Connect with us

The Hebrews Unplugged

Benson C Saili

They originate from Sumer and Ancient India

According to Genesis, there were ten major progenitors (ancestral pillars) of the Semitic people (that is, Shem’s people, today the Jews primarily) from Noah to Terah. These were Noah (Ziusudra in Sumerian); Shem; Arphaxad (Arbakad in Sumerian); Sheila; Eber (Ibri in Sumerian); Peleng; Reu; Serug; Nahor; and finally Terah (Tirhu in Sumerian) in that order. 

If we were to go by descent, all the Semites were Sumerians given that Shem was a Sumerian born in the city-state of Shuruppak. So at what stage did the Semites find themselves in India?  Frankly speaking, that question is not easy to answer considering that people those days kept moving from place to place and even back and forth  to flee from war zones; to escape famine;  to go and take command of newly annexed territory; or to simply evangelise, that is, to promote their god.

Yet of one thing we’re certain: Terah was born and raised up in India. His year of birth was 2193 BC. We know he was born into royalty because he was the Priest-King, the Melchizedek, of a region of ancient India (Mahabharata) known as Dwaraka. His father Nahor, after whom he inherited, was either born in India too or migrated there from Sumer once upon a time.

We know that Terah, who in India was known as His Holiness Hara Krishna, a type of Jesus, fought in the Mahabharata War, which pitted Inanna and her Reptilian allies against the rest of the Anunnaki   circa 2140 BC.  At the time, the Indian empire was officially under the “divine” rule, not executive rule, of Inanna-Ishtar, though her sway over the region had so considerably waned having devoted much of her time to the perpetually tumultuous affairs of Sumer that the Enkites had for all practical purposes taken over. Terah, however, did not fight under Inanna’s banner: he fought under the Anunnaki banner and as an Enkite philosophically.

That said, Terah’s forefathers, who included his own father Nahor, were not consistently Enkites through and through. This is a pattern we see throughout Old Testament times as even the Children of Israel kept shifting loyalties from one god (e.g. Ishkur-Adad) to another (e.g. Enki, Marduk, or Ninmah). For example, during the exodus from Egypt, Moses was at pains to get the Israelites to focus only on Ishkur-Adad, the lead Yahweh/Jehovah of the day.

One day, they forged an image of a calf and venerated it to symbolise the goddess Hathor, another name for Ninmah.  At another time, they forced Moses to erect a brazen serpent when Ishkur-Adad let loose snakes on them (for their recurrent acts of disobedience) so that they would be healed from the highly venomous snake bites. Needless to say, the brazen serpent represented Enki, who was the Anunnaki god of healing.     

According to JOSHUA   24:2, Abraham’s ancestors “served other gods” when they dwelt “on the other side of the Euphrates”. Abraham’s father Terah is particularly singled out in this regard. That is to say, at least Terah’s generation worshipped objectionable gods when they were denizens of the Indian empire, which  indeed lay well beyond the Euphrates River of Sumer. So who were the “other gods” that Abraham’s ancestors worshipped in the Indian sub-continent?


Let us return to JOSHUA 24:2. This is how it reads in full: “Joshua said to all the people, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods.” The above statement is the religious version of the passage – call it the spin. In the uncorrupted Hebrew original, it reads thus: “Then Joshua said to all the people, thus says Yahweh Elohim of Israel: across the Stream your fathers dwelt from the eon of old, Terah father of Abraham and father of Nahor, and they served other Elohim.”

I need not restate that by now, we all know who the Elohim were: they were the ruling pantheon of the Anunnaki race.  Thus what the passage is trying to highlight is the fact that Abraham’s ancestors worshipped “other Anunnaki”. Who were these? Once again, we by now know that the Anunnaki were in two factions basically, the Enlilites, led by Enlil, the main Jehovah, and the Enkites, led by Enlil’s step brother Enki. Given that the nation of Israel was Enlil’s chosen race of mankind,  the “other Anunnaki” clearly were the Enkites. In short, Terah initially worshipped Enki or his son Marduk secondarily.  In fact, even Abraham and Nahor (the brother, not the grandfather as the two shared the same name)  at some stage worshipped Enki too as we shall soon  unpack.  

In the original version of JOSHUA 24:2, the term “Stream” is used instead of Euphrates. That can be easily explained. According to the authoritative Strong’s Concordance, the term Stream primarily referred to major water bodies, especially the Nile and Euphrates rivers. Indeed, in GENESIS 15:18, the river Euphrates is directly referred to as “The Great Stream”. The term “Stream” also referred to a river in flood. Now, how come that Terah initially worshiped Enki when his forefathers such as Eber were devout Enlilites?

First, let us appreciate the fact that ancient India was Enkite-dominated although it was never officially overseen by an Enkite god. The Rig Veda, one of the oldest sacred books of India, refers to a race of beings called the Nagas. The Nagas were known as the “Serpent People” because they worshipped Enki, the Serpent of Genesis.  As we keep saying time and again, “serpent” originally did not have the unsavoury meaning it is invested with by Christendom today – that of a foul being, the Devil, who assumed the form of a snake in the Garden of Eden. 

The term serpent meant a “royal race” and is derived from the ancient word Surbah, rendered sarpa in Sanskrit, the language of ancient India, and serpens in Latin.  The fact that ancient India was predominantly Enkite-inclined explains why Inanna failed to bring it firmly under her control when she ruled it and why Enlil authorised the use of nuclear bombs there on Harappa and Mohenjo Daro – the cities which had the largest concentration of the Nagas – in the Mahabharata War.    

     According to the Rig Veda, the Nagas were led by Ahi, who fought Indra (Inanna) in the Mahabhrata War. In his book, Nagas, the Ancient Rulers of India, Naval Viyogi says Ahi  belonged to a lineage of ruler-priests stemming from Sumer and that the Nagas god was known as Shiva, or Naga Natha, meaning “Serpent Lord”. It goes without saying that this was Enki. The religious symbol of the Nagas was the cobra, which was also the religious symbol of the Egyptian pharaohs, who were under Enki’s jurisdiction.

     The Nagas, also variously called Sarpa or Dravidians, are described as “dark-skinned with flat noses”, typical African features. Esoterically, the term Nagas meant “Wise Man” and we know that the Anunnaki God of Wisdom was Enki. The Book of Dzyan says the Nagas worshipped a “serpent race which descended from the skies and taught mankind”. Once again, this was Enki’s clan: Enki originated from the Orion star system and his ancestry evolved from a snake species as we explicated in our earlier articles. The same ancient Indian texts say the Nagas and the Aryans (demigods who were predominantly Enlilites) intermarried (with a view to forging peaceful co-existence), giving rise to Kings. It were these intermarriages that produced the likes of Terah and Abraham. 

Thus Terah, or one of his forbearers up the family tree, was a cross-breed between an Enlilite/Aryan and an Enkite/Nagas but he chose to side with the Enkites, just as Jesus would later do. As Krishna the holy man, the Jesus of ancient India, Terah preached    tender Enkite values as opposed to hard-line Enlilite values. This is the reason Genesis, which is an Enlilite document, pans  him as worshipping “other gods”.


The Abrahamic Jews, or Brahmin Jews, came to be known as Hebrews. How did the name Hebrews come about? There are all sorts of fanciful theories by many a historian. This is because mainstream historians have totally ignored the most authoritative source on the saga of the Anunnaki and by extension the Hebraic Jews. Now, I so particularise because Jews never were one homogeneous race nor did they originate from one single place.

There were black Jews, white-skinned Jews, and even brown-skinned Jews, just as is the case in our day.  Each of these shades of Jews came from different and in some cases overlapping places of origin. Black Jews mainly came from Africa (which included today’s Arabia and all the countries to the south of Arabia) but also from India. White Jews came from India mainly but also from Sumer, particularly Ur. Brown-skinned Jews came from India in the main. 

It is in our present day that Jews are arbitrarily and misleadingly posited as white-skinned people or brown-skinned people (Sephardic Jews – Jews who look like Arabs) only. Israel actually decided to correct this distortion when in 1991 it officially recognised the dark-skinned Falashas of Ethiopia as Jews and airlifted them to Israel though fairer-skinned Israelites continue to discriminate against them and call them all sorts of names. 

Just to reiterate a point we have already underscored, Jews were ewes, or sheep. Enlil called his human subjects sheep.  In some scriptures, the term sheep and ewe are in fact used interchangeably, such as SONG OF SONGS 6:6, where the word used in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is ewes, whereas the one used in both the King James Version (KJV) and the Biblos Interlinear Bible (NIT, my favourites) is sheep. Certainly, “Ewes” and “Jews” so swimmingly rhyme.  Remember, the letter J was introduced into the alphabet sometime in the 1600s AD.

Even the King Kames Version, which was first published in 1611,   did not contain the letter J at all. All words or names that today begin with the letter J began with either the letter Y or I prior to the 1600s, so that Jesus was Ieosous, Jacob was Yaakov, James was Iames, Judas was  Yehuda, and Jehovah was Yahweh. 

We should also be wary that we do not lose sight of the fact that the term sheep or Jew as applied to Enlil’s chosen people took hold in the Age of Aries ( 2220-60 BC) during the time of Abraham. This was between 4000 and 3100 BC, in the Age of Taurus. Prior to that, mankind was never referred to as sheep: we were simply  Lulu-Amelus, a worker race meant to toil for the Anunnaki. But Hebrews had been there from since before the  Deluge. That brings us back to the question we posed at the outset of this section: how did the name Hebrews arise?
The Hebrews, as we now know, constitute part of a people we call Jews. But exactly who were the Hebrews? The name of a people or a nation-state can arise from various premises. They include a founding father; a surpassing icon; a national landmark; a faith leader; a dominant ethnic group; and sheer geographical setting.  For instance, the Saudis (of Saudi Arabia) are named after Muhammad Ibn Saud, the country’s pioneer leader. The name “Columbians” was inspired by the legendary Spanish explorer Christopher Columbus. 

Zambians derive their name from the Zambezi River. The name ‘Salvadorians” (of El Salvador) is in honour of Jesus Christ: the country’s official name when translated to English reads,   “Province of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World”.   Ugandans are such courtesy of the highly influential Baganda tribe, just as “Batswana” reflects the dominance of the Tswana-speaking ethnic group. South Africans are so-called because their country is located in the southernmost part of the continent of Africa.

