Updated: Jun 25
This will be a deep and thorough study of the four gospels found in the church approved addition of the Bible. These four gospels are affectionately known as the synoptic gospels by most all Christians today, or at least the first three. Whether the 66 book canon is 100% scripture, containing no errors whatsoever, is a topic for another time and not the purpose of this paper. It will be touched on it as needed to test whether or not all four gospel accounts are genuine. This blog will cover the first three chapters in Matthew, Mark chapter 1, Luke chapters 1-3, and John chapter 1.
A note to the reader, I will be using more accurate pronunciation and spelling of terms in some instances which I have come to understand, as is the case with the word Yshral. This is the more accurate way to say the masoretic term Israel. Please check out Jonathan Machtemes incredible work on the original language of our Celtic Germanic Nordic people, Yshral.
What we today call the Old Testament should be our litmus test for truth, not what we call the New Testament. The New Testament should line up with the front of the book as it were, which the reader will soon find in this series that much of it does not. There is no third group called the church. The saints are Yshral. The light of the world is Yshral. The salt of the earth is Yshral. And Yshral is not the Jews as they produce none of the fruits of the covenant given to Abraham. It is Abraham we are told, who became the father of many gentiles [translated many times as nations and what Jews mistakenly call goyim-for if they were of Abraham, they too would be gentiles or goyim]. What the world knows to be Jews, do not follow the Law of the Father, but the Talmud.
Modern day people called Jews have really no connection to the Yshral of the Old Testament other than being Yshral's enemies. They are not homogenous but a mixed group of many tribes and races. Should that make those of us today who are genetic Yshral, the Western European Adamics (Aryans) arrogant or proud? Certainly not. We should not lower ourselves to the base existence.
I used to be under the impression that the Pharisee and Sadducee class were not genetic Yshral. Perhaps some were not, I cannot say for sure. But it seems odd that Yesho would speak to them so much and have so many encounters with them, if they were not Yshralites. He did not come for Samaritans, Edomites, Mitzriam or any other tribes related to Yshral. The fact that Yesho did not even come for all of Abraham's seed is another study which I hope to do in the future. The only thing I wish the reader to keep in mind pertaining to that, is how the New Testament seems to reinforce this (intentional) idea that what truly matters, is if someone is from Abraham, when the focus should be the seed of Jacob. For was not Moab from Abraham-to be cut off forever in Jeremiah 48:25? The New Testament virtually writes Jacob out of the equation as it were, and intentionally so. Does Midian or Moab have the same claim as Jacob does? The same blessings? The same covenants? No. I would ask the reader to keep the following verses in mind as we go through this very important and essential comparison.
Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Yshral.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
We are led to believe that the gospels all complement each other, and all are telling the same story, but in different perspectives. I would be hard pressed to find any Christian, assuming they possessed all of their faculties, who has not been indoctrinated with this notion. So much so that merely suggesting the gospels are different and corrupted, produces high levels of cognitive dissonance. The lunacy that the gospels together paint a full and complete picture of our Saviour Yesho, or if you prefer, Jesus, though the letter J was not even in existence until 1524 AD, is beyond measure.
Let us dig in and analyze every detail of these gospels with a critical perspective for the single purpose of learning the motive of why they were written the way they were (or rewritten), and to discover as much truth as possible in our post-corrupted dark age. The truth is attainable for those who genuinely seek it. Matthew begins with the genealogy from his father Yosef. I would like to point out the obvious fact that Yosef is the genetic father of Yesho. How else can you explain this generation all the way back to David? How can Yesho have the title Son of David, if he is not indeed the Son of David? How could Mary be a virgin if Yosef was the father of Yesho. I remember wondering this as a young girl and never coming to a resolution until quite recently. Yesho was a man. Our king. And we break the first commandment when we worship him and put him on the same level as the Father Yeue.
Could the text have been changed? Do the manuscripts in existence contain variations? And did the Catholic priests who compiled the gospels pick and choose which manuscript to standardize in your bible? Absolutely, on all counts! The fact remains, Yosef is the father of Yesho according to the genealogy given in Matthew and this account is considered scripture. One would think this fact would have been changed to fit the virgin birth narrative, thus I would conclude that the genealogy itself is accurate. Why do Christians use the latter half of Matthew chapter 1 to claim that Mary was a virgin, and that Yosef was not his father, and yet ignore the genealogy in the very same chapter? How do Christians reconcile this extreme contradiction? They ignore it. They refuse to even acknowledge it. I am not prepared to just sit back and ignore it.
This virgin Mary myth has been inserted for a reason and by the very Masorites (modern Jews) who changed the word in Isaiah 7:14 from maiden to virgin to fit that myth they themselves created to enslave genetic Yshral. Those who, for centuries call Christians. Only in the 20th century has that term lost its ethnic meaning. When hearing the term Christian in old literature, it always means Aryan or White people. Most specifically the Western European but can mean White people in general. Remember, it was not aboriginals from the Middle East who spread scripture to the world. It was not the aboriginals from Africa (negroids) who spread scripture to the world. It was not aboriginals from greater Asia (or India, old sources seem to contradict, so which is it?) who spread scripture to the world. It was and has always been the Aryans, most specifically the Western Europeans. The Caucasians. There is a blatantly obvious reason for this. There is also a blatantly obvious reason why Jews control all old manuscripts. Think about it dear reader.
