It was not until the early seventeenth century that the first
acceptable English language Bible translation was
made-for the Scots
King James VI (Stuart), James I of England. This was the
Authorized Version, upon which the majority of subsequent
English-language Bibles have been based. But even this was not a
direct translation from anything; it was mostly translated from the
Greek, partly from the Latin, and to some extent from the works of
others who’d made other illegitimate translations before.
In their rendering of the New Testament, King James’
translators endeavored to appease both the Protestants and the
Catholics. This was the only way to produce a generally acceptable
text, but their attempt to appease was not entirely successful. The
Catholics thought the translators were siding with the Protestants
and tried to blow up
King James in the Houses of Parliament, and the Protestants
said the translators were in league with the Catholics.
Anyway, the Bible survived but the translators tried as
well for something called "political correctness". We know about it
today; it applied then. Good examples of this are found in many
instances-one in particular where the direct translation referred to
a group of people called "heavenly soldiers". They didn’t like this
very much, so it’s actually crossed out, and underneath it says
"heavenly army". But somebody else came along and said, "No, this is
still not good enough; it denotes an armed unit here; this is not
politically correct," and so it was crossed out again, and they
resurrected an old word that had not been written in the English
language for centuries. They called it "the heavenly host". Nobody
knows what the heavenly host is. In fact it’s quite astounding how
many obscure, old and obsolete words were brought back into use to
provide political correctness for the King James Bible,
but which nobody could understand. At the same time,
William Shakespeare was doing likewise in his plays.
If we look at the reference books that existed prior to James and
Shakespeare and at those that existed just after James and
Shakespeare, we see that the English-language vocabulary was
increased by more than fifty per cent as a result of words invented
or brought back from obscurity by the writers of the era. The
problem was that nobody, let alone the dictionary compilers, knew
what most of these words meant. But they had somehow to be defined,
and "heavenly host" emerged, quite ambiguously, as "a heavenly lot
So although eminently poetic, the language of the Authorized
English Bible is quite unlike any language ever spoken by
anyone in England or anywhere else. It bears no relation to the
Greek or Latin from which it was translated. It was certainly not
the language spoken by God,
as some priests once told me (sic). But from this approved
canonical interpretation, all other English language Bibles have
emerged in their various forms. Despite that, for all of its faults,
despite its beautiful verse patterns and the new words, it still
remains the closest of all English language translations from the
original Greek manuscripts. All other versions, the Standard
New versions, the Revised versions, the
Modern English versions,
have been significantly corrupted and they’re quite unsuitable
for serious study by anyone because they have their own specific
We can cite an extreme version of how this works in practice. We can
look at a Bible currently issued today in Pacific Papua New Guinea
where there are tribes who experience familiarity on a daily basis
with no other animal but the pig. In the current edition of
their Bible, every animal mentioned in the text, whether
originally an ox, lion, ass, sheep or whatever, is now a pig!
Even Jesus, the traditional "Lamb of God", in this Bible is
"the Pig of God"!
So, 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. And in so doing we discover
that, just as with the Nativity story, 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.
We’ve all been taught that Jesus’ father Joseph was a carpenter. "Why
not? It says so in the Gospels." But it didn’t say that in the
original Gospels. By the best translation, it actually said that
Joseph was a Master of the Craft. The word "carpenter" was simply a
translator’s concept of a craftsman. Anyone associated with modern
Freemasonry will recognize the term "the Craft". It’s
got nothing whatever to do with woodwork. The text simply denoted
that Joseph was a masterly, learned and scholarly man.
Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth. Our
English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus’ mother Mary was
a virgin; they keep telling us that she was a virgin. Well, let’s
consider the word "virgin". We understand the word; it tells us that
this was a woman with no experience of sexual union. But this was
translated not from the Greek initially but from the Latin. That was
easy because the Latin called her virgo; Mary
was a virgo. It didn’t mean the same thing at all!
Virgo in Latin meant nothing more than "a young woman".
