HOLY BLOOD, HOLY VOMIT?
"Courage gains strength from a wound."
Taken from a letter from Barb Aho, Date: 6 Nov 97
Last week I posted a testimony about "Jesus, The Playful Fiancé" which I connected with the Pensacola Revival. This testimony did not come directly from Pensacola, rather the person who wrote it seems to be associated with the UK/Toronto Blessing revival. The full testimony of Teresa Seputis was located on her web site: but seems to have been removed within the last few days.
http://www.comm2net.com/teresa
Teresa has also ministered with Randy Clark and the St Louis Vineyard Christian Fellowship which sponsored a Catch The Fire conference in Moscow
http://www.grmi.org/missions/fsu/teresa.html
This testimony as it was sent to me had been found in an e-mail conference on the Revival on the Scottish Stewart Clan Internet Home. The message was also removed the next day, probably due to normal turnover in the discussion. The Revival discussion in the CyberChurch News focuses on the Toronto/Pensacola Revivals which have been exported around the world. The Scottish Stewart Clan
Internet Home is located at: http://associate.com/stewart.html
If you recall the Watch Unto Prayer report on the Priory of Sion --
http://watch.pair.com/nwo.html --the Stewart family claims to be of the Merovingian bloodline of the lineage of Jesus Christ. Books on the Holy Grail blasphemously say that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered children. Hence, the Stewart family claims to be the rightful heirs of the throne of David and plans to introduce one of their descendants as the benign dictator of the New World Order. Fritz Springmeier, who has researched the Illuminati bloodlines, states that the Stewarts are the 13th Illuminati family from which the Antichrist will come. His expose on this most important Illuminati bloodline will be forthcoming.
The Stewart Clan Internet Page is very interesting and occultic, containing much emphasis on the genealogy of this family. You will note the Stewart Crest of the Phoenix which is the occult symbol of resurrection. The web site also features the "Christian" version of Dungeons and Dragons titled "Dragon Raid." There is also a page on the Stone of Destiny which has recently been moved from England to Scotland. According to the Stewart interpretation of Bible prophecy, which is summarized on their web page, this Stone (formerly Jacob's Pillar) upon which kings of Scotland and England were traditionally crowned, will be used in the coronation of Christ as King of Israel --
SCOTTISH STEWART CLAN INTERNET HOME
Stone of Destiny...Now Back in Scotland!
http://associate.com/Stewart/stone_o_scone.html
"This Stone is believed to be the original Pillar that Jacob dedicated to God after his all-night wrestling vigil with an angel. From all references, this stone represents the House of David that went into oblivion after the wicked king Zedekiah was dethroned by our Father and later blinded then killed along with his sons. Jacob's Pillar (The Stone of Destiny) was believed to have been subsequently carried by Jeremiah -- along with Zedekiah's two daughters -- to Ireland. Later, it went to Scotland, then England. Most scholars, along with this writer, see these three moves associated with Ezekiel 21:27: "27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.
"...It will not be used ever again in the crowning of an earthly king because it has been announced that it will go on permanent display in Edinburg, Scotland. Therefore, this move obviously ended the Stone's role in the crowning of kings, ending with King George VI in 1936 ... the last king crowned over the Stone. That being the case, Messiah, according to Ezekiel, will be the next King over the House of David...so, the third 'overturn' is yet in effect. In light of these facts, as stated last month, this move (after some 700 years) would seem to be significant as to just how close the Lord's return could be. In other words, from Zedekiah forward, Israel, as a nation, would have no king until Messiah comes (Gen. 49:10)...and true to prophecy, that has been the case. This means that the scattered and divided kingdom of Israel must be restored and Christ installed as her King...'the most holy', (Dan. 9:24)."
- end quote -
Although there is disagreement as to which stone is the true Stone of Destiny, and whether it was Jacob's pillar or pillow, the preceding fable is nearly identical to the account which is found in BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL by Laurence Gardiner. Gardiner's book and a similar book, HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, are obviously publications produced by the Rosicrucian Priory of Sion, the founders of the Knights Templar and Order of Freemasons. Through these and other books, this secret order is attempting to document the Merovingian bloodline as the lineage of Jesus Christ and to establish the legitimacy of one of their descendants as the Messiah or Christ. Please note the correspondence between the accounts of the Stone of Destiny on the "Christian"
Stewart Clan Internet Page and the following excerpt --
BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL
By Laurence Gardiner
The Stone Of Destiny
"Not only were the Grail Knights and Templars appointed Guardians of the Stewart Sangreal [Holy Grail] in Scotland, they also became protectors of the Stone of Destiny (the Stone of Scone). This most sacred of Scots treasures had been brought to Scotland from Ireland by Fergus Mor mac Erc, the first King of Dalriada, in the 5th century, having originally been carried to Ireland from Judah in about 586 BC. The venerated holy relic was said to be the Stone of the Covenant, known as 'Jacob's Pillow' (Genesis 28:18-22), on which Jacob laid his head and saw the ladder reaching up to Heaven at Beth-el. In a dream God promised Jacob that his seed would generate the line of kingship to follow -- the line which in due course became the Davidic succession.
"When the Jews were persecuted by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Mattaniah, the son of King Josiah (and a direct descendant of David), was installed in Judah. Known as King Zedekiah, he acceded to the throne of Jerusalem in 598 BC. Twelve years later Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar, whereupon Zedekiah was taken to Babylon and blinded (Jer. 39:6-7, 52:10-11). His sons were murdered, but his daughter Tamar was removed to Ireland (via Egypt and Spain) by the prophet Jeremiah. He also brought the anointed Stone of the Covenant, which became known as Lia Fail (Stone of Destiny). In Latin it was the Saxum Fatale.
"Princess Tamar (Teamhair) gave her name to Tara, the seat of the High Kings of Ireland, and she married Ard Ri (High King) Eochaid, ancestor of Ugaine Mar (Ugaine the Great). Subsequently, over a millenium, Eochaid's successors were crowned in the presence of the sacred Stone. The Irish heritage then progressed to Scotland, where the relic of Judah became synonymous with the Kings of Dalriada. King Kenneth ( MacAlpin (844-859) later moved the Stone to Scone Abbey when he united the Scots and the Picts. By the time of William the Lion (d. 1214), the Stone of Destiny bore witness to nearly a hundred coronations in sovereign descent from King Zedekiah.