Folks, we have a very obvious contradiction in Matthew right from the start. If Yesho was not fathered by Yosef, there is no need to record the generations from Abraham to Yosef. What is going on here? Either Yesho was fathered by Yosef and is the heir of David and a prophet like Moshe stated in Deuteronomy 18:15, or Yesho was a liar. There is not a single prophecy claiming Yesho would be born of a virgin, and don't worry, we will get to Isaiah 7:14.
Matthew Chapters 1-3
Chapter 1 records the genetic bloodline of Yesho, from Adam to David, being 14 generations. From David until the expulsion to Babylon, being 14 generations. And from the expulsion to Yesho, allegedly being 14 generations. The final genealogy claiming to be 14, however only 13 are given. Aside from the fact that Yesho is the genetic son of Yosef, and thereby contradicting the latter have of Matthew chapter 1, we have only 13 generations from Salathiel to Yesho. The reason is now unbeknown to the world at large. Many claim that one simply needs to include Jechonias in the final set of generations, however, that would count the same generation twice and therefore not a viable explanation. At this point I see two possible reasons for such an error; those who translated the text did not accurately do so, or a name was intentionally left out. I have not yet made my own determination as to which is the case. The fact remains however, that there is a very serious and extreme error in the text passed down to us, and therefore the text is not inherent, scripture, or inspired.
After we read of the genealogy of Yesho, the text makes a very shocking statement. The text alters course by claiming this son of Yosef, is not the son of Yosef. Why do churches and seminaries not address this textual issue? This is a contradiction ladies and gentlemen. There is simply no other way to define it. It cannot be both. Either the genealogy is correct (and we have just made quite plain previous, that it is missing one generation) and Yosef is the father of this child. Or, the genealogy is wrong, and Mary is a virgin. I ask dear reader, to consider this, test it and pray. I would like to make it quite plain at this time and say that I am in no way attempting to deny the Father in heaven nor his Son, the true king of Yshral, a genetic descendant of David. I am simply trying to show that the texts have been altered to keep us from the truth. To keep true genetic Yshral in the dark concerning our King.
These church dogmas which have been passed down to us, like Jesus' worship, the virgin Mary mythology, the Law being nailed to the cross (please find me the verse which says this) and many others, are designed to keep Yshral from the Father and his protection. To keep the curses upon us from Deuteronomy 28. Because if ever we woke up and began to keep the law, the blessing of Deuteronomy would pore upon us. Our lands would be healed, and our blessings would overflow. This is what our enemies know full well and it terrifies them to no end. That and that alone, turning back to the Father and his perfect Law, Psalms 19:7, would destroy our servitude to the current power over us. And they know this, just as Balaam knew it.
In Matthew 1:20, an angel appears to Yosef, not Mary, and he is told that he should take her as his wife. Yosef is essentially told that he will not be the father of this child that will be born. The writer attempts to give support to this virgin idea by quoting a passage from Isaiah. So, let’s go there and see what Isaiah really said:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore Yeue himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a [virgin] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The word translated virgin is Strong’s H5959. It is a word that simply means young woman, maid or damsel. It can mean a virgin, but not exclusively so. For in Exodus 2:8, the same exact word is translated as maid. In Psalms 68:25, the same exact word is translated as damsel. This is the abstract nature of the Masoretic text. The supporters of New Testament texts being inerrant, are going by a single verse and in English no less. I do not recall Messiah ever claiming that we must believe he was born of a virgin, to be saved. Please provide the proof text dear reader. And once again, we must go back to the genealogy of Messiah. If Yesho was not the genetic son of Yosef, why is it even necessary to begin with?
There is more thing to be considered. How do we know that the name Immanuel really means God with us? Once again, we must ask the sages, who hate and reject the Messiah, for definitions. And we are not told this definition in Isaiah, but the New Testament. So where did they get this definition from if it is not in the Old Testament? That is hardly enough to hang your hat on dear readers. Are these people who hate us, those who invest in genocide thereby destroying Adamic humanity at every turn, trustworthy? They know that if we worship anyone other than the Father, we are cursed. I suggest that this is the reason for Jesus worship. To curse us and keep us from the blessings of the Father-by breaking the very first commandment and convincing us we are not.
We now move to Matthew chapter 2. This chapter is the only place we read of the so-called wise men. There is no mention of shepherds anywhere in Matthew which begs the question; if Luke was not an apostle where did he get his information from? I do want to quickly point out that the Herodians were Edomites and not Yshralites. They appointed their own Pharisees. Regardless of whether or not these Pharisees were genetic Yshral or not, they certainly were not keeping the Law and Messiah, who continually called them out in it.
