Melchizedek Part 6 Basic Information About Jesus’ Family

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today’s video is going to be all about the early family life of Jesus.

Explaining who Jesus is, as well as who he was, is going to require more than a single video. Please follow along from beginning to end. I promise that you will not be disappointed. Hopefully once you discover how much the Churches have been misleading you about the life of Jesus during the first century, you will be willing to listen to what I have to say in the videos that will follow.

Today, I will only be revealing basic information about Jesus parents brothers and sisters, directly from modern translations of the Bible. When this video is done, you will know more about Jesus’ family than anyone has know in nearly two thousand years. In the video that follows I will be going even deeper to reveal some very important details about Jesus’ family that the Churches have been desperately struggling to hide from mankind. In the final video in this series, I will be revealing the actual identity of Jesus. In other words who he was the first time he lived on Earth.

Most Christian religions teach that very little is known about the life of Jesus prior to the beginning of his ministry when he was about 30 years old. The Bible tells us that he was born from a virgin named Mary, and that she was in a relationship with a man named Joseph.

According to the oldest ancient texts of the account, Mary was a woman of Joseph, and Joseph was a man of Mary. Over time and through the translation process words like husband, wife, and married were added to the story in support of the social norms of the Catholic Church.

Using nothing more than an original language text of the Bible we can know that although Joseph and Mary were in a relationship, Joseph did not have sex with her until after Jesus was born. (This information can be found at Matthew 1:25)

There are several stories about the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus. Another story about Joseph and Mary having to flee to Egypt because of an infanticide conducted by the Roman Government. And a story about wise men seeking out Jesus because of some kind of celestial phenomenon. All of these events took place, before Jesus was born, or while Jesus was still an infant or toddler.

The only other incident recorded in the Bible about his life before beginning his ministry, involved his family traveling to the Passover festival in Jerusalem. Jesus was only 12 years old, but stayed behind after it was all over to talk to the teachers. According to Luke 2:41,43 Joseph and Mary were referred to as Jesus’ parents. Verse 48 specifically calls Joseph, Jesus’ father.

“And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been searching for you in great distress”. Jesus replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I would be in my father’s house?””

After referring to Joseph as Jesus’ father, Jesus responded by telling Mary that he was with his father. Most English translations of the Bible say that Jesus responded by saying that he was in his father’s house, but the word house, does not appear in any ancient text of this verse. A more accurate rendering of this passage into modern English might sound like this:

“Why were you searching for me? didn’t you know, that I was with my father?”

Even though most people believed that Joseph was Jesus’ father, Jesus understood that he was adopted, and thought of God as his real father. In Jesus’ case, God truly was his biological father.

The passage ends by telling us that Mary treasured what Jesus said in her heart. Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that Jesus was the son of God, and she believed it, but according to this verse she took great pleasure in the fact that Jesus knew it as well. There is no reason to question when Jesus figured this out. According to this passage, he very obviously knew it at least by the time he was twelve, and likely knew it from birth.

Something else that is revealed by these verses is that Jesus had a very large family. The group that Jesus was traveling with was so large in fact, that Jesus was able to get lost in the crowd. In our English Bibles, we are told at Luke 2:44:

“Supposing him to be in the group, they went a days journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances.”

The Greek word that is translated as acquaintances at this verse is gnostois. (Strong’s G1110) The ancient Greek word Gnostois is where we get our English word knowledge. Normally I would say that the word acquaintance would be appropriate, since people that we know would be our acquaintances. However, the meaning of the ancient word gnostois would be indicative of much more than a simple knowledge of someone or a mere acquaintance. The people that Jesus was traveling with would have been as close as family members. And as you are going to find out they in fact were all family members in one way or another. Jesus was traveling with his tribe. What we today might call his extended family. Many of the people that traveled with Jesus to that Passover when he was twelve years old would eventually be spoken of by name in the New Testament.

Most churches admit that Joseph was still alive and still acting as Jesus’ father up till he was 12 years old. However, many churches say that sometime after that Joseph died, leaving Mary a widow, and Jesus an orphan. There is absolutely nothing to support such an assumption, found anywhere in God’s word, the Bible.

In the course of Jesus ministry, he revealed to others that he was sent from Heaven. However those around him refused to believe it. Their line of reasoning, as to why they refused to believe can be found at John 6:42:

“Isn’t this the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then does he say, I have come down out of heaven?”