"On declaring himself Overlord of Scotland in 1296, Edward I of England stole what he thought was the Stone of Destiny. What he actually got was a piece of sandstone from a monastery doorway, which has since rested beneath the Coronation Throne at Westminster Abbey. This piece of rubble is 26 inches long by 11 inches deep (c. 66x 28 cm) and weighs about 335 lbs (c. 152 kg). Royal seals of the early Scots kings depict a much larger installation rock, but this rock was not the sacred Stone of Destiny -- no more than is the medieval masonry prize of King Edward. The real Stone of Destiny is said to be smaller, more naturally rounded, and is of inscribed black basalt, not of hand-cut sandstone. It was hidden by the Cistercian Abbot of Scone in 1296, and it has remained hidden ever since. The Columbian tradition tells us that, on secreting the Stone, the Abbot prophesied that one day 'The Michael' would return to his inheritance. It is of importance to note that the X sign, which became so hated by the Roman Church, was identified with the archangel Michael (Melchizedek) onwards from Old Testament times. The heritage of St Michael was the dynasty of high Zadok priests -- a heritage that prevailed in the continuing Messianic line." (BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL, Gardiner, Element Books Ltd., 1996, pp. 297-299)
Among the Grail romances, the most famous is "Parzival" composed by Wolfram von Eschenbach. In this mystical poem, the Grail is identified as a Stone upon which appear inscribed the names of the heirs of the throne of Jesus, typified by the phoenix, which will rise again and restore the inheritance of the Merovingian bloodline:
"You say you yearn for the Grail. You foolish man, I am grieved to hear that. For no man can ever win the Grail unless he is known in heaven and called by name to the Grail. This I must tell you about the Grail, for I know it to be so and have seen it for myself...By the power of that Stone the phoenix burns to ashes, but the ashes give him life again. Thus does the phoenix moult and change its plumage, which afterward is bright and shining and as lovely as before...Such power does the Stone give a man that flesh and bones are at once made young again. The Stone is also called the Grail. This very day there comes to it a message wherein lies its greatest power. Today is Good Friday, and they await there a Dove, winging down from heaven. It brings a small white wafer, and leaves it upon the Stone... Hear now how those who are called to the Grail are made known. On the Stone, round the edge, appear letters inscribed, giving the name and the lineage of each one, maid or boy, who is to make the blessed journey. No one needs to rub out the inscription, for once he has read the name, it fades before his eyes." (HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, p. 297, SPEAR OF DESTINY, Trevor Ranvenscroft, pp. 191-2)
It is interesting that BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL mentions the someone of lineage of Michael the Archangel who will one day inherit the throne as "The Michael." The forward to this book is written by Prince Michael Stewart of Albany who, the authors contend may be the legitimate heir to the throne of England (the Stewarts claim to be related to the British Stuarts) and heir to the throne of David through the purported Merovingian lineage of Jesus Christ. Prince Michael of Albany may also be "The Michael" who was prophesied by the Abbot of Scone to receive his inheritance, supposedly being in the lineage of Melchizedek and the Zadok priests, and Michael the Archangel himself!
The STEWART CLAN INTERNET page on the "Stone of Destiny" includes this very interesting interpretation of Ezekiel 37:22
"And I will make them *one nation* (one stick, one people) in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king (Christ) shall be king to them *all* (Shiloh; Whose right the Stone of Destiny represents): and they shall be no more two nations (two sticks), neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:" Can Christ be a King over anything except people? These two sticks being joined are specifically used to remind the descendants of Israel, even today, that they will yet be reunited into one nation -- a single people -- in the original land given to Abraham!
"So, this movement of the Stone of Destiny could very well be the beginning of a chain of events to shape the world -- and prepare His remnant today -- for the things about to come to pass; the false Messiah shall come first and try to fake uniting the people (Daniel 9:27) under the promised covenant of peace, but he will fail. He will pass himself off as Israel's Messiah, and Christianity's Christ."
- end quote -
In Daniel 12:1, Michael is called "the great prince" --
"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."
Will Prince Michael Stewart of Albany come forward (stand up) as the lineal descendant of Jesus Christ and the apotheosis of Michael the Archangel who defeats "Christianity's Christ" who will "fake uniting the people...under the promised covenant of peace"? In BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL, is found in the centerfold a picture of the Phoenix with this caption: "The day of fulfillment when the DRAGON is slain and the PHOENIX shall rise." [Caps mine]
According to HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, early Christian sects such as the Waldensians, Albigenses and Cathars were occult groups similar to the Priory of Sion and for this reason suffered the persecutions of the Catholic Church. The authors identify the Christian Church as the Catholic Church, which the Priory despises and has determined to destroy in revenge for the martyrdom of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Priory.
In BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL, the authors stated:
"Fragments of the Prince Melchizedek Document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that Melchizedek and Michael were one and the same. It is this representation which features in the Revelation when the Archangel Michael (the descending Zadokite power of the Messiah) fights with the ROMAN DRAGON of oppression." [Caps mine] (p. 177)
The caption under the Stewart Crest of the Phoenix on the Scottish Stewart Clan Home page reads: "Courage gains strength from a wound." Is the Rosicrucian Priory of Sion "the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live"? (see Rev. 13:3, 12, 14) This also explains Rev. 17:16: "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." Revelation 18 proceeds to describe the destruction of Mystery Babylon which Rev. 17:9 reveals as "sitting on seven mountains" or Rome.
Fritz Springmeier states in his book, TOP 13 ILLUMINATI BLOODLINES: "The 13th bloodline lacks nothing to bring forth their Anti-Christ who will appear to have all the correct credentials. I would not even be surprised if their Anti-Christ, in order to appear real, will expose another Anti-Christ." (p. 229)
We must not underestimate the importance of the Priory of Sion, the elite order of Rosicrucians who now claim to be the authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Authors of HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL state that the Protocols "in their present form" are a radically altered form of the original, which was authored by the Order of the Rose Croix and not intended as anti-Semitic propaganda. Rather than the revised document which Hitler used to vilify the Jews, the Priory would now have the world believe that it was originally a humanitarian proposal to reorder society under a benign priest-king of the lineage of Jesus Christ.
Finally the authors of the New Age Grail books thoroughly discredit the Christian New Testament and argue that the Gnostic Nag Hammadi Scrolls predated it and are therefore more authentic. Upon reading the Grail books, one discovers the massive indoctrination in occult lore which is taking place on a worldwide scale. The Scottish Stewart Clan Home Page and the Toronto/Pensacola Revival are now introducing their mythology into the church.
TORONTO/PENSACOLA -- STEWART CLAN CONNECTION
It is very significant that the Scottish Stewart Clan Internet Home is promoting the Toronto Blessing/Pensacola Outpouring and I believe reveals the source of this occult revival. The two revivals are really linked although they claim to be separate revivals. Articles on the Revival are listed below, some of which show the connections between Toronto and Pensacola. Also links between the two revivals are documented on various Revival web sites, such as
Renewal Now -- http:------ deleted -------
A filthy adult site somehow got hold of the linked Web address I had put here at one time and turned the site into an adult site. This sort of thing is very hard to figure out, and I apologize for the thing if you previously used this link. I also appreciate Rev. Martin and Connie Sharlow for telling me about it, though we seriously disagree on some matters of doctrine.
