Paulina's promise to her grandfather, Jesus

The author of this blog is proud to announce the publication of his book:
"Paulina's promise to her grandfather, Jesus". (Available as an Amazon Kindle book.)
Here is the description of the book:
It has been said that “the Bible is the greatest story ever told”, and yet with the breakdown of religion in these times, perhaps it is time to learn the truth about this story. This book “Paulina's promise to her grandfather, Jesus” uncovers the truth about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Paul, and the early Christian Church. It is not another half-cocked book about Jesus going to India or Mary Magdalene sitting at Da Vinci’s Last Supper or of founding a Grail Dynasty. It is a well-documented and consistent, although alternative, history. It is hoped that the truth about Jesus will help to diffuse misguided religious fanaticism and for that reason be an even greater story!

We have only now begun to feel the impact of the Nag Hammadi Books and the Dead Sea Scrolls on our view of religion. These books were found when I was born and that was a mere sixty-five years ago. Books like Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail are just the tip of the iceberg because there have never been facts that can explain it and prove all of the story. This book can.

Paulina is a real person who lived and is just as real as her mother Phoebe and father Paul, her grandfather Jesus, her grandmother Mary Magdalene, her great-grandfather Joseph, and her great-grandmothers Mother Mary and Salome-Martha.

People will say that this book threatens to turn Jesus into a mere person, but Christianity can survive this as it did in the Protestant Revolution. There will always be fanatics who cause religious wars in the name of God and violate the true principle of God of “turning the other cheek”. When the Protestants dared to demote Jesus from God to ‘Son of God’, there were years of bloodshed, but now both sides have learned to respect each other as Christians. In these times, the “moneychangers” of the Churches are beginning to understand that perhaps their churches have become empty because myths cannot stand up to science and common sense anymore.

Clearly, we are now moving to a new paradigm that requires respect for all religions and non-religions. Christianity can no longer have the exclusive hold to "Peter’s keys" as the only door to heaven, because heaven is open to all good people or rather I should say that heaven is all good people.

The solution to the vitalizing of Christianity is to go back to the roots of the early Christian Church. In those days, all were brothers and sisters who dealt with values of conscience between ones Self and God. It did not require Jesus or Paul or the Disciples or the clerics to be the only conduit to God. These early leaders taught by example and it is their personal mistakes and successes that are so much more valuable to us in this electronic age of personal empowerment.

Have you wondered why there must be a Second Coming? Even in 70 AD when Jesus was still alive, having survived the Crucifixion, he was still wishing to tear down the myth about his Resurrection. He begged his granddaughter Paulina to expose this lie. In her own loving words she describes the truths by using the contents of explicit first century references from historians, apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and carefully translated passages from original Greek New Testament.
Her book, having been hidden in a cave by Paulina before her martyrdom by the Church leaders, was found by Bernadette of Lourdes and it has only now come to light. It is the spreading of this book to the world that will finally replace the feared Apocalypse with a true Revelation of true Revelation that will foster humanity’s desire for global conscience and consciousness.

Hope you find it illuminating,
Dylan

Man of a Lie

Fragment of the 1QpHab

In the prophetic texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is still quite a bit of contention about who is the “Teacher of Righteousness” and who the “Man of the Lie”. There is still an effort to place these texts back in the time of the Maccabees in an effort to disprove the obvious similarity of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the New Testament. Such an effort has been slowly losing ground and it is becoming accepted that many of the Dead Sea Scrolls where composed during the time of Jesus. The Habakkuk pesher is one of these that stands out.

The pesher is in two parts in the DSS, first is the quote from the Old Testament then the interpretation or pesher of its meaning in the present situation:

Why do you stare, traitors, and remain silent when the wicked one swallows up one more righteous than he? (Habakkuk 1:13)

Its pesher refers to the House of Absalom and the members of its council who kept silent at the time of the chastisement of the Teacher of Righteousness and did not help him against the Man of a Lie who flouted the Law in the midst of their whole congregation.

Next I will show how this refers to mysterious event in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke called the Transfiguration with the most complete description being in Mark. I will quote the passages from Mark and then interpret them according to the “Pesher of Christ”.

