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 part eight in my Melchizedek video series.
Thus far, every video in this series has revealed sacred secrets that have not been shared with mankind for thousands of years, and what you are about to hear is going to be no different.
This video will not be the final video in this series. Neither will it be the most shocking. However as you are about to find out, this information will solve a riddle that has been perplexing the members of the Christian faith ever since Satan put it into the hearts of man to pervert God’s word. As recorded at Mark 7:13:
“By handing down your traditions you have made God’s word void.”
What I am about to conclusively prove, will overturn many so called “Christian” traditions currently held as sacred, by billions of religious people around the world.
What I have been revealing in this series, is only a small part of a vast library of knowledge directly from our heavenly father that will soon be made available to every man woman and child on this planet.
This recent flood of knowledge is unprecedented in all of human history, and will soon culminate with the return of God’s chosen ruler, his most precious child, Jesus Christ. Currently we are experiencing what the prophets of old dreamed about, and wrote about, but never got to experience themselves. This current flood of knowledge is one of the most significant signs that the final days of civilization are quickly approaching. As Daniel 2:4 said in regard to this time:
“Conceal these words, and seal up this book. In the end time, knowledge will increase while many are running around lost.”
There is a person spoken of in the Bible as “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved”. College trained theologians have been debating nearly nonstop over the identity of this disciple ever since the Bible was first translated into Latin by the Roman Empire.
In 382 AD Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to provide a definitive Latin version of the Bible. Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire. As Rome’s dominion over Europe grew, the number of people who spoke Latin grew as well.
Prior to that, the only versions of the Bible available to mankind, were in the ancient Greek dialect spoken in first century Palestine. Many recognized that ancient Greek was quickly becoming a dead language, and began to create their own versions of individual books of the Bible in what at that time was the common language of the people. Hundreds of years prior, the same thing took place with the Old Testament, when Hebrew became a dead language, and was replaced by Greek.
Pope Damasus determined that it was in the best interest of the Catholic Church to produce a standardized version, of the Bible in Latin. Damasus realized that accurate Bibles translated directly from the original language text, posed a significant threat to official Church doctrine. The truth of God’s word the Bible had to be kept concealed from mankind if the Empire was to maintain control over the population.
The process of creating, altering and perfecting a complete standardized Latin Bible, took over a thousand years, culminating in what has become known as the Versio Vulgata of 1592. In our day, contrary to popular belief, all versions of the Bible produced, in the many languages of mankind, are directly translated from the Versio Vulgata. What that means for us, is that all modern language versions of the Bible preserve the deceptions originally fabricated by The Catholic Church. In our day, the Versio Vulgata is referred to as the Latin Vulgate.
One of the reasons that scholars have put so much effort into identifying the disciple whom Jesus loved is because as documented at John 21:20-24:
“This disciple is the one who told us these things, and wrote these things down, and we know that his testimony is true”
The book in question is the Gospel of John. Most who are familiar with the Bible simply take it for granted that the writer of the Book of John must have been John, which is understandable. The churches have been printing the book of John for hundreds of years, always putting a title at the top of the first page, clearly declaring the book to be “According To John”, “The Book of John”, “The Gospel According To John” or simply “John”.
Prior to the Greek and Roman Empires, taking over control of the publication of Bibles, the only title that many Bible books would have had, would have been the first line of the individual books as they appeared in ancient Hebrew and Greek. Many books of the Bible did not receive their official titles until many hundreds of years after they were written.
Most people who profess a love of the Bible probably are not even aware of the fact that there has been an ongoing debate for hundreds of years, as to whether or not the Book Of John should have even been included as part of the official Bible canon. The word Canon means “a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
The other gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are very similar to one another. So much so, that many theologians have written treatise explaining how these three books came about and in what order. The stories are so closely related that some have concluded that all three must have been based on an original gospel account that has been lost to time.
Others argue that at one time only one of the three existed. After the other two writers read that single unique account of Jesus life, they wrote their own version of the story, taking out details that they didn’t personally witness, while adding information about events that they did witness. The three books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels, because they are similar to one another. The words synoptic and synopsis both mean basically the same thing. A brief survey, or general summary of a subject.
The Book of John on the other hand is nothing like the other three gospel accounts. The stories are so different that some argue that the Book of John is in conflict with the other three. Even the writing style is unique. Many who have studied the gospel accounts have expressed confusion about how such a book came about. Even those with deep faith in the word of God are uncomfortable with this very unusual version of Jesus’ life and ministry that is so unlike the other three gospels.
I only stumbled upon what I am about to tell you because of part 7 in this Melchizedek series, which is all about Jesus’ Mother, Father, Brothers, and Sisters. I knew that as Jesus was dying he declared to his mother that one of his disciples was her son. I had always heard that this disciple was John. I thought that I could add one more child by adoption to the list of Jesus’ family members, so I researched the appropriate verses to determine if that was the case. The passage that I am talking about is found at John 19:26,27.
“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, woman behold thy son. Then saith he to the disciple, behold thy mother. And from that hour, that disciple took her into his own home.”
I had read this verse many times, and always wondered why Jesus would remove his mother from her family. It never sounded right, but up until now, I just accepted that for some reason Jesus felt the need to assign his friend the task of caring for his mother.
Several religions teach that Jesus simply did not feel comfortable leaving his mother in the care of his unbelieving family, but from my own personal reading of the Bible, I had already discovered that that could not possibly be the case. Seemingly all of Jesus family were strong believers in him throughout their lives. There are several poorly translated verses that say things like Jesus brothers did not believe in him, but under scrutiny all such passages simply say that his brothers did not believe certain things that he was saying to them at that time. Nowhere in the Bible is it ever suggested that they did not believe that he was their savior. All of his brothers and sisters knew from childhood, that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. The Bible testifies that they all recognized and acknowledged that Jesus was the son of God.