At least one English version of the Bible translates this verse in support of the belief that Joseph was dead. Specifically.

“And they said, Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, who’s father and mother we have known?

There is nothing in the original text to suggest that the word know should be translated in the past tense. But aside from that, is the fact that according to this particular translation, the people would be saying that they use to know Joseph and they use to know Mary.

Mary was very much alive and often spoken of at major events in Jesus’ life. If you read the Bible with an open mind you will be able to discern that she was seemingly in constant attendance. She was probably standing right there when this conversation took place. There would be no reason for the crowds to be speaking of Mary in the past tense.

As this series continues I will be showing you passages from the Bible that prove that Joseph was in constant attendance as well.

Even though there are no other stories about the early life of Jesus, found in the Bible, there are several recorded in other ancient books. I won’t be talking about them because they are too controversial. Many people believe that those stories were fabricated centuries after Jesus died. Many others believe that they are true. I do not know if either opinion is correct, or if perhaps both are partially correct.

I rarely speak about the Bible unless I have something significant to say, and as is also normally the case, today, I will be revealing sacred secrets to mankind, that have not been spoken of by anyone for nearly two thousand years. Already, just knowing that Jesus had a father and mother throughout his life means that you now know far more than anyone else about Jesus’ family.

According to the teachings of many so called “Christian Churches”, members of Jesus’ family did not put their faith in him, until sometime after his death and resurrection. Many even teach that Jesus’ mother, brothers, and sisters all openly opposed him throughout the course of his ministry.

Some churches teach that his mother Mary, remained a virgin all the way up to her death, meaning that according to those religions, Jesus had no biological brothers and sisters at all.

As you are about to find out, nearly everything that the churches teach, is utter nonsense. Our Bibles are quite literally filled with information about the members of Jesus’ family. And contrary to the doctrinal teachings of Civilization’s religions, Jesus’ mother, father, brothers, and sisters closely followed the teachings of Jesus, for their entire lives. After Jesus’ death, the Bible clearly states, that it was in fact, his family that took the lead in spreading his teachings around the world.

Most of what has been hidden about Jesus family probably has to do with the Churches hatred of sexual pleasure. The Catholic religion, which first translated the Bible into Latin taught that neither Joseph nor Mary ever had sex after the birth of Jesus. It should be no surprise to us that the cults of man would not want us to know about the brothers and sisters of a man that supposedly came from sexless parents.

The means by which people identified themselves in the first century was not much different than it is today. In our day, in most countries people have what is called a last name. With millions of people having similar first names, our last names make it easier to distinguish us from others that might have the same first name as us.

However, if we think about it, that may not have always been the case. If we look back into the ancient past, and look at stories about the men and women that lived at that time, the characters are often only mentioned by first names. As presented by the religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, this even seems to have been the case with Bible characters.

The man and woman that we today in English call Adam and Eve, seemingly did not have last names. It is not likely that anyone living at that time would have gotten Adam and Eve confused with some other couple sharing the same first names. However that may not actually be true.

The word Adam which was the first man’s actual name means reddish, or to be reddened, but later on it was consistently used in the Old Testament to mean human being. The word that we translate into our English word Eve actually was the same as the Hebrew word meaning egg. However there are two words that seemingly were unique to Adam and Eve at the time, that when translated into English mean male tribal leader, and leader of the male tribal leader. In the beginning any of these four words would have been recognized as names or titles for Adam and Eve.

Eventually the population grew to what over time would become supposedly, over seven billion unique individuals. That is why people in our day often have a first name, middle name, or multiple middle names, a last name, and often, even a nickname. In recent times the Empire has enacted laws Earth-wide requiring that people be given unique numbers as part of their identities.

Obviously such a thing did not just happen overnight. In the early days of the population explosion people very likely began to identify one another using descriptive titles.

Just as an example, there are thousands of people alive today with the last name baker. Probably only a small percentage actually make a living as bakers. People are usually given a last name at birth, and rarely change their name after becoming adults, to more accurately describe their occupations.

In the ancient past, a person would not have been called a baker, unless that was his actual occupation. The tradition of passing down last names, such as Baker, likely got it’s start due to the tendency of parents to pass down their professions to their offspring.

As in our day, a very easy way to distinguish people from one another, would have been to explain what family they came from, and as you are about to discover, it is likely that most of the people spoken of in the Bible had last names just like we do.

In the Bible there is only one man named, David, and yet the Bible often refers to him as The Son Of Jesse. Son of Jesse may not have been David’s official last name, but then again, it very probably was. David is referred to as the Son of Jesse many times. In the oldest manuscripts of the Bible this title would not have been recorded in the English language, as son of Jessie, but instead in the Hebrew language, as Ben Yishay.

By tradition, English translators always rendered passages containing the word or words ben yishay as Son of Jesse, even though in our day many people still have the last name Benishay, and they render their name as a single word. It could be said that even thought benishay is a Hebrew word meaning son of Jesse, it has become an accepted English word when used as a proper name.

There is good reason to believe that many if not all benishays Earth wide are descendants of the man who was David’s father. Many Benishay’s spell their last name as two distinct words as it is rendered in our Bibles, while others do not. Of those who spell it as a single word many spell the name hyphenated, which means with a dash between Ben and Ishay, while others spell the name with two capitols, both forms indicate that the single name Benishay had it’s origin as the two unique words. Ben and Yishay.

In the ancient Bible language known today as Hebrew, the words Ben and Yishay have meanings. Ben Strong’s (H1129) means son, and Ishay (Strong’s H376) means “male tribal leader”. You won’t find this definition in any concordance, or Hebrew dictionary, but that is for a fact what it means.

What I am telling you is that BenIshay, literally means “Son of the male tribal leader”. David’s father is always called Jessie in our English translations of the Bible. Jessie is an English transliteration of the ancient Hebrew word Iyshay or Iysh. But according to the way that this name is used, David’s father was very much the recognized male tribal leader over a very large, well established, tribe. He was very likely the leading elder of the tribe of Judah.

A prophesy recorded at Hosea 2:16 reveals why David’s last name is significant.

“In that day, declares the LORD, you will call me My Ishay, and you will no longer call me My Ba’al.”

Literally as translated into English this is what Hosea 2:16 actually means.

“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me “My Male Tribal Leader” and you will no longer call me “My God by legal agreement”.

Ba’al is the word used throughout the Bible to describe local rulers. Ba’al means god by contract, or god by legal agreement. What our Bibles might call a god by covenant. In effect, the chosen gods of the people, what we today would call politicians. The distinction being made is a reference to the commandment to honor our father and mother. Our obedience and love of God should be based on the fact that he is our father, and not based on the observance of some written law code, such as the law of Moses, or any of the laws of any of mankind’s religions or governments today.

Even though Benishay in it’s Hebrew form, is still being used as a last name in our day, many people have names from the Bible that we may not recognize because they have been translated, or transliterated into modern languages.

Several Bible characters have similar names. In particular several of Jesus’ apostles had the same first names. This is actually quite fortunate for us. In several verses, Jesus, likely to avoid confusion, referred to his apostles by their last names, but sometimes by nick names, giving us clues about the character traits, and family relationships of the men within Jesus’ inner circle.

Since we are trying to figure out who is who, we are going to need to determine which names were given at birth, as first names, which names were nick names earned over the course of people’s lives, and which names were family names. What we today call last names.

At Matthew 16:17 Jesus uses what might be a last name of Simon, one of his apostles, to distinguish him from another of his apostles who was also named Simon.

“And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

Jesus gave Simon Barjona the nickname of Peter which means stone, but he sometimes called him Cephas which also means stone. The English name Peter is based on the Greek word petros, and the English name Cephas is based on the Aramaic word Kaphas.

Barjona is Strong’s G920 and can be translated as “son of the dove”. Since the New Testament was not originally written in Hebrew, but in Aramaic and Greek, the Hebrew word ben is not used. Instead the first part of this name is bar, (Strong’s H1247) which means son in Aramaic.

The word Jonah which means dove is Strong’s H3124. In Greek the proper pronunciation would likely be yona. The word Jonah is the same as the name of Jonah the Old Testament prophet, who was famous for being swallowed by a large fish or whale.

In the New Testament, by tradition the Churches usually translate the Greek word Ioannas (Strong’s G2491) as John. Supposedly Ioannas is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Yowchanan (Strong’s H3110) To me that doesn’t sound right at all. A better choice would probably be Yonah (Strong’s H3124) which is usually translated as Jonah. The word Ioanass is much more similar to Yonah than it is to Yowchanan. Possibly all three words are related. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek versions of this name are all a little different and mean different things due to the differences in the languages, but they are, for a fact, probably all the same.

As an example, the name John in the Book of John 1:32 uses the word this way:

“John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.”

