Introduction to the Gospels of Jesus

The translator offers humble prayers and respects to Lord Jesus and to those Teachers who have humbly passed on his true Teachings.

This project was not undertaken lightly. Nor was it embarked upon without guidance. Rather, it is only by the Grace of the Teachers aforementioned that this project was made possible.

The reader will find, in many instances, that the translations of these Gospels are substantially different from the translations of institutional scribes, historians and clergy among the various organized sectarian institutions or historical societies.

One reason for this, as we will discuss further, is that most of the translations of the Gospels – and the assembly and translation of the Biblical texts in general – have been corrupted by centuries of institutional manipulation.

These include not only physical manipulation in the form of addition and change as the original manuscripts were copied and translated: It also includes the enforcement of a particular interpretation of Jesus’ life and Teachings by institutions and their leaders that struggled for authority, and later the amalgamation of these institutions by the Roman government and its proxy institution, the Roman Catholic Church.

Prior to Jesus' Gospels being written down, the history and Teachings of Jesus were passed on orally by Jesus' students and disciples.

The Gospels were originally individual manuscripts – each parchment or papyrus scrolls or hand-bound books. Each was written and maintained, and distributed as an individual document for at least 200 years in early Christianity.

As predicted by Jesus, between the year 66 and 120 CE, the Jewish-Roman Wars reigned terror over the region and people of Judea. The Romans decimated much of Judean society during this period. Jerusalem was sacked and burned. Many followers of Jesus – considered Jews by the Romans – were slaughtered during this period. Some early Christians escaped to the mountains as Jesus had instructed them. Some were already living in the mountains.

Historical analysis has concluded that the first versions of the Gospels were written during the middle to late First Century and the early Second Century. Many of the early manuscripts were destroyed during this period as a result of the Jewish-Roman Wars, as villages, towns and libraries were systematically burnt. The ruthless Romans considered the Jewish and early Christian teachings threats to the Roman pantheon.

According to most historians, there is little evidence to believe that the four canonized Gospels were written by those whose names they are ascribed to. The exception to this may be the Gospel of John – considered by many historians to be the earliest of the four Gospels.

The oldest remnant of the Book of John has been carbon-dated at between 160 CE and 200 CE. This, however, does not indicate when the Gospel was first written. This was likely one of many copies made of the Gospel. Historians believe that the Book of John was written between 50 and 100 CE. The other three canonical Gospels may have been pieced together from other early manuscripts.

The evidence shows that the earliest Gospels were written in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Coptic, depending upon their location and author. The earliest manuscripts were copied multiple times and translated from one language to another. So remnants of the Gospels found in modern times are not the originals. Evidence from the earliest manuscripts illustrates that not only have they been translated from language to language, but as they were copied and translated, they were also changed – with text added, deleted, combined or mistranslated in the centuries following.

Furthermore, the earlier copies of the Gospel manuscripts became the subject of ransacking and burning over the years that followed, even after the Jewish-Roman Wars. The persecution of early Christian and Jewish people by the Romans continued at least until the Fourth Century. As a result, much was lost, including the early manuscripts of the First and Second centuries.

Historians have estimated that the Gospels of John and Matthew were among at least 50 different Gospels that described the life and/or Teachings of Jesus. Furthermore, most of the original texts recorded into Greek or Aramaic were systematically destroyed by the Romans over the centuries. What remained in the Fourth Century when the Canon was selected were the remnants that somehow escaped destruction by fire and war in the centuries that followed Jesus’ passage from the planet.

There is good evidence indicating the four Gospels were selected for political reasons: They were the least controversial and most conservative of the many circulating manuscripts describing Jesus. They were accepted by what is considered the orthodox element of the early Christian institutions. The appointed leaders of these early so-called Christian institutions struggled for power in each region, and labeled other teachers – who didn't struggle for power – as heretics. Inclusive of these were what we refer to today as the Johannines, Essenes and the Gnostics. It is thought that these groups had ties to early followers of Jesus referred to as the Nazarenes, as well as the Ebionites.

In fact, all of these early followers of Jesus were eventually dismissed as heretics by the Roman Catholic Church.

By the Fourth Century, the regional orthodox institutions had garnered enough political power to gain the attention of the Roman Empire. In 313, the Christian faith was legalized by the Roman Empire. Within the next two decades, the Roman Emperor Constantine amalgamated these early institutions into the Roman Catholic Church. With this came a politically-driven interpretation of Jesus and his teachings, orchestrated by Constantine under the guise of the Synods of Nicaea. With this, the Romans were able to enforce a single interpretation of Jesus: The Nicene Creed.

This led to a ban of other interpretations. And it became a crime to own any Gospel text not authorized by the church of the Roman Empire – the Roman Catholic Church.

It has been argued by some historians that the four Gospels were the primary early Gospels describing Jesus' life. They argue that others, such as the so-called Apocrypha and Gnostic texts, came later and were thus not around as Gospels in the days of the early Church fathers. This claim is based on a supposition that the writings of early Church fathers cited the four Gospels but didn't cite the other Gospels.

Such a hypothesis – that the four Gospels were the only early trusted Gospels – has many weaknesses.

It is untrue that early Church fathers only cited the four Gospels. For example, we find that early Church fathers, including Jerome, Origen Adamantius, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius and Epiphanius, cited Gospels that were not included in the Canon. These included the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of the Nazarenes among others.

