скачать книгу бесплатно
At the beginning of what? God is without beginning. This means that His Word is without beginning. Here, obviously, the beginning means the biblical creation of the world: “1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the water” – what was before, and what God was BEFORE the act of creation, the Bible is silent about it, but in the act of creation this god is Ellohim, (Gods). The plural for word “God” (El) – what does it mean? Apparently, the pagan “Pantheon” of gods, which the Jewish Bible (this is the official scientific name of Old Testament) and earlier sources mention time and again. And in John 1.1, what God is this? In the Greek original, Θεός, that is, just God, but in Hebrew this “just God” Θεός = אֱלֹהִים, that is, all the same Ellohim (Gods)! There is clearly a return to the biblical version of the Creation.
Therefore, it is about the same Jewish gods again: either Ellohim (Gods) from the first chapter of the book of Genesis, or Yahweh from the second chapter.
Simply put, the penetration of Judaism elements is detected – first, but not at all last. Whoever was the author of this verse of the prologue, he is a Jew by faith, this is obvious.
Next begins the manipulation of the concept of Word. If God Himself is the Word, then how can He have the Word – he has Himself or what?
We find the answer in William Barclay’s work, he is professor of theology at the University of Glasgow. From his book Commentaries on John: “For over a hundred years before the birth of Christ, the Hebrew language was forgotten. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but the Jews, with the exception of scholars, no longer knew it. Therefore, the Old Testament had to be translated into Aramaic so that people could understand it. These translations were called ‘Targumi’. Targumi were created in an era when people were filled with the thought of the transcendence of God and could only think that God was very distant and completely incomprehensible (the idea of the transcendence of the mono-God was borrowed by post-captive Judaism from Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian Captivity of the Jewish people – auth.) And therefore, the people who were engaged in the preparation of Targumi were afraid that human thoughts, feelings and actions would be attributed to God. In other words, they made every effort to avoid, when it comes to God, Yahvist anthropomorphism (humanization).”
That is why the authors of the targums began to replace the “too human-like” God everywhere in the text of the Tanakh with the WORD of God, as His creative power. Which turned out to be very consonant with the idea of the divine Logos (Word), which created the world and governs it, which was prevalent in Greek-speaking philosophy for over four hundred years, starting with Heraclitus. And although the Jews themselves by the time when Jesus lived had long abandoned both the Targums, returning to Hebrew, and from God’s Word, as from a heresy that was planted in Judaism by Philo of Alexandria, this very idea turned out to be very useful for the evangelist, who sought to substantiate the Divinity of Jesus for recently pagan Christians: “You have thought, written and dreamed for centuries about the divine Logos. Jesus is this Logos who descended to the earth”, ” The Word became flesh”, – the author of the Prologue told about Jesus to the former Greek-pagans Hellenic-Christians what they understood.
All this wisdom is a mixture of Jewish religious and Hellenic philosophical ideas in the name of the Teachings of Jesus “to pass more easily” so that new converts do not choke on what is “for the Jews it is a temptation, for the Hellenes it is madness.” This is the usual propaganda of religious innovation.
Let’s read on.
3—5 “Everything through Him began to be, and without Him nothing began to be that began to be. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” This is philosophical poetry, on which hundreds of books have been written. But God is still the same – Jewish one.
“6 There was a man sent from God; his name is John. 7 He came for a testimony, to testify of the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not a light, but was sent to testify of the Light. 9 There was a true light that enlightens every person who comes into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own did not accept him. 12 But to those who accepted him, believing in his name, he gave authority to be children of God, 13 who neither of blood, nor of the desire of the flesh, nor of the desire of a husband, but of God they were born. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father”
From which God? All the same, from the Jewish Yahweh, (in Judaism of Jesus’ times the difference sin interpretations was already explained by the fact that the God in the Bible is the same, only the names are different). And here suddenly the Light appears, which is: true – in what sense? Light is matter, now we know this, but the evangelist did not. And therefore he gets confused in the matter: he speaks of light sometimes as the actual light, sometimes – light in a figurative sense, and the light is starting to assume the mystical meaning of divine origins. If we mean the “light of reason”, then those who come into the world will not reach the reason to soon, and it is mainly those around them that enlighten them. Let us recall the “Mowgli” found in India – it remained a beast, since the “light of reason” did not touch him outside of human society, in the absence of human communication. If, however, Light is the Creative Power of God (“the world began to be through Him”), then there are already two Creative Powers, and even three, or even four: besides the Word and Light, there is also Spirit and Wisdom mentioned elsewhere. But the key to this is simple – all this is a reference to the secret knowledge of the Gnostic doctrine. That is, in addition to the religious Jew and the Hellenic philosopher, the Gnostic also had a hand in the Prologue. Then “he came to his own and his own did not accept him” – a return to Judaism, his own – these are God’s chosen Jews, who else? “And to those who accepted” – here is the beginning of the “theology of replacement” developed and preached by Paul: the Jews killed the Messiah in the person of Jesus, and therefore Jehovah’s Choice passed to those who believed that Jesus is the very Messiah, the Anointed One, the King Jewish.
“He gave the power to be children of God, who… were born of God” – and only here is the speech of Jesus about the Beginning from Above, about the Son of God of all who believed in the Heavenly Father and His Son of God Jesus Christ (the good). And then – again a rollback to Judaism-Hellenism-Gnosticism in verse 14. “The only begotten of the Father” – what is that? These are religious and philosophical disputes that lasted until the 4th century of the “only begotten or consubstantial” type, and have not been completely resolved to this day. In the Greek text, μονογενής is the only begotten, the only one. That is, the old pompous word confuses and hides the true meaning: the only son of his father, He is the only son of the Father, born by the Father Himself, nothing unusual. Here is just one question: how would a mortal person who wrote the Prologue know about the family circumstances of God Himself? Moreover, to dare to tell these God’s family details in a completely earthly way, describing the relationship between fathers and children? From this point of view, such statements look like unscientific fantasy: why would God reveal his family secrets to mere mortals? Thus, it turns out that from the Teachings of Jesus here there is only, for the first time, the definition of God: not just an impersonal collective name for the Jewish names of God, but by the name revealed to us by Jesus. It is this line that most vividly indicates the late editing of the text dating back to the beginning of the theological battles waged by the “Orthodox” with the “Gnostics” from the second century.
Let’s proceed.
“15 John testifies of Him, and, exclaiming, says: This was the One about whom I said that He who followed me stood in front of me, because he was before me.”
Where did he say, to whom did he say and when? —Well, in the following story about the visit of John by the Pharisees. The author of the Prologue reveals himself: he first read the Gospel of John, and then wrote the prologue to it. That is, he put the cart in front of the horse.
“16 And from His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace,” – of whose fullness, Jesus fullness? What is meant by fullness? In the church teaching there is the concept of the Fullness of the Holy Spirit, which the Church possesses, But “grace upon grace” draws more attention. That is, it turns out, you can add a little more Spirit to the Spirit of God, strengthen God, multiply Him, increase Him? Since God is the Spirit, then either he is present in all his Fullness or not at all, the Spirit is not divided into parts. But, in any case, this is the subject of theological controversy much later than the supposed time of the writing of the gospel at the end of the first century.
“17 for the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ "– ah!, that’s the point: after all, some implicit, but certainly saving part of grace, it turns out, was contained in the Jewish Law given by Moses, and Jesus added to it his grace-truth, and then the graceful grace happened: the Old Testament merged with the New one. On this basis, today an idea is being carried out and a new, revolutionary idea is being put forward about the equal salvation capability of the New and Old Testaments: for Christians, Salvation is in Jesus, and for the Jews – in the Torah..
To the obvious absurdity of this multi-storey religious structure, it remains – for “fullness” – to add that, according to modern scientific views, biblical heroes, including the above-mentioned Moses and the Jewish ancestral god Yahweh-Jehovah himself, are fictional heroes, and the entire biblical history of the Jewish people – a collection of folk tales and, of course, a fantasy. As for “through Jesus Christ,” the very attachment: Christ = Mashiach = King of the Jews, which is expected by the Jews according to the biblical OT-prophecies, to the Name of Jesus, reveals that the author of the Prologue a Messianic Jew.
“18 No one has seen God at any time; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed "– and how can this true statement be combined with all the previous? And how can this be Jehovah, whom so many had seen already: Adam and Eve, Abraham with Sarah, and Moses (from behind) and even Elijah the prophet, and who appeared to many biblical characters from behind, from the front, or even sideways, and even in the form of pillars and other horror stories, and more than once arranged personal beatings with or without reason. And again, editorial interference in the text: “the Only Begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father”– all this, I dare to insist, is a reflection of much later theological disputes that theologically, have never been completely resolved. And the victors, the “Orthodox” (church orthodox) prevailed only exclusively by “police” measures – as always. “I am the Father in the bosom” is lost in translation, hinting both at Jehovah and at the “pregnancy” of God with his Son. But in fact ὁ κόλπος πατήρ literally means “the one who is on the father’s chest”, that is, simply “beloved.” “He revealed”: ἐκεῖνος – he who; ἐξηγέομαι – to tell, show. So, in sum: “No one has ever seen God; the only beloved son told about Him”.
