JESUS THE ISRAELI MESSIAH PART 1 |
Who was this man called Jesus?
Remembered or Utilized. ?
A series by Michael Mifsud.
Never in the history of mankind has so much been made of what is technically no more than scant misapplied information about a man apparently called Jesus. Hundreds of devises to fool the public like - divine books not written with human hands - contrived apparitions - direct revelations. - are manufactured overnight by thousands of movements and reflect the puerility of its creators, yet millions fight and die for it´s, often obscure, contents. Many of these cults are based on a way of life to create communities serving the purpose of a handful with their very lives in their hands. Most depend on what we can call faith on demand to ensure easy unobstructed management. All, have an invisible, divine spirit who demands its subjects to behave in a a particular way. The basis of mainstream Christianity is that it´s founder was called Jesus and source of the teachings but primarily that he was a divine being and that he was a Son of God. This extraordinary statement alone, has been the basic cause of the shedding of the blood of more innocent people than anything else in the history of mankind. The association of a mortal prophet with the very identity of God himself is an unequivocable challenge to other people's Gods. To most religions it is the source of such abhorrence and hatred that it is difficult to imagine that such a higher level being could have allowed it in his name. This peculiar, blind sense of religious identity is behind most of the problems of the world today and not least of all, because religion, God and his mortal messengers, are in the main, utilized to keep people together for economic reasons and not necessarily in their own interests. Whereas at one time, it was merely a form of cultural Government,intended to keep people together, today, it is a way of assuming world authority and destroying anything that challenges what it does to its people. Most of the highly religious countries including Catholic ones, demonstrate through its high level of poverty and lack of human rights that blind faith is a dangerous factor in terms of survival.
Poverty allied to religious indoctrination.
In some very poor countries, religion has become a basis for maintaining the poor happy with their lot and providing noble, subservient cheap labour. What is more disquieting however, is the added acceptance of the violation of body and mind as part of the suffering to be expected and tolerated in the name of The Heavenly Father. For the puppeteers who control most of mankind in this way, this is a simple way of making sure that the average believer pays up and stands up against any outside challenges that attempts to alter anything. This is now abundantly obvious to the better educated masses who shun packaged religious experiences in he form of the modern gospel preachers intent on hypnotizing the unsuspecting audiences. These messengers are now being seen to be emissaries not of Gods, but the pawns of economic interests cynically unrelated to the essence of the religion they preach. The fact that many of these preachers have been found wanting in their own sordid lives is no surprise, but the realisaton that they manage to fool so many for so long makes one wonder just what level of development the masses, anywhere, reach in their race through empty meaningless lives. Despite the claims made by major religions of the uniqueness of their own faiths and the need to follow its teachings, most of them make show a lack of honest effort to effectively train their followers in the ways of moral or ethical values. The failure to eradicate the gruesome conflict that leads people to suicide and others to provoke violence through pyschological manipulations, seems a contradiction of all that religion should stand for. It appears to offer little hope for a successful and happy life, merely attempting to help, with sugary words, to soften the blows of suffering, guaranteeing those taken in, a vantage point in an afterlife that none of them can offer at least, a free sample of. Most intelligent people today (and the majority in high office), do not believe in the teachings of their religious leaders and subscribe to them as a form of social or political protection for fear of alienation. The standard respond to their lack of transparency often runs along the hypocritical lines that poor people need the hope that it offers and that their sensitivity has to be taken into account. The priest therefore becomes the ally of the politician, being two of a kind, intent on their own survival at the altar of public ignorance. High street fraudsters could do no better or in more appropriate terms. The anecdote of the Emperor's clothes is highly relevant in this instance and that is exactly what the whole thing is about - belief or alienation. The whole issue therefore, in the early part of the 21st. century, is not what one could consider to be a good state of affairs when conversely, even selling an ambiguously labelled produce is a ground for criminal charges. It is interesting that when one takes a closer look at the nature of the whole business and stares with some honesty at the religious figures whose names are invoked in the process, the whole thing falls apart.
God or excuse for suppression ?
