Main Menu
Search Site
|
The Jesus Conspiracy Pt 2
The Jesus Conspiracy, Pt 2
From Where Were You Before The Tree of Life? Vol 2 By Peter Farley www.4truthseekers.org As with the rest of the Christian Bible, the stories of the crucifixion rest in confusion and purposeful corruption. For example, in John's gospel the Crucifixion happened on the day before Passover; in Mark, Luke and Matthew, it happened on the day after. Although it seems that the Sanhedrin meets at night to judge Jesus, the Sanhedrin was expressly forbidden at the time to meet at night or on the Passover. Also contrary to what is said in the Bible, the Sanhedrin was able to pass death sentences on Jewish citizens. There was also no known custom of freeing a prisoner at that time of year to celebrate anything. Thus the offer to liberate Jesus or Barabbas is pure fiction. Who wrote these gospels? Who was responsible for the changes? Many of us have memories of being a party to such thing in past lives, and do not always feel happy about what it was we have done, but now it's time to set the record straight. So much of Christianity and its belief in a divine Savior rests on the event of the Crucifixion, and much of the blame for this event has been shifted away from the Romans, the powerful oppressors of the time, and put squarely onto the Jews. As long as the Romans were in power, nothing could have been written to anger them or the retribution would have been swift and merciless. This is one of the reasons for the writers of the day using the Essene coding system. During war, secrecy is needed, and have no doubts, the `Holy Land' was at war at that time, not only with the Romans, but with itself as well. The power of the Unseen God was throughout the land and everyone wanted to be the chosen group to control it. Preparations were being made for the coming of the two messiahs, and there was an air that things would soon change. Those writing for a Greek, Roman, or Arabic audience had different agenda to fulfill. The early Christian authors wanted to separate themselves from the Jewish masses and old Jewish traditions?they were now `Christians'. Remember here, too, that these four gospels were chosen for the final version of the Bible to the exclusion of so many others. They were chosen by a Rome-centered church, and approved through various councils at a time when Rome wanted to usurp the power base of Lucifer in Yahweh from the Jews and center it squarely in the new Christian religion headquartered in Rome. This Roman orthodoxy rests essentially on the books of the New Testament. It was for this reason that as Christianity grew and spread, Jesus became less and less a Jew, and more and more a Christian. Therefore it was all right to blame the Jews. As Gardner says, "Everything in the Bible says that Jesus was the King of the Jews. "And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus response correctly translated is: "Thou hast spoken correctly." The Gospels were composed for a Greco-Roman audience, and the role of the Romans in Jesus' trial and execution had to be whitewashed and presented as sympathetically as possible." Crucifixion was an execution reserved specifically and exclusively for enemies of Rome, just as Spartacus and his rebellious slaves were an enemy of Rome and had therefore been crucified. If Jesus was crucified, it means he cannot have been as apolitical as the Gospels seek to make him out. In fact, only the fourth gospel, that of John, seems to have been based on any kind of actual eye-witness account of the Crucifixion. And contrary to most Christians' assumptions, none of the Gospels were written by the Apostles themselves. The events on the Cross certainly have their oddities. For instance, no sooner does Jesus inhale the vinegar on the sponge (what should have for all intent and purpose been a restorative) than he gives up the ghost. This would lead one to suspect that what was on the sponge was more likely some kind of drug to make it appear as though he had died, rather than any kind of restorative. The events that happened after the Crucifixion were also odd. According to Roman law of the time, a crucified man was denied all burial, yet in the Bible, Pilate is quick to give his body over to Joseph of Arimathea for exactly that purpose. This clearly signifies to many researchers that there was evidence of some sort of collusion. In the original Gospel of Mark written in Greek, Joseph asks for what is correctly translated as the "living body" of Jesus. Pilate, however, grants him what he believes to be the "dead body" of Jesus. Although mentioned by the Bishop of Antioch as early as AD180, a surviving copy of the Gospel of Peter was only first located in a valley of the upper Nile in 1886. The fact that in it, Joseph of Arimathea turns out to be a close friend of Pontius Pilate may suggest why it had not been `found' before then. If this is true, it also points to the likelihood of a fraudulent Crucifixion. The tomb in which Jesus was buried, according to The Gospel of Peter, lay in a place called "the Garden of Joseph," which would correctly attribute the burial tomb as belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. The Gospel also interprets Jesus' last words on the cross as the particularly striking, "My power, my power, why hast thou forsaken me?" It is no wonder then that modern authorities agree that Jesus, quite unabashedly, modeled and perhaps even contrived his life in accordance with the prophecies heralding the coming of a Messiah, and this included the crucifixion. In The Heresiarchs of the Gnostic Writings, Basilides, an Alexandrian scholar writing between AD 120 and 130, claimed that the Crucifixion was a fraud, that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that a substitute? Simon of Cyrene?took his place instead. As late as the seventh century the Koran also maintained precisely this same argument. In the Nag Hammadi scroll, The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, one of the so-called Gnostic Gospels composed for an Egyptian audience rather than a Roman one, it explains that there was a substitution made for at least one of the three victims of the Crucifixion. With regard to this substitution it mentions Simon the Cyrene as the substitute. It also mentions that Jesus did not die on the Cross as presumed, so the substitution apparently succeeded. Jesus is then quoted as saying after the event, "As for my death? which was real enough to them?it was real to them because of their own incomprehension and blindness. . . And I was laughing at their ignorance." How did this entire pretense come about? The first aspect we need to look at is the location of the crucifixion and the burial. While commonly accepted in modern times as being a public affair, the crucifixion actually took place in private?onlookers being obliged to watch "from afar off." Matthew, Mark, and John say it took place at Golgotha, Luke says it was Calvary?both words deriving their names from the word for "skull." There is also no mention of any hill in any of the four Gospels. According to John 19:41, the location was a garden in which there was a private sepulcher, identified as being owned by Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:59-60). Thus instead of having a grand event as the movies have incorrectly portrayed, the crucifixion was in fact a small-scale affair on what were privately controlled lands. Because Jesus was an Essene, the burial should have been at a place called `the Bosom of Abraham' in Qumran?south of the Vestry where there was a cemetery garden. Revelation 11:8 states that Jesus was crucified in `the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt'. This positively identifies the location as Qumran, designated as `Egypt' by the ascetic order of the Egyptian Therapeutate, and also geographically associated with the Old Testament city of Sodom that had once been located not far away. The second aspect we need to look at is the identity of the other two `thieves' crucified with Jesus, for much of the truth about the crucifixion is covered up by giving very few details about them. Both, it turns out, were leaders of the Zealot revolt against Pontius Pilate. The first was Simon, known as Zelotes, also as Simon Kananites?the fanatic. He was, however, best known as Simon Magus, head of the Samaritan Magi and the greatest magician of his day. Some accounts tell how Simon was actually able to levitate himself above the Roman Forum. Not only was he a great magician, he was also a faithful friend of Jesus and a member of the priesthood of the Essene Community. His role in the community had been that of ceremonial `Father' until he was later defrocked for his part in the Zealot revolution. He is the Simon at whose house Mary anoints Jesus' head. The other `thief' might have been Thaddeus, also a leader of the Zealot revolution. He was a deputy to `the Father' and thus a ceremonial devotional `son' of the Father. The expression bar (son) and abba (father) give us a clue as to who he might have been in terms of the Bible?bar-abba?Barabbas. In the Bible he is described as `a notable prisoner' and `one who committed murder in the insurrection'. When given the choice between releasing Jesus or Barabbas, the crowd "cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas" (Luke 23:18). And Pilate releases Barabbas. It may have been Thaddeus who was released, but also in custody was Judas Sicariote (Judas Iscariote), under whom the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced in his role as Chief of the Scribes. He too, was a Zealot leader, and warlord of Qumran. The Romans nicknamed him Judas Sicarius?the Assassin (a sica was a deadly, curved dagger). This became corrupted to Sicariote, and then to `Iscariot'?the Biblical betrayer of Jesus. So it was that Jesus, Thaddeus, and (possibly) even Judas Sicariote were led to `the place of the skull' for crucifixion. The third aspect we need to know here is the true identity of Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph of Arimathea was `an honorable counselor', meaning a member of the Sanhedrin (Mark 15:43). He was also a disciple of Jesus, "but secretly, for fear of the Jews" (John 19:38). That he was the one who asked for the body of Jesus seemed to come as no surprise to either Pontius Pilate or to Jesus' mother, Mary, and Mary Magdalene. They all went along happily with his arrangements, accepting his authority without comment or demur. Thus this person was both important and well-known. The title Arimathea is in fact a descriptive title, derived from the Hebrew `ram-' or `rama-' (meaning height or top) and the Greek word `theo-' (of God)?thus meaning "highest of God." The patriarchal title of being a `Joseph' was always applied to the next in succession to the heir of the Davidic kingly line. Jesus' father was a Joseph, and Jesus was heir to the throne of David. In this respect, with Jesus regarded as the `David' in line of succession, then his eldest brother James would have been the designated `Joseph', he being recognized as successor at the time. James was then the Crown Prince as such?`the Divine Highness', the Joseph Rama-theo, or Joseph of Arimathea. The identity of Joseph of Arimathea then was Jesus' own brother, James, also known as James the Just. It would therefore come as no surprise that James should take charge of the body and burial arrangements for Jesus. It would also make sense of why Pilate would let him take the body, and why the women should let him organize all the arrangements. One of the caves found at Qumran was in fact the sepulcher of Joseph, the Crown Prince. It was sited directly opposite `the Bosom of Abraham', and coincidentally, a large stone had been rolled across the entrance to seal the cave from rainfall. Crucifixion was a very painful death, a process that normally lasted for days. The legs of the man being crucified would eventually be broken so that he would suffocate by falling forward, the weight of his body crushing his lungs and killing him. No one should have died within the course of a day or less such as Jesus appeared to do. When Jesus' side was pierced, the fact that he bled (identified as blood and water) was held to indicate that he was dead. In reality, however, vascular bleeding indicates that the body is still alive, not dead. That remarkable restorative potion given to Jesus that made him `give up the Ghost' was said to be "vinegar mingled with gall." Otherwise, it was soured wine mixed with snake venom. Dependent on the proportions of each, such a mixture could either induce unconsciousness or even cause death. However, in this case, it was not a cup full that Jesus took, just a spongeful. Under the direction of someone practiced in the healing and magical arts such as Simon Magus, the magician, this could have only made death seem apparent. Flavius Josephus gives us a first-hand account and described the Essene's art of healing and medicine which he says they had got from the ancients. In his role as the deposed but still venerated Father priest of Qumran, this might also make sense of Jesus' supposed last words. In a true `leap of faith', Jesus said to his trusted ally after taking the potion, `Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit'. Joseph was already negotiating for the body to be removed and put into his sepulcher before the Sabbath fell. Pilate, for his part, was amazed at how quickly Jesus had died. To speed up matters further, Joseph is said to have quoted to Pilate a Jewish rule that a body should not be left to hang out in any wise, "but thou shalt bury him that day." Pilate thus sanctioned the change in tradition and returned to Jerusalem leaving `Joseph' in control. Jesus, or his substitute, had therefore only been on the cross for less than half a day. And those with the greatest healing knowledge in the land, Jesus' own people, the Essenes, were then waiting in the wings to administer the venom's antidote once the body had been removed to be prepared for its burial. Nicodemus then arrived bringing with him `a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight'. Myrrh is a sedative and healing compound, while aloes is a purgative?probably the best thing to purge the snake venom from Jesus' or the Cyrene's body. Two gospels say this crucifixion took place at different hours?one says the third hour, the other the sixth hour. This anomaly occurs because Mark's Gospel relies on Hellenistic reckoning, and John's Gospel uses Hebrew time. The result of the time change was, as Mark 15:33 describes, "When the sixth hour was come, there was a darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour." These three hours of darkness were symbolic, in name only, the end of the fifth hour thus being followed immediately by the ninth hour. This left three hours for Simon Magus to do his restorative work, administer the medications to Jesus, set the bones of the Cyrene as they were broken, and dispense justice to Judas, all before the Sabbath began. The Resurrection Once again, it is only Matthew who talks of an angel of the Lord coming to roll away the stone in front of Jesus' tomb. The others say the stone was already gone when the women arrived. There are also many other discrepancies in the different versions of the events at the holy sepulcher. The only common denominator is that the body of Jesus was gone. Mary Magdalene sees Jesus but thinks him to be the gardener. He says "Touch me not." All of these versions differ. Concerning the angel who moved the stone, Matthew reads, `His countenance was like lightening. And his raiment `white as snow'. Simon (Magus) Zelotes was politically nicknamed `Lightning'; his vestment was white as is the typical Essene clothing, and in terms of a priestly rank he was indeed an `angel'. Thaddeus also says, "There was a great earthquake and an angel appeared." Thaddeus himself was politically nicknamed `Earthquake', just as Simon was termed `Lightening'. Thus it could well have been Simon and Thaddeus who were the two angels Mary encountered, and by her reaction, it is evident that both Mary and the disciples were not a party to these spurious events. The Gospel of Mary (Magdalen) confirms that for a short time after Jesus had been `raised from the dead', some of the Apostles knew nothing about it, and went on believing that Jesus had been crucified. By not dying, however, Jesus held his mission together and stopped his disciples from scattering in fear and dismay as they would have done had he been killed. Had he died, Jesus' cause would have died with him. The Unknown Jesus For all the myriad facts and fancy that surrounded Jesus in his life on Earth and through two thousand years of Christian domination of many areas of the world, there is still a side to Jesus that few if any know about. It is hinted at in the actions of the child Jesus in The Gospel of the Infant Jesus, where Jesus `misuses' his powers in anger and two people end up being killed. It is also suggested in the fact that Jesus does not seem to be the humble, peace-loving messiah that was expected?the teacher of righteousness. Instead, his best friends are the zealot leaders who revolt against Roman occupation and plot against the life of Pilate. While on one hand seeming to recommend that his followers turn the other cheek, Jesus also recommends that his followers sell their clothing in order to buy swords. This in fact sounds more like the warrior messiah come to free the people, than any mild-mannered teacher of righteousness. People, such as Brother Philip for one, say that a faith should not be judged by its followers-- "Jesus did not come to die primarily. He is not the dead Christ. Their entire gospel is based on the fact that Jesus died for them. He lived for them, dear ones; He did not die for them! We must follow his teachings, His words, His life. Instead they are living in the shadow of His death. They do not live His teachings, and they call themselves Christian nations. They are not Christian. They follow the Dark One." --but what else should one judge a religion upon if the message and the meaning of the faith are true. The Christian Church has been responsible for some of the most brutal massacres in history?the Albigensian `Crusades' in which the peace-loving Cathars were wiped out almost to a man; the Inquisition in which any thought against the Church was punished by the most brutal forms of torture and death, the Puritan Rule of England, the thousands of years of war in Europe between Christian kingdoms, the countless pogroms and systematic destruction of the Jews, the growing wealth of the church while its people remain in servitude and poverty, the suppression of all the rights of the female in favor of the male?the right to worship equally, the right to be a part of the church equally, even the right to rule their own life and body. The list goes on and on, and though we can also list some positive things that Christianity might have done, Christianity has, for the most part, been a blight on the face of the Earth almost since its inception. As we shall see when discussing the secret societies, this is not to cast aspersions on the members of the church or any faith in particular, for they too have been duped. All in all, though, it appears that Christianity has been a central depository for the dark forces for much or all of those past two thousand years of history. Like all the religions on Earth, Christianity has been used by the dark forces for the suppression of the God within each and every man. They are the legacy of the ancient gods who left behind them both kingship and the priesthood to act as intermediaries so that the power could be maintained in those other-worldly hands. The True FATHER does not see Darkness for HIS Light erases all the darkness that would come within HIS sight. Although worship or the celebration of god-in-all has been a spiritually gifted thing, religion is an alien-made institution handed down specifically as a means for the control and suppression of both men and women alike. 2006-12-03 |