I have been devoting as much time as possible to my unfinished book, “Dimension, Deception and Demons” which discusses the history, politics and infrastructure of the Earthlings. These are euphemistically called Draco as they were presumed to have prehistoric origins from Alpha Draconis. Zetas and Thubans also originate from Alpha Draconis; a star system literally teaming with intelligent life forms (including around thirty different types of “Grey” being). However, the Draco view themselves as middle Earth’s indigenous man and the true native. My book attempts to unravel the complex relationship with and origins of what we call man – hu-man. As with the truth about Jesus; nothing is out in the open. As the string pullers are beyond or outside our reality, deciphering truth is all the more fraught with obstacles (notwithstanding ignorant “debunkers”). Indeed, the only way to deal with reality has been to demystify it, de-science it and de-humanise it. Patient analysis has encouraged progress and I have more or less concluded chapter two, “The Birth of Hu-man-ity” with some very big surprises. Evaluation of the Atlanteans and their journey from Mars, revelations on the destructive practices of the Lemurians and their “universal” role, the enigmatic “grey skinned” dark forces of the Vedas and, of course, the varied Draconian networks of influence produced more questions than answers, initially. Now I believe I have coordinated relative clarity and the conclusions will shock humanity.
One of my research points has been Maree Moore’s “Merlin & the Shepherds of Arcadia”. The book itself is so determined to impose a contextual White Brotherhood regime, truth has been reduced to zealous fantasy. Though findings are not completely without merit, a few of the numerous references have become more appealing as a strategy quest for truth, particularly in determining the meaning of Rosicrucian order. My planned future blog post, “The Rose Cross” will have to wait. Moore’s book also discusses a karmic relationship between Francis Bacon, St Germain, Taliesin, Moses, Tutmoses and a number of other noteworthy historic figures. Thematic material revolves around gnostic culture, mystery schools and the Essenes. She also presents her “truth about Jesus”. However, she could not be more wrong about this and that is the reason I have presented my latest writings.
Readers must understand that those who have gone to university and studied something known as the synoptic problem have been badly misled. Great scholars are so far adrift from the truth at the start of their quest; it would take an Einstein with resolve to vanquish superstition. Indeed, Einstein’s wobbly theories of relativity and error riddled analysis of the photon hardly encourages thoughts of valour. Modern traditional scholars might view Gnosticism as a cult that emerged a few decades prior to the supposed birth of Jesus. Moses a gnostic? Nay! Maree Moore’s opinion that King David was none other than the Hyksos (Kassite) Pharaoh Tutmoses, I agree with as is her conclusion that a number of the shepherd (priest) kings were also rulers of Egypt. I do not agree that Moses or David were Gnostics. In fact, quite the reverse would be so. They were tyrannous and despotic Pharisees. Moses smashed the sarcophagus casing of the arc of the covenant (sic) [proposing an arc and an Ark] and removed the source of power (switch) from the great pyramid of Giza. That’s why the armies gave chase. What did it achieve? We had to wait for Edison to reinvent a square wheel because Tesla offended the pharisaic tyrants. Another hint at the joint Jewish Egyptian heritage can be discovered in the very creation of Is-ra-el. Is represents darkness and the Goddess Isis. Ra is light and the enigmatic Sun God. El is their version of Akhenaten’s Amen (Which should be written A-mon) – gone but not forgotten. The Elohim (God beings) instructed Jews they were the Chosen People. That is why they mercilessly distribute their vile dark forces under the guise of ISIS or ISIL in the “name of God”. Incidentally, the Islamic State is merely a précis to Pharisaic reductionism.
So what is the truth about Jesus?
Before I answer that, we will need to do some detective work. This time we should apply logic in place of zealous hysteria. Those that have studied the synoptic problem will agree that one of the great mysteries about Jesus is why nothing was written about him until, perhaps (depending on which dateline theory you subscribe to), 65-70AD. In other words, according to the fundamentalists, Jesus died on the cross on or around 32AD and there was an “oral period” for more than thirty years. Reasoning ranges from big memories, cultural practices, and scarce writing materials to belief in something called the parousia or second coming. However, the Christian classification of Messiah is radically different to the Jewish authentic meaning. Therefore, the notion that predominantly Jewish (converted, but still “Jewish” at this stage) congregations waited decades in sincere expectation of a Messianic rebirth is sheer nonsense. The other problem is writing materials were not scarce. Therefore, I conclude, there was no oral period.
Continuing as a detective, I first must establish whether Jesus was a “plausible” real entity as there was no oral period. Other than some bizarre accounts in apocryphal texts, Jesus is reduced to an estimated two year ministry as determined by “reasonable” datelines (such as travel schedules) estimated from evidence presented in the four gospels. There is not one mention of Jesus in the weight of Roman records compiled 0-40AD. Jesus’ birth stories do not belong to the original gospel texts and were “presumed added” to Matthew and Luke’s gospels. Reputed scholars place Mark as the first gospel (though I will contradict that view) and he fails to mention the birth of Jesus. The stories themselves try to parallel superstitions over Moses’ birth and the way John the Baptist’s anointing of Jesus symbolises David/Tutmoses’ accession to the throne. Orthodox Christians now celebrate the birth of Jesus on or around 7th January. Roman Catholic tradition holds it was the eve of 24th December. Adonis (perfect love) was born at midnight on 24th December. Adonai is the Hebrew word for “Lord”; a common name for Jesus. At the other end of the popular account of the scale of Jesus’ life is the crucifixion and resurrection. Mark, once again, fails to mention the resurrection and logic dictates that, at best, accounts were “metaphoric”. Though all gospels agree Jesus was affixed to a wooden cross until he relinquished his life, there are problems when cross referencing attributing data and Roman custom/traditional punishments for crimes. Therefore, I argue that the crucifixion and resurrection were both metaphors of different meaning depending on the individual ambitions/purposes of the gospel writers.
It is generally assumed and reasonable to conclude that Jesus was neither a child nor an old man when he conducted his ministry. The Jewish age of manhood, thirty years, might be a good guide, but could never be assumed as an absolute. Therefore, we need to understand key historic events before drawing conclusions. We know that with the death of Herod the Great in 4BC there was considerable upheaval in Judea and jostling for power in the Sanhedrin. Roman influence became more oppressive (from the orthodox Jewish standpoint) and there was an attempt to beef up the Sanhedrin with hard line Pharisees (admirably countered by an influx of radical “left wing” Essenes). Indeed, Jesus “from Nazareth” is a mistranslation as he was a Nazarene (an Essene). Herod Antipas (ruler of Galilee) tried to court Rome and was a cordial ally of Pontius Pilate. A particularly turbulent period saw Caligula advanced to emperor of Rome and Antipas banished to Gaul in 37AD. This happens to be the birthyear of Titus Flavius Josephus in Jerusalem. As Antipas succeeded Herod the Great in 4BC, the crucifixion (of Jesus) theoretically could have taken place any time between that date and 37AD. Our next key event was the siege of Jerusalem and alleged (but not confirmed) destruction of the temple. Emperor Nero had placed some austere measures to crack down on Pharisaic disorder in Judah. This led to a Jewish rebellion for the Passover of 66AD. The situation quickly escalated into a siege of Jerusalem, culminating in the razing of the city in 70AD. However, arguably, most of the “key players” of Jewish order were not there.
If there was going to be a metaphoric crucifixion and resurrection of a Jewish shepherd king, then sometime directly after the siege of Jerusalem seems the best historic place. We are led to believe Jesus was a Zealot and they were the significant force behind the Jewish side of the Jerusalem rebellion. However, for this history to be complete, we need to consider some other key characters. Let us start with Josephus, the Jewish Roman historian. Corporate history (no doubt sponsored by Israel) tells us that Josephus’ father was a Jewish priest called Matthias, or rather, according to Josephus; he descended from the priestly order of Jehoiarib (one of twenty four priestly orders formed by King David). There is some ambiguity as to their status by Josephus (to cover up his connection to Jesus?) and they were aligned to the Sadducees (political left wing of the Sanhedrin). As a High Priest of the secret order of the Nazarenes, could have Matthias also been known as Joseph, naming his son Josephus? Could that High Priest been called a carpenter (craftsman), a euphemism for builders of structures with professional status, at the time?