In the case of the Hebrews, they derive their name from a place of origin. This is Nippur in Sumeria. Nippur (modern Nuffar in southeastern Iraq) was Enlil’s cult city in Sumeria. It was one of the first seven cities the Anunnaki, the Old Testament gods, established on Earth when they arrived on the planet about 450,000 years ago. However, the Anunnaki did not call it Nippur: they called it Nibruki, meaning “Earth’s Crossroads”, or simply Ni-Ibru, meaning “The Crossing Place”. In Akkadian, the father of the Hebrew language, Nibruki/Ni-Ibru was rendered as Nippur.

Nibruki was so named because, first, it was at the geographical centre of southern Sumer, the hub of the whole of Mesopotamia, meaning “Land Between Two Rivers” (the Euphrates and Tigris) as ancient Iraq was known. Second, it was the place where the pre-Diluvial aeronautical grids that guided sky vehicles  in flight crisscrossed each other.  The denizens of Nibruki called themselves the Ibri, meaning, in paraphrase, “Natives of the Crossroads City”.

It was the Sumerian term Ibri which gave rise to Ibrim or Ibriyyim, which is Hebrews in English.  In Setswana, a  languages which is so breathtakingly akin to  Sumerian, Ibrim would be rendered as Ma-Ibri  (“The Ibri”) since unlike Hebrew, which places the noun indicator  (in this case “im”) at the end of a word, in Setswana the noun indicator is placed at the beginning of the word.

At least one of Abraham’s forefathers was directly named after Nibruki. This was Eber, a variation of Ibri.  That could suggest that it was during the time of Eber that the family’s association with Nippur began and as we have indicated above, Nippur was no city of ordinary significance. It was practically Earth’s capital in that the most powerful man on the planet, Enlil, was based there. And as a religious centre and therefore a consecrated city, Nippur was the Vatican of the day.

So what point are we trying to put across? It is that the Hebrews existed long before they became Jews, that is, Enlil’s sheep. Their origin was Nippur/Nibruki/Ni-Ibru in Sumeria. They became Enlil’s chosen sheep in the time of Abraham but they were designated as such in the era of Abraham’s father Terah. Yet Terah was not born in Sumer: he was born in ancient India. In fact, Terah’s Hebrews had such an overriding cultural influence on India that the Indian language has very striking similarities with Hebrew. 


According to Genesis, Eber had two sons, Peleg and Joktan. Of Joktan’s 13 sons, the second last was Havilah.  It appears that Havilah and his clan were the founders of India. The Jewish Encyclopaedia informs us that ancient traditions identify India as Havilah. The Book of the Cave of Treasures, written in the 6th century, also says, “And the children of Havilah appointed to be their king Havil, who built Havilah, that is, Hend”. In 6th century Europe, India was called Hend. Indeed, even today, there is a region in India known as Nagar Haveli.

GENESIS 2:10-11 says, “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.”  The legendary Jewish historian Flavius Josephus identified Pishon with the Ganges River, India’s largest river in terms of water flow. Writing in the 2nd century, Pausanias the Periegete said, “The Indians have an enormous amount of gold”.

Eden (Sumeria, in modern Iraq predominantly)  and India of course were   3750 km apart  but we should bear in mind that Genesis was written in the 6th century BC, when the Jews were in captivity in Babylon,  and its writers, the Levites, decided to incorporate India into Sumeria for one reason only – to furnish the hint that the Jewish people originally straddled both India and Sumeria. In order to familiarise with his paternal heritage, a young Jesus (see The Jesus Papers) was sent not to Iraq but to India because India was the ancestral place of Father Abraham.

The similarities between Indian and Hebrew are telling. We will cite only a few examples. In Hebrew, the Jews are Yehudi; in India is a tribe known as Yutiya/Yahkhuda.  Yutiya very much sounds like Judea. When it comes to the names of God in Hindu Shaivism and Judaism, they are basically the same. Where Judaism says El Shaddai, Shaivisim says Saday, a variant of Shiva, a Hindu deity. In Hebrew, Hebrews are Ibri, whereas in Indian, they are  Abri. The Yadavas, a seemingly proto-Hebraic peoples still living in India today, say once they spoke a language called Abhiri (Hebrew) or Sabari. Today, Israeli Jews whose roots sink deep into Israeli soil are called Sabaras.

Today, the Brahmins of India, who sit at the apex of the country’s caste system,  proudly refer to themselves as “The Chosen People of God” and as a “Community of Priests”. This is exactly the way the Jews also characterise themselves. They say they are “God’s Chosen People” and they have since days immemorial  been  the veritable  “Kingdom of Priests”. The parallels are striking folks.


Continue Reading


Hell Up in Judea

24th August 2021

A case can be made, General Atiku, that history’s most infamous Roman is Pontius Pilate. It was Pilate who condemned Jesus, the  “Son of God”, to the most cruel, most barbaric,  and most excruciating of deaths – crucifixion –  and cowardly at that as the gospels attest for us.  

