Connect with us
Advertisement

“Holy Moses” Becomes Holly Moses

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

The “Man of God” is initiated into witchcraft

The story of the Burning Bush (Moses’ encounter with “God” through a thicket engulfed in a non-consuming fire at Mount Horeb in the Sinai Peninsula) is at once misrepresented in the Bible and misunderstood by the broader readership. As I keep reiterating much of the time, the reason we do not understand the world in which we live is because we lack the requisite knowledge. We perish for lack of knowledge (HOSEA 4:6).

What really transpired at Mount Horeb? This was what transpired: MOSES WAS INITIATED INTO THE OCCULT BY HIS GODS! Moses, it turns out, never was Holy Moses: he was actually Holly Moses. (Hel-wood, Holly wood in modern spelling, or simply Holly, was the source of magic wands used by ancient occultists such as the Druids. Thus we have the famous Hollywood in California, the Illuminati’s mass propaganda and conditioning machine.)   At age 80, Moses became a sorcerer – somebody who could perform seemingly unnatural feats we typically call magic or wonders but which anybody can do for as long as they have been made privy to certain metaphysical secrets.

Wonders can be either positive or negative, destructive or constructive. When a wonder entails evil, such as witchcraft, it is typically called magic or sorcery. When it mesmerizes and astonishes because it has brought about a dramatically beneficial result, such as healing a naturally incurable disease, it is called a miracle.        

Genuine miracles, like those Jesus is said to have performed,   are not easy to come by. This is because to achieve them, you ought to have a pure heart.  In other words, you have to be very close to First Source, the real God, in terms of how you conduct yourself in your pilgrimage in life. A ubiquitous fact of life, however, is that people who for one reason or the other want to perform wonders are motivated by fundamentally selfish ends.

They want the wonder to accomplish their own wish first and foremost and not advantage a person in critical need. A self-centred wonder, or one intended to inflict harm on other people, is ungodly. As such, the ability to perform such a wonder can only be enabled by “mighty” forces who themselves are ungodly.  We call these demons or devils, who are actually interdimensional Reptilians.

However, Reptilians do not confer magical abilities (which includes transforming one’s life into a fabulously wealthy or geopolitically influential person) free of charge. You have to pay for them somehow. You do this by selling your soul to them, so that you are now owned by them both as a physical and spirit being.  In other words, they rule you and they can demand that you do anything for them without asking them questions.

And what they demand you do for them from time to time is always diabolical – killing people (mostly as a sacrifice to demonic powers), bewitching people, harming people, cursing people, violating people (such as having sexual relations with females of all ages against their will), committing acts of sexual perversion (such as sodomy or bestiality), cannibalising people, manipulating the minds of the masses, especially the youth, so that they engage in rebellious and unruly conduct   (e.g. through messages subtly embedded in musical lyrics or directly by way of what is called mind control),   etc.

In the case of Moses, he was initiated into sorcery by his Anunnaki god Ishkur-Adad. The Enlilites, as we have long underscored, worked (and continues to work)  in cahoots with Reptilian forces who overshadow them. It explains why most of them, more so Enlil-Jehovah, Ninurta,  Ishkur-Adad, and Inanna-Ishtar were so incomprehendably  harsh and cruel. Why did Moses agree to be initiated into sorcery? BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BE THE KING OF CANAAN. The Enlilites offered him that sort of glory for as long as he sold his soul to the Devil.

Very few people are aware that Moses was one of the greatest witches  who ever lived, only second to King Solomon. The Roman historian Pliny describes Moses as the founder of a 'sect of magic', in reference to Judaism. Today, Judaism is called a religion,  but that was not how it began: it started as an occultic secret society headed by Moses.   If you ask any seasoned Satanist, they will tell you that the standard witchcraft manual is THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH BOOK OF MOSES. And the broadest extant collection of Jewish magical recipes from the first millennium is titled THE SWORD OF MOSES. Both these works are said to have been authored by Moses.

