SACRIFICIAL VICTIM OR SCAPEGOAT ?
Centuries of lies about a real man.
It is not too difficult to notice that since Robert Graves wrote about Jesus in such familiar terms in his book “King Jesus”, others in different countries almost copied the efforts and created undeserved best sellers. People in other language sectors are almost always unaware of the original and the plagiarized authors are also oblivious to the fact. What is shameful however, is that the heavily researched contents of the original, often leading to startling and revolutionary conclusions are tilted in foreign language copies in favour of local religious ideologies. In that way, disturbing and undermining conclusions can be cushioned or even distorted. Religious administrators are all too often willing to lend financial support to these clever parasites. I saw one of these ludicrous efforts in Spain called the Q document written up (according to the new author) Cesar Vidal, “as a version of” the original published in English by Burton Mack through Element Books and now with Harper Collins. The rogue author even had the audacity to register his own copyright then and wait a few years before doing his own so called pirate version. This uninspiring writer like many others of his type, pump out an incredible number of “own versions” of other people´s heavily researched books and make sure that the originals never find their way into the market. Even in their own countries, these writers are looked on with more suspicion than praise in view of the sheer impossibility of anyone being able to create a best seller every other week. The odd cranky institution, caught by the phenomenal output of the “genius” however, often grants them the odd accolade or two. Whether this is a publishing aberration aided by backing religious censors is not clear, but without doubt many a revolutionary study remains outside the barriers of different countries in the same manner that the Inquisition “literary bonfires” did its work. The fact remains that in a shameful way, new knowledge is deflected and sanitized making the translation of the original work by honest publishers a worthless exercise .This writer, at least, had foreseen its potential and explains the seedy, copyright precaution taken to ensure that it would remain so. Here’s hoping that Harper Collins will do something about it.
History of Manipulation.
It also happened with dramatic results in the aftermath of the centralisation and state control of Christianity at the time of the Emperor Constantine. Today, much of what we consider genuine in the ancient texts are defined as “extrapolations” or altered copies designed to provide sanitized, manipulated evidence. The Josephus texts which are probably the only ones which can be taken seriously but which are not conclusive (in so far as identifying Jesus is concerned), are often utilised as proof of his existance and divine origins. These Slavonic Josephus texts of “The Jewish Wars” offer different versions of the short mention of one who could be Jesus. This is clear evidence of interference. Where one talks of divinity, the other talks of impressive personality. Where one talks of physical beauty, the other talks of a wispy beard and a a possible back or neck deformity. Such are the means and wherefores that keep the man in the street well supplied with what is considered suitable for his status, by the lofty autocratic religious authorities. Modern Iran is a perfect example of the political conditions that prevailed nearly two thousand years ago.
There was a modern writer in modern times, who created a revolutionary approach to the context of the probable life of Jesus and the social conditions which were to lead to the crucifixion and beyond. He did it in his own original and enviable fashion. This was Professor Schoenberg who brought the period back to life and created an impressive scenario which lent a curious reality to the circumstances surrounding Jesus´s life and so called death. Professor Schoenberg took a great deal of support from the then published, controversial Dead Sea Scrolls, to the extent of attributing a particular text to Jesus´s own words during his claimed convalescence in the Essene monastery. Professor Eisemann who may have inspired him however, was one of the most imaginative of the scroll decipherers and he had little doubt about the contemporary nature of the texts and of its authorship during Jesus´s own lifetime. He brought out a wide variety of significant aspects of the scrolls that in my mind proved the point. Some of these points were to lead me to very interesting and missed observations in the bible texts. It also drew me to the commentaries through the centuries by the outstanding writers of each period who betrayed their beliefs associated with the hidden traditions of early Christianity. I filed these away as Caskets of Evidence” in a chapter of my new book on the Knights Templars.
In my mind (and Eiseman´s) there is no doubt that the Essenes and the Nazarenes were much of the same order of things. I did however form the opinion from reading Professor Higgins mammoth works on etymology that the Carmelites were a very ancient order associated with the early Israelite tradition of mountain worship – hence the concept of Mount Carmelot. The Grail Legends of “Camelot” speak for themselves. Joseph of Arimathea himself has often been classified as a member of the Carmelites. My own discussion with modern Carmelites also endoresed these ideas. This led me to various conclusions relating to the origins of the Israelites and subsequent Christian tradition. It also made it clear to me that the tribes of Israel derived from a wide variety of oral traditions and a similar variety of early cult worships which never really managed to amalgamate conclusively. It was a key that led me to some very interesting overlooked aspects of the nature of Jesus and his family. The matter is extremely complex but not of immediate value with respect to these series of articles designed to shape the face of a man. A man, who has been misrepresented, historically ignored and mythologised beyond recognition – for purely political purposes. A man enslaved in fiction for a doctrine of, so called, liberation. Such are the wonders of the strange equation that was to produce armies of Pharisees in the name of a strange amalgam called Christianity. Jesus would have been at great pains to work out what it was all about. The notion of gathering the flock by force for example, would have provoked this gentle, pacifist who based his teachings on example, affection and puzzling sermons. It has clouded the very human and endearing characteristics of an unusual and ultimately unique expressant of great love.
Not a Jew
Jesus´s teachings have nothing to do with Judaic traditions or way of life. In fact he commented reprimandingly on many aspects of it. He felt it lacked sincerity in the upper levels of priestly government and what he did say very clearly when we analyse his overall concepts, was that centralised faiths run like autocratic governments, overlooked the real suffering and aspirations of a people. The Roman Catholic Church gave the temple back to each community where the faith was practiced, but it retained, as Constantine did, the autocratic hold on its people by adopting the Roman concept of Divinity with a human face. This had to lead to the strict mental control of the so called Christians in a manner more suited to the Pharisees than to the intellectual, highly sensitive Jesus who was quite happy to lead only those who understood him. It is without doubt the body of knowledge which Jesus had acquired through his traditional and travelling education which eventually led him to accept this final sacrifice. As far as the priests of the House of Judah were concerned he was an enemy from within with an incredible understanding of the origins of the tribes and its prophetic literature. Jesus was out to destroy the concept that Judea was Israel and that the Israeli people were Jews. In fact, from the recruiting process that followed it was clear that the Jews represented a small faction of the peoples of the territories north of its borders. The fact, obvious to the Nazarenes and the Essenes, was corroborated by the reality that this was just one tribe of a scattered eleven or even twelve. Hardly a concept for a united Israel called Judea! What the Romans appear to have written at the top of the cross and no doubt provided by Joseph of Arimathea or even his friend Pilate, was “Jesus the Nazarene, King of Israel” not of the Jews. (INRI). This deliberate distortion of historical reality has been the bane not only of the Christians, but of the Jewish people themselves as it drove them headlong into each other with unnecessary hatred and recriminations. The Jewish people have their proud pedigree and heritage, but little to do with Israel and the Israelites. This is a modern concept that would have not gone well with anyone involved in the repatriation and conservation of its cultural heritage from the time of Abraham (who was most definitely not a Jew).
Jesus´s attitude to the occupying forces was one of respect which is, if anything, surprising to many. He was horrified at the attack on the centurion when he was apprehended and he moved Pilate to embarrassing confusion when he refused to acknowledge or deny the things that the priests had accused him of. Pilate recognised nobility and spiritual conviction but was in any case well acquainted with this popular figure who acted very much as he would have expected him to. Pilate’s problem was that as Procurator of Judea (his only territorial authority) and in bad terms with the Roman Emperor, the last thing he could cope with was insurrection. The fierceness of the religious leaders forced him to take some sort of palliative, diplomatic action. Jesus was obviously well aware of what he was causing but it is not clear that he expected his life to be put at risk at that point. If he had wanted to provoke the Roman authorities