Why Jesus was seaching The Asetian Empire.

Jesus was a carpenter by profession, and maybe i understand why, he was interested in, The Asetians. He was searching for, a special kind of Asetian knowledge, the art of making, powerful unique, wooden wands. This is pure speculation, from my side, so don't take it to serous.

PS. this topic is made, from another thread and inspired by Kalb.

your sincerely

Drake Ramsland

Back in those days carpenters were more akin to masons, with what the house materials were made of and whatnot. Also, you'll find making wands is a more energetic than physical practice, and is not in any way limited to wood. Crystal and bone were used as often as, if not moreso than wood.

Hi Stapleraindrop.

I´m not an expert in wand lore, but i would say, that a wand, made from the purest ebony, can be a quiet powerful, if you know how to master it and it takes knowledge and skill, to make it, the right way.

your sincerely

Drake Ramsland

It's not a bad theory but unsure of its truthfulness. The opinions diverge in the community concerning the agendas of Jesus. Some believe that his travels to Egypt were made in the search for the lost Asetian knowledge, similar to what you described, while others suspect he was of Sethian lineage and went there for instructions that led to the creation of Christianity as we know today that's a Sethian expression of power. So who knows...

I would like to hear the opinion of other members concerning this.

It is hard for me to believe Jesus was an Asetian or Asetianist, although ultimately I don't know the true answer (obviously).

Thousands of years of bastardizations of the Asetian Holy Trinity have occurred in his name. And the mighty power Sethians have over the masses when utilizing religion also makes it even harder for me to believe. How could Catholic religions be based around anything but a Sethian figure? From what I understand, the dark times of the Djehuty of the Crocodile were all about the power of men and religion, and also about relegating women to the most inferior statuses.

Speaking of the Djehuty of the Crocodile, I believe (although I could be wrong) that page 150 of the AB sets a sort of ominous tone for the ending of the Djehuty of the Hawk and beginning of the next era of darkness. When the page speaks of Flavius Justinus basically attacking the Asetians and the Philae Temple at the very end, it seems that it is mentioning a sort of transitional event between the two eras. Flavius Justinus was the philosopher (after the apostles) to also be a Christian. I see a connection here.

This was the article I looked at: http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/justin-martyr-1st-christian-philosopher-11629596.html

Not to mention all of the times it is mentioned in the Bible that everyone needs to obey him. "If you love me, you'll obey me" this, "If you love me, you will fear and kneel before God" that... It all gives me a sickened feeling in the pit of my stomach. Asetianism seems to teach exactly the opposite... never obey out of fear, but out of genuine love and respect. Always question yourself and never be afraid to keep growing. True love doesn't consist of thoughts like "If I don't bow before this guy, he's going to smite me." Or: "If I don't give some of my earnings and attend church every week, God is going to burn me in Hell forever and Jesus won't love me."

So, from what I've been able to gather thus far, Jesus was a spiritually evolved person who had moments of touching kindness but also seemed to have even more of Sethian-like manipulation skills.

If there are any inaccuracies in what I said, feel free to correct them

That was a good contribution Rhea, thanks.

Idk I personally relate Sethian control with the Jewish powers and bankers and whatnot. Jesus was not necessarily a Jew, but was likely translated as being one due to his supposed place of birth. Jesus never taught the love or lust for money, but to have a great respect for his fellow man. He was even persecuted by the Greek/Roman (can't remember my biblical history sorry) empire, which was in essence, the foundation for modern culture today. These empires banned Kabbalah and advocated the mindless praise of hedonistic deities.

In some of the higher levels of modern mystery schools, the Jesus/Osiris connection is talked about a lot. Those 40 days in the desert sure sound a hell of a lot like the abyss. He holds parallels with a lot of the resurrected neteru, notably Pan/Baccus with his turning the water into wine and all.

Of course, some being named yeshua probably did exist at one point, and maybe he was an Asetian, but he probably wasn't. It matters not, because the convenient editing of the bible by the roman catholic church distorts any and all truth of the matter. All I can say is, Yeshua managed to piss off a definitely Sethian empire. I also find it interesting how the Jews don't accept him as the 'true prophet'/son of god/whatever.

your comment " I also find it interesting how the Jews don't accept him as the 'true prophet'/son of god/whatever. "

The reason is that there is a large possibility that he never existed...as from his own time frame there are really no solid contemporary accounts of Christ from any source, in or outside of the bible.  Only one writer or historian from the list of actual apologists or historians that come from that actual time frame (even he was born years after the time line of Jesus' alleged death with his account of the crucifixion some 60 years later and he was Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu ), better known as Flavius Josephus.        

But his account contains two disputed passages many hold up as historical evidence for the actual Jesus.  It is obvious these were inserted by another writer because the tone and writing is not from the original writer of the account.  The passage is so blatantly counterfeit it is too obvious that it was written years after and is a forgery.  And the passage in question does not appear until 3 to 400 years after the works were written.  Reason it was brought so heavily into the light is because Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea began to quote it repeatedly to prove the life of Jesus.  Even the historians of his day held their nose when this guy's name was mentioned because they knew of his reputation.

 Who was Eusebius?  He was a Christian Bishop and courtier and biographer of the Emperor Constantine.  He was the very first Christian historian and is still venerated by the Catholic and orthodox churches to prove what they preach and teach.  He is responsible for virtually everything we know today about the early years of Christianity.  But even in his own time, his peers did not trust him or his works.  Over two dozen complaints from historians of this time still exist.  These charges are accusations of lack of integrity, poor scholarship, deliberate misrepresentations in his histories, and hypocrisy.  His writings now have become more and more suspect.  In the 20th century, new archeological discoveries like the Nag Hammadi library finally nailed the coffin on Eusebius and his credibility.  His biography of Constantine he changed and re wrote five times.  Two of which were while Constantine was still living.  He is nothing but a total fraud.

Also, the Roman Historians were responsible for making exact records of everything.  There are no accounts of anyone stirring up the countryside and causing riots of thousands as mentioned in the Bible during this time period.  The Romans would have sent in great numbers of troops to quell riots like this, but it never happened so there are no accounts of these things. The same thing would have taken place if many dead people had risen from the graves and started  to walk about the city.  No accounts.  It never happened.  Numerous miracles  over the countryside would have made excellent news accounts as it would have been as strange then as it would be now.  But....it never happened.  The accounts from the Jewish Religious leaders of the day would certainly have prompted accounts from the Roman writers or even Jewish historians in their writings.  There are no accounts of this ever happening.    The accounts that apologists use come from the time frame of approximately 300 years after the time of the supposed Jesus.   But the church never releases these type of accounts.  lol....  

I suspect there never was a real Jesus.....   and what exists now any magician worth his salt can create in the form of an egregore.

More in our time frame there was published something called the Archko volumes to try to lend credence to the writings of the new testament.  You can read the accounts of this fraud and how it took place below.   I came across this 30 years ago from people in the church telling me it was real.....lol. As real as Jesus.

March 3rd, 2011 by Roger Pearse

Curses, curses.  The Archko volume is loose again.  This evening I found a bunch of posts on various fora around the web, all referencing it to show that Jesus was white.  It seems an unnecessary effort, surely, given that we all know that God is an Englishman.

The Archko volume appeared in 1884 edited by a certain Rev. W. D. Mahan of Boonville in the USA under the title “Archaeological writings of the Sanhedrin and Talmuds of the Jews: Taken from the ancient parchments and scrolls at Constantinople and the Vatican at Rome: Being the record made by the enemies of Jesus of Nazareth in his day.”  At the foot of the title page are the revealing words “Published for the author by Perrin and Smith, Book and Job Printers…” — in short, it was self-published.

"It could be that Jesus is still searching for, a special kind of Asetian knowledge, the art of making, powerful unique, wooden wands."

This is certainly going down between my ears as pure speculation.

Gotta love the Catholics. One minute they're praising Constantine as a saint, but even mention the crusades and they start to squirm. "Pope Innocent" was probably the human embodiment of irony. Also I lost it at that God is an Englishman line.

even the Freemasons and the Knights of Columbus do not know what to do with each other.

It's hard to say who jesus really was. But, it's always interesting to note details. For example, throughout his speech jesus relayed a message of love, peace, unity and inner wisdom. Jesus sacrificed himself to show the humanity that the physical plan isn't important, that true life is in heaven with the Father, is mentioned by jesus that we must be intelligent or wise as serpents. Among other details. For example, the Asetians abandoned the throne and dedicated themselves to his immortality with His Mother Aset, living eternally in the duat. In a Sethian vision the physical plan is of enormous power and importance, and jesus not conveys this message, on the contrary, he teaches a Asetian vision, who published the Bible just changed its name from mother to father. Jesus says that he and the father are one. The same parallel with Asetianism. Jesus says that to know god we must have a pure heart, the same with theAsetian magick. Jesus teaches that we must be loyal, is exactly the scene of Asetianism. Saying that jesus was a Sethian or a follower of them, is complicated because his whole message conveys the opposite.