Jesus’ Teachings about the Father. Reconstruction of early Christian teaching based on a comparative analysis of the oldest gospels

John, chapter 2

In this chapter, a very important event takes place – a miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. Small everyday details, very vital and obviously not invented, convince in the reliability of the narrative.

“1 On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the Mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and His disciples were also called to the marriage” – what disciples could be “called to the marriage”, if they had just started to be with Him? Three – John, Andrew and Simon – on the second day counting from the meeting of Jesus with John; two more – Philip and Nataniel – on the very third day in question; there is also John’s brother James or Jacob (Zebedee), who is not mentioned here. Also, apparently, Thomas – we will meet with him later, but he comes from the same place, which follows from the list of the disciples who returned to Galilee from Jerusalem after the Passion of Jesus: (John 21,2) “and Nathanael from Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others from His disciples”– it is obvious that Thomas belongs to the same company. The mentioned ‘two others’ are, presumably, all the same Philip and someone else from the Galileans, not named. In total – eight. Jesus’ mother was invited to the wedding, and this is understandable – but what does Jesus and his disciples have to do with it? And another question – why is Mary invited alone, without her husband?

Apparently, the father of Jesus, conditionally – Joseph, since information about him is found only from records by the synoptics, who we have no faith in, by that time he had already died, Mary remained a widow, but it was indecent for the woman to appear alone at the wedding, and Jesus, as the eldest son, had to accompany her. And the disciples, as is typical of youth, simply followed him – it is more fun together. In the future, we will return to this assumption; there is confirmation of it in the text.

By the way, we note that it is the presence of Jesus at the wedding that destroys the pious legend about the origin of His brothers and sisters as step-siblings: as if Joseph had them from the first marriage and then married Mary after his first wife died; and that Mary gave birth without husband’s participation; and therefore Jesus was the “youngest” in Joseph’s family. No, he was precisely the eldest son, the duty to protect the honor of the mother passed to Him from the late father in seniority – and that is why He, the only one of Mary’s children, accompanies her at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. And he was born, like his younger siblings, from their father, Maria’s husband, in a legal marriage.

“3 And as there was a lack of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him: they have no wine. 4 Jesus said to her: what is to me and you, woman? My hour has not yet come. 5 His mother said to the attendants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”

There are many meanings hidden in this small episode.

A wedding is an expensive and even ruinous business for a poor family – and then Jesus brings with him a whole bunch of guys who are not shy to eat and drink. And Mary feels awkward in front of the family of the newly-wed, feels guilty for the lack on the table that was not prepared for a whole group of extra strangers – and therefore she turns to Jesus with reproach, hinting that the lack happened because of them. Jesus answers her, as modern sons do to their mothers in a similar situation: “This is not our problem,” and adds that His “hour has not come,” that is, the time has not yet come for what? For what happens next. That is, these two KNOW. They know that Jesus is the Son of God and that EVERYTHING in this world is available to Him. And therefore, Mary, without entering into an argument, puts Him in a position without a choice: His duty to correct the created inconvenience for her is obvious, and He has no right to refuse, even referring to the untimeliness of His Divine intervention. She no longer speaks to Him, but to the attendants: do as He tells you. Well, he won’t send them to the store for wine, will he? And they don’t have much money to get the whole feast drunk.

And Jesus humbles himself before his mother’s will.

“6 There were six stone waterpots here, standing according to the Jewish custom of cleansing, containing two or three measures” – what kind of Jewish customs can be obeyed in pagan Galilee?

In general, a separate comment should be made on this topic, since the absurd insertions about Jewish customs and similar points will continue to appear often. Therefore, you need to understand what Galilee was in the time of Jesus. In order not to delve into a major historical study, let’s take a brief reference from Wikipedia:

“Galilee is a historical area in the north of Israel. In the 3rd millennium BC. e. Galilee was settled by the Canaanites. In the 2nd millennium BC. e. here the Hurrians, Hittites and Egyptians appear. Then the country comes to the attention of the Israeli tribes and is included in the kingdom of Israel. In 722 BC. e. Galilee is part of the Assyrian state, the local population is evicted and replaced by Assyrian colonists. In 539 BC. e. Galilee comes under the rule of Persia. In 333 BC. e. from the Persians, Galileo was captured by the troops of Alexander the Great, and the colonization of the lands by Greek and Macedonian colonists began. After this period, Galilee changed hands several times between the Hellenistic dynasties of the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Syrian Seleucids, until the conquest of Galilee by Rome in 63 BC. e.

