The High Priests
See the paragraph on the Jesus page 2, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that says, "there were three priests and twelve laymen." The Priests were James, Mary and John the Baptist. When John was killed, Jesus becomes the third High Priest. He takes the role of both 'Kingly' and 'Priestly' Messiah. As we have already discussed, this is the requirement of the Davidic/Aaron bloodline and this is accomplished because Jesus's mother Mary is of the Aaron, tribe of Benjamin - bloodline.
After the 'Completion' of Christ's mission, James becomes the High Priest and the leader of the true Church. When he too is killed, Mary Magdalen becomes the Last High Priest of the 'brotherhood' in Israel. She is clearly identified as a disciple and as their leader in the Nag Hammidi scrolls. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: "Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles." Mary Magdalene is of the tribe of Benjamin. Because her life is in danger due to this dynastic bloodline, she escapes to Egypt and then France. Thomas, the Lord's twin brother also escapes to India. He takes his Mother Mary with him...proof on the Shroud of Turin Page.
John the Babtist
James the less
Differences found inside and outside the NT
The Acts of the NT were composed in Greek, ( Which infers a 'Gentile' rendition that were not written by the apostles because they were not Gentiles nor did they associate with them.) and early rendered into Syriac. Becoming scarce or being wholly lost in Greek they were retranslated out of Syriac into Greek. But meanwhile the original Greek of the Martyrdom had survived separately.
There are huge discrepancies between Acts and what paul tells us in his letters. Scholarship has been forced to admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication. With its discrediting, the true beginnings of Christianity fall into a murky shadow. Scripture is missing from the King James bible, left out, omitted, rubbed out. deleted. There is enough 'work' left out for another complete 'bible' to be written.
Jesus was -in a way- anointed at Bethany (multiple attestation: Mark 14.3-9 and John 12.1-9). Elements of Jesus behavior are in line with what was expected from the Messiah: he explained the Law of Moses (multiple attestation) and was able to cast out demons (multiple attestation, in one case embarrassment).
Jesus wanted to restore Israel - the Messiah's core activity. He did not want his disciples to go to the pagans, but urged them to look 'for the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matthew 10.5 and 18.11-14). This is in marked contrast with the first Christians' missionary activity among the pagans and cannot have been invented.
Jesus regarded his own ministry as the inauguration of the 'kingdom of God' (several stories, all attested in several sources; to a certain extent, these stories are embarrassing, because God did not intervene in human history). Jesus wanted to purify the Temple (multiple attestation; embarrassment), which the Messiah was expected to do. The two most important stories are Jesus' triumphal entry in Jerusalem (Mark 11.4-11; John 12.12-16) and his attempt to cleanse the sanctuary (Mark 11.15-18 and John 2.13-22). The fact that John places this story as far away from the crucifixion as possible, indicates embarrassment.
It's now known that everything told about the events after the Crucifixion was added by Church bishops or their scribes some time in the late fourth century. Although this is confirmed in the Vatican archives, it is difficult for most people to gain access-and even if they do, old Greek is very difficult to understand.
But what exactly was in this section of Mark that Clement saw fit to remove? Was it the section that dealt with the raising of Lazarus? In the context of the original Mark text, however, Lazarus was portrayed in a state of excommunication: spiritual death by decree, not physical death. The account even had Lazarus and Jesus calling to each other before the tomb was opened. This defeated the bishops' desire to portray the raising of Lazarus as a spiritual miracle, not as a simple release from excommunication. More importantly, it set the scene for the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus himself, whose own subsequent raising from spiritual death was determined by the same three- day rule that applied to Lazarus.
Jesus was raised (released or resurrected) from death by decree on the statutory third day. In the case of Lazarus, however, Jesus flouted the rules by raising his friend after the three-day period of symbolic sickness. Jesus was not a priest and was not susposed to do this himself. At that point, civil death would have become absolute in the eyes of the legal elders. Lazarus had committed a crime. He would have been wrapped in sacking and buried alive. His crime was that he had led a violent people's-revolt to safeguard the public water supply which had been diverted through a new Roman aqueduct in Jerusalem. But Jesus performed this release while not holding any priestly entitlement to do so. What happened was that Herod-Antipas of Galilee compelled the High Priest of Jerusalem to relent in favour of Jesus-and this was regarded as an unprecedented miracle!
Josephus records that Jesus had committed a crime, scripture
records that he was arrested. Jesus causes an insurrection because
he tells the 'brothers' to sell their cloths to buy swords.
