mary magdalene was not from magdala
magdalene does not mean from magdala. A village magdala never existed at all.

mary magdalene
20 gen 2018

 

 

 

Christian lore has it, that mary magdalene was called magdalene from her home town of magdala. But the new testament does not say that at all.

Now if you browse the web, you will find many mainsream sites giving for granted that a city of magdala on lake tiberias has been found by arcaeologists and excavated. Thruth is, there is no shred of evidence that such excavations are to be identified with a magdala with certainty.

See this article for instance :
http://www.netours.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=292

 

 

 

 

 

<<<<<<<<<<Following Taylor, I suggest the following: 6th-century pilgrims (or their guides!), while en route to Capernaum from
Nazareth or Tiberias, passed Magadan, which was still in ruins from the earthquake of 363. They understood the name to
be a corruption of Magdala. The first pilgrim to locate Magdala on the road from Tiberias to Capernaum was Theodosius
in 530 AD. In the 8th century, an Anglo-Saxon nun named Hugeburc mentions that this was the Magdalene’s birthplace,
and she also mentions a pilgrim church called the House of the Magdalene, where Mary was relieved of her seven
demons. J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 2002.  The Franciscan archaeologists have found the ruins of a Byzantine monastery. Starting in the 6th century
(or perhaps already in the 5th) scribes « corrected » Matthew 15:39 to read « Magdala » instead of « Magadan. » The name
stuck: Until the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 there was an Arab village here called Mejdal.>>>>>>>

Except that a hamlet Magadan is also unattested to except in some Matthew-gospel manuscripts !!!

Clearly, there is a lot of deliberate disinformation and obfuscation here on the part of the gospel forgers and their editors. Let us take a closer look at the hard data here : again, no NT author ever connects mary magdalene to a village of magdala. Only later christian lore, extrabiblical lore, does this. Matthew 15:39 does not mention mary magdalene at all. It mentions a village on the shores of lake tiberias aka sea of galilee, where jesus lands by boat. Except for the fact, that in matthew´s manuscripts carrying this passage, only a part reads magdala here. Others read magdalan. Others still, maghedan !!!
And others, magadan !!! O wondrous harmony of the word of god !!!
Furthermore, none of these toponyms is attested to anywhere by archaeology, epigraphy or any other literature, except here in matthew !!!
That is, none of them, whether MAGDALA or MAGDALAN or MAGHEDAN or MAGADAN has been identified with certainty.
Which leads us to suspect, that none of them ever existed at all, and were all fabricated by the gospel forgers and their editors.

The only comparable toponym in palestine is MIGDAL-EL, mentioned in the book of joshua 19:38, but as a stronghold or fortress, not as a city !!
Furthermore this fort has never been identified.
And : it would be extremely uncommon for MIG to beget MAG, because an apophony i>a is rare. Therefore on a normal basis, you do not go from migdal to magdala.
Migdal-el means tower of god in hebrew ; magdala does not. It cannot. It is something else.
Also you have to remember that the old testament is a fabrication too, and therefore we cannot rule out that this stronghold of migdal-el cited in the book of joshua, be itself a forgery.

But it gets much worse for the gospel forgers and their lying editors : if we now move on to mark, who in his parallel narrative here mentions this village on lake tiberias the alleged jesus allegedly landed at, we encounter a very different toponym altogether : mark 8:10 features a DALMANOUTHA !!!!!!!!!!!!
Again : in mark too here, there is no link to mary magdalene at all – it´s only jesus and his disciples Landing by boat at this dalmanoutha.
And it doesn´t end here : because only part of mark´s manuscripts here read dalmanoutha ; others have DALMOUNAI !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Others still revert to matthew´s mess and feature :
MAGHEDA ; MAGDALA ; MAGADA ; MELEGADA !!!!!!!!!
Again, o wondrous harmony of the word of god !!!!!!!!!!

Summing it up thus far : between matthew and mark, the alleged birthplace or town of residence of mary magdalene was called :
MAGDALA ; MAGDALAN ; MAGHEDAN ; MAGADAN ; MAGHEDA ; MAGADA ; MELEGADA ; DALMANOUTHA ; DALMOUNAI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think if this is the word of god, then god badly needs an ophthalmologist !!!!!!!!!!!

Μεγιδδ?/Μαγεδδ?ν, Megiddó/Mageddón in the Septuagint :

 

such is the greek rendering for megiddo, not magdala !!!

 

 

 

 

 

megiddo has nothing to do with magdala and noone ever proposed such an identification !!!

Furthermore, megiddo is not even on the sea of galilee, where the alleged magdala is supposed to have been !!!

 

Even if we were to regroup the first 7 variae lectiones in matthew´s and mark´s manuscripts here,magdala/magdalan/maghedan/magadan/magheda/magada/melegada into just 1 set of copyist mistakes for a supposed original magdala, there would be left out dalmanoutha and dalmounai which have themselves never been identified, and cannot be ascribed to copyist error, as they differ too much from magdala.

AND LET IT BE REPEATED ONCE MORE . NEITHER MATTHEW NOR MARK LINK ANY OF THESE UNATTESTED PLACES TO MARY MAGDALENE;

 

 

 

 

 

NOR DOES THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE FOR CENTURIES:
<<<<<<<<<<<<from the
6th century onward, Christian pilgrims knew our site as Magdala, home town of Mary Magdalene. Earlier sources,
namely, Eusebius, Jerome, and the 4th-century pilgrims – recognized no Magdala >>>>>>>>>>> :
from the article cited above :
http://www.netours.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=292

Again : before 500 ce, noone ever linked magdala to mary, or even mentioned or showed awareness of a town magdala on the lake of tiberias.
Noone that is, except for 2 mentions in the talmud.

From wiki sub voce magdala :
<<<<<<<<<The Jewish Talmud distinguishes between two Magdalas only.[4]
Magdala Gadar—One Magdala was in the east, on the River Yarmouk near Gadara (in the Middle Ages « Jadar », now Umm Qais), thus acquiring the name Magdala Gadar.
Magdala Nunayya—There was another, better-known Magdala near Tiberias, Magdala Nunayya (« Magdala of the fishes »), which would locate it on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Al-Majdal, a Palestinian Arab village depopulated in the lead up to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was identified as the site of this Magdala. The modern Israeli municipality of Migdal (Khirbet Medjdel), founded in 1910 and about 6 km NNW of Tiberias, has expanded into the area of the former village.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :

 

Now all that is entirely preposterous !!!
Firstly, the date of composition of the talmud is disputable, but generally placed between the II and the V centuries ce, thus the 2 mentions of magdala there might as well be very late and influenced by christianity.
Secondly, neither of these 2 alleged magdalas in the talmud can be identified with certainty.
Third, the first magdala here, if it is gadara, has nothing to do with gospel magdala.
Fourth, magdala nunayya cannot be identified with certainty and the talmud itself did not explain the magdalene in mary magdalene with a hometown at all !!!!!!!!!!!

