How King David and his controversial heir Solomon made Israel great amid glaring personal flaws
As far as the Anunnaki timetable was concerned, the 10th century BC was a crossroads, both literally and figuratively. It was in that century that Nibiru, their planet, and its King Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven”, became all the rage. The sign of the cross, the symbol of a near-at-hand Nibiru, was practically everywhere, more so in Babylon and Assyria, regions which constituted the old Sumer and the erstwhile Anunnaki hub.
When David set up base in Palestine after being ejected from the Egyptian throne as Pharaoh Psusennes II by General Shosheng, he had a specific brief from the Anunnaki god Ishkur-Adad geared to the reappearance of Nibiru, which circa 1000 BC was now roughly 400 years away. First, he was to capture all the Palestinian domains General Joshua could not conquer way back in 1315 BC. In particular, he was to take Jerusalem once and for all.
The native Jebusites had tenaciously held on to the city and although it was counted as part of Benjamite territory, the Benjamites did not have total jurisdiction over it. Why was Jerusalem central in the geopolitical blueprint of the Anunnaki? IT WAS SO BECAUSE ISHKUR-ADAD, THE FACE OF THE ENLILITE GODHEAD AT THE TIME OF THE EXODUS, HAD TOLD MOSES THAT IT WAS IN JERUSALEM THAT HE WISHED TO SET UP HIS EARTHLY ABODE IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ARRIVAL OF KING ANU. This was a symbolic home, not a literal home: his presence would be in the form of the Ark of Covenant, which would reside in a compartment of the Temple forever.
Second, David was to lay the groundwork for the establishment of Jerusalem as Mission Control Centre – the equivalent of Nasa’s Kennedy Space Centre of Merrit Island in Florida. This was crucial given that when King Anu touched down on Earth, his ultimate destination would be Jerusalem. This would practically make Jerusalem the capital of the world, hence its characterisation as the “Navel of the Earth”, meaning the place through which “God” – the Enlilite godhead – would sustain the planet in one way or the other.
Third, David was to ensure that Baalbek, the Landing Place in today’s Lebanon, was under Israelite control, so that both space-related sites within the Canaanite precincts were completely off limits to the rival Enkites. Baalbek was the airport that catered to Earth-based aviation and shuttlecraft operations. With David toppled from his Egyptian pedestal, the Enlilites had lost one other space-related site, the Giza Pyramid, but Baalbek, Jerusalem, and Nazca in South America would suffice anyway.
Fourth and of fundamental importance, David was to build Israel’s first formal Temple to replace the portable and stop-gap Tabernacle. In the past, a temple was primarily the home of a god. All residences of gods were known as temples. The Jerusalem Temple would not physically house a god but would be a place where the Jews gathered to worship their god and observe and perform a whole host of religious rites in the name of the god. IT WAS IN THE TEMPLE BASEMENT THAT MISSION CONTROL CENTRE WOULD OPERATE, with a tiny helipad set aside for the god Ishkur-Adad. In there, Adad would land, park, and lift-off his sky-ship, called a shem in Sumerian.
DAVID CONTENDS WITH SOUL
Yet in making a reality of the above imperatives, David had his work cut out. The major stumbling block was the dude known as Saul. Saul had been mandated to rule Palestine whilst the hereditary King David concentrated on the affairs of Egypt as Pharaoh Psusennes II. Since Jerusalem was still a bone of contention, Saul had set up his capital of what was called the United Kingdom (of Israel in the north and Judah in the south) in Gibeah in his tribal territory, Benjamin. He was the first King of the Jews after 300 years of being led by the so-called judges.
But when David returned to Palestine to take the reins there now that he had lost Egypt, Saul refused to budge, telling David to go get stuffed. Power is sweet and absolute power corrupts absolutely. THE SAGA OF DAVID VERSUS SAUL AS RELATED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IS FANTASY FOR THE MOST PART: it is an amalgamation of various strands of traditions woven together and in so clumsy and crude a fashion. It’s almost wholly pure legend.
David arrived in Palestine as an ex-Pharaoh and as the linear King of Israel. He didn’t grow up in Palestine as a poor shepherd boy and as the youngest son in a family of eight. He was Jesse’s firstborn, himself an ex-Pharaoh of Egypt going by the throne name Siamun. There was no David vs Goliath clash: it’s all a figment of some scribal spin-doctor’s imagination.
Being the clever operator he was, David refrained from a confrontational approach when Saul declined to defer to him. As the linear King, he had the support of the Jewish priesthood as well as the Jewish prophets. So he opted to use tact and diplomacy as a ruse, with a view to eventually repossessing the throne instead of mobilising outright for a civil war. Soon he and Soul had met and it was decided that in order to foster peace between the two, David should take the hand of one of Saul’s daughters in marriage. It was likely vice versa but having falsely portrayed David as a relative youngster, the biblical scribes desisted from highlighting this state of affairs.
Being from the tribe of Judah, David based himself in Hebron, the then capital of the province of Judah. For a time, the blindfold worked as the linear King and the pretender got along well. Then when time was ripe, David pounced. He opportunistically allied with the Philistines, Israel’s arch-enemy, and took on Saul. In the process, Saul was killed in a battle, or rather he fell on his own sword so determined was he to avoid the ignominy of being put to death by his foes. His three older sons were also killed.
That, however, did not put paid to David’s troubles as Soul’s fourth-born son Ishbaal declared himself King with the support of a sizeable constituency in the north. As such, for the next two years or so, the United Kingdom was split between Israel and Judah, a scenario which was anathema to David. In the event, war broke out between the two kingdoms but it was not at the hands of David’s forces that Ishbaal met his fate as he was slain by two of his lieutenants. David was at long last the undisputed King of the re-united Kingdom. The year was circa 988 BC.
DAVID TURNS ISRAEL INTO A MIGHTY MILITARY AND ECONOMIC POWER
As Israel’s uncontested King, David went to work straightaway. He descended on Jerusalem and decisively trounced the native Jebusites, a feat General Joshua could not accomplish 300 years before. Although he is generally regarded as a warrior King, David was seldom a provocative belligerent: he typically reacted to offensive action by his enemies. In the process, he defeated the mighty Philistines, the Moabites, the Edomites, the Ammonites, and the Arameans.
With this haul of victories, Israel now controlled the two space-related sites, Jerusalem and Baalbek, exactly as per David’s brief by Ishkur-Adad. Ultimately, the Davidic empire extended over both sides of the Jordan River, as far as the Mediterranean Sea. King David not only made Israel a great power militarily but also turned it into an economic power through gaining control over international trade routes. He himself became filthy rich from the spoils and tributes brought to Israel.
Next, David embarked on the preliminaries to the Temple project. Jerusalem had two major landmarks. They were Mount Moriah and Mount Zion, separated by a small valley. On the latter, David established his seat of power. Then he set about the construction of a “filling” to bridge the two mounts. The Temple was to arise on a pre-existing platform on Mount Moriah that had been built by the Anunnaki.
Sadly, all David was allowed to erect on Mount Moriah was an altar. The honour to construct the Temple was reserved for his heir because David, according to the prophet Nathan, had shed too much blood in his military exploits. Albeit, David pleaded with Adad to at least give him a visual idea of what the great Temple would look like. Adad obliged him and presented him with a Tavnit – a scale model of the Temple (Archaeological finds throughout the near East have indeed unearthed scale models of chariots, wagons, ships, workshops, and even multi-level shrines.)
KING SOLOMON BUILDS FIRST JEWISH TEMPLE
The Jewish Temple is variously known as the First Temple or Solomon’s Temple. The latter designation derives from the fact that it was built by King Solomon, David’s son and heir as per Adad’s pronouncement. Construction began in the second month of the fourth year of Solomon’s reign. This was exactly 480 years after the Nation of Israel’s exodus from Egypt commenced.
The Temple was as expensive as it was a magnificent and imposing edifice. It used vast quantities of gold, silver, and bronze, with its entire interior inlaid with gold only. All utensils were made of copper or bronze. One estimate puts the value of the gold and silver used at over $200 billion in today’s money, which puts Saudi Arabia’s 120-storey,$15 billion Abraj Al Bait Hotel, the world’s most expensive building, well in the shade.
Some 153,000 forced labourers and 3,300 officials were enlisted in the construction effort. Much of the gold that went into the project was imported from Ophir, today’s Zimbabwe. The Temple was built over seven and a half years. At its conclusion, Solomon was so deep in debt he was forced to pay off King Hiram of Tyre, who supplied vast quantities of the cedar wood needed of the structure, by handing over 20 towns in Galilee.
As expected, the Temple was commissioned with a great deal of fanfare. Ishkur-Adad did not put in a personal showing, but it sufficed that he was represented by the so-called “Cloud”, his alter ego who was actually a sentient ET with smoke-like quantum building blocks. This Cloud had always accompanied the Israelites since the onset of the exodus, hovering over the Tabernacle as a stand-in for Adad. In a vote of thanks and veneration, King Solomon referred to Adad as “the Lord who has chosen to dwell in the Cloud”. As many as 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep were sacrificed, which was then followed by a great public feast.