Or it could have been when he upset the tables of the 'money
changers'. Scripture says the religious leaders, the Pharisees,
the Sadducees and the Scribes decided they must get rid of Jesus
and decided to charge Him with blasphemy. They used one of His
own followers, Judas, to help them seize Him and to bring Him to
an illegal trial."
What ever it was, he was also excommunicated for it. Only a Priest or a High Priestess could release him. Mary was there wasn't she? ...She was a High Priestess and at the time she had authority over the disciples.. or we have Joseph Ben Matthias who is Jesus' uncle in the tomb and we have conformation that two men helped Jesus stand up and brought him out of the tomb. Pilate thought he could appease the religious leaders by having Jesus beaten. Jesus was taken by the Roman Guard and beaten until he was nearly unrecognizable. (If you have found our page on 'the initiate'you know the whole story.)
But there was more to the removed section of Mark, because in telling the story of Lazarus the Mark account made it perfectly clear that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were actually man and wife. The Lazarus story in John contains a rather strange sequence that has Martha coming from the Lazarus house to greet Jesus, whereas her sister, Mary Magdalene, remains inside until summoned by Jesus. But in contrast to this, the original Mark account said that Mary Magdalene actually came out of the house with Martha and was then chastised by the disciples and sent back indoors to await Jesus' instruction. This was a specific procedure of Judaic law, whereby a wife in 'ritual mourning' was not allowed to emerge from the property until instructed by her husband.In his famous rendering of the event, the Renaissance artist Fra Angelico actually depicted Jesus placing a crown on the head of Mary Magdalene. But despite the fact that Fra Angelico was a learned 15th-century Dominican friar, did the Christian Church authorities honour Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial of her? No; they did not. They completely ignored Jesus' own directive and denounced Mary as a whore.
To the esoteric Church and the Knights Templar, however, Mary Magdalene was always regarded as a saint. She is still revered as such by many today, but the interesting part about this sainthood, when we think about Grail lore, is that Mary is listed as the patron saint of winegrowers, the guardian of the vine-the guardian of the Holy Grail, the guardian of the sacred bloodline.
When we read the stories about Jesus, we notice that his followers identify him as the Messiah, but that Jesus consistently responds ambivalently (e.g., Mark 8.27-30, John 7.26-31). This can be a literary device, but it can also be that there were elements in the fashionable messianologies that Jesus did not like. from .. Messianic claimants
Proof paul was hired to kill the disciples.
Damascus/Qumran document;... "After several days, some of the Jewish citizens who had called for paul to come to persecute the Christians, then tried to kill him (Ac.9v23), but when paul learned of this he escaped by being lowered in a large basket over the city walls. (Ac.9v24-25)."
Eleazar, a commander of the garrison and survivor of the
carnage of April 15, A.D. 74 and an initiate of Lazerus, proves
the Gnostic adherenace to the laws of Moses.
Josephus recorded this... "Eleazar's speeches, which are not in the New Testament, confirm a secret doctrine passed down by Moses."
Jews, Gentiles, and Sadducees were considered the villains, because they sided with Rome, while the Zealots and the Pharisee's fought against Rome with a passion. Jesus fought along side the Zealots as a 'freedom fighter', and he was almost crucified as one. We see reference to the sword Simon Peter carries in the Fourth Gospel and in Luke 22:36 where Jesus instructs the followers to purchase a sword. The message he speeks; "that he has come to bring not peace, but a sword" is a clear sign of insurrection..
The capture or the willing assistance of Mark is seen in these sentences from the Catholic Encyclopedia. When, on the occasion of the famine of A.D. 45-46, Barnabas and Saul had completed their ministration in Jerusalem, they took Mark with them on their return to Antioch (Acts, xii, 25). Not long after, when they started on st. paul's first Apostolic journey, they had Mark with them as some sort of assistant (hupereten, Acts, xiii, 5); but the vagueness and variety of meaning of the Greek term makes it uncertain in what precise capacity he acted.( Christain insertion )- Neither selected by the Holy Spirit, nor delegated by the Church of Antioch, as were barnabas and saul (Acts, xiii, 2-4), he was probably taken by the ( false ) Apostles as one who could be of general help.
The context of Acts, xiii, 5, suggests that he helped even
in preaching the Word. When paul and barnabas resolved to push
on from Perga into central Asia Minor, Mark, departed from them,
if indeed he had not already done so at Paphos, and returned to
Jerusalem (Acts, xiii, 13). What his reasons were for turning
back, we cannot say with certainty; Acts, xv, 38, seems to
suggest that he feared the toil. At any rate, the incident was
not forgotten by st. paul, who refused on account of it to take
Mark with him on the second Apostolic journey. This refusal led
to the separation of paul and barnabas, and the latter, taking
Mark with him, sailed to Cyprus (Acts, xv, 37-40). At this point
(A.D. 49-50) we lose sight of Mark in Acts, and we meet him no
more in the New Testament, till he appears some ten years
afterwards as the fellow-worker of st. paul, and in the company
of St. Peter, at Rome.
