Latest News

For more widgets please visit

Blog Archive



THE FACE OF JESUS . PART 11.   Human to a fault or politically sanitized ?   The patchy story of Jesus in his supposed lifetime, is too sketchy to be able to come to terms with the reality of this apparently incredible figure. Like most men of great religious stature, there is no evidence of personal writings. By scribes or so called “witnesses” however, there are many and these could have all been easily embroidered to create the base on which to stand a new set of teachings. Religious teachings are in the main, political and have one sole aim, to condition people to respond to priests in the same way as politicians expect the electorate to do things in their own personal interests. Threats of doom from politicians and priests are part of the act and ways of making certain that they stay in power and appear to be protecting something on behalf of the people who put them there. In many instances, collective phobias like outside enemies are utilized in the same way - to keep the people depending on them for salvation. This is typical of ancient religious leaders like Moses for example who even broke the tablets supposedly written by God in a fit of anger. Threats and indirect attempts at creating fear, features little in the supposed teachings of Jesus who, despite a great passion for his view of the future, worked with a clarity and simplicity of style that marked a very confident and self possessed man with all the time in the world to start off with. This however is not the important aspect of the heritage of a man, whose image commands the attention (and in many ways conditions) the behaviour of almost half of humanity even today. The Christian Church like all others, depends on faith for support and wipes aside all criticism of romantic deceit with casual mention of one document or another which effectively do not exist in the form stated. There is only one genuine, historical mention of a man of some stature who resembles the figure we call Jesus and he is not mentioned by name. This is the much vaunted text from Josephus who fought in the Jewish wars that ended in Masada and wrote very vivid accounts of the period. The terrible thing about this document is that it has been altered so much by so many people that it is almost impossible to tell which is the original and which the altered one. The text has to be carefully distilled and identified with common sense and this requires reading the translations carefully and working out what is hardly likely to have been written by anyone other than by Josephus himself. There is a Slavonic version which appears to be the oldest and which, quite categorically, simply states that there was a man much respected by many, who had an impressive and somewhat fearsome aspect whose beard was a little wispy and not strong. A full growth of luxuriant beard was something that Nazzareans (who did not cut their hair), valued as a sign of good social presence. This man was apparently killed ritually and he was either a hunchback or had a very thick neck. That, is as much as we really know of a man who fits the description of Jesus and was killed by the Romans. He was it appears from the translation, an impressive character and it leaves little doubt in anybody´s mind that it refers to the man we call Jesus. There were others also executed around the same time , one of whom was a Simon called the Magus or magician and a wife Helen who could have also been Jesus and who also had a name synonymous with the Egyptian God Si Amon. Apart from that of the historical Josephus, all other so called documents are written well after the death of Jesus. Moreover, at least one claim, that of the massacre of the innocents, cannot be true unless Jesus was born some six years before the date Christians call zero. Herod was dead by the time Jesus was born and therefore it is likely that Jesus was probably older and nearly forty when he was crucified. One of the most remarkably overlooked aspects of this man´s life, was his name. It is not a Jewish name and sounds more Egyptian than anything else. Moses is of the same syllabic identity. The latter it would seem, meaning, “out of the water”, which would point to the fact that it was like so many other biblical (rather than historical names), more of a description than a real name. We are told it means Liberator. There was one very well known mythical character on which the Druidic faith based its origins and that is Hessus so it seems very likely that Jesus was of Egyptian origins or else bred there and a local name adopted. However, in view of his later life, it was probably deliberately chosen to convey the essence of his leadership. This makes sense as many biblical, legendery characters also have some sort of relationship with Egypt or better still the ancient, semi mythical Saba. Both David and Solomon were married to Sabaens and there is a hidden tradition that John the Baptist was also of Sabaen origins. Curiously, the founders of Rome took Sabaen wives by force when they had none of their own for some obscure reason. This is just to simplify the issues involved without straying too far from the hidden meanings which scribes put into their written words. Solomon is pretty obviously Sol Amon â€" an Egyptian deity, like Si Amon and Amon Ra. Moses comes out of Egypt and the founders of Palestine are the Pali or Shepherd Kings or Hyksos who apparently occupied Egypt for some 250 years. We therefore have a man in Jesus already very different to that image we are given to identify with. We then have the Magi, or three wise kings, who bring gifts from the site of ancient Saba in South Yemen where Frankincense and Myrrh were exclusively grown and refined and one of which is always depicted as black African. Their names are descriptive of their religious origins. The Magi are a story all of their own since much that has been written about them which suggests that like the Druidical Bards they had a very intense and long period of training which gave them special powers of public attention and reverence. They are also historically confused or identified with the Medes or Medians of Anatolia or ancient Turkey from which many religions, similar to the mystical ceremonial of Christianity, are derived. The Chaldeans with their ritual magic and from where Abraham came from, as also the followers of Mithras, from which the cave farm animals and Rock issues of Christianity (not to mention Jesus´s birthdate) are extracted â€" all testify to a non Jewish religious inheritance. The Bythinians of ancient Turkey, for example, had a religion very similar to modern Christianity and which involved ritual baptism. Within all these movements and origins we can safely place the nature and teachings of the strange man, without an identifiable real father, who talked to the Jews as an enlightened outsider attempting to put them on to a different track. It can also be said that Jesus is potrayed as having a very detailed knowledge of biblical history and in one particular statement, according to scholars, makes a very subtle indirect reference to the coming of Shiloh, in which, both Jews and Christians find echoes of Messianic claims. In brief, it seems to show that Jesus considered himself the Shiloh. Curiously there is a biblical place by that name where the Ark of the Covenant was kept and even more curiously where the Levite priests served at a Temple - but nowhere near Jerusalem.   The teachings of Jesus are in essence all the same and reflect an intensity not like that of John the Baptist full of fire and brimstone, but of fraternity or brotherly love and the spiritual enhancement of knowledge. Jesus it would seem, cursed Judea and prophesied doom to come from the cross, but then, he felt betrayed by the people he had chosen to join the new State of Israel he had set him to establish. He was a radical from a Judaic viewpoint and was practically lynched when he started to preach in a synagogue in Gamala. We are told he was going to be thrown over a cliff but was saved in time. He neglected the mandatory circumcision, but he threw a fit before the traders at a Temple which he either disdained or respected too much to allow it to be soiled by material opportunism. Jesus was not a family man and in fact disliked its obligations. He was a teacher first and foremost and loved knowledge. He was also very politically correct and of a very high order of culture, being able to quote ancient religious texts much to the amazement of the Jews with whose hierarchy Jesus could not identify. The reason for this was that he had inherited a very significant body of knowledge of the tribes and refused to accept the fact that one, that of Judah, took a leadership it did not have. It broke away from the main body when it was called Al Israel and Israel and Judea were invaded by the Babylonians on two separate occasions and as two separate states. Jesus was particularly incensed by the idea that religion and business could co-exist within something he revered and which he called the Temple of God. In fact, it was his insistance that he would destroy and rebuild the Temple that gave the Judean priests the base they needed to have him put to death as an insurgent or member of a mercenary sect. Jesus however, made it clear that Caeser had as much right to what he considered his as God had with what he considered due to him. His anger therefore was not directed at the Romans and the occupation, which he never decried, but at the so called hypocricy of the Judean priesthood which sought to be the moral leaders of an Israel long gone and dispersed throughout areas like Alexandria, Anatolia etc as seen in the letters written by the later Saul of Tarsus. The mistaken belief by the defenders of the Christian faith that the Jewish people as a whole were to blame for his ordeal, was as ridiculous as to assume that the British people murdered Iraquis. The effect that well versed priests with their golden voices and twisted logic has on crowds already indignant about being second class citizens in their own land, is understandable and even then, not all, would have clamoured for his death. In the main, as always, the humble and decent would have stayed at home and prayed that there would be no further bloodshed. The Progroms of Russian, the massacres of Hitler and the enterminations of the Inquisatorial Catholic Church are like all other forms of genocide of whatever race or creed, evil and completely out of place in the sentiments of a man like Jesus who inspired them. He