Bloodline of the Holy Grail

Bloodline of the Holy Grail

Sir Laurence Gardner

In his books, Sir Laurence Gardner makes mention of the Sheer Manna?...Germans? (Question by Richard



Comments for my own purposes

Bloodline Of The Holy Grail

At Last The Truth Can Be Told

This extraordinary and controversial topic, is packed with intrigue, it begins where others have ended. Laurence Gardner has been granted privileged access to European Sovereign and Nobel archives, along with favoured insight into Chivalric and Church repositories. He "proves" for the first time that there is a royal heritage of the Messiah in the West, and doucments the systematic and continuing suppression of these records tracing the decent of the sacred lineage by regimes down the centuries.

This unique lecture gives a detailed genealogical account of the authentic line of succession of the "Blood Royal" from the sons of Jesus and his brother James down to the present day. It casts a penetrating new light on the Bible story, and onto the enigmatic figures of Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene, and on the real truth behind the Arthurian legends and the Holy Grail. There is also a fascinating history of the Knights Templars of Jerusalem.

Laurence Gardner, Prior of the Celtic Church's Sacred Kindred of St Columba, is an internationally known sovereign and chivalric genealogist. Distinguished as the Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain, he is Presidential Attache to the European Council of Princes - a constitutional advisory body established in 1946. He is formally attached to the Noble Household Guard of the Royal House of Stewart, founded at St German-enLaye in 1692, and is the Jacobite Historiographer Royal.

Now let our quest begin, let us search for the "True" meaning of the Holy Grail. We will take you on a journey of discovery that will lead you to new paths of personal discovery.

Was the Grail ever a goblet at all? Gardner with his unique prespective and unmeasurable knowledge will answers all of these questions. It is a long story, one that covers many thousands of years, one that will show you that through misinterpretation and disception we have all been left in the dark over the most presious of treatures - "The Truth". So open your mind, let his words touch your soul, and hear the real story for the very first time.

Bloodline Of The Holy Grail

I did not decide to write the book [Bloodline of the Holy Grail]. The book happened by accident, not by design. It happened by virtue of the fact that for about the last ten years I have been the appointed historian and sovereign genealogist to thirty-three royal families. It happened because during those early periods I was documenting evidence on the history of those royal families and their noble offshoots, and the chivalric archives of those noble and sovereign families.

What I was doing was putting together written chronological accounts of things that these families knew the substance of but did not necessarily know the detail of. It is the reason why in Britain and Europe I necessarily spend far less time on this biblical aspect, because there's a lot of what we'll talk about tonight that in Europe is taken as read. It was never any secret when my book came out, for the majority of these people, that Jesus was married and that Jesus had heirs, because it was written as such in very many family archives, not necessarily just private but in the open domain. The published papers of Mary, Queen of Scots talk about it at length. The papers of James II of England, who was wasn't deposed until 1688, talk of it at length.

In putting together the detail, generation by generation, of this story, we were actually compiling something for posterity that, at that point in time when I began the work, was locked away in boxes and cupboards, and I was actually in a position where I was presented with things and said, "Look, this says, 'Last opened in 1732!". So, some very, very old documentation, not only last opened in seventeen-whenever, but actually documented and written down hundreds of years before that.

The book happened by accident. Over a period of time-probably, looking back now, ten or twelve years ago-I began this work with separate commissions from separate families, doing work on these genealogies. What happened was they began to converge. It became very apparent-and it took a long time because genealogies have to be done backwards, put together backwards and constructed backwards-but what was happening was that a triangle, from a large top base with numerous family lines, was pulling in to a point.

I suddenly realised what this point was, and I said, "Wow, do you realise what I've found here?"; and they said, "Ah, you know the father of so and so?"; and I said, "No, no, no; I'm actually finding that this comes out of the House of Judah in the first century"; and they said, "Oh, yeah, we know all that; what we wanted you to do was for you..."; and I said, "Well, there are millions of people out there who do not know about it, so let's turn this triangle upside down and turn it into a book!". So that's how the book happened.

On top of that, for the last six years I have been Britain's Grand Prior of the Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba, the royal ecclesiastical seat of the Celtic Church. So I had, also, access to Celtic Church records dating back to AD 37. Because of my attachments to the families, to the knightly orders, I also had access to Templar documents, to the very documents that the Knights Templar brought out in Europe in 1128 and confronted the Church establishment with, and frightened the life out of them with, because these were documents that talked about bloodline and genealogy, and we'll get on to that.

So tonight we're going to embark on a time-honoured quest. Some have called it the ultimate quest. The Christian Church has condemned it as a heresy, and it is, of course, the quest for the Holy Grail.

A heresy is described in all dictionaries as "an opinion which is contrary to the orthodox dogma of the Christian bishops", and, in this regard, those other quests which comprise much of today's scientific and medical research are equally heretical. The word "heresy" is, in essence, nothing more than a derogatory label, a tag used by a fearful Church establishment that has long sought to maintain control of society through fear of the unknown. A heresy can therefore define those aspects of philosophy, research, which quest into the realms of the unknown, and which from time to time provide answers and solutions that are quite contrary to Church doctrine.

Quests are by their very nature intriguing; history and historical research are enlightening; but the findings from neither are of any use whatsoever unless there are present-day applications which, like science and medicine, can sow the seeds of a better future.

History is no more than recorded experience-generally, the experience of its winners. It makes common sense to learn from the experience of yesterday. It's that very experience which holds the moral, cultural, political, social keys of tomorrow, and it's in this context that the Holy Grail supports that which we call "the Messianic Code". This is the code of social practice instituted by Jesus when he washed his apostles' feet at the Last Supper. It pertains to the obligations of giving and receiving service; it determines that those in positions of elected authority and influence should always be aware of their duties as representatives of society, obligated to serve society, not to presume authority over society. It is the essential key to democratic government. This is defined as government by the people, for the people. Without the implementation of the Grail Code, we experience the only-too-familiar government of the people. This is not democratic government.

Now, in the course of our journey we'll be discussing many items which are thoroughly familiar, but we'll be looking at them from a different perspective to that normally conveyed. In this regard it will appear that we are often treading wholly new ground, but in fact it was only the ground that existed before it was carpeted and concealed by those with otherwise vested interests. Only by rolling back this carpet of purposeful concealment can we succeed in our quest for the Holy Grail.

So our quest will begin in the Holy Land of Judaea in the time of Jesus and we'll spend a good while there. I will not move from that era until we break, because it will take that long to set the emergent scene for the next 2,000 years of history.

We'll be travelling through the Dark Ages then, to spend some time in mediaeval Europe. The Grail mystery will then be followed into King Arthur's Britain and, eventually, in time, to the United States of America where the American fathers were among the greatest exponents of the Grail Code. Eminent Americans such as George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Thompson, Thomas Jefferson were as much champions of the Holy Grail as were King Arthur, Sir Lancelot and Galahad.

Bloodline of the Holy Grail, the book, has been described as "the book of messianic descent". It was a radio interviewer who called it that; and it's an apt description because the book carries the subtitle, The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed. This of course indicates that Jesus had children and, by implication therefore, that he was married. So was he married? Did Jesus have children? If so, do we know what happened to them? Are there descendants alive today? The answer to each of these questions is yes. We shall be looking at the emergent family in some detail. We will follow the story, their story, century by century; the story of a resolute royal dynasty, the descendant heirs of Jesus who struggled against all odds through the centuries to preserve the Messianic Royal Code down to date.

Tonight's story will be a conspiracy: usurped crowns, pursecutions, assassinations, and the unwarranted concealment of information from the people of the Western world. It's an account of good government and bad government; about how the patriarchal kingship of people was supplanted by dogmatic tyranny and the dictatorial lordship of lands. It's a compelling journey of discovery, a view of past ages, but with its eye firmly set on the future. This is history as it was once written but has never been told.

Let's begin with the most obvious of all questions. What is the Holy Grail? How is the Holy Grail connected with the descendant heirs of Jesus? The fact that Jesus had descendants might come as a surprise to some, but it was widely known in Britain and Europe until the late Middle Ages, just a few hundred years ago.

In mediaeval times, the line of messianic descent was defined by the French word Sangréal. This derived from the two words, Sang Réal, meaning "Blood Royal". This was the Blood Royal of Judah, the kingly line of David which progressed through Jesus and his heirs. In English translation, the definition, Sangréal, became "San Gréal", as in "San" Francisco. When written more fully it was written "Saint Grail", "Saint", of course, relating to "Holy"; and by a natural linguistic process came the more romantically familiar name, "Holy Grail".

From the Middle Ages there were a number of chivalric and military orders specifically attached to the Messianic Blood Royal in Britain and Europe. They included the Order of the Realm of Sion, the Order of the Sacred Sepulchre; but the most prestigious of all was the Sovereign Order of the Sangréal-the Knights of the Holy Grail. This was a dynastic Order of Scotland's Royal House of Stewart.

In symbolic terms the Grail is often portrayed as a chalice thatcontains the blood of Jesus; alternatively as a vine of grapes. The product of grapes is wine, and it is the chalice and the wine of Grail tradition that sit at the very heart of the Communion, the Mass, the Eucharist; and this sacrament, the Sacred Chalice, contains the wine that represents the perpetual blood of Jesus.

It is quite apparent that although maintaining the ancient Communion custom, the Christian Church has conveniently ignored and elected not to teach the true meaning and origin of that custom. Few people even think to enquire about the ultimate symbolism of the chalice and wine sacrament, believing that it comes simply from some gospel entry relating to the Last Supper. Well, it's the significance of the perpetual blood of Jesus. How is the blood of Jesus, or anyone else for that matter, perpetuated? It is perpetuated through family and lineage.

So why was it that the Church authorities elected to ignore the bloodline significance of the Grail sacrament? They kept the sacrament. Why was it they went so far as to denounce Grail lore and Grail symbolism as heretical?

The fact is that every government and every church teaches the form of history or dogma most conducive to its own vested interest. In this regard we're all conditioned to receiving a very selective form of teaching. We are taught what we're supposed to know, and we are told what we're supposed to believe. But for the most part we learn both political and religious history by way of national or clerical propaganda, and this often becomes absolute dogma, teachings which may not be challenged for fear of reprisals.

With regard to the Church's attitude towards the chalice and the wine, it is blatantly apparent that the original symbolism had to be reinterpreted by the bishops because it denoted that Jesus had offspring and therefore that he must have united with a woman.

But it was not only sacraments and customary ritual that were reinterpreted because of this: the very gospels themselves were corrupted to comply with the male-only establishment of the Church of Rome-much like a modern film editor will adjust and select the tapes to achieve the desired result, the result of the vested interest of the film-maker.

We're all familiar with the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but what about the other gospels? What about the Gospel of Philip, of Thomas, of Mary and of Mary Magdalene? What of all the numerous gospels and acts and epistles that were not approved by the Church councils when the New Testament was collated? Why were they excluded when the choices were made?

There were actually two main criteria for selection of gospels for the New Testament. These were determined at the Council of Carthage in the year 397. The first criterion was that the New Testament must be written in the names of Jesus' own apostles. Mark was not an apostle of Jesus, as far as we know; nor was Luke. They were colleagues of the later St Paul. Thomas, on the other hand, was one of the original twelve, and yet the gospel in his name was excluded. Not only that, but along with numerous other gospels and texts it was destined and sentenced to ben destroyed.

A little later, Miles Coverdale, a disciple of his, made another translation; and by that time the Church itself had split up quite nicely, so Coverdale's version was accepted by the Protestant Church-but he was still a heretic in the eyes of Rome.

The problem was that as long as the printed text remained obscure (and it wasn't just ordinary Latin; this was an horrendous form of Church Latin), as long as only the bishops could understand it, they could teach whatever on Earth they wanted. If it were translated into the languages that other people could understand and maybe read for themselves, this would pose a problem because the Church could be called to question.

It was not until the early seventeenth century that the first acceptable English language Bible translation was made-for the Scots King James VI (Stuart), James I of England. This was the Authorized Version, upon which the majority of subsequent English-language Bibles have been based. But even this was not a direct translation from anything; it was mostly translated from the Greek, partly from the Latin, and to some extent from the works of others who'd made other illegitimate translations before.

In their rendering of the New Testament, King James' translators endeavoured to appease both the Protestants and the Catholics. This was the only way to produce a generally acceptable text, but their attempt to appease was not entirely successful. The Catholics thought the translators were siding with the Protestants and tried to blow up King James in the Houses of Parliament, and the Protestants said the translators were in league with the Catholics.

Anyway, the Bible survived but the translators tried as well for something called "political correctness". We know about it today; it applied then. Good examples of this are found in many instances-one in particular where the direct translation referred to a group of people called "heavenly soldiers". They didn't like this very much, so it's actually crossed out, and underneath it says "heavenly army". But somebody else came along and said, "No, this is still not good enough; it denotes an armed unit here; this is not politically correct," and so it was crossed out again, and they resurrected an old word that had not been written in the English language for centuries. They called it "the heavenly host". Nobody knows what the heavenly host is. In fact it's quite astounding how many obscure, old and obsolete words were brought back into use to provide political correctness for the King James Bible, but which nobody could understand. At the same time, William Shakespeare was doing likewise in his plays.

If we look at the reference books that existed prior to James and Shakespeare and at those that existed just after James and Shakespeare, we see that the English-language vocabulary was increased by more than fifty per cent as a result of words invented or brought back from obscurity by the writers of the era. The problem was that nobody, let alone the dictionary compilers, knew what most of these words meant. But they had somehow to be defined, and "heavenly host" emerged, quite ambiguously, as "a heavenly lot of people"!

So although eminently poetic, the language of the Authorized English Bible is quite unlike any language ever spoken by anyone in England or anywhere else. It bears no relation to the Greek or Latin from which it was translated. It was certainly not the language spoken by God, as some priests once told me. But from this approved canonical interpretation, all other English language Bibles have emerged in their various forms. Despite that, for all of its faults, despite its beautiful verse patterns and the new words, it still remains the closest of all English language translations from the original Greek manuscripts. All other versions, the Standard versions, the New versions, the Revised versions, the Modern English versions, have been significantly corrupted and they're quite unsuitable for serious study by anyone because they have their own specific agenda.

We can cite an extreme version of how this works in practice. We can look at a Bible currently issued today in Pacific Papua New Guinea where there are tribes who experience familiarity on a daily basis with no other animal but the pig. In the current edition of their Bible, every animal mentioned in the text, whether originally an ox, lion, ass, sheep or whatever, is now a pig! Even Jesus, the traditional "Lamb of God", in this Bible is "the Pig of God"!

So, to facilitate the best possible trust in the Gospels, we must go back to the original Greek manuscripts with their often-used Hebrew and Aramaic words and phrases. And in so doing we discover that, just as with the Nativity story, a good deal of relevant content has been misrepresented, misunderstood, mistranslated or simply just lost in the telling. Sometimes this has happened because original words have no direct counterpart in other languages.

We've all been taught that Jesus' father Joseph was a carpenter. "Why not? It says so in the Gospels." But it didn't say that in the original Gospels. By the best translation, it actually said that Joseph was a Master of the Craft. The word "carpenter" was simply a translator's concept of a craftsman. Anyone associated with modern Freemasonry will recognise the term "the Craft". It's got nothing whatever to do with woodwork. The text simply denoted that Joseph was a masterly, learned and scholarly man.

Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth. Our English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus' mother Mary was a virgin; they keep telling us that she was a virgin. Well, let's consider the word "virgin". We understand the word; it tells us that this was a woman with no experience of sexual union. But this was translated not from the Greek initially but from the Latin. That was easy because the Latin called her virgo; Mary was a virgo. It didn't mean the same thing at all! Virgo in Latin meant nothing more than "a young woman". To have meant the same thing as "virgin" does to us today, the Latin would have been virgo intacta, that is to say, "a young woman intact".

Let's look back beyond the Latin text; let's see why they called her virgo, a young woman. Maybe they actually got something right which we've got wrong later on. We discover that the word translated to mean virgo, a young woman, was the old Hebrew word almah which meant "a young woman". It had no sexual connotation whatever. Had Mary actually been physically virgo intacta, the Hebrew word used would have been bethula,not almah.

So, have we been completely misguided by the Gospels? No; we've been misguided by the English language translations of the gospels. We've also been misguided by a Church establishment that has done everything in its power to deny women any normal lifestyle in the Gospel story. The New Testament's key women are virgins or whores or sometimes widows-never everyday girlfriends, wives or mothers, and certainly not ever priestesses or holy sisters.

Notwithstanding that, the Gospels tell us time and time again that Jesus was descended from King David through his father Joseph. Even St Paul tells us this in his Epistle to the Hebrews. But we are taught that Jesus' father was a lowly carpenter and his mother was a virgin-neither of which descriptions can be found in any original text. So it follows that to get the best out of the Gospels we've really got to read them as they were written, not as we decide to interpret them according to modern language.

Precisely when the four main Gospels were written is uncertain. What we do know is that they were first published at various stages in the second half of the first century. They were unanimous initially in telling us that Jesus was a Nazarene. This is actually upheld in the Roman annals; and the first-century chronicles of the Jews and the Bible's Acts of the Apostles confirm that Jesus' brother James and St Paul were leaders of the sect of the Nazarenes.

This definition of "Nazarene" is very important to the Grail story because it has been so often misrepresented to suggest that Jesus came from the town of Nazareth. For the past 400 years, English language Gospels have perpetuated the error by wrongly translating "Jesus the Nazarene" as "Jesus of Nazareth". There was no connection between Nazareth and the Nazarenes. In fact, the settlement at Nazareth was established in the AD 60s, thirty years or so after the Crucifixion. Nobody in Jesus' early life came from Nazareth-it was not there!

The Nazarenes were a liberal, Jewish sect opposed to the strict Hebrew regime of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Nazarene culture and language were heavily influenced by the philosophers of ancient Greece, and their community supported the concept of equal opportunity for men and women. Documents of the time referred not to Nazareth but to the Nazarene society. Priestesses existed in equal opportunity with priests, but this was so different from what the male-dominated Hebrew society wanted and what the later, male-dominated Roman Church required.

It has to be remembered that Jesus was not a Christian: he was a Nazarene - a radical, westernised Jew. The Christian movement was founded by others in the wake of his own mission. The word "Christian" was first recorded and used in AD 44 in Antioch, Syria.

In the Arab world, the word used today, as then, to describe Jesus and his followers is Nazara. This is confirmed in the Muslim Koran: Jesus is Nazara; his followers are Nazara. The word means "Keepers" or "Guardians". The full definition is Nazrie ha-Brit, "Keepers of the Covenant". In fact, the Brit aspect of that is the very root of the country name of Britain. Brit-ain means "Covenant-land".

In the time of Jesus the Nazarenes lived in Galilee, and in that mystical place which the Bible calls "the Wilderness". The Wilderness was actually a very defined place. It was essentially the land around the main settlement at Qumran which spread out to Mird and other places. It was where the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced-discovered at Qumran in 1948.

Somewhere after the Crucifixion, Peter and his friend Paul went off to Antioch, then on to Rome, and they began the movement that became Christianity. But as recorded in the other annals, Jesus, his brother James and the majority of the other apostles continued the Nazarene movement and progressed it into Europe. It became the Celtic Church. The Nazarene movement as a Church is documented within the Celtic Church records as being formally implemented as the Church of Jesus in AD 37, four years after the Crucifixion. The Roman Church was formed 300 years later, after Paul and Peter's Christians had been persecuted for three centuries.

Through many centuries the Nazarene-based Celtic Church movement was directly opposed therefore to the Church of Rome. The difference was a simple one: the Nazarene faith was based on the teachings of Jesus himself. The guts of the religion, the moral codes, the behavioural patterns, the social practices, the laws and justices related to Old Testament teaching but with a liberal message of equality in mind-this was the religion of Jesus. Roman Christianity is "Churchianity". It was not the message of Jesus that was important: this Church turned Jesus into the religion. In short, the Nazarene Church was the true social Church. The Roman Church was the Church of the Emperors and the Popes; this was the Imperial hybrid movement.

Apart from straightforward misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mistranslations, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous purposeful amendments. Some original entries have been changed or deleted; other entries have been added to suit the Church's vested interest. Back in the fourth century when the texts were translated into Latin from their original Greek and Semitic tongues, the majority of these edits and amendments were made.

Even earlier, about AD 195-one thousand, eight hundred years ago-Bishop Clement of Alexandria made the first known amendment from the Gospel texts. He deleted a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark, written more than a hundred years before that time, and he justified his action in a letter. "For even if they should say something true, one who loves the Truth should not...agree with them... For not all true things are to be said to all men." Interesting. What he meant was that even at that very early stage there was already a discrepancy between what the Gospel writers had written and what the bishops wanted to teach.

Today, this section deleted by St Clement is still missing from the Gospel of Mark. But when Mark is compared with the Gospel that we know today, even without that section we find that today's Gospel is a good deal longer than the original! One of these additional sections comprises the whole of the Resurrection sequence; this amounts to twelve full verses at the end of Mark, chapter 16.

It's now known that everything told about the events after the Crucifixion was added by Church bishops or their scribes some time in the late fourth century. Although this is confirmed in the Vatican archives, it is difficult for most people to gain access-and even if they do, old Greek is very difficult to understand.

But what exactly was in this section of Mark that Clement saw fit to remove? It was the section that dealt with the raising of Lazarus. In the context of the original Mark text, however, Lazarus was portrayed in a state of excommunication: spiritual death by decree, not physical death. The account even had Lazarus and Jesus calling to each other before the tomb was opened. This defeated the bishops' desire to portray the raising of Lazarus as a spiritual miracle, not as a simple release from excommunication. More importantly, it set the scene for the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus himself, whose own subsequent raising from spiritual death was determined by the same three-day rule that applied to Lazarus.

Jesus was raised (released or resurrected) from death by decree on the statutory third day. In the case of Lazarus, however, Jesus flouted the rules by raising his friend after the three-day period of symbolic sickness. At that point, civil death would have become absolute in the eyes of the legal elders. Lazarus would have been wrapped in sacking and buried alive. His crime was that he had led a violent people's-revolt to safeguard the public water supply which had been diverted through a new Roman aqueduct in Jerusalem. But Jesus performed this release while not holding any priestly entitlement to do so. What happened was that Herod-Antipas of Galilee compelled the High Priest of Jerusalem to relent in favour of Jesus-and this was regarded as an unprecedented miracle!

But there was more to the removed section of Mark, because in telling the story of Lazarus the Mark account made it perfectly clear that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were actually man and wife. The Lazarus story in John contains a rather strange sequence that has Martha coming from the Lazarus house to greet Jesus, whereas her sister, Mary Magdalene, remains inside until summoned by Jesus. But in contrast to this, the original Mark account said that Mary Magdalene actually came out of the house with Martha and was then chastised by the disciples and sent back indoors to await Jesus' instruction. This was a specific procedure of Judaic law, whereby a wife in ritual mourning was not allowed to emerge from the property until instructed by her husband.

There's a good deal of information outside the Bible to confirm that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were man and wife. But is there anything relevant in the Gospels today, anything that the editors missed that tells us the story? Well, there are some specific things and there are some ancillary things.

There are seven lists given in the Gospels of the women who permanently seemed to follow Jesus around, and these include Jesus' mother; but in six of these seven lists the first name, even ahead of his mother, is Mary Magdalene. When one studies other lists of the period which relate to any form of hierarchical society, one notices that the "first lady" was always the first name listed. The term "First Lady" is used in America today. The first lady was the most senior; she was always named first-and as the Messianic Queen, Mary Magdalene would have been named first, as indeed she was.

But is the marriage defined in the Gospels? Well, it is. Many have suggested that the wedding at Cana was the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This was not the wedding ceremony as such, although the marriage is detailed in the Gospels. The marriage is the quite separate anointings at Bethany. In Luke we have a first anointing by Mary of Jesus, two-and-a-half years before the second anointing. It doesn't occur to many people that they are different stories, but they are two-and-a-half years apart.

Readers of the first century would have been fully conversant with the two-part ritual of the sacred marriage of a dynastic heir. Jesus, as we know, was a "Messiah", which means quite simply an "Anointed One". In fact, all anointed senior priests and Davidic kings were Messiahs. Jesus was not unique. Although not an ordained priest, he gained his right to Messiah status by way of descent from King David and the kingly line, but he did not achieve that Messiah status until he was actually physically anointed by Mary Magdalene, in her capacity as a high priestess, shortly before the Crucifixion.

The word "Messiah" comes from the Hebrew verb "to anoint", which itself is derived from the Egyptian word messeh, "the holy crocodile". It was with the fat of the messeh that the Pharaoh's sister-brides anointed their husbands on marriage. The Egyptian custom sprang from kingly practice in old Mesopotamia.

In the Old Testament's Song of Solomon we hear again of the bridal anointing of the king. It is defined that the oil used in Judah was the fragrant ointment spikenard, an expensive root oil from the Himalayas, and we learn that this anointing ritual was performed always while the husband/king sat at the table. In the New Testament, the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was indeed performed while he sat at the table, and with the bridal anointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped his feet with her hair, and on the first occasion of the two-part marriage she wept. All of these things signify the marital anointing of a dynastic heir.

Other anointings of Messiahs, whether on coronation or admission to the senior priesthood, were always conducted by men, by the High Zadok or the High Priest. The oil used was olive oil, mixed with cinnamon and other spices; never, ever spikenard.

Spikenard was the express prerogative of a Messianic bride who had to be a Mary, a sister of a sacred order. Jesus' mother was a Mary; so, too, would his wife have been a Mary, by title at least if not by baptismal name. Some conventual orders still maintain the tradition by adding the title "Mary" to the baptismal names of their nuns: Sister Mary Theresa, Sister Mary Louise.

Messianic marriages were always conducted in two stages. The first stage, the anointing in Luke, was the legal commitment to wedlock. The second stage, the anointing in Matthew, Mark and John, was the cementing of the contract. And in Jesus and Mary's case, the second anointing at Bethany was of express significance. Here the Grail story begins, because, as explained in books of Jewish law at the time and by Flavius Josephus in The Antiquities of the Jews, the second part of this marriage ceremony was never conducted until the wife was three months pregnant.

Dynastic heirs such as Jesus were expressly required to perpetuate their lines. Marriage was essential, but the law had to protect them against marriage to women who proved barren or kept miscarrying, and this protection was provided by the three-month-pregnancy rule. Miscarriages would not often happen after that term, and once they got through that period it was considered safe enough to complete the marriage contract. When anointing her husband at this stage, the Messianic bride, in accordance with custom, was said to be anointing him for burial. This is confirmed in the Gospels. The bride would from that day carry a vial of spikenard around her neck, for the rest of her husband's life; she would use it again on his entombment.

It was for this very purpose that Mary Magdalene would have gone to the tomb, as she did on the Sabbath after the Crucifixion. Subsequent to the second Bethany anointing, the Gospels relate that Jesus said: "Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her."

In his famous rendering of the event, the Renaissance artist Fra Angelico actually depicted Jesus placing a crown on the head of Mary Magdalene. But despite the fact that Fra Angelico was a learned 15th-century Dominican friar, did the Christian Church authorities honour Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial of her? No; they did not. They completely ignored Jesus' own directive and denounced Mary as a whore.

To the esoteric Church and the Knights Templars, however, Mary Magdalene was always regarded as a saint. She is still revered as such by many today, but the interesting part about this sainthood, when we think about Grail lore, is that Mary is listed as the patron saint of winegrowers, the guardian of the vine-the guardian of the Holy Grail, the guardian of the sacred bloodline.

There is much in the Gospels that we don't presume to be there because we are never encouraged to look beyond the superficial level. We've been aided greatly in this regard in recent years by the Dead Sea Scrolls and by the extraordinary research of Australian theologian Dr Barbara Thiering.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have opened up a whole new awareness of jargon; we have a whole new enlightenment here. They set down the community offices of the Messiah of Israel. They tell us about the council of twelve delegate apostles who were permanently appointed to preside over specific aspects of government and ritual. This leads to a greater awareness of the apostles themselves. We now know not only what their names were-we always knew that-but we can understand who they were, who their families were, what their duties and positions were.

We now understand from studying the Gospels that there is an allegory within them: the use of words that we don't understand today. We now know that baptismal priests were called "fishers"; we know that those who aided them by hauling the baptismal candidates into the boats in large nets were called "fishermen"; and we know that the baptismal candidates themselves were called "fishes". The apostles James and John were both ordained "fishers". The brothers Peter and Andrew were lay "fishermen", and Jesus promised them priesthood within the new ministry, saying "I will make you to become fishers of men".

We now know there was a particular jargon of the Gospel era, a jargon that would have been readily understood by anybody reading the Gospels in the first century and beyond. These jargonistic words have been lost to later interpretation. Today, for example, we call our theatre investors "angels" and our top entertainers "stars", but what would a reader from some distant culture in two thousand years' time make of "The angel went to talk to the stars"? The Gospels are full of these jargonistic words. "The poor", "the lepers", "the multitude", "the blind"-none of these was what we presume it to mean today. Definitions such as "clouds", "sheep", "fishes", "loaves" and a variety of others were all related, just like "stars", to people.

When the Gospels were written in the first century they were issued into a Roman-controlled environment. Their content had to be disguised against Roman scrutiny. The information was often political; it was coded, veiled. Where important sections appeared they were often heralded by the words, "This is for those with ears to hear"-for those who understand the code. It was no different to the coded information passed between members of oppressed groups throughout history. There was a code found in documentation passed between the later Jews in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.

Through our knowledge of this scribal cryptology we can now determine dates and locations with very great accuracy. We can uncover many of the hidden meanings in the Gospels to the extent that the miracles themselves take on a whole new context. In doing so, this does not in any way decry the fact that a man like Jesus, and, in fact, specifically Jesus, was obviously a very special person with enormously special powers, but the Gospels laid down certain stories which have since become described as "miracles". These were not put down because they were really miraculous supernatural events; they were put down because in the then-current political arena they were actually quite unprecedented actions which successfully flouted the law.

We now know other things. We now know why the Gospels are often not in agreement with each other. For example, Mark says that Jesus was crucified at the third hour, whereas John says he was crucified at the sixth hour. This does not, on the face of it, look too important, but, as we shall see, this three-hour time difference was crucial to the events that followed.

Let's look at the water and wine at Cana, following the story through what the Bible actually tells us, as against what we think we know. What was a very straightforward event is now dubbed with supernatural overtones. The Cana wedding, out of four Gospels, is described only in John. If it was so important to the Church as a miracle, why is it not in the other three Gospels? It does not say (as is so often said from pulpits): "They ran out of wine." It doesn't say that. It says: "When they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said, 'They have no wine.'"

The Gospel tells us that the person in charge was the ruler of the feast. This specifically defines it not as a wedding ceremony as such, but a pre-wedding betrothal feast. The wine taken at betrothal feasts was only available to priests and celibate Jews, not to married men, novices or any others who were regarded as being unsanctified. They were allowed only water-a purification ritual, as stated in John.

When the time came for this ritual, Mary, clearly not happy about the discrimination and directing Jesus' attention to the unsanctified guests, said: "They have no wine." Having not yet been anointed to Messiah status, Jesus responded: "Mine hour is not yet come." At this, Mary forced the issue and Jesus then flouted convention, abandoning water altogether. Wine for everyone! The ruler of the feast made no comment whatsoever about any miracle; he simply expressed his amazement that the wine had turned up at that stage of the proceedings.

It's been suggested often that the wedding at Cana was Jesus' own wedding ceremony because he and his mother displayed a right of command that would not be associated with ordinary guests. However, this feast can be dated to the summer of AD 30, in the month equivalent to June. First weddings were always held in the month of Atonement (September), and betrothal feasts were held three months before that. In this instance, we find that the first marital anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was at the Atonement of AD 30, three months after the Cana ceremony which appears to have been their own betrothal feast.

The Gospels tell a story that although not always in agreement from Gospel to Gospel is actually followable outside the Bible. The accounts of Jesus' activities right up to the time of the Crucifixion can be found in various records of the era. In the official annals of Imperial Rome, the trial by Pilate and the Crucifixion are mentioned. We can determine precisely from this chronological diary of the Roman governors that the Crucifixion took place at the March Passover of AD 33. The Bethany second marriage anointing was in the week prior to that. We know that at that stage Mary Magdalene had to have been three months pregnant, by law-which means she should have given birth in September of AD 33. That, we'll come back to.

If the Gospels are read as they are written, Jesus appears as a liberating dynast, endeavouring to unite the people of the era against the oppression of the Roman Empire. Judaea at the time was just like France under German occupation in World War II. The authorities were controlled by the military occupational force; resistance movements were common.

Jesus was awaited, expected, and by the end of the story had become an anointed Messiah. In the first century Antiquities of the Jews, Jesus is called "a wise man", "a teacher" and "the King". There is nothing there about divinity.

While the Dead Sea Scrolls identify the Messiah of Israel as the Supreme Military Commander of Israel, it is no secret the apostles were armed. From the time of recruitment, Jesus checked that they all had swords. At the very end of the story, Peter drew his sword against Malchus. Jesus said, "I come not to send peace but a sword."

Many of the high-ranking Jews in Jerusalem were quite content to hold positions of power backed by a foreign military regime. Apart from that, the Hebrew groups themselves were sectarian; they did not want to share their God Jehovah with anybody else, specifically unclean Gentiles. To the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Jews were God's chosen people: He belonged to them, they belonged to Him. But there were other Jews-there were the Nazarenes, there were the Essenes-who were influenced by a more

liberal, western doctrine. In the event, Jesus' mission failed; the rift was insurmountable. Gentiles, in modern-day language, are simply the non-Jewish Arab races-and the rift is still there today.

The sentencing of Jesus was by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, but Jesus was actually condemned and excommunicated prior to that by the Sanhedrin Council. It was decided to contrive a punishment, whereby Jesus would be sentenced by the Roman Governor who was already trying other prisoners for leading insurrections against himself.

As confirmed by the Supreme Judge and Attorney-General of Israel even today, it was quite illegal for the Sanhedrin Council to sit at night or to sit and operate during the Passover, so the timing was perfect. They had an ideal opportunity, and a reason to say: "Sorry, we can't do this ourselves. You, the Roman Governor, have to do this."

As for Jesus' death on the Cross, it is perfectly plain this was spiritual death, not physical death, as determined by the three-day rule that everybody in the first century reading this would have understood. In civil and legal terms, Jesus was already dead when he was placed on the Cross. He was denounced, scourged, prepared for death by decree. Today, we call this "excommunication". For three days Jesus would have been nominally sick, with absolute death coming on the fourth day. On that day he would be entombed, buried alive; but during the first three days he could be raised or resurrected. In fact, he predicted that he would.

Raisings and resurrections (apart from the fact that Jesus once flouted the rule, and that was a miracle!) could only be performed by the High Priest or by the Father of the Community. The High Priest at that time was Joseph Caiaphas, the very man who condemned Jesus; therefore the raising had to be performed by the patriarchal Father. There are Gospel accounts of Jesus talking to the Father from the Cross, culminating in "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and at that time we know from the listings that the appointed Father was the Magian apostle Simon Zelotes.

We have been taught that Jesus' physical death was proved by the blood and water that flowed when he was pierced by the spear, but this has been very badly translated. The original word does not translate to "pierced"; it translates to "pricked" or to "scratched". This in turn was mistranslated into the Latin verb "to open", and into the English word "pierced".

They were not primitive times. They were times when there were doctors, medical men; there were even forms of hospital. And we can see that, just like today, the test for reflex action was scratching, prodding or pricking the skin with a sharp instrument.

I have in my possession a letter from a surgeon of the British Medical Council. It says: "Medically, the outflow of water is impossible to explain. Blood flowing from a stab wound is evidence of life, not death. It would take a large, gaping laceration for any drop of blood to flow from a dead body because there is no vascular action."

So let's look further; let's look at what the Gospels actually said. Joseph of Arimathea took down Jesus' body from the Cross. In fact, the word that was translated to the English word "body" was the Greek word soma, meaning "live body". The alternative word denoting "dead body" or "corpse" would have been ptoma.

Jesus very apparently survived, and this is explicitly maintained in other books. Even the Koran says that Jesus survived the Crucifixion.

During that Friday afternoon when Jesus was on the Cross, there was a three-hour-forward time change. Time was recorded then by sundials and by priests who marked the hours by a sequence of measured prayer sessions. In essence, there were daytime hours and there were night-time hours. Today we have a twenty-four-hour day. In John, Jesus said: "Are there not twelve hours in a day?" Yes, there were twelve hours in a day and there were twelve hours in the night, and daytime started at sunrise. From time to time the beginning of daytime changed; thus the beginning of night-time changed. In March, the beginning of daytime would have been somewhere round about six o'clock in the morning, as we know it.

We know that Joseph of Arimathea negotiated with Pontius Pilate to have Jesus removed from the Cross after a few hours of hanging. The Gospels don't actually agree on the sequence of events here: some use the time before the time change; some use the time after the time change. But three hours disappeared from the day, to be replaced with three night-time hours. Daylight hours were substituted by hours of darkness. The land fell into darkness for three hours, we are told in the Gospels.

Today we would simply, in a split second, add three night-time hours to the day.

But these three hours were the crux of every single event that followed, because the Hebrew lunarists made their change during the daytime. The solarists, of which the Essenes and the Magi were factions, did not make their change until midnight-which actually means that according to the Gospel that relates to Hebrew time, Jesus was crucified at the third hour; but in the other, solar time he was crucified at the sixth hour.

On that evening the Hebrews began their Sabbath at the old nine o'clock, but the Essenes and Magians still had three hours to go before the Sabbath. It was those three hours that enabled them to work with, on and for Jesus, during a period of time in which nobody else was allowed to undertake any physical work whatsoever.

And so we come to probably one of the most misunderstood events of the Bible, and from there we'll move on, beyond the Bible period through history, to tell what happened concerning the birth of Jesus and Mary's child in September AD 33. One of the most misunderstood events in the Bible is the Ascension, and in discussing it we will consider the births of Jesus' three children and their descendants.

We know from the Gospel chronology that the Bethany second-marriage anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was in the week before the Crucifixion. And we know that at that stage Mary was three-months pregnant and therefore should have given birth in the following September.

So, what do the Gospels tell us about events in September AD 33? In fact, the Gospels tell us nothing, but the story is taken up in The Acts of the Apostles which detail for September the event which we have come to know as "the Ascension".

The one thing that the Acts do not do, however, is call the event "the Ascension". This was a name given to the ritual when the Roman Church doctrines were established over three centuries later. What the text actually says is: "And when he had spoken these things...he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight." It then continues that "a man in white" said to the disciples: "Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus...shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go." Then, a little later in the Acts, it says that "heaven" must receive Jesus until "the time of restitution".

Given that this was the very month in which Mary Magdalene's child was due, is there perhaps some connection between Mary's confinement and the so-called Ascension? There certainly is, and the connection is made by virtue of the time of restitution.

Not only were there rules to govern the marriage ceremony of a Messianic heir, but so too were there rules to govern the marriage itself. The rules of dynastic wedlock were quite unlike the Jewish family norm, and Messianic parents were formally separated at the birth of a child. Even prior to this, intimacy between a dynastic husband and wife was only allowed in December, so that births of heirs would always fall in the month of September-the month of Atonement, the holiest month of the Jewish calendar.

Indeed, it was this very rule which Jesus's own parents (Joseph and Mary) had themselves broken. And this was the reason why the Jews were split in opinion as to whether Jesus was, in fact, their true Messiah.

When a dynastic child was conceived at the wrong time of year, the mother was generally placed in monastic custody for the birth so as to avoid public embarrassment. This was called being "put away privily", and Matthew states quite plainly that when Mary's pregnancy was discovered, "Joseph, her husband, being a just man and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily".

In this instance, special dispensation for the birth was granted by the archangel Simeon who at that time held the distinction of "Gabriel", being the angelic priest in charge. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Enoch (which was excluded from the Old Testament) detail that the "archangels" (or chief ambassadors) were the senior priests at Qumran, retaining the traditional titles of "Michael", "Gabriel", "Raphael", "Sariel", etc.

In the case of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, however, the rules of wedlock had been obeyed to the letter, and their first child was properly conceived in December AD 32, to be born in September AD 33.

From the moment of a dynastic birth, the parents were physically separated-for six years if the child was a boy, and for three years if the child was a girl. Their marriage would only be recommenced at the designated time of restitution. Meanwhile, the mother and child would enter the equivalent of a convent, and the father would enter "the Kingdom of Heaven". This Kingdom of Heaven was actually the Essene High Monastery at Mird, by the Dead Sea, and the ceremony of entry was conducted by the angelic priests under the supervision of the appointed Leader of the Pilgrims.

In the Old Testament book of Exodus, the Israelite pilgrims were led into the Holy Land by a "cloud"-and in accordance with this continued Exodus imagery, the priestly Leader of the Pilgrims was designated with the title "Cloud".

So, if we now read the Acts verses as they were intended to be understood, we see that Jesus was taken up by the Cloud (the Leader of the Pilgrims) to the Kingdom of Heaven (the High Monastery). And the man in white (an angelic priest) said that Jesus would return at the time of restitution (when his Earthly marriage was restored).

If we now look at St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews we discover that he explains the said Ascension event in some greater detail, for Paul tells of how Jesus was admitted to the Priesthood of Heaven when he actually had no entitlement to such a sacred office. He explains that Jesus was born (through his father Joseph) into the Davidic line of Judah-a line which held the right of kingship but had no right to priesthood, for this was the sole prerogative of the line of Aaron and Levi.

But, says Paul, a special dispensation was granted, and he tells that "for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law". As a result of this express "change of the law", it is explained that Jesus was enabled to enter the Kingdom of Heaven in the priestly Order of Melchizedek.

So, in September AD 33, the first child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was born, and Jesus duly entered the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no reference to this child being a son (as there is for the two subsequent births), and given that Jesus returned three years later, in AD 36, we know that Mary must have had a daughter.

By following the chronology of the Acts, we see that in September AD 37 a second child was born; and then another in AD 44. The period between these two births to the second restitution in AD 43 was "six years", which denotes that the AD 37 child was a son. This fact is also conveyed by the use of cryptic wording-the same cryptic wording afforded to the AD 44 child-so we know that this third child was also a son.

In accordance with the scribal codes detailed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, everything cryptic within the New Testament is set up beforehand by some other entry which explains that the inherent message is "for those with ears to hear". Once these codes and allegories are understood, they never ever vary. They mean the same thing every time they are used, and they are used every time that same meaning is required.

For example, the Gospels explain that Jesus was called "the Word of God": "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...full of grace and truth." John goes to great lengths to explain the relevance of this definition, and subsequent entries give details such as "the Word of God stood by the lake" and "the Word of God was in Samaria".

Messages conveying information about fertility and new life are established in the Parable of the Sower whose seed "bore fruit and increased". Thus, when it is said that "the Word of God increased", "those with ears to hear" would recognise at once that "Jesus increased"-that is to say, he had a son. There are two such entries in the Acts, and they fall precisely on cue in AD 37 and AD 44.

Probably the most misrepresented book of the New Testament is The Book of The Revelation of St John the Divine-misrepresented by the Church, that is; not by the book itself. This book is quite unlike any other in the Bible. It is dubbed with terrible supernatural overtones, and its straightforward imagery has been savagely corrupted by the Church to present the text as some form of foreboding or prophecy of warning! But the book is not called "The Prophecy" or "The Warning". It is called "The Revelation".

So, what does the book reveal? Chronologically, its story follows The Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of The Revelation is, in fact, the continuing story of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their sons, particularly the elder son, Jesus Justus. It follows his life and details his marriage, along with the birth of his own son. This much-misunderstood New Testament book is not a foreboding or a warning as the fearful Church would have us believe. It is precisely what it says it is: a revelation.

As we saw earlier, ordained priests of the era were called "fishers"; their helpers were called "fishermen", and baptismal candidates were called "fishes". Jesus became an ordained fisher when he entered the Kingdom of Heaven, but until that time (as explained by St Paul) he held no priestly office.

In the rite of ordination, the officiating Levite priests of the Sanctuary would administer five loaves of bread and two fishes to the candidates, but the law was very firm in that such candidates had to be circumcised Jews. Gentiles and uncircumcised Samaritans were on no account afforded any such privilege.

Indeed, it was this particular ministerial ritual which Jesus had flouted at the so-called "feeding of the five-thousand", because he presumed the right to grant access to his own new liberal ministry by offering the loaves and fishes to an unsanctified gathering. Apart from eventually becoming a fisher, Jesus was also referred to as "the Christ"-a Greek definition which meant "the King". In saying the name "Jesus Christ", we are actually saying "King Jesus", and his kingly heritage was of the Royal House of Judah (the House of David), as mentioned numerous times in the Gospels and in the Epistles of St Paul.

From AD 33, therefore, Jesus emerged with the dual status of a "Priest Christ" or, as is more commonly cited, a "Fisher King". This definition, as we shall see, was to become an hereditary and dynastic office of Jesus' heirs, and the succeeding "Fisher Kings" were paramount in the history of the Grail bloodline.

Prior to the birth of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was exiled from Judaea following a political uprising in which she was implicated. Along with Philip, Lazarus and a few retainers, she travelled (by arrangement with King Herod-Agrippa II) to live at the Herodian estate near Lyon, in Gaul (which later became France).

From the earliest times, through the mediaeval era, to the great Renaissance, Mary's flight was portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and great artworks alike. Her life and work in France, especially in Provence and the Languedoc, appeared not only in works of European history but also in the Roman Church liturgy-until her story was suppressed by the Vatican.

Mary Magdalene's exile is told in The Book of The Revelation which describes that she was pregnant at the time. It tells also of how the Roman authorities subsequently persecuted Mary, her son and his heirs: "And she, being with child, cried...and pained to be delivered...and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads...and seven crowns...stood before the woman...for to devour her child... And she brought forth a man-child...and the woman fled into the wilderness... And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war forever with the remnant of her seed...which...have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

It was to Gaul that Mary was said to have carried the Sangréal (the Blood Royal, the Holy Grail); and it was in Gaul that the famous line of Jesus and Mary's immediate descendant heirs, the Fisher Kings, flourished for 300 years. The eternal motto of the Fisher Kings was "In Strength"-inspired by the name of their ancestor, Boaz (the great-grandfather of King David), whose name similarly meant "In Strength". When translated into Latin, this became "In Fortis", which was subsequently corrupted to "Anfortas", the name of the Fisher King in Grail romance.

We can now return to the Grail's traditional symbolism as a chalice containing the blood of Jesus. We can also consider graphic designs dating back well beyond the Dark Ages to about 3,500 BC. And in doing this, we discover that a chalice or a cup was the longest-standing symbol of the female. Its representation was that of the Sacred Vessel-the vas uterus, the womb. And so, when fleeing into France, Mary Magdalene carried the Sangréal in the Sacred Chalice of her womb-just as the Book of The Revelation explains. And the name of this second son was Joseph.

The equivalent traditional symbol of the male was a blade or a horn, usually represented by a sword or a unicorn. In the Old Testament's Song of Solomon and in the Psalms of David, the fertile unicorn is associated with the kingly line of Judah; and it was for this very reason that the Cathars of Provence used the mystical beast to symbolise the Grail bloodline.

Mary Magdalene died in Provence in AD 63. In that very year, Joseph of Arimathea built the famous chapel at Glastonbury in England as a memorial to the Messianic Queen. This was the first 'above-ground' Christian church in the world, and in the following year Mary's son Jesus Justus dedicated it to his mother. Jesus the Younger had in fact been to England with Joseph before, at the age of twelve, in AD 49. It was this event which inspired William Blake's famous song, Jerusalem: "And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green."

But who was Joseph of Arimathea, the man who assumed full control of affairs at the Crucifixion? And why was it that Jesus' mother, his wife and the rest of the family accepted Joseph's intervention without question?

As late as the year 900, the Church of Rome decided to announce that Joseph of Arimathea was the uncle of Jesus' mother Mary. And from that time, portrayals of Joseph have shown him as being rather elderly at the Crucifixion, when Mother Mary was herself in her fifties. Prior to the Roman announcement, however, the historical records of Joseph depicted a much younger man. He was recorded to have died at the age of 80 on 27 July AD 82, and thus would have been aged 32 at the time of the Crucifixion. In fact, Joseph of Arimathea was none other than Jesus Christ's own brother, James, and his title had nothing whatever to with a place name. Arimathea never existed. It therefore comes as no surprise that Joseph negotiated with Pilate to place Jesus in his own family tomb.

The hereditary "Arimathea" title was an English corruption of the Graeco-Hebrew style ha-Rama-Theo, meaning "of the Divine Highness", or "of the Royal Highness" as we'd define it today. Since Jesus was the senior Messianic heir-the Christ, Khristos or King-then his younger brother was the Crown Prince-the Royal Highness, Rama-Theo. In the Nazarene hierarchy, the Crown Prince always held the patriarchal title of "Joseph"-just as Jesus was a titular "David" and his wife was a "Mary". In the early fifth century, Jesus and Mary's descendent Fisher Kings became united by marriage to the Sicambrian Franks, and from them emerged a whole new 'reigning' dynasty. They were the noted Merovingian Kings who founded the French monarchy and introduced the well known fleur-de-lys (the ancient Jewish symbol of circumcision) as the royal emblem of France.

From the Merovingian succession, another strain of the family established a wholly independent Jewish kingdom in southern France: the Kingdom of Septi-mania, which we now know as the Languedoc. And the early princes of Toulouse, Aquitaine and Provence were all descended in the Messianic bloodline of the Holy Grail. Septimania was granted to the Royal House of David in 768, and Prince Bernard of Septimania later married a daughter of Emperor Charlemagne.

Also from the Fisher Kings came another important parallel line of succession in Gaul. Whereas the Merovingian Kings continued the patrimonial 'male' heritage of Jesus, this other line perpetuated the matriarchal heritage of Mary Magdalene in a 'female' line. They were the dynastic Queens of Avallon in Burgundy, the House del Acqs-meaning "of the waters", a style granted to Mary Magdalene in the early days when she voyaged on the sea to Provence.

Those familiar with Arthurian and Grail lore will by now have recognised the ultimate significance of this Messianic family of the Fisher Kings, the Queens of Avallon and the House del Acqs (corrupted in Arthurian romance to "du Lac").

The descendant heirs of Jesus posed an enormous threat to the Roman High Church because they were the dynastic leaders of the true Nazarene Church. In real terms, the Roman Church should never have existed at all, for it was no more than a 'hybrid' movement comprised of various pagan doctrines attached to a fundamentally Jewish base.

Jesus was born in 7 BC and his birthday was on the equivalent of 1 March, with an 'official' royal birthday on 15 September to comply with dynastic regulation. But, when establishing the Roman High Church in the fourth century, Emperor Constantine ignored both of these dates and supplemented 25 December as the new Christ's Mass Day-to coincide with the pagan Sun Festival.

Later, at the Synod of Whitby in 664, the bishops expropriated the Celtic festival of Easter (Eostre), the Goddess of Spring and Fertility, and attached a wholly new Christian significance. In so doing, they changed the date of the Celtic festival to sever its traditional association with the Jewish Passover.

Christianity, as we know it, has evolved as a 'composite religion' quite unlike any other. If Jesus was its living catalyst, then Christianity should rightly be based on the teachings of Jesus himself-the moral and social codes of a fair-minded, tolerant ministry, with the people as its benefactors.

But orthodox Christianity is not based on the teachings of Jesus: it is based on the teachings of the Roman Church, which are entirely different. There are a number of reasons for this, the foremost of which is that Jesus was deliberately sidestepped in favour of the alternative teachings of Peter and Paul-teachings which were thoroughly denounced by the Nazarene Church of Jesus and his brother James.

Only by removing Jesus from the frontline could the Popes and cardinals reign supreme. When formally instituting Christianity as the state religion of Rome, Constantine declared that "he alone" was the true "Saviour Messiah", not Jesus! As for the Bishops of Rome (the Popes), they were granted an apostolic descent from St Peter-not a legitimate Desposynic descent from Jesus and his brothers, as was retained within the Nazarene Church.

The only way for the Roman High Church to restrain the heirs of Mary Magdalene was to discredit Mary herself and to deny her bridal relationship with Jesus. But what of Jesus' brother James? He, too, had heirs, as did their other brothers, Simon, Joses and Jude. The Church could not escape the Gospels which state that Jesus was the Blessed Mother Mary's "first-born son", and so Mary's own motherhood also had to be repressed.

As a result, the Church portrayed Mother Mary as a virgin, and Mary Magdalene as a whore-neither of which description was mentioned in any original Gospel. Then, just to cement Mother Mary's position outside the natural domain, her own mother, Anna, was eventually said to have borne her by way of "Immaculate Conception"!

Over the course of time, these contrived doctrines have had widespread effect. But, in the early days, it took rather more to cement the ideas because the original women of the Nazarene mission had a significant following in the Celtic Church-women such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Mary Jacob-Cleophas and Helena-Salome who had run schools and social missions throughout the Mediterranean world. These women had all been disciples of Jesus, and close friends of his mother, Mary, accompanying her to the Crucifixion, as confirmed in the Gospels.

The Church's only salvation was to deny women altogether; to deny them not only rights to ecclesiastical office, but to deny them rights to any status in society. Hence, the Church declared that women were all heretics and sorceresses!

In this, the bishops were aided by the words of Peter and Paul, and on the basis of their teachings the Roman High Church was enabled to become wholly sexist. In his Epistle to Timothy, Paul wrote: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp any authority over the man, but to be in silence." In the Gospel of Philip, Peter is even quoted as saying that "Women are not worthy of life". The bishops even quoted the words of Genesis, wherein God spoke to Eve about Adam, saying "He shall rule over thee".

The Church Father Tertullian summed up the whole Roman attitude when writing about the emergent disciples of Mary Magdalene: "These heretical woman! How dare they! They are brazen enough to teach, to engage in argument, to baptise... It is not permitted for a woman to speak in church...nor to claim...a share in any masculine function-least of all in priestly office."

Then, to cap it all, came the Roman Church's most amazing document, The Apostolic Order. This was compiled as an 'imaginary' conversation between the apostles after the Last Supper. Contrary to the Gospels, it supposed that Mary Magdalene had been present at the Supper, and it was agreed that the reason why Jesus had not passed any wine to Mary at the table was because he had seen her laughing!

On the basis of this extraordinary, fictitious document, the bishops ruled that, even though Mary might have been a companion of Jesus, women were not to be afforded any place within the Church because they were not serious! This sexist attitude has persisted within the Church to the present day. Why? Because Mary Magdalene had to be discredited and removed from the reckoning so that her heirs could be ignored. But things are now changing, and, in the Anglican Church at least, women are being restored to the priestly station.

Notwithstanding the avid sexist movement, the Messianic heirs retained their social positions outside the Roman Church establishment. They progressed their own Nazarene and Celtic Church movements and founded Desposynic kingdoms in Britain and Europe. They were a constant threat to the Roman High Church and to the figurehead monarchs and governments empowered by that Church. They were the very reason for the implementation of the brutal Inquisition because they upheld a moral and social code which was contrary to High Church requirement.

This was especially apparent during the Age of Chivalry, which embraced a respect for womanhood, as exemplified by the Knights Templars whose constitutional oath supported a veneration of "the Grail Mother", Queen Mary Magdalene.

Prior to the Middle Ages, the individual stories of this family were historically well-known. But when the Church began its reign of fanatical persecution (the great Inquisition), the whole Nazarene and Desposynic heritage was forced underground.

But why the vengeful onset of the Inquisition? Because the Knights Templars had not only returned from the Holy Land with documents that undermined the Church's teachings, but they also established their own Cistercian churches in opposition to Rome. These were not just any churches; they were the greatest religious monuments ever to grace the skylines of the western world: the Notre Dame cathedrals of France.

Despite their present-day image, these impressive Gothic cathedrals had nothing whatever to do with the established Christian Church. They were funded and built by the Knights Templars, and they were dedicated to Mary Magdalene-Notre Dame, Our Lady-whom they called "the Grail of the world".

This, of course, defeated every dogma that the High Church had encouraged, and the bishops retaliated by re-dedicating numerous other churches to Mary, the mother of Jesus. But, in so doing, they made a strict decree that all artistic portrayals of Mother Mary, the Madonna, must henceforth show her dressed in "blue and white only"-so as not to grant her any rights to ecclesiastical office in the male-only priesthood.

Mary Magdalene, on the other hand, was being portrayed (by the world's greatest artists) wearing the red mantle of cardinal status or the black robe of a Nazarite High Priestess-and there was nothing the Church could do about it. The bishops' only option was to proclaim the practice sinful and heretical-because, in having previously elected to ignore Mary Magdalene and her heirs, she was outside their jurisdiction.

It was at that time that Grail lore was itself denounced as a heresy by the Vatican. The sixth-century writings of Merlin were expressly banned by the Ecumenical Council, and the original Nazarene Church of Jesus became an "underground stream", aided by such notable sponsors as Leonardo da Vinci and Sandro Botticelli.

In those days, the Church policed and controlled most literature in the public domain; and so, in order to avoid outright censorship, the Grail tradition became allegorical and its message was communicated by way of secret watermarks, esoteric writings, Tarot cards and symbolic artwork.

But why should Grail lore and the writings of Merlin have posed such a problem for the High Church? Because, within the context of their adventurous texts, they told the descendant story of the Grail bloodline-a bloodline which had been ousted from its dynastic position by the Popes and Bishops of Rome who had elected to reign supreme by way of a contrived "apostolic succession".

This apostolic succession was said to have been handed down from the first bishop, St Peter (and, indeed, this is still the promoted view). But one only has to study the Church's own Apostolic Constitutions to discover that this is simply not true. Peter was never a Bishop of Rome-nor of anywhere else, for that matter!

The Vatican's Constitutions record that the first Bishop of Rome was Prince Linus of Britain, the son of Caractacus the Pendragon. He was installed by St Paul in AD 58, during Peter's own lifetime.

From the 1100s, the powerful Knights Templars and their cathedrals posed an enormous threat to the 'male-only' Church by bringing the heritage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to the fore in the public domain.

The cardinals knew that their whole establishment would tumble if the Messianic descendants gained the upper hand. They had to be crushed! And so the brutal Inquisition was implemented-a hideous persecution of all who dissented from the rule of the bishops.

It all began in 1208, when Pope Innocent III sent 30,000 soldiers into the Languedoc region of southern France. This was the home of the Cathars ("the Pure Ones") who were said to be the guardians of a great and sacred treasure-a mysterious secret which could overturn orthodox Christianity. The Pope's so-called Albigensian Crusade lasted for 36 years-during which time, tens of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered-but the treasure was never found.

The main thrust of the Inquisition (or "Holy Office") was instituted by Pope Gregory IX during the course of this massacre, in 1231, and it was set against anyone who supported "the Grail heresy". By 1252, the torture of victims was formally authorised, along with execution by burning.

"Heresy" was a wonderful charge to level against captives, because only the Church could define it. The victims were tortured until they confessed, and having confessed they were executed. If they did not confess, then the torture continued until they died anyway. One recorded form of torture was to spread the victim, little by little, with fat (beginning with his feet), and then to roast him alive in sections, limb by limb, over an open fire.

These savage persecutions and punishments were openly waged for more than 400 years, and were also extended against Jews, Muslims and Protestant dissenters. But the Inquisition was never formally terminated. As recently as 1965 it was renamed "the Sacred Congregation", and its powers are theoretically still in force today.

Undaunted by the Inquisition, the Nazarene movement pursued its own course, and the story of the bloodline was perpetuated in literature such as the Grand Saint Grail and the High History of the Holy Grail. These writings were largely sponsored by the Grail courts of France (the courts of Champagne, Anjou and others), and also by the Knights Templars and the Desposyni; and, at that stage, Arthurian Romance became a popular vehicle for the Grail tradition.

In the light of this, the Templars became a specific target of the Inquisition in 1307 when the henchmen of Pope Clement V and King Philip IV of France were set in their direction. The papal armies scoured Europe for the Templar documents and treasure-but, like the Cathar inheritance, nothing was found. However, many Knights were tortured and executed in the process, and their companions escaped to countries outside the papal domain.

But the Templar hoard was not lost, and while the Vatican emissaries were searching, the treasure and documents were locked away in the Chapter House Treasury vaults of Paris. They were under the protection of the Templar Grand Knights of St Anthony-"the Guardian Princes of the Royal Secret"-who loaded the hoard one night onto 18 galleys of the Templar fleet at La Rochelle.

By daybreak, the fleet had sailed for Scotland, and on arrival they were welcomed by King Robert the Bruce who, along with the whole Scottish nation, had been excommunicated by the Pope for challenging the Catholic King Edward of England. In Scotland, the Templars and their treasure remained, and the Knights fought with Bruce at Bannockburn in 1314 to regain Scotland's independence from Plantagenet England.

Subsequent to the Battle of Bannockburn, Bruce and the St Anthony Templars founded the new Order of the Elder Brothers of the Rosy Cross in 1317-from which time the Kings of Scots became hereditary Grand Masters, with each successive Stewart King holding the honoured Grand Priory title of "Prince Saint Germain".

So, why was it that King Arthur, a Celtic commander of the sixth century, was so important to the Knights Templars and the Grail courts of Europe? Quite simply, because Arthur had been unique, with a 'dual' heritage in the Messianic line.

King Arthur was by no means mythical, as many have supposed. Far from it. But he has generally been looked for in the wrong places. Researchers, misguided by the fictional locations of the romances, have searched in vain through the chronicles of Brittany, Wales and the west of England. But the details of Arthur are to be found in the Scots' and Irish annals. He was indeed "the High King of the Celtic Isle", and he was the sovereign commander of the British troops in the late sixth century.

Arthur was born in 559, and he died in battle in 603. His mother was Ygerna del Acqs, the daughter of Queen Viviane of Avallon, in descent from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. His father was High King Aedąn of Dalriada (the Western Highlands of Scotland, now called Argyll)-and Aedąn was the British Pendragon ("Head Dragon" or "King of Kings") in descent from Jesus' brother James. It is for this reason that the stories of Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea are so closely entwined in the Grail romances.

Indeed, the coronation records of Scotland's King Kenneth MacAlpin (a descendant of Aedąn the Pendragon) specifically refer to his own descent from the dynastic Queens of Avallon.

King Aedąn's paternal legacy emerged through the most ancient House of Camulot (England's Royal Court of Colchester) in a line from the first Pendragon, King Cymbeline (who is well-known to students of Shakespeare).

By that time, Messianic descendants had founded Desposynic kingdoms in Wales and across the Strathclyde and Cambrian regions of Britain. Arthur's father, King Aedąn of Scots, was the first British monarch to be installed by priestly ordination, when he was crowned and anointed by Saint Columba of the Celtic Church in 574. This, of course, infuriated the Roman Church bishops because they claimed the sole right to appoint kings who were supposed to be crowned by the Pope!

As a direct result of this coronation, Saint Augustine was eventually sent from Rome in 597 to dismantle the Celtic Church. He proclaimed himself Archbishop of Canterbury three years later, but his overall mission failed and the Nazarene tradition persisted in Scotland, Ireland and Wales and across the breadth of northern England.

An important fact to remember is that the Grail dynasts were never territorial governors of lands. Like Jesus himself, they were designated "Guardians" of the people. The Merovingians of Gaul, for example, were Kings of the Franks-never Kings of France. King Aedąn, Robert the Bruce and their Stewart successors were Kings of the Scots-never Kings of Scotland.

It was this implicitly 'social' concept which the High Church found so difficult to overcome, for the bishops preferred to have dominion over 'territorial kings', while the people's senior lord and master was supposed to be the Pope. Only by maintaining ultimate spiritual control over individuals could the Church reign supreme, and so whenever a Grail dynast came to the fore he was met by the wrath of the papal machine.

In 751 the bishops managed to depose the Merovingian succession in Gaul, and they established a new tradition whereby kings of the Carolingian succession (that of Charlemagne) had to be approved and crowned by the Pope. But the Church could never topple the Desposynic lines in Scotland, even though the old Celtic kingdoms of England had been dismantled by Germanic Anglo-Saxons from the sixth century.

Even into the Middle Ages-long after the Norman Conquest of England-the Nazarene Church and the long-prevailing cult of Mary Magdalene were prominent in Europe. Women's rights of equality were upheld throughout the Celtic structure-and this was an enormous problem for the male-only priesthood of orthodox Christianity.

The underlying principle of the Grail monarchs was always one of Service, in accordance with the Messianic code established by Jesus when he washed his apostles' feet at the Last Supper. And so the true Grail dynasts were kings and guardians of their realms, but they were never rulers.

This key aspect of the Grail code was perpetuated at the very heart of nursery tale and folklore. Never did a valiant cardinal or bishop ride to the aid of an oppressed subject or a damsel in distress, for this has always been the social realm of Grail princes and their appointed knights.

The Grail code recognises advancement by merit and acknowledges community structure, but, above all, it is entirely democratic. Whether apprehended in its physical or spiritual dimension, the Grail belongs to leaders and followers alike. It also belongs to the land and the environment, requiring that all should be "as one" in a common, unified Service.

Throughout the ages, parliaments and governments have had as much trouble as the Church in confronting the Messianic social code, and the position is no different today. Presidents and prime ministers are 'elected' by the people. They are supposed to represent the people. But do they? In actual fact, they don't. They are always affiliated to a political party, and they achieve their positions by way of majority party vote. But not everybody takes the trouble to vote, and sometimes there are more than two parties to vote for. Consequently, at any given time, more than half the people of a nation may not be represented by the political party in power. In this regard, even though a 'majority vote' has been applied, the democratic principle fails. What emerges is not "government by the people, for the people", but "government of the people".

Jesus confronted a very similar situation in the first century. At that time, Jerusalem and Judaea were under Roman occupation, with King Herod and the Governor, Pontius Pilate, both appointed by Rome. But who represented the people? The people were not Romans; they were Holy Land Jews-Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and the like. Apart from that, there were large numbers of Samaritans and Gentiles (non-Jews, the Arab races). Who represented them? The answer is "no one"-until Jesus made it his mission to do so.

This was the beginning of the Grail code of non-affiliated princely service-a code perpetuated by the Messianic dynasts in their continuing role as "common fathers" to the people. The Grail code is based on the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality, and it was particularly apparent in the American and French revolutions, both of which discarded the lordship of despotic aristocracy. But what has replaced it? It has been replaced by party politics and largely non-representative government.

From the Middle Ages there were a number of chivalric and military orders specifically attached to the Messianic Blood Royal in Britain and Europe. They included the Order of the Realm of Sion and the Order of the Sacred Sepulchre. But the most prestigious of all was the Sovereign Order of the Sangréal-the Knights of the Holy Grail. This was a dynastic order of Scotland's Royal House of Stewart, the royal house which in the 14th century introduced the unicorn of the Cathars as the sovereign emblem of Scotland. Shortly afterwards, they introduced the prestigious Order of the Unicorn, which carried the Grail motto "All as One".

Like King Arthur, the Stewart Kings also had a dual Desposynic heritage from both Jesus and his brother James. In fact, from the 1370s they were the senior house of the Messianic line, and they were Europe's longest-reigning dynasty, holding their crown for 317 years until finally deposed by the Anglican Church in 1688. They were deposed because, in compliance with the Grail code, they claimed affinity to God and the nation before Parliament, the Church and the aristocracy.

Today, the senior legitimate descendant in this line is HRH Prince Michael Stewart, Count of Albany (whose own book, The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, is scheduled for publication by Element Books in May 1998).

And now to a question that I have frequently been asked in the months since Bloodline of the Holy Grail was published. The question is: why is all this information coming to light at this particular time?

The fact is that the information has never been suppressed by those whom it concerns. It has been suppressed by outside power-seekers who have sought to serve their own ends, rather than serve the communities they are supposed to represent.

Today, however, we are in a new age of 'questing', as many people grow more disillusioned with the establishment dogmas that prevail. We live in an age of satellite communications, sound-barrier travel, computers and the Internet-so the world is effectively much smaller than before. In such an environment, news travels very quickly, and the truth is far more difficult to restrain.

Also, the very fabric of the 'male-dominated' Church and governmental structures is being questioned, and it is generally perceived that the old doctrines of spiritual control and territorial management are not working. More and more people are searching for the original, uncluttered roots of their faith, and for their purpose in society. They are seeking more effective forms of administration to combat the all-too-apparent slide into social and moral decline. They are, in fact, questing for the Holy Grail.

This quest for new enlightenment is considerably heightened by the coming new millennium, and there is a widespread feeling that this should also present a new Renaissance, an era of rebirth wherein the precepts of the Grail code are acknowledged and practised-the precepts of liberty, fraternity and equality.

Grail lore spells out loud and clear that the wound of the Fisher King must be healed if the wasteland is to return to fertility. And so, given that I had been afforded privileged access over past years to the archives of the Knights Templars, the Celtic Church and the Messianic sovereign houses of Europe, the time arrived for me to play my own small part in trying to heal the age-old wound of the Fisher King. The result was my book, Bloodline of the Holy Grail.


Genesis of the Grail Kings

Whereas the research for this book's predecessor, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, was New Testament based, Genesis of the Grail Kings concentrates on Old Testament times, particularly on the early stories from the books of Genesis and Exodus.

As discovered in previous studies, the Gospel texts which have been in the public domain for centuries often bear little relation to the first-hand accounts of the era to which they relate.

The New Testament, as we know it, was contrived by the 4th-century bishops to support the newly manipulated Christian faith and, in just the same way, the Old Testament scriptures were designed to uphold the emergent Hebrew faith, rather than to represent historical fact.

Clearly, one has to get back to the pre-biblical writings in order to find any anomalies, but the problem in scriptural terms is that the earliest Hebrew writings (which were restructured many centuries later) were themselves only written between the 6th and the 1st centuries BC, so they are not likely to be wholly authentic in their telling of accounts from thousands of years before. Indeed, it is plain that this is the case because, when these books were first written, their express purpose was to convey the history of a religion which did not actually emerge until well into the ancestral story.

The Bible explains that the Bloodline story began with Adam and Eve, from whose third son Seth evolved a line which progressed through Methuselah, Noah and, eventually, to Abraham who became the great patriarch of the Hebrew nation. The text relates that Abraham brought his family westwards out of Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) to the land of Canaan (Palestine), from where some of his descendants moved into Egypt. After many generations, they journeyed back into Canaan where, in time, David of Bethlehem became king of the newly defined kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

If viewed as it is presented in the scriptures, this is a fascinating saga, but there is nothing anywhere to indicate why the ancestral line of David and his subsequent heirs was in any way special. In fact, quite the reverse is the case; his ancestors are portrayed as a succession of wandering territory seekers, who are seen to be of no particular significance until the time of King David himself.

Their biblical history bears no comparison to, say, the contemporary pharaohs of ancient Egypt, but their significance, we are told, comes from the fact that Abraham and his descendants were designated as 'God's chosen people'. This, of course, leaves us wondering because, according to the Old Testament, their God led them through nothing but a succession of famines, wars and general hardship, rather than acting throughout as their merciful shepherd - an image which is only portrayed from time to time.

Given that the first group of these ultimately canonical books was written while the Jews were held captive in Mesopotamian Babylon in the 6th century BC, it is apparent that Babylon was where the original records were then held. In fact, from the time of Adam, through some nineteen said generations down to Abraham, the whole of Hebrew patriarchal history was Mesopotamian. More specifically, the history was from Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, where the ancient Sumerians did indeed refer to the grass-lands of the Euphrates delta as the Eden.

When researching for Bloodline of the Holy Grail, it was apparent that good sources for background information were the various Gospels and texts that were not selected by the bishops for inclusion in the canonical New Testament - the books that were strategically ignored. Similarly, there were books that were excluded from the Old Testament: the books of Enoch and Jubilees, for example.

A further work, to which attention is specifically drawn in the Old Testament books of Joshua and 2-Samuel, is the book of Jasher. But despite Jasher's apparent importance to the Hebrew writers, it was not included in the final selection. Also, the book of Numbers draws our attention to the book of The Wars of Jehovah, while in the book of Isaiah we are directed towards the book of The Lord. The very fact that these writings are mentioned in the Bible means that they must pre-date the Old Testament. Indeed, they are all cited as being important but, for one reason or another, the editors saw fit to exclude them when the canonical selection was made.

It has often been wondered why the biblical God of the Hebrews led them through trials, tribulations, floods and disaster when, from time to time, he appears to have performed with a quite contrary and merciful personality. The answer is that, although now seemingly embraced in a general context as the One God by the Jewish and Christian churches, there was originally a distinct difference between the figures of Jehovah and the Lord. They were, in practice, quite separate deities. The god referred to as Jehovah was traditionally a storm god - a god of wrath and vengeance, whereas the god referred to as the Lord emerges as a god of fertility and wisdom.

In early times, the prevailing Hebrew word for Lord was Adon, whereas the apparent personal name of Jehovah was not used at all. It came from the original Hebrew stem YHWH (Yahweh), which meant 'I am that I am - a statement said to have been made by God to Moses on Mount Sinai hundreds of years after the time of Abraham. However, the Bible also makes it clear that the God of Abraham was actually called El Shaddai, which means Lofty Mountain.

Jehovah was, therefore, not a name at all. The early texts refer simply to El Shaddai and to his opposing counterpart Adon. The Canaanites called these gods El Elyon and Baal, meaning precisely the same things: Lofty Mountain and Lord. In modern Bibles, the definitions God and Lord are used and intermixed throughout as if they referred to the same Jehovah character, but originally they did not. One was a vengeful god (a people suppressor), and the other was a social god (a people supporter). Additionally, in contrast to Bible teachings, the various traditions relate that these gods both had parents, wives, sons and daughters.

Throughout the patriarchal era, the emergent Hebrews endeavoured to support Adon the Lord but, at every turn, El Shaddai (the storm god Jehovah) retaliated with floods, tempests, famines and general destruction. Even at the time of the Captivity (around 586 BC), the Bible explains that Jerusalem was overthrown at Jehovah's bidding. Tens of thousands of Israelites were then taken hostage into Babylon simply because one of their past kings (a descendant of King David) had erected altars in veneration of Baal the Adon.

It was during the course of this Captivity that the Israelites finally conceded. They decided, after generations of Adon support, to succumb to the opposing god of wrath, developing a new religion out of sheer fear of his retribution. It was, in fact, at this time that the apparent name of Jehovah first appeared - little more than 500 years before the time of Jesus. Subsequently, the Christian Church took Jehovah on board as well, calling him simply God, and all the hitherto social concepts of Adon were totally discarded. The two religions were henceforth both faiths of fear, and even today their followers are classified as 'God fearing'.

This leaves us with the knowledge that, within an overall pantheon of gods and goddesses (many of whom are actually named in the Bible), there were two predominant and opposing gods. In different cultures they have been called El Elyon and Baal, El Shaddai and Adon, Ahriman and Mazda, Jehovah and Lord, God and Father - but these styles are not personal names; they are all titular definitions.

To discover the identities of these gods, we have to look no further than where they were first recorded as being operative. In this regard, ancient Canaanite texts (discovered in Syria in the 1920s) reveal that their respective courts were in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in Mesopotamian Sumer - above the Eden delta of the Persian Gulf.

Sumerian written records can be traced back to the 3rd millennium BC and they explain that the gods in question were brothers. In Sumer, the storm-god who eventually became known as Jehovah was called Enlil or Ilu-kur-gal (meaning Lofty One of the Mountain) and his brother, who became Adon the Lord, was called Enki - a very appropriate name because Enki means Archetype.

The texts inform us that it was Enlil who brought the Flood; it was Enlil who destroyed Ur and Babylon, and it was Enlil who constantly opposed the education and enlightenment of humankind. Indeed an early Syrian text relates that it was Enlil-Jehovah who obliterated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah on the Dead Sea - not because they were dens of wickedness as is generally taught, but because they were great centres of wisdom and learning.

It was Enki, on the other hand, who (despite the vengeful wrath of his brother) granted the Sumerians access to the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. It was Enki who set up the escape strategy during the Flood, and it was Enki who passed over the time-honoured Tables of Destiny - the tablets of scientific law which became the bedrock of the early mystery schools in Egypt.

Many books mention the hermetic school of Pharaoh Tuthmosis III, who reigned about 1450 BC, but it is not generally known that the school he inherited was the original Court of the Dragon, founded by the priests of Mendes in about 2200 BC. It was later ratified by the 12th-dynasty Queen Sobeknefru as a sovereign and priestly Order, to be eventually passed from Egypt to the Kings of Jerusalem and the Black Sea Princes of Scythia. Around 600 years ago King Sigismund of Hungary reconstituted the Order, which exists today as the Imperial and Royal Court of the Dragon Sovereignty under the auspices of the House of Vere of Anjou.

The kings of the early succession (who reigned in Sumer and Egypt before becoming Kings of Israel) were anointed upon installation with the fat of the Dragon: the sacred crocodile. This noble beast was referred to in Egypt as the Messeh (from which derived the Hebrew verb 'to anoint') - and the Kings of this dynastic succession were referred to as Dragons or Messiahs (meaning Anointed Ones). In times of conflict, when the armies of different kingdoms were conjoined, an overall leader was chosen and he was called the Great Dragon (the King-of-kings) or, as we better know the name in its old Celtic form, the Pendragon.

An interesting aspect of the word 'kingship' is that it was identical with kinship - and kin means 'blood-relative'. In its original form kinship was kainship, and the first King of the Messianic succession was the biblical Cain (Kain), Head of the Sumerian House of Kish. On recognizing this, one can immediately see an early anomaly in the traditional Genesis story, for the historical line to David and Jesus was not from Adam and Eve's son Seth at all. It was from Eve's son Cain, whose recorded successors (although given little space in the Old Testament) were the first great kings of Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Two more important features then come to light when reading the Bible with this knowledge in mind. Conventional teaching generally cites Cain as being the first son of Adam and Eve - but he was not; even the book of Genesis tells us that he was not. In fact, it confirms how Eve told Adam that Cain's father was the Lord, who was of course Enki the Archetype. Even outside the Bible, the writings of the Hebrew Talmud and Midrash make it quite plain that Cain was not the son of Adam.

So what else is wrongly taught about this particular aspect of history? The book of Genesis (in its English translated form) tells us that Cain was 'a tiller of the ground' - but this is not what the original texts say at all. What they say is that Cain had 'dominion over the earth', which is a rather different matter when considering his kingly status.

The Bible translators appear to have had a constant problem with the word Earth - often translating it to ground, clay or dust, instead of recognizing it as relating to The Earth. Even in the case of Adam and Eve, the translators made glaring errors. The Bible says, 'Male and female created he them, and he called their name Adam'. Older writings use the more complete word Adāma, which means 'of the Earth'. However, this did not mean they were made of dirt; it means (as the Anchor Hebrew Bible explains in precise terms) that they were Earthlings.

Around 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve (known then as Atābba and Kāva - and jointly called the Adāma) were purpose-bred for kingship by Enki and his sister-wife Nīn-khursag. This took place at a 'creation chamber' which the Sumerian annals refer to as the House of Shimtī (Shi-im-tī meaning 'breath - wind - life' ). Adam and Eve were certainly not the first people on Earth, but they were the first of the alchemically devised kingly succession. Nīn-khursag was called the Lady of the Embryo or the Lady of Life, and she was the surrogate mother for Atābba and Kāva, who were created from human ova fertilized by the Lord Enki.

It was because of Nīn-khursag's title, Lady of Life, that Kāva was later given the same distinction by the Hebrews. Indeed, the name Kāva (Ava or Eve) was subsequently said to mean 'life'. There is an interesting parallel here because, in Sumerian, the style Lady of Life was Nīn-tī (Nīn meaning Lady, and tī meaning Life). However, another Sumerian word, ti (with the longer pronunciation: 'tee') meant 'rib' - and it was by virtue of the Hebrews' misunderstanding of the two words, tī and ti, that Eve became incorrectly associated with Adam's rib.

Both Enki and Nīn-khursag (along with their brother Enlil - the later Jehovah) belonged to a pantheon of gods and goddesses referred to as the Anunnaki which, in Sumerian, means 'Heaven came to Earth' (An-unna-ki). In fact, the Grand Assembly of the Anunnaki (later called the Court of the Elohim) is actually mentioned in the Old Testament's Psalm No. 82, wherein Jehovah makes his bid for supreme power over the other gods.

According to the Dragon tradition, the importance of Cain was that he was directly produced by Enki and Kāva, so his blood was three-quarters Anunnaki, while his half-brothers, Hevel and Satānael (better known as Abel and Seth), were less than half Anunnaki, being the offspring of Atābba and Kāva (Adam and Eve). Cain's Anunnaki blood was so advanced that it was said that his brother Abel's blood was earthbound by comparison. It was related in the scriptures that Cain 'rose far above Abel', so that his brother's blood was swallowed into the ground - butm this original description was thoroughly misinterpreted for the modern Bible, which now claims that Cain 'rose up against Abel' and spilled his blood upon the ground. This is not the same thing at all.

The story can now be progressed by considering the oldest Grant of Arms in sovereign history - an entitlement which denoted the Messianic Dragon bloodline for all time. The Sumerians referred to this insignia as the Gra-al, but biblical history refers to it as the Mark of Cain. This Mark is portrayed by the modern Church as if it were some form of curse, but it is not defined as such in the Bible. Genesis actually relates that, having got into an argument with Jehovah over a matter of sovereign observance, Cain feared for his life. Consequently, the Lord placed a mark upon Cain, swearing sevenfold vengeance against his enemies.

It has never been fully understood why Jehovah should decide to protect Cain when it was he who held the grievance against him. But the fact is that Jehovah did not make this decision; the mark was settled upon Cain by the Lord - and the Lord (the Adon) was not Jehovah but Cain's own Father, Enki.

Few people ever think to enquire about the supposed enemies of Cain as defined in Genesis. Who could they possibly have been? Where would they have come from? According to the Bible only Adam and Eve, along with their sons Cain and Abel, existed - and Cain had apparently killed Abel. Therefore, if one accepts the text as it stands, there was no one around to be Cain's enemy!

The Sumerian Gra-al, which biblical tradition calls the Mark of Cain, was an emblem dignified as the Cup of the Waters, or the Rosi-Crucis (the Dew Cup), and it was identified in all records (including those of Egypt, Phoenicia and the Hebrew annals) as being an upright, centred Red Cross within a Circle. Throughout the ages it was developed and embellished, but it has always remained essentially the same and is recognized as being the original symbol of the Holy Grail.

Another anomaly is presented soon afterwards in Genesis when we are told that Cain found himself a wife. Who on earth were her parents if Adam and Eve were the only couple alive? Then, without confronting this anomaly at all, Genesis proceeds to list the names of Cain's descendants! It becomes clear from all this that some very important information has been edited from the Old Testament narrative. Plainly, there were plenty of other people around at the time and it is not difficult to find their stories outside the Bible. Quite apart from the Sumerian records, even old Hebrew and early Christian texts give far more information in this regard.

In order to further enhance the historical succession from Cain, he was married to his half-sister, a pure-bred Anunnaki princess called Luluwa. Her father was Enki and her mother was Lilith, a granddaughter of Enlil. Although not giving the name of Cain's wife, the Bible does name their younger son Enoch (Henōch), while the Sumerian records cite his elder son and kingly successor Atūn, who is perhaps better known as King Etāna of Kish.

Etāna was said to have 'walked with the gods' and was fed from the Plant of Birth (or the Tree of Life as it is called in Genesis). Henceforth, the kings of the line were designated as being the twigs of the Tree - and the ancient word for twig was 'klone' (clone). In later times, this Plant or Tree was redefined as a Vine - and so the Graal, the Vine and the Messianic Bloodline became entwined in the Holy Grail literature of subsequent ages.

By virtue of their contrived breeding, this kingly succession was modelled specifically for leadership and, in all aspects of knowledge, culture, awareness, wisdom and intuition, they were highly advanced against their mundane contemporaries. In order to keep their blood as pure as possible, they always married within a close kinship, for it was fully recognized that the prominent gene of the succession was carried within the blood of the mother. Today we call this the Mitochondrial DNA. And so was born a tradition inherited by their kingly descendants in Egypt, and by the later Celtic rulers of Europe. True kingship, it was maintained, was transferred through the female and kingly marriages were, therefore, strategically cemented with maternal half-sisters or matrilinear first cousins.

Having reached the point where the Plant of Birth is first mentioned in the records, we are at about 3500 BC, and it is at this stage that we begin to learn how the kingly succession was orally fed with bodily supplements from the early days. This original practice continued for more than 1000 years until the nourishment programme became wholly scientific and alchemical.

Before discussing the kingly diet in detail, it is worth considering why it was that the all-important Blood Royal (the Sangréal) which progressed from Cain and his sons was strategically ignored by the Hebrews and the Christian Church in favour of their promoting a parallel junior line from Adam's son Seth. Why was it that the immediate Cainite dynasty was eventually shunned by the fearful disciples of Enlil-Jehovah?

In the Old Testament book of Genesis, the lines of descent are given from Cain and from his half-brother Seth, but it is of interest to note that the names detailed in the early generations are pretty much the same in each list, although given in a different order: Enoch, Jared, Mahalaleel, Methuselah and Lamech. In view of this, it has often been suggested that the line from Seth down to Lamech's son Noah was contrived by the Bible compilers so as to avoid showing the true descent from Cain to the time of Noah. If this were the case, then something must have occurred during the lifetime of Noah to cause the ancestral story to be veiled by the later writers, as is indeed conveyed in the Bible itself.

At that stage in the family's history, the vengeful Jehovah apparently warned Noah and his sons against the ingestion of blood - an edict which became expressly important to the later Hebrew way of life. It has long been a customary Jewish practice to hang meat for bloodletting before cooking and consumption but, in contrast, the Christian faith is especially concerned with the figurative ingestion of blood. In the Christian tradition it is customary to take the Communion sacrament (the Eucharist), wherein wine is drunk from the sacred chalice, symbolically representing the blood of Jesus: the life-blood of the Messianic Vine.

Could it be, therefore, that the modern Christian custom is an unwitting throw-back to some distant pre-Noah ritual which Jehovah opposed? If so, then since it is known that the Chalice is a wholly female symbol which has been emblematic of the womb from the earliest times (as discussed in Bloodline of the Holy Grail), might this Messianic life-blood (now symbolized by wine) have been an extract of menstrual blood in original times? The answer to these questions is Yes, that was precisely the custom - but it was not so unsavoury as it might seem. Indeed, few of us think to enquire about the ultimate sources of many of today's ingested medicines and bodily supplements - and those in the know would often be reluctant to tell us. The Premarin hormone, for example, comes from the urine of pregnant mares, while certain growth hormones and Insulin are manufactured from E.coli - a faecal bacterium.

The blood extract in question was, in the first instance, that of Enki's sister-wife Nīn-khursag, the designated Lady of Life. It was a sacred Anunnaki essence, defined as the most potent of all life-forces and venerated as being Star Fire. It was from the womb of Nīn-khursag that the royal line was born and it was with her blood, the divine Star Fire, that the Dragon succession was supplementally fed. In ancient Egypt, Nīn-khursag was called Isis and, by either name, she was the ultimate mother of the Messianic line, for hers was the matrilinear gene which constituted the kingly beginning.

It is worth remembering, therefore, that the biblical edict to abstain from blood came not from Enki the Wise, but from Enlil-Jehovah, the god of wrath and vengeance who had instigated the Flood, wrought havoc in Ur and Babylon, and had endeavoured to deceive Adam by saying that he would die if he ate from the Tree of Knowledge. This was not a god who liked people and the Sumerian records are very clear in this regard. Hence, if he forbade the taking of blood, this was not likely to have been an edict for the benefit of Noah and his descendants; it was most probably to their detriment.

In strict terms, the original Star Fire was the lunar essence of the Goddess, but even in an everyday mundane environment, menstruum contains the most valuable endocrinal secretions, particularly those of the pineal and pituitary glands. The brain's pineal gland in particular was directly associated with the Tree of Life, for this tiny gland was said to secrete the very essence of active longevity, referred to as soma - or as the Greeks called it, ambrosia.

In mystic circles, the menstrual flow-er (she who flows) has long been the designated flower, and is represented as a lily or a lotus. Indeed, the definition 'flow-er' is the very root of the modern word flower. In ancient Sumer, the key females of the royal succession were all venerated as lilies, having such names as Lili, Luluwa, Lilith, Lilutu and Lillette.

In pictorial representation, the Messianic Dragon bore little relation to the winged, fire-breathing beast of later western mythology. It was, in essence, a large-jawed serpent with four legs - very much like a crocodile or a monitor. This was the sacred Messeh whose name was Draco. This sovereign beast was a divine emblem of the Egyptian pharaohs, a symbol of the Egyptian Therapeutate in Karnak and Qumrān, while also being the Bistea Neptunis sea-serpent of the descendant Merovingian Fisher Kings in Gaul.

In old Hebrew texts references to serpents are made by use of the word nahash (from the stem NHSH), but this does not relate to serpents in the way that we might perceive them as venomous snakes. It relates to serpents in their traditional capacity as bringers of wisdom and enlightenment - for the word nahash actually meant 'to decipher', or 'to find out'. Serpents, in one form or another, were always associated with wisdom and healing - with the Trees of Life and Knowledge being customarily identified with serpents. Indeed the insignia of many of today's medical associations is precisely this image of a serpent coiled around the Plant of Birth - a depiction shown in the reliefs of ancient Sumer to be Enki's own personal emblem.

Interestingly, though, another common emblem for medical relief organizations depicts two coiled serpents, spiralling around the winged caduceus of Hermes the magician. In these instances, the true symbolism of the Star Fire ritual is conveyed and this symbol can be traced back to the very origins of the alchemical mystery schools and gnostic institutions. The records explain that the central staff and entwined serpents represent the spinal cord and the sensory nervous system. The two uppermost wings signify the brain's lateral ventricular structures. Between these wings, above the spinal column, is shown the small central node of the pineal gland.

The combination of the central pineal and its lateral wings has long been referred to as the Swan and in Grail lore (as in some Yogic circles) the Swan is emblematic of the fully enlightened being. This is the ultimate realm of consciousness achieved by the medieval Knights of the Swan - as epitomized by such chivalric figures as Perceval and Lohengrin.

The pineal is a very small gland, shaped like a pine-cone. It is centrally situated within the brain, although outside the ventricles, and not forming a part of the brain-matter as such. About the size of a grain of corn, the gland was thought by the 17th-century French optical scientist, René Descartes, to be the seat of the soul - the point at which the mind and body are conjoined. The ancient Greeks considered likewise and, in the 4th century BC, Herophilus described the pineal as an organ which regulated the flow of thought.

In the days of ancient Sumer, the priests of Anu (the father of Enlil and Enki) perfected and elaborated a ramifying medical science of living substances with menstrual Star Fire being an essential source component. In the first instance, this was pure Anunnaki lunar essence called Gold of the Gods, and it was fed to the kings and queens of the Dragon succession. Later, however, in Egypt and Mediterranea, menstrual extracts were ritually collected from sacred virgin priestesses who were venerated as the Scarlet Women. Indeed, the very word 'ritual' stems from this practice, and from the word ritu (the redness), which defined the sacred ceremony.

Hormonal supplements are, of course, still used by today's organo-therapy establishment, but their inherent secretions (such as melatonin and serotonin) are obtained from the desiccated glands of dead animals and they lack the truly important elements which exist only in live human glandular manufacture.

In the fire symbolism of ancient alchemy, the colour red is synonymous with the metal gold. In some traditions (including the Indian tantras), red is also identified with black. Hence, the goddess Kali is said to be both red and black. The original heritage of Kali was, however, Sumerian, and she was said to be Kalimāth, the sister of Cain's wife Luluwa. Kali was a primary princess of the Dragon house and from her Star Fire association she became the goddess of time, seasons, periods and cycles.

In the early days, therefore, the metals of the alchemists were not common metals, but living essences, and the ancient mysteries were of a physical, not a metaphysical, nature. Indeed, the very word 'secret' has its origin in the hidden knowledge of glandular secretions. Truth was the ritu, from which stems not only ritual, but also the words rite, root and red. The ritu, it was said, reveals itself as physical matter in the form of the purest and most noble of all metals: gold, which was deemed to represent an ultimate truth.

Just as the word secret has its origin in the translation of an ancient word, so too do other related words have their similar bases. In ancient Egypt, the word amen was used to signify something hidden or concealed. The word occult meant very much the same: 'hidden from view' - and yet today we use amen to conclude prayers and hymns, while something occult is deemed sinister. In real terms, however, they both relate to the word secret, and all three words were, at one time or another, connected with the mystic science of endocrinal secretions.

Since Kali was associated with black, the English word 'coal' (denoting that which is black) stems also from her name via the intermediate word kol. In the Hebrew tradition, Bath-Kol (a Kali counterpart) was called the Daughter of the Voice, and the voice was said to originate during a female's puberty. Hence, the womb was associated with the enigmatic voice and Star Fire was said to be the oracular Word of the Womb.

The womb was, therefore, the 'utterer', or the uterus. The Scarlet Women were so called because of their being a direct source of the priestly Star Fire. They were known in Greek as the hierodulai (sacred women) - a word later transformed (via medieval French into English) to 'harlot'. In the early Germanic tongue they were known as horés, which was later Anglicised to 'whores'. However, the word originally meant, quite simply, 'beloved ones'. As explained in good etymological dictionaries, these words were descriptions of high veneration and were never interchangeable with such definitions as prostitute or adulteress. Their now common association was, in fact, a wholly contrived strategy of the medieval Roman Church in its bid to denigrate the noble status of the sacred priestess.

The withdrawal of knowledge of the genuine Star Fire tradition from the public domain occurred when the science of the early adepts and later Gnostics was stifled by the forgers of historic Christianity. A certain amount of the original gnosis (knowledge) is preserved in Talmudic and Rabbinical lore but, in general terms, the mainstream Jews and Christians did all in their power to distort and destroy all traces of the ancient art.

In addition to being the Gold of the Gods, the Anunnaki menstruum was also called the Vehicle of Light, being the ultimate source of manifestation and, in this regard, it was directly equated with the mystical Waters of Creation - the flow of eternal wisdom. It was for this reason that the Rosi-Crucis (Cup of the Waters) became the Mark of Cain and the subsequent emblem of the kingly succession. It was said that the Light remained quite dormant in a spiritually unawakened person, but that it could be awakened and motivated by the spiritual energy of self-will and by constant self-enquiry. This is not an obvious mental process, but a truly thought-free consciousness: a formless plain of pure being or knowingness.

It was this very concept of self-completeness which posed the ultimate problem for Enlil-Jehovah. In contrast, his brother Enki knew that humans who partook of the Tree of Knowledge (the Anunnaki wisdom) and of the Plant of Birth (the Anunnaki Star Fire) could themselves become almost like gods. Even Jehovah was said to have recognized this and Genesis states that when Adam had taken the fruit of the Tree, Jehovah said, 'Behold, the man is become as one of us'.

Enki, the wise guardian of the Tree of Knowledge, also had another name in the Hebrew tradition, wherein he was called Samael (Sama-El) because he was the designated Lord of Sama in Northern Mesopotamia. The teachings of the mystery schools were very specific about the Trees of Life and Knowledge, and they emulated the wisdom of Enki himself, maintaining:

Nothing is obtained simply by wanting and nothing is achieved by relinquishing responsibility to a higher authority. Belief is the act of be-living, for to be live is to believe, and will is the ultimate medium of the self.

The Sumerian annals relate that Cain's son, King Etāna, partook of the Plant of Birth in order to father his own son and heir, King Baali, while the Plant of Birth was itself associated with individual longevity and the office of kingship. It was, in practice, related to Star Fire and to pineal gland activity, and partaking from the Plant of Birth was the ritual of ingesting the Star Fire: the Anunnaki female essence, which they called the 'nectar of supreme excellence'.

In this regard, the Anunnaki flow-er (the flower or lily) was held to be the cup-bearer: the transmitter of the rich food of the matrix. In this capacity, she was called the Rose of Sharon (Sha-ra-on). This derives from the word Sha, meaning Orbit, along with the words Ra and On, relating to the ultimate Temple of Light. Hence, she was the Rose of the Orbit of Light. The significance of this highly venerated station is actually made apparent in the Bible's esoteric Song of Solomon, wherein the Messianic bride proclaims, 'I am the rose of Sharon and the lily of the valleys'.

A Star Fire recipient King was considered to have become qualified for kingship when he reached a predestined state of enlightened consciousness - a state when his aptitudes for wisdom and leadership had been enhanced to a realm of kingship called the Malkū. It was from this Mesopotamian word that the Hebrews derived their words malchus (king) and malkhut (kingdom).

Only in very recent times have medical scientists identified the hormonal secretion of the pineal gland. It was finally isolated in 1968 and the essence was called melatonin, which means 'night-worker' (from the Greek melos, meaning 'black', and tosos, meaning 'labour'). Those with a high melatonin output react strongly against sunlight, which affects their mental capability. They are essentially night operatives and melatonin is called the 'hormone of darkness', being produced only at night or out of sunlight. Exposure to an excess of sunlight actually makes the pineal gland smaller and lessens spiritual awareness, whereas darkness and high pineal activity enhance the keen intuitive knowledge of the subtle mind, while reducing the stress factor.

Melatonin enhances and boosts the body's immune system, and those with high pineal secretion are less likely to develop cancerous diseases. High melatonin production heightens energy, stamina and physical tolerance levels. It is also directly related to sleep patterns, keeping the body temperately regulated with properties that operate through the cardiovascular system. Melatonin is, in fact, the body's most potent and effective antioxidant and it has positive mental and physical anti-ageing properties. This valuable hormone is manufactured by the pineal gland through activating a chemical messenger called serotonin, which transmits nerve impulses across chromosome-pairs at a point called meiosis. This is the moment when the cell nuclei are divided and the chromosomes are halved, to eventually be combined with other half-sets upon fertilization.

Pine-resin was long identified with pineal secretion and was used to make frankincense (the incense of priesthood). Gold, on the other hand, was a traditional symbol of kingship. Hence, gold and frankincense were the traditional substances of the priest-kings of the Messianic line, along with myrrh (a gum resin used as a medical sedative), which was symbolic of death. In the ancient world, higher knowledge was identified as daäth (from which comes the word death). Indeed, the New Testament describes that these three substances, gold, frankincense and myrrh, were presented to Jesus by the Magi, thereby identifying him, beyond doubt, as a hereditary priest-king of the Dragon succession.

Yogic teachers suggest that the pineal gland (which they call the Third Eye, or the Eye of Wisdom) is significant in the process of becoming aware, for it is the ultimate source of the Light. Illuminists and other Rosicrucian adepts have long referred to the pineal as the secret ayin - an ancient word for eye. Interestingly, Enki-Samael was the designated Lord of the Sacred Eye.

It is said that a truly spiritual person can automatically perceive with the Third Eye (the subtle eye of insight), rather than be duped by mundane eyes which reveal only physical presences. Such presences are defined by their place within arbitrary time, but to pineal graduates there is no time to calculate for they live in a dimension where time and space are of little consequence.

And so the Cainite kings of Mesopotamia (the first Dragon Lords of the Messianic bloodline) while already being of high Anunnaki substance, were fed with Anunnaki Star Fire to increase their perception, awareness, and intuition. Consequently, they became masters of knowingness - almost like gods themselves. At the same time, their stamina levels and immune systems were dramatically strengthened so that the anti-ageing properties of the regularly ingested hormonal secretions facilitated extraordinary life-spans.

In addition to the Star Fire ritual, the Bloodline kings were also said to have been nourished with the milk of the Goddess, and it would appear that this contained an enzyme that was itself conducive to active longevity. Today's genetic researchers call this enzyme Telomerase. As recently reported in the Science Journal (Vol 279 - 16 January 1998), corporate studies and those of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, have determined that telomerase has unique anti-ageing properties.

Healthy body cells are programmed to divide many times during a lifetime, but this process of division and replication is finite, so that a non-dividing state is ultimately achieved. This is a crucial factor of ageing. The division potential is controlled by caps at the end of DNA strands (rather like the plastic tips on shoelaces). These caps are the telomeres and, as each cell divides, a piece of telomere is lost. The dividing process ceases when the telomeres have shortened to an optimum and critical length, subsequent to which there is no further cell replication and all that follows is deterioration.

Laboratory experiments with tissue samples have now shown that an application of the genetic enzyme telomerase can prevent telomere shortening upon cell division and replication. Hence, body cells can continue to divide way beyond their naturally restricted programming - just as do cancer cells which achieve immortality through being rich in telomerase.

Telomerase is not usually expressed in normal body tissue but, apart from being present in malignant tumours, it is also apparent in reproductive cells. It seems, therefore, that within our DNA structure is the genetic ability to produce this anti-ageing enzyme, but that the potential has somehow been switched-off and lies dormant. It probably exists within those aspects of our DNA which scientists currently refer to as 'junk'.

In the canonical Bible, we are told that, during the lifetimes of Noah and his sons, Jehovah issued the edict which forbade the ingesting of blood - at least this was the time-frame applied to the edict by the Old Testament compilers in the 6th century BC. It is unlikely, however, that this was the correct time-frame, for at that stage Enlil-Jehovah would have had no such final authority over Anu, Enki and the Grand Assembly of the Anunnaki. Nevertheless, it is apparent that, from that time, the given ages of the patriarchal strain begin to diminish quite considerably, so that from the days of Abraham and Isaac we are presented, in the main, with rather more normal life-spans. In contrast, however, the life-spans of the Sumerian kings in descent from Cain and Etāna continued at a generally high level.

What we do know beyond doubt is that, whatever the realities of the edict and its chronology, a major change in the Star Fire practice became necessary in about 1960 BC. This was when the Bible tells us that Abraham and his family moved northward from Ur of the Chaldees (the capital of Sumer) to Haran in the kingdom of Mari, before turning westward into Canaan. Contemporary historical texts record that Ur was sacked by the King of nearby Elam soon after 2000 BC and, although the city was rebuilt, the new power centre was established at Haran. But Haran was not just the name of a flourishing city, it was the name of Abraham's brother (the father of Lot). Existing documents (discovered in 1934) also reveal that other cities in Mesopotamia were similarly named in accordance with Abraham's forebears - cities such as Terah (Abraham's father), Nahor (Terah's father), Serug (Nahor's father), and Peleg (Serug's grandfather).

Quite apparently, in line with all the Sumerian evidence which supports the kingly line from Cain, these lately discovered reports confirm that the immediate family of Abraham (in the succession after Noah) were also great commissioners of the region in general. Clearly, the patriarchs represented no ordinary family, but constituted a very powerful dynasty. But why would such a long-standing heritage of prominence and renown come to an abrupt end and force Abraham out of Mesopotamia into Canaan?

The answer is to be found in clay tablets which can be dated to about 1960 BC. They detail that, at that time, everything changed in the hitherto sacred land of Sumer when invaders came in from all sides. They were Akkadians from the north, Amorites from Syria and Elamites from Persia. The text continues:

When they overthrew, when order they destroyed. Then like a deluge all things together consumed. Whereunto, Oh Sumer! did they change thee? The Sacred Dynasty from the Temple they exiled.

It was at this stage of Sumerian history that the empire fell and Abraham was forced to flee northward from the city of Ur. But what had happened to the Anunnaki: the Grand Assembly of gods who had established everything? Once more, the text continues:

Ur is destroyed, bitter is its lament. The country's blood now fills its holes like hot bronze in a mould. Bodies dissolve like fat in the sun. Our temple is destroyed. Smoke lies on our cities like a shroud. The gods have abandoned us like migrating birds.

In historical terms, this total collapse of the Sumerian empire follows the founding of Babylon by King Ur-Baba in about 2000 BC. Indeed, the story of the Tower of Babel, and the resultant wrath of Jehovah precisely fits the time-frame of the Sumerians' own abandonment by the Anunnaki.

The story in Genesis relates that the people, who were hitherto said by Jehovah to be 'very good', were severely punished because of a strange transgression which had not previously been ruled upon. The apparent transgression was that they all spoke the same language - and the unique language which they all spoke was, of course, Sumerian: the first comprehensively written language on earth.

For a reason which is not made clear in the Bible, the Genesis text explains that Jehovah was not happy about the Tower of Babel - and so he 'did come down, and did confound the language of all the earth'. The Sumerian historical documents tell much the same story, except that the confounding of language is far better explained by the hordes of foreign invaders who came into the region. It transpires that this invasion was the direct result of friction among the Anunnaki, for at Anu's retirement from the Grand Assembly his elder son Enlil-Jehovah assumed the presidency. He proclaimed that he was master of all the Earth, although his brother Enki-Samael could retain sovereignty of the seas.

Enki was not at all happy about his brother's claim because, although Enlil was the elder of the two, his mother (Ki) was their father Anu's junior sister, whereas Enki's mother (Antu) was the senior sister. True kingship, claimed Enki, progressed as a matrilinear institution through the female line, and by this right of descent Enki maintained that he was the firstborn of the royal succession:

I am Enki - he stated - the great brother of the gods. I am he who has been born as the first son of the divine Anu.

As a result, the people of Babylon announced their allegiance to Enki and his son Marduk, which proved unacceptable to Enlil-Jehovah. Having lost his popularity, he opened the gates of Sumer to let in invaders from the surrounding nations. The scribes recorded that he brought about the great and terrible storm which caused the annihilation of all the Sumerian culture, so that their language was no longer predominant and there was a great confusion of tongues.

All the work which had been accomplished in building up a unique civilization over thousands of years was destroyed in one fell swoop by Enlil-Jehovah simply because he would not share authority with his brother Enki. The records confirm that, at that moment in Sumerian history, the Grand Assembly of the Anunnaki simply vacated their seats and departed 'like migrating birds'.

For all that had occurred to the point of Anunnaki departure, an urgent and significant change in kingly procedure was then necessary because the Anunnaki Star Fire was no longer available. A substitute had to be found and, as previously mentioned, the priestly Scarlet Women had been purpose-bred for this. However, it was clear that, however carefully mated, their genetic essence would weaken through the generations having no further Anunnaki input.

In the event, the creation of a more permanent and versatile substitute for the Star Fire was not a problem, for this was the province of a group of previously trained metallurgists whom Enki had called the Master Craftsmen. The first of these great metallurgists to be trained had been Tubal-cain the vulcan - a sixth-generation descendant of Cain, who is remembered today in modern Freemasonry.

In consideration of the Bible's New Testament, it is of particular interest to note that Jesus's father, Joseph, was himself recorded in the early Gospels as being a Master Craftsman. In modern English-language Bibles, he is described as a carpenter, but this is a blatant mistranslation. The word 'carpenter' was wrongly derived from the Greek ho-tekton (a derivative of the Semitic naggar) which actually defined a Master of the Craft (or Master Craftsman). Joseph was, therefore, not a wood-worker, but a learned alchemical metallurgist in the manner of his ancestral forebears.

In the Old Testament book of Exodus, at the time of Moses, we are introduced to a certain Bezaleel (the son of Uri Ben Hur) who is said to have been filled with the spirit of the Elohim (the Anunnaki) in wisdom, understanding and knowledge. We learn, furthermore, that Bezaleel was a skilled goldsmith and Master Craftsman who was placed in overall charge of building the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant.

In detailing how Bezaleel should manufacture various crowns, rings, bowls and a candlestick - all of pure gold - the Bible text adds to the list something called the 'shewbread' of the Covenant and, without further explanation, the deed is seen to be done.

Although the word 'covenant' has come to be identified with contractual agreements, it originally meant 'to eat bread with', and it is pertinent to note that the Christian Lord's Prayer (which was itself transposed from an Egyptian equivalent) specifies, 'Give us this day our daily bread'. This is often taken to relate to sustenance in general terms, but in the original tradition the reference was more specifically directed to the enigmatic shewbread - the golden bread of Bezaleel.

The book of Leviticus also refers to the shewbread, stating: 'And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof ... And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row". The use of the word 'flour' in English translations is actually incorrect and the word 'powder' would be more accurate. The records of the mystery schools cite rather more precisely that shewbread was made with the white powder of gold, which is especially significant because it is stated in Exodus that Moses took the golden calf which the Israelites had made, 'and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to a powder'.

In this instance, the correct word 'powder' is used - but firing gold does not, of course, produce powder; it actually produces molten gold. So what was this magical white powder? Is there a way of using heat to transform metallic gold into a white powder which is ingestible and beneficial? Indeed there is, and it is here that the foremost alchemical principle of the Master Craftsmen was applied: 'To make gold, you must take gold'.

Gold is the most noble of metals and was always representative of Truth. Through the regular use of Anunnaki Star Fire (the Gold of the Gods) the recipients had been moved into realms of heightened awareness and consciousness because of its inherent melatonin and serotonin.

This was the realm of advanced enlightenment which was called the Plane of Sharon and the Star Fire gold was deemed to be the ultimate route to the Light. Hence, the heavy, mundane person (lead) could be elevated to a heightened state of awareness (perceived as gold), and this was the root of all alchemical lore thereafter.

The shewbread (or as the Egyptians called it, scheffa-food) was a traditional entitlement of the Israelite and Egyptian Messiahs, for the early pharaohs were themselves fully consecrated priest-kings of the Grail bloodline, having descended through King Nimrod in the Cainite succession.

In ancient Egypt, the scheffa-food was always depicted as a conical cake. This metallic bread was used to feed the Light body, as against the physical body, and the Light body (the Ka) was deemed to be the consciousness. As far back as 2200 BC, the pharaohs were using this supplement to enhance their pituitary and pineal activity, thereby heightening their perception, awareness and intuition - but only the metallurgical adepts of the mystery schools (the Master Craftsmen of the Dragon Court) knew the secret of its manufacture.

In the Egyptian Book of the Dead (the oldest complete book in the world), the pharaoh in search of ultimate food of enlightenment asks, at every stage of his journey, the single overriding question, 'What is it?' - a question which in the Hebrew language (as explained in The Antiquities of the Jews) was asked by the single word: Manna?

When the Ark of the Covenant was completed, Aaron was said to have placed an omer of manna into the Ark. This sacred manna was commonly associated with a mystical form of bread: the shewbread or, as it was called in Tubal-cain's Mesopotamia, the shem-an-na. At this point, we come to a particularly important definition of the shewbread for, according to the Master Craftsmen, this conically-shaped (or shem-shaped) food was made of 'highward fire-stone'.

In the New Testament book of the Revelation it is related: To him that overcometh, I will give to eat of the hidden manna.

And will give him a white stone.

Before investigating the precise nature of the white stone of the shem-an-na (the bread made from the white powder of alchemical gold), it is worth considering the famous statue of Priest-king Melchizedek at Chartres Cathedral in France. The statue portrays Melchizedek with a cup containing a stone in representation of the bread and wine which he apparently offered to Abraham, according to the book of Genesis. The wine, as we know, was emblematic of the sacred Star Fire (just as Communion wine represents the Messianic blood today), but the true importance of the imagery is that the bread/stone is held within the

cup, thereby signifying that Star Fire was replaced by a substitute nourishment at the very time of Melchizedek and Abraham. This substitute was made from shem-an-na - the white powder of gold, which the Mesopotamians called 'highward fire-stone'.

The object of the substitute was very straightforward. Instead of feeding the recipient with a direct hormonal supplement, the powder had its effect on the endocrinal system (particularly on the pineal gland), thereby causing the recipient to manufacture his own super high levels of hormones such as melatonin. In the famous Middle-Age Grail romance of Parzival, by Wolfram von Eschenbach, it is said of the Temple knights of Grail Castle:

They live by virtue of a stone most pure. If you do not know its name, now learn: it is called lapis exilis. By the power of the stone the phoenix is burned to ashes. But the ashes speedily restore it to life.

The phoenix thus moults, and thereupon gives out a bright light, so that it is as beautiful as before.

Many have wondered about the name lapis exilis because it appears to be a play on words, combining two elements. Firstly, it is lapis ex caelis - meaning 'stone from the heavens'. Secondly, it is lapis elixir - the Philosophers' Stone by which base elements are transformed to higher states of being. Either way, or both, it relates directly to the highward fire-stone - the shem-an-na of the exotic Star Fire substitute.

The key to the Parzival allegory lies in the description that the phoenix is 'burned to ashes', but from those very ashes comes the great enlightenment. So, what exactly is a phoenix? It is a mythical bird, one might answer - but this would be quite wrong. The word 'phoenix' is far older than the bennu-bird mythology and it is, in fact, ancient Greco-Phoenician. Phoenix means 'crimson' or 'red-gold'.

An old Alexandrian alchemical text makes particular mention of the weight of the fire-stone - which it calls the Stone of Paradise. It states that, 'when placed in the scales, the stone can outweigh its quantity of gold, but when it is transposed to dust, even a feather will tip the scales against it'. In terms of a mathematical formula, this was written as: 0 = (+1) + (-1). This appears to be a very straightforward sum at first glance, because (+1) + (-1) does indeed equal '0'. But when applied to physical matter it is actually an impossibility because it relies upon using a positive and an equivalent negative to produce nothing.

The moment one has a positive piece of something it is not possible to add an equivalent negative of that something to produce nothing. At best, one could move the positive something out of immediate sight - but it would still exist and would, therefore, not be nothing. The only way to turn something into nothing as far as the material field is concerned is to translate the something into another dimension so that it physically disappears from the mundane environment. If that process is achieved then the proof of achievement would lie in the fact that its weight also disappears.

What then is it that can outweigh itself, but can also underweigh itself and become nothing? What then is it that can be gold, but can be fired and transposed to dust? It is the Phoenix: the red-gold that will fire to ashes, but will then be restored to enlightenment. It is the golden calf that Moses burned to a powder. It is the highward fire-stone of the shem-an-na - and the Sumerian records indicate that this was not made of stone at all, but of shining metal.

In the alchemical tradition, the Philosophers' Stone is said to be that which translates base elements into gold. This is deemed to be the case in both the metallurgical sense and in the spiritual sense of higher enlightenment. In the physical sense, however, we must return to the oldest of all alchemical rules of the earliest mystery school - and that is: 'To make gold, you must take gold'. Hence, it is determined that there are two distinctly separate forms of physical gold: the straightforward metal as we know it and a much higher state of gold - that is gold in a different dimension of perceived matter. This is the white powder of gold: the hidden manna, whose secret manufacture was known only to the Master Craftsmen.

So, what precisely is the 'highward' state which converts gold into a sweet-tasting impalpable white powder? It is that which modern science now calls the 'high-spin' state. A normal atom has around it a screening potential - a positive screening produced by the nucleus. The majority of electrons going round the nucleus are within this screening potential, except for the very outer electrons. However, the nucleus goes to the high-spin state when the positive screening potential expands to bring all of the electrons under the control of the nucleus.

Electrons normally travel around the nucleus in pairs - a forward-spin electron and a reverse-spin electron - but when these come under the influence of a high-spin nucleus all the forward-spin electrons become correlated with the reverse-spin electrons. When perfectly correlated, the electrons turn to pure white light and it is quite impossible for the individual atoms in the high-spin substance to link together. Hence, they cannot reform as metal and the whole remains simply an impalpable, monatomic white powder.

A recently conducted experiment in the USA made apparent the effect of the mystical white light in open-air conditions, without the controls of vacuums and inert gasses necessary for contained results. In this test the blaze was equivalent to many tens of thousands of flash-bulbs. It was, in effect, a explosion, but there was absolutely no blast and an unsupported pencil, which had been stood on end within the explosion, was left standing upright and unharmed afterwards. This is wholly reminiscent of the story of Moses and the burning bush as related in Exodus: 'And he looked, and, behold, the bush burned without fire, and the bush was not consumed'.

The truly unusual thing about this white powder is that, through various applied procedures, its weight will rise and fall to hundreds of percent above its optimum weight, down to less than absolutely nothing. Moreover, its optimum weight is actually 56% of the metal weight from which it was transmuted. So, where does the other 44% go? It becomes nothing but pure white light and translates to another dimension beyond the physical plane.

Another feature of the shem-an-na is that even its 56% substance (that is the remaining sample excluding the 44% light content) can be made to disappear completely from sight, moving itself into another dimension of perceived matter - and when this happens, its weight similarly disappears.

By virtue of such testing, it has been discovered that not only is the powder of the highward fire-stone capable of raising human consciousness, but it is also a monatomic superconductor with no gravitational attraction. One of the great researchers into gravity from the 1960s has been the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov, and the mathematics for Sakharov's Theory (based on gravity as a zero-point) were published by Hal Puthoff of the Institute of Advanced Studies in 1989 (Physical Review A - volume 39, no. 5, 1 March). With regard to the monatomic white powder, Puthoff has made the point that because gravity determines space-time, then the powder is capable of bending space-time. It is 'exotic matter', he explained, with a gravitational attraction of less than zero.

Quite apart from gold, it is now known that the platinum-group metals, iridium and rhodium (in the monatomic high-spin state), also have anti-ageing properties, while ruthenium and platinum compounds interact with DNA and the cellular body. In the Scientific American journal of May 1995, the effect of ruthenium was discussed in relation to human DNA, and it was pointed out that when single ruthenium atoms are placed at each end of double-helix DNA, it becomes 10,000 times more conductive. Similarly, the Platinum Metals Review features regular articles concerning the use of platinum, iridium and ruthenium in the treatment of cancers, which are caused through the abnormal and uncontrolled division of body cells. When a DNA state is altered, as in the case of a cancer, the application of a platinum compound will resonate with the deformed cell, causing the DNA to relax thoroughly and become corrected. Such treatment involves no amputation surgery; it does not destroy surrounding tissue with radiation, nor kill the immune system as does chemotherapy. It is a straightforward cure which actually corrects altered cells.

It is of particular significance that, irrespective of all today's costly and extensive research, the secrets of the highward fire-stone were known to our ancestors many thousands of years ago, although only just being rediscovered. To put things into perspective in this regard, it is important to recognize that just about everything we now know about the life and civilizations of the distant BC years has been learned since the late 1800s. Prior to that, the Old Testament was one of very few documents of record, but the Old Testament was never intended to be an accurate reporting of history; it was actually a book of scripture designed to underpin a growing religious movement.

To some extent, just like the scriptures of other religions, the Hebrew writings were based upon mythological tradition, but since the inherent stories were never found until recently in any other documented form, the Old Testament has, for countless centuries, been treated as if it were an absolute factual truth. And so, the mythology became designated as history by governing and educational establishments, and it has been taught as such in schools and churches for the longest time.

Now we have a vast amount of original literature, enabling us to be far better informed, for any number of explanatory documents have been unearthed - documents pre-dating the original writing of Genesis by up to 2000 years. One would expect such discoveries to be welcomed with enthusiasm, but this has not been the case. Instead, they have posed severe problems and are regarded not as beneficial revelations, but as threats. What do they threaten? They threaten to undermine the one-time mythology that has been erroneously dubbed as history. How does the establishment cope with this threat? It clings on tight to the contrived history, and declares that the first-hand documents of history are mythological!

Between the 1850s and the 1930s, records which had been hidden for countless lifetimes beneath the windswept desert sands suddenly appeared, bearing the names of such well-known characters as Abraham, Esau, Israel, Heber, Nahor, Terah and others from the Bible. These were written during the lifetimes of these men or soon after, whereas the books of the Old Testament were compiled over 1000 years later. However, one-by-one, these documents have been classified as mythology. Why?

Because they tell a very different story to that which is taught from the Bible.

By the 1880s, the governing establishments of Christendom were dreading the very word archaeologist. As a result, archaeological digs were brought under strict control, with their funding and undertakings to be approved by newly designated authorities. One of these, the Egypt Exploration Fund, was established in Britain in 1891, and on the very first page of its Memorandum and Articles of Association, it is stated that the Fund's objective is to promote excavation work 'for the purpose of elucidating or illustrating the Old Testament narrative'. In short, this meant that if something was found which could be used to support the scriptural teaching, then the public would be informed. Anything which did not support the Church interpretation of the Bible was not destined to see the light in the public domain.

It is now relevant to take a look at one of the monumental finds from that era - a discovery about which very little is known to people at large. In fact, it is probably the most important biblical discovery ever made and it has stunning implications far beyond the discovery itself - for this is the ultimate story of the phoenix and the fire-stone.

Within the book of Exodus a significant biblical mountain is named. It sits in the extensive range of the Sinai peninsular - an upturned triangular land-mass which lies above the Red Sea between the Gulfs of Suez and Aqabah. In the Old Testament, the mountain is firstly called Mount Horeb; then it is called Mount Sinai and is subsequently called Horeb again as the story progresses. The story is, of course, that of Moses and the Israelite exodus from Egypt. This was the mountain upon which, according to Exodus, Moses saw the burning bush; the mountain where he talked with Jehovah and the place where he received the Ten Commandments and the Tables of Testimony.

Something which should be recognized at this stage is that, at the time of Moses (about 1350 BC), there was no mountain called Mount Sinai. There was no mountain by that name even in the days of Jesus - nor even for another 300 years. It should also be remembered that the Old Testament which is familiar to us today stems from a 10th-century Hebrew text and is, therefore, 600 years younger even than the canonical New Testament compiled in the 4th century.

The mountain now generally known as Mount Sinai sits in the south of the peninsular - quite near to the bottom point of the upturned triangle - and it was given its name in the 4th century by a mission of Greek Christian monks 1700 years after the time of Moses. It is now sometimes called Gebel Musa (or Mount of Moses) and there is still a Christian retreat there called St Catherine's Monastery. However, this is not the Sinai mountain which the Bible calls Mount Horeb.

The book of Exodus goes into some detail to explain the route taken by Moses and the Israelites from the Egyptian Nile delta land of Goshen - down across the wilderness regions of Shur and Paran in northern Sinai, to the land of Midian (which is to the north of present-day Jordan).

From this route it becomes very easy to identify the location of Mount Horeb, which sits a good deal north of Gebel Musa. The word Horeb simply means 'desert', and the great desert mountain which soars to over 2600 feet within a high stone plateau above the Plain of Paran is today called Serābīt el-Khādim (the Prominence of the Khādim).

In the late 1890s, the British Egyptologist Sir William Flinders Petrie, a professor at the University College, London, applied to the Egypt Exploration Fund to take an expedition into Sinai. By January 1904, his team had departed and in the March of that year they took their expedition to the heights of Mount Serābīt. In the following year Petrie published the detailed results of his findings, but added to his report the fact that, to his dismay, this information would not be made available to the Egypt Exploration Fund subscribers who would receive only maps and a general outline. Furthermore, Petrie explained that, from the time of that Sinai expedition (even though he had taken

previously funded teams into Egypt), his sponsorship by the Fund was terminated - ostensibly because he had broken the binding rule of the Articles by divulging something which was contrary to Bible teaching. He had, in fact, discovered the great secret of the sacred mountain of Moses - a secret which not only made sense of the Exodus portrayals, but which blew the lid totally from their common scriptural interpretation.

What the Bible does not make clear is that Sinai was not a foreign land to the Egyptians. It was actually regarded as a part of Egypt and came under pharaonic control. So Moses and the Israelites had not left Egypt once they were east of the Nile delta - they were still in Egypt, having the whole Sinai peninsular to cross before they entered the Palestinian land of Canaan.

During the time of Moses, Sinai came under the control of two Egyptian officials: the Royal Chancellor and the Royal Messenger. This was the era of Egypt's 18th dynasty - the dynasty of the Tuthmosis and Amenhotep pharaohs, along with Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. The Royal Messenger of those times was an official called Neby. He was also the mayor and troop commander of Zaru in the Egyptian delta region of Goshen, where the Israelites had lived before the exodus.

The position of Royal Chancellor was hereditary in the Hyksos family of Pa-Nehas, and Panahesy of this family was the official Governor of Sinai. We know him better from the Bible as Phinehas. He became one of the first priests of the new Mosaic structure, but had previously been the Chief Priest at Pharaoh Akhenaten's temple at Amarna.

In order to understand the root significance of Petrie's discovery, it is worth making a necessary distinction between the Israelites and the Hebrews of the Mosaic era. At that time, they were not one and the same as Bible teaching seems to indicate. The Hebrews were the family and descendants of Abraham, whose place of residence was, in the main, Canaan (Palestine). The Israelites, on the other hand, were the family and descendants of one of Abraham's grandsons - the man called Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. It was his family alone who had moved into Egypt, and it was their descendants who eventually returned with Moses to be reunited, after countless generations, with their fellow Hebrews.

The difference between the strains was, of course, that the Israelites had long been subjected to the laws and religions of Egypt, and they knew very little about the customs of their cousins hundreds of miles away in Canaan. Through more than 400 years they had been in an environment which supported a whole pantheon of gods and, although they had developed a One God concept within their own fraternity, that god was not the Jehovah of the Canaanite Hebrews. Their god was a faceless entity whom they called, quite simply, the Lord. In the Israelite tongue, he was called the Adon. This is one of the reasons why the names Lord and Jehovah were separately identified in early texts, even though they were brought under the wrap of the single God in later times to suit the emergent Jewish and Christian faiths. To the Egyptians, the name of this Lord (Adon) was quite similar, and they called him Aten - from which derived the name of Pharaoh Akhenaten (Servant of Aten).

So, when Moses and the Israelites made their exodus into Sinai, they arrived not as worshippers of Jehovah, but of Aten, and it was for this very reason that they were presented with new laws and ordinances to bring them into line with the Hebrew culture of their prospective new homeland.

When Moses and the Israelites left the Egyptian delta, their obvious route to Canaan would have been directly across the wilderness of northern Sinai but, instead, they pushed southward into the difficult high country to spend time at the Horeb mountain of Serābīt. This was the anomaly which had long puzzled Petrie and his team.

What then did the Petrie expedition discover high on the Bible's holy mountain? Well, to begin, they found nothing very much, but on a wide plateau near the summit there were distinct signs of ancient habitation. Pillars and standing-stones could be seen protruding above the ground-rubble which had been deposited by wind and landslides over some 3000 years. Subsequent to clearing this rubble, however, the truth of the Bible story emerged and Petrie wrote:

There is no other such monument which makes us regret that it is not in better preservation. The whole of it was buried, and no one had any knowledge of it until we cleared the site.

What they found was an enormous Egyptian temple complex. Set within an enclosure wall was an outer temple built over an expanse of 230 feet (c.70 metres) and this extended outwards from an inner temple cut within a great cave in the mountainside. From the various cartouches, carvings and inscriptions it emerged that the temple had been in use from as far back as the time of Pharaoh Sneferu, who reigned about 2600 BC and whose immediate successors are reckoned to have built the pyramids of Gizeh.

The above-ground part of the temple was constructed from sandstone quarried from the mountain cave, and it contained a series of adjoined halls, shrines, courts, cubicles and chambers. Of these, the key features unearthed were the main Sanctuary, the Shrine of Kings, the Portico Court, and the Hall of the goddess Hathor to whom the whole complex was dedicated. All around were pillars and stelae denoting the Egyptian kings through the ages, with certain pharaohs such as Tuthmosis III (founder of the Rosicrucian movement in Egypt) depicted many times on standing-stones and wall reliefs.

The adjoining Cave of Hathor was carved into the natural rock, with flat inner walls that had been carefully smoothed. In the centre from about 1820 BC) stood a large upright pillar of Pharaoh Amenemhet III, the son-in-law of Esau. Also portrayed were his senior chamberlain and his seal-bearer. Deep within the cave Petrie found a limestone stela of pharaoh Ramesses I - a slab upon which Ramesses (who is traditionally reckoned by Egyptologists to have been an opposer of the Aten cult) surprisingly described himself as 'The ruler of all that Aten embraces'.

Also found was an Amarna statue-head of Akhenaten's mother, Queen Tiye of Egypt, with her cartouche set in the crown.

In the courts and halls of the outer temple there were numerous stone-carved rectangular tanks and circular basins, along with a variety of curiously shaped bench-tables with recessed fronts and split-level surfaces. There were also round tables, trays and saucers, together with alabaster vases and containers, many of which were shaped like lotus-flowers. In addition, the rooms housed a good collection of glazed plaques, cartouches, scarabs and sacred ornaments, designed with spirals, diagonal-squares and basket-work. There were magical wands of an unidentified hard material, while in the portico were two conical stones of about 6 inches and 9 inches in height, respectively. The explorers were baffled enough by these, but they were further confounded by the discovery of a metallurgist's crucible.

Ever since this discovery, Egyptologists have argued as to why a crucible would have been necessary in a temple, while at the same time debating a mysterious substance called mfkzt, which seemed to be related to the conical stones and which has numerous mentions in wall and stelae inscriptions. Some have suggested that mfkzt might have been copper; many have preferred the idea of turquoise and others have supposed it was perhaps malachite, but they are all unsubstantiated guesses and there are no traces of any of these materials at the site. Sinai is noted for its turquoise mines, but if turquoise-mining had been a primary function of the temple masters over so many centuries, then one would expect to find turquoise stones in abundance within the tombs of Egypt. However, such is not the case; hardly any have been found.

Other causes of wonderment have been the innumerable inscribed references to 'bread', along with the prominent hieroglyph for 'light', found in the Shrine of the Kings. But the discovery which caused the most bewilderment was the unearthing of something which was identified as the enigmatic mfkzt to which the 'bread' symbolism appeared to be related. Laying some inches deep beneath heavy flagstones in a storeroom was a considerable supply of the finest pure white, unadulterated powder.

At the time, some suggested that the powder could be a remnant of copper smelting but, as was quickly pointed out, smelting does not produce white powder; it leaves a dense black slag. Moreover, there is no supply of copper ore within miles of the temple and the old smelting works are, in any event, apparent in the distant valleys. Others guessed that the powder was ash from the burning of plants to produce alkali, but there was no trace whatever of any plant residue.

For want of any other explanation, it was determined that the white powder and the conical stones were probably associated with some form of sacrificial rite, but again it was pointed out that this was an Egyptian temple and animal sacrifice was not an Egyptian practice. Moreover, despite sieving and winnowing, there were no remnants whatever of bones or any other foreign matter to be found within the mfkzt, which appeared for all the world like a hoard of sacred talcum-powder.

Some of the mysterious powder was taken back to Britain for analysis and examination, but no results were ever published. The rest was left opento the elements after 3000 years to become a victim of the desert winds. What has become apparent, however, is that this powder was seemingly identical to the ancient Mesopotamian fire-stone or shem-an-na - the substance that was made into bread-cakes and used to feed the Light-bodies of the Babylonian kings and the pharaohs of Egypt. This, of course, explains the temple inscriptions denoting the importance of bread and light, while the white powder (the shem-an-na) has been identified with the sacred manna that Aaron placed in the Ark of the Covenant.

The book of Exodus relates that the Master Craftsman who made the original shewbread for Moses in Sinai was Bezaleel, but Bezaleel was not a baker, he was a noted goldsmith - the very man who made the golden accoutrements for the Tabernacle and the Ark itself. This conforms precisely with the function of the priestly Master Craftsmen in Mesopotamia - the vulcans and metallurgists of Tubal-cain who manufactured the valuable shem-an-na from pure gold. As for the crucible, the conical stones and the great array of tanks, tables and equipment which made the Sinai temple appear more like a gigantic laboratory than a church, it emerges that this is precisely what it was.

What Petrie had actually found was the alchemical workshop of Akhenaten and of the numerous dynasties of pharaohs before him - a temple laboratory where the furnace would have roared and smoked in the production of the sacred fire-stone of the high-spin shem-an-na. Quite suddenly, the words of Exodus begin to make sense as we read them again with a wholly new insight:

And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke ... and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

In Exodus we read that Moses took the golden calf, which the Israelites had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to a powder' This is precisely the process of a shem-an-na furnace and it is evident that the Egyptian priests of the goddess Hathor had been working their fire for countless generations before the priests of Aten became involved in the time of Moses.

It was, in fact, Pharaoh Tuthmosis III who had reorganized the ancient mystery schools of Thoth and founded the Royal School of the Master Craftsmen at Karnak. They were called the Great White Brotherhood because of their preoccupation with a mysterious white powder. A branch of this fraternity became especially concerned with medicines and healing, to become known as the Egyptian Therapeutate. Then, in much later times, the activities of the Therapeutate were extended into Palestine - especially into the Judah settlement of Qumrān, where they flourished as the Essenes.

But, what was so special about the goddess Hathor that she was the chosen deity of the Sinai priests? Hathor was a paramount nursing goddess and, as the daughter of Ra, she was said to have given birth to the sun. She was the originally defined Queen of the West and Mistress of the Netherworld, to where she was said to carry those who knew the right spells. She was the revered goddess of love, tombs and song - and it was from the milk of Hathor that the pharaohs were said to gain their divinity, becoming gods in their own right.

On one of the rock tablets near to the Mount Serābīt cave entrance is a representation of Tuthmosis IV in the presence of Hathor. Before him are two offering-stands topped with lotus flowers, and behind him is a man bearing a conical cake identified as white bread. Another relief details the mason Ankhib offering two conical bread-cakes of shem-an-na to the king, and there are similar portrayals elsewhere in the temple complex. One of the most significant perhaps is a depiction of Hathor and Pharaoh Amenhotep III. The goddess holds a necklace in one hand, while offering the emblem of life and dominion to the pharaoh with the other. Behind her is the treasurer Sobekhotep, who holds in readiness a conical cake of white bread. Most importantly in this portrayal, however, is the fact that Treasurer Sobekhotep is described as the 'Overseer of the secrets of the House of Gold, who brought the noble and precious stone to his majesty'.

Recent experiments with this amazing white powder of gold have proven that, under certain conditions, the substance can weigh less than nothing and can be made to disappear into an unknown dimension. But, the most interesting quality of the powder is that it can ride upon the Earth's magnetic field so that, when in a zero-gravity state, it is capable of transposing its own weightlessness to its host, thereby facilitating levitational powers. This host might be a a straightforward laboratory pan or container, but it could equally be an enormous block of stone as used in pyramid building. Indeed, pyramids are, as established by their very name, fire-begotten.

In the secret repository of the King's Chamber, within the Great Pyramid, the age-old tradition relates that the builders had placed 'instruments of iron, arms which rust not, glass which might be bended but not broken, and strange spells'. But what did the first explorers find, having tunnelled their way into the sealed chamber? The only furniture was a lidless, hollowed stone coffer, and it contained not a body, but a layer of a mysterious powdery substance. This has been superficially determined to be grains of feldspar and mica, which are both minerals of the aluminium silicate group. However, during the course of the recent white powder research, aluminium and silica were two of the constituent elements revealed by conventional analysis of a granular sample that was known to be a 100% platinum-group compound.

As revealed a few years ago by the pioneering US researcher David Hudson, standard laboratory testing for elemental constituents is done by striking a sample with a DC arc for 15 seconds at a sun-surface heat of 5500o centigrade. But, with the monatomic white powder, a continuation of the burn-time way beyond the normal testing procedure revealed the noble metal of which the substance truly consisted. It is because of the limitations placed on the conventional testing sequence that 5% by dry weight of our brain tissue is said to be carbon, whereas more rigorous analysis reveals it as the platinum-group metals iridium and rhodium in the high-spin state.

The King's Chamber was, therefore, apparently contrived as a superconductor, capable of transporting the pharaoh into another dimension of space-time - and it was here that his Rite of Passage was administered in accordance with the Book of the Dead. The key to this Right of Passage is defined by a single conical inscription near the entrance to the Chamber. This hieroglyphic symbol (the only verifiable hieroglyph on the whole of the Gizeh plateau - and the very same as appeared many times at the Sinai mountain temple) reads quite simply, 'bread'.

The fact is that, although the historical aspects of the Old Testament are treated and taught from a Hebrew standpoint with an originally Mesopotamian base, there was a significant Egyptian impact on the culture which has been strategically ignored. This comes to light specifically from the time of the Sinai incident and proves to be the very reason why the all important book of Jasher was excluded from the canon.

It was upon the mountain at Sinai that Jehovah first announced his presence to Moses. Being an Aten supporter, Moses asked this new lord and master who he was - and the reply was 'I am that I am', which in phonetic Hebrew became Yahweh (Jehovah). However, for the longest time afterwards, the Israelites were not allowed to utter the name Jehovah, except for the High Priest who was allowed to whisper it in private once a year. The problem was that prayers were supposed to be said to this new godhead - but how would he know they were to him if his name was not mentioned?

The Israelite exiles from Egypt knew that Jehovah was not the same as Aten (their traditional Adon or Lord), and so they presumed he must be the equivalent of the great State God of Egypt - even if not one and the same. It was decided, therefore, to add the name of that State-god to all prayers thereafter, and the name of that god was Amen. To this day, the name of Amen is still recited at the end of prayers. Even the well-known Christian Lord's Prayer (as given in the Gospel of Matthew) was transposed from an Egyptian original which began: 'Amen, Amen, who art in heaven ...'

As for the famous Ten Commandments, said to have been conveyed to Moses by God upon the mountain, these too are of Egyptian origin, deriving directly from Spell Number 125 in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. They were not new codes of conduct invented for the Israelites, but were simply newly stated versions of the ritual confessions of the pharaohs. For example, the confession 'I have not killed' was transposed to the decree Thou shalt not kill; 'I have not stolen' became Thou shalt not steal; 'I have not told lies' became Thou shalt not bear false witness - and so on.

Not only were the Ten Commandments drawn from Egyptian ritual, but so too were the Psalms (which are attributed to King David) reworked from Egyptian hymns. Even the Old Testament book of Proverbs - the so-called wise words of Solomon - was translated almost verbatim into Hebrew from the writings of an Egyptian sage called Amenemope. These are now held at the British Museum, and verse after verse of the book of Proverbs can be attributed to this Egyptian original. It has now been discovered that even the writings of Amenemope were extracted from a far older work called The Wisdom of Ptah-hotep, which comes from more than 2000 years before the time of Solomon.

In addition to the Book of the Dead and the ancient Wisdom of Ptah-hotep, various other Egyptian texts were used in compiling the Old Testament. These include the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts, from which references to the Egyptian gods were simply transposed to relate to the Hebrew god Jehovah.

In Bloodline of the Holy Grail it was related that the modern style of Christianity, which evolved from the Roman Church in the 4th century, was actually a created hybrid - a religion based on themes from numerous others including, of course, Judaism. Now it transpires that Judaism itself was no less of a hybrid in the early days, being a composite of Egyptian, Canaanite and Mesopotamian traditions, with the stories, hymns, prayers and rituals of the various and sundry gods brought together and related to a newly contrived One God concept.

What is particularly interesting is that, historically, this was not fully contrived in the time of Abraham, nor even in the later time of Moses. It did not happen until the 6th century BC, when tens of thousands of Israelites were held captive by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Until that time, the Hebrew and Israelite records referred to any number of gods and goddesses by individual names, and under a general plural classification of the Elohim.

Through some 500 years from the Captivity, the scriptures existed only as a series of quite separate writings and it was not until after the time of Jesus that these were collated into a single volume. Jesus would himself never have heard of the Old Testament or the Bible, but the scriptures to which he had access included many books that were not selected for the compilation that we know today. Strangely though, some of these are still mentioned in the modern Bible text as being important to the original culture, including the enigmatic book of Jasher.

Jasher was the Egyptian-born son of Caleb; he was brother-in-law to the first Israelite judge Othneil and an uncle of Bezaleel the Master Craftsman, as well as being the appointed staff-bearer to Moses. It is generally reckoned that the book of Jasher's position in the Bible should be between the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, but it was sidestepped by the editors because it sheds a very different light on the sequence of events at Mount Horeb in Sinai.

The familiar Exodus account explains that Jehovah issued instructions to Moses concerning masters and servants, covetousness, neighbourly behaviour, crime, marriage, morality, and many other issues including the all-important rule of the Sabbath - along with the Ten Commandments. But, in Jasher (which pre-dates the Exodus writings), these laws and ordinances are not conveyed to Moses by Jehovah. In fact, Jehovah is not mentioned at all. The new laws, says the book of Jasher, were communicated to Moses and the Israelites by Jethro, High Priest of Midian and Lord of the Mountain. In effect, Jethro (whose daughter, Zipporah, Moses married) was the overall governor of the Sinai Temple.

In Canaan, the title Lord (or Lofty One) of the Mountain, was defined as El Shaddai, and this is particularly significant for, as previously mentioned, this was precisely the name related to Moses when he asked the Lord to reveal his identity. The Lord said 'I am that I am (YHWH); I am he that Abraham called El Shaddai'. YHWH became eventually transposed to the name Jehovah but, as related in Jasher (and as confirmed in Exodus when correctly read), this Lord was not a deiform god at all; he was Jethro the El Shaddai, the great vulcan and Master Craftsman of the Hathor Temple.

Another very important aspect of the book of Jasher is that it explains that it was not Moses who was the spiritual leader of the tribes who left Egypt for Sinai; their spiritual leader and chief counsellor was Miriam, the half-sister of Moses who receives only passing mentions in the book of Exodus. Indeed, as detailed in Jasher, Miriam's position posed such a problem for Moses in his attempt to create an environment of male dominance that he imprisoned her - as a result of which the Israelites rose up against Moses to secure her release.

There is no doubt that, for all the scribal manipulation of old texts, Miriam (Meryamon of Egypt) emerges outside the canonical Bible as a key character of the era but, just like Mary Magdalene in New Testament times, she has been ignored and forgotten by Church establishments founded as male-dominated institutions. Of Miriam, the book of Aaron (credited to Hur, the grandfather of Bezaleel) relates:

Miriam from hence became the admired of the Hebrews; every tongue sang of her praise. She taught Israel; she tutored the children of Jacob and the people called her, by way of eminence, the Teacher. She studied the good of the nation, and Aaron and the people harkened unto her. To her the people bowed; to her the afflicted came.

The true relevance of Miriam, however, is that she was a recognized Dragon Queen of the matrilinear Grail bloodline. It was primarily from her that the dynastic line ensued to culminate in the Royal House of David, which owes its kingly origin to Miriam's pharaonic descent, rather than to any patriarchal heritage from Abraham, as we are generally led to believe.

In the context of this investigation, we have stepped beyond the bounds of the Bible to witness the alchemical and scientific process which facilitated the Genesis of the Grail Kings. This line of succession (from Cain and the Mesopotamian dynasts, through the early pharaohs of Egypt, to King David and onward to Jesus) was purpose-bred to be the earthly purveyors of the Light. They were the true 'sons of the gods', who were fed firstly on Anunnaki Star Fire from about 3800 BC and, subsequently, on high-spin metal supplements from abut 2000 BC.In short, they were bred to be leaders of humankind and they were physically and spiritually maintained in the highward state - the ultimate dimension of the missing 44% - the dimension of the Orbit of Light - the Plane of Sharon.

Only during the past 150 years or so, and more specifically during the past 80 years, have the great storehouses of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Syrian and Canaanite record been unearthed from beneath the desert sands. First-hand documentary evidence from before Bible times has now emerged on stone, clay, parchment and papyrus - tens of thousands of documents which bear witness to a far more exciting history than we were ever told.

Had these records been available throughout the generations, the concept of a particular race enjoying a single divine revelation would never have arisen and the exclusivity of Jehovah, which has blinded us for thelongest time (setting us in warlike fashion against those of other faiths who follow their own traditions), would never have taken such an arrogant hold.

Gradually, as new discoveries are made, it is evident that we are now emerging from the darkness of our preconceived, but unfounded, notions. Even so, the centuries of Church-led indoctrination make it very difficult to discard the restrictive dogma of inbred third-hand tradition in favour of a greater enlightenment from those who were there at the time.

The truly inspiring prospect is that the learning curve has still not ended. Just as a single glacier is but a continuation of age-old activity, so too are the ancient wisdoms that now fall to us one by one - with each new facet of learning ready to be stacked upon the former knowledge.

Fortunately, the dawn of consciousness is already behind us and, although some will choose to look backwards beyond its veil, many will step with vigour into the new millennium to witness a bright new sunrise - a revelation of unbounded possibility, and a restoration of our true universal inheritance.

~~End of Lecture~~


Subscribe to apfn-1
Powered by

American Patriot Friends Network

"...a network of networkers..."



Without Justice, there is JUST_US + JESUS!

I would like to pledge or contribute to APFN CLICK HERE

bar, Christ #7, religious + christian webpage + email stationery clipart + graphics

APFN Message Board

APFN Contents Page

APFN   Home Page

History of ENVAX [internet]