Secondly, a hypothesis that the four Gospels were either the most accurate or historically trustworthy Gospels is also suspect. An examination of these four reveals significant differences with regard to specific events and the people of those events. These types of differences are also to be found among the other Gospels as well.

In addition, many historians believe that much of Matthew and Luke were drawn from a single Gospel – which some refer to as “Source Q.” There is significant reason to believe that in fact, the Gospel of Thomas may be at least part of Source Q – as this Gospel of Thomas may predate the four canonical Gospels.

The bottom line is that there is a serious question about Matthew, Luke and Mark being independent early manuscripts. And the Gospel of John is dramatically different than these three – illustrating a variance in the narration of Jesus' life and Teachings that go beyond these differences.

Thirdly and most importantly, we find something very suspicious when we review the historical record of documents. We find many manuscripts and documents cited elsewhere to be missing. For example, those Gospels mentioned above as cited by early Church fathers – these are either conspicuously lost or remnants have been found remotely buried.

The same goes for some of the writings of the early Church fathers. For example, Origin's vast works – over 6,000 texts – have gone missing. Origen was one of the most respected theologians of his time (2nd-3rd Century) and was considered an early father of Christianity and was a peer of Clement of Alexandria. Origen had thousands of students and wrote profusely. Yet today we find practically none of his writings exist. Where did they go? And where did all the missing Gospels mentioned above go?

Over the past century, we have had several major archeological finds – of buried manuscripts and Gospels. These include the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library. They include dozens of texts that would never have been known to exist if it wasn't for their being buried and hidden away.

Why were these buried and hidden away? Why weren't they preserved as part of the historical record?

Some of these orthodox historians argue that these texts were never to be considered early enough for the Biblical Canon. Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls – and the Qumran community they came from – were existing as early as 300 B.C.

As for the so-called Gnostic Gospels – the Nag Hammadi library – carbon-dating suggests they were written in the third century A.D. But their Greek-Coptic formatting suggests most of them were actually copied from earlier Greek manuscripts. This means they were written much earlier than the carbon dating suggests.

Yet some historians still insist these texts were not written early enough to be considered for the Canon. But we find among these Nag Hammadi documents the Gospel of Thomas, which was cited by early Church fathers. This is evidence that the Nag Hammadi library does contain early Gospels that were part of the earliest manuscripts. Why would the rest of the Nag Hammadi library necessarily be different?

To this we add that there were numerous groups and individuals condemned as heretics by the Roman Catholic Church. Certainly, the Essenes and the Gnostics were considered heretics. Indeed, many of the Gospels among the Gnostic library (Nag Hammadi) and the Essene library (Dead Sea Scrolls) were not included in the Canon. They were not included in the Canon specifically because they were labeled by the Roman Catholic Church as heretics.

We should also note that both John the Baptist and Jesus were also labeled as heretics by the institutions of their times.

It should be understood that the word “Gnostic” is derived from the Greek word “gnosis” – which means “knowledge.” This means that “Gnostic” is describing those who were more interested in learning the “knowledge” of Jesus' Teachings. They were less interested in political power and empty ritual.

The basis for the hypothesis that there were no other reliable Gospels circulating in the pre-Canon period is a historical record that was decimated over the centuries. Those manuscripts not acceptable to the Roman Catholic hierarchy were systematically destroyed over the ten centuries following the Nicene synods.

Following such a blatant cover-up, how could the Church be trusted to reveal which of the Gospels were the most authentic and reliable? Those who believed other Gospels to be reliable were imprisoned or burned at the stake, and the works they held burned/removed from the record – like Origen and the Gospels mentioned above that were cited by the early fathers.

Here, for example, is the statement by the Church condemning the works and teachings of Origen Adamantius along with others:
“If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and if anyone does not equally anathematize all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.” (Anathema 553)
Note that anathema means to be banned. It means to be banned as a heretic and booted out of the Church. And mind you, a person who was banned as a heretic would with certainty be whisked to jail or burned at the stake. This includes being caught in possession of a text written by someone who was banned.

Those early texts that in any way contradicted the doctrine of the Church were purposely destroyed. Entire libraries were burnt along with the buildings that held them. Practically every Gospel and every text written by any early theologian, father or scholar that did not support the doctrine accepted by the Roman Catholic Church were purposefully destroyed during the more than 1,000 years of tyrannical domination by the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, it was a crime for a household or library to hold such documents.

The Bible as we know it had its beginnings in the Fourth Century AD. There were hundreds of different scriptural manuscripts circulating in the ancient world at that time within both the Jewish and Christian faiths. Out of these, only a few were selected by the Roman Emperor Constantine’s hand-picked historian, Eusebius Pamphili.

Once the list of manuscripts was selected – by Eusebius under order from Emperor Constantine – an official collection, now called the Canon, was formed. This official collection of manuscripts is the forerunner for what we now call the Bible.

The first task of Eusebius – commissioned by Emperor Constantine – was to translate these selected Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. Why? Because Latin was the official language of the Romans.

This translation was not performed by Eusebius, though he was proficient in Greek and Latin. The translations were made by professional scribes employed by Constantine and Eusebius.

This Latin version – withheld from public scrutiny for over a thousand years by the Roman government and its proxy Roman Catholic Church – formed the foundation for an ongoing misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Jesus' life and Teachings over the next 800 years.

The reasons for this are complex but may be boiled down to two influences. The first influence was the political and governmental force of the Roman empire. The Roman empire enforced the rules of engagement of the Roman Catholic Church – the sanctioned religion of the Roman Empire. Any other religion was banned. Any Scripture held by anyone would result in the document being burned and the person being either imprisoned, burned at the stake or hanged.

As the centuries passed, this forced indoctrination of the Roman Empire and its satellites led to a common acceptance of a single interpretation of Jesus’ life and Teachings. Some ten centuries later, when the early translations into English and German and French took place (though those translators were persecuted) this common interpretation of Jesus and his Teachings was largely upheld.

This common interpretation has been grounded upon a single doctrine expounded by the Roman empire-enforced Synods of Nicaea: The Nicene Creed. This Creed became the standard-bearer of ecclesiastical institutions commonly accepted as Christian.

Yet little did most people realize that this was the result of the Nicene Creed being enforced through violence over a period of 1,000 years.

The Canon of Eusebius and Constantine included not only the four selected Gospel manuscripts we know today, but also the various epistles and letters or Paul and others – including a few named from Jesus’ disciples such as James and Peter. The Canon also included selected manuscripts from early Jewish Teachers – namely from the Tanakh, the core of which was the five books of the Torah.

This assembly of manuscripts into one “Canon” eventually became known as the Bible – a term derived from the Greek ta biblia, meaning ‘little papyrus books.’

In other words, the Bible is not a book: It is a collection of separately written manuscripts, compiled by an agent of the Roman Emperor Constantine.

By order of Emperor Constantine, Eusebius collected selected manuscripts and had them translated into Latin, thereby assembling the first Bible. This new Bible – commissioned by Constantine upon the newly bishoped Eusebius – was to be transcribed and translated by professional scribes hired to maintain the Nicene Creed. This is evidenced by Constantine’s letter to Eusebius. Here is an excerpt:
“I have thought it expedient to instruct your prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. The catholicus of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible. You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the deacons of your church may be intrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality.” (NPNF2-01, Eusebius, Church History, Life of Constantine, Orationin Praise of Constantine)
Key elements of this letter include “professional transcribers,” “my personal inspection,” and the orchestration of Constantine’s involvement in the assembly of the Bible. In other words, the texts were assembled by professional transcribers paid for their efforts.

We must point out that such a professional endeavor, ordered by a politically-driven emperor, is diametrically opposed to services of devotion.

Also, we find this “professional” Bible was subject to Constantine’s inspection and ultimate approval. Here is a politician – an emperor also known to have persecuted and gruesomely slaughtered millions to establish his power – approving Scripture?

We also find evidence that Eusebius sought to promote his own personal interpretations upon the books of the Bible – and Eusebius had many distinctive opinions, some of which were part of the mainstream Church thinking and some of which were not. The 5th-century Christian historian, Socrates Scholasticus, documented that Eusebius’ writings had “rhetorical finish” and were written for the “praises of the Emperor” and not the “accurate statement of facts.”

In other words, the first assembly and transcribing of the official Bible was less than a devotional activity exercised with the seriousness of unbiased scholarship we would expect from such a work. It involved significant political ambition by both Eusebius and Constantine.

We can add to this that there were continual wranglings and political intrigue amongst the various bishops that attended the Nicaea Synods, which determined – through a political process – the doctrine of the early Church that became known as the Nicene Creed, now accepted as fundamental to most Christian institutions.

The background on this affair is that in 325 AD Constantine appointed a number of religious leaders with strong followings throughout the then-Christian world, and organized a committee called the Council of Nicaea. The purpose was to orchestrate a single doctrine to manage the Christian world under the Roman Empire.

Constantine knew that organizing such a diverse group of Christian sects was going to be difficult. In order to do this right, he had to create the appearance of legitimacy. He had to create an organizational structure that would allow the Romans to orchestrate their control over the region. This gave birth to the Roman Catholic Church, which came to dominate the Christian world and the doctrines of Christianity for over a thousand years.

The control exerted over the Christian world by the Roman government was by no means accomplished through the Teachings of Jesus – as one might imagine. Rather, the Roman Catholic Church instituted and maintained their authority by force. Anyone found teaching any other doctrine other than the Nicene Creed was quickly eliminated – by murder or imprisonment. Over the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church came to not only dominate religious thought in Europe and the Middle East: It was able to control the decision-making of many governments that formed following the fall of the official Roman Empire.

This was an issue of control and authority. If the Romans were in charge of the only valid religion, they could by virtue of controlling the Church institution, control the people. It was a brilliant – yet manipulative – strategy that continued for centuries.

This strategy was neither a new one for any emperor or government, nor was it foreign to many of the new bishops that were brought together to form the Council of Nicaea. This is, in fact, part of the heritage of the Jewish texts passed down and now identified as the Old Testament. As experienced historically among most feudal regions, rulers often gained power through their alliances with religious teachers – and many were incorrectly attributed later as being religious leaders themselves.

Contrasting this are the Prophets and those devoted Teachers who were focused not upon political authority, but upon the authority of the Supreme Being. This is why some Prophets such as Jeremiah and Jonah were rejected by the ecclesiastical Jewish institutions of their times.