Further evidence of the Scottish Stewart (Rosicrucian) connection to this revival is a recent post from Richard Riss concerning a Changing of the Guard with a ceremonial exchange of Celtic swords among revival leaders at a "Knights of the Roundtable" gathering in Seattle WA. This message is reprinted below. The legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Roundtable figured strongly in the Merovingian bloodline as Guardians of the Holy Grail.
Blessings in Christ Jesus,
Barb Aho
Watch Unto Prayer
timbarbaho@msn.com
http://watch.pair.com/pray.html
From: RRiss@drew.edu (Richard Riss)
Seattle Revival Center: Changing of the Guard
Dear Richard:
The following change has been announced at Seattle Revival Center, Seattle, WA on Friday, Oct.24, 1997. Please feel free to use this information as you deem appropriate. Thanks.
The theme for the Third Annual Celebration of the birth of Seattle Revival Center, "You Haven't Seen Anything Yet!" was more appropriate than any imagined. During the conference, the leadership of SRC met to affirm that God was calling these men to pass leadership of the Center to others in order to move into a greater dimension of ministry for past leadership and SRC. Wayne Anderson, Steve Richard and Darrel Stott have increasingly been called to America and the nations, necessitating a change in local leadership of SRC.
In a highly emotional and dramatic "passing of the torch" ceremony, the three founders of Seattle Revival Center gathered with new leadership at a "Knights of the Round Table." During an exchange of Celtic swords, the Holy Spirit moved powerfully on the entire group, confirming the direction of God. Stacey Campbell, of Kelowna, B.C. followed, and prophecied an increase and enlargement of the effect and impact of Seattle Revival Center both regionally and in the world.
New leadership includes Kevin Holland, with a Nazarene background, pastor of Covington Christian Center, Seattle, Steve Meyering, Independent Charismatic pastor at SeaTac Worship Center, Seattle, Nick Lewis, a Church of God pastor from Olympia, Rich Carey, pastor of Eagle's Nest, Blackfoot, Idaho and Greg Austin, an Assemblies of God pastor at Lake Boren Christian Center, where Darrel Stott previously pastored.
Please pray with SRC as well as Wayne, Steve and Darrel as we move into an exciting new chapter of God's plans for Seattle Revival Center.
Blessings!
Seattle Revival Center
Greg Austin, Rich Carey, Kevin Holland, Nick Lewis and Steve Meyering
Seattle Revival Center
12636 SE 89th PL
Newcastle, WA 98056
425-277-4613
Taken from a letter from Barb Aho, Date: Fri, 7 Nov 97 04:06:59 UT
Dear Friends,
Last evening I posted a report on the Rosicrucian/Revival connection and by this morning the Stewart Clan Home Page had blocked access to the CyberChurch discussion groups. Now only those having a secret password may access the information in these messages. Such secrecy confirms that the Rosicrucians and leaders of the Toronto/Pensacola Revival do not want the Christian Community to know of their association. Such stealth is also the custom of secret societies which have much wickedness to conceal!!
We are indeed a privileged a people that our gracious Lord did not work covertly, but openly among the people. He could say to his accusers who conspired in secret to murder him, "I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret I have said nothing." (John 18:20)
For those who are interested, Ann Rogers was kind enough to send the following address of the archived message on another web site.
Barb Aho
http://www.cephas-library.com/toronto/toronto_holy_blood_holy_vomit.html
Visualizzazione post con etichetta bloodline. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta bloodline. Mostra tutti i post
lunedì 28 gennaio 2008
BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL
Bloodline of the Holy Grail
The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed
by Laurence Gardner
The time-honoured quest for the Holy Grail has been referred to by some as the 'ultimate quest', but in 1547 the Church condemned Grail lore as a heresy even though tradition perceives the Grail as a thoroughly Christian relic.
A heresy is described as 'an opinion which is contrary to the orthodox dogma of the Christian bishops'. The word 'heresy' is nothing more than a derogatory label - a tag used by a fearful establishment that has long sought to maintain control of society through fear of the unknown. It can therefore define those aspects of philosophy and research which quest into the realms of the unknown and which, from time to time, provide answers and solutions that are quite contrary to authorized doctrine.
As the years progress, however, it is evident that scientific and medical discovery must overturn much of the medieval religious dogma that has persisted to modern times. And, in this regard, some previously cited heresies are already being taken on board by a Church that has little option to do otherwise. So, let us begin with the most obvious of all questions: What is the Holy Grail?
The word 'Gra-al' originates from ancient Mesopotamia, where it was recorded as being the 'nectar of supreme excellence'. It was directly related to the bloodline of kings who descended from the gods - those monarchs who were anointed with the fat of the sacred Mûs-hûs: a type of monitor-crocodile in the Euphrates Valley. By virtue of this anointing, the kings were also called Mûs-hûs (or, in Egypt, Messeh) - a term which in the later Hebrew tongue became Messiah, meaning Anointed One.
By medieval times in Europe, this line of kingly descent was defined by the French word Sangréal, meaning Blood Royal. This was the Blood Royal of Judah - the line of King David which progressed to the family of Jesus. By the Middle Ages, the definition Sangréal became San Graal. When written more fully it was Saint Graal - the word 'saint', of course, relating to 'holy'. Then, by a natural linguistic process, came the more romantically familiar English term, Holy Grail.
In symbolic terms the Grail is often portrayed as a chalice that contains the blood of Jesus. Alternatively it is portrayed as a vine of grapes. The product of grapes is wine, and it is the chalice and the wine of Grail tradition that sit at the very heart of the Eucharist (the Holy Communion). In this sacrament, the sacred chalice contains the wine that represents the perpetual blood of Jesus.
It is quite apparent that, although maintaining the ancient Communion custom, the Christian Church has conveniently ignored and elected not to teach the true meaning and origin of the custom. Few people even think to enquire about the ultimate symbolism of the chalice and wine sacrament, believing that it comes simply from some Gospel entries relating to the Last Supper. But what is the significance of the perpetual blood of Jesus? How is the blood of Jesus (or of anyone else for that matter) perpetuated? It is perpetuated through family and lineage. So why was it that the Church authorities elected to ignore the bloodline significance of the Grail sacrament?
The fact is that every Government and every Church teaches the form of history or dogma most conducive to its own vested interest. In this regard we are all conditioned to receiving a very selective form of teaching. We are taught what we are supposed to know, and we are told what we're supposed to believe. But, for the most part, we learn both political and religious history by way of national or clerical propaganda. This often becomes absolute dogma - teachings which may not be challenged for fear of reprisals. With regard to the Church's attitude towards the chalice and the wine, it is apparent that the original symbolism had to be reinterpreted by the bishops because it denoted that Jesus had offspring.