These wise men of the east, we are told (we do not know how many there were or where they were from) upon arrival in the city, were sent by Herod to go and find Yesho. We are given a verse quoted from Micah 5:2 which reads "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Yeuda, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Yshral; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." So Yesho is from Bethlehem, not Nazareth. He will be a Nazarite because he takes the same vow Samson did. To be a Nazarite is to take a vow. It is not a geographical location and never was. I am an Idahoan because I was born in Idaho. I would not then say I am a Washingtonian because I later moved to Washington. I am forever an Idahoan simply because it is where I was born. The fact that Nazareth never existed is a topic for another time I'm afraid.
These (three?) wise men find Yesho in Bethlehem and worship him, not the Father in heaven and therefore defying the Law of the Father. So how wise could they truly have been? If indeed these alleged wise men did worship a child, they were not very wise. They then have this vision to depart for their home another way (all of them at the same time or one of them and he tells the rest this vision?), then Yosef has his own vision. Keep in mind here that Mary has not had or seen a single vision as it will come up again. Yosef's vision tells him to depart into Mitzriam (not Egypt) because Herod is going to try and kill Yesho.
Let's dissect a few things. According to Matthew, Yosef and Mary are in Bethlehem when the baby is born. They do not travel at all until after the baby is born. They are not traveling for a tax. They are told to flee because Herod is after them. This is a serious contradiction from that of Luke's account which we will get to. Second, they are then told to travel for days and days to reach Egypt just after Mary has a newborn baby. And why Mitzriam? The Father could not conceal them in the land of Yeuda (the southern kingdom)? There are many questions I have regarding this bizarre account, but let's continue.
We are given a second quote from the prophets, but it is taken out of context once again showing the lack of inspiration. The verse Matthew quotes comes from two different places, Exodus 4:22-23, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith Yeue, Yshral is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." Moses is asking Pharoah to let the Yshralites go and worship Yeue in the wilderness (not desert as this did not take place in Palestine). This has nothing to do with the Messiah being called out of Mizraim. And if he refuses, Pharaoh's first born will die. Talk about jumping through hoops to fit one's own dogma!
The second verse the writer of Matthew attempts to quote is Hosea 11:1, "When Yshral was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Mizraim." When the Old Testament refers to Yshral, it is speaking of all 12 tribes or the southern kingdom of Yeuda. Now, on the surface this seems to fit. However, when put under a microscope, the truth becomes clear. The whole chapter of Hosea 10 and 11 are talking about how the children of Yshral turned away from the Father and worshipped false gods. Even though the Father brought them out of slavery from Mizraim. The Father delivered his people from slavery. However, in Matthew, Yosef and Mary are fleeing to Mizraim for safety. They are hiding in Mizraim. Essentially the Father drove Yosef and Mary out of the promised land which was dangerous, into Mizraim which was not dangerous [and they were not enslaved there]. This whole narrative has nothing to do with Hosea 11:1 whatsoever. The author either does not have any knowledge of the context of scripture, or (as I suspect) intentionally creating a false narrative to support a strong central church regimentation by using verses out of context. Both are unacceptable and the NT should never have been considered trustworthy, let alone inspired.
Yosef has yet another vision where he is told Herod is dead. They go back to Yshral, but apparently Yosef becomes afraid when he hears man named Archelaus was reigning in Yeuda. Keep in mind Yeuda and Yshral are two different geographical regions, please see 1 Kings 11 for proof of this. Israel and Judea are two different places, just read 1 Kings 11 and 12. Second, why is a true and just man of God fearful? Is the writer of Matthew trying to paint Yosef as a coward? And someone who defies the command of the Father? Because that is exactly what the story seems to be implying. Of course, the writer has no knowledge of the geography of the land, because Yosef settles in Galilee, which is in the northern lands of Yshral and not Yeuda. This whole chapter makes no sense whatsoever. Being called a Nazarene is someone who takes a vow. The writer of Matthew claims he is quoting a prophecy that the Son of Man will be called a Nazarene, but there is no prophecy in our current canon that states this. In fact, Nazareth or Nazarite is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. So how could the writer of Matthew claim he is speaking about a prophecy about a place that is never mentioned until the book of Matthew is written?
In the account of Matthew, John the Baptist is first mentioned in chapter 3. John is preaching repentance of sin. We are not told that John is related to Yesho, a fact that should have been included, if they were indeed cousins. John calls the Pharisees a generation of vipers in verse 7. John makes quite clear that even if they are of Abraham [Esau was of Abraham and yet the Father hates him, Malachi 3], and it seems they used that often to legitimize their reign or John would not have called them out on it, that it made no difference as they were wicked and evil men. Yesho then comes and is baptized by John, who at first asks for Yesho's cleansing. There are some significant differences in the account of John the Baptist which will be covered further in this section.
Mark Chapter 1
Mark begins his gospel with John the Baptist. Mark is only mentioned by two men in the New Testament: Luke and Saul of Tarsus. We know even less about Luke than we do Mark. The fact that Saul mentions Mark as his disciple does not help in the credibility of this character, as Saul of Tarsus is clearly antinomian. For someone to deny this, shows lack of deep study and the understanding of the Law.
Mark skips over the genealogy and he gives a brief version of Matthew chapters 3 and 4. There are some differences. Mark excludes the interaction between John the Baptist and the Pharisees, found in Matthew 3:7-12. Mark leaves out John telling Yesho that he was in need of baptism, Matthew 3:14-15. Mark skips over just what the devil [whoever that is] tries to tempt Yesho with, Matthew 4:1-11. Capernaum is said to be in the borders of Naphtali and Zebulun. Mark 1:23-26 records an interaction between an unclean spirit that is not in Matthew. Mark 1:23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. Mark says this took place in Capernaum. This is not the same occasion in Matthew 8:28, as that took place on a road and not in a synagogue-in Gergesenes and not in Capernaum. Are these contradictions? No. I only mention them to show that the gospel accounts we handed to us by the Catholic church, are not complete.
Mark records the people thinking that Yesho was preaching a new doctrine, however Yesho does not claim this. Was he really preaching a new doctrine, or was this added by the translators to facilitate false Christian dogma and antinomian theology? It seems so because had the Catholics who compiled this version of Mark, did not realize that Yesho was simply fulfilling and keeping the law. There was no new doctrine, only a rebirth of understanding it.
Mark completely skips over the actual teaching Matthew records in chapter 5-7 known as the sermon on the mount, which was up in a high mountain. I find it incredibly debilitating for the Jewish narrative of the promised land being in Palestine-there are no high mountains in all of Palestine. Their highest elevation being only 764 feet. Compare that to my own home state of Idaho, which at the lowest elevation being about 1400 feet and the highest mountain being over 12,000. Let that soak in for a moment dear reader. Are the bible lands really in a dried-up spit of land in the most inhospitable place on earth? I digress.
It is noteworthy to mention that Matthew records the first four apostles, being the brethren of Yesho. As in his full genetic brothers. In chapter 1 of Mark, he records that the man who was healed from some kind of sickness, began to tell all the people of what had happened after Yesho told him to not, but to go and keep the law. Mark records the man breaking Yesho’s command, but this is left out in Mark.
Luke Chapter 1-3
This is clearly the most interesting gospel as far as Jewish propaganda goes, as this book contains dogma, which is beyond antinomian heresy, which will be made abundantly clear for the reader.
Luke chapter one begins with an introduction to a man named Theophilus. Most are not aware that this man is a relative of Ananias, the Pharisee high priest who accused Yesho and tore his robe. He is of the Edomite Herodian polluted priesthood. We know exactly nothing about the man called Luke, save his name. Yesho never mentions him. The Apostles never mention him. He is associated with Saul and false Christianity, rather than Yshral, the law, and the apostles.
What is interesting about Luke chapter one, is that a man named Zacharias and Elizabeth, his wife, are mentioned as being the parents of John the Baptist. This, however, cannot be confirmed by any source whatsoever. The only time we see this alleged account is from Luke, of which we know nothing about. Christians build their dogma on serious shaky ground with the account of Luke. We cannot confirm that John the Baptist was of the tribe of Levi, let alone the assumption he was the son of a priest. Is it possible? It is possible. However, it cannot be confirmed by any other witness, whatsoever. We are forced to fully trust a man, a man I know nothing about, and that is something I am not prepared to do.
It is important to note that in verse 1:15, Yesho is to take the Nazarite vow. Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. But why does Luke, or any of the gospels for that matter, not make this plain? Why do they invent a town called Nazareth, when he was obviously born in Bethlehem? He was a Bethlehemite by birth, and a Nazarite by vow. The Nazarite vow is the same vow Sampson, from the tribe of Dan, took. Please see the book of Judges.
It is also worthy to note that not a single reference of a place called Nazareth was EVER recorded in the Old Testament. The place we are led to believe is the promised land, is clearly not in Palestine. We have not a single piece of evidence that a place called Nazareth ever existed. If indeed Yesho took a Nazarite vow, he would have been called a Nazarite because of the vow he took. Not because he was from a place called Nazareth. He was from Bethlehem, Matthew 2:5. The narrative seems to have changed, and I believe intentionally so, to say that he was from a place called Nazareth, instead of Yesho the Nazarite. If it was a city in the promised land, why was it never mentioned by the Yshralites who conquered and populated that land? Every town they inhabited was recorded and Nazareth is not among them. The modern city was not around during the time of Messiah and so it is not even worth mentioning.
Allegedly, chapter 1 of Luke records Zacharias being visited by an angel named Gabriel, which appears nowhere else in the New Testament and only a couple of times in the Old Testament. He does not believe this angel, and so the angel strikes him with a curse so he cannot speak, which only happens one other time in the New Testament. Saul also curses anyone who does not believe his version of the gospel. It is also interesting that Luke and Saul are friends it would appear from his letters and the similarity of antinomian blasphemy and heresy against the law by both Luke and Saul, are unavoidable. These men were not Yshral. They were foreigners to the promised land. This becomes more and more obvious as we will discover.
Now this angel Gabriel comes only to Mary in Luke, whereas in Matthew 1:20 and 2:13, the Angel of the Lord, comes to Yosef and only Yosef, not Mary. Well, which is it? This is a clear contradiction and not synoptic in nature. Why scholarship claims the gospels to be so, is beyond me. Now in Luke 1:39, Mary went to be with her cousin Elizabeth and would stay with her for three months. This is not recorded ANYWHERE else. We have no way of knowing where Luke, whom we know nothing, received this information as it is not in any of the other gospels. He did not know Yesho! He was not taught by him, and there is zero indication that the apostles taught him.
Chapter 2 of Luke records the alleged taxation proclamation. Now first, this is not mentioned anywhere else in the gospels and second, the timeline is wrong. Matthew chapter 1 records Yesho was born in Bethlehem and only after he was born did, they travel first into Mitzryim, then into the northern part of the promised land: Yshral. This is where the narrative gets confusing when looking at a traditional map of Israel. Matthew states that the Angel of Yeue tells Yosef to go into Yshral, but that Yosef was afraid of the new ruler in Yeuda. Well, the problem with that is Yeuda is in the south and Yshral is the north. The text says that they then settled in Galilee. Well Galilee is in Yshral. So, this portion of Matthew chapter 2 makes no sense geographically. It is as if the person translating the text was not familiar with the land of Yshral. There is also another possibility-Palestine is not the geographical location of the promised land. The descriptions in Matthew 2 of Yosef's journey simply do not fit the geography of Palestine whatsoever.
Luke twists things further by claiming that the family of Yesho traveled before he was born. Matthew chapter 2 records the family traveling after the birth took place. Now of course Luke could have skipped the part where they traveled back to Galilee, but what kind of astute historian would he be then? Luke skips over the whole running from Herod fiasco and states that Mary had no idea why the shepherds [which are not found anywhere else, and no explanation of their presence is ever explained] speak of angels singing and praising Alahyim. If an angel came to Mary before her miraculous conception, why is she so shocked by this account from the shepherds?
Now the next passage found in Luke 2:25-33 is bizarre and reminiscent of a Catholic ritual of baby baptism. Only in Luke is the following account recorded. Some random guy appears out of nowhere by the name of Simeon. The man gets some weird revelation from the holy ghost, and he is told he is going to see the Saviour before he dies. He goes and finds the baby and blesses him. The parents ask no questions as to who this guy is or where he came from. They then precede to just sit back and let a stranger bless their baby. If some guy came up and picked up my child, I wouldn't be sitting back and letting it happen ladies and gentlemen. We do not allow random people to lay hands on us or our children! We do not take people’s word for things. We test them by the Word of Alahyim. Neither Matthew nor Mark ever mention Yesho being presented at the temple. John does not even record Yesho as a child, and so does not record it either. The fact is that this man Luke, whom we know nothing and who never even met the Messiah, is the only one who records Yesho being presented at the temple. Did it happen? I do not have enough information to say either way. It is strange; however, how different each account is when dissected in such a manner. I am also shocked that I have never seen a study like this before. Surely, I am not the only one to see these inconsistencies?
And one more extremely important aspect that is left out of Luke’s bizarre account; no mention of this Simeon repenting of sin and turning to the law. This may seem insignificant; however, it is only so if one does not know the law or has never studied the Old Testament. Luke claims he is just and devout. Many claim this, but it is vague and hardly proof, especially considering we never hear of this man again. No one but Luke records the story. It doesn’t add to the story or overall message of Yesho either. All it does is give a pretext for Catholic doctrine to perform baby baptisms in the future.
The strangeness does not end here. The next account records an old woman named Anna from the tribe of Asher. Luke records her father’s name of Phanuel however these people are once again not recorded anywhere else in the entire bible. Who are these people and as before, what is the point of mentioning them in the first place?
The last portion of Luke chapter two is the most shocking of all. The time was Passover. The place was Yerushalayim. Yesho was twelve years of age and he had stayed behind in the city. Stop and think about that for a moment. I think if I was traveling, I might want to make sure my precious and important child, spoken about to me by an angel in a dream, WAS WITH ME! Let’s continue with the alleged story. The loving parents realized that their son was not with them and so they went back to Yerushalayim to find him. Mind you, NONE of this is in any other account. Only Luke. Where did he get this from if he was not taught by Yesho or his brothers, the apostles?
The parents of Yesho spend three days searching, only to find him in the temple. I wonder why that was not the first place they would look, for a child that was anointed and to be the King. Interesting. Now Mary rebukes Yesho and asks why he dealt in such an evil way with his own parents. And all he tells them is, ‘I must be about his Father's business.” Even though this angel told them all these wonderful things in dreams-in Matthew, the angel comes only to Yosef and in Luke, the angel comes only to Mary, they did not understand what Yesho meant. The most damning realization about this alleged story is that Yesho disobeyed his parents. That is breaking the law. He could not have disobeyed the law and been the sinless sacrifice for Yshral. There is no other way around these inconsistencies' ladies and gentlemen. He could not have been the sinless lamb, if he committed any sin in his life.
