The real Jesus, the real Mary, Gnosis, the Archons, and the world's first major smear campaign

[triquetra]

Posted by Delight (here)
Truthfully I deeply NEED the sense of connection to "Divine". I feel I have that connection but it is not at all intellectual. I feel a steady Presence of a loving relationship. It is NOT seeking worship. It is just being with this Presence and being grateful.

Therein lies the difference between the original teachings, and the highly effective subjugation of the common peoples that began a few centuries after the time in which the events took place (that was probably the soonest it was even possible to begin twisting the teachings into something very different while keeping enough intact to ensure steady growth).

A reconciliation of the religions today could only begin with a confession that no prophet, god or Buddha would possibly have ever wanted the kind of violence in their name these past few millennia have seen.

The World Wars may have even been started mainly to clamp down on the rapid spread of Theosophy and the like, which by then had made its way all the way up to the people quite close to the Czar in White Russia, for example.

The pattern throughout history is clear - any significant good that happens that originates from beyond the level of control can either be twisted, or clamped down on, so that humanity stays stuck in the same place as always. Where things are not quite so bad that civilization is coming to an end, but not so great that civilization might disappear (ascend) either.

This would be a really, really great way to keep an abundant food source for the lower astral realm, now wouldn't it?

If we are to succeed with one thing of any real significance in all of our own collective lifetimes, it is to find a permanent solution to a systematic oppression of civilization so successful, it had kept us stuck in the same place (spiritually) for an inconceivably long time.

That is something work dedicating your life to.

[Docim369]

I would like to share a strory which is not my own.
A renowned Slovenian author, which his primary occupation is geomancy, Marko Pogacnik, wrote a book on Jesus, which is sort of unusual do to his "pagan" views about life. But his whole belief system was turned upside down after one experience he had, and he tells it in the beginning of his book on Jesus.
One day he was investigating the architectural genius of the city Venice in Italy.
Let me just make a side note that Marko is famous for seeing and communicating with manly earthly spiritits: elves, fairies and the like. He may be considered to be at least two of the following: clairvoyant, clairaudient, clairsentient.
Anyhow while investigating a building, he decided to pass through a passage and on the other side of it, he entered a church. And in that church a mass was held at that time. Most of the few attendants looked at him so he decided to partake in it and so sat down.
Straight away he saw a bright light on top of the inside of church. He could not believe his eyes so he looked away and looked again at the same direction to see it there once more.
After describing some other details he then writes that at the time of the eucharist, the bright light started to move downward towards the priest and partakers of the eucharist. The bright light then shaped into the IMAGE OF JESUS AND PATTED ON THE SHOULDER SOME OF THE PARTAKERS!
He said that he felt absolutely amazed, while none of the participants had a clue what was going on!
He mentions that looks like Jesus is holding his promise when he stated that when two or more people will gather in his name, HE will also there be present.
After he experienced this he went to read the new testament and interpreted some of what he considered important Jesus's sayings and criticized (with the help of his "inner vision") some of the ones he thought were obscured (by the Jesuits?) and wrote a book about it.

[Ravenlocke]

Posted by Docim369 (here)
I would like to share a strory which is not my own.
A renowned Slovenian author, which his primary occupation is geomancy, Marko Pogacnik, wrote a book on Jesus, which is sort of unusual do to his "pagan" views about life. But his whole belief system was turned upside down after one experience he had, and he tells it in the beginning of his book on Jesus.
One day he was investigating the architectural genius of the city Venice in Italy.
Let me just make a side note that Marko is famous for seeing and communicating with manly earthly spiritits: elves, fairies and the like. He may be considered to be at least two of the following: clairvoyant, clairaudient, clairsentient.
Anyhow while investigating a building, he decided to pass through a passage and on the other side of it, he entered a church. And in that church a mass was held at that time. Most of the few attendants looked at him so he decided to partake in it and so sat down.
Straight away he saw a bright light on top of the inside of church. He could not believe his eyes so he looked away and looked again at the same direction to see it there once more.
After describing some other details he then writes that at the time of the eucharist, the bright light started to move downward towards the priest and partakers of the eucharist. The bright light then shaped into the IMAGE OF JESUS AND PATTED ON THE SHOULDER SOME OF THE PARTAKERS!
He said that he felt absolutely amazed, while none of the participants had a clue what was going on!
He mentions that looks like Jesus is holding his promise when he stated that when two or more people will gather in his name, HE will also there be present.
After he experienced this he went to read the new testament and interpreted some of what he considered important Jesus's sayings and criticized (with the help of his "inner vision") some of the ones he thought were obscured (by the Jesuits?) and wrote a book about it.

Thank you so much Docim369 for this story, I had to look Marko up, and Amazon has several of his books even this

Christ Power and the Earth Goddess Paperback – November 1, 1999


And the description is,

“ About the Author
Born in 1944 in Kranj, Slovenia, Marko Pogacnik studied sculpting at university and acquired an international reputation in conceptual land art. He has developed this further into earth lithopuncture, which aims at healing disturbed landscapes and power points. He leads seminars in earth healing in several countries and provides advice on landscape matters for communities and businesses. Marko Pogacnik is a lecturer at the Hagia Chora school for geomancy which was founded in 1995.”

https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Power-...=books&sr=1-14

[shaberon]

Posted by White Cedar (here)
...it occurred to me yesterday, while considering some of the above content, that "Archons" are not beings. Rather that term is misleading personification. "Archons" refers to the blockages, the knots, the false impediments to higher understanding.


yes, the archon are lower forces and impulses of the ego, the father of all archon is Demiurge (for me) = the EGO state, selfish, self centered, think it's GOD (as a proud egoic power)

That is pretty close to how we see it, and why our work is to remove the creator.

Rather than "Ego" which is perhaps "the created", we are looking at it more in terms of what has been called, id, sub-conscious, or super-conscious, I don't believe in psychology so I just use those terms for convenience. The attempt is to rid the ego as well as whatever is "pre-thought" that inspires it.

Secondly, yes, to re-iterate "archons" as "beings" is to project something externally. Our idea is to take full responsibility for this, rather than make it look like some "influence" is doing things to us.

[shaberon]

Posted by triquetra (here)
Therein lies the difference between the original teachings, and the highly effective subjugation of the common peoples that began a few centuries after the time in which the events took place (that was probably the soonest it was even possible to begin twisting the teachings into something very different while keeping enough intact to ensure steady growth).

A reconciliation of the religions today could only begin with a confession that no prophet, god or Buddha would possibly have ever wanted the kind of violence in their name these past few millennia have seen.

The World Wars may have even been started mainly to clamp down on the rapid spread of Theosophy and the like, which by then had made its way all the way up to the people quite close to the Czar in White Russia, for example.

This is accurate.

On the original gospel, we hit a brick wall in this thread.

In terms of subjugation, I find this stems from the Semitic Elijah, and it is in Pahlavi Zoroastrianism. It is from the latter that we find a steadily-increasing focus on Azi Dahaka as the devil. This flipped from not dealing with it, to obsession.

Orthodoxy is not oppressive, but, I don't agree with its doctrines. There is an unclear period from the end of the Church of Jerusalem to how Orthodoxy took Edessa by a ruse. Since its doctrines were clearly not universal in the early days, we think it gathered momentum and selected and probably edited gospels for its own use. As for the non-Orthodox churches, they can hardly be separated from oppression. Of course, they are not really connected to the tradition at all, so it's no kind of improvement.


Tsarist Russia was on friendly terms with -- in fact, highly revered by -- Tibetan Buddhist envoys from the 1700s. Similarly, it was receptive to what might be called a Rosicrucian Freemasonry, which is considerably different from the English practice. I am not sure it was really all that swept into Blavatskayan Theosophy, although HPB was directly descended from Rurik and Dologoruki, and so her family and personal knowledge exemplify this.

The Wars stem from the Synarchy, which is a European theosophical distortion about a secret government in Agartha.

Definitely, in the case of Theosophy, the order was to stick to the original, but with only a few exceptions, that was not what happened.

It actually explains a lot about relatively recent history, but she is less relevant about Jesus because she is a ferociously anti-Catholic maelstrom.

Although converting to Buddhism, she never renounced Orthodoxy and remained an Abrahamist to the core. She likes Elijah, Moses, and rather a lot about the Gospels, but she did not understand what E. S. Drower found out around 1936.


The Pope of the 1800s was still Infallible, and one sees that in HPB's time, he attempts to suppress the "Johannine heresy" which he does not understand, either.

They are trying to talk about Mandeanism which we are told means "Gnostic", although it is only approximate, because it means "householder" in a Gnostic closed society.

You cannot join the Mandeans or the Druze.


The problem with the Mandeans is they are non-Abrahamic Israelites.

They specifically deny Abraham and Moses.

So, we think the "early historical layer" of Saul, David, and Solomon, had a religion that was still compatible with Canaan, consisting primarily of Psalms.

The ideas of Elijah gained enough momentum by the 600s B. C. E. that it "nationalized", and Mandeans of that area were chased away.

Later, John the Baptist was the southern arm scoping it out again. The main prophet of the Mandeans is the same guy that baptized Jesus. What is the dispute?

I've not found a rebuke of doctrine or a problem with any particular thing he said. The evidence points to a dislike of his followers. The main problem is that if the religion has a name, it is Subba or "Baptizers", because every Sunday they immerse in running water. Therefor, a one-time immersion in still water is abhorrent to them.

While, of course, understanding their existence would usurp the Pope's authority instantly, HPB, being interested in Gnosticism, would not have liked what they have to say.

They are syncretic; I would say they have the good part of something approximately Solomonic, as well as that of Zoroaster.

I don't think that means their objective history legends are completely viable; but on the level of ideas, they are something quite uncontaminated.


I believe it would work with Jesus if framed in the proper light, which is the Order of Melchizedek. I think this would be useful and valid. Moreover, I would suggest it stems from the most ancient Vizier Ptahotep, in the sense that Egyptian Wisdom Literature speaks of superior Wisdom as only being possible with age. He lived to 96! That is realistic enough for me to accept or at least consider what was going on. And, yes, in an era-appropriate manner, we find goodness and wisdom here.

From heavy perusal, I've not found any kind of "religious clash" in the ancient literature, or, serious arguments about anything. Somewhere around the 600s B. C. E., there is an arising of Yhwh and the Devil, and there is a new "simplified" type of cosmology, until by around 300, the institutions of Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism, mutually condemn one another.


That's why there are parts of the Gospel I am interested in, but not quite the total package. I'll take the Order of Melchizedek and the first scriptural teaching in Luke. This does not involve following any particular religion, but could be called a vote for Tyrant Jesus. That is the logical consequence if those conditions had been followed. But, no, we got Roman statecraft, and a difficulty in understanding the points just made.

[triquetra]

It seems there is a professor articulating essentially the same argument on this Predictive History channel - the lecture series is called "Secret History":

https://www.youtube.com/@PredictiveHistory/videos

It seems peculiar that this figure "Paul" would go to such great lengths to start the organized religion that would go on to completely twist the original teaching of Jesus and terrorize the continent of Europe for so many centuries after.

If you don't have time to watch the entire series, this is the episode that gets into that topic specifically:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6XGAc_OqCbU

It is obvious that Paul had very little to gain in his own lifetime for his efforts, but that some sort of hidden force recognized the potential in using a prophet's miraculous life and teachings in a way that could be used to control a population.

That level of effort can only come (in my opinion) from a lower astral plane where reality is not experienced in terms of linear 3D time, but instead of shifts between parallel timelines.

Time and time again you can see our history being manipulated for precisely this reason, and benevolent humans (as well as upper astral plane benevolent beings separated from us by a veil of noise/suffering) have to work 100 or 1000 times as hard to try to balance against that kind of unfair advantage.

Professor Jiang believes that the reason for this is that "only in the darkness time when the real Satan clearly rules the world, can humans truly shine".. well, that is what it feels like. Hopefully we can shine brightly enough to break out of the trap.

[shaberon]

Posted by triquetra (here)
It is obvious that Paul had very little to gain in his own lifetime for his efforts, but that some sort of hidden force recognized the potential in using a prophet's miraculous life and teachings in a way that could be used to control a population.

That depends on who "Paul" is.

The issue from textual criticism is that Acts of the Apostles is such a "hidden force"; that the Paul described here is unreal. Imaginary. That it is not an apostolic transmission, but, rather, a post-apostolic revision. A complete invention targeting Greeks.

The actual Paul as indicated by Marcion had nothing to do with any of it, but probably did have to do with Serapis.

Whereas Jews were promised that a non-Messiah would "return soon" (five, ten years maybe) and finish the task, Greeks did not need this, so they were told this was an "easy" road to physical immortality compared to the "difficult" Olympians.

Those are the main ideas suspected of being injected into scripture that are not what historical Jesus was talking about.


There is a dark period between the end of the Temple of Jerusalem, and, the incipient prominence of "churches", which obviously shows opportunity for such changes. During that time, Marcion and various Gnostic trends also existed, meaning Acts and the known Gospel versions were not the sole story.

If that's what you want to believe, you can go over there and do it. When you come at me saying this is the one reality, let alone use any force or pressure for conversion, it's a different story. Truly, that is what happened, causing a monolithic culture, at least towards the west. Orthodoxy and Eastern Othodoxy have doctrines that are almost as narrow, but, they do not have that kind of heavy-handed authority that dims the view of entire kingdoms.

[triquetra]

Thank you shaberon you seem to really know your stuff regarding that time period.

I wonder what tiny minority of people believe quite specifically in the type of Gnostic Christianity that was unearthed by the Nag Hammadi scriptures (in 1945?).

You would think that there would be a movement towards believing in the types of messages found in these scriptures, but I don't think that is the case.

And yet I feel that this is the only version I can possibly believe in, the one that includes these documents that were ridiculously considered "heretical" by the Council of Nicaea.

I feel like it took a few centuries to realize the opportunity in what had happened, but I guess the beginning of orthodoxy was truly just as Professor Jiang claims - a more convenient approach to gaining and maintaining power - a more palatable approach to slavery - through religion rather than through force.

What's most fascinating of all is that it seems like it was the switch to agriculture that either created the dark spark in humanity, or more likely, provided the opportunity to trick humanity into believing that a dark spark had formed.

I think there is some type of symmetric relationship between justification of raising animals and plants just for the purpose of being harvested and killed at massive scales, and allowing for the same thing to be happening to us as food for a lower astral plane. By doing it ourselves, we unwittingly also allow it to be done on us at the same time.

[shaberon]

Posted by triquetra (here)
And yet I feel that this is the only version I can possibly believe in, the one that includes these documents that were ridiculously considered "heretical" by the Council of Nicaea.

Was it something in particular that grabbed your attention?


Nag Hammadi is a "mixed bag" that shows two or more gnostic trends as well as one or two documents that could be taken as "canonical gospel" or compatible to it.

The Qumran manuscripts found near the Dead Sea are not Books of the Essenes but are most likely the Library of the Temple of Jerusalem placed into hiding.


The main difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the "Gnostic texts" is that the latter only contain Sayings Gospels.

That means there is no Gnostic story of Jesus to enter conflict with the Synoptics contradicting each other.

For that reason, I am at least willing to consider that something in the Gospels might be valid, and I wind up believing what could be called First Scriptural Teaching Jesus.

It's not a theology, it's an argument. The aphesis is not a theological sin, it's the struggle of man's liberation since the dawn of writing.

The Heresy hunters certainly do not want anyone to understand that Jesus was baptized Mandean.

Due to that, he would have restored the Order of Melchizedek and returned Canaan to the era of Solomon.


I don't get a theological Jesus out of that, but I don't get a gnostic one either. I don't see the Crucifixion as a miracle moment, but a terrible tragedy. Perhaps it was an NDE and he did escape and lived in Marseilles or something, but even if so, whatever would have been the mission was over. This is the baleful mark of Roman politics, which is what got passed to us instead.


When I turn to the actual gnostic texts, what tends to get my attention is not Jesus, but Sophia, the Holy Spirit. And this was the second lesson in the first teaching. Jesus clearly said something about the Spirit he would pass to others, which would continue to act after he was gone. Then if I begin to get curious that this does sound theological, going forward, is it the subject of anyone's focus? What happened to it? I've never gotten that message from anywhere. It was a bonus attachment from using a Greek lexicon. At that point, it becomes subjective; if I had been there, I would think, yes, I'm glad to hear about it and this is what I want to do. I think we would have made an agreement.

It's just not.

If you mention these two things you will be dismissed as insane.

[triquetra]

Posted by shaberon (here)
Was it something in particular that grabbed your attention?

Nag Hammadi is a "mixed bag" that shows two or more gnostic trends as well as one or two documents that could be taken as "canonical gospel" or compatible to it.

The Qumran manuscripts found near the Dead Sea are not Books of the Essenes but are most likely the Library of the Temple of Jerusalem placed into hiding.


The main difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the "Gnostic texts" is that the latter only contain Sayings Gospels.

That means there is no Gnostic story of Jesus to enter conflict with the Synoptics contradicting each other.

You are right in that there are two parallel threads in the Nag Hammadi scriptures, "pure sayings" like the Gospel of Thomas, which is one thing I like, and the "Gnostic narrative" which is more or less separate, but something I also like.

The pure sayings are good because they can be interpreted in many different ways depending on what place the reader is at to "meet them". Rather than the rigid dogma of orthodoxy, one might get a completely different message from the same passage as a child, an adult, or a senior.

The Gnostic narrative is good because it attempts to contextualize the particular slice of reality we find ourselves in, one that seems almost as though an experiment of the demiurge. This will all be discussed at length in the Project ☤ (theory) thread in the Spirituality section, using diagrams and other visual aids whenever possible.

Courses on the Vesica Institute website have a clear message, that our civilization can be divided into 3 chapters - the first era when heaven came to earth, the second era when heaven and earth were nearly completely separated, and the final era when earth will go to heaven.

This is one way of interpreting what Jesus may have actually accomplished, given the extreme mismatch between the type of energy he was emitting and the very different type of energy created by crucifying someone emitting that kind of energy.

His sacrifice at the end of the first era of civilization may have punctured a hole through the veil of noise that was about to be created "over top" of humanity, which persisted for many centuries (the second era). This may have been the only way there would be a path to follow for the third era - his sacrifice made the third era possible.

Still though, I believe he would have been much more likely to follow the Gnostic interpretation than the orthodox one, since he would have so directly experienced the distortion that is so evident in our world today, a distortion that gives evil some kind of strange advantage.

This seems to be due to the veil of noise/suffering that has formed around our hearts, and collectively around our planet during the second era. This is for a reason and we are meant to puncture the veil and remember our hearts during this third and final era.

Those who can will go one direction and those who cannot will go the other (unless somehow everyone remembers, but that would require an incredible chain reaction).

[onawah]

"World's Most Crucified Saviours: Rival Claims"
One of the articles that can currently be downloaded free from Nexus magazine (July 2025 issue) online

World’s Most Crucified Saviours: Rival Claims
This excerpt from Kersey Graves’ 1875 book, The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, lists many of the world’s saviours who came before Jesus Christ and had very similar features, stories, and other minute details, from the immaculate conception to crucifixion.

https://nexusmagazine.com/product/wo...v=7516fd43adaa

(I am not much of a scholar, but I am an intuitive, and I am sure that Jesus was a real person and a great spiritual teacher. While some of the story that has been passed down about his life is certainly true and there are records to prove it, I am equally sure that the Church very early on altered the recounting of his life in order to make it match the histories and myths of former, historical spiritual figures.
They wanted to keep as many believers supporting the Church and under the sway of the clergy, and apparently that seemed to them to be the best way to achieve it.
I have found the information recounted by the late Sir Lawrence Gardner to be most illuminating as presented here: https://www.karenlyster.com/body_bookish.html)
But it is also necessary to understand how and why Jesus's story was altered in order to match that of earlier saviours, and Grave's book provides a good foundation for piecing that part of the puzzle together. )

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wo...cified_Saviors

"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors; Or, Christianity Before Christ, Containing New, Startling, and Extraordinary Revelations in Religious History, which Disclose the Oriental Origin of All the Doctrines, Principles, Precepts, and Miracles of the Christian New Testament, and Furnishing a Key for Unlocking Many of Its Sacred Mysteries, Besides Comprising the History of 16 Heathen Crucified Gods is an 1875 non-fiction book written by American freethinker Kersey Graves,[1] which asserts that Jesus was not an actual person, but was a creation largely based on earlier stories of deities or god-men saviours who had been crucified and descended to and ascended from the underworld. Parts were reprinted in The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read edited by Tim C. Leedom in 1994, and it was republished in its entirety in 2001.

The book is often used as a source by Christ myth theory proponents, such as Dorothy M. Murdock,[2][3] Tom Harpur, and John G. Jackson. Many of the same theories espoused in the book are repeated in the documentaries The God Who Wasn't There, The Pagan Christ, Zeitgeist: The Movie and Religulous.

American Atheists leader Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a fan of the book. While American philosopher and independent scholar Richard Carrier found the book to be incomplete, he appreciated some of its points.[4]

Summary
Graves, often citing Anacalypsis and other works by Godfrey Higgins (1772–1833) as his source, asserts in the book that many messiah-like "saviors" were crucified on a cross or tree before ascending into heaven.

"One thing is clear — the mythos of the Hindus, the mythos of the Jews and the mythos of the Greeks are all at bottom the same; and what are called their early histories are not histories of humankind, but are contrivances under the appearance of histories to perpetuate doctrines." (Higgins, Anacalypsis)

Here is Graves' main list, arranged chronologically:

Thulis of Egypt, 1700 B.C.
Krishna of India, 1200 B.C.
Crite of Chaldea, 1200 B.C.[5][6]
Atys of Phrygia, 1170 B.C.
Thammuz or Tammuz of Syria, 1160 B.C.
Hesus or Eros 834 B.C.
Bali of Orissa, 725 B.C.[7]
Indra of Thibet (Tibet), 725 B.C.
Iao of Nepaul (Nepal), 622 B.C.[8][9]
Buddha Sakia (Muni) of India, 600 B.C.[10]
Mitra (Mithra) of Persia, 600 B.C.
Alcestos of Euripides, 600 B.C.
Quezalcoatl of Mexico, 587 B.C.
Wittoba of the Bilingonese, 552 B.C.[11]
Prometheus or Æschylus of Caucasus, 547 B.C.
Quirinus of Rome, 506 B.C.
He also lists a number of other holy figures who took the form of men and then ascended into heaven, including:

Salivahana of Bermuda
Zulis or Zhule of Egypt[12]
Osiris of Egypt
Oru of Egypt
Odin of the Scandinavians
Zoroaster of Persia
Baal of Phoenicia
Taut, "the only Begotten of God" of Phoenicia, inventor of letters[13]
Bali of Afghanistan
Xamolxis (Zalmoxis) of Thrace
Zoar of the Bonzes
Adad of Assyria
Deva Tat of Siam (Thailand)
Sammonocadam (Sommona-Codom) of Siam (Thailand)[14]
Alcides of Thebes
Mikado of the Sintoos
Beddru of Japan
Bremrillah of the Druids[15]
Thor son of Odin of the Gauls/Norse
Cadmus of Greece
Hil/Feta of the Mandaites[16]
Gentaut of Mexico[17]
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
Ischy of Formosa (Taiwan)[18]
Divine Teacher of Plato
Holy One of Xaca[19]
(Fohi) of China
Tien of China
Adonis son of the virgin Io of Greece
Ixion of Rome
Mohamud or Mahomet of Arabia
The book claims that a number of these deities or god-men shared at least some traits of Jesus as described in the New Testament, drawing the strongest similarities with Krishna. For example, some figures had miraculous or virgin births, were sons of supreme gods, were born on December 25, had stars point to their birthplaces, were visited by shepherds and magi as infants, fled from death as children, exhibited traits of divinity in childhood, spent time in the desert, traveled as they taught, had disciples, performed miracles, were persecuted, were crucified, descended into hell after death, appeared as resurrections or apparitions, or ascended into heaven. Graves also devotes chapters to the pagan roots of baptism and the eucharist, and concludes that Jesus was not a real person.

Quotes
Here I desire to impress upon the minds of my clerical brethren the important fact, that the gospel histories of Christ were written by men who had formerly been Jews (see Acts xxi. 20), and probably possessing the strong proclivity to imitate and borrow which their bible shows was characteristic of that nation ; and being written many years after Christ's death, according to that standard Christian author, Dr. Lardner, it was impossible, under such circumstances, for them to separate (if they had desired to) the real facts and events of his life from the innumerable fictions and fables then afloat everywhere relative to the heathen Gods who had pre-enacted a similar history. Two reasons are thus furnished for their constructing a history of Christ almost identical with that of other Gods, as shown in chapters XXX., XXXI. and XXXII. of this work.[20]

Criticism
American historian Richard Carrier, a supporter of the Christ myth theory, has written online about his concerns with The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors. For example, Carrier argues that Graves often omits citations, uses dubious sources, mixes opinions with facts, and draws conclusions beyond the evidence presented. However, according to Carrier, there is no comprehensive rebuttal of the book, and although many of his facts are wrong, other assertions such as a December 25 birthdate among Greco-Roman sun gods are now acknowledged to be correct. Carrier argues there is a better case for the resurrection of Thracian god Zalmoxis (also called Salmoxis or Gebele'izis) and the crucifixion and resurrection of Sumerian goddess Inanna (also known as Ishtar), neither of whom are mentioned by Graves.[4]
"
More at the Wikipedia link

[norman]

Posted by onawah (here)

(I am not much of a scholar, but I am an intuitive, and I am sure that Jesus was a real person and a great spiritual teacher. While some of the story that has been passed down about his life is certainly true and there are records to prove it, I am equally sure that the Church very early on altered the recounting of his life in order to make it match the histories and myths of former, historical spiritual figures.
They wanted to keep as many believers supporting the Church and under the sway of the clergy, and apparently that seemed to them to be the best way to achieve it.
I have found the information recounted by the late Sir Lawrence Gardner to be most illuminating as presented here: https://www.karenlyster.com/body_bookish.html)
But it is also necessary to understand how and why Jesus's story was altered in order to match that of earlier saviours, and Grave's book provides a good foundation for piecing that part of the puzzle together. )

As I see it right now, "The Nobles" are the descended product of the primary departure, either conspiratorially or by ignorance, I believe by the former, from the true message and living truth that 'Jesus' spent his life on showing and in some cases delivering to us.

They twisted or converted the obvious and unavoidable potency of the Christ (as a story) into a fake 'spiritual' worldly tyranny.

I can't bring myself right now to launch off into an explanation of why I reach that conclusion. I hate typing too much and I hate putting myself under so much grammatical pressure while so fully aware that, within the intellectually grammatical audience, it's really a hiding to nothing anyway. I'm more naturally drawn to that challenge via other forms.

[Tintin]

Posted by onawah (here)
"World's Most Crucified Saviours: Rival Claims"
One of the articles that can currently be downloaded free from Nexus magazine (July 2025 issue) online

[

Bloodline of the Holy Grail remains one of my favourite books to this day, and I've recently started re-reading it, for about the 4th or 5th time: it's utterly mesmerising, and totally absorbing.

I'd also saved his lecture to the library, along with the book.

Also I recently watched a documentary made about 5 or 6 years ago following the exploits of a chap who had gone on a quest to try and discover the final resting place of Mary Magdalene. It seems that a man called Hugh de Voisins moved her body from the church at St. Maximin to a chapel in Pezens. Although not totally conclusive the results using a magnetometer suggest that there is a potential cavity underneath that chapel which may be her final resting place.

Chapelle de la Madeleine, Pezens:



Some doubt is cast on the skull that forms part of an icon to Mary at Saint-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume as the trade/industry in 'artefacts' was rampant during that medieval period. It is most unlikely to be hers, although it is still a place of pilgrimage to this day.

It's all, to me, extraordinarily fascinating.

[Delight]

Posted by triquetra (here)

Posted by shaberon (here)
Was it something in particular that grabbed your attention?