9:2 And after six days doth Jesus take Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up to a high mount by themselves, alone, and he was transfigured before them,
9:3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.
9:4 And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.
9:7 A cloud came, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, 'This is my beloved Son. Listen to him.'
9:8 Suddenly looking around, they saw no one with them any more, except Jesus only.
9:5 And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
9:6 For he didn't know what to say, for they were very afraid.
9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
9:10 They kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean.
9:11 And they (Peter, James & John) asked him, saying: Why then do the Pharisees and scribes say that Elias must come first?
9:12 And he answering said to them, 'Elijah indeed, having come first, doth restore all things; and how hath it been written concerning the Son of Man, that many things he may suffer, and be set at nought?

The Pesher of Christ shows three men in authority standing before the congregation on a platform (mountain) on the Day of Atonement: Jesus dressed in the robe of the High Priest (raiment white as snow), Jonathan Annas (Elijah) (levite) and Theudas Barabbas (Moses) (prophet). (See the previous blogs on the identities of the disciples.)

Pope Simon Magus (the cloud) arrives and chastises Jesus for assuming to be the High Priest. The congregation realizes that it is just Jesus and are furious.

Peter questions the actions of Jesus because he knows he is out of line because the persons who can take the three positions have been defined in the law. (These lines are misplaced, since Peter would not have interrupted the ceremony. Also by moving Peter’s question up in the paragraph he is made to appear to have more authority, though he would not have been part of the ceremony being neither priest nor prophet.)

Jesus, knowing that he did a bad thing, asks the disciples not to broadcast it. Then adds that there will come a day when he can be High Priest, using the metaphor of him rising from the dead, but it is more like the expression, “Till hell freezes over!” The disciples now have a great line to quote for his resurrection!

The disciples question why the congregation is shouting that Jonathan Annas (Elijah) should come first. Jesus sheepishly, with a ready pun, says that Elijah (meaning John the Baptist) did come first and that this is just another case where He, the Son of Man is being persecuted. In actuality Jonathan is his superior because the rules say that only a priest can be the High Priest.

Notice how well this fits the DSS Habakkuk pesher and how easily the Pesher of Christ describes the Transfiguration in it own pesher: The Pesher of Christ!

Jesus' Birthdate: Duh! Luke shows his Bar Mitzvah.

It is interesting to see how consensus opinions are now being created on the Internet. One person puts out a theory and everyone copies it. Goggle indexes them and suddenly it becomes the truth. All that remains is for someone to publish a book so that the Wikipedia vigilantes can be tamed with a seemingly authoritative footnote from a book! God help those who try to enter a well-thought-out theory directly into Wikipedia because the Church police will remove it faster than you can upload it!

(Please excuse my politically incorrect use of BC and AD instead of BCE and CE, which I have done for clarity. It is difficult enough that the 0 year is absent causing 1 BC (Before Christ) to be followed by 1 AD (the Year of the Lord) which means that 6 years prior to 1 AD is 7 BC not 6 BC. Also, this means that two thousand years after 1 AD is 2001, one year after the celebrated millennium!)

So I have searched the Internet and I find that almost everyone seems to now agree that the crucifixion was on JD Friday, April 3, 33AD. Please try this date. (Note: this is a Julian Date as the Gregorian date puts this on April 1, April Fool’s day! Run the calendar applet that Edward M. Reingold has so generously put up, saving us from talking with a LISP, using April 1, 33AD at emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/third-edition/index.html.)

Not long ago the consensus used to be 30 AD for Jesus’ crucifixion, which the Wikipedia Church police are still enforcing. The date of 30 AD comes about because Luke 3.23 says, “And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age…”.

The naïve believed that Jesus was born in 1 AD and thus used 30 AD for his crucifixion and, relying on the Synoptic Gospels only, allowed one year for his mission and also forgot the 0, which would make his age at the crucifixion 29!

The next consensus, having finally accepted that the 1 AD date for Jesus’ birth was off by three years at 4 BC (even 5 BC), still used 30 AD for his crucifixion as this would leave time for his now accepted three or four year ministry according to the gospel of John. His mission would have to start at 27 AD (or 26 AD) at age 30.