Yet the exact circumstances under which the crucifixion took place and what followed thereafter far from jells with what is familiarly known. The fact of the matter was that there was a lot of political wheeling and dealing and boldfaced corruption on the part both of the Jewish authorities and the Roman establishment in the person of Pontius Pilate.  In this piece, we attempt, General, to present a fuller photo of Pilate as the centre of the whole machination.

Pilate’s historicity, General, is not in doubt. In 1961, an Italian archeologist unearthed a limestone block at Caesarea Maritima on the Mediterranean coast of Israel, which as of 6 AD was the Roman seat of government as well as the military headquarters.  The block bore the inscription, “Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea, has dedicated this Temple to the divine Augusti” (that is, then Roman Emperor Tiberius Caesar and his wife Livia).

Pilate also gets varying degrees of mention in the works of Roman senator and historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-117 AD); the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and chronicler Philo of Alexandria (25 BC to 50 AD); and the legendary Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD).

Although his year of death (37 AD) is documented, his year of birth is a matter of conjecture, General. He came from the Pontii tribe (hence the name Pontius), a tough, warlike people. The Pontii tribe was of the equestrian class, the second-tier in the Roman caste system. Originally, the equestrians were those Romans with ample pocket power to bribe their way to knightly ranks in the Roman army. Pilate was born to Marcus Pontius, who had distinguished himself as a general in Rome’s military campaigns.

Following one of his particularly sterling military exploits, Marcus was awarded with the Pilum (javelin), a Roman decoration of honour for heroic military service.  To commemorate this medal of valour, the family took the name Pilati, rendered Pilate in English and Pilatus in Latin.

The son, Lucius Pontius Pilate, also distinguished himself as a soldier in the German campaigns of Germanicus, a prominent general of the early Roman Empire. Thanks to his scintillating military profile coupled with   strategic connections in the hierarchies of the Roman government, Pilate was able to wend his way into the heart of Claudia, the granddaughter of Caesar Augustus, the founder of the Roman Empire and ruler from 27 BC to 14 AD.

Claudia’s mother was Julia the Elder, who was also the biological mother of the apostles John and James. When Claudia was about 13 years of age, Julia sent her to Rome to be reared in the courts of Emperor Tiberius Caesar, to whom Julia was once married from 11 BC to 6 BC.

Although Tiberius was not the biological father of Claudius, General, he gladly acquiesced to being her foster father in deference to the memory of her late grandfather Caesar Augustus.
Pilate arrived in Rome when Claudia was sixteen years of age. In AD 26, the two tied the knot. Needless to say, it was a marriage based not on love as such but on political opportunism.


The high-placed connection who facilitated Pontius Pilate’s smooth landing into the inner sanctums of Rome’s royalty and put him on a pedestal that saw him take pride of place in the cosmic gallery of rogues was Aelius Sejanus. Like Pilate, Sejanus came from the subordinate equestrian class, who would never be eligible for a seat in the Senate, the legislative council of ancient Rome.

Sejanus, however, had over time become Emperor Tiberius’ most trusted lieutenant and to the point where he was the de facto prime minister.  He had been commander of the Praetorian Guard, the elite Special Forces unit created by Augustus Caesar as a personal security force, which developed under Sejanus’ command into the most significant presence in Rome.

In AD 26, the emperor was not even based in Rome: he had confined himself to the 10.4 km2 island of Capri, about 264 km from Rome, and left control of Rome and the government of the Roman Empire to Sejanus. It was Sejanus who recommended the appointment of Pilate as prefect, or governor/procurator of Judea. The appointment was pronounced right on the occasion of Pilate’s nuptials with Claudius.

Philo records that when the bridal party emerged from the temple where the marriage ceremony was celebrated and Pilate started to follow the bride into the imperial litter, Tiberius, who was one of the twelve witnesses required to attend the ceremony, held him back and handed him a document. It was the wedding present – the governorship of far-flung Judea – with orders to proceed at once to Caesarea Maritima to take over the office made vacant by the recall of Valerius Gratus.

Pilate was notified by Sejanus that a ship was in fact waiting upon him to transport him to Palestine right away. The only disadvantageous aspect about the assignment was that Pilate was to leave the shores of Rome alone, without the pleasure of spending a first night in the arms of his newly wedded wife: by imperial decree, the wives of governors were not allowed to accompany them in their jurisdictions. Pilate, however, was a royal by marriage and so this prohibition was waived. By special permission granted by His Imperial Majesty Tiberius Caesar, Claudia soon joined her husband in Judea. The wily Pilate had calculated well when he married into royalty.


The Judean perch was not prestigious though, General. The prefects of Judea were not of high social status. At least one – Felix, referenced by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles – was an ex-slave, which says a great deal on the low regard in which the province was held by Rome.

Pilate was only secondarily sent to Judea on account of having married into royalty: his posting to the volatile province stemmed, primarily, from his being of a inferior social pedigree. Be that as it may, Pilate relished the posting in that it gave him the chance to exercise power, absolute power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and in Pilate was the archetypal example, General.

Pilate’s brief was simple: to collect taxes, maintain law and order, maintain infrastructure, and keep the population subdued. Although he was born lowly, he positively had the power of life and death over his Jewish subjects. Let us, General, listen to Josephus in his allusion to Coponius, Judea’s first Roman governor and who like Pilate was from the same subservient social class: “And now Archelaus’ part of Judea was reduced into a province and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as procurator, having the power of life and death put into his hands by Caesar.”

Pilate, General, was callous to a point of being sadistic. He was scarcely the scrupling judge with the rare soft spot that we encounter in the gospels. Philo charges him with “corruptibility, violence, robberies, ill-treatment of the people, grievances, continuous executions without even the form of a trial, endless and intolerable cruelties”.

He further declares him to be a “savage, inflexible, and arbitrary ruler” who was of a “stubborn and harsh quality” and “could not bring himself to do anything that might cause pleasure to the Jews”. The essentially humane character of the Pilate who presided over the trial of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels may not be wholly fictitious but is highly embellished, General.

Why did Pilate have such a pathological hatred of the Jews, General? Sejanus had more to do with it than the spontaneous leanings of his own nature. According to Philo, Sejanus hated the Jews like the plague and wished “to do away with the nation” – to exterminate it. In AD 19, for instance, he forced the Jews in Rome to burn their religious vestments and expelled them from the city without much ado.

For as long as Sejanus was in power, General, Pilate could do pretty much as he pleased. He didn’t have to worry about compromising reportage reaching the emperor as everything went through the implacably anti-Jewish Sejanus. Sejanus was unrivalled in power: golden statues of the general were being put up in Rome, the Senate had voted his birthday a public holiday, public prayers were offered on behalf of Tiberius and Sejanus, and in AD 31 Sejanus was named as Consul jointly with Tiberius.

The Judea posting also gave Pilate a golden opportunity to make money – lots of it. The governors of the Roman provinces were invariably rapacious, greedy, and incompetent: this we learn not only from Jewish historians of the day but from contemporary Roman writers as well such as Tacitus and Juvenal.

As long as the money skimmed from the provinces was not overly excessive, governors were allowed a free hand. It is said of Emperor Tiberius that, “Once he ordered a governor to reverse a steep rise in taxes saying, ‘I want my sheep shorn, not skinned’!” For those governors, such as Pilate, who had support from the very acmes of Roman power, General, they were practically a law unto themselves.


Pontius Pilate, General, was untrained in political office. Furthermore, he was a sycophant to the core who was prepared to go to any length in a bid to curry favour with and prove his loyalty to the powers that be in Rome.    Both these attributes gave rise to a series of blunders that brought him the intense hatred of the Jews.

The first abomination he committed in the eyes of the Jews, General, was to set up a temple dedicated to Emperor Tiberius, which he called the Tiberieum, making him the only known Roman official to have built a temple to a living emperor.  True, Roman emperors were worshipped, but Tiberius was the one exception. According to the Roman scholar and historian Suetonius, Tiberius did not allow the consecration of temples to himself. Pilate’s act therefore, General, was an overkill: it was not appreciated at all.

Throughout his tenure, General, Pilate had a series of run-ins with the Jews, some of which entailed a lot of bloodshed and one of which sparked an insurrection that paved the way to Calvary. Then it all began to unravel, General. On October 18 AD 31, his patron Sejanus was summoned to the office of Emperor Tiberius and an angry denunciation was read out to him. It is not clear, General, what caused Sejanus’ fall from the emperor’s good graces but circumstantial evidence points to the perceived threat to the emperor’s power.

As the ancient historian Cassius Dio puts it, “Sejanus was so great a person by reason both of his excessive haughtiness and of his vast power that to put it briefly, he himself seemed to be the emperor and Tiberius a kind of island potentate, inasmuch as the latter spent his time on the island of Capri.”  Sejanus, hitherto the most powerful man in Rome, General, was thrown into a dungeon.

That same evening, he was summarily condemned to death, extracted from his cell, hung, and had his body given over to a crowd that tore it to pieces in a frenzy of manic excitement. His three children were all executed over the following months and his wife, Tiberius’ own daughter, committed suicide.  The people further celebrated his downfall by pulling his statues over.  Meanwhile, General, Tiberius began pursuing all those who could have been involved in the “plots” of Sejanus.

In Judea, Pilate, a Sejanus appointee, must have been badly shaken, General. Were his friends and family under suspicion? Would he be purged like others? Imperial attitudes to the Jewish race seemed to have changed now with the riddance of Sejanus. Tiberius made sure this was the case by appointing a new governor for Syria (who went by the title Legate and to whom Pilate was obligated to report).

The governor, Lucius Pomponius Flaccus, arrived in Rome in AD 32. Philo records that Tiberius now “charged his procurators in every place to which they were appointed to speak comfortably to the members of our nation in the different cities, assuring them that the penal measures did not extend to all but only to the guilty who were few, and to disturb none of the established customs but even to regard them as a trust committed to their care, the people as naturally peaceable and the institution as an influence promoting orderly conduct.”

So Pilate, General, had lost his supporters at the top, his new boss was on his doorstep, and there had been a change of policy regarding the very people he was in charge of. Surely, he would have to watch his step. The fact of the matter, however, General, was that he hardly did so.  In November 32 AD, for instance, he provoked a mini-uprising by the Zealots led by Judas Iscariot, Theudas Barabbas, and Simon Zelotes. It was this revolt, General, that culminated in those three “crosses” of Calvary that are indelibly etched on the mind of every Christian.


Continue Reading


Hustle & Muscle

24th August 2021

Until as recently as the 1980s a career often meant a job for life within a single company or organisation. Phrases such as ‘climbing the corporate ladder’, ‘the glass ceiling’, ‘wage slave’ & ‘the rat race’ were thrown about, the analogies making clear that a career path was a toxic mix of a war of attrition, indentured drudgery and a Sisyphean treadmill.

In all cases you fought, grafted or plodded on till you reached retirement age, at which point you could expect a small leaving party, the promise of a pension and, oddly, a gift of either a clock or watch. The irony of being rewarded with a timepiece on the very day you could expect to no longer be a workday prisoner was apparently lost on management – the hands of time were destined to follow you to the grave!

Retirement was the goal at the end of the long, corporate journey, time on your hands – verifiable by your gifted time keeping device – to spend time working in the garden, playing with the grandchildren, enjoying a holiday or two and generally killing time till time killed you.

For some, retirement could be literally short-lived. The retirement age, and accompanying pension, was predicated on the old adage of three scores years and ten being the average life expectancy of man. As the twentieth century progressed and healthcare became more sophisticated, that former mean average was extended but that in itself then brought with it the double-edged sword of dementia. The longer people lived, the more widespread dementia became – one more life lottery which some won, some lost and doctors were seemingly unable to predict who would succumb and who would survive.

However, much research has been carried out on the causes of this crippling and cruel disease and the latest findings indicate that one of its root causes may lie in the former workplace – what your job entailed and how stimulating or otherwise it was. It transpires that having an interesting job in your forties could lessen the risk of getting dementia in old age, the mental stimulation possibly staving off the onslaught of the condition by around 18 months.

Academics examined more than 100,000 participants and tracked them for nearly two decades. They spotted a third fewer cases of dementia among people who had engaging jobs which involved demanding tasks and more control — such as government officers, directors, physicians, dentists and solicitors, compared to adults in ‘passive’ roles — such as supermarket cashiers, vehicle drivers and machine operators. And those who found their own work interesting also had lower levels of proteins in their blood that have been linked with dementia.

The study was carried out by researchers from University College London, the University of Helsinki and Johns Hopkins University studying the cognitive stimulation and dementia risk in 107,896 volunteers, who were regularly quizzed about their job.  The volunteers — who had an average age of around 45 — were tracked for between 14 and 40 years.  Jobs were classed as cognitively stimulating if they included demanding tasks and came with high job control. Non-stimulating ‘passive’ occupations included those with low demands and little decision-making power.

4.8 cases of dementia per 10,000 person years occurred among those with interesting careers, equating to 0.8 per cent of the group. In contrast, there were 7.3 cases per 10,000 person years among those with repetitive jobs (1.2 per cent). Among people with jobs that were in the middle of these two categories, there were 6.8 cases per 10,000 person years (1.12 per cent).

The link between how interesting a person’s work was and rates of dementia did not change for different genders or ages.Lead researcher Professor Mika Kivimaki, from UCL, said: ‘Our findings support the hypothesis that mental stimulation in adulthood may postpone the onset of dementia. The levels of dementia at age 80 seen in people who experienced high levels of mental stimulation was observed at age 78.3 in those who had experienced low mental stimulation. This suggests the average delay in disease onset is about one and half years, but there is probably considerable variation in the effect between people.’

The study, published this week in the British Medical Journal, also looked at protein levels in the blood among another group of volunteers. These proteins are thought to stop the brain forming new connections, increasing the risk of dementia. People with interesting jobs had lower levels of three proteins considered to be tell-tale signs of the condition.

Scientists said it provided ‘possible clues’ for the underlying biological mechanisms at play. The researchers noted the study was only observational, meaning it cannot establish cause and that other factors could be at play. However, they insisted it was large and well-designed, so the findings can be applied to different populations.

To me, there is a further implication in that it might be fair to expect that those in professions such as law, medicine and science might reasonably be expected to have a higher IQ than those in blue collar roles. This could indicate that mental capacity also plays a part in dementia onset but that’s a personal conclusion and not one reached by the study.

And for those stuck in dull jobs through force of circumstance, all is not lost since in today’s work culture, the stimulating side-hustle is fast becoming the norm as work becomes not just a means of financial survival but a life-enhancing opportunity , just as in the old adage of ‘Find a job you enjoy and you’ll never work another day in your life’!

Dementia is a global concern but ironically it is most often seen in wealthier countries, where people are likely to live into very old age and is the second biggest killer in the UK behind heart disease, according to the UK Office for National Statistics. So here’s a serious suggestion to save you from an early grave and loss of competencies – work hard, play hard and where possible, combine the two!

Continue Reading


The Lord Ties The Knot

18th August 2021

… as Judas Iscariot takes strong exception

The gospels which were excluded from the official canon, the New Testament, at the Council of Nicaea are known as the Apocrypha. One of these Apocryphal works, General Atiku, is the gospel of Phillip.  In this gospel, the intimate relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is openly discussed thus:

“And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth.  The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said unto him, why do you love her more than all of us? The Saviour answered and said to them, why do   I not love you like her? … Great is the mystery of marriage, for without it the world would never have existed. Now, the existence of the world depends on man, and the existence of man on marriage.”

It is clear from the above statement, General, that Jesus held marriage in high regard because he himself was part and parcel of it.  The disciples (that is, most of them) were offended not because he and Mary were an item but because they simply did not approve of her as she was a Gentile and a commoner.

Otherwise, the kissing was not offensive at all: it was a customary expression of mutual affection between the sacred bride and groom. This we gather from the prototypically romantic Old Testament text known as The Song of Solomon, which opens with the words, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.”  As the Davidic groom, Jesus was therefore entitled to kiss Mary Magdalene as his bride.


In September AD 30, General Atiku, Jesus and Mary Magdalene had their First Marriage ceremony. Jesus had turned 36 in that year, the appropriate marriage age for a Davidic heir, and September was the holiest month in the Jewish calendar.  Having been born irregularly himself (in the wrong month of the year because of his father Joseph’s intransigence), Jesus was determined that he himself follow the law to the letter so that his child would not suffer the same indignities as he did. The First Marriage is captured in LUKE 7:35-50.

The marriage took place at the home of Simon the Pharisee. This, General, was another name for Simon Zelotes, the stepfather of Mary Magdalene. Although Mary Magdalene is not directly named, she is described as a “sinner”. This was another term for Gentiles, as in the eyes of the Jewish God, they were unregenerate and therefore hopeless sinners.  Mary Magdalene, whose mother Helena-Salome was of Syrian origin (Syro-Phoenicia to be specific), was a Gentile.

On the occasion, Mary Magdalene performed three acts on Jesus as set out in LUKE 7:38. She wept; kissed his feet; and anointed him with ointment. This is what a bride was supposed to do to her groom as clearly evinced in The Song of Solomon, a series of love poems concerning a spouse and her husband the King.

Of the three rites, perhaps it is the weeping that require elucidation, General. This was at once symbolic and sentimental.  The First Marriage was simply a ceremony: the moment the ceremony was over, the husband and wife separated, that is, they lived apart until the month of December, when they came together under one roof.  This was in accord with Essene stipulations for dynastic marriages, that is, those of the Davidic Messiah and the priestly Messiah.

Prior to the First Marriage, the bride was known as an Almah, meaning a betrothed Virgin. After the First Marriage ceremony, the Almah was demoted to a Sister. This was because the ensuing three-month separation meant husband and wife would not indulge in sexual activity and so the wife was as good as a sister to her husband. The imagery of Sister also being a wife is seen in 1 CORINTHIANS 9:5, where the apostle Paul refers to his wife as Sister. In ACTS 23:16, Paul’s wife is again referred to as his Sister.

Now, when the Almah became a Sister, General, she was metaphorically called a Widow, because she was being separated  from her newly wedded husband. As such, she was expected to symbolically weep on account of this separation. That explains why Mary Magdalene had to weep at her first wedding. It is a pity, General, that most Christians and their clergy miss the real story so wrongly indoctrinated are they.

In December AD 30, Jesus moved in with Mary Magdalene to consummate the marriage. It was hoped that Mary would fall pregnant so that in March the following year, a Second (and final) Marriage ceremony would be held.  Sadly, conception did not take place. According to Essene dynastic procreational rules, the couple had to separate again. They would reunite in December AD 31 for another try at conception.

The reason they separated was because for a dynastic heir, marriage was purely for procreation and not for recreational sex. But even that year, General, Mary did not fall pregnant, necessitating another year-long separation. What that meant was that Mary would be given one more last chance – in December AD 32, by which time Jesus would have been 38.  If she did not conceive this time around, the marriage would come to an end through a legal divorce and Jesus would be free to seek a new spouse.


In December 32, Mary Magdalene, General, finally conceived. When Jesus was crucified therefore in April 33 AD, his wife was three months pregnant. By this time, the Second Marriage ceremony, the final one, had already taken place, this being in March. The Second Marriage is cursorily related in MATTHEW 26:6-13; MARK 14:3-9; and JOHN 12:1-8.The John version reads as follows:

“Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany, where was Lazarus, who had died, whom he raised out of the dead; they made, therefore, to him a supper there, and Martha was ministering, and Lazarus was one of those reclining together (at meat) with him; Mary, therefore, having taken a pound of ointment of spikenard, of great price, anointed the feet of Jesus and did wipe with her hair his feet, and the house was filled from the fragrance of the ointment.

Therefore said one of his disciples – Judas Iscariot, of Simon, who was about to deliver him up – ‘Therefore was not this ointment sold for three hundred denaries, and given to the poor?’ and he said this, not because he was caring for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and what things were put in he was carrying. Jesus, therefore, said, ‘Suffer her; for the day of my embalming she has kept it, for the poor you have always with yourselves, and me you have not always.’”

This story (also see JOHN 11:1-44) centres on four people primarily, General. They are Jesus; Lazarus; Mary; and Martha. “Mary” was actually Mary Magdalene.  “Martha” was a titular name for her mother, Helena-Salome.  In the Lazarus story, the two ladies are referred to as “sisters”. This denotes conventual sisters, like the Catholics refer to conventual nuns, and not sisters by blood. Helena-Salome actually headed a nunnery. By the same token, the reference to Lazarus as “brother” has a connotation akin to what Pentecostals refer to as “Brother in Christ”.

