The Roman Church vs. the descendants of Jesus and his family, pt. 1

First, if the reader is a devout Christian and/or is comfortable with their religious beliefs and world-view, they might be wise to skip this. This sort of stuff can be akin to “swallowing the red pill,” once you read something you can’t “unread” it. Personally I find this topic fascinating, but it can be upsetting to some people.

There are a lot of good things that can be said about the Christian ethic, churches of the various Christian sects, their charitable works, I actually think that the Roman Catholic Church is, more often than not (excepting the pedophilia problem) a positive force in modern society. Maybe I’m giving the Church more credit than it deserves, maybe not, but I try to be generous. However, the actual history of the Church and the true life-story of the Jewish Prince and his “crucifixion” upon which their (once incredibly powerful) empire was built, if the truth were known, would turn the heads of many and, if revealed and understood in Medieval times, would probably have destroyed the Church of Rome in its infancy.

That’s why the Church had to get rid of the descendants of Christ and his family.

I’ll first need to comment on the term ‘Christ.’ It comes from the Greek ‘Christos,’ which meant “anointed one.” In ancient Egypt the Pharaohs were anointed with oil obtained from the fat of a holy crocodile, which had a name – ‘messeh.’ It is from ‘messeh’ that our word ‘Messiah’ derives. It meant, literally, anointed one (also “dragon”! – which is why the fat of a crocodile was used), and the Greek word ‘Christos’ meant the exact same thing. In fact, ‘Jesus Christ the Messiah’ is a title which is repetitious – the terms ‘Messiah’ and ‘Christ’ both meant the same thing – one who had been “anointed.” Neither of those terms, originally, had anything to do with being the ‘son of God’ or being a ‘Savior’ – though, it had been foretold that there would come a Savior (someone, a Judaic King), who would throw out the hated Romans and restore sovereignty to the Jewish people.

Jesus (Yeshua) was of the Davidic bloodline and came at the right time to make a mark in history that would reverberate for millennia. He was charismatic, he connected with the oppressed people of Judea, and at the time many thought that this was the guy who could turn things around and reclaim the Judaic throne, which hadn’t been occupied by a descendant of David for hundreds of years – hence his moniker, the ‘Savior.’ GET THIS – He was the potential ‘Savior’ of Judea, not of our souls, and his being the ‘Messiah’ was just a testament to his having been anointed as a priest-king (even if never officially crowned) of the Jewish people, of an extended branch of legitimate rulers originating in Egypt! — (Where did Mary and Joseph, with their infant son, according to the Gospel of Matthew, flee to when Herod started killing all the babies under the age of two in Galilee? – Egypt.)

————-

As hard to believe as it might be, this narrative will intersect with my previous post about Alfred the Great. (Sort of approaching it cautiously from two opposing flanks.)

I’m just getting started, but I’m sleepy. To be continued…

————-

OK. First, we have to get past the thing about Jesus being married or not. Of course he was married. The fact that his marital status is never mentioned in the Bible and other old texts is pretty good evidence that he was, a Jewish Rabbi was expected to marry, and a Rabbi of the royal Davidic line would have been expected to not only marry but to have children – heirs. Were it that Jesus was a single guy, or even childless, THAT would have elicited attention and comment. Jesus’ marital status goes unmentioned, so we should assume that he was married. Also, the Bible was heavily edited and many passages and entire Gospels were thrown out, but there would have been no reason to throw out text that indicated Jesus never married, for that was the Church’s position. There is the possibility however that references which indicated that he was married would have been excised.

Then there is the fairly recent discovery by Harvard theologian Karen King of a fragment of papyrus, alleged to date to the 4th century, on which is written in Coptic Egyptian: “Jesus said to them, my wife…,” and on another line, “…she will be able to be my disciple.” Scholars are still arguing over whether or not the fragment is authentic or not, and what it means, but then you have the apocryphal Book of Philip, one of the Nag Hammadi texts (which I’ll get to below), in which it says, “[Jesus] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her […]. The rest of the disciples […]. They said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?'” There are holes in the papyrus, so we don’t really know where he kissed her, but the person he’s kissing is Mary the Magdalene and she plays a prominent role in the Book of Philip.

The authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail took the position that Mary the Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the girl who anointed Jesus with oil of Spikenard (in Luke she is unidentified and in John she is Mary of Bethany) all as one person – Mary the Magdalene, the sister of Lazarus. This is not a unique view, and I agree with it. But in mentioning Lazarus I fear I have to steer off on a quick tangent.

Lazarus’ being raised from the dead was not a miracle. It was an initiation rite. The ‘Mystery Schools’ are as old as Egypt and Babylon (and probably older), flourished in Greece and the Troad, and were still prevalent in the Levant around the time of Jesus. What’s a Mystery School? It was a school that you couldn’t get into unless you were invited. It was where you were (allegedly) taught the secrets of the universe. It entailed a regimen which (again, allegedly) led you to enlightenment. If, as an initiate, you divulged any of the school’s secrets to outer society, you were (quickly) killed. (Life was cheap 3000 years ago.) Anyway, being an initiate of a Mystery School in Jesus’ time was like being a high-ranking Freemason. In fact, Joseph was not a “carpenter,” as we are told. This is a mistranslation. In the original Greek text he is described as a “builder.” A “builder” could be interpreted as a carpenter, but it could also mean that he was what we would refer to, in our time, as a “Mason.”

Then we have the wedding at Cana. Anytime you read of a miracle in the Bible, you should carefully re-read the passage. These “miracles,” I have noticed, are often misdirection, distracting the reader away from something hidden just below the surface of the text that the compilers of the Bible hoped no one would notice.

Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana. While thinking, “Wow! – he turned water into wine!??,” you missed that a moment or two before, his mother Mary had been ordering him and the servants around, complaining that the wine had run out. Had Mary and her son been guests at the wedding of a friend or an acquaintance, this behavior on Mary’s part would have been unthinkably inappropriate. Not so however if the bridegroom were Jesus himself, and his mother was in fact the hostess of the event. (There are yet other clues which suggest that Jesus and Mary were married which are enumerated carefully in Henry Lincoln and associates’ ‘Holy Blood Holy Grail.’)

After the crucifixion, the disciples Peter and Paul went to Rome and founded their Church. Meanwhile the descendants of Jesus and his immediate family went elsewhere. They not only existed, a special name was affixed to them – the ‘desposyni.’

An Irish Priest, one Malachi Martin, wrote in ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church’ (1981):

“That most hallowed name, desposyni, had been respected by all believers in the first century and a half of Christian history. The word literally meant, in Greek, “belonging to the Lord”. It was reserved uniquely for Jesus’ blood relatives. Every part of the ancient Jewish Christian church had always been governed by a desposynos, and each of them carried one of the names traditional in Jesus’ family — Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Simeon, Matthias…”

These Desposyni were a potential embarrassment to the Church of Rome as it was evolving during the early centuries of its history. Church leaders had constructed a Catholic doctrine which placed themselves as intermediaries between the poor peasants of Europe and God. This was in stark contrast to the true teachings of Jesus, which was “Gnosis”, a word synonymous with our word “knowledge” (and, interestingly, the root of another one too – noble). He was talking about direct contact through personal experience with the greater universe (God?). Hence the early Christian sects that gathered around the desposyni were all “Gnostic”. This was in direct conflict with the ideas and dogma of the Church of Rome.

During the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries a number of prominent Bishops of the early Church assembled our ‘Bible’, in stages, from Christian writings of prior centuries (‘Gospels’). It was these Church leaders in Rome though who chose what to include, what to leave out, edited and, when it served their interests, mistranslated the Greek (and possibly Aramaic) texts into their book of God’s Word until they got it just right. The existence of actual blood descendants of Christ and his family, who knew what was true and what was invented, was a great threat not only to the distorted narrative and doctrine the Church was peddling, but to the very existence of the Roman Church itself. Resultingly, the Church went to great lengths to disenfranchise, persecute and, if possible, get rid of the desposyni entirely, along with anyone who followed their teachings. (Eventually the Church would largely succeed in that effort.)

Additionally, it was important for the Church to purge from the pages of history any evidence that the Christ and Mary had been married, for this would have opened the door to the question, did they have children? They may have had many for all we know, we really don’t know. It’s a fair guess that they had at least one however. The first name of Barabbus, the “thief” pardoned at the crucifixion, was Jesus (actually ‘Iesous’, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew ‘Yeshua’), as is evident in the earliest Greek texts. This Jesus was no thief, he was in fact a rebel, just like his father. Jesus-bar-Rabbus, Jesus, son of the Rabbi.

And so the wife of Jesus, Mary, beloved and worshipped by the many early ‘Gnostic’ Christian sects, including the unfortunate Cathars of southern France as well as the Knights of the Temple who built great cathedrals in honor of Mary the Magdalene (NOT the Virgin Mary, as the Church would have you believe), this wife of Christ was transformed by the Church into a whore, and any evidence that she and her husband and their close blood relatives produced heirs was utterly (or nearly so) erased.

That is why all of this comes as news to most people.

In the early 4th century the Emperor of Rome was Constantine. Contrary to popular belief, he was never a big supporter of Christianity (despite his baptism, which apparently took place on his deathbed). He was however big on unification, and the most popular religion in Rome at the time was the cult of Sol-Invictus, a sun-cult. Constantine promoted any alteration to the tenets of Sol-Invictus, Mithraism or Catholic Christianity which would bring the three closer together. Wisely, the Church of Rome swapped the Sabbath (Saturn’s day/Saturday) for “Sun”-day and won the patriarchy of the Emperor. Subsequently the Church began establishing their own churches in Jerusalem, Alexandria and other Roman cities around the Mediterranean, appointing Greek bishops to lead them. This was too much for the Desposyni to suffer and in the year 318 a group of them travelled to Rome to meet with Pope Sylvester and present him with a list of grievances and demands.

To summarize what was the outcome of this historic meeting, Pope Sylvester told the desposynic blood relatives of the Savior to all go jump in a lake. The words he chose were perhaps more polite.

(It’s true!!!)

———–

To be continued …

3 Comments to 'The Roman Church vs. the descendants of Jesus and his family, pt. 1'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'The Roman Church vs. the descendants of Jesus and his family, pt. 1'.

  1. Geus said,

    If you think believe Roman Catholicism to be a positive force in society, you are seriously ignorant of the facts. Our Western civilization is based on expelling Roman Catholicism from several countries in Europe, after surviving wars against Roman Catholic military constructs. Counter Reformation has hijacked these countries again, and is getting more and more control since around 2 centuries. Roman Catholic countries in Europe are also the poorest countries, Roman Catholics promote ignorance, and in fact are an intelligence service asset, rather than anything else.

    Further this family of Christ is the Jews, and much of this article is infested with lies told and promoted by the Roman Catholic system. Jesus Christ was from the bloodline of David, this is where the Gospel starts, he is Jewish.

    Gnosticism is from the Greek word “gnosis”, and the meaning of the word during the start op popery is “knowledge” of the truth around Jesus Christ. The Gnostics where murdered because knowledge of Jesus Christ had to be destroyed, in order to make Roman Catholicism successful. Reformation in the 1500’s was possible thanks to knowledge about Jesus Christ spread again through book printing, where Roman Catholicism was prohibited in the countries where out modern civilization started.

    I am not sure why you want to write a book about an topic that you do not understand. But if you are sincere and looking for truth, rather than confusing the issue some more, is your intention, I than hope that this comment will direct you to the right path.

  2. admin said,

    You are right. I gave the Catholic Church somewhat of a pass because, well, I don’t like to unduly ruffle feathers. I feel that the Catholic Church, insofar as it preaches Jesus’ message of peace and love, has in some ways been a positive influence in society. There is the historical twin-side of that, which is pretty brutal. You are correct. The Church of Rome (the Catholic Church) not only distorted the teachings of Jesus, they killed any of Jesus’ descendants in order to protect their dogma. (The Albigensian crusade was 40 years of killing.)

  3. admin said,

    The elves were the pre-Christian rulers of everyone everywhere, before they were thrown from their thrones and eventually starved to death and died out. Jesus was an elf. Jesus’ crucifixion was a hoax. The Catholic Church ursurped Jesus’ message, edited the texts, and used their bible to place themselves as mediaries between the poor peasants and god.

    My book is about the usurpation of the ‘elvin’ – “true Christian,” i.e. gnostic Royalty of Europe by warrior kings, firstly, William the Conqueror, an event that is leaked in the pages of ‘Alice in Wonderland.’ Maybe I don’t fully understand what I’m talking about (I suspect no one does), but where am I ignorant? Please let me know so I can bone-up.

:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::

No Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Leave a Reply