Ugrás a tartalomhoz Lépj a menübe
 


The Scythian, part 4

2012.10.01

What happened to the apostles?

Jesus said: "I came into the world, to testify to the Truth. Everyone on the side of Truth listens to me" (John 18:37). But what is the truth? What happened to Jesus' truth? Why were the people who advocated his truth, the apostles, silenced? Why are the writings of the apostles not in the Bible? As far as their activities are concerned, the truth is that none of them set foot in Rome. Rather they go on to teach the truth they had learned from their teacher mostly east of the Euphrates. Nearly all of them live in the Parthian Empire, stretching form the Euphrates to the Indus, where they organize Jesus' followers into Jesus' Church. The magnitude of their work can be inferred from Eusebois (Eusebius). He tells us that, following the collapse of the Parthian Empire, Sassanid-Persian rulers (who recognized only Zoroastrianism—a religion they reworked to suit their needs) demolish no fewer than 360 Parthian churches. Therefore, the apostles are, in deed, very busy building Jesus' Church. But not in Rome—and for good reasons.

The apostles selected by Jesus, as we shall see, are also Galileans. Since they teach values that are diametrically opposed to the Jewish ideologies Rabbi Saul propagates, it is understandable that Saul's new Jewish sect, Roman Orthodoxy (today's Judeo-Christianity) totally omits all teachings and preachings that contradict Saul-Paul or his doctrines. In the New Testament, we are hard pressed to find even a single piece of writing that directly originates from Jesus' apostles (Note: The New Testament evangelist called Matthew should not be confused with Jesus' disciple, later apostle). In contrast, we find that 62 percent of the work consists of Saul-Paul's doings.

According to the Acts of Apostles (12), Herod has John's brother, Jacob, killed. That leaves ten of the original twelve disciples, later apostles, to carry on the work (Judas, Rabbi Saul's brother—according Professor Aisleitner, citing pre-Epiphanius sources—supposedly kills himself). However, from this point forward, the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles is but a deceptive title: it says nothing about the acts of the apostles. In stead, it relates the trips and conversions of the self-proclaimed "apostle," Saul-Paul. The only exception is Peter's categorical rejection of Judaism in 15:7,10) :

"But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to observe the Law of Moses'" (Acts 15:5). "After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days the Lord made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe... Now, therefore, why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we are able to bear?'"

Here, we can be sure Peter is opposed to any connection with Judaism by outright rejecting its very cornerstone, circumcision, the substance of the Jews' supposed contract with their god, along with their laws, the Laws of Moses. He calls these laws (the Torah, Moses' books 1-5 in the Bible) an "unbearable yoke." Yet Saul-Paul (and Judeo-Christianity) propagates the continuation of Moses' Laws, and thereby turns Jesus of Galilee into an ordinary "sacrificial lamb" of Jewish sacrifice-ideology, "whose blood will wash away humanity's sins." The idea that sins cannot be forgiven without shedding blood is one of the basic tenets of the Jewish religion—incorporated in Judeo-Christianity by Saul-Paul:

"...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22).

The concepts embedded in this dogma defy all logic: First, we, not someone else, have to account for our actions. Any social order would fall apart if people were to behave as they please because someone else, a "sacrificial lamb" will wipe away their sins (crimes). Jesus warns of this danger when he specifically rejects the notion of sacrifice, this basic tenet of Jewish ideology: He emphatically says:

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13).

Further, this quotation clearly indicates Jesus' rejection of not only Jewish sacrifice-ideology but also Moses-ideology. It reveals his disgust with Moses' immorality, which explicitly prohibits the exercise of mercy when the Jewish god supposedly orders the genocide of the Canaanites (for example):

"You must completely destroy them... show them no mercy" (Deuteronomy 7:2).

Second, the very idea that newborns are sinners or that they are in anyway responsible for—and “damned” because of—their ancestors' sins is plain absurd. How could a newborn have committed a sin, any sin; and how can someone be held responsible for the actions of another over whom he has no control? This notion, threats of a vengeful god's revenge against the innocent children of Jews contemplating disobedience to the religious dictators, stems from Old Testament ideology conceived to keep the Jewry in check. Such notions defy both common sense and even the most primitive sense of justice. Jesus never said we were born in sin, nor that his blood will wash away any sort of past, present or future sins. And nowhere do his disciples (later apostles) profess that Jesus came to Earth to sacrifice himself for our sins—or any other Paulist ideology—as claimed by the Church. Consequently, there is no need for redemption of sins that do not exist. These notions are pure theological fabrications Judeo-Christianity invented to plant a sense of inferiority in the Gentiles' minds and thereby assure their subjugation. What we do hear is Jesus referring to himself as Light, and his apostles teaching that the Son of Light came to Earth to find and conserve that which is lost; namely, belief in Man's divine origin, and the glorification of everyone's God, the God he compares to the sun, the God who cares for everyone, including Jews. It is to this end that he shows his divine entity to an immoral world by conquering death. This is what Jesus' real apostles proclaim.

Blatant disregard for the belief and teachings of Peter, whom Jesus appointed head of his Church; the absence of any reference by Jesus to any kind of “original sin”; Jesus' emphatic rejection of the Jews' sacrifice-ideology and Mosaic immorality; and the exclusion of all writings by Jesus' disciples point to pursuit of an agenda to serve other interests. Simply put, Rabbi Saul-Paul hijacks the Jesus Faith and turns it into a vehicle for the spiritual enslavement of non-Jews, a subservient Jewish sect for Gentiles his successors later harangue throughout the Roman Empire as Christianity.

Elsewhere, however, the apostles are busy teaching Jesus' truth to sympathetic audiences: According to the Christian priests' breviary:

Matthew: "... soon travels to Ethiopia [not to be confused with today's Ethiopia], the land of the Kus... converts its king, his wife and the entire country to the faith of Christ..."

Simon and Thaddeus: "...Simon the Canaanite went through Egypt preaching the Gospel, whileas the like was done in Mesopotamia by Thaddeus. They met together afterwards in Persia, where they begot countless children in Jesus Christ, spread the faith far and wide in those lands..." [It should be noted, here, that Persia did not exist in the days of the apostles: The "far and wide in those lands" referenced in the breviary was called Parthia.]

Andrew (Peter's brother) "...following Jesus' suffering and resurrection, Andrew came to Europe's Scythia, which province he was allocated to disseminate Christ's faith."

Thomas: "...The Apostle Thomas was a Galilean. After the descent of the Holy Spirit, he went into many provinces to preach Christ's Gospel. He gave knowledge of Christ's faith and the Laws of Life to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, and Bactrians. He went last to the East Indies where he schooled the people in Christ's religion."

Bartholomew: "... The Apostle Bartholomew was a Galilean. In the division of the world among the Apostles it fell to his lot to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in hither India. He went thither and preached to those nations the coming of the Lord Jesus, according to the Gospel of Matthew. When he had turned many in that province to Jesus Christ, and had endured many toils and woes, he came into the Greater Armenia. There he brought Jesus' faith to King Polymius, his wife, and likewise the inhabitants of twelve cities...”

Philip: "...was born in Bethsaida [Galilee] and, with strength from the Holy Spirit, went to Scythia to proclaim the Gospel—and gained many followers of The Faith."

Therefore, according to the Christian priests' breviary, Jesus' apostles organize, first and foremost in the Parthian Empire, the true Church according to Jesus' teachings, of which Saul-Paul speculations are totally ignorant. Jesus' Church, immune from Jewish ideology and teaching, is the Church of neighborly love where the "eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth" vengeance doctrine is unheard of. Here, people live by the love-thy-neighbor principle, both in belief and in practice. They believe that life is the common existence of light and darkness: Light creates wisdom, benevolence, the arts and is the source of life; while apathy, ignorance, envy, hatred, vengeance, dishonesty, greed, theft, deception, insincerity and wasteful laziness fall under the domain of darkness. Since, in the Parthian territories, neighborly love has been the foundation upon which the Scythians built their lives even before the apostles' arrival, organizing a Church of neighborly love does not run into any opposition. Rather, the effort finds a culture already living by that principle.

What happened to the apostles writings?

The question that begs is: if Christianity conserved the writings of Saul-Paul, a man who never even met Jesus let alone hear him teach, why did it not conserve the writings of those who did, his students, the apostles? To formulate the right answer, several historical realities have to be considered. We must start back in the 2nd century when the Paulist Orthodoxy, centered in Rome, completely adopts the intolerant synagogue-style approach to religion namely, that "all teachings and writings that do not emanate from the synagogue are to be considered heresies and subject to destruction along with their advocates." Consequently, during that same century, the Church that calls itself Roman Orthodox burns and destroys every piece of the apostles writings it can find. In the 4th century, Constantin merges the various religions into the worship of the sun-deity Chrestos, “Sol-Invictus,” “Unconquered Sun,”—celebrated on December 25th—and declares it Rome's state-religion. The rabbis of the Roman Orthodox Church infiltrate the hierarchy of the new state-religion and, by late 4th early 5th century, successfully subvert the “Sol-Invictus” religion. They replace the identity of the “good” Egyptian-Roman sun-god, Chrestos by that of Judaisms “messiah,” Christos. Roman Catholicism is born. Knowledge (gnosis) of Jesus' true identity becomes heresy and its teaching is now punishable by death.

However, despite all the punitive measures taken to eradicate gnosis, knowledge spreads; and around 140 AD, hand-written copies of the apostles' gospels begin to appear in Egypt and Alexandria. This fact is confirmed by the 52-piece hand-written scripture found by an Arab farmer in 1945 in Nag-Hammadi, Egypt (not to be confused with the Dead Sea Scrolls found later in the West Bank, Jordan). The Nag-Hammadi scriptures contain the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of Faith, the Gospel of the Egyptians (the Book of the Invisible Spirit), the Letter of Peter to Philip, the Apocryphon of Peter, the Gospel of Mary Magdala, and other manuscripts.

Jesus teaches that all men are of equal value to God and that it is the light of wisdom that brings man closer and closer to God. This is why the so-called Gnostic Christians disagree with Church dignitaries, the bishops, placing themselves between God and Man, and thus reducing Man to a servant of the Church and the Church hierarchy. They consider this standpoint subversion of divine social order.

Significant theological differences in gnostic teaching are the explanation of Jesus' God-Man identity and mission, and God's designation of the woman's role in life. According to Roman Orthodox dogma, Jesus is the Son of God in a human body; he died on the cross; he was buried; he resurrected in human form on the third day; and forty days later, ascended to Heaven also in a human body. In contrast, Gnostics profess that Jesus is the Son of God in a human body, but that he lays down or takes on his human body at will. He resurrected on the third day, and his spirit appeared and appears wherever, whenever he wants. Forty days later, he ascended to Heaven as light visible with human eyes.

Since Jesus' divine and superhuman characteristic, that is, his ability to take on and lay down his human form at will, is foreign to Roman Orthodoxy, it is overlooked as a threat, and is left in the canonized gospels which confirm it. All we need is the right point of view to understand John where Jesus says:

"...I lay down My life so that I may take it again." and "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up again" (10:17-18).

Roman Orthodoxy seeks to justify Jesus' torture and crucifixion by claiming a need for a sacrifice to “God” in the interest of “wiping away Man's sins,” a ritual killing with divine accord acknowledged and proclaimed by the Church. That is why it explains Jesus' last words, "My God, why have you forsaken me," words it ascribes to the suffering, dying, Jesus, as “God's abandonment of his sacrificial son.” The problem with this explanation is that Jesus never said such a thing. He said, in Aramaic: "Eli! Eli! Lama Sabaktani." And, according to linguistic rules, this phonetically written sentence is pronounced: "Eli! Eli! Lama Sabag Ta-Nim" which, by one interpretation, means "My God, my God, Raise he who is wounded into the home of eternity." Another interpretation is "My God! my God! help me to liberation." Either way, his plea does not suggest abandonment of any sort.

During our investigation into the circumstances of Jesus' death, we run into a few oddities: For instance, how is it possible that Matthew and Mark relate Jesus' last words when they were not even present at his crucifixion, while John, who according to the teachings of the Church, was one of Jesus' disciples, whom Jesus loved most, and who (supposedly) stood under the cross, does not mention this? We can give several answers to this question: The closest is in the Gospel of John which lists those who stood under Jesus' cross (John 19:25). It lists only women. And here, we note two distinguished personalities: Jesus' mother, Mary and Mary Magdala. Further, it should be kept in mind that, according to the ordinances of both the Temple of Jerusalem and the Romans, no males are permitted at the site of crucifixions—for obvious security reasons. Therefore, John could not have been the disciple to whom Jesus says from the cross, "Behold your mother" (John 19:26-27). And, therefore, neither could he be the disciple Jesus "loved most." But if not John, then who? We find the answer in the Gnostic gospels of Nag-Hammadi.

Looking for the disciple Jesus loved most leads to a quite interesting yet delicate topic. In the Gospel of John (21), this disciple is mentioned several times, but the evangelist, inexplicably and secretly, never mentions who it is. Let us read the text of the gospel:

"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, 'It is the Lord'" (John 21:7)... "Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also rested on His bosom at the supper... (John 21:20). "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24).

The erasure and deliberate hiding of this disciple's name from the gospels incontestably serves the goals of Roman Orthodox policy well—as we shall see.

The Gospels of Nag-Hammadi

Dialog of the Savior is the title of the writing that relates the following events: "Three disciples received special instructions from Jesus: Thomas, Andrew and Mary Magdala, whom Jesus placed above the other two, ...because she spoke as the woman who understands completely." These same scriptures call Mary Magdala "visionary" and a disciple who outranks the others. According to the Gospel of Philip, "competition broke out among the male disciples because of Mary Magdala, whom Jesus considered his innermost companion and the symbol of wisdom; because he loved her more than his other disciples, and often kissed her." In light of the above, we can now also understand why Jesus appears first to Mary Magdala after his resurrection. We can also see that Mary Magdala is Jesus' disciple and one of the twelve apostles, despite Judeo-Christianity's refusal to acknowledge her as either a disciple or as an apostle. To this day, it has portrayed her in the mind of the believer as "an unprincipled" woman. But let us have a look at this elusive, supposedly "unprincipled" personage.

First, let us examine her name. Mary Magdalene is a name given by Roman Orthodoxy, a rework of her authentic name Magdala, used in gnostic literature. The meaning of her name, Magdala, is a reference to her place of origin, a city on the west shore of the Lake Galilee: Mag-Da-La, “Radiant City of Magi” in Sumerian-Aramaic, its etymology being: Mag, wise; Da, of (place name suffix); La, illuminating, radiant, figuratively, perfect. (Mag-Da, Magda, is a common Hungarian girls' name to this day.) 

ts-magdala.jpg 

Town of Magdala on the west shore of Lake (Sea of) Galilee.