In this verse the English word John, is a translation of the word Ioannes (Strong’s G2491) which I believe is a transliteration of the Hebrew word yona (Strong’s H3110) meaning dove, and the word dove is translated from the Greek word peristeran (Strong’s G4058) which also means dove. The association between John’s name which means dove and the Greek word peristeran which also means dove, is not just a coincidence.

The point that John was trying to make, was that he saw the holy spirit enter into Jesus just as it had previously entered into him. Using the Greek word for dove as a substitute for the Hebrew word for dove was very likely meant to highlight a change that was coming in the way that God would be dealing with people from that time forward.

John 16:16 describes it this way:

“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.” By tradition John was to be named Zachariah on the day that he was dedicated, but God directed his parents to break from tradition and name him John instead.

The Hebrew language was pretty much used exclusively by the Hebrew people, Some of which would eventually became the Israelites, and some even later becoming the Jews. In Jesus’ day, the universal language of the Empire was the language of the Greeks.

For thousands of years the words of God had always been recorded in the language of the Hebrews. The Jews very likely reasoned within themselves that they were somehow superior to their neighbors. To them, having God’s word recorded in the tongue of their ancestors, might have felt like God was using a secret code, only understood by his chosen people.

This transition would have made it more than apparent to both Jews and non Jews, that from that moment on, God’s sacred secrets would be available, not just to the Jews, but to the whole world. God was not discarding the Jews. They all knew how to speak Greek. In fact, by the time of Jesus, the Hebrew language had nearly been forgotten. Most of the common people of Judea spoke Greek as their native tongue, and likely only would have known a few words of Hebrew. If they refused to read God’s word in the language of the inferior races, that was their choice.

By Jesus’ day, Greek was universally spoken by many of the nations mentioned in the Bible. Greek was the language of trade. Greek in the first century was much like English today. Recording the remaining books of the Bible in a language that was understood by nearly everyone, was just one more way of God showing the world, that the free gift of salvation was not just the possession of a chosen few. In our day, many religious people are still arguing that Hebrew, is the language of God, and that the Jews are still God’s chosen people. There is absolutely no evidence to support either belief.

Knowing that the ancient Aramaic name Jona is the same as our modern English name John, makes it clear that the modern English name Johnson is the same as the ancient name Barjona. It is likely, that at least some of the Johnsons who are alive on the Earth today, are named after Simon Peter. Johnson and Barjona are the same exact word, in two different languages.

This understanding highlights an important fact about such names. Even though King David really was the son of a man named Jessie, not everyone named Benishay is the child of someone named Jessie. It is now a standard practice to use and reuse the same last names generation after generation. Many of the last names used by people today have been around for hundreds or even thousands of years. We have to keep this in mind as we examine such names within the pages of The Bible.

In many cases, such names as found in the bible are associated with men who’s fathers are actually named in other verses. In the case of Simon the identity of his father may have actually been John, or Jonah, but not necessarily. He is called Simon Son of Jonah, at Matthew 16:17, Simon Child of Jonas, at John 1:42 and at
John 21:17 simply Simon of Jonas.

Since this description is different in each of these verses, and the name Jonah itself is spelled differently, it is not likely that Barjona was Simon’s officially recognized last name, at least not before Jesus assigned it to him. If Barjona had been Simon’s actual last name, it likely would have had a recognized standard spelling. It is altogether possible that Jona was not even the name of Simon’s fleshly father. Calling him Simon Barjona might be due to the fact that when Jesus returned from being tempted by Satan, Simon and his Brother Andrew were listening to the teachings of Jona Which of course we know today as John The Baptist. (This information can be found at John 1:35-42).

The Churches have had 2,000 years to figure out who is who in the Bible, but have either not really been trying, don’t care, or they do know, and simply are not willing to share that information with the rest of us. However, a more likely reason for the ignorance of the churches, is that Satan the God of Religion, has blinded them to truth. As 2Corinthians 4:4 says:

“The God of this age has blinded the minds of those who won’t believe, in order that they will not perceive the light of the good news that teaches us about the glory of Christ, who is made in the image of God.”

I think that we could probably figure out quite a bit more than what I will be sharing with you in this, as video, as well as the one that will follow, but I don’t really know how beneficial that would be. Civilization is soon to meet it’s end, and we have much more important tasks to attend to. After the resurrection of the dead, all of the men named Simon in the New testament will be alive somewhere. When we meet them, we can talk to them about their lives in first century Palestine, if we are still interested. I’m sure that it will be much easier for them to tell us, than for us to try to figure it out.

As we read about New Testament Characters, we can often tell who is related to who, simply by comparing their last names, however we must keep in mind, that in many cases, last names may not actually be last names.

Within several of the religions that claim to be based on the Bible, there are doctrinal beliefs that require members of the religions to ignore the fact that the names of some of Jesus’ apostles are identical to the names of some of Jesus’ biological brothers. In fact, since some so called “Christian” religions teach that Jesus’ mother remained a virgin for her entire life, members of those religions are not even suppose to acknowledge the men called Jesus’ brothers, as actually being his biological brothers.

Matthew 13:55 says, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?”

Some religions teach that the word brother as used here is some kind of honorary title. But in context this verse isn’t just about his brothers. It’s about his mother Mary, and his brothers James and Joses and Simon and Judas. Since this single line of text is very obviously about his biological mother, it would be illogical to believe that James and Joseph and Simon and Judas were not his biological brothers.

This incident was also recorded at Mark 6:3:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

If we look at the differences between the two accounts as originally recorded thousands of years ago in Greek, there is a difference in the spelling of the name of one of these men. The Joses, literally Iosetos, of Mark’s account is rendered as Joseph, literally Ioseph in Matthew’s account. In our English Bibles, the individual translators have taken the liberty of rendering these two versions of the same name according to whatever religious tradition they are attempting to preserve. By doing so, they have made it difficult to recognize this Joseph at other verses where he is mentioned. Even the Greek Textus Receptus mistranslated this name according to the Catholic, and then later the Protestant agendas. Fortunately for us these two words have been cataloged separately as Strong’s G2500 and G2501.

It is likely that Joses, or Iosetos is used as a means of distinguishing him from his father Joseph. In our day we might call them Big Joseph and Little Joseph, or perhaps Joseph, and Joe. In Jesus’ day his adoptive father was consistently called Ioseph, and his son would have been called Ioseph or Iosetos, depending on the situation. In any case Jesus’ father and Jesus’ brother were both named Joseph. With his brother often being called Joses, literally Joe, or Little Joseph.

At this point I am going to reveal something that is recorded in our Bibles that is going to be very helpful in deciphering who is who. In Ancient Judea it was a standard practice to name a firstborn son after the father. Some still do this today. However, in our day this is done by choice. In the first century this was a social norm that the Jews rarely strayed from. There is a passage recorded in our Bibles that illustrates just how ingrained this practice had become. At Luke 1:57-63 we read:

“The time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she had a son. Her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child and they were calling the child Zachariah after his father, but his mother said, no he is to be called John. But they said to her, none of your relatives are called by this name. So they signed to the father inquiring what he wanted the child to be named, so he made signs asking for a writing tablet, and wrote, his name is John, and everyone was amazed.”

The people who were present could not believe that Zachariah would break from tradition by naming his son John. As recorded, at this verse, it is obvious that such a thing simply was not done.

This is one of the reasons why so many New Testament characters have the same name. In fact after naming the firstborn after the father, each following son would be named after other male ancestors. Naming the first born son of Joseph after his father would have been a standard practice. Naming all successive children after other ancestors would have been standard practice as well. Because of this we are going to be able to see a pattern that will reveal something very significant about the relationship between Joseph and Mary that the Churches do not want us to know.

Recorded in our Bibles are two Chronological lists of Jesus’ ancestors. We have a list of all of Mary’s ancestors recorded in the third chapter of Luke, as well as a list of all of Joseph’s ancestors recorded in the opening chapter of Matthew.

At Acts 1:23 The Joseph who is called Jesus’ and who is also called Joses is called by his first name, and nickname, but also called by his last name Barsabbas. In every English translation of the Bible that I have access to, this information is presented in a confusing way. This is how the verse is worded in the King James Bible, and most translations closely stick to this tradition.

“And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.”

A much more accurate way of rendering this verse into something that an English speaker would understand would be like this:

“They appointed two men. Joseph Barsabbas who was nicknamed justus and Matthias.”

The verse found at Mark 6:3 uses the Hebrew or Greek word Iosetos which when translated means Joe, while the verse found at Acts 1:23 uses the Latin word Ioustos, which when translated means just person. It seems very likely that Joseph was called Justice because the Latin ioustos is very similar to his Greek name Iosetos.