But it is this very tendency of historical alliance between political leaders and supposedly religious teachers that have produced misinterpretations and mistranslations of scriptural texts over the centuries.

Some of these alliances may have been initially founded in devotion, but many were mixed with political ambition. For example, those early bishops appointed by Constantine to the Council of Nicaea may have had mixed agendas, but they came together as a unit under an umbrella of purpose to provide organizational and political control over Christianity. For this reason, we find that arguments ensued regarding the interpretation of Jesus as God the Son and so on. The end result, however, was political expediency. There was compromise, and one dogma resulted.

Following the creation of the Nicene Creed doctrine, this political authority was used to support and maintain the new order of Christianity by eliminating competing doctrines, and those scriptural texts that supported any alternative doctrine.

After the early Canon manuscripts were selected, translated into Latin and assembled into the Bible, the Roman Empire and its surrogate Church systematically burned and destroyed any library that included books outside of those selected for the Bible or otherwise were “approved” by Church officials. A few were quarantined within the Church’s library in Rome; but most others were burnt, never to be found.

The Church also systematically squelched any alternative interpretations of Genesis and the creation, such as those that were taught amongst the Gnostics for centuries. The Gnostics were driven out of existence. Their villages were burnt, their teachers were murdered, and their libraries of manuscripts were destroyed. This activity – of forcibly removing ‘heretics’ for their alternative interpretations of Scripture – continued, as mentioned, for over a thousand years among the Church and its proxies.

Adding to this “purification:” For centuries, the Latin Bible (the Vulgate) was the only Bible allowed to be read, and only the priests and Church officials had access to the Latin Bible. The rest of the people in the regions controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and its surrogates did not have access to Scripture. They could only hear its Latin from the priests, who also controlled its interpretation. This was the status quo for many centuries until parts of the Bible was (illegally according to the Church) translated into English and other languages.

As a result, the Nicene Creed came to dominate Christian belief by the force of the Roman government, and eventually became the fundamental doctrine of practically every Christian sect that has sprung up in the centuries since.

The first complete English Bible – translated from the Latin Bible – came into being during the 14th Century – nearly a thousand years after Eusebius’ Latin Bible.

John Wycliffe, the English Bible’s translator, was immediately declared a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church. By the command of the Church and its Pope Martin V, his Biblical texts were ordered to be burnt, and his then-dead body exhumed, burnt, and his ashes thrown into a river.

This ‘scorched earth’ policy of virtually eliminating any and all alternative translations or interpretations of the Scriptures outside of those approved by the Church and Roman Empire also created a single dominant interpretation of the Biblical Scriptures – a de facto brainwashing – throughout the Christian world. This brainwashing of over 14 centuries has not gone away: Rather, it has continued over the centuries as the undercurrent of not only the Roman Catholic Church – but also of nearly every other protestant and catholic sect.

This undercurrent – the remnant of 14 centuries of indoctrinated brainwashing – has been maintained through modern times through institutional peer pressure.

Historical power grabs over religion are not new. Prior to the Church’s power grab on Biblical translation and interpretation, we find ecclesiastical Rabbinical transcription, translation and interpretation of the five books of the Torah driven by an eerily similar pact between government and religious institutions. This was directly criticized by Jesus, as evidenced in the Gospels.

Like the Roman government’s domination over Christianity, Judean emperors in the centuries leading to Jesus’ birth commandeered the theretofore orally communicated תורה שבכתב (Torah Shebe’al Peh – “Torah that is spoken”), and oversaw its transcription into a written form, to be called Torah Shebichtav תורה שבעל פה (Torah Shebichtav – “Torah that is written”).

In other words, the Torah – a word meaning “the Teaching” – was originally passed down orally from generation to generation of devoted Jewish Teachers, including Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Joshua, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Job, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and others. Each Teacher would pass on the oral Teachings of the Torah to their students; and those students who were empowered passed it on to their students. This oral tradition also meant that the lessons of the Torah also accompanied the translation and interpretation of the Jewish Priest – who pledged devotion to the Supreme Being.

We can see this tradition clearly as we examine the relationships between Abraham and Melchizedek, Joshua and Moses, Samuel and Eli, and others within the texts of the Bible.

This teaching tradition became subject to territorialism and politics as the Torah was transcribed from Torah Shebe’al Peh to Torah Shebichtav and interpreted over the centuries.

The question then becomes: who organized and oversaw this process of compilation?

The 7th Century BCE appears to be the period many historians believe the Torah began its ecclesiastical journey into what is now Judaism. We find that this century was strife with warfare between feuding empires of Rome, Assyria, Judah, Egypt and surrounding regions. Struggles for land and territory were rampant, and the quest to commandeer Scripture was not only a political necessity – it was an issue of survival for any government that wanted to command and control the pre-Christ Judeans.

Many point to the reign of Josiah, the King of Judah between 641 and 609 BCE. Josiah is understood to be born in Jerusalem and thought to be part of the House of David. He was King Amon’s son. Amon’s father, Manasseh is known for turning away from the worship of the Supreme Being and creating a temple of idols.

Josiah was devoted to Yahweh, however. He ordered the Jewish temple of Solomon to be rebuilt using taxes. During the construction, it is said that the builders discovered a buried scroll describing Moses’ “Book of the law,” accepted by most historians to have been put together by Jewish priests intent on centralizing power under King Josiah. Thus, we find a critical piece of early transcriptions having political ambition: Claiming the right of heritage for certain lands to the house of Abraham, Moses, David, and then Josiah.

