by Aleth Wednesday, Jul. 13, 2022 at 1:14 PM

"jesus christ" is fiction : the definitive scientifc evidence





The age-old quest for the historical jesus is over: there never was a historical jesus.

Jesus as portrayed by the 4 canonical gospels is a fictional lie.

Simon bar jair (giora) leader of jewish resistance fighters during the AD 66-70 phase of the AD 66-73 antiroman war gave the gospel fabricators the story they transmogrified into “jesus” ’ resurrection. The gospel lie also stems from the by the gospels skewed and twisted story of a second character in the same war: jesus bar sappha also portrayed by joseph flavius in his book jewish war which is the underlying basis for the gospel liars. Thus it will become clear that the false gospel jesus was the remix of both simon bar jair (simon peter) and jesus bar sappha. Call it patchwork or collage “cento” in latin – a literary genre much in vogue in the II century ce. Ancient rome’s culture especially in all things religious had a knack for ‘syncretism’ or fusion: the romanizing of foreign gods by blending them with roman ones. Gospel jesus is a product of rome’s literary “cento” technique + syncretistic attitude/modus operandi. Minor pieces were added to the mix too such as a jesus bar ananus also a character from joseph flavius’ jewish war. The end-result was a frankenstein jesus – a sum that was the very opposite of its original parts.

First of all let me produce the 3 irrefutable/ mathematical pieces of evidence that gospel jesus is a lie.


take your “matthew” chapter 4 lines 8 & 9:

“the devil took jesus upon a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory and told him all this I shall give to you if you kneel before me and worship me”.

Now as reported by author luigi cascioli in his book la favola di cristo (and apparently it’s a centuries-old piece of critique) the earth being more or less spherical it is not possible to see it all at once not even from Mount Everest. Therefore “matthew” 4: 8-9 never happened. It’s a lie. A tall tale based on the false mass belief of the time (probably 2nd century ce if not later) that the earth was a flat disk. I know the average clericofascist at this point will have blurted that it’s a moral allegory/metaphor not to be taken literally. My reply is just what is it you believe in, allegories? Fairy tales? Metaphors? If there were no jesus and no devil ever, faith is baseless and religion void. Moral allegories do not justify belief.

A more serious objection is that the patent absurdity and falseness of “matthew” 4:8-9 discredits “matthew” 4:8-9 but not the rest of the new testament. Yes but :

A) since “matthew” 4:8-9 is a lie then we cannot rule out that the rest also is. That is, lying “matthew” 4:8-9 casts a dark shadow of reasonable doubt on the whole thing ;

B) why on earth do all christian confessions retain such blatant hogwash as “holy word” to this very day?


“matthew” 13:54 would have us believe that “jesus” arrived at his hometown [that is nazareth] and taught in the synagogue. Further below “matthew” 14:13 informs us that “jesus” “left from there on a small boat”.

Now nazareth (leaving aside here the issue of whether such a town existed at all between c. 4 BC and c. AD 30 that is at the time of the alleged jesus) does not lie next to any body of water at all: no lake or river at all. Neither did ancient nazareth as far as archaeological evidence goes. Therefore not even the “son of god” could have departed from it by boat. “matthew” 14:13 is yet another ludicrous lie and it only goes to show that the “gospels” were fabricated by slipshod non-palestinian forgers who didn’t have the faintest clue about palestinian geography nor could have cared less about it, well aware that their (mostly western) readers didn’t either. In other words, no palestinian-jew “matthew” ever wrote “matthew” 14:13. Most likely because no “matthew” and no “jesus” ever existed at all to begin with.

4. PATENT GOSPEL LIES: “MATTHEW” 24:34 & 10:23

If a jesus christ son of god had existed for real, he wouldn’t have gotten his top prophecy wrong: his prediction of the end of times at “matthew” 24 . Here’s the relevant quote (“matthew” 24:3-4 passim + 24:30-31 passim + 24:34):

“the disciples came unto him...saying, tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? ...jesus answered ...then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory...VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS, TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED.” [my caps].

Now unfortunately for our true believers out there, that generation did pass – nearly 2,000 years ago. but none of what “jesus” prophesied came true: false prophecy if there ever was one. The same false doomsday prophecy had already occurred at “matthew” 10:23 (“jesus” to the “twelve”: “you won’t have covered israel’s cities when the son of man comes”).


The first occurrence of jesus bar sappha is at II.20.4.566 in the book jewish war (bellum iudaicum) by jew joseph flavius, I-century-AD roman/imperial-court historian. Bar is aramaic for hebrew ben meaning son of. We are in the context of the AD 66-73 war by which militant jews tried desperately and in vain to regain their independence from rome hoping god would send a “son of man”, that is a supernatural hero in human likeness down the clouds who would lead them to victory and to rule the world as prophesied or believed-prophesied by their all-important prophet or believed-prophet, an alleged daniel. Now one might object here that we are accostumed to think jesus lived and died as the gospels have it under pontius pilate who ruled until AD 37. But there is no certainly authentic/truthful record/document/source whatsoever attesting to a charismatic messianic jewish leader by the name of jesus being crucified under pontius pilate. Ancient historians’ passages attesting to “jesus” (svetonius, tacitus, joseph flavius himself) have long since been shown to be interpolations by later church forgers or not to be referring to ‘jesus’ with certainty.

Whereas there is ample testimony to a jesus – or jesus bar sappha – who fought (and died?) around AD 67. This jesus I’ll proceed to show will look very familiar to you, very much like gospel jesus but with inverted purposes and means. Now at bellum iudaicum II.20.4.566 joseph flavius who witnessed many of the events he describes in his book albeit with a proroman bias jewish turncoat that he was introduces a jesus bar sappha one of the high priests elected to militarily preside over idumaea first – a region near judaea – and then galilee during the antiroman struggle. Joseph has been handed down to us only in greek but he originally wrote in aramaic and must have said something like yeshu’a bar sappha which sounds suspiciously like jesus son of (jo)seph doesn’t it to begin with… I am not thereby implying that sappha= (yus)sef= joseph, only that phonetic similarity might have come in handy for the gospel overwrite. Joseph flavius has another 2 variants to this jesus’ last name: bar sapphia and bar saphat. Could the gospel liars/rewriters simply have replaced flavius’ sappha/ sapphia/saphat or whatever it was meant to be with the similar sounding ‘joseph’ for dissimulation purposes ?

Again: bar means son of in aramaic. Aramaic being a language akin to hebrew spoken in palestine and the middle east around jesus’ time I century ce. Even if sappha/sapphia/saphat had nothing to do with joseph as a name still again joseph that is yussef could be an overwrite to hide the real jesus’ last name.


There is no certainly authentic evidence whatsoever that gospel jesus ever existed. There is no hard evidence whatsoever that his father was called joseph. But if you want to fabricate a regime religion for mass consumption you’d better twist bits of truth and overwrite/rewrite them so that people after a while having forgotten all the details will relate to your foundational myth because they will somehow have a memory of some heroic jesus, of some kind of messiah etc. In other words you can’t feed the masses a 911 that didn’t happen – you must at least bring down the twin towers for real so everybody goes wow and then they will be more inclined to accept regime propaganda bullshit about 19 kamikazes from the caves hijacking planes noone really ever saw.

Similarly they may have taken jesus bar sappha/ sapphia/saphat and turned him into jesus bar yussef.

Robert eisenmann in his all-important book james the brother of jesus/faber and faber 1997/vol 1 avers that barabbas the famous murderer allegedly preferred to jesus by the jews for freeing from prison really stands for bar abbas which literally means in aramaic son of the father which makes little if any sense at all as a last name. But in acts of the apostles 1:23 and 15:22 we have a joseph barsabbas and a judas barsabbas respectively the latter even being called barabbas in a variant reading of a manuscript thus attesting to the confusion/possible equivalence barabbas= barsabbas. Joseph and judas being 2 of jesus’ brothers according to the gospels. Now doesn’t bar sabbas sound suspiciously like our jesus bar sappha from joseph flavius?

Ancient aramaic probably differentiated little between p and b just like arabic has nablus from neapolis for instance. In other words: aramaic BAR SABBA resembles BAR SAPPHA in pronunciation. Again: the barabbas that is bar abbas of gospel lore might have been the real jesus of history the lestès as flavius josephus called jewish zealot revolutionaries of his time – I century ce: lestès is greek for latro in latin meaning robber or bandit – today they’d say terrorists. But acts of the apostles has bar sabbas as surname of 2 namesakes of jesus’ brothers therefore if they really were jesus’ bros then it was the …bar sabbas or bar sappha family!

Further evidence that the gospels are just skewed rewrites of the real story of a jewish antiroman fighter called jesus bar (s)abbas is in variant manuscripts of ‘matthew’ (referred to by eisenman) who instead of simply calling the gospel lestès/latro barabbas call him JESUS BARABBAS [matthew 27:16 where most manuscripts bear ‘jesus barabbas’; see also matthew 27:17].

Need any more proof ?


Now joseph flavius tells us this jesus was one of the high priests. The reader accustomed to 2000 years of gospel lie will object that gospel jesus is a poor carpenter’s son…

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

The whole story of jesus as a carpenter’s son is based on a passing reference in matthew 13:55: “isn’t this the craftsman’s son?”. The greek word téktōn doesn’t necessarily mean carpenter, it’s generic for craftsman. Could be a carpenter a metalworker a potter… now john the baptist’s disciples (the mandaeans or nasorayya – see more about them as the real early christians and about john as jesus’ brother below) are to this day ‘mostly craftsmen, particularly metalworkers and carpenters’ says robert eisenmann, james the brother of jesus, faber and faber 1997, p. 330. Therefore the real original christians, those violently antiherodian = antiroman followers of john the baptist, were mostly carpenters and carpenters’ sons. This is what the gospel forgers are rewriting in their falsified, pro-roman context.

John the baptist’s lifestyle was but a variation or continuation of that of the rechabites an ancient jewish fundamentalist sect who were said to be ‘potters’, that is again craftsmen. And rigid ‘keepers’ (nasorayya in aramaic) of god’s commands that is of the torah. Which made them by definition nationalistic/zionistic/antiroman. So john son of the (high?) priest saba ‘zacharias’ (see below) and his kinsman (brother, see below) jesus bar saba, high priest according to joseph flavius, were most likely also craftsmen and sons of craftsmen, whether potters or carpenters or what have you is irrelevant. They were militant worker-priests. just like the left-wing french worker-priests in the 1950ies or the italian preti-operai in the 1970ies.

What if jesus son of (jo)seph had instead really been jesus bar sappha one of the high priests as flavius’ jesus bar sappha reportedly was? Sappha/sapphia/saphat does not =joseph but again joseph may be an overwrite for sappha. And again gospel bar abbas/acts bar sabbas ie bar sappha the lestès//latro/bandit who had been involved in the uprising (against rome we might add) according to mark 15:7 really is a much better match for whatever the historical jesus might have been in the turmoil of those revolutionary times. No meek pacifist tax-paying pro-foreigner jesus would have made it with the jewish masses of his time who were hell-bent on awaitin’ a fighting messiah who would free them manu militari from the hated romans with all their taxation and crosses for rebels.

Another piece of evidence that these fundamentalist antiroman desert-dwelling jews were artisans comes from a notice in joseph flavius’s work that in his youth (the mid-50ies ce according to eisenman) he had attended the training of a teacher called ‘banus’ in the desert. Historians have puzzled for ages without result over the meaning of this name. Well, it means nothing else than our ‘artisan/tekton’. It’s a title, not a name: ‘the craftsman’ par excellence.

You might ask at this point just what this ‘banus’, desert teacher to future historian joseph flavius in the mid-50ies ce, has to do with the alleged ‘jesus’ as carpenter’s son. I’ve been telling you that the gospels are a collage of real historical characters skewed into proroman from antiroman. And that desert-dwelling preachers such as john the baptist or banus were out to train & indoctrinate disaffected jewish youth into fighting against the evil empire of rome and her herodian puppets in palestine. Therefore when the gospel forgers tell you that ‘jesus’ was a meek carpenter’s son, they are inverting reality: desert-dwelling craftsmen-teachers were in reality guerrilla leaders. And this banus who indoctrinated joseph flavius in the mid-50ies was just such a mullah.

Italian glottologist Giovanni Semerano (1911-2005) taught us that in akkadian (semitic language of III-and-II-millenium-bce mesopotamia, prototype for later semitic languages such as aramaic and hebrew) bānû = creator/maker, of steles, statues, etc. (Il popolo che sconfisse la morte, mondadori 2003, p.108). So banus is a title = ‘the artisan’ par excellence, it’s the semitic equivalent of the greek tekton applied in the gospels to ‘jesus’’ father.

These desert-dwelling antiroman leaders had adopted the life-style of the rechabites, nomadic jewish potters from the old testament. John the baptist mustabeen a banus himself. But he was beheaded in AD 36/37, so this new banus joseph flavius went to 20 years later might as well have been another of the bar saba bros: possibly james whom tradition has dying in 62, and who in the mid-50ies was the leader of the nasorayya that is the real early christians, having succeeded john the baptist.


Now joseph flavius in his book jewish war at this point knows exactly what he’s talking about because he before switching sides had been put by the jerusalem rebel leadership in charge of galilee’s defence. But since he was quite lukewarm already about fighting the mighty romans, the more radical jewish militants started blasting him as the traitor he would eventually turn out to be and in the hippodrome of the town of tarichaeae on the sea that is in jewish parlance lake of galilee also called lake tiberias and lake gennezareth the radicals kicked up a riot against flavius (who by then was still only joseph) shouting he should be stoned or burned alive.

The chief instigators of the fuss says flavius were our jesus son of sapphia (variant of sappha flavius uses the first time he mentions him) and a john… so there you have your jesus with a john though not john the baptist because flavius in another book antiquitates judaicae informs us that john the baptist died by 36/37 ce (that is, john the baptist not “jesus” was the one who “died under pontius pilate”).

Jesus bar sapphia had by 66 or 67 been assigned to governing tiberias a nearby town also in galilee and also on the seashore that is lakeshore very familiar to the reader from gospel lore…

So there you have your jesus just exactly where the gospels place him in galilee near the lake but not out to perform miracles and give to caesar what's caesar’s but instead out to fight caesar to the bitter end.

Please note that joseph flavius upon introducing jesus bar sappha says he was one of the high priests plural which means that around that time - about 66 ce- there were more than just one high priest.


