Are there messengers from “Across the Universe”? John Lennon thought so: ‘Sounds of laughter, shades of life, are ringing through my open ears, inciting and inviting me.’

And God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light. John Lennon, in the Beatles song, “The Word”, explains, ‘In the beginning, I misunderstood, but now I’ve got it, the Word is good.’

We are now going to try to get the measure of the man, using his birth chart. In the words of George Harrison’s song, “My Sweet Lord”, ‘I really want to know you’.

A Description of Jesus

Twenty years ago {forty years now}, I came across the following quotation in Jeffrey Furst’s book, Edgar Cayce’s Story of Jesus.

Few people are aware that there is in existence today, in the Archives in Rome, a description of Jesus. It is contained in a report written nearly two thousand years ago, by a Roman, Publius Lentulus, to his Emperor, Tiberias. It reads thus:

“There has appeared in Palestine a man who is still living and whose power is extraordinary. He has the title give him of Great prophet; his disciples call him the Son of God. He raises the dead and heals all sorts of diseases. He is a tall, well-proportioned man, and there is an air of severity in his countenance which at once attracts the love and reverence of those who see him. His hair is the color of new wine from the roots to his ears, and thence to the shoulders it is curled and falls down to the lowest part of them. Upon the forehead, it parts in two after the manner of Nazarenes. His forehead is flat and fair, his face without blemish or defect, and adorned with a graceful expression. His nose and mouth are very well proportioned, his beard is thick and the color of his hair. His eyes are gray and extremely lively. In his reproofs, he is terrible, but in his exhortations and instructions, amiable and courteous. There is something wonderfully charming in this face with a mixture of gravity. He is never seen to laugh, but has been observed to weep. He is very straight in stature, his hands large and spreading, his arms are very beautiful. He talks little, but with a great quality and is the handsomest man in the world.”

The Secret Archives of the Vatican

What I find so fascinating about this account is the way Jesus is portrayed — a tall, handsome, very masculine individual. It is almost as if we need him to be a “perfect” specimen in order to look up to him. But what if he were full of human foibles and blemished, or lacking in some way physically? Would we still admire him?

In contrast to the above, here is a small piece from The Secret Archives of the Vatican:

One of the earliest documents in the Secret Archives to come down to us in its physical form is an act of donation to the pope by a Romanized Goth, which escaped destruction because it was hidden in a very small church near Tivoli. Its date is 471, but its story begins in the previous century. In the year 359 there had died a great gentleman of a Rome that was going down to its tragic sunset: the consul Junius Bassus, prefect of the city. He was only forty-two years of age, and he was buried in a sarcophagus that is a masterpiece of the time. Now in the Vatican grotto, it is covered with bas-relief scenes from the scriptures; the central one shows Christ between the apostles Peter and Paul. At first one thinks that the scene has been misinterpreted and that it actually represents the boy Jesus in the Temple, for on it the Christ appears as a very young adolescent, a large fair child. Then one notices another scene, of the Palm Sunday episode; here again the Christ is shown as a young boy; and one realizes that the artist has seen him not as an historical figure but as the divine child of Diety.

Now, that’s justification for you. The author, Maria Luisa Ambrosini, is speculating about why Jesus is portrayed as a young boy. It never occurs to her that maybe he was actually small, not tall at all! Does this diminish him in our eyes?

The Gospel of Thomas

In The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, Jean Doresse examines the passages from The Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus may have been describing his ‘less-than-perfect’ form:

’51. Jesus says: “From Adam to John the Baptist, among those who have been born of women, there is none greater than John the Baptist! But for fear that the eyes should be lost I have said: He who among you shall be the smallest shall know the Kingdom and be higher than John!”‘

Was he referring to himself? Commentators who are steeped in the classical image of Jesus think not, but I am not so sure. The other passage I wish to quote has an aside which suggests that Jesus himself was less than satisfied with his physical body:

’34. Jesus says: “If the flesh was produced for the sake of the spirit, it is a miracle. But if the spirit was produced for the sake of the body, it is a miracle of miracles.”

But for myself, I marvel at that because this great wealth has dwelt in this poverty.

Jesus’ Portrait

Throughout this book, I shall be endeavoring to share the true measure of the man with you by quoting extensively from as many different sources as I can.

Also, I would ask that you read this book with an open mind. There are a great many things in this book which may cause consternation among those who could be best described as “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

In the meantime, I hope this book will accurately complete the details of Jesus’ portrait and bring the purpose of his life closer to you, the reader.

So, let us begin this journey of discovery at the beginning, his birth.

Jesus’ Birth Chart

For anyone wanting to replicate this chart, use the date and time of 6 January 6 BC @ 12:01 am local time (‘in the midnight hour’), then let the programme reset the date to the modern equivalent.

Sun – 13 Capricorn 48′
Moon – 16 Cancer 01′
North Node – 24 Aries 21′
Mercury – 29 Capricorn 24′
Venus – 27 Scorpio 28′
Mars – 17 Aquarius 36′
Jupiter – 19 Pisces 23′
Saturn – 17 Pisces 17′
Uranus – 03 Pisces 08′
Neptune – 07 Scorpio 00′
Pluto – 12 Virgo 14′

Ascendant – 11 Libra 01′
Midheaven – 11 Cancer 47′
2nd House cusp – 09 Scorpio 04′
3rd House cusp – 09 Sagittarius 41′
5th House cusp – 13 Aquarius 54′
6th House cusp – 14 Pisces 10′

2016 explanation: When I wrote this book in 1996, I hand calculated the positions of the planets based upon the concept that Jesus WAS born on 25 December 7 BC. My thinking was that the 10 days lost in the October 1582 conversion of the Julian calender to the Gregorian would somehow be constant over time. To see what the actual change was, go to this link.

2020 explanation: I have revised Jesus’ birth time to align it more correctly with Edgar Cayce’s explanation. It is now January 6, 6 BC, one minute after midnight old style, Julian calendar. The equivalent in the Gregorian calendar is two days earlier.

Due to my ‘miscalculations’, some of my numbers were slightly skewed. However, it was the image that resulted from those errors that made me choose the book title and main emphasis of this manuscript. See the next image for ‘proof’.

Picture Credits

Can you see the Star pattern?

Linked pages: The Star of Bethlehem: Introduction (part 1)
The Star of Bethlehem: Introduction (part 2)

Picture credits:
Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus courtesy of http://www.flickr.com;
The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics courtesy of http://www.amazon.com;
Jesus Christ Healing poster courtesy of http://www.zazzle.com

In the second half of the introduction, the “Golden Rule” is discussed in full. And in the words of John Lennon in the Beatles’ song, “All you need is love; love is all you need.”

The Golden Rule

To illustrate the fact that Jesus’ message wasn’t new, John Hick (in his book The Metaphor of God Incarnate) has documented the fact that ‘the golden rule’ was part of many belief systems of faith:

It is to be said that there are two main patterns of this transformation (from natural self-concern to a new centering in the Real). There are saints who withdraw from the world into prayer or meditation, and saints who seek to change the world — in the mediaeval period a contemplative Julian of Norwich and a political Joan of Arc, or in our own century a mystical Sri Ramakrishna and a political Mahatma Gandhi. In our present age of sociological consciousness, when we are aware that our inherited political and economic structures can be analyzed and purposefully changed, saintliness is more likely than in earlier times to take social and political forms. But, of whatever type, the saints are not a different species from the rest of us: they are simply much more advanced in the process of inner transformation.

The ethical aspect of this consists in observable modes of behaviour. But how do we identify the kind of behaviour which, to the degree that it characterizes a life, reflects a corresponding degree of reorientation to the divine Reality? Should we use Christian ethical criteria, or Buddhist, or Muslim…?

The answer, I suggest, is that, on the level of their most basic moral insights, the great traditions use a common criterion. For they agree in giving a central and normative role to the unselfish regard that we call love or compassion. This is commonly expressed in the principle of valuing others as we value ourselves, and treating them accordingly.

Thus in the ancient Hindu Mahabharata we read that ‘One should never do to another that which one would regard as injurious to oneself. This, in brief, is the rule of Righteousness’ (Anushana parva, 113.7).

Again, ‘He who…benefits persons of all orders, who is always devoted to the good of all beings, who does not feel aversion to anybody…succeeds in ascending to Heaven’ (Anushana parva, 145.24).

In the Buddhist Sutta Nipata we read, ‘As a mother cares for her son, all her days, so towards all living things a man’s mind should be all-embracing’ (149).

In the Jain scriptures we are told that one should go about ‘treating all creatures in the world as he himself would be treated’ (Kitanga Sutra, 1.ii.33).

Confucius, expounding humaneness (Jen), said, ‘Do not do to others what you would not like yourself’(Analects, xxi.2).

In a Taoist scripture we read that the good man will ‘regard {others’} gains as if they were his own, and their losses in the same way’ (Thai Shang, 3).

The Zoroastrian scriptures declare, ‘That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self’ (Dadistan-i-dinik, 94.5).

We are all familiar with Jesus’ teaching, ‘As you wish that men would do to you, do so to them’ (Luke 6:31).

In the Jewish Talmud we read, ‘What is hateful to yourself do not do to your fellow man. This is the whole of the Torah’ (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 31a).

And in the Hadith of Islam we read the prophet Muhammad’s words, ‘No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself’ (Ibn Magja, Intro.9).

Clearly, if everyone acted on this basic principle, taught by all major faiths, there would be no injustice, no avoidable suffering, and the human family would everywhere live in peace.

We are all in this together

Now, I recognize the content of that final sentence as an ideal that we all carry with us, but is most perfectly expressed through the lives of individuals with either their Sun or Ascendant being in Libra. This will prove important when we begin to analyze Jesus’ birth chart. As I was reminded of recently during a particularly difficult time, “We are all in this together” (Bernie Sanders). We need to remind ourselves of that fact often, or else we begin to view life through our own ego’s point-of-view, forgetting our connections to others in this world.

However, another small statement in Hick’s book stands out for its simplicity and its truth (which I believe epitomizes Jesus’ life and is a major clue to our understanding of him):

Jesus himself seems to have been exceptionally sympathetic towards women.

Why should this be? It is the essential mystery of a belief system which for almost two thousand years has been exclusively the ‘right’ of men, with women taking a secondary, supportive and submissive role. And yet, if men continue to ignore the truth contained in the love and compassion of a mother, a sister, a lover or a daughter, they will destroy this world and all that depends upon her. She is our Great Mother, Earth, called Gaia by some. She loves and sustains us as a mother would her children, but all that Western man wants to do is subdue and control her, in much the same way that women have been subdued and controled for thousands of years.

Footnote

From She For God: Into this world, where among Jew and Gentile alike women counted for little or nothing, Christ was born and grew up trained in the Mosaic Law with all the weight of its fierce and puritanical traditions. He began his short ministry and, from the little we know of it, his treatment of, and whole attitude towards, women was so immensely creative, revolutionary and dynamic that although the church, following a long way after in this respect, comprehended him not, neither did it wholly deny him. The Gospels remain. In them we read that Christ actually treated women as worthy of serious attention, worthy of argument, worthy of friendship, worthy of compassion, worthy of praise.

In St. Luke alone, seven specific miracles of healing were concerned with women. That Mary was commended for behaviours so utterly foreign to women’s supposed proper role as to leave her domestic tasks in order to listen to a Rabbi who was willing to teach her (in itself an offence against the Law) was of much greater significance than appeared on the surface. Jesus’ defence of Mary Magdalene must have astonished as well as appalled the men who heard it. It is quite likely true — although only mentioned in the Gnostic Gospel of Marceon — that one of the accusations brought against Jesus by the Sanhedrin was that he led women astray by teaching them. Women were not meant for such things.

As for his talking to the women of Samaria and the Syro-Phoenician women, perhaps the extreme unusualness of this behaviour accounts for the inclusion of such episodes in what is after all a very short and highly selective narrative. Most of all, to be treated as individuals in their own right would have astonished the women themselves. They came to realise that Jesus thought them to be of equal importance as men in the eyes of the Father, ‘joint heirs’ to his kingdom. In return they gave him devotion and faithfulness to the end, and it was to women that Jesus first revealed himself after the Crucifixion.

All four evangelists agree about this, which is a curious and interesting point, for the resurrection story, as has often been pointed out, has many discrepancies. No Jewish woman was considered reliable as a witness and indeed could not legally be accepted as such. Therefore, if a concerted account of the resurrection was being invented to convince the authorities, to insist that women were the first and thus the most dramatic witnesses to such an extraordinary event would have been enough to discredit it at once. Yet it is just this which is narrated by all the Gospels.

Writing on the Ground

According to Wellesley Tudor Pole in his book, Writing on the Ground, Jesus performed a higher purpose in “writing on the ground” while making the Pharisees see their own shortcomings during the forgiving of “the woman taken in adultery” scene in John 8:48:

My surmise is that his accomplishment as outlined above was unique in world history in method and operation up to the point at which he appeared among us. What happened would have destroyed his human form, had it not been that this form held in perfect balance and rapport the masculine and feminine qualities and instincts inherent in human nature. In other words, Jesus could act as a perfect lightning conductor, without causing any damage to his body or mind.

It is my belief that the ‘Second Coming of Christ’ actually involves an equal participation in life between the two sexes, with neither being superior nor inferior to the other. I therefore see Jesus’ life as a symbol of this balance, and I hope this book will demonstrate just how reconciled he was with God and man.

The Passover Plot

While recently re-reading The Passover Plot, the book by Dr Hugh J Schonfield which initially started me on my journey of discovery about Jesus’ life in 1976, I came across the following passage about the awareness Jesus had about his mission as Messiah:

When the Nazoreans looked back on the dramatic climax of the life of the Messiah, as many of us still do through the libretto to Handel’s Oratorio, they were overwhelmingly impressed by the appositeness of so many passages to what had transpired. Having to establish both for themselves and for Jewish audiences that what had taken place was in accordance with the Scriptures, they were able to build up a formidable array of testimonies. In their zeal they even amplified and supplemented the account of his experiences, as certain texts appeared to require additional incidents which would fulfil them. Almost insensibly, teaching was converted into fact, and individuals could claim that they had heard such things from someone, who had heard them from one of the apostles. Thus the legend grew from story to testimony to embellished story. We have to be fully conscious of this process of gilding the lily in studying the Gospels and the early patristic literature.

The feat of Jesus was far more extraordinary, because he was looking forward into the unknown, seeking to determine the shape of things to come as a guide to his own actions. It was his achievement to have extracted from the Oracles so clear a picture, and to have so assured of its reliability, that he could follow it like a star which charted his course, and commit himself to certain, positive predictions of what would take place. The achievement was particularly remarkable because it transcended the relative vagueness of contemporary Messianism, and brought its ideas into a sharper and indeed a singular focus. There are strands of different colours held to mark the role of distinct messianic personalities, the Prophet like Moses, the Suffering Just One, the Son of David, the apocalyptic Son of Man. Jesus wove them into one.

And that last sentence, for me, makes the whole approach to Jesus’ life through an astrological analysis of his birth chart perfectly logical. As I shall discuss throughout this book, the separate energies which come “from” the planets are combined in Jesus in a truly remarkable and unique fashion. There are not many people who can claim to be the Messiah. Therefore, to me, he is and always will be, for eternity,

THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM.

Picture Credits

Linked page: The Star of Bethlehem: Introduction (part 1)

Picture credits:
Gaia courtesy of real-gaia.angelfire.com;
Jesus and Mary Magdalene courtesy of wikipedia;
Jesus writes on the ground courtesy of http://www.pinterest.com;
The Passover Plot courtesy of librarycat.org

Almost twenty years ago, I wrote an “Astrological Portrait of Jesus of Nazareth”. This is the introductory chapter. In the words of Paul McCartney, ‘Venus and Mars are alright tonight.’

The ‘Point of Death’

While searching for a new approach to astrology, I came across this entry in the Dictionary of Astrology by Fred Gettings:

The ‘point of death’, which is not to be confused with the “Anaretic“, is one of the so-called Arabian PARS. If the degree of the Moon in a natal chart is revolved to the Ascendant, the cusp of the adjusted 8th house marks the death point.

Now, on its own, this little tidbit seems insignificant, but it did spur my thinking into pathways which led me to some interesting discoveries. But more on that later. At the time I read that, I only had one set of birth/death dates with which I could experiment: while preparing my manuscript for At This Point in Time, I calculated Jesus of Nazareth’s birth at 12:01 am local time on 25th of December 7 BC, and his crucifixion at 11:41 am local time on AD 7th April 30. So, when I compared the two charts, I began to see connections beyond the simple ‘point of death’. This book is the result of that journey of discovery.

Should there even be a birth chart for Jesus?

Girolamo Cardano

Now, I am very aware that erecting any chart to do with the life of Jesus is considered wrong by a great many Christians. In fact, A History of Astrology records that a certain Girolamo Cardano (1501-76), the physician, mathematician and astrologer from Milan, was imprisoned towards the end of his life for attempting to cast the horoscope of Christ.

But I think that the information gleaned from Jesus’ birth and crucifixion/death charts is too important to keep hidden away from public scrutiny, just because some people do not believe in astrology or cannot agree with its tenets. The 13th-century astrologer, Bonatti, claimed that astrologers knew a great deal more about the stars than theologians knew about God, that Abraham had taught astrology to the Egyptians, and Christ had used (or at least approved of using) astrology to choose propitious moments for certain tasks (“Are there not twelve hours in a day?” he had asked the disciples {John 11:9}, obviously meaning that one could choose a fortunate time within them).

But the Roman Catholic Church may have suppressed any reference to astrology, in order to prevent the ‘unwashed’ masses from learning the truth about Jesus and his plan of salvation for them.

Jung and the Lost Gospels

Jung and the Lost Gospels

What we know now about Jesus’ life and death has been altered out of recognition. Stephan A. Hoeller in his amazing book, Jung and the Lost Gospels, came to grips with the altering image we have of Jesus through the last two millennia by stating:

And where in all this is Jesus? He is still present, but he has been dethroned. The sevententh and eighteenth centuries use him as a sentimental object of maudlin devotion and little more. He becomes a sentimental comforter, a friend on whose shoulder the bereaved may cry and the downtrodden hope but never quite find complete consolation. What a far cry is this pale, sentimentalized image from the fierce defender of the outcasts of society who appears in the New Testament! And also, how far removed from the majestic, transcendental universal king of the Byzantine mosaics, not to mention the mysterious, ubiquitous well of the living waters that once flowed from the Gnostic figure of Christ in the first few centuries A.D.

The Gnostics, an oriental religious movement which played a part in early Christianity, spawning many sects, believed that when Jesus ascended into heaven after the crucifixion, he changed the influences and even the movement of the planets, and determined how they shaped a new soul, controlled the process of conception and the formation of the embryo in the womb, and every event of life from cradle to tomb. Their beliefs evolved from the Essenes’ and spawned a ‘heresy’ known as Catharism in the middle ages. In my opinion, their ‘truth’ is resurfacing at the present time as a ‘Return of the Christ’.

Hoeller continues: God is dead, religion is the opiate of the people, and Jesus does not exist. Or does he? Comparative mythologists appear on the scene who are not so sure. Behind the vague and uncertain historical data surrounding the figure of the founder of Christianity they begin to discover a powerful mythic reality no less impressive for being at least in part remote from physical history. The historical Jesus gives way to the Jesus of myth. Scholarship discovers that the image of the crucified Nazarene is intimately connected with a large number of savior gods of antiquity: Osiris, Horus, Tammuz, Mithra, Orpheus, and many others. Upon the heels of the mythologists appear the representatives of modern depth psychology, among them C.G. Jung…

By recognizing Jesus as the greatest and latest symbolic representative of the archetype of the Self, Jung has given us an invaluable tool to be utilized in the study of Christian origins and indeed all concerns and disciplines that address themselves to the religious problems of Western culture. Jung’s recognitions may also be taken as signs of hope, indicating that the era of negative and confused attitudes regarding this most significant archetype of our culture may be coming to an end.

The Metaphor of God Incarnate

The Metaphor of God Incarnate

In his book, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick advances a couple of thought-provoking suggestions. I think they lend credence to my work:

But for the most modern Western Christians (including myself), it remains difficult to accept myth as myth. Returning to the crib, and the Christmas story as a whole, we know that it is historically unlikely that Jesus was born on 25 December (the date of a pre-Christian pagan winter festival which Christianity inherited), that the year of his birth was 1 CE (it was more probably about 5 BCE); unlikely that he was born in Bethlehem (which was probably adopted into the story to fulfill prophecy), that he had no human father (a mythic theme that became attached to a number of great figures in antiquity); and we have seen reasons to reject the dogma that he was God incarnate (a dogma that Jesus himself would probably have regarded as blasphemous). In view of all this, how does one participate in Christmas?

Either one opts out, on the grounds that the Christmas story is literally false; or one opts in, accepting the myth as evocative poetry, stirring the emotions, expanding the imagination, warming the heart — and all in the direction of an enhanced sense of the gracious, loving, benign character of the Ultimate in relationship to human life.

But it must be admitted that for many of us this remains difficult; and unless and until sensibilities change we shall have to live with this unresolved problem. It is particularly difficult for those who are called to lead the worship of the church, knowing that many in their congregation regard the mythic story as literally true. It must have been equally difficult a hundred years ago when reading, for example, the story of Adam and Eve as the scripture of the day, and understanding it as truth in mythic form, whilst knowing that many in the pews could only see it as literal history. The same words were being understood in different ways by different people.

And so it is today. ‘The Word was made flesh’ entails for some that Jesus, uniquely, had two natures, divine and human, and is accordingly to be worshiped as God; whilst it means for others, both that Jesus’ life embodied a love that is a reflection of divine love, and that the ideal of humanity living in response to God was, to a startling extent, embodied, incarnated, in his life, so that we may take him as our lord, guru, spiritual leader.

The Purpose of Jesus’ Death

Jesus Christ on the Cross with Clouds

I totally agree with the sentiment of John Hick’s thoughts, but not with the facts, as I will demonstrate throughout this book that we can know when Jesus was actually born and what that meant to him then, and what that means to us now. For one thing, his death’s purpose was not atonement alone but something more significant:

Jesus’ death has indeed played no small part in this influence {for salvific transformation}. Although the meaning of that death was pictured during most of the first Christian millennium in the bizarre ransom imagery, and during most of the second millennium in terms of morally questionable satisfaction and penal-substitution theories, the cross has continued throughout as our central Christian symbol because it stirs deeper and more complex emotions than are captured by any of these official doctrines.

It is for many people a self-evident intuition that an authentic religious leader is willing, if necessary, to be martyred by those who reject the challenging truths that he or she embodies. It is indeed because true prophets and gurus embody, or live out, or incarnate, their teachings that to oppose the message is to oppose the messenger; and the most emphatic form of rejection is by inflicting death.

To illustrate this from recent history, in the moral and political conflicts of India and the United States there was a certain tragic appropriateness in the fact that Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, teaching the universal requirement of love and justice, were assassinated by fanatics motivated by religious and racial prejudice. There is likewise a tragic appropriateness in the death of Jesus. He taught the way of life of God’s kingdom and the imminent coming of that kingdom on earth. This was to the ruling Roman power a potential incitement to rise up against it in the name of God, as was to happen in 66-70 and again in 135 CE.

He also prophesied the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, thus deeply antagonizing its priestly guardians, who collaborated in his arrest and trial. But these historical factors were soon submerged in the Christian consciousness by a religious interpretation of the crucifixion. The acceptance of Jesus’ death as having a positive meaning inevitably evoked, in the thought-world of that time, the universal language of sacrifice. In the Judaism of Jesus’ period a sacrifice made as a sin offering to God involved the shedding of blood as a giving of the life essence.

However, as a cumulative result of the teaching of Jesus, as well as of Hosea and Amos before him and many others after him, can we not now see that the sacrifice of animal or human blood pointed, in a crude and inadequate way, to the much deeper sacrifice of the ego point of view in becoming a channel of divine grace on earth?

The real meaning of Jesus’ death was not that his blood was shed — indeed crucifixion did not involve a great deal of bloodshed — but that he gave himself utterly to God in faith and trust. His cross was thus a powerful manifestation and continuing symbol of the divine kingdom in this present world, as a way of life in which one turns the other cheek, forgives one’s enemies ‘unto seventy times seven’, trusts God even in the darkness of pain, horror and tragedy, and is continually raised again to the new life of faith.

I think that puts this whole concept of ego denial into perspective.

Picture credits

To be continued…

Picture credits:
Girolamo Cardano courtesy of wikipedia;
Jung and the Lost Gospels courtesy of http://www.amazon.it;
The Metaphor of God Incarnate courtesy of http://www.amazon.com;
Jesus Christ on the Cross with Clouds courtesy of http://www.123rf.com