High Stakes (4 page)

Let's be logical about this. Why would these Far Eastern texts reference Jesus and praise and talk about this wonderful prophet and teacher from Israel and the Holy Land if they had never seen him? Why would they make up a fictional character like this? The religion of Islam was not in existence yet, so there was no agenda to promote it or to try to downplay the divinity of Christ. The faith of Christianity was just starting and didn't have any scope or influence whatsoever at that time; and Hinduism and Buddhism were pacifistic religions confined to the Far East. Pure logic just dictates that there was no hoax or fiction and that these writings were true.

These ancient texts of the Far East haven't been ignored by scholars, but they have been suppressed and/or ignored by many Christian scholars and the Church. Why, you might ask? To perpetuate the dogma that the Catholic Church and other Christian churches have put out for centuries. Can you imagine how the truth about Christ's surviving the crucifixion and not ascending into heaven but living on in other countries would rock Christianity? The Christian world would be devastated, not because it in any way affects the divinity of Christ, but because their Church had covered up the truth.

Just as the Church has suppressed its influence on the makeup of the New Testament, so it seems to extend to the life of Christ and how he lived and died. As we progress through Christ's life, you will see the glaring holes of untruth about him, perpetuated by the Church, surfacing time and time again. Much of this can be blamed on Paul, the self-proclaimed apostle, and the Church adopting “Pauline Christianity.” Although Paul never met Christ and was never an eyewitness to any portion of his life, we have Paul “interpreting” what Christ meant and how he lived his life. It is Paul who says Christ ascended into heaven (backed up by Church editing of gospels), and it is Paul who brings forth the whole concept of atonement (dying for our sins). Christ said nothing about atonement, but Paul put it forth to the masses as his own interpretation and it has become a weapon for guilt ever since. In my humble opinion, the Catholic Church's biggest error was in following Paul's lead. Big mistake.

Another aspect of the character of Jesus, according to my guide, Francine, is the fact that he was basically a loner at this time in his life. Even though he loved his mother, through his parables he talks more of the father figure. Jesus was ever the prodigal son because of his devotion to God the Father. Loving his Father in heaven at the age of fourteen or fifteen probably was the very thing that set him on his journey. Some authors feel that Jesus, who was the eldest child, abandoned his mother so he could travel after his father, Joseph, died. I don't feel this is true. Mary apparently had enough money and the other brothers carried on the work. He wouldn't have been much of a spiritual messiah if he left his mother a destitute widow.

Through his parables he shows that he did have sympathy for the poor widow. He even speaks of a mother who lost a silver coin and lit a lamp and swept all night until she found it. Some theologians feel this was his guilt coming out for having left his mother. I don't see it this way, not only because he gives examples of poverty, widowhood, how to trust your servants, etc., in his teachings, but also that he was just giving a view on the poverty that did exist at the time. The father figure psychologically plays out favorably by Jesus feeling more comfortable being surrounded by men. But that could also be because women did not have the status of men at that time. Even though Christ is known to have given women a more equal status with men, if you look closely most of the healings in the Bible attributed to him were of men. Now, in no way do I want to portray Jesus as a misogynist who was disrespectful of women, but custom in those times dictated that women were not treated as equals to men. He was raised in a culture of unequal status between male and female, but he defended them and softened toward women as he got older.

I think this traveling period of aloneness was filled with anguish and sometimes despair. I have always believed—call it intuition or my psychic ability—that he knew what was in store for him later on in his life. To know that he was the Messiah or the chosen one would have been frightening to anyone. This time of traveling and learning in other countries was really a dichotomy to him because on the one hand he was happy in the learning of new philosophies, religions and cultures; and yet, on the other hand, he had this weight of being the Messiah constantly on his shoulders.

The internal strife within him must have been difficult to bear. Two factions were operating—the fear of what was to come on the emotional side and yet the intellect knew what he had to do and what his destiny was. I'm sure no other living person knew his Chart like he did. Most of us just blindly live life and hope we are spiritually on track. I'm also sure the human part of him rebelled against his fate, but he knew it was written and this heavy responsibility must have weighed heavily on him. So, being the Messiah, he had to avail himself of all possible learning—not only in the synagogue but in the local areas of Galilee, Nazareth, Bethlehem and other local towns; as well as other countries and cultures with their philosophies and religions. He had to be astute about people and the social and political climate, as well as the economic patterns of the times, and yet knowing that things and people don't change much. That's why his parables are timeless. People don't change much, just their time and topography. People still cheat, treat each other badly, waste their money and look down on the poor and lower classes. He knew he had to learn and talk for the ages. Truth is truth and it is immutable and it doesn't matter if it's spoken now or two thousand years ago.

In the book
The Passover Plot
by Hugh J. Schonfield, the author agrees with some of this, especially Christ's love of his heavenly Father. But the author and I disagree on his seeming neglect of his mother. We truly don't hear much about her, but we certainly don't hear anything about Joseph. I'm sure he got his information about life outside his home because he left so young. Jesus was obviously a great observer, and from the observance of others in family life or just the conclusions he came to by watching others through his journeys, he had a great insight into how people reacted to one another.

I myself, not just through research, but in dealing with probably millions of people in fifty-three years of being a psychic and doing lectures and twenty readings a day, have found that you can't help but start forming a true statistical analysis over time. Even in more than half a century I've seen that there are still the same concerns and problems and worries that have always been and will be until the end of time.

