Ishkur-Adad, the Jehovah of the Exodus, institutes first Jewish exchequer
Having ordained the Aaronic priesthood through the agency of Moses, Ishkur-Adad, the Anunnaki Jehovah of the Exodus, now proceeded to the next step. HE DECIDED TO INSTITUTE THE FIRST FORMAL WORSHIP SERVICE FOR THE NATION OF ISRAEL. This was the beginning of Judaism proper.
Thus far, the Hebrews had never had a dedicated, national religion of their own. They had no temple or any other such own-nurtured place of religious gathering. That did not mean they were religiously indifferent. In Egypt, for instance, they had worshipped non-Enlilite gods – called idols in the Bible. Indeed, the prophet Ezekiel admonishes them for doing just that (EZEKIEL 20:4-12) and Joshua also lambasts them for indulging in the same reprehensible practice in their formative days in ancient India in Abraham’s father Terah’s time (JOSHUA 24:2).
But this was simply a pull factor, a kind of sidetrack. It was a case of catching the lurge, of being influenced by the factor of propinquity. It is natural for any minority population to assume tendencies and predilections of the dominant people in the broader society. In fact, in the majority of cases, Israelites, particularly when they were in Egypt, hardly mingled with Egyptians religiously: they simply kept symbolic images of Egyptian gods for whom they had an affinity. Their religion was for the most part private and domestic as opposed to being brash and institutional.
The closest Israelites had to a formal religion of their own was in the form of altars. All their patriarchs – Noah, Abraham, Isaac – erected an altar to their god. Altars, however, were not worship settings: they were impermanent platforms for sacrifices (slaughtered animals) and offerings (grain, wine, bread, etc) to a god. Certainly, the Hebrew word translated altar connotes slaughter, as in sacrifice. Writes one savant on the subject: “The term altar comes from old English, possibly also related to a Latin word ADOLARE that means to burn up.
In the Hebrew tradition, the word is MIZBE’AKH – and its root is ZAVAKH, which means slaughter, as in a sacrifice.” Some altars were not places of sacrifice as such, but were simply monuments or memorials to commemorate a great act done, or a promise rendered, by a god. Jacob built one such altar at Shechem (GENESIS 33:19,20) and Moses had only recently done so right in the Arabian wilderness to toast to Adad following the Israelites’ “miraculous” repulsion of the provocative Amalekites after a three-day war (EXODUS 17:15,16).
Thus, whereas in the past the Jews had revered their gods in an informal, make-shift kind of way, Adad now decided it was time they did so permanently and as a matter of routine in a formal assembly. This was to be known as the Tabernacle. There, he would meet them in a symbolic sense and they would worship him with all the religious protocol that entailed. The Tabernacle would be “God’s” dwelling place so to speak, a place where he would interface with his chosen people. The Tabernacle foreshadowed the more permanent Temple that would be built when the Israelites were firmly ensconced in Canaan.
COMPOSITION OF THE TABERNACLE
The Tabernacle went by several names. It was variously called a Sanctuary; a Tent of Meeting; a Tabernacle of the Testimony; or the Tabernacle of the Congregation. According to EXODUS 25:9, Adad was so determined to get exactly what he wanted that HE PROVIDED MOSES WITH A SCALE MODEL OF THE TABERNACLE, AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. But the actual construction of the Tabernacle was assigned to two crack artisans, Benzaleel of the tribe of Judah and Aholiab of the tribe of Dan.
Although the specifications of the Tabernacle are elaborate and rigorous, it was not unique. It was a throwback to Egypt. Both the architecture of the Tabernacle and its surrounding courtyard more or less mirrored the battle tent of Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses II. There were three main sections of the structure. These were the Tabernacle proper; the courtyard; and the altar. The Tabernacle proper was subdivided into two rooms: the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.
The courtyard was the preserve only of the Jews and proselytes, the latter being non-Jews who had converted to the Jewish faith by undergoing circumcision. In the courtyard was found the bronze water basin, where the High Priest (Aaron) and the chief priests (his four sons) would thoroughly wash their hands and feet before they entered the Tabernacle or approached the altar with a food offering, and the altar itself.
