| theme] : recomposed ‘wheat & barley’ theme > into ‘leaven’ & Unleavened (!) b – [Lk.6] Christ & disciples glean ears : not ‘David took’ but ‘Adam’ [based on the also corrupt 1Sam.21 “stealing the wheat ears”] – [Mt.3:1] but God will return His wheat and floor [sic] , and burn the barley [and likely related : Rev.14-end about ‘the grain and sickle’] – [Jn.12] no ‘Martha anoints Christ with oil’ but the virgin bringing forth our Originals anoints them with it ; the serpent [‘Horus’] desired the manifold wheat-aspects ; – [Jn.6] no ‘5 barley loaves & 2 fishes’ but Horus steals both wheat-ears , no ’12 baskets of barley breads’ but [matrix-] 12-months by their barley-light-particles as mixture compared to ‘leaven’ ; – [Jn.13] no ‘Christ gives the dipped morsel to Judas’ but the sons understand that ‘leaven’ is ‘the barley-particles’ ; they declare this at Unleavened >>>> and Christ returns [sic] [in spite of the obvious gaps several sections run very well now !] [2026-03mar.25-28] |
[right below : a text summary :]
the damage done to the Gospels is enormous —
Esau cut a number of ‘important longer themes’
up into sections and supplied those with intros
now as separate stories that seem unrelated ;
this not only shows a diabolical Hate but also
a fear that we’d find this very important theme
| hence our problem is threefold please — first we need to find “what was the real theme” of a story and what key-words show in the text which could support the interpretation , but here in the case of “Mary anointing Christ” or “giving the sop to Judas as sign of betrayal” we also need to decide whether the context is valid or if it was another of Esau’s tales to hide this possible “wheat theme” by ; and finally, we need to recompose the original theme while remembering all we learned … since for obvious reasons this be a long page first ‘a summary of the restored themes’ after which you can decide to read further , please : |
|
buildup : summary :
how does this sound please .. ?
yes ofcourse there are ‘gaps’ and ofcourse a number of sub-themes is missing ,
yet the buildup of the main wheat-theme is good , leading to the important clue
that the by God hated “leaven” represents “the illegal mixture of light-particles” as
those of eden-wheat with the matrix-barley ones (‘enveloping them’ per the Spells) ,
being the “leaven (-mixture)” as main theme of ‘the feast of Unleavened’ !
the Rev. 21 & 8 page in index]
theme
… not mentioned above is that also you & we learn new themes all the time ,
wherefore a certain text previously interpreted through a series of key-words can
have become invalid — which is okay ‘for we tried’ — when projecting a néw theme
over the text using a different cluster of key-words
[well , in fact Esau first projected his version over the original one] , and suddenly
this ‘new theme’ unlocks the text that up to that point had refused to run properly !
the ‘12’ and ‘barley’ [John 6#1] [section #1 ]
the above is also true for the ‘12’ and ‘barley’ here —
in this infamous “Jesus feeds the multitude” story the alleged ‘2 fish and 5 breads’
really can be ány theme containing certain ‘numbers’ ,
but since we found the base-10 theme a few months ago and especially after the
previous Akîtu and Spell pages the combination ‘barley & 12’ became important
so that there’s a good chance it had “the matrix having made their 12-month year” ;
but then this story bleeds dry ,
and if our assumption is right then where was the rest of this ‘barley’ theme ?
the ‘Mary anoints’ [John 12 ] = our Originals [section #2 ]
though no ‘cereals’ show here ,
the first possible clue was the line with “and the odour of the oil filled the house”
reminding of “the burned honeycomb and its odour going up to heaven” we saw in [sic]
the Asenath story (-see page) but which was about “the both ears of eden-wheat”
| that in turn we linked back to the ‘burning of the wheat stalks’ as shown in the Spells ; moreover , in the Scroll ‘the golden oil is conveyed – by the seven Torches – to the Eden virgin’ who brings forth our pretty Originals which is a very a similar “anointing concept” wherefore the figure ‘Mary’ here could very well be “the daughter of tsiun” ! how much is the chance that “the bringing forth of them” (‘birth’) was turned by Esau into the ópposite idea “death and burial”.. ? |
|
heresy ?
now we run into the problem of the validity of this (KJV-) story ,
where we need to ignore the automatic ‘spiritual’ reflex and ask whether what is
presented here is even possible : because by what authority ‘Mary’ did this ?
