OK, folks, for those who have been following these installments, I had written last installment that I would delve into the question of “What started all this misinformation and disinformation?”, but it seems more reasonable to me at this point to explain what I meant by the quoted question “What difference does it make?” pertaining to the “hypothetical” marriage of Yeshua haMashiach (or more properly perhaps, Yeshua bar HaShem) and Mary Magdalene (or more properly, Miriamne Magdal Eder, or Miriamne bat Micah). It may make a big difference for others who are/were likewise afflicted, as was I.
I’m sure that, if you’re reading this, you are already familiar with the “Good News” story of Jesus “of Nazareth” (historians have some question whether Nazareth had really been founded 2,000 years ago or not). Before I go further, it would seem that even Yahweh collaborated to keep some “tidbits” of information concealed. (Having pieced a lot of this together, in retrospect the reasons are compelling – my animal nature still rebels at it, though, considering how much harder it made things for me NOT having this info at the outset – though in retrospect, if I HAD this information from the outset, my life would have been far different, and possibly shorter.)
The “Bible” (Greek for “book”, from Byblos) as the “Christian” church prints it today has 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament – only four of which are “gospels”. Upon retrospect, this seems odd – why wouldn’t the other “apostles” have set their accounts into print? Well, as it turns out, many of them did – there is even a translated account of a Gospel of Judas Iscariot (which I’ve read). You will note that only one or two gospels make mention of the marriage of Yeshua and Mary Magdalene, and these were among the gospels which were never included in the “canonic” gospels (approved by the council of Nicaea, circa 325 CE).
I really ought to mention a few items first. When it comes to people who achieve major accomplishments, is there not a human tendency to ascribe to them a “larger-than-life” status? Even as recently as 240 years ago, and 140 years ago, the account of George Washington has had a popular myth which sprung up concerning him – George Washington and the cherry tree - as well as “Honest” Abraham Lincoln, etc. So why don’t people consider that such has happened even farther back in history? The answer is apparently simple – since a lot of people have chosen to believe in Christianity, they do not choose to turn a critical eye upon the accounts. From my own experience, though, I can definitely tell you that it is NOT as simple as it appears. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Another reason is that, by and large, “people are stupid”. If a (so-called) “expert” says that such and such happened in such and such a way, most people accept what they say at face value – it’s easier than checking it out first-hand. This unfortunate tendency of humans has led to today’s social apathy concerning social ills (i.e., I wonder how long it will take before “President” Trump gets impeached.). I even recall a pastor at a ministry at which I spend a fair bit of my time telling me “I trust the scholars” – but, then, I suspect he’s a better psychologist than he is a pastor (to be fair, he’s got Parkinson’s disease, though).
Another consideration is that it is very possible that the “miracles” of the Gospels may, in one or more instances, be Qabalistic “exaggerations” as some form of cypher. This is a somewhat-common theory, even if not a prevailing one. For instance, “turning water into wine” could simply mean escalating a conversation from everyday, “normal” content into a conversation which reveals divine truths; causing the blind to see and/or making the deaf hear could mean “enabling understanding of truths of heaven where previously there was none”; and raising the dead could mean “transporting one’s understanding so that he/she is now on the path of light and life”. (Frankly, this is NOT one of my favorite points to consider, I merely include it as a possible consideration – you have no permission from me to assume that I believe this point.) I simply include this point to allow for the possibility, to report it fairly.
One more point which I must make is that the apparent “thought/belief control” was not started by the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the Jews – or, more specifically, the San Hedrin of 2,000 years ago. The Wikipedia entry for Leonard Nimoy’s abridged biography states that he “was saddened at the ever-present thought control attempts” (turns out he was also Jewish as well as Ukranian). One can understand why after examining the accounts in the “Tanakh” (Jews prefer this term to “Old Testament”), and how the Jews kept chasing after other gods. It was not until after the Babylonian captivity that the Jews as a whole grew out of this tendency. What I find strange is that, even though it was written not too long after the recounted events, most Jews do not seem to want to accept the Maccabean accounts (I’ve already covered the “why” in a previous installment). “What’s a peacemaker doing going to war?” instead of “My, how those times were desperate since a “peaceful” tribe went to war”. Actually, I ought to now include another point, which is that the San Hedrin is the initial culprit which began the practice of “hiding sacred accounts”, so that their inheritance of treacherous behavior and doing nothing to fix it will not be discovered – or so they assumed.
So we get to the “gospels”, which today have Yeshua’s life account silent for 18 years, from age 12 to about age 30. Then it picks up with his cousin John baptizing people in the Jordan River “…to prepare the way for the Lord”. John is shocked when his cousin comes to him to be baptized, and Yeshua has to pull out the “fulfill all righteousness” trump card (Shut up, Mr. “President”, you’re an idiot.) Then he goes “into the desert” for 40 days and nights. Curious, isn’t it, that this coincides with the length of time of the transit of Venus? (Although, at that time, they were still calling Venus “Lucifer”, weren’t they?) The accounts seem to ascribe to Yeshua “demigod” status, born of a virgin, being the eldest according to the accounts.
The reasons for this are not simple, but rather complex. For some reason, not long after my reading The DaVinci Code (and many previously-unexplained events in my life) certain subsequent events got me to take a critical look at all of the concepts which Mr. Brown raised (although he wasn’t the first and his motives were fraudulent). I automatically assumed a diabolical conspiracy, when that is only PART of the equation. The diabolical motivations came later – earlier on, the (most likely) distortions to Yeshua’s life story was because of the “popular” collective imagination of the people who ascribed to Yeshua aspects of a “larger-than-life” status. Who ever heard of someone rising from the dead? Is it such a stretch from what he REALLY was and accomplished, considering that angels heralded his birth (by the accounts)? By the way, they ALSO heralded his cousin’s birth, too, to a lesser degree.
Apparently, because the sect originated within Israel, Christianity “inherited” a tendency to be denigrated as a faith from Judaeism – not to mention that Yeshua’s opponents were applauded by the San Hedrin of that time when they tried to have Christians executed. Frankly, Yeshua didn’t come to start a new religion, he came to clarify the Jewish practice already in existence. He knew, however, that they WOULD start a new practice in His name. I STILL believe in Christianity, but for reasons which differ from the “mainstream” of Christian thought.
Do you know that the beginning of the Catholic Catechism booklet briefly touches upon a historic point for the eucharist? It depicts that a few years before Paul was beheaded (per legend), the congregation wished to emphasize the “importance” of the eucharist by carrying it in a gold vessel. I would have resisted the idea, I suspect, as it is always dangerous to consider a symbol as important as, if not more important than, the idea which it represents. (Americans and this divisiveness over whether to allow “flag-burning” or not comes to mind.)
The “church” could not even cling to obedience during the lives of the “apostles” (I put that term in quotes, as some question whether they were even sent or not. I certainly had my OWN questions about that.) Now, let’s cover the “thirteenth” apostle, Saul (later Paul) of Tarsus. OI, now THERE’S a controversial figure – in one letter, he even went so far as to claim the right to curse those who disagree with him in doctrine overmuch. I wonder how the “Jerusalem” church viewed that. It is entirely probable that, not long before the destruction of Jerusalem, the church WAS at Qumran. This is not a long reach, as John bar Zechariah had received the majority of his training there (Mr. Feather made a VERY convincing case.).
Paul essentially took the gospel to the Gentiles – after a great deal of argument/discussion, the church leaders agreed not to make things too difficult for the Gentiles (see Acts). But, from the viewpoint of those versed in Jewish mysticism (Qabalah), he was giving/selling (is anything REALLY free?) a watered-down version of the truth. Actually, since Yahweh had also participated in the “conspiracy” to withhold the knowledge of Yeshua’s and Mary’s marriage, it was ALL at-least-slightly diluted from the outset. Which left ME with a hell of a mess to sort out (hence my attitude toward God being sometimes-angry – it’s hard enough without the CORRECT information).
Well, most of the disciples did not pass easily – only John (the disciple whom Jesus loved - ?) died (we presume) of old age on the isle of Patmos, in exile. Of Mary Magdalene, there is no further mention after the resurrection accounts (not counting her own gospel, a gnostic work).
Anyway, what little I DO know is from the reading of many books, looking for the missing tidbits which would enable me to re-construct an altered truth. I WILL say that if Yahweh had wanted Yeshua to be born a virgin, Yahweh COULD have done it – but I find this unlikely. When I read Betty Kelen’s (probably abridged) “translation” of the Quran, when Muhammed pestered “Allah” about the “sins of infidels”, Allah was reported as responding “If you MUST punish, then punish only in the measure with which you were punished.” To me, THAT sounds like something Yahweh would have said – and lent more weight, in my estimation, to the broader outlook toward religion, spirituality, and such.
Later, as overseer (elder/bishop) of Alexandria, Ignatius was getting tired of hearing other (claimed) adherents of Yeshua quoting from “scriptures” of which he’d never heard, so he pops off “There are four seasons, there are four elements, there should be four gospels.” Why? Were there not twelve apostles which Yeshua called? There ought to be TWELVE gospels (thirteen when Mary Magdalene’s is included). Yet today, the majority of books in the New Testament are written by one who never met Yeshua while He still wore a body. Yet he outshone Peter, who had been there from the start of it all. Peter, who, according to the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, gave her cause to fear him at times. Peter, who, according to one or more gospel accounts (none of them “canonical”), questioned why Yeshua was enamored of her that He spent much time with her (what, did Yeshua keep their marriage a secret? The Jewish ceremony of marriage requires witnesses before, at the least, a community elder.)
The “church” relies heavily upon at least two, maybe three sources for information relevant to those times – Flavius Josephus (a Jewish “traitor”, who sold out to the Romans – I don’t know the particulars, just the rep), Pliny the Elder (whose information was seriously and meticulously audited by Caesar Vespacian, Nero’s successor), and Justinian, a church figure who was already bent on “proving” Christianity is/was true (throwing his “scholarship” into question – people out to prove a “pet theory” often miss the rest of the evidence). Many who study theology are not encouraged to ask these kinds of questions – and how earnest are pastors at the notion of “educating themselves out of jobs”, which is what a “Man of God” (or Son of Man) is meant to do, fulfilling the prophecy from Isaiah (No more shall a man turn to his neighbor and say “Know the Lord”…”).
Next to consider is this: What was the first “heresy” which underwent persecution/suppression? Ths answer is Gnosticism (a postulated direct link between a mortal and “God”) For the theology of Christianity to work, Yeshua was a Gnostic (as well as Mary Magdalene, his wife). So, while the lay people of the church began to suffer a distorted belief, it lay the groundwork for a grand deception concerning the truth of Yeshua ben Yosef and Miriamne Magdalene. The distortion of the gospels were “canonized” as of 325 CE, and M. M.’s scandalization would be accomplished by Gregory (termed “Pope”, which I, literally, am not allowed to call him by Yeshua’s command. He might not make a big deal of other shortcomings of mine, but THAT one He seems to consider paramount) almost 300 years later.
The overview of the Masonic viewpoint (as it’s SUPPOSED to be viewed, that is) is that “God” laid tidbits of overall truth(s) in various sectarian accounts/texts, and when one is driven to have a “more-informed faith at work”, one un-learns any previous sectarian bias, at least enough to compare notes with other systems of belief. Concerning Gnosticism, it being accepted that Yeshua is/was a gnostic, what’s the conclusion when you recall His quote “A servant is not above his master, nor a student his teacher. It is enough for the servant to be like his master, and the student his teacher.” So, we’re SUPPOSED to be gnostics, huh? OK – wait, they persecuted gnostics – wait, they persecuted Yeshua, too – and killed him. They excluded the gnostic gospels – later, anyone perceived by church authorities to be approaching Gnosticism were mistreated, too. Not a good prognosis, is it?
Another pertinent question is: Why is it that, though the gospels are attributed to apostles, the earliest written ones are estimated as having been written 100 years after Yeshua lived, died, and “lived again”? A rather relevant question would be: “Is it not better to say that the account passed into writing after two or three oral recountings?” Then who REALLY wrote them? And I haven’t even gotten to the Council of Nicaea and its various “control agendas”. Now, THERE’S a rather big can of worms…
Now, after the gradual progression of the “church” (and resulting persecutions) up to the time of Caesar Constantine, the most likely premise is that a “virgin birth” myth had arisen about Yeshua (popular imagination is seldom consistent or logical – John’s birth was preceded by his father being visited by an angel, as was Mary – I guess Joseph had to “settle” for a dream.) It should be noted here that Roman Emperors had begun to practice a devotion to Mithras, “the Soldier’s god”, “Friend to All”, and the “Courier of the Sun” (Rank 6 of 7 is for Mithras himself, rank 7 is “Pater” – in the Persian pantheon, Ahura-Mazda, “the good god above all”). This would have been the belief in which Constantine was initially trained. Then his mother converted to Christianity (unfortunately, “her” version never really rooted out those patrician tendencies, I suspect). There are recorded instances during which the “divine” interacted with Constantine, his vision showing him “the symbol by which he would triumph” – the Christian cross (which could also be viewed as an ankh with the “eye” closed). Oddly, that symbol does not correspond closely with the cross on which they hung Yeshua – that one is more like a “T”, with a slight extension at the top for the INRE plaque (“Here is Jesus, the King of the Jews” is what the plaque meant).
I note the cult in which Constantine was initially trained, as it ALSO contains a “virgin birth” myth. Mithras was reported as having “sprang from a rock, a torch in one hand, a dagger in the other”. He was not depicted as being born the usual method, so it technically depicts a virgin birth. Leonardo da Vinci would have liked the practices of the Mithras cult – the author of the “Mystery Religion” book which I’d read about it danced about the point, but the conclusion is hardly escapable that the religious practices of the Mithras cult involved homosexual sex (not including “The Royal Exception”, in which a woman is brought in after swearing a gruesome blood oath of secrecy). Reading between the lines, this explains why a Mithras cave was razed a little while after agreeing to share the cave with a Christian congregation (though the Mithraists immediately put a wall up, dividing the cave space in half. This occurred circa 391 CE.)
So, although he passed the Edict of Milan in 312 CE, concerning religious tolerance being practiced throughout the Roman Empire, when it came to the Council of Nicaea, Constantine was still enough of a pragmatist to realize that governments would have a lot of trouble maintaining order if a sect were allowed to teach Yeshua verbatim. And that a MORTAL achieved all that (even if with the help of a co-equal female? “Oh no, that won’t do”…) If they left it that a MORTAL achieved all that without God having “stacked the deck”, then ANYONE would want to do it, too. At least anyone Jewish, since they often looked suicidally-religious. Some other facts were probably fudged, too. As a fictional author whose works I tend to favor wrote, “How do you invent a believable story? With two parts truth, and one part lie...”
That was just Constantine’s contribution(s) to “the greatest story ever sold”, as Dan Brown put it. That may be one of the few truths which he included in his fiction, other than the central premise (which he plagiarized to some extent from, and according to, Michael Baigent and Henry Lincoln), about Yeshua’s and Mary’s marriage. The rest of the so-called “historic evidence” was just that – “so-called”. He put his own spin control on it, out to make a fast buck and not caring how much damage he did while doing it, or to whom. The character of it reeks of a brat “getting back at his tormentors” – which is probably why serious “grail” researchers don’t refer to his book all that much, if at all.
This does not even touch upon any additional issues of fabrication perpetrated by the Council of Nicaea. I would rather delve into the psychological issues resulting from this and whatever other distortions were actually employed. The verse which churches are so fond of quoting because it seems to say “We’re right” is probably falsified. After decades of contemplation, it does not seem to match “God’s” overall plan to give one sect “exclusive” rights to ascend. Let’s suppose that Buddhists simply wrote down their observations and are suspicious of anything originating outside of the individual. And why not? As anyone discovers who spends years practicing meditation, the inner self can be rather slippery when it’s trying to escape detection. How many years, decades even, after initiating into any spiritual practice does it take before true integrity sets in? The Buddhists (and the Hindus before them) simply followed the teachings of the Buddha, and don’t seem to even consider the idea of miracles. The Hindus had the writings of the doings of the “gods” (which I have yet to read in a translated version), the Bhagavad Gita. I will not comment on that, since I have not yet read it. A History Channel which I recently viewed seems to indicate that it is, at least in part, a historic account.
But, consider, then, the Messiah accounts of Judaeo-Christianity. To what degree can we, as humans, identify with a half-human Messiah, who wasn’t married and whose history is open to question? It would seem to me that a half-human, half-divine being would find it easier to succeed at the task at hand, but would it have been as effective? Yet, even if they employed old ways to empower a mortal man and woman to accomplish their objective, considering what can and has been accomplished with “magic”, I find this a far more practical encouragement than “He was half-human and half-divine”. Having the people believe a half-true myth sets them up to fail – I do far better with the ACCURATE information. This setting up the people to fail is part of the downside to this Messiah “half-myth”. The virgin birth was staged to appeal to the Greeks (who already had pre-existing demi-god myths), and if it means that the people can’t do it on their own since they don’t have all the right information, what better means to keep them coming back? The priests are guaranteed their income for life (but for the wrong reasons, which puts THEIR spirituality in question at best).
Also, having compared notes with two or more Messianic Jews (NOT associated with any congregation, Christian or Jewish), we’ve all noticed evidence of tampering in the Tanakh/Old Testament. However, the MOST compelling evidence to me which confirms that I’m on the right track is this: once understood, certain passages in both the Old and New Testaments confirm the truth that Yeshua and Mary Magdalene were married. Isaiah 53:8 through 54:1 (53 is about Yeshua, 54:1 is about Mary Magdalene), ending in “…the children of the desolate woman…” and the Revelation of John, the prophecy of the woman and the child “…going into the desert, where they will be protected for 1,260 days…” 1260 CE, the year of the schism within the Order of the Knights Templar. Now, what was it they uncovered which caused many of their number to “…deny that Jesus is/was the Christ”? Most likely, census or other public records from about 2,000 years ago, listing Yeshua and Mary Magdalene as married. (The reports of her prostitution were falsified, having been mis-directed from Peter’s wife.) The “Ring of the Fisherman” was made from the gold of Peter’s wedding ring, itself the proceeds from prostitution. Peter’s wife was the reformed prostitute, not Princess Mary “Magdalene”.
See, to me, Yeshua largely does as the New Testament depicts, just not for ONLY the reasons which most suppose. They (He and His Magdal Eder) must look after their progeny first, THEN the rest of humanity. One who conquers death can certainly overcome insanity, diseases, and such. As for sects like the Pentecostals, most of them forget that the manifestations appear AS THE SPIRIT WILLS. Push too much for miracles and one sees them where they aren’t, eventually.
I’m sure you can see why I waited to write this until I was/am fairly sure. This is more than life to me, so I can’t half-ass it, screw up and say “Oh, well”. It’s too important to me to accept that. Whether I “felt” like doing this or not, once the necessity became apparent to me, is irrelevant. Just don’t assume that I enjoyed the whole process – I did not. And, after all, this is my BEST GUESS – I’ll admit that I believed this as most likely, but admit that I don’t know everything and presently find that I could accept either this possibility or the POSSIBILITY that the “Immaculate Conception” is fact. Supposing that it is actually TRUE, then the possible control agenda becomes limited to the subjugation and denigration of women and the elimination of competing systems of belief and/or competing sub-sects within Christianity itself, with the ultimate aim of the church “hierarchy” being to perpetuate their own “security” and “status quo”. It is upon each and every reader to decide for him- or her-self which possibility he/she chooses and to contemplate the likely destination(s) either possibility will achieve, ultimately – or to try as individually-chosen axioms to discover first-hand whether it works or not for you. Somehow, my own choice seems to have been already made – NOT believing that He was indeed of an immaculate conception takes me to possibilities I find horrid and threaten to transform me in ways which I WILL NOT accept, because then I really WOULD become that prophesied “Beast which should not be”. No, no, and no thank you.
NEXT time will be “What started all this?” Be well.
Comments are closed for this blog post