High Stakes (6 page)

Francine disagrees with their account because she says he went to the desert after about a year in public life. He went alone as he wanted to contemplate and be free to hear God's voice. He knew what lay ahead and wanted to steel himself against it. Francine says that no devil as such came and tempted him, but he did do battle with his own conscience. He knew with his charisma he could have been an august ruler by socializing with the Sanhedrin and politicians and giving in to the mores of that day. He would have had wealth and the power to go with it. This was a time of quiet meditation and retrospection in which he communicated with his Father in heaven in preparation for what he had to do. While Matthew and Luke relate conversations with the adversary, Francine says that these conversations were made up to reflect the ever-increasing belief of the early Church in an entity called the devil. Francine says it may make for a good story, but simply isn't true; and after thirty (not forty) days in which he only at times fasted and at other times ate some food and had drink, he came out to rejoin his family.

Mary Magdalene, according to Francine, was always by his side and some teachings in Gnostic beliefs put forth that she was the direct report of the Mother God at that time, known as Sophia, just as Christ was a direct report of God the Father. They were here as replications of the true Mother and Father God. We all have within us the DNA of the divine Creators; but Mary and Jesus were examples of life as it should be lived, how marriage should be upheld and how love of humankind should be primary.

The Knights Templar, later on, seemed to believe this and tried to protect this knowledge and were murdered for it; although many escaped with knowledge of the information and what Christ's heritage was.

Christ then sets on his path to pick men who will follow him and become disciples. For the sake of continuity and understanding, I will always try to follow the timeline that the majority of gospels put forth. Where there is a discrepancy, I will point it out if it is of a significant nature. We will find that most of these discrepancies will have the Gospel of John right in the middle of them, but other books clash, too, as we have already noticed with the gospels of Matthew and Luke. I personally like the Gospel of John, but as you will continue to see, his gospel is much different than the others in many respects.

As John does not mention Christ's time in the wilderness, John has Christ gathering disciples immediately (Chapter 1) while Luke, Mark and Matthew have him getting his disciples after his time in the desert. There is some discrepancy in the gospels about whom Jesus gathered first as his disciple. John says Andrew and another who remained unidentified. Luke, Mark and Matthew have Jesus calling on both Simon (Peter) and Andrew, who were brothers and fishermen, and then James and John (also brothers and fishermen). Some of the gospels go on to tell about Jesus picking up other disciples, and not always in the same order, but I really think this is of little consequence. I'm only trying to make you realize the scope of the inconsistencies that are throughout the New Testament.

Jesus initially picked twelve disciples. They included Simon (Peter); Andrew the brother of Simon (Peter); James the son of Zebedee; John the brother of James of Zebedee; Levi (Matthew); Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; James the son of Alpheus; Simon who was called Zelotes (and also known as Simon the Zealot or Simon the Canaanite); Jude (also known as Judas, son of James and Labbaeus); and Judas Iscariot. With two Simons and two Jameses and two Judases among his disciples, they often can get confused. Jesus wanted men he could teach and, in following him, obey orders. He knew what he was going to teach them had to be shared with the world by men who would spread out and give the knowledge to the many peoples in different lands.

He had people from all walks of life as his disciples, from Matthew the tax collector to the fishermen Peter, Andrew, James and John. He picked from the rich and the poor so he could get a wide swatch from every facet of life. This was clever, because it shows much thought went into whom he picked and why. It really was very astute, and let's even use the word prophetic, to realize his public life would be short, so he had to have men who would follow, listen and spread the word long after he had ceased to be around. He could have picked scholars, but they might have already been indoctrinated. It was better to get a so-called blank slate than to fight men who had their philosophies of life already strongly in place.

Some went ahead from village to village to proclaim the coming of this prophet who would give them truth and perhaps even heal them. He started out with just a few people following him, which quickly became twenty or thirty whom he would talk and be close to. This escalated to the point where in Luke 10–11 we have him sending out seventy-two disciples to various towns and cities. All of these communities in Israel were close, so word traveled fast. Francine says some came out to see him out of curiosity, others to jeer and some because they wanted to learn or be healed.

You must remember it was even worse than today. Yes, we have skeptics…but we have freedom of speech. Where he had full reign in India or other countries that were tolerant of other religions and philosophies, in Israel he had Roman rule and their gods as well as the Sanhedrin and the fearful and vengeful God of the Jews to deal with. Jesus now found himself in a stage of his life in which he was in conflict with both. Yes, he preached about one God, but his God is not wrathful. Jesus brought forth a loving and caring God who doesn't play favorites, for He reaches out even to sinners and loves everyone. This was blasphemy to the Sanhedrin, but the Romans didn't pay much attention to the man known as Jesus, because they were so powerful and he was not a revolutionist like his cousin John the Baptist. John had been far more judgmental and had constantly railed against Roman occupation. Jesus, on the other hand, used words of kindness to persuade people.

Jesus employed all the knowledge that he had gained in his travels. Being a Gnostic, he was never afraid to incorporate any part of any truth or any religion that had true knowledge; he would just couch his words to fit into Jewish thought and tradition, and extensively used parables to get his points across. Being an Essene, he was influenced by not only their philosophy, but their documentation. He urged those of his followers who could write, like Thomas, Matthew and James, to set down everything they saw or heard. Jesus was not concerned about preserving his legacy so much as he was about leaving writings that his disciples could refer to when they became apostles and spread his teachings. Essenes preserved their heritage through their writings and made sure they were secure by secreting them away if it became necessary.

The reason they did this was because they were considered to be a radical sect of zealots by the Sanhedrin and Pharisees and were consequently regularly oppressed. The religious groups of the Sanhedrin and Pharisees were very powerful and influential and, tragically, as it is today in many religions, ruled their people by fear. If you were only going to help people by the pure love of God, the shining example of healing and beauty, you wouldn't be able to give people enough fear and guilt and consequently you couldn't milk them for money. Religion thus becomes big business. We see this today, sadly, with the evangelists and even with the Vatican. I'm not condemning or judging, I'm just saying this is historical truth. Look at Martin Luther, who got tired of the Church selling indulgences and split off and caused the Reformation. He felt people shouldn't pay to get into heaven.

Christ always felt throughout his life that his teachings were most important and that they must be preserved, if at all possible. His whole focus was on changing the way the Jewish people felt and believed in God. The one thing that most people completely forget is that Christ was a Jew, he was not a Christian.

He was teaching a people who had strict laws and traditions dating back to the time of Moses and beyond. Jesus always had to walk a tightrope with his teachings, because many were considered blasphemous by the conservative elements of Judaism. He had to be careful with his words and ideas, which is why he has been misinterpreted so many times over the years. We read in the Gospel of Luke about Jesus, after his time in the wilderness, going to Nazareth, his hometown, and preaching in the synagogue there, only to have his own townspeople carry him in anger to the highest hill to throw him off a cliff because they didn't like what he said (Luke 4:28–29). Can you imagine how he would have reacted? Here he was with people he had grown up with and they wanted to throw him off a cliff because of what he said. He was frightened, but he also learned a very important lesson: he had to be careful with his words.

While we are on the subject of Christ's teachings, I want to interject something here that is of a more controversial, yet personal, nature. I have always called myself a Gnostic Christian because I believe in obtaining as much knowledge as possible about God, and I have always believed that Jesus Christ was a direct report and messenger from God and love his teachings. But here is the kicker: I don't necessarily ascribe to
all
of the teachings as put forth in the Bible, and I don't feel he is the savior for all of mankind and that he died for our sins. Now, some of you might ask, “How can you call yourself a Christian, then?” I call myself Christian because I do believe in Christ's teachings and I do believe in his divinity as a special entity from God. I don't believe in the concept of a savior for mankind, simply because humankind is too diverse in their beliefs, but I do believe that God sends us divine messengers to help us who are as diverse as we are. In other words, I consider Buddha and Muhammad to be divine messengers for certain parts of the world, just as Christ was for Judaism and ultimately Christianity.

Some of you may say, “How can you say he was a messenger for Judaism? They don't believe he was their Messiah.” Just because they don't believe Jesus was their Savior doesn't mean he didn't influence them with his teachings. Judaism as well as Islam both recognize Christ as a great prophet and teacher. As I said earlier, Jesus was a Jew and focused his teachings within the parameters of the Judaic faith, but many of his teachings also apply to all of us universally. The attributes of a Divine Messenger have always included teachings that are of a universal nature; teachings that can transcend culture and customs and traditions, that are just universal truths that can apply to anyone at any time. Christ was that kind of a teacher.

I have always believed in an all-loving and merciful God who forgives all of his creations in their transgressions. I have expounded on God in many of my books and don't believe God has the petty qualities of anger or vengeance, and I certainly don't believe he punishes anyone. God is perfect in his love and forgiveness. Jesus tried to point out the loving qualities of God in various ways, but the Bible says he retained the belief that God would punish the wicked and stands in judgment. Francine has told me that Jesus did not believe in those two concepts and that he never said God would punish anybody or that there would ever be a day of judgment. She insists those portions of the Bible that say he said these things were inserted and edited in by the early Christians who wrote the Bible. I believe what Francine says. I certainly differ with the concepts of a Judgment Day and God punishing anybody, and it would be pure hypocrisy if I said I didn't.

Francine says what Jesus really preached about punishment was that those who do evil deeds will be punished due to the universal law of karma, which he learned while in India and believed in. The writers of the Bible inserted that God would do the punishing and completely edited out Christ's words about the universal law of karma because it referred too much to Eastern philosophies and religions and smacked of reincarnation.

Francine also says he never mentioned a Judgment Day, because he knew there wasn't one; but instead tried to emphasize that doing good works and deeds assured one a place in heaven (the Other Side). She also says Jesus did not believe in a hell and instead taught that evil was a part of this earth and always would be until God decided otherwise; that he was not judgmental other than to point out the hypocrisies that were readily apparent to any observer; that he was also misquoted numerous times and his words were highly edited by the early Church hierarchy in the course of putting the Bible together. For example, she says that contrary to Matthew 5:17, Christ said he had come to “change the law,” not to fulfill it. She said this is why he was so hated by the Sanhedrin and Pharisees. I have no problem with any particular religion, including Judaism, but I reserve the right to differ from some of their beliefs when they come in conflict with my own.

I have always been a staunch believer in religious tolerance. To say that one religion is better than another breeds hypocrisy and violence, and leads one to being too judgmental. I have always believed that an individual, no matter who they are or what their background is or what culture they come from, has the right to decide for themselves how they want to believe as far as religion is concerned. Religion to me has always been a personal and cherished support to help me live my life. To say what is right for me is right for everybody would be the ultimate slap in the face to God and would impinge on the freedom and rights of his Creations. I have never been able to understand how any person or group can say or put forth that they have all the answers and truth and that anyone who doesn't follow their beliefs is damned or doomed to hell or something even worse. They are not God and never will be, and their insistence that they are right just shows the world how insecure they are in their own beliefs.

It is human nature to want everyone to believe the way you do, because it bolsters a person's own insecurity that they might be wrong to convert others to their way of belief; but it is an illusion that can be carried away by the wind. If a person has only faith and belief that they are right and doesn't
know
they are right, then their insecurity will manifest in the form of trying to convert others to their belief. If a person
knows
they are right in their beliefs, they don't feel threatened by other beliefs. Part of the knowing is that each individual must come to their own religious beliefs in their own way. In other words, an individual must feel comfortable and good about their beliefs and also be flexible and tolerant toward those with other beliefs.