The authors of the Pentateuch were very much aware that Moses was very adept at magic. They give several hints, such as his brother Aaron turning a staff into a snake that swallowed the snakes of Egyptian magicians at the scene of  Moses’ showdown  with Ramesses. Of course the incident in truth had nothing  magical about it as we showcased last week,  but their spinning it  as involving magic does underscore their recognition of the fact that Moses indeed was a sorcerer.   

SCENE OF BURNING BUSH WAS A SATANIC RITUAL

The impression the Bible gives us is that Moses was taken unawares when he was summoned to the scene of the Burning Bush. That simply is not true. Moses was being initiated into the occult that day and he was thoroughly prepared for the ritual. How do we know that he was attending a satanic  initiation ritual?


At every satanic initiation ritual, there is fire or some form of light, a demonic manifestation, and at least one other person, usually called priest if he is a man or priestess if it is a woman,  who initiates the initiatee. In the case of Moses, his initiation  priest was his own father-in-law Jethro. The Bible says Jethro was the High Priest of his territory Midian but it does not specify as  to whether he was a religious priest or an occultic priest. Circumstantial evidence suggests that Jethro was an occultic High Priest and so he was the one who initiated Moses.

The burning thicket which was not being consumed by the fire is pure embroidery on the part of the Pentateuch writers. The thicket was actually literally burning. And the thicket was the BOSWELIA PLANT, which indeed thrives in the Sinai Peninsula. Boswelia, also known as the Frankincense Tree, is a plant or tree from which incense is made. Burning incense is a standard feature at every satanic initiation ceremony.  It seems at a metaphysical level, Boswelia has properties conducive to demonic inducement, which explains why one always encounters a continuous smell of incense in every witch doctor’s cubicle.  

In the Bible, the burning bush is described as a “thornbush”. That is code for  the nature of the Reptilian force in whose honour the proceedings at the scene were being conducted. Indeed, the term thorn in the Bible is a metaphor for the Devil and his demonic host. Paul, for example, says he was given a “thorn in my flesh“ to torment him. He describes this thorn as “a messenger of Satan” (2 CORINTHIANS 12:7-9).

At a Satanic initiation ceremony, there is always light of some kind. The light is symbolic of the Devil, also known as Lucifer. Lucifer, a very beautiful name, has sadly been appropriated by the Devil. Lucifer means “light bringer”, or “Illuminator”.  Thus the light at every initiation scene is in deference to the Master Reptilian, the Devil himself. The necessity of the burning bush in the case of Moses was in order to signal the shadowy presence of Lucifer at the scene. Again, in every witch doctor’s cubicle, you will always find a candle burning as a tribute to Lucifer, who as the apostle Paul said in his second letter to the church at Corinth in today’s Greece  masquerades as “an angel of light”, 2 CORINTHIANS 11:14.   

Often, especially  if you are being initiated at a very high level in the Satanic hierarchy, a demon manifests amid crackling flames of fire. (The Gnostics, the first century metaphysical philosophers, wrote that the archons – their name for Reptilians – were made from “luminous fire”.)  That indeed happened at the scene of the burning  bush although the demon has  been spun as an angel of God. This is what EXODUS 3:2 says in part:  “Then the messenger of Yahweh appeared to him in a blaze of fire from the midst of a thornbush.”

In  other words, a demon, a “messenger of Satan” courtesy of Paul,  leaped out of the fire. This demon  was to be Moses’ ruling demon. It was to reside in Moses’ body and endue him with all the magical powers he wished to wield. At the same time, the demon  was to punish him in one way or the other if he appeared to renege on his undertaking to the Devil.

Further evidence that the scene of the burning bush had demonic connotations is that Moses was asked to take off his sandals because the ground on which he stood was “holy” (EXODUS 3:5).  Again,  when you ask anybody who has participated in a satanic ritual, they will tell you  that everybody present  has to be barefoot. And if you ask anybody  who has been to a witch doctor’s cubicle, they will tell you they are required to take off their shoes before they make their entry.

ADAD INTRODUCES HIMSELF AS ANKI

Once the ceremony was complete, Moses acknowledged its meaning and implications and prepared to depart. He had hardly made the first step when he heard a most regal voice boom out of the still burning thicket. The voice was actually coming from a very tiny, sophisticated speaker embedded somewhere in the walls of the cave. THE VOICE BELONGED TO THE ANUNNAKI GOD ISHKUR-ADAD.  It said:  “I am the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac and the Elohim of Jacob,” EXODUS 3:6.