Take your ‘matthew’ 13:55 's list of jesus’ brothers: the standard scientific edition of the new testament nestle-aland/novum testamentum graece et latine/2002 has in the original greek “james and joseph and simon and judas” .

But : instead of joseph we find IOANNES (john) as variant reading in:

1. the all-important codex alpha 01, IV century london brit libr add 43275 (albeit not clearly legible);

2. codex D, V century cambridge univ libr

3. codex gamma 036, X century oxford st petersburg

and many other manuscripts.

How interesting. Maybe the real name of jesus’ 2nd brother was john not joseph. If so this brother john would come after james. “James and john and simon and judas”. James and john are also the names of jesus' 3d and 4th disciples according to ‘matthew’ 4:21:

“ 2 brothers, james the son of zebedee and john his brother” . Therefore what the underlying original text may have said was that jesus son of

SAPHAT (flavius joseph)

SABBA (gospel (bar)abbas, acts (bar)sabbas)


=BAR SAPHAT=BAR SABBAS=BAR ZEBED had 2 brothers by the names of james and john.

In ancient hebrew/aramaic only consonants were written not vowels which accounts for vowel-interpretation variation/uncertainty sometimes. If we skip the vowels the 3 variant forms will look even more similar:





Well if jesus bar saphat was a high priest as joseph flavius recounts nothing more natural since at the time priesthood was family business that also his brothers john and james bar zebed=saphat (the sons of “zebedee”) would be high priests.

Which is confirmed by ancient author polycrates (2nd cent. ce) as quoted by eusebius (IV cent.) in historia ecclesiastica 3.31.3 (i owe knowledge of this quote to maria-luisa rigato/il titolo della croce di gesù/editrice pontificia università gregoriana/roma 2005/p.154):

“john who reclined on the lord's breast, who became priest, wore the plate”.

What more natural for a brother than to lay his head on his beloved brother’s breast?

The plate is the golden plate with god's name inscribed on it worn by jewish priests on the forehead.

The other brother of john’s and jesus’, james, also must have been a high priest because he too wore the mitre with the plate according to ancient church fathers epiphanius and jerome (eisenman/james the brother of jesus/faber and faber 1997/p.240).

Epiphanius says james was of priestly stock and wore the plate (panarion 78.14.1).

Obviously none of the above church daddies says jesus was flavius’ bar saphat or that the 2 zebedee bros were his brothers - but aren’t all the coincidences extraordinary and pointing to my conclusion?

Summing it all up:

1. saphat=zebed

2. jesus john james all attested to as high priests.

All of the above implies that the gospel story of john and james as galilean fishermen is yet another bogus rewrite/overwrite - yet another lie.


Ancient jesus literature called apocryphal that is false by official orthodoxy reports that mary’s mother anna married 2 more times after the death of mary’s father ioachim. From each of these 2 remarriages anna had another mary: the third mary married our zebedee.

therefore james and john sons of this 3d mary and zebedee would have been jesus' cousins...which brings us very close to our unveiling of john and james as jesus’ brothers.

The source for all this is the medieval “legenda aurea” (golden legend) based on ancient apocryphal traditions.

Now robert eisenman in his all-important book james the brother of jesus (faber & faber 1997 p.771) rightly remarks that even if the 2 other maries had been jesus’ mother’s half-sisters, it would have been absurd for their mother anna to name 3 daughters with one and the same name!

Which makes eisenmann suspect that there really was only 1 mary who got later tripled by gospel forgers in order to defend the dogma of jesus’ mother’s perpetual virginity (eisenman cit. p.199).

I’ll add that if john son of zebedee is to be identified with john the baptist, then jesus’ & james’ & john’s mother was elizabeth and their father ‘zacharias’ – in other words, mary & joseph never existed at all, but were invented to sever the real jesus’ family kinship with the militant revolutionary john the baptist (see below, chapter 13).


So jesus really was:

1. a jewish high priest;

2. a theocommunist jewish radical antiroman messianic but this-worldly militant fighting the war for freedom from the romans and return to the golden davidian and maccabean era of jewish independence;

3. military commander in the 66-73 jewish-roman war around the lake of galilee aka tiberias aka gennezareth.

AGAIN LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO LOOK FOR JUST ONE HISTORICAL JESUS. This is the mistaken approach that has led many truth-seekers astray so far.

Because it is absolutely clear from the gospels’ modus operandi that gospel jesus is the product of collage work. Reediting together broken pieces of various would-be-messiahs from the first century ce.

Gospel jesus is the product of centuries of patchwork/ cento/syncretism. We must not look for the historical jesus. We must question the historicity of "jesus".


Again i remind readers that some very important manuscripts witnessing to ‘matthew’ 13:55’s list of ‘jesus’’ brothers bear the reading ‘john’ not ‘joseph’.

Robert eisenman in his great 1997 book ‘james the brother of jesus’ (faber & faber, p.331) informs us that the mandaeans (john the baptist’s disciples to this day, also called nasorayya) call john the baptist’s father ‘abba saba zechariah’. Abba means father in aramaic. Therefore john the baptist’s dad may have had 2 names – one being ‘saba’.

Which makes john a ‘bar saba’ too… a son of saba.

Now the gospel of luke 1:36 says that ‘jesus’ ’ mother ‘mary’ and john’s mother elizabeth were related.

And since we’ve proven beyond doubt that gospel ‘jesus’ never was, and was forged as an overwrite of real I-century-ce radical jewish antiroman guerrillas, then maybe the ‘bar saba’ (bar sappha/ saphat /zebed /sabbas etc.) family included john:

SABA ‘ZECHARIAH’, (high?) priest of the abias priestly course (luke 1:5), begets 5 male sons:

james bar saba (= james the just, stoned in 62 ce);

john bar saba (= john the baptist, beheaded in 36 or 37 ce, “under pontius pilate”);

judas bar saba (probably = theudas, transmogrified in thaddaeus in gospel apostle lists for dissimulation purposes, beheaded 45 ce);

simon or simeon bar saba (crucified c. 105/106 ce);

and finally our jesus bar saba of joseph flavius fame, who ended up most likely crucified by the romans in 66/67 ce during the war.

After john’s execution ( 36 or 37 ce, “under pontius pilate”) james his brother may have taken over the leadership of the john-founded NASORAYYA (nazoraean) sect – the real first christians.

NASORAYYA (keepers) is how john’s mandaean followers call themselves. Such were the real early christians: again, radical jewish torah fanatics and nationalist militants and daily bathers (‘baptists’).

The new testament says too, albeit in its falsified context, that the first christians were called nazoraeans. and to this day semitic middle-eastern peoples call christians ‘nasri’.

Eisenman says there was another jesus brother called simon also present in gospel brother lists. May be, which would bring the total of the bar saba brothers to 5: john, james, judas, simon and jesus. and this simon eisenman identifies as the ‘simeon’ who took over the leadership from james when the latter was stoned in 62 ce .

Therefore the early nazoraeans really were family business, with leadership handed down from bro to bro like a caliphate, says eisenman. Very likely so.

Let’s recap on all this: the real jesus’ family the bar sabas may have included john the baptist whose father was one saba ‘zechariah’. So john the baptist and john of zebedee brother of james may well be one and the same person. Their other male brothers being judas, simon and jesus. There may have been a couple of sisters too.

Eisenman informs us that saba may be related to a syriac semitic root meaning ‘washed one’, so again saba may = baptist (greek for bather) since all these guys were daily bathers and preached immersion for bodily purification after repentance. They did not preach baptism for remission of sins as mainstream christianity does.

Saba originally may have been a title or nick (‘zechariah’ the baptist) which came to be perceived as a name just like with ‘che’ guevara.

‘Zechariah’ and his 5 sons were all daily bathers, they were the bathers par excellence so ‘bather’ (‘saba’) became their second name: they were all baptists, and the 5 sons were baptists and sons of their baptist father ‘zechariah’ at the same time (bar saba). Saba also has another possible meaning (rainmaker), not necessarily mutually exclusive with ‘bather’.

One last time:

saba zechariah, (high) priest, begets:

1. john bar saba, (high) priest = john the baptist

2. james bar saba, (high) priest, = james the just ( 1 & 2 = james & john sons of zebedee of gospel lore)

3. judas bar saba = theudas = thaddaeus

4. simon bar saba

5. jesus bar saba/sapphia etc high priest in joseph flavius.


Clues from the new testament point to a john as father of jesus, james, john the baptist, simon & judas. ‘Zechariah’ is a title, it means holy to god, consecrated to god. A holy man, a prophet, revered by the people. Someone special. He was a saba, and his 5 revolutionary sons were thus bar saba, each one a son of saba. I’ve interpreted saba as meaning baptist, baptizer so far, even of self, because these desert-dwelling fanatics were daily bathers, in greek hemero-baptists, as robert eisenman teaches us well. But there is always more to a semitic word than meets the eye. Semites loved word play, and using words with more than one semantic layer, more than just one meaning. Clearly the semitic root sab/sap is a most ancient one. It has to do with water. Italian glottologist giovanni semerano (1911-2005) teaches us that in akkadian, the ancient semitic language of mesopotamia (modern-day iraq), sapû or sabû means ‘to irrigate, to flood’. Therefore someone whose title is SABA, such as the father of jesus, was also a RAINMAKER. An irrigator/flooder of drought-affected fields performing the holy, shamanistic act of rainmaking by praying to god from inside a circle drawn in the earth.

Was there a holy rainmaker with jews in palestine in a time frame that would dovetail with his being the father of jesus? Yes. His name was john. Precisely: hanan the hidden, re whom eisenman teaches us well. His father or grandfather, honi the circle drawer, made the sky rain by drawing circles in the ground and standing inside of them praying until the rain came, in times of drought. So most certainly his son or grandson hanan the hidden was a saba/ irrigator/ flooder/ rainmaker too, alongside being a ‘saba’ in the sense of ‘(daily) washer’, in greek ‘(daily) baptist’. He was holy, zkr, zechar-, sacer. And his name, hanan, is short for johanan, john, which in hebrew means ‘god comforts’ (literally : ´god has been gracious, god has favored´) :

Another layer in the polysemantic pattern of gospel lie overwrites for zechariah, has to do with iscariot - see below the iscariot chapter.


Lo & behold, in acts of the apostles, besides bar saba as name of key figures in early christianity, we find a bar nabas, the famous " barnabas " who accompanies paul on some of paul’s missions. Acts itself translates barnabas into greek for us: ‘son of comfort’, that is, decoded, ‘son of god-comforts’, son of john, son of hanan the hidden, the saba/rainmaker. Whose 5 sons were at once bar saba’s (sons of the baptist/ rainmaker) and bar naba’s (sons of comforting because their father’s name was john which means in hebrew ‘god comforts’). The thing is, naba in hebrew/aramaic does NOT mean comforting at all. It means prophet. Luke is misleading us.

The words saba and naba call to mind hebrew safā and naba = seer/prophet, and hanan the hidden must surely have been held by the people as such. Again your semitic love of word play and semantic layering. You might be wondering by now: what has acts’ barnabas got to do with jesus’ family?


Christianity – the real thing, not what goes by that name today – originated in the first century ce with one family, the five sons of a fellow hanan the hidden, a shamanistic torah fanatic fundamentalist believed to make rain. He was hanan = johanan = johannes = john = god comforts. And he was called saba = rainmaker but also prophet and also (daily) bather. He was the rainmaker and the prophet par excellence at the time. The jewish masses in palestine held him a holy man, a zkr/zechar-iah, holy/consecrated to god. And also ‘separated’/devoted (like latin sacer) from birth to god. ‘Set aside’ for god’s service.

His revolutionary, zionistic, antiroman family had adopted the lifestyle of the ancient rechabites, jewish desert-dwelling tinkers/potters, so hanan must have been a tekton, greek for craftsman, in semitic BANUS. Even in the gospel lie, as usual with ‘referencing/overwriting/bowdlerizing’ in mind, ‘jesus’’ father is a craftsman.

In acts of the apostles we find a character called ‘barnabas’ which acts itself (mis)translates has ‘son of comforting’, that is, decoded: son of john, because john in hebrew = god comforts. That is, son of hanan the hidden. ‘Barnabas’ accompanies paul on some of the latter’s missionary travels. The key acts passage that proves my identification of barnabas with one of jesus’ brothers and son of hanan, is acts of the apostles 4:36-37: “joseph indeed, surnamed barnabas by the apostles, which means, translated, son of comforting, levite, of a cypriot family, sold a field that he owned and brought the money and laid it at the feet of the apostles”.


The new testament has been handed down to us in greek, that is, its oldest extant text is in greek. At acts 4:36 some manuscripts do not bear ‘barnabas’, but… guess what? ‘barsabbas’: again our bar saba, one of our jesus brothers, the sons of the rainmaker hanan the hidden. Who was indeed also a son of comforting, because his father’s name was hanan = johanan = john = ‘god comforts’ in hebrew. The forgers of acts turned a surname of sorts, bar sabas, into a different individual, barnabas, who never existed at all. And from which all our modern-day barnabases are derived – a totally fabricated personal name that didn’t exist at all back then. Call it creative writing... Such is the power of 2000 years of goebbelsian massmediatic repetition of a big lie.

It’s judas they’re trying to obliterate. Judas bar saba, one of the 5 sons of hanan the hidden, alongside john the baptist, james the just, simon and jesus. We are focusing on acts of the apostles 4:36 introducing a fellow “joseph barnabas, one of the apostles”. ‘Joseph´ is a fictional overwrite; other manuscripts read ‘ioses’, we can dismiss it as a lie: disinformation fog.

Next, 4:36 tells us barnabas means son of comforting, son of consolation, that is son of john/johanan /honi/ hanan, ‘god comforts’. So ‘barnabas’’ father was hanan the hidden.

Next we are told barnabas was a ‘levite’, which on the face of it, would make him a low-ranking jewish priest – the lower priests were “called by some ‘levites’” (eisenman, james 1997, p.291). But hanan the hidden and his 5 sons were all high priests, not ‘levites’, at this juncture in history (I century ce): judas and his brothers were opposition high priests. They probably originally belonged to the levite class though, being working-class members.


In gospel apostle listing, for instance ‘matthew’ 10:3, there pops up a second judas, variously called ‘thaddaeus’ or ‘lebbaeus’ or ‘lebbaeus surnamed thaddaeus’ or ‘thaddaeus surnamed lebbaeus’ or ‘judas zealot’ – depending on which manuscript’s reading you choose! The gospels are accurate only in obfuscating the truth.

Now this mr ‘lebbaeus thaddaeus judas zealot’ is not judas the traitor according to church dogma: judas the betrayer is only cited last of the apostles at ‘matthew’ 10:4, and he is surnamed ‘iscariot’. Why feature only one judas – the real one, judas bar saba – when you can have 2 ? It helps to obliterate the identity of the one and only real judas…

To christian dogma, the second judas (‘thaddaeus/ lebbaeus’) was the apostle who evangelized the armenians; he was good, unlike his fellow namesake, and was even made a saint.

Church dogma has it that both thaddaeus and lebbaeus mean ‘courageous man’, from the aramaic taddajja=breast and libba = heart.

This is linguistically impossible: because the -i- in lībba is long, therefore it couldn’t possibly have been transliterated with the short -e- (epsilon) of lěbbaios.

Nor is there in gospel and extragospel tradition any hint that this alleged ‘judas lebbaios’ was any more ‘courageous’ than the other alleged 11 apostles.

In hebrew we find the word labba = flame, which may well have generated the greek transliteration lebbaios (-ios is a greek suffix).

A cognate word to labba in hebrew is lahab = ‘flame’, but also ‘lightning’.

We’re closing in again on our rainmaking bar saba family: the 5 sons if hanan the hidden, rainmaker, and rainmakers themselves. The gospel of ‘mark’ 3:16 says that james and his brother john (that is 2 of the 5 bar saba bros) were surnamed ‘sons of thunder’ – and so was judas, the one and only judas bar saba their brother, lebbaios, i.e. ‘lightning’ i.e. rainmaker!

Of course there’s ‘thaddaeus’ too, in greek thaddaios: didn’t it come from aramaic taddajja = breast as church exegetes would have it ? No. Logically we are to assume that if lebbaios means lightning and has to do with the rainmaking bar saba family, and not with a fictional list of ’12 apostles’, then thaddaios likewise!

And it does: the akkadian rain/thunder god was adad, which occurs in aramaic personal names also as DADDA: ‘the thunderer’! Dadda can easily be transliterated as thaddaios in greek!

It’s none other than our same old bar saba bro, the one and only judas, rainmaker, ‘lightining’/ lebbaios or ‘thunder’/ thaddaios!

It only remains for us to connect this judas with the iscariot, and we shall have shown how they are one and the same historical character!

Here’s the whole real story.


Judas (‘the betrayer’ in christian lore) is called ‘the iscariot’ (ho iskariōtēs in the original greek) by ‘matthew’ 10:4. it is well worth it here to give a good look at the critical apparatus (=footnotes featuring manuscript variant readings) of our nestle/aland, the official church-approved ‘scientific’ edition of the new testament: nestle-aland, novum testamentum graece et latine, 5. druck 2005. This 2005 reprint is identical with the 2002 print.

Now: what do we find?

1) the variant ioudas ho tou iakōbou, judas brother of james, which confirms once more that judas and james were brothers – bar saba bros, that is;

2) the varian iskariōth:

3) the variant o skariōtēs, the scariotes;

4) the variant simōnos iscariōtou, that is (judas) (brother) of simon iscariot, confirming to us that judas and simon (and james above) were brothers; and that simon too was nicked ‘iscariot’ just like his brother judas – and as we shall soon see, all 5 bar saba brothers (john, james, judas, simon & jesus) were ‘iscariots’… and so was their father.

Clearly the term iscariot which has puzzled exegetes for 2000 years, must have meant something dangerous to the roman imperial establishment in palestine, and its herodian and collaborator-jewish henchmen: or else the gospel forgers wouldn’t have gone to such lengths obfuscating the original form with a mess of variants: iscarioth, scariotes, ‘mark’ 3:19’s scarioth, ‘john’ 14:22’s ‘the one from karyot’ - as if the term meant that judas was from a (non-existent) village of karyot ! Just like lying ‘matthew’ 2:23 explains away the term nazoraios (= fanatic torah literalist, zealot, antiroman guerrilla) as meaning ‘from nazareth’!

But let us remain focused on ‘iscariot’. Here’s its decoding:


- I is termination of genitive singular in akkadian, doyen of all semitic languages down to hebrew and aramaic.

- IŠKUR is a sumerian/ akkadian god of … guess what? RAIN, STORM, FLOOD! Back we are full circle: iscariot = thunder, and son of thunder. Just like his brothers james & john, so judas and simon too were ‘iscariots’: (sons of) thunder: sons of rainmaker hanan the hidden, and rainmakers themselves. The overwrite zecharias in luke for hanan may therefore also be decoded as (i)scariot :



Who could possibly have bestowed such a mesopotamian- sounding sobriquet on palestinian-jew and aramaic- speaker judas bar saba?


Ancient syriac sources and church daddy eusebius of caesarea inform us that a ‘thaddaeus’ was sent from jerusalem by the first christians to evangelize the edessenes. edessa being an ancient city/ kingdom in northern mesopotamia, more or less at the intersection of today’s (2014) iraq, turkey & syria. As we have seen, this ‘thaddaeus’ is none other than our one & only judas, sent by his brother james, lider maximo of the nasorayya = real early ‘christians’, to convert edessa’s royal family to zealotic judaism and gain their support in the independence struggle against rome.

Church daddy hippolytus explicitly mentions a ‘judas… who preached the truth to the edessenes’, thus clinching the identity of ‘thaddaeus’ & judas. For all of this, read eisenman, james 1997, p.923.

Now the royal family of edessa was obviously, given its geography, steeped to the nose in sumerian/ akkadian religious culture & linguistic affinity. Thus when judas aka thaddaeus aka lebbaeus got there, preceeded by his bar saba family’s rainmaking fame, the edessenes gave him a local nick, more familiar to mesopotamian ears: iscariot, the thunder (OT = AD) of iškur.

That judas (aka barnabas in acts´ travesty) and paul were given names of pagan gods by gentiles they were evangelizing, is confirmed by acts 14:12: the lycaonians in south-central anatolia call barnabas ‘zeus’! Coincidentally, the greek god of rain/thunder/lightning bolt ! So just like the hellenized lycaonians used ‘zeus’, the semitic-speaking edessenes adopted its semitic/mesopotamian/sumerian/akkadian equivalent: iscariot, iškur-i-ad, thunder of lightning. again the rain god, the son of thunder, the rainmaker. Iscariot was thus, originally, no insult. Quite the contrary: a title of great honor. Iškur is a sumerian word: it means spark, and its slavic equivalent is iskra, spark (remember lenin’s russian-language london-exile daily?).

Spark is akin to lightning of course. Should you be wondering how i dare compare a so-called ‘indoeuropean’ language (russian) with a non-indoeuropean, possibly protosemitic one (sumerian): the distinction is nonsense: all human languages present and past are nothing but variants of one common ur-sprache of primitive humanity evolved in africa beginning hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago! Africa is the motherland of all modern humans . Genesis 1:11 gets it right for once: ‘all earth had one language and the same words’ ! Therefore slavic iskra and sumerian iškur are the same word and since slavic iskra = spark why shouldn’t the sumerian rain god, iškur, be called spark – the spark of the lightning bolt !

Judas/ thaddaeus was sent by his bro james, leader of the nasorayya/ torah keepers = real early ‘christians’ after the murder of john the baptist ( 37 ce) to edessa in northern mesopotamia to convert the local despots to zealotic judaism and gain their support against rome. All of which happened between 38 and 45 ce (death of judas).


Again: iscariot = iscar-i-ot = iškur-i-ad: the thunder (ad, semitic root = thunder) of (-i, genitive singular in aramaic) iškur (= god of lightning of sumero/akkadians).

Akkadians, who replaced sumerian power in mesopotamia at some point during the III millennium bce, adopted the sumerian gods, ‘syncretizing’ that is fusing them with their own: thus sumerian iškur god of lightning became one with akkadian god adad, god of thunder: iškur – adad. In the course of the millennia, adad took on many variant forms in later semitic languages, most notably for us AD in Arabic (which supports our interpretation of –OT in iscari-OT, because AD and OT are interchangeable phonetic variants of same) and DADDA in aramaic, whence our THADDAIOS for aramaic-speaking judas the jew: ‘the thunder’. The word adad and its variants were thoroughly studied by specialist daniel schwemer: read him on the web at: (enter ‘adad’ in their search motor). If you’re interested in the paper book:

daniel schwemer: die wettergottgestalten mesopotamiens und nordsyriens im zeitalter der keilschriftkulturen, harrassowitz verlag, wiesbaden, 2001.

recapping on it all: judas bar saba is the son of ‘irrigator’/ rainmaker hanan the hidden, and rainmaker/thunder/ lightning himself, just like his 4 bar saba bros:

john the baptist, james (the ‘sons of thunder’ of ‘mark’ 3:16), simon, himself ‘iscariot’, and jesus.


The parallel passage to the calling of matthew in mark occurs at 13:14 : except this time around matthew´s name is transmogrified into LEVI THE SON OF ALPHAEUS ! O wondrous harmony of the word of god !! And yet it comes as no suprise to us that judas be overwritten again, as levi :

levi comes from a hebrew root meaning to join, be attached, twine, but also borrow and lend as in hebrew lavah. Now all of these meanings apply perfectly to judas bar saba brother of james : because judas and james were most likely twins, as proved also by the thomas/dydimos overwrite of judas ; and because judas was the nazoraeans´ treasurer, the one who carried the money box, likely with the words gift of god/mattith yahu written on it, and as such he likely borrowed money for the community and lent money to the poor.


Lying acts of the apostles’ chapter 1 has ‘peter’ tell his ‘brothers’ that they need a new ‘witness to jesus’ resurrection’ to replace ‘judas the traitor’ who had somehow managed to take a headlong fall and get himself ripped apart, his bowels scattering around. The only true thing about all this is: the bar saba bro who had died a violent death by that point in time was john the baptist in 36/37 ce. Thereupon, the surviving brothers had to draw lots because 2 of them, the twins james and judas were age peers. That’s why acts goes on to say that 2 candidates emerged, a fellow ‘joseph barsabbas, surnamed the just one, and matthias’.

‘Matthias’ is judas himself – still alive and kicking and nobody’s ‘traitor’; joseph barsabbas the just one is an overwrite for his twin brother james, famously nicknamed the just one – ‘the just one’ par excellence, as loads of extrabiblical early christian sources confirm. John had died 36/37 ce under pontius pilate. Therefore the revolutionary theocommunist guerrilla group he had founded, the nasorayya/nasri (= ‘keepers’, literal keepers of the torah), that is the real early christians, needed a new leader. And since this was a patriarchal/ tribal society, succession functioned as in a caliphate: normally, the eldest brother after john would have automatically succeeded him, but in this case the eldest brothers were 2: 2 twins, 2 age peers: judas & james. The ‘joseph barsabbas the just one’ of acts 1:23 is clearly a stand-in for james bar saba the just one: it’s a lying overwrite. A manipulation/ falsification of history for sanitizing/ bowdlerizing purposes. James and only james was known at the time as ‘the just one’: james the just. Judas and james had to draw lots to decide between them who would replace john.

The drawing of lots in primitive societies was often perceived as asking of god what his will was. We are in 38 ce, we know the exact year because church fathers are in agreement that james was the first bishop (pope) after ‘jesus’ (read: john the baptist), and held the tenure for 24 years. Which dovetails with the year of his death evinced from historian joseph flavius: 62 ce. 62–38 =24. All of this proves beyond doubt that james in 38 ce succeeded his brother john the baptist, who had just died in 36/37, and NOT the fictional gospel ‘jesus’ who according to church legend died in 33 ce or earlier! And the lottery – again, no election at all – favoured not ‘matthias’, aka judas, who is always portrayed in acts and in paul’s letters under his various sobriquets (barnabas, judas barsabbas) as subservient to james and the latter’s ‘foreign emissary/ secretary’. No, it was james the just who was chosen. Acts are inverting history here as usual, for disinformation’s sake! They are writing james and judas out of history, to the point of pretending that judas ‘the traitor’ was by then ( 38 ce) dead, having committed suicide. Whereas the real judas was alive & kickin’, never would commit suicide, and would die at the hands of the herodians/ romans 7 or 8 years later, in 45 or 46, re-re-written this time one last time as acts’ ‘theudas’.

Thus james became the first real ‘pope’ after john the baptist, and held the papacy 24 years, after which he was killed by pro-roman jews for his nationalistic violent zionist subversion. Judas is acts’ ‘theudas’ as well = the second brother or twin brother = ‘thaddaeus’. And when he died, he became the second bar saba brother to die after john the baptist. The new testament forgers overwrote him into acts’ ‘matthias’ and the gospels’ ‘matthew’. When judas died c. 45 ce, james continued in the leadership of the nasorayya/ keepers/ real early christians until his own violent demise by stoning in 62. At which simon replaced him until his own execution c. 105/106.

Jesus meanwhile, the youngest bar saba brother, had most likely already met his own violent death at the hands of the romans during the 66-73 jewish war, as we can infer from joseph flavius’ historical work .

Thus: the first 3 ‘popes’ were john the baptist james & simon. After whom the original bar saba brother caliphate went extinct.


The gospel of ‘mark’ 3:16 informs us that iacob (hebrew for james) son of ‘zebedaios’ (saba) and his brother john (the baptist) were nicked by ‘jesus’ ‘boanerges’ which ‘mark’ itself translates as ‘sons of thunder’. Boanerges is aramaic – again the hebrew-like language current in palestine in the first century ce. Indeed john and james bar saba, sons of the rainmaker hanan the hidden, couldn’t possibly have received a more befitting nick than ‘sons of thunder’. Rainmaking was clearly seen as a vital divine gift in drought-afflicted palestine, and the rainmaking family of hanan the hidden & sons must have been seen as especially holy, saintly, consecrated to god from the womb. We’ve already dwelt on the meaning of ‘saba’ = ‘irrigator/ flooder’ and hence rainmaker. Which in turn leads us on to james as ‘son of alphaeus’.


‘Matthew’ 10:3 inserts in his lying listing of the alleged ’12 apostles’ a ‘iacob (james) son of alphaeus’, as if there were another james after the ‘son of zebedaeus’ of 10:2. It is, as usual, one and the same james, again doubled by wordplay for obfuscation purposes – a typical government-terrorist disinformation trick. Now: alphaeus in greek is halphaios. It’s for instance the name of a greek river, not coincidentally. Because the word comes from semitic halbia, sumerian for ‘a kind of well’, in akkadan halpu:

greek H A L P H A I O S

sumerian H A L B I A

akkadian H A L P U

the -IOS in the greek is only a greek suffix or termination – irrevelant to the root of the word.

Who was ‘the well’, ‘the flood’, ‘the irrigator’? It was james’ father hanan the hidden, rainmaker. And james himself had inherited the rainmaking magic, as eisenman pointed out based on early christian sources.

The dead sea scrolls are the famous ancient-jewish manuscripts found in 1947. Eisenman dates part of them to the first century ce and convincingly argues for their having originated with the real early christians: our well-known fanatic fundamentalist zealot jewish zionist violently antiroman nationalists – whom eisenman, a jewish zionist fanatic himself, extolls as heroes. Now he teaches that the leader at qumran (= the dead sea scrolls community) was called, among other sobriquets, ‘yoreh ha zedek’, hebrew for ‘fountain of righteousness’ (james the brother of jesus, faber & faber 1997, p.853): I’ll add that james ‘tou halphaiou’ of matthew 10:3 is james son of the fountain (in which case the first founder and leader of the nasorayya would be his father hanan the hidden) or brother of the fountain (the greek genitive case may mean both; in the latter case the fountain of righteousness/ qumran leader would be john the baptist); and james himself would become a fountain/ qumran leader: ‘james the just’ who became the second successor to john the baptist in 38 ce.

‘Alphaeus’ (alphaeus is latin/ english for the original greek halphaios) of ‘matthew’ 10:3 never existed at all. It’s yet another lying doubling of the one and only james bar saba son of rainmaker/ fountain/well hanan the hidden. In other words, halphaios is a synonym to zebedee/ saba both meaning rainmaker/well/ fountain/ irrigator/ flood: real rainmakers (or at least believed to be by their religious-fanatic followers) but also ‘fountains of righteousness’: the dead sea scrolls code name for the leader at qumran: the ‘righteous teacher’.

Semitic love of semantically multilayered wordplay is being used masterfully here by the gospel forgers: the fictional ‘alphaeus’ (in greek halphaios), who never existed at all, is a title that, beside meaning ‘well’, can also mean ‘white’. Giovanni semerano in his latin dictionary (olschki 1994, reprinted 2007) teaches us well that the latin word ‘albus’, white comes from akkadian halpû, snow. Now our usual eisenman (james 311) states that james the brother of jesus wore… white linen clothes, ‘in consequence of his extreme holiness’! We may easily picture the entire bar saba family, a priestly/holy family, wearing white garments on an ordinary basis. Therefore ‘james the son (or ‘the brother’) of alphaeus’ is none other than the one and only james, son of the ‘white-clad’ hanan the hidden, and brother of the ‘white-clad’ judas, john, simon & jesus bar saba!

Of course western readers of lying ‘matthew’, who had long since forgotten their semitic origins, would swallow the rewrite of the ‘white(-clad)’ james the just as ‘james the son (or brother)’ of the [non-existent!] ‘alphaeus’! Government-terrorist ‘creative rewriting’ of history at its zenith here…

Obviously the link to akkadian halpû=snow brings us back full circle to the other semantic layer of ‘haphaios’ as ‘well’. The root is the same - HALP, water.

Let us dig deeper into all these wonderful semantic links for ‘halphaios’: it’s ‘the well’, it’s ‘the white’; but it’s also possibly ‘milk’: the very same root of latin albus, akkadian halpû, becomes in aramaic halab, milk: nothing better than commuting between semerano’s latin dictionary to eisenman’s james 326: early northern-syrian christians in the 2nd century ce were vegetarians, and one of their diet’s staples was indeed… milk! We can therefore easily picture james & his whole bar saba family as vegetarians and big milk drinkers – that is, each of them ‘halpahios’, ‘milk (drinker)’!

The whole truth about who the real early ‘christians’ really were is ‘hidden’, ‘embedded’ in that magic word, ‘halphaios’ (greek)/ ‘alphaeus’ (latin): james was halphaios in a special way, because he was ‘the well’, that is the ‘fountain of righteousness’ (yoreh ha zedek in hebrew), that is the ‘righteous teacher’ of the qumran/dead sea scrolls community; and he was ‘of halphaios’ too, as ‘matthew’ vainly rewrites: not because his father or brother were called halphaios, but because his father, hanan the hidden, had been ‘the well’, the lider maximo at qumran before him, and so had been james’ bro john the baptist (unless hanan the hidden and john the baptist are identical). And after the death of james, his bro simon bar saba would succeed him as ‘the well’.

And james was ‘halphaios’ because he wore pure, holy white garments of linen, the color of snow.

And because he was a vegetarian who drank much milk.

James was ‘halphaios’ also because he was ‘the (righteous) teacher’ of qumran, and in hebrew ālăf= to teach.

But the evil liars who concocted ‘matthew’ 10:3 had been assigned to overwrite all this by creating a non-existent ‘alphaeus’ as father or brother of a non-existent 2nd james! the purpose of such a skilled rewrite was to make readers forget who these real early christians really were: religious fanatics, torah-keepers, who thought of themselves as holier and purer than the corrupt romans, whom they labored in vain to wipe off the face of the earth.

There is one more, all-important layer to halphaios: let us go back to our starting point here: ‘matthew’ 10:3: ‘james the son (or brother) of alphaeus’. Now if we take it to mean ‘son of alphaeus’, we can arrive at clinching the decoding of james’ and his brothers’ father’s real identity. Because halphaios can also mean, in its semitic original, ‘the hidden’. in akkadian for instance halāpu= to hide! The root is the same as in halphaios: *halp. Therefore ‘james son of halphaios/alphaeus’ of ‘matthew’ 10:3 is also, quite literally ‘the son of (hanan) the hidden!´ :

quod erat demonstrandum…

And if you´re wondering now why hanan the hidden was called ‘the hidden’: well, such a revolutionary, theocommunist guerrilla would have had all the reasons in the world to hide from the romans and their collaborator-jewish henchmen à la joseph flavius.

The spirit and strategy of qumran (the dead sea scrolls community, the real early christians) was one of ‘secrecy’, as attested to by the scrolls. Again, no surprise here: the romans/herodians were out to hunt them down!

But akkadian halāpu can also mean, more specifically, ‘to hide/cover one’s face’. In her book ‘the mandaeans of iraq and iran’, first published in 1937, e.s. drower published several pictures of these surviving ‘baptists’ or daily bathers, these middle-eastern ‘sabbas’: when baptizing others, the priest, dressed in white, has his head covered and also his mouth and all of the lower half of his face: only nose, eyes and forehead remain uncovered. This is also why hanan was ‘the hidden’, if eisenman is right that the mandaeans still practice a baptism by full immersion in rivers, akin to john the baptist’s, whom they hold in high esteem.

‘James the son of alphaeus’ of ‘matthew’ 10:3 is the one and only james bar saba ‘the just’, ‘well’ and ‘son of the well’, ‘white-clad’, ‘milk’-drinking vegetarian, ‘teacher’ (of righteousness at qumran), and finally, ‘son of’ (hanan) ‘the hidden’ who ‘covered’ his head & face when baptizing and ‘hid’ from the evil romans/herodians who were after him, in a spirit of ‘secrecy’ typical of his religious community of theocommunist antiroman guerrillas at qumran, and elsewhere including jerusalem, galilee etc.

All of which just ‘had’ to be (re)written out of history by turning the title ‘halphaios’ into a non-existing father or brother of a non-existent 2nd james, duplicated to muddy the waters and divert readers from the one and only james bar saba called ‘the just’ for his extreme ‘righteousness’, of which he was ‘the fountain’ or ‘well’: halphaios. He was ‘the son’ of a halphaios too, in the sense of ‘the hidden’ here, because his father was hanan the hidden!


Again when i say ‘jesus’ i don’t mean gospel jesus who never existed at all and is an entirely fabricated fictional character. I mean jesus bar saba, fifth and last son of hanan the hidden, youngest brother of john the baptist, judas, james and simon/ simeon. This is NOT saying that jesus bar saba was the historical jesus. There was no such thing as the historical jesus. Jesus bar saba was one of the pieces of the collagework that fictional gospel jesus really is.

Ancient historian joseph flavius (I century ce) mentions a honi or onias (both mean john in hebrew) ‘the righteous’, stoned to death in 65 bce according to robert eisenman. Eisenman adds that onias the righteous was also called honi the circle drawer. Because he was a shamanistic rainmaker who drew magic circles in the sand and stood inside of them in times of drought until the rain came. Gospel jesus is also pictured as drawing in the ground in the famous ‘cast the first stone’ episode, where the threatened-stoning detail must also have been inspired to the forgers by the manner honi the circle drawer was put to death. Eisenman goes on to say that this onias/ honi the righteous/ honi the circle drawer, stoned 65 bce, fathered another john: hanan the hidden, himself also called the righteous (honi = onias = hanan = john: the complete original hebrew form is johanan). Now hanan the hidden was a rainmaker too. According to eisenman, the talmud says hanan the hidden was the grandson not the son of honi the circle drawer. Which, since the circle drawer was stoned 65 ce, has led some to identify hanan the hidden with john the baptist. But luke says that john the baptist’s father was an old man when he had john, which if true, would better square with hanan the hidden being son not grandson of the circle drawer, in which case hanan cannot have been born any later than 64 bce. John the baptist must have been born around the year 0 (the traditional date for the birth of ‘jesus’) because he died c. 36/37 ce, and he cannot have been old when he died if he was leading a desert-dwelling life and founding what amounted to a guerrilla group: the nasri: the real early christians.

Anyway regardless of whether hanan the hidden was john the baptist himself or his father, the overall genealogy of this real jesus is as follows:

ONIAS THE RIGHTEOUS (a title that will be inherited by his grandson james the just) = HONI THE CIRCLE DRAWER: stoned to death in 65 bce (eisenman, james 1997, p.386)

HANAN THE HIDDEN (onias’ son or grandson), rainmaker

5 BAR SABA (= sons of the rainmaker) brothers:

1. JOHN THE BAPTIST (dies 36/37 ce)

2. JAMES (dies 62 ce)

3. JUDAS (dies c. 45 ce)

4. SIMON / SIMEON (dies 105/106 ce)

5. JESUS (dies 66/67 ce)


Flavius continues the jesus story at bellum iudaicum III.9.7.450 ff : here jesus bar sapphia becomes bar saphat but it's always the same jesus barsappha/barsabba/ barabbas (that is, our bar saba) in charge of defending galilee against the incoming roman army and jewish turncoats the likes of flavius himself. Who graciously says here that jesus commanded a band of brigands - today they’d say terrorists... that is patriots freedom fighters. Mind you: I do not sympathize with them for the most part: I hate all imperialisms and therefore I hate the romans, but i also hate all religious fundamentalisms and if jesus bar sappha had won we would now have a world-wide ayatollah iran...or orthodox israel. God forbid.

Roman general soon-to-become-emperor vespasianus with his son and fellow jew-butcherer titus arrives near tiberias and proceeds to lay siege and build camps. First he sends out officer valerianus and 50 horsemen to parley with jesus’ patriots who not only won't surrender but led by jesus proceed to attack valerianus forcing the romans to flee but then just before the bulk of the romans somehow manage to enter tiberias jesus and his men flee to nearby tarichaeae also on the lake. Now flavius informs us that both tiberias and tarichaeae lay at the feet of mountains - just like we know from the gospels’ mount sermons of the doctored jesus...

And here comes the whole real story about boats on the lake and fishermen who become fishers of men. the inhabitants of tarichaeae who evidently sided with jesus had readied a number of large boats on the adjoining lake both for the purpose of fleeing if things turned nasty and of fighting a possible sea battle against the romans or pelt the romans from the lake that the jews call sea. So the romans start building their siege camp for tarichaeae but bold jesus’ guerrillas assail them with hit-and-run guerrilla tactics. A group of jewish fighters fights from the boats another from the plain in front of the city. The former have no fear of sinking like gospel simon... Instead it’s the romans who dread the fury of the jews and titus has to rebuke his own - which in the gospel lie becomes jesus rebuking simon and the others for their lack of faith.

Eventually the jews on the plain have to flee and others try desperately to join the fighters already on the boats. Which in gospel misrepresentation becomes the storm that threatens to sink simon peter’s boat... The romans capture tarichaeae. Resistance continues on the lake. Jesus and his men flee thru the plain says joseph flavius so at this point they drop off our radar screen. Vespasian joins titus in tarichaeae and congratulates his son on the slaughter and orders that someone be put to death.

This is an all-important point because here you would expect the account of the capture and crucifixion of jesus - the punishment romans meted out to rebels. Instead all manuscripts that handed down flavius’ bellum iudaicum to us feature a gap here so we don’t know the name or names of those vespasian orders put to death! Coincidence? – I’d rather say deliberate erasure on the part of later church rewriters who kept the flavius manuscripts under lock and key for centuries.


The technical term for a gap in a manuscript is lacuna. At joseph flavius jewish war III.10.6.505 there’s a lacuna just where we may have expected to read jesus’ name as the chief crucified by the romans for rebellion after the capture of tarichaeae on the lake of galilee. But the church daddies would not let us realize who their false jesus really was mostly based on so they likely erased this bit. Also notice here how this is the only lacuna in the entire bellum judaicum book! If i’m not mistaken. I mean, other bits of the original were edited out by church daddies, but the gaps were ‘closed’ in the extant manuscripts. See eisenman, james the brother of jesus, faber & faber 1997, p. 234. Whereas here there’s a gap.

Anyway it’s pretty obvious just whose name is missing here and how the real jesus was put to death - romans always crucified rebels except when they were roman citizens in which case they did them the favor of just beheading them thus cutting their suffering short (john the baptist and his bro judas/theudas owed their being beheaded instead of crucified not to roman citizenship but to execution by herodian kings). And since tarichaeae lay at the feet of a mountain it is likely the lacuna also told us that jesus was crucified on the mountain for all to see the macabre terroristic deterrent spectacle of what end awaited those who dared defy rome almighty...


It’s not over yet because a bunch of heroic jihadist patriots are still resisting on the boats on the lake. And their credo is no surrender. So vespasian orders rafts built to attack the lakeborne rebels. Around the lake of tiberias/galilee/ gennezareth there was plenty of logging to be done so the job is quickly carried thru by the roman army’s many carpenters.

Flavius now informs us that the lake was rich in fish and that’s where the gospel lie of jesus’ disciples/ apostles as fishermen with boats originates.

By now you will have started to grasp the modus operandi of those mischievous westernized proroman gospel fabricators: they took bits and pieces of underlying truth from joseph flavius’ book and rewrote the story turning the fighting jesus into a meek nonviolent poor guy only intent on healing the sick and chasing demons... and multiplying loaves and fish for mass picnics on lake gennezareth. What a sick twist. Therefore jesus son of sappha high priest in jerusalem sent to galilee to fight the romans there becomes a little ‘paul’ recommending to pay the roman tax refusing which was the very reason the war and the real jesus' desperate fight were all about.

Now the romans having built powerful rafts and packed them with legionaries proceed to slaughter the boatborne jews despite the latter's heroic resistance. Flavius depicts dramatically this epic scene of sinking boats and dying jews and lake reddening with their blood which the gospels turn into jesus walking on the water when in fact it was the romans who walked on the water aboard their rafts and the jews who did the same having tied all the boats together so as to form a blockade and were probably jumping from one to the other. And it wasn't simon who was afraid of sinking in a storm but real jews who sank with their boats and drowned ...

None of them got out alive.


And now the gospel story of the fishermen called on by “jesus” to become apostles and fishers of men in the spiritual sense for afterworldly purposes. The real jesus story in flavius ends much more graphically: the romans having butchered all the jewish partisans on the boats, the lake got filled with corpses and since it was still summer soon a terrible stench filled the air : boat wreckage and many of the dead were washed ashore and the rot soon became overwhelmingly sickening. So when the gospel rewriters/overwriters edify us with the saying of the falsified jesus that now “peter” and “andrew” etc were to follow him and become fishers of men what else could it be a distortion if not of the tragic fact that there certainly being real fishermen on the lake which was so rich in various fish those real fishermen in the aftermath of the battle went about their daily fishing but since there were so many corpses in the lake some of those who hadn’t been washed ashore yet ended up getting stuck in the nets of the fishermen who thus became fishers of (dead) men whereas in the gospel lie it’s simon & co who prompted by jesus set off for work and their haul is so good they can hardly pull it up on board without sinking !

What a sick sadistic twist - what fun must it have been for the imperial gospel forgers to turn the slaughter into fishing exploits and the dead into fish!

Another explanation or one that could coexist with the first is that the romans on the rafts may have included retiarii for hand-to-hand fighting – the fighters with nets that they cast on the enemies to ensnare them and thus capture or butcher them more easily.

Yes i’m aware that the fishers-of-men imagery is also derived from jeremiah 16:16 - but i think the old testament inspiration here may mesh with the rewriting/ overwriting of history.


Now to the the source for the part of the gospel lie that deals with jerusalem.

Did gospel “jesus” really exist?


The real jesus was jesus bar sappha described above - as far as the galilee and (most likely) the crucifixion scenarios in the gospel lie are concerned. But that is only one piece of the puzzle.

Again : there is no such thing as historical jesus. Gospel jesus is collage work, is total and utter fiction.

The second mosaic tessera was simon : a violent theo-com(munist) antiroman patriot who thought his god would make him rex judaeorum and help him drive the romans out of palestine. This simon was turned into/overwritten/rewritten as gospel jesus as far as the jerusalem scenario in the gospel lie is concerned. The romans erased jerusalem off the map and murdered him.

What further exposes gospel jesus as a lie is that at the time - a time of massive antiroman unrest in palestine - a proroman jewish messiah as gospel jesus is pictured to have been would never have enjoyed popularity and would never ever have been targeted by the proroman jewish priestly establishments or crucified by the romans - because he would have been their ally.

Having thus established that gospel jesus is a fabrication how was this fabrication achieved? Sheer invention? No - the method was rather conflation of real people and events of first-century palestine but totally reversed and distorted to skew and falsify history in portraying violent jewish revolutionaries as meek proroman tax-paying asskissers.

Gospel jesus being a collage of different characters from the messianic era in jewish palestine of the I century ce is also based on the very real simon bar giora (jair) reversed and deformed into a proroman idiot. Carefully read the book bellum iudaicum - war against the jews - by joseph flavius jewish turncoat who betrayed the antiroman movement and switched sides. The war in question happened between 66 and 70 ce with some fighting lasting into 73. It was a horrible slaughter which ended with future emperor titus erasing jerusalem off the map after a long siege and the romans capturing the revolutionary resistance leader simon bar giora - simon son of giora - bringing him to rome for display in titus’ and his father vespasianus’ triumphal parade and then executing him in the infamous tullianum jail/death chamber at the foot of capitol hill.


Grab your joseph flavius jewish war VII.2.2. The romans have entered jerusalem erased it to the ground and slaughtered most everyone and looted whatever they’ve found. Resistance commander simon had been hiding in a secret subterranean tunnel with his most trusted friends and a bunch of stonecutters with the aim of continuing to mine the gallery so as to find an opening onto some safe spot whence they might escape the romans. But they soon gave up hope because they’d almost run out of food and made little headway in the excavation. So simon “put on white tunics and a purple cloak over them and came out of the ground where the temple had stood”. Doesn't it sound like the real underlying model for the gospel fabricators who twisted it into the resurrection of “jesus”? :

1. in the gospels we find the same element of jesus’ tomb carved - newly carved - in rock

2. when jesus resurrects he appears to some in white shining clothes/light

3. when jesus is arrested and tortured his tormentors clothe him in a mock-kingly purple mantel

4. both the real simon and the forged jesus “resurrect” by coming out of the ground and from the carved rock

5. the simon of history resurfaces where the temple had stood – hadn’t gospel jesus prophesied he would rebuild the temple in 3 days alluding to the temple of his body? Well when the real simon resurfaces a few days had passed since the romans had occupied jerusalem and thereby destroyed the temple

6. those who first saw simon in joseph flavius were paralyzed by fear just like the first people to whom “jesus” appeared in the gospels right after resurrecting

7. in joseph after the initial surprise those who first saw simon - without recognizing him - presumably roman soldiers patrolling the temple ruins run to their commander just like in the gospels the women to whom jesus appeared run to the apostles

8. simon had wanted to be king of the jews messianic king in the maccabean priestly-king tradition and the garment of such kings was the purple cloak whereas the white tunics were the garments of priests and militant daily-bathing sect members such as john the baptist essenes etc.

Enough “coincidences” folks?

Wait I´m not done yet.


Simon gets arrested but not killed on the spot because titus wants the time-honored exhibiting the vanquished enemy in rome at his triumphal gala parade. So simon is chained and brought to titus in caesarea on the sea a town on the coast of palestine.

Just like in acts of the apostles simon peter gets arrested and chained and in a separate episode ends up in caesarea...

Poor patriot simon bar giora ends up in rome (again just like “saint peter”) and gets paraded in the triumphalis pompa amongst 700 other prisoners - a veritable via crucis without a cross - and then the compassionate-conservative romans tie a rope around his neck and drag him like an animal along the last stretch of road “among abuse and beatings” (sounds familiar from jesus’ arrest in the gospels?) to the tullianum death chamber near the forum where they put him to death.

Pious christian lore has it that "saint peter" came to rome was arrested and thrown into the very same tullianum prison - only variation being his having been crucified upside down instead of the customary strangling in the tullianum reserved for enemy chiefs such as vercingetorix jugurtha and the like.

Even the strange position of peter’s alleged crucifixion comes from joseph flavius’ bellum iudaicum V.11.1 : “prompted by hatred and ire the roman soldiers amused themselves by crucifying prisoners in various positions”...

What I’m saying is that the gospel and extragospel christian mosaicists dissected simon bar giora and used some parts of his story for their "jesus" and others for their "peter" .


Are you convinced my fellow truth-seekers? Not yet? Wondering if the real jerusalem jesus that is simon bar giora had his own ‘judas the betrayer’?

Here you go : joseph flavius bellum iudaicum V.13.2 :

“a fellow of simon's underlings” with a bunch of men tried to plot against simon and call in the romans but simon discovered the plot captured judas and his traitors killed them and mutilated their corpses (fossile of this is gospel peter cutting off the high priest's servant's ear) and cast them down the city walls.

Should one object that gospel judas hangs himself instead (“matthew” 27:5) let him/her consider this : acts of the apostles 1:18 totally gainsays “matthew” stating that judas “fell face downwards, his entrails gushing out” (in eisenman’s translation) - which looks a lot more similar to the REAL judas’ end in joseph flavius doesn’t it ?

There never was a ‘judas the betrayer’ of ´jesus´. There was instead a judas bar saba, brother of jesus bar saba. And he never betrayed anyone at all .

The fictional character ‘judas the betrayer’ was concocted by the gospel forgers by plagiarizing/rewriting/overwriting the unrelated judas of joseph flavius .

Purpose: obliterating the real judas and his theocommunist, antiroman stance – and delivering him up to perpetual infamy as ‘judas iscariot’, the betrayer.


Gospel jesus never was.

Christianity is a lie.

The gospel lie.

March 7, 2019

Tek 2005 - 2019

posted 8.26.2021

Mary magdalene, mother of jesus


january 2018 - march 2019

Mary magdalene was not from magdala

Magdalene does not mean from magdala. A village magdala didn´t exist at all in alleged jesus´ times.

Mary magdalene is an overwrite for the real mother of jesus bar saba.


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

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

See this article for instance :

" Following Taylor, I suggest the following: 6th-century pilgrims (or their guides!), while en route to Capernaum from Nazareth or Tiberias, passed Magadan, which was still in ruins from the earthquake of 363. They understood the name to be a corruption of Magdala. The first pilgrim to locate Magdala on the road from Tiberias to Capernaum was Theodosius in 530 AD. In the 8th century, an Anglo-Saxon nun named Hugeburc mentions that this was the Magdalene's birthplace,

and she also mentions a pilgrim church called the House of the Magdalene, where Mary was relieved of her seven demons. J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 2002. The Franciscan archaeologists have found the ruins of a Byzantine monastery. Starting in the 6th century (or perhaps already in the 5th) scribes "corrected" Matthew 15:39 to read "Magdala" instead of "Magadan." The name stuck: until the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 there was an Arab village here called Mejdal. "

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

Clearly, there is a lot of deliberate disinformation and obfuscation here on the part of the gospel forgers and their editors. Let us take a closer look at the hard data here : again, no NT author ever connects mary magdalene to a village of magdala. Only later christian lore, extrabiblical lore, does so. Matthew 15:39 does not mention mary magdalene at all . It mentions a village on the shores of lake tiberias aka sea of galilee, where jesus lands by boat. Except for the fact, that in matthew´s manuscripts carrying this passage, only a part reads magdala here. Others read magdalan. Others still, maghedan !!! And others, magadan !!! O wondrous harmony of the word of god !!!

Furthermore, none of these toponyms is attested to anywhere by archaeology, epigraphy or any other literature, except here in matthew !!! That is, none of them, whether MAGDALA or MAGDALAN or MAGHEDAN or MAGADAN has been identified with certainty.

Which leads us to suspect, that none of them ever existed at all, and were all fabricated by the gospel forgers and their editors.

The only comparable toponym in palestine is MIGDAL-EL, mentioned in the book of joshua 19:38, but as a stronghold or fortress, not as a city !!

Furthermore this fort has never been identified.

And : it would be extremely uncommon for MIG to beget MAG, because an apophony i>a is rare. Therefore on a normal basis, you do not go from migdal to magdala.

Migdal-el means tower of god in hebrew ; magdala does not. It cannot. It is something else.

Also you have to remember that the old testament is a fabrication too, and therefore we cannot rule out that this stronghold of migdal-el cited in the book of joshua, be itself a forgery.


But it gets much worse for the gospel forgers and their lying editors : if we now move on to mark, who in his parallel narrative mentions this village on lake tiberias the alleged jesus allegedly landed at, we encounter a very different toponym altogether : mark 8:10 features a DALMANOUTHA !!!

Again : in mark too here, there is no link to mary magdalene at all - it´s only jesus and his disciples landing by boat at this dalmanoutha.

And it doesn´t end here : because only part of mark´s manuscripts here read dalmanoutha ; others have DALMOUNAI !!!

Others still revert to matthew´s mess and feature :


Again, o wondrous harmony of the word of god !!!!

Summing it up thus far : between matthew and mark, the alleged birthplace or town of residence of mary magdalene was called :


I think if this is the word of god, then god badly needs an ophthalmologist .

Do not confuse magdala with Μεγιδδώ/Μαγεδδών, Megiddó/Mageddón in the Septuagint :

such is the greek rendering for megiddo, not magdala .Megiddo has nothing to do with magdala and noone ever proposed such an identification .Furthermore, megiddo is not even on the sea of galilee, where the alleged magdala is supposed to have been .

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



" from the 6th century onward, Christian pilgrims knew our site as Magdala, home town of Mary Magdalene. Earlier sources, namely, Eusebius, Jerome, and the 4th-century pilgrims - recognized no Magdala " :

from the article cited above :

Again : before 500 ce, noone ever linked magdala to mary, or even mentioned or showed awareness of a town magdala on the lake of tiberias.

Noone that is, except MAYBE for 2 mentions in the talmud, whose dating is controversial in and for itself.


From wiki sub voce magdala :

" The Jewish Talmud distinguishes between two Magdalas only.[4] Magdala Gadar—One Magdala was in the east, on the River Yarmouk near Gadara (in the Middle Ages "Jadar", now Umm Qais), thus acquiring the name Magdala Gadar.

Magdala Nunayya—There was another, better-known Magdala near Tiberias, Magdala Nunayya ("Magdala of the fishes"), which would locate it on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Al-Majdal, a Palestinian Arab village depopulated in the lead up to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was identified as the site of this Magdala. The modern Israeli municipality of Migdal (Khirbet Medjdel), founded in 1910 and about 6 km NNW of Tiberias, has expanded into the area of the former village. "

Now all that is entirely preposterous !!!

Firstly, the date of composition of the talmud is disputable, but generally placed between the II and the V centuries ce, thus the 2 mentions of magdala there might as well be very late and influenced by christianity.

Secondly, neither of these 2 alleged magdalas in the talmud can be identified with certainty.

Third, the first magdala here, if it is gadara, has nothing to do with gospel magdala.

Fourth, magdala nunayya cannot be identified with certainty and the talmud itself did not explain the magdalene in mary magdalene with a hometown at all !!!


The funny thing here is, not only does jewish lore not connect mary magdalene, a supposedly jewish woman, with a magdala at all ; but instead, as late as the XIV century, DENIES SUCH A LINK OUTRIGHT !!!

