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? Disinformation 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 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 in an effort 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. The Hungarian word for "brother," "testvér" literally means "blood of the body." For followers of the Jesus Faith, the kinship between Jesus and his followers is reinforced during rites that turn wine and bread into Jesus' blood and body, which the believer then consumes to reinforce that bond. (Some Judeo-Christians also mimic this rite, variously called transubstantiation, metousiosis, trans-elementation, etc., but with a Jewish twist. To them its purpose is not the reinforcement of brotherhood between Jesus and themselves, but rather, a human sacrifice to the Jewish god.) 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 replant them.

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