Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today I’ll be presenting part seven of my Melchizedek video series. In this particular video I will be presenting much more information about Jesus’ mother, father, brothers, and sisters as it is recorded in the Bible. I promise you that what you will find out today, is like nothing that you have ever heard before.
If you haven’t already watched the previous videos in this series, I suggest that you do so before watching this video. The churches have been presenting lies about Jesus family for nearly 2,000 years. It is very important that you understand what they have done to God’s word the Bible through the translation process, as well as how the ministers of mankind’s religions have perpetuated their doctrines, through false stories about Jesus life that are not found anywhere within the pages of the Bible.
Most of the books of the New Testament speak very openly about Jesus’ brothers. The Gospels of Matthew, and Mark each list four of them by name in verses about his father, mother, brothers, and sisters. It would seem obvious to anyone reading the Bible that information about Jesus’ family life is important to the Bible narrative.
Another thing that is obvious is that each of the four brothers has the same name as four of Jesus most significant disciples. Three of those disciples are specifically listed as members of the group of twelve that are called apostles. The fourth brother, Joseph has the same name as a disciple that was nominated to be a replacement for Judas, after his death.
The churches in general refuse to acknowledge the significance of Jesus’ family members. Some religions worship his mother Mary as “The Mother Of God” who remained a virgin for her entire life. Other religions recognize Jesus brothers as his actual biological brothers, but declare them for the most part to be insignificant. None of the religions of man are willing to acknowledge the obvious connection that exists between Jesus’ brothers and Jesus’ apostles.
Fortunately for us, the doctrinal teachings of the various religions as to why Jesus brothers could not possibly have been the same men that are called Jesus’ apostles, are very easy to prove false. What is recorded in the Holy Scriptures is true. Jesus’ brothers, James, Judas, and Simon truly were three of the same men named James, Judas, and Simon, that were called apostles. Even Joseph who was not chosen to be part of the twelve went on to become one of the most significant figures in the entire Bible.
The last video in this series concluded by revealing that one of the two apostles named Judas could possibly be one of Jesus’ brothers. By the end of this video, I will conclusively prove that this is the case.
However the Bible also reveals that neither of the men named Judas was the son of Joseph. One is called the son of James. The other is called the son of Simon. For anyone who was raised in a so called “Christian” religion, this information might be difficult to deal with, which is why the churches of Christendom have put so much effort into concealing it.
There are multiple possible solutions as to why Judas the brother of Jesus would be called the son of someone other than Joseph. However, the most obvious and most likely reason for such a thing is that Mary had children by someone other than Joseph. Anyone reading the Bible with an open mind would be able to see this quite easily. It is only religious doctrine that keeps people from figuring this out.
Please be patient, and hear me out. What I am about to tell you is going to overturn every rule of conduct that the cults of man have set in place. There really isn’t any logical way around the fact that Mary had children by at least one man other than Joseph.
According to the social norms of civilization, woman who have sex with more than one man are wicked. Women who have children by more than one man are considered even more wicked. Hopefully, if you are here listening to this material, you understand that it is not the mother of Jesus who was wicked, but instead, the arbitrary, nonsensical, religious rules of civilization that are wicked.
Since the Bible clearly states that Judas, James, Simon, and Joseph were all brothers of Jesus, then we have to understand that they had to have all been children of Mary as well.
Those of us who live in the modern world know that selfishness is wrong, and yet, each and every one of us has been trained from infancy to believe that where romance, and human sexuality is concerned, selfishness is totally acceptable. In fact this false belief is so prevalent that sexual jealousy is considered a righteous emotion. This is almost understandable, but not quite. We have all been trained from infancy to believe that people are only allowed one life partner. Another well established social norm which supports this false belief is the fact that love is in such short supply that when we actually think that we have found love we automatically assume that we will never find it again. Our human emotions were not designed to function in an evil world devoid of love. To perceive someone as a threat to what we may consider to be our only source of love can be unbearable.
However, if we lived in a culture where everyone loved and respected everyone else, those same feelings of jealousy would never be experienced by anyone. Human beings were made to love everyone. That love would include the kind of love known as romance.
If we can accept that the father of Mary’s son Judas was someone other than Joseph, then there are going to be other things that we have to accept as well. There are quite a few verses about the twelve men that are called apostles, and each verse gives us more clues about the biological relationship that existed between each of the twelve and Jesus.
Each little bit of information about the apostles needs to be examine closely. It is as if God’s word the Bible left us just enough clues to solve this mystery, but not enough clues for the college trained theologians who are paid large amounts of money to do so. The fact that we are doing so today, is evidence that the end of civilization is near. The Cults of the Empire are about to be exposed in a way that they have never had to deal with before. Their grip on God’s flock is about to be substantially weakened. It is my hope that the information in my videos will help millions to find the strength that they need in order to separate themselves from Satan’s propaganda systems.
Since everyone knows that Judas Iscariot is the apostle who betrayed Jesus, not too many people would be willing to believe that he was the biological brother of Jesus. That being the case, it is probably best, if we simply ignore Judas Iscariot for now, and examine verses about the other apostle named Judas. We are going to have to create a list of facts about Judas, James, Simon, and Joseph, before we can determine how they were related to Jesus, as well as how they were related to one another. As we compare this information we will also be able to figure out which of the brothers of Jesus were also his apostles.
At acts 15:22 this son of James named Judas is called Judas Barsabbas. At Acts 1:23 Joseph, one of Jesus other brothers is call Joseph Barsabbas. At this point most people automatically decide that Joseph and Judas were both sons of a man named James Barsabbas. However as I already stated, in the previous video, Jesus’ brother Joseph was named after his father Joseph.
You should now be asking yourself: “How can Jesus have a brother named Judas Barsabbas who is a son of James, while also having a brother named Joseph Barsabbas who is a son of Joseph?” Without a doubt we can conclude that the name of Judas’ father had to have been James Barsabbas. We can also state without hesitation that the father of Joseph Jr. was named Joseph Barsabbas.
The doctrinal teaching of every so called “Christian” religion is that Joseph and Judas were in fact both sons of a man named James Barsabbas. It is this understanding that is the basis of the doctrinal teaching that Jesus’ biological brothers could not possibly be his apostles. This teaching is false, and does not have the support of the Holy Scriptures. As you are about to find out the Bible clearly explains how Judas and Joseph were able to both be named Barsabbas while having two different fathers.
Since Judas and Joseph are both called Barsabbas it is obvious that this is an actual last name. Barsabbas is not a Greek word, and it wouldn’t be very useful as a nickname. Calling these two men, Bar Sabbas which, means sons of Sabbas would not be logical. There is no one in the Bible named Sabbas.
Barsabbas when translated means son of the will, as in “the will of God”. At this point a pattern is starting to reveal itself that will allow us to make a connection between the Joseph nicknamed Justus, but called Barsabbas at Acts 1:23, and this Judas that is not Judas Iscariot, who is also called Barsabbas.
Every verse about Judas Iscariot makes it clear that he is the one who betrayed Jesus. It is obvious that this was done to distinguish Judas Iscariot from the other apostle named Judas, and Jesus’ brother named Judas. However, there really aren’t any Bible verses that make such a distinction between Jesus’ brother Judas and Jesus’ apostle Judas. It should be obvious to anyone reading the Bible with an open mind that Jesus’ brother named Judas, and Jesus’ loyal apostle named Judas are both the same individual.