It is ironic that the Tabernacle is called a Tent when it was actually a covered timber building. Clearly, it was not as easily portable as it is billed in Exodus. It is said when the Israelites wanted to shift camp, they took the Tabernacle down and carried all its constituent parts to the new locale. It must have taken them weeks to have the Tabernacle systematically dismantled.
The material inputs that went into the construction of the Tabernacle were gold, silver, bronze, shittim wood, goat hair, the skins of hides, rams, and sea cows, and yarn that had been dyed blue, purple, and scarlet. Exodus says both the metals and hides/skins were supplied by the Nation of Israel themselves, the metals from the hoarded “loot” which they had tactfully swindled the Egyptians out of before they embarked on the great trek into the Arabian wilds. This was basically stolen treasures used as raw materials in the construction of “God’s House”!
The altar, where animals were sacrificed, is prescribed in EXODUS 20:21, which says, “An altar of earth you shall make to me, and shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings, and your peace offerings, your sheep, and your oxen …” Altars in the Hebrew Scriptures were constructed of earth, stone, wood and/or metal.
The altar had a particularly intriguing characteristic. Its most sacred parts were the “horns” protruding from its four corners. It was to these four horns that the blood of the sin offering was applied. What do horns stand for in Illuminati imagery? The Devil, as evinced by the ubiquitous El Diablo (Devil’s horns) hand signal flashed by famous personages in practically every picture our eyes happen to light upon. This particular altar was made of pure gold and acacia wood, which was extravagant: why make a platform whose only purpose was to roast animals out of gold, the priciest commodity? But since the altar represented Lucifer, the real god of the Enlilites, this is not surprising at all. His meal table had to be adorned with gold to fit his stature and standing.
Whilst the Tabernacle was being built, Moses meanwhile met with Adad in the Tent of Meeting, a provisional arrangement. “As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses,” says EXODUS 33:7,9. Once the Tabernacle was up and running, the Tent became redundant though the Tabernacle too continued to be loosely referred to as the Tent of Meeting.
DEVIL HONOURED IN SANCTUARY’S HOLY OF HOLIES
The various sections of the Tabernacle were to be furnished with accoutrements particular to them. For the Holy of Holies, these were the Ark of the Covenant, the Table of the Presence, and the Golden Lampstand. Since we will dwell on the first two in detail next time around, we will at this juncture devote to unpacking the Golden Lampstand, also known as the Menorah.
The Golden Lampstand comprised of seven branches, each supporting an olive oil lamp. Its ostensible purpose was to illuminate the Holy of Holies so that it had clear visibility on the occasion the High Priest stepped in there. But you will be aware by now that Illuminati trappings invariably have several layers of meaning. The surface layer, which is intended for the wider public, is the least important. It is the underlying layers, meant for fellow Illuminati elements, which carry the fundamental message.
The Golden Lampstand represented occultic illumination, not necessarily the needed environmental lighting. At every Satanic gathering, there’s always a form of light. Even in musical videos shot by mega stars of the American entertainment industry, there’s always a bit of light lingering in the background. To the Illuminati, light is the primordial symbol of Lucifer for Lucifer is the light bringer, the term light here employed in the sense of privileged occultic and metaphysical knowledge and not general knowledge.
The number 7 is also numerologically significant. Primarily, it was at once the number of Earth (being the seventh planet counting from Pluto) and Jehovah-Enlil in his capacity as Earth’s Chief Executive pre- the astrological Age of Aries. BUT THE ILLUMINATI ARE VERY CLEVER OPERATORS. MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THEY USE REVERSE SYMBOLISM SO THAT WHAT THE MAINSTREAM ASSUME IS THE PRIMARY MEANING OF A CERTAIN EMBLEM IS ACTUALLY NULLIFIED (for instance, they use an inverted cross to desecrate Jesus and therefore mock Christendom). That way, they are less liable to give the game away.
The number 7 is in some contexts (such as in the Golden Lampstand case) a bow to the planet Saturn and therefore to Satan himself as Saturn is the Devil’s Solar System bastion. Saturn is the 7th major celestial body in the Solar System counting from and including the Sun. It is a pity that in the Book of Revelation, the Golden Lampstand is presented as an image of the Church. UNBEKNOWNST TO MOST CHRISTIANS, WHAT THAT SUGGESTS IS THAT THE CHURCH IS ACTUALLY PRESIDED OVER NOT BY JESUS OR FIRST SOURCE BUT BY THE DEVIL. It is the Devil who struts the pulpit folks.
It explains why the Golden Lampstand imagery is a constant feature in every Catholic parish, and we know the nature of interdimensional forces the Vatican represents. It also explains why these days, all sorts of outrageous deeds are being perpetrated by pastors of the so-called Fire churches in the name of “God” without shame or scruple.
This litany of iniquities include flagrant adultery and sexual snacking; false prophesying; bogus healings which do not endure; theatrical laying of hands; felling desperate members of the audience under the pretext of the “power of the Holy Spirit” (when all what that does is introduce demonic spirits in the hapless victim); getting people to eat grass and consume the deadly Doom spray; sacrificing of prominent members of the church or a critical mass of congregants by way of road “accidents” (read: “spell-casting”) and collapsed buildings; outright paedophilia, which has now become a staple of the Catholic church; pimping teenage girls to the pastor and other senior members in the church hierarchy; using church members slavishly and imbecilically moving on all fours as a stage prop; and the flaunting of blood-stained, ill-gotten, Lucifer-enabled riches. This Earth, My Brother …
ADAD’S SAFETY AND SECURITY TAX
If you thought religion was essentially spiritual and innocuous, then I’m afraid you are living in Cloudy Cuckoo Land. Religion’s main purpose is to stunt mankind’s progress as a spirit-soul, to distract us from focusing on our inner, higher self as only that can bring about true real salvation. The Kingdom of God is within you, not outside of you, as Jesus truthfully put it.
But there is more: religion is a subtle, sleight-of-hand means to economic ends. It is about self-aggrandisement at the expense of the hopelessly naïve and gullible “flock”. The famous – or is it infamous – Black American tele-evangelist TD Jakes is on record as gleefully admitting that “religion makes for good business”. And he can prove it: according to the Forbes magazine list of wealthiest pastors on the globe, TD Jakes has – Praise the Lord! – a net worth of $147 million as of the “year of our Lord” 2018, making him the richest propagator of the gospel on Earth.
Of course TD Jakes has a broad-based portfolio of investments, but what set him up was the financial windfall accruing from the tithes and offerings of the stupidly unsuspecting people who cram the pews when he’s belting out his “calling”. Yet he’s far from the odd one out: members of the Levitical priesthood were just as wealthy. The High Priest was filthy rich folks. The priesthood was just as corrupt those days as the clergy of our day are (when in AD 66 the Zealots ejected the Romans, the first person to be put to the sword was the High Priest, who they regarded as the paradigm of a looting collaborator).
Remember, the Temple was the very heartbeat and lifeblood of the Jewish economy. All economic life was centred around the Temple. One of the sources of the priesthood’s wealth was Temple Tax. Temple Tax was introduced by Moses, at the say-so of Ishkur-Adad right at Mount Sinai. It served two principal purposes. First, it was meant for the upkeep of the Temple and the subsistence of the priesthood. This is the role you hear the pastor eagerly preach about because it sounds very godly and bolsters his own economic cause.
What the pastor will not tell you is that Temple Tax was also A RANSOM FOR THE PAYER, A MEANS BY WHICH HE OR SHE PAID FOR HIS WELLBEING AS A PROTÉGÉ OF HIS GOD. This was most obvious in its other form, which we can call Census Tax but which was actually Safety and Security Tax. Census Tax applied to men who were 20 years and above, who were under obligation to serve in the army. For “God” to guarantee the general wellbeing of service men, he had to be bribed. Otherwise, he would visit a plague on the whole nation even if only a few people were in default.
