It would seem self-evident to me that if any religion was secure in its belief that it possessed an insight into the truth regarding man and his place in the scheme of things, it would be anxious for all the documentation in its possession to be available to the faithful, in order to more completely spread the word. The Christian Church not only has failed to do this, it has actually hidden, suppressed and destroyed writings contempary with the life of its central character. The Church's entire reason for existing actually owes more to its use of reigns of terror and violence than any displays of written "truth".
We are consistantly told, against all the prevailing evidence, that Jesus was the Son Of God, born of a virgin, John the Baptist was his forerunner and inferior, and Mary Magdelene was some woman of less than exemplary morals whom Jesus converted. However, careful reading of the books and gospels censored by the Church in the fourth century gives a far more complete story of the life of Jesus than the Church appears comfortable with its flock being aware of. Surely, by telling the faithful the complete story would make their hero a far more complete and believable character than is gained by them hiding his life and facts.
The suppressed writings are by and about some of the most important characters in the New Testament, and show an equal amount of belief and devotion as the writings that were included, yet they were kept from the flock by the priests and learned men of the day. Is it merely a coincidence that most of the excised works show beyond reasonable doubt the heavy Egyptian influence in Christianity? That the lives of Mary, Joseph, and indeed, Jesus himself are not as we have been led to believe?
In fact, not only is the Church as we know it the corrupted teachings of two other people, it would appear from careful reading of the stories of the movement's main protagonists, namely Jesus, John the Baptist, and Simon Magus, that Christianity is not even Christian! The one common element between all three characters is that all were schooled in Alexandria, home at the time to the biggest library in the known world. All are mentioned as spending a large proportion of their lives in Egypt, yet the New Testament mentions Alexandria only once, and Egypt pretty much only in passing. Why? It is certain that Jesus' own contemporaries accepted him as an Egyptian adept, a sentiment echoed in the Jewish Talmud. He was handed to Pilate with the words that he was "a doer of evil". Under Roman law, this had only one meaning: a sorcerer.
Rumour circulated during Jesus' own time that he had worked "black magic" on the spirit of John the Baptist, and scholastic work has shown that at the least Herod Antipas believed this to be true. If Jesus actually did attempt these means to gain control of John's movement, then the action would by definition be Sethian, and as an Osirian initiate, Jesus would be aware of Set and his religion by neccessity. The Bible is full of hints as to Jesus' true religious background: as one example, Jesus' often quoted "come unto me, all ye who are heavily laden, and I shall refresh ye" are in fact from a scripture of Isis. Even the concept of communion was Osirian. Abundant scholastic evidence supports this view of Jesus and his life, and readers are encouraged to seek it out for themselves. It is only conditioning that makes us accept a story that is obviously flawed without questioning.
Could it be that Christianity as we know it now is not in fact the literal words of Christ but the teachings of Peter and Paul, both mysoginists, and that the Roman Church's disdain for, and refusal to ordain women, even now, is both a reflection of this, and a corruption of Jesus' own recognition of the validity of Egyptian religious principles? Simon Peter, the founder of the Church Of Rome, hated Mary Magdelene, as he hated all women. This in spite of the fact that his idol, Jesus himself, described her as "the apostle of apostles". While we will never know now exactly what Mary preached, one thing was for sure... it was NOT Christianity. If this fact is viewed, however, in the light of Jesus' praise for her and her attempts to rally the apostles after the crucifixion, it becomes certain that Jesus had the same beliefs. No wonder the Church censored the early writings so virulently. In fact, the only feasible reason for the Church to have done this is that the theories advanced on this site are probably correct in the main, with the added bonus of keeping the reigns of secular power firmly in its own grasp.
It is not my contention to imply that the Egyptians were the only people who were right... far from it. I do claim however that no other widespread religion, before or since, has come as close to expressing the unexpressable truths that lay behind the words of the worlds great religions. Look below the surface, for yourself, and let no other man dictate what is essentially YOUR own truth. Let YOUR Will be done...
Home