The funny thing here, is that not only does jewish lore not connect mary magdalene, a supposedly jewish woman, with a magdala at all ; but instead, as late as the XIV century, DENIES SUCH A LINK OUTRIGHT !!!!!!!!!
The midrash ha-gadol is a XIV century compilation of traditional jewish texts. Here is how it explains the name magdalene, quoting an XI century rabbi :
<<<<<<<<<<<< the Midrash HaGadol (Deut. 13:7) states that the mother of Jesus was named « Miriam Magdala Nishaia » (Mary Magdalene), which name, according to the 11th-century Talmudic exegete, Rashi, meant « Mary, the Braider of women’s hair. » !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The first extremely interesting thing for us here about this notice above from the midrash ha-gadol, is the identification of mary magdalene with the mother of jesus. Not his follower as in gospel lore, not his lover as in apocryphal lore. No. His mom !!

Now to the thing with braiding women´s hair : mary magdalene as hairdresser ? No. It´s a malicious pun. First of all, the braider thing is only in the word nishaia. What this funny rabbi is saying is, that magdala means nishaia, a braider of hair :
???? ????? ????? : from right to left : miriam magdala nishaia .
Rabbi rashi had in mind 2 hebrew words, miqsheh: (an artistic) hairdo ; and nasak, to weave.
Thus his nishaia means the weaver of hair, the braider.
Thus he is saying, magdala (means) nishaia : magdala means hairdresser.
Which is nonsense in hebrew, aramaic or what-have-you semitic language.

Our lying rabbi rashi knows all too well that magdala really means mashab: drawing water, from hebrew shaab, to draw,and mah´, water.
But he cannot tell us the truth : he must conceal it, just like matthew and mark. And he overwrites mashab, drawing water, with the similar-sounding miqsheh, hairdo !!! ( Or nishaia).
MAG – DAL – ENE : she who draws water from the well.
Be patient until tomorrow and I shall reveal to you what this is really all about.

MAG in mag-dalene is the common pansemitic root we saw above in hebrew mah´, water.
DAL is another pansemitic root , eg in hebrew dalah, meaning to draw (water, for irrigation, from a well or river).
ENE is our third pansemitic root here, eni or weni or ain, meaning spring, source,well,river.

For instance, in hebrew EN – charod = well of harod.
The variant hebrew form ayin means spring of water.
Thus the -ENE in magdal-ene = well, spring.

Now again : the mother of jesus, mary , was called magdalene = she who draws water from the well. She was no hairdresser. No hooker. No lover of jesus. She was his mother !!!
Why was she nicked water-drawer from the well ?
Because her husband, not joseph who never existed at all, but her real husband, hanan the hidden, was a well/spring/river : he was a daily bather or baptist, a rainmaker, a holy man, and the fountain of righteousness at qumran, a title bestowed on the spiritual leader of that community of real early christians, the natsorayya or nazoraeans = keepers of the torah.

These real early christians were jews, fundamentalist fanatic jews, antiroman jews, nationalist/zionistic jews in the I century ce, hell-bent on awating a messiah to come down from the sky with the heavenly host, to free israel from roman occupation.
That is why proroman matthew and mark, proroman talmud, and procapitalfascist midrash ha-gadol, had so much fun overwriting magdalene as a hairdresser or somehow, in extrabiblical interpretation based on references to a city of magdala in some manuscripts of matthew and mark and in the lying talmud, deriving her sobriquet from a town of magdala nobody had ever heard of until the VI century !!!!

See, these real early christians, the nazoraeans or keepers of the torah, had loads to do with water. John the baptist for instance, a son of mary magdalene and brother of james the just, judas iscariot, simeon bar cleophas and jesus bar saba, was not at all a baptist in the modern christian sense, that is some priest who baptizes newly born to wash away their original sin. No, baptist means daily bather, immerser in the cold living water of rivers such as the jordan, for bodily cleansing, AFTER repentance of sins.
This we know from I-century jewish historian josephus flavius in his book antiquitates judaicae.
Plus, these natsorayya had a training center at qumran on the dead sea, where they wrote hte dead sea scrolls, which feature as spiritual leader a fountain of righteousness, in hebrew yoreh-ha-zedek. Thus water for these fundamentalist fanatic antiroman guerrillas was also a pivotal metaphor in their ideology : water as the source of justice, embodied by their « pope », and water as the cleansing flood that will purge humanity once and for all, like in noah´s time, of the evil romans and most everyone else exvept for them – the saints, the holier-than-thou.

We shall dwell in depth on all this below. The lying gospel of john has an episode which never happened, but was clearly conceived as an overwrite of both the real mary magdalene, unmentioned by name, and the real jesus of real history : it is the episode of jakob´s well.
Almost the entire chapter 4 of john´s gospel is devoted to this encounter between jesus and a samaritan woman at jakob´s well somewhere in samaria. This fiction is based on an old testament episode starring jakob. Jakob is hebrew for james. And james the just ws a brother of jesus and son of mary magdalene. And james became fountain of righteousness, that is chef, at qumran in 38 ce, after the beheading of his elder brother john the baptist at the hands of the proroman herodians.
Thus when lying john here at 4:6 mentions jakob´s spring/well, he is clearly overwriting james´position as leader of the real early christians, the militant jihadist nazoraean jews.
Jesus is resting on the well, when a samaritan woman comes along. She comes to draw water !!! Therefore she is mag-dal-ene, the water-drawer at the well !!!
Jesus explains to her the metaphor of the living water or life-giving water, so dear to qumran ideology.
Therafter, jesus proceeds to confront the woman over her 5 husbands. This number 5 is a dead giveaway for exposing the lying gospel overwrite here : for 5 were the sons of mary and hanan the hidden : john bap, james,judas, simeon and jesus.
Who here, in this malevolent antizealot proroman overwrite, become the 5 husbands of a samaritan woman who´s little better than a whore – the start of the mary-magdalene-as-repentant-sinner lore. Mary magdalene´s men were 6 all in all: 5 SONS AND HER HUSBAND HANAN THE HIDDEN ON WHOM TONS MORE BELOW:AND IN THIS JOHN OVERWRITE NUMBER 6 POPS UP TOO,IN THE GUISE OF A CURRENT COHABITANT OF MARY´S, WHO IS NOT HER HUSBAND !!!!!
THE DIRTY WHORE !!!!!!!!!
The real mary magdalene of history, wife of holy man hanan and mother of holy men john bap and james the just, was instead as chaste and puritanical as it gets – for such were these zealots-for-the-law : the torah.

So finally now that we have decoded and exposed the magdalene gospel and christian/jewish lie, what shall we make of all those fake toponyms interpolated iton matthew´s and mark´s texts so as to justify a connection magdalene/magdala ? What are we to make of all those MAGDALA ; MAGDALAN ; MAGHEDAN ; MAGADAN ; MAGHEDA ; MAGADA ; MELEGADA ; DALMANOUTHA ; DALMOUNAI ?? Again none of those toponyms cited in matthew´s and mark´s manuscripts have been localized with certainty. Most likely because they never existed at all back in the I century ce. Or at any time. Some lying dissimulator, whether the original authors of matthew and mark or their successive editors, inserted those toponyms in their narrative because they were similar to both mary magdalene´s sobriquet and toponyms known by their non-specialist audiences, who would not and could not hair-split about linguistic appropriateness.
Thus magdala was chosen because the torah mentions a migdal-el, tower of god, a fortress not a city but who would remember that? : matthew was a second century jew writing for II century greek-speaking jews with only a smattering of hebrew or aramaic, so thay would easily buy into magdala as a toponym. Same for magdalan. Maghedan and magadan were cooked up because thay sound like
magheddon, megiddo in the greek old testament, a toponym matthew´s audiences were so familiar with. Same for magheda and magada.Melegada was chosen by a different set of editors because it´s a near-anagram of magdala/magdalene , and because melek-adad in semitic means king of thunder, and mary magdalene again was the wife of hanan the hidden rainmaker hence thunder king.Not that the gospel forgers here wanted to remind their readership of the true import of melek-adad – quite the contrary, they were out to cover it up with a toponym, but such a toponym had to somehow call to mind magdalene and concepts familiar to the back of jewish minds. Obviously this is not to say that one or 2 of this plethora of red herrings might not simply have been copyist mistake. But the gist of the insertion of such fancy toponyms into the text of matthew and mark was certainly to throw in a hook on which to fasten a false connection magdalene/magdala.

per ALETH 21 gen 2018

 

 

 

Mark´s DALMANOUTHA and DALMOUNAI are again, overwrites for mary the mother of jesus and wife of hanan the hidden, well of qumran, rainmaker and daily bather, revolutionary antiroman jihadist.
DAL = to draw water, or bucket to draw water
MA = water
NOUTHA = NISHAIA = MASHAB = water-drawer.
Thus DAL-MA-NOUTHA means the same thing as magdalene : she who draws water with her bucket.
Again this is probably what mary, like most working-class women in her time, really had to do every day. But the sobriquet magdalene=dalmanoutha is also and mainly metaphorical : she is the wife of the well, that is the fountain of righteousness at qumran ,the supreme ayatollah of the real early christians, the natsorayya or keepers of the torah in the violent fight against rome, messianists who awaited a son of man down from the sky to help them wipe the evil romans, and most everybody elese, offf the face of the planet.

Lastly, the varia lectio DALMOUNAI in some markan manuscripts :
DAL = to draw, or bucket
MOU = water ( it is the assyrian form)
NAI = an abbreviated form of hebrew nahar, again river, source :
thus DALMOUNAI too means she who draws water from the river or well.
The lying editors of matthew and mark took great pains to conceal the real meaning of magdalene by fabricating all these non-existent cities which sounded like magdalene, because their job it was, to rewrite history and transmogrify antiroman jihadists into meek proroman pacifists and whores !!!

Now we had better ask ourselves : since when are matthew 15:39 and mark 8:10 attested to ? They are the only 2 passages in the entire new testament mentioning magdala and all its variants above. When do these 2 passages first appear for us, in written documents ? What is the earliest evidence for the existence of those 2 passages ?
We can answer by perusing the standard scientific edition of the new testament, nestle/aland ´s novum testamentum graece et latine, deutsche bibelgesellschaft, 5.druck 2005 : this book features a list of the greek manuscripts they used – not all of them, but presumably the most ancient and important ones. So let´s have a look at the dating of the manuscripts carrying matthew 15:39 and mark 8:10. Not all manuscripts do: many are fragmentary. Hence the need to know.

The first manuscript on nestle/aland´s list carrying matthew 15:39 is papyrus 21, dated to the IV or V century !!! That is to say, between the years 300 and 500 – more or less, when the pious fraud of the fake city of magdala started to spread and attract pilgrims to galilee. Therefore we might conceivably assume that the line 15:39, or at least its word magdala etc., was interpolated into matthew in order to enhance tourism to the holy land !!!
This is also the opinion of professor joan taylor of king´s college , london, who does not believe in the existence of magdala in jesus´time and wrote about the issue extensively.
Papyrus 21 IS THE ONLY PAPYRUS CARRYING MATTHEW 15:39 !!!! There are many more papyri, some of which as old as the III or even II century, but NONE OF THEM CARRIES THE MAGDALA PASSAGE !!!!!

Now let us consider the codices, that is to say, the non-papyracean manuscripts, those made of parchment and bound in book form :
but first let me underscore that NO PAPYRUS AT ALL; THAT IS TO SAY NONE OF THE MOST ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS CARRYING THE GOSPELS, HAS MARK 8:10 AND ITS DALMANOUTHA ETC. STUFF !!!!!!!!!!!

The first codex carrying both passages is dated to the IV century, that is between the years 300 and 399 – again a very late date, reinforcing our suspicion that magdala was absent from the first drafts of matthew and mark in the II and III centuries. This particular codex bears 2 hands : a first hand and a corrector´s edits : now the first hand reads MAGADAN. The editor´s hand above the first reads MAGHEDAN. Neither hand wrote magdala !!! That means, in the IV century, as matthew´s editors started to add this silly fabricated city to the manuscripts, they still did not dare write magdala because magdala had never existed at all – they cooked up magadan/maghedan because it sounded a bit like the other hebrew toponyms, attested to in the old testament, we saw above and which were more familiar to their readers´ears than an unheard-of magdala !! Toponyms such as meghiddo.

Now the funniest thing about this codex we are considering here (London, Brit.Libr.,Add.43275),is that when it comes to mark 8:10, the parallel passage to matthew above, instead of consistently reading MAGHEDAN or MAGADAN as it had done in matthew, this time reads DALMANOUTHA !!!!!!!!!!!
So much for the synoptic gospels !!! O wondrous harmony of the word of god !!!
I think that these 4th-century forgers, in revising the texts of matthew and mark, whose first drafts date from the II century, added different fake city names to the roster because matthew is a more jewish gospel addressing primarily jews who would have been more familiar with the old testament and thus would easily buy into a maghedan/magadan because to their ears it called to memory meghiddo etc.
Whereas mark addresses gentiles mainly, westerners to whom magadan woulda meant nothing, and wouldn´t have stuck : therefore mark and its subsequent editors, or rather the latter in the 4th century, thought up dalmanoutha, playing on the original meaning of magdalene above, because to western ears such a toponym would be acceptable on the basis of similarity with DALMATIA : all the forgers had to do was invert mag-dal from magdalene into dal-ma.

SORRY !!!!!!!!!! errata corrige : PAPYRUS 21 DOES NOT REPEAT NOT CARRY MATTHEW 15:39 !!!!!
WHICH ONLY GOES TO STRENGTHEN MY THESIS : NO GOSPEL PAPYRI AT ALL, THAT IS TO SAY NONE OF THE MOST ANCIENT GOSPEL MANUSCRIPTS CARRY THE MAGDALA PASSAGES IN EITHER MATTHEW OR MARK !!!!

Now the first manuscript occurrence for the fake city of magdala in this very form, its popular form, is in codex C, Paris,Bibl.Nat.,Gr.9 : at matthew 15:39, it reads MAGDALAN – not quite magdala, but almost. This particular codex C is dated to the V century, that is between 400 and 499 !!! Again a very late addition, one would incline to think.Because all other codices bearing magdala as such, date from way later, no earlier than the VI century !!! Just when the pilgrimage to magdala as the city of mary magdalene became common !!!
Joan taylor is right : magdala did not exist in jesus´times – I century ce.
Nobody mentions magdala, no inscription or literary text or shard of pottery, nothing at all before the IV century !!! When it is still magadan/maghedan in matthew and dalmanoutha in mark. Magdalan only pops up in the V century. And settles down as magdala in most manuscripts only starting in the VI century. It is an interpolation,a fraudulent addition, a forged city name.

SUMMING IT ALL UP THUS FAR :
MAGDALENE IN MARY MAGDALENE DOES NOT MEAN FROM MAGDALA AT ALL BECAUSE THE CITY OF MAGDALA NEVER EXISTED AT ALL AS SUCH IN THE I CENTURY CE.
THE NEW TESTAMENT ITSELF NEVER MAKES THE CONNECTION MAGDALENE<MAGDALA.
THE WORD MAGDALA AS SUCH FOR A CITY IS UNKNOWN BEFORE THE IV CENTURY, WHEN IT IS FIRST WITNESSED TO AS MAGDALAN, AND DOES NOT STABILIZE INTO MAGDALA BEFORE THE VI CENTURY, WHEN PILGRIMAGE STARTED TO A SITE ON THE LAKE OF TIBERIAS FRAUDULENTLY SOLD TO THE PILGRIMS FOR MAGDALA THE BIRTHPLACE OF MARY MAGDALENE.
THE NAME MAGDALENE INSTEAD MEANS WATER-DRAWER FROM THE WELL;AND WAS THE SOBRIQUET OF THE MOTHER OF JESUS;JAMES;JUDAS;SIMEON AND JOHN THE BAPTIST,AND WIFE OF HANAN THE HIDDEN: THIS WAS THE FAMILY AT THE CENTER OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN THE FIRST CENTURY CE : A FAMILY OF FANATIC JEWISH ZIONISTS,HELL-BENT ON PREPARING AND WAGING WAR AGAINST ROME FOR THE LIBERATION OF ISRAEL, TO BE ACHIEVED WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A SON OF MAN OR MESSIAH FROM THE SKY AND THE HEAVENLY HOST:
THIS WAS A FAMILY OF RAINMAKERS;DAILY BATHERS AND FOUNTAINS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT IS SPIRITUAL MULLAHS AT QUMRAN ON THE DEAD SEA, WHERE THE REAL EARLY CHRSTIANS, THE NAZORAEANS OR KEEPERS OF THE TORAH, RAN ONE OF THEIR TRAINING CENTERS AND GUERRILLA CAMPS:THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS COMMUNITY.

ERRATA CORRIGE. IN MY COMMENT HERE ABOVE IT SHOULD HAVE READ :
THE WORD MAGDALA AS SUCH FOR A CITY IS UNKNOWN BEFORE THE V CENTURY, WHEN IT IS FIRST WITNESSED TO AS MAGDALAN

Now let us move into a thorough examination of the hard data the gospels provide us about mary magdalene herself.
All 4 canonical gospels mention her expressedly a dozen times in all, thus making her one of the most popular gospel characters.
We also may notice, by checking nestle/aland´s critical apparatus, that the sobriquet magdalene for mary is always consistent throughout the gospels in each and every one of thousands of greek NT manuscripts – a clear indicator that mary had always been known as magdalene from the very start and nobody could have tampered with such a famous sobriquet.
I would also like to recommend to you a great book about the real early christians or nazoraeans :
Robert eisenman, james the brother of jesus, faber & faber 1997.

The first occurrence for mary magdalene in the NT is at matthew 27:56 : jesus has just breathed his last on the cross ; from afar, a throng of women witnesses his death : among them, « mary magdalene and mary the mother of james and joseph and the mother of the sons of zebedaeus « .
Clearly again here the gospel forgers and their editors are using the age-old disinformation technique of multiplying one person into several fictional characters, in order to obfuscate the real identity and import of that antiestablishment person. Here for instance, mary magdalene is the mother of jesus, as we saw above, acknowledged without a problem by rabbi rashi as late as the XI century. She is the water-drawer because she is the wife of a well and mother of a well – well being the designation of qumran´s community´s spiritual leaders.
Therefore here mary magdalene is identical to the second fictional mary, the mother of james, qumran well 38-62 ce, and joseph : james the just was one of the 5 sons of mary and hanan the hidden. Joseph of course is an overwrite too, he never existed at all. He is an overwrite for jesus, brother of james and son of mary and hanan. A glance at nestle/aland´s apparatus will immediately confirm this : an apparatus criticus in a scientific edition is footnotes detailing the variant forms present in the manuscripts : here several manuscripts read IOSE instead of joseph. Iose = jesus, as hebrew for jesus is JOSHUA, aramaic YESHUA.
Therefore this second mary is identical with the first : she is magdalene, mother of james and jesus – and of judas,simeon and john the baptist.
The third woman mentioned here at matthew 27:56, the mother of the sons of zebedaeus, is again the same mary mother of james and jesus : the sons of zebedaeus were james and john the baptist.
Zebedaeus is yet another wordplay/overwrite for the semitic word SABA, bather, since water both as a real element and as a metaphor was so important to these real early christians or nazoraeans or sabaeans.

According to mainstream, clericofascist exegesis, zebedaeus, greek zebedaios, was the father of apostles james anf john. I contend that james and john were brothers of jesus and sons of hanan the hidden and that this overwrite zebedaios never existed at all. Mainstreamers interpret zebedaios as deriving from hebrew zabdi gift.
But I-century jewish historian josephus flavius in his books bellum judaicum and vita, mentions several times a jesus son of a guy that josephus´manuscripts read variously as SAPPHO ; SAPPHAN ; SAPPHIA ; SAPHAT ; SAPITHA.
Now especially the last 2 variants are near-identical to ZEBED- IN ZEBEDAIOS. Look :
SAPHAT
ZEB ED
SAP ITH

In semitic languages what counts are the consonants – vowels change around a lot. Therefore ZEBED in zebedaios, the father of james and john, is virtually equivalent to SAPHAT AND SAPITH, the father of a jesus who fights bitterly against the romans and proroman jews in the first war of 66-73 ce.
I contend that this jesus son of or bar in aramaic,sapphan/sapphia/saphat/sapith is identical with jesus the son of mary and brother of james and john, and that zebedaios is identical with all these variants for jesus´father in historian josephus´manuscripts.

Now this militant antiroman jihadist in josephus flavius, jesus bar sapphan, pops up in gospel lore too as…BARABBAS !!!
Exegetes usually explain barabbas as meaning bar abba, son of the father in aramaic, a silly tautology deprived of plausibility.
Barabbas is just an overwrite for our jesus bar sapphan in flavius.
Barabbas was the famous murderer allegedly chosen by the jews for liberation instead of jesus.
What we have here is pure classical theater, the doubling again of one person, jesus bar sapphan attested to by josephus flavius, into 2 : himself as barabbas, and a fictional gospel jesus, meek pacifist and proroman.

See, the zionazi spammer who pops up regularly on this thread spamming his diversionary nonsense, is professionally adopting the same cloning tactics as the gospel forgers did 1800 years ago in order to confuse and obfuscate the truth.
The reason why this fascist troll assumes different self-multiplied alter egos, such as beth or eloim or daigual or para aleth etc., is, he wants to make the honest reader believe that there are several commentators to my thread, and that they are all against what I say.
The NT forgers divvy up real antiroman zealots such as jesus bar sapphan into 2 or more (jesus and barabbas, mary magdalene, mary the mother of james, the mother of the sons of zebedaios) in order to erase from history the single real person undissected, because he or she was antiroman and anticapitalist.

We have to grasp the enormous importance of the root word saba/sabba for real early christians, those theocommunist antiroman jewish fanatics,the natsorayya or keepers of the torah.
This is the dangerous root that the proroman gospel liars overwrote with their silly zebedaios and barabbas.
The underlying name or sobriquet was BAR SABA, son of the baptist/daily bather/rainmaker/fountain of righteousness at qumran : hanan the hidden.
SABA is a pansemitic root : it occurs in akkadian sapahu, to pour out ;
in babylonian sapum , to wet ;
in akkadian sabu, irrigated ;
in akkadian sipu, soaking in irrigation ;
the english word soup is derived from this same root ;
akkadian sabu and sapu, to irrigate a field, to flood ;to bathe .
Therefore this was a BAR SABA set of brothers, because john the baptist (himself a saba : baptist is greek for saba in the sense of bather ) , james the just, well at qumran and rainmaker like his father, simeon bar cleophas son of the well as we shall see below, judas iscariot son of lightning as we shall see, and our jesus bar sapphan in flavius, were all sons of hanan the hidden, who was a saba in that he was a rainmaker, bather, well at qumran,and a messianist awaiting the eschatological flood, a second nohaic flood that would purge the earth of all evil and especially of the hated romans once and for all, bringing about the freedom and world domination for the holy of israel.

Let me now recommend to you another great book that will help you a lot in decoding all these overwrites by way of wordplay by these evil NT forgers :
GIOVANNI SEMERANO : LE ORIGINI DELLA CULTURA EUROPEA : OLSCHKI EDITORE 1984
From it, here´s to you other samples of the all-important root saba in the semitic world :
akkadian sepu = wet ;
akkadian sabu = to draw water, which begat hebrew shaab, to draw water, which we encountered above in the compound mashab, place of drawing water, watering, which rabbi rashi parodied as nishaia, the hairdresser…
This hebrew word mashab, equivalent to magdala/magdalene, is at the root of the important protochristian sect of the masbuthaeans, daily bathers of ancient middle east, who practiced ritual immersion just like john the baptist and his natsorayya.
Eisenman connects the word masbuthaeans with the syriac root sabu´a = washed ones, which is again our saba root. Ma as we know = water in semitic, thus masbuthaeans where daily bathers in the water, of rivers, like john the baptist.
Daily bathing groups such as the mandaeans of southern iraq still exist today, and they hold john the baptist in highest esteem. Arabic texts call mandaeans the subba or sabaeans, again our pansemitic saba/soaking root word.
Mandaeans call john the baptist´s father SABA !!!!
WHICH OF COURSE MEANS THE DAILY BATHER PAR EXCELLENCE, THE MOST FAMOUS OF THEM ALL : RAINMAKER HANAN THE HIDDEN.
That is precisely why historian josephus flavius above, calls his jesus the son of sapphan, that is in aramaic bar saba. And his 4 brothers were bar sabas too of course : john the baptist, father of a saba according to mandaean tradition, James the just, simeon bar cleophas and judas iscariot. And their mother was mary magdalene= the water-drawer, that is the wife of the well, the fountain of righteousness/righteous teacher at qumran : hanan the hidden aka saba.

We shall have loads more on this all-important saba family below. For now suffice to say that this real, historical jesus bar sapphan aka bar saba from flavius joseph was the very opposite of the fabricated meek pacifist proroman gospel jesus : jesus bar sapphan was one of the fiercest commandants of zealot jews in the early stages of the first jewish war, 66-73 ce. Proroman, antizealot jew josephus calls jesus the ringleader of a band of brigands !!! And the greek word he uses is lestes, brigand – the same word the gospel forgers use to describe barabbas, who clearly is lifted bodily from the jesus bar sapphan in the book jewish war by josephus flavius. In his autobiography, joseph calls jesus the ringleader of the party of the sailors and the destitute :
a communist fighter !! Now the greek word for sailors, boatmen is nautai here. And it could well be that jesus bar saba was ringleader of the sea of galilee boatmen or fishermen and the like. But it could also be that the greek word here, nautes, boatman, really overwrites its own root NA, water = MA, present in hebrew nahar river , in the original sense that our jesus bar saba was leader of the party of the daily bathers in rivers, like his eldest brother john the baptist had been until his death by the sword in 38 ce. Now we are in 66 or 67 with this jesus bar saba here in josephus, fighting against the romans and the proroman jewish establishment : all his brothers have been killed but for simeon, so jesus and simeon are at this point the surviving leaders of the natsorayya who were daily bathers in rivers, sabas, magdalenes.

Now to the famous, totally fabricated scene in the gospel lie, of pontius pilate asking the jewish mob whether they want jesus freed, or barabbas at matthew 27:15 ff. Pilatus left his tenure in palestine in 36 or 37 ce. Now with our real jesus in josephus, we are in 66 or 67, 30 years later !!! Pilate became prefect of judaea in 26 ce. Thus during his 10-year tenure, 26-36, jesus bar sapphan would have been a small child at most. Furthermore, the events in which jesus bar saba, the real one, plays a prominent role, take place in galilee, whereas the pilate episode in jerusalem. Matthew 27, 15 ff. is completely anachronistic and forged. It represents a total falsification of history.
Anyway, the historical referent is clear : matthew takes josephus´ jesus bar saba and turns him into barabbas, a famous prisoner of pilate´s.
We gain conclusive proof that this barabbas in matthew is the same as jesus bar saba in flavius joseph by looking again at nestle/aland´s apparatus criticus : various manuscripts at matthew 27:16, call barabbas <<JESUS BARABBAS>> !
Thus clinching my identification of gospel barabbas and flavius´ jesus bar saba.Some manuscripts here also add the accusations that had brought barabbas into jail : murder and revolution !! Exactly 2 of the crimes flavius pins on his jesus bar saba !! Again at the next line, 27:17, some manuscripts call him jesus barabbas. This was the real jesus here, jesus bar saba, leader of the river bathers and of the destitute, militant theocommunist commandant, a zionist che guevara !!! Wheras the meek jesus whom the jews prompt pilate to crucify, that is meek proroman jesus christ, never existed at all.

