Ugrás a tartalomhoz Lépj a menübe
 


The scythian, part 2

2012.10.01

Searching for the truth

In any detective work, potential leads come to light which are then followed. They can be statements which may or may not be factual, physical evidence, and motivesmost importantly, cui bono, that is, who benefits? Even probabilities, opinions and circumstances that help construct the “picture puzzle” are followed. If a piece seems to fit, it is placed in the picture where it remains unless it proves to be false. Leads can be followed sequentially down a thread, as in verifying statements, or analyzed in parallel, as in relating details to each other. Whenever a thread is followed down, we begin with the whole and work down toward the parts. If the parts are absent or contradict the whole, then the truthfulness of the whole becomes suspicious. During an investigation, if a "Person of Interest" cannot give a detailed account of his activities, or if the details he provides do not support his statement, he becomes a suspect because the parts do not constitute the whole. This is the primary tool to detect a lie: A truthful person can provide reasonable details of a truthful event and repeat them many times because he remembers the experience. A liar, on the other hand, will find it more and more difficult to fabricate coherent details to support a lie as demand for precision increases. He will be unable to repeat them on subsequent interviews because he must either re-fabricate them or recall his previous fabrications. Either way, at some point the volume of fabricated details will exceed his mental capacity. And when that happens, his story either changes of falls apart completely. What the interviewer looks for is the difference between the impact a real experience has on a reasonable person's memory and that of a fabrication. This skill can be compared to assembling a picture puzzle by noting the picture on the box, but turning the pieces over to hide their markings, and following the designer's instructions to fit the pieces together. Pieces that do not fit anywhere are rejected as false and any holes are left empty. The puzzle is then turned over and its image is compared with the picture on the box. If the images do not match, then the designer's statement regarding the picture on the box is false.

Whenever we think parallel, we relate the parts to each other in the hope of generating a pattern. In this case, we have no idea what the finished puzzle will look like—there is no picture on the box. This time we lay the pieces with their markings up, and try to fit them together by simultaneously matching both their shapes and markings. A piece is fitted into place even if it is blank, that is, not painted. When the puzzle is finished, an image will, hopefully, emerge. Blank pieces are then provisionally drawn by completing its neighborhood's pattern. These provisionally marked pieces (hypotheses) then become objects of further research to validate our assumptions about their markings.

Such assumptions, however, will be false if the neighborhood itself is false. For example, false beliefs regarding the people history calls Ethiopians lead to the false assumption that they are natives of today's Ethiopia. They are not. History, geography and poetry (Herodotos, Pliny, Strabo, Eschyl, Homer, Pindar), identify the Ethiopians (Aithiops) as Scythians who dwell in East and Central Asia and Europe. Hesiod places them in the Halys river region (today's Turkey), while legends attributed to Homer call Ethiopians “people who dwell in the Far East and the Far West” (from Greece). The so-called Essenes are also believed to be Aithiops. Scythians bring civilization to many parts of the world, including the Cataracts of the Nile, but that does not make them natives of (today's) Ethiopia. Similarly, Scythians of Iberia (Caucasus region) bring civilization to the Iberian Peninsula (today's Spain and Portugal). However, unlike the Ethiopians, who derive their name from their Scythian benefactors, today's Spaniards do not call themselves Iberians (save a political minority, the Basque-Scythians).

When dealing with religious and political “picture puzzles,” the researcher must overcome an additional challenge: He must sort through vast amounts of pieces deliberately repainted to hide the truth and to mislead him. The skilled liar will incorporate huge quantities of verifiable but irrelevant facts in his story to make it seem truthful. For example, if a salesman at the front door says he was so impressed by the quality of his product that he bought the company, it does not mean he is not the owner. However, if he knew that the company manufactured low-grade products, then his claim is, in substance, a lie. Similarly, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is a hoax packaged in verifiable facts to create an appearance of truth by association. In such cases, the design on repainted pieces will have to be first identified as false, and then wiped clean before a pattern can be extended onto them.

The first steps in identifying falsely marked pieces are disambiguation of terms and verification of claims. Disinformation, the propagation of information know to be false, often relies on deliberate misuse of terms to create confusion and fraud. Though the Bible and historical literature is replete with deliberately misused terms and false claims, two examples should suffice to expose disinformation at work: identity theft and translation fraud. The word Izrael is a Sumerian compound word: Iz-Ra-El: Iz, L (Labat) 296: divine spirit; Ra, L.381, 293: light, brilliance, purity; El, L.13, 564: clean, purification, heaven, elevated to God's regard. It means a people who, in the Sumerian culture, believed these attributes applied to them. These Turanian people, originally from the Caucasus region (a geographic reference used to define a race, “Caucasian”), have no racial or cultural ties with the Semitic tribes (also a term used to define a race of humanity, distinct from others) who infiltrated Mesopotamia and Canaan thousands of years later. Therefore, under no circumstances can Semites, Hebrews or Jews be identified as this ancient Turanian people (Sir Leonard Woolley: A Forgotten Kingdom, Pelikan Books, 1958). In Judaism and Judeo-Christianity, the word Israel first appears as the name Jacob, Abraham's supposed grandson, appropriates before entering Egypt, and later gives his sons when he appoints them heads of the biblical Twelve Tribes of Israel (2nd millennium BCaccording to students of these religions):

"And God said unto him, 'Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name:' and he called his name Israel" (Genesis 35:10).

