David Icke - The Gold of the Gods (Referenced in Revelations of A Mother Goddess).pdf - DAVID ICKE - wagner302

STAR FIRE - The Gold of the Gods

The true Grail bloodline originated with the Anunnaki gods in southern Sumeria

at least 6,000 years ago and was sustained by ingestion of an alchemical

substance called 'Star Fire'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extracted from NEXUS Magazine, Volume 5, Number 6 (October-November 1998).

PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com

Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381

From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

From a lecture presented by

Sir Laurence Gardner, Kt St Gm., KCD, KT St A.

at the 1998 NEXUS Conference held in Sydney, 25-26 July

Transcript © Sir Laurence Gardner 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is now nearly two years since my book, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, was

published, and for those of you who have not read this (or have not seen the

serialised lecture transcript in NEXUS magazine), the investigation is

essentially concerned with the Messianic Bloodline as it has descended through

the family of Jesus Christ down to the present day. It is also concerned with

comparing the New Testament Gospels with the first-hand historical accounts of

the era, as related in both the Roman and Jewish archives. In this regard, it

details how the eventual Christian High Church corrupted and manipulated the

early records to suit its own political agenda.

Despite the contrived doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin and was the 'one

and only' son of God (definitions that did not feature in the original pre-Roman

texts), the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke actually give details of

Jesus' descendant lineage from David of Israel and the Kings of Judah. This has

led to the one question I have been asked more than any other during the past

months. The question (in its various forms) asks quite simply: What was so

special about this Bloodline in the first place?

Given that the dynastic succession from Jesus has been expressly prominent in

sovereign and political affairs through 2,000 years - with the family constantly

supporting constitutional democracy against control by the Church establishment

- its status rests upon the fact that Jesus was a lineal descendant of King

David.

But, what was it that made the line of David so important, and so different from

any other? It was this very question which set me on the trail for my next book,

Genesis of the Grail Kings, which tells the story of the Messianic line from the

very beginning.

The Bible explains that the Bloodline story began with Adam and Eve, from whose

third son, Seth, evolved a line which progressed through Methuselah and Noah,

and eventually to Abraham who became the Great Patriarch of the Hebrew nation.

It then relates that Abraham brought his family westwards out of Mesopotamia

(present-day Iraq) to the land of Canaan (or Palestine), from where some of his

descendants moved into Egypt. After a few generations they moved back into

Canaan where, in time, the eventual David of Bethlehem became King of the newly

defined Kingdom of 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

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. Their

biblical history bears no comparison to, say, the contemporary Pharaohs of

ancient Egypt. Their significance, we are told, comes from the fact that (from

the time of Abraham) they were designated as 'God's chosen people'. But even

this leaves us wondering, because, according to the scriptures, their God led

them through nothing but a succession of famines, wars and general hardship -

and, on the face of it, these early Hebrews do not appear to have been too

bright!

We are faced, therefore, with a couple of possibilities. Either David was not of

this Abraham succession at all, and was simply grafted into the list by later

writers. Or maybe we have been presented with a very corrupted version of the

family's early history - a version that was specifically designed to uphold the

emergent Jewish faith, rather than to represent historical fact.

In consideration of this, I was reminded of precisely what I had found with the

New Testament. The Gospel texts that have been in the public domain for

centuries bear little relation to the first-hand accounts of the era. The New

Testament, as we know it, was compiled by the 4th-century bishops to support the

newly contrived Christian belief. But, what if the Jewish scribes had previously

done exactly the same thing?

Clearly, I had to get back to the more ancient writings in order to find any

anomalies. The problem was that, even if this were possible, the earliest Hebrew

writings (which were rehashed many centuries later) were themselves only written

between the 6th and the 1st centuries BC, so they were not likely to be that

authentic in their telling of history from thousands of years before. Indeed, it

was plain that this would be the case, because when these books were first

written their express purpose was to convey a history which upheld the

principles of the Jewish faith - a faith that did not emerge until well into the

ancestral story.

Given that the first group of these 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 19 said generations down to Abraham, the whole of Old

Testament patriarchal history was Mesopotamian. More specifically, the history

was from Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, where the ancient Sumerians did indeed

refer to the grasslands of the Euphrates delta as the Eden.

When researching for Bloodline of the Holy Grail, I found that good sources for

some background information were the various Gospels and texts that were not

selected for inclusion in the canonical New Testament. Perhaps, I thought, the

same might apply to the Old Testament. The books of Enoch and Jubilees, for

example, were among those not included.

A further book, to which attention is specifically drawn in the Old Testament

books of Joshua and Samuel, is the Book of Jasher. But despite its apparent

importance to the Hebrew writers, it was not included in the final selection.

Two other works are also cited in the Bible. The Book of Numbers draws our

attention to the Book of The Wars of Jehovah. And in the Book of Isaiah we are

directed towards the Book of the Lord.

What are these books? Where are these books? They are all mentioned in the Bible

(which means they all pre-date the Old Testament), and they are all cited as

being important. So, why did the editors see fit to exclude them when the

selection was made?

In pursuing an answer to this question and in studying the substance of the Old

Testament prior to its corruption, one fact which becomes increasingly clear is

that in English-language Bibles the definition 'Lord' is used in a general

context, but in earlier texts a positive distinction is drawn between 'Jehovah'

and 'the Lord'.

It has often been wondered why the biblical God of the Hebrews led them through

trials and tribulations, floods and disasters, 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 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 fact, 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' was a god of fertility and

wisdom.

So, what was the name given to the Lord in the early writings? It was, quite

simply, the prevailing Hebrew word for 'Lord', and the word was 'Adon'. As for

the apparent personal name of Jehovah, this was not used in the early days, and

even the Bible tells that the God of Abraham was called 'El Shaddai', which

means 'Lofty Mountain'.

The apparent name 'Jehovah' came from the original Hebrew stem YHWH, which meant

'I am that I am' - said to be a statement made by God to Moses on Mount Sinai,

hundreds of years after the time of Abraham. 'Jehovah' was therefore not a name

at all, and early texts refer simply to 'El Shaddai' and to his opposing

counterpart, 'Adon'.

To the Canaanites, these gods were respectively called 'El Elyon' and 'Baal' -

which meant precisely the same things ('Lofty Mountain' and 'Lord').

In our modern Bibles, the definitions 'God' and 'Lord' are used and intermixed

throughout, as if they were one and the same character, but originally they were

not. One was a vengeful god (a people-hater), and the other was a social god (a

people-supporter), and they each had wives, sons and daughters.

The old writings tell us that throughout the patriarchal era the Israelites

endeavoured to support Adon, the Lord, but at every turn El Shaddai (the storm

god, Jehovah) retaliated with floods, tempests, famines and destruction. Even at

the very last (around 600 BC), the Bible explains that Jerusalem was overthrown

at Jehovah's bidding and tens of thousands of Jews were taken into Babylonian

captivity simply because their King (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 weakened and

finally conceded. They decided to succumb to the 'God of Wrath', and developed a

new religion out of sheer fear of his retribution. It was at this time that the

name of Jehovah first appeared - and this was only 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 the Adon were totally

discarded. The two religions were henceforth both faiths of fear. Even today,

their followers are classified as 'God-fearing'.

So, where does that leave us? It leaves us knowing 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 known as 'El Elyon' and 'Baal'; 'El Shaddai' and 'Adon'; 'Arhiman' and

'Mazda'; 'Jehovah' and 'Lord'; 'God' and 'Father'. But these styles are all

titular; they are not personal names.

So who precisely were they? To find the answer we have to look no further than

where these gods were actually operative, and the old Canaanite texts

(discovered in Syria in the 1920s) tell us that their courts were in the Tigris-

Euphrates valley in Mesopotamia, in the Sumerian Eden delta of the Persian Gulf.

But what did the ancient Sumerians call these two gods? What were their personal

names? We can trace the Sumerian written records back to about 3700 BC, and they

tell us 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

'Ruler of the Mountain'), and his brother, who became Adon, the Lord, was called

'Enki'. This name is really important to our story 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, the early Syrian texts tell us that it

was Enlil who obliterated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah on the Dead Sea - not

because they were dens of wickedness, as we are taught, but because they were

great centres of wisdom and learning.

It was Enki, on the other hand, who, despite the 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 tables of scientific law which became

the bedrock of the early mystery schools in Egypt.

Many books talk about the hermetic school of Tuthmosis III of Egypt, who reigned

about 1450 BC. But it is not generally known that the school he originally

inherited was the Royal Court of the Dragon. This had been founded by the

priests of Mendes in about 2200 BC and was subsequently ratified by the 12th

dynasty Queen Sobeknefru.

This sovereign and priestly Order passed from Egypt to the Kings of Jerusalem;

to the Black Sea Princes of Scythia and into the Balkans - notably to the Royal

House of Hungary, whose King Sigismund reconstituted the Court just 600 years

ago. Today it exists as the Imperial and Royal Court of the Dragon Sovereignty,

and after some 4,000 years it is the oldest sovereign Court in the world.

But what were the earliest aims and ambitions of the Order back in Pharaonic

times? They were to perpetuate and advance the alchemical strength of the Royal

Bloodline from Lord Enki, the Archetype.

The kings of the early succession (who reigned in Sumer and Egypt before

becoming Kings of Israel) were anointed upon coronation 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 always referred to as 'Dragons', or 'Messiahs' (meaning

'Anointed Ones').

In times of battle, 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'.

One of the interesting items from the archives of the Dragon Court is the origin

of the word 'kingship'. It derives from the very earliest of Sumerian culture,

wherein 'kingship' was identical with 'kinship' - and 'kin' means 'blood

relative'. In its original form, 'kinship' was 'kainship'. And the first King of

the Messianic Dragon succession was the biblical Cain (Kain), head of the

Sumerian House of Kish.

On recognising this, one can immediately see the first 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 (or Kains) of Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Two more important features then come to light when reading the Bible again with

this knowledge in mind. We all tend to think of 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,

and it confirms how Eve told Adam that Cain's father was the Lord. Who was 'the

Lord'? The Lord was Adon, and Adon was Enki. 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 have we been 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.

In fact, the Bible translators appear to have had a constant problem with the

word 'Earth', often translating it to 'ground', 'clay' or 'dust'. But the early

texts actually referred to 'The Earth'. Even in the case of Adam and Eve, the

translators got it wrong. The Bible says: 'Male and female he created them, and

he called their name Adam.' The older writings use the more complete word

'Adama', which means 'of the Earth'. But this did not mean they were made of

dirt; it means that they were 'of The Earth' - or, as the Anchor Hebrew Bible

explains in absolutely precise terms, they were 'Earthlings'.

There is a lot to be said about the story of Adam and Eve and of how they were

the result of clinical cloning. Writers such as Zechariah Sitchin have written

at some length in this regard, and my new book delves far more deeply into the

subject. I shall not dwell upon this particular aspect now because I want to

move more directly into the alchemy of the Messianic Bloodline of the Earthly

Dragon Kings. What I will say is that the Sumerian records state that around

6,000 years ago, Adam and Eve (known then as 'Atabba' and 'Ava', and jointly as

the 'Adama') were purpose-bred for kingship at the House of Shimti by Enki and

his sister-wife Nin-khursag. In Sumerian, the word Shi-im-ti meant 'breath-wind-

life'.

David Icke - The Gold of the Gods (Referenced in Revelations of A Mother Goddess).pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: