The Ark of the Covenant embodied 21st century technology
The Nation of Israel’s wilderness religion was presided over by Aaron and his four sons. Aaron was the High Priest and his sons were the chief priests. All Anunnaki-sired institutions were peopled not by pure merit but on the basis of nepotism basically. This trend has carried over to our day. In 2009, David Rothkorp, a former CEO of Henry Kissinger, one of the nastiest Reptilians of our time, wrote a book titled SUPERCLASS: THE GLOBAL POWER ELITE AND THE WORLD THEY ARE MAKING.
In it, he disclosed that our world of 7 billion people was controlled by only 30 families using 6000 highly paid operatives who robotically toed their agenda. At the enterprise level, these hyper-families ran the world through 147 corporations which had interlocking boards of directors. Aaron and his sons had specially made sacred, priestly garments to wear, much like the Pope dons in our day. The garments were made of linen, the finest cloth available. Aaron’s priestly attire consisted of six parts. They were a robe, a woven tunic, a turban, a sash, an ephod, and a breastplate.
The ROBE was blue in colour. Its hem was decorated with identical patterns of pomegranate (a red fruit symbolic of the blessing and prosperity and the fertility and fruitfulness Ishkur-Adad, the Jehovah of the Exodus, had, so he said, in store for the Israelites once they had conquered Canaan) woven out of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn. The pomegranate patterns were interspaced with small bells made of pure gold. The bells were meant to herald the movements of the High Priest around the Tabernacle.
In the event that he entered the Holy of Holies and the bells were not heard for some considerable length of time, that would be a signal that he had been struck dead by “God” because he entered the presence of the deity in a unholy state arising from neglecting to perform the necessary pre-entry rites to the letter. Everything about the Anunnaki gods was based on fear. The TUNIC (outer garment) was tied with a colourfully embroidered SASH (girdle). Both were weaved from fine line cloth.
The TURBAN (head dress) had a gold medallion attached to it by a blue cord, worn on the forehead. Engraved on the gold medallion were the words, “Holy to Yahweh”. It was the High Priest’s proclamation to Adad that he was sin-free at that particular point in time having performed all the prerequisite self-sanctification rites. According the JEWISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA, the EPHOD was “part of the official dress of the High Priest which was held together by a girdle of similar workmanship sewed on to it.
It had two shoulder-pieces, which, as the name implies, crossed the shoulders, and were apparently fastened or sewed to the ephod in front. In dressing, the shoulder-pieces were joined in the back to the two ends of the ephod … At the point where the shoulder-pieces were joined together in the front ‘above the girdle’, two golden rings were sewed on, to which the breast-plate was attached.”
The two shoulder-pieces were made from finely woven linen embroidered with gold, blue, purple and scarlet thread. Each of the golden rings (clasps) that joined them had one onyx stone fastened to it. On each onyx stone was engraved six names of the tribes of Israel, arranged in order of seniority based on the ages of Jacob’s sons. This was to show that when the High Priest stood before God, he represented not he himself but Israel.
Like the ephod, the ESSEN, translated as breastplate in the English versions of the Bible, was embroidered with gold and with blue, purple and scarlet thread. According to the Biblical instructions and rabbinical traditions, the breastplate was “a patterned brocade like the ephod. The threads of its fabric are gold, sky-blue, dark red and crimson wool, and twisted linen. The garment itself is set with four rows of small square stones, in settings of knitted or braided gold. Each row contained three stones-totaling twelve stones, one stone representing each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The name of the corresponding tribe was engraved on each stone.”
Note the recurrence of four colours in particular – gold, blue, purple, and scarlet. Each of these colours has something to say about the Anunnaki. Gold represented sustenance in that the Anunnaki’s extraordinary longevity, or eternity in the eyes of mankind, was enabled by the ingestion directly or indirectly of Ormus, the monoatomic white powder of gold. It also stood for divinity and the extrinsic personal worth of the Anunnaki, as gold is the most cherished metal, one reason it was called the metal of the gods.
Blue represented the heavens (the firmament). Mankind believed the Anunnaki came from a place known as Heaven, which they associated with a place yonder in the skies. Purple has always been the colour of royalty and the Anunnaki were the ultimate royalty. Scarlet (red) represented retribution, being the colour of blood. When the Anunnaki were “sinned against”, their stock response was to kill, whether this be an individual, a large proportion of a population, whole cities as in the nuking of Sodom and Gomorrah, or practically an entire race of mankind as was the case during the Great Flood of Noah’s day.
WHICH GEMSTONE REPRESENTED WHICH TRIBE?
The gemstones appearing on the breastplate were ruby; jade; agate; carbuncle; lapis lazuli; quartz crystal; turquoise; amethyst; agate; aquamarine; onyx; and opal. The identity of the gemstones is not definitive. There are over 30 different opinions on the matter. Also, there is no certainty as to exactly which gemstone corresponds with which tribe.
Says the Temple Institute of Jerusalem: “The exact, conclusive identification of these stones is actually one of the most difficult and elusive of all Temple-related studies. This is because the original Hebrew names of these stones as they appear here in the Bible are extremely obscure. They are not commonly used, and no description of the stones appears anywhere in the verses themselves. In the course of many years, as nations flourished and fell, and civilizations migrated to new lands, languages evolved and the meanings of words changed.
Thus in one location, a word may have one meaning and connote a particular concept, while in another land, the same word may carry the exact opposite meaning. “The names of these stones are particularly enigmatic: there are over 30 varying opinions as to the final identification of the 12 stones. These opinions include scholars and commentators from the entire historical spectrum of rabbinical literature and tradition, beginning with the most ancient – and therefore, in this case the most reliable opinions – those of the Aramaic translations of the Bible.”
However, although the gemstones cannot be identified with clear-cut finality, their colours can. For according to the Midrash, ancient commentaries on the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) by the Jewish authorities, the gemstone colours corresponded with the colours of the ensigns (flags) of the tribe. On that basis then, the gemstones are associated with a particular tribe as follows: Ruby, Reuben; Jade, Shimon; Agate, Levi; Carbuncle, Judah; Lapis-Lazuli, Issachar; Quartz Crystal, Zebulun; Turquoise, Dan; Amethyst, Naftali; Agate, Gad; Aquamarine, Asher; Onyx, Joseph; and Opal Benjamin.
WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM?
There are two items in the High Priest’s regalia which are only casually mentioned when of necessity they required a detailed exposition. These are the URIM and the THUMMIM. It seemed the Jewish writers of the Old Testament corpus did not really understand them, as a result of which they deliberately omitted to elucidate upon them.
The Urim and Thummim are first mentioned in EXODUS 28:30. Moses is instructed, by Ishkur-Adad, the Anunnaki Jehovah of the Exodus, to place them in a pouch in Aaron’s breastplate. Aaron was obliged to enter the Holy of Holies, which housed the Ark of the Covenant, only once a year – on the Day of Atonement. And every time he did and stood before the Ark, he was to bear the Urim and Thummim without fail.
Of the two, it is the Urim which receives a fair amount of repeated mention in a direct sense. In the two other places where it is directly mentioned, it is associated with attestation (that is, a truth-upholding oath) and decision-making (by the Anunnaki god). In NUMBERS 27:18-21, General Joshua was made to swear before the High Priest Eleazer (Aaron’s successor) by the Urim when Moses passed the baton to him as the Nation of Israel’s new leader.
In 1 SAMUEL 28:5-6, Saul, the first King of Israel, had to seek the voice of his god, albeit vainly so, using the Urim when the Philistine army hemmed in around him. However, these are not the only places the Urim and Thummim are implied. In other passages, they are referred to as “testimonies” as indeed they corresponded with the two Tablets of Testimony that were kept in the Ark.
It seems the two Tablets of Testimonies that were housed in the Ark had specific purposes. One was a digital record of Adad’s covenant with the Jews that they were his people and he was their god. But it was a record not only of this but also of “the testament of a lost civilisation and all that man has ever known and all man would ever know” according to the Jewish Qabalistic tradition.
This very much sounds like the Sumerian MEs, which have been described as “something like our present-day computer chips, on which data, programs, and operational orders were minutely recorded … and in which the essentials of civilisation were encoded”. The other tablet was a decoder of electromagnetic sound waves. In other words, it made the distant voice of Adad audible wherever he happened to be, just like the decoder built into a TV or radio makes the distant voice of announcers at the broadcasting station audible from any distance.
We may refer to the two Tablets of Testimonies contained in the Ark as the Enclosed Testimonies and the Urim and Thummim as the Borne Testimonies as they were placed in a pocket sewn to the High Priest’s breastplate. The Urim, a crystal gem, was also known as the SCHAMIR or LIGHTNING LIGHT. This was because it gave off a light that illuminated the Holy of Holies when the High Priest stepped in there. Remember, God is Light and he had to be approached in light (In the 2nd degree [Fellowcraft] Freemasonry ceremony, God is called the “Great Luminary”).
The arc light of the Ark of the Covenant represented God’s presence whereas the Urim light represented the spiritual light of the High Priest. (At the spirit level, we are shimmering beings of light). Under certain conditions, the Urim emitted a laser-like, spear of light that could cut through stone with absolute precision. Noticing the magnificent properties of the Urim, King Solomon asked his artisans to improvise his own in the form of a Tablet Ring of the Testimony worn on a finger. It was this ring he used to cut the stones for his temple.
From that time on, it became a bequest to all the succeeding kings all the way to his seventh generation successor, King Joash. Relating the coronation of King Joash, 2 KINGS 11:12 has this to say: “Then he brought forth the king's son; he put the insignia on him and gave him the testimony. They proclaimed him king and anointed him. They smote the palm and said, Long live the king!” The “testimony” was the Urim ring.
