It all began in Orion on a planet of the Suriya star
If we depose that Princes Diana was a direct descendent of Jesus of Nazareth, it necessitates, General Atiku, that we posit a well-buttressed argument that she indeed was such. This, General, is not a profession that can be exhaustively elucidated upon in only one or two articles: maybe three, four, five, six, or even more. As such, I accordingly seek your permission, venerable General, that I do likewise.
I am mindful that you may find this elaborate approach a shade overdone and even somewhat pedantic, but I’ll trust to your patience and forbearance anyway. After all, patience is the companion of wisdom and you General constitute a remarkable repository of enormous reserves of both these traits. Not too long ago, General, relatively speaking, I served up a series titled The Jesus Papers. I would like to believe, General, that you followed it avidly and fervidly. Much of what I will say in relation to the “divinity” of Diana if you will, General, I did enunciate in The Jesus Papers, and to a larger extent in The Earth Chronicles.
If I am obliged to restate the same in the Lady Die context, General, it is only for the sake of that segment of the readership who came aboard the This Earth My Brother bandwagon much later and therefore missed out on the gem that was The Jesus Papers and the inceptual section of The Earth Chronicles narrative. Certainly General, I wouldn’t want them to find themselves in a position where they make neither head nor tail of the tale that is being woven before them.
HOLY GRAIL BEGINS WITH ORION
As a keen and voracious all-round reader General, I’m sure you will have come across the concept of the Holy Grail elsewhere other than my own writings. In the wider public domain, it first surfaced in a 1982 best-seller, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (sub-titled The Secret History of Christ and the Shocking Legacy of the Grail) by the trio of Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh.
There were further cherries on the cake by another prolific mystery historian Laurence Gardner. These were Bloodline of The Holy Grail (sub-titled The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed), 1989; Genesis of the Grail Kings (sub-titled The Explosive Story of Genetic Cloning and the Ancient Bloodline of Jesus), 1999; and The Magdalene Legacy (sub-titled The Jesus and Mary Bloodline Conspiracy), 2005.
Barbara Theiring’s Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls (sub-titled Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story), 1992, was further food for thought about who exactly the “Saviour” or “Messiah” was. But it was The Davinci Code, a 2003, blockbuster, fact-based fictional work that mainstreamed the subject of the Holy Grail into daily parlance, General. Never before, General, had Jesus’ mortality, as opposed to his divinity, so riveted the attention of a globalwide audience.
All the above works in varying degrees of depth traced the origins of the Holy Grail to either the Anunnaki (Gardner) or Jesus (Theiring and Lincoln & Co). But years before Lincoln & Co put pen to paper, General, Robert Morning Sky had gone much further: in his pocket-sized book titled Eden, Atlantis, and the UFO Myth, he traced the genesis of the Holy Grail to the Orion star system. How so General? And what anyway is this animal called the Holy Grail?
EARTH, A COLONY OF ORION
Over the course of time, the Holy Grail, General, has assumed any number of forms depending on who’s telling the story and the juncture in history he or she is specifically highlighting. In the main, it has been characterised as a cup, bow, dish, chalice, goblet, platter, or a stone invested with miraculous powers to heal all wounds, deliver eternal youth, and grant everlasting happiness. But all these, General, are little more than emblems of the real deal. For the fact of the matter, General, is that the Holy Grail is a genetic strain that goes all the way back to the Orion Queen, who resides in a cosmic location ranging from 243 to 1360 light years away.
Permit me at this juncture, General, to restate a cardinal point I adduced in The Earth Chronicles – that our planet Earth is not independent: it is a colony, de jure or de facto, of the Sirian-Orion star system. Earth is actually situated on the fringes of the broader Sirian-Orion Empire, the most expansive in the Milky Way Galaxy. The history of Earth, General, begins not here but in the Sirian-Orion star system and even further back in the Lyran star system as we amply demonstrated in The Earth Chronicles.
The term Orion derives from the ancient compound word Ori-An. Ori meant “Spirit”, that is, the Spirit of the Queen of Orion; “Holy”; or “Master Race”; and An stood for “Heaven”, that is, the cosmos. Thus Orion was the abode of the Holy Goddess. To the ancients, therefore, Heaven was not a spiritual realm of existence where First Source dwells, the way it is understood in modern-day religion: it was the home of the Mother Goddess primarily. The Mother Goddess was not a spiritual being: she was the Queen of Orion.
In the worlds the beings of Orion conquered, they were referred to as the Alla-An, Arra-An, Ari-An, or Aya-An (varying but related renditions of one of the Orion Queen’s multiple titles). All these forms of address meant “The Holy Ones of Heaven” or “The Divine of Heaven”. It is Ari-An/Alla-An which gives us the words Aryan and Alien, terms ancient Earthlings used for beings from the Orion star system primarily and all ETs in general. The Sumerians, the world’s best-known known civilisation of old, called it Uru-Anna, meaning “Crown of Heaven”.
