As I had finished my blog on why no one has been able to align Exodus to a specific date in world history, I had said that this would be my next installment in this “great work” in which I am involved. Were he still alive in this world, my oldest brother might be gratified that I’m finally taking his advice about “farming it out a little at a time”. Look, first I’ll cut to the chase and issue my decision, then I’ll delineate the whys and wherefores, etc. As to Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code, most of his “historic” evidence is hogwash, with the possible exception of the “facts” which he cites from the life of the Savior. Having read that book and subsequent “rebuttals”, I’ve come to the conclusion that he wrote a “historic” fiction and put whatever spin he wanted on it, since it was his book. All of the information which IS accurate, he got from Leigh and Michael Baigent (writer of The Jesus Papers) (which he credited in the name of his fictional historian character, Leigh Teabing [anagram of Baigent]). However, it seems that some information, he did NOT have permission to use in his book, so Leigh and Baigent were forced to sue Mr. Brown for plagiarism. Besides that, I really don’t think Mr. Brown did the notion of a marriage between Yeshua and Miriamne Magdalene any favors, since his foray into supposed history is only pretense. He was simply out to make a fast buck, however he could – I wonder if his method will be worth it, in the end… However, that is NOT to say that nay-sayers of said marriage hypothesis are all that open-minded, either. The one book I read as a refutation refuted most of Mr. Brown’s supposed historical “evidence”, but can neither confirm nor deny that such a marriage ever occurred. Then they suppose that, since the so-called “supporting evidence” for Mr. Brown’s stance had been successfully refuted, they seem to not care whether anyone believes about the marriage or not, saying “What difference does it make?” For the theology? Not a whit (or very little). For the psychology of it all? All the difference in this world and any other… but I’ll get to that later. Now let’s roll the clock back about three thousand years (give or take a couple hundred). I had finished with why I support the Hiram Key’s writers’ conclusions, as they make a lot more sense than a lot of others who try to place Exodus some three centuries later, during Ramses II’s reign. I had also followed the authors’ brief jump to the book of Ezekiel where God tells Ezekiel to remove the Egyptian elements from the Masons’ ritual commemoration of the sacrifice of Seqenenre Tao II (which resulted in the main character’s name becoming “Hiram Abif”). Now, HERE is a point very much worth consideration. God gets involved enough to muddy the trail. Why? Here’s my answer – from Judges, God tells Gideon to keep only the men who stayed watchful even while slaking their considerable thirst (ALSO reducing the number to 300). God wants people who pay attention to our surroundings AS WELL AS God’s commands. So, this is one giant puzzle God wants someone, anyone, to work out. It’s gotta be, people. How many people do you REALLY think God spoke to? JUST Jews (Hebrews before them/us), or JUST Christians? Really? The theory is that God made ALL OF US, right? So, what makes anyone think that He’ll (or She’ll) speak to some small group ONLY? Perhaps for selected conversations, yes, but ALWAYS? REALLY? How arrogant are you? How many times has anyone wondered these things? Look, we may have hearts to believe, but we’ve ALSO got minds which think (I hope). A real, living faith doesn’t have to choose one or the other, but engages BOTH. THAT’S what God wants, and for what Moshe (Moses) said he hoped (yes, he did, I just paraphrased). A tall order in this so-called “Age of Reason” (in which “experts” are reluctant to admit that we ALSO have hearts which feel), in which we are too-much-victimized by the “reasoning” on par with the San Hedrin of about 2,000 years ago. But I digressed, although the points needed addressing before I proceed. Another point which I must first make. How many times do you think that the actual truth was not believed because the general circumstances were already in defiance of what one preferred to believe? (A.K.A. “spin control” – recognize the term?) Who first originated the term “pseudepigrapha”, anyway? I used to think that it was the Roman Catholic Church; alas, no, it was what became known as “the San Hedrin” as of 2,140 years ago. (Ach, no, Saba Shalomon was right again after all. The earliest instances were in the first Rabbinic counsels among the first Levites, once they had leisure to codify and enscribe accounts of halakhic judgments pertaining to various situations they encountered.) Shock, shock – for me, anyway. You’d be surprised how much our minds will fill in what we do not know with what amount to assumptions – all the more so once we opt to believe in something, especially concerning God - our place, our history, and so forth. And we’ve all heard that saying about assumptions, haven’t we? Well, to roll history back, let’s synopsize by saying that the Tanakh/Old Testament is replete with accounts of the failings of the royal line of the House of David – also with it’s occasional successful kings, to whatever degree. How long did Israel last once it told the royal line “Look to your own house, O Jesse!”