Thus what we have here at matthew 27 is pure fiction, overwrite of real history, on the part of a proroman, procapitalist gospel forger who is trying to erase the real early christians from history because they were communist leaders of the destitute, as flavius says in his vita.

Now this trick of doubling a real person into his lookalike-contrary, and then stage a face-to-face confrontation or comparison between them, is an establishment disinfo device lifted bodily from classical roman theater : in plautus´ comedy amphitruo or amphitryon in english, the king´s servant sosia meets his own doubled self, who is really the god mercurius who has transmogrified himself into sosia. Mercury’s job is to buy his father jupiter, who wants to seduce the king´s wife while the king is away, some time by deceiving those who would interfere. He changes his appearance to look like the slave sosia, and when the real sosia arrives, he beats him up and sends him away from the house. Plautus wrote amphitruo between 250 and 206 bc – some 350 years before the gospel of matthew was concocted.
This constant pattern of falsely multiplying real people in order to sow confusion and hide and erase revolutionary heroes, really is inspired by classical theater, and never comes to the fore in the gospel lie more clearly and blatantly than through this delirious fictional scene of pilate asking the jewish crowds to choose between jesus barabbas – a historical person – and jesus christ – gospel jesus, who never existed at all. Jesus bar saba/barabbas is witnessed to by extrabiblical and nonchristian historian joseph flavius writing in the late I century ce, who had met jesus bar saba personally in 66 or 67.
Whereas the fictional gospel jesus is attested to by nobody at all in pagan or nonchristian sources of the I century – the so-called testimonium flavianum and other passages by roman historians purportedly about christ are either interpolations or irrelevant as we shall show later.

Now again : we have been focusing all along in this thread on one family of antiestablishment, theocommunist jews of the I century ce : the saba family,of saba/raimnamaker/bather/well hanan the hidden, his wife mary magdalene nicked the water-drawer, and their 5 sons john the baptist, james the just, judas isacariot, simeon bar cleophas and jesus bar saba. These 5 were jihadist messianists, the real early christians,the nazoraeans or keeper of the torah, who would all meet a violent end at the hands of the romans or their herodian henchmen.
Gospel zebedaios is really hanan saba, and his sons james and john are jesus´brothers john the baptist and james the just.
You can take it as a rule of thumb for now, but scientific reasoning will soon confirm it for you, that whenever in the new testament there pops up out of nowhere a barabbas or bar saba or bar sabbas or barnabas, it is an overwrite for a member of our bar saba family. I shall prove it to you tomorrow.
There never was a mary the mother of james and joseph as distinct from the mother of jesus. There never was a mother of the sons of zebedaios. These 3 are 1 : mary called magdalene, mother of the bar saba bros.
There never was a jesus christ, new testament jesus did not exist. Gospel jesus is a fake, produced by patchwork from several would-be messiahs or zealot leaders of the I century, one of whom was flavius´ jesus bar saba.

per ALETH 23 gen 2018

So let us now look at the other new testament bar saba characters, and decode them as brothers of jesus and members of the famous bar saba family of revolutionary communist jihadists above.
They are to be encountered in acts of the apostles,another fake forgery by proroman liars.
At acts 1:23, 2 funny characters pop up from out of the blue : one joseph, called BARSABBAN in the original greek, and who also went by a second nick, the just one, and one matthias.
Nobody had ever heard about these 2 weirdos so far, yet there they are, fully formed, ready to compete as candidates for an election to replace apostle judas who had just committed suicide.

 

 

 

 

 

Now this new variant barsabban can´t help but call to mind not only barabbas of gospel lore, but also flavius´jesus son of sapphan, the revolutionary leader in the war against rome, the real barabbas and the real jesus to boot.
Again son of in aramaic = BAR, so flavius´ BARSAPPHAN=acts´ BARSABBAN.
Sapphan is the form part of the flavian manuscripts read at bellum judaicum II.20.4.566.
Now again as we saw above all of the 5 sons of hanan and mary were bar saba, because saba=daily bather/rainmaker/well and that was hanan the hidden, whom mandaeans, today´s followers of john the baptist, call father saba, the father of john the baptist.
Therefore lying acts 1:23´s joseph called barsabban never existed at all.
It is the umpteenth NT overwrite to conceal here the real identity of james the just, whose sobriquet the just one is also appended to the fake joseph by acts, thus providing us with a dead giveaway for identifying who is being overwritten here.
James the just was a bar saba = son of hanan the hidden, and he was the one who actually succeeded his dead brother john the baptist in the leadership of the nazoraeans that is the real early christians in 38 ce.

Again : acts of the apostles 1:23 ´s joseph barsabbas or barsabban aka the just one, never existed at all. It is a lying proroman overwrite of the very real james bar saba the just one, well of qumran id est leader of the natsorayya or keepers of the torah, the real early christians, a bunch of fanatic antiroman jihadist jews from the I century.
Saba id est the baptist the well the rainmaker the daily bather was hanan the hidden on whom tons more later.
Matthias never existed at all – we shall decode him below.

The next bar saba to come along in acts occurs at 4:36 in the guise of one barnabas :
<<< Joseph indeed, who was called barnabas by the apostles, which means in translation son of assistance, a levite, a cypriot by birth, since he possessed a field, he sold it and carried the money and laid it at the feet of the apostles <<<<<<<<<<<<<<.
Now if we look again at nestle/aland´s apparatus criticus here, we shall not fail to notice that some manuscripts read BARSABBAS instead of barnabas. And such was surely the original appellation : because again, this barnabas never existed at all, he is the umpteeenth overwrite for one of the bar saba brothers, in this case judas iscariot as we shall presently prove.

Actually this alleged barnabas was called barnabas by the apostles if we accept the manuscript variant ypo ; but instead, he was barnabas FROM AMONG the apostles, if we accept the manuscript variant reading apo here. And certainly this latter is the right one : judas was one of the apostles : judas bar saba iscariot, overwritten here as barnabas aka barsabbas.

per ALETH 23 gen 2018
Now why does lying acts 4:36 call our real judas bar saba a levite ? Who were the levites and was our judas, the real judas bar saba of real history, a levite ?
From wiki to begin with :
<<<<<<<<<<<<A Levite or Levi (/?li?va?t/, Hebrew: ?????, Modern Levi Tiberian L?wî) is a Jewish male whose descent is traced by tradition to Levi.[1] In Jewish tradition, a Levite is a member of the Israelite Tribe of Levi, descended from Levi, the third son of Jacob and Leah. As a surname, Levite status may be indicated by the term HaLevi, which consists of the Hebrew prefix « ? » Ha- (« the ») plus Levi (Levite). The daughter of a Levite is a « Bat Levi » (Bat being Hebrew for « daughter »).

The Tribe of Levi served particular religious duties for the Israelites and had political responsibilities as well. In return, the landed tribes were expected to give tithe to support the Levites,[2] particularly the tithe known as the ‘Maaser Rishon’. The Kohanim were the priests, who performed the work of holiness in the Temple. The Levites, who were not Kohanim, were specifically assigned to
singing and/or playing music in the Temple
serving as guards
carrying

When Joshua led the Israelites into the land of Canaan (Joshua 13:33), the Sons of Levi were the only Israelite tribe that received cities but were not allowed to be landowners « because the Lord the God of Israel Himself is their inheritance » (Deuteronomy 18:2).[3][4]<<<<<<<<<<<.