I was hoping that somehow, using nothing more than the Bible, I could discover, the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved, and why Jesus would hand over the care of his mother to this person.
It is easy to research individual Hebrew and Greek words using Concordances, Lexicons, and Dictionaries of Bible Hebrew and Greek words. But it isn’t as easy to research phrases, because even though in English this person is always described as the beloved disciple the Bible does not. consistently refers to this person as the beloved disciple, the Bible itself does not use the same series of words to do so in each passage. In other words, as originally written down, some verses might say the beloved disciple, others might say the disciple that Jesus loved, or the disciple whom jesus loved. Fortunately, as I said earlier, the identity of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” has been debated by many people over the years. So it wasn’t very difficult to locate a Wikipedia article with a complete list of the verses that are pertinent to this subject.
According to the article, there are only 6 occurrences of this phrase found in the entire English translation of the Bible. All 6 are found in the Book of John. Probably because, as I said earlier, it was the beloved disciple who wrote the Book of John.
Over the centuries the theologians that have supposedly been trying to identify the writer of the Book of John, have always based their research on this single fact. Most would agree that if we could somehow conclusively identify the disciple whom Jesus loved, we would by default be able to identify who wrote the book of John. Thankfully as I am about to show you, the Bible does in fact clearly identify the writer of the Book of John by name, and it is without a doubt not the Apostle John.
A very obvious first step towards solving this ancient mystery, for me was to simply read every verse found in the Gospel of John about the Disciple whom Jesus loved, and compare the accounts of these events to the accounts of the same events as recorded by Mathew, Mark, and Luke. If the writer only referred to themselves as the disciple whom Jesus loved, we just need to find out how the other writers referred to this person.
Even though The Book Of John is very different when compared to the Synoptic Gospels they are all still about the same small group of people, and in some cases, the same events.
Before trying to identify the disciple whom Jesus loved, we really need to clear our heads of all preconceived notions about their identity. If we take on this challenge as a means of proving that the disciple whom Jesus loved was the apostle John, then that is the answer we will find. No matter what we think we know, it is essential that we approach this problem convinced that we know nothing.
When theologians engage in debates about the identity of the writer of this book, they always start with the assumption that the disciple whom Jesus loved had to have been one of the twelve apostles. But there are serious problems with this line of reasoning.
First off, the disciple whom Jesus loved is never even called an apostle. Second, the word apostle is just an ancient Latin word meaning one sent out. Apostlols itself is simply a transliteration the Greek word apostolos. (Strong’s G652) We living in the modern English speaking world no longer use this word in our language when speaking of someone sent out, because it is not an English word. Had Bible translators actually rendered this word into English as they were suppose to do, our Bibles today would likely use the word envoy or emissary instead of the word apostle.
Third, the word disciple, which also comes from an ancient Latin word, simply means a learner, or one who is taught, or one who is being taught. In English we would call such a person a student. The fact that our English translations of the Bible use so many Latin words is further evidence that our modern English Bibles were for a fact not translated directly from the ancient Greek manuscripts, but instead from the Latin Vulgate produced by the Catholic Church in 1592. The ancient Greek word that has been rendered as disciple in our English translations of the Bible is mathetes. (Strong’s G3101) Mathetes is not similar in pronunciation to the Latin word discipulous in any way.
In our Bibles many are called apostles, and many more are called disciples. Neither word was ever used as an exclusive title for the small group of men, that Jesus traveled with or sent out, which is always referred to in the Bible, simply as “The Twelve”. Obviously Jesus loved the twelve that he chose, but that doesn’t mean that he could only love the twelve, or that he loved the twelve more than all of his other disciples.
The apostles are spoken of in several parts of the Bible but each list is slightly different. Some scholars have attempted to resolve this problem by determining if the Apostles were known by multiple names. Which in some cases, we know that they were.
At the beginning of his ministry Jesus chose twelve men, who would stand out. The books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all included a list of these men, and each of those lists, are obviously the same. After Jesus died, was resurrected and ascended into heaven Luke’s account recorded a list of the same men, with the exception of Judas who had committed suicide after betraying Jesus.
The fact that all three of the synoptic gospels carefully recorded the names of the twelve, means that it is important for us to understand, that there were indeed twelve apostles that in some way were different from the rest. However the Book of John treats the subject of the apostles much differently. It is almost as if the writer of John was not all that concerned with the organizational arangement, or historic details of what Jesus was doing.
The Gospel of John does mention the twelve, but it is almost as if in passing. It list several of the apostles by name, but some of the names are not the same as the names given by the books of Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts. For theologians this is problematic. All of Christendom’s religions are based on organizational hierarchies. As recorded by the writer of the Gospel of John, the apostles, and disciples of Jesus are presented more like a loose group of friends than a Christian Church.
The twelve men that were chosen at the beginning of Jesus ministry remained unchanged all the way up until Judas committed suicide. After Judas died another was chosen to replace him, in order to bring their number back up to twelve. At one time Jesus sent out 70 men, who themselves would have been considered apostles. Later, Paul was called an apostle even though he was not one of the twelve. At Hebrews 3:1, even Jesus is called an apostle.
It is likely that at least some of the apostles, who’s names are unlike the names on the official list of the twelve, are simply apostles who were not chosen to be part of the twelve.
Another assumption that theologians usually start with is that the writer of John must have produced other writings.
Even if that was true, it certainly isn’t any kind of set rule. The Apostle Paul is thought by some to have written 12 books in total. Quite a few writers are thought to have only written one.
What we think we know about the writers of the books of the Bible is not actually known at all. As I said earlier most of the titles of the different Bible books were assigned to those books by theologians hundreds, or in some cases perhaps thousands of years after they were written. Most books of the Bible do not make any claims about authorship within their texts.