Is there such a thing as a mortal representatives of a being of another dimension who actually watches over us (good and bad) and keeps his distance with a view to letting us sort it all out ? In reality, it would turn him into something that our own common sense and basic educational values would tell us to give a wide berth to. There is absolutely nothing that suggests, scientifically or academically that a glimpse has been caught in one way or another that there is anything called God in the way it is described by religious teachers. Least of all, in terms of credibility, when the type of people who propagate it are looked at with any degree of moral objectivity. Do not kill, for example and love thy neighbour, but if anyone challenges the beliefs, the threat to life and body becomes all too real. In the minds of most sensitive people who really care for the sanctity of life these contradiction in terms are disturbing and depressing. Most, rich and poor, young and old, dim or gifted, would like God to be there but one with corrective powers, in view of the increasing degree of injustice and inexplicable depravity carried out in so called religious, modern societies. It is difficult to argue against the religious concept that it is in the nature of man to adore and externalize himself as a form of sublimination of his natural loneliness, but that such a thing could actually contribute to a healthy, evolving society, taking all religions in context, is a different matter altogether. They would have to share the same God and know that they are doing it and agree to differ about any differences between their specific ways of adoring. This does not mean however, that people like Jesus and Mohammed, Moses and Buddha or all the Messianic figures of the past were not what we can loosely call divinely inspired. In fact, so they were, if we look back on the impact they had on their societies, but we can say the same thing about the great philosophers and thinkers of the ages who contributed to the betterment of the state of mankind in a more direct and effective way. Divine inspiration in this context is, in my estimation, a momentary ability to see complicated needs with a clarity that lends itself to put corrective or promotional measures into practice. How many of us have not in one moment or another experienced that “Eureka !” and seen through to the centre of the problem to the point of feeling faint over it ? It happens to many of us and whose lives are changed as a result. The mechanics of this means of revelation can in fact be encouraged through known psychological and spiritual techniques and is not entirely dependent on divine intervention. It is only a combination of emotions and state of mind that produces this remarkable window, if only for a split instant. It has however, absolutely nothing to do with God or Gods and often the masterful contribution of a good, experienced teacher or the teachings which planted the seed in the mind in the first place. It can also be the results of a variety of conflictive emotional experiences or the realisation brought about by a sudden quirk of the brain. The Sufi teacher Gurdjieff was well known for creating this response in his disciples. All the revered prophets experienced these sudden revelations in times of great stress but they were also highly influenced by their own guides. They in turn, became instruments of personal guidance, creating followers - but were just that, good teachers with a deep place in their hearts for the people they chose to teach and lead. In Greek mythology the Muses were capable of provoking such inspiration- an expression often used today by those in need of fresh stimulation. There are however, many differences between the awesome religious figures of world religions and which are beyond the scope of this particular article. Jesus for example, despite all the stories written about him, is not historically clear. Mohammed however, brought up in his teachings, revered him unconditionally and would have in the main, stuck close to his teachings or whichever version his ancestors and teachers were brought up in. Mohammed was a Nazrim (Nassarene) like Jesus or Boabdil of Granada - members of a religious body that went back thousands of years and to whose central Deity, the first born had to be sacrificed either physically (as the Patriarch Abraham would have done), or symbolically, in the form of priesthood. It is the Islamic version of the replacement of Isaac by Ishmael in the proposed sacrifice which gives a clue as to what is happening here. Ishmael was not the father of the Jews of the tribe of Judah under Isaac and the clear indication is that it is this tribe that is rejected and not the other descendants of Abraham. Some Islamic scholars insist that both Abraham and Isaac throw doubt on their progeny with the confusion caused by the passing off of their respective wifes as sisters whom they both surrendered to the risks of foreign royal harems. The biblical studies make it quite clear and remains as baffling as anything can possible be with ancient legends. The very Royals who took them expressed alarm and anger at having been tricked on discovering that they were the wives of the contributors. The descendants of Sarah , Abrahams wife, are therefore not acceptable to those who doubt the genetic descent from the Patriarch as a result. Ishmael, acceptable to Islam, is the son of Haggar, the servant and not necessarily a concubine, but an issue in any case. The curious parallel this peculiar story brings to mind, is the traditional Pharaonic custom of marriage to their sisters in orde to protect the throne from outide manipulation, but it is more than liklely, that in fact they sired children of the high priests who were the real fathers and therefor by hiding their identities were able to claim that the children were divinely generated. The Pharaohs had children from concubines but none of them qualified for the throne. This seems to point to the strong possibility that Abraham was a man of Royal birth and Sarah was really his sister and joined genetically to his own blood and that of the Royal figure she was surrendered to. The same with Isaac. The children of the wives and sisters of both would have then had Royal blood from two sources. Without doubt that the system could work very well and a long line of similar contrived descent could provide an emperor with blood from every royal family in the known world. Power in any case is what was being sought.
Two different Messiahs.