The 2nd-century chronicler Julius Africanus of Edessa recorded that, during the Jewish Revolt from AD 66, the Roman governor of Jerusalem instructed the troops that all Messianic records should be burned so as to prevent future access to the details of Jesus' family genealogy. He added, however, that "A few careful people had private records ... and took pride in preserving the memory of their aristocratic origin". Africanus described these royal inheritors as the Desposyni - a hallowed style meaning Heirs of the Lord.
Subsequently, the Palestinian historian, Hegesippus, reported that in AD 81 (during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian) the execution of these family inheritors was ordered by Imperial decree. It was then later confirmed by Eusebius, the 4th-century Bishop of Caesarea, that they were hunted down and put to the sword - first by command of the Empire and then by the newly introduced Roman Church.
The writers were unanimous, however, in stating that although many of the Desposyni were seized, others became leaders of a Nazarene church movement that opposed the Church of Rome, with leaders who became the heads of their sects by way of a "strict dynastic progression". Hence, the required destruction of records was far from complete, and relevant documents were retained by Jesus' heirs, who brought the Messianic heritage from the Holy Land to the West.
Not only were sacraments and customary ritual reinterpreted, but the Gospels themselves were corrupted to comply with the newly designated 'male-only' establishment of the emergent hybrid Church. We are all familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - but what about the other Gospels: those of Philip, of Thomas, of Mary and of Mary Magdalene? What of all the numerous Gospels, Acts and Epistles that were not approved by the Church councils when the New Testament was compiled? Why were they excluded when the choices were made?
There were actually two main criteria for selection, and these (from an earlier short-list prepared by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria) were determined at the Council of Carthage in the year AD 397.
The first criterion was that the New Testament Gospels must be written in the names of Jesus' own apostles. Matthew was, of course, an apostle, as was John - but Mark was not an apostle of Jesus as far as we know, neither was Luke; they were both colleagues of the later St. Paul. Thomas and Philip, on the other hand, were among the original twelve, and yet the Gospels in their names were excluded. Not only that but, along with various other texts, they was sentenced to be destroyed. And so, throughout the Mediterranean world, numerous unapproved books were buried and hidden in the 5th century.
Although many of these books were not rediscovered until the 20th century, they were used openly by the early Christians. Certain of them, including the Gospels mentioned, along with the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Egyptians and others, were actually mentioned in the 2nd-century writings of early churchmen such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon and Origen of Alexandria.
So, why were these and other apostolic Gospels not selected? Because there was a second, far more important criterion to consider - the criterion by which, in truth, the Gospel selection was really made. It was, in fact, a wholly sexist regulation which precluded anything that upheld the status of women in Church or community society. Indeed, the Church's own Apostolic Constitutions were formulated on this basis. They state: "We do not permit our women to teach in the Church, only to pray and to hear those who teach. Our master, when he sent us the twelve, did nowhere send out a woman - for the head of the woman is the man, and it is not reasonable that the body should govern the head".
This was an outrageous statement with no apparent foundation, but it was for this very reason that dozens of Gospels were not selected, because they made it quite clear that there were many active women in the ministry of Jesus - women such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Helena-Salome, Mary-Jacob Cleopas and Joanna. These were not only ministering disciples, but priestesses in their own right, running exemplary schools of worship in the Nazarene tradition.
The Church was so frightened of women that it implemented a rule of celibacy for its priests - a rule that became a law in 1138; a rule that persists today. But this rule has never been quite what it appears on the surface, for it was never sexual activity as such that bothered the Church. The more specific problem was priestly intimacy with women. Why? Because women become mothers, and the very nature of motherhood is a perpetuation of bloodlines. It was this that caused such concern - a taboo subject which, at all costs, had to be separated from the necessary image of Jesus.
We have all learned to go along with what we are taught about the Gospels in schoolrooms and churches. But is the teaching correctly related? Does it always conform with the written scriptures? It is actually quite surprising how much we learn from pulpits or picture-books without checking the biblical text. The Nativity story itself provides a good example.
It is widely accepted that Jesus was born in a stable - but the Gospels do not say that. In fact, there is no 'stable' mentioned in any authorised Gospel. The Nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew makes it quite plain that Jesus was born in a house.
So where did the 'stable' idea come from? It came from a misinterpretation of the Gospel of Luke, which relates that Jesus was 'laid in a manger' - and a manger was nothing more than an animal feeding-box. In practice, it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as emergency cradles and they were often brought indoors for that very purpose. Why, then, has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable? Because the English translations of Luke tell us that there was 'no room in the inn'. But the old manuscript of Luke did not say that. In fact, there were no inns in the region.
The original Greek text of Luke does not relate that there was 'no room in the inn'. By the best translation it actually states that there was 'no place in the room' (that is: 'no topos in the kataluma'). As previously mentioned, Matthew states that Jesus was born in a house and, when correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in a manger (a feeding-box) because there was no cradle provided in the room.
To facilitate the best possible trust in the Gospels, we must go back to the original Greek manuscripts with their often used Hebrew and Aramaic words and phrases. In this respect, we discover that a good deal of relevant content has been misrepresented, misunderstood, mistranslated, or simply just lost in the telling. Sometimes this has happened because original words have no direct counterpart in other languages.
Christians are taught that Jesus' father Joseph was a carpenter, as explained in the English-language Gospels. But it did not say that in the original Gospels. By the best translation, it actually said that Joseph was a "master craftsman" (rendered in Greek as 'ho tekton' from the Semitic term 'naggar'). The word 'carpenter' was simply a translator's concept of a craftsman - but the text actually denoted that Joseph was a masterly, learned and scholarly man.
Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth. English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus' mother Mary was a 'virgin'. It was the same in an early Latin text which referred to her as being a 'virgo', meaning nothing more than a young woman. To have meant the same thing as virgin does today, the Latin would have been 'virgo intacta' - that is to say, a young woman intact. Looking back beyond the Latin to the older documents, we discover that the word translated to 'virgo' (a young woman) was the Semitic word 'almah' which meant the very same - a young woman. It had no sexual connotation whatever. Had Mary actually been physically virgo intacta, the Semitic word used would have been 'bethulah', not 'almah'.
Apart from such anomalies, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous purposeful amendments. In about AD 195, Bishop Clement of Alexandria made the first known amendment to the Gospel texts. He deleted a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark and justified his action in a letter, stating: "For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not agree with them - for not all true things are to be said to all men".
Even at that stage, there was already a discrepancy between what the Gospel writers had written and what the early bishops wanted to teach! But what exactly was in this removed section of Mark? It was the item which dealt with the raising of Lazarus - in the course of which the account made it perfectly clear that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were man and wife.
Many scholars have suggested that the wedding at Cana was the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene - but this was not the wedding ceremony as such, being simply the pre-marital betrothal feast. The marriage is defined by the quite separate anointings of Jesus by Mary at Bethany. Chronologically, these anointings (as given in the Gospels) were two-and-a-half years apart.