Now that we know the meaning of her name, as well as her place of origin in Galilee, let us see what one prominent 15th century artist knew about her. Leonardo daVinci clearly knew about Mary Magdala as Jesus' beloved—and more. In his 1498 painting, The Last Supper, a female figure with girlish face, long hair and lowered eyes occupies the place of honor on Jesus' right, while all the others look ahead. In those days, it was not proper for women to raise their eyes in the company of men. Even today, the Hungarian expression for lowered-eyes is the word for chaste, reticent. So the question begs: Did Leonardo still know back in 1498 that Mary Magdala was the "favorite" disciple at the occasion of the Lord's Supper described by John as "resting on Jesus' bosom at the supper"? Also interesting are the glasses on the table and the biscuit-size buns. In those days, production of glassware of the purity shown in the painting was limited to Egypt and Mesopotamia. And the price of such glassware competed with that of wares made of gold, possibly surpassing it. Wherever glasses of such quality were found on a table, it was a sign that the company present are from the highest social class. Their bread consists of tiny buns, typical Scythian-Hun staple food. It is conceivable that Italian artists familiar with, and regularly working in the Vatican, came across writings that spoke of these biscuit-size buns, writings which have since disappeared.

 

ts-lastsupper.jpg

 

 

 

ts-magda.jpg 

Figure sitting on Jesus' right. Of significance is the choice of colors for the clothing of the figure sitting on Jesus' right, red cape over a blue dress: the exact mirror image of Jesus' clothing—a combination worn by no one else present. Anyone who sees a man in this picture...

 

ts-angel.jpg 

DaVinci painted Mary Magdala's face using the same model who posed for the angel in his Madonna of the Rocks. Artists have always used female models to depict adult angels.

But let us look further: Let us take a look at the Gospel of Philip where Jesus teaches us about life as human beings: "Fear not the flesh nor love it. If you fear it, it will gain mastery over you. If you love it, it will absorb you and paralyze you." Later, he gives this law: "Great is the mystery of marriage. For without it, the world would not exist. Now the existence of the world depends on Man, and the existence of Man depends on marriage." So let us not wonder why the early Jesus Faith, devoid of any Paulist ideology, revered Mary Magdala as Jesus' beloved. This fact gains further credence in the canonized Gospel of John, where she is the first person to go to Jesus' tomb, "early in the morning, while it was still dark" (20:1), and runs to inform Peter and the disciples. Let us think human for a moment:

  • Jesus considers her first in his earthly life;

  • Jesus considers her the first among his disciples;

  • She is the faithful spouse who is the first one at Jesus' tomb;

  • Jesus shows himself first to her and speaks first to her after his resurrection;

  • Jesus often kisses her (There is a hole in the text following the verb kiss. Some claim that Jesus kisses Mary on her mouth, others dismiss such claims. So far, our knowledge of the Coptic language does not provide clues either way. However, in Hungarian there two verbs for kiss, and one of them, “csókol,” generally means kiss on the mouth.)

It is noteworthy that in John's writings, Mary addresses Jesus as Rabboni, which, according to the canonized Gospel of John means master (variably, teacher or, the more cheeky translation, rabbi):

"Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master" (John 20:16).

However, Sumerian-Aramaic, Ra-Ba-Ni does not mean either master or teacher, and definitely not rabbi, not even by the most convoluted translation: Ra-Ba-Ni means "Light of the World."

Hopefully, we are not demeaning Jesus if we believe him to be a real, living person whose life—even in a human perspective—is complete. After all, it is in the union of man and woman that divine blessing is realized according to God's plan of blissful life. It is God who planted in Man's heart the magical sensation of being in love from which the "great mystery of marriage" issues. And, according to Jesus' law, without that marriage, the world would not exist. What damage could befall our spiritual world if we were to become convinced through logical deduction that Jesus, the Son of God, who took on a human body filled with the same blood as ours, the Son of Man, showed us example here, too? This was to be the only way for him to fulfill the divine will to become human.

The Gospel of Philip also tell us something else; something about Jesus' Mother, the Virgin Mary, whom Jesus also identifies with another face of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

"The Spirit, Mother and Virgin, spouse of the heavenly Father. The Father of All joined with the Virgin, who came down. This is the Holy Spirit, who descended to the World. Jesus was born of this Holy Spirit" (62-66).

So what should we understand by the expression Holy Spirit? Better yet, let us ask what did the authors of these scriptures understand by this expression? The Book of Secrets of Nag-Hammadi answers: "She is the invisible, Virgin, Perfect Spirit. She became the Mother of all that exists, because she existed before all else." And, Jesus speaks this way:

"Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and carried me to Tabor, the great mountain..." [Mount Tabor is 17 Km. west of Lake Galilee]. 

ts-trinity.jpg 

So it seems that, at the spiritual level, Jesus refers to his mother as the Holy Spirit. This relationship is depicted on the 12th century fresco titled Holy Trinity, showing Father, Mother, Son, located in ancient “Avar” territory, today's Urschalling, a town on the Austrian-German border near Lake Chiemsee (The “Avar” Empire, centered in the Carpathian Basin, stretched from the Balkans to today's France). This fresco had survived the ideologies of the Holy Roman Empire until the 16th century when the picture of the “Mother” was painted over. But, when the paint started to peal off, she reemerged from the original pigmentation of the plaster during restoration in the 1920s. No records of the painted image could be located, but locals speculate that depicting her anatomically correct was an affront to 16th century Christian morality. A more likely (but equally speculative) assumption, based on other 16th century Christian art depicting the Holy Spirit, is that an image of a pigeon was painted over her.

And now we know a little more about the Scythians' spiritual beliefs. We also found one of the twelve apostles, Mary Magdala. We can now turn to history in our search for Jesus' Truth.

The New Testament as recorded history: Caveat lector (Reader beware)!

We must evaluate biblical texts and gospels related to Jesus with a generous degree of reservation because no effort is spared to force a trace of Jesus' existence to pre-Jesus Semitic-Hebrew-Jewish history and tradition doctrine. With judicious reservations though, we find many irrelevant, forced references to the gospels of the Old Testament. However, one example of such “resourceful sourcing” should suffice to expose the fraud: The Gospel of Matthew states:

“Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel'” (27:9).

But when we read the referenced quotation in the book of Jeremiah, we find a totally different subject matter: There is no mention of "thirty pieces of silver" nor can we find "whose price has been set by the sons of Israel." This is what it says:

"And Jeremiah said, 'The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 'Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle is coming to you, saying, 'Buy for yourself my field which is at Anathoth, for you have the right of redemption to buy it.' Then Hanamel my uncle's son came to me in the court of the guard according to the word of the Lord and said to me, 'Buy my field, please, that is at Anathoth, which is in the land of Benjamin; for you have the right of possession and the redemption is yours; buy it for yourself.' Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord. I bought the field which was at Anathoth from Hanamel my uncle's son, and I weighed out the silver for him, seventeen shekels of silver (32:6-9).

It is self-evident that the referenced material, Jeremiah 32:6-9, relates some sort of real estate deal that has nothing to do with the text of Matthew 27:9. However, striking out the irrelevant forced reference from Matthew 27:9, the text becomes quite clear:

"Then that which was spoken was fulfilled."

This is nothing more than a quotation of Jesus' words in John 5:39:

"Search the Scriptures... It is these that testify about Me."

What ancient scriptures is Jesus referring to? In what language were they written? Official Roman Orthodox theology does not even pose the question: what language did the Jews speak in Judea? In what language did they accuse Jesus in Pilate's court? And in what language did Jesus speak to Pilate? Herod, though he was not a Jew, was the king of the Jews for 40 years by the favor of the Romans. And the Romans spoke the same language Herod spoke, Greek. This is Judea's official language in Jesus' time. The people of Judea do not speak Hebrew(!) The Galileans, for their part, speak their native Aramaic. This is why they are immediately recognized as foreigners whenever they speak Greek. The gospels, too, are all written in Greek just as are all apocrypha. The only exception are the Nag-Hammadi scriptures which are written in Coptic. Many biblical scholars have also come to this very conclusion, and state without reservations:

"Hebrew was a dead language in Jesus' time, and it has been determined that the Old Testament was translated to Greek so the Jews can understand it" (J.E. Conner PhD.: Christ was not a Jew, The Christian Book Club, Hawthorne, Ca., 1972, Page 28).