Now we need to deal with the female line leading to Josephus. Scholars argue his mother was an “unknown” Jewish woman and he collected regal names Titus and Flavius to court favour with Rome “for some reason”. I say that Josephus’ mother was a Roman aristocrat of great importance and his birth marked a fusion of the Roman and Essenes elite. Josephus’ mother was a Piso. Let’s call her “Mary” for fun. This family produced the Emperor Vespasian. Let us now consider that Jesus was not born in 0-4AD as postulated by mainstream scholars. Instead he was born in 37AD. If we add thirty years for the customary Jewish age of manhood, Josephus/Jesus ministry would have begun 67AD. Could it have begun with trouble with Nero and concluded with the razing of Jerusalem in 70AD? That is 2-3 years accounted for in the four main gospels. There is more. Was the fact he “wasn’t recognised” by some of his apostles after the crucifixion an indication he travelled incognito. Those throngs of sick followers were “not allowed to touch him” and, as a precaution, he was surrounded by body guards (the twelve disciples). We know they were body guards from analysis of their violent behaviour in the lead up to the crucifixion. Jesus is also noted for wearing “long flowing robes” which encourages the logic that he may have been “covered from head to toe” to avoid recognition/discovery. Finally, throughout the writings of the four main gospels, he never seemed to settle anywhere. This is the behaviour of a man “on the run”.
What is the case for Josephus’ mother being Mary?
Once again added to the original texts, Mary, mother of Jesus, is described as a virgin. This does not mean she was chaste. In fact it is a reference to her “void” spirituality. The Essenes were regarded as the purest of pure and their society suffered the curse of nepotism, so she would have remained a spiritual virgin for life. As a Roman aristocrat of the highest importance, she trumped the irrelevant Joseph/Matthias into oblivion. Indeed, of the three characters (Matthias, Josephus, Mary), from the Roman perspective, it is she that would have been the most spiritually pure. That is why, in the Catholic Church, the effigies of Virgin Mary are more potent than the Christ Saviour. Mary has become a renowned miracle maker, whereas Jesus has not. When Mary was canonised she occupied a higher place in the church than Jesus. [Added 5/10/2014 for additional clarity. Though some argue the “Virgin Mary” concept is merely evidence of the Adonis/Isis/Osiris father/son rebirth counterplay; it was not just this. We know from the Solomon Wives parable that the virgin “represents nature’s purity”. Moses’ anger at the worshipers of the Golden Calf was really an attack on Pantheism (Celtic Wicca) or, in accordance with the Roman/Babylonian religion; the worship of the “fruits of nature” and fertility rights as sybolised by the calf. Under this jurisdiction, a Roman Queen would have been the celestial representative of nature. Another metaphor played on by the concept designers was the relationship between Jesus and John. The last recorded prophet was Zechariah (?) (although some purists argue that true prophecy ended centuries before). He and his wife, the “barren” Elizabeth, produced a miracle son – John the Baptist (Ebionite “king of the Jews”). This parallels with King of the Jews Jesus’ miraculous “virgin” birth.]
Though Josephus was a Roman aristocrat via his mother’s heritage, he seemed to align more to his father. The emphasis of his family history revolves around his relationship to Matthias. From the orthodox Jewish perspective, by ignoring his mother’s heritage, he also affirmed he was not a dreaded Diaspora. As a proclaimed Zealot, and political agitator of his time, this should be no surprise. Romans, incidentally, were particularly adept at inventing personas. The same individual might use numerous names for his different “characters”. Was Josephus’ cover blown sometime in 70AD and he needed to reinvent himself in Antioch? It is likely John wrote the first gospel and there is good reason for this (discussed later). However, the first “published” (if that is the right word) gospel was Mark’s (or Marcus’); who was a Roman aristocratic follower/friend of Josephus. Of course according to the symbolism, Jesus returned to Jerusalem only to be captured by the Romans and put to death. A “loved spy”, Marcus calls Judas was the traitor. Was Judas a codename of Marcus who was also the “young man that lost his loin cloth” at the arrest of Jesus? If we think about the symbolism of the crucifixion and resurrection, was that not a comment on the Jew’s losing/reclaiming Jerusalem (70/1948)? Marcus, a Roman aristocrat, would hardly endorse that in his gospel. And, sure enough, Mark fails to mention the resurrection. I guess it simply wasn’t important enough (sic). [For clarity, the arrest of Jesus and the crucifixion are separate events decades appart invloving different character sets].
We now can also see why there was no oral period and what was really meant by the “second coming”
The reason the “people of Nazareth” rejected Jesus’ teachings is code to say the Nazarenes knew who Jesus was. The fusion of a High Priest and Roman Queen did not make a Priest King – Messiah. The true Priest King, certainly according to biblical lineages, was John the Baptist. That is why Mark made sure Jesus/Josephus was anointed by John. The hereditary right had been transferred, but Nazarene insiders did not buy it. Thus the modern Jews assert Jesus was a great priest, but not the Messiah. Christian focus on philosophy and the philology of Messianic tradition merely beclouds clarity. That is not to say that the gospels simply act as testament to a rogue Jewish Messiah but, on balance, considering that question; the Jewish position is correct. In my unpublished encyclopaedia, “A Brief History of Human Conscience”, a chapter/book is devoted to the philosophy and history of Jesus; I recommend at least three different individuals are presented as “Jesus” in the four gospels. One dates back to 196BC and was an urban legend when the gospels were written. This blog post is very much an oversimplification due to time restraints.
Joseph of Arimathea features strongly in Merlin & the Shepherd of Arcadia. None dare give him a chronology as his persona is steeped in legend. Early British tales posit him as a trader; a merchant banker that negotiated a relationship with the druids who oversaw Cornwall’s tin mining facilities. Tin was needed for the production of bronze and was a valuable commodity at the time. Maree Moore calls Joseph of Arimathea a “Culdee”. These were, for lack of a better explanation, Arian Jews or Celts. Moore draws the correct conclusion that Joseph was both a Jew and a Celt as there was nothing to separate them other than a name. Interestingly, as a reader of energy fields, I have a very orthodox Jewish colleague. He is an unmistakable Celt. Allegedly his [Jewish] family history can be traced back to the sixteenth century. There are two possibilities for Joseph of Arimathea, but I recount only one (as this is a blog post and not a book). I postulate and speculate that he was an ally of Matthias, Jesus’ father. In this capacity, he would have been well into middle age (late 30’s/early 40’s) at the time of Jesus’/Josephus’ birth. Could Matthias been the minor agitator, Barabbas, in the reign of Herod Antipas. Did he, indeed, come to blows with Pharisaic order (for my American readers this is a version of Puritanism) only to be saved by Rome (Pontius Pilate) who happened to be less of a friend of Herod Antipas (supporting Pharisaic order in the Sanhedrin) than Joseph. Was Pilate paid twenty pieces of silver to allow Matthias to be [mock] “crucified” on Joseph’s land? No one has been able to locate Golgotha. Is this erstwhile fiction or the Arimathea homestead? I suggest Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln’s “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” is worth a glance.
Continuing this line of speculation could Joseph’s [of Arimathea] son have been Lazarus? The Holy Blood, Holy Grail borrows the view that Lazarus was the enigmatic Beloved Disciple, John. I believe it is more than compelling so must be correct. Lazarus is arguably the writer of the fourth gospel, John, but I also happen to believe he was the son of Joseph [of Arimathea]. His sister, Mary Magdalene, was married to Jesus/Josephus and predictably described as a “whore” by Mark/Marcus because she was not Roman. To Mark, Josephus was royal Roman blood. To his followers, he was the King of the Jews. The reason Jesus, according to the apocryphal texts, “a debater with priests” at age twelve, did not write a word was he was the greatest writer of his age – Josephus. However, the powers behind him had infiltrated the Pharisaic Sanhedrin. His father had almost been killed by Herod Antipas, except Rome intervened. Was the condemned man destined to meet Virgin Mary and change Judaism forever? Though Jesus/Josephus may have lost his chronicler (and first gospel writer), John, in the commotion leading to his exodus to Antioch, I believe the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is possibly all that remains of Jesus’ personal copy of John’s Gospel.
When Rome razed Jerusalem, the crown of Judea, a new battle had been conceived. That is the fight of the orthodoxy, now split into the Hasidic right and the “non-orthodox” left. Their political army is the Knesset of Israel which only serves the pharisaic black heart that rapes Isis at the expense of Ra to preserve the vanity of their false prophets. Their foul cauldron of discontent conjures hell from the abyss of malevolence. Yet still, the brightest light, in His many guises, will forever rise and reign immortal.
That is the truth about Jesus.