Readers of the 1st century would have been fully conversant with the two-part ritual of the sacred marriage of a dynastic heir. Jesus, as we know, was a Messiah, which means quite simply an Anointed One. In fact, all anointed senior priests and Davidic kings were Messiahs; Jesus was not unique in this regard. Although not an ordained priest, he gained his right to Messiah status by way of descent from King David and the kingly line, but he did not achieve that status until he was ritually anointed by Mary Magdalene in her capacity as a bridal high priestess.
In the Old Testament's Song of Solomon we learn of the bridal anointing of the king. It is detailed that the oil used in Judah was the fragrant ointment of spikenard (an expensive root oil from the Himalayas), and it is explained that this ritual was performed while the kingly husband sat at the table. In the New Testament, the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was indeed performed while he sat at the table, and specifically with the bridal ointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped Jesus' feet with her hair and, on the first occasion of the two-part ceremony, she wept. All of these things signify the marital anointing of a dynastic heir.
Messianic marriages were always conducted in two stages. The first (the anointing in Luke) was the legal commitment to wedlock, while the second (the later anointing in Matthew, Mark and John) was the cementing of the contract. In Jesus and Mary's case the second anointing was of particular significance for, as explained by Flavius Josephus in the 1st-century Antiquities of the Jews, the second part of the marriage ceremony was never conducted until the wife was three months pregnant.
Dynastic heirs such as Jesus were expressly required to perpetuate their lines. Marriage was essential, but community law protected the dynasts against marriage to women who proved barren or kept miscarrying. This protection was provided by the three-month pregnancy rule. Miscarriages would not often happen after that term, subsequent to which it was considered safe enough to complete the marriage contract.
After the second Bethany anointing, the Gospels relate that Jesus said: "Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her". But did the Church authorities honour Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial? No they did not; they completely ignored Jesus' own directive and denounced Mary as a whore.
To the Nazarenes, however, Mary Magdalene was always regarded as a saint. She is still revered as such by many today, with numerous churches dedicated to her in the Renaissance era. But the interesting fact of this sainthood is that Mary is the recognized patron saint of wine-growers - the ultimate Grail guardian of the Vine.
Aspects of the Gospels can actually be followed outside the Bible. Even the crucifixion sentence of Jesus is mentioned in the Annals of Imperial Rome. We can now determine from chronological survey that the Crucifixion took place at the March Passover of AD 33, while the Bethany second marriage anointing was in the week prior to that. We also know that, at that stage, Mary Magdalene was three months pregnant - which means she should have given birth in September of AD 33.
As for Jesus' death on the cross, it is perfectly clear this was spiritual death, not physical death, as determined by a three-day excommunication rule that everybody in the 1st century would have understood. In civil and legal terms, Jesus was denounced, scourged and prepared for death by decree. For three days Jesus would have been nominally 'sick', with absolute 'death' coming on the fourth day. Prior to this he would be entombed (buried alive) in accordance with Jewish Council law - but during the first three days he could be raised or resurrected, as he had predicted would be the case.
Raisings and resurrections could only be performed by the High Priest or by the Father of the Community. The High Priest at that time was Joseph Caiaphas (the very man who condemned Jesus), therefore the raising had to be performed by the patriarchal Father. There are Gospel accounts of Jesus talking to the Father from the cross, culminating in "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" - and the appointed Father of the day was the Magian apostle Simon Zelotes.
During that Friday afternoon when Jesus was on the Cross, there was a forward time change, and the Gospels explain that the land fell into darkness for three hours. The Hebrew lunarists made their change during the daytime, but the Nazarene solarists did not make their change until midnight. This explains why, according to the Gospel of Mark (which relates to lunar time), Jesus was crucified at the third hour, but in John (which uses solar time) he was crucified at the sixth hour.
On that evening the Hebrews began their Sabbath at the old nine o'clock, but the Essenes and Magians still had three hours to go before their Sabbath. During those extra three hours they were able to work with Jesus while others were not allowed to undertake any physical activity. It was for this reason that the women were so astonished when they found the tomb-stone moved at daybreak on the Sunday - not because it was moved, but because it had been moved on the Sabbath.
And so we come to one of the most misunderstood events in the Bible - the Ascension. And in consideration of this, the births of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's children become apparent.
We know from Gospel chronology that the Bethany second-marriage anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was in the week before the Crucifixion (at the time of the March Passover). Also that, at that stage, Mary was three-months pregnant and should, therefore, have given birth six months later in the notional month of September AD 33. The story is taken up in the Acts of the Apostles, which detail for that month the event which we have come to know as the Ascension.
One thing which the Acts do not do, however, is to call the event the Ascension. This was a tag established by way of a Church doctrine more than three centuries later. What the Bible text actually says is: "And when he had spoken these things ... he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight".
It then continues, relating that a man in white said to the disciples: "Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus ... shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go". Then, a little later in the Acts, it says that heaven must receive Jesus until 'the times of restitution'.
Given that this was the very month in which Mary Magdalene's child was due, is there perhaps some connection between Mary's confinement and the so-called Ascension? There certainly is, and the connection is made by virtue of the said 'times of restitution'.
Not only were there rules to govern the marriage ceremony of a Messianic heir, but so too were there rules to govern the marriage itself. The rules of dynastic wedlock were quite unlike the Jewish family norm, and Messianic parents were formally separated at the birth of a child. Even prior to this, intimacy between a dynastic husband and wife was only allowed in December, so that births of heirs would always fall in the month equivalent to September - the month of Atonement, the holiest month of the calendar.
From the moment of a dynastic birth, the parents were physically separated - for six years if the child was a boy and for three years if the child was a girl. Their marriage would only be recommenced at designated 'times of restitution'. Meanwhile, the mother and child would enter the equivalent of a convent and the father would enter the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom was the Essene high monastery at Mird, by the Dead Sea, and the ceremony of entry was conducted by the angelic priests under the supervision of the appointed leader of the pilgrims. In the Old Testament book of Exodus, the Israelite pilgrims were led into the Holy Land by a cloud and, in accordance with this continued Exodus imagery, the priestly leader of the pilgrims was designated with the title Cloud.
So, if we read the Acts verses as they were intended to be understood, we see that Jesus was taken up by the Cloud (the leader of the pilgrims) to the kingdom of heaven (the high monastery), whereupon the man in white (an angelic priest) said that Jesus would return at the times of restitution (when his earthly marriage was restored).
If we now look at St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews we discover that he explains the said Ascension event in some greater detail. Paul tells of how Jesus was admitted to the priesthood of heaven when he actually had no entitlement to that sacred office. He explains that Jesus was born (through his father Joseph) into the Davidic line of Judah - a line which held the right of kingship but had no right to priesthood, for this was the sole prerogative of the family of Levi. However, says Paul, a special dispensation was granted, and that "for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law".