Thus we may conceive of these I-century levites as lower priests. And yet flavius josephus tells us that his nemesis, jesus bar sapphan, was one of the higher priests. One thing is for sure to begin with : these 5 sons of hanan the hidden were all priests, whether levites or lower priests, or higher priests, it remains to be seen.
At the beginning of the first jewish war, 66-68 ce, flavius recounts how the chief priests were murdered or deposed by the zealots, who then proceed to elect chief priests from among their own party.The zealots, helped by idumaean mercenaries, slaughter all the high priests, because these were proroman. From this point on, formerly lower priests or levites such as jesus bar sapphan/barabbas , become higher priests.
Flavius joseph tells us that his jesus bar sapphan was a higher priest. In 66 or 67 ce.
Whose brother judas had been dead for some 20 years at this point – thus he had died before the levites took over the high priesthood.
Thus judas bar saba was a levite or lower priest, and acts is right about it for a change.
But the word levite here, besides designating a lower priesthood, may also be an overwrite for judas´twinship with his brother james.

The hebrew word levi or levite comes from a root meaning joined to, attached to.
Hebrew lavah for instance means with, in the sense of joined to, in the company of.
Thus its root means to twine, to unite.
Therefore we may be justified in wondering whether judas was a twin brother of james.
In the gospel lie, judas doubles as thomas or judas thomas or didymus which means twin in greek, just like thoma can mean twin in aramaic.

Ácts´ fake election to replace judas after his suicide, really is a stand-in for the replacement of john the baptist as head of the nazoraeans, after john´s beheading in 36 or 37 ce.
The bar saba brothers functioned as a caliphate of brothers in leading the nazoraeans, with power handed down directly from eldest brother to next-eldest brother. The idea of a greek-style election suggested by acts is preposterous. Normally james the next-eldest bar saba bro would have succeeded john directly, but acts instead features a second competing candidate, the fake matthias who really stands in for juda as we shall prove later.
So why 2 candidates ? Only explanation can be, unless acts is making it all up out of whole cloth, which is not the NT´s normal modus operandi which is always referential, that james and judas were twins and thus the succession had to be decided by casting lots . Obviously the lots fell on james not on matthias as in acts´ lie. Judas became the treasurer and foreign plenipotentiary of the community as we shall presently see.

in gospel apostle listing, judas is surnamed ‘lebbaios’ – same word root as acts 4:36’s ‘lev-ite’. in gospel listing variant manuscripts we even find the variant reading ‘levin’! and the hebrew root lev, according to robert eisenman, means ‘conjoined to’, that is twin (this is my conclusion, not eisenman’s)! for a twin is ‘conjoined’ to his twin for 9 months in their mother’s womb.
in other words, 2 of the 5 sons of hanan the hidden were twins. one was judas, ‘lebbaios’ or ‘levin’ in gospel apostles listing (overwritten as ‘levite’ by lying acts 4:36). the other bar saba twin was james the just, whom tatian, a II-century-AD church father, calls ‘the lebbaean’ same word as used for judas in gospel apostle listing (lebbaios). the tatian link I owe to robert eisenman, james the brother of jesus, faber & faber 1997, p.845. the reason why lots had to be drawn when john the baptist not ‘jesus’ died, to decide who among the brothers would succeed him as leader of the nasorayya that is early christians, as we read at the outset of acts, is because james and judas were twins = age peers. otherwise the eldest after john would have inherited leadership without elections as this was a caliphate of patriarchal brothers and not a greek-style democracy. which is proven by simeon’s succeeding to james in AD 62 without any recorded multi-candidate ‘election’ at all: simeon was the elder surviving bar saba brother after the deaths of john, judas and james.
back to judas as twin/ lebbaios/ levin/ ‘levite’: the first attestation of lebbaios in gospel apostle listing is at ‘matthew’ 10:3, in manuscript variant readings of same and in all the coptic (ancient language of egyptian christians) translations of same, which have something like: “lebbaeus, surnamed thaddaeus”. now the gospel forgers here are just using the typical establishment disinformation technique of multiplying the same one real historical character so as to obliterate his real original identity: there never was a “lebbaeus, surnamed thaddaeus”, or a “thaddaeus” in his own right as in the greek text of ‘matthew’ 10:3. let me repeat again and again: ‘matthew’ 10:3 is desperate to overwrite and falsify the real original apostles, who were but 5: john the baptist, the first leader, the eldest, possibly the founder of the early christian/ nasorayya/ nasri, who was beheaded by roman puppet herod antipas in AD 36 or 37 (under pontius pilate); there followed 2 twins, judas and james; lastly, simeon and jesus bar saba. ‘matthew’ 10:3 sanitizes all this by making up non-existant “thomas” and “matthaeus, the tax collector”, and “thaddaeus”; other manuscripts add, as if it weren’t enough, a “lebbaios” (lebbaios is the original greek form which reads in latin and english lebbaeus; same story for thaddaios/ thaddaeus) or “lebbaeus surnamed thaddaeus”, or “thaddaeus surnamed lebbaeus”, which at least puts us back on scent because it exposes “thaddaeus” and “lebbaeus” as nicks not names.
all of these words without exception mean ‘twin’ or ‘second brother’. twin of james: judas. or twin of judas: james.

Now : acts 4:36 rightly calls judas bar saba a levite : because he was a lower priest, a working-class priest ; and because he was a twin of james bar saba aka the just one, fountain of righteousness/righteous teacher at qumran from 38 ce to his stoning in 62.

 

24 gen 2018

 

Lying acts 4:36 overwrites yet another important feature of these real early messianists, the natsorayya, by stating that this barnabas was a cypriot by birth.
Obviously the real barnabas here, that is judas bar saba iscariot aka thomas aka didymos the twin of james, wasn´t born in cyprus at all . He was from palestine and probably born in jerusalem.
What is the cyprus lie here for ?
From wiki :etymology of cyprus : one of the suggestions is :
<<<<an Eteocypriot word for copper. It has been suggested, for example, that it has roots in the Sumerian word for copper (zubar) or for bronze (kubar), from the large deposits of copper ore found on the island.<<<<
What does copper or bronze have to do with our judas bar saba, and with his bar saba family at large ? One helluva lot !!!

<<<<<<<<<<<<Through overseas trade, the island has given its name to the Classical Latin word for copper through the phrase aes Cyprium, « metal of Cyprus », later shortened to Cuprum>>>>>>>>.