In the English version of the Bible, the term “God” is used instead of Elohim. That is grossly  misleading. Elohim is a plural term. It was the term by which the Anunnaki ruling pantheon were addressed as a collective. Even Mount Horeb itself is alternatively referred to as “the Mountain of the Elohim” in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament which is very apt: for it was in the vicinities of that mountain that  Nannar-Sin (who would become the Allah of Islam) and Ninmah were housed.

So what Adad was saying to Moses was that he was addressing him as a representative of the Enlilite gods, the same gods his leading ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had venerated. Remember, the Enlilites had decided on a sham monotheism, whereby they appeared to mankind as a single god when in actual fact there were several of them behind the scenes. The idea was to minimise the rivalry among themselves as they had always competed for a human following despite being members of the same clan.

Now, as an Egyptian royal and a learned one for that matter, Moses knew who the Elohim were. But  he was familiar with the Enkites only, notably Marduk, who was the national god of Egypt. He had never had a single personal encounter with the Enlilites before, who were  reputed as inimical to the Enkites. If you were to go by the English version of the Old Testament, you would get away with the impression that Adad did not directly state his name, or rather, the name by which he chose to present himself to Moses. 

That is unfortunate. It is a pity that even scholars with chains of  theology degrees to their necks have bought into this bunkum. ADAD DID ACTUALLY INTRODUCE HIMSELF TO MOSES. IN EXODUS 3:6, THE SCRIPTURE QUOTED ABOVE, THE HEBREW TERM TRANSLATED “I”  IS “ANKI”. The term Anki stemmed from the Sumerian term which meant “Heaven-Earth”, or to paraphrase, “God of Heaven and Earth”. This was the name by which the Enlilites had decided to go by.

When a lie has been repeated time and again, it assumes the status of a fact.  We have all along been of the belief that the god of Moses gave him a silly, dodgy name which effectively meant “mind your own business” when  he actually did pronounce forth his composite titular name. This Earth, My Brother …

MOSES COMMISSIONED TO WRENCH HIS PEOPLE FROM THE EGYPTIAN YOKE

The Burning Bush incident doubled as an initiation on the one hand and a commissioning on the other. The Enlilites had decided to designate Moses as the new King of the Hykso-Hebrews and to appoint him to the rather daunting task of prying them loose from Egyptian bondage, whereupon he would lead them to Canaan. That was the message Adad conveyed to Moses.

In order for the idea of liberation to appeal to the Hykso-Hebrews, Canaan was to be touted to them as a kind of Utopia, “the land of milk and honey”. Presently, Canaan was dominated by peoples who did not have the legal right to inhabit the territory. These were the Canaanites (the descendants of Canaan, Noah’s grandson through Ham, originally from Egypt), the Hittites (originally from Turkey and the northern parts of Syria); the Amorites (descendants of the fourth son of Canaan and therefore originally from Egypt, though at the time they also abounded in Mediterranean Europe); the Perizzites (a rural-dwelling people whose specific nationality  is not known),  the Girgashites (descendants of the fifth son of Canaan and therefore originally Egyptians), the Hivites (descendants of Canaan and therefore originally Egyptians),  and the Jebusites  (descendants of Jebus, a descendant of Canaan and therefore originally Egyptians). Adad described these seven nations as “greater and mightier” than the Israelites.  

During the partition of the known world not long after the Great Flood of Noah’s day, the land that would in future be known as Canaan was allotted to the tribe of Shem, the progenitor of the Semites, a bracket that is predominantly Hebrew. But circa 8970 BC, Set, one of Marduk’s sons, seized Canaan after tactfully populating it with his followers, the offspring of Canaan, and the Shemites/Hebrews scattered to other lands beyond Canaan, including Egypt itself, where they ended up as slaves.

The Enlilites had decided that the Hebrews who were in bondage in Egypt should return to Canaan, their rightful land. What that entailed was that all the Canaanite nations who presently inhabited Canaan had to return to Egypt, their legally allotted land. Of course the Canaanites, having lived in Canaan for more than 7000 years, would not simply pack up and go: they would put up a real fight.

The only way the Hebrew/Hyksos would get them to budge was by means of war. It was because of the certainty of warfare that the Enlilites chose Moses, a decorated military general, to lead the Hykso-Hebrews out of Egypt and into Canaan.  The  promise to hand over Canaan to the Hebrews was first made to Abraham about 700 years prior, the reason Canaan was also known as the Promised Land.

Moses accepted his commissioning but only reluctantly so, perhaps because at 80 he was too old to stand up to the rigours of a long and protracted armed conflict. In any case, he had been to Egypt the previous year and Pharaoh Ramesses had stoutly refused to release the Hebrews. So how was he going to succeed to force the hand of Ramesses this time around?   

TELL THEM, “EHYEH ASHER EHYEH HAS SENT ME”

According to the biblical book of Exodus, Moses fumbled for every excuse in the book to avoid returning to Egypt. The main excuse he proffered was that he was  not an eloquent speaker, probably because he was a stammerer or stutterer.  That, however, does not square with Stephen’s description of him in the book of Acts. In ACTS 7:22, this is what Stephen, a deacon of the early church, says: “Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds." In other words, Moses was a rousing speaker, which fits with his characterisation of him by the legendary Jewish historian Flavius Josephus as a man who oozed surpassing intelligence, which is best articulated through the gift of the gab.

If Moses was a mesmerising orator, why do the authors of Exodus portray him as a bumbling speaker? The reason is very simple: THEY WANTED TO FIND AN EXCUSE TO BRING AARON INTO THE MIX. Remember, the person who performed the “miracles” of the snake and the hand before Ramesses was Aaron according to Exodus but we know that is not true: it was Moses because that was what he had to do challenge Ramesses for the pharaonic throne.  The authors of Exodus, however, didn’t want Moses to be the one to perform these acts because then it would have been obvious to informed readers that he was an ex-pharaoh. So to keep this hint from the readers, Moses was cleverly substituted for Aaron.

In a nutshell therefore, Adad never instructed that Moses go with Aaron to Egypt (though he went with him anyway): those words were put in Adad’s mouth by the writers of Exodus. And there was nothing amiss with  Moses’ way of speaking. Maybe his pronunciation of words was not that crisp since he was 80 years of age but Aaron was older than him by three years; so he could not have been a more audible speaker than Moses.

Moses, who was naturally a very argumentative person like most intelligent people are, asked Adad as to how he would convince his people, the Hebrew-Hyksos, that he had indeed been sent by their true god.   Adad said that was not a problem: Moses had already been initiated into the dark arts and so he would be capable of performing certain wonders.

Then came perhaps the most pertinent question. If his people asked him what the name of their god was, what would he tell them? Moses had already been told that he was talking to the god Anki. But the Hebrews did not refer to their god by his real  name: that was sacrilege. SO WHAT MOSES WAS ASKING FOR WAS A SECONDARY FRAME OF REFERENCE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR ANKI, WHICH HIS PEOPLE WOULD USE IN THEIR DAILY PARLANCE.

Responding to Moses’ question, Adad said, “Tell them EHYEH ASHER EHYEH has sent me”. What did Adad mean by this most enigmatic statement that has baffled many a scholar and whose common interpretation is actually flawed? 
Don’t you worry: we  will unpack it for you.  
 

NEXT WEEK:   MOSES BACK TO THE LION’S DEN

Continue Reading

Columns

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.

ASSIGNMENT JUDEA

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.

A SADISTIC ADMINISTRATOR

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.

PILATE’S WINGS ARE CLIPPED

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.

NEXT WEEK: ZEALOT REVOLT AGAINST PILATE

Continue Reading

Columns

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

Columns

The Lord Ties The Knot

18th August 2021
JUDAS

… 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.

THE FIRST MARRIAGE

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.

THE FINAL MARRIAGE

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.

JUDAS DENOUNCES THE MARRIAGE

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.

NEXT WEEK: A NEW GOVERNOR COMES TO TOWN

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