So the Judean Jews have become grecianized. And fifty years after Jesus, the also grecianized Jew, Josephus Flavius, becomes Galilee's governor, and writes the history of the Jews, again, in Greek. Therefore, it is inconceivable that Jesus could have been thinking about any sort of Hebrew scriptures when he refers to "texts regarding him." For its part, written Greek dates back only to the 9th century BC and, at that time, is found only in and around today's Greece. So the only "ancient writings" that can be considered are the Aramaic texts. And these are those cuneiform writings whose language we today call Sumerian. We can also list among these "ancient texts" the same cuneiform writing witnessed by monuments found at the same place. Built by the Scythians, Scythopolis—as it is called in Jesus' time—is also here, twenty-some miles from today's Nazareth. Scythopolis is renamed to Beth-Shean only later. Professional literature likes to call these cuneiform inscriptions Phoenician, or the more audacious, Ancient-Hebrew, despite the fact that Semitic people only lived here transitionally and only in small numbers as wondering pastoralists and habiru (drifters, criminals). The Old Testament spares no effort to mention the people of Gog and Magog who chased the Hebrews far away. Therefore, we have every proof that the people of Galilee can be called descendants of Scythians. Consequently, we can affirm with authority that they have kept and protected their Scythian traditions with religious piety. And the most sacred of these are their religious traditions. That is what Jews ridicule in every language, along with the churches Galilean Scythians' built on hills—which Jews call "mount of corruption"—because in these churches, people do not revere the god of the Jews, called Yahweh: Here, the faithful turn to the Virgin Mother of Light (Astare, Easter, Istar, Inanna), a divinity symbolized by the sun (Bal), with their supplications. That is why, even today, both Mary and Jesus are depicted wearing the sun-disk halo, the “symbol” the god of the Jews wants to "smash" in Ezeikel 6:4. The substance of the Sumerians' spirit is reverence of the Light and life rather than the destructive ravages of darkness, wrath and vengefulness.

Now a few facts to dispel any delusions about Aramaic, referenced above, as being a Semitic language. If we carefully read the dictionary, we find that it calls Aramaic a Semitic language but then contradicts itself with its own stated facts. First, names of geographical areas usually originate from the people who first lived there. We read that, after the Flood, "people and animals emerged in the mountains of Aram," Northern Mesopotamia. However, the same dictionary does not consider Mesopotamia a region inhabited by Semitic peoples. Therefore, the original people of this region could not have been Semites. This inference is supported by Dr. Fáy Elek who originates the Armenians from the region of the Ararat mountains—today's Armenia—whose original name was Armenia. And this region, according to the scientific community, was inhabited by the Turanian (Scythian) people. He references Plinius who maintains that the Scythians were previously called Arams. Specifically, they came from an area in Northern Mesopotamia often called Arameos, which is a name of Urartu whose first king was Aram.

Moreover, the Talmud, itself acknowledges this reality: "The first man spoke Aramaic" (Sanhedrin 38b). Several researchers also maintain that the first language was Aramaic. According to the Bible, the entire world spoke one language after the Flood. And this was the language of Ut-nap-ishtim's (biblical Noah) great-grandson, Nib-Ur (Nimrod), whom Jews so passionately despise. Therefore, the Talmud also maintains that Aramaic was not a Semitic language, but the language of the Jews' hated enemies. This belief is further confirmed in Sabbath 12b which states that Jews should never petition for their needs in Aramaic because the [Jewish] angels do not heed them, for they do not understand Aramaic. Likewise, Sota 33 states that whoever makes personal requests in Aramaic, the ministering [Jewish] angels pay no attention since they do not understand Aramaic.

In the Bible, the Aramaic language appears around 1000 BC, seemingly out of nowhere. So let us look elsewhere to find traces of this language before that time. Most scientist agree with geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitmantime who provide us with irrefutable evidence that the biblical Flood occurred around 5500 BC, and turned a fresh water lake into what is today the Black Sea, just north of the Ararat mountains. So the question is: what language did the people who lived in that region speak in 5500 BC? Propaganda literature claims that they spoke a Semitic language akin to Hebrew. Such a proposition, however, is contradicted by both historical facts and common sense. It is also easily undercut by the absence of any archaeological or historical evidence supporting any existence of Semitic people anywhere around the Black Sea or Mesopotamia at that time and for thousands of years thereafter. The first reference to Semitic people in the region occurs only around 2500 BC. Even the Hebrew Calendar—compiled by Rabbi Yosi Halafta by reverse engineering during the 2nd century AD—only starts with 3761 BC, one year before the Jews' "Date of Creation"—though he does not explain who kept track of time before they—or, for that matter, the world—existed. In either case, it is absurd to assert that the people who emerged after the flood would speak a language to which they will have not been exposed for thousands of years. Further, a language does not emerge in full maturity from one day to the next, or even one millennium to the next. Therefore, it is most likely that the inhabitants of the region have been speaking their native tongue for thousands of years before the Flood.

Finally, Aramaic and Semitic are not only different languages, they belong to different language families (groups). Linguists generally categorize languages as either Isolating, Inflecting or Agglutinative. Isolating (also analytic) is a language in which words are invariable, there are no inflections or changeable endings, and grammatical relations are indicated by word order. Examples are Chinese, Vietnamese, and Samoan. English has some features of isolating languages. Inflecting (also synthetic, fusional) is a language in which grammatical relationships are indicated by altering the internal structure of words, often by changing their endings. Examples are Greek, Latin, German, and Semitic languages (Arabic and Hebrew). English has some features of inflecting languages, too. And agglutinative is a language in which grammatical relationships are indicated by building up words out of long sequences of units, each of which indicates a particular grammatical meaning. Examples are Hungarian, Etruscan, Turkish, Basque, some Caucasian and Japanese. Further, since Sumerian, according to Archibald Sayce, Professor of Oriental Studies in Oxford, is closely related to Hungarian and Basque, then it too must be considered an agglutinative language. Next we look at what The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English says about Sumerians: "Sumerian as "adj. of or relating to Sumer, its ancient language, or the early, non-Semitic element it contributed to Babylonian civilization; n. 1. a member of the indigenous non-Semitic people of ancient Babylonia. 2. the Sumerian language." And the Encyclopedia Britannica states that, "Sumerian is clearly an agglutinative language." Since the discoveries of Hincks, Rawlinson, and Oppert in the eighteen fifties, the Sumerian language has been routinely called Scythic, that is, the language of the Scythians. We now know that Sumerian—or Scythic—is the agglutinative language of (non-Semitic) Scythians who live in Sumer, a region further defined as Mesopotamia. Therefore, the people who emerge after the Flood from the mountains of Aram, spread throughout Mesopotamia around 5500 BC and are said to be speaking Aramaic, speak an agglutinative language rather than an inflecting “Semitic language akin to Hebrew.”

We can follow other threads, too, such as the biblical “language confusion”—keeping in mind the perspectives of its authors, namely, their ignorance of the time of Nib-Ur's (Nimrod) reign (c. 5500 BC), the Sumerian king who, they claim, ousted their supposed 18th century BC patriarch, Abraham. The biblical “language confusion” story may be the the product of three factors: One, Semites arriving in Sumer do not understand Aramaic. Later, they are further confused when they also hear Greek. Two, their own language evolves differently in the various isolated Semitic communities, depending on exposure to the local Aramaic dialect. Since they do not have a written language that could establish commonality between the various spoken Hebrew dialects, they cannot understand each other either. And three, when they begin to write Hebrew, they do so using the Sumerians' Aramaic alphabet—and, later, point to these texts to “prove” that Aramaic is a Semitic language. Then later, Hebrews who learn to read are at a total loss, that is “confused,” when they cannot make sense of texts they think are Hebrew but are, in fact, Aramaic.