To have meant the same thing as "virgin" does to us today, the Latin
would have been virgo intacta, that is to say, "a
young woman intact".
Let’s look back beyond the Latin text; let’s see why they called her
virgo, a young woman. Maybe they actually got something
right which we’ve got wrong later on. We discover that the word
translated to mean
virgo, a young woman, was the old Hebrew word
almah which meant
"a young woman". It had no sexual connotation whatever.
Had Mary actually been physically virgo intacta, the Hebrew
word used would have been
bethula, not almah.
So, have we been completely misguided by the Gospels? No; we’ve been
misguided by the English language translations of the Gospels. We’ve
also been misguided by a Church establishment that has
done everything in its power to deny women any normal lifestyle in
the Gospel story. The New Testament’s key women are virgins or
whores or sometimes widows-never everyday girlfriends, wives or
mothers, and certainly not ever priestesses or holy sisters.
Notwithstanding that, the Gospels tell us time and time again that
Jesus was descended from King David through his father
Joseph. Even St Paul tells us this in his Epistle to the
Hebrews. But we are taught that Jesus’ father was a lowly carpenter
and his mother was a virgin-neither of which descriptions can be
found in any original text. So it follows that to get the best out
of the Gospels we’ve really got to read them as they were written,
not as we decide to interpret them according to modern language.
Precisely when the four main Gospels were written is uncertain. What
we do know is that they were first published at various stages in
the second half of the first century. They were unanimous initially
in telling us that Jesus was a Nazarene. This is actually
upheld in the Roman annals; and the first-century chronicles of the
Jews and the Bible’s Acts of the Apostles confirm that Jesus’
brother James and St Paul were leaders of the sect of the
This definition of "Nazarene" is very important to
the Grail story
because it has been so often misrepresented to suggest that Jesus came
from the town of Nazareth. For the past 400 years, English language
Gospels have perpetuated the error by wrongly translating
"Jesus the Nazarene" as "Jesus of Nazareth". There
was no connection between Nazareth and the Nazarenes. In fact,
the settlement at Nazareth was established in the AD 60s, thirty
years or so after the Crucifixion. Nobody in Jesus’ early life came
from Nazareth - it was not there!
The Nazarenes were a liberal, Jewish sect opposed to the
strict Hebrew regime of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Nazarene
culture and language were heavily influenced by the philosophers of
ancient Greece, and their community supported the concept of equal
opportunity for men and women. Documents of the time referred not to
Nazareth but to the Nazarene society. Priestesses existed in equal
opportunity with priests, but this was so different from what the
male-dominated Hebrew society wanted and what the later,
male-dominated Roman Church required.
It has to be remembered that Jesus was not a Christian: he
was a Nazarene - a radical, westernized Jew. The Christian
movement was founded by others in the wake of his own mission. The
word "Christian" was first recorded and used in AD 44
in Antioch, Syria.
In the Arab world, the word used today, as then, to
describe Jesus and his followers is Nazara. This is
confirmed in the Muslim Koran:
Jesus is Nazara; his followers are Nazara. The word means
"Keepers" or "Guardians". The full definition is Nazrie
"Keepers of the Covenant". In fact, the Brit aspect of
that is the very root of the country name of Britain.
Brit-ain means "Covenant-land".
In the time of Jesus the Nazarenes lived in Galilee, and in that
mystical place which the Bible calls "the Wilderness".
was actually a very defined place. It was essentially the land around
the main settlement at Qumran which spread out to
Mird and other places. It was where the Dead Sea
Scrolls were produced-discovered at Qumran in 1948.
Somewhere after the Crucifixion, Peter and his friend Paul went off to
Antioch, then on to Rome, and they began the movement that
became Christianity. But as recorded in the other annals,
Jesus, his brother
James and the majority of the other apostles continued
the Nazarene movement and progressed it into Europe. It became
the Celtic Church. The Nazarene movement as a Church is
documented within the Celtic Church records as being formally
implemented as the Church of Jesus in AD 37, four years after the
Crucifixion. The Roman Church was
formed 300 years later, after Paul and Peter’s
Christians had been persecuted for three centuries.