Nag Hammadi is a "mixed bag" that shows two or more gnostic trends as well as one or two documents that could be taken as "canonical gospel" or compatible to it.

The Qumran manuscripts found near the Dead Sea are not Books of the Essenes but are most likely the Library of the Temple of Jerusalem placed into hiding.


The main difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the "Gnostic texts" is that the latter only contain Sayings Gospels.

That means there is no Gnostic story of Jesus to enter conflict with the Synoptics contradicting each other.

You are right in that there are two parallel threads in the Nag Hammadi scriptures, "pure sayings" like the Gospel of Thomas, which is one thing I like, and the "Gnostic narrative" which is more or less separate, but something I also like.

The pure sayings are good because they can be interpreted in many different ways depending on what place the reader is at to "meet them". Rather than the rigid dogma of orthodoxy, one might get a completely different message from the same passage as a child, an adult, or a senior.

The Gnostic narrative is good because it attempts to contextualize the particular slice of reality we find ourselves in, one that seems almost as though an experiment of the demiurge. This will all be discussed at length in the Project ☤ (theory) thread in the Spirituality section, using diagrams and other visual aids whenever possible.

Courses on the Vesica Institute website have a clear message, that our civilization can be divided into 3 chapters - the first era when heaven came to earth, the second era when heaven and earth were nearly completely separated, and the final era when earth will go to heaven.

This is one way of interpreting what Jesus may have actually accomplished, given the extreme mismatch between the type of energy he was emitting and the very different type of energy created by crucifying someone emitting that kind of energy.

His sacrifice at the end of the first era of civilization may have punctured a hole through the veil of noise that was about to be created "over top" of humanity, which persisted for many centuries (the second era). This may have been the only way there would be a path to follow for the third era - his sacrifice made the third era possible.

Still though, I believe he would have been much more likely to follow the Gnostic interpretation than the orthodox one, since he would have so directly experienced the distortion that is so evident in our world today, a distortion that gives evil some kind of strange advantage.

This seems to be due to the veil of noise/suffering that has formed around our hearts, and collectively around our planet during the second era. This is for a reason and we are meant to puncture the veil and remember our hearts during this third and final era.

Those who can will go one direction and those who cannot will go the other (unless somehow everyone remembers, but that would require an incredible chain reaction).

The whole episode of the crucifixion and Jesus "dying for our sins" and the continuous reference to a need for us to be "washed" in the "blood" for salvation disturbs me. The idea that I just heard again recently from an Orthodox Christian about the "communion" as REAL (that the host becomes actually the flesh of Jesus) AND NECESSARY literally makes me nauseated.

Am I WRONG? I wonder sometimes if I was actually programmed agsinst being able to accept these concepts.

I FEEL that the Christ is a force with the attributes that I know of GOOD. I like what is said by Triquetra that the crucifixion may have somehow blown aa hole through the prison walls.

Religion at this time seems to be a weapon against actually experiencing heaven on earth. I abhor the idea that "God" wants me to serve HIM, to obey HIM and that I must "battle" against EVIL (and even kill the EVIL ones if "God" asks).

To ME, the battle is within where we conquer OUR evil. Then it radiates into social experience. I love many people who absolutely BELIEVE in the Bible. Scholarly research shows it is cobbled together form many sources with a particular spin. There is persecution of the Christian religion so therefore, it must be a threat to the Archons.

I just do not know but intuit that there is TRUTH beyond all the surface and it has to do with an ineffable relationship between humans and "God" which happens and has fruits in real time.

Persoanally I must go with a kind of "new age" idea that I have my relationship with "God" (unknown) and that spirituality is not a group process. On the other hand, I would prefer to be with "Christians" who LOVE and YET, I hear from a friend that not everyone in a brother or sister... just those who have been "Saved by the blood of the lamb".

In 2026, I am searching still for TRUTH. I KNOW there is such. It would be beautiful to live in a physical world where we are capable of creating the space for each of us to understand TRUTH and experience LOVE and create heaven.

[shaberon]

Posted by norman (here)
As I see it right now, "The Nobles" are the descended product of the primary departure, either conspiratorially or by ignorance, I believe by the former, from the true message and living truth that 'Jesus' spent his life on showing and in some cases delivering to us.

They twisted or converted the obvious and unavoidable potency of the Christ (as a story) into a fake 'spiritual' worldly tyranny.

Germanic reverence of bloodline heredity reaches into the pre-Christian era. That's a cultural trait which is not so deeply ingrained in most other places. In some, such as the Rg Veda, it is condemned.

Rather obviously, a canonized "Divine Right" only fortifies the situation.


As an observer of languages, one finds that Christos is the title of Cyrus the Great. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says "tell no man I am Christ". Does he contradict this elsewhere?

By forming Orthodoxy, this is perhaps a step shy of taking over the world, since pagan Harran lasted until the 1,200s. Orthodoxy expands by influence and conversions, being far less associated with forced conversion and more tolerant of non-believers.

Catholicism is simply not the same entity.



In response to the "prior figures" list from 1875, it completely misses the most important thing, the Zoroastrian Saoshyan. This is not in the original Yasnas, but, seems to be a stream of thought developed at a later time. This is what saviors are spun from almost whole cloth. Moreover, the schismatic and reactionary ideas in the early era of Christianity take place along the political and ideological border between Rome and Persia. It is possible Jesus was related to Parthian royalty.


With respect to the "dying and reborn god" and the Winter Solstice, this is probably accurate in some cases such as Attis and Tammuz. As with most nineteenth-century literature, the author has a way of saying "this is so" without anything to back it up. A lot of the rest of it is nonsense.


Krishna of India, 1200 B.C.


That does not match the "Kali Yuga" calculations, which are not a historical document anyway. This one errs closer to the likely truth, that, if there was such a person, it would probably be around 900 B. C. E.; however, he is simply killed. The Mahabharata is not about Krishna. If taken as fiction, it is a supreme moral fable about why only one soul makes it to Heaven. It is either, perhaps, the best book in the world, if you take it personally as self-inspection, or, among the worst, were you to choose it for bloodline supremacy or anything like that.


As for some of the other suggestions:


Indra of Thibet (Tibet), 725 B.C. -- what? Tibetans were illiterate atheists who thought they used to be monkeys.

Iao of Nepaul (Nepal), 622 B.C. -- who?

Buddha Sakia (Muni) of India, 600 B.C. -- he was not crucified and raised, or anything remotely similar to that.

Mitra (Mithra) of Persia, 600 B.C. -- although that is a Zoroastrian name, so far the whole Zoroastrian subject is not present.



I'm not sure if this is completely clear:

"One thing is clear — the mythos of the Hindus, the mythos of the Jews and the mythos of the Greeks are all at bottom the same; and what are called their early histories are not histories of humankind, but are contrivances under the appearance of histories to perpetuate doctrines." (Higgins, Anacalypsis)

They follow the motif of the Sumerian Kings List.

That is to say, they take realistic, objective history that people knew, from no more than about two hundred years, and then reversibly stack certain other myths above and beyond this as if to remember the creation itself.


Therefor, the post-Olympian Greek origin myth about Heroes and the Golden Fleece parallels the emergence of the sign of Aries, which was first defined no earlier than about 1,300 B. C. E.; they have an actual, objective history as a fallout from the Trojan War, but for example they invented Minos of Crete. So, to this day, we talk about "the Minoans", even though it appears to be a literary figment.

The Jewish one has figures that are recorded by the Assyrian Empire, which are realistic from about 800 B. C. E., and shuffle others in reverse fashion in order to legitimize the myths of Moses and Abraham, which came from the Captivity and are not historical documents.

The Hindu Puranas are similar, although far worse in a way. The "Hindu" treatises are virtually ignorant of the Vedas -- however in this case we can show the difference. The original recordings are intact. We can determine what is said, and there is even a form of Resurrection in there. However, they coldly annihilate "historical revisionism" categorically.

This is the logic I've been able to establish from perusing them:


There was a "Creation", although this is expressed in about four or five different ways, which is somewhat parallel to other myths of multiple creations, primarily a divine and a material world.

Early man lacked Speech. Therefor there is no transmitted story, no kind of primordial man who was like a Titan or somehow closer to the deities, and nothing can really be known at least until someone is able to talk about it.


Neither the Vedas nor original Zoroastrianism are clouded with the stuff about "history back to creation" or "a savior" or any other of these literary devices that seem to become a standard practice wherever myth making is done. The response to the New Testament is that it is particularly Acts of the Apostles that invents its own history, i. e., written about 300 and re-shaping the events of some two hundred years earlier. Although those centuries are a lacuna, you can tell a shift, from attempting to convert Jews by a current or immanent Christos -- Messiah, to something akin to an eschatological Saoshyan targeting the Greek interest in physical immortality. In that sense, it is giving you the Olympians' power, but in a simple, easy, guaranteed way.

[onawah]

For anyone who has not yet read Bloodline of the Holy Grail at https://www.karenlyster.com/map.jpg but might if they could just get started, there are 5 pages of the outline at that link, some of which I have copied following:


The complete book is over 400 pages long, a best seller first published in the UK in 1996. More about the book and author, the late Sir Lawrence Gardner here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Gardner

"Today we shall embark upon the time-honoured Quest for the Holy Grail. Some have called it the Ultimate Quest, but the Christian Church has condemned it as a heresy.

A Christian heresy is described as 'an opinion which is contrary to the orthodox dogma of the Christian bishops' and, in this regard, those other quests which comprise much of today's scientific and medical research are equally heretical. The word 'heresy' is, in essence, nothing more than a derogatory label - a tag used by a fearful Church establishment that has long sought to maintain control of society through fear of the unknown. A heresy can therefore define those aspects of philosophy and research which quest into the realms of the unknown and which, from time to time, provide answers and solutions that are quite contrary to Church doctrine.

In Christian terms, most of the world's population is heretical, because the Christian Church (which defines its own heresies) represents little more than a quarter of that population. As for the remaining three-quarters - the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others - they are all, by definition, heretics and infidel.

Only 365 years ago, the Italian scientist Galileo announced that the Earth was in motion around the sun (a discovery by the Polish astronomer, Copernicus) and for this the Church proclaimed him a heretic. As a result, Galileo was hauled before the Catholic Inquisition and kept under house arrest for ten years until he died.

Soon afterwards, Isaac Newton pursued the concept of orbital force, but he too was condemned and it was not until recently, in 1992, that the Church finally admitted that the Earth was in solar orbit. Indeed, it was not until the summer of 1996 that the notion of Hell was abolished by the General Synod of the Anglican Church, and it was this very notion which had caused such problems for Galileo, Newton and others. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, maintains the notion of Hell - and so, in the eyes of Rome, the Anglican Protestants have now become heretics in this regard.

Historically, as far as the Christian Church was concerned, the Earth was flat and at the centre of the Universe. Heaven was above the Earth and Hell was below. Consequently, the Earth had to be motionless and could not possibly be in orbital motion unless Heaven and Hell moved as well - which, it was maintained, they did not. 1996 was also the year when Pope John Paul formally acknowledged Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution - proclaiming it to be 'quite compatible' with the Christian faith. But, hitherto, all scientists and scholars who upheld the principles of evolution were classified as heretics.

Additionally, the Vatican has now established a Miracles Council, consisting of scientists, medical men and theologians. Their brief is straightforward: to investigate ancient and modern miracles so as to determine what does and what does not fall into the category. If a plausible and acceptable reasoning can be found for a said miracle, then it is taken off the miracles list. If not, then it stays on the list until such time as a logical explanation is put forward by the Council.

And so, one by one, yesterday's heresies (for which so many have been persecuted and executed) are being accepted by the Church's more rational members. But there is, nevertheless, a significant element that prefers to retain the old dogma - creating a modern schism in the very structure of the Church itself.

As the years progress, it is evident that scientific and medical discovery must overturn much of the medieval religious dogma that has persisted to modern times. And, in this regard, some previously cited heresies are already being taken on board by a Church that has little option to do otherwise. But there are also other forms of heresy: heresies with an essentially spiritual base - the heresies which may be called pagan or occult and those which form the very roots of religions other than Christianity.

Then there are the historical heresies: those which do not immediately fall within the realms of science, medicine or philosophy, but whose testing and questing fall mainly to historians, linguists and theologians. It is in this particular category that we find the Quest for the Holy Grail and, in pursuing the Quest, it becomes increasingly apparent why the Church pronounced Grail lore to be a heresy when society at large perceives the Grail to be a thoroughly Christian relic.

Quests are, by their very nature, intriguing and historical research is enlightening, but the findings from neither are of any use whatever unless there are present-day applications which, like science and medicine, can sow the seeds of a better future.

History is no more than recorded experience - generally the experience of its winners - and it is common sense to learn from the experience of yesterday. Indeed, it is that very experience which holds the moral, cultural, political and social keys of tomorrow - and it is in this context that the Holy Grail supports its own Messianic code. This is the code of social practice instituted by Jesus when he washed his apostles' feet at the Last Supper. It pertains to the obligations of giving and receiving 'service'. It determines that those in positions of elected authority and influence should always be aware of their duties as 'representatives' of society, obligated to Serve society, not to presume authority over society. The Grail Code is the essential key to democratic government. This is defined as government BY the people FOR the people. Without the implementation of the Code, we experience the only too familiar government OF the people. This is not democratic government.

In the course of our journey, we shall discuss many items which are thoroughly familiar, but we shall be looking at them from a different perspective to that normally conveyed. In this regard it will appear that we are often treading wholly new ground, but it was, in fact, only the ground that existed before it was carpeted and concealed by those with otherwise vested interests. Only by rolling back this carpet of purposeful concealment can we succeed in our quest for the Holy Grail.

Our quest will begin in the Holy Land of Judaea in the time of Jesus, and we shall spend a good while there so as to set the emergent scene. We shall then progress through 2000 years of history to the present day - travelling through the Dark Ages to spend some time in medieval Europe. The Grail mystery will then be followed into King Arthur's Britain and, eventually, even to the United States, where the American fathers were among the greatest exponents of the Grail Code. Eminent Americans such as George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Thompson and Thomas Jefferson were as much champions of the Holy Grail as were King Arthur, Sir Lancelot and Galahad.



Bloodline of the Holy Grail has been described as The Book of Messianic Descent and it carries the subtitle The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed. This of course indicates that Jesus had children and, by implication therefore, that he was married. So was he married? Did he have children? If so, do we know what became of them? Are their descendants alive today? The answer to each of these questions is 'yes'.

We shall be looking at the emergent family in some detail, following their story, century by century - the story of a resolute royal dynasty: the descendant heirs of Jesus, who struggled against all odds to preserve the Messianic initiative of the Holy Grail.

Our story is one of conspiracy; of usurped crowns, persecutions, assassinations and the unwarranted concealment of information from the people of the Christian world. It is an account of good government and bad government; about how the patriarchal kingship of people was supplanted by dogmatic tyranny and the dictatorial lordship of lands. It is a compelling journey of discovery: a view of past ages, but with its eye firmly set upon the future. This is history as it was once written, but has never been told.

Let us begin with the most obvious of all questions: What is the Holy Grail? How is the Holy Grail connected with the descendant heirs of Jesus? The fact that Jesus had descendants might come as a surprise to some, but it was widely known in Britain and Europe until the late Middle Ages.

In medieval times, the line of Messianic descent was defined by the French word Sangréal - deriving from the two words Sang Réal, meaning 'Blood Royal'. This was the Blood Royal of Judah: the kingly line of David which progressed through Jesus and his heirs. In English translation, the definition Sangréal became 'San Graal' (as in San Francisco). When written more fully it was 'Saint Grail' - the word 'saint', of course, relating to 'holy'. Then, by a natural linguistic process, came the more romantically familiar term, 'Holy Grail'.

From the Middle Ages there were a number of chivalric and military orders specifically attached to the Messianic Blood Royal in Britain and Europe. They included the Order of the Realm of Sion and the Order of the Sacred Sepulchre. But the most prestigious of all was the Sovereign Order of the Sangréal - the Knights of the Holy Grail. This was a dynastic Order of Scotland's Royal House of Stewart.

In symbolic terms the Grail is often portrayed as a chalice that contains the blood of Jesus; alternatively as a vine of grapes. The product of grapes is wine, and it is the chalice and the wine of Grail tradition that sit at the very heart of the Holy Communion (the Eucharist). In this sacrament, the sacred chalice contains the wine that represents the perpetual blood of Jesus.

It is quite apparent that, although maintaining the ancient Communion custom, the Christian Church has conveniently ignored and elected not to teach the true meaning and origin of the custom. Few people even think to enquire about the ultimate symbolism of the Chalice and Wine sacrament, believing that it comes simply from some Gospel entries relating to the Last Supper.

What is the significance of the perpetual blood of Jesus? How is the blood of Jesus (or of anyone else for that matter) perpetuated? It is perpetuated through family and lineage. So why was it that the Church authorities elected to ignore the 'bloodline' significance of the Grail sacrament? Indeed, why was it that they went so far as to denounce Grail lore and Grail symbolism as heretical?

The fact is that every Government and every Church teaches the form of history or dogma most conducive to its own vested interest. In this regard we are all conditioned to receiving a very selective form of teaching. We are taught what we are supposed to know, and we are told what we're supposed to believe. But, for the most part, we learn both political and religious history by way of national or clerical propaganda, and this often becomes absolute dogma: teachings which may not be challenged for fear of reprisals.

With regard to the Church's attitude towards the chalice and the wine, it is blatantly apparent that the original symbolism had to be reinterpreted by the bishops because it denoted that Jesus had offspring and, therefore, that he must have united with a woman.

But it was not only sacraments and customary ritual that were reinterpreted; the very Gospels themselves were corrupted to comply with the 'male-only' establishment of the Church of Rome - much like a modern film editor will adjust and select the takes to achieve the desired result.

We are all familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - but what about the other Gospels: those of Philip, of Thomas, of Mary and of Mary Magdalene? What of all the numerous Gospels, Acts and Epistles that were not approved by the Church councils when the New Testament was compiled? Why were they excluded when the choices were made?

There were actually two main criteria for selection, and these (from an earlier short-list prepared by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria) were originally determined at the Council of Carthage in the year AD 397, to be finally ratified in the later Renaissance era. The first criterion was that the New Testament Gospels must be written in the names of Jesus's own apostles. Matthew was, of course, an apostle, as was John - but Mark was not an apostle of Jesus as far as we know; neither was Luke; they were both colleagues of the later St Paul.

Thomas, on the other hand, was one of the original twelve, and yet the Gospel in his name was excluded. Not only that but, along with various other texts, it was sentenced to be destroyed. And so, throughout the Mediterranean world, numerous unapproved books were buried and hidden in the 5th century. Only in recent times have some of these early manuscripts been unearthed, with the greatest of all discoveries made (after 1500 years) in 1945 at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.

Although these books were not rediscovered until this present century, they were used openly by the early Christians. Certain of them, including the Gospels mentioned, along with the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Egyptians and others, were actually mentioned in the 2nd-century writings of early churchmen such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon and Origen of Alexandria.

So, why were these and other apostolic Gospels not selected? Because there was a second, far more important criterion to consider - the criterion by which, in truth, the Gospel selection was really made. It was, in fact, a wholly sexist regulation which precluded anything that upheld the status of women in Church or community society. Indeed, the Church's own Apostolic Constitutions were formulated on this basis. They state, 'We do not permit our women to teach in the Church, only to pray and to hear those who teach. Our master, when he sent us the twelve, did nowhere send out a woman; for the head of the woman is the man, and it is not reasonable that the body should govern the head'.

This was an outrageous statement with no apparent foundation, but it was for this very reason that dozens of Gospels were not selected, because they made it quite clear that there were many active women in the ministry of Jesus: women such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Helena-Salome, Mary-Jacob Cleophas and Joanna. These were not only ministering disciples, but priestesses in their own right, running exemplary schools of worship in the Nazarene tradition.

In his Epistle to the Romans, St Paul makes specific mention of his own female helpers: Phoebe, for example, whom he called a 'sister of the Church' - along with Julia, and Priscilla who 'laid down her neck for the Cause'. Writings of the Gospel era are simply alive with women disciples, but the Church ignored them all. When the Precepts of Ecclesiastical Discipline were drawn up, they stated, 'It is not permitted for a woman to speak in Church, nor to claim for herself a share in any masculine function'.

The Church of Rome was so frightened of women that it implemented a rule of celibacy for its priests - a rule that became a law in 1138: a rule that persists today. But this rule has never been quite what it appears on the surface, for it was never sexual activity as such that bothered the Church. The more specific problem was priestly intimacy with women. Why? Because women become wives and mothers - and the very nature of motherhood is a perpetuation of bloodlines. It was this that bothered the Church: a taboo subject which, at all costs, had to be separated from the necessary image of Jesus.

However, it was not as if the Bible had said any such thing. In fact, quite the reverse was the case. St Paul had actually said in his first Epistle to Timothy that a bishop should be married to one wife and that he should have children, for a man with experience in his own family household is actually far better qualified to take care of the Church.

But, even though the Roman Church authorities claimed to uphold the teaching of St Paul in particular, they chose completely to disregard this explicit directive to suit their own ends, so that Jesus's marital status could be strategically ignored.

Notwithstanding this, the Church's celibate, unmarried image of Jesus was at variance with other writings of the Gospel era, and it was openly contradicted in the public domain until the perpetuation of the truth was proclaimed a punishable heresy (only 450 years ago) at the Italian Council of Trento in 1547 (the year that Henry VIII Tudor died in England).

It is, however, not just the Christian New Testament which suffers from these sexist restrictions. A similar editing process was applied to the Hebrew Old Testament, making it conveniently suitable to be added to the Christian Bible. This is made particularly apparent by a couple of entries that bypassed the editors' scrutiny. The books of Joshua and 2-Samuel both refer to the importance of the more ancient book of Jasher. But where is this book? Like so many others of equal importance, it is not to be found in the Bible!

Does the book of Jasher still exist? It certainly does. The nine-foot Hebrew scroll was a jewel of the Court of Emperor Charlemagne and the translation of the book of Jasher was the very reason that the University of Paris was founded in the year 800 - more than a century before the now familiar version of the Old Testament was compiled. "

Continued: https://www.karenlyster.com/body_bookish2.html

[onawah]

Continued



" Jasher was the personal staff-bearer to Moses, and the writings attributed to him are of enormous significance. The accounts relate to the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and tell of their exodus into Canaan. But they differ considerably from the version of the story that we know today. They explain that it was not Moses, but Miriam who was the spiritual leader of the tribes who crossed the Red Sea to Mount Sinai.


Artist's depiction of Mt. Sinai

At that time, the Jews had never heard of Jehovah; they worshipped the goddess Asherah and their spiritual leaders were largely female. Indeed, Miriam posed such a problem for Moses in his attempt to create a new environment of male dominance that he imprisoned her, whereupon the Israelites rose up against Moses to secure Miriam's release. This is in the book of Jasher, but it is not in the Bible.

Let us now move to where the Christian story began - to the Gospels themselves. And, in doing this, let us first consider what the Gospels actually tell us, against what we perhaps think they tell us.

We have all learned to go along with what we are taught about the Gospels in schoolrooms and churches. But is the teaching correctly related? Does it always conform with the written scriptures? It is actually quite surprising how much we learn from pulpits or picture-books without checking the biblical text. The Nativity story itself provides a good example.

It is widely accepted (as the Christmas cards keep reminding us) that Jesus was born in a stable - but the Gospels do not say that. In fact, there is no 'stable' mentioned in any authorised Gospel. The Nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew makes it quite plain that Jesus was born 'in a house'.

So where did the stable idea come from? It came from a misinterpretation of the Gospel of Luke which relates that Jesus was 'laid in a manger' (not 'born', as often misquoted, but 'laid') and a manger was, and still is, nothing more than an animal feeding-box. In practice, it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as emergency cradles and they were often brought indoors for that very purpose.

So why has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable? Because the English translations of Luke tell us that there was 'no room in the inn'. But the old manuscript of Luke did not say that. In fact, there were no inns in the region - travellers lodged in private houses and family hospitality was a normal way of life in those days.

In fact, if we are really going to be precise, there were no stables in the region either. 'Stable' is an English word that specifically defines a place for keeping horses. But few (apart from some Roman officers) ever used horses in 1st-century Judaea - they mainly used mules and oxen which, if kept under cover at all, would have been in some type of outhouse - certainly not a stable.

As for the mythical inn, the original Greek text of Luke does not relate that there was 'no room in the inn'. By the best translation it actually states that there was 'no provision in the room' (i.e. 'no topos in the kataluma'). As previously mentioned, Matthew states that Jesus was born in a house and, when correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in a manger (an animal feeding box) because there was no cradle provided in the room.

While on the subject of Jesus's birth, we ought to look at the chronology here, because the two Gospels which deal with the Nativity actually give different dates for the event. According to Matthew, Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who debated the event with the Magi and apparently ordered the slaying of the infants. King Herod died in the notional year 4 BC - so we know from Matthew that Jesus was born before that. Indeed, because of this, most standard concordance Bibles give 5 BC as Jesus's date of birth.

In Luke, however, a completely different date is given. This Gospel states that Jesus was born while Cyrenius was Governor of Syria - the same year that Emperor Augustus implemented the national taxing census which caused Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem.

There are two relevant points to mention here, both of which are recorded in the 1st-century Jewish annals (such as The Antiquities of the Jews). Cyrenius was not appointed Governor of Syria until AD 6, and this was the very year that Emperor Augustus implemented the census, which was supervised by Cyrenius himself.

So Jesus appears to have been born on two separate occasions: 'before 4 BC' and again 'in AD 6'. Is there a mistake in one of the Gospels? Not necessarily - at least not in the way things were originally portrayed. We are actually looking at two quite specific births: Jesus's 'physical' birth and his 'community' birth. These were defined as the 'first' and 'second' births - the second being an initiation into society by way of a ritual ceremony of rebirth.

Second births for boys took place at the age of twelve (a ceremony in which they were ritualistically born again from their mother's womb). And so we know from Luke that Jesus was twelve in AD 6. Unfortunately, the latter-day Gospel translators and transcribers completely missed the significance of this, while subsequent Church teachings combined the Matthew and Luke accounts into one, giving rise to the spurious nonsense about a Nativity scene in a stable.

Since Jesus was twelve in AD 6 (as given in Luke), then he was actually born in 7 BC, which was indeed during the late reign of Herod the Great as related in Matthew. But we now discover what appears to be another anomaly. The Luke Gospel then says that when Jesus was twelve years old, his parents, Mary and Joseph, took him to Jerusalem for the day - only to walk homewards for a full day's journey with their friends before they realised that Jesus was not in their party. Then they returned to Jerusalem to find him at the temple discussing his father's business with the doctors.

In reality, what sort of parents would wander for a whole day in the desert, without knowing their twelve-year-old son was not with them? The fact is that the whole point of the passage has been lost in the translation, for there was a wealth of difference between a twelve-year-old son and a son in his twelfth year. When a son, on completing his initial twelve years (that is to say, on reaching his thirteenth birthday) was initiated into the community at the ceremony of his Second Birth, he was regarded as commencing his first year. It was the original root of the modern bar mitzvah. His next initiation - the initiation of manhood in the community - took place in his ninth year, when he was twenty-one (the root of the age-twenty-one privilege). Various 'degrees' then followed and the next major test was at the end of his twelfth year: at the age of twenty-four.

It is, therefore, apparent that when Jesus remained at the temple in his twelfth year, he was actually twenty-four years-old - not twelve. As for his discussion with the doctors, this would have related to his next degree - the degree set by his spiritual father, whose business he discussed. At that time, his spiritual father (the overall patriarch) was Simeon the Essene - and we see, in Luke, that it was precisely this man (the 'just and devout Simeon') who had legitimated Jesus under the law.

So, can we trust the Gospels? The answer to this question is 'yes', we can trust them to a point, but we cannot trust the convoluted and distorted versions which are published and presented to us today. Subsequent to the original apostolic writings, the Gospels of the early Church were written in 2nd and 3rd century Greek. Along with the Bible as a whole, they were translated into Church Latin in the 4th century, but it was then to be more than a thousand years before any English translation was made.

The present English-language Gospels date back to the Authorized Bible compiled for King James VI Stuart of Scots (James I of England) in the early 17th century. This was published and set into print no more than 165 years before America's Declaration of Independence - only a few years before the first Pilgrim Fathers set sail from England.

Bible translation was, however, a risky business in those days. For daring to translate the Bible into English, the 14th-century reformer John Wycliffe was denounced as a heretic and his books were burned. In the early 16th century William Tyndale was executed by strangulation in Belgium, and then burned just to ensure his death, for translating the Bible into English. A little later, Miles Coverdale (a Tyndale disciple) made another translation but, at that stage, the Church had split into two main factions. As a result, Coverdale's version was accepted by the Protestant Church, although he remained a heretic in the eyes of Rome.



The problem was that, for as long as the printed text remained in an obscure form of Church Latin which only the bishops could understand or interpret, they could teach whatever they wanted. But if it were translated into popular languages that people could read for themselves, the Church teachings would doubtless be open to question.

It is the Bible translated for King James upon which the majority of subsequent English-language editions have been based. But, in practice, this 17th-century Authorized Version was not a direct translation from anything; it was mostly translated from the Greek, partly from the Latin and, to some extent, from the works of others who had made previous illegitimate translations.

In their rendering of the New Testament, King James's linguists endeavoured to appease both the Protestants and the Catholics. This was the only way to produce a generally acceptable text, but their ambition was not entirely successful. The Catholics thought the translators were siding with the Protestants and tried to blow up King James in the Houses of Parliament (the famous Gunpowder Plot), while the Protestants maintained that the King was in league with the Catholics!

The translators were not only concerned with denominational appeasement; they also tried for something that we would today call 'political correctness'. In one instance the direct translation referred to a group of people called 'heavenly soldiers', but this was crossed out and 'heavenly army' was inserted instead. This, however, was deleted yet again (since the concept of an armed unit was not acceptable) to be replaced with 'heavenly host'. The problem was that no one knew precisely what a 'host' was; the word had been resurrected after centuries of obscurity to enter the dictionaries of the era with the vague description: 'a lot of people'.

It is actually quite surprising how many ambiguous words were brought back into use to facilitate political correctness for the King James Bible while, at the same time, William Shakespeare was doing likewise in his plays. Indeed, the English-language vocabulary was increased by more than fifty percent as a result of words invented or brought back from the mists of time by the writers of the period.

So, although eminently poetic, the language of the Authorized English Bible is quite unlike that ever spoken by anyone in England or anywhere else but, from this approved canonical interpretation, all other English-language Bibles have emerged in their various forms. However, for all its faults and its beautifully designed verse pattern, it remains the closest of all translations from the original Greek manuscripts. All other Anglicised versions (Standard, New English, Revised, Modern, Good News, etc.) have been significantly corrupted and they are quite unsuitable for serious study because they each have their own specific agenda. An extreme version of how this works in practice is found in a Bible presently issued in Papua, Pacific New Guinea, where there are tribes who experience familiarity on a daily basis with no other animal but the pig. In the current edition of their Bible, every animal mentioned in the text, whether originally an ox, lion, ass, sheep or whatever, is now a pig. Even Jesus, the traditional 'lamb of God', in this Bible is 'the pig of God'!

To facilitate the best possible trust in the Gospels, we must go back to the original Greek manuscripts with their often used Hebrew and Aramaic words and phrases. In this respect, we discover that (just as with the Nativity story) a good deal of relevant content has been misrepresented, misunderstood, mistranslated, or simply just lost in the telling. Sometimes this has happened because original words have no direct counterpart in other languages.

Christians are taught that Jesus's father Joseph was a carpenter, as explained in the English-language Gospels. But it did not say that in the original Gospels. By the best translation, it actually said that Joseph was a Master of the Craft or Master Craftsman. The word 'carpenter' was simply a translator's concept of a craftsman. Anyone associated with modern Freemasonry will recognise the term 'the Craft' and it has nothing whatever to do with woodwork. The text simply denoted that Joseph was a masterly, learned and scholarly man, and the description was especially concerned with matters of scientific metallurgy.

Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth. English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus's mother Mary was a 'virgin' and, as we understand the word, it denotes a woman with no experience of sexual union. But this was translated not from the Greek initially but from the Latin, which referred to her as being a virgo, meaning nothing more than a 'young woman'. To have meant the same thing as 'virgin' does today, the Latin would have been virgo intacta - that is to say, a 'young woman intact'.

Looking back beyond the Latin text we discover that the word translated to virgo (a young woman) was the old Semitic word almah which meant the very same: a 'young woman', and it had no sexual connotation whatever. Had Mary actually been physically virgo intacta, the Semitic word used would have been bethulah, not almah.

So, have we been completely misguided by the Gospels? No; we have been misguided by the English translations of the Gospels. Also by a Church establishment that has done everything in its power to deny women any normal lifestyle in the Gospel story. Hence, the New Testament's key women are portrayed as virgins, whores and sometimes widows - but never everyday girlfriends, wives or mothers, and certainly never priestesses or holy sisters.

Notwithstanding the Virgin Birth dogma, the Gospels tell us time and time again that Jesus was descended from King David through his father Joseph. Even St Paul explains this in his Epistle to the Hebrews. But Christians are taught that Jesus's father was a lowly carpenter, while his mother was a virgin - neither of which descriptions can be found in any original text. It follows, therefore, that to get the best out of the Gospels we have to read them as they were written, not as they have been interpreted according to Church doctrine and modern language.

Precisely when the four main Gospels were written is uncertain. What we do know is that they were first published at various stages in the second half of the first century. They were unanimous initially in revealing that Jesus was a Nazarene. This is actually upheld in the Roman annals. Additionally, the 1st-century Jewish chronicles, along with the Bible's Acts of the Apostles, confirms that both Jesus's brother James and St Paul were leaders of the sect of the Nazarenes.

This Nazarene definition is very important to the Grail story because it has been so often misrepresented to suggest that Jesus came from the town of Nazareth. For the past 400 years, English-language Gospels have perpetuated the error by wrongly translating 'Jesus the Nazarene' as 'Jesus of Nazareth', albeit there was no historical connection between Nazareth and the Nazarenes. In fact, the settlement at Nazareth was established in the AD 60s, thirty years or so after the Crucifixion. Nobody in Jesus's early life came from Nazareth - it was not there!

The Nazarenes were a liberal Jewish sect opposed to the strict Hebrew regime of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Nazarene culture and language were heavily influenced by the philosophers of ancient Greece and their community supported the concept of equal opportunity for men and women. Documents of the time referred not to Nazareth but to the Nazarene community, wherein priestesses coexisted in equal status with priests. It has to be remembered, therefore, that Jesus was not a Christian: he was a Nazarene - a radical, westernised Jew. The Christian movement was founded by others in the wake of his own mission, with the word 'Christian' first recorded in AD 44 in Antioch, Syria.

In the Arab world, the word used to describe Jesus and his followers is nazara. This is confirmed in the Islamic Koran and the word means 'keepers' or 'guardians'. The full definition is Nazara ha-Brit: 'Keepers of the Covenant'.

In the time of Jesus, the Nazarenes lived in Galilee and in that mystical realm which the Bible calls the 'wilderness', which was actually a very defined place. It was essentially the land around the main settlement at Qumrân which spread out to Mird and other places near the Dead Sea. It was, of course, at Qumrân that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1948.



Some time after the Crucifixion, Peter and his friend Paul went to Antioch, then on to Rome, beginning the movement that became Christianity. But Jesus, along with his brother James and the majority of apostles, continued the Nazarene teachings, progressing them into Europe, where they were associated with the Celtic Church. This Church had been formally implemented as the church of Jesus in AD 37, while the Roman Church was itself formed 300 years later.

Through many centuries the Celtic Church, with its Nazarene culture, was directly opposed to the Church of Rome - the main difference being that the Celtic faith was based upon the teachings, codes and practices of Jesus himself. Roman Christianity, on the other hand, turned Jesus into the object of its religious veneration, forsaking his teachings to create an Imperial 'hybrid' faith for the benefit of the emperors and popes. It exists, in fact, not as Christianity, but as 'churchianity'.

Apart from straightforward misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mistranslations, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous purposeful amendments. Some original entries have been changed or deleted, while other entries have been added to suit the Church's vested interest. The majority of these edits and amendments were made in the 4th century, when the texts were translated into Latin from their original Greek and Semitic tongues.

Even earlier, in about AD 195, Bishop Clement of Alexandria made the first known amendment to the Gospel texts. He deleted a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark (written more than a hundred years before that time) and justified his action in a letter, stating: 'For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them - for not all true things are to be said to all men'. What he meant was that, even at that very early stage, there was already a discrepancy between what the Gospel writers had written and what the bishops wanted to teach.

Today, this section deleted by St Clement is still missing from the Gospel of Mark. But when Mark is compared with the Gospel that we know today, we find that today's Gospel is a good deal longer than the original, having had spurious additions made. One of these additional sections comprises the whole of the Resurrection sequence - amounting to twelve full verses at the end of Mark, chapter 16. It is now known that everything told here about the events after the Crucifixion was added by Church scribes sometime in the late 4th century.

But what exactly was in this section of Mark that Clement saw fit to remove? It was the item which dealt with the raising of Lazarus. In the context of the original Mark text, however, Lazarus was portrayed in a state of excommunication: spiritual death by decree, not in a state of physical death. The account even had Lazarus and Jesus calling to each other before the tomb was opened. This, of course, defeated the bishops' desire to portray the raising of Lazarus as a spiritual 'miracle', not as a straightforward release from excommunication. More importantly, it set the scene for the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus himself, whose own subsequent raising from spiritual death was determined by the same three-day rule that applied to Lazarus.

Jesus was raised (released or resurrected) from death by decree on the statutory third day but, in the case of Lazarus, Jesus flouted the rules by raising his friend after the three-day period of symbolic sickness. At that point, civil death would have become absolute in the eyes of the legal elders of the Sanhedrin Council, whereupon Lazarus would have been wrapped in sacking and buried alive. His crime was that he had led a violent people's revolt to safeguard the public water supply which had been diverted through a new Roman aqueduct in Jerusalem. What made the Lazarus raising special was that Jesus performed the release while not holding any priestly entitlement to do so - subsequent to which Herod-Antipas of Galilee compelled the High Priest of Jerusalem to acknowledge the unprecedented event. "

https://www.karenlyster.com/body_bookish3.html

[shaberon]

This is an accident.


Out of a sense of humility, I would say I'm not actually persecuted. I could perhaps claim to be suppressed, but, there aren't any special laws that directly harm me as different from anyone else, and I can generally go around in public without being targeted for harassment. I come from the edge of the Civil Rights protests, which tell me, that, even a hundred years after the abolition of slavery, black people could legitimately complain of still being persecuted.


Something is wrong with "those people" because this is what I would say coming from a clan of slave owners. Here's the effect of Abolition. Nothing. Over sixty years later, the same black family still lived with us. Nothing changed. The kids went to school and if somebody was sick you'd get a doctor. That's about all the perks of life that were in existence. You know why that is? Because even though in the past, they were legally under a subordinate business relationship, we still looked at them as human beings that were basically friends. You know what I mean? It's the positive moral spirit where if you look at the basics. Christianity and Buddhism are identical. As far as I know, everyone in my heritage was ignorant of cruelty. And so when I have to turn around and look at that Civil Rights stuff, it's degrading, because it's such a base behavior I'm not sure it qualifies as human, and it's ridiculous that anyone would be having to go to such great lengths to keep asking for normality a century after the issue was supposedly dealt with.


And so I was looking at Malcolm X who was an angry hothead and who had joined the Nation of Islam, which isn't really Islam and it carries a white devil doctrine. It's actually Shirk of the most absurd caliber, and this is what he believed in. However it got him to make Hajj and when he was in Mecca he converted to actual Islam and talked to people and came to the conclusion that any kind of racist doctrine was wrong.

I consider it from the view of converting into something. Islam wasn't any part of their background. It's adopted. Similarly, I don't have Buddhism from my own heritage. I perhaps have drifted towards it due to the lack of finding much of anything from the white devils around me. What I got from them is a definite knowledge there is such a thing as cruelty. I have to learn about other people, because the way they are is mindblowing to me. It's something different.

Then I was going to consider slavery and persecution among the Gypsies, which is a mistake meaning "Egyptian". A million things have been speculated about them, but, in this case, genetics is able to give us a pretty good window. They came out of north India in two waves, around 500 and 1,000.

They also have the erroneous name in France, Bohemian, which describes some of my sub-culture. In character, it's cool, but no actually they are not Germanic.


This is getting a little weird, because I don't like to conjecture too wildly, and I don't trust "tradition". I mean, even in the days of modern printing, when someone could just make up a fake Islam and suck the would-be civil rights protestors into a fairy tale, it's a bit disconcerting. How could you...I just can't palate the stuff much more.


So the "Gypsies" are somewhat more appropriately called "Roma", which is conjectured as a shift of Indic "Domba", which more or less means a "drummer", although it specifically applies to the Outcaste or Dalit who is charged with handling corpses and hence "untouchable". These were even defined as Criminal Tribes by the British. Besides "Roma", they also have another name that is a little more complicated.


And so by looking at persecution, it turns out that linguistically it derives from a text fragment I posted previously which is Nag Hammadi Sethian Melchizedek:

The text also includes some anti-docetic passages that advocate for a Christology wherein the Incarnation of Jesus was a flesh-and-blood human who was born, ate and drank, suffered, and died. This is unusual for Gnostic writings; most Gnostics seemed to endorse docetic views that Jesus did not truly suffer, as he was a divine being separate from the mortal realm.


Several possibilities exist to explain the difference. Orthodox writers who wrote about heresies, including Hippolytus of Rome and Epiphanius of Salamis, discuss a group called the Melchizedekians that subordinated Christ to Melchizedek and believed Jesus to be born a mortal man who suffered, in comparison to their more exalted view of Melchizedek. It is thus possible that the text was used by this group of Melchizedekians.

The "unusual" view is the only one that simply makes sense.

As for "the Melchizedekians":

In some studies, the Athinganoi are described as remnants of the Indo-Greeks who left India in 400 AD during the Migration period.

The name Athinganoi, a later variant form of which is Atsinganoi (ἀτσίγγανοι), came to be associated with the Roma who first appeared in the Byzantine Empire at the time. Atsinganoi is the root word for the ethnical (sometimes controversial) terms "cigano", "çingene", "cigány", "zigeuner", "tzigan", "țigan", and "zingaro", words used to describe members of the Roma in various European languages.

And so I am a bit leery of "tradition", but this brings back what I had posted as Buddha of Egypt. It is strange because it had been locally made and I had the impression it had more to do with Alexandria. Not really. This pertains to Egypt's Red Sea coast. And it is non-canonical; the church does not recognize it. It is the patron saint of the "Gypsies" themselves, whose shrine is at Camargue in the south of France. But the, eh, connections are very peculiar and out-of-place. This is the story of Saint Sara:

According to various legends, during a persecution of early Christians, commonly placed in the year 42, Lazarus, his sisters Mary and Martha, Mary Salome (the mother of the Apostles John and James), Mary Jacobe and Maximin were sent out to sea in a boat. They arrived safely on the southern shore of Gaul at the place later called Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer. Sarah, a native of Berenice Troglodytica, appears as the black Indo-Egyptian maid of one of the Three Marys, usually Mary Jacobe. (The natives of Berenice Troglodytica had ancestors who once came from the Malabar Coast, through Indo-Roman trade relations, and settled in Egypt (Roman province) and intermarried with Egyptians.)

If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.

She looks like a Durga.

Romani is an Indic language, so they are talking about Kali.


I can't personally prove that Saint Sara verifies any Lazarus story, although it strongly appears to be Kali conveyed into an ersatz Catholic Saint.


The name of her home region means there are a lot of caves.

Berenice Troglodytica:

A large number of significant finds have been made providing evidence of the cargo from the Malabar Coast and the presence of Tamil people from South India being at this last outpost of the Roman Empire (see ancient Indo-Roman trade relations).

Among the unexpected discoveries at Berenike were a range of ancient Indian goods, including the largest single concentration (7.55 kg) of black peppercorns ever recovered in the classical Mediterranean world ("imported from Southern India" and found inside a large vessel made of Nile silt in a temple courtyard); substantial quantities of Indian-made fine ware and kitchen cooking ware and Indian style pottery; Indian-made sail cloth, basketry, matting, etc. from trash dumps; a large quantity of teak wood, black pepper, coconuts, beads made of precious and semi-precious stones, cameo blanks; "a Tamil Brahmi graffito mentioning Korra, a South Indian chieftain"; evidence that "inhabitants from Tamil South India (which then included most of Kerala) were living in Berenike, at least in the early Roman period"; evidence that the Tamil population implied the probable presence of Buddhist worshippers; evidence of Indians at another Roman port 300 km north of Berenike; Indian-made ceramics on the Nile road; a rock inscription mentioning an Indian passing through en route; "abundant evidence for the use of ships built and rigged in India"; and proof "that teak wood (endemic to South India), found in buildings in Berenike, had clearly been reused" (from dismantled ships)



In 2019, a 2,300 year-old fortress was discovered by a team of archaeologists from the University of Warsaw and the Polish Academy of Sciences. The structure, built near the southern frontier, had thicker walls to the west, and served as a hub to transport war elephants from Eritrea. In the same year was excavated an Isis temple and there, there were found fragments of a statue of the Meroitic god Sebiumeker.

In Berenike in March 2022 an American-Polish archaeological mission excavating the main early Roman period temple dedicated to the Goddess Isis uncovered in the forecourt of the temple a marble statue of a Buddha, the Berenike Buddha.

So that forces the conjecture. In other words, around 200 B. C. E., Egypt became saturated with India, and therefor, e. g. there is no way to preclude the presence of Durga and Buddha from the region's intellect, and this is entirely possible why Jesus sounds like a Buddhist in many parallel sayings. But because we think Egyptian courtyards ran like the Indian ones, he wouldn't necessarily have to convert to it in order to hear a few maxims spoken. On the other hand, it's not impossible he could have been ordained.

And for example it would be entirely possible for north Indians to know about Saint Sara and pursue Europe by the overland route.

That is probably why the Mahatmas and Subba Rao were knowledgeable about Greek and Egyptian philosophy in its actual form.

I'm sketchy about folk legend, but rather obviously there is something to this. I like the part where even if we don't agree with each others' theologies, a mature reading of Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity should verify the same sort of core moral positivity is the thing to spread.