Taken together, these facts seem adequate to disprove any association between Aramaic and Semitic languages. Therefore propagating the notion that Aramaic is a “Semitic language akin to Hebrew” appears to be nothing more than disinformation to service political interests, an effort to link Ut-nap-ishtim (Noah) (and for Judeo-Christianity, Jesus) to the Jews. It is far more reasonable to conclude that the Aramaic language spreads far and wide with peoples' cross-migrations beginning around 1000 BC, an era when one people is replaced by another. And this migration includes the resettlement of Galilee and Samaria with Scythians from Mesopotamia who bring with them their beliefs, traditions, customs and culture including, of course, their language, a dialect the local Canaanites understand. These are the non-Semitic people who live in Galilee during the time of Mary and Jesus: the ancient Canaanites and the Sumerians whom the "Great Assyrian king" had resettled in Galilee and Samaria from Babylon, Kut, Hamath, and Sepharvaim (Sippar) in place of the deported Hebrews. That is why the Aramaic language appears—seemingly out of nowhere—in the Bible around 1000 BC.

Now that we have a good idea about who lives in Galilee and what language they speak, let us examine their customs and traditions: "...And they all drank from it..." we read in the Gospel of Mark when Jesus:

"Had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them" (14:23).

The author subsequently quotes Jesus saying:

"This is my blood of the new covenant" (14:24).

Therefore, Jesus enters into a Blood-Alliance with his disciples. This act on his part makes sense only if one is schooled in Scythian traditions: The Scythians are the only people who perform traditional Blood-Alliance ceremonies during which neighborly love transforms into brotherly love when every brother to be drips some of his blood into wine and drinks of the mix, thereby sealing the alliance through unification of blood. Herodotus (5th century BC) confirms this Scythian ceremony:

"When the Scythians make solemn covenants they mix their blood with wine and drink thereof" (IV, 70).

Tacitus (XII. 47) (1st-2nd century) also confirms this tradition as a Parthian alliance ceremony.

The similarities between Jesus' actions and words, and the Parthian-Scythian Blood-Alliance ceremonies are too great to be called coincidence. It is beyond doubt that Jesus performs a Scythian religious ceremony, dating back to ancient times and still practiced in his day (and beyond), to seal his New Alliance with his disciples, since such custom is unheard of in Jewish circles. The gospels make no mention of anyone dripping his blood in the wine mix during the Last Supper. However, when Jesus gives his disciples the cup, he unambiguously affirms:

"This is my blood of the new covenant"

During Jesus' time, the rulers of the Parthian Empire are the only political leaders who practice the sacrament of Blood-Alliance to seal their most precious and indissoluble agreements. This is the only explanation for the perpetual help of Asian brothers-in-arm whose alliance assures the Parthians the political and military force needed to render Rome impotent against them for 500 years, and to persuade the Roman Legions to give the borders of the Parthian Empire a wide birth.

But let us return to the "ancient writings" of which Jesus is aware, all of which speak of him. Let us look at the cuneiform scriptures found in Mari, Mesopotamia, announcing that: "God's first-born, the Light of the World, En-Lil, will one day take on human form and descend to Earth." This prophecy is fulfilled in the person of the Scythian Jesus, Son of God, whom we recognize as the Light of the World worshiped 3000 years earlier, the En-Lil of Sumerian religious consciousness. The Son of God is born a Man among the progeny of the people of the prophecy; and gives his people a New Alliance.

The question is, why a new alliance? If he gives a new alliance, then there must have been an old one. Here, Judeo-Christians immediately point to the biblical Old Testament. But, let us stop for a moment: Let us examine the content of the biblical Old Testament, and ask ourselves who contracted with whom, and what were the terms of their contract? In Moses I 17, God addresses Abraham in verse 9:

"Then God said to Abraham, 'As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come'... This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you."

Therefore, the biblical Old Testament is a contract between Abraham's god and Abraham and his descendants, which stipulates that Abraham and his descendants must circumcise their males. But is this the alliance Jesus is referring to? Let us hear what he says about the Jews' god and the terms of their contract with their god:

"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44),

and;

"...Moses gave you circumcision...." (John 7:22).

Therefore, Jesus certainly does not identify “God the Father" with the Jewish Yahweh. Further, he says that their practice of mutilating males originates not from any sort of god but from Moses: He does not associate that practice with God or consider it an alliance with God. Yet today's Christians close their minds to the words Jesus spoke. When the Second Vatican Council decrees that "Christians are Abraham's children in faith," it overrules(!) Jesus and asserts an absurdity. While it is always plausible for a Gentile to be the biological descendant of someone named Abraham, it is not even plausible for any Gentile to be the child of Abraham in faith because such notion defies logic: The god of the biblical Old Testament unambiguously excludes all uncircumcised males:

"And the uncircumcised male who hath not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his peoples: he hath broken my covenant" (1 Moses 17:14).

Therefore, all uncircumcised males throughout the world are automatically excluded from the group the Vatican calls “Abraham's children in faith.”

The ineptitude of Gentiles is without precedent: Century after century, they fail to realize that their intellectual enslavement began with their rejection of the Jesus-model which their own morality upholds and demands. They bow their heads to an arrogant contemptuous Jewish god who introduces himself by barking out his very first commandment: "I am the Lord, your God, you will not have other gods before me." But those who cite the Ten Commandments usually neglect the entire text of this commandment, which includes: "I am the Lord, your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." The latter part of this sentence makes it absolutely clear that anyone who has not been brought "out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" has no connection what so ever with this Jewish god or any contract he is claimed to have imposed on the Jews.

So if Jesus does not acknowledge the circumcision compact called Old Testament, then why is he giving a New Alliance? Since his words and deeds are perfect—or, to the non believer, learned and considered—we must assume, he is fully aware of the beliefs of the people who predated any Abraham. And the belief of these people is that En-Lil, the Light of the World, Jesus, the divine being since time eternal, had really entered into an alliance with Man at an earlier time. And this alliance is one of those "ancient writings" to which he is referring. This is the "Old Alliance" between him and Man, the alliance Man forgot after many millennia of suffering, flight and migration. People have lost the roots of God's Tree of Life and Jesus came to retrieve them.

ts-xmastree.jpg 

2500 BC Tree of Life retained in tradition as the Christmas Tree

Sumerians' “religion”

The Sumerian tablets N.I 1117, 2337, 2473, 2742 are kept at the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Samuel Noah Kramer of the University of Pennsylvania mentions deciphering these tablets in his book, Sumerian Mythology, (1963), in the chapter on the creation of the pickax. In this chapter he calls the axe-adze pickax. In Sumerian times the pickax is revered and plays a very important symbolic “religious” role. (Note: The noun, “religion,” and the adjective, “religious,” as they are used today, would be misnomers for the Sumerians' spiritual beliefs and practices. To them, spirituality is not merely a side interest in religion or theology in today's sense. Rather, it is the awareness of Man's personal connection with the Universe, a union which rests upon the most basic law of Nature, the universal law of Life (Atilla Grandpierre, Ancient People of the Royal Magi: The Magyars, Selected Studies in Hungarian History, 2008, p. 353). Spirituality to the Scythians—Sumerians included—is the pursuit of knowledge of the Universe, its composition (matter, life, consciousness), energies (physical, biological, intellectual) and the laws that govern each form of energy and their interactions, knowledge that leads to the wisdom needed to effectively tackle all fields of knowledge [Christian tradition merely acknowledges knowledge and wisdom as two of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit]). Professor Kramer states that all the writings on the tablets are very easily deciphered except for a few sections which cannot be understood. Professor Badiny says that, no doubt, we cannot yet understand everything from that age, but that all the Sumerian literary texts put together will help us understand. However, professor Kramer writes his comments in 1963. Since then, a number of emigrant Hungarian sumerologists have been working on these texts, and they have successfully deciphered those parts which Professor Kramer stated could not be understood. Their work reveals amazing information about the Sumerian spiritual world. Instead of “creation of the Pickax” they gave it the title, The Covenant.

To understand the text of this alliance, we need to review the Sumerians' concept of God. At top center of the Code of Ur-Nammu—written in Sumerian cuneiform in the 21st century BC—is a six-pronged star representing the Dual Trinity in Sumerian spirituality. (The Jews appropriate this geometric form and, later, in the Early Modern Period (16-18th century AD), begin to call it (variably) Magen David, Star of David and Solomon's Seal to identify themselves. In light of the history of the Jews, it is evident that this is the symbol the Jews frequently see during their “Babylonian Exile” [6th century BC], a symbol they later incorporate into their canon—as they do the word Israel). Gnostic Christians, as they are called today, attest to this ancient symbol in their text of The Lord's Prayer which begins as:

"Our Father-Mother, who are beyond and within us, hollowed be Thy name in the dual trinity."

 

ts-dualtrinity.jpg 

Fény-Anya, Szent Lélek: Mother of Light, Holy Spirit

Fény-Atya: Father of Light

Ama-Tu-Anki: Birth-Mother of Heaven-Earth

Fény-Fiú: Son of Light

 

ts-eletfa.jpg 

Section from artist's concept of the Tree of Life based on Hungarian mythology showing the Holy Trinity as the visible mirror image of the three (invisible) faces of God.

The Sumerian name of the hemisphere in the center of the star is AZ, and its meaning is the same as Brahman, wisdom, in Hinduism. AZ does not simply exist because to exist is a function which itself depends on reality. Rather, AZ is reality itself. In a hyper-absolute sense, AZ means divine-reality, the original being who is independent and complete in every sense. AZ radiates the light of existence into everyone and everything, but cannot be imagined. In Sumerian wisdom, AZ brings existence into being in the completeness of a dual trinity operating as the radiance of divine-reality. This dual-trinity is the symbol ancient Sumerians use to personify divine energy to give humanity some basis when they try to infer the One-God, Creator and Source of Life energy-complex.

According to Sumerian belief, the self-unity IZ(AZ)-TEN, God's unfathomable reality, can be thought of only by referring to symbols and mental imagery of divine activities and functions. These images are positive traits that exemplify God's activities in a meaningful way. And, as we shall see in the dual trinity, this wisdom sees IZ-TEN's power in three defined activities: Creation, the maintenance of existence, and the creation of life. In substance, these three activities constitute a triad. However, we, earthly beings, cannot conceptualize spiritual events and activities, or as the Sumerians say, "matters of Heaven." Therefore, we need something we can relate to. So Sumerian wisdom symbolizes this spiritual triad by its mirror image, a physical reflection to which we can relate. This reflection, the "matters of Earth," is interlocked with its spiritual counterpart as Heaven and Earth are interlocked in transubstantiation, a concept of God becoming present in Man kept by Christianity known as communion. It is the simultaneous care of "matters of Heaven and Earth" that unifies and interlocks the two triads into a single dual-triad the Sumerians called Dual Trinity. This is the notion, inscribed on clay tablets 3000 years before Christianity, that Jesus teaches in Matthew 6:10, (the Lord's Prayer): “on Earth as it is in Heaven.” This is how ancient Sumerian wisdom expresses the mentally intangible essentials inherent in this imagery to the man thinking in the realm of causative interdependence. Sumerians believe in One God, and the names they give divine manifestations are no more names of personages of a polytheist pantheon than God, Creator, Lord, or Almighty are names of different gods. These names are labels that define universally observable manifestations of power derived from a great, living “Light,” a pure intellectual energy source, a spiritual power above and beyond Man.

Professor Badiny encourages us to ascend to a higher level of empathy and to harness all our intellectual faculties to gain the level of understanding needed to approach the concept of monotheism found in Sumerian spiritual consciousness. He encourages us to adopt the Sumerians' wisdom and think of the divine trinity, Enki-Amatuanki-Enlil, as a spiritual entity we, earthlings, simply cannot fathom. However, we can conceptualize a mirror image of the same divine trinity, an entity to which we can relate, a mental image, which mirrors the divine trinity, Enki-Amatuanki-Enlil as the earthly trinity, Father of Light, Mother of Light (Holy Spirit) and Son of Light. The Sumerians' personification of divine manifestations is a human tendency, as alive today as it was then: Hence we have Old Man Winter, Father Time, Mother Earth, Mother Nature and so forth. He emphasizes that the oft-misinterpreted names of Sumerian divinity refer not to several gods, but to the one-and-the-same entity introduced to us in terms we can understand. He uses several analogies to help us approach the inexplicable by noting its mentally tangible characteristics. In one such analogy, he compares King Mátyás' words to those spoken by Jesus when he (Badiny) references King Mátyás' exploits to obtain unbiased information about the state of the Hungarian people. Mátyás would roam the country dressed as a student experiencing first hand the life of the ordinary man. When asked, he would say, "The King and I are one." In another analogy, he relates Light to the sun, a reality we cannot experience, and the Son of Light to sunshine ("sun-energy") a reality we can experience, to explain Jesus' words, "I and the Father are one," and “he who sees me sees the one who sent me: (John 10:30, 12:45). By adopting Professor Badiny's thinking, we can also relate the sun's warmth, warmth of life to Mother of Light, mother, giver of life.

It should be noted that “life,” here, refers to the universal life-energy, which is a part of the energy-complex called God: it has nothing to do with the biblical term “breath of life,” or with breathing life into inanimate matter to turn it into a “living being” (Genesis 2:7). The term “breath of life” is often used in ancient scriptures but it has nothing to do with bringing inanimate matter to life through any kind of breathing or otherwise: “Breath” in “breath of life” means awareness, consciousness, soul, the mental-energy—which is also a part of the energy-complex called God—Man expends when he thinks. Professor Alfréd Tóth confirms the association between the words, divine breath, spirit, soul, and the human mind in his Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian (EDH), 9, Etruscan and Hungarian, where he defines the words ase and asi as: ase: breath, wind, soul; asi: inspiration, spirit, wind; Hungarian, ész, mind, intellect, esz-es, rational, thinking (p. 258). Here, breath, spirit, soul, inspiration, mind and intellect are all expressed by the same root word. So “breath of life” means awareness of life, the ability to infer a universal life-energy from differences between inanimate matter and living beings. This same concept is also found in Egypt where “breath of life” refers to wisdom itself, Creator, “A-men” (also spelled, Amun) whose manifestation (Coptic, Hor; Greek, Haru, Horus) called “Son of Truth” is associated with the sun and is depicted in hieroglyphic writing as a falcon. Further, 5000-year-old clay tablets speak of “Man,” rather than mere matter or dust, arriving to Earth (see below). All verifiable scriptures imply that the Sumerians believe, Man was not only alive but also intelligent when he arrived on Earth. Any divine contact thereafter merely advances or restores his knowledge. Jesus confirms this belief when he gives the reason for his incarnation:

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

Another way to look at the relationship between the heavenly divine trinity and its earthly mirror image is to imagine living out a life in a prison cell, with only a window facing north (on the Northern Hemisphere) to see outside. We would never see the sun, though we would see daylight outside. However, if we were to reach out between the bars at hight noon, we would see sunshine on our hand and feel the warmth of the sun. In other words, we would experience the sun's effects. Though we could not see the sun itself, we could infer its existence and nature. Using this analogy, we now substitute the Son of Light, Jesus, for the light of the sun we can see. Hence, when Jesus says "I and the Father are one," and “he who sees me sees the one who sent me,” he is saying that sunlight and the sun are one and the same because the former is a manifestation of the latter. He is the mirror image of the spiritual En-Lil whom we cannot see. Likewise, the earthly Mother of Light, can be thought of as the warmth of the sun we can feel. She is the mirror image of the spiritual Ama-Tu-Anki, Mother of Heaven and Earth whom we cannot feel. Also, Jesus calls the Father “Truth,” a word we understand and use to label reality. He is the mirror image of the spiritual En-Ki, the supreme intellect we cannot fathom.