The midrash ha-gadol is a XIV century compilation of traditional jewish texts. Here is how it explains the name magdalene, quoting an XI century rabbi :

" the Midrash HaGadol (Deut. 13:7) states that the mother of Jesus was named "Miriam Magdala Nishaia" (Mary Magdalene), which name, according to the 11th-century Talmudic exegete, Rashi, meant "Mary, the Braider of women's hair."

The first extremely interesting thing for us here about this notice above from the midrash ha-gadol, is the identification of mary magdalene with the mother of jesus. Not his follower as in gospel lore, nor his lover as in apocryphal lore. No. His mom !

Now to the thing with braiding women´s hair : mary magdalene as hairdresser ? No. It´s a malicious pun. First of all, the braider thing is only in the word nishaia. What this funny rabbi is saying is, that magdala means nishaia, a braider of hair :

מרים מגדלא נשייא : from right to left : miriam magdala nishaia .

Rabbi rashi had in mind 2 hebrew words, miqsheh: (an artistic) hairdo ; and nasak, to weave.

Thus his nishaia means the weaver of hair, the braider.

He is saying, magdala (means) nishaia : magdala means hairdresser.

Which is nonsense in hebrew, aramaic or what-have-you semitic language.

Our lying rabbi rashi knows all too well that magdala really means mashab: drawing water, from hebrew shaab, to draw,and mah´, water. But he cannot tell us the truth : he must conceal it, just like matthew and mark. And he overwrites mashab, drawing water, with the similar-sounding miqsheh, hairdo ! ( Or nishaia).

MAG - DAL - ENE : she who draws water from the well.


MAG in mag-dalene is the common pansemitic root we saw above in hebrew mah´, water.

DAL is another pansemitic root , eg in hebrew dalah, meaning to draw (water, for irrigation, from a well or river).

ENE is our third pansemitic root here, eni or weni or ain, meaning spring, source,well,river.

For instance, in hebrew EN - charod = well of harod.

The variant hebrew form ayin means spring of water.

Thus the -ENE in magdal-ene = well, spring.

Now again : the mother of jesus, mary , was called magdalene = she who draws water from the well. She was no hairdresser. No hooker. No lover of jesus. She was his mother !!!

Why was she nicked water-drawer from the well ?

Because her husband, not joseph who never existed at all, but her real husband, hanan the hidden, was a well/spring/river : he was a daily bather or baptist, a rainmaker, a holy man, and the fountain of righteousness at qumran, a title bestowed on the spiritual leader of that community of real early christians, the natsorayya or nazoraeans = keepers of the torah.

These real early christians were jews, fundamentalist fanatic jews, antiroman jews, nationalist/zionistic jews in the I century ce, hell-bent on awating a messiah to come down from the sky with the heavenly host, to free israel from roman occupation.

That is why proroman matthew and mark, proroman talmud, and procapitalfascist midrash ha-gadol, had so much fun overwriting magdalene as a hairdresser or somehow, in extrabiblical interpretation based on references to a city of magdala in some manuscripts of matthew and mark and in the lying talmud, deriving her sobriquet from a town of magdala nobody had ever heard of until the VI century .

See, these real early christians, the nazoraeans or keepers of the torah, had loads to do with water. John the baptist for instance, a son of mary magdalene and brother of james the just, judas iscariot, simeon bar cleophas and jesus bar saba, was not at all a baptist in the modern christian sense, that is some priest who baptizes the newly born to wash away their original sin. No, baptist means daily bather, immerser in the cold living water of rivers such as the jordan, for bodily cleansing, AFTER repentance of sins.

This we know from I-century jewish historian josephus flavius in his book antiquitates judaicae.

Plus, these natsorayya had a training center at qumran on the dead sea, where they wrote the dead sea scrolls, which feature as spiritual leader termed fountain of righteousness, in hebrew yoreh-ha-zedek. Thus water for these fundamentalist fanatic antiroman guerrillas was also a pivotal metaphor in their ideology : water as the source of justice, embodied by their "pope", and water as the cleansing flood that will purge humanity once and for all, like in noah´s time, of the evil romans and most everyone else except for them - the saints, the holier-than-thou.


We shall dwell in depth on all this below. The lying gospel of john has an episode which never happened, but was clearly conceived as an overwrite of both the real mary magdalene, unmentioned by name, and the real jesus of real history : it is the episode of jakob´s well.

Almost the entire chapter 4 of john´s gospel is devoted to this encounter between jesus and a samaritan woman at jakob´s well somewhere in samaria. This fiction is based on an old testament episode starring jakob. Jakob is hebrew for james. And james the just was a brother of jesus and son of mary magdalene. And james became fountain of righteousness, that is chef, at qumran in 38 ce, after the beheading of his elder brother john the baptist at the hands of the proroman herodians.

Thus when lying john here at 4:6 mentions jakob´s spring/well, he is clearly overwriting james´position as leader of the real early christians, the militant jihadist nazoraean jews.

Jesus is resting on the well, when a samaritan woman comes along. She comes to draw water ! Therefore she is mag-dal-ene, the water-drawer at the well !

Jesus explains to her the metaphor of the living water or life-giving water, so dear to qumran ideology.

Therafter, jesus proceeds to confront the woman over her 5 husbands. This number 5 is a dead giveaway for exposing the lying gospel overwrite here : for 5 were the sons of mary and hanan the hidden : john bap, james, judas, simeon and jesus. Who here, in this malevolent antizealot proroman overwrite, become the 5 husbands of a samaritan woman who´s little better than a whore - the start of the mary-magdalene-as-repentant-sinner lore. Mary magdalene´s men were 6 all in all: 5 SONS AND HER HUSBAND HANAN THE HIDDEN ON WHOM TONS MORE BELOW:AND IN THIS JOHN OVERWRITE NUMBER 6 POPS UP TOO, IN THE GUISE OF A CURRENT COHABITANT OF MARY´S, WHO IS NOT HER HUSBAND !!!!!


The real mary magdalene of history, wife of holy man hanan and mother of holy men john bap and james the just, was instead as chaste and puritanical as it gets - for such were these zealots-for-the-law : the torah.


So finally now that we have decoded and exposed the magdalene gospel and christian/jewish lie, what shall we make of all those fake toponyms interpolated into matthew´s and mark´s texts so as to justify a connection magdalene/magdala ? What are we to make of all those MAGDALA ; MAGDALAN ; MAGHEDAN ; MAGADAN ; MAGHEDA ; MAGADA ; MELEGADA ; DALMANOUTHA ; DALMOUNAI ?? Again none of those toponyms cited in matthew´s and mark´s manuscripts have been localized with certainty. Most likely because they never existed at all back in the I century ce. Or at any time. Some lying dissimulator, whether the original authors of matthew and mark or their successive editors, inserted those toponyms in their narrative because they were similar to both mary magdalene´s sobriquet and toponyms known by their non-specialist audiences, who would not and were not able to hair-split about linguistic appropriateness.

Thus magdala was chosen because the torah mentions a migdal-el, tower of god, a fortress not a city but who would remember that? : matthew was a second century jew writing for II century greek-speaking jews with only a smattering of hebrew or aramaic, so they would easily buy into magdala as a toponym. Same for magdalan. Maghedan and magadan were cooked up because thay sound like magheddon, megiddo in the greek old testament, a toponym matthew´s audiences were so familiar with. Same for magheda and magada. Melegada was chosen by a different set of editors because it´s a near-anagram of magdala/magdalene , and because melek-adad in semitic means king of thunder, and mary magdalene again was the wife of hanan the hidden rainmaker hence thunder king. Not that the gospel forgers here wanted to remind their readership of the true import of melek-adad - quite the contrary, they were out to cover it up with a toponym, but such a toponym had to somehow call to mind magdalene and concepts familiar to the back of jewish minds. Obviously this is not to say that one or 2 of this plethora of red herrings might not simply have been copyist mistake. But the gist of the insertion of such fancy toponyms into the text of matthew and mark was certainly to throw in a hook on which to fasten a false connection magdalene/magdala.

Mark´s DALMANOUTHA and DALMOUNAI are again, overwrites for mary the mother of jesus and wife of hanan the hidden, well of qumran, rainmaker and daily bather, revolutionary antiroman jihadist.

DAL = to draw water, or bucket to draw water

MA = water

NOUTHA = NISHAIA = MASHAB = water-drawer.

Thus DAL-MA-NOUTHA means the same thing as magdalene : she who draws water with her bucket.

Again this is probably what mary, like most working-class women in her time, really had to do every day. But the sobriquet magdalene=dalmanoutha is also and mainly metaphorical : she is the wife of the well, that is the fountain of righteousness at qumran, the supreme ayatollah of the real early christians, the natsorayya or keepers of the torah in the violent fight against rome, messianists who awaited a son of man down from the sky to help them wipe the evil romans, and most everybody else, off the face of the planet.

Lastly, the varia lectio DALMOUNAI in some markan manuscripts :

DAL = to draw, or bucket

MOU = water ( it is the assyrian form)

NAI = an abbreviated form of hebrew nahar, again river, source :

thus DALMOUNAI too means she who draws water from the river or well.

The lying editors of matthew and mark took great pains to conceal the real meaning of magdalene by fabricating all these non-existent cities which sounded like magdalene, because their job it was, to rewrite history and transmogrify antiroman jihadists into meek proroman pacifists and

whores .


Now we had better ask ourselves : since when are matthew 15:39 and mark 8:10 attested to ? They are the only 2 passages in the entire new testament mentioning magdala and all its variants above. When do these 2 passages first appear for us, in written documents ? What is the earliest evidence for the existence of those 2 passages ?

We can answer by perusing the standard scientific edition of the new testament, nestle/aland ´s novum testamentum graece et latine, deutsche bibelgesellschaft, 5.druck 2005 : this book features a list of the greek manuscripts they used - not all of them, but presumably the most ancient and important ones. So let´s have a look at the dating of the manuscripts carrying matthew 15:39 and mark 8:10. Not all manuscripts do: many are fragmentary. Hence the need to know.

We might conceivably assume that the line 15:39, or at least its word magdala etc., was interpolated into matthew in order to enhance tourism to the holy land .

This is also the opinion of professor joan taylor of king´s college , london, who does not believe in the existence of magdala in jesus´time and wrote about the issue extensively.



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

Now the funniest thing about this codex we are considering here (London, Brit. Libr.,Add.43275),is that when it comes to mark 8:10, the parallel passage to matthew above, instead of consistently reading MAGHEDAN or MAGADAN as it had done in matthew, it reads DALMANOUTHA !

So much for the synoptic gospels . O wondrous harmony of the word of god ...

I think that these 4th-century forgers, in revising the texts of matthew and mark, whose first drafts date from the II century, added different fake city names to the roster because matthew is a more jewish gospel addressing primarily jews who would have been more familiar with the old testament and thus would easily buy into a maghedan/magadan because to their ears it called to memory meghiddo etc.

Whereas mark addresses gentiles mainly, westerners to whom magadan would have meant nothing, and wouldn´t have stuck : therefore "mark" and its subsequent editors, or rather the latter in the 4th century, thought up dalmanoutha, playing on the original meaning of magdalene above, because to western ears such a toponym would be acceptable on the basis of similarity with DALMATIA : all the forgers had to do was invert mag-dal from magdalene into dal-ma.

The same goes for dalmounai : it was fabricated on the basis of western ear familiarity with DELMINIUM, today´s Tomislavgrad in Bosnia. that is to say, lobotomized western gentile ears would buy a non-existent dalmounai at face value, because it sounded like their known delminium and delminium was a town so dalmounai sure was one too right ?

Now the first manuscript occurrence for the fake city of magdala in this very form, its popular form, is in codex C, Paris,Bibl. Nat., Gr.9 : at matthew 15:39, it reads MAGDALAN - not quite magdala, but almost. This particular codex C is dated to the V century, that is between 400 and

499 . Again a very late addition, one would incline to think. Because all other codices bearing magdala as such, date from way later, no earlier than the VI century ! Just when the pilgrimage to magdala as the city of mary magdalene became common .

Joan taylor is right : magdala did not exist in jesus´times - I century ce.

Nobody mentions magdala, no inscription or literary text or shard of pottery, nothing at all before the IV century ! When it is still magadan/maghedan in matthew and dalmanoutha in mark. Magdalan only pops up in the V century. And settles down as magdala in most manuscripts only starting in the VI century. It is an interpolation, a fraudulent addition, a forged city name.







Now let us move into a thorough examination of the hard data the gospels provide us about "mary magdalene" herself. All 4 canonical gospels mention her expressedly a dozen times in all, thus making her one of the most popular gospel characters. We also may notice, by checking nestle/aland´s critical apparatus, that the sobriquet magdalene for mary is always consistent throughout the gospels in each and every one of thousands of greek NT manuscripts - a clear indicator that mary had always been known as magdalene from the very start and nobody could have tampered with such a famous sobriquet.

The first occurrence for mary magdalene in the NT is at matthew 27:56 : jesus has just breathed his last on the cross ; from afar, a throng of women witnesses his death : among them, "mary magdalene and mary the mother of james and joseph and the mother of the sons of zebedaeus ".

Clearly again here the gospel forgers and their editors are using the age-old disinformation technique of multiplying one person into several fictional characters, in order to obfuscate the real identity and import of that antiestablishment person. Here for instance, mary magdalene is the mother of jesus, as we saw above, acknowledged as such without a problem by rabbi rashi as late as the XI century. She is the water-drawer because she is the wife of a well and mother of a well - well being the designation of qumran´s community´s spiritual leaders.

Therefore here mary magdalene is identical to the second fictional mary, the mother of james, qumran well 38-62 ce, and joseph : james the just was one of the 5 sons of mary and hanan the hidden. Joseph of course is an overwrite too, he never existed at all. He is an overwrite for jesus, brother of james and son of mary and hanan. A glance at nestle/aland´s apparatus will immediately confirm this : an apparatus criticus in a scientific edition is footnotes detailing the variant forms present in the manuscripts : here several manuscripts read IOSE instead of joseph. Iose = jesus, as hebrew for jesus is JOSHUA, aramaic YESHUA. Therefore this second mary is identical with the first : she is magdalene, mother of james and jesus - and of judas, simeon and john the baptist.

The third woman mentioned here at matthew 27:56, the mother of the sons of zebedaeus, is again the same mary mother of james and jesus : the sons of zebedaeus were james and john the baptist.

Zebedaeus is yet another wordplay/overwrite for the semitic word SABA, bather, since water both as a real element and as a metaphor was so important to these real early christians or nazoraeans or sabaeans.

According to mainstream, clericofascist exegesis, zebedaeus, greek zebedaios, was the father of apostles james anf john. I contend that james and john were brothers of jesus and sons of hanan the hidden and that this overwrite zebedaios never existed at all. Mainstreamers interpret zebedaios as deriving from hebrew zabdi gift.

But I-century jewish historian josephus flavius in his books bellum judaicum and vita, mentions several times a jesus son of a guy that josephus´manuscripts read variously as SAPPHO ; SAPPHAN ; SAPPHIA ; SAPHAT ; SAPITHA.

Now especially the last 2 variants are near-identical to ZEBED- IN ZEBEDAIOS. Look :




In semitic languages what counts are the consonants - vowels change around a lot. Therefore ZEBED in zebedaios, the father of james and john, is virtually equivalent to SAPHAT AND SAPITH, the father of a jesus who fights bitterly against the romans and proroman jews in the first war of 66-73 ce.

I contend that this jesus son of (bar in aramaic) sapphan/sapphia/saphat/sapith is identical with jesus the son of mary and brother of james and john, and that zebedaios is identical with all these variants for jesus´father in historian josephus´manuscripts.

Now this militant antiroman jihadist in josephus flavius, jesus bar sapphan, pops up in gospel lore too as...BARABBAS !!! Exegetes usually explain barabbas as meaning bar abba, son of the father in aramaic, a silly tautology deprived of plausibility. Barabbas is just an overwrite for our jesus bar sapphan in flavius.

Barabbas was the famous murderer allegedly chosen by the jews for liberation instead of jesus.

What we have here is pure classical theater, the doubling again of one person, jesus bar sapphan attested to by josephus flavius, into 2 : himself as barabbas, and a fictional gospel jesus, meek pacifist and proroman.

The NT forgers divvy up real antiroman zealots such as jesus bar sapphan into 2 or more (jesus and barabbas, mary magdalene, mary the mother of james, the mother of the sons of zebedaios) in order to erase from history the single real person undissected, because he or she was antiroman and anticapitalist.


We have to grasp the enormous importance of the root word saba/sabba for real early christians, those theocommunist antiroman jewish fanatics,the natsorayya or keepers of the torah.

This is the dangerous root that the proroman gospel liars overwrote with their silly zebedaios and barabbas. The underlying name or sobriquet was BAR SABA, son of the baptist/daily bather/rainmaker/fountain of righteousness at qumran : hanan the hidden.

SABA is a pansemitic root : it occurs :

in akkadian sapahu, to pour out ;

in babylonian sapum , to wet ;

in akkadian sabu, irrigated ;

in akkadian sipu, soaking in irrigation ;

in akkadian sabu and sapu, to irrigate a field, to flood; to bathe ;

the english word soup is derived from this same root ;

so are hydronyms such as Saone, Savena.

Therefore this was a BAR SABA set of brothers, because john the baptist (himself a saba : baptist is greek for saba in the sense of bather ) , james the just, well at qumran and rainmaker like his father, simeon bar cleophas son of the well as we shall see below, judas iscariot son of lightning as we shall see, and our jesus bar sapphan in flavius, were all sons of hanan the hidden, who was a saba in that he was a rainmaker, bather, well at qumran, and a messianist awaiting the eschatological flood, a second nohaic flood that would purge the earth of all evil and especially of the hated romans once and for all, bringing about the freedom and world domination for the holy of israel.

Let me now recommend to you a great book that will help you a lot in decoding all these overwrites by way of wordplay by these evil NT forgers :


From it, here´s to you other samples of the all-important root saba in the semitic world :

akkadian sepu = wet ;

akkadian sabu = to draw water, which begat hebrew shaab, to draw water, which we encountered above in the compound mashab, place of drawing water, watering, which rabbi rashi parodied as nishaia, the hairdresser...

This hebrew word mashab, equivalent to magdala/magdalene, is at the root of the important protochristian sect of the masbuthaeans, daily bathers of ancient middle east, who practiced ritual immersion just like john the baptist and his natsorayya.

Robert eisenman ( james the brother of jesus, 1997) connects the word masbuthaeans with the syriac root sabu´a = washed ones, which is again our saba root. Ma as we know = water in semitic, thus masbuthaeans where daily bathers in the water, of rivers, like john the baptist.

Daily-bathing groups such as the mandaeans of southern iraq still exist today, and they hold john the baptist in highest esteem. Arabic texts call mandaeans the subba or sabaeans, again our pansemitic saba/soaking root word. Mandaeans call john the baptist´s father SABA !


That is precisely why historian josephus flavius above, calls his jesus the son of sapphan, that is in aramaic bar saba. And his 4 brothers were bar sabas too of course : john the baptist, son of a saba according to mandaean tradition, james the just, simeon bar cleophas and judas iscariot. And their mother was mary magdalene= the water-drawer, that is the wife of the well, the fountain of righteousness/righteous teacher at qumran : hanan the hidden aka saba.

We shall have loads more on this all-important saba family below. For now suffice to say that this real, historical jesus bar sapphan aka bar saba from flavius joseph was the very opposite of the fabricated meek pacifist proroman gospel jesus : jesus bar sapphan was one of the fiercest commandants of zealot jews in the early stages of the first jewish war, 66-73 ce. Proroman, antizealot, turncoat jew josephus calls jesus the ringleader of a band of brigands ! And the greek word he uses is lestes, brigand - the same word the gospel forgers use to describe barabbas, who clearly is lifted bodily from the jesus bar sapphan in the book jewish war by josephus flavius.

In his autobiography, joseph calls jesus the ringleader of the party of the sailors and the destitute :

a communist fighter ! Now the greek word for sailors, boatmen is nautai here. And it could well be that jesus bar saba was ringleader of the sea of galilee boatmen or fishermen and the like. But it could also be that the greek word here, nautes, boatman, really overwrites its own root NA, water = MA, present in hebrew nahar river , in the original sense that our jesus bar saba was leader of the party of the daily bathers in rivers, like his eldest brother john the baptist had been until his death by the sword in 38 ce. Now we are in 66 or 67 with this jesus bar saba here in josephus, fighting against the romans and the proroman jewish establishment : all his brothers have been killed but for simeon, so jesus and simeon are at this point the surviving leaders of the natsorayya who were daily bathers in rivers, sabas, magdalenes.

Now to the famous, totally fabricated scene in the gospel lie, of pontius pilate asking the jewish mob whether they want jesus freed, or barabbas at matthew 27:15 ff. Pilatus left his tenure in palestine in 36 or 37 ce. Now with our real jesus in josephus, we are in 66 or 67, 30 years later ! Pilate became prefect of judaea in 26 ce. Thus during his 10-year tenure, 26-36, jesus bar sapphan would have been a small child at most. Furthermore, the events in which jesus bar saba, the real one, plays a prominent role, take place in galilee, whereas the pilate episode in jerusalem. Matthew 27, 15 ff. is completely anachronistic and forged. It represents a total falsification of history.

Anyway, the historical referent is clear : matthew takes josephus´ jesus bar saba and turns him into barabbas, a famous prisoner of pilate´s.

We gain conclusive proof that this barabbas in matthew is the same as jesus bar saba in flavius joseph by looking again at nestle/aland´s apparatus criticus : various manuscripts at matthew 27:16, call barabbas "JESUS BARABBAS" ! Thus clinching my identification of gospel barabbas and flavius´ jesus bar saba.Some manuscripts here also add the accusations that had brought barabbas into jail : murder and revolution ! Exactly 2 of the crimes flavius pins on his jesus bar saba ! Again at the next line, 27:17, some manuscripts call him jesus barabbas. This was the real jesus here, jesus bar saba, leader of the river bathers and of the destitute, militant theocommunist commandant, a zionist che guevara !!! Wheras the meek jesus whom the jews prompt pilate to crucify, that is meek proroman jesus christ, never existed at all .

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


Now this trick of doubling a real person into his lookalike-contrary, and then stage a face-to-face confrontation or comparison between them, is an establishment disinfo device lifted bodily from classical roman theater : in plautus´ comedy amphitruo or amphitryon in english, the king´s servant sosia meets his own doubled self, who is really the god mercurius who has transmogrified himself into sosia. Mercury's job is to buy his father jupiter, who wants to seduce the king´s wife while the king is away, some time by deceiving those who would interfere. He changes his appearance to look like the slave sosia, and when the real sosia arrives, he beats him up and sends him away from the house. Plautus wrote amphitruo between 250 and 206 bc - some 350 years before the gospel of matthew was concocted.

This constant pattern of falsely multiplying real people in order to sow confusion and hide and erase revolutionary heroes, really is inspired by classical theater, and never comes to the fore in the gospel lie more clearly and blatantly than through this delirious fictional scene of pilate asking the jewish crowds to choose between jesus barabbas - a historical person - and jesus christ - gospel jesus, who never existed at all. Jesus bar saba/barabbas is witnessed to by extrabiblical and nonchristian historian joseph flavius writing in the late I century ce, who had met jesus bar saba personally in 66 or 67.

Whereas the fictional gospel jesus is attested to by nobody at all in pagan or nonchristian sources of the I century - the so-called testimonium flavianum and other passages by roman historians purportedly about christ are either interpolations or undecisive as far as identification goes .

Now again : we have been focusing all along in this thread on one family of antiestablishment, theocommunist jews of the I century ce : the saba family, of saba/raimnamaker/bather/well hanan the hidden, his wife mary magdalene nicked the water-drawer, and their 5 sons john the baptist, james the just, judas isacariot, simeon bar cleophas and jesus bar saba. These 5 were jihadist messianists, the real early christians,the nazoraeans or keepers of the torah, who would all meet a violent end at the hands of the romans or their herodian henchmen.

Gospel zebedaios is really hanan saba, and his sons james and john are jesus´ brothers john the baptist and james the just.

You can take it as a rule of thumb for now, but scientific reasoning will soon confirm it for you, that whenever in the new testament there pops up out of nowhere a barabbas or bar saba or bar sabbas or barnabas, it is an overwrite for a member of our bar saba family.

There never was a mary the mother of james and joseph as distinct from the mother of jesus . There never was a mother of the sons of zebedaios. These 3 are 1 : mary called magdalene, mother of the bar saba bros.

There never was a jesus christ, new testament jesus did not exist. Gospel jesus is a fake, produced by patchwork from several would-be messiahs or zealot leaders of the I century, one of whom was flavius´ jesus bar saba.

So let us now look at the other new testament bar saba characters, and decode them as brothers of jesus and members of the famous bar saba family of revolutionary communist jihadists above.

They are encountered in acts of the apostles, another fake forgery by proroman liars.

At acts 1:23, two funny characters pop up from out of the blue : one joseph, called BARSABBAN in the original greek, and who also went by a second nick, the just one, and one matthias.

Nobody had ever heard about these 2 weirdos so far, yet there they are, fully formed, ready to compete as candidates for an election to replace apostle judas who had just committed suicide.

Now this new variant barsabban can´t help but call to mind not only barabbas of gospel lore, but also flavius´ jesus son of sapphan, the revolutionary leader in the war against rome, the real barabbas and the main piece of the " jesus " collage to boot .

Again son of in aramaic = BAR, so flavius´ BARSAPPHAN=acts´ BARSABBAN.

Sapphan is the form part of the flavian manuscripts read at bellum judaicum II.20.4.566.

Now again as we saw above all of the 5 sons of hanan and mary were bar saba, because saba=daily bather/rainmaker/well and that was hanan the hidden, whom mandaeans, today´s followers of john the baptist, call father saba, the father of john the baptist.

Therefore lying acts 1:23´s joseph called barsabban never existed at all . It is the umpteenth NT overwrite to conceal here the real identity of james the just, whose sobriquet the just one is also appended to the fake joseph by acts, thus providing us with a dead giveaway for identifying who is being overwritten here. James the just was a bar saba = son of hanan the hidden, and he was the one who actually succeeded his dead brother john the baptist in the leadership of the nazoraeans that is the real early christians in 38 ce.

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

The next bar saba to come along in acts occurs at 4:36 in the guise of one barnabas :

" Joseph indeed, who was called barnabas by the apostles, which means in translation son of assistance, a levite, a cypriot by birth, since he possessed a field, he sold it and carried the money and laid it at the feet of the apostles ".

Now if we look again at nestle/aland´s apparatus criticus here, we shall not fail to notice that some manuscripts read BARSABBAS instead of barnabas. And such was surely the original appellation : because again, this barnabas never existed at all, he is the umpteeenth overwrite for one of the bar saba brothers, in this case judas iscariot as we shall presently prove.

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


Now why does lying acts 4:36 call our real, historical judas bar saba in disguise, a levite ? Who were the levites and was our judas, the real judas bar saba of real history, a levite ?

From wiki to begin with :

" A Levite or Levi (/ˈliːvaɪt/, Hebrew: לֵוִי‬, Modern Levi Tiberian Lēwî) is a Jewish male whose descent is traced by tradition to Levi. In Jewish tradition, a Levite is a member of the Israelite Tribe of Levi, descended from Levi, the third son of Jacob and Leah. As a surname, Levite status may be indicated by the term HaLevi, which consists of the Hebrew prefix "ה" Ha- ("the") plus Levi (Levite). The daughter of a Levite is a "Bat Levi" (Bat being Hebrew for "daughter").

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


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

Thus we may conceive of these I-century levites as lower priests. And yet flavius josephus tells us that his nemesis, jesus bar sapphan, was one of the higher priests. One thing is for sure to begin with : these 5 sons of hanan the hidden were all priests, whether levites or lower priests, or higher priests, it remains to be seen.

At the beginning of the first jewish war, 66-68 ce, flavius recounts how the chief priests were murdered or deposed by the zealots, who then proceed to elect chief priests from among their own party.The zealots, helped by idumaean mercenaries, slaughtered all the high priests, because these were proroman. From this point on, formerly lower priests or levites such as jesus bar sapphan/barabbas , become higher priests.

Flavius joseph tells us that his jesus bar sapphan was a higher priest. In 66 or 67 ce. Hid older brother judas had been dead for some 20 years at this point - thus he had died before the levites took over the high priesthood. Thus judas bar saba was a levite or lower priest, and acts is right about it for a change.

But the word levite here, besides designating a lower priesthood, may also be an overwrite for judas´ twinship with his brother james.

