The Chalice Well At Glastonberry Tor - The Isle of Avalon and Jesus as Arthur

For those who have read my book The Rings of Ophion, the third book in the MEI series, you will be struck at how the cover resembles something from the Isle of Avalon, known as Glastonbury Tor to us moderns.

Glastonbury Tor - The Mount.

Notice the seven levels. For the seven known planets - Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn the Sun and the Moon

Glastonbury Tor - The Well

notice the seven known planets, err cups leading to the well

the cover, with the piscis vessica formation

Now suppose you were a 20 something Jesus and some mad king on an island was TRYING to teach you about the every 26,000 year destruction cycle of the planet which we learned from the egyptians. A cycle so intense, that NOTHING remains from it. Except dinosaur bones. It will be interesting if our civilization is wiped out if our skyscrapers will survive enough so that some day people will dig deep into the earth and discover us. Can you imagine the shock, simple desert people thinking their advanced camel and flint civilization just beginning to modernize with simple engines and iron age technologies digs deep (or perhaps from an earthquake) finds a shaft and they go down deep and find the inside of the chicago sears tower? Can you imagine their disbelief?  We have ONE such item on our planet and only one that may be from prior apocolypse and that is the sphinx which is dated to 10-25,000 years ago. 

Now imagine Jesus on the island getting his year long tuteledge like the old leaders did at Heliopolis and learning all about the precession cycle, the astrological zodiac and the piscis vessica (the pattern which appears as an interference pattern of 2 stars aligning - see Rings of Ophion).  When he went back to explain it, perhaps he drew it as something others could relate to, perhaps he drew a boat anchor!

That may be the secret link between the TRUE knowledge - the Piscis Vessica - and the corrupted knowledge - the Chi Ro.  And at our most important sites (was Jesus Arthur? Did he and the 12 reunite at Glastonbury and unify England against Rome? Leading to the font of all of our current civilization? Did he retire to the celtic civilization? Speculation? Maybe.). 

Now look carefully at the well cap cover. we see two stars. The shamash. The same symbol we have from the accadians and sumerians. THE SAME! The same critical archaeology which is all around us EVEN IN VATICAN SQUARE. IT IS CRITICAL. Naw cant be. just mad ramblings right?

So what is left from our past cycle? Perhaps this - Adams Calendar, dated to 70,000 years ago. A ancient stonehenge astronomical calendar. 

OK now lets dive DEEP. Ready? First we look to ancient Sepphoris and find this mosaic. (Hamat Tiberius, Galilee (4th century c.e.))

To the dumb average person, its a Helios symbol, and a chariot. No it isnt. It's a picture of the end destruction of our planet which occurs every 26,000 years. The big secret of Egyptology and now of Christianity our modern secret religion.  On the bottom near the hooves, we see the 2 Shamash symbols. Or two stars. We hypothesize that we have some kind of binary star effect when this happens that triggers our collapse.  Up in the sky, we see our sun shining TOOO bright. Earth is swung too close to the sun? then the moon. Then the Shamash or our binary star swinging in from an elliptical orbit but normally far away, causing the wobble in our precession cycle. When these two stars get close and strong, we see the piscis vessica pattern, the interferance pattern of two STARS. The third eye concept, is because in between them seems to appear a third object. This is what is on the well at glastonbury Tor. This is what is being depicted and they even put in 2 shamash stars as if we can't understand it.  And in the early Chi Ro, they add the alpha and omega.  end times. But Christ, taking all this in, tries to explain it to his followers as Fish, and Anchors. Terms that simple fishing folk could understand. This is why we get the odd confusion in the symbol of the Chi Ro. 

By the time of the sixth century Beit Alpha zodiac, things are stylized. The horses are hard to make out.  Notice the stylized 2 stars at the bottom of christ as shamash images. Some say that these are the four seasons. But no, they are horses in despair. Something bad has happened.