In September AD 33, therefore, the first child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was born, and Jesus duly entered the kingdom of heaven. By following the chronology of the Acts, we see that in September AD 37 a second child was born, followed by another in AD 44. With the period between the first and second births being just four years, we know that the first child was a daughter. The period from the second birth to the next time of restitution in AD 43 was six years, which denotes that the AD 37 child was a son. Subsequent information reveals that the third child was also a son.
Prior to the birth of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was exiled from Judaea following a political uprising in which she was implicated. Along with Philip, Lazarus and a few retainers, she travelled to live at the Herodian estate near Lyon, in Gaul (which later became France).
From the earliest times, through the medieval era, to the great Renaissance, Mary's flight was portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and great artworks alike. Her life and work in Provence, especially in the Languedoc region, appeared not only in works of European history but also in the Roman Church liturgy - until her story was suppressed by the Vatican in the 16th century.
We can now return to the Grail's traditional symbolism as a chalice containing the blood of Jesus. We can also consider graphic designs dating back well beyond the Dark Ages to about 3500 BC and, in doing this, we discover that a chalice or a cup was the longest-standing symbol of the female. Its representation was that of the sacred vessel of the 'vas uterus'. And so, when fleeing into Gaul, Mary Magdalene carried the Sangréal (the nectar of supreme excellence) in the sacred chalice of her womb.
From this point in the 1st century, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, takes up the individual stories of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their offspring, following their descendants through the course of their turbulent history, which led to the great Inquisition and beyond.
It is an account of Messianic descent against which the bishops' only recourse was to denigrate the position of women in its ecclesiastical structure. Throughout this history, however, Grail lore has always been consistent in its social prediction that only when the Messianic wound has been healed, will the wasteland return to fertility.
http://graal.co.uk/bloodlinelecture.html
The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed
by Laurence Gardner
The time-honoured quest for the Holy Grail has been referred to by some as the 'ultimate quest', but in 1547 the Church condemned Grail lore as a heresy even though tradition perceives the Grail as a thoroughly Christian relic.
A heresy is described as 'an opinion which is contrary to the orthodox dogma of the Christian bishops'. The word 'heresy' is nothing more than a derogatory label - a tag used by a fearful establishment that has long sought to maintain control of society through fear of the unknown. It can therefore define those aspects of philosophy and research which quest into the realms of the unknown and which, from time to time, provide answers and solutions that are quite contrary to authorized doctrine.
As the years progress, however, it is evident that scientific and medical discovery must overturn much of the medieval religious dogma that has persisted to modern times. And, in this regard, some previously cited heresies are already being taken on board by a Church that has little option to do otherwise. So, let us begin with the most obvious of all questions: What is the Holy Grail?
The word 'Gra-al' originates from ancient Mesopotamia, where it was recorded as being the 'nectar of supreme excellence'. It was directly related to the bloodline of kings who descended from the gods - those monarchs who were anointed with the fat of the sacred Mûs-hûs: a type of monitor-crocodile in the Euphrates Valley. By virtue of this anointing, the kings were also called Mûs-hûs (or, in Egypt, Messeh) - a term which in the later Hebrew tongue became Messiah, meaning Anointed One.
By medieval times in Europe, this line of kingly descent was defined by the French word Sangréal, meaning Blood Royal. This was the Blood Royal of Judah - the line of King David which progressed to the family of Jesus. By the Middle Ages, the definition Sangréal became San Graal. When written more fully it was Saint Graal - the word 'saint', of course, relating to 'holy'. Then, by a natural linguistic process, came the more romantically familiar English term, Holy Grail.
In symbolic terms the Grail is often portrayed as a chalice that contains the blood of Jesus. Alternatively it is portrayed as a vine of grapes. The product of grapes is wine, and it is the chalice and the wine of Grail tradition that sit at the very heart of the Eucharist (the Holy Communion). In this sacrament, the sacred chalice contains the wine that represents the perpetual blood of Jesus.
It is quite apparent that, although maintaining the ancient Communion custom, the Christian Church has conveniently ignored and elected not to teach the true meaning and origin of the custom. Few people even think to enquire about the ultimate symbolism of the chalice and wine sacrament, believing that it comes simply from some Gospel entries relating to the Last Supper. But what is the significance of the perpetual blood of Jesus? How is the blood of Jesus (or of anyone else for that matter) perpetuated? It is perpetuated through family and lineage. So why was it that the Church authorities elected to ignore the bloodline significance of the Grail sacrament?
The fact is that every Government and every Church teaches the form of history or dogma most conducive to its own vested interest. In this regard we are all conditioned to receiving a very selective form of teaching. We are taught what we are supposed to know, and we are told what we're supposed to believe. But, for the most part, we learn both political and religious history by way of national or clerical propaganda. This often becomes absolute dogma - teachings which may not be challenged for fear of reprisals. With regard to the Church's attitude towards the chalice and the wine, it is apparent that the original symbolism had to be reinterpreted by the bishops because it denoted that Jesus had offspring.
The 2nd-century chronicler Julius Africanus of Edessa recorded that, during the Jewish Revolt from AD 66, the Roman governor of Jerusalem instructed the troops that all Messianic records should be burned so as to prevent future access to the details of Jesus' family genealogy. He added, however, that "A few careful people had private records ... and took pride in preserving the memory of their aristocratic origin". Africanus described these royal inheritors as the Desposyni - a hallowed style meaning Heirs of the Lord.
Subsequently, the Palestinian historian, Hegesippus, reported that in AD 81 (during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian) the execution of these family inheritors was ordered by Imperial decree. It was then later confirmed by Eusebius, the 4th-century Bishop of Caesarea, that they were hunted down and put to the sword - first by command of the Empire and then by the newly introduced Roman Church.
The writers were unanimous, however, in stating that although many of the Desposyni were seized, others became leaders of a Nazarene church movement that opposed the Church of Rome, with leaders who became the heads of their sects by way of a "strict dynastic progression". Hence, the required destruction of records was far from complete, and relevant documents were retained by Jesus' heirs, who brought the Messianic heritage from the Holy Land to the West.
Not only were sacraments and customary ritual reinterpreted, but the Gospels themselves were corrupted to comply with the newly designated 'male-only' establishment of the emergent hybrid Church. We are all familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - but what about the other Gospels: those of Philip, of Thomas, of Mary and of Mary Magdalene? What of all the numerous Gospels, Acts and Epistles that were not approved by the Church councils when the New Testament was compiled? Why were they excluded when the choices were made?
There were actually two main criteria for selection, and these (from an earlier short-list prepared by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria) were determined at the Council of Carthage in the year AD 397.
The first criterion was that the New Testament Gospels must be written in the names of Jesus' own apostles. Matthew was, of course, an apostle, as was John - but Mark was not an apostle of Jesus as far as we know, neither was Luke; they were both colleagues of the later St. Paul. Thomas and Philip, on the other hand, were among the original twelve, and yet the Gospels in their names were excluded. Not only that but, along with various other texts, they was sentenced to be destroyed. And so, throughout the Mediterranean world, numerous unapproved books were buried and hidden in the 5th century.
Although many of these books were not rediscovered until the 20th century, they were used openly by the early Christians. Certain of them, including the Gospels mentioned, along with the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Egyptians and others, were actually mentioned in the 2nd-century writings of early churchmen such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon and Origen of Alexandria.
So, why were these and other apostolic Gospels not selected? Because there was a second, far more important criterion to consider - the criterion by which, in truth, the Gospel selection was really made. It was, in fact, a wholly sexist regulation which precluded anything that upheld the status of women in Church or community society. Indeed, the Church's own Apostolic Constitutions were formulated on this basis. They state: "We do not permit our women to teach in the Church, only to pray and to hear those who teach. Our master, when he sent us the twelve, did nowhere send out a woman - for the head of the woman is the man, and it is not reasonable that the body should govern the head".
This was an outrageous statement with no apparent foundation, but it was for this very reason that dozens of Gospels were not selected, because they made it quite clear that there were many active women in the ministry of Jesus - women such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Helena-Salome, Mary-Jacob Cleopas and Joanna. These were not only ministering disciples, but priestesses in their own right, running exemplary schools of worship in the Nazarene tradition.
The Church was so frightened of women that it implemented a rule of celibacy for its priests - a rule that became a law in 1138; a rule that persists today. But this rule has never been quite what it appears on the surface, for it was never sexual activity as such that bothered the Church. The more specific problem was priestly intimacy with women. Why? Because women become mothers, and the very nature of motherhood is a perpetuation of bloodlines. It was this that caused such concern - a taboo subject which, at all costs, had to be separated from the necessary image of Jesus.
We have all learned to go along with what we are taught about the Gospels in schoolrooms and churches. But is the teaching correctly related? Does it always conform with the written scriptures? It is actually quite surprising how much we learn from pulpits or picture-books without checking the biblical text. The Nativity story itself provides a good example.
It is widely accepted that Jesus was born in a stable - but the Gospels do not say that. In fact, there is no 'stable' mentioned in any authorised Gospel. The Nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew makes it quite plain that Jesus was born in a house.
So where did the 'stable' idea come from? It came from a misinterpretation of the Gospel of Luke, which relates that Jesus was 'laid in a manger' - and a manger was nothing more than an animal feeding-box. In practice, it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as emergency cradles and they were often brought indoors for that very purpose. Why, then, has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable? Because the English translations of Luke tell us that there was 'no room in the inn'. But the old manuscript of Luke did not say that. In fact, there were no inns in the region.
The original Greek text of Luke does not relate that there was 'no room in the inn'. By the best translation it actually states that there was 'no place in the room' (that is: 'no topos in the kataluma'). As previously mentioned, Matthew states that Jesus was born in a house and, when correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in a manger (a feeding-box) because there was no cradle provided in the room.
To facilitate the best possible trust in the Gospels, we must go back to the original Greek manuscripts with their often used Hebrew and Aramaic words and phrases. In this respect, we discover that a good deal of relevant content has been misrepresented, misunderstood, mistranslated, or simply just lost in the telling. Sometimes this has happened because original words have no direct counterpart in other languages.
Christians are taught that Jesus' father Joseph was a carpenter, as explained in the English-language Gospels. But it did not say that in the original Gospels. By the best translation, it actually said that Joseph was a "master craftsman" (rendered in Greek as 'ho tekton' from the Semitic term 'naggar'). The word 'carpenter' was simply a translator's concept of a craftsman - but the text actually denoted that Joseph was a masterly, learned and scholarly man.
Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth. English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus' mother Mary was a 'virgin'. It was the same in an early Latin text which referred to her as being a 'virgo', meaning nothing more than a young woman. To have meant the same thing as virgin does today, the Latin would have been 'virgo intacta' - that is to say, a young woman intact. Looking back beyond the Latin to the older documents, we discover that the word translated to 'virgo' (a young woman) was the Semitic word 'almah' which meant the very same - a young woman. It had no sexual connotation whatever. Had Mary actually been physically virgo intacta, the Semitic word used would have been 'bethulah', not 'almah'.
Apart from such anomalies, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous purposeful amendments. In about AD 195, Bishop Clement of Alexandria made the first known amendment to the Gospel texts. He deleted a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark and justified his action in a letter, stating: "For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not agree with them - for not all true things are to be said to all men".
Even at that stage, there was already a discrepancy between what the Gospel writers had written and what the early bishops wanted to teach! But what exactly was in this removed section of Mark? It was the item which dealt with the raising of Lazarus - in the course of which the account made it perfectly clear that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were man and wife.
Many scholars have suggested that the wedding at Cana was the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene - but this was not the wedding ceremony as such, being simply the pre-marital betrothal feast. The marriage is defined by the quite separate anointings of Jesus by Mary at Bethany. Chronologically, these anointings (as given in the Gospels) were two-and-a-half years apart.
Readers of the 1st century would have been fully conversant with the two-part ritual of the sacred marriage of a dynastic heir. Jesus, as we know, was a Messiah, which means quite simply an Anointed One. In fact, all anointed senior priests and Davidic kings were Messiahs; Jesus was not unique in this regard. Although not an ordained priest, he gained his right to Messiah status by way of descent from King David and the kingly line, but he did not achieve that status until he was ritually anointed by Mary Magdalene in her capacity as a bridal high priestess.
In the Old Testament's Song of Solomon we learn of the bridal anointing of the king. It is detailed that the oil used in Judah was the fragrant ointment of spikenard (an expensive root oil from the Himalayas), and it is explained that this ritual was performed while the kingly husband sat at the table. In the New Testament, the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was indeed performed while he sat at the table, and specifically with the bridal ointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped Jesus' feet with her hair and, on the first occasion of the two-part ceremony, she wept. All of these things signify the marital anointing of a dynastic heir.
Messianic marriages were always conducted in two stages. The first (the anointing in Luke) was the legal commitment to wedlock, while the second (the later anointing in Matthew, Mark and John) was the cementing of the contract. In Jesus and Mary's case the second anointing was of particular significance for, as explained by Flavius Josephus in the 1st-century Antiquities of the Jews, the second part of the marriage ceremony was never conducted until the wife was three months pregnant.
Dynastic heirs such as Jesus were expressly required to perpetuate their lines. Marriage was essential, but community law protected the dynasts against marriage to women who proved barren or kept miscarrying. This protection was provided by the three-month pregnancy rule. Miscarriages would not often happen after that term, subsequent to which it was considered safe enough to complete the marriage contract.
After the second Bethany anointing, the Gospels relate that Jesus said: "Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her". But did the Church authorities honour Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial? No they did not; they completely ignored Jesus' own directive and denounced Mary as a whore.