Just so you know what I am talking about, nowhere in the Book of Matthew are we told “this book was written by Matthew”. It is believed by most people that Matthew and Levi are just two different names of the same man. But once again, nowhere in the Book of Matthew are we told that this book was written by Levi. Nowhere in any other book of the Bible are we ever even told that Matthew or Levi ever wrote anything. In most cases we have no way of knowing who wrote what.
All that we know about the writer of the Book of John, is that it was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved.
At some point Church leaders made the determination that the Gospel of John was in the same writing style as the three epistles of 1st John, 2nd John, and 3rd John. The problem with that assumption is that most authors living in the same part of the world at the same time, could obviously have had similar writing styles. Another major problem with relying on this line of reasoning, in determining who wrote the Book of John is the fact that we don’t even know who wrote those three epistles. And worst of all, under academic scrutiny, it has been determined that the style of the Gospel of John is nothing like the style of the three epistles. Seemingly, even the three epistles had more than one author.
The Book of Revelation declares itself to be a revelation of John, but once again, we don’t know which John, and it’s writing style is unlike the other books attributed to John. Some of the passages seem to be direct quotes of the Gospel of John, but that is common in all books of the Bible.
Much of what makes the Book of John so unusual, is what is recorded about the disciple whom Jesus loved. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, but just prior to Jesus’ ascension into heaven, a conversation between Jesus and Peter highlights just how unusual his relationship was with this particular disciple.
As Jesus and others are walking along, Peter asks Jesus an extremely unusual question. This account is found at John 21:20-23
“Peter turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, so Peter asked Jesus: “What about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I return, what is that to you?” Therefore this saying went out among the brothers that that disciple would not die, but that isn’t what Jesus said. Jesus did not say that he would never die but only “If I want him to remain until I return, what is that to you?”
Jesus’ response raises quite a few questions. Just the fact that Peter would ask such a thing raises quite a few questions. This account took place during Jesus’ final moments before ascending into heaven. His apostles had already been told by Jesus that he was going to ascend, and likely told them exactly when. Jesus’ disciples understood that at any moment, Jesus was going to disappear into a cloud, return to where he came from, and not be seen again for nearly two thousand years. This is the context that we need to understand before we can grasp exactly what Peter was asking and why.
Jesus’ ascension into heaven is recorded in a fashion very similar to two other stories recorded about the Old Testament prophets Enoch and Elijah. None of the stories explicitly describe the experiences of the three, but what is recorded seems similar in many ways. Some religions argue that neither Enoch nor Elijah actually ascended into heaven, and there is considerable validity to those arguments. Others argue that in fact Enoch and Elijah did ascend into heaven and there is considerable validity to those arguments as well. None of those religions argue about whether or not Jesus ascended into heaven. After Enoch and Elijah ascended, neither of their asensions are ever spoken of again. In contrast, the ascension of Jesus into Heaven is a repeating theme of the final books of the Bible.
Peter did not ask Jesus if his mother was ascending with him, or if the remaining ones of the twelve were ascending with him. He specifically asked about the disciple whom Jesus loved. For some reason it was not just the writer of the Gospel of John that considered the disciple whom Jesus loved to have a special relationship with Jesus. Apparently there was something unique about the relationship between Jesus and the writer of John, that was common knowledge. Those who knew Jesus, seemingly understood that there was something unique about this particular disciple. So much so that Peter, and likely everyone traveling with Jesus was expecting this disciple to ascend into heaven with Jesus.
Jesus by his response to Peter acknowledged for a certainty that in fact the relationship between him and the one whom he loved was unique. As recorded at this passage, there were only three options presented. The disciple whom Jesus loved would either die at some point, remain alive on Earth until Jesus returned thousands of years later, or perhaps ascend into heaven with Jesus right then and there.
What Jesus said as he was dying also confirms that Jesus had a very special relationship with the writer of John, that he did not share with the others. Once again as recorded at John 19:26,27:
“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, woman behold thy son. Then saith he to the disciple, behold thy mother. And from that hour, that disciple took her into his own home.”
Right now I know that everyone listening to this information is learning things that they previously were not aware of. You are all probably trying to use that information to figure out the identity of the person consistently referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Which is a good thing. However I must warn you in advance that the identity of this person is much more significant than you know.
All of the verses about the beloved disciple have been intentionally mistranslated in such a way as to completely change the entire story of the Bible. Very early on, the Catholic Church recognized that the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved, had to be kept concealed in order to preserve and protect their religious traditions. It would be impossible for us to solve this ancient mystery using nothing more than an English translation of God’s word. We are going to have to study the original language documents that existed before Damasus and Jerome produced their Latin version of the Bible. What has been presented to us in English is nothing like what was originally recorded.
Some of the verses about this person are not quite as dramatic as others. At John 21:1-14 a group of Jesus followers is fishing, when Jesus appears to them from shore. At first no one knows who it is standing on the shore calling out to them, except for the disciple whom Jesus loved. At verse 7 it is this disciple who tells them “It is the Lord”. This person was not just exceptionally observant. Their relationship with Jesus gave them insight that the others simply did not have.
Once you are made aware of all of the facts about the disciple whom Jesus loved, you will discover that they were involved in most of the major events that took place during Jesus’ ministry. As recorded in the Bible the disciple whom Jesus loved was with Jesus on many occasions when none of his other disciples were present.
In all honesty, my first glimpse into what the churches had done to God’s sacred word came to me while reading the account of what is called, by some, “The Last Supper” or what others call “The Lord’s Evening Meal”. This account can be found at John 13:21-26.
“After saying this Jesus testified “Truly I say to you, one of you will betray me” The disciples did not know who he was talking about so Simon Peter motioned to the disciple whom Jesus loved, who was reclining next to Jesus side to ask him who he was speaking about? So the disciple who was leaning against Jesus said, “Who is it Lord?” and Jesus revealed that it was Judas.”
