is Jesus true or not. But what the speech is about, what kind of truth — the parties are silent. The mention of the Father as a witness to the truth of Jesus looks, to put it mildly, unconvincing.

“8:19They said therefore unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also. 8:20These words spake he in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man took him; because his hour was not yet come. 8:21He said therefore again unto them, I go away, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sin: whither I go, ye cannot come. 8:22The Jews therefore said, Will he kill himself, that he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come? 8:23And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 8:24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” — what is this about, who can understand this, and why is it said? You might think that Jesus is deliberately teasing the audience, carrying some kind of absurdity about himself and his own father, unknown to anyone, like Himself. The reaction to these speeches is just quite predictable — bewilderment. In general, Jesus has not yet said essentially anything that could form an idea of His Teachings — and why, then, all this sermon — to deliberately tease in order to run into murder?

The key is that this is a completely artificial verbal construction, compiled much later by those who put into the “words of Jesus” the secret meaning of the Teaching that had developed by that time: the Heavenly Father is another God, not Jehovah, but Jesus — the Son of God — is inseparable with the Father. whoever has seen and knows the Son sees in Him the Father, God — all this is a continuation and repetition of what has already been written in the Prologue. There simply could not be any sermon to the Jews in the temple about another God, and the compilers of this construct are well aware of this and make a reservation all the time, firstly, ascribing to Jesus a conspiratorial mystery in speeches, as if “so that the enemy cannot not guess” what he is talking about (but then why is this talk at all)? and secondly, constantly, like mantra, saying that yes, they would have killed, but miraculously they did not kill again, because “His hour did not come.” By the way, it is here that the mention of “I am going away” appears, which clearly indicates the misplacement of this whole episode — apparently, all this as a whole could refer to the only week of Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem, which ended with His tragic death.

“8:25They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning. "- in fact, this is a rather ridiculous translation from Greek, conjectured by the translators in their own way, again with the aim of cleverly attributing to Jesus, as One with the Father, the common name of the Jewish God Jehovah “Existing” — but the word “Existing “is absent in the Greek text [49], it is simply not there. What is there? You will be surprised, literally, according to the words, it turns out: “Jesus said to them: THE BEGINNING, as I say to you.” It is surprising that this quite clear indication of Himself as the “Beginning” has been completely ignored in numerous translations: some took the cunning path of attributing the name of Jehovah to Jesus, others emphasize “from the beginning of the sermon” — and all this is speculation, interpretation, and more and more sewage sediments of more and more generations of interpreters, many of whom are now honored as saints. So where does Jesus come from, what did He say? No, not to the Jews in the accusatory dispute with a hostile crowd imagined by the authors — but hammered this thought into his disciples until it was remembered and stuck in their heads so firmly that they conveyed it in John’s gospel and hammered into you and me. Jesus is the BEGINNING of the adoption of mankind by the Heavenly Father, the first of people adopted by God, the Son of God Born from Above — and this is already becoming like something unheard of, which can be declared a truly new revolutionary Teaching about the relationship between God and people. This is truly the Good News, the great Mystery communicated by Jesus to mankind: your destiny is to become GODS!

“8:26I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world. 8:27They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father. 8:28Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things. 8:29And he that sent me is with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are pleasing to him. 8:30As he spake these things, many believed on him. 8:31Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; 8:32and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” — what is this “this” that He told them so convincingly that “many believed in Him”? Personally, I can not find in all this mournful verbose repetition of the same riddles without clues, nothing that could be believed, no revelations were communicated at all during the whole three chapters of “preaching to the Jews.” And who would listen to this gibberish? Those who wrote it had before their inner gaze the meaning with which these repeated time and again incantations are filled for them — but who would listen to such a “sermon” from the outside? This is an experience and an example of how not to preach.

“8:33They answered unto him, We are Abraham’s seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? " — this is a very funny statement of those who had no idea about Jewish realities: practically all of their “history” described in the Bible, the Jews were in captivity and under the yoke of other peoples and states, much more powerful than they are. As for the real history of the Jews, which differs from the biblical one like heaven from earth, it is possible that it would be incorrect to talk about Jewish statehood in general — but this is just a side remark.