This provided a necessary foundation for the political backdrop of those times. King Josiah and his successors were gripped with struggles over territory and population by the likes of the Egyptians, Babylonians and the Syrians – ultimately responsible for Josiah’s demise.

In the centuries that followed, these territorial struggles continued, and the formation of the Torah gained additional substance with the writings of Ezra in the Fifth Century BC. After the rebuilding of Jerusalem under the Persian ruler Artaxerxes, Ezra led a formation of a separated assembly of Israelites committed to following Moses’ law.

The successive assemblies following Ezra took a drastic ecclesiastical turn over the next centuries, as priestly struggles merged with political struggles for territorial rights. And the rule of the assemblies became increasingly political.

The Torah was thus altered over the next five centuries, as the Israelite high priests formed a rigid ecclesiastical order over their assemblies. The rule of law became tantamount and the five books of the Torah were interpreted as a set of laws combined with a genealogy of the Israelite people.

Meanwhile, the commandments of Moses to love God with all our hearts took a back seat to a cruel execution of rigid rituals.

The necessity of succession of rulers through this period produced political alliances between ecclesiastical Jewish priests and the various kings of Judea. This drove the recognition of the Israelite assembly as a separate race of people and allowed the high priests to become ex-facto governors.

This politically driven succession of Jewish high priests became increasingly perverted over the centuries, as evidenced by the Teachings of Jesus. We find that by the time of Jesus, the institutional Jewish temples and its priesthood had all but forgotten the elements of devotion that had been taught by Moses, Abraham and David, and passed down orally over the centuries from Teacher to student.

These devotional principles had become overtaken by the politics of necessity, focused on the “promised land” and the “chosen people” of Judah and Israel. Jesus’ Teachings identified the two primary orders among the Jewish temples – the sadducees and the pharisees – as focused upon retaining their politically oriented positions of “teachers of the law” rather than the passing down of the original Teachings of devotional Judaism.

In the Gospels we find that Jesus vehemently criticized these two groups as misleading the people and abandoning the original precepts of the Teachings of the Torah – which he emphasized were grounded upon the “first and foremost commandment” to love God.

This devotional Teaching, we find from Biblical texts, had been passed through a devotional lineage that included John the Baptist and Zachariah, John’s Teacher, and traced back through the centuries.

Many historians have shown that the Essenes – a priestly order that rejected the political ambitions of the mainstream Jewish priestly order – were a vehicle for this lineage of devoted Teachers. This heritage of Teachings passed down through the centuries ran parallel to the political intrigue that accompanied the official Jewish texts of the Torah.

In other words, the oral tradition of the Torah continued through the centuries from devoted Teacher to humble student despite the incongruence of the official scriptural canons of the Jewish and Christian politically driven institutions.

We find from these histories a repeating lesson: That the pure Teachings of the Supreme Being handed down from Teacher to student can at any point in time become perverted as they become recorded by politically-driven institutions; and those recordings can become further tainted under the control of those who wish to utilize them for purposes of power and political position. History has taught us that as particular empires seeking political power commandeer devotional recordings, the recordings are subject to alteration, producing documents tainted with greed and politics.

What about the alternative and source documents? Often, the same machinery that tainted those Scriptures also worked to eliminate their sources – effectively erasing the evidence of perversion.

As a result, we find that out of the thousands of scriptural manuscripts passed down for centuries by early Jewish and Christian Teachers, only the politically-selected books of the Bible and a limited collection of mostly tattered manuscripts found buried in the desert or within the recesses of the Church’s secret library remain.

The proof of these manipulations of Scripture became evident with the finding of some of these parchment manuscripts buried. Hundreds of texts have now been uncovered – including some found in the Canon along with many that were not. We also find clear evidence that some of the texts that made it into the Latin Bible were in fact manipulated with respect to their translation and inclusion. Yes, inclusion: This means that some text was removed and some text was added.

This is ironic, since the last verse of the Book of Revelation warns not to remove or add to the text. But the position of the Book of Revelation was smartly arranged as the last book of the Bible by Eusebius and his cohorts, even though it was not the last manuscript written. In other words, the position of the Book of Revelation as last gives the reader the impression that nothing can thenceforth be added or taken away from the entire Bible – even though the Bible itself was selectively compiled and altered.

Furthermore, the writer of this last verse – presumably John – was not referring to the later-compiled Bible: He was referring solely to that particular manuscript. The manuscript's placement as last in the Bible was an institutional manipulation.

The bottom line is that the Books of the Canon – the arrangement of the Books of the Bible, and the interpretation of the many passages driven by the Nicene Creed, were orchestrated as part of a political objective to put forth the doctrine that the Roman Catholic brand of Christianity is the only valid religion.

Yes, unfortunately, the Bible and the Torah were politically manipulated and thus have become perverted documents. This doesn’t mean they do not still contain the Truth, however.

This grand manipulation of Scripture has been confirmed over the past few centuries, as other Scripture texts have surfaced. These include the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Septuagint, the Arabic Peshitta and the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. One tattered Gospel text – the Gospel of Peter – was found buried with an Egyptian monk and was uncovered in 1887.

