Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
The Matrix Control System went into overdrive damage control to stamp out the teachings of Jesus in the middle of the second century. From that point on, gnosticism was heresy and the Egyptian model of the dying and resurrecting savior - the corn god - had been substituted into the Christian mythological structure, and a "history" of a "real person" about whom all would revolve was carefully written. But, not carefully enough. Obviously, as with the Old Testament, real stories and real sayings had to be used or the adherents of the system would notice. As the witch in the Wizard of Oz said about taking the Ruby Slippers from Dorothy: "These things have to be handled VERY carefully!" (Followed by fiendish laughter, don't forget!)
By the end of the fourth century the struggle between the Catholic Church and the classical Gnosticism represented in the Nag Hammadi texts was essentially over. The church now had the added the force of political correctness to bolster its dogmatic denunciation, and with this material sword, so-called "heresy" was surgically removed from the Christian body; without anesthesia, I should add. Gnosticism was eradicated, its remaining teachers murdered or driven into exile, and its sacred books destroyed. All that remained for scholars seeking to understand Gnosticism in later centuries were the denunciations and fragments preserved in the patristic heresiologies.
And this brings us to a most interesting connection: the Cathars.
There are a number of people nowadays who claim to speak with authority about what the Cathars did or did not believe, but most of them are blowing smoke. The fact is, the only thing we know about what the Cathars believed or taught is what is filtered through the accusations of their detractors. The following account is from a medieval source: "Reynaldus: On the Accusations Against the Albigensians." ("Albigensians" was another name for the Cathars.):
There is no surviving version of the Cathar New Testament, so we are without any idea of what, precisely, they did include as being valid. We do think that the Gnostic gospels are, very likely, if not the same, similar to the Cathar texts. We do know that they esteemed the gospel of John as being the "closest" to the truth, and that the "historical" gospels were all "made up" stories that had nothing to do with the "real" Jesus.
This is quite clearly a Gnostic idea. The Gnostics taught that Jehovah/Yahweh was an "Evil God" more like a demon than anything else. But, that he did have something to do with the creation of the material world was part of their teachings as well. So, he clearly wasn't just a "demon" in the sense of an ethereal attacker of human beings who could be "cast out" by an exorcism. No, indeed, he was far more than that!
This is an interesting remark since it relates in a curious way to a comment of "Jesus" in the Secret Book of James. His disciples are asking him: "Lord, how can we prophesy to those who ask us to prophesy to them? For many people ask us, and expect to hear a sermon from us." The Lord answered and said:
This is, no doubt, an extremely mysterious remark. Writers of the present day, not understanding the symbolism of the "talking head" and the head of John the Baptist as it relates to the head of Bran the Blessed, have erroneously come to the conclusion that John the Baptist was the true object of worship of the Cathars and Templars. [Picknett and Prince.] Some writers have even ignorantly proposed that this "talking head" is the armillary sphere of Pope Sylvester, and that it "talks" about "precessional cycles."
It is quite probable that the remark of Raynaldus about the condemnation of John the Baptist by the Cathars was not made up out of thin air, and has some foundation in fact. If so, what are we to make of the claims of those who propose that there has been a secret society for millennia that actually worships John the Baptist and Mary Magdalene in secret? Certainly, if that had been the case with the Cathars, Raynaldus would have said so because such a claim was damning enough in its own right. But that is not what he said. He said that the Cathars damned John the Baptist as one of the greater demons. And then we see the "Jesus" of the Gnostic texts saying that the head of this "demon" had been related to "prophecy" and was "removed."
It is indeed likely that the Cathars did not believe that the "historical Jesus" was accurately depicted in the New Testament. Clearly, they did believe that the "Jesus" of the New Testament was a fraud. However, we ought to pay some attention to the fact that the Cathars may have believed that the Great Work had been accomplished by the apostle Paul, and that Paul may, indeed, have been a pseudonym given to the man around whom the Jesus legend was accreted. In other words, was Paul the REAL Jesus? An interesting idea to hold in the mind while reading his epistles (those that are confirmably his and not merely attributed to him. See Wells for the analyses.)
In the teachings of Paul, it is evident from textual analysis that Paul did not know of a "Christ" as a historical personage in the body of a man called Jesus as represented in the New Testament. He knew of a "Christ" spirit that was an "anointing" of gnosis, and when his writings are analyzed with all the tools of linguistics, and the additions, glosses, and interpolations removed (not to mention the epistles that are clearly not Pauline), we find a series of teachings that is most definitely Gnostic in flavor and texture. Not only that, but the teacher that Paul referred to had quite a different history than the Jesus of the New Testament. [Wells, The Historical Jesus]
Raynaldus' remark about Mary Magdalene does irreparable damage to many popular theories of the present time, that she was the "wife of Jesus," and that they produced children together and that these children are the origin of the idea of the "Sang Real," or "Holy Blood." The point is, if Raynaldus simply reported that Mary Magdalene was the "mistress" of Jesus, and that they had children, that would have been sufficiently damning. If he had reported that the Cathars worshipped John the Baptist as the true Christ, that also would have been sufficiently damning. However, his version of what they believed was that John the Baptist represented a demon, and that there was a "bad man" crucified in Jerusalem, who was connected to Mary Magdalene, but that it wasn't Jesus. So he probably wasn't making it up. Clearly, the beliefs of the Cathars were something other than an idea that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, or that Jesus and Mary had children together, contrary to what present day expositors of "occult secrets" would have us believe.
The owners and publishers
of these pages wish to state that the material presented here is the product
of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication. We invite
the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical
mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism"
nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in
all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth.
The one thing we can tell the reader is this: we work very hard, many hours
a day, and have done so for many years, to discover the "bottom line" of our
existence on Earth. It is our vocation, our quest, our job. We constantly seek
to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either possible or probable
or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind will benefit, if
not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.
Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
You are visitor number [TextCounter Fatal Error: This Page Not In Valid URI].