To the Nazarenes, however, Mary Magdalene was always regarded as a saint. She is still revered as such by many today, with numerous churches dedicated to her in the Renaissance era. But the interesting fact of this sainthood is that Mary is the recognized patron saint of wine-growers - the ultimate Grail guardian of the Vine.
Aspects of the Gospels can actually be followed outside the Bible. Even the crucifixion sentence of Jesus is mentioned in the Annals of Imperial Rome. We can now determine from chronological survey that the Crucifixion took place at the March Passover of AD 33, while the Bethany second marriage anointing was in the week prior to that. We also know that, at that stage, Mary Magdalene was three months pregnant - which means she should have given birth in September of AD 33.
As for Jesus' death on the cross, it is perfectly clear this was spiritual death, not physical death, as determined by a three-day excommunication rule that everybody in the 1st century would have understood. In civil and legal terms, Jesus was denounced, scourged and prepared for death by decree. For three days Jesus would have been nominally 'sick', with absolute 'death' coming on the fourth day. Prior to this he would be entombed (buried alive) in accordance with Jewish Council law - but during the first three days he could be raised or resurrected, as he had predicted would be the case.
Raisings and resurrections could only be performed by the High Priest or by the Father of the Community. The High Priest at that time was Joseph Caiaphas (the very man who condemned Jesus), therefore the raising had to be performed by the patriarchal Father. There are Gospel accounts of Jesus talking to the Father from the cross, culminating in "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" - and the appointed Father of the day was the Magian apostle Simon Zelotes.
During that Friday afternoon when Jesus was on the Cross, there was a forward time change, and the Gospels explain that the land fell into darkness for three hours. The Hebrew lunarists made their change during the daytime, but the Nazarene solarists did not make their change until midnight. This explains why, according to the Gospel of Mark (which relates to lunar time), Jesus was crucified at the third hour, but in John (which uses solar time) he was crucified at the sixth hour.
On that evening the Hebrews began their Sabbath at the old nine o'clock, but the Essenes and Magians still had three hours to go before their Sabbath. During those extra three hours they were able to work with Jesus while others were not allowed to undertake any physical activity. It was for this reason that the women were so astonished when they found the tomb-stone moved at daybreak on the Sunday - not because it was moved, but because it had been moved on the Sabbath.
And so we come to one of the most misunderstood events in the Bible - the Ascension. And in consideration of this, the births of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's children become apparent.
We know from Gospel chronology that the Bethany second-marriage anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was in the week before the Crucifixion (at the time of the March Passover). Also that, at that stage, Mary was three-months pregnant and should, therefore, have given birth six months later in the notional month of September AD 33. The story is taken up in the Acts of the Apostles, which detail for that month the event which we have come to know as the Ascension.
One thing which the Acts do not do, however, is to call the event the Ascension. This was a tag established by way of a Church doctrine more than three centuries later. What the Bible text actually says is: "And when he had spoken these things ... he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight".
It then continues, relating that a man in white said to the disciples: "Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus ... shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go". Then, a little later in the Acts, it says that heaven must receive Jesus until 'the times of restitution'.
Given that this was the very month in which Mary Magdalene's child was due, is there perhaps some connection between Mary's confinement and the so-called Ascension? There certainly is, and the connection is made by virtue of the said 'times of restitution'.
Not only were there rules to govern the marriage ceremony of a Messianic heir, but so too were there rules to govern the marriage itself. The rules of dynastic wedlock were quite unlike the Jewish family norm, and Messianic parents were formally separated at the birth of a child. Even prior to this, intimacy between a dynastic husband and wife was only allowed in December, so that births of heirs would always fall in the month equivalent to September - the month of Atonement, the holiest month of the calendar.
From the moment of a dynastic birth, the parents were physically separated - for six years if the child was a boy and for three years if the child was a girl. Their marriage would only be recommenced at designated 'times of restitution'. Meanwhile, the mother and child would enter the equivalent of a convent and the father would enter the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom was the Essene high monastery at Mird, by the Dead Sea, and the ceremony of entry was conducted by the angelic priests under the supervision of the appointed leader of the pilgrims. In the Old Testament book of Exodus, the Israelite pilgrims were led into the Holy Land by a cloud and, in accordance with this continued Exodus imagery, the priestly leader of the pilgrims was designated with the title Cloud.
So, if we read the Acts verses as they were intended to be understood, we see that Jesus was taken up by the Cloud (the leader of the pilgrims) to the kingdom of heaven (the high monastery), whereupon the man in white (an angelic priest) said that Jesus would return at the times of restitution (when his earthly marriage was restored).
If we now look at St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews we discover that he explains the said Ascension event in some greater detail. Paul tells of how Jesus was admitted to the priesthood of heaven when he actually had no entitlement to that sacred office. He explains that Jesus was born (through his father Joseph) into the Davidic line of Judah - a line which held the right of kingship but had no right to priesthood, for this was the sole prerogative of the family of Levi. However, says Paul, a special dispensation was granted, and that "for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law".
In September AD 33, therefore, the first child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was born, and Jesus duly entered the kingdom of heaven. By following the chronology of the Acts, we see that in September AD 37 a second child was born, followed by another in AD 44. With the period between the first and second births being just four years, we know that the first child was a daughter. The period from the second birth to the next time of restitution in AD 43 was six years, which denotes that the AD 37 child was a son. Subsequent information reveals that the third child was also a son.
Prior to the birth of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was exiled from Judaea following a political uprising in which she was implicated. Along with Philip, Lazarus and a few retainers, she travelled to live at the Herodian estate near Lyon, in Gaul (which later became France).
From the earliest times, through the medieval era, to the great Renaissance, Mary's flight was portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and great artworks alike. Her life and work in Provence, especially in the Languedoc region, appeared not only in works of European history but also in the Roman Church liturgy - until her story was suppressed by the Vatican in the 16th century.
We can now return to the Grail's traditional symbolism as a chalice containing the blood of Jesus. We can also consider graphic designs dating back well beyond the Dark Ages to about 3500 BC and, in doing this, we discover that a chalice or a cup was the longest-standing symbol of the female. Its representation was that of the sacred vessel of the 'vas uterus'. And so, when fleeing into Gaul, Mary Magdalene carried the Sangréal (the nectar of supreme excellence) in the sacred chalice of her womb.
From this point in the 1st century, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, takes up the individual stories of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their offspring, following their descendants through the course of their turbulent history, which led to the great Inquisition and beyond.
It is an account of Messianic descent against which the bishops' only recourse was to denigrate the position of women in its ecclesiastical structure. Throughout this history, however, Grail lore has always been consistent in its social prediction that only when the Messianic wound has been healed, will the wasteland return to fertility.
http://graal.co.uk/bloodlinelecture.html
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
