Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Have you ever heard about the oculist conspiracy? No? Based on some recently decrypted documents, there appears to be an ultra secretive group of highly enlightened magi who've remained virtually hidden for hundreds of years by using ciphers and cryptograms to conceal their mysteries and even their very existence. So it's no surprise that very, very few people have heard about this obscure but (supposedly) powerful group.

Most of what is known comes from this Wired article and the discoveries of a collaborate academic effort at Uppsala University and the University of Southern California.

The Secret Society You've (Probably) Never Heard Of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub-OP...

They Cracked This 250-Year-Old Code, and Found a Secret Society Inside https://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the-...

USC Scientist Cracks Mysterious "Copiale Cipher" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eam0T...

The Secret Oculist Society Conspiracy ( True Incidents of late 1720's)

I feel I've heard the name before, but don't know anything about them, so I look forward to reading more about the Oculists. Cheers for the links.

- Although it does seem to be the case that most of these secret societies are all connected and go from one name to another, over time, which is why the idea of the Illuminati isn't as fanciful as it may first appear, because even though there's no proof for the Illuminati itself actually existing today under that name, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the same people in the Rosicrucians, top level Freemasonry, and dozens of other societies, were also Illuminati; hence why "Illuminati" is today used by many conspiracy theorists as more of an umbrella term. After all, if there really is an esoteric secret society running the world, why would we know their name?

My research ironically has led me to 18th century esoteric theology.
German theologian, Karl Friedrich Bahrdt put forward the idea that the mission of Jesus – as told in Mark – was an elaborate scheme by Essene priests to ‘produce’ an earthly Messiah who would die and rise for the Jewish people and overthrow the corrupt Sanhedrin priesthood in Jerusalem.

He put this theory forward over 150 years before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls!
Bahrdt was also a Freemason and a member of the Illuminati.

Tony wrote: "My research ironically has led me to 18th century esoteric theology.
German theologian, Karl Friedrich Bahrdt put forward the idea that the mission of Jesus – as told in Mark – was an elaborate scheme by Essene priests to ‘produce’ an earthly Messiah who would die and rise for the Jewish people and overthrow the corrupt Sanhedrin priesthood in Jerusalem...."

So you mean Bahrdt was proposing Jesus' true mission was more of a political movement?

Harry wrote: "Although it does seem to be the case that most of these secret societies are all connected and go from one name to another, over time, which is why the idea of the Illuminati isn't as fanciful as it may first appear, because even though there's no proof for the Illuminati itself actually existing today under that name, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the same people in the Rosicrucians, top level Freemasonry, and dozens of other societies, were also Illuminati; hence why "Illuminati" is today used by many conspiracy theorists as more of an umbrella term. After all, if there really is an esoteric secret society running the world, why would we know their name? ..."

Yes, but like I've said before (this feels like Harry and James' Groundhog Day subject...), I personally feel that umbrella term is misleading and can even be used by those with a tricky agenda or by racists or haters to mislead naive people into buying into their theories. After all, many or even most authors or researchers or bloggers who reference the Illuminati in the umbrella term-fashion, also reference the original organization (who as you know existed briefly over two hundred years ago and haven't been heard of since). So it's misleading on that level too, if you think about it. For example, I wouldn't call some of the most destructive world leaders today Nazis, even tho I personally believe fascism (including German fascism/Nazism) did cross over into the West after WW2 (via Operation Paperclip, Operation Matchbox etc), and many of our leaders/military did subtly inherit some of their twisted ideologies...

The main issue I have is that the original Illuminati were all united - it was one secret society with a common goal. Whereas, the various secret societies/groups/organizations/cults/political parties as well as movie/music production companies that all get thrown under this 21st Century umbrella term "The Illumunati" that you see all over YouTube, don't all share the same goals...And in some instances have wildly different goals and see each other as enemies.

Do many of these diverse groups who get labelled Illuminati have secret or ancient knowledge hidden from the masses? Yes, obviously.

But I personally think it's time to do away with the misleading Illuminati term and talk about something like the Global Elite...that way we can acknowledge there are many nuances and factions/divisions within that international elitist network...And also acknowledge that within that worldwide network it can even include those who are looking to break away from elitism and instead help humanity...And that sometimes such heart-based individuals might even release such secret knowledge/symbolism to the masses in coded ways via say music, books, movies to try to awaken humanity...

So if you take artists for example, if we shout "they are Illuminati!" every time we see them producing art with occult-style symbolism or allegoric stories relating to historical secrets, we tend to therefore assume they are on the dark side and have "sold their souls to the Devil" and are the enemy of the common people...

p.s. Of course, I am a shill of the Illuminati and was paid to write this message :)

Yes James I think that the mission of Jesus was political. The Sanhedrin and even the community at Qumran were part of the ruling elite of their time. Christ wanted to allow everyone in on the game and they killed him for it.

James wrote: "Harry wrote: "Although it does seem to be the case that most of these secret societies are all connected and go from one name to another, over time, which is why the idea of the Illuminati isn't as..."

I don't disagree with anything you say there James, but it's all good and well to suggest that: "I personally think it's time to do away with the misleading Illuminati term and talk about something like the Global Elite.." but the fact remains that many people in conspiracy theories DO use the umbrella term Illuminati!

Which was probably all planned for, Harry.
Planned for by "them".

Anyway you're probably a triple agent working for the Illuminati who no longer exist, but saying they do exist in order to keep selling books with your encoded Illuminati symbolism all paid for by the Illuminati who no longer exist but still somehow are making you ever more popular an artist...Until you grow so powerful that one day-

Sorry I'm interjecting myself now to say even I'm confused!

Tony wrote: "Yes James I think that the mission of Jesus was political. The Sanhedrin and even the community at Qumran were part of the ruling elite of their time. Christ wanted to allow everyone in on the game..."

Wow...so Jesus may have been the first political whistleblower or social activist...

I think that Jesus probably did see himself initially as a legitimate, Jewish apocalyptic prophet (social activist) proclaiming the end of days. The world was ruled by the forces of evil and anyone who benefited in these times was also evil. Everything was about to be turned upside down. The poor and abused would soon be redeemed and placed first in the order of things. Pity this message was lost and replaced by corrupt Church dogma.

Tony wrote: "I think that Jesus probably did see himself initially as a legitimate, Jewish apocalyptic prophet (social activist) proclaiming the end of days. The world was ruled by the forces of evil and anyone..."

I think more and more people are sensing something true and important in Christianity's origins...Maybe those in the Christian-Judaic belief structure will eventually become more biblically-inspired and move away from the organized religions that hijacked them...And begin to look anew at what the real truth might have been...

It's all getting very interesting, Tony, and authors like yourself are doing an important service for people to try and work out the mess we call "history" of Christ's era!

Unfortunately there is not one eyewitness, firsthand account which confirms that Jesus was a real figure in history. The gospels were written at least two generations after his death. They do not tell us what Jesus looked like; nor do they give any tangible insight into his personal life. We do not know if he was married or if he fathered any children. The 40 year period between the death of Jesus and the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE represented a period of time in Jewish history that challenged the religious beliefs of many Jews and how they related personally and communally to their ancient faith tradition.
I think that this is the real challenge in the search for the historical Jesus, thanks James...

It's maybe a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, Tony, in that what came first: The real Jesus OR the story of Jesus?

But even then it may not be as simple as just two options (true or false history) as some stories have real historical facts embedded in them (a bit like how purely fictional movies sometimes have more real facts in them than the ones billed as "based on a true story"). And so with Christ there are also theories, which I'm sure you've heard, that the STORY of Jesus was a composite or amalgamation character comprised of several different advanced spiritual men of that era who actually lived...Combined also perhaps with myths/stories of Godmen from earlier Pagan eras (e.g. Mithras) - which also may have been based on or inspired by certain real living beings, to a degree....

Whatever the case, I'm convinced there have been and continue to be real people who lived and live who perform what we would term real miracles...India and Ancient India alone is worth studying in this regard, especially Yogis...

The European rationalists spent nearly 150 years searching for the Jesus of history and came up empty handed. The most devastating destruction of the idea that the Jesus of history could be rationally constructed and understood came from Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976). Bultmann had lived through two world wars and a devastating economic depression. He had witnessed the existential misery that was inflicted on humanity in the 20th Century. Bultmann concluded that any vision of the historical Jesus was too distant and remote to be understood in a modern context. Very little of the words in the gospel could be understood as being historically valid. The Gospel stories do not represent the actions of a Jesus but rather ‘what Christians at least two generations removed had invented about him.’ For Bultmann, it was the abstract Christ of faith best presented in John’s Gospel that could give hope, meaning and faith.
For Albert Schweitzer, any attempt to find the historical Jesus through the books of the New Testament is more like looking into a mirror rather than a window into the past. We are more likely to see a reflection of how we see him through our own lens of belief and perspective. For example, it is almost certain that convicted criminals who were crucified by the Romans would have been placed naked on the cross. However, there are few (if any) modern depictions of a naked Jesus. Our Western sensibilities can give us a Crown of thorns and even the bloodied piercing of his side, feet and hands; but we are unable to see the saviour naked.

I agree, Tony, and this Middle Eastern man seems to get whiter and whiter each generation also...Pretty soon historical paintings of him will be as white as an albino!

One odd little tidbit, what biographical information we have about an alleged Jesus also resembles the biographical information we have about St. Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus. The original source appears to be a real historical figure, Appolonius of Tyana. Make of that what you will.

I would also point out that most of the things in the gospels that look like historical facts, ain't. There really was a King Herod and a Pontius Pilate. There wasn't a murder of innocents as far as anyone knows. The gospels don't mention that the Sadducees were the Jewish Vichy, collaborating with Rome to their own benefit. The Pharisees are sort of demonized but they were really just conservatives, religiously speaking. There's a lot of historical context missing from the gospels.

It gets better! The rationalists concluded that there was only one Gospel account that could give any degree of 'truth' to the narrative: Mark's Gospel. It was the first one to be written and Matthew and Luke are composed directly from it. John is abstract theology that negated any of Jesus' humanity. But Mark is problematic. The fact that there was no divine intervention and Jesus was humiliated and brutally murdered meant that the original mission of Jesus had failed. The Son of Man had not appeared. Rome and the corrupt Sanhedrin were still firmly in power. The followers of Jesus were left stranded – alone and afraid. The original ending of Mark’s Gospel concludes at Mark 16:8. The risen Jesus is not seen by any of his disciples. His tomb is empty and the female disciples who find it are left ‘trembling and bewildered’ (Mark 16-8). They are given a message from a stranger that Jesus ‘has risen’ and will meet them in Galilee. (Mark 16:7)
That's all there is! no risen God, no body and no witnesses ...

Tony and James:

I had always heard that Flavius Josephus, a Roman self loathing Jew(much like Paul before his conversion), wrote of a man named Jesus in the first century AD/CE who was prosecuted by Pilate. I had first heard this in college in my Emergence of Christianity class(where I also first learned of Q, the Gnostics, mystery religions, Proto-Christians, hermeticism, Neoplatonism, etc....it was an awesome class!!), but now from research on internet it seems like those accounts may have been falsified by Christian apologists. Thoughts?

Hi B, With regards to Josephus I think it get a bit complicated. The following disputed passage of Josephus, is without doubt the strongest written evidence that supports the existence of the historical Jesus. The passage states:

'Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.'

Disappointingly however, most scholars agree that this passage is a forgery that was most probably added to the works of Josephus sometime in the Middle Ages. For this reason it has been widely disregarded. Bible Historian Geza Vermes, however argues convincingly, that some aspects of the passage do concur with the writing style of Josephus and that parts of the text may indeed represent significant evidence that Jesus not only existed but was the leader of the sect named after him. Vermes gives us a revised version of the passage that removes any proto-Christian elements that embellish the story.

'At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man ... He performed astonishing feats (and was a teacher of such people as are eager for novelties?) He attracted many Jews and many of the Greeks ... Upon an indictment brought by leading members of our society, Pilate sentenced him to the cross, but those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached to him ... The Brotherhood of the Christians, named after him, is still in existence .'

If this revision is accepted we now have external evidence that Jesus was a ‘wise man’ who created a new vision of brotherhood that was rejected by his own people. Jesus had lived and died for his religious cause. Josephus – originally named Joseph son of Mathias – became an official historian and servant for the Flavian dynasty of Roman Emperors. Josephus wrote two major works that detailed the Jewish War and the history of the Jewish people. It could be argued that Josephus did not present an unbiased account of either the history of his people or the actions of the Roman authorities. In particular, his later work Antiquities was an attempt to ‘exalt the Jewish people in the eyes of the Greco-Roman world’. Conversely, his account of the Jewish War served to legitimise the claims of the Flavian family as the rightful rulers of the Roman Empire.

Given that there's almost a universal consensus in academia that Josephus' brief quotes about Jesus were a pure forgery written about 1,000 years later, I'd be wary of trying to find any proof of Jesus' historicity thru him. Especially, as you point out Tony, he appears to have been a bit of a propagandist rather than an unbiased or accurate historian anyway. Also, Geza Vermes' analysis of Josephus' Jesus reference seems to be in the minority in academic circles, right?

The whole thing is too tainted in forgeries and propaganda. Might be best to look elsewhere to try to prove or disprove the JC historicity.

I once spent like a month reading non-stop all the scholars I could to try to find one conclusive piece of evidence to prove he lived and could find nothing. Of course, a month is very little time compared to someone like Tony and other researchers who have been researching for decades as part of their life's work. But I only mention this as after a month of this reading obsession on Jesus' historicity or non-existence, I believed I came across the strongest evidence for Jesus originally being a (Jewish/Gnostic) sky God until about 65AD who was humanized after 65AD by Early Christians who essentially hijacked it for some reason.

However, it's complex because that doesn't mean Jesus is not a "composite character" who is comprised of not only that Sky God but also a separate (real) historical figure(s) who lived on Earth. I happen to subscribe to the composite character theory...think it's about 5 historical figures rolled into one, as well as some non-historical mythological figures...just a guess tho, and I admit I do still flip flop on this one.

Agree James, there is no definite tangible proof that Jesus existed. I see that your take is similar to scholars, who are also sceptical about the historical validity of Jesus. Some argue that he may have been a mythical personification of Jewish wisdom. The Old Testament gives lifelike qualities to wisdom, a divine creation of God that exists outside earthy existence. Another theory that rejects the validity of the historical Jesus contends that the story of Jesus and his life’s mission were based on rebellious Jews who lived around the time before the commonly accepted time of Jesus’s death. I think that Jesus 'the man' did indeed exist and it is his Birthday tomorrow. Or is it Mithras' birthday?

Thanks guys! Interesting stuff....Tony, Happy Saturnalia and Mithraic New Year 😉

Tony wrote: "I think that Jesus 'the man' did indeed exist and it is his Birthday tomorrow. Or is it Mithras' birthday? ..."

Merry Mithras!