I found out about 30 years ago that there was some question about whether or not this verse was accurately translated, but never really thought about whether or not that was true. At the time, I simply was not ready to question the accuracy of the English translation of the Bible. I felt that all I needed, was the version of the Bible that I was reading at that time, in order to learn everything that I needed to know.
What I had read was an article published by homosexuals using the teachings of the Bible to defend their life style. They claimed that John’s behavior at the last supper was not normal for a heterosexual man.
In question was the verse at John 13:23, which in their opinion described John as sitting in Jesus’ lap. Since I had decided to try to identify, this person I thought that it might be important to take a look at an ancient copy of this verse in Greek to see if there was any validity to those claims.
The first word that we need to look at is anakeimai (Strong’s G345) which means to lie into. It is formed from the two words ana (Strong’s G303) which means into. And keimei (Strong’s G2749) which means to lie down. The next word in the verse that we need to look at is kolpos (Strong’s G2859) Which simply means the front of the body between the arms.
Obviously with this basic understanding of what was said in Greek, we can see that translating this verse to indicate that John was sitting, and leaning at a table next to Jesus, would not be accurate at all. But I also don’t believe that anybody was sitting in Jesus’ lap either. The Greek phrase “anakeimai kolpos could only describe two people lying down, in a tender embrace. Jesus lying on some piece of furniture such as a bed or sofa, or perhaps on the floor, with his arms wrapped around the disciple. Likely in a position that we today in English call spooning.
John 21:20 describes the embrace of Jesus and the disciple whom he loved using two completely different words. Anapipto (Strong’s G377) and Stethos (Strong’s G4738). As presented to us in an English translation of the Bible what is said at this passage is:
“This is the one who leaned back against Jesus at the evening meal and asked who was going to betray him”
The word anapipto actually means “laid upon” and the word stethos actually means chest. The Greek word stethos is where we get our English word stethoscope. Understanding what these two words actually mean, allows us, for the first time in nearly 2,000 years to know what was actually recorded at John 21:20:
“This is the one who laid upon Jesus’ chest at the evening meal and asked who was going to betray him.”
With just this small correction to the translation, we can know two things for a certainty. At some point during the night of the last supper, as Jesus and the disciple whom he loved were cuddleing, they became uncomfortable, and had to shift position. We can also know for a certainty that the relationship between Jesus and the writer of the book of John was much more intimate than the churches are willing to admit.
As I am about to prove conclusively, the writer of the Gospel of John was definitely not the apostle John. Hopefully everyone listening to this information understands that the disciple whom Jesus loved had to have been a woman. Fortunately everyone who has an internet connection has accesses to copies of the original language text of the passages in question.
Our salvation does not depend on our ability to read and understand ancient Greek and Hebrew. There really isn’t any requirement on God’s part for someone to be able to solve all of the secrets of the universe before receiving some kind of heavenly reward. But it’s really not all that hard to figure out what has been done to our English translations of the Bible, if that is truly what you want to do.
Every language on Earth works in a similar way. All languages require the same basic parts of speech in order for members of a culture to communicate. Nouns are the names of things such as birds. Verbs are words that we use to describe activity, such as to fly. Most languages use different words, but that isn’t the only thing that is different about the languages of man.
In some languages the order in which words are placed in a sentence might seem backwards to people speaking other languages. When someone learns a second language, this concept is usually much more difficult to grasp than learning the actual words. You may have noticed this if you have a friend that is from another country. How words are put together is called grammar.
Some words are singular but when the spelling is slightly altered they become plural. Some words describe things that are happening currently but in a slightly altered form can also be used to describes things that happened in the past, or things that will happen in the future. Some words have a male gender version and a female gender version. Some changes in the spellinng of words serve no purpose other than to allow a language according to the rythem and flow of the culture.
All of these concepts can be accomplished simply by changing the spelling of a word, but in some instances these concepts can be changed simply be a words position in a sentence realtive to other words. What you need to know, is that all languages are organic, so much so, that even people who only speak English, go to college, and get degrees in English grammar, will argue over English grammar.
Making our current quest for truth even more difficult is the fact that the original language of the New Testament is a dead language. In other words there is currently no one left alive who speaks it.
The reason that I am telling you this is so that you won’t be tricked by some fast talking holder of a college degree. Or some dedicated Fundamentalist Christian Religionist.
Over the years, I have heard some insanely ridiculous ancient Greek grammar rhetoric spew from the mouths of theologians. Particularly when it involves Church doctrine.
What I am telling you right now, is that every passage about the disciple whom Jesus loved, has been altered through the translation process. Each and every male gender noun and pronoun that is used in these verses is inappropriate. Any Greek speaker reading an original language text of these scriptures in 1st Century Palestine, would have instantly understood that the disciple whom Jesus loved was a woman. I suspect that those who translated the Bible from Greek into Latin understood this as well.
Over time, many ancient Greek copies of the original language text have been made available to modern day scholars. Quite a few new versions of modern language Bibles have been produced since these ancient documents have been made available. However, any time that a translator happens upon a passage of ancient Greek text that conflicts with established religious tradition, they always default to what is recorded in the Latin Vulgate.
Each and every modern language Bible that I am aware of begins with a general introduction explaining why a need was felt to produce a new translation of the Bible. Usually an explanation is included in those introductions as to how they went about resolving known conflicts that exist between the ancient the ancient books used to produce their versions of the Bible. Included in all of those lists are the Textus Receptus, and the Latin Vulgate. The Textus Receptus is nothing more than a Greek translation of the Latin Vulgate, which by default would make the Latin Vulgate nothing more than a Latin translation of the Textus Receptus.