The Book of Jude starts off by introducing the writer. “Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James.”
The writer of the book of Jude was Judas the brother and apostle of Jesus. In the original Greek language the spelling of the writer’s name is actually identical to the spelling of the names of both apostles. Calling the Book “The Epistle Of Jude” is done by tradition. Apparently so as to not confuse Christians into thinking that the book was written by Judas Iscariot.
The apostle Judas started his book in this way for our benefit. He was not making a distinction between himself and the apostle who betrayed Jesus. The contents make that obvious. He simply wanted to leave a written record for all time, that he and James were the same two brothers of Jesus written about at Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55,56.
The book of James introduces it’s author this way:
“James a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.”
I don’t really know of anything recorded in the Book of James that we can use to confirm who the writer was. The New Testament records that there were three individuals named James, and all three were spoken of as important figures in the first century congregation.
In The New Testament, the English name James is actually rendered from the Greek name Iakobos which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Iakob. Iakob is usually translated as Jacob, but Iakobos is usually translated as James. This way of rendering the two names is misleading. I am certain that this was done by the translators to be intentionally misleading. Both versions are obviously the same name. Much as Jacob and Jake are the same name in English. Iakob, Iakobau, and Iakobos, when properly translated into English should all be rendered as Jacob. Rendering any of these ancient names as James is inappropriate, and misleading. However, in order to keep from confusing my listeners, I will adhere to the traditional rendering of Iakobau, by referring to all three as James.
According to Jesus’ genealogy as found at Matthew 1:16 Joseph’s father was named Iakob, which is the Hebrew version of the Greek name Iakabos. Later in the Bible this name appears in yet a different form. Iakabou. The Jacob, or James that was Joseph’s father would have been Jesus’ grandfather. In our English translations Joseph’s father is usually listed as Jacob, although a few translations do render his name as James. The Epistle of James would be more accurately represented if it were called the Epistle of Jacob.
Rendering the name of Jesus grandfather as Jacob while rendering the name of Jesus’ brother as James is very misleading. If all that we had to go by was an English translation of the Bible. We would never be able to figure out that Jesus’ brother was named after Jesus’ grandfather.
At this point we know that Jesus had at least four brothers, and at least two sisters. We now know that Joseph was a son of Mary and Joseph. We also know that Judas was a son of Mary by a man other than Joseph, but we really don’t know for certain if the remaining siblings were children of Mary and Joseph, or once again children of Mary by someone other than Joseph.
Since it is almost certain that Mary’s husband, Joseph, must have been the father of Mary’s son, little Joseph, and that little Joseph had the last name of Barsabbas, we can assume that Big Joseph also had the last name of Barsabbas. We are now confronted with a truth that may be uncomfortable for the vast majority of people that consider themselves to be Christians. Jesus had a last name. Keep in mind that the Bible clearly states that although Jesus was the son of God, his neighbors wouldn’t acknowledge it. As Luke 3:23 says:
“When Jesus was about 30 years old he began his ministry. Being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph”
Since people would have known that Joseph’s last name was Barsabbas, and they believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, then, there is no getting around the fact that Jesus’ last name would have been Barsabbas. This information is actually quite important.
When Jesus was brought before Pilate on the day of his execution, it was a Great Passover. According to the Law of Moses, two rams had to be brought before the priest, and both had to be without flaw, as close to identical to one another as possible. One was to be executed, and the other was to be exiled into the wilderness. In English we call the one that was set free a scapegoat.
By the first century, according to the Bible, the Jews were no longer performing this sacrifice using goats alone. For quite some time they had been using humans for their Passover rituals. As Matthew 27:15 says:
“It had been the custom of the governor at the festival to release to the crowd a prisoner of their choosing”
Most people are familiar with the account. Pilate offers the people a choice of which prisoner to release, and which prisoner to sacrifice. With one voice the crowd yells out Barabbas. However, very few people know the first name of Barabbas, even though it is plainly revealed at Matthew 27:16:
“At that time they had a well known prisoner who’s name was Jesus Barabbas.”
If you read this verse from an English translation of the Bible you will likely find that the name Jesus has been left out at this verse. I checked this verse in thirty different versions of the Bible, and only found it in three. That’s one out of ten.
The name Jesus Barabbas is found in every ancient Greek version of this verse that has ever been discovered. The tradition of removing it did not begin until the Bible was translated into Latin by the Catholic church. I did a bit of research to see why this was done, and although the translators are all obviously aware that the first name of Barabbas was Jesus, they claim that it would be wrong to let Barabbas have such a glorious first name. The original Bible writers obviously believed that it was an important part of the story that had to be recorded in order for us to be able to understand what was actually going on during the Passover festival.
Please think about what I am telling you. The Demonic cults of Christianity have not only spent the last two thousand years hiding the last name of Jesus from humanity, but they also spent that time hiding the first name of Barabbas. The only possible explanation for doing such a thing would be to conceal the fact that, in Jesus’ day, the Jewish Passover Festival had become nothing more than an excuse for ritual human sacrifice. While at the same time concealing the fact that in God’s eyes, according to these verses the execution of criminals can be defined as ritual human sacrifice.
According to many verses that are found throughout the Old Testament, the nation of Israel had already been sacrificing their citizens as part of their worship for a very long time. Psalms 106:37 records it this way:
“The people were sacrificing their sons and daughters to demons.”
It is safe to assume that the Jews, as a whole, had been engaged in ritual human sacrifices long before the Romans ever arrived in Judea. And the Jews were not the only nation of people doing this. Even in our day, around the world, thousands are being sacrificed to Lord Satan, the god of civilization. In the Creator’s eyes all unnatural deaths are nothing more than ritual human sacrifice. Whether it be war deaths, criminal executions, or any other human death that takes place in support of Civilization’s infrastructure. Activities such as transportation, construction, and routine maintenance, usually take in accidental death rates as projected acceptable losses. To the god of civilization and his worshipers, human death tolls amount to nothing more than the cost of doing business.
To the local government of Judea, and the Roman empire Jesus’ death was necessary in order to maintain the peace. To those in charge, the sacrifice of Jesus’ life would have been nothing more than an official entry, on some official government document, carefully recorded, filed away, and never again brought out into the light of day to be read by anyone, ever again.
When Pilate stood those two men before the crowd, he was offering them the choice of what would have seemed like two nearly identical victims. Jesus Barabbas, and Jesus Barsabbas. In ancient Greek Iesoun Barabban(Strong’s G912) and Iesoun Barsabban.(Strong’s G923) A difference of only a single letter of the Greek alphabet.
The epistle of Jude (actually Judas) introduces it’s writer as Jude the brother of James. Jesus had two apostles named James, but in most verses a distinction is made between the two. By process of elimination we have to figure out which is which. At Matthew 10:2,3, the way that the two are described so as to distinguish between them, is by naming their fathers. One of the two is called the son of Zebedee, and the other is called the son of Alphaeus.
It is at this point that we can start understanding the social structure of the family of Jesus. As I have been reminding you throughout this video, some names in the Bible are first names. Some are last names. And some are nick names. And because of this, it is not unusual for Bible characters to have multiple names. It is also true that more than one person can have the same name. This is especially true of the small group of men that in popular culture have come to be known as the apostles.
Making this mystery even more difficult to solve is the linguistic history of the nation that Jesus was born into. Just 700 years prior to the first century Israel had been an independent nation. It’s language in the beginning was Hebrew. However, when God allowed the Babylonians to conquer the nation and carry it’s people off into exile, they were forced to learn the language of the Babylonians. Not too long after that the Persians conquered Babylon. Greece conquered Persia, and by Jesus’ day Greece had been conquered by the Romans. Each of these cultures had introduced a different language, and bits and pieces of all of those languages were part of the language that Jesus and his apostles spoke.
Many churches teach that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic. This is not true. What he actually spoke was for the most part Greek, combined with a mixture of all of the languages of all of the nations involved in the history of first century Judea. Aramaic has also been called Chaldean, which was the language of the Babylonians. To say that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Chaldean, is just a polite way of saying that he spoke Babylonian. In our day, the modern language that we call Hebrew, is actually much closer to Babylonian than it is to the Hebrew language of men like Abraham.
Every ancient language New Testament document ever found has been linguistically similar to every other ancient language New Testament document. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin words that are used in one text are always recorded in the same unique language from one ancient document to the next. However those Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin words are usually nouns, with the vast majority of each text being primarily Greek. In other words in verses where Jesus actually used an Aramaic noun, it is always rendered in Aramaic in every ancient document of that bit of text. I say this to expose a teaching of some religions that the Catholic Church rounded up and destroyed all of the original Hebrew or Aramaic language versions of the New Testament, and replaced them with Greek versions of the New Testament. If that were the case we would have to wonder why they would convert all of those ancient books into Greek and yet leave the same Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin words in the same places in every copy?
Most if not all of the men, women, disciples, apostles, sisters, and brothers of Jesus had multiple names in multiple languages, like Simon who was sometimes called Peter, which is based on the Greek word meaning rock, but sometimes called Cephas, which is based on the Babylonian word meaning rock.
Even though the Bible records enough information to know who is who, in many instances, it seemingly does not. To make matters even worse, many modern language translations do not consistently use the same spellings for the modern language versions of those names. And in many cases different names of different people are translated into the same English name.
The only reason that I am explaining this to you is so that you can have confidence in what I am about to tell you. As confusing and often times misleading as our modern language translations of the Bible can be, I have done my due diligence. I am reasonably certain that I am aware of all of the things that I have to look out for. I have been careful not to allow myself to use the information available in support of some kind of personal agenda or belief.
In my struggle to determine who is who in the Bible I have researched what others have determined, and used that information as a reference. However, every time that I do so, I see things that are obviously inaccurate because of preconceived unscriptural religious doctrines that are obviously false. As an example in my own personal reading of the Bible I have been able to determine that for a fact, there are only two women named Mary in the entire New Testament. It is obvious that there are only two women named Mary. There is no possibility that any of the verses about a woman or women named Mary are about some third woman named Mary. The churches claim that there are six. Those claims are easily proven to be false.
As obvious as it is that there are only two women named Mary, the churches are forced by religious doctrine to make those two, into more than two. If the churches were to acknowledge the actual identities of all of those Marys, by default, they would be forced to acknowledge the fact that Mary had quite a few children by men other than Joseph.
At least one of the men named James in the passages that we are discussing is without a doubt Jesus’ brother. I have already proven conclusively that this is the case. At this point we have to exhaust every other possibility before declaring James to be a child of Mary by yet another man other than Joseph. Two thousand years of Christian propaganda is not something that I want to take a stand against without making sure that I have not overlooked something. I do not want to make bold declarations about the Bible without first confirming that I have the support of the Bible.
The first father, Zebedee is mentioned twelve times in the New Testament. The meaning of his name does not seem pertinent to his character or any of the situations involving him. In other words his name does not mean father of two boys, or fisherman, or anything like that. There is at least one other man from the Old Testament that had the same name in Hebrew, but he was not a major character in any significant Bible stories. I am comfortable stating that for a fact Zebedee was a real person and his name was the one that he was born with. Each of the twelve times that he is mentioned, reference is made to his two sons James and John. Never once is he said to be the father of any other apostles. Zebedee is definitely not Joseph.
The second father is named Alphaeus. This is not a proper name. It is a title. The churches say that it is a proper name and that it means changing, when there really isn’t anything to support that assumption linguistically. This name is made up of the Greek letter alpha combined with a few other Greek letters. In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance this name is (Strong’s G256) and is rendered as Halphaiou. The Hebrew word which means changing is cheleph. (Strong’s H2501) Although the Greek word Halphaiou and Cheleph may seem similar, at least in spelling, so is the Greek word alpha. (Strong’s G1) Since alphaeus is a New Testament word and is in recorded in the Greek language it does not make sense to attempt to force this Greek title to have a Hebrew origin.
Four times in the Book of Revelation God is called the Alpha and the Omega, which were the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Revelation also calls God the first and the last. The beginning and the end. Having the title of Alphaeus would be like calling someone the alpha male in our modern society. Just as it is used to mean the first one in Revelation, it also means the first one when speaking of the father of James.
Several Latin names are formed in this way. At Luke 2:1 we are told that Caesar Augustus issued a decree to take a census. In Latin August means exalted. Augustus means exalted one. His family name was Octavius meaning eighth one. Augustus Caesar is the reason that the eighth month on our calendar is named August. Augustus was an honorary title given to him later in life. For a fact Alphaeus is the Latin title meaning first one. This is definitely a title, and not a proper name.
The Latin title of alphaeus would be very similar in meaning to the Hebrew word iysh. (Strong’s H376) which means male tribal leader. As I said in part 6 of this series, iysh is the bases for the name of David’s father Yishay (Strong’s H3448) The name which is usually transliterated as Jesse.
As soon as I figured this out, I automatically began to think that the alphaeus might possibly be Joseph, the father of Jesus. However there is another person mentioned in the Bible who’s roll in the family would have outranked Joseph’s and been more worthy of the title of alphaeus. As you are about to find out, Joseph was not the male tribal leader of his tribe.
Mark 2:14 says that the alphaeus was also the father of another disciple named Levi. Levi is one of the names of the disciple who later became Matthew.
The verses that allow us to identify these two men named James reveal to us for a certainty that one of the men named James was the brother of Levi, and the other man named James was the brother of John. So, no matter which one of these men was the brother of Jesus, we can know that Jesus had at least one more named brother. That brother being either John or Levi.
The evidence is overwhelming that The alphaeus James Barsabbas, the father of Jesus’ two brothers, James and Levi was in fact Jesus’ grandfather James. This is not a joke, or an effort on my part to shock you. Mary had children by Joseph, but she also had children by Joseph’s father James. That is why James the son of James, is also called James the son of the alphaeus. It is also why he is called James the Less. At the time, Jesus’ grandfather James would have been the oldest surviving parent of Jesus’ extended family. That is why he is referred to in several verses as the alphaeus.
All Christian religions teach that there are five men in the New Testament named James. They base this teaching on the many titles given to the three men that are named James. Jesus brother is called The son of the alphaeus, because alphaeus means male tribal leader. Joseph’s father according to natural law would have been the recognized family head of Jesus’ family. Since Jesus’ grandfather and Jesus brother were both named James, it only makes sense that his brother be called James the Less. In ancient Greek, calling someone the less would have nothing to do with their size, or age, or significance, as the Theologians claim. James the less in Greek means the same thing as James Jr. in English.
Since James Alphaeus was the father of Joseph, it is likely that Joseph was not James first born son. Joseph probably had an older brother named James. It is possible that James Sr. had two sons named James, but since there is no brother of Joseph with that name mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, it is very likely that either Joseph’s father had broken from tradition and not named his first born son James, or that he did in fact have two sons named James, or that his oldest son James had died. I am only telling you this because I want to make sure that you have all of the information that is available on this topic.
Keep in mind that in the ancient past mankind lived in tribes, and the kinds of behaviors that we have come to accept as normal have not always been considered normal. As civilization has been working to exterminate everyone who refuses to live according to it’s demon inspired standards, millions of people living like Jesus and his family have been hunted down and driven to extinction. Only those who have been willing to reject their natural instincts and conform to civilization’s unnatural standards have been allowed to survive.
In part three of this series, I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Melchizedek was Canaan the son of Noah. According to the Bible, even though Canaan was called the son of Ham, his biological father was actually Ham’s father, Noah. It only makes sense that Jesus’ family live in a manner similar to that of Melchizedek’s family. Melchizedek was the rightful king over the promised land, just as Jesus is now our rightful king.
Even though we now know that James the son of the male tribal leader James Barsabbas, was the brother of Jesus, we still need to investigate whether or not James the son of Zebedee was the brother of Jesus as well. As you are about to find out, he was. Jesus’ mother Mary is specifically called the mother of the sons of Zebedee at Matthew 27:55,56.
“Many women were there watching from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
Every gospel account says that only women were present at the execution of Jesus. Three of the gospels specifically name two of the women who were there, without naming any of the other women. All three accounts state that Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jesus were there watching. This account at Matthew is no different than the other two.
Even though there are only two named women at this verse the Churches always present them as three in order to conceal the fact that Mary was the mother of children by yet another man, other than Joseph. All of Christendom’s religions claim that the mother of Zebedee’s children is a third woman.
As written in Greek this verse is not about three women, it is about two. The Bible specifically lists both James and Joseph as brothers of Jesus at two separate passages. The mother of James and Joseph in this account is obviously the mother of Jesus, but also obviously the mother of the children of Zebedee. According to Greek grammar Mary the mother of James, Mary the mother of Joseph, and Mary the mother of Zebedee’s children, are all the same woman. It is only religious doctrine that demands that they be two. Linguistically there is nothing written in this passage that would suggest that the mother of Zebedee’s children was a distinct individual.
The verses at Mark 2:14 which state that the alphaeus was also the father of the apostle named Levi, are very compelling evidence that Levi was also a son of Mary. The Bible records two conflicting genealogies for Jesus. Seemingly one of the genealogies traces Jesus’ family through the line of Joseph, while the other traces Jesus family through the line of his mother Mary.
Joseph’s lineage as found at Matthew 1:1-17 records that his father James was a member of the tribe of Judah. Most of his ancestors through this lineage are spoken of in the Old Testament. We know that each named ancestor that can be identified was part of the Tribe of Judah, or an ancestor of the Tribe of Judah. David and each of his descendants in the line of Kings is listed as part of Joseph’s lineage. In fact, as recorded, Jesus’ grandfather James as well as his father Joseph, would have likely been the legitimate rulers of Judea had the nation of Israel not been conquered by Babylon 700 years earlier.
Mary on the other hand was from the tribe of Levi. According to the law, All priest of Israel had to be members of the tribe of Levi, and had to be married to women who were members of the tribe of Levi. No Levite could ever be a king over Israel. No member of the tribe of Judah could ever be a priest of Israel.
Theologians state emphatically that both of Jesus’ lineages are through the Line of Judah because, as our rightful King Jesus had to have descended from Judah. But if you examine both lineages with an open mind you will find that this claim isn’t true. Stay with me and I’ll show you why.
Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, meaning that biologically he could not make any claims based on Joseph’s lineage. Don’t let this worry you. Jesus is in fact our rightful king, just as Melchizedek was the rightful king of the promised land in his day.
The second lineage can be found at Luke 3:23-38. This lineage starts with Adam, and works it’s way through Judah all the way through to Nathan, the son of King David, but then it diverges. This lineage also ends with Joseph. However the passage clearly states that Joseph was only imagined to be the father of Jesus. As originally recorded in the Gospel of Luke, this lineage seemingly is through Jesus’ mother Mary.
Before I go any further I need to let you know that there is another theory out there. Over the centuries some theologians have taken the stand that Joseph was adopted, and that one of the lineages is through Joseph’s biological father, and the other is through his adoptive father. There isn’t any kind of linguistic argument against this theory, but please take a moment to think about this:
Quite obviously God knew that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. It would not make any sense for God to ensure that a written record of Joseph’s lineage be included in his word the Bible, while completely omitting any reference to the actual lineage of Jesus. To imagine that God would record two different lineages for Joseph, who was not Jesus’ father, while completely omitting a lineage for Jesus would make even less sense.
If we look at the conclusion of Joseph’s genealogy as recorded at Matthew 1:16 it is obvious that this is Joseph’s lineage and that the only reason that Joseph’s lineage is recorded is because of public perception.
“And James begot Joseph, who was the man of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus.”
If you notice Matthew’s lineage ends with Joseph. It does not end with Jesus. This for a fact is Joseph’s lineage. The verse specifically states that Joseph’s only connection to Jesus is the fact that he was in a relationship with Jesus’ mother Mary at the time of Jesus’ birth.
The lineage at Luke was recorded in a different way, it starts by stating at Luke 3:23:
“Jesus was thirty years old when he began his ministry, being the son as was imagined of Joseph, the son of Heli.”
At this passage it is once again made clear that Joseph was only imagined to be the father of Jesus. However it continues straight into the lineage of Jesus as if this is Jesus actual lineage. Which it is, because it is his mother’s lineage. Calling Joseph the son of Mary’s father would make perfect sense in first century Judea. At Jesus’ birth, Joseph in fact would become the son of Mary’s father according to indigenous tribal law.
There is an argument against this theory based on the fact that the ancient Greeks had a word that means the same thing as our modern English concept of son-in-law. That being the case the verse according to Christian Theologians should say:
“Jesus was thirty years old when he began his ministry, being the son as was imagined of Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli.”
This teaching, just like most of the others that I have pointed out in this video, is once again based on the false belief that Joseph and Mary were in a legally binding monogamous relationship. Hopefully by now you understand that they were not.
Heli as the biological grandfather of Jesus, would have become the father of Joseph at Jesus’ birth. I’m not making this up. In part 8 of this series, I will be showing you from the New Testament, that even Jesus used the word mother when speaking of someone that we in the modern world would think of as a mother-in-law. He also very overtly used the word daughter in a passage which was very obviously about someone that we living in the modern world would recognize as a daughter-in-law. Please remember to watch the next video in this series.
Calling Joseph the son of Heli, when he was obviously Mary’s father would have been totally appropriate in first century Judea. The lineage recorded in the Gospel of Luke for a fact is Jesus’ lineage through his mother Mary.
Now that I’ve explained all of this, I’ll get back to explaining how Levi’s name change might explain the divergence of Mary’s family from the line of Judah, to the line of Levi.
There is nothing recorded in the Old Testament about Mary’s ancestor Nathan, other than the fact that he was born. According to the Gospel of Luke, Nathan’s son was named Mattatha, but that information was not recorded in the Old Testament. The Old Testament does not state that Nathan died childless, it simply does not record anything about Nathan’s family.
Mattatha is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Mattathayah. (Strong’s H4993) According to the Old Testament, there was a man named Mattathayah who was the right age, at the right time to be the son of Nathan, however he was not in the line of Judah, but instead a member of the tribe of Levi. He is specifically called the son of Shallum the Korahite.
If this particular Mattatha really was a son of Nathan, it would have had to have been by adoption. There is absolutely nothing recorded in the Old Testament about Nathan’s son Mattathayah, so this is just speculation. Nathan and Shallum may very well have both had children named Mattatha at the same time, however we can confirm that Mary was a member of the tribe of Levi, and Luke’s lineage which definitely originated with Judah, does seem to shift to the tribe of Levi with the introduction of Mattatha.
Leui (Strong’s G3017) is a Greek transliteration of Leviy (Strong’s H3878) Both words are rendered as Levi in our English translations of the Bible. According to the Bible Mary was very obviously a member of the Tribe of Levi. Luke’s lineage includes two ancestors named Levi. None of Joseph’s ancestors in the line of Kings was named Levi.
All Christian religions recognize that the apostle named Levi was also called Matthew. There is no denying it. In the earliest stories of the Gospel he is always referred to as Levi. In the later stories he is always called Matthew. The gospel of Matthew always refers to him as Matthew. It is likely that Jesus started calling him Matthew, after he began his ministry. Levi’s name change is very likely based on the odd arrangement of Jesus’ genealogy as recorded in the Gospel of Luke.
The story of Mary visiting Elizabeth once again is going to be an important clue as to why Levi’s name was changed to Matthew. Luke 1:26 begins by telling us:
“And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.”
The word that is translated as our English word cousin is actually syngenis (Strong’s G4773) which means relative, but does not necessarily mean cousin. As used in our Bibles the Greek word syngenis is always used to distinguish citizens of the nation of Israel, according to their tribes.
Even though the Bible never states directly what tribe Mary was from we can know from Luke 1:26 that she had to have been from the tribe of John The Baptist’s parents Zachariah and Elizabeth. Luke 1:5 clearly states:
“In the time of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah. His wife Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron.”
According to the definition of the Greek word syngenis there is no getting around the fact that Mary, Zachariah, and Elizabeth were all from the same family. At the very least, they were all from the same tribe. It is an undeniable fact that the division of Abijah was part of the tribe of Levi, and that the family of Aaron was part of the tribe of Levi as well. Zechariah served as a priest at the temple, and according to law, that privilege was only assigned to members of the tribe of Levi who were married to women from the tribe of Levi. Mary the mother of Jesus had to have been from the tribe of Levi. There is no way around this very basic fact.
If we examine the lineage found at Luke 3:23-38 there is a pattern that would seem to suggest why the apostle Levi’s name was changed to Matthew. Mary’s great grandfather was named Levi. Twenty seven generations earlier she had another ancestor named Levi.
Even more curious than that would be that both of those men named Levi had sons named Matthat. A slight variance of the name of the son of Nathan.
What that means in modern English is that there are two verses in Mary’s lineage as found in the Gospel of Luke that specifically say “Matthew son of Levi”.
Levi changed his name to Matthew, (Strong’s G3156) which is the Greek transliteration of Mattathat, or Matthat. Mattathat, Matthat, Mattathayah and Maththaios are simply the Hebrew and Greek versions of the same exact name, meaning “Gift of Yah”. It would seem that Levi’s name change to Matthew was based on Nathan’s son Mattathat transitioning from the tribe of Judah, to the tribe of Levi. I am certain that Mary’s lineage transitioned from the tribe of Judah to the tribe of Levi because of this adoption. Jesus changed his brother’s name from Levi to Matthew for a reason.
I hope that you are able to keep all of this straight in your heads. Hopefully as I continue, you are going to start asking yourselves why you didn’t figure this all out on your own. A more important question might be, how did an undeducated, long haired, worthless, old man, who hasn’t been to church in eighteen years figured all of this out. Theologians have had 2,000 years to carefully study each and every word of the Bible in order to unlock it’s secrets but as of today’s date have had no success whatsoever.
Please know this. Christianity, just like all of the other religions of man, has been weighed in the balance, and found wanting. Our father will not be sharing any spiritual insight with any of the representatives of those filthy cults. Just as God gave over King Belshazzar’s kingdom to the Persians, so God is now giving over Christendom’s kingdom to us. But only if you are willing to walk away from the nonsense of religion and take hold of the Kingdom that God is offering.
I am absolutely certain that both men named James were brothers of Jesus. James the son of the alphaeus also known as James The Less, more properly rendered into English as James Jr, would have been a son of Mary by Joseph’s father James. James the son of Zebedee would have been his brother due to the fact that Mary is specifically called the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Since Judas was also a son of James, he and James Jr. would have been brothers. Since both Levi and James Jr. were both called sons of the alphaeus, Levi would also have been a brother of Jesus. Hopefully by now, you can understand just how important Jesus’ family was. Not just to Jesus, but to the early work of evangelizing and organizing the earliest congregations of those who followed the teachings of Jesus.
At Jesus’ death, entombment, body preparation, and resurrection, many people are said to be present. However, only a select few are identified by name. The others are only mentioned in passing. All four gospel accounts record parts of these events. All say that a man named Joseph of Arimathea claimed Jesus’ body from Pilot, and provided the tomb for his burial. At the preparation and burial all four accounts mention the same three people. Joseph of Arimathaea, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jesus. The only other person mentioned by name is Nicodemus who brought spices for embalming, and helped Joseph place Jesus’ body in the Tomb.
The Churches have intentionally hidden the true identities of each of the people mentioned in each of these accounts. In particular they have seriously muddled the identity of his mother. Most churches teach that there were at least three women named Mary at all of the major events in Jesus execution, burial, and resurrection. Some teach that there were as many as six women named Mary involved. There were only two. Mary Magdalene and Jesus mother.
One means of concealing the truth at the disposal of the Churches is the placement of modern language punctuation, where it does not belong according to the original Greek language text. In each verse about Jesus’ mother Mary, a distinction is made between her and Mary Magdalene by naming her children. In some verses she is called the mother of James, or the mother of Judas, or the mother of Simon, or the mother of Joses.
Obviously according to Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55,56 all of these women would be the same woman, because all of the children named are specifically called Jesus’ brothers.
Even though the churches want us to believe that Jesus’ mother would never have had children by other men, and that Jesus would never approve of such a thing, the Bible makes it quite clear that in fact Mary had quite a few children with men other than Joseph and all were spoken of as important disciples of Jesus, including Joseph, Mary, and several of the fathers of Mary’s other children. Quite a few were appointed as Apostles and given the extraordinary ability to perform miracles.
One other child of Mary is spoken of at Mark 15:40:
“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James the younger, and of Joseph and Salome.”
This is not the only verse that says that Mary had a daughter named Salome. Mark 16:1 mentions her as well.
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome brought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.”
Once again, as presented in our modern language translations of the Bible, Salome is made to appear as if she is present, or as if this Mary is someone other than Jesus’ mother, but in the original language texts, once again that is not the case at all. Salome is simply part of yet another list of Mary’s children. Meaning that Salome was one of the sisters of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55,56.
Both times that Salome is mentioned it is right after the phrase “Mary, the mother of”. Theologians have had nearly two thousand years to figure out this very basic, easy to understand fact. Mary is called the mother of Salome twice. Two other verses say that Jesus had sisters. A child reading these verses could figure this out.
Since all three of the people present at the burial of Jesus and the preparation of his body are named, we can be certain that all three were very close family members. One of the most significant attendees, as I said earlier, was Joseph of Arimathea who claimed Jesus body, and provided the tomb where his body was originally placed.
The churches have been describing him as Joseph of Arimathea for nearly two thousand years without once revealing what Arimathea means.
The Greek word Arimathea (Strong’s G707) is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Ramah. (Strong’s H7414) I knew as I read the account of Jesus’ death, and burial, that the only person that could make a legal claim for Jesus’ body, would be his next of kin. It was obvious to me as it should be to anyone reading the account that Joseph’ had to have been Jesus’ father. Placing Jesus in Joseph’s family tomb was also a dead giveaway. However, I also knew that Jesus’ father was living in Nazareth of Galilee at the time of Jesus birth.
If you look at a map of the Holy Land, it is obvious that Nazareth is hundreds of miles away from Ramah. I obviously was not going to simply trust a map produced by some church, but at the same time the distance between the two seemed too great to allow Nazareth and Ramah to be the same place.
I did everything that I could to try to figure out directly from the Bible where these two cities actually were, but eventually gave up. Not because I think that it is impossible to know, but because it would require that I first figure out where every other city mentioned in the bible was. A task that would take decades of work. Most of the locations on Holy Land maps are there by tradition, and have very little to do with archaeology or the descriptions that are recorded in the Bible.
Even though it is difficult to know what this verse is about Matthew 2:18 gives the explanation in a way that is easy to understand. We are told that after Jesus was born, wise men were able to locate him by following a star. Herod told these wise me to report back to him as soon as they found the child. When they found him, he was in Bethlehem. However, before they can report back to Herod, they are warned in a dream, not to do so. At the same time Joseph is also warned in a dream to flee to Egypt, because Herod is intent on killing Jesus. And as the story goes, Herod orders that all male children in Bethlehem, younger than two years old be killed. Mathew 2:18 says that these events are the fulfillment of the prophecy found at Jeremiah 31:15.
“A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation. Rachel is weeping for her children, and she refuses to be comforted because her children are no more.”
At this verse the Bible clearly associates Herod’s attempt to kill Jesus with Arimathea. No matter how many conflicting Holy Land Maps are produced. No matter how much effort the churches put into disassociating Jesus’ father from Joseph of Arimathea. There is no denying that Joseph of Ramah, Jesus’ father was Joseph of Arimathea. This really is the only explanation that makes any sense. Jesus’ body was claimed by Joseph, and was wrapped in cloth, and laid in Joseph’s tomb, because Jesus was Joseph’s son.
There is no denying that Jesus grew up in a large family. Most religions are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge this. I know that I have never heard a preacher, priest, or elder ever speak on the subject. Not even once.
For a fact there is absolutely nothing available anywhere online about Mary having children by any man other than Joseph. But just knowing that she did, and that Joseph seemingly did not object, leaves open the possibility that Joseph also had children by other women. In fact all of the men Mary had children by, as well as all of the women that Joseph had children by, probably had children independently of Joseph and Mary as well, and all would have been considered part of Jesus’ extended family or tribe. The tribe of James, the patriarch of Jesus’ family would have been very large indeed.
Many of the verses in the Bible refer to Jesus’ inner circle as the twelve. However, at times the twelve are simply referred to as the brothers. As I said earlier, there are quite a few verses that seemingly use the word brother figuratively, but linguistically the ancient Greek word that we render as brother would still primarily mean biological brother.
In verses where the Bible lists the twelve apostles by name, James, and Judas, are always on the list. Both of these men are specifically called the biological brothers of Jesus.
James and Levi are both called sons of the alphaeus, meaning that Levi is very likely also one of the biological brothers of Jesus.
Also on every list are the sons of Zebedee, John and James. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is specifically called the mother of Zebedee’s children.
Another one of the brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55,56 is called Simon. Jesus had two apostles named Simon. Simon Peter, and Simon the zealot. What that means is that it is very likely that either Simon Peter’s brother Andrew, or Simon the zealot’s brother, Judas Iscariot were brothers of Jesus as well.
What we can know for certain is that at the very least Joseph Jr, James Barsabbas Jr, Judas Barsabbas, James the son of Zebedee, and his brother John were all fleshly brothers of Jesus. There is no getting around this very basic fact.
It is also very reasonable to believe that Levi, and at least one of the Apostles named Simon were brothers of Jesus.
However there are some things that need to be taken into consideration about Jesus twelve apostles before deciding which ones were his biological brothers and which were not.
First off, the twelve apostles represented the same thing that the twelve sons of Jacob represented. Luke 22:28-30 explains it this way:
“You are those who have stayed with me during my trials, so I am assigning you a kingdom, just as my father assigned me a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink with me at my table and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
The twelve tribes of Israel were made up of the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob. Jacob’s twelve sons had four different mothers. It would only be logical that the twelve apostles of Jesus all be brothers as well. It is likely that all of Jesus apostles had the same mother by multiple men, just as all of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel had the same father by multiple women.
In the past I posted several videos about Jacob’s family. Never once has anyone ever taken offense at my claim that Jacob’s children had multiple mothers. However since I began posting information about the children of Mary, lots of people have taken offense.
There is quite a bit of evidence that men like Abraham who had multiple wives and girlfriends, traveled with groups of men who were the husbands and boyfriends of Abraham’s wives and girlfriends. Just because such behavior isn’t clearly described in the Bible does not mean that it didn’t happen. The preponderance of evidence says that it did. It would certainly fly in the face of current social norms, but ask yourself this. What doesn’t? The clothes that we wear, the food we eat, the rituals we are forced to participate in are all completely different from anything that Jesus and his apostles would have worn or eaten or participated in.
In Chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews a long list of faithful people who’s examples we are suppose to follow, includes many men and one woman who are known to have had multiple sex partners. The Bible very clearly states that they all had multiple sex partners. At Hebrews 12:1, this group is called the Great cloud of witnesses. If God was displeased with their sexual behavior it would have been quite easy for the Bible to clearly state, that we were to follow their example closely, in everything except for their sex lives. But that is not the case at all. No mention is ever made anywhere in the Bible about God being angry at any of them for their sexual conduct.
There is more that we need to consider in regard to whether or not Jesus’ apostles were in fact his brothers.
Most people will argue that Jesus never once broke the law, which actually makes sense. His mission here on Earth was to expose the law for what it was, a means by which powerful men controlled and manipulated the populations of the nations.
The Jewish law code just like the law codes of every other nation was an actual legal system. It was not some kind of religious law as some would have us believe. It was not a means by which mankind could appease the creator of the universe. The law of Moses dictated what a person could and couldn’t do, as well as what a person was required to do. Along with those laws, it listed punishments for those who broke the law. And the men who had been placed in charge were constantly watching to see if Jesus would break the law, so that they would have an excuse for arresting, convicting, and executing him.
At Numbers 9:13 the punishment for not properly observing the Passover is recorded.
“If anyone who is clean and is not on a journey fails to keep the Passover, they are to be cut off from their people.”
Had Jesus not been observant of the Passover law it would have given the Pharisees and Saducees the perfect excuse for having him executed. Had Jesus broken a law that was punishable by death, his execution would not have accomplished anything.
The laws regarding the Passover can be found at Exodus 12:1-14.
“On the tenth day of this month, every man shall take a lamb according to their father’s house, a lamb for a household. If the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons. According to the amount that each one can eat, you shall calculate the number who are to eat the lamb. On the fourteenth day of the month, all of Israel shall slaughter their lamb, and put it’s blood on the doorpost and lintel of the house where they eat it. Nothing is to remain over till morning. Everything that is left over is to be burned in the fire. This day shall be a sacred holiday for you and you shall keep it as a feast.”
For our purposes today, what is important, is who was to celebrate the Passover with who. According to these verses the entire family had to celebrate the Passover according to their father’s house. Since Jesus was required to celebrate with his father’s household, we can know for a fact that Joseph would have been present. We can confirm that this was the case because several of Jesus’ biological brothers were present. However two of Zebedee’s sons were also present meaning that by law, Zebedee would have had to have been there as well.
Acts 1:12-13 list by name many who were in attendance.
“ Peter, John, James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of the alphaeus, Simon, the Patriot, and Judas son of James together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus with his brothers.
Since all of the apostles were present, there had to have been some kind of family connection. Obviously we cannot compare the family structure of our modern Western world, to that of the family of Jesus. However a look at the historical records of that particular place and time would make it appear as if Jesus’ family didn’t even fit in with the standard social order of first century Judea.
We can know that Joseph was not the biological father of everyone present at Jesus final Passover. We don’t even know if Jesus’ grandfather James was still alive. And even if he was, we can’t know if he was the biological father of Zebedee and the others. We can know that somehow, Jesus’ family fulfilled the letter of the law of the Passover.
This list is obviously not exhaustive since several individuals and groups that would have had to have been there are not mentioned. In particular Joseph who was very obviously still alive. and the children of all these people. Since each of the twelve apostles are listed by name, we can know for a fact that they all had to have been close relatives. The only exception of the law that would allow outsiders to eat the Passover lamb with Jesus family as stated earlier is this:
“If the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons. According to the amount that each one can eat, you shall calculate the number who are to eat the lamb.”
As you have probably already figured out, Jesus family could easily have consumed a lamb without any help from their next door neighbor. It would not surprise me if over a hundred people were present at this particular meal.
As I have already said, the word brother can be used in a figurative sense. But I also said that the surrounding text will reveal if that is the case. Most of the verses that are about the brothers, may seem to be figurative to us because we have been trained to perceive them as such, however if you read the Bible with an open mind, you will find that nearly all Bible verses about the brothers are specifically about the biological sons of Mary.
I said earlier that all of the named brothers of Jesus went on to become very important leaders in the early work of evangelizing, and organizing of the early congregations of Jesus’ followers. To many it may seem as if Joseph was left out. He was not one of the original twelve, as his other three named brothers. And when Judas died he was passed over as a replacement in favor of a man named Matthias. However, what you need to know about Jesus’ brother is that Joseph was not passed over because of some kind of shortcoming on his part. God was saving him for a much more important work.
When Saul was blinded while traveling on the road to Damascus, and converted into an apostle to the nations, the brothers recognized that he needed a mentor. Someone to teach him the truth, and try to keep him out of trouble. They assigned this task to Joseph Barsabbas, the brother of Jesus. The only reason that nobody knows this, is because before sending him out to watch over Paul, they gave him yet another nick name. This is recorded at Acts 4:36.
“The apostles gave Joses the nick name of Barnabas, which when translated means son of consolation. He being a levite from the island of Cyprus.”
Theologians will argue that this particular Joses can not possibly be the same Joses that was Jesus’ brother because as a son of Joseph he would have been from the tribe of Judah and not from the tribe of Levi. Also as a son of Joseph he would have been a citizen of Judea and not a citizen of Cyprus.
All religions Earth wide have some kind of teaching about superior races and inferior races and separation of the races. Christianity is no different. I have been hearing all of my life about the differences between God’s chosen people and the wicked people whom they had to live amongst. Separation of the tribes and the outsiders is a major part of the Christian religion. However to anyone reading the Bible with an open mind it quickly becomes apparent that none of that religious nonsense has the support of God.
There were rules about who could live amongst the citizens of Israel, and who could not, but all of those rules were very easy to follow. For the most part any outsider could migrate into Israel as long as they were willing to perform a few initial rituals, and not stir up any trouble. And those rules were for people like the Philistines, Babylonians, and Egyptians. For Israelites migrating from one tribe to another only required that they pack up their stuff and move. If Joses had decided to take up permanent residence on the Island of Cyprus amongst a group of Levites, then all that he had to do was move to Cypress and live amongst a group of Levites. He would probably not be allowed to serve in any official capacity at the Temple, but if he remained long enough to raise a family, eventually his sons or grandsons probably could.
Jesus’ brother Joseph was mentioned many times as Joseph or Joses up until he was given his name change. After that there are no more mentions of anyone named Joseph or Joses again. The reason being that from that moment on, he is always called by the nickname given to him by the Apostles. Joses is spoken of 29 times as Barnabas after receiving his assignment to accompany Paul.
Jesus father Joseph continued preaching and teaching as well. likely till the day of his death. Shortly after Jesus’ was executed, he appeared to two of his disciple who were walking along the road, on their way to meet with the eleven remaining apostles, and the brothers. The entire twenty fourth chapter of Luke is about this encounter between Jesus and his two disciples. After questioning his two disciples about a conversation that they were having about Jesus verse 18 says:
“One of them having the name of Cleopas responded to him saying: How is it that you are the only visitor to Jerusalem that doesn’t know about what has happened here in recent days?”
Cleopas is suppose to be the proper name of some character that isn’t spoken of anywhere else in the Bible. But in fact this person is Joseph. Jesus’ father. Cleopas is another descriptive title. It means the one with the reputation of a father. Which would fit in perfectly with Joseph’s reputation of being the father of Jesus, even though he wasn’t. This name is not a personal name, it is for a fact, a description.
I have posted many videos where I extolled the virtues of men such as Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and David, without anyone taking a stand against those videos based on the sex lives of those men.
However since beginning to tell people about the children of Mary, I have been met with much resistance. One viewer of the last video that I made on this subject told me: “God holds us accountable for the things that we say. Even if you are just joking, I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.” Another viewer had this to say: “You are a deceiver.”
Had that video been about the twelve sons of Jacob instead of the twelve sons of Mary, they probably would have simply thanked me.
For some reason Satan’s Empire seems to be obsessed with ownership of women. I understand that Satan’s laws are wicked, and that human beings in general will follow those laws no matter how wicked they are. But, what I don’t understand is mankind’s love of such laws. It is almost as if beating, stoning, and beheading women for having sex is instinctive.
In my part of the world this isn’t done, but the ostracism and emotional scaring that a woman has to endure for having a child without a license is still pretty terrible.
The belief that Men are allowed to have as many sex partners as they can afford, but women are only allowed to have one doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever. The population of Earth is made up of 50% men, and 50% women. If you do the math, there simply are not enough women to allow for such a foolish social order.
I have been a member of several Christian religions, and have studied many more. It is a standard teaching that even though God allowed men to have multiple wives at one time, it was only to increase the population of the promised land at a faster rate. Once again, the numbers simply don’t add up. One man with ten wives will not produce more offspring than ten men with ten girlfriends. The teachings of the religions of Christianity sound like nonsense because they are suppose to sound like nonsense. Truth is suppose to be easy to recognize.
Mary the mother of Jesus, who just so happened to be the mother of many other children as well, did not simply disappear from the scene at the death of her son. She, like Joseph, continued to be an inspiration to the brothers. At some point long after Jesus’ death Paul wrote a letter to the congregation at Rome. He concluded that letter at Romans 16:6 by saying:
“Greet Mary who bestowed much labor on us.”
According to every so called “Christian” religion on the planet nobody can know who this woman is because there isn’t enough information about her. However as recorded in Paul’s letter, Paul felt that her name alone was more than enough information. At least enough information that he could simply mention her first name, and everyone would automatically know who she was. There were only two women mentioned throughout the entire New Testament named Mary, and Mary Magdalene was no longer around. I’ll cover that later, in another video.
Jesus’ mother Mary was also mentioned at Acts 12:12.
“When he realized this, he went to the home of Mary, the mother John Mark, where many were gathered for prayer.”
Once again the Satanic cults of Christendom declare this woman to be yet another random woman named Mary. According to the doctrines of Christianity she can’t possibly be identified because once again, there simply isn’t enough available information. How much information can they possibly need?
Since we know that Jesus’ mother is specifically called the mother of the children of Zebedee, and that Zebedee had a son named John, it isn’t all that difficult to conclude that John the son of Zebedee could be surnamed Mark. John the son of Zebedee is yet another brother of Jesus who was a leader in the early work of evangelizing and organizing the earliest congregations of those who followed the teachings of Jesus.
We can know that John Mark was in fact Jesus’ brother John the son of Zebedee because at Colossians 4:10 our English translations of the Bible describe him this way:
“My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.”
The Greek word used here does not mean the same thing as the English word cousin. Anepsios (Strong’s G431) is only used once in the entire New Testament. It is formed from the obsolete word Nepos which means brood. This word would not normally be used to describe any kind of relationship that people today would normally acknowledge, but obviously for the family of Jesus it would be appropriate.
The young of birds are normally called a brood. A single female bird will usually lay many eggs at one time fathered by multiple males. When the eggs hatch, they as a group would be called a brood.
Since we know that Mark was the name used by Mary’s son John, who was fathered by Zebedee, and that Barnabas was Joseph Barsabbas, the son of Mary fathered by Joseph. Calling the two of them members of the same brood would be appropriate.
There are quite literally dozens of unique names, titles, and nicknames of people that are referred to as the brothers in the New Testament. Most of them are descriptive, and over time we will know who all of them were. I am certain that all of them were family members of Jesus. If not sons of Mary, perhaps sons of Joseph.
As you research this information for yourselves you are going to come across many verses that make what I’m telling you seem impossible. Just as an example, I’ll tell you about something that initially caused me to doubt that Jesus’ apostles were his brothers.
When he initially gathered together the group of twelve that he called apostles, each one instantly dropped what they were doing and followed Jesus. Their eagerness to join themselves to Jesus, without even questioning why, could easily be explained by the fact that they all grew up with him, and were obviously prepared for the day when Jesus would begin his ministry.
However each individual seemed to be surprised to find out that the savior of Israel had been located. A good example of this can be found at John 1:45.
“Philip went to look for Nathanael and told him, we have found the very person Moses and the prophets wrote about! His name is Jesus, the son of Joseph from Nazareth.”
To me this really sounded like Philip was amazed that he had located this person that he had previously only read about in the Bible. Obviously each and every one of the apostles was shocked to find Jesus, but most of the wording of the verses has been colored in ways that are not part of the original Greek manuscripts. When Philip found Jesus what he actually said would have sounded more like this in English:
“The one written about by Moses in the law, and by the prophets has been found. Joseph’s son Jesus of Nazareth.”
Hopefully you can see, that as originally recorded in Greek Philip did not tell Nathanael “We have found the savior and his name is Jesus”. He simply told him, “We have found Jesus.” There is a difference. In fact quite a few translations leave out the idea that Philip was unaware of Jesus’ name. But even still, if a person did not know that Philip and Nathaniel already knew Jesus, as translated into English it would seem as if they didn’t.
Chronologically Jesus chose his apostles shortly after returning from being tempted by the devil in the wilderness. The synoptic gospels all mention that Jesus did this. Seemingly, he either fasted for 40 days, and was tempted after fasting, or he was tempted during his fast. The Bible also says that he was ministered to by angels, but does not say when or for how long.
The fist thing that the Bible says Jesus did when he went into the wilderness was to get baptized by John. The Bible really doesn’t describe how far the wilderness was from his home, but it does make it clear that the wilderness was not where his family lived. Mark adds to the account by stating that while in the wilderness, Jesus stayed with the wild animals. I just want you to know that Jesus did not just go on a 40 day trip. He was led into the wilderness by the Holy spirit and the time that he spent there was probably much longer than just the 40 days that he spent fasting. In fact, Jesus may have stayed in the wilderness for several years.
The apostles were not shocked to find out that Jesus was the Messiah. As his brothers, they had known that for years. They were simply shocked to see him again after such a long absence. Seemingly, when the spirit led Jesus out into the wilderness, it did not inform his family about where he was going or how long he would be gone. The reaction of his brothers at his return is what we should expect.
The stories taught in Church about Jesus just randomly offering strangers the opportunity to become apostles are not accurate.
In the next video in this series I will be revealing the identity of the writer of the Book of John. If you are not a college trained theologian, then you are probably not aware of the fact that nobody really knows who wrote it. At one time the identity of the writer was common knowledge, but when the Bible was translated from Greek into Latin, that knowledge was intentionally concealed and over time, eventually lost.
As is the case in most of my videos, I will be exposing lies that have been told and retold millions of times over the course of the last two thousand years. As we get closer to the end of this series I promise that I will be telling you things that will be more shocking than anything that you are currently expecting.
As always, if you don’t want to survive, don’t listen to me.