and actually this is the same problem we had with the ‘water-baptisms’ by John
which we found out to be Esau’s corruption of “the sons of Ishral” theme ;
while the other question ‘why anoint a body that is to die’ ? is a tricky one for
us because the ‘anointing (-itself)’ féels right to us — just “not in this situation” !
and certainly not for our type ape-body that God hates ,
which was the very reason Christ made his sacrifice for us in the first place !
but because Esau carefully hid the “need to die to the body” in all of NT , [sic]
turning it into his fictional “after a person converts , the Holy Spirit will power it”,
this may explain why christians have always accepted this rather strange story
and , as far as we know , no believer (!) has questioned it ;
on top of this ,
it was not “an anointing with oil signifying a spiritual truth” like Aaron the priest
was anointed in his position of “representing the souls receiving their beautiful
Original in the days of the end-time”, but here no deeper meaning whatsoever
is in play but only “this physical body” and allegedly so confirmed by Him ;
yet , this weak context sounds like some inversed ‘Egyptian embalming-event’ [sic]
and therefore as Esau’s idea ;
where a deeper truth as “spiritual aspect” became the romantic teary penance
of a deep-hearted female — that however feels like Esau’s emotional-blackmail
unto Jacob to be sure that the latter would accept the by him painted story …
the themes Christ sought to convey
now that we have valid reasons to assume that this KJV story did nót happen ,
the question is “would He have explained something like the ‘wheat’ theme ?”
[or to be honest ‘any other theme which could fit here’ for that matter] :
befóre we go start tinkering with the ‘Mary’ section ?
the answer must be “the theme cluster” —
similar to the idea of ‘a set of key words’ mentioned earlier also in this story
a set of phrases show as “ointment / woman / physicality / odour rising up”
just like other themes have their ówn cluster of words ;
we know that He spoke very directly always : can He have used this very
cluster and even anticipating that the story would be corrupted ,
but ‘knowing that you & we would recognize this cluster of phrases’ ?
this is important please —
in the ‘Asenath’ story we saw the same “ointment / woman / physicality /
and even fragrance ascending” and combined with “the oil for the virgin”
as it shows in the Scroll then He intended the same theme here ;
and if this is true then this section belongs to the previous “12 baskets” as
the matrix 12-months by their barley : so that there must be móre cut-off
sections about this wheat-theme [-and even further proved that this ‘Mary’
story was but Esau’s corruption :
but where are those sections ?
Christ & disciples gleaning in the field [Luke 6] [section #3 ]
this is an unexpectedly difficult one —
it opens with “plucking ears (-of wheat)” followed by “David and showbread”
as a ‘cereal theme’ appearing to be valid , the whole section is corrupt —
it definitely was not about ‘working on a sabbath” since the Pharisees show
up who always relate to ‘the corrupted Scroll’ theme and are anxious that He
would be showing another theme (this one) that we need to understand ;
while the ‘David’ line is a mess :
linking back to 1Samuel 21 [1-5] the story there is the same impossible
yet after much pondering previous chapter 21 wasn’t about some ‘Jonathan’
but about ‘Leviathan’ (ieunthn=luithn !) and the ‘spear’ there “the sceptre” as
ruling both realms — so that the scene in this chapter 21 having an alleged
priest ‘Ahi-melek’ was another Esau-form of ‘king (mlk) of Egypt – Horus’ ,
and the “show-bread & hot-bread” was the ‘barley and wheat’ theme
[where it is very possible that God also explained these things to David !]
but our problem is “what exactly was said in these Luke lines” while also
some kind of conclúsion seemed to be missing, and looking at key-words
these two lines for no reason in ‘John the Baptist sections’ showed ,
[Mk.4:28 29]
“For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade [=chortos ‘grass’ was ‘field of reeds’] ,
then the ear, after that the [made-] full corn [=wheat] in the ear.
But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle [also ‘fork’ see below] ,
because the harvest is come.”
[Mt.3:12]
“Whose fan (‘sickle’) [is] in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor [halôn !] ,
and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
[Lk.3-17 :
copy of this line > moved from luke 6 here ? (yes) ; fork -ptuon > ‘sickle’ -drepanon]
now ,
though both lines are different originally they said the same thing ,
being left-over lines that Esau cut out from here to go use somewhere else ,
and though the ‘sickle’ is not true the rest Mt.3:12 is very useful for us ;
if true ,
then a possible action in line 1 can be “that they thrashed the barley stalks”
where perhaps Christ “gathered (eden-) wheat stalks” as a juxtaposition
that would have triggered the Pharisees who knew what this was about ;
the ‘dipping the morsel’ [John 13] [section #4 ]
actually the ‘Ruth’ page reminded us of this ,
where she is invited “to dip her bread into vinegar” as a lunch-break with Boaz
and though no ‘vinegar’ shows here the concept is similar and also very weird :
what does the alleged “dipped morsel that He gave to Judas” actually signify ?
and why is it nowhere explained ? why is this unclear — while He never was ..?
the whole section is suspicious ,
not only because of the long and irritating-vague “WHODUNNIT” scene which
néither is explained [-while we know that the ‘Judas story’ was not about the
betrayal of Christ directly but about ‘selling out the New-Testament’ basically] ,
while Esau’s invented word ‘morsel’ links back to Luke 6 above !
why ?
perhaps this was about the “leaven / unleavened” like in the ‘Ruth’ chapters ?
| the strange ‘money-bag’ a similar strange case is the impossible word for ‘money-bag’ allegedly about “the dishonest Judas who was in charge of it” [yet (G11-1) “glossó-komen” is so bizarre that only by context it can be something like a money-purse] , showing here but also in the above “Mary’s anointing” section ! why ? this , and the ‘morsel’ one are small clues that these sections originally were related even their themes seem different now |
|
timing : ‘Unleavened’ (?)
all of the cut-out sections open with a time frame ‘around Passover’ ,
the John 12 one “six days before Passover” (=but was ‘in the week after’ ?)
yet ofcourse nowhere ‘Unleavened’ shows as the proper time that we need ,
while Luke 6 has the strange phrase “second sabbath after the first”
that originally cóuld have implied “the week (or even ‘day’?) of Unleavened”
for you Majesty
text sections
PART I
(but some unsure lines – see above)
[Luke 6]
[mirrors Mt.12 & Mk.2 are the same poor]
1
“And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields;
and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing [them] in [their] hands.”
1
and – it happens – on – (the-) second sabbath after the first [the week (day?) of Unleavened ?]
b
(that-) He – went – through – the – sowings – and – [=gathered] – [..see below..] – ears (-of wheat) ,
c
[while-] his – disciples +
d
rubbed=plucked to pieces (‘close’) – (the-) ate=barley – [with their-] hands ;
here,
the ‘rubbing’ (psóchó 1x , invented) can have been (dia-spaó) ‘pluck into pieces’ ;
2
“And certain of the Pharisees said unto them :
Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days ?”
2
[=then] – certain – Pharisees – say – (unto-) them :
b
why=what – you are doing , [=is] (-it) – which=another – lawful=sign (exestin=sêmeion)
c
(to be) doing=understood – [=by] – the – sabbath=sons (-of Ishral) ? (‘no match’) ;
3
“And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this,
what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him ;”
3
[=but] – Jesus – answers – them – saying :
b
not=because (?) – you (have) read=concealed [‘see below’] – (in the-) this=scroll
c
[we cannot go further here since Esau based his lines upon 1Samuel ,
but the subjects are ‘David=Adam’ and ‘the-ones=king (-of Egypt)’ ]
4+5 [mirror]
“How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread,
and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?”
“Or have ye not read in the law,
how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless??
here,
the action is close – as ‘the he=king went into the temple=sanctuary of God’
where the second part can have had ,
‘and took away the eat=two (?) shew+bread = ears of + wheat’ ;
but the rest is too unsure ;
part I-b
[Mt.3:12]
12
“Whose fan (‘sickle’) [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor,
and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
12
… […. probably one line (or more?) missing like 28 of Mk.4:28-29 that has something
about “first the plant grown then becomes a sheaf” etc that must have addressed
the “wheat vs [matrix-] barley” theme – and see next : ….]
[…. unknown …] , [=but] – (God) (will) through+purge = make to descend (?) +
b
his – (crystal-) floor – (to) through=Eden (‘from a’)
c
[=as] – gather=returning together – [with-] the – [eden-] wheat (-sheafs) – (upon?) it +
d
to – [+his] barn=sanctuary ;
e
but – the – [matrix-] chaff=barley (-stalks) – he (will) burn up – (with) unquenchable – fire ;
here,
also this suggest that ‘the wheat’ was the final theme in (posted-) Rev.21 & 8 page ;
whether the barley will be ‘burned with fire’ we have not confirmed yet ;
PART II
the virgin bringing forth our Originals also ‘anoints them with oil’ :
[John 12]
1
“ThenJesus six days before the passover came to Bethany,
where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.”
here,
an added line to suggest a new story ; but can have said “in the days of old” etc ;
2
“There they made him a supper; and Martha served:
but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.”
3
[….] – him=God – made=created (‘close’) – [his-] there=sacred – supper=people (‘Originals’)
b
and=through – the – martha=daughter (-of tsiun) – (that) served=brought [+them] forth ,
c
and – the – one=two (‘swapped’) – lazarus=wheat (-stalks) (lazaros=sitos)
d
[do we need the ‘together’ in ‘lying-back-together’ ? :]
(that) [+He] was=created – to [=work] together – (with-) him=her , + (?)
3
“Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus,
and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.”
3
[=through] – the – (seven-) mary=Torches (maria=lampas) – (that) took=provided [+her] (‘virgin’) +
b
[with-] (the-) costly golden wheaten oil + (?)
c
[for her-] to anoint – the – feet=bodies of – the – jesus=sacred ones (‘Originals’) (-with) ,
d
[tricky :]
[=but] (-also) – to wipe=establish (?) – hair=various (-things) (?) – (for) him=them +
e
(as-) the – feet=year (podas=etos) of – him=Eden [f : juxta to the matrix , later :]
f
[=through] – the – (eden-) house – (that was-) filled – [with] – the – fragrance of – the – ointment ;
here,
ofcourse this key-line is difficult :
a) a “for her to anoint their bodies with sacred oil” sounds okay
after was said “that the virgin brought them forth” ;
b) but then ,
in a later juxta about ‘the matrix situation’ we will have “light particles” , “various forms”
and “these light-articles spread out in their sky — by which they make their 12 months”
as concepts that also must show here ;
the “fragrance in the house” (as more positive) is the same as “particles in their sky”
but it’s true that the “various (-things) … as the year of Eden” sounds a bit mutilated ;
next : read : ‘but since the king had base-10 , now he also wanted the wheat’ ?
the usual buildup is ,
– Adam sells the 10 (and 7) to Horus ,
– the latter acquires a a body by the eden-virgin (and becomes a Locust) ,
– then steals the sceptre-axis
– and reurns to steal the floor & wheat & 7 Torches >>> in these sections ;
so that
in next lines may be repeated ‘why he would invade Eden again’
however it may also be “he receiving base-10” if Esau swapped the section :
4
“Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s [son] , which should betray him,”
4
[=however] , (after-) – one=Adam +
b
(had been) said=expelled – [=from] – the – disciples=land – [by-] his=God (autos=theos) .
c
judas=and – [..] (had) be about=made a deal +
d
[with] (the-) (now-) simon=king of – iskariot=Egypt [‘Horus’ – formerly the serpent]
e
to give [+her] (‘Eden’) over – (to-) him (‘Horus’) , +
here,
as ‘king-of egypt he-bargained’
[next 5 : we need ‘his 7- and 10- fold revenge upon Eden’
5
“Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?”
5
….. [.. unknown ..] …. ointment=Adam (muron=adam) – [..] sold=revenging (-himself) +
b
three=10-fold (and-) hundred=7-fold – (upon-) pence=Eden (DENarion=eDEN) ,
c
[=by] – giving (‘selling’) [+them] – (to the-) poor=king (‘Horus’) (ptóchos=basileus) , +
6
“This he said, not that he cared for the poor;
but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.”
6
[=because] – he said=wanted – not=his (-own) – this=rule (?) [< can be many things]
b
[=by] – to care=get rid of – his (own) – poor=people (‘Originals’) , [< ‘given to the demons’]
c
but=because – (the-) that=king (‘Horus’) – was – a thief [or ‘the serpent’]
d
and – (had) had=desired +
e
the money+bag [glossó+komon] = (variety of-) riches (glossó=ploutos) of + Eden (komon=eden) ,
f
[…. 2x unknown ….]
the invended “glossó-komon” perhaps was “variety” (G4164 poikolos) + “riches” (chrêma)
and not including the ‘Eden’ — but that’s a side issue for anyway the term is corrupt ;
7-8 [probably added]
“Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.”
PART III