? Not very long, and then the Assyrian captivity occurred, from which the rest of the clans of Israel did not return. Note that the book of Tobit is among these “pseudepigrapha”, among others. Most of the missing books from the Old Testament are listed among them (“Septuagint” seems to be a version name of the O.T. meaning “seventy books”, but may be derived by splicing syllables from different languages). There are a couple of exceptions to that – one is The Book of Enoch, the other is titled The Book of the Wars of God. Both of these books are briefly mentioned in New Testament letters – whether any legitimate copies are available today? Well, the first one is, but I don’t know how legitimate it is. Now, I’ll resume at the Babylonian captivity. One of the “apocryphal” books mentions that Jeremiah the prophet, before his exile in Egypt and immediately prior to Nebuchadnezzar’s conquering of Judaea, hid the Ark of the Covenant somewhere – himself experiencing what the Apostle Philip did in getting “caught up in the Spirit” (the writing implies it) and covering a lot of distance in a short time. There is no subsequent scriptural mention of any priest or prophet going to recover the Ark of the Covenant, apocryphal or otherwise – so far as I know, anyway. (If anyone ever says “I know all there is to know about this”, stop and go find someone else, because you got a fraud that time.) Look, the apocrypha seems to indicate that Ezekiel was not the only prophet active during the Babylonian captivity, also. One wonders who first called the books of I and II Esdras false, too – the Jews or the Vatican? Someone did, anyway. The Maccabees, too – I’m told that it was the Jews who classified them as false, as it challenged too many of their preferred assumptions. I gather that it was the fact that it depicts a ruler from the clans of Benjamin (God’s chosen “peacemaker”) as having to go to war that decided them against the book(s), although it might have been better had they just admitted that the times were depicted as desperate – that account ALSO depicts that Ptolemy seems to have suffered the same historic bout of “insanity” which frequently erupts when the Jews are involved – otherwise, he was reputed to be an “enlightened ruler”. It is from these so-called “pseudepigrapha” which supplied the missing pieces of information by which I have derived my answers on many of the Bible’s “grey areas”. It may have been written by inspiration of God, but IT WAS STILL COMPILED BY HUMANS, complete with resultant flaws. These points needed to be made – and now, to continue. Upon the return from Babylon, there began a settlement next to the Dead Sea, which was named Qumran. Upon consideration, my most likely guess as to the reason is that some of the returning Jews wanted to jointly found a community to serve as a lamp before God which would not “go out”, so that the Holy Land would not fail again to have a faithful community to stave off any more exiles from angering the Lord of Hosts (I will note that upon examination and deriving this theory, I found another observer of religious history who avows this conclusion in his writings – don’t ask me, I’m busy, and looking over my reading list will be good for you if you’re a FB friend, if you really want to know). Then they got back to rebuilding the land – repairing the buildings and repopulating. The Qumran community evolved into a “community of elect”, accepting much stricter standards of conduct than the requirements of Torah – I know, I’ve looked at translations of the Manual of Discipline. Did you know that laughing loudly brought a solitary confinement of ten days? I mean, yes, it was a community for prayer and meditation, but REALLY? Harsh… That also explains the absence of any fraternization among their devotees. Copulation can be quite distracting to neighbors close by trying to study, meditate, and/or not having any partner themselves, yes? Yes, I looked in the Old Testament, and there WAS a Zadok the priest among the returning exiles, but I suspect that “the sons of Zadok” to which the Manual of Discipline refers is the Zadok the priest who is designated as God’s preferred priesthood, since the others among the clans of Levi led Israel astray. This Zadok was from the reign of King David, I believe, whom God designated. Names of those reputed to have “divine favor” tend to be re-used a lot, don’t they? Well, that’s enough on the origin of Qumran, but it WILL arise again in this missive about my “thought experiment” (thank you, Mr. A. C. Clarke, for the term). Let’s turn our attention to the accounts of the