| |
March 3rd, 2002
Received by H.
Cuenca, Ecuador.
My dear brother,
I am very happy that you have returned to your previous state of
receptivity. I know that this week you did not feel well; it is
understandable that you are not able to "to soar high on a
cloud of spirituality" every day. However I have realized that
you missed my messages, and I admit that I also missed our encounters.
A few days ago I informed you how I met the Master for the first
time. In the weeks that followed, the life of most of the disciples
would not change much. They continued working as usual, as fishermen.
But for Matthew and myself, the encounter with the Master meant
a lot. Matthew had given up his lucrative position, but in exchange
he had achieved something which he had dreamt of for so many years:
His integration into society, true recognition from a group of friends,
and therefore, as you can imagine, he felt like in the seventh heaven.
I, on the other hand, accompanied the fishermen, as Jesus did, and
the unaccustomed physical work exhausted me. But I, like Matthew,
felt very happy.
In our free time, the Master taught us his new doctrine. Much of
what he explained to us in these weeks you know already. He talked
about God, our Father, and His Love for us. He also deepened on
the importance of prayer and of the necessity of a personal encounter
with our Creator. What most confused us, I admit, were his references
to the Old Testament, where not only the Messiah's coming, but also
the transformation of all people, implanting in them a "heart
of flesh," was prophesized. We did not get it at that time,
and I never got it while I lived on earth.
Winter had already begun with its rains and storms, when one day
a messenger came to Jesus. He brought the invitation to a wedding
that would take place in the village of Cana. A niece of Nathanael
would marry a distant cousin of the Master. Nathanael, as the “rich
man” of the village, organized the feast, and he invited, of
course, Jesus' family and the Master himself, too, with all his
disciples.
It was a weary walk to the village, and finally we arrived wet
to the bone because of the heavy rainfall. On the day of the wedding
itself we had better luck, because it stopped raining. You have
surely read what Dr. Samuels received on the wedding of Cana.
[H.R.: Dr. Samuels received the following passages
on the above-named wedding in three messages:
| |
I want to tell you more about the absurdities
of the New Testament. Another is the supposed miracle of the
water changed to wine at the marriage feast at Cana. At this
time a cousin of mine on the side of my mother was being married
and as the wine gave out, I was able to procure wine from
a nearby wine dealer by simply paying for it and using the
water jugs that are mentioned in the New Testament.
I would also like to call attention to the fact
that the story of the water to wine episode at the marriage
at Cana was a story that was borrowed from the Greek account
of Dionysius of Elis, the god of wine who would make jars
of water turn to wine overnight by putting them into a concealed
chamber. (Revelation 48:
The ancient origins of some of the miracles found in the New
Testament)
Now before continuing with David, I would like
to tell you about the sentence, "What have I to do with
thee, ye son of Zeruiah?" which was lifted out of the
story in the Old Testament and placed by New Testament writers
into my mouth as follows: "What have I to do with thee,
woman? Mine hour is not yet come."(John
2: 4) This is what I am supposed to have said at the marriage
feast of Cana, according to John, the Evangelist. Needless
to say, neither did I make wine out of water, for I was not
Dionyseus, the god of the grape, nor did I ever address my
mother as "woman." The sentence was written into
this fable because it associates me with King David, my ancestor
dating back a thousand years, and the Davidic covenant, of
which I am the fulfillment. (Sermon
17 - King David, a man of God)]
|
|
I will not repeat the story. However, I neither do I want to skip
this episode, for several reasons:
First, I want to remind you and to reaffirm that at that feast
the Master did not perform any miracle, as the Bible ascribes to
him. It was a tremendous feast, where the whole village participated
and many guests from the neighboring settlements, hundreds of people
eating and drinking, dancing and singing, and I still remember very
well this romantic experience.
It is also worthwhile remembering it because after many weeks of
absence the Master met his parents again, and the feast’s relaxing
atmosphere favored the coming closer of father and son. Even more,
two of Jesus' brothers decided to follow him. They were not fully
convinced of his mission as the Messiah, but their rejection and
initial mockery had transformed into curiosity and admiration when
they found out that many of their brother's disciples had been disciples
of John the Baptist, whom they knew personally, and whom they held
in high esteem. In addition, they knew that John himself had recognized
Jesus as the true Messiah of the Jews. They remembered what their
father had always taught them, and seeing how their father even
began to try to understand Jesus and to recognize that perhaps his
idea of the Messiah was not necessarily the correct one, they asked
him for his permission to follow Jesus.
[H.R.: Who were they?]
Ya'cob (James) and Yehuda (Judas). But even more happened there.
Nathanael even took courage and joined the group, abandoning his
home, without seeing his family for weeks, in order to accompany
Jesus.
[H.R.: Are Nathanael and Bartholomew one and the same
person? It does not come through very clearly in the New Testament.]
Yes, this is correct. The name of Nathanael’s father was Tulmai,
and therefore Nathanael was also called "son of Tulmai"
or "bar Tulmai" in Aramaic.
Now, this would be a good moment for finishing this message, but
I want to add some more because I see that you are still fresh and
full of energy.
First, I will tell you a story.
Jesus now had many disciples: Simon the fisherman and his brother
Andrew. James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Philip and Simon the
Zealot, Matthew, James and Judas, his brothers, and last but not
least Nathanael. As you see, there were two persons by the name
of Simon (Shim'on), two by the name of Judas (Yehuda) and two by
the name of James (Ya'cob). When Jesus called: “Simon!”
two men answered: “Here I am, Master!" It was even worse,
when later on Simon, Jesus' brother, joined the group.
You know already that in the town where you live, people frequently
have nicknames, such as "zorro" (fox), "gander"
(ganso), "venado” (deer), etc. And so, Jesus nicknamed
his disciples too. He called Simon the fisherman "Kefa",
meaning rock, for his compact and strong body and his firm faith
in the Master. He did not want to call the other Simon "zealot,"
because of the political tension that reigned in the country. It
would have been like nicknaming someone "communist" in
Nazi Germany.
He called his brother Ya'cob "Lebi", my heart. From that
word derives the Greek expression “Lebbaeus”, commonly
assigned to Judas, due to the contradictory lists of apostles contained
in the gospels. In fact the contradiction has its origin in the
intention of presenting lists of exactly twelve people, when in
fact there were not twelve but more followers of Jesus who formed
the so-called "inner circle." Lebbaeus is mentioned only
once in the gospels, in that one according to Matthew, because later
editors did a good job in their desire to eliminate all
traces of the Master’s brothers from the scriptures.
And in my case, since the Master's brother was called Judas too,
all referred to me as Judas the man from Kerioth, Yehuda Ish Kerioth.
But now I see that you wonder how the story of the wedding of Cana
finally made its way into the gospels, or rather, into John’s
gospel. The explanation is very simple.
John wrote his short gospel very soon after Jesus’ death.
Therefore it is much older than is commonly assumed. However what
he wrote was only the skeleton of what you know now as the gospel,
and which bears his name. Later on this work was translated from
the original Aramaic into Greek, in Asia Minor. Then many parts
were added: Hellenistic, such as the Neoplatonic prologue, the episode
of the wedding at Cana, which was taken from a collection of miraculous
(and largely exaggerated) events in the Master's life, a collection
that does not exist any longer and that is denominated the "signs
gospel," parts of what is called the "cross gospel"
and many other writings, even a reordering in the sequence of some
chapters. We also find in this gospel some glosses, that is to say,
marginal annotations that voluntarily or involuntarily found their
way into the text. Voluntarily, because some editor wanted to insert
the gloss into the pertinent text. Involuntarily, because during
the work of copying the document, the person who read the text and
dictated it to the copyists, included it in his reading by mistake,
and the scribes copied what they heard.
Now I see that another question bothers you. How
is it possible that in the Book of Urantia the episode appears more
or less as in the gospel according to John, when this story does
not have its foundation in truth?
Well, in this case I ask you the following question: If somebody
asked you to write an extensive story about Jesus' life, what would
you do? You would surely take recourse to the messages received
by Mr. Padgett and Dr. Samuels. From these messages you can build
a skeleton for your story. Nevertheless there are many gaps yet
to be filled. And since you do not find another source of information,
you would use the gospels in order to complete your work.
[H.R.: Do you want to say with this that the
Book of Urantia, or at least the part dealing with Jesus' life,
is based partially on messages delivered by spirits, and partially
it was written by "somebody" to complete the story?]
You have said it.
[H.R.: Is it then a mixture of truth and falsehood?]
It contains valuable information. I have commented already that
the description of the Last Supper is very good. It also gives much
information on Jesus' appearances after his resurrection, information
that has largely disappeared from the gospels. In Paul's epistles,
there are some indications that there was something more than what
you can now find in the New Testament. It also contains much information
which the authors supposed was truthful, but it is not.
It is difficult to transmit several thousands of pages of compact
information.
The transmission of concrete information is not so simple. It is
as in translations. The information passes through the mortal's
brain and leaves much space for its interpretation and transformation.
Do you remember that a short time ago you have read what Jack
Kilmon wrote on the "Lord’s Prayer?"
He wrote that the first line of prayer, “ABba duwooshMAya
yeetQAdeh shmak”, could be translated in various ways:
- Father in the Heavens, Holy is your name.
- Creator of all that is light and sound, we are
blessed in the spirit of your light.
- Maker of all that vibrates in light, you are the
hallowed sound.
Now, if a conservative Bible scholar were to translate the phrase,
which one of the options would he choose? And which one would a
New Age follower choose, with a deep knowledge of western Aramaic
that Jesus spoke?
Once I already mentioned that Aramaic had words, each of which
encompassed many meanings, leaving a wide margin for interpretation
in their translation. Therefore, it was so apt for word plays and
parables.
And now, thinking that Aramaic presents so many problems in its
translation, imagine the how enormous is our problem in communicating
information, when our way of reasoning is more different from yours
than the mortals’ modern reasoning is different from that of
the ancient inhabitants of Galilee.
It is not easy, and the messages that you receive are the reflection
of what we want to communicate, as an amended reflection, or modeled
by the mortal brain. But, despite these difficulties, you may always
find the Truth in the messages when you are willing to read them
with your heart, because their essence continues vibrating with
It. Therefore, the Padgett messages are gibberish for many, and
therefore the Urantia Book is absurd for others, and therefore,
there are people who read the one or the other, very different collections,
but they come to the same conclusion: Our Heavenly Father loves
us, He offers us His Love, and He communicates to us His Will: That
we accept His offer, that we attain to true Immortality and eternal
happiness in at-onement with Him.
There are revelations for every taste and character. And when people
read and study them with their heart, they will find their way to
our Creator. There are many possible ways, some longer, others shorter.
The shortest ones are not necessarily the quickest ones, but finally
all will come to the same goal, which you already know.
Truth is not for reading, it is not for learning, but rather, It
is for experiencing and living. If you look for Truth in words,
you will never find It.
Some days have passed since our last message, but I am happy that
today you have really been in a condition of very good receptivity.
I hope you will continue so. We still have much to communicate,
years of information.
But now the moment has come for finishing. I do not want to abuse
your energy. Stay prepared, I am keen to continue.
Your brother in the spirit,
Judas Iscariot
NOTE. The term "gloss" above is a term
used to describe the problems associated with ancient manuscripts.
Hand written annotations could easily become part of the text during
the process where the text is read out to a group of scribes who
naturally do not see the original text, as they are writing out
the "new" copies. When the original is destroyed, then
the annotation has become part of the "original".
|
|