Whoever the author of the Prologue was, he was definitely not a disciple of Jesus.
John Chapter 1, continued
Well, let us pass, however, to ev. John from verse 19, what do we see? Priests and Pharisees came to John from Jerusalem to find out who he is. So what? He announced to them that he was not Christ (Messiah-Messiah-Anointed-King of the Jews), neither Elijah, nor a prophet – but who are you? Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness: Correct God’s Ways – Like Isaiah the Prophet[37] (https://ridero.ru/link/Ajkksp_PF0Vqz-8MMBK5J)said. About Isaiah and his sophisticated prophecies suddenly recalls the one who appeared from the wilderness, where he was, according to Luke, from infancy (Luke 1.80: “80 But the baby grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts until the day of his appearance to Israel” – this is all about him), overgrown with wild hair and never washed in life, a prophet, a savage, illiterate.
Does God need to clear the road?
And then – a question to him from the sent priests and Pharisees: why do you baptize?
From the point of view of the Jews, the question is meaningless and insane – what kind of baptism by washing with water from a river “for the remission of sins”? Sin is forgiven only by a bloody life-for-life sacrifice and nothing else. If they were sent to John, it was only for the purpose of arrest, trial and execution for blasphemy: “who can forgive sins, except God?”
Further, John elaborates before the Pharisees about “going in front” to baptize with the Spirit – who would listen to him. But the most interesting is yet to come. “28 This took place at Bethabar near Jordan, where John baptized” – in the ancient codes it is written in Bethany [38] (https://ridero.ru/link/pZk7QsOekmXsEmAwRR_Tb), and later converted to “Bethavar”, that is, “river crossing or ferry” – let’s remember this. Bethany is located three kilometers from Jerusalem, and thirty to fifty kilometers from Jordan, so John could hardly baptize “in Jordan” in Bethany, and therefore pious editors in later lists transported the obviously impossible Bethany to some faceless “ferry” (through Jordan, of course), which must have been on the Jewish side somewhere opposite Jerusalem, in the Jericho area – in general, no matter, geography is not a master’s science, and the authors of the Gospel are clearly at odds with it. This is followed by a whole speech, addressed to an unknown person, very pathetic: when the Jewish inspectors left, literally the next day, John suddenly sees Jesus (walking towards him) and speaks about Him to someone undefined,: “Behold the Lamb of God.”
“29 The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God who takes on himself the sin of the world.
29 – firstly, he sees Jesus coming to him and immediately recognizes in Him the one who was predicted to him – but how? Second, in what sense is he the lamb that takes away the sins of the world? Only in one way: the lamb was slaughtered and burned in the Jewish ritual sacrifice “for the atonement of sins”, and it turns out that Jesus was by his Father-God intended “for the atonement of sins” as a sacrifice to Himself? Whatever Heavenly Father, sounds like Ivan the Terrible, killing his own son. And thirdly, it is strange to hear about the Jewish sacrifice from exactly the man who himself canceled this sacrifice, replacing it with penitential washing “for the remission of sins.”
“30 This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man who was ahead of me because he was before me” – the very thing that the author of the Prologue could not avoid mentioning before (see John 1, 15) – that is, the idea of the eternal existence of Jesus as the Word of God is being imposed.
“31 I Didn’t Know Him; but for this he came to baptize in water, so that He might be revealed to Israel. 32 And John testified, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and staying on Him. 33 I did not know Him; but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me: on whom you will see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. 34 And I saw and testified that this is the Son of God.”
Long explanation by John as to why when he saw Jesus, he said, that he is “the Lamb of God.” That is – he sees the Spirit upon Him in the form of a dove, although Jesus has not even approached him yet, let alone has not been baptized? Then why does he speak about it in the past tense, if he saw it right now? If one saw such a thing, he would not “testify”, but, probably, would have yelled and jumped from a happy shock. Another cart ahead of the horse: he had just seen him walking, but had already seen the Spirit in the form of a dove descending on Him – when and where? But – again – not a word about the baptism of Jesus: just on whom you see the Spirit in the form of a dove, that is the One.
35 The next day John stood again and two of his disciples.36 And when he saw Jesus walking, he said, Behold the Lamb of God.
Déjà vu, the return of the story to the same place, only as if again the next day.
All this, of course, is good – but where is the very Baptism of Jesus by John? There is none, because there was none!
Many generations of interpreters asked the question: why should Jesus, the sinless Son of God, God Himself, the Word and the Light, described a couple of lines above, be baptized “for the remission of sins”? Even the authors of the synoptic gospels, who thoughtlessly copied from John what was not there at all – about the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove on Jesus baptized by John during baptism – were also embarrassed. And Mathew even came up with the formula “for this is how we must make all righteousness” (Mathew 3, 15) – what righteousness of baptism “for the remission of sins” can there be, if the Son of Man is without sin?
I would like to declare – there was no “righteousness” in the Baptism of Jesus “for the remission of sins,” which in itself is already a lie. As there was neither this baptism itself, nor the descent of the Spirit “in the form of a dove”, nor the “Lamb of God” – all this is a big bunch of lies, lies “for salvation” from I don’t know what.
What happened? It is deducted from the gospel like two and two.
Jesus had come to John the day before to denounce him as a false prophet of the Gnostic Mandean-Nazarene teaching, seducing the people by faith in a false God, and pointed him to the True God, the Heavenly Father and Himself as the Son of God. But John did not believe Him – he had too much to lose: the Nazarene prophet at the zenith of glory and veneration, the Baptist of the people “for the remission of sins”, tens and hundreds of disciples, crowds of adorers – it was difficult to give up all this, declare it a delusion and false teaching, and follow Jesus, become His disciple. But this is precisely what can be traced in all his previous assurances: the one who has stood in front of me is following me, I am not worthy to untie his shoes, He baptizes with the Spirit, He is the Lamb of God – having met such, it would be time for John to drop everything and go to him as a disciple. However, as we can see, this is not happening. Why?
He didn’t believe it – that’s why. Because he was a Nazirite, a Manda teacher and prophet who preached another, non-Jewish, god of pre-Christian Nazarene Gnosticism, the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda, whom he was taught in the family of a Nazarene teacher, and not at all in the family of a Jewish priest (who came from where in pagan Galilee – is a big question). And then it is understandable why the next day they disperse like strangers: Jesus walks by and does not even greet him, and John does not greet Him either. But he sends two closest students. Pointing to the Lamb of God? Oh no, sir. He sends them to convince Jesus, to prove that the real prophet and teacher is himself, John. And they go obediently. But the result surpassed the intentions…
And here it is appropriate to remember about Bethabar, in which John allegedly baptized. From outskirts of Jericho to Nazareth it is about 150 kilometers. Imagine: the next day after the meeting between Jesus and John, and the never happening “baptism” of Jesus by John, they meet again – but this time in Galilee, as is obvious from the following text. Have they covered one and a half hundred kilometers from the Dead Sea to Nazareth overnight – on cars with personal drivers? Doubtedly. John did not baptize in Judea, he baptized in pagan Galilee, in Bethabar near the Sea of Galilee, where he did not risk being caught and arrested for anti-Jewish “blasphemy.” And no Pharisees went to him except with the guards to capture – as indeed happened as soon as John stuck his head out with his sermon to Samaria, on the border with Judea (“And John also baptized in Aenon, near Salem, because there was a lot of water there” Jn 2:23): where he was immediately captured by zealots, sentenced and executed as a detractor of Jewish Law. That was later masked by the synoptics by the absurd disarray in the royal family.
Bethabar, in fact, means a crossing, that is, a place where the river becomes so shallow that you can wade it easily. Such a passage, presumably, was about three kilometers from Capernaum up the river – it was here, apparently, that John baptized. On the other side of the Jordan was the village of Bethsaida Julia, and, apparently, John found a shelter there. It can be assumed that Jesus came to him in the village to talk, and he also found a place for himself there for the night. But in order to get to the village, you had to enter the river. Perhaps the myth about the baptism of Jesus by John is connected with the fact that, having met with John, Jesus went with him to the village where John lived, to talk, and together they entered the water, crossing the river.
By the way, in the Mandean sacred books, discovered by science just a century ago, along with the John the Baptist, who is portrayed as a great prophet, teacher and martyr of the pre-Christian Gnostic Nazarite, Jesus is declared a false prophet, a traitor to John and a detractor of the Nazarene doctrine. So, it seems, something went wrong: Jesus brings the disciples of John, the Nazarenes, Andrew the First-Called and the future John the Theologian, to where? Home in Nazareth? No, it’s about fifty miles from Capernaum to there. In the Greek text, the word μένω is used, which means “to stay” – that is, Jesus temporarily stopped somewhere, apparently to meet with John. And, most likely, in Capernaum, from where he came to meet with John, he spent the night with him in Bethany in conversation, they did not find common grounds, and Jesus leaves back to Capernaum, where he brings the disciples of John, and they spend with him a full day in a conversation that shakes them so much that they completely and forever forget about John. At night, Andrei rushes to another city nearby, to Bethsaida, three kilometers from Capernaum, to inform his elder brother, Simon-Peter, that they have “found the messiah” (what kind of messiah if they are disciples of John the Baptist, Nazarenes and believe in another, non-Jewish god? This is clearly an insert that aims to make Jesus a Jew), and leads Peter to Jesus. Apparently, they spend the night in conversations, and in the morning they run first to Philip, and then to Nathanael – they are all friends and, of course, participants and disciples of the John sect, so that all references to the “messiah” and phrase that “from Nazareth can there be anything good” in terms of the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies: these are just absurd Judaizing insertions, which we will continue to meet in abundance.
And what is it that Jesus tells Nathanael that Nathanael, shocked, although he had just been skeptical saying “what good is from Nazareth”, suddenly immediately falls on his face before Jesus with the words “You are the Son of God”? What a change! “I saw you under the fig tree” – Jesus said, and what does it mean, what mystery is behind these words that shocked Nathanael with its revelation? I personally have long guessed it: Nathanael, the gardener, in the depth of the garden under the fig tree had a secret, hidden from prying eyes shelter where he spent time during the afternoon heat, praying to God, being a secret prayer, ascetic. And it is this fact, which no one but God could know, Jesus saw through the Spirit. No one has seen Nathanael under the fig tree, except God, and this episode gives us hope that God accepts the prayers of even those who turn to him with all their hearts, even if they do not know the true God.
It is worth adding that the mention of Nathanael as a “true Israelite” is clearly added later, all with the same purpose. Nathanael was a gardener in Galilee, not in Judea.
This is the story of the “calling” of disciples by Jesus – it was not He who chose them, but they chose Him out of their own free will, the free will of people, which God never forces!
Conclusion: There was no Baptism of the Lord “from John” and the Spirit of God did not descend on Jesus in the “form of a dove”. And in general there was no need for Jesus the Son of God in all this absurd baptism-washing with water from the river “for the remission of sins” – the Son of God is already sinless. And the man-Jesus, born of earthly parents, does not need the “forgiveness of original sin”, because, being the Son of God, he knows that all these idle biblical tales are all the same traditional ancient Jewish paganism, and no “original sin” over humanity in reality gravitated, because it simply did not exist. Jesus Himself, as we will see below, never baptized neither with water nor the Spirit, Jesus was never a disciple of John the Baptist, He was not the performer of the prophecies “about the Mashiach,” and He was neither a Jew nor a Nazirite. Water baptism for the remission of sins is an ancient Mandean tradition of pre-Christian Gnosticism, and has nothing to do with Jesus and His Teachings, CHRESTIANISM.
Thus, the dry remainder of the first chapter of John:
1 No one has seen God at any time; Jesus, the Father’s beloved and only Son, spoke about Him. And to those who received Him, believing in His name, He gave the authority to be children of the Father, who were born neither of the blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a husband, but of the Father.
2 John sees Jesus walking towards him
3On the next day, John stood again and two of his disciples. And when he saw Jesus walking, he said
4Having heard these words from him, the two disciples followed Jesus.
5 And Jesus, turning and seeing them walking, saith to them: What do you want? They said to Him: Rabbi, which means teacher, where do you live?
6 He says to them: go and see. They went and saw where He lives; and stayed with him that day. It was about ten o’clock.
7One of the two who heard about Jesus from John and followed him was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.
8He first finds his brother Simon and saith to him, We have found;
9and brought him to Jesus. And Jesus, looking at him, said: You are Simon the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas, which means: a stone (Peter).
10The next day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee
11Philip was from Bethsaida, from the same city with Andrew and Peter.
12 Philip finds Nathanael and says to him: We have found Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth.
13 But Nathanael said to him, Can anything good be out of Nazareth? Philip says to him: go and see.
14Jesus, seeing Nathanael coming to Him, says of him: Behold, indeed, in whom there is no guile.
15Nathanael saith to him, Why do you know me? Jesus answered and said to him: Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.
16Nathanael answered him, Rabbi! You are the Son of God
17 Jesus answered and said to him: You believe, because I told you: I saw you under a fig tree; you will see more than this.
That’s all!
John, chapter 2
In this chapter, a very important event takes place – a miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. Small everyday details, very vital and obviously not invented, convince in the reliability of the narrative.
“1 On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the Mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and His disciples were also called to the marriage” – what disciples could be “called to the marriage”, if they had just started to be with Him? Three – John, Andrew and Simon – on the second day counting from the meeting of Jesus with John; two more – Philip and Nataniel – on the very third day in question; there is also John’s brother James or Jacob (Zebedee), who is not mentioned here. Also, apparently, Thomas – we will meet with him later, but he comes from the same place, which follows from the list of the disciples who returned to Galilee from Jerusalem after the Passion of Jesus: (John 21,2) “and Nathanael from Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others from His disciples”– it is obvious that Thomas belongs to the same company. The mentioned ‘two others’ are, presumably, all the same Philip and someone else from the Galileans, not named. In total – eight. Jesus’ mother was invited to the wedding, and this is understandable – but what does Jesus and his disciples have to do with it? And another question – why is Mary invited alone, without her husband?
Apparently, the father of Jesus, conditionally – Joseph, since information about him is found only from records by the synoptics, who we have no faith in, by that time he had already died, Mary remained a widow, but it was indecent for the woman to appear alone at the wedding, and Jesus, as the eldest son, had to accompany her. And the disciples, as is typical of youth, simply followed him – it is more fun together. In the future, we will return to this assumption; there is confirmation of it in the text.
By the way, we note that it is the presence of Jesus at the wedding that destroys the pious legend about the origin of His brothers and sisters as step-siblings: as if Joseph had them from the first marriage and then married Mary after his first wife died; and that Mary gave birth without husband’s participation; and therefore Jesus was the “youngest” in Joseph’s family. No, he was precisely the eldest son, the duty to protect the honor of the mother passed to Him from the late father in seniority – and that is why He, the only one of Mary’s children, accompanies her at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. And he was born, like his younger siblings, from their father, Maria’s husband, in a legal marriage.
“3 And as there was a lack of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him: they have no wine. 4 Jesus said to her: what is to me and you, woman? My hour has not yet come. 5 His mother said to the attendants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
There are many meanings hidden in this small episode.
A wedding is an expensive and even ruinous business for a poor family – and then Jesus brings with him a whole bunch of guys who are not shy to eat and drink. And Mary feels awkward in front of the family of the newly-wed, feels guilty for the lack on the table that was not prepared for a whole group of extra strangers – and therefore she turns to Jesus with reproach, hinting that the lack happened because of them. Jesus answers her, as modern sons do to their mothers in a similar situation: “This is not our problem,” and adds that His “hour has not come,” that is, the time has not yet come for what? For what happens next. That is, these two KNOW. They know that Jesus is the Son of God and that EVERYTHING in this world is available to Him. And therefore, Mary, without entering into an argument, puts Him in a position without a choice: His duty to correct the created inconvenience for her is obvious, and He has no right to refuse, even referring to the untimeliness of His Divine intervention. She no longer speaks to Him, but to the attendants: do as He tells you. Well, he won’t send them to the store for wine, will he? And they don’t have much money to get the whole feast drunk.
And Jesus humbles himself before his mother’s will.
“6 There were six stone waterpots here, standing according to the Jewish custom of cleansing, containing two or three measures” – what kind of Jewish customs can be obeyed in pagan Galilee?
In general, a separate comment should be made on this topic, since the absurd insertions about Jewish customs and similar points will continue to appear often. Therefore, you need to understand what Galilee was in the time of Jesus. In order not to delve into a major historical study, let’s take a brief reference from Wikipedia:
“Galilee is a historical area in the north of Israel. In the 3rd millennium BC. e. Galilee was settled by the Canaanites. In the 2nd millennium BC. e. here the Hurrians, Hittites and Egyptians appear. Then the country comes to the attention of the Israeli tribes and is included in the kingdom of Israel. In 722 BC. e. Galilee is part of the Assyrian state, the local population is evicted and replaced by Assyrian colonists. In 539 BC. e. Galilee comes under the rule of Persia. In 333 BC. e. from the Persians, Galileo was captured by the troops of Alexander the Great, and the colonization of the lands by Greek and Macedonian colonists began. After this period, Galilee changed hands several times between the Hellenistic dynasties of the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Syrian Seleucids, until the conquest of Galilee by Rome in 63 BC. e.
From the reign of the Hasmoneans and the Maccabean Wars to the conquest by Roman troops in 63 BC. e. Galilee was repeatedly subjected to predatory raids by the Kingdom of Judah. In the 1st century A.D. e. Judas Galilean[42] (https://ridero.ru/link/EHKbue-15zjRcrGWEmP85)together with several Jewish priests, started riots in the city of Sepphoris, which provoked the arrival of Roman troops in Galilee, as a result of which it was devastated, most of the local population was killed, and the rest were sold into slavery by the Romans. From the period of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in the 70s A.D. e. begins the mass migration of Jews to the devastated Galilee, the development of the territories of Galilee and Samaria, the development and construction of synagogues. In 636, Galilee was annexed to the Jordanian province of the Caliphate.”
This publication builds on a fundamental study of the history of Galilee[43] (https://ridero.ru/link/IPKfvJf-tEH89qzU7Aa9Z), from which and others like it it is composed.
Is everything clear, it seems? There were no Jews in Galilee in the time of Jesus and could not have been. They were there only with robber raids, like bandits – and, of course, the Galilean population treated them like enemies. And the Galileans themselves were a mix of languages, which is why the Jews also called ths land “Galilee pagan.” In Galilee, apparently, representatives of many nations lived alongside, with their gods, faiths and religions, among which only one was missing – the Jewish with the Law of their evil and vengeful god-Yahweh. They dreamed of the genocide of those who lived in the territory which used to be theirs, as memory had it.
So, no Jewish customs were observed at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, and none of those present at it was a Jew – including Jesus, His Mother, and His disciples – they were not Jews, and they could not be. And from this point of view, the entire Gospel story begins to look completely different from what it is presented like in the canon of the New Testament and in church teaching. And the absurdity of Judaizing inserts and patches like the above one about “Jewish customs” becomes obvious.
Now further on the water carriers. In general, even in the most remote village, you go in and see a row of buckets of water on the bench – their presence in the house does not require following “Jewish customs”. Simply put, there were several buckets for water in the wedding hall: in case someone should wash or drink, or for household needs – they did not have a plumbing in those days. So Jesus says to the servants:
“7 Jesus says to them: Fill the vessels with water. And they filled them to the top. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw now, and take it to the chief of the feast. And they carried it. 9 When the steward had tasted the water that had become wine – and he did not know where the wine came from, only the servants who drew the water knew – then the steward calls the bridegroom10 and says to him: every man serves good wine first, and when guests get drunk, then the worse; and you have kept good wine until now.”
And here’s what is interesting: the servants, who scooped up wine from the waterpots, did not notice the miraculous transformation – why? I realized this at the market in Cana of Galilee, buying homemade wine from the locals – it was white! White wine when poured in the stone vessel looks no different than water!
“11 So Jesus started miracles in Cana of Galilee and showed His glory; and His disciples believed in Him”– and this is the end,, the point is set – it would seem. But no, the narration continues, and this sequel reminds me of the overture from the puppet show “Unusual Concert”, if anyone has seen it. There, this overture ends with a pretentious ending – and then starts to continue again – and so it does ten times over, it just won’t end. So it happens here as well – and this immediately suggests that the second chapter, already completed by the witnessing of a miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee by John, the future author of the Gospel, and thus completed; but someone really wanted to continue.
We read on.
“12 After this He came to Capernaum, Himself and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and stayed there for a few days”– so, wait a minute,, why – in Capernaum? From Cana to Capernaum, passing by their house in Nazareth, there is still a good forty or fifty miles – and why would you suddenly want to cover such a formiddable distance, for what need? They celebrated at the wedding and would return home to Nazareth, to rest – how else? Especially with brothers? But the brothers did not go to the wedding – why drag the minors along, when only Maria was invited and the eldest son to accompany the woman? There was no talk of any brothers, the brothers were at home. And Mary had nothing to do in Capernaum, especially since no relatives from Capernaum are mentioned anywhere, and a woman staying there for a few days seems unlikely – where, with whom? Let us also notice how suddenly the harmonious timeline set by the evangelist, who specifically points out at the beginning of the chapter: “On the third day…”, is suddenly broken for no reason at all, that is, it was important to show how quickly events began to develop. And suddenly – they hang out in Capernaum for several days, there is a pause. That is, from this point begins a very rough and ridiculous insertion – for what purpose? This becomes clear literally from the next verse.
“13 The Passover of the Jews was approaching, and Jesus came to Jerusalem” – and so he suddenly found himself in Jerusalem, hurried to the Jewish Passover, apparently abandoning his mother with the brothers in Capernaum, and, possibly, his disciples – not a word is mentioned about them further. That is, immediately after the miracle in Cana, where “he manifested his glory and disciples believed in Him,” he head to immediately stress His belonging to Jewry, Judaism, Jewish God, temple, holidays and customs: as soon as he performed the first miracle, he immediately rushed to Jerusalem to prove to the Jews that He is the expected Jewish Messiah – and who else? That is, he abandoned his native Galilee, did not begin to convert his people to his faith, did not preach the gospel to his fellow countrymen, but rushed to preach the Heavenly Father to strangers and aliens, the Jews, that were hostile to any faith other than their own and considered even a mere mention of other gods except for Jehovah a blasphemy deserving stoning. Was he suicidal?
“14 and found that oxen, sheep and pigeons were being sold in the temple, and money changers were sitting” – found, that is, as if he had never been to the temple and did not know the temple order, he appeared there for the first time in his life – otherwise he would not be so indignant, as further described.
