Defining Characteristics of Messianic Identifiers

From Judaism emerged the expectation of a Messiah: One bearing the torch of Truth and Justice for the guidance and deliverance of humanity from bondage. This religious concept stirred conjectures over several, Messianic claimants. To ensure validity of the true Anointed One, Heavens planted, beforehand, clues to His identifiers: His Name, Insignia, Earthly Origin (New Jerusalem), Missions, and more, through diverse Biblical personages.

The Advent of Jesus was epochal in the accounts of Messianic conjectures. Although Jewish by birth, Jesus would be rejected by His own people, whereas Gentiles embraced Him. As a Messianic Torchbearer, Jesus expressed regret for His unlit Torch: “I have come to light a fire upon the Earth. How I wish the flame were kindled” (Luke 12:49). Thus, He did not directly light the way to freedom or provide direct (written) guidance; it was not His role to play; His disciples, rather, subbed for Him piecemeal. Jesus, in fact, recognized the deficiency of His own Messianic teachings by acknowledging the Holy Spirit, who was yet to come, as the ultimate (Messianic) guide and teacher: “When, He, the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you to all truth . . .” (John 16:13). Furthermore: “. . . He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you.” (John 14:26). And so, by His own words, Jesus was a phantom torchbearer, a preliminary Messianic guide and teacher, as such, a Pre-exalted Christ. Regarding the Exalted Messiah’s torch, His identifiers affirm:

. . . In your [Flame] shall we see light” (Psa. 36:9); “. . . To open the eyes of the blind, to free captives from prison and release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Isa. 42:6-7; cf., Isa. 49:6; 61:1).

yet, many have erroneously anticipated a more glorious Second Coming of Jesus.

The expectation of an Exalted Messiah from Judah’s stock is, again, counter to Jacob’s prophetic pronouncement that Divine Authority—the Scepter—would shift from Judah to “Shiloh” (He to whom It belongs)—Genesis 49:10.

Given the dissension over these Messianic assertions, affirming the Most Holy One becomes especially relevant. Clues to His identifiers notwithstanding, a Scriptural passage upped the ante in signaling the Presence of the Most High: To remove doubt and stifle dissent, the Book of Daniel specified that Heavens Itself would “Anoint” or “Elect” the “Most Holy One”, through the (dramatic) validation of a “Vision and Prophet*” (Dan**. 9:24; cf., Num. 17:5). And so, all Messianic Contenders would be excluded except the Highest One. A subsequent Scriptural passage, in fact, foretold the elimination of a rival Messiah: “. . . An Anointed One shall be cut off and shall have nothing. . .” (Dan. 9:26). Therefore, One in whom that Daniel’s prophecy is fulfilled bears the mark of the true Exalted Christ; and lacking the mark of that prophetic passage, Jesus is, rightly, the Messiah who would be cut off (cf., 1 Cor. 15:28).

Behold, the “Anointed Flaming-Torch Bearer”!

As evidence for my claim, I present my Book: “Mount Zion: The Mystery of God.”

Mutual Ratifications of The Vision and Prophet

The Vision of Fatima has been purposed for the Divine ratification of this Book with its Author, as related events in this Book and the historical background of the Vision will show, in light of Daniel’s prophecy.

In 1917, three pastoral children of Fatima, Portugal, had Theophanic Visions, and one of them, Sister Lucia, was eventually charged with relaying to the Church the prophetic messages they had received from those encounters. Sister Lucia voluntarily disclosed the trivial aspects of the prophecy (the so-called First and Second Secrets); but as to the only coded message—indeed the only secret—she was coaxed first, and when she hesitated (since the prophetic message was an ominous one) she was ordered by her superiors, to write it down. In 1944, Lucia complied by writing a report—now known as the Third Secret. (All this occurred before the Author of this Book was born in 1947.) According to her report, Rome was the subject of an ominous prophecy: The demise of the pope with his cohort was prophesied.

To Rome, this was unimaginable. The pope had been presumed infallible on matters of faith and morals; his moral actions had been guided by the Holy Spirit. Entrusted with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, he had vested powers to enact laws that bind on Earth and in Heaven, and to judge who should be declared a saint, and who should not. Given his presumptive, moral security, and extraordinary sway on Earth and in Heaven, how could the “Holy Father” (the pope) himself have gone astray then and been found so wanting in righteousness as to incur the wrath of Heavens?

And so, when the Vision’s report—the Third Secret—was sent to Rome, in 1957, for safe keeping, the theme of the prophecy ensured that it would remain a secret, since the institution of the Church did not want to lose face.

In 1981, an assassin’s bullet “felled” Pope John Paul II; but he survived the attack. That incident prompted John Paul II to reexamine the report on the Vision of Fatima, allowing him to put a positive spin on it***. (Meanwhile, the first edition of this Book was published in 1993: it proclaimed a similar prophecy that involved the same characters and setting as in the Vision, thus reinforcing the prophecy.) Thereafter, John Paul II began to identify himself with a character in the Vision—“the Bishop dressed in white”—and authorized the release of the Third Secret. In June of 2000, the Third Secret was finally released. (See “Appendix C”.)

As indicated earlier, the prophecy, in the main, involves two opponents (as elicited from both versions): The first edition portrayed a Flaming-Sword-bearer ascending a mystic mountain (Mount Zion), resulting in the death of His opponent, the pope with his cohort: a predefined Messianic Mission, here.  (See “The Mystical Warrior and His Sword” in Blog Post 6.) The Third Secret, however, depicted the pope—a “Bishop dressed in white”—ascending this mountain (in a rivalry with the Flaming-Sword-bearer) also resulting in the demise of the pope with his cohort.

Focusing attention on these predefined Mystic Events ascribes form to the foregoing binary documents: They are, thus, complementary parts of a mystical chirograph. One part of the chirograph—the first edition—written by a Spiritual Witness to the Vision of Fatima, bears the Divine Seal, in part, as reinforcement for this verity; its (sparse) counterpart—the Third Secret—on the other hand, was written by a witness-in-person to the same Vision.

The consignment of the Vision’s report to secrecy was a Divine Authentication-watermark; its content and timeline were needed to verify comparable elements of the first edition, and so divinely ratify the accompanying revelations of this document. Therefore, the prominent and mystical features of this narrative bas-relief—the similarities in prophetic themes, personages and scenes across both documents, despite their independence origins—further validate the divine approval of the interpretation of the Third Secret proffered here. (See “Appendix B”.)

Remarkably, the Flaming-Sword-bearer and the pope shown, in both documents, mutually engaged in rival Missions—the ascension of mystic Mount Zion—were in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy♥ (Isa. 14:13-14).

Indeed, as Exalted Christ, the Flaming-Sword-bearer had proclaimed His ascent of Mount Zion to the Supreme Throne a Messianic Mission prior to the release of the Vision’s report. This prophetic declaration was divine indication that the ascension of the Flaming-Sword-bearer anteceded the pope’s ascent. Thus, the latter ascent was an imitation of the former. All this accords with Lucifer’s desire to ascend Mount Zion to the Supreme Throne, in pursuit of his ultimate goal: “I will be like the Most High”. (There was an implied expectation, in this citation, that the Most High would ascend Mount Zion to the Supreme Throne, compelling Lucifer to propose, out of jealousy, his own rival ascent of Mount Zion to the Supreme Throne; hence his final, imitational declaration.)

Moreover, before the publication of the Vision’s report, the Flaming-Sword-bearer had identified Himself with the Most High, in the first edition. (See “The Grand Covenant”, ¶3 in Blog Post 16). And by revealing clues in the Vision’s report, He also unmasked the pope♣ as Lucifer incarnate, in this: the third edition. (See “Interpretation of the Third Part of the Secret of Fatima” in Appendix B). 

And so, the rival ascents of Mount Zion, by the Flaming-Sword-bearer and the pope, represent the actualization of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 14:12-15).

The documents describing these rival-Missions—the first edition and the Vision’s report—were even consigned to opposing camps: they signify two halves of a mystical chirograph, whose prior whole document was the aforementioned Isaiah’s passage.

Consider these: That the Vision’s report was conveyed through a child’s perception; how long the report remained secret; the manner by which the secret was guarded; the auspicious timing for the revelation of the secret (after the publication of the first edition); that the prophecies (the ascensions of Mount Zion, and the resultant fall [death] of the pope) both in the first edition and the Vision’s report were, together, in accordance with Isaiah’s prophecy; the various opportunities to show prophetic foresight afforded this Author by the foregoing events; all together articulate Divine ratification of the “Vision and Prophet”, again, in fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy (Dan. 9:24).

 

To download the latest version of the Third Edition with all the new inclusions click  here 

Read More

 


* The Lord “anointed” or “chose” Aaron also through a different and yet dramatic means: by ratifying his staff instead (Num. 17:1-11). This dramatization is the only certifiable, Divine “anointment” of Aaron in Scriptures. The stated anointment of Aaron with oil was merely ceremonial—Ex. 29:7-9; 30:30; Lev. 8:12; it was ancillary to the miraculous display of Divine sanction with his staff; and it was the latter that quelled the grumbling of the people—Num. 17:5. Aaron’s unique stature would be bolstered elsewhere by the additional assertion that he was consecrated “most holy” (1 Chr. 23:13). The combination of these two terms—an “anointed” and a “most holy one”—would be applied to the (Exalted) Messiah in His prophetic validation, also (cf., Dan. 9:24). Indeed, the first Book of Enoch offered a similar depiction of the Elect One:

” . . . For the Lord of Spirits has chosen [i.e., “anointed”] Him; [as] His portion has surpassed all before the Lord of Spirits in everlasting uprightness (i.e., For the Lord of Spirits has chosen Him [as] the “Most Holy One”) [1 Enoch 46:2].

The prophetic ratification of the Elect One in that Daniel’s passage is the only reference to an actual Divine “Anointment” of the Messiah in Scriptures. Does anyone still believe that the Messiah would, necessarily, be anointed with oil? So, taken together, these arguments point to Aaron as the prefiguration of the Exalted Messiah.

** The use of specific times—weeks—in that Daniel’s passage had been a red herring; however, implicit in the passage also were relevant markers for affirming the Presence of the Elect One.

*** In the Rome’s interpretation of the Third Secret, it was assumed that because the pope (the Bishop dressed in white) was killed in the vision, and John Paul II survived the assassination attempt, the prophecy’s trajectory had necessarily changed. This assumption did not acknowledge the distinction between the papacy as an institution and the individual holding the office.

♥ Isaiah prophesied this rivalry: In Lucifer’s own words: “. . . I will ascend to Heaven . . . I will sit on the Mount of Assembly in the far north [that is, Mount Zion—cf., Psalms 48:2] . . . I will be like the Most High” (Isa. 14:13-14)

♣ By his words and actions, John Paul II would be identified, here, as the particular pope who embodied Lucifer, and his Jubilee pilgrimage as fulfilling the Vision’s prophetic ascent of “Mount Zion” by the “Bishop dressed in white”.