Main Menu
Search Site

powered by FreeFind
The Jesus Conspiracy Pt 2
The Jesus Conspiracy, Pt 2
From Where Were You Before The Tree of Life? Vol 2
By Peter Farley

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

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

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

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.