Maccabees, which focus on the plight of the Jews and Judas Maccabeus, both the first one and his grandsons, the eldest of which was his namesake. First, when I reconsidered whether this book could be legitimate or not, I was browsing through the book of Jeremiah and found a brief reference to “the mother of seven” (Jeremiah was written 300 years earlier, or so). This account seems to offend people from several nations: The Jews – “What’s a peacemaker doing going to war? This can’t be right.” The Greeks – “Ptolemy did that? Are you sure? He was so enlightened, otherwise…” The Egyptians – “Ditto, and it ALSO violates MAAT.” The Syrians – Who knows, maybe they’ll just jump on because it’s against the Jews again… (humor, wot?) Their present-day ruler probably won’t win any accolades, either… (A truer depiction of probable culprits) The San Hedrin after Jason Maccabeus’ treachery – If we allow the general populace access to these accounts, we will be exposed as the Inheritors of a legacy of betrayal – this we CANNOT do if we would retain the pretense of I’ll say this now – my premise was a simple one. Assume all “holy books” are true, start comparing notes and see what emerges as a general picture, historic framework, what-have-you, and then start sorting fact from fiction. This is how you derive a fully-matured, WORKING faith. There’s so much more that I want to say on that, but I’ve probably covered those in earlier blogs/documents, so onward. I mentioned “the mother of seven” because she figures prominently in the Maccabean accounts – which will be evident once you read it for yourselves. Ptolemy is recorded as having taken a personal, direct interest in breaking her. The account records that he executed all seven of her sons, MAKING HER WATCH ALL OF IT, from the oldest to the youngest. This was not just a “routine” conquering, but an all-out attempt to break the conquered Israel’s spirit as a nation. The accounts record that she gave an answer every time she was asked to spare herself and her sons that ordeal, and that answer was, effectively, “No”. She would not break, and after watching all of her sons’ executions, she herself was burned alive. When word of these occurences reached Judas Maccabeus, something greatly resembling a “divine avenger” arises within him, since he saw this for what it was – not just a conquering invasion, but an all-out attempt to quash the Israeli spirit and sense of identity prior to complete destruction as a people. He (Judas) was suddenly no longer content with exile, and arose to rally the Israelites/Jews to drive out the invaders/conquerors. He continued to rule afterward, for some years, until he was lured to another city on a pretext and murdered. His younger brother Simon succeeded him until he, too, was lured to his death on a pretext some years later. The real kicker, though, is that when the same thing happened to the next younger brother Onias, it was with the collusion of the youngest brother, Jason, with the Greeks, Egyptians, and Antiochus of Syria. The religious ruling body becomes the San Hedrin under Jason the usurper, and this shadow of the ruling theocratic council becomes much absorbed with denouncing, detracting from, and otherwise denigrating anyone or anything which would detract from their perceived sense of power. The community at Qumran becomes much more important, the true successor to the divinely-authorized ruling council (although I now must amend this – see the addendum which follows the main text of this treatise). Note that Gospel accounts accredit John, son of Elizabeth and Zechariah, and Yeshua (both cousins), son of Joseph and Mary (the virgin birth could well have been falsified), use much the same wording as they each denounce the San Hedrin (they probably didn’t REALLY have any trouble with snakes as animals – prophetic allegory at work). Even for such a secluded community, the weight of such a responsibility would weigh heavily upon mystics who forget how to laugh (softly, in their case). [By the way, is human humor well-equipped to laugh WITH the butt of their jokes? In most cases, no, correct? Hence their aversion and discouragement of loud laughter – it’s an acknowledgement of the inherent cruelty in human humor.] My educated “guess” is that Mary Magdalene would be descended from the “royal” Maccabean line as Yeshua is descended from the royal Davidic line (Galileo’s notion of symmetry in nature and “all things seek their own level” figure in this supposition). The muses borrowed the work of a contemporary author to which I was drawn to clue me in on this (I don’t automatically assume that they like me all that much, though. They have their work, and I have mine.) Look at what happened during the succession of the brothers Maccabeus – Judas finally gets Egypt, Greece, AND Syria to leave Israel alone by forging a pact of alliance with Rome, a fledgling democracy at the time. Later, presumably under Julius, this alliance between them became inconvenient, and Rome subjugates