Orion, General, is the most significant constellation both astronomically and historically with respect to Earth. Orion has had the most impact and influence on Earth exopolitically as ancient records attest. Only Sirius is second in this regard. Orion is one of the largest constellations in the cosmic expanse. It has more than 300 stars. Its brightest stars are Rigel and Betelguese, whose civilisations have featured prominently in Earth’s cosmic history. The other significant stars are Mintaka, Alnilam, and Alnitak. These constitute what is known as Orion’s Belt. It is Mintaka, General, to which the shaft of the Giza Pyramid’s Queen’s Chamber is astronomically aligned.
If you do read the Bible at least from time to time, you will be aware, General, that Orion is directly mentioned in the Bible three times – in JOB 9:9 (“He [God] is the maker of the Bear and Orion”), JOB 38:31 (“Can you loosen Orion`s belt?”), and AMOS 5:8 (“He [God] who made the Pleiades and Orion”). In the gospels, the three stars on Orion’s Belt have been allegorised as the Three Wise Men who presented special gifts to baby Jesus. Ancients called the Orion Belt stars as the Three Kings.
The symbology in the Jesus story of the Star from the East (Sirius) and the Three Wise Men (the three stars studding Orion’s belt) is a veiled message that Jesus had both Sirius and Orion origins. But he was not unique in that way, General: we all have genes of beings from Sirius and Orion.
A SPECIES KNOWN AS KHEBS
The first planet to develop life by way of evolution in the Orion star system General has at times been referred to as the Green World because green is the colour that is generally associated with Reptoids inasmuch as the baseline colour of the worker class of the Reptoid world, the mainstream class, is green. The insect genotype that was the first to dominate its species on the Green World looked like a dragonfly. It also had traits and characteristics of a bee. If it arose on Earth, we would call it a dragonfly-bee. In the ancient records, however, it is referred to as a Kheb.
The Khebs laid their eggs in the ponds. The newly-born Khebs looked like microscopic scorpions, with tiny stingers on their tails and tiny pincer claws on their forelegs. The moment they were born, General, the Khebs went to war – with each other. They fought for territory straight from birth and they killed straight from birth – very much in keeping with Reptilian humanoids we’re familiar with here on our planet.
In time, the Khebs left the watery ambience to dwell on dry land but up in the trees. Here, another transformation took place. The Khebs no longer looked like a dragonfly-bee but like a mantis. By then, their outer skins had hardened into a tough shell. How did the Khebs reproduce, General? For ages, they produced asexually, that is, without the involvement of a male Kheb. This was not by choice: the male species had not appeared at this stage. Evolution is such that female creatures appear first. Male creatures follow at a later stage. These are millions of years we’re talking about General.
KHEB INSECTS BECOME REPTILES
At long last, General, a genetic mutation in the Kheb females caused Kheb males to come into existence. The Kheb species was now able to reproduce sexually. In other words, the Khebs were capable of producing either sexually or asexually depending on their preference or environmental factors such as climate for instance. Remember, General, the Khebs had part-characteristics of bees and bees even in our day produce either way, sexually or asexually. When the eggs are fertilised by male seed (sexual reproduction), they will always produce a female.
When they are not fertilised by male seed (asexual reproduction), they will always produce a male. This is what was happening to the Khebs as well. However, for the Kheb females to produce sexually, General, it necessitated a certain transformation in their internal organs. This change was necessary to permit conception. Before the advent of male Khebs, female Khebs routinely survived on the nectar of plants or the flesh of other insect species. Now they needed to feed on the blood of other creatures. The female Khebs had become vampires, like what malevolent Reptoids (humanoids [beings who look like us] who evolved from a reptile) are today.
As time went by, in billions of years, the Khebs, General, became large, flying reptiles. At this stage, the male Khebs had “bony plates all over their bodies and arms and legs, much like the dinosaurs of Earth in the long ago prehistoric eras. They had a ridge of short plates with semi-sharp edges, that began near their forehead, trailed back and over their skull and down their backs, gradually tapering down on their short slender tail” (like a Tokoloshe, or sprite in English.). All the while, the Khebs retained the ability to fly.
At some stage, the Kheb reptiles began to branch into several related species. Some specialised as lizards, others as dinosaurs and still others as snakes. It was the latter species, the snake strain, that proliferated on the Green World, General. Even among the snake species, there were branches. Here on Earth, we have more than 3000 snake species. The Green world must have had a similar number of serpent strains too.
KHEB REPTILES BECOME HUMANOIDS
In the course of evolution, General, genetic instructions were such that the Kheb males were physically smaller than the Kheb females. This indeed is true of the overwhelming majority of reptiles: females are typically larger than males. It is only among mammals and birds that males are predominantly larger than females. But there was one major development with the Kheb females on the Green World that was particularly significant, General. A glitch in their physiology rendered them poisonous.
Relates Robert Morning Sky: “Something happened to the female Khebs that did not happen to the males. The changes in their bodies that produced the hormones necessary for the production of offspring also produced a fluid that was acidic and highly poisonous to other creatures! The Kheb Reptilian females could protect themselves and their nests by spitting natural venom into the eyes and faces of their victims. A stream of hot acidic fluid that struck the face of an enemy could cause nerve-numbing paralysis or blindness.
If there was an open wound or the venom entered the gullet of the victim, death was almost always certain. And woe be to any enemy that felt the fangs of the female Kheb.” The Kheb females were resultantly much more feared than the Kheb males, General. In time, General, the Khebs became the most dominant life form on the Green World. It were the Khebs who became the first humanoid species to evolve on the Green World.
And just as we Earthlings have lost much of the features and traits of the animal from which we evolved, an ape-like creature, the Khebs also lost a great deal of the very distinct Reptilian and insect features of their ancestors. They no longer had scales, for example, and could no longer fly. But unlike us, they were smooth through and through: they didn’t have a single strand of hair on their bodies because they evolved from a hairless insect strain which metamorphosed into a hairless serpentine creature (it explains, General, why Enki, the great Anunnaki scientist who genetically engineered mankind into existence from Anunnaki and Ape Man genes [see The Earth Chronicles series] and whose primordial ancestry was Kheb, is always bald-headed and without a beard in every ancient depiction of him that take the form of a statue).
In terms of skin texture, the Kheb race were very much like the Ebens of planet Serpo, who also evolved from a serpentine creature (see Zeta Series). These first Reptoids to emerge on the Green World, General, were known as the Surbah. Surbah is a compound word, with Sur standing for “majestic” and Bah meaning “being”. Surbah therefore meant “Royal Race”. It is the term Surbah which gives us the Sanskrit word sarpha; the Latin word serpens; and the English word serpent.
The serpent race, General, was the first to arise, by way of evolution, in the 9th Passageway of the Milky Way Galaxy, arguably the most lucrative trade route in the cosmos. Let me underline this most pertinent of points General: originally, the term serpent did not mean snake at all. It had a very noble meaning – “Majestic Race”. The snake connotation arose as a slur on that race by the Sirians, the beings of the Sirius star system, just because the Surbah evolved from a snake-like creature. In sum, General, the Surbah evolved from a dragon-fly bee insect to a mantis to a large flying reptile to a snake-like creature to a humanoid.
THE SURIYA STAR
The Surbah, as the first fully sentient beings to evolve on the Green World, were very spiritual General. This is the trend with evolution everywhere in this universe. Why is it like this? Because the first souls to incarnate did so cloaked in predominantly female energy although as spirits they are genderless. That’s why all life begins with females everywhere in the universe. We all know that females are comparatively tender-hearted than males (albeit more gullible than males because they generally think with their emotions than intellect).
They are in fact more spiritual, more affectionate, and way kinder than males. Females are also known to have a facility for communicating with the spirit world. It explains, General, why most psychics are women and the shamans of old were initially women. In the primordial age of the Surbah, life in this counterfeit universe (which was designed by Lucifer) was very much akin to that of the real Heaven, General. It was a kind of Paradise. The ancients referred to this age as the Dar-Ek-Uye, meaning the “Primeval Holy Age of the Universe”.
Sadly, the historical particulars of this age are not fully chronicled by cosmic historians; only its general tenor and tempo. The relevant history that cascaded down to our Solar System begins in the Omakh, the “Age of the Divine Mother”. This was the Age of the Orion Queen. It was the age of Ari-An beings, as the ancients referred to the Orion civilisation. Now, the ancients, General, did not refer to the Orion constellation as such.
They called it the Shagari Stars, meaning “Fires That Drift” (shagari being a compound word made up of asa [fiery] + gar [to drift or fly]). Of course we know that stars, also called suns, are fiery at least theoretically and are not stationary: they too drift in their own orbits carrying along their planets with them, just as planets drift in their own orbits carrying along their satellites (moons) with them.
The Shagari cosmic region had numerous stars. From the viewpoint of our planet, astronomers today designate at least 300 as the constellation’s “notable” stars, that is, those that can be detected from this distance by virtue of their more pronounced degree of luminosity. However, only ten of the Shagari Stars had planets, and of these ten only seven were the most consequential.
One of the seven most important stars was known as the Suriya star, meaning “Star of the Divine One” (Suriya being a compound word made up of sur [majestic] + Aya [divine or holy]). In the Omakh age, the “Divine One” was the Orion (Shagari) Queen. It was on one of the planets of the Suriya star, in the Shagari star system and in the Peshmeten – the 9th Passage Way of the Milky Way Galaxy – that the Serpent race arose, first as the holy Surbah, and over time as the degenerate Ari-An beings, General.
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.