Thus, the story revolves around Jesus the groom; his bride Mary Magdalene; his father-in-law Simon Zelotes; and his mother-in-law Helena-Salome. This is a family affair folks, which provides strong hints as to the exact relationship between Jesus and Mary. The raising from the dead of a man called Lazarus, sadly, was not a miracle at all:  it was a ceremonial restoration from excommunication back to the Essene governing council, which comprised of Jesus and his so-called 12 disciples.

The “Lazarus” who was thus restored was actually Simon Zelotes, at the time the most “beloved” by Jesus of the entire apostolic band, who had been demoted under circumstances relating to a Zealot uprising against Pontius Pilate.  More will be said on the subject at a later stage.

The anointing of Jesus by Mary with “spikenard”, General, harps back to ancient married rituals as patently demonstrated in The Song of Solomon. This was the second time Mary had anointed Jesus, first at the First Marriage in September AD 30 AD and now at the Second Marriage in March 32 AD. On both occasions, Mary anointed Jesus whilst he sat at table.

In SONG OF SOLOMON 1:12, the bride says, “While the King sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof”.  The anointing in the gospels was therefore an allusion to the ancient rite whereby a royal bride prepared her groom’s table. Only as the wife of Jesus and as a priestess in her own right could Mary Magdalene have anointed both the feet and head of Jesus.

The anointing in effect had two purposes: first, to seal the marriage, and second, to officially announce to the Jewish nation that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah (and not his younger brother James, who had been so promoted by John the Baptist).  It all harped back to the tradition in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, where Kings or Pharaohs were anointed for office (in their case with crocodile fat) by their half-sister brides.

The King’s bride actually kept the anointment substance for use for one more time – when the King died. You can now understand, General, why Jesus said “the day of my embalming she has kept it” in reference to his anointing by Mary Magdalene and why the first person to feature at the tomb of Jesus was none other than Mary Magdalene!

Three passages in the Lazarus story     (in JOHN11: 1-44) are particularly telling.  They are Verses 20, 28, and 29. They read as follows: “When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed in the house … After Martha said this, she went back and called her sister Mary privately. ‘The Master is here,’ she told her, ‘and is asking for you.’ When Mary heard this, she got up and hurried out to meet him.”  The reason Mary (Magdalene) first kept her place before proceeding to meet Jesus, General, is not supplied in the Johannine gospel.

However, the Apocryphal document which has come to be known as The Secret Gospel of Mark sheds more light, General.  It explains that on the first occasion, Mary did come out to meet Jesus along with her mother Martha (Helena-Salome) but upon being rebuked by the disciples of Jesus, she repaired back to the house. Why was she lashed out at, General? Because according to the Essene matrimonial code, she was not permitted to come out of her own accord and greet her husband: she was to wait until he had given her express permission to emerge.

There is yet another element in the conduct of Mary Magdalene that has parallels with Solomon’s queen, General. In the back-and-forth romantic dialogue between the couple, the queen is referred to as a “Shulamite” (SONG OF SOLOMON 6:13). The Shulamites were from the Syrian border town of  Solam and we have already seen that Mary’s first foster father, Syro the Jairus, was a Syrian, as was her mother Helena-Salome.


The marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene was vehemently opposed by most of his so-called disciples. The most vociferous on this position, General, was Judas Iscariot. The writer of the John gospel characterises Judas as a “thief” who used to pilfer alms money but that is a smear.  The gospels were written post-eventual and therefore Judas’ name was already in ignominy.

His detractors therefore had a field day at sullying his character. Yet prior to the betrayal, Judas Iscariot, General, was one of the most respected figures among the Essene community. At the time of Jesus’ marriage, Judas was the second-highest ranking Essene after Simon Zelotes (that is the meaning of “Judas of Simon” in the passage quoted above, meaning “Judas the deputy of Simon”): Jesus was third, although politically he was the seniormost.

Judas opposed the marriage on grounds, primarily, that Mary Magdalene was not only a Gentile but a commoner. Judas had the right to pronounce on Jesus’ marriage because it was he who was in charge of the Essene’s order of Dan, to which Mary Magdalene belonged prior to her marriage to Jesus and therefore had the right whether to release her for marriage or retain her in the convent. Judas would rather the spikenard (the most expensive fragrance of the day, the reason it was only used by queens) was sold and the money generated donated to the Essene kitty (“the poor” was another name for Essenes: when Jesus in the Beatitudes said “blessed are the poor”, he was not referring to you and me: he meant the Essenes).

Sadly General, as high-standing as he was, Judas had no right of veto over the marriage of a Davidic heir: only Simon Zelotes had by virtue of his position as the Essene’s Pope. Simon Zelotes was Mary Magdalene’s step-father and there was no way he was going to stand in the way of the marriage of his own daughter. Moreover, Jesus had already begun to fancy himself as Priest-King.

As far as he was concerned therefore, he was at once the Davidic Messiah and the Priestly Messiah – the Melchizedek. Thus even if Simon Zelotes had perchance objected to the marriage, Jesus would have gone ahead with it anyway. It was Jesus’ highly unpopular appropriated role as the Melchizedek, General, that set him on the path to Calvary.


Continue Reading
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!