Israel as the democracy is forcibly transformed by Julius and his legions into the Roman Empire, setting the stage for the political scene as it was in the Gospels. I do not dispute the general Gospel suppositions in “God’s great plan of salvation”, but the general dogma leaves out quite a few realistic items of concern – MOST of which I plan to address. (Theologians enmeshed in traditional dogma will probably dislike me, don’t you think?) Assuming that Yeshua and Miri (for short) actually were married, if follows that the wedding at Cana was theirs (revision at end), which would have made it natural that his mother mentioned that the wine ran dry. Mister Robert Feather, metallurgist consulted about the copper scroll of Qumran (which catalyzed his transformation into a scholar of world religions atop his mastered craft), made compelling arguments for his conclusions about John “the Baptist” and Yeshua having entered their respective novitiates at Qumran in his book The Secret Initiation of Jesus at Qumran. Those conclusions I (halfway) accept – it is some of his other conclusions which I contest, although in mild debate format. While I accept most of the substance of the Gospels, the so-called “exclusivity clause” which claims to cut out adherents of any other form of faith and/or system of belief, I must, in all fairness, treat as SUSPECT. It doesn’t match the overall plan of “God”, as my explorations have laid it bare, nor does it match the overall character of the one hailed by many as Savior. I’ll get into why I also suspect the falsifying of the “virgin birth” later. There is even some speculation that the “Apostle” Paul went beyond his mandate – note the slight admissions within the New Testament itself that there was friction between Paul and Peter, then later between Paul and James (also called “the lesser” and/or “the Just”), who presided as Overseer (Elder) at the Jerusalem congregation (which may have ACTUALLY been at Qumran itself, if not at the Essene establishment within the Holy City itself). The clue in the Pauline letter in the verse “If anyone else preaches a Jesus other than the one which WE preached, let him be accursed.” If this was the case, it would have been because, in this “Great Plan”, Yahweh would have had to make a lot of hard decisions about how to proceed. Not the least of these would have been the protection of the offspring of Yeshua and Miri until we could no longer be in danger of being wiped out. Humans use, and have used, smokescreens before, so why not God? Turn a critical eye upon Isaiah 53:8 through 54:1, and then ask “Who is this [desolate woman}?” We of the Holy Blood know (well, those of us who are aware of our heritage, that is) – it’s Mary Magdalene, our penultimate grandmother. As to Isaiah’s (apparently-misleading) question of 53:8, WE WILL SPEAK FOR OURSELVES, thanks awfully. Also, the passage of the Revelation of John which speaks of the mother and child pursued by the “dragon” speaks of their protection for 1,260 days. Please note that the precedent among Bible scholars for the “year as a day” allegoric conversion, this comes directly from the first chapters of Ezekiel, when he lay on his side one day for each year… first for the “punishment of Israel” (for all the corruptions of the other nations inherent in the sins of the patriarchs, which I addressed in my previous blog), for 390 days, THEN selling Joseph into slavery – see, even I, after contemplating this for ten years, am still cogitating this theorem. And remember, with God, it does NOT have to be just one reason). So, then, 1,260 AD (CE, as they render dates now) was the time of a schism within the order of the Knights-Templar. My own explorations indicate that this was because of information uncovered during one of their forays beneath Solomon’s Temple, circa 1160 to 1175 CE. If these records were in Hebrew, then the Templars would have had to smooth some “ruffled feathers” of the Jews from one of their order who would NOT go on crusade until he killed some of the “slayers of his Savior”. Then they would have had to convince them to translate their documents which they found and share them with the Templars. Then the Preceptor would have had to peruse the findings and consult with his most trusted advisors before just springing them on the order, military minds being what they are. If some of the documents were in Latin, then it would have been the church and/or Italian scholars – scholarly institutions began WITH the church, did you know that? Complete with all of the faulty thinking of religious zealots, which is why MOST modern scholarship has to undergo review and revision – also because of what they WON’T tell you. I have an uncle, Richard Crane, who wrote a book entitled The Johannine Code , in which he expounds upon his honest, informed opinions on Biblical scholarship (although he hasn’t gone through the vast de-programming which I have, so I’ve warned you), and his work contributed a few pieces to this puzzle (you can