Religion
Related: About this forumJesus Christ is an extraterrestrial being from Venus, claims a spiritual society The Aetherius
https://sciexaminer.com/news/space/jesus-christ-is-an-extraterrestrial-being-from-venus-claims-a-spiritual-society-the-aetherius-4440.html
Jesus Christ is an extraterrestrial being from Venus, claims a spiritual society The Aetherius
Do you know Jesus Christ was from Venus? Well, at least there is a group of spiritual society which believes that Jesus was an extraterrestrial being born and brought on Venus and thus, he bestowed his blessings when stepping on the Earth. As per The Aetherius, a growing religion that was established in the late 1920s which supposedly have a global following state that Jesus was an alien from Venus, Earths neighbor. The Daily Star reported the matter with basically all the claims that the members of this society believe.
As per the report, the spiritual society Aetherius is planning to go on a cosmic mission to the of the holy mountains at the Holdstone Down in North Devon which is the place where George King, the founder of the spiritual society and a new religion came face to face with Jesus Christ in 1958. It has been two decades after George died in 1997, however, the society is still growing and blooming with supporters and followers.
The cosmic mission named as Operation Prayer Power will soon commence on July 28, Saturday, when the members will follow the trail to the holy mountain with prayers and mantras chanted and directed into a physical container specially made to invoke spiritual powers. The container will be released in later stage probably at the holy mountain.
Girard442
(6,087 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)wryter2000
(46,125 posts)Calling him Jesus Christ assumes he was the messiah. Christ is a title, not a last name. The man's name, if he existed, was Jesus of Nazareth. Or, that's a European adaptation of what his name was. It was more likely Joshua ben Joseph (although that's also European-ized, too).
Voltaire2
(13,245 posts)So it really doesnt matter. We all know what the words are supposed to refer to, sort of. Actually not as there are huge differences about what that as well.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Although this was almost certainly added to fit the messianic requirement.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)... There are numerous compelling pieces of archaeological evidence that in fact Nazareth did exist in Jesus day, and that like other villages and towns in that part of Galilee, it was built on the hillside, near where the later rock-cut kokh tombs were built. For one thing, archaeologists have excavated a farm connected with the village, and it dates to the time of Jesus. Salm disputes the finding of the archaeologists who did the excavation (it needs to be remembered, he himself is not an archaeologist but is simply basing his views on what the real archaeologists all of whom disagree with him have to say). For one thing, when archaeologist Yardena Alexandre indicated that 165 coins were found in this excavation, she specified in the report that some of them were late, from the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. This suits Salms purposes just fine. But as it turns out, there were among the coins some that date to the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and early Roman period, that is, the days of Jesus. Salm objected that this was not in Alexandres report, but Alexandre has verbally confirmed (to me personally) that in fact it is the case: there were coins in the collection that date to the time prior to the Jewish uprising.
Salm also claims that the pottery found on the site that is dated to the time of Jesus is not really from this period, even though he is not an expert on pottery. Two archaeologists who reply to Salms protestations say the following: Salms personal evaluation of the pottery
reveals his lack of expertise in the area as well as his lack of serious research in the sources. They go on to state: By ignoring or dismissing solid ceramic, numismatic [that is, coins], and literary evidence for Nazareths existence during the Late Hellenisitic and Early Roman period, it would appear that the analysis which René Salm includes in his review, and his recent book must, in itself, be relegated to the realm of myth.
Another archaeologist who specializes in Galilee, Ken Dark, the Director of the Nazareth Archaeological Project, gave a thoroughly negative review of Salms book, noting, among other things, that there is no hint that Salm has qualifications nor any fieldwork experience in archaeology. Dark shows that Salm has misunderstood both the hydrology (how the water systems worked) and the topography (the lay out) of Nazareth, and points out that the town could well have been located on the hill slopes, just as other nearby towns were, such as Khirbet Kana. His concluding remarks are damning: To conclude: despite initial appearances this is not a well-informed study and ignores much evidence and important published work of direct relevance. The basic premise is faulty, and Salms reasoning is often weak and shaped by his preconceptions. Overall, his central argument is archaeologically unsupportable ...
https://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It should be noted that biblical tourism is a multi-billion $ industry for Israel, and there's a huge vested interest in trying to find "evidence" where none exists. You can now go to Israel and find all sorts of "artifacts" and "historical sites" that are allegedly connected to Jesus, except when you dig a little deeper you find their best evidence is the inability to prove Jesus didn't spend the night at that particular place or scribble his name on the shithouse wall.
So now we have the alleged home of Jesus according to Dr Ken Dark who states:
It cant be proved on archaeological grounds. But there is no archaeological reason to say this is NOT his home.
Sound familiar? It's also worth noting his final report on the matter was published as a for-profit book, not a research paper published in a peer reviewed journal. Then again, rigid standards of proof aren't really needed for these types of things because the target audience just doesn't need much evidence outside of the bible.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'm saying the evidence for the historical Nazareth just isn't that great regardless of how good or bad the evidence against it is.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)are approximately correct, the gospels had all been written by early in the second century CE; since they were probably based on prior oral traditions, "Jesus the Nazarene" must have been a known description in the young cult
It would make very little sense for the first Christians to try to spread a story through Palestine about someone from a non-existent place. And if the archaeological evidence indicates settlement there shortly before the time of the Jesus stories, and also shortly after the time of the Jesus stories, then the natural narrative will assume continuity of habitation, unless there is good reason to suspect the contrary
But we should note that such a discussion may completely miss the point of a reference of Nazareth. The gospels suggest that Nazareth was a miserable littler hamlet ("Can anything good come from Nazareth?" ); and so, in a world governed by the rich and well-born, the first Christians thus gave themselves the daunting task of persuading their fellow Jewish compatriots that the Messiah had come from some crummy Nowheresville --- a defiant in-your-face challenge to the spirit of the times: "What does it matter where he is from?"
Other questions seem more interesting to me. There is, for example, the possibility that oral tradition garbled "Jesus the Nazirite" into "Jesus the Nazarene," in which case Nazareth itself has no real bearing on the story
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Claiming Jesus came from poverty in some "crummy Nowheresville" was by design because it's perfectly in keeping with the messianic prophesy. So you have it exactly backwards. That claim would have given Jesus street cred as the messiah, which is exactly why they make that claim.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)if you think an earlier Jewish prophecy demanded that the messiah come from Nazareth
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'm not claiming the prophecy demands the messiah come from Nazareth because it doesn't say that. I'm saying King David came from similar humble beginnings. So your own view that they wouldn't have made up such a humble place just doesn't fit. That's exactly what they would have made up.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Which is none at all, of course.
What a nice looking shepherd in that image, too. Too bad they weren't making movies back then. He'd make a great leading man character.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)played the best Jesus. I could identify with the scruffy radical.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Just for the LULZ.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Mariana
(14,861 posts)I knew he looked familiar. He's Joe Manganiello. I've seen him on the teevee machine.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)atreides1
(16,103 posts)So, you're saying that Jesus was really a woman???
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)When considering the implications of parthenogenesis on the sex of the offspring, we first need to answer the rather famous question: What kind of lizard was Mary? There may be further questions on the temperature when Mary laid him...
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)edhopper
(33,651 posts)"And Jesus he wants to go to Venus..."
Is Bernie Taupin in this cult?
elocs
(22,633 posts)with all of the other claims about gods and deities and their existence.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Iggo
(47,586 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...curious minds might like to know..