The Sumerians believe that, in the Dual Trinity, En-Ki is the distributor and caretaker of the soul in created entities; Ana-Tu-Anki is the giver of eternal life who looks after Man's spiritual existence, and En-Lil is the source of eternal soul. The earthly mirror image of the heavenly divine trinity radiates into and within Man as his soul, that is, the transubstantiation of the Father of Light, Mother of Light and Son of Light in Man. This notion can be compared to water as life, a brook Man drinks from to stay alive as the giver and sustainer of life, and a spring as the source of life. Although we give them different names—water, brook and spring—by pushing the envelope of abstract thinking, we realize the three are one and the same: water emerges as a spring and flows as brook.

The English word trinity is used throughout this study to make it more readable, but “trinity” does not really convey the Sumerian meaning. English “trinity” suggests three-in-one. However, the Hungarian “hármasság” means something else, a concept somewhat related to “three-ness.” This word does not suggest three parts or elements constituting one whole. Rather, it conveys the idea of one whole having three characteristics (e.g, the sun is omnipresent, warm and bright all at the same time).

The following is the Sumerian text of the Old Alliance Jesus came to renew—for edification and remembrance: Note: English translations mostly fail to correctly covey notions expressed in this text due to inadequate language sensibility and limitations. While it is easy to sense that the words Lord and Almighty, expressed in the same language, label the same concept when used in a religious context, language proficiency and etymology, even when combined, do not provide sufficient clues to sense the relationship between words expressed in different languages without cultural immersion in each one of them. For example, “lil” in the compound word en-lil, literally lord + wind, breath, spirit does not suggest that En-Lil and the human intellect are one and the same unless the translator is aware that the user of this term believes that his mind is the divine spirit within him. This is one possible reason why Professor Kramer was unable to decipher the entire text. Language limitations are another source of errors. Some Sumerian words express complex ideas but have no English equivalents. For example, KABTA(21) (Kapta in Hungarian) is a word used to label a concept remotely related to the function of a mold used in casting. In such cases, conveying the idea correctly would require extensive description.

Armed with our knowledge of the Sumerians' concept of divinity, we can now examine the (unedited) text of the Old Alliance—keeping translation limitations in mind. Names are reproduced in their original forms. The following words, however, carry special significance, and are herein described to help grasp the meaning they convey:

Ax Light-weight ax-like tool with a long-handle, also used throughout history as a walking cane and weapon. Hungarians have traditionally equipped themselves with this ax, called “fokos,” until its steel-headed variant was banned at the end of World War II. Some later designs extend the butt into the shape of a pick, hence the term Pickax is sometimes used. Professor Badiny also calls it “fokos.”

Em-Bar Hungarian “ember” means man, Mankind, and the root word equivalent of human in nouns, adjectives and adverbs: human, humane, humanity, humanly, humanely.

En-Lil Name used to reference God but difficult to translate. Literally, it means Lord-Spirit, but literal translation, here, is all but meaningless. Mary Magdala calls En-Lil incarnate, Jesus, “Light of the World.” A variant of her complex expression in Hungarian, “világ-om” (hyphenated for clarity), “my light,” “my world,” “my life,” “my everything” is still used today in some parts (and poetry) of Hungary to address a loved one. The root word “világ” means light, world and creation, and is the root of hundreds of words that label such concepts as clarity, cosmos and all that is known and unknown to Man combined. When used to address someone, it conveys the complex idea that the loved one is thought of as the reason for one's spirituality, existence and life. All magus expressions translated to English as “Light” can also mean “all that is known and unknown to Mankind.” Hence, Jesus' expression “I am the Light” in Hungarian can also mean ”I am all that is known and unknown (to you),” the source and the destination, “the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.”

Iz-Ten Hungarian “Isten” means God, wisdom (it)self; Is, Iz: (see AZ, above), ten self. ”In the beginning there was Logos” (John 1:1) (Logos, divine wisdom, Merriam-Webster) Also Mayan sun-deity, Iz-tam-Na, (or Itzam, Itzamna, Hun-Itzamna), also called Hun-Ab-Ku, “Invisible High God,” and Creator “with three faces,” Kinich Ahau.

Kus Hungarian “Kos,” ram, “Aries” in the Sumerian zodiac, a people; also their patriarch, Nib-Ur's (Nimrod) father, Ut-nap-ishtim's (biblical Noah) grandson. The Kus are referenced as a people who lived in northern Mesopotamia, an exceptionally fertile land around four major rivers: Barana, Idiglat, Kúr and Ar-Ar (biblical Euphrates, Tigris, Pishon and Gihon, [not necessarily in that order]). Ancient texts mention the Land of Kus as the "Land of Abundance," and traditions associate it with the biblical Garden of Eden. One of its cities along the Tigris, Szubartu (city of Szabir), located 30 Km. south-west of Nimrod, 75 Km. north of Magar, is the land of the Szabir, Sa-pir, sun-faced people Árpád's relatives mention to Byzantine's emperor as the ancient homeland of some Scythian-Magyars (Wilhelm Gernot, Hurrian and Subarian Lands, England, 1989). Jesus, son of the Kus (Ram) people is often called Lamb, Hungarian, “Bárány.” With the “-a” suffix (of), this word becomes “Baranya,” the name of one of the rivers of Mesopotamia (above) and also of a county of South-West Hungary inhabited since at least the Neolithic.

The Covenant (circa 3000 BC)

1. EN-LIL, according to his unchangeable desire, separated Heaven from Earth and the Earth departed far from Heaven.

2. EN-LIL dug out the seed from the inside of the earth so that wheat could be grown from it according to the law.

3. EN-LIL appointed the ax to be the symbol of the alliance between Heaven and Earth and ordered that work was the duty of the ax and the reed basket.

4. EN-LIL exalted the ax made of gold and its container made of silver. The head of the ax was of lapis-lazuli and was as strong as the heavenly bull which was able to move floodgates.

5. After EN-LIL had created the ax in this way, and had decreed its fate, he took the holy crown from his head and set it on the head of EM-BAR, whom he had sent down to Earth before that. He now looked down on them with favor.

6. The inhabitants of Heaven surrounded them and placed the holy ax in front of them.

7. The inhabitants of Heaven, uttered prayers to EN-LIL and then, with a heavenly chorus, gave EN-LIL’s holy ax to the earthly EM-BAR so that he might use it as needed.

8. The heavenly chorus sang in this way: "Take EN-LIL’s holy ax as an everlasting covenant. We declare a covenant between us and you and those who come after you.

9. IZ-TEN, through EN-LIL, gave the Earth and the Tree of Knowledge to you and your descendants for ever more. Settle and multiply on the rich territories of the four rivers.

10. The Holy ax is the symbol of the Covenant between us and you, who on the earthly place with the result of work, will build IZ-TEN's earthly empire. The Covenant of the Holy ax will allow you to rule the world.

11. Therefore we order all of your descendants to live and work with the power of the Covenant ax. Keep the ax in your hand and use it well for the glory of EN-LIL."

12. When EN-LIL saw his golden ax in the hands of EM-BAR who settled on the Earth, he shot a bolt of lightning at the ax and his voice sounded like thunder on the Earth: "I made a Covenant with you EM-BAR of KUS. With the power of the ax, you will be the Master of the World as long as you serve with loyalty and keep my Covenant."

13. The inhabitants of Heaven helped the KUS (people) on the Earth, according to the Covenant. Abundance and happiness was on the Earth under the strength of the ax.

14. The ax built cities and the house of the ax became the sanctuary of the truth but the house which rebels against the Covenant, the home of disobedience, is the destroyer of the ax.

15. The ax cuts off the head of Evil, throws down its crown and cuts out its roots, but the Tree of Life which grows the Flower of Goodness is its helper and defender.

16. The father of EN-LIL decreed the duty of the ax and, under the power of the Covenant between Heaven and Earth, ordered that the ax be glorified for all eternity.

17. The inhabitants of Heaven kept their Covenant well because as the light of the soul leaves the body of the earthly EM-BAR, he has power to form and rule the Earth and he continues the work of Creation, according to the will of IZ-TEN. In the same way, among the inhabitants of Heaven, EN-KI was the one who created with the power of EN-LIL, every other material and body on the Earth.

18. EN-KI, according to the Covenant, blessed the country of the Tree of Knowledge with trees, plants, birds, and animals and caused them to multiply all over the Earth and he hid gold, silver, copper and all kinds of metals inside the Earth. IS-KUR, one of the inhabitants of Heaven, became the caretaker of all these because it was he who brought gold and silver to Earth from Heaven.

19. After this, EN-KI filled the four rivers with an abundance of fish. The heavenly caretaker of the waters was EN-BI-LU-LU.

20. The sons of EM-BAR, with the power of the Tree of Knowledge, created the plow and the yoke. They formed them with the ax. They planted the seeds which they received from EN-LIL and the Earth became rich in harvests of grain. The grain beautified the fields of the Earth. The ax built irrigating canals and EN-KI appointed EN-KIM-DU, one of the inhabitants of Heaven, as caretaker of the canals.

21. Abundance and happiness filled the Earth. The people started to build houses and KABTA, an inhabitant of Heaven, taught the descendants of KUS (people) to make bricks and the frame for the bricks.

22. The animals multiplied. They built stables for them. They milked them. EN-KI wanted DUMUZI, the loyal shepherd of Heaven, to teach the people of EN-LIL to care for the animals and to use their milk. This is the way the inhabitants of Heaven kept the Covenant with the people of the Holy ax, the people of EN-LIL, who were the descendants of the KUS (people). 

ts-enlil.jpg 

Artist's concept of EN-LIL giving Man the “Holy Fokos,” symbol of Alliance. From Badiny, Magyar Biblia (Hungarian Bible) 

 

ts-fokos.jpg  

Golden Fokos (Scythian Treasures [blade broken off])
From Badiny, Magyar Biblia (Hungarian Bible) 

 

ts-elet.jpg 

Artist's concept of the Creation of Life
From Badiny, Magyar Biblia (Hungarian Bible)

This is the Old Alliance Jesus is referring to. It is the content of the sacred belief of the people referred to as Kus, Magyar, Hun, Sumerian, Chaldean, Mede, Scythian, Magog—and several other names. Wherever they live, they use the Ax of Work; and royal standing demands that kings fabricate En-Lil's sacred Ax out of gold to symbolize their observance of the Sacred Alliance, exactly as it is laid down on the cuneiform-written tablets. Accordingly, its head is lapis-lazuli. Archeologist's have unearthed these artifacts—the most beautiful of which are on display among the Scythian Treasures—also in Sumer, as well as in the heart of Scythia, Hungary. (Note: Hungarians are by no means the only Scythians. Recently, the Scots have taken interest in exploring their Scythian heritage as the source of the (6th century) Arthurian Legends which they believe are rooted in Scythian culture. Also there are the Irish, Welsh, Basques, Gauls, Etruscans, Croats, Poles, Ukrainians, Armenians, Kürts (Kurds) and others, all the indigenous peoples of Central and Eastern Europe and Western Asia, as well as many pockets of people from Ireland to Japan. However, those who have kept their Scythian culture—including their language—are found mostly in the Carpathian Basin.) The tablets themselves date from 3000 BC, but the time of the event they relate is unknown. What we do know is that excerpts of the “Chronicles” report that “The Kingship descended again from Heaven after the Flood” (Marton). Here, the word “again” supports Man's “Heavenly” origin reported in Article 5: “...whom he had sent down to Earth before that.”

The tendency to interpret the above event as some sort of extra-terrestrial visitation demands a momentary digression. Our urge to assume relationships based on situational clues is as strong as our urge to construct images based on visual clues. But jumping to conclusions, that is, inferring a relationship before completing the situational analysis, often leads to false assumptions. This danger also lurks in the hasty interpretation of the event recorded on these tablets. Such interpretations probably sound logical to those who believe that the physical Universe constitutes all of reality. However, as stated earlier, nothing in our sphere of knowledge gives us reason to believe that it does. And if reality extends beyond our physical world—or even if it is merely possible that it does—then such interpretations are premature conclusions based on incomplete analyses. The problem with qualifying the “visitors” as “extra-terrestrials” is that it implies that the “visiting” entities' point of origin is, in every sense, somewhere beyond Earth. But, the “report” neither states nor implies that it is. It merely states that, to the earthly observer whose senses are tuned to manifestations of only the physical Universe, En-Lil and the “inhabitants of Heaven” appeared as entities from beyond his physical world, that is, their point of origin is somewhere beyond Earth only in the physical sense. Mislabeling En-Lil and the “inhabitants of Heaven” as extra-terrestrials and the reported event as a “visitation” are the products of ignorance or, at the very least, careless thinking. In Western cultures, Man generally believes that reality is limited to his observable, physical Universe. Consequently the English language (and many other languages) has no convenient term (other than the ill-defined word god) to label an intelligent phenomena that appears at random—or so it seems—physically but is present at all times in ways Man can neither sense nor observe (The Hungarian word for such a phenomenon is “Tündér,” usually translated to English as Fairy, though the English equivalent is a name given to mystical beings in folklore, so-called “Fairy-Tales.” In the ancient Celtic Faith, a Fairy is associated with divinity just as in Hungarian Tündér Ilona refers to the Heavenly Mother. Judeo-Christianity turns Fairies into demons or pseudo-demons).

Another problem with the term extra-terrestrial is that it conveys the idea of “alien.” In the case at hand, the obvious question is, alien to whom? Certainly not to “Em-bar [Man] sent down to Earth before.” Perhaps a better understanding of the relationship between En-Lil and Em-Bar would stem not from a definition of the “visitor” but from a better definition of the “visited.” In the Sumerians' spirituality, Man, in human form, simultaneously exists as a physical, spiritual and intellectual being, able to interact with the material, living and conscious Universe of which he is a part. To them, Iz-Ten is not an “outsider” who “visits” the physical world: Rather, Man is an “insider,” an intra-cosmic constituent of total reality, they call “The Truth” or Iz-Ten.

Jesus' knowledge of Sumerian-Aramaic-Scythian tradition surely includes this old alliance. But he also knows very well that all the suffering his people had endured cast the veil of forgetfulness onto traditions. He knows he has to enter into a New Alliance that will resurrect the spiritually wounded and revive their sedentation, happiness, productivity and high standard of living.

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