The Septuagint arose through translation of the Rabbinical texts originally put together by Origen (who was later rejected as heretical by the Church), but its current form has been altered through the centuries. The Peshitta, which also contained some manuscripts alternative to the Bible, to some degree escaped destruction by the Romans – although it is not clear to what degree or at what stage.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi manuscripts were uncovered in the desert within the past century. These texts – most dated to the first through third century A.D. – reveal many Scriptural manuscripts that were excluded from the Canon of the Church. Furthermore, the Romans burned any other non-canonical text found in homes and libraries throughout Judea and the Middle East in an attempt to erase these texts from history.

Yet by the grace of God, this mass manipulation of Scripture has been exposed. While these ancient finds cannot replace the entire landscape of Scriptural texts that were circulating before the canonization, they do expose the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to manipulate Scripture.

The fact that the texts that remain plus those found have survived all those political efforts is a testament to the Supreme Being’s ability to ultimately control Scripture, while effectively shrouding its true meaning from those not interested in the Truth.

Meanwhile, the undercurrent of confidential knowledge has continued to be quietly passed from devoted Teacher to serious student for thousands of years. These devotional Teachings have been insulated from the political quests for power by governments and religious institutions and their surrogate professional clergies.

These Teachings are confidential not because this information is secret. They are confidential because they are understood only by devoted persons who are serious about learning the real lessons of spiritual life. Only the humble and sincere student guided by a devotionally-aspired Teacher empowered by the Supreme Being is able to grasp and understand the true meaning of any real Scripture. In other words, true Scripture is understood only by those intent on sincerely learning about God and our real purpose for existence.

This is why this translation work has been titled, The Devotional Translations.

The devotional mentor or spiritual teacher is not a new concept. This is, in fact, the basis for Jesus’ Teachings: He was mentoring and teaching those who chose to follow him. For others, they heard hard-to-understand parables and some wise sayings and came away with speculative interpretations.

Indeed, we can see the importance of the spiritual mentor and guide in the lives of all the great Teachers spoken of within the Old and New Testaments. While some of the entire lineages have been lost in translation and by the exclusion of some of the texts, the Biblical texts illustrate the Teacher-student relationship between Melchizedek and Abraham; Abraham and Lot; Moses and Joshua; Eli and Samuel; Samuel and Saul; Samuel and David; David and Solomon and many others. It is also illustrated by Jesus’ relationship with his Teacher John the Baptist, as well as Jesus’ relationship with his own disciples, whom Jesus instructed to also go out and teach to others what he taught them.

The Gospels can be properly understood within the confines of the Teachings of these ancient Teachers. It was this lineage of Teachers that Jesus belonged to, as a devoted student of John the Baptist, who was a devoted student of Zachariah, who was certainly a devoted student of a Teacher within the lineage that included Solomon, David, Samuel, Eli, Moses, Abraham and Melchizedek.

We also find that within the Gospels, a mentorship succession existed that led to both Joseph and John the Baptist – the former being an early mentor of Jesus and the latter becoming Jesus' Teacher (symbolized by baptism).

Indeed, the scriptural passages describing or inferring the various Teacher-student relationships in the Bible have become shrouded among institutional ecclesiastical interpretations, simply because those institutions did not abide by or support this devotional process of passing knowledge personally between Teacher and student. They bypassed the practice simply because they did not follow it.

As a result, we find many references in both the books of the New and Old Testaments to “father” and “son” with respect to knowledge being passed on between generations. These mistranslations incorrectly indicate the lineage of Prophets as being relegated to physical family members. This has led to the concept of a ‘chosen people’ being exclusive to a particular genetic family – a racist philosophy.

This monstrous interpretation of the passing of spiritual Teachings from teacher to student to some sort of Hebrew “family of chosen ones” has led to millions of deaths over the centuries, as people have battled over the right to call themselves God's “chosen people.”

In reality, the meanings of the original Hebrew and Greek words translated to either “father” and “son” can relate either to a familial relationship or to a relationship between Teacher and student. We see this traditional use of these words evident today as Catholic priests are still referred to as “father,” and mentors still often greet their male students with the word “son.”

Instead of maintaining the oral tradition of passing on devotional Teachings between Teacher and student, the organized religious institutions prominent today have interpreted the lineage of spiritual Teachers in the Old Testament to the New Testament as some sort of pre-eminent bloodline. Then they interpret the link between Jesus and the Teachings of the Prophets as being an array of prophetic predictions along with a royal bloodline.

Ironically, this supposed prophetic bloodline has been erected by none other than a political process of institutional appointment among sectarian teachers and institutions.

For example, we find the Pope is elected by a process of election by a political assembly of cardinals, who are appointed as bishops as part of a political process. This political process continues as priests are appointed for assignment to a particular church. In other Christian sects, we find ministers selected by councils of politically appointed deacons or elders.

As history has proven, this political process of election is rife with abuse and power-struggle. As a result we find in the history of Popes, those who ordered murders of others, those who were homosexual, those who were power-hungry and many other 'fruits' among those who have held the title of Pope over the centuries.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the only institution with poisoned leaders chosen by a politically-motivated electorate: We have found this to be the case among many ecclesiastical sectarian institutions through modern times.

These are political processes of election and appointment by people – not God. When people elect other people to positions of authority, politics comes into play. People elect the people they like, not necessarily people who represent God.

Adding to this institutional vacuum of authority is professional clergy – accepting payment in return for supposedly religious services. Today, priests, ministers, rabbis and reverends throughout most of organized ecclesiastical Christianity and Judaism are contracted and paid salaries for their teaching services. In other words, their teaching work is not a devotional activity: it is a professional activity. It is business – not loving devotional service to the Supreme Being.

This professional and political landscape of sectarianism also extends into the array of institutional translations of the Bible, along with much of the texts found later. Most of the translators have been indoctrinated at professional institutions by professional teachers (professors) and given divinity degrees following the payment of tuition and the passing of exams.

The confidential Teachings of devotion to the Supreme Being are not qualified through these methods. As a result, most Biblical translations still reflect the credo of those sectarian institutions, as those who translated them must ultimately keep to the creeds of their respective employer and academic institutions. Otherwise, those translator/interpreters would lose their salaried positions among those institutions, or otherwise be ostracized.

The process explained by Scripture is different: The representative of God is mentored personally by one of God’s representatives, and then empowered by God. This is the process we find consistent within the life and Teachings of Jesus and his predecessors through to Moses and Abraham.

The true representative of God is also not paid a salary for their efforts to teach others God’s message. The representative of God performs those tasks out of devotion: From a platform of loving service. They are not motivated or tainted by monetary gain, nor are they motivated by the desire to attract followers.

The real devotional Teacher is thus not elected by councils, deacons, elders or assemblies of cardinals or bishops or chief priests. The real Teacher is chosen by God to represent Him, after having taken instruction from and committed service to a mentoring Teacher also chosen by God. This is a personal mentoring process, not a political process. The mentoring process is not simply the passing of information: It introduces a personal relationship with God. One person who has a personal relationship with God introduces that relationship to another who seeks such a relationship with the Supreme Being.

This same standard must also be maintained by those who are translating Scripture. The translation of Scripture by those who are appointed or elected by assemblies, or even individual teachers, contradicts the power and the ability of God to manage His Scriptures in the manner He chooses.

As a consequence, to be paid to translate Scripture, or to otherwise be rewarded by institutions or men through means of royalties, fame or honor – contradicts the standard of devotional service. As such, those translations by those who have either been politically appointed or elected – or by those who have been paid or otherwise rewarded – should be rejected as true Scripture.

Those who have devoted their lives to God and have followed such a process of gaining a personal relationship with God can understand the devotional Teachings of Jesus because those Teachings have continued to be passed down from spiritual teacher to devoted student. They can understand the subject matter of Jesus’ Teachings, and their purpose. Through a humble devotion to the Supreme Being and guidance from their Teacher, such a person can understand and awaken Jesus’ Teachings in order to display their original intent and guidance.

Those who have not devoted themselves to the Supreme Being and have thus not come to know Him will not be able to understand or translate Scripture. Regardless of their seminary degrees. Regardless of their apparent academia, they will not comprehend the texts if they have not developed a devotional relationship with God.

As a result, such ecclesiastical and professional translators will opt to tow the line of the sectarian creeds and interpretations of those institutions that have preceded them. This includes those of the Roman Catholic Church and the politically-expedient Nicene Creed.

The translator of this work thus expects and accepts that the clergy of these organized institutions will reject and criticize the Devotional Translations.

Yet within that rejection we have great company. After all, many of the Prophets – along with Jesus and his students – were rejected by the organized institutions that overwhelmed the societies of their respective times.

And this is precisely why the true Teachings of Jesus will remain confidential, to be passed down only between the devoted Teacher and the serious student.

Notes: The Devotional Translations


For the four Gospels, the Biblical text used for the translation of the Gospels was the original Greek texts as correlated with the Codex Sinaiticus – the oldest known Greek Gospel texts. The translation work utilized various lexicons and sources to offer translations that come without political or monetary influences. Rather, the emphasis was upon capturing the literal statements of the Gospel into modern English.

In addition to the four standard Gospels, selected Gospels discovered in recent years have been added to this work. Most of these are from the Nag Hammadi library, discovered in Northern Egypt in 1945. The texts were carbon-dated and found to be from the First through the Second Centuries AD. These texts, written primarily in Greek, Coptic Greek and Hebrew, are thought to be the remaining texts of followers referred to as Gnostics, Essenes, Johannines, Nazarenes and/or Ebionites.

Such an interpretation of these ancient texts is unfortunate. For we find upon close inspection of the manuscripts, that these texts provide clarity of some of the Teachings of Jesus. We thus find in these texts – amongst Teachings that mirror those in the four Gospels – new Teachings that sectarian institutions have attempted to erase from the historical record.

We also find clarity among these buried Gospels about Jesus’ Teachings regarding resurrection, the soul or spirit versus the physical body, the spiritual realm and the citizens of the spiritual realm. Indeed, we find Jesus gave significantly more information about the spiritual realm and the purpose of the material world.

For example, we find that Jesus taught his disciples about the Consort of God – His first Beloved Companion of the spiritual realm.

Why isn't this included in the four Gospels? Were they all-inclusive of Jesus' Teachings? We can say with clarity that they were not.

In fact, the earliest manuscripts of the four Gospels also reveal that sectarian transcribers and translators later added text and verses to the four Gospels included in the New Testament. We find numerous instances where words supposedly stated by Jesus were added, while other statements were manipulated or deleted. In some instances, later additions came in the form of an entire verse – often attributed to Jesus as a quote.

To the degree possible, most of these additions or manipulations have been removed from this translation work. Some are marked with footnotes.

It should be noted that verse numbers were added to the Gospels much later. They were not part of the original manuscripts. This would logically mean that the added verses came during or after the initial verse numbering – since the additions are sometimes entire verses.

It should also be noted that this translation often departs from the common institutional paraphrasing utilized by translations by organized sectarian institutions described in the Introduction. This was not intentional. Rather, the intention is to offer the clearest and truest English language within the context and the situation prevailing at the time when Jesus walked the earth.

The most obvious examples of this are the translations of the Greek words υἱός (huios) and πατήρ (patēr). Among sectarian versions we find these translated literally without context to “son” and “father” in some verses, yet otherwise (“subject” or “people” or “master”) only when “son” or “father” could not possibly fit. Why the insistence upon the specific literal translations in some cases and not others?

Certainly, a literal translation is appropriate when these two words discuss the case of a physical son and father: A male physical body born from the semen of a male physical body, respectively.

Yet outside of this restricted sense, we find that the Greek and Hebrew languages – as does English and many other languages – refer to other, more sublime relationships with these very same words. In particular, we find that the ancient Greek language utilized these words considerably within a learning context, describing nonfamilial relationships between a teacher (πατήρ (patēr)) and a student (υἱός (huios)).

We also find that as the original words spoken by Jesus and those around him – utilizing a combination of Aramaic and Hebrew – were transliterated into Greek conceptualism.

For example, when the word πατήρ (patēr) is traced back to the certain roots of Jesus within the Teachings of the Prophets, we find the Hebrew word, יְהֹוָה (Yĕhovah) – referring to our Creator and LORD, the Supreme Being.

To conclude that Jesus spoke of a different Creator – with a new name, “Father” – is short-sighted. As we see clear evidence by Jesus’ many quotes of the Prophets such as Moses, David, Isaiah and others, we can conclude that Jesus was not introducing a new God or a new Name of God: He was carrying on the Teachings of those Prophets who taught before him, and describing the Supreme Being who was also worshiped by those Prophets.

This is evidenced by the fact that Jesus often taught within the synagogue or on temple grounds – and many of his Teachings quoted these Prophets. In addition, we find Jesus was often called “rabbi” or “rabboni” – both titles being given to a teacher that professed the Teachings of the Prophets.

These points confirm that Jesus also utilized the same references for the Supreme Being – those of Yahweh – Creator – LORD – God. (See Endnotes for more specifics.)

To conclude that Jesus departed from the terminology utilized by the Prophets before him is an obvious political attempt to separate the Teachings of Jesus from the Teachings of the Prophets.

The reasons for this are quite obvious: By the time the Roman Empire attempted to embrace the Teachings of Jesus – in the beginning of the Fourth Century AD – it had slaughtered hundreds of thousands if not millions of the Jewish people in what could well be considered a holocaust that lasted nearly a century.

These are called the Jewish-Roman Wars as mentioned earlier, but considering that the Jews were armed with knives while the Romans were armed with swords, bows and arrows, and horses and armor, one could not reasonably consider these wars, but rather, slaughters.

The result is that the Romans sought to obliterate the Jewish religion and erase their past history as the slaughter of millions – not just in Judea, but throughout Europe. They sought to create a shiny new religion they could control and dominate. One that did not have the accountability of their past activities. As such, they effectively muted or subterfuged the Teachings of the Prophets.

Thus, we find the Roman-Catholic Latin versions of the Bible systematically attempted to nullify Jesus’ roots in the Teachings of the Prophets, by twisting the dialogue to appear as though the Teachings of the Prophets were intended to simply predict Jesus’ arrival and persecution.

This manipulation muted the Teachings of the Prophets by making it seem that they were not teaching their followers about God: They were supposedly talking about Jesus the whole time. As we find clearly in the Old Testament, this is a lie: The Prophets certainly did teach their followers to love and serve God. And Jesus was following in the same tradition: By teaching his own followers to love and serve God.

This translation work seeks to offer a clear and pure translation of Jesus’ Teachings to his followers. This translation is derived from original texts as possible, within the true historical and religious context of the times, in an attempt to portray an accurate record of Jesus’ Teachings as narrated by his early followers.

It should be added that no political leaning towards any sectarian thesis was utilized or attempted. The author has no allegiances to any sectarian institution or political organization.

This text contains numbered footnotes and linked endnotes throughout to offer explanations for some of the key translations of critical words and phrases. These are typically linked in the first instance in each chapter. Beyond the first usage, it is assumed the reader can refer back to an earlier use. Usages noted in the earlier parts of the text are assumed without noting later in the text.

This text contains numbered footnotes and linked endnotes throughout to offer explanations for some of the key translations of critical words and phrases. These are typically linked in the first instance in each chapter. Beyond the first usage, it is assumed the reader can refer back to an earlier use. Usages noted in the initial texts are assumed in later texts without noting.

The serious reader should find a rather surprising awakening to the Teachings of Jesus. The translation reveals a refreshingly practical yet sublime wisdom spoken by Jesus to his students. One that can reach the depths of the heart.

This publication may be updated from time to time when grammatical or translation errors are found.

Thank you for your time studying these works. Please accept my respects.


Continue to the Gospel of Matthew