THIS is the discredit of Mark who is not listed amoung the disciples. This indicates a disagreement in beliefs and Mark is at first left out and then captured and unwillingly goes to Rome OR he is an operative like paul and does what ever paul tells him.
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle. (which indicates liers and evil doers)
A confirmation of the position accorded to Peter by Luke, in the Acts, is afforded by the testimony of st. paul (Gal., i, 18-20). After his conversion and three years' residence in Arabia, paul came to Jerusalem "to see Peter". Here the Apostle of the Gentiles clearly designates Peter as the authorized head of the Apostles and of the early Christian Church. Peter's long residence in Jerusalem and Palestine soon came to an end... see what was really said; The Apocalypse of Peter
We already know James was selected by Jesus to be the leader of the church, so this indicates a rival church which did not teach what the church James headed taught. The following account indicates Rome intended to prosecute and eradicate the real followers of Jesus,
Herod Agrippa I began (A.D. 42-44) a new persecution of the
Church in Jerusalem; after the execution
of James, the son of Zebedee, this ruler had Peter cast into prison,
intending to have him also executed after the Jewish Pasch was over.
Peter, however, was freed in a miraculous manner, and, proceeding
to the house of the mother of John Mark, where many of the faithful
were assembled for prayer, informed them of his liberation from
the hands of Herod, commissioned them to communicate the fact to
James and the brethren, and then left Jerusalem to go to
"another place" (Acts 12:1-18). Concerning St. Peter's subsequent
activity we receive no further connected
information from the extant sources, although we possess
short notices of certain individual episodes of his later life.. from..
Once again we conveniently get rid of a disciple.
paul, or saul, in Acts, favored the 'Gentiles' and as you will soon see , insighted a riot that caused the people to stone James. The KJ bible then conveniently and delibertly omitted from scripture, from that time forward the 12 disciples, which are then called heritical and non-belivers. They only save Peter who is himself a traiter to Jesus.
James the Just is murdered to finally wipe out the threat of any freedom fighters and at the same time, once and for all wipe out the true followers of Christ. Quantitative Content Analysis of Jesus Texts
This in effect is exactly what the Romans wanted to have happen. This would then be the foundation of the 'control' the Church wanted over the people. They would then be able to threaten the followers with ex-communication ( their version ) and have them killed for hearasy at a whim.
We included this exerpt from The Jesus Papers to emphisize just how bad things were even after the crucifixion. All Zealots wheather related to the royal blood line or not were hunted down and murdered. Vespasian sought out any surviving members of the Line of David and executed them. He wanted to ensure that no member of the royal house should be left amoung the Jews. But as history would reveal, a number of the members of the ancient royal house had escaped his clutches.
JERUSALEM WAS BESIEGED BY the legions of Titus. Little mutual respect or chivalry was evident on either side. All fighters captured were crucified, and when that became commonplace, the soldiers amused themselves by nailing up their victims in various strange attitudes. So many werc executed that the Romans ran out of room for the crosses and ran out of wood to make them.
On 29 August AD. 70, and in line with the prophecy of Isaiah, the Temple was destroyed in a display of butchery without restraint. Over the following days the rest of the city was taken. Once the Romans held Jerusalem, they burned the remaining houses and tore down the defensive walls. The city was completely destroyed. All captured fighters were slated to be executed, civilians over seventeen were sent to labor in Egypt, and those younger were sold. Great numbers of the fighters were reserved for death in the Roman arenas. Many were transported to the Roman provinces to die as gladiators or to be torn to pieces by wild animals, to the delight of idle crowds; others were taken by Titus on his leisurely march up the coast. At every town he held displays in the arena where his Jewish prisoners were set upon by animals or forced to die in large battles for the spectators’ entertainment.
During the siege of Jerusalem, Vespasian had been traveling showing himself as emperor. He returned after the fall of the city and shortly after his return celebrated his brother’s birthday with the death of over 2,500 Jewish prisoners in the arena. Later, in Beirut, he celebrated his father’s birthday with even more deaths. All the while he was planning his triumphal entry to Rome hearing treasures and prisoners, including some of the leaders of the revolt whom he would have executed. The times were harsh.
For the Jewish people, this was a disaster of such a magnitude that even they having once stood amid the smoking ruins of their Temple. could not even begin to comprehend it. In a religious sense, it was the second exile; the Temple. the House of God, the central bulwark of their religion, was gone. Jerusalem itself was lost too; Jews were not even allowed into the city’, which had been renamed Aelia Capitolina. It seemed as if God had abandoned them . All around the world anti Jewish feeling mounted, and rioting and killing destroyed the influence, power, and respect that Jewish merchants, philosophers, and politicians had once held. Even well-established communities suffered a terminal decline as tens of thousands were killed, and so those who had managed to survive kept their heads down. Some sicarii were able to flee to Alexandria, where they foolishly tried to encourage anti-Roman strife. So determined were they that they murdered some prominent members of the Jewish community who opposed them, In retaliation, the Jewish community rounded tip the sicarii and gave them over to the Romans, who tortured them to death.
THIS, THEN, was the world within which Jesus, his followers, and at least the first of his later biographers lived. It was also the world out of which Christianity emerged. And it is the connection between these two parts of that world that is so contentious. It was, as we have seen, a time when belief was everything and the wrong belief in the wrong context could bring a sudden death, either from the Romans via crucifixion or from the zealous Sicarii via lethal dagger.
Few of these events have found their way into the Gospels. Instead of history, our New Testament gives us a sanitized, censored, and often inverted view of the times. But even those who brought us the New Testament were unable to entirely cut away the world in which their characters moved. Jesus was born and spent his formative years in the era of the early Zealot movement. When he began his ministry around the age of thirty, some of his closest followers were known to be members of this messianic movement, a movement in which Jesus was born to play an important role.
In the New Testament, we can see the arguments against the Romans, and we can pick up a dulled sense of the violence that permeated the era -a sense that sharpens, of course, when we reach the end of the story with the crucifixion of Jesus. But this crucifixion in their telling has quite deliberately had its political context expunged. This is proof that later censors made a concerted attempt to separate Jesus and his life from the historical times in which he was born, lived, and died however he eventually met his death. In so doing, these later censors did something far more pernicious: they removed Jesus from his Jewish context. And today a large number of Christians remain completely unaware that jesus was never a Christian; he was born, and lived, a Jew.
A generation after the crucifixion of Jesus or, at least, the removal of him
from the scene- Jerusalem and the Temple were lost to Judaism. The faith was instead
centered upon the rabbinical school at Jahneh. At the same time began the manipulation
of Jesus’s story that ultimately created a tradition centered upon Jesus rather
than upon God. This was a point upon which many early chroniclers did not agree
but one that would eventually take over all alternative explanations. The Jewish
origins of Jesus became subsumed within an increasingly influential pagan context
introduced by converts to Christianity from among the Greeks and Romans. This pagan
influence drew Christianity and its view of Jesus a long way from Judaism in the
The Jesus Papers - Michael Baigent
What the gospels reveal or don't!
This picture of Gospel relationships is really quite astonishing. Even John, in its narrative structure and passion story, is now considered by most scholars to be based on Mark or some other Synoptic stage. Gone is the old pious view that the four Gospels are independent and corroborating accounts. Instead, their strong similarities are the result of copying.
Scholars are inching ever closer to understanding
how and when the Gospels were written.
The names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are accepted as later ascriptions; the real authors are unknown. That "Mark" wrote first and was reworked by "Matthew" and "Luke," with other material added, is now almost universally accepted. Some of the problems which called Markan priority into question, such as those passages in which Matthew and Luke agree in wording but differ from that of similar passages in Mark have been solved by another telling realization: that each of the canonical Gospels is the end result of an early history of writing and re-writing, including additions and excisions.
However John , defined as John the Evangelist, is the appointed religious leader. He has been taught the 'secret doctrine' by Jesus himself and may be the apostle who wrote the book of John. Descrepencies are found that show some of the work deleted. In particular the presence of Mary Magdalen at Jesus' feet and by his side throughout his minstery.
The Gospel of "John" is thought to have passed through as many as five stages of construction. Thus, Matthew and Luke, writing independently and probably unknown to each other, used an earlier edition (or editions) of Mark which would have conformed to their agreements. The concept of a unified Gospel document written by a single author, let alone one produced by inspiration, is no longer tenable.
Here we find two of the disciples; James and John,
the sons of Zebedee, were summoned to the men's
help when they were unable to drag out their crowded nets, and that
all who were there were astonished at the enormous draught of
fishes which had been taken; and that when Jesus said to Peter,
"Fear not, from henceforth thou shall catch men," although the
words had been addressed to Peter alone, they all nevertheless
followed him when they had brought their ships to land. This
indicates that John the Baptist is seperate from the disciples
and may connect our theory that John the Baptist is a High Priest as
described on Jesus page 2 and here.
from.. CALLING OF THE APOSTLES AS THEY WERE FISHING.
We now know there was a particular jargon of the Gospel era, a jargon that would have been readily understood by anybody reading the Gospels in the first century and beyond. These jargonistic words have been lost to later interpretation. Today, for example, we call our theatre investors "angels" and our top entertainers "stars", but what would a reader from some distant culture in two thousand years' time make of "The angel went to talk to the stars"? The Gospels are full of these jargonistic words. "The poor", "the lepers", "the multitude", "the blind" -none of these was what we presume it to mean today. Definitions such as "clouds", "sheep", "fishes", "loaves" and a variety of others were all related, just like "stars", to people.
The 'catching of men' is a coded passage. It refers to retrieving men from the water after babtism. The Gentiles who were babtised were sent into the water close to a boat which used nets to hoist them out of the water. The Gentiles were considered 'unclean' and the Priests were not allowed to touch them so they were babtised with the use of a net.. Peter, James and John the apostle were not priests, they were assistansts and it was their job to help hoist the net up and out of the water.
We now know that baptismal priests were called "fishers"; we know that those who aided them by hauling the baptismal candidates into the boats in large nets were called "fishermen"; and we know that the baptismal candidates themselves were called "fishes". The apostles James and John were both ordained "fishers". The brothers Peter and Andrew were lay "fishermen", and Jesus promised them priesthood within the new ministry, saying "I will make you to become fishers of men".
Manner of Death
|Peter||Rome||Crucified head down|
|Andrew||Edessa||Crucified on x-shaped cross|
|James Z||Jerusalem||Killed with sword Acts 12:1-2|
|John||Ephesus or Patmos||Natural causes|
|Bartholomew||India||Beaten and crucified|
|Thomas||Parthia, India||Speared by idolatrous priests|
|Matthew||Nadabah, Ethiopia||Axed to death with a halberd|
|James A (son of Alphaeus or Cleophas)||Jerusalem||Clubbed to death at age 94|
|Thaddaeus (Judas Lebbaeus)||Edessa||Crucified|
|Simon Zelotes (the Canaanite)||Brittainnia||Crucified|
|Judas Iscariot||Jerusalem||Suicide by hanging|
|Matthias||Jerusalem||Stoned and beheaded|
The account of the death of James, Acts 12:1-2 ( Cleophas Matthias' son ) here might not be correct. See the next page for a clearer description of his death.
Jesus is the Son of God used in Christian teaching because it
is written in Christian scripture that he is the only 'begotten
Son of the Father', But there were also 12 appointed to serve him by God himself....
His ancestors traveled from Egypt bringing with them the 'Laws of Moses'. These were the true teachings, the true religion. But something changed the teachings and the real religion Christ spoke of. The interpretations were made by non-initiates. People who could not understand the 'coded' phrases Jesus used. This change and the confusion was predicted by Jesus; it was carried out and the prophesy was fulfilled by paul who could not achieve the righteousness necessary to be 'invited' or 'initiated' into the 'Brotherhood'.
paul was NOT a true Apostle at any time ever, or a prophet or anything close to one. He and only he claimed this, not Jesus, not John the Baptist, not James, the Lord's brother nor any other TRUE disciple of Christ. No One other than paul himself claims this.
Here's The real story..
Jesus’ response to the Sects. By the first century, the sects of Israel had changed character of the Jewish faith. The straight and narrow course that God had set before had become a winding path through Oriental mysticism, Greek humanism, and traditions. Jesus sought to ‘make straight' the confusion of the Jewish sects. He spent much of His time responding to the ideas of these groups. Jesus confronted traditional sources of authority with understanding of the Law. He introduced Israel to the salvation and love of God, alongside His authority. He met the claims to righteousness , which each group made, by declaring all of the sects to be sinners.
That statement alone should tell you, he believed something completely different that all the rest put together. What he taught and believed did not come from any of these sects or sources.
Between AD 66 and 70, a huge porportion of the population
of Palestine had been put to the sword. According to
calculations made from the various reports of Josephus, over
1,350,000 men, women and children had been slaughtered (
Milman: History of the Jews )
- yet the NEW Testament fails to give even a passing mention to the genocide inflicted upon people that are at the heart of the Christian story, many of whom must have been eye-witnesses to the baptism, to the sermons and to the crucifixion of Jesus!
The Second Messiah ; Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas
These people were killed by the Romans to keep them quiet.
Recall; In the 11th century , during the reign of Canute, the people were forbidden to worship the sun, moon, fire and other pagan traditions. Shortly thereafter, Druidic worship was entirely prohibited, forcing initiated Druids underground.
In 1 Corinthians 15, paul is anxious to convince his readers that humans can be resurrected from the dead. Why then does he not point to any traditions that Jesus himself had raised several people from the dead? Where is Lazarus? What he is trying to teach them is that a 'dead' person, with no breath, life or brain function can be resurrected, brought back to life.
We have shown above that each initiate was 'excommunicated', at a specified time in their training period and in their terms and had to spend three days in a burial cave. Only a priest could 'raise them from the dead'. He uses this and delibertly reinterprets the 'living resurrection' completely, because he was never 'raised'. Maybe he was jealous... He was never allowed to take the final degrees of initiation in the secret rights of the brotherhood because he was caught teaching something other than the true religion that he was directed to teach by the real disciples. They didn't trust him and they sent him away. This is clearely stated in Acts.
He then uses Jesus' susposed 'death' to create a religion not consistant with the true teachings. The death was spiritual not literal. Neither the the Romans nor the Greeks ever understood this. And because if it was actually humanly possible, only God could have done it so he assumes Christ will come and resurrect, bring back to life, all the 'dead ones', put flesh back on their dead rotten bones, and cause them to rise to heaven! This is beyond human logic and is not possible!
In several letters paul deals with accusations by
certain unnamed rivals that he is not a legitimate apostle.
Even Peter and James dispute his authority to do certain
things which we go into further on 'Death', page 2.
Can we believe that in such situations no one would ever have
used the argument that paul had not been an actual follower of
Jesus, whereas others had? paul never discusses the point. In
fact, he claims (1 Cor. 9:1 and 15:8) that he has "seen" the
Lord in the same way that Peter and everyone else have.
This is an obvious reference to visions, one of the
standard modes of religious revelation in this period.
The real Apostles never aluded to 'visions'.
And how could paul, in Galatians 2:6,
dismiss with such distain those who had been the very apostles
of Jesus himself?
But in granting them no special status he is not alone. The very concept of "apostle" in early Christian writings is a broad one, meaning simply a preacher of the message (ie, the "gospel") about the Christ. But it applies to a select group of Twelve who possessed special authority arising from their apostleship to Christ while he was on earth. Yes they were special and Jesus says so.
This is because the actual words of the 'twelve' were changed, deleted, rubbed out by Roman and Greek writers. (It is far from clear what "the Twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5 refers to, since paul lists Peter and "the apostles" separately.)
...they leave out any concept of apostolic tradition in the first century writers, no idea of teachings or authority passed on in a chain going back to the original Apostles and Jesus himself. Instead, everything is from the Spirit, meaning direct revelation from God, with each group claiming that the Spirit they have received is the genuine one and reflects the true gospel. This is the basis of paul's claim against his rivals in 2 Corinthians 11:4.
Somewhere after the Crucifixion, Paul and his prisoner Peter went off to Antioch, then on to Rome, and they began the movement that became Christianity. But as recorded in the other annals, Jesus, his brother James and the majority of the other apostles continued the Nazarene movement and progressed it into Europe. It became the Celtic Church. The Nazarene movement as a Church is documented within the Celtic Church records as being formally implemented as the Church of Jesus in AD 37, four years after the Crucifixion. The Roman Church was formed 300 years later, after Jesus' real Christians (Gnostics) had been persecuted for three centuries.
This was just another way of discrediting the true
followers of Christ. Paul intended to 'Use' Peter and may
have threatened his life if he didn't cooperate.
Peter is susposed to be buried in the Vatican.
Did they kill him and put him there so they could have the use
of this story to claim divine rights to the story of Jesus?
Above we find that Peter was crucified in Rome, head down.
We will also show the discrepancies in the murder of James the Less, brother of Jesus, most likely used to 'cover up' his murder on the next page.
Through many centuries the Nazarene-based Celtic Church movement was directly opposed therefore to the Church of Rome. The difference was a simple one: the Nazarene faith was based on the teachings of Jesus himself. The guts of the religion, the moral codes, the behavioural patterns, the social practices, the laws and justices related to Old Testament teaching but with a liberal message of equality in mind-this was the religion of Jesus. Roman Christianity is "Churchianity". It was not the message of Jesus that was important: this Church turned Jesus into the religion. In short, the Nazarene Church was the true social Church. The Roman Church was the Church of the Emperors and the Popes; this was the Imperial hybrid movement.
Since paul had uneffectly hunted
down the rest of the disciples, capturing Peter was the ultimate victory for his cause.
However, James, Philip, Thomas, Peter and Mary Magdalene
escaped and had time to put the truth in writing, because
before James was stoned in 62AD,
the Nag Hammidi collection was created by them and hidden in Egypt by an unknown traveler. The town of Hammidi is just outsite the old city of Thebes. This city is known to be close to the residence of 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th BC dynasty Egyptian Kings and their sacred Temples.
As for Jesus' great appointment of Peter as the "rock"
upon which his church is to be built, no one in the first
century (including the writers of 1 and 2 Peter) ever quotes it
or uses it in the constant debates over authority.
Peter was a traitor, dening Jesus three times before his so-called death. So why would Jesus make him the 'rock' when he cowered in the face of the possibility of his own death, which Christ had already taught, was not the end of life.
This 'Rock' statement then is also an invention of the Church so they could use Peter to their own gain. The possible reality is that Peter would have jumped at this chance to be Pope of his own Church which would then rule over the authority of the nephew of Jesus and Mary Magdalene whom he hated, thus we think the whole thing is 'invention'. They then behead Paul when their use of him is completed.
We know there was a conflict because Jesus himself had given Mary Magdalene direct authority over Peter in the true, Jacobite Jerusalem Church. There were three Mariams who walked with the Lord at all times: his mother and [his] sister and the Magdalene°, she who is called his mate.
2)From the Nag Hammidi texts; "But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what
you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not
believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings
are strange ideas.
3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.
4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?
5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?
6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.
7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.
8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said." Gospel of Mary
The gospel of Thomas relates this: Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven." Gospel of Thomas (114)
The Roman Catholic church maintains that Jesus gave the
Apostle Peter a superior position upon which the entire church
was built, and that the pope's continue Peter’s position as the
rock of the Christian church. In the Greek translation of the
Bible, however, the Greek word petra
refers to a "large rock," whereas, Peter’s name in Greek
is Petros meaning a "small rock" or a "piece of rock."
Somewhat later, Augustine, who was sainted by the Roman Catholic
church, amended the position of the Roman Catholic church by
clarifying that the rock refers to Jesus’ title
of Christ and not to the Apostle Peter:
see PAPAL SUCCESSION IS NOT FROM PETER
Thus, the rock on which Jesus the Christ built His church of believers refers to Peter’s realization that Jesus was the prophesied Christ and not to the Apostle himself. In addition, biblical passages reveal that all of Jesus’ apostles, including the Apostle Peter, taught that Jesus the Christ was the foundation stone and head cornerstone of the church, and not Peter much less any pagan pope.
By 73AD the Romans under Vespasian's son, Titus had all but destroyed the last members of the Enochian-Zadokite Jewish priesthood that we remember as the Jerusalem church. Next, the Emperor Vespasian sent a man named Agricola to Britain with instructions that he was to capture all the Druid sites and take no prisoners. The Druids were the beginnings of the Zadok priests or 'Magi'. The Druids built 'Stone Henge', which is an ancient alter of God. ( see The Magi )
"What happened historically is that those who believed in Jesus before his so-called execution continued to do so afterward. Easter is not about the start of a new faith but about the continuation of an old one. 'Easter' replaced 'Passover' and Jesus hated this so-called Jewish holiday. This means he was alive after this holiday was created. That is the only miracle and the only mystery, and it is more than enough of both."
"The Gospel of Thomas...uses only one title for Jesus.
He is 'the living Jesus', who acts yesterday, today, and
tomorrow as the Wisdom of God here on earth, and his
missionaries participate in that divine Wisdom by how they live,
not just by how they talk.
They do not speak of resurrection but of unbroken and abiding presence."
- John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994)
After Jesus' so-called death, Peter then may have aligned with Paul in the end, after Paul caused James, the Lords brother to be stoned to death. Peter could not keep his faith and his loyality to Jesus, dening him 3 times that fatefull night even though he was a favored disciple, therefore the prophesy was fillfulled. Peter must have been struck deaf and dumb because Peter is never mentioned again.
Paul was considered 'Dead' because only an 'initiate' is called 'alive'. Peter, even though he was a disciple, could not achieve the Status of John the Baptist. He would not give his life for his devotion to Jesus. But John who stood by his convictions, was beheaded, leaving only one true Priest of the Temple of Jerusalem. It wasn't Peter. It wasn't Paul.
The so-called killing of 'the King of the Jews' created alot of public interest in the messianic movement. One such interested person was Saul. Some believe Saul was employed by the Romans to rid the area of any other 'independence fighters'. Many of them were jailed including Simon Peter.
In Acts;5-19, Saul/paul is supposedly blinded and then transformed
to hear Jesus' word and begins preaching about Jesus.
However James is also called the 'messiah',
therefore his name is also 'Jesus' the 'Just One'
and because he becomes the High Priest he is called the
'Teacher of the Righteous'. James is the
High Priest and leader of the true Jerusalem Church.
Saul tells everyone he is seeing and talking
to Jesus. He is actually talking to James, also called
Jesus. Saul does spend time with James , but Saul
is a Roman citizen and a 'Hellenistic', and what James tells
him is not understood and he developes his own literal meaning
to the words of James and makes us believe he
was speeking to 'Jesus'. NOT SO!.
The 'light' he sees is the biggest lie ever told in the sight of God. It is described as a 'vision'. HE NEVER really SEES JESUS AT ALL. Saul then changes his name to Paul in 60AD so that he appears to be a gentile and not Roman.
Many of Paul's innovations HAD to take place--it was impossible to obey Jewish law in the Gentile societies in which Paul's converts lived, and they wouldn't have converted if as an adult they had to be circumcised. However, Paul put MANY of his own spins on things, which are a deep part of established religion now, for better or worse. (We think worse). It is very possible that many of the traditions that we believe Jesus overthrew were not Jesus' words at all but interpretations by Pauline converts--and they were often attempting to persuade against the established Jerusalem church, which in the end, lost the fight. (the winners write the history, you know).
Quote from....Qumran, Essene,
Dead Sea Scrolls Discussion Forum
It makes you wonder if he ( Paul ) either was a Roman agent or fomentor intent on disrupting the Zealots. As a devout follower of Mosaic Law, the last thing Jesus would have encouraged would have been his deification. ..and yet that is exactly what Paul set out to do...in the Temple during the riot, Paul attempts to exonerate himself by disassociating himself with the very group he is purported to be part of...there are many inconsistencies with what we "know" and what was printed in the Scriptures that were included in our present Bible text.
"We are fortunate that scholarship in these documents has opened up but there is a very powerful body of male theologins that would prefer to leave dogma status quo...I believe that Paul created a religion completely out of synch with Christ's intent...e.g. Matthew 5:27. Christ never intended to found a new religion...but rather to embody the Law in his actions rather than merely say the words...we have missed the boat... we are so busy worshipping Christ as a deified person that we have completely missed the message...to be Godlike in all our actions and thoughts...Paul managed to create a doctrine tantamount to heresy and we bought it hook, line and sinker"...
from the readings on Jesus by Edgar Cayce, " Question; What part
did Jesus play in any of his reincarnations in the developement
of the basic teachings of the following religions and
philosophies?" First, Buddhism; ( A ) "This is just One."
( Q ) Mohammedanism, Confucianiam, Shintoism, Brahmanism, Platoism,
Judaism." (A) As has been indicated, the enity - as an enity -
influenced either directly or indirectly all those forms
of philosophy or religious thought that
taught God was One...From the down-loadable pages of the Edgar Cayce Index at.
The meaning of life and death
From the above you now should see that all of the Bible possibly is not all 'the truth'. This is especially evident in the 'NEW Testament' of The Roman Piso family. We have been brainwashed to have BLIND FAITH and believe what ever we are told by church leaders and read in the Bible is literially God's word. If it is God's word then why are there soo many things omitted, 'stricken from the record', deleted, revised and especially Jesus' and Enoch's words left out?
The only other ancient religious sources are the Pyramid Text of Unas, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammidi Text. But nobody can decipher the coded heiroglyphics in the Pyramid. Other texts exist that were excluded from the cannon. This gives reason to believe the texts that were excluded might be truer and more accurate than the ones that were included.
The Pyramids were not burial chambers at all. The pyramid of Sekhemket's sarcophagus chamber was never violated by tomb robbers. The coffer was found intact and cemented shut. When it was opened it was completely empty. This coffer is ONLY for the INITIATE.
It is truely a shame unto man, that he is taught to hate any religion, creed or sect other than his own and that he must do this in order to remain in the churches good graces. But what if you've been defending a Lie which is manifested in a 'false' religion that has prevailed for 2000 years?
Continue with The Death of James
|Back to the Widow's Son||King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba||The Death of James||The False Church||The False Church, page 2||The Lies of Paul||The Pit of Serpents||The Essenes||The Real Jesus||The Dead Sea Scrolls and the 'Master'||Christ's Mission||Jesus, Mary Madglene and the truth||Site Map||www.nostradamus|
Search this site
Our search Engine does not search for the links in this site, only words in the text.
NO PART OF THIS SITE MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE WEBMASTER... © COPYRIGHT 1999 - 2007 C.I.C.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
This page has been visited times since December 1999.