From the reign of the Hasmoneans and the Maccabean Wars to the conquest by Roman troops in 63 BC. e. Galilee was repeatedly subjected to predatory raids by the Kingdom of Judah. In the 1st century A.D. e. Judas Galilean[42]together with several Jewish priests, started riots in the city of Sepphoris, which provoked the arrival of Roman troops in Galilee, as a result of which it was devastated, most of the local population was killed, and the rest were sold into slavery by the Romans. From the period of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in the 70s A.D. e. begins the mass migration of Jews to the devastated Galilee, the development of the territories of Galilee and Samaria, the development and construction of synagogues. In 636, Galilee was annexed to the Jordanian province of the Caliphate.”

This publication builds on a fundamental study of the history of Galilee[43], from which and others like it it is composed.

Is everything clear, it seems? There were no Jews in Galilee in the time of Jesus and could not have been. They were there only with robber raids, like bandits – and, of course, the Galilean population treated them like enemies. And the Galileans themselves were a mix of languages, which is why the Jews also called ths land “Galilee pagan.” In Galilee, apparently, representatives of many nations lived alongside, with their gods, faiths and religions, among which only one was missing – the Jewish with the Law of their evil and vengeful god-Yahweh. They dreamed of the genocide of those who lived in the territory which used to be theirs, as memory had it.

So, no Jewish customs were observed at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, and none of those present at it was a Jew – including Jesus, His Mother, and His disciples – they were not Jews, and they could not be. And from this point of view, the entire Gospel story begins to look completely different from what it is presented like in the canon of the New Testament and in church teaching. And the absurdity of Judaizing inserts and patches like the above one about “Jewish customs” becomes obvious.

Now further on the water carriers. In general, even in the most remote village, you go in and see a row of buckets of water on the bench – their presence in the house does not require following “Jewish customs”. Simply put, there were several buckets for water in the wedding hall: in case someone should wash or drink, or for household needs – they did not have a plumbing in those days. So Jesus says to the servants:

“7 Jesus says to them: Fill the vessels with water. And they filled them to the top. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw now, and take it to the chief of the feast. And they carried it. 9 When the steward had tasted the water that had become wine – and he did not know where the wine came from, only the servants who drew the water knew – then the steward calls the bridegroom10 and says to him: every man serves good wine first, and when guests get drunk, then the worse; and you have kept good wine until now.”

And here’s what is interesting: the servants, who scooped up wine from the waterpots, did not notice the miraculous transformation – why? I realized this at the market in Cana of Galilee, buying homemade wine from the locals – it was white! White wine when poured in the stone vessel looks no different than water!

“11 So Jesus started miracles in Cana of Galilee and showed His glory; and His disciples believed in Him”– and this is the end,, the point is set – it would seem. But no, the narration continues, and this sequel reminds me of the overture from the puppet show “Unusual Concert”, if anyone has seen it. There, this overture ends with a pretentious ending – and then starts to continue again – and so it does ten times over, it just won’t end. So it happens here as well – and this immediately suggests that the second chapter, already completed by the witnessing of a miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee by John, the future author of the Gospel, and thus completed; but someone really wanted to continue.

We read on.