Through many centuries the Nazarene-based Celtic Church
movement was directly opposed therefore to the Church of Rome. The
difference was a simple one: the Nazarene faith was based on the
teachings of Jesus himself. The guts of the religion, the moral
codes, the behavioral patterns, the social practices, the laws and
justices related to Old Testament teaching but with a liberal
message of equality in mind - this was the religion of Jesus.
Roman Christianity is "Churchianity". It was not the message of
Jesus that was important: this Church turned Jesus into the
religion. In short, the Nazarene Church was the true social
Church. The Roman Church was the Church of the Emperors and
the Popes; this was the Imperial hybrid movement.
Apart from straightforward misunderstandings, misinterpretations and
mistranslations, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous
amendments. Some original entries have been changed or
deleted; other entries have been added to suit the Church’s vested
interest. Back in the fourth century when the texts were translated
into Latin from their original Greek and Semitic tongues, the
majority of these edits and amendments were made.
Even earlier, about AD 195 - one thousand, eight hundred years ago -
Bishop Clement of Alexandria made the first known
from the Gospel texts. He deleted a substantial section from
the Gospel of Mark, written more than a hundred years before that
time, and he justified his action in a letter. "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." Interesting. What he meant was that even at that very
early stage there was already a discrepancy between what the Gospel
writers had written and what the bishops wanted to
Today, this section deleted by St Clement is still missing from the
Gospel of Mark. But when Mark is compared with the Gospel that we
know today, even without that section we find that today’s Gospel is
a good deal longer than the original! One of these additional
sections comprises the whole of the Resurrection sequence;
this amounts to twelve full verses at the end of Mark, chapter 16.
It’s now known that everything told about the events after the
Crucifixion was added by Church bishops or their scribes some
time in the late fourth century. Although this is
confirmed in the Vatican archives, it is difficult for most people
to gain access, and even if they do, old Greek is very difficult to
But what exactly was in this section of Mark that Clement saw fit to
remove? It was the section that dealt with the raising of
Lazarus. In the context of the original Mark text, however,
Lazarus was portrayed in a state of excommunication:
spiritual death by decree, not physical death. The account even
had Lazarus and Jesus calling to each other before the tomb was
opened. This defeated the bishops’ desire to portray the raising of
Lazarus as a spiritual miracle, not as a simple
release from excommunication. More importantly, it set the scene for
the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus himself, whose own subsequent
raising from spiritual death was determined by the same
that applied to Lazarus.
Jesus was raised (released or resurrected) from death by decree
on the statutory third day. In the case of Lazarus, however,
Jesus flouted the rules by raising his friend after the three-day
period of symbolic sickness. At that point, civil death would have
become absolute in the eyes of the legal elders. Lazarus
would have been wrapped in sacking and buried alive. His crime was
that he had led a violent people’s-revolt to safeguard the public
water supply which had been diverted through a new Roman aqueduct in
Jerusalem. But Jesus performed this release while not holding any
priestly entitlement to do so. What happened was that
Herod-Antipas of Galilee compelled the High Priest of Jerusalem
to relent in favor of Jesus, and this was regarded as an
But there was more to the removed section of Mark, because in telling
the story of Lazarus the Mark account made it perfectly clear
Jesus and Mary Magdalene were actually man and wife.
in John contains a rather strange sequence that has Martha
coming from the Lazarus house to greet Jesus, whereas
her sister, Mary Magdalene, remains inside until summoned by
Jesus. But in contrast to this, the
original Mark account said that Mary Magdalene actually came
out of the house with Martha and was then chastised by the disciples
and sent back indoors to await Jesus’ instruction. This was a
specific procedure of Judaic law, whereby a wife in
ritual mourning was not allowed to emerge from the property until
instructed by her husband.
