There are several ways of approaching the subject of Jesus, all of them equally legitimate, depending upon your own particular interests and reasons for research. The first is to study the Bible, and use this as your main source of reference. The second is to investigate alternative sources of literature, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts, whilst the third is to utilise the myriad of channelled information available on this subject. I have found that neither of these by themselves are truly able to give a realistic picture of the man and his life, so have therefore chosen to use a combination of all three of these sources, coupled with a healthy dose of my own discernment. It goes without saying, that I would encourage the reader to also use theirs.

In order to piece together the life of Jesus, we first have to look at the details surrounding his birth. Much has been stated in other books, such as The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail of the so called Jesus bloodline, which may or may not be in existence

This is essentially the story of Jesus’ descendants, the children he is said to have had with Mary Magdalene. These were said to encompass the nine founder members of the Knights Templar, and other Gnostic groups to whom the Knights were connected. Various scholars have suggested that Jesus must have been married, for it is considered almost a crime in Jewish society for a man not to be. Although The Bible does not explicitly state that this was the case, neither does it state the opposite. This assumes though that he was Jewish to begin with, which he may not have been.

Biblical Palestine was in fact populated by followers from a variety of different belief systems. Many of these were Jewish in name only, as the law required all males to be circumcised, and presented to the Temple at the age of twelve for examination. These people were generally referred to as Nazarenes. This term seems to have been used
interchangeably with the term Essene, as at that time the Brotherhood was not widely recognised. This then would explain the many references to Jesus the Nazarene, at a time when the town of Nazareth did not even exist.

The idea of a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene has never felt right to me.
Channelled sources vary widely as to the exact nature of his relationship with Mary Magdalene. They may not have been married, or even have been lovers, but there was certainly a very close bond and friendship between the two. The subject of a Jesus bloodline nevertheless needs to be further discussed.

Following a talk to the Sauniere Society, writer and historian Tim Wallace-Murphy was approached by a man from the audience who introduced himself as Michael. Michael alleged that he was a member of a group of families who claimed descent from the Davidic and Hasmonean Royal families, whose ranks included the 24 High Priests of the Jerusalem Temple at the time of Jesus. This knowledge had been secretly passed on to the eldest or most spiritually gifted child of each family, under pains of death should they deem to disclose their true identity. In this way the secrets were preserved through successive generations. The families frequently intermarried in order to preserve the bloodline, and were collectively known as Rex Deus.

Michael claimed that Mother Mary, and therefore Jesus himself were both part of this bloodline, as were all nine founder members of the Knights Templar. Although outwardly the families followed the prevailing religion of the time, inwardly they also preserved the Rex Deus traditions known as ‘The Way’. As we saw in my previous article, Essene and Not Heard, the Essene teachings were also known as The Way, seeming to link the Rex Deus traditions with this group.

According to Michael, for some time before the birth of Jesus, the Temple in Jerusalem had maintained two separate boarding schools for boys and girls, which were administered and taught by the High Priests. While the male graduates were destined to become future High Priests, the females were destined to become their mothers, for it seems the Priests were not only responsible for educating the girls, but also impregnating them. Once pregnant the girls were then found suitable husbands from within their community. The child born with the Priest was then returned to the Temple School at the age of seven in order to continue the tradition.

The Priesthood at that time was a purely hereditary function, passed on via the tribe of Levi. All families with the exception of the Cohen’s were allowed to marry outside this tribe, as it was from this branch that the High Priests were drawn. The Priests were allocated angelic names according to their rank, one of which was Gabriel. One of the
young female pupils was known as Mary, and she became pregnant by this Priest. The resultant offspring was the man we know as Jesus.

Whilst I do not doubt the sincerity of these claims, evidence suggests that Jesus was not of the Davidic line, or even Jewish, but rather a member of The Essenes. There are
nevertheless aspects of this story which do fit in with what both channelled sources and the written Gospels say about the birth of this remarkable man.

One of the so-called lost books is The Gospel of the Birth of Mary. This book, together with The Mystical Life of Jesus, written by former Rosicrucian leader, the late H Spencer Lewis, provides great insights into the early life of Mary, and her upbringing, which would seem to bear many similarities to the Rex Deus traditions.

Lewis’ work and this Gospel do however differ in a number of important points. Where the Gospel of the Birth of Mary mentions quite clearly that Mary was of the lineage of King David, Lewis disputes this. According to the Gospel, Mary’s parents, Anna and Joachim were married for 20 years before her conception. This took place following a dream they both had, simultaneously, but in different locations. During this dream, they were visited by an ‘Angel of the Lord’, and agreed to undertake a vow, stating that their daughter would be devoted to the Lord from an early age, and in her fourteenth year would conceive, and bear a child.

Lewis does not mention any Angels, but does state that when Anna discovered her pregnancy, both she and her husband agreed that if the child proved to be a girl, she would become a Dove (vestal) within the Temple. The child was indeed a daughter, and
was named Mary.

At the age of six months, Mary was taken to the Temple, as was the custom, in order to be examined, so that the gifts she carried with her from previous incarnations could be identified and worked with. Mary was placed in the sanctum facing east, whilst her mother sat on a white cloth at the foot of the vestal fire. Mary then took seven steps towards her mother, and fell to her knees. This was taken as confirmation that she was indeed to become a Dove.

At the age of three Mary was duly delivered to the Temple, where she remained for the next nine years. At the age of puberty, girls were considered to be unclean, and left the Temple in order to be married. When Mary reached puberty though, the Priests were in a quandary as to what to do, as she had sworn to remain pure and chaste. The High Priest then consulted with the Magi, or Prophets, and was advised to go before the altar and ask God for a sign.

Lewis refers to the High Priest at this time as Joachim, who may well have been Mary’s own father. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary though refers to him as Zacharias, father of John the Baptist. Whatever his true identity, he was advised by God to bring all the local widowers to the Temple, bearing a sacred rod. Mary would be given to the man from whose rod a sign came.

One of these men was known as Joseph, an elderly widower with grown children. When he stepped forward, a dove flew from the top of his rod. As Mary was herself a Dove, Joseph was therefore decreed as her betrothed. Mary left the Temple to live at his house, while Joseph, a builder and carpenter by trade, went away to finish building another house he had been working on.

Another of the lost Gospels, entitled The Protevangelion gives an extremely interesting account of the conception and birth of Jesus, which again is almost identical to that given by H Spencer Lewis. These two accounts would appear to add further weight to the Rex Deus accounts.

Chapter 7 of the Protevangelion states that after Joseph was betrothed to Mary she was taken from the Temple to go and live at his house, after which he went abroad to continue his business. Some time later Mary was summoned back to the Temple to help weave a new curtain. After collecting the necessary materials, she returned home in
order to carry out the task. Mary was then visited by an Angel of the Lord, referred to as Gabriel, and given the news that she was to conceive and bear a child. The text, detailed in chapter 5 of The Mystical Life of Jesus indicates that Mary would conceive in the normal manner, and the father of her child would be the High Priest. The seed, or semen however would be blessed by God, so that the child would be imbued with special Divine powers.

This would seem to indicate quite clearly that Mary would conceive not as a virgin, but by the High Priest. Remember that Rex Deus traditions state that these Priests were given Angelic names. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary however states quite clearly that
Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth. However, this may well be a mistranslation. Besides which, if the High Priests at the Temple were given Angelic names, then would they still be classed as men?

Once the pregnancy was confirmed, Mary went away to her cousin Elizabeth, where she
stayed until she became so large that she sought the privacy of her own home. When Joseph returned, to find Mary heavily pregnant, he pondered as to what to do. Mary insisted that she had not been unfaithful, and had no idea of how she came to be in this state. Joseph then had a dream, where he was visited by a Master, and informed that Mary spoke the truth, as she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. When news of her condition got out, they were both summoned to the Temple, and their auras read in order to ascertain the truth. Both were found to be without fault.

This sounds to me like the tale of a naïve young girl, who knew nothing of sex, and was easily fooled by the High Priests in their quest, and lust to carry on the family’s traditions. When Mary stated that she did not know how she came to be pregnant, this was probably true. She would certainly not have been the first woman to be have been seduced by a powerful older man, without knowing what was happening to her.

The Gospels themselves, both hidden and other wise, differ greatly in their description of Jesus’ birth. It is not even mentioned in Mark, John, the Acts of the Apostles, or letters of Paul (which by themselves make up more than half the New Testament). During the 1920’s this anomaly prompted Theologian Rudolf Bultmann to investigate. He looked at the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, and found that the virgin birth idea seemed to have originated from a mistranslation.

Until the 2nd Century CE the texts that were to make up the Old Testament were only available in Hebrew. Around 130 CE they began to be translated into other languages, first Greek, and then Latin. This inevitably led to a number of errors, many of which are still contained within the modern Bible today. One of these was in the translation of the word virgin. It seems that the original text actually said almah, which is a Semitic word for young woman, and does not mean virgin at all, as in a woman who has not had sex. In contrast, the word for physical virgin was betulah.

To me logic dictates that Mary could not have been a virgin. There would certainly seem to be a wealth of evidence to back this up. H Spencer Lewis states that failure to comprehend the idea of a virgin birth is however largely a result of us not understanding the laws of creation. He states that mystics have always understood that if God was capable of breathing life into the Universe, which had hitherto not existed, then surely he would also be capable of doing the same with human beings. Although, this statement is not without a certain degree of logic, to me it still seems patently absurd. If God were to do this, he would then no longer be the passive observer, experiencing Himself through us, but a God who was attempting to influence the outcome of his creation. This would defeat the entire object of His great experiment in the first place.

The Gospel of Matthew goes to great lengths to describe how Joseph, Jesus’ father was descended from the line of King David. Yet this does not make sense, for the Jewish bloodline, if indeed Jesus was of Jewish blood, has always been passed on via the mother, and not the father at all. As we have seen, the Gospel of the Birth of Mary says that it was she who was of the Royal Line, and not Joseph. The emphasis on Joseph’s bloodline also goes against Church teachings of the Virgin Birth, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. If Joseph though were not the father, then it begs the question, why was his heritage deemed to be of such importance?