At the age of twenty-five or twenty-six years old, Jesus left India and traveled to Egypt. While there, he studied the ancient Egyptian and Persian mysteries and more Gnostic teachings. After about a year, he then traveled to Qumran and lived and studied with the Essenes for a while. It was also at this time that he resumed his relationship with Mary Magdalene, whom he had kept in touch with by letters. While with the Essenes, he adopted a great deal of their philosophy, and although he didn't subscribe to the very conservative and ascetic facets, he did relate to members of the Essene sect who were a bit more liberal, and they considered him one of them. The Essenes are thought to have lived solely in the area of Qumran, but recent archaeological discoveries have also indicated that they had a complex on Mount Sion in Jerusalem and in several other areas. The Essenes were very private and didn't allow many outsiders into their communities. We will see later how Christ moved freely within these Essene communities, and that was because he was accepted as an Essene.

Perhaps one of the greatest testaments that you could give to Christ was the fact that even though he knew his destiny, he never wavered from it. In
The Passover Plot,
Schonfield states: “What ever Jesus learned, however, and in what ever way he obtained his knowledge, including elements of the healing art cultivated and practiced by the communities of ‘the Saints' [a group attached to the Essenes], there was always before him the destiny for which he prepared. In the last resort, he alone, earnestly soliciting the help of the Heavenly Father, must penetrate to the inner recesses of the sacred writings and marshal in order the intimations of the Divine Oracles. The novel achievement of Jesus was to mark out clearly the path the Messiah would have to tread.
Thus it was written
.”

This really helps substantiate what Francine said more than thirty years ago: Jesus not only was a gatherer of knowledge, but also put it into reasonable terms and language understandable to an illiterate group of people. Instead of preaching Judaic law and theology like the priests in the Temple, he would talk to the people in parables and stories that they could understand and use in everyday life.

Many scholars and laypeople ask the inevitable questions: Who was Jesus really? What was he really about? Was he the son of God or the son of man? I feel that the confusion lies in what is referred to as “Christology.” Most Christians believe that Jesus is simultaneously the Son of God and also God made flesh.

Most other religions also venerate Jesus in varying degrees. Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism recognize him as a prophet, and as stated earlier, Islam considers him to be one of God's most beloved and important prophets. Muslims do not accept the divinity of Christ or the crucifixion—saying either it didn't happen or that Jesus did not die on the cross.

Francine says Jesus was a special entity who had a Chart as a messenger to bring mankind to a true picture of our Divinity as an all-loving God. She doesn't discredit Buddha or Muhammad, but just states he was a direct report or creation from God. She has always stated that we all are sons and daughters of God, but Jesus was created for a special purpose.

There has never been as much controversy over a figure such as our Lord, and probably never will be. You don't see theologians in any other culture fighting and obsessing and researching any of the other messengers as they do with Jesus. This is because the Christian Church from the beginning was so flawed. So many Christian factions with their own interpretations did so much infighting that it caused schisms that have not been repaired to this day. The New Testament and the Bible were not put together until almost three hundred years after Christ's supposed death and crucifixion, and experts say that at least twenty-seven, and in some cases some claim over forty, books were not included that should have been. Who did the picking and choosing of what should be in the Bible and what should not? The early Christian Church.

Before we can understand the works, life and individual known as Jesus Christ, we first have to understand the sources from which the information comes about him. If someone tells you a story about something or someone, do you not want to know if the story is true? Do you not want to verify the truth and consistency of the information given in the story? Science certainly does. It's called proof. If you don't ask for proof, you are basically accepting hearsay and trusting that the teller of the story is in actuality telling the truth. It is here that we run into a big problem, for man and his penchant for embellishment and fabrication and downright lies comes into play. Let me try to explain this logically and objectively.

Try to picture yourself in the time of the early Christian Church. We have this fledgling religion that is essentially being put forth by word of mouth by twelve apostles and a few others. They travel to areas of Judaea and different lands and countries and preach the words of Jesus Christ. As converts to the new religion take place, its members quickly become a mixture of different races, ethnic groups and cultures with various backgrounds of other religions in existence at the time. The early Church soon finds itself divided into several main factions…the “Pauline Christians,” who follow the teachings of Paul, the self-proclaimed apostle who never met or was eyewitness to any part of Christ's life; the “Jewish Christians,” who follow the teachings and leadership of Christ's brother James; the “Gnostic Christians,” who combine Christianity with the theories of gnosis (mainly from Egypt and Persia); and lastly, other Christians who follow the basic teachings of Peter and some other disciples, and who are quickly assimilated into the faction of Pauline Christians after the death of Peter.

These factions are almost immediately at odds with each other. Pauline Christians hold firm to their pronounced beliefs that Jesus was divine and the son of God incarnate, that he died on the cross for our sins, and that forty days after his crucifixion he ascended into heaven. Jewish Christians, who included many of Christ's relatives, were led by James, had their headquarters in Jerusalem and held firm in their beliefs that Jesus was not a divine son of God but a messenger or prophet from God, and that belief is because he survived the crucifixion and died a natural death later (who would know the truth about his death if not his relatives?). They also firmly still believed in Judaic laws and customs and integrated Christ's teachings into their Judaic teachings. Gnostic Christians believed in the divinity of Jesus as a special messenger from God and that his teachings were divine. They also believed that he did not die on the cross, and they did not believe in the ascension. They did not subscribe to Judaic laws and teachings and instead utilized Christ's teachings to augment those of gnosis and the ancient mysteries.

The battle was on for control of the early Christian Church and would last for several centuries. The outcome was a foregone conclusion, however, for several reasons. Pauline Christianity had its seat of power in Rome and was greatly influenced by Roman domination of the world at the time. Jewish Christianity had its power in Jerusalem and was greatly influenced by Judaism and the occupation of Israel by Rome. Gnostic Christians had no real power base, were mainly in Egypt and Persia, and reached only to a limited number of people because their teachings appealed mainly to scholars and learned men.