“15 And making a whip of cords, he drove out of the temple all, also the sheep and the oxen; and he scattered the money of the money changers, and overturned their tables.16 And he said to those who sold doves: Take this from here and do not make my Father’s house a house of commerce”– and here is a direct forgery and substitution of the Heavenly Father of Jesus by the Jewish ancestral god Jehovah: if the Jerusalem temple is house of the Father of Jesus, it is clear that God Himself, the Heavenly Father is Jehovah, and who else? After all, the temple is his, dedicated to him and built by the Jews in time immemorial. This is how propaganda of Judaism works in the New Testament: the more monstrous the lie, the easier it is to believe in it.
Now let’s imagine the described scene. Someone, a beggar, an unknown stranger, an obvious provincial, and a Galilean by the dialect, a despicable pagan, whose speech gives him away (and so far he is just that, an unknown poor man, a vagabonf from a remote province in a foreign city, in the capital of a foreign country) appeared to Jerusalem, where he has never been before, does not know anyone, and no one knows him – he shows up from the street to the Temple and begins to misbehave there, engage in hooliganism and establish his own order? The temple guards simply would not let the Gentiles even enter the gates, biasedly figuring out who, where, and why – it was the main state national shrine, after all. No one would have let Jesus even on the doorstep. And if he dared to make a row, he would simply be killed for blasphemy, or thrown into a dungeon to find out, under torture, what he had in mind.
It is another matter when, at the end of his sermon and earthly life, He appeared in Jerusalem in glory, and the people greeted him as King and God – then he could decide on such a thing with the support of the popular crowds. But now, when no one has even heard of Him, this is pure suicide, the delirium of a madman.
“17 And His disciples remembered that it is written,” Zeal for your house is eating me up.”
And, of course, the disciples, who, it turns out, also ended up here by magic, the illiterate Galilean fishermen and gardeners, the Manda religion followers, not Jewish faith, all of a sudden – wow! – they remembered a saying from Psalms 68.10, which they apparently learned by heart. For how many years I have hollowed out this psalter both at divine services, and read over the dead, and just prayed for it at home – and then, after reading it, I did not remember where it came from, and I had to go into Google to remind myself.
“18 To this the Jews said: by what sign will you prove to us that you have the authority to do this? 19 Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days. 20 The Jews said to this: This temple was built for forty-six years and in three days will you raise it up? 21 And he spoke of the temple of his body.”
Well, surely a suicide – he blasphemes openly, in the Temple, right in the middle of a crowd of believing fanatics, mocks the Jewish faith and the Temple, and even provokes the idea of being killed – to prove and show you all. And the Jews – not a word in response, as if it was business as usual.
“22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus said” – the scripture they believed, the great scholars of Scripture from Galilee. And what does the Scripture say about this? You will laugh – NOTHING! You can check for yourself the parallel passages of the Old Testament, which the interpretation of this verse refers to: only two verses, one from Psalms 15.8: “I have always seen the Lord before me, for He is at my right hand; I will not hesitate”; another from Isaiah 55.3: “Incline your ear and come to Me: listen, and your soul will live, and I will give you an everlasting covenant, unchanging mercies promised to David” – and what do these words have to do with Jesus promising to either build a new temple in three days, or to resurrect Himself? In my opinion, none. The trick, by the way, is typical, in other gospels we find it more than once – to refer to Scripture, the reader will still not be able to check. Google did not exist then, and Scripture was not sold in newspaper stalls – and who would go ahead and browse it all in search of the necessary link.
“23 And when He was in Jerusalem on the feast of Passover, many, seeing the miracles that He performed, believed in His name” – oh, the author suddenly remembered and realized that Jesus was still an unknown beggar, a vagabond, and decided to add His fame and glory immediately, without leaving Jerusalem – He, it turns out, is a well-known miracle worker, and in the temple he did not just misbehave, but acted as one who has authority – look how many people, whole Jerusalem with was persuaded by His MIRACLES (I don’t know what miracles, the false “evangelist” does not bother to clarify the details) and converted into faith into Him, either the Son of God, or the Messiah expected by the Jews – go and figure it out into whom they suddenly believed, the author of this whole mixture is modestly silent about it this time, just in case.
“24 But Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, because He knew everyone25 and did not need anyone to testify about a man, for He Himself knew what was in a man” – and here is a belated explanation for you why Jesus did not lose his head in the temple, right there and then. It turns out that He Himself knew to whom he could be fearlessly rude, and who could be trolled without consequences for Himself – such a trick, and foresight was given to Him from God solely in order to mock people with impunity.
In general, when you begin to gaze intently at the “sacred” texts and fearlessly ask questions that are inconvenient for believers, clumsy insertions, absurdities and rude interference into the text by editing with scissors and glue creep out in their shameless nakedness and propaganda stupidity. It’s obvious – isn’t it?