Pragmatic history often confirms or negates any cause-effect relationships between co-occurring events. Common sense suggests that Hebrew tribes took on this alias to pass themselves off as Sumerians to gain entry into Egypt. Later, the word Israel competes with Zion and Judea for the name of the new Jewish state. However, outside religious literature and political fabrications, nowhere are the Izrael people identified as Semites, Hebrews or Jews. Further, the constant wars between the Izrael and Semitic (Hebrew, Jewish) peoples confirms the disassociation between these two racially and culturally different people.

The history of the Jewry is replete with acts of identity theft. Sargon appropriates the Turanian Agade (Akkad) name for his family's brief (130 year) rule. When the priest-kings of Semitic Babylon invent their new god, Ea, they appropriate the identifying symbol of the Sumerians' Innana (four wedges) to identify themselves. They also appropriate the bird symbol of the Sumerians' Queen of Heaven and rename it Sippora. We know of a (non-Semitic) Hurrian in Haran, Abram, who much later (18th century BC) inexplicably becomes the biblical Semite, Abraham. Hebrews of Upper Egypt (retroactively) appropriate the Aithiop name (a subculture of the Scythian, Kus people [5500 BC]), remove the word Kus (Cush) from scriptures and replace it with the word Ethiopian (e.g., King James Bible), and begin calling themselves Ethiopian Jews, founders of a Semitic Ethiopian culture. In the Bible, the Hebrew Jacob's supposed son, Joseph, impersonates “King Tut's” (Tudonk-a-mén, from Baráth) 14th century BC Chaldean administrator magus (Maya). Rabbi Saul, Judeo-Christianity's Saint Paul, appropriates Simon the Canaanite's calling and passes himself off as Jesus' apostle. Judeo-Christianity appropriates the name of the Egyptian sun-god, Chrestos, and changes it to Christos, the Greek word for the Jews' messiah who later becomes its “Christ.” In the Holy Roman Empire, Jews begin calling themselves Ashkenazim, the name of a Turanian people with whom they have nothing in common. During the Early Modern Period, Jews resort to a logical fallacy to pass themselves off as the ancient people of Mesopotamia: They begin to identify themselves with the diagram the Sumerians used to relate the Heavenly Trinity of Light to its earthly counterpart, a geometric figure the Jews saw in Babylon and later rename Star of David. They then point to Sumerian artifacts that depict this diagram as “proof” of their claim. And so we could continue: The Caucasian Ut-nap-ishtim becomes the 950-year-old Noah, ancestor of Semites; Mary and Jesus become Jews; the Hun Cross becomes the Crucifix, and so on.

Search for the truth must also go beyond discovering identity theft: Both the source of information and the time of identity appropriation must also be noted so that actions can be associated with the right subjects. It is important to note who is speaking: the name's rightful owner, the thief, or a third party? Further, actions themselves also need to be verified. Whereas it is often difficult to spot a fraud committed centuries ago, catching a perpetrator in the act clearly exposes not only the fraud but also the scammer's mode of operation. Today, systematic disinformation campaigns designed to disseminate historical falsifications masquerading as scientific discoveries are sweeping the world, so examples of fraud abound. One such example, however, should suffice. National Geographic's much publicized production, The Gospel of Judas, translated by Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, in collaboration with François Gaudard, is a propaganda masterpiece based on The Gospel of Judas, edited by these same scholars and published in book form, complete with commentary by The National Geographic Society, and financed by billionaire Ted Waitt, member of the Advisory Council of that society. Beyond arguments already presented in other papers that refute the credibility of this production, the following discovery can be safely considered evidence of translation fraud:

April D. DeConick, professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University, reports in the New York Times (December 1, 2007), Gospel Truth, that the National Geographic translation was critically faulty in many substantial respects when it aired its production. Based on a corrected translation, she proves that the document states the opposite of what National Geographic's translators claim. After re-translating the text, she published The Thirteenth Apostle: According to correct translation, the author of the manuscript states that Judas did betray Jesus—rather than follow his orders, as Kasser et al claim. Further, the text says that "Judas is not set apart 'for' the holy generation, as the National Geographic translation claims," DeConick asserted: "he is separated 'from' it." The translators dropped a negative from a crucial sentence, an “error,” National Geographic admits, changes the import. "Were they genuine errors or was something more deliberate going on?" DeConick asked in the Op-Ed page of the Times.

It is naïve to think that this production is anything but a deliberately falsified translation of a manuscript that states the opposite of what Kasser, et al claim. Given the credentials of the translators and editors, it is inconceivable that each one of these scholars, in succession, separately and jointly, would not only make such novice mistakes as reading the word “demon” as “spirit” and dropping a critical negative, but all of them dropping the same negative from the same sentence—and nowhere else—from the sentence that just happens to convey the gist of the message, turning the translation into a claim that is the opposite of the original statement. Yet, despite getting caught red-handed, National Geographic continues to propagate claims it admits are false.

These examples show why it is so difficult to see through centuries of disinformation. However, armed with the necessary knowledge and mental discipline, we can recognize the repainted pieces of the puzzle, wipe them clean and redraw them using our knowledge of the era and a healthy dose of common sense. Even if the redrawn pieces remain to be individually validated, the ensemble usually either confirms or negates our hypotheses.

Common sense also dictates that we do not confuse inexplicable with impossible and discard a report just because it defies explanation. Impossibility is a logical (definite) conclusion based on knowledge (proof that excludes possibility), whereas inexplicability is the (indefinite) inability to draw a conclusion for want of knowledge. Our physical world is full of phenomena we can observe but cannot (yet) explain, as evidenced by discoveries of phenomenal functions, from subatomic to astronomical. So even in our physical world, we are often stunned by observations we feel we should be able to explain but cannot (e.g., the source of the Universe). How much more so in the case of phenomena we cannot even observe (e.g., an idea before its birth)? Mary's conception, Lazar's return from the dead, Jesus' resurrection are examples of reported occurrences we cannot explain. We come to terms with this reality by realizing that our inability to explain something reveals not the limits of possibility but rather, the limits of our knowledge. “Inexplicable” reports should be left as “holes” in the composition—perhaps to be filled at a later time. A degree on mental discipline is needed to leave these holes intact, that is, to resist the temptation to force an image though creative thinking (fabricating) or by “closing up” the picture. Even if spotted with empty holes, we will have a general idea of the composition.

So let us put on our gumshoes and examine the relevant political and cultural climates of Jesus' time, his background and historical events to find out who he was, what he taught, and what happened to him and his teaching.

In this work, Hungarian is often cited as a reference language to convey the meaning of difficult concepts, especially those found in ancient Sumerian writings. In the English speaking world, the words Sumer and Sumerian generally refer to the land and the non-Semitic peoples who lived in and around Mesopotamia, between the 6th and 2nd millennia BC, and spoke an agglutinative language. The words, Sumer and Sumerian derive from the name of the Sa-pir (sun-faced, sun-facing), Szabir, Subarian, people who turn their faces toward the sun and the Heavens to pray. The word Szabir is still in use today to identify Árpád's historical Magyars. If the choice of this language suggests nationalistic undertones, then the reader is encouraged to consider the opinions of world-renown linguists and other experts in their fields. An extensive list of scholars agree that, because of its age and kinship with “Sumerian,” Hungarian is the language best suited to such ends. However, to dispel any suspicion of bias, only the learned opinions of non-Hungarian experts are quoted here.

  • Grover S. Krantz, anthropologist at Washington State University studied the history and origin of the various European languages and published his findings in the book, Geographical Development of European Languages (Peter Lang, 1988). He states: "It is usually stated that the Uralic Magyars moved into Hungary from an eastern source in the 9th century A.D. I find instead that all the other Uralic speakers expanded out of Hungary in the opposite direction, and at a much earlier date" (page 11) ..."Given these objections the actual Uralic-speaking distributions would allow only one alternative explanation - that the family originated in Hungary and spread out in the opposite direction. This poses no serious problem if the time for this origin and dispersion is put at the earliest Neolithic. If this is true it means that Hungarian (Magyar) is actually the oldest in-place language in all of Europe" (page 72).

  • Archibald Sayce, Professor of Oriental Studies in Oxford deciphered the first Sumerian text and gave a linguistic analysis of the language. He used comparative linguistics to study different branches of the language. In the course of his research, he examined the relationship of the languages of the entire Turanian language family with the Sumerian language. He found the closest relationship to Sumerian in the Hungarian and Basque languages. He went to Hungary to learn Hungarian, and found it to be "the most useful language to read Sumerian texts."

  • Jules Oppert emphasized the relationship of the Sumerian and Hungarian languages.

  • Jakob Ludwig Karl Grimm established the rules for sound progression and was the first to write German Grammar. He stated that the Hungarian language is logical, has a perfect structure and surpasses every other language, and recommended Hungarian as the ideal universal language.

  • R. Nisbet Bain, a savant with the British Museum was extraordinarily proficient in languages. He described a Hungarian sentence as "A miracle of agglutinative ingenuity."

  • Ebersberg, Austrian linguist: "The construction of the Hungarian language is as if it had been created by a task force of linguists striving for conciseness, regularity, harmony and clarity."

  • Cardinal Giuseppe Mezzofanti, Italian, director of the Library of the Vatican, spoke many languages, including Hungarian. He stated (with some cynicism) that "The Hungarians do not even know what cultural treasure their language possesses."

  • Sir John Bowring, English traveler and writer visited Hungary and published an anthology in English of the work of Hungarian writers and poets. He remarked that "The Hungarian language goes far back. It developed in a very peculiar manner and its structure reaches back to times when most of the now spoken European languages did not even exist. It is a language which developed steadily and firmly in itself, and in which there are logic and mathematics with the adaptability and malleability of strength and chords. The Englishman should be proud that his language indicates an epic of human history. One can show forth its origin; and all layers can be distinguished in it, which gathered together during contacts with different nations. Whereas the Hungarian language is like a rubble-stone, consisting of only one piece, on which the storms of time left not a scratch. It's not a calendar that adjusts to the changes of the ages. It needs no one, it doesn't borrow, does no huckstering, and doesn't give or take from anyone. This language is the oldest and most glorious monument of national sovereignty and mental independence. What scholars cannot solve, they ignore. In philology it's the same way as in archeology. The floors of the old Egyptian temples, which were made out of only one rock, can't be explained. No one knows where they came from, or from which mountain the wondrous mass was taken; how they were transported and lifted to the top of the temples. The genuineness of the Hungarian language is a phenomenon much more wondrous than this."

    (More).

Introduction

A man called IZ-ZU, (Logos, divine wisdom) known to history, theology, and followers of several major religions as Jesus Christ was brutally tortured and crucified in Judea 1700 (2000) years ago. But why? What did he do to deserve such inhumane treatment? Accounts of his activities speak only of a man who healed the sick, advanced a recipe for peaceful human coexistence and encouraged Man to seek the truth. He advocated such virtues as compassion, understanding, mercy, selflessness and quest for knowledge, qualities we normally associate with social harmony and self-improvement. So why kill someone who teaches people how to get along and how to improve society at the individual level? What possible benefit could a regime see in permanently silencing a promoter of peaceful coexistence and human evolution? The logical answer is, any benefit derived from social discord or the suppression of human growth. So the next step is to find out if social discord can benefit a regime. All political leaders, regardless of their ultimate goals, are intelligent people or else they would not have become or remained leaders. And intelligent leadership includes keeping internal peace to assure unity of purpose, regardless of what that purpose might be. Therefore, social discord is unlikely to benefit anyone in power. That leaves suppression of human progress as the only logical benefit.

Christianity teaches that Mankind's ancestors angered the Jews' wrathful god by seeking knowledge of right and wrong. This god became so furious, he condemned Man to a life of misery and suffering on Earth followed by the end of Man's existence. Its teaching further suggests that the ritual human sacrifice of a savior of humanity to this spectator god will appease the divine anger provoked by Man's “insolent” search for morality and his other “sins” of disobedience, but that this blood-thirsty god, having savored the pleasures of watching Jesus' agonizing torture and death, will be pleased enough with the spectacle to restore eternal life to all who henceforth obey him without question. This ideology is a reflection of a basic tenet of Judaism: an intolerant, wrathful vengeful god can be placated by shedding the blood of innocent animals, including “subhuman” goiims (non-Jews). Spelled out in different words to hide its substance from consciousness (satisfaction, ransom, penal rhetoric “explaining atonement”), this is the subliminal message taught in Christian churches and Sunday schools.

Christianity is teaching our children that Jesus had to be killed so he could save Mankind by wiping away humanity's sins with his blood. Professor Badiny's (and others) sleuth work, however, suggests a different motive: Fear of a teacher who gives the ignorant the power to rid himself of parasites.

Background

Judea is the jurisdiction in which Jesus is killed. Judaism is Judea's state-religion, the only religion permitted under the law. This law does not apply to personnel of the controlling power stationed in Judea, the Romans, but for everyone else, the practice of any religion other than Judaism is prohibited. Enactment and enforcement of religious laws is reserved exclusively for the high-priests of the Temple of Jerusalem. They alone have the power to set, teach, judge and enforce religious ideologies and activities, and to prescribe punishment for offenders. One such ordinance stipulates that every faith, ideology, or concept of any divinity outside of Judaism is heresy; and that advocates of such “other faiths” are to be considered false prophets and must be killed.

"If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams... that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death..." (Deuteronomy 13:1,5).

Jesus is not a high-priest of the Temple of Jerusalem and, therefore, is barred from any religious leadership role while in Judea. More important, rather than acknowledge the merciless, vengeful Jewish god, Yahweh, reserved for Jews alone, he educates people about a merciful forgiving God, the “Father,” who loves everyone alike. He makes a deliberate distinction between his Heavenly Father and the Jews' father, Yahweh, when he states:

"...If God were your father, you would love me because I derive and came from God... You are of the evil father and you wish to fulfill your father's wishes. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the Truth, for there is no Truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:42-44).

The Jews specifically ask Jesus to confirm their assessment of him and his rejection of Judaism:

"... Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” (John 8:48).

Since his teachings not only diverge from, but directly oppose Judaism, the high-priest of the Temple of Jerusalem declare him a false prophet, and initiate proceedings to have him killed. Jesus is aware of their intent when he says in John 8:37-38:

"...You want to kill me because my words find no home with you. I speak of what I saw at my Father's; you, too, do what you do because that is what you saw at your fathers'."

The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, however, refuses to execute Jesus. Rather, he delivers him into the hands of the Jews to do whatever they want with him, and "washes his hands" of what might happen to Jesus. The high-priests then order the mercenary guards of the Temple of Jerusalem to publicly torture and crucify Jesus.

The degree of cruelty the Jews inflict on Jesus suggests more than just enforcement of laws: it suggest a desire to inflict maximum pain. But why? To answer that question we must look at both the victim and his assailants.

Jesus' lineage

Jesus teaches neighborly love and the compassion of a Father who loves everyone alike. Therefore, his biological background ought not matter to those who believe in him. And it does not: that is, it does not matter until a racist group starts claiming him "their son," and based on that claim, falsifies his lineage and distorts his teachings to bring them in line with the racist, cultural and religious ideologies of that group for political purposes. Therefore, upholding his teachings means challenging any claim of ancestry fabricated to serve the political agenda of a select group. There are two ways to challenge this claim: One is to disprove it. The other, to prove a different lineage. Either method should suffice to expose such fraud. However, when both methods prove the claim fraudulent, then even the most “politically correct” researcher must yield to reason. So, in that spirit, let us begin our search for the truth about Jesus, starting with his birth.

Jesus explains the purpose of his birth in the Gospel of John:

"I have come as Light into the World, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness" (12:46).

Here, the word to remember is “Light.” This single word tells more about Jesus than any other reference—as we shall see.

Millions of Christians around the world celebrate Jesus' birth at Christmas, at the time of the rebirth of light. But following his path is not easy: Only a very small part of the gospels contains reports of his life. Nevertheless, let us look at what they say about his place of birth:

  • "... Search and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee" (John 7:52).

  • "Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?" (John 7:41).

  • "... From the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was" (John 7:41-42).

Here, we have three place names: Galilee, Bethlehem and the "village where David was." So let us look at them one by one. Galilee is a region that derives its name form the Hebrew galil ha-goiim, meaning land of the goiim, (Goutians, Kuti) that is, heathens, "people who do not revere the god of the Jews," “people of other faiths,” who live north of Judea. These non-Jewish people, of course, do not call themselves Galileans any more than do American Natives call themselves Indians. Since Galilee and Samaria have been inhabited by Sumerians for millennia and, for decades prior to Jesus' birth, specifically by Parthian-Scythians as well (See Mary's lineage, below), the Jews call Galileans “people of other faiths,” and the churches these Galileans have built on hilltops "places of corruption." These are the churches where Galileans pray to the Mother Goddess referred to in biblical writings as Astarte or Asthoret. In their faith, however, this personage is called Virgin of Light who stands next to the Father of Light (Bal, Baal) and the Son of Light, that is, the Light of the World they know as Enlil. The teachers of the Galileans' faith are sages, wise-men and women called magi, or mah or mag, meaning "of great wisdom" in Sumerian. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the gospels reflect the theological perspective of Judaism when the Jews accuse Jesus of being a magus, a perspective confirmed by Mark:

"He is possessed by Beelzebub" (3:22) (Beelzebub, demon and magus are represented by the same symbol).

So the place called Galilee is a strong contender for the birthplace of an individual "of other faiths." And since Jesus is accused of being such an individual, Galilee is a strong contender for Jesus' birthplace as well.

The second place name is Bethlehem. According to Matthew, Bethlehem is Jesus' birthplace:

"Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea" (2:1).

The problem with any "Bethlehem of Judea" is that it does not exist. Since the time of the biblical David, the small community near Jerusalem called Bethlehem today has always been known as Beth-lomon. So why is its name suddenly changed, one might ask? Once again, cui bono? A logical suspect is the group of Jewish evangelists for whom associating the name Bethlehem with the City of David is of utmost importance to support the prophecy of their prophet Micah:

"Out of thee (City of David) shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel" (5:2).

Renaming Beth-lomon to Beth-lehem would certainly serve the interests of those who profess that Jesus is the Jews' Messiah, descendant of David. Of course, today it is common knowledge that the Jews never acknowledged Jesus as their Messiah (Christos in Greek), since they still yearn for their true messiah, the ruler of the world. And there is another problem with the very existence of a "Bethlehem of Judea" in Jesus' time. There is no trace of such community anywhere in Judea during the first three centuries AD. So it would seem that Bethlehem of Judea as Jesus' birthplace is mere fabrication and its association with "the village where David was" is attempted reverse engineering to uphold a prophecy. In other words, it is an attempt to force change on reality to maintain a fantasy.

So where was Jesus born? Jesus was, in fact, born in Bethlehem. But this Bethlehem is not in Judea: it is in Galilee, in the land of “people of other faiths." During the 14th century BC Amarna Alliance, it is known as Bit-Lahmi (see below, Jesus' faith Bit-La-mi”) located at a distance of about 6 kilometers from today's Nazareth. Next to it is a hill called Tabor (Hungarian, Camp) where a church of the Galileans' faith had been erected, which in 218 BC is surrounded by a wall constructed by Antiochus III. According to legend, it is from here that Jesus ascends to Heaven. So Bethlehem of Galilee is also a strong contender for Jesus' birthplace. And when combined with the likelihood of Galilee, the "land of people of other faiths" of which Jesus is accused, it becomes difficult to deny that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Galilee.


 

ts-beth1.jpg

 

ts-beth2.jpg

 

 

There is ample evidence of map locations of Bethlehem of Galilee: Edward Wells, A New Map of the Land of Canaan, Sutton Nichols', copper engraving, London, 1700; Christoph Cellarius, Palastina Sev Terra Sancta, Lipzig, 1706; and Emanuel Bowen, An Accurate Map of the Holly Land, copper engraving, London, 1747, all show Bethlehem at about the same place, in Galilee. By the 19th century, however, Bethlehem of Galilee mysteriously vanishes from maps. Also, a map section taken from the Reformed Church Bible—depicting biblical 12th century BC Canaan—clearly shows two Bethlehems: the original town located about 45 Km west of Lake Galilee (top of map), and the later renamed community south of Jerusalem in Judea [Undated].

Finally, let us look at the "village where David was" claim. We are fairly certain Jesus was born in the land of the "people of other faiths," but let us look for a link to this biblical Hebrew king anyway. Matthew's gospel (1:16) begins with the listing of the “clan of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham,” but ends not with Jesus but with a certain Joseph whom the scriptures relate to Jesus' mother, Mary, as her husband. This lineage is further confirmed by Luke (2:1-5). But then we discover (in 1:20) that Mary was conceived not by Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit. It is self evident that the gospels show the lineage of a certain Joseph but not of Jesus. (Note: This study does not try to explain Mary's [biological] conception. The intent, here, is to expose the gospels' logical fallacy.) Consequently, it is not Jesus but this Joseph who is traced back to David. Further, Jesus finds the suggestion that he could be the son of David absurd in his reply to the Jews in Matthiew 22:45:

"If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can He be his son?"

Further, Jesus makes a point to explicitly distance himself from the Jews every time he addresses them: Whenever he speaks to the Jews, he invariably uses the second person “you,” not “we” or “us,” and “your,” not “our.” "Moses gave you circumcision," not "Moses gave us circumcision." Likewise, "You do what you do because that is what you saw at your fathers'," not "We do what we do because that is what we saw at our fathers'."

While Judeo-Christianity claims Jesus as the son of David, the Jews themselves reject such claim. It should be kept in mind that Jews recognize Jesus as a Galilean foreigner (goiim), not as a Jew. That is what they teach in their religious education classes. In the Talmud, he is depicted quite negatively:

"Jesus performed wizardry, led the people of Israel astray, and tempted them to sin" (Sanhedrin 107.b. and Nazir 40.b).

Therefore, not only a so-called “village where David was” cannot be linked to Jesus' birth but, so far, Jesus has no connection what so ever with any David, either in the gospels or in Jewish teaching.

Those who claim that Jesus derives from David not biologically but in belief contradict themselves, as well: Here, too, any link between Jesus and David can be dismissed not only because of lack of proof, but also because of proof to the contrary. Whereas Jesus teaches and practices courage, kindness, selflessness and mercy, we find David living by values diametrically opposed to those of Jesus. This subject is not just a matter of racial classification: It is a matter of morality, of the determination and practical application of laws concerning human life and codes of conduct based on Man turning toward God, toward his concept of God for moral guidance. On the one hand, we have Jesus teaching us of a caring God, a Heavenly Father who loves everyone alike, and urging us to adopt universal neighborly love as the basis of all our laws. On the other, is a dogma that directly opposes Jesus' teaching: It promotes its own merciless, vengeful god (Yahweh, Jehovah), and a selfish ideology founded on the exclusion and subjugation of all non-Jews from the Jewish god's grace by limiting it to a select race, "God's Chosen People." Therefore, it is fair to say that the glorification of ruthlessness, vengeance and selfish racism directly opposes even the most primitive concepts of neighborly love. It is self-evident that deriving Jesus from David “in belief” is as absurd as considering their immutable, mutually exclusive beliefs identical. Attempts to derive the moral profile of the kind, benevolent Jesus, son of the living God, from that of an immoral criminal, devoid of any characteristics suggestive of even the most basic human decency, is not only absurd but repugnant even to atheists. The disgust this proposition arouses is exemplified by Dr. Pál Vágó in his book, A vérszerződés ereje: (in free translation), not available in English, but the title translates as The Power of Blood-alliance.

"I consider it outright sacrilege if someone, driven by Orthodox prejudice against Jesus, stubbornly insists on deriving Jesus from David. To derive the embodiment of divine moral purity from a villainous character, the hallmark of Jewish morality in the Old Testament, is utterly repugnant."

Bible-lovers cite only the supposed duel between David and the Philistine Goliath for posterity to marvel. They are less vocal about biblical accounts that mercilessly refute his "great heroism":

"During his son Absolon's rebellion, David flees, and delegates the protection of his house to ten of his concubines" (2 Samuel 15:15-16).

He does not directly participate in the battle: he leaves such dangerous jobs for his mercenaries. However, when he gets wind of the fall of Rabbah, he reappears, and sets out to slaughter the inhabitants of the conquered cities with unprecedented cruelty:

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon (2 Samuel 12:31).

The above is the first mention in human history of the use of ovens to exterminate entire populations. But this is not the end of David's biblical character portray: He has his bravest lieutenant, the Hittite Uriah deviously beaten to death. David bribes the soldiers assigned to protect Uriah to abandon him during the battle. That is his way to get his hands on Uriah's beautiful wife, the bathing Bathsheba, whom he has been stalking from his roof-top (2 Samuel 11). He also has his mercenaries rob his subordinates (1 Samuel 27:10); and Nabal suddenly dies when David sets his eyes on Nabal's wife, Abigail (1 Samuel 25:38-39). He then has his henchmen assassinate Izrael's lawful heir, Esh-Baal (Izbozeth, Ishbosheth) and, to cover up his deed, has his henchmen executed as well (The name, Izrael, here, refers to the Caucasian “Iz-ra-el” people who worship the despised [by the Jews] Baal, and not to Semites or Hebrews. Jews appropriate this name only later when they retroactively fabricate their pre-Judaism history [Jeremiah's Judaism is conceived in 6th century BC Babylon, 400 years after this assassination, and first set in writing as the Talmud nearly a thousand years after that). Enjoying the hijacked absolute power, he has Saul's entire extended family massacred. Such is the character of David, culture-hero of Judaism, model of Jewish morality—according to Jewish teachings.

In summary, attempts to derive Jesus from David defy reason and logic:

  • Bethlehem of Judea, City of David, does not exist;

  • Bethlehem of Galilee exists, but no Jews live in Galilee;

  • Galilee and Samaria are the "land of non-Jewish people;"

  • David's lineage stops with Joseph and no biological link exists between Joseph and Jesus;

  • The Jews accuse Jesus of being a “demon-possessed” Samaritan magus

  • The Jews, themselves reject such lineage;

  • Jesus, himself finds such lineage absurd;

Beyond any biological link, deriving Jesus from David on grounds of belief are equally absurd because the two characters reflect immutable and mutually exclusive beliefs.

The last possible chance to link Jesus to David would be to show Mary's bloodline leading back to David. However, even the most fanatical "researchers" cannot derive Mary from David. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Jesus is not related to David biologically, racially, culturally, in faith, or in matters of personal values, but can be tied to a non-Jewish people, a “people of other faiths.”

"Christ" born in a cave, a stable, or ...?

Findings during the search for the precise location of Jesus' birthplace further undercut any argument for his Semitic-Hebrew-Jewish background, and open up an entirely new set of leads.

The Biblical Dictionary says: "We do not know when and where Jesus was born." In the four canonized gospels, Luke, Saul's secretary and associate, is the only one who, in accordance with the Messaic ideology and the effort to force Jesus' Jewish lineage, says that Mary gave birth in a stable:

"...Also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)... To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn" (Luke 2:4, 7).

Other than the bracketed insertion referring to David's lineage and the non-existent “city of David, which is called Bethlehem,” there are other serious problems with Luke's story, beginning with Jesus' parents' supposed travel from (today's) Nazareth to the "city of David which is called Bethlehem." First, nowhere can we find a city called Nazareth around the time of Jesus' birth (believed to be August 11th, 6 BC). Second, pragmatic history reveals that such a trip would fail even today if it were attempted in the manner described by Luke. Today's Nazareth is more than 140 kilometers form Jerusalem in a straight line. Considering the terrain, the distance by road could have been double that. And the village of Beth-Lomon, (renamed Bethlehem centuries later), the so-called City of David was even farther. Therefore, Mary would have had to travel some 2-300 kilometers riding on a burrow (as traditionally depicted), or via any other existing mode of transportation, in her state of advanced pregnancy. Considering the estimated speed of a burrow, or even that of a caravan over long distances, the trip would have taken her weeks to complete—if she were to survive at all in her condition and not miscarry. And, of course, she would have had to pay for food and accommodation for herself, Joseph and, possibly, the animals every night, all out of a carpenter's wages. And then there is the taxation absurdity: Judea, Samaria and Galilee are three, separate jurisdictions. So even if taxation of individuals were in effect—and there is no evidence that it was—the idea of a resident being taxed in a different jurisdiction 2-300 kilometers away is plain absurd. All in all, Luke's fantastic story is not even plausible.

Another evangelist, Matthew, briefly references or suggest Jesus' birthplace:

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem" (2:1). [No records exist of the magi calling on Herod, in Jerusalem or anywhere else, nor is there any mention of such records.]

Mark calls Nazareth Jesus' hometown (6:1); and John suggests that Jesus is from Galilee (47:41). Since today's Nazareth is in Galilee, we can infer from the canonized gospels that Mary's residence is in Galilee. (A look ahead: The name Jesus of Nazareth is but a fabrication because no such town existed [See below]. The Jews had no idea who Jesus was, so they could not call him by name. All they knew was that he was from Galilee. So whenever he healed the sick or performed other miracles, the Jews called out, “nazarit,” meaning holy man. Since this was a term the rabbis and Jewish priest-princes demanded exclusively for themselves, they were infuriated when their own people called the man the high-priests of the Temple of Jerusalem had declared a demon a “Holy Man.”)

The traditional Christian belief is that Jesus was born in a cave or a stable with animals breathing on him to keep him warm, where the magi came to visit him. In our search for the origin of the "born in a cave or stable" belief, we can find no such reference until the time of Justin in the second half of the second century. What we do find is that Constantin's mother, Helena, reveres and prays to the Greek-Roman god Chrestos, (Osiris, the Egyptian sun-deity), a word for “good.” Once Constantine stops persecuting worshipers of Chrestos, he orders that the until now ridiculed sun-deity is to be worshiped as the Son of God, and that a day in his honor, “Sun-Day,” be the day of rest (321 AD). That is when his mother hastily goes to the "Holy Land" to look for a cave in the small town the Jews point out to her as the City of David, and decrees it to be Chrestos' birthplace. She finds a convenient cave and immediately has a church built on top of it. It is this noble gesture on her part that starts the official worship of the Egyptian sun-deity, Chrestos in former Judea. Little does she know that in less than 100 years, the Saul-Paulists will hijack her sun-god and appropriate his name, reintroducing it in Rome as Christos (note the spelling), the Greek translation of the Jews' word for Messiah (anointed one) (Note: The Hungarian word for Christian does not derive from the word Christ: It derives from the cross within a circle, known as the Hun Cross, “Avar” Cross and Celtic Cross, symbolizing the sun. Judeo-Christianity appropriates the cross symbol in the 3-4th century AD and associates it with the crucifix).

Now that we know when, how, and by whom the stable or cave idea was conceived—as well as the origin of the name Christ (Christos)—let us see what others say about the site of Jesus' birth. The Jerusalem Talmud says: "Jesus was born in the Royal Palace of Bethlehem" (Ber. ii 5). (Note: There is no trace or mention of any royal palace in Beth-lomon [later renamed Bethlehem], Judea, during Jesus' time. Therefore, the Talmud must be referring to another Bethlehem.) And if we start looking in the direction of a royal palace, then we can put to rest any myth of Jesus being born in a cave or stable.

The idea of a palace as Jesus' birthplace opens up a whole new perspective into the lineage of the Son of God. And in this perspective, the luxurious glassware depicted on the table in Leonardo daVinci's painting, The Last Supper, begins to make sense. And there is more, much more. Christians who find it difficult to consider Jesus as royalty, rather than the son of a Jewish carpenter, might want to heed Jesus' encouragement: "Seek and you shall find me;" "Search the Scriptures!" and "The Truth will set you free." So, in that spirit, let us seek and search for the historical “Prince of Bethlehem.“

The Scythian, part 1
The Scythian, part 2
The Scythian, part 3
The Scythian, part 4
The Scythian, part 5
The Scythian, part 6