Rene Schwaller de Lubicz

First of all, we're not talking about the prophet from the Old Testament Bible . In the common usage of the word gospel, this should be intuitively, logically, and absolutely clear. On the contrary, we're talking about the ingredients of a modern day version of what might be construed to be true gospel (i.e. “the good news”) and which at the same time places the story of Jesus Christ in a somewhat broader, universal perspective.

The Creator of the Universe is unknown and quite probably beyond human comprehension. This Creator is alluded to in the first 25 verses of Genesis (and other spiritually relevant documents), but in almost all other contexts is thereafter never mentioned. The circumstances of how and in particular why the universe was created are entirely unknown. Even the Creator may have begun to wonder a bit at this point in time.
The so-called “Lord God” and similar manifestations which in general may be termed Gods and Goddesses are in no manner taken to be similar to or even on a remotely comparative basis with the Creator of the Universe. The latter is omniscience, omnipresent, and all powerful to the extent that such words are wholly inadequate. The so-called “Lord Gods” are mortal, often dysfunctional, and technologically superior only to those who might worship them.
The Elohim mentioned in Genesis and elsewhere refer to the Anunnaki, with two Sumerian “gods”, Enki and Enlil, being the prime players in the action.
Enlil appears to be in all respects the vengeful “Lord God” of the Old Testament [EN.LIL translates as “Lord of the Command”], while Enki [EN.KI being “Lord of Earth”] appears in a cameo role as the Serpent in the Garden. Enki's primary effort was in exposing Adam and Eve to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (but apparently not to the Tree of Life). I.e., Enki was the “good guy”. This is the essence of the Marcionites' philosophy (see The Lost Gospels).
Enki appears to be the god who assumed day-to-day overt control of Earth circa 600 B.C.E. (taking over from Enlil, et al). Enki was likely responsible for the introduction of the first philosophies – i.e. those systems of thought not dependent upon the whims of the Gods and Goddesses. These philosophies were expounded by such luminaries as Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, and Zoroaster; along with significant changes in other religions including ancient Judaism, Hinduism, et al.
After the apparent inability of these human based philosophies to grab the attention of the media of the day, Enki may have allowed for the arrival of Jesus Christ and His teachings, as well as the possibility of the dramatic events of the Crucifixion and The Passion. Based on the history of Enki, it is almost certain that the Lord of Earth did not require the suffering and death of Jesus, however.
Jesus was born of a virgin (defined as a woman “beholden to no man”), a woman named Mary who was married, but could be deemed to be without blemish due to having been raised from birth on a diet of the ORME. The latter was produced by the Essene community at Qumran where she was a carefully chosen individual for the express purpose of birthing a potential Messiah. Jesus was thus born with the best chance of benefiting the most from an ORME based physiology.
Mary was chosen for the birthing of a Messiah based in part upon her lineage within the House of David, but also upon her husband's status in the hierarchy as the Joseph (the latter being a title rather than a name). Jesus had at least one brother and one sister, including possibly a twin brother named Thomas.
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen and had children by her – including one called Barabbus (or Bar-Rabbi, “son of the rabbi”). In marrying Mary, Jesus improved his social status (i.e. Mary was his social superior in terms of royalty).
Mary Magdalen left the Holy Land after the events of the Crucifixion, possibly divorcing Jesus prior to doing so, and arrived in Southern France where she lived out her days. She was subsequently responsible for initiating a following which survived for well over a thousand years and which resulted in most if not all of the major cathedrals of northern France being dedicated to her.
Jesus was no more divine than any other human, and thus any suffering on the cross was real and unmitigated by any special, above-the-suffering status. The fact that Jesus may have been adopted by “God” while Jesus was on the cross – as in The Fifth Gospel – is likely, but inconclusively known.
The teachings of Jesus – as described in the traditional Gospels, as well as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and the Gospel of Phillip -- were far more important than the circumstances of his death.
Jesus did not go through the Crucifixion in order to fulfill some pure form of substitutionary atonement (paying off a debt to God for the sins of mankind) or exemplary atonement (serving as an example of the moral of self-sacrifice). Jesus may have been the victim of circumstances, or resolved himself to sacrifice himself in order to draw attention to His message. His trial and subsequent fate was in large part dictated by the disapproval of his teachings and activities by authorities from Caiaphas (the high priest of the Jews) and the other hierarchal Jewish members to King Herod to Pontius Pilate and the Roman establishment. Jesus did not follow any God-dictated destiny in this regard.
There is a distinct possibility that Jesus did not die on the cross, but that this does not diminish his willingness to having given his blood for a cause.

While all of these points may be intuitively obvious to the casual reader, it just might be necessary to provide a tiny bit of supporting analysis. There is, for example, the off hand chance that perhaps something is required to prevent wholesale apoplexy, cardiac arrest, or any of the sarcastic, albeit humorous equivalents.

By taking a universal perspective it becomes fundamentally obvious [pardon the pun] that no God, Goddess or Deity worthy of being credited with the creation of the universe (or even the comparatively miniscule portion known as our Solar System) is going to give a rat's behind as to whether or not the indescribably miniscule beings of its creation worship their Creator. It is also a fair bet that comprehending such a creator entity, or understanding fully the intentions, goals, and agendas of such a being is highly unlikely from the perspective of the current human condition. It is in fact an even better bet that the very concepts of intentions, goals, or agendas are insufficient for purposes of describing the Creator of the universe. Adding further complexity is the very real likelihood of the known universe being a miniscule portion of the bigger picture.

In the first chapter of Genesis – which may be said to serve as an executive summary of the Sumerian Epic of Creation and other similar accounts -- the broad picture of how the Earth and its residents may have been created is described. This account corresponds to a modern scientific explanation. However, the why of the universe's creation is a matter of intense and continuing speculation. The “God” referred to therein is applicable only as a personification of physical laws of nature moving inexorably toward some conclusion.

The consciousness connection of such a Creator to the universe is another matter all together. It is perhaps best summarized by Douglas Adams, to wit: the last message of the Creator to its creation is: “We apologize for the inconvenience.” From a human comprehension perspective, this is as good as any.

The Sumerian annals credit Enki and his half-sister Ninharsag with the genetic DNA manipulations of combining Anunnaki genes with those of Homo erectus in order to create the first “mixed worker” (aka Adama). In this sense, the “first creation of man” saga ( Genesis 1:26 -31) refers to the handiwork of the Creator of the Universe, while the “second creation story” ( Genesis 2:4-25) could ostensibly be credited symbolically to the scientific prowess of Enki and Ninharsag. This would therefore explain the bit about “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” [Emphasis on the “us”.]

Furthermore, Enki, Enlil, Ninharsag, the Anunnaki and Igigi – and those “ gods and goddesses ” by any other names from various mythologies around the world – were all mortal beings, complete with very individual personalities, flaws, talents, and other characteristics. The majority were extraterrestrials -- in the sense of not being born on Earth (just as “angels” are, by definition) – and were simply accorded the status of gods and goddesses by beings who were very much their technological inferiors (at least at the time). Just as “magic” can be defined as technology beyond the understanding of those identifying any event as magical, so also can mortal beings be viewed as god-like by those who have no idea how they do the things they do.

The Elohim (a plural form of deity) include “the sons of God” ( Genesis 6:2 and 6:4), and as such were also referred to as the Anunnaki. From the Sumerian histories, the half-brothers, Enki and Enlil, were in a serious sibling rivalry. Enki was the “god” who with the critical help of his half-sister, Ninharsag, created man via genetic manipulation, attempted to aid Adam and Eve in introducing them to the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, assisted Noah (aka Ziasudra) in surviving the flood, and acted in all respects as the father of mankind. Enlil was the “god” who for political and traditional reasons was the being in charge of the Earth mission, and the one who took credit for virtually every creative aspect described in Genesis, and who is likely to have been responsible – directly or indirectly -- for both the confusion of the Tower of Babel and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Deluge and Flood, as well as the Sun standing still [Joshua 10:13], were on the other hand, physical events to which both Enki and Enlil reacted in their own special, individual ways.

Any serious student of the Bible – e.g. the Jesuits of the Catholic Church – inevitably comes to the conclusion that there were at least two gods in Genesis. This shows up in the plural form when creating mankind, and specifically in Genesis 6:2. The only logical alternative would be to conclude that the “one god” was suffering from a serious split personality. This is seen in the contradictory actions of expelling Adam and Eve from the Garden and then clothing them on the way out, condemning Cain, but then threatening anyone harming Cain with seven generations of bad luck, and decreeing the death of the human race via a Great Flood, but then providing boat plans to at least one man, his family, friends, and associates – to mention just a few incidents.

There is also obvious reason why “God” is referred to as “God” for the first 25 verses or so, and then suddenly and consistently thereafter as the “Lord God”. Unless, of course, they are not the same entity. Duh.

As the true father of mankind, it is likely that Enki was enormously more parental to his creations than Enlil – the latter whom found humans excessively noisy and disturbing to his sleep [the event being described in the Sumerian scrolls]. Due to the astrological ages and their importance to the Anunnaki – as well as the crises and disasters stemming from various wars among the Anunnaki (and their respective minions) -- it is likely that Enki was placed in overt charge of Earth circa 600 B.C.E. At this time, Enki may have initiated an attempt to bring his children up to philosophical speed by providing a number of key figures to introduce humanity to the more profound questions of life.

