So I’ve gotten around to the life of the one many consider as their Savior (myself included, actually), but
for a great many reasons there is a lot of mystery surrounding his life and some questions about whether the information was transmitted faithfully. While there are a great many additional myths and legends about him, cutting through all that is quite the challenge.
The virgin birth is one such question. Despite my own opinion, I am endeavoring to outline the various theories and address issues which may or may not be valid as a “fair witness” and leave it to the readers to decide for themselves – at least enough to list them. Actually, one gospel addresses that question in that Matthew recounts the lineage leading to Yeshua’s birth, obliquely making the point that even if his birth wasn’t “virgin”, we are still descended from Adam and, as such, children of our creator. Frankly, I’m of the opinion that if the creator wanted to perform such a miraculous event, who’s going to tell Him (and/or Her) “No”?
I WILL, however, point out that approximately seven years ago I happened to notice an online article about an object which was discovered at the bottom of the Sea of Galilee, and resembled a spacecraft (so it seemed to me at the time). It turn out that the report MAY have been a bit sensationalized, as it's actually a ziggurat about twice the size of Stonehenge, and is accompanied by a crescent-shaped object - that may be the "metallic" object which was mentioned seven years ago.I just thought you might find it interesting.
His early life is fairly well documented, but perhaps I ought to point out that, during the Holy Family’s sojourn in Egypt, they most likely would have spent some time at Alexandria since their was already a Jewish
settlement there. The library of Alexandria was rather famous in those times, and it’s destruction was not to happen for about another 125 years or so, and it’s collection of works of antiquity was extremely prolific (after it’s destruction, scholars from the Library at Dublin would travel and work to re-acquire as much of the ancient tomes, texts, and books as they could). Study was, and still is, a major emphasis in Jewish life.
It is popularly believed that their family, at a later time prior to their return to Nazareth (as a child of Herod the tetrarch was the successor of Herod after his death), had traveled as far south as Karnak, and studies at
the library of Alexandria would have provided clues for understanding the information depicted at the various sites along the way. As to what they learned along the way, only the creator knows for certain in these days.
As to whether or not He married, I believe He did, to Mary Magdalene (or “Magdal Eder”, to mean “Tower of the Flock”, a name she was given probably during or immediately after Yeshua’s crucifixion). Incidentally, the prophet Micah dedicated part of his book to addressing the tower of the flock - look it up, if you’re curious. As I understand it, the emphasis in Jewish life was for the “chosen” people to marry and help replenish the population, especially for a rabbi, life in a beleaguered nation being what it is. Reports of Mary’s prostitution were mistaken, having been initially mentioned by “Pope” Gregory circa 600 AD (or CE). The reformed prostitute would actually have been Peter’s wife.
Anyway, the recorded accounts account for his life until age 12, when he had his Bar Mitzvah (rite of passage into manhood) at the temple in Jerusalem. After that, the gospels are silent as we have them today. My own investigations turned up repeated reports that he spent quite a bit of time at a Buddhist temple in study and meditation, having developed quite a talent as a snake-charmer. It is likely that Buddha lived in a time only one or two centuries after Solomon’s rule and, having read the Analects of the Buddha once, after I had two to three weeks to absorb it, it occurred to me that after I read it, I felt much the same as I did after reading the Proverbs.
It is interesting to recall that the wise men came from “the East”, and having married, it is certain that He would not have been accepted at Qumran, so an alternate site for study and meditation would have been necessary. Since one of the charges which He leveled at the San Hedrin was “taking away the key to knowledge”, it stands to reason that a certain amount of checking doctrine concerning mystical disciplines may have been required. In this day and age, I had to go through quite a bit of that myself, for although these days are termed “the information age”, one Buddhist monk, Karma Lingpa, “prophesied” that his work would not be re-discovered until a “degenerate age”. That actually occurred in 1880.
There is some question of the authenticity of the “exclusivity clause”, in which it is written in today’s versions of the gospels that He made the statement “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” He would not have actually said that unless the creator told Him to say it, but the question is validated to some extent by the subsequent control agendas implemented by what became the Roman Catholic church. It doesn’t really fit the overall character of His ministry, even though He WAS sent first to the Jews, then the “Gentiles”. Since the Catholic church later began a campaign of “If you don’t believe the way we TELL you to believe, we’ll kill you!”, would it be such a big stretch for them to have previously diddled the texts here and there? So the question stands until an answer is provided authentically.
Because of the prophecy in Isaiah 53, with one verse stating “And who can speak of his descendants? For He was cut off from His people…”, main-stream “popular” Christian thought is that He did not marry, but Isaiah’s prophecy did NOT say that He did not marry, it just asks a question about it, if you’ll note (I quoted from the New International Version text). After spending the whole of chapter 53 speaking of the Savior, chapter 54 verse 1 mentions a “desolate woman”. It seems reasonable to me that this is an obscure reference to His wife, Mary Magdalene, having had to continue after His death and resurrection. The actual passage reads “Sing, O barren woman! Rejoice, you who were never in labor. For more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” Desolated because she had to continue because of their children, and though He had resurrected, His death marked the end of their obligation to each other, save her raising their children. As to how many they had, mention in French history of a Merovingian dynasty some 700 years later and reports of popular legends mention a girl (thought to have been named “Sar’h), though a son who was named “Merovee” is likely (the name seems to resemble the Latin for “born at sea”). Mary would have had to sail to get to Gaul, as travel over land would have taken much longer and required passing through difficult terrain. Consider, then, that this also supports the idea that the Celts are descendants of the displace clans of Israel who never returned, AND it was largely because of the influence of the Celts that the excesses of the Catholic church were more confined in their resultant effects and spheres of influence.
I should make mention, to jump ahead a bit temporarily, that a prophecy from Revelation speaks of a woman and child who are taken into the desert to be protected for 1,260 days. Biblical scholars note that a prophetic precedent occurs in Ezekiel when he was required to lay on first one side for 390 days for the punishment of Israel (corresponding to 390 years of slavery in Egypt), then for 40 days on the other side for the punishment of Judah. That the Tanakh/Old Testament was edited/abridged seems clear, else the reason for Judah’s “punishment” would be clearer. Perhaps it corresponds to the time of David’s reign to the time of his adultery with Bathsheba, but that’s a topic for another day.
To re-track to topic, 1260 AD (or CE) was the year in which a major schism began within the Order of the Knights-Templar after information was revealed, which had been recovered from beneath the Temple of Solomon sometime from 1160 to 1175 AD (CE). If it was the census records from the Jewish province of the Roman Empire showing Yeshua’s and Mary’s marriage, it would have been in Latin, most probably, but it’s not too difficult to figure why the Templar hierarchy would wish to delay releasing the information. If it was the Jewish temple records, Hebrew was not a common language of almost 800 years ago, and relations between the Templars and Jews were, at best, strained. Naomi Pasachoff and Robert J. Littman, Jr, point out that there was one Knight-Templar (how do they think they know what color hair he had – from a portrait?) who would not go on Crusade until he went out on a killing spree to target “the slayers of the Savior”. That it was mentioned in Jewish records would not be surprising if he did that regularly.
Anyway, before the Templars could arrange to have any Jewish records translated, first they would have had to mend fences with the Jewish populace, most likely, before any rabbi would accept any offer of information exchange. I have surmised that it was most likely Rabbi Akiba (or Akiva, whichever) who put into writing the Sefer Yetzirah (or Book of Formation) during his 13-year sojourn in that cave, wherever it was. This, I suspect, was among the documents recovered beneath the Temple, as about 40 years later, the Sefer ha Zohar (meaning “Book of Splendor”) was first printed and began to circulate in rabbinic circles. This is my speculation
of the most likely sequence of events. The schism of 1260 AD (CE) was from MacGregor Mathers report on his researches concerning the Knights-Templar.
I jumped ahead for a bit to supply supporting information from subsequent historic reports in support of why I believe Yeshua and Mary Magdalene did, in fact, marry. I have an uncle, Richard Crane, who is not very enthusiastic about this topic, though he no longer attempts to dissuade me from this, as I am usually quick with an answer with which he cannot argue logically. (He also knows how stubborn my family can be once we decide on something, though I was a late-bloomer in that.) I mention that as he is a rather prolific writer of books on various topics relating to Christianity and tangential topics, having been a church pastor for about 30 years previously.
As to various theories regarding the reports of miracles, one such is that because of Qabalistic influences, the “miracles” were reported in terms of a representative allegory. Turning water to wine would mean
elevating the topic(s) of conversation from earthly concerns to contemplation of the divine, to cite one such example. Upon further contemplation, though, this theory does not track very well. Consider that Yahweh, via Yeshua, was working to reach “a stubborn and stiff-necked people”. As such, drastic examples would be needed
to reach them to shake them out of apathetic tendencies, and he would not have been accepted by many as “the Son of God” without an abundance of miracles and His quiet authoritative manner of teaching. What reaches people better, one who shouts and carries on ridiculously or one who states the truth reasonably? And Jews, despite inherent flaws, DO tend to have more regard for reason.
Others point out that He wasn’t the only miracle-worker. So what, the gospel even records one instance in that the disciples encountered one such who drove out demons, and they told him to stop because “he was not
one of us”. Yeshua told them “Don’t stop him, for he who is not against us is for us”. Still others mention that “he didn’t die on the cross, he just entered a coma.” No, I don’t think so. The blood and water coming out of his
side after the legionnaire stuck the spear in his side discounts that. My older sister DID manage to live for
another few years after she started developing water around her heart, but that may be in part because of medical advances in recent years. She actually had a clinical death experience and encountered that “tunnel of light”, but reported that she was sent back because it wasn’t her time yet. We still had to compare notes on our family history, and no one else in our family would have told me, even had they known. But that’s my opinion on the matter.
To what it amounts is this: People believe what they wish to believe. Many do not believe because of those who professed belief, but did not live as though they meant it; because others who came in later years warped it into a means of control by diluting it’s potency in what started as a gradual progression and degenerated practical faith into profession of belief while teaching the lay congregations in effect to disobey.
Whatever you believe about the apostle Paul, if you examine his letters, you’ll note that it was among the Romans where he encountered some of the grossest examples of that. Within ten years preceding the apostle Paul’s execution at Nero’s order, Roman congregations had started the practice of placing the eucharist within a
golden chalice, valuing the symbol of conversion more than the idea it represented. It would have been better to use the gold to help the poor, among their congregation or otherwise.
An Alexandrian elder, Ignatius, finally issued an edict during the early second century that “There are four seasons, there are four elements (alchemy), there should be four gospels”. Why? He was exasperated that some believers of a more gnostic influence were quoting from gospels of which he had never heard. Exactly why
he had not encountered them previously was not mentioned in the report which I had examined. That was arbitrary, and incorrect, determination. There SHOULD be twelve, though I had never heard that Andrew had ever written one – if he did, I have yet to encounter it. There is even one reputed to have been written by Judas Iscariot, which I have read. It reads as though he had in fact written it.
I’ve also read some of the others, at least the reported translations of them. The gospels of Thomas, Philip, and of Mary Magdalene (though hers is a more gnostic work) I have read. It supports the premise stated in the DaVinci Code, although Mr. Brown got that idea from Michael Baigent and Henry Lincoln. Mr. Brown didn’t do any favors for the actual premise in his fictional work, though. He put his own spin on his “historic” evidence quite different in some details from how the outcome of the Council of Nicaea occurred, almost as if he was purposely attempting to undermine it and/or throw church congregations into disarray. That is why, by and large, serious Holy Grail researchers do not refer to his writings much, if at all., as well as the fact that serious investigators prefer to have first-hand information when possible.
I ought to also note that church scholars and theologians rely heavily upon accounts provided by Flavius Josephus, a Jew made a slave who wrote historic commentaries, though there were some reports of his commission of some sort of betrayal of responsibility; Pliny the Elder, whose historic accounts of early church times would have been audited by Caesar Vespacian, the immediate successor to Nero, and Nero’s reputed conduct prompted Vespacian to closely audit historic commentaries; and Justinian, but you’ll have to ask historians about his claim to fame (whether he assumed one or not).
Some cite the fact that the gospels as we have them today were written in later centuries begs questions. True, but don’t forget that, in it’s early years, Christianity was a persecuted belief, so it’s not too big a stretch to believe that any copies found by those trying to stamp it out would have been destroyed, forcing believers to re-write them from memory. Human memory is too-often imperfect, and some details get muddled even after a lot of memorization, even if in a minor way. This proves true even among trained thinkers quite often.
I find it curious that a Caesar who sponsored the Edict of Milan in 312 AD (CE) concerning religious tolerance would participate in a scripting of a doctrine of beliefs for the Christian sect. Constantine seems to have conceded the necessity because the civil discord threatened the stability of the Roman Empire, and I would not have put it past the council members to have inserted their own ideas where possible to curb some of the more extreme tendencies resulting from the idea of “the believer’s freedom”. Certain gospels were also removed, as they reported on the human side of the Savior, which was not in keeping with their attempts at control. They probably rationalized it some other way, but that’s the de facto result.
These attempts at control led to some serious flaws of practice of the Roman Catholic hierarchy:
1) Priests were forbidden to marry after marriages were dissolved, forcing property settlements in which the church actually suffered loss of property, not because of any lack of piety inherent in marriage.
2) People had previously chosen their own confessors, but some who abused the information revealed forced the church hierarchy to take a had in appointing the confessors, and probably encouraged members to call them “Father”, since they would be “sitting in for God”. Unfortunately, this ALSO encouraged a de facto disobedience of Yeshua’s command/advisory (whichever) not to call any man “father, master, or teacher”.
3) At approximately 600 AD (CE), “Pope” Gregory stated the assumption of the “guilt” of Mary Magdalene, assigning to her the sin of prostitution (though it would actually have been Peter’s wife), but reported that she reformed. This may have been the beginning attempt to discredit the notion that the Savior was married.
4) Sometime during the 8th century AD (CE), a certain “Pope” Leo apparently ordered Karl Martel, then a general who served the Merovingian monarch Dagobert L’Unieme (Dagobert the first, in english), to send troops to serve under the Pope’s command. When Martel refused, if he even knew of the order, “Pope” Leo excommunicated him, apparently for disobeying the order of “the Vicar of Christ”. Dagobert I and his family were later assassinated except for the youngest son, who escaped.
5) Circa 750 AD (CE), the church hierarchy issued a “papal bull” which vilified seven angels. What hubris, but it was the result of members of congregations tending to resort to “angel worship”, though this could have been a
distorted reporting on people’s use of angelic charms/talismen.
6) About 1,000 years ago, the church hierarchy began to periodically indulge persecution and outright execution of those who were viewed as dissidents within parishes, as well as others who they portrayed as “opponents of the true faith”. This would continue into the mid-17th century, first on the Cathars during the 1200’s, then the Knights-Templar during the early 14th century, “witches”, and the Spanish inquisition of the 1500’s, in which the church hierarchy would execute parishioners for not vowing acceptance of the “transsubstantiation” doctrine, in which they supposed that the eucharist actually became the blood and body of Christ, rather than being symbolic.
I found it curious that the lay congregation members of the Catholic church more or less bullied the church hierarchy into including Joan of Arc (or Arques) in it’s canon of saints circa 1905. It has also come to my attention that in 1969, the Catholic church “quietly” noncommitally recanted concerning misrepresentations about Mary Magdalene. I DO rather think that “Pope” Francis is very much a breath of fresh air in a rather stale institution, though, even if that church still has a long way to go yet. Another tangent...
Anyway, in the final installment I will finally address the topic I mentioned previously, The Lost Book of Enki, but more for it’s part in my assessment of what started all of this, namely what truly occurred at the Tower of Babel (however you spell it). Be well...
Comments are closed for this blog post