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.  

Empires

 

March 1, 2022

There is more than 300 years between when the Old Testament ends, and the New Testament begins. This period is vital because it set the scene in which the King du jour of Jerusalem makes his entrance. This period begins with Alexander the Great, who in 333 B.C. defeated the Persian Emperor Darius, Alexander defeated and destroyed him at the city of Tyre in Phoenicia, then went into Egypt and built Alexandria in Tyre's stead. Alexander pressed on south eastwards, he went into Babylon, then conquered the Punjab. The extent of Alexander the Great's Empire. How big was Alexander the Great's empire in square miles? At its height, Alexander the Great's empire was one of the largest empires in the ancient world. Here's an approximate measurement of its size: Estimated Area of Alexander the Great's Empire Square miles: 2,000,000 sq mi Square kilometres: 5,200,000 sq km Geographic Extent: Alexander’s empire stretched across:Greece and the Balkans Egypt in the southwest Persia (modern Iran) Parts of Central Asia Into India (as far as the Indus River) This empire was forged in just over a decade (334–323 BCE) and fragmented quickly after Alexander's death in 323 BCE, leading to the rise of the Hellenistic kingdoms (like the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires).

After his death in 323 B.C. from suspected Malaria, his most trusted generals took control of the sprawling empire; Ptolemy Sotor became governor of Egypt, Seleucus ruled in Babylon, and Antigonus ruled in Macedonia and Greece. By the end of the century Palestine too, was part of Alexander's empire.

By the turn of the century a new force was gathering strength in Europe, Rome. In 264 B.C. the Romans got rid of the Carthaginian rulers of Sicily, and captured Corsica and Sardinia. The noted Carthaginian general Hannibal fought back by seizing Saguntum (Spain). He led his troops through the Alps but was defeated at Zama by the Romans. Elsewhere, Antiochus III, a descendent of the Macedonian general Seleucus had become king of Syria and by 198 B.C. had become master of Palestine. His son Antiochus IV Epiphanes occupied Jerusalem, the action that gave rise to the Hasmonaean revolt of the Maccabees. Judas Maccabeus was killed in battle, but still they achieved Jewish independence in 142 B.C. By 107 B.C. Gaius Marius was was Consul of Rome, but the senate preferred Lucius Cornelius Sulla, and Sulla deposed Marius in 82 B.C. and Rome found itself under a terrifyingly malicious dictator.

By 63 B.C. the democratic statesman and general, Gaius Julius Caesar was elected to office, and he ordered troops into the Holy Land which was in a state of sectarian turmoil. The Pharisees who observed extremely strict ancient Jewish law, they had risen in revolt because of the more liberal Greek culture (Helenian), and they opposed the priestly caste of the Sadducees. This turmoil in Israel rendered it ripe for invasion, and under Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) subjugated Judaea and seized Jerusalem, and at the same time annexing Syria and the rest of Palestine.

During that same period, Queen Cleopatra VII had been ruling in Egypt with her brother Ptolemy XIII. After Caesar liaised with the queen, she had her brother killed and began to rule on her own. After this, Caesar went on to wage war in north Africa and Asia Minor, when he returned to Rome in 44 B.C. he was murdered by Republicans on the Ides of March. General Mark Antony and statesman Marcus Lepidus then defeated Caesar's assassins Brutus and, Cassius at Philippi in Macedonia. Antony then deserted his wife to be with Cleopatra, they were defeated at the battle of Actium by Octavian. Following their defeat, Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide. He fell on his own sword after being informed of her death, the queen died by an Asp, a poisonous Egyptian reptile. 

At this time in history, Palestine comprised three different areas, Galilee in the north, Judaea in the south, and Samaria in the middle. Caesar had installed Idumaean Antipater as Procurator of Judaea with his son, Herod, as Governor of Galilee. Antipater was killed not long after and Herod was then appointed King of Judaea. To most of the people of the fledgling Israeli state, Herod was an Arab usurper, sure he had converted to Judaism, but he was not of the Davidic bloodline. In truth Herod's authority was confined to Galilee, the real Roman power was with the Procurator at Caesarea. Between these two, more than 3,000 summary crucifixions were done to coerce the population into submission. They also levied prohibitive taxes on the population. This then, was the world that Jesus was born into. A world of oppression controlled by a false monarchy that was reinforced by a highly organized military force. These fledgling Israelis were in desperate need of their long awaited Messiah (anointed one) – from the Hebrew maisach to anoint. To the Jews, there was no thought of this individual being divine, the person they needed had to be a forceful liberator who could free them from their Roman overlords. In the Dead Sea scrolls there is a text known as the War Rule, this sets out an “Ultimate Battle” that names the Messiah as the Supreme Military Commander of Israel.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the best tools that we have to help us understand the pre-gospel era. They were discovered by chance in 1947 by a Bedouin Sheppard boy named Mohammed ed-Di'b who had been searching for a lost goat among the cliff hill caves of Qumran, near Jericho. He found a number of tall earthen jars, subsequently archaeologists were called to the site and excavations were begun there as well as at nearby Murabba'at and, Mird.

Many jars were discovered in 11 different caves, all told they found 500 Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, that contained Old Testament writings and documents of community record. It's thanks to these texts that we found out that some of their traditions went back to 250 B.C. These texts had been hidden during the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66 -70 AD and had never been retrieved The biblical book of Jeremiah is interesting in that it says in 32:14 “Thus saith the Lord of Hosts... Take these evidences... and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days”. The Copper Scroll gives an inventory of the treasures of Jerusalem and the Kedron valley cemetery, the War Scroll gives us military tactics and strategy,  

The War Scroll. The church makes a big deal about the biblical Book of Revelations, The above war scroll was its Genesis. All that bad stuff was supposed to happen to the Romans.

The Manual of Discipline describes law and legal practice as well as the importance of having the Council of Twelve to preserve the faith of the land. Here emulating Enlil/El Shaddai, the Annunaki council of 12.

In December 1945, another important discovery was made by two peasant brothers, Mohammed and Khalifah Ali,they had been digging for fertilizer in a cemetery near Nag Hammadi Egypt, when they came across a large sealed jar containing 13 leather bound books. These books were written in a style called Gnostic – with esoteric insight. The works were inherently Christian but had Jewish overtones, and gave us information about certain unknown Gospels. They described a world very different from that presented in the bible, where Sodom and Gomorrah were centres of learning instead of places of debauchery. They too incredibly give Jesus's own account of the crucifixion, and his descriptions of what his his true relationship with Mary Magdalene was!

Throughout history, there has been much written and said about secret codes and number sequences in the bible, sure it is there, but much of it is meaningless. The Concept of Secret Codes in the Bible

The idea that the Bible—particularly the Hebrew text—contains secret codes has captivated some researchers and believers. This belief holds that hidden messages are embedded in the text, revealing insights into past, present, and even future events. These messages are often said to be uncovered through Equidistant Letter Sequences (ELS)—a method of selecting letters at regular intervals to reveal words or phrases. The Claim: Hidden Messages in the Torah Proponents of Bible codes suggest: The Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) contains deliberately encoded messages placed there by divine design. These messages are revealed using ELS, in which letters are selected at consistent intervals (e.g., every 7th or 50th letter). The resulting sequences allegedly form names, dates, and events—some of which appear to align with real historical events. Believers argue that this supports the Bible’s divine origin, claiming that no human could have planted such foresight into an ancient document. The Skeptical View: Patterns or Pareidolia? Critics argue: ELS patterns can be found in any long text, whether it's War and Peace or Moby Dick, simply due to the laws of probability. There is no consistent methodology for selecting intervals or deciding which patterns are meaningful. Many "codes" contradict each other or the plain meaning of the surrounding text. The Bible itself promotes clarity—Habakkuk 2:2 says: “Write the vision, and make it plain on tablets, so that a runner may read it.” Scholars often argue that an obsession with hidden codes distracts from the theological, moral, and literary value of the Bible’s message. Example of an ELS (Equidistant Letter Sequence) in Hebrew Let’s take a short section of Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew:

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים (Bereshit bara Elohim)
"In the beginning, God created..."

Now let’s create an ELS from this phrase using a skip of 2:

1. Start with ב (first letter)

2. Skip 1, take the 3rd letter: א

3. Skip 1, take the 5th letter: ב

4. Skip 1, take the 7th letter: א

Sequence = באבא (“Baba” — אבא in Hebrew also means Father)

While this could be seen as meaningful (since "Abba" = Father, a name for God), critics would argue this is a coincidence and that subjective interpretation makes the method unreliable. In Summary

The belief in hidden Bible codes is fascinating and controversial. While some see it as proof of divine authorship, others see it as a classic case of pattern-seeking in random data. Whether one finds it compelling may depend more on faith and interpretive style than on empirical evidence.

A lot of it was placed there on purpose by the church itself to try to increase the bible's mysteriousness, thereby increasing the unlearned peasantry's dependence on the church, in short, it is political theatre. However, some of this nonsense was based on real coded information, and it's purpose was to help the Essenes relate Old Testament books to their own time, and to do this, eschatological knowledge was used. This was a form of coded representation that used traditional words and passages to which were attributed special meanings relevant to contemporary understanding, these meanings were understood by those who knew the code. In today's world we use a sophisticated system of algorithms to encrypt intelligence, and there are equally sophisticated uses of dead drops and the like to move secret stuff around. In Jesus's day, they had not developed these means, so instead they used language.

In the Gospels, we see the use of these codes in particular when heralded by the phrase, “for those with ears to hear”. An example is, when a scribe spoke of the Romans, they used the word kittim – a word for Mediterranean peoples that included the Chaldeans of who the Old Testament describes as, “that bitter and hasty nation which shall march through the breadth of the land to posses dwelling places that are not theirs” Habakkuk 1:6.

Today's view Enlightened readers of the Essenes knew that kittim referred to Romans, similarly the word Babylon. The Gospels were constructed with these dual layers of meaning to protect themselves from the Romans, another example is in 2 Timothy 2:9, a seemingly routine passage “The word of God is not bound”, to an Essene, this was immediately understood to mean that Jesus was not confined because to them; Jesus was the word of god. Another instance is references to the poor, this was not about the under privileged, this indicated those who had been inducted into the Essenes, and who had been obliged to give up their property to the order for the betterment of all, this is from where the Knight Templar took their model from.

The term Lepers denoted someone who had not been inducted in to the higher echelons of the order of light, or the way, as they called it. Healing a Leper meant that the individual was being groomed to the way, there were no silly “miracles” involved here, that individual was doing good honest hard work healing his/her generational traumas.