RICHEST, WISEST, AND ABLEST MAN OF HIS DAY
King Solomon reigned for about 39 years, in what has been described as the Golden Age of Israel, himself becoming the wealthiest man of his day across the globe and still remains one of the richest figures of history. He was also staggering wise and was in fact regarded as the wisest being who ever lived, courtesy of Ormus, the monoatomic white powder of gold which he manufactured right within the Temple precincts.
It is said Solomon made silver and gold “as common in Jerusalem as stones”. During his rule, he is said to have received 25 tons of gold per annum. One estimate puts his net worth at $2 trillion dollars in today’s money, making Jeff Bizos’ approximately $120 billion a drop in the ocean. Thanks to Ormus, Solomon had such staggering metaphysical insights and capacities that he was able to command Reptilians (demons in the Bible) of the Lower Fourth Dimension to manifest in this physical realm and do his every bidding. As such, in ancient occultic literature, he is hailed as the greatest witch who ever lived.
Unlike his war-prone father, Solomon was a consistently peaceful king. He forged abiding international relationships, forming alliances with surrounding powerful nations such as Egypt, Moab, Tyre, Arabia, etc. Many of these partnerships were cemented through royal marriages and the giving of concubines to Solomon, eventually gaining him 700 wives and 300 concubines (again thanks to the wonder of Ormus, he was easily able to satisfactorily “’serve” each one of this vast harem). One instance of his great wisdom is related in 1 KINGS 3:16-28 as follows:
“One day two women came to King Solomon, and one of them said: ‘Your Majesty, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home, and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us. One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on her baby, and he died. Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me. In the morning when I got up to feed my son, I saw that he was dead. But when I looked at him in the light, I knew he wasn’t my son.
“’No!’ the other woman shouted. ‘He was your son. My baby is alive! The dead baby is yours.’ the first woman yelled. ‘Mine is alive!’ “They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, until finally he said, ‘Both of you say this live baby is yours. Someone bring me a sword.’ A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, ‘Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.’ “’Please don’t kill my son,’ the baby’s mother screamed. ‘Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don’t kill him.’ “The other woman shouted, ‘Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby.’ "Solomon said, ‘Don’t kill the baby.’ Then he pointed to the first woman, ‘She is his real mother. Give the baby to her.’ “Everyone in Israel was amazed when they heard how Solomon had made his decision. They realised that God had given him wisdom to judge fairly.”
PLOTTING AND COUNTER-PLOTTING LEAD TO KINGDOM SPLIT
King Solomon was about 80 years old when he died. His death simultaneously marked the demise of a unitary Israel, making him the third and last king to preside over the United Kingdom. Solomon’s reign did not enjoy total tranquility. The relative instability actually began in the waning days of his father David. It stemmed from David’s habit of hitching too many wives and siring too many children, a lesson that rather strangely was lost on the otherwise wise Solomon.
David had at least ten sons from different wives. The eldest was Amnon, who he sired by his third wife. As the King’s firstborn son, Amnon naturally considered himself heir. In order to make a reality of this prospect, he began to hit on his half-sister Tamar. Tamar was David’s daughter with his own daughter-cum-wife Bathsheba. David had designated Bathsheba as his queen, making her leapfrog other senior wives – a precondition she had given him for keeping under wraps his tactical elimination of her erstwhile husband Uriah.
What that meant was that whomever of Tamar’s half-brothers took her to the altar stood the best chance of inheriting after David. It was with this in mind that Amnon began to make overtures at a blushing Tamar (the Bible says Amnon raped her but that is a smear: the two were love birds with a promising relationship).
Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who was David’s third son (his second son Daniel seemed to have died young), also had designs on the throne and he feared that if Amnon and Tamar tied the knot, that would bring his monarchical ambitions to a dead-end. Consequently, he had Amnon murdered to forestall just such an eventuality.
For some time, Absalom was on the run from the wrath of his kindly father, but he was forgiven after three years. He repaid his father by declaring himself King four years later, by which time David had lost much of his effectiveness as monarch, and bedding his father’s concubines at will. Absalom based himself in Hebron, where he raised an army to resist his father. David, however, had very determined generals and Absalom was killed at the Battle of Ephraim’s Wood.
Following the death of his two older brothers, Adonijah, David’s third son, entered the lists. He declared himself King and had the support and blessings of army general Joab and the influential priest Abiathar. But an even more influential trio of Zadok the priest; the KIng’s chief bodyguard Benanaiah; and Nathan the court prophet threw in their lot with Solomon and had David officially announce him as his heir.
That’s how Solomon, who was David’s 10th son, supplanted everybody else to become Israel’s next King and ruled illustriously for the next 40 years. Sadly, the Kingdom came apart at the seams in the aftermath of his death. Exactly how that ensued we demonstrate in the forthcoming piece.
NEXT WEEK: JEWISH PROPHETS SOUND OFF ON NEARING NIBIRU
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.