Finally, this new consensus of Friday, April 3, 33, having given us the true date of Jesus’ crucifixion, moves the start of his mission up to 30 AD or 29 AD at age 33. The time is right to put the true answer on the Internet waves and see if a new consensus can be built that will give the true date of birth for Jesus at 7 BC, which makes him 35 years old at the start of his four year mission in 29 AD and age 39 at his death.

Jesus’ birth date is a particularly thorny problem because the gospels of Matthew and Luke both contain his birth and yet Matthew appears to align with historical facts and Luke appears to have made a mistake that is off by at least nine years after having been a contemporary of the twelve disciples!

Matthew describes King Herod as the ruler during the time of the Nativity (Matthew 2:1), and it is now a known fact that Herod died in 4BC. Furthermore, to kill Jesus and eliminate him as a rival king, Herod orders the Massacre of the Innocents (Matthew 2:16-18) i.e. the killing of all male children in Bethlehem aged two years and under. This means that Jesus would have to be at least two years old by Herod's death at the end of March or early April 4BC, and this sets the Nativity at or before 6BC.

(Incidentally, the Samaritan (Magian) calendar was two years ahead of Herod’s calendar so the Magi tricked Herod by telling him their date for the expected King, so Herod waited two years before he realized that he had been tricked. Dr. Barbara Thiering, whose theories unjustly tend to be dismissed out of hand by the consensus, has made this shrewd observation. However, this is not really necessary for this discussion anyway.)

Luke places the Nativity during the Census of Quirinius that took place in 6 AD when a census was taken for tax purposes. This date is also accepted by the consensus, though some have labored to try to prove that there was a census earlier to try to reconcile Luke with Matthew. This census had been opposed by Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37; Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18:1.1), and also known as ‘The Period of Wrath’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 1:5).

Rather than assuming that Luke is in error, it is more logical to assume that Luke is referring to Jesus’ metaphorical birth, therefore his coming of age (Bar Mitzvah)!

Although this rite of passage (Bar Mitzvah) is traditionally held on the thirteenth birthday, Luke 2:41,42 states that Jesus’ parents took him to Jerusalem to be present at Passover at the age of twelve indicating that that the age twelve must have been significant to the Essenes or the Sadducees and also that his birthday could have been in March or April.

Therefore counting back from 6 AD twelve years, we have a tentative birthday of March or April 7 BC (remembering no 0 date), which synchronizes Matthew and Luke!

(According to http://www.abdicate.net/cal.aspx, Passover on Nissan 15 is JD April 14, 7 BC, but Jesus could have reached the age of twelve as early as March or maybe it was April 3 and Jesus was crucified on his birthday!)

I will in a later blog talk about John the Baptist’s birth date, which is shown in detail in Luke and how it will also confirm this date, but meanwhile, I hope that consensus will eventually accept this obvious point and add it to their sites and to finally vindicate Luke for his unforgivable error and settle an issue that has baffled scholars for two thousand years.

Bible Translations: Old paradigms are hard to break

There are many Bible translations, supporters of each insisting that theirs is the correct one, in fact as Paul said in 1 Corinthians, we are merely “seeing through glass darkly.” We will not address the “word of God” issue for as we have said before, God needed to translate the Greek to English on a stone like the Ten Commandments, but similar to the Rosetta Stone.

Firstly, problems occur when translators use lexicons that have been complied by previous translators. OK let say you have decided to create a new New Testament translation. You take out your trusty New Testament lexicon and start translating. Wait a minute, how can you make a new translation by using the same words that the other translators used! Case in fact, on the cross Jesus was given in John 19:29 what is translated as hyssop. This is the same herb that was mysteriously mixed with lamb’s blood and put on the doors and lintels by the Hebrews during the original Passover. The PDR of Herbal Medicines says that this herb is used for liver and gall bladder complaints and in some rare cases it can cause tonic-clonic spasms if used over a number of days.

Why would this herb be given to Jesus? Apparently after taking it he fainted. You might say the author of the gospel of John got carried away and wanted to use the Passover symbolism on Jesus’ blood, but no credit is given to the Old Testament scripture as in the preceding verse for “I thirst” quoting Psalms 69:21 “They gave me poison for food and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink”. From this we can see where the vinegar came from that was mixed with the hyssop in John 19:29. Vinegar also occurs before the crucifixion in Luke 23:36 when the soldiers offered it to Jesus while mocking him.