find it in any Christian book store, or at least order it). My own disclosures to him upon this subject did not enthuse him, to be sure. Once in a while, he dropped tidbits on various subjects about which I wrote him. I’ve read MacGregor Mathers’ book about the Knights Templar history, and he reports that once the findings were disclosed, “…many among them even went so far as to deny that Jesus was the Christ…”, and so forth. It’s been a while since I’d read it, but I remember the important items (important to ME, that is). Now, what could they have found that would prompt THAT reaction? Why, when the order first began, did they have a prayer specifically requesting forgiveness for the “Sin of Mary Magdalene”? (the usual indulgence of soldiers and that “historic” lie of “Pope” Gregory?). There is a certain merit to the saying “ignorance is bliss”, after all. There is no greater honesty than to re-examine all that one had once thought to be true with critical reasoning, looking for inherent flaws and removing them, is there? I have often wondered how many times God “rolled his [or her] eyes” and thought “Oh, no, not again”, concerning inherently-demonstrated human stupidity over the centuries as I’ve been absorbing all this. Oh, yes, we’d gotten to the parts about Yeshua’s and Miriamne’s lives which the “Bible” does NOT address, for good reasons, one of which I had already covered – their offsprings’ protection. Another reason is that Yahweh, Yeshua, AND the “Comforter” reasoned that it is not relevant to the central points of the message of the “Gospels”. (For me, I would have preferred to have known at the outset, it would have been so much easier for me if I’d had ALL the pieces of the puzzle earlier – as I’ve told Yahweh repeatedly in no uncertain terms –I suspect I’d already paid for that in advance, although that strikes me as somehow fraudulent on the part of God. Let’s skip any pretense of shock, shall we? Thanks, neighbors, this is difficult enough.) Unfortunately, I’ve not decided whether God indulged a desire to give up during the “Dark Ages” and/or decided to wait until the times of “the seven seals” was completed to resume serious investment of time and energy in humanity again. Considering what God underwent during Genesis, i.e., the grieving that He’d ever made humanity (assuming that Moshe did not simply assume that this explained it truly), and the fact that humanity chose to kill the human extension of God, what do you think? (No, don’t tell me, just - SELAH.) Even while the apostles were still alive and fulfilling their own “ministries”, many who converted still tried to live their lives as before while claiming conversion. Then there is the point of how honestly and completely they actually recorded the events of his life and what he taught, or not. According to the Gospel of Thomas, Peter had serious issue with the Magdal Eder, and it is a mystery what his real problem was, unless what is written in the Magdalen Manuscript is true – that she spent some time earlier in her life as an initiate in the Temple of Isis and continued to wear the golden snake armband even after she met and married Yeshua. So much information had been lost, mishandled, and concealed that it’s difficult at best to be certain – but it provides a plausible explanation for Peter’s true problem with her. I also read the introduction to a Catechism manual from the Catholic church that said that some 60 years after the crucifixion and resurrection, the congregation of a Roman church began to contain the Eucharist in golden vessels (which I see as beginning a problem – treating the symbols as more important than the concepts for which they stand). The next century shows the overseer of the church at Alexandria, Ignatius, as having made a rather irate declaration that “There are four seasons, there are four elements, there should be four gospels!” Apparently, he had gotten rather frustrated that some adherents within the Gnostic subsect of Christianity quoted from gospels with which he was not familiar – but what made him think that he ever had the right to limit the number of accepted gospels to four? There were TWELVE apostles (13 when you count Paul), and what designation was Mary Magdalene to have? And was it REALLY Peter to whom Yeshua truly “gave the keys to the kingdom”, or was this a later revision, as some conspiracy theorists have suggested? Recent discoveries have confirmed beyond any doubt (for me) that she did indeed travel to Gaul, and even into the British Isles (a Twitter post on Uri Geller’s account showed that she took the “head of Isis” to the island named “the Lamb”, located off the NE coast of Scotland, or at least arranged for its transport there). Apparently, Paul was not the ONLY Christian to have to spend time on the isle of Malta (a common layover on Mediterranean voyages by sea). Oh, another interesting question – what did Yeshua mean by the passage “I have sheep [to save] from another fold?” I don’t think that the “dogmatic” answer (the gentiles) really fits. It doesn’t feel right, somehow. Anyway, this was a gradual progression from the “Apostolic” practices into what later became the Roman Catholic church. Along the way, “Church” historians, such as Pliny the Elder (whose accounts were audited by Caesar Vespacian, the successor of Nero “the insane”), Justinian (whose accounts must be treated with careful critical analysis, as I believe his “scholarship” was half-assed, to be blunt), Flavius Josephus (a Jewish “turncoat” to the Romans) put their own spin on the events of those days and deserve a critical analysis for various reasons. That modern scholars do not question the authenticity of their information I consider as apathetic on their part, until proven otherwise to my satisfaction. Then there are the accounts of Caesar Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, and that’s another can of worms in it’s own right. I had my own questions about whether Constantine’s conversion accounts were true or not – Mr. Brown’s muddying the waters helped me not at all in that regard. However, the report of his conversion is some years before his death, so I had to accept it as genuine. Whether it was whole-hearted or not is still open to question, as the “virgin birth” is ALSO present in the myth of Mithras, “courier of the Unconquered Sun” (Sol Invictus). This myth depicts Mithras as “springing from a rock, a dagger in one hand and a torch in the other”; a “friend to all” (as was Yeshua, unless the individual in question was hypocritical). If Yeshua was born of mother and father, both mortal, and the church did not want others to follow in his footsteps more completely, what better way to restrict others from that than to represent him as having some “unfair” advantage(s)? The fact that acceptance of the “Nicaean Creed” was required for inclusion in the “congregation”, and it includes specifically the “virgin birth” in it, one question is “why is profession of acceptance of that point so important?” Someone was out to establish control – maybe necessary for a “new” religion, but HOW NECESSARY was it really? Before I’d encountered the idea that Yeshua and Mary Magdalene were actually married, I had some trouble identifying with a “Savior” who had some supernatural advantages built into his being. After, although it was a bit disappointing, I found it somewhat easier to identify with Him and Yahweh (after my initial anger at information having been concealed, compounded with having to de-program from dogmatic inconsistency). And, actually, a mortal man who labored to directly connect with his maker? THAT is more understandable, and reasonable, than the alternative – the dogma of a virgin birth, as though no one else could have done what He and She did together. But that’s partly paradoxical, in actuality. They were destined to achieve it together, but does that REALLY mean that no one else COULD? (Chicken and the egg? BTW, the egg came first – chickens didn’t have a monopoly on them.) Next, what about that “exclusivity” clause? “I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father, but by me.” Really? Did he REALLY say that? Or was this a later “revision” to eliminate the competition by church “officials” who were jealous of other practices of belief and/or simply greedy for their money? He himself warned followers of him to “be on your guard against all kinds of greed”. This statement doesn’t match his character or the MOST LIKELY premise that God doesn’t want a lot of bickering from “Our way to God is better than yours”. Really, if that’s true, then it would be self-evident, wouldn’t it? Frankly, unless I was vastly different in other incarnations, I don’t believe that I would alter texts from simple insecurity about others believing differently – although I wonder what I would have done if they inflicted their beliefs upon me whether I wanted them or not. The later restrictions (confessional, priests and nuns can’t marry, and the main one being the continual repression of the Gnostic theme) were NOT authorized by either them OR Yahweh, I am convinced. The confessional practice evolved earlier, as some new converts entrusted some sensitive information to immature and/or counterfeit believers who later abused the information, leading to the practice of the confessional to prevent further instances of abuse. I have been informed by a pastor of long acquaintance that the forbiddance of marriage of priests and nuns was because of the permission of divorce and how the property rights were addressed in the court systems of those times. The church got tired of losing property because marriages didn’t work out and decided that prohibition of marriages was far simpler than alternatives – BUT IT WASN’T RIGHT, either. It went so far as the Council of Rome actually daring to “vilify” seven angels (the closest representatives of Yahweh, REALLY?) Curiously, Raphael (the book of Tobit) was not among the seven listed, although Uriel (mentioned in the Esdras