“12 After this He came to Capernaum, Himself and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and stayed there for a few days”– so, wait a minute,, why – in Capernaum? From Cana to Capernaum, passing by their house in Nazareth, there is still a good forty or fifty miles – and why would you suddenly want to cover such a formiddable distance, for what need? They celebrated at the wedding and would return home to Nazareth, to rest – how else? Especially with brothers? But the brothers did not go to the wedding – why drag the minors along, when only Maria was invited and the eldest son to accompany the woman? There was no talk of any brothers, the brothers were at home. And Mary had nothing to do in Capernaum, especially since no relatives from Capernaum are mentioned anywhere, and a woman staying there for a few days seems unlikely – where, with whom? Let us also notice how suddenly the harmonious timeline set by the evangelist, who specifically points out at the beginning of the chapter: “On the third day…”, is suddenly broken for no reason at all, that is, it was important to show how quickly events began to develop. And suddenly – they hang out in Capernaum for several days, there is a pause. That is, from this point begins a very rough and ridiculous insertion – for what purpose? This becomes clear literally from the next verse.

“13 The Passover of the Jews was approaching, and Jesus came to Jerusalem” – and so he suddenly found himself in Jerusalem, hurried to the Jewish Passover, apparently abandoning his mother with the brothers in Capernaum, and, possibly, his disciples – not a word is mentioned about them further. That is, immediately after the miracle in Cana, where “he manifested his glory and disciples believed in Him,” he head to immediately stress His belonging to Jewry, Judaism, Jewish God, temple, holidays and customs: as soon as he performed the first miracle, he immediately rushed to Jerusalem to prove to the Jews that He is the expected Jewish Messiah – and who else? That is, he abandoned his native Galilee, did not begin to convert his people to his faith, did not preach the gospel to his fellow countrymen, but rushed to preach the Heavenly Father to strangers and aliens, the Jews, that were hostile to any faith other than their own and considered even a mere mention of other gods except for Jehovah a blasphemy deserving stoning. Was he suicidal?

“14 and found that oxen, sheep and pigeons were being sold in the temple, and money changers were sitting” – found, that is, as if he had never been to the temple and did not know the temple order, he appeared there for the first time in his life – otherwise he would not be so indignant, as further described.

“15 And making a whip of cords, he drove out of the temple all, also the sheep and the oxen; and he scattered the money of the money changers, and overturned their tables.16 And he said to those who sold doves: Take this from here and do not make my Father’s house a house of commerce”– and here is a direct forgery and substitution of the Heavenly Father of Jesus by the Jewish ancestral god Jehovah: if the Jerusalem temple is house of the Father of Jesus, it is clear that God Himself, the Heavenly Father is Jehovah, and who else? After all, the temple is his, dedicated to him and built by the Jews in time immemorial. This is how propaganda of Judaism works in the New Testament: the more monstrous the lie, the easier it is to believe in it.

Now let’s imagine the described scene. Someone, a beggar, an unknown stranger, an obvious provincial, and a Galilean by the dialect, a despicable pagan, whose speech gives him away (and so far he is just that, an unknown poor man, a vagabonf from a remote province in a foreign city, in the capital of a foreign country) appeared to Jerusalem, where he has never been before, does not know anyone, and no one knows him – he shows up from the street to the Temple and begins to misbehave there, engage in hooliganism and establish his own order? The temple guards simply would not let the Gentiles even enter the gates, biasedly figuring out who, where, and why – it was the main state national shrine, after all. No one would have let Jesus even on the doorstep. And if he dared to make a row, he would simply be killed for blasphemy, or thrown into a dungeon to find out, under torture, what he had in mind.

It is another matter when, at the end of his sermon and earthly life, He appeared in Jerusalem in glory, and the people greeted him as King and God – then he could decide on such a thing with the support of the popular crowds. But now, when no one has even heard of Him, this is pure suicide, the delirium of a madman.

“17 And His disciples remembered that it is written,” Zeal for your house is eating me up.”

And, of course, the disciples, who, it turns out, also ended up here by magic, the illiterate Galilean fishermen and gardeners, the Manda religion followers, not Jewish faith, all of a sudden – wow! – they remembered a saying from Psalms 68.10, which they apparently learned by heart. For how many years I have hollowed out this psalter both at divine services, and read over the dead, and just prayed for it at home – and then, after reading it, I did not remember where it came from, and I had to go into Google to remind myself.

“18 To this the Jews said: by what sign will you prove to us that you have the authority to do this? 19 Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days. 20 The Jews said to this: This temple was built for forty-six years and in three days will you raise it up? 21 And he spoke of the temple of his body.”

Well, surely a suicide – he blasphemes openly, in the Temple, right in the middle of a crowd of believing fanatics, mocks the Jewish faith and the Temple, and even provokes the idea of being killed – to prove and show you all. And the Jews – not a word in response, as if it was business as usual.

“22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus said” – the scripture they believed, the great scholars of Scripture from Galilee. And what does the Scripture say about this? You will laugh – NOTHING! You can check for yourself the parallel passages of the Old Testament, which the interpretation of this verse refers to: only two verses, one from Psalms 15.8: “I have always seen the Lord before me, for He is at my right hand; I will not hesitate”; another from Isaiah 55.3: “Incline your ear and come to Me: listen, and your soul will live, and I will give you an everlasting covenant, unchanging mercies promised to David” – and what do these words have to do with Jesus promising to either build a new temple in three days, or to resurrect Himself? In my opinion, none. The trick, by the way, is typical, in other gospels we find it more than once – to refer to Scripture, the reader will still not be able to check. Google did not exist then, and Scripture was not sold in newspaper stalls – and who would go ahead and browse it all in search of the necessary link.

“23 And when He was in Jerusalem on the feast of Passover, many, seeing the miracles that He performed, believed in His name” – oh, the author suddenly remembered and realized that Jesus was still an unknown beggar, a vagabond, and decided to add His fame and glory immediately, without leaving Jerusalem – He, it turns out, is a well-known miracle worker, and in the temple he did not just misbehave, but acted as one who has authority – look how many people, whole Jerusalem with was persuaded by His MIRACLES (I don’t know what miracles, the false “evangelist” does not bother to clarify the details) and converted into faith into Him, either the Son of God, or the Messiah expected by the Jews – go and figure it out into whom they suddenly believed, the author of this whole mixture is modestly silent about it this time, just in case.

“24 But Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, because He knew everyone25 and did not need anyone to testify about a man, for He Himself knew what was in a man” – and here is a belated explanation for you why Jesus did not lose his head in the temple, right there and then. It turns out that He Himself knew to whom he could be fearlessly rude, and who could be trolled without consequences for Himself – such a trick, and foresight was given to Him from God solely in order to mock people with impunity.

In general, when you begin to gaze intently at the “sacred” texts and fearlessly ask questions that are inconvenient for believers, clumsy insertions, absurdities and rude interference into the text by editing with scissors and glue creep out in their shameless nakedness and propaganda stupidity. It’s obvious – isn’t it?

This ends the second chapter of the Gospel of John, completely unexpectedly and indistinctly. And for the reader who is not engaged in the ideologue of “correct faith”, it becomes clear that the second part of the second chapter is sowed to the first part, which ended with the miracle in Cana of Galilee, not only with white threads (in other words, too obviously), but worse than that – with coarse rope of shameless propaganda. The absurdity of this shameless intrusion into the text is too obvious to take on faith all this fantasy of deceitful Jewish enthusiasm.

So, we select from the second chapter:

1 On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the Mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus was also invited. 3 And as there was a lack of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him: they have no wine. 4 Jesus said to her: what is to me and you, wife? My hour has not yet come. 5 His mother said to the attendants, Whatever He says to you, do it. 6 And there were six stone waterpots, which stood according to the custom of cleansing, and contained two or three measures. 7 Jesus says to them: Fill the vessels with water. And they filled them to the top. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw now, and take it to the chief of the feast. And they carried it. 9 When the steward had tasted the water that had become wine – and he did not know where the wine came from, only the servants who drew the water knew – then the steward calls the bridegroom10 and says to him: every man serves good wine first, and when they get drunk, then the worst; and you have kept good wine until now. 11 So Jesus started miracles in Cana of Galilee and showed His glory; and his disciples believed in him. “Period. The rest of the second chapter – to the dump, to the dustbin of the history of propaganda and manipulation.