This is also depicted under the Vatican in the ancient tombs. Some wonder, why is Helios there? No it isn't Helios and it isn't Christ. It is a depiction of CATYCLYSM with the horses and the charioteers gaze all of HORROR.  This is what the horses going every which way depict. 

Dionysis at the Crucifiction, and the Mismanaged Fish Hookhttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/67/b6/b467b6dc76f02d7ed1ae9a82d31436a4.jpg

Troubling. Very troubling. Has Paul snuck the dionysian myth (or the BUDDHIST MYTH) of the crucifiction into the bible? As part of his re-working of the story?

I present some facts.

One: Dionysus is preset at the crucifiction. 

How very odd indeed. From Acts (attributed to Luke):

32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

What is Areopagus? "Areopagus. The hill of Mars, the seat of the ancient and venerable supreme court of Athens, called the Areopagites" - Topical Bible

Damaris is granted a sainthood and is prominent in the greek orthodox church as a follower of Paul. So what we have in Acts is a speech by Paul most likely TO the Areopagus or supreme court of Athens. 


Two: Crucifiction From Buddha
The first telling of crucifiction is of the Buddha, 500 years earlier. 

"Buddha’s mission and death. In his teaching, the Buddha is opposed traditional rigid laws, rebukes intolerance, dogmatism, ritualism, and priestly hypocrisy. He censors the unquestioning adherence to the Vedas and criticizes the bloody sacrifices of the Brahmins.[206]

Voluntarily he leads a life of utmost simplicity as a beggar – a life of renunciation – and mixes mostly with the lowly in society.[207] He accepts an invitation to eat in the house of a prostitute, for which he is criticized by the prominent people of the town.[208] He is called the Seer (prophet), the Master, the Blessed One, the Enlightened One, the Lord and “the Awakened One”[209] and he calls himself Tathâgata (Sanskrit and Pali: “The One thus-come [to Truth]”. Peter’s threefold denial of his Master Jesus, has its equivalent in Buddha’s favourite disciple Ânanda’s threefold failure to ask the Buddha to stay on for the rest of the aeon.[210] The Buddha also has an enemy, his wicked cousin and once his disciple, a traitor by the name of Devadatta. He makes three attempts at the Buddha’s life but fails every time. Just like Judas Iscariot, he meets a deplorable end, as he is swallowed by the earth and goes to hell, boiling for an eon.[211] Jesus converted a robber on the cross. The Buddha turns a robber (Angulimâla) from his evil ways and makes him his devotee.[212]

The Buddha eats a last meal,[213] dies, and attains (pari)nirvâna. His death is presaged by a solar eclipse,[214] a great earthquake and a thunderstorm:

And when the Blessed One had passed away, simultaneously with his Parinibbana there came a tremendous earthquake, dreadful and astounding, and the thunders rolled across the heavens. (Suttapitaka, Dîghanikâya[Mahâparinibbânasutta], 16:6:12; also 16:3:10)

Buddha is said, in a probably post-Christian scripture, to have risen after his death, and opened the coffin and spoken to his mother who came to visit him from “heaven”.[215]

The crucified Buddha. A probably pre-Christian and rather unnoticed text in Sanskrit is “The Story of Gautama, the Progenitor of Ikshvâku”, which is found in Sanghabhedavastu.[216] Here we find a remarkable parallel to the crucifixion scene of the Gospels.

Gautama abandons his life as heir to the kingdom and turns to the ascetic hermit Krishnadvaipâyana who like John the Baptist subsists only on what wild nature produces, in this case fruits, roots and water. Just as Jesus, Gautama thinks that his teacher’s life is too ascetic, and he seeks a less ascetic life, a sort of middle course.

A harlot is murdered and Gautama is innocently accused of the murder. He is brought before the king who is persuaded by the crowd of his guilt and sentences Gautama to death by crucifixion (literally: to be put “on a stake”). In the Gospels, Governor Pilate is persuaded by the crowd and crucifies (stauroo) the wrongfully convicted Jesus.

They announce Gautama’s crime and sentence, a parallel to the inscription at Jesus’ cross.[217] Then they put a garland of oleanders around Gautama’s neck, just as they put a crown of thorns on Jesus’ head. Gautama is driven out of the city through the southern city-gate and he is fixed “on a stake while still alive”. We are told that Gautama “has been pierced”, so that his “joints have been loosened” and that he is suffering from “severe pains” but that his mind is not injured.

Gautama’s ascetic teacher Krishnadvaipâyana is worried about Gautama who has not had time to engender any offspring, a fact that probably will give him bad karma. He therefore persuades Gautama, while still hanging on the stake, to produce two drops of semen which mixed with blood falls to the ground and are transformed into two eggs. These eggs crack in the sun and two princes are born. Gautama dies as the sun rises, but resurrects indirectly in his offspring. His teacher sees the eggshells near the stake and realizes that the two boys (princes) must be the sons of Gautama. Each of the princes in succession is made an “anointed king”. To be anointed king is the exact meaning of the Hebrew word Messiah (the anointed).

Moreover, in the place where they crucified Gautama lie the crushed eggshells. These eggshells are called kapâlâni in Sanskrit, the word kapâla (kapâlâni in the plural) meaning eggshell as well as skull or cranium. Jesus was executed on Golgotha (In English Calvary; in Aramaic Gulgolta) which means “the skull”. The place is also referred to as “place of a skull” and possibly the hill resembled a cranium." - The Jesus Parallels (1st edition, 2007) by Roger Viklund Umeå, Sweden

Also we see the prominence of Dionysis as the first "Re-Birth" and acension to heaven:

"Diodorus speaks accordingly of “a new birth” and he says furthermore that this can be traced “back to certain causes found in nature.” Dionysus is presented as “the twice-born” (Dimetor) since he is a god of vegetation. The first birth is “when the plant [the vine] is set in the ground and begins to grow” and the second “when it becomes laden with fruit and ripens its clusters”. Dionysus therefore is “considered as having been born once from the earth and again from the vine”.[132]

And like Jesus, who was consumed as wine and bread, also Dionysus and the goddess of growing plants, Ceres, was thought of as the divine substance of wine and bread which was consumed when eaten.[133]

Dionysus’ resurrection. Dionysus was believed to have risen after his death. On the island of Thasos, in north-eastern Greece, an old inscription speaks of Dionysus as a god who each year renews himself and returns rejuvenated.[134] After doing this he was thought to have ascended to heaven." - Viklund Ibid.

Let's look to the first image of the crucifiction we have. Its from a third century coin. It was in a museum in Berlin but lost after the war. We still have its casting:

We also have a drawing of what is a more technically accurate crucifiction. Arms bound not pierced, pulled back to assist in the asphyxiation, and legs pierced through the ankles to the SIDES of the cross. 

But when I look at the coin (who is to be Dionysis based on the inscription, not Jesus) I see the fish-hook, the huge ship anchors  from the sea of Galilee, the northern lands of Bethany. And I wonder, was there some need or meaning or ceremony to someone to climb aboard these giant anchors to steady them or perhaps some initiation ceremony to be fishermen. Were they even submerged, to rise again from the waters (a baptism?) all as rites of fishermen. Speculation? Perhaps. But remember this. Galilee is the largest and only freshwater lake of significance in or near Israeal so it's of tremendous importance, and also the town of Nazareth is just 10 miles away. 

so is it a cross or an anchor, that someone knowing of dionysis took to be a cross? 

an ancient anchor with 3 tines. The Chi-Ro symbol is 4 tines. 

Try to picture that in your head. 

an ancient chi-ro mosaic. Cross or Anchor?

A 4th century Chi Ro. 

Remember that it is easy to tell the age of your "chi ro" if it shows doves or Alpha / Omega, it is modern.  If you look at the 4th century chi ro, try to picture an achor with 4 "hooks" as two bars crossed, and then in three dimentions, the central lifting bar rising from above, with the loop to attach the line. This is what really we are seeing with the chi ro. And what may be pomegranates on each side (later badly mi-interpreted as alpha and omega) may in fact be stylized anchors. All of this iconography telling us it is Christ the FISHERMAN and what better symbols than the fish and the sea. So try to see it in three dimensions. This image really helps us to see that the chi ro really, is an anchor in 3 dimensions

So did people see the old images of dionysis?

Here finally, we have the sixth century mosaic of Jesus carrying the anchor. NOT A CROSS! and smiting both lions (the state) and vipers. 

ancient christian graffiti - fishhook

tombstone of the second or third century: Museo Cristiano, Vatican Rome

Hagakol, Son of the Crucified One

A shocking discovery. The body of a crucified man and son. From Roman times. Sitting in a museum in Israel.

The man - has no name. He is simply "Hagakol" - The crucified one.

Amazingly his young son is dead beside him. His son is called Hezkil - Ezekiel.


After the flesh had decomposed a year or so later, leaving only the skeleton, his bones were gathered in a simple stone box, an ossuary, in keeping with the Jewish practice of that time. Today, the box is displayed in a gallery at the Israel Museum alongside other artifacts from the period of Roman rule in Judea.

Inside the box, archaeologists found a heel bone with an iron stake driven through it, indicating that the occupant of the ossuary had been nailed to a cross.

The position of the stake was evidence of a crucifixion technique that had not previously been known, according to museum curator David Mevorah. In the image of crucifixion made famous by Christian iconography, Jesus is pictured with both feet nailed to the front of the vertical beam of the cross. But this man’s feet had been affixed to the sides of the beam with nails hammered separately through each heel.

His hands showed no sign of wounds, indicating that they had been tied, rather than nailed, to the horizontal bar.

You can begin to understand the suffering when you imagine, lifted on the cross thusly, the first instinct is to lift your body with your slightly bent legs. But the Romans would take a large hammer and break the thigh bones, forcing all the weight onto the arms - slow suffocation over a few days. 

The ossuary was found to contain a second skeleton, that of a young child. (photo credit: Courtesy the Israel Museum, photographer: Ilan Shtulman)

The surprising lack of similar physical evidence for crucifixion elsewhere, Mevorah said, may be due to beliefs that crucifixion nails had magic properties. People in the ancient world, he said, “might have collected the nails as amulets.”   But in this case the nails were driven in with such force that they could not be removed.

Yehohanan was not alone in his ossuary: Inside, archaeologists found a second skeleton, this one belonging to a child aged three or four. They also noticed that the side of the ossuary bore a second, fainter inscription near the first. Curiously, this one also read “Yehohanan.”

After the discovery of the ossuary in the 1970s, the famous Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin suggested that the faint inscription referred to the crucified man and the second inscription — Yehohanan, son of Hagakol — to his son.

“Hagakol” is not a name familiar to scholars, and this theory suggested it was not a name at all. Instead, Yadin thought, having looked at similar words in use at the time, it might have meant “crucified.” The inscription thus read: Yehohanan, son of the Crucified One.

The child Yehohanan, in this version of events, died not long after the elder Yehohanan’s execution, and his bones were added to those of his father in the unadorned stone ossuary kept in the family’s burial cave north of the walled cit

Big Month for Books - Mind Bug, Quantum Lattice Theory

Lotsa new books out at Amazon this month:

Mind Bug: This is a pretty fun sci-fi book that will keep you engrossed

Quantum Lattice Theory: A great step in modern physics

ZIRP ZOMBIES: about THE BANing apocolypse.  Great if you are into financial theory

just go to amazon.com and type in "gianna giavelli" in the search!

The New Stephen Hawking Movie - Theory of Everything - Sucks

I hate the new stephen hawking movie. I hate it for many reasons. First and foremost, I hate it because the title is wrong. Stephen Hawking didn't posit a theory of everything. Its called the grand unified field theory, a concept too big for dumb Americans. He didn't even contribute to that concept or solve it! It was Einstein who hoped for a GUF not Hawking. But quantum mechanics forever dislodged the hope. And Hawking moved it not one iota further.

Second, I hate the movie because there was ALREADY a stephen hawking movie. A pretty good one - a brief history of time. Narrated by the real stephen hawking.

Third, I hate the movie because I don't think Hawking was such a great physicist. Sure they gave him the newton chair and a teaching position, but was that over published papers and quality of research, or because everyone felt sorry for him and his ALS disease? No one has to tell me how tragic these things are I've lived it. But it hardly makes for a brilliant physicist.

What about black holes. Hawking discovered black holes you scream. Actually, it really was pretty easy to deduce the concept once the article on the chandrasekhar or however you spell it limit was published. And Eddington was also keenly aware of their possibility.

What about the big bang theory?

"The Big Bang Theory is an American sitcom created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, both of whom serve as executive producers on the show along with Steven .."

err sorry. That's what wikipedia says about it. 

Well there are many now who argue agasint big bang theory. 

Fahr set off to find a phenomenon that would naturally cause the universe to emanate a smooth microwave glow from all directions in space, like a glowing ember at a few degrees above absolute zero. He says he found one. “There was never a recombination event,” Fahr says of his model of the microwave background. “In my view [the microwave background] is just a kind of entropy feature of the cosmos as it is.”

In debating the interpretation of the cosmic microwave background, Fahr joins a long and distinguished line of heterodox astrophysicists, including the celebrated astronomers Halton Arp, Sir Fred Hoyle, and the Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén. These skeptics have ascribed the microwave background to assortments of glowing clouds of gas, dust, and charged particles throughout the galaxy and nearby universe. These clumps of molecular interlopers, they claim, translate starlight bouncing around the universe into a quiet and dim bath of microwave light, a little bit like how the Earth’s atmosphere scatters blue sunlight to produce the daytime sky.

But it's not just big bang theory. or GuF. Hawking was challenged on black hole theory as well:

"It was at Erhard’s house in San Francisco in 1981 that Susskind and Hawking began their now infamous Black Hole War, which became the title of Susskind’s subsequent book. Hawking made the stunning claim that material which falls into a black hole disappears forever. If correct, it would mean that the fundamental laws of the universe would have to be rewritten. From the point of view of a quantum theorist, like Susskind, this was impossible: the central principle of quantum mechanics is that information can never be annihilated.

Susskind drove home preoccupied by Hawking’s claim. “I was trying to visualise the geometry of a black hole and the weather was so bad that the windshield was covered with frost. As the traffic slowed down, I drew the diagram on the frosted windshield with my finger. I was obsessed with it. I couldn’t see how what he said was right. On the other hand I couldn’t see anything wrong with it either.”

Thus two great theories of physics – general relativity, which describes gravity, and quantum mechanics, which describes everything else – began a heated tussle. In the end Susskind managed to prove the information sucked into a black hole is indeed conserved."

In the end I see Hawking as a smart man, sadly stricken, but a far leap from the greatest modern minds. I simply cannot list his accomplishments. His best work really is a brief history of time and his concept of cosmic eggs and time-universe moving itself along a path. This work in temporality is of course 100% theoretical and not so useful quite at the moment. 

Some Very Odd Things On The Virgin Birth

Mary Visits Elizabeth

³⁹ In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, ⁴⁰ where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. ⁴¹ When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit ⁴² and exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. ⁴³ And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? ⁴⁴ For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leapt for joy. ⁴⁵ And blessed is she who believed that there would be^[e] a fulfilment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.’


When I began to research the virgin birth, I was quite surprised that the only reference to it appears in Luke. What follows is conjecture and guess and pushes the story of the new testament. But it is fun to pursue non the less. 

So you have in Luke 1 the story of two women. Elizabeth, who is old. And an angel comes to her and says that the lord will provide her a son. And her husband Zechariah will not speak again until all this happens.  

Now, Paul makes an odd reference to the birth of Jesus, calling it an Abortion or Abortivo. The line in question is:

I Corinthians 15:3-8: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

So at first I thought Abortion? Or, perhaps it was a cesarean section done in old times? No, it didn't seem right. By untimely born, Paul is referencing the advanced age in years of Elizabeth. 

The telling of the Tale of Luke sorta bears this out:
      Angel appears to Zechariah and fortells of great son named John
      Mary visits Elizabeth at six months of pregancy
      Mary asks the angel how she can give birth as a virgin
      Three months later Mary returns home (presumably after the birth of John)
      Mary has a child who she calls Jesus. 

Ok now this next part will astound you. Lets say that you were Mary and Joeseph afraid to have a child because of the persecution and census. And the elderly couple, too old to raise a new infant. What if after 3 months, the infant was brought back with Mary and Joeseph without Marys knowledge, then she awakens in the manger, with the infant beside her. a "birth" of an infant. She would have been amazed, but not question as it had been foretold to her by the angel Gabriel. 

The child's title is Jesus - Yashua. The Chrestos - the oracle of God. But his NAME his birth name, is John. 

Ok hold on. I know it sounds mad. But one phrase from Elizabeth sticks it: 


After those days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she remained in seclusion. She said, ²⁵ ‘This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked favourably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people.’

So she was disgraced for getting pregnant so old. And went away for five months in seclusion. Then came back. But where is John?

Another hint - When Mary visits elizabeth in her sixth month of pregancy Elizabeth tells Mary

"And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? <sup>44

Very interesting indeed! So maybe at that point, Elizabeth KNOWS what is going to happen but Mary does not! Of course bible thumpers will say simply that it is a reference to Mary going to give birth to Jesus. But how would Elizabeth know anything about that Elizabeth was not supranatural and Mary was NOT PREGNANT!

56 And Mary remained with her for about three months and then returned to her home.

Six months pregnant, then THREE MONTHS MORE = BIRTH! This is not a coincidence!

Lets look at Mark 1.   Of course there is the statement that John baptized Jesus. But perhaps that is simply allegorical. Mark does not say he witnesses it. It begins with a description of JOHN as the wild man who is preaching and is arrested. 


Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.” 9 Although King Herod was very sad, he had made a promise, and his dinner guests had heard him. So Herod ordered that what she asked for be done. 10 He sent soldiers to the prison to cut off John’s head. 11 And they brought it on a platter and gave it to the girl, and she took it to her mother - Matthew 14


Now, go back a little and you will find something amazing in Matthew:

At that time Herod, the ruler of Galilee, heard the reports about Jesus. 2 So he said to his servants, “Jesus is John the Baptist, who has risen from the dead. That is why he can work these miracles.”- Mathew 14:1-3

AHA!  AHA!!! Amazing. So they say it even in the bible! So what might have happend? A faked death. John (Jesus) is in prison and they arrange ANOTHER to take his place and death. Another head is given to Salome. Jesus/John escapes the prison or is released as another and then he has a problem. John has to be DEAD. So who will he be now? He remembers the tale of his birth and the name given to him by the angels and declares himself JESUS.

What does John 1 say about all this? 

6</sup> There was a man named John^[c] who was sent by God. ⁷ He came to tell people the truth about the Light so that through him all people could hear about the Light and believe. ⁸ John was not the Light, but he came to tell people the truth about the Light. ⁹ The true Light that gives light to all was coming into the world!
¹⁰ The Word was in the world, and the world was made by him, but the world did not know him. ¹¹ He came to the world that was his own, but his own people did not accept him. ¹² But to all who did accept him and believe in him he gave the right to become children of God. ¹³ They did not become his children in any human way—by any human parents or human desire. They were born of God.

So John as a prophet was not accepted by the Jews. He needed to reinvent himself as Jesus. And he knew that at some point this would need to happen. 

So Jesus was of the Bethany Clan, a rich family in the Gallilee Essene region. They had many houses and areas of land. 

When one reads John, we must distinguish between John the Baptist, and John the Apostle. The first part is a recount of John the Baptist. But it is not the direct witness of John. Here we hear the tale of John meeting Jesus:

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him. John said, “Look, the Lamb of God,^[h] who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰ This is the One I was talking about when I said, ‘A man will come after me, but he is greater than I am, because he was living before me.’ ³¹ Even I did not know who he was, although I came baptizing with water so that the people of Israel would know who he is.”

But really the DIRECT account of John does not happen until 

The First Followers of Jesus

³⁵ The next day John^[j] was there again with two of his followers. ³⁶ When he saw Jesus walking by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”^[k]
37 The two followers heard John say this, so they followed Jesus. ³⁸ When Jesus turned and saw them following him, he asked, “What are you looking for?”
They said, “Rabbi, where are you staying?” (“Rabbi” means “Teacher.”)
³⁹ He answered, “Come and see.” So the two men went with Jesus and saw where he was staying and stayed there with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon.



Now. John goes to the baptism area and sees someone he recognizes as JESUS. Was this John? The person turns and doesn't say "Hi I am Jesus" he says "what are you looking for?"  

One of the first thing that happens is the amazement of Nethaniel. Nethaniel is AMAZED that Jesus knows who he is.

Philip was from the town of Bethsaida, where Andrew and Peter lived. ⁴⁵ Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the man that Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about him. He is Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth.”
⁴⁶ But Nathanael said to Philip, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?”
Philip answered, “Come and see.”
⁴⁷ As Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said, “Here is truly an Israelite. There is nothing false in him.”
⁴⁸ Nathanael asked, “How do you know me?”
Jesus answered, “I saw you when you were under the fig tree, before Philip told you about me.”

Bethsaida is in Gallilee. So Jesus may have visited family as John and very well met or seen many people when he was younger. And he would have met many many of the more powerful families and their children being from the Bethany clan.  

If Jesus was an infant that just APPEARED by Mary one day, perhaps his utterance in Matthew 11:11 might make some more sense. Of himself, born of Elizabeth, as John, he was the greatest born of women. But as Jesus, of Mary, not born of women, he was the greatest of all.

¹¹ Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist


Finally we have Herod Antipas who knew John the Baptist well, seeking out to see Jesus to dispel the myth that Jesus was the Ressurection of John! But Herod never meets Jesus! Not until much later!

Herod’s Perplexity

⁷ Now Herod the ruler^[b] heard about all that had taken place, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, ⁸ by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the ancient prophets had arisen. ⁹ Herod said, ‘John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?’ And he tried to see him. (Jesus)

and again:

Mark 6:14

[ The Death of John the Baptist ] King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some were saying, ‘John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work in him.’   ... when Herod heard of it, he said, ‘John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.’
Herod is also upset that he was tricked by the three wise men. But what is their trick?

Matthew 2:16

[ The Massacre of the Infants ] When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.

This is confusing until you realize that it is Father and son Herod being referred to, Herod, and Herod Antipas. 



Did the wise men pick up JOHN from Elizabeth and transfer him to Joseph and Mary as JESUS thus hiding the child? The plot thickens. The trick that the wise men performed on Herod is never called out!  So what was the trick? Does Herod say "Hey JOHN the Baptist, It's YOU I KNEW IT!" when they bring Jesus before him!

I think this doesn't happen because it is HEROD who knew John the Baptist, but it is his son Herod Antipas who presides at the time of crucifiction.  This explains why no one knows of him as John. 


It is interesting to put modern intrigue into this common tale and look at how well it illuminates much of many texts which just seen thrown out there and out of place. It ties much together. In the end, there is no knowing. 





 

 


 
 

 

Some