So, we may safely say that the ancient esoteric beliefs never became fully-fledged mass religions in their own right. At least, not in the West. Political expediency demanded that the keys to heaven remained in the hands of the priesthood, not the individual. At best, these groups were tolerated, grudgingly, as minority sects under the control of mainstream orthodoxies. At worst - and often due to some arbitrary decision of the current hierarchy - they were persecuted almost out of existence.

What is important to understand about the esoteric message is that, at its core, it is all about personal spirituality. It describes the relationship between the individual and the divine: the cosmic oneness.  This relationship cannot be arbitrated by some priestly intermediary, passing judgement on behalf of an inexorable deity. It is the role of the priesthood that defines the political power of the mass religion.

It should be noted at this point that Muslim scholars might protest that there is no clerical hierarchy in Islam and that prayer is conducted directly between the individual and Allah without the need for an intermediary. Nevertheless, there are Ulema (scholars) and the Mullahs - roughly equivalent to a clerical title. Roles and responsibilities differ between the Shi'a or Sunni denominations but it would be naive to understate the level of influence - both religious and political - of these "interpreters of the law".

Similarly, the Jewish Rabbi is also seen and an interpreter of the law. But who's law? Well, God's law, of course. So, once again, the Rabbi is the earthly intermediary who will pass judgement in the name of God. When it comes down to it, whether you are a Mullah or a Rabbi and you call yourself a scholar, what you are doing is intervening between an individual and God. And in a theocracy, that puts you in a position of power. But when it comes to hegemony, nobody does it like the Christians. From the time of the first bishops of Rome, world domination has been at the top of the To-Do list.

But was it always so? Was this the future envisaged by the members of this odd Jewish sect two thousand years ago? My personal opinion is that there was no such agenda. If someone were to offer me one trip - and only one - in a time machine, then the early days of New Testament Jerusalem is where and when I would choose to go. I'd love to interview a few of the locals. I imagine getting answers such as these:

"Christians? Never heard of them. But there was a group who talked about that kind of stuff. I think they were with the Essenes but not exactly - more like an offshoot, you know? Nazarites I think they called themselves. The Baptist was one of them - maybe their leader, if they had such a thing."

"Jesus? Nope, sorry. Oh, you mean Yeshua? Yes, I think he was the chosen one - you know, he was the one they chose to fulfil the old prophecies of Isaiah and others. I think he even said that he was Isaiah reborn. Anyway, he was supposed to ride into Jerusalem on an ass - we all came out to see him - but the Romans got hold of him and nailed him to a tree. Some say that Yeshua wanted to be crucified. They say that was important to his mission."

"Miracles? Well we heard of some strange stuff but that was not Yeshua, that was Simon Magus. Some people said he was the son of God. Some even thought he was God himself, in human form."

"Yes, I followed a teacher for a while - brother of Yeshua as a matter of fact. Some called him the Teacher of Righteousness but there have been others who have used that title in the old days. Then this other one called Saul - or is it Paul now? - he came and stirred things up a lot. Split the group in two; some went with James, others followed this Paul. He says he wants to allow Gentiles into the temple, or something. Says Yeshua came back from the dead and showed him the light."

OK, maybe just a silly fantasy but - as well as questioning a few of the myths about early Christianity - I'm trying to make the point that a new religion can be instigated out of the need to bring the old one back into focus ... and that focus is not about controlling the masses. It is not about sin and judgement. It is not about ceremonies or circumcision or commandments. To repeat myself: the real message at the core of all religions is the nature of the relationship between the individual and the source. And that relationship is founded upon love, not fear.

Unfortunately, that message usually gets buried and forgotten under the weight of orthodoxy and dogma. Here's how it might play out:

• We start with a small group and a powerful message.
• The message captures the imagination of a small but significant section of the public.
• The incumbent orthodoxy detects a growing threat and begins a campaign of suppression.
• The new movement attracts the disaffected, the zealous and the ambitious. A counter campaign of resistance and martyrdom ensues. The original message is already lost.
• If enough converts can be won over, the new religion begins to challenge the old. The ambitious rise to the top along with influential and powerful converts from the old religion.
• Political expediency and bureaucracy dictates the dogma. A new orthodoxy is born looking remarkably similar to the one it has replaced.

Now I would not go so far as Dawkins or Hitchens in claiming that religion has always been, without exception, the source of unspeakable evil throughout our history. Because of its detachment from its original message, religion is no different to any other mechanism when used to further political ends and control the masses. Indeed, there might be a case for saying that, in some instances and because of its inherent moral code, religion has actually mitigated against even more bloody genocide. But neither can it be argued that organised religion has never played a major part in many of the most bloodthirsty and shameful episodes of human history. And never has religion been more ruthless than when it turns its blood lust inwards: upon other religions or even upon its own flock. Think of the Inquisition and the Crusades. Read about what happened in the Albigensian Crusade in southern France in the 13th century. This was the mass slaughter of Christians by Christians by order of the Pope.

However, while some of these abominable acts have been committed in the name of God and in the fervour of religious zealotry, I cannot accept that a belief in the original Christian message (which is, in essence, the same message at the heart of all religions) could motivate someone to perpetrate torture and murder. The evil of which we speak is down to the usual suspects: greed, ambition, power and fear - especially fear.

There is a lot more I would have liked to say with regard to religious history and its esoteric roots. I would have liked to have gone even further back into the history and influence of shamanic practices and revelatory experiences through the use of consciousness altering drugs and trance rituals. Perhaps another day? In the meantime, I can recommend Graham Hancock's book on the subject: Supernatural.