books) is, among six others. Really? They went THAT far to eliminate competition and a questioning congregation? Or were they just trying to limit access to information which would provide for a more successful life? The most likely answer is that they decided to provide only MOST of the information to provide for belief in their “half-myth”, but exclude the rest of it which would complete the picture AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE from the outset. Both God and “Satan” (which simply means “accuser” in Hebrew) were “playing a game”, but it sure seems to me that God puts up with that one WAY TOO MUCH. The “simplified” version – too incomplete, and feeds into the popular superstitions too much, so I had to look deeper – is not enough, and gives the “cosmos” a projected sense of duality (a mortal illusion). Frankly, the fact that the disciples suffered violent deaths (except “the disciple whom Jesus loved”) indicates SOME sort of deception at work – and note that the flavor of John’s gospel is somehow different in addressing some aspects a little more completely than the rest. There are many questions in all of this. But I’ve come to accept that, since Roman Catholicism and Islam were at each other’s throats during the crusades, and questions of Islamic chroniclers of the life of Muhammed taking too many liberties about what Muhammed taught, the same questions had to be asked about “Christian” scholars having done the same thing or not. The idea of Mary Magdalene having been a prostitute was an incorrect assumption made by “Pope” Gregory, who was alive about the same time as the Arabic orphan Muhammed was beginning his “ministry”. There is NO reason to assume that the “prostitute” who anointed Jesus’ feet was Mary Magdalene, yet Gregory did. What WAS that idiot thinking? Later, it was after the Templars and the Saracens had come to a grudging respect for each other’s fighting prowess on the battlefield that they had some interaction of a more peaceful nature (however brief), and I believe that their exchange of information somehow led to the excavations beneath the Temple of Solomon circa 1160-1175 CE, or at least provided oblique confirmation. All of it was pre-ordained, as the prophecy of the woman and the child indicates, because of the 1,260 days specifically mentioned. A curious thing is a historically-mentioned, but rarely-referred-to dynasty which was active during the latter half of the first millennium of the Common Era in the SE area of France – the Merovingian dynasty. There was a monarch who was assassinated along with all of his offspring except the youngest child circa 750 CE. The monarch’s name was Dagobert I (Dagobert l’Unieme in French). I’ve looked up the history on Wikipedia, which gives him little mention, being half a century before Charles the Great (he who is credited with the implementation of the Magna Carta). I’ve surmised that Dagobert I is from an intermarriage between the Saint Clair family and a Gaulish “royal”, or at least “noble”, family some centuries earlier. For those of you who are not aware of this, by some accounts the descendant(s) of Yeshua and Mary Magdalene assumed the family surname of St. Clair (from the French for “Holy Light”). These are just a few of the items which led me to believe that there actually is some support for the idea of said marriage. There is a lot else which I could mention which would support the idea that, to whatever degree, there has been some editing, abridging, and revising of the “Bible”, to whatever actual degree it occurred. There have been repeated attempts by various “church authorities” which engaged in activities of active suppression and “revision” of certain books. Some of these attempts occurred specifically within churches in the United States within the last two centuries, adding more books to the “unauthorized” lists (seven, in addition to what the Roman Catholic church had in the “apocrypha”. Most pastors and/or priests at congregations, even if they have level heads on other subjects, will probably manifest some kind of demonstration of “apoplexy” at the mention of any marriage between Savior and Mary Magdalene (Webster’s Dictionary STILL lists her as a “reformed prostitute”). As to what really started all of that? That will be my next installment. Until next time, stay safe and be well. Shalom and Amen. ADDENDUM completed after reading Jeannie Richards’ book Yeshua and Miri, bk. 1 I now must revise an earlier statement, or statements, which I wrote as I first composed this. I had failed to realize, or forgotten, a relevant point which somewhat changes the overall picture of this. (Considering the comprehensive nature of the mental/emotional anguishes to which I had been subjected during this most-recent incarnation, I suppose that I am not surprised about “missing one of the trees in this allegorical forest”.) The one point I’d mentioned that I forgot to consider is that Israel, as a nation, except during the times of Kings David, Solomon (Shalomon), and to a far-lesser degree Rehoboam (during whose reign Israel and Judah divided into separate nations), had hardly reached any status greater than a frontier nation. With all of the times of its’ subjugation under different conquering nations, empires, and such, during times of relative rest from adversity, they were always having to replenish the population which had often been seriously reduced. In such circumstances as these, the general populace was generally encouraged to marry and reproduce earlier than more-settled nations. I had learned this about my own land of birth, the United States, as during its’ own days of colonization as a British colony (although it, too, had changed hands a few times over the centuries) and earlier, such was ALSO the norm. Later, this would change. Mr. Robert Feather, I suspect, is a UK citizen, and that nation’s days of colonizing are much farther back in time than my own country’s – a fact which I pieced together upon having been reminded of this by Mrs. Richards’ writings. This is extremely relevant when you consider “ancestral memory”, which druids have accepted for a long time, and which “modern” psychology may take a little while yet to accept, let alone validate. “Modern” psychology, as a science, could be considered to be in its’ “toddler” stage. Besides, may it be said that “… visiting the sins of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation of those that hate Me, but showing love to those who keep my commandments…” be another way of saying that ancestral memory is valid? [Theorist’s note: quotation of Torah “verse” is loose in this instance, possibly.] Also, Jewish society has TWO sets of accounts – the written one [Torah/Tanakh] and the oral one [Qabbalah]. The oral tradition varies in each family, since it focuses on its own unique family tree as well as the deeper metaphysical traditions which were not set into writing until about a century after Yeshua’s crucifixion, at least in a prototype form. Recently, it has come to my attention that the writer of this prototype Qabalistic accounting of the metaphysical tradition, Rabbi Akiva, may have begun to further revise Tanakh transcriptions to confuse the issue concerning Messianic prophecies – whether Yeshua was indeed the Messiah or not. That is unfortunate, and may be a major factor in why he was executed as he was – however, this has been reported to me by only one witness, so I mention it as a possibility only. I may not yet treat this as a confirmed report by standards set in the Torah. However, to me it feels true…for whatever that’s worth to you. To summarize, then, my minor revision to this monogram is that Yeshua’s cousin, John bar Zechariah, is the one who spent a lot of time at Qumran and lived by the Manual of Discipline codex. Yeshua’s training was much broader of scope as HE had more instructors. As to Mary, or Miriamne, the “Magdal Eder” (note the subtle alteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic term into what seems to be a family surname). This would seem to answer the question of whether it was Peter or Miriamne who was ACTUALLY charged with furthering the kingdom, wouldn’t it? And HaShem would still get what He/She/It/They was/were after in the first place. Let the corrupters of the faith think they got what they wanted while STILL arranging for we who need to know… to know what we need…when we need it. Elegantly simple-yet-complex turn of phrase, isn’t it? [ I had to insert the triple-dots to keep others from excess confusion as the phrase turned… ar ar.] One more item – the writers of The Magdalen Manuscript, or at least Ms. Sion (when they co-wrote it, that is – she and Mr. Kenyon might have married since then), had, or still has, her own issues with the “church”, and may have transposed from her faith-of-origin to another with which she more-readily resonates. I only say that to point out that adherents of differing faiths tend to want to depict various individuals from history into their own system of belief. I.o.w., we’ve all got our own set of preconceived notions and they can, and often do, overlay any truth which is imperfect, comparative, and /or absolute. Consult a philosopher to understand the difference between the types of truths to which I just referred – or perhaps a trusted metaphysician – or your own specific perception of God, the Source, whatever… Again, Shalom and Amen. P.S. - As with my computer installation sequence of the Windows operating system, upon acquisition of new information, further revisions may be forthcoming. After all, I have not even gotten as far as comparing the “Christian” “Old Testament” with the Tanakh, which would further facilitate detection of possible, and probable, alterations to further said Roman Empire’s political agendas – moot now that said empire is all-but-dead, wot? Unless the “Enemy of all Life” is an actual being instead of a process begun at the Tower of Babel – if not somehow both…?
Comments are closed for this blog post