There’s a good deal of information outside the Bible to
Jesus and Mary Magdalene were man and wife. But is there
anything relevant in the Gospels today, anything that the editors
missed that tells us the story? Well, there are some specific things
and there are some ancillary things.
There are seven lists given in the Gospels of the women who
permanently seemed to follow Jesus around, and these include Jesus’
mother; but in six of these seven lists the first name, even ahead
of his mother, is Mary Magdalene. When one studies other
lists of the period which relate to any form of hierarchical
society, one notices that the "first lady" was always the first name
listed. The term
"First Lady" is used in America today. The first lady
was the most senior; she was always named first, and as the
Messianic Queen, Mary Magdalene would have been named first, as
indeed she was.
But is the marriage defined in the Gospels? Well, it is. Many have
suggested that the wedding at Cana was the marriage of Jesus and
Mary Magdalene. This was not the wedding ceremony as such, although
the marriage is detailed in the Gospels. The marriage is the
quite separate anointings at Bethany. In Luke we have a first
anointing by Mary of Jesus, two-and-a-half years before the second
anointing. It doesn’t occur to many people that they are different
stories, but they are two-and-a-half years apart.
Readers of the first 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
"Anointed One". In fact, all anointed senior priests
and Davidic kings were Messiahs.
Jesus was not unique. 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 Messiah status until he was actually physically anointed by
Mary Magdalene, in her capacity as a high priestess,
shortly before the Crucifixion.
The word "Messiah" comes from the Hebrew verb "to anoint", which
itself is derived from the Egyptian word messeh,
crocodile". It was with the fat of the messeh
that the Pharaoh’s sister-brides anointed their husbands on
marriage. The Egyptian custom sprang from
kingly practice in old Mesopotamia.
In the Old Testament’s Song of Solomon we hear again of the bridal
anointing of the king. It is defined that the oil used in Judah was
the fragrant ointment spikenard, an expensive root oil from the
Himalayas, and we learn that this anointing ritual was performed
always while the husband/king 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 with the bridal
anointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped his feet with her
hair, and on the first occasion of the two-part marriage she wept.
All of these things signify the marital anointing of a
Other anointings of Messiahs, whether on coronation or admission to
the senior priesthood, were always conducted by men, by the
or the High Priest. The oil used was olive oil, mixed
with cinnamon and other spices; never, ever spikenard.
Spikenard was the express prerogative of a Messianic bride who had to
be a Mary, a sister of a sacred order. Jesus’ mother was a Mary; so,
too, would his wife have been a Mary, by title at least if not by
baptismal name. Some conventual orders still maintain the tradition
adding the title "Mary" to the baptismal names of
their nuns: Sister Mary Theresa, Sister Mary Louise.
Messianic marriages were always conducted in two stages. The
first stage, the anointing in Luke, was the legal commitment to
wedlock. The second stage, the anointing in Matthew, Mark and John,
was the cementing of the contract. And in Jesus and Mary’s case, the
second anointing at Bethany was of express significance. Here
the Grail story begins, because, as explained in books of
Jewish law at the time and by Flavius Josephus in The
Antiquities of the Jews, the second part of this marriage
ceremony was never conducted until the wife was three months
Dynastic heirs such as Jesus were expressly required to
perpetuate their lines. Marriage was essential, but the law had to
protect them against marriage to women who proved barren or kept
miscarrying, and this protection was provided by the
three-month-pregnancy rule. Miscarriages would not often happen
after that term, and once they got through that period it was
considered safe enough to complete the marriage contract. When
anointing her husband at this stage, the Messianic bride,
in accordance with custom, was said to be anointing him for burial.
This is confirmed in the Gospels. The bride would from that day
carry a vial of spikenard around her neck, for the rest of her
husband’s life; she would use it again on his entombment.
It was for this very purpose that Mary Magdalene would have
gone to the tomb, as she did on the Sabbath after the Crucifixion.
