PDA

View Full Version : The Gospel or the Truth



Stefanus
4th September 2009, 21:46
The Gospel or the Truth

The English language has a wonderful way of using unrelated words to represent a specific meaning, when such words are used in our daily conversations. Gospel, is one such word that has commonly replaced most other superlatives when trying to express the highest level of truth, confidence or credibility.

The past few weeks has seen a new attack on the word "gospel" as the world turned with great interest towards the newly unveiled "Gospel of Judas". National Geographic presented the translations to a seemingly stunned world not quite sure how to deal with this "new truth" from the last days of Jesus Christ. This 1700 year old and rather tatty document contains a debate between Jesus and Judas and paints a somewhat different picture about events surrounding the last supper. "Judas said to him, "I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you." This will certainly not please the hardcore biblical scholars and sounds rather similar to the 'clan' of immortal gods that set out to create humankind as described in the Sumerian tablets.

Those that have read "Slave Species of god" will be familiar with the life and teachings of Jesus before he arrived back in Canaan to begin the last three years of his teaching. In the East he was known as St. Issa and in the Americas he was referred to as the "Great White Robed Master" or the "Pale One" or the "Pale Great Master" and other names like "The Prophet".

But Jesus was constantly surrounded by angels, ever-ready to strike in his defense. And he often refers to his angels that can either come to his rescue or perform some other miraculous feat. And the new Gospel is no exception: "And a luminous cloud appeared there. He said, 'Let an angel come into being as my attendant.'… "A great angel, the enlightened divine Self-Generated, emerged from the cloud. Because of him, four other angels came into being from another cloud… (Gospel of Judas (http://www.wendag.com/Documente/geskrifte/GospelofJudas.pdf).)

The question begs… who were these so-called angels? Why did they constantly appear when there was trouble brewing or when it was about to hit the fan? As in Sodom!

As can be seen, this idea is clearly continued in this new "Gospel of Judas" as Jesus refers to angels appearing out of clouds in the sky. He also refers to a greater universal being that controls all these angels and a being that has not been seen among men and angels. Not dissimilar to what we read in the Sumerian tablets. A really shocking revelation is when Jesus refers to another realm of 'more advanced beings'.

"They said to him, "Master, where did you go and what did you do when you left us?"

Jesus said to them, "I went to another great and holy generation." His disciples said to him, "Lord, what is the great generation that is superior to us and holier than us, that is not now in these realms?" When Jesus heard this, he laughed…no host of angels of the stars will rule over that generation, and no person of mortal birth can associate with it, because that generation does not come from… The generation of people among you is from the generation of humanity…" When his disciples heard this, they each were troubled in spirit."

Then we read about 12 luminaries who ruled, in the same way that all ancient mythologies have exposed us to their pantheon on 12 gods. "Adamas was in the first luminous cloud that no angel has ever seen among all those called 'God.'" Is Jesus referring to a larger number of "gods" that ruled the world?

The problem is that this Gospel, like many others before it has been deemed to be less valuable than the material it was written on. This new Gospel contradicts the New Testament in many ways and has already caused large numbers of religious leaders around the world to discredit it. But we should not be surprised at this behaviour as many so called Apocryphal books have received the same treatment in the early days of Christianity when the New Testament was being compiled by men with personal agendas.

The Apocrypha (hidden things/writings) is a collection of books written mostly by authors of other books of the Bible, but the Apocrypha were not included in any of the Bibles. They deal with Christian and Biblical themes, some from the times of the Old Testament, others from the times of the New Testament. There are many Apocryphal books that were not deemed fit by the 'editors' of the New Testament to be included, mainly because the message they carry is often in direct contradiction to the agenda of the editors, who were Roman Emperors and their appointed religious sidekicks.

This is a list of some Apocrypha, there are over 40 linked to the New Testament:

14 Gospels, by Thomas, James, Peter, Bartholomew; 15 Acts, by Andrew, Peter, Matthew, John, Thomas, Paul... 6 Revelations, by Paul, Thomas, John, Virgin Mary, Stephen, Peter... Acts of John, Acts of Paul, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Acts of Peter, Apocalypse of James (I), Apocalypse of James (II), Apocalypse of Peter, Apocalypse of Philip, Apocalypse of Stephan, Apocalypse of Thomas, Apocryphon of John, Epistle of Pontius Pilate, Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Peter, Revelation of Peter, Protevangelium of James, Gospel of the Birth of Mary, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, History of Joseph, Letter of Paul to the Alexandrians, Testament of the Lord, Wisdom of Jesus.

The real work surrounding these books began with Flavius Valerius Constantinus – 272 - 337 AD, commonly known as Constantine the Great, he became known as the first 'Christian Emperor' of the Roman empire and began the Empire's unofficial sponsoring of Christianity, which was a major factor in the survival and spread of the religion. He founded the city of Constantinople (Istanbul) as the new capital of the Eastern Empire which became the home of Christianity, filled with large numbers of churches and temples. He also proclaimed that Sunday would be the day of worship.

The First Council of Nicaea, which was called by Constantine in 325 AD, was the first ecumenical (worldwide) conference of bishops of the Christian Church. The participating bishops were given free travel and lodging. The council, which was also called a synod, dealt with the problems created by the Aryan controversy, concerning the nature and status of Jesus. The Aryans had their own views of who Jesus really was. We must remember that Jesus spent most of his growing life, since the age of 12 or 13 in the East, under the influence of several eastern religious philosophies and Aryanism was just one of them. Finally the Synod decided against the Aryans and voted in favour of Trinitarianism, which suddenly made Jesus part of the Father and the Holy Spirit. This was a whole new twist to the New Testament and the Holy Trinity was born. Another outcome of the council was an agreement by the bishops of all the Churches, to celebrate Easter on the same day. Is that not a little strange?

These were the wild and wonderful early days of Christianity, when most of its foundations were laid. The editing of the Bible's New Testament began to take shape, but it would take another 800 years before the final version was decided upon. This long process is filled with controversy because many books were omitted while others were amended before they were included. It was during this period that one of the first recorded references to the Catholic Church emerged. This Catholic denomination of Christianity continued to expand into what it has become today. The largest and most powerful wing of the Christian Church.

Food for thought it certainly is. Who were all those angels milling around? Who were the other gods? Where was the other realm with immortal beings? And who was Jesus, that he deserved such constant angelic protection? Once again we find that scientific discoveries seem to fly in the face of mainstream religion and rather support the alternative 'truth' about our history.

Michael Tellinger

Gospel of Judas : http://www.wendag.com/Documente/geskrifte/GospelofJudas.pdf

Allesok
26th February 2015, 21:35
COMMENTS
The question about who and from where these “angels” are seems to hint an assumption that they may have been Anunnaki. Apparently most people seem to think that entities, “spirits” and even extraterrestrials could only be evil, which easily leads to hold them for Anunnaki. So are there no good entities among non-human (non-3D) beings? Creation would be a failure if that were so. The Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish tells about a specific line of entities emanating out of the prime creators Apsu and Tiamat. It is the line that a few steps down in the course of creation became the Anunnaki. Enuma Elish is obviously the story of the Anunnaki, since it was written by people associated with them. Hence there may also be other lines of development.

The Anunnaki cut themselves off from the prime creators through “killing” them. Of course it would be suicidal to really kill them, since one would with it erase one’s own created existence and thus cease to exist. The real meaning will be that the Anunnaki turned their backs to them and lived as if the creators would no more exist. They created an enclave in creation as their own world. What could be outside that enclave? Other creation lines with entities that did not turn their backs to the original creator pair, but maintained a relationship with them. Since these were probably unknown to those who wrote Mesopotamian clay plates, they were not mentioned – or maybe knowledge about their existence was simply censored out.

So even if some “angels” belong to the darker realm of Enlil/Yahweh/Yaldabaoth, it can be assumed that there are also “angels” that are beings in other and maybe more or less parallel creation lines in brighter realms. If they observe the evil that is going on in this darker realm, in which we are, and if they want to give some positive impulses into our realm, they would most probably send messengers and assist them with “angels” from their realm..

Who is Christ? Tellinger writes in the book “Slave species of god” in Chapter 15 “…Jesus became an unwitting ‘mouthpiece’ for the bloodthirsty Nefilim god, preparing the ground for the continued enslavement of humanity. …unconsciously weaving the propaganda of a power-hungry Anunnaki god. … The uncanny parallels between the murky origins of humanity, comparing to the origins of Christ, point to the real possibility that whoever crafted humanity, followed it up with a second wave of premeditated propaganda and ultimate control.”

The remark “…the one truly puzzling feature is the lack of reference to messiah in the Old Testament. The word ‘messiah’ first appears in John 1:41…” is not really true. In the King James’ Bible, it appears in Dan 9:25-26, but since the Hebrew word mashiach is usually translated as “(the) anointed (one)”, we have to search the Bible for the latter word. “Anointed” is found in 84 verses and in a few of them, it may be understood similarly to the Christian understanding. However, this is not of major importance for the discussion here. It is, however, remarkable that Tellinger writes about “the origins of Christ” (above), when according to him no such origins can be found in the Bible.

The Bible and the whole official Christianity of the Church hypnotize us to identify Jesus with Christ, which is a cause of much misunderstanding. The Jesus of Christianity was for obvious reasons unknown before he was born in Bethlehem. The name “Yeshua” was given him there like a name is given to every child that is born. But who was he before he incarnated as this Yeshua? That we don’t know. It is, therefore, logically and naturally expected that no “Yeshua” is mentioned in the Old Testament that could be the one of Christianity (there is another Yeshua mentioned in Old Testament Apocrypha: Yeshua ben Sirah).

So who, then, is Christ? In official Christianity, he is a very high entity, close to God, who is assumed to have incarnated as Jesus. Does this make sense? That Christ, being such a high entity, would incarnate in a human body appears quite unimaginable. It is much more likely that he sent a messenger to humanity, and that this messenger was Jesus.

But “Christ” is not a name! It is the Greek translation (Christós) of the word mashiach, “the anointed one”, which is adopted in almost every modern language. We do not know a name for him. There is much confusion here. Several persons in the Old Testament were “anointed” and the word mashiach is used not only for Christ or for Jesus. Christ will most probably also not be mentioned in the Old Testament as mashiach in a “Christian” sense. He will rather have been unknown to those who wrote the parchments that after a long time were to become the Old Testament. He became known to us mainly through his message sent through Jesus.

Where do we find more information about this? There is a tradition of a very basic importance to Christianity that has been blacked out in texts and history since some 2000 years: The Gnostic Christianity. It very early became subject of rude controversy and denial, and its texts were destroyed in the first centuries. However, a collection secretly survived as if by a divine salvation plan and was rediscovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi in Egypt. Here we get a very different view of Christianity from what the Church wants us to believe. It looks like Tellinger is not aware of what is written in these texts, so that he misses an important historical link about treason and falsification of the message that Jesus brought us.

There obviously were two circles around Jesus: an outer circle and an inner one, as mentioned above. What Jesus said in public, i.e. in the outer circle, will not be the whole message, since people were not ready to hear and understand it. Furthermore, the essential part of the message was highly “explosive” and controversial for his time.

So what was then this “explosive” part of the message? If one studies the texts of the Gnostic Christians, it becomes obvious: Yahweh is not the real god! There is one far above him that Jesus called “Father”. Yahweh is an Anunnaku (I use this simplified singular, since “Anunnaki” is plural) but the “Father” is above all Anunnaki. Such a message was, of course, “mortal” to bring in those days and it is very obvious, indeed, that Yahweh wanted this Jesus dead, and he succeeded to have him killed, hoping that this message would soon be forgotten. But it was not! It survived for a few centuries among the Gnostic Christians, who used the name Yaldabaoth (and one or two other) for Yahweh, probably so that outsiders should not easily understand who was meant. Yahweh also was successful in eradicating most of the Gnostic Christians and their texts, even though some of it survived in secret organizations and it then again surfaced among the Cathars. Then it surfaced in 1945 in Nag Hammadi to challenge Yahweh’s primary control instrument in the Western world: the Church that did and does anything possible to discredit Gnostic Christianity.

This means that we have two Jesuses: the real one and a fake pseudo-Jesus of the Church. Since Yahweh could not fully eliminate the tradition of the message, he cleverly changed it to serve his purposes and interests. The first step was to let Paul appear on the stage and teach a different Christianity. Out of that later arose a Church as an institution to manipulate the population with a “Christianity” that made people believe that Jesus’ “Father” would be Yahweh. In John 8:31-47 Jesus is quoted as telling something to the people that contradicts this, but it is – as expected – interpreted very differently by the Church.

What Tellinger writes about Jesus is in a way true, after all – about the fake Jesus of the Church! But not about the real Jesus…

knipmes
19th March 2015, 20:29
...So who, then, is Christ? In official Christianity, he is a very high entity, close to God, who is assumed to have incarnated as Jesus. Does this make sense? That Christ, being such a high entity, would incarnate in a human body appears quite unimaginable. It is much more likely that he sent a messenger to humanity, and that this messenger was Jesus.

This means that we have two Jesuses: the real one and a fake pseudo-Jesus of the Church…

Hi Allesok,

Interesting comments, which surely are pointing at the heart of things...

The question should not be whether the Christ and/or the Jesus should be the focus point, but the God, no better yet ... God's behind him...

The world is so caught up in the pseudos', in that all religions are focusing on the forthcoming savior [s] of the future, rather than to focus on the bigger picture, the reality of what was, is and will be! my God is better than yours, my God is worth dying for, my God is... when people say "oh my God!" others feel offended, rather than to realize that that person is referring to his /her own god, whom and whatever such god might be! How people all over the world can believe there is just one God, is beyond understanding.

As it is on earth, so it is in the Heavens!
There are structures in the Heavens from Top to Bottom, left to right, where many many Higher than man Entities dwell; all from below on earth seen as "Gods"...

groetnis
knipmes

Allesok
21st March 2015, 22:05
So who is the God behind Jesus? Cf. http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/JesMMiss.htm
See also http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/index_eng.html

Cordial greetings
Allesok