[continued from previous message]   
      
   Jesus did, however, create a divisive wave throughout the camp of the Jews,   
   and this division had clear political advantage for Rome. There is an ancient   
   political maxim, one of the cornerstones of British imperial strategy, and   
   that is: “divide and rule”   
   . Jesus certainly played a significant role in undermining the Jewish   
   rebellion against the Roman Empire. The Jews had a history, even a tendency to   
   revolt, as evidenced by Jewish uprisings in Israel both before and after   
   Jesus, e.g. the Maccabean revolt    
   of 128 B.C., the Zealot insurrections of 6 A.D. and 66-70 A.D., and the   
   revolution led by Bar Kokba from 132-135 A.D. (It is noteworthy here that the   
   Jews tended to adulate the leaders of these rebellions as possible Messiahs,   
   this most evident in the    
   case of Simon Bar Kokba. [124] ) Jesus also had a strategy of revolution in   
   mind, but he sought to liberate the Jews not from any foreign power but rather   
   from their own corrupt Tetrarch, Herod Antipas, who was undoubtedly an evil   
   character, though    
   probably not the main enemy in the minds of most Jews.   
      
   In respect to strategy, Jesus took his lead more from the prophets and less   
   from the patriots. Indeed, there are many remarkable similarities between   
   Jesus and Elisha (who healed lepers, raised the dead, and took charge after   
   Elijah, whom Jesus declared    
   John the Baptist to be [125] ), and between Jesus and Ezekiel (who called   
   himself again and again the “Son of Man” and spoke much of the future blissful   
   society [126] ). Most remarkable of all are the parallels which emerge if one   
   compares the life of    
   Jesus to that of Jeremiah. Both lamented over the fate of Jerusalem, [127]   
   both railed against false prophets, [128] both supported the right of a   
   foreign power to tax Israel, [129] and both were, in return supported by the   
   leaders of that foreign power.    
   [130] Surely Roman rule was strengthened by the psychologically destructive   
   impact of the anti-Judaic teachings of Jesus, such as: do not resist evil,   
   turn the other cheek, pay the Roman taxes, be poor, and love your enemy. [131]   
   Most of these teachings,    
   if we examine them closely, were either illogical, impossible or hypocritical,   
   but we shall deal with this subject later. Suffice it to say here that the   
   teachings and activities of Jesus worked very much in favor of the Roman   
   politico-economic    
   exploitation of Israel – a fact ultimately recognized and turned to great   
   profit (or “prophet” to make a weak pun) by Constantine the Great. However, if   
   we are to give credit where credit is due, then this point was probably first   
   realized by Paul who,    
   though a Jew, was also one of the elite few who could claim the prestigious   
   and powerful privilege of being a bona fide Roman citizen. [132] And so it is   
   little wonder that Paul was the main driving force behind the transformation   
   of Christianity from a    
   Jewish sect into a Gentile religion. Many theologians wonder why Jesus became   
   so popular among the Gentiles and yet could not attract the Jews. Historians   
   do not face the same enigma – the historians are rather amused by the obvio   
   s and telling fact that the nucleus of the Christian Church, the Vatican, was   
   soon located in Rome rather than in Jerusalem.   
      
   Behind the Scenes   
   Did Jesus work alone or did he have secret supporters? First let us examine   
   who were his known supporters. There were the twelve apostles and his   
   brothers, who may or may not have been included among the twelve, though   
   probably not. There was his mother    
   and a rather large group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna   
   and many others, who always traveled with Jesus. [133] Then there was Joseph   
   of Arimathaea, a Counsellor, [134] Nicademus, a Pharisee and a “ruler of the   
   Jews”, [135] Zacchaeus,    
   rich chief of the Roman tax collectors, [136] Procula, the wife of Pontius   
   Pilate, [137] and even Pontius Pilate himself. [138] Considering the avowed   
   stance of Jesus that the rich had almost no chance of entering the Kingdom of   
   God [139] and that it is    
   the meek and oppressed masses who will “inherit the earth”, [140] one might   
   well wonder how Jesus managed to amass such a large circle of wealthy and   
   influential friends. At the very least, this is subject to suspicion. The   
   first healing recorded in    
   Matthew is on behalf of a Roman centurion's servant, [141] though no one is   
   said to have entered the house to verify either the illness or the cure.   
   Surely that, too, is suspicious, for one cannot attribute the later partiality   
   shown by the Romans    
   towards Jesus only to that one questionable event. As mentioned earlier,   
   something smells fishy here, and that smell does not proceed only from the   
   many feasts which Jesus and his followers enjoyed. [142] No, the fishy smell   
   derives from an unholy    
   alliance with Rome. But is it possible that Jesus was the only traitor among   
   the Jews?   
      
   The real conspiracy becomes clear when we examine the relationship between   
   Jesus and John the Baptist, as outlined in Luke. According to Luke, Jesus and   
   John were related through their mothers, who were cousins. [143] As mentioned   
   earlier, Jesus was    
   descended, through Joseph, from David. Regarding John, both his father and his   
   mother were allegedly from the line of Aaron. His father, Zacharias, was a   
   priest which meant automatically that he, as a Jew, could trace his lineage to   
   Aaron, but Luke    
   elaborates that John's line came from Aaron's son Abia [sic], presumably   
   Abihu. [144] Unfortunately, we are told in the Old Testament that Abihu had no   
   children; and, indeed, none can be found in the Chronicles. [145] But let us   
   give this point a go-by;    
   for, after all, Zacharias was not the only one who liked to pretend he was   
   descended from someone great. John's mother, Elisabeth, was also allegedly   
   descended from Aaron through one of his daughters. [146] All in all, John the   
   Baptist was described to    
   be a member of the “Cohen”, or Priestly caste. Then, according to the story,   
   the angel Gabriel visited Zacharias, John's father, to tell him that John   
   would soon be born, that his role would be that of harbinger to the Messiah,   
   and that his name should    
   be “John”. Shortly thereafter, Gabriel appeared to Mary – to announce the   
   imminent birth of a son, that this son would be the long-awaited Messiah, that   
   God would give to him the throne of David, and that he should be named “Jesus”   
   (probably from the    
   Hebrew Name “Yehoshua” – Joshua – meaning “Savior” and signifying, as we learn   
   in Matthew, that he would “save his people from their sins” [147] ). Gabriel   
   further told Mary that her cousin, Elisabeth, had already conceived a son, and   
   that she was in the    
   sixth month of her pregnancy. On learning this, Mary went immediately to be   
   for the next three months with Elisabeth, presumably leaving only after the   
   birth of John. Not long after John, Jesus was also born. [148]   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)