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.

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 the history of humanity 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.”