The prophet Mohammed and Jesus both belonged to the same ideological body of historical beliefs and both became Messiahs or liberating prophets who expressed their jihads in different ways. One at the point of a sword and the other through martyrdom. There are also radically different versions of ancient beliefs which came from the same texts. At which point for example, Isaac, the supposed object of the sacrifice by Abraham, was replaced by Ishmael is difficult to determine, but there is no doubt that the acceptance of the return of Jesus (Issa in Islamic terms) by Mohammed at the end of time coincides with early Christian teachings. The only aspect of Islam that connects with Judaism it would seem, is the Orthodox Sharia Laws. Judaism appears to have presently extinguished the practice, but even in the times of Jesus, women were, we are told, gruesomely stoned. There is hatred and revenge in this and other acts done in the name of God by both Judaism and Islam and in the Jewish case, it is incorporated in the Law of Tallion which is defined as “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Taking Divine law into human hands was something that Jesus was strongly opposed to and whatever the atrocity comitted by a delinquent, most ancient religious documents clearly state that life belongs to God and not for humans to take with their own hands. Is this not why Law and Justice has become the ethical basis of most ordered societies – to protect life and property ? This does not entail causing what it tries to protect, if one assumes that it is all done out of respect for the sanctity of life, as expressed in religious teachings. Capital punishment therefore, whether humane or primitive, is no better than the concept of lynching which at least takes place when all parties are in the heat of the issues and like wild, depraved creatures express their anger. Both scenarios are still summary executions and to an evolved human with any sensitivity, is no more than pure evil. The fact that the world´s highest evolved societies have abolished the practice is proof of the strength of public revulsion against it. Any religion which approves such acts of vengeance is defying every ancient rule which forms the original base of the major faiths of the world. Limiting the freedom of delinquents however is a form of protection of the family, but taking life only satisfies baser feelings not in keeping with the sort of spiritual development that mystical religions and concepts of love were intended to nurture. A religion not based on the highest for of human expression, love, cannot be right.
Messiahs of different eras.
It is interesting to compare the efforts of say Mohammed, Jesus and Moses with respect to their historical context and approach to the saving or protection of their people. All did it in entirely different ways but achieved the same results. The difference between that of Jesus and Mohammed is one of style. Both wanted to create a new world based on the ancient roots of their threatened ancestral tribes. Both wanted to collect and reunite their scattered sheep and both did it in ways that only historically can we begin to understand, in their complexities. One did it in battle, the other through submission and pacifistic techniques. Curiously, there is nothing in either the teachings of Mohammed or Jesus which suggests that they were anything other than enlightened Prophets who preached love and tolerance. The followers of both were prepared to allow themselves to surrender to torture and execution in the name of God at one point and later, like the future crusaders, also prepared to fight in self defence against an aggressor. St. Bernard, preached extensively with respect to the almost impossible task of justifying a Christian Jihad involving occupation of distant lands and killing in self defence. He made it almost impossible to kill and be saved without very strict precautions which are beautifully described in his letters to a Hugh around the early part of the 12th.century. When Mohammed went to war it was because in his own mind and that of his people he was protecting their interests, their way of life and their territories in exactly the same way that a modern General does it today. He was safeguarding the welfare of the people who put their trust in him as a military commander. It had nothing to do with creating a religion. Both Mohammed and Jesus welcomed followers to the cause, but would have been confused about a religious identity which was any different to the one that they were both brought up in. In fact, the beliefs of the Prophet Mohammed were those of Jesus and it can in many ways be said that he was a Christian who created new ways of self fulfillment. The word Christian however, does not mean much to anyone other than those who hold that Jesus was either God or in some way, the son of God. Follower of Jesus or Jesuit would be more appropriate. For most, other than those brought up in this belief, a flesh and blood, mortal Jesus was a contradiction of terms and had to convince themselves that he was really a physical manifestation of a spiritual being. In other words man and God. The combination of course, was needed, to be able to justify the uniqueness of the Christian faith and its superiority over others. Christianity and Islam could be considered two sides of the same coin - their respective prophets and the expression of the worldly, spiritual aspirations of the times. In fact this is what Messiahs are all about. Judaism, knew only one concept of Messiah, a military warrior who would rid them of the shackles of their oppressors and that is what Moses and David was all about. Moses did in fact try and create a religious fear of political proportions to ensure unity and sense of purpose, but once the safety of the so called promised land had been reached, he was it would appear, superfluous and in fact mysteriously and unfairly punished. What it implies in real fact is that he was not a Messiah but a fallen leader and despite the magnitude of his task no Mosian religion emerged – simply a variety of peoples with common experiences. In that sense Judaism has little to do with the other two major religions of the world. The variety of peoples under Moses were not Jews in the academic sense of the world, but Israelis of the twelve tribes. Or so one would assume from the rituals which led to the breaking of the tablets. In any case, the descendants of these are in the main, followers of Jesus or Mohammed.
Jesus was a very gentle person, if we are to believe in the sayings, quoted by others. He identified himself as a leader or teacher but he did not like being associated with the idea that he should have to qualify in the manner of a warrior like David, as if the latter was some form of Divine being. He challenges the concept when he asks in his inimitable manner - “Was David also not a servant of God ?” Jesus chose passive leadership because he sensed the futility of armed struggle. He knew that the futile loss in combat of great ancient ancestors had achieved little. The tribes were still oppressed and the ancient God forgotten. He was prepared to be physically sacrificed to channel the hatred of those who cavorted with the occupying forces and transform himself into a source of future inspiration. It goes without saying, that he must have known that he would become an object of great admiration and that his aims would be carried out in memory of this event, but the concept of any religion other than that of his ancestral tribes, would have been inexplicable to him. There was only one faith – that of the Divine Inspiring Protector and the rest, the ordinary day to day attempts to civilise and join forces in harmony and family protection within ethical values. Jesus´s submission to the idea of execution involved survival and from an Asian ascetic mystic viewpoint, even burial was not a barrier to resucitation What was different was the torture and mutilation stages that preceded this one. If Jesus was to qualify for his own predictions of physical resurrection after the three day suspension of terrestial abode this situation could not guarantee results of any type taking into account that he could be hanged on the cross in a state of near collapse.The events leading up to the crucifixion, the hanging and eventual laying to rest in a state of semi coma, could have, under moderate circumstances, have provided a possibility of resuciation from an induced cataleptic state. Most Indian mystics did this regularly but never under such a variety of life threatening factors. The matter has been analysed and discussed in the media at great length with as many in favour of the possibility of physical ressurection as in favour of a death put into question by the deliberate removal of the body. If we are to understand the mission at all, it looks likely that the whole affair was a form of intense initation pitting the life forces of the middle aged but hardy Jesus against a series of events that appear to be manipulated to produce an eventual recuperation. Professor Schoenburg, the writer who dedicated many of his books to the subject was quite convinced that Jesus made it physically to live on for many years to come.
A conspiracy theory.
It is now coming to light that the early life of Jesus, especially in his twenties, is inexplicably missing and likely to coincide with what many consider his hidden Asian period. This appears to be deliberately ignored in view of the enormous details provided with respect to other issues in the life of Jesus. When looking across the amount of information available on his life and the sources from which it is gleaned, there is no denying that it all appears to be a carefully editted resume calculated to deter further research in pursuit of anything else of any real interest. The only real perpertrators of such, is the case, can only be an organised authority and the only candidate for this one is The Byzantine State. Like lean meat, the trimmings considered unnecessary were promptly removed and the cut out figure we accept as Jesus Christ today, was born. There was not need to estblish a real Jesus in the same way that most Moslems will tell you there is no need to go deeper into the mortal aspects of Issa or Mohammed. The point raised is that the important thing are the teachings – a noble thought, but which teachings are these if neither wrote anything down ? When we discuss the life of Jesus we have to take into account his unusual and dramatic death - or survival. One has to inevitably ask the question as to whether the whole passion scenario leading up to the resurrection could have been staged or planned with a precision that would guarantee the desired results. If this was so, then there were a number of conspirators involved, including Jesus himself and high members of the Roman authorities. It is also likely that Jesus envisaged the possibilities of subjection to such a life defying ordeal and his exclamations to that effect point clearly in that direction. The original flagellation and the long trek to the top of Calvary may not have been taken into account with respect to an eventual survival. The event could have been masterminded by people intent on seeing that the final removal from the cross would still provide a narrrow corridor for the life suspension process to be given a chance of reversal. Jesus probably knew that he might just survive the ordeal and prepared himself for it. The quoted exclamations like “ father take this cup away from me “ if we are to consider them genuine, make it clear that he had doubts about whether it would really work or whether he could take the pain. Documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls, according to Professor Schoenburg, imply that he might have just barely made it and that he emerged from a long and very serious illness with doubts as to whether it served any purpose at all.
Prophets and leaders.
All that has been attributed to Mohammed or Jesus can be attributed to all the well known names of past giants of religious history, like Mithras and even that of Hermes, much adored within Rosicrucian circles as a great Prophet of divine status. The same amazingly, is not said of Moses who was considered human enough to have to die as a result of his negligence and not allowed to enter the new earthly kingdom of Canaan. Most others were either carried off to heaven or disappeared without trace as a fitting and inconclusive Divine end like that of king Arthur. We do not have, as a result, a religion called Mosian and the Jewish spiritual identity appears to be more of a cultural survival of a tribe of Judah than a religion. What emerges, taking into account that the synagogue is a social and teaching centre and not a temple, that apart from the belief in a God it is not a religion as such but more of a people with religious beliefs. Not the same thing, and applies to say Fremasonry, as well, which is not a religion but a community of brethren with religious beliefs. Non Jewish entrants into Jewish families, however incorporated (by marriage or vocation), always complain of a subsequent lack of identity and or acceptance, which is to be expected. The Jewish people adhere to a God whose name they are forbidden from uttering but whom we gather from the old testament was called Yahweh or Jehovah (apparently a fire or volcano God) but it was not the God of the tribes of Israel which repudiated it at every turn in favour of their own ancestral ones and which often led to conflict. Adonai, often quoted as being another name for Jehovah has recently been associated with the God Aton in view of he fact that the prefix “ai” implied a genetive “of” and the “d” interchangeable with “t” as has always been the case with the ancient regional languages. This puts the question of Moses and his God into the lap of the sun religions and brings the Hysos into the realms of Akhenaton with all its implications. An added and significant factor in this respect is the meaning of the word Jerusalem, in Latin. Hierosolymitani, means city of the sun people and synonymous with Heliopolis. Whether Moses was Aknaton or not the fact remains that it is easier to prove that he was, than the opposite, taking into account all the coincidences surrounding both. It could also well be that as a well known historical personality with a need for human remains, it was considered prudent to ensure in the religious records that he was as mortal as could be, mistakes and all. It is difficult to determine what the “religion"" of the Jews really is and apart from a mythological attachment to the warrior David and the Temple of Solomon which defies arheological substantiation, there are few handles with which to raise the subject. Islam however, like Christianity, stretches across all races and easily absorb members of other creeds in the manner of a faith or religious identity – a singular characteristic that has to be taken into account when defining a religion or a cult. Whilst Jews do take on converts, there is little doubt that they are mere guests and cannot possibly be identified with what everyone knows as Jewish. Thgousands of years agom, the attempt to blend in with the other tribes through the acquisition of the crown via David, came to a halt because of that. The tribes of Israel had Gods in common which were irreplaceable and unacceptable to the Judeans and the bloody massacre of the Benjamite women at the instigation of Judea on the basis of the rape of the Levite´s wife, is a vivid reminder of the Law of Tallion and its far reaching results. The shattered Royal tribe of Benjamin, contenders to the crown, was forced to seek survival in the women of Saba, like their ancestors. Judea earned the enmity of the tribes as a result and had to leave Al Israel, never to form a part of it ever again. The present modern State therefore, as scholars point out, should be called Judea and most definitely not Israel which is a denial of the realities of ancient history. If Israel was therefore to be re- installed, it would incorporate, most of the members of the Middle East and most of the descendants of the Western world. None of these would qualify for membership, if they happened to be Jewish. A pity, that this should not be the final resolution of the whole distasteful problem which has gone on for far too long and stands as the most important menance to the stability of humanity today.
Israel the Commonwealth of tribes.
Neither moderate Islam nor Christianity therefore has anything to do with Judaism since both were concerned in the main, with the ancient tribes of Israel, which religious history tells us as already mentioned, broke its links with the tribe of Judah after the death of Absalom the son of the first king of Israel – Saul. The tribe of Judah according to etymologists, had its origins in the ancient kingdom of Saba and its original followers were black Africans – a fact verifiable from the unchallengeable understanding that both David and Solomon or Daud and Sol Amon were married to Sabaens. The Iehudi which is probably derived from the i h v of Jehovah, were classified as wandering, tonsured black monks and were Hammites and not Shemites which is another modern misconception. Without doubt, they married into other tribes and cultures to arrive at the Jewish people of modern biblical times but the origins are in Africa like that of the Benjamites (Benshamites) or house of Sham as the name clearly illustrates. The Ethiopian leader Haillie Salassie was a very much revered religious figure to the Rastafarians of Jamaica who curiously, in the manner of Nazarenes did not cut their hair. It is not suprising that he considered himself The Lion of Judah and that he wished to demonstrate that his lineage came from ancient Saba. During the investigations carried out with respect to Jewish cultural groupings in the world, it was a little disconcerting to many that the Falashes of Ethiopia appeared to be genuine descendants of the tribe of Judah and linked directly with the sacrificial religious concepts of David and Solomon. The unwillingness on the part of Jewish medical authorities to accept their blood in donorship caused a great deal of controversy throughout the African world and was interpreted as a form of cultural rejection. It may however, have been as a result of other factors, including biochemical ones. It is worth noting that Saba was probably the most ancient and civilised of nations, with man himself, owing his existance and origins to the region. The concept of the Temple and everything that came to be considered monumental of the land of Egypt had its origins there. Coming to grips however, with the reality of a king of the Sun of Amon and a Daud or David, is not an easy matter. The Dravidian Asians of southern India have enough common links with a Judean cultural past to question as to whether their name should not be Davidians or Daudians. There is however, nothing reliable in archeological terms that attests to the historical realities of either David or Solomon or what could have been their cultural remains. Saba itself still lies in the realms of mythology although the study of Yemen history and sectors of Northern Asia reveal curious traces of defined Ethiopian settlements (note two “Sabaen” Prester Johns in Medieval lore – one in Africa and the other near the Caspian Sea). It is probable that the settlement on the shores of the Caspian and mentioned in Marco Polo might well be mythical as well, although there is little doubt that the site known as Caracorum was considered sacred by the Mongols. The Jewish faith today is probably an extension of a historical background and the religious cultural remains of a great period of history directly associated with the lands of Ethiopia and Egypt Saba itself covered all the Arabian peninsular and modern Ethiopia, not to mention Egypt itself and the concept of the two crowns may well be a reminder of the two nations that merged culturally and perhaps eventually - dynastically. The Jewish priesthood, as is popularly referred to by the various families like Cohen and Levy, appears to point to a descent of such families from the Temple priesthood of the order of Sol Amon. The Jewish people could therefore be members of a pocket of original temple families, in the same way as the descendants of the artisans who built the pyramids are identifiable as a people even today. They could also be descendants of Royal families of Saba married into the priestly caste, but it is all in the sphere of interesting speculation and no more. It is also very curious and beyond analisis, that the Egyptians call Obama, the new Tutenkhamun. If we consider that the young P'haraohs´s father was none other than the controversial Akhenaton who introduced a new sun religion and rule, on their ancestors, it makes one wonder. The equation that puts this Pharoah in the role of Moses and Tutenkhamun as a redeemer and return to status quo, is probably a coincidence, but then one would have to find out who got the crowd to draw the relationship and why.
Strong cultural differences.
The background to the religious understandings of Mohammed and Jesus however is in the wide variety of concepts which have little to do with the very specific cultural morality of the Jewish people. The very existance of the revenge laws throws Jesus straight out of the window and shows that he was not a Jew by culture or education even if he had Jewish blood from some ancestors. If we are to go by ancient British genealogies, Mary his mother and Anne his grandmother, were definitely not Jewish but members of one of the tribes of Israel. Some will say that this is not academic enough and that these genealogies are spurious, but with a little bit of imagination and the study of aspects of ancestral names given, it is possible to determine whether they carry tribal names or connotations. To invent these names merely to cococt false genealogies is not that easy, of interest to the manipulator or even likely. The likely probablility would have been that strong Judaish names would have been placed to further the commonly, but erroneously held beliefs that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Much incidental information given by critics, anxious to repudiate religious claims, are often much more valuable in context that they realize themselves. It is therefore part of the work of good researchers looking for clues, to note these things and then attempt to either marry them up with other material or even perhaps see if they open doors to unsuspected corners. In this way, it becomes fairly obvious that Jesus had never formally lived in a Jerusalem (which he visited with some trepidation), leaving hurriedly and always after an argument or assertion which had provoked the priests. It is of course understandble that the scenes created by the scribes were essays designed to promote an image for posterity - a type of propaganda – and much could be mere invention, but these when seen in context, provide a good insight into what it might all mean. The walking on the water, the water to wine, the loaves and the fishes – all these appear to be attempts to fill in the lack of magic often associated with divine figures – a magic that Jesus appears quite capable of performing, but which he disliked intensely. Jerusalem it must be stressed, was never the capital of Israel but the capital of Judea. This city wasd taken by the tribal army of Judah from the Jebussites over a thousand years before and it could also be that the term “city of the sun” was a Jebbusite one. The sun worhip concept may not have been a Judean one. However, there are other indications that the Judeans were in fact sun worshippers and that Yaweh was a Sun God. We have always been told that Jesus spent a portion of his life in Egypt and more recent studies show that it was likely that he spent time in the Asian sub continent including Tibet and that documents and religious sayings attest to his presence there. His teachings in content and style point in that direction and not to those, say, of John the Baptist who was a doom merchant. Jesus was very much against the commercialisation of religion through the concept of a central meeting point like that of the Temple at Jerusalem. Making payments to a form of head office was something that Jesus did not approve of, taking into account the real needs of the families who made these expensive journeys for no purpose other than to pay tribute to a vain and hollow priesthood. “Give unto Caeser what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God”, did not include the Temple priesthood - of that we can be certain.. For Jesus this fuelled the concept of privilege and turned the priests into wealthy leaders only shadowed by the puppet king forcibly imposed on them. The concept of Zionism and Vatican authority with its world aspirations therefore stems from that very basic foundation of centralized, contributed authority, It is what makes economic systems powerful but unfortunately, almost always, of little benefit to the very contributors who make it possible. Runaway taxation forcibly imposed in some western societies today, speaks for itself and the slur on Jesus for mixing with tax collectors, does the same. It shows that the public instinctively shuns contributions on demand and those who force them to make them. Religions based on taxation, which was the case in the time of Jesus, were expected to provide social welfare and not enhancement of public figures. It was this that Jesus detested apart from the tacit acceptance of the commercialisation of religious spaces into which the faithful went for entirely different reasons. Jerusalem obviously had the same connotation to Judaism as Mecca to Islam - a focal point to which followers had to go and spend money in pursuit of their identity. The Temple that Jesus referred to however, was that of the heart and based on Greek and Phoenician teachings on ethical values. He also placed a great deal of emphasis on ennoblement through knowledge and in fact, spurned those who did not cultivate the will to listen or see things clearly. There is no connection between these two very different approaches to the development of the spirit of the people. Orthodox Islam, as it is shown today however, has a great deal in common with ancient Judaism and probably inherited or even originated in many of its followers during the second half of the first millenium AD. In fact, the end of first millenium AD shows Jews actively participating in various aspects of the structural and financial sectors of the populations – in one particular case, to the point of almost getting themselves lynched for being responsible for imposing new and heavy taxation. The present Askhenazi Jews who recognize that their origins are obscure, are probably descendants of those Christian, Jewish and Israeli converts into Islam and who identified or felt safe within the new religious order. Joining the religion of the conquerors as a means of survival was a commong thing to do and thos who did often waited patiently through generations for the right religious climate, to go back to their ancient traditions. They could have been members of one or several of the tribes of Israel which had a secret oral tradition that bound them at family level, It is perhaps not so suprising after all, that many Asiatic people like the Afghans, consider themselves Bani Israel, which is a common term for House of Israel or descendants of. The curiosities of the present conflict therefore are a little out of accord with the realities of religious history and need fresh and careful thought on all fronts and on both sides of the so called divide. During world war 11 some British officers were astounded, when taken into the confidence of religious tribal leaders in the Middle East, to discover that among their treasured belongings was a very old copy of the Gospel of St. John whom they secretly revered.
The Judean upper classes looked down on the citizens of Samaria and Gallilee. These areas were the homelands of Jesus. This fact alone clearly demonstrates that he was not a Jew in the true sense of the word. “Nothing good can come out of Gallilee”, we are told.. As a potential leader of the Jews, he would have identified himself as such through an active part in the daily life of the Jewish community, but it is quite clear that the whole area of Judea is alien to him. The parable of the good Samaritan, usefully included in basic Christian knowledge, is an episode that attempts to demonstrate this Jewish disregard for outsiders. We are also also told that Jesus rescued a woman from stoning. As a Jew he would have been loathe to break this taboo or get himself involved in a practice that drew its existance from the vilest of human sentiments. He would have been ripped apart by the crowd foaming at the mouth for blood sacrifice. If he did indeed stop a stoning, knowing as we do today, how even members of the family callously destroy the face and head of helpless loved ones, it must have been because he was feared or respected, at least. It is difficult to associate this form of execution not just with the uniquely gentle Jesus but with the loving Mohammed who was also a man of great intelligence and sensitivitity. His daughter Fatima who revered her father would have pronounced herself on this issue had she thought that her father accepted it. Mohammed was also responsible for the restoration and historical remembrance of the ancient site at Mecca which contained the black stone that belonged to the people of Anatolia and called the Kha aba by them – a name that still stands today. This same stone was the meteorite held in awe by the ancients who worshipped a Goddess called Cybeles. The Romans, against popular teaching, were a very cultured race and took great pains in pointing out that the Middle Eastern cultures came from their own basic ancestry – a fact born out by the Essenes who called them the Kittim and descendants of the tribes. It was the Romans who brought the stone down to the present site according to popular lore. Mohammed showed in this act of historical conservation, a little of his great respect for history and ancient religious sites which are now incorporated into the great centres of Islam. It also shows his high degree of tolerance and cultural recognition. The inside of the Kaaba has now been opened and photographed to show its internal fittings, which demonstrate that another form of religion was practiced there. It is more than likely a type of teaching centre, like a synagogue or perhaps a shrine to Cybele. There is a body of academic knowledge which suggests that Abraham himself attended this shrine and which according to the Victorian Professor Higgins, was dedicated to a cult which utilized the dove as a religious symbol. Christians associate it with the Paraclete of John the Baptist. The world associates it with news, peace and love – a cementing force. John, it should be mentioned, spoke of major changes which the new Messiah would bring about. Although Jesus did fulfil some of John´s aspirations, he did not fit the mold entirely and in many ways he felt responsible for the events that led to the bizarre and untimely execution of his cousin. In fact, we are told that he was very nervous when he heard what had happened and fled from Judea to the safety of his homelands, probably concerned about his own life. This very human streak in Jesus, emphasises aspects of his personality which can be clearly defined when looked at objectively. He could have joined the public lamentation of the assasination of this noble martyr at the hands of barbaric, so called royals, to console at least or even preach against, but he chose to flee. It implies that he knew that the people behind it were the Temple priests or dangerous hidden hands and that it was likely that his own life was in immediate danger. The events taken in context show a very confused cousin of an executed religious figure in a strange light and an emotional level that cannot compare with that of a hardened mystic like John. He looks more like a highly cultured man from a distinguished family used to better things and not quite ready to meet his fate, but it begs the question, having been baptised by the executed man and gloried in the claims to his own possible Messiahship. Or perhaps he saw in the event, an opening for his own objectives and beginning of his own line of provocation ? Whichever, it was a strange way of showing it. The child prodigy It we go back in his life to his appearance at the synagogue as a child with an enormous body of religious knowledge behind him, it makes sense that they knew he had the makings of a leader. They would more than likely also have known that he was of the same family as the executed hermit, if we assume of course that he and his aunt Elizabeth were known members of local families. By getting out of the area as soon as he was informed of the fate of John, he could have assumed that the next logical purge would have been him and that his every move was being watched. It does offer a dignified explanation as to why he did not join the large following crying in helpless anger against the asassination of such a popular figure. Jesus may have also thought that the situation carried enough of its own momentum and did not need him. But was he also perhaps a respected and feared figure well known to the priests of the Temple, who were waiting for a false move ? The fact that the woman at the well of Samaria called him Lord speaks for itself. This term was only applied to figures of very high stature equivalent to Imam in Islam. The Jewish priesthood would therefore strike a double blow at the crucifixion – remove a potential critic and debilitate the people of the adjacent biblical lands which held him in esteem and who were influenced by heretical teachings brought in from other parts of the world. Herod after all, had wanted to meet him and exchange views as the bible clearly states. It lends more reality to the historicity of the figure of Jesus than the cloudy concepts of his so called divine status. Why ? Because it is in those little details, glossed over by the religious teachers and twisted to justify wrong conclusions, that we get a glimpse of a hidden tradition – a hidden reality that makes better sense. Jesus is not as fully documented as Mohammed, who is a genuine historical figure full of writings of the period which attest to his existance. The same is not the case with Jesus, who is really a product of the writings of a number of so called witnesses who could have been taken from nowhere by scribes who intended to create the myth. Had Paul of Tarsus not taken up the issue with his friends in high places and not been a Roman citizen, it is doubtful if the teachings of this interesting, little understood man, would have come down to us today. It is a well known secret that many high Vatican officials talk about their great debt to Paul. This however does not in any way mean that Jesus can be dismissed as lightly as that. Despite Paul, there are other ways of arriving at the conclusion that although there is no hard evidence of a type one could call conclusive, there is a very strong indication that Jesus existed and that all the things that we are told about him are based on mental notes taken around the time. It can also be taken for granted that the sum total of his so called sayings, add up to a body of knowledge of the human condition that would not be properly understood for thousands of years to come. It also goes without saying therefore, that Christianity as we know it, has little if anything to do with the teachings of Jesus, as we shall see.
Related Articles -
jesus, religion, jews, arabs, muslims, islam, issa, christianity, religion, faith, beliefs, face of jesus, prophets, moses, ,