[continued from previous message]   
      
   [161] Matthew 3:13-15; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21-22.   
      
   [162] Matthew 14:12-13; Mark 6:29-32.   
      
   [163] Matthew 4:1-2; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-2.   
      
   [164] This is also born out by the observations of Josephus, a contemporary   
   chronicler of the times. However, it should be noted that the distinction   
   between the Zealots and the Essenes is not at all clear-cut. In fact, there   
   has been much debate    
   concerning this relationship, in particular regarding the Qumran community.   
   Some savants have even asserted that the Zealots were simply an offshoot of   
   the Essenes. There was certainly an intimate relationship between the two, as   
   many fragments of Qumran    
   literature have been discovered at the site of the Zealot fortress at Masada,   
   which was overcome by the Romans in 73 A.D. The courageous defense of Masada,   
   in which all of the Zealot women and men elected to kill themselves rather   
   than to surrender into    
   slavery, spelled the end of the Zealot movement begun in 6 A.D. But the Zealot   
   tradition and the spirit of Masada were more difficult for the Romans to   
   suppress. Like the Maccabees before them, the Zealots lived on in the memory   
   of the Jews, and so arose    
   another rebellion against Roman rule from 132-135 A.D., led by Simon Bar Kokba.   
      
   [165] Acts 5:37.   
      
   After the death of Judah of Galilee around 6 A.D., and the suppression of his   
   revolt, his followers were forced to retreat to the deserts from which they   
   maintained a guerrilla resistance against the Romans. According to the New   
   Catholic Encyclopedia,    
   the Zealots, realizing that open insurrection would fail, chose to work “in   
   secret” to foster a sense of bitterness among the Jews against the Roman   
   colonization of Israel.   
      
   Under these circumstances it would not be unusual if the followers of Judah   
   adopted, or were encouraged to adopt the romantic belief that Judah had   
   somehow been reborn in the son of Mary whose birth, if we accept the more   
   probable date of 6 A.D. given by    
   Luke, coincided with the time that Judah had been killed. This belief would   
   provide, or at least suggest a logical and historically consistent answer to   
   the tantalizing question, “Who really was the father of Jesus?” or, in other   
   words, “Whose mistress    
   was Mary?”   
      
   [166] Matthew 16:6-12, 22:15-18, 23:13-15.   
      
   [167] Mark 9:38-39.   
      
   This passage may also be interpreted as a proof in itself that Jesus had, and   
   knew he had, some secret supporters.   
      
   [168] 1 Samuel 21:1-6; Psalms 110:1-7; Matthew 5:20, 12:1-8, 22:41-46.   
      
   [169] Matthew 9:27-31, 12:14-16.   
      
   [170] Matthew 6:1-6, 9:27-31, 12:14-16, 16:13-20, 17:1-13; Mark 7:31-37,   
   8:22-26.   
      
   [171] Acts 2:44-45; James 5:12.   
      
   [172] Matthew 16:27-28.   
      
   [173] Matthew 6:24-34.   
      
   [174] Luke 5:18-21, 7:36-50.   
      
   [175] Matthew 15:22-28; Mark 7:31-37, 8:22-26, 9:23-24.   
      
   [176] Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29.   
      
   [177] Luke 8:1-3.   
      
   [178] The important topic of women's exploitation is considered more fully in   
   Chapter 8 “Women, Be Thou Subject?”   
      
   [179] Matthew 7:28-29.   
      
   [180] Luke 10:22.   
      
   [181] Matthew 10:33.   
      
   [182] Matthew 8:16-17, 12:14-21, 13:34-35.   
      
   Even Jesus' talking in parables, the meaning of which his own disciples could   
   not always grasp, what to speak of the common people, was said by Matthew to   
   be only for the purpose of fulfilling one prophecy.   
      
   [183] It should be understood that these topics are considered out of logical   
   necessity rather than any desire to poke more holes in the image of Jesus. In   
   general, I have tried to avoid discussion of the more controversial points   
   relating to Jesus'    
   personal life whenever and wherever I felt that such analysis would have   
   little bearing on the subjects of perfect spirituality and Neo-Humanism. There   
   are many thinkers who seek to prove that Jesus was, in fact, a married man.   
   Some of them have gone so    
   far as to specify Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany (of Mary and Martha fame)   
   as his wife. Perhaps this subject is of interest to those who seek to locate   
   the descendents of the house of Jesus. However, for purposes of our treatise,   
   the question has    
   little relevance. Of course, it does seem unlikely that Jesus, as a practicing   
   Jew with such illustrious ancestors, would have been unmarried or maintaining   
   celibacy, but ultimately this point matters little. In life one may choose to   
   be either married    
   or monastic, and there will be many practical differences in the way one lives   
   as a consequence of that decision but from a spiritual point of view, both   
   lifestyles have equal value. No one may be more or less exalted by such an   
   external and superficial    
   qualification. Hence, the real question which concerns us about Jesus is not   
   whether he was married or not, but rather what sort of man was he.   
      
   [184] Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:21, 15:40-41; Luke 23:49; Romans 16:13.   
      
   Here the testimony of John, as mentioned earlier, has no value. The one   
   exception on this point might be Simon the Cyrene who, as we are told by the   
   Synoptic Gospels, carried the cross for Jesus. The fact that Simon the Cyrene   
   is specifically identified    
   inclines one to believe that at least some of the followers of Jesus knew   
   Simon, and presumably he knew them. Presumably also, Simon may have known   
   Jesus. But, whether or not Simon the Cyrene knew Jesus, and what he witnessed   
   at the time of the    
   crucifixion must forever remain moot – after this one appearance in the New   
   Testament story, Simon the Cyrene completely disappears. According to Mark,   
   Simon the Cyrene had two sons, Rufus and Alexander. In his epistle to the   
   Romans, Paul sends greetings    
   to a Rufus and his mother. Quite possibly this is the same Rufus and, if so,   
   the absence of any reference to Rufus' father would incline one to assume that   
   Simon must have died soon after the alleged crucifixion. One may wonder   
   whether the Romans ever    
   released Simon after they had compelled him to bear Jesus' cross. One may even   
   suspect that it was Simon the Cyrene, and not Jesus, who was crucified on that   
   cross, though here it must be admitted that Judas Iscariot is the more likely   
   candidate for that    
   particular role.   
      
   [185] John 12:6, 13:29.   
      
   Jesus would never have been so foolish as to select a person who was not   
   completely trustworthy for the duty of carrying the Movements no-doubt   
   considerable funds.   
      
   [186] John 6:71, 12:4, 13:26.   
      
   According to the King James Edition of the Bible, “of Simon” became “son of   
   Simon”, but it could just as well have been translated “brother of Simon”. In   
   fact, “brother of Simon” is the more likely proper translation. If one finds   
   that Simon was Jesus'    
   brother and Judas was Simon's brother, then Judas Iscariot would have been one   
   of Jesus' younger brothers, perhaps the youngest.   
      
   [187] It could not have been a reference to Simon Peter, because in every   
   other instance where this noted apostle is mentioned by John, he is called   
   either “Simon Peter” or “Peter”, never “Simon”.   
      
   [188] John 12:1-8.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)