Even though all of the truly ancient Greek documents usually support one another, they do not always agree with the Latin Vulgate of 1592, and by default the Textus Receptus produced around the same time. Translators have always chosen to err on the side of tradition rather than risk upsetting the status quo. Which is why the disciple whom Jesus loved has always been depicted as a man in every translation of the Bible ever produced.
As I said earlier, there are rules for ancient Greek grammar that are completely different from the rules for modern English grammar. If you simply look at any Bible verse in what is called an interlinear Bible, you will be able to easily see exactly what I am talking about. The words in Greek or Hebrew will appear scrambled when compared to the English translation that is posted directly above or below each line of Hebrew or Greek text. For an English speaker, it might be difficult or even impossible to determine which word is the subject of the sentence, or which noun is associated with which verb. This is also true of the pronouns.
In English we have male gender pronouns such as he, him, and his, female gender pronouns such as she, her, and hers, and neuter gender pronouns such as it and its. As straight forward as we might think the rules would be for using such words, often times they are not. To most people a dog would be an it. To a pet lover a dog would be a he or a she. To most people a ship would be an it. To a sailor a ship would be a she. To most people a person would be a he or a she. And for me that is often the case as well. However, I usually refer to people that are spiritually dead as its.
As I said earlier, the Latin word that gets translated into our English word disciple simply means student. In the ancient past, in Latin, anyone that was a student would be called a student regardless of their gender.
Using a male gender pronoun to describe a student might have been appropriate in ancient Greek or Latin regardless of the gender of the student. Keep in mind that the pronoun is being associated with the word student, not with the name of the student. However, whether that’s true or not, that is not how pronouns are used in English, it would be inappropriate to assign a male gender pronoun to a student who is known to be female.
Translators may feel justified in rendering a male gender Greek or Latin pronoun, as a male gender English pronoun, however there are quite a few instances in our Bibles where Greek male gender pronouns are not rendered as such. The evidence that translators willingly change genders of ancient language prounouns can be found in the Bible.
Matthew 5:15 says this:
“Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.”
The first use of the word it, is actually translated from the word autos (Strong’s G846). The second use of the word it, is not translated from anything. It has been inserted by the translators in order to make the passage conform to the rules of English Grammar.
According to the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance the definition of the word autos is “he, she, it, himself, herself, themselves, or itself”. However this isn’t entirely accurate. As spelled at this particular verse autos is in a form that is more often than not, rendered as our English gender pronoun “him”. It might not be necessary to use a male gender pronoun to describe a male gender person in ancient Greek. Sometimes as written a male gender pronoun might need to be used to conform to the male gender nature of the entire sentence. At this verse the word is not autos, spelled with an s but auton spelled with an n.
If translators were to preserve this passage according to ancient Greek grammar, it would sound like this:
“Nor light lamp and place him under basket but upon the lampstand and shines for all those in the house.”
As you can see, preserving ancient Greek grammar in a sentence made up of modern English words, would not be appropriate. Those of us who speak English would be confused if this passage were presented to us in this way. We would be especially confused if the entire Bible was presented like this.
The ancient Greeks would have understood that lamps do not have a gender. Assigning a male gender pronoun to a lamp would be no different than a sailor assigning a female gender pronoun to a ship. I use to live on a ship and we all referred to that ship as a she. However, I am reasonably certain that all hands knew that the ship we lived on was not female.
But once again we need to keep in mind that the auton spelling of this word may have nothing to do with gender anyway. Many times in many languages words that we might think of as having a male gender, may simply be the form that Greek grammar demands, based on the structure of the sentence.
The ancient Greek versions of the Bible would have effectively communicated very detailed, easy to understand ideas to an ancient Greek speaker, just as we are able to do when speaking in English to English speakers. In other words the parts that we might think are missing would actually be there represented by the spelling, or position of the surrounding words.
Auton, is the same male gender pronoun used in our Bibles to describe the human eye at Matthew 5:29.
“If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck “him” out.”
You probable recognize the passage and know that in our English translation of the Bible, what is actually said is:
“If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck “it” out.
This is also the same pronoun that is used at John 13:24.
The disciple whom Jesus loved was lying next to Jesus so “Simon Peter motioned to “him” to ask Jesus who was going to betray him.”
It may seem strange to an English speaker, but pronouns that are traditionally thought of as having a male gender are often used by people speaking other languages even when the person that they are speaking about is female. Often it is because of the females title in the sentence.
We know that Peter was speaking to Mary Magdalene, however, in the passage she isn’t called Mary Magdalene, but instead called disciple. Had she been called by her name, it is possible that a different pronoun would have been used. Or perhaps not. As I said earlier, the position and spelling of the surrounding words may have still demanded the use of the auton spelling according to the rules of ancient Greek grammar. In any case, it should be obvious that male and female gender pronouns did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks as they do to us. Changing the gender of the pronoun has more to do with sentence structure than it does with the physical gender of the subject.
Another thing that I have noticed, is that many languages still use genderless versions of pronouns. Whenever I am interested in a news story in another language, I’ll often copy and paste a line of text into a tranlation program. Many times the translations will come back as male gender or neuter gender pronouns in text that is obviously about a woman, or women. So, even in our day, there are languages where pronoun gender has little or nothing at all to do with the actual physical gender of the subject.
Another problem with pronouns is that in some languages they are often unnecessary. As a result many languages at times don’t even include pronouns that in other languages would be necessary. For such a passage to be effectively translated it has to follow the rules of grammar of the language that it is being translated into.
As an example we will go back and look at how this was done in the passage about Jesus’ execution found at John 19:26,27.
“When Jesus saw his mother with the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman behold you son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold your mother”, and from that very hour on the disciple took her into his own home.”
The word “his” in the phrase “his own home” was simply added to this verse to fill an empty space that according to the rules of English grammar would require the use of a pronoun. In the original Greek text there is no pronoun because according to the rules of Greek grammar the pronoun would be understood. Since the pronoun is associated with the word son, translators always render it as male gender pronoun. Another word that is not included in the original text is home.