The ordinary Jew paid Temple Tax once every year. For service men, they paid it every time a census was conducted as censuses those days were done to establish how many people were eligible for enlistment into the war effort. This is what Adad says in EXODUS 30:11-16 (the emphasis is ours): “When you take the census of the people of Israel, THEN EACH SHALL GIVE A RANSOM FOR HIS LIFE TO THE LORD when you number them, that THERE BE NO PLAGUE AMONG THEM when you number them.
Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary, half a shekel as an offering to the Lord. Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, SHALL GIVE THE LORD’S OFFERING. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the Lord’s offering TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR YOUR LIVES …”
In the above statement, Adad accentuates the fact that Temple Tax was an atonement – a payment made by the Nation of Israel so as to forestall a calamity of sorts and therefore insure their lives. The Anunnaki gods never ever rendered a favour or blessing for free. The other thing Adad stresses is that every time a census was held, ransom money had to be collected from everybody counted. To neglect collecting the ransom was a very serious offense against the god and invited very serious repercussions as was the experience of King David (1 CHRONICLES 21 and 2 SAMUEL 24).
Adad instructed David to take a census of all the tribes of Israel. David did likewise but for reasons that are not spelt out, he omitted to collect the Census Tax. Adad was livid as a great economic opportunity was passed up. He had Gad, a prophet, confront David for this transgression and read the riot act to the King. The King was asked to choose one of three reprisals.
They were three years of famine, three months of a tempestuous military onslaught by enemy nations, or three days of a holocaust-like plague. David chose the latter. The short-lived plague, which is not specified, laid waste to 70,000 Israelites. For having his money-centred god incur an incalculable economic loss, David had to lose 70,000 of his people. Human life was so cheap to these barbarous Anunnaki gods.
MORE ANIMAL SACRIFICE, MORE BLOOD-LETTING
At long last, Aaron and his four sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar were consecrated for “God’s” service by Moses on the instructions of Adad. This commissioning into elemental priestly service was a bloody affair. Besides having Aaron and his four sons wash in water (to publicly demonstrate that they were not physically tainted in any way, shape or form) and anointing Aaron as High Priest, it involved animal sacrifice and literally dousing the five priests in animal blood.
The animals involved were one bull and two rams in a three-phase, week-long ceremony. The one involving the bull was a sacrifice of purification – to cleanse the priests of any lingering sin that might render them unfit to represent the people before “God”. The bull was consumed by fire, first on the altar within the Tabernacle yard and finally outside it. The second sacrifice involved having a ram burnt to a cinder right on the altar.
The third sacrifice was of the ram of ordination. Aaron and his sons first laid their hands on the ram. Then once it was slaughtered, its blood was first smeared on three areas of the body. These were the ears (to signal unquestioned obedience to Adad); the right hand (to signal devoted service to Adad in the manner of a right-hand man); and the right foot (to signal an abiding, lockstep philosophical walk with Adad). The rest of the blood was then sprinkled on the altar as well as over the priestly garments of the quintet.
The ram of ordination was not totally consumed by fire: only a part of it as the rest was spared as a meal for Aaron and his sons – to herald the fact that the priesthood were to be fed on the offerings from the rest of the population as recompense for their dedicated service to God. Note the symbolism of the animals chosen for sacrifice. Both the ram (signifying the astrological Age of Aries) and the bull (representative of the Egyptians’ Apis Bull) were emblematic of Marduk, the Enlilites’ arch-enemy who was Earth’s sitting Chief Executive.
It was all occultism folks: what you kill (through shedding of blood) and eat you assimilate and consequently enhance your own occultic powers with its life force, which is eternal. Also note the occultic hallmarks of blood and death in the whole process. This is very much an echo of a Satanic setting. And you say the Old Testaments gods were “holy”? C’mmon, give me a break dude.
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.
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.
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!
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.