First of all, it is impossible to understand the person of Jesus without understanding the times in which he lived. People today have no idea how globalised that age was and see the past as much more primitive than it was. Nor should we forget that Jesus was created in hindsight into the figure that people believe him to be today. In the intervening period, the Bible has been rewritten several times, passages have been taken out and added in to suit current political aims and certain long-term plans.

For those who want to research the subject, there are basically two alternative sources that anyone can access. These are the Arvisura and the Talmud. Let's start with the Arvisura. The Arvisura itself is not recognised by official historiography as an authoritative source for two main reasons. One is that Hungarian prehistory does not fit into the framework of official Western historiography. The other is that the questions surrounding the origins of the Arvisura do not fit into the framework of reality. To the first, history is falsified written by the victors, as the case of the Battle of Catalaunum proves. We were taught in school that Atilla lost that battle, but our chronicles say that he won it. The key to understanding this is the 300 years that alternative experts say have been added to the timeline, and that gives us a great deal of scope for falsifying history. Interestingly, if you look at Atilla's family tree, the official historians say it is incomplete, but if you take out the 300 years, it is almost fixed. What I am saying is that just because we learn something in school does not mean that it was true. We have chronicles where there is no problem with the timeline, but this is being marked as wrong by those who have paper that only what they say can be true. Nor have many people wondered whether the date of the 'Anglo-Saxon' conquest of England (Saxon = sons of the Scythians) could be a coincidence, nor the names of the first kings, which invariably have the prefix Aetel (Etele = Atilla). It may be that alternative researchers make mistakes in new research, but just because someone makes a mistake does not mean that the results of their research are wrong. Archaeology is nothing more than inference from finds, translated as guesswork, which we accept as fact by believing those we regard as experts. It is not my purpose here to explain the aims and interests that drive these falsifications of history, which include some merciful lies. The same is true of religions.

"Among the disciples of the initiate golden woman Mazarehi was an initiate youth, Matariós, who was accepted as Jesus among the initiates of Egypt. His father was named in the person of a Roman Kassu warrior of the Gandhash in the Seven Cities. Hétváros, or Hittevareth in Egyptian, was, according to the Hyksos, in Bothon, between the Nile delta and modern Cairo."

The name Matariós immediately comes to mind as we think of matryoshka dolls, with the addition that those dolls accurately express the essence of Jesus' teachings, which were weeded out of the Bible in later councils. Since it is a female figure, it is not certain that Jesus was a man. There is no gender in the Hungarian language, so this is not clear from the text. I could compare the other information in the Arvisura quotation to the Etruscan finds, which were indecipherable for a long time until an Italian scholar translated them smoothly using the Hungarian language. He stated that the natives of Europe were the Hungarians and that the Etruscan language was an archaic form of Hungarian. Anyone who might be shocked by this information should not listen, but there have been more shocking revelations. This information is so secret today that we don't even know the name of the Hungarian researcher, who is known abroad, who started to look into it. The point is, it turns out that some Egyptian hieroglyphics are also read in Hungarian, which, according to my own conclusion, could be because Hungarian may have been the English language of the former global world. It was probably used by the Hyksos, about whom official historiography knows little, unlike the Arvisura.

Anyone who decides to take the plunge into this research will discover a world quite different from what they thought and knew about it. A globalised world opens up where people were not stupid, they just lived a long time ago. The same is true for those who immerse themselves in the true figure of Jesus. So that the majority don't have to, I'll continue with this little overview.

"In 24 A.D. they went to Ordos for the training of the initiates, where Jesus became the first among the Sons of God. Partfikán befriended Ishboldo, a native of the city of Neapolis, and the initiate Hungar, sent from the kingdom of Parajd. The Sabirian Jesus, according to the secret rules of the Holy Ark, was given the title of Messiah, or Son of God... ...Afterwards, in Töbet, they consulted the Books of Life in the system of the Red and Yellow Desants. Then, after viewing the monotheistic works of the Valley of Harapi Indus, they crowned Jesus Christ as an initiated prince in Nippur, and in Uruk, King with the sacred crown of Gilgamesh. At Partfikánn, Hungar and Ishboldo assured Jesus of their support on behalf of the Hun tribes. In 29, the community of One God in Uruk was founded for the continuation of the maintenance of the "Temple of Life."."

"There are natives from each of the 24 Hun tribes of the Pannonian land who have reoccupied the Warm Springs Kingdom. Hungar complained that the governor's commissioners, not being able to speak the Pannonian languages, had given the names of the natives according to their own ideas or the names of the rivers, to which the Pannonian chiefs had agreed. Hungar therefore suggested, among other things, that the delegation of the Oscus tablets should wait before taking them to Ordos, because the second hundred-year treaty would allow them to take a fully developed report. The decennial inspections will continue to be maintained. A bloody clash is brewing between the Jewish sects of Ashenbet, Annabeth, Herrembet, Hissrael, Yahuweh and Elohim. They all interpret the Heaven-originating doctrine of Love differently. Every man who writes interprets the teachings of Jesus differently."

