Serenity

 

March 7, 2022

We began this fantastic grail journey by learning about the chaos that was my early years. We spent quite a bit of time there because it taught us about how the universe works, the whys and hows of the shit we go through. As we continued our quest we further learned about a wandering exoplanet that joined our solar system and seeded our earth with life, then it's lifeforms from there, jump started our evolution. We have since learned something about their character, the arrogance they displayed when dealing with us, and treating us as fodder in their wars with each other. We too, have learned that our creation and the reasons for it are very different from those that we have been taught. And it's those learned explanations that have caused no end of trouble, because they disappoint, and fail to answer the question honestly or completely.

As I have related numerous times, there was a fundamental change in how we were taught about the universe and how it works. This took place about 300 years after the mis-adventures of Jesus Christ. With the hijacking of Jesus's, then James's Church of Jerusalem, our then-known concepts of spiritualism and astronomy, and just about everything else took a long frightening trip into darkness. If you want to split hairs, some say the dark ages only lasted about 400 years. Technically this is correct but, if you want to include the backwardness, and ignorance of the church, the dark ages lasted well into the reformation and well into the 1500s A.D. when it became possible to separate the church and science.

Separation of Church and Science. The Concept of Separating Church and State (or Religion and Science)

The idea of separating church and state—or more broadly, religion and science—suggests that these two domains of human experience should operate independently, each with its own sphere of influence and authority. The goal of this separation is to prevent either realm from exerting undue control over the other, thereby fostering a society where both religious freedom and scientific inquiry can thrive.

1. Distinct Domains

Religion:
Primarily concerns itself with matters of faith, spirituality, morality, and the supernatural. It is often grounded in revealed truths, tradition, and personal belief.

Science:
Seeks to understand the natural world through empirical observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

2. Historical Context

Throughout history, there have been periods of tension and conflict between religious institutions and scientific progress—particularly when religious doctrines were treated as scientific facts or when scientific discoveries challenged established religious beliefs.
The modern concept of a clear separation between the two began to take shape during the Enlightenment and has gained prominence in contemporary discourse.

3. Arguments for Separation

• Protecting religious freedom:
  A clear separation prevents the state from imposing religious beliefs on its citizens and ensures that individuals are free to practice their faith without interference.

• Safeguarding science:
  It shields scientific inquiry from religious dogma, allowing for open exploration and the advancement of knowledge based on evidence.

• Promoting pluralism:
  Separation creates space for a diversity of beliefs and perspectives to coexist, fostering a more inclusive and tolerant society.

4. Different Perspectives

• Strict separation:
  Some argue that religion and science are fundamentally different in method and purpose and should remain entirely distinct.

• Dialogue and interaction:
  Others advocate for a more integrated approach, suggesting that collaboration between religious and scientific communities—especially in areas like ethics and social responsibility—can be beneficial.

• Compatibility:
  Some believe that certain religious worldviews can align with scientific understanding and that the two together can offer a more holistic view of reality.

5. Ongoing Debate

The question of how religion and science should relate remains a subject of ongoing debate. Discussions continue around where to draw the line between the two, and whether their interaction leads to conflict or constructive engagement.
In practice, the separation of church and state—or religion and science—is rarely absolute. Its application often varies across cultures and societies, reflecting differing historical and philosophical contexts.

After the Christian church's creation when Emperor Constantine appointed himself the first pope, the church has spent the last 1,700 years tweaking what it believes, how it should be taught, and who is worthy for it to be taught to. This became most problematic because it caused the church to splinter into Protestants, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and god only knows how many other sects. Each of these denominations teach the bible a little differently, a comma here instead of there, this word could mean this but we prefer it to mean that instead. And what we end up with is, a mish-mash of belief systems that does not please anyone.

As I have said elsewhere, throughout my teens, and well into my twenties, I struggled hard to find something to believe in as a higher power. Because of the chaos that I found in the bible, most sermons to me were no God thing but white noise. It was not just that it was a case of this book chapter and verse went with that book, chapter and verse, it was the stories, parables and meanings assigned to them that did not make sense. Then there was the basic question of numbers. The bible was about god, why was it that after 1,300 years of our 5005 year history does He disappear out of the book, then reappear as himself as a fucked up trilogy with an entirely different character? In the Old Testament, is mean, cruel even, the New Testament has Him all about love and turning the other cheek, something his old self would never have done. This thing called the Bible was some piece of messed up work, and for a long time that is where I left it.

So, what does all of this have to do with serenity? In a word, everything, because it left me in a position where I was open-minded enough to consider other possibilities. The bible tells us that god is a jealous god, all that really says is that He does not want us worshipping other gods. In no way does that say that we can not, or should not try to find out more about him. In our article “El Shaddai Is Enlil” Read Here we found out who god is, but what about the other god, the lovey dovey god? For 1,645 years crucial information about Jesus was hidden in earthen jars, the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls. 

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a remarkable collection of ancient Jewish manuscripts discovered between 1947 and 1956 in caves near Qumran, along the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea. Dating from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, the scrolls include fragments from every book of the Hebrew Bible—except Esther—as well as a variety of non-biblical writings such as commentaries, prayers, and community rules.

Key Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls:

• Discovery: Unearthed in eleven caves near Qumran, beginning in 1947.

• Dating: Most scrolls originate from the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, though the full range spans from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE.

• Content: In addition to biblical fragments, the scrolls include sectarian texts believed to be linked to the Essenes, a Jewish sect thought to have lived in the area.

• Significance: Considered one of the most important archaeological discoveries of the 20th century, the scrolls shed light on the religious beliefs, practices, and diversity of ancient Judaism. They also provide critical context for understanding the origins of Christianity and include the oldest known versions of biblical texts.

• Physical Characteristics: Primarily written on parchment and papyrus, with one scroll made of copper.

• Interpretation: Scholars continue to debate the origins and authorship of the scrolls. While many associate them with the Essenes, others propose they were produced by a broader range of Jewish groups in the Second Temple period.

• and the Nag Hammadi codices.

The Nag Hammadi Codices are a collection of 13 ancient books (codices) discovered in 1945 near the town of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. These texts—over 50 in total—include early Christian and Gnostic writings that offer profound insights into the development of early Christianity, especially its more mystical and esoteric branches.

Here’s a closer look at their significance:

• Discovery: The codices were accidentally uncovered by local farmers, buried in a sealed jar near Nag Hammadi.

• Content: They contain a diverse range of texts, including Gnostic gospels, apocalyptic revelations, philosophical discourses, and spiritual treatises.

• Importance: Widely considered one of the most important manuscript discoveries of the 20th century, the codices provide a window into early Christian diversity and the rise of Gnostic thought—perspectives largely suppressed or lost after the institutionalization of orthodoxy.

• Dating: The manuscripts themselves are dated to the mid-4th century CE, though the original compositions likely stem from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

• Gnostic Gospels: Key texts include the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, and Gospel of Truth—works once thought to be lost or destroyed during the Church’s efforts to define doctrinal orthodoxy.

• Language: The texts are written in Coptic, the Egyptian language of the time, using a script derived from Greek.

• Monastic Connection: Scholars believe the codices may have belonged to a nearby monastic community and were deliberately hidden—possibly in response to a 367 CE Easter letter by Bishop Athanasius, which condemned the reading of non-canonical books.

With their discovery, analyses, and translation they throw an entirely different light on the life of Jesus and it turns out he was not so lovey dovey after all. In fact, we find out that instead of being some hapless sap who gets murdered, he was the Supreme Military Commander of Israel's armed insurrection against Rome! This information all of a sudden clarifies why his descent from the Royal House of David is so important, and why he was of such interest to the politicos of both Israel and Rome. It also sheds light on this “new” god doctrine of love.

Sure it is good advise to love thy neighbour, and to turn the other cheek, and Jesus seriously meant it because he needed his countrymen to unite, to forget their petty squabbles and truly come together as one so they could defeat Rome. In practice this is what we are seeing in Ukraine today. In learning about what Christ really was, we get context, which enables us to dive deeper into exactly what he thought and believed. The church does not give us that option. I mean, they were so unimaginative that they did not even include a single cute little story about Christ as a child god getting mad at mom or dad and say ... levitating them. Something that a child would find endearing and would help a child feel closer to this created deity. Instead for most of us, what a child learns in Sunday School is about fear, David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, Job, and scariest of all, child sacrifice. Speaking for myself, as a child none of that provided any kind of sense of serenity.

Learning to see and understand the New Testament's double speak, the Essene code, it becomes clearthat Jesus was no push over, and his parables are real lessons meant to teach us Lepers a whole new way of seeing the universe and coming to their way and light. The Essenes were well versed in medicine, and in other articles, we will learn how they used those skills to save Christ's life during the crucifixion. Those skills were brought from Egypt which was Enki's realm, and Thoth, who was Enki's second born son, taught Hermetics. As we have discovered, Hermetics is about vibration and frequency, about auras-the light, Jesus's teaching were indeed about him showing us the way to the light.

As you can imagine, and it may be what you are experiencing now, but initially this information was mind blowing, and I was literally jumping up and down in both excitement and fear. Fear - you know, the whole going to hell thing. But that soon subsided to be replaced by a type of quiet confidence An inner surety that I understood something most profound, something that the church, and all of it's followers would be incapable of seeing no matter what evidence was placed before them. And at first realizing this, it made me both angry and sad. As my understanding of what the Catholic Church was increased, I would often go into long anti-catholic tirades while out in public, and I undoubtedly offended more than a few Catholics while I was at it. In many ways it was unfair of me to do so, however, I believed then, as I do now, that the church must be held to account for it's crimes against humanity. However, as our article “Pontific Arrogance” says, this is very unlikely to ever happen.

The one thing that gives me a measure of peace about it all is this, if and when the Annunaki ever return and actually make meaningful contact with us, and the Pope asks them who their God is, I will die from laughter when the Annage representative says to the Pope, we are your god you idiot! That will be a tough day for believers and non believers alike. I would think that the unbelievers would benefit from such an encounter, because then they may find some spiritual hope, that hope may come from what the Annage themselves believe. That took me an awfully long time to figure out, between the church's nonsense about heaven and hell, Egyptian mummies, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and the weirder question, do our primates have an afterlife? About that particular question, I do not know if it's answerable, about heaven and hell, well that is relatively easy to answer. Hell is an invented thing that was only introduced to us in second century A.D. The concept of heaven is a borrowed thing, it came from Jame's Church of Jerusalem which was based in Hermetics. So what about mummies, and books of the dead, and coins to pay to get over the River Styx?

Gilgamesh who was a Demi God, (half human and half Annunaki) was obsessed with the Annunaki's seeming immortality, he set himself on a quest to achieve it. What he got instead was a series of mis-adventures that resulted in him living a very long life, but to his great disappointment, he did not achieve immortality. I believe that there was something similar going on with the Pharaohs, as with most men, great power corrupts. Pharaoh wanted the seeming immortality of his god(s), yes he understood the principles of Hermetics, but that was the realm of his priests, he wanted something he could see, smell ,touch and taste. Mummification was a process, and it took quite some time to perfect, making it clear that this was an added thing, an appeasement. If you read “The Egyptian Book of the Dead”, it is an odd mixture of both mumbo jumbo, and principles of Hermetics, equally an added thing.

Serenity, it came with the answers to these mysteries and so many more. This incredible journey allowed my mind to slow, to distract itself from the hell of always being in survival mode. To offer respite from the horrible burning of my resurrection, my rebirth, the one that Jesus taught, not the silliness of what the church teaches where he comes back as some kind of zombie. His teachings do indeed heal the Lepers.

Zombie Jesus. The term "Zombie Jesus" is sometimes used jokingly to refer to Jesus’s resurrection in Christian theology, especially when comparing it to the idea of coming back from the dead like zombies in popular culture. However, Christian theology does not describe Jesus’s resurrection as a zombie-like existence. Instead, it is understood as a unique event where Jesus conquers death and offers new life to believers.

Here’s a breakdown of the concept:

Zombies in Popular Culture:
Zombies are typically portrayed as reanimated corpses driven by a hunger for flesh or brains, lacking consciousness or personality.

Jesus’s Resurrection:
In Christianity, Jesus’s resurrection is seen as a supernatural event where He rises from the dead with a transformed, glorified body—not a decaying one—and then ascends to heaven.

The "Zombie Jesus" Joke:
This term is a lighthearted, sometimes irreverent, comparison between the resurrection and the zombie trope, often used around Easter, when the resurrection is celebrated.

Key Differences:
The main difference is in the nature of the resurrected state. Zombies are depicted as destructive undead beings, whereas Jesus’s resurrection represents victory over death and the promise of eternal life for believers.

Guardians of the Grail

 

March 30, 2022

We left our last article just scratching the surface of our look at angels, let us now delve a little deeper. We know the difference between a regular angel   and an archangel, I don't believe that there are female Archangels That's the mainstream view in most Abrahamic traditions, though it depends on which tradition you're asking about. In the Bible, the only angels specifically named are Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael (Raphael appears in the Book of Tobit, which is considered canonical by Catholics and Orthodox Christians but not by most Protestants). All are referred to using masculine names and grammar. No archangel is explicitly identified as female.

Here's how different traditions generally view it:

• Christianity: The recognized archangels (Michael, Gabriel, and in some traditions Raphael) are not described as female. Angels are generally understood to be spiritual beings without biological sex, even though they often appear in masculine form when interacting with humans.

• Judaism: Similar to Christianity, named archangels such as Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel (in some traditions) are presented with masculine names and roles. Angels are spiritual beings rather than male or female in a biological sense.

• Islam: Angels, including Jibril (Gabriel) and Mikail (Michael), are not considered male or female. The Qur'an specifically rejects the pre-Islamic Arabian belief that angels were God's daughters (Qur'an 37:149–153; 53:27).

So where do female archangels come from?

The idea of female archangels is primarily found in:

• New Age spirituality.

• Modern esoteric traditions.

• Some occult and metaphysical systems. 

Names such as Ariel (often portrayed as female in New Age literature), Charity, Faith, or Sophia are sometimes described as female archangels or angelic beings. These depictions are not based on the biblical canon or the traditional teachings of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

One point of confusion is Sophia, the Greek word for "wisdom." In some early Christian and Gnostic writings, Sophia is personified as feminine, but she is not an archangel in orthodox Christian theology. So if you're asking from the standpoint of traditional biblical Christianity, your understanding is consistent with mainstream doctrine: there are no female archangels named or described in Scripture, and the recognized archangels are presented with masculine identities or names, even though angels themselves are generally understood to be spiritual beings rather than biological males or females

and we know that either could arrive by what can only be mechanical means. Some call Cherubim angels, you know, those things that were mounted on the Ark of the Covenant. This seems to be something of a misnomer, a document from the third century A.D. entitled “The Origin”, describes the immortal Sophia and the ruler Saboath creating a great throne on a four faced chariot called Cherubim... and on that throne he created some other dragon shaped seraphims.

Seraphim. The word "seraphim" is a Hebrew term (שְׂרָפִים, śərāfîm) that means "burning ones" or "fiery ones." It comes from the root śāraph, meaning “to burn.” In the Hebrew Bible, particularly in Isaiah 6, seraphim are celestial beings associated with fire, worship, and the divine presence.

Sumerian Translation?

Sumerian is a much older language than Hebrew, and the concept of “seraphim” does not have a direct linguistic or theological counterpart in the Sumerian pantheon. However, we can explore possible equivalents or analogs:

Term	Language	Meaning	Notes
Seraphim	Hebrew	"Burning ones" (fiery angelic beings)	Described in Isaiah as having six wings, worshipping God
zi-sag or zi-sag-gi-na	Sumerian	“Righteous shining spirit”	A term used for divine or pure spirits
Anunna (Anunnaki)	Sumerian	"Those of royal blood" / “Princes of Heaven”	A group of high-ranking deities who dwell in the heavens and underworld
udug	Sumerian	A spirit, often malevolent but sometimes benevolent	Udug-hul = "evil demon"; udug can also be a divine agent
gallu	Sumerian	Underworld demon or divine messenger	Gallu demons were said to drag people to the underworld

Closest Conceptual Equivalent?

If you are looking for a mythological analogue to the seraphim in Sumerian belief:

• Anunnaki or Igigi (heavenly beings, often attending the high gods) could be seen as analogues in function (serving or attending deities), though not in form or imagery (no fire or burning described).

• Udug or gallu spirits could possibly resemble the fearsome, powerful nature of seraphim, but they’re often darker in tone.

Conclusion:

There is no direct Sumerian translation of “seraphim” because the concept is uniquely Hebrew and part of later Semitic angelology. However, depending on your emphasis—fire, divinity, heavenly servitude, or fearsome power—some Sumerian entities might be used as functional analogues in comparative mythology.

Genesis 3:24 says that the lord stationed cherubims (chariots or mobile thrones) and a sword of fire to protect the Garden of Eden. In a Greek work called The Hypostasis of the Archons, it deals with the rulers of entirety and the creation of Adam, it too calls a heavenly chariot a cherubim. 2 Kings 2:11 says Elijah is taken up in a chariot of fire, so too is described in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. So what we can ascertain from this is, cherubim and their auxiliaries seraphim have never been described as human, as angels have been. In all honesty, it was the fearful Roman establishment that transformed the cherubims and seraphims into adoring celestial putti.

Without exception, all the angels in the New Testament were male and their appointments to angelic office were strictly dynastic. The Book of Enoch was written in the second century B. C., it forecast the restoration of the Messianic dynasties, and laid down ground rules for the structure of the priestly hierarchy. Included was the premise that successive dynastic heads should carry the names of the traditional angels and archangels to denote rank and position.

In the days of King David, the senior priests in order of precedence were Zadok, Abiathar, and Levi, the Essenes at Qumran preserved their priestly heritage by using using those names as titles, badges of rank, the Zadok dynast was also Michael, the Abiathar was Gabriel, and Levi, was Sariel. With this in mind, it changes how we look at Archangel Michael's battle with the dragon in Revelation 12:7, we can now see that it corresponds to the conflict between the Zadokite succession and the beast of blasphemy – imperial Rome. The second beast is that of the rigidly strict regime of the Pharisees who thwarted the ambitions of the Hellenist Jews by segregating Jews from gentiles. This is the beast to which is attributed the number 666, Revelation 13:8 which is the numerically evaluated polar opposite to the spiritual energy of water in the solar force – kundalini.

Priests of the high orders were required to remain celibate, trainee priests were therefore in limited supply and were often raised within a monastic system from within the communities illegitimate sons. Because of Jesus's date of birth, and the controversy surrounding it, he could have very well been raised in the same manner. Conversely, the dynastic heads of both Kingly and priestly successions were required to marry to perpetuate their lines. If for instance the Zadok wanted to have children, he would suspend himself from his priestly duties and turn them over to another, then when those conjugal urges where done, he would then return to his duties as a celibate.

The Zadok Michael in the early gospels was Zacharias, Elizabeth's husband, his priestly deputy was the Abiathar/ Gabriel Simeon. Zack's conjugal visit is very veiled in Luke 1:15-23, his being speechless in the temple meant that he could not speak in his professional capacity. The child that resulted from their union was John the Baptist, who in time succeeded as the Zadokite head.

The head of the Levi priests during Jesus's early ministry was Jonathan Annas. As head of the Levite dynasty he held the third archangelic rank of Sariel, as such he was the King's priest. There were other supreme archangels, Michael the Zadok, Gabriel the Abiathar, Sariel the Levi, as well as a few more who were not dynastic, they were known as, Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father was the equivalent of the Roman Pope – Papa – Father. The Roman church having stolen the term from it's original Jewish source. The position of Father was elective which precluded that title holder from certain other duties. An example is, when Jonathan Annas became the Father, his brother Mathew (the apostle) became his successor as head of the Levite priests, and so Mathew became the Levi of Alphaeus.

The Levites acted as subordinates to the archangels, at their head but junior to the Levi dynast was a chief priest, a bit different from a high priest. He was designated angelically as Raphael. His senior priests were styled in accordance with the original sons of Levi Genesis 29:34 and were named Kohath, Gershon, and Merari. The next priest in seniority was Amram, Moses, and the priestess Miriam. They were senior to Nabad, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithmar – the representative sons of Aaron.

It is at this point that primary aspects of the Grail Code begins to emerge. The heir to the Davidic kingly line held no angelic title, and was not in priestly service. The King's express duty was/is to serve the people, and to champion them against establishment injustices. The name David means beloved, as a beloved servitor and champion of his people Jesus would have made a fine king. One of Jesus's problems was that the lay people could not appreciate his humble code of service as demonstrated in John 13:4-11. Such a charitable action is not the mark of a power seeking dynast, but is a shining example of a type of common fatherhood in the nature of true Grail kingship.

The gospels can not be read as Historically accurate, they tell the story of Jesus as a kind of narrative, sometimes that narrative agrees with other gospels and sometimes not. Either way, Jesus was the focal point of the message. However, not all of those messages were for everyone's ears, as we have seen. Sometimes Jesus went to great lengths to hide his messages in plain sight, just as he hid his angels in plain sight. Jesus spoke in parables, simplifying his message with allegorical talks that basically painted pictures so that his words would be more easily understood. The majority of Jesus's activities were cleverly disguised within the context of diversionary stories, so that those with ears to hear would understand, and those without, not. Clearly the church has never understood their deified human and his true message.

The Gospels contain numerous symbolic elements that have distorted their understanding to this day. These distortions have turned into the accepted church dogma of today. We have already encountered one such distortion, the fishers of men, another is in John 2:1-10 the water to wine incident at Cana. This was Jesus's and the Magdalene's wedding, Jesus had been brought up in the strict environment of the Essene community, nevertheless he realized that Rome could not be defeated while extremes of competitive doctrines existed within the Jewish community as a whole. Remember that Christianity had not yet been created during his lifetime, he was a Jew and his religion was Judaism, and all Jews worshipped El Shaddai/Enlil. Jesus aspired to share the Jewish God with Gentiles because he needed allies.

Jesus was a Hellenist – westernized, and although the Baptist had baptized him, he did not share his views. 

Hellenistic Jews. Hellenistic Judaism refers to a form of Judaism that developed within the Greek-speaking world during the Hellenistic period, roughly from 323 BCE to 31 BCE. It is marked by the integration of Greek language, culture, and philosophy with traditional Jewish religious practices. This movement arose during the era of Second Temple Judaism and spans the period from the conquests of Alexander the Great to the eventual fall of the Jerusalem Temple.

Key Characteristics

Cultural Synthesis:
Hellenistic Judaism represents a blending of Jewish religious beliefs with elements of Greek culture and intellectual life. This synthesis created a unique expression of Jewish identity that was both faithful to its roots and open to external influences.

Greek Language:
Greek became the dominant language among many Jewish communities in the Diaspora, serving not only for everyday communication but also for religious texts and philosophical discourse.

Geographic Dispersion:
This form of Judaism flourished especially in Diaspora communities, most notably in cities such as Alexandria (Egypt) and Antioch (Syria), where Jewish populations interacted closely with Greek-speaking societies.

Engagement with Philosophy:
Hellenistic Jews actively engaged with Greek philosophical schools, particularly Platonism and Stoicism, in their efforts to harmonize Jewish theology with broader intellectual trends.

Influence on Early Christianity:
Many early Christian thinkers, including Paul the Apostle, were shaped by Hellenistic Jewish thought, making this movement a significant bridge between Judaism and emerging Christian theology.

Historical Context

Alexander the Great's Conquests:
The expansion of the Greek empire under Alexander the Great spread Hellenistic culture across the Mediterranean and Near East, bringing Jewish communities into closer contact with Greek traditions.

Second Temple Judaism:
Hellenistic Judaism unfolded within the larger framework of Second Temple Judaism — a period that began with the return from Babylonian exile and concluded with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

The Septuagint:
One of the most important outcomes of this period was the Septuagint — a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It reflects the linguistic and cultural shift of many Jews in the Diaspora and their desire to make scripture accessible to Greek-speaking audiences.

Notable Figures

Philo of Alexandria:
A leading Jewish philosopher of the time, Philo sought to reconcile Jewish scripture with Greek philosophical thought. He is known for his allegorical interpretations of the Bible and his efforts to bridge the two traditions.

The Apostle Paul:
Although a Christian figure, Paul’s background as a Hellenistic Jew is evident in his writings, which blend Jewish theology with Hellenistic rhetorical style and philosophical ideas.

Significance

Cultural Bridging:
Hellenistic Judaism played a crucial role in mediating between Jewish and Greek worlds. It enabled the transmission of Jewish religious ideas to non-Jewish audiences and, in turn, incorporated external cultural insights into Jewish thought.

Religious and Intellectual Influence:
The philosophical and theological currents shaped by Hellenistic Judaism left a lasting mark not only on Judaism but also on the foundations of early Christian doctrine.

Understanding Jewish Diversity:
Studying this period offers valuable insights into the diversity and adaptability of Jewish life and thought in antiquity, highlighting how Jewish identity could evolve while retaining its core commitments.

Jesus had little or no patience for religious factions like the Pharisees, he had one mission and that was liberation. He knew that his people could not be freed from their oppressors until until they had freed themselves from their own sectarianism. He also knew that that the prophesied Messiah was due at that time, and was expected to usher in a new era of deliverance, and as the heir to the Royal Davidic Bloodline, he was the man to do it and that should surprise no one.

  At his wedding at Cana, it's interesting that he hesitated, saying that “mine hour is not yet come”, this refers to the fact that he was not yet anointed. His mother Mary waived his lack of entitlement aside and told the servants to “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it”. The water into wine only appears in the Gospel of John, and it is supposed to be the first of his “miracles”. As the church so often misquotes it, it is not they ran out of wine at the wedding, the text really says, “And when they wanted wine the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine”. The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that only fully initiated celibates presided over by a priest were allowed to partake of wine. All others were regarded as unsanctified and were restricted to a purifying ritual with water, these included married men, novices, gentiles, and all lay Jews. The Gospel continues, “There were six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews”. The thing of it that made the event so special is this, Jesus ignored normal tradition and allowed “unclean” outsiders to partake of the wine because what was really happening here was, communion. Most people believe that communion is a church ritual, it is not, it is a ritual that is an age old tradition with the Essenes and was appropriated by the church.

JC and the Wise Guys

 

March 21, 2022

Simon a recruiter for Jesus's rebel army. "Fishers of men" is a phrase from the Bible, used by Jesus to describe his disciples’ mission to spread the message of faith and draw people toward God. It emphasizes an active, intentional effort to share the gospel—reaching out rather than waiting for others to come.

The sons of Zebedee, the sons of thunder, this is but one example of the code that the Essene used, Thunder and Lightening were the titles of two high ranking ministers of the sanctuary. The symbolic titles came from the events at Mt Sinai, as described in Exodus 19:16 when thunder and lightening enveloped the mountain and Moses went to meet El Shaddai/Enlil. Thunder was a guy known to Jesus as Johnathan Annas, the son of Ananus, the Sadducee high priest from A.D. 6 – 15. His political rival Lightening was known as Simon Magus the chief of the Samaritan Magi, he was known by several different names, the most common coming from the gospels, Simon the Canaanite. Both of these men were not the literal sons of Ananus, instead they were the spiritual sons (deputies/helpers) of the Ananus priest, they were also being instructed by Simon who held the highest patriarchal office, that of the Father.

Here we are presented with a very different picture of the Apostles, the question for me was, why were they presented as fishermen? As it turns out, for the Essenes, the symbolism of fishing was part of the ritual of baptism. Gentiles who wanted to convert to the Essenes way, could not be baptized in water, although they could join Jewish baptismal candidates in the sea, they could only receive priestly blessings after they had been hauled aboard the fishing boats in large nets. This action was symbolic in that, it both raised the individual from symbolic death (by drowning) and, resurrected them as they received the blessing from the priests. The priests who performed the blessings were called Fishers. Both Simon and Andrew were net haulers, and Jesus promised them both a promotion of sorts when in Mark 1:17 Jesus says: “I will make you to become fishers of men”.

Biblical Origin

The phrase appears in the Gospels (Matthew 4:18–22, Mark 1:16–20, Luke 5:2–11, and John 1:40–42), where Jesus calls fishermen to become his disciples, saying, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

Metaphorical Meaning

Jesus used the familiar image of casting nets to illustrate how his followers would “catch” people—not for profit, but for spiritual transformation and inclusion in the kingdom of God.

Active Mission

This calling involves deliberate acts: inviting others to church, sharing personal testimonies, living out Christian values, and collaborating in evangelism. It’s not about passivity but about showing up, reaching out, and engaging hearts.

Beyond Conversion

Being a fisher of men is not merely about conversion numbers. It’s about helping others enter a deeper relationship with God—nurturing faith, building trust, and offering a lived example of spiritual life.

A Lifelong Practice

Just as fishermen repair and recast their nets, disciples are called to keep sharing their faith through perseverance, even after setbacks and discouragement.

Leaders of Men

In some interpretations, “fishers of men” also means “leaders of men”—those who guide others not just toward belief, but toward a transformed way of living—leading men to the Essene Way.

As these truths reveal themselves, it becomes glaringly obvious that these twelve men were not just regular plain old young men who were swept away after hearing Jesus talk about stuff. Simon Magnus was the head of the West Manasseh Magi, a priestly caste of Samaritan philosophers who supported the legitimacy of Jesus. It was these men who were the fabled wise men at Bethlehem. 

The star of which no one has has ever properly explained is , Nibiru

We know from manuscripts about his life, that he was interested in Cosmology, Magnetism, Levitation, and Psychokinesis. He was also a freedom fighter against the Romans, his name as such was, Simon Kananites – Greek the fanatic. This was mis-translated to become Canaanite.

Judas Iscariot was chief of the scribes, it was under his watchful eye that the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced. Judas was head of the East Manasseh Magi, he too advocated for war against Rome. The Romans called him Sicarius - the assassin. A sica was a curved dagger. 

Lebbaeus Thaddaeus is described as a son of Alphaeus, he too was called Judas Theudas in two of the gospels. He was an influential leader of the community and was another Zealot commander. For more than fifty years, since 9 B.C. Thaddaeus was head of the Therapeutate, an ascetic order that evolved during the Egyptian occupation of Qumran. He was a compatriot of Jesus's father Joseph, and took part in the rising against Pontius Pilate in A.D. 32. 

James, said to be another son of Alphaeus, was actually Jonathan Annas, leader of the Thunder party. The name James is an English variant of the name Jacob, and the nominal style of Jacob (James) was Jonathan's patriarchal entitlement. Just as the names of the angels and archangels were preserved within the higher priesthood, so too were the Jewish patriarchal names preserved by the community elders. They were led by a triumvirate of appointed officials to whom were applied the titular names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Mathew too is described as a son of Alphaeus, and was also called Levi. He was in fact Mathew Annas, the brother of Jonathan. He was later to succeed as High Priest from A.D. 42 until deposed by Herod Agrippa I. He was intimately concerned with Jesus's work, and actively promoted the gospel under his name. As Jonathan's successor, he was the chief Levite priest and held the nominal title Levi. He was also a Jerusalem tax collector, who was responsible for collecting the taxes of Jews who had settled outside their homeland. Income from Asia Minor was collected by the Levites and deposited at the treasury at Jerusalem. Both Mathew 9:9 and Luke 5:27 reference the same thing. Thaddaeus, James, and Mathew are all described as sons of Alphaeus, but they were not all brothers. As elsewhere, the word son is here used to denote a deputy position. The style of Alphaeus did not imply relation to a person or place, the word simply means, the succession.

John 1:45-49 says that Phillip was an associate of Jonathan Annas, he was an uncircumcised gentile proslyte. He was head of the Order of the Shem – bread = MFKZT. See our article “MFKZT The Jesus Connection Look Here for more on this. The Coptic Gospel of Phillip was written in his name. Bartholomew (John Mark) was Phillip's evangelical and political companion. He was chief of the Proslytes and an official of the influential Egyptian Therapeutate at Qumran. The gospels do not say much about Thomas but, we know that he was one of the most influential evangelists for JC, he preached in Syria, Persia, and India. He was born a prince of the Herodian line, but lost his inheritance when his mother Mariamne II was divorced by King Herod after she tried to assassinate him.

Mariamne II. What Does the Name Mariamne Mean?
Mariamne – Name Meaning & Origin

The name Mariamne is a New Testament Greek name, possibly meaning "rebellious." However, its roots may trace even further back to ancient Egyptian, where mr means "love" and mry translates to "beloved."

Historical Context:
Mariamne I was a Hasmonean princess and the second wife of Herod the Great, King of Judea under the Roman Empire. Despite ordering her execution, Herod was said to be so grief-stricken that he preserved her body in honey for seven years.

Who Was Herod’s First Wife?
Herod's first wife was Doris, whom he married before rising to power. Once he sought to strengthen his political position, he divorced Doris to marry into the Hasmonean dynasty by taking Mariamne as his wife.

Why Did Herod Execute Mariamne?
Mariamne was famed for her beauty, as was her brother Aristobulus III. Herod, deeply paranoid and fearful of Hasmonean influence, viewed them as threats to his rule. Driven by political insecurity, he ultimately executed many prominent Hasmoneans, including Mariamne herself.

Simon Peter and Andrew, here we are dealing with the two apostles who seem to be the most prominent of them all, that is not quite accurate. As listed here, the apostles are in reverse order of their importance because in this way it protects their identities and true position from the Romans. Both of these fellows were ordinary village Essenes and held no office within the community. Peter eventually became Jesus's right hand man and was nick named Cephas – the stone, he was noted for being unflappable . He was Jesus's chief body guard. After Peter's wife died, he became an evangelist and was largely responsible for spreading the Gospels in Rome. He was eventually martyred by crucifixion during Emperor Nero's persecution of Christians.

This next bit is quite complex, but we need to have a closer look at the priestly and angelic structure of the community at Qumran. We have touched on the fact that the angelic structure was maintained within the priestly hierarchy of the Qumran community – so that the highest ranking priest was not only the Zadok dynast but was also the archangel Michael. Thus he was the Michael-Zadok (the Melchizedek). Second in ranking was the Abiathar, who was also the angel Gabriel. Let us look at this far more closely because it will better explain the Apostles professional and social status.

Now, first things first, THERE IS NOTHING ETHERAL OR SPIRITUAL ABOUT THE WORD ANGEL. The word simply means messenger, the prefix arch simply adds the word chief to it – chief messenger. The Old Testament describes two types of angels, most of whom acted like ordinary human beings like in Genesis 19:1-3, when angels visited Lot's home and they ate unleavened bread, or the one who sat under the oak tree with Gideon.

The angel who appeared to Gideon is identified as the Angel of the Lord, a figure often understood as a theophany—a visible manifestation of God in human form—and sometimes believed to be the pre-incarnate Christ. This encounter took place while Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress, hiding it from the Midianites.

A Closer Look at the Encounter:

The Angel’s Appearance:
The Angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon under an oak tree in Ophrah, at a time when Israel was suffering under Midianite oppression.

Gideon’s Circumstances:
Gideon was discouraged and fearful, hiding from the Midianites and questioning why God had seemingly abandoned Israel.

The Angel’s Message:
The angel greeted Gideon with the striking words, “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior,” and commissioned him to deliver Israel from Midianite rule.

Gideon’s Doubts:
Gideon expressed uncertainty about his ability to lead, citing his lowly status and the overwhelming strength of the enemy.

Divine Reassurance:
The angel assured him that God would be with him, enabling him to defeat the Midianites—an assurance central to the biblical theme of divine empowerment.

Theophany and Realization:
Gideon later realized he had encountered not just an angel, but God Himself, leading to fear that he might die from having seen the Lord face to face. This deepens the view that the Angel of the Lord was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ, the second person of the Trinity.

Spiritual Significance:
This encounter marks a pivotal moment of divine intervention. God's calling of Gideon underscores the theme of unexpected leadership and foreshadows the New Testament promise of “God with us” (Enlil), revealing God's enduring presence with His people.

The other type of angel was seemingly different, more dangerous because they often had swords like in 1 Chronicles 21:14-16. None of them are described as being divine, nor did they have bright white robes with graceful wings coming out of their shoulder blades. As we know the Old Testament is exclusively about the Annunaki, and many of the encounters with angels is referenced by them arriving in a technological contraption of some sort.

 Most of these contraptions we are given to understand are fiery flying machines - chariots. The only people on earth at that time that possessed that type of technology were the Annunaki. They were our overlords, and it was not uncommon for them to send messengers out to whatever individual for whatever purpose. As you or I would do it, we would send a regular messenger to deliver a regular message, however, if that message deserved more serious attention, we would send a cop, or a lawyers letter, maybe the army. So too did the Annunaki in the form of an Archangel. 

Eighty Two

March 9, 2022

King Joseph was having his way with the young almah, (woman) Mary who was a temple priestess in Jerusalem. She too was of the Davidic bloodline, or else she'd not have been eligible to become Joseph's wife. There was no supernatural nonsense here.

Jesus's descent from the blood royal of the Annunaki really messed him up. It led to all kinds of questions, the major two being, was he the son of man, or the son of god? These questions were sort of moot because he was both. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1:3-4 says “Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the son of God”. Similar statements are made in Mark 10:47, Mathew 22:42, the Book of Acts 2:30 has Peter referring to King David, calls Jesus the “fruit of his loins according to the flesh”.

Jesus spoke strangely, some of the confusion surrounding his divinity it seems was caused by himself, by calling god his, as individually his, heavenly father in a supernatural sense.

Jesus' Use of "Son of Man" vs "Son of God"

Title	# of Times Jesus Uses It	Books Appearing In	Context/Meaning	Examples
Son of Man	~80 times	Matthew, Mark, Luke, John	- Emphasizes humanity and messianic role (Daniel 7:13) - Speaks of suffering, resurrection, authority, judgment	- “The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6) - “The Son of Man will suffer…” (Mark 8:31)
Son of God	~3–5 times directly	Mostly John, some Synoptics	- Affirms divine nature, unique relationship with the Father - Often stated by others; Jesus confirms it under pressure	- “I am the Son of God” (John 10:36) - “You say that I am” (Luke 22:70)

Additional Notes:

• "Son of Man" is Jesus’ preferred title — used in teaching, prophecy, and self-description.

• "Son of God" is acknowledged by Jesus but not frequently self-declared — He lets others make the claim and affirms it when challenged.

Most of the New Testament gives the notion that all believers are the sons, or children of god, both John 1:12, and Romans 8:14, as well as 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 all use nearly identical language. As I just said Jesus spoke strangely, he mostly referred to himself as the Son of Man as in Mathew, 16:13, and again in Mathew 26:63-64 as well as Luke 22:70

The Son of Man, outside of scripture has a rather special significance in regards to the angelic structure used by the Essenes, and the Davidic bloodline. Jesus was descended from the tribe of Judah, and held no priestly office at all, such rights were held only by the Order of Arron and the tribe of Levi. Jesus as a Davidic heir had a lay attachment to the angelic hierarchy as a spiritual son of the angel Gabriel. The name Gabriel means, Man of God, in the imagery found in Ezekiel 1:10 living creatures, Gabriel represented the category of man, thus Jesus was the son of man. In his capacity of being the Messiah, he personified the sovereign obligation for championing his people against injustice. This is the obligation that was/is inherited by later de facto dynasts of his line, as such it forms part of the Grail code. It means that kings were the “common fathers” of nations rather than supreme rulers of lands.

Jesus's biggest problem was whether or not he was a legitimate messiah, as we have touched on in previous articles, Jesus was born out of time as is discussed in depth in our article “Mary and Old Joe”. It was for this reason that Mary and Joe took Jesus to Simeon the Gabriel for legitimization under the law Luke 2:25-35. Even though his parents made this huge political effort, Jesus still evoked powerful disputes among the people. In some ways Jesus's whole effort was doomed to failure from the start, partly because of his date of birth, and partly because the people felt that they had a legitimate messiah in his brother James, and really, the church does it's best to keep this bit unknown to it's followers, but James carried on Jesus's teaching long after Jesus's “death”. What is not commonly known is that in A.D. 23, their father Joseph died, thereby it became imperative that an heir was chosen, Jesus picked up the ball.

Prevailing custom had it that the Davidic kings were closely allied with the Zadokite priests, and the prevailing priest of the time was none other than, John the Baptist. The baptist had risen to prominence with the arrival of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. John was very much a Hebrew, and Jesus was a Hellenist, but nevertheless John baptized Jesus, but politically supported James. It was because of John's attitude that Jesus realized that he must make a stand, if he really wanted a revived Jewish kingdom and to unite the people, he decided to form his own “political” party, his vision was straightforward, he knew that a divided Israel could not defeat the might of Rome. He also realized that the Jews needed allies, and that they could not continue to hold themselves separate from the gentiles (non native Jews). His plan was ambitious, He needed the Kingdom of Israel to be completely integrated and harmonious, and he was more than a little frustrated by unbending Jews of rigid Hebrew principle. Jesus knew that a Messiah had been prophesied, he knew just how desperately one was needed, John the Baptist could have filled that role but was too much of a recluse, his brother

James was doing precious little to campaign for himself, in fact all he was doing was hanging out with High Priest Caiaphas, and basking in the Baptist's support. So Jesus picked up the ball, and stepped into the limelight, and became what the people needed despite what the wrangling politicos thought. This he had every right to do, he was the first born of his father, he was the accepted Davidic dynast, the spiritual son of the angel Gabriel- in the eyes of the Hellenists, he too had the support of the gentiles as well as Proselytes- baptized converts to Judaism.

In doing this Jesus was a threat to the Herodians, the Romans, Jewish sectarian nationalists the Pharisees, and Sadducees, who sought dominance over the gentiles. 

Guys Jesus threatened everyone. Jesus was seen as a genuine threat—by King Herod, the religious leaders, and even the Roman Empire. He lived by a radically different script, rejecting the mindset of scarcity, fear, and control. Instead, he embodied a message of trust, openness, mercy, and acceptance—one that challenged the foundations of power and tradition.

The Sadducees became alarmed only when Jesus began to be perceived as a serious political threat (Mark 11:8; John 11:47–48). The turning point came with the raising of Lazarus, which not only drew massive attention but also directly contradicted their denial of the resurrection. From that moment, they moved decisively against him.

To the Romans, Jesus posed no military or political challenge in the traditional sense, but his influence was undeniable. He drew immense crowds, stirring hope and expectation—conditions that Roman authorities viewed as potentially explosive. Any figure who could inspire the masses was seen as a threat to the stability of the empire.

For the Pharisees, Jesus was a direct challenge to their religious authority. He refused to conform to their legalistic practices and called out their hypocrisy. By offering a new path—one grounded in compassion and inner transformation—he exposed the shallowness of their control over spiritual life.

He disregarded the rules of his community and took the establishment head on, he sought acceptance as both king and priest that promoted an idea of princely service that would carve it's mark in time.

The church paints Jesus as kind of faint hearted and as a pacifist, in reality he was anything but. He knew that his position would make him unpopular with both the Romans and, the The Jews own elder governing body, the Sanhedrin. His purpose is made plain in Mathew 10:34 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I come not to send peace, but a sword”. Is it not odd that a group of regular working men would give up their livelihoods for a man who said from the outset “Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake” Mathew 10:22 At that time, despite what the church tries to make you believe, their was no formal thing called Christianity to preach and we are expected to believe that his apostles just followed him blindly into the unknown to become “fishers of men”. So who were these apostles?

Luke 6:13 and 10:1 tell us that Jesus had 82 followers, 70 he sent out to preach and, 12 were his immediate people. The church would have us believe otherwise but, all of them were armed, Luke 22:36 says “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”. The gospels all agree that Simon was the first recruit, three of the four gospels also mention his brother Andrew being recruited at the same time. This probably took place at the Sea of Galilee where the two of them were mending their nets. John 1:28-43 says that the Baptist was there, however, Mark 1:14-18 says that the Baptist was in prison

ohn the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, for publicly condemning Herod’s marriage to Herodias—his brother’s former wife. While in prison, John heard about the works of Jesus and sent his disciples to ask whether Jesus was truly the Messiah or if they should expect someone else. In response, Jesus told them to report back what they had witnessed: the blind receiving sight, the lame walking, lepers being cleansed, the deaf hearing, the dead raised, and the good news being preached to the poor.

Eventually, under pressure from Herodias, Herod ordered John’s execution by beheading—an act that fulfilled her long-held grudge.

Breakdown:

Imprisonment:
John was arrested by Herod Antipas for denouncing his unlawful marriage to Herodias.

Doubt and Inquiry:
From prison, John sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the long-awaited Messiah.

Jesus’s Response:
Jesus pointed to the miracles he was performing as signs of his identity—acts of healing, restoration, and hope.

Execution:
Prompted by Herodias’s manipulations, Herod had John executed, silencing a powerful prophetic voice.

Significance:
The story underscores the tension between moral conviction and political power. It also affirms John’s role as the forerunner to Jesus, preparing the way through both his message and martyrdom.

John's gospel is likely more accurate, because the first disciples were recruited in March of 29 A.D, Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews tells us that Jesus began his ministry in the 15^th year of Tiberius Caesar's rule, making that AD 29, the Baptist was not discredited until a year later AD 30, John 3:24. The Baptist was executed by Herod Antipas in September AD 31.

James and John are next on the scene, they were the sons of Zebedee, Levi was next, then Mathew. An early recruit was Philip from Bethsaida, the home town of Simon and Andrew. Philip then recruited Nathanael of Cana into the fold, from here, no more is said of individual appointments. It is then explained that Jesus then gathered all his disciples together, and then chose his his favoured twelve. As the bible has been written then rewritten, certain anomalies appear, Levi disappears, as does Nathanael; Mathew then is listed everywhere. Lebbaeus Thaddaeus is listed in the gospels of Mathew and Mark as one of the twelve whereas, the other gospels do not. The books of Luke and Acts says Judas the brother of James was one of the twelve, oddly he does not appear anywhere else . Mathew and Mark then introduce us to Simon Zelotes the Canaanite.

The book of Mark tells us how Jesus gave Simon's brother Andrew, the name of “Peter” awhile after their meeting, both Mathew and Luke say that he had this name already. From the book of John welearn that Simon and Andrew were the sons of Jona and, that Jesus referred to James and John, the sons of Zebedee as, Boanerges – Sons of Thunder. Levi is the son of Alphaeus, as well as is James. Thomas is an apostle throughout all the gospels, and in both John and Acts is called Didymus – the twin. Bartholomew, Philip, and Judas Iscariot are all listed as apostles in all the gospels. Obviously these men were not a group of altruists who abandoned everything to join who the church presents as a faith healer, even if he was a descendent of the Royal House of David, because at that point, Jesus had not yet gained any type of reputation. The Gospels as presented in the New Testament were written so as to not arouse suspicion from the Romans, much of their content was written in an esoteric way for an audience who would understand what was written between the lines; in understanding this, it becomes obvious that there is vital information missing from the church's version of them.

It is thanks to people like Dr Barbara Thiering that we can now enter the fascinating world of scribal codes, for more than 30 years she has researched the Dead Sea Scrolls, and this has enabled a wealth of information to be discovered which allows us to now enter the formidable world of Jesus, the Messiah - the Son of David.

The church of today has no understanding of who Christ was. The claim that “the church has no idea who Christ was” is an over generalization that overlooks the rich diversity of perspectives within Christianity regarding the nature and identity of Jesus Christ. While interpretations may differ across denominations and historical periods, the Christian tradition has consistently engaged with the question of who Jesus is, developing nuanced theological frameworks over time.

1. Diverse Christian Views on Jesus

Divinity and Humanity
Many Christians affirm that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human—a belief central to the Nicene Creed and foundational to most mainstream Christian theology.

Christ as Savior
At the heart of Christianity is the belief that Jesus’s death and resurrection atoned for humanity’s sins, offering redemption and eternal life to believers.

Jesus as the Son of God
Jesus is widely recognized as the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, and God incarnate—central claims in Christian doctrine.

Prophet, Teacher, and Moral Exemplar
Some traditions emphasize Jesus’s role as a prophet and teacher, highlighting his moral teachings, compassion, and example of righteous living, even while upholding his divinity.

Jesus as a Historical Figure
Though debates continue around certain Gospel events, the scholarly consensus affirms that Jesus was a real, first-century Jewish teacher and healer from Roman-occupied Judea.

2. The Church’s Role in Understanding Christ

Throughout history, the Church has actively wrestled with understanding and articulating Christ’s identity. This has led to theological debates, ecumenical councils, and the development of creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed.

Early Christian texts, such as Paul’s letters and the four Gospels, already reflect a variety of theological perspectives, showing that diversity of belief has existed from Christianity’s inception.

Today, while Christian denominations differ on certain theological points, all uphold Jesus as central to the faith.

3. The “Christ of Faith” vs. the “Jesus of History”

Theologian Martin Kähler famously distinguished between the “Jesus of history”—the figure studied by historians—and the “Christ of faith”—the object of Christian belief and worship. This distinction acknowledges the tension between academic analysis and theological interpretation while affirming the significance of both.

4. The Church as Christ’s Presence in the World

Across traditions, the Church is understood as the ongoing presence of Christ in the world—living out his mission through the Word, the Sacraments, and communal life. It is often referred to as the Body of Christ, with believers united in him and participating in his redemptive work.

Conclusion
The idea that the Church “has no idea who Christ was” misrepresents both the historical and theological efforts made over centuries to understand and articulate the identity of Jesus. While there is no single, monolithic interpretation, Christianity is rooted in well-developed beliefs about Christ’s divinity, humanity, and saving work. Far from ignorance, the Church reflects a deep and ongoing engagement with the mystery and meaning of Jesus Christ. As we said, no real clear idea of who Christ was.

In order to understand our true spirituality, it is necessary to dismantle the church's narrative of who they want us to believe Christ was and is. Without doing so, an individual will always turn in circles, and be continuously tripped up by false information, which thereby inhibits our ability to maintain momentum while increasing vibrational harmonies.