This week we deal with questions on the iconic brother of Jesus
JUST WHO BECAME THE LEADER OF THE EARLY CHURCH AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION? READING THE BOOK OF ACTS, IT’S LIKE IT’S A TOSS-UP BETWEEN PETER AND PAUL AND NOT JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS AS YOU SUGGEST. The truth of the matter is that the official early church was led neither by Paul nor Simon Peter but by James the Just, the immediate younger brother of Jesus. The top three in the apostolic hierarchy were James, Simon Peter, and John the “Son of Zebedee” in that order. These three were referred to as “The Pillars” (GALATIANS 2:9). Paul was the so-called Thirteenth Apostle. He was a John-Come-Lately who was unilaterally commissioned into evangelistic duty by Jesus at the say-so of the behind-the-scenes Anunnaki. Although he was at long last welcomed into the fold by James and company, he was never fully embraced as an apostle owing to his unsavoury track record as a persecutor of the church and because of his brand of theology that was at cross-purposes with what James and others preached. It explains why in 1 CORINTHIANS chapter 9, Paul goes out of his way to set down his bona fides as an apostle with full stripes.
YOU SAID JESUS WAS SUCCEEDED BY HIS YOUNGER BROTHER JAMES AS THE LEADER OF THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT. IS THERE EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE THAT THAT WAS INDEED THE CASE? There is ample evidence yes. Let’s start with the testimony of Paul. In GALATIANS 1:18-19, Paul says when he decided to close ranks with the Christian movement after three years of introspection, the only apostles he met were Peter and James, that is, the top two. In ACTS 12:17, Simon Peter, after his escape from prison, relays word to some people that “James and the brothers” (that is, the other brothers of Jesus) should be notified of his freedom. Obviously, the reason it was necessary for James to be informed of Peter’s circumstances was because he was the head of the movement.
In ACTS 21:17-18, Luke relates that when he went to Jerusalem as part of a deputation led by Paul, the person they sought to meet was James. When the meeting was held the following day, “all the elders were present”, incontrovertible evidence that James was the leader of the early church. Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that James was the head of the Christian movement after the crucifixion can be gleaned from ACTS chapter 15. At a Jerusalem conference (“Jerusalem” here meaning Qumran, as that was one of its nicknames) held in AD 50, at which matters of crucial importance were to be deliberated and codified and where Paul and all the apostles and elders were present, the concluding speakers were Simon Peter and James. But of the two, it was James who spoke last and pronounced the binding decision. He said, “It is my judgement that …” That doubtless was the voice of the highest authority.
DID JESUS EXPRESSLY APPOINT HIS YOUNGER BROTHER JAMES AS HIS SUCCESSOR? I DON’T SEE THAT IN THE GOSPELS. True, that is not made plain in the Bible but it is in extra-biblical sources. In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, for example, saying 12 has the disciples say to Jesus: “We know that you will leave us. Who is going to be our leader then?” Jesus answers: “No matter where you go, you are to go to James the Just,” meaning that the authority of James was not restricted to Jerusalem but was inclusive of the Diaspora. A Syriac source titled The Ascents of James, says, “The church in Jerusalem that was established by our Lord was increasing in numbers being ruled uprightly and firmly by James who was made Overseer over it by our Lord”.
The Clementine Recognitions also has this to say of James: “Wherefore observe the greatest caution that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him.” The elevation of Simon Peter at the expense of James was a ploy by the Vatican to undermine the Jesus dynasty and write it into oblivion. The Vatican claims apostolic descent from Simon Peter, who they say was the first Pope. Yet Peter never held any formal office. The first Pope was Britain’s Prince Linus. This fact, ironically, is recorded in the Vatican’s own Apostolic Constitutions. Prince Linus wasn’t even installed by Peter: he was installed by the apostle Paul in 58 AD and this was during Peter’s lifetime.
JESUS DESIGNATED SIMON PETER AS THE ROCK UPON WHICH HE WAS GOING TO BUILD HIS CHURCH, MEANING HIS SUCCESSOR ONCE HE HAD DEPARTED THE EARTHLY SCENE. HOW DOES THIS SQUARE WITH YOUR ASSERTION THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED BY HIS YOUNGER BROTHER JAMES AS THE LEADER OF THE EARLY CHURCH? The inference that Simon Peter was Jesus’s anointed successor stems from MATTHEW 16:18, which reads, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it”. The statement, which was uttered by Jesus in AD 32, that is, before the crucifixion, has been taken wholly out of context. The English translation from the original Greek has also contributed to the distortion. We know Simon Peter was nicknamed “Rocky” by Jesus because of his tough-man demeanour and owing to the fact that he was Jesus’s chief bodyguard in his capacity as the Davidic King. But Peter did have other responsibilities. Not only was he Jesus’s chief spokesman but he was also his lead evangelist being a dynamic and fiery speaker. At Qumran, the Essene headquarters, Peter was in AD 32 put in charge of the ekklesia, meaning “the called-out”, by Jesus, who at the time was third in the Qumran priestly hierarchy.
The ekklesia were married men (as opposed to celibates, another specific Essene class) from Essene villages who from time to time were called upon to bring along food tithes for the Essene priests. Since they came from all over, they spent some time at Qumran before they returned to their families. The ekklesia were also known as the Kath holon, meaning “according to the whole ones”. They were whole (holos) because unlike celibates they were married and so were complete. It is the term Kath holon which gives us the English word Catholic, meaning “universal”.
Thus in MATTHEW 16:18, Jesus was simply assigning Peter a new Qumran responsibility and not designating him as his successor. In any case, the nickname Peter, Petros in Greek, means “small stone” or “pebble”. You don’t build a globalwide church on a pebble; you build it on a real rock. As for the statement “the gates of hades will not overpower it”, this was figurative language. The “gates of Hades” were a set of objectionable vices. In the Dead Sea Scrolls’ Community Document, they are also known as the “three nets of Belial”. They were fornication, love of riches, and conduct that served to defile the Qumran sanctuary. In employing the term, all Jesus was saying was that Simon Peter’s assigned ministry would never be corrupted by these kinds of temptation because he was a married man, principled, and content with his standard of living.
IN MATTHEW 16:19, JESUS HANDED THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN TO SIMON PETER. IN OTHER WORDS, HE TIPPED PETER AS HIS SUCCESSOR AND NOT HIS BROTHER JAMES AS YOU ALLEGE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN YOURSELF OUT OF THS STARK FACT? MATTHEW 16:19 reads, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Again this is another passage of the scriptures that has been blown out of proportion, much like MATTHEW 16:18, and upon which the Vatican seized to elevate Simon Peter to a status he did not remotely deserve. If we are to properly contextualise the statement, it is crucial that we turn to IASIAH 22:22, which reads as follows: “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David.
He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” This is Enlil, the Anunnaki god of the Jews best-known as Jehovah, talking about Eliakim, the royal chamberlain (an officer who managed the household of a monarch) of King Hezekiah of Judah (who was of the Davidic lineage). The “keys of the kingdom of heaven” is thus synonymous with the “key of the House of David”. But the key in Isaiah was not promised to the King’s heir: it was promised to a chief of staff of the King’s palatial personnel.
Eliakim was not the King’s heir apparent but his right-hand man. Similarly therefore, what Jesus was saying to Peter was that he was designating him as the right-hand man to his successor – his younger brother James the Just. That’s what Peter actually became post the crucifixion. He was James’s right pillar, whereas John was James’s left pillar. Peter was commissioned by James to minister to Jews in the Diaspora (GALATIANS 2:2). He was given the authority to admit Diaspora Jews (pry them loose from worldly shackles) into the Essene fraternity (codenamed “Heaven”, whereas non-Essenes were said to be “of Earth” or “of the World”) or expel them where they were errant (bind them).
IF JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS TOOK OVER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE EARLY CHURCH AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF JESUS, THEN HOW COME THAT IN THE EARLY CHAPTERS OF ACTS IT IS SIMON PETER WHO WE SEE TAKE CENTRE STAGE AND EXERCISE HEGEMONY INSTEAD OF JAMES? Simon Peter was initially deliberately promoted by Luke – in his book of Acts – at the expense of James. Now, although Luke is impeccable when it comes to the historical settings of his narratives (places, civic institutions and authorities, etc), he is unabashedly biased in one particular vein – his marginalisation of the role of the family of Jesus in the evolution of the early church. I will give only a few examples though they abound both in his gospel and in Acts. In the gospel, he never mentions a single name of Jesus’s brothers though Mark, his main source, categorically does so. In Acts, he starts by casting Peter as the leader of the church, instead of James; then at some stage, once Paul is introduced, the story becomes a one-way trumpeting of the exploits of Paul. Luke was a fan, physician, and travelling companion of Paul and therefore Paul had to be exalted. At the first formal meeting of the apostles at Qumran forty days after the crucifixion, Luke mentions all the names of the apostles who were present. But the family of Jesus he simply generalises thus: “… including Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers”.
When he finally mentions James in the course of his story, he does not introduce him the way he did Paul, for instance. James simply floats into the narrative from without. Of course he does imply James was the leader of the early church as we have seen, but he does not directly state so. Aware that after James was killed he was succeeded by another member of the Jesus family – something he does not wish to make known to his readers for fear that it will put the Jesus dynasty on a pedestal at the expense of Paul – he terminates his story at the time Paul was evangelising in Rome. Scholars have puzzled over the abrupt ending of the book of Acts. The reason is simply that it was a deliberate ploy by Luke: he didn’t want people in the Roman world to get to know that after the death of James in AD 62, his successor was his first cousin Simeon and for the next sixty years or so, members of the Jesus dynasty continued to be at the helm of the Jerusalem church.
HOW DID JAMES DIE AND WHO SUCEEDED HIM AS LEADER OF THE EARLY CHURCH? Flavius Josephus relates that James was stoned to death in AD 62 at the orders of Annas, the youngest son of the Annas who interrogated Jesus in AD 33. Annas had just been appointed high priest of the Jerusalem Temple by the recently deceased governor of Judea Porcius Festus. What happened was that James, who had been high priest of the Qumran temple for almost 30 years, decided to forcefully take over the Jerusalem temple as well and Annas hit back by seizing him, trying him hurriedly in a kangaroo court setting and having him executed outside the Jerusalem temple in broad daylight before the new governor Albinas arrived. The outraged Essenes, however, sent a vehement protest to Albinas while he was on his way to Jerusalem and the moment he arrived, he had Annas fired after only three months in office. According to Eusebius and Epiphanious, James, who was the most respected Jew of the day, was succeeded by his cousin Simeon, the son of his uncle Cleopas. Simon was in office up to AD 106. Meanwhile, Annas was a marked man: when the Zealots overthrew the Romans in the AD 66 uprising, Annas was one of the first to be put to the sword.
WHICH ROMAN EMPEROR LAUNCHED A MANHUNT FOR JAMES? Actually all members of the Jesus dynasty were put on a wanted list by Roman emperors. For instance, Hegesippus writes that Vespasian commanded that “the family of David to be sought, that no one might be left among the Jews who was of royal stock”. Emperor Domitian was also dead set against the Jesus clan. Hegesippus says he ordered the execution of all the “Desposyni inheritors of Jesus”. In AD 106, Simeon, the cousin of James who was in charge of the Jerusalem church, was crucified by Emperor Trajan. The apostle John in REVELATION 12:17 cryptically captures the victimisation of Mary Magdalene and her offspring in these words: “Then the dragon (Rome) was enraged at the woman (Mary Magdalene) and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring (Jesus’s children and the extended family) – those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus”. And of course Jesus Justus, Jesus’s heir, was crucified at Masada during the reign of Vespasian.
YOU SAID THE FAMILIES OF JESUS AND JAMES “CONJOINED”. DID THEY INTERMARRY? Yes they did. This happened in the mid-second century when Aminadab, a great-grandson of Jesus and Mary Magdalene through their last-born son Joseph, married Eurgen, a great-grand daughter of James and his wife Anna. The conjoined line became known as the Fisher Kings (that is, Enki’s Kings). In the 4th century, a Fisher King married into a family of the Sicambrian Franks of France, spawning a new dynasty known as the Merovingians, who ruled a great swathe of Europe and were reputed to be very popular kings. In the latter-day world, the best-known descendent of the Jesus dynasty was Princess Diana. But the linear descendant, who has being completely ignored and even vilified thanks to Illuminati intrigue, is 7th Count of Albany, Prince Michael James Alexander Stewart, now 57 years old.
In 2005, the Business & Economic Advisory Council (BEAC) pitched the idea of the establishment of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) to the Mogae Administration.
It took five years before the SEZ policy was formulated, another five years before the relevant law was enacted, and a full three years before the Special Economic Zones Authority (SEZA) became operational.
… courtesy of infiltration stratagem by Jehovah-Enlil’s clan
With the passing of Joshua’s generation, General Atiku, the promised peace and prosperity of a land flowing with milk and honey disappeared, giving way to chaos and confusion.
Maybe Joshua himself was to blame for this shambolic state of affairs. He had failed to mentor a successor in the manner Moses had mentored him. He had left the nation without a central government or a human head of state but as a confederacy of twelve independent tribes without any unifying force except their Anunnaki gods.
If I say the word ‘robot’ to you, I can guess what would immediately spring to mind – a cute little Android or animal-like creature with human or pet animal characteristics and a ‘heart’, that is to say to say a battery, of gold, the sort we’ve all seen in various movies and tv shows. Think R2D2 or 3CPO in Star Wars, Wall-E in the movie of the same name, Sonny in I Robot, loveable rogue Bender in Futurama, Johnny 5 in Short Circuit…
Of course there are the evil ones too, the sort that want to rise up and eliminate us inferior humans – Roy Batty in Blade Runner, Schwarzenegger’s T-800 in The Terminator, Box in Logan’s Run, Police robots in Elysium and Otomo in Robocop.
And that’s to name but a few. As a general rule of thumb, the closer the robot is to human form, the more dangerous it is and of course the ultimate threat in any Sci-Fi movie is that the robots will turn the tables and become the masters, not the mechanical slaves. And whilst we are in reality a long way from robotic domination, there are an increasing number of examples of robotics in the workplace.
ROBOT BLOODHOUNDS Sometimes by the time that one of us smells something the damage has already begun – the smell of burning rubber or even worse, the smell of deadly gas. Thank goodness for a robot capable of quickly detecting and analyzing a smell from our very own footprint.
A*Library Bot The A*Star (Singapore) developed library bot which when books are equipped with RFID location chips, can scan shelves quickly seeking out-of-place titles. It manoeuvres with ease around corners, enhances the sorting and searching of books, and can self-navigate the library facility during non-open hours.
DRUG-COMPOUNDING ROBOT Automated medicine distribution system, connected to the hospital prescription system. It’s goal? To manipulate a large variety of objects (i.e.: drug vials, syringes, and IV bags) normally used in the manual process of drugs compounding to facilitate stronger standardisation, create higher levels of patient safety, and lower the risk of hospital staff exposed to toxic substances.
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY ROBOTS Applications include screw-driving, assembling, painting, trimming/cutting, pouring hazardous substances, labelling, welding, handling, quality control applications as well as tasks that require extreme precision,
AGRICULTURAL ROBOTS Ecrobotix, a Swiss technology firm has a solar-controlled ‘bot that not only can identify weeds but thereafter can treat them. Naio Technologies based in southwestern France has developed a robot with the ability to weed, hoe, and assist during harvesting. Energid Technologies has developed a citrus picking system that retrieves one piece of fruit every 2-3 seconds and Spain-based Agrobot has taken the treachery out of strawberry picking. Meanwhile, Blue River Technology has developed the LettuceBot2 that attaches itself to a tractor to thin out lettuce fields as well as prevent herbicide-resistant weeds. And that’s only scratching the finely-tilled soil.
INDUSTRIAL FLOOR SCRUBBERS The Global Automatic Floor Scrubber Machine boasts a 1.6HP motor that offers 113″ water lift, 180 RPM and a coverage rate of 17,000 sq. ft. per hour
These examples all come from the aptly-named site www.willrobotstakemyjob.com because while these functions are labour-saving and ripe for automation, the increasing use of artificial intelligence in the workplace will undoubtedly lead to increasing reliance on machines and a resulting swathe of human redundancies in a broad spectrum of industries and services.
This process has been greatly boosted by the global pandemic due to a combination of a workforce on furlough, whether by decree or by choice, and the obvious advantages of using virus-free machines – I don’t think computer viruses count! For example, it was suggested recently that their use might have a beneficial effect in care homes for the elderly, solving short staffing issues and cheering up the old folks with the novelty of having their tea, coffee and medicines delivered by glorified model cars. It’s a theory, at any rate.
Already,customers at the South-Korean fast-food chain No Brand Burger can avoid any interaction with a human server during the pandemic. The chain is using robots to take orders, prepare food and bring meals out to diners. Customers order and pay via touchscreen, then their request is sent to the kitchen where a cooking machine heats up the buns and patties. When it’s ready, a robot ‘waiter’ brings out their takeout bag.
‘This is the first time I’ve actually seen such robots, so they are really amazing and fun,’ Shin Hyun Soo, an office worker at No Brand in Seoul for the first time, told the AP.
Human workers add toppings to the burgers and wrap them up in takeout bags before passing them over to yellow-and-black serving robots, which have been compared to Minions.
Also in Korea, the Italian restaurant chain Mad for Garlic is using serving robots even for sit-down customers. Using 3D space mapping and other technology, the electronic ‘waiter,’ known as Aglio Kim, navigates between tables with up to five orders. Mad for Garlic manager Lee Young-ho said kids especially like the robots, which can carry up to 66lbs in their trays.
These catering robots look nothing like their human counterparts – in fact they are nothing more than glorified food trolleys so using our thumb rule from the movies, mankind is safe from imminent takeover but clearly Korean hospitality sector workers’ jobs are not.
And right there is the dichotomy – replacement by stealth. Remote-controlled robotic waiters and waitresses don’t need to be paid, they don’t go on strike and they don’t spread disease so it’s a sure bet their army is already on the march.
But there may be more redundancies on the way as well. Have you noticed how AI designers have an inability to use words of more than one syllable? So ‘robot’ has become ‘bot’ and ‘android’ simply ‘droid? Well, guys, if you continue to build machines ultimately smarter than yourselves you ‘rons may find yourself surplus to requirements too – that’s ‘moron’ to us polysyllabic humans”!