directly, he could have chosen multiple other ways. Herod did not disturb Jesus either, who again, saw him as a much admired figure and according to the bible texts, “someone he was looking forward to meeting so much that he became Pilate’s friend for life for giving him the opportunity”. This a very curious thing indeed and if the massacre of the Innocents had been true, the presence of a royal or prophetic figure would have struck fear in his heart if his father, Herod the Great, had spoken to him about the event during his childhood. It is now well known that Jesus was not born on so called zero date, but at least four of five years earlier for him to have been the object of Herod´s wrath. Instead, however, we have joy – a great desire to meet him on the part of Herod Junior. It may well be that this may have been refused in the past, by Jesus for his part in the dath of his cousin John. It may also show what is suspected, that Jesus´s ancestors were known to him and deserved his respect. There are factors that appear to show that this might have been the case. The other curious incidental aspect is that the situation betrays friction between Herod – and the Roman colonial authorities. If he was not Pilate´s friend then there was something wrong, for they both governed the same territory ! If the incident cemented the relationship between them, then there is something in the story that needs to be looked at carefully. I suspect that Jesus was well known to the family and respected precisely because of his strong public condemnation of the priests whom Herod also disliked. Pilate stood uneasily in the shadow of the giant Herod who was a Roman Emperor´s man and therefore a potential threat to his own position. One mistake – one sign of disrespect and the Roman Emperor could have had him thrown into the dungeons without mercy. Taking Jesus to Herod was one way out of the conundrum but he feared for Jesus´s life and his prayers were answered when it proved to be the correct thing to do. In doing so, probably unwittingly, he managed to close ranks with the next thing to the Emperor on these shores. When he returned from the palace with a newly garbed Jesus, he hoped the presentation to the people would alter their attitudes. The intensity of the drive by the Temple authorities however, demonstrates an arrogance on their part, bordering on the hysterical and they whipped up the crowds in a way that took the situation away from his hands. The infamous deed of the washing of his hands off the whole matter was to become one of the most celebrated acts in the history of modern humanity. In fact the theatre behind all this, strikes one as a rehearsed exercise in keeping with the similarly theatrical nature of all the horror that followed. Could Jesus really have worked all this out for himself and skillfully forced the hand of the Jewish Sanhedrin to have him executed for heresy ? It does not make sense. What does matter, is that the descriptions of the events and the imagery adopted by the later Christian Church suggests that this was a religion in the making. Putting his head in the noose with intellectual hardheadedness may have been instinctive, but it does not prove that he organised his own crucifiction. It could show, that other people did, after the event, like Paul for example, who knew what Jesus had tried to do and put his own interpretation on it. The reason for this line of thought lies in the last supper testimonials which are so contrived as to point in the direction of a clever scene writer embellishing the scene long after the event. I am referring not just to Judas and his supposed betrayal of his Master, but to Jesus´s own supposed statements which in retrospect imply that he was making it all happen. If we add this to the red cloak, the reed and the crown of thorny myrtle, which are the stage elements of the Roman/Greek mystery school initation of Demeter, we have High Roman officialdom conspiracy in the background. In short, the creation of a divine mortal. All very strange indeed and perhaps Jesus was but a pawn in a much more sophisticiated exercise of pure stage management. The matter requires a very deep study all of its own. Jesus had a right to declare that he was what people made him out to be, but he was not going to confirm it, because he was too clever for that. Assuming powers or rights was not statesmanship. He knew the traps and he wanted to make sure that the burden of responsibility for the whole thing rested on the Jewish priests and not on Pilate. Herod would have been incensed to the point of removing Jesus to a safe place if his reception of the man was what the bible tells us. The scene with Barabbas fits in like a glove and again, the scenario begins to sound like a good calculated story. The robber terrorist or the gentle preacher with wrong ideas. Yet Jesus is chosen – unless he himself volunteered to die in his place, which may be what happened The priests may have continued with their accusations of profound heresy, taunting him to die for the robber, if he was a merciful God and then come back to life again as a Divine entity.
In any case, Herod was hardly the taunting figure that the Church makes him out to be. Professor Schoenberg interprets the so called mocking garments as more of a gift of fine clothes with which to impress his people in view of the possibility that Jesus might have been dressed in simple loin cloths which might have been badly torn and soiled in the early fraca in the garden of Gethsemane. In fact there is a very real need to analyse the bible narrative of this event and to note the disturbing notion that most people see in the texts what they are expected to see, despite the wording making it all extremely clear. Herod would have never sent Jesus to his death and Pilate would have never been driven to torturing him unless it was all part of a very clever and stage managed exercise. Jesus we must remember, endorsed Roman taxation “give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar”. The priests would have wanted to trap him into making a political statement and get him arrested, but the people listening would have seen it as the baiting of a holy man by priests whom they themselves probably also found sterile and pompous. In other words, Jesus was a practical and experienced political thinker and he was obviously learned enough to appreciate the reality and nature of what he was leading himself to. He had nothing against the Greek or Roman occupiers for the simple reason that he had little faith in the ability of the vast population under their control to shake them off or govern with enough authority to prevent constant bloodshed. He was also troubled about the arrogant and obviously devious conspiracies of the ruling Judaic priesthood, living on cushy earnings and guaranteed Roman protection. Even the supreme authority – Herod – was a Roman puppet and astonishingly, the pagan builder of a Jewish Temple. He was, we must remember, an Idumean and possibly an Amorite – a people from Petra who had once challenged Judea. Nothing seems to make sense and we see a determined move forward by a Jesus who could very easily have worked it all out, as a last desperate move to undermine the Judean Authorities. It could have been a brave gesture of self sacrifice to make them pay for the tacit enslavement of the peoples of Israel (now far removed in the main from their own lands), by creating the spectre of the sacrificed Messiah in accordance with well known prophetic descriptions of the manner and form of his appearance and demise. But was Pilate and Herod in it too? Possibly, but perhaps in the understanding that the matter would not go beyond a simple public flogging that they knew the tough Jesus would take with dignity. They are both protecting him but the priests challenge Jesus´s so called affinity with God and his behaviour and lack of interest in his own defence may well have struck a chord in Pilate´s mind. The events that followed may well have been worked out to ensure that the final hanging on the cross was not fatal and may even have been stage managed to the point of coincidence with an eclypse or meteorological prediction that would sway the crowds. Asian mystics and previous divinities of wide acclaim, had often been associated with crucifixions and resurrection that had declared them immortal. Maybe something of that nature was being attempted. Times were bad for all concerned and when hope is gradually being removed from the political platforms, a dramatic event can often regenerate public government and build new bridges into the future. The twin tower inferno, Princess Diana´s assasination, Joan of Ark, all point in similar directions – the hand of Providence and waves of reconciliatory compassion affecting humanity. Something like this was about to happen when Jesus cried with bitterness at the lack of concern his own beloved disciples showed towards him when they slept, as he himself sweated with fear and apprehension. But why would a leader get angry about not being guarded when he appeared to know what was going to happen. It sounds too childish to be real. There was also a nebulous figure wrapped in simple loin cloth who runs away and appeared to be with Jesus so he was not entirely on his own. The whole scene seems to fail the reality test. What really happened then ? Jesus does not sound like a determined warrior spurning the enemy. He sounds not just human but very lonely and abandoned. He must have known that their was no way out, yet there was so much that he could have done, like spoken softly and even rhetorically in a manner that could have turned the tables on the lynching party. He did nothing. Or so it would seem. It also sounds like a moral story – one of duty betrayed and the loneliness of the one who wears the crown and the full responsibility of destiny. The fleeing figure could be a reflection of the future betrayal by Peter – the coward with lack of conviction or dedicated loyalty.
The constant attack on the priesthood.
There is very little to add to the constant confrontations that Jesus had with the Pharisees who literally made him come up in a rash with their mannerisms and influence in the lives and behaviour of others. They were censorious and uncompromising and this can be clearly seen, even today, in the public behaviour of the fundamentalist extremists in Jerusalem before the walls of the historical and hardly worth adoring, Herod. What is even more curious and quite unacceptable is that the wall is treated and almost tacitly acknowledged as the one Jews would have liked to have been there instead – that of Solomon – another acknowledged Pagan. The bible and all ancient records make it quite clear that if ever there was a Temple of Solomon, it was not in Jerusalem. A lively debate with most fanatical people by anyone with a good deal of knowledge of the ancient scripts, shows up the same lack of understanding of the biblical records that must have driven Jesus to the point of assault. But then this is the same with any religious cult in the outer fringes of a popular religion. These fanatics (ultra orthodox Christians alike), talk in generalised terms and break down quickly when confronted with direct questions on biblical texts. There are many misundertood concepts that are taken for granted by fanatical elements. The Levites for example, who appear to be of the temple order of Judea, were in fact in Shiloh when King Saul protected the Arc. Were they Judean therefore or of another tribe ? This puts their Judean origins in question. Things of that nature were the sort of sparking points which got Jesus hot under the collar. In fact he got to that situation with the moneylenders, as he saw them pollute the sanctity of a site which even he, in principle, assumed to be worthy of some respect because of its influence on the community. He was also protecting Herod´s temple but he did not consider it as pure as he as a Templar Essene would have liked it to be or perhaps even properly installed, since he spoke about rebuilding (cleansing) it. The incident with the merchants that drove the priests to white hatred is a curious prophetic echo of an earlier biblical sayings that cannot be dismissed, because it refers to a little understood saying: “Return to Shiloh what belongs to Shiloh”. The full implication of this is almost awesome for it was at Shiloh where the Arc was taken by the enemies of Israel. To Jesus, the missing Arc was the lost identity of the people of Israel which Judea had usurped. The new united Israel did not include Judea and for that simple reason, his mission did not impose circumcision or Synagogue attendance on his initiates – something unthinkable for a Jew. There must have also been a tacit understanding on the part of the Judean Authorities that his movement was schismatic, because there are contemporary comments that criticise the entry into his movement of non circumcised and non Jewish people. It proves that neither Jesus nor his movement had anything to do with the Jewish people. Jews were and still are very self orientated and in those days, additionally prejudiced against those they did not see as Jews. Tax collectors for example, were not expected to be Jewish and if they were, certainly not to be entertained or to be seen with. These are the things that have been missed. These are the things that give us an idea of what Jesus was up to. Jesus like the Qumran Northern Messiah or Teacher of Righteousness was not the Messiah of Judea. Judea had every right to do things its own way and Jews do and honestly follow their hearts and teachings of course, but the claim over Israel as the Royal and leading tribe is not vindicated in religious history and cannot be endorsed by anyone. Academics are now being openly critical about this misnomer and the State of Israel is now being labelled the Jewish State and the people Jewish not Israeli. Jerusalem was taken by the tribe of Judah and made their home, but whether there was a historical connection with the earlier occupants – the Jebbusites is not immediately clear. In the same way, except for a brief period of Al Israel (all the ribes including that of Judah), Jerusalem was not the capital city of Israel, but Shiloh, (the wasteland of T.S Elliot) – was. It is no coincidence that Jesus was coupled with the concept of Shiloh and it is wrong to assume that the name, as some religious scholars think, was meant to mean the new Messiah. It meant the Messiah who would return Israel to its original ancestral territories.
Jesus I must add, was not rubber stamping the sanctity of the Temple ure,which he made clear, was not of any great importance in spiritual terms. He was merely provoked by the weakness of those who saw profit in cultural values. He was questioning the ignorance of those supposedly holy, priests who allowed them to do so (for profit without doubt) and the money minded users who dared to turn the place into a circus. Jesus betrays a Grecian logic and an underlying Asiatic conscience which is consistant with his sayings and character. One wonders what Jesus would make of Lourdes and Fatima today but he would not have been a very happy man, in the same context. In fact, he would have been lost for words since it expressed everything he did not believe in. All this would have been conducive to idolatry and somehow it does not tie in with a man whose sayings are steeped in conscious development and strength of conviction and character. Jesus may have become a wandering mystic later in life and after his personal life threatening experience but before that he would have been a zealous leader with wild ambition to bring things back to the way they were within a united Israel. This is the intellectual Jesus – the man whose authority came from knowledge. He knew that Herod´s claim to kingship was pretty slim, but a fact often forgotten, is that behind the so called Herodian royal line there is a definite connection with the Judean princely genealogy, members of which there are reasons to believe Jesus knew about. The contenders of the direct Judean Royal line, either did not want to show up, or were well and truly exterminated in their skirmishes with the occupying forces. Much lies in the vaults of ancient libraries and in the hands of modern royal advisors that remain there, unpublished, for selfish dynastic reasons. In the world of leadership claims, especially crowns, rocking the boat is not an exercise lightly taken. Heads of State are no doubt brought up in the traditions and knowledge that they have to learn about in order to do their national jobs properly and relate to others with similar understandings and possible claims to title. The intelligence services of most countries are are also well prepared with respect to claims to title and authority based on genealogies and race. They know only too well what family, religious and cultural inheritances can do to turn apparently insignificant figures into centres of influence. As so called guardians of posterity and keepers of the knowledge that provide influence and power, it is part of their job. Britain for example has a very interesting quasi historical tradition associated with the presence of Jesus in the Isles. Without it, British Royalty would not have the same sense of mission to rule. When religious songs refer to “walking the shores of Britain”, they mean just that – that the tradition and national understandings are that Jesus did in fact walk the shores and the songs are designed to ensure that nobody ever forgets it. Jesus was apparently brought over to Cornwall by his uncle Joseph of Arimathea who appeared to have had tin mines or dealt with the element in the area. It is the very base of Glastonbury lore and much more credible than the Arthurian claims, which are strong enough. Very near there, a tribe with the curious name of Novae Magi was known to have spawned its issue. Jesus was associated with something sounding rather similar at birth (bearing gifts) and this is but one of the coincidences that many simply take for granted. The possibility that Jesus’s grandparents, Anne and Belli were of this tribe would make the whole business of Glastonbury, Joseph of Arimathea – the Mary chapel and well, (in which the present Crown Prince of England put his broken arm with a degree of genuine faith), begins to fall into place. It is no secret that without the Arthurian connection, much of British Royal tradition would have fallen on stony ground but in fact it is the much earlier Arimathean connection that underpins it. King Arthur´s line of descent also draws from the same source so there is no conflict. Britain therefore does indeed have to form an important part of the the Holy Family tradition and there are some very erstwhile accounts (and genealogies apparently) that place Mary´s parents on those soils. Joseph therefore would have more than happily brought his nephew over to his ancestral grounds. In fact he would have had to do so as a family duty even if Anne and Belli had gone to Galilee to join their daughter for a while. It is also more than likely that Joseph was in fact the youngest son of Anne and brother to Mary, rather than an uncle to her. If he had been an uncle he would have been a very old man indeed at the crucifixion unless he was a very much younger son of Anne and in my estimation of things, I cannot see that this is the case. Passing yourself off as a husband rather than a brother, is biblically simple. Both Abraham and Isaac did it in reverse by posing as brothers to their wives as we are told in the old testament. The carpenter Joseph who is nowhere to be seen at the crucifixion (nor do we know where he died or got buried) is probably none other than Joseph also an Essene,it seems, who took his sister and nephews with him when he could. We shall see what else evolves that could prove a little more interesting in this respect when isolated incidents are put together, without forgetting the wide variety of apocryphal documents that fill in the holes here and there.
National Religious Traditions in Various Places.
If we start to talk about family ties with Britain, we have to remember that similar “national ties” can be said of Marseilles and the Magdalen tradition as also of Poland and Mary the mother of Jesus. A document with that implication exists in the country´s national archives and explains why the Teutonic knights chose the place for their Order of the Round Table and the Arthurian cult of course. The fact that they called the city Marienburg or Marienbad, is not incidental. They believed her family had its origins there and she may even have been born in the area. All these countries are fiercely Christian and would have all been Catholic had it not been for Henry VIII who denied papal authority over the British islands in pursuit of greater personal ambitions and perhaps also because he ceased to believe that they occupied the moral high ground. The religious differences between Protestant and Catholic understandings are minor and British Christian worship is as Catholic as anything can be bar the images issue.
Jesus therefore was a man troubled to some extent by the variety of influences in his life. His sensitivity would have been the source of his constant nightmares as he felt the strain of his inherited aspirations to leadership and the cold knowledge of being very much alone. His brothers and sisters may have well considered him an odd ball. A vision of martyrdom even, has its rewards for its aspirant, but despite his intensive intellectual training away from home, Jesus was a very loving and contented man who would have felt loathe to risk giving up his life meaninglessly. He panicked at the prospect and did not always fully understand the implications of his mission. He wished at one point or another that he could jump off this train of fate without this ultimately horrendous personal sacrifice. He appears to have been surrounded by Sicarii or Zealots, much wanted by the authorities as terrorist, so it is also pretty obvious that they knew of his place in their aspirations. Jesus´s quoted sayings show that he would have been quite happy as a teacher and a lover of humanity, set on giving people hope and sense of purpose. This, amazingly enough, is as close as one can get to Sufi training. In fact the closer we get to the circumstances of the The Passion narration, the more it starts to become an ultimate exercise in self negation and pursuit of the final destruction of the ego and its multiple fears. The final destruction in a Sufi sense, would imply survival at the end of the physical and mental suffering. In the bible story, both are clearly illustrated side by side very graphically and somehow one would feel that this was deliberate for the reader to note the important combination. The word atonement which really means at peace with oneself, is really Nirvana and it is utilised in the Christian destiny as part of the price of adherence to the code. Without the doubts and the overcoming of genuine fears, there is no initiation and if he was, as he said, offering himself as a substitute for the sacrifice of the gentle unsuspecting lamb, he had placed his life on the sacrificial stone knowingly. He also made it quite clear that he would survive and return to the physical world within three days. It was just under two days, but then, his condition health wise had been aggravated by the unexpected penetration of the lance in his lower lung. If he had not been taken down quickly, he would have been mortally wounded. His shallow, almost undetectable breathing would have enabled the lower lobe to seal the entry and recuperate somewhat to enable his transfer to the monastery. The Magdalen´s embrace could have killed him so his deterrence is perfectly understandable however frigid it might seem.