So was it hyssop or something else? Perhaps it is the term like “grass” that is the hippie word for marijuana. Maybe it is opium. We may never know for sure unless some document is known that defines what hyssop meant to the Jews or Essenes. Kind of harks back to the member of the original Dead Sea Scroll team, John Allegro, who got in trouble with his book: "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross". Well, in any case, I think it is clear that the use of the New Testament dictionary will not lead to a new translation, just a recitation of the same old New Testament.

Secondly, when you do your translation, you will inevitably be cheating because there is very little possibility that you have not read the previous translated versions or heard someone tell you the story according to these translations. You would need to be visitor from outer space to be without knowledge of the New Testament! So here are some verses that are a good example of assumptions not valid. The scene in John 19:25-27 are three Mary’s at the cross (John does not have four). Then there is also the disciple, whom Jesus loved, standing near them. Jesus says “Mother here is your son” and then to the disciple, “Here is your mother”. Simple enough you would say: Jesus like a good son is wanting for his mother to be cared, as she is a widow. But the translators have been sloppy because they think they know what is meant.

In John 19:25 it is very specific to say “the mother of him” right after the word Jesus. Clearly this is Mother Mary, standing next to a sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene. It might be noted that “sister” is really sister as in a convent, but that is a whole other story. In the next verse, Jesus says, “Woman, consider this child of you." The translators have assumed that “woman” refers to his Mother, but let us suppose as the "DaVinci Code" book has told us (excuse me quoting Dan Brown “fiction” that is actually true), Mary Magdalene is pregnant!

Think about what Jesus is saying, if he is addressing the pregnant Mary Magdalene, “Woman, consider this child of you” or in other words, “Take care of our expected son” and in the next verse to the disciple “Consider this mother of you” or in other words, “Take care of Mary Magdalene who is to be a mother.” You will note the word gunē can be translated “wife or woman” and has actually been translated “wife” in other verses when the context called for it. But most importantly it is used in John 20:15 where Jesus (or his resurrected body if you like) is clearly talking to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, Woman, why are you crying?”

So what makes more sense when Jesus is up on the cross in pain for him to take consolation in the fact that he his leaving behind a child (hopefully a son as he only knows the ways of the Jewish-Essene sexist religion or shall I say Roman-Catholic) or to be concerned about his mother like a good Jewish boy or a God?

So now you are on your way to being a radical translator or as the Church would say, "a heretic". So far, by using an open mind, you have found two interesting points about Jesus on the cross: "hyssop" is not what it seems and may in fact be some drug that makes Jesus appear as if he is dead and that Jesus on the cross is concerned for his pregnant Mary Magdalene and his child and wants them to be cared for. Much more research is necessary, but it is a start of breaking the old paradigms and finding a new one that is based upon truth.

King Arthur and Jesus Christ: both real, but not as you believe

It is unfortunate that we human beings believe things to be true just because we heard it from a “reliable” source. How we arrive at what source is reliable is more in the realms of magic and illusion. So lets suppose you believe something because it was in a textbook in school. The textbook no doubt reflects majority opinion. But let us suppose that the teacher punishes you unfairly. At that point you might reject everything that you were taught. So it is always necessary to ask oneself how whether ones beliefs are actually true or if they are a result of positive reinforcement or “negative” reinforcement. This is true of weight-loss fads, politics, science, race hatred … the list goes on. In this blog I want to show you the similarities between what we believe about King Arthur and Jesus Christ.

I do not need to tell you about what you already believe:
Arthur was a Christian knight dressed in armor who lived in a castle and his chivalrous knights sat around a roundtable and that he died a Camlan at the hand of Mordred.
Jesus was sent by God to teach his disciples for brief time and then to atone for our sins in his crucifixion and resurrection. Peter and Paul were left to build the Church.

It is interesting that in both cases, many believe that these are just myths that cannot be confirmed by historical facts and yet both Arthur and Jesus did actually exist except not as we believe. Let us analyze what is truth and what is myth.

Arthur was Christian, but Christian like St. Patrick and St. David who practiced a form of Christianity that the Roman Church called heresy. (Of course, Rome said the same thing about eastern wing of the Church: Orthodox Christianity.) He did not dress in armor or live in a castle as many historians admit, for logically he would have been dressed more like a Roman cavalry soldier and would have lived in a hill-fort. Chivalry was not invented until the 11th century in the Middle Ages not in the so-called Dark Ages of Arthur and the story of the Roundatble was added later. He actually survived Camlan as he was healed on Bardsey Island. Then as his father and grandfather did, he retired to be a Celtic Christian saint (sainthood did not rely on Rome's approval) to be known as St. Armel and lived in Brittany.

Jesus was a descendant of the House of David and since David and Solomon were Jewish heroes, he was more a King than a priest of the three priestly houses of Zadok, Abiathar, and Levi. The disciples that appear in more places than the list of the twelve in the Gospels (see previous blogs) were those who accepted Jesus as the representative of the priests in the Jewish Essene Church that they belonged to. The atonement was added later. His crucifixion happened, but he only fainted on the cross. His resurrection was that he survived to live a long life afterwards. It was under his direction that Peter and Paul set the stage for a Christian Church in Rome.

For the truth about Arthur, I recommend the book: Journey to Avalon by Chris Barber and David Pykitt, Blorenge Books, Abergavenny and for the truth about Jesus: Jesus the Man by Barbara Thiering, 2006 Simon and Schuster, New York and on the webspace: http://www.peshertechnique.infinitesoulutions.com/

I invite you to visit my two sites:
Arthur Pendragon of Wales and The Pesher of Christ, a new Christian paradigm.
*******************************************************************

New Web site: Pesher of Christ

Since February, I have been working to complete the Revelations section of Dr. Barbara Thiering at http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/ which has been updated now to http://www.peshertechnique.infinitesoulutions.com/ to avoid confusion. This is my nonprofit site, which my corporation pays for and, since May 2005, I have donated my time and effort in building and supporting this site in conjunction with Dr. Thiering. Since this site contains only her work, I felt that it was time that I started my own site using the name "Pesher of Christ" which I invented and lent to Dr. Thiering's webspace.

Although I have great respect for her work, I feel that her work has suffered from her insistence on the Rules of the Pesher which I am not convinced do exist. These rules have no documentary or historical support; however, the results of these rules are set out in the site above. Please review it for yourself and do not take my opinion. Although some of her findings have appeared in the “DaVinci Code”, many scholars dismiss her work out of hand precisely because of her Rules of Pesher.

I wanted to create a site that could express the new Christian paradigm that does not seek to devalue Jesus Christ as merely "Jesus the Man" (title of Dr. Thiering's book), but shows that an understanding of the truth about Jesus can be an important stepping-stone for an inclusive Christian faith rather than one that is secularized and exclusive. I also wanted to show proofs that support a new view of Jesus in the context of the paradigm in which he lived. These proofs will use Historical Writings (e.g. Josephus and Philo), Apocryphal Writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Books, and sometimes merely common sense and logical deduction alone.

I hope that you will join me on this journey as I map out the facts that are hidden in the New Testament in a similar way that I did in my earlier blogs that deciphered the Twelve Disciples. I will not be using Dr. Thiering's “pesher technique”, but rather a looser construction that I am calling the Pesher of Christ.

Please visit my site at http://www.pesherofchrist.com/

*********************************************************
*
*

The Twelve Apostles All Accounted For

Looking at the lists of the twelve apostles from the New Testament (shown under "Sources" at the bottom of this blog from Luke, Mark, Matthew, John, and Acts), we can see that most of the apostles correspond. There are just a few loose connections:

* Simon's stature is greater than he appears (discussed in the previous blog)
* Thaddaeus appears to be the same as Thaddaeus and Lebbaeus whose
surname was Thaddaeus, but "Judas son of James" and "Judas the
brother of James" need explanation (Also, he is somewhat obscure)
* James son of Alphaeus is obscure
* Nathaniel is missing from the list
* Matthew is degraded as a tax collector of Rome
* Bartholomew is somewhat obscure

When looking at the lists of the apostles it becomes apparent that the order of the apostles is significant. With the top apostle being Peter, it would be assumed that the top down order has significance to Jesus. With the exception of Acts where Thomas moves up to the position six, certainly the top six in the list are directly under Jesus. They are Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, and Bartholomew.

However, perhaps the reverse order, bottom to top, could also be of importance in the hierarchy of the current organization that Jesus belonged to. Also, considering that the top hierarchy needed to be protected from being captured by Rome, their names would be probably be in code and that may explain why some of them are so obscure.

In reverse order we have Judas Iscariot, Thaddaeus, and Simon as the top three and there they are: candidates for the three crosses! In the previous blog, I showed how important Simon was, so chances are he made it to the center cross.

Now, we have the story of a person called Barabbas getting switched with Jesus. Barabbas is a nice sounding pirate name, but wait, remember that Simon Bar-Kokhba zealot, “bar” just means “son of”, thus Barabbas is "son of Abba (Father)". Not confusing “son of” as blood-relations but instead using this to mean religious position, this name sounds like another “son of” as in James son of Alphaeus. Since Simon appears to be the “alpha guy”, and Judas Iscariot "with the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field and there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out” (Acts 1:18), was clearly not Barabbas; we now we can associate Thaddaeus with Barabbas!

The “Judas, not Iscariot” in the Gospel of John at the Last Supper must also be Thaddaeus, clearly filling the slot just left by Judas Iscariot who left the Last Supper to betray Jesus. It would appear that Judas is more of a title that may have begun with the documented historical person Judas of Galilee (see link below) who was killed in 6 AD. "Judas son of James" in the list of twelve in Luke, being at the correct position that Thaddaeus would have been in, gives us a clue that Thaddaeus took the title of Judas sometimes. As he is shown as "Judas son of James" it would appear that he was an independent and may have been under James and at other times under Simon. There is clearly no need for scholars to go after Jude (Hey, Jude), the brother of Jesus for Thaddaeus or invent a whole family tree by misusing "son of". In any case, Jude the brother of Jesus, would be about 17 years old at the time.

Looking at James son of Alphaeus again, we have this James reporting to an Alphaeus person. By the first part being the Greek letter ‘alpha’ like “alpha and omega”, it must refer to the “top guy”. His position in the list puts him after the three top leaders and he must report to the top guy. Seeing as we have a Nathanael at John 1:43-49 & John 21:2 as one of the first recruits of Jesus, it looks like he would be a good candidate for “James son of Alphaeus”. The name Nathanael means “God has given” which is similar to Jonathan “gift of God” who was the friend of King David. Given that that Jonathan was the prince, son of King Saul, and David took his title by marrying his sister, this tells us quite a bit about the relationship of “James son of Alphaeus” to Jesus who was in the lineage of David. It would also explain why he was later called “Stephanos” meaning crown making him that same martyred Stephen.

Next we will look at Matthew being maligned as a Roman tax collector. The Catholic Encyclopedia asserts that Matthew once could have been called "Levi", according to Mark 2:14 & Luke 5:27 where there is a Levi, son of Alphaeus, a tax collector and a publican who was called to follow Jesus. Incidentally, the Encyclopedia also states that "The fact of one man having two names is of frequent occurrence among the Jews." Here is the true connection with tax collector: (Hebrews 7:5): "And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham." This is again an example of an obvious explanation of tax collector overlooked by experts that makes Matthew (Levi), not a forgiven hated tax collector of the Romans, but a tax collector of the Church and in fact a priest of the priestly tribe of Levi.

Let us take Matthew a step further and say that the four Gospels and the lesser Gospels of Thomas and Philip were not based on verbal remembrances written later, but actually written by these people. After all, they, being Jewish, were not uneducated and therefore perfectly capable of writing words. (Of course, what we look at now are copies as there was no printing press in the time of Jesus.) Therefore, is it not logical that this Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew!

Let us now look at Bartholomew. The "bar" on front of that name makes him "son of Tholomew" which is clearly "son of Ptolemy" which places him from Alexandria, Egypt. In the Works of Philo Judaeus "On The Contemplative Life Or Suppliants" section III, Philo talks about Therapeuts (Therapeutae) from Alexandria who practiced the art of healing. So this is saying that Batholomew reports to the head of the Therapeuts. Since, clearly, he reports to Jesus as he is among the first six names, one might say that "son of Ptolemy" is just a fancy way of saying that he reports to Jesus.

Now, certainly there is a confusion in Church History about two Johns. One is clearly on Patmos writing part of Revelation and the other according to tradition is a John who looked after Mary in Ephesus where there exists a church where she lived. Clearly, the charge that Jesus gave to the "disciple who he loved", which he spoke from the cross, to look after Mary in John 19 26,27 fits the tradition. This "disciple that Jesus loved" is also shown leaning on Jesus' bosom (John 14:23). It is interesting that the "beloved" disciple is associated with "bosom" and Jesus' mother and maybe he was also a guardian of Mary Magdalene, Jesus' wife. Perhaps there is a reason for obscuring the name John under the name Bartholomew or "disciple that Jesus loved" because it is possible that he left Jesus later on perhaps with Mary Magdalene. Given that there are two Johns who are disciples, one could assume that this Bartholomew is the "beloved disciple" and that his name is John. Perhaps, also this could be the John who wrote the Gospel of John.

As the Brits say, "Sorted!"

In review, the twelve apostles are in two groups of six.

The top group report to Jesus:
1. Peter
2. Andrew (not a relation)
3. & 4. James and John (twin illegitimate sons of a Roman noble - The Clementine Homilies - see previous blog)
5. Philip (He has his own gospel - Nag Hammadi Library)
6. Bartholomew (The beloved disciple, John who wrote the Gospel of John)

The bottom group report to "Alphaeus" whoever was the top "Pope" at the time. These are the top groups superiors (sorry to have to report that Jesus reported to them):

The top leaders:
1. Simon (the leader, Alphaeus)
2. Judas Iscariot (a top wanna-be)
3. Thaddaeus (also Barabbas)
The substitute leaders:
4. James son of Alphaeus (top wanna-be: Stephanos (Stephen), the crown)
5. Matthew (a Levite who wrote the Gospel Of Matthew)
6. Thomas (the twin, a dispossessed Herod prince. He has his own gospel - Nag Hammadi Library - see previous blog)

Hope you were able to follow along. This is an example of "The Pesher of Christ" method at work.

Sources:

Luke.6 Verses 14 to 16

1. Simon, whom he named Peter
2. Andrew his brother
3. James
4. John
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James the son of Alphaeus
10. Simon who was called the Zealot
11. Judas the son of James
12. Judas Iscariot, traitor.

Mark.3 Verses 16 to 19

1. Simon, whom he named Peter
2. Andrew
3. James the son of Zebedee
4. John, the brother of James, both the sons of Thunder
Andrew is in this slot.
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James the son of Alphaeus
10. Simon the Canaanite
11. Thaddaeus
Simon is in this slot
12. Judas Iscariot, traitor

Matthew.10 Verses 2 to 4.

1. Simon, who is called Peter
2. Andrew his brother
3. James the son of Zebedee
4. John, his brother
5. Philip,
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew, the tax collector
8. Thomas, and
Matthew is here
9. James the son of Alphaeus, and
10. Simon who was called the Zealot,
11. Lebbaeus whose suname was Thaddaeus
Simon is here
12. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him


John 6:67,70,71

1. Simon Peter (John 6:67) also from Bethsaida (John 1:44)
2. Andrew Simon Peter’s brother (John 1:40) also from Bethsaida (John 1:44)
3. sons of Zebedee (James) (John 21:2)
4. sons of Zebedee (John) (John 21:2)
5. Philip of Bethsaida(not mentioned)
6. Bartholomew (not mentioned)
7. Matthew (not mentioned)
8. Thomas (called Didymus) (John 21:2)
9. James the son of Alphaeus (not mentioned)
10. Simon who was called the Zealot (not mentioned)
11. Lebbaeus whose suname was Thaddaeus (not mentioned)
12. Judas Iscariot, Satan (John 6:71)

John unassigned:
1. Nathanael (God has given) Jonathan (gift of God) from Cana in Galilee (John 1:43-49 & John 21:2)
2 Judas, not Iscariot (John 14:22)

Acts 1:13

Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
1. Peter
2. Andrew
3. James
4. John
Andrew is here
5. Philip
Thomas is here
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James the son of Alphaeus
10. Simon the Zealot,
11. Judas the brother of James
12. Judas Iscariot (not present)


References:

Judas of Galilee
Simon_bar_Kokhba
Stephanos
Twelve apostles
Philo Book 34 On The Contemplative Life Or Suppliants
**************************************************************************