Another male gender word used in this verse is son. However in Greek the word used is huios. (Strong’s G5207) Huios for a fact means child. Every Greek translator would know it means child. If you look up the word huios in a Greek language reference book such as a lexicon, concordance or dictionary, you will be able to plainly see that huios is always defined as child. Translators have simply taken it upon themselves to arbitrarily render this word as son.
It is not accurate to translate this Greek word into our English word son. By tradition, we call Jesus the son of God, but that isn’t what he is called in the original ancient Greek text of the Bible. In all of the ancient original language texts, Jesus is always referred to as the child of God. We know that Jesus was male, so calling him son of God accurately describes what Jesus was, but in a Bible translation it is not appropriate at all. Translating the phrase “child of God” as “son of God” introduces an inaccuracy into our modern translations of the Bible which is unnecessary and intentionally misleading.
The ancient Greeks had a word that meant son, and a word that meant daughter. Had God wanted to highlight Jesus’ gender, he could have easily had his writers use a male gender word. The word huios is used many times in our Bibles when it is obviously describing males as in the case of Jesus. However this word is also used when it is very obviously describing females.
Matthew 5:9 uses the word this way.
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”
Apparently Church hierarchy is willing to admit that women can be peacemakers, and as a result can be called children of God. Otherwise this verse would use the word sons instead.
Bible translators have no problem using the word daughter or child where it is appropriate for other less significant Bible characters. However, the disciple whom Jesus loved is perceived by the Catholic church as too important to be female. Catholic Church hierarchy is and always has been exclusively male. Allowing Church members to know that one of it’s precious Bible books was written by someone of the inferior gender would be problematic, to say the least. Most of Christendom’s cults are based on male dominated hierarchies.
Another problem with revealing the gender of the disciple whom Jesus loved is the Church teaching that sex is immoral. According to most Church doctrines, all sexual activity is wicked, unless it is done in accordance with Church rules. Whether it is the natural sexual activity of people who love one another, or the unnatural sexual activity of people who are not interested in natural sexual activity. The lower level members of Christendom could never be allowed to worship what could potentially be a sexually active savior.
What is especially revealing about John 19:26, is the fact that the name of the disciple whom Jesus loved, is revealed at John 19:25. The verse immediately before it.
“Standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and her sister Mary the wife of Klopas, and Mary Magdalene.”
In our English translations of the Bible, the punctuation has been rendered in such a way as to make it seem as if there are three named women at Jesus’ execution. Had the translators added another comma they could have made it four. But in Greek there are only two. His mother and Mary Magdalene. Once again I’ll read the verse with punctuation that is more appropriate.
“Standing near the cross of Jesus, were his mother, and her sister. Mary of Klopas and Mary Magdalene.”
As used in this verse, the word sister is not about these two Mary’s having the same parents. It is about the spiritual relationship between his mother and Mary Magdalene.
Even though the bible uses the words brother and sister to describe people that have the same human parents, it also uses these two words, quite regularly, to describe people who have the same Creator.
As followers of Christ, Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene would have thought of one another as sisters in the Lord. This tradition has even carried over into modern times. Many people still call one another brother and sister, out of respect for the fact, that in God, we all have the same father. This passage was written in this way to highlight the change that took place in the relationship between the two, when Jesus uttered the words:
“Woman look upon your daughter” and to the disciple whom he loved “look upon your mother”.
Another serious flaw in this verse is calling Jesus mother the wife of Klopas. First, the word wife does not even appear in this passage, and there really aren’t any rules of grammar that would indicate that the concept of a wife would be understood. Second, klopas is not a proper name. Klopas (Strong’s G3832) means exchanges. It is actually the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word achab (Strong’s H256) which supposedly means father’s brother, or friend of a father or kin of a brother or kin of a father. There is no English equivalent to this word. Basically in English this word would mean someone who is related in two separate ways. What we today might think of as someone who is adopted, or an in law.
As I said before verses written using ancient Greek grammar often look scrambled when compared to the same verse translated into English. A much more accurate translation of John 19:25 might be more like this.
“Standing, and near the pole of Jesus, was his mother and her sister. Mary, and Mary Magdalene who were related in two different ways. Jesus having seen his mother and the disciple whom he loved said to his mother, “Woman, look upon your child” and then he said to the disciple “Look upon your mother” and from that very hour on, the disciple thought of Mary as if she was her own mother.
I inserted the word mother after the word own because this is the word that would have been understood. Jesus told Mary, “look upon your mother.” Had Jesus told her, “look upon your house”, than the word house would have been understood.
Were that the case then translators would be correct in placing the word house after the word own. Jesus never said anything about giving his mother Mary a house. The entire conversation was about giving Mary Magdalene a mother.
The account found at John is not the only record of the crucifixion. All four gospels record this event, and each one list who was present, and none of them mention the presence of any men. All four highlight the fact that at Jesus execution there were women present. Three of the Gospels specifically say that Jesus’ mother Mary, and Mary Magdalene were there. None of the other women, in any of the passages are named.
According to the religions of Christianity there were at least three women named Mary present, with a possible total of six. I am going to prove to you now that the New Testament only mentions two women named Mary at Jesus’ execution. Jesus’ mother, and Mary Magdalene. And in fact, these two women, are the only two women named Mary, in the entire New Testament.
Mathew 27:55,56 says:
“Many women were there watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph.”
From this account some might conclude that Joseph’s name was included because he was present. I assure you that as originally recorded Joseph’s name was simply part of a short list of Mary’s children.
Mark 15:40 says:
“There were women watching. Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and Joseph, and Salome.”
At this verse, most Churches say that Salome was present. However as originally recorded in Greek once again, Salome is simply part of the list of Mary’s children.
Luke 23:49 says:
“All of the women who knew him from Galilee, stood at a distance watching.”
The Mary in all of these verses who is called a sister of Mary Magdalene, is the same Mary that is called the Mother of Jesus, is the same Mary that is called the Mother of James the Less, and Joseph, and is the same Mary that is called the mother of James, and Joses, and Salome.
And although no men are ever mentioned as being at the crucifixion, in each and every English translation of these verses that I have ever seen, either inappropriate punctuation has been added, or in some cases, words have been added or slightly altered, in order to leave open the possibility that men might have been present as well.
As originally recorded in Greek, none of these verses leave open the possibility of men having been present. Had even so much as one man been present at Jesus execution the verses would have said that some people were standing at a distance watching. Not that some women were standing at a distance watching.
In order for Jesus to have told John to take care of his mother, John would have had to have been there. He was not. Everyone present at the crucifixion was female. The only two who were spoken of by name were, his mother Mary, and the disciple whom Jesus loved, Mary Magdalene. Both are named at three of the four gospel accounts. And nobody else is named.
It would be proper to call Mary, the mother of James, and Joseph, and Salome, because according to Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55,56, We are told that Jesus had sisters. We are also told that Two of his brothers were named James, and Joseph or Joses (I explained why Joseph was sometimes called Joses in part 6 of this series). Neither account list any of his sisters by name, however according to these verses we can conclude that one of his sisters was named Salome.
If you do any research into what I am telling you about Salome, you will find that the mythology surrounding her goes way beyond anything that you will find in any Bible.
According to the Bible, Salome was just the name of one of Jesus’ sisters. She is mentioned as a daughter of Mary, and said to have brought spices for embalming Jesus’ body. Nothing else is known about her. However at another account we are told that a man named Joseph came with a man named Nicodemus bringing the spices. In the previous video in this series I explained that the Joseph in these passages is the Husband of Mary, the father of Jesus, and the father of Salome.
After the crucifixion, Mark 16:9 says that Mary Magdalene was the first person that Jesus appeared to.
Some would argue that there was at least one more Mary spoken of in the New Testament. That Mary being the sister of Lazarus. At Luke 10:38-42 we are told:
It came to pass, as they went that he entered into a village and met a woman named Martha who received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary. Mary is the one which sat at Jesus’ feet, and listened to him speak. This made Martha upset because she was doing all of the serving by herself. Jesus said to her, “Martha Martha, you are concerned with many things, but only one thing is necessary, and Mary has chosen that thing. And I shall not take it away from her.
I have heard quite a few sermons about this incident. Most are based on the belief that Martha shouldn’t have cooked so many things to impress Jesus, but instead should have cooked just one thing, in order to be able to pay better attention to his teachings.
As recorded in the Bible, the “cooking too much stuff” theory makes no sense at all. What Jesus was telling Martha is that he and Mary were not concerned about eating food at that time. The one thing that Mary was concerned about, which is the only thing that is necessary above all others is, love.
The reason that Martha went directly to Jesus to complain about having to cook everything herself, was likely due to the fact that it was Jesus who dragged Mary away from her chores.
Other gospels speak about Jesus visiting with Mary and her family. At John 11:20,21 we are told that when Martha found out that Jesus was coming, she ran out to greet him, but that Mary stayed sitting in the house. In this account their brother Lazarus had died, and Jesus had come to resurrect him.
After meeting Jesus and talking with him, Martha immediately returned to Mary, and at verses 28 and 29, we are told that she went to Mary in private and told her, “The teacher is here and is calling for you. And when she heard this she immediately went to him.
Including the English words “in private” at this verse is significant. This Greek word lathra (Strong’s G2977) is rendered as secretly, in some translations. It could also be rendered as discretely. There would have to be a reason for Martha to speak privately, secretly, or discretely to Mary about Jesus’ desire to speak with her.
At John 11:2 we are told that it was Mary that anointed Jesus’ feet with oil, and wiped them off with her hair. Details about this event can be found at Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke 10:38-42, and John 12:1-8. If you take the time to read these 4 accounts it is quite likely that you will be emotionally effected. She not only poured expensive oil on his feet, but also on his head, crying on his feet the entire time and wiping away her tears with her hair.
Theologians debate about whether or not these 4 accounts are of the same event, because each records different details. Whether they are or not, it is obvious that all four accounts are about Lazarus’ sister Mary. There is no denying that this Mary, is the same person as Mary Magdalene, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 8:1,2 indicates that Mary had been following Jesus for quite some time, and in fact had been possessed by seven demons prior to the accounts that are recorded in the Bible. As recorded, it seems very likely that Mary Magdalene was with Jesus from very early in his ministry.
If you are a spiritual person, then you likely recognize this simple truth that I am sharing with you for what it is. However, there is another group of people who love church doctrine, and they are going to demand that I explain every mistranslated verse in the Bible that is related to this subject.
With that in mind, I will share with you one more verse that has been intentionally mistranslate in such a way as to discredit any claims that Mary Magdaline and the disciple whom Jesus loved were one and the same. The original Greek version of this verse is nothing like what is avialable in any of the modern language Bibles currently available to mankind. This verse has been altered in such a way as to prove that Mary Magdalene could not possibly be the disciple whom Jesus loved.
At John 20:1-3 we are told:
On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away. So she ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him.” So Peter and the other disciple went forth.”
As translated into English, this verse says that Mary Magdalene ran to the disciple whom Jesus loved. But in Greek this verse does not say that at all.
All 5 of the other verses about the disciple whom Jesus loved use the two Greek words “mathetes and agapeo” (Strong’s G3101 and G25) The verse at John 20:2 also uses the word, methetes, but it does not use the word agapeo, which means love. It instead uses the word phileo. (Strong’s G5368) This kind of love would be more like the feelings that we would have for a pal, best friend, or buddy.
The Greek word phileo is where we get the name of the city Philadelphia. That is why Philadelphia is referred to as the “City of Brotherly Love”. Phileo basically means preferred. It is something that a person can feel for a friend, or for things, such as money. Unlike phileo, agapeo is like our modern concept of love. The best description that I can think of for agapeo is natural instinctive love. However in the context of being used in the phrase “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” it signifies a romantic relationship.
Mary Magdalene did not run to Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved. She ran to Peter and Jesus’ best friend. The Disciple who was Jesus’ best friend at this verse is very likely Mary Magdalene’s brother Lazarus.
Earlier at John 11:1-3 Mary and Martha sent word to Jesus that Lazarus was sick.
“Lord! He whom you love is sick.”
By the time that Jesus arrived Lazarus had died, so Jesus brought him back to life. Most will be familiar with what happened next as recorded at John 11:35:
“Jesus wept.” And the Jews who witnessed it said, “look how much he loved him.”
The version of love that is used at these two verses is once again ephilei. The same kind of best friend love that is used at John 20:2. The disciple who ran to the tomb with Peter, was almost certainly Lazarus.
I am sure that Jesus was very fond of John and all of the rest of his disciples and apostles. Probably either word would be proper to describe the relationship that he had with many of his disciples. But the Book of John does not state that it was written by Jesus’ best friend or any other male friend. It clearly says that it was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Although the word disciple is used in our Bibles 268 times it is only spelled two ways. As disciple singular, and disciples plural.
In the Bible the Greek word which means disciple, is methetes. Methetes is spelled 13 different ways. I have looked at the spelling and usage of each occurrence of the word and cannot see any pattern related to the gender of the person or persons that are being called a disciple or disciples.
I am constantly warning my listeners to get out of religion. The cults of Christendom have spent the better part of 2,000 years concealing the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved. Mary Magdalene’s roll in the Bible narrative can not be overstated. If you add up all of the women named Mary that are actually Mary Magdalene, and add up all of the verses about the disciple whom Jesus loved, you would discover that she is specifically mentioned more times than nearly all of the other disciples and apostles in the entire New Testament.
Keep in mind that according to John 21:20-24 it was the disciple whom Jesus loved that wrote the Book that by tradition has come to be known as “The Gospel According To John”. That disciple, for a fact is Mary Magdalene. It was the woman that Jesus loved who wrote one of the most significant and detailed accounts of Jesus life.
The very first Bible book that I ever read was the Book of John. It was sometime around 1977. I was only about 15 years old at the time, but from that moment on, my life was changed forever. I instantly knew that I had found the truth. At the time I was a Catholic Altar Boy.
Over the many years that have passed since then, I have explored dozens of the religions of man, looking for anything I can find that more closely follows the teachings of Jesus. Thus far, I have not found anything that even remotely sounds like the simple truth that I just shared with you.
The reason why the Gospel of John is so unlike the Synoptic Gospels is because it isn’t the Gospel of John. It is for a fact the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. It should be obvious to everyone that a book written by Jesus’ girlfriend would stand out as unusual when compared to three historic accounts of his life recorded by three people who were not his girlfriends.
In the next video in this series, I will be revealing the true identity of Jesus. Earlier in this series I proved that Jesus was not Melchizedek. However, Jesus’ first appearance on Earth did not take place in 1st century Judea, but thousands of years earlier. Jesus’ true place in human history has not been spoken of for nearly 2,000 years, but the time is finally right, and we can all be there together when God finally shares this sacred secret with humanity. You do not want to miss the next video in this series.
The reason that I am finally being allowed to reveal the identity of Jesus to mankind, is because his adversary, Satan the devil is about to be revealed to mankind. And as Thessalonians 2:9 highlights:
“The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie”
Lord Satan will be doing things that no other human ruler has ever done. Finally, after thousands of years of mankind’s abysmal failure at self governance, all human governmental systems will seemingly start to function as the citizens of the Empire believe they should. The hierarchical system of resource management called the world economy will seemingly be rescued from the greedy fools that currently run it. All of mankind’s religions will finally seem to be able to work together to make the world a better place.
As this is happening everyone who has faithfully held out hope that civilization could somehow be made to work, will get down on bended knee to welcome back their chosen savior. The God of civilization. It will be a time of great confusion for mankind.
Nobody needs to hear my words in order to have everlasting life. My only purpose for being here, and providing this information is to bring comfort to those who are unwilling to worship the pathetic gods of this world. We don’t have to do this alone. We have one another. And soon we will all have the help of the Holy as well. As the Bible very clearly says at Joel 2:28 and Acts 2:17:
“Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams. Your young men will see visions.”
As powerful as mankind’s chosen ruler may seem, I promise you, that we will be far more powerful. Until then, I will do all that I can to keep you encouraged and informed about what is really going on. My assignment here is only temporary. Shortly after civilization’s savior makes his appearance, our savior, the true savior sent by God, his precious child, Jesus Christ will make his appearance.
All that we have to do in order to survive what is about to come upon this Earth, is stay out of their way. When the time comes for Satan’s citizens to kill one another off, we will all be able to safely watch from the sidelines. However, we cannot get involved. Anyone wishing to actively engage in making the world a better place, will, by default, have to go to war with those who seem to be making the world a worse place. Jesus will lead us all to everlasting life shortly after Lord Satan leads his followers off to their imminent destruction.
In conclusion I will read John 21:24 one more time as it would have been understood thousands of years ago when it was first written down.
“We know that this disciple is the one who testified to us about these things. It was she who wrote them down. And we know that her testimony is true.”
Among those who testified as to the truthfulness of the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene, would have been the writers of the other three gospels. Whoever they were.
If you don’t want to survive……….. don’t listen to me.