But then Yesho accompanies his parents back with them to this mystical place that never existed, Nazareth. Or perhaps it did, but the holy land is not in the Middle East, because modern Nazareth was built long after Yesho ascended to heaven. And according to our erroneous politically correct chronology, we are never allowed to question these things. There is a lot to unpack here and a lot we simply do not know due to the arbitrary nature of the corrupt Masoretic Jewish text overlaying the original. The point for this study is to show that Yesho, according to Luke and only in Luke, sins against his parents. But then he decides to abandon his Father’s work? Right after telling them, he is about his Father's business, abandoning it by going back and being subject to his parents again? I thought he was about his Father’s business. None of this makes sense. If Yesho was truly about the business of the Father in heaven, why then does he abandon it by submitting to his parents?
Now chapter 3 of Luke is where John the Baptist is at the river Yardan. We will compare Matthew’s account with that of Luke because there are some serious contradictions. There is an intentional whitewashing in Luke to hide the fact that John called out the Pharisees in Matthew 3:7. Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Now in Luke 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Does the reader see the difference? Luke leaves out John's entire speech against the pharisees!
What is even more incredible is that Luke does not teach repentance and turning away from sin. The people ask John what they are to do after John calls them vipers. This is what Luke records John telling the people:
Luke 3:10-14 And the people asked him, saying, what shall we do then? He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, and what shall we do? And he said unto them, do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
John in the account of Luke, tells the people to give away their extra coat but does not differentiate that they should give to the poor, only that they should not have two coats. Why does John not tell them to give to the poor in this account. Can we begin to see the drastic yet subtle differences between the gospels?
To the publicans, which were tax collectors, John tells them to collect no more than what the government tells them to collect. Well today usury is legal, and tax can be collected upwards of 40%. John does not cry against the usury inflicted upon the people! Luke has a huge slant towards the bankers of his day. It is extremely similar, if not identical, to the Jewish bankers of today. Luke is sympathetic to the banking institutions, or he would have spoken against usury! John tells the soldiers to commit no violence against anyone. That is interesting because today we see the police allowing evil men to burn buildings and commit evil against the Western Europeans populations of Western countries [true Yshral]. The police stand by and do nothing! Does the law call for the soldiers to stand by and allow evil to fester in a society? What Luke records in verse 14 sounds nice on the surface, but in reality, it is pure anarchy! Luke is telling them to be subject to the government and do what they are told even though it might be wrong. He is not telling anyone to repent of their sins.
What does Mathew record? Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: That is quite a bit different than Luke dear reader.
Luke records that the people thought that John himself was the Messiah. This is nor recorded in Matthew. This is not recorded in Mark. This is not recorded in John. Why is Luke recording the people's thoughts? Luke likes to do this in his writing it seems. Record people's thoughts. Luke also records Stephen's thoughts right before he dies in Acts 7. How did Luke know what Stephen was seeing if Stephen had no time to tell anyone? Even if Luke was present at his death, he would not have known what Stephen saw. And in Luke 3:15, how did Luke know what was in the people's hearts? Was Luke present at the baptism of Yesho? It is ludicrous ladies and gentlemen!
Luke leaves out one important fact in chapter 3. Luke does not record John baptizing Yesho! Luke makes it sound like John is thrown into prison before Yesho is baptized. And this is only in Luke! At the bottom of this section, I will have each baptism account side-by-side for the reader to carefully analyze each one and make their own determination as to the alleged synoptic nature of these four gospel accounts. Or if indeed there are contradictions.
At the end of chapter 3, Luke adds one more misnomer: a genealogy not found anywhere else in any record to date. The genealogy is backwards and contains names not recorded in the Old Testament. There are names of men we have no knowledge of. Some claim it is the genealogy of Mary, but this is not viable in the least. For one, a true and authentic genealogy is of the men, NEVER women, and two, it does not say it is Mary’s genealogy. I ask the reader to compare the two genealogies found in the gospels, and ask yourself a simple question, does this line up? Matthew’s genealogy starts with Abraham. Luke's genealogy, which is not confirmed in full by the Old Testament, begins with Yesho and goes backwards, all the way to Adam. Of course, the last generation in Matthew claiming to be 14, is actually only 13, but I have already covered that fact. It is an error and therefore the New Testament is not scripture, though there most certainly was an original gospel lost to us today.
John Chapter 1
This account is unlike the previous three gospels and after looking at it with new eyes, I found it to be quite disturbing. We begin with chapter one telling us essentially that Yesho is God. We can come to this conclusion as well in Saul’s writing-at the very least he alludes to it. We are told in Genesis that Alahyim created heaven, earth, and all that is in it. However, in John, we are told that it is Yesho who does this. It seems that of all the gospels, John is the one that claims Yesho is a god. And that we should worship him instead of Alahyim, or so it would seem.
John 1:12 states that if one simply received Yesho, that person will become a son of God. Not being obedient to the Father or keeping the perfect law as Matthew 7:21 clearly states, but simply believing in him. That is strange and does not fit with the Old Testament. I would like the reader to also take note that we have not a single proof that this John, who allegedly penned this gospel, is the apostle John. The apostle John did not sign the Gospel of John. Christian tradition tells us this and that is hardly concrete or solid. I would also remind the reader of what Yesho spoke about man’s traditions in Mark 7:8.
Now the next statement in verse 1:12-13 claims that these sons of God who simply believe in Yesho, are not born of flesh. John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Can we find any confirming witnesses for this? I will let the reader find the answer to this question, as it is extremely important to fully grasp. I encourage everyone to study this out because the truth of salvation does matter. If we get it wrong, we will suffer for it.
It is the same with the next verse which claims that the Word of Alahyim became flesh. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. I always exclude passages in parenthesis simply because they were never in the original manuscripts. The problem is of course, we have not a single confirming scripture for verse 14. Just like we have not a single clue who even wrote this alleged gospel. For those Christians who simply believe this gospel through faith alone, and stating arbitrarily that John the apostle wrote it, is not good enough I'm afraid. John claims to be a witness of this, John 1:15 "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me."
What did this John character witness exactly? That the Father accepted him as the son of man and the prophet of which Moshe spoke, Deuteronomy 18:18? Or that this prophet was God in the flesh? I simply ask the reader to internally prove Yesho was God in the flesh. How could John witness Yesho creating the earth? He certainly did not witness Yesho's birth. He was not at Mount Horeb when Moses prophesied about the coming of the son of David. So, what exactly did this John witness dear reader? Was John, who penned this alleged account, John the Baptist, of which Luke claims no one else was named, Luke 1:61? Was he the apostle John? Or was he a different John?
And how can the reader prove it? Luke is proved wrong in Luke 1:16, because we know of at least three men named John-John the Baptist, the apostle John, and this other John who penned the fourth gospel. The claims made in this fourth gospel are shocking and do not line up with the Old Testament. Certainly, John the Baptist would have kept the law if he was a genuine prophet. One only needs to search for a true prophet of God that did not keep the law. Are there any? Logically speaking, this leaves only one possible alternative-that someone other than John the apostle, penned this text. The very fact that we do not know who wrote it or why, throws it out as inspired. Are there some truth in it? Yes. But I am not after some truth or half-truths. I seek all truth.
John 1:16 From his abundance we have all received one gracious blessing after another.
This is indeed the truth. The key word is we. The truth is that a group of Adamites were chosen by Yeue to be a peculiar people, and which were to keep the perfect law of Alahyim. This people agreed to the terms at Mt. Horeb, and a covenant then made. People have such a warped understanding of grace to begin with. Essentially, Alahyim made an agreement where He would bless and take care of his children, the Yshralites. In return they would keep the law. Yeue was gracious to His children, however, His love and blessing is absolutely conditional. Grace does not replace judgement on disobedient children. Grace can be the judgement itself. Grace can be tribulation to perfect a people. For if he did not love his people, why would he test them so?
Why was Yshral given a writ of divorce? Does a husband love and stay with a cheating whoring adulterous? Are there conditions to the covenant of marriage? You bet your bottom dollar there are! It must be between a man and a woman, and the agreement, covenant, must be kept. This is the same exact relationship with Yeue and His children; Yshral. A binding contract. Yesho was sent to redeem a people divorced due to their adultery. And under the law, a whoring woman cannot remarry her divorced husband after she has been divorced due to adultery……. unless her husband dies. Yesho is not a god. Furthermore, that salvation everyone loves to speak of and believe they can obtain; Mongols, Chinese, Negroids-it is for Adamic Yshral and for them alone! The gospel of John teaches the exact opposite. The apostle John, whom I suspect was Yesho's brother and certainly of Yshral, would have understood this.
Yesho is not Alahyim, the Creator. He is a prophet and the Saviour of Yshral. He is the bridegroom. He is the King of Yshral from the line of David. Matthew teaches this. Matthew 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Most of the New Testament books change things, twist and confuse things. The purpose of the four gospels is to cast a stumbling block before Yshral. Nothing has ever really changed. If the Son was God, then why is he not all-knowing ladies and gentlemen?
Proverbs 6:23 tells us what the law is. It was not given by Moshe either. It was penned by him, but the law existed long before Moshe was born. Otherwise, how could Abraham have kept it, Genesis 26:5? John 1:17 is absolutely evil!
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
That passage is a lie through and through! It serves to give the impression that people are set free from the law. That because of Yesho and what he did, we no longer have to listen to the Father and his Law. For it was not Moshe’s law, but Alahyim’s! This John character claims that no man has ever seen God either. Well, there can be a case for Adam, Abraham, and Moshe seeing Him, so I am not sure how true that statement is. I will let the reader test this further in their own time.
Joh 1:29-34 on the next day John sees Yesho coming to him and says, “Behold, the Lamb of Yeue, who is taking away the sin of the [world]; this is He concerning whom I said, After me comes a man who has come before me, because He was before me: and [I did not know Him], but that He might be revealed to Yshral, because of this I came immersing in water.” And John testified, saying, “I have seen the Spirit coming down out of Heaven as a dove, and [that] One remained on Him; and I did not know Him, but He who sent me to immerse in water, He said to me, On whomsoever you may see the Spirit coming down, and remaining on Him, this is He who is immersing in the Holy Spirit; and I have seen, and have testified, that this is the Son of Yeue.”
John 1:29-34 is another important differentiation from that of the other gospels. We are told that the Pharisees are questioning John the Baptist and he is telling them that he is not the Christ. No mention of them being vipers, as in Matthew 3:7. Why does the account of John leave this out? Many like to claim that Luke 3:7 is a synonymous passage with that of Matthew 3:7, however this is hardly the case. Let us quickly compare these two:
Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Luke 3:7 Then John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Matthew records that John the Baptist calls the pharisees a den of vipers, while Luke claims that the people are vipers. This is a serious contradiction! Which is it? Luke seems to be favoring the leadership and attacking the Yshralite people. Personally, the account of Luke has a foul stench of bias against my people.
Now back to the gospel of John. The account tells us that John the Baptist is not the Christ in verse 8, and later in verse 29 proclaims to the crowds that Yesho is the lamb of God. He states in verse 30 that Yesho was before him, but in Luke we read that John the Baptist was born before Yesho. The Gospel of John account says that Yesho came to take away the sins of the world, yet in Matthew 15:24, Yesho himself states he came only for his lost sheep, who he himself defines as Yshral, not the world. So, the account of John speaks for Yesho, while Matthew records Yesho himself stating why he was sent. In verse 31, the account of John alleges that John the Baptist did not even know Yesho. Wait! I thought John the Baptist was Yesho's cousin. How could John the Baptist not know him? Lastly John was declaring to the people that who he immersed in water was the son of Yeue, but in Matthew 3:14, John has a dialogue with Yesho and asking him to baptize him. So, what really happened? The dialogue between John the Baptise and the Pharisees is not recorded anywhere except in John 1:19-28
John 1:19-28 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you? He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? He said, I am not. Are you the Prophet? And he answered, No. So they said to him, Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself? He said, I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, Make straight the way of Yeue, as the prophet Isaiah said. Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. They asked him, Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? John answered them, I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie. These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
John is not humble in asking for cleaning, as he was recorded in Matthew. He does not baptize Yesho either, in John. Now, if it is true that John the Baptist and Yesho were cousins, as Luke claims, John should have known Yesho quite well as they would have grown up together. Something to consider. Here is where more questions arise as I go through this study. One more striking point which I will share with the reader is the fact that in the gospel of John, the Pharisees ask John the Baptist if he is Elijah. He answers no. And yet Yesho says that John the Baptist was Elijah and the greatest of prophets in Mathew 11:13-14 "For before John came, all the prophets and the law of Moses looked forward to this present time. And if you are willing to accept what I say, he is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come." Yet in John 1:21, John the Baptist denies that he is Elijah. So we have Yesho saying he is and John himself saying he is not. I really do not know what to make of such an obvious contradiction!
John 1:35 tells us that two of John the Baptist disciples’ saw Yesho walking. This is important enough to quote so the reader clearly understands:
John 1:35-41 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! 1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, where dwellest thou? 1:39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
The first thing to take note of is John’s account claims that Andrew and Simon Peter are John the Baptist’s apostles. Well, that is interesting. This is not found in ANY other gospel! And if Luke’s account is to be believed, John the Baptist is Yesho’s cousin. And if these men, Andrew and Simon Peter, are his disciples, how did they not know Yesho? I have never heard this talked about in Christian circles, let alone discussed at length. All we hear from Christians, is that the gospels line up perfectly and are synoptic. Repeated over and over like a broken record, but never any substance to that claim. Thus far in this study, I have seen anything but synchrony.
The second problem we encounter in this passage of John 1:35-41, is that Andrew and Simon Peter find Yesho. But wait! Does not Matthew and Mark record Yesho finding them by the sea on fishing boats? Which is it? Synchronism? In verse 38, Yesho turns to Andrew and another man that is not named and asks them what they want. That is odd. They simply ask him where he lives. Yesho shows them and they stay with him for a day. Now later, Andrew tells his brother Simon Peter that he found the Messiah. And so Yesho changes his name to Cephas. We are not told the reason either. This account is only found in John. The reason or significance is not explained.
One serious problem with the gospel accounts we have today, is that we do not have a fully consistent list of the 12 apostles. John is particularly erroneous because we are given a man by the name of Nathanael which is not found in any other gospel. Who is this man? I will be compiling a list of the 12 apostles in a later blog, which will be discussed at length. They do differ. The book of Acts is not helpful either, because despite the manipulative title, it does not actually record the acts of the apostles, or their deaths for that matter. For a historical account, it is seriously lacking on many levels. I hope that this has at least got the reader thinking. Thinking that perhaps there is more to what our Sunday schoolteachers have fed us from the beginning. I wish you all blessings and may you always seek truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. The truth can only do one thing, and that is to set us free. Blessings to all of my fellow Celtic, Germanic, Nordic kinsfolk searching out the scripture, for we live not on bread alone. Please go to Part Two under the Blog tab.
John's Baptism Comparison in Matthew and Luke