We have now come to the Jewish interpretation of Christianity. My personal opinion is that without it, this technical civilisation would certainly not have developed. Many elements in the prehistory of Christianity have changed, some have been reversed and adapted to the modern world. Nevertheless, it has kept universal values alive that, from my personal observation, people who adhere to them are justifiably stupid. But many people do live by them, and although I am not baptised, I believe that an evolved and intelligent person can live a "God-pleasing" life without outside help. That things have changed upstairs is not their fault. But I would state that Jesus was not Jewish and I am convinced that he was not in Nazareth during his life.

One of the pieces of information about Jesus in the Talmud immediately confirms the Arvisura that Jesus' father was a soldier.

"In the Talmud, rabbis speak that this Yeshu's mother was Miriam (i.e. Mary), and that his father was a man named Pandera."

"This Yeshu ben Stada, by the way, went to Egypt to learn magic, and was also hanged on the Friday before Easter."

"For example, it could very well be that there was a certain Yeshu, who was the son of a certain Mary and a Roman soldier named Pandera. He went to Egypt, learned healing and 'magic'. Then he went back to Israel, had, say, not 12, but 5 disciples, and was condemned and hanged for his magic."

The Talmud, by the way, does not treat Jesus in any special way, nor does it speak of him with any appreciation. Rather, it is presented as a negative figure.

"The bSan 43a (verse 43a of the Babylonian Talmud's Sanhedrin tractate) makes reference to the person of Yeshu Ha-Nocri, the Jesus of Nazareth. The Munich Talmud text has half-erased this passage, but computer technology makes it easy to restore the erased passage. The deletion was a papal decree: the Talmud's references to Jesus had to be removed from the Jewish holy books because they obviously approached the person of Jesus from a different perspective than the official Church position. For us, however, the Jewish text is interesting precisely because it probably contains a tradition about Jesus which is independent of the Gospels.

The bSan 43a reads: „On the eve of Pesach, they hanged Yeshu Ha-Nocri. For forty days before that, a messenger went out: 'Yeshu Ha-Nocri will be stoned for sorcery, for deception, and for enticing Israel into idolatry. If anyone knows anything in his defense, let him come and tell it publicly.' But no one came to his defense, so he was hanged on the eve of Pesach.

Finally, let's drop the two thousand year old terminology and try to convert this whole story into the language of today's world. There is a bright young man with a special charisma who is called to the Harvard University of his time in Egypt. There, he (she?) quickly masters the curriculum, but he can't sit on his ass and go see the world. He travels the world as then known and makes his way to Ordos, then the centre of the Hun Empire (as if he were going to Washington DC today to meet the President), and from there he sets off for Judea, where he feels he is needed. On the way, he is greeted everywhere by crowds of people who have high hopes for him. He is anointed as Christ, acknowledged as the 'Son of God', crowned with the crown of Gilgamesh, but he continues on his way to his destination, where he is not at all welcomed. He is seen as an outsider, but he has the great advantage of not belonging to any of the divisive Jewish sects. He is likely to get involved in a relationship with a Jew and thus get to know him better, gaining the trust of the common people. The exact opposite of his teachings will come back to haunt him later. He had no intention of being involved in anything as a founder of a religion, let alone in something as hierarchical and power-centred as he was later made to be. He was never a lord in the sense that he is seen today, but rather a Che-like figure, and he acted exactly as Che did with Castro. The reason I said that we owe this technical civilisation to the Jewish interpretation of Christianity is because if we owed it to the original, we would all look like believers.

I am convinced that the Hungarians of that time, when they embraced Roman Christianity, must have been, in the world of that time, a kind of undertaking that would be like making it compulsory today to believe in a storybook from tomorrow. In addition, the switch from the ancient right-to-left writing system to the left-to-right Latin script was not easy to make, especially with the very unsympathetic Western priests who came to facilitate the change. It must have taken a lot of Happy Sundays (live worship TV show in Hungary) and a lot of time for people to forget the old and just stick with the new. Presumably this was the case elsewhere, without TV they had to find a good story, a Friends TV series of the time, to which they could bring up memories of the past and that's how Jesus became who he is. Our calendar only changed to the birth of Christ at the end of the Middle Ages, until then different systems of time were used and nobody thought of it until then. Then when the new ones were made from the old material, no one knows which old book used which time system. So it was possible for an event to appear several times on the timeline under different names. Our past was not so eventful, only in retrospect.

My personal opinion is that, given the holographic worldview, religious people are all playing a holofantasy game that they extend to the level of reality. As many people play it and project it onto reality, it cannot be ignored, but it is still not compulsory to play. At least in civilised places today. My point is made, I do not wish to deal with either Jesus or Satan any more or any more than I have to.

literature used: