Star: 14 – Some Conclusions (part 3)

Was Jesus really a woman? I don’t think so, but a lot of people have speculated that he might have been an hermaphrodite. This would help explain the balance in his birth chart.


Let us continue with Anthony Harris’ theory that Jesus was actually a woman. According to his investigations, he feels that Mary’s ‘Immaculate Conception’ may have been caused by radiation from the angel Gabriel:

Parthenogenesis is a routine fact of biology and experimental embryology. It is common in the natural form in many invertebrates, simple animals and certain reptiles. However, the main point taught by current science is that the ovum contains within it the ‘potentiality to form a new being.’ The stimulus is usually the male sperm, but changes in the chemical environment of the ovum can initiate division, as indeed can sudden shocks, radiation, and mechanical stimulation…

There are over a billion women on this planet making ova, and they produce active ones every lunar month. The number produced in a year then is a staggering thirteen billion. Even if the chance was one in a million that an ovum would spontaneously begin to divide — and given the stresses, pollution, radiation and medication so many women are subject to, there are stimuli enough — this would result in 13,000 possible virgin births a year. Even taking into the equation the smaller number of people alive 2,000 years ago, and beyond — say another two thousand years — the chances of it happening at least once in human history must be, in horse-racing terms, very favourable indeed. But apart from the anecdotal material of the tabloids, is there any concrete evidence that it happens?

46XX Woman?

There is, but we must also resign ourselves to the fact that we only know the unsuccessful virgin conceptions called teratomas. This arises because the vast majority of women live with men, and so if they conceived virginally, in other words had a developing ovum which went to term, they, their husbands, boy-friends and everyone else would assume it was the result of ordinary ovum-sperm fusion. The point is that scientific virgin birth means no sperm is involved, not that the girl is a virgin intacta. Even if she turned up pregnant to her medical examiner with her hymen intact, without exception, I would hazard, most medical men would assume sperm had entered the tiny hole the hymen has. To prove that a girl has never been in contact with a man is extremely difficult, there being so many men and so many opportunities. Even nuns in convents could, arguably, be intimate with tradesmen, gardeners and, of course, visiting priests. It would take a woman of the moral courage of Mary to insist she did not, in fact, know a man

In summary, the scientific case for virgin birth is not proved, but the pointers are such that it remains a legitimate possibility. Certainly, it would betray ignorance to aver that it could not and does not happen — except in the case of male children, where it is a contradiction in terms since the Y chromosome is not present in normal 46XX women. In the case under consideration, however, it is intriguing to note that the stimulus most often depicted by artists is a ray of light shining on the Virgin Mary. That electromagnetic radiation can induce cleavage in mammalian ova is a matter of routine observation in today’s laboratories. The odd thing is that artists innocent of any science opted for this method in their symbols centuries ago. Coincidence is often very diverting.

Mary Immaculately Conceived?

Q. Is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church correct, in that Mary was without original sin from the moment of her conception in the womb of Anne?
A. It would be correct in any case. Correct more than this. For as for the material teaching of that just referred to, you see, in the beginning, Mary was the twin soul of the Master in the entrance into the earth!...

Q. Was Anne also prepared for her part as mother of Mary?
A. Only in general, not as specific, as Mary after Mary’s being pointed out. See, there was no belief in the fact that Anne proclaimed that the child was without father. It’s like many proclaiming today that the Master was immaculately conceived; they say, “Impossible!” They say it isn’t in compliance with the natural law. IT IS A NATURAL LAW, as has been indicated by the projection of mind into matter, and thus making of itself a separation to become encased in same — as did man (in the beginning.) Then, in that there had been an encasement was there a beginning. Then there must be an end when this must be — or may be — broken; and this began at that particular period. Not the only — this particular period with Anne, and then the Master AS the son — but the ONLY begotten of the Father in the flesh AS a son OF an immaculately conceived daughter!

Q. Then neither Mary nor Jesus had a human father?
A. Neither Mary nor Jesus had a human father. They were one soul so far as the earth is concerned. (5749-8)

Q. It is difficult to grasp the concept of reality of the Immaculate Conception. Could you please clarify?
A. Neither is there much indicated in sacred or profane history as to the preparation of the mother for that channel through which immaculate conception might take place. And this — the immaculate conception — is a stumblingstone to many worldly-wise. (5749-15)

Yes, I can see us all now tripping over ourselves to prove this ‘immaculate conception’ to be false. But if it really is a case of ‘parthenogenesis’, then we are locked into a truth: namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was actually born a woman!

45XO Woman?

The question remains: If Jesus was a clone of his/her mother, Mary, why didn’t s/he look like a woman? Now, this is a situation where being a medical student has its advantages as Anthony Harris can attest:

In the Merck Manual, a standard medical text, I found a résumé of the Bonnevie-Ullrich Syndrome, also known as Turner’s Syndrome, a form of gonadal dysgenesis afflicting women only. The characteristics of these women are short stature, wide chest, absence of breast development, multi-pigmented naevi (or nevi in the US), strawberry or brown birth marks, juvenile external genitalia, absence of menstrual bleeding.

These common features are of course not always found together, but often they are. The condition is caused by partial or complete absence of one of the female X sex chromosomes, but these people are indubitably women, but women with special characteristics. As with 46XX women, these 45XO women are sometimes handicapped, sometimes not…

There is some tendency for the bones to be weak, and the face is sometimes narrow. One woman in two has narrow hips (fifty per cent incidence of android configuration of the pelvis, confirmed by X-ray study of the bones). There is an elevated chance of problems with the aorta, the main vessel of the heart, compared with the general population. Haemangiomas, that is, concentration of blood vessels (which can be extensive, or merely ‘blood spots’) are also indicated. The skin may have several, or may have none, of the common naevi, or red spiders; there may be keloids (scar-like puckering of the skin), dryness, or oiliness, and hairiness…

Frank S. Pidcock of Jefferson Medical College notes that workers in the field have reported normal distribution of intelligence in women with Turner’s Syndrome, with some evidence of decreased practical ability in tests, though I wonder if this has any significance in everyday life. However, several authors have noted spatial disability in some 45XO women, but again I would question wha this means. People with highly developed imaginations, William Blake for example, have a kind of spatial oddness about them, such as seeing angels in trees. It is a kind of oddness which is akin to genius, especially when related to high verbal skills… My reading of the literature is that 45XO women are not markedly different intellectually from the 46XX women as a group, but that the curious mix of abilities could produce someone with extraordinary talents, where verbal skills and a new way of looking at the world might be exhibited…

The curious matter of left-hand/right-hand problems in 45XO women is confirmed, and I suspect that this is related to space-form blindness, the inability to match different shapes and contrast them. Sandberg suggests, ‘The personality of Turner Syndrome patients is generally pleasant, although they may appear somewhat undifferentiated and unconcerned.’ But he then apparently contradicts himself by asserting, ‘Emotionally they may be somewhat more unstable and dependent on their social environment than XX females.’ This instability suggests a passionate nature, while the ability to be unconcerned, if it is concomitant, describes a personality which, although deeply committed to some issues, can at the same time distance itself from its personal implication. Selflessness combined with passion is a remarkable association, and one thinks, perhaps, of Mother Teresa working in the slums of India, with passionate love for the needy, yet unconcerned for her own welfare.

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matthew 6:1-4)


All of this makes me more and more convinced of the rightness of this theory. Especially the concept of the Beginning and the End: if Jesus started the process as Adam, giving ‘birth’ to Eve “out of his side”, then it is poetic justice and perfect balance that the favour should be returned by Mary ‘immaculately’ conceiving Jesus. This lack of a Y chromosome, and perhaps even one X chromosome makes the matter of Jesus’ sex intriguing, but we shall return to this later. Meanwhile, let us give Anthony Harris’ theory a bit more time to grow on us, as it were:

It is likely that Yeshu’s awareness that she was different would have begun at her mother’s knee. Can we picture the dynamics between Mary, convinced that she had been singled out as the mother of the Messiah, and Yeshu, a girl, small and disfavoured, being brought up as a boy? It would probably take the literary ability of a Macaulay and the insight of a Freud to truly bring it off, but we must be content with piecing the story together as best we can, by observing the plausible forces at work within and upon this relationship, the most formative, and in a sense the most fruitful, mother-and-daughter interplay the world has ever known.

Yeshu has to contend with the difficulties of smallness of stature and a sexual identity outwardly male but biologically female. The foundations for the growth of a unique personality are present, but nothing could have grown without the love, the conviction and the courage of Mary. The sheer brutality of the misogyny that Yeshu would quickly have witnessed as an onlooker, would have been echoed in the slings and arrows visited upon her as a small and disfavoured boy, and would have helped her in her own development. For she could see that they were visited upon women too simply because they were women.

What made all this bearable? Her mother’s love? Love was the greatest force of all, for it was strong enough to wipe away the tears shed on the way home from school after being bullied by larger and more aggressive boys; it was strong enough to sustain an inner truth for a greater good, even though it meant that she had to act like a boy or else give up her mother’s dream of saving so many weak and defenceless people…

And yet Yeshu’s time was limited; soon she would be a woman and according to the Temple priests, women were unclean, for blood was unclean, but all women bled.

Except Yeshu. When Yeshu became a woman she did not bleed. It was a miracle; she could still pass as a male. She did not grow breasts. As she did not bleed, she was never unclean, not even according to the religion of Abraham. She was ritually pure and yet a woman. Now she saw what Mary had meant. She was truly the Anointed One.

The Hermaphrodite

This is where I beg to differ with Mr. Harris: for one thing, he has taken an assumption that only a female can be formed by parthenogenesis, but he has left out the other option that life presents to us from time-to-time, the hermaphrodite (Hermes+Aphrodite). In modern terms this is now called Intersex. Even The Gospel of the Holy Twelve refers to Jesus in his childhood as Jesu-Maria. Too many times during the long process of writing this book did I come to an interesting conclusion: Jesus’ birth chart shows all the signs of “balance” that you would expect from a person with a Libra Ascendant. But it is far more profound than that: there are indicators everywhere that this “balance” involved masculine and feminine energies in perfect harmonyJupiter and Saturn conjunct in Pisces, Venus and Neptune in Scorpio, Pluto in Virgo — culminating in the strongest balance point of them all, Moon in opposition to the Sun. Just because we have no common everyday occurrence of a 45XO female actually demonstrating underdeveloped male genitalia, doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t have any. (The fact that he was naked on the cross would have put that misapprehension to bed.) I know that previous sentence contains a double negative, but that is precisely what I’m trying to get across: a negative ‘negative’ makes a ‘positive’. If Mary was immaculately conceived by Anne, and then she (Mary) immaculately conceived Jesus, the two dropped X chromosomes may have been replaced by a weak Y chromosome, somehow. After all, we are speaking of the Holy Spirit in action here.

The Cathar Secret

This all brings me back to Isis resurrecting Osiris: she found fourteen of his fifteen body parts, the only one missing was the phallus. The myth may have some truth hidden within it, which may explain why Jesus felt he was the embodiment of a great god, and that he must die to redeem his people. But to give Anthony Harris his due, he does present a very convincing argument:

That Jesus meant to die appears inescapable as a conclusion: here then was someone not overtaken by events but in control of them, using history, times and places as material for her own drama. The script hypothesis appears to fit these facts well. Yeshu sets out to fulfil the Great Goddess religion and succeeded, purloining even a scarlet cloak from the Roman soldiers as both a symbol of the ever healing blood of the Goddess, and the scarlet thread which linked Yeshu with her ancestresses of the great religion. If this analysis is correct, then Rahab, Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba and the grossly maligned Jezebel are the fertile founts of Christianity. Christ’s blood is no longer the inexplicable theme in a male religion, running on from the blood of the lamb and other animalistic ritual slaughtering, but a vibrant life affirmation, as the Great Goddess tradition always was. In this belief there is no difficulty in seeing that the blood of a Goddess is charged with life. No special arguments or theological conundrums are required.

Yeshu’s passion was love. She meant to stamp that message indelibly on human consciousness in a way no one could forget or ignore. Even her detractors cannot gainsay the power of what she did, and although the theology is legitimately difficult, the outcome of my investigation is a unique woman who spoke and acted in such a way that a challenge was thrown down which has yet to be taken up, although a few have taken on the crimson mantle. But contention is not the issue here; we are interested in the flesh and blood actuality of a small woman, graceful, energetic. Eloquent beyond anyone before or since, who went to her death when with her ability she could have had anything material or political she had set her mind to. She made claims of her uniqueness which, in some ways still not understood, meant she was divine.

So the mystery of what the Cathars and Templars knew seems to be that they alone held the truth about Jesus: he was a wo/man who was immaculately conceived by his/her twin-soul mother, Mary, lived as a great teacher, died as a God, and then resurrected as the Great Goddess. To get the proper effect, read this book again substituting ‘she’ for ‘he’ and ‘her’ for ‘his’.

The Final Word

What more needs to be said? Just this, from The Gospel of the Holy Twelve:

As it is above, so it is below, As it is within, so it is without. As on the right hand, so on the left. As it is before, so it is behind. As with the great, so with the small. As with the male, so with the female. When these things shall be seen, then ye shall see the kingdom of God. For in me there is neither Male nor Female, but both are One in the All perfect. The woman is not without the man, nor is the man without the woman. Wisdom is not without love, nor is love without wisdom. The head is not without the heart, nor is the heart without the head, in the Christ who atoneth all things. For God hath made all things by number, by weight, and by measure, corresponding the one with another. (Chapter 52:9-11)

Picture Credits

Linked Pages: Star: 14 – Some Conclusions
Star: 14 – Some Conclusions (part 2)
The Star of Bethlehem: Chapter 2 – Mercury: The Winged Star (part 1)
The Star of Bethlehem: Chapter 2 – Mercury: The Winged Star (part 2)
The Star of Bethlehem: Chapter 2 – Mercury: The Winged Star (part 3)

Picture credits: Star of Bethlehem courtesy of;
Parthenogenesis courtesy of;
Mary of Nazareth courtesy of;
Linda Hunt courtesy of;
Yeshu courtesy of;
Intersex symbol courtesy of;
Cathar Towns map courtesy of;
As Above So Below courtesy of


About cdsmiller17

I am an Astrologer who also writes about world events. My first eBook "At This Point in Time" is available through most on-line book stores. I have now serialized my second book "The Star of Bethlehem" here. And to give my blog pages something lighter, I'm sharing some of my personal photographs, too.
This entry was posted in manuscripts and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Star: 14 – Some Conclusions (part 3)

  1. Grandtrines says:

    Reblogged this on Lost Dudeist Astrology.


  2. Pingback: Star: 15 – Epilogue | cdsmiller17

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s