Subsequent to the second Bethany anointing, the Gospels relate that
"Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world,
this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of
In his famous rendering of the event, the Renaissance artist Fra
Angelico actually depicted Jesus placing a crown on the head of
Mary Magdalene. But despite the fact that Fra Angelico
was a learned 15th-century Dominican friar, did the Christian Church
authorities honor Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial
of her? No; they did not. They completely ignored Jesus’ own
denounced Mary as a whore.
To the esoteric Church and the Knights Templars,
Mary Magdalene was always regarded as a saint. She is
still revered as such by many today, but the interesting part about
this sainthood, when we think about Grail lore, is
that Mary is listed as the patron saint of winegrowers, the guardian
of the vine, the guardian of the Holy Grail, the
guardian of the sacred bloodline.
There is much in the Gospels that we don’t presume to be there because
we are never encouraged to look beyond the superficial level.
We’ve been aided greatly in this regard in recent years by the
Dead Sea Scrolls and by the extraordinary research of Australian
Dr Barbara Thiering.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have opened up a whole new
awareness of jargon; we have a whole new enlightenment here. They
set down the community offices of the Messiah of Israel. They tell
us about the council of twelve delegate apostles who were
permanently appointed to preside over specific aspects of government
and ritual. This leads to a greater awareness of the apostles
themselves. We now know not only what their names were - we always
knew that - but we can understand who they were, who their families
were, what their duties and positions were.
We now understand from studying the Gospels that there is an allegory
within them: the use of words that we don’t understand today. We now
know that baptismal priests were called "fishers"; we know that
those who aided them by hauling the baptismal candidates into the
boats in large nets were called "fishermen"; and we know that the
baptismal candidates themselves were called "fishes". The apostles
James and John were both ordained "fishers". The brothers Peter and
Andrew were lay "fishermen", and Jesus promised them priesthood
within the new ministry, saying "I will make you to become fishers
We now know there was a particular jargon of the Gospel era,
a jargon that would have been readily understood by anybody reading
the Gospels in the first century and beyond. These jargonistic words
have been lost to later interpretation. Today, for example, we call
our theatre investors "angels" and our top entertainers "stars", but
what would a reader from some distant culture in two thousand years’
time make of "The angel went to talk to the stars"? The Gospels are
full of these jargonistic words. "The poor", "the lepers", "the
multitude", "the blind"-none of these was what we presume it to mean
today. Definitions such as "clouds", "sheep", "fishes", "loaves" and
a variety of others were all related, just like "stars", to people.
When the Gospels were written in the first century they were issued
into a Roman-controlled environment. Their content had
to be disguised against Roman scrutiny. The information was often
political; it was coded, veiled. Where important
sections appeared they were often heralded by the words, "This is
for those with ears to hear"-for those who understand the code. It
was no different to the coded information passed between members of
oppressed groups throughout history. There was a code found in
documentation passed between the later Jews in Germany in the 1930s
Through our knowledge of this scribal cryptology we can now determine
dates and locations with very great accuracy. We can uncover many of
the hidden meanings in the Gospels to the extent that the miracles
themselves take on a whole new context. In doing so, this does not
in any way decry the fact that a man like Jesus, and, in
fact, specifically Jesus, was obviously a very special person with
enormously special powers, but the Gospels laid down certain stories
which have since become described as "miracles". These
were not put down because they were really miraculous supernatural
events; they were put down because in the then-current political
arena they were actually quite unprecedented actions which
successfully flouted the law.
We now know other things. We now know why the Gospels are often not in
agreement with each other. For example, Mark says that Jesus was
crucified at the third hour, whereas John says he was crucified at
the sixth hour. This does not, on the face of it, look too
important, but, as we shall see, this three-hour time difference was
crucial to the events that followed.
Let’s look at the water and wine at Cana, following the
story through what the Bible actually tells us, as
against what we think we know. What was a very straightforward event
is now dubbed with supernatural overtones. The Cana wedding, out of
four Gospels, is described only in John. If it was so important to
the Church as a miracle, why is it not in the other three Gospels?
It does not say (as is so often said from pulpits): "They ran out of
wine." It doesn’t say that. It says: "When they wanted wine, the
mother of Jesus said, ’They have no wine.’"
The Gospel tells us that the person in charge was the ruler of the
feast. This specifically defines it not as a wedding ceremony as
such, but a pre-wedding betrothal feast. The wine taken at betrothal
feasts was only available to priests and celibate Jews, not to
married men, novices or any others who were regarded as being
unsanctified. They were allowed only water-a purification ritual, as
stated in John.
When the time came for this ritual, Mary, clearly not happy about the
discrimination and directing Jesus’ attention to the unsanctified
guests, said: "They have no wine." Having not yet been anointed to
Messiah status, Jesus responded: "Mine hour is not yet come." At
this, Mary forced the issue and Jesus then flouted convention,
abandoning water altogether. Wine for everyone! The ruler of the
feast made no comment whatsoever about any miracle;
he simply expressed his amazement that the wine had turned up at
that stage of the proceedings.
It’s been suggested often that the wedding at Cana
was Jesus’ own wedding ceremony because he and his mother
displayed a right of command that would not be associated with
ordinary guests. However, this feast can be dated to the summer of
AD 30, in the month equivalent to June. First weddings were always
held in the month of Atonement (September), and betrothal feasts
were held three months before that. In this instance, we find that
the first marital
anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was at the
Atonement of AD 30, three months after the Cana ceremony which
appears to have been their own betrothal feast.
The Gospels tell a story that although not always in agreement from
Gospel to Gospel is actually followable outside the Bible.
The accounts of Jesus’ activities right up to the time of the
Crucifixion can be found in various records of the era. In the
official annals of Imperial Rome, the trial by Pilate and the
Crucifixion are mentioned. We can determine precisely from this
chronological diary of the Roman governors that the Crucifixion took
place at the March Passover of AD 33. The Bethany second marriage
anointing was in the week prior to that. We know that at that stage
Mary Magdalene had to have been three months pregnant, by
law, which means she should have given birth in September of AD 33.
That, we’ll come back to.
If the Gospels are read as they are written, Jesus appears as a
liberating dynast, endeavoring to unite the people of the era
against the oppression of the Roman Empire. Judaea at the time was
just like France under German occupation in World War II. The
authorities were controlled by the military occupational force;
resistance movements were common.
Jesus was awaited, expected, and by the end of the story had become an
anointed Messiah. In the first century Antiquities of the Jews,
Jesus is called "a wise man", "a teacher" and "the King".
There is nothing there about divinity.
While the Dead Sea Scrolls identify the Messiah of
Israel as the Supreme Military Commander of Israel, it is no secret
the apostles were armed. From the time of recruitment, Jesus checked
that they all had swords. At the very end of the story, Peter drew
his sword against
Malchus. Jesus said, "I come not to send peace but a sword."
Many of the high-ranking Jews in Jerusalem were quite content to hold
positions of power backed by a foreign military regime. Apart from
that, the Hebrew groups themselves were sectarian; they did not want
to share their God Jehovah with anybody else,
specifically unclean Gentiles. To the Pharisees and Sadducees, the
Jews were God’s chosen people: He belonged to them, they
belonged to Him. But there were other Jews, there were the
Nazarenes, there were the Essenes,
who were influenced by a more liberal, western doctrine. In
the event, Jesus’ mission failed; the rift was
insurmountable. Gentiles, in modern-day language, are simply the
non-Jewish Arab races, and the rift is still there today.
The sentencing of Jesus was by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,
Jesus was actually condemned and excommunicated prior to
that by the
Sanhedrin Council. It was decided to contrive a
punishment, whereby Jesus would be sentenced by the Roman Governor
who was already trying other prisoners for leading insurrections
As confirmed by the Supreme Judge and Attorney-General of Israel even
today, it was quite illegal for the Sanhedrin Council
to sit at night or to sit and operate during the Passover, so the
timing was perfect. They had an ideal opportunity, and a reason to
say: "Sorry, we can’t do this ourselves. You, the Roman Governor,
have to do this."
As for Jesus’ death on the Cross, it is perfectly plain this was
spiritual death, not physical death, as determined
by the three-day rule that everybody in the first century reading
this would have understood. In civil and legal terms, Jesus was
already dead when he was placed on the Cross. He was denounced,
scourged, prepared for death by decree. Today, we
call this "excommunication". For three days Jesus would have
been nominally sick, with absolute death coming on the fourth day.
On that day he would be entombed, buried alive; but during the first
three days he could be raised or resurrected. In fact, he predicted
that he would.
Raisings and resurrections (apart from the fact that Jesus once
flouted the rule, and that was a miracle!) 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 at that time we know from the listings
that the appointed Father was the Magian apostle Simon
We have been taught that Jesus’ physical death was proved by the blood
and water that flowed when he was pierced by the spear, but this
has been very badly translated. The original word does not
translate to "pierced"; it translates to "pricked" or
"scratched". This in turn was mistranslated into the
Latin verb "to open", and into the English word "pierced".
They were not primitive times. They were times when there were
doctors, medical men; there were even forms of hospital. And we can
see that, just like today, the test for reflex action was
scratching, prodding or pricking the skin with a sharp instrument.
I have in my possession a letter from a surgeon of the British Medical
Council. It says:
"Medically, the outflow of water is impossible to explain. Blood
flowing from a stab wound is evidence of life, not death. It
would take a large, gaping laceration for any drop of blood to flow
from a dead body because there is no vascular action."
So let’s look further; let’s look at what the Gospels actually said.
Joseph of Arimathea took down Jesus’ body from the Cross. In
fact, the word that was translated to the English word "body"
was the Greek word
soma, meaning "live body". The alternative word denoting
"dead body" or "corpse" would have been ptoma.
Jesus very apparently survived, and this is explicitly
maintained in other books. Even the Koran says that
Jesus survived the Crucifixion.
During that Friday afternoon when Jesus was on the Cross, there was a
three-hour-forward time change. Time was recorded then by sundials
and by priests who marked the hours by a sequence of measured prayer
sessions. In essence, there were daytime hours and there were
night-time hours. Today we have a twenty-four-hour day. In John,
Jesus said: "Are there not twelve hours in a day?" Yes, there were
twelve hours in a day and there were twelve hours in the night, and
daytime started at sunrise. From time to time the beginning of
daytime changed; thus the beginning of night-time changed. In March,
the beginning of daytime would have been somewhere round about six
o’clock in the morning, as we know it.
We know that Joseph of Arimathea negotiated with Pontius
Pilate to have Jesus removed from the Cross after a few hours of
hanging. The Gospels don’t actually agree on the sequence of events
here: some use the time before the time change; some use the time
after the time change. But three hours disappeared from the day,
to be replaced with three night-time hours. Daylight hours were
substituted by hours of darkness. The land fell into darkness for
three hours, we are told in the Gospels. Today we would simply, in a
split second, add three night-time hours to the day.
But these three hours were the crux of every single
event that followed, because the Hebrew lunarists made
their change during the daytime. The solarists, of
which the Essenes and the
Magi were factions, did not make their change until
midnight-which actually means that according to the Gospel that
relates to Hebrew time, Jesus was crucified at the third hour; but
in the other, 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 the Sabbath. It was those three
hours that enabled them to work with, on and for Jesus, during a
period of time in which nobody else was allowed to undertake any
physical work whatsoever.
And so we come to probably one of the most misunderstood
events of the Bible, and from there we’ll move on, beyond
the Bible period through history, to tell what happened
concerning the birth of Jesus and Mary’s child in September AD 33.
One of the most misunderstood events in the Bible is the
Ascension, and in discussing it we will consider the
births of Jesus’ three children and their descendants.
to Part 1;
Go to Part 3)