TANATA:

by RANDALL CARTER GRAY

MAY 3, 2008 — We continue to get mixed responses to our hypothesis, but it is beginning to break in the press, and we’re very excited, because the more people investigate what we’re saying, we’re confident that it will be affirmed. We’re not cocky about this, frankly, more relieved, because we have paid our dues, beginning 35 years ago in Ethiopia, after being drafted in 1972, and believing our world had fallen apart. And it did. But it has finally paid off.

The questions continue below. We’ll have more on this story in the way of a chronology to provide the details on how the pieces fell into place for us to arrive at John Mark, an African, as Jesus’ best friend, which virtually no one, since Martin Luther, has considered. Dionysius of Alexandria, “the Great,” who was pope in that Egyptian port city from 248 until his death in 265 A.D., wrestled with the difference in the quality of the Greek in Revelation versus that in John’s Gospel, which caused him to believe there must be another John. Of course, he was right, but the other John, that is, John Mark, happens to have written both John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse of John, i.e, Revelation.

Because of John Mark’s age when he wrote the Revelation in exile on the island of Patmos near Ephesus, this may account for the poorer quality Greek in the Revelation. But let’s consider this: It is apocalyptic literature, and he must have been overwhelmed.

The date of the Revelation’s writing remains a topic of debate. Some scholars put its writing near the very end of Domitian’s reign, around 95 or 96. While other scholars contend John (that is, John Mark) wrote much earlier, around 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter. We prefer this latter, earlier date, because John Mark was probably born 10 or 15 years after Jesus, and we believe Jesus was born in 3 A.D. John Mark was probably a teenager or a young man in his twenties when Jesus’ ministry began.

All of the Gnostic “secret gospels” have been geared to smearing Jesus and hiding John Mark. Now everyone will know the truth about those scurrilous documents. And now we must ask ourselves … who are the heretics who have doctored the Bible for the purpose of obscuring John Mark, and, Jesus?

How fitting it will be if the good folks in Atlanta run with this story, in light of this being the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination. The truth deserved to come out. MORE AS OUR STORY BREAKS.

Q: What difference does it make who wrote what? Move on.

RCG: Firstly, it matters that we know that John Mark, an African scholar, of Cyrene (Libya), wrote two gospels and not one, the book of Revelation, and probably 1 and 2 Peter, as well as the Johannine epistles, and maybe more, because it mattered to foes of Christianity to tamper with scripture this knowledge from us.

It mattered to these forces that we should not know that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is/was a man of color … and that they haven’t wanted us to know his identity or his accomplishments for 1,900 years. The tamperers went to a lot of trouble, from the first century till now, to obscure this information from us, which is quite an amazing feat, or set of feats — which we believe is an ongoing campaign. Interestingly, even the early church “fathers,” including Dionysius of Alexandria, who lived just centuries after the gospels were written, in the very city that John Mark evangelized so effectively, did not know about the contributions of this unsung African hero of early Christianity. One would think that word of mouth alone would have reached the papal figure.

And, Dionysius did wrestle with the authorship of both the Gospel of John and the Revelation, only the latter having been signed “John.” He could not reconcile in his mind that the same person wrote both, because the Revelation is comparatively sloppily written in Greek. He toyed with the notion that John Mark may have been the writer of at least one of these works for this reason, as did Martin Luther, but lacked any confirming evidence, which is hard to believe, providing all of the New Testament had been available to him, and Luther. Presumably 2 Timothy 4:11 was, in which Paul places Mark in or near Ephesus, the only biblical evidence we have of a man named John in that vicinity. And the Nicean council would have signed off on this epistle.

We have the very mysterious references by Papias of the early second century to Presbyter John, whom Papias said kept him informed of the efforts of the apostles, the writers of the gospels, even providing him allegedly with how Mark had written his gospel from memory, guided solely by Peter, having not himself followed Jesus. Or heard him. We know this is bogus, because the last supper was hosted by John Mark and his mother Mary in their home in Jerusalem. And, only Mark made it to the summit of Golgotha. Peter did not, nor did Matthew or Luke, who relied on Mark’s gospel.

“Q,” by the way, in our view, the alternate source some people believe Matthew and Luke must have used, must bogus, too. And we say that, because we believe Mark’s Gospel was further tampered with after Matthew and Luke had been written, and after everything had been signed off on by the council of Nicea. Oh, what a tangled web we weave … The deceit has worked out in our favor, however, because if there is brazen deceit here, it surely much exist elsewhere, and it does, we believe, throughout the patristic writings. So it matters who wrote what, because the truth matters — and the hiding of the truth in and of itself matters. Which prompts us to ask, Why has John Mark been obscured, apart from the fact that he was/is a man of color and a scholar. We posit that there may be eschatological implications to this subterfuge and not just racism at work.

By association, we have every reason to believe that Jesus was a man of color, as we have said, and yet he was not “simply dark-skinned,” as we have said, but a composite, a superman, if you will, with blood that was very valuable indeed. Bloody relics, such as the nails used to crucify Jesus, and the Holy Grail, which may in fact have been used to catch some of Jesus’ blood may come into play. But why would anyone, presumably the Romans, or other enemies of Jesus, have wanted his blood? Some have speculated that Jesus’ DNA has been used to create a clone of Jesus, and that this figure will be the antichrist. It sounds far-fetched, doesn’t it? Outrageous, in fact. It also forces us to look back nearly 2,000 years and assume that the forces responsible for any such deed … would have had the ability to know what would be needed to fool the elect in the last days, as Jesus predicts.

This, of course, is purely speculation — but all of this relic business, notably the emphasis on the Holy Grail by the Gnostics then and now, smacks of something more elaborate than what those of us on the outside looking in know. There is obviously some secret or secrets pertaining to Jesus that these secret societies opposed to him, and yet all for him at the same time, are harboring. Spooky. A film which was released in 2003, I believe, called Revelation, touches on this idea that DNA taken from Jesus has actually been used for cloning purposes. Again, far-fetched, unless we take into account the cloning which is actually occurring right now. There are reports of human cloning, and it wouldn’t surprise us. The kooky Raelians, for one, claim to have cloned humans.

But here is the encouraging word in the midst of all of this weird talk: clones, of any sort, have a very short life span, reportedly. They’re deficient, as some reports go. And, of course, in Jesus’ case, if they have tried to clone and produce their own messiah, he is not God’s representative, but evil’s, and he will not have the ultimate power of Almighty God, nor, can any such freak deliver our redemption. Again, speculation, science fiction stuff to be sure — but anything these days seems possible.

IT ALSO MATTERS that we know John Mark wrote all that he did, because the Coptic church was founded by Jesus’ closest friend, i.e., John Mark, and credit is due. We’re obviously being presumptuous, because no hypothesis is 100 percent airtight until it is proved beyond a doubt — but more than enough biblical and extra biblical evidence supports our hypothesis, we believe, as we will show. (And, we must add, our hypothesis does not constitute blasphemy of any sort — though that has been suggested — because we are pointing the foes of Christianity who are truly guilty of acts of heresy and blasphemy by obscuring the truth from us about John Mark’s contributions.

Of course, none of what we say will matter to those people who disagree with us; but everyone can judge for himself. The long and short of it is, we want to read the truth and move on from there.

John Mark’s obscuring matters because Orthodox Christianity, as the Copts have defined it for all these years (being Christianized four centuries before Europe), is languishing; the numbers of Coptic worshipers are dwindling, largely because the church continues to be the focus of intense persecution from Muslims in Egypt, and elsewhere — and this isn’t good for all of Christendom, we submit, not if this very devout sect of Christianity was the forerunner of us all. We received the Nicene creed of faith from the Coptic church. We might point out that John Mark’s home in Jerusalem, owned by his mother Mary, was the first church, in a very real sense: it was here that Jesus shared Passover with his disciples before his arrest later that night and it was here that Jesus appeared to his disciples following his resurrection.

It was John Mark’s home to which Peter fled after escaping miraculously Herod’s prison. John Mark’s home was home base for Jesus and his disciples, a safe refuge where they could receive the hospitality of John Mark and Mary, which obviously contributed to Jesus’ closeness to both John Mark and his mother — both being disciples whom Jesus loved. It’s possible that Jesus, a poor man, with no place to lay his head, received his only comforts in life. The seamless white linen tunic or robe he wore may have been a gift of Mary, because she was likely the only person Jesus knew who could afford such and expensive priestly gift, and because, if John Mark was a priest, as we suspect he was, such garb was already present in the house. It may have been Jesus’ only gift, perhaps given on his birthday, an antitype perhaps of his swaddling clothes.

Interestingly, the term “antitype,” which is a second, completing part of a forerunning person, place, action or object that follows a prefiguring “type,” is a term used in the classical Greek masterpiece of 1 and 2 Peter. It is a term which would be far too scholarly for Peter to have written, and thus the scholar John Mark is more likely the author of this work, who selected “antitype” in reference to Jesus as an antitype of Noah’s Ark, offering salvation as Jesus did in the same way the enormous boat of Noah kept his family afloat and above water. Jesus’ detractors and enemies of Christianity do themselves a great disservice by ignoring such timeless elements which validate the existence of a timeless God, who sees the end of time in the same way as he sees the beginning. And, would Peter have known classical Greek, if he had spent his life fishing on the sea of Galilee rather than studying? Not if he wanted to eat.

For those looking for validation in the Holy Scriptures of these unmatched, incomparable writings as divine, as well as validation of who Jesus was and is, a person need look no further than the obvious forerunning and concluding types and antitypes found first in both the Hebrew scriptures and completed in the New Testament. These forerunning types are present in a number of places, certainly in the lives of the patriarchs, especially Joseph, who was betrayed to become a slave in Egypt, but ultimately came to be an important overseer, showing grace to the brothers in the form of food supplies who had tried to kill him. And Joseph, like Jesus, did not go out of his way, not at first, even to identify himself to gain the love and respect of his brothers.

The slain lamb and its blood smeared on Joseph’s coat of many colors is very apparently, at least to us, a poignant image that references Jesus as a composite possessor of all of the blood types and DNA of mankind, setting him apart, as Adam was. Paul makes this connection, and this has to the link to which he was referring. It doesn’t have to be, but we believe it is. Many types are found in the Psalms and the prophets. Memorably, there is the forerunning type in the Psalms which references the gambling which took place at the foot of Jesus’ cross, as the Romans, true to form, callously competed for Jesus’ expensive gift of clothing as he hung dying above them. Who is not moved by the profound pathos in such a scene. And yet, it is like so many things validating Jesus go unnoted and undiscussed by those who, unlike ourselves, point to the biblical errors and contradictions as evidence of the flawed writing of those whom God inspired to write his words, which, in fact, it has been God’s enemies who are responsible. Cheap shots indeed, which, by the way, no one should accuse us of committing by pointing out the errors which have hidden from us Jesus closest friend as these years.

If you happen to be a literalist to this degree, when evidence is staring you in the face otherwise, our advice is get your head out of the sand. You’ve done enough damage by arguing points without studying. Paradoxically, the staunch literalist argument has kept from us the truth about the deeds of our enemies.

IT MATTERS THAT WE KNOW who Jesus’ dearest friend was, his adopted little brother in very real terms, as Christianity makes its final push, battered and bruised, for the finish line. It is also worth noting, as we are discussing how John Mark must have caringly and artfully written the books ascribed to Peter, which are not narrative as Mark’s Gospel is, that John Mark saved his best work to be credited to Peter, who once gruffly referred to John Mark as “this man” and complained that he might not taste death — and we suspect he didn’t perhaps as Elijah and Enoch did not. Most certainly, this is a goal to shoot for; we say that as a one-time sufferer of profound anxiety attacks which for so many years, twenty or more, to be exact, caused us to dread the attacks, and when they would occur, it was a desperate feeling of utter doom, not knowing how in the world we were going to control our fear so that our heart would stop pounding dangerously in our chest.

Having had a father who died of a heart attack, and a mother who also has heart disease, it was always a perilous place to be. As we have said, they virtually ended when my wife reminded me of the words of Job: “Though he slay me, yet will I serve him.” Those are defiant words of faith, which did not come to mind at first. My dear wife, a nurse, despite her flaws, has in many ways saved my life. We’re digressing, but this is a blog, right? We have freedom to do so in this format, right? Our paper in the works is more scholarly, with footnotes, et al, if it can be called that. We work out our ideas here.

HOW SAD IT WILL BE for those guilty of inflicting in these time the blows which they have, condemning an innocent man, which amounts to pouring salt in his wounds, grieving the holy spirit in the process, when Jesus died even for them. How the crucifixion as a sacrificial act works or gains our redemption, we’re at a loss to say; but we suspect that God sought to prove in Jesus’ death … that it was not God who destroys or kills anybody or anything. And we have Jesus’ suffering example to encourage us, as grim as that aspect of life is for some people. To argue against the redeeming act of Jesus is grieving the Holy Spirit.

Grieving the holy spirit, which is aggressive non-belief, is the only sin that leads to death — all other sins pale in comparison. I hate it for the many people online who take potshots at Jesus and Christians, especially people like the Copts, who have remained steadfast, despite their beleaguered status, taking it on the chin time and time again, even now suffering the abuse of the Muslims who would eradicate them. Woe unto these. I don’t imagine anyone could ever reach them — nor are we supposed to try as Christians, lest we be burned. But I would reach out nonetheless, only because I know what abject terror and complete despair feel like. And I am not alone. Many, many other people, many of them Christians, have suffered the same fate. How much God has required some people to suffer to get through to them. Such is indicative of the gulf between man and the righteousness of God.

The emphasis on white linen as a symbol (apart from the obvious implication of purity) is probably intended, it must be, but we haven’t studied further on this point. It is important that white linen is worn by the youth in the secret gospel of Mark, the youth being a fabrication every bit as much as the “secret gospel” of Mark. If it were such a precious document, God would have seen to it that it was never secret. So shove that one.

The idea of the youth, after being resurrected, coming on to Jesus as a pervert, suggests the decadence and insensitivity of these Gnostic enemies of Jesus and the God who made them. Can you imagine being raised from the dead and being sexually attracted to the person who had the power to raise you from the dead, if such a resurrection ever actually occurred. Because of the gap found in Mark 10, when Jesus and his disciples, which must have included Mark, goes flying past Jericho (something must have happened here worth reporting), we suspect that Jesus resurrected someone from the dead, and John Mark might have had a hand in this act, hence the gap caused by redacting heretics. What would have to go through a person’s mind to say to himself, okay, this needs to come out, because it makes Jesus look good. Holy cow. Jesus’ deity would have been staring this omitter of truth in the face, and yet he didn’t feel any admiration at all. If there any doubt that the enemies of Jesus and Christianity have the blackest of hearts?

At any rate, smearing Jesus with these erotic connotations, in an effort, one would think, to throw cold water on the whole idea of Jesus’ agape bond with his little brother John Mark, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also wore white linen, is another incredible act of insensitivity and perversion. Many people, including us, believe the “certain youth” in Mark 14:51,52, a curiously inserted scene, is in fact John Mark. This passage was either written in or doctored to put Mark as far away physically (and lasciviously) from Jesus as Zebedee’s John was, who fled Gethsemane with his brother James when the soldiers appeared with Judas. Can you imagine John and James stopping as they’re running, saying, you know what, even though Jesus’ prediction of our martyrdom has sunk in … we really ought to go back there and help him out. Such defies good sense — as a friend of mine used to say, such a thing doesn’t make good “walking around” sense.

We submit the young priest John Mark was a scribe who must have worked with Annas and Caiaphas, he being “the other disciple” who boldly intervenes on Jesus’ behalf in the courtyard of the high priest, while Peter, tellingly, cowers outside and denies Jesus. We would expect Zebedee’s John to have done no differently than Peter, which supports our hypothesis that just as Zebedee’s John was not “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” neither was he “the other disciple,” the latter reference clearly intended for obscuring purposes, which echoes John Mark’s modest use of the identifier “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” We can imagine that John and James would have been crucified right along with Jesus, on the cruel Annas’ orders, has the crude Zebedee boys shown their faces. Peter obviously feared having to face any big shots. John Mark, however, being a scholar who lived and worked in Jerusalem, apparently as a scribe, who was clearly known to these important men, but, of course, to no avail where Jesus’ defense was concerned, would have had an in which he courageously exploited.

Can you imagine the anger John Mark must have been feeling when he left Annas’ courtyard, knowing that Annas had just condemned John Mark’s older brother, in effect, and mentor, his dearest friend, to death? It may have been everything John Mark could do not to cut off an ear or more. He may have given Annas an earful, though his ear was left in tact … and resigned his post at that very moment, beginning his transformation from John, his given Jewish name, into “the Hammer,” which translates Mark or Marcus in Greek. Beautiful. It also bears noting that Annas, who as a former high priest, who oversaw the corrupt financial goings-on at the temple, and encouraged the simony there in the form of the moneychangers, held a grudge against Jesus from the moment Jesus cleansed the temple and put a dent in Annas pocketbook. And Jesus must have surely known what he was doing, whom it was that he was alienating and infuriating as he tore the place apart in righteous indignation, as his judge, who could have spared Jesus’ life, looked on and seethed.

Is it possible that Mark 14:51,52 offers us a description of John Mark, not running around naked from two youths, but being seized and removed of his white linen by two Roman soldiers, who, seeing that John Mark was an African, as Jesus indirectly was as a DNA composite of all races (or flavors, which is what we used to call a “suicide,” when all the syrup was dumped on a snow cone) tried to seize him. For this same reason Simon of Cyrene was surely nabbed by the Romans, who only saw the man’s skin and believed he deserved condemnation as the other black sheep being led to Golgotha. Why else would anyone be grabbing John Mark? Who but Roman soldiers with no respect for Jewish priests would have grabbed a man in priestly white linen, or tried to, at this point in the story? John Mark probably could run like the wind, as demonstrated at the empty tomb when he outran Peter. But we digress, but for good reason; these are all important for validating our hypothesis.

It also matters that we articulate John Mark’s role as the writer he was (recognition he rightfully deserves) as the Copts today find themselves at the mercy of world scholars, despite the Copts’ devotion to the written word and their brilliance. These foolish “scholars” are almost certainly motivating in squelching the truth about the Copts’ devotion and skills to separate John Mark from the sect he founded. Such “scholars” as these, being Gnostically inclined with spurious motives, go to an awful lot of trouble to work their wiles. We know this because they travel from place to place for their little conferences, publishing material in the Journal of Coptic Studies which belong in the trash. These university programs and associations with European offices which support the journal, as best we can tell, are exclusively dictating the topics of discussion as to what Coptology means today. No wonder no one today has a good grasp of Coptology, that of which they and we write and discuss.

Allow us to quote rather extensively from an article written by Jill Kamil in the August 2004 online edition of Al-Ahram to illustrate our point. The subhead of this article in bold will be followed by several paragraphs that bear noting:

Eight years after Coptic studies was made an independent discipline at the congress at Munster (Germany) a proper definition of the field of (Coptic) study still eludes academics.

(To which we say, gee, wonder why? It’s not like anywhere in Europe is a hotbed for Orthodox Christianity. It’s not like esoterica doesn’t reign there, which is opposed to Christianity, without a doubt.) The article proceeds:

The only absolute certainty is that ‘Coptic’ has to do with Egypt,” observed Professor M. Tito Orlandi of Rome’s University of La Sapienza in his presidential address to the eighth International Association for Coptic Studies (IACS) congress in Paris last week.

The IACS is an offshoot of the International Committee founded in 1976 for the publication of the Nag Hammadi codices (now, you see? Heresies all.), and its congresses take place every four years. This year Paris was the host city, following Rome, Warsaw, Louvain-la-Neuve, Washington, Munster and Leiden. (What about Cairo or Alexandria?) There were some 280 participants, and the proceedings were conducted at two venues: L’Institut d’Art et d’Archaeologie de la Sorbonne, and L’Institut Catholique, both not far from the Luxembourg Gardens.

Astounding, indeed! Keep all of that in mind as you read on. Also keep in mind that John Mark, or St. Mark, or “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” faced down the Gnostics in Alexandria, which led to the founding of the Coptic church there. Now they tell us Coptology and Gnosticism are intertwined, which is heresy with a capital ‘H’. Christianity’s detractors have said the same thing about the Gospel of John, which is a gross distorting of this material.

As I indicated previously regarding our conclusions pertaining to John Mark and his mother Mary, about which we are wholly confident, these began to crystalize after we began investigating The Da Vinci Code, after the film was released in May of 2006 to nauseating fanfare, and all the buzz was “The Last Supper” by Leonardo (1498) upon which the film is based. As we also said, it was on account of the religious education I received as a young teen, from which I learned of the “John and Mary problems” in the New Testament gospels, that I have had questions and suspected heresy pertaining to these problems for a good part of my life, despite being a devout Christian. These needed to be worked out, obviously, at this point in time. I had no evidence by which to argue my point that “The Last Supper” was nefarious, because the gospels were in key places. Prior to being shown the odd endings of all four gospels regarding “the other disciple” in Sunday school, a person whom then I believed to be Zebedee’s John, and prior to being show “the other Mary,” a weirdly vague reference, and the contradictions at the empty tomb, I had never paid any attention to these things, although I knew Jesus had resurrected, something I believed as a child. But that was it. And, there’s nothing like a real mystery to sink your gums … er, teeth into.

My teacher was a very devout man who I’m sure still believes as he did then: that God’s word, both the Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures) and the New Testament, is divinely inspired and true, except where heretics have made “alterations.” He did not doubt the reality of the resurrection whatsoever, nor do I. Nor do I disbelieve, and never have, that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. One of a kind, he was, a point, we suggest, the Gnostics secretly know and may have tried to exploit, genetically, if you will, per the Holy Grail, either literally or symbolically presented to allude to the collection of some of Jesus’ unique, all-race-encompassing DNA; more on that later.

Once we began to see parallel problems in Leonardo’s “The Last Supper” and in the conclusions of all four gospels, we began to see a larger picture, a unifying thread to all of these apparent heresies. We did not know that St. Mark or John Mark was a native of Cyrene (Libya), in North Africa, until we read H.H. Pope Shenouda III’s biography on St. Mark which we found online last year. When we realized the African birthplace of St. Mark, knowing what we knew of Ethiopia’s ancient holy past and St. Mark’s founding of the Coptic church in Alexandria, we began to see a motive — that is, it became apparent to us that John Mark (and his mother Mary) was being obscured, and had been … because he was an African, and we love the African people. This was confirmed for us in part once we discovered the identity of Leonardo’s employer and patron for this painting, Ludovico Sforza, the duke of Milan, who was nicknamed at birth “il Moro” or “the Moor” — a point which rather stunningly has been overlooked, as best we can tell. It bears nothing that Shakespeare, for instance, and others, use the word “Moor,” or “blackamoor,” to be synonymous with “African.” More on this fascinating point later.

And so, lo and behold, Leonardo had a patron, the duke of Milan, who had African features! This astounded us. It was frankly a eureka experience. It made sense to us that the duke of Milan of some African descent had asked Leonardo to paint an “accurate” version of the last supper, which, of course, was held in an African home, it being held in the home of John Mark and his mother Mary of Cyrene … because the painting was so obviously a botched repainting job, not typical work by Leonardo, a perfectionist. (See part one in the post below.)

We did not make the connection of John Mark with “the disciple whom Jesus loved” until we began studying those places in scripture where we had previously seen the “John and Mary problems” as a youth. The “mutilation” of Mark’s Gospel, which includes curious gaps and a very disputed final chapter, when we combined this gospel with Paul’s clash with John Mark and how John Mark has been misperceived as a result (though Paul ate crow later, and though Barnabas, leaving with John Mark had sided with him), along with obvious problems in John’s Gospel and questions also raised by the early church fathers, brought us to an undeniable conclusion: John Mark was the disciple whom Jesus loved … and Paul, whom we must remember carried around the guilt of having actually killed Christians, was an emotional mess because of it. While “the Hammer,” a “pillar,” who intimidated Paul, would have been a very imposing figure because he had loved Jesus from the start.

When we discovered that there was a little house of stone which existed in Ephesus, where the Virgin Mary is supposed to have lived and died, we knew this had to be false! For the Virgin Mary is buried in Jerusalem! Combining this with what we knew of Zebedee’s John, that he lived in Galilee and may have been the Virgin Mary’s nephew (ergo, his mother Salome is Mary’s sister), and noting the obvious oversight by heretics in Acts 1:14 (where Mary’s real sons are attending to her!), we were convinced, as we hope you will be, that European heretics, aided by the church in Rome, had obscured John Mark, and that the deception was still ongoing, as illustrated by the Da Vinci Code charade. Is the author of this novel culpable, then, in this age-old cover-up?

When he began to respond to our essays by placing things to cover his trail on his website … he gave himself away (a close-up of the hand gripping a knife floating in midair behind Judas’ back). A guilty conscience needs no accuser. And yet, we are still unpublished, except for here. But all in due time. A publisher could take this website, poems and all, and turn it over to an editor, and …

Here’s the next question, and we will try to be brief, now that you understand a little better how we have reached our conclusions. What is equally as important as these findings, we believe, is what we do with this information as true believers and as members of Orthodox Christianity, those of us who are Copts, for which St. Mark laid the groundwork. One of the first things we must do is encourage “Copts,” who belong to the Journal of Coptic Studies board and the European-based association and university to which it is attached, to pack up and leave all of that behind them. This journal features articles on Gnosticism, the occult, Manacheism and Zoroastrianism, as we said, all of which is false teaching, very false. It is the garbage St. Mark stood against to begin with in Alexandria.

Stand with us. Only bad things, worse things will happen if we do not speak up, worse than those which have already happened to the Copts in Egypt and elsewhere, not to mention just your average run-of-the-mill Christians, if there is such a thing. Ha. But we don’t think the lid stays on this for too much longer. We need an angel. For what it’s worth, we’ve put these heretics on notice. And we will not be deterred from exposing them for who and what they are. And if we can lead them to Jesus, which is their only hope, we will do that, too.

Here is the next question:

Q: Who are you, and where do you get your information? If you are not an Orthodox Christian, how would you have this?

RCG: A very good question. I was confirmed at a very early age as a result of terrifying visions, which drove me to Jesus. Both of my parents were involved in Freemasonry (as it has been made more and more apparent to me, notably by certain organizations, if these are in fact responsible for contacting me). I believe my night terrors began at roughly the same time, as I have thought about it. So, without knowing it, I was a very devout child — that is, I did not have the luxury of not trusting in Jesus and not believing that God was a God of peace, or that he was in any way the cause of my horrific nights, which left me soaked with perspiration — pajamas, sheets, everything, when I woke up in the morning, for years, although it may have been something like six months to a year. As it has turned out, God has used these events, clearly. And I am still sane! (I think.) Often, I would just stare from my bed, frozen, amazed at what I was seeing, which was hideous, leering faces coming toward me. I would close my eyes, and they were still there in my mind’s eye!

My family, my mother included, thought I was nuts, and I suffered persecution for what was not my fault … but, perhaps, that of my goofy parents, who dropped all of that crap. It was just a place to hang out, but I actually ended up in that temple at a Christmas party … where there were no other kids but my brothers and me, as I have just recently thought about it. Did this cause any demonic stuff to attach itself to me? I have never delved into, nor do I wish to, any of that, for obvious reasons. I desire my peace. My father is dead, my mother is still alive, and all seems to be well, with most of us. Our family has been unquestionably affected by all of this, though, in my view … and I have often been made the scapegoat for all of it. No more.

No, I am not Orthodox. I am an Episcopalian, raised a Southern Baptist, very happily at times in a wonderfully moderate church pastored by a man who left, and that crushed me, frankly, and I am very devout today; not perfect, but devout. And, having been drafted and sent to Ethiopia and Cairo to do military intelligence work, I suppose because I tested well as a vigilant person (having been made to be), I learned a great deal about what it means to be African. I lived among them, but got severely culturally shocked. I learned how the United States had (and continues to) created every problem, virtually, that the people of Ethiopia and Eritrea have faced, including war. War is an effective means of genocide …and all the instigators have to do is sit back and watch. But why genocide in Africa? So globalism works, so the useless eaters die off, so fascism returns, thanks, incredibly, to the U. S. of A. I’m a citizen of heaven. Don’t get me started.

A pox on those who are responsible. I mean it sincerely. They deserve to be punished. And the people of Ethiopia and Egypt, the Sudan, Chad … all of those African nations which have been targeted, deserve to be free from American and European, and United Nations (UNESCO) influences. A pox on those houses, all of those culpable, as well. It makes us livid here at TANATA, but I don’t punch walls anymore. Good therapy, good medicine. Prayer.

As to where my information has come from, I believe I have already addressed that.

Q: St. Mark was not one of the twelve, but he was one of the apostles chosen by Jesus to preach the good news. Why do you call him a disciple? Also, St. Mark was martyred in Alexandria in 67 A.D., twenty-five years before the Revelation was written.

RCG: Another good question. No, John Mark was not a member of the twelve, and this affords us an excellent clue that he is, in fact, the disciple whom Jesus loved. The disciple whom Jesus loved asked Jesus who would betray Jesus, as you will recall. And Jesus said, “It is one of the twelve.” From that, I can only gather that the beloved disciple was not one of the twelve, though he was close to Jesus.

As for him being an apostle, yes, this is true — otherwise, he does not end up in Acts of the Apostles doing the work that he did. But the patristic writings of Papias (a suspicious figure), reported by Eusebius and Iranaeus, state that Mark neither knew nor followed Jesus. If this is so, how does John Mark in Mark’s Gospel end up describing events at Golgotha … without Peter or Zebedee’s John present? Hmm? And how does John Mark get chosen as one of the seventy (70), if he did not know Jesus personally?

As to his alleged martyrdom, 2 Timothy 4:11 puts John Mark near Ephesus, not Zebedee’s John, whom we frankly never see, not in the Pauline epistles … and not in Acts, even not at the beginning of Acts, we don’t believe, when a man named John is with Peter. We believe this was John Mark, since he accompanied Peter anyway. If Papias and others in the days of early Christianity are going to lie about Mark’s actual relationship with Jesus, and how he wrote his gospel (exclusively “led and guided by Peter,” which is false for several more reasons), what’s to keep anyone from lying about John Mark’s alleged martyrdom, so as to elevate Zebedee’s John to the disciple whom Jesus loved, which he was not? Patristic writings indicate that both John and James were martyred by the Jews, if we can believe those, and we do, by process of elimination. Jesus told John and James they would be martyred, after they had bugged him to no end, along with their mother Salome, about being big shots in heaven. This was apparently a very emotional matter for the Zebedee brothers and Salome. “Obnoxious” is the word that comes to mind.

In Peter’s post-resurrection conversation with Jesus in John 21:21, Peter, complaining to Jesus that one of them, Jesus’ followers, would not be martyred, refers to the disciple whom Jesus loved … as “this man.” Would Peter have spoken so bluntly and impersonally about Zebedee’s John, whom he knew, when he was within earshot? Not if he wanted to keep his face, we suspect. Peter did not know John Mark well at this point, who was traveling behind. Since John Mark is the only other John we have, and since “this man” certainly can’t refer to “Mags,” Mary Magdalene — whom we believe never existed, by virtue of contradictions involving her in the concluding chapters of the gospels, and her first name being what it is to cover up John Mark’s mother Mary, and by virtue of she being smack dab at the center of all the heresies (And, have you ever read the so-called secret gospel according to Mary Magdalene? It is as disingenuous as can be. Rambling, trying to be scriptural. My dog writes better.). John Mark, by process of elimination, is “this man” by virtue of his background as a scholar, and by virtue of the poorly done heresies, which are what they are because heretics are stupid and deceived. Truly. How, otherwise, does a heretic call himself a Christian? That’s like me calling myself an atheist, sort of. A complete reversal, a paradox, hypocritical. Sick.

See, we have told you. You, dear reader, have a responsibility to spread the news. However, if you are an enemy of Jesus and Christianity and you’re reading this, drop what you’re doing and beg him for forgiveness. Or let your masters eat you (the tangible beings we encountered as a child) … when the rest of us have gone away. These spirits must have been tangible, because we had no experience programmed within our little mind to act upon. It was wholly foreign. The peace of God, when you can get it, finally, is very sweet indeed.

— rcg