The teachings of Lao Tzu, Buddha, and Zoroaster appear to have been well received in the sense that the relevant societies took much of their teachings to heart. But in order to reach the Jewish population – who were the die-hard followers of Enlil (despite the influence of Moses and Enki's Egyptian connection to the mysteries of the ORME) – Enki was going to need more than a brilliantly written or oral philosophy. Some changes to the Jewish philosophy did take place, but may have been deemed insufficient.

Whereupon Enki seized on the Jewish need for a “savior” – a serious need after the Jewish people being to all extents abandoned by an uncaring Enlil. [This was in larger part demonstrated by the extended stay of the Jews in Babylon .] Enki's concept was to use the Essene wing of Judaism by bringing them up to ORME speed, and thereby introducing a philosopher as profound as the earlier versions, but one in the guise of a Jew. The added ingredient of a possible Crucifixion was a combination of “calculated risk” in an arena controlled by the Roman legions, an appeal to the increasing Jewish predilection for suffering (due to the increasing distance of their God from his “chosen” people), and the appeal of a dramatic story of death and rebirth. In the interim, a great deal of teachings could be propounded, written up as gospels (even if long after the events), and then given added weight based upon the exalted status of the teacher.

Mary was a member of the Essene community at Qumran , and was married to Joseph (the latter name being more a title than a name). Both were of the House of David, a fact which provided a degree of royal status. (The carpenter bit was a later myth added on for the benefit of those inclined to judge credibility by one's lowly birth state.) Mary was then provided from birth with a diet of ORME or White Powder of Gold; an attempt to elicit from Mary and her future offspring the benefits of a superconducting light body with which to perform miraculous feats.

Qumran was, in fact, a metallurgical miracle with all manner of early alchemical techniques being practiced. Within the community there was also the hidden agenda that Jesus would be actively encouraged to follow the prophecies of Old Testament prophets, and thus fulfill all the prerequisites of a messiah. This planning included the idea of an apparent death, and then a miraculous raising from the dead. If this didn't wow the crowd and instill a genuine concern among the Roman masters, nothing would.

Jesus' siblings are mentioned here primarily in the context that Mary and Joseph were not simply extraordinary and yet platonic partners in a god play. In addition, the Gospel of Thomas is believed by some scholars to have been Jesus' twin – a fact which would cause untold confusion among Catholic advocates for a divine and uniquely miraculous birth tale. The crediting of Thomas as Jesus' twin is recounted in some detail by Bart Ehrman in his book, Lost Christianities [1].

Mary Magdalen is Mary of Magdala, a royal house within the House of Benjamin. She was of serious royal blood, and a marriage between Jesus and her would be the best of all possible worlds. (This is the same sort of thing as Prince Charles marrying Diana, whose Spencer line was in many respects more royal that the Windsors -- of which Charlie was the latest heir apparent in the line. The end result is that Charles and Diana's two sons are major league royal!) In all respects, Jesus was marrying into slightly higher society by marrying Mary Magdalen. Mary did her royal duty as well by providing children by her husband – in strict adherence to Jewish customs at the time.

Their marriage is described in the Gospel of John , in the sequence known as the Wedding at Cana. The justification for this view is included in the link.

In royal lines, blood is everything. This is in fact a hold over from the Anunnaki – with Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah in the same manner as practiced by the gods and goddesses. Furthermore, if Jesus was royalty (via the House of David), then his son by Mary Magdalen would have an even greater claim to the throne in part because her lineage from the House of Benjamin was even more royal than Jesus'). According to the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail [2], Barabbus is more accurately “Bar-Rabbi” or “son of the rabbi”. In this case, the Jewish people requested Pontius Pilate to spare Barabbus and take Jesus in order to save the royal bloodline and ultimately the more royal personage of Mary Magdalen's son.

After the Crucifixion, Palestine was not a friendly place for Mary and her children. With considerable help from her friends, she immigrated to Southern France where she lived out her days. In the process she initiated a following which continued from the earliest days of the millennium through the building of the cathedrals of northern France by the Knights Templar. Many of these historical events have been described in the recent bestseller, The Da Vinci Code , albeit in a fictional format. The nonfiction works include those by Laurence Gardner [ Bloodline of the Holy Grail (3)], as well as in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy [2], and many other books on the subject.

The theological argument that Jesus was both divine and obliged to suffer horribly by the events of The Passion leaves much to be desired as a philosophical precept. As a human caught up in the passions (pardon the pun) of the hierarchal structures of ancient Israel – in striking similarity to anyone going against the grain in modern society – the implication of an ordinary human living an exemplary life, and simultaneously maintaining his integrity even when inflicted with a supreme example of man's greatest inhumanity to man… One has to find such an example one to be emulated.

Except of course that it was likely unnecessary to willingly undergo such a sacrifice. It is more likely that events simply went out of control and that the very human nature of Jesus rose to the occasion. Again, pardon the pun. In fact, take note of such a pun in connection with Jesus, an ordinary human, doing only a fly by of the tomb.

The content of one's teachings is always vastly more important than one's status. The age old tendency to assign a credibility quotient to the source of a statement, instead of the statement itself, is an excellent example of dysfunctional thinking and a wholesale lack of intelligent discrimination. It is, in fact, the lazy man's way of avoiding actually thinking in depth about a concept or statement, and in contrast, assuming that everything said by someone or from some acknowledged source is automatically credible. The result is fundamentally invalid – as in assuming that a scripture written by an apostle is truth, while one written by the National Inquirer is automatically wrong.

Many of Jesus' statements, furthermore, must be understood in the context in which he lived and taught. The same applies to the Jewish laws from Leviticus and other sources, in which such things as selling your daughter for fun and profit are perfectly acceptable. In the Gospel of Thomas (Jesus saying 114), one phrase is, “For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” However, in the ancient world, “male and female were not two kinds of humans; they were two degrees of human.” [1]

The same applies to Jesus' return to the tomb of Lazarus, when his wife, Mary Madgalen, did not come to greet him until he requested it – as was the Jewish custom at the time.

Thus, to automatically (i.e. without thinking, discrimination, or other mental process of note) accept a statement purely by virtue of its source is the height of willful ignorance . It is equivalent to accepting the word of a politician when history has exhaustively taught that politicians are a priori non-credible. In other words, a politician lies like a rug. Always. Inevitably. (Accept that such a pronouncement is simply the antithesis of accepting a statement because of its source -- i.e. not accepting a statement because of its source. Sorry about that. I'll try to do better with my examples in the future.)

The key is that Jesus' statements – or more accurately what has been alleged to have been said by him by people born decades and in some cases centuries after his death – must be taken on an individual statement basis, and not because Jesus supposedly said it. In this way one does much more honor to Jesus Christ by taking the time to understand and accept or reject his accredited statements. One does not do Jesus credit by simply making a “duh” after each recitation. Furthermore, one can also compare many of the statements – particularly in the Gospel of Thomas – to statements from other sources. Such comments, for example, as:

This saying begins likes Matthew 7:7-8 -- “Seek and ye shall find” – but then goes a step further. Interestingly, it is a near equivalent to the motto of Halexandria, to wit:

The big question is, “Why did Jesus have to die?” Like, what's the big deal? A lot of people suffer, go through an agonizing transition, and then die. But if death is merely a pit stop on a much larger journey, a case of Love N' Death, then what's the reason for all the sound and fury concerning the Crucifixion?

The answer is, not unexpectedly, that those who wish to be in charge do so by the simple expedient of attempting to generate fear, obligation, and alienation between someone and their Creator. If a theology convinces one that God punishes wrongdoers, that by being born one is automatically a wrongdoer, and that furthermore the theology promises recourse and remedy to prevent one having to die on the cross for example), then such a mentally defective theology accomplishes rather precisely what the control freaks want.

Numerous scholarly books have advocated the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that The Passion was a set up from the word go. The plan, apparently, was to fake the death, fulfill scripture, and then return triumphantly to Jerusalem and claim the throne by virtue of having risen miraculously from the dead. Sounds like a Viagra commercial.

The problem was that things went amiss, the suffering and agony on the cross was too much to counter quickly enough, and thus the whole plan had to be scrapped. The end result was that eventually Jesus made his way to Kashmir and left a legacy there that is not apt to go away anytime soon. [4]

It's curious in this regard that Pope John XXIII issued an Encyclical in which he argued that it was not the death of Jesus that was important, but that Jesus had suffered and shed his blood . The key was not dying on the cross – which may or may not have happened – but the fact of going through the scourging and other events of The Passion. Perhaps, John knew something most of his followers did not.

The details of The Gospel according to Daniel are adequately contained in a variety of other sources, many of which are included in this website, or otherwise referenced. The above is simply to give the basis gist of the gospel and a modicum of its validity as a means of eliciting a better understanding of the purpose of one's sojourn on Earth.

[1] Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities; The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, New York , 2003.

[2] Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, Holy Blood, Holy Grail , Dell Publishing, New York , 1983. [See also, The Messianic Legacy , Dell, 1986.]

[3] Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail , Barnes & Noble , New York , 1996.

[4] Robert Siblerud, The Unknown Life of Jesus; Correcting the Church Myth , New Science Publications, Wellington , Colorado , 2003.

The Gospel According to Daniel

The Library of ialexandriah