Paul had a friend named Titus who was also called Justice, and a friend named Jesus who was also called Justice. This may have been a single individual, or two unique men.

We can confirm that this Joseph is Jesus’ brother because his last name is the same as one of Jesus’ other relatives. Acts 15:22 says:

“It seemed good to the apostles and the elders and the entire group to choose men from among them and send them along to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. Those who were sent were Judas named Barsabbas and Silas.”

Since both Joseph and Judas shared the same last name, it would seem to most people that they were brothers and that they were the same Joseph and Judas that are called Jesus’ brothers.

According to many religions the four brothers of Jesus mentioned at Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3 are not mentioned again, with the possible exception of James and Jude, sometime after Jesus death. But if we read the Bible with an open mind, it quickly becomes apparent that these four men are mentioned numerous times throughout the New Testament.

As I said earlier, if the Bible says that Mary was Jesus mother, and James and Joses, and Judas, and Simon are Jesus brothers there is no reason to believe that calling them brothers was some kind of honorary title. However, there are Bible verses where words such as father, mother, brother, sister, child, son, and daughter seem to be more like terms of endearment, honorary titles, or a religious tradition, rather than descriptions of a biological relationship. In most cases, the surrounding text indicates if the words are literal or figurative.

There are more than enough verses that are definitely about these men to confirm that all of Jesus’ brothers were actively involved in the early congregation.

Most people recognize that many characters in the Bible shared the same names. We are able to distinguish most of those folks because they lived hundreds of years apart. But in Jesus’ day, many shared similar names and lived at the same time. In many of those cases, the characters are distinguished from one another by descriptions or last names.

The Apostle that betrayed Jesus was named Judas, and most people know that his last name was Iscariot. Mark 14:10 highlights this.

“Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.”

The name Iscariot would be what we call a last name today. Iscariot means man of the city, so someone named Iscariot might have simply had the reputation of being a city dweller, but we know that that is not the case with Judas, because at John 13:26, Judas is specifically called Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.

At Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18,19 one of the apostles is called Simon the Canaanite and is also called Simon the Zealot. He is listed at both verses in sequence with Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon Iscariot. There is also a man called Simon the Leper, and one called Simon the Pharisee. All of these men, are very likely only two men. More than one of them lived in the same city, and more than one of them seemingly were present at the same events as recorded by the four gospel accounts.

This Simon is not the same man as Simon Peter, also known as Simon Barjona. Keeping in mind how astonished Zachariah’s neighbors were that he did not name his first born son after himself, is further evidence that this other apostle named Simon was likely the oldest son of Simon Iscariot, and the brother of Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus. As far as I am aware, no teacher of any of mankind’s religions has ever shared this information with humanity. It is not absolute, but somewhere somebody should have seen this information and questioned if in fact Simon and Judas were brothers.

There are actually nine men named Simon that are identified as unique individuals by the Churches of Christendom, however it is much more likely that most of the descriptions of the men named Simon are simply different ways of describing the same men. All nine could potentially be Simon the father of Judas, and the two apostles named Simon, one of which was likely the brother of Jesus, however I’m pretty sure that there were at least four. But, it is extremely unlikely that there were nine.

It is obvious that Judas was referred to by his last name as a means of distinguishing him from another apostle named Judas, who is quoted at John 14:22.

“Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

Stating that this Judas was not Judas Iscariot makes it obvious that, Iscariot was the name that those who knew him, would have known him by. The writer of the Book Of John understood that we would recognize the difference. The person who recorded this account, obviously did not want us to be confused about who was talking. One betrayed Jesus, the other did not.

We are also told the name of the father of this other Judas. At Acts 1:13 he is called Judas, the son of James. Since Judas Iscariot was specifically called the son of Simon Iscariot, we can know for a certainty that Judas the son of James was a different person.

Once again, this same Judas is the one spoken of by his own last name at Acts 15:22:

“The apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to select men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, who were leaders among the brothers.”

Anyone who may have stumbled across this information would probably find it confusing. Especially if they believed that this Judas was the same Judas that is called Jesus’ brother. Most of the problem comes from the fact that this same Judas that is called Barsabbas is also called the son of James.

There are several possible solution to this mystery, and most are problematic. Either due to Greek grammar, or due to the false doctrinal beliefs of the religions of Christianity.

Some religions teach that the verse says James the brother of Jude. This is unlikely, but not impossible. As written in Greek the verse actually just says Jude of James. According to the rules of Greek grammar it would be proper to speak of a parent child relationship in this way, but would be unheard of, to speak of a sibling relationship in this way. It would be unusual according to the rules of ancient Greek grammar if this verse were to be about Judas and James being brothers.

Another possible solution is that Judas learned the truth from James, just as Simon Peter had learned the truth from John the Baptist. Calling him Judas of James, would be similar to calling Simon Peter, Simon of John, based on the fact that he was mentored by John The Baptist. Calling him Judas of James would be appropriate if James was a mentor to Judas. Greek grammar would allow for such an interpretation. Other similar verses like this are found in the New Testament. However the probability of this being the case would be low. Even if James had mentored Judas, he would likely still be called Judas, the brother of James rather than Judas of James. Plus, there isn’t anything recorded in the Bible to indicate that Judas’ was a student of his brother James.

So far I have explained in the best way that I know how, some very basic information about Jesus’ family that has been disputed for nearly 2,000 years. Much of what I have revealed is already recognized as truth by a small portion of the Earth’s conflicting Christian religions. But please don’t associate me with any of those cults.

It may seem like I am taking sides with the religions that teach that Jesus actually had fleshly brothers and sisters. That is not what I am doing at all. I only made this video as a means of establishing the basic facts that nearly anyone should be able to figure out using nothing more than a modern translation of the Bible. What I have explained so far is only going to be a foundation for what I will be telling you in the next video in this series.

Here are some of the facts that I have revealed thus far. Joseph was recognized as Jesus’ father and held that position for Jesus’ entire life. Jesus obviously had at least four named fleshly brothers, and at least two sisters.

In first century Judea it was it was a common practice to name first born children after their parents and all children that followed after other ancestors. Which is why so many New Testament individuals had the same first names.

People living in first century Judea had first names, last names, middle names, and nicknames just like people today. The Bible used those names to distinguish people with the same first name from one another.

The Churches have used the fact that multiple people shared the same first name as a means of keeping us confused about who is who in the Bible. Although relatively few people actually had similar first names, Church doctrine often presents those few as many.

As an example, even though the religions of man teach that there were nine men named Simon, it is much more likely that there were only three or four. This may seem insignificant, but once I show you how those men named Simon were related to Jesus, you will be shocked at just how much the churches have been hiding.

This is just a single example. Sorting out the many people named Joseph, Jesus, and Mary will be more revealing to you than you are currently able to know. After the next video in this series, you will understand what I am talking about.

If you are a regular subscriber, you recognize that this video is not quite as revealing as other videos that I have produced. Initially this video was about 2 hours long. I have learned through trial and error that two hour videos are not beneficial to my viewers, to me, or to this channel. The information that I will be presenting in the second half of this video will be both shocking and indisputable. You will be glad that you listened to this video first.

However, if you were unaware of the facts presented in this video, you probably are just as pleased with what you have learned today, as with what you usually learn from my videos.

Although I have not yet proven that some of Jesus’ brothers are the same men that Jesus’ chose to be apostles, I have declared them to be so. However I have also shared a few Bible verses that the Churches use to prove that I can’t possibly be right. While you are preparing to watch the next video in this series, I want you to be thinking about the things you just heard.

In the following video I will be overthrowing many doctrinal teachings of the churches in ways that will surprise you. I will not be using deception, manipulation, pep talks, or false reasonings. I will be using nothing more than the Bible itself and a few readily available reference materials on the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages that our modern language Bibles were translated from.

Once you discover how much the churches have been concealing about Jesus’ father, mother, brothers, and sisters, you may find that you have the strength and courage to take the necessary steps to separate youselves from any of mankind’s religions that you may currently be involved with. Learning truth is much more satisying than sitting in an uncomfortable chair listening to some paid clergyman spewing the same lies that you listened to the week before.

I cannot stress how important it is that you watch each video in this series in order. If you have not watched the previous videos, I highly recommend that you go back and do so. We have all been lied to for so many years in so may ways that learning anything from the Bible now, just about requires that we learn everything from the Bible. The religions have had 2,000 years to carefully weave together their story. We don’t have as much time left to dedicate to repairing the damage that they have done.

Earth-wide things are going to start taking place that mankind in general is not going to be able to comprehend. The dedicated citizens of Satan’s Empire are not going to be able to understand what is happening or why. You do not have to share with them in their ignorance of what is coming upon the Earth. I can help you and promise to do so.

If you don’t want to survive……….. don’t listen to me.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments