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.