The Thummim went by several other names such as SCHETIYA, ANNA (meaning “firestone”), FOUNDATION STONE, the STONE OF PERFECTION, or SAPIR. These names applied at different stages of history. The Thummim is said to have been made from a “divine sapphire”, that is, a sapphire stone provided by the Anunnaki gods. It was basically a levitational device, which according to Qabalistic tradition kept the Ark perfectly poised at about three fingers above the ground when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies.
All in all, the Urim-Thummim had an essential role to play in summoning the power of the Ark. WHAT YOU SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT OF, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE LIGHT SYMBOLISM IN ALL THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REAL GOD, FIRST SOURCE. IT ALL HAD TO DO WITH THE GOD OF ILLUMINATI ELEMENTS – LUCIFER. Lucifer means “Illuminator” or “Light Bringer” and that’s what those who align with forces of darkness call the Devil. The Old Testament religious system was based on Devil-worship, period.
A KILLING MACHINE
The Ark of the Covenant was always carried into battle. Apparently, the Israelite army general used it to get battlefield tips from Adad and to report on the fate of a battle. Once, when the Israelites were trounced in a battle at Ai, General Joshua both lamented before the Ark and besought counsel from Adad through it (JOSHUA 7:6-9). At another time, when the main body of the Israelite nation lost a battle to the tribe of Benjamin at Gibeah, they consulted Adad through the Ark, who promised that, “tomorrow I’ll hand them over to you” (JUDGES 20:19-27), which he indeed did as “Yahweh helped Israel defeat Benjamin and that day the Israelites killed 25,100 of Benjamin’s warriors” (JUDGES 20:35).
Besides being a communication device and a manufacturer and repository of Ormus, the Ark of the Covenant was capable of performing certain wonders. What immediately comes to mind is what happened when General Joshua led the Israelites across the river Jericho. Its powers were drawn upon to part the river, something akin to Moses’ parting of the Red Sea, so that the Israelites would cross it on dry land (JOSHUA 3:15-16; 4:7-18). In other words, the Ark was inbuilt with HAARP technology, which is theoretically capable of such a feat.
It is doubtful though that the Ark could serve so many purposes at once. What likely was the case was that it was operationalised by remote control from some base inside one of the high-tech mountain bunkers of the Anunnaki. It is from here it was monitored either by satellite or surveillance microchips which relayed the happenings around it. Hence whereas some of the things attributed to it it did engender locally, some of them, such as the parting of the River Jordan, were effected using the HAARP technology at the Anunnaki base. One of the Tablets of Testimony must have been capacitated with GPS tracking.
If the Ark was dreaded by the Nation of Israel, it was because it was a killing machine both in a direct and vicarious sense. Under certain circumstances, it did emit a deadly radiation which was calibrated according to whether the killing was to be effected instantaneously or over time as a sort of slow puncture. In less severe cases, it simply caused non-life-threatening illnesses. People were also executed for infringing the rules governing its handling.
That the Ark was a perilously affair indeed is evident in Adad’s instruction to the Kohathites, who were charged with handling it when the Israelites were on the move. They were not to touch it or look at it “lest they die” (NUMBERS 4:1-16): they were to carry it strictly using poles. To guard against this temptation or transgression, the Kohathites were instructed to wrap the Ark first in the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies; then in what were called badger skins; and finally in a clothe of solid blue.
This was three layers of clothing altogether. When the Israelites were in procession, the men who carried the wrapped-up Ark were separated from the rest by a distance of about 900 metres. They were clad in very special attire to protect them in the case of an accidental radiation emission. A number of incidences are encountered whereby people died in circumstances associated with the Ark. There was this case of Uzzah, who was one of the men transporting the Ark on an ox-driven cart downhill.
Somehow, the oxen faltered and the cart was in the process of tipping over and therefore touching the ground (it was not supposed to ever do so as the ground was cursed by “God” following the fall of Adam) when Uzzah reached out his hands to steady it. He was struck dead “by the Lord” immediately (2 SAMUEL 6:1-11; 1 CHRONICLES 13:1-13). Most likely, the Ark must have fallen on his chest or crushed his head: it was 2 feet wide and 4 feet high and estimates of its weight range from 150-2000 kg.
Once, the Bethshemites were entrusted custody of the Ark and curious to know what it was and what it contained tried to pry it open. About 50,000 of them ended up dying, in all probability from its radiation effects. The Bethshemites should have learnt a salutary lesson from the Philistines, who had captured it in war from the Israelites and had just returned it after being with it for seven months. The Philistines decided to part with it after been wracked by an endemic of boils and a plague of mice, both of which ceased after they returned the Ark (1 SAMUEL 6:19). Of course their sufferings were not directly engendered by the Ark but by Adad’s high-tech cunning.
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.