The hebrew word levi or levite comes from a root meaning joined to, attached to.

Hebrew lavah for instance means with, in the sense of joined to, in the company of.

Thus its root means to twine, to unite.

Therefore we may be justified in wondering whether judas was a twin brother of james.

In the gospel lie, judas doubles as thomas or judas thomas or didymus which means twin in greek, just like thoma can mean twin in aramaic.

Acts´ fake election to replace judas after his suicide, really is a stand-in for the replacement of john the baptist as head of the nazoraeans, after john´s beheading in 36 or 37 ce. The bar saba brothers functioned as a caliphate of brothers in leading the nazoraeans, with power handed down directly from eldest brother to next-eldest brother. On all this, see eisenman´s book. The idea of a greek-style election suggested by acts is preposterous. Normally james the next-eldest bar saba bro would have succeeded john directly, but acts instead features a second competing candidate, the fake matthias who really stands in for juda as we shall prove later.

So why 2 candidates ? Only explanation can be, unless acts is making it all up out of whole cloth, which is not the NT´s normal modus operandi which is always referential, that james and judas were twins and thus the succession had to be decided by casting lots . Obviously the lots fell on james not on matthias as in acts´ lie. Judas became the treasurer and foreign plenipotentiary of the community as we shall presently see.

In gospel apostle listing, judas is surnamed ‘lebbaios’ – same word root as acts 4:36’s ‘lev-ite’. in gospel listing variant manuscripts we even find the variant reading ‘levin’! And the hebrew root lev, according to robert eisenman, means ‘conjoined to’, that is twin (this is my conclusion, not eisenman’s) for a twin is ‘conjoined’ to his twin for 9 months in their mother’s womb.

In other words, 2 of the 5 sons of hanan the hidden were twins. One was judas, ‘lebbaios’ or ‘levin’ in gospel apostles listing (overwritten as ‘levite’ by lying acts 4:36 - or just as plausibly, as we saw above, he was a levite as well as being a twin). The other bar saba twin was james the just, whom tatian, a II-century-ce church daddy, calls ‘the lebbaean’ same word as used for judas in gospel apostle listing (lebbaios). The tatian link I owe to robert eisenman, james the brother of jesus, faber & faber 1997, p.845.

The reason why lots had to be drawn when john the baptist not ‘jesus’ died, to decide who among the brothers would succeed him as leader of the nasorayya that is early christians, as we read at the outset of acts, is because james and judas were twins = age peers. Otherwise the eldest after john would have inherited leadership without elections as this was a caliphate of patriarchal brothers and not a greek-style democracy. Which is proven by simeon’s succeeding to james in 62 ce without any recorded multi-candidate ‘election’ at all: simeon was the elder surviving bar saba brother after the deaths of john, judas and james.

Back to judas as twin/ lebbaios/ levin/ ‘levite’: the first attestation of lebbaios in gospel apostle listing is at ‘matthew’ 10:3, in manuscript variant readings of same and in all the coptic (ancient language of egyptian christians) translations of same, which have something like: “lebbaeus, surnamed thaddaeus”. Now the gospel forgers here are again using the typical establishment disinformation technique of multiplying the same one real historical character so as to obliterate his real original identity: there never was a “lebbaeus, surnamed thaddaeus”, or a “thaddaeus” in his own right as in the greek text of ‘matthew’ 10:3. Let me repeat again and again: ‘matthew’ 10:3 is desperate to overwrite and falsify the real original apostles, who were but 5: john the baptist, the first leader, the eldest, possibly the founder of the early christian/ nasorayya/ nasri, who was beheaded by roman puppet herod antipas in 36 or 37 ce (under pontius pilate); there followed 2 twins, judas and james; lastly, simeon and jesus bar saba. ‘Matthew’ 10:3 sanitizes all this by making up non-existant “thomas” and “matthaeus, the tax collector”, and “thaddaeus”; other manuscripts add, as if it weren’t enough, a “lebbaios” (lebbaios is the original greek form which reads in latin and english lebbaeus; same story for thaddaios/ thaddaeus) or “lebbaeus surnamed thaddaeus”, or “thaddaeus surnamed lebbaeus”, which at least puts us back on scent because it exposes “thaddaeus” and “lebbaeus” as nicks not names. All of these words without exception mean ‘twin’ or ‘second brother’. Twin of james: judas. or Twin of judas: james.

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

Alternatively, but again in semantic multilayering so dear to semitic wordplay, lebbaios and thaddaios have to do with lightning and thunder - the rainmaking gift of hanan the hidden´s family and his sons.


Lying acts 4:36 overwrites yet another important feature of these real early messianists, the natsorayya, by stating that this barnabas was a cypriot by birth. Obviously the real barnabas here, that is judas bar saba iscariot aka thomas aka didymos the twin of james, wasn´t born in cyprus at all . He was from palestine and probably born in jerusalem. What is the cyprus lie here for ?

From wiki :etymology of cyprus : one of the suggestions is :

" an Eteocypriot word for copper. It has been suggested, for example, that it has roots in the Sumerian word for copper (zubar) or for bronze (kubar), from the large deposits of copper ore found on the island. "

What does copper or bronze have to do with our judas bar saba, and with his bar saba family at large ? One helluva lot .

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

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

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

The whole story of jesus as a carpenter’s son is based again on a passing reference in matthew 13:55: “isn’t this the craftsman’s son?”. The greek word téktōn doesn’t necessarily mean carpenter, it’s generic for craftsman. Could be a carpenter a metalworker a potter… now john the baptist’s disciples (the mandaeans or nasorayya – see more about them as the real early christians and about john as jesus’ brother below) are to this day ‘mostly craftsmen, particularly metalworkers and carpenters’ says robert eisenmann, james the brother of jesus, faber and faber 1997, p. 330. Therefore the real original christians, those violently antiherodian = antiroman followers of john the baptist, were mostly craftsmen and craftsmen’s sons. This is what the NT forgers are rewriting in their falsified, pro-roman context.

John the baptist’s lifestyle was but a variation or continuation of that of the rechabites an ancient jewish fundamentalist sect who were said to be ‘potters’, that is again craftsmen. And rigid ‘keepers’ (nasorayya in aramaic) of god’s commands. That is of the torah. Which made them by definition nationalistic/zionistic/antiroman. So john son of the (high?) priest saba ‘zacharias’ (see below) and his kinsman (brother, see below) jesus bar saba, high priest according to joseph flavius, were most likely also craftsmen and sons of craftsmen, whether potters or carpenters or what have you is irrelevant. They were militant worker-priests. Just like the left-wing french worker-priests in the 1950ies or the italian preti-operai in the 1970ies.

And again gospel bar abbas/acts bar sabbas ie bar sappha the lestès//latro/bandit who had been involved in the uprising (against rome we might add) according to mark 15:7 really is a much better match for whatever the historical jesus might have been in the turmoil of those revolutionary times. No meek pacifist tax-paying pro-foreigner jesus would have made it with the jewish masses of his time who were hell-bent on awaitin’ a fighting messiah who would free them manu militari from the hated romans with all their taxation and crosses for rebels.

Another decisive piece of evidence that these fundamentalist antiroman desert-dwelling jews were artisans comes from a notice in joseph flavius’s work that in his youth (the mid-50ies ce according to eisenman) he had attended the training of a teacher called ‘banus’ in the desert . Now historians have puzzled for ages without result over the meaning of this name. Well, it means nothing else than our ‘artisan/tekton’. It’s a title, not a name: ‘the craftsman’ par excellence.

You might ask at this point just what this ‘banus’, desert teacher to future historian joseph flavius in the mid-50ies ce, has to do with the alleged ‘jesus’ as carpenter’s son. I’ve been telling you that the gospels are a collage of real historical characters skewed into proroman from antiroman. And that desert-dwelling preachers such as john the baptist or banus were out to train & indoctrinate disaffected jewish youth into fighting against the evil empire of rome and her herodian puppets in palestine. Therefore when the gospel forgers tell you that ‘jesus’ was a meek carpenter’s son, they are inverting reality: desert-dwelling craftsmen-teachers were in reality guerrilla leaders. And this banus who indoctrinated joseph flavius in the mid-50ies was just such a mullah.

Italian glottologist giovanni semerano (1911-2005) taught us that in akkadian (semitic language of III-and-II-millenium-bce mesopotamia, prototype for later semitic languages such as aramaic and hebrew) bānû = creator/maker, of steles, statues, etc. (Il popolo che sconfisse la morte, mondadori 2003, p.108) so banus is a title = ‘the artisan’ par excellence, it’s the semitic equivalent of the greek tekton applied in the gospels to jesus’ father.

These desert-dwelling antiroman leaders had adopted the life-style of the rechabites, nomadic jewish potters from the old testament. John the baptist must have been a banus himself. But he was beheaded in 36/37 ce, so this new banus joseph flavius went to 20 years later might as well have been another of the bar saba bros: possibly james whom tradition has dying in 62, and who in the mid-50ies was the leader of the nasorayya that is the real early christians, having succeeded john the baptist.

Hence when lying acts 4:36 states that barnabas aka judas bar saba was a cypriot by birth, acts´forgers are just overwriting the craftsman/coppersmith trade of the bar saba bros, by way of wordplay : cyprus replaces sumerian kubar for bronze or latin cyprum for copper.

It´s a geo-diversion, a geographical red herring just like nazareth for nazoraios or magdala for magdalene.


Another interesting overwrite detail from acts 4:36 is its translation of barnabas as son of paraklesis, a greek word usually translated as consolation. Why does lying acts 4:36 overwrite judas bar saba as the son of consolation aka barnabas in aramaic/hebrew ?

The word paraklesis in classical greek means a calling to one's aid, i.e. encouragement, comfort.

The author of acts, probably luke, knows greek well, and translates paraklesis as comfort, consolation. Well, judas was indeed the son of hanan=johanan the hidden, and johanan in hebrew = the LORD has been gracious, which is a concept akin to consolation.

But there is much more to the greek word paraklesis than meets the eye here. Much more is being overwritten. First up, naba in hebrew can mean spokesman, but never consolation. Therefore bar naba may not be translated as son of consolation as acts does.

Naba also means spring, well - and judas bar saba was the son of the well, rainmaker and daily bather hanan the hidden.

Naba in hebrew also means prophet, and hanan was considered a prophet, therefore judas here is bar naba as son of the prophet as well.

See how these overwrites denote polysemantic referents, all true but concealed by wordplay and mistranslation.

Let us repeat for clarity ´s sake : acts 4:36 overwrites judas bar saba as a non-existent barnabas, and then proceeds to translate barnabas from aramaic/hebrew into greek as son of paraklesis.

Mainstream exegetes translate paraklesis as consolation. But a lot gets lost in translation thereby...

Now : what does paraklesis really mean ? Consolation is just the last of its meanings in classical greek - and luke, the author of acts, surely writes in polished greek and is well aware of the gist of the words he chooses. The word paraklesis in greek comes from the verb parakaleo, a compound of kaleo to call and para to or near. Parakaleo properly means to call for help, to send for help, often denoting a military alliance, help in war. Again this paraklesis or call for help in acts was originally the invocation by the natsorayya of god´s help in sending a military messiah or son of man down the clouds with the heavenly host, to help them chase the hated romans manu militari.

Additionally, the noun paráklētos means "advocate, advisor-helper". It is the regular term in NT times for an attorney (lawyer). Thus this awaited messiah would be the defender of the oppressed jewish masses. A helper, but a military one. We encounter the word parakletos first, in john, 14:16 : here jesus promises his disciples he will pray the father to give them another parakletos,which line 17 specifies as being the spirit of truth. Now john here, or whoever wrote this passage, plagiarizes the dead sea scrolls, the real documents of the first christians : for instance the community rule and other documents at qumran extol this very spirit of truth. But the spirit of truth at qumran is not apolitical as in john, it is instead a militant, violent spirit of vengeance against the romans and proroman jews. Thus this spirit for the nazoraeans is not a meek consoler of the afflicted, it is a warlike power. Again the NT forgers plagiarize qumran´s language and turn it against itself : from antiroman and zionistic to proroman and cosmopolitan. The community rule´s holy spirit is a spirit of vengeance and war. The parakletos of john´s is a new-age spiritual counsellor and consoler.

The damascus document, another of these qumran-style early christian documents, writes that god will select a few good men who will survive the end times, and will make known to them his holy spirit by the hand of his messiah, and it is truth : this is the passage plagiarized by john 14:16 ff., in a totally different and opposite context, without hatred for the romans, without violence.

The qumran hymns put it in the most straightforward manner possible :

" you have poured your holy spirit upon me...and strengthened me BEFORE THE WARS OF

EVIL " : clearly the parakletos or spirit of truth or holy spirit at qumran , and thus for the real early christians, was a helper in war. In the gospel-lie inversion, this same language becomes a merely spiritual experience.

Thus at acts 4:36 our judas bar saba is overwritten as bar naba which cannot possibly mean son of consolation in hebrew, but instead, son of the defender/messiah/spirit of truth which many in the I century had identified with hanan the hidden or with his son john the baptist.

Now who the hell was this hanan the hidden, mr saba, father of john bap, james the just, judas iscariot bar saba, simeon and jesus bar saba ? His father or grandfather, honi the circle drawer, made the sky rain by drawing circles in the ground and standing inside of them and praying until the rain came, in times of drought. So most certainly his son or grandson hanan the hidden was a saba/ irrigator/ flooder/ rainmaker too, alongside being a ‘saba’ in the sense of ‘(daily) washer’, in greek ‘(daily) baptist’. He was holy, zkr, zechar-, sacer. That´s why the lying gospel of luke calls john the bap´s father "zacharias"...


chapter 1

Out of the 5 bar saba brothers, john the baptist james the just judas iscariot simeon bar cleophas and jesus bar saba, 2 were twins : james and judas. They are rewritten in order to erase their real identities from history, by acts 1.23, where judas is transmogrified into mattias the winning candidate in the fabricated election to replace himself, the apostle judas. The losing candidate being james in the joseph barsaba justus travesty. In reality, the story overwritten here is that of the succession to john the baptist, the eldest bar saba brother, beheaded in 37 ce.

And since this was a caliphate of sorts as eisenman has aptly termed it in his great book James the brother of jesus, the next-eldest brother would succeed without any out-of-place greek-style election. But the next-eldest were 2 twins , james and judas, hence the need for the casting of lots to ascertain god´s will described in acts. James is revealed by the nick justus, the just.

Original: THE "JESUS" LIE