A Life Death Experience
If we examine the full account of Jesus´s ordeal and if we believe that he was given some sort of herbal sedative or cataleptic inducement, the whole thing is not only possible, but likely. Sufis can do all of that and so can most of the Shamans of Asia and Africa including full burial for two or three days. Some people might think that this destroys the validity of his mission, but in fact it strengthens it, as anyone who cares to embrace those footsteps with total honesty can fully appreciate. Knowing that every move provoked even worse suffering without redemption in sight, is horrifying. Jesus could not have been at all certain that he would survive and that in itself is a worse fate than death. It could have all gone wrong and the final intervention in the form of the bringing down from the cross so quickly, might not even have been contemplated by his uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, until the last moment when he saw a ray of hope and the final gesture of submission.
A high level of education and a sense of royal inheritance would have given Jesus his submission drawn from self esteem which would have militated against the rough handling and public abuse he appeared to have got. If he was, however, intent on making sure that he would not die by organising events around him and perhaps raising the crowds against his persecutors, all he needed was the courage of the resolve that it would not go horribly wrong. Jesus, however did begin to have doubts that it would work, taking into consideration the many times he had been let down on other issues before, by his own disciples. He did not want to die,of course, simply because that would not have been an aspiration that we can attribute to his nature. He felt for his mother and his family and he would not have wanted to destroy all their hopes in their love and fears for him. It is therefore very likely that the whole situation was well rehearsed beforehand with his uncle Joseph who could have known exactly what was going to happen, but the intensity of the torture could not have been foreseen. The arrival of Simon of Cyrene may not have been that coincidental and his intervention is curious, to say the least. Someone was intent on seeing that he got to the cross in one piece and in a reasonable state of health. There may have even been a variety of factions interested in carrying out this long drawn and gory public spectacle. It may also have had nothing to do with Jesus himself, although his final statements cast doubt on this.
The concept of a risen Messiah in tune with prophetic writings was just what was needed to halt the deteriorating process of cultural loss among the descendants of the tribes of Israel. Jesus was intent on providing it, not just as any martyr but as a resurrected divine being with a family right to lead. In modern terms the creation of public awareness and a sense of identity is done with the creation of outside enemies, justified war and resultant sacrifice of young blood. The events in Jesus´s case, seem to point to a plot – an Asiatic life death experience, taking into account how quickly he was taken off the cross b efore his legs were broken and asphyxia induced. We must also note just how carefully he was immediately washed and prepared for the deep curative sleep that could have been induced by the drug. The dangers of infection of the wounds and high fever were tackled with what was technically a complete immersion in antiseptic aloes. The amount apparently utilised according to the Nerw Testament, also supports the theory. The burial in the easily opened family tomb with a circular stone and a slab for a bed rather than a hole in the ground makes a great deal of sense. The covering with a total body wrap would have then left the restoration process in the hands of nature to the best advantage. The shroud if, as widely suspected , is genuine, was not pressed to the sides of the face which would have created a very wide facial image, but stretched in such manner as to make one wonder whether it was intended to allow him to breathe. It is more than likely that the Turin shroud is in effect the real thing and if it was, the image explains everything that happened that day.
The people of the day were superstitious and such a macabre resurrection would have spread the word like lightning throughout the known world. Paul as we know, was not long in coming to find out what was going on. He may have been tipped off cryptically as a Roman agent,who, as we shall see, had little in common with the Judeans he disliked and whom he was constantly harassing. Why ? Like Joseph of Arimathea he was a very respected religious agent so is it not strange that he should have been such a tyrant and then become the corner stone of the emerging so called Christian Church ? But then, there are some very curious aspects of all that we take for granted in the life of the man millions call God.
Jesus ascends into heaven, 9) The Holy Spirit is sent unto the apostles on the day of Pentecost.