Rediscover Ancient Egypt with Tehuti Research Foundation

Despite the existence of many Gospels of Christ in the early history of the Church, Council of Trent in 1546 only accepted the four included in the New Testament - those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Mark, who is named in the New Testament's Book of Acts and in four Epistles as a companion of Peter and Paul, is presumed to have been the author of the earliest of the four canonical Gospels. The other three (Matthew, Luke and John) relied on the writings attributed to Mark, plus other sources, for their writings.

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events that he described in the Bible. Neither were Matthew, Luke or John, who followed him later. Mark may have had the benefit of second-hand information from Peter and third-hand from Paul. The Gospel of Mark, however, includes information which is not mentioned in the writings of Peter and Paul!
...continued.

One wonders, if Jesus lived, suffered and died during the period of Roman rule in Palestine, why did not his name appear in the writings of three distinguished contemporary authors of that time — Philo Judaeus, Justus of Tiberias and Flavius Josephus?!

No reference to Jesus was made in the thirty-eight works left behind by Philo Judaeus, who was born c. 15 B.C. and died about twenty years after the supposed date of the Crucifixion. Philo’s brother was the head of the Jewish community living in Alexandria. His son was married to a granddaughter of King Herod.

How can we expect a man like Philo Judaeus, with all his family connections, not to mention Jesus in all his voluminous writings, if Jesus ever existed?!

Flavious Josephus was a Palestinian Jew of a priestly family, born in 37 A.D., who wrote Antiquities of the Jews, a long historical work of twenty books.
Moreover, Josephus was given command in Galilee at the time of the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66AD. Flavius Josephus mentioned John the Baptist’s life and execution in his books. Josephus never mentioned that John was preparing the way for Jesus or that Jesus existed at all.

The usual response to the historical absence of the Biblical Jesus is that he was an ordinary man and not an important figure to warrant any attention or place in history. The Bible itself provides the contrary evidence to such an incorrect response.

A. Herod, the King of Judea, as per the following biblical verses, knew of Jesus:

1. When Jesus was born ..., wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he who has been born King of the Jews?...' (Matthew, 2:1-2)
2. King Herod was told of a prophecy that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, ... for from you [Bethlehem] shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel. (Matthew, 2:6)
3. Upon hearing the above prophecy, Herod was distressed by the news of his birth and therefore Joseph was ordered by the angel of the Lord, Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him. (Matthew, 2:13)
4. Herod was so distressed that he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old and under. (Matthew, 2:16)
5. After Jesus was sentenced to death by the Jewish heirachy, they handed him over to Pilate who ... when he learned that he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at the time. (Luke, 23:7)
   Pilate later told the chief priests, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him; neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. (Luke, 23:14-16)

B. The Bible tells us that Jesus was a very important figure:

1. Wisemen from different nations came to offer homage to him, as per (Matthew, 2:1-2)
2. He was born to be King, as per (Matthew, 2:2)
3. He was born to be a ruler, ... For from you shall come a ruler ... (Matthew, 2:6)
4. He was born to govern, ... who will govern my people Israel (Matthew, 2:6)
5. He ruled as a King as per the overwhelming evidence in the chapter, Jesus, the King.

C. Jesus was very visible, attracting crowds from all over the region, and causing a lot of commotion, as per the following biblical verses:

1. And he went about all Galilee teaching in their synagogue, and preaching the gospel ...so his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick ... And great crowds followed him from Galilee and ... and from beyond the Jordan. (Matthew, 4:23-25)
2. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children. (Matthew, 14:21)
3. ... a great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea and Jerusalem and Id-u-Me’a and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Si’don a great multitude, hearing all that he did, came to him. (Mark, 3:7-8)
4. Here is a crowd of more than 9,000 people, When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand ... And the seven for the four thousand ... (Mark, 8:19-20)

Tut-Ankh-Amen shares this very important name with the biblical Jesus. Tut's birth name was Tut-Ankh-ATON. Tut-Ankh means "The Living Image." Aton signifies the Egyptian neter (god/Lord) who has no image. The Lord of the Jews, who likewise has no image, is called ADON. The Egyptian ATON is equivalent to the Hebrew ADON (the Egyptian T becomes D in Hebrew.) Adonai in Hebrew means MY LORD. The last two letters, AI, of the word is a Hebrew pronoun meaning MY or MINE and signifies possession. As such, Tut's birth name therefore means THE LIVING IMAGE OF THE LORD.
...continued.

Sigmund Freud, the Jewish father of psychoanalysis, was interested in reading about Akhenaton and Moses. He later wrote a book called "Moses and Monotheism." Sigmund Freud argued that Moses was an Egyptian, a follower of Akhenaton, who later led the Jews out of Egypt.

Freud also came to the conclusion that Moses was itself an Egyptian name. Even though the Bible in Exodus, 2:10 tells us that Moses' royal mother, who adopted him, called him MOSHE because, she said, "I drew him out of the water," Freud demonstrated that Moshe had a different meaning. In fact, the name, MOSHUI, is the Hebrew name which means 'one who has been drawn out.' It was then Freud's conclusion that the name of the Jewish leader was not of Hebrew origin, but rather from an Egyptian origin.
...continued.