AS THIS MAN CALLED JESUS. ? PART 1.

Remembered or Utilized. ?

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 their founder Jeus and source  of the teachings is 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.

Uncontrollable events?

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.

Religious Snobbery.

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.

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – to get all the members of the ancient faith – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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.

Director for Europe, Keren Hayesod

Last month I returned from another visit to Ethiopia. I was accompanied by a wonderful family from Holland (my companions on a short mission) and 50 Olim who boarded with us the flight in Addis at 03:00 a.m and woke up four hours later at BGN airport. Shortly after sunrise we disembarked the plane and hundreds of years of exile came to an end for my Ethiopian friends.

As they reached the tarmac most of them fell on their knees and kissed the ground. Again I had to conceal a tear dropping along my cheek.

Arrival

The flight Addis – TLV literally crosses the entire length of the Red sea so that the thoughts about the biblical exodus are rather inescapable. If the parting of the Red sea was ever a difficult task imagine what it means to cross the realities of rural Gondar region (where the Falashmura came from) into Israel of the 21st century in just four hours time.

How come this lost tribe kept its faith, celebrated Shabbath, sang lullabies about Jerusalem to its tiny children? Where from did they derive the obstinate determination to defy the Kings, the missionaries, the alien neighbors – all trying to assimilate them – while being totally cut off from the rest of us which they did not even guess did exist. Why did 4000 of the Beta Israel sacrifice their lives (1978-1984) wandering the Sudan desert in quest for Jerusalem? How come they sent every morning their children on a treacherous mountain trail for a three hours walk in each direction en-route to the Jewish Day School?

Last week I again stood in front of the school in Ambover (by now taken over by non Jewish residents) and I found no answers. The lack of answers only increased my admiration, and the admiration grew even more on Wednesday morning when we joined the Shacharit prayer in the synagogue at the Gondar compound. Over six-hundred men and women all wrapped in Talitot followed intensely the young chazanim, stood on their feet for the Amidah and pierced our hearts when repeating the Shma Israel. Just one hour later we stood in the schoolyard where hundreds of Falashmura kids started their morning with the singing of Hatikwah terribly off-tune, but nevertheless the words Li’hiot Am Chofshi Be’arzeinu, Eretz Zion Jerushalaim, took on their deepest possible meaning as they resounded over the courtyard.

Departure

We are coming close to the end of a chapter in the history of Ethiopian Jewry. There are still 1425 Falashmura who have been cleared for Aliah and they all will arrive in Israel before July 2009. The Jewish Agency has been involved in Ethiopia from the first hour. For over twenty years we have been sending the Jews to their promised land. They waited for generations for this moment to come – quietly, with endless patience, with an unparalleled dignity, with the capacity to endure hardships we will never have, with their remarkable innocence which makes integration in Israel so much more difficult!

For the last 4 years Ori Konforti has been leading the JAFI team in Ethiopia. Every single week he was in charge of one of the most exciting night visions in Addis: Out of the darkness the Olim arrive in their white gowns, carrying their belongings to the truck waiting by the wayside. Silently they bid farewell to family relatives which are left behind. Parents kiss good-bye their children hoping to reunite, hopefully soon. For many of them it is the moment they have been waiting for 7-9 years! Security forces around are watching every move.

Aliyah & Absorption

Around mid-night the convoy starts driving to the Airport. To all of them it’s their first flight ever. Once at the airport they have to negotiate the metal detectors, who will never detect the steely resolve of these people to reach Jerusalem.

When the boarding sign lights up, Ori is leading the Olim to the gate and waves good bye, five hours later the staff of JAFI at BGN will welcome the group and usher them thru the first steps at their homeland. If I said that one chapter is nearly closed I must add that the biggest challenge is still ahead of us: the absorption. The challenge of integration is more demanding than we wish to think. It is complex, long-term, and it demands the caring and compassion we rather save for shorter spans of life. It is here where we will be judged by future generations.

We are not allowed to fail them, we cannot fail them, and we will not fail them- with your help!

Jacob (Yankele) Snir

Director for Europe, Keren Hayesod

Keren Hayesod and the Jewish Agency have been involved in Ethiopia from the first hour. For over twenty years we have been sending the Jews to their promised land. With your help, Keren Hayesod and the Jewish Agency we can support Israel and continue to assist Ethiopian Jews in their absorption process, giving them an opportunity to build a satisfying and successful life in Israel.