may not have uttered those condemnatory words against the people of Judea from the cross, but if he did, under the cirucumstances they reveal a hidden concern for the blindness of the people whose future he foresaw in the likes of Masada. It implies that he felt that perhaps they could have risen up against the Romans for him and perhaps that he would have liked to have been given the opportunity to lead them to pacifistic expulsion of the Romans. In the general context however, Jesus was more concerned with the concept of recreating a unified Al Israel including Judea, than seeing the Romans go. Religious deceit attempts to show Jesus in a light far removed from the concept of the sicarii or underground resistance movement. There was no such thing as Nazareth at the time however much religious investigators try to invent the place. There were Nazarenes or Nazrim and the Essenes who belonged to a very ancient Messianic faith from which much of the religious history of the area was derived. The symbolical concept of the Eagle called Netzer in ancient Aramaic was also synonimous with Messiah and it is probably why it was chosen as a heraldic sign for those races waiting for their liberator. John, the beloved disciple, is always associated with the symbol and would imply that he was the one really chosen to lead the new crusade forward. Professor Eisemann of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who shows a convincing argument in favour of the texts relating to the period of Jesus, was quite explicit about the need to identify Nazzarene with Essene. Both Jesus and the Essenes had Temple use and cleansing in common to a high degree. Curiously, neither ever spoke of Solomon. To look at all the aspects of the claims made by ancient writers is beyond the scope of this article and perhaps one day, it can all be put in the same book, but we are now concerned with Jesus and the nature of the man and the facts speak for themselves. Once we assume that he existed and condemned by the Judean priesthood, we begin to understand what Jesus was all about. The Jewish high borns were highly sensitive to an uprising that could have brought down everything they stood for, including their special relationship with the occupying forces and their adopted Idumean King who unfortunately had little in common with them. The present day unacceptable relationship between the politicians and the insensitve negligent bankers, to the detriment of the people, draws an interest parallel. Like today, nothing much could or can be changed without one or the other going under â€" a checkmate if every there was one.   All Nazarenes, had something in common. They parted their hair in the centre, refused to cut it and wore it long. The Merovingian Kings of Europe did the same thing. They also kept their beards in the same religious context. Jesus, we are told, parted his hair in the style of the Nazarenes. We assume that both the Sicarii or users of sickle knives, were of the same group and that it formed part of the Nazarenes, but there is no evidence to support it. There are also many religions today that identify with this hair and culture like the Sikhs and the Ethiopians. The Rastafarians also do the same in honour of their mythical homeland, Ethiopia. This would suggest that either the early Judeans of Sabaen origins wore their hair long or that the Nazarenes had nothing to do with them. Present day Orthodox dreadlocks imply some sort of connection. The Pharaohs and the Babylonians also subscribed to the custom. We are told by the encyclopeadia Britannica that there was an ancient Temple Guard or with the title of the Military Order of The Knights of the Temple. We are also told that the Nazzarenes were the military arm of the Temple and perhaps an Essene Guard which makes a lot of sense. The establishment of an occupying force and a puppet king could have well driven it into exile or underground. They would undoubtedly have made the Judean Priesthood very uneasy with respect to their diplomatic relationship with their conquerors whom they would asked to single them out as terrorists. In this resepct, even claiming that Jesus was a Nazarene would have put him in a difficult light with the Romans.The association of Jesus with the movement is more than likely and the story that the Romans nailed the Statement that Jesus was a King inhis own right, sounds true under the circumstances since few would have dared climb up the steep timber to do the job in front of the soldiers. Rome it would appear knew what they were getting themselves into from the start and probably found the local priesthood unacceptablyweak and cunning. The fact that they dared place a pagan statue in front of the Temple is testimony to their views. The story of Samson and his mystical attachment to his hair is interesting enough, but that as an act of revenge he brought the Temple down. The cleansing element is present in the legend and it implies that he gave his life to its destruction after it had been profaned through his relationship with Delilah. In this we also find an echo of Jesus´s assumed threat to rebuild the Temple that drove the fanatics to plead for his execution. There is also a very indicative radical side to the teachings of Jesus which would have more than upset the Temple priesthood and which shows that if he was a Jew he was a very strange one indeed. Both Islam and Roman occupied Judea practiced lamb sacrifice but Jesus did not approve and often it would appear, described himself as the lamb of final sacrifice. It may well be that he was also a vegeterian in the manner of the Asians and abhored all animal sacrifice not just in the name of religion, but as a means of food. He is also shown as a total pacifist in the story of his horror at the attack on the Roman soldier by one of his men and the parale of the other cheek. He is also shown eating bread and wine or water at the upstairs room during the festival of the passover with no mention of meat. Ghandi based his total political policies on the figure of Jesus and in this we have a clear indication of what sort of man Jesus was. There are some scholars within the chivalric movements that state that Christianity was of the Order of Melchisadeck or priests of Melchi and there is a Melchite Christian Church even today in Palestine. The thing we do read about the ancient priests of that name was that they instructed Abraham in the manner of sacrifice with bread and water, implying the end of animal sacrifice and it was probably what Jesus had been brought up to preach and correct when necessary.   That he had a father, there is no doubt and who that man was is a matter of conjecture although there are many indications in the biblical texts as to who he might be.The matter has been carefully researched throughout the centuries and is a complex world all of itself. This however is of no importance here except that it becomes obvious, when reading between the lines of the literature that was written after the crucifixion, that Jesus knew and missed him. He was therefore a man brought up in nostalgia and love for a man he had spent very little time with but of whom he was very proud. There is a very great deal of indirect evidence to substantiate this. His constant use of the word Abba for example in many ways points to an earthly one not God in the context in which it is used. The concept of praying to ancestors was an established practice which even the Romans included in their household rituals. Jesus was the first born and therefore, as a Nazarene, dedicated to God by his father in the same way that Abraham, obviously a Nazarene or member of a similar sect, would have sacrificed his own son if instructed by divine inspiration. Such was the intensity of this faith. The idea of following this sacrifice to a crucifixion concept may have been born in that light as the ultimate that a Nazarene could do. The rest is not difficult to follow. Jesus was tender to the point of evoking love among those who followed him in much the same way as Ghandi did. Despite what appears to be a disturbing build and looks, he could draw sympathy from the crowd and defended the presence of children and animals with the tenderness that has always been attributed to him. He wanted his followers to vow allegiance to his cause and simply spread the word that man was to live in peace and harmony in the ancient tradition of the asiatic love religions of the heart. This became very misapplied in the love agapes of the Grecian versions and later mediaeval courts,  leading to licence. Essentially they were intended to bond people within society through food drink and sex in the manner of partymaking but there was a religious connotation to it long before the time of Jesus.  It was the custom of the Phoenician people long before the Greeks, the Etruscans and the Romans adopted it. Jesus as he was often quoted as saying, stressed fraternal love and probably had little time for anything spurious and meaningless despite modern artistic re-interpretations of his passions. There is  nothing remotely considered unusual in any writing other than his relationship with one or perhaps two women as lovers who were most probably the same and his wife. His puritanism shows through although without doubt the Greek festivals and social influences in his part of the world would have made an impact on his attitudes. Love thy neighbour as thyself is not something that can be forgotten easily and therefore its application to his teachings by witnesses, can almost be taken word for word especially when it contained the additional word - enemies. The scribal texts, embroidered much of what he had said, but a clear indication of what Jesus was all about emerges. Anger for example plays an important part in the overall comments on him. He was frenetically furious when he overturned the tables at the Temple precincts and cried out loud about the painted sepulchres he saw in the Pharisees. Although it is possible that this may have been written by scribes much later, it is too much in context and personality to throw it aside just like that. One can just imagine him with raised hackles staring at the pompous priests and spitting the words at them as they walked away with embarrassment whilst pretending to be as open minded as possible. Jesus was angry a great deal of the time. He was forthright about paying taxes to the occupying forces which he interestingly considered not in conflict with the demands of God. He was angry when he emerged from his nightmarish meditations in Gethsemene and found his disciples asleep. He was upset when one of them cut off the ear of the Roman soldier, whom he knew, was only doing his job. He was sarcastic when Judas kissed him despite the fact that he had practically sent him on his way to do the dirty job that led, one assumes, to his suicide. Jesus had faults like any frustrated leader would have had and was very human to the point of endearment. He was above all, brought up to the task in hand â€" to get all the members of the ancient faith â€" the descendants of he tribes of Israel back into the fold. Unlike the Judeans, in the main, these would have by then, since the diaspora intermarried into everything available but who probably still shared common religious ideas and racial identitites. The dream of a united Israel had nothing to do with Judean ambitions and would have probably not been either meaningful enough or interesting to them. It is clear from the way that Jesus operated that he at least kept the doors open to any Judean who wished to join him and the so called Gentiles were probably descendants of the ancient tribes. Christianity, as the movement was eventually to be called, had little to do therefore with anything other than an attempt to apply his teachings as a form of manifesto which all too clearly not only failed but perverted its course. Throughout the centuries, the most famous and powerful hidden movements, like the Illuminati, Templars, Carbonari , Rosicrucians etc. described their members as Israelites and of course so did Christopher Columbus himself giving the false impression that he Jewish. They all mistakingly vowed to avenge the death of Jesus by the Jews, a prejudicial stand that was fostered by the Church and which was not strictly correct because it could not be attributed to the Jewish people as a whole, since many of which later joined forces with the Jesus movement. It was also this mistaken belief that led to the shameful Progroms in Russia and the Hitlerian assaults. The important thing to remember with historical leaders like Alexander, for example, is that the concept of joining forces to create a gigantic state is not new and Europe is but an extension of that ideal. Alexander incidentally was ushered into most of the territories he conquered, as a Messianic liberator and his name like that of Columbus is a description of his campaign. In Greek â€" Al Issa Andreau broken into its components, means Annointed Liberator of God. Exactly the same, we are told as Jesus Christ or Saviour Annointed. Christopher in Greek also means carrier of Christ and Columbus did exactly what St. Christopher did - cross the pond â€" in other words another self appointed Messiah. The name Andrew is synonymous therefore with an annointed one or Messiah and much revered by all ancients whose cross was the one still used today in most heraldic presentations. The very word Columbus means dove â€" another symbol of dry land or the Promised Land utilized in the story of Noah. To fully understand Jesus it is important to understand who his father was. “Unless you know my father you do not know me”. This has always been a very guarded secret for reasons to do with the protected bloodline of a Royal or highly political family and the need to keep ignorant people immersed in romantic concepts of divine derivations. It was also a need to protect future leaders from assassination. His mother would have been well brought up in the need and she herself would have gone to great lengths to hide his identity or place herself in a vulnerable situation. It was always the way with Royal Egyptian tradition and the Pharaohs who supposedly married and had children from sisters who were not their wives but displaced potentially amb itious concubines. case. The heirs were supposedly sired by the Gods and not by the Pharaohs. The priests were the real fathers of course and there was an elaborate ceremonial preparation of the Pharoahs' so called sister wives involving drugs and secret entrances into the bedchamber The high priests therefore were the real leaders and fathers of the future Pharaohs. Even Alexander The Great was told his real father was God and his mother spoke of the fertilisation in the form of a snake â€" a curious symbol in the light of the future cobra crown of Egypt and his deliberate, ritual visit to the oracle of Si Amon in Siwa which means Saba. One must also not forget the legend of the fertilisation of Danae by a Zeus in the form of a shower of gold. It is very interesting to note that the name means children of Dan (a prominent tribe of Israel) as used in the context of Irish legends so there may have been royal tribal rituals similar to that of the Egyptians within the Israeli Commonwealth too. It would also make the business of handing their wives over to the Royal harems of Phoenicia or Egypt by the Patriarchs Abraham and Isaac a little less confusing. The association of Mary the mother of Jesus with the so called Joseph the guardian was, in the eyes of the neighbours, a genuine one (although it is likely that she continued to have children by Jesus´s real father whom Jesus would have known from his visits). There are indications to that effect in many texts. Mary would have been stoned otherwise, in the light of the slightest suspicion and Joseph was therefore, most probably, as we are plainly told, a real guardian sent by the family. It makes little sense that a much older man, would have allowed himself to be put in that situation wth the implicit dangers unless he was instructed to do so by people he trusted and served.  The three wise men would have either known about the real father and sent to fulfill religious criteria or were utilized by the scribes as artistic licence to weave a touch of Divine intervention. If they had existed and left with the slightest suspicion that the old man in the household was the real father, they would have, without doubt gone on their way looking for the real child. Without the knowledge by the Magi of the line of descent, none of it makes much sense when one considers the vast training of this Druidic priesthood. The astromical and astrological forecasts of such a priesthood would have, like the Oracles, been composed through a very high level of research and contacts at every level of the civilised world. The visit could also have been in the manner and style of the search for the Dalai Lama by the Tibetan priesthood but the presents would have been of a different order and more in line with old possessions of the dead leader they were seeking to replace. Knowing who the father was, would have made more sense and the distance and trouble to pay respects would have been part of their work in the course of a Royal event like this. In fact, the presents and the regal characters described, point to an ancestry which threw a great deal of light on the real nature of Christianity â€" a nature that explains much which has caused problems to the Church over the last two thousand years, but that is another story. Paul, the real power behind the Christian throne understood the nature of the quest and only realised it when Jesus, still alive by all calculations, reprimanded him for his foolish attack on his work. It took Jesus, fresh after the very bad time which followed his ordeal, just a few words to echo a query which Paul had heard before - the cryptic statement that his own father would have given to him as a sign of the Messiah. Paul did not take long to use the gossip of the apparent resucitation (now gathering strength), to bring his own inspiration of a united Israel to fruition. His letters to all the known places where the descendants of the ancient tribes had settled, shows that he had a lifetime of training on par with that of Jesus. If Paul was a Judean (which he could not have been because of his forbidden name â€" Saul), then one can question why he was such a perverse, prosecutor of so called Jewish rebels. It would not make any sense. Neither would Jesus´s and Paul´s denial of traditional Jewish traits, like circumcision and stoning of women make sense. Nor, would the rabid call for the execution by occupying forces of one of their own (in this case Jesus), make sense either. The Jews saw him as an outsider with heretical views and were unable to identify with him for one reason or another just like we would today with say, a member of a peculiar cult. The execution of the Baptist would follow the same lines and again it is much more likely that the same priesthood would have been to blame and not the people. They did after all, share the Temple with Herod, their adopted King who built it for them and enjoyed his favours. If one assumes that a faith like that of the Jews, subjected to the relative obscenities of foreign occupiers from abroad, was under threat of destabilisation, the very underground mercenaries (of which there were many), would have backed Jesus against the wishes of the priests for which no doubt, they had only token respect. The priests themselves would have never dared to face their people with the demand by invaders to kill one of their own even if they suspected that he thought of himself as a revolutionary leader. In fact they would have defended him and later James who was stoned by the multitudes. None of it makes any sense, unless he was not a Jew and challenged the Theological State of Judea by virtue of his different teachings and assumption of the leadership of Israel which at the time did not exist. The Judeans, we are told, did not believe in Israel at the time and considered the occupants of the adjacent lands like Samaria, as rabble. Yet, it is where Jesus always fled to and considered himself at home in. Jesus, therefore was an Israelite and it was in the name of Israel that he condemned the Judean temple and its occupiers. It was the Judean priesthood which recoiled at the threat of the dismantling of their temple ritual and their lucrative sacrificial trade which gave them power over their people. It was a closely knit, spoilt political priesthood who strove and succeeded desperately in getting Jesus executed despite strong resistance against it by both Pilate and Herod. The people has little choice but to do what they always do, show the flag for fear of retribution.   The woman at the well in Samaria which is one of the highlights of the Christian stories, recognized Jesus and called him Lord according to the writings. This infers that Jesus was already a well known claimant to leadership and that Jerusalem and the rulers of Judea were his only obstacle to his ambitions. An interesting variety of so called “recorded events” demonstrate that much about his life has been distorted and molded to create an impression if not an attempt to sell a line. The woman he saved from stoning could not have been buried up to her neck, as was the tradition, or tied to a stake. This would have been banned by the Romans who despite their military strength, were disciplined and would have not allowed anything like this in the presence of their people and citizens. Some would deny this and quote the evil of the Roman Theatres, but that would not be for some time to come and entertainment at a distance like football today. The story therefore, if at all true, would have been one of accusations against her within earshot of Jesus or even perhaps whilst accompanied by her. It is in this direction therefore that we must look to gain an insight into any reality associated with these events. We can however begin to understand something about this strange person and his bravery when it came to standing up to a crowd of angry people. We can in fact begin to realize that he was not only very confident but assumed a right to teach by nature of his very existance. One can almost identify him with the likes of people like Martin Luther King in most respects. Ghandi does not fall short either but the prophet Mohammed cuts a very similar figure. In fact, taking into account that Mohammed was also a warrior in the Nazarene tradition, no doubt often driven by anger against injustice in just the same way, it is very difficult if at all comprehensible that he would have in any way been associated with punishments like the stoning of women. He, who also came from a Christian background and who revered Issa, Jesus, would have known of the nature of the religion and would have, one would assume, never allowed himself to do harm to any living person in hatred or application of any such law in the name of God. I have not found one reliable piece of evidence that demonstrates that the loving, charismatic Mohammed who also showed millions of followers the peaceful and righteous way of undertaking the path of life, ever had anything to do with torture of this nature and least of all to a defenceless, lonely and terrified woman whether or not she had given or been forced to give her body to some, much stronger man who often turns out to have raped her and denied his responsibilities allowing her to die.   Jesus could be very enigmatic, but he was the type of person that his mother would have no doubt been specially fond of and perhaps a little overawed by. She could not understand why he was always trailing behind and forgetting him in the Temple makes sense if she was going through difficult times. No one could have been more conscious of his divine nature than her if this had been a divine son but she was now a widow and perhaps for some time forgetting the nature and history of the man who had sired her children. As it was, she shows concern for him as a child, a mortal child and being reminded of the work of his father would have brought all the horrors of the future to her mind in an instant. Like all young earthly children Jesus is insensitive. On this occasion when she reprimands him out of grave concern for his safety, he treats her with the strictness of a born leader who had just inherited his task. The reaction was not that of an ordinary eleven years old, apart from the fact that his knowledge was apparently causing the sort of amazement that would have been all over the town within hours. “I have to go about my father´s business” - no reason for a heavenly father and from a son to a mother who had to be reminded. This was probably said in the presence of many and he would have hardly talked about God in such a casual manner. He knew his mission had started and the next step was to surround himself with disciples including members of his own immediate family. His chief weapon was his extraordinary knowledge based obviously on intensive teaching and a special preparation. Patience was not one of his virtues. Attracting followers was still not the immediate objective. He appears to be interested in getting round the historical and religious beliefs of the priests and academics but too well educated to impess with cheap magical tricks. In a book written by a very commercially inclined author and written exclusively to labour the point about Jesus´s Magician status, one thing is carefully forgotten â€" that that is precisely what he was not. He will forever resist the temptation to show his magical capabilities, even though his training could possibly have allowed him to get away with it. The situations where he is practically implored to do the impossible and even perhaps show his divine status, are probably scribal strokes intending to prove it but in a manner coherent with a serious teacher. The walking on water and the endless supply of fish would have left a very large volume of literature on the market at the time and been the source of comments by people like Josephus. If they did occur it was probably due to masss hysteria if by then he was considered a possible Messiah. Herod himself, quite clearly states that he was looking forward to meeting Jesus and made friends with Pilate because of the opportunity given to him. It is hardly likely that such an event would have resulted in anything other than a strong demand on the part of Herod to confer with the Priests and find out why they would want to destroy such an admirable person. Herod may have asked him questions about his so called strange relationship with God, but his friendship with Pilate was probably due to the fact that he was on Jesus´s side. According to a distingued academic called Dr. Schoenburg, who wrote extensively on the nature of the whole mission, Jesus was handed very expensive garments in deference to the kind of person he came across to Herod. Pilate would not have given his friendship that easily to someone who condemned a man he considered innocent and unjustly treated. Jesus however, as brought out in the last few days of his Ministry, was quite capable of staging events and Herod may have seen what he was up to. One of his supposed statements throws a brick at the simple, affectionate figure most people attribute to him. “Let the dead bury the dead” Quite a thing to say and something that most Christians, simply cannot understand. The poor man only wanted to attend his father´s funeral â€" a father that Jesus himself had lost and with whom he had not been able to spend much of his time. There is a poignant bitterness in the expression but there is little doubt about the impatience. “Lets get on with the work and leave unproductive things to take care of themselves”. The King is dead â€" long live the King. If anything depicts the confusion that his contradictory character must have caused, then this must be one of the signs. The lamb of God was one at heart, but he had a very funny way of showing it. It is not funny however against a background of Asiatic asceticism which produces a sense of pity for those so taken by the minor problems of life. Jesus was a man whose training reflects one of leadership and priesthood. This would be very much in accord with a man whose father and heritage was known by his teachers and the first son of a Royal Nazarene â€" placed in the hands of God to His Greater Glory. He was however, unlike the Davidian tradition of blood and war, not a military leader but a pacifistic “agent provocateur” who strove to drive the hidden enemy into losing control. This tactic formed part of the training of Nazarenes and the Ishmaeli who hit out only in extreme cases and always when least expected. Indira Ghandi was killed by one of her own Sikh guards planted there years before for the purpose, if necessary. The reason for the asassination given was her supposed threat to the Temple. Jesus was prepared to go through his own ritual execution and may even have had time to discuss it with people like his influential uncle who in turn may well have had a word with Pilate. He may even have informed them of whom he really was. Pilate was ready to break with Rome and Herod probably knew that his family was not going to be able to keep the crown, especially after the death of John. There are other, presently relatively, unknown factors surrounding the event, but essentially there is a vestige of stage management in play which could only have been possible with the help of the Roman authorities. This would also explain, once again, the inexplicable attempt of the Roman to label the cross with the claim of kingship. The target, it seems, if Jesus survived, was the corrupt Temple Priesthood and the aim to install a local and much desired Messianic figure to replace the outgoing Herodian dynasty. Getting to know Jesus was not within the capacity of most of his followers or even his family. Jesus had an inflexible sense of duty which can only be attributed to a sense of identity instilled by both teaching and lineage. He comes out as a Lord of the Manor and a man of inherited duty which is what the events leading up to his final destiny at the cross portray. It shows intention with a clarity that can only be seen by those who understand who he was and what he wanted out of his pawned life. Although he was a father´s son, the respect that he tendered his mother and the women who surrounded him was conditional. This love was dutiful and he expressed it with words. He cannot be considered overly affectionate and if his resurrection meeting with Mary Magdalene was real, it is very much in this context. We are told that he bruscally told her not to touch him which makes little sense if he proposes to walk a long way to his place of convalescense. It could have perhaps been for fear of infection with a body ravished by fever, but she could at least have helped him walk away. Jesus was caught unawares and the need to establish his resurrection in mythical terms, meant that he had to be taken away quickly by organised helpers and not show the fragility of his condition to anyone. The figure of Jesus is that of a man, a real man and serious study of all that we know of him has to be carefully analysed in context for the real person and his thinking to come out with any clarity. Luckily there is a great deal of material, after the event, that throws light in all directions.        


Blogger said...

Did you know that you can earn cash by locking special pages of your blog / website?
All you need to do is join AdWorkMedia and run their Content Locking tool.

Post a Comment