Moving on in our debunking of the christian lie, what did judas bar saba have to do with copper and bronze ? He was, like the rest of his family, a craftsman by trade. A working-class priest whose trade was something like tinker, coppersmith and the like.
How do we know ? Because the gospels themselves tell us that jesus´father was a craftsman : Matthew 13:55: <<isn´t this the craftsman´s son? <<< The original greek word tekton does not necessarily mean carpenter : it´s generic for cratsman. Could be a carpenter a metalworker a potter.

now joseph flavius tells us his jesus was one of the high priests. the reader accustomed to 2000 years of gospel lie will object that gospel jesus is a poor carpenter’s son…
a high priest especially if ‘opposition’ high priest in eisenman’s words needed not be rich. and a high-priestly position wasn’t necessarily irreconcilable with a carpenter’s job in the radical jewish milieu of I-century-AD palestine. again robert eisenmann teaches us well that there were fundamentalist-jewish craftsmen back then whose role-model were the ancient rechabites. let me again underscore the modus procedendi of foundational liars throughout history: they’ll never invent a myth from scratch without any referentiality to some albeit distorted and falsified reality – lest nobody believe them. they’ll always take bits of referential historical truth and just put a false twist & spin on them. it was ok for the gospel forgers to present the gullible masses with a ‘poor-carpenter-son’ messiah because the people want leaders they can identify with. so it is highly likely that the carpenter thing may contain a kernel of truth. but pro-roman gospel liars had no use for the jewish-high-priestly status of the real jesus – for it was fraught with nationalistic/ zealotic/violently antiroman memories & motives when associated with the ‘carpenter’ thing. here’s why.

the whole story of jesus as a carpenter’s son is based on a passing reference in matthew 13:55: “isn’t this the craftsman’s son?” the greek word tékt?n doesn’t necessarily mean carpenter, it’s generic for craftsman. could be a carpenter a metalworker a potter… now john the baptist’s disciples (the mandaeans or nasorayya – see more about them as the real early christians and about john as jesus’ brother below) are to this day ‘mostly craftsmen, particularly metalworkers and carpenters’ says robert eisenmann, james the brother of jesus, faber and faber 1997, p. 330. therefore the real original christians, those violently antiherodian = antiroman followers of john the baptist, were mostly craftsmen and craftsmen’s sons. this is what the gospel forgers are rewriting in their falsified, pro-roman context.
john the baptist’s lifestyle was but a variation or continuation of that of the rechabites an ancient jewish fundamentalist sect who were said to be ‘potters’, that is again craftsmen. and rigid ‘keepers’ (nasorayya in aramaic) of god’s commands. that is of the torah. which made them by definition nationalistic/zionistic/antiroman. so john son of the (high?) priest saba ‘zacharias’ (see below) and his kinsman (brother, see below) jesus bar saba, high priest according to joseph flavius, were most likely also craftsmen and sons of craftsmen, whether potters or carpenters or what have you is irrelevant.
they were militant worker-priests. just like the left-wing french worker-priests in the 1950ies or the italian preti-operai in the 1970ies.
and again gospel bar abbas/acts bar sabbas ie bar sappha the lestès//latro/bandit who had been involved in the uprising (against rome we might add) according to mark 15:7 really is a much better match for whatever the historical jesus might have been in the turmoil of those revolutionary times. no meek pacifist tax-paying pro-foreigner jesus would have made it with the jewish masses of his time who were hell-bent on awaitin’ a fighting messiah who would free them manu militari from the hated romans with all their taxation and crosses for rebels.

another piece of evidence that these fundamentalist antiroman desert-dwelling jews were artisans comes from a notice in joseph flavius’s work that in his youth (the mid-50ies ce according to eisenman) he had attended the training of a teacher called ‘banus’ in the desert. now historians have puzzled for ages without result over the meaning of this name. well, it means nothing else than our ‘artisan/tekton’. it’s a title, not a name: ‘the craftsman’ par excellence.
now you might ask at this point just what this ‘banus’, desert teacher to future historian joseph flavius in the mid-50ies AD, has to do with the alleged ‘jesus’ as carpenter’s son. i’ve been telling you that the gospels are a collage of real historical characters skewed into proroman from antiroman. and that desert-dwelling preachers such as john the baptist or banus were out to train & indoctrinate disaffected jewish youth into fighting against the evil empire of rome and her herodian puppets in palestine. therefore when the gospel forgers tell you that ‘jesus’ was a meek carpenter’s son, they are inverting reality: desert-dwelling craftsman-teachers were in reality guerrilla leaders. and this banus who indoctrinated joseph flavius in the mid-50ies was just such a mullah.
italian glottologist giovanni semerano (1911-2005) taught us that in akkadian (semitic language of III-and-II-millenium-bce mesopotamia, prototype for later semitic languages such as aramaic and hebrew) b?nû = creator/maker, of steles, statues, etc. (il popolo che sconfisse la morte, mondadori 2003, p.108) so banus is a title = ‘the artisan’ par excellence, it’s the semitic equivalent of the greek tekton applied in the gospels to jesus’ father.
these desert-dwelling antiroman leaders had adopted the life-style of the rechabites, nomadic jewish potters from the old testament. john the baptist mustabeen a banus himself. but he was beheaded in AD 36/37, so this new banus joseph flavius went to 20 years later might as well have been another of the bar saba bros: possibly james whom tradition has dying in 62, and who in the mid-50ies was the leader of the nasorayya that is the real early christians, having succeeded john the baptist.

Hence when lying acts 4:36 states that barnabas aka judas bar saba was a cypriot by birth, acts´forgers are just overwriting the craftsman/coppersmith trade of the bar saba bros, by way of wordplay : cyprus replaces sumerian kubar for bronze or latin cyprum for copper.
It´s a geo-diversion, a geographical red herring just like nazareth for nazoraios or magdala for magdalene.

per ALETH     24 gen 2018
Another interesting overwrite detail from acts 4:36 is its translation of barnabas as son of paraklesis, a greek word usually translated as consolation.
Why does lying acts 4:36 overwrite judas bar saba as the son of consolation aka barnabas in aramaic/hebrew ?
The word paraklesis in classical greek means a calling to one’s aid, i.e. encouragement, comfort.
The author of acts, probably luke, knows greek well, and translates paraklesis as comfort, consolation.
Well, judas was indeed the son of hanan=johanan the hidden, and johanan in hebrew = the LORD has been gracious, which is a concept akin to consolation.
But there is much more to the greek word paraklesis than meets the eye here.
Much more is being overwritten.
First up, naba in hebrew does also mean spokesman, but never consolation. Therefore bar naba may not be translated as son of consolation as acts does.
Naba also means spring, well – and judas bar saba was the son of the well, rainmaker and daily bather hanan the hidden.
Naba in hebrew also means prophet, and hanan was considered a prophet, therefore judas here is bar naba as son of the prophet as well.
See how these overwrites denote polysemantic referents, all true but concealed by wordplay and mistranslation.

24 gen 2018
Let us repeat for clarity ´s sake :
acts 4:36 overwrites judas bar saba as a non-existent barnabas, and then proceeds to translate barnabas from aramaic/hebrew into greek son of paraklesis.
Mainstream exegetes translate paraklesis as consolation. But a lot gets lost in translation thereby…

 

24 gen 2018

 

Now : what does paraklesis really mean ?
Consolation is just the last of its meanings in classical greek – and luke, the author of acts, surely wri