UFOs and Ressurection: part 4
- Part 4 The UFO Religion that developed from the Resurrection of Christ
SUMMARY: The Catholic Church (using the Jesuits) have been in conflict with the Freemasons. These are two of the main groups that are in control over our world. This is however, no ordinary conflict, because both groups conspire to try to maintain control of the masses as they fight for the top position of ruling the masses. The ruling elite uses religion to control the masses, and it serves no purpose to them if they undermine mainstream religion, because it undermines part of their power of controlling the masses, whether or not they themselves actually believe the mainstream religion is true or not.
The conflict between these two groups is over belief. We now look at one of the central core beliefs of this conflict - which is the foundation belief of Orthodox Christianity, namely the Resurrection of Christ. It turns out to have been a UFO Close Encounter:
Elaine Pagels in her book The Gnostic Gospels, reports on her study of an archaeological discovery made in Dec. 1945 by a Arab peasant in Nag Hammadi, Upper Egypt of some manuscripts. When they were sold on the black-market they attracted the attention of officials of the Egyptian government. Professor Gilles Quispel in 1955 with his colleague H C Puech, using notes from another French scholar, Jean Doresse, had identified the opening lines of the manuscript with fragments of a Greek Gospel of Thomas discovered in the 1890's. And the discovery now meant they had the whole text. The Gospel of Thomas, yet unlike the gospels of the New Testament, this text identified itself as a secret gospel. The Gospel of Thomas, turned out to be only one of the 52 texts discovered at Nag Hammadi.
It turns out that there were two Christian belief systems around after Jesus' death. One system became the mainstream orthodox Christian belief - the Catholic (universal) Church, and the other was Gnostic. The Gnostic sect was destroyed by the Orthodox Christians. The discovered Gnostic gospels criticise common orthodox Christian beliefs, such as the virgin birth or the bodily resurrection, as naive misunderstandings.
Pagels goes on to explain:
...Their suppression as banned documents, and their burial on the cliff at Nag Hammadi... were both part of a struggle critical for the formation of Christianity.... circulated at the beginning of the Christian era, were denounced as heresy by orthodox Christians in the middle of the second century. We have long known that many early followers of Christ were condemned by other Christians as heretics, but nearly all we knew about them came from what their opponents wrote about them. Bishop Irenaeus who supervised the church in Lyons, c. 180, wrote five volumes, entitled The Destruction and Overthrow of Falsely So-called Knowledge...
Irenaeus and his kind managed to get their version of Christianity accepted by the masses, which became our version of Christianity. The texts, opposed what they wanted to believe :
...it contained many sayings from the New Testament; but these sayings were placed in unfamiliar contexts, suggested other dimensions of meaning.
...dating of the manuscripts... place them c. 350 - 400 AD. But scholars sharply disagree about the dating of the original texts. Some of them can hardly be later than c. AD 120 - 150, since Irenaeus, the orthodox Bishop of Lyons, writing c. 180, declares that heretics "boast that they possess more gospels than there really are," and complains that in his time such writings already have won wide circulation - from Gaul through Rome, Greece and Asia Minor.
The followers of orthodox Christianity when they gained power :
By the time of Emperor Constantine's conversion, when [orthodox] Christianity became an officially approved religion in the fourth century, Christian bishops, previously victimised by the police, now commanded them. Possession of books denounced as heretical was made a criminal offense. Copies of such books were burned and destroyed. But in Upper Egypt, someone ... took the banned books and hid them from destruction - in the jar where they remained buried for almost 1,600 years.
...those who wrote and circulated these texts did not regard themselves as "heretics." ... These Christians are now called Gnostics, from the Greek word gnosis, usually translated as "knowledge". ...
As Gnostics use the term, we could translate it as "insight", for gnosis involves an intuitive process of knowing oneself. And to know oneself, they claimed, is to know human nature and human destiny.
These texts were very much related to Eastern mysticism, such as Zen Buddhism:
[some] passages ... differed entirely from any known Christian tradition: the "living Jesus," for example, speaks in sayings as cryptic and compelling as Zen koans:
Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." [ Gospel of Thomas 45. 29 - 33 ]
If it makes any sense to you, then you might be enlightened?
The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas also relates:
....that as soon as Thomas recognises him, Jesus says to Thomas that they have both received their being from the same source:
Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out... He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."
....sound more Eastern than Western? Some scholars have suggested ............the "living Buddha" ... could say what the Gospel of Thomas attributes to the "living Jesus".
.......Buddhists were in contact with the Thomas Christians (that is Christians who knew and used such writings as the Gospel of Thomas) in South India. Trade routes between the Greco- Roman world and the Far East were opening up at the time when gnosticism flourished (AD 80 - 200); for generations, Buddhist missionaries had been proselytising in Alexandria. We note, too, that Hippolytus ... in Rome (c. 225) knows of the Indian Brahims - and includes their tradition among the sources of heresy,...
This Eastern type of Christianity was condemned by the orthodox Christians of the time, and is very different from any mainstream Christianity that we have today. The different versions of Christianity we have come from staying with catholic ideas or rebelling against them a few of them, but the central dogma of non- Eastern Christianity has stayed fixed:
...The term "Christianity," especially since the Reformation, has covered an astonishing range of groups. .......Catholic cardinal in the Vatican to an African Methodist Episcopal preacher initiating revival in Detroit, a Mormon missionary in Thailand ..etc.... Yet Catholics, Protestants and orthodox agree that such diversity is recent - and deplorable - development. According to Christian legend, the early church was different. Christians of every persuasion look back to the primitive church to find a simpler, purer form of Christian faith. In the apostles' time, all members of the Christian community shared their money and property; all believed the same teaching, and worshipped together; all revered the authority of the apostles. It was only after the golden age that conflict, then heresy emerged: so says the author of the Act of the Apostles, who identifies himself as the first historian of Christianity.
But the discoveries at Nag Hammadi have upset this picture. If we admit that some of these 52 texts represent early forms of Christian teaching, we may have to recognise that early Christianity is far more diverse than nearly anyone expected before the Nag Hammadi discoveries.
Pagel tells us that:
since that time, Catholics, Protestants, or orthodox, have shared three basic premises.
...they accept the cannon of the New Testament
...they confess the apostolic creed
..they affirm specific forms of church institution.
But every one of these - the canon of the scripture, the creed, and the institutional structure - emerged in its present form only toward the end of the second century.
Gnosticism was widely condemned in the 3rd century:
.... by AD 200, ...... Christianity had become an institution headed by a three - rank hierarchy of bishops, priest and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches along with the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could only be one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally , "straight thinking") Christians. And, he declaimed, this church must be catholic - that is universal. Whoever challenged that consensus, arguing instead for other forms of Christian teaching, was declared to be a heretic, and expelled. When the orthodox gained military support, sometime after the Emperor Constantine became Christian in the fourth century, the penalty for heresy was escalated.
Even when the Gnostic texts were discovered, the attempts to suppress them being widely known did not stop, and Pagel notes in 1980:
Access to the texts was deliberately suppressed not only in ancient times but, for very different reasons, in the more than 30 years since the discovery. [For a more complete account of the events sketched briefly here, see Robinson, "The Jung
Codex", 17 - 30]
Some of the reasons for this suppression, was because people were trying to get rich from selling them.
The orthodox Christian belief as to Christ's Resurrection was summed up by people like Tertullian:
Tertullian, a brilliant talented writer (AD c. 190), speaking for the majority, defines the orthodox position: as Christ rose bodily from the grave, so every believer should anticipate the resurrection of the flesh. He leaves no room for doubt. He is not, he says, talking about the immortality of the soul: "The salvation of the soul I believe needs no discussion: for almost all heretics, in whatever way they accept it, at least do not deny it." What is raised is "the flesh, suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, (a flesh) which ... was born, and ... dies, undoubtedly human." Tertullian expects the idea of Christ's suffering , death , and resurrection to shock his readers; he insists that "it must be believed, because it is absurd!"
i.e. Catholic Christianity became founded on believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ. We saw the effects of this belief on ordinary people in the 18th and 19th century in Part 3 - it led to the medical establishment having to illegal employ body snatchers and desecrate cemeteries. The belief in Bodily resurrection had a particularly bad consequence in people's actions in the early days of Christianity.
While the Gnostics did not believe in bodily resurrection, for them it was usually a spiritual resurrection:
....... Without denying the resurrection, they reject the literal interpretation; some find it "extremely revolting, repugnant, and impossible." Gnostic Christians interpret resurrection in various ways. Some say that the person who experiences the resurrection does not meet Jesus raised physically back to life; rather, he encounters Christ on the spiritual level. This may occur in dreams, in ecstatic trance, in visions, or in moments of spiritual illumination. But the orthodox condemn all such interpretations ; Tertullian declares that anyone who denies the resurrection of the flesh is a heretic, not a Christian.
Gnostics believed they could see Christ in visions, dreams and so forth is very close to Eastern Mysticism once again. It was also an outlook that agreed with sensitivities of Greek philosophy from the Socrates tradition:
Five hundred years before [Christ] , Socrates' disciples had claimed that their teacher's soul was immortal.
But what the orthodox Christians said about bodily resurrection instead of spiritual was wholly implausible in this Socratic philosophy.
However, in the New Testament gospels some accounts say things that suggests Christ bodily came back from the dead:
....Some accounts like the story we noted from Luke, tell how Jesus appears to his disciples in the form they know from his earthly life; he eats with them, and invites them to touch him, to prove that he is "not a ghost." John tells a similar story: Thomas declares that he will not believes that Jesus had actually risen from the grave unless he personally can see and touch him. When Jesus appears, he tells Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."
......other stories, directly juxtaposed with those, suggests different views of the resurrection. Luke and Mark both relate that Jesus appeared "in another form" - - not his former earthly form - to two disciples as they walked on the road to Emmaus. Luke says that the disciples, deeply troubled about Jesus' death, talked with the stranger, apparently for several hours. they invited him to dinner; when he sat down with them to bless the bread, suddenly they recognised him as Jesus. AT that moment "he vanished out of their sight." John, too, places directly before the story of "doubting Thomas" another of a very different kind: Mary Magdalene, mourning for Jesus near his grave, sees a man she talks to be the gardener. When he speaks her name, suddenly she recognises the presence of Jesus - but he orders her not to touch him.
..some of the New Testament stories insist on a literal view of resurrection, others lend themselves to different interpretations.
One could suggests that certain people, in moments of great emotional stress, suddenly felt that they experienced Jesus' presence. Paul's experience can be read this way. As he travelled on the Damascus road....
.....New Testament accounts could support a range of interpretations .... orthodox Christians in the second century insist on a literal view of the resurrection and reject all others as heretical...
And the orthodox Christians when they gained power set about enforcing their beliefs onto the texts about Jesus, seeking to destroy the texts that did not fit in with what they wanted to believe. A clear case of 'faith before facts': they wanted to believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, so they set about trying to destroy all evidence that contradicted that belief, such as in the Gnostic texts.
And since the Gnostic view of the resurrection was in so much agreement with Pagan Philosophy as from Socrates, it gave a big reason as to why these Christians wanted to set fire to the Pagan Library in Alexandria - to destroy that evidence as well, and plunge Western civilisation into the intellectual Dark Ages.
We have the reason why scientific progress was set back in the Middle Ages. Orthodox Christians wanted to believe in their fantasy, and destroy any other belief system. And when the Renaissance happened with Western civilisation rediscovering some of the lost wisdom, the orthodox Christians set about once more trying to destroy that threat to their beliefs. And the ridiculous belief they were defending was the bodily resurrection of Christ!
Imposing such a belief had it uses:
...the doctrine of bodily resurrection also serves an essential political function: it legitimises the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter. From the 2nd century, the doctrine
has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops, the bias of papal authority to this day. Gnostic Christians who interpret resurrection in other ways have a lesser claim to authority: when they claim priority over the orthodox, they are denounced as heretics.
Such political and religious authority developed in a most remarkable way....
Authority based on succession to Peter with Peter being the first to see the resurrection of Jesus thus inheriting leadership. The belief in bodily resurrection upholds the hierarchy of power.
While the Gnostic tradition had Mary Magdalene as the first to see Christ arisen:
...Gospel of Mary... recalls traditions recorded in Mark and John, that Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ... According to the Gospel of Mary, Mary Magdalene, seeing the Lord in a vision, asked him, "How does he who sees the vision see it? [through] the soul, [or] through the spirit?" He answered that the visionary perceives through the mind....
A big threat if believed, to certain men who wanted justification for men being the rulers. Hence the orthodox did not want to believe this account either.
To cut a very long story short:-
The orthodox Christians thus covered up the fact that the Resurrection of Jesus happened to his followers in visions, dreams and the like. In other words it was what some now call a Shamanic Experience, as had by aboriginals and the like. Where these primitive people believe that the world of dreams is as real as the waking world.
Modern science belief would dismiss such primitive people as being deluded and experiencing hallucinations. Thus from this perspective modern science would dismiss Christian religion as being based on delusions. First the early Christians had visions which modern science would deem unreal and delusional, then orthodox Christianity decided to place another level of delusion onto them and took them to be physically real.
When studying the Alien abduction cases as per Mack et al, many of these cases also seem to be Shamanic Experiences. Abductees often report abductions when they sleep or are about to sleep. Sometimes people claim abduction while awake, but in those cases it might be that they entered a hypnotic state without realising it. As to the few cases of witnesses to abductions, it is not unusual for primitive people to share Shamanic experiences. Thus from modern science all (or most) alien abduction cases would seem to be a modern person's Shamanic experience updated for his belief in aliens instead of spirits, and also delusional.
Sometimes modern day UFO experiences lead to cults forming. The Resurrection visions of Jesus also led to a cult, which grew very big admittedly. But the two experiences are very closely related that psychologically they are the same thing.
And then disturbingly, whatever the Resurrection experiences were, it was used as the foundation of Christian dogmatic belief. And devotees following this belief were used by the cult leaders as 'mind slaves.
The 'duped' Christians offered themselves up as sacrifices to the Romans as a political statement for their cult leaders. The Roman Empire had the belief that its members had to offer tribute to their Emperor as a 'god'. To disobey this was a crime. The orthodox Christians were convinced into believing that it was wrong to offer tribute to 'false gods' and so committed that Crime, they were also convicted that they had nothing to fear from death and so accepted being sacrificed in the Roman Arena.
In other words orthodox Christianity was founded upon mass human sacrifice- devotees were tricked into offering themselves up as willing sacrifices. Orthodox Christianity is thus the ultimate UFO Doomsday Cult.
The mainstream science point of view is that the 'Shamanic experience', 'UFO Abduction', 'Resurrection vision experiences' would be hallucinations and thus leading to delusion beliefs. However the situation is worse than that:- see part 5
The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1980.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]